Christianity, to train up their children in piety, they ought to be themselves pious. If they are not pious, they will neither have the inclination nor ability to instruct their children in the things of God. Again, the parents are bound to set their children an example of "righteousness and true holiness;" but how shall irreligious parents present a religious example? Such parents (to say nothing as to their christian right to have their children baptized,*) act with gross inconsistency as relates to their own profession of the name of Christ, and show that their affection for their offspring very little, if at all, exceeds that of savages for theirs. It has respect only to the bodies of their children and their worldly interests-their immortal spirits share none of their solicitude.

Of course it behoves such parents, in reference to their own, as well as their children's salvation, to seek without delay, both for themselves and them, this inestimable blessing, and diligently to use every scriptural means for the attainment of such other qualifications as are requisite for training their offspring in the knowledge and love of God. In the mean time, if they are so happy as to have really pious relatives, or friends, willing to take, for a time, the tuition, and to assist in the religious instruction of their chil

*Acts ii. 39. They are of course, spiritual, not merely nominal, believers in Christ, of whom the apostle Peter here speaks.

dren, they would, doubtless, do well to avail themselves of their services.

But here, my Lord, a very serious question arises. What, if the aid of such pious connexions be sought, or accepted, in default of piety in the sponsors? Do the parents who take this course act rightly? Surely, the proper answer to the question is, "Yes;" for it is imperative on them to obey God rather than man. But, then, if they obey God in this matter, how would such act of obedience affect, in numerous instances, the credit and feelings of the sponsors; the ritual obligation of the parents, and the alleged authority of the Church? I trust your Grace will perceive in these considerations, further powerful reasons for a separation from the rite of baptism, as administered to infants in the Church of England, of the unscriptural and hurtful appendage now in question. But to proceed with the Catechism;

The catechumen is next asked, whether he does not think he is bound to perform the promises made by his sponsors? To ask a person, of any age, juvenile or adult, whether he believes he is bound by a promise made without his consent or authority, looking at the abstract principle, would seem to expose the interrogator to an ungratifying reflection. But such is evidently the bearing of this question. Do you not believe you are bound to

do as your sureties promised, because they have promised in your name? and this is the sense in which Dr. Mant and other learned writers of the Church of England understand it. True, indeed, it is that, whether his sponsors had made the promise or not, the catechumen would be bound to perform what is included in the promises so made, for the obligation to do so rests on divine authority, which is the true and only basis on which the obligation to perform such things can be scripturally placed. The catechumen is taught to answer "Yes, verily." In this answer the catechumen is made to recognise as true a fallacious principle; a religious obligation as properly based thereon; and its binding force in reference to himself. These errors it is the abstract duty of the catechist to rectify; but how can he be expected to do so, seeing that he is himself the authorized instrument of implanting them in the mind of his pupil? The words which follow the answer of the catechumen, viz." By God's help so I will," are proper, considered as implying a serious purpose to renounce the world; to believe in Christ, and to walk in all the ordinances and commandments of the Lord blameless; since no person can do these things without the aid of the Holy Spirit; but so far as these words are designed to recognise the promise and engagement of the sponsors, and the obligation alleged to result therefrom, a regard to truth

and integrity compels me to say, that they appear to be exceedingly misplaced.

The catechumen proceeds-" and I heartily thank our Heavenly Father that he has called me to this state of salvation, through Jesus Christ our Saviour." This language is not sufficiently definite; for it is not said in what the call consisted; whether it was an outward or inward call; whether it was a general or special call; whether it was an instrumental or a spiritual call. The Scriptures recognise two species of calling, viz. the outward call of the preaching of the Gospel, and the inward, spiritual, and efficient call, in pursuance of which, that Gospel is made, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, "the power of God unto salvation." The catechumen may have never heard the Gospel of Christ, as it is contained in the New Testament, fully or even partially preached, or preached at all, and consequently, in such case, may never have heard the outward call; and his disposition, spirit, and manners may furnish no evidence at all of the spiritual and effectual call, and yet he is, nevertheless, required to use the above language-language that, according to the doctrine of the Catechism, may be reasonably supposed to imply the effectual call of God to a state of salvation. The same language, as your Grace well knows, is constantly put into the mouths of hundreds of thousands of

children, who manifest not the slightest indication of genuine christian piety; and, in a large majority of instances, without the least thought about either its fitness, or inapplicability, on the part either of teacher or scholar.

We come now to what is called the Apostles' Creed. And here I, respectfully, submit to your Grace, whether it is right to require a child solemnly to declare his belief of that which he has not himself examined by the Scriptures, and which he is as yet incapable of so examining, and even the real import of which, it may be, he imperfectly understands. Your Grace will admit that there is a manifest difference between imparting religious knowledge to children by means of human manuals of instruction and requiring them to make a solemn declaration that they believe the contents of such manuals to be true. To say nothing of the danger of the precedent, of the opening that may be thus made for the entrance of error, and of the means hereby furnished for perpetuating it in the mind, can it be right, is it wise thus to paralyse the mental powers; to relax their exercise; to stifle reflection, and check examination; in short, to separate, in effect, testimony from evidence, and conviction from inquiry? Would it not, my Lord, be preferable rather to draw out the mental powers of young persons into more active exercise on the great facts and truths of Revelation; in the earnest searching of