God excludes no one from the pale of repentance and eternal salvation, till he has despised and rejected the propositions of sufficient grace, offered even to a late hour, for the sake of manifesting the glory of his long-suffering and justice. Nor has God any where declared in direct and precise terms, that his will is the cause of reprobation, but the reasons which influence his will in the case at issue, are frequently propounded, namely, the grievous sins of the reprobate previously committed, or foreseen before actual commission, want of repentance, -contempt of grace,-deafness to the repeated calls of God."-" And this reprobation lies not so much in the divine will, as in the obstinacy of their own minds; it is not God who decrees it, but the reprobate themselves who determine on refusing to repent while it is in their power." P. 70, 71. We pass over in silent regret the chapters which contain Milton's sentiments respecting the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. Our readers will be concerned to hear that his views on these subjects were deeply tinged with Arianism. There are some curious speculations in the chapter on creation; but as they are rather curious than edifying, we shall make no extracts. It cannot be important for us to know the exact period of the world's formation, or the manner in which that event was brought about: it is enough to be assured that "all things are of God." The advocates of materialism, we are sorry to say, will claim Milton's suffrage on their side, and plead the high sanction of his name: he affirms that man "is a living being, intrinsically and properly one and individual, not compound or separable, not, according to the common opinion, made up and framed of two distinct and dif. ferent natures, as of soul and body, but that the whole man is soul and the soul man, that is to say, a body, or substance individual, animated, sensitive, and rational." He also denies "that the spirit of man should be separate from the body, so as to have a perfect and intelligent existence independently of it." P. 190, 191. The Providence of God, including his general government of the universe, and the special government of angels and man is next treated. The constitution under which Adam was placed before his fall, has been commonly styled "the covenant of works." Milton objects to this: "This is sometimes called the covenant of works, though it does not appear from any passage of scripture to have been either a covenant, or of works. No works whatever are required of Adam; a particular act only is forbidden. It was necessary that something should be forbidden or commanded, as a test of fidelity, and that an act in its own nature indifferent, in order that man's obedience might be thereby manifested. For since it was the disposition of man to do what was right, as a being naturally good and holy, it was not necessary that he should be bound by the obligation of a covenant to perform that to which he was of himself inclined; nor would he have given any proof of obedience by the performance of works to which he was led by a natural impulse, independently of the divine command. Not to mention, that no command, whether proceeding from God or from a magistrate, can properly be called a covenant, even where rewards and punishments are attached to it; but rather an exercise of jurisdiction." P. 227. In describing the state of man before the fall, Milton takes occasion to defend polygamy and divorce. On the latter subject, as is well 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 abolished." 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, therefore, 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 in stead 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. Remarks on Two Pieces in the Baptist Magazine, signed JOHANNES and IOTA. To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. IN your number for August, 1824, were inserted four questions, by a writer who signed himself Mnason, (page 334.) To these questions I wrote answers, which were inserted in the number for October following. In them I spoke with diffidence and caution, knowing that men of equal wisdom and piety, differ on subjects of minor importance; and also, that every man, 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 tantamount 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. 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 fications of church members, I would say but little, except that I am liable to mistakes as well as other men; but surely I am not mistaken in a matter so momentous to the present happiness and eternal well-being of my soul: how Johannes could read my piece, on which he has animadverted so severely, attentively through, and express any doubt on this subject, I am at a loss to conjecture. When he says I have attempted to remove one evil by introducing another, he himself is mistaken; I never said that what he refers to was an evil, the word I used was "improprieties," carefully avoiding the term evil, because it seemed too harsh for the occasion. It is strange that Johannes should represent me as using this word without at all noticing my softer term; if this be not bearing false witness against our neighbour, it surely cannot be speaking the truth in love. Again, Johannes says, that I have seriously reflected upon our churches in having admitted it as a possible case, that the majority of the members of some of them may not be competent to judge of the qualifications of new members, and seems to think that I have egregiously erred; but whether he or myself have most seriously reflected on our churches, I shall leave your readers to judge after referring them to his own words. baptized in his name, because the church which examined them has not been satisfied with their views of certain doctrines; or they are deemed not sufficiently informed with respect to their views of divine truth; or perhaps, their experience has not arisen to a certain standard; they have been a little too legal, or not enough acquainted with divine things; thus many are made sorry whom Christ has made glad. Many are prevented from doing what they know to be their duty." To say nothing about the strong expressions here used to convey what is meant; there is more said of the insufficiency of our churches to judge of qualifications, than what I have admitted only as a possible case; and said too, in a positive manner. In addition to which, Johannes has accused the churches with wishing to dictate to their ministers whom they shall baptize, and whom they shall not. Such churches should be instructed, not publicly accused. It may be remarked, that what I have said regards church-membership; that what Johannes has said, regards baptism only that he speaks of baptism independently of church connexion; that I speak of it as in that connexion. I am aware of this, and admit its truth; yet this is not in favour of Johannes' statement, unless he will contend that though a church be able to judge In shewing to whom a person de- of qualifications for the Lord's supsiring Christian baptism is to make per, it is nevertheless incompetent confession of his faith, he says, to judge of those required for Chris"I mention this, because it is the tian baptism. I suppose he will custom of some of our churches to not assert that a person may be a have every candidate for baptism proper subject for one of these orbrought before them, to be examin- dinances, and not for the other; but ed by them, that they may dictate he would contend for the right of to the minister whom he ought to the minister only to judge in the baptize, and whom he ought not;" one case, and also of his privilege he adds also," It not unfrequently to baptize independently of the happens, that genuine believers in church's approbation. Well, I have Christ are prevented from being no objection to this; but still it is 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 has 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, 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" Should any of our churches subin other denominations; but it is mit to this, they will surely never questionable whether this practice consent to be deprived of their sufdo not weaken the ideas of men frages; that inalienable right of respecting the connexion between voting, which every member posthe two ordinances, and also les- sesses." Iota refers to the circumsen their views of the authority stances of Saul and the church at of Christ expressed in the institution Jerusalem, as proving this inalienof his own supper. It must, how- able right of voting, possessed by ever, be allowed, that were the prin- every member of the church. (Acts ciple acted upon very extensively, ix. 26, 27.) But I cannot see that its effects upon our Baptist churches, this reference is sufficient proof on might not be beneficial; and I wish the subject. It proves indeed that it to be remembered, that whatever no man has a right to impose himis wrong in principle, cannot be self upon the church, and by conright in practice. It is true, we sequence that the church has power have an instance in the New Testa- to judge of the qualifications of its ment of one being baptized and not members; but it does not prove added to the church, but it is also that every member of the church at true, that in his circumstances addi- Jerusalem voted whether Saul should tion to the church was impractica- be received by them as a member, ble, and whatever is omitted on this or whether he should not. account can be no guide for our can it prove that every member of conduct when the impracticability our churches possesses an inalienis removed. The other instances of able right of voting in the admission Neither |