that night was a scarce of regret to him for various reason; and he now rose to put a few questions to Mr. Henshall, but before doing so he wished to state the part which had been taken by the Antislavery Society of this town, of which he was a member, in reference to Mr. Campbell. They had felt it their duty to warn the public against Mr. Campbell, not from any feeling of dislike, for they did not even know him, but because they had understood from certain published documents, that he advocated slavery as in accordance Iwith the word of God. He (Mr. Nelson) spoke as a friend to Mr. Henshall, and he could wish that they had more frequent opportunities of conversing with their American friends. He knew that he was safer in advocating his opinions on slavery here than in the state Mr. Henshall came from; yet he had data to prove all that they, as members of the Anti-slavery Society, had said and done, and even more. The topic was a most exciting one, and created great interest in this country; and need not appeal to them, as Irishmen, to give a fair hearing to Mr. Henshall. (Hear, hear.) Even minsters of the Gospel had taken different sides in discussing the principle. Might he ask Mr. Henshall if Mr. Campbell is the minister of a congregation in which slaveholders are communicants? Mr. Henshall. He is the minister of a congregation.

Mr. Nelson. Are there slaveholders in that church?

Mr. Henshall. Instead of there being slaveholders generally in those churches, there are a great many of the persons connected with them who are most warm in their advocacy of setting the slaves free. Mr. Campbell is president of Bethany College. There is there a church in which (Mr. C.) has his own membership. That church is in connexion with Virginia and Kentucky, in which there are slaveholders.

Mr. Nelson. Then I am to understand you that Mr. Cambpell is in fellowship with churches with which slaveholders are connected. Mr. Henshall. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Nelson. In those churches where there are slaveholders, do the coloured population sit apart from the white population?

Mr. Henshall. Generally they do. Sometimes they sit in a gallery set apart for them, as a place is set apart, in this country, for those who cannot pay for pews.

Mr. Nelson. Would they be allowed to sit with others in Mr. Campbell's church?

Mr. Henshall. Well, as to that I cannot be expected to speak. I cannot be expected to answer for Mr. Campbell; but I tell you what I will do-I have no hesitation in answering for myself. (Cheers.) In my church we have a number of blacks who mix indiscriminately with the others, and at the communion table I always break the bread and give them the cup before I take it. (Applause.) As for Mr. Campbell, I can safely say that as regards slavery he is opposed to it, and has always been so.

Mr. Nelson. I am glad to hear it. Well, I have a letter here, received from a gentleman in England, in which he states it to be a fact that the elements of the Lord's Supper are never sent to the

coloured people until after the others had partaken of it. (Murmurs.) Mr. Henshall. In what state is that?

Mr. Nelson. In New York.

Mr. Henshall. New York is a free state for both whites and blacks, and in a free state that distinction cannot necessarily apply to slavery. Those blacks being free, it becomes, therefore, a question of colour and not one of slavery. (Applause.)

Mr. Nelson. Does Mr. Campbell believe that slavery is in accordance with the Divine Word?

Mr. Henshall. I cannot answer that for him, but I will again answer for myself. (Hear, hear.) To say that it is in accordance with Scripture, is one thing, and to say that Scripture sanctions it, is another. The New Testament does not appoint or ordain it, for it does not legislate upon civil matters. It gives to the slave and his master their relative duties, as master and servant, so long as that connexion exists and is the law of the land. The New Testament sanctions that relation only so far as it legislates for it, and inasmuch as the New Testament does not say that it should be put out of the church, we do not say it.

Mr. Nelson. That is very candid. I will now read you what Mr. Campbell is reported to have said to three Scotch gentlemen who waited upon him as a deputation to learn his views on the question. Mr. Robertson had challenged him to a discussion on those points, and it was then that he uttered the calumnious language for which he is now in prison. Mr. Nelson then read the document, which seemed to create a considerable sensation.

Mr. Henshall. Well, now, I will tell you something of that deputation and this document. A stranger in any place, having the heart and feeling of a man, always throws himself upon the sympathies of those he comes among. Mr. Campbell did not come to Edinburgh to defend slavery, but to preach the gospel and advocate Christian union. These gentlemen waited on him, and conversed with him. He knew nothing of their being a deputation, and after having obtained from him those broad concessions, unattended with any explanation, they went and placarded him as a manstealer (Hisses, and loud cries of "shame.")

Mr. Nelson. I am a member of an anti-slavery society. I do not know what part the Scottish deputation may have taken, but I am free to suppose they did their duty. When Mr. Campbell takes the station of a religious reformer, he ought to know (said Mr. Nelson, with great energy) that he should speak nothing in private that he was afraid in public of being written in letters of light. (Tremendous cheering.) I would not pander to any man or any body of men for a moment; but I think I am safe in saying, that when a deputation from an anti-slavery society goes to ask a minister what was his view of the mind of God on the subject, that minister ought not to desire no concealment. (Applause.)

Mr. Henshall. The gentlemen ought to have told him that they were a deputation. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Nelson. I hold a letter in my hand, purporting to be from

Mr. Campbell, that would make the hair stand upon your heads. The spirit of it is that slavery is an institution of God. (Loud cries of "read it," mixed with "no, no," one gentleman saying "it would be unfair to read it in Mr. Campbell's absence.")

Mr. Henshall. I have myself all the feelings of an Englishman on that subject. I was raised in England and educated there before I went to America. Mr. Campbell is an Irishman, and I know has all the feelings with regard to freedom which characterise the country. He will be shortly among you, and if you do not like his views, you may repudiate them and him together. I have been received with every courtesy by you

Mr. Nelson. And you, sir, have acted courteously and candidly. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. Henshall. And when Mr. Campbell does come I hope you will pay that attention to him which his years, his station, and his profession deserve;-I am sure you will do it. (Cries of "Hear, hear.") Allow me to make one observation. I am afraid that, in your anxiety to do good to the blacks, you stretch out the hand of charity to too great a distance. In your anxiety to render benefits to the black slaves of America, it might be that you would become neglectful of your white slaves at home. (Great cheers and laughter.)

Mr. Nelson. I perfectly concur in the sentiment Mr. Henshall has uttered.

After some further desultory conversation, the Rev. Mr. Hamilton, a licentiate of the General Assembly, rose to put a question to Mr. Henshall as to his recognition of the doctrine of the Trinity; but the audience being unwilling to prolong the discussion, and Mr. Henshall being advised by Mr. Nelson not to answer it, the meeting broke up.

LETTER FROM EDINBURGH-No. II.

Edinburgh, August 18th, 1847. SIR. Having in a former communication adverted to the subject of baptism by immersion, generally, I will now, with your permission, offer a few remarks on the article on the "Conversion of the Eunuch," in your June number, in so far as it relates to the point in hand.

Allow me, however, to premise, that even if it could be shown (which I dont think it can) that baptism by immersion was the primitive mode of administering the rite, I hold that in a climate and country so unsuitable as ours, a deviation from that form, would be allowable, in the absence of an express command as to the mode. No one now considers it necessary to observe to the letter the apostolic precept," Greet ye one another with a holy kiss,” though the spirit of the injunction is as binding at present as it was in the days of Paul, whilst the external form of it amongst us is exchanged for the shake of the hand.

The author of the article in question argues that because both Philip and the Eunuch left the chariot and went down into the water,

the latter must have been immersed. Surely this is very extraordinary reasoning, for if to step down into water be synonimous with plunging into it, then Philip as well as the Eunuch must have been immersed. But what impropriety of language would there be in saying they both went down into the water, even though it were only ankle-deep? Would there be any violation of correct language in my saying that, on a certain occasion, I stepped down into a gutter? And would it be rational to infer from the expression, that I immersed myself in it?

But, says the author, "sprinkling might have been performed in the chariot as well as out of it." No doubt it might; but can we suppose that either Philip or the Eunuch were not impressed with due solemnity and holy fear on the occasion, and if so, what more natural than that they should quit the chariot, put off their sandals, and walk a convenient depth into the water, and that then Philip should lift some of it in his hand, and pour or sprinkle it on the Eunuch's head.

Notwithstanding all that may be said of the case and readiness which the scanty clothing and loose garments of Easterns might admit of, in practising immersion, I must own, from some knowledge of those countries, I do not think it would have been possible to preserve decency and propriety, not to say the solemnity and order due to a religious ordinance, by publicly immersing such multitudes as were baptized by John and the Apostles. Even with all our modern appliances of baptistries, bathing garments, and dressing apartments, there is something of the ludicrous, which involuntarily accompanies the whole practice; and in a system like Christianity, where every thing else is so striking, simple, impressive, and appropriate, this is of itself no slight presumption against the probability of this mode of baptism. I sincerely believe that the cause of Christian baptism has been greatly injured and retarded by the obstinate adherence of its friends to this unprescribed form.

I will only add in conclusion, that it has always appeared to me that the form of expression used by the Apostle Peter, in Acts x, 47, is utterly incompatible with the supposition, that he intended that Cornelius and his company should be immersed.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

X.

TO OUR EDINBURGH CORRESPONDENT.-No. II. WE cannot now say much in reply to our friend X, No. II. A few short paragraphs must suffice. In the first place, one thing is most obvious. These are not the days in which the professors of religion can boast of being the heroic followers of the Lord. Indulgences, both Papists and Protestant, are so numerous, so common, and have been so long and constantly in demand, and so freely granted, that they seem to be interwoven into the body, soul, and spirit, both of professor and profane.

What shall we say? Even our respected friend, who professes to plead for truth in a definite form; thinks even if it could be shown that baptism by immersion was the primitive mode of administering the rite-still, in our climate and country, a little deviation, a small indulgence, in the absence of express command as to mode, is allowable!!

Does not this mode of reasoning stand at the head and root of all the indulgences that have ever been granted? And has it not been the beginning of apostacy from God in every dispensation given to man? Some supposed great one, either man or woman, have put in their plea for being wiser than God. Hence they detracted from, or added to, his revealed will, until the pure truth became obsolete and of no effect.

Moral obligations such as exist, irrespective of written law, between creator and creature, parent and child, man and man, is agreed on all hands to be obligatory and perpetual. But positive institutions which depend for their authority upon the sole will of the legislator, such as Baptism-the Lord's Supper-and the Lord's-day, may, in the estimation of many, be infringed upon with impunity. But not so.

Mother Eve, and her eldest son, Cain, with all his descendants, thought a little deviation from positive institutions was certainly allowable. But let each of our readers notice every case recorded in the Bible; and mark the condign punishment visited upon the head of all such transgressors.

God is a jealous God, nor will he transmit the glory of his authority to another; but to that man will he look, and with him will he dwell, who is of a humble and of a contrite spirit, and who trembles at his word.

It is not possible for institutions so significant as that of immersion in water of a penitent believer, into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and the Lord's Supper, in their original designs, to be imagined or devised by man. Indeed they are too simple and unique: like all other institutions, moral and physical, of the Divine Being. Man can devise no such apposite means to accomplish such important results. And yet how they have been metamorphosed and mangled by his pretended wisdom! Some small deviations, a little allowance as to manner, subject, design, administrator, &c., were all that was at first asked. retrograde movement was rapid, until the original design of baptism was lost in the form, and the unmeaning ceremony of infant sprinkling-the baptismal regeneration of an unconscious infant, by the supposed efficacy of a few drops of water from the fingers of

The