and this rule we think our author has strikingly exemplified. He has combined the suaviter in modo, with the fortiter in re, most happily; and if we could get nothing from his book but his good temper, we should be well paid for reading it. But we must not forget that Christ and his apostles, during their whole ministry, were every where engaged in religious controversy. They opposed the systems of Scribes and Pharisees, of Jews and Gentiles, and persisted in setting the truth of God over against the error of man, even unto the death. Are they not safe examples to follow? Can we better serve our generation than by treading in their footsteps? As long as the doctrines and ordinances of the Gospel are held in any esteem, and meet with opposers, so long must there be controversy; except where absolute in-difference about religion and all its interests has taken possession of the mind. If God has any where enjoined sprinkling as a Christian ordinance, Pedobaptists are right to contend for it; but if infant sprinkling be a mere human dogma, as utterly unscriptural as transubstantiation or Mahomedanism, then Baptists, as witnesses for Christ, are under the most solemn obligation to contend against it. And this controversy, in the nature of things, can only terminate with the shout of victory! Truth and error will maintain the fight until the weaker dies. Believing as we do, that infant baptism is "part and pillar of Popery," and that of course they must stand or fall together; actuated by no other motive than a regard for the word and honor of Christ, and a desire to restore the order and purity of

primitive Christianity; instead of deprecating controversy with reference to the ordinance in question, we would have the subject frequently, calmly, and dispassionately discussed. Such discussion is as important as it is proper. An interchange of their different views, and a fair comparison of the arguments by which they are sustained, is the most likely method by which we can hope to bring the watchmen upon the walls of Zion to see eye to eye, and induce all the saints of the Most High to lift up the voice together.

But Baptism is a non-essential; and therefore many excuse themselves from reading, thinking, or conversing seriously about their duty respecting it. Prof. Stuart expresses himself somewhat differently, and defends infant sprinkling principally upon the ground, that literal obedience is not essential in the case of external institutions.

It has always been matter of astonishment to us that any who believe and venerate the sacred Scriptures, should esteem baptism, or any other requirement of God, of trifling moment. Certainly such an opinion cannot be derived from the Bible. Adam was commanded not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge -it was but an apple-he thought it a small thing; he took it and did eat, and all the sin and misery of the human family, for time and for eternity, resulted from that single act of disobedience. Adam was mistaken when he deemed obedience to his Maker to be nonessential, even in so small an affair as eating an apple. In the tenth chapter of Leviticus we are informed that

there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron. And why were they cut off so terribly? Because "they offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not." They could not even change the kind of fire with impunity. If Christ has commanded his disciples to be immersed, who is he that ventures to change it into sprinkling or pouring, upon the bold presumption that literal obedience is not essential?

God commanded Saul "utterly to destroy Amalek ;" but he spared Agag and the best part of the spoil. When rebuked for his disobedience, he alleged that he had substantially, if not literally, obeyed the Lord, for what he had spared was for a "burnt-offering." Was this conduct pleasing to the Almighty? Read and remember Samuel's reply. "Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice; and to hearken, than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubborness is as iniquity and idolatry; because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king."

Let it be granted that baptism is not essential to salvation, if that be what the objector means; what then? Does he mean to say that he would not do any thing, if he could be saved without it? Is that Christlike? Hear him! "I delight to do thy will, O God.” There is a great mistake almost universally prevalent upon this subject. Men say, "baptism is a small mat

ter-to alter or disobey it therefore is of no importance." This inference is false and wicked. An apple was a small matter, but Adam's eating it was a great sin, because he disobeyed a great God. The parent who should command a child to pick up a pin, if disobeyed, would not measure the offence by the size of the pin, but by the undutiful disposition which spurned the authority of a father. It is upon this principle, that believers' baptism, although not essential to salvation, is nevertheless essential to Christian obedience; and an attentive perusal of the New Testament will shew that the Apostles and first preachers of the gospel uniformly commanded as many as believed, "both men and women," to be baptized, as a test of their obedience to Christ, their Prophet, Priest, and King. "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."

Before we pronounce any doctrine or ordinance of the Gospel to be non-essential, either in its breach or its observance, we must examine its results. "A grain of mustard seed, is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." A spark may ignite a world. "Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth." In view of this test look at Infant baptism, and see what it hath wrought! It hath broken down the partition wall between the church and the world, and thereby cast up a way for "the man of sin;" it laid the foundation for

ecclesiastical national establishments, and the union of Church and State; for neither Popery nor national churches can exist without it. It looks with an unfriendly eye upon religious freedom and the rights of conscience; and in the nineteenth century incarcerates Oncken, and Moenster, and their companions in tribulation, in the cold dungeons of Germany and Denmark, with as much complacency as it banished Roger Williams from Massachesetts more than two hundred years ago. It has ministered to the soul-deception of millions, by teaching them that they were safe, and heirs of glory, and might be buried in consecrated ground, because they had been baptized in infancy. It is now the mightiest existing stumbling block in the way of evangelizing the world. It separates between the children of God at home, and between missionaries in foreign lands. It has laid hold upon Committees and Pedobaptist Bible Societies, and has passed a law, in direct opposition to the revealed will of Zion's King, forbiding Barrisw and its cognates to be translated, that under cover of barbarous words, infant baptism may be extended and perpetuated. It has converted venerable doctors of divinity, men of high standing for piety and talents, into lobby members at Albany, who have combined with other sectarians, year after year, to prevent the Legislature of New-York from granting a charter to the American and Foreign Bible Society; a benevolent Institution, sustained and conducted by Christians; and the single object of which is to aid in the wider circulation of the sacred Scriptures