sent his position does not appear to practicable! Is it possible that what is them so plainly scriptural, nor himself right should be impracticable? “We so manifestly right, as to preclude their can do all things through Christ who wish that he would not refuse to join strengthens us." It may be difficult, with them in an investigation of the but if God approves, it certainly may grounds on which he so confidently and ought to be accomplished. That rests. They believe that these grounds which is not lawful only, but binding are not scriptural, and that his position also, is always expedient-always posis incapable of defence, except by argu-sible. If these friends really believe ments which sap and threaten to destroy the authority of God's word. The great question for the consideration of the Baptists is, have we authority to abrogate the first institutions of the gospel, the invariable laws and customs of apostolic times? The Baptists in general believe that none were admitted to the Church at first who were not immersed on a profession of faith. Are we at liberty to act otherwise now? If the constitution of the apostolic Church was intended to belasting, the answer is inevitably-No. And who has or can give proof that it was not designed to be so? If, however, it is right that the two bodies should merge, let it be so; let not consequences alarm, difficulties dishearten, or excuses plead. I can see only two reasons which can excuse Open Communionists from joining in the proposed union. The one is some doubt as to the soundness of their principle. If they have any question on this point, it is reasonable for them to hesitate, and to put it but slowly into practice; the other is that it is, at present, impracticable. Im that they ought to receive in any way, by baptism or without it, those whom Christ has received, they will at once advocate the merging of every denomination, and the adoption of one only term of membership, love to God, to be expressed not by observing all things whatsoever he has commanded, but just such of them as they and the Church see fit. The strict Baptists are by no means dead to the importance of the unity of the Church. There are those among them who pray for and earnestly desire it, but they believe it is not by the sacrifice of conscience and of truth that gospel union can be obtained. They believe that if it is truly sought, there is light and love enough in heaven to remove our differences as to things revealed (for uniformity beyond this they plead not), and that it is not madness to believe that God will fulfil his promise, "I will give them one heart and one way, that they may fear me for ever." I am, dear Sir, Your servant for Christ's sake, Bow, Jan. 22, 1840. W. NORTON. POETRY. A BRIDAL HYMN. Written Feb. 10. King of kings, of rulers Lord, Let their nuptial blessing be, Give them long on earth to share, E E 212 The the brotherhood, and of God. To fix sh No difference as to course no difference? or translation of t thought for a m views, to be a suf taining separa these points bership, I s sence of for teari Christ in h A 209 Is it peable that what is may be difficult, sextainly may "mplated. That always poe ar of out a suf written word, us conduct. Their ..to be admitted, because en rightly baptized, g, in their infancy." 66 By way of explanation, I beg leave to distinguish what our divines call the esse, or the being of a church, from the melius esse, or best being of one, for, although I affirm such a mixed church to be a rightly constituted church, yet I do ne best judges of their not say its constitution is so perfect as motives, because the general con- that of the primitive churches. A duct of their lives confirms their testi- church that tolerates is a good church, mony, and because (of some of them it but a church that has no errors to tole and compliments, and polite professions son. must be allowed) they extend candour, rate is a better."--Rev. Robert Robin of liberality of sentiment, far, very far | REVIEW. Correspondence in the "Patriot," on two denominations ought never to have On the 9th of January a letter appeared been disunited, and I believe he spoke ying, that, on the subject of union, Independent body is not, in his opinion, even at the present time, the faulty the. norant, the em and confidence." We can.. lately under the care of the Rev. John Mr. Green should not unite w Chin, a memoir of whom appeared in our last namber. Mr. Green has re llington, stand"ches We have, however, thank him for his unexceptionable t cently endeavoured to open the com- timony to the strict Baptists. munion of the church; the motion for H.'s reference," he says, 66 tes "Mr. to strict doing so was supported by a majority, communion Baptists, is any thing but but the minority was so considerable, generous. ing I do not belong to their age. r that it was deemed prudent to abandon number, but I know that many of them it. He replies, with some little dis- 210 EXTRACTS. MISCELLANEA. "It is certain that, from the first public appearance of Baptist churches in England, many have refused, and, to this day, continue to refuse, to admit into their fellowship all manner of persons, however qualified in other respects, who have not been baptized by immersion, on their own profession of faith and repentance." "It is also a clear fact, that the Baptists affirm, their refusal does not proceed from wilful ignorance, obstinacy, spirit of party, bigotry, or any other illiberal disposition, but from a fear of offending God, by acting without a sufficient warrant from his written word, the rule of all religious conduct. Their testimony ought to be admitted, because they are the best judges of their own motives, because the general conduct of their lives confirms their testimony, and because (of some of them it must be allowed) they extend candour, and compliments, and polite professions of liberality of sentiment, far, very far indeed, beyond what some of their brethren, who hold free communion, pretend to do." "We affirm, then, that it is JUST and RIGHT, and agreeable to the revealed will of Christ, that Baptist Churches should admit into their fellowship such persons as desire admission, on profession of faith and repentance, although they refuse to be baptized by immersion, because they sincerely believe they have been rightly baptized, by sprinkling, in their infancy." "By way of explanation, I beg leave to distinguish what our divines call the esse, or the being of a church, from the melius esse, or best being of one, for, although I affirm such a mixed church to be a rightly constituted church, yet I do not say its constitution is so perfect as that of the primitive churches. Α church that tolerates is a good church, but a church that has no errors to tolerate is a better."--Rev. Robert Robinson. REVIEW. Correspondence in the "Patriot," on Union between Independents and Baptists. On the 9th of January a letter appeared in the Patriot, from George Hadfield, Esq., an Independent, of Manchester, suggesting that the time has arrived, for the promotion of a better understanding between Independents and Baptists. "As far," he says, "as I can learn, there is a disposition, on the part of the former, and many of the latter, especially the younger members of the denomination, to merge the two bodies into one. The Rev. Dr. Leifchild, in his sermon at Birmingham, on a recent occasion, gave it as his opinion, that the two denominations ought never to have been disunited, and I believe he spoke the general sense of the ministers and friends present. I know it is thought, by some, that the Baptists are too much attached to their distinctive views, on the mode and subjects of baptism, ever to unite with us, and, so far as the advocates of strict communion are concerned, I think it is probable there may be some ground for such misapprehension. Is it not, however, desirable, on our part, to open the door of communion wide to them, and to admit them to our academical institutions?" He states, that the committee of the intended Lancashire College have decided to in troduce a clause into the trust deed, to allow of the introduction of students of the Baptist, and other bodies of Evangelical Dissenters, and then, speaking of the Baptists, adds, "There have recently been some noble manifestations of good and generous sentiments in various parts of the country; it is not requisite to press them to unite with us, further than they may be prompted by their own convictions and feelings, but I have no doubt that a very large and increasing number are ashamed of the old restriction put upon us, in some instances, at the Lord's table." He concludes by saying, that, on the subject of union, the Independent body is not, in his opinion, even at the present time, the faulty party. The next number of the Patriot contained a letter, from the Rev. S. Green, of Walworth, in reply. Mr. Green is a strenous advocate of mixed communion, he is pastor of the church lately under the care of the Rev. John Chin, a memoir of whom appeared in our last namber. Mr. Green has recently endeavoured to open the communion of the church; the motion for doing so was supported by a majority, but the minority was so considerable, that it was deemed prudent to abandon it. He replies, with some little displeasure, that the "virtue of a willingness to be united," should be claimed entirely by the Independents, and "all the odium, or the sin, of continued disunion," cast upon the Baptists. He is, however, perfectly favourable to the merging of the two bodies. He only wishes to fix on Independents some portion of what he calls "the lamentable sectarianism of the present day," and refers to the restrictions imposed in their Collegiate institutions, to the manner in which they, in common with the Baptists, secure their property, by trust deed, to themselves exclusively, and to the request made by their Missionaries, at Calcutta, that the Bible Society would refuse to support certain of our versions of the New Testament, (a request which has been supported by the body at home), as decisive proof that the Baptists are not exclusively in fault. The Rev. J. Peacock and the Rev. J. G. Pike, of Derby, state several additional facts, in proof that they are not so. But besides imputing to the Independents, an equal attachment to their own body, as Mr. Hadfield had attributed to the Baptists, Mr. Green says, that until the ground they have taken in the Bible Society controversy be entirely forsaken, the two bodies cannot be one; a statement which, with his sentiments, amounts to a fiat of excommunication against the Independent body, declaring them unfit for communion altogether. We cannot reconcile this with his zeal for admitting them, in their present state of impenitence on this subject, into his own church. If they may be admitted there, there is no reason why Mr. Green should not unite with them every where. We have, however, to thank him for his unexceptionable testimony to the strict Baptists. "Mr. H.'s reference," he says, "to strict communion Baptists, is any thing but generous. I do not belong to their number, but I know that many of them are amongst the most liberal, catholic, and open-hearted Christians of the age. Their strictness in reference to the table of the Lord is not the offspring of bigotry, it is not fostered by any thing of which they ought, in Mr. H.'s sense of the term, to be 'ashamed.' Mr. H. ought to allow to them, especially when writing to seek union, a being influenced by what they deem just and faithful views of the will of Christ. Besides this, is Mr. Hadfield sure, that he himself is not a Strict Communionist? I cannot, of course, tell, but he knows very well, that ninety-nine out of a hundred, of all the religious bodies, not excepting the Independents, are as strict as the strictest among this section of the Baptists." |