do this, they may express it. If they may express it in words, they may expresss it by symbols: they may adopt some visible rite, sign or symbol, which may be made to express all these ideas, or as many of them as they may please to make it express. If they please they can have two symbols or more, to expressd ifferent parts of the general obligations of the covenant. Nay, they may have two classes of citizens in the institute, and but one symbol for the use of both; yet this one symbol may express different ideas as it is used by one or another of these classes. Now, let us see how the various senses of baptism may be applied to an infant and a believer.

1. It is a dedication. An adult dedicates himself to God: a parent dedicates his child: and baptism is the symbolic language used to express the idea in both. If there is no impropriety in a parent dedicating his child to God, there is no impropriety in his using a symbolic rite to express the idea. The voluntary association to which we have alluded, dedicates all its members, adult and infant, to the service of God, and there is no more impropriety in applying the syombol that expresses that idea to the one, than to the other. If man may do this by a voluntary impulse, he may do it with an equal, nay a greatly increased propriety, at the command of God.

2.-It imposes an obligation: it is a symbol of allegiance: it is the assumption and imposition of a solemn and unalterable bond of obedience to Christ. Now, may a parent thus bind over his child by a new and specific obligation to the service of God? Certainly none can deny this: it results from the power to dedicate all that he has to the service of his Maker. It is no interference with the rights and liberties of the child. He may ratify or not, the act of the parent which devoted him specially to God, when he arrives at the age of maturity. The parent may impose this bond upon the child by virtue of his unquestionable right to devote all that is his-so far as it is his, to the glory of God. Now if the parent may thus impose this obligation, there is no impropriety in his using a symbolic rite to express it. The sign expressing obligation to the divine service, may be properly used upon all subjects, by their own act, or by the covenant of the parent, to the operation of this obligation.

3. It is a sign of purification, expressive of its necessity, and binding to its attainment, but not asserting in all cases its actual occurrence. Where is the authority for saying that this is the universal assertion of baptism. So far from this being the universal assertion, or import of baptism, it is very questionable whether it is even a part of its import. Certainly those passages that require a spiritual qualification in an adult, in order to receive it, do not determine this question. An application for the rite, on the part of the adult, implies his conviction, that he is prepared to receive it; but what does he express by the rite itself? A certain qualification of character is requisite in an adult, to receive the ordinance; but supposing him qualified, what does he express by the the rite itself? Does he express his actual qualification to receive it? This would seem to be

superfluous his application for it, implies his conviction, that he is qualified to receive it, but it is exceedingly doubtful whether he expresses that conviction in employing the rite itself. What then does he express by it? Not so much, if indeed at all, his belief in his conversion and partial purification, but his sense of pollution, his apprehended need of a part, and a prospective sanctification. The application then of the rite, so far, even in its application to an adult, is prospective and future. Now cannot these same ideas be expressed in regard to an infant? Is it not true that is depraved and needs a constant sanctification, progressing through the entire future of its life? Why then may not these truths be symbolically expressed by an infant as by an adult? It will be seen then, that the significance of baptism as a rite of purification, does not involve an essential difference in its application to an infant or an adult. When we are asked why we apply a sign of spiritual purification to an infant before that purification has actually taken place, we reply by inquiring, why apply a sign expressive of a prospective purification to an adult before it has taken place? If it is proper to express a prospective purification in the one case, why not in the other? We reply more over, that the rite in an adult does not express an existing purification, although it implies it: but it does express certain ideas which may be properly expressed upon an infant, as upon an adult. We reply again, that all such rites as baptism, all confessions of pollution, all obligations imposed on children, all promises made for them, must necessarily be prospective in their operation, and to deny that confessions and obligations, having prospective reference, can be imposed on children, and expressed symbolically upon them, is to deny that such obligations can be imposed at all. Even an adult may assume at present, obligations which are prospective in their application: much more then may it be done upon an infant. But admitting the necessity of a present qualification in an adult, in order to the rightful assumption of a obligation, or the truthful confession of a need of purification, there is no inconsistency whatever in allowing such an assumption or confession in an infant, to have a future or prospective reference. The reason that warrants the difference lies deep in the nature of the case: it is impossible to deal with children in determining their relation to a visible organization, on the same principle with adults: for there is a vital difference in nature between the two, which compels to a difference of treatment. All obligations imposed upon children, must be prospective, or they cannot be imposed at all. It is in itself, partly at least, a matter of conviction, whether the purification symbolized, shall precede in fact, the application of the symbol, even in the case of adults: God could have ordered otherwise if he had chosen to do so: the symbol could have been made significant of the prospective nature of the whole, as it is admitted to be actually of a part of the purification expressed by it. But admitting that it was morally indispensable, that the fact should precede the expression of it in the case of adults, it by no

means follows that it is equally indispensable in the case of infants. All confessions of pollution, and all obligations to seek for purification, must be expressed prospectively upon an infant, if expressed at all. Therefore the symbolic import of baptism, as a rite of purification, has in the main, the same significance applied to infants, as applied to adults, and whatever of difference there may be, arises from the very nature of the case, as existing between the parties. We may as lawfully declare the pollution of a child, its need of sanctification, and bind it over to seek the cleansing efficacy of grace, as we may declare it of an adult, and bind him over to a similar obligation. This declaration may be expressed in a symbol as well as in words; and therefore baptism, as symbolic of purification, may as lawfully be applied to infants, as to adults. Let me recommend the article on the Nature of a Christian Profession, in the sixth volume of the Southern Presbyterian Review, to your perusal: it may give you some new views of the subject before us.

4.—Lastly, baptism is a seal of the covenant of grace, and it is said to be a mockery to put that seal, to what in the case of many infants growing up in impenitence and dying in sin, must be a blank -that it is to attest a falsehood, to make even the solemn rites of the Church of God, the vehicle of a lie-that it is to seal the covenant of grace to many who are not entitled to its benefits, or to receive any attestation that they are.

To this plausible and strong statement it is easy to reply, by refer ence to the complicated nature of the Church of God, and the various contingencies on which its blessings are suspended. The blessings promised to Abraham and his seed, although all based on the covenant of grace with Christ, are very various in nature. God promised certain blessings to Abraham. These blessings were procured for him by the death of Christ. Among them was the means of grace, the privilege of prayer, the ordinances of his worship, the revealed knowledge, through which sanctification was to come. These were precious blessings: yet they did not require any spiritual qualification to admit the children of Abraham to their use: they were as lawfully used by his unconverted children, as by those of them who were converted. But the covenant contained other and higher promises, suspended in their application, personally, on personal qualifications. This was the promise of salvation contingent on faith in Christ. This truth was the common property of the unbelieving, as well as believing children of Abraham, and the seal of the covenant which attested it to both, was equally true to both. But the believing children had not only received the truth, but obeyed it, and the seal of the covenant applied to them expressed more than it expressed to those who did not believe. In short, the covenant contained various pledges and promises-various privileges and immunities-some of saving, others of mere formal value-some contingent-some not contingent-some benefits, spiritual and saving -others merely instrumental and temporal. But the seal of the cove

nant attested all these to the classes of persons entitled to them. It attested one thing to those who had complied with the contingent promises, and another to those who had not. It attested to all the common truth of salvation by faith: it attested an actual salvation to the actual believer. It is perfectly obvious that the seal of a complicated instrument, asserting contingent ideas, promises and pledges, must attest different things to different persons, according as they have complied or not complied with the conditions of the promise; and consequently the seal of the covenant expresses no lie when it seals an actual participation in the covenant of grace to a believer, and does not seal such a participation to an unbeliever. It seals a general truth, equally to both-salvation by faith; but it seals a particular application of this truth only to the believer. It seals the use of certain privileges to the sinner-the use of the means-the institutions of the sanctuary-and all the general truths of the gospel, to the unbeliever, and seals no lie in admitting him to these privileges, in certifying these truths. But there are other privileges suspended. on a contingency of faith-communion with God-pardon, peace, salvation, full communion in the visible church, which it seals only to the believer. Does it seal a lie in either case? Does the ordinance of the house of God become the vehicle of a lie, in asserting thus an attestation of one truth, or one benefit to one, and of another to another? The seal attests the whole instrument; but it attests it as it is, with all its contingencies, conditions, pledges and grants,, conditional or unconditional, with all its privileges, whether merely formal and instrumental or spiritual and saving. It asserts no contradiction and seals no blank, even though it may seal one kind of privileges to one class, and a totally different kind of privileges to a class entirely different. It seals one class of rights, privileges, and blessings to infants, and seals another to them as believers. There is no contradiction or absurdity in the arrangement.

I really hope, my dear Sir, that you will finally see your way clear, not to deprive your child of any part of these privileges of the covenant of grace. It is certain that the responsibility of the decision is yours: it is a responsibility so serious, that I could not refrain from some effort to assist you to a right conclusion. To my mind, this is no slight or unimportant matter. If I were about to devote myself to God, by forming with others such an association as the one we have supposed; it would be a most interesting inquiry whether I might not include my children in the arrangement. If I had my choice between the two plans of bringing them in or leaving them out, I should not hesitate for a moment. I should rejoice in the privilege of putting God's mark on my children, and making them stand before the world, bearing the peculiar mark of being devoted, consecrated and set apart to His service. If God should undertake to make a covenant arrangement himself, it would greatly enhance my sense of its value, if he would so arrange it as to permit me to bring my children in with me, no matter what position

He might assign them, or how he might limit and circumscribe their privileges. It would be an exquisite delight to know that they were His in a peculiar sense that He had condescended to assume peculiar relations to them-that He did not hold to the world at largeand that with additional responsibility on them, they had also been brought under the operation of peculiar privileges. But if God has really made such an arrangement, I should count it an irreparable loss, that from mistake or misdirection, I had failed to obtain for myself or my children, the benefits it conveys.

May God guide you to a right conclusion. Examine this question thoroughly. You may not be able to solve every difficulty; but if we are to wait to reduce every difficulty before we assent to the substantial evidence of truth, we shall remain in the condition of a hopeless and imbecile sceptism. All that I ask is, that you will seek the guidance of divine grace on a sincere and thorough examination of this question, suppressing everything but a desire to know the truth, and to obey it. If you should still find difficulty enough to retain you in your present attitude, while I shall regret it sincerely, I shall always retain the high sentiments of respect and affectionate regard for yourself and for the interests of your family, which have prompted me to the composition of this explanatory argument. I am by no means satisfied with it as a whole, and I beg you to use it, more to stimulate and suggest your own investigation of the matter, than to look upon it as even attempting to exhaust the question. No one treatise ever published does this: no one man can do it; and you must learn to select the sound parts of the different articles you read on the subject, from the misconceptions of different points in the argument to be found in every treatise upon it. Please examine the articles herewith transmitted at your leisure. Give yourself time, and determiue in the fear of God.

YOUR FRIEND AND PASTOR.

WHAT ARE THE CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF THE CHURCH OF GOD, AS ORGANIZED AND VISIBLE?WITH SOME INFERENCES.

No diligent reader of the Scriptures can fail to notice, that they set forth, as an essential and fundamental fact of the scheme of redemption by "Christ crucified," the organization of a visible society of men-a community under constitution laws, and ordinances-a church of God—a "Kingdom of Heaven" in the world, "though not of this world." And this visible organization is not less clearly