ting the matter before Dissenters. They are referred to as glorying in their liberty, in their freedom from secular entanglements and other things. All such glorying is vain. But can this writer be serious in saying to them, "Gentlemen, you boast of the enjoyment of freedom from the restraints, entanglements, and burdens, which Christ has not imposed, and which man ought not to impose; will you show your love of liberty, and the high-mindedness which the air of freedom generates, by consenting to become bound? You abhor to link religion with secular interests;' evince the sincerity of your abhorrence, by becoming part and parcel of a secular system. You admit no forms of human device in your religion; show your spirituality and regard for the authority of God, by submitting to the authority of man." This is the meaning of the proposition when reduced to plain language; and this renunciation of Christian liberty, and submission to restraint, are supposed to be required for the conversion of the world, and to be the likely means of promoting it-magnified to the rank of martyrdom, and converted into fumes of incense most acceptable to God. Dissenters, I have no doubt, will ever be ready to lay their preferences on the altar of charity. They have done so often. But it is too much to require them to lay their principles, and nothing less than a sacrifice of principle is required by the above demand. This would not be a sacrifice acceptable and well-pleasing to God.

But what are the grounds on which this demand is made on the various parties which compose the Christian world? Has the author

shown that there is such a collision among them in their attempts at propagating the gospel, that they are thwarting and ruining one another? Have they forgotten their common work, and begun to fight with each other at home, or to contend with one another, instead of the common enemy, abroad? Is their time spent in trying which shall supplant the other in public estimation, or secure the glory of conquests that do not belong to them? No such thing. The author seems to admit that there is a large portion of good feeling and cordiality existing among the several battalions of the one army of Christ. It is so, I believe, in fact; there is no jealousy, clashing, or counter-working. It is acknowledged that the conduct of Christians at home, is strikingly illustrative of this substantial union. We have got the spirit and the principle of union, but we want the livery, the uniform of one party. It is not enough to swear allegiance to the cross, and to march as one man under its banner; all this will avail little, unless we adopt the facings, and adorn ourselves with the epaulets, of a human leader. To be successful, we must submit to a new act of uniformity.

A more satisfactory illustration of the actual unity which exists among the missionaries abroad, could not be furnished, than what is contained in the following paragraph. I believe

If

the author to be perfectly just in his supposition; but what then becomes of his argument? such a degree of union already exists, why not let WELL alone?

"I think I could engage to bring home from India, or from Africa, a bundle of sermons, and expositions, and private conversations, taken verbatim from our missiona ries of various denominations; and after expunging, perhaps, here and there a phrase, offer the collection to the Christian world, and challenge the several sects to claim their own out of the mass. Mistakes much more improbable have often been fallen into than that, for example, of the Congregationalist, who, in looking over such a parcel, should lay claim to the discourses of the Church Missionary; while a Churchman, perhaps, would challenge the sermon of a Dissenter; the Wesleyan those of the Baptist; and possibly the Baptist might lay his hand on the instructions of a teacher who sprinkles rather than dip! Thus it would appear that the very opinions which, at vast cost, and extreme injury to the great cause, we have shipped off to China, or the Pacific, are so unsubstantial or evanescent, that we cannot recognize them when again brought back to us. For what valuable consideration is it then, that we are dividing our efforts till they become feeble and inefficient? For what are we putting contempt upon Christianity in the sight of the profane at honie, and of heathens abroad? For what are we stretching our differences from one side of the globe to the other? For what are we putting in peril the conversion of the world at this auspicious moment, when Heaven has loudly called us to the work? We are submitting to all this damage, and incurring all this hazard, and putting all this dishonor upon the gospel, for the perpetuation of opinions, which, in fact, we find it hard to preserve from evaporation ere they have crossed the line!" pp. 73, 74.

On the latter part of this passage, I beg to remind the author, that he has not shown that

our efforts are either feeble or inefficient; that we are putting contempt on Christianity either at home or abroad; that we are stretching our differences across the globe, or periling the conversion of the world. All this is the phantom of his own imagination, conjured up to frighten women and children.

The author proposes a scheme of reconciliation to the various parties which are at present engaged in the work of evangelizing the heathen. Moravians, Methodists, Independents, and Baptists, are severally addressed, entreated to renounce their respective costume, and to assume the common garb of Episcopacy. He finds it very difficult to manage our Baptist brethren. The rough garment of John the dipper is not to be smoothed down he tries hard, is sometimes gentle, and sometimes severe; but he cannot manage his bristly coat; he is obliged to let him go on in his own way, with the following apology for his untoward and resolute adherence to his schismatic course.

"But if this course cannot-must not be pursued, then the alternative which lies before our Baptist brethren is precisely that which common sense, not to say Christian humility, prescribes.-Let them be content to set before their converts the simple fact, in some such manner as this-There has long been carried on a dispute among sincere Christians relative both to the mode of administering the ordinance of baptism, and to the proper subject of the rite. We account for the existence of this strange and unhappy misunderstanding, not by granting that any impenetrable obscurity rests upon the terms in which the Lord has made known his will in these particulars; but

by supposing that a superstitious departure from the apostolic practice took place in a very early age, and gained universal credit, and has possessed itself so firmly of the minds of the generality of Christians, that they are unable to free themselves from the illusion, or to perceive the force of the contrary evidence, which, to us appears in a light perfectly convincing. We look forward to the time when this error shall be dissipated, and when the Christian law of baptism shall be understood by our brethren, as it is by us. Meanwhile, as you see, we are far from imputing to those who differ from us, any contumacious obstinacy, or guilty persistence in error, or indeed any motive inconsistent with the genuineness of the Christian character. We deplore the mistake which, as we think, they have fallen into; but we do not love them the less on account of it: on the contrary, we respect their virtues, not less than as if they thought with us: we cultivate personal friendship with them; we hold with them undisturbed Church communion; we join hands with them heartily in every effort to do good; and even more, than this;-in order that we may put no hindrance in the way of the measures used for the spread of the gospel, we consent to do and to say rather less and rather more, than we should, if acting simply on our own convictions, without regard to the opinion of others.'

"If once this tone of reasonable moderation and of Christian simplicity were taken;-and I am reluctant to believe that any other would be assumed; then, a diversity of opinion and practice would cease to be a great evil; and means of accommodation might readily be devised. Baptist teachers, wherever they might be called to labor, would enjoy the liberty which belongs to every Christian, to set forth, in charitable terms, and on proper occasions, the grounds of their peculiar opinions; and they, and those converts who might be convinced by their arguments, would be free, individually, to abstain from any practice which they think unwarranted by Scripture, and to observe any ceremonial which they think of divine authority. This extent of liberty could generate no mischief within a Church where common sense and Christian charity preside." pp. 127-130.