yet modest spirit. It recommends the perusal of Dr Gray's recent tract on the Real and Alleged Evidences of the Natural Immortality of the Soul." I cannot but feel, that, whatever be the truth of the opinions which they contain, this, and the preceding pamphlet of Mr Dobney, are too powerful in argument and excellent in spirit, to have their effect on the public mind destroyed by either ridicule or silent contempt; that these opinions should be carefully and faithfully examined, and tested by that divine word, to which the above-mentioned writers make their appeal. My desire, therefore, is to call forth, from some one of your able correspondents, a defence of those opinions on this subject, which we have received from our parents, that whatsoever is erroneous may be refuted and overthrown, uneasiness and perplexity in any minds removed, and the Christian be satisfied that, on this and other subjects, neither in the interpretation nor reception of the divine record, is he following "a cunningly devised fable." I am, Sir, yours truly, THE COMMUNION QUESTION. A DISCIPLE. DEAR SIR,-I am glad that the Baptists have, at length, an organ where the advocates of strict, and those of open communion, may meet in fair and fraternal discussion. The question is deeply important; for, however disputants on either side may explain or restrict it, it must eventually come to this-whether all Christians are members of the church of Christ? and if so, whether faith in, and conscientious obedience to Christ, are the only essentials of the Christian character? Let both, or either, of these questions be answered in the negative, and to what evil consequences may we not be led? Let an affirmative reply be given, and open communion is, of necessity, the inference. It were, indeed, to be wished, that religious controversialists would, more than they do, remove their discussions to FIRST PRINCIPLES. They would then better discern how the force and spirit of the word of God, as a whole, bear upon the subject in debate. Single texts are, no doubt, of equal weight, if rightly understood; but it is an infirmity of theological nature, when a passage has been once interpreted, "by authority "of the Council of Trent, or the Westminster assembly, or Dr Gill, or any other chosen expository, to be unable to view it in any other light, or to conceive the possibility, however manifest to others, of its having a different application. The reviewer in the January number was, I think, somewhat wrong in calling strict communion," the popery of protestant dissent." If the two questions stated above, as involving the essence of the whole controversy, be examined, it will be seen that popery affirms the first, and denies the second. Strict communion, on the other hand, denies the former, and asserts the latter. The doctrines, therefore, are, in their principle, antagonistic, not identical. And, were it my purpose to write an essay on the subject, I should endeavour, at least, to show that one or the other lies at the root of almost all the strife and disunion that has wasted the Christian church. The principle of strict communion, I know, pervades almost the whole Protestant community. Nothing is more inconsiderate and absurd than for pædobaptists to charge it upon our denomination, as though we alone were implicated. And it is amusing to observe the dilemma in which they thus place themselves. Dr Campbell, for instance, at one moment contrasts strict with open Baptists, as being less intelligent, less active, less useful, and we scarcely know what besides; and at another, distinctly declares that "baptism is necessary to fellowship," and that his only quarrel with strict Baptists is, that they do not receive sprinkled Christians as baptized. Neither, he ought to know, do the staunchest Baptist advocates of open communion. These, however, go a step further, and, in opposition to Dr C. and their strict brethren, avow their belief that baptism is not necessary to fellowship." So that the tenet that gives occasion to all the Doctor's denunciations, is the only doctrine in which he and the subjects of his rebuke are AGREED! And those whom he so favourably contrasts with them, are enabled to attain that proud eminence only by their more thorough and irreconcileable dissension from his views! Inconsistency like this may well warrant the suspicion that the principle is unsound. Open communionists, then, are in a decided minority. Of this they are not ashamed. And, indeed, were I disposed to adopt such arguments as those "J. D." employs (p. 190), I might go on to add, "and so have been the Lord's people in all ages; for strait is the gate and narrow is the way,' ""&c. But this would be as trifling in me as it is in him. Smallness of number, poverty of purse, and meanness of intellect, are not surely intended for perpetually distinguishing marks of Christians; although, from the use that is made of the text now quoted, with Matt. xi. 5, and Luke x. 21, one would almost imagine that some persons think so. In such a case, where would Christianity be in the millennium? 66 Your correspondent Thomas Owen largely insists, as usual, upon the commission, and on apostolic practice. I do not purpose to enter on any detailed examination of these arguments, but would simply suggest, for his consideration, and that of others, one or two thoughts. First, as to the commission. This," we are told, "runs thus :-'Disciple; baptize; teach to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you.' Baptism, therefore, follows discipling; and not until afterwards are all things,' &c.—and, of course, amongst them the Lord's supper-to be observed." But this ordinance is only one of the "all things." Jesus said to his disciples, "A new commandment* I give unto you, THAT YE LOVE ONE ANOTHER." Indisputably, this command also falls under the last clause of the commission. Only baptized persons, therefore, are to look upon each other with holy affection; and the exordium to a Baptist exhortation on Christian love, must be a "procul, o procul, este profani," to all who have not " gone through the water," or, at least, some such preface as "“My baptized Christian friends." It is for those who argue from the order of the commission, to show how they can escape this monstrous and absurd conclusion, and to explain why it is that of the "all things whatsoever," which, if the reasoning has any consistency, only the baptized are to observe, they make but ONE the subject of such restriction, and give to all Christians the right and the command to obey the rest. The argument from apostolic precedent also proves too much. If it is certain that the apostles admitted none but the baptized to the Lord's Supper, it is fully as certain that they owned none else to be Christians at all. From this there is no escape. Every argument for the one will apply to the other. Be consistent, then, I would say to the strict Baptist, refuse to acknowledge any as Christians, or to have any religious intercourse with them, unless they have been immersed in adult years. Excommunicate, consign to "uncovenanted mercies" the whole company of pædobaptist ministers and people, missionaries, confessors, and martyrs. Let our calendar be swept of half-of more than half, its sainted names purge the Christian library and the hymn-book of our devotions, from the antichristian stain-then may you triumph in the full realisation of your favorite idea; and, exulting over the prostrate wreck, may, without the charge of inconsistency, proclaim yourself a follower of "apostolic example." "Far be from us the iron heart" that would accuse our brethren of wishing to advocate consequences like these. It is, however, truly astonishing, that they do not see how certainly such results follow from their own reasoning. Let them, I repeat, be consistent, or give up the argument altogether. Moreover, it is the custom of strict Baptists, complacently to assume that they alone have apostolic example on their side. This, at least, admits of question. The matter stands simply thus :-" Christians" and "baptized" were once convertible terms. The lines were coincident. Now the case is altered. One line has been contracted to less than half the size of the other. The question is, which to take. We take the longer, our strict brethren the shorter. They say, "We are apostolic, for we admit only the baptized." We say, "We are apostolic, for we admit all recognised Christians." Thus, viewed in different lights, our act is as apostolic as theirs; and the matter we have to decide is, which of That there may arise no question about the original, I may add, that we have the same root here as in the language of the commission. In the latter case we read ἐνετειλάμην, here ἐντολή. us conforms to apostolic principle. Let it not be said, "We will take the contracted view-the smaller line, or the two lines only while they coincide, for thus we shall be sure to be right as far as we go." To this we might reply, "Omission is as bad as redundancy." He that "taketh from" the law, is equally guilty with him who "addeth unto" it. We are consequently sent again in quest of apostolic principle. Were believers admitted as such, or as being baptized? The superscription of the very epistle that so largely discussed the Lord's supper, contains a striking and decisive answer. It is addressed "unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, WITH ALL THAT IN EVERY PLACE CALL UPON THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, BOTH THEIRS AND OURS." Not without a reason was the commission of that epistle, with special emphasis and care, made thus universal. We adopt the words, in the call "To our communion feast," and invite "all who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." This is apostolic practice and apostolic principle too. "J. D." tells us that we ought to proceed, as a denomination, "upon a sound, well-understood principle." No doubt; but what mere talk it is to proceed to declare forthwith, that this principle must be " the immersion upon a confession of faith, as a sine quâ non in the admission of members into our community." Just as well might I assert that this principle has hung like a dead weight upon our progress, and stagnated our life; and that it will ever prevent us from attaining our right position, until it is shaken off. But I have trespassed too long upon your valuable space. I have attempted no complete exposition of the subject. "Endeavours after Truth" will, of necessity, often be somewhat random and unsystematic. May God, in his mercy, hasten the time when the only acknowledged Christian fellowship shall be, without qualification or reserve, the "communion or SAINTS." G. 66 MY DEAR SIR,-The discovery of an inconsistency between our practice and our principles, may lead us to see to it that our principles are not unsound. A man, therefore, is not my enemy because he points out my inconsistencies, neither does he deserve to be regarded as a man loving victory rather than truth. Your correspondent, Thomas Owen (page 186), complains somewhat sorely of a representation in your January number, concerning the inconsistencies of the strict communionists. That representation, however, was obviously made, in order to induce the inquiry, whether the principle of making the practices of the apostolic churches obligatory on ourselves is not an unsound principle. It may be unsound. In the absence of any positive law enjoining us to adopt those practices, they can be shown to be obligatory on us only by a course of reasoning. The whole matter, therefore, is debateable; and we point the strict communionist to his notorious inconsistency with his own principle, in order to remind him that he does not adhere to it himself; and, not adhering to it, that he renders it probable it is nothing worth. My business, however, now is to point out an inconsistency which our good friends are perpetrating, at which they may well be amazed. "The real argument" for strict communionism, it appears, is this-We are first to disciple men, then to baptize them, and then to instruct them in all that Christ has enjoined; in other words, we are not to make known to them the will of Christ until they have been baptized. For those alone who have been baptized into the death of Christ, are we to reserve all instruction about the circumstances and character of the death of Christ. I believe I am fairly putting the case. I understand the strict communionist to maintain that "instruction in all that Christ had enjoined on his disciples," must be "subsequent" to baptism. Mr Owen declares that this is "the real argument." Very well. But now, what course does the strict communionist pursue? His theory is, "All instruction must be subsequent to baptism." What is his practice? He instructs men in the doctrines which Christ inculcated, and in the precepts which Christ enjoined; yes, and he will have evidence that men understand the doctrines and that they obey the precepts before he will baptize them at all. No examinations are more strict into the soundness of a man's creed, and the holiness of a man's conduct, than the examinations of the strict communionist. According, indeed, to another correspondent, we cannot have "too much evidence of true faith," as a prerequisite for baptism. Hence, the inquiries which a candidate must answer, and the experience which he must possess, pre-suppose instruction in all that Christ has enjoined, whilst "the real argument" asserts that the candidate is to receive no instruction. Was inconsistency ever so palpable? I submit to those who are its perpetrators, that they must abandon either their principle or their practice. Opponents pre-eminent, as they deem themselves, of infant baptism, they really provide the advocates of infant baptism with an argument from whose force there is no fair escape. Must we not train up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? The strict communionist assents. In order to such training, must we not instruct them in the will of Christ? He assents again. May we not, without any reserve, lead them into all the truth as it is in Jesus? He assents again. But if, as he holds, the rule of Christ may be taught only to the baptized, then we must, of necessity, baptize our children. And thus, mirabile dict, the strict communionist and the pædobaptist are perfectly joined together in one mind and one judgment. Norwich. I am, my dear Sir, yours sincerely, WILLIAM BROCK. HOME RECORD. MANCHESTER NEW BAPTIST CHAPEL, GROSVENOR STREET EAST, CHORLTONON-MEDLOCK.-On Monday, the 7th of April, a Particular Baptist church was formed in the above place of worship, consisting of forty-five members, by the Rev. James Lister, of Liverpool, assisted by the Revs. J. Voller and Dyer; about one hundred members of the other Baptist churches in the town sat down with the newly formed church, to commemorate the dying love of the Saviour. It was felt to be a delightful and refreshing season from the presence of the Lord. On Lord's day, April 20th, the above chapel was publicly opened, when sermons were preached by the Rev. David Griffiths, theological tutor of Accrington college; the Rev. W. F. E. Burchell, of Rochdale; and the Rev. James Acworth, M.A., theological tutor of Horton college, Bradford. The Rev. Jenkin Thomas, of Cheltenham, was engaged to preach, but was prevented by severe indisposition. The attendance was good, exceeding the expectations of the most sanguine. On the following Monday evening, about two hundred of the friends sat down together to tea, after which, Mr John Johnson, of Ashton-under-Lyne, being called to the chair, the meeting was addressed by the Revs. Farrent, Dawson, Griffiths, Voller, Sunderland, Walker, &c., &c. The trustees of the late Baptist chapel, George street, having disposed of that property, have now invested the balance of its proceeds in the purchase of the above place of worship. It was built by the evangelical Friends, about nine years since, at a cost of nearly four thousand pounds. It is a very substantial building, beautifully finished, and replete with almost every necessary convenience. It will seat seven hundred persons. There is a large and convenient school-room underneath, capable of accommodating five hundred children: about two hundred and fifty young persons are now receiving religious instruction every Lord's day. The chapel is admirably located, being surrounded by a large population of the middle and higher classes of the community. The necessary steps have been taken for putting the property in trust for the denomination, and will be completed in a very short time. May the Lord eminently bless this new effort, in this densely populated town, to the extension of His kingdom and glory! GRAVESEND.-On Sabbath, May 18th, religious services were held on the occasion of the formation of a church of Christ, to assemble in the new Baptist chapel in this town. In the morning Mr E. S. Pryce preached a sermon introductory to the services of the day, from 1 Cor. xii. 27: "Ye are the body of Christ and members in particular." In the afternoon, Mr Pryce, sen., formerly pastor of the church of Christ, at Coate, Oxon, read the Scriptures and prayed.Dr Godwin, of Oxford, who, at the request of the members of the church, presided amongst them and conducted their proceedings, explained in a few words the nature of a church of Christ. Mr E. Pryce then, on behalf of the members of the church, stated their acquaintance with each other, and their desire to unite as a church of Christ. He read the names of such persons, and the description of the Christian societies to which they formerly belonged; and proposed, as an expression of their agreement in such union, a resolution, to be entered into a book, which should contain minutes of their future proceedings. Dr Godwin then requested the members to signify their desire to unite as a church of Christ, and to adopt and sign the resolution, by holding up their right hand. He then commended the Society to the blessing of God in solemn and earnest prayer. Mr Pewtress afterwards proposed, and Mr Arnold seconded, the appointment of Mr E. S. Pryce to the office of pastor. Mr Pryce, sen., proposed, and Mr G. F. Angas seconded, the appointment of Mr Arnold and Mr Cartwright to the office of deacon. The pastor and deacons signified their willingness to accept their respective offices. In the evening, Dr Godwin preached from Phil. i. 27: "Only let your conversation be as it becometh the gospel of Christ;" and the church, with many Christian friends from a distance, belonging to various Christian denominations, united in observing the Lord's supper. The members of the church are thirty-five in number. All the proceedings of the day were distinguished by seriousness and perfect harmony. The chapel, which will accommodate five hundred persons, is at present without galleries, is situated in the midst of a large and rapidly increasing population, and in a thoroughfare which is crowded with visitors on the Sabbath during the summer months. BIBLE TRANSLATION SOCIETY. THE fifth annual meeting of this Institution was held at New Park Street chapel, on Wednesday evening, April 30th, and was very numerously attended by a respectable auditory. The chair was taken by G. T. KEMP, Esq., the treasurer. The proceedings having been commenced by singing, the Rev. W. FRANCIES engaged in prayer. The CHAIRMAN opened the meeting in a very admirable speech, and called upon Dr STEANE to read the Report. Dr STEANE then read that document. It stated that the correspondence of the American and Foreign Bible Society showed the deep and augmenting interest which was taken in that country in the great cause in which this Society was embarked. The sum of £516 1s. 1d. had been received from thence in aid of the Sanscrit version, and an intention was intimated of further aid, in a short time, for the translations generally. In August last, the Bengalee Old Testament was brought to its completion; the New Testament had been previously finished. The process of revising the versions, though it was a tedious and less grateful part of the translator's labours, was felt to be of the utmost importance. The severe and repeated revisions to which the Bengalee version had been already subjected, greatly contributed to confer upon it the acknowledged superiority it possessed. In the Hindostanee language, a new edition of the entire Testament, with references, had been published. Two other editions, one in the Arabic, the other in the Persian character, containing only the text, were in the press. In the Armenian language, the two editions of the New Testament, mentioned in the last report, had been published. The Sanscrit version was making satisfactory progress. The number of volumes printed during the year was as follows:-In Sanscrit, 2,500; in Armenian, 2,260; in Hindostanee, 26,500; in Bengalee, 23,500; making a total of 54,760. These, added to the number printed since the year 1838, make a grand total of 389,265 volumes! The committee had been enabled, during the year, to vote three several sums, of £500 each, in aid of the translations generally, and £100 to complete the £1,500 required for the new Sanscrit version. The contributions received, in donations, annual subscriptions, and collections, exceeded those of last year by more than £300, and amounted to £1,926 2s. The TREASURER presented his accounts, from which it appeared that the receipts of the Society, during the last year, including a balance, at the com |