this add to their guilt? Or do you say, by Christ, which was the sense in which let them remain where they are, till we explained them. It is with pleasure they are convinced? Is this your deci- we insert his own report of that part of sion? Shall the majority of true chris- his address, because while it calls attentians be numbered no longer with the tion to a question as to the teaching of saints? Shall men who have cast them- scripture, which we all feel to be imselves upon the Saviour, who love him portant, it presents his own views reswith all the love of which their hearts are pecting it in a form which he himself capable, who whisper his name in their approves. closets, and desire to honour it before His remarks on a desire for the admen as the only name by which they vancement of truth we cordially adopt, can be saved, shall these men be ex-with the exception that we do not see cluded from the body of believers be- how a christian can rejoice in the procause they have studied the scriptures gress of anything as truth, which he less correctly than you, or differ from does not himself deem to be so. If you on one point? Is it not the perfec- thoroughly convinced that the views he tion of the church when all who are in entertains are truth, he cannot rejoice it are christians, and when all christians in the progress of truth without necesare in it? when all professors are as sarily rejoicing in the progress of his they appear and all christians appear own opinions; but his pleasure, it is as they are; when the visible church true, is not the more on that account the includes the whole body of the faithful mere "petty self-satisfaction" of rejoicon earth? This perfection your scheme ing in their progress because they are destroys. It frees christians from an im- his opinions. He who should rejoice portant duty, robs them of incalculable in the progress of anything which he privilege, and may end in its being said that the holiest men on earth are identified not with the church but with the world. "I rejoice then that this church is not in the common sense a Baptist church. And yet feeling most deeply the importance of scriptural views of believers' baptism, and believing that I can trace to Pædobaptism very many of the prevalent evils of the church, that it is in truth the germ of which Popery itself is the fruit, I cannot but say that I trust it will ever be a church of baptized believers.' 66 We of did not believe to be truth, would have a satisfaction which, whether "petty" or "selfish," would certainly not be christian, and as we cannot judge whether truth makes progress or not, except as we have some opinion what truth is, it seems to be somewhat contradictory to speak of rejoicing in "the progress of truth," as distinguished from the progress of opinions we deem true." can all however rejoice in the progress whatever tends to reveal truth, we can rejoice in the free examination and discussion of it, in an unreserved appeal to the Bible as the only depository of it, in the progress of a spirit of deep devoAlthough the abstract of our esteemed tedness, and of earnest prayer that we brother's address given in the Patriot may discern and follow it. In these was brief, the statement on which we things even those who differ, on any chiefly remarked, viz. that the church at point, as to what the truth is, can unitHigh Wycombe, would be "a christian edly rejoice. in distinction from a baptist church," After quoting various passages to was there put in inverted commas to prove that the members of the first intimate that these were the very words churches were "born of God," and that he used; and being so distinguished," the persons added to them were few as they are, they will probably those who were being saved," our brobe thought to have been quite suffi-ther says, "This then is the New Testacient "to be made the basis of en- ment church. And such this church lightened criticism.” We understand [at High Wycombe] is intended to be. our brother's note however, to deny that A Baptist church it is not. A christian he used these words, or meant that a church of baptized believers I hope it baptist church differs from a christian will ever be." The intention to make church," that is, a church as constituted this church "such" as the New Testa 66 baptized. But our brother concedes that these churches were all "composed of baptized members," and if so it is clear that their membership must have been dated from after their baptism, and not from the time of the recognition of faith. His own concession, therefore, disproves the very thing our brother had to prove. That this concession is required by scripture is fully evident from the fact that all the members of these churches are uniformly referred to as having been baptized, and not as some of them having been, and others being about to be so. See Rom. vi. 5; Col. ii. 12. This concession is, therefore, in itself, a very strong argument against the position to be proved. ment Churches were, is an acknowledgment that it ought to be such as they were. This is conceded, then, on both sides. Secondly, it is stated that this new church is not a baptist church, that is, not one in which "baptism is essential to membership," and as it is affirmed that this is "such" a church as the New Testament churches were, it is affirmed also that the New Testament churches were not baptist churches, that is, not churches in which baptism was essential to membership. Our brother does not deny that "all members of the primitive churches were baptized;" he even expresses a "hope" that all the mem-1 Cor. x. 2, 6; xii. 13; Gal. iii. 27, 28; bers of this church will ever be baptized believers, that is, "christians who have each felt the profession of faith by baptism to be Christ's ordinance, and have therefore observed it." This hope, therefore, connected with the expressed intention to make the church "such" as the New Testament churches were, is equal to an affirmation that they all consisted of baptized believers, that is, that all persons who were received into them had been immersed before they were received; for if a person had been received into one of these churches only an hour before he was baptized, during that hour, at least, it would not have been "composed of baptized believers," as our brother admits they all were. He affirms, however, that to constitute a christian church, "such" as these were, "the possession of true faith is alone essential." He affirms it, and therefore he is bound to prove it. How difficult his task is may be easily seen from a view of the position he has taken. It is admitted on both sides that all who in the time of the apostles gave evidence of possessing true faith, were very shortly afterwards baptized, but still there was a time, even then, though baptism followed so quickly the recognition of faith, during which a believer was recognised as a believer, and yet had not been baptized. Now, if faith was "alone essential" to church fellowship, that membership must have been dated, not from the time of baptism, but of the recognition of faith, and the churches would have been composed partly of recognised believers who had been baptized, and partly of recognized believers who were about to be What however is the proof adduced to shew that true faith alone is essential to church membership? Astonishing as it appears, it will be found that this proposition is treated as if it were identical with the statement that "the church of Christ is a spiritual association of men converted by divine grace," an association of believers." Evidence is adduced to prove that faith is essential to membership, and then treated as if it proved that faith only is essential to membership. The first proposition is not for a moment disputed, but it is self-evident that this proposition differs entirely from the latter. It is admitted that the passages quoted do "support the conclusion," that conversion was necessary to church membership. But to infer from this that nothing else was essential is the same as arguing that because a man is a biped, every biped is a man; or that because he is an animal, every animal is a man. A man has two feet, but for a being which has two feet to be a man it must have every attribute which is essential to constitute a man. Our brother affirms that faith only was essential to admission into the first churches, but he has done nothing to prove it, and, therefore, till proof is given, his position must be treated as untenable. He does, however, prove that faith was one of the essentials of membership, and does so by quoting passages in which those who were added to the church are described as 66 being saved," and in which those who were members of churches are said to be "spiritual stones," "sanctified in churches do not need to be" such" in one Christ," &c. He argues that if all who thing, they need not in another, and were admitted, and all who were mem- then, not even faith will be necessary bers are described as believers, faith must to membership. A church or assembly have been essential to membership. But, of Christ is distinguished from other as he acknowledges, all the members of assemblies by this single fact that it is the first churches were baptized. Those constituted according to his will. A who were added to them are mentioned society not so constituted may be a socias being first baptized, and all who were ety of christian men, but it cannot, in members of them are spoken of as hav- the very nature of things, be strictly a ing been baptized: if, therefore, the evi-church of Christ. The argument that dence adduced by him proves that faith a principle must be false which may was essential to church membership, possibly prove those who use it to have baptism was so too, for the evidence of been mistaken in some of their convicboth positions is precisely the same. If tions, will have no weight whatever with persons may be admitted before they those who love truth more than party, are baptized, they may also be admitted and it reflects little honour on any cause before they believe. when it is so feeble as to need the help "The members of the first churches," of the doubt which it conveys. If the says our brother, "were distinguished first churches had each_several pastors, by their faith. Other things there were or teachers, as our Scotch brethren peculiar to them, but this was their justly contend, surely we cannot follow grand peculiarity.' Let it be admitted a better guide than the infinite wisdom that this was their grand peculiarity, which appointed them. But as some yet if other things were also peculiar to churches existed for a while without them, they were distinguished by these any pastors at all, neither the having of as well as by faith, and he who inten- a number of pastors, nor even of one, is tionally sets aside anything which was essential to the existence of a church. a distinctive peculiarity of the first Acts xiv. 22, 23. The same remark applies churches, while he admits that churches to weekly collections. As to its being said ought to be now "such" as they were with "much reason"that the first churches then, makes himself a transgressor. A had "no paid ministry," we so widely body distinguished from others by only differ from our brother that we wonder one peculiarity, is not similar to a body much that he should have forgotten distinguished from others by several that there were then both preachers and peculiarities, although that one be in- pastors, who received pecuniary aid, and cluded. A church of which the only that too by divine law, though it is by distinctive peculiarity is faith, is cer- no means evident that pastors in gentainly not "such" as the apostolic eral were wholly supported. If our churches were, if, as our brother states, brother believes that these Scotch friends they had other distinctive peculiarities, are right on these points, and nevertheand among them this, that all their mem- less adduces the neglect of them by bers had been baptized. English churches as an argument for The next attempt to make it "plain" neglecting other established rules of the that faith alone is essential to church first churches, his argument is like that membership, is by setting forth the con- of a tempter who should suggest that sequences of requiring as essential to as a man indulges in one sin, he need it now, every thing which was so in the not be nice in indulging another, espetime of the apostles. What, it is asked, cially as our brother himself acknowif the strict baptist churches of England ledges that churches ought to be "such" should themselves be thus proved to be now as they were at first. without a divine constitution? What! Another conclusion which our brother admit that even they may err? Yes, professes to draw from the rule that as undoubtedly, and if they wish, like bro- those who were received into the first ther Angus, to shew that their churches churches were baptized, such only are "such" as the New Testament should be received now, is, that if so, all churches were, they must of necessity primitive christians having been bapamend any inconsistency. But if our tized, no unbaptized person now is a VOL. III.-NO. XXV. D christian. But if this follows from our rule it follows equally from our brother's rule, for it is because those who constituted the first churches were believers, that he argues believers only should be received now, and therefore he has reason to be glad his startling conclusion does not follow. The reason why it is held that churches are bound to act now as churches did at first, is that the law which governs them is unchangeable, so that what was duty then is duty still. The circumstances, however, which rendered it impossible for a person to be a child of God then, without wishing to be baptized, have, as a matter of fact, so changed, that all agree there are children of God who do not submit to it. But the obligation to obey God changes not. Laws made for all time, are to be obeyed in all time. No change of circumstances can authorise disobedience, and as that which is changeable can be no rule for that which changes not, it is strange that so good a logician should argue from one to the other as if they were the same. It is like saying that because God would not be God if he changed, that therefore man would not be man if he were liable to change. Another conclusion drawn from the rule already mentioned is, that it represents the greater part of professed churches as unscriptural associations. Now if faith is indispensable to membership, this is as true on brother Angus's principles as on our own, for the great majority of churches receive infants as church-members. But men's errors do not alter God's law. The fact that all good men sin, does not prove that they are justified in sinning. Suppose the pope to say, "The principles of these petty protestant churches unchurch our vast catholic community; shall we endure such presumption as this?" Would he thus prove that protestants are wrong? Such arguments address themselves to the voice of the multitude as the voice of God; they appeal to popular favour, not to divine truth; they reverse the great axiom, "let God be true, and every man a liar :" Rom. iii. 4. The consciences of others are their rule, and if we cannot with a good conscience join with them in what they do, they are still right in acting according to their own conviction of God's will, although they are wrong in forming such a judgment of it. Our brother asks in an upbraiding tone, "Will you be consistent, and forbid christians to pray and be thankful unless they first be baptized?" Consistent! on what principle of consistency can we be called on to do this? Did not all God's children pray and praise in the time of the apostles before they were baptized and added to the church, as well as afterwards? Were not all who were "being saved," such as had already called on the name of the Lord? If we maintained that because all the members of the church at Colosse prayed, and had been baptized, no one ought to pray but those who were baptized, the conclusion would, indeed, be most preposterous. We might as well maintain that because they all ate, drank, slept, and walked, no one should do these until he had been baptized. But what strict baptist ever maintained that if a thing was done by a church member, it ought not to be done by any one else? Our principle is that what God required as essential to church-membership at first, is essential to it still; that we are bound to obey him, though the whole world should be against us; and that as all who were added to the first churches were baptized, so all ought to be now. We never maintain that because another 66 cannot see it right to do in one particular as we do," therefore he is not to do that or anything else which he thinks right, in the way he thinks it right to do them but we do maintain that we ought not to deviate from our views of God's will to help him to do what he thinks right, but we think wrong. If opencommunion bring false witnesses to concondemn us, the natural conclusion is, that it cannot bring true. do not As to those who differ from us, we say, let them act according to their own convictions, for though we view them as acting rightly, they are bound to act as they think right; we have no wish to make our consciences the rule of their actions, we only claim the right to make them the rule of our own. Before our brother charges mischief upon our simple principle of conformity to the will of God as proved by the practice of the first churches, and in the very same way that he himself surely cannot "hope" it, and if he canproves faith to be necessary to member- not hope it, he ought not even to wish ship, he is bound both to renounce according to his principles, that the his own argument, and to disprove his church may consist solely of baptized own concession. For otherwise he lays believers. He ought rather to join at the evil of men's errors at the door of once with the Plymouth Brethren in God's ordinance, and transfers their endeavouring to unite all christians, with guilt to Him. If faith alone is neces- all their existing varieties of sentiment sary to church membership, every in- and practice, into one body, in which consistency and heresy which can pos- faith is alone essential to membership. sibly occur in a believer, must be tole- The joy which our brother expresses rated, and to this extent church disci- that this church is not a baptist church, pline must be abandoned. What the shews how earnestly he wishes that all result of this is likely to be it is not diffi- baptist churches may soon cease to cult to decide. exist. But this is a wish which in the Although our brother rejoices that nature of things must be common to this is not a baptist church, he never-every consistent advocate of open-comtheless " hopes" that it will ever be a munion. church of baptized believers. Is this either reasonable or consistent? On what ground can he "hope," that is, "live in expectation" that this will always be a church of baptists, although it is so formed as to invite others to join it. He may wish that all who apply may first feel it right to be baptized, but he We have been the more particular in noticing the contents of this address from a conviction that if a brother so able, has entirely failed in proving the point he defends, it must be obvious that it is owing not to any want of ability to defend it, but because the position itself is incapable of defence.-ED.] Reviews. Works of the English Puritan Divines.-| day. We are too abstract. We say and we BUNYAN.-The Jerusalem sinner saved; hear far too little of truth in its vital The Pharisee and the Publican, &c., to which is appended An exhortation to peace and unity. With life of Bunyan by REV. JAMES HAMILTON, of the Scotch church, Regent-square, London. Pp. 344, T. Nelson, London. This volume is one of the steps of an enterprise of astonishing boldness, even in an age so remarkable for cheap literature as the present, and yet in style and appearance there is nothing in the volume to suggest that it is the least less costly than other publications. An immense sale will be necessary to repay the deserving publisher, and most heartily do we wish him all he needs. A better selection could scarcely have been made for one of the first volumes. The writings of Bunyan are peculiarly adapted to supply one of the great deficiencies of the energy, of the conflicts and emotions with which it fills the soul; of the warfare with Satan and the victories of grace. Some speak of the "philosophy" of religion, but far too little is said of the heart-beatings and hopes, the mid-day brightness, and the passing clouds, the deep emotions, the strong consolations, and the wondrous deliverances of a christian's life. But in these Bunyan's page abounds. He preached and wrote not about the mere letter of the word, but the word in its power and effects. Mr. Hamilton himself in part a Bunyan for interest of style, was well selected to sketch his life. The "Exhortation to peace and unity," is preceded by a note stating that though it appears in nearly all collected editions of Bunyan's works, Mr. Phillip, in his "Life and times of Bunyan," has called in ques |