_Srt OF PW*^. 
 
 ,. APR 14 1S64 
 
 /£^73 
 
WHOSE CHILDREN OUGHT 
 TO BE BAPTIZED? 
 
 OR, 
 
 AN EXAMINATION INTO THE PRESENT 
 ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM. 
 
 THE REV. JOHN RODGERS, 
 
 Incumbent or Werneth, Cheshire. 
 
 " Come Ikon and all thy house into the Ark : for thee 
 have I seen righteous before me in this generation." 
 
 Gen. vii. 1. 
 
 LONDON: 
 HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. 
 
 MANCHESTER; THOMAS ANDERSON AND SON. 
 1852. 
 
THOMAS ANDERSON AND SON, PRINTERS, MANCHESTER. 
 
WHOSE CHILDREN OUGHT TO 
 BE BAPTIZED? 
 
 Much has lately been said and written on 
 the subject of baptism ; but no practical 
 good has resulted therefrom : the question 
 rests just where it was: various parties 
 holding various opinions are still found 
 amongst us. Even the decision in the late 
 important case between the Bishop of 
 Exeter and Mr. Gorham, only said what 
 has long been said, that contending parties 
 might continue to contend in the bosom of 
 the same church ; and in the midst of their 
 contentions go on administering the Sacra- 
 ment of Baptism, each holding their own 
 peculiar views. And such doubtless will 
 continue to be the case ; we cannot make 
 all men think alike. After all that has 
 
been said and written ; after all the learn- 
 ing that has been brought to bear upon 
 the subject ; after all the important and 
 great research about it; after the matter 
 has been brought before us in every pos- 
 sible light j we are just where we were : 
 still men hold opposing views ; some take 
 the infant in their arms believing that in 
 the act of baptism it is regenerated ; others 
 hope it is ; some attach one meaning to 
 the term Regenerate and others another. 
 Is it then a matter of regret that so much 
 labour has been expended ? On the con- 
 trary, it is rather a cause for thankfulness : 
 truth, and especially religious truth, is at 
 all times worth digging for, and we should 
 be glad that men are found able and 
 willing to undertake the laborious work. 
 Nor would it be so much a matter of 
 regret that we do not all think exactly 
 alike on this subject, if we could only 
 learn to be charitable, and patiently bear 
 with those who differ from us. 
 
There is, however, one thing in con- 
 nexion with this subject, which seems to 
 be a great matter of regret, and one which 
 might be remedied to the comfort of every 
 man's conscience (whatever be his views) 
 who is called to administer the rite of 
 Baptism ; and that is, the too general ad- 
 ministration of it. If the present almost 
 universal administration of that sacrament 
 were abolished, and greater care manifested 
 as to whom we baptized, an important 
 practical reform would be accomplished. 
 The acknowledged difficulty in all such 
 cases is, where to draw the line of dis- 
 tinction : this I purpose endeavouring to 
 establish. There is no difficulty as to 
 this matter in the case of adult baptism, 
 the difficulty rests entirely with infant 
 baptism. It is certainly contrary to Scrip- 
 ture, and far from the views of the Church 
 of England, that the children of all indis- 
 criminately should be admitted to this rite. 
 And yet men of almost every shade of 
 
 a2 
 
6 
 
 opinion and character present their chil- 
 dren to us for baptism, and we cannot 
 refuse. Parents and sponsors, who seldom 
 or never enter a church except on such 
 occasions, come too frequently under the 
 excitement of revelry indulged in at such 
 times, without thinking of the solemn and 
 responsible position they at that time 
 occupy. They outwardly join in those 
 beautiful prayers, and professedly take 
 upon them those sacred vows, then turn 
 from the scene utterly regardless of what 
 they have done ; caring as little for the 
 spiritual and eternal welfare of the child 
 as they do for their own. 
 
 These things ought not to be so : there 
 is no necessity w T hy they should remain so ; 
 and it would emancipate the conscience of 
 many a devoted clergyman from a heavy 
 burden, if this glaring abuse were re- 
 formed. And for the effecting of this, I 
 lay down this proposition ; that no child 
 should be admitted to the rite of Baptism 
 
except its parents and sponsors be com- 
 municants. In pursuing the consideration 
 of this subject, I shall — ■ 
 
 I. Endeavour to establish the propo- 
 sition. 
 
 II. Seek to answer a few probable 
 objections. 
 
 I. In establishing the proposition, we 
 maintain that it is a reasonable proposition. 
 
 God has endowed us with great reason- 
 ing powers ; and in all the sublime and 
 mysterious revelations which he has given 
 us in his Word, there is nothing contrary 
 to reason, though much that is above it. 
 Whatever part of God's Word we inves- 
 tigate, our reason consents to it so far as 
 it can follow ; and hence we may fairly 
 conclude that what is beyond its reach, 
 and thus becomes pure matter of faith, 
 does not therefore cease to be in accord- 
 ance with reason. Moreover, God is the 
 
8 
 
 author of reason as well as of Revelation, 
 and therefore they must accord ; the one 
 cannot be contrary to the other. We 
 may then bring the subject before us to 
 the test of reason. And a mere glance 
 at it in this light is sufficient to convince 
 us of the absurdity (I had almost said 
 blasphemy) of the present practice, and 
 of the absolute necessity there is for a 
 change. Let us suppose for a moment that 
 God had left us in this respect simply and 
 entirely to the guidance of our own reason 
 and common sense ; how should we have 
 acted ? We find a large and important 
 body of mankind called the church, sepa- 
 rated from the surrounding mass by strong 
 distinctive marks : the visible and acknow- 
 ledged mode of admission into this body 
 is baptism : certain requirements and quali- 
 fications are expected previous to such 
 admission ; the child cannot be responsible 
 for these, but the parents and sponsors 
 are ; should we then receive the child to 
 
9 
 
 baptism, if the responsible parties are with- 
 out the required qualifications? We do 
 not need Revelation to respond to this 
 query; our common sense answers no. 
 Moreover, by baptism we are admitted to 
 certain privileges and blessings ; and have 
 the children of strangers any claim to 
 these ? Certainly not. Christian blessings 
 are for christians and the children of 
 christians. And unless parties presenting 
 a child for baptism manifest themselves 
 to be the disciples of Christ, the child 
 ought not to be baptized. Its representa- 
 tives have not the necessary qualifications, 
 and are not entitled to the privileges and 
 blessings. Does not man decide thus in 
 ordinary cases, influenced by his reason 
 and common sense ? Mere profession of 
 membership does not entitle a man to the 
 immunities or privileges of any one of 
 the societies established around us, He 
 may have been admitted a member and 
 kept up his profession ; but unless he has, 
 
10 
 
 by observance of its rules, proved his 
 membership, he will lay claim in vain to 
 any of its benefits ; — they are not his, nor 
 are they his children's. Such a mode of 
 procedure is just and right; and the case 
 (although not strictly) is somewhat ana- 
 logous to the christian profession. Mere 
 admission by baptism — mere profession in 
 name without a life conformed to its rules 
 and precepts, do not entitle a man to the 
 benefits and privileges of the christian 
 religion ; and therefore his child is not 
 entitled to them, inasmuch as the parents 
 and sponsors are the representatives of 
 the child. It is thus in some measure 
 clear that the parents and sponsors of a 
 child brought for baptism ought to be 
 christians, or they are not entitled to the 
 benefit of baptism for their child. 
 
 But this, it may be said, does not prove 
 the necessity of their being communicants ; 
 it is however a great step towards proving 
 it. Every christian ought to be a commu- 
 
11 
 
 nicant. This sacrament is as necessary to 
 the adult baptized christian as the other 
 sacrament is to the child of such christian ; 
 and if he is studious to observe the one, 
 he ought to be careful not to neglect the 
 other. 
 
 When, therefore, a parent presents his 
 child for baptism, and thus manifests a 
 christian anxiety for the observance of this 
 sacrament, is it not reasonable to expect 
 and require that he should be. equally 
 anxious respecting the observance of the 
 other christian sacrament? I cannot see 
 why more importance should be attached 
 to the one sacrament than to the other. 
 If the one is considered so generally neces- 
 sary to the salvation of the child, how is 
 it that the other is not considered equally 
 necessary to the adult ? It is reasonable 
 therefore to conclude, that where an 
 anxiety for the one is manifested, an 
 equal anxiety for the other may be justly 
 looked for. 
 
12 
 
 Besides, it is a test of the reality of 
 u man's Christianity If he be really a 
 disciple of Christ, he will love his Lord ; 
 and if he love his Lord, he will keep his 
 commandments, — one of which is, " Do 
 this in remembrance of me." We have 
 therefore a right to look for this test of 
 a man's Christianity. It is a test which 
 comes fairly under the observation of 
 man : it is, in fact, an important part of 
 the fruit by which we are to know man. 
 And if it be not manifested either in a 
 partaking of the sacrament, or a desire to 
 do so, we have a right to doubt the reality 
 of a man's Christianity. Hence we may 
 not be reasonably required to receive to 
 baptism any child whose sponsors or pa- 
 rents are thus affording palpable proof 
 that they have neither part nor lot in the 
 matter. Thus it is a reasonable proposition 
 that we receive no child to the sacrament 
 of baptism whose sponsors and parents are 
 not communicants. 
 
18 
 
 2. It is moreover a proposition in ac- 
 cordance with the teaching of the Church 
 of England. This is an important con- 
 sideration ; we are ministers in that church, 
 bound by the most solemn vows to abide 
 by her teaching ; and whose fault is it that 
 we are not able to do so ? 
 
 There is a great cry raised by a body 
 of clergy for an alteration in the beautiful 
 and incomparable services of our church, 
 because their consciences are injured in 
 carrying out the existing practice of our 
 church as regards those services. But the 
 cry is not a correct one. We do not need 
 an alteration in the services : to touch them 
 would be to mar them ; we want, rather, 
 a reform in the administration of those 
 services. The law is good, but it is not 
 used lawfully ; the services are good, but 
 the administration of them fearfully bad. 
 
 I ask again, whose fault is this ? It is 
 not the fault of the church herself, for by 
 her canons and rubrics she would keep us 
 
 B 
 
14 
 
 right, but we will not obey her voice. We 
 yield to the plea of expediency, and sacri- 
 fice consistency, conscience, and comfort 
 to the rampant laxity of the age. It would 
 be better for the church as a body, for the 
 world in general, and would tend more to 
 God's glory, if we would retrace our steps; 
 and going back to the days of the ever- 
 memorable Reformers, ask the compilers 
 of those services what their intention was 
 respecting the administration of them. 
 This we shall find expressed in our 
 canons, rubrics, and services. The present 
 state of affairs seems to call for one of two 
 things ; either a change of the services, or 
 a change in the administration of them ; 
 the former would be an inconceivable evil, 
 the latter an incomparable good. Which 
 then would it be most rational to have ? 
 Let us go back however to the consi- 
 deration of baptism. The proposition we 
 have laid down is in accordance with the 
 views of the church ; and here let us 
 
15 
 
 refer to her expressed opinions, and thus 
 permit the church to speak for herself. 
 
 In the 29th canon it is decreed that no 
 person shall be admitted as sponsor, either 
 at baptism or confirmation, unless he have 
 previously received the Communion ; this 
 is very decided and to the point. Again, 
 in the Articles of our church we are led to 
 understand that baptism is null and void if 
 not rightly received ; it is therefore but a 
 useless form, and why administer it ? In 
 the 27th article we are assured that only 
 those who receive baptism rightly are 
 graffed into the church. And in the 25th 
 article we are told that in such only as 
 worthily receive the same (the two sacra- 
 ments), they have a wholesome effect or 
 operation. And in the Catechism we are 
 told what constitutes a worthy reception, 
 where, in answer to the question, " What 
 is required of persons to be baptized ?" 
 it is said, " Repentance, whereby they for- 
 sake sin; and faith, whereby they stead- 
 
16 
 
 fastly believe the promises of God made 
 to them in that sacrament." These of 
 course we cannot look for in the child ; 
 but it promises them both by its sureties ; 
 if therefore the sureties are not in the pos- 
 session of the requirements, is it not the 
 intention of the church thus plainly ex- 
 pressed, that they should not be admitted 
 as sureties ? Hence other sureties must 
 be obtained, or the child refused baptism. 
 And how are we to know that the parties 
 thus presenting themselves are in pos- 
 session of those requisites, or in a word, 
 are christians ? There are two tests, the 
 profession and the life ; and these must 
 be consistent the one with the other. If 
 a man profess to be a christian, his life 
 should correspond with his profession in 
 this amongst other things, an obedience to 
 the Lord's command, " Do this in remem- 
 brance of me." If he do not afford this 
 proof, we have no right to acknowledge 
 him as such. And hence he is not fit to 
 
17 
 
 act as surety for any child at baptism. 
 The church clearly insists upon the neces- 
 sity of christians being communicants ; in 
 her 21st canon, and in the rubric at the 
 end of the communion service, she re- 
 quires her members to communicate at 
 least three times a-year. In a word, all 
 the services of the Church of England 
 are intended for true members of that 
 church, which is equivalent to being true 
 christians ; and unless a man be thus a true 
 christian churchman, he has no reasonable 
 title, according to the expressed and im- 
 plied opinion of that church, to any of her 
 services. 
 
 If a Mohammedan or Brahmin parent 
 were to present his child for baptism, with 
 Mohammedan or Brahmin sponsors, would 
 it be reasonable, or in accordance with the 
 church's intention, to receive that child to 
 baptism ? Surely not. Yet there are those 
 in our land as bad, both in principle and 
 practice, as any Mohammedan or Brahmin 
 
 b 2 
 
18 
 
 could be ; as far alienated from God, and 
 as ignorant of the truth as it is in Jesus, 
 who, presenting their children for baptism, 
 are unhesitatingly received. It is acknow- 
 ledged by all that there are many such 
 abuses of the sacrament of baptism ; but 
 the difficulty which is felt is, where to 
 draw the line of demarcation, without 
 being uncharitable, or without appearing 
 to act as the judges of our fellow men. 
 This difficulty only exists because we have 
 not adhered to the practice laid down by 
 our most Scriptural and consistent church. 
 Administer baptism according to her re- 
 quirements ; that is, to those children 
 whose sponsors and representatives are 
 christian churchmen, in full and consistent 
 communion with the church, then the 
 difficulty in a great measure vanishes. It 
 may be objected that the church does not 
 distinctly require the parents to be com- 
 municants. The answer is plain : her 
 services are for christians, and always pre- 
 
19 
 
 suppose the worshippers to be such j and 
 she has doubtless taken it for granted, 
 that all parents bringing their children for 
 baptism would themselves be true christian 
 churchmen, and therefore communicants. 
 "We cannot think that she would require 
 sponsors to be communicants and not care 
 that the parents should be. She never 
 anticipated the anomaly cf parents being 
 anxious for their children to partake of the 
 one sacrament, whilst they themselves were 
 utterly regardless of the other. She did 
 suppose that, from mistaken motives of 
 friendship, parties might be solicited to be 
 sponsors who might not be in her opinion 
 fit ; therefore, she has decreed that none 
 act in that reponsible capacity unless they 
 be in full communion. 
 
 I do not here insist upon the necessity 
 of both parents being christian commu- 
 nicants ; if one of the two be such, then 
 that parent has a reasonable claim to bap- 
 tism for his or her child. The church has 
 
20 
 
 no expressed opinion that I know of on 
 this subject ; but inasmuch as she is silent, 
 we may suppose her to consent to so 
 reasonable and Scriptural a notion. If, 
 however, (according to Hooker) we cannot, 
 because the church does not, require either 
 of the parents to be christian commu- 
 nicants, yet, if we adhere to the other 
 requirement, namely, that the sponsors be 
 such, we virtually gain our point : for it is 
 not likely that ungodly and unchristian 
 parents could succeed in obtaining chris- 
 tian communicants as sponsors. It is a 
 voluntary office, and none are willing to 
 undertake it except for those who are of 
 kindred spirit with themselves. If, there- 
 fore, we cannot insist, upon the parents 
 being communicants, we certainly can and 
 ought to insist upon the sponsors being 
 such. To carry out this, would be a ma- 
 terial reform, and productive of incal- 
 culable good. If all sponsors were true 
 christian communicants, then we might 
 
21 
 
 confidently hope that they would perform 
 the duties devolving upon them as faith- 
 fully as they could, and endeavour to see 
 that the child for which they were sponsors 
 be trained up in the nurture and admo- 
 nition of the Lord ; and what a harvest 
 would this yield to the glory of God and 
 the good of his church ! I do not, however, 
 give up my original position, that the 
 parents as well as the sponsors ought to 
 be in full christian communion ; such is the 
 reasonable expectation ef the church, not, 
 it is true, expressly declared, yet most cer- 
 tainly implied in the tone and character of 
 her services throughout. 
 
 3. Let us next see how this propo- 
 sition will bear the test of God's Word. 
 This is the true test to which every thing 
 ought to be brought ; and if any thing be 
 found contrary thereto, whether in accord- 
 ance with the views of the church or not, 
 it ought either to be abolished or reformed. 
 This is the only safe light. Man may err 
 
even in his views of God's truth ; it behoves 
 us, therefore, not to take that truth as man 
 gives or expounds it, but to read it and 
 know it for ourselves. Let us have the 
 water of life as it springs from the fountain 
 of eternal truth, ere it be corrupted or 
 mystified by man. We are not to reject 
 human help, in assisting us to understand 
 the Scriptures ; rather let us thankfully 
 acknowledge that we owe a debt of deep 
 gratitude to many ancient and modern 
 divines for their able expositions of God's 
 Word. Above all, we are not to set aside 
 with ruthless hand the authority aud 
 teaching of the church ; rather let us bow 
 with meek submission before her Scriptural 
 decrees ; rather let us thank God that we 
 are members of a church which contains 
 in her ordinances and services so fair and 
 faithful a transcript of Divine Truth. But 
 yet we must not put her in the place of 
 God ; we must not regard her decrees as 
 His decrees; they may be wrong — His 
 
c 23 
 
 cannot. And if we can lind out that they 
 differ, we must not attempt to bring down 
 the standard of God's Word to that of 
 man, but rather raise the one to as near an 
 approximation to the other as possible. 
 I do not speak thus because of the dif- 
 ference between the church and the Bible 
 on the subject now before us ; on the con- 
 trary, I believe them to agree. Yet it 
 behoves us to feel willing to give up every 
 thing contrary to God's Word, and to cling 
 to every thing in accordance with it. And 
 we need not fear the result of a fair com- 
 parison of this and every other point of our 
 church's views with divine truth, feeling 
 assured that the one would be found to 
 echo the sentiments of the other. And 
 what says the Word of God in support of 
 our proposition, that all who bring children 
 to be baptized may reasonably be expected 
 to be communicants. 
 
 Infant baptism is a subject sparingly 
 handled in the. Bible. It is not, however, 
 
24 
 
 iuy object to establish the Scriptural nature 
 of the practice of infant baptism; that is 
 acknowledged by all for whose perusal 
 these pages are intended. The question 
 now before us is not, Are children to be 
 baptized ? — that we consider settled ; but, 
 Whose children are to be baptized ? Cir- 
 cumcision under the old dispensation is 
 generally considered analogous to baptism 
 under the new dispensation. And from 
 the fact that infants were circumcised, we 
 infer that our practice of infant baptism is 
 correct. But whose infants were admitted 
 to the significant rite of circumcision ? 
 Only those of Jews. The children of the 
 surrounding nations, or of any strangers, 
 were not admitted to the rite and its con- 
 sequent privileges, unless their parents, or 
 those in whose care they were, had pro- 
 selyted and become Jews, by indentifying 
 themselves altogether with that nation. 
 The first command of God on this subject 
 to Abraham was, that all the household of 
 
25 
 
 Abraham, whether children or servants; 
 were to be included. It was not to extend 
 beyond his household, because it was a 
 distinctive mark by which they were to be 
 characterised amoncr other nations as the 
 chosen people of God. And when Abra- 
 ham's successors widened their territories, 
 and increased from a household to a nation, 
 the same restriction respecting the adminis- 
 tration of this rite was observed. .Closely 
 connected with this was the ordinance of 
 the passover, which two ordinances are 
 analogous to the two christian sacraments. 
 And as the two former were absolutely 
 required of the Jews, so the two latter are 
 absolutely required of christians. The 
 punishment in the case of disobedience 
 Was the same in both ordinances ; they 
 Were to be cut off from the congregation 
 of the people ; thus proving the one to be 
 as important as the other. And so in the 
 christian dispensation, both sacraments are 
 considered alike generally necessary to sa 1 - 
 
vation, thus both alike important. Hence, 
 if the one cannot be neglected with im- 
 punity neither can the other. Besides, 
 a man by neglecting either ordinance 
 amongst the Jews, forfeited his claim to 
 the privileges of the seed of Abraham. If 
 he neglected circumcision he was to be cut 
 off, because lie had broken the covenant ; 
 and if he neglected the passover, he was to 
 be cut off, because he had broken the 
 covenant ; he ceased to be in covenant with 
 God ; he became alienated from the com- 
 monwealth of Israel. 
 
 To constitute a man a Jew, then, and 
 entitle him to the privileges of Abraham's 
 seed, he must not only be circumcised, but 
 an observer of the passover ; living in the 
 neglect of the latter, he virtually nullified 
 the former, and gave up his claim to all 
 Jewish privileges. If such an one brought 
 his child for circumcision, would it be 
 accepted ? We have not a recorded instance 
 of the kind ; but the will of God, expressed 
 
27 
 
 in the passages already referred to, would 
 lead us to infer not And such is the case 
 with respect to the christian sacraments. 
 A person wilfully unbaptized has no claim 
 to christian privileges ; a person living in 
 wilful neglect of the Lord's Supper, has 
 no claim to christian privileges : both sacra- 
 ments, when available, are necessary to the 
 constitution of the christian character; and 
 therefore both ought to be observed by 
 every christian. Any one neglecting both 
 or either of the sacraments, cuts himself 
 off from the congregation of God's people, 
 and breaks the covenant ; he is thereby 
 alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, 
 and a stranger to the covenants of promise. 
 The promises were intended for him and 
 for his children, but he has forfeited all 
 claim thereto. If, therefore, such persons 
 present themselves as sponsors, or other- 
 wise responsible parties, at the baptism of 
 a child, should they be accepted ? I cer- 
 tainly think that the charity which would 
 
28 
 
 lead us to accept them is a mistaken charity. 
 And unless the child is brought by more 
 consistent parties to baptism, the sacra- 
 ment ought not to be administered. There 
 can be no covenant, the child is not capable 
 of entering into the gospel covenant ; those 
 that bring it are still less capable. Let it 
 alone therefore until the child be responsi- 
 ble for its own acts. Should it die in the 
 meantime, we confidently leave it to God's 
 mercy in Christ. 
 
 Such is the conclusion easily arrived at 
 from a comparison of the subject with the 
 Jewish ordinances. Our proposition seems 
 Scriptural thus far. Let us now come 
 down to the days of the New Testament, 
 and see what countenance we can derive 
 from its pages. All the promises of God, 
 although the spontaneous fruit of his un- 
 merited grace, yet are given on condition 
 of being asked for and sought after. The 
 publican did not go down to his justified 
 until he had prayed, saying, " God be mer- 
 
29 
 
 ciful to me a sinner." The first inclination 
 of the heart to God is, beyond all doubt, 
 implanted by God himself; but that incli- 
 nation is to prayer for God's mercy. And 
 so with every blessing : God first begets a 
 desire for it ; and when we have expressed 
 that desire, he grants it to us. " Ask and 
 ye shall receive," is the promise. This then 
 pre-supposes a man to be in some measure 
 a christian ; for " whosoever cometh to 
 God must believe that he is, and that he 
 is a rewarder of them that diligently seek 
 him." Take for example the miracles of 
 our Lord, freely performed in behalf of 
 suffering humanity, yet (with one or two 
 exceptions) never performed until sought 
 after, and asked for in faith. The noble- 
 man that applied to Christ to heal his son, 
 pleaded with him in earnest, believing 
 prayer, saying, " Sir, come down ere my 
 child die ;" and that same hour in which 
 Jesus, in answer to his prayer of faith, said 
 to the father, "Thy son liveth," beheld the 
 
 c 2 
 
so 
 
 son freed of his fever. Here was the faith 
 of the father bringing down blessings on 
 the head of the child. The Syrophenician 
 woman also earnestly, believingly, per- 
 severingly pleaded with Christ in behalf of 
 her daughter; she truly manifested the 
 spirit of the patriarch, " I will not let thee 
 go except thou bless me ;" and after strong 
 crying, she won from the Redeemer this 
 rich commendation : — " O woman, great is 
 thy faith ! be it unto thee even as thou wilt; 
 and her daughter was made whole from 
 that very hour." In both these instances, 
 and in others of a similar kind, we have 
 the prayer of faith in the parent richly 
 answered to the child. But in no one 
 recorded instance is this important prin- 
 ciple of faith in Christ wanting. 
 
 The parents who brought their children 
 to Jesus for his blessing, brought them 
 believing him able and willing to bless 
 them ; and therefore he said, as he says to 
 all such, " Suffer little children to come 
 
3i 
 
 unto me, and forbid them not," And shall 
 it be otherwise now ? Is not the promise 
 still to the believing parent, who presents 
 a child to Christ with the prayer of faith ? 
 And are we justified in expecting any 
 beneficial results where this important link 
 of faith, which connects the parent to 
 Christ, and thereby the child to Christ, 
 is wanting ? Is it not rather a solemn 
 mockery of the great initiatory sacrament 
 of the christian religion, when unbelieving 
 and godless parents or sponsors bring a 
 child, and profess to crave for it blessings 
 which they know nothing about, and care 
 nothing for? It is to be feared, that instead 
 of proving an acceptable service to God, 
 he says in such cases, " My soul hateth 
 them, they are a trouble to me, I am weary 
 to bear them." Surely then we ought to 
 seek to cleanse our church of this evil, and 
 take up a different and better position 
 than the one we now occupy. All should 
 be rejected who present themselves as 
 
82 
 
 sponsors, or representatives, of a child in 
 baptism, if they are not fit to be such. 
 And we should look for an evidence of 
 that fitness, in full and consistent com- 
 munion with the church. Then we have 
 grounds for hoping that they really belong- 
 to Christ, and that they bring their child 
 in faith, earnestly desiring that it may be 
 received into covenant with God through 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 "What, let me further ask, are the re- 
 quisites for reception to baptism ? Are 
 not repentance and faith ? " He that be- 
 lieveth and is baptized shall be saved." 
 " If thou believest with all thine heart 
 thou mayest (be baptized)." "Repent, 
 and be baptized every one of you for the 
 remission of sins, and ye shall receive the 
 gift of the Holy Ghost." Baptism is never 
 to be administered, unless these qualifica- 
 tions are believed to be in the applicant. 
 They cannot be in the child : where then 
 are we to look for them ? Are we to set 
 
33 
 
 them aside altogether as unnecessary ? We 
 have no Scriptural authority for doing this; 
 yet, this is what we do. Lydia was bap- 
 tized, and her household ; but not until 
 the Lord had opened her heart, and she 
 repented and believed the gospel. The 
 Philippian jailor was baptized, and all his, 
 but not until he gave evidence that he had 
 believed on Jesus Christ as his Saviour. 
 And why should we now baptize whole 
 households, child after child, when the 
 parents give no token of belonging to 
 Christ ; but, on the contrary, afford pal- 
 pable evidence that they do not? It may 
 be said that Lydia and the Philippian 
 jailor were not communicants; nor did the 
 apostle wait until they were, ere he bap- 
 tized their households. The apostle was 
 satisfied that they were true christians, and 
 of course, as such, they would speedily 
 become communicants. And this is what 
 we want to satisfy ourselves of; as a help 
 to which satisfaction, we look for this 
 
34 
 
 prominent and necessary fruit, Unless 
 we have good grounds for looking upon 
 those who bring a child for baptism, as 
 having truly repented of their past sins, 
 and having a lively faith in God's mercy 
 through Christ, it is not Scriptural to 
 receive that child to baptism, even as it is 
 not Scriptural to baptize an adult, unless 
 he give evidence of repentance and faith, 
 the fundamental principles of the christian 
 religion. The apostle distinctly assures 
 us, that unless one at least of the parents 
 be a believer, the child is not a partaker 
 of the promises and blessings of the gospel. 
 " The unbelieving wife is sanctified by the 
 believing husband, and the unbelieving 
 husband is sanctified by the believing wife, 
 else," says he, " were your children un- 
 clean, but now are they holy." Since one 
 of you at least is a believer, your child is 
 entitled to be presented for baptism, and 
 to be made a participator (so far as man 
 can make it) in all the blessings and pri- 
 
35 
 
 vileges of the gospel. The matter seems 
 to rest thus when viewed in the light of 
 divine truth. If a person be a believer, 
 he has a claim to baptism and other chris- 
 tian privileges for himself and children, 
 " for the promise is to you and to your 
 children." But if a person be not a be- 
 liever, then he has neither part nor lot in 
 the matter ; he cannot claim gospel privi- 
 leges for his children. The simple question 
 then is, How are we to know whether or 
 not men are believers ? The best test we 
 have, and one which seems to have been 
 given us of God, is, whether a man be a 
 consistent communicant, or, in other words, 
 whether he be in consistent and full 
 communion with the church of Christ. 
 Wanting this evidence, where no insur- 
 mountable barrier forbids its manifestation, 
 we have no right to suppose that a man's 
 heart is right before God. Affording this 
 evidence, we have no right to doubt the 
 sincerity of his profession. 
 
36 
 
 II. — There may, however, be various 
 objections thrown out against the proposi- 
 tion I have advanced, and endeavoured to 
 support. Objections not so much to the 
 proposition itself as to the application of 
 it. It may, however, be urged by some 
 as an objection to the proposition itself; 
 that to reject the child, and turn it away 
 from christian baptism, is making it suffer 
 for the demerits of the parents or sponsors. 
 This is apparently a feasible objection ; but 
 we have nothing to do with such objections, 
 however feasible. What is the opinion, 
 and what are the decrees of the church, in 
 which we are solemnly ordained ministers ? 
 Those decrees and that opinion we have 
 deliberately bound ourselves to receive and 
 carry out. And if she require us to reject 
 all sponsors who are not communicants, 
 and thus virtually to refuse baptism to a 
 child thus presented, we must obey, inas- 
 much as we have voluntarily and solemnly 
 agreed to do so. But, above all, what says 
 
37 
 
 the word of God on tins subject. This 
 ought to weigh with us against all objec- 
 tions, however apparently feasible. "We 
 cannot under any pretext compromise or 
 question the authority of this only infal- 
 lible and altogether-binding guide. Are 
 we directly commanded, or by inference 
 taught to baptize the children of un- 
 believing parents ? Most decidedly not ; 
 but on the contrary, we are taught to 
 baptize only believers, and the households 
 of believers. And although it may seem 
 cruel to send away the little helpless child, 
 because its parents or representatives are 
 not believers ; yet it would not be in 
 accordance with Scripture to baptize it. 
 Besides, we do not injure the child when 
 we refuse under these circumstances to 
 baptize it. It is not thereby excluded 
 from any privilege of the visible Church ; 
 because from its age it could not avail 
 itself of any. And when it comes of 
 age, it can then, on its own responsibility, 
 
 D 
 
38 
 
 receive baptism if manifesting itself to be 
 a christian. Nor do we shut the kingdom 
 of heaven against the child's soul ; we 
 Verily believe, that dying under those cir- 
 cumstances, unbaptized, before it come to 
 years of discretion, it shall be saved by 
 the merits of the ever blessed Redeemer. 
 We confidently leave it in his hands, and 
 to the covenanted mercy of God in Christ, 
 Looking at the matter in this reasonable 
 light, the child is no sufferer. It is placed 
 beyond the reach of baptism. Baptism is 
 to be administered under certain specified 
 conditions ; it does not in any way come 
 within those conditions ; therefore we 
 (being unable to widen the limits which 
 God has marked out,) must leave the 
 child in his hands; even as we leave the 
 countless thousands of heathen children 
 in his hands who die in infancy, and we 
 hope are saved, through the merits of 
 Jesus Christ our merciful and all-sufficient 
 Saviour. 
 
39 
 
 2. Again, it may be objected to our 
 proposition, that it is intolerant, perse- 
 cuting, and judging. This charge (if it 
 be a correct one) does not apply to us, 
 but to the word of God, inasmuch as it is 
 a Scriptural proposition, which we have 
 advanced. But we cannot see any justice 
 in the charge. God has a right to stipu- 
 late his own conditions ; he may certainly 
 in this sense do what he will with his own; 
 and if men will not asrree to those condi- 
 tions, they must rest content to be without 
 the benefits. It seems more intolerant of 
 man, himself to treat with despite the pri- 
 vileges and ordinances of religion, and yet 
 claim them for his child. The prerequi- 
 sites must either be in the person to be 
 baptized, or if incapable, in the persons 
 bringing him to be baptized. It is absurd 
 mockery for persons to present themselves 
 for baptism, unless they possess those pre- 
 requisites ; and it is as absurd for persons 
 to present a child for baptism, unless they, 
 
40 
 
 as the representatives of the child, possess 
 the prerequisites. They on the one hand 
 despise the conditions specified by God; 
 and is there anything intolerant or perse- 
 cuting in the fact, that they are refused a 
 participation in the privilege, the condi- 
 tions of which they thus despise? Nor 
 do we harshly judge them in this matter. 
 We go upon a common-place principle, 
 laid down by our Lord, " By their fruits 
 ye shall know them." If they shew this 
 fruit, we do not presume to judge, but 
 receive them. But when the fruit is not 
 manifested, it is but exercising the powers 
 with which God has endowed us, and 
 which he has commanded us to use, to 
 decide upon the quality of the fruitless 
 or worse than fruitless tree. A certain 
 course of conduct is pricked out for every 
 christian in the word of God ; and unless 
 a man live according to this rule, as far 
 as he possibly can, we have no right to 
 esteem him as a christian. Nor is it 
 
41 
 
 excereising an improper judgment over 
 our neighbour to decide upon his state 
 from his conduct. We have no other 
 means of knowing man ; we cannot read 
 his heart ; we must believe his profession 
 if his practice accord therewith. But if 
 the latter contradict the former, then the 
 word of God teaches us to judge from the 
 practical manifestation, rather than the 
 profession. If, therefore, a man be living 
 in the habitual breach of Scripture com- 
 mands, and the constant neglect of chris- 
 tian ordinances, we do not consider him a 
 christian ; and hence we deem him unfit 
 to represent as parent or sponsor a child 
 in baptism. This is not judging in an 
 unchristian manner ; but it is acting ac- 
 cording to the direction of Scripture, and 
 the rule laid down by our Lord. 
 
 3. Again, it may be objected to our 
 proposition, that it may tend to induce 
 people to become communicants from a 
 wrong motive. They might think to 
 
 d 2 
 
42 
 
 themselves, Rather than have my child 
 excluded from baptism, and myself and 
 family thus marked as heathen, I will 
 become a communicant. Such, perhaps, 
 might be the case in some instances; but 
 we have nothing to do with the motives 
 of man ; that is a matter purely between 
 himself and his God. It is certainly a 
 great evil in the christian church, that 
 there should be those within its pale, 
 whose hearts are not right in the sight 
 of God, but it is an evil man cannot 
 remedy; it is permitted by the Lord of 
 the vineyard, and it must remain so until 
 the harvest. Yet we have the power of 
 rejecting from the communion those who 
 are evidently morally unfit (a power we 
 Irave not in connexion with baptism). If 
 a man be doctrinally and morally correct, 
 and thus put himself in full communion 
 with the church, there we must leave the 
 matter ; his heart may not be right, but 
 that we cannot pretend to read. If simply 
 
43 
 
 for the sake of having their children bap- 
 tized or any other wrong motive, parents 
 are induced to become communicants; we 
 may regret the possibility of such a case, 
 but cannot remedy it, so long as their 
 outward conduct is consistent with their 
 profession. On the other hand, however, 
 is it not equally probable that the step we 
 propose, might be the means of leading 
 many careless parents to think seriously. 
 Hitherto neglecting the great ordinances 
 of religion themselves, content simply to 
 have their children christened according 
 to custom, they might, if stopped in this 
 well-beaten path, be aroused to thought. 
 Why (such a parent might ask himself) is 
 my child refused baptism ? Because I am 
 not in full communion with the church of 
 Christ myself ; because, in fact, I am not 
 a christian. This startling truth, thus 
 brought tangibly home to him, might 
 prove a powerful means of good to his 
 immortal soul; by God's grace it might 
 
44 
 
 lead him in truth to join himself to the 
 Lord and the Lord's people. Moreover 
 there are many in whom the true prin- 
 ciples of religion are in a measure latent; 
 and who keep back from the Sacrament 
 from a feeling of timidity or indecision. 
 If the subject were put before them in 
 the light which we have endeavoured to 
 suggest ; if they were thus practically 
 taught the necessity for full communion 
 with the church, not only on their own 
 account, but on their children's ; is it not 
 probable that it might act as a salutary 
 spur, stimulating them to a decided and 
 satisfactory course of conduct ? Thus we 
 should gain an important increase to the 
 list of communicants ; an increase likely 
 to maintain a consistent and open con- 
 fession of Christ before men. By this 
 means there would be brought under the 
 immediate eye of each pastor, those whom 
 he might justly hope were God's people. 
 And the work of a clergyman in assuming 
 
45 
 
 this more definite form, would be of a 
 more satisfactory nature. I would not 
 wish for a moment to place any ordinance 
 of religion, not even the Sacrament itself, 
 in the place of Christ : Christ and Christ 
 alone is the life of the christian's sou], 
 and to him the minister of the gospel 
 must ever point his people. But the ordi- 
 nances of religion, especially the Sacra- 
 ments, are the great streams of grace ; 
 and if the grace be desired and sought 
 after, the ordinances will be frequented ; 
 if the ordinances are not frequented, it 
 is to be feared the grace is not thirsted 
 after. 
 
 4. Again, it may be urged as an objec- 
 tion to our proposition, that it would tend 
 to drive people from communion with the 
 church to dissenting bodies. As an an- 
 swer it might suffice to say, that in fleeing 
 from the difficulty in the church, they 
 would meet with the same difficulty in 
 other religious bodies. The Dissenters, I 
 
46 
 
 believe, are stricter in their admission to 
 baptism than we are. They generally 
 have some bond of union, some definite 
 mark of membership ; and, generally 
 speaking, only those who are thus united 
 to them, take their children to them for 
 baptism. The mass of those around us 
 who are nothing, generally profess that 
 when they go any where, they go to 
 church. And having been brought up 
 to the church, they take their children 
 there for baptism. It is probable that 
 they (if any) would be the parties driven 
 to seek baptism for their children at the 
 hands of Dissenters, if refused by the 
 church. And it is clear that such would 
 be no decided loss to the church, sup- 
 posing they did obtain their object, which, 
 from all we have heard of the discipline 
 of other religions bodies, we have every 
 reason to believe they would not. It 
 would not be wise to drive away any one, 
 
47 
 
 by any means, from communion with the 
 church. We ought rather to seek to win 
 them into closer communion ; but yet we 
 must not sacrifice truth, and compromise 
 our principles, and nullify the Scriptural 
 ordinances of our church, by accommo- 
 dating them to the loose notions of care- 
 less men. Rather let us take a decided 
 position, and know who is on our side and 
 who is not. Nor do I think that any right- 
 minded member of our church would be 
 driven from us by such a reformation as 
 is here proposed. On the contrary, such 
 a course would confirm their adhesion ; 
 give them confidence that the purity of 
 the church was firmly and conscientiously 
 aimed at, and be the best answer to the 
 assailants from without. When the matter 
 was kindly and Scripturally explained by 
 their pastor, and they were shewn in all 
 affection, that unless they gave manifest 
 proof of their Christianity, they had no 
 claim to christian privileges, not even for 
 
48 
 
 their children ; the thing would recom- 
 mend itself to the mind of most men, and 
 might (as we have already hinted) be the 
 means of good to them. I do not think, 
 therefore, that we need fear loss in any 
 way from the adoption of such a plan. 
 "Wholesome discipline is good in every 
 thing. And whilst the discipline of our 
 church is all that could be desired, as to 
 the letter, the carrvin^ out of it has be- 
 come extremely lax. "What can we then 
 do, but watch more carefully than ever 
 the conduct and general bearing of those 
 who profess to belong to us ; whilst at the 
 same time we more strictly and prayer- 
 fully guard the avenues of admission ? 
 And how can this be done ? In reply to 
 this inquiry, we refer to the proposition 
 we have been considering, the spirit of 
 which is, make full communion a more 
 important and necessary point; and espe- 
 cially demand it in the case of sponsors 
 and parents bringing children for baptism. 
 
49 
 
 A question, however, here suggests itself, 
 How can this be brought about ? It is a 
 practical matter ; it does not affect the 
 doctrines of our church, but the practice ; 
 and this is a thing which cannot hastily 
 be altered. Where custom has established 
 a practice, it is difficult to rectify it, how- 
 ever far it may be wrong. The matter 
 before us rests in a great measure in the 
 hands of the bishops and clergy. It is a 
 matter of interpretation. What says the 
 church in whicli we minister ? Do her 
 services and rubrics confirm our proposi- 
 tion ? If so, then we are bound to act 
 upon it. The prefatory remarks attached 
 to the Book of Common Prayer direct the 
 clergy, in doubtful matters, to apply to 
 their bishop ; and if he be in doubt, then 
 the archbishop is to resolve the point. If, 
 therefore, there be a doubt in the mind of 
 the clergy, on the subject now before us, 
 let their respective bishop or archbishop 
 decide it. If there be no doubt (I think 
 
50 
 
 there can be none), then let the intention 
 of our church, inasmuch as it is Scriptural, 
 be carried out. And let all be rejected 
 as sponsors and representatives of a child 
 in baptism, who are not in full communion 
 with the church. 
 
NEW WORKS, 
 
 SOLD Br 
 
 THOMAS ANDERSON AND SON, 
 
 58, KING STREET, MANCHESTER. 
 
 I. 
 
 iEsop's Fables ; a New Version, by the Rev. Thomas 
 James, M.A., with 100 Original Wood Cuts, by John 
 Tenniel, 12mo, 2s. 6d. 
 
 II. 
 Little Things, eighth thousand, 9d. 
 
 III. 
 
 Memoir and Remains of the Rev. J. Harrington Evans, 
 edited by his Son, 8vo, 12s., cloth. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Aunt Edith ; or, Love to God the Best Motive, a Book 
 for the Young, 18mo, 3s. 
 
 V. 
 
 The Morning Watches, by the Author of " The Faithful 
 Promiser," 8d. sewed, Is. cloth. 
 
 VI. 
 
 Carlington Castle, by the Author of " The Curate of 
 Linwood, "Amy Harrington," &c, 6s. 
 
11, 
 
 VII. 
 
 The Evening Book ; or, Fireside Stories, by John Aiken, 
 Plates, 3s. 6d. 
 
 VIII. 
 Visiting my Relations, and its Results, foolscap, 6s. 
 
 IX. 
 
 Companions of My Solitude, foolscap, 6s. 
 
 X. 
 
 Far Off, a Sequel to " Near Home," by the Author of 
 " Line upon Line," 5s. 
 
 XI. 
 
 The Riches that Bring no Sorrow, by the Rev. Erskine 
 Neale, M.A. 
 
 XII. 
 
 The Desert Home ; or, The Adventures of a Lost Family 
 in the Wilderness, by Captain Mayne Reid, 7s. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 Amy Wilton ; or, Lights and Shades of Christian Life, 
 by Emma Jane Worboise, Author of "Alice Cunning- 
 ham," &c, 4s. 6d. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 Eda Morton and her Cousins, third edition, 6s. 
 
 XV. 
 
 Light in the Dwelling ; or, Readings at Family Prayers, 
 by the Author of " Peep of Day," sixth thousand, 
 8s. 6d. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 Carlyle's Life of John Sterling, 10s. 6d. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 Story of Nineveh, Intended for the Young, by the 
 Author of " The Faithful Promiser," Is., fancy bds. 
 
 xvm. 
 
 The Use of Sunshine ; a Christian Narrative, by S. M., 
 Author of " The Story of a Family," 6s. 
 
Ill 
 
 XIX. 
 
 Wide, Wide World ; or, Early History of Ellen Mont - 
 gomery, edited by a Clergyman of the Church of 
 England, 2 vols., 12s. 
 
 XX. 
 Foreshadows ; or, Lectures on the Parables, by John 
 Cumming, D.D. 
 
 XXI. 
 Lectures on the Miracles of our Lord, by the same, 9s. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 Montague Stanley, Life of; by Rev. D. T. K. Drummond, 
 
 second edition, Plates. 
 %* The best practical argument against the Theatre 
 ever written. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 Blunt's Undesigned Coincidences of Scripture, 8vo, 9s- 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 Houlston's Tracts — Narrative Series. 
 
 Old Testament ditto. 
 
 New ditto ditto. 
 
 On the Parables. 
 
 Kyle's Tracts, thirteen in number, 2d. each, 
 Kennedy's Packets of Little Books. 
 Groom's ditto ditto. 
 
 Sherwood's ditto ditto. 
 
 Nesbit & Co.'s Tracts 
 Wonston ditto. 
 
 Watton ditto.