Testimony of Augustine and Pelagius.

into the fold of the Redeemer, they brought their infant chil dren with them, and placed them beneath the covert of the out-stretched wings of the covenant. And in doing this, they put themselves under solemn vows to train up their offspring for the service of God-to put forth every exertion to bring the minds of their children under the early influence of divine truth, looking unto Jesus for strength and assistance to enable them to accomplish this holy work. Take a single fact illustrative of this statement.

"A little more than three hundred years from the time of the apostles, lived Augustine one of the most pious, learned and venerable fathers of the christian church. And at the same period flourished Pelagius, a learned heretic. These men had a long controversy on the subject of original sin. They were unquestionably among the most learned men then on the earth, and had the best opportunity of knowing what had been in the christian church from the beginning. In the course of their controversy, the subject of infant baptism became incidentally alluded to, and both of them declared 'that the baptism of infants was a practice which had come down from the apostles, and was universally practised in the church; nay, that they had never heard of any professing christians in the world, either orthodox or heretical, who did not baptize their children.' From the first ages of christianity, children were brought into the church in their tenderest infancy to be reared as the servants and disciples of Christ.

"These are the views of the church on the subject of infant baptism. But if you, or any other member of the church, after having faithfully and prayerfully examined this subject, cannot view it in the same light, and feel that you cannot conscientiously bring your children to baptism, though we should think that you were in an error, still we should not presume to ask you to act contrary to your honest convictions of duty and especially upon a subject in reference to which some of the best and holiest of men in modern times have entertained a diversity of sentiment.

"This,' said she, is perfectly satisfactory. But there is another question I wish to ask. I was educated a Baptist. My early associations lead me to regard every thing connected with the usages of that denomination with peculiar veneration. Your ordinary mode of administering the rite of bap

Immersion: Open communion.

tism is not, I believe, by immersion.' Were I to present myself as a candidate for baptism, at the same time telling you that I could not feel satisfied with any thing but immersion, what course would you take, on the supposition that you were satisfied that I was a fit subject for the ordinance?'

"I would baptize you by immersion,' was the reply. 'This is perfectly admissable with us. I am acquainted with two Episcopal Churches, each numbering forty or fifty communicants, all of whom with two or three exceptions, were baptized by immersion. We think the mode entirely unessential. The candidate therefore is free to elect the mode that seems to him to be most in consonance with scripture.'

"One question more, sir-Do you admit professing Christians of other denominations in regular standing in their own church to commune with you?"

"Certainly we do. At every celebration of the Holy Supper, the church affectionately invites all who love the Lord Jesus Christ, to come and kneel with her children at the altar, and there feed on the memorials of Christ's dying love. In this ordinance, she recognises no such thing as different denominations. She supposes all who have been baptized into the name of Jesus, and hold the great essentials of christianity, and are in the exercise of christian affections, as members of the church of Christ. Hence her language is, 'Ye who do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbors, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways, draw near with faith, and take this holy sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, devoutly kneeling.'

"Well,' responded Mrs. W 'this is just as it should be. With all my baptist prejudices, I like the idea of an open communion; and I must say, as far as I have become acquainted with the Episcopal Church, there appears to me to be a broad platform, an extended area of common ground in this church, upon which real christians, though differing in some particulars, can meet and stand together.'

"I would not wish you to think too favorably of us' said 1. The church in all her institutions and arrangements is unquestionably truly catholic. Would to God that all her members were equally so! Some of them alas! who are

The cross in Baptism.

loud in their professions of attachment to the church, are lamentably lax in their ideas of christian character; and often just in proportion as their piety declines, do they become fierce in lauding every thing connected with the church, and exclusive and bitter in their feelings towards those who differ from them. There were people of this sort who infested the church in apostolic times, and they are described by St. Jude as 'spots in the feasts of charity-clouds without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots-raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame.' I hope there are comparatively few of these among us; and I trust there are others, and they not a few, who by their holy and consistent lives, and their manifest attachment and devotedness to the cause of the Redeemer, are the Church's epistle of commen dation "written not with ink but with the spirit of the living God."

“Mr. R.—

who had been a silent and attentive listen. er, now took a part in the conversation.

"What are we to understand,' said he, 'by the sign of the cross, used in baptism? Is not this a remaining shred of popery?'

6

"By no means,' was the reply. For the sign of the cross was used in this ordinance long before the church de clined from the simplicitly and purity of the primitive faith. St. Augustine and St. Cyprian both speak of this use of the cross and say, 'It was marked on the forehead, the seat of blushing and shame, that the baptized person might never blush, nor be ashamed of the disgraced cross of Christ.' This custom originated in those early ages of the church, when the manner in which the founder of christianity was put to death, was considered a stigma on all who embraced the gospel, and when he who received christian baptism, exposed himself by this act to persecution and death. The cross was marked on the forehead of him who was baptized to show that all his hopes were now built on Christ crucified -to remind him that he must never be ashamed of the cross of Christ, but must be ready, if it became necessary, to go to prison and death, to prove his love to the Saviour. But it is well to understand that we do not consider this at all essential to baptism. In the language of one of the canons of the

T

Saints' days and other festivals.

Church of England The Protestant Episcopal Church hath ever held and taught and doth hold and teach still, that the sign of the cross used in baptism, is no part of the substance of that sacrament; for when the minister, dipping the infant in water, or laying water on the face of it (as the manner also is) hath pronounced these words, I baptize thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the infant is fully and perfectly baptized. So that the sign of the cross being afterward used, doth neither add any thing to the virtue and perfection of baptism, nor being omitted doth detract any thing from the effect and substance of it.'* And you will also see, by looking at the service that there is liberty given to dispense with the use of the sign of the cross, whenever it is desired. For the grand principle upon which the Episcopal Church proceeds in all her various arrangements is to give her members all the freedom in reference to forms, and modes, and matters in themselves unessential, that is compatible with sound doctrine, and correct christian practice.

6

"While we are upon this subject, allow me to inquire,' said Mr. R, upon what ground the Episcopal Church observes the Saints' days and numerous other festivals, such as Christmas, &c: The Romish church, you know, makes much of these.'

“It is true,' was the reply; and the Romish church also makes much of Baptism and the Lord's Supper. But this is no reason why we should reject those ordinances. The observance to which you refer, we adopt solely on the ground of expediency. We do not think that Christ enjoined them, or that all christians are bound to adopt them. In like manner we do not think that Christ enjoined the observance of the first Monday evening in each month as a season of prayer for missions, nor that all christians are necessarily bound so to observe it. But we do think that it is very pleasant, and proper, and profitable to spend the first Monday evening of each month in this way-and that those christians who do so, will find it truly a season of refreshing from the Lord. So also, we think it pleasant, and proper, and profitble, to observe those christian festivals to which you have referred, *30th Canon of the Church of England.

The christian year.

and that a blessing will not fail to rest upon those who engage in those appropriate religious exercises with a right spirit. No possible objection can be made to our observance of the Saints' days; since we admit into the calendar the names of those only, whose history the Holy Ghost hath recorded in the sacred volume for our instruction. The church observes these days for the same reason that memoirs are written of good, and great, and distinguished men. Who is there that does not regard the biography of such men as Pay: son, and Brainard, and Martyn, and Leigh Richmond, as a great blessing to the world? These memoirs have done a vast deal for the cause of Christ. But surely Peter, and John, and Paul, in point of holiness and self-sacrifice, were not in ferior to Payson and Brainard and Martyn. Are not the lives of Peter, and John, and Paul, then, worth contemplating? Is it not proper that the ministers of the church should, at least once a year, call the attention of the people to the contemplation of the holy lives and exalted piety of those first heralds of the cross, who did not count any sacrifices too great so that they could but make known to a perishing world 'the unsearchable riches of Christ?' The other festivals and fasts to which you refer, commemorate some event connected with the birth, life, or mediatorial work of Christ, thus furnishing a fit opportunity upon which to inculcate severally, and with increased effect, the great doctrines of the cross. Long experience has convinced us of the expediency of setting apart particular days, in which to contemplate the cardinal facts connected with the history of man's redemption. These annual commemorations are attended with signal benefit. They make us more thoroughly acquainted with the prominent and most interesting gospel facts, and impress the remembrance of them more vividly upon our minds. By this arrangement we are sure to have the great truths of salvation every year systematically brought up before us. is a very important consideration. As year after year, we contemplate on Christmas, the incarnation of the Son of God, with the kindred truths that stand connected with it; and on Epiphany, his manifestation to the Gentiles, and are thus led to pray over a dying world that 'the heathen may be given to him for his inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth

This