And I cannot forbear saying that, in administering the Christian ordinance, I think care should be taken to order the voice, so that it may plainly appear we only then speak to the child by the name that hath been already given it."

2. The second, and affirmative part of the answer now under consideration is, "that the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized."

The first question here seems to be, "Who are members of the visible church?" To this, our larger catechism, in exact accordance with Chap. xxv. of the Confession of Faith, answers-" The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world, profess the true religion, and of their children;" and our form of government, chap. ii. sec. 4, says "A particular church consists of a number of professing Christians, with their offspring, voluntarily associated together, for divine worship, and godly living, agreeably to the Holy Scriptures; and submitting to a certain form of government." Agreeably to these constitutional articles of the Presbyterian church, which the passages of Scripture, to which they refer, clearly show to be in conformity with the unerring oracles of God, it appears that the children, or offspring of church members, are themselves members of the church, as really and fully as their parents; and all that we have said hitherto on the subject of baptism is in coincidence with this idea. The offsping of professing believers, then, having, by their birth and baptism, a complete standing in the visible church, have, it appears, a right to present their children in baptism; unless they forfeit this right by such acts or neglects as justly to subject them to the discipline of the church: and that this right may be forfeited or suspended, both by actual transgression and

by the neglect of duty, is a princi ple which few will deny, and which we shall here take for granted. On this principle, many churches in our communion, regarding a neglect of the express command of Christ in regard to the sacramental supper, "Do this in remembrance of me," as marking, in all cases, a very censurable deficiency in Christian duty, exclude from the privilege of offering their children in baptism, all who are chargeable with this neglect; although they are the offspring of believing parents, and the general aspect of their character, and the declared exercises of their mind, are such as would otherwise entitle them to the privilege which is denied them. Other churches in our communion think this system unduly rigorous, and adopt a different practice. This subject has been referred to the supreme judicatory of our church in repeated instances; and the result has been, that each particular church has been left to pursue, in this matter, the course which to them may appear most conformable to the principles of the gospel, and most conducive to Christian edification.

I have hesitated, my young friends, whether I would introduce this topick at all, in the course of lectures which I am now delivering to you. But being willing, on every topick of religion and morals, to make, on all proper occasions, a frank avowal of my sentiments, and considering that the matter in question is one of practice in the Presbyterian church, I thought on the whole, that my duty required that I should offer you my sentiments upon it. This, however, I must do briefly and summarily, as the nature of these lectures do not admit, in any case, of an extended discussion. Let me then be understood as delivering my own individual sentiments, and not as advocating any opinions or

any practice inconsistent with the statement I make. With regret and grief I admit, that in some churches of our denomination, there is what appears to me a very criminal laxness, in regard to the administration of this ordinance. Neither have I any belief in such a thing as a half way covenant; nor am I prepared to say that the essential qualifications for participation in both sacraments are not the same: and I distinctly say, that baptism, in my judgment, ought not to be administered to those of whom there is not reasonable ground to believe, after examination and inquiry, that, the requisitions of duty specified in the vii. chapter of our Directory for Worship will be solemnly regarded, and their performance conscientiously endeavoured.

All this notwithstanding, I cannot make abstinence from the Lord's supper, the ground, in all cases, of precluding from the privilege of devoting their infant offspring to God in baptism, some who are desirous of doing it, although they cannot, for the present, view themselves as prepared to go to the table of the Lord. It is one thing for me to be willing to admit a person to the holy communion, and another thing for that person to be willing to come; one thing to be actually prepared to come, and another thing to be satisfied that such is the fact; one thing to be confounded and silenced by arguments, which go to show that if you are prepared for one sacrament you must also be prepared for the other, and another thing to be so convinced and satisfied of this, as to have freedom to act in so solemn a concern. Confusion and silence are not satisfaction or conviction..

From whatever cause it may arise, the fact is indisputable, that there is in some minds and they are often among the best minds-a scrupulous tenderness about going to the table of the Lord, which it

is extremely difficult to satisfy or remove. In the congregation in which I was born and brought up, and in which what is called the strict plan was most strictly followed, there was a man who was regarded by its pastor, my own father, as second to no man in his charge, as an exemplary Christian, and yet this man never could, and to the day of his death, I believe, never did, get his own consent to approach the table of the Lord-nor were his children baptized. It is no very uncommon thing for a communicant of decided Christian character, after partaking of the eucharist for years in succession, to become so scrupulous in regard to his fitness to sit down at the Lord's table, as to absent himself from it for a season-in some instances for a long season. Are persons of this description fit subjects for discipline? I think not; on the contrary, it seems to me they are subjects for much Christian sympathy, and great tenderness of treatment. And should such individuals as those to whom in the two foregoing instances I have referred, be willing and desirous to offer their children in baptism-and so they might be-ought they to be refused? My answer is decidedly in the negative. It may be said, I am aware, that the refusal of baptism, in such cases, might be the means of bringing the parties the sooner to the full discharge of duty; but I cannot persuade myself that the Saviour, who taught his disciples

as they were able to bear it," and bore with their infirmities to a very great extent; nor the apostle who enjoined so much tenderness toward those who "C were weak in faith," and "babes in Christ," would either have inflicted discipline in any such case, or refused any privilege of which the parties concerned were willing and desirous to avail themselves. Doubtless, all hollow pretences,

and all fabricated or lightly form ed excuses are, when manifest, to be utterly disregarded; but where there is good evidence of real conscientiousness, and a careful regard and attention to Christian duties in general, I would never preclude an individual from any Christian privilege, that he was disposed to claim.

On the whole then, I would say, let all profane persons, all neglecters of publick or family worship, all who are uninstructed in the nature of the sacrament of baptism and the solemn duties which it imposes, all, in a word, as has, already been said, in regard to whom there is not reason to hope and expect that they will conscientiously endeavour to comply with the obligations which they come under in the baptismal service-let all such be refused baptism for their children, till they are better prepared to be admitted to the privilege: but let all such be admitted, as are not chargeable with any of the disqualifications now specified. When the first application for baptism is made by parents not in full communion with the church, let the pastor see them by themselves; inquire into their knowledge of the nature of baptism, and the obligations it involves; instruct them, if they need it; learn the state of their minds in regard to religious duty in general; remind them that there is another sacrament, in the neglect of which they cannot live contentedly without sin; converse with them in a very tender, serious, and impressive manner; and conclude with as solemn, appropriate, and affecting a prayer as he can offer. If he find, as he probably sometimes will, that the parties need more instruction, or more engagedness in religion than they possess at his first visit, let him, with affectionate fidelity, tell them so; defer, for a short time, a compliance with their request, visit

them again, and endeavour to aid them in attaining such preparation as that he may eventually admit them, with freedom on his part and advantage on theirs, to this sacred rite. And if such procedure as is here stated give offence, as in some instances it may, it is a clear indication that the parties concerned ought to be refused the privilege which they seek, till they manifest a better spirit. This system, I am fully aware, will give a pastor far more trouble, than that in which baptism is at once refused to all who do not partake of the other sacrament. But it will be trouble well taken; for, if I mistake not greatly, the course contemplated will be attended with several very important advantages. It is calculated, when properly conducted, to gain for a pastor a high degree of confidence and affection from his people, especially from the younger part of his charge; and it will give him a most desirable opportunity to learn the state of their minds, and to address to them instruction and counsel of the most appropriate and beneficial kind; it will often furnish him with information that will be of great use in his publick preaching; and it will not unfrequently result in bringing into the full communion of the church a number who will be among its brightest ornaments; but who might otherwise long deprive themselves of an invaluable and comfortable privilege, and the church of the advantage of their example, and of their aid and influence.

The truth is, that in most of the churches of our denomination, there is a mournful disregard of the duty which ought to be performed toward baptized children. They are not viewed and treated as members of the church at all, nor more regard shown to them than to those who are unbaptized. This is a grievous and very criminal neglect. If baptized children

were often reminded, both by their parents and by the pastors and elders of the churches, of their early consecration to God, and their actual standing as members of the church of Christ; and if they were, with great affection and kindness instructed in their duty, and the performance of it was brought home to their consciences; and if to all this, much earnest and special prayer were constantly offered to God in their behalf, we should see numbers of them more early, and with no objection from any quarter, partaking of both the sacraments which our merciful God and Saviour has instituted for the comfort and edification of his church. As to those who are in the full communion of the church, no argument is necessary to show their claim to present their children in baptism, if such a claim be granted to any in the word of God-On this point there is no controversy. The portion also of our Standards which teaches, that if either parent of a child be a church member the child is entitled to baptism, is fairly and firmly grounded on the passage of scripture to which our Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism refer, 1 Cor. vii. 14. "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife; and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." If this text has not a reference to infant baptism, it seems to be incapable of any rational explanation; but with such a reference, its meaning is plain and pertinent. I will give you the paraphrase of Doddridge on the words, and the note with which he accompanies it.

"For in such a case as this, the unbelieving husband is so sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is so sanctified by the husband, that their matrimonial converse is as lawful as if they were both of the same faith: otherwise your chil

dren, in these mixed cases, were unclean, and must be looked upon as unfit to be admitted to those peculiar ordinances by which the seed of God's people are distinguished; but now they are confessedly holy, and are as readily admitted to baptism in all our churches, as if both the parents were Christians; so that the case you see, is in effect decided by this prevailing practice."

The note is as follows:

"On the maturest and most impartial consideration of this text, I must judge it to refer to infant baptism. Nothing can be more apparent than that the word holy, signifies persons, who might be admitted to partake of the distinguishing rites of God's people. Compare Exod. xix. 6; Deut. vii. 6; chap. xiv. 2; chap. xxvi. 19; chap. xxxiii. 3; Ezra ix. 2; with Isa. xxxv. 8; chap. lii. 1; Acts x. 28, &c. And as for the interpretation, which so many of our brethren, the Baptists, have contended for, that holy signifies legitimate, and unclean, illegitimate; (not to urge that this seems an unscriptural sense of the word,) nothing can be more evident, than that the argument will by no means bear it; for it would be proving a thing by itself, idem per idem, to argue that the converse of the parents was lawful, because the children were not bastards; whereas all who thought the converse of the parents unlawful, must of course think that the children were illegitimate."

The comment of Scott on this passage is to the same effect as that of Doddridge, and is well worthy of your perusal.

But you are aware that there is a large denomination of Protestant Christians, who admit that the sacrament of baptism is of divine institution, and of perpetual obligation, and yet deny that it is, in any case, to be administered to infant children, or to youth in nonage.

In a former lecture I have remarked, that this has been, and still is, the subject of much and ardent controversy, and intimated that my discussion of the point would not be extensive: and indeed if baptism has come in place of circumcision, as I have endeavoured to show, and the passage of sacred scripture just referred to is rightly expounded by the able commentators quoted-to which a host of others might be added-the point is already settled, that the infant seed of believers are, by divine appointment, to be baptized.

Indeed, my young friends, although volumes upon volumes have been published on this controversy, yet the substance of it lies in a narrow compass, and is of a character to be judged of by any candid and moderately informed Christian. Some years since, when called in the performance of pastoral duty to administer this sacrament to an infant, in the congregation which I then served, I introduced the administration in nearly these words" Are we asked why we baptize infants? I answer, we have the clearest evidence that by divine appointment they were once introduced into the church of God, and there is not a particle of evidence that he has ever, by a subsequent order, excluded them from it; and if God has once conferred this privilege I on the children of believers, and has never withdrawn it, who or what is man, that he should take from these little ones and from their parents, a grant which their Maker has made them?" This

short statement, I was well inform ed, settled satisfactorily the question in relation to infant baptism, in a mind which had been labouring under painful doubts on the subject, for twenty years. Now, my young friends, here is really the essence of the matter in controversy; and as the brief statement I have repeated, satisfied one

anxious mind, and I am confined to narrow limits, I have offered it to you, in the hope that it may have a similar influence on your minds. We believe that God, in a transaction with Abraham, as the father of the faithful to the end of time, made this solemn declaration. (Gen. xvii. 7.) "I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant; to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.” We know that of this covenant circumcision was the seal; and we believe that in the New Testament, there is unequivocal evidence that "the blessing of Abraham has come upon the Gentiles;" that Christian believers are regarded as his spiritual seed; (Gal. iii.) and that baptism has come in the place of circumcision as the seal of the covenant originally made with him. Now, all the evidence which does or can exist in` regard to this subject, is contained in the Bible, which we have in our own language; and hence I have said, that every candid and moderately informed Christian can judge of it for himself. Let him carefully, candidly, and prayerfully compare the Old Testament with the New, and decide for himself on the points I have stated; and doing this, he decides the question at issue between us

and the Antipædo Baptists. They endeavour to set aside almost every point in the statement I have made. But the Bible, they admit with us, must determine where the truth lies; and the Bible is open to us all; it is a popular book, intended for common Christians as well as for the learned; and when read and made its own interpreter, by comparing one part with another, the very truth, all false reasoning notwithstanding, may be known on this, as on all other important subjects-provided only that there be simplicity of purpose, diligence of research,