an

IN no age of the world has one conftitution of government, or one fyftem of religion been univerfally received; and there are many natural caufes which will forever prevent fuch union in this world. But if religjous controverty was conducted by the pacifick principles of the gofpel, instead of ribaldry and invective, it would be characterized by purity of fentiment, extent of refearch, and ftrength of reafoning; and inftead of that fpirit of party which awakens the inveterate enmity of its opponents, it would excite a fupreme love of truth, whilst it cherished an ardent affection for thofe who were believed to be deluded by

errour.

In noticing the pamphlet,which Mr. Smith has published as an “examination of Dr. Ofgood's arguments in favour of sprink ling children," we obferve with pain a departure from all thofe principles, by which a fubject fo ferious and interefting fhould be difcuffed. The title page

which

we have quoted evinces a fpirit, which we should not have expect ed in "a fervant of Jefus Chrift;" and it is hardly poffible to perufe the first paragraph, without feeling emotions of contempt for its author. Our opinions of Mr. Smith, deduced from his previous publications,reftrain us from a vindication of the character of Mr. Green, which he has treated with contempt, but which is refpected by every good man to whom he is known. Yet his unqualified abuse of the character and mifreprefentations of the "arguments" of Dr. Ofgood, as they might bias the minds of thofe

who would otherwise read this production only, induce us to recommend to all by whom it should be perufed, that the fermons of Dr. O. be at the fame time open before them. In our affociated character, it is not within our province even to attempt a refutation of the fentiments of Mr. S.; but the manner in which they are 'defended is fuch as deferves and fhould receive the fevereft cenfure.

The ftyle of this "examination," has a close resemblance to that of the "Age of Reafon ;” nor do we think, in fome points, that the difpofitions of the writers are diflimilar. A few quotations will justify thefe ftrictures, and, we believe, will furnish our read, ers with as much of this number of the "Looking-glafs," as they will defire.

Mr. O.'s first argument to prove that

infants are fubjects of baptifm, is this, that believers' children are born members of Chrift's kingdom. He fays, p. 32. " Chriflian parents have the unfpcak able fatisfaction of looking upon their infant kingdom, and as fuch they bring them to offspring as born the subjects of Chrif baptifm, the ordinance by which Chrift re quires bis fubjects to be diftinguifbed from the rest of the world."

Mr. O. has gone beyond the bishop of Rome in this quotation; for he never pretended that children were born fub jects of Chrift's kingdom; he held they were born in fin, and that baptism took it away. The church of England holds that in baptifm the child is made a God, and an heir of glory. This is one member of Chrift's kingdom, a child of of the most abominable falfeboods I ever faw published in this or any other country; the pope would be ashamed of the affertion; for if this is true, the born again, and reconciled to God, is given idea of repentance, faith, juflification, being up at once as it refpects those who are born of believing parents. If this is

true, that believing parents fee their children born fubjects of Chrift's kingdom, then they are as certain that their children are faints, as we are that the feed of an apple will produce an apple tree. If this is the foundation on which infants ftand as fubjects of baptifm, it is easy to remove it, and bring the whole of his bafelefs fabrick to the ground. Chrift fays, "Except a man be born again he cannot fee the kingdom of God." Can a man be born again before he is born once? No. Chrift fays, "Except a man be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." To be born of water is a natural birth, to be born of the bpirit is a fpiritual birth. Chrift fays, a man must be born of the fpirit, to enter into the kingdom of God. Mr. O. fays, children are born fubjects of Chriff's kingdom. Which fhall we be lieve, Mr. O. or Jefus Chrift? If Mr. O. fpeaks the truth, Jefus told a lie. John fays, the fons of God" were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the fleth, nor of the will of man; but of God." John i. 13. Mr. O. fays, they are born of blood, that is, of their parents. Had he faid, "Anti-chriftian parents have the unspeakable fatisfaction of looking upon their infant offspring as born the fubjects of Anti-chrift's kingdom," it might have been easily proved true. How are thefe fubjects of Chrift diftinguished from the reft of the world by baptifm? There is no diftinction made between these and others. Should a man pafs through Medford and hear the children ufe profane language, and be told that they were fubjects of Chrift's kingdom, would any perfon of common fenfe believe they were his fubjects? They would not. I think this text applies with all its force to Mr. O. "But evil men and feducers fhall wax worfe and worfe, deceiving and being deceived." He has gone beyond the Bishop of Rome. There Jeave his Reverence.

2. To prove that children ought to be baptized, Mr. O. calls them Chrift's lambs. The New Teftament never calls infants lambs; if fheep mean old believers, lambs are young believers; this is the meaning of the word. Thofe whom Mr. O. calls lambs, when they

grow up, what are they? Are they the humble followers of Chrift? They arg not. Many of them appear more like fwine than fheep. This argument is no proof that infants ought to be baptized.

Mr. O.'s feventh argument to prove infants the fubjects of baptifm, is taken from prefumption. He says, p. 40, “ And if we be able, as in this question concerning infant baptifm, to trace the practice of it up through all preceding ages to that of the epef tles, it must be allowed a frong prefumptive argument in favour of its baving originated with the apefiles themselves."

This prefumptive argument is fo far from being a proof of the truth of infant baptifin, that it is confidered in Scripture, a defpifing the word of God, and rebelling against his commands To fhew what this prefumptive argument is, I will here give the Scripture account of prefumption. Prefumptive perfors are defcribed in Deut. xviii. 50, 22 "But the prophet that shall profime to fpeak a word in my name which I have not commanded him to speak, or that hall fpeak in the name of other gods, even that prophet fhall die. When a prophet fpeaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pas, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it pr fumptuously, thou that not be afraid of him." Here observe, to prefume is to fpeak that which God has not commanded.

Pr

We have à defcription of prefumptuous perfons in 2 Pet. ii. 10. Sumptuous are they, felf-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities" It is evident from this, that a prefumptuous perfon is one who goes by his own will, and not by the word of God, and who fets up his own will as a rule for others inftead of the word of God. We are told of the greatness of the in a perfon commits when he does any thing prefumptuously, in Numbers xv. 90, $1. "But the foul that doeth aught prefumptuofly (whether he be born in the land or a stranger) the fame reproacheth the Lord; and that fort thall be cut off from among his people. Because he hath defpifed the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, and that soul shall be utterly cut

off from among his people." Here obferve, to do any thing prefumptucufly, is to reproach the Lord, defpife his word, to break his commandment. Prefamp tion is fo far from being a proof of infant baptifm, that it is an awful fin in the fight of God, and an evidence that Mr. O. has defpifed the word of God, and fet up his own will as a rule for others, inftead of the word of God. I

leave it with the candid to judge, whether his prefumptive argument is any thing towards proving infants the fubjects of baptifin.

Sermons on various important fubjects written partly on fundry of the more difficult paffages in the facred volume. By Rev. Andrew Lee, A. M. paflor of the north church in Lisbon, Connecticut.... Worcester. I. Thomas, jun. 8vo. pp. 403.

THOSE difcourfes which enlighten the under ftanding, convey to us a true knowledge of chriftian doctrines, and accurately define the extent of chriftian duties, are a thoufand times more ufeful to the world, than all the rantings addressed to the paffions, or all the flowers that pleafe the imagination. The impreffion of the former will remain with us, as important treafure, and ferve to regulate the conduct of life, when that of the latter has long fince been expended, and ceafes to be felt.

In this view we confider the difcourfes of Mr. Lee with favourable eyes, and think them well deferving the attention of all who regard religion as a practical science, rather than as a fanciful fpeculation. Though they embrace a variety of fubjects, all of which are handled with accu

racy, and fome of which are managed in a ftyle of peculiar excellence; yet their author feems to aim principally at the elucidation of what have, ufually, been confidered the more difficult paffages in the facred volume.

It has been the misfortune of many, who have undertaken tó illuftrate fuch fubjects, that they have ftill further perplexed what was before obfcure, and thrown into obfcurity what was before plain. But thefe difcourfes evince their author to have had clear ideas of his fubjects, which he has clearly conveyed to his readers; and to have poffeffed a good knowledge of the fcriptures in their original, which with judgment he has applied. His thoughts are juft, and his method happy; his inferences natural, his folutions often novel, and always fatisfactory. Unfettered by the dogmas of others he thinks for himfelf; and unbiaffed by erroneous conftructions of authors and commentators he draws his knowledge from the original. Indeed he appears well qualified to ac complish the task he has undertaken.

Though the style of thefe difcourfes is abrupt, and the fentences often without due proportion, yet this defect is fo well compenfated by their luminous ideas, their found fenfe, and catholick, independent fpirit, that did not our duty require us to review them with the eye of a crit ick, and to point out their defects as well as excellencies, we fhould fcarcely have noticed this imperfection, though we should not have paffed over fome confiderable typographical errours which

occur, without regretting their

Occurrence.

It is not our intention to give a review of each particular fermon. We will notice a few only which it would be great injuftice to neglect. Of this defcription is that upon Mofes' prayer to be blotted out of God's book; St. Paul's wifh to be accurfed from Chrift; the fear that terminates in the fecond death; the danger of deviating from divine inflitutions, &c.

In the author's difcourfe upon Mofes' prayer, he notices the ufe which has been made of it by fome fects of chriftians, viz. that a perfon must be willing to be damned for the glory of God, or he cannot be faved. This fentiment is here oppofed with ftrength of reasoning, with ingenuity, and we think in an unanswerable manner. He then proceeds, by explaining the fenfe of Mofes in that prayer, to make it appear very evident that no fuch doctrine could be inferred from it, and thus fubverts one main pillar upon which fo fingular a fentiment was fuppofed to reft.

"And Mofes returned unto the Lord and faid: Oh! this people have finned a great fin, and have made them gods of gold. Yet now, if thou wilt, for give their fin, and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou haft written.".

"Which words," fays Mr. Lee, "fo far from fupporting a doc trine, which fome have imagined them to justify, are no other than a prayer for himfelf, that his fins, which might ftand charged against him in the book of God, might be blotted out, however God might deal with Ifrael."

This rational construction he des monstrates to be the true one, by trying the other fenfes which have been put upon the words.

"Oh! this people have finned a great fin, yet now, if thou wilt forgive their fin; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou haft written. And the Lord faid unto Mofes, whofoever hath finned against me, him will I blot out of my book. Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee."

1. We will fuppofe blotting out of God's book, to mean destroying foul and body in hell. The divine determination to fhew no mercy to Ifrael, is ther the reafon affigned for the order here fwer ftand thus-Now if thou wilt, fergiven to Moses. The prayer and angive this people-Anfwer-I will not bear thy prayer for them-no mercy fall be feron them, but utter, eternal defiratios all be their portion-THEREFORE HOW lead them to the promised land.

II. Suppofe blotting out of God's book to mean annihilation, and his answer to to the prayer ftands thus-I will def troy this people, and blot them from ameng my works-THEREFORE go lead them is the place of which I bave spoken unto thee !

III. Suppofe with Mr. Henry, and Doct. Hunter, that it is to be underflood of deftruction in the wilderness, and the anfwer ftands thus-My wrath feell wax hot against Ifrael and corfume them they all all die in the wilderness, THEREFORE,

how yo

lead them to Canaan!

The whole people, fave Mofes and Joshua, feem to have participated in the revolt. We have no account of an

other exception; and whefoever bad finned, had either of thefe been the meaning of God would blot out of Lis book. Surely blotting out of God's book, it would not have been given as the reafon for Moles' refuming his march and carrying up the tribes to the land of promife. Common fense revolts at the idea.

But if we understand Hetting out of God's book in the fenfe we have put upe on it, we fee at once the propriety of

the order given to Mofes, founded on this act of grace, God's having "repented of the evil which he thought to do unto them." If this is the meaning of the words, the answer to Mofes' prayer amounts to this" I have heard and hearkened to your prayer, and pardoned the fin of this people, proceed therefore in your march, and lead them to the place of which I have spoken unto thee." The therefore go now, doth not furprize us. We fee the order rife out of the divine purpofe; but on any of the other conftructions of the text, thwarts and contradicts it; or cannot furely be affigned as the reason of it.

Several other confiderations illuftrate the fubject, and confirm our conftruc

tion of it.

When Mofes returned to intercede for Ifrael, he certainly asked of God, to pardon their fin. Ob! this people have finned a great fin, and have made them gods of gold-Yet now, if thou wilt, forgive their Jin-That he was heard and obtained his request appears not only from the hiftory contained in our context, but from Mofes' rehearsal of it just before his death. He recounted the dealings of God with Ifrael, when taking his leave of them on the plains of MoabIn that valedictory difcourfe he reminded them of their fin on this occafionof God's anger against them-his threatening to deftroy them, and how he pleaded with God in their behalf, and the fuccefs which attended his intercellions for them-" I was afraid of the anger and hot difpleasure wherewith the Lord was wroth with you, to destroy you, but the Lord bearkened unto me at that time alfo."*

Sentence of death in the wilderness was afterwards denounced against those finners, and executed upon them, but not to punish this fin; but the rebellion which was occafioned by the report made by the spies who were fent to fearch out the land. On that occafion Mofes prayed fervently for his people, and not wholly without effect-God had threatened to "imite them with the peftilence, and difinherit them," but receded from his threatening through the prevalence of that interceffor in their behalf-"The Lord faid, I have

• Deuteronomy ix. 19.

Vol. I. No. 13. Fffff

pardoned according to thy word," but at the fame time, denounced an irrevok able fentence of death in the wilderness against thofe rebels. Then Mofes was not ordered to " lead the people to the place of which God had spoken,” but commanded to go back into the wilder nefs which they had paffed-" turn you, and get ye into the wilderness by the way of the red sea."t

At that time, the exception from the general sentence, was not in favour of Mofes and Joshua, who had been on the mount, and taken no part in Ifrael's fin in making the golden calf, but in favour of Caleb and Jofhua, who diffented from the report made by the other fpies; though no intimation is given that Caleb was not with the people, and did not fin with them in the matter of the golden calf. There is therefore no doubt refpecting the fin which shut that generation out of Canaan. Nor do we apprehend more occafion for doubt relative to the prayer of Mofes, to be blotted out of God's book.

But though the fin of Ifrael on this occafion was pardoned, and Mofes ordered to lead them to Canaan, fome temporal chastisements were inflicted, to teach the evil of fin, and ferve as a warning to others to keep themselves in the fear of God; of which Mofes was notified when ordered to advance with the pardoned tribes" Neverthe lefs, in the day when I vifit, I will vifit their fin upon them. And the Lord plagued the people because they had made the calf which Aaron made." The manner in which this is mentioned,, fhows that their fin in that affair was forgiven, and only fome lighter corrections ordered in confequence of it; which is common after fin is pardoned.

In confidering St. Paul's with in Romans ix. 3. "For I could with that myfelf were accurfed from Chrift for my brethren, my kinfmen according to the fleth," he proves the difficulty here to lie in our tranflation. Its literal fenfe appears to be this--For I myself boafted that I was a curfe

† Numbers xiv.