most sacred institutions become, to those who disregard or corrupt them, the savour of death unto death. Our indispensable duty, therefore, requires that we so regard the Sacraments, and that we so apply them as the instituted means of grace, as that, by the divine blessing they may become unto us and to those who hear us the savour of life unto life-2 Cor. ii. 16. They combine, in effect, instruction in the truth and instruction in godliness. They are calculated to guide us in the indispensable duty of building up ourselves on our most holy faith-Jude, 20. They furnish the most direct guards against all essential error in religion; and they supply at all times the most effectual warning against viciousness in life. Let us, therefore, my brethren, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, go on to teach those committed to our care, to observe all things whatsoever He, whose ministers we are, hath commanded us: convinced that, according to His original promise, He will be with us to bless the word which we preach, and to sanctify the ordinances which we celebrate in His Name and by His authority; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.-Amen.

NOTES.

NOTE A. Page 22.

"The current sense of the Church is the best interpre"ter of the Holy Scriptures"-See The Socinian Controversy Discussed, by Charles Leslie, 1st Dial. Sect. xiv. Especially is this true with respect to the essential articles of the faith and the essential ordinances of the Gospel. The faith was preached and applied, and the ordinances were in universal practice among the converts to Christianity, before the Christian Scriptures were committed to writing. The Rev. John Scott, in his Enquiry into the Effect of Baptism, &c. in Answer to Dr Mant, says, page 5, "It "is well known that, in early times, strong language came "into use in the Christian Church concerning baptism, "and the blessings connected with it. On what principle it was thus used may hereafter, in some degree, appear. "It is likewise well known that the Church of England has seen good to retain a portion of this language, particul"arly by speaking of every one whom she has admitted to baptism as born again, and regenerated by God's holy "spirit."

66

66

66

Now this concession on the part of Mr Scott, in whatever way he may choose to explain it, is, in some degree," important; and this importance is increased by Mr Simeon's acknowledgement quoted in the text. In effect, Messrs Simeon, Scott, Biddulph, &c. have to struggle in this controversy against the universal and overwhelming current of authority in the Church both ancient and modern; and they continue the struggle as keen controversialists generally do, by bringing into the discussion matters wholly irrelevant, by impertinent enquiries which we have no means of ascertaining, by suppositions which cannot be granted, and by drawing conclusions altogether unwarrantable.

66

The late very distinguished Principal Campbell, in his famous Synod Sermon, April 9, 1771, says, " I shall only "specify one (abuse) which is very general. Has not the "remission of sins been ascribed to the rite of baptism? and "in consequence of this, has not the indispensable necessity of that ordinance to salvation been strenuously main"tained? I own I mention this sentiment the rather be66 cause it is a remainder of the old leaven, which many of "the reformed have not yet entirely purged out." I confess that the first perusal of this passage, with Pearson on the Tenth Article of the Creed before me, and the Nicene Acknowledgement sounding in my ears, excited a very sin gular sensation in my mind as coming from the pen of a Christian preacher, because it seems to call in question that which the Scriptures assert in express terms,-see particularly Acts ii. 38. and xxii. 16. and which the Church, in the most ancient and orthodox creeds, has uniformly confessed. The Dissertation on Miracles not only contains a complete and able confutation of the principles advanced by David Hume in his Essay on Miracles, but it furnishes also a very favourable specimen of the controversial spirit. It is to be lamented that Dr Campbell was not always consistent in this respect, and that the consideration which he bestowed on Mr Hume he withheld from some Christian writers, who were, at least as men, as scholars, and as Christians, equally entitled to it. In combating Mr Hume he stands on high ground, and can afford to be not only just but generous. In his Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, he is repeatedly under the dominion of the itch of disputation, that scab of the Church as it is designed in the Epitaph of Sir Henry Wotton, (see Walton's Lives ;) and thus he becomes, perhaps without being conscious of it, sarcastic, severe, and unjust. He was certainly dominated by the same spirit when he wrote the passage which I have quoted from his Sermon ; and he is in fact combating a mere phantom, at all events a false sentiment of his own making. No Protestant writer or authority, with which I am acquainted, ascribes the remission of sins to the RITE of baptism, and most certainly not those men nor that society whom Dr Campbell means chiefly to chastise in his Lectures and Sermon. The word rite is not the proper word in this enquiry-or if we limit the question, as that word necessarily limits it, to the mere external ceremony, there is no ground of controversy. We firmly "ac