the confession of the parents, or the faith of one or both of them, they have a right to baptism, why not to the eucharist? Here I remembered to have read an account of Cyprian, the African bishop, who, in the middle of the third century, first introduced infant baptism, and, to be consistent with himself, introduced infant communion at the same time.

I could not but observe what force and violence were used on the occasion. The little candidate, who never proposed himself, nor, indeed, had sense enough to know anything that was going on, was taken by force, and, notwithstanding all his struggles and screams, had the name of the Trinity called over him, and was, somehow or other, shut up in the pales of the church. Is this Christian liberty? thought I, more than a hundred times.

About this time, my father, schoolmaster, and minister, took much pains to teach me the catechism, where it is observed that baptism is not to be administered to any who are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to his revealed will. What, in the world of wonders, thought I, do these people mean? The man and his wife, now in the broad aisle, do not profess to be believers, and yet they claim baptism for their child, contrary to that oracular catechism, composed by so many D. D.'s, and M. A.'s. Here my zeal broke over all bounds, and turning to old neighbor Turnpie, said I, " do these people hold to the Westminister catechism?" "Yes," said he, " but, they are constantly gaining more light, and, therefore, altering their modes; but still they are the same people." This made me think of the Irishman's knife which he kept for antiquity's sake, which had been his grand-father's, his father's, and his own; and, although it had worn out two or three blades, and three or four handles, yet it was the very knife that his grandfather first bought.

After pausing awhile, I remembered that the article concluded thus: "but the infants of those who are enemies of the visible church, are to be bap tized." You lie, reverend sirs, said I. What! first tell us that baptism is not to be administered to any out of the church, and then tell us it is, and think boys and men too will believe your contradictions? Here I should have proceeded, but a man in the seats not only began to knock his black staff, but really came and took me by the hand. "What now?" said I. He replied, "I am a tything-man to keep order." Here a thousand thoughts rushed into my mind, some of which were as follows: did Jesus, or his apostles, ever appoint tything-men to keep boys or men in order? Did they ever give orders to civil rulers to make laws to force people to go to meeting once a month, or pay a fine? Did they ever institute black staves and stocks to prevent disorder in religious worship? Have those people New Testament authority to establish creeds for others, and go contrary to them, themselves, and punish others if they cannot receive their glaring inconsistencies and absurdities? Some say that the laws of men

are the sinews of the gospel: but are they not rather the sinner's gospel? Is not every kind of cruelty and oppression executed under the pretext of civil law? Have not the majority in every part of the world christened all their madness and self-will by the names of civil law and good order? These things are so, said I, in my heart, but durst not speak, for the tything-man held me by the hand. After meeting was over, and I had escaped from the black staff, I returned home, resolving to read for myself.

Carefully reading the New Testament, I found that the word baptize, with its various declensions, occurred about one hundred times; but in none of these places did it countenance baby baptism, and as I had made some proficiency in Greek, I searched the Greek Testament and lexicon, where I found that baptism came from the word baptizo, and that the word sprinkle, came from the Greek rantis, so that sprinkling could not be baptizing.

The Greek baptizo, in a few places, is translated wash; but as bodies, cups, and platters cannot be washed well, by sprinkling a few drops of water upon them, I concluded that all who undertook to baptize, by sprinkling, were religious sluts.

About this time, my father was often telling me that he designed me for the gown; that I was of a weakly constitution, not able to get a living out of the ground, and if I could furnish my mind with letter and theological knowledge, I might be inducted into a parish where I might receive a good benefice. But here my foolish heart kept running thus: my father intends me for a minister, but does God? Those who are sent by men to preach, must look to men for their pay; but those that are sent by God, must depend on him.

If I have but a weakly constitution, why should a runt, of a family, be imposed on a parish to eat more than he can work? If a benefice tempts me to preach, I shall preach for filthy lucre, and not out of love to God and souls. If I learn to preach by rule, I shall fall upon the plan of others, of long prayers and short sermons, to save the trouble of writing much. And when I have my sermons all penned down, I shall have to pray, not for God's assistance, but for good eye-sight.

Upon the whole, I concluded that the religion I had been acquainted with, was little more than a state trick of court intrigue, and was therefore resolved to study politics. By this time, I had gained my twentysecond year; and being fired with ambition to know what other men did, I first purchased a book containing the several constitutions of government adopted in the different states. Now, thought I, I shall be a wise man. I had such profound reverence for the men who framed these constitutions, that I concluded that it would be presumption, and almost blasphemy, to call in question a single word: but, attending to their strictures, I found there were not two of them agreed. What, said I, do great men differ? boys, women, and little souls do; but can learned, wise patriots disagree

so much in judgment? If so, they cannot all be right, but they may all be wrong, and therefore, Jack Nips for himself. What encouraged me to search and judge for myself, was this: when I was a small boy, I fancied that I stood in the middle of the world, and that the earth extended no fur. ther than my eye-sight explored: but people told me that I was wrong in my judgment; but after a few years study, I found I was half right. That the earth exceeded my eye-sight, I soon found by experience; herein I was wrong. But that I am always on the centre spot of the surface of the globe, is an undeniable truth. And as mature experience convinced me that my boyish thoughts were some of them right, I concluded it might be so with my study in politics.

The above is the only portion of this piece that could be obtained; as every effort to find an unmutulated copy of it has proved unsuccessful.

THE BIBLE BAPTIST.

Discordant sentiments agree

To make the sons of Adam free.

EXTRACT FROM THE PREFACE.

Troth needs no apology, and error deserves none. Prefatory lies have often atoned for ignorance and ill-will in the Eastern and European worlds; but let the sons of America be free. It is more essential to learn how to believe, than to learn what to believe.

The doctrine and spirit of the following remarks, are left for the reader to judge of for himself. Truth is in the least danger of being lost, when free examination is allowed.

BIBLE BAPTIST.

Christian writers generally agree to reproach the Jews, for treating the Rabbies with as much respect as they did the Prophets; giving as great credit to their traditions as they did to the sacred volume. But many Christian writers are guilty of the same absurdity. It is not more insig. nificant for Jews to quote the Talmud or the Targum, to prove a Mosaic rite, than it is for Christians to depend on Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, and the other fathers of the church, for a gospel ordinance. In the follow. ing remarks, no attempts will be made to mend our translation of the Bible, and equal credit will not be given to any other writings.

The word baptism, is not to be found in the Old Testament; and if it were a thousand times, would be no precept for a New Testament sacrament. Nor is there but one place in the New Testament,† where the word refers to a transaction recorded in the Old Testament: 1st Cor. x., 2, "and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," refer

* Published in Virginia before the year 1790; the precise year is not known.

+ No notice is taken of Heb. vi., 2, because, it is doubtful whether the word refers to the Levitical customs of washings, or to the practice of Christians. The same Greek word is found elsewhere, but differently translated in our version.

ring to Ex. xiv., 19. "When Israel passed through the sea, the waters were a wall to them on the right hand and on the left," see verse 22. The cloud returned and stood behind them, covering them over in an arched form, 1st Cor. x., 1. Now as the waters were a wall to them on the right and left, and the cloud over them, they were covered or buried in the cloud or in the sea; which is what Paul, in the above quoted text, calls baptism. Some have feigned that the cloud at this time sprinkled down a shower of rain upon the Israelites, and a very vain fancy it is, for it is certain they all passed over dry-shod, which they could not have done had there been a shower of rain; Ex. xiv., 21, 29. Others have quoted this passage to prove household baptism; but it would be more natural to apply it to national baptism; for all the nation of Israel, and a mixed multitude besides, were there baptized to Moses: but if this is a proof for household or national baptism, in gospel times, it must be an equal proof for the baptism of quadrupeds. It is certain that their flocks and herds, even very much cattle went with them, not a hoof was left behind, and were all baptized: Ex. x., 26—xii., 38. If this wondrous miracle is a precedent for New Testament baptism, it requires us all to have our cattle baptized as well as our children.

The New Testament is introduced with the history of a famous Baptist preacher and his order of baptizing. John, the forerunner of Jesus, is called a Baptist fifteen times in the four Evangelists. Is it ignorance or ill will, that so often reproaches the Baptists with novelty? Is it not certain that the first preacher spoken of in the New Testament was a Baptist? Why should they be called a new sect, when they can name their founders antecedent to the founders of any other society? Did not Jesus submit to John's baptism, to fulfil all righteousness? Was not Jesus, therefore, a Baptist? These things are so. Baptism is no strange word. in the New Testament. The noun, with its relative verb and participle, occurs one hundred times; which may be found in the following places : Mat. iii., 6, 7, 11, 13, 14, 16.—xx., 22, 23.—xxi., 25.—xxviii., 19. Mark i., 4, 5, 8, 9, 10.—x., 38, 39.—xi., 30.—xvi., 16. Luke iii., 3, 7, 12, 16, 21.—vii., 29, 30.—xii., 50.—xx., 4. John i., 25, 26, 28, 31, 33.—iii., 22, 23, 26, 4, 1, 2. Acts i., 5, 22.—ii., 38, 41.—viii., 12, 13, 16, 39, 38. ix., 18.—x., 37, 40, 47, 48.—xi., 16.—xiii., 24.-xvi., 15, 33.—xviii., 8, 25.—xix., 3, 4, 5.--xxii., 16. 1st Cor. i., 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.-x., 2.—xii., 13.—xv., 29. Eph. iv., 5. Col. ii., 12. Heb. vi., 2. 1st Pet., iii. 21.

Rom. vi., 3, 4.
Gal. iii., 27.

As John the Baptist was the first who baptized with water by divine authority, it appears necessary to make a few strictures on his baptism. The place of his preaching was the wilderness of Judea, Matt. iii., 1. His doctrine was repentance for sin, faith in the Messiah among them, and good works. See Mat. iii., 2, 11, 12. John i., 26, 34. Luke iii. 7, 15.