of the Establishment; though the desks may, in all cases speak the same language, the pulpits will be found to be as discordant as if no such authorized standard was prescribedor as when " every company uses a new form of prayer at every

"convention."

Mr. Bonney furnishes us with a rather curious abstract of a Discourse of Baptism, published by Dr. Taylor in 1653. As a theological authority, few would lay much stress on the opinions of this eloquent writer; but they present a specimen of the doctrines at that time held by Episcopal divines, and his biographer does not intimate any thing bordering upon disapprobation or disagreement.

'After laying down what the rite of Baptism is, he proceeds to shew what are the benefits arising from it, and points out the first fruit to be, admission into Christ's kingdom; the next, adoption into the covenant; the third, a new birth by which we enter into the new world, the new creation, the blessings and spiritualties of the kingdom. He asserts that "In Baptism all our sins are pardoned; and not only this, but that it puts us into a state of pardon for the time to come."

The next benefit of Baptism, which is also a verification of this, he states, is a sanctification of the baptized person by the Spirit of Grace; and that to understand this we must consider it by its real effects, and what it produces on the soul.

1st. It is suppletory of original righteousness, and the effect of the spirit is "Light" or "Illumination." And he descends upon us in Baptism, to become the principle of a new life. But all these intermedial blessings tend to a glorious conclusion; for he adds, "Baptism consigns us to a holy Resurrection. And lastly, by Baptism we are saved."" pp. 179-80.

6

We are obliged to depend upon Mr. Bonney as to the accuracy of these quotations, but the judicious Hooker' does not stop very far short of Bishop Taylor in his representation of the efficacy of Baptism.*

* The considerations suggested by Dr. Watts in his "Humble "Attempt," in reference to the advantages which Protestant Dissenters enjoy in matters of religion, deserve to receive at this time peculiar attention, as pointing out the personal use to be made of the present controversy. The first advantage which the Dr. mentions, is this.

You are not in so much danger of taking up with the outward forms of religion, instead of the inward power and more spiritual part of it, as your neighbours may be, and that particularly in the two following instances. First, You are in no such danger of mistaking Baptism for inward and real regeneration, as those who are educated in the established church. You are not in the least tempted or encouraged in any of your Ministrations to suppose that your

But the most important, and by far the most valuable of Jeremy Taylor's controversial writings, is his "Liberty of Prophesying, in which he contends for toleration on a scale far too wide to accord with the prejudices of his biographer. In pleading for liberty of conscience in behalf of himself and his brethren, he maintains that free toleration should be allowed to all' who did not speak against the Apostles' creed, weaken the hands of Government, or were not enemies to a good life. In resting the question on so broad a basis, and by insisting upon the freedom of all Christians to exercise their worship, who do not offend in the above mentioned principles, Mr. Bonney seems to think, that in his zeal for his injured brethren he may have overstepped those bounds which are necessary for the preservation of spiritual government and unity in the Church.' What this liberal and tolerant biographer's sentiments are on the question of religious liberty, may be gathered from a note which is introduced somewhat violently in p. 313. Having souls are regenerated by the outward ceremony of Baptism, or that you are really born again, and made new creatures by being baptized with water, to which unhappy and dangerous mistake the office of Baptism in the church of England hath been thought to give too much countenance in the plain sense of the expressions, and without any sufficient guard or caution. And the answer in the Catechism which children are taught, does but too much confirm and establish them in this mistake. And when their parents hear it mentioned so expressly at the Baptism, that the child, after it is baptized, is regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ s Church, and that this infant is regenerated with the Holy Spirit, tis no wonder if they encourage children to believe in a most literal sense what their Catechism expressly teaches them, that they are all born again so as to become the children of God, members of Christ, and heirs of heaven by baptism. I readily grant that many of the ministers of the church and the wiser Christians do know and believe that there is no such inward grace and salvation really communicated by baptismal water: yet almost all the expressions in the offices relating both to public and private baptism, and to the baptism of those of riper years, establish persons in the same mistake, and that, as I hinted before, without any manifest caution to secure them from it.

But you, my friends, who separate from the national forms of worship, are afraid of receiving this doctrine, for you think it a matter of dangerous consequence both with regard to yourselves and your children. You therefore lie under the strongest obligations to see to it that you have better evidences of regeneration than your mere baptism with water.' pp. 175-179. (12mo edition, 1731.) This dangerous opinion respecting baptism, Dr. Watts subsequently shews, is repeated in the office of Confirmation,' which is the second instance to which he refers. The solemn application which he makes of the argument, ought to be impressed on the minds of all who have attended to this important subject.

stated in the text, that the seat of the Earl of Bridgwater had been, before the Rebellion, the scene of Milton's Comus, and that after the Restoration it had fallen into the hands of a nobleman of equal worth, and fostered a muse of equal vivacity,' he proceeds in a style worthy of a Bonner, a Laud, or a Sacheverel, to remark, that

High as the burlesque may seem in Butler's incomparable poem, it is but a transcript of the mode of reasoning which prevailed at that time amongst the independent party; whose hypocrisy and blasphemy cannot be contemplated by any religious mind without indignation and horror. At the same time a more striking lesson cannot be produced against the indulgence of the wild opinions which led to suck results. And no argument can carry with it such powerful conviction of their inevitable and fatal consequences, as a reference to the plain history of those enthusiastical and rebellious times.'

It must however be remembered, that Taylor, at the time of writing this plea for religious toleration, which seems to have given such alarm to his biographer, was, in point of fact, a Dissenter In common with many other zealous partisans of the royal cause, he had been deprived of his benefice and prohibited from using, in public worship, the Liturgy of the Church of England. These privations had a wonderful effect in removing the film of prejudice from his eyes. But after the lapse of a few years, when ecclesiastical honours were lavished upon him, his opinions on this subject must have undergone a material change, or he could never have consented to sit as a member of that Privy Council from which those persecuting edicts proceeded, by which two thousand of the best men the Church of England ever contained, were ejected, silenced, in many cases imprisoned, and in some swept into an untimely grave. Such is the corrupting influence of power and opulence even on the best of men!

As a favourable specimen of our Author's style of composition, we shall extract the comparison he has drawn between this distinguished prelate and the admirable author of 'Paradise Lost ;' a parallel which would certainly have done him great credit, had not its excellence been neutralized by a note, in which it is insinuated that our British Bard shines in plumes borrowed from the Bishop of Down and Connor!

Milton may be first selected, as coming nearest to him (Dr. Taylor) in many particulars. Born within five years of each other, and educated in the same university, they launched forth into life at a period the most eventful that England ever witnessed, when two powerful parties were drawing towards an open rupture, each supported by abilities that have rarely appeared in any age. The minds of both Taylor and Milton "had a large grasp;" their spirits were firm, cou

rageous, and ardent; their understandings intensely fixed upon religion. In the hour of contention two such characters could not be indifferent spectators. The one plunged into the tide of boundless liberty, the other espoused the cause of violated prerogative. Zeal prompted the hand of both, which gave an elevated tone to every chord they struck, whether in the cause of politics or religion. Milton embellishes his style often when least expected. If he be writing on the rules of education, he breaks from the sober and deliberate march of the philosophical enquirer, detains the mind no longer in the demonstration of that part of the subject which he is discuss

ing, but says, "I will strait conduct you to a hill side, where I will "point ye out the right path of a noble and virtuous education, labo"rious indeed at the first ascent, but else so smooth, so green, so "full of goodly prospect and melodious sounds on every side, that "the harp of Orpheus was not more charming.' In this and other

passages that might be cited from the prose of Milton, we perceive that we are conversing with a person of a high and majestic order, whose energy may be thought to equal, but not surpass that of Taylor. In intellectual opulence, in brightness of fancy, in richness and fluency of expression, the balance is so nearly even, that we hesitate to pronounce which side preponderates.'

Art. VIII. Farewell Sermons of some of the most eminent of the Nonconformist Ministers, delivered at the Period of their Ejectment by the "Act of Uniformity in the Year 1662. To which is prefixed, An Historical and Biographical Preface. 8vo. pp. xvi. 449. 11s— Gale and Fenner, 1816.

THE larger proportion of the Sermons contained in this col

lection, were not delivered on the 24th of August, as is erroneously stated in the Preface, but on the 17th of that month, the Lord's day that immediately preceded the Feast of Bartholomew, in 1662, when the Act of Uniformity took effect. The originators of this cruel Act well knew what would be the nature of its operations, and it is therefore quite reasonable to infer that they were perfectly satisfied in regard to the consequences which they foresaw would result from it. The Act was not designed to alarm the unholy, or to rouse the indolent; it left them in full and quiet possession of their offices and of their ease. It was a political institute, directed against the pious and the diligent in the Church, whom it expelled beyond its pale; and thus the kingdom was wholly abandoned to its haughty triumph over principles which Apostles would have gloried in maintaining, and over persons, as the victims of its vengeance, whom they would hail as fellow-helpers of the truth.

Were the pious clergy of the Establishment to resign their preferments in the Church, it would, it should seem, be a ques

>

tion with some persons, whether situations elsewhere of equal utility with those they now occupy, could be pointed out for them-whether it would be an advantage to the cause of true religion in the land, that no parochial cure should be administered by men, allowed to be well qualified to stem the torrent of heretical pravity? Such reasoners, it would seem, are not aware that the whole force of their arguments directs itself with keen severity against their own Church. Many good men, members of the Establishment, have most unreservedly condemned the Act of Uniformity: still, that Act has even Evangelical apologists. Here, however, we need not have recourse to supposition, on which to found our appeal: a fact readily offers itself. The Act of Uniformity, it is well known, ejected more than two thousand ministers from the Church, a much larger number, it is probable, than will ever again, at one time, quit its communion. Was it, we may ask, an advantage to the cause of true religion in the land, that men, so ably qualified to stem the torrent of heretical pravity, as the confessors of Bartholomew's day, were deprived of their parochial cures? We are quite willing, and indeed are desirous, at all times, to acknowledge to the utmost the qualifications of the pious clergy of the present day; but certainly we cannot concede that their qualifications are superior to those of Bates, and Baxter, and Howe, and many others of the Nonconformists. By the silence which was imposed upon these men, multitudes of immortal souls were consigned over to the danger of perishing everlastingly. And what situations of equal utility, we would ask, with those which they occupied, would Evangelical apologists for this Act have pointed out to the ejected clergy? Their situations were as important as those in which the Evangelical clergy of our days are placed. But it is an undeniable fact, that had the measure involved the spiritual misery of half the nation, the Act would have passed: no consideration that the land would be left destitute of the means of salvation, would have arrested the Act in its progress, or delayed its execution even for an hour.

But while we adopt this method of pointing out the inconsistency of those persons who attempt to extenuate the forcible ejectment of the Nonconformists from the Church, we do not shrink from fairly meeting the question.

On the supposition that in consequence of our representations a secession to any extent from the Church were to be effected, that twenty or forty Evangelical clergymen, that is, a number equal to a hundredth, or a fiftieth part of the ejected ministers, should leave their parochial cures, we have been called upon to contemplate the evils which would be produced by such a measure. Shall we adopt the reasoning that has elsewhere been urged, that the ejectment was beneficial to the cause of