Conversations between Two Laymen on serves, the phrases-“intolerance, biStrict and Mixed Communion, in which gotry, narrow-mindedness, sectarianism, the principal arguments in favour of &c." were heaped upon Mr. Jones very the latter practice are stated, as nearly as possible, in the words of its most powerful advocate. By J. G. FULLER. pp. xxii. 252. Price 4s. 6d. boards. Holdsworth, 1828.

THE above title clearly shews both the subject and form of the work before us, and we are glad that Mr. Fuller has taken up so fully the question in debate. It is of great and growing importance; it is intimately connected with the peace and prosperity of our churches, and (what is of greater consequence still,) with the authority of one of the ordinances which the Lord appointed. Mr. Fuller is not afraid of examining it in its various bearings, and has no hesitation respecting the result. It is not to be expected that he will overcome the prejudices of all his readers, for on few subjects that engage the minds of men at the present time, is there a greater and more inveterate opposition to the clear dictates of evidence, than on those which relate to communion, yet many more will shew their dislike, than can form any thing like a plausible reply to his arguments; for as to the great bearing points of his work, we hesitate not to say, they are unanswerable.

freely.

The liberal party, Mr. F. informs us, exhibited arguments of the same kind with those used for mixed communion, in defence of "the right of unbelievers to a place in Unitarian societies," and Mr. F. has selected a variety of paragraphs under the following heads-" Their error is sincere, conscientious, and involuntary.— Charity. -Weak in the faith.-God will receive him.-You reject better men than you receive.-A new Case.--Impolicy of strict communion." Under each of these heads, such quotations occur as must strike every attentive reader, and which could scarcely have been more appropriate had they been designed either to lampoon the arguments used in favour of mixed communion, or to shew their real tendency.

Mr. Fuller defends his father's character against the aspersions cast upon it, as if he was not sincere in his defence of strict communion. He might feel a delicacy on this point, but we are persuaded he might, with strict justice, have said more. Towards the end of his preface, we are presented with an account of" circumstances" which have come to our author's knowledge, shewing that "the tendency of mixed communion is becoming every day more

sociating influence more visible,” p. xvii; and on which he observes, "the portentous result of the proposed innovation, conceded by our eloquent opponent himself, ought never to be forgotten-the extinction of Baptist Churches!" p. xix. By this time Mr. Fuller might have increased his history of the list of

In a preface of considerable extent, the author makes an apology for writ-apparent, and its deteriorating and dising his work, which we do not think was necessary, but he thought differently, and of course used his liberty. But besides this, there are some forcible considerations brought forward, which had there been no others, would have powerfully claimed attention. In a long note in pp. viii, ix, x, xi, we find quotations from a series of papers pub-evils; and if our Baptist churches do lished in the Monthly Repository, (the monthly periodical of the Unitarians) for the year 1826. A Unitarian minister, the Rev. N. Jones, had ventured to lament the influence which in some cases open unbelievers had in their congrega-ber, carried on between Mixtus, a partions. This aroused a clamour against tizan of Mr. Hall, who thinks his late him, and a controversy which was ex- work, entitled, "Reasons for Christian tended in that publication for many Communion," quite convincing; and months, and in which, as Mr. F. ob- Strictus, who (as will be supposed) takes

not learn wisdom by observation, every year will add to the list, till time will shew what a very moderate portion of foresight might have anticipated.

The conversations are seven in num

into the visible church, "the inevitable conclusion is, either that the law which made it such, was not of perpetual obligation, or that baptism still is a term of communion. If the law be not of perpetual obligation, where is your autho

the other side of the argument. Mr. | observes, if it was a term of admission Fuller has adopted the dialogue plan, because it enables him to bring forward Mr. Hall's reasons in detail, and in his own words; and to each of which he offers replies. But although the "reasons for Christian Communion" are first, and chiefly brought forward, yet quo-rity for restricting baptism to believers ? tations from the other works of Mr. Hall are also exhibited, so that the sum of all that he has written on this point passes in review.

The first conversation contains general and preliminary observations, but they are of a nature which any one who wishes to enter fairly into the subject should understand and keep in mind. Mr. Fuller justly shews the reason why Pædobaptists may wish to be admitted into Baptist Churches. They do not call in question our being baptized; and by our admitting them, their baptism is virtually acknowledged; at least they must suppose, that it is not practically condemned. He assumes that (at least generally) they acknowledge that members of churches should be baptized persons. Taken on the whole, this is correct: although some of them now plead for a more relaxed plan, and go the full length of Mr. Hall's theory, and would admit persons who in their own view have had no baptism at all. When it is thought fit, Dr. Dwight is held up to view by Podobaptists as high theological authority, but Mr. Fuller brings forward this gentleman, Dr. Doddridge and Mr. Baxter as all pleading for the necessity of baptism prior to communion; that is, the very principle of strict communion.

If it be of perpetual obligation that is our authority for receiving to the privi leges of church fellowship, only baptized believers." Here he says to his

opponent, "take which ground you

please," &c. p. 23.

The second conversation relates to John's baptism. On this part of the controversy we think much need not be said; since whatever be the opinion we may form of the baptism administered by John, our authority for continuing the institution, arises from the command of Christ. This is indeed ac knowledged by Mr. Fuller, who states, that the reason why he so extensively examined the subject, was not the intrinsic importance of the argument, but the fact, that some individuals had changed their views on the terms of communion, avowedly in deferenoe to that argument alone, as stated by Mr. Hall, (pref. p. xvii.) But the consequences of taking that ground are pointed out so clearly, and the difficulties pressed so forcibly, that it will not be easy for those who put aside an ordinance of Christ from its place by such arguments as have been brought forward by Mr. Hall, to find a reply that is even plau|sible, not to say substantial and solid. This conversation brings forward the passage in Acts xix, respecting the disciples at Ephesus, who, Mr. Fuller contends were not baptized again. This leads him to examine the construction and pointing of the passage. His readers will probably take different sides on this argument, but he justly observes, that taking Mr. Hall's view of the pa

It is common to urge in favour of mixed communion, that the genius of the Gospel is not ceremonial but spiritual. A position which, as Mr. Fuller observes, if advanced by one of the Society of Friends, however erroneous, would at least be intelligible and consistent; but for a Baptist to maintain that the genius of the gospel is not in part ceremonial,ragraph, the argument turns against his is to pass a sweeping condemnation on his own acknowledged practice. It is also allowed, that baptism once was a term of communion; but the patrons of mixed communion assert that it is not a term now. On this point Mr. Fuller

system, since it would shew in the judgment of the apostle Paul, the necessity of a submission to baptism previous to visible church-membership.

The third conversation is entitledJaptism as indispensable a pre-requisite to

defence. It is pot without a reason that the opponents, not only of strict communion, but of our views of baptism, and of the permanency of the institution altogether-and of an appeal to the New Testament as authority in any thing relative to the constitution and discipline of the church, should seize with such avidity Mr. Hall's arguments, and disunited as they are on many other points, should form a firm union in opposition to the practice of the apostolic church.

external church-fellowship, as faith is to baptism. The title marks the course of the argument pursued in this conversation. Mr. Fuller takes hold of Mr. Hall's statements-that the existence of a law establishes the obligation of a corresponding duty-that there is a prescribed order of the institutions-and that we know of none, who contend for the propriety of inverting the natural order of the Christian sacraments; and on the ground of these acknowledgments he makes a forcible attack on Mr. H.'s system. He leads his readers to the commis- The fourth conversation is entitled, sion of Christ as the acknowledged law" the example of the apostles in their obeof the Christian church, enforcing a cor-dience to their Lord's commission, an respondent duty, in the natural and inspired explanation of their Lord's will; prescribed order. In reply to the ar- and a pattern, intended for the imitation gument that it is needful to shew the of the church in all succeeding ages." dependence of one of the Christian in Here also Mr. Fuller examines the arstitutions upon the other, he contends guments against the apostolic precethat the mode of reasoning adopted by dents step by step, and shews their the friends of mixed communion might weakness; that if, as is supposed, what be turned upon themselves; and that was clear once is only a matter of doubtfollowed to its consequences, it would ful disputation now, in a little time, the operate as a virtual repeal of the law evidence that supports it will diminish of baptism; that a podobaptist might still more, and at length it may disapsay, precisely after the manner of Mr. pear! And then, where does such reaHall, that it is not sufficient to allege soning lead us, respecting the sufficiency the prescribed order of faith and bap- and authority of the Scriptures, and the tism; it is necessary also to evince such evidences of Christianity altogether? a dependance of one upon the other, that In this part of his work Mr. Fuller the involuntary absence of the first an- exposes the weakness of supposing that nuls the obligation of the second. And precedents of thought" which were it might be asked where is it asserted not expressed, should lead us to deviate that no unbeliever shall be baptized? Thus from the revealed will of the Lord; and the genuine tendency of the reasoning by an appeal to the Epistles at considerfor mixed communion is against appeal-able length, he shews that, "besides the ing to the commission of Christ as a rule rigid adherence of the apostles to one for any thing; if not a rule for church straight line of simple obedience, their fellowship, on the same ground it is no epistles abound in exhortations to 'keep rule for baptism, and those who are the ordinances as they were delivered."" baptists and yet plead for mixed com- So that if the apostles were to recommend munion, should ponder Mr. Fuller's ob- a different course in consequence of a servation upon it," we have precisely change of "circumstances," and "new the same authority for maintaining that cases," they would nullify all that they baptism should precede visible church-had enjoined. For the purpose of seeing fellowship, as you have for insisting that how such a recommendation would look, faith should precede baptism. The two Mr. Fuller has drawn up a 66 recantation positions stand or fall together." p. 76. of the Apostles, or a modern explanation Doubtless podobaptists see that the of their inspired injunctions to the pritendency of such arguments as are used mitive churches," in the form of an act in favour of mixed communion is against of parliament in proper order; in which our sentiments as Baptists, and against he laughs at the unavoidable difference an appeal to the New Testament in our between what the apostles did, and what

66

he supposes them now to recommend for | the Christian commission, but not in devia

the purpose of justifying modern laxity, and leaves his reader to draw what inference he pleases from such a timeserving edict.

tion from it, the imperative duty of Christian churches, notwithstanding a diversity of opinion and practice in relation to matters of indiffence." In this conversation the 14th chapter of the epistle to the Romans comes forward to notice, on which Mr. Fuller observes that this chapter does not apply to the case in hand;~~" that the precept supposed to be in force, if it ever was in force, was never binding on the party accused of vio

The fifth conversation discusses the charge laid against the strict communion Baptists of being guilty of schism. But what have these schismatics done! Done! they have only done what the|| apostles did; but their great crime is that they will do no otherwise! It is this that exposes them to the charge of schism.lating it." Again, "the Jew was the Mr. Fuller meets this charge boldly; he grants that schism is an enormous evil, but he contends that the schismatic is he that departs from apostolic rule; and then who is he? If the Baptists are right, the Pædobaptists made a schism, by baptizing infants; but which ever of these parties are guilty, Mr. Fuller contends that mixed communion churches are above all others open to the charge; that the famous passage thundered forth against the schismatical strict baptists, "I beseech you, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment," is the most unfortunate text that could be quoted, for a mixed church is in its very constitution a "palpable violation" of the apostle's exhortation. This our author shews in a variety of instances. The only way of quitting the charge is by covering over every thing with a mantle of love, and loudly talking about union, when, if it was not for indifference, it would be instantly seen, that the parties neither believed nor spake the same thing. Here Mr. Fuller is led to exhibit the constant operation of the mixed communion theory, which is to run down the institution of baptism, by virtually stigmatizing it as a "petty speculation and a minute opinion;” treating it so differently from the Lord's Supper, as if it did not proceed from the same authority, and as if it was in a peculiar sense a "lovely" thing to deviate from one of the injunctions of the Lord. The sixth conversation is entitleda reception to church-fellowship of all whom God has received, in obedience to

66

weak brother, the Gentile was strong: Are you weak? and are the pædobaptists strong? If so the controversy assumes a new aspect! If not, the situation of the parties, as far as this view is concerned, so far from being exactly similar, is in the very last degree dissimilar." p. 178. After having discussed the subject to a considerable extent, Mr. F. says to his opponent, " to argue therefore as you do, that because a diversity of opinion and practice relative to things indifferent and abrogated Jewish rites, was no bar to church fellowship, therefore a diversity of opinion and practice in relation to an existing Christian ordinance is to be tolerated in our churches, appears to me, equally opposed to sound reasoning and to Scripture principle, and eminently calculated to nullify the authority of the Christian Legislator." p. 187. This is coming to the point. What is so much wanted by the patrons of mixed communion is, to have baptism and abrogated Jewish rites placed on the same level; and considered as mere rituals of little value, and which enlightened minds can very well pass over. We cannot abridge the arguments urged by Mr. Fuller; he follows Mr. Hall's reasoning in all its doublings, and shews how far it is from being satisfactory, and how opposite to every specimen which the New Testament affords us of the conduct and spirit of inspired apostles.

The last conversation is on the tendency of the system of mixed communion; in which Mr. F. meets the usual arguments both by argument and fact. He contends, that we "are not at liberty to displace a Christian ordinance from

nion in fact,--and their number might have been increased, had it been compatible with the author's plan. It is true, an outcry will probably be raised against the whole of Mr. Fuller's facts and argu

its accustomed frequency; and so let it :-it has so often been applied to those who have contended for the faith once delivered to the saints, that the appellation is in numerous instances more a mark of honour than of disgrace.

To conclude, this work of Mr. Fuller deserves extensive circulation and serious attention. It is a seasonable and successful defence of the plan of conduct generally adopted in our churches; and contains a body of sound argurent which the friends of mixed communion will find very unmanageable. That many of them will treat it with their accustomed scorn, is to be expected: that in their zeal for their favourite theory they will immortalize themselves by exciting dissentions and distraction in many of our churches, is probable enough; that they, or their disciples, will attempt to undermine the perma

the position which Christ assigned it :"that, to introduce the mixed plan would make our churches scenes of contention; for why should not the Pedobaptists plead their cause, and thus call the attention of the congregation to two bap-ments, and the term bigot be uttered with tisms, instead of one:-that, colour it as we may, the mixed plan requires us to remove the institution of baptism from the position in which it was placed by Jesus Christ-that, if individual Christians are under obligation to obey the command of Christ, (which surely no one will deny) the organization of churches can never have been designed to nullify that obligation :-that, the charge of bigotry is idle-for, how far must we go to escape it?-that mixed communion churches lose sight of scriptural principles, by substituting mixed communion as a term of admission, instead of the ordinance of baptism :-that, to make that a term of admission, which the patrons of mixed communion themselves do not believe is essential to communion in a church ordinance, is a needless, not to say an unnatural separation from Baptist brethren in favour of Podobaptists:that their system in-nency of baptism may with certainty be cludes all except infidels, heathens, and pious Strict Baptists! And then, as Mr. F. observes," what becomes of Mr. Hall's leading position, that 'No church | has a right to establish terms of communion, which are not terms of salvation? Is mixed communion a term of salvation? Then why make it a term of admission into your churches?" Mr. Fuller presses this observation closely, and asserts with great force of argument, 'that mixed communion churches are a violation of Mr. Hall's leading position, and that, he must either abandon his maxim, or his mixed churches. Nothing but the apprehension of extending this article to an undue length prevents our copying many of Mr. Fuller's remarks on this part of the controversy; but we recommend them to the reader's attention, in the hope that they will do him good, let him take which side of the question he may.

In this conversation we find many proofs of the tendency of mixed commu

anticipated. But that they will ultimately succeed in displacing from its primitive station that institution of the Saviour, is a very different thing. This would require arms of a nature and temper which they have not yet employed, nor we are persuaded can they any where be obtained. A slight acquaintance with Ecclesiastical history is sufficient to convince any attentive enquirer, from the numerous instances which are on record, that however popular a theory may be, that is in opposition to the facts and general statements of the New Testament, time and investigation weaken its imaginary strength, the truth of God in the end breaks forth with divine power, and "there is no wisdom, nor understanding, nor counsel against the Lord."

1