liberty, fairly stated; and, unless his prejudices be immoveable, will, we are persuaded, readily acknowledge, that, on this subject, Owen was the foremost man in his day.

Whether Locke's celebrated treatise on Toleration, originated in the development of Owen's sentiments, cannot now be ascertained; but, his successful interference on behalf of the celebrated Dr. Pococke, Professor of Arabic, in the University of Oxford, who was about to be ejected by the ommissioners of the ejecting comittee, for insufficiency, has immortalized his name. But, Owen was not a mere divine; he was a scholar; and, what is still more, an oriental scholar.

ca

Owen's mind, on the subject of religious very justly remarks, that these discourses contain some expressions which are unjustifiable on Christian principles. One of the most objectionable of these passages is the following. After noticing that former mercies and deliverances, when thankfully remembered, strengthen faith, and prevent despondency, he exclaims:-" Where is the god of Marstone moor, and the God of Naseby! is an acceptable expostulation in a gloomy day. Oh! what a talogue of mercies hath this nation to plead in a time of trouble! God came from Naseby, and the Holy One from the West! His glory covered the heaven, and the earth was full of his praise. He went forth in the North, and in the East he did not withhold his hand. The poor town wherein I live, is much more enriched with a store of mercies in a few months, than with a full trade in many years." Page 87. L' Estrange, and Grey also, in his comment on Hudibras, both infer from this passage, that "Owen was one of those fanatics, who believed that success was an evidence of the goodness of a cause." This charge, however, Mr. Orine effectually refutes, by quoting the words of Owen in reply to it. The reply is certainly, very satisfactory; at the same time, it must be acknowledged, that the passage is sadly extravagant. But, Owen must have been more than human, if the nature of his situation, and the peculiar state of public affairs at that time, had not had their effect on him.

We must here quarrel a little with Mr. Orme, respecting the history of the rise and progress of Independency in Britain, with which he has enriched these Memoirs. He has introduced the opinions of Hume, and Adam Smith, on the subject; with these he has blended much valuable information from other sources; and, for rendering his readers this signal service, he twice expresses a hope that he shall be excused! We notice this circumstance chiefly with a view to correct, if possible, a fault which we have often observed in pulpit compositions. When the speaker has had some remark to make, that was particularly worthy of notice, it has generally been introduced with some such apology as, "if I may be allowed the expression," or, "if my hearers will excuse what I am going to say." Now, we would here remark, that, with regard to what Mr. Orme has done, we see nothing in it that requires apology; and, as to the practice of which we complain, we hesitate not to say, that no teacher of Christianity ought to advance any thing that requires apology. These things always remind us of Apologies for the Bible. But, to proceed,

Owen's reputation was becoming daily more general; and, while residing at Coggeshall, he became acquainted with Lord Fairfax, general of the Parliamentary army. Through this acquaintance, he was employed to preach two Sermons; one before the army, on a day of thanksgiving for the surrender of Colchester; the other before the Parliament's Committee, on their release from prison. Mr. Orme

(To be continued.)

REVIEW OF PAMPHLETS ON IN-
FANT BAPTISM.

ART. I.

The Right of Infants to Baptism. A Sermon delivered at Haberdasher's Hall, Dec. 9th, at a Monthly Association of Ministers and Churches. By H. F. BURDER, M.A. London, Black, Kingsbury, and Co.

ART. II. The Privileges and Obligations of Christian Parents, and their Children, adduced from a view of the Abrahamic Covenant. By JOHN BRUCE, (of Newport, Isle of Wight.) London, Westley, Stationers'-court, 1821, pp. 120, bds. pr. 2s. 6d.

ART. III. Adult Baptism, and the Salva- | Podobaptist brethren so freely inviting tion of all who die in Infancy, muin- it. Their opponents, we are sure, can tained; in Strictures on a Sermon, en- have no objection to it-they will always titled, "The Right of Infants to Bap- be ready to meet them in the fair field tism, by the Rev. H. F. Burder, M.A.” | of argument; for, what have they to By ISAIAH BIRT. London, Holds-apprehend from the consequence? There worth; and Waugh and Innes, Edin- is not an instance upon record in which burgh, 1821, pp. 36, pr. 1s.

a controversy upon this subject has not terminated in the increase of Baptists. A FEW years ago, a friend of ours, In fact, the older and more reflecting who fills the office of Deacon in a part of the Podobaptists have long been Baptist church in this country, was well aware of this; and, therefore, we called by matters of business to visit rarely meet with any minister of that America; and, having to stop some time description engaging in the disputein New York, he was led by curiosity, they are actuated by a wiser policy, or the popularity of the preacher, to which is, as much as possible, to avoid attend the worship of one of the Pres- all discussion. The subject, when byterian churches in that city. The mooted at all, is now generally found congregation was numerous, and of the in the hands of some youngster, fresh most respectable classes of society. from the academic bowers; a class of The devotions of the people were led disputants to whom the venerable Booth by a celebrated Doctor in Divinity, well gave a very salutary piece of advice, known to us on this side the Atlantic. when he applied to them the ancient After an excellent Sermon, the ordi- maxim, "Tarry at Jericho, till your nance of Baptism was to be admi- beards be grown!" We know an Evannistered, in the presence of the whole gelical minister, of some little celebrity, congregation; administered to an who has found out a singular method infunt, whose parents were of the class of hushing all discussions on the article of communicants at the Lord's table. of Baptism. When any of his congreHaving finished his sermon, the preach-gation came to him with their scruples er descended from the pulpit, and taking the babe into his arms, thus commenced the solemn ceremony; "Come, holy seed-come, holy seed"-then raising his right hand, and turning it upon the crowd of spectators in the gallery, with a stern and frowning countenance, apostrophized, "This is not for dogs!"

We mention this anecdote chiefly with the view of shewing, that the grounds of infant baptism do not appear to be precisely the same in America as they are in this country. The eloquent divine, in the case just mentioned, seems to have had his eye upon 1 Cor. vii. 14.-" Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." About half a century ago, this text was often made the foundation of the infant's rite to baptism among us; but, it has long been found so untenable, that it is a very rare thing to meet with a Podobaptist now urging it. The Covenant made with Abraham has completely supplanted all the former pleas; but, we are greatly mistaken, if even this strong hold, be found tenable for any length of time. Nothing more wanting to shew the fallacy of this plea, than a little free discussion on the point; and, we are glad to perceive our

is

of conscience, respecting the will of Christ, as it relates to this ordinance, he cuts the matter short by telling them, "it is a temptation of the devil!" This is a fact which we should not have presumed to mention, had we not received it from his own lips, and avowed, too, with great seriousness, in the presence of a dozen people. What sort of conscience this reverend Divine possesses, it may stagger many of our readers to make out; for, certainly, any thing more presumptuous or profane, does not often occur, even among those who have cast off the fear of God, and trampled his laws under their feet. It far outstrips the conduct of Rowland Hill, in the Preface to his Village Dialogues, where he stigmatizes as bigotry, a conscientious obedience to the will of Christ, and brands with the imputation of "sectarian principles," all regard to "order, regularity, consistency, principle, discipline, steadiness," &c. This poor man, in his zeal for Catholicism, and liberality of sentiment, is so blinded with rage against the Baptists, that he cannot perceive a very obvious fact, viz. that whatever there be which is culpable in the "schisms and disunion," unhappily pre

attaches, not to those whom he condemns, but to himself and others who have forsaken the law of the Lord, and who are mingling with his sacred institutions, the trumpery traditions of men. But, to return to the Abrahamic

covenant.

by leading you back to Moses, and getting him to help out the deficiency of the New Testament writers on this subject-thus making the law of Christ of none effect through the traditions of men.

vailing among professing Christians, | of the subject, equally with the Lords supper; and, as the apostle declares, that the latter ordinance is not partaken of, when the Lord's body is not discerned, so we may, with equal confidence aver, that Christ's institution of baptism is not administered, when the subject is incapable of discerning the The conduct of the Podobaptists, in thing signified in it. But, now mark reference to the subject before us, very the conduct of the Podobaptists! Findmuch resembles that of the Socinians, ing nothing in all the New Testament respecting the doctrine of Atonement to warrant the practice of extending and Sacrifice. These last mentioned the rite to infants, they beg leave to gentlemen cannot deny, that the apos-imitate the example of the Socinians, tolic writers do speak largely upon these important points, when they treat of the death of Christ, but then, to render the doctrine of no effect, as it regards the hope of the guilty, or the remission of sins through his blood, they sagaciously take us back to the book of Leviticus, and so beg leave to explain what the apostles teach, by what Moses wrote or dictated concerning these matters-they invert the scriptural order of things, and explain the substance by the shadow. They would make us believe that Paul meant no more when he spoke of Christ by himself purging our sins-making reconciliation for the sins of the people-by his own blood having obtained eternal redemption for us-offering himself without spot to God-putting away sin by the sacrifice of himself with many other similar forms of speech-than what Moses meant when he instituted the legal sacrifices and offerings under the law, viz. that they served to the purifying of the flesh, or cleansed from ceremonial pollution! Now this, or something very much akin to this, is the conduct of Podobaptists in relation to the New Testament institute. The Son of God, in setting up his kingdom in the world, commanded his gospel to be preached to every creature, and that all who through grace are brought to understand and believe it, should be baptized in his name. This is his royal will and pleasure, as it respects the way of entering his visible kingdom-or, putting on the Christian profession. But, then, here is not a word or a hint about the administration of this ordinance to infants-it presents itself to our view as a solemn act of worship in which the person baptized, professes his faith in all the grand essential doctrines of the gospel of our salvation; it requires understanding and faith on the part

But then, the enquiry naturally arises, is there any thing in the covenant which God made with Abraham, that lays a foundation for the sprinkling of infants? This is the subject which has employed the pens of Messrs. Burder and Bruce, on the affirmative side of the question, and of the judicious Birt on the opposite. And here we cannot forbear to commend the temper and spirit which appears in all these writers-not an angry word escapes any one of them. Of the principles and reasonings, however, we cannot speak so respectfully; those, we mean, of the two young men who appear as advocates for the practice of infant baptism. It is really grievous to see how bewildered they both are respecting the Abrahamic covenant. They agree in maintaining, that "the covenant with Abraham was the covenant of grace-the covenant of redemptionthe everlasting covenant-the covenant under which we live; embracing all that man can desire, and all that Jehovah can impart." Burder's Sermon, p.7. Now, here, a difficulty very naturally arises-"if the new and everlasting covenant was made with Abraham, and then ratified by sacrifice, how is it possible that this same covenant could be the subject of promise in the days of the prophet Jeremiah, as we are certain it was; (see Jer. xxxi. 31-34.) in that case the new covenant must have been in force before the old, for the latter did not exist till 400 years after Abraham's time, Acts vii. 6-7. Again, if this covenant which God entered into with Abraham, was indeed, "the same under which we now live," then, both the old

between the two dispensations, these writers are labouring to destroy; and in order to make out the infant's right to baptism, they are contending for the same kind of connexion between a believer and his infant seed under the gospel, as that which subsisted between Abraham and his natural posterity under the former dispensation.

and new covenants must have been in force at the same time; and in that case, how could the former give place to the latter, as the Apostle reasons in Heb. viii.-in fact, there could be neither new nor old in the case of either covenant-or if there were, the Apostle must have committed a gross error, and his language ought to be reversed-for, in point of fact, upon the principle of these They have found an able opponent authors, the new should be old, and the in Mr. Birt, than whom few men of the old new! We merely throw out these age better understand the subject under hints for the purpose of shewing how discussion. In the compass of a shilling deplorably mystified the minds of these pamphlet, he has analyzed the princi gentlemen are, on the subject of the ples of Mr. Burder's Sermon, and evincovenants; and how much that system ced their contrariety to the doctrine of needs rectifying, which leads to such divine grace, to the spiritual and heaconclusions as those they have avowed. venly nature of Christ's kingdom,' and Could they only once take in the Apos- to the concurrent tenour of the whole tle's simple unperplex'd doctrine of "the New Testament. We sincerely hope two covenants," Gal. iv. 24, it would it will be deliberately read and carefully serve as a clue to lead them into the examined, particularly by Messrs. Burnature of Christ's kingdom, as distin-der and Bruce. Of the latter, we cannot guished from the former dispensation-help saying, that he is an exceedingly but then, were this the case, away goes pleasing writer in respect of style-and their favourite point at once-the sprink- were the principles of his little volume ling of infants. The truth is, that "the consonant to the doctrine of our Lord promise which God made to Abraham," and his Apostles, we should have been (we quote the Apostle's express words, delighted with his production; but THEY Heb. vi. 13.) may be said to have ARE NOT his premises are unfounded, respected or included "THE TWO COVE- and the conclusions built upon them, NANTS;" the old covenant made at Si- are rash and unwarranted. They are nai, with all his natural descendants, calculated to perplex and distress the and the new covenant which was ratified mind of the parent, while they tend to by the sacrifice of Christ, with his spi- foster that of his offspring in presumpritual seed of all nations. Now the rite tion, and build them up in the conceit of circumcision was appropriated to the that because their parents, or at least first of these covenants, which was only one of them makes a profession of retypical and temporary, and accordingly ligion, they have a peculiar interest in was set aside when that old covenant the redemption which is by Christ Jesus, vanished away. But the argument, than which we can conceive of nothing which these writers found upon the more calculated to inflate them with subject, viz. that as the male infants of pharisaical pride, and lull them in the Abraham's natural posterity were cir- lap of fatal security. And then what a cumcised, so all the infants of believing strange unscriptural jargon has he inparents should be baptized, is a most dulged himself in, in chap. v. respectlame and impotent conclusion. Baptism ing "the means of bringing children indeed pertains to the new covenant, into the covenant," -a covenant which, even as circumcision did to the old according to his doctrine, they are albut it belongs only to such as appear to ready in by virtue of their fleshly_birth! be the spiritual seed of Abraham by Alas, what a falling off is here. But we faith in Christ Jesus-to such as are trust, from what we know of his canborn, not of blood, nor of the will of the dour, and of his readiness to receive flesh, nor of the will of man, but of evidence wherever it offers itself to him, God," Joh. i. 13. Hence we find John that the day is not far remote, when he the Baptist setting aside the Jewish will be content to take the New Testaclaim, founded upon their descent from ment alone as his guide in all the affairs Abraham, Matt. iii. 9. for though this of Christ's kingdom, and for ever wash was a valid plea for circumcision, it his hands of the idle ceremony of could not avail, for baptism, which be- sprinkling infants, the defence of which longs only to such as appear to be born involves him in continual absurdities again. Now this important distinction and contradictions.