putting of the administration and management of the whole concerns and interests of religion, for the most part, into the hands of ungodly men; as the history of nearly 1500 years past awfully testifies, and we are assured by the highest authority, that such will ever hate and persecute. John 15th, 18, 19, 20, compared with Titus 3d, 3d. Moreover, by thus confounding the world and the church, the whole rising generation being included as members without their own knowledge or consent, became necessarily, that is constitutionally, subject to the censures of the church, that is the professing part, for every deviation from the established order of things, either in opinion or practice. Now to inflict censures on persons for non-conformity, in any respect, to a religion which they never chose nor avow. ed, is as certainly ecclesiastical persecution, as it is absurd in the nature of things so to do. Nor till of late years did the evil cease with this, for as it is the native tendency of pedo-baptism to secularize Christianity, by uniting church and state, the persons who disobeyed the former became necessarily responsible to the latter, as was lately the case throughout all European nations. Thus in all cases of ob stinacy, where ecclesiastical persecution ended, civil persecution began, and the excommunicated became the subject of civil penalties; and all this, in the case before us, on account of dissent or non-conformity to the laws or doc trines of a religion, which the persecuted never chose, nor professed; and which, if it were the true religion, he was utterly incapable of making a free profession at the time of his baptism. For the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned."

:

But since, in consequence of the pleadings of the cele brated Milton, Locke, and others, the nations, guided by a more enlightened policy, have forsaken the decisions of Trent and the Solemn League. The civil sword has ceased to operate upon the sceptic and unregenerate, in order to constrain them to profess and practice what they neither understood, believed, nor loved and in so doing, it has done them no wrong, nor the church any injury. In like manner, the conscientious Christian, who could not say shibboleth, has escaped the direful alternative; either recant or die. But, although civil persecution has thus, for the most part, ceased its operation; and ecclesiastical, it is hoped is upon the whole becoming less virulent; yet so long -as pedo-baptism is considered a privilege of such vast im

portance, as the respective creeds of pedo-baptist professors declare it to be, it is impossible to suppose, that the spirit of bitterness and persecution shall case to operate-can a person who thinks, that his children are by natural generation, as being his offspring, entitled to Church membership and of course baptism; yea, and that by receiving this ordinance, they become children of God, heirs of Christ, and inheritors of the kingdom of glory," or that, it signifies and seals to them, their engrafting into Christ and secures to them a participation of all the blessings of the covenant of grace"I say, can a person of these sentiments, cease from consider, ing with anger and aversion the man, who deprives his own children of such inestimable benefits, and would rob his, in like manner, if he could but prevail upon him to embrace his opinions in relation to this subject? For how prone mankind are to appreciate birth-right privilege, national family, and religious lot, the history of the Jews attests. With what virulence did they oppose and persecute Christ and his apostles for attempting to cut off, from them, the fancied entail of the divine favor on account of their carnal descent from Abraham.

As an instance of this, if I might-" sic parvis componere magna," I would observe that at the close of our debate at Mount Pleasant, some of the pedo-baptists (as I afterwards understood from some of the most creditable witnesses) proposed, violently forcing us to quit the ground, by argumentum baculinum, as their logic appeared too weak. This I presume is a case in point, the reader need not doubt of its authenticity.

To be angry at any man, because of his opinions in religion, is the essence of persecution. They who think a man may become religious, of his own accord, or make his children Christians by his own efforts, may very naturally get angry with him that does not do what is so easy to be done. But a scriptural baptist cannot be angry with any man because of his religious opinions, or because he is not a Christian or a member of his church; for he knows and confesses, that "except the Lord build the Church, it cannot be built ;" that, " except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the Church of Christ." And as no man can become such by natural birth, by his own efforts, or the efforts of others, he cannot be angry, and consequently cannot persecute his neighbors for not thinking or acting in all respects as himself. Hence, the very spirit of the baptist profession is inimical to a spirit of persecution; no wonder then, that

they have never persecuted. An enlightened Christian may deplore and commisserate the errors of others, in opinion, but cannot be angry at his neighbour, because he does not coincide with him, seeing it is the gift of God. He knows who hath made him to differ, and like one of old, he thinks, when he hears an errorist propagate his opinions, "such would I have been, had it not been for the grace of God."For my own part, I conceive it to be as reasonable to blame a man, for being black, or for not being seven feet high, as to blame him for not being a Christian. It is no way strange, that those who embrace the whole system of John Calvin should persecute even unto death, as he himself set them so striking an example, in persecuting Servetus even unto death.

5. The fifth evil, that I shall mention, resulting from the practice of infant sprinkling is, that it inspires the subject as soon as he recognizes the action, and understands it as his parents explain it, with a vain conceit that he is something better than a heathen, or now in a state differing from that of an unbaptized person; with respect to the enjoyment of interest in Christ-this is peculiarly dangerous to the subject himself, as its tendency is in the highest degree Pharisaic. The sacred scriptures know but two states or conditions of men on earth: these are, the state of nature and the state of grace-the whole promises, admonitions, threats, and addresses, of every kind, contained in the Bible, are predicated upon this fact-all men are first in the state of nature, and no external rite can remove them from it.Nothing but actual grace in the heart, received through the operation of the spirit of God, by the word of faith. Deluded are they, in the highest degree, who repose the least confidence in this old tradition. But it is fashionable; and it is with some accounted a disgrace, to give their children their names, as we name the beasts that perish-and if it be honorable to practice it, this is all in all with many "woe is unto them that seek the honor that cometh from man, and not that which cometh from God only."

I have thus given a specimen of the evils resulting from infant sprinkling and infant baptism-the reader may add to them from his own observation some others, that I have not time to publish at present. I have succeeded much better, in finding the evils of this rite, than in pointing out the good resulting from it. For the fact is, I can find no good connected with it. But, least the reader should think that

R &

I am too illiberal, I will transcribe a few sentences from the most famous writer that ever wrote in support of infant baptism. I mean Dr. Wall, who published an elaborate history of infant baptism, in the year 1705. This Dr. Wall is often quoted by the pedo-baptists but they do not often tell us, that while he contended for infant baptism, he ridiculed the idea of infant sprinkling-he is the only writer on the subject, that I know, with whom I can agree, in respect of some of the benefits resulting from infant baptism, in his time; his words are: "There has no novelty or alteration, that I know of, in the point of baptism, been bro't into the church, but in the way and manner of administering it. The way that is now ordinarily used, we cannot deny to have been a novelty, brought into the church (of England) by those that learned it in Germany, or at Geneva. And they were not contented with following the example of pouring a quantity of water, which had there been introduced instead of immersion, but improved it (if I may so abuse that word) from pouring to sprinkling, that it night have as little resemblance of the ancient way of baptizing, as possible."-" Another struggle," says he," whether the child shall be dipped or sprinkled, will be with the midwives and nurses. These will use all the interest they have with the mothers, which is very great, to dissuade them from agreeing to the dipping of the child. I know of no reason, unless it be this, a thing which they value themselves and their skill much upon, is, the neat dressing of the child on the christening day, the setting all the trimming, the pins, and the laces, in their proper order. And if the child be brought in loose clothes, which may be presently taken off, for the baptism, and put on again, this pride is lost. And this makes a reason. So little is the solemnity of the sacrament regarded by many, who mind nothing but the dress and the eating and drinking."* To understand what the Doctor means by the eating and drinking, it is necessary to observe, that, in those days, there was usually a feast made at the baptism of the child, which, with some christening fees, rendered it very interesting to some good people. The following is an illustration of the eating and drinking alluded to by the Doctor :

"The bill of fare of a dinner at Tynningham, the house of the Rt. Hon. the earl of Haddington, on Thursday, the 21st of Aug. 1679, when his lordship's son was baptized:

Dr. Wall's Defence, p. 146, 147, 403.

Who will not say that there was much good in all this?

No. 4.

THE QUARTERLY THEOLOGICAL REVIEW.

THIS new work is published by Ezra Stiles Ely, D. D.. of Philadelphia. It reviews religious publications of the present day. In vol. 1, No. 5, the author reviews sundry pedo-baptist performances, on the "subject and mode" of Baptism. He exhibits their respective and comparative merits, with great spirit. This number came into my hands a few days since, I have been amused with it, and with the management of the Doctor. It exemplifies the principle of the rule in Arithmetic, called permutation, and admirably exhibits how many changes can be rung on a few bells.The writers on the Doctor's side of the question, follow.one another in a dull round of uniformity, as to argument, but with great variety as to style and method. They all begin to establish their point 2000 years before Christian baptism was instituted, and wander down along the dusty road, with great hazard and much perplexity; often parched with drought and bewildered in labyrinths and deep mazes, with which the route abounds. In glancing over this third number, I observe that all the leading arguments in it are reviewed, and fully refuted in the preceding pages.. The Doctor has done himself great honor, and the cause great service, and is entitled to the thanks of his pedo-baptist brethren, for his having given them, what wey so long needed, viz. a new definition of baptism. This definition is suited to the highly improved knowledge and taste of the 19th century. It no doubt comports with the views of the Doctor, and many of his brethren, and if it was not for one misfortune, it would be very popular. I shall transcribe it