on the part of the church, towards those who are baptized, as there is on the part of parents in presenting their children for baptism. Our children are baptized. How much are they taught as to the peculiar privileges the ordinance implies, and its peculiar obligations? How often are they, in any way separated from others by a reference to this distinction? How much care do they suppose the church has for them. How often are they appealed to, by their baptismal vows and duties? How much is this made a means of Christian influence and culture in their younger years? What recognition is made of their baptismal relation, at any subsequent period of their Christian, or their natural life? If our baptized children are practically neglected, as such, by the churches,-if they are as much as others, aliens to the commonwealth of Israel,-strangers and outcasts from the special love and care and watchfulness of the church,— if they have no part nor lot in her, if their baptism is ignored practically, until they come to make a public profession of their faith,-here is one reason for the decline of the ordinance. An ordinance which means nothing, does nothing, effects nothing,-why it may as well be postponed, until its administration can signify and accomplish something. If the church disregards her own ordinances, why should she wonder that they sink into neglect, or even contempt?

There is another class of influences which help on the bad tendencies, before spoken of. We mean the undue individualism of the times, characteristic of our own country, and developing itself in all our public and social relations. We tend to an excessive isolation, and the setting forth of each man, in his separate personality; to the disregard, too much of the relations in which God has placed him. This is to a great degree, the working power of our Christianity; our philosophy, our theology, our theories, our activities, go upon this principle. No doubt we seek combined action; but it is the combination of separate particles, proceeding from free choice, and in which every particle keeps its individuality, rather than the working of a system, in relations which God has constituted, and under a power which he has established. This individualizing tendency undoubtedly is founded upon a truth: as a principle it has great energy and produces great results. It puts men under the power of personal responsibility, sets them face to face with personal duty, and brings them for themselves into the presence of God, by whom they will be individually judged. But may it not be carried too far? Pressing this isolating individualizing tendency, we forget the principle, also of vast importance, that God has set men in communities, and placed them in relations, and that the influences which proceed from these relations are as potent, as they are divinely constituted. In individual responsibility, we may forget social responsibility; in individual power, we forget organic power. In exclusive regard to the man, we overlook the family, and the church; and while we seek to set forth every man, in his independent, individual life, we forget that there is a life of the family, and of the church, too, through which the most important earthly and spiritual blessings are conveyed. Our men stand separate, sharply defined, bristling with individual points, and facing on all sides against any influences which do not spring from, and are not controlled by their own will. But God designed that character should be

affected very largely by other causes, and be moulded by social and organic influences.

The effects are obvious in many directions. They produce a spirit and feeling adverse to the principles involved in infant baptism. The theory which rejects it is a theory in consistence with, if it is not the offspring of, this excessive individualism. As to the church; if she has no forming, moulding power, no rights over the children of her members, why seem to acknowledge them in any way, until they reach years, when in their sovereign self-hood, they may open her gate for themselves, and enter in. As to the ministry; if their whole business is to bring adults into subjection to the truth by their spontaneous action, and nothing is to be accomplished by culture and training,-why urge the observance of an ordinance which seems to imply the antecedent obligation to walk in the ways of truth, and to develop into the nurture and admonition of the Lord? As to the parents; falling in with the natural unwillingness to meet the religious responsibilities of that relation,-alas! we fear that in many cases, this repugnance is of itself enough to produce a distaste for this sacrament, these views will excuse and even justify the neglect of baptism. They weaken the sense of parental obligation, to form the child to the service of God. They lead in their ultimate results to the harboring of that foolish, as well as wicked suggestion, that the exercise of the freedom of the child is not to be anticipated, until he can choose his religion for himself; that is, until he can choose whether he will be a child of the devil, or a child of God. The hope of infantile, or even youthful piety, is almost stifled. Why then subject the child to an ordinance whose spirit and meaning lie in another sphere? Then neglect reacts, and too often, children who ought to be embraced in the bonds of the covenant, and of parental and church influence, are permitted, even expected, to go their way, until by some special interposition of God's providence and grace, they are turned back into his ways, from which they ought never to have wandered. Hence, likewise, parents and even the church will throw off upon others, not clothed with their divine responsibility, the religious culture of their children. Hence, it may even be suggested, that the ordinance of baptism may be repeated, when the subject of it has reached an age, at which he can act for himself; since he had no agency in its previous administration; which was indeed well enough, as an act of the parents, but meant nothing, as to the child. Indeed, it may then come to be said, that the ordinance may be repeated as often as one chooses thus to consecrate himself to God. Absurdities like these, are the ultimate fruits of these individualizing theories. They are without doubt one fertile cause of the growing neglect of infant baptism.

III. We may now, in the third place, meet directly, the question proposed; how may the better observance of infant baptism be secured! The Committee feel the difficulty of advising any specific measures in the case. If they have, to any degree rightly stated the causes of its decline, the answer will readily be, there must be a change in the sentiments and feelings of the churches in regard to it. Attention must be awakened; errors must be corrected; the obligations and meaning of the ordinance must be brought home to the minds of the people and of the

ministers.

Whenever there is a general conviction that it is a duty, and not only a duty, but a great privilege, to offer children in baptism, then the right will be gladly and faithfully observed. To produce this conviction, is the means of remedying the evil, now prevalent.

This is to be done, mainly, through the patient and steady inculcation of the truth. Let the ministry, from a hearty impression of the value of the ordinance, instruct their people in regard to it. Let them believe, and therefore speak; let them feel its power and beauty, and then tell others of it. It is not for the best effect, ordinarily, to present the subject simply in a controversial light. Little is usually gained in this way. Let the doctrine be taught to the heart and the conscience; not dryly, to the mere intellectual conviction. We venture to suggest that the administration of the ordinance should be attended in as comely a manner as possible. Let all its surroundings be quickened with the spirit and pathos of the sacrament. We do not advocate any ecclesiastical foppery, or ostentatious display. But if the administration of infant baptism be thrust into some unfrequented place and time,—if it be hurried through in a meaningless and unfeeling way, the service must go into contempt. Let all things here be done decently and in order; let the tender associations belonging to the occasion be called up, and, if possible, let not the parents only, but the minister and the church feel that they have some share in the transaction.

It is implied in these remarks that the ministry of the Congregational churches, whatever may be their differences of opinion on specific points, are yet settled in the conviction of the obligation of this ordinance. Of course councils should not admit to the pastorship of churches, those who cannot accept the principles of their faith and order. To place an anti-pedobaptist over a pedobaptist church, would be no more wise, than to commit its supervision to one who believed in baptismal regeneration and a bishop:-that is, if we expected or desired the church to stand in the faith of our fathers. While it must thus be left chiefly to the ministry to reform the sentiment of the churches, we may advert to some principles on which the proper observance of this ordinance largely depends. Some of these have been already indicated, and it will therefore be the less necessary to dwell upon them.

We must then, in the first place, give due weight to the divinely constituted relation between parents and children, in the religious life. Christianity recognizes this relation, meets it with special promises and blessings, and employs it largely in the spread of religion. Too much can scarcely be said of the power and responsibility involved in the family constitution. Every thoughtful parent must feel that to a great degree, the moral and spiritual welfare of his children for time and eternity depends upon him as much, perhaps more, than their temporal comfort and success. By influences often unthought of, by words, looks, acts, by the whole tone of their lives, parents are forming and moulding their children's character. They ought to be conscious of this solemn responsibility.

Now, the ordinance of infant baptism should be connected with this fact. This parental relation, this family power, is of the very essence of this sacrament: it gives it its life. It is designed to hold up and to impress this responsibility. Infant baptism is the sign that Christianity

acknowledges and adopts this organic power. But to encourage to the observance of the ordinance, it may be presented, especially, as a most suitable expression of the true parental feeling. It is the very act, in which the child is given to God; in which this solemn responsibility is acknowledged before God, and divine assistance implored for the right discharge of these duties. If the meaning of the rite were exhausted in this aspect of consecration,-which is far from being true,-this would furnish a strong argument for its observance. Its language, to even father and mother, themselves in the faith of the Gospel, is, come and place this child under the sheltering wing of God's protection, and seek from him in return grace to train it up in goodness and piety. It is just the symbolical expression of our Lord's tender words, "Suffer little children to come unto me." We do not wonder that among those who reject infant baptism, the opinion should be sometimes expressed, that some solemn service of consecration of the children of pious parents, might be very appropriate, and affecting, and even useful. We do wonder sometimes that parents, themselves thus devoted to God in infancy, and who have been taught the truth as to infant baptism, should hold back their children from its privileges. We do wonder, whether the heart of many a pious mother who neglects the rite, does not yearn for the comfort of hope and strength for duty, which may rightly be derived from such an act. If the recognition of the family relation in Christianity were impressed upon the minds of the people, it would be likely to awaken a feeling which would find expression in infant baptism. It would help to rot away these individualizing theories, which lower and nullify the ordinance. It would anticipate that objection, so unreasonable and unscriptural, and yet so often urged, and so influential, what good does it do to sprinkle an unconscious child?

Another principle, the full acceptance of which will promote infant baptism, is, that faithful parental training is a great means to secure the piety of the children of the church. We go further, and say it is the principal means, the ordinary means, by which the children of pious parents are to be brought to the saving knowledge of Christ. Every one will recall here the words of Baxter, as true and as needful now as when he wrote them: "a godly education is God's first and ordinary appointed means, for the begetting of actual faith and other graces in the children of believers." So too, Edwards: "family education and order are some of the chief means of grace." When we speak of training, we do not of course mean mere intellectual instruction in the knowledge of the truth; we include all those influences by which the heart of the child is affected, as well as his mind informed. We speak of that culture which springs from the life of faith in the soul of the parent, and is accompanied with faithful prayer for the divine blessing. Is it true, that pious education and parental fidelity, are God's ordinary means for the conversion of the children of the church? Then how important are family religion, and the proper spiritual culture of the young? This principle lays a foundation for the hope, the expectation, that by the renewing grace of God, blessing this parental training, the child will come upon the stage of action a child of God, rather than an alien. It points in a direction which strongly encourages parental fidelity.

-

The proper recognition of this truth, would lead, both directly and indirectly, to the observance of infant baptism; and so, on the other hand, the ordinance will help the careful performance of the duty. The influence is mutual. Chalmers says: "the sense of the responsibility" which baptism expresses, and lays upon parents, "has given a mighty impulse to the cause of Christian education. It is well that there should be a sacrament, whose place is at the period of infancy, and the obligation of which is felt, by the conscience of him whose business it is to develop and to guard and to mature the yet unawakened sensibilities" of the child. He adds: “this sacrament rears a security around the birth of every immortal; it is a guide and guardian by the cradle of the infant spirit; and from this presiding eminence it has done much to sustain the faith of the Gospel from generation to generation." On the other hand, the sense of this solemn responsibility in the parental heart, and the obligation to bring up the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, will find a natural expression in the ordinance. The heart of the parent will welcome it: for while it seals the responsibility, it points to the power by which the end is to be secured.

But the principal means for promoting the observance of infant baptism, is the inculcation of the doctrine of the covenant. Here we find the basis for a right view of infant baptism. As it furnishes the great argument for its validity, so the clear apprehension of the covenant will greatly tend to secure the better observance of the ordinance. Regarded simply as a consecration ordinance, baptism does not take so strong a hold, however beautiful and appropriate it may seem, as when it is connected with a divinely ordered system. "Baptism is ordained to be unto the party baptized a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace." This covenant is the foundation of the church. Brought into special form in the transaction between God and Abraham, the father of the faithful,-it continues as the basis of the church to the present day. This covenant was made with Abraham for himself and his posterity. God never made a covenant with his people in any age, in which children were not included. The great object of this covenant, was, "to make provision for the continuance of the church formed by it, and the transmission of the blessing contained in it. The promises of the covenant comprised all the blessings and privileges ever promised to believers, and to the church." It is our faith that the children of believers are included in this covenant as well as their parents. The God of the fathers promises to become the God of the children. He binds them likewise by solemn obligation to be his. Admit that the promise is general, and that there are specific exceptions; though this is not conceded perhaps by all. Admit too that the promise is conditional; or, that the transmission of piety from generation to generation, in any special line, depends upon the fidelity of parental culture. Still the fact stands that the covenant is made with the parents, and through the parents with the child, by divine authority. The child is thus introduced into the covenant of grace, bound by all its obligations, and offered all its privileges; and of this covenant baptism is the token and the seal. As it connects the parent, so it connects the child with the life and the promises of the visible church; and in the diligent use of prayerful religious culture,