Mixed communion can have no precedent, and for it we maintain no direction has been given. (p. 93.) "If we forbear with those who are opposing the will of Christ, so far as to abrogate his institutions in his own church, we are showing more love to the servant in his errors than we do to the Lord in his wisdom."

THIRDLY: Does not mixed communion alter the apostolic constitution of the church? A mixed church does not resemble the "apostolic church in its unity, for they had one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Every part of the history of the church "has shewn how many evils followed the corruption of its primitive constitution." Infant baptism introduced "church members of a new class;" the world and the church were thus united together and kept together. "The Christian party was out-numbered, and the world gained and kept the dominion." "At the first these evils were not foreseen." The mixed communion baptized, are exactly acting the part of those whose conduct they deplore." To have remained followers of the churches in Judea (1 Thess. i. 14) would have prevented the result of infant baptism, and also the necessity now of insisting on the plain reason for our conduct; so did the apostles, (on the concession of our opponents,) and therefore so do strict Baptists.

II. ON THE EXPEDIENCY AND POLICY OF MIXED COMMUNION. "Expediency and policy are best tried by time." Perhaps it is not too much to say that "nothing can ultimately be trusted but sound principle." Mixed communion makes it difficult for a minister to declare the whole counsel of God, because some of his friends will be hurt at his doing so. (101.) "The church loses the practical influence of one of the institutions of the Lord," (p. 105,) if the minister be of different sentiments from the majority of the church. "Unless a spirit of indifference prevail, sooner or later, effects will arise of an unpleasant character. (p. 106.) Mixed communion is urged as a probable means of increasing the number of Baptists," "which is a complete warning " to Pædobaptists. "I doubt not," remarks Mr. Kinghorne, “but a degree of success of this kind has attended the plan;" but it produces other effects which are not counterbalanced by any success that has followed, or that can follow it. (p. 107.) Pædobaptists cannot be expected to join with Baptists, provided they can unite with their own connection, and the strict Baptists are repelled by mixed communion. "As to the state of the fact, I have met with no evidence," continues Mr. K., “that the Baptists, as a body, are in a better situation on the whole, in places where mixed communion is the most popular, than in others where it is not practised." (p. 108.) A Pædobaptist has remarked, that Baptist churches are larger, in proportion to the size of

the congregation, than those of other denominations. "I believe the observation is perfectly correct ;" and it is not surprising, therefore, mixed communion churches "have fewer members than we might expect, according to the size of the congregation," owing to the causes which affect the size of Pædobaptist churches and congregations. But in discussing the "revealed will of Christ, particularly as to his positive institutions, expediency and policy ought to have no weight." (p. 118.)

III. MIXED COMMUNION NOT KNOWN IN APOSTOLIC TIMES, NOR SANCTIONED BY MODERN PÆDOBAPTIST WRITERS. Mr. Booth has said the propriety of strict communion "never was disputed prior to the sixteenth century." "If it had been," says Mr. Kinghorne, “the learning and sagacity of our opponents would certainly have discovered and employed it against us. But no evidence of this kind is yet brought forward, and we believe that none exist." (p. 143.) As Mr. Hall admits that there was "no mixed communion in the apostles' days," that "all Christians were then Baptists, both in principle and practice," (p. 144,) the inquiry is deserving of attention, when did the practice first appear? The reply is, only in modern times. (p. 145.) "None ever thought of setting a positive ordinance aside till modern refinement explained it away." (p. 145.) If mixed communion be subsequent to infant baptism, as Mr. Hall probably admits, those baptists who plead for mixed communion favour "the legitimate offspring of what they acknowledge is one of the greatest corruptions of the primitive church. Prior to all argument, this forms a just prejudice against it." The church, in after apostolic times, did not reject everything which once belonged to it. It is allowed that, in the apostolic age, none were received without baptism; and this remnant of former ages, like a column in a ruin, shews the elevation of the building, to which it once afforded both ornament and support." (p. 147.) Mr. Hall says that the strict Baptists "have violated more maxims of antiquity, and receded farther from the example of the apostles, than any class of Christians on record." But a very slight acquaintance with antiquity, or with the writings of those eminently learned men who have explored its treasures, "is sufficient to shew that this is a mistake," (p. 150.) Mr. Hall says of strict Baptists-"they are the only persons in the world, of whom we have either heard or read, who contend for the exclusion of genuine Christians from the Lord's Table." But the "long-extended controversy, in the time of Cyprian, as to whether heretics, when convinced of error, should be esteemed baptized, on the ground of the baptism they had received before, shews that, though accepted in other respects, their right to the

Lord's Supper was doubted, because the validity of their baptism was questioned, and is a complete refutation of the above assertion." (p. 152.) The Donatists, also, "whose doctrine was sound," and who thought other churches so fallen that their baptism was invalid, "did not receive those who came over to them without baptizing." (p. 183.) With the exception of the heretics mentioned by Irenious, who denied baptism altogether, and whose singularities were such that " no party would quote them as authority," the Baptists "do no more than was always done throughout all Christian antiquity." (p. 153.)

Of modern times, Mr. Hall says, that the right of “refusing the communion of eminently holy men, on account of unessential difference of opinion, is not the avowed tenet of any sect or communion in Christendom, with the exception of the majority of the Baptists." But look at the plain facts that are constantly before us. "Would the Church of England receive even those she admits to be eminently holy men," unless they conformed to ceremonies confessed by her not to be essential to salvation? From Hooker till now its defenders imply the contrary. The Church of Scotland declares, that "Grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed to baptism, as that no person can be regenerated and saved without it ;" and yet the unbaptized are not received to communion, (p. 155;) and the opinion which "Pædobaptists have in general adopted is, in its principle, the same with that which is embraced by the strict Baptists; so that the charge of novelty does not attach to us when we say that the baptized only ought to partake of the Lord's Supper." (p. 155.)

The Westminster Confession, Baxter's Directory, Alexander Price, Drs. Osgood and Lathrop, and Dr. Williams, are quoted in proof that modern Pædobaptists consider baptism requisite to communion. (pp. 156-160.) Mr. Hall says, that strict communion "destroys at once the unity of the church." But is it destroyed by nothing else, and is there any sense in which the church can be now considered as one, "except in that which will include all those good men who, from conscientious differences, cannot unite together on earth?" We can neither be Baptists, nor Dissenters, nor Protestants, without incurring this charge.

The opponents of the strict Baptists say that it is "on account of a difference on a mere non-essential that the latter decline to admit good men." A thing "may be essential to the scriptural existence of a church which is not essential to the salvation of a Christian." "It is essential to the existence of a society as a Christian church, that it be formed according to the rules laid down by Christ, and the explan

ations given to us in the precedents of the New Testament."

"Without this it may be composed of excellent characters, who may associate with the best intentions; but in whatever instances, they are not the same kind of materials of which the assembly of the faithful was originally formed, nor united for the same purposes,-they have not the scriptural character of the church of Christ. (p. 163.)

The foregoing notice of the subject may suffice for presenting, in some degree, the views enunciated by the two leading controversialists of the time-Mr. Hall and Mr. Kinghorne.

In 1818, Mr. HALL replied to Mr. Kinghorne. His work was entitled, "A Further Vindication of the Practice of Free Communion."

In 1820, Mr. KINGHORNE published "A Defence of Baptism. A Term of Communion; in Answer to the Rev. Robert Hall's Reply." In 1826, Mr. HALL published "A Short Statement of the Reasons in Opposition to Party Communion."

In 1827, Mr. KINGHORNE published "Arguments Against the Practice of Mixed Communion, and in Support of Communion on the Plan of the Apostolic Church, with Preliminary Observations on the Rev. R. Hall's Reasons for Christians in Opposition to Party Communion."

This ended the controversy between these two excellent men, each equally sincere in their own conclusions; and whose opinions are entitled to that consideration which their piety and their talents should command.

Dr. ROBERT B. C. HOWELL, of the United States, is a later writer upon the subject of Christian communion, as a strict Baptist. His work has been published in this country in an abridged form,* with a preface by Mr. WILLIAM NORTON,† of Egham. Its title is "The Terms of Communion at the Lord's Table, and with the Church of Christ." The tenor and general bearing of the work may be seen from the following propositions :

ARE we at liberty to adopt any terms of communion not established by Jesus Christ?

THE scriptural terms of communion at the Lord's table designated and proved.

THE history of opinions regarding the terms of communion shews that our sentiments upon the subject have been universally embraced.

*London: Houlston and Stoneman. 1847.

The writer is under obligation to Mr. William Norton and to Mr. J. C. Woollacott for interesting notes upon the subject of Christian communion.

REPLY to such objections to our sentiments as are derived from the presumed nature of John's baptism.

REPLY to observations founded on the inspired principles of Christian toleration.

REPLY to objections founded on the spirituality of the gospel, and drawn from other miscellaneous sources.

THE purposes for which the Lord's Supper was instituted do not require fellowship in it with the unbaptized.

BAPTISTS cannot commune with Pædobaptists, because they would falsify their sentiments as to baptism and the Lord's Supper; and because Pædobaptists attach to baptism an unscriptural efficacy and importance.

MOST Pædobaptist denominations attach unscriptural efficacy and importance to the Lord's Supper, and for this reason Baptists cannot unite with them in its observance.

It is further stated that Strict Baptists cannot commune with Pædobaptists in the Lord's Supper, because they consider to do so would involve the subversion of the constituted authority and discipline of the church, the violation of conscience, and the sacrifice of the truth.

Such are the leading propositions of Dr. Howell. His reasonings, arguments, and facts, present the various subjects discussed in a clear and familiar manner. Mr. Norton has appended A CHAPTER, "The History of Free Communion proves it to be disastrous to the Church.” This chapter, consisting of 116 pages, furnishes much historical incident, and cannot fail to be read with other than feelings of peculiar interest, in relation to the topics referred to.*

There is no desire to give an undue prominence to either of the opposing sentiments which have been brought under notice. The intelligent investigator would be enabled, from the several works mentioned, to obtain a comprehensive view of the question; whilst all such investigations should lead to the only authority for Christian guidance, not only in matters of faith, but also of obedience-THE NEW TESTAMENT.

It is not unusual for those professing adverse opinions to describe the Baptists as 66 a small sect," and as "inconsiderable" in numbers. Their advancement, or the progress of their sentiments in these later times, will be seen by some statistical references, from which will be observed their relative status amongst professing Christians. In THE UNITED STATES Baptists may be said to occupy a primary position.

Attention, in previous pages, has been directed to authorities as to the number of Baptists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

"The Primitive Church Magazine" advocates the views of Strict Baptists.