Tillotson's sermons are as scriptural and correct as our best reformation discourses.

After my marriage, I began to read the New Testament for myself, and to think about religion in a really serious manner. Personal responsibility, and the adaptedness of Christianity to our state, struck me with great force. It seemed to wake up my dormant thoughts, and present a tangible subject of contemplation. I had been taught that at baptism I became "A member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." And after confirmation, that my sponsors were released from responsibility. But when I compared myself with the divine standard contained in the scriptures of truth I found out my deficiencies, and felt bound to correct the defects whatever they might be. Very little straight forward preaching at this point in my history would have opened up my way before me, and have saved me a world of cares.

In conversing one day with a person of the baptist profession I was startled at the remark that infant baptism could not be found in the New Testament. I immediately replied that if it could not I would give it up! At that time I had little idea that the pledge thus made and carried out would make it necessary for me to begin again at the beginning, and obey my own Lord from my own faith in him.

Having been brought up in Pedobaptism, I was not apt readily to adopt the sentiments of the despised "Dippers," as the witnesses of the faith were contemptuously called in our section of the country. My wife's grand-father was a Baptist preacher, and a man of great independence of mind. In politics he was a stern Republican, in fact a Radical, and though in name a Baptist, he had no Associational connexion with any body and maintained strictly and literally the independence of each particular church of Christ. This good man taught me to think for myself, for he scorned to be a beggar for his opinions; and in all his investigations and elaborations of the thoughts of others, or his own, he had a manly bearing: possessed of a selfsustaining and powerful intellect, he could never crouch to human authority; but by a strong faith in the divine word, he acquiesced like a child, in the teachings of Christ and his Apostles. My curiosity was greatly aroused when I first heard him preach in Warford chapel, adjoining which, in a country place, he had his dwelling. His appearance, manner, and matter, were all new to me. He was a fine looking and venerable old man of seventy-six. He read a portion of scripture, and then selected some part thereof as his text. His aim was to make you understand his subject, and the trammels of rhetoric or sermon making he could not endure.

In connexion with weekly preaching, I had the advantage of frequent conversations with my father-in-law, who was also a preacher and a member of Warford church. He was a man of much reading, but had not mixed much in society, and consequently was timid and very backward to preach. He was a regular reader of the works of William Jones, and was much in favour of the Scottish Baptists, in all their views of doctrine and discipline. In all these matters he was a better guide than his father, for although his father acknow

ledged that the ORDER of the Scottish Baptists was primitive, he always deprecated a change, alleging that he had known several churches to start on those principles and come to nothing.

(To be continued.)

TO THE EDITOR.

AN EXTRACT.

J. H.

DEAR SIR.-* * * * I heard Mr. Campbell at Banbury on Monday night. There was nothing new in his address: but a great deal of truth, and made plain to plain men-but there are some things to which I demur. The division of the ordinances of the gospel, or rather, a numeration of them as three, and three only. Now there is in the scriptures, according to my reading, a fourth, namely, the laying on of hands, which according to Heb. vi. 1, 2, is classed with the first principles of the gospel of Christ, and those of unquestionable perpetuity. * * * * There are some other things that appear to me to be fanciful, but I have not time now to write them. Perhaps at some future day I may if the Lord will. * On the whole I consider Mr. Campbell a great man. For biblical knowledge I do not know his equal; and for zeal and labour he is surpassed by none of his contemporaries, or hardly by his predecessors. These are qualities highly commendable in every one, and particularly so in one of Mr. Campbell's position. I wish him every blessing and the cause he pleads, and an increase of knowledge to carry it out independent of what man can say and do. May the Bible be, as I know it is, his constant monitor in all divine things! Yours very truly,

* *

*

REMARKS ON THE ABOVE.

* *

We hope the writer of the above will excuse the liberty we have taken in presenting the above extract to our readers, especially as we have felt it proper to omit both his name and residence. We have learned by experience that some persons apparently best qualified to write and investigate subjects of importance and of general interest to their associates, desire to be kept in private, while others less qualified are never satisfied only as they are brought forth to public view, and their supposed greatness presented before all.

This friend and well-wisher, though a perfect stranger to us, closed his friendly epistle with the word private, for which we felt sorry, otherwise the very style of the letter would have induced us to have printed it verbatim. Urbanity, truthfulness, and purity of speech, according to the degree of our knowledge, is what we admire in all who profess to be the disciples of Christ. But to the object we had in view when sitting down to write.

We also had the pleasure of hearing brother Campbell's three discourses in Banbury. In the one referred to, which was the last, he spoke of three facts, three commands, and three promises, as covering the whole ground of apostolic proclamation of the gospel to unbelievers. Other instructions were subsequently given by the Apostles to the immersed believers. Now, according to the reading of our friend, there is in the Scriptures a fourth ordinance, namely, the laying on of hands. This, of course, if attended to in apostolic days as an ordinance, was observed after baptism and not before, and would be found one among the all things commanded by the Lord to be enjoined on his disciples-but the question is, Was it so?

The laying on of hands, as we understand the matter, was practised for two different purposes, and by two different classes of officers in the church of Christ. The first was for the imparting of spiritual or supernatural powers, and could be attended to only by the Apostles of the Lord. The second was for the induction into office brethren qualified for pastors and deacons. The former ceased when the Apostles fell asleep in Jesus, but the latter continues to be obligatory on the disciples of Christ through all time. The proofs for this view cannot now be referred to. Much has been said, and no doubt will still be said, both for and against each of these positions.

Philip, a disciple of Christ, afterwards a deacon and then an evangelist of the Lord, in connexion with six others of his brethren, had the hands of the Apostles laid on him, and by which he became empowered to work miracles. But he never presumed to lay hands on any of the converts which he discipled to Jesus. He had no miraculous power to convey to them through that medium. The Apostles alone, and neither evangelists, pastors, nor deacons, could do this.

To convey the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit into the minds of some of the disciples, was one of the peculiar marks by which the true Apostles of the Lord were distinguished from the false or mere pretended apostles. Truly, the signs of an Apostle was wrought by Paul and his brother Apostles. These signs were conveyed by them to a second person: but never from a second to a third. Otherwise, why did not Philip lay hands on the converts at Samaria ? Acts viii. 14-17. Simeon the sorceror, and many others in the primitive age, desired to become Apostles in this respect. But not so. The Lord has made known them who are his apostles; and, therefore, “let every one who names the name of Christ depart from all iniquity."

It is evident the Hebrews, to whom Paul wrote, desired to see

acted over again, the baptism of John-of Christ-of the Pentecostians fresh proofs of the resurrection--the laying on of hands, &c.thus laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith towards God. The Apostle wished them to go on to perfection; and reminded them, that when for the time they ought to have been teachers, they needed that one should teach them again which be the first principles of the oracles of God. They were weak in faith, and needed milk rather than strong meat. not our intention to write so much on this subject. If our esteemed correspondent will send us his thoughts and proofs that the laying on of hands is now a Christian ordinance, in order to introduce sinners into the kingdom of Christ, or that they may receive the Holy Spirit, he shall have a fair hearing.-ED.

A. CAMPBELL'S ORATIONS.

BROTHER WALLIS :

But it was

Banbury, July 19th, 1847.

My dear Sir.-Your desire to have my discourses in England taken down by stenographers and published, expressed to me at one of our interviews, calls for a more public response than that I gave you at the time, since similar desires have been expressed by others, and more especially by our brother King of London, who had, on his own responsibility, employed stenographers to take down and report my public orations in that city. My objections to such an undertaking on your part have been more than fully justified by the attempt of brother King. Indeed, my experience hitherto has constrained me in all such cases to withold my consent. I have too much acquaintance with the incompetency of our best stenographers to take down accurately the speeches of any one that speaks so fast as I do, to allow me to sanction any thing they might publish in the name of my speeches, without my revisal of them. The specimens shown to me by brother King would not only misrepresent my views in certain points, but would make me say matters not only somewhat ridiculous, but even revolting to my feelings. I, therefore, possitively refused to sanction the reports he presented, or any others, not revised by myself, as giving either my speeches or my views. But as the desire to have my addresses published has been so often expressed in this country, as well as on many occasions in the United States, I must continue to withhold my consent from any garbled or incorrect report of them, until I have leisure to get them correctly out, or such of them as are of general interest to the public. therefore say to you, and through you to our brethren in Great Britain, that I will not authorize any report of my orations in England to go to press for the reasons given, but if the Lord will, I intend, at my earliest convenience, to publish one volume of my orations in England and Scotland, in which all of public interest shall be preserved, so far as I may have learned from the various expressions of

I will

public opinion that have come to my ears. I hope this may be satisfactory to our brethren and friends, and that no one will attempt to do myself or the cause which I plead so serious an injury, as to give to the public a garbled or incorrect report of my public discourses in this kingdom.

In all Christian affection and esteem,

Yours in the Lord,

A. CAMPBELL.

REMARKS ON THE ABOVE.

WE feel perfectly satisfied that brother Campbell has adopted the proper course in sending the foregoing letter. No reporter however perfect ought, in such an important matter as this, to be allowed to speak for the lecturer. Indeed, a perfect and faithful stenographer is not to be expected. Unless, therefore, the author could see the articles through the press, they had better not appear. Oral addresses, delivered spontaneously in public, especially on religious topics which exhibit the apostolic mode of illustrating Bible truths and Bible institutions, in which so many persons feel interested in misunderstanding, or misrepresenting, ought not, and we hope will not, carelessly be sent forth to the world. At the same time we should feel most happy to see a volume of these plain, unassuming, luminous, and unique lectures, brought out by our brother. J. W.

Queries and Replies.

Dumfermline, 1847.

Query. If a disciple of Christ is excluded from the church because he is a retailer of wines, ardent spirits, &c., ought not the pastors with all those members who purchase and constantly use these articles as a common beverage, to be excluded also?

Answer. It is an old adage that if there were no receivers of stolen goods there could be no thieves-and that the former is equally guilty with the latter. This we do not believe, because the prohibition is, Thou shalt not steal." In the ardent spirit traffic, we should say, that the distiller who produces the article is first guilty. God never intended men should live on abstractions, neither physically, intellectually, or morally-therefore, it is wrong to produce them for the purposes of a common beverage.

It is one thing for a druggist to sell a pennyworth of opium or of arsenic to an individual for a useful purpose, (and who will say this may not be done?) but it is quite another matter for him to be retailing out drams of alcohol to the deluded multitude, when he knows at the same time they are ruining themselves, their families, and society, and becoming daily unfit to live either in this world or the