selves in a species of conduct so intirely opposite to the present ways of Christ in regard to all who believe on him, you plead any thing taught in his word, you will only attempt to prove that He has forbidden his followers to follow him, to be like him in the exercise of his goodness and tender mercy.

And to adopt these sentiments, and to live agreeably to them, you must all your days act in hostility to the peace and welfare of all churches not baptized in your own particular mode. As you cannot, consist ently with your sentiments, consider them as properly churches, so you cannot treat them as such. You may indeed esteem every member as a christian, but cannot without a gross departure from your sentiments, consider or treat him as a member of the visible church of Christ :

And as you must view it as wrong in him, unbaptized as you consider him, while in his present state, to enjoy ecclesiastical privileges, especially to come to the sacrament of the supper, you cannot, consistently with the law of brotherly love, do less than tell him so, and do every thing in your power to unsettle his mind as to his baptism, and to bring him over to your ground.

I do not mean to insinuate that all, embracing these sentiments, conduct in this manner. The goodness of the hearts of some, overrules the errors of their heads, and they appear to be willing that other denominations should enjoy and practise agreeably to their sentiments, and to pray fervently that their churches may be enlarged and built up.

But, in so doing they act in direct opposition to their sentiments. What; pray that churches may be enlarged and built up which you consider to be no churches, and with whom you view it a sin to commune at the sacramental table!! No-To pray agreeably to

your sentiments, you must pray that they may be destroyed as churches though perhaps saved as individuals! And what is equally as bad, to act agreeably to your sentiments, you must seek their destruction!!

Yes, were those entertaining these sentiments, to act in all respects agreeably to them, they would all be far more engaged than any of them now are, in efforts to unsettle the minds of other churches on the subject of baptism: Yea, they would indeed be Ishmaelites, with hands raised high against all christian denominations not agreeing with them in this particular, causing division, dissention and animosity among the very persons, with whom they should be united in exertions to do good and to advance the common interests of Zion!!

And all this for what? Not because water has not been applied to them in the names of the persons in the Trinity, but because they have not been applied to water in these names, or rather because they have not been baptized in the same manner with themselves.

Such are some of the consequences of the errors, strictly followed, to which you are exposed, and against which I solemnly warn you.

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem and seek it. For they shall prosper that love her. Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; THAT THEY ALL MAY BE ONE; as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in

US THAT THE WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT THOU HAST

SENT ME. Amen

SERMON II.

ON THE SUBJECTS

OF

CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

Acts, 16, 15.-And when she was baptized and her household, she besought us saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there.

THE question now to be discussed is this-Who are the proper subjects of christian baptism?

That professed believers are proper subjects for this ordinance, is admitted on all hands, but that the infant seed of such believers are proper subjects for it is by some denied.

All acquainted with the practice of Pado-baptists, are sensible that they not only baptize the children of the members of the church as soon after their birth as the rite can with convenience be administered, but also that on the admission of parents to the church they baptize those of their children which at the time are properly under their nurture and care. For the same

reasons that they baptize infants in the first case, do they baptize those advanced from infancy in the second. In the following discourse, it will be my object to shew that this practice is scriptural.

Before attending directly to the subject, however, I shall briefly notice the leading objections that are urged against this practice.

Notonly on the mode but also on the subjects of baptism our brethren have brought into the field of action all their powers, and it may in truth be said of many, that they have written and spoken with ability. What learning, zeal and talents can accomplish, has more than once been achieved, to limit the subjects of this institute to professed believers. Yet the great body of the christian world continue in the practice which our brethren so zealously condemn and which they have so industriously labored to disprove.

Their principal objections shall be noticed here, the others shall be considered in the prosecution of the subject.

They allege that we derive our arguments, favoring infant baptism from the silence of the scriptures. Inasmuch as the scriptures have not expressly forbidden it, they represent us as feeling fully authorized to prac tise it.

Says one, * "When our mode of obedience to a positive institute instead of better ground, resorts to this that there is absolutely no text or sentence in the Bible forbidding it, or that there is nothing in the scriptures against it, it establishes to us one point, and but one, that is, that the cause which requires it, labors exceedingly."

Whether it be true or false that Podo-Baptists reason according to this representation, whether there is,

er is not any "better ground" than the silence of scrip ture, or its supposed destitution of every thing opposed to infant baptism from which to argue in favor of the practice, will perhaps appear to every candid reader in the following discourse. If on a careful examination, it be found that there is "absolutely no text or sentence in the Bible opposed to the practice and only a few that favor it, our situation will not appear so deeply disconsolate, nor will our cause "labor so exceedingly" as the above representation appears to intimate. It will probably be admitted, if infant baptism be not prohibited in scripture, that it cannot be a very sinful practice, for it is generally considered and correctly too, that all sin is there forbidden.

But our brethren are not willing to indulge us this state of comparative innocence. They proceed to prove that our practice is virtually forbidden in scripture. And how do they do it? The answer is; almost in the same manner in which they represent that we proceed to prove that it is inculcated there, viz. in resorting to the silence of the scriptures. As we, according to their representation, believe the scriptures command what they do not expressly prohibit, so they taking directly opposite ground, suppose that the scriptures prohibit what they do not expressly command.

Say they, infant baptism is no where expressly commanded in scripture, and hence their conclusion is that the practice is expressly forbidden. Their reasoning is wholly upon this principle. We must do nothing in the way of religious worship which we are not expressly commanded to do. The texts usually referred to in support of this point are the following, "Whatsoever things I command you, observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto neither diminish from it. In vain do you worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandment's