ration, as stated in the writings of Mr. Wesley, and more espe cially in the Book of God.

One of these theories is, that baptism, when properly administered, is regeneration.

That the apostles were not of that opinion is evident, for when St. Peter went to Samaria, he found Simon, (generally termed Simon Magus,) among the newly formed society of Christians, who had been baptized. But so far was Peter from considering him as regenerated, that he said to him, "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter, for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."

That our Reformers did not consider baptism as regeneration, is evident from the catechism which they compiled, where they say, that "Baptism is an outward and visible sign, of an inward and spiritual grace." And that Mr. Wesley was not of that opinion is also evident from all his writings; but especially from his Sermon on the New Birth, where he says, " And, first, it follows that baptism is not the new birth; they are not one and the same thing." Again, "For what can be more plain, than that the one is an external, the other an internal work? That the one is a visible, the other an invisible thing, and, therefore, that they are wholly different from each other; the one being an act of man, purifying the body; the other a change wrought by God in the soul. So that the former, is just as distinguishable from the latter, as the soul from the body, or water from the Holy Ghost."

expres

The other theory is, that all professing Christians are, in the same sense in which the New Testament writers use the sions, regenerate, born again, justified, and members of Christ's body. Strange as this doctrine may appear, it has had its advoBut if we examine into the writings of the Reformers, of Mr. Wesley, and also of those who were inspired by the Holy Ghost, we shall find that this novel theory is without foundation.

cates.

Mr. Wesley is remarkably clear on this subject. In his Sermon on the Marks of the New Birth, he says, "But it is not a barely notional, or speculative faith which is here spoken of by the apostle. It is not a bare assent to this proposition, “Jesus is the Christ," nor indeed to all the propositions contained in our Creed, or in the Old and New Testaments. It is not merely an assent to any, or all these credible things, as credible. To

say this, were to say (which who could hear?) that the devils were born of God: for they have this faith. They, trembling, believe both that Jesus is the Christ, and that all Scripture having been given by inspiration of God, is true as God is true, &c. yet, notwithstanding this faith, they are still "reserved in chains of darkness unto the judgment of the great day." In his sermon "On the Way to the Kingdom," his expressions are equally strong, and equally proper. "A man may be orthodox in every point, he may not only espouse right opinions, but zealously defend them against all opposers; he may think justly concerning the incarnation of our Lord, concerning the ever blessed Trinity, and every other doctrine contained in the oracles of God; he may assent to all the three creeds, that called the Apostles, the Nicene, and the Athanasian, and yet it is possible, he may have no religion at all, no more than a Jew, Turk, or Pagan. He may be almost as orthodox as the devil, &c. and may all the while be as great a stranger as he to the religion of the heart."

I might quote scores of passages, from his writings, equally clear and express on this subject, as also from the writings of the Reformers; but let us now turn to the sacred writers.

The epistles are, (at least most of them,) directed to the particular churches in those places, which bear the name of the Epistle; of course, the apostles would direct their letters to the people of each place collectively, who were united together in the Christian society. And, in addressing each society, they would address them as called, redeemed, regenerate, justified, and chosen. But when we inquire into the proper meaning of those expressions, as used by the apostles themselves in their letters, we find that they cannot, and never were meant, to apply in that lax manner which some persons have lately supposed.

When we examine into the meaning of the term justify, or justification, we find that its proper meaning is, to declare just, or righteous, i. e. to acquit, or absolve from past offences, and accept, as just, to the reward of righteousness. But this justification always was preceded by true genuine repentance—was always received by faith in Christ, and was uniformly accompanied by peace, love, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

When they speak of regeneration, they always speak of it as a change which passes on the believer by the power of the Holy Ghost, whereby he is made a new creature in Christ Jesus.

In the conversation which our Lord had with Nicodemus, he speaks of the new birth, as a being "born from above," and as clearly distinguished from every thing carnal, and fleshly. St. John also, in the various passages in his first epistles, where he enlarges so beautifully on the Christian privilege of our being the children of God, clearly states, that such persons have passed from death unto life; that they have fellowship with the Father, and with the Son, by the Spirit; and that, he that is born of God sinneth not.

So far from those terms applying to all professing Christians, indiscriminately, they can only apply, in the scriptural sense, to those persons who are changed by the power of Divine grace, and are made new creatures in Christ Jesus.

Another doctrine which we are now especially called upon to support, is, the doctrine of the Trinity, as from the beginning believed, and maintained in the Christian church.

On this important-subject I would premise, that there is one grand error, into which, it appears to me, some persons have fallen; and that is, to attempt to bring every thing to the bar of human reason; and if their reason cannot fathom the doctrine, they try to new model it, and so to form the system that it may come within their own comprehension. I allow that we are by reason to judge of the evidence in favour of the Bible as the Book of God, and also of the proper explanation of the terms used in that blessed book. But when it is proved to be a Divine revelation, we are bound to receive that revelation, though there may be mysteries in it which the human mind cannot fathom. Some years ago a celebrated Divine, who wished to comprehend the nature of our Lord, embraced the strange and unscriptural opinion, that the human soul of Christ was pre-existent; and he wrote a treatise to prove that it was the first, and the most glorious part of the creation of God. Other persons have recently revived an entirely opposite scheme, but equally unscriptural, viz. that the Lord Jesus Christ is termed the Son of God, only in reference to his human nature.

In speaking or writing respecting the deep things of God, we ought to do it with much caution. The human mind is limited with respect to its powers, and though it may comprehend much with respect to arts and sciences, and be continually advancing in knowledge and information on a variety of subjects; yet, with respect to the things of God, it becomes us to speak with deep

humility. But more especially when we attempt to define the nature of God, we must be careful not to make the reason of man the judge of that nature, for "Who by searching can find out the Almighty?" If the reason of man is to be the judge, and the definer of the nature of God, whose reason is to be the standard? The minds of men vary, and what one person may appear to prove to be the nature of the Divine Being, another may attempt to overthrow, and shew to be totally incorrect. If man is to be our guide, and mere human reason to be our standard in judging of the Divine Being, we shall be left in a chaos of confusion. In speaking thus of the reason of man, I do not mean to degrade it, or to suppose that we are not to use it even in spiritual concerns; but we should learn to know its province, and not to apply it as the rule of our faith, where the revelation of God is the only guide.

(To be concluded in our next.)

BIOGRAPHY.

From the London Methodist Magazine.

An Account of the Life, and Conversion from Heathenism to Christianity, of GEORGE NADORIS DE SILVA, SAMARA MAHA NAYEKA, late a Budhist Priest in the Island of Ceylon.

GEORGE NADORIS, known in his priestly days by the name of Rajegooroo, or "The King's Priest, or Preceptor," was born of rather obscure parents; his father being what is called a Cangahn, or Corporal of the division of Lascorenes, or trained. bands of the Chalia cast, resident in the village Capugame, in the province of Matura.

The inhabitants of India are divided and subdivided into a number of casts or tribes. This classification seems to be rather of a political than of a religious origin, and was most likely contrived by some abetter of arbitrary power, for the purpose of disuniting the interests of society, and so preventing the operation of the cmulative principle in man. The fetters of tyranny being thus once riveted on the community, they continue to be

worn and submitted to, from generation to generation, without the least discontent, or most distant idea of any alteration.

Scarcely any thing could have been contrived so friendly to the designs of an arbitrary and despotic government, as the distinction of cast. In the first place, it generally extinguishes, with very few exceptions, every thing like public spirit. A man can have no interest in noticing the oppressions of the ruling power, any more than success in resisting them, when he knows he is doomed by his birth to a certain sphere of life; and let who will govern, or by whatsoever rules of policy, he must of necessity remain in the profession of his father, and occupy the same rank in the scale of being, which was sustained by his progenitors a thousand years before.

But, even were it possible that the human mind could surmount such a bar to ambition as this, the distinction of cast effectually secures the tranquil exercise of despotic tyranny, by rendering it impossible that there should be any centre of union around which the whole community might rally in order to oppose its aggressions.

A perpetual dislike and suspicion of each other is mutual among the oriental casts. They will not even associate together in the most common duties of nature; and they are in general so jealous of each other's ascendancy, that nothing would more surely secure the opposition of one cast to any particular measure, than the idea, that it would meet the wishes of another party.

Here then is the balance of power. Being once, in some very remote age, vested in one particular tribe, and at the same time the other parts of the community disjointed by a distinction, producing inferiority, animosity, and mutual suspicion, the supreme authority, however improperly and unjustly it may be exercised, continues to be undisturbedly held, from generation to generation; the suffering parts of the society mutually contributing to the support thereof, by the mutual fear of its devolving on a rival cast.

This distinction, however, did it end in preventing political discontents and revolutionary enterprises, would be hailed as a blessing by every lover of benevolence and humanity; for those people are the most happy part of every community who are the least acquainted with the clashings of political parties, and the intrigues of restless ambition.