The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1877-01-10

sion by the consideration that the prlnclpa
argument for the practice of baptizing tn
children of all baptized members Of tn
Church is obviously invalid.
The argument stands thus:
GAS the status of the parent determine
that of the child, it follows that if the paren
is church member, his child is so ips0 fact0
and ought to be acknowledged as such b.
the initiatory rite of baptism" This, W
admit, would be obviously true, if the paren
were member of the church, clear of cen
sure, in good and regular standing" Blu
it is obviously not legitimate conclusion, i
the parent be, as is the fact, member helt
under censure, excluded from all the rights
of full membership, because Of his disloya
refusal to assume the spiritual qualifications
and conditions necessary.
If, as the Book of Discipline, Chap
Sec. 6, says: "All baptized persons are
members of the Church and subject to its dis
cipline," how can the church otherwise dis
cipline the baptized member who refuses q
credible profession of living faith, than by
refusing him admission to sealing ordinances
communion for himself and baptism for his
child p And what is this but state ol
membership under discipline, 4. E., mem
bership continuing under obligation to all
duties, but not at present securing privi.
leges which are withheld for cause. All the
citizens of State do not possess the fran.
chise-only males over twenty-one years Of
age-the majority being excluded. That is,
only those whom the law presumes to be
qualified to exercise it are admitted. Yet
women and children, constituting vast ma
jority Of the nation, are no less citizens be-
cause of this limitation of their rights. All
members of the church have the right to
come to the communion in precisely the
same sense that they have the right to have
their children baptized, a. E., just as soon as
in either case they possess the necessary
qualifications. As long as they ere evidently
devoid of these qualifications, it is the duty
of the pastor and sessions to exclude them
from the communion, and from all privilege
of having their children baptized, as ght-
eous and profitable discipline. For what act
of discipline can be more righteous than that
which makes the violation of his own bap.
tismsl vows, upon the part of the parent, a
reason for excluding him from the privilege
of bringing his child into the church, on the
ground of his own Violated church member
ship? And what act of discipline can be
more profitable than that which brings d.
rectly and palpably before the eyes Of the
parent all the fatal consequences of his own
unfaithfulness to his baptismal VOWS and
church relation, involving as he now sees,
the character and destiny of his children as
we'll as of himself?
CONCLUSION.
From all which 1 argue:
1. All members of church have not o
right to have their children baptized.
2. On the contrary, this right pertains
only to those who possess the necessary quail
i6cations.
8. These qualifications are in the words
of the Confession and Larger Catechism,
" Profession of faith in Christ and obedience
to Him." which are precisely the same as
those demanded as prerequisite to full COM
munion.
4. Hence, ordinarily, the right of having
their children baptized belongs to the COM
muning members of the Church alone
There may, of course, be exceptional cases,
in which parties may POSSESS the qualifica-
tions for full communion, but because Of
difficulties peculiar to their character or cir.
cumstances, fail to enter upon the possession
of some Of their privileges, of which excep.
tional cases the pastor and session, having
jurisdiction, are the only proper judges.
1t may be objected that if baptism effects
any spiritual advantage for the infant sub
iect, common humanity demands that all in
fants should share it alike. And we con
fess that upon High church and Ritualistit
principles this is an inevitable conclusion
and an irresistible motive.
Those who can believe that Christianity il
department of magic, and that baptism eff
fects the regeneration of human soul
ought, of course, to baptize all infants with
out distinction, even to following the exam
pie of ST. Francis Xavier, who sprinkled
sacramentally, infants with both hands a
he ran through the streets Of Hindoo vii
lsge.
But all evangelical Christians must be
lieve that as Christianity operates by ethical
and not by magical processes, the graciou
efficacy of baptism, in the case Of an infant
must be medated by, and conditioned upon
the faith and faithfuluess of parents, reli
gious instruction, discipline, example, etc.
therefore it follows that while legitlmatel
administered baptism and fsithfully-execute
baptismal VOWS are an Infinite advantage
the infant concerned, nevertheless the irreg
ular administration of baptism, under in
proper conditions, would be to it of no cor
ceivable advantage under the sun.-PresbS
terian.
ANOTHER YEAR OR A New YEAR?-Th
is the question the Christian at Work asks
/ .. I IL Il 2 L.