tion sufficiently exhibit the frigid charac. ter of Unitarianism? Would any of us, -would any man with a heart influenced by the love of Christ, submissive to his authority, and zealous for his glory, put such a question-But to return to the motion. Let all the friends of the Society exert themselves for the increase of its funds; but while you give us your money, grant us also your prayers, that the Holy Spirit may be poured out upon us, without which we can have no suc

cess.

The Rev. John Dyer added some further particulars respecting the charges that had been mentioned. "When the statements, reflecting on Dr. Carey, and the translations, which had been made at the Anniversary Dinner of the Unitarian Fund, by the Rev. W. J. Fox, Secretary to that body, appeared in the public papers, I wrote to that gentleman, requesting him to specify the authority on which he had hazarded the assertions in question. In answer, he referred me to a pamphlet, which he sent me, and which 1 had seen before; containing replies by the Rev. W. Adam, of Calcutta, to a number of queries proposed to him by Dr. Ware of Cambridge, in America. Now Mr. Adam acknowledges, that much of bis information is derived from hearsay; and distinctly avows to his American correspondent, that he does not profess to have full information respecting the modo in which the Serampore translations are executed.' Why, with such a concession before him, Mr. Fox should have prefaced his attack on the translators, by affirming that he spoke advisedly, and from the fullest information,' thus plainly contradicting the very testimony on which he relies,-must be left for himself to explain."

The Rev. Joseph Slatterie would not have come forward if he had not been warmly attached to the Society, but he could not forbear urging its claims upon all who were present, particularly upon all Ministers and Deacons, to act in their respective spheres; and upon those who were advanced in years, to do all they could for it while their lives should be spared. "After the able remarks that

have been made on the subject of the translations,” said Mr. Slatterie, "I would add but a word or two. We have an old proverb, that it is easier to find fault than to mend. This, however, has been attempted. There is a Unitarian translation of the New Testament in Eng. lish; they call it an Improved Version. But what effects has it produced? k was first published seventeen years ago, and the second edition has not yet been called for. Yet those who have murdered the word of God themselves, presume to charge you with mutilating it.”

The Rev. Spedding Curwen expressed himself charmed with the catholicity of the Meeting. "Though not a Baptist myself, I love the Baptist Missionary Society, because I see in it the spirit of that Redeemer, who left a charge to his disciples to go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. A few years ago this Society hesitated to hold such meetings; it was considered that the cause was known, and that this was enough to call forth the requisite aid. But I am glad that you have adopted the present method. I rejoice in the success that has attended you, and trust you will never find a want of interest in so noble an undertaking. I cordially sympathize in your sorrow for the removal of those holy men who have been taken from you by death. But your and our loss is their gain. They have fallen in the warfare, but they have fallen nobly, with their bosoms bare to the foe. They are gone, but I rejoice that their posts are occupied by kindred spirits, and that more are baptized for the dead."

The time being far advanced the remaining resolutions were briefly moved and seconded by the Rev. Thomas Finch, of Harlow; the Rev. J. J. Wilkinson, of Saffron Walden; the Rev. John Edwards, of London; R. B. Sherring, Esq. of Bristol; the Rev. James Upton, of London; the Rev. F. A. Cox, of Hackney; and the Rev. John Shoveller, of Poole. After a few words from the Chairman, the Meeting was closed by singing, "Praise God, from whom all blessings flow.”

The collections after the different services amounted to £280.

reply. "First, they say, we are right in so doing, because Baptism is specifically excepted by Christ himself, from the application of every scriptural principle." P. 433. And is it true that they do make this reply? No, this is what this gentleman, who misrepresents their sentiments, says for them. They say, Baptism, as an institution appointed by Christ himself, is to be observed by all his disciples as the first public act of homage to his authority, and, therefore, ought not by any considerations whatever to be superseded, nor its place in the order of Christian obedience to be in any way altered.

The Reviewer acknowledges they do not exact Baptism as a condition of salvation, and in this he only does them justice; and he might have added with equal justice, that the reason why they make Baptism a term of communion is, because they are fully persuaded, from the words in which their Lord's commission is expressed, and from the inspired history of the manner in which the apostles carried that commission into effect, that they are justified in so doing.

The Reviewer states for them their second reply to Mr. Hall's reasoning, as follows:-"Secondly; -And this is, perhaps, the most extraordinary specimen of arguing that was ever employed in any controversy if we have not a right to insist on uniformity in this particular, then the Church of England had a right to insist on uniformity in other particulars. If we are chargeable with schism in dividing the church of Christ, by insisting on our terms of communion, then the authors of the Act of Uniformity were justified in insisting on their terms of communion. If the former argument is what logicians term, a begging of the question, the latter is something beyond a non sequitur:

it is an argument turned topsy turvy, proving the very opposite of the inference drawn from it. Yet, so delighted is Mr. Kinghorn with this most fantastic paradox, borrowed from the estimable vicar of Chobham, that he gravely urges it again and again; and in the pamphlet before us, seems to exult in the annihilating conclusion, while he asks, Why do not Mr. Hall and the Eclectic Reviewer go to the Establishment?'" P. 433.

Surely this distorted representation of Mr. Kinghorn's statement, will, in the estimation of those who have candidly perused his pamphlet, be ruinous to the credit of the Reviewer; what he has insinuated and asserted being entirely different from any thing which appears in Mr. Kinghorn's pamphlet, or from what has been written by any one on his side of the question. It has, in fact, no claim to regard; and it only excites my surprise, that any man who has any respect for his reputation, should have ventured to publish such glaring misrepresentations! The statements he has made are not the arguments of the strict Baptists, but the fabrications of the Eclectic Reviewer. The cutting reply of Nehemiah to Sanballat's "open letter," and to his five times repeated slanders, are applicable to this case; "There are no such things as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart."

It will be seen that more than once he amuses himself by ringing changes upon Mr. Kinghorn's words. Why do not Mr. Hall and the Eclectic Reviewer go to the Establishment?" I ask him in return, Why he did not give a frank reply to this question, and why did he forbear to notice a single expression in its connexion? Did he feel that it would better suit his purpose to select a few words,

which, from being separated from their context, might either mislead or irritate his reader? If he were so disposed, he might, in precisely the same way, produce expressions of the inspired writers inculcating idolatry and atheism! He would have acted with equal candour and integrity had he asserted, that because Elijah "shouted out,”—“If Baal be God, serve him;" that he encouraged the Israelites in their rejection of the God of Israel.

The Reviewer sneers contemptuously and repeatedly at Mr. Kinghorn, because he had said, "Mr. Jerram is a man of sense!" Not being able to find this expression in the pamphlet which had come under his review, I was at a loss to account for the grounds of his say ing, “Mr. Jerram owes Mr. Kinghorn a bow!" (P. 434.) At length I recollected, that this polite, but unfortunate phrase, was in the preface of Mr. Kinghorn's Defence of Baptism, a term of Communion, P. xxii. And I certainly could not help admiring the cautious manner in which the Reviewer had displayed his sense in taking only a short paragraph for the purpose of holding up Mr. Kinghorn to scorn and ridicule. Professing "to state the argument in Mr. Kinghorn's own words," he quotes from that preface, P. xxi. xxii. but spares himself the trouble of transcribing the application which Mr. Jerram had made of his argument: Why had he not taken the words which immediately followed; but this would have spoiled the pleasure he derived from sneering at the expression, "Mr. Jerram is a man of sense!" Such disingenuous conduct is matter for sincere lamentation!

For the use of those who may not have Mr. Kinghorn's Defence, &c. at hand, I will transcribe that part of the argument which the Reviewer has omitted. "The reason.

ing that can dispose of an institution of Christ by removing it from its primitive station, introduces so lax a principle, that no precept which we do not consider essential to salvation can stand its ground. If we are not bound to adhere to a positive appointment of Christ, which is confessedly permanent in its obligation, we in vain assert that it is of consequence to form a church according to the plan which Christ has furnished; for it may always be retorted, What avails your pleading scripture, when you reason away the authority of one of its plainest institutes? Mr. Jerram is a man of sense; he sees the advantage which is given them, and we doubt not he will use it."

What is there in this, I ask the Reviewer, that deserves his con tempt! Addressing the defender of Nonconformity, I would refer him to his own arguments, and use the language of Cowper:

"You laugh, 'tis well: the tale applied, Will make you laugh on t'other side!" The Reviewer is a man of sense, and he well knows that judicious churchmen will justify themselves in observing rites confessedly of human appointment, if nonconformists, who plead for the sufficiency of the scriptures alone as the directory for the church of Christ, reason away the authority of one of its plainest institutes:-and I hesitate not to affirm, that nothing is more plain in the New Testament than this, that Baptism, "in its primitive station," always preceded an admission to the Lord's Table.

The Reviewer is challenged to produce a proof, either from Mr. K-'s writings, or those of any other strict Baptist, that they have ever reasoned on the principles which he has imputed to them! He says, that to make Baptism a term of communion, is in effect to say, "If we have not a right to insist on