repealed? Is it this law of which the Reviewer says, "If it has not been formally abrogated, it has undergone a silent repeal?" Lest we should mistake his meaning, he explains it by saying, " It is quite evident that, since the time at which Baptism was appointed, some change in the state of Christ's household has taken place." from "the simplicity of Christ” in supposing, first, a state of things to have arisen "by the alterations in the circumstances of society," which would affect the law delivered by Christ, and, secondly, that Baptism was a circumstantial in the primitive practice," hazards a doubt. He says, "We doubt much whether the apostles ever inculcated that ordinance [church fellowship] on the unbaptized, or taught it as a duty, detached from the observance of the Supper." Judging solely from the scriptures, we have strong evidence that they did not: for they first inculcated upon disciples that they should be baptized, Acts ii. 38; and then those whom they baptized they admitted to their fellowship, or communion: v. 42. Nothing can be more plain than that, in this instance, Baptism preceded their admission to the Lord's Table: the same thing evidently took place in other cases, nor is there a single passage to be found that ever intimates a different order. The Reviewer may endeavour, by special pleading, to make out these statements. I challenge him, however, fairly to meet the question, Is the law of Baptism, as the first public act of homage to Christ, abrogated? Has this law undergone a silent repeal? What would the Reviewer think if a Papist were to say, that though Christ had said, respecting the use of the cup in the Lord's Supper, Drink ye all of it;' yet, in so far as this command referred to the laity, it had undergone a silent repeal? If the law of Christ, respecting Baptism as preceding communion, has undergone a repeal, however silently, what is to prevent the repeal of all his laws by similar The Reviewer evidently smarts means? He says, "Mr. Kinghorn under the lash of Mr. Kinghorn, for is obliged to concede there is no di- his having described the spirit of rection in the word of God that the strict Baptists towards open commuunbaptized should not partake of the nion churches, as "both intolerant Lord's Supper." Admirable reason- and malignant." He durst not ating this, especially in a Nonconform- tempt the proof from any circumist! "You must concede," says a stances that have recently taken Papist, "there is no direction in the place. The instances which he has word of God that bells, and horses, adduced are mere gratuitous stateand churches, should not be bap- ments without a shadow of evidence. tized!" "You must concede," says If he can produce evidence of any an Episcopalian, "there is no com- Baptist ministers, of the present mand in the word of God why a com- day, who "have suffered much municant should not kneel at the from the intolerance and unkindrails." To both of these the Re- ness of their strict communion viewer could make no reply: but to each of them a consistent Dissenter would say, What the scriptures do not command, cannot be urged as a matter of duty, and what they do not repeal we have no authority to declare abrogated. The Reviewer having departed brethren," let him do it. Who will believe, that could he have produced any such instances, he would have omitted to do it? He certainly ought to have made a candid con This passage is very obscure: the above is the only intelligible meaning I could give it. fession, that he had sinned by bear ing false witness against his neighbour; but instead of this, he goes back a hundred and fifty years, and says in effect, "Though I cannot convict Mr. Kinghorn of shewing a spirit intolerant and malignant towards Mr. Hall, I can produce good and substantial evidence, that Danvers, and Denne, and others, did so towards John Bunyan!" This is as good reasoning as if a high Churchman should charge Dissenters with holding rebellious principles, be. cause, by some means or other, Charles I. was brought to the block; or as if, at some future period, a Baptist writer, in proof of the into lerant and malignant "spirit of the Independents towards Baptists, especially towards strict-communion Baptists, were to adduce the Eclectic Review for May and June, 1825; and were to refer to the manner in which Mr. Kinghorn was there treated, merely on account of his having acted, in regard to communion, upon the principles which the Reviewer had himself defended in a work on Nonconformity!" One would have hoped that the spirit of the following passage from Mr. Kinghorn's pamphlet, would have prevented the Reviewer from showing such a spirit as he has done. "When we are told," says Mr. Kinghorn," that the spirit of our cause is intolerant and malignant, we do not design to retaliate; we will not return our accusers railing for railing; we say, Let them alone. We cannot consider the Eclectic Reviewer as having unfortunately printed what he afterwards regretted; he has reiterated his charge: he has endeavoured to fence it by authority, which we have examined; he has in substance excused himself by alledging that Mr. Hall said stronger things than he has said; and then he considers his point to be proved, that the spirit of the cause is both intolerant and malignant! Mr. Hall, with all his violence and acrimony, never went this length." It is most amazing effrontery in the Reviewer, to say, "It is our firm persuasion that the grand argument for strict communion, in the view of the majority of its abettors, is expediency, and expediency only." We must leave it to the public to judge, whether this has ever been employed as an argument at all, much less, as "the grand argument!" The strict Baptists say, "Whatever is right is wise!" They consider it right to obey strictly the order prescribed by the New Testament for the discipline of their churches, not doubting but the results, as to their purity and peace and increase, with prove the wisdom of their conduct. The Reviewer speaks feelingly" on an instance which came to our knowledge very recently," which he thinks justifies the above assertion. I am satisfied that the church referred to considered it right to adhere to their original constitution, and therefore opposed their pastor, who had attempted, without even consulting the deacons, to subvert it! Opposing most decidedly the doctrine of expedience when a positive institution is in question, yet if non-admission to christian communion could ever be justified on that ground, it would have been in this case, where the Pædobaptist, who applied for admission, had just before most publicly aspersed and grossly misrepresented the principles of the church which he wished to enter, and some of the most respectable ministers of the Baptist denomination.-Surely the Reviewer must admit the "very recent instance" would justify it, even though he himself were the person alluded to! I now leave the matter to the candid and serious consideration of the Considerations addressed to the Eclectic Reviewer, p. 27. reader, and most heartily coincide with the Reviewer in saying, "The simple question to be determined is, What is the law of Christ? and that being ascertained, it is the duty, as well of churches as individuals, to adhere to it, at the hazard of any apprehended consequences." If the New Testament plainly declares it to be his will that all his disciples should be baptized, and as plainly proves, that no unbaptized person was ever admitted into the primitive churches, then let ministers and churches be determined to regard his authority, and to imitate his apostles, that thus "the ordinances may be still kept as they were at first delivered." It is a good remark of the excellent Dr. Owen, in his Commentary on Heb. xiii. 10. "Herein lies the safety of all believers and of all churches; namely, to keep them selves precisely to the first complete revelation of divine truth in the word of God, let men pretend what they will, and bluster while they please: in an adherence to this principle we are safe; and if we depart from it, we shall be carried about through innumerable uncertainties into ruin." To conclude:-In his number for May, the Reviewer informs us, that in certain cases he would not object to join the communion of the establishment; and in his number for June, that Baptism is repealed! It will be recollected, that the defenders of strict communion have always asserted that their opponents must eventually acknowledge such consequences, and the Reviewer has been compelled to confess that he cannot avoid them. A STRICT BAPTIST. Baptists' Register of Births. To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. SIR, worthy of insertion in the last month's Magazine, I now continue the subject by proposing to your notice, secondly, what I consider the proper means for removing the grievance under consideration. This I must confess to be the most difficult, as it is much easier to point out evils, than to suggest a remedy for them. However, it seems to me that this part of the subject involves two considerations. The first, In what manner the Registers already in existence should be treated? and the second, What should be the course adopted respecting future Registers ? As to the first; I do not know what hope can be entertained of the legislature doing more than pointing out, how, and where, they should be preserved, and the degree of credit which should be attached to them. For certain purposes they might perhaps be declared as suthcient evidence, and to that extent, I do not think it would be unreason able to anticipate a compliance. But the second, and most important question is, What should be the course adopted respecting future Registers ? Would there be any objection on the part of the Baptists to an application being made to the legislature, to allow them to have the births of their children registered by the clergyman at the church of the parish wherein they take place, (a proper fee being paid him for his trouble in so doing,) and that such Register should be made on the production of an affidavit,* sworn by one witness or more present on the occasion of the birth and also, that it should be as compulsory on the clergyman so to do, as it is to register Baptisms administered according to the rites of the Church of England. It does This kind of evidence has been recognised by the legislature in the case of As you have thought my letter burials; for, by the 30th, C. II. c. 3, for not appear to me that the Baptists would act at all inconsistently with their principles, in asking for such enactments as these. There is no objection on the part of Dissenters generally, to being married at the Church of England, and according to its service, it being looked upon in the light of a civil institution. Why then should an objection be made to registering the births of their children in a way, which must be considered as merely a political, and not a religious regulation? If, however, this should be seriously objected to, perhaps the legislature would pass an act, recognising Dr. Williams's Library as a public depository, and alter the mode of registering conformable to the plan above suggested, or in such other way as may be thought most advisable. That there would be a disposition on the part of the government to afford relief to the Dissenters, on this subject there can be no doubt. The times are too liberal, as is also the government, to allow Dissenters being placed on a different footing respecting what are unquestionably burying in woollen, it is enacted that the ministers of every parish shall keep a Register in a book, to be provided at the charge of the parish, and make a true entry of all burials within his parish, and of all affidavits of persons being buried in woollen brought unto him according to the said act. their civil rights, from the rest of the community. The above I should think would meet the case; but of course not any thing should be done without mature reflection. For which purpose I should propose, that any Gentleman who would be willing to enter into the consideration of this subject, should send a letter, directed to the Editor of the Baptist Magazine, (I presume, Sir, you have no objection to be named for that purpose,) and when a sufficient number shall have expressed their willingness to afford assistance, then, that a private meeting of them shall be called. I have no objection to undertake the task of convening it, and I send you my address that you may kuow on whom to depend. After a plan has been matured, it will be prudent and desirable to confer with the Society for the Protection of Religious Liberty, and also with the Deputies, as undoubtedly a simultaneous movement by the whole body of Dissenters, would have more weight than that of a part only. If the legislature should object to grant assistance, we must then consider what we can do for ourselves; but, for my part, I cannot anticipate a refusal. I am, Sir, Your obedient servant, A Baptist, registered at Dr. Williams's Library. Miscellanea. MENNONITES. LETTER, No. VIII. Medeblik Sept. 29, 1820. IMMEDIATELY after my arrival here, I sought out the Mennonite Baptist minister, a Mr. Engel. He was out when I first called, but an hour afterwards I found him in. I told him the message I had come upon, and asked him if he had received the Circular. He had not, so that all was strange to bim at first. I then put one into his hand, which he read, and we afterwards went into a conversation about the Mission. Though not versed in such subjects much, he soon comprehended the nature of my business, and the aims of the Society, and thought them deserving of support; though he said, the Missionary spirit in Medeblik, if ever there had been any, had departed, along with a minister of the reformed church, lately deceased. In his life. time a kind of Missionary Prayermeeting was kept afloat, but had now sunk entirely into disuse: people began, however, to talk of reviving it. Engel mentioned the object of my journey, which gave rise to a good deal of conversation; after which, one of the members rose, and read a piece in prose, of his own composing, for the amusement of the rest. It contained a moral, and was drawn up with much good sense. After him rose another, who read a piece of poetry, also of his own production. Between the readings, there was conversation, bearing chiefly upon the pieces read. Such societies are pretty general in Holland; their object seems to be, a more rational way of amusement than common. Religion and politics are subjects not allowed to be brought forward. Medeblik is a naval port, and it would have been interesting for me to look through a naval establishment of a country, which once swayed the sceptre of the seas; but I had to set off next morning for the Helder, whence I hope soon to write you. Till then, I am, &c. W. H. A. Illustrations of the sacred No. VIII. PSALM XXXVI. 9. "In thy light shall we see light." Mr. Engel's pastoral charge is but inconsiderable as to numbers; probably not exceeding twenty to twentyfive members. There are, however, several small interests in the neighbourhood, and one at a place they call Twisk, rather large. This latter I made an arrangement with Mr. Engel to visit; the distance we had to go was about three miles. After a pleasant walk across the fields, we were fortu. nate enough to find Mr. Van der Hoek at home, who is the pastor of the church at Twisk. He was on the move, to go out, with one of his deacons, on a religious visit; a practice kept up pretty generally among the Baptists on the Continent, especially in country parts. Familiar These visits are made a short time previous to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, which, on the Continent, in most parts, is administered but four times a year. Mr. Van der Hoek and his friend, sat down again, and gave us their company for about an hour. As this was the first time of his ever hearing of the Mission, or of the English Baptists, he listened with the more curiosity, to what he now heard of both. He appeared to take au interest in what I detailed respecting the Mission, thanked me for the Circulars I put into his and his deacon's hands, and said he was only sorry that he was, by appointment, obliged to leave our company, and the subject. We passed about, another hour with the family, who had many questions to ask about England, and then returned to Medeblik. On our way, Mr. Engel said, he had that evening to attend a Society of which he was a member, and would be glad, I conif agreeable, to introduce me. sented, and we went. The company was not large, but respectable and mixed. Among others, I observed a naval officer. On introducing me, Mr. This clause is a philosophical truth. God, like the sun, says Bishop Horne, cannot be seen, but by the light which The Psalmist elsehimself emits. where more expressly compares the Zech. xiii. 7. "Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow [equal] saith the LORD of hosts." |