^ PRINCETON, N. J. -tt Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. Agnexv Coll. on Baptism, No. #— C {r/i /en fj ^_ f/ Ac't-LfA l^j ^J< yj a^/l ft- ^ ^ t.- c^ t «'■'•< Cy /■ f'^i lii. "-^ <- <^/ /^Ley c Z-^- /i.j /.^ — /^ / C) / ./ y / Cc.y J '^i^^e/Zcc.y /V //a^^C- ^>- Xv. /^ y A02 The Admission ofunhaptized Persons to the Lord's Supper J inconsistent with the New Testament. LETTER TO A FRIEND, (iN 1814,) BY THE LATt -REV. ^JVBRE^r 'FULLER. OF KETTERING. HonBon : Printed by H. Teape, Towef-51ill ; ahd sold by gardiner, princes-street; botton and son, and gale and co. paternosterkow. 1815. Price One Shilling. f*'^- 1- MMtrtietmt ^;^^ i »@^ '»^»^-/. *: /j That the following is a genuine Letter, written by the hand of our much lamented friend Mr. Fuller, no one who is at all acquainted with bis manner of writing will deny. In making war upon the common enemy, he was always found in the foremost rank, always among the first to take the field. But when he was called to animadvert on friends and allies, how strikingly different was his conduct ! In January last I received a parcel from him, enclosing a Letter, in which he says — Dear Brother, — / have sent you Dr, Baldwin, tvhich you may keep till I see you, if it he for half a year. Also a .Manuscript of my own and 1 wish none to see it but yourself', and that no mention be tnade of it. If any thing- be ^: ADVERTISEMENT. tvritten on the other side, it may, if thought proper^ he printed, hut not else. You received a double Letter from me last week. Yours, affectionately, A. Fuller. Kettering, le''^ Jany. 1815. The above will justify me in withholding the Letter till now; and the long expected publication of Mr. Hall, which has just appeared, equally requires that I withhold it no lonorer. CD The Manuscript has many verbal cor- rections and interlineations, exhibiting proofs of the care and deliberation with which this Letter was composed. It may be proper for me to say, the title was written by the Author himself, and the whole is printed with that scrupulous fidelity which I have thought due to the writer, as to one of the greatest men of the acre ; and one of the bri2:htest lumi- naries of the Christian Church. WILLIAM NEWMAN, Stetney, July 25, 1815, A LETTER, Dear Sir^ THE long and intimate friendship that 1 have lived in, and hope to die in, with several who are differently minded from me on this subject, may acquit me of any other motive in what I write^ than a desire to vindicate what appears to me to be the mind of Christ. So far have I been from indulging a sectarian or party spirit, that my desire for communion with all who were friendly to the Saviour haSj in one instance, led me practically to deviate from my general sentiments on the subject: the reflection on which, however, havinff afforded me no satisfaction, I do not intend to repeat ir. A You request me to state the grounds of my objections to the practice in a letter, and I will endeavour io d,o so. I need not prove to you that it is not for want of esteem towards my psedobaptist brethren; many of whom are dear to me. If I have any thing like Christian love in me, I feel it towards all those in whom I perceive the image of Christ, whether they be baptists or paedobaptists ; and my refusing to commune with them at the Lord's table, is not because I consider them as improper suhjects, but as attending to it in an improper manner. Many from Ephraim and Manasseh, Issachar and Zebulun, who partook of Hezekiah's pass- over, are supposed by that pious prince to have " prepared their hearts to seek the Lord God of their fathers;" but having eaten *' otherwise than it was written," he prayed the Lord to *^ pardon every one of them," and therefore could not intend that the disorder should be repeated.* I have been used to think that our conduct * 2 Chr. XXX. 17—19. on such questions should not be governed by affection, any more than by disaffection, but by a regard to the revealed will of Christ. A brother who practises mixed communion, lately acknowledged to me, that ' he did not ' think it was a question of candour or charity^ * but simply this, Whether there was or was not, * an instituted connexion in the New Testament * between Baptism and the Lord's Supper. If ' there was, we ought not, under a pretence of * charity, to divide them : for surely Jesus * Christ may be allowed to have had as much * charity and candour as we !' Yet we hear a great outcry, not only from pa3dobaptists but baptists, against our want of candour, liberality, &c.; all which, if this concession be just, is mere declamation. To what purpose is it too that such characters as Owen, Watts, Doddridge, Edwards, &c. are brought forward in this dispute, unless it be to kindle prejudice? If it were a question oi feeling, their names would, doubtless, have weight : but if it relate to the revealed will of Christ, they weigh nothing. a2 6 Is there, or is there not, an instituted connexion between baptism and the Lord's supper, as much as between faith and baptism ? If there be, we might as well be asked, How we can refuse to baptize the children of such excellent men, as How we can refuse to admit them to the Lord's supper. If a man call me a bigot, I might in reply call him by some other name ; but we should neither of us prove any thing, except it were our want of something better to allege. The question respects not men but things. It has been painful for me to " withdraw from a brother who has walked disorderly;" nevertheless, I have felt it to be my duty to do so. I was not long since assured by a paedo- baptist friend, that ' If I could think free coujm union to be right, I should be much happier ihdiW I was;' and it is possible that in some respects I might. If I could think well of the conduct of a brother whom I at present consider as walking disorderly, or if I could pass it by without being partaker of it, I doubt not but I should be the happier : but if that in which he walks be disorder, and I cannot pass f it by without being a partaker of it, I had better be without such happiness than possess it. The question of free communion as main- tained by baptists, is very different from that which is ordinarily maintained by paedobaptists. There are very few of the latter who deny baptism to be a term of communion, or who would admit any man to the Lord's supper WHOM THEY CONSIDER AS UN-BAPTIZED. Some few, I allow, have professed a willingness to receive any person whom they consider as a believer in Christ, whether he be baptized or not. But this is probably the effect of the practice, so prevalent of late among paedo- baptists, of decrying the importance of the subject. I have never known a paedobaptist of any note, who conscientiously adheres to what he thinks the miud of Christ relative to this ordinance, who would thus lightly dispense with it. The ordinary ground on which a paedobaptist would persuade us to practise free communion is, that their baptism, whether we can allow it to be quite so primitive as ours, or A 3 8 not, is nevertheless valid, and that we should allow it to be so, and consequently should treat them as baptized persons by admitting them to the Lord's table. It is on this ground that Ml'. Worcester in his Friendly Letter to Mr, Baldwin, pleads for open communion. — r He allows that if Mr, Baldwin could demon- strate that baptism is to be administered only in one mode, and to one kind of subject ; and that immersion is not a mere circumstance or mode of baptism, but essential to the ordinance, so that he that is not immersed is not baptized ; his sentiment of close communion " would be sufficiently established," p. 8, 9. To the same purpose is the drift of the Reviewer of Mr. JBootJis Apology in the Evangelical Magazine. But to admit the validity of paedobaptism would not overthrow strict communion only, but baptism itself as performed upon persons who have been previously baptized in their infancy. If infant baptism be valid, it ought not to be repeated ; and he that repeats it is, what his ppponents haye been used to call him, an awa_ ffaptist. This ground of argument, therefore. does not belong to the subject at issue. Its language is, * Do, acknowledge our bapti:im to be valid, and allow that whenever you baptize a person who has been sprinkled in his infancy you re-baptize him ; that is, Do, give up your principles as a baptist, in order that we may have communion together at the Lord's table !!!' Very different from this are the grounds on which our baptist brethren plead for free com- munion. As far as I am acquainted with them, they may be reduced to two questions. (1.) Has baptism any such instituted connexion with the Lord's supper as to be a pre-requisite to it? (2.) Supposing it has, yet if the candidate consider himself as having been baptized, ought not this to suffice for his being treated by a christian church as a baptized person ; and does not an error concerning the mode or sub- jects of christian baptism come within the precepts of the New Testament which enjoin forbearance, and allow *' every man to be fully persuaded in his own mind ?" 10 Let us calmly examine these questions in the order in which they are stated :-^ First, Has baptism any such instituted con-, nexion with the Lord's supper as to he a pre- requisite to it 1 No baptist will deny it to be a duty incumbent on believers, but he may con^ sider it as having no more connexion with the Lord's supper than other duties, and the omis- sion of it, where it arises from error, as re- sembling other omissions of duty, which are allowed to be objects of forbearance. If there be no instituted connexion between them, it must go far towards establishing the position of Mr. Bunyan, that " Non-baptism [at least where it arises from error] is no bar to communion." If Mr. Bunyan's position be tenable, however, it is rather singular that it should have been so long undiscovered : for it does not appear that such a notion was ever adv?inced tiU he, or his contemporaries advanced it. XYhatever difference of opinion had sub- Siisted among christians concerning the mod^ 11 and subjects of baptism, I have seen no evidence that baptism was considered by any one as un- connected vs^ith, or unnecessary to the supper. ** It is certain, says Dr. Doddridge, that as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity reaches, no unhaptized person received the Lord's supper'^ Lectures, p. 511. See Mr. Booth's Apology, sect. I. The practice of christians having been uniformly against us, I acknowledge, does not prove us to be in the wrong ; but an opinion so circumstanced certainly requires to be well established from the scriptures, To ascertain whether there be any instituted connexion between the two ordinances, it will be proper to observe the manner in which such connexions are ordinarily expressed in the New Testament. It is not unusual for persons en- gaged in argument lo require that the principle which they oppose, should, if true, have been so expressed in the scriptures, as to place it beyond dispute. This, however, is not the ordi- nary way in which any thing is there expressed. ]Nor is it for us to prescribe to the Holy Spirit 12 in what manner he shall enjoin his will, but to enquire in what manner he has enjoined it. A paedobaptist might say, if teaching be indis- pensably necessary to precede baptizing, why did not Christ expressly say so, and forbid his disciples to baptize any who were not previously taught ? A Roman Catholic also, who separates the bread from the wine, might insist on your proving from the New Testament, that Christ expressly connected them together, and re- quired the one before, and in order to the other. To the first of these objections you would answer, * Let us read the commission,' — " Go, • • • teach all nations • • • • baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost* • • 'Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you • • • . . and lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Is it not plainly the order of things as stated by our Lord Jesus Christ, you would add, that we are first to teach men, by imparting to them the gospel ; then on their 13 believing it, to baptize fhem ; and then to go on to instruct them in all the ordinances and com- mandments which are left by Christ for our direction. Thus also to the Roman Catholic you would answer ; * Let us read the institU' tion as repeated by the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians,' — " I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the night in which he was betrayed took bread: and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you : this do in remembrance of me. After the same manner also he look the cup^ when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup^ ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." You would add : * How dare you put asunder the wine and the bread which Christ hath thus manifestly joined together?' The first of these answers must, I think, be approved by every Baptist, and the last by every Protestant. But the reasoning, in both cases, proceeds on the u supposition that the ordinary way in which the mind of Christ is enjoined in the New Testa- ment, is by simply stating things in the order in which they were appointed^ and are to be prac* iised: and that this is no less binding on us than if the connexion had been more fully expressed. It is as clear in the first case as if it had been said, * Go, first teach them the gospel: and when they have received it, baptize them ; and, after this, lead them on in a course of evan- gelical obedience.' And in the last case, it is no less clear than if it had been said, * First take the bread, then the cup, and never partake of the one without the other/ But if this be just reasoning with a Paedo- baptist, and a Roman Catholic, why should it not be so in the present case? If the above be the ordinary mode of divine injunction, we can be at no loss to know what is enjoined respect- ing the duties in question. All the recorded facts in the New Testament place baptism before the celebration of the Lord's supper. 15 The first company who joined together at the Lord's table were all baptized. That Christ was so himself we are expressly informed ; and of the disciples we are told that they baptized others ;* which would not have been permitted, had they, like the Pharisees and lawyers, refused to be baptized themselves. The next mention of the celebration of the supper is in the second chapter of the Acts. The account given is, that every one of them was exhorted to " repent and be baptized," and that they who gladly received the word " were baptized ;" after which they were " added to the church," and " continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in break- ing of bread, and in prayers." The question put by the apostle Paul to cer- tain disciples at Ephesus, who said they had not heard whether there were any Holy Ghost, unto what then were ye baptized? clearly inti- * John iv. 2. 16 mates that there were no Christians in those times who continued unbaptized. He does not ask whether they had been baptized, taking this for granted ; but merely to what they had been baptized. The nature and design of baptism, as given us in the New Testament, shews it to have been the initiatory ordinance of Christianity. It was not, indeed, an initiation into a particular church, seeing it was instituted prior to the formation of churches, and administered in some cases, as that of the Ethiopian eunuch, in which there was no opportunity for joining to any one of them : but it was an initiation into the body of professing Christians. And if so, it must be necessary to an admission into a par- ticular church, inasmuch as what is particular presupposes what is general. No man could with propriety occupy a place in the army, without having first avowed his loyalty, or taken the oath of allegiance. The oath of allegiance does not, indeed, initiate a person into the army, as one may take that oath who is no soldier; 17 but it is a pre-requisite to being a soldier. Though all who take the oath are not soldiers, yet all soldiers take the oath. Now baptism is that divine ordinance by which we are said to put on Christ, as thie king's livery is put on by those who enter his service: and, by universal consent throug'hout the Christian world, is con- sidered as the badge of a Christian. To admit a person into a Christian church without it, were equal to admitting one into a regiment who scrupled to wear the soldier's uniform, or to take the oath of allegiance. There are instances in the New Testament in which the word baptism does not mean the baptism by water, but yet manifestly alludes to it, and to the Lord's supper, as connected ivitJi it. e. g. 1 Cor. X. 1 — 5. " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto lyioses, in the cloud and in the sea; and 18 did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all driok the same spiritual drink; for they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them : and that rock was Christ* But with many of them God was not well pleased ; for they were over- thrown in the wilderness." The Corinthians had many amongst them who had polluted themselves with idolatrous practices, and yet presumed on being saved by Christ The design of the apostle was to warn them from the examples of the Jewish fathers, not to rely upon their having been partakers of the Christian privileges of baptism and the Lord's supper while they indulged in sin. The manner in which these allusions are introduced clearly shews the connexion between the two ordinances in the practice of the primitive churches. Thus also in 1 Cor. xii. 13, we are said " by one spirit to be all baptized into one bodtf^ whe- ther jews or gentiles, whether bond or free ; and all made to drink into one spirit" The design may be to illustrate the spiritual union of all true believers in one invisible body> as originat- 19 ing iu the washing of regeneration, and as being continued by the renewing of the Holy Spirit: but the allusion is, I conceive, to the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper; by the first of which they were initiated into the body of professing Christians, and by the other had communion in it. See Poole, Henry, and Scott on the passage. From these instances, we have equal evidence that the two ordinances were connected in the practice of the first churches, as we have of faith being connected with baptism, or of the bread being connected with the wine in the supper. The only difference between these cases is, that the one requires a part, and the other the whole of a divine institution to be dispensed with. Is it for us to make light of the precepts of Christ, under the notion of pro- fiting and edifying his people? If we have any ground to expect his presence and blessing, it is in " teaching them to observe all things whatsoever he has commanded us." But let us prc^ceed to the second question- Whether if the candidate consider himself as having been baptized j this ought not to suffice for his being treated by a Christian church as a bap- tized person; and whether an error concerning the mode or subjects of baptism be 7iot a subject of Christian forbearance^ in tvhich evert/ one may be allowed to be fully persuaded in his own mind? That there are cases to which this principle will apply is certain. Concerning eating or not eating meats, and observing or not observing daySy the apostle teaches that every man should be fully persuaded in his own mind. " "Who art thou (he asks) that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. — Why dost thou judge thy brother; or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? For we shall all stand before the judgement-seat of Christ. — Every one of us shall give account of himself to God. — Hast thou faith? have it to thyself." Rom, xiv. 21 These passages have often been alleged in favour of free communion between baptists and paedobaptists ; and if the principle laid down by the Apostle applies to that subject, though originally he had no reference to it, the reason- ing of our brethren is just and right. The case, I conceive, must have referred to the prohibition of certain meats, and the ob- servance of certain days, under the Jewish law ; which being no longer binding on Christians, some would avail themselves of this liberty, and disregard them; others, not having suffi- cient light, would regard them. Had it referred to any customs of heathen origin, or which had never been, nor been understood to be, of divine appointment, it is not conceivable that those who regarded them, should " regard them to the Lord.'' In this case every man was allowed to judge and act for himself, and re- quired to forbear with his brethren who might be otherwise-minded. That we are to apply this principle without » 2 restriction few will maintain. Should the first principles of the gospel, for example, be re- jected by a candidate for communion, few who pretend to serious Christianity would think of receiving him. Yet he might allege the same arguments, and ask, *' Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Why dost thou judge thy brother; or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgement-seat of Christ, — Every one of us shall give account of himself to God. — Hast thou faith? have it to thyself.'* In this case, we should answer, that the lan- guage of the Apostle was misapplied ; and that it was not his design to affirm that Christians in a state of religious society had no right to judge of each others avowed principles : for if so, he would not have desired some to have been cut off who troubled the Galatians.* Nor would the church at Pergamos have been cen- sured for having those amongst them that held pernicious doclrines.f Private judgment is * Gal. V. 12. tRev. ii. 14, 15. 23 every man*s birthright, considered as an indi- vidual; but as a candidate for admission into a voluntary society^ it is essential that there be an agreement, at least, in first principles : for " how can two walk together, except they be agreed ?" And as we are not so to apply this for- bearing principle in matters of doctrine, as to raze the foundations of divine truth, neither shall we be justified in applying it to the dis- pensing with any of the commandments of Christ. The meats and days of which the Apostle speaks are represented as not affecting the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God (he says) is not meat and drink; but righteous- ness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." ver. 17. But if they had required a positive commandment of Christ to be dispensed with, they would have affected the kingdom of God> and the Apostle would not have written con- cerning them as he did. In short, it is not just tx) argue from Jewish customs which, though once binding, had ceased to be so, to Christian 24 ofdinances which continue in full force. The tone which the Apostle holds in respect of those Jewish rites which ceased to be obliga- toryi is very different from that which respects commandments still in force : " Circumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God."* — " I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the or- dinances as I delivered them unto you."t If to be baptized be a qualification requisite to Christian communion, (which under this second question 1 have a right to assume), it is absurd to suppose that it belongs to the can* didate exclusively to judge of it. It is contrary to the first principles of all society for a can- didate to be the judge of his own qualifications. Apply it to any other qualification, as faith in Christ, for instance, or a consistency of cha- lacter, and you will instantly perceive its ab> surdity. We must return to the first question. Is baptism pre-requisite to the Lord's Supper? If it be, it must belong to the Church to judge * i Cor. vii. 19, t 1 Cor. xi. 1, *J. whether the candidate has been baptized ot not. But the principle on which the Apostle enforces forbearance is often alleged as appli] cable to this question.—" Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, — for God hath receivei> HIM." It is doubtful whether receivinsr here means admission to communion. Mr. Booth has shewn that this is not the ordinary meaning of the term: but allowing this to be the mean-'* ing, and that God's having received a person, furnishes the ground and rule of our receiving him, still there is notliing in our practice in- consistent with it. If receiving a brother here denote receiving him into Christian fellowship, the meaning is, receive him to the ordinances, and not to one of them without the other. We are willing to receive all who appear to have been received of God, to the ordinances of bap- tism and the Lord's Supper : if we object, it is because they wish to be received to the one without the other ; of which there was no ex- ample in the first churches. Let it also be par- ticularly noticed, that our brethren who plead for receiving . Christians as Christians, receive 26 them TO THE ORDINANCES AS UNDERSTOOD ANI> PRACTISED BY THEM, aiid this wc do. If the prejudices of a pious Catholic would permit him to request to join with them at the Lord's Supper, they would, as we have often been told, receive him: but to what? Would they pro- vide a wafer for him, and excuse him from drinking of the cup? No, they would say, we are willing to receive you to the Lord's Supper, in the way we understand and practise it ; but we cannot divide the wine from the bread without dispensing with an essential part of the institution. Such is our answer to a pious pae-> dobaptist. * We are willing to receive you to the ordinances of Christ, as we understand and practise them ; but we cannot divide the one from the other without dispensing with an in- stitution of Christ,' Objections. It has been said that * we all practise a worse * mixed communion than that with paedobap- * tists ; that we have covetous and other bad 27 * characters amongst us, &c/ If we " bear them that are evil" iu things of a moral nature, this is our sin, and we ought to repent of it, and not to argue that because we do wrong in one in- stance, we ought to do so in another. If we omit to admonish and exclude manifestly wick- ed characters, it is of but little account that we are strict in regard of baptism : but, in reprov- ing us, our Lord would not complain of our not being alike lax in things positive as we are in things moral, but of our not being alike strict in both. " These ought ye to have done^ and not to leave the other undone." There is, however, a wide difference between bearing with individuals, even in things which are evil, where that evil lies so much in the motive as to be very difficult of detection, and making it a rule to tolerate men in such vices. It was no reproach to Christ and his Apostles to have had a Judas amongst them, though he was a " thief," so long as his theft was not manifested : but had there been a rule laid down that covetousness and even theft should be 28 no bar to Communion, the reproach had been indelible. It has been said, ' If our practice of strict * communion be rigiit, it ought to be to us an * act of self-de?ual, and not of pleasure; inasmuch * as charity would be unable to take pleasure in * excluding those from communion whom we * consider as Christians.' And this so far as it relates to men is true, but it is no less true of many other duties, in which we may be called to act differently from our brethren, and to re- prove them. But in thus denying ourselves, it has been further said, * we deny some of the best feeiinajs ' of the human heart.' This I cannot admit. The best feelings of the human heart are those of love and obedience to God : and if I deny myself of the pleasure which fellowship with a Christian brother would afford me, for the sake of acting up to the mind of Christ, or ac- cording to primitive example, I do not deny the best feelings of the human heart, but on th^ 29 contrary, forego the less for the greater. It is ti greater pleasure to obey the will of God, than to associate with creatures in a way deviating from it. We may act in this matter from temper, or from prejudice, rather than from a conscientious regard lo the mind of Christ ; and they who oppose us may act from worldly policy, or a desire to court applause as candid and liberal men ; but neither of these cases proves any thing. — The question is, whether in admitting unbaptized persons to the Lord's table, we do not deviate from the mind of Christ. I am willing to allow that open communion may be practised from a conscientious per- suasion of its being the mind of Christ ; and they ought to allow the same of strict commu- nion ; and thus, instead of reproaching one another with bigotry on the one hand, or carnal policy on the other, we should confine our in- quiries to the precepts and examples of the New Testament. I am, Affectionately, Your's, A. R An Answer to the Question, WHY ARE YOU 9i Bttitt Bapti0t2 A DIALOGUE BETfVEEN THOMAS ANB JOHN. BY WILLIAM BUTTON. HonDon : Printed by J. Barfield, No. 91, Wardour Street, FOR W. BUTTON AND SON, PATERNOSTER-ROW, 1816. PREFACE. The Reviewer of a Letter to a JBaptist Minister, written by the Rev. Richard De Courcy, Vicar of St. Alkmond's, in Shi*ewsbury, observes, that, " Offences will come, and controversies will arise and be continued, even on topics that have been repeatedly canvassed. The subject of JBaptism has been exhausted. Sensible and learned advocates have appeared on each side of the question. It might have been hoped that both parties should have been left to enjoy their sentiments in peace, but that time is not yet come."* This last remark is indeed verified, *' that time is not yet come-" for, the religious world is now in a state of agitation. Two denominations of Christians are engaged in con- troversy : the Established Church and the Dis- senters from that establishment, and they are both debating on one subject, which is, Baptism. The dispute of the former is, whether baptism be, or be not regeneration, or that which effects it. The question now discussing among the * Monthly Review for Sept. 177^, p. 243. latter is, whether unbaptized persons should, or should not be admitted to the Lord's supper. This, at the present moment, occupies the minds, and employs the pens of those who are denomi- nated Saptists: and it is to this the following pages have reference. It is a controversy not altogether new. This dispute, it should seem, began in the reign of Charles I. sometime about the year 1633. A member of that congregational church in London, of which Mr. Lathorp was pastor, doubting the validity of that baptism which Mr. Lathorp had administered to his child, carried the child to the parish priest to be rebaptized. The affair came before the brethren at a church meeting, and, of consequence, brought on an inquiry, first, concerning the validity of lay-baptism, and next, concerning the validity of infant baptism itself. In the end, several members declared against infant baptism, and desired liberty to depart, and to form a distinct congregation in such order as vi^as most agreeable to their own sentiments. To this peaceable proposal the church agreed, and the new church being formed, Mr. Spilsbury was appointed pastor of it. In 1034, Mr. Lathorp, with about thirty of his members, fled into New England from the per- secution of the prelates. After his departure, his church divided into three parts, Mr. Canne was minister of one, Mr. Baribone of another, and Mr. Jessey of the third. These frequent divisions did not proceed, as their adversaries affirmed, from a factious spirit, much less from the nature and constitution of our churches, but partly from the great increase of their members, and partly from the danger of being discovered by their persecutors when large societies met." In 1638, Mr. Kiffin, and several other members of Mr. Jessey's churchy having become Baptists, were dismissed from thence to the church under the care of Mr. Spilsbury. Mr. Kiffin, who was himself a preacher, and at length removed his communion to the church at Devonshire Square, where he was afterward settled pastor. He published a piece, entitled, A Sober Discourse of m^ht to Church Communion^ in which he en- deavoured to prove, that no unbaptized persons may be regularly admitted to the Lord's supper. This is thought to be the first publication pro- fessedly on this subject. Mr. Jessey continued to practice infant bap- tism till 1645, when he renounced that opinion, and was baptized, by immersion, by Mr. Hanserd Knollys, who had been the same year ordained pastor of a Baptist church, assembling in Great St. Helen's. Mr. Jessey did not quit his former charge, on being baptized, but continued pastor of the same church till his death, which happened in Septem- ber, 1663. His situation naturally led him to study the point of right to church fellowship; and, judging mixed communion lawful, he wrote a small piece in defence of it. It is a dissertation on Rom. xiv. 1, Such as are weak in the faith VI receive ye. It does not appear that this piece was printed during the life of Mr. Jessey ; but it seems to have gone about in manuscript. In 1672, Mr. Bunyan, then in prison, pub- lished his Confession of Failh, and in it pleaded warmly for mixed communion. In answer to this, Messrs. Kiffins and Paul published a piece, entitled, Some serious Reflections on that Part of Mr. Bunyan s Coifessiofi of Faith touching Church Communion with unhaptized Believers. The next year, Mr. Bunyan published an answer, entitled, Differences in Judgment about Water JBaptism no Bar to Communion ; and, to this he subjoined the above-mentioned piece of Mr. Jessey's, to satisfy the call of his opponents, who had required him to produce the testimony of some author. To this publication of Mr. Bunyan's, Messrs. Danvers and Paul replied; and Mr. Bunyan answered them in 1674, in about two sheets in twelves, entitled, Peaceable Principles^ and true. Since Mr. Bunyan's time, the controversy has sometimes subsided, and, at other times, risen into considerable warmth. The celebrated Dr. James Foster warmly pleaded the cause of mixed fellow- ship, in a sermon, afterwards printed, entitled, Catholic Communion, which gave occasion to a dispute, that lasted eight or ten years, from about 1750 to 1760. The Rev. Mr. Charles Bulkley, and others, supported the Doctor's side of the ques- tion ; and the Rev. Grantham Killingvvorth, and others, maintained the contrary opinion. vu In 1772, the question was started again, and the doctrine of mixed communion was affirmed by the Rev. Messrs. Turner of Abingdon, Ry- land of Northampton, and Brown of Kettering ; and denied by the Rev. Messrs. Turner of Bir- mingham, Booth of London, Butfield of Thorn, and several more. In 1781, Mr. Robinson, of Cambridge, pub- lished a piece, entitled, The General Doctrine of Toleration^ applied to the particular Case of Free Communion^ from which the above brief history of the controversy has been taken. Of late, this controversy has again been re- sumed, through an admirable written treatise, by Mr. Robert Hall, of Leicester, entitled, On Terms of Communion, with a particular View to the Case of Baptists and Pcedobaptists ; in which he ingeniously advocates the doctrine of mixed communion. This produced a pamphlet, en- titled. The Admission of unhaptized Persons to the Lord's Supper inconsistent ivith the New Tes- tament, in a Letter to a Jbriend, by the late Andrew Fuller, of Kettering. Then followed a sensible piece, by an anonymous writer, entitled, A Plea for Primitive Communion, occasioned by the Kev. Mr. HalCs recent Publication, on Terms of Communion. This brought forward a re- joinder from Mr. Hall, entitled, The essential Difference betiveen Christian Baptism and the Baptism of John, more fully stated and con- firmed, in Reply to a Pamphlet, entitled, A Plea for Primitive Comimmion. To this has sue- VIU ceedecl a publication, replete with fine reasoning, whicli bears the title of Baptism, a Term of Com- munion at the Lord's Supper, by Mr. Joseph Kinghorn, of Norwich. Since this, an ingenious little tract has made its appearance, entitled, The Decision of a General Congress, convened to agree on Terms of Communion, occasioned by the Rev. Robert HalVs Pamphlet on that Subject y by Christmas Evans, of Anglesey. The Author of the following Dialogue pretends not to enter logically into the question; the more subtle mode of argument he leaves to abler pens. His aim is, simply to state a few plain reasons why those, who are termed " Strict Baptists," adhere to their sentiment, and to vindicate them from the charges of being bigoted, unnecessarily exact, and unscripturally corifined. They have been, by some, stigmatized as madmen, or as fools ; (but not by Mr. Hall, whose elevated mind disdains to defend a hypothesis with the wea- pons of scurrility;) the present publication is merely an attempt to show, that they are neither the one nor the other, but, that they are men who " speak forth the words of truth and sober- ness," and that their conduct corresponds with their profession. If this should be thought, in any degree, a successful effort, it will afford the author the highest satisfaction ; but of this he leaves the public to judge. April 10, i8i(J. CONTENTS. ■■» ♦ » PAGE !. A strict Baptist defined 2 2. Disciples of Clirist baptized by John .... 5 3. John's baptism authorized by God the Father . 5 4. John's baptism stamped by the authority and example of Christ 7 5. John's baptism administered under the teaching and influence of the Holy Ghost .... 12 6. John baptized on a profession of repentance and faith 15 7. The great ends of baptism 18 8. John baptized in the name of Jesus and of the Trinity 23 9. Disciples at Ephesus not rebaptized .... 26 10. John and Christ's baptism of the same nature . 32 ARGUMENTS AGAINST MIXED COMMUNION. 1. Baptism a positive institution of Jesus Christ . 39 2. Example of Christ in admitting none but Baptists at the first institution of the supper .... 45 3. Apostolical examples and New Testament prece- dents 49 4. Union and order of a gospel church .... 56 5. Opinion of ancient and modern divines ... 64 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 1 . Baptism a mere circumstance 69 2. Want of brotherly love 76 b PAGE 3. No warrant in the word of God to forbid . . 81 4. Cases which make it expedient and necessary . 82 5. Texts of scripture which seem to favour it . . 84 CONCLUSION. 1. Behever's baptism of great importance . . . 2. Every new convert to be exhorted and encou- 89 raged to submit to it 90 3. To be followed with watchfulness, prayer, and universal obedience 92 4. Baptized persons ought to unite with a gospel church, and attend to the Lord's supper . . 93 ANSWER TO THE QUESTION, ^c. SfC. SfC. V'V ALKING, one evening, in the meadow of contemplation, I perceived, at some little dis- tance, two persons, apparently sedate, and very earnest in conversation, I quickened my pace, and soon overtook them. On passing, one of the two recognized me, and said, " My good sir, I am happy to see you; little did I expect to meet with you here." Upon turning, and finding; that it was an old acquaintance who thus ac- costed me, I replied, * And as little did I expect to see you, my worthy friend, in this place. I came hither for retirement, and, like Isaac of old, to meditate in the field.' On which, he immediately thus addressed me. " This com- panion of mine has been proposing a question, which has led us on to conversation, which 1 hope will not prove unprofitable; will you unite with us ?" * I shall be happy,' said I, ' to hear your conference, if it be no intrusion ; but 1 must request that I may be only a hearer : pray, what.. B 2 may be the subject?' " To be plain," answered my friend, " we are debating on a point which now much agitates the minds of the religious public, particularly those of the Baptist denomi- nation. It is, whether mixed or strict commu- nion in Gospel Churches be the most agreeable to the New Testament." * A point, my dear sir,' I replied, * which would give me pleasure to hear discussed : do begin.' Upon which, without any farther ceremony, they proceeded, and the fol- lowing Dialogue took place between these two friends, whom we shall designate Thomas and John. Thomas began: T. Why are you a strict Baptist? , J, Will you favour me with an explanation of terms? (i.e.) what am I to understand by a Saptist, and what by a strict Baptist? T. By a Baptist^ 1 mean one who denies the validity of Infant JBaptism, considering it as a human invention, not to be found in the inspired Volume, nor practised in the primitive and purest ages, and who also neither admits sprinkling nor pouring to be baptism; because the im- port of the original word, employed to express t&e baptismal rite, cannot, without the most unnatural violence, mean any thing less than die immersion of the whole body. The word is confessedly Greek, and who may be sup- posed to be best able to interpret it? Certainly the native Greeks must understand their own language better than foreigners, and that they have always understood the word baptism to signify dipping, and therefore, from their first embracing of Christianity, to this day, they have always baptized by immersion. By a strict Baptist^ I mean one who insists upon baptism as an indispensable pre-requisite to the Lord's table, and is therefore considered as an advocate for what is termed strict communion. Having thus briefly explained, I freely acknow- ledge myself a Baptist, but have my doubts a$ to the propriety of not admitting any other than Baptists to the Lord's supper. J. I thank you for being so explicit ; and as you have avowed yourself a Baptist^I do frankly declare myself to be a strict Baptist, and for the following reasons: — 1st, Because my Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, was one; and, 2nd, Because the Apostles and primitive Christians were evi- dently such. T. Very good reasons indeed, if they can be proved. J. I hope, before we part, to adduce such plain facts as will satisfy your mind. I would hot be ostentatious, or dogmatical, nor would I say any thing in ill-humour; but I would rather sanctify the Lord God in my heart, and give a reason of my faith with meekness, and fear, and a good conscience. I venture to assert, with a humble confidence, that the Lord Jesus Christ admitted none to that ordinance which he instituted prior to his death, and which is very B 2 4 properly termed the Lord's supper, but those who had been previously baptized. T. My dear brother, this is a very bold asser- tion ; suffer me to ask, on what ground can this be established? J. I have no doubt that it is to be established, and on the firmest basis. Do you not read, that the disciples baptized, prior to their communion with Christ and one another, in the solemn ordinance of the Eucharist ? John, iv. 2. Jesus himself baptized not, hut his Disciples, The disciples of Christ, you perceive, bap- tized, and no doubt by the authority and express command of their divine master; and did they, think you, administer that rite to others before they had submitted to it themselves? Would it not have been altogether incongruous? T. I think it would ; but I request to be informed who baptized them, and whether their baptism was Christian baptism, of the same nature with that which they were commissioned to administer after the resurrection of Christ ? J. In answer to your first question, I scruple not to say, it is my opinion, that they had been baptized by John : and those who are not strict Baptists allow this; even the acute Mr. Hall says, " It is almost certain, that some, probably most of them, (the apostles and the one hundred and twenty disciples assembled with them at the day of Pentecost,) had been baptized by John."* As to the second question, I cannot but express my surprize, that there should be the least hesi- tation or doubt, whether John's baptism were a Christian institute. T. I admit that they were baptized by John : two of the disciples of Jesus are expressly said to have been the disciples of John, (John, i. 35.) and therefore were undoubtedly baptized by him; but the query still is, and I own that I am one who feel doubtful about John's baptism being really Christian Baptism. J, My worthy brother, have a little patience with me, and I will endeavour, in the plainest manner, to remove your scruples, by laying- down the following propositions : 1. John's baptism was evidently from heaven ; he had his commission from God; he had a divine warrant, and acted by divine authority. John, i. 6. There ivas a man sent from God, whose name was John. He was sent of God the Father, who sent his only begotten Son into the world, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. The same divine Father sent John into the world, and his office and work were peculiar: he was the harbinger, the forerunner of Christ, he bare witness of him, and he was the • Terras of CommuDion, p. 39* 6 first administrator of the new ordinance of bap* tism. The law and the prophets were till John ; then a new dispensation commenced, even the Christian. John was commissioned to introduce it, and to introduce it by preaching and baptizing. Hence, Mark the Evangelist, in the commence- ment of his history, styles the preaching and baptism of John, " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," Mark, i. 5. intimating that the dispensation of the gospel then commenced; and this is confirmed by Luke, xvi. 16. Since that time the kingdom of God is preached^ and every man presseth into it. By the kingdom is undoubtedly meant the gospel dispensation; and every man pressing into it, refers to the crowds which attended the ministry of John, who were convicted, and converted under his ministry, and were baptized by him, and so became sub- jects of this kingdom. And it is worthy of remark, that after the default of Judas, when a proposal was made to make choice of another apostle in his room, that the proper person for election was thus pointed out by Peter. " It should be one of those which have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken tip from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection;"* but, why is it thus Acts i. 21, 22. expressed, beginning from the baptism of John ? Undoubtedly it means, that if one was made choice of who had been baptized by John, he was eligible to the apostolic office; and if so, surely John's baptism was considered as Chris- tian. 2. John's baptism was stamped by the au- thority and the example of Christ. Matt. iii. 13 — 15. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbade him, saying, " / have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" And Jesus ansivering, said unto himy * Suffer it to be so now : for thus it becometh us tofidjil all righteousness' Then he suffered him. Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, &c. My good friend, pause here a little, and take a view of this brief sketch of the history of the blessed Redeemer. Jesus came from Galilee, (from Nazareth) where Joseph, and Mary his mother resided, where he lived for many years in great obscurity, in all obedience to God, in Subjection to his parents, exercising a conscience void of offence towards God and man, and em- ploying his time in devotion and business. He came from Galilee to the great river, the Jordan, (a three days' journey) to be baptized. He considered then, that an attention to this ordi- nance was of importance, and it behoves Chris- tians to follow his example. Away then with all supposed obstacles, when a positive insti- 8 tution is established, and G^od requires an atten- tion to it; start no objections to the will of God and of Christ. At first, when Jesus presented himself for baptism, John was struck with awe, and ex- pressed himself with humility and reverence, and said, " I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" Mark the answer of our blessed Lord. ' ^^iff^r it to he so now' It is as if he had said, * The question is not whether thou or I be the more excellent ; it is thy duty to baptize, for my Father has sent thee to baptize. It is my pleasure and duty to be obedient to my Father, whose will I know, though it be hidden from thee. Baptism is a new law of the gospel church, of which, though I be the Head, yet I must be conformed to the members of it, con- cerning which my Father's will is, that they should be baptized with water, as well as with the Holy Ghost, For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.' It became John to administer the ordinance of baptism to Christ, as he was his forerunner, and the only administrator of it, and that he might fulfil the ministry which he had received; and as it became Christ to fulfil all righteousness, moral and ceremonial, and bap- tism being a part of his Father's will, which he came to do, it became him to fulfil this also ; and since it became Christ, it cannot be unbecoming in us to submit to this ordinance; and since he viewed it as a part of the righteousness to be 9 fulfilled by him, it ought to be submitted to by all those who would be accounted followers of him. When John clearly understood, that it was the will of the Father, and the will of Christ, he immersed his Saviour in the river Jordan ; and a solemn exhibition it was. Solemn to Christ, to John, to his disciples, and to the surrounding multitude, behold the Son of God, manifest iu the flesh, immersed in water by his commissioned harbinger, John, to represent his kind intention in coming into the world, to be bathed in sor- rows, in tears, in wrath, and in blood, to redeem the chief of sinners from the abyss of misery. Hear the Divine Father, with an audible voice, expressing his approbation, by proclaiming, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased," and view the Holy Spirit, descending as a dove, alighting upon him, and abiding with him. '* This divine rubric of baptism," as the venerable Booth observes, " exhibits to view the infinite source of all our happiness, and the glorious object of all our worship. Here the blessed God is re- vealed, under the paternal name, as the object of repentance, and the fountain of mercy ; under the FILIAL character, as the immediate object of confidence for pardon, peace, and protection : and, under the denomination of the Holy Spirit, as the object of dependence for illumination, sanctification, and consolation." Well might the 10 ancients exclaim : " Go to Jordan, and there learn the doctrine of the Trinity ;" and who can take a survey of the wondrous scenes exhibited on Jordan's banks, when John baptized his Saviour, and say, his baptism was not Christian baptism. It is worthy of remark, that prior to the period of our Lord's submission to the ordinance, that he appeared present in the midst of the numerous multitude which attended the baptism of John. John, i. 25 — 28, Afid they asked him, and said unto him. Why baptizest thou, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet ? ' John answered, saying, I baptize with water, hut there standeth one among you, whom ye know noty he it is, ivho, coming after me, is preferred hefore me, ivhose shoe-latchet I am 7iot worthy to unloose. These things ivere done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.'* From this passage, observe — 1. John was now baptizing at JBethabara, be- yond Jordan. Here he received the messengers from Jerusalem, and bore that testimony of Jesus which is recorded in the first of John. The word Bethabara, signifies a passage-house, and such there were on both sides of the river, near the fords, and most likely there were houses to accommodate and direct travellers, in times of low w ater, and ferry-houses for the convenience of passage, when floods and high waters rendered 11 boats necessary."* Dr. Lightfoot says, " That Bethabara is very commonly apprehended to be the place of passage, either where Israel came over, when they entered the land, or the common ford that people went over from one side to the other, from Judea to Perea, at the fords of Jericho."! No place perhaps could be chosen more convenient for baptism than this: there was a gentle descent into water of a sufficient depth for immersion, and here were houses for accommodation, 2. While he was baptizing, a multitude at- tended, and Jesus made his appearance among^ them, and they knew him not; but John de- clared that he was present. This, I suppose, was the first time that John knew him, that is, personally, or after the flesh, for there was no intimacy between them in early life. This, at first view, was somewhat surprising, considering how nearly related they were, and how remark- able the conception and birth of both of them had been, as well as what frequent interviews they might have had, at the yearly feasts at Jerusalem ; but there seems to have been a peculiar providence, in thus preventing that acquaintance, that might otherwise have grown up to a familiarity and tenderness of friend- ship, which, in the eyes of a prejudiced and • Robinson's tiistory of Baptism, p. 13. + Dr. Lightfoot's Works, p. 528. 12 censorious world, might have rendered John's testimony to Christ somewhat suspected ! But, at this time, when Jesus condescended to make his appearance, which was probably while con- versing with the deputation from the Jews, by some powerful impression on his mind, he pre- sently discerned, that this ivas he whom he had before taught the people to expect, and of whose person he had given so high a character. I proceed to observe, 3. John's baptism was administered under the teaching and influence of the Holy Ghost. That Divine Spirit, who descended on Christ at his baptism, taught, guided, influenced, and as- sisted John. It was truly a remarkable and pleasing message which was sent by an angel to Zecharias, re- specting the son which his wife Elizabeth was to bear to him, even John. Luke, i. 13 — 15, He shall he great in the sight of the Lord. — He shall he filled tvith the Holy Ghost, even from his mo- thers womh. — He shall go hefore him in the spirit and power of Elias. Well might our Saviour exclaim, " Verily, I say unto you, that there has not risen a greater than John the Baptist." He shall he great in the sight of the Lord : not in the view of men. His father was an ordinary priest ; as for worldly titles and dignities he had none. John the Baptist was his highest title : his clothing was not soft raiment, he vvasnotgorgeously apparelled, nor lived delicately, as in kings* 13 courts : he was clothed with a skin, with camels' hair, and had a leathern girdle about his loins : he had no palace, no stately habitation ; he lived mostly in desert places, little inhabited ; and his food was locusts and wild honey. He was not great, then, in outward dignity and splen- dour; but, what is infinitely more important, he was great in ike sight of the Lord, even Je- hovah his God, whose approbation is the highest glory. He ivasjilled with the Holy Ghost. As a spirit of prophecy, which is an extraor- dinary gift; and our Lord himself testifies, that there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist, Luke, vii. 28. Yea, he passed a still greater eulogium on this august character, by declaring he was more than a prophet, Matt. xi. 9 ; for as he was, with regard to his moral and re- ligious character, one of the best of men, so he had some peculiar honours, superior to any prophet of former generations, on account of his wonderful conception and birth, his excellent knowledge of gospel mysteries, and his express testimony to the Messiah, (John, iii. 27 — 36;) as, also, because he was his immediate harbinger, and was the subject of ancient prophecies, and long expected by Israel. He was filled with the Holy Ghost, as a spirit of sanctijication, and that from his conception. At that early period, the Holy Spirit took possession of his heart, and an early presage was given of it, when he leaped 14 in his mother's womb for joy, at the approach of a Saviour, (Luke, i. 41 and 44,) which mo- tion was supernatural. We just remark here, how early an infant, who is shapen in iniquity, and born in sin, may be wrought upon and made meet for heaven, through the regenerating and sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit. Erskine beautifully describes the felicity and song of infants in glory, in his Gospel Sonnets : " 111 heavenly choirs a question rose. That stirr'd up strife will never close. What rank of all the ransom'd race. Owes highest praise to sovereign grace. " Babes thither caught from womb and breast, Claim'd right to sing above the rest, Because they found the happy shore, They never saw nor sought before." Let this console the minds of parents under the heavy loss of their infant children. He was filled with the Holy Ghost as a spirit of revelation ; for how soon did he glorify Christ, by revealing Him to John. He discovered to him the dignity of his person, and the gracious design of his coming into the world, viz. to take away sin. John had made known to him, the dignity of the person of Christ. John, i. 15, John bare witness of Him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake. He that comelh after me is preferred before me : for he was before me. 15 John's ministry centered in Christ. How meanly did he speak of himself, that he might magnify Christ; he expresses, that he was not worthy to unloose his shoe-latchet, or to carry his shoes after him. John hare witness of him, and it was an open and public testimony that he gave. It was the voice of one crying in the wilderness; he cried aloud, that all manner of persons might take notice of it, for all are con- cerned in it. He cried as one who was well as- sured of, and well affected to the truth, of which he bare witness ; and what was that truth, " He THAT COMETH AFTER ME IS PREFERRED BEFORE ME : FOR HE WAS BEFORE ME." The two uaturcs of Christ are here proclaimed by John. Christ, as man^ came aftei^ him : he was born six months after him : he made his public appearance after him. *' As God, he was be/ore him ; for he was before Abraham ;'* " yea, he was before all things, and by him all things consist."^ " His goings forth were of old, from everlasting. "J The Holy Spirit revealed to John the great design of Christ's coming into the world, to ob^ tain redemption, through his blood, the forgive-^ neas of sins, according to the riches of his grace. He influenced his mind to preach that which was the sum of the apostle's ministry — " Re-f pentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord • John, viii. 58. f Col. i. if. X Mic, v. 2. 16 Jesus Christ." " I baptize you with water, to repentance," said the glorious harbinger of our blessed Lord ; and, Avhen addressing the Pha- risees and Sadducees, he warned them of their danger, and said, *' Bring forth fruits meet for repentance." He told the people, that the reno- vation of their hearts, and the reformation of their lives, were of vast importance; that they must forsake sin, and turn unto God, if ever they came to the enjoyment of eternal life. He preached the remission of sins, through the atoning blood and sacrifice of Christ. John, i. 29, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh aivay the sin of the world ; what a noble testimony this ! " Behold the Lamb of God !" which bespeaks him the great sacrifice, by whom atonement is made for sin, and man reconciled to God. The Lamb of God typified by the daily sacrifice which was offered every morning and evening continually, and by the paschal lamb, the blood of which being sprinkled on the door- posts, secured the Israelites from the stroke of the destroying angel. The Lamb of God, ap- pointed by him, devoted to him, and accepted of him, for in him he was well pleased, " which taketh away the sin of the world :" this was what he undertook ; he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, and he accomplished the gracious, the wondrous work. The Holy Spirit revealed unto John, the importance of his administering the ordinance of 17 baptism, which was a new rite. It has, 1 know, been said, that the baptism of John was founded on a Jewish rite : many have written in defence of Jewish proselyte baptism ; in reply to which, it has been often remarked, and that justly, that if such a rite had existed, the regular priests, and not John, would have administered it; and there would have been no need of a new and extraordinary appointment from heaven, to give being to an old established custom ; nor would it have been decent for John, or any other man, to treat native Jews, (especially Jesus Christ, who had no paganism to put away,) as pagan proselytes were treated. It has also been asked, with great propriety, if John's baptism belonged to the Jewish dispensation, how came it to pass that the Jews were so surprisingly ignorant of it, that when Christ asked them, Whether it was from heaven, or of men? they said. We cannot tell. And, it is to be observed, that the persons to whom Christ put the question, were not the ignorant multitude, but the chief priests and elders ; and it had particular reference to the authority by which John baptized, which, if re- ceived from them, they must certainly have known it, and, no doubt, would have replied, It was from men, it originated among our fathers before John was born. The fact is, that it was a new rite^ it was unknown in the ritual of Moses, and no where to be found in the Old Testament. And, as the baptism of John was a new rite, so c 18 it was revealed to him by the Holy Spirit, as an important one ; it must be administered to peni- tent sinners, and to believers io Christ ; and he must be the first administrator. Have patience with me, my dear sir, while I en- deavGui" to point out to you the design of this ordi- nance of God ; which, when duly considered, I am fully persuaded, will convince you, that it is not to be treated with indifference. That champion of the Baptist cause, Abraham Booth, judiciously remarks, that " Baptism being a gracious appoint- ment of God, it must have an important meaning ; and, as it is a positive ordinance, the w hole of its design must be fixed by Divine institution, for we have no more authority to invent a significa- tion for any rite of holy worship, than w^e have to appoint the rite itself; and the design of bap- tism must be learned from the New Testament, where the ordinance itself is to be learned."* Some have mistaken its design, and have run into very erroneous notions. Alas ! " Baptism, like man in his primeval state, when it first came out of the hand of its institutor, was pure; but it has been basely contaminated, and per- verted from its original design, to very different purposes. It has become all things to all men, as circumstances seem to require." It has been represented as a saving ordinance,^ that there is no salvation without it. The church * Booth's Paedobaptisni examined, p. 177. 19 of Rome thus speaks by the Council of Trent : " If any one shall say, that baptism is not neces- sary to salvation, let him be accursed." The Greek church says, " It cannot be omitted, in respect of infants, without endangering their sal- vation." Some Protestant confessions, also, assert the same. It has been affirmed to be a regenerating or- dinance : so, in the established church of this country, when water is sprinkled on the face, and a cross made on the forehead, the priest ventures to say, '* This child is regenerated, and grafted into the body of Christ's church ;" and, very early, are poor ignorant persons taught to say, *' that, in their baptism, they were made members of Christ, children of God, and inhe- ritors of the kingdom of heaven." But nothing like this appears in sacred writ. 1. That which is principally intended, is, to represent the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. " The immersion into the water," says the great Witsius, '* represents to us, that tre- mendous abyss of Divine justice, in which Christ was plunged for a time, in some measure, in consequence of his undertaking for our sins : so it is a very fit representation of the death of Christ ; the continuing how short soever under the water, represents his burial^ and the lowest degree of humiliation, when he was thought to be wholly cut off, while in the grave, that was both sealed and guarded. The emersion, or coming out of c 2 20 the water, gives us some resemblance of his resurrection, or victory obtained, in his death, over death, which he vanquished within its in- most recesses, even the grave. All these par- ticulars the apostle intimates."* Rom. vi. 3, 4. 2. It is designed to be a solemn and practical profession of our homage to Christ, and of our embracing his religion. Hence, saith the apostle, Gal. iii. 27, " As many of you as have been bap- tized into Christ, have put on Christ^ Mr. Thomas Bradbury says, " Baptism is what you may call the frontispiece of the Christian religion. It is the first public declaration of our adherence to the Messiah. It is the badge, the mark, the signature of our subjection to him.t 3. It is to intimate, that the communion the believer has with Christ, and the interest he has in those blessings which flow from the love of God, are the result of the death of Christ, and which are applied by the Holy Spirit. When baptized in the name of the sacred Three, we pub- licly declare, that our eyes are directed to, and our hearts affected with, the freeness of the Father's grace, the all-sufficient atonement of the Son, and the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit. 4. It is designed to represent the believer's dying to sin, and to the world, and his rising again to live unto God. Thus, it is introduced. • Witsius's CEconomy of the Covenants, vol. iii. p. ZUfS. t Duty and Doctrine of Baptism, p. 30 and 1 60. in the epistles to the Romans and to the Co- lossians, as a sign of our being dead and buried to the principles and pursuits of the present world, and, by faith in Christ, raised as into a new world. Rom. vi. 3 — 12. Col. ii. 12. Now, my dear Friend, put all these things together : consider baptism as a new and evan- gelical rite, appointed by God the Father, to be administered by John as a preparation for the appearance of the prophesied Messiah : reflect on Christ himself attending at the baptism of John, and afterwards submitting to that rite at his hands : take a retrospective view of the Holy Spirit, anointing John for the purpose of his adminis- tering the ordinance as a representation of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, for the pardon, justification, and salvation of all who believe in him : attend to the requisitions of John previous to baptism, viz. Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ, which were what Christ required, and the apostles demanded; and, then, judge, whether John's baptism was not Christian baptism. T*. I have listened, with attention, to the ob- servations you have made, and, really, I am staggered, and am, I own, almost persuaded to believe, that your ideas are correct with respect to John's baptism. J. I would that you may be not almost a be- liever on this head, but that you may be alto- gether convinced, that the remarks which have been suggested set the matter in a clear light. m T. But I hope you will not be displeased, nor think me impertinent, if I ask two or three more questions on the subject. J. Displeased ! certainly not ; be free and open, speak out your whole mind ; it will afford the highest satisfaction to me to discuss the point thoroughly. T, Well, then, I shall ask, first, Does it appear, that John baptized in the name of Jesus; and you know this is essential to Christian bap- tism ? This, I have understood, is called in ques- tion. A most intelligent writer has said, " Chris- tian baptism was invariably administered in the name of Jesus ; while there is sufficient evidence that John's was not performed in that name."* I ask again, Did John administer the ordinance, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ? because the same writer asserts, that " none will contend that John immersed his disciples in the name of the Holy Trinity."t And, thirdly, I ask, Does it not appear that the disciples at Ephesus, who had submitted to John's baptism, were rebaptized by Paul ? Now, if these are facts that can be established, does it not naturally lead us to question the validity of John's baptism as Christian baptism ? J. You have, my good brother, advanced ob- jections, which, at first view, appear formidable, but, when thoroughly investigated, I think they will appear groundless. Let us examine them. * Hall's IVkcms of Communion, p. 21, f Ibid< . p. 55. 23 As to the first, Is it not expressly said, in Acts, xix. 4, that John required of the candidates for baptism, " that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus:" and, is it not a strange idea, that he should insist on such a profession, and yet not baptize in his name ; surely, the very requisition supposes that such was John's practice. Besides, in the next verse, it is expressly said, that " When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." I know it is dis- puted, whether that verse applies to John, or to the apostle Paul, to which 1 shall call your at- tention very soon. At present, I shall take it for granted, as I am fully persuaded it relates to John, and if so, this objection is entirely overthrown, and that point, whether he baptized in the name of Jesus, is completely settled and at rest. As to the second query. Did John immerse his disciples in the name of the sacred Trinity? My answer is, That his baptizing in the name of Jesus, implies it, although he might not verbally do it. I think that Dr. Lightfoot has set this matter in a clear point of view : his words are as follow. " Three thousand converted are baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, Acts, ii. 38, which no whit disagreeth from the command, ' Baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' " For the form of baptism in 24 those first days of the gospel, of which the New Testament giveth the story, may be considered under a threefold condition. 1. John the Baptist baptized in the name of Messias, or Chnsl, that was then ready to come ; but that Jesus of Nazareth was he, lie himself knew not, till he had run a good part of his course, 2. The disciples baptizing the Jews, baptized them in the name of Jesus: upon this reason, because the great point of controversy then in the nation about Messias was, whether Jesus of Nazareth was he or no. All the nation acknow- ledged a Messias, but the most of them abomi- nated that Jesus of Nazareth should be thought to be he : therefore, those that, by the preaching of the gospel, came to acknowledge him to be Messias, were baptized into his name, as the critical badge of their embracing the true Mes- sias. But, 3. Among the Gentiles, where that question was not afoot, they baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and, so that baptizing in the name of Jesus, was for a season, for the settling of the evidence of his being Messias ; and when that was tho- roughly established, then it was used no more ; but baptism was in the name of the Father, &c.* * Lightfoot's Works, vol. i. p. 276. 25 To the same purport is the languaire of Dr. Gill, ill his comment on Acts, ii. 38, " Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, iji the name of Jesus Christ." " Not to the exclusion of the Father, and of the Spirit, in whose name, also, this ordinance is to be administered ; but, the name of Jesus Christ is particularly mentioned, because of these Jews, who had before rejected and denied him as the Messiah ; but now, upon their repentance and faith, they are to be baptized in his name, by his authority, according to his command ; pro- fessing their faith in him, devoting themselves to him, and calling on his name." Consider the time when this took place; it was the first act of baptism after the great commis- sion. It is not probable, it is scarcely possible, that on the first administration of the ordinance after the commission given, that they should omit the most solemn part of it. No, my bro- ther, they could not omit it. Be assured, that Peter, and the rest of the apostles, baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. It would otherwise have been a direct violation of Divine law, and a criminal rejection of the express precept of their Lord and Master. I hope you clearly perceive this. T. Indeed, your observations on my two first queries are new to me, and, I must acknowledge, have weight ; but I am impatient to hear what you have to advance on my third. 26 J. I shall be happy if the remarks made, appear so plain and obvious, and of such weight as td overthrow the objections started. I proceed now to your third question. Does it not appear that the disciples at Ephesus, who had submitted to John's baptism, were re-baptized by the apostle Paul? Before I make a reply, I shall beg leave to peruse the whole text; it stands thus: Acts xix. 1. And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the uppef coasts came to Ephesus : and finding certain disciples, 2. He said unto them. Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there he any Holy Ghost. 3. And he said unto them. Unto what then were ye baptized ? And they said. Unto John's baptism. 4. Then said Paul, John verily baptized ivith the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him ivhich should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. 5. When they heard this, they wete baptized iri the name of the Lord Jesus, 6. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 7. And all the men ivere about twelve. Respecting this remarkable historical passage, I am aware, that there are eminent men who sup- pose that ver. 5, relates to Paul, and is an inti- 27 mation, that he, not bein^ satisfied with John's baptism, not considering it as a Christian institute, re-baptized the disciples at Ephesus. But there are others equally eminent, many great critics, who consider that verses 4 and 5, make one continued sentence ; and the learned 3eza ex- presses himself with great confidence, on this head, and concludes, that Paul did not baptize these converts anew, but only declared his ac- quiescence in the sufficiency of the baptism they had already received, by imparting to them the gifts of the Holy Spirit, as in ver. 6. Poole, a valuable non-conformist divine, ^nd celebrated critic, has thrown a clear light on this somewhat obscure part of apostolic history, and his reasoning appears, at least to me, very con- clusive.* You will observe two questions put by the apostle to the disciples, at Ephesus, and the answers given: 1. Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ? meaning, not the special, regenerating, and sanctifying grace of the Holy Ghost, for that is supposed in their being disciples and believers, but the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost? They answered, " We have not so much as heard, whether there be any Holy Ghost." By which they could not mean the Person of the * Poole's Annotations on Acts, xix. 28 Holy Spirit, for they must have known that there was such a divine person, from the writings of the Old Testament, with which they were con- versant, and, from the ministry of John, into w hose baptism they were baptized ; who saw the Spirit of God descending on Jesus, and bore witness of it, and declared, that Christ, who was to come after him, would baptize with the Holy Ghost : nor could they mean the special grace of the Spirit which they had received ; for they had experienced his operations on their hearts. But they had not heard of the effusion of his extra- ordinary and miraculous gifts ; for, it was a received opinion among the Jews, that, after the death of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, the spirit of prophecy departed from Israel, and they never heard that he was returned, or of his being given anew with his miraculous gifts. 2. Paul asks, " Unto what then were ye bap- tized? What doctrine did you make a profession of? Into what name were ye immersed?" They reply, ' Unto John's baptism.' Upon this an- swer, the apostle proceeds to give an account of John's baptism, as follows : 1. '* John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance. 2. Saying, to the people, that they should believe on Him which should come after him; that is, on Christ Jesus. 3. When they (that is, the penitent believers) were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Does not this strike you as a very plain narrative of the nature 29 of John's baptism ; and from hence, as Poole observes, " It is manifest, that the baptism of John and of Christ, (which he commanded) is one and the same. Johns baptism did respect Christ, and obliged the baptized to believe on him, as also to repent ; and more, it was a seal to them of the remission of sins, Mark i. 4. so that the baptism of John and the baptism of the apostles afterwards, had the same sign, and the same thing signified in them both, as also they had both the same end, and therefore they were both the same; add to this, that unless the Baptist and the apostles' baptism were the same, Christ and his members are not baptized with the same baptism." With respect to the idea suggested by some of these disciples being re-baptized by Paul, this judicious commentator thus expounds ver. 5, " When they heard this, they ivere baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. When they heard this, the disciples, or those that John preached to, who, when they heard what the Baptist said on the foregoing verse, they were baptized ; as in the same terms, it is said, chap. ii. 37, When they heard what Peter had said, they were pricked in their hearts, &c. and were baptized. As for Paul's imposing his hands upon them that are said here to be baptized, it might very well be, that the twelve disciples (ver. 7,) might have been baptized, and now receive the Holy Ghost in those extraordinary gifts, by the laying on of the hands 30 of St. Paul ; for, to Avhat end should these disciples be again baptized ? It is true, they had further ma- nifestations of the mystery of the gospel brought unto them ; but if men should be baptized for every degree of knowledge or grace, which they do acquire, how many baptisms had they need to have, who ought daily to grow in grace and m knowledge." Dr. Lightfoot, who was a profound scholar, and an acute critic, brought all his immense learn- ing to bear on the sacred volumes, and scattered light on every page: his historical, chronolo- gical, and topographical remarks on the Old Testament, and his talmudical exercitations on the New, are invaluable. This great man coin- cides exactly with the learned Poole. He asks, respecting the disciples at Ephesus, *' 1. What need had they to be re-baptized, when, in that first baptism they had taken, they had come into the profession of the gospel, and of Christ, as far as the doctrine that had brought them in could teach them ? It was the change of their pro- fession, from Judaism to Evangelism, that re- quired their being baptized, and not the degrees of their growth iu the knowledge of the gospel, into the profession of wliich they had been bap- tized already. How many baptisms must the apostles have undergone, if every signal degree of their coming on to the perfect knowledge of the mystery of Christ, might have required, nay, might have admitted, a new baptizing? 2. If 31 these men were re-baptized, then must the same be concluded of all that had received the baptism of John, when they came to the knowledge of Jesus ; which, as it is incredible, because there is not the least tittle of mention of such a thing, §0 is it unimaginable in the case of those of the apostles that were baptized by John ; for who, should baptize them again in the name of Jesus, since Jesus himself baptized none? John, iv. 3, 3. These men had taken upon them the baptism of repentance, and the prof essio7i oi Chrifii, in the baptism of John, that they had received : there- fore, unless we will suppose a baptism of faith different from the baptism of repentance, and a baptism in the name of Jesus, different from the baptism in the name of Christ, it will be hard to find a reason, why these men should undergo a new baptizing."* Dr. Gill, another learned critic, who abounded in rabbinical knowledge, who had clear ideas of gospel truth, and, moreover, was a pious and godly man, unites with the preceding eminent men, in considering John's baptism to be Christian baptism, and that the disciples at Ephesus were not re-baptized. Respecting the former, he writes thus : " John was the first administrator of the ordinance of baptism, and therefore is called the Baptist, by way of emphasis ; whereas, had it been in com- * Lightfoot's Works, vol. 1, p. 298. 32 moil use, there must have been many baptizers before him, who had a like claim to this title; and why should the people be so alarmed with it, as to come from all parts to see it adminis- tered, and to hear it preached, when, had it been in frequent use, thej'^ must have often seen it? And why should the Jewish Sanhedrim send priests and Levites from Jerusalem to John, to know who he was? and why he baptized? whereas, had it been performed by an ordinary teacher, common rabbi or doctor, priest or Levite, in ages immemorial, there could have been no room for such questions ; but John's baptism was not a device of men, but the cou7isel of God, according to his will and wise determination; which the Pharisees and lawyers rejected against themselves. Luke, vii. 30. Novi% his baptism, and that of Christ and his apostles were the same; Christ was baptized by John, and his baptism was surely Christian baptism, of this no one can doubt; and his disciples also were baptized by him ; for, by whom else could they be baptized ? not by Christ him- self, for he baptized none : and it is observable, that the baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ and his apostles. Mere at the same time, they were cotemporary, and one did not succeed the other : now, it is not reasonable to suppose there should be two sorts of baptism, administer- ed at the same time, but one and the same by both. 33 The baptism of John, and that which was practised by the apostles of Christ, even after his death and resurrection from the dead^ agreed, 1. In the subjects thereof; those whom John baptized were penitent sinners, so the apostles exhorted men to repent, to profess repentance, and give evidence of it previous to their bap- tism. John said to the people who came to his baptism, " That they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus ;" and faith in Christ was made a pre-requisite to baptism, by Christ and his apostles. 2. In the manner of the administration of both. John's baptism was by immersion, as the places chosen by him for it show, and the baptism of Christ by him is a proof of it, and in like manner was baptism performed by the apostles, as of the Eunuch by Philip. 3. In the form of their ad- ministration. John was sent of God to baptize; and in whose name should he baptize, but in the name of the one true God, who sent him, even in the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit ? The doctrine of the Trinity was known to John, as it was to the Jews in common. It is said of John's hearers and disciples, that they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, Acts, xix. 4. The same form is used in the baptism of those baptized by the apostles of Christ, (Acts, viii. 16, and x. 48,) which is only a part of the form put for the whole, and is sufficiently expressive of Christian baptism. 4. Jn the end D 34 and use of baptism. John's baptism, and so the apostles' was upon repentance for the remission df sins. Mark, i. 4. Acts, viii. 38. Not that either repentance or baptism procures^the pardon of sin ; that is only obtained by the blood of Christ ; but baptism is a means of leading to the blood of Christ, and repentance gives encouragement to hope for it, through it. Now, since there was such an agreement between the baptism of John, as administered before the death of Christ ; and between the baptism of the apostles, after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, it is a plain case, it was not limited to the interval of time, from the beginning of John's ministry to the death of Christ ; but was afterwards con- tinued."* Respecting the re-baptizing of the disciples at Ephesus, the Doctor's remarks, I think, are very judicious. He observes, that, " some think they had never been baptized at all, with water bap- tism, only had received the doctrine preached by John, concerning repentance and remission of sins, and so were baptized unto him, professing the same doctrine he did, just as the Israelites were baptized into Moses. Others think they were baptized, but very wrongly; being baptized in the name of John, and not in the name of Jesus Christ, and so, as it was not Christian baptism they had submitted to, it was right to * Gill's Body of Divinity, vol. iii. p. 313. 35 baptize them again; but neither of these are probable, for it is not likely that they should receive John's doctrine, and not his baptism; that they should be his disciples and followers, and not attend to the more distinguishing branch of his ministry ; and it is still more unlikely that they should be baptized in his name, who preached Jesus Christ to his followers, and pointed out to them the Lamb of God, and declared Him to be greater than he ; it seems rather that they were baptized, and that they were baptized in the name of Christ, as John's disciples were, as the apostle affirms in the following words : 5. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, " Not the disciples that Paul found at Ephe- sus, but the hearers of John ; for these are the words of the apostle Paul, giving an account of John's baptism, and of the success of his minis- try ; shewing that his baptism was administered in the name of the Lord Jesus; and not the words of Luke the Evangelist, recording what followed upon his account of John's baptism ; for then he would have made mention of the apostle's name, as he does in the next verse, and have said. When they heard this account, they were baptized by Paul in the name of the Lord Jesus. The historian reports two things. 1. What Paul said, which lies in ver. 4, and 5 ; then, what he did, in ver. 6, where he repeats his name, as was necessary; as that he laid his hands on them, D 2 36 which was all that was needful to their receiving the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, having been already baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Which sense is the more confirmed by the particles ftiv and h, which answer to one another in verses 4 and 5, and shew the words to be a continuation of the apostle's speech, and not the words of the historian, which begin in the next verse."* These quotations I have made from those eminent men, Beza, Poole, Lightfoot, and Gill, to shew that the idea of Paul's not re-baptizing these disciples is not so absurd as some have imagined. But, admitting the fact of the re-baptizing of the Ephesians, the advocates of free communion, lose more than they gain by the concession ; for, what is the deduction to be drawn from it? Why, that their first baptism was imperfect, and that before they could be considered as complete disciples of Christ, and qualified for communion at the Lord's supper, it was absolutely necessary that they should be really and truly baptized. Before I dismiss this subject, I must beg leave to observe, that it appears to me, that if the apostle Paul re-baptized the disciples of Ephesus, he would have acted contrary to the the conduct and example of Christ, in proof Gill's Exposition. 37 of which, I would bring to your recollection two remarkable anecdotes : When two of John's disciples left him, on his directing them to Christ, as the " Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world," and one of the two fetched in a third, (Simon) and all the three came to Jesus, w^hich seems to be the first fruits of Christ's disciples, Christ did not say to them, Now ye have declared yourselves to be my disciples, and that you will henceforward strictly adhere to me, you must be re-baptized, for your former master's baptism was not Christian baptism; no, he condescendingly received them without giving any such direction. Again, we have an account, that John and Christ were preaching and baptizing together at the same time. John, iii. 22 — 23, and John con- tinued to baptize till he was cast into prison, and, after his death, his disciples " took up his body, and buried it, and went and told Jesus." They wished now to become more directly and strictly his disciples, and Christ cordially ad- mitted them ; but did he first represent to them that John's baptism (to which they were baptized) was invalid, and that they must be re-baptized by one or other of his apostles ? No, there is nothing like it. What a proof is this that John's baptism was, for substance, the same as Christ's, and that anabaptism was not his will ! Thus I have endeavoured to prove, and hope 58 I have done it to your satisfaction, that the baptism of John, and of Jesus Christ and his apostles, were not two different institutes, but one and the same. I have, perhaps, been too long on this subject, but, I thought it necessary to be particular here, because, if it could be demonstrated that Christian baptism was not instituted till the commission given by our Sa- viour to his apostles, after his resurrection, our free communion brethren would gain one point in the controversy, as, in that case, the Lord's supper has the priority, that being appointed before the death of Christ. T. Really, the exposition you have given of the historical account, in Acts, xix. and the tes- timony of those learned and pious men you have brought forward, has produced a complete con- viction in my mind, that the twelve disciples, at Ephesus, were not re- baptized. But I must now request, that you will furnish me with some argu- ments, if you can, which shall carry equal con- viction, that unbaptized persons are inadmissible to the Lord's table ; for I wish to exercise can- dour towards those brethren who differ from me on the point of baptism ; and I would be per- suaded, that those who act conscientiously in admitting such, whom they consider as unbaptized, to partake of the Eucharist, act rightly, for there is something unpleasant, and, apparently, un- christian, in refusing to hold communion at the 39 Lord's table, with those whom we consider to be the Lord's people. J. My good brother, I wish, with you, to exercise candour towards all who love our Lord Jesus Christ, in sincerity, but not at the expense of consistency, nor to the setting aside either of the two positive institutions of my Lord and Master ; I mean baptism, and the Lord's supper. To countenance any in neglecting, or treating with indifference, either of these two great ordi- nances of the New Testament, I consider not as genuine, warrantable candour : I rather consider it as an act of rebellion against the glorious Head, and Royal Legislator of the Christian church, and as very offensive to God. T. Indeed, my worthy friend, this is strong- language ; — rebellion, and offensive to God ! You ought to have some very strong reasons to justify such expressions. J. Pardon me, if I have expressed myself too warmly; but I am jealous for the honour of my King, my Law-giver, and my Judge ; and I shall now proceed to give you reasons for my not thinking it right, but, on the contrary, exceed- ingly wrong, to admit of mixed communion. 1. I consider baptism as a positive institution of Jesus Christ. We are under both moral and positive obligar tions. The former, we may consider as com- prehending those duties which grow out of our relation to God and one another ; the latter, as 40 including such rules of conduct as arise merely from the revealed will of God. The one is im- mutable, as long as intelligent beings exist ; the other, depending upon the sovereign authority of Jehovah, may be in force at one period, and repealed at another. But, though moral and positive obligations may be so plainly distin- guished, yet the former binds us to the most exact observance of the latter ; nor can these be neglected, without those being violated. It is an essential part of the moral law, that intelligent creatures should receive every intimation of the divine mind with the most cordial readiness, and bow to every expression of sacred authority with the most cheerful submission. I have lately been reading, with great satisfac- tion, A Circular Letter from the Ministers and Messengers of the several Baptist Churches of the Northampton Associatio7i, assembled at Olney^ in June, 1 808 ; dratcn up by Mr. Andrew Fuller. The subject is. On Obedience to Positive Institutions. I hope you will have patience to hear some of the remarks on that important sub- ject, as they will not appear foreign to the point we are now discussing. It is justly remarked, in that excellent epistle, that *' Positive institutions have existed, though subject to a variety of changes, from the begin- ing to this day. If we look back to Paradise, we tind that the fruit of ail the trees of the garden was given to our first parents, for the 41 support of natural life, one excepted. The fruit of that Avas absolutely forbidden, and an awful threatening annexed to disobedience. Soon after the fall, sacrifices were instituted ; and though Moses has not recorded their divine origin, yet had they not been commanded of God, and, probably, their typical import ex- plained, Abel could not have offered them, in faith, nor would they have been accepted of God. Another positive institution given to the patriarchs, respected the distinction of the beasts of the field, into clean and unclean, undoubtedly to mark, what should, and what should not, be offered in sacrifice. After the flood, several positive laws were given to Noah, and his pos- terity, particularly with respect to the eating of animal food, and the shedding of blood. But these relate rather to civil than religious matters, and, as such, do not so immediately belong to the subject under consideration. We next come to the rite of circumcision given to Abraham, with- out entering into a disquisition, whether it was most properly a civil or a religious rite, or both, one thing is universally granted by Christians, that it is long since abrogated. Tracing the sub- ject, we find a great body of these laws given to Israel, at Mount Sinai, which were to be ob- served by the people. These, in a partial view, answered civil, but principally sacred purposes. Among the Jews, as a political body, they con- tributed towards the maintenance of the priests, 42 who ministered at the altar, and the defraying of the expenses incurred by keeping up the worship of God. Their use in this view, would naturally die away, when the Jews ceased to be a body politic, and no longer possessed the city of Jerusalem, where their holy temple and altars stood. But their grand design was spiritual. They were shadows of good things to come. They typified Him, in his character and work, who, in the fulness of time, came into the world, to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself. The ceremonial law was, in an eminent manner, a school-master unto Christ, under that dispensa- tion; but now, the substance being come, the shadows have all vanished. We are now arrived at a new aera in the dis- pensation of Divine Providence. The question now fairly meets us ; what are the positive insti- tutions, binding upon us under the New Testa- ment dispensation? We answer, Baptism and the Lord's supper. Unless we reckon the appoint- ment of the first day of the week, for Christian worship, an exception, we know of no other ordinance in force under the Christian dispensa- tion, to which the definition of a positive institu- tion will apply. To these two ordinances, all the Old Testament ceremonies appear to have been reduced. And shall either of these be neglected? Shall they be treated with indiffer- ence? Have we any right to dispense with either? Surely not. " Our attention to positive 43 institutions, should be peculiarly awakened, by rejecting on the holy jealousy with which the Most High watches over them. Hear his own solemn language, Ye shall not add to the word which I command, neither shall ye diminish from it.* * Ye shall not turn aside to the right hand, or to the left.'t For what was man ex- pelled Paradise? How tremendous the conse- quences, following on the conduct of our first parents, in presuming to pluck the forbidden fruit ! Does not all creation bear the impress of Jehovah's curse ? Does not every living creature feel the direful effects of his displeasure, incurred by the transaction ? Who can read, and not be ready to tremble, how Nadab and Abihu, for venturing to burn incense with unhallowed fire, were devoured by fire that went out from the Lord;J or how Korah and his companions were cut off for an effort to invade the priestly office, and dispute the authority with which Moses and Aaron were invested?} If David, the man after God's own heart, in removing the ark, deviate from the Divine direction, the displeasure of heaven is displayed ; and Uzza, whose misguided solici- tude let him put forth his hand to prevent its falling when the oxen stumbled, dies upon the spot. II If Uzziah, who did that which was right • Deut. iv. 2. t Deut. v. 3'2. J Numb. iii. 4. % Numb. xvi. 31—33. || 2 Sam. vi. 6, 7. 44 in the t»ight of the Lord for many years, at last disregard the sacred injunction, and will attempt to burn incense upon the altar, he is struck with the leprosy in the very act, and is cut off from the house of the Lord unto the day of his death.* What instructive, what solemn admonitions! How dangerous to lose sight of the command of God in acts of religious worship, even in circum- stances, which are apparently small and trivial ! and though, as in the case of Uzza, what is done may be done with a good intention : this is no apology. Surely God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of his saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him."-}" Now, if the Most High thus, with a holy jealousy, watches over his positive injunctions, and expresses his displeasure at the least devia- tion from them, let us be careful that we do not offend him. JBaptisin, I have said, and you will not deny it, is a positive institution, as is the Lord's supper, and they are of equal importance ; although, as Mr. Newman observes, in a little tract he published in 1805, " Many Christians, when speaking of the Lord's supper, denominate it THE ordinance^ as if there were but one ritual institute, binding upon us; however, from the beginning it was not so."J; * 2 Chron. xxvi. l6 — 21. t Psalm Ixxxix. 7- X Baptism, a prerequisite to Communion at the Lord's Table, page 1. 45 Thus, my dear brother, I have given you my first reason for not admitting an unbaptized per- son to the Lord's table, because baptism is a positive institution of our Lord Jesus Christ, and no man, or set of men, are entitled to dispense with it. Let us, therefore, hold it fast ; let us give proof of our loyalty to Christ as King of Zion ; let us bear testimony against every inva- sion of his royal authority ; let us remember, that every deviation from a positive institute is unwarrantable ; and, however plausible it may appear, however it may be patronized, by num- bers, by learning, or piety, it will not be divinely approved. 2. The example of our Lord Jesus Christ is a sufficient directory to his ministers and churches, as to the persons who are admissible to the Lord's supper. I agree with my free communion brethren, that the ordinance of the supper was instituted by Jesus Christ — that it is an ordinance pecu- liar to the gospel dispensation — that it is a stand- ing ordinance in the church of Christ — that it is to continue to the end of the world. I also agree with them respecting the ends and designs of the Lord's supper. That it is to show forth the death of Christ — to commemorate the sacrifice of Christ — to remember the love of Christ in dying for us — to show our love to Christ, and express our thankfulness to him for the blessings of his grace ; and to maintain love and 46 unity with each other ; for, by joining together in holy fellowship, in this ordinance, we keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Moreover, I also agree with them, in the gene- ral, as to the proper subjects of this ordinance— that no infants have a right to partake of the bread and wine — that no persons, scandalous in their lives and conversation, are to be admitted —that penitent sinners, and true believers in Christ, are the only persons who are to be en- couraged to partake. But, I differ from them in this one point, now under consideration, and maintain, I hope, with meekness and fear, that none but those who are baptized upon a pro- fession of repentance toward God, and faith to- ward our Lord Jesus Christ, are to be admitted as communicants at this ordinance ; and it is, as I have hinted, on account of the example of my blessed Lord and Master. Let us refer to the institution of the Eucharist, Matt. xxvi. 26, and following verses : " And as -they were eating" the paschal lamb, and just concluding the whole solemnity, before the table was withdrawn, " Jesus took bread, and blessed it ;" and he " took the cup, and gave thanks ;" w^hich is not to be understood as merely express- ing his thanks to God for the bread and wine, and in treating the Divine blessing thereon, as he was accustomed to do when he partook of his ordinary meals, but his sanctifying the one and the other to be used as a new gospel institution 47 for the remembrance of his death. ** Maimo- nides, and other rabbins, tell us, that it was a rule among the Jews, at the end of the supper, to take a piece of the lamb for the last thing they ate that night. If this custom was as old as Christ's time, it would make this action so much the more remarkable. It would plainly show, that the bread here distributed was a very distinct thing from the meal they had been making toge- ther, and might be, in the first opening of the action, a kind of symbolical intimation^ that the Jewish passover was to give way to another and nobler divine institution.''* Who were present? Who partook of this new instituted ordinance? First, the great Master of the family, and Master of the feast. And who was He? The Son of God manifested in the flesh ; the great Redeemer of sinners, and the appointed Judge of the world ; and who had himself been baptized in the river Jordan. Yes, my worthy friend, He who established this ordi- nance in the Christian church, thought it meet to be baptized prior to its institution. And who sat down with him at the table? Eleven of his disciples, whom he had separated from the world, and called by his grace, and who had followed the example of their Divine Master, in being baptized by John. Such were the guests * Dr. Doddrid^'s Fam. Expos, od Matt. xxvi. note. AVlio assembled together in the prepared guest- chamber, to witness the first celebration of the solemn ordinance of the supper, and to partake of the bread and the wine, consecrated by their adorable Redeemer. What a delightful assem- bly ! The Divine Master, and his chosen ser- vants : — the Prince of Peace, and his sanctified subjects : — the glorious Head of the Christian church, and his united members, all holding sweet communion together at the sacred feast. What a glorious sight! What a pleasing and animating festival ! The holy angels, no doubt, looked on them with rapture. The solemn scene might well be closed with a hymn. " When they had sung a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives." A proper, a seasonable time for singing, to express their joy in God, through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom they received the atonement. How suitable is the hymn of Dr. Watts's on such an occasion as this : " The King himself comes near And feasts his saints to-day, Here we must sit, and see him here. And love, and praise, ami pray. " One day amidst the place Where my dear God hath been. Is sweeter than ten thousand day* Of pleasurable sin. ** My willing soul would stay In such a frame as this. And sit and sing herself away To everlasting bliss." 49 3. Apostolical examples, and New Testament precedents, confirm me in the opinion, that un- baptized believers have no right to the privilege of the Lord's supper. The apostles were men of eminent grace, and possessed extraordinary gifts. They were imme- diately called by Christ, and had their doctrine from him, and their commission to preach it. They were peculiarly, and infallibly guided by the Spirit of God, and had a power to work miracles for the confirmation of their doctrine. They had authority to go every where to preach the gospel, and plant churches, and to instruct them in the will of Christ. They were taught by the Holy Ghost, who guided them in all truth, necessary to be known, useful to men, and profitable to the churches, even the whole counsel of God. The whole revelation of truths, as it relates to both doctrines ' and ordinances, which Christ received from the Father, the Spirit received from Christ, the apostles received from the Spirit, and which the churches received from them in succeeding generations; and for the keeping of which, Paul commends the Co- rinthians : " Now, I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the or- dinances as I delivered them to you;* and it is praise- worthy for the churches of Jesus Christ * 1 Cor. xi. 2. E 50 to keep his ordinances pure, both with respect to matter and form, as they have been delivered by him, and his apostles after him. It has been universally acknowledged, that the rise of antichrist was, by degrees, first en- croaching by one invention, and then, from time to time, superadding another, till, at length, there was a general dispensing with the laws of Christ, and new ones made, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, and setting up unwritten traditions before the word of God. Hence, the apostle perceiving the disposition of men to swerve from the truth, thus solemnly and ear- nestly addresses his son Timothy, " I give thee charge, in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Christ Jesus, who, before Pontius Pilate, witnessed a good profession, that thou keep this commandment (by which, I suppose, we are to understand, the whole work of his ministry, all the trust reposed in him, the various orders he had given him throughout the epistle, relating both to the doctrine and disci- pline of the house of God,) without spot, unre- bukable, until the appearing of the Lord Jesus Christ; which, in his times, he shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords :" a charge worthy the attention of all the servants of God. Having made these preliminary remarks, I pro- ceed to consider what was the apostolic practice, and what are the New Testament precedents 51 respecting baptism. And, on examination, we shall find, that the primitive churches were not constituted without it. This wae the first thing recommended and insisted upon, after the con- version of a sinner, and prior to his becoming a member of a gospel church. The members of the first Christian church at Jerusalem, were baptized persons. Acts, ii. 41, 42, " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and, the same day, there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." What a plain narrative is here ! They first gladly received the word which Peter preached, and which related to re- pentance toward God, and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ — then they were baptized — then were added to the church. Was not this order expressive of the mind of Christ, and de- signed as a model for all Christian churches? in all succeeding ages? I think it was. It is very apparent, from the whole of the apostolic history, that after sinners had, through the influence of the Holy Spirit, received the truth, became sincere penitents, and believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, they were directed to be baptized without delay. 1. Peter, in his admirable sermon on the day of Pentecost, said, Repent, and be baptized, E 2 52 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ* 2. When Philip went down to Samaria, and preached Christ to them ; when they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. f 3. When Philip, by divine direction, went to- ward the south, unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem to Gaza, and met in the desert with the eunuch, a man of great authority, (a grandee in the court of Candace the queen of the Ethiopians,) riding in his chariot, he " preached unto him Jesus ;" and when this great man said, " I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God," he commanded the chariot to stand still ; and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. "J 4. After Saul was brought to sincere repent- ance, and to believe in Christ, by the extraordi- nary appearance of Jesus to him in his way to Damascus, Ananias was sent to him, to inform him that he was a chosen vessel ; and he instantly said to him, " Why tarriest thou ? arise, and be baptized."^ After this, " he assayed to join himself to the disciples."|| 5. When Peter was sent to Cornelius, and * Acts, ii. 38. t Acts, viii. 12. J Acts, viii. § Acts, xxii. 1^. II Acts, ix. 2^. 53 preached the gospel to him and his household, and his friends, who were assembled together to hear all that the Lord had commanded Peter to deliver, " the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word ;" and Peter immediately said, " Can any man forbid water, that these vshould not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord."* 6, 7. At Philippi, two extraordinary conver- sions took place; the one relates to Lydia, " whose heart the Lord opened, that she at- tended to the things which were spoken of Paul ;" and it is somewhat remarkable, that her house- hold also were converted at the same time ; and, as Dr. Whitby paraphrases the passage, " and when she, and those of her household, icere in- structed in the Christian faith, and in the nature of the baptism required hy it, she was baptized, and her household." The other relates to the astonishing and mira- culous conviction, and regeneration of the jailor, and the conversion of all his household to the Christian faith. This jailor, by order of the magistrates, thrust Paul and Silas into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. At midnight, there was a great earthquake, which shook the foundations of the prison, and opened all the doors. This striking event, as * Acts, X. 54 we may naturally imagine, alarmed the keeper of the prison, as he supposed the prisoners were iied; at that period, the Spirit of God (whose office it is to convince of sin,) wrought conviction on his heart; and, finding Paul and Silas had not taken the opportunity to escape, he brought them out, and conveyed them to his house. There these good men (Paul and Silas) spake to him and his household, the word of the Lord, representing to them the nature and the necessity of repentance toward God, and of faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the importance of making a profession of such repentance and faith by baptism. " And he (the jailor) took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his straight- way ;" and " he set meat before them, and re- joiced, believing in God, ivith all his house.''* 8, 9. There are two other instances in which baptism was recommended, and practised imme- diately on the discovery of the subjects being possessors of faith. ** Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord, with all his house ; and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized. f 10. Another memorable account is given us of the household of Stephanas, which was the first fruits of Achaia. This family was one of the first in the regions of Achaia, of which Corinth * Acts, xvi. t Acts, xviii. 8. 55 was the metropolis, that believed in Christ; they received the first fruits of the Spirit in these parts, who, upon their conversion, were bap- tized by Paul.* And it is worthy of notice, that the apostle Paul, speaking of himself and others, says, ** Know ye not that so many of us as were bap- tized into Jesus Christ, were baptized unto his death ;"f and that, in so doing, they ** put on Christ ;J as they, thereby and therein, make a public profession of him, by deeds as well as words, declaring him to be their Lord and King, They had, as it were, put on his livery, and declar€d themselves to be his servants and dis- ciples. They enlisted, as it were, under his banner, and became volunteers in his service, engaging, by the grace of God, to act as good soldiers in defending his cause, and fighting his battles, and manfully opposing sin, Satan, and the world. Mr. Locke here observes, that by their putting on Christ, it is implied, " that to God, now looking on them, there appears wo- tkiftg hut Christ; they are, as it were, covered all over with him, as a man is with the clothes he has put on ; and, hence, in the next verse, it is said, they are all one in Christ Jesus ^ as if they were but that one person'' * 1 Cor. XV. 16, and 1 Cor. \. l6. t Rom. vi. 3. X Gal. iii. 2r. 56 These numerous apostolic examples, and New Testament precedents, will, I hope, my dear brother, produce a full conviction in your mind, that baptism is the first ordinance to be attended to after genuine conversion to Christ ; that it is the door of entrance into the church; and that none ought to be admitted to communion at the Lord's table who have not been really baptized according to the command of Christ. 4. The unity and order of a gospel church, ap- pointed and recommended in the New Testa- ment, are striking arguments in favour of strict communion. A gospel church is styled, a spiritual house ; a holi/ temple; a habitation of God through the Spirit; a building fitly framed together.* And is this the description given us of a gospel church? How justly is she styled, " the per- fection OF BEAUTY !"f " A BUILDING FITLY FRAMED TOGETHER." To this I must now particularly call your atten- tion, as it immediately relates to the subject we are upon. " This description of a gospel church," conveys, at once, the ideas of union, order, and heauty. 1. Union. It is essential to a building that the parts are united; and, accordingly, the saints, in this fellowship, are joined to one an- * 1 Pet. ii. 5. Ephes. ii. 21, 22. t Psalm 1. 2. 57 other, by mutual consent ; and they are, or ought to be, cordially united in judgment and love, having one Lord, one faith, one baptism; it becomes them, as those at Jerusalem, to be of one heart, and one soul. 2. Order, Every house has its form, and is raised on some plan, drawn or chosen by the architect; in like manner, a church is not a casual, irregular assembly, but a society of believers, fitly framed together, according to the wisdom and will of the Divine Jesus, the great Architect and Proprietor, of this spiritual house. Order, in the house of God, is of vast im- portance. Good order is essentially necessary to an acceptable performance of the revealed will of God. When the good king Hezekiah came to the throne, he opened the doors of the temple, summoned the priests and the Levites, and ex- horted them to purge the temple, and restore the worship of it ; who, accordingly, set about the work immediately, and cleansed the temple; and when they had done, reported it to the king; upon which he, with the princes, went into the temple, and offered sacrifices ; and or- dered singers to sing at the offering of burnt offerings ; and he and his people oflfered burnt offerings, and peace oflferings, in great abundance. And, it is worthy of remark, that, at the close of the whole, it is said, " So the service of the house of the Lord was set in order. And Hezekiah 58 rejoiced, and all the people, that God had pre- pared the people."* When Uzza accompanied David, with thirty thousand chosen men of Israel, to carry up the ark of God from the house of Abinadab, " They set the ark of God upon a new cart ;" which was a great error, since it ought not to have been put on a cart, old or new ; it was to be borne upon men's shoulders, and carried by Levites only, and those of the family of Kohath. " It is strange," says Dr. Gill, " that so many priests and Levites, and of the people of Israel, gathered together on that account, and David, also, so well versed in the law of God, should not advert to it." What was the consequence of this error ? *' When they came to Nachon's threshing floor, Uzza put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it ; and the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzza, and God smote him there for his error, and there he died, by the ark of God.""}" This was an affect- ing event, and how came it to pass ? We are expressly told, 1 Chron. xv. 13, *' The Lord our God made a breach upon us, for that we sought not after the due order'* Thus we see the im- portance of due order ; for want of attending to this, God was dipleased with his ancient people Israel, and, for a neglect of this, Uzza was struck dead. * 2 Chron. xxix. 35, 36. t 2 Sam. vi. 6, f. 59 It is an apostolic injunction, ** Let all things be done decently, and in order."* " God is not the author of confusion. "| We cannot suppose it agreeable to the divine mind, that the church should be, like the grave, " without any order.";]: Thither persons go without any order, no regard is paid to age or sex. The young frequently go before the aged, men and women are carried promiscuously to the tomb, the rich and the poor meet together there, their bones and dust are mingled, without distinction, without any order. Hundreds, by a wreck at sea, both officers and men, descend to the watery grave without any order ; thousands are cut off in war, and are heaped together in the grave, dug in the field of battle, without any order. It is not so with a gospel church. There is an order to be observed in going in ; that order we have noticed ; it is pointed out in a few words. The members of the primitive church first gladly received the word, then were baptized, and then added to the church. § There is an order to be observed, when ia ; and this is thus expressed : " They continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine, and fellow- ship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."j| and there is an order, or ought to be, in going out. There may be just reasons for members leaving one church and going to another, but • 1 Cor. xiv. 40. t 1 Cor. xiv. 33. J Job, x. 22. § Acts, ii. 41. II Acts, ii. 42. 60 such removal ought to be orderly. It was the order among the disciples, in the church at Colosse, that afforded the apostle such unspeak- able pleasure. " Though (said he) I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with you in the spirit, joying, and beholding your order ^ and the stead- fastness of your faith in Christ."* Thus it appears, that order is of great import- ance in a Christian church ; and, as the reverend author of the " Apology for the JSaptists'* observes, " The order and connection of positive appointments in divine worship, depend as much on the sovereign pleasure of the great Legislator, as the appointments themselves : and if so, we are equally bound to regard that order and con- nection, in their administration, as to observe the appointments at all. Whoever, therefore, objects to that order, or deviates from it, opposes the sovereign authority, by which those branches of worship were first instituted. For instance : baptism and the Lord's supper, it is allowed on all hands, are positive ordinances ; and, as such, they depend for their very existence on the sovereign will of God. Consequently, which of them should be administered prior to the other, (as well as to what persons, in what ivay, and for what end J must depend entirely on the will of their Divine Author. His determination must * Goloss. ii. 5. 61 fix their order; and his revelation must guide our practice. Here, then, the question is : has our Sovereign Lord revealed his will, in regard to this matter, " To the law, and to the testimony — how readest thou?" To determine the query, we may con- sider the order of time, in which the two positive institutions of the New Testament w ere appoint- ed. That baptism was an ordinance of God, that submission to it was required, and that it was administered to multitudes, before the sacred supper was heard of, or had an existence, are undeniable facts. There never was a time, since the ministry of our Lord's forerunner commenced, in which it was not the duty of repenting and believing sinners to be baptized. The venerable John, the twelve apostles, and the Son of God incarnate, all united in recommending baptism, at a time when it would have been impious to have eaten bread, and drank wine as an ordinance of divine worship. Baptism, therefore, had the priority, in point of institution ; which is a pre- sumptive evidence that it has, and ever will have, a prior claim on our obedience." All the recorded facts in the New Testament, (as I have stated to you,) place baptism before the celebration of the Lord's supper. It is clear, that repentance and faith were required before baptism was administered ; and, is it not equally clear, that baptism was required before the administration of the Lord's supper? " Let us," says Mr. Fuller, *' read the commission, Go, 62 teach all nations — baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and lo ! I am with you always, even to the end of the world. Is not the order of things here plainly stated by our Lord Jesus Christ? We are first to teach men, by imparting to them the gospel ; then, on their believing it, to baptize them ; and then to go on to instruct them in all the ordinances and commandments which are left by Christ for our direction. It is not for us to inquire, in what manner Christ shall enjoin his will, but to inquire, in what manner he has enjoined it."* And the same celebrated author observes, "My refusing to commune with them (the Paedobaptists) at the Lord's table, is not because I consider them as improper subjects, but as attending to it in an improper maimer. Many from Ephraim and Manasseh, Issacher, and Zebulon, who partook of Hezekiah's passover, are supposed by that pious prince to have prepared their hearts to seek the Lord God of their fathers," but having eaten other- wise than it is written, " he prayed the Lord to PARDON every one of them," and, therefore, could not intend that the disorder should be repeated."'}" But, I had almost forgotten another idea which I said was conveyed to us by the epithet given to a gospel church, as a " building fitly framed toge- ther*' and that is, * Mr. Fuller's Letter to a Friend, p. 12, 13. f Ibid. p. 4. 63 3. Beautif, It has been suggested, that this representation imports union and order, and the several members thus harmoniously cemented, are *' beautiful as Tirzah," which Bunting, in his Travels of the Patriarchs, Kings, Prophets, and Apostles, says, " was a fair and beautiful city, si- tuate on a high and pleasant mountain, in the tribe of Manasseh,* comely as Jerusalem, the metropolis of Judea, and seat of the kings of it, which was a city well-built and compact together ; beautiful for situation, the joy of the whole earth." Like " a company of horses, in Pharaoh's chariots," not only strong and bold, as becomes the warfare of faith, being strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, but exceedingly beautiful, well matched, drawing together in their traces, as it were, step by step, in the chariot of a gospel profession. " Some," says Mr. Wallin, *' may ignorantly boast, in an irregular and confused manner, of social religion; they may despise order, and cen- sure their brethren, Avho conscientiously keep the ordinances as they were delivered from the beginning ; but every deviation from the pattern is a deformity in the building. Order is the source of beauty, in the natural and moral world, and the beauty of the saints is in proportion to their order in Christ."f * Bunting's Travels, 4to. edit. p. 213. t Sermon on the Settlement of a People united in the order of the Gospel, p. 6. 64 Pardon, good and patient brother, my prolixity on the last argument, and bear with me while I bring forward another, which I consider as a collateral evidence that those who conscientiously decline communing with unbaptized persons at the Lord's table, have a warrant for their con- duct. 5. The opinion of ancient and modern divines is in favour of strict communion. The importance and propriety of only baptized believers being admitted to the ordinance of the supper, has struck the minds of the most think- ing and pious men, of every denomination of Christians, from the earliest ages. And 1 shall here take the liberty of extracting some instances, brought forward by the excellent Mr. W. Kiffen, in a little piece he published, ia 1681, entitled, " A Sober Discourse of Right to Church Communion." This worthy man thus writes : — " As for the practice of gospel times, it hath been evidently demonstrated, that the apostles, and disciples of Christ, did constantly baptize such as were converted, and that after they were taught, the next thing was to baptize them, neither durst they break that order. As it is certain, that in the history of the gospel, or whatsoever relation we have in the New Testa- ment, as to matter of fact, or precepts, in matter of right, relating to the order and administration of baptism, do clearly hold forth the order to be, after faith, and the subject baptized by imme- 65 diate and necessary consequence, an actual believer; so, on the other hand, it is evident, that there is not the least tittle, either in express terms, or rational and plain inference, in the whole New Testament, to countenance the opinion we oppose. 1. There is no precept directly, or consequentially, commanding us to receive any member without. 2. Nor one in- stance to be produced, that ever it was done. 3. It is evident, that the abettors or promoters of such a practice now, do in so much invert God's order, and lay a dangerous foundation for the abolition of this great and sacred institution of our Christian baptism." As for the ages next the apostles, for near three hundred years, we have examined the records of those times, and find that the ordi- nance of baptism was retained by the churches in the same order and mode of administration as is recorded in the New Testament. As to the practice of the second century, we have a me- morable instance in Justin Martyrs Second Apology to Antoninus Pius, the Roman Em- peror, as Mr. Baxter renders it in his Saints' Rest. " I will declare unto you, how we offer up ourselves unto God, after that we are renewed through Christ. Those among us that are in- structed in the faith, and believe that which we teach is true, being willing to live according to the same, we do admonish to fast and pray for the forgiveness of sins, and we also fast and pray F 66 with them, and when they are brought by us unto the water renewed ; and then calling upon God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, they are washed (that is, baptized) in water ; then we bring the person thus washed and instructed, to the brethren, where the assem- blies are, that we may pray both for ourselves, and the new illuminated, that we may be found, by true doctrine, and by good works, worthy ob- servers, and keepers of the commandments, and that we may attain eternal life and salvation." Dr. Cave, in his Primitive Christianity, says, ** Our Lord having instituted baptism and the Lord's supper, as the two great sacraments of the Christian law, they have accordingly been ever accounted principal parts of public worship in the Christian church. Baptism is the door by which persons enter in." He further adds, " The persons communicating at this sacrament, (the Lord's supper) were, at first, the whole church, or body of Christians, within such a space that had embraced the doctrine of the gospel, and been baptized into the faith of Christ, these used constantly to meet together at the Lord's table." Mr. Kiffin proceeds to bring forward some Extracts from the history compiled by the divines of Magdeburg. He begins with Sasil, who writes thus : " That there were no others but Catechumens baptized, who were called together at Easter : such as were to be baptized in the churches of Asia, were first for some time in- 67 structed in the doctrine of piety, and were called Catechumens." This practice of catechising, and then baptizing, and afterwards receiving into church fellowship, was so universal among all the Christians of those times, as appears from instances quoted from Athanasius, Nazianzen, Optatus, Milevitanus, Epiphanius, Hillarius, Am- brose, Jerome, Sozomen, and others, that we find no opposition at all to it, all candidates for Christianity being that way only admitted. " But what needs any more of these quotations," saith Mr. Kiffin, " when all, that know any thing of the practice of antiquity, must confess, that the opinion we oppose was never in the world for sixteen hundred years and more." Yea, all the reformers, whether Lutherans, Calvinists, or other foreigners ; the church of England, and all the dissenting congregations that own ordinances, have owned, and do own, that baptism is an ordinance of Christ, yea, the very first, or initiating ordinance into church fellowship, without which, no man may be regu- larly admitted to the Lord's supper. I shall now close all I have to say on this argument, by directing your attention to two modern authors. One is Dr. Doddridire, a learned man, in high esteem : hearken to his words. " It is certain, that Christians in general have always been spoken of, by the most ancient fathers, as baptized persons : and it is also certain, that, as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity f2 68 reaches, no unbaptized person received the Lord's supper."* The other is the justly renowned John Bunyan, who, though he wrote in favour of open communion, acknowledged, that, in the first ages, it was not admitted. In reply to an opponent who thus writes to him : " Notwith- standing all that you have said, water baptism ought to go before church membership; show me one, in all the New Testament, that was received into fellowship without it." Replies, " That water baptism hath formerly gone first ^ is gi'anted ; but that it ought of necessity so to do, I never saw proof."t The concession made, is in favour of strict communion ; the sentence following is somewhat extraordinary, as the good man seems to be of opinion, that the apostles and the first churches practised that which was not necessary to be done. But if one positive institution of Christ may be dispensed with, if it be not necessary to attend to it, then we may, with equal propriety, give up the other, and so set aside both baptism and the Lord's supper alto- gether, which, I suppose, will not meet your approbation. T. I have listened, my dear sir, to the argu- ments you have brought forward in favour of strict communion, with great attention, and I must confess, with some conviction; but yet. * Dr. Doddridge's Lectures, vol. ii. p. 371. t Bunyan's Works, folio, vol. i. p. 67. 69 there are objections which have been started by those who are of a different opinion, that I know not how to get over. J. My worthy brother, what are those ob- jections? I hope my mind is not pertinacious in error; do, by all means, state them. T. I will then make free to mention what has occurred to my mind, and what has occupied the minds of others, and which, at present, has great weight with me. 1. Baptism is a mere circumstantial thing. The worthy man you have mentioned, I mean Mr. John Bunyan, has so described it, and he says, " In the midst of your zeal for the Lord, remember that the visible saint is his. Quarrel not with him about things that are circum- stantial, but receive him in the Lord, as becometh saints."* J. I have observed, that Mr. Bunyan does speak of the ordinance of baptism, as an out- ward circumstantial things a shadow, an outward and hodily conformity to outward and shadoivish circumstances, an obedience to ivater. — Water ^ water, water, ivater, ivater. Jive times over in a few lines. And, therefore, he maintains, that water baptism is no bar to communion. But it is somewhat remarkable, that he also speaks of the Lord's supper in the same way, for these are his words : " That touching shadowish or figura- * Bunyan's Works, folio, vol. i. p. 74u 70 tive ordinances, I believe that Christ has ordained but two in his church, viz. water baptism and the supper of the Lord ; both which are of ex- cellent use to the church in this world; they being to us representations of the death and resurrection of Christ, and are, as God shall make them, helps to our faith therein; but 1 count them not the fundamentals of our Christianity, nor grounds or rule to communion with saints."* Thus, therefore, the good man sweeps away both these divine institutions as shadowish cir- cumstances, and establishes a church in this world without ordinances, for he counts them not fun- damentals of our Christianity, nor grounds or rule to communion with saints. Here he speaks out, but I very much query, if he spe ks consis- tently with the order of the New Testament, in establishing the churches of Jesus Christ; for, it appears to me, that baptism and the Lord's sup- per are the two ordinances which ^^.ve fundamental to the establishment of a true Christian church. Let us, for a moment, consider baptism as a circumstance, it is a circumstance established by divine law, and therefore ought to be regarded, yea, scrupulously regarded. I admire Cliarnock's observation : " Deus voluif, is a sufficient motive, and we cannot free ourselves from the censure of disobedience, if we observe not his commands in the same manner that he enjoins them, in their * BuDyaii's Works, folio, toI. i. p. 63. 71 circumstances as well as their substance."* The use of water, in baptism, may be called a cir- cumsta?ice, but it is an essential one with regard to that ordinance. But this, in some instances, has been departed from. Near the beginning of the Reformation, a certain midwife in Thuringia, under the pretext of necessity, baptized some sickly children, without water, merely by pro- nouncing these words, / baptize thee in the name, &c. A certain Jew, performing a journey in company with Christians, and being suddenly seized with a dangerous illness, earnestly desired baptism at the hands of his fellow travellers; they, not having a priest in their company, and being destitute of water, were at first reluctant; but, he conjuring them not to deny him the favour, they yielded to his request; on which, taking off his clothes, they sprinkled him thrice with sa7id, instead of water, adding, that they baptized him in the 7iame of the Father, and so on. In the dark ages of superstition, when new-bom infants, unbaptized, were doomed to eternal death, the priest was obliged to attend, on the call of a midwife, and sometimes, when the infant was likely immediately to expire, they, not having water prepared, made use of wine. In the twelfth century, some of the Irish baptized by plunging their children in milk, and were super- stitious enough to imagine, that every part so ♦ Chamock's Works, vol. u. 7^6. n plunged became invulnerable. Dr Willetsays, ^ " We condemn the foolish and ungodly practices and inventions of heretics, that either exclude water altogether, as the Manichees with others ; or do use any other element, as the Jacobites, that, instead of water, burned them that were to be baptized with a hot iron ; or, as the Ethio- pians, which are called Abissines, that used fire instead of water, misconstruing the words of the gospel. " He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Matth. iii. 1 1 .* Now, my dear sir, can you consider that a person being sprinkled with sand, plunged in milk, or in wine, or marked with a hot iron, is really baptized with Christian baptism, or do not you clearly perceive that the New Testament re- presents water (however it may be called a circum- stance) as essential to baptism ? That this is to be done bi/ ivater, appears from all that the scrip- ture has told us. Was not John called the Baptist, from that which was to be a principal part of his ministry ? Does he not not say, " He sent me to baptize with water?" Did not Jesus go down into the water, and when he was baptized, went lip straightway out of the water ? and did not the apostles act in the same way ? Though there is a spiritual baptism, and the other signifies nothing where that is not ; yet, if this was all that oui' Lord designed, if there w^as no outward action, * Vide Booth's Paedob. Exam. pp. 295, 296. 73 there had been no occasion for the Eunuch to stop his chariot, and for him and Philip to get out of it, when they saw water. That there are various particulars (as Mr. Booth observes) relating to baptism, which are merely circumstantial, we readily allow. For instance, the age of the candidate, provided he make a credible profession of repentance and faith — the time of administration : it may be in the morning, at noon, in the evening, or at midnight, as in the case of the Philippian jailor — the place: it may b6 in a river, a pond, or a baptistery— the number of spectators : they may be many or few. These, and other things of a smilar kind, we look upon as indifferent, as, properly speaking, circum" stances; because, not being included in the law of baptism, they make no part in the institution : but it is quite otherwise as to the solemn use of water. For, if that be omitted, baptism itself is wanting; if used contrary to divine order and primitive example, the ordinance is corrupted, so corrupted as not to deserve its original name.* Roman Catholics would fain persuade us, that a participation of wine, at the Lord's table, is a mere circumstance; but they have been constantly told by Protestants, and very justly, that it is an essential part of the institution ; and J would ask you this plain question : Whether you think it would be right to admit a person to communion * Booth's Paedob. Exarained, vol. i. p. 130. 74 at the Lord's table, who refused to partake of the wine ? I shall close my reply to the first objection you have started, by a quotation from 3Ir. Vincent Alsop^ a worthy Nonconformist minister, who was ejected from Wilby, in Northamptonshire, who was afterwards bound over to the sessions for preaching at Oakham, and lay six months in Northampton jail, for praying with a sick per- son. He was chosen one of the six lecturers at Pinners-hall.* He writes thus : " Under the JVIosaical law, God commanded that they should offer to him the daily burnt-offering ; and, in this case, the colour of the beast (provided it was otherwise rightly qualified,) was a mere circum- stance; such as God laid no stress upon, and that man had proved himself an arditious, su- perstitious, busy body, that should curiously ad- here to any one colour. But for the heifer, whose ashes were to make thetvater of separation, there the colour was no circumstance, but made, by God's command, a substantial part of the ser- vice. To be red'\ was as much as to be a heifer: for when circumstances have once passed the royal assent, and are stamped with a divine seal, they become substantial in instituted worship." We ought not to judge that God has little re- gard to any of his commands, because the matter of them, abstracted from his authority, is little : * Nonconformist's Memorial, vol, iii. p. 48. t Numb. xix. 2. 75 for we must not conceive, that Christ sets little by baptism, because the element is plain, fair water ; or little by that other sacrament, because the materials thereof are common bread and wine. Thougli the thin2:s in themselves be small, yet his authority is great. If any of Christ's institutions seem necessary to be broken, it will be, first, necessary to decry them, as poor, low, inconsiderable circumstances ; and, then, to fill the people's heads with a noise and din, that Christ lays little stress on them ; and, in order hereto, call them the circumstantials, the acci- denluls, the minutes, the punctilios, and, if need be, the petty John's of religion, that conscience may not kick at the contemning of them." Now, my good brother, when we consider, that baptism is a positive institution of Christ ; that he himself admitted only those who had been baptized, to partake of the supper at its first institution ; the apostolic examples and New Testament precedents, which demonstrate, that no unbaptized persons were encouraged to come to the Lord's table; that the unity and order of a gospel church require an attention to it; in which opinion both ancient and modern divines agree. Does it not seem to be a mistaken idea, that baptism is merely a circumstance, and, therefore, to be little regarded ? T. I have listened, with attention, to the ob- servations you have made on my first suggestion, but hope you will excuse my not making remarks 76 till I have heard what you have to say on a se- cond. It is this : 2. The declining to admit unbaptized persons to communion at theLord's table, seems to oppose that Christian duty of love which is so frequently inculcated in the sacred scriptures, and, parti- cularly, by our Lord Jesus Christ and his apos- tles. I will mention a few passages : John, xiii. 35, " By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John, XV. 12, " This is my commandment, That ye love one another." 1 Peter, i, 22, " Love one another with a pure heart fervently." 1 John, iii. 14, " We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the bre- thren." J. This, I know, is an argument frequently brought forward in favour of mixed communion. Our brethren, who differ from us, often plead the excellency of Christian charity; they urge the propriety, the utility, the necessity of bear- ing with one another's mistakes in matters that are not essential, amongst which, they class the ordinance of baptism. I remember reading John Bunyan on this subject, who writes thus: " Love is more discovered, when it receiveth for the sake of Christ and grace, than when it refuseth for want of water. It is love, not bap- tisTYiy that discovereth us to the world to be 77 Christ's disciples. Love is the fulfilling of the law; but he fulfils it not who judgeth, and setteth at nought his brother; that stumbleth, offendeth, and maketh weak his brother, and all for the sake of a circumstance. — Strange ! Take two Christians, equal in all points but this ; nay, let one go beyond the other far, for grace and holiness; yet this circumstance of water shall drown and sweep away all his excellencies, not counting him worthy of that reception, that, with hand and heart, shall be given a novice in reli- gion, because he consents to water."* Thus, you see, brotherly love was the great ground and foundation on which the excellent author of the Pilgrim's Progress founded his hypothesis of mixed communion. But, alas ! it is sandy ground that is easily washed away, and a weak foundation which will not support the edifice. The Lord's supper was not appointed to be a test of brotherly love among the people of God. That mutual Christian affection should there be exercised, is certain ; and so it should in all other branches of social religion. It has been very properly observed, " As to a proof, a substantial proof, of our love to the chil- dren of God, it is not given at so cheap and easy a rate, as that of sitting down with them, either occasionally or statedly, at the holy table. * Bunyan's Works, vol, i. p. 71. 78 The true test of our love to the disciples of Christ, is not a submission to any particular ordi- nance of public worship; for that is rather an evidence of love to God, and reverence for his authority ; but a sympathizing with them in their afflictions, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and taking pleasure in doing them good, whatever their necessities may be." Love, charity, peace, candour, forbearance, are pleasing, plausible words ; but when applied to the subject before us, they are delusive ones. Do you not know, that there is such a thing as false charity? Is that wholesome, evangelical peace, which is made with men at the expense of truth ? Is this not strange fire that is not from the Lord, but detracts from his glory; such fire as that which Nadab and x4bihu pre- sented, and which cost them their lives ? There is a passage in Dr. Owen, which has much pleased me, and in which, I hope, I unite with him. " I can freely say, that I know not that man in England, who is willing to go farther in for- bearance, love, and communion with all that fear God, and hold the foundation, than I am : but this is never to be done by a condescension from the exactness of the least apex of gospel truth." 1 do assure you, that those who are advocates for strict communion, most cordially receive their Christian brethren, who differ from them 79 on this point, into their affections, their arms, their bosom ; that they, at all times, are ready, cheerfully, to invite them to their houses, and to their tables ; and rejoice in holding friendly and brotherly fellowship with them. But they cannot invite them to commune at the Lord's table; for this sole reason, because the Lord has not himself done it, nor any of his apostles, nor any of the primitive churches. Do not, I be- seech you ; do not condemn us as destitute of brotherly love, because we adhere to what we consider as a positive law of Christ, which has never been abrogated, and because we cannot countenance the neglect of that law, for, in so doing, we should violate our own consciences. We do love our Psedobaptist brethren, and all who bear the image of Christ; but we cannot love them so much as to give up a positive in- stitution of our Divine Master on their account. We remember the question, put by our Lord to Simon Peter, " Lovest thou me more than these?' And although the question, as it stands, seems to be ambiguous ; and, perhaps, the pri- mary sense of the query, is, whether Peter loved Christ more than his fellow disciples did, as he seemed to suggest when he declared, that though all the disciples should be offended at Christ, and forsake him, he would not. Yet we may apply the question to the present subject, and consider our Lord as asking us, Lovest thou ine more than thou lovest thy fellow Christians? 80 I have said to you, " If thou lovest me, keep my commandments." But are you willing to give up one of my most important command- ments, rather than offend thy brother? We answer; No, Lord, thy commandments we will keep; we will strictly adhere to all thy appoint- ments, for thou art to us, *' all, and in all.'' This question, my dear friend, has great, very great weight with us ; " Lovest thou me more than these r T. I thank you for your remarks, and I own, that the collective rays you have thrown on the subject, have altered my views. I do not think that baptism is a mere circumstance, or an in- significant ceremony ; but that it is a divine in- stitution, and a positive law, that has not been repealed to this day; and that we have not, therefore, any right to lay it aside, or to treat it with indifference, nor to encourage others so to do; and, I am now convinced, that a refusal to admit an unbaptized Christian to the Lord's table, arises, not from a want of brotherly love, but from a conscientious principle, and a warm attachment to the Lord Jesus Christ and his appointments, which constrain the strict Baptists to say, We will hold them fast, and not let them go. 1 have, however, a few other things to men- tion, which, I know, have prevalence with some, and on which I should be glad to have your opinion. J. Mention them by all means ; I will give 81 you the best reply I can, and then leave you ta judge of the propriety of my remarks. T. I shall then make free to proceed, and state that on which there has been laid great stress. It has been said, 3. That there is no warrant in the word of God to forbid; no scriptural authority, no express command to refuse the admittance of unbap- tized believers to the Lord's supper; and that there are cases in which it seems expedient, and really necessary, to allow of mixed communion ; and, without which, many godly persons must be debarred from the communion of saints, at the table of the Redeemer. J. My worthy friend, as to your first observa- tion, that there is no warrant in scripture to forhidy is very foreign from the point. Have we not a warrant to admit only those who profess repentance and faith to baptism? Have we not a warrant to admit only such who believe and are baptized, to partake of the eucharist, and which warrant is founded on the commission of Christ, and the practice of the apostles, and pri- mitive churches? And is not this sufficient? Do we need any thing more? It is not ne- cessary to have a prohibition to the contrary. We follow the rule laid down, the direction given, the examples set before us in the New Testament. It lies with our brethren to prove, that they have such rule, such direction, such examples, to justify their practice. Pro- 82 Mbition is not necessary; precept and exam- ple are all we want. We have them ; they have not. Our directions are, to teach ; then to baptize ; then to add to the church : we want nothing more : an express command to the contrary would be superfluous. There is no express prohibition of admitting the doctrine of the real presence, tran substantiation, of ad- ministering only one of the elements, bread, to the laity, or kneeling at the Lord's supper ; there is no positive scripture that says, there is no such place as purgatory ; or, that we should not use the cross in baptism ; or, that we should not use cream, oil, or spittle, and so on : but, will this justify us in embracing all the follies and super- stitions of popery? Upon this principle, we may countenance every absurd chimera, that every man's erroneous brain may devise. But we say, to the law, and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. - You have suggested, that there are cases in which it seems expedient, and really necessary, to admit of mixed communion. I have heard it asked, If a Baptist should be situate in a vil- lage, or town, where there is only an Indepen- dent church, and he has not an opportunity of attending a Baptist church, by reason of distance, must he be deprived of the Lord's supper? And, again, if a pious Independent resides where there is only a Baptist church, is it not lawful to ad- mit him to commune at the sacred ordinance ? 83 In reply to this, I would observe, that the Bible, the New Testament, the law, and the testimony, are to be adhered to, whether in town or country. The law is not to bend to local cir- cumstances, but rather circumstances to the law ; and, on this point, I will beg leave to re- late a few apt observations which have been made by Paedobaptists themselves, quoted by Mr. Booth : " It is better to omit a positive ordi- nance, than to perform it contrary to divine ap- pointment. Persons who cannot drink wine, had better entirely abstain from the Lord's sup- per, than receive it under one species only. It is better entirely to abstain from using the holy supper, than receive it contrary to the appoint- ment of Christ." " Omissions," says Mr. Blake, " seem better to me than a prohibited, or a dis- orderly proceeding, expressly against a com- mand, or ordinance of Jesus Christ. The ark had better staid where it was, than a new cart should have carried it in that disorder to the place appointed for it. Better that Saul and Uz- ziah had let sacrifice alone, than any, to whom it did not appertain, should have undertaken it. I never saw sufficient reason given, that a man should break an express rule, rather than omit a duty of mere positive institution. Jeroboam must rather have no sacrifice, than that Dan and Bethel should be the place for it." " It is better," said good Thomas Bradbury, " I think, to leave such a duty (baptism) undone, than not to have G 2 84 it well done. God never expects it either fron» you or me, when he has thrown a bar in our way, that we should break it, or leap over it.* Now, my good friend, what say you to these pithy say- ings ; is there not some weight in them ? T. I think there is ; but I have not quite done with my inquiries. J. Well, go on. T. 1 then have to ask, Whether there are not some passages of scripture, which seem strongly to favour mixed communion ? J, This is coming to the source; all I contend for is scriptural authority. Come, let us have them ; overset me with scripture, and I have done, T. I will then mention two texts, the one is, Rom. xiv. 1, Him. that is weak in the faith re- ceive you, hut not to doubtful disputations. J. Then, you suppose, that those who refuse to be baptized, or, who wish to be admitted to the Lord s supper without baptism, are weak in the faith? and your supposition, I think, i^ correct. But, I am apprehensive, that you are greatly mistaken in bringing forward this text to encourage such weakness, for it has nothing to do with the subject. Let us always take texts of scripture in their connection, and then we shall understand them. Observe what follows in the second and third verses : " For one helieveth that he may eat all things; another, who is weak, * Psedobap. Examin. vol. i. p. 311. 85 eatetk herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not ; and let not him which eateth not, judge him that eateth : for God hath received him" Now, do you not perceive, that the apos- tle's reference is to those who had not a clear dis- cernment of their Christian liberty in regard to eating of meats, forbidden by the ceremonial law, which was now abolished? He refers to converted Jews, who believed in Christ, and were not fully satisfied of the rituals of the Mo- saical dispensation being abrogated. These per- sons, the apostle advises the believing Gentiles, and the more enlightened Jews, not to reject, because of their scrupulously avoiding to eat some meats, because now it became a matter of indifference; for, as he observes, in ver. 17, ** The kingdom of God (that is, the gospel dis- pensation) is not meat and drink, but righteous- ness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost '^ The laws respecting meat and drink, were set aside by the Divine Legislator ; had they remained, it would have been right to have rejected them who disregarded the law ; but now, meat and drink is become indifferent ; and if some yet choose to abstain from certain food, let them be indulged, so that they do not make it the ground of their acceptance before God. But what has this to do with baptism, which is a standing law, a remaining, positive institution in the gospel church ? This text will not apply at all to the matter in hand : but what is your next ? T. I have to mention another, which, I think, 86 has great force, and it is this, I will give it you at large. 1 Cor. ix. 19 — 22, For though I he free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more. And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them iliat are without law, as without law, (being not tvithout law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gaiji them that are tvithout law. To the weak became 1 as weak^ that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that 1 might by all means save some. J. My good friend, you have produced a text which demands some consideration, let us ex-« amine it. Observe, 1 . What the apostle refers to is the preaching of the gospel, as, in ver. 16, For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for neces- sity is laid upon me; yea, wo is unto me, if I preach not the gospel ! 2. His aim, in preaching the gospel, was to convert souls to Jesus Christ. Hence, he so frequently speaks about gaining men : " that I might gain the Jews; that I might gain them that are under the law ; that I might gain them that are without law ; that I might gain the weak ; that I might by all means save some." Thus, you see, his aim in preaching the gospel " was not to amass wealth, to gain riches, and trea- sures of good things to himself, but many souls 87 to Christ, who otherwise must have been lost; but, being brought to the knowledge of Christ, and salvation, by him, through his ministry, it was profit to him, and gain to Christ. The me- taphor is taken from merchants, who spare no pains, but take every method to acquire gain and profit : the ministers of the word are spiri- tual merchants, their trafBck lies in the souls of men, whom they are studiously and anxiously careful to bring to Christ." 3. In order to this, he would, as far as he considered it lawful, accommodate himself to different persons, to both Jews and Gentiles. " I have made myself," saith he, ver. 19, *' ser- vant unto all," in faithfully and indefatigably preaching the gospel to them ; undergoing all manner of affliction and persecution for their sakes ; behaving towards them with all meekness and humility ; condescending to their weakness, and accommodating myself, as far as it was right, to their capacities and customs. Yet, he, as it were, says, I would not have you consider me as a lawless person; for, as he beautifully and admirably observes, in a parenthesis, which is worthy of remark, (being not without laiv to God, but under the law to Christ.) No ; he con- siders himself as bound, by the law, to Christ : he would transgress no laiv of Christ to please or humour any man. Now, my friend, this is the very point the strict Baptists adhere to, — the law of Christ. Baptism they consider as one of the great laws 88 of Christ, and, therefore, cannot dispense with it, on any account whatever. T. I have now finished by inquiries, and I will plainly tell you what effect the conversation has had on my mind. I have felt the force of your observations. They have wrought conviction, and, henceforward, I shall not be ashamed to declare to all, that I am become a Strict Baptist. J. And I am ready, my good friend and bro- ther, to declare, that I shall ever consider it one of the happiest events of my life, that I have this day been the means of convincing you of an important truth. But you must expect that some will express surprize at your declaration, and others will say, ** And are you become a bigot? (not knowing the meaning of the term,) and are you joined with those who are unwilling to say to an unbaptized brother, * Come in, thou blessed of the Lord, why standeth thou without?' '* Well, be not discouraged; remember, that the fellows of Joshua, the high priest, were men *' wondered at."* Rather rejoice that you are become a follower of Him who is called, " Won- derful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the ever- lasting Father, the Prince of Peace."| Rejoice, that you have embraced the truth, as it is in Jesus. A truth that glorifies God, and honours the Lord Jesus Christ. I hope you will never give it up. Buy the truth, and sell it not, says * Jfecb, iii. 8. t Isa. ix. 6. 89 the wise man. Buy it at any price, sell it at no price. Truth is the Christian's crown ; you are crowned this day. " Hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown."* But, before we conclude our conversation, per- mit me to say a few things that may tend, by the blessing of God, to animate us both to holy con- versation and godliness ; for, whenever we discuss religious subjects, we should endeavour to make some practical improvement. 1. Then, it appears that the ordinance of believer's baptism is of vast importance, and ought to be attended to with the greatest seriousness. Dr. Waterland justly observes, that " the true doctrine of the Trinity and the atonement of Christ, have been kept up in the Christian church, by the institutions of baptism and the Lord's supper, more than by other means whatsoever; and, humanly speaking, these glorious truths, which are essential to salvation, would have been lost long ago, if the two positive institutions had been totally neglected and disused, amongst professors of Christianity." In this point of view, baptism and the Lord's supper appear to be of unspeakable importance to the glory of God, and the very being of the true church of Christ on earth. "t And Mr. John Ryland, in his Six Views of Believers' Baptism, admirably expresses * Rev. ill. 11. t Beauty of Social Religion, p. 10. 90 himself, thus : " Of these institutions, (baptism and the Lord's supper,) baptism calls for our^r*^ regard, as it is appointed to be Jirst performed; and, however lightly the inconsiderate part of mankind may affect to treat this ordinance, it ought to be remembered, that Christ himself considered it, and submitted to it, as an important part of that righteousness which it became even the Son of God to fulfil." And he moreover adds, " We ought, with the utmost deliberation and care, to consider its own native dignity^ as an action of the positive, or ritual kind, the most great and noble in itself, and well pleasing to God, that it is possible for us to perform on this side heaven. In this action, Christians, you behold the counsel of God : it is the result of his wise and eternal purpose ; it is clearly commanded in his word : it is enforced by his own example, and honoured in the most distinguished and won- derful manner, by every person in the adorable Trinity. This ordinance is no trivial affair; it is no mean thing ; and, whoever is so unhappy as to despise it, wants eyes to see its beauty and excellence." 2. We ought not only to set forth the import- ance of Christian baptism, but to encourage every new convert who is brought by the Holy Spirit to believe in Jesus, to attend immediately to this solemn institution. What encouragement is held forth in the gra- cious declaration annexed to the commission 91 Mirhich our Lord gave to his apostles : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c.; and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world ;'" which is not only to be considered as an encouragement to the adminis- trators of the solemn rite, but to the subjects, even to those to whom it is administered. " Lo, I am with you alway," to assist you in all your services, to carry you through all your diflSculties, to support you through the whole of life, and, at death, I will receive you " unto myself, that where I am, there ye may be also !" How animating the experience of those who have followed the Lord in this ordinance! Ah! my friend, the baptism of serious Christians has frequently been an interesting and impressive spectacle : how often has the falling tear, on such occasions, been seen, not the tear of sorrow, but the tear of joy. Cannot you call to recollection, my dear friend, the transport you felt when you devoted yourself to Christ in baptism? What a delightful season did our Lord and Master find it, when he entered Jordan, and when he went up out of the water, and saw the heavens opened to him, and the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting on him, and heard the voice of his Father, saying, " This is my beloved Son, in ^hom I am well pleased." Who can tell the ecstasy of the Eunuch, after he was baptized by Philip, in the water they came to, in the desert! It is expressly said, " He went on his way 92 rejoicing." Who can describe the transport of the jailor and his household, that night in which they were buried with Christ in baptism ! " He rejoiced," saith the sacred historian, " believing in God, with all his house." I believe you will find, by inquiry, that, in general, a baptizing time has been a joyful time to both ministers and candidates, to the administrator and the subjects. Let, then, an atheistical world reproach, jeer, and ridicule as they may, we do rejoice, and will rejoice in baptism, as an ordinance in which the Lord fills his people with joy unspeakable, and full of glory. 3. We ought to follow baptism with watchful- ness, prayer, and universal obedience. There is no part of true religion that is merely speculative, the whole is designed and adapted to sanctify the soul. So baptism, as it is an ordinance of God, and of perpetual obligation in the church, it is of importance to Christian prac- tice. Baptism was, indeed, chiefly intended to represent our communion with its great institutor, in his death, burial, and resurrection. But it should be remembered, that, at baptism, we pro- fess to be dead to the world, and alive to God. At baptism, we " put on Christ ;" one grand end of the ordinance is to represent and enforce our conformity to Him who lived as one dead to this world, and whose conversation was all in another, and if we profess to abide in him, we ought to walk even as he walked, and we should coh- 93 stantly live under a practical sense of our obligations to Him, through whose death and resurrection all spiritual and eternal blessings are communicated to us. 4. After the solemn ordinance of baptism has /been administered, on a profession of faith in Christ, such persons should be encouraged to unite with a gospel church, and to attend to the other sacred institution of Jesus Christ, the Lord's supper ; for, what God hath joined toge- ther, no man has a right to put asunder. The great end of this ordinance is thus ex- pressed by the apostle : " As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come." The duly enjoined on the believer is contained in these words of Christ : " This do in remembrance of me." The encouragement to attend to it is held forth in 1 Cor. X. 16, •' The cup of blessing, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" By which I understand, that the believer, partaking of the bread and wine, is a sign, symbol, and token of fellowship with Christ in his death, and is a mean of having communion with him, and of enjoying the blessings of grace which come through his death. And what an honour, what a privilege is it, to hold communion with Christ at his table! How beautifully is it described by Dr. Watts : 94 Jesus invites his saints To meet around his board; Here pardon'd rebels sit, and hold Communion with their Lord. For food he gives his flesh, He bids us drink his blood; Amazing favour! matchless grace! Of our descending God! This holy bread and wine Maintains our fainting breath. By union with our living Lord, And interest in his death. Let all our powers be joiu'd His glorious name to raise; Pleasure and love fill every mind. And every voice be praise. FINIS. ' BOOKS, hy the same Author. 1. REMARKS ON a TREATISE, entitled. The Gospel of Christ, worthy of all Acceptation, by Andrew Fuller. 2. NATIONAL CALAMITIES, Tokens of the Divine Dis- pleasure. A Sermon, preached on a day appointed for a General Fast. 3. The CANDOUR of Mr. PETER EDWARDS EXHI- BITED, and his Curious Reasons for Renouncing Anti- Paedobaptism Examined. (Under the Signature of a Plain Countryman.) 4. A REPLY TO THE LAYMAN, containing Strictures upon his Notions of Christian Liberty, in opposition to Church Y Authority. (Under the Signature of Philokosmos.) Printed by J. BARFIELD, 91, Wardour^Strect. THOUGHTS ON BAI'TISJI, ORDINANCE OF PROSE LYTISM; INCLVOIVIS OBSERVATIONS ON THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING Bering of CTomimunoit* Br ACNOSTOS, I speak as to wlce men; judge jre what I say." Pait. LONDON PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY PEWTRESS, LOW, Sc PEWTRESS, 30, Gracechurck Street. 1S19. A THOUGHTS ON BAPTISM, ± HE union of Christians of various denomina- tions to advance the Redeemer's kingdom, chiefly by means of Bible and Missionary Societies, must prove highly gratifying to every pious mind. We hail this union, so far as it has hitherto pro- ceeded, on account of the prospect that it exhibits still more than of the pleasure that it affords. We regard it as the harbinger of that period, when, to adopt the language of a justly celebrated poet, ** The noise of jarring sectaries shall cease, And e'en the dipt and sprinkled live in peace ; Each heart shall quit its prison in the breast. And flow in/ree communion with the resti" Much has been done to effect this desirable object, but much more remains to be done ;- 4 for we have every reason to believe that ihf union of Christians with each other, will be more cordial and more complete than it has ever yet been, before the outpouring of the Spirit in the latter day. We are not in much danger of too highly appreciating the subject of Christian tinity, when we reflect that one great end of the death of Christ is stated to be, " to gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad;" This important object lay very near the heart of the Redeemer, while offer- ing up his last intercessory prayer in the presence of his disciples, just before he suiTcrcd ; especially when he uttered those emphatic words, " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word : (hat they all may he one ; as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us : that the world may believe that thou htist sent me :" intimating by the latter clause, which he urges as a plea to enforce his petition, that he did not exi>cct to see his mcssiahship universally acknowledged, nor his kingdom, fully established, till this union was completely effected. The prophetic vision of Ezekiei, recorded in the i37th chapter of his prophecy, suggests the 8ame idea. The bones which he saw in the open valley, he was told, represented the whole liouse of Israel : and who that is acquainted with the state of Christianity at the present period, but must acknowledge that they furnish as apt an emblem of the whole world of professing Christians? very many, indeed, but very dry ; while their mutual animosities have, for ages together, tended to widen and perpetuate that separation from each other, which is the effect and the evidence of moral and spiritual death. On surveying the melancholy scene, one is ready to exclaim, " Can these bones live ?" Yes, they can, they shall ; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it, and with God nothing is impossible. But how, and under what circumstances shall this work be accomplished ? Not in a state of separation from each other ; no, surely ; they must be re-united before they are re-animated. Bone must come to his bone. Every member must find his own place in the body of which he forms a part. The eye must no more say to the hand, I have no need of thee, nor the head to the feet, I have no need of you. When this union is fully effected, then and not till then, may we expect the Spirit of life from God to enter into them ; and they will stand up an ex- ceeding gieat army. This cordial union of Christians is necessary not only for obtaining that combination of eflbrt which is requisite for evangelizing the world, but also for the purpose of giving such a view of the nature and tendency of genuine Christianity, as nothing short of this can exhibit. To this, per- haps, more than to any of the other means employ- ed in the apostolic age, may be attributed the rapid progress of the gospel during that period, when " the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul." It becomes then a subject of serious enquiry, What are the principal obstacles to this union among Christians which is so very desirable, and what means are best adapted to the removal of these obstacles ? On minute investigation, it is more than probable that it will appear, in re- spect of most of the differences subsisting among real Christians, and such differences as have, bn various occasions, excited the greatest hosti- lity to each other, that the opposing parties have been nearly at an equal distance from the truth, to which they have both exclusively laid claim. Such differences very much resemble the ancient dispute between the Jews and Samaritans, re- specting the place where men ought to worship ; while the nature of true worship, and the im- portant ends for which it was instituted, were tqually overlooked by both. There is, perhaps, no subject of controvers}', to which the above remark will more forcibly apply than to that of Baptism, which, it is much to be regretted, has, of late years, been revived, with a pertinacity, if not with an asperity, equal to that which has accompanied the agitation of it at any former period. A by-stander, however, who is not enlisted under the banners of either of the contending parties, observing how very dexterously they handle their weapons when assailing their antagonists, and how extremely deficient they appear when attempting to establish their own peculiar views, may be led to suspect that they are both in the wrong, and that the error lies in the common ground which they agree to occupy, and which forms the basis of their respective systems. This will bring him to the previous question, a question which, how- ever important, seems never to have come properly before the public, at least not to have met with that consideration to which it is certainly entitled. Was Baptism designed to be a standing ordinance of the Christian Church, to be perpetuated from age to age ? or was it appointed, in its original institution, as an ordinance of proselytism, of which, (if continued at all) Missionaries are the only proper administrators, and Proselytes the only proper subjects ? To conduct the reader to the latter conclusion is the design of the follow- ing pages ; and should the writer succeed in (he attempt, and his views of the subject be generally adopted, he will consider himself as having renr dered a very important service to the religious public, by removing out of the way, what has hitherto proved one of the greatest hindrances to that union of Christians which, as stated above, seems indispensably requisite to effect the uni- versal spread of the gospel, and usher in the glory of the latter day. We come now to the subject more immedi- ately before us ; but in order to do justice to it, we must trace Baptism to its origin, and mark the circumstances which attended its introduc- tion, the light in which it was regarded, and the end which it was designed to answer. This ordinance was introduced, according to the account of it which is given us in the New Testament, by John, the forerunner of our Lord, who appears himself to have been a very extra- ordinary character. The length of time which had elapsed since any prophet had been seen in Israel, the family of John, so well known and so highly respected, the remarkable circumstances attending his birth, his rigid austerity and un- feigned piety, the peculiar situation of the people at that time, groaning under the Roman yoke and 9 anxious for deliverance, togetlier with tlie uni- versal expectation then entertained b}^ the Jews of the speedy approach of the Messiah, and even by the Gentiles of the appearance of some extraor- dinary personage, who should ameliorate the condition of mankind, and restore the golden age — all concurred to awaken curiosity and ex- cite attention ; so that, when John commenced his ministry, though it was in the most recluse and least populous part of the country, in the wilderness, as it is called, he immediately drew vast multitudes after him ; for we are informed by the Evangelists that there went out to him, not the inhabitants of Jerusalem only, but of the land of Judea, and all the region round about. And they were all baptized by him in Jordan, confessing their sins. That the Baptism admi- nistered by John was an ordinance of proselytism will not admit of a doubt. The subjects of it were such as were capable of receiving instruc- tion, and making a profession ; upon which, being baptized by him, they were considered as his cjisciples or proselytes. The growing fame of John did not escape the notice of the Jewish rulers. It is more than probable that it excited their envy, and that they began to entertain serious apprehensions, lest the respect in which he was held, and the influence 10 which he possessed, should eclipse Iheir repu- tation, and diminish their authority. They accordingly sent Priests and Lcvites from Jeru- salem, to interrogate him on the subject. Their object appears to have been, not so much to learn the nature and design of the ordinance which he administered, for of that they seemed fully aware, but what were his pretensions for administering that ordinance. It was not so much, What doest thou ? as who art thou ? and why doest thou thus ? What exalted personage art thou ? what special commission hast thou received from hea- ven, that thou shouldest baptize and make pro- selytes ? The answer of John is well known. He disclaimed the character of the Messiah, and professed to act only as his forerunner, to prepare his way agreeably to ancient prophecy. Whether these rulers were satisfied Avith this declaration of John or not, they well knew that he stood too high in the estimation of the people, to permit them with safety openly to oppose him. They would not, however, give him their sanction, as appears from another part of this history, where they are said to have rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized by him. At this period, a circumstance took place, too important to be allowed to pass unnoticed, what- ever bearing it may have on the present question. 11 While John was administering the rite of Baptism to the multitudes that flocked to him from every quarter, our Lord thought proper to present him- self as a candidate. This excited (as might be supposed) the surprise of John, who would have declined the honour that was thus to be put upon him. " 1 have need (says he) to be baptized by thee, and comest thou unto me ?" " Suffer it to be so now (was the answer of our divine Redeemer) for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness/' Our Lord by employ- ing the pronoun us, on this occasion, includes the administrator with himself ; for, surely, if it became him to submit to the ordinance, it was no less becoming in John to administer it, when re- quired by him so to do. Many have inferred from this, that believers in the present day, ought to be baptized because their Lord and Saviour was baptized ; seeing he hath left us an example, that we should follow his steps. But this is by no means a necessary consequence. There were many things which became our Lord, and which constituted a part of that righteousness which, as the Redeemer of his people, he was to fulfil, which are not at all obligatory upon us : nay, there are some, in which it would be even sinful for us to attempt to imitate him. To accomplish the work of our redemption he took our nature upon him^ was made under the law, and rendered 12 obedience to that law, ceremonial as well as moral. He was circumcised, kept the passover, and conformed exactly to the Jewish ritual. Nor was this all : for, in the present instance, he was pleased, by his own example, to sanction an or- dinance which was appointed as introductory to a dispensation that was afterwards to be more fully established. This circumstance, however, affords no well-founded argument for the perpetuity of Baptism as an ordinance of the Christian church ; especially when it is recollected that the baptism to which our Lord submitted, was the baptism of John, which, it is agreed on all hands, was but local and temporary. There was, nevertheless, a peculiar propriety in this act of condescension, on the part of our Re- deemer, at the precise period in which it took place ; and this seems to be intimated in the mode of expression, " Suffer it to be so now.'* An opportunity was afforded at this time, of which our Saviour thought proper to avail himself, while thus bearing testimony to the character of John, of receiving a divine attestation to his own character and mission ; and this, in the most solemn manner conceivable, in full view of the assembled multitude, just when he was about to commence his public ministry. This august transaction has frequently and very justly been li3 fconsidered as affording a striking exhibition dt the doctrine of the sacred Trinity ; in which each of the Divine persons ap}3ears in his own character and office, according to the economy of the cove- nant of redemption. Behold the Son of God in the midst of the flowing stream, receiving the baptismal rite ; while the Holy Sprit, probably like a lambent flame, in a dove-like shape, is seen, descending upon and hovering over him ! and a voice from heaven, the voice of God the Father, is heard, saying, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased !'* Such were some of the ends to be answered by this memorable event ; enough, surely, to justify that seeming deviation from propriety, which so forcibly struck the mind of John, in the character of one who had no sins to confess, and who was infinitely superior to the person to whom he appeared thus to submit himself. Shortly after this transaction, we read that Je- sus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself baptized not, but his dis- ciples. From this we learn that the Baptism administered by our Lord, or rather by his dis- ciples under his immediate direction, proceeded exactly upon the same principle as that of John, his fore-runner, at least in this respect, it was an ordinance of proselytism ; and when we consider 14 \vhat vast multitudes were baptized at this time by one or the other, and how small the number of true converts before the eflusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, we are necessarily led to the conclusion, that an external profession was deemed suificient to entitle any one to the ordi- nance, without a rigid scrutiny into the state of the heart. From this time we hear little or nothing of Baptism, except as it is on certain occasions metaphorically alluded to, till after our Lord's resurrection from the dead ; when, just before his ascension to glory, he commissioned his Apostles to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. The terms of this commission demand our closest attention, as constituting the only authority on which the practice is founded. *' Go 3 6 therefore, (was the language of our di- vine Redeemer, as recorded by Matthew) and teach (disciple or proselyte) all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to ob- serve all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. The word which, in our version of the Bible, is translated " teach," in the first of these verses, signifies to proselyte, or make disciples. Dr. Doddridge, in his Family Expositor, employs the first of these terms, " proselyte all nations, &c." It is of exactly the same import with that which occurs in the passage referred to above, where it is said that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John. It appears clearly from comparing these passages together that, so far as proselytism is concerned, this commission of our Lord proceeded on the same principle with the practice of John, and that of his own disciples during his personal ministry. Their sphere of action was, indeed, considerably en- larged, embracing all nations : yet to whatever extent it is carried, it is still connected with proselytism ; while not a syllable is said about the descendants of those who were thus to be proselyted and baptized. From the promise annexed " Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world," it has been inferred that the ordinance of Baptism must be of perpetual obligation. But, neither the words themselves, nor the situation in which they are found, will support such an inference : for, it must be obvious to every reflecting mind, that the spiritual presence of Christ with his disciples, would have been equally necessary, and doubtless would, at this particular period, when his bodily presence was about to be totally with- 16 drawn, have been made as much the subject of a special promise, if no such ordinance as that of Baptism had been appointed. Besides, if we read the whole passage, we shall see that the pro- mise stands more immediately connected with those subsequent instructions, which would form the important topics of the gospel ministry in all succeeding ages, after the Apostles had closed their testimony, even to the end of time, when Baptism, as an ordinance of proselytism, would be no longer requisite. But if any just inference can be drawn from a supposed connexion between the precept and the promise, on the ground of proximity of situation, the record of this transaction by the Evangelist Mark, would lead us to an opposite conclusion : for there, after the recital of the commission, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is bap- tized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned ;" it is immediately added, *' and these signs shall follow them that believe ; in my name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents ; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Here we find the institution of Baptism closely connected with 17 the promise of miraculous gifts ; and indeed, this connexion seems to coincide with the nature and desisrn of that ordinance far better than the other. Miracles and ceremonies were the distinguishing- characteristics of the Jewish dispensation. In both, an appeal is made to the senses. They were, therefore, well adapted to that period of the church, which is justly represented by the Apos- tle Paul, in his epistle to the Galatians, as a state of childhood. Children, we know, are more affected with that which is presented to the eye than that which is addressed to the ear. They are generally better pleased with pictures than with books, and learn more from striking exhibi- tions than from abstract reasonings. Hence, the former dispensation was a dispensation of ceremo- nies, a shadow of good things to come ; very useful at that period, but not meant to be perpe- tual ; being, like miraculous gifts, no longer requi- site, when the Christian dispensation should be fully established. Baptism, indeed, seems to partake of the na- ture of both dispensations, being partly Jewish and partly Christian, though not exclusively belong- ing to either. It was, therefore, well adapted to form the close of one and the commencement of the other. In its mode of administration, it much resembled the legal purifications, which, in the c 18 epistle to the Hebrews, are called divers washings, or baptisms, (as the word is in the original) being a part of those carnal ordinances, that were to con- tinue in force only till the time of reformation ; while, in respect of its subjects, it essentially dif- fered from them ; exacting of every candidate that profession of faith and repentance, which the law never required of those who participated, nor even of those who administered its most solemn rites. Baptism may, therefore, be considered as a sort of twilight ordinance, interposing between the shadows of Jewish ceremonies, which were about to flee away, and that glorious day of gospel light that was just ready to dawn on a benighted world. Our Lord was pleased to adopt this ordi- nance, which had been introduced by John his forerunner, instead of instituting a new rite, as might have been expected, when he commis- sioned his Apostles to go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. Viewed in the lio^ht in which we have hitherto considered it, there was much wisdom in the appointment. Baptism, as an ordinance of proselytism, was well known ; it had already been practised to a considerable extent, and the nature and design of it could not be misunderstood. 19 But it may be asked, If Baptism was ordained only for a particular purpose, adapted to circum- stances then existing, why was it enjoined with such solemnity, and enforced with such strictness, especially (as recorded by Mark) connected with the declaration, " He that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved ?" We reply to this by ob- serving, that the declaration referred to, instead of militating against the sentiment we have ad- vanced, tends very much to confirm it ; for it stamps such an importance on the ordinance of Baptism at that period, as can by no means be attached to it, as practised among us, at the pre- sent day. Hence the difficulty that commenta- tors have universally found, in their attempts to interpret this passage, and the various ways in which they have sought to evade its force, or explain away its meaning. Let us consider the subject a little more attentively, and we shall see clearly how the matter stands. In every period of the church, and under every dispensation, a public profession of religion, in one way or other, has been considered as essen- tial to the character of the people of God, and, in proportion to the clearness of the light and the extent of the privilege, the duty has become more indispensable. Hence we read (Matt. x. •32, 33. " Whosoever shall confess me before 20 hien, him will I confess before my Father who is in heaven : but whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father who is in heaven." Such was the solemn declaration of our Lord during the period of his public minis- try: but when, after his resurrection from the dead, he commissioned his Apostles to proselyte all na- tions, he was pleased to require those who em- braced their doctrine, to make a public profession of the same, not by a mere verbal declaration of their faith in him, but by a significant and solemn act, in the name of the sacred Trinity. There was a great propriety in this. Words are liable to different constructions, and may be understood in different senses, conveying more or less of meaning, according to the varying circumstances of him that utters them. But an act of this sort, could neither be misunderstood nor retracted. The rubicon was passed, and they must abide by the consequences. It was impossible to go back without incurring the charge, and exposing themselves to the odium, of apostasy from the faith. In this view the declaration, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," was not too strong. Being baptized, in compliance with the command of Christ, was, at that period and under those circumstances, absolutely necessary to prove that their faith was genuine, and that they were in a state of salvation. 21 This view of the subject is illustrated and confirmed by the language of the Apostle Peter on the day of Pentecost, when three thousand souls appear to have been converted under one discourse. Deeply convinced of the guilt they had incurred, and dreading the vengeance to which they had exposed themselves, by the murder of the Lord of life and glory, they said unto Peter and to the rest of the Apostles, " Men and brethren, what shall we do ?" Then Peter said unto them, " Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost ; for the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." O what rich encouragement ! what heavenly consolation ! what divine joy ! were these words adapted to inspire into the hearts of those who, but a short time before, had clamorously de- manded the crucifixion of the Redeemer, impi- ously saying, " His blood be on us and on our children !" and now to hear, that a way was open, in which they and their children might be rescued from that destruction which they had thus wickedly imprecated, by repenting of their sins, believing in Christ, and being baptized in his name I It is added, " And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying. Save 22 yourselves from this untoward generation/' Then (it follows) they that gladly received his word were baptized ; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. Here we see Baptism standing in exactly the same connexion with faith on the one hand and and salvation on the other, as in the declaration recorded by Mark, " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Mark (it is generally understood) wrote his gospel under the direction of Peter, who doubtless recollected the above expression of our Lord, and knew full well how to understand it. This same Apostle also, in his first general epistle, referring to the ark, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water, adds, " The like figure whereunto, even Baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." 1 Peter iii. 20, 21. It appears clearly from the above statement that Baptism was, at that period, in a certain sense, a saving ordinance. It was the divinely appointed means, by which, in connexion with faith and repentance, those whom the Apostle Peter addressed were exhorted to save them' selves from the awful judgments denounced against the Jewish nation, which subsequently came 23 upon them, even before that generation had passed away, but from which, those who thus professed their faith in Christ were happily exempt. When performed in obedience to the command of their risen and exalted Redeemer, as a fruit of faith, with right views, and under the influence of proper motives, it also furnished satisfactory evidence of interest in the more im- portant and invaluable blessings of spiritual and eternal salyation. We may further observe, that Baptism was then the only door of entrance into the visible church of Christ, the only means of access to Christian fellowship and the communion of saints; by which those who were formerly aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and stran- gers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world, were brought nigh ; considered and treated as being no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of God ; having a right to partake of «// the ordinances and enjoy all the privileges to which Christians are entitled, to 7ione of which they could before lay claim. By attending to this ordinance, it was the will of Christ that those who were converted to the faith, by the ministry of the Apostles and Evan- gelists, should come out from among the unbe- lieving Jews and idolatrous Gentiles, with whom they were previously mingled, and form a distinct 24 community, united among tliemselves and separate from their former associates. Such being the nature of Baptism in its original institution, and such the ends to be answered by its appointment, the fair presumption is, that, being ordained under peculiar circumstances, and for special purposes, not corresponding with our present situation, it was not intended to be made a standing ordinance of the Christian Church, to be perpetuated from age to age ; nor are we obliged so to regard it without a clear and explicit command to that effect. Such a command is certainly not to be found in the terms of the com- mission. Some have supposed it to be included in the words that immediately follow, " Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." But if so, we must certainly find some trace of it, in the subsequent writings of the Apostles : otherwise, the obvious infer- ence must be ; either that the perpetuity of the ordinance of Baptism was not among the n umber of those things which Christ commanded, and which they were consequently bound to teach his people to observe ; or, that they have been, in this respect at least, sadly deficient in their duty ; seeing they have left us so much in the dark on the subject. This is the more extra- ordinary as on every other branch of Christian 25 chity, they have been so very explicit, not spar- ing to urge it, under all the varied forms of pre- cept, exhortation, admonition, warning, and caution. But, in regard to Baptism, whether their epistles are addressed to ministers, to churches, or to individuals, there seems, on this siibject, one had almost said, a studied silence. There is no injunction to enforce it, no exhorta- tion to press it, no admonition or warning of the danger of delaying or neglecting it, no caution against the abuse of it ; nor is there any intima- tion, from which we can certainly infer that it was meant to be continued from age to age. It was not so under the former dispensation. There, if an ordinance was appointed that was designed to be perpetual ; that is, to continue as long as the dispensation lasted, it was specified as such. Hence we read so repeatedly, " This shall be a statute forever/* *' This shall be an ordinance to be observed in all your generations.** Nor w^ere they left to vague conjecture, either as to the mode of performing these ordinances, or the persons to whom it appertained to adminis- ter or to partake of them. Indeed, we may ven- ture to lay it down as a certain rule, founded on the equity of the Divine government, and appli- cable to all the ordinances which God has appointed ; that the perspicuity with w^hich they are defined will be invariably proportioned to the 26 strictness with which they are enforced, and the importance attached to their observance. Let this rule be once admitted, and we are furnished with an unanswerable argument against the per- petuity of the ordinance of Baptism. For never was any ordinance, instituted with such solem- nity, enforced with such strictness, and having such importance attached to it, at the time of its enactment ; being closely connected, not with the possession or forfeiture of temporal good, but wnth the salvation of the precious and immortal soul ; and yet, in respect of its continued observ- ance so extremely vague and indefinite ; leaving us, (if we may judge from the contradictory opi- nions entertained concerning it) in a mist of obscurity and a labyrinth of perplexity, without a clue to guide us, either in respect of the de- scription of character authorised to administcj the ordinance, the kind of persons wiio are the proper subjects of it, or the mode of its perform- ance. All this is perfectly unaccountable upon the supposition that it was intended to be a standing ordinance of the Christian church. Ad- mit the contrary, and every difficulty vanishes. Instead of perplexing ourselves any further on the subject, we may rest satisfied ; being already in possession of all that is requisite for us to know, on a subject with which personal duty has no necessary connexion. S7 It tn-ay, notwithstanding, be contended, lliat an ordinance, once instituted with such solemnity, and enforced with such strictness, as we have ad- mitted respecting Baptism, must necessarily be considered as of perpetual obligation ; unless repealed by the same authority, and in a manner as clear and definite, as the declaration by which it was first enacted. This is certainly very plau- sible, and is perhaps the strongest argument that can be adduced in favour of the practice. But, if we closely examine it, we shall perceive that it is far from being so conclusive, as we might, at first sight, imagine. Happily for us, we have a precedent set before us in the New Testament ; the proper consideration of which will materially assist our investigation of this important point. The ceremonial law, in its various branches, was delivered by Moses to the Israelites with all due solemnity, and the observance of it enforced with the utmost strictness. It might, therefore, have been expected that, if ever it should be abrogated, it would be by the mandate of autho- rity, or by a special commission from heaven for the purpose, and that, in terms so explicit, as to leave no room for doubt or hesitation on the sub- ject, in the mind of any who truly feared God. This, however, we knoAv was not the case. Many of the believing Jews, for a considerable time after their having- embraced Christianity, 28 cherished a fond regard for those institutions, which for so long a period they had been accus- tomed to venerate. Now, by what m^ans were they to be detached from these antiquated rites, to which they were so closely wedded ? Not by the dictate of authority, compelling an immediate, entire, and absolute relinquishment of them ; but by the dint of argument, showing that when first instituted, they were not designed to be of per- petual obligation ; that they were appointed for a special purpose ; and when that purpose was fully accomplished, there existed no longer any obligation to regard them. This mode of proceeding, with respect to the ceremonial law, serves to establish a very import- ant principle, which will apply to all the com* mands of God without exception. It is this. The moment that the reason for which any com- mand was given, ceases ; that moment the obli- gation to obey such command, ceases with it. A proper attention to this rule would have pre- served many from those errors into which they have been betrayed by a servile regard to precepts and examples recorded in the New Testament, without enquiring the reason of such observances, the end to be answered by them, and whether it is necessary and expedient for us, in our pre- sent circumstances, which ma\ be widely differ- 29 ent from theirs, to employ tlie same means for the attainment of such end. We may refer to one or two instances which occur in the histo- rical part of the New Testament by way of illus- tration. When, at an early period of the Christian church, a question arose respecting the propriety of imposing upon Gentile converts the necessity of conforming to the'Jewish ritual, a consulta- tion of the Apostles and Elders was held at Jeru- salem upon the subject ; when, after much debate, it was determined that nothing more should be required of them than those " necessary things'* as they are called, " To abstain from meats of- fered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication : from which (it is added) if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well." Now, with respect to the last of the things here mentioned, it has always been considered, and very properly, as necessary for us to abstain from it as for them : yet, though no distinction what- ever is made in the decree between one and the other, we have always been accustomed to re- gard the rest as deriving all their importance from peculiar circumstances then existing, and con- sequently not obligatory upon us, who are placed in different circumstances. On this sub- ject, Dr. Doddridge observes, that " the reason 30 of the prohibition is now ceased^ and the obliga- tion to abstain from these things ceases teilli it :" which exactly corresponds with the position we have advanced. Again, It pleased our Lord, on a certain occa- sion, in order to incnicate more forcibly the necessity of humility and condescension among his followers, first to wash the feet of his disci- ples, and then to explain his reasons for so doing, saying, " If I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another's feet: for I have given you an example that ye should do as I have done to you." Here we have a positive injunction of Christ, sanc- tioned by his own example : and yet it is gene- rally understood to be the spirit and not the letter of this precept and example, to which we are bound to conform. Under the former dispensation, indeed, there were positive institutions, the propriety or expe- diency of which was never considered as a proper subject of enquiry or discussion so long as that dispensation continued in force : nor was the least excuse admitted, for any neglect, delay, or devi- ation from the prescribed mode of observing them ; it being (as we are told) of the nature of positive institutions, to require implicit obedience 31 on the sole ground of the authority of the Legis- lator. Hence, we repeatedly find instances of disobedience to such precepts, though in things apparently trivial, punished with the utmost severity, as acts of rebellion against the King of Zion. Now, it is urged by many that the ordi- nances of divine service enjoined upon us, though fewer in number, and more simple in their nature, than those which belonged to the former dispen- sation ; yet, being like them, positive institutions, they proceed exactly on the same principle, and ought to be enforced with the same strictness. On this ground, the Baptists defend their con^ duct in refusing communion at the Lord's table to Pasdobaptists : nor is it easy to see with what justice or propriety, those who admit the above principle, can censure them for so doing. Let us hear their reasoning on this subject, as pre- sented to us by the late Mr. Booth, in his *' Apology for the Baptists ; in which they are vindicated from the charge of laying an unwar- rantable stress on the ordinance of Baptism." In the third section of his treatise on this subject, he thus expresses himself: — " As the sovereign will of God is more concerned and manifested in positive ordinances than in any other branches of holy worship ; so it is evident from the history of the Jewish church, that the divine jealousy 32 was never sooner inflamed, nor ever more awfully expressed, than when God's ancient peop]efailed in their obedience to such commands, or devi- ated from the prescribed rule of such institutions. The destruction of Nadab and Abihu by fire from heaven ; the breach that was made upon Uzzah ; the stigma fixed and the curses de- nounced on Jeroboam ; together with the fall and ruin of all mankind by our first father's dis- obedience to a positive command, are among the many authentic proofs of this assertion." In order to show how the above remarks apply to the object that he has in view, which is to prove the necessity and importance of Baptism, as a term of communion, he adds, " The clearer light which God has afforded, and the richer grace which Christ has manifested, under the present dispensation ; are so far from lessening, that they evidently increase our obligations to perform every divine command relating to Christian wor- ship. Accursed, then, is the principle, and re-r bellious is the conduct of those professors who think themselves warranted by the grace of the gospel, to trifle with God*s positive appoint- ments, any more than the priests or the people were of old.'* Another author, whom Mr. B. quotes with approbation, after stating, in respect of the ordi- 33 nances of the gospel, " that the pritnilive mode of administration should be strictuf and conscien- tiously adhered to,^' adds, " In a former dispen- sation, in which the ritual was numerous and burdensome, the great Jehovah was particularly jealous of his honour as supreme lawgiver, and looked upon the least innovation as a direct op- position to his authority. Moses, we are informed, was admonished of God to make all things accord- to the pattern showed him in the mount. And those unfortunate youths w^ho presumed to alter the form of his religion, and worship him in a way he had not commanded, fell under the sever- est marks of his displeasure ; which shows that he looked upon the least innovation in the cere^ ■monial part of his precepts, as an impious and daring opposition and contempt of his authority, and deserving of as peculiar and distinguished vengeance, as a direct and open violation of the moral law. And as the great King of the uni- verse required such strictness and punctuality, and insisted on such scrupulous exactness in the performance of the minutest rite belonging to the legal dispensation ; it would be extremely difficult to assign a reason why he should be more lax and careless, and allow a greater scope to human discretion, under the Christian eco- nom3^ The greater light which shines in our religion, the small number and simplicity of its 34 ceremonials, and the end and design of those institutions being mnre clearly revealed^ arn we think of the Divine con- duct towards such characters ? We do not, in- deed, in the present day, expect to see transgres- sors, however aggravated the offence may be, consumed by fire from heaven, as Nadab and Abihu were, or visited with instant death, like Uzzah, when he presumptuously touched the ark. But if their crime, as stated above, is as heinous, and deserving a punishment as severe, as a direct and open violation of the moral law, we should expect to behold some tokens of the divine dis- pleasure, such as we have repeatedly witnessed in the case of those who have disgraced their profession by a conduct grossly immoral. In some such instances, however dignified the cha- racter, eminent the talent, exalted the title, and extensive the influence, which they may previ- ously have possessed, no sooner has the fact been indubitably ascertained, than they have sunk like a millstone in the mighty waters, sunk to rise no more. Others, in similar circumstances, have attempted to continue in the exercise of their profession, having no other means of sup- port : but they have only dragged out a miserable existence, without credit and without comfort, their respectability gone, their influence at an end, and a fatal extinguisher put over all their prospects of future usefulness. The effect has been nearly the same, where the fundamental 35 doctrines of tlie gospel have been denied or dis- resfarded. In all these cases, that solemn declara- tion of Jehovah has been fully verified, " Them that honour me I will honour ; but they that that despise me shall be lightly esteemed." Such is God's method of dealing with those who incur his displeasure by walking contrary to him. But Vv'hat do we behold in the case before us } Just the reverse of all this. We see a class of de- linquents, whose offence is exactly of the same description with that which called down fire from heaven on the guilty heads of the culprits ; being no less than a deviation from the prescribed rule of a positive institution : and nothing, according to Mr. B. can be conceived more horriblv provoking to God, or more adapted to excite his keenest indignation, and the most awful displays of his vengeance : and this oflTence, too, attended with circumstances of deeper aggravation, because committed under a dispensation of clearer light and richer grace than that with which the sons of Aaron were favoured. Yet, strange to tell ! we see no mark whatever of the divine displea- sure towards them on this account. So far from it, that we may venture to say, that none of the servants of God, who walk in all his command- ments and in all his ordinances blameless, have been more enriched Avith the gifts and graces of 39 the Spirit, or have had their labours for the con- version of sinners, and the edification of saints, crowned with more abundant success than they. A Paedobaptist, however, may be supposed to say, " You labour under a very great mistake, if you think of charging us Avith deviating from the prescribed rule of a positive institution. This deviation is not on our part, but on the part of the Baptists ; for we are fully persuaded, and do verily believe, that Infant Baptism was praQtised by the Apostles themselves. We are confirgied in this sentiment by a learned friend of ours, who has recently taken a great deal of pains to prove, in a work that he has published on this subject, that the Greek word oikos, which, in our transla- tion, is rendered household or houses signifies /a- 7Wi/y, and consequently 7nust include infants ; on the supposition that infants were actually to be found in those families, (few in number) whose baptism is recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. We are sorry that it is not in our power exactly to ascertain this fact. It must, therefore, rest on conjecture or probability. Had it so happened that there had been infants in the ark, we should certainly have considered this circumstance as pleading strongly in our favour ; especially under the idea, that the ark is represented by the Apos- tle Peter, as a figure of Baptism. Nay, had the 40 matter been left vague and undetermined, We should have concluded, as in the instances before us, that infants 7nnst have been there ; seeing the same term is employed : for the Lord said unto Noah, " Come thou, and ail thy house into the ark/* The Apostle Paul also, in his epistle to the Hebrews, referring to the same transaction tells us that " Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his house.'' In this case, we should have urged the extreme absurdity of supposing that no infants were to be found in that ark, whose inhabitants were destined to people the whole world with their future progeny. As it is, however, we are fully disposed to pass the matter over in silence, and, should it at any -time be referred to, strenuously to maintain that it has nothing to do with the subject. But to return from this digression. Taking it for granted, as we are compelled to do for want of proof, that there were infants in the families alluded to, our argument stands thus. Every general term must necessarily include all which that term is em- ployed to express in its most extended significa- tion. But this rule (if it may be so called) ad- mits of so many exceptions, and the cases occur so frequently where these exceptions must be made, or we must violate all the dictates of com- mon sense, that we scarcely know what to say. 41 There is one instance puzzles us extremely, arid the more so, as it stands closely connected with the ordinance in question. When our Lord gave his commission to his Apostles, as recorded by Mark, he commanded them to preach the gospel to every creature. The term creature, it is well known, in its literal signification, includes irra- tional and even inanimate beings. In short, it extends to every person and every thing that i$ the subject of creating power. But to understand it in this sense, in reference to the above com- mand, would be grossly absurd. " Not more ab- surd, however, (say the Baptists) than to under- stand the term famili/, where Baptism is con- cerned, as necessarily including infants ; for brutes and blocks are as capable of understanding and receiving the gospel, as infants are of making that profession of faith and repentance, which is indis- pensably requisite to the due administration of the ordinance of Baptism. Jl.et this, rather, be your rule of interpretation, a rule which will in- variably apply to all cases that may occur : Every general term must necessarily admit of those ex- ceptions, which the nature of the subject and the dictates of common sense demand," " Who shall decide when Doctors disagree ?" One thing, however, we cannot forbear remark- ing, that the continued existence of this contra- 42 riety of opinion among wise and good men, tends very much to confirm the idea, that Baptism was not intended to be a standing ordinance of the Christian church, or it never would have been left so extremely vague and indefinite. We may further observe that the dispensations of God, as the God of providence, and as the God of grace, form an infallible comment on his sacred word, especially the preceptive part ; wherein we find the divine conduct repeatedly exhibited, as furnishing the most exact pattern for imitation, and the most powerful motive to obedience. The Apostle Paul, in his exhortations to the exercise of mutual forgiveness, brotherly love, conjugal affection, and other relative duties, en- forces all upon this ground : God hath forgiven you, and loved you ; therefore ye ought in like manner to forgive one another, and to love one another. John, the beloved disciple, pursues a similar course in his first general epistle, inferring from the love of God to us, that we ought also to love one another. If he laid down his life for us, w^e ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. Our Lord himself also adopts precisely the same mode of reasoning when he says, " Love ye your ^'lemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing ag;:>ii, and your reward shall be great, and ye shall 43 he the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful, and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merci- ful. Bo ye therefore perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect." This was precisely the principle upon which the Apostle Peter proceeded on a very remarkable occasion. When charged with having acted im- properly in holding yVee communion and intimate fellowship with Gentile converts, and admitting them to the full enjoyment of all the privileges of the Christian church, without requiring them to be circumcised, he rests his defence on this ground, and on this ground alone ; for he uses no other argument in vindication of his conduct. ^' F'orasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand God ? And God, w^ho knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us ; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.'* Acts xi. 17. and xv. 8, 9. The scope of his reasoning is evidently to show that where God has made no difference, we should make none. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, urges the duty of mutual forbearance exactly on the same ground ; sum- ming up the whole in this short seiitence, 44 *' Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ hath also received us to tlie glory of God." When the opponents of free communion are closely pressed with these and similar passages, they generally attempt to evade their force by al- leging that they relate to the ceremonial law, which is now completely abrogated ; that they must therefore be considered as irrelevant, having nothing to do with the positive institutions of the New Testament. But, it ought to be remem- bered that, however clear the subject may seem to us, the complete abrogation of the Jewish ritual was not fully understood by those whom Peter addressed, any further than they might draw the inference from the transaction which he nar- rated. They might reason thus, and no doubt, many of them did so. Those services which w^ere once enjoined with so much solemnity, and enforced with so much strictness, are now treated with indifference, and that, even by God himself. Surely, the purpose for which they were ordained must have been fully accomplished ; and the rea- son of their enactment having ceased, the obliga- tion to regard them has ceased with it : for we can- ricft believe, were they still in force, that He, who is So jealous of his honour, would suffer them to be totally neglected with impunity; much less that he ^vould bestow his favours as liberally on those 45 \\\m {)ay no r^gartl to tliein at all, as on those who observe them with the utmost strictness ; making no kind of difference between the one and the other. Let us apply this to the subject before us, and we shall see that Baptism stands exactly in the same situation in the present day, that circum- cision did in the days of the Apostles. If the Baptists are right in their views of the ordinance, nothing can be more clear. According to them, Infant Baptism is 'no Baptism at all : it is a mere nullity. In their esteem, the far greater part of the Christian world, including some of the wisest and best men now on the face of the earth, are, to all intents and purposes, unbaptized. It appears then that God bestows the gifts and graces of his Spirit alike upon the baptized and the unbaptized, just as he did in the primitive ages of the Christian Church, on the circumcised and the uncircumcised without distinction. On the supposition that Baptism ought to be regarded as a standing ordinance, and insisted on as a term of communion, this is most unaccountable. Now, it so happens, that Mr. Booth himself, in his defence of exclusive communion, adopts the very principle for which we contend, and rests the chief weight of his argument upon it : 46 for he evidently considers the dealings of God with his professing people, when they Ml in their observance of his statutes, as furnishing a criterion, whereby we may infallibly determine the nature and quality of the offences with which they stand chargeable, and the judgment v/hich we ought to form of them. Hence he infers from the awful visitations of divine Providence on the two eldest sons of Aaron, and others who com- mitted similar transgressions, the heinous guilt of deviating from the prescribed rule of a positive institution. But, it is worthy of note, that every instance which he adduces is taken from the Old Testament, not one from the New. This is the more extraordinary, as in his controversy with Paedobaptists, he is perpetually exposing the ab- surdity of this mode of proceeding, when resorted to by them, in order to prove the right of infants to Baptism ; considering it as betraying the weak- ness of the disputant, or the want of substantial evidence ; as a tacit confession that Evangelists and Apostles afford but slender evidence in proof of the point which they wish to establish : other- wise, there would be no need to send us back to obsolete ceremonies, antiquated rites, the Old Testament, and the former dispensation, to know the meaning of the commission which our Lord gave to his Apostles, and to learn the na- ture of an ordinance, which is pecidiar to the 47 New Testament, and belongs solely to the pre- sent dispensation. But, we would ask. Is it more absurd for a Peedobaptist to conclude from the promise which God made to Abraham, to be a God to him and to his seed after him, that there- fore Christian parents ought to baptize their children, than for the advocate of exclusive com- munion to infer from the circumstance of the sin of Nadab and Abihu being punished by fire from heaven, that therefore Baptists are justifiable in refusing to admit Paedobaptists to communion with them at the Lord's table ? We may here, mutatis mutandis, retort on Mr. B. his own language, and say, " May we not conclude that he would never have produced any pas- sage from the Old Testament in favour of his sentiment, were he not keenly sensible that the apostolic writings do not furnish him with solid argument in its defence ? But, as Dr. Watts observes, Through the influence which our own schemes or hypotheses have upon the mind, we sometimes become so sharp-sighted as to find these schemes in those places where the sacred writers never thought of them, nor the Holy Spirit ever intended them." Mr. B.'s reasoning on this subject, however, is perfectly correct, so far as it goes to establish the general principle, that the conduct of God towards 48 offenders forms a proper test, by which we may judge of the magnitude of the offence. But the due application of this rule must ever have respect to the nature of the dispensation under which the offence is committed, and the actual treats merit which such offenders, or supposed offenders, receive from the hand of God. In this view of the subject, the justness of which is incontrover- tible, Mr. B.'s argument may be turned comr pletely against himself ; for the principle which he has taken so much pains to establish, if pror perly applied, proves the truth of the sentiment directly opposed to that which it is adduced to establish. The argument will then stand thus : If the awful judgments, above referred to, evince the heavy guilt incurred by the slightest infraction of the ceremonial law, the seal of divine approba- tion which has been so evidently affixed to the labours of the faithful servants of Christ, notwith- standing their differing so widely from each other in modes of worship and disc'ipline, and the adr ministration of gospel ordinances, incontestably proves that such differences, however they may be magnified by the partisans of their respective sects, are of little or no account in the estimatioi) of Him whose judgment is according to truth. But how is it, some may be disposed to inquire that such astonishing latitude should be allowed 49 respecting- the institutions of the gospel, whilst those of the law were enforced with so much rigour? There is no difficulty in assigning an adequate reason for this. Theologians, indeed, have involved the subject in perplexity, by em- ploying the same term to designate the ordinances of the gospel, and the ceremonies of the law, calling them ' positive institutions;' and then, having thought proper to give the same name to both, they have immediately supposed them to, be alike, and have argued from the one to the other, as if there were the most perfect resem- blance between them ; when, in fact, they differ from each other in nature and design, as much as the dispensations to which they respectively belong. If we would entertain correct ideas of these dispensations, it must be, not by comparing them together, but by contrasting them with each other. The former dispensation was external, carnal and worldly. Its ordinances are expressly called " carnal ordinances,'* the place where they were administered " a worldly sanctuary," and the law by which they were enforced, " the law of a carnal commandment." Rites and ceremo- nies were essential to this dispensation. They were interwoven with its whole texture, and constituted its very being. They were " shadows G b^ good things to come/' " patterns of things ill the heavens." This rendered thfe exact observ- ance of them so extremely important : for a small defect in a pattern may lead to an erro- neous conception of the thing which it is de- signed to represent. But with us the case is far otherwise. We have the heavenly things them- selves ; not the type but the antitype : the sub- stance, not the shadow ; the reality, not the re- Semblance. The religion of Christ, consists not in meats atid drinks, not in ceremonial observ- atices, but in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. The present dispensation is altogether spiritual : for in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircum- cision, but faith which worketh by love. It is hot being baptized, or unbaptized, but being a heW creature, created anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, that constitutes any one a child of God and a member of Christ : for, as many as received him, to them gave he power to be- come the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name ; who were born, not of blood, nor bf the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Hence, says the Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, Ye are all the chil- dren of God by faith in Christ Jesus: and if ^E BE Christ's, then are ye Abraham's ^feEbj and heirs according to the promise. It is 51 by a spiritual, not by a carnal birth, tliat we be- come entitled to spiritual privileo^es. Indeed, the diiTcrence between the two dispensations is such, that if, without bearing the distinction in our minds, we attempt to prove any controverted point by inferences drawn from the one to the other, we are almost sure to be led into error. There are ordinances of divine service, it is true, under the present dispensation as well as under the former one; but, congenial with the nature of that gospel which they are designed to unfold and exhibit, they may be considered rather as means of grace than acts of duty. They are the means of communicating the grace which God has promised, and the means of improving and strengthening the grace which he has im- parted. In a devout attendance upon them, we are encouraged to expect that spiritual knowledge will be increased, spiritual dispositions exercised, aud spiritual blessings enjoyed, to the glory of God. They are, therefore, set before us, rather under the idea of privileges of which we are invited to partake, than of duties which we are commanded to perform. Their manifest ten- dency to promote our instruction, edification and comfort, the great purposes for which they were instituted, will be found to supply the best and most efficient motives for a constant regard to 52 them ; and, at the same time, to furnish an un- erring criterion, by which we may distinguish between such appointments as were ordained under peculiar circumstances, and for a special purpose, and those which should be regarded as standing ordinances of the Christian church. The difference between the legal and the evan- gelical dispensation will appear yet more fully, if we consider the condition of the people of God under each, and the relative characters which they are consequently represented as sustaining. Un- der the former economy they were in a state of comparative darkness and bondage ; under the present, of light and liberty. Their condition then was that of a servant, who is told what he is to do, without being informed, or even permitted to inquire, why he is to do it. Their condition now is that of a son, and of a son arrived at years of maturity, who is supposed to understand his father's interest, and to be able to form a correct judgment of the way in which that interest may be best promoted. Our Lord, in allusion to this idea, says to his disciples, John xv. lo. " Hence- forth, I call you not servants ; for the servant knoweth not Avhat his lord doeth : but I have called you friends ; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you," Such language certainly does not comport 53 with the views which we have hitherto been led to entertain of ' positive institutions/ According to the definition usually given of that term, there can be no place for them under the present dis- pensation. They belong rather to the law, which was given by Moses, than to the gospel of grace and truth, which came by Jesus Christ. Rites and ceremonies make no essential part of his reli- gion. He did not abrogate one ceremonial law to establish another ceremonial law in the room of it. We are now come, not to mount Sinai but to Mount Zion. We are not under the law but un- der grace. The gospel dispensation is a dispensa- tion, not of the letter which killeth, but of the spirit which giveth life. In relation to this subject, a modern writer thus expresses himself, " The Jewish and the Christian ceremonies, are represented by the Apostle Paul, as possessing the perfect correspondence of a sha- dow with the substance, of a type with the reality; but as exhibiting in all other respects the strong- est contrast. The institutions of the Jewish church were positive, and agreeably to their de- sign, national, local, temporary. In those of Christianity we perceive the character of univer- sality and permanence. Scarcely any thing of a nature merely positive is to be found in the insti- tutes of the New Testament. The will of Christ, 54 so far as it respects his ultimate purpose in rcr- deeming his church, is revealed with the utmost clearness, so as to prevent, one might imagine, the possibility of mistake ; but the directions are few, whicii enable us to determine or arrange the means of accomplishing his will, otherwise than by a careful reference to that design, Vv^hich he has made it our duty to regard as our end. How much useless controversy would an attention to this simple truth have obviated !"* Yes, we will venture to say that a due atten- tion to this simple truth, would tend more than any other consideration to bring to an amicable termination those unhappy controversies which still continue to separate Christians from each other, and prevent their cordial union in the fel- lowship of the gospel. " True it is (says the above cited Author in another place) that there is no book of Leviticus in the New Testament, for there is nothing Levitical in Christianittj."-\ We cannot however, forbear remarking, that those who would enforce a Christian ordinance with all the rigour of the Jewish ritual, and attempt to justify their conduct in so doing by referring us to the punishments inflicted for offences against * See Conder on Protestant Nonconformity. Vol, I. Pages 20, 21. t Ibid. Vol. II. Page 350. 55 the Levitical law, seem to act as if they belonged to the tribe of Levi. The principle on which they found their proceedings, is certainly more congenial with the former than with the present dispensa- tion. Were the simplicity and spirituality of the Christian system clearly understood, and the greaS end for which it was instituted properly regarded, no difference of opinion that might be entertained by Christians respecting external services could ever be considered as a proper ground of separa- tion, or prevent their union and communion with each other. The dissimilarity between the two dispensa- tions will further appear, if we consider the nature of the respective covenants which constitute the foundation of each. The legal dispensation was founded on the covenant originally made with Abraham, but afterwards renewed and confirmed with the whole people of Israel at Mount Sinai, according to the declaration of Moses, " The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb." This covenant included not only the ten com- mandments delivered with such awful pomp at Mount Sinai, but all those statutes and ordinances, which were subsequently made known to Moses, ' and by him communicated to the people. It was made with the nation of Israel as auch^ and con- tained promises and threatenings ; but, exactly 56 corresponding with the dispensation to which they belonged, the promises were promises of temporal blessings, the threatenings were threatenings of temporal judgments. The whole is summed up in a very concise manner by the prophet Isaiah, " If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land, but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be cut off; for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Thus their enjoyment of the pro- mised blessings depended on their performance of the prescribed conditions. But the evangelical dispensation is founded on another and a better covenant ; yes, infinitely better. It is ia covenant ordained for a better purpose, put into better hands, and established on better promises. It is better, also, in reference to its extent and its perpetuity. It is ordained for a better purpose. Not for the purpose of con- ducting the sons of Abraham, according to the flesh, to the possession of an earthly inheritance ; but for a purpose infinitely more exalted, even that of bringing the sons of God — whom he is pleased to call out of a worse than Egyptian bondage into the glorious liberty of his own dear children — to future and everlasting glory ; that having their sins pardoned, and their persons accepted, through the atoning sacrifice, perfect obedience, and prevalent intercession of their 57 divine Rctleeiiier ; being, by his Spirit and grace, made meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light — they might, in due time, be brought to tlic full possession of that heavenly inheritance. Again, The new covenant is put into belter hands. The vSinai covenant vras put into the hands of jNIoscs, at the request of the people, and with the approbation of God ; for Moses was faithful in all his house. But the covenant of grace is ])ut into the hands of Jesus Christ, ■Nvho is not merely a servant in the house, but a son over the house ; Avhich house is his own ; being the purchase of his precious blood, and the residence of his indwelling Spirit. Moses was constituted the Mediator of the Sinai covenant, but he was nothing more than Mediator. In that capacity, he made known the will of God to the people, offered up prayers and supplications on their behalf, and set before them, in the most impressive manner, the consequences that would inevitably follow from their obedience or disobe- dience to the statutes and ordinances, which he had delivered to them at the command of God. This Avas the utmost that he could do. But Christ is not only the Mediator but the Surety of the covenant of grace ; which stamps an un- speakable value upon it, and gives the firmest 58 stability to the hopes of those who are interested in its blessings : seeing that He, who is their Mediator and Surety has undertaken on their be- half, to provide all things reo,uisiie for their safe conduct through this wilderness w^orld ; afford- ins: them the stronsrest assurance that he will never leave nor forsake them, till he has brought them to his everlasting kingdom and glory. We proceed to observe that the new covenatit is established on better promises, not only in respect of the superior nature of the blessings promised, which are spiritual and eternal, not merely temporal ; but, also, in the security af- forded for the complete and final enjoyment of these blessings. This is a very important consi- deration ; and the Apostle does not fail to give it due prominence, when treating on this subject, in the eighth chapter of his epistle to the Hebrews^ where he says, in reference to our Lord Jesus Christ, " He is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises : for (adds he) if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For, finding fault with them, he saith, (alluding to the prophecy of Jeremiah, whence he makes the following quotation) Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a hfew cbvenant With the house of Israel and with 59 tho house of Judrih : not according to the COVENANT THAT I MADE WITH THEIR FA- THERS, in the da^^ when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt ; because they continued not in my covenant, and 1 regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord : I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people.'* In the next chap- ter of the same prophecy, it is said, " I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them to do them good ; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me." Thus we see that the forfeiture of these blessings by apostasy ; or the falling short of them, through a deficiency in those dispositions, which were necessary for their enjoyment, was precluded by promises as absolute as those which relate to the blessings themselves. This is, indeed, a covenant ordered in all things and sure. Once more. The new covenant is better than the old in its extent and in its perpetuity. The covenant which God made with his ancient people was local and temporary. The blessings which it promised extended not beyond the borders of 60 JudeiT, Avhicli is, therefore, called " The luiid of promise." Nor was it designed to continue. It was only meant to prepare the way for a better, an everlasting covenant, to which it should give place ; a covenant, the blessings of M'hich should be communicated to all nations, and kindred, and people, and tongues ; and be perpetuated beyond the period of this mortal existence, even to eternal ages. That this covenant is not to be considered as a mere continuation of the former, with a few modifications, which circumstances might render necessary, but as one altogether new, whose introduction was to effect the entire removal of that which preceded it, is abundantly evident from the language of the Apostle, who adduces the very term by which it is designated, in confirmation of this idea, " In that he saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." But it may be objected. If this is a correct view of the subject — if, under the former dispensation, nothing was required but external obedience, and nothing promised but temporal blessings, what, on the one hand, can we make of the spirituality of the law ; and how, on the other, are we to un- derstand those exceeding great and precious pro- mises, which are to be found in the Old Testa- 61 uient as well as in the New ? To the first part of this objection we reply — that the law of Ten Commandments, commonly called the Moral Law, which is summed up in that comprehensive precept, " Thou slialt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself" — though delivered to the Israelites, as the depo- sitaries of revealed truth, was not intended for them only, nor to be confined to that dispensa- tion ; but should rather be considered as the ge- neral rule of God's moral government, exhibiting a specimen of his requirements as Creator and Governor of the universe, from all his intelligent creatures, and consequently, from the Israelites in common with the rest of mankind. But, even here, whatever was peculiar to them as a nation, was external and temporal. The preface to the ten commandments refers to a temporal deliver- ance ; and the promise annexed to the fifth com- mandment, is a promise o^ outward prosperity, in connexion with an earthly inheritance. The above remark will apply to all those precepts which '-elate to internal dispositions, such as, " My son, give me thy heart." " Rend your hearts and not your garments," &c. &c. With respect to those promises of spiritual and eternal blessings, which we find in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, we would observe, that 62 the dispensation under which they were revealed, whilst it was typical of a better state of things, furnished the means, whereby the people of God, during its continuance, obtained the know- ledge and enjoyment of those things ; which, nevertheless, made no part of the dispensation itself, but rather belonged to gospel times and gospel blessings, which were therein predicted and prefigured. In this view, the Jewish eco- nomy may be fitly compared to a scaffolding, upon which we often see the materials of the fu- ture edifice : but those materials belong to the building, which is to continue, and not to the scaffolding, which must be removed as soon as the purpose for which it was erected is accomplished ; that it may not encumber or disfigure the build- ing when finished, to which, while in a state of progress, it was attached. The difference between the former and the pre- sent dispensation is also evinced by the language of John the Baptist, in his address to the Phari- sees and Sadducees who came to his Baptism. *' Think not to say within yourselves. We have Abraham to our father : for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the tree : therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and 63 cast into the fire." These expressions clearly in- timate that a dispensation was coming forward, which siiould proceed on a principle totally dif- ferent from that of the former one. Here, not the outward conduct merely, but the internal state of the heart, from which that conduct emanated would become the subject of severe scrutiny : for the ax was 7iow to be laid to the roof of the trees. We perceive, also, that this was to be an indivi- dual not a national concern : for we are told that every tree, which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire. It is likewise evident, that descent from godly parents would not be taken into the account. " Think not TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, We HAVE Abraham to our father." It is not pious ancestry but personal religion, not relative con- nexions but spiritual dispositions, which can be of any avail under the dispensation of the gospel. The above statement will appear peculiarly en- titled to our regard, when we recollect that it is the statement of John the Baptist ; and that it was delivered by him, while in the very act of ad- ministering that ordinance, which was appointed for the express purpose of introducing the present dispensation into the world. Such were the declarations of the forerunner of bur Lord, at this remarkable period. Had these 64 declarations been clearly understooci, and ihvafra^ bly acted upon, in the successive periods of the Christian church, we are fully of opinion that the dispute respecting the proper subjects of Baptism would never have existed. And had the Bap- tists who have engaged in this controversy, bent their whole force to this point, instead of main- taining a sort of bush fighting, with Greek verbs and Greek prepositions, for the purpose of esta- blishing a particular 7«o(/aptized with 76 ■water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." Accordingly we find, on the day of Pentecost, the Spirit was poured out upon them from on high ; as an em- blem of which, cloven tongues, as of fire, sat upon each of them. In reference to this memor- able event, Peter, when narrating the circum- stances that attended the opening of the door of faith to the Gentiles, thus expresses himself, *' As I began to speak the Holy Ghost fell on them as on us at the beginning. Then remem- bered I the word of the Lord, how he said, John indeed baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." This ordinance is also emblematical of the suf- ferings to which our Lord M'as exposed, while accomplishing the redemption of his people ; for thus he himself speaks, (Luke xii. oO.) " I have a Baptism to be baptized with ; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished ?" To those who had witnessed the administration of this rite, in the midst of the river Jordan, such an expression must convey a very impressive idea of the cir- cumstances in which the Redeemer was placed ; when, for our sakes, while encompassed with sorrows on every side, the wrath of God was poured out upon him, and the vengeance of heaven /e// on his devoted head. 77 . The Aposlle Paul gives us the same view o( the subject (1 Cor. x. 1, 2.) when, referring to the case of the ancient Israelites, he says, " Our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea , and were all baptized unto jNIoses in the cloud and in the sea." With the waters of the cloud above them and of the sea on either side of them, they must appear in a situa- tion very similar to that of those who were bap. tized by John in Jordan. But the most striking representation of ail, is that of Peter, in a passage already quoted ; where, having spoken of the ark, in which Noah and his family were preserved daring the flood, he adds, The like figure whereunto^ even Baptism doth also now save us. Here the ark is not only represented as a figure of Baptism, but it is expressly said to be like unto it. It is impossible to conceive of any fact or circumstance that could be set before us which could look more like Bap- tism, or give us a clearer view of the mode, in which (as we apprehend) that ordinance was originally administered, than what is here exhi- bited ; where we see the ark partially immersed in the waters of the flood, while water from above, IS pouring down upon it. There is one expression, however, of which it is necessary to take some notice ; as the Baptists lay very great stress upon it, and consider it as conclusive in their favour. It occurs twice in the epistles of Paul. Rom. vi. 4. and Col. ii. 12. vi'here the Apostle, speaking of believers in Christ, represents them as buried with him by or in Baptism. In the first of these places, the scope of his reasoning evidently is, to show the obliga- tions which devolved on those, who, by Baptism had made a profession of the name of Christ, to act consistently with that profession. " Know ye not (says he, in the preceding verse) that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death." The death of Je- sus Christ, connected with his resurrection, while it formed the basis of their hope, constituted both the motive and the pattern of their obedience. By Baptism they professed themselves the sub- jects of that change of heart, which is sometimes represented as a new, spiritual and heavenly birth; at other times, as a resurrection from the dead. In that passage in the prophecy of Ezekiel, to which we have already adverted, after it is said, " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I cleanse you ;" it is im- mediately added, " A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you." *' Except a man be born of water and of the Spi- 79 lit, (says our Lord to Nicodemus) he cannot entep into the kingdom of God/' Peter, in his first general epistle, (chap. i. 3.) speaks of believers as '* begotten again to a lively hope, by the resur- rection of Jesus Christ from the dead." But Paul, in the passage under consideration, repre- sents this important change as having taken place, not only in consequence of, but in conformity to, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. " Therefore (says he) we are buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life: for if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his re* surrection." Mr. Scott, in his excellent commentary on this passage, writes thus : " It is here shown, that a Christian's profession implied this death to sin, that he may live to God. The Apostle inquires of the Romans, whether they did not understand, that all, who had been baptized into the name and religion of Jesus, had received the sign, and made the profession, of communion with, and con- formity to, him in his death ; that in virtue of his dying for their sins, they should die to, and cease from, the love and practice of all sin, and have done with their former unholy satisfoctions, pur- 80 suits, habits and connexions. This profession is equivalent to being ' buried with Christ,' as dead with him : for, as his burial was a manifestation that he was really dead, and an introduction to his immediate resurrection, by the glorious power of the Father, or for the display of his glory ; so the baptism of a converted Jew or Gentile, was a professed manifestation of his death to sin, and to all his carnal expectations, affections and pursuits, from which he meant to be entirely secluded, as one buried is from the affairs of life ; and it was a professed introduction to his entrance upon a ' walk with God in newness of life,' not only as to his outward actions, but with respect to his in^ ward principles," It appears, then, to be the import of a profession of Christianity, rather than the precise mode wherein that profession is made, on which the Apostle founds his exhortation to die unto sin, and to live unto righteousness ; between which and the actual death and burial, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ, he points out a very striking resemblance. The above observations will equally apply (o the corresponding passage Col. ii. 12. where it appears to be the object of the Apostle, to wean the Colossians from a superstitious attachment to 81 external institutions ; seeing that all which might be deemed valuable and important in them, M^as to be tound in Christ: nor was Baptism itself of any account, but as a token of their faith in, and conformity to him ; in whom alone ihey were complete. We further proceed to inquire, if Baptism is to be viewed as a standing ordinance, who are the persons authorised to administer it, and under what description of character ? The mes* sage sent to John by the rulers of the Jews, shows clearly that they considered a special commission from heaven as absolutely necessary for that purpose. Such a commission John had received as he himself declares (John i. 3:j). He was '" sent to baptize with M'ater.** Such a commission was also given to the Apostles by our Lord himself, who, when he authorized them to baptize, furnished them at the same time with the power of working miracles in confirmation of the authority with which he had invested them. It may be said that Philip baptized who was not an Apostle. It is true : but Philip also wrought miracles, and who shall dispute the authority of him who can produce such creden- tials ? Besides, Philip appears to have been one of those on whom the Apostles had laid their hands, by which significant act, accompanied L 82 with prayer, extraordinary powers were usually imparted. But to those who, in the present day, baptize without a special commission, and powers to verity such commission, we may say with propriety, By what authority do ye this thing, and w ho save you that authority ? The Apostles, as such, have left no successors, and if they have notdeieiiated the authority which they possessed to any other person or persons ; nor, in any part of their writings, designated the characters to which this service properly appertains and by whom it should subsequently be performed, the obvious inference is, that it expired wi'h them and their contemporaries, no provision being made for its future continuance. This work has generally been considered as peculiarly belonging to the pastoral office, and forming one of its essential duties. If this were really the case, we might expect to meet with particular instructions concerning it, in those epistles especially which are addressed to Minis- ters, of which there are two to Timothy, and one to Titus. These Ministers of the gospel were the companions of Paul in his travels, and were employed under his directions, in watering the seed which he had sown, and organizing the churches which he had planted ; aiding them in the choice of proper officers, ordaining their 83 elders, aiKJ superintending their affairs. To qua- lity them more tlilly for these various and im- portant duties, as well as to assist and encourage them in their own ministerial labours, and in the exercise of personal religion, appears to be the great aim of the Apostle in these epistles. Ac- cordingly, we find particular directions respecting the office of a Bishop or Pastor, and that of a Deacon, pointing out the qualifications requisite for the due discharge of their respective duties. There are also sundry rules in regard to disci- pline, and the infliction of church censures, according to the nature of the offence and the quality of the offender ; together with some remarkable predictions relative to the grand apostasy, and various practical exhortations and admonitions. But, throughout the whole of these epistles, from the beginning to the end, we are not favoured with any directions respecting Baptism. We are left wholly in the dark, as to any department, or office in the church, to which it should be attached. Nor is the sul jert itself so much as once mentioned, or any hint given that might furnish a clue to our inquiries concern- ing it. With respect to the preaching of the gospel, it is quite otherwise. Here we are told, that a Bishop should be " apt to teach." 1 Tim. iii, 2. 84 rind in the second chapter of the second episitlt- to Timothy, the Apostle says, " The things that thou hast heard of me, among' many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." Thus a provision is directed to be made for the perpetuity of a gospel ministry, l>ut none for the perpetuity of Baptism. The sauiC silence on this subject is observed in other parts of scripture, and in those parts where we might have expected to find it treated of at large. Paul, in his address to the Elders of Ephesus, (Acts xx. 18— 3o.) exhorts them to " take heed to themselves, and to all the flock, over which the Holy Ghost had made them overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood ;" but he says not one Avord about Baptism. Peter, also, observes a similar silence in his fust general epistle, where he particularly exhorts the Elders to feed the flock of God, which was among them, taking the oversight thereof, not by con- straint but willingly, &c. (See 1 Peter v. 1 — 4). So that, whether the address is to Elders, Pastors, or Bishops, immediately, or to Evange- lists, whose business it was to ordain such, as well as to assist churches in the selection of suit- able characters to fill these departments ; still nothing is said, nor any hint given respecting Baptism as one of their official duties. There 85 are various passages in the epistolary writings, (such as Horn. xii. 6 — 8. 1 Cor. xii. 8 — 10. Ephes. iv. II.) in some of which the gifts of the Spirit are enumerated, while in others, the of- fices are specified, wherein these gifts were to be exercised : but Baptism finds no place in either the one or the other. Now, as the command to proselyte and baptize was given to the Apostles by our Lord himself; as we never find any presuming to baptize but Apostles, or Evangelists, who were their associ- ates in this important work, being endued with miraculous gifts for that purpose, or such as acted under their own personal authority ; as the work of baptizing has never been consigned to any de- scription of Ministers, inferior to Apostles or Evangelists ; we cannot but conclude that Pas- tors of churches, or Ministers in general, in the present day, have no scriptural warrant for per- forming that work, any more than Deacons or even laymen ; seeing that the office of Pastor or Minister of the gospel, differs so materially from that of Apostle or Evangelist, that no command given to the one, can be considered as conveying authority to the other. But, it may be observed that there is a descrip- tion of Ministers employed, as instruments, in the 86 conversion of the Heathen, who, though not de- signatpfj Apostles or Evangelists, are engacred in a service^ very similar to theirs ; a:id, as the first preachers of the gospel were commanded to bap- tize those whom they proselyted, it seems but rea- sonable to infer, that such as are called to one of these offices, may consider themselves as autho- rized to perform the other. There is much weight, we acknowledge, in this observation, and, were the call to proselyte the Heafhen, whatever may be understood by that call, accompanied with the gift of miracles, as it certainly was in the first in- stance, the argument might be deemed unanswer- able. But the state of the world at laroe is far different from what it was at that period, idola- try is not now, as formerly, seated on the throne of universal dominion, with all the power and wealth, science and literature, of the most po- lished nations, combined with the deep-rooted prejudices of every class of society, enlisted on its side, and engaged in its defence. Miraculous powers were found necessary to break such a for- midable phalanx, and an initiatory ordinance was appointed to distinguish those who renounced its dominion from such as continued in subjection to its authority. Now, however, the scene is changed ; for though idolatry still lamentably prevails over a large portion of the habitable globe, it is over that portion only which is sunk in bar- 87 harism, or, at best, very partially civilized : aud the diffusion of general knowledge, together with Christian princinles, has so direct a tendency to expose the absurdity of the system, as effectually to prevent its regaining its former ascendancy over the minds of men. We may further remark, that it has been so or- dered of late, in the course of divine Providence, as if to show that Baptism is not so necessary or important as some might imagine, even in the heathen world ; that whole nations, in the South Sea Islands, have renounced idolatry and em- braced Christianity, without having this ordi- nance introduced among them.* To whatever cause this omission may be tract-d, it is abundantly evident that the influence of the Spirit, accom- panying the word preached, has not been with- held on account of such omission. Be this, however, as it m;iv. we sfill maintain that, could it be incontroveriibly proved to be the duty of Missionaries to baptize those who were proselyted by their ministry, it would by no means follow, that this ordinance should be. entailed o tl»eir de- scendants, or continued in countries where Chris- * See a " Narrative of the Mission at Otaheite, and other Islands in the South Seas," lately published by order of the Di- rectors of the London Missionary Society. 88 tianity is universally professed. If it is still to be administered, let it be by Missionaries, and by Missionaries only, in short, from every view which we have hitherto taken of the subject, we derive additional conviction of the propriety of considering Baptism as an ordinance of proselvt- ism, of which, if continued at all. Missionaries are the only proper administrators, and Proselytes the only proper subjects. But how is it, some may be disposed to ask, if the promise of miraculous gifts was co-extensive with the command to administer Baptism, that the latter should have continued to exis: so lo: g after the former has ceased. To this we reply, that, had it been as much within the compass of human abi- lity to perform miracles as to dispense ceremonies, there is every reason to believe that the former would have continued quite as long as the latter. Those whoare acquainted with human nature must have observed, that men in general are much better pleased ^ith that, in religion, which is outward and visible, thaw with that which is inward and spiritual; and prefer that which makes an appeal to the senses, before that which requires the exer- cise of faith. Hence the attachment of the Jew- ish Christians to the law of Moses ; and when, by the destruction of the temple and city of Jeru- salem, they were driven from that ground, thev 89 immediately set to work to make the present dis- pensation as nuich like the former one as possible. Christian ordinances were supposed to bear an exact resemblance to such of the Jewish cere- monies as appeared to have the same spiritual signification. Thus Baptism is said to have come in the room of Circumcision, and the Lord's sup- per in the place of the Passover ; being, like them, ' positive institutions ;' as much so, we have been told, as any that belonged exclusively to the Jewish ritual. With this strong propensity in our nature, it need not excite surprise that Bap- tism, in some form or other, should continue as a ceremony, long after the end and design for which it was instituted had ceased to exist. This also will account for the extreme import- ance attached to it soon after the days of the Apostles, its consequent perversion, and the superstitious and absurd ceremonies, with which it was so quickly encumbered. Like the body when the vital spark is extinct, it was soon turned into a mass of corruption ; and now, bereft of its pristine beauty and vigour, incapable of exercising its former functions, and scarcely retaining a single lineament of those features which were originally impressed upon it and rendered it a jusl object of regard, it is become not only useless but injurious, not merely an M 90 idle ceremony, but a root of error, and a bone of contention. The Apostle Paul, in his epistle to the He- brews, in order more fully to show the impropriety of continuing the observance of ceremonies, after the end for which they were instituted had been fully accomplished, compares the Jewish ritual, with the covenant on which it was founded, to a garment in a state of decay through age. We may apply the idea, with additional force, to Baptism, as practised in the present day. It is, indeed, a garment not only worn with age, but sadly torn, soiled and disfigured ; insomuch that it appears, with the ceremonies patched upon it, the errors cleaving to it, and the dissentions occasioned by it, to be rendered totally unfit for use, and the disgrace of that family of which it was once the ornament. If our views of the nature and design of the original institution are correct, it will follow that Baptism is not now practised, by any denomina- tion of Christians, in the way, and for the pur- pose for which it was specially appointed, so that it is virtually abolished. We have the name, but the thing intended by it is not to be found. With respect to the mode, it is a singular circum- stance, that although all the pictures, prints and 91 engravings,, whether ancient or modern, which we have seen, of the baptism of our Lord by John, or of the Eunuch by Philip, exhibit pre- cisely the idea which we have suggested (except only one or two prints of very recent date, and evidently manufactured for a particular pur- pose) ; 3 et we know not any denomination of professing Christians, who administer the rite in this manner. All either dip or sprinkle. The introduction of Infant Baptism rendered a devia- tion from the original plan, in some sort, neces- sary ; for though infants may be either sprinkled or dipt, yet, they cannot walk down, with the administrator, into the water, and there, while both are standing in it, have it poured upon their heads. With respect to the practice of baptizing infants ; as it certainly does not answer the pur- pose for which Baptism was originally appointed, that of a personal, individual profession of Chris- tianity ; as it does not appear to have been com- manded by our Lord, and we have no satisfactory proof that it ever was practised by the Apostles ; as there is nothing in it congenial with the nature of the present economy, or with the constitution of those churches which are formed on the plan of the New TQstament ; we are under the neces- sity of concluding that it owes its origin to an 98 overweening attachment, manifested at a very early period, to an abrogated dispensation, of M'hich infant circumcision was one of the carnal ordinances. Its obvic us tendency, and general effect, is to blend the church and the world, and to substitute nominal for real religion. It has by many, to their soul's eternal ruin, been put in the place of that righteousness, which alone can make the sinner just, and of that change of heart, without which, according to the express declara- tion of our Saviour, no man can enter into the kingdom of God. But, it may be said that we cannot, from the abuse of any thing, deduce a just argument against the true and proper use of it. What then, we should be glad to know, is the true and proper use of Infant Baptism ? What are the special advantages resuliing from the practice ? For our own parts, we have not yet been able to discover any one good end, supposed to be answered by it, but what may be and is attained full as well without it as with it. We are confirmed in this sentiment by observing that, in those families where it is not practised, the children are as piously educated, and as frequently become, in early life, the subjects of converting and sancti- fying grace, as where they are s^id, while in a state of infancy, to be dedicated to God by Bap- 93 tism. All the ordinances of Christ are designed and adapted to promote the instruction, comfort and edification of those who rightly partake of them. But what edification, what comfort, what instruction can Baptism administer, when an infant is the subject ? It is often called an initial' tory ordinance. But, under such circumstances, we would ask, Into what does it initiate ? Into the doctrines, the duties, or the privileges of Christianity ? Doctrines which an infant cannot understand, duties which an infant cannot per- form, privileges which an infant cannot enjoy ! Notwithstanding the absurdities inseparably connected with the practice, (and it would be easy to fill a volume on the subject,) it appears that there are those, some of whom might have been expected to have known better, who cling, with astonishing tenacity, to this uncornmanded rite. An eminent Paedobaptist Minister was lately heard to say, that he would sooner relin- quish his pastoral charge than give up the Bap- tism of infants. Another, no less respectable, piously exclaims, '' Thank God, we can consci- entiously inculcate Infant Baptism !" If, in op- position to this sentiment, we presume to suggest the idea, that the ordinance of Baptism, when administered to infants, is not adapted to answer any valuable purpose, we are imniedintely told, 94 that " nothing can be more absurd than to deny the utility of what we have never tried, in con- tradiction to those who have tried it. Even if we have tried it, without finding it useful, this can- not prove that others have not found it so." Persons who reason in this way, would do well to recollect, that the grossest superstitions that ever were practised under the name of religion, have been defended upon this very principle. Tell a Roman Catholic, for instance, that the sa- crifice of the mass, auricular confession, penances, and pilgrimages to holy wells and holy mountains, answer no valuable purpose whatever, he will probably reply, " We have tried these things ; we have found the benefit of them ; and nothing can be more absurd than to deny the utility of what you have never tried, in contradiction to those who have tried it. Even if you had tried it, without finding it useful, this would not prove that others had not found it so." With respect to the comfort and edification which some profess to have experienced in dedicating their children to God by Baptism, we may adopt the language of Mr. Greatheed, in his letter to the Editor of the Evangelical Magazine, on External Christian Institutions ; where, in reference to the Baptism of adults w^ho have been educated as Christians, he says, " I do not question, that pious people may have received spiritual benefit in the devo- 95 tional engagements connected with it, as in any other solemn religious service: but this they might surely as well have done in Christian 'doc- trine and fello\vshi|), and breaking of bread and prayer,' without perverting Baptism from its ori- ginal purpose." Though some, on mistaken principles, may thus tenaciously adhere to Infant Baptism, it will be found on examination that the greater part of those who retain the practice, hold it with a very loose hand. Even such of them as consider Bap- tism, of some sort or other, absolutely necessary, as a preliminary to communion at the Lord's table, entertain no scruples as to the kind of Baptism which may have been employed. Any thing that is called by that name will answer their purpose ; no matter when, how, or by whom administered ; whether in infancy or in riper years ; by sprinkling or by immersion ; by the hands of a Baptist or Independent Minister; by the Parson of the Parish, or by a Romish Priest, with ceremonies as absurd and unscriptural as any of the rites of Paganism. Baptism seems to be regarded by such, as a certain indescribable some- thing, of which they can give no rational account: which they, nevertheless, conceive, ought to be attended to, some how or other, by all who would be thought Christians; but then, as it is univer- 95 sally admitted that Baptism once performed should never be repeated, having been baptized, as they suppose, in infancy, they think they need give themselves no further trouble about it. The feeling which they cherish on this occasion, is very similar to that of a person who has had the small-pox ; whether in the natural way, by inocu- lation or by vaccination, in infancy or at mature age, he considers himself as secure from the complaint, at any future period of his life, and that he ma}'^, therefore, safely dismiss the subject from his thoughts. Adult Baptism, it must be acknowledged, is quite another sort of ihiiig. It certainly bears a much greater resemblance to the Baptism of pri- mitive Christians than what we have just been considering. But then, in respect of the impor- tant end for which the ordinance was appointed at that period, it may, as practised among us, be fitly compared, to a body recently deprived of life, which, though it should retain the features, is incapable of exercising the functions, with which it was originally endowed. It is still, indeed, an ordinance of proselytism ; but, here in- stead of being used in proselyting to Christianity, it proselytes to a particular sect of Christians. Hence, as we have often witnessed, when a truly pious character, who. for a series of years, has 9/ made an honourahle profession ol" religion, and even been eminently useful as a preacher of the gospel, adopts these views of the ordinance and acts accordingly, the general impression is, not that he is become a Christian, but that he is turned Baptist. His personal Christianity was previously too well established to need such evi- dence to support it. Baptism, in such cases, appears to answer no end whatever, except it be, to tell all whom it may concern, that he who was formerly a Church- man, an Independent, a Methodist, or a Quaker, is now a Baptist. Thus that ordinance, which was originally the distinguishing badge of Chris- tianity, is become the mere badge of a sect, adapted to excite a sectarian spirit, and promote sectarian views. Now we cannot persuade our- selves that Baptism was ordained for any such purpose as this ; least of all, that it was designed to furnish one particular sect with the arrogant claim of an exclusive right to sit down at the table of the Lord ; while they refuse to acknow- ledge, as churches of Christ, any Christian socie- ties that are not formed precisely on the same model with their own. That this is the prin ciple on which the Baptists proceed, their conduct sufficiently evinces. They hold no communion with any churches but those of the same faith 98 and order with themselves. They give no dis- missions to them, and receive no dismissions from them. Nor is the operation of this act of exclu- sion from Christian fellowship confined to Paedo- baptists. It extends to churches of their own denomination who allow of free communion, in their esteem, the admission, into such a connex- ion, of a single individual, who has not been baptized as they have been baptized, is sufficient to contaminate the whole body, and render the society, of which he forms a part, unworthy to be designated a church of Chrir,t, or treated as such. A circumstance which fell under the observa- tion of the writer of these remarks, who was ac- quainted with the parties concerned, may serve to illustrate and confirm what is advanced above. A young man, of respectable connexions, hav- ing become a member of a strict Baptist church in the metropolis, went, shortly after, to reside in a neighbouring village, where he sat down as an occasional member, with a church of the same denomination, which admitted of mixed commu- nion. Conceiving it probable that he should fix his abode there, he sent for his dismission : but it could not be granted. The church with which he had occasionally communed, though of the same faith was not of the same order with that 99 Avhioli lie origiiiiilly joined. Some time after tliis, tliere appeared to be an opening for one in his line of business, in a town at a greater distance from the metropolis. He accordingly went. Here he found a strict Baptist church. Now he thought tliat he must be right. No obstacle could remain in the way of obtaining his dismis- sion, nor any pretence, as lie conceived, be urged for withholding it. How greatly then was he mortified on being informed, that he was not a member of the church, and therefore could 7iot be dismissed. The fact was, that his first application disclosed the circumstance of his having sat down at the Lord's table with unbafi- tized persons ; a crime, it should seem, in the estimation of this church, of sufficient magnitude to procure his expulsion from their society. Now as both these churches were as respectable, and the ministers who presided over them as eminent for piety and talents, as any in the denomination, the inference is, that this may be consitlered as a fair specimen of their mode of proceeding in simi- lar cases. Churches acting upon a diflTerent plan, and pursuing a different line of conduct, would, of course, be regarded as irregular and disorderly. And is this the Baptism which was commanded by our Lord, and practised by his Apostles } Surely not. That was, indeed, a noble mstitu- 100 tion, while, as the token of a personal piofession of faith, it united all who bore the name of Christ, both Jews and Gentiles, as one fold, under one Shepherd. But Modern Baptism, whether, as on the one hand, administered to unconscious babes, or, as on the other, made the engine of a party, and the standard of sectarian- ism ; while it unites such as should be kept separate, and separates such as should be united, instead of claiming our regard, as a standing or- dinance of the Christian church, rather merits our reprobation as a standing disgrace to the Christian name. That Baptism \^ as originally of Divine appoint- ment is readily acknowledged, and so was the serpent which Moses lifted up in the wilderness. That serpent, in the hands of him to whom the com.mand was given, to exhibit it to the view of the whole camp of Israel, answered a verj' important purpose. But, after that purpose had been fully accomplished, when, coming at a subsequent period into other hands, it was perverted to su- perstitious uses, and became the object of idola- Irous veneration, liezekiah very properly ordered it to be destroyed. And could our feeble voice prove as effectual in one case, as the mandate of •luthority did in the other, we would say of Mo- dern Baf)tism, Let this superstitious C(Memoiiv, 101 this ro(jt of error, this boiic of contentiou, be completely removed out of sight; and let uo trace of it reiiiair), except on the records of the sacred page ; where, like the brazen serpent, it may prove the vehicle of instruction, without becom- ing an engine of mischief. The disputes which it has been the means of exciting and perpetuating, not only between Haptists and Peedobaptists, but among Baptists themselves, tend, in no small degree to stamp importance on the sentiment for which we plead, as the most effectual means of reconciling these jarring disputants, and uniting them in the bonds of Christian fellowship; it being acknow- ledged on all hands, that, could it be made to appear that the ordinance of Baptism is not of perpetual obligation, no ground of contention would remain between them. I'he controversy recently agitated on " Terms of communion" may be considered as a contest between Christian principles and Baptist princi- ples. Like two hostile armies set in battle array, they are directly opposed to each other. Both cannot maintain their ground : one or other must yield. Either the letter of the law of Baptism must be sacrificed, or the spirit of the gospel of Christ must be violnJcd. Ft is the unhappy lot 102 of those wiio advocate the cause of exclusive communion to differ not only with their brethren but with themselves, and their own avowed prin- ciples. By refusing to hold communion at the Lord's table, with persons of undoubted, yea, of eminent piety, whose characters they revere, and the success of whose labours in the cause of Christ, fills their souls with unfeigned joy, they act as inconsistent a part as can well be con- ceived. They plead apostolic precedent. But when were the Apostles, or primitive Christians, known to deuv access to the table of the Lord, to such as they acknowledged to be Christians, walking consistently with their profession, and of whose genuine piety not the least shadow of doubt could be entertained ? It may be said that such a case could not occur in the primitive church, as no unbaptized Christians were then to be found. Be it so. It seelris, then, that the precedent on which they lay so much stress, is no precedent at all. It does not appl}^ to the subject : for, it appears, by their own showing, that such a case could not exist at the period re- ferred to. It is, therefore, not a case in point, and consequently can yield no support to the argument which they attempt to found upon it. The practice of the Apostles was doubtless in perfect unison with the princifijc by which they 103 have directed us to regulate our conduct. " Re- ceive ye one another, as Christ hath received us to the glory of God." Some have objected to the application of this rule to the subject before us, because Baptism is not mentioned in it, nor is there any ground to conclude that it was in the contemplation of the writer at the time. It ap- pears, however, to have been his intention on this occasion, to lay doM'u a maxim which should apply to those minor differences of sentiment and practice which might at any time be found among real Christians. Respecting Baptism there could be no such difference at that period for very ob- vious reasons. But He, by whose authority the principle was established, directed the Apostle to record it in his epistles ; well knowing that, though the dispute which occasioned its sugges- tion would soon be buried in the ruins of the temple and city of Jerusalem, never to rise again ; other grounds of difference, not then existing, would make their appearance, to which the above maxim would properly apply ; and, by a due at- tention to which, Christians might be preserved from violating the spirit of the gospel while zea- lously contending, as they might conceive, for the letter of its institutions. It is an additional objection to exclusive com- munion that, while it unduly magnifies the ordi- 1U4 nance of Baptism, it also perverts that of the Lord's supper, and defeats one great end of its institution ; rendering that very ordinance the bar of separation, which the Redeemer appointed as the bond of union among his disciples and fol- lowers. To make this apparent, let us consider, for a moment, the important event which it was designed to bring to our remembrance, connected with the circumstances attending its first cele- bration. " As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, (says the apostle) ye do show the Lord's death till he come." But for what pur- pose did this great event take place, and what was the end to be accomplished by it ? It was, as we have already observed, " to gather together in one the children of God who were scattered abroad." This, we acknowledge, was not the only end, but it certainly was a very important one, or it would not have been made so promi- nent as we see it, in the passage above alluded to. Let us then attentively peruse the history of this transaction, as recorded by the Evangelist John, together with the discourse which our Lord delivered to his disciples on this so- lemn occasion. What are its principal features, and what is the scope of the whole ? It is re- plete with heavenly wisdom and divine conso- lation. But the duty which it particularly en- joins, is that of brotherly love. No where in all 105 the Bible is this duty so repeatedly urged, and so powerfully enforced ; for on no other occasion was a scene presented to view so well calculated to give effect to the exhortation. Let us hear the words of our divine Redeemer, at this very interesting period. " A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another ; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disci- ples, if ye have love one to another." Again, *' This is my commandment that ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do what- soever I command you." Once more, " These things I command you, that ye love one another." (See John xiii. 34, 35. xv. 12—14, 17-) To this may also be added the remarkable petition in the intercessory prayer of our Lord, which, at the close of this discourse, he offered up on behalf of his disciples, saying, " Neither pray [ for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word : that they all inay be one ; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, tJial they also may be one in us." In this view of the subject, how admirably is the ordinance of the Lord's supper adapted to promote Christian unity, by reminding us, that o 106 when the Saviour shed his precious blood, when he hiid down his life for the siieep, it was for the purpose o\^ vniting them, (however diver- sified tlieir circumstances) to himself and to one another, as one fold, under one Shepherd ; and that his last prayer, and dying exhortations, all tend to the accomplishment of this great and im- portant object. What then shall we say to those who in this ordinance refuse to hold conmiunion with their brethren of a different denomination, with whom they can nevertheless unite, with the utmost cordiality, in every other act of social worship and spiritual intercourse ; who will not recognise such as Christians at the table of the Lord, though, in any other situation, they will cheer- fully acknowledge their claim to the character ? The language of our Lord, when, on a certain occasion, foretelling his sufferings and death, is very significant : " And I, if 1 be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Now where and when is the influence of this heavenly magnet so likely to be sensibly felt, as at the table of the Lord, round which his people meet to partake of the memorials of his dying love ; when Jesus Christ is evidently set forth before their eves, as crucified among them ? And yet. strange 107 to tell ! then.' urc tUo^v uliu seem as il" ihcy had discovered the unhappy art of investing this centre of attraction with the poM-er of repulsion, and rendering- tlie very focus of union the point of separation. In acting thus, they do violence not only to Christian principles but to Christian feelings. Every affection of the renewed mind revolts at such a line of conduct. Do they appeal from the feelings to the judgment, we have not the least objection to have the cause we plead tried before that tribunal, and are willing to stand or fall by its decision ; beina; fully persuaded that the dictates of an enlightened understanding will concur with the affections of a oracious heart to pronounce a verdict in our favour. Is it then, we would ask, consistent with just reasoning to refuse to hold communion with our fellow-chris- tians in one ordinance, on the subject of which we are perfectly agreed, because there is another ordinance, M'hich has no necessary or immediate connexion with it, respecting which different views are entertained. If so, then it would follow, that we ousfht not to maintain communion with our brethren in ani/ tiling that relates to the duties or privileges of Christianity, unless there was an exact conformity between us in sentiment and in practice, with respect to crcrif tliinj; be- 108 longing to the system ; which would render all the apostolic exhortations to mutual forbear- ance in regard to difference of opinion completely nugatory. That there is no more connexion between Bap- tism and the Lord's supper than between Baptism and any other branch of Christian worship (as even Mr. Kinghorn himself seems to admit) is abundantly evident. No two ordinances can be more distinct from each other. They were ap- pointed at different times, and for different pur- poses; and where one is enjoined, the Scripture is silent respecting the other. We are told, indeed, in the history of the proceedings on the day of Pentecost, that they who gladly received the word, were baptized, and that they continued stedfastly in the Apostle's doctrine, and fellow- ship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. This appears to be the only place where Baptism is associated with the Lord's supper (supposing that the expression ' breaking of bread' is to be understood in relation to that ordinance). But even here, it is no less intimately connected with the Apostle's doctrine, and fellowship, and prayers ; so that, if the want of Baptism would exclude from the table of the Lord, it would equally exclude from those other exercises of devotion and instruction, which arc represented 109 as desigiiatiijg the Christian character. We con- ceive, therefore, that we are perfectly justified in the inference, that the practice of exclusive com- munion is both irrational and unscriptural, stand- ing opposed to the most correct dictates of the judgment as well as the best affections of the heart. Mr. Booth, in his Apology for the Baptists, seems very much hurt at the idea suggested by one of his opponents, that their conduct in refus- ing to admit Paedobaptists into communion with them, is " greatly prejudicial to the honour and interest of true religion, and not a little contri-^ Luting to the cause of injidelity ^ But if we consider how much the interest of true religion is promoted by the cordial union of real Chris- tians, and that of infidelity by their contentions, divisions, and separation from each other, the expression, however harsh it may sound, will scarcely seem too strong. If, however, exclusive communion is com- pletely at variance with Christian principles, the opposite practice is no less incompatible with Baptist principles. Here, the opponents of mixed communion have the advantage of their antagonists. For, what can be more inconsistent than to maintain that Baptism is a positive insti- no tutioii, ai)d a standing ordinance ot" the Christian church, and yet treat it as a matter of indifference, and countenance the total nes^lect of it; by ad- mitting to an equal participation of all the privi- leges of church fellowship, those who are unbap- tized with those who have paid a regard to that ordinance ? Ill a church so constituted, Baptism not being the door of entrance, it will sometimes happen, with respect to persons who have not turned their attention to the subject, or duly considered it, at the time of their joining the church, that, after a lapse of years, they will feel their minds power- fully impressed with the idea, that hitherto they have neglected to yield obedience to a positive command of Christ. Under this conviction, they come forward and are baptized, as if they were but just setting out in the Avays of God ; though they hav^e been, not only professors of religion, but members of that very church, many years be- fore. Now, we conceive that, if there is any necessity for Baptism at all, it is at the com- mencement and not at the close of a religious pro- fession. Every thing is beautiful in its season ; but this is out of season. It is like sowing when we ought to reap, and casting in the seed when we should thrust in the sickle. And what a spectacle does such a church exhibit, the mem- Ill bers of which have some of them been baptized before they joined the church, some on their forming- a connexion with it, others, ten, fifteen, or, it may be, twenty years after that event has taken phice, and others who have never been bap- tized at all ! Yet this is denominated, a Baptist church ! ! What right it has to such an appella- tion, we leave others to determine. Mr. Hall contends that the universal adoption of the plan of mixed communion would consider- ably promote the Baptist interest. But, with due deference to his superior judgment, we must con- fess that we are much inclined to think that the opposite effect would be produced ; especially when we consider that what, in many instances, constitutes a powerful motive for paying a practi- cal regard to Baptism is, on this principle, taken completely out of the way. We are fully per- suaded that there are hundreds, if not thousands, who have been baptized by immersion, where Baptism is made a term of conmiunion, that nev^^r would have submitted to that ordinance, if they had not been influenced by a strong desire of being closely united with those churches of which they are now members. " What ! (perhaps some may be ready to reply, with a tone of indignation) do you suppose, then, that such persons have acted contrary to the conviction of their own 112 minds ?" By no means ; we have no idea of bring- ing such a charge against them. But, we do verily beUeve that, had they not been prompted by the motive above stated, they never would have paid that attention to the subject, which issued in their conviction. We are sufficiently acquainted with human nature to know that the • disposition has a considerable influence over the judgment. When there are two ways to attain the same object ; one difficult and troublesome, the other plain and easy ; it is no hard task to de- termine which will be generally preferred. Who would wade through the pool before the house, in order to enter at the front door, when, by taking a few steps to the right or to the left, he might be admitted at a side or a back door, be received with a hearty welcome, and have free access to every room, with all the privileges of an inmate ? The strict Baptists are fully aware of this, and have felt, as might have been expected, trem- blingly alive to the interests of their denomina- tion ; well knowing that in proportion as Mr. Hall's system prevails, the cause which they have espoused must sink. Stripped of its impor- tance, bereft of its utility, and no longer subser- vient to any valuable purpose ; it would soon, like a worn out garment be totally laid aside. No wonder, then, that they should take the alarm, 113 summon all their forces, and dispute every inch of ground ; when one, who is a host of himself, brings the whole weight of his mighty artillery to bear, not merely on their outworks, but on the very citadel of their strength ; threatening, at least in their esteem, should his efforts be crowned with success, to deprive them of that which is peculi- arly dear to them. For what can be supposed to hold a much larger place in the affections of Bap- tists than Baptism ? The zeal which they have ever manifested in its defence sufficiently evinces the reality and strength of their attachment. It is, indeed, their distinguishing characteristic, the ,very name after which they are called ; a name which is marked (so to speak) on every bale of their ecclesiastical commodities. Their denomi- nation is the Baptist denomination ; their minis- ters are Baptist ministers ; their churches are Baptist churches ; their societies for propagating the gospel at home and abroad, are Baptist socie- ties ; and their magazine is the Baptist magazine. In short, you may as well expect a Christian to renounce Christianity, as a Baptist to give up Baptism. Mr. Hall, indeed, as if to allay their fears, does in effect assure them, that exclusive communion is the exclusive object of his attack. Let this be surrendered, \ct mixed communion be allowed to 114 occupy Its place, and there is no ground for alarm. The Baptist interest, which they hold so dear, instead of being impaired or diminished would be wonderfully strengthened and enlarged by the changie. Psedobaptists, being brought under the ministry of Baptists, would have their minds en- lightened on the subject ; and the cause which they have so much at heart would mightily grow and prevail. But the strict Baptists are very far from perceiving the justness of this inference. They Are at a loss to cohceive how the mere cir- cumstance of Paedbbaptists attending on the ministry of a Baptist should effect such a change in their vilsWs, a?5 to overcome thieir objections to Baptism by immersion, and induce a practical re- gard to that ordinance ; when all that they are likely to see or hear in relation to the subject, would rather tend to confirm them ih the ideas which they had previously entertained, that it was of little or no importance, and altogether un- necessary. For, it should be observed that, in those churches where Baptists and Paedobaptists are indiscriminately associated, in a sort of co- partnership, it is generally understood, if not ab- solutely stipulated, as a term of communion, that Baptism should be kept out of sight as much as possible ; that it should scarcely ever be men- tioned, and never insisted on, lest the peace of 113 the churclj blioiiltl be disturbed, and tlie harmony of its members be interrupted. This is a subject for serious consideration. It certainly constitutes a very strong objection against mixed communion ; since a minister is thereby exposed to the temptation of shunning to declare the whole counsel of God, or what he es- teems to be such, in order to avoid giving offence to some of the members of his church. Thus the love of truth is sacrificed to the desire of peace. Nor is this all. We are the creatures of habit ; and it is impossible to say what injurious habits this mode of proceeding may lead to the indulgence of, both in ministers and people. It may induce in ministers a habit of temporizing, which, beginning in things of comparatively small importance, may be gradually extended to sub- jects of far greater moment. The people, also, being accustomed to see an acknowledged duty treated as a matter of indifference, may be led to excuse themselves, while living in the omission or neglect of more important duties ; not having kept alive in theif minds a due regard for the au^ thority of Christ, and the necessity of rendering implicit obedience to all his commands. There is another objection to mixed commu-r nion, which should not be lightly passed over. 116 In some Baptist churches, Paedobaptists have been admitted in such numbers that, on the de- mise of their Pastor, they have formed the majo- rity of the members, and chosen a Ptedobaptist minister to succeed him. Thus, in the estima- tion of those who are outvoted, the ordinance is lost out of the church. Such circumstances have frequently occurred ; in relation to which, Messrs. Bogueand Bennett, in their IListory of Dissenters make the following remarks : " Some Baptists, upon the liberal consideration that those who differ from them conceive themselves baptized, admit them to the Lord's supper, which is called open, or more properly, mixed communion. As those Independents, who practise Infant Baptism, generally admit Baptists to their communion ; in some churches, there has been such an intermix- ture, both of pastors and of members, that it would be difficult to know wider which dcJionmia- tion they should be placed." Such churches seem very much to resemble those amphibious animals who, by living somcliiiics in the water and at other times out of the watei', render it very questionable to which class they really belong. But the mischief is not confined to the actual change which may thus be made in the constitu- tion of the church. Supposing such an event should never take place ; still the possibilitv, if 117 not probability, that it may occur at some future period, has a tendency to excite a spirit of jealousy and dissatisfaction between the opposite parties, \vhich, in proportion as it prevails, must prove destructive of that peace and unity, which ought to subsist among members of the same church. Thus, one of the strongest arguments in favour of mixed communion, that of promoting brotherly love, is turned against the practice ; this object being completely defeated, and a con- trary effect produced. From this brief review of some of the leading points of the controversy relative to terms of communion, it clearly appears that, whether we adopt the system of Mr. Hall, or that of Mr. Kinghorn, we arc surrounded with difficulties. All these difficulties, however, we cannot for- bear observing, arise from the admission, on both sides of the question, that the ordinance of Bap- tism is of perpetual obligation, and as binding on the followers of Christ now as when it was first appointed. Let but this be conceded, and every difficulty vanishes. If, on the other hand, we are determined to hold it fast, we are inevitably brought to this conclusion — that our Lord has appointed a standing ordinance in his church, which he has left in such a state, and his people under such circumstances, as to ren- 118 der it impossible for them to enforce it, as it was originally enforced, or to pay that regard to it, which ought to be paid to every injunction of Him who is King in Zion, without acting inconsistently with Christian principles, or doing violence to Christian feelings ; principles which God has laid down in his word for the govern- ment of his people, and feelings, which, by his Spirit, he has implanted in their hearts. Many have been ready to conclude, that Bap- tism must be a standing ordinance, because those who have differed the most concerning it, in every other point of view, have agreed in acjinowr ledging its perpetuity. But this by no means follows. Such as are acquainted with ecclesias- tical history may recollect, that there was a period when a dispute arose between the Eastern and Western churches, respecting the proper time of keeping Easter ; in consequence of which, a separation took place, which has continued to the present day. But it does not appear, during the utmost heat of the discussion, to have entered into the minds of the disputants, on either side, to call in question the necessity of keeping it at all, and thus settle the point at once. Since that time, however, the obligation to regard it has not only been questioned, but absolutely denied by a numerous and respectable portion of the 119 Christian world, even the whole body of Pro testant Dissenters. Now, what has happened in respect of the keeping of Easter, may happen in regard to the administration of Baptism. And should this revolution take place in the mind of the religious public, we should hail it as one of the most auspicious signs of the times ; indicat- ing the near approach of that period, when Judah shall no more vex Ephraim, nor Ephraim envy Judah. ?f, however, this is too much to be expected at the present moment, it is, at least, high timej that something should be done, to pUt an end to the present state of things ; which, so long as it is suffered to continue, cannot fail to prove a source of incalculable mischief, injury, and dis- grace, to the common cause of Christianity. While Baptists and Paedobaptists persist in hold- ing one another at arm's length, and regarding each other with an eye of jealousy ; he who can- not go the full length of either of the parties, is almost sure to be repulsed by both. If, after close investigation, he can find no authority in the New Testament for the practice of Infant Baptism — should it appear to him, totally un- congenial with the spirit and constitution of the present dispensation, and, in fact, a mere nullity (and, by the way, it requires no superior 120 talent to arrive at such a conclusion ; it being one of those subjects of which we may say, in the language of the poet, " All heads can reach it, and all hearts conceive") — if, under these im- pressions, concluding, as most do, that Jiaptism is a standing ordinance, and an indispensable duty, he should unite in sentiment and practice with the Baptists ; unless, indeed, he imbibes their spirit, and becomes exclusively one of their party, he will probably not have been long in communion with them, before he will find him- self assailed Avith." You a Baptist ! you*re not half a Baptist ! you're more of a Methodist than a Baptist !" If, offended with their want of liberality and their groundless assumption of superiority over other sects, he leaves them, and goes among the Independents or Methodists, it is more than probable, that he will be repelled on another ground. Unless he is prepared to renounce the sentiment as well as the communion of the Bap- tists, and acknowledge the validity of Infant Baptism, his new friends will soon make him feel that he is not one of them. The tocsin of alarm will be sounded. It will be heard throughout their whole camp. " A Baptist ! a Baptist ! a Baptist ! You must beware of him, or he will certainly drag you into the water." Thus, he, 121 unhappily, becomes the object of suspicion and flrciid, and is shunned, as if he were infected with a contagious distemper. \u vain does he remon- strate ; in vain does he appeal to the general tenor of his conduct ; in vain does he protest, and refer to those who have the best means of know- ing the truth of the assertion, that he has never obtruded the subject of Baptism on such as were differently minded in regard to that ordinance. It signifies nothing. He is a Baptist. That is enough. Another evil, inseparably connected with the present system, is its direct and immediate ten- dency to preclude free inquiry. There are, we have no doubt, among the professors of religion in the present day, thousands, and tens of thou- sands, who cling to Infant Baptism, as a tradition received from their fathers, of which they can give no rational account ; knowing no scripture to warrant it, no reason to enforce it, and no advantage to recommend it ; except, when the service is performed in a parish church, that of referring to the official register at any subsequent period, if necessary, to verify the transaction. But why so tenaciously adhere to a practice, in favour of which they have so little to advance ? The reason is obvious. If Infant Baptism is a nullity, it follows, as a necessary 122 consequence, tliat they are unhaptized. It being deeply rooted in their minds, that Baptism, of some sort, is indispensably requisite, in compli- ance with the command of our Saviour, they seem to be pretty well aware that, should they examine the subject, for the purpose of attaining full satisfaction respecting it, the result might be, that they must either violate conscience, by living in the omission of known duty ; or, alien- ate themselves from their present connexions, relinquish, it may be in some instances, an ex- tensive sphere of usefulness, and unite themselves with a sect, which they have ever been accus- tomed^ to regard with disgust and aversion. They, therefore, shut their eyes and stop their ears against every thing that might possibly produce such an effect. ' They do not wish to read or hear any thing about Baptism. It is very well for them to attend to it that see it to be their dutj/, and, indeed, thei/ ought to do it ; but as for themselves, they were baptized in infancy, and that is enough : they do not want to be baptized over again ; and, after all you can say, it is a mere non-essential.' The uneasiness of the^mind, on such occasions, is generally visible in the countenance ; and were the subject to be pressed any farther, it would be beyond endur- ance. They would be seized with a sort of hi/- drophohia, and the dread of being hurried into 123 the water would take full possession of their dis- ordered imaginations. And must things continue for ever in this state ? Surely not. Those party walls which have so long separated Christians from each other, built of incongruous materials, and with untem- pered mortar, are hastening to their downfal. The dew of heavenly grace, with an irresistible though secret influence, is, even now, pervading and dissolving the substance of which they are composed. Our business, at the present moment, is to clear away the rubbish with which their mouldering ruins have overspread our path ; while, in the confidence of faith, we anticipate the period, when the Spirit, being poured out from on high, shall carry them away, as with a mighty torrent, and not leave one stone upon another. We are encouraged in this expectation, by considering the effects actually produced by the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, when a church was formed, the privileges of which were to be enjoyed equally by Jews and Gentiles without distinction. The foundation of this union of characters, previously so opposite to each other, was laid in the death of Christ, by whose blood thev who had been far oif were made 124 riigh. *' For he (says the Aposllc) is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us ; having abolished in his flesh the enmit}^ even the law of commandments contained in ordinances ; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace ; and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." We learn from the above statement, not only the cause of this important event, but the means whereby it was accomplished. The enmity sub- sisting between Jews and Gentiles was taken away by abolishing the occasion of that enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordi- nances. And who can tell but it may please God to reconcile Baptists and Paedobaptists by abo- lishing the ordinance of Baptism ; or, rather, by showing both the one and the other of the con- tending parties that that ordinance was not de- signed for perpetuity ; and that its obligation ceased, so soon as it ceased to answer the end for which it was appointed ? We do not expect such a change in public opinion to be suddenly eflected. Customs long established and universally ob- served, are not quickly laid aside. The ceremo- nial law was held in high veneration by the be- lieving Hebrews, for a considerable time after its 125 abrogJition by the death of Christ. The difl'er- ence of opinion which then prevailed respecting their obligation to observe it, was doubtless suffered to take place, for the purpose of giv- ing scope to the exercise of that mutual for- bearance, which was so forcibly inculcated upon them, and which it is the duty of all Christians, under snch circumstances, invariably to regard. And can a better reason be assigned for the per- mission of those differences that subsist among us, or a greater benefit be derived from their continu- ance ! But the practice of exclusive communion de- feats this end, and deprives us of this benefit ; the only benefit which can, in any degree, compen- sate for that which is in itself so great an evil. It affords consolation, however, to reflect that this antichristian practice cannot continue long. It must fade and fail, and, at length, totally disap- pear, before the bright shining of that light, which has already dawned upon us, and which will shine yet more and more unto the perfect day. The nature and design of the present dis- pensation, the genius of the gospel, and the spirit of the times, are all against it. It has been weighed in the balances, and found wanting. Its days are numbered, and will shortly be finished. We have seen how directly it stands opposed to 126 Christian principles and Christian feelings; and, as for apostolic precedent, when properly ex- amined, it appears on the other side of the ques- tion. But we will go a step further. We do not hesitate to assert that exclusive com- munion is contrary, not only to the example of the Apostles, but to the express injunction of our Lord himself. When he instituted the sacred supper it was for all his disciples to partake of it, and, in administering the cup, he particularly said, " Drink ye all of it." The Protestants, on this ground, censure the Roman Catholics, and very justly, for withholding the cup from the laity. What then must we think of the conduct of those who withhold both bread and wine from the whole Christian world, except their own nar- row denomination ? Like the church of Rome, advancing the arrogant claim of being the oiilif true apostolic church, they unchurch all Chris- tian societies but their own, and unchristianize every individual professor of religion, who does not belong to their party. We say unchristianize ; for what do we mean by that term, except it be, to treat a person as if he were no Christian ? And this they do in regard to every person to whom they deny access to the table of the Lord. They do, in effect, say to such, " You may be outward court worshippers. You may attend those reli- 127 gious exercises, which arc open to all, whether pious or profane, Jew, Heathen, or Infidel; but this is an ordinance designed for Christians only ; within this sacred inclosure you must not enter." If this is not treating a person as if he were no Christian, or, which is the same thing, unchris- tianizing him, we know not what is. They may say in reply, that they are very far from entertaining such an unfavourable opinion of those who differ from them on the subject of Baptism, though they refuse to hold communion with them at the Lord's table. They may allege, in proof of this, the circumstance of their fre- quently attending on the ministry of such, and even inviting them to occupy their pulpits. Strange inconsistency ! To invite a person to occupy the pulpit whom they do not deem worthy to approach the table. They have no objection to sit under him as a preacher of the gospel, though they scruple to sit beside him as a fellow- communicant. Now we do think that if any dis- tinction should be made between the pulpit and the table pew, it is the former rather than the lat- ter that requires the exercise of caution. We can easily conceive of a truly good man, who, having embraced some strange notions, and being in the habit of using unguarded expressions, may often injure the cause which he means to promote by 128 his pulpit discourses ; but what harm even such a one can do by sitting down at the table of the Lord, we cannot conceive. To admit a person, therefore, into a situation where much mischief may be and often has been done, and refuse him a seat where, in the nature of things, no mischief can be done, is preposterously absurd ! And can it be supposed that the ordinance of Baptism was instituted to countenance such con- duct as this ? Is it not far more rational to con- clude that it was appointed solely for the intro- duction of a new dispensation into the world ; and that it was for this express purpose that the com^ mission to administer it, was given by our Lord to his Apostles. We are confirmed in this idea, by observing that though, in the execution of this work, they associated others with themselves, yet they never delegated the authority by which they performed it to any that should come after them in the successive periods of the church. Again, The command to baptize being immedi- ately followed by the promise of miraculous gifts, there is no more reason to conclude that the for- mer is of perpetual obligation than that the latter is of perpetual duration ; seeing that there is no limit assigned to the one more than to the other. And, indeed, if we consider Baptism in respect of 129 the nature and design of the institution, we need not hesitate to afllrm that it did not^long survive the age of miracles. A superstitious ceremony, called by that name, has, we admit, been practised from the above period down to the present time ; but this bears no resemblance to the ordinance ap- pointed by our Lord and administered by his Apostles, whether we view it in reference to the subject, the mode, or the end of its administration. An attempt has been made, of late years, to re- cover Baptism, and bring it back to its original design. But what has been the result ? Instead of restoring it to the churches of Christ, as the the doctrines of the gospel were restored at the re- formation from popery, the only effect has been, to detach a small portion of Christians from the rest of their brethren, and form them into a dis- tinct sect, maintaining principles incompatible with the principles^of Christianity, and manifest- ing a spirit diametrically" opposite to the spirit of the gospel ; excommunicating* every professor of religion, who does not entertain their views, and adopt their plans. Against this system of exclusive communion we feel it necessary to enter the most decided * S«e Hall's reply to Kinghorn, Part III. Chan. ix. R 130 protest ; as its direct aad immediate tendency is, to cherish that spirit of bigotry and intolerance, which we cannot but detest and abhor. Be that bigotry far from our breast, Which would Christian from Christian divide ; Which by blind party zeal is caress'd. The offspring of folly and pride. Names, parties, and sects disappear, With their separate interests and laws : No name but of Christ would we hear. No interest but that of his cause. We think it necessary, however, to say that, while thus strongly reprobating the practice of ex- clusive communion, we would not be supposed to give an unqualified approbation to the plan of mixed communion ; which we think liable to serious objections, as stated above. We conceive that there is a broad line of distinction between the two, though that distinction has not been clearly pointed out by those who have engaged in the controversy on either side. One reason of this may be, the custom generally prevailing among Independents as well as Baptists, of mak- ing the circumstance of being actually admitted a member of some regular church, as it is called, an indispensably requisite qualification for sitting down at the table of the Lord. Now, we must 131 own, we see no orouncl lor this ; and we are fully persuaded that the Scriptures give no countenance to such a mode of proceeding. The Lord's sup- per was instituted for the Lord's people. It is the birthright of those who are the children of (Jod by faith in Jesus Christ ; a privilege from which none of their brethren have any right to exclude them, except (as must always be ex- cepted) when they are chargeable with deuN'ing the fundamental doctrines of the gospel, or acting in a manner grossly inconsistent with their Chris- tian profession. With this exception only, Ave have every reason to believe that primitive Chris* tians never denied access to the Lord's table, to those whom they considered as belonging to the household of faith ; nor is there any reason why we should. It may, indeed, be expedient, so long as a di- versit\^ of opinion prevails respecting modes of worship and discipline, and minor ])oints of doc- trine, that members of the same church should, as much as possible, be of the same mind and of the same judgment. J>et Baptists then unite with Baptists, Paedobaptists with Paedobaptists, CaU vinists with Calvinists, and Arminians with Ar-r minians ; but let these communities, though per- fectly distinct, recognise each other as churches of Christ, receiving dismissions from one to the 132 other without scruple; and let individuals ^us- taining the Christian character, be freely invited to partake of the Lord's supper, whenever and wherever that ordinance may be administered, without regard to sect or denomination. It would then be, what it was originally designed to be, a bond of union and not a bar of separation among the followers of Christ, We appeal to Christian common sense, if such a plan would not better accord with the spirit of the gospel than that which has been adopted of late, particularly by the various tribes of Sande- manians, whose divisions and subdivisions are endless. Hence, we are repeatedly hearing of some fresh commander of a petty squadron, quit- ting the regiment to which he formerly belonged, and marching off, with his little company, to a remote part of the camp ; where a separate table must be kept, and none, on any account, be per- mitted to sit down at that table but such as belong to his company ! If difference of opinion, on various topics, must subsist among real Christians, never, O never, let those points of difference be so magnified as to prevent such as are children of the same family, redeemed with the same blood, partakers of the same Spirit, and heirs of the same inheritance — 133 from sitting^ down at the same table, to comme- morate that great and glorious transaction, on which all their hopes are founded, and whence all their comforts spring. We are aware that sentiments which stand opposed to current opinion, must have many difficulties to encounter before they can be ex- pected to prevail. Old prejudice is commonly too strong for young conviction, and is frequently known to stifle it in the birth. Persons are not easily dispossessed of ideas which they have cherished with fond attachment for twenty, thirty, or forty years together ; which have ' grown with their growth, and strengthened with their strength ;' which are interwoven with all their views and feelings, and entwined round every fibre of the heart; and, what is still worse, the more erroneous these ideas are (such is the per- verseness of human nature!) the firmer will be their hold of the mind, and the greater the diffi- culty of eradicating them ; for it is with error as it is with vice : nor shall we find it a much easier task to induce him to think right who has been in the habit of thinking wrong, than to prevail on him to do good who has been accustomed to do evil. What presumption then (some may be ready to 134 sa}') must possess the writer, to obtrude his sen- timents on the public, without a name to recom- mend them ; when, under the most favourable circumstances there are such difficulties to be surmounted ! He is, however, notwithstanding all these disadvantages, encouraged to proceed, under a full persuasion that, if his views are- correct, they will ultimately prevail. Truth is slow in its march, but it is progressive, and will finally triumph. And, what if God, M'ho delights to abase that which is high, and exalt that which is low — who sometimes employs things which are not to bring to nought things that are — should please, in order to secure the whole glory to him- self, to make use of an obscure, an iinknowti indi- vidual, as an instrument in his hands, for effecting that which learning and talent, combined with known respectability, have attempted in vain. There was a period, when a certain man dre\v a bow at a venture, and it so happened, doubtless under Divine direction, that the arrow, shot from a bow drawn by an unknown hand, was made the means of accomplishing a more valuable and im- ])ortant purpose, than appears to have been effected by any that issued from the (juivers of the most renowned, the most mighty, or the most skilful, among all the hosts of Israel, or of Syria. Whatever construction may be put on the 135 foregoing remarks, it uffords, at least, some con- solation to reflect, that if no good should be pro- duced by this work, no harm is likely to ensue from it. It creates no sect, forms no party, and and excites no divisions. On the contrary, its obvious tendency is to put an end to those divi- sions and contentions, which still subsist among Christians, by removing the cause of them — showing — that true religion, the religion of Jesus, consists not in modes and forms and rites and ceremonies, but in the knowledge and enjoyment of God ; faith in and love to Christ; communion with him, and conformity lo him ; — that the cir- cumstantials of religion are of no account what- ever, any further than they are adapted to promote these ends — and that this constitutes the test or rule, by which we are to judge of their importance and of their permanence. " For (says the great Apostle of the Gentiles) in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth an}'^ thing, nor uncircumci- sion, but a new creature. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." To conclude. Should these thoughts and ob- servations, which the writer committed to paper, as they occurred to his mind, and now presents to the public, prove the means of pre noting peace and unity among the people of God — that in one 13(5 spirit, with one mind, they may henceforth strive together to diffuse the savour of evangelical truth, and advance the kingdom and interest of the Redeemer — he shall consider himself amply re- munerated for the time and pains bestovi'ed upon them, and to God be all the glory. Amen. THE END. Ppwlress, F.ow & Pfwfres?, PrinTISKD might be admit- ted to the Lord's Supper ; and the argument was built upon ground held in common by us and the general body of the Piedobaptists. That the difference between us and them produces a separation of Communion we own; and ive contend that it ought to do so, not bepause we think, them in a fatal error, in consequence of their views of baptism, but because we conceive, that we are bound to adhere to what we believe is the primitive rule ; not only by being ourselves baptised on a profession of faith, but also by maintaining in our churches the ordinances of the Lord, as they were first delivered. The expressions which Mr. Hall criticises we will examine; and hope we shall be able clearly to show that his interpretation is not the result of fair exposition ; and that there is no connec- tion between the reasonings of the strict Baptists, and the inferences which he draws from thenj. The first thing in order, and the first that is noticed by Mr. Hall is the Laio of Baptism, as it appears in the commission which the Lord delivered to the Apostles. Mr, Hall says, " we are as ready to allow as Mr. Kinghorn, that baptism was enjoined by the Apostolic commission ; we are perfectly agreed with him respecting the law of baptism, and are accustomed to explain its nature, and inforce its authority, by the same arguments as he himself would employ." The mode, the subjects, and the perpetuity of the institution, he states in the manner that is done by baptists in general, *' But," he says, "where the inquiry turns, not on the nature or obligation of baptism, but on the necessary dependence of another institution upon it, we are at a loss to perceive in what manner the quotation" [of the commission] " applies to the question before us. To us it is inconceiv- able how any thing more is deducible from the l^w of baptism, than its present and perpetual obligation, The 38 existence of a law, establishes the obligation of a correspondent duty and nothing more." Reply p. 16, 17. Here it is granted, that the law of baptism establishes a correspondent duty ; that we may know what that duty is, let the law be considered. The first thing that will strike the mind of an inauirer is, that accordino- to the appointment of Jesus Christ, baptism was to be adminis- tered to those who believed the Gospel : and that the Apostles were then directed to teach them " to observe" all things, whatsoever the Lord commanded them. If there be any meaning in words, baptism was the first ritual service which the believer was required to obey. What- ever Ordinances the Lord had commanded his disciples "to observe" besides, he himself places after baptism ; and no ingenuity can reverse the order. Previous to a person's submitting to baptism, he might, or he might not know the extent of that obedience which the Gospel required of its professors, according to the circumstances in which he had been placed ; but when he had professed his faith in Christ, and had been bap- tised in his name, he then visibly subjected himself to his authority, and was bound to obey him in all those com- mands which followed the acknowledgement of him aa his Lord. Thus in the law itself we see the priority of baptism, both to a regular connection with the Christian Church, and to the Lord's Supper ; it was prescribed in that order, and we have no choice ; we must either give it that place, or practically declare that we do not act according to the direction of the primitive institution. One of the ordi- nances must necessarily precede the other, and no one will contend that on any interpretation. Communion was intended to come before baptism. Mr. Hall has asserted that a participation of the Lord's supper neither implies that a person is baptised nor the n9 contrary.* If the Xew Testament is taken as our guide, the baptism of those who are found at the Lord's supper is implied ; for how could they come there to partake of an Institution in which a profession of his name is supposed, if they have not attended to that ordinance which, from its nature, as well as from the Oi^der of its appointment, necessarily preceded a visible, declared connexion with the Christian Church ? He who denies the perpetuity of baptism, must be encountered with arguments which esta- blish its continuance, but if its perpetuity as a chris- tian ordinance is acknowledged, the inference is imme- diately seen, that he cannot consistently come to the Lord's table, unless he believes himself baptised. Persons who have not had their minds directed to the subject, or have been influenced by those, who thought baptism of no con- sequence, may have acted otherwise; but these are excepti- ons of a class against which no rule could make provision. If the Apostolic Commission is of any importance as the rule of our conduct, it also follows that no church ought to receive an unbaptised person to communion. For, if the qualifications of candidates for Membership, be examined by the directions given by the Lord himself, how can it be imagined, that submission to an institution which he commanded his disciples universally to obey, is not requisite. The Church depends for its existence on the Appointment of Christ, and the commission con- tains its constitutional principles. No class of persons whatever, has any authority to unite and act as a Church, except according to the rule which he has given ; and therefore, any member is justified in objecting to the admission of " those who are acknowledged to be unbap- tised," because it would be in manifest opposition to the direction of the head of the church. * " It neither implies that they [the Psedobaptists] are baptised, nor the contrary ; it has no retrospective view to that ordinance whatever." — Tenns of Com, p.07 . 40 The commission was designed to be a guide to the Apostles, as Ministers of Christ, and unless it be proved, that it is no guide to succeeding Ministers, it is their duty to examine it, and to follow its directions. What- . ever difference of opinion has arisen concerning the mode and subjects of baptism, the order in which the ordinances of the Gospel are placed, is as intelligible as ever it was; but how are those guided by it who reverse its directions, and receive persons whom they plairily acknowledge are unbap- tisedl Whenever they cease to folio nv the prescribed order, they ought to shew that the authority of the commission has passed away, so that they have deviated from its directions, only because it no longer demands their attention. In the progress of Mr. Hall's observations we meet with a singular deviation from the fair use of the term laic, when he is criticising the expression before quoted, " the law of baptism." At the first, he seems to consider it as meaning, the direction and command which were con- tained in the commission ; so far he is connect ; this wa^ the intended sense of the term. But before he has finished his page, we find him on different ground. He acknowledges that " Paedobaptists of all denominations Lave failed in a certain part of their duty" ; " but" he adds, " if we are immediately to conclude from thence that they are disqualified for Christian Communion, we must seek a church which consists of members who have failed in no hranth of their obedience ; and must conse- quently despair of finding fit communicants apart from the Spirits of just men made perfect. Examine the idea of law with the utmost rigour, turn it on all sides, and it will present nothing beyond the obligation to a certain species of conduct, so that if Paedobaptists are really disqualified for the Lord's Supper, it must be for some other reason tljan their non-compliance with a law, or otherwise we must insist upon the refusal of every individual who has not discharged all his obligations.^' Reply p. 17, 18. 41 In this quotation, (if I understand him) he argues as if the debate related to a question of obedience to the whole moral law, and as if perfect obedience was the required condition of membership. But according to that mode of reasoning- we must not urge any thing that Christ has laid down as a rule of conduct in his Church ; since in every instance it may be alledged against us, that for the same reason, " we must insist on the refusal of every iifdividual who has not discharged all his obli^a- tions" ! Thus we are left without a rule, for a law that we must not follow is of no practical use. Jesus Christ however, did give such a precept • and because he enjoiii- ed it, his Apostles did obey it. If then we "must insist" on perfection in the candidate for Communion, because we consider the Apostolic Commission a law ; they doubt- less did the same ; for it is clear that they acted upon it as such, in submission to the authority, of their Lord. Let then Mr. Hall apply his objections to their conduct : we are content to take our share of blame iu such com- pany. SECTION II. Mr. Hairs arguments, respecting Apostolic Precedent^ examined. The next subject of discussion is Apostolic Precedent, and a laboured attempt is made to weaken its force. It camiot be denied, that the Apostles and primitive Minis- ters did require baptism, previous to the Lord's Supper, Mr. Hall therefore thinks it necessary to account for their conduct in a manner that may sanction the admission of the unhaplised to communion now, and thus liberate us from all obligation to follow their example. In the style of apology we are told, " that" [as to baptism] " at that period no good men entertained a doubt respecting its nature, — that it was impossible they should, while it was exemplified before their eyes in the practice of the Apos- tles and Evangelists — that he who refused to abide by the decision of inspired men. would necessarily have forfeited his claim to be considered as a christian — that a new state of things has arisen, in which from a variety of causes, the doctrine of baptism has been involved in obscurity — that some of the best men put a different construction on the language of scripture from ourselves — and that it is great presumption to claim the same deference with the Apostles, and treat those who differ from us on the sense of scripture, as though they avowedly opposed themselves to Apostolic authoriity." (Rejjly j^- 20.) From all which, it is designed that the reader should draw the inference, that we need not follow the Apostles as our guides, but may admit the unhaptised, although we are certain that they did not. Again, it is asserted, that we ** think differently of the 43 state of the unbaptised from what the Apostles thought ;" (p. 27J and it is asked, whether we " form the same judg- ment of the present Padohaptists as the apostles would have entertained of such as continued unbaptised in their day."(j[;. 2(3, 27.) Farther, that " to be unbaptised at present is, in a mural view, a very distinct thing, and involves very different consequences, from being in that predicament in the times of the Apostles."(p. 29.) Hence Mr. Hall would bring us to a confession, that his practice "is not opposed to Apostolic precedent, because that precedent respects a different thing" {Reply, p. 30.) Thus he attempts to cut off the whole at a stroke, by endeavouring to persuade us, that the conduct of the Apostles is after all, not a precedent for us ; and although it shews how they understood and applied the command respecting baptism, yet we are not bound in submission to their authority, to walk in the same path, because we are not in the same circumstances. A short and effectual way of freeing ourselves from obligation to follow their example, in every thing, which does not suit our inclination. All these statements are mere palliations of a line of conduct, undeniably opposed to that which was universal in Apostolic times. But let us attend to the expressions before quoted a little more particularly. " At that period" (in the Apostolic age) " no good men entertained a doubt respecting its nature," [viz. of baptism] — that it was im- possible they should, while it was exemplified before their eyes in the practice of Apostles and Evangelists." This will be granted by all parties, but offers no reason why those who are satisfied that their views agree with the primitive church ought not to follow their con- victions.— "That he who refused to abide by the deci" sion of inspired men would necessarily have forfeited liis claim to be considered as a Christian," is true ; and he who should at 2iresent refuse to abide by their decision, no church would admit on any pretence whatever. But if the 44 decision of the primitive ministers was of such consequence then, is their known and acknowledged conduct of no authority nowl Was the conduct of the Apostles designed to be the guide of the Church, and intended to be held forth as an explanation of the will of Christ — or was it not ? If it was we are bound to follow it, whenever we see by repeated examples, how they interpreted a general and perpetual rule of their Lord : and if on examination we are satisfied that they did require baptism prior to communion, we are in consistency bound to require the same. If we do not, we declare that inspired guides are of no use. If the conduct of the Apostles ought not to be our guide, let it be proved that we are mistaken in our opinion of its importance, that we may not have the trouble of examining that which is after all of no authority. On the plan for which Mr. Hall pleads, the rule of our conduct is gone, we are left to act on a system of expediences ; and the New Testament rather exhibits the Antiquities of the Christian Chui'ch, than an example how the Apostles followed Christ and how we are to follow them. But we are told, *' that a neio state of things has arisen, in which from a variety of causes, the doctrine of baptism has been involved in obscurity." In a certain sense this is true ; it is a new state of things indeed which has arisen, when those who acknowledge the divine appointment and the permanency of baptism, argue that it is not necessary to Communion, and that Church fellowship, even where the perpetuity of baptism is believed, neither supposes that a person is baptised, nor the contrary. This was not the case in the primitive times, nor in any succediug period, till we arrive at discoveries of modern date, " Some of the best of men put a different construction on the language from ourselves :" suppose they do, are we bound to adopt their " construction " in opposition to the f' overwhelming evidence iu favour of our seutiaicuts I " 45 But, liow far liave " the best of men put a ilKTerent con- struction on the language from ourselves ?" All who alloA^ the permanency of baptism, when their minds have not been aft'ected by controversy, have sliewn, that in one important particular they did not entertain " a doubt re- specting its nature ;" but saw it was the design of the Saviour that it should precede the Lord's Supper. However they dilTered in other things, in this they have generally agreed ; and therefore the plain question which calls their attention is, whether the institution ought, or ought not to be excluded from the place in which it was first appointed I lu other words, ought the pattern laid be- fore us in the New Testament, to be regarded, or disre- garded. This single enquiry if properly considered, would bring the discussion to a point. If it can be proved, that tlie New Testament pattern of a church is not to be copied, loth parties will be instantly silenced. We shall not be able to maintain our position because we can no longer plead the authority of the Sacred volume ; and Mr. Hall, and those baptists who adopt his theory, cannot with any show of reason plead for the baptism of believers by immersion, as an ordinance of continued obligation ; for against all their arguments it will be alledged, that on their own confession, " a new state of tilings has arisen ;" baptism is not requisite for its original purpose, and the old state of things in the primitive church, is of no force. For if it is not necessary to preserve an institution, in its primitive station, it is not possible to show, why it should be preserved at all. Again, ** we think differently of the state of the nn- baptised from what the Apostles thought ; " — and (he asks,") do we form the same judgment of the pre- sent Psedobaptists as the Apostles would have enter- tained of such as continued unbaptised in their day?' The state of the " present Paedobaptiats," is not the 4(> same with that, of those who refused to be baptised in the Apostles' days, for the parties stand on very different ground. The " present Pajdobaptists " plead, that they do regard the will of Christ and the examples of the pri- mitive Church on the very point of baptism ; that they believe the law has been obeyed in their own persons, that in their view, the rite of baptism ought to be admi- nistered to infants, and that their mode of administration is according to the will of Christ. Such an opinion places them in a very different situation from those who were unbaptised in the Apostles' days, and who "refused to •abide by the decision of inspired men ;" and it fully justi- fies us in treating them as we have done. But it does not follow, that we are to accept a good man's mistake for an ordinance of Jesus Christ : nor admit that what Mr. Hall himself calls a " nullity," should take the place of a divine appointment in the Church of the Lord. So far as the Psedobaptists are concerned in this discussion, the question lies iu narrow bounds, for if they plead that their approach to the Lord's table is regular, because they have been baptised ; we answer, on this ground you cannot justly blame us : Baptism is a term of Communion with us both. If they renounce this plea, and say, baptism is not a term of Communion, we will meet them, in common with Mr. Hall, and ask both parties, what evidence they can produce, that the unbaptised as suck, either ever were, or ever were designed to be, considered as members of the Christian Churich, according to the New Testament. In further apology for mixed communion Mr. Hall says, " our practice is not opposed to Apostolic precedent because that precedent respects a different thing" (p. 30J Had he told us how far Apostolical precedent differed from that obedience which we still . owe to the command of Christ, we might have formed a judgment of his statement with more accuracy. Is baptism now a different 47 thing- in its nature and in its end from what it was formerly I Is it to be administered for other purposes than those which are mentioned in the New Testament? If it is, why attend to it in any instance i In that case no Scriptural reason can be given for regarding it, and no other is worth consideration. If Apostolic precedents are not to be viewed as interpretations of the will of Christ by which we are to be guided, we have no prece- dent for the baptism of any person : for precedents which respect " a dilferent thing," from what can take place among us, are of no authority. Thus by a rapid but cer- tain process, the Christian Church will be spared the labour of discussing one controversy, for he who takes Mr. Hall's view of the case, may avoid the trouble of inquiring into the subjects, or mode of baptism in the primitive age, since he supposes that so different is our situation from that of the early Christians, that " apostolic precedents respect a different tliingT Thus the debate is brought to a close ; we have not a single example of baptism applicable to our circumstances ; and the command of Christ, explained only by instances which have nothing in common with our situation in mo- dern times becomes useless ! An inference which inevi- tably follows from Mr. Hall's principles; which will be readily embraced by many ; and which also clearly shows that those who plead for mixed Communion on this ground, are sacrificing to a favorite theory, an important part of their system as Baptists. That this is not their design is readily allowed, and if it is not the effect, it will be, because men's common sense will not suffer them to believe that apostolic precedents are become of no use. It is also said, that " to be unbaptised at present is in a moral view a very distinct thing and involves very different consequences from being in that predicament in the times of the Apostles." ( 2ie/>/y. p. 2D.) Mr. llall presents this to our notice, and offers it as an alternative. 4d that we may either deny, or affirm it, and doubtless thinks it is a dilemnia from which we Cannot escape. He who is unbaptised at present, from opposition to the dictates of the Apostles, we suppose will not be consider- ed in a different moral state from tlie unbaptised in their day. But he who admits the permanency of baptism, who confesses that erery conscientious man ought to be baptis- ed, who believes that he has been a subject of that riteirt a valid form in his infancy, is not in the situation of those who refused to obey the dictates of inspired men. He pleads that they have been obeyed, and if he does not mean to acknowledge that his infant baptism is unscriptu- ral, he pleads also that their dictates were obeyed in the required order, that lie was baptised before he came for- ward to request communion. We differ from him we ac- knowledge, and we do not intend to represent the point of difference as less than it has ever been, but the nature of the difference is very distinct from what it would be, if he denied the authority of the Apostles. For this reason we treat him, not as a person who designedly opposes the dictates of the Apostles, but as a mistaken good man. But still, neither will his excellencies in other parts of his character, nor our favourable opinion of him on the whole, fulfil the duty he has mistaken, or set aside our obligation to attend to the will of Christ, and support his ordinances as he delivered them. Granting, then, that on the prin- ciples now laid down, there is a difference in amoral view, between one who allows both the perpetuity and order of the first christian rite, and another who opposes apostolic authority ; still it will not follow that we ought to deviate from the conduct of inspired guides. Those who do not agree in the interpretation of a law, may agree that the authority of the lawgiver demands their most respectful attention : but that is a very different thing from their uniting in a declaration, that since they vary in their inter- pretation, they will pursue the same course as if the law 49 had not been enacted. Yet this is the consequence t6 which Mr. Hall's reasoning" would conduct us. If he coukl prove that the apostles required their disciples to be baptised, not because it was agreeable to the rule which Christ liad given, but only because it was then essential to salvation, there would be more colour of probability in his reasonings ; but till it is clearly demonstrated that we are not bound to adhere to the com- mand of Christ as a rule of conduct, except so far as we believe it is essential to salvation, all that he has said against apostolic precedent is nugatory. His reasoning proceeds on the assumption, that the apostolic precedents were precedents only on one point, and are no authorita- tive guide, except when the converts of our time are in a situation similar to those of the primitive age. But if the examples in the New Testament were intended as illustrations of au institution which was to continue in force throughout all succeedinji; ages, we are safe in following them : and when Mr. Hall has proved, that, in the days of the apostles, there were special exemptions to the general rule, which required church members to be bap- tised, we will agree to admit all similar cases on that authority. Could it be proved that baptism was in force only in apostolic times, or only in the case of those who turned from Judaism, or Heathenism to the profession of Christi- anity (as Mr. Emlyn supposed), Mr. Hall's argument would have weight. But if baptism is an ordinance of perpetual obligation, and especially if it is the duty of every believer, as he has acknowleged it is, apostolic prece- dents demand every good man's attention : they bring the •question home, whether he has, or has not conformed to the will of his Lord I In them he sees how it was understood and applied ; they shew what was the situation of baptism in the apostolic church ; but they will not authorise him to conclude, that ho follows apostolic li 50 example, if he adopts an order opposite to all that he can find in the sacred volume. In all cases where we are left without either precept or precedent, we must act on such general principles as ap- pear to us to be correct, and conducive to the purpose we have in view ; but when we have authorised inspired prece- dents before us, reasoning is wasted in the attempt to shew, that we are justified in proceeding in a contrary course. For if this can be proved, a similar train of argument may be applied to other things, and we ehall soon be told, thdit new cases have set aside the application of o/cf rules. SECTION III. Mr. HaWs assertion that we assume infallibility, exa- mined and repelled. We are told, "that it is great presumption to claim the same deference with the apostles, and to treat those who difier from us on the sense of scripture, as though they avowedly opposed themselves to apostolic authority. " Again — "the psedobaptists," Mr. Hall tells us, " avow their inability to discern the justice of our conclusions on the subject of baptism," and are they, he asks, " on that account, to be viewed in the same light as though they intentionally rejected the decision of inspired men ? ( Re- ply p. 20, 21.) These are strange sentiments from the pen of a Protestant Dissenter. Wherein do we " claim the same deference with the apostles ? Is it in making them our guides, and in following their example! This is 61 we grant, deferring to their authority, but it is not claim- ino- the same deference with them ; it is the reverse of it. That we do not view the " pa3dobaptists" in the same light as though they intentionalhj rejected the decision of inspired men," is evident from Mr. Hall's book. A.s to our treating "those who differ from us on the sense of scripture as though they avowedly opposed themselves to apostolic authority," — this high sounding charge does Mr. Hall more hurt than it does us. Will he allow it, when applied to his own case, and openly confess that he treats those with whom he cannot unite, " as though they avowedly opposed themselves to apostolic authority"? I confess, I should be much surprised, if he did. Should he answer, that he applies it to those only who oppose com- munion with such as would come to them ; this would be to assume, that we have no right to object to a man whose introduction into the church, would in our view, subvert the regard due to one of the institutions of Christ, and to a principle which, in our esteem, ought to be held sacred in every christian society. In his own defence, he thinks it right to say, " whether it be true or not, that we are commanded to act thus, such is our opinion, and and with this persuasion, we are not at liberty to act in a different manner." ( Reply p. IIG.) Has he a patent for the sole application of this principle ? Does it belong to none but himself, and those who adopt his sentiments ? He has thought proper to say, in his treatise on Terms of Communion, {p. 93,) that, " in the eyes of the world, who judge by sensible appearances, and are strangers to subtile distinctions, such a proceeding[asthatof the strict baptists] will invariably be considered as a practical declaration, that the persons from whom they separate are not christians ". If so, how will he clear himself from the charge, that his own conduct will invariably be considered as a practical declaration, that "churchmen from whom" he separates are not christians". E 2 52 - Further, we are charged with an assumption of Infalli- hility ! We " set up a claim to inspiration, or at least to such an infallible guidance in the explanation of Scripture as is equally exempt from the 'danger of error or mistake : if we examine it accurately, it amounts to more than a claim to infallibility : it implies in the pasdobaptists a knowledge of this extraordinary fact." {Rej}hj p. 21.) This is truly an absurd charge! "A claim to inspira- tion— to infallibility, and more than infallibility" ! What can this mean ? On this plan, there is an end of ap- plying a rule of the New Testament to any practical purpose; for against every such application it may be said, — you claim infallihility ! All our arguments for the independence of our churches, and for the exercise of any species of discipline on the principles of the New Testa- ment, are open to the same reproach. Mr. Hall rejects the terms of communion in the establishment ; does he therefore claim infallibility ? Or, are we to conclude that he views churchmen " in the same light as though they intentionally rejected the. decision of inspired men ?" He opposes the dictates of the church of Rome, does he then as- sume equal infallibility ? He deems the charge invalid, when applied to his own case, how then in common justice can he affix it on others ? He says, ( Terms of Com. p. 140.) the church's " cognisance of doctrine is justified by apos- tolic authority : a heretic after two or three admonitions reject; nor is it to any purpose to urge, the difference between ancient heretics and modern, or, that to pretend to distinguish truth from error, is a practical assumption of infallibility. While the truth of the gospel remains, a fundamental error is possible, and the difficulty of deter- mining what is so, must be exactly proportioned to the difficulty of ascertaining the import of revelation, which he who affirms to be insurmountable, ascribes to it such an obscurity as must defeat its primary purpose." If this is correct, h?is the church a " cognisance of 53 'ofession." "By orthodox christians it is uniformly maintained that union to Christ is formed by faith, and as the baptists are distinguished by demanding a profession of it at baptism, they are at least precluded from asserting that rite to have any concern in effecting the spiritual alliance in question." ( Terins of Com. p. 38, 19, 20, 21, 42, 119.) These passages fully show, that Mr. Hall could orice acknowledge, that there was a correct sense in which a profession of faith was required, and was given at bap- tism. But now he quotes a number of texts in which the words confession and profession occur, ( which he tells us are of the same meaning ) and he charges us with the inferences he thinks fit to draw from them, as ii we were bound to deny the Christianity of those, who differed from us in their view of the manner in which such a profession ought to be visibly expressed. But, if his argument proves any thing, it proves too much ; for according to his own acknowledgement, the baptism of the primitive converts was the commencement of their j^i'^ession ; so that all the passages he quotes, in which the words ptofession and confession are used, relate C5 to persons wliowerebaptised, and who made their profession at their baptism ; and when these passages were written, lie acknowledges that baptism teas essential to their salvation , On his own system therefore, either he and the sacred wri- ters mean different things by the same word, or the force of his argument is against himself; for there is not a single inspired writer who enforces the necessity of a christian profession, who did not mean a profession visibly made by baptism. But Mr. Hall does not mean a profession made by baptism ; since, in his view, baptism either may or may not be included in it. If however, during the period of inspira- tion baptism was always a part of christian profession, it remains with him to explain, how that ordinance, which he tells us was once essential to salvation, is now dwindled into such insignificance, that it is not to be retained in the church in its original station, and, that " communion nei- ther supposes a person baptised, nor the contrary !" So that according to his view of the subject, the religion of the pri- mitive church has undeigoiie a complete alteration ; bap- tism does not answer its original purpose, and profession means a different thing now, from what it did in the time of the Apostles ! We expressly stated, that we did not consider obedi- ence to a rite to be a term of salvation. In our estimation therefore, baptism did not hold the same place that " pro- fession" does in the estimation of Mr. Hall; for he says that "the profession of Christ is an indisputable terra of salvation". His design, however, is to involve us in the charge of making these two the same thing, in direct oppo- sition to the statement already mentioned; for the whole of his reasoning depends on the supposition, that we affirmed obedience to a rite to he essential to what he now calls a." pro- fession". He says, the argument which we urged " turns on the principle that baptism is a term of christian profes- sion", (jj. 36.) True; but in what sense?— that baptism was the appointed, visible manner in which Christ directed F 66 the christian professor to testify his faith in him: and can Mr. Hall deny this? We never imagined that good men might not through prejudice or misapprehension mistake the directions of the New Testament; we explicitly ac- knowledged this, and therefore placed our arguraenton aba- sis common to the great body of professing christians. But when the inquiry concerns the obedience due to institu- tions, which in their nature are external and visible things, and in which we can have no guide but positive law, the question then is, what are the directions of the New Tes- tament concerning them? If Jesus Christ did require baptism in the visible profession of faith in him, and prior to a regular connection with his church; and if the insti- tution was designed to be perpetual, we must either say, /lis having required it is a rule for us ; or, the directions which he has given us are so defective that they are in- sufficient for our guidance. Mr. Hall may take which he pleases; the first destroys his system, the second exposes its true nature. It also deserves attention, that all our observations on this part of the subject, were drawn to a point in one compre- hensive, " obvious pri7iciple;" which is that "baptism was intended to be a visible evidence of connection with the christian church". {Bapiism a term of Com, p. 21.) This principle of itself, (and especially when taken with the ex- planation given of it) is a complete contradiction to Mr. Hall's inferences ; and the terms in which it is couched shew that the system for which we pleaded, had no alliance with those violent charges which stain his pages. The princi- ple is brought to a practical issue, and when he has said all he can, a calm inquirer will perceive, that the whole argument hinges on the truth or falsehood of this princi- ple. If it is false, let its falsehood be proved; and let it be shown what the institution was intended for. But if it be true, all that we ask is, that the ordinance be regarded for its designed purpose. Here however, Mr. Hall has 07 deserted the field. Far from meeting the argument, he leaves his readers without iuformation whether baptism answers any important purpose ; or whether it is not an an- tiquated ordinance of little authority, and less utility. The "position" that the terms of communion and of sal- vation are the same, was briefly examined in our former work, p. 19 — 20. We denied its accuracy, and stated a few queries and observations, as difliculties arising from the position. Part of these remarks Mr. Hall quotes; — he calls them extraordinary and intreats the reader to "pause and meditate' \ "The design of producing them at pre- sent", we are told, "is to shew the tendency of the princi- ple"; and the reader is requested to consider "whether they are susceptible of any other sense than that the terms of sal- vation and of communion are commensurate with each other", {p. 38.) But if any of our readers should suppose this, after he has read the paragraph from which the ex- tracts are taken, we should either be sorry for his preju- dices or lament his incapacity. One of the difliculties arising from the "position" alrea- dy mentioned was, " if baptism was once necessary to com- munion, either it was then essential to salvation, or that which was not essential to salvation, was essential to com- munion? To this Mr. Hall replies, "that in the apostolic age, baptism was necessary to salvation", (p, 43.) A query then succeeded, "if it [baptism] was then essential to salvation, how can it be proved not to be essential now^l To this our author says, " it is unnecessary to attempt it, because it is admitted by Mr. K. himself; and it is prepos- terous to attempt the proof of what is acknowledged by both parties", p. 43. This is evading the inquiry, not answer- ing it. It would nof have been "preposterous" for Mr. Hall to have shewn how, when, and by lohat means, a duty still obligatory, and once essential to salvation, now occu- pies, according to his system, a situation so depressed, that it 15 made to give way to every opinion which intrudes on 08 its original claims. Instead of doing this, he attempts to removefrom his own system the weight which pressed upon it, by saying, " the difficulty attending the supposition of a change in the terms of salvation, is urged with little propriety, by one to whose hypothesis they apply in their full force", {p. 44.) If he means that on our "hypo- thesis" "a change in the terms of salvation" has taken place, he shews that he does not understand it. Far from entangling ourselves in speculations about variable essen- tials, or attempting to determine in what circumstances a duty might, or might not be essential to salvation, we took the New Testament account, and on the supposition that it was allowed to be our guide, we pleaded the authority of its directions, its examples, and its general principles. After we had explicitly stated that obedience to a rite no one supposed was a term of salvation, and then opposed Mr. Hall's "position", that the terms of communion and of salvation were the same, we shall leave the reader to judge with what consistency he attempts to press this "difficul- ty" upon us. The fact is, it attaclies exclusively to Ins hypothesis. If he can prove that anciently men were saved on one "condition', but now are saved on another, let him do so; but if he cannot, the inference which we urged against him, continues in all its force. After all, he grants that " owing to the incurahle amhi- guity of language, many truths founded on the clearest evidence assume an appearance of paradox ; and of this nature is the proposition which affirms that the terms of sal- vation are not unalterable : which may with equal propriety be affirmed and denied in different senses", (p, 44.) There is then on his own confession, a sense in which all that he pleads for may be "denied" with quite as much propriety as he has thought proper to " affirm" it. In the next page Le is compelled to confess, that " there are certain doc- trines which are revealed because they are necessary ; and others which are necessary only because they are revealed.'' 6D Of this nature, he informs us, are "the few and simple ceremonies" of the Gospel . (jf^. 45.) We are then told that on its first publication, "the visible appendages of Christianity were exhibited with a lustre of evidence, which no honest mind could M'ithstand; and that no pretence for their neglect could subsist among such as possessed religious integrity. Such was eminently the case with the two institutions which have occasioned the present contro- versy", (p. 46.) Admitting for the sake of argument thai this was the case, if the decease of the Apostles has les- sened "the lustre of evidence" with which the "visible appendages o^ Christianity were exhibited," it has produced the same effect on them all; and, however much they have lost the " lustre" of their evidence, the directions of the Lord and the practical explanations given us in the conduct of inspired men are still visible. If these continue in our bibles for any useful purpose, the least that they can be supposed to answer is, to form the rule of our conduct; but if we are not to follow them as our rule, we have no rule. This is the issue to which Mr. Hall would conduct us, for all his reasonings are nothing more than excuses for not following the Apostles and the primitive church! AVedo not pretend to say what may, or may not in all cases consist with "religious integrity", or how far evidence must be carried before it can be asserted that "wo honest mind can withstand it" ; but if it be granted that baptism and the Lord's supper were "the visible appendages of Christian- ity", but that now the unbaptised ought to be admitted into the church, how can a man of plain common sense avoid the conclusion, that on this system, one of these " vi- sible appendages" is set aside. We anticipate the reply, that, once it was indispensable as a ^'visible appendage", be- cause it was then necessary to salvation, but it is not so now. An apology of no weight, unless the obligation to attend to baptism ceased when it became not necessary to salvation. But whether it is or is not necessary to eternal happi- 70 ness, unless it is repealed, it is still the command of the Lord, and has the same appointed station in his church it ever had. This is the plain reason why we should suhniit to it, and preserve it in its place; and this argument retains all its force, however the speculations of men, respecting either the ancient or the present consequence of the institution, may terminate. To sum up all that we think necessary on the subject of essentials, we allow in the words of Mr. Hall, that "union to Christ is formed by faith", and that the "baptists are distinguished by demanding a profession of it at baptism". We grant therefore his conclusion, that we ai*e "precluded from asserting that rite to have any concern in effecting the spiritual alliance in question". (^Terms of Com. p. 119. 120.) On this ground we say, strictly speaking, baptism never was essential to salvation ; for whatever is essential takes place in all good men. Without union to Christ by faith, we do not conceive any man can be saved, but wc know no one who will say the same thing concerning bap- tism. In the instances on record in the New Testament, baptism was the effect of professing to receive the truth in the love of it: such a reception of the truth, we allow icas essential to salvation, and obedience to the will of Christ arose from it. We allow that no good man would refuse submitting to this part of the Lord's will in the days of the Apostles, and we maintain that no such person who be- lieves in the perpetuity of baptism can now deny, that according to the New Testament all professing believers ought to be baptised, and that they cannot consistently come to the Lord's table except in that character. Whe- ther therefore he agrees with us respecting the proper mode and subjects of baptism or not, he is compelled to act on our general principle. But if he solicits communion with us on the ground of his infant baptism, he asks us to ad- mit the validity of that ceremony. If he requests us to admit him as unbaptised, he then asks that we would join 71 with him in practically denying what both confess is the will of Christ; for both admit that church members ought to be baptised ; yet we are to receive a person who is unhaptised, and he agrees to be accepted under that cha- racter ! Should he say, I acknowledge the propriety of the general rule, but I wish you would consider my case as an exception : we reply, so we will, provided you can show, either that such an exception is to be found in the New Testament, or that we need not be guided by that volume. In few words, we consider baptism not essential to salva- tion in the proper meaning- of the terms; but it is essential to correct obedience, and to the testimony of a good con- science, in every instance in which the permanency of the institution is admitted. Whoever therefore, apprehends that he is unbaptised, should give this subject a seri- ous consideration ; for though some men of whom we hope well, deceive themselves by inconsistent reasonings, yet it is the plain rule of God's word, and not a good man's irre- gularities that ought to be our guide, Mr. Hall thinks proper to represent us as stating, "that tjie limits of communion must be the same with those of profession; that the Piedohaptists have none, or at least none that is valid " ; and that on this account, and for this reason, they are precluded from a title to christian fellow- ship". (2>. 38 — 39.) The expression " a christian profession is not made in Christ's own way" without baptism, he takes more than usual pains to torture; and says, the scope of our argument obliged us to " prove that adult baptism is essen- tial to a christian profession :" butwe are now content " with saying that without that ordinance, it is not made in the right way". He then twists the words till he supposes they mean "perfect profession", and after declaring that this is not "the lot of a mortal", he adds, "but though this is the only interpretation consistent with truth, we cannot for a moment suppose that such was the meaning- of the writer. He must have intended to assert, that the 72 parties to whom they are applied, fail to make what Christ himself would deem a profession". A number of consequences are then deduced by Mr, Hall, and the con- clusion is, that our reasoning "will consign the Psedobap- tists to destruction " ! {p. 39 — 42.) To these charges and the rest of the same class, a reference to the work from which they are taken is all that is necessary. Let the reader examine the argument as it was originally stated, and then let him form his own conclusions. As to the expression '* a christian profession is not made in Christ's own way without baptism ;" if the reader observes the words which immediately follow it, he can then judge whether Mr. Hall's inferences are correct. "It is now too late to say, this is not what the New Testa- ment has enjoined ; and it does not become us to alter what is enacted by infinite wisdom. There may be, and there are, differences of opinion respecting the subjects and mode of baptism : but as the ordinance itself was pre- scribed by the Lord, it ought to be visibly recognised in bis Church", (Baptism bic p. 18, 19.) Whether our mode of reasoning, which was placed on a basis common to all that admit the perpetuity of bap- tism, did consign '■ the Ptedobaptists to destruction," is easily determined. Whatever were its defects that is not fairly to be charged upon it. After having guard- ed our statement, by saying that we did not esteem obedience to a rite a terra of salvation, but that we con- sidered it as " an evidence of our submission to the author of salvation"; after having explicitly declared, that the Baptists " do not consider baptism necessary to salvation; they do not depend upon it for their acceptance before God ; nor do they view any as fit subjects for that ordi- nance, who are not previously believers in Christ, and justified in the sight of God by their faith" ; (Baptism a term of Com. p. 31.) we need not say any thing farther in ypply to ]VJr, Hall's arguments on this part of the cojitro-. 73 versy. They have nothing to do with the subject as we stated it ; and they are founded on such complete misrepresenta- tions, that we are not involved in their consequences. Since however, he has thought proper to notice some expressions which we made use of, and to investigate what he calls their " meaning", we also shall notice one thing intimately connected with them which he has omit- ted. We need not repeat what has been already observed respecting the sense in which " baptism is a term of pro- fession", nor is it necessary to defend the terms we have used, if they 'are taken in their connection. They all had a relation to the visible, designed end of baptism. But what says Mr, Hall on this part of the subject ? Nothing. Yet if baptism continues in force, it must be designed to answer some intelligible purpose. We ask then, if it is not a visible profession of faith in Christ, if it is no evidence of connection with the Christian church, if a profession of our faith is made in the way which Christ required without baptism ; what is its use, and on what ground does it now claim any attention^ SECTION VI. The difference of sentiment among Christians lespecliug the doctrine of Election — the prohibition to eat blood — and the imposition of hands on the baptised — examined as to their supposed bearing on this controversy. In the progress of his work, Mr. Hall reminds us of the difference of sentiments among christians on the doctrine of Election, some takingthe Calvinistic and others the Armin- ian view of it. We are informed that such a difference of opinion could not exist in the primitive church ; and that " were these parties to exclude each other from commu- nion under the pretence that the primitive christians were all Calvinists, or all Arminians," they would reason in the same manner that we do. {Reply p. 48, 49.) He adds, "how would our author repel this reasoning, or justify a more liberal conduct? He certainly cannot allege the original obscurity of the apostolic injunctions, and the possibility of primitive converts mistaking their meaning : he would 'unquestionably insist on the different degrees of import- ance attached to revealed truths, and tlie palpable differ- ence between mistaking the meaning, and avowedly opposing the sentiments, of inspired writers. But this is precisely our mode of defence." {p. 49.) He is however altogether mistaken; we should not think of placing the decision of the ultimate question, whether Calvinists and Arminians might hold fellowship together on such a ground as this ; we should appeal to the New Testament respecting the terms on which persons ought to be received to baptism. If we ought to be baptised into a creed which is to include all that is sup- posed to be taught in the New Testament, it would be rii^ht to examiue whether it was an /Viiniiiian creed ur or a Calvinistic creed, and then the question would be ol" high importance, into which creed shall we be baptised, But if we derive our information from the sacred volume, we find, that the proper subjects of baptism, ought to be baptised on a profession of their faith in Christ as the Son of God, and the saviour of sinners. Whatever any person considers as necessarily and essentially iuclud- t d in believing in Christ, he must, v/e grant, make a term of communion, because in his view, it is a necessary part of the confession which a candidate ought to make at his baptism. On this ground, he who conceives the Calvi- nistic view of the doctrine of election, essential to a persoii s faith in Christy must make Calvinism a term of communion ; and so on the opposite side of the question, he who believes that the Calvinistic sentiment is incon- sistent with faith in Christ, must necessarily exclude Calvinists from church fellowship. " Orthodox christ- ians " Mr. Hall informs us, consider " the explicit belief of the doctrine of the atonement" indispensably necessary to salvation. He also says, that the immediate followers of Christ did not embrace this truth. It seems that this is given as an instance of a new essential arising in the church. ** The full development of the gospel scheme, made at a subsequent period, has in this instance render- ed that essential to salvation, which could previously subsist without it."fp. 46.) Suppose that this view of the subject is correct, the reason why the belief of the doc- trine of the atonement is now necessary to salvation is, because it comes within the limits of the direction " he that helieveih and is baptised shall be saved." Whatever is an essential part of a reply to the question," dost thou believe on the Son of God," we acknowledge is a term of communion ; because it is, according to the New Testa- ment, a term of baptism. Such were the constitutional principles of the church in the purest ages, when every 7(-) tiling was regulatod by unerring uispiration. If it can be proved that its constitution is not rtow what it was originallyy we must change our ground ; but till that is done, we need not tremble for the ultimate success of onr cause. An attempt it made to perplex the question before us, by bringing in the decision of the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem prohibiting the eating of blood in Acts xv. Mr. Hall selects this part of the decision of the Apos- tolical Council, withotit at all noticing the difficulties attending the passage at large ; though he must know, that it has greatly divided the most learned and acute Commentators. It seems to us, that the view given of the decision recorded in this chapter by the learned Spencer is rational, and supported by very strong evidence ; that the reason why the Gentile Christians were required to " abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood," ( Acts xv. 20,) was, because these things were *' the causes, the attendants, and the signs of Idolatry."* Whoever, therefore, was defiled by these practices, was to be con- sidered as sanctioning Idolatry, and equally opposing the religion of Moses and of Christ. He who in these things symbolized with Idolaters, would be excluded from the communion of the christian church ; or if he had not been received into the church, for the same reason he would not be admitted to baptism. Such practices would be considered as proving that the man was a Heathen, and while he continued such, he could not be received into the christian community. But Mr. Hall selects the prohibition of blood as an article of food, which he affirms was once a term of communion, and he says that ** the precept of abstaining from blood, was invariably observed hy the faithful from the time of Noah." (Reply, p. 50.) • Vide Dissert, in Act. xv, 20, Cap. III. ^ i, at the eud of the second book of his workj De kgibus ritualibus Hebraorum. / / Nay further, he says, " I have not the smallest iloultt, that it is of perpetiuil force, however little it may he regarded in modern practice." {p. 50.) For the sake of consistency then, he ought not to admit into the niimher of " the faithful" any man who, in his estimation, violates this precept ; and if he does not mean to say, that pos- itive precepts are of no force, he ought to reject such a person from a participation of Christian ordinances. He seems to consider the precept given to Noah, and the advice of the apostles to the Gentile christians respecting abstinence from blood, as the same. He thinks proper to put this advice, on a par with the in- junction concerning baptism. He acknowledges that the " precept respecting blood was not promulgated by the Saviour himself ; but resulted from the solemn and unanimous decision of his apostles, and is of more ancient origin than any other christian institute.'* {Reply p. 51.) Here a supposed prohibitory precept is called a christian institute, and is said to be of more ancient origin than any other christian institute. It seems then, that this christian institute, is far older than Christianity itself. Jlut leaving the reader to settle this point in the best way he can, we are farther told, that "there is no room to allege a misapprehension of the meaning of the precept; it is susceptible but of one interpretation." (Reply p. 50.) This is a mistake: Jewish writers understand the precept ^iven to Noah to mean, that he was not to eat the blood, with the flesh of the animal while it M'as alive, by cutting off any part and instantly using it for food, before the creature was properly slain. This barbarous custom was not'only practised anciently, but is still in use in some parts of the World. It is remarkable that the Jews, who have been always distinguished for their abhorrence of blood, should have given this interpretation of the pre- cept, and they seem to have been led to it, by an accurate attention to Hebrew phraseology. Dr. Gii.i., whose 73 extensive acquaintance with Jewish literature cannot be denied, says, "it is the constant sense of the Jewish syna- gogue, that this law is to be understood of the member of a living creature torn from it and eaten whilst alive.'* ("Expos. OH Acts XV. 29. ) Many christian writers of distinguished eminence have adopted the same sentiment. Hence they have drawn a clearly marked line of distinc- tion between the precept given to Noah, — the ceremonial precepts given to the Jews, — and the advice given hr the apostles to the Gentile christians. They have shewn that in their estimation, the first and the two last, related to different things ; and that the precepts given to the Jews, and the advice of the apostles were distinguished from each other by two important circumstances ; that the precepts of Moses were absolute, and binding on every member of the Jewish dispensation ; but that the directions given by the apostles, arose from the peculiar state of the church, and did not mark the precepts res- pecting meats offered to idols, things strangled, and blood, as universally and perpetually binding. Whoever will take the trouble to examine the writings of our most learned christian commentators and critics, will see that there is not that uniformity which will war- rant Mr. Hall's assertion, that " there is no room to allege a misapprehension of the meaning of the precept ; it is susceptible but of one interpretation", (p. 50.) I am no advocate for eating blood ; but since the pre- cept given to Noah which Mr. Hall supposes has a relation to this practice, is unnecessarily forced upon our ntten- tion, the reader will, I hope, pardon one observation more which may tend to elucidate that precept. We read in the law of Moses, "Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself ; thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, THAT HE may eat it, or thou mayest sell it unto an alien". Deut. xiv. 21. If an animal died of itself, the blood was still in the system, and the flesh could not 79 be eaten without eating the blood also, as is the case with animals that are strangled ; but though Israelites might not eat such food, strangers were permitted to eat it even hy the Law of God. How then can Mr. Hall prove that the precept prohibiting " the use of blood in food", ** was enjoined expressly on the Gentiles", — and, " was in force from the period of the deluge ?" (J>. 49. 50.) If bis sense of the precept is correct, it is inconceivable that such a permission as that which is recorded in the law of Moses, should have been given : and if he fails in establishing the universal obligation of the precept ac- cording to his interpretation of it, during the time of the Jewish dispensation, he will not find it an eagy task, to establish its universal and perpetual obligation under the dispensation of the gospel. Besides, the prohibition of blood stands on the same basis with that of " meats offer- ed to idols", but it is certain that the eating of meat offered to idols, was not universally unlawful ; it therefore follows of course that in the present case, the decision of the apostles will not of itself prove the prohibition of blood to be universally, and permanently binding. But the end our author has in view, is to press an imaginary difficulty on us, from the comparison which he thinks proper to draw, between the injunction which prohibited blood, and that which commanded baptism. " As Pffidobaptists profess their conscientious adherence to the baptismal precept, which they merely demand the right of interpreting for themselves ; upon what principle is it, that a mistake in the meaning of a positive injunction, is deemed more criminal than its avowed neglect ; or why should an error in judgment which equally affects the practice in both cases, be tolerated it in the one, and made the ground of exclusion in the other ?" (Reply p. 51, 52.) The answer to this is easy : — he who believes that a pre- cept of a former dispensation, is of so great authority at present, that obedience to it now, ought to bo required by 80 a christian church, must make it a term of baptism, and of course a term of communion. But he who con- siders it not supported by such evidence as gives it this importance, though he may individually think it right, does not feel himself compelled to insist upon it. He therefore, can retort Mr. Hall's argument ; and since the " very pith and marrow " of his " cause " is, that baptism is not necessary to connnunion, such a person in his turn may ask, " upon what principle is it, that a mistake in the meaning of a positive injunction not be- longing to the christian dispensation, should be deemed of equal consequence \/ii\\ the " avowed neglect " of an ordinance peculiar to that dispensation ? Mr. Hall at- tempts to place the injunction against eating blood, on the same level with the command which enjoins baptism, and hence the inference unavoidably follows, that, ac- cording to his mode of reasoning, baptism is of no more consequence than the precept against eating blood ! The effect of such a mode of lowering a christian ordinance, is easily seen ; and will be very agreeable to many ; for it will afford them an excellent excuse for neglecting, what they do not wish to obey. In addition to what our author has alleged concerning the eating of blood, he thinks proper to say, " the argu- ment equally applies to laying on of hands after ordination and baptism. It is acknowledged that this rite was universally practised in the primitive times, that it claims the sanction of apostolic example, and it is enume- rated by St. Paul among the Jirst principles of christian doctrine". {Reply p. 52.) That imposition of hands took place after baptism when an apostle was present, and when miraculous gifts were conferred, is acknowledged ; that it was used as a necessary appendage to baptism, when an apostle was not present, and when extraordinary gifts were 7iot given, has not been proved ; and we believe cannot be proved. 81 When Mr. Hall has demonstrated that imposition of hands was constantly practised by apostolic authority in cases where spiritual gifts were not conferred — so that this usage was a regular part of christian baptism ; when he has proved, that apostles directed those who had no spiritual gifts to bestow, to use the imposition of hands after baptism, and that the christian ordinance was con- sidered incomplete without it; then, but not till then, will his argument have any force. As to the impo- sition of hands after ordination, it is so distant from the present enquiry, that it may be dismissed as wholly irrelevant*. It is not a little remarkable, that Mr. Hall should urge two arguments, taken from passages concerning which the christian world has been much divided, and apply them as if their sense was clear and undisputed. To explain that which is difficult, by what is clear and un- disputed is rational ; but to perplex what is plain, by that which is difficult and uncertain, cannot promote the cause of truth. * The following note of Dr; DoDDRiDCE on Heb. vi. 2. deserves attention : " The imposition of hands.'] This answered such great purposes in the christian church, as the appointed method of communicating important gifts, that it might well be mentioned among frst principles. But it is by a very precarious consequence, that any can infer from hence the universal obligation of this rite, in admitting persons into full churcJi-membership, or even to the ministry. See Pierce's Vindication, p. 463. Family Expositor." SECTION VII. Mr. JJalTs criCicisms on tJw use of the term "evidence" f.r- • nynhted — He does not recofjnise the scriptural desiyn of hcqjtlsin ; and his system subverts the institution. Two expressions are next selected from 'Baptism a term of communion/ whicli 3Ir. Hall calls " remarkable pas- sages" {Reply p. 53.) ; the first has been noticed already ; the next I suppose is taken from p. 30 : both are brought forward because the term evidence occurs in them. The latter Mr. Hall quotes imperfectly ; in his book it is " the appointed evidence of our putting on Jesus Christ": the original words are, " i\\e first, visible, appointed evi- dence of our putting on Jesus Christ". Our author begins his scrutiny by saying, " let us first ascertain the precise 7«e«re2rt^oftbese remarkable passages"; — but how ? By viewing " these remarkable passages" in their connection, by observing the terms which are used, by comparing the paragraphs where the same or similar ex- pressions are employed, for the purpose of discovering the common sentiment which runs through the whole? No; this common place way of examining a subject is far from Mr. Hall's method ; he plays on the term evidence, turns it into a variety of shapes, at last having found one which he thinks will answer his purpose, he declares that this must be its *' precise meaning"! Observe his mode of discussion. The "meaning must he, that the ordinance in question forms a necessary par^ of the evidence o/ya«7/?, insomuch that in the absence of it our Lord intended no other should be deemed valid," He then adds, "that this was the case in the primi- tive age, we feel no hesitation in affirming." (Reply, p. 54.) Let the reader compare our statements with Mr. Hall's inference. In the first of the pasages quoted, we said 83 ** if obedience to a rite be not a term of salvation (which iio one supposes), yet it yaxs ordered by the highest authority as an evidence of our subjection to the author of salvation". In this sentence, the supposition laid down is, that obedience to a rite is fiot a term of salvation, Tiie parenthesis which follows "(ivhich no one supposes)", clearly shows, that we neither intended to argue on the ground that baptism was an evidence of faith essential to salvation, nor did we imagine that we had to contend with any one upon that ground. Here then we ask, on what pretence could it be inferred that the "precise meaning" of the lirst of " these remarkable passages, 7nust he, that the ordi- nance in question forms a necessary part of the evidence of faith, insomuch that in the absence of it, our Lord intended no other should be deemed valid"; since the passage itself contains a distinct denial of our author's inference i Further, in the short paragraph from whence Mr. Hall makes his second quotation, baptism was denominated " the Jirsf, visible, appointed evidence of our putting on Jesus Christ. Gal. iii. 27." Here again, let any one judge whether, in fair interpretation, Mr. Hall's inference can be drawn from the words used, for he has quoted them so inaccurately, that Ave do not refer to his quotation. On the question, whether the Lord will deem no evidence of faith valid, if baptism be absent, this statement offers no opinion ; and what it asserts^ our opponent is at full liberty to disprove as soon as he is able. A duty may be required, as a visible evidence of subjection to Christ, without its being supposed that its absence in any case, or a mistake which may be made concerning it, would subject a man to eternal condemnation. That this is not our sentiment is evident even from the "remarkable pas- sages" which Mr. Hall quotes ; yet notwithstanding, he thinks fit to assert, that the contrary must be their "pre- cise meaning /" G 2 84 The sense which Mr, Hall attempts to aflix on our words, he confesses expressed the true state of things in the primitive age; but it seems that what was true then, is not true now. We are charged with making baptism *'a necessary part of the evidence of faith, insomuch that in the absence of it, our Lord intended no other should be deemed valid." Mr. Hall adds, " That this was the the case in the jirimitive age, we feel no hesitation in affirming." {p. ^ii.) So that all we had said was, on Mr. Hall's confession, a correct state of the case in the days of the Apostles, and according to the accounts given in the New Testament. In his progress, Mr. Hall quotes half a sentence from p. 67 of ' Baptism a term of Communion' ; had he quoted the whole, especially had he taken it in its connection, every one would have seen that it did not suit his purpose. But now he grows bolder than before, and we are accused of the inconsistency of admitting the piety of those " who are destitute of that which Jesus Christ prescribed as the evidence of faith." {Reply p. 55.) The next thing is a quotation from another place Cp. 140), taken also in his manner, neither noticing the design, nor the explanation given of the words ; and then he finishes the paragraph by talking about " palpable contradictions." But the view which we have given of our sentiments on this subject is before the world; with those who are not convinced, on comparing our statements with Mr. Hall's interpretations, that instead of ascertaining our " precise meaning," he has laboured to affix to our words precisely what they were never designed to mean, we shall not contend — the interests of truth are not likely to be pro- moted by striving with persons of that description. According to Mr, Hall's reasoning, our former argu- ments are of no force, unless it could be demonstrated tliat baptism " occupies the same place at present, and that it is STILL necessary to constitute a valid evidence of faith 85 in the Redeemer" (Reply p. 54.) Tliis brings forward an inquiry of vital importunce to tlie present controversy, which our author has most completely neglected ; and that is, what place does haptism now occupy ? If it occupies the same place it did in apostolic times, his system is ruined by his own confession. If it occupies a different place, what is that place ? What Avas the design of bap- tism? Is it now a " different thing" from what it was in the days of inspiration ? On this subject Mr. Hall is prudently silent. Whatever the design of baptism was, the institution ought either to be administered for the pur- pose first appointed, or it cannot be maintained as a New Testament ordinance. If baptism ought not to be con- tinued for its primitive purpose, the sooner we lay it aside the better ; for we cannot pretend to practise it on scrip- tural authority. We can have no idea of the perpetuity of an institution, when its ends are no longer answered. Whenever this is the case, " it decayeth and waxeth old," and " is ready to vanish away." Herethen the question comes to a point; it must either be disproved, or acknowledged, that we ought now to bap- tise for the same reasons as the apostles baptised. If they administered this ordinance for one reason, but we ought to administer it for another, where is this twofold set of reasons to be discovered t If it be proved that the same ends are not answered by the institution, and the same reasons do not now apply that were in force in the days of inspiration, then the scriptural reasons for its admini- stration are given up ; it is no longer the baptism of the' New Testament; it is nothing more than a super- stitious ceremony, and has no more claim on our attention than an abrogated Jewish rite. But, if it must be acknow- ledged that we ought still to administer baptism for the reasons assigned in the New Testament — all we ask is, that the inspired rule be followed, and the present contro- versy will instantly terminate. 80 But the difference between the state of things now, and in the age of inspiration, has brought forward " a new case ;" so that baptism does not occupy " the same place" it once did ! Whatever difference of circumstances has taken place, is the rule invalidated, or does it still con- tinue as a rule ? If it is admitted that baptism was essential to salvation in the days of the apostles, to the whole extent of Mr. Hall's idea, and that the circumstances of the times then gave it peculiar importance, yet nothing is more clear than that our reasonings and conduct should be guided by the rule which is permanent, and not by those circumstances which from their nature could^be only temporary. If then, we take the New Testament for our guide, how are we to admit the unhaptised, unless we either plead for " inverting the natural ort^er of the christ- ian sacraments ;" or, suppose that the directions given us are not urged with legislative authority, but are only general advice, submitted to our prudence, and left to our inclination 1 Mr. Hall denies, that baptism was "more specifically intended as a test of faith than compliance with any other part of the mind of Christ ; or that it was in any other sense an evidence of that attainment, than as it was neces- sary to evince the possession of christian sincerity." {Reply p. 54.) To the first of these assertions we reply, our statement was not that baptism was " more specifically intended as a test of faith than compliance with any other part of the mind of Christ ;" but that it was " the first, visible, appointed evidence, of our putting on Jesus Christ." If this is not agreeable to the New Testament, let it be disproved. As to the second assertion, suppose for the sake of the argument that we admit it, and say with Mr. Hall, that baptism was required " to evince the possession of christian sincerity ;" we ask then, if this was its design at first, is it not its design now ? But if so, all the hard things which he has thought fit to say against 87 those who view baptism as tlie first, visible, appointed evidence of putting on Jesus Christ, he might urge against such as adopt his own words, and plead the importance of the institution for the purpose of evincing " the possession of christian sincerity," If it was once " necessary" for that end, but is not "necessary" for the like purpose at pre- sent, what end is answered by it? It is " a duty of per- petual obligation," (Replt/ p. 98.) " founded on the express injunction of the legislator," fp- 99,) but, on our author's principles, neither the " duty" nor the " injunction," how- ever " perpetual" or " express," form a rule for the con- duct of the church; and though it 'Uvas necessary" formerly, yet it does not occupy "the same place at present." If such an opinion is admitted, we ought to lay the institution aside; for its original purpose is no longer answered — a consequence which always follows Mr. Hall's theory, on whatever side we view it. But we have an additional objection to urge. It is not stated in any part of the New Testament, that baptism was an evidence of faith " as it was necessary to evince the possession of christian sincerity." That it did " evince christian sincerity" is granted ; but that this is the scrip- tural description of its design, can never be proved. The baptism of the primitive converts was viewed as a practical declaration of their faith ; this is manifest from the lan- guage of the Apostles: "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on Christ." Gal. iii. 26, 27. Inspired writers treat this subject in a style very different from that of our author. Tiiey point the attention of the primitive christians to the great sentiments which they pro- fessed to bolieve at their baptism — to that obligation to holiness which was acknowledged by their baptism— and to the hope which they derived from the truths they had pro- fessed, an impressive image of which was presented to their view in baptism. Hence, as many as were baptised 88 into Christ wei'e baptised into his death. Faith in the death of Christ, not only as a fact, but as the ^ound of our justification before God, was the source of their hope, and the great support of their christian life : hence also, believers looked forward to all the blessings which are procured by the resurrection of their Lord. " Therefore," says the apostle, " we are buried with him by baptism into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- ness of life." — " We have been planted together," inti- mately united with him, " in the likeness of his death," and hence, " we shall be also in the likeness of his resur- rection." Ro7n. vi. 3, &c. So also in the epistle to the Colossians, {chap. ii. 12.) " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Now, however the latter expression i& understood, it is manifest, that it was in consequence of a christian's ybiV//, and as an expression of his faith, that he was buried with his Lord, when he was baptised in his name. The Apostle Peter's words are, if possible, still more express. 1 Pe^.iii.21. Baptism is "the answer of a good conscience towards God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." It is the "answer," the promise, or the stipulation of a good conscience, in consequence of faith in the resur- rection of Jesus Christ. It is the expression of a solemn, engagement into which we enter, in obedience to a divine command, and as the effect of faith in the Lord Jesus. If baptism either ought not, or cannot be administered with these views, it is time that we should drop the prac- tice ; but if believers can, and do express these senti- ments, hopes, and engagements, the ordinance in its essential parts, does occupy the same place novo, that it did in the times of the apostles." Why our author so carefully avoids stating the scriptural design of baptism, is best known to himself, but it is ira- 89 possible not to suspect that he saw the danger of so doing. He would not say, that baptism ought not to be adminis- tered on a profession of faith ; that would have involved him both with the apostles, and himself. He did not choose to allow, as he had done before, that it ought to be administered on a profession of faith ; — that would be followed by an inference opposite to his purpose. He therefore took a different course, and then he could cari- cature every thing that came in his way, as he pleased. Before he finished his second chapter, he made a bold thrust, and doubtless he thought it would be mortal in its effect. He closed one paragraph by speaking of those who are destitute of " «f/M/< baptism," and professing to quote what we had said, the next begins thus : {Reply p. 56,) **No church, he assures us, acting agreeably to the rules of Christ, can recognise thi*m as his disciples." The reference at the bottom is, " Baptism a term of Commu- nion, p. 140." If the reader turns to the passage, he will see that these are not our words. But passing this for the present, Mr. Hall takes no notice of the object of that paragraph from which he professes to quote an expression. He does not inform his reader that the point there in hand was, the obligation we were under to attend to baptism as a commanded duty, "whatever that rite shall prove to be": for this would have spoiled the effect which he intended to produce. Nor does he at all refer to the evidence adduced in the connection, that the proposition as we had stated and explained it, had been generally ad- mitted not only by Baptists, but also by P^edobaptists : for they had both agreed that the unhaptised, according to the plan of the New Testament, were not openly, and in an acknowledged sense, disciples. The general sentiments of those " myriads of holy men," who are sometimes placed in array against us, are brought to view in the words of Dr. Williams and Richard Baxter, both of whom it will be allowed, are high authorities. Tliese eminent 90 men go farther than even the Baptists in aflTirniing the proposition which we had laid down, in the sense in which it was adduced. If Mr. Hall did perceive the author's design, in the paragraph from which he professes to select a single expression, and especially, if he ever read the succeeding paragraph, how could he, in common justice, bring forward an expression with the intention of impress- ing on the minds of his readers a sentiment not con- tained in the passage he pretends to quote? If he did not perceive the author's intention, how are we to account for such a misconception? But hence an occasion is found for exclaiming, " what strange magic lies concealed in the word churchr{Reply2).57,) Again, "in the broad daylightof the world, notwithstanding their minor difterences, they (the Pagdobaptists) are recognized with facility, but the mo- ment we enter the somhrous gloom of a Baptist Church, we are lost from each other's view." (2^. 58.) What ad- vantage Mr. Hall expects from these bitter words, we know not ; be it to himself: we ask no participation in it. A reproach so indiscriminate and unjust, may gratify those ■who dislike the Baptists, but effectually discredits all our author's boasted pretensions to liberality. He talks about inflicting " a wound on the very heart of charity ;" (Reply p. 87.) what this is we leave others to decide. To such an accusation we reply in the words of an ancient and high authority, " the Lord rebuke thee:" (Jude v. 9.) and were the controversy merely with Mr. Hall, here our reply should end. But as a heavy charge is publicly brought forward against a general body, it demands a farther exa- mination. What occasions this " somhrous (/loom of a Baptist C/mrc/t"? Nothing, but their belief that pro- fessing christians ought to be baptized, before they are acknowledged members of the church. An article of faith common to all the churches of the apostolic and primitive ages ; — to all the established churches in the world ; — and, on our author's own confession, nearly to all the churches 91 of Paedobaptist dissenters. " Of such societies," says Mr. Hall, " we niiglit be tempted to exclaim, ' My soul come not thou into their secret, and to their assembly be not thou united"! Here we ask, to what "assembly", then, should we be "united"? The only reply that we can conceive is, to that which admits the unhaptised : an assembly evidently of recent date, notwithstanding all that Mr. Hall can say to the contrary; and, on his own acknow- ledgment, an assembly formed of the minority of christian professors. In all the rest we are compelled to enter the same "sombrous gloom", which Mr. Hall asserts is thrown exclusively over Baptist Churches ! It is, therefore, very little to the purpose, that he professes to be "shocked at such illiberality;" and still less that he pretends to "sup- press the emotions which naturally arise on the occasion, remembering (strange as it may seem) how often it is asso- ciated with talents the most respectable, and piety the most fervent". (Rephj p. 59.) The wound which he in- tended to inflict can never be healed by such treatment as this, CHAPTER IV. An examination of Mr. Hall's third chapter ON the connection between the two positive institutes. SECTION I. His statement of the question examined; — his reasoning refuted. In the progress of his work, our author frequently directs the reader's attention to what he calls the "real question," (p. 61.) which, he informs us, is, "whether the two posi- tive ordinances of the New Testament are so related to each other, either in the nature of things or by express command,, that he whom we deem not baptised, is, ipso facto, or from that circumstance alone, disqualified for an attendance at the Lord's table. " This," he says, " and this only is the question in which we are concerned," Two sources of evidence are mentioned, " the nature of things," and, " express command ;" no notice is here taken of the order and design of the institutions ; should it be said these are included in the "nature of things," we shall not object to the arrangement; but if they are not included, we contend that they ought to be added to the sources of evidence by which the question is to be decided. 93 According to Mr. Hall, " that there is not a necessary connection in the nature of things betwixt the two rites, appears from the slightest attention to their nature. It will not be pretended that the Lord's supper is founded on baptism, or that it recognises a single circumstance be- longing to it." {Reply p. 61, 62.) According to Jesus Christ, the order and design of baptism show, that it was intended to precede an attention to every other institution which he commanded the mem- bers of his church " to observe ;" and according to the APOSTLE Paul, baptism is "putting on Christ." Gal. iii. 27. The Lord's supper is designed for believers who are members of his church, and recognises a previous pro- fession of their faith. What, then, was included in this profession — how was it made — what was the visible ap- pointed rite by which a submission to Jesus Christ was manifested, according to the directions and examples of the New Testament ? Let this question be answered and the connection will be established. But by his own concessions, Mr, Hall has already an- swered the question and established the connection. He has allowed that " baptism OUGHT, agreeably to the insti- tution of Christ, to precede the other branches of religion;" C]). 83.) and that " supposing [the sincere believer] to be clearly convinced of the nature and import of baptism, he would be guilty of a criminal irregularity who neglected to attend to it previous to his entering into christian fel- lowship." {Terms of Com. p. 58.) In the view of this sincere believer, there is consequently a " necessary con- nection" between the two ordinances, which he perceives when he is " clearly convinced of the nature and import of baptism ;" otherwise he could not be guilty of a " cri- minal irregularity" in seeking communion without being baptised. On what principle then, can it be maintained that there is such a "connection" when the " nature and import" of baptism is understood, but no " connection" 94 between the institutions themselves ? Does not the con- nection exist before it is perceived ? Is it, or is it not correct that baptism has a "prior claim" on the christian's attention? Such priority, however, Mr. Hall has distinctly acknowledged, for he admits that " baptism ought, agreeably to the institution of Christ to precede the other branches of religion." Thus he confesses that which he is trying to prove does not exist ; and all his arguments to shew that there is no connection between the two insti- tutions, are repelled by his own words. He then says, " it remains to be considered whether the necessary connection we are seeking, can be found in positive prescription. — Here, when we ask for bread, they give us a stone," (p. 63.) Perhaps so ; there is a " pre- scription" so " positive" in the terms of the commission of our Lord, that it is " a stone" of stumbling to our author's system which cannot be removed. Let the reader observe his statement, " They quote Christ's commission to his apostles, where there is not a word upon the subject, and which is so remote from establishing the essential connec- tion of the two ceremonies, that the mention of one of them only is included. "(p. 03.) " Remote" as the commission is, according to Mr. Hall's account, we have only to fol- low its directions, and there will be an end of his system. " Of the two ceremonies — the mention of one of them only is included." It is allowed that 07ie is mentioned; the most unfortunate circumstance possible for our author's argument ; for, as the " only" ceremony which our Lord thought it necessary to "mention" was baptism, the "men- tion" of that " one" institution gave it distinguished pro- minency. It was, however, mentioned in the style of authority ; the Saviour enjoined his apostles to baptise those that believed, and he then directed them to teach those who believed and were baptised, " to olserve" all things whatsoever he had commanded them. Matt, xxviii. 19,20. Let Mr. Hall therefore either acknowledge, or deny. 95 that the Lonl's supper was one of those things which the disciples were commaucleci " to ohserve." If he acknow- ledo-es it. the " connection" is sufticientlv established for all practical purposes. If he denies it, we shall calmly wait for the proof of so extraordinary a position. If that " one" institution, which it is granted our Lord did " mention", is obeyed, neither party will doubt the pro- priety of admitting any person applying for communion, if in other respects he is eligible; if it is acknowledged that it oiK/ht io be obeyed, there is no occasion for us to deliver an opinion, for Mr. Hall tells us that baptism has a " prior claim" to attention. He adds, " they urge the conduct of the apostles, thoup^h it is not only suificiently accounted for on our principles, but it is such as those very principles would in their circumstances have absolutely compelled us to adopt." (p. 63.) This argument has occurred before, and M-e have already replied to it ; at present, therefore, we shall only observe, that if in the apostles' days Mr. Hall must have refused the unbaptised, but now ought to receive them, the authority and permanency of baptism is gone. For if it is not the will of Christ that his church should support an institution of his appointment, in its primitive station, the inevitable inference is, that it was either tem- porary, or so connected with the peculiar circumstances of the primitive times, that afterwards it became of no practical consequence. Again, " They [the apostles] baptised, because they were commanded to do so ; they administered the Lord's supper, because our Saviour enjoined it on his disciples ; and both these duties were prescribed to the societies they formed, because the nature and obligation of each were equally and perfectly understood T (p. 64.) Now, without inquiring whether the reason why " both these duties were prescribed" ^is, or is not correct, it is manifest, that when the " nature and obligation of each [of these duties] were 96 equally and perfectly understood" the Lord's supper was never administered to the unhaptised, on Mr. Hall's own confession. But how could a perfect understanding of their " nature," place them in such an order, if there was not some reason why that order ought to be followed I The stress which he lays on the "nature and obligation" of these injunctions being " equally and perfectly under- stood," will avail him nothing. For when we have to discuss the subject with a person who denies the perpetuity of baptism, our object is to prove that it was the design of the Lord that it should be continued in his church ; but whenever the perpetuity of both ordinances is acknow- ledged, their *' nature" is suflBeiently understood to settle the present controversy ; for who will aflSrm, that' accord- ing to the New Testament, baptism was not designed to precede the Lord's supper? Even on Mr. Hall's principles, should any one come forward and say, he admitted the perpetuity of these institutions, but though unbaptised, yet he requested communion, such an application ought to be rejected. Still it may be said, there is no "necessary connection", no " immutable relation" between the two ordinances. Here we would ask, what is meant by the terras! Positive precepts depend on the will of the legislator ; if that is expressed with sufficient clearness, so that according to the " natural order of the christian sacraments," baptism has the " prior claim"; there is enough to guide the mind of the man who with simplicity of heart inquires what is the will of Christ, and to form in his view a "connection" so " necessary", a " relation" so " immutable", that he dares not break it. The only remaining supposition is, that though there may be some connection between the two institutions, yet they are not " so related to each other" — that he whom we deem not baptised, is, ipso facto, or from that circum- stance alone, disqualified for an attendance at the Lord's 97 table", (p. 61.) We then inevitably come to this conclu- sion— the revealed will of Christ is, thatboth the ordinances ought to be obeyed in the order in which they are laid down, but conformity to what is confessed to be his will is not necessary ! A proposition whicl), if proved, would we grant, settle the controversy ; but it would be, by dis- annulling- the authority of the rule of our conduct; and would dissolve all obligation to make the New Testament our guide, eitlier in the i'ormation or constitution of the christian church. We therefore take the consequence which is pressed upon us. " He whom we deem unbaptised is, from that circumstance alone, disqualified for an attendance at the Lord's table", with those who deem him unbaptised. For they cannot admit him, without acknowledging-, that bap- tism is now become a matter of great indifference ; and that whatever have been its claims, they have so far vanished, that the original importance of the institution is gone, its authority is virtually repealed ; and what was once a leading article in the constitution of the christian church, is no more of any consequence. But, " in the pre- sent case it is sufficient for us to know, that whatever God has thought fit to enjoin, must be a matter of duty ; and it little becomes weak and finite mortals to limit its sphere, or explain away its obligation, by refined and subtle dis- tinctions". Cp. G3.) We are also informed, that "it surely requires but little attention to perceive that it is one thing to tolerate, and another to sanction ; that to affirm that each of the positive rites of religion ought to be attended to ; and that they are so related, that a mistake respecting one, instantly dis- qualifies for another, are not the same propositions". Cp. 61.) " An attention to this distinction," we are told " would have incredibly shortened the present debate." We have no objection to view the subject in any light which will at once enable us to see its proper issue. We H 98 shall have occasion in our progress to notice at large our author's reasoning respecting ''toleration"; for the present we shall only ask, if we " tolerate" the admission of those who are acknowledged to be unbaptised, do we not ** sanction" their communion in that character ? The question thus practically comes to a single point — can Mr. Hall prove that we act according to the New Testa- ment rule and examples, in forming a church of unhaptised members ? We say to him as we say to the Paedobaptists, produce a single instance from the word of God in proof of your theory, and we will be silent. It has been said by some persons, that, "as the apostolic commission was only the law of baptism, nothing respecting a subsequent institution can be inferred from it."* But the commission itself asserts the contrary. It directed the Apostles to teach the baptised, "to observe all things whatsoever" the Lord ** commanded" them ; thus it was not, " only the law of baptism", it was more ; it was a law enjoining those who by baptism had " put on Christ," to obey all his commands. Whether that ordinance, here called " a subsequent institution,^^ was among the number, we leave the common sense of men to determine. But if the apostolic commission continues as a rule, the only ques- tion which, in any instance, we have to settle is, whether " the law of baptism," has been obeyed, or not? for the Lord's supper is "a subsequent in5. 68.) But to return : Mr. Fuller's argument was drawn from passages he had quoted, in which allusions were made to baptism and the Lord's supper in a manner which shewed the two ordinances were connected together in the mind of the S.pos{\e, (Fuller a Letter,]}. 17 — 19. Baptism a term ofCom.p. 27,28.) In his " Reply," p. 65, Mr. Hall says, " It is freely admitted that these, and perhaps other texts which might be adduced, afford examples of an allusion to the two ordinances at the same time, whence we may be certain that they were 2)resent together in the mind of the writer. But whoever considers the laws of association, must be aware how trivial a circumstance is sufficient to unite together in the mind, ideas of objects among which no essential relation exists." Again, "In fact the warmest advocates of our practice would feel no sort of difficulty in adopting the same style, in an epistle to a church which consisted ow/y of baptists : consequently nothing more can be inferred than that the societies which St. Paul addressed were universally of that description : a fact we have already fully conceded. The only light in which it bears on the subject is that which makes it perfectly coincide with the 101 argument fiom primitive precedent, the futility of which has been sufficiently demonstrated." ('y?. Go, 60.) Here let us observe what our author has conceded. It is allowed that the societies whom Paul addressed were universally Baf'I'ISTS, and that in his address, the two ordinances tvere jjresent iogelher in his mind: nay farther, that Mr. 11. and the advocates of his practice, would feel no sort of difficulty in addressing- " a church which consisted oyihj of Baptists' in the same style. So that it is only in a Baptist church the expressions of the Apostle can be used with propriety, Mr. Hall himself beins^ judge! As an apology for the Apostles' alluding to the two ordi-. nances at the same time, we are told that " whoever con- siders the laws of association, must be aware how trivial a circumstance is sufficient to unite together in the mind, ideas of objects among which no essential relation subsists." We are told, that "the mere coincidence of time and place is abundantly sufficient for that purpose." The iorce of this reasoning is, that because a vagrant imagi- nation will connect things which have no relation, but which are united by a " trivial circumstance" therefore, so might the Apostle ; and for this reason we should not suppose that there was any "essential relation" subsisting between the two ordinances, though we are certain that " they were present together" in his mind. But it is not enough to assert, that a " trivial circum- stance" is sufficient to unite together in the mind the ideas of objects not related to each other ; it should be proved that in the present instance it was only a " trivial circum- stance" that did associate the two ordinances in the view of the Apostle. It should be /?rot'gc? that notwithstanding the prominency given to baptism in the commission, and in the practice of the christian church — notwithstanding, on our author's own confession, it was then essential, not only to communion but to salvation, yet it was connected with the Lords supper in the Apostle's mind by so slight 102 a bond, that it is by this time completely broken. But be the connection what it may, baptism appears the first in the order here before us ; and how can it be accounted for, that both the facts and allusions place it thus, unless it was commanded to be administered first. So that whatever is the weight of this argument, it lies entirely on one side ; and wherever a church is formed on Mr. Hall's principles, the apostolic style of address must be dis- continued. The next attack is made on the " Unities,'' enumerated in Eph. iv. 4, 5, 6 ; particularly the " one baptism", ver. *. Mr. Hall calls this text " irrelevant to the present argu- ment." (/?. 66.) His reasons are, •' since no mention is made of the Lord's supper, it cannot be intended to con- firm, or illustrate, the relation which baptism bears to that ordinance." The Apostle was speaking of the unities by which the church was distinguished — and one of these was baptism. But, according to the description before us, how could a person become a member of the church who was not baptised ? and how could he who was not a member be admitted to the Lord's supper ? Besides, if there is any force in Mr. Hall's reasoning, it is against himself : for, "since no mention is made of the Lord's supper," it is not included among the unities necessary to be found in the christian church ; but bap- tism, from the distinct mention made of it, is necessary. A christian society may bear all the marks here given of a christian church, though it may for a time be deprived of the Lord's supper ; but it does not answer the descrip- tion of the Apostle if it has not baptism. Again, "it is very uncertain [says Mr. Hall] whether the Apostle refers to water baptism, or to the baptism of the spirit; but admitting that he intends the latter, [per- haps a misprint for the former] he asserts no more than we firmly believe, that there are not two or more valid baptisms under the christian dispensation, but one only ; 103 a deviation from which, either with respect to the subject, or the mode, reduces it to a nullity" (p. G6, 67.) Here it is conceded that there is one — only one valid baptism : and virtually, that Pcedohaptism is a nullity. He adds, " Lastly, since his [the Apostle's] avowed object in insisting upon these unities, was to persuade his reader to maintain inviolate that unity of spirit to which they were all subservient, it is extremely unreasonable to adduce this passage in defence of a practice which in- volves its subversion." (p. 67.) So then, the effect which the Apostle had in view, and to which all the enumerated unities tvere subservient, will be better produced by leav- ing one of them out ! Pleading for one of these unities, and we hope, not improperly pleading for that unity both of faith and of spirit with the primitive church, which arises from making it our model both as to sentiment and practice, is subverting that unity ! But the system of the Apostle and that of our author are widely different. Paul expressly mentions baptism and omits the Lord's supper. Mr. Hall excludes baptism as unnecessary to unity, and would have us turn our atten- tion peculiarly to the latter institute. The Apostle says distinctly, the primitive church had " one baptisni"; our author, it is true, allows that there are not "two or more valid baptisms, but one only"; yet the whole of his labour is to bring in those who, on his own acknowledgment, have had NO baptism! The two theories are so far asunder, that it is impossible to adopt both. To close the whole, the authority of a " learned com- mentator,"— "the celebrated Whitby, a Pfpdobaptist, and an Episcopalian," is brought against us ; and a pas- sage is quoted with great approbatiuu ; the principal part of which is, "that no error in judgment, or mistake in practice, which doth not tend to deprive a christian of the spirit of Christ, can separate him from the church of Christ." '* Thus it is, that this learned commentator con- 104 ceives himself to have discovered a demonslration of t!ie principles we are abettiug-, in the very words our opponents urge for their overthrow." Q).67, 6S.) It is no part of our intention to undervalueDr. Whitby. Though many of the Baptists do not on certain points agree with this " learned commentator," yet he shall have full credit for all his excellencies. Let us, however, hear his own statement. In the paraphrase which he gi\es of the chapter previous to the Annotations, he says, on verse the 5th, "There is also to us christians one Lord, one faith in this Lord, one baptism bi/ which we do i>t'oJess this faith." Dr. Whitby s evident design in the Anno- tations from which Mr. Hall has copied the ** demonstra- tion" of his principles, is to oppose the arguments of the Catholics, and to prove that " no church governors, jointly or severally, can be by God appointed to be the living judges, or the infallible directors of onr faith." But in urging this conclusion, did he intend to deny his own Paraphrase? If not, how did christians come into the church ? Dr. Whitby tells us — there is " one faith in this Lord, and one baptism hy which we do profess this faith." In this instance Dr. W. pleaols the cause which we advo- cate ; and his inferences are denied by no protestant of any party. Our controversy is not, on Avhat grounds a person should be separated from the church of Christ, who has become a member of that body according to the New Testament plan, but on what grounds he ought to be admitted. SECTION III. 3Ir. Hairs reasoning concerning positive law and pro- hibition, examined. Mr. Hall next professes to inquire whether the two institutions of the Gospel " are connected by positive law. Is there a single word in the New Testament which, fairly interpreted, can be regarded as a proJiibifion of the ad- mission of unbaptised persons to the Lord's supper?" (p. 69.) Here Mr. Hall attempts to take advantage of an expression in ' Baptism a Term of Communion,' p. 32, which is, " the New Testament does not prohibit the un- baptised from receiving the Lord's supper, because no circumstance arose which rendered such prohibition neces- sary," We stated three things ; Mr. Hall chooses to omit one, and blend the other two together. If the reader will refer to the above-mentioned treatise, he will find that the sentence quoted by Mr. Hall, was preceded by this obser- vation, "surely it will not be pleaded, that a command is not binding, except there be a prohibition of its opposite. If a direction be plainly delivered, and those who hear it conceive that they clearly understand it, that ought to be enough." Here an appeal is made to positive law ; and a prohibition was stated not to be necessary, whenever the sense of that positive la\^ was clearly perceived. For however men may differ in their interpretation of the command which enjoins baptism, there is not a pretence for saying, that those who admit its authority and per- petuity, need such a prohibition. Who that allows the permanency of the institution, will say, it ought not to be obeyed ? — and if it ought to be obeyed, who will venture to assert, that it should be placed after communion. I .106 Mr. Hall thinks proper to say, that the only reason assigned " for an express prohibition not being then necessary, is, that the ordinance of baptism was perfectly understood:" and he then adds, "surely if this be the only reason, the necessity must return when that reason ceases ; or in other words, there will be a necessity for an express prohibition of the unbaptised whenever the precept re- specting baptism ceases to be understood." {p. 71.) If the reader will attend to a few plain observations, he will easily be able to judge of Mr. Hall's correctness in examining a statement, or in reasoning upon it. lie says the ONLY reason which we assigned why a prohibition was not necessary, was that the ordinance was perfectly understood. If any person will examine what we did say, he will find ; — 1st. It was supposed, that a prohibition would not be deemed necessary to give force to a clear command. 2dly. It was observed, " That the New Testa- ment does not prohibit the unbaptised from receiving the Lord's supper, because no circumstance arose which ren- dered such prohibition necessary'' It does not appear that any of the principles on which the moderns have advocated the cause of mixed communion had been heard of. There was no need to prohibit what no one thought of doing. Had there been a tendency to our author's mode of reasoning in the minds of any member of the primitive church, the subject might have excited attention. It might have been said, extreme cases sometimes occur; is there no reservation made in their favour I But either none of this kind occurred, or if they did occur, we have no evidence that the rule was dispensed with on their account. It was then added, 3dly. "It is acknoicledyed, that the law of baptism was clearly understood, and that the unbaptised could not be received into the church. There was therefore no reason why a prohibitory decla- ration should exist." (Baptism a term of Com. p. 32.) Here let it be remarked, our observation was founded 107 on what Mr. Hall had acknowledged. He therefore could not, with any share of reason, demand a prohibition of what he himself confessed could not exist. Leaving the reader to judge how far our author is cor- rect in his statement, let us follow him in his argument, " if this be the only reason, the necessity must return when that reason ceases ;" &c. (p. 71.) AVhether it was the anil/ reason can easily be determined ; but if no other had been assigned, the inspired writers did not anticipate arguments which, in future ages, might be urged against what was understood and practised in their time. They deemed it quite sufllcieut to shew how they reasoned, how they acted, and to rectify those who in their day were attempting to introduce innovations. Those who in after times choose to act a different part, are left to do as they please. As Bishop Burnet says, (speaking of the alterations which the Papists made in the Lord's supper) " All reasoning upon this head is an arguing against the institution ; as if Christ and his apostles had not well enough considered it ; but that twelve hundred years after them, a consequence should be observed that till then had not been thought of, which made it reasonable to alter the manner of it." {Expos, of the Articles, Art. 30.) If we are required to bring " an express prohibition of the unbaptised," a Paedobaptist may demand " an express prohibition" of infant baptism; a Churchman, of kneeling at the Lord's supper ; and a Roman Catholic, of all the ceremonies of his church. Should it be said, these prac- tices are inconsistent with the obvious intention of many parts of the New Testament, we reply, and so is the ad- mission of the unbaptised. But, on our author's mode of reasoning, even a "prohi- bition" might with the greatest ease be set aside. It could not be more plainly prohibited that the christian convert should partake of the Lord's supper before he was bap- tised, than it is co7/M«an. 74.) He says, — " conceiving with Mr. K. that immersion on a profession of faith is a necessary introduction to the 120 christian profession, they uniformly abstain from a parti- cipation in sacred offices with the members of other socie- ties, and without pretending to judge of their final state, treat them on EVERY occasion as men, whose religious pretensions are doubtful," It is not necessary tliat we should defend the " Scottish Baptists," — they are able to explain the reasons of their conduct, and they do not want the necessary talent, if they choose to come forward in their own defence. But one thing- is manifest, the picture drawn by Mr. Hall is not a likeness : their own writings contradict what he thinks proper to say respecting them. Mr. M" Lean,* reciting- an objection urged against his sentiments, says, " By making baptism a term of commu- nion, you say, * it becomes an occasion of dividing the real children of God.' AVe freely admit that there are multitudes of God's dear children unenlightened as to baj)- tism ; many of them have not attended to the subject ; and others, through the influence of custom and false instruc- tion, have seriously taken up with infant sprinkling in its stead. — We are grieved to think that so many of the 7'eal children of God are living in the neglect of the very first ordinance of the Gospel." &c. — Mr. William Braid- wood, one of the present pastois of the church with which 3Ir. Mc Lean was connected, says, " for my own part, I am not only persuaded that the Lord's people are in national churches, and in the church of Rome itself ^ but that they are all one in the faith of Jesus, and in sub- jection to his will. — They know in some essential leading particulars, the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom; they love one a,nother for the truth's sake ; and they bring forth the fruits of righteousness. "f Other testimonies might be * In A Letter, intitlcd — Baptism must precede Church Fellowship ; Works,vol iii.p.261,262.— See also his Sermons, published by W. Jones, p 99, 100, where the same sentiment occurs. t Letters on a variety of subjects, relating chiefly to Christian Fellow- ship and Church Order. — 12mo. p. 8. 121 added, but these it is presumed are sufficient. The reader can now judge of the accuracy of Mr. Ilall's assertion re- specting the " Scottish Baptists." But why, it may be asked, shoukl he attempt to involve them in this controversy? — Have they been intermeddling, and by this means brought down upon themselves the praise of consistency for their " stern process of intoler- ance ?" Nothing- of this nature is laid to their charge. But the reason is manifest : Mr. Hall intends by their means to inflict a deeper censure on us in England : and while they and we in some points are not agreed, his de- sign is to involve us all in one common condemnation. After the sentence on which the above remarks are made, our author adds, " whoever considers the import of the following passage, will be surprised Mr. Kinghorn should feel any hesitation in adopting the same system." Let us now observe his progress : he begins by an inaccurate quotation ; " it is granted" says our author, that bap- tism is not expressly inculcated as a preparative to the Lord's supper, neither is it inculcated as a preparative to any thing else. But the first act of christian obedience is of course succeeded by the rest; and the required acknow- ledgment of our faith in Christ, in tlie nature of things, ought to precede the enjoyment of the privileges which arise from faith." — Whoever examines the work from which the above passage is quoted, will find that instead of the words ' to any thing else,' which appear in Mr. Hall's work, the original terms are " to any other duty or privilege separately considered." A difference sufficiently great, both in words and in meaning, to demand ob- servation. la commenting on this short paragraph, he says, the author " designs to assert, that iSuch is the prescribed order of religious actions, — that unless that ordinance [baptism] is first attended to, every other performance is invalid; that whatever it may be in itself, not occupying its proper L 122 place, it cannot lay claim to the character of a duty"! Again, " He expressly tells us, that every other duty 7nust succeed, that is, come after baptism, which with re- spect to the Pc'Bdobaptists is impossible on our principles, whence it necessarily follows, that while they retain their sentiments, they are disqualified for the performance of dutijy Again, " The assertion he makes is in the form of a general proposition, which is, that all the duties of Christianity must succeed baptism in contradiction to going before it." (/?. 82, 83.) Our author adds, "thus much for \}i\Q duties ; let us next hear what he says of the pi'ivileffes of Christianity. Baptism, which he styles * the required acknowledgment of our faith in Christ,' he tells us ' ought to precede the enjoyment of the privileges which arise from faith'. They ought to precede, but do they in fact?* Is it his opinion that all other sects, as a punishment for their disobedience in one particular, are left destitute of the spiritual i7nmu- nities which flow from faith ? If it is not, it behoves him to reflect on the presumption of such a mode of speaking, which is little less than arraigning the wisdom of the great head of the church, who dispenses his favours in a manner so different from thatwhich he ventures to prescribe.'\p.S4.) Of this dilemma, the first part does not follow from any thing that I have said ; — and, I thank God, the impious suggestion insinuated in the second part, never enter- ed my mind. We have given Mr. Hall's interpretation at the above length, that the reader may compare it with the original paragraph in ' Baptism a term of Communion,' and see whether such consequences can be drawn from it with the most distant shadow of fairness. If, in addition to this opportunity of comparison, he should refer to the other parts of the work, and observe the general objects in view • What he means by the expression, as it is here printed, "They ought to precede," &c. we know not ; but perhaps it was a grammatical oversight. : 123 in the connection of tlie above quoted passage, we should scarcely think it necessary to add a single word, either of explanation or defence. But as some readers might deem such conduct an acknowledgment of Mr. Hall's interpre- tation, we will add few short observations. Seldom has a more complete misrepresentation been exhibited to public view, or more pains taken to extract a meaning which was never thought of. The subject of discussion was NOT, in any part of it, whether those who dift'ered from us on the subject of baptism were, or were not disqualified, either for the performance of duties or the enjoyment of privileges, in the sense in which Mr. Hall chooses to apply these words; but it so clearly related to the order, and connection of the external, visible, duties and privileges of the christian church, that it is surprising either a defence or explanation should be necessary. Ac- cording to Mr. Hall's interpretation, we must have asserted that persons could not be christians if they were not bap- tised ; but it is most manifest, that whenever the point in debate was stated, such an assertion was never either made or supposed ; and sojne other reason must be found for Mr. Hall's remarks, different from the current of any sen- timents which we expressed on the subject. To apply the terms " duty" and " privilege" in the manner he has done, might in his view answer a purpose; but for such a misapplication he alone is answerable. If the reader turns to our former treatise, he will find that while that part of the subject which is now under review was in hand, on the very next page, there is a reply to an objection which some might make, as if we made baptism of more importance than it really is, and in which he will find, not a contradiction, as Mr, Hall thinks proper to assert (jo. 88), but an explanation of the author's sentiments ; and in fact a condensed recital of what be had stated in different parts of the work, " that the bap- tists frequently declare, that they do not consider baptism 1-24 necessary to salvation ; they do not depend upon it for their acceptance before God ; nor do they view any as fit subjects for that ordinance, who are not previously be- lievers in Christ, and justified in the sight of God by their faith." {Baptism a term of Com. p. 31.) After such a declaration, made for the express purpose of obviating misapprehension, it is presumed no farther refutation of Mr. Hall's charges can be necessary. The case of Cornelius is alleged, and Peter's admitting him and his household to all the "privileges of the church," is represented as decisive in the present controversy. Mr. Hall says, *' the principle on which he [Peter] justified his conduct is plainly this, that when it is once ascertained that an individual is the object of divine acceptance, it would be impious to withhold from him any religious pri- vilege." {p. 86, 87.) — Is not this the very principle on which we admit those, who we believe are objects of divine acceptance to baptism, if they have not been bap- tised before? " Until it be shewn that this was not the principle on which he rested his defence, or that the prac- tice of strict communion is consistent with it, we shall feel ourselves compelled to discard with just detestation, a system of action which St. Peter contemplated with hor- ror, as ivithsianding God. (p. 87.) But what did Peter command ? — That they should be baptised."^ AVould he not have been guilty of withstanding God if he had omitted this command ? Would he have admitted them to the communion of the church without baptism ? When it is proved, either that Peter did admit the house of Cornelius to the Lord's supper before they were baptised, or would have done so had they required it, it will be time enough to reconsider this " principle." In the mean while, we shall follow the order which Peter directed them to adopt, lest we should " ivithstand God" by neglecting to place one of the ordinances of his Gospel in its designed station, and to regard it for its proper end. — Here also we ( 125 and Mr. Hall are completely at issue. In addition to all that he has said before, he tells us at the close of his pa- ragraph, that the practice of strict communion " is replete with worse consequences, and is far more offensive to God, than that corruption of a christian ordinance to which it is opposed." (p. 87.) This explicit declaration clearly shews the tendency of Mr. Hall's sentiments. It seems then, that " a corruption" of a christian ordinance is a less evil than an adherence to the plan on which it was practised by inspired Apostles ! — That though infant baptism is not according to the New Testament, but is confessed to be a " nullity," yet the adoption of the plan laid down in the apostolic writings is "far more offensive to God than the neglect of it ; and that those who act upon it must be content to bear the blame of being " sin- ners above all men that dwell in Jerusalem." No wonder that Paedobaptists are so attached to Mr. Hall, they never met with such a baptist before ! " This nev) doctrine," adds Mr. Hall, "that the tenure by which religious privileges are held, is appropriated to the members of ojie inconsiderable sect, must strike the serious reader with astonishment. Are we in reality the only persons ivho possess an interest in the common sal- vation T' (p.S7.) Who has said we are? From our author's own book it is manifest that we have not said this : we have said the contrary. This " new doctrine" is a discovery of Mr. Hall's. The " doctrine" that baptism precedes in order and design, and ought to precede in fact the participation of the visible privileges of the christian church, is so far from being new, that it is as old as the apostolic commission, and has been so commonly and so universally admitted, that it is the opposite doctrine held by Mr. Hall that is new, and has been hitherto main- tained by only an " inconsiderable" proportion of the christian community. But the grand stroke which is to finish the business, is 1-iG reserved to the last part of the chapter, and terminates what Mr. Hall tells us, comprehends " all that is essential in the controversy," He asserts, that he has " examined with the utmost care and impartiality whatever our author has advanced in order to prove the necessary connection betwixt the two positive ordinances under consideration." {p. 92,) He had thought proper to say before, " we should be extremely concerned at imposing a false con- struction on his words ;" (/». 82.) Let it be observed how these excellent and amiable qualities are displayed. The charge now under review is this — " let it also be seriously considered, whether the positions we have been examining, do not coincide with the doctrine of the opus operatum, the opprobrium of the Romish church"! (/). 88.) These " positions," so pregnant with danger, Mr. Hall has discovered lurking in the sentence — " the first act of christian obedience is of course succeeded by the rest ; and the required acknowledgment of our faith in Christ, in the nature of things, ought to precede the enjoyment of the privileges which arise from faith"! {Baptism a term of Com. p. 30.) Who would ever have suspected that here lay concealed the " o/>ms operatum, the opprobrium of the Romish church"^ We have already shewn that Mr. Hall's interpretation of the passage is not only contrary to the meaning we intended to convey, but contrary to the con- nection, and to the statements of the nature of the question at issue ; so that it is not necessary to go over that ground again. Indeed the whole tenor of the argument in ' Bap- tism a term of Communion,' proceeded on principles so different from those which Mr, Hall professes to extract from the sentence now under his criticism, that it is no easy matter honourably to account for his misre- presentations. In an examiner in the Inquisition, whose business it is to exert his acuteness in finding heresy where none was intended, and where by the fair construction of words 127 none existed, such an accusation would have been in pro- per character : but in any other person, the display of such a talent does more injury to its possessor, than to him against >vhom it is exercised. Whenever violent statements, not called for by any suHicient occasion, are exhibited, there must be some reason for it. Without pretending to say what that reason is in all its parts, one thing is evident ; that notwithstanding the scorn with which Mr. Hall affects to treat the passages he has criticised, had they not been a serious obstacle in the way of his system, he never would have adopted the hazardous plan of pretending that they contained the opus operatum of popery ! — But it was needful to dispose of them ; we see how this was attempted, and the success of the experiment we leave to the decision of others. SECTION V. A Review of the general subject : — the amount of Mr. HalFs argument : — the advantage he gives to the Pado- haptists: — recapitulation of what has been conceded and proved : — consequences resulting from our author's system. We have thus endeavoured to follow Mr. Hall through his three first chapters. A.s the discussion has been long, a review may be of use, and can be given in few words. Of the great principle laid down in ' Baptism a term of 128 Communion,' to which the reader's attention was distinctly and repeatedly directed as the turning point of a great part of the present controversy, Mr. Hall has said nothing. — Of the nature and constitution of the christian church, according to the New Testament directions and examples, to which also the reader's attention was directed as a sub- jectof consequence in this inquiry, he has said nothing.— Of the scriptural design of baptism, on which it was distinctly stated the hinge of one material part of the debate turned, he has said nothing. — Of the purpose answered by baptism (except when an expression seems to have escaped him in a moment of forgetfulness) all that he has said amounts to nothing. — A.nd his distortions, both of the statements and of the reasoning which he thought fit to notice, are worse than NOTHING. What- ever was the strength of the argument in the two first chapters of ' Baptism a term of Communion,' it remains vnimpaired. Mr. Hall has busied himself by criticising incorrect quotations ; by torturing expressions to obtain from them a sense which they were never intended to convey; and by caricaturing statements in order that he might make them hideous : but he has avoided the prin- cipal parts of the argument which were directed against his system, and (whatever were his reasons) has left them in all their force ! "Whatever can be called argument in Mr. Hall's book proceeds on the practical absurdity of supposing that the unbaptised can, in that character, have a right to com- munion. The discussion occasioned by tliis controversy must always come to the inquiry; which is to give way — the old system of apostolic times, or the neiv system of Mr. Hall? No reasoning can prove the two plans to be alike drawn from the word of God ; and in vain we pretend to make it our rule, if we neglect the plan there laid down in precept and illustrated by examples, and adopt another not contained in it. 129 Every one must, have observed how eagerly Paidobap- tists have pleaded Mr. Hall's authority in their own favour. They see that lie has lowered the practical obligation to ol)ey the law of baptism, and Ihns made a concession Aviiicli they can improve. They clearly perceive that if we are vidnerable on that side, tliey gain an advantage which nothing else could give them. Pa;dobaptists who think baptism (as they view it) is of any importance, must hiiigh at the inconsistency of tiiose who would introduce into the church persons who are declared to be unhajilised ; and say, see what these Baptists are driven to concede ! With all their ^eal about a divine institution — all their appeals to primitive Christianity — and all their boast of "overwhelming evidence," so conscious are they that their system is of no practical consequence, that they will admit those who have had no baptism at all ! Mr, Hall has conckded that in the apostolic church baptism iras a term of conjinunion — uas a term of profes- sion,— that the Apostle Paul did allude to the two christian ordinances, so that they were both together in his mind, — that his expressions were correct, as they were addressed to a society which consisted only of Baj)tisls, — and that there is a " natural order" in the christian institutions. It has also been proved that this " order" appears, first in the apostolic commission; next in the apostolic conduct; that nothing can reverse this "order"; that every view which we can take of tlie design of baptism, according to the New Testament statements, shews ns, that it natu- rally preceded the Lord's supper; — and that no church can receive a person who is unbaptised, according to the rule of the New Testament. Since then, on the one hand it has been granted, and on the other j^roverf, that both the command and design of baptism shew " the natural order of the christian sacra- ments", was this " order" the effect of accident, or of design ? None will say that it was the effect of accident ; M 130 and if it was the result of design, what right have we to alter an established, and designed order ? If then we had no farther information, than that in this order the commission of our Lord placed his own institu- tions, and in this order the Apostles constantly adniinis- tered them, we ought to follow it ; or else, it should be proved that there was wo design in the arrangement — that our Lord intended that, in succeeding times, men might first become members of his church and remember his death and then profess their faith in him by their baptism, or pursue a different course as accident might lead them. It should be proved that the Apostles didnci on this plan, or would have acted upon it in circumstances like ours, and then we will allow that the question is at rest ; but till this is done, it will be impossible to give a satisfactory reason for not keeping the ordinances as they were deli- vered to us. The order used in the administration of Ihe Lord's supper, first breaking and distributing the bread, and then handing round to the communicants the wine, stands on evidence precisely of the same kind with that which is now under consideration ; and Mr. Hall might change this order, and plead with as much reason, for any alteration that he might wish to introduce, as for ad- ministering it to persons professedly unbaptised. If the New Testament was intended to be a ride, and an inspired rule, it is binding in its obligation. But do we obey its injunctions if we adopt a line of conduct directly contrary to all the directions and examples which this inspired rule exhibits I Here, then, we take our station, and we contend that the plan of requiring baptism previous to communion, is justified both by the natural interpretation of the commission delivered by the Lord, and by the whole weight of apostolic example. If in following such authority we go astray, we are misled by inspired teachers ; infallible guides have guided us wrongly : and our duty is to take care lest we follow 131 Christ and the Apostles too exactly : the rule which they have given us is not sufficient ; tor where it appears the most precise, we shall err if we adopt it ! On this plan it is in vain to look to the Neio Testament for the pattern of the christian church : the nearer we conform to it, the farther we shall be from truth ; and our error will arise from imagining that we are bound to place the institutions of tlic Lord in the order in which he himself had arranged them. If it can be proved that this order is erroneous, let it be done ; but if tiiis cannot be effected, let us re- member, that we are far more likely to err by deviating" from inspired precedents, or practically setting aside a divine command, than by submitting- our weak and often Mandering" reasonings to that plain rule, which was laid down by him, " in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." But then it is said, here is a " new case": if so, either this "case" must be adjudged by the oW rule, or it requires a new rule. If no such rule can be found, we have no authority to make one ; and the case must be decided by the law and precedents which are already recorded. If the " new case" is to set aside obedience to an express direction, we make the New Testament like the statute books of the realm, which contain laws that are obsolete, and which it would be a shame to enforce. We shall now proceed to examine some of Mr. Hall's observations and reasonings on other parts of this contro- versy. This however we intend to do with brevity. Many of them are mere misrepresentations ; many have nothing \o do with the subject before us ; but none which we con- ceive to be of vital consequence shall be passed over. CHAPTER V. On dispensing with a christian ordinance. The chapter concerning " the charge of dispensing with a christian ordinance", is marked with peculiar infelicities. It is not more distinguished by the gentler features of the christian character than those which preceded it ; it is not superior in its reasoning, or in that fairness which first ascertains the sense and bearing of an opponent's argument, and then tries its strength; nor is it reniarivable fur the accuracy of its quotations, of which there may be occasion to adduce instances. Air, Hall seizes an opportunity of finding fault with me for saying, that I apprehended the expression ' dispensing power' was suggested by a circumstance in English His- tory, when Charles II. granted Dissenters an indulgence beyond the then existing law. He accuses me of falling into an error, and is surprised tl»at I should not know that the doctrine of dispensation was familiar to preceding ages. (p. 96.) If on this point I had been in an error, it would have been of no consequence to the debate ; it was a matter of opinion ; it occurred in an illustration which I gave of my own view of the sense of the expression in question ; if it was a mistake, the argument would still have remained where it was before, and the conjecture that had been hazarded, would have been thrown aside among thousands more of the same kind. But an attentive reader will observe that I said nothing respecting the '' doctrine of dispensation." I knew the Popes had claimed it, and Mr. Hall is correct in stating 1.33 that tliey assumed a power of this nature to a great ex- tent. Tlie "error" at wliicli be pretencl;i lo be stirprised, is an " error" of liis own. Tliat wliicli was stated was, what appeared to he the occasion which brought the ex- pression " dispensing- power" into common currency. Tiiough Mr. Hall thinks prober lo find faidt, he does not shew that I was wrong, by proving that tlie expression was in common use he/ore the period mentioned. After it had been brought forward in a marked manner in par- liament, it became familiar, especially to those who were interested in the discussions then in debate. It was there- fore often recited in the detail of events which concerned the Dissenters, and was circulated through the general body. By this means, as a well known phrase, it came into use in theohigical controversy, and has been employed by Mr. Booth and others in the present inquiry. 1 shall now leave it with the reader to judge how far I was justified in stating ivhat I did, and in stating it as I did : namely, that " the expression 'dispensing power' — was suggested, I apprehend, by a circumstance in Englisii History," {Bap. a term of Com. p, 90.) Unwilling either to equivocate, or to encourage equivo- cation under the shelter of ambiguous language, an expla- nation was given, and we stated ivhat, in our view was exercising a dispensing power, and what was not. The reader will find it in p. 90, 91, of our former treatise, but he will neither iind it, nor any reference to it, in Mr. Hall's Reply, but on the contrary a repetition of his own remark, that this argument owed its force to the "equivocal use of terms." (j). 100.) In strict justice, therefore, this part of his book might be passed over. But as he has thought fit to bring this part of the discus- sion forward again, a few observations may not be deemed unnecessary. He says, the exercise of a dispensing power "always implies a known and conscious departure from the law." He who claims such a power, " asserts a 134 right to deviate from the letter of legal enactments." (p. 97.) Hence our author denies that he lays claim to a dispensing power. *• So remote," he says, " is our prac- tice from implying the claim of superiority to law, that it is in our view, the necessary result of obedience to that comprehensive precept, ' receive ye one another even as Christ has received you to the glory of the Father'." He then adds, •' if the practice of toleration is admitted at all, it must have for its object some supposed deviation from truth, or failure of duty ; and as there is no transgression where there is no law, and every such deviation must be opposed to a rule of action, if the forbearance exercised towards it is assuming a dispensing power, the accusation equally lies against all parties, except such as insist upon an absolute uniformity." (]). 100.) Comparing these passages together, it necessarily fol- lows, that he who dispenses with a law, and he who toler- ates those who have not fulfilled " a duty of perpetual obligation", (p. 98,) are, to say the least, in very similar circumstances. In both cases it is admitted that there is a law, that the law is in force, that the law is not obeyed, and that he whose deficiency of obedience is acknowledged — is notwithstanding received, and placed in precisely the same situation as if he had obeyed it. The facts are the same in both cases ; and if, according to Mr. Hall, wo ought not to claim the power of cUspenslnc/ with the law, we can yet go quite as far, by toleratimj those who do not obey it. But since he pleads for a toleration of such ex- tent, that an acknowledged positive command can be passed by, as if it was either of no force or of no use, we ask, what precept enjoins, and what example warrants a toleration of this kind I Or, if we admit analogies, where can our author find a single instance, in which any direct injunction of Christ was omitted, for the purpose of open- ing a door to those who otherwise would not enter ? The importance of New Testament toleration we fully admit. 135 and would not knowingly narrow the system on which the Apostles acted ; but it has not yet been proved, that either their instructions, or their example, authorise us in break- insi-down the precepts which were raised by the authority of the head of the church. But says Mr. Hall, " we contend that the law is in our favour" (p. 98.) If so, it is both needless and delusive to plead for the unbaptised on the ground of toleration ; for that term supposes that there is a known and acknow- ledged deficiency in their conduct, contrary to the meaning of some existing- law ; but if there is a posterior luw which allows their admission, they should be introduced on the broad basis of law ; the paragraph containing the law should be read at the church-meeting on their being pro- posed, and entrance demanded for them on its authority. Where, however, is this law to be found. -* It was evidently not the intention of the original law to admit the unbap- tised, nor was this considered to be its meaning, when it was " perfectly HUiderstood." We ask then, what subse- quent Act of Toleration has passed into a law for the relief of those who do not obey the primitive statute ; and when did such an Act receive the Royal Assent ? Our author brings forward the supposed authority of a "comprehensive precept — receive ye one another, even as Christ received you to the glory of the Father." But this precept, by our author s own confession, was addressed to persons already in the church, and not to those who had not been admitted. How then can this " comprehensive precept" include those who were not comprehended in it? Our author talks about forbearance : an excellence of a distinguished class, which we wish to cultivate, to all the extent recorded or required in the New Testament. But what is the forbearance enjoined in that volume ? Is it foroearing to require what Christ required by positive ap- pointment I If it is, where is this forbearance com- manded ? Let one instance of the kind be produced, 136 and the system may then be carried to an inlerminnhle extent. If no snch specimen can be found, and no law requiring such a disregard of a previously existing statute can be discovered, the forbearance required in the New Testament cannot be urged in opposition to our practice ; for of all the faults which were the subjects of reproof, we never find the primitive church rebuked for standing fast, and holding the traditions which tjjey had been taught whether by word or apostolic epistle, (2 Thess. ii. 15,) Our author says, "in every controversy, the medium of proof by which a disputed point is attempted to be dis- proved, should contain something distinct from the posi- tion itself, or no progress is made." (^j. 102.) This is granted : and had he attended to his own renmrk, the dis- cussion would have been in a more advanced state. Had he canvassed the first leading principle presented to his notice, that according to the New Testament baptism was intended to be a mark of connection with the christian church — had he shewn us what was the desif/n of tliat ordinance — had he investigated the constitutional prin- ciples of a christian church according to the scriptures — to all which his attention was directed; there would have been mediums of proof brought forward, which might have been applied to the present discussion : but he thought proper to take a different course. "Near akin to this is the charge of " sanciioning" a corruption of a sacred ordinance." (/?. 103.) By the tenor of this sentence and the inverted commas before and after the word sanctioning , the reader will suppose Mr. Hall is quoting something from our treatise. But from what part? — no reference to the page is given, nor indeed any hint whereby the place can be discovered. If the reader takes Mr. Hall's word for it, he may go on without anj^ further trouble ; but if he wishes to see how the supposed quotation stands, and of what words it is composed, be- sides that one, (" sanctioning") which Mr. Hall has U7 marked, ho must take considerable pains to obtain satis- faction. In time he will be convinced that no such pas- safife as tliat Nvhich Mr. Hall professes to quote exisls! Where he obtained it we know not. The participle, sanctioning, we believe is never used except in quoting; our author's own words {see Baj^tism a term, ^c. p. 5G): the verb to sanction, is used a few times ; but in no in- stance that we can find, luive we laid down such a propo- sition as Mr. II. has brought forward, and of course we need not support it.* The succeeding' parac^raph brings forward another pas- sage, which Mr. Hall thinks tit to inform his reader, "is marked in Italics, and delivered with the solemnity of an oracle" — and — " is characterised hy the same spirit of extravagance.'" Here we are on safer ground, the page is referred to ; but the reader will find two errors in the quotation ! Our words were, " the supposition itself, that toleration and forbearance will justify us in allowing an omission of a law of Christ in his church, operates as a repeal of that law ; and introduces a rule of action which would generally be deemed unreasonable." {Baptism a term of Communion, p. 53.) In the next paragraph Mr. Hall says " he illustrates his assertion by referring to the legal qualification re- quired in a candidate for a seat in Parliament." {Reply p. 105, lOG.) If the reader examines for himself, he will find that it is another " assertion" which is illustrated in the passage referred to ; we therefore dismiss Mr. Hall's observation on this illustration without farther notice. * Wheu we have no reference we are left to conjecture ; in Baptism a term of Communion, p. Ci, it is said, "The Protestants and Protestant Dissenters refuse to unite with Roman Catholics and the Establishment, because in so doinsr, they v.ould sanction what they believe are corrupt appendages to the law of tiie Saviour. The strict Baptist refuses to admit those whom he considers as unbaptised, because in so doing he would sanction the omission of an express part of the law itself." Could this be what Mr. Hall intended to quote ? If so, it contains no such proposition as he addnces : bnt we have had instances of a similar mistake before. N 138 But as he returns to the former proposition, which he says is "untenable', we will attend briefl\ to his objec- tions. He attempts to set the Apostle Paul in opposition to our statement; and could he succeed, we should have a more formidable opponent to deal with than any who has yet appeared. But the Apostle has not supported Mr. Hall's theory, nor is the passage quoted to his point. His meaning is — the Apostle censured the backbitings, v/hisperings, swellings, tumults, in the Corinthian church ; — here was an omission of a law of Christ ; — yet the Apostle did not iutinmte "an intention to exclude'' the offenders — therefore, on the principle which we had laid down, Mr. Hall says, "he was guilty of repealing the com- mands of God." (p. 107.) Now, it is granted that backbitings and other evils did exist ; and it is granted also, that those who were guilty of them did omit a part of the law of Christ ; but they were evils which the Apostle was labouring to rectify, and which he was determined should not continue. Before the existence of such evils becomes a parallel case to the admission of the unbaptised, these backbiters, whisperers, &c. should be admitted in that character : they must be supposed to have said, that the terms of communion which some people pleaded for, weie fcir too strict ; that they were not convinced by any thing they had heard that backbiting was a crime ; and that they wished to come to the Lord's table notwithstanding they indulged themselves in this gratification. It must be supposed also, that the liberal Corinthians received them on that ground, and that they were so attached to the system of mixed com- munion, that they declared backbiting and whispering, &c. were no bar to communion. This supposition is necessary, or the case of the lamented imperfections of these Corinthians will not apply as a reason why a known law of Christ should be set aside in his church. Nor is it correct that the Apostle did not give the slightest 139 intimation of an intention to " exclude" them. His wish was to reduce them to repentance ; hence he intreated them to consider their ways ; he expressed his fears that they would be found such as he would not, and that God would humble him among them, by bringing to light the evil tempers and evil conduct of those who he once hoped were better characters. But he was coming the third time — the afl'air should be investigated — in the mouth of two or three witnesses should every word be established ; and he gave the oifenders solemn warning by saying, " I told you before, and foretell you as if 1 were present the second time ; and being absent, now I write to them which heretofore have sinned, and to all other, that if I come again I icill not spare. (See 2 Cor. xii. 20, 21. and xiii. 1, 2.) Such a threatening clearly intimated, that those who did not repent might expect from the Apostle a discipline, of which their exclusion from communion would be the smallest part. The proposition which Mr. Hall criticises, and which be says is full of mistakes, is not only plain in its appli- cation to the case before us, but it is true ; what he has said about it is merely a perversion of its obvious and intended meaning. View the proposition in its re- spective parts ; — it supposes that Jesus Christ has given us laws for the regulation of his church at large ; it sup- poses also that the plea of toleration and forbearance was urged by some as a reason why one of these kiws should be omitted. If in consequence of such a plea that law ivas omitted, and the church which acted ou this plan received members who neither had obeyed that law, nor ever intended to do so ; they then pursued exactly the same course as if the law was virtually repealed : and their making toleration and forbearance reasons why they omitted the law, was a practical declaration that such reasons were, in their view, sufficient to suspend its ope- ration. How then can it be denied, that such reasoning, 140 as far as it had iafiuence, would eventualhj operate as a repeal of the laivl It was in fact saying, Jesus Christ, it is true, did enact such a law, but the state of things was in his time dift'eront from what it is now ; we have ma- turely considered the point, and have concluded, that obedience to the law ought not now to be required. Here the law of Christ is omitted by a deliberate act, and in consequence of reasoning which it is supposed will justify it. Whenever this is the case, as it must be in every instance in which Baptists plead for the introduction of persons professedly unbaptised, the law of baptism, as a law given for the regulation of his church, is treated as if it was actually repealed, and placed in the same situa- tion as if the Lord himself had declared, that though bap- tism was once essential to communion, it is now necessary no longer. After this explanation, which is nothing more than calling the reader's attention to the terms and evident meaning of the proposition, it will not be necessary to refute what Mr. Hall calls a " 7)iistake," namely, " By affirming that to endure under any circumstances the omis- sion of a rule of action, is to repeal it, he has reduced the very conception of toleration to an impossibility." (^/>. 108.) If Mr. H. means that this sentence expresses the sense of our proposition, it is a " niistale" of his own. He thinks the errors and evils of the Corinthians exhibit such a proof of toleration as admits of no reply. But there is no similarity between Paul's conduct towards the Corinthians, and the admission of communion with the unbaptised. Mr. Hall pleads for the admission of those Avho de7iy that baptism is obligatory, or who have no other baptism than that which he denominates a nullify : and he would say, admit them into the church notwithstanding this, and even though you never expect to see them change either their opinion or their practice. The Apostle Paul did not plead for the admission of those who denied that 141 tliev ought to be sober, just, and temperate ; but wlieu they shewed, by displaying^ their evil passions, that they vere not what he expected, he lamented over them and reproved them. But, says Mr. Hall, these evils did "not prevent his forbearance". How he forbore with them we have already seen : whilst absent he wrote an epistle, in which he warned and exhorted them ; but he told them, that he intended to visit them, and that when he was pre- iiont he would not spare. AVould Mr. Hall advise the ministers of mixed churches to adopt such language ; and if they did, what would be the consequence? The cases which he attempts to identil'y have no similarity. The Apostles would judge whether the profession of faith made by those who offered themselves for baptism, was, or was not suflicient, and whether the fruits which they brought forth were, or were not meet for repentance. When churches were formed, and left to act on the prin- ciples which the Apostles had laid down, the ministers and members of which they were composed, would natu- rally determine whether the candidates for fellowship had a just claim on their attention ; and they would equally judge, whether their conduct in after life did, or did not tjupport that claim. But then it should be remembered, that they were admitted into the church on the ground, that they were ready to obey the laws of Christ; not on the avowed principle, that though some of these laws not only were not obeyed, but were woi intended to be obeyed, still they might be received with as much cordiality as if Ihcy had obeyed them all. Yet this is the principle which 3Ir. Hall would have us to adopt; and he thinks it strange that we will not acknowledge that this was Paul's prin- ciple of forbearance with the Corinthians ! Mr, Hall says, (jj. 110.) " the rrouTov -^ivbog, the radical fallacy of the whole proceeding, consists in confounding our interpretation of the law, however just, with the law itself: in affirming of the first whatever is true of the last; 142 and o^ subverting under that pretext the right of private judgment" The first part of this sentence is explained by Mr. Hall himself in the following- words ; " tlie inter- pretation of a rule is, to him who adopts it, equally binding with the rule itself, because every one must act on his own responsibility". He then, who deliberately thinks, that the only conclusion deducible from the law of baptism is, that it ought to precede communion, must on Mr. Hall's own concession, require baptism before the reception of the Lord's supper. Thus far we agree. Our author pro- ceeds— "but he has no authority whatever to bind it on the conscience of his brother, and to treat him who re- ceives it not, as though he were at issue with the legis- lator." Had he stopped here we should have said, thus far also we coincide : we address the reasons which weigh with us, both to the understandings and consciences of men. We are conscious we ought to go no farther, nor have we any right to use any oilier means " to bind" tlie consciences of others, than exhibiting what binds our own : and as to our conduct towards those who do not atrree with us in our views, we allow that we ought not to treat them harshly ; we hope we do not : — we believe that many of them are good men, though we think them mis- taken. But it is added — " it is this presmiqoluous claim of infallibilitg, this assumption of the prerogalive of Christ, this disposition to identify ourselves icith him, and to place our conclusions^n a footing with his man- dates, that is the secret spring of all that intolerance ■which has so long bewitched the world with her sorceries, from the elevation of papal Rome, where she thunders and lightens from the Vatican, down to Baptist Socie- ties, where she v/hispers feebly from the dust"! (7^. 110, 111 .) Here we cannot help asking, what does this mean i "This presumptuous claim of infallibility"! What "claim' is that; and who makes it? If this "claim" is ascribed to those who maintain that the New Testament requires 143 baptism to precede cominuuion, the only inference that we can draw is, that according- to our author's mode of reasoning, though such persons may ihink, they must neither speak their opinion, nor act upon it. For if they unite together as a church on tiieir own principles, and declare, this we believe to he according to the law of CJifist, and we do not think proper to break it by admit- ting the unbaptised, they are open to all the violent charges which are here urged against them. They are, however, furnished with a reply in Mr. Hall's own words ; " whe- ther it be true or not, that we are commanded to act thus, such is our opinion; and icllh this persuasion ive are not at libertij to act in a different manner." (p. 116.) Besides, the charge may be retorted ; if Mr. Hall could form his church on his own principles, would he not think it right to do so? If he did, would not the terms of communion with his church be, the admission, that the unbaptised have a right of access to the Lord's table ? — and if so, would not he "■ bind" his " interpreta- tion" on the conscience of his brethren ; since many of those who did not think him correct, could not join with him? In forming his own church on this plan, he would act on what he conceived was the will of Christ ; and what do his opponents do more? But the absurdity of such charges is their best refutation. As to the contemp- tuous language in which Baptist Societies are spoken of, may God preserve all who.4:;ompose the7n from treating the meanest of their christian brethren in such a manner ! CHAPTER VI. Mr. Hall's misrepresentations of the argu- ment RESPECTING THE GROUND OF DISSENT EXPOSED. The first thin^ that should be done in any controversy is to understand what the argument of an opponent is. If this plain position is granted, we need not say much in reply to Mr. Hall's fifth chapter. The stale trick of making bad syllogisms, and attempt- ing to pass them off as containing the arguments of another party, which occupies the first part of this chapter, is not worthy of notice ; and the point of the reasoning which a churchman is supposed to use against the patron of mixed communion, in chapter viii. of Baptism a term of Commu- nion, Mr. Hall has not thought proper to meet. The argument in that chapter is, that the Baptists have a ground of their own, distinct from that held in common with other nonconformists, and which by a clear and brief argument, justifies their dissent from the Esta- blishment, in consequence of the view they take of the natui-e of a christian church, and of the description which the New Testament gives of its members : but that on the plan adopted in the Establishment, a class of mem- bers is systematically introduced into the church of a description so different from that in the sacred volume, as to form a body of a distinct nature. According to the doctrine of the Establishment, infants are made members of the church in their baptism ; and except in extreme cases, 145 remain such all tlieir days. According to the New Tes- tament, those who became members of the church, first believed, were baptised on the profession of their faith, and then were added to the church. The strength of the arguments urged by the Baptist against the Churchman, it was observed, consisted in the directions of Christ, the examples of the Apostles, and the precedents set before us by the Apostolic church in the New Testament. It was stated, that however a churchman might be per- plexed by arguments derived from such sources, yet if he discovered that his opponent wf uld admit to communion those who had never been baptised, he might retort, that this was taking a liberty with the injunctions of Jesus Christ which he never thought of doing. That he did not OMIT or practically disannul the authority of ANY injunc- tion, which he believed was oi! perpetual obligation; that if the precept respecting forbearance is pleaded on the one side, and if this is suflicient to set aside the operation of an ordinance still in force, the spirit of the injunction respecting 'order , will surely justify the other party in pleading for the practices of the Establishment respecting those points on which nothing is commanded in scripture. The churchman's defence proceeds on the principle, that the acknowledged omission of one of the ordinances of Christ, is a greater departure from the New Tes- tament, than the appointment of those rites and cere- monies, which he does not pretend to place on the ground of divine command, but which were adopted by his church at the Reformation, and are still continued, as desirable (in his view) for the preservation of decency and order. To the general design of this reasoning nothing like a reply is attempted. Particular expressions are found fault with ; some strange mistakes are made ; and other things are so misrepresented, that, from Mr. Hall's state- ments, no person, however acute, would ever conceive what had been urged by his opponent. o 14() He thinks proper to state the case thus ; " if the mem- bers of the Establishment inquire on what ground do you receive a Paedobaptist, we reply, because we are expressly commanded to receive him. But if we inquire in our turn, why do you kneel at the Sacrament, is it affirmed that they will reply in the same manner?" (p. 117.) We are expressly comjitanded to receive a Padohap- lisl — says Mr. Hall : let him prove this point, and we grant, the debate will be ended. But will he inform us whether we are expressly commanded to receive him as baptised or as w/jbaptised ? If the former, then the con- troversy concerning baptism is finished ; for it would be absurd to assert that believers ought to be immersed in the name of Christ, (which Mr. Hall does in express terms, J). J)8) if we are commanded to receive a person who has only been sprinkled in his infancy as a baptised person. If he says we are expressly commanded to receive a Ptedo- baptist as Mwbaptised, the Churchman would reply, and wiih good reason, this is DISSENTING indeed, not only from our establishment, but from the primitive church itself, and even from that pattern which our opponents acknow- ledge was drawn by the finger of the Lord ! He would add, that he acknowledged iico ordinances in the church ; but was not inclined to adopt a system which supposed that Christ began with two, but designed to end with one : and if the principles of the New Testament were of so lax and compliant a nature, that they would not support in its authority an institution whicli the Lord himself had ap- pointed, it would be impossible to prove that they would condemn him for conforming to ceremonies, the end of which was not the subversion of any divine institution, but only the promotion of peace and unity. " But", he says, *' do the Pasdobaptists when they pro- pose to commune with us, expect us to join with them in their practice of infant baptism ?" (p. 121.) We grant they do not; but if we agree to their proposal, they justly 147 infer, either thai we allow the validily of their baptism, which Mr. Hall tells us is a " nullity"-^ or that baptism is not required in the New Testament previous to commu- nion ; or else, that the law which once required it, is become a dead letter, and no longer claims the observance that was formerly its due. None of these concessions are we prepared to make. Separate from the opposition which one of them makes to our sentiments as Baptists, we esteem tlieir spirit and tendency suhversive of those principles by which tlie cause of primitive Christianity is to be promoted. Occasion has occurred before of noticing Mr. Hall's accuracy ; and this chapter presents us with additional specimens. Observe what he lays to our charge : — " He largely insists on the superiority of his system to ours, on account of its being at a greater remove from the prin- ciples of the established church. ' The strict Baptist ' he observes, * can set the churchman at defiance', &c." {Reply, p. 121, 122.) Here the reference is to Baptism a term of Communion, p. 127. What we did state the reader will find in p. 127, 128, of our former work. He will there see, that the position laid down was, that we as Baptists had a visible and forcible reason (arising from our views of baptism) for leaving the Establishment, in addition to the motives operating on dissenters in general. For on the supposition that we were right in our ideas of that ordinance, the inference was clear, that the establish- ed church is wrong in its constitution ; its members are of a different class from those who were members of the primitive church, and they are united together in a way different from that appointed by the Saviour. This one consideration, it was observed, settled the great question in the controversy, which is, whether the established church, taken iu the aggregate amount, is not of a dif- ferent character from that body which is in the New Testament called the church of Christ J And it was 148 farther observed, that (though we allow there are other grounds of dissent, yet) nothing had such a tendency to give the established church that peculiarity of character which compelled our dissent, as its baptism. Such is the general outline of the statement ; it is misrepresented ; it is caricatured ; half a sentence is taken, without regard to the meaning of the whole, for the purpose of making what was said appear ridiculous ; but it is not disproved. Besides, Mr. Hall reasons from his own inaccurate quotation : with the formality of inverted commas, and a reference to the page, he professes to copy the words *' the strict Baptist can set the Churchman at defiance," &c. (Reply, p. 122) ; but if the reader turns to the passage, he will find that we did not say " the s^nc^ Bap- tist":— that our argument, in that paragraph, did not suppose either that " the Baptist" was strict or not strict. He was brought forward merely in the character of a Baptist defending himself on his own ground : and on that ground which is common to Baptists at large. But it was observed in the succeeding paragraph, that if he quitted his strong hold of scripture direction and pre- cedent, he would then lay himself open to objections for want of consistency ; that the Churchman would be in a difficulty when he met him as a Baptist, but would press him with a powerful objection if he found him a disciple of Mr. Hall. A quotation from Bishop Plall's * Apologie against Brownists,' is next the object of our opponent's censure, and the good Prelate's mode of reasoning is called 'futile.' (p. 127.) He clearly saw that a society without baptism (such a society as might be formed on Mr. Hall's theory), was not a church with a constitution according to the New Testament; but, he contended, that a christian assembly which did possess the baptism required in the Gospel, was a church, though it might contain many errors, and needed to be reformed : and he defended 149 tlie Reformation, not because the church of Rome was, in his view, not a church, but because it was a corrupt church, and it was therefore necessary to leave that society for the sake of greater conformity to the primitive standard. "This," he says, " is our case, we did not make a neio church, but mended an old". {Apol.p. 533. §G.) Other authorities from the same treatise might be quoted, were it needful, in illustration of the opinion which the Bishop expressed in the short passage which we had copied. The Bishop was opposing Ptedobaptist " Separatists," who objected to the church of England because of its constitution. Some of this number had fled to Amsterdam on account of ihe persecution at home, and a party of Baptists rose up among them who had not long before urged, that neither the " Separatists" nor the Establishment had the true con- stitution of a christian church, because the baptism of both these bodies was (to use Mr. Hall's term) " a nullity ." The last mentioned opinion had been boldly brought for- ward by Mr. John Smyth, in a pamphlet entitled, " The character of the Beast, or the false constitution of the Church discovered;' printed in 1609. The Bishop had this pamphlet before him, and quoted it in his 'Apologie'; but as it was another pamphlet written by Padohaptists that was the more immediate object of his attack, he did not enter into a detailed opposition to Mr. Smyth's argu- ments. Against the Pcedohaptists he urged, that they could not deny the constitution of the Established church, since they allowed the validity of its baptism ; but if they still insisted that the Establishment had no constitution, he told them that they " must goe forward to Anabap- tisme." This is the outline of his reasoning on this part of the subject ; and Avhen it is viewed in connection with the state of the controversy at that time, it will instantly appear, that nothing Mr. Hall has said, amounts to the shadow of a proof, that the good Bishop was wrong. Our author deduces an inference from the Bishop's words, 150 which doubtless in his esteei«sis valid, but it needs no refutation, because it has no concern with the Bishop's proposition.* In addition to the attack made on us throush the medium of Bishop Hall, we are led back to some obser- vations on the Reformation, which occur in Baptism a term of Communion, p. 55, Mr. Hall thinks fit to say, " Not satisfied with asserting that our principles militate against tlie lawfulness of Dissent, he maintains that they are inconsistent with protestantism, and that by neces- sary consequence they convict Luthf.R and his associates oi schism and rehellion.'^Repli/, jj. 127.) He then quotes a passage from the page above mentioned ; he leaves out a part of the paragraph which is of consequence to the conclusion that was drawn from the whole ; begins his reasoning from these imperfect premises, and ends by professing that he has "detected" — "palpable sophistry." Mr. Hall calls our argument " nugatory," (^p. 129.) but in the first place, let us inquire what it is. It was stated that " if we had no right to refuse" the communion of good men " with us, till they conform to what we are con- vinced is the will of Christ, we had no right to leave them because they deviated from his will. The ground in both cases is the same. Once take away the obligation of con- forming to the will of Christ, and the REFORMATION is * Mr. Hall says, — "if the reasoDiiig extolled by Mr. K. is just, he [Bishop Hall] was guilty of schism, in refusing to unite at one and tlie same time with Heretics, Roman Catholics, and DissentcTs!" (p.\27.) Such an inference has no connection with the Bishop's sentiments. With his views, he would have said to each of the above parties, 1 leave you, not because your churches have no constitutional principles ; for you all maintain the christian ordinance of baptism, and you each have a portion of truth : but I leave you because you maintain so many tenets which I think wrong, that I cannot hold communion with you ; and since I leave you for the tnith''s sake, I fear not tlie charge of schism. But if he had found among any of the above parties some who opposed the necessity .of baptism, it is fairly to be inferred from his own statements, that he would have told ^/lem, that if ever he and they had commuuiou on earth, they must firit be initiated into the church by baptism. , 1.51 declared a iimcliievous insurrection, in which all protest- ants are included in aiding and abetting a needless and schisraatical project." So far Mr. Hall quotes the worcfs we had used, " But," it is added, " if it be right to leave good men, because they have left Jesus Christ, it is Tight not to admit them till they come to his terms. If this be not granted, we have to place the Reformation from popery, and our dissent from the Establishment of our country, on a basis entirely new ; and a basis very difterent from the obligation to obey the will of Christ, as expressed in the New Testament; for the law of the Lord, and the practice of the primitive church, are not to be accounted our staftdard." {Bap. a termof Com. p, %jb.) The latter part o: the above paragraph, which Mr, Hall omits, furnishes a suflicient reply to his reasonings. Ne- glecting the evident design of the preceding argument, he says, " if he means that we are obliged to demand in others a perfect compliance with his will, as a term of communion, he takes away the possibility of toleration." {Reply, J). l'^8, 129.) Here our author changes the pro- position. If we ask for no more than that men come to Christ's tervis, are his terms liable to this charge? Is there any intolerance in requiring nothing more than the terms which the Lord required ? If, according to the supposition which Mr. Hall has made, Luther admitted a Roman Catholic to communion in his church, did he not admit him on this very ground, that he believed the Ca- tholic acceded to Christ's terms? If our author should admit a churchman, would it not be on the same suppo- sition? But here the question returns, what are these terms ? When Christ made them known to his disciples, baptism was one of them ; let it be shewn that this part of his appointment is abrogated, and we will agitate the present controversy no longer. Mr. Hall concludes his chapter by professing to retort the argument, and to remind us " of the striking resem- 152 , blance between the system of strict coiiimuttiun, and that which is maintained by the churches of England and Rome." (Reply, p. 131.) His first charge is the old re- proach about " the assumption of iufallibity." If he is correct, we and the members of the church of Rome claim it alike. But if that church had never done more than we do, the debates concerning her infallibility would never have existed. The principles on which every Baptist church we ever knew, avowedly act, are so diametrically opposite to those of the Catholic community, that it is surprising- any man should say, they are the same. The Roman Catholic church maintains that the scripture is not the sole rule of faith — that men have not the right to judge of it for themselves, and form their religious opinions and practice from it ; for this (the Catholics assert) is a most pernicious maxim ; it destroys all obedience to the church which we are commanded to hear,* Wheie will Mr. Hall find any protestants oi any party who will adopt such maxims as these? What can he mean by the insinuation — " when not sa- tisfied with this (i, e. confining baptism to adults) he insists upon forcing Jus interpretation on the conscience of his brother, and treats him precisely in the same man- ner as though he avowedly contradicted Christ and his Apostles, what is this but an assumption of infallibity ?" {p. 132.) Is our saying to those whom Mr. Hall acknow- ledges are not baptised — we believe that the church should be composed only of persons who are baptised, and for this reason we cannot receive you— forcing our interpre- tation on their consciences ! When we say to them we think you mistaken, — do we treat them precisely as though they avoivedly contradicted Christ and his Apostles I Who- ever is capable of believing this, is beyond the reach of the conviction of evidence. There is not a church in tlie * Vide Con. et Decret. Concil. Trident, sessio iv. Mannock's Poor Man's Controversy, p. 17 — 22. Printed permissu mpmomm. 153 world where any species of order of any kind is preserved, that may not be accused in the same way. Simihir to this is the charge of " imposing their oicn sense of scripture on their hrethreii (p. 133.). It seems then, we must either bear the reproach of " imposing" our " own sense of scripture" upon others, or we must have Mr. Hall's " sense of scripture" " imposed" upon us. We are not to act for ourselves while we leave others the full liberty of doing the same, without being" charged with the tyrannical assumption of popery ! " Both the church of Home, and the church of England," says Mr. Hall, " have devised terms of communion of their .. own, and rendered it necessary for the members to comply with innumerable things besides those which Christ has enjoined as requisite to salvation. The laxifulness and jxropriety of doing so, is the palmarium argumentum, the main pillar and support of strict communion"! {p. 135.) This is a new charge. Leaving the churches of England and Rome to answer for themselves, WE, who plead that baptism is requisite to communion, are charged with main- taining the Imofulness and propriety of devising terms of communion of our own. If so, it will be no difficult matter to find those who will avow the principle. We do not presume to know the extent of Mr. Hall's information, but as far as our own observation has reached, we can safely affirm, that we never met with a single instance in ■which any man, either in writing or conversation, acknow- ledged the " lawfulness and propriety" of *' devising terms of communion" , to be " the main pillar and support of strict communion." In the present controversy such a principle was never stated, nor has any thing been adduced, which was intended to sanction that idea. That this is the main pillar of our argument is so far from being true, that it is the opposite principle. which we consider as our support. That baptism was "devised" by the Lord himself — was a term of com- p 154 munion — and has been so regarded by nearly all the christian churches in the world, and throughout all ages, Mr. Hall has been compelled to allow. Because it was a term of Christ's devising', we maintain that we have no right to alter it; we therefore boldly retort the charge, and assert that it is Mr. Hall who contends for "the "law- fulness and propriety" of ** devising terms of communion" unknown to the church in its purest ages ; and if he fails io j)rove his right to make new terms, his cause is ruined. Could we conceive that we were justified in devising terms of " our own," we might be tempted to listen to what he has alleged. Yet even then we should pause, and inquire whether the plan formed by infinite wisdom, was not more likely to answer the ends of our great lawgiver, than any of our clevisings. We remember it is written, "there are many devices in a man's heai't, but the counsel of the Lord that shall stand. Prov. xix.21. We say in the words of Dr. Owen, " Herein' lies the safety of all believers and of all churches ; namely to keep themselves precisely to the first complete revelation of divine truth in the word of God, let men pretend what they will, and bluster while they please ; in an adherence to this principle we are safe ; and if we depart from it, we shall be hurried and carried about through immeasurable uncertainties into ruin."* Farther, " the church of England and the church of Rome", who are accused of having "devised terms of com- munion of their own," have also "rendered it necessary for the members to comply with innumerable things besides those which Christ has enjoined as requisite to salvation." If Mr. Hall means that these things were " enjoined" by Christ, but were not " enjoined as requisite to salvation," we ask for a list of them, that we may compare them with the present subject of debate, and see whether the authority * Expos, on the Hebrews, abridged by Dr. Williams, vol. iv. p. 401. 155 which "enjoined" one precept, will not elucidate the regard that is due to another. If he means that these "innumerable things" were not "enjoined" by Christ; then we reply, there is a great difference between mak- ing those things " terms of communion" which Christ never " enjoined," and making that rite " a term" which Christ " devised," which Christ " enjoined," which once was a term of communion, and which Mr. Hall confesses is still in force, and ought to be " restricted to believers." (Reply, p. 132.) We ask, then, when that term which Christ " devised," became a term which we " devised?" Our author ought to shew, that Jesus Christ abrogated the terms which he himself appointed, and that then we devised the same terms, and enforced them on the ground of " the lawful- ness and propriety" of devising terms of our own ! If he fails in this attempt his charge is unsupported. According to his representation, preserving an ordi- nance of Christ in its primitive situation, is " devising^ terms of our own : and following the example of the church in its purest days in our regard to an institution which the Lord " enjoined," is put on the same ground with an ad- herence to " innumerable things which he never enjoined ! But a farther exposure of so unfounded a statement, will probably be deemed needless. Every sober, reflecting mind will instantly see that the question is not — whether we have, or have not a right to devise terms of commu- nion of our own — but whether the terms which Jesus Christ devised do not still continue in force, A consider- able part of Mr. Hall's reasoning depends on the assump- tion, that we ought not to require obedience to a precept of Christ, as a term of communion, unless such obedience be requisite to salvation. So that on this plan, though the church is necessarily a visible body, and therefore requires visible institutions, yet we are not bound by those precepts which were given for the regulation of 156 the church, unless it can be proved that they are requi- site to salvation. Hence it follows that the directions of the Gospel are attended with so little authority, that a number of christians united as a church, have no right to say, these are the ordinances of the Lord, and there- fore we ought to keep them as they were delivered to us. If, however, Mr. Hall should succeed in esta- blishing his assumption, it will be difficult to say what innovation may not be established : for there is more evi- dence that the primitive churches were composed of members who were baptised, than there is of any other circumstance respecting their visible form and constitution : and if it is not needful for us in this instance to follow their example, and adopt their interpretation of the direc- tion of their Lord, a similar train of argument will prove that we may divest ourselves of all regard to their autho- rity in any thing else. Towards the close of the chapter, our author has thought fit to resort to violent representations — to repeat the com- parison of our system with the opus operatum of Popery — and to charge us with "faithfully" copying the "arro- gance'' of the Catholic church. Whatever his design may be in holding up his opponents in these dark colours, it ought to be remembered that if there is any truth in his statement, it equally applies to nearly the whole protestant church of every name and denomination. One of these attacks has been noticed already, and we promise to ex- amine the rest, when it is shewn that hard words and hard arguments are the same things. CHAPTER VTI. The pjedobaptists necessarily parties in the present controversy. Much offence has been taken with our former treatise, because it was there stated that Pcsdobaptists were par- ties in this controversy, and because some observations were made relative to the view which they would probably take of their situation were they admitted members of a Baptist church. Mr. Hall begins by descanting on the " majesty of truth," and the evils of falsehood, and cor- rupt suffrages : but after what we have been compelled to notice, it is rather surprising that he should say, " he who wishes to enlighten the human mind, will disdain to appeal to its prejudices, and will rather hazard the rejec- tion of his opinion, than press them as a necessary corollary from misconcejitions and mistakes" ! (p. 136.) — Our author's intention in these remarks is, however, sufficiently manifest. He repeats what he had asserted before, that Paedobap- tists are not parties, and that it only interests them in the case of those who may be desirous of communing with us. (p. 137.) But this is a very partial view of the sub- ject ; and had not Mr. Hall shewn how completely he could overlook the bearings of the inquiry, we should have been surprised at his observations. It is manifest that by far the majority of the Psedobap- tist churches were founded on the acknowledgment of various principles — one of which was, that baptism was requisite to communion, Some evidence of this position 158 was presented to the reader's notice in 'Baptism a term of Commuuiou'; more might be adduced were it needful. Pa?dobaptists who possess only a moderate share of acquaintance with their own history, know that it is fact; and whether they do, or do not agree with their venerable predecessors, they will not deny that it has been the general opinion in their churches, that those who were admitted to communion ought Jlrst to be baptised. On this ground we said that they were parties ; we repeat the assertion. All those who continue to maintain the senti- ments which have been hitherto generally believed among them, will allow that the principle laid down in the former treatise was common to them as well as to us, that baptism was a " visible evidence of connection with the christian church." If they declare themselves converts to Mr. Hall's system, and assert that baptism is not, a. term of communion, they will still be parties; they will not only oppose iis, but will become parties against us ; and by deviating from the body of their predecessors, they must then set themselves against their arguments ; they must place what they have hitherto held to be an institution of Christ on a new foot- ing ; they will, with Mr. Hall, practically lower the im- portance of what they have esteemed the rite of baptism, and prepare the way for its neglect ; and they will, with him, endeavour to produce a revolution in the christian world of an unexampled nature. These consequences are so obvious, that they are not to be put down by the ridi- cule which Mr, Hall attempts to throw upon them. Endeavouring to view the subject on all sides, on the ground hitherto acknowledged by both parties, we marked the natural and necessary consequences of Mr. Hall's sys- tem. In doing this, no candid Paedobaptist would mistake us, or think us surrendering our sentiments. It pleases Mr. Hall to say, " we should suppose him as tremblingly alive to the consistency of Paedobaptists, as Eli to the pre- servation of the ark. He adjures them by every thing they 159 tleem sacred not to forsake him in tlie conflict, reminding them that if they do so, they must abandon a multitude of positions which they have been accustomed to maintain against the Baptists (that is against himself), and be com- peMed to relinquish the field. He therefore exhorts them to be faithful unto death in the defence of error, and to take care that no arts, blandishments, or artifices, seduce them to concessions which would embarrass them in their ■warfare, and render the cause of infant baptism less tenable." {p. 138, 139.) Let the reader observe, here is no reference— no quotation — nothing but what Mr. Hall thinks fit to say, and to colour as he pleases. We ask, however, for no other indulgence, than that any reader of common sense and common candour would compare what our author has said with any paragraph we ever wrote, and then draw his own inference. What we said concerning the Paedobaptists occurs principally in two parts of our former treatise, and the end in view in each part was distinct. In the first, from \>. 21 — 24, our object was to illustrate and a[»ply a principle common both to Baptists and Paedobaptists ; — a principle which Mr. Hall has thought proper entirely to overlook. In the second refe- rence to the Paedobaptists, our object was to call their attention to the views which they ought to take of their own conduct if they sought communion with Baptists, and to ihe difficulties which they must encounter in justifying their own procedure, if they were thoroughly convinced that their own sentiments were right. This part of the discussion was in reply to the charge of bigotry which they urged against us, and was intended to shew, that unless they give up those views of baptism which hitherto they have generally retained (some of which are common to both parties, and some peculiar to themselves) it would be difficult for them to prove their consistency. {Baptisin a ierm of Com, p. 114—118.) In opposition to those observations, Mr, Hall gives us 160 the passasfe already quoted; which was obviously intended to make an impression so different from the fair interpre- tation of what we did say, that the mildest term that we can apply to it is, that it is altogether a misrepresentation. His defence of what he has asserted is in the same style of accuracy : he culls an expression here, and another there, without any regard to the design of the author, or the object of his reasoning ; and then gives us two pretended quotations, from p. 22 and 23 of Baptism a term of Com- munion, which are not copied with accuracy for two lines together. Among other misrepresentations, there is one of a sin- gular kind. Mr. Hall quotes one word, "degrading": he then connects it with an expression from the succeeding jyaragraph, which relates to a different view of the sub- ject; there he finds it said — "that a P^^dobaptist who refuses to commune with Baptists, because in so doing he tacitly allows himself to be considered as not so complete a disciple of Jesus as he thinks he is, acts a part which is justifiable and dignified." Part of this passage suits Mr. Hall's purpose : he connects " degrading" — with — " he is not so complete a disciple of Jesus as he thinks he is*'; and then he tells us that " the amount of this reasoning: is, that whenever a christian perceives that his brother entertains a less favourable opinion of his conduct in ang particular, than he himself does, he is bound to renounce his communion ; because in every such instance he must be considered as not so complete a disciple as he thinks he is, and to allow himself to be so considered is a meanness." {Reply, p. 142,) Not content with this, he adds, " and from hence another consequence infallibly results, that no two christians ought to continue in communion, between whom there subsists the smallest diversity of judgment respecting any point of practical religion ; for since each of them, supposing them sincere, must believe his own practice more agreeable to the will of Christ than his IGl brother's, that brother must be aware that he is considered as not so complete a disciple as he judges himself to be, to which it seems it is degrading to submit," {p. 143.) This recurs again in another form, and is represented as " a tine engine, truly, for dissolving every christian society into atoms :" {p. 144) — and repeating the expression that in "so doing he allows himself to be considered as not so com- plete a disciple as he thinks he is," Mr. Hall asserts in the next paragraph, that if this is a sufficient reason for a Paedobaptist's refusing to join with us, the consequence which he has deduced will follow. {Reply, p. 144.) As Mr. Hall imagines he has got hold of a general prin- ciple, which he can apply against us, what he has urged may be thought by some, to require consideration. The paragraph from which he has selected a short member of one sentence, appears to us a sufficient refutation of his inference. In the first part, it is said, "let them [the PaedobaptistsJ consider whether" their joining with Bap- tists is not acting in a manner altogether inconsistent with their views of the law of Christ. They agree to be received, in the characterof persons who have not fulfilled the will of their Lord, in the very point in which they believe they have fulfilled it" &c. {p. 115.) To this sen- tence the expression refers which Mr. Hall repeats, that the Paedobaptist allows himself " to be considered as not so complete a disciple as he thinks he is," and by this sentence its propriety is to be tried. Here the inquiry related to baptism as a positive ordinance, which, by the supposition, the Paedobaptist believed he had obeyed; the importance of which he was also, in this view of the subject, supposed to maintain, according to the opinion which has usually been supported among Paedobaptists. On this ground the difficulty was put with fairness. It involved one inquiry, and, properly speaking, it involved no more ; which was, what degree of regard a person ought to pay to those appointments which related to a visible connection Q 162 with the christian body, and by which the visible church was intended to be separated from the Avorld. Whoever thought the visible ordinances of the Lord were of im- portance, would necessarily feel reluctant in adopting any measure from which it must be inferred that he thought one of them of little consequence. A Paedobaptist (it Mas contended) was placed in this situation when he solicited admission amonjr those wh.o he knew considered him to be unbaptised. He must form a slight opinion of the ordinance of baptism on the plan which he himself thought right, or he would not agree to be received as an unbaptised person. If he adopted the broad ground, that baptism is not necessary to communion, it was observed, that a fresh train of consequences followed ; — these al.-io were traced under a separate head, and urged on the Paedobaptist for his consideration on his own principles. If any sober, intelligent man on either side of the question, will shew that we have unfairly stated the case between us and the Predobaptists, or unfairly pressed on them the difficulties which arise from their own system, the subject shall be reviewed. But we do not think it necessary to lengthen the discussion by defending our statement, since Mr. Hall has done nothing more than avoid the argument, and torture expressions to a meaning which they did not convey. If in the same spirit, an interpretation was given of many passages in the apostolic epistles, such as, "Now, I beseech you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same fhiny, and that there be ?io divisions among you; but that ye he perfectly joined toyether in the same mind and the samejudyment," (1 Cor. i. 10) with other texts of similar import, nothing would be easier than to draw a train of ridiculous consequences from them, and then to add our author's flourish, " a fine engine truly, for dis- solving every society into atoms, and for rendering thie 1G3 cliurcli of Christ the most proud, turbulent, and couten- lious of all human associations"! (p. 144.) He pretends to make out a contradiclio/i between two passages which occur in Baptism a term of Communion ; in one of which we had said that the Ptedobaptists " sa- crificed no principle"; and in the other, that if their con- duct was " connected with a sacrifice of principle, they will confess that it is indefensible." That we used these words is true ; but they were not used in relation to the same, but to different things. It suits Mr. Hall's pur- pose at certain times to talk about logic: surely he must know, that it is a rule in logic, that to make a contra- diction, it is necessary to assert that a proposition is true and false at the same time, in tlie same sense, and itt the same respect. CHAPTER Vlll. The scripture injunction respecting for- bearance EXAMINED. We are now arrived at that part of the discussion which relates to the scriptural directions respecting forbearance, particularly those which are found in the epistle to the Romans, ch. xiv ; the principles on which that chapter is explained and applied in 'Baptism a term of Communion,' Mr. Hall shews he dislikes, but whether he is successful in his attempts to disprove them, and to establish his own, we will now examine. A singular concession occurs towards the end of his seventh chapter, which materially affects his whole argument: he acknowledges, that "whatever is affirmed in any part of it [the New Testament], respecting the privilege of primitive believers, was asserted primarily of such only as were baptised, because there were no others originally in the church : all the reciprocal duties of christians were in the first instance enjoined on these ; among which we find precepts enforcing without a shadow of limitation, the duty of cultivating christian fellowship." (p. 184.) It seems then, that it cannot be concealed that the exhortation to receive those who were weak in the faith, ■was not to receive the unhaptised, as Mr. Hall would have us do ; but to receive those who were already bap- tised, for " there were no others originally in the church" So that the exhortation was not, receive into the church, those who were not then admitted ; for the persons whom the Roman believers were exhorted to receive, were. 165 Htcording lo our author's owTi confession, in the churclj. The question at that time was not, — how ought persons to enter the church according to the directions of the Lord? — hut how should we treat those who had entered it in the way which the Lord required ? Nor will any one doubt that such persons, though weak in the faith, should be the objects of great forbearance. But when this is granted, to all the extent that the New Testament requires, we are as far from Mr. Hall's conclusion as ever. There is then, on his own concession, no similarity in circumstances between the Jewish converts who were *' weak in faith" in the days of the Apostles, and those who at the present time are nnhaptised. Let us next inquire, whether the principle of the exhortation to receive Jewish converts at that time, will justify us in receiving to communion the unhaptised now. If the ground of the Apostle's exhortation is, receive these weak brethren, although they neglect an institution which Christ delivered, and which was designed to be universally observed in his church ; and let a desire to do them good and increase christian communion, induce you to give up in their favour what you believe was an appointment of the Lord ; — then we admit that the principle of mixed communion is established. But if the practices and sentiments of the Jewish weak brethren, which the Apostle exhorted the Gentile christians to tolerate, did not set aside any com- mand of Jesus Christ, but arose merely from their remain- ing attachment to abrogated rites, or to refinements on the law of Moses, which had never been divine appoint- ments ; then we contend that the case before the Apostles and the case of the unhaptised in any subsequent age, are so different in their nature, that the argument and ex- hortation of the Apostle, in Romans ch. xiv, cannot apply to both ; and that Mr. Hall must obtain evidence from some other quarter if ever he establishes his point. In Baptism a term of Communion we stated our view 106 of the debate between the Gentile and Jewish christian.s, and the principle on which the Apostl« grounded his cxliortation to forbearance : we then shewed that this principle did not apply to the cause now in hand. Mr. Hail thinks proper to call our "account" " egregiously partial" — "palpably designed to serve an hypothesis" — " a long and entangled dissertation" {p. 161) : and if be- stowing a few hard words upon it, is a sufiicient reply, the deed is done. He then subjoins an "account" of his own : and afterwards he returns to the charge, and says, " still he will reply, that his error, [the error of the Jewish convert] is of a different kind from that of the Pii^dobap- tists ; he is guilty of no omission of a revealed duty; while they set aside a positive institute of Christianity. It is by this distinction and this alone, that he attempts to evade the conclusion to which this example conducts us." Let the reader remark how Mr. Hall disposes of this distinc- tion. "There is nothing however in reason or in scripture, from which we can infer, that to omit a branch of duty not understood, is less an object of forbearance, than to maintain the obligation of abrogated rites. Let him assign, if he is able, a single reason why it is less criminal to add to, than to take away from the law of Christ, to receive an obsolete economy than to mistake the meaning of a New Testament institute. How Avill he demonstrate will- worship to be less offensive to God, than the involuntai'y neglect of a revealed precept ?" (/?. 165, 166.) Doubtless these will be thought by some persons, en- tangling requisitions: the reply, however, is easy, scripture has shewn, and fact has demonstrated, that attention to the ritual observances of the Jewish law, was compatible with obeying all that Christ had commanded ; but the scripture has given us no lyrecedent, by which the church is authorised to receive those to communion, who oppose any precept of universal obligation which the Lord has enjoined. 167 A direct atlack then follows: "the above distiiiclicn is uot only unfounded iu the nature of things; it is at variance with the reasoning of Paul on the subject. He enjoins the practice of forbearance on the ground of the conscie7itiousuess of the parties concerned, on the assump- tion not only of their general sincerity, but of their being equally actuated in the very particulars in which they differed by an unfeigned respect to the authority of Christ ; and as be urges the saute consideration as the ground on which the toleration of both parties rested, it must have included a something which was binding on the conscience of each, whatever was his private judgment of the points in debate. The Jew was as much bound to tolerate the Gentile, as the Gentile the Jew." After (juoting some verses from Rom.xiv. he adds, " now in the Judgment of the Jew, still attached to the Mosaic rites, he who made no distinction of meats, or of days, must Lave been considered as violating, or neglecting, a precept still in force, or the injunction to refrain from judging him, would have been devoid of meaning. He must have consequently been regarded by him, in precisely the same light in which our Pasdobaptist brethren are considered, that is, as violating, though not intentionally, a positive institute. Still St. Paul absolutely insists on the duty of forbearance," &c. {p. 166, 167.) As there is in this passage a show of argument, we will examine it. Mr, Hall says, "the above distinction is not only unfounded in the nature of things ; it is at variance with the reasoning of Paul on the subject." The reader will keep in mind that this " distinction," as stated by Mr. Hall was, that the error of the Jewish christian was of a " different kind from that of the Paedobaptists ; he is guilty of no omission of a revealed duty : while they set aside a positive institute of Christianity : and our author has asserted, that it is " by this distinction, and by this alone", that \ve have attempted " to evade the conclusion" 168 which he derives from the example under consideration. ** The above distinction" he tells us, " is — unfounded in the nature of things." Does Mr. Hall mean that the " nature of things" admits of no such distinction ; or, that it is not supported by fact 1 Which ever be his meaning, he will not find it easy to prove either of these positions. But since he gives us what he thinks is Paul's "reasoning" on the subject, this is open to examination. We are told that Paul " enjoins the practice of forbear- ance on the ground of tlie conscientiousness of the parties concerned, on the assumption not only of their general sincerity, but of their being equally actuated in the very particulars in which they differed, by an unfeigned respect to the authority of Christ." (p. 166.) That he enjoined forbearance, that he supposed both parties were conscien- tious, and that he wished to conciliate them on this ground is granted. But the peculiarities of each party were not binding on the other ; and this was the reason why both were exhorted to follow the dictates of their own consciences. The Gentile had no right to re- quire the Jew to adopt his law of liberty, for the Gospel did not command the Jew to change his food when he became a christian. So also, the Jew had no right to demand that the Gentile should conform to his habits; the Gospel had not required it; and the Apostles conti- nually resisted the encroachments which the Jews wished to make on the liberty of the Gentiles, because they knew it was contrary to the will of God. Mr. Hall himself had informed us, that the ** supreme legislator had repealed" the Mosaic dispensation ; that in this chapter " St. Paul was testifying, the Lord Jesus had shewn him that nothing was unclean of itself;" and before this time "Peter had proclaimed the vision by which he was instructed, that the distinction of clean and unclean was abolished." {p. 164, 165.) It therefore necessarily followed, that as there was no rule by which either party could bind the other to adopt 16f) hit practice, nolliiug remained but to leave his brother to obey the dictates of his own conscience; and if from ge- neral observation, they were satisfied with each other's integrity, they were then directed to practise mutual tol- eration. Now, if Mr. Hall can prove, that the principle on which the Apostle settled the difference between the Jewish and Gentile converts, applies to the case now before us ; if he can prove that Baptists, Paedobaptists, and those who are for no baptism at all, have the same authority from the Apostles, for persevering in their respective opinions, that the Jews and Gentiles had for continuing in their different modes of living : that the question whether we are to use any baptism or none, as little concerns the Kingdom of God, as that of meat and drink, we will instantly grant, that it ought to take its place among those things for which there is no binding, universal rule, but which must be left to the decision of private feelings, of prejudice, of taste, or of inclination. Our author adds, that since the Apostle " urges the same consideration as the ground on which the toleration of both parties rested, it must have included a something which was binding on the conscience of each, whatever was his private judgment of the points in debate." Sup- pose we admit this statement, that " something" was, that they had no right to require of their fellow christians a subjection to what Christ had not commanded; and in things which did not interfere with his commands, it was their duty to leave their brethren to act in the way most agreeable to their own feelings. "The Jew was as much bound to tolerate the Gentile, a$ the Gentile the Jew." We grant he was, for he could not bring forward a law which required the Gentile to adopt the manners of a Jew, and therefore must leave him to the dictates of his conscience. " Now in the judgment of the Jew, still attached to the Mosaic rites, he who made no distinction of meats or of days, must have been R 170 considered as violating or neglecting a precept still in force, or the injunction to refrain from judging liim, would have been devoid of meaning " Not at all, the "injunction" was plain ; it was, do not condemn the man you cannot convict. The christian church could not with consistency censure any of its members for not keeping the Jewish laiu : all that could be said concerning him was, " let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind." The A-postle tells the Jew in a variety of ways through the whole of this chapter, that the Mosaic law was not in force ; — that the Gentiles were not under obligation to submit to it ; — that if he felt it binding on his conscience, he had no right, by the authority of Christ, to impose it it on a Gentile belieA'er ; — that he had no business to judge another man's servant : " to his own master he stand eth or falleth ; yea, he shall he holden up, for God is able to make him stand." A. gentle way of informing the Jew, that he was altogether mistaken: and though he had imagined that his zeal would promote the honour of the Lord, and that he was " actuated by an unfeigned respect for the authority of Christ," yet he had misunderstood the Gospel — and must not repeat his former arguments, for they were not founded on fact. But, says Mr. Hall, the Gentile must consequently have been regarded by the Jew " in precisely the same light in which our Paedobaptist brethren are considered, that is, as violating, though not intentionally, a positive institute ; still St. Paul absolutely insists on the duty of forbear- ance." {p. 167.) This is the point to which Mr. Hall wishes to bring the whole. The inference is, the Baptist is bound to tolerate the Paedobaptists, though their con- duct in his esteem is a violation of a " positive institute," and the Apostle is quoted as authority for this practice- But when we examine what he has written, we find, that the Jew was exhorted to tolerate the Gentile, because he was told, that the " positive institute" which he imagined 171 the Gentile had " violated." was not binding on the Gen- tile ; for it was no part of the will of Christ that he should conform to the law of Moses, and therefore he ought to have the liberty of following the dictates of his own con- science. Now, we boldly ask, is the Baptist bound by limilar authority to admit that his sentiment stands on the same footing — that it is no part of the will of Christ, but is only an attachment to an abrogated rite ? Have the " Holy Ghost" and " the Apostles and Elders" as much sanctioned Pcsdohaptism, as they sanctioned the Gentile in his christian liberty respecting meat and drink ? If they have, let it be proved, and we will yield the cause : for then the baptism of believers, and the Mosaic rites, may all be set aside together. According to this comparison, the Psedobaptist is like the Gentile, who violated a precept which the Jew esteem- ed to be still in force, and the Baptist, like the Jew, is " weak in thefaitJi", scrupulously attached to a needless institution, while in every point except his " conscienti- ousness", he is told that he is in an error ! Of course the Pasdobaptist occupies the place of the ^'strong", who is exhorted to tolerate his weak brother, and not bear hard upon him. A conclusion which some people will instantly admit, but how others will relish it, remains to be proved. If we adopt the opposite hypothesis, and conceive the Jew to be the weak brother, and a representative of the Peedobaptists, we shall not succeed better in applying the principles of the chapter before us. It is true there is something in the first appearance of this plan of interpretation, which to a Baptist who is favourable to mixed communion, looks plausible, and he may be tempted to think it correct. He sup[)o,ses that the Apostle is on his side with respect to baptism, and that he is directed to receive the Paedobaptists on the same ground that the Gentiles were to receive the Jewish converts, as iceak brethren, who, it is true, were to 172 be tolerated, but who were very much prejudiced, aud very deficient iii the extent and accuracy of their views. Reading the chapter with this idea, the Baptist observes that throughout the whole the Jew is plainly told that he is wrong, though the Apostle says, receive him : and he does not forget to make the proper application. But examination soon dissipates this theory. The Jew did not attempt to come into the church without paying the required regard to the ordinances of the Gospel ; he did not say, I have been initiated into the true religion by circumcision, I have frequently fulfilled the rites of bap- tism as required by the law ; I therefore see no need of repeating any ceremony of initiation or profession, and I hope you will receive me, without pressing an attention to mere ceremonies, of the importance of which I am not convinced. No Paedobaptist, however, can come into a Baptist church except on terms precisely of this kind. He asks to be received, either on the ground of his Pasdo- baptism (which Mr. Hall himself tells us is "a nullity" and cannot be called baptism), or on that broad basis which would admit a person without baptism at all. He therefore stands in a very different situation from that of the Jewish converts, not only in its circumstances, but in its principle ; for we have no evidence that any of the institutions of Jesus Christ were set aside, either for the purpose of receiving them, or any other persons whatever. Farther, the practical exhortation which the Apostle gives {ver. 13, Sfc. to the end), proves that the ground of the Apostle's reasoning in this chapter cannot apply to the case in hand. He intreats the strong to give way to the prejudices of the weak, and so to conform their habits to the wishes of their erring brethren, as not to hurt their minds by eating that food which they might eat consist- ently with christian liberty. " It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy bro- ther stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast 173 thou faith ? have it to thyself before God." (ver. 21, 22.) Though you are right, yet iu tenderness to others do not openly act upon your opinion. So also ch. xv. 1. " We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." Hence, if we apply the principle to the case before us, neither party ought tq administer what they believe is an ordinance of Christ, whenever it would hurt the minds of those who think it 9 departure from the primitive institute. An inference, urged upon us from different quarters, but the direct ten- dency of which is to exclude one of the ordinances of Christ from his church. If on Mr. Hall's interpretation of the Apostle's direc- tions, we ought to receive a Paedobaptist as a weak brother, for the same reason that the Gentile is exhorted not to grieve his brother by his meat, but to walk chari- tably, the Baptist ought not to plead for that baptism which grieves his Pa:;dobaptist brother ; much less ought he to shock his feelings by attempting to practice it ; and above all things, he ought not to administer it to any friend or relation of the Paedobaptist, for this would be a want of charity in the extreme ; but on the old plea, the ordinance should be prudently shunned, and that we may follow the things that make for peace, we are quietly to sacrifice an institution of Jesus Christ! On this part of the subject we shall only add one re- mark more, Mr. Hall says with great positivity — •' it is not, be it remembered, by a peremptory decision of the controversy, or by assigning the victory to one in prefer- ence to the other, that the Apostle attempts to effect a reconciliation." (jo. 168.) But Paul says, "I know, and am.PERSUADED by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself {Rom. xiv. 14.) Unless the Jewish convert wanted common sense, he must see that the "de- cision of the controversy" was given against him ; and though the Apostle was tender to his feelings, gave way 174 to his scruples, and acknowledged that to hiiu who ** estcemeth any thing to he wiclean, to him it is unclean", yet he clearly intended the Jew to understand that the precept which he imagined the Gentile " violated", had no authority. Hence, in whatever view this chapter is considered, the most that can be inferred from it is, that christians should tolerate each other in things which do not interfere with the precepts and institutions of Jesus Christ. Hitherto we have proceeded on Mr. Hall's view of the subject, and have offered nothing in defence of our own interpretation. A few short observations in its justification will not, we hope be deemed improper. It is manifest that the Jewish converts did obey the Mosaic ceremonies, and probably considered themselves under obligation to walk orderly and keep the law. {Acts xxi. 21 — 24.) In Rom. ch. xiv. the question which had been agitated, was not v/hether the weak brother should eat that which the law of Moses denominated unclean ; but whether he might eat animal food at all. Two causes might give rise to this difficulty; a sect of the Jews called the Essenes refrained from animal food altogether, and if any of them were converted to Christianity, they would probably be under the influence of their former prejudices, at least for a time. Some very learned men have thought that these were referred to by the Apostle in this chapter. Besides, we know that conscientious Jews did refrain from animal food at Rome about this time, and that their doing so was considered by their brethren as acting consistently with their profession as Jews.* The probable reason of which was on account of the numerous idolatries practised in that city; so that they were afraid of being polluted by eating meat which had been offered to idols, or which had not been prepared for their use, and declared to be clean • An iustauce of this kind occurs in the Life of Josephus, the JcTvibh Historian. 175 by their own couutrymen. Such scruples might also ex- tend to Gentile christians, who might be afraid of the pollution of idols ; and in proportion to their own tender- ness of mind, would be hurt at seeing others do what they thought wrong. The eighth and tenth chapters of the first epistle to the Corinthians are devoted to this subject ; and whosoever carefully and candidly considers the instruc- tions which the Apostle gave to the christians at Corinth, can scarcely help seeing a great similarity to those which he gave to his brethren at Rome, and will acknowledge that the clear and important distinctions which he made in writing to the Corinthians, assist us in comprehending his directions to the Romans ; and that there was a great resemblance between the cases described in these epistles. These general observations might be supported by a con- siderable body of proof, were it needful ; and which would also confirm the interpretation of Rom. xiv. in Baptism a term of Communion. But since it is no part of our desire needlessly to lengthen the present controversy, we shall leave the reader to consider the evidence laid before him, and to form his own opinion ; only reminding him, that Mr. Hall condemned what he did not like, after a very summary process, but did not disprove it. However, to make assurance doubly sure, he does not content himself with the answer he had already given, but adds, " we accept Mr. Kinghom's challenge, and engage to produce an instance of men's being tolerated in the primitive church, who neglected an express command of Christ, and that of the highest moment." (p. 171,) As he quotes no page, and copies no words that we have used, he leaves the reader to guess at what he refers. But, ■we i^uppose he had in his eye, an observation in Bap- tism a term of Communion, p. 50, where it is said, " I be- lieve the truth is, that iheie is not a case on record, in which forbearance and toleration were urged as reasons for setting aside any divine institute, tvhich at the time 176 was in force.'* Now what is Mr. Halls " instance"? It is the Apostles ! He says, " it will not be denied that he [Christ] directed them to go forth immediately after the descent of the Spirit, to preach the Gospel to every crea- ture." (jtj. 171.) Because they did not proceed immediately^ Mr. Hall attempts to justify his own theory by a bold crimination of inspired Apostles ! It does not, however, appear that they neglected the dictates of their divine master. They were to begin at Jerusalem. (Lukexxiv. 47.) The Lord said unto them just before his ascension, "ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Je- rusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." (Acts i. 8.) A large field was to be the scene of their labours, before they went to the Gentile nations ; and they occupied every part in its order. Nor did Peter resist the command given him to go with the messengers of Cornelius, and open the door of faith unto the Gentiles, as soon as he understood that this was the will of God. But Mr. Hall's inaccuracy in saying that the Apostles were directed to go forth to the heathen immediately, is not his only failure in the instance he pro- fesses to bring forward. He does not fulfil the terms of the requisition. Is it upon record that they endeavoured to set aside the command to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, and that toleration and forbearance were either urged by them, or urged in their defence, as reasons why they might evade that precept 1 If not, Mr. Hall's instance proves nothing : it does not agree with the con- ditions of the case required. Not content with one " instance" destitute of proof, he gives us another, '* m which Mr, Kinghorn himself will be found to approve of the toleration of such as have habitu- ally neglected a positive command" (p. 173) ; which is, that Dr. Gill and Mr. Brine influenced many of our denomination to believe that " it was improper to urge 177 sinners to repentance, or to enjoin upon them the duty of believing on the Lord Jesus Christ." So that, these " eminent persons, in declining to perform what our Lord commanded his Apostles, neglected or broke a divine precept." The inference is, that if we do not mean to " pass a sentence of excommunication" on Dr. Gill, Mr. Brine, and those whom Mr. Hall calls our "pre- cursors in this controversy," we " must acknowledge that the right of toleration extends to such as neglect or violate a revealed precept." (/?. 174.) He then adds, "it is unnecessary to remind the reader of the magnitude of the error in question, which would at once have annihilated the apostolic commission, by rendering it impossible to preach the Gospel to any creature, since there were in the Gentile world, none to whom on this principle it could be addressed." (p. 174.) Without noticing the singular proposal to excom- municate the dead, let us inquire whether, if they were now alive, they would deserve excommunication. Dr. Gill distinctly states, that the Apostles were commanded to go — " not only into Judea — not only into the Roman Empire — but into every known and habitable part of the whole universe, to all the nations of the world under heaven : — and besides, this commission not only included the Apostles, but reaches to all Ministers of the Gospel in succeeding ages, to the end of the world." After some criticism on the word * creatures,' in which he shows that the Jews by that term frequently meant the heathen, he proceeds, — " Now to these Christ would have the Gospel preached, as well as to the Jews ; even to all, without any distinction of people, Jews and Gentiles, Barbarians, Scythians, bond and free, male and female, rich and poor, greater or lesser sinners, even to all mankind.^' — {See hia Exposition on Mark xvi. 15.) So also on iJfa^.xxviii. 19, he says, " teach all nations, Jews and Gentiles, first the one and then the other, the doctrines of the Gospel, and s 178 the ordinances of it ; whatever they had learned from Christ, or were ordered by him." A part of Mr. Hall's chargeagainst Dr. Gill and Mr. Brine is, that " it was improper to urge sinners to repent- ance." Dr. Gill certainly was not of this opinion. He says, "men of all nations, Jews and Gentiles, are the subjects of repentance ; for all are under sin, under the power of it, involved in the guilt of it, and liable to punish- ment for it ; and God hath commanded all men every where to repent. During the time of John the Baptist, and of our Lord's being upon earth, the doctrine of repentance was only preached to the Jews ; but after the resurrection of Christ, he gave his Apostles an instruction and order, that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem ; in consequence of which the Apostles first exhorted the Jews, and then the Gentiles to repent^ and particularly the Apostle Paul testified both to the Jews and also to the Greeks, repentance towards God, as well as faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ." {Body of Div. vol. iii. book 1. ch. 25. p. 33, 34. Oct. ed.) It would be easy to add farther testimonies, but these are sufficient. Let then the candid reader judge, whether there be any ground for excommunicating Dr. Gill, on the charge of annihilating ** the apostolic commission, by rendering it impossible to preach the Gospel to any creature"? The speculations of Dr. Gill and Mr. Brine, on the nature of what they termed special faith, formed the great peculiarity of their sentiments ; for this they considered as an effect of the mediation of Christ, and the duty of those only who re- ceived ** an internal revelation of Christ," which they called also "a supernatural revelation,"* But they both declared that it was the duty of men to give credit to any Hvelation which God had made, or should think fit to * Brine's Refutation of Arminian Principles, p. 6. 19. 179 make unto them at any time : and whether they did or did not reason correctly on the nature of faith, they did not set aside the divine institute, that the Gospel should be preached unto all men, as the means of bringing sin- ners to God ; but acknowledged, that " every truth should be preached — none concealed ; — and no duty omitted." So that when we examine Mr. Hall's second " instance" it does not comply with the terms of the requisition, better than the former. In the preceding observations, we have taken no notice of one of Mr. Hall's violent misrepresentations, which is the basis of many animadversions. In Baptism a term of Communion it was pleaded, that the Apostle's argument applied equally, whether we considered Jews, or Gentiles as the parties received : and it is added, " but then he [God] receives them on their believing and obeying his Gospel ; and it is not stated, that he receives them not- withstanding they disobey one of its precepts. Yet unless this be proved, the cause of mixed communion is not promoted." Q>.45. 2ded,) On this passage, Mr. Hall thinks proper to say, ** we have here an explicit avowal that he considers none besides the Baptists as received of Christ, in the sense the Apostle intends, accompanied with a concession that to prove they were, would furnish an irrefragable argument for our practice." (p. 153, 154.) So also in p. 207, — " he professes to imitate the conduct of the Supreme Legislator, whom he affirms, not to have received the unbaptised into the gospel dispensation." Had we not seen instances of a similar kind, such state- ments would have excited surprise. It is easy to perceive, that if it could be proved that God had received either party into his visible church without baptism, or while they were opposing any universal precept which he had promulgated, Mr. Hall's argument for receiving the un- baptised would have been established by the precedent which was furnished by the divine conduct : but as this 180 was not the fact, the cases were not parallel. In examin- ing how the argument then stood, nothing more was necessary, than to satisfy a fair inquirer, that the Gentiles were not received into the church on the principle for which Mr. Hall pleaded for admitting the unbaptised : the inference therefore followed, that his cause could not be promoted by such reasoning. But here he takes occasion to talk about an "explicit avowal," where nothing was avowed that agrees with his representation. Whoever examines the New Testament on this subject, will see, that God testified by the miracles he wrought, that the Gentiles could be received into the full enjoyment of the blessings of the Gospel ; and when the Apostle Peter saw that on the Gentiles was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost, he commanded them to be baptised. Then they would be considered as received into the church, but not before. Now if the reception of the Gentiles into the christian church on their being baptised, is authority for our receiving into the church the unbap- tised, the argument is finished. But how is Mr. Hall to prove this position ? He would persuade us that persons unbaptised, applying for church-membership with Baptists, are in the same situation with the believing Gentiles when they were baptised: but it is manifest that the cases are dissimilar, and every attempt to make them alike utterly fails. It is to no purpose that, under the pretence of " sifting the matter to the bottom," he should attempt by wire-drawing and misrepresentation, to build up his cause. Lethim prove that the Gentiles refused to be baptised, or that they re- fused to comply with any other positive, universal precept of Jesus Christ, and then we will allow, that whatever is the principle of the Apostle's reasoning, will apply in both cases. But since, for the best of all reasons, this is not done, we hold Mr. Hall's violent distortions of the argu- ment very cheap : they may hurt himself, — they do not 181 hurt our cause. But the truth is, that as the fourteenth chapter of the Romans is the great storehouse of argu- ment for mixed communion, every thing which shows that the principles of the apostolic church and of modern inno- vation are not the same, must be disposed of, and if an answer cannot be found, it must be run down. Mr. Hall requests the reader to advert to the " inter- minable discord and dissention with which this principh is replete. The principle is, that whenever one christian deems another to live in the neglect and violation of a positive command, however conscientious and sincere, he must renounce the communion of the party which he sup- poses erroneous." {p. 174, 175.) Let the reader observe that this principle which Mr. Hall adduces, is an inference of his own. He had been pressed to produce a case, if such a case was on record, in which forbearance and toleration were urged as reasons for setting aside any divine institute, which at the time was in force. Hi? reply proclaims his inability to bring forward such an instance. We are then told that the "principle" which he thinks proper to draw from the fact urged against his reasonings, " is replete with interminable discord :" as if we were to be frightened from an attention to the directions of Christ, because Mr. Hall chooses to say, that pleading for the primitive order of the ordinances of the Gospel, is the way to produce dissention ! To make his own cause look better, he enumerates various differ- ences of sentiment respecting the " minuter details of christian discipline and worship" : he acknowledges that they are cases difficult to settle ; and he says, " there are no questions involved in greater obscurity than these ; none on which the evidence is less satisfactory, and which more elude the researches of the learned, or administer more aliment of dispute to the contentious," (j9. 175, 176.) Such is his opinion of the systems which be himself brings forward. Now observe his ipference: " however they may 182 differ in other respects, they agree in this, that upon the principle we are attempting to expose, they furnish to such as adopt them, just as reasonable a pretext for sepa- rate communion, as the disagreement concerning bap- tism," &c. (p, 177.) Here the appeal lies to the common sense of men : we pleaded for the regard that was due to baptism from the various arguments which we have before recited ; Mr. Hall himself confessed that our views of the subject, as Baptists, have ** all the advantage of overwhelming evidence" {Pref. p. xxiii.); but yet he would persuade us, that those persons whose opinions, according to his own statement, are not supported by satisfactory evidence, but are involved in the greatest obscurity, have as much reason for requiring that others should adopt their pecu- liarities, as we have for pleading from the commission of Christ, and the acknowledged, universal practice of the apostolic church, that baptism is requisite to a partici- pation of the Lord's supper ! On this plan, the command of Christ respecting bap- tism, considered as^ a regulation for his church is USE- LESS ; and the precept is now become merely an affair of private opinion ! A consequence which meets us in every part of this discussion ; and which, however unwil- ling some may be to acknowledge it, will at length be confessed to be the natural result of our author's reasoning. CHAPTER IX. Mr. Hall's argument for communing with piedobaptists, because they are part of the true church, examined. That part of the discussion which next comes forward to notice is, in our view, deserving of very little attention : but were it wholly omitted, it might be thought that its arguments were unanswerable. Many things which are open to exception, we shall pass over, merely for the sake of brevity ; others we shall leave to the decision of the reader, who, if he has read both sides, will be able to form his own opinion. Some few assertions of Mr. Hall must, however, be noticed, and some of the usual accom- paniments of his work pointed out. We shall say nothing concerning Mr. Hall's notions of * the church'; we are not sure that we comprehend his theory, and would not, knowingly, draw an infer- ence from false premises. In our apprehension he con- founds things which are distinct ; and uses a manner of expression which is open to exception. If any person who had read Baptism a term of Communion, should declare that we did not acknowledge that many who dif- fered from us were christians, we should probably not attempt to convince him of the contrary ; and as to Mr. Hall's inference about schism, we leave that to refute itself. He maintains a schism, and will only take those who come to his terms ; and after he has said the worst things he can of us, we do no more. But passing this, let the reader observe the ground on which Mr. Hall justifies his own separation from other christians. 184 " Whenever we are invited to concur in practices which we esteem erroneous, or corrupt, our refusal to comply is justified by a principle the most obvious and the most urgent, the previous obligation of obeying God rather than man." (p. 192.) Again, " owing to a diversity of judg- ment, respecting the proper organization of churches, obstacles, at present invincible, may prevent their incor- poration; and it is left to the conscience of each individual to determine, to which he will permanently unite himself. An enlightened christian will not hesitate for a moment, in declining to join with that society, whatever he the piety of its individual memhers, in which the terms of commu- nion involve his concurrence in religious observances of whose lawfulness he entertains any doubt. Hence arises, in the present state of religion, an impassable barrier to the perfect intercommunity of christian societies." (^^.193, 194.) It seems then, that there may be societies, com- posed of individual memhers of acknowledged piety, — persons whom our author would certainly consider to be parts of the true church, with whom an enlightened christian not only would not join, but would not hesitate for a moment in declining to join. The ground on which this enlightened christian would act so promptly, would be that the terms of communion involved his concurrence in religious observances of whose lawfulness, he entertained a doziht. So that in the absence of certainty, even a douht on the propriety of his conduct would make him pause. After having thus plainly conceded the principle on which we rested one part of our cause, Mr. Hall add.s, ** hut it is NOT upon this ground that my opponent objecti to the practice for which we are contending," If the reader refers to Baptism a term of Communion, he will find in that chapter which relates to the present part oi the argument, a variety of passages which shew the ground on which it was placed, and he can then judge how far Mr. Hall is correct in his assertion. 185 " The friends of strict communion do not object to mixed communion, because the individual act of their communion with Paedobaptists would produce an imme- diate unpleasant effect on their worship ; but because it would be the acknowledgment of a principle which they cannot admit; which is, that in forming a part of the church of Christ, there is no occasion to regard the term of christian profession which he himself has appointed ; and thus the introduction of mixed communion, would itself immediately alter the constitution of every church that adopts it." (p. 58.) Again, " The Protestants, and Protestant Dissenters, refuse to unite with Roman Catholics, and the Establish- ment, because in so doing, they would sanction what they believe are corrupt appendages to the law of the Saviour. The strict Baptist refuses to admit those whom he con- siders as unbaptised, because in so doing he would sanction the omission of an express part of the law itself; though he grants the individual excellency of many men in all the churches from which he differs." (p. 64.) Farther, *• the objection of the strict Baptists to com- munion with them [the Paedobaptists] does not arise from suspicions attaching to their christian character, to which, they trust, they are always willing to render ample justice, but from the necessary consequence of such communion ; as a practical deviation from what they believe was the original constitution of the church." (p. 67, 68.) Once more, the question is brought to this point, — ** whether the admission of mixed communion does not of itself introduce into the church a system of action which is NOT a true interpretation of the rule given by the Lord, and NOT a copy of the precedents of the New Testament, NOR a just application of its maxims." (p. 76.) All these passages are copied from one chapter ; and that chapter in which the present part of the discussion is expressly examined. The reader can now judge for T 186 himself on what ground we object to tbe practice which Mr. Hall advocates. He can also judge how far the next assertion which our author makes is supported by truth, which is, that we rest our " refusal to communicate with members of other denominations, on the principle of their not being entitled to be recognised as christians." (p.ldA.) The argument repeatedly urged, that communion with the unbaptised altered the constitution of the church of Christ, and introduced a line of conduct unknown in the purest ages, Mr. Hall has never encountered. If he imagines that we esteem either his silence, or the contempt with which he treats this part of the subject a sufficient refutation, he is mistaken. He says himself, " let the smallest error imaginahle be so incorporated with the terms of communion, that an explicit assent to it is implied in that act ; and he who discerns it to be an error, must, if he is conscientious, dissent, and establish a separate communion." (p. 211.) On his own ground, then, the question is, whether in communion with the unbaptised we do not give an " explicit assent" to the right of admit- ting them in that character into the church ? On this basis our objection to mixed communion was founded, and pressed on the reader's attention, and we contended, that there was necessarily and explicitly implied in it the admission of an unscriptural proposition. But when the principle on which our argument rested was urged against Mr. Hall, he passed it by, and the reader is told that onr objection to mixed communion is not placed on this ground ! Still it is said, — we are not invited to concur in those " re- ligious observances" which we disapprove, and that fellow- ship with Paedobaptists is only a "transient act"; (p. 192.) but we reply, we understand our ground sufficiently not to be deceived by such expressions. We are " invited to concur," in an act the consequences of which would be permanent ; — in the admission of a principle which 187 yie believe to be unscriptural, opponent to the au- thority of Christ, and subversive of one of his institutions. Were we to adopt it, we should instantly be told we had altered our terms of communion; and the charge would be just; we should then have introduced a " new ieiin" y/hich Christ did not make, which was unknown in the apostolic church; and we should sacrifice one of the ordinances of the Gospel, for the professed purpose of gaining a greater number of persons to attend with us to the other. Whenever the question is asked, what are the terms of communion mentioned in the New Testament, we cannot give a scriptural answer if we leave out baptism. Many queries may be raised respecting the best manner of pro- cedure in the admission of members into the church, which do not admit of a direct reply from the sacred volume ; but which must be decided by the application of general principles to particular cases. But every child that reads the New Testament with attention is capable of perceiving, that in the apostolic age it was those who were baptised that were added to the number of the faithful, and treated as parts of the body. While we act on the same plan we are safe ; for we require no more than Christ required ; and unless Mr. Hall can prove that according to the directions of the Lord, a church can be formed without baptism, he labours in vain ; for the facts of the New Testament are against him, and all his arguments for his favQurite theory are of no force. CHAPTER X. The charge of excluding, excommunicating, and punishing other denominations, considered. In this part of the inquiry our author adopts a violence of language and an excess of misrepresentation that cannot ultimately benefit his cause. The first thing that we shall notice is his criticism on the use of words. This he pre- tends is "humiliating"; perhaps it is so : we will examine it. He objects to our use of the word " exclusion," He says that we deny " the propriety of applying the term to a hare refusal of admission." {p. 198.) We have then a definition by ** our great Lexicographer" Johnson. Now if we were incorrect in the use of the word, our author was guilty of the same fault. — He asks, {p. 104,) " will they assert that St. Paul was prepared to exclude the members of the church of Corinth, against whose irregu- larities he so warmly protested?" — Again, {p. 109,) "he continued to exercise forbearance without the slightest intimation of an intention to exclude them," In both these instances Mr. Hall thinks fit to use the term precisely in the sense which we had given it. j. Then comes another criticism relating to the word ex- communication; which, we are told, is " synonimous with exclusion," and again we have " the highest authority" brought forward, with a note, " see Johnson." To John- son we have referred, and find the authority which he quotes for his definition of the term is a passage taken from the Ecclesiastical Polity of Hooker. We know that the theological sentiments of Johnson and Hooker were the same : and we are certain, from Hooker s own decla- rations, that in his view baptism was necessary to church 189 membership. lie says, " entered we are not into the visible church, before our admittance by the door of baptism." {EccL Pol. book ii. § 1.) He clearly would have agreed with us, that a person who was never in the church, could not be expelled /;-owi it. In his view, excommunication, supposed previous membership. At length Mr. Hall employs words, the meaning of which are not disputed, and intimates that we "withhold privileges and immu- nities from him who is legally entitled to their possession. (/>.201.) On this ground we meet him; if he can prove that the unhaptised are " legally entitled" to the privileges and immunities of the church, the argument will be finish- ed, and we shall not think of replying: but till this is done, all his reasoning proceeds on mere assumption. He talks about "punishment", but let him prove that we withhold from those who he confesses are unbaptised, what they can claim according to the New Testament. Let him prove from that volume that our Lord intended one of his institutions to vanish away ; — that he designed to alter the terms of communion which he himself establish- ed ; let him shew how the institution of baptism can con- tinue in force, while it has lost its station in the church ; and then, but not till then, will we alter our plan of pro- cedure. We know that a clamour is raised against us about the excellence of the persons whom we refuse to admit into our churches. But we reply, our concern is with the direc- tions of the New Testament. If the admission of members depended on our opinion of their piety, exclusive of any regard due to an institution which Christ placed at the door of his church, the case would be different ; but Mr. Hall has not succeeded in shewing that this should be our guide, instead of the directions and examples of the sacred volume. Unfortunately for his system, the rule exists; and as we have stated before, according to our views of the rule which the Saviour had given, it was not WE that excluded the unbaptised, but the plain interpretation o( wo the will of Christ (iS^ee Bap. a term of Com. p. 61); and our author himself tells us, that " the interpretation of a rule is, to him who adopts it, equally binding- with the rule itself, because every one must act on his own re- sponsibility", (p. 110.) Mr. Hall attempted to confound the expulsion of the incestuous Corinthian with the rejection of a Faedo- baptist ; and asserted, that both amounted " to a de- claration of the parties being unworthy to " communicate". In Baptism a term of Communion, it was answered, (/>. 61.) that the cases v,ere not similar : " in one case the party is declared unworthy from moral delinquency : in the other he is not declared unworthy, but only unquali- fisd". We should have supposed this statement was suf- ficiently clear to answer the purpose for which it swas brought. In the first instance the objection was of a moral kind ; in the second no such objection was adduced, or supposed to exist ; but the reason why the party was not received, was on the acknowledged ground that he was unbaptised, on which account, he was in our view " unqualijied": and it was immediately added, " whether this be, or be not true, is to be settled by an appeal to the New Testament." On the occasion of this plain passage, Mr. Hall thinks fit to play on the terms — moral delinquency — unworthy, qualified, and — unqualified, as if some proposition had been brought forward which was either unintelligible or absurd. After the explanation given above, which is scarcely more than re-stating what was said before, we leave the paragraph to the common sense of reasonable men. What Mr, Hall says concerning it we think "ww- ivorthy" any farther notice. Enough has been said to prove that the question was justly stated in ' Baptism a terra of Communion,' p, 65. It is there observed, that this part of the discussion rests on an answer to the inquiry, " whether an institution of 191 Christ is to be maintained, or is to be given up"? JtJr. Hall quotes a few lines, — calls them an " evasion", and attempts a reply, (p. 212, 213.) In the paragraph which he had before him it is stated, that the question is NOT M^hether the Ptedobaptists were chargeable with nothing more than a misconception of a positive institute; nor, whether the members of a church have fully and properly considered the nature of the institute to which they have submitted, for our author does not rest his system on this basis ; on the contrary, he asserts that they have not submitted to it at all. But to whatever extent tket/ misconceive it, he gives it up ; for though he may admit that it has a claim on a christian's attention in his iudivi- - dual capacity, yet the whole of his labour is an attempt to exclude the institution from the station in which it was placed by Jesus Christ. On his plan of reasoning, the church ought to receive not only those who venerate the institution though they misconceive it, but those also who ridicule and oppose it. Hence the tendency of his system, as far as it is received, is, and ivill be, to encourage the popular notion that baptism is a trifle which may either be regarded, or not. His works form an in- clined plane, down which the minds of those who are disinclined to obey the injunctions of the New Testament, descend to a neglect of, at least, one of the ordinances of the Gospel, and quiet themselves in the assurance, that if they do not believe baptism requisite to communion, tliey ought to have all the privileges of the church without it. So that instead of calling on men to " search the scrip- tures," his system holds out a bribe to the mind to pay the subject no attention. The manner in which our author finishes his observ- ations on the quotation before him, deserves notice : '• if they [the Paedobaptists] are chargeable with any thing more than a misconception, the matter of that charge must be deduced from their acting like upright 192 men ; an accusation, which we hope for ike honour of human nature, will proceed from none hut strict Baptists." {p. 214.) The first part of this passage needs no reply, because the preceding- observations shew that it is not to the point ; for we have never supposed that those who differed from us were not " upright men"; — we have uni- formly proceeded on the opposite hypothesis. The second part is an indiscriminate and unjust censure on a large body, and deserves no regard except as a specimen of that temper with which Mr. Hall's work so much abounds. CHAPTER XT. Mixed communion unknown in the ancient CHURCH. We now come to the state of opinion in the ancient church, which we are told may be distributed into three periods. The first includes the time during which, correct senti- ments on the subject of baptism prevailed, and in which, our author informs us, " a punctual compliance with it was expected and enforced by the presidents of the christian societies." (p. 217.) This period is supposed to extend to the end of the second century, or the be- ginning- of the third. The second period begins from that date and proceeds to the close of the fourth century, during which time the baptism of infants was introduced and gradually extended. The third period includes the long course of years from thence to the commencement of the Reformation. During the first of these periods, it is allowed there could be no mixed communion ; but in the second, Mr. Hall contends, there must have been Baptists and Paedobaptists in the same society, unless it could be proved that the Baptists maintained a separate communion. Here he takes his stand, and asserts, that " no sooner did a difference of opinion on the subject of baptism arise, than the system of forbearance recommended it- self at once, to all who adhered to the sentiments of the modern Baptists throughout every part of the world ; and that it is the opposite principle which has to con- tend with all the odium and suspicion attached to recent innovations." (/>. 219, 220.) " Hence", he says, " the concurrent testimonies of the Fathers of the three or u 194 four first centuries, in proof of the necessity of baptism to church fellowship, are urged to no purpose whatever, un- less it could be shewn that there was no mixed commu- nion, no association of the advocates of adult, with the patrons of psedobaptisra, known in those ages." {p. 221.) This statement has, we grant, the merit of novelty. But it cannot escape the observation of the attentive reader, that our author brings forward a representation, which in words appears in favour of his system, but in fact was unknown to all antiquity. Did the Baptists of that period receive the Peedobaptists into their commu- nion as persons unhaptised ? Did they admit them, while they declared their baptism invalid, and a nullify ? Did they plead for their reception on the ground of forbear" ance ? — We never met with the slightest evidence that ihey did : nor with any one who imagined that such evi- dence exists. Before Mr. Hall's statement can be ad- mitted to have any force, he ought to prove that those who were received into the church in their infancy, were considered by the other members of the christ- ian community as persons unhaptised. Till this is done his cause is not advanced a single step, and the state- ment which we before made continues in its full strength, that his theory was unknown in antiquity, and is an in- vention of modern date. Innovations are made by degrees: when infants were introduced, the original mode of baptism was contin- ued ; they were baptised on a profession of faith made by proxies, who answered the usual questions in their name, and who engaged that as they grew up they should believe. The infants who were baptised in the early ages, for some time after the introduction of the prac- tice, appear to have been few ; and the extravagant no- tions then entertained of the consequence of baptism, especially when received from administrators who were high in public estimation, and were supposed to have 195 spiritual blessings to communicate, induced men in general to believe such baptism valid. But the case would have been materially different had those who were baptised in adult years formed that opinion of bap- tism received in infancy, which Baptists now form of paedobaptism. In our former treatise Cyprian was referred to, in con- sequence of Mr. Hall's having turned the reader's attention to that celebrated Father, We stated our view of the difference of opinion in ancient and modern times, on the point in hand, which our author thinks proper to neglect ; and we then brought the question to this issue, " did the ancient church ever admit those to the Lord's table who then were considered as unbaptised ?" (Baptism a term of Communion, p. 153, 154.) It is acknowledged such per- sons were not admitted ; but it is alleged Cyprian admitted Baptists and Pcedobaptists, which, for the reasons already given, is nothing to the purpose. Mr. Hall says, we forget the importance which Cyprian •* attached to baptism as a regenerating ordinance." (p, 229.) " In ancient times the necessity of baptism as a qualification for communion, was avowedly founded on its supposed essential connection with salvation." (p. 235.) We know that Cyprian called baptism regeneration ; but it is evident he did not mean by that term what we under- stand by it; in his view a person who repented and believed was not regenerated till he was baptised ; certain spiritual blessings were then conveyed which were not given before ; and the African Father thought, that these bless- ings could not be enjoyed unless the one baptism which he considered of so much consequence, was received in that part of the christian community which he asserted was alone the church of Christ. In baptism, he informs us, children were born to God, and the church is their mother. The Apostle Paul teaches us the sacrament of Unity, saying, there is one body, and one spirit, one hope of 196 your calling one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God. — The unity of the church subsisted by celestial sacraments.* We are aware that the term sacrament was often used in a wide sense, but however it be applied, in the first expres- sion, baptism is at least included m the sacrament of unity; and in the second, it cannot be excluded. As in the esti- mation of Cyprian, baptism could only be obtained in the true church, so it was essential to the existence of that church ; and nothing, in his view, could be more absurd or heretical, than to imagine that a church might be formed on Mr. Hall's plan without baptism, or that the unbaptised might communicate with those who were bap- tised under the notion of promoting uniiy ! He supposed that whoever did not hold the tinily of the church, did not maintain the faith of the church ; for the one faith and one baptism of the church he considered as essential to its unity. That these notions were extended a great way too far, every one except a Roman Catholic will acknowledge; but all considerate men, who have no system to serve, will grant with equal freedom, that the excess to which they were carried, and the principles on which they were founded, are strong presumptions that such reasonings as those of Mr. Hall were altogether unknown. Yet notwithstanding the length to which the African Father carried his theory, he granted that there were cases in which persons might be saved who died without the *' regenerating ordinance" of baptism. He allowed that Catechumens who were slain before they were baptised, and the thief on the cross, were of this description. He went still farther ; when some of his brother Bishops had admitted persons into their churches who had been bap- tised by Heretics, he did not venture to deny that even these would partake of divine mercy. He thought his brethren ought not to have admitted them; yet, though he * Vide Epist. ad Jubian. ad Pomp, et, De Unit. Eccl. § 4, 6, &c. 197 strongly stated his own opinion, lie did not prescribe it as a law which other ministers were bound to follow. {Vide Epist. ad Jubian. § 19, &:c.) But suppose we sulTer Mr. IlaU'to explain Cyprian's ex- pressions so as to suit his hypothesis, we shall still find the maxims of antiquity inflexible; for though there were sonic who differed from the African Father, and seemed more nearly to approach Mr. H.'s sentiments, by admitting that in some cases the baptism administered by Schismatics and Heretics might be valid, and by pleading for the admission of those whose baptism Cyprian disapproved, yet neither party thought of admitting persons unlaptised. Mr. Hall thinks he has obtained a general principle which suits his purpose, and he repeats his charge that we vio- late "more maxims of antiquity than any other sect upon record." (/j. 24G.) But what are " the maxims of anti- quity'7 Is there any one more ancient or more universal than this — that communicants at the Lord's supper should be baptised I " Among all the ahsurdiiies that ever were held," says Dr. Wall, " none ever maintained that, that any person should partake of the communion before he was baptised." {Hist, of Inf. Bap. ed. 2. ]). 518.) We go farther, we retort the charge ; it is Mr. Hall who violates the " maxims of antiquity." How can he describe the unity of the church, in agreement with Cy- jwian's "maxims," without condemning his own? How can he shew that any of thoss "maxims" which declared bap- tism to be the sacrament of unity that kept the church in one body, can be applied lo a church formed on his prin- ciples? How can he prove that the ancients anticipated a " new case" in which the uniti/ of the church was to be promoted by holding different oj)inions, and those who had one baptism, and those who had none, were to become one body ? How can he carry his theory into practice, except by opposing the whole primitive church? How then can his " maxims" and their's be the same ? 198 He thinks proper to find fault with our quoting the Donatists as acting on our general principle. Their conduct proves all that it was brought to prove. Between them and the Catholic church, there was no difference of opinion on the general doctrines of the gospel ; but they thought the procedure of the Cathohcs had de- stroyed the spirit of their religion, and invalidated the ordinances of their church. Hence the Donatists urged the necessity of baptising those who, entering into their views and feelings, desired to hold communion with them. This single circumstance clearly shews, that instead of acting on Mr. Hall's principle, they acted on a principle diametrically opposite : for when they believed the con- verts to their system to be deficient in nothing else, they still deemed it requisite to baptise them, before they be- came members of the Donatist church. The discussion respecting the opinion and practice of the ancient church, lies in a narrow compass. Great fault is found with our view of the sentiments of Cyprian ; but whether we were correct or not, neither Cyprian nor those who opposed him acted on the theory laid down by Mr. Hall ; nor do we recollect an instance in which any person whose baptism was considered invalid, was ever admitted on our author's favourite argument derived from forbearance. That we, however, might not know of such an instance, nor be acquainted with any ancient writer who reasoned on his principles may not appear surprising; but what we never met with, his diligence and acuteness might have discovered. Yet no such writer has been produced ; nor a single instance brought forward in proof that his theory was even known ; much less that it was adopted. The presumption, then, is stronger than ever, that he can find no support in antiquity. Notwithstanding all his opposition, the result is — during the apostolic age, it is confessed, there cowWJe no mixed communion; and, dur- ing the succeeding early ages, it is manifest, there ivas none. CHAPTER XII. Conclusion. In bringing our own work to a termination, we are natu- rally led to observe how Mr. Hall finishes his. Near the beginning, and at the close of his last chapter, he talks about a religion of love ; but whether the representations with which he concludes his Reply, either proceed from love, or are calculated to promote it, demands a doubt. Our author says, " it has been frequently observed on this occasion, that every voluntary society possesses the power of determining on the qualifications of its members; and that for the same reason, every church is authorised to enact such terms of admission as it shall see ft." (p. 255.) Again, " when therefore from its analogy to other societies, it is inferred that it [the church] has an equal right to organise itself at its pleasure, nothing can be more fallacious." (p. 256.) But who asserted this ? That a religious society, laying the word of God before them, must necessarily judge of a candidate's qualifications, and determine whether they do, or do not accord with the requisitions of the scriptures, is evident; for unless Mr. Hall can prove that we have no rule, the only course we can pursue is to judge according to our ability by the rule. But this is a totally different thing from saying, that "every church is authorised to enact such terms as it shall see fit," — and, " to organise itself at its pleasure"; — a propo- sition which we never laid down ; a charge for which our author alone is accountable. We allow, to use his words, that " the church is a society instituted by heaven, it is the visible seat of that kingdom which God has set up. 200 the laws by which it is governed are of his prescribing,' (p. 255) and for this reason we oppose Mr. Hall's system. To us it appears inconsistent with our obligation " exactly to co-nform to the mandates of revelation," (p. 25G) to " organise" the church at our pleasure, and to " enact" that one of tiie ordinances which Christ has appointed, shall be removed from its place, " The Baptists, Mr. Kingliorn informs us, consider themselves as holding to notice one neglected truth." The reference is, ' Baptism a term of Communion, p. G9." What does Mr. Hall infer from hence? '* it is the prin- ciple thus distinctly avowed, to ^vhich we object — the principle of organising a church with a specific view to the. propagation of some particular truth." (p. 257.) We grant that we did say, the Baptists " hold up to notice one neglected truth." Will Mr. Hull deny either that they do so, or that they ought to do sol As to what he calls " the 2J^'incij)le," that is an inference of his own, and not deducible from any thing we said, except by the same means which have distinguished his inferences on many other occasions. " What is the consequence which must be expected from teaching an illiterate assembly that the principal design of their union is to extend the jyractice of a parti- cular ceretnong, but to invest it with an undue importance in their eyes, and by tempting- them to look upon them- selves as christians of a higher order, to foster an over- weening- self conceit," &c. (p, 258.) If Mr. Hall means that this is the inference from any thing we have said, all that is necessary is to deng it ; for if we are not to state our sentiments, nor to point out the connection which they have with the different parts of the christian system, with- out being exposed to such a charge as this, the next step will be, that we must not state our opinions at all : — and if he means to charge this inference on those members of the denomination who are averse to his sentiments, in 201 tlie consciousness that it is altogether unfounded, they will not think the imputation worthy a detailed refutation. We are called upon to reflect '* on the enormous impro- priety of" various things, and among the rest, "of invest- ing every Utile Baptist teacher with the prerogative of repelling from his communion a Howe, a Leighton, or a Brainerd, whom the Lord of glory will welcome to his presence:" and we are then told, that " transubstantiation presents nothing more revolting to the dictates of common sense." (p. 265.) This passage strongly shews the contempt in which Mr. Hall holds Utile Baptist teachers, and informs them with how much scorn he thinks fit to treat them. We need not turn their apologists. It would be easy to shew, how important are their labours, and how much our denomination owes to their faithful and unwearied exer- tions ; but it is needless. The least of ihese little Baptist teachers who is serving his Lord with humility of mind, has an advocate who will plead his cause, and prove that those who have treated hnn as if he deserved nothing but to be trampled upon and despised — might, to say the least, have found better employment. Besides, suppose these little Baptist teachers are as Utile as Mr. Hall's degrading expressions represent them, have they forfeited the prerogative of judging for them- selves, and of acting on what they conceive the plain directions of God's word .'' Are they not to venture an opinion, or to act on their convictions in the presence, or in opposition to the wishes of Howe, Leighton, and Brainerd? But even these men with all their excellencies, whatever they were, would not have given the objects of Mr. Hall's scorn any trouble, for we know of no evidence that any of them adopted his sentiments, or ever thought either of receiving persons whom they declared not bap- tised, or of soliciting communion with any who would tell them their own baptism was no better than a nullity. Some assertions arc too extravagant to have any other X 202 effect than to secure their own rejection ; of this nature is the preceding, that " transubstantiation presents nothing more revolting to the dictates of common sense", than the system which we have advocated. Whoever knows what the doctrine of transubstantiation is, and will continue to repeat such an assertion, will probably meet with none who will controvert bis position, or endeavour to convince him that he is wrong. A charge which occurs a little before is not much better, that we are " pretending to render a christian society more sacred, and more difficult of access, than the abode of the divine majesty." (p. 265.) To this, however, and to every attack of a similar kind, we reply in the words of our author, " peace should be anxiously sought, but always in subordination to purity, and therefore every attempt to reconcile the differences among christians which involves the sacrifice of truth, or the least deliberate deviation from the revealed will of Christ, is spurious in its origin, and dangerous in its tendency.'' {Terms of Com. p. 5.) Such was his statement on a former occasion. But if Christ made an "inclosure," and left it on record that it was designed to stand through the whole period of his dispensation, why we should deviate from his " revealed will" by removing it, we know not. Nor have we heard any satisfactory reasons why we ought not to raise again the ancient inclosure where it had been thrown down, and to build it exactly in the place in which it formerly stood, in reliance on his wisdom who is the great architect of his church. " The reader is requested to remember the extraordi- nary positions which Mr. Kinghorn has been compelled to advance in defence of his restrictive system." {p. 268.) A list then follows, given in Mr. Hall's usual manner. In our turn we request the reader to remember, that not one of these positions have we ever advanced. They are so garbled and misrepresented, that we entirely disown them, and leave our author to answer for them. 203 They have in general been examined in the preceding pages, and the observations already made we commit to the reader's consideration. Mr. Hall "trusts" that a "discerning public" will be convinced that no attempt has been made to evade the force of his opponent's arguments, {p. 278.) It is not for us to say what a " discerning public" may think, but a part of that "public" are Baptists, and they have discern- ment enough to see the manner in which he has treated the denomination to which they belong. No opinion can be ultimately permanent which is not the obvious impression of the New Testament. To support our author's theory it should be proved, that our general sentiment and practice are a misinterpre- tation of its language and its facts. But if, after all that can be said against us, it is clearly seen that we do no more than the Lord commanded and the Apostles prac- tised, the reproaches of which our author is so profuse, will only sour the minds of some, and convince others that we are right, for they will immediately conclude that such language would not have been used but in the absence of scriptural argument. Mr. Baxter, in his Infant Church-viemhership and Baptism, (p. 24,) having briefly stated the evidence in support of the position, that " all that must be admitted visible members must be bap- tised"; forcibly adds, "I know not what in any shew of reason can be said to this, by those that*renounce not scripture. For what man dare go in a way which hath neither precept nor example to warrant it, from a way that hath a full current of both ? Yet they that will admit members into the visible church without baptism, do so." Again, in reply to the objection, that members " must be baptised after they are stated in the church, (and that many years, as they would have it) I answer, shew any scripture for that if you can. It is contrary to all scrip- ture example.'^ Such plain and open appeals direct the 204 mind at once to the only authority that can decide the controversy. We are continually urged with the consideration, that our sentiments are opposed to the unity of the church, and our present defence will be accused of tending to increase the spirit of division. Yet sincerely as we lament every thing which occasions painful feeling in the family of God, still divisions themselves are less evils than that unity which arises from the sacrifice of truth. We seek unity by endeavouring to call the attention of men to primitive Christianity. Mr. Hall proposes the same end, by discarding what the great body of christians has always believed to be a part of the will of Christ. We acknowledge this is one method of promoting unity, which might be applied to an endless variety of cases ; since it is difficult to say, what difference might not be cashiered in the same way. For if the direct injunctions of the Lord can be set aside, what may not be given up on the same principle? But one thing is evident; it is not unity alone that is a blessing of such high consequence ; no society was more united than the Roman Catholic church during her long reign over the nations ; but at no period was either the world or the church in such an awful con- dition. The unity for which Cyprian contended, and which Mr. Hall praises so highly, was continued in the Romish hierarchy, and extended over the whole western world ; but instead of being a blessing, its influence was of the most baneful kind. The only unity worth seeking arises from being of the same mind with Jesus Christ, The declara- tions of the gospel are simple and plain, and they are summed up by our Lord himself in — faith — baptism — and obedience to what he has commanded. In the present inquiry we have not had to contend for minufia which we supposed were concealed in the general expression, all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and which, it might be said, were open to endless debate ; we have bad 205 to call the reader's attention to an ordinance expressly named by tlie Lord himself, and which was tlie only visible institution he thought proper to specify in his commission. Singular as it may appear to some persons, whoever ad- raits that the commission contains the principles which the christian church should recognise, always places him- self on the ground which we have been maintaining. He may differ from us ; he may apply sprinkling to infants and call it baptism ; if he does, all we ask is, that he would allow us to differ from him. But while he makes the commission his guide, whenever we come in contro- versy with him, the point of difference relates to the meaning of the injunction, and the interpretation it receives in the conduct of the Apostles, but not to the situation in which it is placed, and its consequent priority to communion. Mr. Hall pursues a different course ; he grants our interpretation of the command of Christ re- specting the first christian ordinance, he allows that all the facts of the New Testament agree with our interpre- tation, and that in primitive times they agree also with our system on the subject of communion ; yet he contends that persons unbaptised have now a right to a place ia the church, and that we are doing them great injustice to dispute it. If, however, any of his reasonings establish that right in the face of such directions and such facts as exist in the New Testament, it is not easy to say where they will stop. But if the sacred volume is to be our rule, our duty is plain, we must ask for the old paths, where is the good wag, and walk therein. We know we shall have to bear the reproaches of many on this account, but we shall more promote the cause of Christ in the end, by acting in conformity to his primitive appointment, than by adopting maxims, the first operation of which is to amputate one of his positive ordinances. In the history of the church we have seen the mischief arising from a corruption of the institutions of the Gospel, and we ought 206 to take warning from former times. The deviations of the early ages were occasioned by one class of assumptions, and the system of Mr. Hall is derived from another, but both are, in our esteem, deviations from the word of Christ ; and to him who travels with the New Testament as his guide, it signifies nothing from whence they origi- nate. His business is to keep in the path trodden by primi- tive Saints, holy Apostles, and the Son of God ; and to remember the admonition, Wherefore seeing ive are also compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the siji which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race set before us, looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith, who, for the joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down on the right hand of the throne of God. For consider him that endured such contradic- tion of sinners against himself, lest ye be tcearied and faint in your minds^ {Heb. xii, 1 — 3,) THE END. WILKIN AND YOCNGMAN, PRINTERS, NORWICH. Works by the same Author Address to a Friend on Church Communion. Second Edition. — Price dd. Scriptural Arguments for the Divinity of Christ. — Second Edition. — Price Is, Advice andEncouragement to Young Ministers, two Sermons, to the Students of the two Baptist Academies of Bristol and Stepney. — Price Is. Praciical Cautions to Students and Young Ministers, a Sermon, preached at Bradford, York- shire, at the Annual Meeting of the Northern Baptist Education Society. — Price Is. Baptism a Term of Communion. — Second Edition. Price As. THE DUTY AND IMPORTANCE OF FREE COMMUNION AMONG REAL CHRISTIANS OF EVERY DENOMINATION, ESPECIALLY WITH / SOAfE NOTICES OF THE WRITINGS OF Messrs. BOOTH, FULLER, AND R. HALL, » ON THIS SUBJECT. " I have been in Scotland. The great points in dispute among the lodependentt (here, are Church gOTeniment and discipline. I wish I could sound a retreat to them; and that all the armteB of the Lamb, there and here, wonld concentrate their forces against the common enemy."— Letter from the Ret. A. Fuller to the Rev. W. Bennet. (Rennet's Gos. Constitut. Life, p. S9.) HLotition: PRINTED FOR W. SIMPKIN AND R. MARSHALL, STATIONERS' HALL COURT, LUDGATE HILL. Price Is. 6d. CONTENTS. PAGE Introduction I § I. — Of the Unity of the Church — as " one body" .... 4 II. — Of the One Baptism essential to Communion .... 9 III. — Of the alleged Connection between Baptism and the Lord's Supper 15 IV. — On Mutual Toleration among Christians ........ 23 V. — The Question of exclusive Communion, historically considered 26 VI. — On the Assumption of a Right of Exclusion, and the Evils arising from the exclusive Principle.. 32 1 . It is an infringement of Christ's Authority 33 2. It is a violation of the " royal law" of love ib. 3. It offers violence to the finer feelings of the Christian character 34 4. It is the parent of schism 37 5. It is the ground of all religious persecution 38 6. It divides Christian families 39 7. It M/ichurches all Christian Societies, except in one Communion 40 8. It presents serious impediments to the uni- versal propagation of the Gospel 41 VII. — Objections answered — Conclusion , 45 ErhaTUM. — The following mistake affecting the sense, the reader is re- quested to correct it with his pen. i Page 17, line 20, for hands read kitub, i DUTY AND IMPORTANCE FREE COMMUNION. After so much has been lately written on the question of open and strict communion by Messrs. Hall, Kinghorn, and others, a small anonymous pamphlet on the subject may well be thought to re- quire some apology ; that apology may be founded on the circumstance now mentioned. The contro- versy above referred to has become voluminous and expensive ; so much so, as to render it inac- cessible to the great mass of Christians, who can neither afford the purchase nor the time. The sub- ject is also here discussed on a more extended ground — not merely as a question among different denominations of Baptists,* practising strict or free ♦ I may perhaps be told that I should use the term Anli- pcedobaptist ; but it is both a long word and a liard word, two decided objections with me against its frequent use. When I speak of strict and free, or mixed, communion, I mean no reproach. By strict Baptists I mean those who restrict their communion to persons who have submitted to adult baptism by immersion ; under the other term (free, or mixed) I comprehend all those who admit Paedobaptists also— and, in short, true Chris- tians of all denominations. communion, but as extending to other denomina- tions also ; the writer's object being to recommend communion, occasional or stated, in the Supper of our Lord, with all his visible family — with " all who love our Lord Jesus," both theirs and ours; and this on the principle that all the visible churches of Christ on earth are but parts or branches of that one catholic or universal church — " the bride, the Lamb's wife." A small pamphlet like this cannot be supposed ' to comprehend all the arguments which might be adduced, or all the texts by which those argu- ments might be supported ; much less can it be expected to enter into the pro and co7i of contro- versy. All that is attempted is, to furnish mate- rials for those who are able and desirous to think ' for themselves. The writer has also chosen to be anonymouSy at least for the present, that all personalities may be avoided. He brings no charge of bigotry, or im- proper motives, against either Christian societies or individuals. There are, probably, bigots on both sides; but he addresses good and upright men, equally conscientious with himself. This, however, will not prevent the use of strong and decided language, in a point which he con- siders of great importance, especially at the present time, when Christians, of almost every denomina- tion, are using their utmost exertions for the en- largement of the Redeemers kingdom, and to hasten the glorious period of the Millennium; exertions which, he conceives, must be greatly cramped by strict or sectarian communion, as in the sequel he will attempt to prove. That, in referring to writers on the exclusive side of this question, the author has chiefly con- fined himself to Messrs. Booth and Fuller, it is hoped will be ascribed to no unworthy motive. It is because they are the chief writers on that side of the question with whom he is acquainted ; and because, as he believes, the one is considered as the most complete, the other as the most forcible writer on the subject. And though they have now entered into rest from all their controversies, if in any instance they are here misunderstood or misrepresented, of which the writer is not conr scious, there are others living of the same sen- timent, well able to defend them. Should any advocate of strict communion con- descend to notice these few pages, the writer does not pledge himself to reply ; but if he should see it necessary, it will be with studied brevity, being fully determined not to be drawn into the vortex of an angry or protracted controversy. For this reason he has avoided, as much as possible, both parts of the Baptist controversy — the subject and the mode. He has indeed read on both sides, and made up his mind ; and his opinion is not likely to be altered, except by evidence he has not yet seen. He has judged for himself, and is quite willing that all his fellow Christians should do the same ; and is not aware of any material evil arising from such differences of opinion, when not made the ground of exclusive communion : nor is he sensible of any diminution of affection in his own mind on account of them, when they affect only the minor points of Christianity. b2 SECTION I. Of the Unity of the Church. The unity of the church is a principle generally admitted, but greatly misunderstood. It has been too commonly supposed to consist in harmony of opinions, and in uniformity of rites and ceremonies. This subject, therefore, requires some explana- tion. And, 1 . When I speak of the unity of the Christian church, I refer not to any national or particular church, but to all the congregations of the faithful throughout the world : for I cannot for a moment think of confining the Christian character, or the benefits of salvation, to a party, or to a nation, but include all " who in every place call upon the name of the Lord Jesus ;" and perfectly agree with the doctrine of our English reformers, as expressed in the 20th Article of the Establishment, that " The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faith- ful men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments be duly administered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." I may add, in the words of Dr. Mason, of New York — " None whom these pages address will pretend that there are no true Christians in the world but themselves, and no true churches but their own — that all others are mere heathens, and all their churches synagogues of Satan. The very idea of such arrogance is abhorred by those whose feel- ings and practice are most adverse to free com- munion." * 2. When I speak of the unity of the church, I refer to a unity of faith and devotion — not of opinions and religious rites. (1.) It is a unity oi faith, and not of opinions; that is, it is confined to first and fundamental prin- ciples. This may be illustrated by a reference to the Bible Society and its difterent members, who, though of a variety of sects and parties, have all one object, the dissemination of the vs^ord of God. Or we may refer to the Bible itself, in which all believers recognize certain fundamental principles, though on going into a minute detail scarcely two individuals would, perhaps, explain themselves exactly in the same terms. So, in defending these fundamental articles, some would prefer, in proof, one text of scripture, and some another, with con- siderable variety. (2.) It is a unity of devotion, and not of rites. Some Christians chuse to worship with a form, and some without. Some pray kneeling, and others standing, &c. But it has often been re- marked, that, in the extemporaneous devotions of good men, (and I presume there are none but do sometimes pray extemporally,) there is much greater harmony than in either their public discourses or private controversies. And whence is this ? Partly, I conceive, because they confine themselves in prayer more closely to the simple language of the Scriptures ; but chiefly because, in the exercise of devotion, they are under the more immediate in- • Plea for Catholic Communion, page 9. 6 fluence of the Spirit of God, the author of all true concord and genuine devotion. In reflecting on the diffusion and general perusal of the Scriptures, I have sometimes thought there is more truth than some have been willing to allow, in their tendency to produce a variety of opinions. The fact is, those who are debarred from the Scriptures seldom inquire into religious subjects. They think as the church thinks, and pin their faith on the priest's sleeve : but when they come to think for themselves, on all the minor points of Christianity they will form a variety of opinions, and perhaps discover the unsuspected fact, that among thinhing persons there are no two who think in all points perfectly alike, even upon re- ligion : and yet there may be a perfect harmony in first principles and fundamentals. There is a passage of Scripture which on this subject ought to be attentively considered. It is a part of the office of the Holy Spirit to lead be- lievers into truth; and our excellent translators, through a slight inadvertence, by overlooking the article in the original, have rendered the text, *' he shall lead you into all truth;" that is, as many have understood it, into every branch of religious truth ; whereas (as the learned Bishop Lowth long since observed) the passage should be rendered, " into all THE truth;''* that is, into a knowledge of the gospel method of salvation. This is com- monly called ** the truth ;" | and so far, sooner or * Lorvth's Eng. Gram, note, p. 12, (ed. 1764.) See also Campbell on John xvi. 13. t Gal. iii. 1. (O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched )'ou that ye should not obey the truth !) ct al.frcq. iater, all true Christians are brought into a unity of faith. (3.) But there is another point of union prin- cipally referred to in the Scriptures, a unity of heart. Our Lord had foretold — " By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." And of the first Christians it is said, they " were of one heart and one soul."* This is a union of Christian charity: and is a principal ground, though certainly not the primary one, of their holding communion with each other in the Lord's Supper ; and the elements partaken are tokens, not merehj representative of the body and blood of Christ, but also of the union of believers. ** For we, (says the Apostle Paul,) being many, are one bread, and one body : for we are all partakers of that one bread." f How strange is it, then, that any Christians, who are parts of this mystic bread, members of " the body of Christ," whose death is thus commemorated, should be considered as incapacitated for com- munion with each other ? In speaking of the unity of the church, Mr. Hall says, " Whoever forms his ideas of the church of Christ from the New Testament, will perceive that unity is one of its essential characteristics ; and that though it be branched out into many distinct societies, it is still but one. " The church " (says Cyprian) is one, which by reason of its " fecundity is extended into a multitude, in the " same manner as the rays of the sun, however " numerous, constitute but one light ; and the * John xiii. 55. Acts iv. 32. f 1 Cor. x. 17. 8 " branches of a tree, however many, are attached ** to one trunk, which is supported by its tena- " cious root : and when various rivers flow from *' the same fountain, though number is diffused by " the redundant supply of waters, unity is pre- " served in their origin." Nothing more abhorrent from the principles and maxims of the sacred oracles can be conceived, than the idea of a plurality of churches, neither in actual communion with each other, nor in a capacity for such com- munion. Though this rending of the seamless garment of the Saviour, this schism in the mem- bers of his mystical body, is by far the greatest calamity which has befallen the Christian interest, and one of the most fatal effects of the great apostacy foretold by the sacred penman, we have been so long familiarised to it, as to be scarcely sensible of its enormity ; nor does it excite sur- prise or concern in any degree proportioned to what would be felt by one who had contemplated the church in the first ages." * * Terms of Communion, p. 1, 2. SECTION II. Of the ONE Baptism essential to Christian Communion. Here I fully admit that there is a baptism neces- sary to communion, and I contend also that it is equally necessary to salvation ; for I consider the terms of communion and of salvation to be the same; and that Christian churches are bound to receive into their communion all whom they have sufficient reason to believe the Lord Jesus has received into communion with himself. * Formerly, indeed, there were divers baptisms; as of Moses and of the Jews, of John and of the apostles, prior to the institution of the Lord's Supper ; but with these, I conceive, we have now no immediate concern. Certainly the baptism of Moses was not Christian baptism, nor even that of John ; or the disciples at Ephesus would not have been re-baptized *' in the name of the Lord Jesus," as it appears they were. I" That baptism which can alone with strictness be denominated " the baptism of Christ," is the bap- tism of the Holy Ghost. So said John, em- phatically called the Baptist — " He that cometh after me shall baptize you with the Holy * Mr. Booth (Apol. p. 106) objects to this the case of persons excluded from church communion for " scandalous backslidings," (as the incestuous Corinthian,) of whom yet there might be hope — but the question is not here of hope; but whether we can have " reason to believe" Christ has received into communion with himself " scandalous" backsliders, while living in incest or adultery ? Mr. Booth surely would not answer in the affirmative? t Acts xix. 5. 10 Ghost, and with fire." And again, to John it was revealed — " Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and abiding on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." * Again, Jesus after his resurrection, said, " John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." t The full accomplishment of this promise on the day of Pentecost is well known, and need not here be insisted on : but some have, on the other hand, confined the baptism of the Spirit to his miraculous powers only, which is equally inconsistent, since both our Lord and his apostles insist upon the ne- cessity of divine influences to form a Christian — " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven — If any man have not the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." f The fact is, the evangelists and apostles were popular writers, and were easily understood by the common people ; but they often mixed the figurative style with the literal, in a manner per- fectly familiar to the inhabitants of eastern coun- tries, but which appears to us unnatural and ob- scure. In studying the sacred writers, however, we should endeavour rather to enter into their style than to reduce them to our standard of pre- cision. The baptism of the Holy Ghost intends an abundant portion of his influences, which are to be understood as either miraculous or moral, accord- ing to the context, or the subject spoken of: the former aflbrding those extraordinary aids required in the first propagation of the Gospel — the lat- * Matt iii. 11. John i. 33. t Acts i. 5. X John iii. 5. Rom. viii. 9. 11 ter that moral or sjiiritual influence necessary to the conversion of every sinner to the end of time. But let us inquire more particularly into the one baptism necessary both to communion and salva- tion. The Apostle Paul says, in addressing the Ephesians — " There is one body, and one Spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism ; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." * Here it appears to me exceed- ingly incongruous to class a mere external ordi- nance among these great essential truths, in pre- ference to the sovereign influences of the Holy Spirit, who is expressly named in the tirst member of the text. St. Paul confirms our interpretation when speaking of circumcision ; and, comparing it with baptism, he says, " in whom (Christ) ye are circumcised :" but mark, it is *' with the circum- cision made without hands, in putting off" the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ : buried" — here the analogy seems to war- rant us to add " without hands ' also, for one is as capable of a spiritual interpretation as the other, and the following words require it — " Buried with him (Christ) in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead."t 1 know that it has been commonly supposed, even by Paedobaptists, that here is an allusion to the ori- ginal mode of baptism ; but if so, I think it is a very distant one, and refers rather to the manner • Ephes. iv. 4— -(5. t Col. ii. II, 12. c 2 12 in which Christ was baptized than to the practice of the church : as if he had said — that, like as Christ was baptized by John with (or in) water, that he might '* fulfil all righteousness," so believers are baptized with the Holy Spirit, in which bap- tism (not of water, but of the Spirit) " ye (says the Apostle) are risen with him," — not through the washing of water, but — " through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." In another Epistle, the same sacred writer seems more explicit. It must be recollected that the union of Christ with his Church was a favourite topic of this apostle. " They are one body — he is the head and they are the members :" they there- fore partake with him in all the parts of his media- torial work ; they suffer and are crucified with him — they die and are buried with him — they are raised, ascend and sit with him in heavenly places; and why one branch only of this communion with him is to be explained in allusion to an external rite, namely burial, is what I do not understand* — for certainly there is no allusion, in speaking of his crucifixion, to the form of our Lord's extension on the cross. But let us hear the Apostle. " Know ye not that so many of us, as were (or are) bap- tized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him by bap- * If as Mr. Robinson insists, (History of Baptism, p. 7-) and I think with great appearance of reason, baptism in its original form was an act of worship — the subject bowing forwards as he entered the water, and not being bent backward, as is the mo- dern practice — then the allusion to the form of burial wholly disappears ; for I know of no nation, which buries their dead upon their faces — and certainly neither the Greeks nor Romans did so. 13 tlsm into death : that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resur- rection : knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.* Now all this is the effect, evidently not of water baptism, nor of any external rite ; but of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, whereby we are cruci- fied with Christ, die unto sin, are buried from the pleasures of the world — raised unto newness of life — and in fact are brought into the New Jerusalem — to communion with the general assembly of the first-born — to God the Judge of all — to Jesus the Mediator of the new Covenant,"t &c. Com- pare this with the passage, on which we are now reasoning, and is it not conclusive, that the " one baptism" essential both to salvation and communion, is the baptism of the Holy Ghost ? This passage is rendered still clearer by com- paring it with the language of the Apostle Peter, who speaks also of Baptism as saving us ; but is particularly careful to guard against supposing he meant water baptism. Before I quote that verse, however, I beg to refer to the preceding context, as calculated to throw light upon the whole subject. The Apostle is speaking of Noah and his family being " saved by water : the like figure whereunto * Rom. vi. J— 8. t Heb. xii. S2, 23. 14 baptism doth now save us."* But here is no allu- sion to the form of baptism. Noah neither went *' down into" the water, nor came up " out of it :" for he was borne above it, and never left the ark till it rested on dry land : but the point of comparison rests here : — as the Patriarch was borne above every danger by the water supporting the ark ; so Chris- tians are raised from sin and death " by baptism;" but by what baptism ? "Not the putting away the filth of the flesh" — which water baptism might do ; but the baptism of the Holy Spirit, affording " the answer (or confession) of a good conscience towards God;" and this is as Paul also saith, " through the resurrection of Christ, who is gone into heaven," &:c. And then he reasons on the same principles as the Apostle of the Gentiles, for the necessity of dying to sin, and living to God. Thus I have endeavoured to shew that the ** one baptism" on which the New Testament writers lay so much stress, is not merely the baptism of water, though sometimes alluded to, or accompa- nied with it ; but the baptism predicted by John, promised by Jesus, and bestowed on all believers, at once qualifying them for communion, both with Christ and with his Church. These observations, will perhaps, best account for the stress very early laid upon baptism as essential to salvation : some confounded water-baptism with the baptism of the Spirit ; calling the former " re- generation, illumination," &c. and, substituting the sign for the thing signified — the external rite for the internal grace — they falsely inferred the neces- * 1 Pet. iii. 21. 15 sity of the one, from the acknowledged necessity of the other. To return to water baptism, as a term of commu- nion : if it be not necessary to constitute a Chris- tian, neither, can it be absolutely necessary to Christian communion : for what is Christian com- munion, but the communion of Christians with each other, and with their Lord? of which **the breaking of bread, and of prayers," are equally constituent parts, as will be seen under the next section. SECTION III. On the alleged Connection between Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Explaining the one Christian baptism, of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, as done in the pre- ceding section, I cannot object to this being con- sidered as a pre-requisite to church communion: I am now, however, to consider the opinion of the strict Baptists (as they are called for distinction sake) — that the external rite of water baptism, and that, administered by immersion and to adults only, is equally essential to such communion. This leads us to the important inquiry, as stated by Mr. Fuller, and other able advocates of strict com- munion, " Has baptism [literally understood] any 16 such instituted connection with the Lord's Supper as to be a pre-requisite to it ?" * Could this be proved, however, I am not sure it would decide the question. It might prove it to be the duty of all believers to be baptized previously to their approaching the Lord's table ; but still it must rest with their own consciences, to adopt that mode or form which they conceive to be of divine appointment ; and most certainly if they, on can- did inquiry, conceive themselves to have been validly baptized in infancy, this connection will not prove that they ought to receive adult baptism also, before they approach the holy table : much less will " such instituted connection" prove that their fellow Christians have a right to exclude them from the Lord's table, because they do not view the question respecting baptism in the same light with themselves. Let us, however, enter a little farther into the inquiry : and here I would remark — 1. Neither in the institution of John's baptism, nor in that practised by the disciples of our Lord Jesus during his ministry, do we find the most distant allusion to the Lord's Supper, which indeed was not then instituted ; and though the Lord's Supper was instituted prior to the commission un- der wdiich the apostles, and their successors in the ministry, have since continued to baptize, yet was there no distinct mention of it in that commission : neither was there any reference to baptism in the institution of the Lord's Supper. * Fuller's Letter on the admission of unbaptised persons to the Lord's table, p. 10. 17 2. The objects of the two institutions are per- fectly distinct; baptism being an initiatory ordi- nance, professing discipleship ; the Lord's Supper a commemorative institution, having a retro- spective view to the death and atonement of the Saviour : the one may be administered to an in- dividual, the other is an institution expressly adapted for Christian communion ; the one re- ferring to the mediatorial work of the Redeemer, the other to the operations of the Holy Spirit. 3. I have said, the institution of baptism, after our Lord's resurrection, contains no express re- ference to the Lord's Supper. This is disputed. Let us hear Mr. Fuller, than whom no man was able to state an argument more clearly, or urge it more forcibly. This excellent man argues, that, as in the admi- nistration of the Lord's Supper the delivering of the cup after the bread proves the necessity of admi- nistering the sacrament in *' both hands," so the manner in which teaching, baptizing, and the ob- servance of all things commanded, are arranged in the original commission, shew the order in which these ordinances are to be connected. " Let us (says Mr. F.) read the commission : — " Go — teach all nations — baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost — teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- manded you — and lo I I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." " Is it not (adds Mr. F.) plainly the order of things, as stated by our Lord Jesus Christ — that we are first to teach men, by imparting to them the Gospel ; then, on their believing it, to baptize them ; and then to go on to D 18 imtruct them in all the ordinances and com- mandments which are left by Christ for our direction ?" * I perfectly agree with Mr. Fuller, that, on every theological question, we must content ourselves with the information which the Scriptures give, and have no right to ask for more, or to complain of its not being so explicit as we could wish : also, that the order in which circumstances are placed may sometimes throw light upon their connection and dependances ; but here I can find no such arrange- ment, farther than the undisputed fact, that the Gospel was to be preached to the heathen pre- vious to their being proselyted, and that after- wards they were to be farther instructed in the doctrines and duties of Christianity. But it is a mere assumption that this instruction refers first and principally to the Lord's Supper, which is not even named, though doubtless included in the all things commanded. But if we look back to our Lord's last discourses with his disciples on this very occasion, I think we shall find something far more emphatically enjoined — " By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, that ye love one another.** Mr. Fuller here remarks, as evidently, in his view, conclusive on this subject — " All the re- corded facts in the New Testament place baptism before the celebration of the Supper." But such also is the order in which Paedopabtists place them ; and supposing them to be mistaken as to the validity of infant baptism, yet here is no in- * Fuller's Letter, p. 1 2. t Letter, p. 4. 19 version of the order, as they do not baptize after admitting to the Holy Supper. Here, therefore, is no contradiction to the primitive example. But to advert again to recorded facts : Mr. Ful- ler indeed mentions it as an unquestionable fact, that " the first company who joined together at the Lord's table were all baptized." * But Mr. Hall denies this, as to Christian baptism, believing that many of the apostles and first disciples had re- ceived no baptism but that of John ; and Mr. Fuller has not attempted to prove the contrary : the fact is therefore at least questionable. But suppose it to be certain; Peedobaptists are conscientiously satisfied that they have also received Christian baptism ; and who shall deny them the right of private judgment ? This champion of strict communion, however, proves, what is indeed literally asserted by St. Luke, the first church historian, that all those who were " added to the church" by conversion, " con- tinued steadfast" in the apostle's doctrine, in break- ing of bread, and in prayers;" and though this will not absolutely prove, that they had all received Christian baptism (although I do not contend to the contrary) it does prove, as I conceive, that all who were admitted to fellowship with the apostles *' in doctrine and in prayers," were admitted also to communion with them " in breaking of bread ;" which is contrary to the practice of strict Baptists : they admit Peedobaptists to communion in all other devotional exercises, and to preach for them even on communion days, and yet exclude them from * Letter, p. 15. d2 20 " the breaking of bread" with them. But if the mention of baptism before the Lord's Supper, or ** breaking of bread" proves, that it must neces- sarily precede it, then assuredly the mention of ** breaking of bread" before " prayers," (meaning doubtless, social prayers,) will equally exclude all unbaptized persons (so considered) from commu- nion in prayers, as well as the Lord's Supper — which is farther, I presume, than any of our Baptist friends wish to carry it. — This argument, therefore, of the order of the terms, by proving too much, proves in fact nothing. But our excellent opponent (as others have done before him) conceives, that he has found such a connection as is above supposed, in the following well known passage of St. Paul : — ** Moreover, brethren, I would not ye should be ignorant, how tliat all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized unto Moses, in the cloud and in the sea ; and did all eat the same spiritual meat ; and did all drink the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ."* In the first place, the occasional men- tion of two ordinances in the same paragraph will not prove their dependance on each other, any more than our naming together the Missions to Greenland and to India, will imply a similar con- nection or dependance. Again, baptism "unto Moses" was not Chris- tian baptism ; nor had, as I conceive, any allusion to it, except very remotely. Still more remote is the ♦ 1 Cor. X. 1 — 5. 21 supposed reference to the Lord's Supper, in speak- ing of the manna and the miraculous water. What then is the spiritual import of the passage ? Bap- tism in the cloud unto Moses, I suppose, refers to baptism unto Christ by the Holy Spirit, which was promised to be poured out from on high upon be- lievers. If immersion in water had been here intended, surely the Egyptians, and not the Israehtes were thus immersed. The figure here appears to me somewhat analogous to that of St. Peter, in comparing the ark to baptism in a pas- sage above considered. The Israelites like Noah's family were saved, not hy immersion, but from it. But how did the cloud save them ? We are told, that the Lord sent a strong east wind, that caused a retrocession of the sea all night ; and the cloud which had gone hitherto before them, was now placed behind them; and while to the Egyptians it carried storm and darkness, to the Israehtes it was a cloud of fire and of light : they were then not baptized with water, but with Jire, which the apostle here, in harmony with our Lord's own lan- guage, compares with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. As to the manna and the water, our Lord himself explains them without any allusion to the Supper, which was not then instituted, and to which, therefore, he could not refer in his conver- sation with the Jews; though he might and did refer to that atonement, on which the latter ordi- nance was founded.* But is there not such ** an instituted connection" between baptism and the Lords Supper, as to • John vi. 51. 22 make the last in itself improper unless preceded by the former? A Paedobaptist might indeed trace an analogy between these ISew Testament ordinances, and the Old Testament sacraments of circumcision and the passover ; but an anti-paedo- baptist cannot consistently attempt this; nor would he admit any force in the argument, when urged by the Paedobaptist.* Baptism is indeed an entrance on the Christian profession ; and, when applied to children, with a view to initiating them into a Christian education, is so far in conformity with the injunction of " teaching them." This, how- ever, is only meant as an incidental remark ; it not being, as already stated, the author's design to enter on the Paedobaptist controversy. But supposing Paedobaptism to be a nullity, it is not so considered by those who practise it, and, therefore, does not an- nul the duty of commemorating their Lord's death, as we shall have farther occasion to observe. We are bound to act in all cases, to the best of our judgment, according to the evidence before us ; and if our error be unintentional, and affect not things necessary to salvation, we serve not Moses, but a Master, who graciously accepts our imper- fect services, and atones for our mistakes. There are many points, indeed, on which we could wish for clearer and more decided evidence ; but instead of complaining of this circumstance, it should teach us to be candid, and not dogmatical, since all the truths of revelation, generally speak- ing, are revealed with a clearness proportioned to their importance in the Christian system ; and in the same proportion do they demand our credence. * Booth's Apol. p. 85. 23 SECTION IV. On Mutual Toleration amomr Christians. We must here distinguish toleration into external and internal. The former resting on secular autho- rity, has no right to interfere with mental error, unconnected with moral pravity : the latter, rest- ing between members of the same society is mutual, and consists in " bearing one another's burdens" — whether they be infirmities or griefs — " and so ful- filling the law of Christ." It extends to every infirmity that is not sinful, and to every error that affects neither the foundation, nor the vitals of religion. Christianity in its nature is a tolerant and com- prehensive system ; not sectarian or exclusive. This is indeed its great and distinguishing feature, and places it in opposition to Judaism, which was the religion of a particular nation, and the divine authority of which ceased only just before that nation was broken up and scattered. But Chris- tianity, consisting not in external observances, though such may be connected with it, is equally adapted for all ages and countries, and is not liable to be superseded by any other dispensation. The Apostle Paul particularly insists on the tolerant character of Christianity, in speaking of the patriarchal rites of circumcision and the Sabbath, and of clean and unclean food, which laws though afterwards incorporated in the Jewish system, 24 were of much higher antiquity, and some of them antient as the human race. " Circumcision (says St. Paul,) is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" * — that is every thing. So had the apostle lived at a period of the church, when baptism by a particular form had been made the term of communion, I per- suade myself he would have said, * Adult baptism is nothing, and infant baptism is nothing —immersion is nothing, and sprinkling is nothing, comparatively speaking — but keeping the commandment of God is every thing, " and this is his commandment, that we love one another." f It is the object of the Gospel, not to separate or scatter, but to " gather together in Christ all things (or persons) redeemed by him, whether in earth or in heaven." The church militant and church trium- phant, are, in fact, not two churches, but one church — " the bride, the Lamb's wife ;" for Christ is not a polygamist. Now, this is. not urged as a direct, but a presumptive argument against prin- ciples of unnecessary exclusion ; and in favour of a comprehension, as large as Christian charity re- quires. It is the very spirit of the Gospel to unite Christians, and it is the spirit of heresy and schism to separate them. The grounds of Christian communion are laid in the union of the church, (as is shown in a preced- ing section ;) believers being received as members of Christ's mystical body, this is made both the ground and measure of their receiving one another. We are to receive those whom " God hath re- * 1 Cor. vii. + 1 John iii. 23. 25 ceived,"* and that " not to doubtful disputations"— not to enter into controversy with them on points unessential to salvation. Again, it is commanded, " Receive ye one ano- ther ;" that is, those who are strong in faith are or- dered to receive their weak brethren, *' even," saith the Apostle, "as Christ received us." And how was that ? Certainly, with infinite kindness and compassion to weak and mistaken brethren. It has, indeed, been doubted, whether the re- ceiving above mentioned has any relation to com- . munion with the church ; but what else can it mean here, when this is the very subject in ques- tion, and when the reception of the party by Christ is made the ground and argument of their recep- tion among their brethren ? We are ready to admit, indeed, that the recep- tion of Christian brethren, as enjoined in the New Testament, was not confined to the act of Christian communion, but included every other act of bro- therly kindness ; yet, surely, there is no instance of receiving a Christian brother or sister, which did not include that act of communion specially designed to express their union with each other, and with their Lord. Was Phebe, or Epa- phroditus, or Onesimus, or the Apostle himself, (which are the cases mentioned by Mr. Booth,!) to be received only in the way of charity, or friend- ship, and to be excluded from the Lord's table ? A great deal has been also said about the strict- ness required in conformity to the positive institu- tions of the Levitical law, in order to deter us * Rom. xiv. 3. t Apol. p. 101-2. 26 from varying any circumstance of a positive insti- tution. But we are not under Moses; and yet, even Moses allowed of a trespass offering in all cases of involuntary error, or ceremonial defile- ment ; and in cases where circumstances prevented an exact attention to the Mosaical ritual; when **the heart was prepared," those ritual irregularities were "winked at," to use a scriptural expression, and the offenders were were not " cut off from the congregation." Nor is there any example, that I am aware of, in the New Testament, where the omission of a ritual observance is made a ground of exclusion from the full communion of the Christian church. SECTION V. The Question hhtoricalli/ considered — as to mixed or exclusive Communion. In viewing the question historically, our strict Bap- tist friends contend that no persons were admitted into the communion of the primitive church without previous baptism ; on the other hand, the advocates of mixed or Catholic communion are equally con- fident, that none were excluded from that commu- nion for any difference of opinion, not affecting the vitals or fundamentals of Christianity. Both parties presume, that during the lives of the Apostles, no difference of faith or practice could obtain among the primitive Christians ; and yet it appears, both from the acts and apostolical epis^ ties, that certain questions did arise, on which even their authority was reluctantly submitted to. 27 though their decision was always in favour of toleration, amity and forbearance. There does not appear, however, to have been any question then raised as to the subjects or mode of baptism. But it is, on all hands, admitted, that such dif- ferences arose early in the third century, if not before; and they are accounted for on principles diametrically opposite. Peedobaptists, believing infant baptism to be an apostolical practice, ac- count for its disuse from a superstitious notion of the unpardonable nature of sins after baptism,, which we know influenced many to postpone the ordinance to a late period of their lives, as was the case even with the Emperor Constantine. On the other hand, our Baptist friends maintain, that the baptism (or sprinkling, as they call it,) of infants, arose from a mistaken opinion of the ne- cessity of water-baptism to salvation, and thus originated the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Wishing as much as possible to avoid the question of the right of infant baptism, I simply state the fact that such a difterence of opinion did exist ; and call upon the advocates of strict communion to show, that, at this early period, those who refused to baptise infants, banished from their communion those who did. On this subject, however, I shall quote the words of Mr. Hall, who, it must be recol- lected, is himself avowedly a Baptist. " Supposing the modern practice (so Mr. Hall calls infant baptism,) to have been first introduced towards the end of the second, or the beginning of the third century, (which corresponds to the time at which it is distinctly noticed by Tertullian, the first writer who explicitly mentions it,) we cannot £2 28 suppose a shorter space was requisite to procure it that complete establishment and ascendancy, which it possessed in the time of St. Austin. During that long interval there must have been some who still adhered to the primitive practice, and others who favoured and adopted the more recent inno- vations; there must, in other words, have been Baptists and Psedobaptists cotemporary with each other. What became of that portion of the an- cient church, which refused to adopt the baptism of infants? Did they separate from their breth- ren, in order to form distinct and exclusive socie- ties ? Of this not the faintest trace or vestige is to be found in ecclesiastical history ; and the sup- position is completely confuted by the concurrent testimony of ancient writers to the universal in- corporation of orthodox Christians into one grand community. We challenge our opponents to pro- duce the shadow of evidence in favour of the ex- istence, during that long tract of time, of a single society, of which adult baptism was the distinguish- ing characteristic. TertuUian, it is acknowledged, is the first who distinctly and unequivocally ad- verts to the contrary practice ; and as he expresses disapprobation of it at the same time, without the remotest intimation of the propriety of making it the ground of separation, he must be allowed to form one instance of the practice of mixed com- munion; and unless we are disposed to assert, that the modern innovation in the rite of baptism supplanted the original ordinance at once, multi- tudes must have been in precisely the same situa- tion."* * Hall's Reply to Kinghom, p. 219. 29 " For two centuries, therefore, (says Mr. Hall,) the predecessors of the present Baptists unani- mously approved and practised a mixed commu- munion — a communion in which Baptists and Paedobaptists united in the same societies."* " After the commencement of the fourth cen- tury, down to the era of the Reformation, (pro- ceeds Mr. Hall,t) the baptism of infants was firmly established, and prevailed to such an extent, that few traces of the ordinance, in its primitive state, are to be discerned. Many of the Waldenses; however, are judged, with great appearance of evidence, to have held opinions on that subject, coincident with those by which we, as a denomi- nation, are distinguished. By their persecutors of the Romish community, they were usually stig- matised and reproached for holding the Anabap- tists' heresy; while it appears, on the contrary, that there were not wanting among them some who practised the baptism of infants. These op- posite statements, exhibited with equal confidence on this obscure branch of ecclesiastical history, are best reconciled and accounted for, by suppos- ing them divided in their sentiments on that par- ticular. No indication, however, is discoverable of a rupture in external communion having oc- curred on that account; and from the acknow- ledged difficulty of ascertaining the separate exist- ence of Baptist societies, during the middle ages, and until the period of the Reformation, the ne- cessary inference is, either that there were none during that interval, who adhered to the primitive institute, or, as is far more probable, that they * Hall's Reply to Kinghorn, p. 21 9. t Ibid. p. 221. 30 were mingled and incorporated with persons of another persuasion." That baptism, in some form or other, was con- sidered as a pre-requisite to communion, may, as a general position, be admitted ; but that a differ- ence of opinion, as to either the subject or mode, was made a ground of exclusive communion, is what I have never yet seen proved, and therefore cannot admit. On the contrary. Dr. Mason, of New York, contends, and I think successfully, that no difference " in rites and customs in wor- ship— nor imperfections in moral discipline — nor diversities in the form of government — nor dis- sonant views on subordinate points of doctrine" — divided the communion of Christians in the first and purest ages. He instances, particularly, in the time of keeping Easter — and on the validity of the baptism of heretics ; and quotes Firmilianus, Bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, about A. D. 256, as follows, in addressing the celebrated Cyprian : — ** That they who are at Rome do not entirely observe all things which have been handed down from the beginning ; and that they appeal in vain to apostolic authority for their own usages, any one may know from the fact of his seeing that there are some differences among them about the days on which the Pascal Feast is to be kept, and about many other particulars of divine worship; and that they have not precisely the same ob- servances there as prevail in Jerusalem. So like- wise, in a very great number of other provinces, many things vary, according to the diversity of place and people ; but nevertheless, tkese varia- tions have at no time infringed the peace and unity 31 of the Catholic church, which Stephanus [Bishop of Rome] has now dared to do ; breaking that peace in regard to you, which his predecessors always maintained with you [the African churches] in mutual love and honour." * To the same effect Dr. M. quotes also Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. A like tolerance was observed, not only among the Waldenses, which is a strong and incontro- vertible fact ; t but, even in later times, the Church of England received to its highest honours, as in the instances of Tillotson and Seeker, persons bap- tized by ministers not episcopally ordained. So far, therefore, is it from true, as Mr. Booth sup- posed, that free communion originated with John Bunyan and his contemporaries in the 17th cen- tury, J that it was not till about that time that communion was broken on that account. Arch- bishop Laud's rejecting communion with the Hugonaut churches in France, in 1634, is the first instance, according to Dr. Mason, of such a breach of communion among Protestants; and this was followed, ten years afterwards, by the English Baptists, then called Anabaptists, § who first, at that period, so far as I can learn, insisted upon strict communion. * Plea for Catholic Communion, p. 51. t That part of the Waldenses rejected infant baptism, is largely proved by Mr. Jones, in his History of that excellent people ; and that part of them practised it, is also admitted by him, (see his letter, Evan. Mag. vol. xxvii. p. 504) ; but where is the proof that they separated communion on that account } X Apol. for the Baptists, p. 24, 31, &c. § Plea, p. 209, 25 J. 32 SECTION VI. On the Assumption of a Right of Exclusion, and the Evih arising from the exclusive Principle. The reverend authors of the History of Dissenters have ventured to say, " It is little less than high treason, nay it is more than high treason" for men ** to make the laws of Christ of none effect by their canons ; and to exclude from the benefit of his institutions, those whom he commands them to receive."* I am very far from charging the advocates of strict communion with intentional usurpation of Christ's authority ; nor indeed would I charge this even on the Pope himself, who may very possibly persuade himself, that the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given to him, as they were to Peter : but I conceive conversion to be a ticket of ad- mission, against which any door-keeper of a Chris- tian church turns the key at his peril, unless he has reason to suspect a forgery. I have already shewn that the church of Christ is ONE : but in this it is self-evident, that I do not mean one local society — that is clearly impossible ; but that every converted person — every one bap- tized with the Holy Ghost, (which is emphatically Christ's baptism,) becomes thereby a member of ** the church of the first-born, whose names are written in heaven;" and is also rendered eligible to be a member of any particular church on earth, by giving credible evidence of that important change. * History of Dissenters, vol. i. p. 294. 33 Now, 1 st, It appears to me to be an infringe- ment of the right of our Lord Jesus Christ, as King in Zion, for any persons, forming a Christian society, to reject from their church, those whom Christ has received into his. It may be said, they are *' weak brethren," and possibly mistaken brethren ; but if they are brethren, it is enough. St. Paul requires that they be received, and that not to doubtful disputations, (as we have already seen,) but in Christian love and charity — to the com- munion of his church and of his table. Indeed, the late Mr. Robinson, (though sufficiently zealous for baptism,) if I mistake not, resolves the whole into this question, *^ Whose table is it ?" It is the Lord's table, and spread for the Lord's people. 2. It is a violation of the " royal law," as St. James calls the law of love. " By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another." But, to exclude our Christian brethren from that ordinance, which was appointed at once as a memorial of the Saviour's love and as a means of cementing their love to each other, is not the way to induce the world to say of us — ** See how these Christians love !" Mr. Booth, indeed, denies that the Lord's Sup- per was ** appointed to be a test of brotherly love among the people of God ;" and certainly this was not the primary object of the institution : but when the loaf of communion is made an image of Christ's mystical body, the church, and when the different members, in participating together of that bread, are represented as cemented into one body there- by, * the union and communion of Christians in • 1 Cor. X. 1 7. See above, p. 7- F 34 that oFdinar>ce must be admitted to be a secondary object of its appointment. Nor should Christians ever forget that precept, which was not only given, but often repeated in the conversation at the holy table, and made to arise out of the primary design of the institution : " This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you." * 3. Strict or separate communion does violence also to the finer feelings of the Christian cha- racter. I am not charging the friends of strict communion with a want of Christian feeling — so far from -it, I doubt not that they sacrifice their feelings to their consciences. Gladly would they embrace their Peedobaptist brethren in every mean of Christian communion, were they not deterred by the fear of violating a positive institution : but may I not beg them to consider, whether it be not. a strong presumption against their interpretation of the divine law, that it does violence, not indeed to our natural feelings only, but to those which arise from principles of Christian charity, implanted in the heart by the Holy Spirit himself? Mr. Fuller, in reasoning on this point, is guilty of an inconclusiveness in argument, with which he is not often chargeable ; and at the same time rather confirms than weakens the above train of observation. Mr. F. admits that the exclusion of pious and eminent Paedobaptists from their com- munion is an act of self-denial. " But in thus denying ourselves, (he says,) it has been farther said, ' we deny some of the best feelings of the human heart.' This (adds Mr. F.) I cannot ad- mit. The best feelings of the human heart are * John XV. 12. those of love and obedience to God : and if I deny myself of the pleasure which fellovvship with a Christian brother woidd afford me, for the sake of acting up to the mind of Christ, or according to primitive example, I do not deny myself the best feelings of the human heart, but on the con- trary forego the less for the greater." * Now had .a Socinian thus reasoned, the acumen of this excel- lent man would have detected it in a moment. For how stands the argument ? Baptists do not deny "some of the best feelings of the human heart," because its very " best feelings are those of love and obedience to God !" But are not love and charity to our fellow Christians for Christ's sake, also " sotne of the best feelings of the hu- man heart?" And do these not arise from love and obedience to a command given on this very occasion, and repeated in a variety of forms — " See that ye love one another ?" If we say, love to God is the first and great command, then must we say that the second, to love our neighbour as ourselves, "is like unto it;" and love to God and man, to Christ and his people, are certainly the best feelings of the human — and of the renewed heart ! But what sort of a self-denying doctrine is this? — to deny ourselves the pleasures of bro- therly love and Christian communion ! ! Surely, this is not the self-denial enjoined upon us in the Gospels. But I cannot conclude this point with- out introducing an anecdote from Dr. Mason, of New York, respecting himself, which, while it proves the fact that exclusive communion does violence to " the best feelings of the human heart," * Fuller's Letter, p. 28. F 2 36 shews also what should be the consequence of a conviction of this fact. " One of these occasions (says the Doctor) it is impossible for him to forget. He had been dis- tributing tokens of admission to the Lord's Supper. After the congregation had retired, he perceived a young woman at the lower end of an aisle reclin- ing on a pew in a pensive attitude. As he ap- proached her she said, " Sir, I am afraid I have done wrong?" Why what have you done? *' I went up with the communicants, and received a token, but am not a member of your church ; and I could not be at rest till I spoke to you about it." To what church do you belong ? " To the Dutch church : and, if you wish it, I can satisfy you of my character and standing there." But what made you come for a token without men- tioning the matter before ? "I had not an op- portunity, as I did not know in time that your communion was to be (the) next Lord's Day. I am sorry if I have dong wrong ; but I expect to leave the city on Tuesday, and to be absent, I cannot tell how long, in a part of the country where I shall have no opportunity of communing; and I wished once more before I went away, t^yi|l?ii^.wjth Christians in showing forth my Saviour's d^eltW- He consulted a moment with the churcU-offic^jj^,^ who were still present, and it was thought 'ii^t expedient not to grant her request. He'iionimu- nicated this answer as gently as possible to the modest petitioner. She said not another word ; but with one hand giving back the token, and with the other putting up her kerchief to her eyes, she turned away struggling with her anguish, and the 37 tears streaming down her cheeks. How did his heart smite him! He went home, exclaiming to himself — * Can this be right? — Is it possible that such is the law of the Redeemer's house?' It quickened his inquiries, his inquiries strengthened his doubts, and have terminated in the conviction, that it was altogether wrong."* 4. Exclusive communion is the parent of schism ; and however slightly we may think of it, the New Testament speaks of this as a great evil. Believers are members of Christ — exclusive communion rends these members from each other ; tears the body of Christ limb from limb ; the eye says to the hand, or the hand to the eye — " Begone, I have no need of thee ! " Some persons, indeed, contend, that a union of opinion on as many points as possible, and espe- cially on this, conduces to the peace of the Church. A cutting off the arms and legs of the Church may prevent them from injuring the trunk ; but it leaves a mutilated trunk only. It is by such means, that certain congregations have refined, one point after another, till they have been reduced to the com- pass of a pew ; and their faith to the belief of their own infallibility. The fact, however, deserves to be enquired into, whether there is actually more peace and harmony in Churches which maintain strict communion, than in others which admit of free or mixed com- munion. My personal knowledge on this subject is, I confess, very contracted. So far as I have been able to learn, experience is in favour of the latter. But to name Churches on the one side and * Mason's Catholic Comm. note, p. xviii. 38 the other, and to place them in opposition to each other, would not be the way to promote Christian charity ; and would lead to personalities which it is my study to avoid. 5. Our reasoning, on this point, must be carried still farther. The principle of exclusive commu- nion is the ground of all the persecutions that have arisen in the Christian Church. What was the source of the controversy between the Arians and Athanasians ? — between the Papists and the Pro- testants ? — between the High-church party and the Nonconformists ? In all these, and in many other cases, it has arisen from the mistaken notion, that all the members of the same Church must be of one opinion — a position that never can be con- sistently maintained by a Church that is not infal- lible ; nor found in practice among any but those who believe as the Church believes, without trou- bling themselves to enquire what that may be. In fact, no two thinking men can, in nil points, be of the same opinion. The agreement of Christians is only to be expected, as already stated, in those first principles in which the Scriptures are parti- cularly clear ; and which, by the Spirit's teaching, are engrafted into every renewed heart. Far be it from me, however, to charge our Bap- tist brethren, as such, with the spirit of persecu- tion. Some of them have had the honour to rank among the first and ablest advocates of religious liberty ; and if any of them practice persecution, 1 am sure it must be an act of great self-denial. Still, however, the exclusive principle is the prin- ciple of persecution; — and what is persecution but the infliction of punishment without a crime ? 39 I know it may be said, that it is no punishment to exclude a Christian brother from a particular Church ; and so it is contended by members of the Establishment, that it is no punishment to exclude Dissenters from corporate bodies. But many of our Baptist friends will not admit this ; and, sure I am, that to some good Christians it is a much greater punishment to be excluded from a Church, where the ministry is acceptable and profitable, and especially where there is no other congregation within their reach, than it would be to be excluded from the Common Council, or even the court of Aldermen. And it is highly in- consistent, in Dissenters, to exclude their fellow- Christians from communion, for a difference in ritual observances, when they themselves com- plain of being excluded, or, at least, of their forefathers (the Nonconformists) being excluded, on the like ground, from communion in the Es- blished Church. 6. There is a farther evil arising out of this ex- clusive system. It is in many cases a cause of division, not only in churches, but also in Christian families ; and separates those " whom God hath joined together," both in the bonds of matrimonial union and of the Christian faith ; and this by means of that very gospel, which was designed to unite them all into one body under Christ their head. It is true, indeed, that the Gospel has often been the means of dividing families, through the op- position which some of their members have raised against it : but this divine dispensation is in itself '* the Gospel of peace ; " and is made the instru- 40 ment of contention only through the natural de- pravity of the human heart ; whereas, in the other case, division and separation arise out of the terms of the Gospel, as understood by strict communion- ists. It is hardly necessary to point out how much this is in opposition to our Saviour's prayer in the garden, immediately after the institution of the Holy Supper. " Neither pray I for these alone, (namely, his then disciples,) but for them also w^hich shall believe on me through their w^ord ; that they all may be one ; as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us ; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me."* 7. Not only is strict communion calculated to divide families and churches ; but it, in fact, un- churches all the Christian Societies in the world, except those within the small circle of one commu- nion. It also supersedes the last dying command of the Redeemer, to commemorate his sufferings and love. For if Psedobaptists are not proper subjects to receive the Lord's Supper ivith their Baptist brethren, neither are they without them ; and they have no alternative, but either to live in the total neglect of that institution, or to conform to another ordinance, the which they consider has been, in their case, already complied with ; and the repetition of which would not only be inconsistent, but a violation of principle which no conscientious Baptist could advise. It is true that some of this denomination may find it very difficult to believe that Psedobaptists act upon deliberate conviction. We are all too apt to suppose that our opponents are influenced by the prejudices of education, for- * John xvii. 20, 21. 41 getting that we ourselves are subject to the Hke infirmities. And though it is granted, that the names of fallible men do not weigh a feather in point of evidence, yet those of Calvin and Luther,; Usher and Hooker, Owen and Baxter, Watts and Doddridge, (to name no more,) do surely prove, that it is possible for persons to examine the ques- tion with the greatest abilities, and the best dispo- sitions, and yet remain Paedobaptists.* 8. Exclusive communion presents serious impe- diments to the universal propagation of the Gospel, and to the establishment of Christ's millenial king- dom in the earth. Many of the promises of the latter-day glory, are connected with the principle of Christian union and communion. — " In that day there shall be oxe Lord, and his name oNE."t So another Prophet — " I will set up oxe Shep- herd over them, and he shall feed them, eveitfrray servant David:";}; meaning the Messiah, who "was both David's son and lord. And when this " srood Shepherd " came in the flesh, Himself says, speak- ing to his disciples — " Other sheep I have, which are not of this fold : them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice ; and there shall be o\ e fold and ONE shepherd." § John also, the beloved disciple, tells us, that it was the office of this good Shepherd to " gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad." || And to advert again to our Lord's last hours, praying for their union with * The author well remeuibers once hearing a very amiable and pious Baptist miniater say, in preaching ou adult baptism — ** Don't tell me you can't see — you rvon't see." This is men- tioned not by way of reproach, but caution. •I- Zech. xiv. <). + lizek. xxxiv. ii.^. § Jolin x. 18. 11 John xi. .VJ. 42 each other and with himself, that they " all " might be " ONE," he adds, as the great argument to en- force that request, " that the world may believe that thou hast sent me : " * strongly implying that nothing would go so far, as a mean or motive, in the conversion of the world, as the union of Christ's disciples in him and with each other. ** By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."! Now, nothing is more certain in point of fact, than that the differences among Christians, wherever they are known, form a great objection to the spread of the Gospel, both at home and abroad — those differences I mean which divide them into sects and parties, and produce angry controversies between them. And though I have the highest esteem and veneration for the Baptist Missionaries in India, and rank them with the greatest and best of mankind, I cannot but feel some alarm for the consequences of the fact being known to the heathen world, that they form a separate caste from their fellow Christians. To see Missionaries of equal zeal and piety, who have forsaken all to follow Christ, and traversed so many thousand miles to labour in the same cause, yet not daring to communicate with each other in the most sacred ordinances of religion, is indeed an anomaly most singular and unexampled. In propagating the Gospel in Catholic countries, as in Ireland, and on the continent, the Jesuits, who have often urged this objection against the Protestants, will certainly not fail to avail thera- * John xvii. ?1. t John xiii. 35. 43 selves of the same objection.* The strong hold of Popery is its union under a living head ; and though we know that the objection is founded in ignorance, among the multitude it cannot fail to have great influence. The Scriptures teach us to look forward to a state of the church, exceedingly more glorious than we have yet seen, namely, the Millenium, which Christians, after long disputing about it, are now more wisely exerting themselves to forward. In that period, I believe, it has been generally sup- posed that Christians will be all of one mind ; and a very wise and good man, (repeatedly quoted in these pages,) some few years ago, assured me they will all be Baptists. Of this, however, I am not quite certain ; I am more inclined to think, that while we inhabit this sublunary world, there will always be differences of opinion among Christians, sufficient to exercise the graces of for- bearance, love, and candour ; and, I conceive that, thereby God will be far more glorified, than by any unanimity of sentiment on minor questions. The opinion above referred to, has, I believe, been drawn from an expression of the prophet Isaiah: — "Thy watchmen . . . shall see eye to eye, when the Lord shall bring again Zion ;" that is, according to the Chaldee, " when he shall bring back his presence to Zion."t Now the phrase of seeing " eye to eye" has been generally • The author had this argument once urged upon him in conversation, with great earnestness, by a person educated among the Jesuits, and who, afterwards, went abroad as a Ca- tholic Missionary. + Isa. lii. 8. See Bp. Lowth's and the Assembly's Ann. in he. 44 explained of seeing things clearly, and without bbscurity; but this the Hebrews would express by seeing " face to face," without a veil.* The expression " eye to eye," appears to me, an allu- sion to the office of watchmen, placed upon the walls, looking out for a messenger, or courier, bringing good tidings; and then looking toward each other, and calling, or making signals, to in- timate the circumstance-t The figure, therefore, expresses, not coincidence of opinion, but activity and zeal ; and if explained in reference to the ap- proach of the Messiah's kingdom, (as I think it should be,) it may express Missionary zeal, and a readiness to co-operate in spreading the glad tidings of salvation through the world, Now, among Missionaries, it appears to me, that minor differences of opinion, relative to baptism, church government, &c. are of very little consequence' when they do not create a schism in church com-' munion. -.ifisd I am well aware, that these differences of opi- nion disturb the peace of the church; but it is only by laying undue stress upon them. While Baptists and Psedobaptists, Independents and Presbyterians, are considered as equally entitled to a place at the Lord's table, there is no ground of contention ; but, on the contrary, peace, eternal peace, is there cemented by the blood of the cross. ■I * See 1 Cor. xiii. 12. t In the Avails of some ancient cities, if I mistake not, pipes have been found from one watch-tower to another, through ' which the watchmen might see each , other, literally " eye to eye;" and, either by signals, or b}' the voice, convey intelligence . without the knowletlgc of a besieging enemy. 45 'Oils mf"' - '-;-''' bofasa-, SECTION VU. 6i9rfJ Ohjectioiis ansioered, — Concluswn, Having offered, as briefly as possible, the argu- ments on which my own opinion rests, it might be thought disrespectful to conclude, without en- quiring into some of the principal objections which may be urged against it. Those founded on cer- tain passages of Scripture have been already con- sidered; but; there are two or three others, of a general nature, that should not be passed in total silence. In the first place, it may be said, that mixed communion is by no means necessary, as there are Psedobaptist churches. It is difficult, however, (as already observed,) for a strict Baptist to allow those to be Christian churches in which the sacra- ments are not duly administered. But waving this answer, there are many cases to which it will not apply, and where there is no evangelical Psedobaptist congregation : and even where there is one, is it no serious inconvenience for a person to be, driven from the ministry that may, perhaps, have been made instrumental to his conversion, to seek that of a stranger? It is not the part of a good shepherd to drive his flock to strange pastures. 2. It may be said — ' If Paedobaptists be ad- mitted, where shall we then stop?' — Where the Bible stops. When we receive all, who, in a principle of Christian charity we think '* God has received/' we are required to go no farther. ' But 46 may not some apply who consider baptism alto- gether as a temporary institution, and superseded by the baptism of the Spirit?'* Perhaps, there may; and if Christ has baptized them, and re- ceived them into his church, what evil can arise from receiving them into yours ? * But suppose, like the Society of Friends, they form the same opinion as to the Lord's Supper ?' Then, certainly, 'they will not apply for admission to it ; and so you need not be alarmed. 3. * But would it not prevent many from sub- mitting to adult baptism, if they could be ad- mitted without so doing?' Perhaps — probably — it might ; but our Baptist friends know best as to this fact. 'And would this injure the Baptist cause?' — Perhaps it might ; and perish e\ery cause that interferes with the cause of Christ ! My opinion is, that free communion, among Christians, would put an end to many controversies ; and, as Mr. Fuller once devoutly wished, lead " all the armies of the Lamb to concentrate their forces against the common enemy." t Here I should close, having said more than I intended ; but, in examining this question, I have found one circumstance of a most appalling nature. By the fundamental principle of congregational churches, every question relative to church go- vernment, or discipline, is decided by a majority; the Minister himself usually being Moderator. • Thoughts on Baptism, by Agnostos. i Sec motto in our title page. 47 The Baptist churches are all founded on this prin- ciple ; and all questions among them are thus determined — save and except orUy, the question of mixed communion. In that case, the advocates of exclusive communion insist, that no alteration can be made while one of their sentiment remains. Thus, as Mr. Hall observes — " while the present plan is pursued, while we are waiting for the last sands of intolerance to run out, the dominion of error and injustice may be prolonged to an intole- rable period; since, of all creatures. Bigotry is the most tenacious of life."* These are not my words. I would attribute this tenacious principle to any thing rather than to Bigotry; but I cannot apologize for a principle so inconsistent in itself, and so injurious in its effects. And this conduct appears to me the more glaringly absurd, where the Minister himself happens to be on the liberal side of the question, and would gladly administer the ordinance of the Lord's Supper to his Paedobaptist friends, as well as others, if he dared. In such cases, however, and especially where the majority of the church are for free communion, it might be well for him to put the question to himself — " How dare I to refuse them ?" The plan of Mr. Robert Hall appears to me so just, as well as liberal, that I am surprised any friend to religious liberty should object to it. He administers the ordinance in question, (as I am in- formed,) first to the strict Baptists in his church, and afterwards to the Paedobaptists, and such friends to free communion as choose to partake • Hall's Reply to Kinghorn, pref, p. xix. 48 with them. Thus the laws of Christian love and; liberty are maiatained ; the most tender con-'^ sciences are not wounded, by sitting at table with their less enlightened brethren ; and the Lord of the feast is pleased to give his presence to both : for he hath said — "Wherever two or three are ga- thered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."* ^' ni'l'-l It is not, however, for me to dictate. In pro- portion as Christians associate and co-operate in Christ's great cause, their hearts will be enlarged toward each other ; sectarian peculiarities will die away, and they will find it impossible to banish from their communion, those whom they have re- ceived into their hearts. May it please the great Head of the church to pour down such an effusion of the Holy Spirit, as may bear down all our pre- judices, and open the doors of every Christian church (like the heart of the Saviour) to receive all who come, by faith and penitence, to request admission I • Matt, xxviii. 20. THE END, J. D«naell. I'riiiler. LeaiLrr Lane. LoiiJua. SHORT STATEMENT REASONS CHRISTIAN, IN OI'POSITION TO PARTY COMMUNION BY ROBERT HALL, M. A. UonUon : HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO. SOLD ALSO BY JAMKS, BRISTOL J AND COMBE, LEICESTER, MDCCCXXVl. yULLIK, PBINTER, BRISTOL, PREFACE. A.FTER having discussed so largely, in some former publications, the question of strict com- munion, that is the prevailing practice in the baptist denomination of confining their fellow- ship to members of their own community, it was not my intention to trouble the public with the subject any farther, not having the least ambition for the last word in controversy. But it has been suggested to me, that it would not be difficult to condense the substance of the argument within a smaller compass, so as to render it accessible to such as have neither the leisure nor the inclination to peruse a large performance. It has been my endea- vour to cut off every thing superfluous, and, without doing injury to the merits of the cause, to present the reasoning which sustains it, in a concise and popular form : how far I have succeeded, must be left to the judgment of the reader. I would only remark here, that all I have seen and heard concurs to convince me that the practice of strict communion, rests almost entirely on authority, and that were the influ- ence of a few great names withdrawn, it would sink under its own weight. Among those of recent date, none has been more regarded than that of the late venerable Fuller; and as he left a manuscript on this subject to be published after his death, he is considered as having deposed his dying testimony in its favour. That he felt some predilection to a practice to which he had been so long accustomed, and whose propriety was very rarely questioned in. his early days, is freely admitted; but that he all v., along felt some hesitation on the subject, and that his mind was not completely made up, I am induced to believe from several circumstances. First, from the fact of his proposing himself to commune at Cambridge, with the full knowledge of there being paedobaptists present. Secondly, from a conversation which passed, many years ago, between him and the writer of these lines. In reply to his observation that we act precisely on the same principle with our paedobaptist brethren, since they also insist on baptism as an essential pre-requisite to communion, it was remarked, that this was a mere argumentum ad hominem : it might serve to silence the clamours of those paedobaptists, who, while they adhered to that principle, charged us with bigotry ; but that still it did not touch the merits of the question, since a previous inquiry oc- curs, whether any thing more is requisite to communion, on scriptural grounds, than a vital union with Christ : his answer was, WJien mixed communion is placed on that footing, I never yet ventured to attack it. Hence X am compelled to consider his posthumous tract rather as a trial VI of what might be adduced on that side of the controversy, with a view to provoke further inquiry, than the result of dehberate and settled conviction. Be this as it may, great as his merits were, he was but a man, and as such liable to err, even on subjects of much greater importance. All I wish is, that without regard to human names or authorities, the matter in debate may be entirely determined by an unpre- judiced appeal to reason and scripture. The prevalence of this disposition to bow to- authority, and to receive opinions upon trust, is strikingly illustrated by the following anecdote. A highly respected friend of mine, on asking one of his deacons, a man of primitive piety and integrity, what objections he had to mixed com- munion, he replied with great simplicity, that he had two^ — in the first place, Mr. Fuller did not approve of it, and in the next, the scripture declares, that he who pulls down a hedge, a serpent shall bite him. The good man very properly placed that reason first, which carried the greatest weight with it. Vll In short, there is a certain false refinement and subtlety in the argument for strict com- munion which would never occur to a plain man, who was left solely to the guidance of scripture. In common with almost every other error, it derived its origin from the public teachers of religion, and with a change of sen- timent in them, it will gradually disappear ; nor will it be long ere our churches will be surprised that they suffered themselves to be betrayed, by specious but hollow sophistry, into a practice so repulsive and so impolitic. Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis arnica Veritas. October 7th, 1826. SHORT STATEMENT', Sfc. XT is admitted, by all denominations of Christians, with the exception of one, that the sacrament of the Lord's supper is of per- petual obligation, and that it was designed by its Founder for one of the principal indications and expressions of that fraternal affection which ought to distinguish his followers. Though the communion of saints is of larger extent, com- prehending all those sentiments and actions, by which Christians are especially united, the joint participation of this rite is universally ac- knowledged to constitute an important branch of that communion. So important a part has it been considered, that it has usurped the name of the whole ; and when any dis])ute arises li respecting the terms of communion, it is ge- nerally understood to relate to the terms of admission to the Lord's table. Whether all real Christians are entitled to share in this privilege, whether it forms a part of that spiritual provision which belongs to the whole family of the faithful, or whether it is the exclusive patrimony of a sect, who, (on the ground of their supposed imperfection,) are authorized to repel the rest, is the question which it is my purpose, in the following pages, briefly and calmly to discuss. The first con- clusion to which we should naturally arrive, would probably favour the more liberal system ; we should be ready to suppose that he who is accepted of Christ ought also to be accepted of his brethren, and that he whose right to the thing signified was not questioned, possessed an undoubted right to the outward sign. There are some truths which are so self-evident, that a formal attempt to prove them has the appear- ance of trifling, where the premises and the conclusion so nearly coincide, that it is not easy to point out the intermediate links that at once separate and connect them. Whether the assertion that all sincere Christians are entitled to a place at the Lord's table is of that description, will more clearly appear as we 3 advance ; but I must be permitted to say, that a feeling of the kind just mentioned, has occa- sioned the greatest difficulty I have experienced in this discussion. It is well known that a diversity of sentiment has long subsisted in this country, in relation to the proper subjects of baptism, together with the mode of administering that rite. While the great body of the Christian world administer baptism to infants, and adopt the practice of sprinkling or pouring the sacramental water, there are some who contend that baptism should be confined to those who are capable of under- standing the articles of the Christian religion, or in other words, to adults, and that the proper mode is the immersion of the whole body. They who maintain the last of these opinions, were formally designated by the appellation of Anabaptists, but as that term implied that they assumed a right of repeating baptism, when in reality their only reason for baptizing such as had been sprinkled in their infancy, was that they looked upon the baptism of infants as a mere human invention, the candour of modern times has changed the invidious appellation of Anabaptist, to the more simple one of Baptist. It is not my intention to attempt the defence 4 of that class of Christians, though their views are entirely in accordance with my own : one consequence, however, necessarily results. We are compelled, by virtue of them, to look upon the great mass of our fellow Christians as unbaptized. On no other ground can we maintain our principles, or justify our conduct. Hence it has been inferred, too hastily in my opinion, that we are bound to abstain from their communion, whatever judgment we may form of their sincerity and piety. Baptism, it is alleged, is under all possible circumstances an indispensable term of communion, and however highly we may esteem many of our peedobaptist brethren, yet as we cannot but deem them unbaptized, we must of necessity consider them as disqualified for an approach to the Lord's table. It is evident that this reasoning rests entirely on the assumption, that baptism is invariably a necessary condition of communion — an opinion which it is not sur- prising the baptists should have embraced, since it has long passed current in the Christian world, and been received by nearly all de- nominations of Christians. The truth is, it has never till of late become a practical question, nor could it while all parties acknowledged each others baptism. It was only when a religious denomination arose, whose principles compelled them to deny the validity of any other baptism besides that which they them- selves practised, that the question respecting the relation which that ordinance bears to the Lord's supper, could have any influence on practice. But a doctrine which can have no possible influence on practice, is received with little or no examination ; and to this must be imputed the facility with which it has been so generally admitted that baptism must ne- cessarily and invariably precede an admission to the Lord's table. The wide circulation, however, of this doctrine, ought undoubtedly to have the effect of softening the severity of censure on that conduct (however singular it may appear,) which is its necessary result : such is that of the great majority of the baptists, in confining their communion to those whom they deem baptized ; wherein they act precisely on the same principle with all other Christians, who assume it for granted that baptism is an essential preliminary to the reception of the sacrament. The point on which they difter, is the nature of that institution ; which we place in immersion, and of which we suppose rational and accountable agents the only fit subjects : this opinion, combined with the other generally received one, that none are entitled to receive the Eucharist but such as have been baptized, leads inevitably to the practice which seems so singular, and gives so much offence — the restricting of communion to our ow^n denomina- tion. Let it be admitted that baptism is under all circumstances a necessary condition of church fellowship, and it is impossible for the baptists to act otherwise. That their practice in this particular is harsh and illiberal, is freely admitted, but it is the infallible consequence of the opinion generally entertained respecting communion, conjoined with their peculiar views of the baptismal rite. The recollection of this may suffice to rebut the ridicule, and silence the clamour of those, who loudly condemn the baptists for a proceeding, which, were they but to change their opinion on the subject of baptism, their own principles would compel them to adopt. They both concur in a common principle, from which the practice deemed so offensive is the necessary result. Considered as an argumentum ad hominem, or an appeal to the avowed principles of our oppo- nents, this reasoning may be sufficient to shield us from that severity of reproach to which we are often exposed, nor ought we to be censured for acting upon a system which is sanctioned by our accusers. Still it leaves the real merits of the question untouched ; for the inquiry remains open, whether baptism is an indis- pensable pre-requisite to communion ; in other words, whether they stand in such a relation to each other, that the involuntary neglect of the first, incurs a forfeiture of the title to the last. The chief, I might say the only argument for the restricted plan of communion, is derived from the example of the apostles, and the prac- tice of the primitive church. It is alleged, with some appearance of plausibility, that the first duty enjoined on the primitive converts to Christianity was to be baptized, that no repeal of the law has taken place since, that the apos- tles uniformly baptized their converts before they admitted them to the sacrament, and that during the first and purest ages, the church knew of no members who had not submitted to that rite ; and that consequently, in declining a union with those, who, however estimable in other respects, we are obliged to consider as unbaptized, we are following the highest precedents, and treading in the hallowed steps of the inspired teachers of religion. Such, in a few words, is the sum and substance of their reasoning who are the advocates of strict com- munion ; and as it approaches with a lofty and imposing air, and has prevailed with thousands. to embrace what appears to me a most serious error, we must bespeak the reader's patience, while we endeavour to sift it to the bottom, in order to expose its fallacy. Precedent derived from the practice of in- spired men is entitled to be regarded as law^ in exact proportion as the spirit of it is copied, and the principle on which it proceeds is acted upon. If neglectful of these, we attend to the letter only, we shall be betrayed into the most serious mistakes, since there are a thousand actions recorded of the apostles in the govern- ment of the church, which it would be the height of folly and presumption to imitate. Above all things, it is necessary, before we proceed to found a rule of action on precedent, carefully to investigate the circumstances under which it occurred, and the reasons on which it was founded. The apostles, it is acknowledged, admitted none to the Lord's supper, but such as were previously baptized ; but under what circumstances did they maintain this course ? It was at a time, when a mistake respecting the will of the Supreme Legislator on the subject of baptism was impossible ; it was while a diversity of opinion relating to it could not possibly sub- sist, because inspired men were at hand, ready to remove every doubt, and satisfy the mind of 9 every honest inquirer. It was under circum- stances, that must have convicted him who decHned compliance with that ordinance, of wilful prevarication, and stubborn resistance to the delegates and representatives of Christ, who commissioned them to promulgate his laws, with an express assurance that ** whoever rejected them, rejected him, and whoever received them, received him," and that to refuse to obey their word, exposed the offender to a severer doom, than was allotted to Sodom and Gomorrha/ Their instructions were too plain to be mistaken, their authority too sacred to be contemned by a professor of Christianity, without being guilty of daring impiety. In such a state of things, it may be asked, how could they have acted dif- ferently from what they did ? To have received into the church men who disputed their inspi- ration and despised their injunctions, would have been to betray their trust, and to renounce their pretensions as the living depositaries of the mind of Christ : to have admitted those who, believing their inspiration, yet refused a com- pliance with their orders, would have let into the church the most unheard of licentiousness, and polluted it, by incorporating with its members the worst of men. Neither of these could be ' Matt. X. 11, 15. 10 tViought of, and no other alternative remained but to insist as a test of sincerity on a punctual compliance, with what was known and acknow- ledged as the apostolic doctrine. **Weareof God," says St. John, '* he that knoweth God heareth us : he that is not of God heareth not us : hereby we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." ^ In short, the apostles refused to impart the external privileges of the church to such as impugned their authority, or contemned their injunctions, which, whoever persisted in the neglect of baptism at that time, and in those circumstances, must necessarily have done. But in declining the communion of modem peedobaptists, however eminent their piety, there is really nothing analogous to their method of proceeding. The resemblance fails in its most essential features. In repelling an unbaptized person from their communion, supposing such a one to have presented himself, they would have rejected the violator of a known precept ; he whom we refuse, is at most chargeable only with mistakins: it. The former must either have neglected an acknowledged precept, and thus evinced a mind destitute of principle, or he ^ 1 John iv. 6. n must have set the authority of the apostles at defiance, and thus have classed with parties of the worst description. Our paedobaptist bre- thren are exposed to neither of these charges : convince them that it is their duty to be bap- tized, in the method which we approve, and they stand ready, many of them at least we cannot doubt, stand ready to perform it : convince them that it is a necessary inference from the correct interpretation of the apostolic commis- sion, and they will without hesitation bow to that authority. The most rigid baptist will probably admit that, however clear and irresistible the evidence of his sentiments may appear to himself, there are those whom it fails to convince, and some of them at least illustrious examples of piety ; men who would tremble at the thought of deliberately violating the least of the commands of Christ or of his apostles ; men whose cha- racter and principles, consequently, form a striking contrast with those of the persons, whom it is allowed the apostles would have repelled. But to separate ourselves from the best of men, because the apostles would have withdrawn from the worst, to confound the broadest moral distinctions, by awarding the same treatment to involuntary and conscientious 12 error, which they were prepared to inflict on stubborn and wilful disobedience, is certainly a very curious method of following apostolic precedent. " The letter killeth," says St. Paul, " the spirit maketh alive." Whether the con- trariety of these was ever more strongly marked, than by such a method of imitating the apostles, let the reader judge. For the clearer illustration of this point, let us suppose a case. A person proposes himself as a candidate for admission to a baptist church. The minister inquires into his views of the ordinance of baptism, and respectfully asks whether he is convinced of the divine authority of the rite which was administered to him in his infancy. He confesses he is not, that on mature deliberation and inquiry he considers it as a human invention. On his thus avowing his conviction, he is urged to confess Christ before men, by a prompt compliance with what he is satisfied is a part of his revealed will : he hesitates, he refuses, alleging that it is not essential to salvation, that it is a mere external rite, and that some of the holiest of men have died in the neglect of it. Here is a parallel case to that of a person who should have de- clined the ordinance of baptism in primitive times ; and in entire consistence with the prin- 13 ciples which we are maintaining, we have no hesitation in affirming, that the individual in question is disqualified for Christian communion. To receive him under such circumstances, would be sanctioning the want of principle, and pour- ing contempt on the Christian precepts. Yet the conduct we have now supposed would be less criminal than to have shrunk from baptism in the apostolic age, because the evidence by which our views are supported, though sufficient for every practical purpose, is decidedly inferior to that which accompanied their first promul- gation : the utmost tliat we can pretend, is a very high probability; the primitive converts possessed an absolute certainty. Now, since we are prepared to visit an inferior degree of delinquency to that which would have insured the rejection of a candidate by the apostles, with the same severity, how preposterous is it to charge us with departing from apostolical precedent ! In the same circumstances, or in circumstances nearly the same, we are ready instantly to act the same part : let the circum- stances be essentially varied, and our proceed- ing is proportionably difierent. The apostles refused the communion of such, and such only, as were insincere, '* who held the truth in un- righteousness," avowing their conviction of one system, and acting upon another : and wherever ^ 14 similar indications display themselves, we do precisely the same. They admitted the weak and erroneous, providing their errors were not of a nature subversive of Christianity ; and so do we. They tolerated men whose sentiments differed from their own, providing they did not rear the standard of revolt, by a deliberate re- sistance to the only infallible authority ; and such precisely is the course we pursue. We bear with those who mistake the dictates of inspiration, in points which are not essential ; but with none who wilfully contradict, or neg- lect them. In the government of the church, as far as our means of information reach, the immediate ambassadors of Christ appear to have set us an example of much gentleness and mildness, to have exercised a tender considera- tion of human imperfection, and to have reserved all their severity for a contumacious rejection of their guidance, and disdain of their instruc- tions. And wherever these features appear, we humbly tread in their steps ; being as little disposed as they, to countenance or receive those who impugn their inspiration, or censure their decisions. They were certainly strangers to that scheme of ecclesiastical polity, which proposes to divide the mystical body of Christ into t\vo parts, one ^.■- 15 consisting of such as enjoy communion with him, the other of such as are entitled to com- mune with each other. In no part of their writings, is the faintest vestige to be discerned of that state of things, of which our opponents are enamoured, where a vast majority of sin- cere Christians are deemed disqualified for Christian fellowship, and while their pretensions to acceptance with God, and a title to eternal life, are undisputed, are yet to be kept in a state of seclusion from the visible church. Had they in any part of their Epistles appeared to broach such a doctrine ; had they lavished high encomiums on the faith and piety of those with whom they refused to associate at the Lord's supper, our astonishment at sentiments so singular and so eccentric, would have been such, that scarce any conceivable uniformity of manuscripts or of versions, could have ac- credited the passages that contained them. That the primitive church was composed of professed believers, and none debarred from its privileges, but such whose faith was essentially erroneous, or their character doubtful, is a matter of fact which appears on the very surface of the inspired records, and was probably never called in question, in any age or country, until an opposite principle was avowed and acted by the modern baptists, who appropriate its i IG title and its immunities to themselves, while with strange inconsistency they proclaim their conviction, that the persons whom they exclude are indisputably in possession of its interior and spiritual privileges. For this portentous sepa- ration of the internal from the outward and visible privileges of Christianity ; for confining the latter to a mere handfuU of such as have " obtained like precious faith with themselves," in vain will they seek for support in the example of the apostles. They repeatedly and earnestly warn us against resting in external advantages, and of the danger of substituting the outward sign for the inward and spiritual grace ; but never give the slightest intimation of the possibility of possessing the first, without being entitled to the last. The assertion of such an opinion, and the practice founded upon it, the reader will at once perceive, is a depar- ture from the precedent and example of the earliest age, which it would be difficult to parallel. In opposition, however, to all that has been urged to show the obvious disparity between the two cases, our opponents still reiterate the cry. The apostles did not tolerate the omission of baptism, and therefore we are not justified in tolerating it. ! But is the omission of a duty 17 to be judged of in relation to its moral quality, without any regard to circumstances, without any consideration whether it be voluntary or involuntary, whether it proceed from perversity of will, or error of judgment, from an erroneous interpretation of our Lord's precepts, or a con- tempt of his injunctions ; and supposing our peedobaptist brethren to be sincere and con- scientious, is there any resemblance between them and those whom the apostles, it is allowed, would have repelled, except in the mere cir- cumstance of their being both unbaptized, the one because they despised the apostolic in- junctions, the other because they mistake them? The former, (supposing them to have existed at all,) must have been men over whose con- science the word of God had no m) ."er ; the latter tremble at his word, and are restrained from following our example by deference to his will. If such opposite characters are the na- tural objects of a contrary state of feeling, they must be equally so of a contrary treatment ; nor can any thing be more preposterous than to confound them together, under the pretence of a regard to apostolic precedent. Our treatment of mankind should undoubtedly be the ex- pression of our feelings, and regulated by our estimate of their character. Strict communion prescribes the contrary ; it sets the conduct D 18 and the feelings at variance, and erects into a duty the mortification of our best and holiest propensities. The discipline of the church, as prescribed by Christ and his apostles, is founded on prin- ciples applicable to every age, and to every combination of events to which it is liable, in a world replete with change, where new forms of error, new modes of aberration from the paths of rectitude and truth, are destined to follow in rapid and unceasing succession. Among these we are compelled to enumerate the prevailing notions of the Christian world on the subject of baptism — an error, which it is obvious, could have no subsistence during the age of the Apostles. Here then arises a new case, and it becomes a matter of serious inquiry, how it is to be treated. It plainly cannot be decided by a reference to apostolic precedent, because nothing of this kind then existed, or could exist. The precept which enjoined the baptism of new converts, might be resisted, but it could not be mistaken, and therefore no inference can be drawn from the treatment, which it is admitted, the apostles would have assigned to wilful dis- obedience, that is applicable to the case of in- voluntary error. The only method of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, is to consider how IB they conducted themselves towards sincere, though erring Christians, together with the temper they recommend us to cultivate towards such as labour under mistakes and miscon- ceptions, not inconsistent with piety. Without expecting a specific direction for the regulation of our conduct in this identical particular, which would be to suppose the error in question not new, it is quite sufficient if the general prin- ciple of toleration which the New Testament enjoins, is found to comprehend the present instance. If action be founded on conviction, as it un- doubtedly is in all well-regulated minds, we are as much obliged to mould our sentiments into an agTeement with those of the apostles, as our conduct : inspired precedents of thought are as authoritative as those of action. The advocates of Hwxed communion are clamorous in their demand that, in relation to church fellowship, we should treat all peedobaptists exactly in the same manner as the apostles would have treated unbaptized persons in their day. But must we not for the same reason think the same of them ? This, however, they disclaim as much as we do : they ^re perfectly sensible, nor have they the hardihood to deny, that the difference is immense, between a con- 20 scientious mistake of the mind of Christ, on a particular subject, and a deliberate contempt or neglect of it. Who can doubt that the apos- tles would be the first to feel this distinction ; and, as they would undoubtedly, in common with all conscientious persons, regulate their conduct by their sentiments, that, could they be personally consulted, they would recommend a correspondent difference of treatment ? To sum up the argument in a few words. Nothing can be more hollow and fallacious than the preten- sion of our opponents that they are guided by inspired precedent, for we have no precedent in the case ; in other words, we have no example of the manner in which they conducted them- selves towards such as fell into an error on the subject of baptism ; the scriptures make no allusion to such an error which attaches at present to many most tenacious of its authority, humbly submissive to its dictates, and deeply imbued with its spirit ; to men, in a word, of the most opposite character to those who may be supposed, in consequence of setting light by the authority of inspired teachers, to have neglected baptism in the first ages. Thus much may suffice for apostolic precedent. There is still one more view of the subject to which the attention of the reader is requested 21 tor a moment. It remains to be considered whether there is any 'peculiar connexion between the two ordinances, of baptism and the Lord's supper, either in the nature of things, or by divine appointment, so as to render it improper to administer the one without the other. That there is no natural connexion is obvious. They were instituted at different times, and for dif- ferent purposes ; baptism is a mode of professing our faith in the blessed trinity, the Lord's supper as a commemoration of the dying love of the Redeemer : the former is the act of an individual, the latter of a society. The words which contain our warrant for the celebration of the Eucharist convey no allusion to baptism whatever : those which prescribe baptism carry no anticipative reference to the Eucharist. And as it is demonstrable that John's baptism was a separate institution from that which was enacted after our Lord's resurrection, the Lord's supper is evidently ajiterior to baptism, and the original communicants consisted entirely of such as had not received that ordinance. To all appearance, the rites in question rest on independent grounds. But perhaps there is a special connexion between the two, arising from divine appoiiitment. If this be the cajse, it will be easy to point it out. Rarely, if ever, are they mentioned together, and on no occasion is it asserted, or insinuated, 22 that the validity of the sacrament depends on the previous observation of the baptismal ce- remony. That there was such a connexion between circumcision and the passover, we learn from the explicit declaration of Moses, who asserts that " no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." Let a similar prohibition be produced in the present instance, and the con- troversy is at an end. The late excellent Mr. Fuller, in a posthumous pamphlet on this subject, laboured hard to prove an instituted connexion between the two ordi- nances, but his conclusion from the premises is so feeble and precarious, that we strongly suspect his own mind was not fully made up on the sub- ject. His reasoning is certainly very little adapt- ed to satisfy an impartial inquirer. The whole performance appears more like an experiment of what might be advanced in favor of a prevailing hypothesis, than the result of deep and deliberate conviction. On this point our opponents are at variance with each other ; Mr. Kinghorn roundly asserts that baptism has no more connexion with the Lord's supper than with every other part of Christianity. Thus what Mr. Fuller attempts to demonstrate as the main pillar of his cause, 23 Mr. Kinghorn abandons without scruple. What a fortunate position is that to which men may arrive, who proceed in the most opposite direc- tions— a sort of mental antipodes which yeu-will reach with equal certainty, whether you advance by the east or by the west. From the title of Mr. Kinghorn's book, which is. Baptism a term of Communion, we should be led to expect that it was his principal object to trace some specific relation which these rites bear to each other. No such thing : he denies there is any such relation : baptism, he declares, is no otherwise connected with the Lord's supper than it is with every other part of Christianity. But on his hypothesis, it is essential to the Eucharist, and consequently it is essential to every part of Christianity ; so that the omission of it, from whatever cause, is such an error in the first concoction, that it vitiates every branch of re- ligion, disqualifies for all its duties, and incurs the forfeiture of all its privileges. This is the statement of a man who makes loud professions of attachment to our peedobaptist brethren ; nor can he escape from this strange dilemma but by retracing his steps, and taking his stand with Mr. Fuller on a supposed instituted relation between the two ordinances. Meanwhile, it is instructive to observe, in what inextricable labyrinths the acutest minds are entangled. 24 which desert the high road of common sense, m pursuit of fanciful theories. Having cleared the way by showing that scripture precedent, properly interpreted, affords no countenance or support to strict communion, the remaining task is very easy. For nothing- can be more evident, than that the whole genius of Christianity is favourable to the most cor- dial and affectionate treatment of our fellow Christians. To love them fervently, to bear with their imperfections, and cast the mantle of forgiveness over their infirmities, is to fulfil the law of Christ. A schism in his mystical body is deprecated as the greatest evil, and whatever tends to promote it is subjected to the severest reprobation. '* Now I beseech you, by the name of the Lord Jesus," is the language of St. Paul, " 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. For it has been declared unto me, by them who are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of ApoUos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is Christ divided ? was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul ? " In applying these and 25 innumerable other passages of similar import to the point under discussion, two questions occur. First, Arc our paedobaptist brethren a part of the mystical body of Christ? or, in other words, Do they form a portion of that church, which he has purchased by his precious blood ? If they are not, they are not in a state of salvation, since none can be in that state who are not vitally united to Christ. The Bible acknowledges but two classes into which the whole human race is distributed, the church and the world ; there is no intermediate con- dition ; whoever is not of the first, necessarily belongs to the last. But the advocates for strict communion are loud in their professions of esteem for pious paedobaptists, nor is there any thing they would more resent, than a doubt of their sincerity in that particular. The per- sons whom they exclude from their communion are then, by their own confession, a part of the flock of Christ, a portion of his mystical body, and of that church which he has bought with his blood. The next question is, whether a formal sepa- ration from them on the account of their imputed error amounts to what the scripture stiles schism! Supposing one part of the church at Corinth had formally severed themselves from the other, E 2G and established a separate communion, allowing those whom they had forsaken, at the same time, the title of sincere Christians, would this have been considered as a schism? That it would, is demonstrable from the language of St. Paul, who accuses the Corinthians of having schisms^ among them, though they never dreamed of forming a distinct and separate communion. If they are charged with schism, on account of that spirit of contention, and that alienation of their affections from each other, which merely tended to an open rupture, how much more would they have incurred that censure, had they actually proceeded to that extremity. Schism, in its primitive and literal sense, signifies the breaking of a substance into two or more parts, and when figuratively applied to a body of men, it denotes the division of it into parties ; and though it may be applied to such a state of contention as consists with the preservation of external union, it is most emi- nently applicable to a society whose bond of union is dissolved, and where one part rejects the other from its fellowship. If there is any meaning in terms, this is schism in its highest sense. The great Apostle of the gentiles illus- trates the union of the faithful, by that which ^ The original word rendered divisions, is ffxK^tiaTa, schhmi. 27 subsists between the members of the natural body. " Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." He shows in a beau- tiful and impressive manner, that the several members have each his distinct function, and are pervaded by a common sympathy — with the express design " that there be no schism in the body." But when one part of the Christian church avowedly excludes another from tlieir communion, when they refuse to unite in the most distinguishing branch of social worship, and hold themselves in a state of seclusion, they virtually say to the party thus repelled, ** We have no need of thee ;" they cut themselves off from the body, and are guilty of a schism so open and conspicuous, that none can fail to perceive it. How is it possible for them to evade the conclusion to which this reasoning conducts us, unless they are prepared to deny the claim of the paedobaptists to be regarded as the members of Christ, or place them in some intermediate station betwixt the world and the church. But the language of the New Testa- ment, which uniformly identifies the objects of the divine favour with the members of Christ's church, is directly opposed to such a fiction. *' He loved the church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, by the washing of water through the word, that he 28 might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." It deserves the serious consideration of our opponents, that they are contend'mg for that schism in the body of Christ, against which he so fervently prayed, so anxiously guarded, and which his apostles represent as its greatest calamity and reproach. "The glory," said our Lord, "which thou hast given me, I have given them, that they may be one, even as we are one ; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one ; that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them as thou hast loved me." Here it cannot be doubted that our peedobaptist brethren are comprehended in this prayer, because our Lord declares it was preferred, not merely for the disciples then existing, but for those also who should hereafter believe through their word, adding, " that they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, that the world may be- lieve that thou hast sent me." In these words, we find him praying for a visible union among his disciples, such a union as the world might easily perceive, and this he intreats in behalf of them all, that they all may be one. The advo- cates of strict communion plead for a visible 29 disunion ; nor will it avail them to reply that they cultivate a fraternal alFection towards Christians of other denominations, while they insist on such a visible separation, as must make it apparent to the world that they are not one. Internal sentiments of esteem are cogniz- able only by the Searcher of hearts ; external indications are all that the world has to judge by ; and so far are they from exhibiting these, that they value themselves in maintaining such a position towards their fellow Christians as confounds them, in a very important point, with infidels and heathens. If a rent and division in the body, is pregnant with so much scandal and offence as the scriptures represent it, if the spirit of love and concord is the distinguishing badge of the Christian profession, it is surprising it has never occurred to them, that by insisting on such a separation, as was unheard of in the primitive times, every approach to which is denounced in scripture as a most serious evil, they are acting in direct opposition to the genius of the gospel, and the solemn injunctions of its inspired teachers. What degree of criminality may attach to such a procedure it is not for us to determine ; but we have no hesitation in affirming, that it is most abhorrent from the intention of the Head of the church, and mise- rably compensated by that more correct view of 30 the ordinance of baptism, which is alleged in its support. '' Charity is the end of the com- mandment," "the fulfilling of the law;" and since the religion of Christ is not ceremonial, but vital, and consists less in correct opinions, and ritual observances, than in these graces of the Spirit, which are the " hidden man of the heart," it deserves serious consideration, whether so palpable a violation of the unity of the church, is not more offensive in the eyes of Him who " tries the hearts and the reins," than an invo- luntary mistake of a ceremonial precept. Here we must be allowed once more to occur to the vain boast of a scrupulous adherence to the example of the apostles, (the futility of which has, I trust, been sufficiently demon- strated,) and request our opponents to reflect for a moment on their essential deviation in this particular. Say, did the apostles refuse the communion of good men? Did they set the example of dividing them into two classes, a qualified and a disqualified class ; and while they acknowledged the latter were objects of the divine favour, equally with themselves, enjoin on their converts the duty of disowning them at the Lord's table ? Are any traces to be discovered in the New Testament, of a society of Purists, who, under the pretence of 31 superior illumination on one subject, kept themselves aloof from the Christian world, ex- cluding from their communion myriads of those whom they believed to be heirs of salvation ? Did they narrow their views of church fellow- ship, as Mr. Kinghorn avows is the case of the modern baptists, to the purpose of holding up to view one neglected truth? On this plan, as many separate communions will be witnessed, as there are varieties of religious taste and pre- dilection, while each fancies it perceives some neglected duty, or some truth not rendered sufficiently prominent, till almost every inquiry will give birth to some solitary and antisocial sect. The direct tendency of such a principle, is not merely to annihilate the unity of the church, but to contract the heart, to narrow the understanding, and in the room of ''holding forth the word of life," to invest every petty speculation, and minute opinion, with the dig- nity of a fundamental truth. The revival or propagation of some one par- ticular truth, being the avowed object of their union, the members of such a society will almost inevitably attach to it an undue im- portance ; and, as their attention will be chiefly directed towards that in which they difler from others, and in which they are conceived to 32 excel, it will be a miracle if they escape a cen- sorious, conceited, disputatious spirit. While their constitution is founded, not so much on a separation from the world, as from the church, they will be almost irresistibly tempted to transfer to the latter, a large portion of the associations and feelings, of which the former is the proper object. How refreshing is it to turn from these rigid and repulsive principles, to the contemplation of the generous maxims of the New Testament! *' Him that is weak in the faith," says St. Paul, receive ye, not to doubtful disputations ;"* and after illustrating his meaning, by adducing examples of various diversities of sentiment amongst his converts, he proceeds to inculcate the most perfect mutual toleration. It is ob- servable, that the differences of opinion which he specifies related to the obligation of certain positive institutes, to which, though abrogated by the new dispensation, part of the church adhered, while its more enlightened members understood and embraced the liberty with which Christ had made them free. '* We that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." A moment's * Rom, xiv. 1. 33 attention to the connexion will convince the reader, that the term weak, in both these pas- sages, denotes persons whose conceptions are erroneous ; for the inspired writer is not ad- verting to the different degrees of conviction with which the same truths are embraced, but to a palpable difference of judgment. Thus fur the case here decided, is precisely similar to that under present discussion : our difference from the psedobaptists turns on the nature and - obligation of a positive institute. The error of which St. Paul enjoined the toleration, con- sisted in adhering to certain ceremonies which had been abrogated ; the error with which we are concerned, consists in mistaking a ceremony which is still in force. Neither of the ancient, nor of the modern error is it pretended that they are fundamental, or that they endanger the sal- vation of those who hold them. Thus far they stand on the same footing, and the presumption is that they ought to be treated in the same manner. Before we come to this conclusion, however, it behoves us to examine the principle on which the apostle enjoins toleration, and if this is applicable in its full extent to the case of our psedobaptist brethren, no room is left for doubt. The principle plainly is, that the error in question was not of such magnitude as to preclude him who maintained it from the favour 34 of God. " Let not him who eateth, despise him who eateth not ; and let not him who eateth not, judge him who eateth ; for God hath re- ceived him. Who art thou, that judgest another man's servant ? To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up ; for God is able to make him stand.'' In the same manner, in the next chapter of the same Epistle, after reminding the strong that it is their duty to bear the infirmities of the work, he adds " Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also hath received us to the glory of the Father." If such is the reason assigned for mutual tole- ration, and it is acknowledged to be a sufficient one, which none can deny without impeaching the inspiration of the writer, it is as conclusive respecting the obligation of tolerating every error which is consistent with a state of salvation, as if that error had been mentioned by name ; and as few, if any, are to be met with who doubt the piety of many psedobaptists, it not only justifies their reception, but renders it an indispensable duty. Nothing can be more futile than the attempt to turn aside the edge of this reasoning, by remarking that there is no mention of baptism, and that this is not the subject of which St. Paul is treating, as though the Bible contained no genera] principles, no maxims of universal application, but that precise 35 directions must be found for every possible emergence that in the lapse of ages may occur. Were it constructed upon this plan, the Bible must be infinitely more voluminous than the statutes at large. It is composed on one widely different : it gives general rules of action, broad principles, leaving them to be applied under the guidance of sound discretion ; and wherever it has decided a doubtful question, accompanied with an express statement of the principle on which the decision is founded, such explanation has all the force of an apostolic canon, by which we are bound to regulate our conduct in all the variety of cases to which it applies. Hence we have only one alternative, either to deny that those who differ from us on the subject of baptism are accepted of God, or to receive them into fellowship, on exactly the same ground^ and on the same principle, that Paul enjoined the toleration of sincere Christians. Before I dismiss this part of the subject, on which the patience of the reader has been severely tasked, I must beg leave to notice a striking inconsistence in the advocates of strict communion. Nothing is more certain than that the communion of saints, is by no means con- fined to one particular occasion, or limited to one transaction, such as that of assembling 36 around the Lord's table ; it extends to all the modes by which believers recognize each other, as the members of a common head. Every expression of fraternal regard, every participation in the enjoyments of social worship, every instance of the unity of the Spirit exerted in prayer and supplication, or in acts of Christian sympathy and friendship, as truly belongs to the communion of saints, as the celebration of the Eucharist. In truth, if we are strangers to communion with our fellow Christians on other occasions, it is impossible for us to enjoy it there ; for the mind is not a piece of mechanism which can be set a-going at pleasure, whose movements are obedient to the call of time and place. Nothing short of an habitual sympathy of spirit, springing from the cultivation of bene- volent feeling, and the interchange of kind offices, will secure that reciprocal delight, that social pleasure, which is the soul of Christian communion. Its richest fruits are frequently reserved for private conference, like that in which the two disciples were engaged, in their way to Emmaus, when their hearts burned within them, while the Lord opened to them the scriptures. When they take sweet counsel together, as they go to the house of God in company, when they bear each other's burdens, weep with those that weep, and rejoice with them that rejoice ; ^ 37 say, have Christians no mutual fellowship? Is it not surprising that, losing sight of such obvious facts, our opponents always reason on the subject of communion as though it related merely to the sacrament. In every other par- ticular they act just as we do. However our opponents may deviate from scripture, let them at least be consistent with themselves, and either follow out their own prin- ciples to their just consequence, by withholding from the members of other denominations every token of fraternal regard, or freely admit them to the Lord's table. As the case stands at present, their mode of proceeding is utterly untenable. In a variety of instances, they indulge them- selves in those acts of communion with paedo- baptists which are peculiar to Christians : tliey frequently make them their mouth in addressing the Deity ; they exchange pulpits ; and even en- gage their assistance in exercises intended as a preparation for the Eucharist ; and after lighting the flame of devotion at their torch, they most pre- posterously turn round to inform them, that they are not worthy to participate. It would be difficult to convince a stranger to our practice, that it were possible to be guilty of such an absurdity. Is the observance of an external rite, let me ask, a more solemn part of religion than addressing 38 the Majesty of heaven and of earth? And shall we depute him to present our prayers at his foot- stool, who would defile a sacrament by his presence ? Suppose them to relax from their rigour, and to admit pious psedobaptists to their fellowship, to what would it amount ? To no- thing more than a public acknowledgment of their union to Christ, and their interest in his benefits ; and as they fully acknowledge both, why scruple to do it at the table of their com- mon Lord ? Why select an ordinance designed for the commemoration of the dying love of the Redeemer as the signal for displaying the ban- ners of party ; and by reviving the remembrance of differences, elsewhere consigned to oblivion, give the utmost publicity to dissensions, which are the reproach of the church, and the triumph of the world ? The only colour invented to disguise this glaring inconsistency, is so pure a logomachy, that it is difficult to speak of it with becoming gravity. They remind us, forsooth, that the expressions of Christian affection in praying and preaching for each other are not church acts, as though there were some magic in the word church that could change the nature of truth, or the obligations of duty. If it is our duty to recognize those as fellow Christians who are 39 really such, what is there in the idea of a church that should render it improper there? If the church is " the pillar and ground of truth," it is the proper place for the fullest disclosure of its secrets ; and if Christians are under an obligation to love each other with a pure heart, fervently, its organization can never have been designed to contract the heart, by confining the movements and expressions of charity within narrower li- mits. The duty of churches originates in that of the individuals of which they consist, so that when we have ascertained the sentiments and principles which ought to actuate the Christian in his private capacity, we possess the standard to which the practice of churches should be uniformly adjusted. Nor is it in this particular only, that the persons whose opinions we are controverting are betrayed into lamentable inconsistency. Their concessions on another branch of the subject, lay them open to the same imputation. They acknowledge that many p8edo,baptists stand high in the favor of God ; enjoy intimate communion with the Redeemer ; and would, on their removal hence, be instantaneously admitted to glory. Now, it seems the suggestion of common sense, that the greater includes the less, that they who have a title to the most sublime privileges of 40 Christianity, the favour of God, the fellowship of Christ, and the hope of glory, must be un- questionably entitled to that ordinance whose sole design is to prepare us for the perfect fruition of these blessings. To suppose it pos- sible to have an interest in the great redemption, without being allowed to commemorate it, that he may possess the substance who is denied the shadow, and though qualified for the wor- ship of heaven, be justly debarred from earthly ordinances, is such an anomaly as cannot fail to draw reprobation on the system of which it is the necessary consequence. Men will, ere long, tremble at the thought of being more strict than Christ, more fastidious in the selection of the members of the church militant, than he is in choosing the members of the church triumphant. Hitherto our attention has been occupied in stating the arguments in favour of mixed com- munion, and replying to the objections to that practice. It is but justice to the subject and to the reader, before we close the discussion, to touch on another topic. In every inquiry relating to Christian duty, our first concern should undoubtedly be to ascertain the will of the Supreme Legislator ; 41 but when this has been clone to our satisfaction, we may be allowed to examine the practical tendency of different systems, the effect of which will be to confirm our preference of that course of action which we have found most consonant with the oracles of truth. We are far from resting the merits of our cause on the basis of expedience ; we are aware that who- ever attempts to set the useful in opposition to the true, is misled by false appearances, and that it behoves us, on all occasions, fearless of consequences, to yield to the force of evidence. But having, in the preceding pages, proved, (we would hope to the satisfaction of the reader) that the practice of strict communion has no support from scripture or reason, it cannot be deemed improper briefly to inquire into its tendency. The first effect necessarily resulting from it, is a powerful prejudice against the party which adopts it. When all other denominations find themselves lying under an interdict, and treated as though they were heathens or publicans, they must be more than men not to resent it, or if they regard it with a considerable degree of apathy, it can only be ascribed to that contempt which impotent violence is so apt to inspire. We are incompetent judges 42 of the light in which our conduct appears, to those against whom it is directed, but the more frequently we place ourselves in their situation, the less will be our surprise at the indications of alienation and disgust which they may evince. The very appellation of baptist, together with the tenets by which it is designated, become associated with the idea of bigotry ; nor will it permit the mind which entertains that prejudice, to give an impartial attention to the evidence by which our sentiments are supported. With mingled surprise and indignation they behold us making pretensions which no other denomi- nation of protestants assumes, placing ourselves in an attitude of hostility towards the whole Christian world, and virtually claiming to be the only church of Christ upon earth. Fortified, as it is, by its claims to antiquity and univer- sality, and combining in its exterior whatever is adapted to dazzle the imagination, and captivate the senses, there is yet nothing in the church of Rome that has excited more indignation and disgust than this very pretension. What then must be the sensation produced, when, in the absence of all these advantages, a sect, com- paratively small and insignificant, erects itself on a solitary eminence from whence it repels the approach of all other Christians. The power of prejudice to arrest the progress of inquiry is 4a indeed to be lamented ; nothing could be more desirable than that every opinion should, in the first instance, be judged of by its intrinsic evi- dence, without regard to the conduct of the per- sons who embrace it ; but the strength and independence of mind requisite to such an effort, is rather to be admired than expected. There are few who enter on the investigation of theological questions in that elevated state ; secret anti- pathies or predilections will be sure to instil their venom, and obscure the perception of truth, and the suggestions of reason. By the stern rejection of the members of all other denominations, until they have embraced our distinguishing tenets, what do we propose to effect — 'to intimidate or to convince ? We can do neither. To intimidate is impossible, while there are others, far more numerous than our- selves, ready to receive them with open arms. The hope of producing conviction by such an expedient is equally groundless and chimerical, since conviction is the result of evidence, and no light whatever can be pretended to be conveyed by interdicting their communion, unless it be that it manifests our intolerance. We propose to extirpate an error,^ and we plant a prejudice ; and instead of attempting to soften and conciliate the minds of our opponents, we inflict a stigma. 44 Professing serious concern that the ordinance of baptism, as it was practised in the first ages, is fallen into neglect, we attempt to revive an unpopular rite, by a mode of procedure, which, without the remotest tendency towards the removal of error, or the elucidation of truth, answers no other purpose than to make ourselves unpopular. By this preposterous conduct, we do all in our power to place our paedobaptist brethren beyond the reach of conviction. Since it is unreasonable to expect, however attractive the ministry, that a pious pgedobaptist will statedly attend where he must despair of ever becoming a member, and of enjoying the privileges to which every serious person is supposed to aspire : he attaches himself, as a necessary consequence, to a con- nexion in which there is no such impediment, but where he is certain of hearing nothing but what will foster his prejudices, and confirm his error. Thus he is excluded from the only connexion where the arguments for adult bap- tism are stated, and is exposed to the constant operation of an opposite species of instruction. The practice which we are reprobating is nearly equivalent to an inscription over the door. Let none but baptists enter within these walls — an admirable expedient truly, for diffusing the 45 baptist sentiments, about as rational as to send a man from London to Constantinople to study the evidences of Christianity. Mr. Kinghorn is delighted with this sepa- ration of the baptists from other denominations in the offices of devotion, avowing it as his opinion, that no peedobaptist can, without great impropriety, statedly attend the ministry of one of our denomination. If we may judge from what he has written on this subject, he appears less anxious to promote and extend the peculiar tenets of the baptists, than to preserve inviolate their sacred seclusion and solitude. His sen- timents on this subject will probably remind the poetical reader of Gray's beautiful description of the bird of night, which does to the moon complain Of such as, wandering near her secret bowers, Molest her ancient, solitary reign. Whatever his intention may be, it must be obvious, that by the policy he recommends, of keeping the baptists and paedobaptists entirely separated from each other, even as hearers of the word, he is strengthening the barriers of party, building up a middle wall of partition, and by cutting off the channels of communication, and the means of conviction, resigning both to the entire and unmitigated operation of their respective systems. Is it possible to imagine 46 i any thing more calculated to stifle inquiry, to render the public mind stationary, and to perpetuate our divisions to the end of the world ? ■ From him who was really solicitous to extend the triumphs of truth, we should expect nothing would be more abhorrent than such a system ; . . ! he surely would leave nothing unattempted to break down the rampart of prejudice, and by making the nearest approaches to his opponents, ^- "Ay consistent with truth, avail himself of all the advantages which a generous confidence seldom fails to bestow, for insinuating his sentiments, and promoting his views. Of the tendency of mixed communion to promote a more candid inquiry into our prin- ciples, it is scarcely possible to doubt ; whether it would have the effect of rapidly extending the baptist denomination as such, is less certain. For were that practice universally to prevail, the mixture of baptists and psedobaptists in Christian societies would probably, ere long, be such, that the appellation of baptist might be found, not so properly applicable to churches as to individuals, while some more comprehensive term might possibly be employed to discrimi- nate the views of collective bodies. But what then? Are we contending for names, or for things ? If the effect of a more liberal system. 47 shall be found to increase the number of those who return to the primitive practice of baptism, and thus follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth, he must be possessed of a deplorable imbecility and narrowness of mind, who will lament the disappearance of a name, espe- cially when it is remembered that whenever just views on this subject shall become universal, the name by which we are at present distin- guished will necessarily cease. An honest solicitude for the restoration of a divine ordi- nance to its primitive simplicity and purity, is not merely innocent, but meritorious ; but if the ultimate consequence of such an improvement should be, to merge the appellation of a party in that which is derived from the divine Founder of our religion, it is an event which none but a bigot will regret. It were well, however, if the evil resulting from the practice of strict communion, were confined to its effect on other denominations. If I am not much mistaken, it exerts a pernicious influence on our own. Were it consistent with propriety, it would be easy to adduce excep- tions : individuals have come within the narrow range of my own observation, whose tem- perament has been so happy, that they have completely surmounted the natural tendency of 48 their principles, combining the greatest candour towards paedobaptists, with a conscientious re- fusal of their communion. Such instances, however, must, in the nature of things, be rare. Generally speaking, the adoption of a narrow and contracted theory, will issue in a narrow and contracted mind. It is too much to expect that a habit of treating all other Christians as aliens from the fold of Christ, and unworthy of a par- ticipation of the privileges of his church, can be generally unaccompanied with an asperity of temper, a proneness to doubt the sincerity, to censure the motives, and depreciate the virtues of those whom they are accustomed to treat with so much rigour. Conceiving themselves to be a highly privileged class as the only legitimate members of his church, they are almost in- evitably exposed to think more highly of them- selves than they ought to think ; and founding their separation, not on that which distinguishes the followers of Christ from the world, but on a point in which Christians dissent from each other, they are naturally tempted to attach superlative importance to the grounds of difference. The history of the present controversy affords a melancholy confirmation of these remarks ; for the few who have ventured to appear on the liberal side of the question have, for the most 49 part, been assailed by ungenerous insinuations, and odious personalities. Their claim to be considered as baptists is very reluctantly con- ceded, and the part they have taken has been imputed to the love of popularity, or to some still more unworthy motive. Some churches, in their zeal for strict communion, have even lost sight of their own principles, and substituted the doctrine opposed in these pages as a term of admission, instead of the ordinance of baptism. ' Others have refused the privilege of occasional communion to such as have been known to sit down with paedobaptists, at the Lord's table. Leaving, however, to those to whom it may be more grateful, the unwelcome office of exposing the infirmities of their brethren, let me close this subject by one more remark. In addition to all the other reason* for retracing our steps, we may, with great propriety, alledge the spirit of the times, the genius of the age, distinguished, as it is, beyond all former example, by the union of Christians in the promotion of a common cause, and their merging their minor differences in the cultivation of great princi- ples, and the pursuiu of great objects. Instead of confining themselves, each to the defence of his own citadel, they are sallying forth in all directions, in order to make a powerful and H 50 combined attack on the kingdom of darkness. The church of Christ, no longer the scene of in- testine warfare among the several denominations into which it is cantoned and divided, presents the image of a great empire, composed of distant, but not hostile provinces, prepared to send forth its combatants, at the command of its invisible Sovereign, to invade the dominions Satan, and subdue the nations of the earth. The weapons k #/! of its warfare have already made themselves felt ' in the East and in the West, and wherever its banner is unfurled, it gathers around it, without distinction of name or sect, '' the called, the chosen, the faithful," who, at the heart- thrilling voice of Him whose vesture is dipped in blood, and who goes forth conquering and to conquer, rush to the field, unmindful of every distinction but that of his friends and foes, and too eager for the combat to ask any other question, than. Who is on the Lord's side? Who? And is it possible, after mingling thus their counsels, their efforts, their prayers, and stand- ing side by side, in the thickest of the conflict, in coming up to the help of the Lord, to the help of the Lord, against the mighty, for them to turn their backs on each other, and refuse to unite at that table which is covered with the memorial of his love, and the fruits of his victory ? No. As we hope, when the warfare 51 of time is accomplished, and these mortal tabernacles, in which it is performed, shall be dissolved, to celebrate a never-ending feast, with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the whole army of the faithful, of every age, from every clime, and from every tongue, let us begin by feasting together here, to present a speci- men of that harmony and love, which are at once, the element and the earnest of eternal felicit5^ ri'M Fn, PUIMFR, BRISTOL. LETTERS TO THE REV. R. HALL, A. M. CONTAININ'O AN EXAMINATION OF HIS THEORY, CHRISTIAN, 1.1 OrPOSITION TO PARTY COMMUNION: BY WILLIAM GILES. The power of Truth has extorted from some or other of our " opponents," the confession of the premises which infer our conclusion. Dr. Clagett. Uontion : W I G H T M A N AND C R A ^M P, PATERNOSTER ROW. MDCCCXXVU. HARJETTE AND SAVILL, 107, ST. MARTIN's LANE. PREFACE. XHE subject in debate between Mr. Hall and his opponents, must be considered by every reflecting, good man, to be a matter of vital importance. If Mr. Hall's theory be correct, the whole bulk of the Christian world has retained an error, from generation to generation, that seriously aiFects the genius and spirit of the kingdom of Christ ; and, as such, his system certainly claims the strictest and most impartial investigation, nor need any one apologise for taking a part in that investigation. It is true that Mr. Hall's theory, in one of its principal features, stands opposed to the current opinion both of baptists and psedobaptists : still, it is against the strict baptists that Mr. H. has directed his principal force ; in doing which, he has evinced more than usual zeal. Not content with calling public attention to his system b n in octavo volumes, he has recently, with a view to extend its circulation, condensed his argu- ments, and sent them forth at a price (in con- nexion with his name) that will certainly insure the realization of his desire. Having closely examined every argument in the pamphlet, I have ventured to give it as my opinion, that Mr. Hall's system rests entirely on untenable ground, and that the most plausible of all his arguments may, by a little dexterity, be brought forward as a plea for scepticism, and an excuse for almost every error. Such a result must certainly have escaped Mr. Hall's notice. It appears to me, that if it be admitted that the force of evidence which the inspired volume now affords is so much less than it was during the lives of the apostles, that what would then have rendered the unbeliever and disobedient, cri- minal and contumacious, ought, for the want of equal evidence now, to be considered as an innocent mistake, or an involuntary and con- scientious error ; it must necessarily follow, not only that all error has a claim to the same excuse, but that all we have received as positive truth is, to a certain degree, doubtful ; and yet, Ill if I am not mistaken, such is the tendency of Mr. Hall's principal argument, — that argument on which his system chiefly rests. Whether Mr. Hall's opponents have detected the sophistry of this argument, I know not ; but to the inves- tigation of this my attention has more particu- larly been directed. How far my remarks are correct, the reader will judge ; if correct, I may venture to affirm, that some more substan- tial ground must be discovered on which to rest Mr. Hall's theory, or it must fall under its own weight. There is a force and splendour in the composition of Mr. Hall's pamphlet, very calcu- lated to ensnare the mind and mislead the judg- ment of incautious readers ; but it is a splendour that will, perhaps, bring to the recollection of the thoughtful reader the lustre and glory, not of the " bird of night,"^ but of that peerless bird, the bird of day. He will admire the inimitable beauty of its dazzling plumage, but as he touches it, he will find it as soft and yielding as it is beautiful and imposing ; and, surveying it as a whole, he will discover that, like that bird, its glaring deformity is in its feet ; these he will 1 S«e Mr. Hall's pamphlet, page 45. perceive to be preposterously out of order, naked, and unsightly. It becomes the enquirer after truth to guard against all impressions made on his mind in favour of any religious sentiment, but those which result from sound argument. " If the truth make us free, we shall be free indeed." I have always admired the productions of Mr. H's pen, and if I have ever coveted his talent for description, it has been on this occasion, that I might be able to present before my readers my objections to his theory with equal advantage. It is truth I desire above all things to be clearly elicited, and should this be found on the side of free communion^ I shall heartily rejoice, though every argument I have advanced be swept away. Truth, and truth only I wish to see triumphant. But the reader should consider that the advocates for strict communion can never appear in this controversy on an equal ground with their opponents. Such are the prejudices to be found in a vast majority of pro- •fessing Christians against our sentiments on this subject, that bigotry is almost sure to be associated with even the title pages of our publications, so that with the exception of but few, we cannot expect to be patiently heard ; nor can we, however guarded, give full force to our arguments without a great risk of giving offence. Should the follow- ing Letters be read by any psedobaptists, the Author hopes they will give him credit for his sincere attachment and love to all good men. His principal object has been to prove in opposi- tion to Mr. H's theory, that there is an inseparable connexion between the two Christian institutions, and that as we believe the first to consist in a be- liever's immersion in water, in the name of the Sacred Trinity, we cannot but contend for the priority of its observance. We love all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, but the higher claim which our Lord has on our love and obe- dience constrains us to make obedience to him, the rule by which we are to manifest our love to others. And if they will receive the operation of our affection through this medium, they shall find us not a whit behind those who are consider- ed to be our more liberal brethren. The wise will ever think, that " Open rebuke is better than secret love." I have taken the liberty to present to the pub- lic what I have written, in the form of Letters VI addressed to Mr. H. My principal reason for choosing this form has been to avoid the frequent repetition of the expressions " Mr. Hall " and " Mr. H." which in any other form could not be avoided without a disagreeable circumlocution. I sincerely unite with Mr. H. in assuring the reader that " all I wish is that without regard to human names and authorities the matter in debate may be entirely determined by an unprejudiced appeal to reason and scripture," and then, let the result be what it may, the end I have had in view will be fully answered. (( Yeritas, etiamsl jucunda non est, mihi tamen grata est.^^ Chatham, April, 1827. CONTENTS. LETTER I. The reasons that induced the author carefully to exa- mine Mr. Hall's Theory on Communion - - 'page LETTER IL Mr. Hall's charge against the strict baptists rebutted, and proved to be without foundation. Mr. H.'s partiality to the paedobaptists pointed out ; and his severity towards the strict baptists reprehended ..-..- LETTER in. Mr. H.'s argument from apostolic precedents carefully con- sidered. It imphes two things, — that baptism may in some cases be religiously dispensed with, and that persons may mistake it and pervert it without blame. The nature of baptism as presented in the Scriptures — the light in which it is viewed both by baptists and paedobaptists, considered ; no excuse for error can be derived from any obscurity attached to scripture evidence; — no excuse for error from natural inability; — all error proved to be sin, arising from moral defect. Mr. H.'s plea for the paedobaptists on the ground of their piety, considered; — piety cannot extenuate, but must increase the blame attached to error ; — piety of character will not prevent, but must tend to faciUtate the spread of error. Apostolic precedents of thought, as well as precedents of action, against Mr. H.'s theory. Mr. H.'s exempting case examined; — the want of conviction proved to be no excuse for error; — the case proved to be incorrect in theory and wholly impracticable - - . . LETTER IV. Mr. H.'s argument from the non-connexion between the two institutions, examined . His conclusion from the difference Vlll CONTENTS. of opinion between Fuller and Kinghorn without founda- tion;— baptism authorized by our Lord before the resurrec- tion ;— the first communicants proved to be baptized per- sons;— the spiritual qualifications requisite for the Lord's supper uniformly in the Scriptures precede baptism; — baptism must precede and be connected with the legitimate participation of the supper. Baptism, if not obligatory on the believer before his participation of the supper, not so afterwards. Profession must always precede participation. Baptism, the institution in the Scriptures by which a profession of Christianity is made; — the two institutions naturally con- nected in all that is essential to Christian institutions, page 31 LETTER V. Mr. H.'s analogical argimient on the 14th of Romans, ex- amined;— his analogy defective ; — the persons for whom the apostle pleaded wholly different to the persons for whomM r. H. pleads; — the matters about which they diflTered admit of no comparison with a positive institution ; — cannot be admitted that baptists and pasdobaptists are to unite in fellowship, and be scripturally prohibited from all disputes about baptism - 41 LETTER VL Mr.H.'s charge of schism on the strict baptists, considered; — Mr. H. aims to effect by alarm what he cannot do by argu- ment;— the charge serious; — has brought on the strict bap- tists the ill-will of their brethren ; — incoiTect; — if it attaches to the strict baptists it must attach to all sects of Christians; all have their distinct terms of communion, even mixed com- munionists. Mr. H. faitlifuUy reproved for his unkind treat- ment of his brethren -51 LETTER Vn. Mr. H.'s argument founded on expediency, examined ; — foundto be incoiTect; — illustrated by the condition of three churches, two of which have tried Mr. H.'s plan, and proved its inexpediency; — the other has maintained its strict fellow- ship and been successful; — three other evUs have generally followed the liberal policy. The conclusion - - - 5Q LETTERS, &c. LETTER L Dear Sir, THOUGH I have ventured to place myself in the ranks of your opponents, I hope I am sen- sible of the deference I ought to pay to the graces and gifts with which God has endowed you ; and which I believe you diligently and conscientiously devote to the Redeemer's cause. I anticipated the appearance of what you had written on the subject of Communion with great interest, wish- ing that if I was mistaken, your arguments might correct me. I confess, that the first reading of your book produced a considerable impression on my mind ; and shook, for a time, my full conviction of the accuracy of the opinions I had so long maintained. This continued until I read a paper in the Christian Repository, said to be written by you, on the possibility of the salvation of the Jews, even though they rejected the New Testa- ment. The novelty of the subject induced me to examine it with more than usual attention ; in B 2 doing which, it appeared to me, that your argu- ments were as inconclusive as any ever ventured in support of a theological sentiment: while I thought I could discover that you had been led into error, through the undue influence of your great pity and benevolence : and, as I felt some hesitation respecting your arguments in favour of mixed communion, I was induced to think that the same exuberance of good-will and kind wishes towards the paedobaptists might have warped your judgment on this subject likewise. I, there- fore, resolved closely to examine it. The result of that examination will be found in the following letters. Believe me, dear Sir, To be, with great esteem, Your's, affectionately. LETTER II. Dear Sir, If the developement of truth has been your main object in this controversy, why should you tell your readers in your preface, (without one shadow of proof,) that "strict communion rests only on authority;"' i. e. on the opinions of a few of its leading advocates. It is to be regretted, that you did not more carefully examine this charge before you ventured to assert it. Nothing could be easier, if it were kind, than to return a similar compliment, and say, that the more we see and hear, the more we are convinced that all those converts to free communion, who rest their opinion on apostolical precedents of thought, really pin their faith, in this matter, to another man's sleeve. Is it not notorious, that interest, honour, and popularity, on the one side ; and reproach and contempt on the other, com- bine to induce the strict baptists to change sides ? If human authority could satisfy their consciences, they would gladly turn over and shield them- selves under your name ; an authority that would bring upon them the warmest congratulations from all their brethren, who are become prose- lytes to your ingenious theory. Can you seriously 1 Vide Mr. H.'s Preface, p. 4. B 2 think, that the authority of a few fallible men, however venerable and excellent, would be suffi- ciently operative to induce men of like passions with yourself, to sacrifice what is dear to every man, and voluntarily expose themselves to the combined reproach of friends and foes ? No, Sir, this is a state of things from which human nature will always recoil. Surely, then, you might have fixed on a more liberal reason than human authority, to account for the obstinacy of your mistaken brethren. Theological controversy should always be con- ducted agreeably with the Divine rule of "speak- ing the truth in love." But we are sorry to say, we think you have not, in this controversy, strictly adhered to this rule. You appear, at the com- mencement of your pamphlet, to claim for us the good-will and candour of the psedobaptists, by saying, " They both concur in a common prin- ciple, from which the practice deemed so offen- sive, is the necessary result. Considered as an argumentum ad hominem, or an appeal to the avowed principles of our opponents, this reason- ing may be sufficient to shield us from the seve- rity of reproach, to which we are often exposed, nor ought we to be censured for acting upon a system which is sanctioned by our accusers." ' Who, Sir, could read such sentences as these, 1 Mr. H.'s Pamphlet, p. (>. without expecting that you would at least shew the same candour towards your brethren that you had claimed for them? But is it so ? No ! We find as we proceed, that the peedobaptists, whom you consider equally reprehensible, as it regards baptism as a term of communion, and besides this to be unscriptural in their views of baptism, are the objects of your commiseration ; whilst the strict baptists are made to feel, (if feel they can,) the weight of your severest censure. After stretching our candour to the utmost extent, the only construction we can put on your design in pleading for us is, that you wished to prevent others from using the whip, that you might chas- tise us with scorpions. Unkind allusions, and hard names, are never likely to convince an opponent ; but they may do him much injury, by exposing him to the contempt and reproach of others. Had you, Sir, in this controversy, evinced the same tenderness towards us that you have to- wards the peedobaptists, we should have admir- ed your candour and impartiality ; and have concluded, that your sole object had been to convince us of our error. Nor should we have been offended by any description you might have given of that error, had you supported your description of it by sound argument. May we not reasonably claim from you what you have so gratuitously granted to others, viz. that our 6 error is " involuntary ; and that we retain it in deference to the will of Him at whose word we tremble ?" In my next, I intend carefully to examine your argument, founded on scripture precedents, and hope I shall be enabled to do it with all the meekness and sincerity which its importance and the Christian character demand. I am, dear Sir, Your's, &c. LETTER III. Dear Sir^ If your reasoning on apostolic prece- dents be correct, we are bound, as the disciples of Christ, to embrace your theory, and freely receive into our fellowship all whom the Lord hath received. But if your reasoning on this point prove fallacious, your whole superstructure must fsiW. We cannot but be pleased, notwithstanding your severity towards us, with the candour you have shewn, in placing before your readers some of the reasons on which we found our practice. You say " we are compelled by virtue of them" (i. e. our sentiments as baptists) " to look upon the great mass of our fellow-Christians as unbap- tized. On no other ground can we maintain our principles, or justify our conduct. — Baptism, it is alleged, is, under all possible circumstances, an indispensable term of communion ; and, however highly we may esteem many of our paedobaptist brethren, yet, as we cannot but deem them un- baptized, we must of necessity consider them as disqualified for an approach to the Lord's table. An opinion, which it is not surprizing the baptists should have embraced, since it has long passed current in the Christian world, and been received by nearly all denominations of Christians." ^ You 1 Mr. H's Pamphlet, p. 4. say, also, " Let it be admitted that baptism is, under all circumstances, a necessary condition of church-fellowship, and it is impossible for the baptists to act otherwise." ^ " The chief, I might say, the only argument for the restricted plan of communion, is derived from the example of the apostles, and the practice of the primitive church. It is alleged, with some appearance of plausi- bility, that the first duty enjoined on the primi- tive converts to Christianity, was, to be baptized; that no repeal of the law has taken place since ; that the apostles uniformly baptized their converts before they admitted them to the sacrament ; and, that during the first ages, the church knew of no members who had not submitted to that rite ; and that consequently, in declining a union with those who, however estimable in other respects, we are obliged to consider as unbaptized, we are follow- ing the highest precedents, and treading in the hallowed steps of the inspired teachers of reli- gion." ^ " The apostles, it is acknowledged, admitted none to the Lord's supper but such as were previously baptized." ^ " Their instruc- tions were too plain to be mistaken." * It is very natural to ask, after this liberal state- ment. Can any religious doctrine or ordinance rest securely on any other authority than that of the apostles ; or is it necessary to adduce any 1 Mr. H.'s Pamphlet, p. 6. " Ibid. p. 7. 3 Ibid. p. 8. 4 jbid. p. 9. other authority to give validity to any received religious opinion? Only, Sir, produce clearly such authority for the admission of unbaptized persons, and our controversy shall at once termi- nate. Two deductions are evident from the above concessions ; — that all the scripture pre- cedents of action are on our side, and that, in opposing the strict baptists, you are really op- posed to the sentiment of almost all the Christian world. Certainly among these millions of human beings, composed of minds of various orders, there must be some that cannot be denominated weak brethren. I now proceed to consider the argu- ment you oppose to the sentiments of this vast collection of human intelligences ; for, after all these concessions, you call upon us to receive all pious unbaptized persons into fellowship with us ; and invite us to forsake the hallowed steps of the inspired teachers of religion, in their " precedents of action," and follow you, in your intellectual pursuit of them, in their " precedents of thought," which you tell us are as " authoritative as those of action." Your plea for these unbaptized per- sons appears to be : First. The comparative in- feriority of evidence to be deduced now from the Scriptures, to what might be deduced whilst the living depositaries of the truth existed. Secondly. That the persons for whom you plead, are conscientiously mistaken ; their error is invo- luntary, and they retain it in deference to their Master's will. Thirdly. That, as the apostles received all whom they thought to be pious, who 10 were baptized, we, in order to follow them in their precedents of thought, are bound to receive all we think to be pious, though unbaptized ; and, that unless we do, we really make no difference in our treatment towards some of the most excel- lent of the earth, and those that are the most vicious. I think, Sir, I have now before me the whole of your argument. I would not willingly leave any part of it untouched. Having, as you con- ceive, established these positions, you do not fail to bring your mighty talents to bear, in a most overwhelming manner, upon your opponents ; in a manner, indeed, very likely to produce a strong impression upon all who do not closely examine the ground on which you stand. It is, I think, one of the best wrought-up pieces of sophistry I have ever examined. It approaches with a " lofty and imposing air ;" and I am fear- ful that some of your admirers will deem me weak and presumptuous for attempting to disturb it. Be assured. Sir, that I advance towards it with becoming respect. There are two things which, in your hypothe- sis, you seem to take for granted. First. That the institution of baptism is of a nature that, in some cases, it may be religiously dispensed with. Secondly. That persons may mistake it, or pervert it, without blame ; nay, that if an error, it is invo- luntary and conscientious, and of a nature that it 11 may be retained "in deference to the will of Him at whose word they tremble." The following is the testimony of God respecting the institution in question. Matt. iii. 13 — 17 : — " Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, unto John to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering, said unto him, Suffer it to be so now ; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water : and lo ! the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and light- ing upon him. And lo ! a voice from heaven, say- ing. This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well- pleased." Matt, xxviii. 18 — 20: — "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth : go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo ! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Mark xvi. 15, 16 : — "And he said unto them. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Acts ii. 38 : — " Then Peter said unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall 12 receive the gift of tlie Holy Ghost." Ver. 41. — " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized ; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." Acts viii. 12. — "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women." Verses 37 and 38. — " And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still ; and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him." Acts x. 47. — " Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" Acts xvi. 14, 15, 40. — " Whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended to the things which were spoken of Paul — and when she was baptized and her household — and entered into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed." Ver. 33 and 34. — " And was baptized and all his house — and rejoiced believing in God with all his house." Every sentence in this unerr- ing testimony, attaches solemnity and sacredness to the institution, and calls upon all who wish to enjoy the answer of a good conscience seriously and impartially to examine its claims. The baptists, from these divine declarations, consider baptism as an institution in which a pro- 13 fession of the religion of Christ is solemnly made, the Trinity sacredly recognized, and the candidate consecrated to God in that thrice-holy name ; that it is designed to remind him of the inaugura- tion of the Saviour into his work as the great Mediator ; to emblemize his burial and resurrec- tion, the believer's death unto sin and his life unto holiness, and also the glorious doctrine of the final resurrection of his body ; that it is an impor- tant means of grace ; and that it is obligatory a sa command on all that profess to be the disciples of Christ. This, Sir^is a view of the institution that you will not, I think, scruple to acknowledge. The psedobaptists differ widely in their opinions respecting it. Some conceive it to be essential to salvation ; and others that it is a sign and seal of God's covenant with believers and their offspring. Mr. Burkitt, speaking of infants under the notion of God's lambs, calls baptism God's ear mark, by which his sheep are distinguished from goats. Mr. Henry — Baptism wrests the keys of the heart out the hands of the strong man armed, that the possession may be surrendered to him whose right it is; — the water of baptism is designed for our cleansing from the spots and defilements of the flesh. Mr. G. Whitefield — Does not this verse, (John iii. 5,) urge the absolute necessity of water baptism? yes, where it may be had ; but how God will deal with persons unbaptized we cannot tell. Mr. John Wesley — If infants are guilty of ori- ginal sin in the ordinary way they cannot be saved, 14 unless this be washed away by baptism.' He "believed that the holy impressions made on his mind in baptism, were not wholly removed until he was nine years of age. Dr. Williams — Bap- tism ratifies the promises, and authenticates divine revelation ; — baptism gives a legal title to read the Scriptures, to all the contents of that sacred volume, and to all the means of conversion. The obligation to repentance, to holiness, and to obedi- ence results from being baptized.^ We have now before us part of the divine testimony concerning baptism, and some of the different views which various sects of Christians have of it. The ques- tion that arises from this is, ought any sect of Christians (no matter who are right or who wrong as to the inquiry,) to admit a practice that must entirely nullify an institution that is enjoined in the New Testament, and as to matter of fact set it entirely aside ? Ought the baptist to concede baptism, when, according to your own acknow- ledgments, there is a high probability he is right, and tacitly sanction in its stead, what he conceives not merely a negation of what is right, but what is as opposite to his views of the institution as infant communion is to the design of the supper ? Can he thus tolerate a practice which he views to be in defiance to the law of him whom he is bound by every sacred consideration to honour ; or should the paedobaptists (if they are, as you say, conscien- tious in their views of the institution, ) give up 1 Vide Coke and More's Life of Wesley. 2 See Westlake on Baptism, pp. 61 and 62. 15 the ordinance and sanction in their baptist mem*- bers, the omission of an indispensable parental duty, to the neglect of which such solemn con- sequences attach, and which no after conduct can ever repair ; an omission much more momentous in its results than could attach to the neglect of any parental duty relating to the temporal interest of their offspring? You will perhaps reply, that the views of the different parties are not, by their mixed fellowship compromised ; but we think the contrary. If I am bound to receive one unbap- tized person, I must by the same rule receive all, and it may then follow, that I may have under my charge a whole church who are living in the neglect of what I believe to be an indispensable ordinance of Christ, and who are perseveringly substituting in its place a mere human rite, while my official situation must place me as a sort of godfather or sponsor to the ceremony. In a state of mixed fellowship the difficulty is certainly the greatest on the side of the baptists ; but I cannot see how psedobaptists can adopt the practice of mixed communion, and act with that simplicity and decorum that are becoming every thing relating to the church of Christ. In such a state of things, the pastor will feel himself bound strenuously to enforce on one part of his charge what he calls an indispensable duty, while he winks at its omission in others, tacitly dispenses to them the boon of an indulgence, and by this kind of liberal connivance renders himself liable to be despised by both. If, Sir, these are cor- 16 rect deductions from the practice you recom- mend, surely your presenting a new case will not be sufficient unless it be a strong and most satisfy- ing case, to induce your strict brethren to venture upon your "portentous" theory. Your hypothesis likewise supposes persons may mistake, or pervert the institution of baptism with- out blame : that those that do so err conscienti- ously, and do it in deference to their master's will. If, Sir, this could be proved, it would be a strong case indeed, and let the consequences be what they might, we should act harshly and in an anti- christian manner if we did not receive them. But the very reverse of this appears to me to be the fact. And here. Sir, I repeat, it is a matter of little consequence in the enquiry where the error rests, either with us or the paedobaptists. You say there is a high probability that we are right ; this, by-the-bye, is conceding to the paedobap- tists that there is some little possibility that we may be wrong; and vice versa, some little pos- sibility that they may be right. But concede what you will it cannot affect the fact, that error rests at the door of one or the other, and that the erring party must either be blameless or blameable. Now, to suppose the erring party blameless, is to suppose one of the following things : — either that the Scriptures which record the fact in question, are so obscure and ambig- uous, that the will of Christ respecting the ordi- nance is placed before us in a doubtful light. 17 or that the erring party do not possess the phy- sical powers of mind which are requisite to com- prehend it. You have indeed drawn a con- trast between the degree of evidence that existed in the apostolic age and that which now exists, for which I fear infidels will not fail to thank you. You call the apostles the living depositaries of the truth, and say, they were at hand to settle any disputed point. You appear to me, (undesign- edly) to be the apologist of error in the following paragraph. — " The conduct we have supposed would be less criminal than to have shrunk from baptism in the apostolic age, because the evidence by which our views are supported, though sufficient for every practical purpose, is decidedly inferior to that which accompanied their first promulgation." Is not this, Sir, admitting to the pretensions of Rome, that such is the doubtful nature of scrip- tural evidence, that nothing can be settled unless we admit the legitimacy of an infallible human expositor ? That the apostles were under uner- ring inspiration to which none can now make any claim, is certain, but that they had recourse to this inspiration to settle disputed points in reli- gion is not so certain. In the ministry of Christ, we find him proving what he asserted, from the writings of Moses and the prophets, and he plainly told the Jews, if " they believed not Moses and the prophets, neither would they be- lieve though one rose from the dead." When c 18 the dispute arose about circumcision, it does not appear that the apostles exercised their infallible authority, but that the affair was settled by the sufferance of them and the brethren conjointly. When a dispute arose between Paul and Barna- bas, no apostolic authority was used to settle the debate. Besides, there must have been many churches that the apostles could very seldom, if ever visit : to these they wrote the infallible epis- tles, and these were received by the churches as decisive. When Paul wrote to Corinth re- specting the Lord's supper, he laid before them "that which he had received of the Lord;" but we have the same guide that the Corinthians had to direct us ; nor can I see any difference as to the force of evidence respecting either of the institutions that the primitive Christians had beyond what we now enjoy; the apostles acted precisely concerning both, agreeably with the commission they had received, and we have in plain language that commission faithfully recorded and illustrated unequivocally by the manner in which they fulfilled it. I have merely thrown in these remarks to guard my readers against making an improper use of your wide statement concern- ing the different degrees of evidence. To return, Sir, to the argument before us ; though you have found it convenient to assert, that the evidence we have from the Scriptures is not so strong as that enjoyed by the primitive Christians, yet I am sure you will, because you must admit, that it is sufficiently clear to leave heretics without excuse; IS for if you refuse to grant this, you proclaim blameless, Infidels, Jews, Soeinians, and all the perverters of the truth, found in the world. But this would be so appalling, that I feel persuaded you would write and write again, and summon forth all the energies of your mind rather than inferences so alarming should be adduced from any sentiment you had advanced. Then it follows, no excuse for error can be derived from any want of perspicuity in the divine testimony. This is corroborated by the following authorities. — Peter Martyr says, " It is necessary that we have a clear testimony from the Holy Scriptures concerning sacraments." Dr. Owen tells us, "All things concerning the worship of God in the whole church or house, now under the gospel, are no less perfectly and completely ordered and ordained by the Lord Jesus Christ, than they were by Moses under the law." ' Dr. I. Chauncy remarks, " Christ hath been more faithful than Moses, and therefore hath not left his churches without sufficient rules to walk by." Mr. Polhill observes, " Christ was as faithful in the house of God as Moses ; his provision was as perfect for rituals as that of Moses was." Mr. Payne says, " Surely, so wise a lawgiver as our blessed Saviour would not give a law to all Christians that was not easy to be understood by them."' It is quite as easy to demonstrate that no excuse can be • Vide Booth*! Animadversions on Dr. Williams, p. 22fi. c 2 20 drawn from the want of common and competent understanding- in either party concerned in the disputed institution. J. A. Turrettinus informs us, "Whatever of importance the scripture delivers concerning the sacraments, may be included in a few pages — and that so as a little child may under- stand it." ' As a denomination, we possess intellect in common with the rest of our fellow-men, and have had, and still have, men of the highest order of intellect. Our psedobaptist friends are not a whit behind, though you call them weak brethren. We find them in all our intercourse with them, good common sense men, and many of them learned ; they have amongst them their D. D's. and A. M's. as well as ourselves ; and I believe learning to be equally respected on both sides. Then, Sir, it is most cogent, that no excuse can be found on this head, and that we must seek for the cause of error elsewhere. The result is, that our error is our crime, that it cannot be involuntary, and that our not being convinced can form no fair excuse for our want of convic- tion: crime lies at the door somewhere. Le Clerc justly observes, "if men be governed by their passions and conceited of their prejudices, the most evident things in the world are obscure ; and there is no law so clear but a wrangler may raise a thousand difficulties about it." Dr. Sher- lock unites in a similar testimony, by saying, " When a lawgiver has declared his will and ' Vide Booth's Animadversions on Dr. Williams, p. 227. 21 pleasure by a law, it is not fit that subjects should be allowed to guess at his mind, and dispute away an express law by some surmises and consequences, how probable soever they may appear; for at this rate a law signifies nothing if we may guess at the will of our lawgiver without, and against an express law." — "And if this be allowed, I know no law of God so plain and express, but a witty man may find ways to escape the obligation of it."' Indeed, Sir, I am inclined to think, that all the errors found even amongst good men may be traced to some moral defect, and that if we were morally perfect, our creed would be so likewise ; the defect is not in the perceptive faculty, but some latent defective moral princi- ple warps the judgment. It is possible we may have suffered sloth, worldly advantage, the fear of reproach, the love of applause, or other moral evils to prevent impartial enquiry, or to give a bias to our minds while we are seeking after truth ; and these evils may prevail unperceived to a certain extent, through the neglect of close self- examination, even where a profession of religion may be sincere, and its possession real. Let God be true though every man be found a liar. He has as- sured us, that a " gift blindeth the eyes ;" that those cannot believe that receive honour one of another ; and on the other hand he has informed us, that" they that do the will of God shall know the doctrine;" and " that the meek he will guide in the way." 1 Vide Booth's Animadversions on Dr. Williams, pp. 222 and 223. n We are now, Sir, brought to the following conclusion ; that the error in question must be attributed either to natural or moral inability, which is indeed placing us between the two horns of the dilemma. We have, I think, proved that we cannot -take the former, and if we take the latter, which we must do, then the whole of your beautifully wrought arguments must, I fear, vanish, and like the " baseless fabric of a vision leave not a wreck behind." Innocent conscien- tious involuntary error is a chimera that can have no existence, but in your benevolent and fertile mind ; for we are arrived at a clear conclusion, that either the baptists or the psedobaptists err, and by erring are blameable in the sight of God. We assume that we have truth on our side ; while you will admit this, you still reiterate, that the persons for whom you plead are pious, and some of them illustrious for piety. Let it be so ; their piety I shall not — cannot question. Our next enquiry must necessarily be, will their piety extenuate their fault, or impede the propagation of error ? Here, likewise, we shall find the reverse. Uner- ring truth tells us, where much is given much is required, and reason heartily unites in the senti- ment. The great Lawgiver may well say of all those whom he has so distinguishingly endowed. What could I do more for my vineyard than I have done? The proposition you see, Sir, cannot therefore be admitted for a moment, nor will the possession of piety impede the progress of error in others. Let error be detached from piety 23 either in appearance or reality, and it will soon be scouted from the world. For even truth when held up to view by unclean hands loses much of its force, and of its native attractions. A reputa- tion for piety, instead of impeding the progress of error in those that maintain it, is really the cause of its stability, and gives facility and energy to its extension. How frequently do we hear it advanced as an argument in favour of almost all the errors that have disfigured Christianity, and that have proved such barriers to its propagation, that these errors have been believed by the wise and good. That all errors are not alike fatal in their results, must be admitted, but I can see no reason to conclude, that the total perversion of one out of two expressive and instructive institutions, and that especially which is to be attended to but once, should be ranked amongst those errors that are of minor consequence. It could never be so considered by him who so solemnly enjoined the institution, and who has connected it with that faith which is essential to salvation. If then the reasoning now laid before you be conclusive, you really require us not only to sanction the perversion of a positive command of our Sovereign Lord and Master, but urge as a reason why we should do it, that which you must admit augments the blame attached to er- ror, and which perpetuates its continuance, and gives energy to its extension. What then must become of your argument drawn from precedents of thought ? Would the apostles, though they 24 might think as favourably of erring brethren as you do, be induced to receive them by such an argument, and thereby become real accessaries to both these evils, and thus confound the "broadest principles of right and wrong," of truth and error? If, Sir, this be the state of the case, and this is the state of the case for any thing you have yet proved to the contrary, the apostles must have thought of their erring brethren as we think of them, and would have acted towards them as we now do. Hence, precedents of thought, as well as prece- dents of action, both unite against the theory you have attempted in vain to establish ; and it turns out, that the fellowship you recommend would be "party," rather than "Christian communion" — a party united to wink at each others' blameable omission of the positive command of that Saviour under whose banner they are professedly united ; and who pretend for their excuse that they are following the dictates of that spirit he breathes on them, and which he commands them to cultivate. Think, Sir, and think again, if that which demonstrates blame and forcibly accelerates the spread of error, can be a reason, a religious reason why we should give to it the most solemn sanction we have it in our power to give. You seem to have conceived that your hypo- thesis was rather vulnerable on the side on which I have, I think, made a breach, and you have raised as strong a buttress as you could to support it : I shall now endeavour to try its strength. You 38 say, "for the clearer illustration of this point let us suppose a case : a person proposes himself as a candidate for admission to a baptist church. The minister enquires into his views of the ordinance of baptism, and respectfully asks, whether he is convinced of the divine authority of the rite which was administered to him in his infancy. He confesses he is not, that on mature deliberation and enquiry he considers it as a human invention. On his thus avowing his conviction, he is urged to confess Christ before men, by a prompt compli- ance with what he is satisfied is a part of his revealed will; he hesitates — he refuses, alleging that it is not essential to salvation, that it is a mere external rite, and that some of the holiest of men have died in the neglect of it. Here is a parallel case to that of a person who should have declined the ordinance of baptism in primitive times ; and in entire consistence with the principle which we are maintaining, we have no hesitation in affirm- ing that the individual in question is disqualified for Christian communion."' Such a person you declare we are bound to reject, and in so doing we shall get rid of all our responsibility with regard to the observance of the institution which Christ has enjoined, for we should then act as the apostles would have acted. This, Sir, is conceding freely, and so much as will, I think, prove ruinous to your argument. It sounds strangely to us to be directed to ask a person 1 See Mr. H.'« Pamphlet, pp. 12 and 13. 26 whether he is convinced of the divine authority of an institution, which we believe has no such authority to support it. In the case you have supposed, if the person had not been convinced of the divine authority of believers' baptism, you would receive him, though unbaptized, making his conviction the ground of his rejection from the supper, and his non-conviction the ground of his admission. From what part of the theology of the New Testament will you find that the want of conviction is a satisfactory excuse for the neglect of a clearly revealed duty ? and yet in this case you would freely admit it; but ought you to admit it in one case, and not in every case? Will not a Socinian, or an Arian tell you, that if you will convince him of the proper deity of Christ he will believe it ? But as he is not convinced, upon the principle you have laid down, you are bound to receive him ; and does not such admission proclaim blameless all the errors found in the world ? Besides, may not this anti-baptist, or the person you would reject, very fairly ask you, why you will not admit that he may as conscien- tiously enjoy his views of the institution as those who you grant pervert it ? He has examined the subject, and nothing that you have advanced has convinced him that the institution is so important as you represent it to be. Yet he feels persuaded that the Lord has received him. His is another of those many new cases which you say may arise, and which must be provided for. That as the apostles, the repositories of n truth, are not present to tell him that it is now of any importance, he conscientiously believes it is not, and therefore you ought to think him sincere, and one that the Lord has received, for he has been, and would still be so accredited in any psedobaptist congregation. Should you in reply say, that his omission proves that he is one whom the Lord has not received, may he not ask you from what part of the Scriptures you have autho- rity to come to such a conclusion, or by what you are authorized to receive one that perverts an ordinance but to reject another who consci- entiously omits it? You may have ingenuity enough to meet such a case, but I confess I have not. But what nullifies entirely your honest ex- empting clause is, its impracticability. Where is the poedobaptist congregation to be found, that has not in it some of those contumacious anti- baptists? Nothing can be more common than to hear persons in full fellowship with paedo- baptists say, that they think we have scripture and reason on our side ; but as baptism is not essential to salvation, and so many great and good men have died and gone to heaven, without sub- mitting to it, they decline it, as a matter of no consequence. And really. Sir, narrow as you may think our sentiments to be, I should hesitate much to conclude, that the Lord had not received them. Dr. Cox has given it as his opinion, that 28 there are many among the paedobaptists that are convinced of baptism, but have not '' piety enough to act on their conviction ;" and you, Sir, tacitly confirm his opinion ; for while you tell us that there are many among them that would submit to the institution if they were convinced it was binding on them, you certainly imply that there are some amongst them who would not ; and who. Sir, will attempt to contradict such high authorities? It is, then, admitted, that piety of an inferior order is possessed by the persons alluded to : and I presume you will allow, that piety is only possessed by those whom the Lord has received ; so that your exempting clause would, after all, keep from Christian communion some whom the Lord has received, and they must be kept in a state of " seclusion from the visible church :" then. Sir, forth comes this " portentous separation of the internal from the outward and visible privileges of Christianity,"^ and we must treat these persons of inferior piety as we would the greatest offenders ; that is to say, as they prove by their negligence that they are weak in the faith, we must not receive them, though you tell us in another part of your book, from apos- tolic authority, we are bound to receive them. I may be mistaken, but it appears to me this is what men of common sense would call a contra- diction. But another insuperable difficulty aris- 1 Mr. H's. pamphlet, p. 16. 29 ing from your exempting clause is, that you place our liberal baptist brethren, who have quitted their own *' sombrous " fold to shew their attachment to their conscientious, erring brethren, between the hawk and the buzzard. I really tremble for them ; they had hoped that your doctrine of precedents of thought had fully demonstrated their right to commune with any paedobaptist congregation whose faith was ortho- dox ; but now they are, by your exempting clause, thrown back again amongst their narrow- minded brethren ; for it is very probable that there is not a paedobaptist congregation to be found, but what has in it some of those contuma- cious anti-baptists, whom they cordially esteem, as a sort of connecting link between themselves and their baptist brethren, — men very convenient to silence any qualms of conscience that may arise in the minds of some of their weak, but orthodox brethren, on the subject of infant bap- tism ; and who, that believes them conscientious, will not approve of their policy ? But, alas for us ! if we were really convinced, from your doctrine of apostolic precedents, of the propriety of what is called Christian, in opposition to Party communion, we cannot act upon it; for your exempting clause renders it wholly impracticable, unless we were to do what I think you would not countenance, viz. receive into our churches paedobaptists, but, at the same time, prohibit any from amongst us to go over to them. I presume 30 you would give as well as take. I have patiently examined your argument in all its bearings, and indulge the hope that you will grant, that what I have written affords at least an argumentum ad hominem, that should shield us from the severity of your reproach. You and my readers will judge whether it does or does not, a priori, lay the whole of your fine superstructure prostrate. I am, Dear Sir, With great esteem, Your's, &c. ai LETTER IV. Dear Sir, It is possible that your faith in the doc- trine of scripture precedents may not be quite so confident as when your ingenious mind first discovered it. A discovery that has so much delighted many of our liberal, but, before this, hesitating brethren, that it has been almost uni- versally a matter of triumph among them. The object of this letter will be, to compare notes with you on the scriptural connexion that subsists between the two ordinances. But, before I argue the point, I must task your patience while I make a few remarks on the random shot you have discharged against us. You say, " And as it is demonstrable that John's baptism was a sepa- rate institution from that which was enacted after our Lord's resurrection, the Lord's supper is evidently anterior to baptism, and the original communicants consisted entirely of such as had not received the ordinance." If, Sir, you had really demonstrated what you have so confidently asserted, you would have saved me some trouble ; but, so far as I can perceive, the whole of your demonstration rests on a solitary and disputed text. Let us suppose that you are correct, — that John's baptism was a kind of preparatory insti- tution : this will not prove that the original com- municants were unbaptized, for the following sa testimonies from the unerring oracles of truth assert the contrary. John iii. 22 : — " After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized." John iv. 1, 2: — "Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John ; though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples." Now, Sir, to suppose that the disciples baptized others, and yet did not submit to the institution them- selves, is to suppose them to have been contuma- cious, and then we must rank them among those hardened anti-baptists who, you tell us, ought not to be received. It follows, either that what you have asserted concerning these original com- municants is a mistake, or that your exempting clause must be given up ; and then we are left without any test, by which we can distinguish between the contumacious and the conscientious. Hence, what you conceive demonstrably serves your cause in one point, demonstrably destroys it in another ; forming, to use one of your elegant figures, " a sort of mental antipodes, which you will reach with equal certainty, whether you advance by the east or by the west," and the point at which we shall arrive is the exact mid-way between Scylla and Charybdis, So much for the Eucharist being anterior to baptism. Cool reflec- tion will, I think, convince us, that the solemn commission enjoined on the apostles was the for- mal establishment of an ordinance that had already been in use, inculcating the enlargement of its administration, and the express appointment 33 of the name of the mysterious Trinity. Before the resurrection of Christ, its administration had been confined to Jewish proselytes ; but now they were to teach all nations, and baptize them. The same reason that would prove baptism admi- nistered after the resurrection to be different in its nature to that which was practised before the resurrection, will equally prove that the supper which was administered before the resurrection was different in its nature to its use after the resurrection. If we set aside the former as to its validity, we must also the latter ; and then, if we take as our data what transpired after our Lord's resurrection, we are sure that baptism preceded the supper. Your treatment of the venerable Fuller, and the excellent and learned Mr. Kinghorn, is what I might have expected from an inferior mind, but not what I should have anticipated from you. You say, " The late excellent Mr. Fuller — • laboured hard to prove an instituted connexion between the two ordinances. . . . On this point our opponents are at variance with each other : Mr. Kinghorn roundly asserts, that baptism has no more connexion with the Lord's supper, than with every other part of Christianity. Thus, what Mr. Fuller attempts to demonstrate as the main pillar of his cause, Mr. Kinghorn abandons without a scruple." But are your inferences from their different statements fair ? From your own quotations from their writings, I should cer- D 34 tainly conclude they were agreed as to the fact, that there was an inseparable connexion between the two institutions. Mr. Fuller asserts it defi- nitely ; Mr King-horn indefinitely, by maintaining that it has a connexion with the whole of Chris- tianity. And will not common sense assure us, that if a thing be connected with a whole, it must be connected with every part of that whole? You know. Sir, that you and some of your authorities have supported the doctrine of free communion on different grounds ; but though you have abandoned, without a scruple, what they scrupulously maintained, it would not be fair to say you were at variance as to the fact itself ; and yet it would be quite easy, from this apparent difference between you and them, to reply in your own words, and say, " What a fortunate position is that to which men may arrive who proceed in the most opposite directions." I, must next express my surprise that you should attempt to question the scriptural con- nexion between the two ordinances, when your own concessions are sufficient to answer every question on that subject. Have you not allowed that the apostles would admit no unbaptized per- son to their communion ; and from this very fact determine yourself not to admit an anti-baptist ? Do you not, by this determination, connect the ordinances? Would the apostles, the living depositaries of the truth, connect what Christ has not connected, or could these infallible 35 depositaries be mistaken, and fall into conscien- tious error? I ain at a loss, after this broad acknowledgment of yours, what excuse to make for tasking your patience and that of my readers, while I proceed farther with the enquiry ; but as you call upon us for some positive proof that there is a connexion between the two rites, I must endeavour to answer it. You say, " It remains to be considered whether there is diny peculiar connexion between the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, either in the nature of things, or by Divine appointment, so as to render it improper to administer the one without the other. That there is no natiy'al connexion is obvious. They were instituted at different times and for different purposes. Baptism is a mode of professing our faith in the blessed Trinity ; the Lord's supper is a commemoration of the dying love of the Redeemer ; the former is the act of an individual, the latter of a society." You say, moreover, " The words which contain our war- rant for tlie celebration of the supper, convey no allusion to baptism.'" Certainly not: how should they, when it is evident that all the persons who partook of it, and on whom it was first enjoined, had been previously baptised ? We might fairly dismiss all controversy on this point, and reply to your demand for some positive proof, in the lan- guage of Mr. Ivimey, by saying, that the " onus prohandi'*'* was with you. Prove the contrary, * Mr. H.'s pamphlet, p. 21. D 2 36 '* and the controversy is at an end." However, it appears to us, that there is a clearly revealed connexion between the two institutions. What else are we to understand by the apostle's com- parison of the typical circumstances of the ancient, and the practice of the Christian church, which he describes with so much beauty, in connexion with his apostolic advice to the Corinthians con- cerning the celebration of the supper. 1 Cor. ch. X : — " Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And were all baptized into Moses in the cloud, and in the sea. And did all drink the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was Christ." If the apostle means any thing by this allusion, he must mean that it emblemizes and sets forth the connexion that was known to exist between the two Christian institutions, to both of which the Corinthians had attended. Again, Sir, you admit that faith and repentance are indispensable pre-requisites for a participation of the Lord's supper. But how can you prove it ? Have the Scriptures any where connected these qualifications with receiving the supper ? They are no where found in connexion with the Eucharist, but solely with baptism. Where have the divine oracles said, " Repent," and receive the Eucharist ? " Believe," and communicate ? or, to any enquirer respecting the supper, " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou may est?" 37 I need not tell you where you will find these requisitions connected with baptism. If, then, baptism stands in between what you acknowledge to be connected with the supper, it must follow, that as the centre of a line is connected with the extremities of that line, so baptism must be con- nected, according to the order laid down in the Scriptures, with spiritual pre-requisites and the supper ; for it is not imaginable how the two extremes of a line can be united, and yet one of these have no connexion with its centre. In the centre infallible truth has placed baptism ; so that it is easier to prove from the Scriptures that faith and repentance have no connexion with the le- gitimate reception of the supper, than to prove that baptism has none with it ; because faith and repentance, in the order laid down in the Scriptures, stand more remote from the supper than baptism. In this order our great Lawgiver has placed baptism ; and you must, by a " por- tentous " leap, jump over it, or else wade through it. But, Sir, we know who has said, " What God hath joined together, let no man put asun- der ;" and as it is evident that faith and repent- ance are indispensable on all the candidates you receive to the supper, then, see whether you can with impunity leave out the connecting link, and thus separate what Infinite Wisdom has united. Apart from baptism, the enforcing the necessity of either of those graces which we conceive essen- tial to a due participation of the Eucharist, is but 38 mere assumption, — is that for which we have no warrant in the divine law. I would farther ask, is there not a connexion between a profession of Christianity, and a parti- cipation of its privileges? You tell us "baptism is a mode of professing our faith in the Blessed Trinity," or is a profession of Christianity : and I presume though you have used the indefinite arti- cle in this sentence, you would acknowledge there is no other scriptural mode of making such a pro- fession. Then, if baptism be the only mode of such a profession, and a profession be inseparably connected with a participation of Christian privi- leges, baptism and the supper must be connected. You say there is no natural connexion between the two institutions: it is true, they so far differ, that the former consists in a person's being bap- tized, or immersed in water in the name of the Sacred Trinity, and the latter in the reception of bread and wine in the name of the Lord ; but they agree in all that is essential to a Christian institu- tion ; they are enjoined by the same authority, they are binding on the same person, they unite in emblemizing the same Saviour, they are alike means of grace, and submission to both are alike acts of evangelical obedience. So that they are as nearly alike as any two different things can be. What should we think of a person who should as- sert that there was no connexion between a room and its entrance ; and in order to prove this, he 3^ were gravely to say, that the entrance when the door is open is mere space ; but that a room is en- closed with walls, ceiled and papered, and con- sequently that they do not in nature agree : we should naturally reply that they were so connected that the one is essential to the other. Such, Sir, I think I have proved, is the connexion between baptism and Christian communion. The former is the porch or entrance to the latter. History informs us that in the primitive places of worship baptistries were made in the porches of their churches, or meeting houses, to teach, I presume, all who entered, that baptism was to precede their fellowship with the church ; or in other words, that the former was the prescribed entrance to the latter. Besides, you must admit this connexion, or all your reasoning upon your exempting clause must pass for nothing ; your contumacious friend will turn round upon you and say : " As you, Sir, contend that there is no connexion either by di- vine appointment, or in nature, between the ordi- nances, I wish at once to commune with you, and as for baptism I think it better to wait until a more convenient season." What reply could you make ? Surely you must either receive him or give up the point for which you so strenuously contend ; and then, according to your own acknow- ledgement, the " controversy is at an end and we shall have the unspeakable satisfaction of joining your tiame, (which will be a host) to the authori- ties on which we rest our faith. It is fortunate for us, that on this part of the controversy (though 40 we are a diminutive sect,") millions will join in the hue-and-cry against you. The bulk of the pious, and illustriously pious psedobaptists fall at once into our ranks, and will by no means concede the non-connection between the two institutions, nor do we find that your reasoning has made the least impression upon them. You know the old adage, vox populi, vox dei ; though this be not al- ways a correct maxim, we must think that in this instance we are quite safe in believing it, until you prove the contrary. Again, if baptism is not to precede a believer's participation of the supper, will you be so kind as to inform us at what part of his life he is under any obligation to attend to it ? or, rather, must it not follow that he is freed from any obligation whatever? The result of which will be the following strange contradiction ; that our Lord has a right to command, and that those very persons on whom the command is bind- ing have a right to disobey it. For the reasons I have given, there appears to me to be as clear a connection between the two ordinances, as there is between spiritual qualifications and the legiti- mate participation of the Eucharist; and, conse- quently, that to separate them is an act I dare not perform, unless reasons more weighty than any you have advanced can be adduced. I trust, I wish to know and do the will of Him to whom I believe we both desire to submit. I am, dear Sir, With great esteem, Your's, Slc. 41 LETTER V. Dear Sir, You appear to have felt no small relief, when you had cut your way through precedents and connexions, &c. ; you say, " having cleared my way, the remaining part of my task is easy." This congratulation of yours reminds me of some pleasing intelligence I received more than thirty years ago, when I was about to embark for Sierra Leone. On enquiry, a gentleman told me, that the settlers at that colony had cleared many miles of the country, and that agriculture was rapidly on the advance. But I found on my arrival, to my great disappointment, that what my friend had called cleared land, consisted chiefly of ground on which the large trees only had been felled, w^hilst the coppice or under-wood, presented in many places, a dense jungle not easily to be pene- trated. Now it appears to me that what you call " cleared" ground in this controversy, is very much like it. Alas ! you will have to go over the ground again. I now proceed to examine your kind hearted comment on the 14th chapter of Romans ; your reasoning on that chapter is what logicians call analogical, which is allowed, I believe, to afford the smallest degree of evidence that can be adduced from anykind of argumentation, and can only afford conviction where the analogy is unequivocably clear. ' ' Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputation;" and again, " we that are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves." Now, though you may feel it difficult to give the strict baptists cre- dit for any thing kind, or courteous, yet we think we may give ourselves credit for acting agreeably with the spirit and temper here enjoined. We are disposed to receive into our houses and churches those whom the Lord has received, how- ever weak, and hope ever to do so, though we agree with a sentiment, I have heard that you once expressed, " that weakness is next to wick- edness," and sometimes we have found it almost as difficult to manage. Indeed it has required no small degree of forbearance and self-denial. So far we are agree as to the sentiment, but we must still differ from you in its application, for the fol- lowing reasons : — Because the persons for whom the apostle pleaded, bear no kind of resemblance to the persons for whom you plead. They were persons really weak in their faith, and under the influence of weak scrupulous consciences. But the paedobaptists are not so, at least as a body. They must be strong in the faith, for you tell us "many of them are pious, and illustrious for piety," and so profound are many of their leaders in theo- logical knowledge, that some of the best books which have tended to bless and illuminate the church have been the products of their large and pious minds. As for the people, they are as well versed in theological knowledge as ourselves, and 43 as strong in the faith as any of us; so that you must have made a great mistake concerning them, or you have really libelled them ; and I have no doubt, though they are silent on the subject, they secretly feel themselves much degraded. I am inclined to think, that if you were to tell them that their weakness in knowledge and faith was the ground on which you received them, they would from such an assertion, form no very high opinion either of the strength of your un- derstanding, or the humility of your mind. It would in their views be a more intolerable term of communion than baptism itself. And if you avow such a sentiment to the pious paedobaptists at Bristol, I think the communicants at your second table^ would not increase. There is another disagreement fatal to your argument ; and that is, the vast difference in the matter about which the controversy at Rome and the present controversy is concerned. You have, indeed, laboured hard to make these differing things agree ; you have shortened one leg and lengthened the other ; baptism is called a rite, and the bone of contention at Rome to meet it is called a rite, and they are both called non-essen- tials and ceremonies. Still, Sir, one leg is much longer and larger than the other, and there is as much disparity between them as there is between * I understand that the baptists and paedobaptists commune at different times at Broadmead. 44 a grain of sand and a millstone. That at Rome was what every one ought, from brotherly love, to look over ; the other is of such a nature, that love to Christ, and love to our brethren, constrain us to insist on it. Baptism is a clearly revealed, unalterable, and instructive command, never to be repealed while the world endures ; but that at Rome was a mere superstitious observance. You call it an " abrogated ceremony ;" but why, I know not ; for there is not the least proof, that I can discover, that it ever had been enjoined. The weak brother whom the apostle speaks of, is one who thought it unlawful to eat any thing but herbs ; but I have no recollection that God by any injunction prohibited the use of other food. This weak brother esteemed one day above another, but it does not appear that this esteem of one day above another was founded on any abrogated command. There are weak and superstitious persons now amongst Christians, who act under the same weakness of judgment ; they will eat nothing but vegetables, and they observe certain days ; but it is not understood, either in the one case or the other, that they are chargeable with the practice of retaining abro- gated ceremonies, nor have we any ground to suppose that the apostle would have tolerated the observance of abrogated ceremonies. He with- stood Peter on that ground, because he was to be blamed, and he so positively opposed it in the church at Galatia, that he assured them, that if they were " circumcised, Christ should profit 4d them nothing." And he calls them foolish and bewitched ; nor is there any thing that the apostle more strenuously guarded the churches against, than the mixing of abrogated ceremonies with the injunctions of Christianity. Is it, then, fair to place a sacred ordinance of Christ on a footing with mere straws, the inoffensive produce of weak, distorted, but otherwise pious minds ; and then, because there is a sad discrepancy in the analogy, to make up the deficiency by calling them both ^^ unessential ceremonies ?'''' It could never have been anticipated by the apostle, that nearly eigh- teen hundred years after he had written this epistle, an English divine would attempt to urge the advice he had given concerning the exercise of forbearance towards a few weak, ignorant believers at Rome, who retained harmless obser- vances, as a grave and satisfactory reason for all who believe in baptism as an unrepealed ordi- nance of Christ, to tolerate its omission and perversion in those whom they received into their communion. The prohibitory clause, connected with the injunction, clearly shews the nature of the thing towards which they were to exercise forbearance : — " Him that is weak in the faith receive, but not to doubtful disputations.^'' The prohibition is as authoritative as the injunction. But is baptism a matter of doubt ? You say there is a high probability that we are right ; and with the strict baptists there is not, I believe, a shadow of doubt on the subject: nor does there appear to be any thing doubtful in the oracles of God 46 concerning it. If we admit the Scriptures to be doubtful in this, I see no reason why they should not be so considered respecting every essential doctrine ; and then we must hold blameless all who err, whatever their error may be. There- fore, your analogy falls to the ground. The matter at issue was not to be amongst them the subject of dispute ; and the reason for this is very obvious, — it was a matter not worth debating about. As the matter was doubtful, the Scrip- tures being silent about it, debate would never produce conviction ; while it was very likely to destroy Christian harmony. But can we say this of baptism ; are baptists and paedobaptists to be so united, that they are never to enquire or dispute about an institution concerning which they so essentially differ ? This, Sir, can never be admitted for a moment. Our mixed brethren do, and must preach about it ; and the paedobap- tists must talk about, and still practise infant bap- tism ; and the numbers of weak brethren on both sides, do what we may, will dispute again and again, and like Goldsmith's village schoolmaster, " Though often vanquished, They will argue still." But to dispute is as much at variance with the apostle's prohibition as an omission to regard the injunction would have been, and far worse in its results. This, then, demonstrably proves, that the superstitious observances amongst the weak brethren at Rome can bear no analogy to Scrip- 47 ture baptism ; they are as totally different as any two things can be. Hence it follows, that as the whole of your analogical argument is lame in each of its feet, or, in other words, as there is a preposterous disagreement in each of its members, it must fail to produce conviction, and, as an argument, is totally inefficient. Mr. Ivimey observes, that your argument proves too much, and therefore proves nothing. I would say, if it proves any thing, it proves too much. It is certainly assuming high ground, and placing ourselves upon a " lofty eminence," to pretend to be able infallibly to decide on whom the omniscient Lord has received ! Every reli- gious sect has its own scales, which are to them the standard-royal of heaven. Others put in their claim to this prerogative as well as our- selves, and will weigh professors to a drachm. But, taking it for granted that our test is perfectly correct, yet we shall find many whom we believe the Lord hath received, that we would not receive. There are many who hold antinomian principles, whose piety and heart-religion cannot be suspected, and yet, I presume, you would not receive them ; and if, for the sake of consistency, you were to do it, I am sure you would soon repent it. In a conversation lately with the Rev. R. Hill, he very quaintly remarked, that he thought six antinomians would do more mischief in a church, than six of the largest hogs could do in a gentleman's garden. The figure was strong, .48 but I think few who have tried the experiment will doubt its correctness. And yet, according to your doctrine, we must open our church doors and receive them, notwithstanding the polluting contagion they are sure to bring with them. These, perhaps, are persons to whom you would object ; having adjusted your balance to a nicety, you would pronounce '■'tekeV on them, "weighed in the balance, and found wanting." But to such a decision, you know. Sir, any one might object, and declare his standard to be as correct as yours ; and who could decide between you ? There are others, of whose orthodoxy not a doubt can be entertained ; for instance, let us imagine a case. A pious, but weak psedobaptist has, in deference to his supposed regard to the will of his Master, put his child into covenant with God by baptism ; and as the child has received one sign of the covenant, he conscientiously believes he is entitled to the other. You know what has been may be again, for you tell us mistakes may arise almost ad infinitum. What are we to do with this case ? He tells us he believes the Lord has received him, and we cannot for a moment question the truth of what he asserts. We should, by your direction, answer, this may be true, but we have no proof that the Lord hath received your child ; to do it would be to pervert the sacred institution. Might he not say, in reply, '' You give me credit for my involuntary and conscientious error respecting the baptism of my child ; is the error in question, if it be an error, 49 greater than the former ? If so, please to point it out to me. There was a time when the church very generally practised infant communion, and there are some of our ministers who believe it to be as obligatory as infant baptism. I indulge the hope their sentiments will yet generally prevail ; as some of your baptist brethren say, we cannot be consistent without it. This is not, indeed, a new case, but it is an old case revived, and if you act upon the objection you have made to me, you will reject vast numbers who you have told us, should be received, "because the Lord has received them." Now, I cannot see how any thing you have advanced will afford us any means of resist- ing this error ; and yet I am sure you never intended to leave a loop-hole through which it might enter. You would, of course, object, that you had no proof that the Lord had received the child ; but, still acting on this objection, (on the supposition that such a case may exist) you would be guilty of the crime of schism. The same might be said respecting pious men who have denied the moral obligation of the Lord's day, and others, equally pious, who have pleaded for polygamy. These are cases in which I conceive none of us could admit, that their being received of the Lord is a sufficient reason for us to tolerate such injurious errors in the church of Christ. I have closely examined your comment, and most heartily approve of the disposition this chapter inculcates : would to God that all sects of Chris- tians possessed it to a greater extent! On this 60 point we most cordially agree, but we widely differ in its application ; surely never could an inspired apostle design, that it should be urged in opposition to the express and authoritative command of his Lord and Master, to sanction that which, in its principle, is after all imprac- ticable. Having cleared my way, I cannot say that what now remains is easy. Your charge of schism is untangible : to attempt to grasp it is like striving with a ghost. But the charge is as harsh and unkind as it is Utopian. I have, how- ever, one satisfaction, — that what I have yet to do, if painful, will be short. I am. Dear Sir, With great esteem, Your's, &c. LETTER VI. Dear Sir, I have felt considerable difficulty in as- certaining the motive, that led you to prefer against the strict baptists, the awful charge of schism. I cannot think for a moment that you have dressed them up in this detestable garb, for the purpose of bringing upon them the contempt and execrations of their fellow Christians, though this is likely to be the result. No, that be far from you : and yet we know motive prompts to every human action. No doubt then, compassion moved you to effect at almost any rate, what you con- ceived so very desirable. You therefore resolved to carry by storm, a position that your arguments had not been sufficient to reduce. Finding your brethren as stupid as " birds of night," and as un- moved by your reasoning as those nocturnal animals would be, you wittingly place yourself in the midst of them, and most unexpectedly and alarmingly cry. Fire! Fire!! and yet kind as your motive has been, and alarming as the call has been, your brethren seem still to remain as unmoved, and as tranquil as the people who in- habit the beautiful and salubrious country, that surrounds Vesuvius or Etna; all their apprehen- sions have been as short lived as the tremendous eruptions; the crater ceases to emit its contents, and their fears with it. Indeed, it turns out after all to be nothing but smoke, and we are much inclined to think that you must have doubted the correctness of your own hypothesis, or you would 52 not have resorted to such an expedient. Be this as it may, a more serious charge could never be brought against any denomination of Christians, and if believed cannot fail to bring on them, the ill will of all who differ from them on terms of com- munion. In this way I am grieved to see it is beginning to operate. But this was never your intention; for had it been so, nothing could be easier than to prove that the charge of schism must fall back upon yourself. The term schism, in the mouths of Jesuitical apostolicals, has served often with some other terms in theology, to operate as scare- crows to frighten the ignorant and weak. But as you have devoted so large a portion of your pages to fasten this charge upon its, and to warn us against its consequences, it is necessary that some notice should be taken of it. You tell us, ^' o'X'O'iW'a, " schism, is a word which signifies the breaking of a substance into two or more parts, and when figuratively applied to a body of men, denotes the division of it into par- ties.^ We ask, admitting your criticism to be correct, on whom does the charge of schism fall, on us or on others? You tell us we adhere to apos- tolical precedents of action, and I hope I have proved that we have ]^kewhe precedents of thought on our side ; who, then, is the separating party ? Did the apostle, that living depositary of truth, charge those at Corinth with schism, who adhered to the ordinances as he had appointed ? You say, there is a high probability that we are right, and yet you call upon us to give up all this vantage 1 Mr. H's. Pamphlet, page 26 63 ground, that we may not be called by the odious name schismatics. Prove to us, that we have by a pertinacious or contumacious adherence to error, separated ourselves from our fellow Christians, and we will acknowledge the charge to be cor- rect, and repent, as we ought to do, in dust and ashes. If as a denomination, we have gendered a spirit of division by implicitly following like the Corinthians the dogmas of our fellow men, to the rejection of the authority of Christ, or the spirit of the gospel, prove it to us, and we will re- nounce the error. But do not dress us up in these odious skins without any cause, and thereby ex- pose us to be hunted down and proscribed by our fellow Christians. We do not charge you with schism, though your theory has caused dissensions among some of our brethren, and perhaps will do so yet to a greater extent, until this modern mania shall subside and calm reason resume its seat. We love you, and are willing to leave you in the hands of our common Lord, before whose decision we must all stand or fall. We do not call upon you implicitly without reasons, to fol- low our opinions, nor ought you to draw so largely on our credulity as to suppose we shall bow down before your angry strife of words. " The wrath of man worketh not the righteous- ness of God." Consider that if the charge is im- putable to us, it must also be so to every sect of Christians in the world ; Rome, Geneva, England, Scotland, Calvinists, Arminians, Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, and even mixed commu- nion Baptists, for some of those Latitudinarians 54 have refused to commune with their strict brethren solely because they are strict. And it is a known fact that such have been the liberal sentiments infused by your labour on terms of communion, that there are not a few who used indiscriminately to give to every good case, who now liberally exclude strict baptists from the list of their bene- factions. All have their own terms of communion, and consequently, according to your decision, all are schismatics. If separation exposes the sepa- rating party to this charge, then all the outcry against dissenters is correct, and the noncon- formists, whose memorials we revere, and whose writings have proved such a blessing to the church of God, were after all petulant schis- matics, who have divided the seamless garment of Christ, and acted in direct opposition to his prayer, who prayed, that " they all might be one." In fact, if your reasoning be correct, the whole visible church is composed of factious schismatic societies; and to prescribe rules as terms of church fellowship, however scriptural these rules may be, as the living depositaries are not here to give to them the weight of evidence they require, most certainly expose the prescrib- ing party to the charge of schism. But " charity is the end of the commandment, and the fulfilling the law." This charity con- strains us to hope and believe that such a charge is only to be found in your pamphlet, from which we trust it will soon be expunged by a rejoinder from your descriptive pen. If we must pass un- 53 der your ban, call us stupid, or harsh, or illiberal, or bigoted, but do not call us wicked, for schism is wickedness. We love Christ our Saviour, we conscientiously regard his commands; do not then let us remain under this detestable interdict, but cause your charity to cast the mantle of forbear- ance over our infirmities. If you cannot con- vert us, give us a place in the charitable list of your weak brethren ; that we may again be ac- knowledged among the ranks of those who are called, and chosen, and faithful. Ah Sir! no longer delight in unmercifully beating your fel- low servants, lest our common Master reprove you. What must the religious public think of us, when having in a style peculiar to yourself held us up to contempt, you would fain have your readers believe, there is something worse behind the scene that is yet untold ; for you deliberately say as follows : — " leaving however, to those to whom it may be more grateful the unwelcome office, of exposing the infirmities of their bre- thren."' Can you Sir, in your closet while you are approaching your Lord and ours, persuade yourself that the manner you have treated your brethren will agree with St. Paul's description of charity, in 1 Cor. xiii. ? Having faithfully animadverted on this most unpleasant part of your pamphlet, what now remains is easy and will all be included in my next. I am, Dear Sir, With the same esteem, Your's, &c. 1 Mr. H's. pdinpluct, page 4^. 56 LETTER VII. Dear Sir, I most heartily agree with you, in the sentiments you have expressed in the following paragraph. "In every enquiry relating to church duty, our first concern should undoubtedly be, to ascertain the will of the Supreme Legislator ; but when this hath been done to our satisfaction, we may be allowed to examine the practical ten- dency of dijfferent systems," &c.' You have seen from the preceding letters, that I have endea- voured to ascertain the will of the Supreme Legis- lator, on the system you have so powerfully recommended ; and I find from the reasons I have stated, that unless your theory can be placed on more substantial ground, it can never stand the blast of truth. It resembles a fine mansion built on the sand ; the superstructure is very inviting and beautiful, but its foundation is essentially de- fective. I must now examine its practical ten- dency, or expediency; and I think we should begin by enquiring, how it would be likely to operate on the internal state of societies, formed according to your model. If it fail here, all must fail ; for union and peace must be essential to every thing that is calculated to render Christian fellowship estimable to ourselves, attractive to the ' Mr. 11 'g. pamphlet, page 40. ^7 world, or efficient in its operations, either at home or abroad. Indeed, only in such a state of things will the prayer of our adorable Lord be fully ans- wered. One would think it were only necessary to ask (and reason would give us the answer,) in what society are the essential principles of union and peace likely most to prevail? Is it in a society where there is a decided disagreement, relating to one out of two positive ordinances of Christ; or is it in a society where there is the most entire agreement? Reason assuredly will say, in the latter, and if so, all your fine theory of expediency must evaporate. But for the sake of illustration, let us suppose a case. A society is formed of nearly an equal number of baptists and paedobaptists, all conscientious : candidates both adult and infant, are in turn solemnly baptised in the name of the Sacred Trinity . From courtsey and a desire to keep the unity of the Spirit, the bap- tists sit gravely in their pews, while these uncon- scious babes have imposed on them an ordinance which they, (the baptists) think is perverted both in the subject and the mode. In turn the paedo- baptists from the same desire witness the adminis- tration of the institution, in a way which they conscientiously believe perverts its design, and leads to the utter annihilation of an indispensable parental duty. They both for a time " refrain from good words though it is a pain and grief unto them :" the fire kindles, this for awhile is kept under, but it engenders jealousy, and each party fears the other will become dominant. 58 With all their caution, the matter about which they differ, is unintentionally agitated at a church meeting. This primarily leads to sober Christian discussion ; but each side becomes gradually irri- tated as the subject proceeds, and when argument fails, recourse is had to more efficient means. One of these conscientious brethren with talents and piety of the highest kind, boldly tells his er- ring brethren, that they rest their hollow fallaci- ous scheme on human " authority," that their er- ror leads to "sc^/sm," that in this debate they "resemble certain animals, who pelt passengers with their own produce,'" and that their senti- ments on this subject, remind him of the " bird of night," which, " Does to the moon complain, " Of such as, wandering near her secret bowers, " Molest her ancient solitary reign." 2 Another on the same side gravely informs his mistaken brethren, that they are " convinced of baptism, but they have not piety enough to avow their sentiments."^ The other party with equal talents, and " in deference to their master's word, at which they tremble," fling back showers of missiles equally kind and polite, while all the nar- row canaille on both sides, (call them small craft if you please,) join in this holy warfare, with weapons, perhaps less polished, but equally effica- lA phrase used by Mr. on a former occasion. 2 Mr. H's. pampb. p. 45. 3 Vide Dr. Cox's Reply to Dr. Wardlaw, &c. 59 cious. If, Sir, minds of the highest order and most benevolent complexion, have in their zeal to carry a point acted in this way, is it too much to say, that the same may take place amongst an order of minds so much inferior, and in a society composed of such heterogeneous materials ? What has been, may be again ; but would such a state of things come up to your desires expressed in your " Christian, in opposition to Party communion," or resemble that union expressed in our Lord's pathetic prayer, " that they all may be one ?" Ah, no! The fiend discordance would find here a field equal to his talents. This unhomogeneous mixture, brings to my recollection a caricature which I saw many years ago, occasioned by the union that had then been recently formed between England and Ireland ; the consequences of which are well known. The print represented two bulls engaged in a most desperate encounter. Their ponderous sculls were indeed so united, that it was at any one's peril to attempt to sepa- rate them : some of the spectators were made to exclaim, " Oh blessed union!" and a group on the other side, were said to be vociferating : " It will be better bye-and-bye ; use will make all things easy." This I fear would too aptly represent a union, where so great a difference of opinion ex- ists, and where if it ever became tolerable, it must be, by an abandonment on both sides, of what each professes conscientiously to believe. We have found in many churches, that things of a much less moment, have led to angry conten- 60 tions, and in not a few to disgraceful separations. Let us not then for the sake of an untried theory, increase these stumbling blocks. It will be in vain to expect communion without union; oi union, but on the solid basis of agreement. When that gracious Saviour, who, whilst he bears with our weakness, does not allow us to trifle with his ordinances, shall be pleased eminently to pour out of his Spirit upon us, then the watchman shall see eye to eye, and we shall have no need to say to our brother, " know the Lord, for all shall know him, from the least to the greatest." Then all hearts being fully sanctified by the truth, and all motives purified, our Lord's prayer will be ac- complished, we shall " all be one, as he, and the Father are one:" the epithets, baptists, paedobap- tists, and antibaptists, shall immerge in the more desirably name Christian, to emerge no more for ever; and we shall enjoy Christian, and not party communion ; but not till then. If, therefore, instead of using your universally admired talents, to effect what is impracticable, you could be pre- vailed on to employ them in affectionately and respectfully pleading the cause of truth, with your mistaken, though pious, and conscientious bre- thren, concerning the separating institution, who can tell, but a flood of light might break in upon their minds, which would produce the most cor- dial union of judgment amongst us? Then we should really he one; and our union and commu- nion founded on truth, would be solid and im- perishable. But till then let us affectionately 61 agree to differ, and unite, where we can unite, without the compromise of what ought to be dearer than rubies to us all. Very little more need be said on the comparative expediency of the different systems ; that which tends the most to produce honest, solid union, in any society, must be the most expedient, and the most beneficial in its results. I am far from thinking, that our sincere adherence to what we believe to be truth is so repulsive and offensive in the eyes of our paedobaptist brethren in general as you represent it. I recollect an anecdote in point related of the late good Mr. Winter, of Newbury. A baptist minister called on him with a case. Mr. W. asked him, " what denomination he belonged to." He replied, " The Baptist." Finding Mr. W. silent, the liberal hapiht added, " But we hold with mixed communion, Sir.^'' " In- deed," rejoined Mr. W. " then you remind me of Peter's description of the old world ; *' stand- ing IN AND OUT of the water.'" All reflecting paedobaptists well know, that we differ from them no farther than they differ from us respecting baptism ; that they agree with us in the connec- tion that subsists between the two ordinances, and that a visible union, without union in senti- ment^ could only produce confusion. Our party passions, the results of which we lament, now act only at a distance ; but were we to be brought into that close contact which you recommend, the result must be much worse, and certainly, " instead of extirpating" an error, we plant a 62 prejudice; and instead of softening and conciliat- ing the minds of our opponents, we should " inflict a stigma."^ I admire your eloquent and liberal description of the spirit of the times. " The church of Christ," you say, " no longer the scene of intestine warfare among the several denominations into which it is cantoned and divided, presents the image of a great empire, composed of distant, but not hostile provinces, prepared to send forth its combatants, at the command of its invisible Sovereign, to invade the dominions of Satan, and subdue the nations of the earth." Your description is as correct as it is eloquent. We are divided into sections and cantonments, but united in one common cause. Angry contentions have, for many years, been kept under, and Christians have cordially agreed to differ. If, Sir, this be the state of the case, why should you fan up the flame of contention? The mixture you wish to promote could never tend to increase our energies, or to destroy the line of demarcation. Baptists would still be baptists, and paedobaptists would still bear the same name. So far as I have been able to judge, on a comparison between the operations of the two systems, I have found that mixed fellowship has failed to produce every object which you suppose it would insure ; and, in some instances, a sad reverse has been the result. The following 1 Mr. H.'s pamphlet, p. 43. " Ibid. p. 50. 63 cases, which have come under my own observa- tion, will confirm what I have stated. — In a town in the south of our island, a most serious division took place in an independent congregation. Sixty or more of its members separated from their bre- thren, attended the baptist meeting-house, and expressed their desire to join in communion with the church. The baptists, from a wish to evince their brotherly affection, and from a confident persuasion that such an act of liberality would not fail to be followed with conviction, (at least, among some of these mistaken brethren) agreed to alter their terms of communion, and receive them. Some of their members, and some of the neighbouring ministers and brethren, remonstrated with them, and assured them, that the result would prove to be the opposite to what they expected. But these remonstrances were disregarded, and the liberal plan adopted, with a confident persua- sion of its success. This mixed fellowship con- tinued for, I believe, a year-and-a-half, or more ; but not one of the paedobaptists could see baptism to be of sufficient importance to submit to it. At last, some independent minister, from the kindest motives, no doubt, attempted, and really effected a reconciliation between the remaining members of the church and the brethren that had seceded, the result of which was, that every one of them returned to his own fold, leaving the baptists without the accession of a single member from them. There is no one but would rejoice in such a reconciliation ; but it assuredly proves, that 64 your doctrine of expediency is not so certain in its results as you would have us believe. I think I might venture to affirm, from what I have experienced, that had this church stood firm to its own previous system, some of those paedo- baptists would have been induced so to examine the subject of baptism, that conviction would have followed, and that they would have been baptized. I am acquainted with another church 0^ *******, This church, for the sake of receiving a few unbaptized persons, altered its constitution. The consequence was, that as soon as the alteration was made, as many baptized brethren withdrew as unbaptized persons joined. This church has tried your plan for some years ; and, strange as it may appear, though it retains these paedobaptists in communion, it has resolved never to receive another unbaptized person into fellowship. The reason for this extraordinary resolution, given both by the minister and some of its members, was, that they had tried and proved the inexpediency of mixed communion, and on that inexpediency alone, had resolved in future to prevent it. This, Sir, is another matter- of-fact against the expediency of your theory. The last that I shall mention, and which I had related to me very recently by the pastor of the church, forms the opposite to the two cases already stated. At * * * * *, an unhappy divi- sion took place in an independent congregation, which resulted in the ultimate removal of its pas- tor. Many of this congregation united in worship 65 with the baptists. The baptists retained their accustomed terms of strict communion ; and several of these psedobaptists have been baptized, have joined the church, and now rank amongst its most pious, active, and useful members. These cases, Sir, confirm the truth of the adage, " Ho- nesty is the best policy ;" and of the maxim, that " what is morally wrong, can never be politically right." In my views, founded on long observation, three evils have generally followed the libera policy that you recommend. It has opened an asylum to the factious and dis- contented amongst both baptists and poedobaptists, into which they have fled to avoid the mortifica- tion of concession, and church discipline. It has induced some paedobaptists to conclude, from the indifference which they think the bap- tists by it evince to baptism, that it is an institution which may be conscientiously neglected. And I fear it has proved a very powerful in- ducement with some baptist ministers to withhold baptism from that place in their ministry in which the gospel has placed it. Having freely laid before you and my readers my views of the nature of our controversy, I sincerely pray, that if we must still differ in opi- F 66 nion, that difference may never relax our aifection towards each other ; — that mixed and strict bap- tists and peedobaptists may unite (where they can conscientiously unite) in opposing the empire of darkness ; — and that, under the command and conduct of the Captain of their salvation, they may go on from conquering unto conquer, until " the kingdoms of this w^orld shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ." Thus hastening on that glorious day, when the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun as the light of seven days. Then, without any compromise of opinion, or sacrifice of truth, the whole visible body of Christ shall be one in judgment, one in heart, one in aim, and one in universal consecration to the glory of Him who hath redeemed us to God by his blood : having " One Lord, one faith, one baptism." I am. Dear Sir, With unaltered esteem, Your's, SAVILT,, 1C7, ST. 5IART1!M'S LAMi.^ / ij^ [A .k\ **s ;i^^' s>