This was entirely uncalled for; for if ever there was a man, who, in his search after truth, was honest, unbiassed by sectarian partialities, unshackled by previously formed opinions, uninfluenced by any selfish considerations, none who knew him well, will hesitate to aver, that John Leland was that man. There is evidently a wide difference between searching the Scriptures to find a system of truth, and searching them for evidence to support one already adopted. That the latter was not the course pursued by him, the candor evinced in all his researches fully proves. His object being not so much to convince others, as to discover truth for himself, he avoided those sophistical methods of reasoning which too many employ to bring the unwary and unreflecting to their own views, nor did he resort to denunciation and fiery zeal, or to quibbling and eva. sion, to cover the weak part of an argument. He did not undervalue the importance of the objections that might be urged against his opinions; but giving them their full weight, he advanced his own arguments to meet them; following, in this respect, the example of Madison, whom he often quoted as a model of candor and fairness in debate.

With regard to his writings, it may be well to remark, that he never rewrote his pieces; whatever they are, they were in the original draught. This consideration, while it accounts for many inaccuracies in language, both historical and grammatical, shows, at the same time, the systematic order in which his thoughts naturally arranged themselves, following one upon another with such method, that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find an instance where any important proposition was assumed without proof, or a succeeding one in a series taken as proof of a preceding.

His views, in relation to the office and work of the ministry, are contained in various parts of his writings. It was never either his principle or practice to set a price upon his labors, nor to demand or receive a fixed salary. But though he never solicited, or made money a condition of preaching, he never refused what any chose to give him; and he received it, not as alms, but as a gospel debt. It was his counsel to one who was about to engage in the work of the ministry, never to make any dependence upon what he expected to receive for preaching; "if you get any. thing," said he, "you can work it in afterwards." Such was his own practice. His own hands, and those of his family, who were all trained to habits of active industry, supplied their wants, and he had the pleasure of knowing that whatever he did receive, was given, "not grudgingly, but with free will, and of a ready mind."

His practice with regard to baptism was in accordance with the views expressed in the letter found on page of volume. He considered baptism a duty plainly enjoined on all the followers of Christ, by an express command; but connection with a church to be a matter of choice and expediency. Accordingly he always baptized such as gave evidence

of piety, if they desired it, and left them to connect themselves with whatever church they pleased, or with none, if such was their preference. He thought the First Epistle of Peter, to the "strangers scattered" through various places, was, probably, addressed to such as, from local situation, or other causes, were not numbered with any of the churches.

His preaching, in latter years of his life, was almost entirely of the expository kind. He would frequently, after naming his text, go back a number of verses, or to the beginning of the chapter, and comment upon each clause in succession, and sometimes the close of the sermon would come without his having reached his text at all. But "it is no matter," he would say, "so long as I keep within the lids of the Bible. Indeed, it makes but little difference what text I take, I must come to the third of John before I close. If I take an Old Testament text, I must preach a New Testament

sermon.

It was equally true of him as of Mr. Haynes, that "though he seldom held a congregation long without exciting a smile, yet the predominant influence of his preaching was to produce solemnity of feeling, and deep conviction of truth. His eccentricities would have been faults in any other man, but in him they were so inherent and essential to his character, and his wit was so spontaneous, and came, as it were, without his bidding, that they neither interrupted the current of his own piety, nor often weakened the religious influence of his discourses others." upon

Many anecdotes and amusing incidents have been related of him, some, probably, without foundation in truth. Want of space forbids the introduction of more than two or three in this place. The following, cut from a newspaper, is judged to be authentic, from the fact that it is characteristic of him. Riding one day in company with Elder Hull, they were overtaken by a slight shower. Elder Leland was for seeking a shelter, but the other remarked, "Brother, I am ashamed of you—a Baptist minister, and afraid of a little water!" "Ah! Brother Hull," replied he, "I never like these sprinklings."

Calling one day on a Baptist minister, to whom he was not personally known, said the latter, after the first salutations, "by what name shall I call you?" He replied, "Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret ?" "Well," said the other, "is this all the answer I am to have ?" "It is the answer of an angel, what better can you wish for ?" "If you are an angel, doubtless you are a fallen one."

On another and similar occasion, being asked the same question, he replied, "call me Leland." "Ah!" replied the minister, "there are many who come along, wishing to be called by that name. I have been tricked in that way several times." But after looking steadily at him a few moments, his doubts seemed to yield to the conviction that he was indeed no

Reminiscences of Rev. Samuel Haynes.

other than he pretended, and he exclaimed, "Is it possible that the Almighty has placed such a soul as Leland's in such an insignificant body!" Should this expression convey the idea that he was small of stature, the impression will be incorrect. His height was not far from six feet, though as he advanced in years, his form became more stooping, and his stature, consequently, somewhat less. In flesh, he was rather thin and spare. Of his personal appearance, generally, the accompanying portrait will furnish a more correct and definite idea than any language can convey.

Perhaps these sketches cannot be more appropriately closed, than by the following brief extracts from the concluding part of the funeral sermon: "Great and good man, he is gone! The tender and effectionate father, the kind husband—the wise counsellor—emphatically the peace-makerthe social, warm-hearted friend—the sage—patriot—the lover of sound doctrine the eloquent and unusually successful minister of Christ, is no more! Is no more? He still lives, we doubt not, where his intellect has found congenial spirits, and a wider range in the upper empire of Jehovah. He lives below in the affections of thousands, and 'his works do follow him.'" "To live live like him, is to mourn over the sins of earth, and hold up God's everlasting truth to a dying world. To die like him, is to stand on the confines of earth, looking off into eternity, and depart with the 'prospect of heaven clear.' To rest, at last, like him, is, we doubt not, to rest forever in the Paradise of God."

THE HISTORY OF JACK NIPS.

I cannot say that my father was a Hittite, and my mother an Amorite, but my father was a Presbyterian, and my mother a high-flying, separate new-light. I was as far from being a new-light myself, as men's hearts are from their mouths, or as old darkness is from new light; but when my school-fellows got mad at me, they would call me a new-light, and if I asked them what a new-light was, they would be as confused in their answers as if they did not know B from a bull's foot. Sometimes, when I was reading, they would laugh at me for my new-light tone; once, in particular, as I was reciting a lesson, to a Latin master, he told me "not to preach like a new-light, but to speak like a scholar." This put me upon a search into the nature of tones, and I was soon convinced that a holy tone did not make a holy man, for some who had the tone, would be as hypocritical as Lucifer himself; but the same persons who laughed at me for my tone, had a disagreeable tone of lying, swearing, and sneering at all good sense and religion, yet there was no harm in that tone, because it was polite.

Like other boys, I wished to be in fashion, and as the Presbyterians were the most fashionable, I applied myself to the study of their books, but was not a little puzzled to reconcile their writings with my boyish thoughts. I could not, for my gizzard, understand their orthography, until I was more than sixteen. They would spell thus: c-i-r, cir, c-u-m, cum, c-i, ci, s-e-d, baptism. This, I say, puzzled me greatly and if I asked any body how they reconciled it, they would tell me that "great, learned, and good men said it was right, and it would be presumption in me to call it in question." I further observed that sometimes those authors would put the cart before the horse; as for instance, where it said, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," they would have it, "he that is baptized and believeth, shall be saved." Surely, said I, this is a Presbyterian tone; for I did not then know that there was a Papist, a Russian, or an Episcopalian in the world.

Another thing also confounded my youthful thoughts. Men and women would bring their childen to the minister to be baptized, if but one of them was a believer, and it was supposed that the faith of one parent was sufficient to initiate the child; but my thoughts would be running thus: "is the soul of that child made by God, and infused into the body while in the womb, or it is begotten by the parents? If it is made and infused by God,

then the children of wicked parents bring as good souls into the world as the children of good parents do. But if souls are begotten in ordinary generation, then regenerate men will beget regenerate souls, and wicked men will beget wicked souls; and if Adam was regenerate before he begat any of his children, by succession down to this day, we are all regenerate." But as this was to me uncertain, I was casting my eyes and thoughts on my neighbors. Uncle Benson had married aunt Nancy, by whom he had a son whose name was Peter. Uncle was a believer, but aunt was not. Here I had a great query in my mind, to find from which parent the soul proceeded. Aristotle informed me, that the child, in animalcule, came originally from the mother. Surely, then, said I to myself, cousin Peter has no right to baptism, for his mother is an infidel. But the European philosophers said that the animalcula that formed the fœtus, came from the father. If so, said I, again, then Peter is a Christian. But here I was perplexed again: if Peter came into the world a Christian, how can he be made a Christian by water? Can a priest and water make him what he was before he was born? Uncle Sam said, Peter came into the world a Christian, and therefore had a right to baptism; but uncle Ned insisted upon it, that it was his baptism that made him a Christian, and confirmed his sentiment by observing, that the name given him in baptism, was his Christian name; that is, a name given him when he was made a Christian; but others declared that the child came half from each parent; then, said I, Peter ought to have but half his face sprinkled, for half of it came from his heathen mother.

While I was thus as full of thought as Don Quixote was of projects, I went to meeting: and how was I surprised to see a man and his wife stand in the broad aisle, owning the baptismal covenant, as they called it. I had read of baptism being a command—a fulfilling of righteousness—the answer of a good conscience; but never heard it called a covenant before. What wind next? said I within myself. But here I soon found that neither the man ner his wife were believers; that they had never given themselves to God, and yet were offering their child to him. This made me think of uncle Tim, who would never give any of his own interest to any body, but when he was at another man's house, he would be as liberal as a prince, in giving to every one that came in. If these people, said I, loved their child as well as they do themselves, they'd never trust it where they durst not trust themselves. But after the priest had read what he had written for them, and they had consented by a bow and courtesy, he declared that they had a right to all the privileges of the church except the Lord's supper.

The thought that arose in my mind was this: they may have a right to the privileges of that church, but have they a right to all, or any, of the privileges of Christ's church? If, from the innocency of the children