reply. "First, they say, we are right in so doing, because Baptism is specifically excepted by Christ himself, from the application of every scriptural principle." P. 433. And is it true that they do make this reply? No, this is what this gentleman, who misrepresents their sentiments, says for them. They say, Baptism, as an institution appointed by Christ himself, is to be observed by all his disciples as the first public act of homage to his authority, and, therefore, ought not by any considerations whatever to be superseded, nor its place in the order of Christian obedience to be in any way altered.

The Reviewer acknowledges they do not exact Baptism as a condition of salvation, and in this he only does them justice; and he might have added with equal justice, that the reason why they make Baptism a term of communion is, because they are fully persuaded, from the words in which their Lord's commission is expressed, and from the inspired history of the manner in which the apostles carried that commission into effect, that they are justified in so doing.

The Reviewer states for them their second reply to Mr. Hall's reasoning, as follows:-"Secondly; -And this is, perhaps, the most extraordinary specimen of arguing that was ever employed in any controversy if we have not a right to insist on uniformity in this particuJar, then the Church of England had a right to insist on uniformity in other particulars. If we are chargeable with schism in dividing the church of Christ, by insisting on our terms of communion, then the authors of the Act of Uniformity were justified in insisting on their terms of communion. If the former argument is what logicians term, a begging of the question, the latter is something beyond a non sequitur:

it is an argument turned topsy turvy, proving the very opposite of the inference drawn from it. Yet, so delighted is Mr. Kinghorn with this most fantastic paradox, borrowed from the estimable vicar of Chobham, that he gravely urges it again and again; and in the pamphlet before us, seems to exult in the annihilating conclusion, while he asks, Why do not Mr. Hall and the Eclectic Reviewer go to the Establishment?" P. 433.

Surely this distorted representation of Mr. Kinghorn's statement, will, in the estimation of those who have candidly perused his pamphlet, be ruinous to the credit of the Reviewer; what he has insinuated and asserted being entirely different from any thing which appears in Mr. Kinghorn's pamphlet, or from what has been written by any one on his side of the question. It has, in fact, no claim to regard; and it only excites my surprise, that any man who has any respect for his reputation, should have ventured to publish such glaring misrepresen tations! The statements he has made are not the arguments of the strict Baptists, but the fabrications of the Eclectic Reviewer. The cutting reply of Nehemiah to Sanballat's "open letter," and to his five times repeated slanders, are applicable to this case; "There are no such things as thou sayest, but thou feignest them out of thine own heart."

It will be seen that more than

which, from being separated from their context, might either mislead or irritate his reader? If he were so disposed, he might, in precisely the same way, produce expressions of the inspired writers inculcating idolatry and atheism! He would have acted with equal candour and integrity had he asserted, that because Elijah "shouted out,"-"If Baal be God, serve him;" that be encouraged the Israelites in their rejection of the God of Israel.

The Reviewer sneers contemptu ously and repeatedly at Mr. Kinghorn, because he had said, " Mr. Jerram is a man of sense!" Not being able to find this expression in the pamphlet which had come under his review, I was at a loss to account for the grounds of his saying, "Mr. Jerram owes Mr. Kinghorn a bow!" (P. 434.) At length I recollected, that this polite, but unfortunate phrase, was in the preface of Mr. Kinghorn's Defence of Baptism, a term of Communion, P. xxii. And I certainly could not help admiring the cautious manner in which the Reviewer had displayed his sense in taking only a short paragraph for the purpose of holding up Mr. Kinghorn to scorn and ridicule. Professing" to state the argument in Mr. Kinghorn's own words," he quotes from that preface, P. xxi. xxii. but spares himself the trouble of transcribing the application which Mr. Jerram had made of his argument: Why had he not taken the words which immediately followed; but this would have spoiled the pleasure he derived from sneering at the expression," Mr. Jerram is a man of sense!" Such disingenuous conduct is matter for sincere lamentation!

For the use of those who may not have Mr. Kinghorn's Defence, &c. at hand, I will transcribe that part of the argument which the Reviewer has omitted. "The reason.

ing that can dispose of an institution of Christ by removing it from its primitive station, introduces so lax a principle, that no precept which we do not consider essential to salvation can stand its ground. If we are not bound to adhere to a positive appointment of Christ, which is confessedly permanent in its obligation, we in vain assert that it is of consequence to form a church according to the plan which Christ has furnished; for it may always be retorted, What avails your pleading scripture, when you reason away the authority of one of its plainest institutes? Mr. Jerram is a man of sense; he sees the advantage which is given them, and we doubt not he will use it."

What is there in this, I ask the Reviewer, that deserves his contempt! Addressing the defender of Nonconformity, I would refer him to his own arguments, and use the language of Cowper:

"You laugh, 'tis well: the tale applied, Will make you laugh on t'other side!" The Reviewer is a man of sense, and he well knows that judicious churchmen will justify themselves in observing rites confessedly of human appointment, if nonconformists, who plead for the sufficiency of the scriptures alone as the directory for the church of Christ, reason away the authority of one of its plainest institutes:-and I hesitate not to affirm, that nothing is more plain in the New Testament than this, that Baptism, "in its primitive station," always preceded an admission to the Lord's Table.

The Reviewer is challenged to produce a proof, either from Mr. K-'s writings, or those of any other strict Baptist, that they have ever reasoned on the principles which he has imputed to them! He says, that to make Baptism a term of communion, is in effect to say, "If we have not a right to insist on

uniformity in this particular, then the Church of England had a right to insist on uniformity in other particulars. If we are chargeable with schism in dividing the church of Christ by insisting on our terms of communion, then the authors of the Act of Uniformity were justified in insisting on their terms of communion." "Mr. Kinghorn," he adds, " is so delighted with this most fantastic paradox, borrowed from the estimable vicar of Chobham, that he gravely urges it again and again," &c.

"superstitious and absurd" than Infant Baptism? If, then, Baptists agree to merge scriptural Baptism for the sake of communion, why not, upon the same principle, agree to comply with the requisition of kneeling at the sacrament? As it is impossible for a Baptist, without manifest inconsistency, to admit the validity of Infant Baptism; so it is equally inconsistent for those` Baptists who tacitly admit its validity, by admitting persons of that sentiment to communion, to refuse to commune with pious Christians, even though they require a tacit approbation of unscriptural rites. I contend that if Mr. Hall and the Reviewer, as Protestant Dissenters, sanction by their conduct religious rites which Christ did not appoint, or which the Apostles never practised, there is nothing in their principles to prevent their uniting in communion with the Established Church, nor which will justify their separation from it. Indeed, the Reviewer acknowledges, that "were he placed in a foreign land, where no other communion was accessible, or were other conceivable circumstances to occur, which should require him to give such a proof of his catholicism, speaking as an individual, he is free to own, he is not aware of any criminality that he would thereby incur, or that his conduct in such a case would furnish any ground for the charge of apostacy," Page 438.

Mr. Jerram had charged Mr. Hall with having said in effect, that the difference of sentiment respecting Baptism between the Pædobaptists and the Baptists, is not a legitimate cause of separation in a distinct congregational church; and from this Mr. Jerram argues, that "if a difference of opinion on this important rite, a difference so great as to annul the ordinance in the minds of Baptists, be not a legitimate cause of separation, and if even a scripfural attendance to the ordinance of Baptism might be merged for the sake of peace, then surely things of 'minor importance,' such as being required to kneel at the sacrament,' ought not to be considered as a legitimate cause for separating from the Church of England." It was from this reasoning of Mr. Jerram that Mr. Kinghorn inferred, that those Baptists who compromise the ordinance of Baptism, as a term of communion, or who, by admitting the validity of Infant Baptism, depart from the scriptural pattern, cannot, with any consistency, object to other matters of human invention in the church, and that, therefore, they have no justifiable reason for refusing to commune with the National Establishment. Can any thing in the practices of the Church of England, in the estimation of a Baptist, be more

As to his "criminality," or his incurring " the charge of apostacy" by such an act, it must, as he himself says, "be determined purely by the consideration, whether the conditions enjoined be such as the individual can conscientiously comply with!" If he conscientiously believes, that being required kneel at the rails," and thus to seem to countenance the popish idolatry of adoring the elements, be not a

" to

practice "superstitious and erroneous," I shall not charge him with acting wickedly; but if he do think so, (and if he be a bona fide Dissenter, he must necessarily be of that opinion,) then does he not, by his conduct, condemn himself in the thing which he alloweth? And as to his "communing with an episcopal church, not furnishing any ground for the charge of apostacy," I should admit it is possible it may not prove him to be an apostate absolutely from religion, though trifling with conscience is an awful proof of a heart unsanctified; yet it would certainly prove that he had apostatized from his principles as a Dissenter. Is it not apostacy from the principle that Christ is the sole head of the church, if he sanction, by his conduct, human authority in religion? Is it not apostacy if he admit that the church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies; and if by his conduct he submit to the power which has imposed upon all the communicants at her altar, that they shall do what Christ has not commanded, and receive the Lord's Supper in a way which is evidently part of the corruptions of the Antichristian church of Rome, and which, if it be admitted to be neither " superstitious nor erroneous," would justify Papists in retaining all, and Protestants in return ing to the observance of all the rest of her erroneous and superstitious practices?

The Reviewer has made a great parade, and has used great swelling words to prove, that many reasons besides those that have been mentioned, would lead him to prefer a Dissenting church; but the simple question for him to answer is, whether it is not impossible for him, as Mr. Hall has stated, "as a Protest ant Dissenter, without manifest inconsistency, to become a member of the Established Church?" which,

by his communing at the Lord'stable, he would virtually, according to Mr. Hall's reasoning, declare himself to be? "I have no objection, Sir," said a Deacon of a strict Baptist Church, to partake of the Lord's Supper with an evangelical minister and pious people in the Established Church;" to whom his pastor replied, "Do so, Sir, if you think it right; but then, do not any longer call yourself a Dissenter." Such a practice is so "manifestly inconsistent," that I should not expect, even the " Eclectic Reviewer," (for "Eclectics are not latitudinarians," !!* would ever again attempt to prove its propriety, much less its consistency, even "" were he to be placed in a foreign land, and had no other way of giving proof of his catholicism!" It requires the fullest exercise of charity to believe him when he says, (for he well knows the principles of Nonconformity,) "Such an act would leave him, according to his own judgment, in the consistent possession of all the reasons on which he is satisfied to rest his separation from the Establishment!!"

As if feeling that his flimsy reasoning wanted something besides his ipse dixit to justify his statements, he calls in to his aid "the Puritans and ejected ministers," who, he says, "held, for the most part, the lawfulness of communion with the very church that had excommunicated them, and was still persecuting them." "It is certain,” he remarks, that "such as Manton, Baxter, Alleine, and Howe,"-" ought to have known the grounds of Nonconformity, seeing they suffered on that account the loss of all things." They certainly knew why they objected to the Act of Uniformity; they could

* Page 222.

men