and Jesus shall have come to raise the dead, and crown the righteous, we may enjoy his everlasting benediction-" well done!" "Where the saints of all ages in harmony meet, We have now inserted seven essays on Christian Union from the pen of brother James M. Mathes, editor of the Christian Record. The essays, as a whole, have our most cordial approval; but when he informs us, as he does on the preceding page, that the Baptists in America "agree that remission of sins is in some sense connected with baptism," we are compelled to say, this is not the case with the Baptists in England; indeed, with a few honourable exceptions, the Baptists of all parties repudiate with abhorence the idea of remission of sins being connected with baptism, and stand as much in the way of reform as any other class of Protestants amongst us. They are constantly praying for the arrival of the millenium, which, from their conduct, we might conclude means nothing more or less than just such a millenium as that to which they themselves have already arrived. Beyond them, either in theory or practice, no one must go, on pain of excommunication.-ED. OPEN COMMUNION. SINCE the debate between A. Campbell and N. L. Rice arrived in this country, in connexion with some private letters from those who are opponents to this reformation, a great outcry has been made by some of the brethren who have either seen the debate themselves, or heard from parties who have both seen and read it, that A. Campbell has now become a public advocate for mixed or open communion, that is, admitting unbaptized persons to the table of the Lord, with a view to bring about a union of all sects and parties who have faith in the atonement of Christ, and who are known to be pious and moral in their deportment. As there are some open communionists both baptized and unbaptized, who have laid hold on this report, to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of some of our brethren, we think it desirable to lay before our readers what we have seen on the subject in the said debate. In brother Campbell's second address, "That human creeds, as bonds of union and communion, are necessarily heretical and schismatical," he says, p. 783: "BUT Mr. Rice has pronounced a compliment on the confession. Remark the drift of his words-men read the Bible and mistake its meaning-misconstrue, overstrain, and pervert its language. Take, for example, says he, the phrase "Son of God." This phrase is now so well defined in the creeds, that it is a test of orthodoxy! Handsome compliment truly! Uninspired men traced, ascertained, and fixed for ever the exact meaning of the phrase, “Son of God," so that now they can keep out hosts of heretics and heresiarchs, who, through the loose, unguarded, and vague style of inspired men, had, before the invention of these safeguards of truth, crept into the church! How comes it to pass, that uninspired men have views so much clearer, definite, and unambiguous, than those guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit, and are able to express them in terms so much more apposite than did the holy twelve?! Does not Mr. Rice believe, that holy men spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit? Now if John Calvin, or the Westminster divines, can speak more learnedly, intelligibly, and definitely, than the inspired oracles of God's Spirit, what is the value of inspiration? The less inspiration the better! "The gentleman's next argument in favor of creeds is my uncharitableness. Well, I am pleased with this argument. He must be expert at it; for I am told, it has been one of his standing topics for several years. It will give me an opportunity of meeting the charge with one well versed in the subject, profoundly read, and erudite on his theme. He has not studied my writings to much profit, if he still regards me as most exclusivly uncharitable. Well, what is the true state of the case? We all see, that Christendom is, at present, in a disturbed, agitated, dislocated conditioncut up, or frittered down into sects and parties innumerable, wholly unwarranted by right reason, pure religion, the Bible, the God of the Bible. Before the high, and holy, and puissant intelligences of earth and heaven, this state of things is most intolerable. I have, for some five and twenty years, regarded human creeds as both the cause and the effect of partyism, and the main perpetuating causes of schism, and, therefore, have remonstrated and inveighed against them. Not, like many who oppose creeds, because they have first opposed their peculiar tenets; we opposed them on their own demerits, not because they opposed us. In this particular at least, if not on other accounts, we differ from the great majority of those who oppose them—because old parties were sustained by them, because they made new parties, and because they were roots of bitterness and apples of discord, we opposed them. "In lieu of them all we tendered the Book that God had given us. We regard the Lord Jesus Christ as King, Lord, Lawgiver, and prophet of the church, and well qualified by the power of the Holy Spirit, to give us all a perfect volume -one in substance and in form exactly adapted, as he would have it, for just such a family as the great family of man; if we believed that the Lord Jesus was wiser and more benevolent than all his followers, in their united wisdom and benevolence; and that he both could and would give them such a book as they needed. It is both the light of salvation and the bond of union amongst the saved. We abjure creeds, simply as substitutes, directly or indirectly substitutes, for the book of inspiration. In other respects, we have no objection whatever to any people publishing their tenets, or views, or practices to the world. I have no more objections to writing my opinions than I have to speaking them. But, mark it well, it is the making of such compends of views, in the ecclesiastic sense, creeds (that is, terms of communion or bonds of union)—I say again, as ecclesiastic documents, as terms of exclusion and reception of members, we abjure them. Calling them creeds is, indeed, a grand misnomer. They have been, in days of yore, collects of speculations, by which, in numerous instances, to ferret out heretics and slaughter innocents-tests of orthodoxy, which in no country a person can safely, so far as re spects his person, his reputation, or his property, publicly oppose. They have in ages of proscription and tyranny, for the single sin of nonconformity, slaughtered their millions. On these accounts, as causes of oppression to scrupulous consciences; as sources of alienation and estrangement amongst good men; as tests to proscribe and oppress, to persecute and destroy, we solemnly abjure them, regardless of their contents, whether orthodox or heterodox. Our sin, in the eyes of all devoted to them, is, that we substitute for them the new covenant as our church covenant, and the apostolic writings as our Christian creed, believing all things in the law and in the prophets. "We preach, in the words of that Book, the gospel, as promulged by the apostles in Jerusalem. We use in all important matters, the exact words of inspiration. We command all men to believe, repent, and bring forth fruits worthy of reformation. We enjoin the same good works commanded by the Lord and by his apostles. We receive men of all denominations under heaven-of all sects and parties, who will make the good confession, on which Jesus Christ builded his church. We propound that confession of the faith in the identical words of inspiration; so that they who avow it, express a divine faith, and build upon a consecrated foundation-a well tried corner stone. On a candid and sincere confession of this faith, we immerse all persons, and then present them with God's own Book as their book of faith, piety, and morality. This is our most obnoxious offence against the partyism of this age. "On this ground many of us have stood for many years. We have fully tested this principle. Men, formerly of all persuasions, and of all denominations and prejudices, have been baptized on this good confession, and have united in one community. Among them are found those who had been Romanists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Restorationists, Quakers, Arians, Unitarians, &c. We have one faith, one Lord, one baptism, but various opinions. These, when left to vegetate, without annoyance, if erroneous, wither and die. We find much philosophy in one of Paul's precepts, somewhat mistranslated, "Receive one another without regard to differences of opinion." We, indeed, receive to our communion persons of other denominations, who will take upon them the responsibility of their partici pating with us. We do, indeed, in our affections and in our practice, receive all Christians, all who give evidence of their faith in the Messiah, and of their attachment to his person, character, and will. "Our charities are, then, more extensive than those of my opponent. We have not so many dogmas in our creed. All these persons, of so many and so contradictory opinious, weekly meet around our Lord's table in hundreds of churches ail over the land. Our bond of union is, faith in the slain Messiah, in his death for our sins, and his resurrection for our justification. Therefore, we acknowledge nothing among us but Christ, and him crucified. We do not talk of old opinions we desire to be absorbed in the Lord Messiah, as made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.' "Our doctrine is catholic, very catholic-not Roman Catholic, nor Greek Catholic-but simply catholic. All admit the New Testament and its ordinances, the seven unities of Paul. We are so exclusive, however, that we say to every one, without the fold, you must repent and be baptized for the remission of your sins, if you would enjoy the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ. Still we do not so make conditions of ultimate salvation out of the conditions of church membership. We are not now descanting upon the conditions of salvation among the antediluvians, the Jews, the Pagans, infants, and those otherwise incapable of hearing, believing, and obeying the gospel. Mr. Rice has told us what is necessary to a church on earth. We extend our views much further. We stand on ground much more catholic and charitable; embracing, without regard to so many diversities of opinion, all who sincerely believe in the Messiah, and are willing to be governed by his precepts." Again, in his third address, p. 798: "The gentleman has introduced an extract from my correspondence with Mr. Jones of London, touching open communion, which demands an observation or two. I have more respect for his understanding than to think Mr. Rice does not comprehend this subject better. The English Baptists very generally practise open communion, as they call it. They invite persons unbaptized to participate with them at the Lord's table. Now, the difference between them and our brethren, in cases where such persons occa |