five points is deemed incompatible with the acknowledgment of the Christian character; if the ministry of a servant of Christ is considered invalid, unless he has received it from episcopal or presbyterian hands; if Christian communion is made dependent on submission to a particular form of baptism, or a particular mode of observing the Lord's supper; if all churches must be regarded as sectarian and schismatical which are not established by human laws; then, while these things are thus viewed and maintained, it would be absurd to look for love and union among the followers of Christ.

"If we consult the Scriptures," says an eloquent writer, "we shall be at no loss to perceive that the unity of the church is not merely a doctrine most clearly revealed, but that its practical exemplification is one of the principal designs of the Christian dispensation. We are expressly told that our Saviour purposed by his death, to gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad,' and for the accomplishment of this design, he interceded during his last moments, in language which instructs us to consider it as the grand means of the conversion of the world. His prophetic anticipations were not disappointed; for while a visible unanimity prevailed amongst his followers, his cause everywhere triumphed : the concentrated zeal, the ardent co-operation of a comparative few, impelled by one spirit and directed to one object, were more than a match for hostile myriads. No sooner was the bond of unity broken by the prevalence of intestine quarrels and dissentions, than the interests of truth languished, until Mahometanism in the east, and Popery in the west, completed the work of deterioration, which the loss of primitive simplicity and love, combined with the spirit of intolerance, first commenced.

"If the religion of Christ ever resumes her ancient lustre, and we are assured by the highest authority she will, it must be by retracing our steps, by reverting to the original principles on

which, considered as a social institution, it was founded.

We must go back to the simplicity of the first ages-we must learn to quit a subtle and disputatious theology for a religion of love, emanating from a few divinely energetic principles which pervade almost every page of inspiration, and demand nothing for their cordial reception and belief, besides an humble and contrite heart. Reserving to ourselves the utmost freedom of thought in the interpretation of the sacred oracles, and pushing our inquiries, as far as our opportunities admit, into every department of revealed truth, we shall not dream of obtruding precarious conclusions on others as articles of faith, but shall receive, with open arms, all who appear to love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, and find a sufficient bond of union, a sufficient scope for all our sympathies in the doctrine of the cross. If the Saviour appears to be loved, obeyed, and adored; if his blood is sprinkled on the conscience, and his Spirit resides in the heart, why should we be dissatisfied? We, who profess to be actuated by no other motive, to live to no other purpose, than the promotion of his interest."i

Concurring most cordially in the justice and importance of the sentiments thus admirably expressed, it is with great pleasure I bring before the reader the opinions of Baxter,

i Hall's 'Reply to Kinghorn,' p. 250-252. The work of the Rev. Robert Hall, A.M. from which the above quotation is made, as do his other publications in this controversy, well deserves to be consulted; for though they all chiefly refer to the subject of Baptism, his general principles admit of a much more extended application. The volume of Dr. Mason, formerly of New York, on the same subject, is also worthy of perusal. It is singular, that while Presbyterians, Baptists, and Independents, have thus been gradually approximating to each other, and are likely to amalgamate finally into one body, Episcopacy does not appear to have advanced one step, or, in the slightest degree, to have lowered its tone or its pretensions. It is as lofty and unyielding at the present moment as it was in the days of Baxter. The ultimate effect of this on itself, and the other communities, it is not for me to predict; but should a general and cordial union of the other denominations eventually take place, and Episcopacy still refuse to acknowledge them as brethren, the question, who are the schismatics, will no longer be of difficult solution, and the issu e of the contest will soon be decided.

on the subject of Catholic communion. Here he was greatly in advance of the age to which he belonged for it will be found that his views did not altogether accord with those of any party during his own time; although there were a few persons who then held similar opinions. Rigid Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, all objected to some of his principles of religious fellowship, and to the great object of his efforts; yet a few of all these classes agreed with him on the main subject. That subject will probably be found to confer on Baxter, one of his most distinguished honours; that he was among the first of our countrymen, who advocated the broad and important principle, that the only term of communion in the Christian church ought to be a profession of the faith of Christ, worthy of credit; that we are bound to receive all whom God has received; to exclude those only whom he appears not to have approved; and that though there be considerable diversity of opinion, and even of practice, among such as expect to meet in heaven at last, they ought to acknowledge one another as Christians on earth, and to hold fellowship in all things in which they are agreed, and can walk together.

To produce this visible union among all true Christians, was the great object to which Baxter may be said to have devoted his life. Most of his controversies arose out of his solicitude to accomplish this most desirable consummation; and he never failed more to his own mortification, than when he lost his labour on this object, or stirred up further strife. He studied it profoundly, he entered into the prosecution of it with the utmost ardour; and from the first moment of his public life to the last he never lost sight of it.

The religious disorders and dissensions in the kingdom during the time of the civil wars, greatly affected him. In the army he spent several years of his ministry, endeavouring to subdue the spirit of division which he there witnessed. When he settled a second time at Kidderminster, he exerted himself to reconcile

and harmonize all parties in the place; and succeeded. He corresponded privately with Gataker, Vines, Bishop Brownrig, Owen, Hammond, and other eminent men, on the terms and means of union. He then made some attempts with the ministers of his immediate neighbourhood, and at last extended the attempt to the county of Worcester at large; and was successful beyond his expectations. He aimed at nothing less than uniting, without requiring a compromise of principle, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Independents and Baptists, in one common fellowship, throughout the kingdom. To accomplish this object, he generalized the principles of communion, placing them on the simple ground of the sincere profession of our common Christianity; he inculcated strongly the doctrines of Christian liberty and forbearance; and endeavoured to lessen the confidence of the several parties in the divine right of their respective systems. He diligently sought out the things in which all Christians agree, and dwelt on their importance; he painted in the brightest colours the comparatively trivial nature of the things in which they differ; and represented in the strongest terms, the guilt, the folly, and the danger, of maintaining divisive courses, or of living in alienation from Christian brethren.

The first work which he published on this highly interesting and important subject is one, in the authorship of which he had only a part, though that was a principal one, Christian Concord; or, the Agreement of the Associated Pastors and Churches of Worcestershire: with Richard Baxter's Explication and Defence of it, and his Exhortation to Unity.' 1653. 4to. It contains the propositions and rules adopted by the associated ministers, the profession of faith in which they agreed, and Baxter's explanations of some passages in the propositions and confession, chiefly intended for the satisfaction of the people of Kidderminster.

This agreement resulted from a voluntary association of the ministers of the county of Worcester, formed chiefly by

the exertions of Baxter, and among whom he acted as a sort of moderator, or president, during most of the time which he spent at Kidderminster. The object of it was to promote ministerial intercourse and improvement; to assist each other in promoting the interests of religion and morality, and in maintaining discipline and order in their respective congregations. It was not strictly Episcopal, Presbyterian, or Independent. It was not Episcopal; for it acknowledged no superiority among the ministers. It was not Presbyterian, for it disclaimed the exercise of authority on the part of the associated ministers, and acknowledged the right of the people "to try and discern" the proceedings of the ministers. It was not Independent, because it recognised the right of ministers to act separately from the people, acknowledged the common parochial boundaries, and the magistrates' aid in certain cases. Yet does the whole constitution of this associated body, and its rules for the regulation of particular churches, correspond more with the voluntary character of Congregational churches than with any other system. This remark will apply generally to Baxter's sentiments on the subject of church-government and communion. He objected to being considered an Independent, as he objected to all party distinctions; but his writings and conduct were more in support of modified Independency than of any other system.

In confirmation and illustration of this point, I shall here give, from himself, an account of the system he pursued while at Kidderminster, though written long after he had left it. It presents before us the whole apparatus which he employed, and explains his general views of church-fellowship and ecclesiastical discipline. It shows that Baxter was the minister of a voluntary congregation, and pastor of a separate church, whose discipline was neither aided nor restrained by the civil powers, though Baxter was supported by the funds which belonged to the Establishment.