with all their powers in the same noble work; may the Lord prosper the work of your hands and hearts.

I consider you correct in the stand you have taken relative to a place of worship. A free Church ever has been, and ever will prove, a bone of contention. By inculcating from the same pulpit the propriety of Infant Baptism one Sunday, and their want of title to that Sacrament, the next Sabbath: by inculcating particular election one Sunday, and general redemption another: by inculcating the use of a Liturgy to-day, and insisting upon no Liturgy to-morrow; the minds of the people will become confused: and it will appear a matter of indifference what sentiments they cherish, and to what denomination they belong, or what system of worship they adopt.

I hope that you and your brethren in the neighbourhood will strengthen each other's hands by an occasional exchange of pulpits: live in love, tread in the path of holiness, be devoted to your duty, and the Almighty will crown your labours with success.

Your friend and Father,

R. C. MOORE.

He who was thus zealous in his attachment to the Liturgy of the Church, and faithful in recommending the performance of its offices in strict conformity with the directions of the rubrics, was ever ready to vindicate the doctrines of the Church, and upon all suitable occasions to express his own views in reference to those about which the equivocal language of our standards leaves room for discussion and difference of opinion. A clergyman of a neighbouring Diocese having expressed to Bishop Moore

his difficulties and embarrassments in reference to the use of the offices of Baptism, gave occasion to the following letters on the much controverted point of Baptismal Regeneration.

LETTER TO REV. MR. H

ON BAPTISM.

March 20th, 1823.

Rev. and Dear Sir,-I cannot express to you the satisfaction I should reap from an attendance upon your Convention, but, situated as I am, the thing appears impossible. I have no support but what I derive from my parish, of course I dare not venture to trespass too far upon the indulgence of my congregation. You will recollect that the Convention of Virginia is to take place in May, and after that the General Convention. In attending that of Carolina and those two other assemblies, I should necessarily be absent two months. While Dr. Buchanan was alive to fill my pulpit, the congregation cheerfully submitted: but was I to shut my Church for such a length of time, I am confident there would be a great uneasiness excited, if not something worse. I must therefore submit to circumstances, and trammeled as I am, make the best of things. Should the Convention of N. Carolina find it impossible at this time to fix upon a suitable person to fill the Episcopal chair, let it be remembered that I have no desire to withhold my services, or to dissolve the connextion subsisting between us, but will, as far as practicable, discharge those duties for you, peculiar to my office. I shall soon, I hope, have an assistant; I offer myself to give towards his support $500 per annum out of my salary, and, could ways and means be found to aid me effectually from other quarters, I should be at perfect liberty to absent myself from Richmond, for

any necessary length of time. I wish you to make this known to the Convention, (provided you think it expedient) and to assure them of my most affectionate and grateful regard. Should I obtain an assistant, and should you not elect a Bishop, let good Mr. Miller know that it is highly probable I shall visit his district in the course of the summer: of which he shall receive timely notice.

EXTRACT.

"As I did not quote Bishop Hopkins upon the subject of Baptismal Regeneration, you had a right to conclude that I did not rely much upon his support. Calvinism is the point upon which he stumbles; notwithstanding which, he says, in vol. 2nd, page 423, --Edition, that Baptismal Regeneration must be acknowledged by all, that will not wilfully shut their eyes against the clear evidence of Scripture.' His expression is stronger than I should use upon the occasion, as it would deny every principle of charity to those who differ from me on the question. You remark 'that, according to my view of the 3rd chapter of John, baptism by water is as necessary to salvation, as the baptism of the Spirit. If I understand you rightly, the latter cannot take place without the former.' I feel confident that Hooker, in the quotation I have already given you, had his eye upon that passage of Scripture, in order to do away the very objection you make. He qualifies his assertion by saying 'as we are not naturally men without birth, so neither are we Christian men in the eye of the Church of God, but by new birth, nor, according to the manifest and ordinary course of divine dispensation, new born, but by that baptism which both declareth and maketh us Christians.' The Almighty appoints his own

ordinances, and it is our duty to comply with them, but I am not obliged to believe that he is tied down, and confined exclusively to those rules which are given for our observance. Paul was converted in a miraculous manner; but you cannot, I think, show me, where he is represented as regenerated and his sins washed away, prior to his baptism. If we rob the ordinance of its spiritual influence, we render it a mere ceremony. Now I would ask you as a good Christian, which in my heart I believe you to be, Would the Saviour and his Apostles have laid such an unbounded stress upon a mere ceremony? Would Saul, after his conversion, have been referred by Christ himself to Ananias, for the performance of a mere ceremony? Would Ananias have said, 'arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins,' if baptism had been a mere ceremony? Would he have enjoined the Sacrament of baptism upon Saul, if his sins had been washed away at any preceding period? The subject is indeed too copious to be fully discussed in a letter of usual length, and I have dropped the few hints contained in this communication, merely to show you that my sentiments are in unison with those of the judicious Hooker, upon the subject. It has been said, by wise men, that metaphysical science is unfriendly to religion. It certainly is so, when we lay down systems, and make Scripture bend to those we establish. Hooker and Beveridge were men of sound sense; but I perceive that, in all their writings, systems are made to yield to Scripture. Such is my plan. I know that my understanding, in matters of religion, is confined to what has been revealed; I therefore take my Heavenly Father at his word; and without presuming to question principles which are beyond my comprehension, and which my blind reason cannot fathom, I believe what is commanded must be right, from a con

viction that the God of love can do nothing that is wrong. From my soul I wish that your mind was as fully satisfied upon the subject of baptism as mine is. Newton, in one of his hymns, says, "do not reason, but believe." If I was to believe nothing but what I can perfectly understand, I should stop at the very threshold; for I confess that 1 am as incapable of embracing in my understanding the principle of the first great uncreated cause of all things, as an infant; and yet my mind embraces the principle as fully as if I was perfectly acquainted with the whole subject. That we may both have our minds illumined, as it is necessary they should be, is the prayer of your

Sincere friend and father in Jesus,

R. C. MOORE."

TO REV. MR. H -ON BAPTISM.

Richmond, Dec. 7th, 1823.

Rev. and Dear Sir,-A great variety of circumstances have prevented me from attending to your last favour at an earlier period than the present moment. Inclination, and a regard for your peace of mind upon the subject of Baptism, would have produced an immediate reply; but as my time is not my own, I will, without further preface, proceed to make such remarks as grow out of the subject in question. Metaphysical reasoning very frequently involves the inquirer after truth in difficulties, to which an honest and untutored mind is not subject. We often establish premises which are at variance with Scripture precept, and, of course, our deductions cannot be in harmony with the text. This I conceive to be the case with baptismal regeneration. The Calvinist says, that all who re