Finally, more than once, my dear brother, I have believed myself to be very near the eternal world. But, though God, by his grace, has not left me without evidence of his work in me, I declare to you that I never could bring my soul to peace but by the promise; on nothing could I find rest but on the promise, I could live only on the promise, I could steadily contemplate the judgment of God only by views of Christ and his promise. At those solemn seasons I have often thought, that we perhaps carried our notions of theological accu

but also I do not neglect to lead them ever to fix their dependence upon the promises of God; since I find these two things constantly united in the divine word. I believe that if you, my dear brother, could see that little flock, and others in our country, you would be delighted with the simplicity and sincerity of their walk in the ways of God; and you would be convinced, that the teachings which they receive, are to the utmost degree opposed to the horrid evil of Antinomianism."

་་་་་་་་་་

66

May God preserve me from rejecting the weak in the faith! I should reject myself, for often I belong to that class. The smallest germ of faith is precious in the sight of God; and should we despise it? But, though I might say of any person who still entertains doubts, that he has faith, I cannot say that he has an entire faith; for he has not yet entirely believed for himself the testimony which God has given concerning his Son, and which God gives him, not for others, but for himself.

"I believe I may affirm, that all my brethren, the ministers who have separated from the National Church of the Canton of Vaud, would approve my views as conformable to their own.

Farewell, my dear brother. Assure yourself of the respect and Christian attachment, with which, "I am,

"Your devoted servant,

10th Jan. 1827." "P. S. I endeavour, by correspondence, to direct and guide the Dissenting church, which God has committed to me at *. In my letters, I continually exhort them to press on to perfection;

OCCASIONED BY A PASSAGE IN THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER.

(To the Editors.)

GENTLEMEN,-In a recent number of the Christian Observer, there occurs an expression of surprise, that a person of Dr. J. P. Smith's knowledge and experience, should object to the imposition of creeds and articles, as a qualification for the office of the Christian ministry. It is far from being the design of the writer who now addresses you, to undertake a vindication of any statement, which Dr. Smith may have submitted to the public; that Gentleman is himself abundantly better qualified to discharge this office, whenever it may appear to him fit so to do. Dr. Smith knows nothing of the present communication, nor is he in the least degree responsible for it. Having said thus much to prevent any unfounded surmises, which might possibly arise, in relation to the author of this letter, I beg to offer, for the use of the readers of the Congregational Magazine, a few observations, which a perusal of the passage alluded to has suggested to me. It is unquestionably incumbent on the Christian Observer to defend, to the utmost of its ability, the propriety of im

tive in its earlier progress, as such a detail might appear invidious. Nor shall I detain your readers by a hypothetical statement of the mental struggles inflicted by this imposition on many conscientious persons, who are desirous of entering the pale of the Established Church, or of the anguish to which many an upright mind within that pale, has been reduced by this expedient, or of the multitudes of inconsiderate persons who are continually trifling with the most solemn engagements, in order to make their way to a profession for which they have been educated, but for which they possess scarcely a single qualification. I shall not press these considerations, though they are such as may well make "knowing and experienced men" pause, before they admit the lawfulness or expediency of measures of such a character; but I shall attempt to remove a difficulty which may be objected on this subject against Protestant Dissenters, viz. that while they, or many of them contend against the imposition of any uninspired formulas, they are, in fact, equally with churchmen, liable to the charge of imposition, inasmuch as subscriptions and confessions are in use among them, and are held to be of indispensable necessity. In replying to this objection, which is confessedly somewhat portentous, I beg to observe, that Congregational Dissenters are now little obnoxious to a charge of requiring subscription to any creeds or articles, as a qualification for the office of the ministry. This blot, which did undeniably pertain to some portion of this class of Christians, has several years since been wiped away. So may every vestige of unscriptural and antichristian usage among us, speedily disappear!" Pudet hæc opprobria dici potuisse, et non potuisse refelli." The case of confessions

delivered by ministers among us at ordination solemnities, the only part of the objection to which I am careful to reply, is this; it is usual, almost universally on such occasions, for the minister to deliver a confession of his faith; nor am I at all desirous of concealing the fact, that an attempt on his part to avoid this portion of the service, would subject him to suspicion, and in the greater number of instances to rejection. But where is the analogy between such a confession, and the subscription required by the Church of England? The dissenting, minister draws up his own confession; he is guided by no formula; but expresses, in his own words, what appear to him to be the primary truths of the Christian religion; he is under no obligation to arrange these truths under thirtynine, or any other number of articles; he is not reduced to the necessity of translating obscure or obsolete phraseology into the language of modern times, before he can make his declarations agree with his convictions; nor of employing the salvo, that though some things are otherwise than he could wish, still the constitution of the church, generally considered, is not repugnant to his conscience; nor, finally, is he compelled to interpret doubtful expressions of human origin, by the unsatisfactory aid of traditions and historical conjectures. Your readers are, I am persuaded, Gentlemen, not so obtuse as to render it necessary, more explicitly and particularly to contrast the practice of congregational ordination with that which is in use in the Established Church, from the exact forms of which the candidate cannot be liberated by the entire hierarchy.

I am, Gentlemen,

Truly your's,

A CONGREGATIONALIST,

REMARKS ON SOME PASSAGES IN MR. HALL'S PAMPHLET, ENTITLED, "REASONS FOR CHRISTIAN, IN OPPOSITION TO PARTY

COMMUNION."

IT is well known that Mr. Hall places his main defence of free communion on grounds somewhat different from those which have generally been entertained. Whether this has not very materially contributed to retard the progress of his opinions among his own denomination, may be seriously questioned; but, if it be so, no doubt he feels a just and honourable satisfaction from having faithfully given his own views, and constructed his defence on what he judges to be the most solid foundation. It may, however, be deserving of consideration, whether he has not too eagerly abandoned the old ground, and even fallen into some slight inconsistency with himself in the ardour of maintaining the new one. I take the liberty of offering a few remarks on this subject, suggested by the perusal of his recent publi

cation.

The general impression certainly has been, that baptism ought in every case to precede the reception of the Lord's Supper. If this opinion be well founded, Mr. Hall admits that it is a complete vindication of party communion among the Baptists. He says, their opinion of the ordinance of baptism, "combined with the other generally received one, that none are entitled to receive the Eucharist, but such as have been baptised, leads inevitably to the practice of restricting communion to our own denomination." He teaches them, that it "is impossible for them to act otherwise"that however "harsh and illiberal" their practice may be," it is the infallible consequence of the opinion generally entertained respecting communion, conjoined

with their peculiar views of the baptismal rite." If this be the case, I greatly fear the admirable efforts of this accomplished and powerful writer will fall far short of the success which they deserve, and "the denomination" will long continue separated from the general communion of saints. But it appears to me, that these statements are not only calculated to confirm the prejudices, and sharpen the weapons of those who are hostile to his main design, but are in. themselves very unguardedly expressed, and even incorrect and unfounded.

I will not at present touch on the chief ground, which Mr. Hall takes in his general argument, or in any way meddle with what he calls, "the real merits of the question." Let it be admitted, that the supposed connexion between baptism and the Lord's Supper cannot be sustained, and that the reasonings of Mr. Hall on the subject, in his different publications, are as conclusive as they are brilliant, yet it does not follow that those persons who, in any communion, still hesitate to agree with him fully on that point, (of whom, however, I do not profess to be one,) are compelled to insist upon their own view of baptism, as the only one which can in any case be admitted as a sufficient recognition of the alleged connexion between the two ordinances. It is here, I apprehend, that Mr. Hall has erred. And, if I mistake not, the following quotations present, in his own masterly manner, a very clear and satisfactory-vindication of free communion, even admitting the generally received opinion which he has professed to abandon. The whole, indeed, of what he has written, from the seventh to the twentieth page in his last pamphlet, with only a few verbal exceptions, may be considered as a

"Under what circumstances did the

apostles maintain this course? It was at a time, when a mistake respecting the will of the Supreme Legislator on the subject of baptism was impossible, because inspired men were at hand, ready to remove every doubt, and satisfy the mind of every honest inquirer."-" Their instructions were too plain to be mistaken, their authority too sacred to be contemned by a professor of Christianity, without being guilty of daring impiety. In such a state of things, it may be asked, how could they have acted differently from what they did?"-"The apostles refused to impart the external privileges of the church to such as impugned their authority, or contemned their injunctions, which, whoever persisted in the neglect of baptism at that time, and in those circumstances, must necessarily have done. But in declining the communion of modern Predobaptists, however eminent for piety, there is really nothing analogous to their method of proceeding. The resemblance fails in its most essential features. In repelling an unbaptised person from their communion, supposing such a one to have presented himself, they would have rejected the violator of a known precept; he whom we refuse, is at most chargeable only with mistaking

it. The former must either have neglected an acknowledged precept, and thus evinced a mind destitute of principle, or he must have set the authority of the apostles at defiance, and thus have classed with parties of the worst description. Our Pædobaptist brethren are exposed to neither of these charges."

The most rigid Baptist will probably admit, that, however clear and irresistible the evidence of his sentiments may appear to himself, there are those whom it fails to convince, and some of them, at least, illustrious examples of piety; men who would tremble at the thought of deliberately violating the least of the commands of Christ, or of his apostles; men

whose character and principles, consequently, form a striking contrast with the apostles would have repelled. those of the persons, whom it is allowed But

to separate ourselves from the best of men, because the apostles would have withdrawn from the worst; to confound the broadest distinctions, by awarding the same treatment to involuntary and conscientious error, which they were pre

pared to inflict on stubborn and wilful

disobedience, is certainly a very curious method of following apostolic precedent."

"In the same circumstances, or in circumstances nearly the same, we are ready instantly to act the same part--let the circumstances be essentially varied, and our proceeding is proportionably dif ferent. The apostles refused the communion of such, and such only, as were insincere, who held the truth in unrighteousness,' avowing their conviction and wherever similar indications display of one system, and acting upon another : themselves, we do precisely the same. They admitted the weak and erroneous, providing their errors were not of a nature subversive of Christianity; and so do we. They tolerated men whose sentiments differed from their own, providing they did not rear the standard of revolt, by a deliberate resistance to the only infallible authority, and such precisely is the course we pursue."- "Is the omission of a duty to be judged of in relation to its moral quality, without any regard to circumstances, without any consideration whether it be voluntary or involuntary, whether it proceed from perversity of will, or error of judgment, from an precepts, or a contempt of his injuneerroneous interpretation of our Lord's tions ? And supposing our Pædobaptist brethren to be sincere and conscientious, is there any resemblance between them and those whom the apostles would have repelled, except in the mere circumstance of their being both unbaptised; the one, because they despised the apostolic injunctions; the other, because they mistake them?""The only method of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, is to consider how they conducted themselves towards sincere, though erring Christians, together with the temper they recommend us to cultivate towards such as labour under mistakes and misconceptions, not inconsistent with picty."

These are specimens of Mr. Hall's enlightened and scriptural mode of thinking on this subject; and what I wish to observe is, that they remain in full force whatever becomes of the question