of those Acts; and further, by so doing, they give an implied recognition of the validity both of Jewish and Quaker marriages.

Now we believe that no Churchman will be found to offer the slightest objection to the extension of this privilege and exemption to the Protestant Dissenters of the Unitarian persuasion. By this mode of relief, the legislature will escape the reproach and the danger of separating, by detailed enactment, the civil contract and the religious solemnity, or of converting the established priesthood into the hireling agents and registrars of dissenting laymen. They will in effect tell these separatists to solemnize their own marriages in their own way; without inquiring, indeed, whether or not that way involves any religious solemnity; but still without giving any positive and explicit sanction to the absence of all religion from the marriage contract. They will thus effectually relieve the consciences of one party, without offending the religious feelings or principles of the other; and without the hazard of an experiment which may be injurious to public virtue and piety.

But here arise two important questions:-1. In what language is this exemption to be conveyed, and in what terms are persons entitled to it to be described? 2. How is the legislature to be satisfied that this indulgence can be conceded without great danger of a return of those inconveniences which the Marriage Act was intended to remedy?

1. With regard to the first of these questions, it is obvious that much consideration will be requisite in framing a legal description of the persons to be entitled to marry after a fashion of their own choosing. If the privilege is granted to the "Protestant Dissenters of the Unitarian persuasion," the same indulgence will, most infallibly, be expected by the "Church of God meeting in London, and known as Freethinking Christians." If both are to be included, it is most probable that the Arians of all gradations, high, low, and middling, will think themselves entitled to the same considerations; and if the claim of all these classes be allowed, we do not see how the Deists can be well excluded; for they, too, may plead their belief in one God, and their consternation at hearing themselves blessed in the name of three! What ingenuity, then, can frame a description which shall embrace these various denominations of belief or unbelief? We fear that Lord Eldon must continue to look in vain to the Reverend Bench of Bishops for help in this emergency! He will ask for a definition or a description, and they must be compelled to answer by a lecture or a dissertation; and, between them, how the work of legislation is to get on, we confess ourselves unable to divine!

With regard to the Jews and Quakers, the Parliament had no such difficulty to contend with. The Jews could no more be mistaken than Mahometans or Hindoos; and the Quakers were a Society standing

out in such distinct relief from the general body of Christians, that no ambiguity whatever could possibly arise from a grant of exemption conveyed to them by their popular name. But we are quite at a loss to comprehend how a clause is to be drawn up, to satisfy all parties likely to feel interested in the present measure, unless it be in terms large enough to comprehend every human being of every denomination, who has any doubts respecting the doctrine of the Trinity. And it should be carefully kept in mind, that this remark is just as forcibly applicable to the Bill now pending, as to the method we are at present considering.

2. Supposing, however, this difficulty to be at once conquered, and an adequate description of this multiform recusancy and dissent to have been obtained, what security would the public have against the mischiefs of improper and clandestine marriage among the multitudes entitled to the benefit of the exemption? This, again, is a difficulty not felt in the case of the Jews. The legislature was scarcely more interested in preventing clandestine matches among them, than among the inhabitants of Vienna or Madrid. And as for the Quakers, it was well known that their marriages were solemnized with such precautions as to render stolen matches next to impossible.* But no such satisfactory view can surely be taken by the legislature, when they look forward attentively to the consequences of extending a similar indulgence to the anomalous bodies who are likely to apply for it.

The Freethinking Church of God, indeed, contend, that they are an ancient and venerable Society of thirty years' standing, separate and distinct from all other religious communities; and that their discipline and church government are such as offer to the legislature ample securities against the performance of unlawful or clandestine marriages.† Of this we are, of course, unable to judge. If, however, this be so, there can, we imagine, be no objection to their enjoying the same exemption as Jews and Quakers from the provisions of the Marriage Act.

To conclude: though we certainly are unable to see our way through these various difficulties, we do fervently hope that the wisdom of the legislature will be able to extricate itself from the labyrinth. Resources, which we are unable to discern, may open themselves to thosę who are practically conversant with the arduous sciences of law and of legislation. To the attention of such persons we heartily recommend this most important question. Our own views of the subject may be summed up in three words:-We should be most unwilling to see the matrimonial contract degraded by legislative enactment to a mere civil transaction; but if it must, in any case, be so degraded, we should wish that the performance of it should be altogether secular, * See Christian Remembrancer for December, 1827, p. 750.

+ See their Petition, Christian Remembrancer for December, 1827, p. 752-755.

from the beginning to the end, without the service or intervention of the established Clergy. We should, however, infinitely prefer that repose should be given to uneasy consciences, simply by an extension of the exemption from the Marriage Act; and we shall be heartily concerned and disappointed if that measure should turn out to be impracticable.

ART. II.-Infant Baptism the means of National Reformation, according to the Doctrine and Discipline of the Established Church, in Nine Letters to a Friend. By HENRY BUDD, M. A. Chaplain of Bridewell Hospital, Minister of Bridewell Precinct, and Rector of White Roothing, Essex. Seeley and Hatchard.

THOSE who have always cordially acquiesced both in the letter and the spirit of the baptismal service of our Church will be inclined to say on reading this work, magna est veritas, et prævalebit. It comes from the pen of Mr. Budd, certainly an unprejudiced witness in the cause; and it is primarily addressed to those

Who estimate the privileges and efficacy of baptism as low and inoperative; they rather consider it as an introduction into a professing Church, than as accompanied with any real spiritual blessings to the baptized, as admitted into the communion of saints. Their faith in the promise issues in no corresponding practice in the education of the child. They cannot so much be said to doubt as to forget that God has received the infant, that he has regenerated him with his Holy Spirit, that he has received him for his own child by adoption, and incorporated him into his holy Church; and that they have given God hearty thanks for the same. They do not consider the child as thus regenerated, adopted, incorporated, and therefore they do not plead the promise for a blessing on their education of him as devoted to God, or call upon him, as one invested with so high privileges, as a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, to walk worthy of his high calling. Neither baptismal blessings nor baptismal vows are distinctly presented to the mind of the child, and his baptism has no practical purpose. Even these pious parents make no demand on the spiritual superintendence of the sponsors of the child; even pious sponsors acknowledge no obligation of this spiritual superintendence: the child grows up without any consciousness of his baptismal enjoyments or privileges; and the Church, not merely the professing, but the spiritual Church, neither hopes nor fears on account of the child, and consequently exercises no faith in the promise, and presents no prayers for its accomplishment towards him. thus, even among the pious, baptism is little more than a dead letter, promises without plea for their fulfilment-vows without concern to discharge them—a ceremony acquitting them from any subsequent interest; a sign signifying nothing.-P. 11-13.

And

Such will undoubtedly be the effect of low views concerning the sacrament of baptism; of doctrines upon that important subject inconsistent with those of our Church. And accordingly the primary object of Mr. Budd's treatise is to show, that neglect of baptismal duties and contempt of baptismal privileges are the cause of the unchristian appearance which a christian community too generally presents; and to prove, on the other hand, that

Were we but consistent churchmen, did we but adhere to this system of education laid down by our Church, beginning with the simple devotion of the child to God, and training him up in the way that he should go with a just confidence on the divine promise for success in our endeavours, we might then sow, in hope that the holy principles of his childhood would with growing years be formed into holy habits, and that when he was old he would not depart from them.-P. 14.

If we ask then, How are the benefits of infant baptism to be secured, so as to answer the ends of a holy education? we answer, from faith in the general promises made to believing parents in behalf of their children, and particularly in the promises made at the celebration of this sacrament to all who partake of it in faith. And these relate to the PARENTS-the SPONSORS-the INFANT baptized-and the CHURCH.-P. 20.

Respecting the PARENTS.

On looking into the page of Scripture, and observing the general practice of the Church in all ages, from the early covenant of God with Abraham and all his faithful posterity, both Jew and Gentile, the parent will learn, to his inexpressible satisfaction, that as God has given a promise of grace to believers and their children after them, so he has uniformly afforded them the richest assurance of the blessing, by appointing a particular sacrament for the initiatory ingrafting of such children into his Church, as the means of actually conveying the blessing, and as a sign and seal and pledge to assure every believer of the same.

While believing parents contemplate their child as born in sin, and therefore the child of wrath, it must be their most anxious inquiry, how can this child stand before God without the imputation of sin, and be assured of restoration to his favour? and they will see that God has done this, for the comfort of believers, by the sacrament of Circumcision under the Law, and by the sacrament of Baptism under the Gospel: and that while the seal of ratification has been altered from the blood of circumcision to the more merciful water of baptism, the blessing has equally been conferred by promise, and not by any mere act or observance of law, whether under the law or under the gospel.-P. 31-33.

This view will fully authorise every faithful man to present his child at the font, with an assured confidence in the promise of a gracious God, that his child is there sealed as a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven.-P. 60.

How different a character does education assume, with repect to the parents' part, when conducted under this sense of baptismal obligations! A new class of motives is applied, and a positive attainment of holiness is expected. This Christian parent looks upon his child really as a member of Christ, endeavours to invest him with all the privileges to which he is entitled as a child of God; and considers that he has an unquestionable title to the inheritance of glory. For this his whole education is intended to qualify him, even to make him meet to be a partaker of the inheritance with the saints in light.

Only let us substitute the constraining sweetness of the baptismal promise for the dry authority of the legal precept, and as the principle savours of the mercy of the gospel, the conduct it produces will be the holiness of the gospel.-P. 67.

We are next introduced to the SPONSOR.

The Sponsor's warrant to undertake for the child seems to rest on the same promises which encourage the parent. The Sponsor therefore undertakes his duty in faith in the promise, and, according to his opportunities, provides for the spiritual education of the child. He pleads the promises; he bears his charge upon his heart in prayer; and it is his desire to acquit himself to the Church of the trust she has reposed in his spiritual vigilance, and parental superintendence in Christ.-P. 69.

And here let me ask, on what other consideration (than that of faith in the

spiritual blessings of baptism) could a Christian become responsible for the christian education of his charge? He is too well acquainted with his own infirmity, and that of the child committed to his care, to advance one step in this spiritual work without the encouragement of the promise, and the aid of the Holy Spirit. Unless in a judgment of faith and charity this child is a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven; unless he is a lively member of the Church; unless he is really regenerated by the Holy Spirit, received as God's own child by adoption, and incorporated into the holy Church; unless, in answer to the faithful prayers of himself, the parents, and the Church, the Holy Ghost is sanctifying him as one of the elect people of God, and being one so truly blessed, he shall ever remain in the number of his faithful and elect children;-with what hope of success could a Christian accept the office of a Sponsor? For a man who sees nothing more in baptism than the mere ceremony, it is consistent enough to undertake the office without any subsequent endeavour to execute it: as he never understood the vows, so neither had he any intention to discharge the obligations of them; but for a Christian to engage in this office of training up a soul for glory, of enduing it with spiritual qualities, of making it conformable to the image of the Son of God, without believing that it was the good pleasure of God to fulfil his promise in sanctifying that soul as one of his own elect-would surely be the height of rashness and presumption. How different the process of the Sponsor's engagements, when faith in the promise is ever animating him to discharge them! Grounded on faith, he proceeds in hope. Our Lord Jesus Christ has promised in his gospel to grant all those things which he has prayed for; which promises, the Church assures him, be for his part will most surely keep and perform. Wherefore he is persuaded of the good-will of his heavenly Father towards the infant of his care, declared by his Son Jesus Christ: he nothing doubts that he favourably allows this charitable work of his, in bringing this infant to his holy baptism. He doubts not, but earnestly believes that Christ has likewise favourably received this present infant, as he did those of old; and he is thus encouraged happily and perseveringly to use all the prescribed means, that a child so distinguished shall receive the fulness of the grace of God, and ever remain in the number of his

faithful and elect children.

Only the Sponsor who acts upon this statement will ever be found to perform his engagements, for this plain reason, that he only can form a proper estimate of the privileges of baptism. A negligent Sponsor is an unbelieving Sponsor; for no man will be anxious to secure advantages, which he does not believe that a promise is given to convey. It is the man that believes the promise who can alone expect any advantages from it, and it is his vigilance and care alone that will be concerned to secure them.-P. 112-114.

Concerning the INFANT, Mr. Budd observes,

The infant baptized can justly expect the benefit of baptism in no other way than by faith in the promise. He is taught that when his name was given him at his baptism by his Sponsors, he was, as a professed Christian, admitted into all the privileges of that high character; that he was then made a member of Christ, incorporated into his body the Church, by faith expressed for him by his Sponsors; thence the child of God by adoption and grace; and thence an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven: if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. He is then taught to walk worthy of his calling as a child of God, to renounce the world, the flesh, and the devil, to believe the articles of the Christian faith, and to keep and walk in God's holy will and commandments all the days of his life. And he heartily thanks his heavenly Father, that he has called him to this state of salvation through Jesus Christ his Saviour, and it is his prayer to God to give him his grace, that he may continue in this state to which he has been thus graciously called unto his life's end. He is then taught to believe in God the Father, who hath made him and all the world; in God the Son, who hath redeemed him and all mankind; and in God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth him