satisfied with this concession, judiciously desisted from prosecuting the philosophical argument. I was afraid,' he says, that these speculative truths might detain us too long, and 'mislead us to various researches which are but little adapted 'to make the heart better.' He now endeavoured to convince the Count, that, in that future life which he hoped and wished for, he could not promise himself an agreeable fate; that even according to his own principle, he would be unable to account for his actions at the bar of God. Perceiving that he was not by any means so much grieved at thinking he had offended God and made himself miserable, as that he had entailed ruin on his friends, Dr. Munter laid hold on this sensation,' and endeavoured to support and increase it. I hoped,' he says, his pain might by degrees become more general, and extend ⚫ itself over his other crimes.' The Editor's remarks on this point in the narrative are highly judicious.

This view of Munter is quite correct and worthy of attention. All attempts to eradicate confirmed infidelity by abstract argument alone will be fruitless. A sceptic has seldom any objection to enter into discussions respecting the nature, the immateriality, the immortality of the soul, or such sort of subjects, as they give him ample scope for the display of his sophistry and ingenuity. And even if by an able opponent he should be utterly defeated, he is still as far removed from conviction as ever. His pride, the very enemy whom it is our object to subdue, is flattered and increased by the contest. If infidelity proceeds ultimately from corruption of the heart, the heart must be the object of attack; otherwise, the understanding, influenced as it always is in such cases by the passions, will never have free play, nor come to an unbiassed determination. Some good feeling which yet remains, must be awakened and brought into action. Such was the course pursued by Munter in the case before us. He touched the heart of Struensee upon one of the few good points which yet remained his affection for his friends; and we see the beneficial result.'

Struensee was evidently much softened by this interview. Touched by Dr. Munter's reference to his friends, he burst into tears, and owned that he found himself in this respect very culpable, asking if the Dr. did not think that God would forgive him on the ground of such philosophical repentance.” He was answered:

"According to my notions of repentance, I can give you no hopes. I know but one way to receive God's pardon, and that is, not by a philosophical, but a Christian repentance. I cannot yet produce the reasons why I am obliged to think so; but if you reflect on God's mercy, in which you trust, you will find that it is this very mercy which makes it necessary for him to be just, and to shew his

aversion to moral evil. Such mercy as that of God, which cannot degenerate into weakness, must no doubt be very terrible to him who has offended against it.""

On Dr. Munter's expressing his hope that the Count would even yet, upon good grounds, think himself pardoned by God, and be able to die with comfort and hope, the unhappy man with a deep-fetched sigh exclaimed, (the first accents of genuine prayer, probably, his lips had ever uttered,) May God grant it. His visiter took advantage of it, to urge the necessity of prayer, at first in indirect terms, reminding him that favours are not forced upon any body,' and that it was natural for him to look out for the greatest that could be bestowed upon him. On his urging this point, the Count asked, whether a hearty wish addressed to God was not prayer. The Dr. assented. It was not the time to represent, that in order to prove that it came from the heart, and partook of the character of prayer, it must be followed up by the reiterated expression of devout desire.

At the next interview, the Count recurred to the idea, that it was now too late to beg for God's mercy, and that perhaps he sought it, in his present situation, only out of necessity. He expressed an anxiety that the book which Dr. Munter had lent him, should be read by some of his infidel friends.

At the seventh conference, these hopeful symptoms having been followed by the most ingenuous confessions of his past crimes, Dr. Munter drew from his pocket a letter from Struensee's father, which he had had for some days in his pocket. This letter is one of the most touching and admirable specimens of piety, tenderness, and fidelity we ever met with. The Count was entirely subdued by it. We cannot pursue the details of the successive conferences. He declared at this interview, that he already frequently prayed.

Dr. Munter was introduced to the Count, March 1, 1772. On the 28th of April, their last conference (the 38th) was interrupted by the entrance of the officer who came to convey him to the place of execution. His faithful and benevolent friend attended him to the last, received his dying confession of faith, and was in the act of directing his mind to the Saviour, when the ax fell. Appended to the narrative, is a paper drawn up by Struensee himself, giving an account of his con

version.

We have no room for further remarks on this highly interesting volume; and the respected Editor is gone beyond the reach of our acknowledgements.

COMPLAINTS have reached us from some esteemed correspondents respecting the article on Hinton's Life of Hinton, in our September Number. It has been thought that the suaviter in modo was not sufficiently united to the fortiter in re, in handling the abettors of strict communion. As this opinion has been expressed by some of our Baptist friends who unite in our sentiments and principles on this point, we owe it, perhaps, to them, to offer a few words in explanation.

We beg to state in the first place, that had we not considered the subject as forced upon our notice by the passage referred to in the volume under review, and the disingenuous use which had been elsewhere made of it, we should gladly have declined touching on so delicate a point; and we hope to gain credit for this reluctance when it is recollected, that Mr. Hall's masterly Reply to Mr. Kinghorn has been suffered, perhaps unjustifiably, to remain unnoticed in our Review. It was assuredly from no idea that any thing could be added to the force and persuasiveness of his arguments, that the few cursory remarks were thrown out which the subject seemed to call for. Will it be contended that we ought to have carried our forbearance so far as still to have maintained a total silence; since to touch a morbid part, however gently, must inevitably give pain? We believe that no mode of expression, how ingenious soever, could render our propositions palatable in certain quarters; but we much regret if they have assumed a form unnecessarily offensive.

The Reviewer describes the tenet in question as assigning to schism a place among the articles of faith. In this assertion, he was not conscious of either originality or extravagance. Mr. Hall has said much the same thing, though he has said it better. If they

(Pædobaptists) are admitted to be a part of the universal church, and he (Mr. Kinghorn) still contends for their exclusion, this is formally to plead for a schism in the body. On this principle, the pathetic exhortations to perfect cooperation and concord, drawn from the beautiful analogy betwixt the mystical and natural body, ⚫ insisted upon in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, are completely superseded; and one member, instead of being prohibited from saying to another, I have no need of thee, is taught to shrink from its contact as a contamination.' p. 192. Let this principle be once established and fairly acted upon, and there is no question but that divisions will succeed to divisions, and separations to sepa⚫rations, until two persons possessed of freedom of thought will scarcely be found capable of walking together in fellowship; and an image of the infinite divisibility of matter will be exhibited, in the breaking down of churches into smaller and smaller portions. An admirable expedient, truly, for keeping the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace!' p. 178. Once more, The true state

of the question is, whether that Article of the Apostles' Creed which asserts the communion of saints, is to be merged in an exclusive • zeal for baptism, and its systematic violation to remain unchecked ⚫ in deference to party feelings and interests.' p. xiv.

The Reviewer ventured to say, that we can only cease to wonder at such a tenet's obtaining advocates among good men, when we recollect that Pascal believed in transubstantiation, and Fenelon in the authority of the Pope, Mr. Hall has used similar language. Let him (Mr. Kinghorn) reflect on the enormous impropriety of demanding a greater uniformity among the candidates for admission into the church militant, than is requisite for a union with the church triumphant,-of pretending to render a Christian society ⚫ an enclosure more sacred and more difficult of access, than the ⚫ abode of the Divine Majesty, and of investing every little Baptist teacher with the prerogative of expelling from his communion, a Howe, a Leighton, or a Brainerd, whom the Lord of Glory would welcome to his presence. Transubstantiation presents nothing more revolting to the dictates of common sense.' p. 265.

The Reviewer has characterised the spirit of the cause as both an intolerant and a malignant spirit. Stronger language has been used by Mr. Hall on this point. I cannot,' he says, speaking of the abettors of strict communion, sufficiently express my surprise at the • loftiness of their pretensions, and the arrogance of their language. In their dialect, all Christians besides themselves, are" opposed to "a Divine command," "refuse subjection to Christ, and violate the "laws of his house."' p. 21. He cites from Mr. Kinghorn the following astonishing and appalling sentiments: "What is the meaning of the term condition? In whatever sense the term can apply to the commission of our Lord, or to the declarations of the Apostles respecting, repentance, faith, and baptism, is not baptism a condition either of communion, or of salvation, or of both? Do the • conditions either of salvation or of communion, change by time? Are they annulled by being misunderstood?" Here, as Mr. Hall remarks, it is plainly intimated, that baptism is as much a condition

of salvation as faith and repentance. But further, Mr. Kinghorn 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 not, according to him, merely the forfeiture of a title to the Eucharist which it involves; that, he informs us, is not more affected ' by it than any other privilege: it is the universal privation of Chris⚫tian immunities which is the consequence of that omission.' p. 90. In perfect unison with the sentiments here cited by Mr. Hall from Mr. Kinghorn, are the following declarations respecting the duty of excommunicating all pædobaptists, from another pen.

If Christ has given such a power (of discipline) to his churches, they must have an undoubted right to exercise it, and be culpable in neglecting it; and so, the whole church at Corinth are blamed for tolerating the incestuous person. If a single private trespass ⚫ committed against a brother, must, without repentance, exclude 'from the communion, according to Matthew xviii. 17., by what ⚫ rule are we to receive into our communion such as neglect or despise a plain and public institution of the Lord Jesus Christ? This would be to assume a dispensing power, to connive at their neglect, and to become partakers of their sin; nay, in many respects, we 'should be more guilly and inconsistent than they. More guilty, as knowing more of the obligation, nature, and importance of baptism than they are supposed to do.'* It is added in a note to the next page: Several Baptist congregations admit unbaptized persons into their communion. Mr. Booth has fully exposed the absurdity and 'inconsistency of such a heterogeneous communion, especially on the part of the Baptists; though I think he pays too great a compliment to their sincerity, conscientiousness, and integrity.

Shall we, then, be thought to have used too strong language, in describing the spirit manifested towards those Baptist churches that have dared to act upon the principle of Christian communion, as both intolerant and malignant?

At p. 272. line 19. there is an inaccuracy which ought to have been noticed as an erratum: the designation particular, is used in opposition to national churches. The remark applies to congrega tional churches generally; but the words should have run,- and strict Baptist churches.'

One word more, with regard to that part of Mr. Hinton's life which suggested the Reviewer's observations. Would it not be a happy circumstance for our churches, if their pastors were exposed to no severer trials than those which arise from the deprecated union of Baptists and Pædobaptists? Had Mr. Hinton accepted the call which he received from the London church referred to, might he not have had to contend with sources of uneasiness far more serious than any which he experienced at Oxford? Let the history of the two churches supply the answer, and decide which system is most conducive to the prosperity of a church, and the promotion of the interests of religion.

* McLean's Works, Vol. III. p. 356.