used by the Fathers of the Christian Church, or of our own[1]: it is not the language of our formularies, it is the growth of times in which Baptism has been looked upon as a mere initiatory rite. The very defence, which people would set up, that the Lord's Supper is the Sacrament of which we have most frequent occasion to speak, in itself convicts us: for of which Sacrament did the Apostles most speak? and what does our seldom reference to the Sacrament of Baptism,—the sort of effort with which men recal to themselves that it also is a Sacrament,—the charge of precision which they are ready to bring against any who object to the Lord's Supper being called "the Sacrament,"—the very inadvertency with which we again fall back into this error, after having, perhaps, ourselves corrected it in others,—the utter absence of interest, which it is almost professed and recognized, that most congregations would feel about the office of Holy Baptism,—(for otherwise why are the regulations of the Church so often broken, and the Baptism of our infants smuggled through, as a service of which we are ashamed? and our congregations leave us whenever they can, "as if (to use the language of an old Calvinistic writer[2] who lived when the like low notions prevailed) men were loath to be present, where the blessed Trinity presenteth itself to such a gracious purpose as this is, viz. to secure such benefits to one of that congregation?")—what does all this imply, but that, though we in words acknowledge Baptism to be a Sacrament, we have forgotten its power?
We admit, however, that Baptism is a Sacrament; and if so, it must convey the grace annexed to it, whenever no obstacle is placed in its way by the unworthiness of the recipient. For this has been the notion of the whole Christian Church, that the Sacraments are not bare signs, but do convey that also which they signify. Since, then, infants are incapable of opposing any obstacle, we must believe that the grace of Baptism, "a death
