templates his fall, and bewails the dishonour done to his Saviour; be renews his penitence; he applies with increased earnestness to the Throne of grace for mercy to pardon, and grace to help him. If he sin, he sins not wilfully, or deliberately, or habitually. The main bent and inclination of his soul are towards God; and his greatest grief and burden are, that he should be so far from acting up to what he feels to be his duty, his interest, his happiness, as ever to stray for one moment from the ways of God.

The grand decisive mark of true repentance, I repeat it, is this; that our minds are changed from what they were, so that we now truly hate the sin which once we loved, and truly love the goodness which once we disregarded. If we be truly penitent, we shall not only not commit any known sin, but we shall not willingly omit any known duty; we will not omit to perform any of those acts of service, to cultivate any of those heavenly tempers, to cherish any of those devout affections, which God requires of us. We will not only forsake every evil way; but we will labour, in the strength of divine grace, to do whatever God would have us to do, and to be whatever God would have us to be. This is true, genuine, scriptural repentance; that repentance which needeth not to be repented of; and with any thing short of this, as we value our immortal souls, we ought not to rest satisfied for a single moment.

Having thus explained the nature of repentance, I would say a few words on its necessity. And here, surely, that single expression of our Saviour, " Except ve repent ye shall all likewise perish," is sufficient to silence every cavil. Some persons there are in the world, who please themselves with I know not what notion of pardon and accept ance, who yet make 'little' account of that grand work of repentance on which I have insisted. They would represent the painful, heart-search

ing, self-denying process, which I have stated to be so necessary, as lessening the freeness of the divine grace and mercy in our salvation. But is not repentance also the gift of God, the fruit of his love, the purchase of the Redeemer's blood, the work, the sole work, of his Spirit? For what is repentance but the conversion of the soul; its resurrection from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God; its renewal in the Saviour's image? And is not this as much the effect of divine grace; as much the free, unmerited gift of God; as that pardon and acceptance which are promised to the believing penitent, and to him only? I say, to him only; for we can have no ground to expect pardon unless we repent: and though it is not on account of our repentance that we are pardoned, yet we shall never be pardoned without it. There is, it is true, no virtue in our tears, or in our penitence, to wash away either the guilt or the pollution of our sins. Nothing but the blood of Christ can do this. And yet the blood of Christ will never do it, unless we repent:-not that our repentance can add any virtue or efficacy to the blood of Christ; but because he himself hath determined that the virtue of his precious blood shall neither be imparted nor imputed to any but the penitent.

And now, why need I use any other arguments to persuade you to repent? Surely there is not one person present who is not conscious to himself that he has committed many and great transgressions against God; and thus provoked the divine wrath, and made himself liable to all its tremendous consequences. If so, if you perceive your danger on account of sin, surely you will desire nothing so much as to be delivered from it, as to have your sins pardoned and your guilt taken away. And let me tell you, for your comfort, that, however numerous and however great your former sins may have been, yet in and through Christ

they may all be pardoned. But let me remind you, at the same time, that, however few and small your sins may appear to you to be, none of them will be pardoned without repentance. Your Saviour's arms are open to receive you, if you do repent: but if you do not, all he hath done and suffered, all the agony he hath undergone, and all the blood he hath shed, will be of no avail to you. If, therefore, you desire that He that made you should have mercy upon you, you must obey this your Redeemer's command; you must repent.

Let me entreat you, then, to review the whole subject. Consider how many obligations God hath laid you under to perform this duty. Your duty and your interest are indeed here, as they are in every other instance, inseparably united. All the promises, as well as the threatenings, of God; all his merci ful, as well as all his afflictive, dispensations; all the truths, and all the precepts, of his Gospel; call upon you with a loud and concurrent voice; bind, I may almost say force you, to repent. "The good ness of God leadeth thee to repentance:" and will not this goodness affect you? Shall God be so earnest, so urgent, and shall you be indifferent? He, it is to be remembered, does not need your repentance; he will receive no increase of happiness, or glory, from your services; nor will your continued rebellions affect the stability of his throne. And yet, mark with what tenderness, with what paternal solicitude, he invites and entreats you to repent, that you perish not. "As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" To the same end, are the dealings of his providence towards you directed. He visits you with mercies, that he may win you from your sins. He chastens and afflicts you, that you may turn from the lying vanities of

time and sense, to your true and only happiness. He terrifies you with his judgments, that you may escape the ruin which hangs over the transgressor. To this end also he has given you his word to instruct you, his ordinances to edify you, his sacraments to strengthen you. For this end he hath sent his Son to die for you, his Spirit to sanctify you and live within you, and his ministers to urge you to repentance. And if, after all this, you will still continue in sin, you will still refuse to repent and return unto the Lord, your blood will surely be upon your own heads, your destruction will surely be from yourselves.

In the name of that Saviour, therefore, who came down to earth in order to shew you the way to heaven; who laid down his life to redeem yours; who hath told you in plain terms, that "except ye repent, ye must all likewise perish ;” let me entreat you to obey this his first command to you. I know you would all wish to be saved; and you profess to expect salvation, only from Jesus Christ. You have heard, then, that he makes repentance indispensable to

your salvation. Without this, he himself assures you that you will not be saved, but must inevitably perish. Therefore, as you value the salvation of your immortal souls, let me once more urge you in his name to break off your sins by repentance and conversion unto God. Say not in your hearts, that God is infinitely merci ful, and Christ's merits are all sufficient. This indeed is true; but the mercy of God, and the merits of Christ, infinite as they are, will not be extended to you unless you repent and are converted. Lay then this matter to heart. Put not off the work of repentance any longer. Give no rest to your eyes, nor slumber to your eyelids, until you have humbled yourself for your sins before; until, in the strength of divine grace, you have stedfastly resolved to forsake them, to forsake them all, however

pleasing and profitable you may think them; until you turn with the prayer of faith to that Saviour, for whose sake alone you can expect pardon, or any other blessing, from the hands of your offended Father.

Now unto him who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, to him be honour and power everlasting. Ameu.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

YOUR Correspondent M. F. in your number for November last, p. 700, informs us, that a recent periodical publication, which he does not name, and which has not fallen in my way, asserts," that the introduction of infant baptism took place in the third and fourth centuries; and that the only men, whose character or talents have brought their names to our knowledge, have entered their protest against it." Strange as such assertions will appear to every reader conversant with the early Christian writers, I must assume that M. F. is accurate in his statement. For his satisfaction, therefore, and in order to shew the less informed reader how entirely the publication alluded to is unworthy of his credlt, I request you to insert the following remarks.

.. I understand, then, the publication in question to affirm that infant baptism began to be practised in the third century, and became general in the fourth; and that all writers of talents and credit, from Tertullian to the commencement of the fifth century, whose works are extant, enter their protest against the practice. A reader of this publication must conclude, that all these writers had pointedly and unequivocally condemned infant baptism as an innovation which had crept in at the time this publication mentions, and that they considered it as unauthorised and unlawful. But of the greater part of the ancient authors he specifies, I can with confi

dence affirm, that no decisive conclusion can be fairly drawn from any part of their writings, whether infant baptism was or was not practised in their times, and consequently whether they did or did not approve of it. With respect to them, then, his position is unfounded. On the other hand, some of these writers, so far from protesting against infant baptism as an unauthorised innovation, support it as a lawful and ancient practice. Tertullian, whose unsteady and visionary mind led him to embrace one wild system after another, is not to be attended to in matters of opinion: but, on a question of fact, he is evidence. Among other still more serious mistakes, he had adopted the notion, that full remission of sins was the sure effect of baptism, but that sins committed afterwards could not easily be forgiven. He therefore proposes, as an improvement, evidently on received usage, that "the delay of baptism was more useful, especially in respect of infants;" and asks," Why does that innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? Now Tertullian flourished in the latter end of the second century, before infant baptism had been introduced, if we are to believe the publication in question. But does he attempt to establish his favourite scheme of converting baptism into a kind of extreme unction, by condemning infant baptism as a novel custom begun within his own memory? Why mention a delay in the baptism of infants, if infants had not been hitherto baptised? Tertullian, then, proves that infant baptism had been practised before the third century.

In the early part of the third century lived Origen, who also, we are told, protested against infaut baptism. In his homily on St. Luke, as translated by Jerome (the original work is not extant), in proof of the doctrine of human de

*Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue tamen circa parvulos....Quid festinat innocens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? De Bap, Ch. 18. 603. Fol. Paris. 1580.

pravity, he thus quotes the practice of infant baptism: "Infants are baptised for the remission of sins." -" Of what sins?" he then asks, "or at what time have they sinned? or how can there be any reason for this washing in infants, unless according to that sense we have just mentioned? No one is free from defilement, not even if his life has been only one day upon earth.” And if Rufinus has given Origen's sentiments faithfully, of which we have no just ground for doubt, there is a passage which proves, beyond contradiction, that infant baptism did not first commence in the third century, but, according to Origen, is as old as Christianity. "The church has derived a tradition from the apostles, to administer baptism even to infants." Is this protesting against infant baptism?

But I have not yet done with this recent periodical publication. Why did he pass over the illustrious nanies of Cyprian and Augustine? Tertullian, whom he has mentioned, lived before the one, and Eusebius later than the other. Have "their character or talents not brought their names to our knowledge ?" When we have heard their testimony, we shall perhaps not be surprised why they were not subpoenaed on this cause. Cyprian was born about the beginning of the third century, and was converted to the Christian faith about the year 246 or 248; that is, about one hundred and fifty years after the death of the last of the apostles. When bishop of Hippo, he presided at a council, where, according to Augustine, sixty-six bishops were assembled. On this occasion they were consulted by one Fidus, whether he ought to defer

Parvuli baptisantur in remissionem peccatorum. Quorum peccatorum? Vel quo tempore peccaverunt? Aut quomodo potest ella lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulo ante diximus, nullus mundus a sorde, nec si unius diei quidem fuerit vita ejus super terram.

+ Ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem sussepit etiam paryulis baptismum dare.

the baptism of infants, not till they were adult, but till the eighth day of their age, from respect to the law of circumcision. The reply of the council, which was unanimous, forbad him to defer it so long; adding, that an infant could not be brought to baptism too soon *. Here, then, we-have the concurrence of sixtysix bishops to the propriety of infant baptism, at or before the time when the publication in question affirms that this practice was first introduced, and in a way which shews that they had not a doubt of its being an established custom. Augustine lived at the close of the fourth century. Were I to attempt

to quote all that may be found in his works, in confirmation of the practice and propriety of infant baptism, I should far exceed the limits you could allow me. One quotation shall suffice. "No Christian will say that they (little children) are baptised in vain. And if any call for divine authority in this matter, although that which all the church holds, and which was not appointed by councils, but has been always in use, is most truly believed to have been transmitted to us by no other than apostolic autho rity; yet," &c. †.

I have shewn, then, that infant baptism did not take its rise in the third and fourth centuries; that the ancient writers, quoted by the periodical publication, do not "protest" against the practice; that two of them admit its prevalence and allow its propriety, and that one of them ascribes to it an apostolic origin. I have also shewn, that two eminent. Fathers, whose testimony the work in question has thought fit to suppress, have proved, beyond the reach of

* Vid. Cypriani, Lit. ad Fidum, 59.

+ Nullus Christianorum dixerit eos (infantis) inaniter baptisari. Et si quisquam in hac re Divinam auctoritatem quærat: quanquam quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime traditur; tamen, &c. August. de Bap. Lib. iv. Coutra Donat,

reasonable doubt, that, in the beginning of the third century, infant baptism was a general established custom; and that it was considered as coeval with Christianity itself. Should M. F. wish for further information on this subject, I refer him to the pamphlet which he has quoted*, or to the larger works of Williams and Wall.

J. G.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. In reply to the letter of your correspondent X. Y, in your number for September last, I beg leave to state that I do not know of any edict of the Emperor Justinian, promulgated in A. D. 536, respecting the pre-eminence of the Roman pontiff. The act of that emperor appealed to in the first of the papers which you did me the honour to insert in your publication (see Christ. Obs. for 1807, page 703), was the letter written by Justinian to Pope John in the month of March 533. This epistle will be found in the Code of Justinian, lib. i. tit. i., to which I take the liberty of referring your correspondent; who will see, in the same place, the edict of Justinian, upon the occasion of which the abové epistle was addressed to the pope, and also one to the patriarch of Constantinople. In the epistle addressed to that partriarch, the pope is called " caput omnium sancvissimorum Dei sacerdotum;" and in the letter to the pope himself, Justinian styles his holiness" caput omnium sanctissimarum ecclesiarum."

It has been said, that the title conferred by Phocas upon pope Boniface, in A. D. 606, was a higher and more extensive one than the above; and this matter is pretty fully discussed by Mr. Faber, in a paper published in your vol. for 1807, page 148. Having very lately, through the kind offices of a highly respected friend, obtained

Infant Baptism vindicated.-Sold by Rivingtons Hatchard, &c,

a sight of two works of Paulus Diaconus, which contain some mention of the edict of Phocas, I shall, for the satisfaction of such of your readers as may wish to inquire into the subject, transcribe the passages of Paulus Diaconus wherein he men tions this matter. The first is in his work, De Gestis Longobardorum, lib. iv. cap. xxxvii.

"Phocas igitur, ut præmissum est, extincto Mauricio ejusque filiis, Romanorum regnum invadens, per octo annorum curricula principatus est. Hic rogante papa Bonifacio statuit sedem Romanæ et apostolicæ eccle. siæ caput esse omnium ecclesiarum quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat."

The other passage is in the work of Diaconus de Gestis Romanarum ad Eutropii Historiam additus, lib. xvii.

"Hic (Phocas) rogante papa Bonifacio, statuit sedem Romanæ ecclesiæ ut caput esset omnium ecclesiarum; quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat."

It appears from these quotations that Phocas bestowed no new title upon pope Boniface, but merely confirmed the title which had been conferred upon pope John, by Justinian, seventy-three years before.

It is also deserving of attention, that the title which the pope still takes, in his official papers, is not that of universal bishop, said to have been conferred by Phocas; but that of head of the church, which was actually conferred by Justinian.

*

See, to this effect, a circular letter from the present pope to the different cardinals (upon their receiving an order to quit Rome in three days), in the London Courier for the 1st June, 1808.-This letter, contains the following passage:"And his holiness, foreseeing this

So rapid are the changes now going on, that the person whom I style the present

pope, is perhaps, before now, hurled frora the pontificial chair, and succeeded by Fesch, the uncle of Napoleon.