prophecies, as Jerome has rightly observed, affords the strongest testimony to their truth for they were fulfilled with such exactness, that, to infidels, the prophet seemed not to have foretold things future, but to have related things past. With respect to the particular prophecy (Dan. xi.) relating to the kings of Syria and Egypt, which Porphyry affirmed was written after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, we may remark that the book of Daniel was translated into the Greek language one hundred years before he lived; and that very translation was in the hands of the Egyptians, who did not cherish any great kindness towards the Jews and their religion and those prophecies which foretold the successes of Alexander (Dan. viii. 5; xi. 3.) were shown to him by the Jews, in consequence of which he conferred upon them several privileges.

:

"The fullest vindication of the genuineness and canonical authority of the prophecies of Daniel is to be found in Bishop Chandler's Vindication of the Defence of Christianity from the Prophecies of the Old Testament,' and in Dr. Samuel Chandler's Vindication of the Antiquity and Authority of Daniel's Prophecies.' (See Horne's Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures. Vol. iv. pp. 206, 207.)

D. C. W.

We thought that our correspondent, after his strong opening words, and his assertion that a man so well-read as Dr. Arnold "evidently knew nothing" of the replies to Porphyry, was about to grapple with him; but he only quotes a passage from Mr. Horne's "Introduction;" which contains but a fragment of the arguments in support of the genuineness and canonical authority of the book of Daniel. Our correspondent must have quoted from an early edition of the "Introduction;" for in the later editions Mr. Horne refers his readers specially to "the masterly treatise" of Professor Hengstenberg upon the book of Daniel. A translation of this treatise we see announced as in contemplation in Mr. Clark's "Foreign Theological Library;" a series intended to follow up that enterprising publisher's "Biblical Cabinet;" which, as a commercial speculation, did not fairly remunerate him. Mr. Horne has given Hengstenberg's refutation of the most material neologian objections to the authenticity and inspiration of the book of Daniel, and his leading arguments in proof of the genuineness and authority of the book, against cavillers, from the days of Porphyry to the present age. We do not see how Dr. Arnold could have resisted these able and conclusive arguments.

THE BAPTISMAL TENETS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

SCRIPTURAL.

[From respect to our correspondents, we always peruse the numerous, and often long, papers upon the baptismal offices of the Church of England with which we are favoured; but it would be out of the question to press one in many of them upon our readers, whose attention we cannot command to ever-recurring discussions upon the same topic. We however insert the following, very much on account of the signature affixed to it. We hear the constant iteration; "It is mighty well for the clergy to make plausible distinctions, and to maintain this or that hypothesis, as it is called, respecting their baptismal services; but plain unsophisticated laymen construe them in a popish sense, as involving opus operatum grace; and therefore reverence or reject them according as they are spiritually ignorant or divinely taught." The following letter proves that well instructed members of our communion, even in what the writer modestly calls "humble life," do not take up doctrines hap-hazard, or read either the Bible or the Prayer-book without weighing their contents; and that they are able to give "a reason of the hope that is

in them." Whether the Layman in Humble Life has arrived at the true interpretation of our baptismal services, or not, it is clear from his paper that any thoughtful parent or sponsor, carefully examining them, may come to a satisfactory conclusion that they are scriptural, and not, as is alleged, popish and delusive.]

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

IN reading your remarks in your August Number, on the off-hand, light, and flippant description given of the Church of England by Mr. Aldis, "Baptist Minister, Maze Pond," in his Lectures "in relation to the Evangelical Alliance," wherein you state (see p. 500) that it is not (as he asserts) to their geographical position, but to their baptism, that Churchmen owe their claim of church membership, I was led to examine the doctrine of Christian baptism as maintained in the formularies of the Church. Mr. Aldis will not allow the Established Church, according to his views, and in his "sense of the word," to be "a church of Christ."

In our Prayer-book, baptism is not treated of merely as an initiatory rite, whereby we are brought into the Christian covenant, aud made members of the Christian church; but, as we are taught in the Nicene Creed to acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins," so, in the Baptismal Services, prayer is made that those "coming to" "holy baptism, may receive remission of sins by spiritual regeneration." The 27th Article also declares, that "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened: but it is also a sign of regeneration, or new birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God."

That the above views of baptism are in strict accordance with Holy Writ, two passages from the Acts of the Apostles amply testify, On the conclusion of Saint Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost, we read, that his hearers "were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, "(Acts ii. 37, 38.) The devout Ananias, who was sent to the apostle Paul after his conversion, to restore him to sight, thus addressing him said, "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt be his witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." (xxii. 14, 16.)

My present question is not what is the interpretation of any, or all, of the passages which I have cited; but only whether the Nicene creed, the 27th Article, and the church offices, correspond to the language of Holy Writ; which undoubtedly they do.

It is to be feared, that many, both within and without the pale of the Church, hold very low and inadequate notions respecting the efficacy of the ordinances of religion, rightly administerd and received; more especially in regard to the two Christian Sacraments. The Catechism CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 108.

4 Z

speaks of these as being "generally necessary to salvation." That without faith and repentance "even baptism" will not "save us," is a truth so prominently set forth in the writings of the New Testament, that one would have charitably supposed that the bitterest opponents of the Church of England would not have entertained such poor and unworthy views of the spiritual discernment of her members, as to imagine that any among us should be so besotted, as to believe otherwise; or to think, that Churchmen look to their baptism as the means of their salvation, and that because they had been baptized they therefore believe or fancy that they are consequently entitled to the kingdom of heaven. But what will not party spirit say and do? Mr. Aldis speaks of the "regenerating waters;" but if he will look through the Baptismal Services he will find that no regenerating power is assigned to the water, but spiritual regeneration is alone sought for from, and ascribed to, the operation and influence of the Holy Ghost as "the Lord and Giver of life." It is only "the mystical" or emblemaical "washing away of sin" that is referred to the water; that is, it is a sign, a seal, and a pledge. Many exclaim against our church as teaching that the mere administration of the rite of baptism confers spiritual regeneration, without duly considering on what ground it is, and to what source she looks, before she by her ministers predicates that any are "regenerate, and grafted into the body of Christ's church." "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." (Titus iii. 5-7.) "Then Peter said unto them,. . . . . . and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

These precious promises were not confined to apostolic times, but are to endure "even unto the end of the world."

The opinions held respecting holy baptism by the several bodies of professing Christians among us, are various, and directly contrary one to the other. First, the Quaker will not admit the lawfulness and necessity of "water baptism" at all, but contends that the baptism of the Holy Spirit wholly supersedes it, and renders it nugatory and of no effect; notwithstanding, Holy Scripture expressly declares, that "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." The divine Saviour's commission (John iii. 5) to his Apostles, as related by St. Matthew, after his declaration that "all power" was given unto him "in heaven and in earth," was, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe whatsoever things I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." St. Mark's narrative is to the same purport; "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

Congregationalists, or Independents, admit children to baptism without any confession of faith made in their behalf, or any promise or vow entered into, whereby they are bound to lead "a godly and Christian The doctrines of the early Methodists respecting baptism, most likely agreed with those of the church into which they themselves had been baptized; but what the precise views of modern Methodists are

life."

on the nature and efficacy of that holy Sacrament, I have no means of judging; but from their condemnation of the term baptismal regeneration, I should suppose that they do not expect any very great benefit or privileges to be derived from its administration. Children baptized in the Church of England are regarded and instructed as "lambs" of Christ's flock; but among Independents, Methodists, and others practising infant baptism, they are not considered as belonging to the church at all; but are viewed too much in the light of " aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise," rather than instructed as "fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God." (Ephesians ii. 12, 19.)

If on the one hand many hold too low views of the holy Sacraments, so on the other hand, Papists, Puseyites, and some others, unduly exalt them, making as it were a Saviour of them, and thereby robbing the Lord Jesus Christ of his sacrificial and mediatorial office. They direct their followers principally to the baptismal font, and to the sacramental table, rather than "unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith," who alone is "the way, and the truth, and the life." He is the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending" of the salvation of his people: "Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

A LAYMAN IN HUMBLE LIFE.

ON THE CAUSES OF THE BLIGHTING OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION.

For the Christian Observer.

IN considering the Protestant Reformation, it is a question neither uninteresting nor unimportant, how it was that it proceeded so far as it did, and no farther. It had at first nothing, under God, to oppose to the mighty forces of Romanism, in their gigantic strength, except the efforts of a few obscure individuals, who, it might have been supposed, would have been easily crushed. Who was the poor Austin friar Luther, that he should oppose the Pope, and his cardinals, and the hierarchy, and the cœnobite orders of the Roman apostacy in the plenitude of its arrogance and power? Yet he and his colleagues were by divine grace strengthened for the encounter; and with such effect, that speedily almost the whole of civilized Europe, North of the Alps and the Pyrennees, protested against the corruptions of the papal Antichrist, and withdrew itself from his dominion. Even in Spain and Italy there was a goodly company of holy and zealous Reformers, whose exertions caused the fabric of Romanism to totter to its base. The bare enumeration of the Protestant and Reformed Confessions of Faith which were set forth between the dates of 1530 and 1566, will shew the vast extension of the movement. These were-in the order of dates-the Articles of Augsburgh, the Four Cities, Basle, Helvetia, Saxony, Wirtemberg, France, England, the second of Helvetia (which extended to Geneva, Saxony, Poland, Hungary, and Scotland) and Belgia. Shortly afterwards were added the Confessions of Bohemia and Scotland. What a mass does this represent of secessions from Popery! and when we consider the scriptural purity and the consentaneousness of all these codes n regard to the great essentials of Christ's holy Gospel, may we not add, what an outpouring of divine

grace, and what an aggregate of true piety, as well as merely external reformation, whether national or individual!

Whence then came it to pass that so hopeful a prospect of a yet far more extensive harvest was so widely and fatally blasted? The Reformation stopped; nor was this all, or the worst, for it receded, and Rome retrieved much of the ground which it had lost. This was the case in France, Belgium, Bavaria, Bohemia, Austria, Poland, and Hungary; in all which countries, though the Reformation had not been national, it had obtained an extensive and powerful foot-hold. Protestantism has not to this day recovered any of the territory which it then lost; no new locality has become protestantised; and no portions of Europe adhered to the reformed faith except those in which it had taken root during the life-time of the first Reformers, or the generation which commenced the struggle.

In the Edinburgh Review for October 1840, there is an elaborate paper written by Mr. T. B. Macaulay, in which some portions of the subject under our consideration are touched upon with great ability; and we purpose availing ourselves of such of Mr. Macaulay's facts and arguments as are apposite to our design; and the rather, as the tenour of his paper is not in a hearty tone towards the Reformers; and betrays a sort of cool contempt for the religious questions at issue; as if he meant his readers to understand that in adjusting praise or blame to the respective parties, he is not to be considered as sharing the opinions of either. He is too philosophical to trouble his mind about the doctrinal Articles of Trent or Augsburgh, England or Scotland. The history of the Reformation he views as a bare question of fact, without any reference to a disposing or overruling Providence; to sacred prophecy; or to the bearing of Popery or Protestantism upon the spiritual welfare of mankind and the salvation of souls. This is not the manner in which such a subject ought to be handled; but so much the better for our purpose will be the statements of the writer, since being abstracted from every religious theory, they may be made use of in their proper application, not to merely secondary causes, but to higher relations.

The Reviewer gives the following account of the rapid and extensive conquests made by Protestantism; but he insidiously attributes the vast preponderance of the causes of success to secular considerations; merely "lumping" in his enumeration "good men scandalised by the corruptions of the church," and "wise men eager in the pursuit of the truth." But the Confessions of Faith which we have above noted will shew that "the battle was the Lord's ;" and that it was conducted by devout and holy men-able theologians and faithful servants of Godwho were not waging a worldly, but a spiritual, warfare; however much subordinate causes may have aided their efforts.

"We will attempt to lay before our readers, in a short compass, what appears to us to be the real history of the contest, which began with the preaching of Luther against the Indulgences, and which may, in one sense, be said to have been terminated, a hundred and thirty years later, by the treaty of Westphalia.

"In the northern parts of Europe, the victory of Protestantism was rapid and decisive. The dominion of the Papacy was felt by the nations of Teutonic blood as the dominion of Italians, of foreigners, of men alien in language, manners, and intellectual constitution. The large jurisdiction exercised by the spiritual tribunals of Rome seemed to be a degrading badge of servitude. The sums which, under a thousand pretexts, were exacted by a distant court, were regarded both as humiliating and as a ruinous tribute. The character of that court excited the scorn and disgust of a grave, earnest, sincere, and devout people. The new the