known, he had published largely in the early part of his life.

Having discoursed on sin, and the punishment of sin, he proceeds to consider the death of the body, as part of that punishment, and observes that "the death of the body is the loss or extinction of life. The common definition, which supposes it to consist in the separation of soul and body, is inadmissible. For what part of man is it that dies when this separation takes place? Is it the soul? This will not be admitted by the supporters of the above definition, Is it then the body? But how can that be said to die, which never had any life of itself? Therefore the separation of soul and body cannot be called the death of man." P. 279. The soul sleeping scheme, as it is usually called, naturally results from these views, and is advocated at considerable length.

Redemption occupies a large portion of the volume. Here are considered the Mediatorial work of Christ, calling, repentance, faith, justification, adoption, and other interesting subjects. On these points Milton generally agreed with Calvinistic churches, excepting as regards the extent of redemption. We extract some of his remarks on justification:

"As therefore our sins are imputed to Christ, so the merits or righteousness of Christ are imputed to us through faith: 1 Cor. i. 30. 2 Cor. v. 21. Rom iv. 6. v. 19. It is evident therefore that the justification, in so far as we are concern ed, is gratuitous; in so far as Christ is concerned, not gratuitous: inasmuch as Christ paid the ransom of our sins, which he took upon himself by imputation, and thus of his own accord, and at his own cost, effected their expiation; whereas man, paying nothing on his part, but merely believing, receives as a

gift the imputed righteousness of Christ. Finally, the Father, ap. peased by this propitiation, pronounces the justification of all believers. A simpler mode of satisfaction could not have been devised, nor one more agreeable to equity." P. 370.

In describing the various manifestations of the covenant of grace, the difference between the law and the gospel is pointed out, by the following definitions:

"The Mosaic law was a written code consisting of many precepts, intended for the Israelites alone, with a promise of life to such as should keep them, and a curse on such as should be disobedient; to the end that they, being led thereby to an acknowledgment of the depravity of mankind, and consequently of their own, might have recourse to the righteousness of the promised Saviour; and that they, and in process of time all other nations, might be led under the gospel from the weak and servile rudiments of this elementary institution to the full strength of the new creature, and a manly liberty worthy the sons of God." P. 402.

"The Gospel is the new dispensation of the covenant of grace, far more excellent and perfect than the law, announced first obscurely by Moses and the prophets, afterwards in the clearest terms by Christ himself, and his apostles and evangelists, written since by the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, and ordained to continue even to the end of the world, containing a promise of eternal life to all, in all nations who shall believe in Christ when revealed to them, and a threat of eternal death to such as shall not believe." P. 407.

Again: "On the introduction of the gospel, or new covenant through faith in Christ, the whole of the preceding covenant, in other words,

the entire Mosaic law, was abolish ed." P. 412. Several arguments are adduced in support of this asser tion, concluding thus;-"It appears, therefore, as well from the evidence of scripture, as from the arguments above adduced, that the whole of the Mosaic law is abolished by the gospel. It is to be observed, how ever, that the sum and essence of the law is not hereby abrogated; its purpose being attained in that love of God and our neighbour, which is born of the spirit through faith. It was with justice, there fore, that Christ asserted the permanence of the law. Matt. v. 17. Rom. iii. 31. viii. 4." P. 418.

"From the abrogation, through the gospel, of the law of servitude, results Christian liberty"--which is, "that whereby we are loosed, as it were by enfranchisement, through Christ our deliverer, from the bondage of sin, and, consequently, from the rule of the law and of man; to the intent that being made sons instead of servants, and perfect men instead of children, we may serve God in love, through the guidance of the Spirit of truth." P. 424.

Milton's sentiments on Church government will be stated in our next number.

whatever be his experience in divine things, or the length of his standing in the church of God, should be careful how he peremptorily determines on such subjects.

This diffidence and caution are not incompatible with the right of private judgment; we should call no man master on earth; one is our master which is in heaven. Nevertheless, the charity that hopeth all things obliges us to admit, that men may differ in sentiment from us in many particulars, and yet maintain integrity in the sight of God; to conclude to the contrary would not only be disreputable, but tanta mount to the claim of infallibility. Such an arrogant pretension, I am sure, could not find admission into your pages; yet you will allow your correspondents freely to discuss the opinions and sentiments of each other, if good temper and proper decorum be preserved.

1

The first paper I shall notice is that signed Johannes, in your number for March in the present year, (page 108). This writer directly refers to my answers, and treats both them and myself not very decorously. He says the answers are unsatisfactory, very unsatisfactory, and unreasonable; they might be so to him, but surely kinder and softer words might have been used. He should then have answered them better, and given to your readers more reasonable and satisfactory replies; assertion proves nothing.

He also remarks, that I have attempted to remove one evil by introducing another, far greater both in its nature and consequences. And when speaking of what I have suggested, he says, "I wish this suggestion may not arise from a mistake in an elder's mind with respect to what are the real, indispensable qualifications of church members."

As to my being mistaken in what are the real and indispensable quali

not very desirable for a minister to act in opposition to the judgment of the church over which he is placed in the Lord. Be this, however as it may, it does not alter the case; it is neither the right nor the wrong of this question for which we contend, but for the competency or incompetency of the church to judge. Johannes has asserted, that some of our churches are not sufficiently able to judge of the qualifications of candidates for Christian baptism, and accused them of wishing to exercise the power of dictation to their ministers; no small accusation; and I have admitted it as a possible case, that the majority of them, in some instances, may not be able to judge of qualification for church membership. Baptism has been considered as an initiatory or dinance, introducing persons into the church of Christ; ministers of the gospel may, for ought I know, baptize those who do not desire to become members of the church, or those who are members of churches in other denominations; but it is questionable whether this practice do not weaken the ideas of men respecting the connexion between the two ordinances, and also lessen their views of the authority of Christ expressed in the institution of his own supper. It must, however, be allowed, that were the principle acted upon very extensively, its effects upon our Baptist churches, might not be beneficial; and I wish it to be remembered, that whatever is wrong in principle, cannot be right in practice. It is true, we have an instance in the New Testament of one being baptized and not added to the church, but it is also true, that in his circumstances addition to the church was impracticable, and whatever is omitted on this account can be no guide for our conduct when the impracticability is removed. The other instances of

this nature recorded in the New Testament, were extraordinary and not common.

In the Baptist Magazine for the present month (June 1825) there is a piece on the admission of members into Christian churches, signed Iota. This writer has not directly referred to my answers to the above mentioned questions, nor shall I examine all the positions contained in his piece. I hope, however, that you will allow me to make a few short remarks upon it. Iota bas discovered a commendable zeal for the purity and welfare of our churches, the prosperity of which I have no doubt lies very near to his heart; but whether he has expressed himself with propriety, may be questionable. Iota says, that "A church has power to adopt any regulations upon the subject of admitting its members which are not incompatible with fundamental principles;" he, however, deprecates written experiences, and says, "Should any of our churches submit to this, they will surely never consent to be deprived of their suffrages; that inalienable right of voting, which every member possesses.' Iota refers to the circumstances of Saul and the church at Jerusalem, as proving this inalienable right of voting, possessed by every member of the church. (Acts ix. 26, 27.) But I cannot see that this reference is sufficient proof on the subject. It proves indeed that no man has a right to impose himself upon the church, and by consequence that the church has power to judge of the qualifications of its members; but it does not prove that every member of the church at Jerusalem voted whether Saul should be received by them as a member, or whether he should not. Neither can it prove that every member of our churches possesses an inalienable right of voting in the admission

of new members. Endeavouring to make passages of scripture prove more than they are capable of proving, has done injury to the cause of God.

The church at Jerusalem received Saul on the recommendation of Barnabas, and he was afterwards with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. This implies what I should contend for on the admission of members into our churches; but to make it absolutely necessary that every person should come before the church, and make a confession of his faith, and give an account of his religious experience, appears to me improper and unnecessary. If the person who wishes communion has no objection, let him do it and, as I said before, let him be even encouraged to do it, for the church may thereby receive edification and comfort; but if he have an objection, and cannot do it with pleasure to himself, let nothing be imposed upon him. It being confessed by Iota that a church has power to adopt any regulations upon this subject, which are not incompatible with fundamental principles, let some other method be devised. It is not for me to give instruction to our churches in this particular, but they will bear with me if I state what seems to me to be right. Satisfaction of the real religion of the person who requires admission into the church being all that can be desired; if he have any objection to come before the church, why may not two or three of the members be deputed by the church when assembled at their church-meeting, to have serious conversation with him upon the things of God, and of his knowledge and experience of the work of God upon his heart? This deputation might bring their report to the next church-meeting, and if, to the best of their judgment, he be really a pious person, and none of

the members know any thing to the contrary, I can see no reason why he may not be admitted as a member of the church. If this plan were indeed established as a general, or even as an invariable rule in churches, the whole of their members would be concerned in it, and there could be no danger of preference or partiality, murmuring or disputings; it would, for ought I know, be decent and in order.

But if any church choose to act differently, I have nothing to do with it; nor would I have any quarrel with them on that account. All I desire is, that nothing be contended for as essential to church-fellowship, what the sacred scriptures have not made so. With best wishes for the prosperity of Zion, I am, brethren most sincerely yours,

SAMUEL GREEN.
Bluntisham, June 25, 1825.

On Singing in Public Worship.

To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. SIR,

I was gratified to observe in your Magazine for August, that a subject which has frequently engaged and oppressed my mind, had been taken up by one of your correspondents, and treated in a way eminently calculated to bring home conviction to the consciences of those whom it concerns. I allude to the paper on "The Melody of the Heart." "Without affectation I can assure you, Sir, that my mind has been severely pained in reflecting, that in the congregations to which I statedly administer, there are so many individuals who Sabbath after Sabbath mock the Divine Majesty with a solemn sound. It is a subject which I have brought forward again and again, both in private and in public, and I hope not without success;