ever you have already done, apply your discourse according to my resolution and judgment. As for the Irish, I assure you, they shall not cheat me, but it is possible they may cozen themselves; for be assured, what I have refused to the English, I will not grant to the Irish rebels, never trusting to that kind of people (of what nature soever) more than I see by their actions. And I am sending to Ormond such a dispatch, as I am sure will please you and all honest men, a copy whereof by the next opportunity you shall have. Lastly, be confident I would not have put you, nor myself to the trouble of this Letter, had I not a great estimation of you. And a full confidence of your friendship. To your, &c. C. R.

Cardiff, August, 1645.

To the Editor of the Remembrancer.

SIR,

A BOOK has lately been published, entitled "Body and Soul," the object of which is to explain familiarly the doctrines of the Church of England, and to point out the er. rors of (what are called) Evange. lical opinions. The intention is doubtless laudable, as many will be induced to read a work of this description, who would reject a formal treatise on the several subjects there discussed. Encouraged by the reception which his first volume has met, the Author has ventured on the publication of a second, with the view of increasing his examples of the good effects of the doctrines of the Church, when correctly stated, and vice versa. In pursuing this end, he has, however, fallen into an error which every sound member of our Church must regret, inasmuch as it is calculated to convey a very incorrect idea of the manner in which our final salvation is to be effected. At the conclusion of the chapter, entitled "the Sui. cide," he has the following passage; the Curate" felt, what he had often preached, and thought, that whilst

the Christian unfearingly meets his end, and relying upon the merits of the Saviour to be imputed to him," &c. &c. Now it will be evident to you, on the bare perusal, that the expression, "relying on the merits of the Saviour," to be imputed to him, is altogether unwarranted by any passage of Scripture, or by the formularies of our Church. Indeed it would be difficult to understand what the expression is intended to convey, were it not that it is so commonly in the mouths of our (as they are called) Evangelical preachers, and that we repeatedly hear other terms used synonymously, which serve to explain it; such as the " application of Christ's righteousness," and the being clothed in Christ's righ

66

teousness."

One would have thought that the Author of "Body and Soul," had been too well acquainted with Evangelical preaching and practices, to have used the expression of which I speak. From the manner in which he has used the word "imputed,” it will be impossible, I think, to understand by it, any thing but a transfer of Christ's perfect righteousness to the sinner, to fit him for admission into the kingdom of bliss. Now if this be intended, I do not hesitate to assert, that it has no such signification in either the Old or New Testament. It is never used to signify that the sin or righteousness of one man is transferred to another. It is spoken of a man's own acts. Thus Abraham believed, and it (his faith) was imputed to him for righteousnessxas λyon autų sis dixalooumv. Rom. iv. 3. and Gen. xv. 6. "It is extremely evident," says Whitby, "that it is the very act of faith, and not the object of it, viz. Christ's righteousness, which was imputed to Abraham, and is imputed to us for righteousness." In 2 Cor. v. 19. "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them”—μ» λογιζόμενος αυτοις τα παραπτώματα αυτών

In 2 Tim. iv. 16. St. Paul complains, "at my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me : I pray God that it (viz. their forsaking him) may not be laid to their charge," or, not imputed to them -μη αυτοις λογισθείη. And in Psalm xxxii. 2. "Blessed, is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity," i. e. " the sin he hath committed." (Whitby's Paraphrase, Rom. iv. 8.) I could produce other pas sages to the same effect, but these are sufficient for my purpose.

We are taught by Scripture and our Church, not to plead even our best endeavours after holiness, as of any merit or deserving, but to intreat their acceptance, only through the merits and intercession of Christ, who died on the cross to redeem us from the curse under which all mankind were concluded, and from the sins of which we have repented. But neither of them assert that we are made righteous by the transfer, application, or imputation of Christ's righteousness to us. Indeed, the inferences deducible from such a doctrine are appalling. What, for instance, would become of the doctrine of future rewards proportionate to the measure of our obedience, if, rejecting that as the condition of our acceptance, we appear clad in the righteousness of Christ, viz. a perfect unsinning obedience? Should we not all be entitled to the same degree of glory which Christ himself enjoys, by virtue of his own merits? And would not the inculcation of such a doctrine be the means of retarding, rather than advancing, that holiness of life and integrity of character which are so unequivocally required of its followers, by the Gospel of Christ?

Surely then, I may be allowed to hope, that if these remarks should meet the eye of the Author of "Body and Soul," he will correct the objectionable passage, by omitting the words" to be imputed to him," in a future edition.

I trust he will receive these obser

May 18, 1824.

W. T.

To the Editor of the Remembrancer. SIR,

THE Observations which appeared some time since in a Number of the Christian Remembrancer, with respect to the New Marriage Act, are, in my opinion, worthy of the serious attention of the Legislature, and I trust that they will not fail to meet with due consideration during the next Session of Parliament.

Though the new act is unquestionably an improvement on the old one, and is calculated to render the Ministers of the Gospel more fully acquainted with their duties previous to the publication of Banns in the parish church, yet no one can deny that it has some imperfections, and is not sufficiently expla natory. Your correspondent, Cler. Cantii, has very judiciously endea voured to lay down, as a rule to be observed with respect to residence previous to the publication of Banns, that a dwelling of fifteen days should be required; but I am at a loss to fix in my own mind, what construction can safely be put on the word "dwelling," and what can conscientiously be considered as residing within a parish, during such publication.

I shall feel much obliged if any of your correspondents can satisfactorily answer this question; and should I be so fortunate as to meet with a proper solution of the term, "dwelling in a parish," I trust, tha the explanation afforded may be of some service to my Brother Clergymen as well as to myself.

I remain, Mr. Editor,
Your faithful Servant,

Friday, May 24, 1824. ̧

V. H.

several rites, two of which are holy ordinances instituted by our Lord; the other a religious rite which, although it does not rank with the sacraments of the Christian church, serves to most useful purposes, and constitutes one part of the discipline provided in the Christian household.

And first, then, we may remark, that it has been the practice of the Church, from the first ages, to admit the children of believing parents to the privileges of the Christian covenant. This practice has been grounded, not upon the rules of custom only and discretion; it has been followed in compliance with our Lord's own purpose and directions, where they have been justly taken to extend to the children of his household. The practice is indeed conformable to scripture testimonies, both with reference to past example and to general observance. From the pages of both Testaments, we learn upon what reasons, and by what methods, the children of those who are united by the bond of faith, and by the joint participation of religious worship, were admitted, in all times, into covenant with God.

Thus the Scripture teaches, that the children of Jewish parents who were subject to the law, were admitted into covenant with God by circumcision: and nothing, I conceive, can be more clear, than that under the Gospel dispensation, the sacrament of baptism was instituted by our Lord for similar designs with the former rite of circumcision. It is calculated for admitting persons of all ages and all countries into covenant with God, according to the tenders of his grace, and the pledges of his mercy, in Christ Jesus. With out doubt then, circumcision having been administered to children by divine appointment, baptism, which succeeded into its place, and which serves for a similar intent, may be administered to children. They that would set aside this precedent, so clear, so full, and so entirely applicable to all ages of the world, should prove their negative by some plain word of repeal. There is not the same necessity, on our part; to produce a positive injunction for the rule of practice in this matter, because the known and universal usage of the Church of God in all times, together with the perpetual reasons for it, stand so plainly on our side, and plead so forcibly on this behalf. But this usage is not traced to circumcision only;

whenever God calls his people to covenant with him, this is his language"Ye stand, this day, all of you before the Lord; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel; your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger (the proselyte) that is in thy camp, from the hewer of wood unto the drawer of thy water: that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God; and into his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day; that he may establish thee to-day for a people unto himself;"-and that we may know that this engagement may be made also in the name of others, and in their behalf; it follows, "neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath, but with him that standeth here with us this day before the Lord our God; and also with him that is not here with us this day." With what reason, then, can we possibly suppose that the little ones of Christ's flock should be left in a worse state than the children of God's household in all times were; or that the Gospel should withhold from them indulgences which every former dispensation of the Lord conferred?

But a difference is urged between the covenants; the spiritual privilege is denied to Israel, and on that ground the pattern is disputed. We have removed this cavil by shewing, generally, that when God called his people to him, promising to be their God, their children were included in the call: and where God promises to be the God and Guardian of his people, who shall exclude the spiritual privilege? Did our Lord do this when he made that memorable answer-" Have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;"-their God, not for food and raiment and for this life, but for ever? Will any man pretend to say that the church of Israel was no part of that kingdom which God had appointed for his Son, and that the grounds of privilege are therefore quite dissimilar in these several dispensations? Why then does our Lord speak of Abraham as "rejoicing to see his day?" Why is it called "the reproach of Christ," which Moses underwent in Egypt? Why does St. Paul recite that long list of those who overcame the world by faith? Why are they said " to look for a city which hath a foundation, whose builder and maker is God?" Impossible it is,

then, to draw a negative which shall exclude the child of the believer, and to fasten such exclusion on a change of privileges under diverse dispensations which had God for their author; which had spiritual blessings, secret or declared, derived from one common source of succour and salvation in Christ Jesus, in whose name the faithful in all ages, and the dutiful in every land, shall find their acceptance before God.

But we know further, that our Lord commanded that the children should be brought to him, reproving those who shewed an inclination to withhold them. He spake distinctly at that time, not indeed of baptism, but of the fitness of the little ones for his kingdom: and who then shall disqualify them; or how shall they be brought to Christ and made the subjects of his kingdom, in successive ages, but by baptism?

When St. Paul told his converts that they were now engrafted into that vine from which the Jewish branch, barren of faith, was broken off, and yet that both Jew and Gentile who believe, should make one holy offering to the Lord, certain it is, that he could never think of leaving out the children of the Gentile stock, where the Jewish child had ever been included. Accordingly, when the same apostle advised the believing consort in the marriage bond, not to forsake an heathen mate, he gives this as one reason: "Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." Of what does the apostle speak here, but of federal holiness; of the privileges of the covenant of which he thus declares the child of the believer to be capable. The danger was, that if the believing parent should leave the unbeliever, the children might be left too, without the blessings of the covenant; the heathen parent might detain them, and withhold them from the font of baptism. We appeal to the uniform acknowledged phrase of Scripture, to determine the true meaning of our Lord's apostle in that testimony, and to shew that he speaks distinctly of holiness to the Lord, by the influences of divine grace, conveyed according to their respective needs, to all those who are the members of his church. There is but one evasion of this testimony, and that rests upon an application of the word "holy," which never once occurs in all the volume of the Scriptures.

Again, we read of whole families

which were baptized together in the days of the apostles. Is it reasonable to suppose that in such households there were none of tender years? Here again it is much more necessary for opponents to prove the negative, than for us to hold affirmatively what the known usage of the church of God so plainly warrants, leading us directly to conclude, that if there were infants in such households, they were undoubtedly received by baptism.

How anxious and how comfortless would be the last thoughts of the dying parent for his children, if it should be left uncertain when they should be received to baptism, or whether that good day should ever come. How much more cheerful is the hope of him, and ́ how much more consolatory his reflection, who shall leave surviving children in possession of that happy privilege and how great is the advantage of the child who is thus held by an early tie, and not left to a wayward will, or exposed to the snares perhaps of evil comrades, with no fixed and certain moment for his reception to the Christian fold. How does it fare frequently with things which are left to no fixed rule of time or season? are they well observed?

We may now pass on to remark, that the children of believers being thus admitted to the state of grace by baptism, and being unable at that early age to answer for themselves, or to bind themselves to keep the conditions of the Christian covenant, this engage ment is made for them by the mouths' of others. The peculiar office therefore of those first friends of the young, who are the sponsors for them at their baptism, comes next to be considered. It demands attention more especially because of some prejudices which we sometimes have to combat on this head, and because of some gross improprieties of practice which are grounded on those prejudices, where care is not taken to prevent them. We may remark, then, that this practice also appears to have its warrant in the usage of the Church of God in Israel. The sponsors whom the rules of the Christian Church require, become in some sense the guardians of the young in their spiritual concerns. Is it demanded why the parent may not take this office for the child? Such a substitution is not frequently attempted, in full contradiction to the rules of discipline, and the reasons upon which