He quotes Bishop Burnet's Pastoral Care, and calls him "a learned Prelate of our Church."

In the second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, p. 641, he says:

"Two orthodox, pious, and very eminent Prelates of our Church, whom, when I follow authorities, I shall prefer to Slichtingius and Socinus, understand it as I do."

Again :

"I am not wholly a stranger to the writings of these two orthodox Bishops; but I never read a page in either of those Socinians. The never-sufficiently admired and valued Archbishop Tillotson's words are these, &c. &c. He was known to have such clear thoughts, and so clear a style, so far from having any thing doubtful or fallacious in what he said. The words of the other eminent Prelate, the Bishop of Ely, whom our Church is still happy in, are these, &c."

Again, page 602:

"I would crave leave to tell him, that this (the Apostles' Creed) is the faith I was baptized into, no one tittle whereof I have renounced that I know."

And above:

"If the omissions which he so much blames in my book make me a Socinian, I see not how the Church of England will escape that censure."

And p. 598:

"Does the Church of England admit people into the Church of Christ at haphazard? I desire you to turn to the baptism of those of riper years in our Liturgy. However you think fit to treat me, yet methinks you should not let yourself loose so freely against our first Reformers and the Fathers of our Church, ever since, &c."

In p. 299 of the third Letter concerning Toleration, he calls our Church "the best constituted national Church in the world."

Whoever candidly considers these quotations, and at the same time observes that a large portion of the "Two Vindications" is occupied in proving that the charge of Socinianism against him is unfounded, will not only join with me in wondering on what grounds Bishop Watson could have asserted that Locke was esteemed a Socinian; but he will also, if he be a member of the Church of England, rejoice with me, that we can claim so acute a reasoner for a friend and a brother.

I remain, Mr. Editor, your obedient Servant,

SABRINUS.

ON THE MISSION OF BISHOP LUSCOMBE.

To the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer.

SIR,-Your number for this month I have just received and read, and I feel very much concern for a review in it, of Mr. Hook's Consecration Sermon, the author of which review being evidently a man that is Establishment mad, and very probably a Presbyterian in disguise, who

either has not read, or does not understand, the sermon which he extols, and which completely establishes a doctrine, for the very reverse of which he most ignorantly contends.

In your most orthodox journal, and in other journals similarly well principled, the public have eternally served up to them, usque ad nauseam, answers to, and attacks upon, the corrupt, superstitious, and idolatrous Church of Rome. The poor Scottish Bishops too, it seems, must also come in for their share of your condemnation, for presuming to send a missionary Bishop to a country already regularly portioned out in dioceses among the Prelates of that same corrupt, superstitious, idolatrous church.

Now I read and learn, "that dioceses were but limits of convenience for the preservation of order; but that the faith was a more universal thing, and that when it was in danger, the whole world was but one diocese, and the whole church but one flock; and that every bishop thought himself obliged to feed his Master's sheep, according to his power, in whatever part of the world they were scattered. In things that did not pertain to faith, bishops were not to meddle with other men's dioceses; but when the faith, or welfare of the church, lay at stake, then, by this rule of their being but one episcopate, every other bishopric was as much their diocese as their own; and no human laws or canons could tie up their hands from performing such acts of their episcopal office in any part of the world, as they thought necessary for the preservation of true religion."

But the hands of the Scottish Bishops are not tied up, like the hands of your Bishops, by human laws and acts of Parliament, and therefore they did feel themselves bound in conscience, and in strict conformity with primitive practice, of which your sapient reviewer evinces such profound knowledge, to interfere in sending a Bishop for the purpose of retaining in the orthodox faith members of the Reformed Catholic Church residing abroad, whether natives of England, Scotland, Ireland, or America.

Did your reviewer ever read that St. Athanasius ordained and sent Frumentus, a Bishop, to India, although that country was undoubtedly previously regularly portioned out, as the whole Roman empire at one time was, among the established ministers of Heathenism; or that the Patriarchs of Constantinople, in similar circumstances, were in the practice of sending missionaries to Scythia? Did he ever hear of a Catholic, and of an Arian, or other heretical Bishop, occupying the same diocese, at the same time, although the latter could plead prior occupancy, or an equally valid episcopacy? Scotland too, perhaps he may know, has its established religion, and all its parishes are regularly portioned out among the established ministers; so that, according to the logic of your reviewer, the Bishops and Clergy of the Episcopal Church must be schismatics of the most unreasonable the most indefensible— description; more especially since the invention of steam vessels; as the whole episcopalian youth may be packed off, every third year, in ship-loads, to be confirmed at Durham, or York, at Carlisle, or Chester. Bishop Luscombe is fixed permanently, unless he shall be driven away by persecution, which is not very likely; or, which is still more unlikely, unless your most convincing reviewer shall succeed in preaching back

to their own countries all the British, and other Protestant, Episcopalians from France, Italy, &c. &c.

In reference to intrusions, the poor Scottish Episcopal Church would be infinitely obliged and equally grateful to your reviewer, if he would prevent coming here, or persuade back to your country, all your Methodists, and unprincipled profligate adventurers, by whom this still persecuted church is so sadly oppressed and may be ultimately overpowered.

Scotland, Sir, to you and to us is not equally neutral ground, like France, and other countries on the Continent, which may be occupied by any stranger whom the governments of those countries may be pleased to permit.

Till now I never understood that all Protestant Episcopalians resident abroad, are the exclusive property of the Church of England.

As your compliments are extremely qualified, and bestowed with an equally sparing hand, Bishop Luscombe ought to estimate, proportionally highly, those which are extended personally to himself. Still his mission meets with no quarter in your review fearful alarms are entertained, lest his episcopate should suffer by a defect of external parade and splendor; whereas the Etoile, your reviewer's friend, is as full of indignation and wrath at its being accompanied with too much!!!

With your leave, our Embassador's countenance proves the Bishop's errand to be neither, in an ecclesiastical view, good, bad, nor indifferent.

I repeat my regret that you should have admitted into your pages so injudicious, and, I beg leave to add, so illiberal a review; some of the arguments and observations contained in which were actually uttered to myself, upwards of a month ago, in the streets of Edinburgh, from whence, in all probability, your article has issued.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

A SCOTTISH EPISCOPALIAN.

St. Andrew's, 16th December, 1825.

ON THE VISITATION OF A PENITENT CRIMINAL.

To the Editor of the Christian Remembrancer.

SIR,It would be satisfactory to myself, and to several Clergymen with whom I have communicated, if you would give us some opinions that may influence us, with regard to the hopes we may justly hold out to a condemned criminal, as to a future state of happiness. We will suppose him to have committed murder; and, after sentence is passed upon him-for, from fear of convicting himself, it will seldom be sooner-that, during the forty-eight hours previous to his execution, he has shewn himself completely penitent; and further, that he has adopted the truest faith. It is possible, without any fault of his own, that he may never have been baptized,-and that, applying for the administration of it, the sacrament of baptism, upon the stipulated conditions, cannot be denied to him. The doctrine of our

Church, upon scriptural grounds, is, that he is then free from sin, and is in a state of primary justification; that, having no time for action, this final justification cannot, therefore, depend, as in all other cases, upon subsequent conduct.

As to all those assurances of immediate bliss in the bosom of Jesus, which enthusiasts inculcate, I cannot for a moment admit of them, and consider them as fraught with extreme mischief. But even supposing the criminal was truly penitent, and full of faith; yet, for myself, I confess, I could not send him out of this world with any positive certainty of God's acceptance and forgiveness; I could not lead him to indulge more than an humble hope of mercy ;-leaving that, of course, to depend upon the sincerity of his repentance and faith, of which I could not pretend to judge, and which must rest between his God and himself. But, upon the principle of justification by faith alone,-the true principle, if properly understood and sincerely exhibited,-upon such principle, can any sober-minded Clergyman consider a murderer absolved from guilt, and sure of pardon and peace in the world to come?

I am, Sir, Your faithful servant,

IAN.

A CLERGYMAN.

The case of a penitent criminal is undoubtedly one of great difficulty in the course of clerical visitation. On the one hand, it must be scrupulously guarded on the part of the minister of religion, lest he too closely approximate the sinner and the saint, by too high an estimate of the penitent's zeal:-and on the other, lest by a backwardness to admit the reality of a sinner's repentance, he should throw a stumbling-block in the way of a weak brother. It demands, accordingly, the exercise of a sound discretion, rightly to attemper the word of consolation. If, as our correspondent observes, the criminal "has shewn himself completely penitent," and has also "adopted the truest faith," there can be no doubt that he may humbly look for God's mercy in Jesus Christ. But how is the spiritual adviser to be sure that the repentance of the criminal is perfect, and his faith real? He can only judge from professions and appearances; for God alone can say, "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile." And from the necessity of thus forming a judgment respecting the criminal, it follows,-first, that a minister must refuse him none of the ordinances of religion, since the profession of the requisite qualifications for receiving them is the utmost that man can require;-and, secondly, that he must not treat the criminal, as if he knew all that passes between God and the conscience. If, therefore, the criminal, being hitherto unbaptized, desires baptism, let him, by all means, on professing faith and repentance, be baptized; but let him not be encouraged to confide that his pardon is sealed in heaven, and his happiness secure; for this is to say more than can possibly be concluded from outward observation. Let the minister of religion, believing, as in charity he is bound to do, that the penitent is sincere, encourage him to hope for the divine mercy, especially promised to all who are admitted by baptism into the Christian covenant;-for "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," says our Lord;-and it is an high privilege to him to be intitled to cherish this hope :-but let him not so entertain this hope as to cast away fear. "If the righteous," let him also be reminded, "scarcely be

saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?" The malefactor, to whom it was announced by our Lord, that he should be with Him in Paradise, was tried as to his faith in a way which no other dying sinner can be. He repented and believed in Jesus in the darkest hour of the Saviour's humiliation, when those, who had before been his faithful disciples, forsook Him and fled. It furnishes therefore no analogy to ordinary cases of deferred repentance. It shows thus much, that the greatest sinner may be forgiven, although his repentance has been postponed to the last moment; but it is no evidence that he will be forgiven.

But our correspondent inquires, whether, upon the principle of justification by faith alone, a Clergyman could consider a criminal thus baptized, "absolved from guilt, and sure of pardon and peace in the world to come."-In asking this question, it appears to us, he does not sufficiently consider the difference between the baptism of infants and that of adults. "It is certain," says our Church, "by God's word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are undoubtedly saved." The guilt of original sin is all that adheres to infants, and this is washed away in the laver of regeneration, through the grace bestowed on them as fit receivers of the Sacrament. But, in the case of adults, whose lives have been polluted with actual sins,—how can we know the fitness of the soul to receive the divine grace? Certainly the Sacrament of Baptism, 110 less than that of the Lord's Supper, has an inward and spiritual grace annexed to it; and wherever it meets with a fit subject, there that grace, which belongs to it by divine appointment, must accompany the reception of it. To pronounce, however, positively, that an adult receiver of it is in a state of justification, is the same thing as to pronounce that his faith and repentance (the indispensable requisites on his part) are real; and this, as we have already observed, is not the prerogative of human judgment.

In the primitive church, we hear of persons who deferred their baptism until their death-bed, with the view of thus gaining impunity for their past sins. Can we, for a moment, suppose such baptisms effectual to the saving of the soul, when the real design of the ordinance, the dedication of the whole life to God,-was so grossly perverted?

Neither yet, because a person is not immediately justified on receiving baptism, may we conclude that his baptism is null and void; for, man's perverseness cannot disannul the covenant on God's part, annexing the grace of the new birth to that sacrament; which, therefore, being once duly celebrated, must be valid, so far as a particular divine promise is implicated in it. If the want of the proper inward acts in the recipient frustrates the simultaneous operation of that grace on himself, a subsequent repentance may repair that deficiency, and he will then find, to his soul's health, that the promise once made, God, " for his part, will most surely keep and perform."

As to what our correspondent observes, respecting the "final justification" of the criminal not being dependent " upon subsequent conduct," we would only remark, that the absence in this case of that criterion of a sound faith which the conduct affords, ought, instead of making us positive in a favourable judgment of the penitent, to make us scrupulously fearful, lest we decide too rashly.