Among the many religious errors of the age in which we live, no one has been so prejudicial to genuine and rational piety, as that which has resulted from a mistaken and perverted view of the doctrine of Baptism. To this source may be ascribed by far the greater portion of that enthusiasm, by which the name of religion has been disgraced, and no small portion of that practical infidelity, by which every Minister of the Gospel unhappily finds himself surrounded. It is not my intention to point out the various ramifications by which the error thus alluded to extends itself when once established in the mind, nor to trace the progress by which it conduces to these apparently opposite extremes let it suffice merely to remark, that if persons of a certain disposition and temperament are once induced to consider Baptism as nothing more than an external form of religion, which imparts to its recipients no privileges, and consequently imposes upon them no personal responsibility, with these the natural consequence will be (to express myself in the language of our Church), "wretchlessness of most unclean living;" while with others this same want of faith in the efficacy of Baptism, connected with its twin-error, a reliance upon some fancied and sudden conversion, will as naturally be productive of those lamentable instances of enthusiastic and presumptuous confidence which are now to be found in every parish, however zealously its appointed Pastor may have watched his flock, and however indefatigable he may have been, in conformity with his ordination vow, in "using all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines, contrary to God's word." These being the practical effects of the errors to which I have alluded, it is not without deep regret that I occasionally see this error, at least indirectly, sanctioned by some of my clerical brethren; an instance of which has recently occurred in my neighbourhood: I mean, by the regular interment of a child avowedly unbaptized. The circumstances of the case were these. A child having died without baptism, an application was made for its interment; but the Clergyman thus applied to, either deeming the act altogether uncanonical, or at least hesitating as to its propriety, declined complying with the parent's request; and in order possibly to appease the irritated feelings which this refusal had excited in the parent's mind, he was referred to a neighbouring Clergyman, with a request that he would give his judgment as to the legality and propriety of such an act. It is proper to observe, that there was no intentional neglect on the part of the parents in not bringing the child to be baptized; and there is no doubt, had it lived, that it would have been duly admitted into the Church. Under these circumstances, the result of this reference was not only a ready sanction of the parent's application, but also an offer to perform the funeral service. The offer was of course accepted, and the child was regularly interred.

Now, Sir, that an act of this description is calculated to produce an evil influence upon the minds of the common people, by detracting from that reverence and respect which they generally entertain for the sacrament of Baptism; and that it is also calculated to second the various plausible arguments advanced by that busy sect who are now compassing sea and land to make one proselyte, I am fully persuaded.

Nor do I know by what logic the sophistical objections advanced by the disputants of this sect against infant baptism, are to be refuted, if we once acknowledge, that there is no difference between the baptized and unbaptized child, and that the latter is, equally with the former, entitled to the privileges of the Church. I am aware, indeed, of the arguments which have been sometimes deduced from the well-known passage in St. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians (chap. vii.), and of the interpretation which has been affixed to it for the purpose of obviating the difficulties attendant upon antipædobaptism, when they are pressed by the doctrine of Original Sin. And it is, I conceive, upon similar reasoning, that the judgment above stated must have been founded. But however the members of a sect, professedly antipædobaptist, may adhere to the interpretation of a text, because it best accords with their peculiar system of faith, I can scarcely believe that the interpretation of the passage above alluded to will be acknowledged as its true interpretation, by any Minister of our Church who is acquainted either with the justly celebrated work of Dr. Wall upon Infant Baptism, or with the Commentary of Dr. Hammond upon that passage, in his Annotations upon that chapter, and also in his Treatise upon the Baptizing of Infants; for both these learned writers have shewn most satisfactorily, that when the Apostle speaks of the children of Christian parents as sanctified or made holy, he is not to be understood as asserting, that children thus descended are sanctified without Baptism, but merely that this descent secured to them the advantage of being brought to Baptism, and qualified them for the sanctification imparted through the medium of that sacrament. Without, however, doing more than thus merely referring your readers to the above-mentioned works for a full and satisfactory answer to any inquiries they may wish to make upon this point, I would ask,-Is the judgment given by the Clergyman referred to, accordant with the doctrines and discipline of the Church of which he is a Minister? Did he, or did he not, do right in burying, with the full and regular service of the Church, a child avowedly unbaptized? For my own part, I must confess, that this is a point upon which I have hitherto entertained but one opinion; though this opinion is decidedly at variance with the judgment in question. Our Church, indeed, does not limit the mercy of the Almighty to those who are made subjects of the Christian sacraments: she does not presume to speak where the Scriptures are silent: but with that moderation and charity, which are her great characteristics, she trusts, that many who have not been enrolled among the members of Christ's church here, will hereafter share in the general atonement, which she describes as a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world. At the same time, however, nothing, I think, can be more evident, than that the Church considers a person unbaptized as standing in a different situation here, from that of a person who is baptized. The latter she regards as expressly and positively a partaker of those covenanted promises, which God, in his infinite mercy, has made through Christ; but the former she can only regard as an object of God's uncovenanted grace. Of children who are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, she says, "it is certain, by God's word, that they are undoubtedly saved:" but of those who die unbaptized she

says nothing. And upon this point she is silent, because God's word does not furnish any express and positive information respecting it. Of children baptized she scruples not to speak, because they have been grafted into the body of Christ's church, and have been made inheritors of the kingdom of heaven, according to Christ's appointment; but of the unbaptized she expresses no judgment, because they have not been thus regularly admitted to the covenanted privileges of the Gospel: she knows, indeed, that God can, and she confidently trusts that He will, in many cases, deviate from his appointed means of conferring mercy; but since the positive promise of Christ extends only to those who believe and are baptized, she ventures not to pronounce any judgment beyond it. That the Church, however, does not regard the unbaptized as entitled to, or fit subjects of her offices, is sufficiently evident from the Office for the Burial of the Dead, even had there been no directions prefixed to it. The whole of that most beautiful service, as it appears to me, proceeds upon the presumption that the deceased has been grafted into the body of Christ's church, and incorporated among the children of God. It leads us to speak of the deceased as our dear brother," and to give thanks to God that it hath pleased Him "to deliver this our brother out of the miseries of this sinful world." But with what propriety can this title be applied to one who has never been admitted a member of that society or brotherhood from which the title is derived? The same inference also may be deduced from the 49th Canon, which imposes the penalty of three months suspension upon the Minister, through whose neglect an infant is suffered to die unbaptized. But whence the necessity of enforcing this strict attention to the administration of this sacrament, in the case of infants, if the want of Baptism exposed the unbaptized to no loss or privation of those privileges to which the baptized are entitled?

66

You, Sir, however, may consider, with myself, that a simple reference to the Rubric prefixed to the Funeral Service, is alone sufficient to decide this question; that Rubric plainly declaring, "Here it is to be noted, that the Office ensuing is not to be used for any that die unbaptized," &c. To me this has always appeared sufficiently plain and decisive. Should the view, however, which I have taken of this subject be erroneous, it is an error, I believe, in which a very large majority of my clerical brethren are living. And since some of us, in this neighbourhood, may very possibly be pressed under similar applications to that which I have stated, by the precedent which the above-mentioned interment will be thought to have furnished, you, or any of your correspondents, will confer an obligation upon us, by stating what the true meaning of the Rubric prefixed to the Burial Service is, and by directing us to the authority which justifies a deviation from its literal interpretation.

I remain, Sir, yours, &c.
SAC. VIN.

THE DOMESTIC MISCHIEF OF FANATICISM.

To the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer.

SIR,-The accompanying letter of a brother to a sister, is the commencement of a series addressed to one of those female victims of fanatical intrusion, (now become, alas! so numerous,) by whom the sobrieties of their early religious education are scoffed at,-the ties of consanguinity are cruelly ruptured,-and the peace of their respective families is destroyed. It has been thought, that the publication of the serics may be serviceable to the interests of true religion. You are requested, therefore, to insert what is now forwarded in your valuable miscellany, and the remaining letters shall follow in due I am, Sir, Your obedient Servant,

course.

MY DEAR SISter,

C. S.

However intense may be the anxiety you feel for me, and which you express so strongly in your letters, be assured, it does not exceed that which you have awakened. You have, indeed, excited an alarm, though not in the direction you desire. I confess honestly, that I am, at the present moment, more alive to the fear of seeing you estranged from your family affections-from the Church in which you were brought up-and from the real humility and Christian charity so peculiarly becoming in your sex, than affected by the terrible denunciations you think it necessary to pour forth against me.

When I look at your last letters, and compare them with your former correspondence, it seems hardly credible that they can proceed from the same individual. Can you expect me to look upon that as a blessed change, which has obliterated from your mind all regard to those happy days which we once enjoyed,-which threatens to break all the natural and endearing ties by which we have hitherto been united? It is some consolation to me, though of a melancholy nature, that this trial at least was spared our father; that when he was taken from us, no human foresight could have predicted what has since occurred. When circumstances afterwards compelled us to separate, it was also some consolation that the similarity of our dispositions, and the habits in which we had grown up together, seemed to strengthen every tie of blood, and promise that we should never be severed in opinion or affection. Yet all this seems past like a dream. There was a time when you hardly conceived of any excellence in your own sex higher than that of our dear mother,-when you had no wish for myself, but that I should tread in the steps of my father. Yet now you consider yourself in conscience bound to condemn these in some measure, and address me as decidedly "on the broad road leading to destruction," because I pursue the same course in which they taught me to walk from a period beyond your recollection. And for what should I relinquish it? Can you shew me any other course which has led to greater good with due reference to the means given?

I beseech you, do not let any appearances, however plausible, extinguish the recollection of those realities which we both witnessed daily during the whole time that our parents were spared to us ;realities to which we are both so much indebted. If it had not been for that love of truth, and thorough conscientiousness which they sought to implant, you never could have written and acted as you now do; and, as you believe yourself right, this, at least, ought to have some weight with you. I regard you as acting under a complete delusion; but much as your present conduct makes me suffer, I do not the less honour the conscientiousness which dictates it. Why will you not then pause for a moment?-Why will you not allow your brother to be sincere in his religious professions as well as in other things? In some parts of your letters, indeed, you seem to allow the purity of my motives, and the usefulness of my pursuits, "as far as they go." Are you so certain, that they could be carried further by my joining the ranks of the "Evangelical party," as they are called? You surely would not have me join them without conviction of their superior excellence; and what conviction of this kind can your letters or their conduct produce on me, when from both I am made a sufferer?

It appears to me an error of no small moment in that party to which you are now attaching yourself, that they consider themselves the only persons who possess any real knowledge of the Scriptures, or, in fact, any due care for the great concerns of eternity. It is in vain that you may reply to this,-many think differently,-so long as you press the argument upon me yourself. What right have you to conclude, that I know little of the Scriptures,--that I feel "indifferent to true religion?" Before we were separated, you never thought so. It was not thus, Maria, when at 66 -; we walked in the House of God as friends." It was not thus when you witnessed my ordination. But now it is in this belief, that you write to me, urging me "to flee from the wrath to come," denouncing me as liable to the most tremendous doom, if I do not follow your advice; and, what is most extraordinary of all, addressing me as wholly ignorant of true religion, though engaged in the most awful and responsible of all duties connected with it. And this you call "acting faithfully and affectionately towards your brother."

Will you think for a moment what the feelings of that brother must be in receiving admonitions like these, from a sister who in past years has been in the constant habit of looking up to him for instruction-for advice and for consolation? Making every allowance you can desire, in what light can you conceive your conduct must appear to me? You seem at once to acknowledge, that it is impossible. I can "understand spiritual things ;" and to blame me because I do not act upon a conviction which they alone can give. However strong the evidence may appear to you, to me it is nothing, since it is, you say, derived from feelings of which I know nothing. If you can shew from facts, or from the Scriptures, that I am wrong, do so, and you will find me open to conviction.

Again:-Is there no consideration due to difference in age, in pursuits;-no allowance to be made for my present profession? You are comparatively a stranger to many of the topics you have of late