This is the liberty | mankind." selves in matters of faith and conscience:" a freedom from the control of creeds and systems—as though it did not signify what we and Satan. "The question is with which the Son makes us free; (continues Mr. R.) what liberty without which all other liberty is the Gospel does bestow on manbut a shadow and an empty boast. kind?" Very good; and now let This is implied in the reply of our us see what his "glorious liberty Lord to the boasting Jews, who of the sons of God" amounts to. said they were never in bondage to" In days of yore (says he) divines any man: "If the Son make you were not ashamed to affirm, that free, then are ye free indeed." It liberty of judging and determining is allowed, indeed, that religious matters of faith and conscience liberty, or a freedom to think and was a prerogative of the papal act according to our consciences, tiara"-and so on; a long story of without fear, is of great value, and this kind, for four or five columns, perhaps we none of us prize it reducing the glorious liberty of the sufficiently; but what is this to sons of God to a mere liberty of moral liberty? Suppose a man," judging and determining for ourliberated from the tyranny of sin and Satan, and deprived of all religious and civil liberty, groaning under the yoke of powerful persecution, would he not be in an un-imbibed, so that we acted freely! speakably better situation than Suppose this freedom were includanother man, possessed of all the ed, yet surely it is not the whole of liberty he desired, whose soul was the meaning. Probably the apostle enslaved to sin? alluded especially to the redempIs it not strange, then, that when- tion of the bodies of believers at ever Mr. R. finds the term liberty the resurrection. But if Mr. R. in the New Testament, he should were right in applying the passage reduce it to a simple liberty of to the Gentile world, surely he doing as we please? And is it not passing strange, that "the glorious liberty of the sons of God" should be thus explained? Rom. viii. 21. Mr. R. having given us several quotations on the text, from Greek and Latin writers, sums up the whole in English, by adding-liberty worth while for the Son of "The amount, then, is this: The God to come from heaven to beheathens expected some great re- stow. volution to be brought about, by some extraordinary person, about St. Paul's time. St. Paul was well acquainted with their opinion: it is natural, therefore, to suppose that the Apostle would speak on this article, and direct the eyes of the Pagans to Jesus Christ. The passage is capable of such a meaning, and it is highly probable that this is the sense of it. The Gentiles are earnestly looking for such a liberty as the Gospel proposes to might have conceived of a more Mr. Robinson may be right in censuring the bishops, for "sacrificing Christianity to save episcopacy;" but let him beware of undervaluing moral liberty for the sake of that of which he is so tenacious, of an inferior kind. Christianity is of greater importance than nonconformity. A remark of Mr. Whitfield, when he had attended one of the Synods of Scotland, and had heard one of the Associate Presbytery preach, may not be inappropriate :-" The good man | berty, and render their errors cri(says he) so spent himself in talk- minal! But what can be made of ing against prelacy, the common- such a liberty as this, unless it be a divine right to do wrong? This Mr. R. ridicules in politics (Claude, vol. ii. p. 42.): is it not a pity he should retain it in divinity? Further-There is a material difference between my being at liberty to believe and act in religious matters without being accountable to the civil authorities, or to any fellow-creature, as such; and my having a right, be my religious principles what they may, to a place in a Christian church. If I act with decorum in my civil capacity, I have a right, whatever be my religious principles, to all the benefits of civil government: but it does not therefore follow that I am entitled to the privileges of the house of God. Mr. R. blames the church of England for not allowing But not only has he neglected avowed Socinians to continue in weightier things, in defending those its service and receive its emoluof inferior importance; but it ap-ments: (Claude, vol. ii. p. 212.) pears to me, that his notions of and not long since, unless I am liberty are latitudinarian, unscrip- misinformed, he declared in pubtural, and unreasonable. lic company, at an ordination, that no church had any right to refuse any man communion, whether he were an Arian, a Sabellian, a Socinian, or an Antinomian, provided he was of good moral character! Though in regard to men, we are at liberty to think and act as we please in religion, this is not true in regard to God. He requires us to believe the truth, as well as to obey his commands. He has If, however, this notion consist given us a rule of faith, as well as with either Scripture or common of practice, and requires us to sense, I must confess myself a think and act according to it; stranger to both. The church of and, moreover, it is at our peril God is represented as a city-a that we allow ourselves in the con- city with walls and bulwarks; a trary. This, however, is a distinc-city with gates, of which they tion which I never knew Mr. R. to themselves have the care and have made; though I could scarce-keeping. It is true they are comly have thought he would have manded to open the gates-but to avowed the contrary, had he not whom? To the righteous nation, told me in conversation, that no" who keep the truth." These, and man was bound to believe the Gos- these only, are to enter in. Isa. pel-that their only duty was to examine it—and that to make it their duty to believe, as well as to examine, would destroy their li xxvi. 1, 2. I know the objection as doubt of every thing, and turn | selves in some such manner sceptics at once; or else consider this:-"Lord, we never apprethat to be truth which any man hended we had any thing to do in thinks is truth. But if it be in- judging of the doctrines that peodeed so difficult to ascertain the ple held, who became members truth, as that we must needs give with us: we came together upon over judging in that matter; and the liberal principles of universal that must pass for truth which toleration, and never expected to every person thinks to be such; be called to account about any then surely the Bible cannot be one's sentiments but our own, such a plain book as Mr. R. re-whatever we were for these." But, presents. Besides, we might, on in reply to all such pleas as this, it the same principle, refrain from is sufficient to say-" Thus saith judging between right and wrong; He that hath the sharp two-edged for there are various opinions about sword, I have somewhat against these, as well as about truth and thee." error. Suppose, for instance, a As to the bugbear frequently person were to apply to a Christian held up, that if we presume to church for communion, who ap-judge in these matters, we assume proved and practised polygamy; to ourselves infallibility, to what or who should think that Scripture does it amount? On this principle, sanctioned concubinage, and therefore practised it; upon this principle the church must be silent; for should they object to such practices, as immoral, it might be replied “I think they are right; and who are you, that you should set up for judges of right and wrong in other men's conduct?Mr. R. therefore, need not have been so squeamish, in his proposed reception of Arians and Socinians, as to provide for their good moral character. Upon his principle, the want of character ought to be no objection, provided they are so abandoned in vice as to believe that evil is good, or so versed in hypocrisy, as to say they believe so, whether they do or not. I do not see how the church at│no man master,” &c. is no more to Pergamos could have been blamed his purpose than the other. Surely by the Lord Jesus, for having those it is one thing to dictate to a man among them that held the doctrine what he shall believe, and perseof Balaam and of the Nicolaitans, cute him if he does not; and anunless they were authorised, and other, to require a union of prineven required to judge of right and ciples, in order that we may unite wrong, truth and error, in relation with him in church fellowship, and to those whom they received as have communion with him in the members. On Mr. R.'s principles, ordinances of Jesus Christ. As an they might have excused them- individual, we have nothing to do all human judgment must be set aside, in civil, as well as in sacred things. No man, nor any set of men, can pretend to this: neither need they. It is sufficient that they act to the best of their capacity, availing themselves of all the means of information they possess. All men, undoubtedly, are fallible : it becomes them, therefore, to judge with meekness and fear; and to consider that their decisions are not final-that they must all be brought over again, and themselves be tried with them at the Great Assize! But does it thence follow, that all human judgment must be laid aside? Surely not. The great outcry that Mr. R. has made of our Lord's words—“ Call with him to his own Master he standeth or falleth; and we the same. But if he propose to have Christian fellowship with us, it is right that we should inquire whether his principles so far coincide with ours, as that the end proposed may be accomplished. Is there not a wide difference between my persecuting, or wishing to persecute, a Deist, and refusing to unite with him in church fellowship? I believe also, that Mr. R.'s principles are as opposed to right reason, to common sense, and to the rules of society in general, as they are to Scripture. In large societies, the govern ment of a nation for instance, they are obliged to be very general, and cannot maintain such a minute regularity, as in societies of less extent. But even here, some union of sentiment is required. Suppose a Jacobite, for example, were to insist that King George was not the rightful possessor of the throne, would he have a right to form one of his Majesty's ministry? And suppose he were to express his intention, if opportunity offered, of uniting to dethrone him, would not the Government have a right to banish him the kingdom? Whether they would invariably use their right, is another thing; but the right itself they would undoubtedly possess. ing principle of such a society, that the lesser number of members should, in all matters of debate, submit to the greater; and another, that a certain sum of money should be paid by each member at certain times. Now, just suppose any one member should dissent from the rules; common sense suggests the necessity of his being convinced or excluded. But, it seems, a Christian society has not the authority of a common club! It cannot be difficult to prove that a union of faith respecting the proper deity of the Great Author of our religion, and the object of our worship, is of quite as much importance in religious society, as any of the above in civil society. Surely, the dethroning of the Son of God, by the denial of his essential deity, cannot be less pernicious in the Gospel dispensation, than the denial of his Majesty's authority, and the endeavour to dethrone him, would be in these realms. Some of the grand ends of Christian society are, unitedly to worship God-to devote ourselves to the blessed Trinity, by Christian baptism-and to acknowledge the atonement made by the Redeemer, by a participation of the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. But what union could there be in worship, where the object worshipped is not In lesser societies, where persons the same?-where one party beunite for the sake of obtaining lieves the other to be an idolater, certain ends, it is always expected and the other believes him to be a that they should agree in certain degrader of Him, who is leading principles necessary to the all, God, blessed for ever!" What accomplishment of those ends.- fellowship could there be in the Hence, there is scarce a society | Lord's Supper, for instance, (not formed without articles, testifying to mention baptism,) where one the agreement of the members in party thought sin to be an infinite certain fundamental particulars. evil-that they, being the subjects Suppose, for example, a common club, united for the purpose of assisting each other in time of affliction. It is supposed to be a lead over of it, deserved an infinite cursethat no atonement could be made but by an infinite sacrifice--that the sacrifice of Christ was such, ANDREW FULLER. and an instance of infinite grace | righteousness with unrighteousness? and love-and that the design of and what communion hath light the Sacred Supper is to revive in with darkness? and what concord our minds these affecting truths;- hath Christ with Belial? and what and where the other party believed part hath he that believeth with an none of these things-had no con- infidel? Be ye not unequally yoked ception that sin was so great an together with unbelievers." evil as to deserve infinite punishYours sincerely, ment, or to need an infinite atonement--that, in fact, they are not such great sinners, as to need, not only a Saviour, but a great one? That which is to the one "the glorious Gospel of the blessed God," is to the other foolishness, and an insult, forsooth, upon his dignity! ON ORDINATIONS. To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. THE reading of a Paper in your February Number, "On the ImIf ever any professed Christians portance of Ordinations," brought differed in the essentials of religion, forcibly to my remembrance the Calvinists and Socinians do. I celebrated reply of the late Mr. wish to conduct myself towards a Pitt, in the beginning of his parliaSocinian no otherwise than I be-mentary career, to an insulting lieve a Socinian ought to conduct observation on his youth;-"The himself towards me, on the suppo- atrocious crime of being a young sition that I am in error. Dr. man, which the Hon. Gentleman Priestley acts more consistently, has with so much spirit and deand more like an honest man, than cency charged upon me, I shall Mr. R. He denies the propriety of neither endeavour to palliate nor Unitarians and Trinitarians unit- deny," &c. I have no doubt, Sir, ing together in divine worship, and that there are young ministers who exhorts all of the former class to display a spirit of pride and a love form separate societies. This I of novelty, nor have I any doubt, cordially approve: for verily, what- that where such feelings exist, it is ever esteem we may entertain for highly proper and Christianly to each other as men, in religion there discountenance them; but I cancan be no harmony. Either we not help fearing, lest in our zeal are a company of idolaters, or they against vanity and innovation, we are enemies to the Gospel-ren- who wear the grey crown of old dering the cross of Christ of none age," should sometimes assume effect. Either they are unbeliev- what may be mistaken for a frowners, or we are at least as bad-ing, brow-beating aspect, like that rendering to a creature that hom- of the antagonist of the celebrated age which is due only to the Crea-statesman above mentioned; an tor; and, in either case, a union aspect, the tendency of which is is the last degree of absurdity. to check that spirit of inquiry, and Whatever, then, my dear friend, that independence of thought, Mr. R. or any one else may sug-which we might spare, perhaps, gest, under the specious pretence had we arrived at perfection; but of liberality of sentiment, I trust which, while improvement is posyou and I shall ever give heed to sible, it is in the highest degree the better reasonings of an inspired important to preserve. I say again, Apostle:"What fellowship hath I wish not to encourage the pre |