concourse was present, with Elder David Jones, of Eastern Pennsylvania. My father made an elaborate address on the occasion. I followed him with a statement of the reasons of my change of views, and vindicated the primitive institution of baptism, and the necessity of personal obedience.

To my great satisfaction, my father, mother, and eldest sister, my wife, and three other persons, besides myself, were that same day immersed into the faith of that great proposition on which the Lord himself said he would build his church. The next Lord's day some twenty others made a similar confession, and so the work progressed, until in a short time almost an hundred persons were immersed. This company, as far as I am yet informed, was the first community in the country that was immersed into that primitive, simple, and most significant confession of faith in the divine person and mission of the Lord Jesus Christ, without being brought before a church to answer certain doctrinal questions, or to give a history of all their feelings and emotions, in those days falsely called "Christian experience;" as if a man could have Christian experience before he was a Christian!

A. C.

CORRESPONDENCE.

DEAR SIR-In your reply to the observations I made on baptism, in my letter of 15th May, you admit that baptism is a figurative institution, consequently possessing no moral merit. But you affirm that obedience to it restores man to the favor of God. This I consider only a bold assertion, as the Scriptures nowhere say so. I presume you will admit that Simon of Samaria was obedient | to baptism his case proves that something more than obedience to baptism is necessary to restore man to the favor of God.

:

Again, you consider the one righteousness in Rom. v. 11, to mean baptism for the remission of sins, and it is only sectarian prejudice that prevents people from perceiving thisconsequently you must consider all the blessings stated at the end of the chapter as the result of obedience to baptism. As not one word about baptism can be found in the whole chapter, your assertion that the one righteousness means baptism has no foundation to rest upon.

Mr. Campbell, in the version edited by him, in place of the one righteousness, renders it one act of obedience. What, then, are we to understand to be the meaning of the The one translation or the other? comparison stated by the Apostle from Romans v. 12 to the end of the chapter, surely can never be understood as a comparison between Adam's one offence and baptism. I think it is quite evident that the comparison is between the one offence of the first Adam, and the one act of obedience of the second Adam, in laying down his life at the command of his heavenly Father, as an atoning sacrifice, in the room of guilty sinners. Now as nothing can atone for moral guilt but moral merit, and the merit of Christ's sacrifice being infinite, it superabounded over the one offence of Adam, by which alone sin can be pardoned in consistency with all the moral perfections of God.

The sacrifices under the law were appointed for the remission of sins, and forgiveness was promised by obedience to that appointment; but as they possessed no moral merit, and were only figurative institutions, and were designed to shadow forth that one sacrifice which Jesus offered when he came to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself-hence the Apostle affirms that it is impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats could take away sin. Now if figurative institutions under the law could not take away sins, how is it possible

for a figurative institution under the gospel to wash away sins, as both are figures of the same glorious event, only with this difference the one was a figure that this would be done by sacrifice, the other that it has been done by sacrifice, baptism being an exhibition that Jesus was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification.

By giving this a place in your next number you will much oblige,

A SCOTCH BAPTIST.! Edinburgh, 14th July, 1848.

REPLY TO SCOTCH BAPTIST, NO. II. Dear Sir―In reply to yours of the 14th instant, permit me to say, that when a sinner receives the gospel, there is no merit on his part, any more than when he receives food for the daily sustenance of his body. In neither case has he anything whereof to boast before God. All is of pure favour. So baptism, while it cannot create or purchase anything for the sinner-Christ, by his death and resurrection, having accomplished this for him-is, nevertheless, the constituted medium or channel of the remission of sins, the Holy Spirit, and a well-founded hope of eternal life.

The brethren at Rome, some of whom were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, heard the first gospel sermon, believed it, and were justified by faith after, or when they were baptized into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spiritand not before. Then it was they had peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom they received the atonement, or reconciliation.

The case of Simon of Samaria shows truly that something more than baptism, or even faith, (for he believed) is necessary to restore man to the favor of God. His heart was not right in the sight of God: he was in the gall of bitterness, and still bound by iniquity. Paul said of some other baptized believers, that they had not

the knowledge of God. To their own shame it was spoken. Simon, therefore, had not either a correct knowledge of God, or that contrition of heart which leads to the renunciation of covetousness and every other crime. Hence, like many others, he wanted to buy and sell the free gift of God, but was rejected in a moment for his presumption and impiety. This, however, is not the matter of inquiry

between us.

Is baptism, as given to the world by the Apostles, the divinely constituted medium of bringing intelligent believing penitents into the enjoyment of peace and pardon before God? I take the affirmative of this. Will you, dear sir, from the testimony of God, prove to the contrary? Not one inspired example or precept to that effect can be produced since the Spirit of God was poured out from on high on the day of Pentecost.

Respecting baptism not being mentioned in the 5th chapter of Romans, permit me to remind you that the Apostle was writing to those who had been buried with Christ in baptism. Indeed, all the Epistles were addressed to those who, in this respect, were the brethren of Jesus, of Paul, and of the whole church. For Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing. There are other chapters in the Epistles to the brethren in which neither faith, repentance, nor baptism are mentioned, except by implication. Pray, what does this prove against baptism for the remission of sins?

The righteousness, or justification, spoken of in the 5th chapter of Romans, is not the same thing as baptism; still the latter may, and does, lead to the enjoyment of the former. Therefore, being justified by faith (through baptism), these parties had peace with God, through our Lord

Jesus Christ. Thus, by one act of obedience, many are constituted righteous before God, and go on their way rejoicing.

You say the sacrifices under the law were appointed for the remission of sins, and forgiveness was promised by obedience to those appointments. I suppose you mean to say that some of the sacrifices were appointed for this purpose. Now, suppose the par ties refused to obey, would they have had the forgiveness of sins? Or, suppose they had brought the halt, the lame, or the blind, for sacrifice, or a wheaten offering, instead of a bloody victim, although there is no moral merit in either, would they have been accepted? You know, sir, they would not; nor will God accept of any of the institutions of man, the teaching of Anti-Christ to the contrary notwithstanding!!

If periodical sin-offerings, which were appointed under the law (thereby calling sins to remembrance again every year) answered the purpose for the time being, how much more shall not he who, through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot unto God, purge the conscience from dead works to serve the one living and true God? That a sinner, before he can stand in the presence of the Saviour with acceptance, must be enlightened in his mind, changed in his state and affections, and justified in his person and character, is obvious to all persons of faith and reflection. This position, to my mind, is attained by the obedience of faith. With you, it appears to be accomplished by faith alone, obedience following as a matter of course. Still, if I understand you correctly, pardon, or justification, is complete without it; and the sinner, even while in the kingdom of Satan, can enjoy these distinguished blessings and privileges. How to reconcile your creed with the teaching of the Holy Spirit is the great difficulty. Paul said that he received grace and

apostleship for the obedience of faith among all nations, and that the great secret which he proclaimed concerning the resurrection of the dead, was in accordance with the prophetic writings and the commandment of the eternal God, made known to all the Gentiles, in order to the obedience of faith. He (Jesus) is the author of the eternal salvation to all them that obey him. Indeed, the obedience of faith, and not faith alone, is insisted upon both for saint and sinner, from Genesis to Revelations; and that man is guilty of a daring crime who attempts to separate them. Yours benevolently,

July 17, 1848.

J. WALLIS.

PEACE AND UNION.

In my last I did not give Brother Gray great credit for delicacy of feeling, or propriety in judgment; nor do I now intend to compliment him for stating his meaning with precision. In my first letter I related some facts, and amongst others these two:

1. It is "an understood and fundamental principle in the (Baptist) church (in Dundee) that a member going to a distance could hold fellowship with any church-open communion-and I have heard of some with Independent churches; and when they return, neither the church nor any one has a right, and would be set down as disorderly, were they to refer to such conduct."

2. "This church will not receive into its fellowship any who are unbaptized, but admits all who are, to whatever denomination they may belong."

In his first communication Brother Gray boldly affirmed that their fundamental principle is a fundamental principle of the Reformation, or rather what is better, of the New Testament; but it now appears (very dimly, I allow) that he never meant this! He considers that parties act

ing as do some in the Baptist church, are fit subjects for solicitude and instruction.

However, he has asserted that the practice of the Meadow-side Baptist church, stated in item 2 above, is in accordance with the fundamental principles of the Reformation, and the New Testament. The practice is not acted on in Nottingham, as appears from But this is your note. not a question which should be decided except by the unerring standard. The opinion of any brother, however eminent, can be of no avail, and is totally unnecessary if the Bible substantiates his position.

Will Brother Gray, therefore, answer the following questions, which, indeed, embody those at the end of my last letter? I would beg that he keep specially in view that the persons to be admitted may belong to any of the denominations, and that it is absurd to talk of improper or guilty practices being justifiable because they arise from opinion.

Question 1. Is there any command, precept, or example in the New Testament, warranting a baptized believer either occasionally or generally to hold communion with the unbaptized?

2. If not, where is the proof that

the New Testament warrants that a person pursuing such conduct should be received into general or occasional communion with the church?

amongst Christians, that is not as old as the New Testament.]

LITERARY NOTICE.

to the Voice of Scripture and the Practice The Worship of God in Public opposed of the Primitive Christians." We have been content to suffer our forms of public terated state in which the Reformers left worship to remain nearly in the same adulthem" (Simpson.) "What mean ye by this service? is an inquiry that may with great fairness be put, and every reasonable man will feel it incumbent upon him to give a clear and distinct reply to it" (Walford.' Houlston and Stoneman, London.--Such is the title of a tract of 12 pages received this month. The introduction commences with the following interrogation :--Is public worship, namely, the union of the church with the world in the worship of God, sanctioned by the voice of Scripture? If not, is it expedient, or calculated to promote the conversion of the unbelieving portion of our congregations ? That this pamphlet has been published by some persons who are seriously inquiring the way out of that labyrinth of religious confusion in which the various bodies of sectarians are now engulphed, there can be no doubt. But when individuals commence their egress out of Spiritual Babylon, great care should be manifested that they neither stop short of, nor pass by, Spiritual Jerusalem. To have recourse to the primitive Fathers for direction wll not elicit much for the correction of error. Even in the apostolic age the system of iniquity was already at work; and therefore the inspired testimonies of the Evangelists-the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles to the Churches, are alone the infallible sources of information on these subjects. Paul declares that he taught the same things in every church. What their order of worship was cannot be learned from any one church, but may be inferred from the study of the whole. It is expressed in the following compendium:· :-"They (the disciples of Christ) were steadfast in the doctrine, in the fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers of the Apostles." The first question to determine is, what constitutes a Christian disciple? This may be settled by stating the facts they believed, the commands they obeyed, the privileges they enjoyed. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in That they were all baptized into the name of hope of a joyful resurrection from the dead into the presence and likeness of their Lord and King, must be obvious to all who read the Testament with a candid and obedient

mind. This comprised the first part of the Apostles' work. Teach all nations, &c. The four following items are noticed in the Tract, and we are sorry to add but with

little reference to the Scriptures in order to sustain them:-1. At what exercises believers were, or were not, allowed to be present, in the primitive assemblies. 2. The manner in which unbelievers were dismissed after the first services. 3. That different classes of persons were required to occupy different parts of the church or place of meeting. 4. That all who were incapable of participating in the Lord's supper were excluded from worship.-We cannot express our desire better than that the writers of the Tract may be safely removed from the precincts of Babylon, the Mother of Harlots. If we mistake not they will have to approximate close to the Apostles of the Lord, by commencing at the only proper starting point, beginning at Jerusalem, Luke xxvi. 45-49; Acts ii.

CORRESPONDENCE RESPECTING JOHN THOMAS.

As it is now well known to some, if not to most of our brethren, that John Thomas, M.D. of Richmond. Virginia, is in this country, and that he has for the last 10 or 12 years been more or less connected with our brethren in the United States, it will be matter of surprise to some parties that he is not taken by the hand, supported as an evangelist, and recommended by the officers of the church in Nottingham, some of whom have been chosen, in a measure, to direct in these matters. A short time after J. T. arrived in London, the following letter, with his address, came to hand:

172, Spring-street, New York, May 30, 1848. Beloved Brother Wallis- Before repairing to our house, No. 80, Green-street, to hear him once more, I cannot rob myself of the honor of writing you a word by which to introduce to your personal acquaintance and Christian courtesies, our very highly es eemed Brother, Dr. John Thomas. Richmond, Virginia, United States. He is on a tour through England and Scotland to proclaim, at his own charge if necessary, in this fearful crisis of the world's history, the gospel of the kingdom." In submitting to the divine injunction, "prove all things, hold fast that which is good," I am sure you will procure a hearing for him, and it so you will have the riches of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalmus laid before you, and all made to enhance the glory of the Christ whom you love, and to adorn the everlasting kingdom over which he must quickly descend to take possession, and to reign in with all his saints gloriously. Receive him kindly, Brother Wallis, and you will prove him to be both a Christian and a gentleman, conflicting testimony to the con rary notwithstanding. Accept my own and Sarah's Christian love, all of you, and oblige, yours in the hope of incorruptibility when Christ comes, J. and S. BEADMAN.

On the evening of the same day, July 4th, when upward of forty brethren and sisters, including all the officers of the church were present, the subject was introduced, being fully and impartially, in our judgment, laid before them. At the conclusion of the meeting it was unanimously agreed, that unless we had further recommendatory documents than those in our

possession, we could not invite Mr. Thomas to visit the brethren in Nottingham and the vicinity; and that the officers be requested to communicate with him on the subject. Accordingly a letter was written, of which the following is a copy:

Nottingham, July 5, 1848. Dear Sir-The letter of introductio given to you by our much-esteemed Brother James Beadman, of New York, with the announcement of your address in the city of London, was duly received yesterday morning. In the evening of the same day, they were both read and made the subject of consideration by the brethren assembled for worship in Barker gate meeting-house. in this town. While the brethren all felt desirous of manifesting proper respect for the letter sent by Brother Beadman, who some few years ago emigrated from us to them they could not but deeply regret that you had the United States, yet from certain facts known to abjure all connection with, and even avowed open hostility to. th se whom we consider to be the disci ples of the Lord Jesus Christ in the United States, renouncing most if not all that you had learnt whilst among them as being altogether erroneous and vain.

With these facts before us-while we desire not to exercise any power or control over any man in carrying out his conviction of truth before God-it was nevertheless deemed by the brethren present, inclu. ding all the officers of the church, to be inexpedient and improper on our part, either to invite you to Nottingham, or in any way to lend you our influence in furthering the object of your visit to this country. We remain, dear sir, on behalf of the church, your well-wisher, JAMES WALLIS, THOMAS WALLIS, JONATHAN HINE. WM. POWERS, HENRY MEEKLY, WILLIAM MARTIOTT.

To Mr. John Thomas.

That our readers may know something of the object of Mr. Thomas, in visiting this country, we insert the following announcement from the Morning Star, published in New York, June 3d, 1848:

TRUE MISSIONARY SPIRIT.-John Thomas, M D. President of the Scientific and Electric Medical Institute of Virginia. saits in the De Witt Clinton, for Liverpool, on a tour through England and Scotland, to invite public attention to European affairs, “as evidental of the near approach of the kingdom of God." We understand that Dr. Thomas pays his own expenses.

In the same paper appears an article from the pen of Mr. Thomas, entitled "The Times we live in." It is dated on board the De Witt Clinton, bound for Liverpool, May 29, 1848. On this article the Editor remarks as follow:

A communication appears in our columns to-day from Dr. Thomas, of Virginia. We publish it as we do other advertisements, not holding ourselves answerable for its doctrines.

With the feeling and sentiment of these observations, so far as Mr. Thomas's in

fallibility is concerned, we most cordially concur. But that he may speak for himself, we shall give the article verbatim.

THE TIMES WE LIVE IN. MR. EDITOR-Have you space in your columns, crowded as they are with the histrionic details of these eventful and ominous times, for a few sober statements of the