yonder side the gulph? If reprobate rich gluttoms cannot bear to see their profligate companions and brothers, how will faithless fathers bear the sight of their ruined sons? Harsher than the infernal doors is the reverberating sound of their mutual recriminations. "If God will pour out his fury upon the heathen and upon the families, generally, that call not upon his name"-" If all the wicked and the nations that forget God shall be turned into hell"-" if it shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah, for Tyre and Sidon than for Chorazin and Bethsaida, what must become of those families and cities that have been taken visibly into covenant with God, and yet have neglected their christian privileges and covenant duties? We do not justify those who reject the counsel of God against themselves as their offspring by refusing to submit to the baptismal rite and consequent ecclesiastical obligation; nor do we pretend to say whether you that are theoretically right and practically wrong, or they who are wrong in beth, will be most condemned before God; but we are sure that a baptist is not so inconsistent, if he be careless of his family, as you are. The scripture is itself explicit that he who knows the master's will and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes. "Better not to vow, than to vow and not to pay." To be sure, this latter will particularly apply to things indifferent, among which the devotion of our children to our God cannot be counted. If there should be some among our Anabaptist op

ponents, notwithstanding the paralysing system into which they have been seduced, who are conscientious in educating their children, and some among you who are the contrary, the scripture has decided upon the case. The one says, 66 I will

· not.'

not, and yet goes; the other-I go, sir, and goes Were it not for instances of this kind the right of infants to baptism would be easily maintained. But alas! there are some who hold the truth in unrighteousness, and want nothing more for themselves or their offspring but the name of Christians, to take away their reproach, and instead of answering that end, it brings a reproach upon others and makes their own double. They are by this means not only breakers of the law of God, but of their own covenants and vows also. To such we would say, Be consistent, deny religion altogether; or strive, by the grace of God, to live according to its maxims, both in relation to yourselves, and your families. You will perhaps object-That you have not leisure to pay that attention to the religious education of your children, which according to christian rules and baptismal vows you ought. What is this? You have not leisure! That intimates that you have something of greater importance than your duty that engrosses your attention. You do not like that construction; but of what other, turn it as you can, is it susceptible? And can you really hope to succeed in worldly projects by breach of christian law, violation of covenant engagements, murder of your children's souls, and sacrilege

U

against God? Admit you can save half an hour per day by neglecting the morning and evening oblations, may you not soon loose more than that in the dissipation of folly, debility of sickness, or blasting of prospects by divine judgments, on account of this unbelieving and profane course? Religion is not an expenditure of time, nor calculated, when rightly understood and practised, to injure our worldly circumstances: Deut. 11. 6. "And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart, and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house & when thou walkest by the way, & when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." See the good effects, even in a temporal view, which a compliance with this precept has, both in the connection of the passage and in the history of that people to whom it was first given. Either your plan upon which the objection is predicated, is wrong; or the scripture is wrong, which represents "godliness as profitable in all things, ha ving the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come." i. Tim. iv. 8. "Godliness with contentment is great gain." chap. vi. 6. But the negligent will farther perhaps object-We have not ability to teach our family to perform and observe the duties of religion as we ought. You are an humble objector indeed; not able to teach your own children, ashamed to acknowledge the Saviour in acts of religion before your own family!! But can any man composedly and deliberately make this

objection and remember that he and his family must die, and either be happy eternally in acts of holiest worship in the presence of God; or miserable in eternal exclusion from God's presence, with them that know not God and obey not the gospel of Christ? Are you in jest, however, or in earnest. If the former, we would say to you, Be not deceived; God is not mocked. You may shield off the attacks of fellow mortals by such pretexts and pretences, but how will your answer God when he takes you to account? If the latter, we would reply, In a certain sense, no man is able for any thing, and in another sense, every man is able for every thing. Without grace we can do nothing; with it we can do all things, "if ye believe all things are possible." If you feel incompetent to the task of religiously educating your children, be diligent, believing and fervent. Plead the promises of that very covenant which imposes upon you so many necessary obligations. Remember Truth itself hath said, "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." James 1, 5. "But he giveth more grace: wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud and giveth grace unto the humble. iv. 6. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord and he shall lift you up.' ver. 10. Do you yet object, that it will answer no purpose without grace, as is evident from the many instances of profligacy in religiously educated families? How evangelical you are!!

We admit that Abraham's solicitude for Ishmael did not hinder him to be a wild man ;—nor Isaac's partiality for Esau reverse the counsel of God to give the beloved Jacob the blessing and ultimately the birthright ;-We admit that God's Sovereignty will be conspicuous, and the necessi-ty of his gracious influence be manifested in all things pertaining to salvation-" Paul may plant, and Apollos water, it is God that must give the in-crease." What then? What then? Is Paul to cease sowing, and Apollos to desist from watering? Upon your principle and mode of reasoning, that would be the inference. It is evident you divide and separate that which God hath joined, and you virtually say, Unless you can effect something by your own exertion without God's grace you will do nothing. How pestilential and unholy your principle; how unscriptural and unnatural your maxim? The scripture tells you, "Without me ye can do nothing," and yet it inculcates duty. You do not act upon your own maxim in natural things. To set the folly and impiety of this objection in a clear light; to illustrate and enforce the duty of parents towards their children, I avail myself of assistance from Wardlaw's Lectures on Romans iv. 9-25. From this little, but able piece, I might have extracted many pertinent remarks on the grace of the Abrahamic covenant, had I seen the book before that part was printed. In his third lecture, after having shewn with great perspicuity and force, 1. That there is no absurdity in administering ordinances of spiritual