for consideration. In respect to a command to baptize infants, the question of their consent cannot be raised. The former command might be interpreted with, or without consent, according to the opinion of the disputants; but the latter admits no such difference of interpretation; it is simply a command to baptize, without allowing the question of consent to be raised. What, then, are we to think of a reviewer, who, by raising the question of the consent of the parties in the baptism of adults, reasons from that dictum secundem quid to the dictum simpliciter, where there can be no question of consent raised,—that is, in the baptism of infants? To those who know the treachery and falsehood of this old sophism, I need say no more. But for the sake of such as are not accustomed to analyse sophistry, it may be necessary to proceed a little further in explaining the mystery of this particular sophism. Were the command of Christ expressed in these words" Baptize the adults of all the nations," the question of their consent would be open for consideration. As I have no powerthat is, no power which I can rightly use-to impose baptism upon them, I should expound such a command as meaning, with their consent. Were the command, on the other hand, to baptize the infants of "all the nations," the question of consent could not be raised; for the word baptize must be understood as dictum simpliciter. If the command were, Baptize the adults and the infants of "all the nations," the question of consent would remain, as to both adults and infants, just where it would have been, if only one class had been specified. What should we say to an objector who proposed the dilemma-Do you, or do you not, baptize without the consent of the parties? If you do, why do you not go about the streets throwing water upon people? If you do not, why do you baptize infants? If the words adults and infants were omitted, and the command was, Baptize "all the nations," the meaning of the phrase might be a fair subject of dispute; but the question of consent, as between adults and infants, coull be introduced against the person who contended that the phrase included both classes, with no more fairness and logical propriety than it could if the two classes were specifically mentioned. If a reviewer uses this sophism wilfully, he is guilty of a moral delinquency. If he do not recognise it, when he has himself raised it, he is not qualified for the office which he assumes. Although I have thought it necessary to define the figure and mode of this notorious sophism, I am not very fond of scholastic forms and phrases. "The schoolmen acted," I think Locke says, "as if God made man a biped, and Aristotle gave him reason." This sophistry may be made palpable to common sense, without the forms or phrases of the schools. My own phraseology in the lectures, ought to have protected me from such an objection. I had represented the teaching and the baptizing in the commission, as subject to the same limitations; and the only limitation I knew, was the ability to perform them, meaning, of course, the ability which Christians may rightfully use, and not an ability which requires to be watched and coerced by the police. Our Baptist brethren, imbued with the missionary spirit, believe it to be their duty to teach "all the nations," to the utmost extent of their ability. Whether they refer their obligation to this commission, or do not, is of no consequence, as they make some general command the rule of their duty. What would they say, if some one from among themselves, having well studied the sophism of my reviewer, and being troubled with the ambition of being thought a great reasoner, were to oppose the instruction of young children in their Sunday-schools, and in their families? He might begin with a little declamation about the evils of compulsion in religion, and propose his dilemma: Do you teach people the elements of Christianitythat law of liberty-with, or without their consent? If you teach without consent, why do you not force the ignorant rustics and mechanics of your neighbourhood into your chapels, and compel them to hear the truth of God? Why not fight the police? If you do not teach without consent, how dare you confine in the Sundayschool or the nursery, over their Bible and Catechism, those little children who long to sport in the fields? Our friends would soon find an answer to this reasoning from ignorant adults to wayward children, and their answer would be the refutation of my reviewer. It may be again asked-Because the command was, that all the male descendants of Abraham should be circumcised, was a Rabbi, who circumcised children without their consent, to go among the Ishmaelites and Edomites, and all the Arab tribes descended from Abraham, to practise compulsory circumcision upon any whom he might find uncircumcised? We might raise this sophism in the ordinary business of every day, and propose it with a knowing look, to puzzle our neighbours. Some years since, I believe, a surgeon was appointed by Government to vaccinate the poor in a district of Ireland. What would he have thought, if my reviewer had practised logic upon him, after the fashion in which he has amused himself in his critique on my argument? He might have said—Pray, Mr. Surgeon, are you commissioned to vaccinate the poor of this district, with, or without consent? If with consent, why do you vaccinate children who cannot give it? If without consent, why do you not go about the country, with your lancet, and infix it in the arm of every person you meet? This, and nothing else, is the objection which is flourished with much parade over my argument, as if to demolish it by a single stroke. My reviewer may, however, think that if he has done me injustice by this sophism, he has given me abundant compensation in the undeserved moderation with which he speaks of the extravagant latitude of my theory. He says, it is sufficient to cover the baptism of some little boy, who ran away from the baptizer, and the baptism of some little girl, who said the minister was a naughty man who threw water in her face, and some other extreme and apocryphal instances. His estimate of my extravagance is too moderate and favourable. He might justly have noticed far more extraordinary instances which my theory will cover it will cover the baptism of a jailor, within an hour of his meditated suicide; it will cover the baptism of a vile strolling conjuror, called Simon Magus, of whose religious knowledge his baptizer knew nothing, or knew him to be so grossly ignorant of the first principles of all religion, as to suppose he could buy the gift of God with money. It will cover the baptism in crowds, of all Judea, and all Jerusalem, over whose baptized inhabitants Jesus wept, as he foresaw their doom. It will cover, horresco referens, the baptism of a brood of vipers, to whom their baptizer said, "Generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? I baptize you unto repentance." The reviewer has been far too sparing in his censures of my latitudinarianism. Such instances of extravagant latitude as are these, he might have alleged with perfect honesty, and I should have had nothing to say in my defence. I beg the insertion of these remarks, as I can have no claim upon the pages of the magazine in which the review appeared; and I think such a review, however kind and fraternal, ought not to pass without some notice. Yours, very respectfully, ROBERT HALLEY. THE WHITEFIELD PAPERS.-No. VII. MR. JOHN EDMONDS. AMONGST the many correspondents of Mr. Whitefield, no one appears to have enjoyed a larger share of his warm affections than Mr. John Edmonds. We are in possession of at least a dozen letters which he addressed to him, breathing an unusual degree of friendship, and abounding in devout aspirations for his religious welfare. It will not be necessary to insert all these, but we have selected three on account of the information they contain. That of the date of January 16th, 1737-8, is very interesting, as it discloses some exercises of mind not generally supposed to have characterised the religious experience of the writer. Mr. Edmonds was a native of London, where he was born 1st March, 1710. He was a member of the Church of England, but became early connected with the Fetter-lane Society, and continued with the Moravians there, after Mr. Wesley and his friends had retired.* On the first settlement of the London congregation of Near St. Margaret's, on board the Whitacre, MY DEAR EDMONDS,-Last night I dreamt I was conversing with you; but I awoke, and behold it was a dream. Oh, my dear friend, I often think of all, but of you in particular, and I pray God I may never forget you as long as I live! But you want to know how I do. As well as a person parted from all his beloved friends can "It should be remembered, that for a season the Methodists and Moravians formed one society at Fetter-lane; though it does not appear that they were ever at any time perfectly identified. Considerable obscurity still hangs over the real causes of their separation. The two Wesleys agree in charging Mr. Malther, a Moravian teacher, with publishing doctrines akin to Antinomianism and Quietism; but Peter Bohler, to whom Mr. John Wesley was deeply indebted for much instruction in the Gospel, thought they were mistaken, and that they only misunderstood the preacher. I think it probable that some of the Moravians at this time were verging a little to an extreme upon the doctrine of assurance, and some other points, and that Mr. John Wesley, equally imperceptibly, was falling more decidedly into the Arminian view of the doctrine. Be this as it may, it is a matter of history, that on several occasions, after differences had arisen in the society, Mr. J. Wesley had succeeded in settling them. But in June, 1740, having laboured for a month to effect a similar result, he failed in his object, and read to the Society the following paper - About nine months ago, certain of you began to speak contrary to the doctrine we had till then received. The sum of what you asserted is this:-1. That there is no such thing as weak faith; that there is no justifying faith, where there is ever any doubt or fear, or where there is not, in the full sense, a new, a clean heart. 2. That a man ought not to use those ordinances of God, which our church terms means of grace, before he has such a faith as excludes all doubt and fear, and implies a new and clean heart. 3. You have often affirmed, that to search the Scriptures, to pray or to communicate before we have this faith, is to seek salvation by works; and till these works are laid aside, no man can receive faith. I believe these assertions to be flatly contrary to the word of God. I have warned you hereof again and again, and besought you to turn back to the law and to the testimony. I have borne with you long, hoping you would turn; but as I find you more and more confirmed in the error of your ways, nothing now remains but that I should give you up to God: you that are of the same judgment, follow me.' 'I then,' adds Mr. Wesley, without saying anything more, withdrew, as did eighteen or nineteen of the society. This was the formal origin of the Methodist Society; for from this hour Mr. Wesley and his followers met at the Foundry in the City Road; and the formation of their institution dates from the year 1740, and the rules by which they have ever since been substantially regulated, from 1743."-Dr. Morison's Fathers and Founders of the Missionary Society, vol. i. pp. 19, 20. do. The ship is now under sail, with a glorious fair wind, hastening towards the Downs; and a more delightful sight was never seen. Oh, if Mr. Edmonds was here to behold it! But nature, be still, learn submission to the will of God. All yesterday we continued at the Nore, and on Saturday night had a very brisk gale, which would have proved dangerous had we been in the Downs; but I'm sure our friends at London were praying for us, for though I was sick, I rejoiced greatly at it, and went, with the rest of my companions, on open deck, and (as I promised the dear London people) while the wind and storms were blowing violently over us, I made earnest supplication to God in your behalf. On Sunday, I and Mr. Habersham remembered you at Fetter-lane, and, as we lay in our bed (or rather on the mattrass) having no other more convenient place, we prayed particularly for you all. The same we repeated last night on open deck, and intend doing so every night, God willing. Oh, that our prayers may come up before him in your behalf! I need not tell you that some inconveniences attend a life on ship-board, especially to such a fresh-water sailor as I am. God is with me in the ship. He enables me to write as well as on shore; to preach and read prayers twice every day, and to catechise many of the red coats, who to-day, with those of my own companions, amounted to near twenty. God has given me great favour in the captain's and officers' sight. We had prayers yesterday in the great cabin, and Captain Whiting gives me the free use of his own bed place, where I hope to converse many hours with God by his holy word, and to put up many a prayer for you and my other friends. Here are frequent opportunities of exercising acts of charity and humility to the poor soldiers. I constantly attend them between deck, with good sage-tea and sugar, and make use of those times to excite them to repentance and thanksgiving: I hope many of them will be civilised, and some at last truly converted; but such power belongeth only unto God. I have nearly 120 souls on board; oh pray that not one of these little ones may perish through my neglect! If you inquire of those that came with me, I answer, very well; but most of them have been sea-sick. Dear Mr. Habersham was squeamish on Saturday; and John Doble terribly so; but God has delivered them out of all; we expect to be tost bravely by and by in the Downs; but you know what was said in this morning's lesson. And now, my dear friend, what shall I say more? I love you, love you sincerely, love you in the bowels of Jesus Christ; and nothing would be a greater pleasure to me, if God should bring me back to England, than to see you and my other friends walking in the truth. But I have first a cup to drink of, and a baptism to be baptized with; oh, pray that I may drink it cheerfully, let it be ever so bitter to the natural man, and that thereby I may be renewed in the Spirit day by day! Did London friends know how dearly I love them, I am sure they would pray for me. But do they not pray? Assuredly they do; otherwise why does God support me as he doth? Thank them, then, my dearest Mr. Edmonds, and tell them their prayer is heard, and let that encourage them still to intercede for, My never-to-be forgotten friend, Your most affectionate Brother in Christ, Deal, January 16th, 1737-8. MY DEAREST AND AFFECTIONATE MR. EDMONDS,-Though my other friends' letters gave me inexpressible satisfaction, yet yours quite melted me into tears. I thank you, I thank you from my soul for it, and heartily bless God for driving us back to Deal. I prayed on Friday, if it was the Divine will, we might not sail till I heard from my friends; but when we went before the wind from Deal, I endeavoured to give thanks from my heart, since it was God's good pleasure that we went before the letters I expected came to hand; but (for ever adored be his goodness!) God, |