show us on what ground they have put asunder those things which are, by precept and example, united in the word of God. J. J. Gurney will reply, (not indeed in the way of explanation, but of assumption,) It is our belief that we have been led out of the practice of these rites by the Spirit of truth; that we could not recur to them without grieving our heavenly Monitor; and that, in fact, they are not in accordance with the entire spirituality of the Gospel dispensation.**

This, then, is the belief of the Society; but no reason is attempted to be shown why the Holy Spirit should now be grieved by a practice which Paul, acting under his influence, was anxious to see rightly observed in the church. Let us beware how we trench upon the immutability of the Divine character, by supposing that the leadings of the Spirit can be contradictory. The voice of nature proclaims, by innumerable facts, the uniformity of design and execution by which Divine Wisdom has, from the beginning, accomplished its purposes,a uniformity so wonderfully exact, that even the casual impression of a footstep may be sufficient to inform us of the structure and habits of the animal that left it, although it may be a creature that we have never seen; and will the voice of Revelation teach a different lesson ? Does it not also declare, that 'with the Father of lights there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning,' that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever?' How, then, is it possible that his apostle should receive from him, and communicate in his name, instructions which it would now 'grieve our heavenly Monitor' if we should venture to obey? Friends believe this; but if they believe it without reason-without making use of the light and faculties which God has given them, are they not accountable for whatever mistakes it may lead them into? We know that the ancient heathens ascribed human passions to their imaginary deities; is there no "Peculiarities, p. 61."

approach to a similar error in thus attributing the variableness of man to the immutable God?"-pp. 12, 13.

Now, there is nothing difficult, nothing mysterious, in this plain scriptural account of private and public worship. A child of seven years old could understand it could join in it. Even at that tender age the accusing voice of conscience be heard, the weakness may of his best resolutions may be lamented. The Gospel remedies are all plain, level to the comprehension of such a child, provided they are not mystified. If he is familiar with the New Testament, and with Watts's Hymns for Children, he knows what he is about when he enters a place where God is scripturally worshipped. It is true, that he will be subject to the intrusion of many vain and wandering thoughts; but, if he is intelligent, his attention will be arrested by what is going forward; and, though he may hear some things above his comprehension, many will be so plainly level to his understanding-so commending themselves to his conscience, that he will probably desire to know

more.

"Now, let us compare the situation of such a child with that of a lamb of your own fold; and we will suppose the parents of each to have an equal desire for the religious improvement of their little charge. And first, let us consider how differently they are circumstanced in their respective families. Both will hear the daily chapter; but the Quaker child will not hear the voice he most loves and honours returning thanks for the renewal of daily mercies, imploring pardon for daily offences, strength to resist daily temptations, and protection from unforeseen dangers. He will have no outward and visible sign that the parent, as well as the child, is a dependent, accountable being. However, he does hear a portion of Scripture-most likely it is read with becoming reverence; and then comes a pause of silence. The child may feel it to be a solemn pause, either from the

indistinct apprehension of something he has just heard, or from the expression of his parents' countenances; but it will probably end in the persuasion that religion is an awful mystery, which he must not expect to understand; or, if he is of a reflective turn, he will have his own little musings: perhaps he will venture to ask some plain, straight-forward question; but he will be chilled, disheartened, by observing a cloud steal over the face that is wont to look so kindly upon him; and this will happen even when there is the sincerest desire that the child may become a religious character. It happens because the Quaker mother is beset with many fears she dares not lead her little son to the Saviour in a way that would be intelligible to him, lest she should divert his attention from what she regards as the manifestation of Divine grace in the secret of his own heart.' Hers will doubtless prompt the aspiration, 'O that Ishmael might live before thee!' but she is called upon to act, and what will she do in such a dilemma? Why, probably take refuge in generalities, which do not bring the matter home to the child's conscience; or else she advises self-denial and obedience in little things as the means of knowing more; while the rule of duty, by which even little things should be tried, is left indefinite—is it the secret persuasion of his own mind? is it Scripture? is it both?

"We have spoken of one child as having his attention engaged by the usual ordinances of worship. Let us follow the other to a Friends' meeting : there he must be turned over to his own thoughts. He knows he is expected to sit still, that if he does not he will certainly incur the displeasure of his parents, and he exerts himself to control his natural restlessness. Behold him, then, sitting in listless weariness through a period which, till habit has rendered it familiar, seems almost interminable, wondering how other people's thoughts are occupied, beguiling the lingering time with any idle fancy ;

or, if susceptible of religious impressions, distressed by the apprehension that he ought to be worshipping God, though he knows not how to set about it.

"Is this an unfaithful picture? Let Friends look back to their own childhood, and conscience will answer.". pp. 27-29.

We think the argument in page 8 is perhaps pressed too far; and we do not quite like any reference, such as that in page 23, which, even in the smallest degree, appears to obscure the truth that in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ alone we find the glorious antitype of the Jewish altar. We have reason to know that such was not the intention of the writer, and therefore the more freely suggest to our readers the formation of clear and correct sentiments on these subjects for themselves, by a diligent and prayerful examination of the Scripture. We trust that the number of those in the Society who prefer obedience to the commandments of the Lord to "the traditions of the elders," in reference to Baptism and the Supper, will greatly increase. They will see a pattern for their conduct in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah, in which we find the Israelites returning with a sincere heart to the Lord; and when they "found written in the law a practice which had been neglected for two thousand years, they did not wait for it to be revealed again unto them, but kept the feast of tabernacles; "and there was very great gladness,"" because they had understood the words that were declared unto them;" and this beautiful and encouraging declaration was made to them, "The joy of the Lord is your strength."

Mrs. Hack has been disunited from the Society of Friends on the ground of her views respecting Baptism and the Supper.

Seven Letters. By THEOPHILUS. Ward

and Co. 1837.

THE subject of Christian Baptism, as unfolded in the New Testament, is one of the greatest importance; and, in the view of some, whose educational bias has led them hitherto very much to overlook it, is becoming increasingly a subject of most anxious inquiry. We have lately had put into our hands a little work, published some time ago, consisting of Seven Letters, addressed to the Society of Friends, by Theophilus ; in which the rite of water baptism, as a Christian ordinance, is, in our opinion, very ably maintained. The points embraced are three,-" its perpetuity, the subjects, and mode of administration." The letters are well written, and in a Christian spirit; and we do not hesitate to recommend them to the perusal and calm reflection of those to whom they are specially addressed.

The arguments in the second letter are very convincing, in proof that the ministry of John the Baptist did not belong to the typical and shadowy dispensation of the law, nor his baptism form a part of the Mosaic system :

"Had John been under the law, and subject to its authority, instead of directing the conscious sinner to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world,' he must have instructed him to bring his offering for the sin he had committed unto the priest, who should slay it for a sin-offering, and make an atonement for him.' Instead of this legal instruction, John points immediately to Christ, as the only Saviour of sinners; and never, in a single instance, required obedience to the ritual law of Moses, or the observance of any of its ordinances, as what God required of them who received his ministry."

In reply to J. J. Gurney's statement, as to the resemblance between the Jewish proselyte baptism and the baptism of Christians, we have the following conclusive remarks:

66

Now, in reply to this doctrine, that John borrowed his baptism from the baptism of Jewish proselytes, I beg at once to state, that there is no proof that any such practice as the baptism of Jewish proselytes was in existence until after John and our Redeemer and the apostles had quitted this world. It is certain that the baptism of proselytes was not commanded of God, as the Divine law does not enjoin it. It is nowhere referred to in the Old Testament, nor in the Apocrypha, nor in the writings of Philo Judæus or of Josephus, (who were Jewish writers of the same century with the apostles, the latter of whom described particularly the admission of proselytes :) nor is there any allusion to this practice in the New Testament, or in the writings of the early Christian fathers, before the third century after Christ."

In Letter III., page 24, is the following striking observation :

"If the rite of water-baptism belong to the shadowy dispensation,' how came He who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth,' to require them that believed in him to receive this rite? It is unquestionable that he did require it, that he required it, not of his hearers promiscuously, but of them whom he 'made his disciples,' and who were made his disciples before they were baptised. So it is evident from these passages, that it was not the solitary case of one or a few individuals, but of his disciples generally; for it was said that Jesus made and baptised more disciples than John.'"

We could multiply quotations from this Letter, for it is full of point and argument; but content ourselves with earnestly pressing the subject on the attention of inquirers after truth. The positions held by Friends appear to us to be entirely overturned. In the fourth Letter, on the spiritual import of baptism, the author puts this question,

"Whether there is any thing in these designs which is peculiar to the time when our Lord and his disciples were on earth? whether they are not of precisely the same importance now as they were then ?

66

Is it not of importance for me to be reminded of the pollution of sin, and of the fountain opened' for my purification in the blood of the Lamb, as well as the primitive Christians ? Should I be less mindful of my Redeemer's baptism of sufferings than they? Is it not equally required of me to quit a life of sin, as a buried person quits the world, and to consider myself raised up by the grace of God to live to my Saviour in newness of life, as of believers in the first age ? And, is it not equally important that I should give myself to the Lord, and then to his people,-put on my Redeemer as my future Lord and Master, and that as openly and avowedly as did his first disciples ?"

which, if admitted, would shake our confidence in the entire records of the New Testament. If the apostles did not understand the nature of the Christian dispensation, where are we to learn it ? Where was the whole world to learn it previous to the appearance of the Apology' of Robert Barclay, in 1676? Did not Christ appoint his apostles and disciples to teach all things whatsoever he commanded,' and promise them the all-sufficient aid of the Holy Ghost to qualify them for this important and glorious work? And is it not expressly said that they were, on the day of Pentecost,' filled with the Holy Ghost?' Acts ii. 4."

Towards the conclusion of this Letter is an extract from a pamphlet, recently published by Mr. Wm. Richardson, a respectable member of the Society, which, as it shows how completely the minds of sincere persons may be misled when they attempt to set their own judgment above Scripture, we think it right to give it here :

"It could only be because he (Peter) had not yet fully seen to the end of that which had long been decreasing, that he seems to have concluded that water was at all necessary. It is remarkable by what slow degrees Peter overcame these prejudices. On the day of Pentecost, when thousands had been convinced by his powerful preaching, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, and said unto Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?' then Peter said unto them, 'Repent, and be baptised every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ,' &c. This seems to have been John's baptism that Peter was recommending, being expressed in the same terms; he at that time evidently supposing that the Divine gift was to follow, not to precede, and so entirely to supersede the necessity of the administration of water. But he was taught differently upon the occasion of the conversion of Cornelius."

To which the author adds,

"Now, to candid, impartial readers, I appeal whether this is not, in effect, saying, that the apostle Peter, though filled with the Holy Ghost, by a mistake administered a Jewish rite instead of Christian baptism, and initiated the first 3000 converts to Christ into a gross error, instead of into pure Gospel truth? But this, alas! arose from his being so slow in overcoming his prejudices, and not seeing the end of what John, with not half his advantages, long before saw as decreasing. Peter thought, and led his hearers to suppose, that this relic of former dispensations' was what Christ intended by baptism; so that he could fully see whether he was under the law or under grace, or of what dispensation he was an apostle.'

"What expressions of regret can be deep enough, or strong enough, if we really believed this, to convey our sorrow that Peter had not been better instructed; and not Peter only, but the rest of the apostles,' and the entire Christian body, all of whom were then present, and all in the same common error! Surely Luke could not fully see' the meaning of his own words, when he said of these primitive disciples, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak as the Spirit gave them utterance.' Here is a proof positive to the contrary, when Peter gave utterance to the command, 'Be baptised every one of you!' Oh! but that some one kind Friend had been present to have said, 'Stay! stay! this is an error; and if you commit this mistake upon these first converts, 3000 in number, where will it end? Recollect that the Church of Christ in all future ages, will have us for an example,' and if we set the error a-going, it will certainly run on till the end of time! The error into which you are all fallen is in supposing the Lord meant waterbaptism in the commission, when he really intended' baptising by the Holy Ghost, or by the living ministry,' which is already realised upon these persons,

and hence water-baptism is not at all necessary,―nay, it would be a great error; it would be leading these people from the substance to the shadow, and millions hereafter will become followers of us, having us for an example,' and thus perpetuate the mistake!'"

At page 48 we have another quotation from Mr. Richardson's work; and, painful as it is to us to allude to such sentiments, we feel unable to resist the inclination to bring them to the light, in the hope that their hollowness may lead some to inquire for themselves, not taking on trust the views of any man, however worthy and estimable he may appear. The inspired word of

God is before us, and to that we must adhere. We think every humble and sincere believer and follower of those whom Christ specially sent into the world to teach and to preach the Gospel, must be shocked at the remarks of Mr Richardson which follow :

"Frequent allusions are made to the errors of the apostles and evangelists in this Inquiry' of Mr. R. To neutralise the testimony of Luke in giving the words of Jesus at the Supper, This do in remembrance of me,' Mr. R. adds, 'BUT LUKE WAS NOT PRESENT, and wrote from the information of others.' Inquiry, p. 8. Is that a sufficient reason for rejecting the language of the evangelist? Was Moses present when 'God created the heaven and the earth,' of which he only gives the account, and of the events of the first 2000 years? Was Paul present when the Saviour said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive,' which Paul only records? Was Luke present at the birth of Jesus, at Bethlehem, to know that he was 'laid in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn?' or present with the shepherds of Judea, to hear the angels' declaration, on this blessed event, Behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy,' &c., which none but Luke has recorded? What, my dear friends, is the confidence we are to place in the statements of the Bible, i