On this page

• Text (2)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    Question . It was conduct which he bitterly regretted , and his only consolation was , that he had acted from honest motives , however mistaken . He insisted that the mistake was created by the grossest and most unexpected violation of good faith ; he bad been induced to vote for the

    Union by the solemn pledges of the British Cabinet to attend to the rights and happiness of the Irish people . Lord Cornwallis had shewn him a distinct promise , written and signed by Mr . Pitt , in which it was expressly and unconditionally stated , that the Union should be followed by a total abolition

    '•?/ all Religious Distinctions in Ireland . In short , by a total and Unqualified JBmancipation of the Catholics of Ireland , and by an entire and radical alteration of the Tithe System , by substituting a different pravision for the Established Clergy "

    Untitled Article

    Sir , Maidstone , Feb . \< 2 , 1818 . MR . BELSHAM restates [ XIII . p . SO ] , his arguments in favour of " Infant Baptism / ' " It was , " he observes , " the uniform , universal and undisputed practice of the church from the apostolic age down to the fifth century , and even later /* Does Mr . Bel sham mean that the

    apostles uniformly baptized the children and infants of the first converts , and , that from this time forward , the practice became wiiversal among Christians ? If lie does , the authority which lie offers for it , is by no means

    the highest in degree at least , for he freely admits that the New Testament affords no precept nor example for it . It contains explicit statements of the baptism of those who believed and acknowledged Jesus to be the Christ . It mentions also some

    instances of whole households who believed and were baptized . But rio single instance is mentioned of any persons * whether infants or others , except voluntary professors , being baptized . Now , if the baptism of the infants of disciples was equally

    an institution of Christ , with that of their parent * , why do we find the New Testament so explicit both as it respects the precept and practice in the case of the parents , and so uniformly silent as it regards their offspring ? If it had been required of parents thus to dedicate their children

    Untitled Article

    from their infancy as members of the church , would it not have been reasonable to expect that some mention should be made of so important a circumstance , and of so very different , not to say opposite a nature , to that of a voluntary profession of faith ? For what two things can be more different in their nature and

    consequences , than a voluntary adoption of Christianity , the result of a conviction of its truth and obligation , and an involuntary dedication to become a future Christian ? Being thus dedicated to Christ without their knowledge , they would , as they grew up , become liable to all the consequences which

    attached to the free , persoual profession of that religion . Where would be the propriety or equity of this > No person could really be a Christian til ] he was prepared to make an open profession of faith and allegiance to Christ , in the deliberate contemplation of all its consequences . Why * then , should he , be dedicated to his

    service , and exposed to the oditttn . which , at that time , attached to the name of Christian , long prior to its appearing whether he would become a disciple of Jesus or not ? Is not the supposition that such a practice was adopted by the apostles , highly injurious to them and the cause which

    they advocated , when there is so far from being any mention of it , that it is totally at variance with the recorded injunction which they certainly did carry into practice by proclaiming the gospel , and thus en- » gaging persons to become disciples , and then , as the result of their own

    choice and the expression of their faith and allegiance , baptizing them into the Christian name or profession ? If baptism was in every instance voluntary , it would draw a useful line of distinction between the decided

    followers of Jesus and others , however nearly allied to , or connected with them in other respects , or who , however favourably disposed , were not prepared to avow the profession with all its train of consequences . On the

    other hand , if it involved under the common appellation of Christians , not only the voluntary professors themselves , but all whom they could so far subject to their influence as to cause them to be baptized , it would confound that distinction , and expose

    Untitled Article

    Mr . Pine ' s Examination of Mr . Belshams Arguments for Infant Baptism . 4 Q&

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Aug. 2, 1818, page 493, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2479/page/21/