as church members, and receive the blessings and enjoy all the privileges to which they are entitled by baptism. In the Jewish Church, those circumcised children who did not at a proper age perform their appropriate duties, God commanded-after all necessary means had been used to bring them to obedience-should be cut off from his people, and reckoned among the uncircumcised who were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel. We ought to carry out this principle in the treatment of the children of the Church. By stopping short of this, we lose, in a great measure, the benefits of the initiatory ordinance which we so zealously maintain. We render it of none effect; we expose it to contempt; and while the children see themselves cast out and disowned, without any previous effort of the Church to reclaim and to sanctify them, they will be led to despise their baptism and their covenant, and may become hopelessly hardened in unbelief and sin. These children upon whom we have solemnly placed the seal of God's covenant, and at the same time have refused to recognise as belonging to the household of faith, have grounds of heavy complaint against us. Truly are they coldly disowned as if they, like the heathen, were strangers to the covenants of promise? If the seal of the kingdom of heaven is upon them, why are they denied the privilege of that guardianship which belongs to sons in their minority? If they rebel, let them be brought to repentance and obedience by the holy discipline of the Church, or cut off by the sentence of excommunication; but why are they thrust out privily from their father's house, without even an effort to ascertain whether they will comply with their covenant engagements or not? If they wander, why does not the pastor, like the good shepherd, go out into the wilderness after them, and bring them back rejoicing, rather than suffer them to perish for lack of vision. They have cause of complaint. And the great Shepherd who took the lambs in his arms, will, we have reason to fear, apply to us that terrible sentence which was once passed upon the Jewish Church and its pastors, "Ye feed not the flock. The diseased have ye not strengthened, neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which was broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost. And they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and

they became meat for all the beasts of the field. My sheep wandered through all the mountains, yea my flock was scattered upon all the face of the earth, and none did search or seek after them."

ART. IV. REVIEW OF DE LAMARTINE'S JOCELYN.

Jocelyn Episode-Journal trouvé chez un Curé de Village. Par Alphonse De Lamartine.

France, "La belle France," has long ceased to be the residence of the Muses. When after the interval of darkness which succeeded the overthrow of the Roman power, the sun of civilization dawned faintly and gradually on a benighted world, her fair skies were first illumined by the welcome light, her woods and valleys first resounded with the notes of the lyre, and the inspired strain of the poet; and the long frozen "tide of song," bursting the bonds which had restrained it, first flung its golden waves upon her smiling shores. The Provençal bards may be said to have relit the Promethean spark, which was afterwards fanned by the soft breezes of Italy into a glorious flame. The Sacred Nine flew to this more genial clime, and erected there an altar, which their grateful votaries crowned with offerings. The genius of the French nation changed as the spirit of chivalry declined. Their institutions for the cultivation of the gai science, and their fondness for it were forgotten in the political distractions of the country, or in the affairs of commerce. During the last three centuries France has produced many great statesmen, warriors, scholars, savans, and beaux esprits, but very few poets. While Italy has given to the world, a Dante, a Petrach, an Ariosto, and a Tasso, and an infinitude of smaller stars, the annals of France bear but the name of Voltaire, and he perhaps merits rather to be called a great man, than a great poet. This is no doubt to be ascribed in part to the deficiencies of the language, which is neither flexible nor rich in rhymes; but in a still greater degree to the absence of those refined sensibilities, and of that eager percep

hensions, we may well bear with them; and therefore as for those with whom this objection is a real scruple, we ought to carry it towards them with all manner of love and Christian moderation." To the question, what churches shall we have, if children, and their seed successively, are regarded as members? Shepard answers thus:

"What Churches shall we have? Truly not always churches of angels and saints, but mixed with many chaffy hypocrites, and often times profane persons. But still I say, this objection holds as firm against gathering churches of visible professing believers; for God knows what churches we may have of them, even perhaps of hypocrites and profane persons, for I know not what can give us hope of their not apostatizing, but only God's promise to "be a God to them" to preserve them; and truly the same promise being made to their seed, gives me as much ground to hope well of churches, rising out of the seed of the godly, as of the professing parents themselves. My church charity is equal about them, especially considering that those whom God receives into church covenant, he doth not only take them to be a people to him, but to establish them to be such, namely, for time to come. God was as holy and as exactly requiring holiness from the Jewish Church, as from Christian churches; now do you think that the covenant which then wrapt up the Jewish children into Church membership, was an highway of profaneness and unholiness in the members thereof, and of defiling and polluting God's church; or was it a way and means of holiness, and to keep them from being profane? Why then should we fear the polluting of churches by the same covenant which we have proved wraps in our seed also? Indeed they did prove universally profane in the Jewish Church; so they may in ours; but shall man's wickedness in abusing God's grace and forsaking his covenant, tie the hands or the heart of God's free grace from taking such into covenant?' What if some did not believe; shall their unbelief make the salth of God of none effect? God forbid.'"

To this answer we add a very just remark of Mather, in the pamphlet referred to above:

It is a zealous and diligent attendance to discipline according to the rules of Christ, and not curtailing the covenant, that will keep churches pure. There are two ways practised by men in order to keep churches pure, the one is human, and the other divine. The human way is to straighten the grace of the Lord's covenant: the divine way is faithfully to attend to discipline. Now it will be found in the issue, that the divine way only is that which will attain the end; experience doth testify that churches have been pure or impure according as discipline hath flourished or been neglected by them. Look abroad the world upon the corrupted collapsed churches that are in many places, and we shall see that they have little more than a carcass of discipline among them, without the life and power of it, which is the true and great reason of their corruption."

If it should be asked what privileges and duties grow out of the relation which baptized children hold to the church,

we answer by putting the question, "What profit was there of circumcision? If the Church, the covenant and the seal, are the same now as under the ancient dispensation, the privileges of the baptized child are the same now as were formerly secured by circumcision; and his duties, and the obligations of the Church, are the same. We quote again from Shepard.

"What profit is it to persons grown up to years, and secretly hypocrites, who enter into the Church by profession of faith? You will say there is good and profit in respect to the privileges themselves, but by abusing them, they had, in this respect, better have been withont them, because they hereby bring upon themselves greater condemnation. The same say I of children, whom God receives into his Church, by promise and covenant of doing them good, although at present they may not be so sensible of this good. To speak plainly, the good they get by being thus enriched is wonderful. In respect of God. God hereby shows the riches of his grace towards them, in taking them to be his people; in adopting them to be his children; in preventing them with many special mercies aforehand, of doing them good; by all which, the Lord doth, as it were, prevent Satan, in wooing their hearts, so soon to draw them to him, before he can actually stir to draw their souls from him. In respect of themselves. It is a special, means to prevent sin. It is a special help to convert and turn them to God. It is a special means of binding them fast to God when they are turned. If they shall forsake, and break loose from the bond of his covenant, it is a special means to encourage their hearts to return again, even when they seem to be utterly cast off. In respect of their parents. Hereby God gives parents some comfortable hope of their children's salvation, because they are within the pale of the visible church; for as out of the visible church,-where the ordinary means of salvation lie,-there is, ordinarily, no salvation, so if children were not of Christ's visible church and kingdom, we could not hope for their salvation, no more than of pagans or Turks; for if they be without God, they are without hope, and to be without hope of such, is very hard, and horrid to imagine. In respect of others. For now they may enjoy the special watch and care of the whole church, which otherwise they must want."

The last remark relates to a duty, on the part of the Church, of so much importance to all baptized children, that we cannot forbear to add the opinions of several other "chief Fathers" of New England respecting it. The following is from a letter written by Nathaniel Rogers of Ipswich, in 1652.

"To the question concerning the children of church members, I have nothing to oppose, and I wonder any should deny them to be members; they are members in censu ecclesiastico. God so calls them; the church is so to account them: and when they are adultæ ætatis, though they have done no personal act, yet are to be judged members still, until after due calling upon, they shall refuse or neglect to acknowledge and own the covenant of their parents, and profess their belief of, and subjection to, the contents thereof; which if they shall deny, the church may

cashier or disown them. Now for practice, I confess, I account it a great fault, that we have made no more real distinction between these and others, that they have been no more attended as lambs of Christ's flock; and whether it be not the cause of the corruption and woful defection of our youth, disquiri permittimus."

Mather of Dorchester, and Norton, who is called a "judicious and eagle-eyed seer," concurred in the opinion that baptized children are the subjects of Church discipline. Mitchel of Cambridge, in a letter dated, 1667; says, "I think that when all stones are turned it will come to this, that all the baptized are, and ought to be under discipline in particular churches." And he expresses great fear "lest we should be wanting to do the will of God in this particular, and lest the Lord should thereby be displeased." We make one more quotation from Increase Mather, which, inasmuch as this is a matter of no small importance and concernment to Christ's kingdom, and wherein the welfare of the rising generation in New England is not a little involved," we hope will not be deemed too long.

"Baptized persons are under the discipline and government of the Church. When a person is baptized, he is solemnly admitted into Christ's school; can any one be admitted into Christ's school, and yet not subject to the order and discipline of that school? Again, baptism is the livery which of right appertaineth to Christ's household servants; surely if a person accept of that livery, he doth thereby submit himself to the laws and government of Christ, which is exercised in Christ's family here on earth. Therefore the persons in question being baptized may not plead exemption from discipline."

"That discipline and government which Christ hath appointed in his Church, hath been exercised towards children, according to their capacity, in all ages of the world. So it was when the Church was domestical; and after the Church became national. Now inasmuch as to be under the wing of Christ's government in his Church, is a very high privilege, he that shall affirm that although the children of the Jews were invested with this privilege, yet that the children of Christians are divested thereof, had need to have strong reasons to prove his assertion, and must show us the repeal from Scripture, or we cannot believe him. Besides, if due enquiry be made into the catholic practice of the New Testament Church, it will be found that such persons as we are speaking of, have ever been looked upon as within the verge of the Church's power and discipline. They that have any acquaintance with the customs of the Church in the ages following the Apostles, know that in those times there were three sorts of persons under the churches inspection. 1. Catechumeni, i. e. those who were only instructed in the mysteries of the Christian. 2. Baptizati, persons baptized, but not admitted to higher privileges. 3. Perfecti, or confirmed ones, i. e. such as were admitted to all church privileges. So then, the Christian Church of old, did discipline such children as our question is about, although not presently admitted to the Lord's Supper."