Bear with me, then, if I refer, by way of example, to a few things which appear to me to be objectionable in this respect.

In lecture VII. (p. 110), you say, "The expression daimonia always intends not fallen angels or devils, but spirits of dead men, separated from the body, and supposed to be in heaven," &c. That the word may, in some applications of it, refer to departed spirits, we do not question. But can we suppose that Christ used it in reference to the spirits of good men, "then in heaven," when he speaks of Beelzebub being the prince of such daimonioun (daemons.)

The

during the sounding of the seventh trumpet.

In lecture IX. (p. 153), you say, "The jailor of Philippi was baptized FROM a basin or a bucket in the prison,” &c. By what new book of Acts this was discovered, you have not told us ; for most assuredly Luke said nothing of the sort. A man that wishes and professes to speak the truth, should not thus affirm at random. And mark how foreign is the mode of expression: He was baptized FROM!! We read that Jesus, our great example, was baptized IN Jordan; and if we had true "literal translation," we should read that John baptized IN water; but who ever read in the Christian records about being baptized FROM? The very mode of speech "bewrayeth "the falsehood. The jailer surely was at liberty, and the earthquake had surely set the Apostle free; and there is no evidence the baptism took place in the prison at all, or that either "bucket or basin" was used. On what miserable grounds will an enlightened man sometimes cling to the traditions of the Fathers, even when, in words he repudiates them! What pity ought we to feel for, the unenlightened!

In lecture IX. (p. 148), referring to Rev. x. 6-7, the meaning of it is best expressed by another and juster translation:-" And he sware that the time should not be yet." On this, which you call a "literal translation," you proceed to found an important interpretation of the passage. Now, it is certainly desirable that some authority for this rendering of ouk eti should be adduced. phrase occurs in several other places of this book, but in none of them will it bear the meaning you give it. How absurd to say concerning the blessed saints, "They shall not hunger YET; neither thirst YET :" i. e. they may at some future period be in want! Rev. vii. 16. How preposterous to translate Rev. xxi. 1-4, according to your "literal translation!" "There is no sea YET." "There shall not be death, neither sorrow nor crying YET, neither any pain YET :" . . at some other time there may again be death, sorrow, crying, and pain. If you can find a full proof of the correctness of your translation, by all means do so; for I fear, if you fall into the hands of the Oxford Grecians, they will show you no mercy, but scatter your translations to the winds. No doubt the intention of the angel's oath is, that there should be no more delay, but the purposes of God should be rapidly hastened onward preparing to "cry as a lion roareth,"

You have explained, and perhaps very truly, the meaning of the two witnesses: only you have been constrained to bring into your line of succession the despised and calumniated Baptists; for even Dr. Wall confesses Peter Bruis and Henry of Thoulouse to have been such, though he does not give them so good a character as you have given them. But that matters not to our present question. These witnesses (that is, a succession of faithful men) prophesied in sackcloth, 1260 years, according to your interpretation, and were slain A.D. 1513 (page 190.) Luther, according to Merle D'Aubigné, became a licentiate in theology about the same date, the end of 1512, and was

remain, dear sir, your esteemed friend | Apostles were greatly at fault. in the cause of Christ,

C. LANCASTER.

[We should be happy to hear again from J. Harbottle. We feel per

The

Lord is the author of eternal salvation to them that OBEY him.-ED.]

STRICTURES ON A BAPTIST
PAMPHLET, No. II.

(For the British Millennial Harbinger.)
DEAR SIR-The lady who kindly
handed me "Strictures on the Chris-
tian System," informs me the writers
are Messrs. D- and W, two
young men of good reputation and
talents, members of the Scotch Bap-
tist Church, Liverpool. I should
have guessed otherwise, because wri-
ters of that connection are usually
more cautious and accurate.
I am
now told their "Strictures" are con-
sidered a fair exhibition of Scotch
Baptist views, so that we are to regard
these gentlemen as speaking for that
body.

It would be easy to lengthen the list of errors, but perhaps a sufficient number have been pointed out to show how little dependence can be placed on the work. I therefore proceed with the misapplications and perversions, taking them together as found in the Strictures.

suaded that both he and his friends could do much to promote the interest and circulation of the British Millennial Harbinger. Reform must go forward; then why not hasten it with greater and more rapid strides? This would show, at least, that there is sincerity in the prayers we offer up, that the will of God may be done on earth as it is done in heaven. What the Particular Baptists are gaining by the introduction of " open communion," and of organs, into their communities, would be difficult to say; unless it be to add what is termed respectability to their body. This, however, is obtained at great sacrifice, seeing that divisions and separations are taking place among them. The question is not-does this, or does that accord with the New Testament, and the simplicity of primitive purity and worship?—but how shall we obtain a rich and respectable congregation? One thing is most remarkable in this "open communion scheme" -the poor are immersed, while the rich, for the most part, are excused, being satisfied, it would seem, that sprinkling and pouring are equally from the Lord! To be consistent, ought not these Baptist congregations to invite to their communion Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Quakers; in fact, all who feel themselves to be Christians, simply because they were born in this Christian country, and can talk piously respect-phets in particular. To those proing heart-felt religion, or of being regenerated and baptized by the Holy Spirit? The Apostles preached the obedience of faith among all nations. But in these days it is supposed that happy feelings are all that is required -or, in other words, that "faith alone," without the obedience of faith, brings pardon and peace to the guilty. If this be true, both Jesus and his

Misapplication 1. To show that in assemblies of saints elders and brethren were to exercise their gifts in common, these young men say (page 6) " In a word, all might speak, one by one, that all might learn, and all might be comforted.' This quotation of 1 Cor. 14, 31, neither gives the words nor the sense of the Apostle. It misapplies to brethren generally, what the Apostle spoke to pro

وو

phets, direct revelations from heaven were then given, and they spoke the things so revealed in easily understood language to the congregation.

Mis. 2. Mr. Campbell having stated that all are corrupt, depraved, fallen, and sinful, these writers find themselves aggrieved-not with what he says, but with what he does not say. It seems offence enough in him not

and a rising therein with him to newness of life?

to come quite down to their mark of and that he rose again the third day total-depravity- therefore-total-ina--what could "the form of doctrine" bility." In support of this ground-be which these Corinthians obeyed, work of their theories, they adduce if not a burial with Christ in baptism, Jer. 10, 32: "The way of man is not in himself; it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Now assuredly this text may as fairly be taken to prove holiness as depravity. It merely says, man should be directed by God. The holy angels are directed in doing his will, for they "hearken to the voice of his word." God guided Israel by the cloud for forty years it led the way, and the peculiar people followed. So the "Brightness of the Father's glory" now says, "Follow me;" and his obedient believers "follow whithersoever he goeth.'

Mis. 3. "The Psalmist, knowing his own weakness, says, Hold thou me up, and I shall be safe."" Is it so, then, that weakness is to be deemed depravity as well as wickedness? Is this the Scotch Baptist theology? Are these writers sure it is not "Christ in David" who speaks these words, as He does in Psalm xxii. 19-21 ? And would they regard the latter as proof of the total depravity and inability of the Son of God?

Perversion 4. These young men show that, naturally, sin reigns as king, and men obey as subjects. Sin a masterr-men his slaves to which we cheerfully subscribe. But having done this, they (to make these truths speak total-inability doctrine) somewhat triumphantly ask, "When did the subject overcome his king, or the slave his master ?" One always feels desirous to enlighten darkness. Gentlemen, the Americans did the former -the Haytians the latter; and yonr own text (Rom. vi. 17) states the fact, that the very slaves of sin at Rome did actually obey, and that from the heart, the form of doctrine which was delivered to them. And here allow me to suggest, that if the doctrine (the Gospel) itself, is, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried,

66

Mis. 5. 1 Cor. iv. 7, "Who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou hast not received? and why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it ?" This is an instance of gross misapplication. These writers call it a challenge to any man." It is, in fact, a question to one man. That person differed not from his brethren at Corinth in faith, repentance, or obedience, as these writers suppose in these things all were alike. He was only "distinguished" by miraculous gifts, (probably received by imposition of Paul's hands) and his fault was, that he too vainly prided himself on those gifts.

Mr. Campbell instanced the Bereans as having, even in unbelief, been "more noble" than the Thessalonians. This being a knot these writers could not untie, they (regardless of their motto) set themselves to cut it with a blade of their own make, viz. "

They must have had a special exercise of the divine power." Little need have they for the sword of the Spirit, who can thus manufacture for themselves.

The other quotations under this head, truly declare man's great sinfulness and continually evil propensities. They offer, however, no proof that he is either totally depraved, or unable to receive Christ. The writers have failed to produce a single scriptural authority for these favorite fancies.

Perversion 6. Mr. Campbell having, in the "Christian System," set forth the great things God has, in Christ, done for us; and stated that our enjoyment of these things is, on our part, conditional upon our faith, repentance, and obedience—the writers, indignantly taking opposite ground, say, "Salvation, in all its

manner, such Old Testament saints to the knowledge and love of his dear Son. Take a case :-Cornelius, being thus fore-acknowledged, was therefore predestined by God to be conformed to Christ. Accordingly, he, 1st, was called by Peter's gospel (believed as spoken); 2nd, was justified freely by the favour of God through Christ; 3rd, was glorified by a divine gift of

parts, is the result of the divine purpose. The Apostle, Eph. iii. 2, clearly teaches this, where he shows that the adoption of the church is according to the good pleasure of the divine will, that she is accepted in Christ, and predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will." Thus write Scotch Baptists! and this might be deemed a decent" tongues :" nor, in the tidings by burst of Calvinism were there truth which he and his house were to "be in it. Dear Sir, turn to the place, saved," was 66 planting in likeness of and, with your own eyes, see that Jesus' death" omitted. In all respects Eph. iii. 2, says nothing of adoption, Cornelius conformed to the divine acceptance, or the predestination of pattern, and so became a brother of the church! Eph. i. 2, speaks of the the first-born. This, therefore, in predestination of apostles, but this is Cornelius' case, and doubtless in foreign to the subject. Did these others, was the chain of salvation to gentlemen expect their assertions to the foreknown. No link in it appears be taken without examination ? arbitrary or partial; all is in sweet harmony with the Father's kindness to his faithful ones in every age.

Perv. 7. "The apostle gives the chain of salvation in this most emphatic language:-'Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified.'" If this is a "chain of salvation," these writers have done themselves injury by attempting to pass off a piece of it for the whole, as though designedly shortening it to Calvinistic length. Had they given the whole, the meaning might have been apparent. The severed piece is "Whom he foreknew, he did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren." We are enabled to observe, that the Father foreknew old Simeon; for He had acknowledged him as one of his saints before Christ's coming. He also foreknew Cornelius, having recognised him before the gospel of Christ was preached to him. The change to be accomplished in these accepted worshippers (Jew and Gentile) was, from looking for the Messiah to come, to know he was come. It would have been unlike the Heavenly Father had he neglected to call, in an especial

Mis. 8. John xv. 16, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you that ye should go and bring forth fruit.' It is sad perversion to apply to "the Church" at large, as these writers do, words which the Lord, on the night of his betrayal, addessed to his beloved and loving eleven, "I have chosen you (my apostles), and ordained you.'

Mis. 9. John x. 27, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give unto them eternal life." This text is adduced to disprove what these writers contrive to make the "Christian system" say, "The salvation of the Church depends upon the contingency of man's agency." This effigy they hold up and shake by way of bugbear to scare timid minds. That the text is misapplied is, however, tolerably evident from this fact, that in it the Lord recognizes human agency; for the characteristics of his sheep are, they "hear" (obey, W. Jones) his voice, and they "follow" him. A sufficient proof, that those who RECEIVE his words and DO his will are reckoned among His flock.