subject of baptism had arisen in primitive times.' pp. 9, 10. Catholicus lays great stress on the two following positions :— on the same principle be proscribed; for Having adverted to those passages of 1. "That no primitive action, performed even in obedience to apostolic precept, can be adduced as authoritative precedent, irre-church, and urge the exercise of love, spective of the circumstances in which it peace, and forbearance, Catholicus rewas performed; for, as the circumstances marks— constitute the grounds or conditions of the precedent, the mere external action, when the grounds do not exist, is of no authority whatever." "From these passages, to which many others of like import might have been added, we conclude, endeavour, as far as possible to promote 1. That it is the duty of Christians to union, both in sentiment and practice among their brethren; but, And hence, lowship with another, merely because he with him, of the nature of an ordinance, recannot be brought to have the same views specting which, many good men have differed in every age of the church, subsequent to the age of the apostles." p. 43. 2. "That there were certain general rules prescribed by the apostles, which comprehended a great variety of particulars that required to be varied with the varying situations in which Christians might be placed; differences may be always expected to 2. That in the present imperfect state, and that these general rules are as peremp-exist, even among believers of the gospel. torily binding upon us as any specific law or authoritative precedent." pp. 31, 32. 3. That it is the duty of Christians, when "I am persuaded that many more have their differences cannot be removed, to exerred by closely following precedents, with-ercise forbearance towards one another-to out considering the circumstances under walk together in love, in so far as they are which these precedents were furnished, than agreed; and co-operate together, as far as by following general rules; for if the cir- the violation of no principle is involved. cumstances (irrespective of which precedents are of no authority) be lost sight of, 4. That nothing is more contrary to the the mere imitation of the action of the pre-Christian brother to associate in church felgenius of the gospel than a refusal, in one cedent, may be a direct violation of its principles. But waiving this for the present, I must remark that, by this argument of yours, such general rules as those by which you refuse to be guided, are absolutely useless; for, if we must have example for every thing contained in them, it is evident that there can be no room for their operation as general | rules. For instance, in obedience to the general command, to be ready to every good work; Tit. iii. 1. I unite with Bible Societies, Tract Societies, Missionary Societies, &c. but an objector on your principle, might ask what authority I had from Scripture for so acting; I might produce the general rule referred to, but he would be ready to reply, That rule is good; but let us see how the apostles, by their own example interpreted it. They must have understood it best themselves; but we do not frud a single hint in all the New Testament concerning Bible, Tract, or Missionary Societies being supported by them; therefore you have no authority for countenancing them!' The same argument has been urged against the establishment of academies for the education of young men for the ministry; and the same argument might be urged against employing, in multiplying copies of the Scriptures, that unscriptural engine, the printing press; for we know that the apostles used no such means for spreading the gospel. In fact, every new channel of usefulness, which the active spirit of philanthropy has opened up in our busy age, might A few pages are then devoted to a notice of some alleged inconsistencies in the practice of the friends of strict communion: the objections commonly brought against free communion are summarily disposed of in a few pages more; and the Essay closes with the following recapitulation of its contents: "We have stated, that the advocates for strict communion can show no precept in the Word of God, for refusing fellowship to any on the ground of differences in sentiment or practice, which do not involve the essence of Christianity. We have stated that they have no precedent for it, although there were differences among the primitive Christians, of greater magnitude than the difference between Baptists and Pedobaptists. And we have shown that there can be no general principle in the New Testament, from which it can be deduced; for the principles of the New Testament must necessarily harmonize with each other; and all those principles which we have examined, are directly opposed to it. Hence we are led to the irresistible con- | mission, and to the facts on record in the clusion that there can be no authority for New Testament." p. 32. it. We have examined their pleas in favour of it, and have found them to be nugatory. We have especially considered their argument from precedent; and have shown that the precedent which they adduce, and which would have been authoritative if we had nothing but precedent to guide us, is altogether irrelevant, because it is entirely overruled by extensive general principles, and by analogous precedents, which carry us far beyond the line of demarcation, which mere precedent would prescribe to us, as the limits of church fellowship. We have given a specimen of the inconsistencies into which they are led by their system. And we have examined the objections commonly urged against free communion, and have found them to be altogether frivol ous. "2. Because the principles on which the Christian church ought to be formed, or what may be termed its primitive constitution, requires that its members should be baptized." p. 36. "3. Further, the system of mixed communion introduces a principle that will be ruinous to every party that adopts it, and acts upon it to its proper extent." p. 46. "4. Another objection to the introduction of mixed communion, which practically is of consequence, is its manifest tendency to produce dissention, and to lower the general interests of the denomination." p. 51. In enlarging on the second argument, Mr. K. observes, "The plan of open communion makes the church a society of persons who esteem each other to be Christians, without paying any regard to the manner in which they are introAnd now on the whole, we honestly deduced. If it can be proved that this was clare our most decided conviction, that the practice of strict communion is most unscriptural in its nature and dangerous in its tendency." Mr. Kinghorn, as our readers very well know, entertains a very different view of the subject. He considers the practice of mixed communion as fraught with mischief to our churches. Yea, more: he says, "The contest on our part against mixed communion is, in its principle, a contest for existence it is a contest not only for our right to have churches at all, and for the discipline of those churches, but it is a contest for the principles of dissent, it is a contest for Protestantism itself." p. 14. the apostolic plan, let it be done. In that to be received as a member of a Christian church, which no man can oppose: but it is impossible to say the same thing of any Mr. Kinghorn's work, like the Essay, other persons: and those who wish to introduce them, should show us from that is written "for the use of those mem-volume, where they can find a sufficient warbers of our churches who have not much time to read works of any extent, but who may wish to see a brief, plain view of the questions agitated concerning communion." His design is, rant for so doing. The right to form churches at all, does not stand on stronger evidence than that which requires that the members of the church should be baptized persons, whether we consider the plainness of the rule, or the number of the examples, proving how steadily the rule was obeyed. That practice cannot be deserving of our support, which is in opposition to the facts and directions of the Word of God." p. 37. The third argument is thus support of modern Unitarianism; they would con-ently be refused. The consequences would, sider this a wrong step on many accounts. however, clearly show that the mode of reaLet us, then, suppose a person to ask for soning was wrong somewhere. If the church communion in a Baptist church, acting on refused such an application, it must be by mixed communion principles, who was known asserting their right to act on their own view to deny the divinity of Christ, and who con- of the will of Christ. In pressing this sidered him as nothing more than a prophet topic, they would state the importance, in of the highest degree, and therefore called their estimation, of the points of difference; Son of God. On what ground could he con- and they would urge the impossibility of sistently be refused? He would say, 'You their acting in opposition to their own sense assume the right of judging that baptism of the authority of their Lord, and their obliis not now needful to church-membership, gation to maintain in his church the docbecause you say a new case has occurred, trine and practice which were essential to and you leave it to others to act for them- its prosperity and existence; forgetting, perselves, and think you ought not to require haps, that while they were thus maintaining conformity to what you believe is a divine their indefeasible right, they were granting appointment. In points of doctrine here is to us the principle of all that we maintain. a new case also, differences of opinion have But, if they admitted the application, in taken place, which did not exist in the apos- consistency with their reasonings on the tles' time, and which cannot now be settled subject of communion, the effect would neby a direct reference to inspired men. You cessarily follow; relaxation and a spirit of and I differ in our interpretation of the words indifference would become manifest, and of Scripture, but you admit of the commu- they would soon exhibit those symptoms, nion of the unbaptized, on Mr. Hall's senti- which would show the end to which they ment, who says, if you did not, you would were hastening." pp. 48-51. make your interpretation equal to the law, and assume infallibility. On this principle, why cannot you receive me, notwithstanding our difference of opinion? I admit all that the New Testament says concerning Jesus Christ to be perfectly correct; I make no hesitation in repeating the words, on which the Ethiopian Eunuch was baptized, as my creed, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' I understand them, of course, in my own sense, but I hope you will not think of interpreting the Bible for me. And as you have been so struck with the importance of having all Christians united in one body, that you dispense with the letter of the law when a new case occurs, rather than seem to assume infallibility, I hope, from mere consistency, you will admit me, for I acknowledge the truth of all the passages you quote, which you think are opposed to my sentiments; I only ask that you will not in this instance, as you have not in others, assume infallibility, and make your interpretation equal to the law.' In pressing the fourth argument, Mr. K. attempts to prove that mixed communion tends to break the church into parties; that it paralyses the energies of ministers and people, as far as their peculiar sentiments are concerned; that "it affords to many a convenient apology for leaving that body which they profess to believe is the most conformed to the will of Christ;" and that, in consequence, it must be very injurious to the interests of the Baptist denomination. After replying to the objections against strict communion, Mr. K. concludes by "some general remarks with respect to the operation of the arguments in favour of mixed communion, on the subjects of debate between dissenters and members of the established "On such grounds, a person whose speca-church." His views of the tendency of lations had led him to deny any, or all the mixed communion are contained in the doctrines of the Gospel, which are commonly believed to be important, and who might following extracts: disregard every thing that relates to the "The arguments for mixed communion, influence of the Holy Spirit renewing the are so closely copied when there is a leanheart, and guiding the sinner to Jesus Christ, ing to the Establishment, that the resemas the Saviour of those who receive him by blance is striking. It is said, that the cona living faith, who might consider every stitution and practice of the primitive church man as a believer who assented to the propo- were necessarily of the popular kind desition, that Jesus Christ was, by divine ap. scribed in the New Testament; and conpointment, a messenger from God to men, tinued so while the world was opposed to might claim admittance into any church pro- the Christian party. But after Christianity fessing to be guided by the maxims urged had spread, and rulers became Christians, in support of mixed communion, and de-a new case came forward; and when royal mand it as a right; nor could he consist- converts appeared, Christianity was estab lished as a matter of course, for the purpose | he published his treatise on Apostasy, in of making it acceptable to the higher orders, 1676; such a mode of reasoning as has and of spreading it more effectually through been urged against us, would be eagerly the country. Suppose then a doubt had adopted by a crafty papist, as a groundarisen in the minds of some, who thought work on which to build his edifice. He the Establishment of Christianity by the would instantly assert, that such arguments state, not according to the design of the as were adduced in support of mixed comfounder; all that is said on not having the munion, were founded on the uncertainty of apostles at hand to settle the doubt; all that the Scriptures, and the impropriety of pracis urged on the nature of the points in de- tically obeying, what the protestants acknowbate, which we are told are such non-essen-ledged was their meaning-that the schistials that the minds of good men should not be disturbed about them, would apply to both cases alike. Nor can those who eagerly contend that we ought not to support a permanent ordinance in its place, and who treat with scorn an appeal to the constitution of the primitive church, be surprized that such who are inclined to the course of this world,' should reject all the reasons which they urge for dissenting from the Establishment, and reply, you strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.' The change of times, the genius of the age, and other arguments of the same class, are not restricted to the mixed communion controversy; other parties will use them, whenever they think them suitable for their purpose." p. 75. "There is not a single weapon used against us, by the advocates for mixed communion, which cannot be used against all Dissenters who reason as they do, by any well informed Churchman. He can plead for forbearance from the 14th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans; and has better ground to argue upon, than those who plead for mixed communion. He can retort all their arguments; he can repel the inference from scriptural principles and practices, by saying, here is a new case, and you have not the apostles at hand to decide by their authority. He too can say, 'you are guilty of schism to an enormous extent; and he may add, 'your conduct is harsh and intolerant; you profess such an abundant liberality, that you receive all that God has received, without narrow sectarian prejudices, yet you take upon you to judge who these are, though none are so loud in exclaiming against others, who do no more than judge of the Scriptures for themselves.' We,' the churchman might add, understand the words, in a wider sense than you, and see no necessity for passing such a judgment on any person's fitness for membership, as you do. If then you are so opposed to illiberal and sectarian sentiments, adopt our more Jiberal interpretation; if not, you are making a schism, by insisting on your own: and what does the strictest of your opponents do more?' "Nor is it certain, that these arguments may not be applied farther. Should there be a tendency to go to the church of Rome, as Dr. Owen lamented was the case when matical parties had so clearly proclaimed their own want of reliance on the sufficiency of Scripture, that they took persons into their conventicles, who, on their own confession, had never received (what he would call) the first of the sacraments, which gives birth and life to those who receive it." Besides, what has been said of the excellency of unity, and the charges of schism urged against us, he would hail as concessions. He would say, these are the dictates of truth even in heretical minds. He might justly assert, that be could copy many things which had with vehemence been urged against us, nearly word for word, and apply them in favour of his church; and he would rejoice in deducing them from such a quarter." pp. 76-78. Mr. Giles's pamphlet is a reply to Mr. Hall's last publication, in the form of letters to that gentleman. "There are two things," says Mr. G. "Which, in your hypothesis, you seem to take for granted. First, that the institution of baptism is of a nature that, in some cases, it may be religiously dispensed with; secondly, that persons may mistake it, or pervert it, without blame; nay, that if an error, it is involuntary and conscientious, and of a nature that it may be retained' in deference to the will of Him at whose word they tremble.'' p. 10. Mr. G. disputes both these positions: in answering the latter statement, he observes, "We are now, Sir, brought to the following conclusion; that the error in question must be attributed either to natural or moral inability, which is indeed placing us between the two horns of the dilemma. We have, I think, proved that we cannot take the former, and if we take the latter, which we must do, then the whole of your beautifully wrought arguments must, I fear, vanish, and like the baseless fabric of a vision, leave not a wreck behind.' Innocent, conscientious, involuntary error, is a chimera that can have no existence but in your benevolent and fertile mind; for we are arrived at a clear conclusion, that either thing you have yet proved to the contrary, the apostles must have thought of their erring brethren as we think of them, and would have acted towards them as we now do. Hence, precedents of thought, as well as precedents of action, both unite against the theory you have attempted in vain to establish, and it turns out, that the fellowship you recommend would be party,' rather than Christian communion'—a party unit sion of the positive command of that Saviour under whose barber they are professedly united; and who pretend for their excuse that they are following the dictates of that spirit be breathes on them, and which he commands them to cultivate. Think, Sir, and think again, if that which demonstrates blame and forcibly accelerates the spread of error, can be a reason, a religious reason, why we should give to it the most solemn sanction we have it in our power to give.” pp. 22—24. Mr. G. then examines Mr. Hall's sentiments on the connexion between the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; he contends that the baptists or the pædobaptists err, and by erring are blameable in the sight of God. We assume that we have truth on our side; while you will admit this, you still reiterate that the persons for whom you plead are pious, and some of them illustrious for piety. Let it be so; their piety I shall not, cannot question. Our next inquiry must necessarily he, will their piety extenuate their fault, or impede the propagation of error? Here, likewise, we shall find the re-ed to wink at each others' blameable omisverse. Unerring truth tells us, where much is given much is required, and reason heartily unites in the sentiment. The great Lawgiver may well say of all those whom he has so distinguishingly endowed, What could I do more for my vineyard than I have done?' The proposition, you see, Sir, cannot therefore be admitted for a moment, nor will the possession of piety impede the progress of error in others. Let error be detached from piety either in appearance or reality, and it will soon be scouted from the world. For even truth, when held up to view by unclean hands, loses much of its force, and of its native attractions. A reputation for piety, instead of impeding the progress of error in those that maintain it, is really the cause of its stability, and gives facility and energy to its extension. How frequently do we hear it advanced as an argument in favour of almost all the errors that have disfigured Christianity, and that have proved such barriers to its propagation, that these errors have been believed by the wise and good. That all errors alike fatal in their results, must be admitted, but I can see no reason to conclude, that the total perversion of one out of two expres sive and instructive institutions, and that especially which is to be attended to but once, should be ranked amongst those errors that are of minor consequence. It could never be so considered by Him who so solemnly enjoined the institution, and who has connected it with that faith which is essential to salvation. If then the reasoning now laid before you be conclusive, you really require us not only to sanction the perversion of a positive command of our Sovereign Lord and Master, but urge as a reason why we should do it, that which you must admit augments the blame attached to error, and "The prohibitory clanse connected with which perpetuates its continuance, and gives the injunction, clearly shews the nature of energy to its extension. What then must the thing towards which they were to exerbecome of your argument drawn from pre-cise forbearance: Him that is weak in cedents of thought? Would the apostles, though they might think as favonrably of erring brethren as you do, be induced to receive them by such an argument, and thereby become real accessaries to both these evils, and thus confound the broadest principles of right and wrong,' of truth and error? If, Sir, this be the state of the case, and this is the state of the case for any are not "The first communicants were baptized persons; that the spiritual qualifications requisite for the Lord's supper uniformly in the Scriptures precede baptisin; that baptism must precede and be connected with the legitimate participation of the supper; that baptism, if not obligatory on the believer before his participation of the supper, is not institution in the Scriptures by which a proso afterwards; and that baptism, being the fession of Christianity is made, the two institutions are naturally connected in all that is essential to Christian institutions." p. viii. The analogical argument for free communion, founded on the 14th of Romans, is considered by Mr. G. to be He thinks that essentially defective. the question on which the Christians at Rome differed, cannot be compared with the points at issue between Baptists and Pædobaptists. the faith receive, but not to doubtful dispu tations.' The prohibition is as authoritative as the injunction. But is baptism a matter of doubt? You say there is a high probability that we are right; and with the strict baptists there is not, I believe, a shadow of doubt on the subject: nor does there appear to be any thing doubtful in the oracles of God concerning it. If we admit the Scrip |