to call them to faith and repentance, why should we call them to pray? Prayer will always follow faith, but faith will not always result from a form of prayer. We would not say to any man, you must not pray. This would be assuming a power which belongs to no creature. But instead of entreating the unconverted, in public discourse, and in private conversation, to pray, I would rather urge upon the conscience, the immediate and indispensable duty of believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. And in such a mode of instruction I would challenge even Mr. Hamilton to prove any thing either false or pernicious; any thing either subtle, or licentious, or antinomian. I forgive the style and spirit in which he has written; but must yet remind him, that though endowed with a masculine mind, and able to employ "a masculine pen," he requires to think more clearly, and write more simply. The principles espoused, and the sentiments advanced, I confidently refer to the word of God-the only standard of final appeal. THE REVIEWER. REMARKS ON A RECENT PAPER UPON INFANT BAPTISM. (To the Editor.) I HAVE been much gratified in perusing the Essay by your correspondent "JOHN BULL," on "The profession requisite to Infant Baptism," inserted in your Magazine for August. It discusses that point on the subject of Baptism, which has ever appeared to me the most difficult; nor do I remember ever having seen the view of the subject he adopts, (and in which I substantially agree with him,) more clearly or forcibly exhibited. The point in which that Essay appears to me principally defective is in its failing to meet the most forcible of those objections which would be urged by an "individual, arguing in support of a different view of the subject." One chief object of my present communication is to suggest, that as J. B. has plainly studied the subject with some attention, it would greatly increase the value of his former paper, if he would follow it by another, particularly embracing the object I have named. He has most probably read Dr. Wardlaw's " Dissertation on the Scriptural autho rity, nature, and uses of Infant Baptism," or I should strongly recommend that part of it to his consideration, which alludes to this particular point, and which will be found to commence on page 191 of the second edition. The Doctor is a decided advocate for confining baptism strictly to believers and their children; " meaning of course, by the designation, such as we have reason at the time to acknowledge as believers." Though Dwight and others have defended the same views, Dr. W. appears to me in this, as in so many other cases, to have succeeded in placing the argument in a few words, in its most simple and forcible light. The point to which I would especially invite the attention of your correspondent, is the desirableness of illustrating the principles on which the view of the subject he advocates, is to be harmonized with the evident agreement of baptism under the Christian, and circumcision under the Abrahamic constitution. Dr. W. argues that as the parents of all children entitled to circumcision were admitted to the passover, or the ordinances, whatever they might be, which formed the outward distinction of the Jews;-so those children only should be received to baptism, whose parents are deemed eligible to partake of the Lord's supper, and share in all the privileges of the Christian church. Your limits will not allow me to quote the Doctor's words as illustrating and enforcing this argument; but I think I have fairly stated its leading design. I am by no means prepared to think this point does not admit of explanation, consistently with the views entertained by J. B.: but considering the importance of a right apprehension of the Abrahamic covenant, as bearing on Christian baptism, which comes in the place of circumcision, I cannot but think he would do well to express himself more fully on this point. One part of the Essay does indeed incidentally touch on it; but in terms which, I own, make me still more desirous of some further explanation. After observing that all which the Apostles required of heads of families, before admitting themselves and and households to baptism, was an expressed" willingness to be instructed in the gospel," he adds: "On these same terms also proselytes, and their infants, were admitted to the Jewish church by circumcision." I know not on what authority this statement is made; but so far as my means of information go, there would seem to have been a longer delay, and a more strict course of probation connected with the reception of proselytes, than this brief account of the matter appears to imply. Calmet says, (8vo. edition art. Proselytes) "The Rabbins inform us, that before circumcision was administered to them, and they were admitted into the religion of the Hebrews, they were examined about the motives of their conversion; whether the change were voluntary or whether it proceeded from interest, fear, ambition, &c." He afterwards adds: “When the proselyte had been well instructed they gave him circumcision." With this the account given by Horne in his Introduction to the Study of the Scriptures, and Lewis in his Antiquities of the Hebrew Republic substantially agree. The chapter in the last-named work, on this subject, evidently conveys the idea that they were accustomed to go as far in their previous course of discipline and instruction as they thought safe, without endangering a loss of their expected convert by frightening him from his design. My object in these remarks, as will already have been perceived, is not to controvert the leading positions of J. B., but merely to suggest those points on which some additional explanation appears highly desirable. Whatever probationary process was adopted in reference to the admission of proselytes to Judaism, we have certainly, as it appears to me, no evidence that the candidates for baptism were subjected by the apostles to any such preparatory discipline, but quite the reverse. Dr. Wardlaw indeed maintains that the apostles admitted to baptism, only on the same profession of faith which led them to receive individuals to the full privileges of Christian fellowship : and he appeals in confirmation to the fact, that "the three thousand who, on the day of Pentecost, gladly received Peter's word, were baptized; and the same day were added to the church." It should be remarked, that the particular phrase "to the church" is Dr. Wardlaw's own: the authorized version has it "there were added unto them." The alteration was afford for this? Missionaries inprobably occasioned entirely by deed at present are not circuminadvertence, but it is not an im- stanced exactly as the apostles portant one. I am not, however, were.-They have no miraculous prepared to deny the fact that facilities for overcoming the diffithese persons were very speedily, culties that must arise from imperif not at once, admitted to all fect acquaintance with the lanthe privileges of Christian fellow- guage, manners, &c. of those ship. But then I conceive they among whom they labour; suffiwere so, not because the profession cient time and care must therefore necessary for baptism is such as on their part be taken, to assure always to involve a title to Chris- themselves that a native applicant tian fellowship in general, but clearly understands what is meant because, in the then persecuted by Baptism, as an ordinance by state of the church, even that which he expresses his desire to profession was deemed a decidedly be introduced as a learner to the hopeful evidence of a changed school of Christ, and virtually state of heart. In the present brings himself under obligation, altered state of the church, such diligently to attend the means of a profession can no longer be instruction. But when once this regarded as affording any substan- seems to be correctly understood, tial evidence of real conversion. does there appear solid scriptural While therefore, like the apostles, ground for delaying to comply we administer baptism to those with his wish? Is not Baptism to who are desirous of being instructed be viewed as a means of discipleing in the gospel-of being admitted the nations? Would not the very by the initiatory rite, as hearers to fact of an individual having openly the school of Christ, we are neces- undergone that rite, have a direct sarily obliged to wait till more tendency, under the divine blessdecided evidence is afforded of real ing, to render him more constant personal piety, before receiving and stedfast in prosecuting his enthem to those privileges which quiries? Would it not afford a pertain exclusively to the true most powerful argument to the believer. Missionary, in pressing home divine truth upon the conscience? In case of such an one relapsing into a state of indifference, (and many such cases must be looked for,) is there not the probability that the fact of his baptism, with the desires he had then expressed, might recur to his remembrance, even when cut off perhaps for a time from all intercourse with any missionary, and, sent home to the heart by a divine power, recur with a force that might lead to the happiest results? Does it not seem too a natural supposition, that the earlier and more extended practice of Baptism, would excite attention and awaken a spirit of enquiry In connection with these views of Christian baptism, I have often thought the enquiry worthy of consideration, whether there has not been too wide a deviation from apostolic practice, as to the reception of persons to this rite, in connection with our Missionary efforts. We often read of "Candidates for Baptism," as descriptive of persons who have been kept, if I mistake not, for a considerable time after expressing a desire to be baptized, in order that the strength and stability of their impressions might be tried, before their wish was complied with. What sanction does the conduct of the apostles among those who had never yet concerned themselves in the instructions of the Missionary, and thus the more readily induce them to do so? I have put these points in the form of enquiries, not so much because I feel myself doubtful of their correctness and force; but because, in no degree conversant from experience with the actual working of any means employed for the instruction of the Heathen, I hesitate in even appearing to censure the measures which holy and devoted brethren have adopted, as the result, I doubt not, of deliberate and prayerful consideration. It will perhaps be suggested as setting aside the force of the above enquiries, that the injury which would in all probability result, under so ready an admission to baptism from the instability of those who might be received to it, would be of the most fatal character. In reply to this it need only be asked, would such a practice be sustained by scripture and apostolic example? If so, let it be adopted, fearless of all consequences, and leaving, as we safely may, the result with Him whose law we consider ourselves obeying. On the other hand, let but the unscriptural character of these suggestions be pointed out, and the writer would be the last individual to attempt defending them, on any doubtful conjecture as to their proposed expediency. These remarks have assumed a form and extended to a length I was far from contemplating in commencing them. If they shall be deemed of any value in drawing further attention to a point which has often struck me as one of great importance, or be the means of eliciting from John Bull, or any other of your intelligent correspondents, a still farther elucidation of the interesting subject, the end for which they have been hastily thrown together will be fully answered. Clavering. H. B. THE CHRISTIAN OBSERVER'S STRICTURES ON THE CONGREGATIONAL UNION OF ENGLAND AND WALES. THERE was a time when the temperate language and catholic spirit of the Christian Observer made it an acceptable periodical to many Dissenters. Its character has of late, however, strangely altered; and by its almost systematic neglect of every book, however valuable, that is written by a Dissenter, and its frequent efforts to put the worse construction upon every thing that relates to the dissenting communities, there is too much reason to fear that the opinions of its editor have undergone a remarkable change, or that he is pandering to the passions of his episcopalian readers at the expense of truth, peace, and charity. The last number of that journal supplies more than one illustration of this remark, but my present object is to invite your attention to the following strictures on "The Congregational Union." "The Independents, or Congregationalists, have lately shown, that with all their abstract preference for a rope of sand above a well-cemented system of ecclesiastical regimen, they find that some agglutination is desirable; and accordingly, though reprobating presbyteries, synods, and, above all, episcopal jurisdiction, they have invented a new species of machinery, under the name of "The Congregational Union of England and Wales;" which has regular Conferences in London, and holds an" Annual Assembly," or Synod -or, to use its own ecclesiastical word, "Convocation" (" our Great Convocation!")-from which it issues addresses "to the ministers and churches of the same faith and order throughout the empire;" advising, exhorting, instructing, or rebuking, as it judges fit, upon the most minute matters of doctrine and discipline. What is this but a virtual abandonment of the independent principle? what is it but the formation of an ecclesiastical œcumenical council? for, though no authority is claimed, and the advice and remonstrances of the "Convocation" profess to be fraternal, not judicial, yet the very issuing of such an address by such a body is an assumption of jurisdiction; and it implies, contrary to the first law of the Independent system, that it is not desirable that each congregation should be abandoned altogether to its own wisdom and discretion. The dominion of the Church of Rome itself grew up by steps as specious, and usurpations at first as unalarming; nay, to this hour the Sovereign Pontiff professes to be only the servant of the servants of God. A few leaders and delegates meet in a metropolis; they consult together, and issue encyclical letters to their provincial brethren after a time their power is sensibly felt; enthralment commences, and independence ceases: for though its name may continue a little longer, the influence of the Convocation will begin to press increasingly, even to the remotest members: to resist its wishes will become impracticable; to rebel, would be to incur a weight of odium far too heavy for an individual or an isolated society to sustain: the societies will therefore no longer be isolated, but become planets revolving round a central orb: in a word, the Congregational system will merge into a system resembling that of the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the Quakers, or some yet stricter rule. This may be a very good issue; and, for ourselves, we highly approve of order, and union, and government, and subordination, and episcopal charges; but these things are not Congregationalism. If we were Congregationalists we should look with a very jealous eye at a central convocation in London, with delegates from almost every county in England, consulting together in ecclesiastical conclave, and issuing their addresses to their brethren throughout the land, upon a variety of the most important points of faith and practice, even to the minutest matters touching the choice and support of pastors, the internal affairs of churches, and the celebration of Divine Ordinances. We should deliberately reject the proffered interference, and send back the addresses of the metropolitan convocation unopened.— We say not this as meaning that the addresses are not very excellent, and such as it would be well if every "church and congregation" would follow; but we speak of the principle; and we maintain that the invention of this new machinery is a death-blow to congregational independence, and a proof that those who adopt that system feel that it cannot be fully and fairly acted upon, when congregations become numerous and scattered, without danger of general dislocation." No Congregational Dissenter can read this paragraph without detecting the mischievous purpose |