practice" superstitious and erroneous," I shall not charge him with acting wickedly; but if he do think so, (and if he be a bona fide Dissenter, he must necessarily be of that opinion,) then does he not, by his conduct, condemn himself in the thing which he alloweth? And as to his "communing with an episcopal church, not furnishing any ground for the charge of apostacy," I should admit it is possible it may not prove him to be an apostate absolutely from religion, though trifling with conscience is an awful proof of a heart unsanctified; yet it would certainly prove that he had apostatized from his principles as a Dissenter. Is it not apostacy from the principle that Christ is the sole head of the church, if he sanction, by his conduct, human authority in religion? Is it not apostacy if he admit that the church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies; and if by his conduct he submit to the power which has imposed upon all the communicants at her altar, that they shall do what Christ has not commanded, and receive the Lord's Supper in a way which is evidently part of the corruptions of the Antichristian church of Rome, and which, if it be admitted to be neither "superstitious nor erroneous," would justify Papists in retaining all, and Protestants in return ing to the observance of all the rest of her erroneous and superstitious practices?

The Reviewer has made a great parade, and has used great swelling words to prove, that many reasons besides those that have been mentioned, would lead him to prefer a Dissenting church; but the simple question for him to answer is, whether it is not impossible for him, as Mr. Hall has stated, "as a Protestant Dissenter, without manifest inconsistency, to become a member of the Established Church?" which,

66

by his communing at the Lord'stable, he would virtually, according to Mr. Hall's reasoning, declare himself to be? "I have no objection, Sir," said a Deacon of a strict Baptist Church, to partake of the Lord's Supper with an evangelical minister and pious people in the Established Church;" to whom his pastor replied, "Do so, Sir, if you think it right; but then, do not any longer call yourself a Dissenter." Such a practice is so manifestly inconsistent," that I should not expect, even the "Eclectic Reviewer," (for "Eclectics are not latitudinarians," !!* would ever again attempt to prove its propriety, much less its consistency, even "were he to be placed in a foreign land, and had no other way of giving proof of his catholicism!" It requires the fullest exercise of charity to believe him when he says, (for he well knows the principles of Nonconformity,) "Such an act would leave him, according to his own judgment, in the consistent possession of all the reasons on which he is satisfied to rest his separation from the Establishment!!"

As if feeling that his flimsy reasoning wanted something besides his ipse dixit to justify his statements, he calls in to his aid "the Puritans and ejected ministers," who, he says, "held, for the most part, the lawfulness of communion with the very church that had excommunicated them, and was still persecuting them."-" It is certain," he remarks, that "such as Manton, Baxter, Alleine, and Howe,"-" ought to have known the grounds of Nonconformity, seeing they suffered on that account the loss of all things." They certainly knew why they objected to the Act of Uniformity; they could

* Page 222.

men

not conscientiously give their assent and consent to every thing contained in the Book of Common Prayer; they could not, as Presbyterian ministers, who considered their ordination jure Divino, consent to acknowledge they had only pretended holy orders, and submit to receive episcopal ordination as essential to their being invested with the ministerial character and functions. That they were in the habit of occasional conformity, and by their example encouraged their rich members, (for the sake, probably, of retaining offices of magistracy,) is a fact written in characters too large and too plain, especially in the history of Queen Anne, to be overlooked or forgotten! But will the Eclectic Reviewer undertake to prove that the venerable ministers he has named, were, in the legitimate sense of that term, Protestant Dissenters? He knows they pleaded for the divine right of tithes as much as the Episcopalians had done; that they had no objection to the civil magistrate's being the head of the church; and that they were quite as intolerant towards the Independents and Baptists," the Dissenting brethren," as their predecessors the bishops had been; or as their successors, the same order of Bishops, were towards them after their being ejected from the parish livings. Unless they had held the distinguishing principle of Dissent, as to the sole Headship of Christ in his Church, they could not feel as Dissenters respecting communion with the Established Church. All, then, that, the Reviewer has quoted from the celebrated John Howe goes for nothing: and he must, as a Dissenter, have been hard pinched to be obliged to call a host of Presbyterians to come to his help.

I cannot believe that the Reviewer is so badly acquainted with the true grounds of Dissent from

churches endowed by, and in alliance with, the state, as seriously to think the practice of Nonconform. ists in the reign of Charles the Se cond, respecting communion with the Church of England, an example for our guidance and imitation. The true grounds of Dissent were, at that time, by the Presbyterians very imperfectly understood. The Reviewer knows this. But he will run into the church, or any where else, to escape from the arguments of the strict Baptists. Let him alone, however, a while: after he has put out his head to see whether his adversary is gone, one would charitably hope that he will, in that case, come out of his sanctuary, and that his tergiversation will cease, at least until he is again obliged to retreat from the attack of a strict-communion Baptist. When arguing with strict communionists, he symbolizes with the Church of England: but when arguing against the Church, he will be a consistent Dissenter. In the same manner Stillingfleet and others argued like Dissenters against the Catholics, but like Catholics against the Dissenters.

It is difficult to perceive why the Reviewer should have given the long quotation from Dr. Owen, (p. 446,) an Independent, Does not that quotation prove that, in the opinion of Dr. Owen, the very constitution of the Church of England, imposing upon its members an observation of all its ceremonies, rendered it “impossible, without manifest inconsistency," for a Dissenter to commune at its altar, even though, by refusing so to do, he should be subject to the charge of schism?

The Reviewer, in speaking of "the principles on which the Nonconformists of those days rested the necessity and lawfulness of their separation from the Church of England," confounds the Independents, or Congregationalists, with the Pres

byterians. It is not true of the former of these bodies of Dissenters, that "they had no objection to receive the sacrament, according to the forms of the Church;" or that they" did not, for the most part, object to the use of the Liturgy, but only its imposition, exclusively of all other devotional exercises." (Page 441.) The Reviewer, by applying observations to all the Nonconformists, which are only properly applicable to the Presbyterians of that period, has thrown dust in the eyes of his readers, and prevented them from clearly discovering the history of the times. He knows very well that the Independents objected to the whole frame of the establishment; and that had the parish churches been filled with the Baxters and Howes, the Owens and Flavels, the Bates's and Charnocks," it would not have prevented them from forming churches, over which the civil magistrate could have no right to exercise his authority. He very well knows, too, were the [orthodox]" established clergy, and the [evangelical] dissenting ministers in general to exchange their strain of preaching and their manner of living for one year," that though it might “ruin the cause"* of Dissent as to the Dissenting congregations, yet the principles of Dissent would remain precisely the same as when the Baptists and Independents first founded their respective churches: a period long before what he speaks of as the era of Nonconformity.

The fact is, the Reviewer is evidently prepared, should his lot be cast where there is an evangelical pious minister in the Established Church, and no Dissenting minister of similar sentiments and character, to become an attendant on the liturgical services of the Establishment, and a communicant kneeling at her

Page 442.

altar! While he places the ground of his dissent upon circumstances, and not upon principles, he cannot be considered as a bona fide Dissenter; and whether he admit it or not, he is in fact an apostate from the principles which recognize Jesus Christ as the only lawgiver in his church; the New Testament is the alone and all-sufficient code of Divine law;-and the inalienable rights of conscience and of free inquiry.

In his zeal to expose what he calls "the utter confusion of ideas which seems to prevail in the mind" of Mr. Kinghorn on the subject of Nonconformity; as if," he adds, "the nonconformity of the Baptists had no other object than to uphold the doc. trine and practice of immersion," he quotes from Mr. Kinghorn's pamphlet the following remark: "If we dispense with an acknowledged institution of Christ, for the sake of admitting those who do not believe it is their duty to obey it, how can we plead that we forsake the Established forms of religion for the sake of adhering to the plan of the New Testament?" The Reviewer calls this " a gross misrepresentation," and says, "There are no Christians who do not believe it to be their duty to obey an acknowledged institution of Christ."+ Mr. Kinghorn's argument is very plain, when not confused by false inferences. "Baptism," he says, "is an acknowledged institution of Christ." Will the Reviewer deny it? "There are those," he adds, "who do not believe it is their duty to obey it?". Will he deny this? Mr. Kinghorn then inquires, Whether those who would dispense with Baptism as a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, could consistently plead their adherence to the plan of the New Testament as the ground of their separation from the Establish

+ Page 445.

ed forms of religion? He evidently states it as his opinion, that a rigid regard to the plan of New Testament discipline, demands that "Baptism should precede communion;" and that those Dissenters who admit this sentiment cannot,

without manifest inconsistency, justify their separation from the Establishment, because ceremonies are imposed by its ritual, which are not supported by the authority of Christ, and the practice of his apostles. The Reviewer calls this "a meagre exposition of the Dissenter's plea." What is an implicit adherence to the New Testament "the notion" merely of Mr. Kinghorn, or of strict Baptists? Is it not a full exposition of the principles of all consistent Dissenters? And however the Reviewer may taunt, and use sarcasms on the subject, it is confessedly, according to the history of the New Testament, that no unbaptized persons were admitted to communion: a position this which he does not attempt to disprove; and yet without disproving it, he can assign no sufficient reasons, as a Dissenter, why it should not still be the universal practice of all the churches of Christ. I now fearlessly leave it to the good sense of the reader to decide on the truth or error of the Reviewer's declaration; viz. "The Act of Uniformity, and the uniformity contended for by Mr. Kinghorn, both involve the same principle-the making HUMAN OPINIONS the conditions of church communion!" (Page 445.)

A STRICT BAPTIST. (To be continued.)

The Death of a great and good Man lamented and improved.

ACTS viii. 2. "And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.”

Holy and eminent men have not unfrequently been removed into eternity, at a time when their continuance in this world appeared of great importance. Stephen was full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and thus was peculiarly qualified for his office as a deacon of the church at Jerusalem, and for his work as an evangelist. The church at this period was suffering a most violent persecution, and the friends of the cause of Christ were driven into corners: but this faithful servant, endowed with a spirit of holy resolution, undauntedly stood his ground. And yet in the midst of his days, and of his labours, he fell a martyr to the cause of his Redeemer.

In the closing scene of our late venerable friend, we are not, however, called to witness a removal thus apparently premature and violent. Called by divine grace at an early period, he was spared to labour in his Lord's vineyard for more than half a century. His sphere of exertion was large, and his zeal and capacity were happily proportionate to the demands made upon both. A society was to be originated by himself and two or three of his brethren, which would require prudence, fidelity, disinterestedness, piety, and perseverance, in no ordinary degree. And with these qualifications, our highly honoured friend and his brethren, were eminently favoured; indulged also to continue their exer

cise till others had grown up around them who could enter into their labours.

When God designs to commence a work of singular importance, agents with extraordinary endowments are raised up. When the church of God was to be aroused from the slumbers of death, and the enemies of Christianity were to be put to shame, a Wickliff, a Luther, and a Melancthon, were prepared for the work. Nor was it much otherwise in the originating of Missionary undertakings before referred to. At this period, our Pædobaptist friends, both in the Establishment, and out of it, were at rest; and but very few stirred in this important department of labour. Against the formation of societies to attempt the conversion of the heathen, some cherished unreasonable prejudices; and others stood aloof viewing such an experiment with apprehension. But Carey, Ryland, Fuller, Sutcliff, and Pearce, came forward to the help of the Lord against the mighty. He whose death the denomination to which he belonged now laments, stood forward, fearless and undismayed, among the first and most devoted friends of the benighted heathen, Nor was he ever moved from his holy purpose. To the honour of divine grace, it will be told by thousands, that, for thirty-three years, he never ceased to put forth all the energies of his soul in this glorious enterprise.

Of the superintendance of the academy, over which he so ably presided for upwards of thirty-one years, I shall forbear to speak. His tender and affectionate treatment to his pupils, his unremitting diligence in instructing, admonishing, and animating them in their important pursuits, I doubt not but we shall, ere long, receive the most interesting information.

The removal of men so holy and

so eminent, ought to be regarded with sentiments of grief. An insensibility to the death of pious men was severely censured by the prophet Isaiah, as a proof of hardness of heart, and a stupid indifference to the prosperity of true religion. "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart; and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come." Isa. lvii. 1. The existing state of things among men, absolutely forbids the idea of a truly pious man being useless. However contracted the sphere he occupies, however limited his powers for labour, yet his example, his prayers, his spirit, render him a very important addition to the number of present mercies. But when, as in the instance before us, talent for extensive usefulness has been imparted, and such talent has been associated with unequivocal and ardent piety, then is death to be regarded as no common affliction. Indeed, in earlier days, the removal of such persons to a better world, was not unfrequently a signal of the ap proach of the most overwhelming calamities. In this light, however, we are not now called upon to contemplate the death of men, illustrious for their benevolence, piety, and labours for God. In other respects scarcely less painful, however, do we witness their removal.

Such happy and honoured individuals have, for a long series of years, cultivated with abundant success a large portion of the moral waste around them. They have borne the heat and burden of the day; they have scattered abroad the precious seed, have watered it with their tears, and have importunately solicited the Sun of righteousness to shine upon it; that it might spring up and bear fruit, even an hundred fold. These are the men whose locks have been wet with the