they may all be pardoned. But let me remind you, at the same time, that, however few and small your sins may appear to you to be, none of them will be pardoned without repentance. Your Saviour's arms are open to receive you, if you do repeat: but if you do not, all he hath done and suffered, all the agony he hath undergone, and all the blood he hath shed, will be of no avail to you. If, therefore, you desire that He that made you should have mercy upon you, you must obey this your Redeemer's command; you must repent. Let me entreat you, then, to review the whole subject. Consider how many obligations God hath laid you under to perform this duty. Your duty and your interest are indeed here, as they are in every other instance, inseparably united. All the promises, as well as the threatenings, of God; all his merci ful, as well as all his afflictive, dispeusations; all the truths, and all the precepts, of his Gospel; call upon you with a loud and concurrent voice; bind, I may almost say force you, to repent. "The goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance:" and will not this goodness affect you? Shall God be so earnest, so urgent, and shall you be indifferent? He, it is to be remembered, does not need your repentance; he will receive no increase of happiness, or glory, from your services; nor will your continued rebellions affect the stability of his throne. And yet, mark with what tenderdess, with what paternal solicitude, he invites and entreats you to repent, that you perish not. "As I live, saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" To the same end, are the dealings of his providence towards you directed, He visits you with mercies, that be may win you from your sins. He chastens and afflicts you, that you may turn from the lying vanities of time and sense, to yours true and only happiness. He terrifies your with his judgments, that you may escape the ruin which hangs over the transgressor. To this end also he has given you his word to instruct you, his ordinances to edify you, his sacraments to strengthen you. For this end he hath sent his Son to die for you, his Spirit to sanctify you and live within you, and his ministers to urge you to repentance. And if, after all this, you will still continue in sin, you will still refuse to repent and return unto the Lord, your blood will surely be upon your own heads, your destruction will surely be from yourselves. In the name of that Saviour, therefore, who came down to earth in order to shew you the way to heaven; who laid down his life to redeem yours; who hath told you in plain terms, that "except ye repent, ye must all likewise perish;" let me entreat you to obey this his first command to you. I know you would all wish to be saved; and you profess to expect salvation, only from Jesus Christ. You have heard, then, that he makes repentance indispensable to your salvation. Without this, he himself assures you that you will not be saved, but must inevitably perish. Therefore, as you value the salvation of your immortal souls, let me once more urge you in his name to break off your sins by repentance and conversion unto God. Say not in your hearts, that God is infinitely merciful, and Christ's merits are all sufficient. This indeed is true; but the mercy of God, and the merits of Christ, infinite as they are, will not be extended to you. unless you repent and are converted. Lay then this matter to heart. Put not off the work of repentance any longer. Give no rest to your eyes, nor slumber to your eyelids, untik you have humbled yourself for your sins before; until, in the strength of divine grace, you have stedfastly resolved to forsake them, to forsake them all, however pleasing and profitable you may think them; until you turn with the prayer of faith to that Saviour, for whose sake alone you can expect pardon, or any other blessing, from the hands of your offended Father. Now unto him who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, to him be honour and power everlasting. Ameu. To the Editor of the Christian Observer, Your correspondent M. F. in your number for November last, p. 700, informs us, that a recent periodical publication, which he does not name, and which has not fallen in ny way, asserts," that the introduction of infant baptism took place in the third and fourth centuries; and that the only men, whose character or talents have brought their names to our knowledge, have entered their protest against it." Strange as such assertions will appear to every reader conversant with the early Christian writers, I must assume that M. F. is accurate in his statement. For his satisfaction, therefore, and in order to shew the less informed reader how entirely the publication alluded to is unworthy of his credit, I request you to insert the following remarks. I understand, then, the publication in question to affirm that infant baptism began to be practised in the third century, and became general in the fourth; and that all writers of talents and credit, from Tertullian to the commencement of the fifth century, whose works are extant, enter their protest against the practice. A reader of this publication must conclude, that all these writers bad pointedly and unequivocally condemned infant baptism as an innovation which had crept in at the time this publication men tions, and that they considered it as unauthorised and unlawful. But of the greater part of the ancient an thors he specifies, I can with confi dence affirm, that no decisive conclusion can be fairly drawn from any part of their writings, whether infant baptism was or was not prac▴ tised in their times, and consequent ly whether they did or did not ap prove of it. With respect to them, then, his position is unfounded. On the other hand, some of these writers, so far from protesting against infant baptism as an unauthorised innovation, support it as a lawful and ancient practice. Tertullian, whose unsteady and visionary mind led him to embrace one wild sy stem after another, is not to be attended to in matters of opinion: but, on a question of fact, he is evidence. Among other still more serious mistakes, he had adopted the notion, that full remission of sins was the sure effect of baptism, but that sins committed afterwards could not easily be forgiven. He therefore proposes, as an improvement, evidently on received usage, that "the delay of baptism was more useful, especially in respect of infants;" and asks, “ Why does that innocent age hasten to the re mission of sins?* Now Tertullian flourished in the latter end of the second century, before infant bap tism had been introduced, if we are to believe the publication in ques tion. But does he attempt to esta blish his favourite scheme of converting baptism into a kind of ex treme unction, by condemning in fant baptism as a novel custom be gun within his own memory? Why mention a delay in the baptism of infants, if infants had not been hi therto baptised? Tertullian, then, proves that infant baptism had been practised before the third century. In the early part of the third century lived Origen, who also, we are told, protested against infant baptism. In his homily on St. Luke, as translated by Jerome (the original work is not extant), in proof of the doctrine of human des Cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue tamen circa parvulos....Quid festinat inno cens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? De Pap. Ch. 18. 603. Fol. Paris. 1500, pravity, he thus quotes the practice of infant baptism: "Infants are baptised for the remission of sins." Of what sins?" he then asks, "or at what time have they sinned? or how can there be any reason for this washing in infants, unless according to that sense we have just mentioned? No one is free from defilement, not even if his life has been only one day upon earth*" And if Rufinus has given Origen's, sentiments faithfully, of which we have no just ground for doubt, there is a passage which proves, beyond contradiction, that infant baptism did not first commence in the third century, but, according to Origen, is as old as Christianity. "The church has derived a tradition from the apostles, to administer baptism even to infants +." Is this protesting against infant baptism? But I have not yet done with this recent periodical publication. Why did he pass over the illustrious Dames of Cyprian and Augustine? Tertullian, whom he has mentioned, lived before the one, and Eusebius later than the other. Have their character or talents not brought their names to our knowledge?" When we have heard their testimony, we shall perhaps not be surprised why they were not subpoenaed on this cause. Cyprian was born about the beginning of the third century, and was converted to the Christian faith about the year 246 or 248; that is, about one hundred and fifty years after the death of the last of the apostles. When bishop of Hippo, he presided at a council, where, according to Augustine, sixty-six bishops were assembled. On this occasion they were consulted by one Fidus, whether he ought to defer Parvuli baptisantur in remissionem peccatorum. Quorum peccatorum? Vel quo tempote peccaverunt? Aut quomodo potest alla lavacri în parvulis ratio subsistere nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulo ante dixim, nullus mundus a sorde, nec si unius diei quidera fuerit vita ejus super terram. ↑ Ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem susepit etiam parvalis baptismum dare, the baptism of infants, not till they were adult, but till the eighth day of their age, from respect to the law of circumcision. The reply of the council, which was unanimous, for bad him to defer it so long; adding, that an infant could not be brought to baptism too soon. Here, then, we have the concurrence of sixtysix bishops to the propriety of in fant baptism, at or before the time when the publication in question affirms that this practice was first introduced, and in a way which shews that they had not a doubt of its being an established custom. Augustine lived at the close of the fourth century. Were I to attempt to quote all that may be found in his works, in confirmation of the practice and propriety of infant baptism, I should far exceed the limits you could allow me. One quotation shall suffice. "No Chris tian will say that they (little chil dren) are baptised in vain. And if any call for divine authority in this matter, although that which all the church holds, and which was not appointed by councils, but has been always in use, is most truly believed to have been transmitted to us by no other than apostolic authority; yet," &c. †. I have shewn, then, that infant baptism did not take its rise in the third and fourth centuries; that the ancient writers, quoted by the perio dical publication, do not "protest" against the practice; that two of them admit its prevalence and allow its propriety, and that one of them ascribes to it an apostolic origin. I have also shewn, that two eminent Fathers, whose testimony the work in question has thought fit to suppress, have proved, beyond the reach of * Vid. Cypriani, Lit. ad Fidam, 59. Nullus Christianorum dixerit eos (infantis) inaniter baptisarf. Et si quisquam in hac re Divinam auctoritatem quærat : quanquam quod universa tenet ecclesia, nec conciliis institutum sed semper retentum est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime traditur; tamen, &c. August, de Bap. Lib. iv. Contra Donat. reasonable doubt, that, in the beginning of the third century, infant baptism was a general established custom; and that it was considered as coeval with Christianity itself.Should M. F. wish for further information on this subject, I refer him to the pamphlet which be has quoted*, or to the larger works of Williams and Wall. J. G. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. In reply to the letter of your correspondent X. Y., in your number for September last, I beg leave to state that I do not know of any edict of the Emperor Justinian, promul gated in A. D. 536, respecting the pre-eminence of the Roman pontiff. The act of that emperor appealed to in the first of the papers which you did me the honour to insert in your publication (see Christ. Obs. for 1807, page 703), was the letter written by Justinian to Pope John in the month of March 533. This epistle will be found in the Code of Justinian, lib. i. tit. i., to which I take the liberty of referring your correspondent; who will see, in the same place, the edict of Justinian, upon the occasion of which the above epistle was addressed to the pope, and also one to the patriarch of Constantinople. In the epistle addressed to that partriarch, the pope is called " caput omnium sancissimorum Dei sacerdotum ;" and in the letter to the pope himself, Justinian styles his holiness " caput omnium sanctissimarum ecclesiarum." It has been said, that the title conferred by Phocas upon pope Boniface, in A. D. 606, was a higher and more extensive one than the above; and this matter is pretty fully discussed by Mr. Faber, in a paper published in your vol. for 1807, page 148. Having very lately, through the kind offices of a highly respected friend, obtained * Infant Baptism vindicated.-Sold by Rivingtons Hatchard, &c, a sight of two works of Paulus Diaconus, which contain some mention' of the edict of Phocas, I shall, for the satisfaction of such of your readers as may wish to inquire into the subject, transcribe the passages of Paulus Diaconus wherein he mentions this matter. The first is in his work, De Gestis Longobardorum, lib. iv. cap. xxxvii. "Phocas igitur, ut præmissum est, extincto Mauricio ejusque filiis, Romanorum regnum invadens, per octo annorum curricula principatus est. Hic rogante papa Bonifacio statuit sedem Romanæ et apostolicæ ecclesiæ caput esse omnium ecclesiarum quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat." The other passage is in the work of Diaconus de Gestis Romanarum ad Eutropii Historiam additus, lib. xvii. "Hic (Phocas) rogante papa Bonifacio, statuit sedein Romana ecclesiæ ut caput esset omnium ecclesiarum; quia ecclesia Constantinopolitana primam se omnium ecclesiarum scribebat." It appears from these quotations that Phocas bestowed no new title' upon pope Boniface, but merely confirmed the title which had been conferred upon pope John, by Justinian, seventy-three years before. It is also deserving of attention, that the title which the pope still takes, in his official papers, is not that of universal bishop, said to have been conferred by Phocas; but that of head of the church, which was actually conferred by Justinian. Sec, to this effect, a circular letter from the present pope* to the different cardinals (upon their rcceiving an order to quit Rome in three days), in the London Courier for the 1st June, 1808.-This letter. contains the following passage: And his holiness, foreseeing this *So rapid are the changes now going on,that the person whom I style the present pope, is perhaps, before now, hurled from the pontificial chair, and succeeded by Fesch, the uncle of Napoleon. case, that after having torn your eminence from his bosom, you might be left at a certain distance from Rome, is of opinion that you should not continue your journey, unless compulsion should be used, to the place designated to you, in order that it may be a matter of public notoriety that your removal from the head of the church has not been voluntary but compulsory." TALIB. To the Editor of the Christian Observer, * Tis with our judgments as our watches: noue Go just alike, yet each believes his own." THIS saying of the poet is applicable no less to our religious, than to our other sentiments. Believers and Unbelievers; Churchmen and Dissenters; Trinitarians and Unitarians; Calvinists and Arminians; Quakers, Moravians, and Methodists, profess an almost equal confidence that they are right, and are for the nost part sincere in that profession. I have been much amused, Mr. Editor, though a little pained at the same time, in observing how uniformly religious authors, of almost every class, assure the reader in their preface, that it is for the love of truth, and nothing but truth, that they have written. May I be permitted to quote a few passages in illustration of my remark? Mr. Godwin commences his preface to bis Enquirer, by announcing that "the writer deems himself an ardent lover of truth," and that his object is" to force her from her hiding-place.”—"May the God of truth," says Mr. Towgood, in the preface to his book in favour of the dissenters, "judge between the two parties.”—Mr. Lindsey, in the preface to his work in defence of anitarian worship, denominates teachers of his class" ingenuous" persons, who "contribute to spread light and truth through the world."To the humble, the candid, the upright inquirers after truth," Mr. CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 97. Fuller, in his book against, Soci nianism, observes, that "he takes the liberty to appeal."-" I have throughout the whole," says the writer of the preface to the Expo sition of the Doctrine of the Moravian Brethren," made truth my great object."-Robert Barclay com mences his Apology for the Doctrine of the Quakers, by saying, Forasmuch as that which above all things I propose to myself, is to declare and defend the truth."" I have sedulously sought for truth," says Mr. Fellowes," in the sanc tuary of the Scriptures."" As to myself," says Mr. Toplady, in his preface to his work in favour of predestination, "I wish to advance and to halt with the pillar of God's written word," I appeal to the Searcher of hearts," says his oppo pent, Mr. Fletcher," that I had rather impart truth than receive tithes."- Truth," says Sir Richard Hill, "makes me confident." In the pursuit of truth," says Dr. Haweis, in the introduction to his Impartial History of the Church of Christ, "friends and enemies to Christianity, &c. will be candidly considered."- Nothing to the con trary appearing to me from the side of truth," says Lord Shaftesbury, in his Characteristics, "I desire that these presents may pass in the place of a preface; for I am no friend to prefaces." A superficial observer of these nu merous and contradictory claims to the possession of truth, might be tempted by them to become scep tical on the whole subject of reli, gion; an effect which it will be one object of the present paper to obviate. But I shall first deduce a few important inferences which naturally occur. I begin with remarking, that a strong persuasion of the truth of our religious opinions is no proof that they are sound. Some of the men whose writings I have quoted have been good divines, but they cannot all have been in the right; for many of their, doctrines stand opposed to C |