will do so yet to a greater extent, 'until this modern mania shall subside and calm reason resume its seat. We love you, and are tures to be doubtful in this, I see no reason why they should not be so considered respecting every essential doctrine; and then we must hold blameless all who err, what-willing to leave you in the hands of our ever their error may be. Therefore, your analogy falls to the ground. The matter at issue was not to be amongst them the subject of dispate; and the reason for this is very obvious-it was a matter not worth debating about. As the matter was doubtful, the Scriptures being silent about it, debate would never produce conviction; while it was very likely to destroy Christian harmony. But can we say this of baptism? Are baptists and pædobaptists to be so united, that they are never to inquire or dispute about an institution concerning which they so essentially differ? This, Sir, can never be admitted for a moment. Our mixed brethren do, and must preach about it; and the pædobaptists must talk about, and still practise infant baptism; and the numbers of weak brethren on both sides, do what we may, will dispute again and again, and like Goldsmith's village schoolmaster, Though often vanquished, they will argue still.' But to dispute is as much at variance with the apostle's prohibition as an omission to regard the injunction would have been, and far worse in its results. This then, demonstrably proves, that the superstitious observances amongst the weak brethren at Rome can bear no analogy to Scripture baptism; they are as totally different as any two things can be. Hence it follows, that as the whole of your analogical argument is lame in each of its feet, or, in other words, as there is a preposterous disagreement in each of its members, it must fail to produce conviction, and, as an argument, is totally inefficient." pp. 45-47. In meeting the charge of schism, brought by Mr. Hall against the strict Baptists, Mr. G. remarks. common Lord, before whose decision we list of their benefactions. All have their Mr. G. agrees with Mr. Kinghorn, that the practical tendency of open communion is highly injurious. He mentions some facts which he thinks illustrative of this position, and thus concludes: "Prove to us, that we have by a pertinacious or contumacious adherence to error, separated ourselves from our fellow Christians, and we will acknowledge the charge to be correct, and repent, as we ought to do, in dust and ashes. If, as a denomination, we have gendered a spirit of division, by implicitly following, like the Corinthians, the dogmas of our fellow-men, to the rejection of the authority of Christ, or the spirit of the Gospel, prove it to us, and we will renounce the error. But do not dress us up in these odious skins without any "It has opened an asylum to the factious cause, and thereby expose us to be hunted and discontented amongst both baptists and down and proscribed by our fellow Chris-pædobaptists, into which they have fled to tians. We do not charge you with schism, avoid the mortification of eoncession, and though your theory has caused dissensions church discipline. among some of our brethren, and perhaps "In my views, founded on long observation, three evils have generally followed the liberal policy that you recommend "It has induced some pædobaptists to conclude, from the indifference which they think the baptists by it evince to baptism, that it is an institution which may be conscientiously neglected. And I fear it has proved a very powerful inducement with some baptist ministers, to withhold baptism from that place in their ministry in which the gospel has placed it." p. 65. of because he is an anbaptized person, but because he walks disorderly, living in the neglect of a known duty, and thereby refusing testimony of that subjection to Christ, which is essential to Christian communion. But it does not appear, from any command respecting baptism, that a church is directed, by that command, to refuse such, who are possessed of faith in the Lord Jesus, and give evidence of their subjection to him, from the sole consideration that they have not been baptized." pp. 4, 5. We are glad that another edition Dr. Ryland's "Candid Statement" has been called for, and that the Editor, "Christ's command to his disciples canMr. Jonathan Ryland, has taken ad- not imply the necessity of their obedience vantage of the opportunity, and en- thereto in order to communion, otherwise than as that obedience is necessary to evilarged and improved the work, "chiefly dence their subjection to Christ, unless the by additional instances of the use of command has connected the one with the the words Banтw and Barrilo:" some other: as therefore their obedience to this of these were collected by Dr. Ryland, command cannot be considered as necessary others have been added by the editor, to evidence their subjection to Christ, where and for several he acknowledges him- there is not a conviction of the command itself, and as there is no connexion, directly self "indebted to an esteemed friend." nor indirectly expressed in the command, This collection is extremely valuable, between this ordinance and Christian comespecially to ministers and students. munion, it does not appear, from any preWe trust that the sale of the "Candid cept relative to it, that it is a necessary term Statement" will be equal to its merits; of communion; from whence we take occasion to observe, the impropriety of repreif so, the edition will be soon exhausted.senting those who are for free communion as Appended to this new edition is a Letter on Communion, written by the late Rev. W. Clarke, of Exeter. Mr. C. endeavours to prove that baptism is not a necessary term of communion, and that an unbaptized person, has not light into that ordinance," ought to be admitted to the Lord's supper. The substance of his arguments will be found in the following extracts : "who "The grand question before us is, Whether baptism is a necessary term of communion? If it is, it must appear to be so, either from precept, scripture example, or the nature of the thing. That the Lord Jesus Christ did appoint his servants to go and baptise those who were taught by them, among all nations, there is no doubt, and from thence we are led naturally to conclude, that it was the duty of all who received their word to be baptized, by which they professed faith in Christ, and subjection to him; but does such a precept infer, that those should be rejected from Christian communion, who, not seeing it an ordinance of Christ, could not, from a principle of conscience, submit to it? The command has only respect to the duty of ministers and people with respect to this ordinance, and not to the requisites necessary to an admission into a gospel church. A church has a right to refuse a person who is not baptized, that has light into the ordinance, not simply dispensing with this ordinance. They do not dispense with it as a command of Christ, for they have themselves submitted to it. Ministers do not dispense with it in their minister it, whenever called to it. Nor do public character, for they are ready to adthey dispense with it as a term of communion, so far as it is necessary to express a subjection to the Great Head of the church; and no farther do they apprehend they have a right to insist upon a submission to it. Therefore the charge that is brought against them, of exercising a dispensing power with the appointments of Christ, is without foundation; they cannot be considered as dispensing with that which does not in their view exist: as they do not view baptism as a necessary term of communion, they cannot be considered as dispensing with it in that light." pp. 6, 7. "The qualifications that are necessary to fit a person to be a member of any society, whether civil or religious, are such as are connected with the answering those purposes for which that society is formed. Now, if the purposes of Christian fellowship may be answered by persons, whether baptized or unbaptized, reason and common sense would dictate that baptism is not necessary to Christian communion; and, that purposes of Christian fellowship may be answered, no attentive person can deny. May not a conscientious person, who, not having light into the ordinance, hath not been baptized, possessed of a lively sense of divine things, be as capable of attending upon the duties of I Is it ed persons to Christian communion? "As there is nothing in the nature of a church relation that renders baptism a ne-authority to reject such, then we cannot cessary term of communion, so there are give sufficient reason for not receiving them: many considerations which render a refusal consequently, we ought to receive them." of a person, solely upon the want of baptism, pp. 13, 14. very unreasonable, "1. We hereby deny those whom we consider as the children of God, the appointed means of spiritual improvement, for not complying with that which they, as conscientious persons, are incapable of. 2. We incapacitate them for that, which, was it not for the obstructions laid in their way, would be their duty; inasmuch as their not obeying a command which they have not light into, does not set aside their obligations of obedience to another which they do understand. 3. We treat one, whom we consider as a believer in Christ, in the same manner as we would an unregenerated person. 4. We either acknowledge those as ministers of the gospel, who are not qua. lified for church-fellowship; or, else reject those who are eminently endowed with gifts and grace, and greatly owned of God. 5. We reject those from church communion whom Christ has received. 6. We prefer one whose grace is small, and whose case is rather doubtful, with baptism, to one who appears a growing Christian, and is possessed of a large measure of the thing signified by baptism, because destitute of the outward sign. One observation, and we will conclude. This controversy has been unhappily distinguished by angry feeling. Intolerance is inveighed against on the one hand, and laxity on the other. "But thou, why dost thou judge thy brother? And thou, why dost thou set at nought thy brother? We must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ." Infant Baptism the means of National Reformation, according to the doctrine and discipline of the Established Church, in Nine Letters to a Friend. By HENRY BUDD, M. A. Chaplain of Bridewell Hospital, &c. 1827. Seeley. Price 6s. Fronti nulla fides: no reliance can be placed on title pages. The contents. of this extraordinary publication are as follows. "Letter I. Preliminary remarks on the present relaxed observance of Baptismal Duties and Obligations. II. The Parents. III. The Sponsor. IV. The Infant. V. The Church. VI. Objections stated and answered. VII. Sentiments of the Reformers. 8. We esteem it the duty of a church VIII. Advantages which might be exto refuse those communion, whose duty it pected to arise from the above interpreis, for the reasons above-mentioned, to offer tation of our Baptismal Service. IX. themselves for that purpose." pp. 10-12. "Upon the whole, should it be asked, Modes humbly suggested of carrying upon what authority can we admit unbaptiz- the same into effect." The introduc 7. We deny ourselves that advantage which might be expected from the admission of lively, spiritual persons. tion is addressed to the Rev. Edward so explicitly asserted by a beneficed Bickersteth, Secretary to the Church clergyman. Missionary Society. Is it not for a lamentation that such The amount appears to be this.-Ita man as Mr. Budd, who (as we are is assumed that every child is the child told, and there is abundant evidence of the church; this is the leading posi- of it in his book) is a good minister of tion that runs through the whole volume. Jesus Christ,' should lend his name and It is further assumed that the church his influence to the propagation of senis the child of the State. The author timents concerning baptismal regenerasays, p. 1. "that the state has instituted tion, which appear much like those reour ecclesiastical establisment," yet in probated by Dr. Owen, who says, "the the same page he declares "this king. father of lies himself could not easily dom of Christ is a spiritual kingdom." invent any dogma more pernicious or The child belonging to the church is more rapidly poisonous ?"* interested in the promise. This is repeated a hundred times. The promise so often referred to, we find at last to be no other than the words, "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God." In this he tells us all the promises are 'summed up,' and this is the true scriptural foundation of Infant Baptism. (See pp. 123, and 331.) Yet it is curious to observe, by the way, that some eminent pædobaptists speaking of this text, have been as cautious See on as our author is confident. Matt. xix. 14. Mr. Poole's continuators, Whitby, Burkitt, and Doddridge.* The sponsor assumes, that his warrant to undertake for the child rests on the same promise. The Bishop assumes, that God has vouchsafed to regenerate the child by water and by the Holy Ghost. "The church assumes, ý that all who partake of her liturgy, as well as all who partake of her other services, being truly regenerated at their baptism, are chosen people' of God indeed." And thus it appears to be assumption from beginning to end. But what Edipus can unriddle all this? Can any man upon earth reconcile this statement with reason, with scripture, or with itself? That the church of England is a child of the state, we learnt many years ago from the Protestant Dissenters' Catechism, but we never before heard this In Booth's Pædobap. Exam. † p. 69. p. 129. $ p. 154. A New edition of this valuable Tract is just published by Holdsworth, with corrections and additions by Dr. Newman. Is it not for a lamentation that a good minister of Jesus Christ should write such a rhapsody as the following lines contain :-"Faith gives vital application to every sacrament; Doubt ye not, therefore, but earnestly believe,' says the church: she is throughout the service animating the faith of the whole communion of saints present, whether more immediately or remotely interested in the baptized. It is the uniform spirit of her service-'honour God, honour his grace, depend on his word, trust his promise, a promise how sweetly carried into effect by our incarnate God in the days of his flesh you have the strongest grounds of faith; give him all your confidence; trust your child wholly to his grace; believe, believe; accept the sign; take the seal; bear away the pledge; and doubtless yours shall be the blessing." "And what is this," he adds, "but the very soul and spirit of the Gospel?" p. 233. So in p. 393, he says, "It is faith only that can give the better spirit; and realize to us the blessed experience, that generally every promise belongs to us which we have faith enough to apply to ourselves." Again, in p. 505, “Faith, operative faith, faith, which is spiritual power, is alone wanting: what the steam is to the engine, the water to the mill, the wind to the sail, such is faith to the sacrament; it is the power which sets it in motion. Baptismal regeneration is the lever which shall renew human society, if faith but apply its hand steadily and unceasingly to the work. Theologoumena, p. 402. God has done his part, the reformers of worship among those who are withhave done their part, let us do ours.' out it:" and which, he might have Surely it would be quite superfluous added, they pay for entirely themselves. to add note or comment here! Nor has the New London University So sanguine is Mr. Budd, and so en- escaped his notice. "Protestants of raptured with his own visionary antici- whatever name, you have your old pations, that he adds, "Let grace but Popish adversary on one side, whom change the temper of our hearts for your shouts have roused from his lair : that of love, and I believe that one are you prepared for his attack? You year would crown every Christian meet-have an infidel adversary on the other ing-house with a steeple!!!" O what side, with malignities restless and unan ornament! "Dissenterism," (says the author of The Velvet Cushion), "is the religion of Barns." Who can tell, but each of these Barns may soon be "crowned" with a "Steeple!" abashed, and purposes of extermina- party? and am I sacrificing unimportaut differences to establish that union which the interests of our common Christianity demand?" Mr. Budd is no partisan!! Who can wonder that infidels should laugh at infant-baptism? And by the way, when the learned, candid and amiable Doddridge replied to the au-'Am I rising above the littleness of thor of a pamphlet entitled 'Christianity not founded on argument,' he declined entering upon any proof of the divine institution of infant baptismreferred to the original institutes in the Scriptures and solemnly charged the infidel to enquire into the contents of Christianity with impartiality, and to take his notions of it "from the New Testament alone." Works, vol. i. p. 584-586. Mr. Budd speaks kindly, in general, of Dissenters, and acknowledges in one place that Dissent "has been one means of preserving a holy seed among us, and we are greatly indebted to it for the maintenance of our civil and religious liberties." Yet he says, when speaking of our Sunday and other schools, "If possible, the superintendence of these nurseries of principle should be submitted to active and intelligent and faithful ministers of our church."+ And he complains loudly that "so many impediments are opposed to the religious zeal of the people in raising churches within the establishment (and yet the Dissenters have contributed their part of the million and a half to this object without complainnig,) and so unrestrained a liberty is given to the very same zeal in erecting places If these lines should reach Mr. Budd, we would remind him at parting, that the term Anabaptist is regarded now only as a term of reproach. If reproach be not intended, the term should be laid aside. And that it is not intended by Mr. Budd, we infer from his anticipations of our conversion as a body, his cordial willingness to receive us, and from his informing the reader that "It is related of Mr. Tombs, one of the most distinguished supporters of this persuasion in the 17th century, that he communicated with the church at Salisbury to the end of his days." This record is true: but then Mr. Budd should know that Mr. Tombs, though he defended our peculiar principles, was never a member of the Baptist Denomination, he was a Presbyterian Baptist, a Presbyterian Conformist! Mr. Budd did not expect such inconsistencies in the conduct of the present race of anabaptists. It is deeply affecting that a minister so pious, and, as we had thought, so evangelical as the writer of this volume, |