tice of subscription to the Westminster or to any other Confession has long fallen into disuse among the great majority of the Presbyteries of which the General Synod of Ulster is composed. The only ground on which it can be said that the accredited standards of the two churches are the same, is this, that the rule of Synod, which requires subscription, has never been formally repealed; and even this ground is removed by the adoption of a late code of discipline by the Synod, in which the question of subscription is left to the discretion of the several Presbyteries.

"It is also worthy of observation, with respect to this point, that some of the few Presbyteries which still insist upon subscription, receive it in a very modified form, and I have known instances where even they have altogether dispensed with it.

"I apprehend you will agree with me, that this is a circumstance by no means unworthy of notice, as it contributes to show the gradual increase of more enlarged and liberal views. This question was early agitated among the Irish Presbyterians. The Presbytery of Antrim separated from the general body, as the respectable writer of the abstract mentions, about a century ago, on the principle of Nonsubscription. Since that period the cause has continued to gain ground, till the non-subscribers are now become, as I have already stated, the great majority of the body.

"You may make what use you please of these observations, and hold me responsible for their accuracy. "Believe me, my dear sir, "Yours, very truly,

"Rev. Dr. Evans, &c. &c."

"DAVID DAVISON."

Such is the original document received respecting the Presbyterians of Ireland-amounting to near a million of people. Their history is little known on this side of the water; but the intended publication of the Rev. J. S. Reid will prove a most acceptable present to the Christ

ian world. His talents, industry, and liberality qualify him for the task he has undertaken, and there is every reason to suppose it will be executed in a manner which will yield general satisfaction.

INDEPENDENTS.

The Independents, or Congregationalists, who, as well as the Baptists, are an increasing body in this country, deny not only the subordination of the clergy, but also all dependency on other assemblies. Every congregation (say they) has in itself what is necessary for its own government, and is not subject to other churches, or to their deputies. Thus this independency of one church with respect to another has given rise to the appellation Independents; though this mode of church government is adopted by the Dissenters in general. The Independents, who are uniformly Calvinists, have been improperly confounded with the Brownists; for, notwithstanding they may have originally sprung from them, they excel them in the moderation of their sentiments, and in the order of their discipline. The first Independent or Congregational Church in England was established by a Mr. Jacob, in the year 1616; though a Mr. Robinson appears to have been the founder of this sect. "Those who first maintained" (says the late Rev. S. Palmer, who was an Independent)" this opinion were called Congreagtionalists, or Independents. This is the grand principle by which the Protestant Dissenters are distinguished, and in which they are all united. And this, indeeed, is the only principle upon which their liberties can be maintained in their full extent; for, if every Christian society have not the right above mentioned, a door will be opened to human governors in affairs of religion. And it is no great matter whether they be members of the legislature, of a convocation, or an assembly, the authority of each being void of foundation in Scripture, and inconsistent with the natural rights of mankind." To this Independent or Congregational Denomination, belonged Dr.

John Owen, Dr. Isaac Watts, Dr. Philip Doddridge, and Job-Orton, those ornaments of the Christian world. The Brownists, which have been just mentioned, were the followers of Robert Brown, a clergyman of the church of England, who lived about 1600. He inveighed against the ceremonies and discipline of the church, separated himself from her communion, and afterwards returned into her bosom. He appears to have been a persecuted man, of violent passions. He died in Northampton gaol, 1630, after boasting that he had been committed to thirty-two prisons, in some of which he could not see his hand at noon day! Such persecutions are disgraceful to humanity.

PÆDOBAPTISTS.

Before we proceed to the Baptists, it will be necessary just to remark, that all persons who baptize infants, are denominated Padobaptists, from the Greek word IIais, which signifies child or infant, and fanto, to baptize. Of course the Established Church, the Presbyterians both in Scotland and England, together with the Independents, are all Padobaptists; that is, baptizers of infants or children. Their reasons for this practice are to be found in Wall, Towgood, Addington, Williams, Horsey, Edwards, and others. They rest their arguments on the following circumtsances:-That baptism has succeeded instead of the rite of circumcision; that households, probably (say they) including children, were baptized; that Jesus showed an affectionate regard for children; and finally, that it is the means of impressing the minds of parents with a sense of the duties which they owe their offspring, upon the right discharge of which depend the welfare and happiness of the rising generation. Persons engage themselves as sponsors in the Established Church, who promise that they will take care of the morals of the children; among other sects the parents are made answerable, who indeed are the most proper persons to undertake the arduous task, and to see it duly accomplished.

It is however remarkable, that Dr. Priestley, speaking of himself and followers, should declare, that they "baptize children more from the influence of settled custom, and through a desire of avoiding all disturbance, than from any fixed persuasion that they are under an obligation to baptized them !"-"History of the Corruptions of Christianity."

The Rev. T. Belsham is the latest writer on Infant Baptism, defending it, not by the declarations of the New Testament, but from its prevalence in the early ages of Christian antiquity.

He has been replied to at some length by the Rev. Edwin Chapman of Deptford, in the "Four Lectures on Christian Baptism," delivered during the month of March 1826, at Worship-street.

BAPTISTS,

GENERAL AND PARTICULAR.

The Baptists are distinguished from other denominations respecting the mode and subject of Baptism. They contend that this ordinance should be administered by immersion only, which is enjoined, though not practised, by the Church of England. They also assert, that it should be administered to those alone who profess their belief in the Christian religion, and avow their determination of regulating their lives by its precepts. Some of the learned, however, suppose that the controversy is not so properly whether infants or adults should be baptized, as whether the rite should be administered on the profession of our own faith, or on that of another's faith. See New Edition of a valuable "Practical Discourse concerning Baptism," by the late William Foot, a General Baptist minister at Bristol, with "A Fragment on Christian Communion," with a liberal Preface, by the Rev. W. H. Murch of Frome. "An Answer to the Question, Why are you a Baptist ?" is a neat manual on the subject.

The Baptists are divided into the General, who are

Arminians, and into the Particular who are Calvinists. Some of both classes allow mixed communion, by which is understood, that those who have not been baptized by immersion on the profession of their faith (but in their infancy, which they themselves deem valid) may sit down at the Lord's table along with those who have been thus baptized. This has given rise to much controversy on the subject. Mr. Killingworth and Mr. Abraham Booth wrote against free communion; but John Bunyan, Dr. James Foster, Mr. Charles Bulkely, Mr. John Wiche, for many years a respectable General Baptist minister at Maidstone, and Robert Robinson of Cambridge, contended for it. The Rev. Robert Hall and the Rev. Joseph Kinghorne have lately distinguished themselves in this controversy. The former has written in favour, and the latter against Free Communion. The Rev. R. Hall has epitomized his arguments in a pamphlet, entitled "Reasons for Christian, not Party, Communion," written with his usual talent and liberality; whilst the Rev. Mr. Ivimey has lost no time in replying to it. An "Address to the opposers of Free Communion," written by Micaijah Towgood, will be found at the end of his excellent Biography, by the Rev. James Manning, of Exeter. It is a circumstance worthy of being recorded, and the truth of which was confirmed to me by the late Rev. Thomas Dunscombe, of Broughton in Hampshire, that a gentleman of Clapham left a sum to be distributed among several Baptist churches, who should not forbid a Pædobaptist from sitting down with them at the Lord's table! This legacy displays the liberality of the deceased, and reflects honour on his memory. Free communion is gaining ground among the Baptists in Rhode Island and other parts of the United States of America.

The most complete volume on Adult Baptism, is "Four Lectures, delivered at Worship-street Meeting-house, near Finsbury-square, London, during the month of March, 1826, on the History, the Subjects and Mode, the Perpetuity and the practical Uses of Christian Baptism; by John Evans, LL. D., Edwin Chapman, James Gilchrist, and David Eaton." This work enters fully into the sub