Laud should step forth to prevent such atrocities. Only think of the wickedness of a whole parish dining on cold meat on a Sunday, in order that man-servants and maid-servants might rest as well as their employers, and go to the house of God. But then, if we regard only the matter of liberty, why might not persons dine on cold meat on Sunday if they pleased? We only mean to shew what kind of allies our modern liberals have chosen, when they say that formerly Sunday sports were allowed, and that the best divines teach that the Lord's-day is only an ecclesiastical regulation. Laud defended his conduct about the Book of Sports, in his account of the thirteenth day of his trial. He there says, in vindication of his proceedings, that none were to coine to the sports who had not attended church; that the injunction specified only "lawful recreations" (among which were archery, cricket, music, tumbling, dancing round may-poles, merry-andrews, and other accustomed convivialities of country wakes); adding, that even "Calvin says, in express terms, that one cause of the institution of the sabbath was that servants might have rest and remission from their labours;" whereas, triumphantly asks the Archbishop, "what time of the day is fit (for rest), if not after evening prayer? and what rest is there for able young men, if they may use no recreation?" Laud knew well enough that Calvin meant nothing of the kind, and would have been horrified at the Book of Sports; but we repeat that we quote these passages only to shew that, in the struggle for civil and religious liberty, the sabbath observers were not the despotic party. "We have seen," says the historian Rudyard, "ministers, their wives, children, and families, undone, against law, against conscience, against all bowels of compassion, ABOUT NOT DANCING ON SUNDAYS."

We might multiply these historical argumentum ad hominem references; but we will add but one more. We suppose De Foe will be allowed to have been a liberal of tolerably bright water, and the Sacheverellites to have been reasonably High-church and Tory; and the reign of William the Third to have been more favourable to civil and religious liberty than the high-prerogative measures of Queen Anne. Now De Foe, in his Review, after speaking of the efforts made in the reign of William to "discourage our national vices," and in particular "to restrain, reclaim, and punish the exorbitance of the stage,"—which, he says, the king used great efforts altogether to suppress, but was unable, in consequence of the influence of the party that inclined to the old Stuart proceedings -adds:

"And here I must note, and I am sure I do it with a great deal of justice, that in the first two years of her Majesty's (Queen Anne's) reign, when the highflying party had the ascendant over our councils, the kingdom of crime began; and May-poles and play-houses grew up, like churches at the Reformation. If any man doubts the truth of the fact, let him put me upon the proof of it when he pleases; and in the mean time let him but observe, with me, this one thing, that there were more May-poles erected, and old ones re-edified, in that one year, than ever were in this nation since Bishop Laud's reformation by the Book of Sports, the year of the Restoration excepted. This gives ground to the story of an old woman, who, having seen the music and dancing about one of their new May-poles, on a Sunday, and remembering the blessed time when the Sabbath used to be kept in that manner by authority, broke out in this most pious ejaculation about it; 'G-d L-d, here's the old religion come again.'

We will only add, that if our divines will allow us the morality of the sabbath, and our statesmen will endeavour to secure its proper observance, we doubt not the Lord of the sabbath will grant his blessing to their efforts; and that even yet the tide of desecration which is setting in, may be repelled before it overwhelms the land.

We wait the continuation of Dr. Smith's remarks. In the mean time we request permission to remind him, that, so far as he has proceeded, he has

advanced directly towards the goal which we pointed out. He has come to the conclusion that the "character of subservient usefulness requires, for its full development and secure perpetuation, a protection of the Lord's-day from the invasions and annoyances of the world." Now we invite him to show us in what way, except upon principles which suppose the national recognition of Christianity—aye, and that in a particular form, and with the acknowledgment of particular doctrines-the legislature is to arrive at any knowledge or admission of this "character of subservient usefulness;" or why it is to feel any concern about its "full development and secure perpetuation," any more than about the full development and secure perpetuation of Deism, Simonianism, Owenism, or any thing else which its advocates say is with them a matter of conscience, and is conducive to the public welfare? Or put the case thus: that on one side of Homerton chapel there is a Jew's synagogue; and on the other, a "Seventh Day Baptist" chapel. Now Dr. Smith contends that the legislature ought to cause the shops to be closed on the first day of the week, in order that he and his congregation may enjoy, without distraction, the full development and secure perpetuation of a holy day, and be secured from "the annoyances and invasions of the world." But when the Jew and the Seventh-day Dissenters demand the same for their day, and tell the legislature that the tradesmen in Dr. Smith's congregation annoy and invade their repose by keeping open their shops, will Dr. Smith show us how, upon the principles avowed by Evangelical Dissenters in the Equality and Ecclesiastical Societies, the legislature is to decide between them? We are not assuming imaginary cases. The Jew does actually complain, that because his neighbours are Christians he is not allowed on their sacred day to go on the Exchange, or cry old clothes, or sell oranges and pencilcases in the streets. If nations in their corporate capacity ought to confine themselves, as the Evangelical Dissenters assert, to civil concerns, this restraint, instead of being right and wholesome, is an exercise of oppression and tyranny.

ON UNCHURCHING CHURCHES:-BIGOTRY OF THE
ANABAPTISTS, &c.

For the Christian Observer.

In our last Number, at page 33, occurs the following passage:

"Mr. Hinton's sect have not the modesty or charity to admit even the bare possibility that any person but themselves can be right. If an Episcopalian, or Presbyterian, or Independent, wishing to unite with them, should feel any lurking scruple as to peremptorily unchurching the catholic church of Christ; and should wish, in being re-baptized as an adult by immersion, to add an 'if' as respects the invalidity of his infant or affusive baptism; he is told at once, that the baptism of infants is a mere human invention, utterly opposed to the ordinance of Christ; and that, as Mr. Hinton somewhat arrogantly says in his letter, no conscientious man can be at a loss to determine' that baptism by affusion is invalid. It is somewhat surprising that the Independents, who have so much to say, and justly, respecting the selfish intolerance of those Episcopalians who would unchurch the Church of Scotland and all non-episcopal churches, should not reserve a little of their indignation for their neighbours the Anabaptists, who unchurch all the churches of Christendom, calling their own score or fifty members in a town or village exclusively THE church,' the only church of Christ in that place, all other bodies of Christians being virtually heathens. Some of the sect unite inconsistency with bigotry; admitting to the Lord's supper persons whom they do not allow to have been baptized: though the more rigid, as they are called but in truth the really consistent-follow out their principles from the baptistery to the table of the Lord."

The question has been asked us, "Is the above a correct and sober

statement of facts?" We certainly intended it to be so; but we admit that we ought to be in a condition to prove it. Our impression was, that the facts were notorious; but we will proceed to confirm

them.

To do so, it is not necessary that we should write a syllable of our own. We need but take up any consistent Anabaptist manual; or any of the numerous controversial publications upon strict and open communion in that body, from the days of Bunyan to Booth, or Booth to Fuller and Hall, or from these to the present moment, whether in Great Britain or America, to prove all that we asserted. We will confine our notice chiefly to a few remarks taken from the works of the admirable and eloquent Robert Hall, the powerful but out-voted advocate for open communion.

There is not the slightest difference of opinion between the strict and open Baptists, as to the utter invalidity of baptism administered to infants; or to adults without immersion. This is admitted even by Robert Hall, who being the son of a Baptist minister, was never able to shake off the prejudices of childhood; though he united them in practice, and strove to do so in argument, with large and catholic views, and, like Bunyan and other Baptists who have followed the same course, was denounced by the great majority of his brethren for so doing. Robert Hall declares most explicitly his opinion that no person baptised (or, as he calls it, "sprinkled") in infancy is to be considered baptised; but is to be regarded, in every particular, as unbaptised.

This being laid down as a principle, the great majority of the Anabaptists proceed to unchurch all the churches of Christ throughout the world, except their own little sect. Such men as Bunyan and Hall, being shocked at this monstrous conclusion, have striven to avert it by representing baptism as having nothing to do with Christian communion. It is independent, they say, of the Lord's supper, and the Lord's supper of it. It were superfluous to quote from Hall on this subject, because it is the staple of his whole argument; and if we began extracting from his different works, we might copy fifty, or twice fifty, pages. His strict-baptist brethren appealed to the New Testament; and also referred to the universal opinion and practice of the church of Christ from the apostolic ages. Hall replied, that in the apostolic age baptism was undoubtedly necessary to the reception of the Lord's supper; but that it is not so now. The whole state of the question, he says, has changed in consequence of the great majority of the church of Christ being pædobaptists; and antipædobaptists being only "a small sect." His strict-communion brethren argued that the command of Christ had not been repealed; Hall replied, that it was in effect superseded. "It is acknowledged," says he, "that the Apostles admitted none to the Lord's supper, but such as were previously baptised; but under what circumstances did they maintain this course?" and then he goes on to argue that "circumstances" have altogether changed. His antagonist Kinghorn, with Fuller, and the great majority of his brethren, repelled with abhorrence such a doctrine. Mr. Abraham Booth had done so long before; for in reply to some lax brethren who saw but one way to get out of the difficulty of maintaining the Anabaptist notions, and yet not consigning all other Christians to perdition or to "uncovenanted mercies," (and what are they?) which way was to make baptism

"a mere ceremony," for so Hall himself calls it; Booth exclaimed, "Baptism not fundamental! not essential! But in what sense is baptism not essential?"

We are not going to discuss the question between the litigants. We think that both sides were wrong; the strict party in their intolerance, and the open party in their disparagement of Christ's ordinance. The doctrine of the Church of England appears to us to take in what was good in both, and to reject what was amiss. It is scriptural, and it is catholic. It declares that baptism is "necessary, where it may be had;" the assertion enouncing the duty, and the limitation being large enough in its spirit to cover all cases which do not come under the category of an irreligious rejection of Christ's ordinance. No question is raised as to whether the person to be baptised is young or old, or whether much or little water is used. If the open Baptists, instead of repudiating baptism as an initiatory ordinance, had affirmed that it continues now as much as ever a preliminary to the holy communion; but that they must, in the judgment of charity, act towards their Christian brethren as baptised persons, though they themselves could not be satisfied with having received the ordinance in the same manner; we think they might adhere to their principles without wounding Christian brotherhood. Robert Hall was tossed all his life on the horns of a dilemma, for maintaining as he did, without if or but, that his fellow Christians are unbaptised, he had no resource but either to depreciate Christ's ordinance, or to excommunicate his followers.

The latter horn is that with which the Anabaptists have employed to gore the Christian world. And here Hall himself shall state the facts. The following passages, taken from his "Terms of Communion," will show what are the notions of the Anabaptists with regard to their fellow Christians. The extracts lose much of their force by being detached from their context, but their drift will be sufficiently intelligible.

"They (the strict Baptists) assume a menacing aspect, proclaim themselves THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH, AND ASSERT THAT THEY ALONE ARE ENTITLED TO THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS " (!!!)

"Mr. Kinghorn affirms that the patrons of infant baptism are destitute of that which Infinite Wisdom has prescribed as the evidence of faith." "He assigns as a reason for refusing their fellowship, that they are destitute of that which Christ prescribed for that purpose.' "No church,' he assures us, 'acting agreeably to the rules of Christ,' can recognize them [namely believers who were baptized in infancy or by affusion or sprinkling] as his disciples."

"He contends that the mere absence of a ceremony, or, if you please, an incorrect manner of performing it, is, of itself, sufficient, exclusive of every other consideration, to incur the forfeiture of Christian privileges; of the privileges in general which arise from faith." "It is surely amusing to behold a (Baptist) person interceding in behalf of a (pædobaptist) pastor and a church, when, if we credit his representations at other times, that church is illegitimate and the title of pastor a mere usurpation."

My opponent affirms that none beside our own denomination are comprebended within the clause in which the Apostle affirms the reception of erring Christians."-"He rests his refusal to commune with members of other denominations, on the principle of their not being entitled to be recognized as Christians." -“ However strange these positions may appear, they form but a part of the absurdities which necessarily flow from Mr. Kinghorn's theory."

"He considers none besides the Baptists as received of Christ, in the sense the Apostle intends."

"Did it ever enter the conception of any but Baptists, that a right to the sign could be separated from the thing signified; or that there could be a description

of persons interested in all the blessings of the Christian covenant, yet not entitled to partake of its sacraments and seals ?"

"The Baptist societies are too few and too insignificant to enable them to realise the effects of their system in its full extent. Their principle involves an absolute interdict of church privileges to the members of every other community; but being an inconsiderable minority, there are not wanting numerous and respectable societies who stand ready to give a welcome reception to the outcasts, and to succour the exiles. That their rejection is not followed by its natural consequences, a total privation of the communion of saints, is not to be ascribed in the smallest degree to the liberality or forbearance of our opponents, but solely to their imbecility. The celebration of the eucharist they consider as null and void, when attended by a padobaptist; his approach to the table is absolutely prohibited; and should their principles ever obtain a general prevalence, the commemoration of the love of a crucified Saviour would become impracticable, except to persons of their own persuasion."

"To proclaim to the world our determination to treat as heathen men and publicans, all who are not immediately prepared to concur in our views of baptism, what is it less than the language of hostility and defiance?"

66

To justify the practice of exclusive communion, by placing pædobaptists, who form the great body of the faithful, on the same level with men of impure and vicious lives, is equally repulsive to reason and offensive to charity."

"The adherents of the papal power claim to themselves the exclusive appellation of THE CHURCH; the arrogance of which pretension is faithfully copied by the advocates of strict communion.”

The opinions thus strongly expressed Hall repeated in a work published in 1826, entitled "Christian in opposition to Party Communion;" the following passages from which will suffice to show that the author, in his later years, saw no reason to qualify his statements. Thus he says:

"The church of Rome for many years practised intolerance with infinite advantage, because she possessed ample means of intimidation. Her pride grew with her success, her intolerance with her pride; and she did not aspire to the lofty pretension of being the only true church, till she saw monarchs at her feet, and held kingdoms in chains; till she was flushed with victory, giddy with her elevation, and drunk with the blood of saints. But what was policy in her, would be the height of infatuation in us, who are neither entitled by our situation, nor by our crimes, to aspire to this guilty pre-eminence. I am fully persuaded that few of our brethren have duly reflected on the strong resemblance which subsists between the pretensions of the church of Rome and the principles implied in strict communion; BOTH EQUALLY INTOLERANT."

"With mingled surprise and indignation other denominations behold us making pretensions which no other denomination of Protestants assumes; placing ourselves in an attitude of hostility to the whole Christian world, and virtually claiming to be THE ONLY CHURCH OF CHRIST UPON EARTH! Fortified as it is by its claims to antiquity and adapted universality, and combining in its exterior whatever is adapted to dazzle the imagination and captivate the senses, there is yet nothing in the Church of Rome that has excited more indignation and disgust than this very pretension. What then must be the sensation produced, when, in the absence of all these advantages, a sect comparatively small and insignificant, erects itself on a solitary eminence, from whence it repels the approach of all Christians?

"It were well if the evil resulting from the practice of strict communion were confined to its effects upon other denominations; but if I am not mistaken it exerts a pernicious influence upon our own... It is too much to expect that a habit of treating all other Christians as aliens from the fold of Christ, and unworthy of a participation of the privileges of his church, can be generally unaccompanied with an asperity of temper, a proneness to doubt the sincerity, to censure the motives, and depreciate the virtues of those whom they are accustomed to treat with so much rigour. Conceiving themselves to be a highly privileged class, as the only legitimate members of his church, they are almost inevitably exposed to think more highly of themselves than they ought to think; and founding their separation, not on that which distinguishes the followers of Christ from the world, but on a point in which Christians dissent from each other, they are naturally tempted to attach superlative importance to the grounds of