terms of depreciation of the English Liturgy. It could not be expected that Mr. Jones would give circulation to this part of the volume; and as he only professes to reprint the Lectures on Homiletics and Preaching, we have, I admit, no ground of quarrel with him on this score. But he should have faithfully executed what he professed to do. Whether this has been the case I shall leave your readers to judge when they shall have read the following statement:" In the use of the pruning kuife," says Mr. Jones, "I have studied moderation, never altering a single sentence without an apparent necessity; and yet I have not scrupled to lop off occasionally, with a more formidable weapon, large portions of wild and overgrown branches, together with a few unsightly excrescences, which seemed at once to deform and injure the goodly tree."

Now my object in this letter is to apprise the reader what Mr. Jones means by the " overgrown branches," &c. &c. which he has made to suffer elision. They are,

First, Certain references to the students of the Theological Seminary, Andover, to their studies, and to various circumstances and facts relating to America, which have little or no practical bearing upon any class of persons in this country. Of these loppings off I do not complain.

Secondly, The elisions consist of almost every word; I think I might have said of every word, written in commendation of such men as Whitfield, Jonathan Edwards, &c. and, for the most part, of all who do not belong to the established church of this country. It may be admitted, that these are not of great importance. They do not, however, betoken much

candour or magnanimity on the part of the English editor.

Thirdly, They, i. e. the elisions, consist of strong testimonies in favour of the evangelical sentiments, the Protestantism, the Calvinism, the affection, the piety, the devotion, the strict morality, and unblemished character of the English Puritans. These were, no doubt, unsightly excrescences to Mr. Jones; they are accordingly lopped off.

Fourthly, Among the wild and amputated branches, we find passages in which Dr. Porter ventures to hint at certain grievous departures from the faith, in the case of the great body of episcopalian clergymen, and even of certain dignitaries of the established church. Thus, Dr. Porter says, "a respected English prelate, in addressing the clergy of the last century, said, ' We have long been attempting to reform the nation by moral preaching. With what effect? None. On the contrary, we have dexterously preached the people into downright infidelity. We must change our voice. We must preach Christ and him crucified. Nothing but the gospel is the power of God unto salvation.'” Again, " Perhaps no better illustration of this point" (the want of explicit statement of evangelical truth)" can be given, than that which is found in the late Bishop Porteus, a man admitted by all to have been one of the brightest ornaments of the English church. While he, doubtless, believed all the great truths of the gospel, he too much submerged them in the generalities of a popular theology, so that a distinct recognition of them will rarely be found in the perusal of his discourses." I venture to think that Mr. Jones might have done some good by reprinting these passages. He has, how

ever, thought differently, and, consequently, they also were lopped off.

Fifthly, Among the excrescences thus dealt with, we find the Calvinism of the volume, not an atom of which is permitted to remain.

Accordingly this system of truths, especially the doctrine of personal election, and the sovereignty of divine grace, when not disguised," &c. &c.-Amer. Edit.

"So it is in the system of religious doctrines; any one of those, dissevered from its connexion with the rest, for example, the doctrine of election, may be so distorted, that it virtually ceases to be true."-Amer. Edit.

"Such effects may be reasonably expected to result from preaching which exhibits with power and pungency, the holy strictness of the law, the love of a bleeding Saviour, and, paradox as it may seem to unbelief, the doctrine of election, or the absolute dependence of the sinner on sovereign mercy, a truth which I am sorry to believe is, of late, comparatively little urged from our pulpits."— Amer. Edit.

The next instance contains a very flagrant and most reprehensible case of omission. Dr. Porter,

Among these I can barely mention, without enlargement, the distinct personality, in unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; his own real divinity; the sovereignty of God, and the personal election to eternal life of those who are effectually called; the doctrine of vicarious atonement," &c.- Amer. Ed.

To show what care Mr. Jones has taken to purge out every grain

"It shews them" (i. e. evangelical preaching,)" that the heart of the unsanctified man is entirely sinful.”—Amer. Ed.

I have no doubt, also, that Mr. Jones was partially induced to omit the following important pas sage, on account of its explicit declaration in favour of the high practical efficacy of Calvinistic views of divine truth.

"But if the American pulpit has, in these respects, failed to any

stricter views of the Puritan Fathers. Pious ministers, through a process un perceived by themselves, became the subjects of this influence. The first step of accommodation was to modify the phraseology of Calvinism, by adopting in sermons a generality of terms more acceptable to hearers of fastidious taste. Such a course was honestly deemed expedient, by many good men, because the customary terms of orthodoxy had been, in some places, so distorted by misrepresentation, as to convey to the hearers a meaning wide from the real sentiments of the preacher.

"The next step of accommodation, was a studied concealment of the doctrines themselves; against which, just in proportion as their advocates gave way, an unmeasured and unmitigated hostility was waged by their opposers. The leaders in error advanced with bold front, to occupy every inch of ground, abandoned by overcautious Calvinists. At last, when about 1815, they displayed their banner in open day, the state of the Christian community, in the region which had been the chief theatre of the declension, was, in many respects, not merely extraordinary, it was deplorable. Churches there were, planted by the pilgrims, and in whose cemeteries repose the dust of their venerable founders; churches, whose former pastors had been burning and shining lights; churches, whose present pastors had gloried in their attachment to the doctrine of the reformation, and whose public reputation for orthodoxy assigned to them the first posts of martyrdom, should martyrdom become the tests of fidelity; and yet,

strange as the fact may seem, and lamentable as it certainly is, the same churches, for years together, had too rarely heard any one great doctrine of the reformation fully, distinctly, unequivocally exhibited from the pulpit. Generally and indefinitely they were accustomed to hear all these truths maintained, but not in the form of undisguised, specific statement and proof. On the contrary, men who were communicants in these churches, zealous, too, for an undefined orthodoxy, if they had happened to hear a sermon from some preacher, not aware of the cautious diction to which they were accustomed, or not disposed to adopt it, would probably have complained of that sermon. Under an explicit discourse on total depravity, or personal election, or especial divine influence in regeneration, these hearers, notwithstanding their zeal for orthodoxy, might have writhed with impatience, or perhaps like the bearers of the dying Stephen, been filled with wrath.'”

Now, Sir, I will only venture to say, with respect to the last class of omissions, that an English Arminian editor reprinting an American work, has no more moral right to cut out, and throw away, the Calvinism he finds in it, than an Unitarian editor would have to denude it of the doctrines of our Lord's deity and atonement. Had I read the English edition only, I should have considered Dr. Porter an Arminian. He was, however, a decided and an enlightened Calvinist, and I certainly like his book the better for it.

I, am, Sir, yours ever,
GEORGE PAYNE.

Exeter.

66

(To the Editor.)

DEAR SIR,-Your August number contains an Essay, entitled Profession requisite to Infant Baptism," and bearing the signature of " John Bull." The novelty of some of the writer's views, and his entire departure from opinions generally entertained by most Protestant Denominations, led me to expect early comments upon his papers from some of your numerous Correspondents. This induced me to withhold my remarks, as I could plead many other engagements. But as no answer has appeared, except a paper in your last Number, signed H. B., in which the writer appears on the whole to approve of Mr. B.'s sentiments, I feel constrained to send you a few comments. My impression at the time when I first read it, was that the novelty of his positions was startling and unscriptural. On referring to the article again, that impression has resulted in a conviction, that if the theory of Mr. B. should be carried into practice, the distinction between believers and unbelievers, would cease in the Church of Christ; and that the most corrupt practices of National Churches, with regard to the ordinance of baptism, might be justified as scriptural and safe.

It appears to be the writer's wish to prove that in the Baptism of Adults, the same qualifications are not required, that are required from persons who wish to partake of the Lord's Supper. In his attempt to sustain this position, he adduces the different baptisms recorded in the New Testament. His aim is to prove that baptism was a prospective ordinance, and had no necessary connection with the character of the candidate.

At first sight it appears strange

N. S. NO. 144.

to me, that in attempting to ascertain the nature of Christian baptism, the writer should find it necessary to bring forward as branches of evidence, the baptisms of John and of Jesus. He cannot but know that there does exist a great difference of opinion among Christians, respecting the various baptisms of the New Testament. If he could therefore show, that unconverted characters were baptized by John, he would furnish no evidence in support of his theory, unless he could prove that the baptism of John and that of the Apostles was one, the same in nature and design, and had respect to the same classes of individuals. Now this he cannot doat least I have never seen it done. On the contrary, it appears in evidence that the design of John's baptism was different from that of Christian baptism, and that the same faith was not required. Those who came to John, were admonished to repent, and to believe that the Messiah was about to appear. He did not baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which was essential to Christian baptism. There is great reason to believe, that some of those whom John had baptized, were among the three thousand converted on the day of Pentecost, and we know that they were all baptized by the apostles. In one case we are certain, that some who had been baptized into John's baptism, were afterwards baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. See Acts xix. 2-7.

It therefore appears more satisfactory to come at once to the practice of the Apostles, after they received their commission from Jesus Christ; and without resting on propositions or particles of any

5 C

kind, lay hold of the various facts narrated by the Evangelist Luke. Let us examine in order the cases brought forward by Mr. B. and try them, to see if in the least degree they will bear him out in his assertions respecting the design of Christian Baptism, in the cases of Adults.

In considering the language of Christ, when he instituted the ordinance of baptism, it seems to me decisive on the subject. "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." That the apostles understood their divine Master, and obeyed his command, is evident from the transactions of the day of Pentecost. The evidence given of conversion, by the three thousand who were baptized, would have satisfied the most scrupulous in our day.

Examine the subject. Before Peter's discourse, they were determined rejecters of Christ-some of them had even assisted in crucify ing the Lord of Glory. The address of Peter reached their hearts, the promised Comforter convinced them of sin; they were pricked in their hearts, and in the midst of mental anguish, they enquired "Men and brethren, what shall we do." This was a new cry from their lips, and was a striking evidence of the mighty alteration, that had already taken place in their minds. Peter answered the enquiry, and exhorted them to repent of their guilt, and openly declare their belief that Jesus was the Messiah, by being baptized in his name. He added many other words, and the result is thus stated; "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized, and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." The very fact, that these

men

acknowledged the apostles as brethren; that they were convinced by their reasoning, that they sought insiruction and relief from them in the midst of their distress, formed a strong argument in their favour. But when all the circumstances connected with their previous character are considered, and are compared with their new feelings and desires, the case becomes much stronger. These men, who admitted their participation in the murder of Christ, had now become his humbled and believing followers; receiving gladly the message of reconciliation, and professing before their countrymen, and strangers from various parts of the world, that they unequivocally admitted the claims of Jesus, and were determined at all hazards to be his disciples. To do this was giving up all that they had valued as distinguishing them from others -it was yielding up all their prejudices-their false views of the nature of the Messiah's kingdomit was slaying the enmity of their heart, against God and against his Christ. To profess openly that they were believers in Jesus, by receiving the rite of baptism, was exposing themselves to odium, to persecution, and excommunication, as well as to other evils dreaded by the Jews. Besides, they could have no motives to induce them to deceive the apostles. They had too much at stake, thus to trifle with the credulity or charity of these inspired men.

The apostles knew all these things, the peculiarity of their circumstances, and all the mighty obstacles to be overcome, before they could become followers of Christ. The knowledge of these things led the apostles to believe in their sincerity, and to admit them into the Christian church, without a moment's hesitation.