:^-> % ^ ' ■'^■■■y.-* -^^ t/-^V' f:^.... K %^m-& !!4*-"?i ■i^^ ^ ■;-^;^ I .«■ <^ * '».*' ' ^:.^ ♦- 4?. T^ .r ^* % ^ ^il^l?^ '^ '-« A' C V / 2y ^ \ I THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, | I Princeton, N. J. jfc'*' "^ ^ ^ Bequeathed by the Hon. E. BOUDINOT, LT..D. ;| -~--^^^; f 'use, Division . __,; [\ s/ Scc^ '6 c ^ /^^/x.(^^^-^^c^ mk SOLEMN REASONS FOR DECLINING TO ADOPT THE BAPTIST THEORY^ PRACTICE IN A SERIES OF LETTERS TO A BAPTIST MINISTER. BY NOAH^VORCESTER, A. M. Pastor of a Church in Thornton. Kebuke a wise man, and he will love thee. Solsmon. Nn h<- that co:ni>>endc'iii himsrlf is approved ; but whom the Lord commendeth. S.'. Piui, And iie spake this parable unio csrtjia, who iruitea in themseivts that tliey were rightrous.. and despised uthers. St, Lukv. FOURTH EDFFION. PRINTED BY GEORGE FORMA N, No. 178, Gr EE N wicH- Stree T, 1809, ADVERTISEMENT. IT IS very ivell known, that the denomination call- ed Baptists, have claimed for themselves the honor of being the visible church of Christ, to the exclusion q/* all others ; and that they have manifested a disposi- tion to attribute it to criminal blindness, and selfish motives, that all who enjoy the light of the gospel do not embrace their distinguishing sentiments. This being the case, it doubtless behoves every one, who is capable of it, seriously to inquire, Why he is not a Baptist? And if, on ijiquiry, any one finds that he has other reasons than those alledged against him, he has doubtless a right ^o exhibit them, in his own vin- dication, and for the consideration of others. The writer of the Jollowing Letters has availed Kimself of this right ; and he hopes that what he has written may be of use both to baptists and Pedo- baptists. In writing the following Letters, the name Baptist has been generally used in preference to Anti-Pedo- baptist; 7iot as being more correct and distinguish- ing, but because that is the name by which the deno- mination generally distinguish themselves, and by ivhich they are more universally known* Letters to a Bajitist Minister, LETTER I. REV. SIR, IN the discourse I lately had with you, some things were suggested, which have led me to serious mquiry. I cannot doubt that some persons have view- ed me as inclined to the Baptist sentiments, excepting the sentiment of close communion. Such apprehen- sions probably arose from the following things ; — the readiness which I have discovered in receiving Baptists into the church of which I have had the care ; the af- fectionate freedom with which I have conversed with such Baptists as I esteemed real christians ; my ex- changing with some preachers of that denomination ; and my attempts to open the way for free communion between Baptists and Pedobaptists. Nor can I say that I never had any doubts in my mind as to the truth of the Pedobaptist theory. In my younger years, I had some struggle in my mind. This I think was occasioned, in a great degree, by the overwhelming confidence with which the Baptist preachers and writers affirmed their sentiments. But in riper years, I became convinced that great confi- dence in asserting an opinion is no evidence of the rectitude of the sentiment, nor of the goodness nor prudence of him who makes use of this art to gain proselytes. The struggle in my mind, however, had probably a salutary effect, in softening my feelings towards the Baptists ; and in leading me to judge favorably of some who embraced their sentiments. But, dear Sir, I think you were the first person who ever intimated to me a reason why I did not go over to the Baptist ground ; at least the first, who suggested the same reason, viz. " That I feared to appear in opposition to great names." 4 This suggestion I think has been of some use to me ; but on the most careful examination I cannot find that what you suggested is the reason, nor any reason why I have not become a Baptist. But I am free, Sir, to confess to you, that there are things which I do fear when I contemplate the idea of embracing the Baptist theory and practice, according to the prevailing fashion of the present day. And, wishing that my freedom may give you no offence, I shall take the liberty to state to you, \n some following letters, the grounds of my fears. It is indeed a deli- cate task w^hich I have proposed for myself; and it re- quires, perhaps, more candor, wisdom, and prudence, than I possess, to execute it in a suitable manner. But I hope, Sir, that I shall not, in any instance, lose sight of my accountability to him who searcheth the heart. — According to my views of duty, I shall use plain- iiess of speech ; but I mean to avoid railing accusation. Some thmgs which I view as of a reprehensible nature, that have appeared in many of your denomination, I shall have occasion to notice ; but I hope to notice them m such a manner that I shall have no occasion to tremble at the thought of meeting a Baptist at the bar bf God. And I hope. Sir, that you will read with a disposition to disapprove of evil, whether it be found in yourself, or in any jof the brethren of your denomi- nation. Your's, 8^c. LETTER 11. REV. SIR, ACCORDING to promise I proceed to observe, 1. I fear to take ground on which I must meet with serious questions, arguments, and objections, which I cannot ansv/er otherwise than by disgusting quibbles, cants, or jeers, or insulting exclamations. Serious questions, arguments and objections, I fore- see that I must meet, if I become a Baptist. With respect to many of which, I can foresee no way to an- swer or obviate them by fair reasoning. And from the 5 free use which is made of quibbles, jeers and excla- mations, by some writers and speakers on }'our side of the question, I suspect that they discover, in many in- stances, no rational mode of defence. I think that no man of sense, and due consideration, would make use of the weapons I have named, in such a serious cause, but from dire necessity. To think of being reduced to such necessity, fills my mind with dread. I there- fore fear to become a Baptist. I will not. Sir, pretend that there are no instances in which Pedobaptist writers and speakers have been guilty of using such weapons as those to which I have objected ; but this. Sir, I think I ought to'^ay, that the use of such things is beneath the dignity of a Christian Miaister, inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel, and disgusting to persons of a humble and judicious mind, Your's, &:c. LETTER III. REV, SIR, ONE ground of fear has already been stated: I will now observe, 2. That \fear to take ground on which I must make use of dogmatical assertion instead of argument, or urge arguments which I know are fallacious and in- conclusive. I am sensible that, with many people, confident as- sertions have more weight than conclusive arguments ; and this circumstance appears to be perfectly under- stood, and greatly relied on, by too many Baptist wri- ters and speakers. But I have. Sir, either a natural or habitual aversion to such a m^ethod of proving a point. And to make use of arguments which I know are fal- lacious and inconclusive, seems to me to border hard on dishonesty. If I should become a Baptist, I know not of but two sources of argument, of which I could make use, to disprove the proprietv of infant baptism. And my conscience tells me, that arguments from either of those sources must be fallacious and inconclusive. 6 What Is called the wmit of explicit warrant, is one of the grounds 1 must take. By explicit warrant is meant a plain or express precept^ or an unquestionable example. But how could I honestly reason from this ground against infant baptism, while I know that a point may be as clearly and fully proved by fair deduc- tions and inferences, from Scripture premises, as by what is called explicit warrant ? Besides, if I deny infant baptism for the want of ex- plicit warrant, I must also, to be consistent with my- self, deny the right of female communion at the Lord's table; the change of the Sabbath from the seventh to tlie first day-cf the week ; the propriety of administer- ing the Lord's supper in a public manner before the world ; the propriety of audible and public prayer, be- fore and after sermon, or before and after baptism. I must also deny the right of any ordinary Pastor or El- der of a particular church to administer the ordinance of baptism ; and the propriety of continuing water bap- tism in the church since the days of the Apostles. — Moreover, I must deny the right of any particular per- son, whether Baptist or Pedobaptist, to officiate as a Gospel Minister. Female communion, and the change of Sabbath, have often, and justly, been urged as standing on the same ground, as to the mode of proof, with infant baptism. Now, Sir, I will seriously ask you, whether all the other things, which have been enumerated, do not al- so, as to the mode of proof , stand on the same ground ? Where will you find express precept, or unquestiona- ble example, for administering the Lord's supper in a public manner ; or for the practice of public and audi- ble prayer before and after sermon, or before and after baptism ? Not in the Bible, it m^ay be presumed. — Where will you find your explicit warrant for a Pas- tor of a particular church to administer the ordinance of baptism ? And where is your explicit warrant for the continuance of water baptism in the church ? The whole support of water baptism in the church at the present day, results precisely from the sam^e mode of reasoning which we adopt iu favor of infant baptism, 7 viz. inferences from Scripture premises, and the testi- monies contained in ecclesiastical history. We come now to the last particular. Permit me. Sir, seriously to request of you to produce explicit ■warrant, from the Scriptures, for i/oiir officiating as a gospel minister. Is your name explicitly written, or your character unquestionably described in the Bible as an authorized minister of Christ ? Or have you even fiilly and unquestionably the qualifications which are explicitly required of a Bishop, Elder, or Pastor ? Suppose a man should doubt the propriety of hear- ing you preach, and should demand of you a Thus saith the Lord, authorizing you to preach the gospel; what method would you adopt to satisfy his mind ? To be consistent with yourself, in denying infant baptism, would you not be obliged to acknowledge that you have no warrant to preach the gospel ? Now, Sir, is it not extraordinary that Ministers of your denomination should so conjideiitly deny, reject, and even ridicule infant baptism, while every thing you do, as Baptist Ministers, is ivholly unauthorized by any such warrant as you demand, in support of in- fant baptism ? And while you cannot support one arti- cle of your own practice, in respect to positive institu- tions, by any other mode of reasoning than that which you ridicule, when adopted in favor of baptizing the infant seed of believers ? Is it not, Sir, still jnore ex- traordinary that, while the whole of your own practice rests on this mode of reasoning, you should feel your- selves authorized to connect with " AntichrisV^ the wlx)le Pedobaptist church in all ages ? Your's, &c. LETTER IV. REV. SIR, IN my last I mentioned the first source of argument against infant baptism ; and endeavored to show its fallacy and inconclusiveness. For a second source of argument I should have to bring into view several passages of Scripture, from which it appears that believers were baptized, and that of adults, a pro- fession oi faith was requnxd as a prerequisite to bap- tism ; and from such premises I should have to infer that infants were not baptized. But must I not act a dishonest part to draw such a conclusion when my conscience assures me that no such thing is implied in the premises ? To argue simply from such passages of Scripture, I might as well infer that, in the Apostle's days, believers had no children, as to infer that their children were not baptized. For neither the one nor the other is implied in the premises. I will now state a case which may illustrate the falla- cy of both the arguments against infant baptism. Sup- pose I had imbibed a prejudice against the practice of having little children attend public -worship. I advance the sentiment that no children under twelve years of age should appear in the house of God, excepting when brought in infancy to be presented to the Lord.* In support of my opinion I deny that there is any Thus saith the Lord, or explicit warrant for the prac- tice in the gospel state of the church. That there is no express precept nor unquestionable example. And, hence, the practice must be unlawful under the gos- pel dispensation. For further proof I introduce the second source of argument, and exhibit those passages of Scripture which plainly show that adult persons were required to attend, and the examples of their attendance : And hence infer that children did not attend in the Apostles' days ; — that it was not the design of Christ that they should attend, and that the practice of their attend^ice in the present age is supported only by tradition, and is unauthorized, unlawful and wicked. Would not • When Jesus was liuelve yean old, he> ent with liispa-entsro JeiusaU-m, to at end the passover, after the cuUom of iht feast. These Vmds. fi^r the cunntn of ilie femt, have prbibly reference to the dee at which chil.ircn fir-;! accompanied their p»i-entj to tlie feast of the passover. Tiiismay appear by reading ,f o »crsfs in connection : " Now h;s parents went to Jerusalem every year ai ihe feast r>f the pnseover. " And wlieii he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem, uf> th: law, to £0," t!ia: U i« the pasiaver- 9 xri any children under twelve years of age be able to see the weakness and fallacy of such reasoning ? How, then, does it come to pass that men of the first abilities among the Biiptists, will urge such arguments as con- clusive against infant baptism ?*' Should I become a Baptist, while I should have nothing to urge against infant baptism but such weak and inconclusive arguments, in opposition to these I should have to meet a connected chain of conclusive reasonings, which I foresee no possible way to break or to invalidate. From the sacred Scriptures it would be clearly pro- ved, that in the gracious covenant which God made with i\.braham, and under which the church was form- ed in his family, and by which he was constituted the father of all that believe, the all-sufficient God en- gaged to be a God to him and to his seed : That as a " ^ea/ of the. righteousness of faith," and a *' token of the covenant," circumcision was instituted ; That as the promise was to him and his seed, so both he and his seed were commanded to be circum- cised : That the blessing of Abraham has come on the Gen- tiles — that believing Gentiles are heirs of the promise, ' • You will be plea5ed. Sir, to observe, thzt public ■wonhifi. as really as idpfrjm, is a rfiu/ne and poiilivt imtitution ; and the dajgerof dev-iaring fruni tlie divine wan ant, is as great in the former cse is in t.ie latter. And now, Sir, I wish to a dress sjme serious q lesciop.s, not to the ^aniens of the multituic, but to your oiuB cor.iiier.ee. Oj the supposition ihata person had adopted this sentiment, tluit lae h:ive ni lu rniat from Scripture for a cHilJ ta attend public -ivonhip bttiuecn one a-.J ;welve yean of age ; might he not ajupt the whole course of your rtJioning, tteclam nion jn'i ridicule, against infant biptiiin, and apply it in support of his new theory? The two arguments have already been coiTsidered, Might lie fiot, also, urge the example of the blesssd Jesus, and dwell upon this topic in a very moving manner ? M'ght he not go into the same course of 'Jehtment, frighful, and censorioui decla- mation, which you ailopc ; a^id with equal propriety apply your favaritt lexH to tiighteii parents from the practice of taking their children with them to the house of public wor- sliip .' Such as the following : ''Teaching them to ubitrve all thing: ivliattaever I h.i'je comnuitidiii you " " What thing soever 1 command you, (bscrve to do it : ihuu shaltnoc ad/i thereto, nor dimtJiisft fn;m it." " Toob»y is better than sicriSce, and to hearken thaa the fat of rami." " If ye love me, keep my commandments." " In vain do ye worship me, teaching for doctrines, tlie commandments of men." " Who hath requited tliisatyour hands .'" With as much prupriety. Sir, as you apply the last words, might not such a teacher adopt the whole verse, with a little comn.ent ? •' When ye come toa;>p?ai betiire me, who liath required this at your hands te tread my courts," with your an^wi/Z^ffJ children by your side ? And if the practice oi'ridiculing infant baptism were not too afiominatle to be describ- ed, I might ask svhy the same might not be applied in the case before us, by a^kiag us why vye do not tnke our " Liinbi and catvsi 3.\i(i yonns cattfi" to tlie houss uf God, improper sutjists of she ordjnar.c; of public worship ? B 10 evnins IstKu: wtia — lluit the covenant ol' the j^ospcl chiiiT.li is the same thiit was nuidc. willi Ahrahimi, and the promise to believers the sauie, 7 will he a (iod tb • thee and to tliij need after tlwc. — That bai)lism signi- fies the same tiiliij^ vvhiel) eireinneisioM (lid, viz. the reuovalioii of the lieart, and is vlie sid)slilnled token of the same covenant. Aceordin}2;ly, as Abrahani and. his hons( hold wire eirenmcisid, so llie Apostles bap- tized believe rs and their honseholds. In support of these ideas, the history oC the ehureh Would allord evidence that infant baptism was handid down iVom the A|)ostles, and that it has been ^eiicrallt/ and uninterruptedly practised in the chiirch, trom the days of the Ajxistles to the present time. From siicli premises, rational conclusions may be drawn in lavor nrinlant baptism, us ])raetised at the present day. I l;now, howi v( r, that such conclusions may be den'iedf and even ndieuled ; but, in my opinion, they niver can be refuted. With respect to the three liouseholds which were l)aj)ti/.ed by the Apostles, 1 am willinpj to admit that there is no positive evidence that in either ol" them theic were little children. By pcTsons of your deno- mination, this -want ol" positive eviik nee, that there were children in those households, seems to be consi- dered and treated, as nmountin}j; to positive evidence that tlu;re were not. Hut it ou|.';ht to be understood, I'uit there is no positive evidence that there wcrv ehil- (hen in thoiic hf)useholds, nor that there were not. It is but supposition on the one side, and on the other. W may tlun candidly iiupiire which is the most pro- fja/h'.' supposition "■! Atcordinj;- to what we know of hous holds, it will not, I think, be thou^;ht extravd- t^ant, for a j;-eneral and comparative estimate, to say, that there are f/iree households which have in them lit- tle children, lo o//f that has none. If, therefore, one household only had been' mentioned, tlu- supposition that there were little children in (fiat household, woid(f he thretfdd n\ore probable than ihi- supi)osition that there v^eri- not. ]\\\\ as t/ircc hoiischolds are men- tioned, and as three times three arc nine, the \)rol).Abil- u ity is Qs tiinc to ouf, tluil, in one or other of ihosc liuusc: hold>s, there were little ehiUhxn. It may be proper to acUl, that whether there tyc/r or were not little ehikhen i\\ those households, it i^ clear to my mind, IVoni the representations in scripture, that a household was baptized upon the I'aiih ol' one person. Your^, Jkc. LKTTl'Ul \'. UF.V. SIR, SOME may suppose, that I have already said more than was needful to shew the fallacy ol your ari;un\ents against infant baptism ; yet 1 have i* desire to exhibit an examination of these arguments n\ another point of view. You object to our practice o[' infant baptism, on this ground, That xva have no explicit warrant. W luth- cr your objeetioii be proper, or not, dei)ends entirely on the corrfctncss or incorrectness of this principle, viz. That in respect to positive institutions, e.vp/icit war- rant is vecessan/ io/usti/'// our practice. Now, Sir, let it l)e observed, that with respect to baptism, we voluntarily adopt one mode of practice, and you adopt another. In our mode of practice^ wc baptize the beliei'er and his infant seed ; in your mode of practice, you baptize the believer and ex- chide his infant seed. Each of the dillerent uiodes of practice relates to w positive institution. Whv, then, is not explicit warrant as necessary to justify i/onr practice as ours? And have you, Sir, any explicit warrant for that part of your practice which EXCLtTDES THK INI- A NT s I^ E D ? Dois the burcwant of explicit warrant for <;///* practice amount to a 'J 'has saith the Lord for yours ? Or have you a whit of support for tliis part of your own practice but that of inferential proof ? Moreover, if explicit warrant be necessary ^o justify Avhut we do respectini;- positive institutions, I think it should be considered as necessary to Justify what we say. Will you then, Sir, be so kind us to produce 12 your Thus saith the Lord for saying that explicit war- rant is necessary to justify all we do respecting posi-^ tive institutions.^ Either I am under a mibtake, or ) ou have assumed, aikl taken for granted, the principle on which the whole weight of your argument rests. Fiist prove that explicit warrant is necessary, and I will then yield to the force of your argument. But this, it may be presumed, you cannot do from the Bible, either by explicit testimony or fair deduction. Something farther may yet be remarked, which, in my view, amounts to a great inconsistency on your part. For the support of infant baptism we depend on implicit warrant and inferential prool . This you re- ject, and demand a Thus saith the Lord^ or explicit warrant. Yet, on your own part, you depend on pre- cisely the same mode of reasoning as that to \\'hich you object. In your second argument it is obvious, at first view, that you depend on the same mode of reasoning which we adopt. You state your premises from Scripture, and then draw your inference or conclusion. It is very true, that your conclusion is not implied in your premi- ses ; but still it is evident, that you depend on the same mode of reasoning which is adopted by us. With regard to your frst argument, it may not be so obvious to all, at first view, that in this you depend on inferential proof I will therefore take the liberty to reduce the argument to a logical form. And if I mistake not, it will stand thus — Explicit warrant is ne- cessary to ^zw/'i/z/ the practice of infant baptism : but we have no explicit warrant for baptizing infants ; there- fore the practice of infant baptism cannot be justified. What is this. Sir, but attempting to support your theory by inferential proof ? And have you. Sir, ob- tained an exclusive right to this kind of proof, that you deny it to Pedobaptists ? I will now attem.pt clearly to state my views of the difference between your reasoning and ours on the subject of infant baptism. On our part w'e state Scriptural premises, and Qur conclusions naturally result from our premises. 13 On your part, in your second ar^iment you have fair Scriptural premises ; but still there is thib defect, your £0?2c/usion is not implied in your premises. In your se- cond argument, your conclusion fairly results from your premises, but there is this infelicity attending the argument, your premises are not to be found in the Mble. Is it not, Sir, very remarkable, that while you would deny us the privilege of supporting infant baptism by inferential proof i\'Oxa Scripture premises, you should take the lil^erty to assume a principle for one of your premises which has no foundation in the Scriptures, and by the help of this assumed principle draw a conclusion against infant baptism ? If, in the last paragraph, my meaning be not obvi- ous, I will endeavour to make it so by requesting of you Scriptural ground for this principle, viz. Explicit warrant is necessary Xo justijy the practice of infant baptism. Let this principle be fairly supported from Scripture, and the controversy on my part will cease for ever. Such, Sir, being my views of the arguments against and in favor of infant baptism, can you wonder that I fear to change my ground ? Your's, &,c. LETTER VI. EEV. SIR, MY fear to take ground on which I must make use of fallacious and inconclusive arguments, operates against my becoming even an opc^i commu- nion Baptist. But when I contemplate the idea of be- coming a close co;?2?;2?/nion Baptist, u\) feat's are greath" multiplied. Hence I may observe, 3. That I fear to take ground on which I must set at nought, as heretical, unauthorized, and sacrilegious proceedings, my own solemn ordination, and all my administrations of divine ordinances; And much more, if possible, do I fear to do the same by the ordinations and administrations of all the pious Pedobaptist u isters of all a^es. But all this I foresee I must do, if I should become a Baptist of the popular elass. For , what less than this could be implied m my re-orCna- tt and in my withdrawing from the fellowsh.p of ^'1trl"ground on which I must say and. "1 i„ , torn,. Wo. 1 =W «» I""'''- v„,.,, ao. '1^ LETTER VII. REV. SIR, ACCORDING to promise I must say, 5. I solemnly fear to become a public reviler of God's gracious covenant, his church, and people. That gracious covenant which God made with Abra- ham, by which he was constituted the Father of all the?n that believe, does, in my view, contain all the provision which God has ever revealed for the salvation either of Jews or Gentiles. And for me to talk or to write respecting that covenant, as some of your deno- mination have done, would border hard on blasphemy. To speak in the degrading manner which so??ie have done, of the ancient church and Zion of God, would in me be abominable slander. And to denominate the whole Pedobaptist church from the days of the Apos^ ties to the present time, by the name of " Antichrist ,'''* implies such a degree of revilitig, as in my view is per- fectly inconsistent with the christian character. No two characters or objects in the universe arc more perfectly opposed to each other, than the charac- ter of Christ and the character of Antichrist. Light and darkness, heaven and hell, the character of Jeho- vah and the character of Belzebub, are no more oppos- ed to each other than the characters of C/?mif and Am tichrist. Therefore, for me indiscriminately, to charge the holy Martyrs, the pious Christians, and godly Mi- fiisters of the Pedobaptist churches in all ages, as be- ing the members and Ministers of " Antichrist, 'would imply a degree of reviling which, perhaps, has never been surpassed even by infidels. An inspired Apostle has classed revilers with the most vicious characters, and has assured us, that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God. May I not then, Sir, justly fear to become of this class among the Baptists. I have. Sir, indeed, been an advocate for open com- munion with your denomination. But I must now ireely and solemnly profess to you, that I have no wish 16 in my heart for open communion with any man or class of men who will, in such a manner, revile the church and people of God. And I believe it to be a solemn duty, incumbent on all Pedobaptist Ministers and churches, to show their disapprobation of such conduct, by discontinuing all tokens of Christian fellowship with such as are known to revile in such a manner, until they shall exhibit evidence of repentance. I wish to be understood that I do not recommend this discontinuance of fellowship respecting all who arc Baptists. Many of the Baptists I have no doubt, do, in heart, abhor such reviling, and grieve to see that it is practised by any of their professed brethren. But with regard to those who must be supposed to know the meaning of the word "• Jntichrist,^\^nd who, for party purposes , and as a term ol' reproach, apply it in- discriminately to all Pedobaptists, I believe it to be our duty to withdraw from them the hand of fellow- ship, both as Ministers and as Christians. For this mode of proceeding I think we have unequivocal and unquestionable warrant, 1 Cor. v. 11. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man who is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a r ailer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, %vith such an one, no not to eat. You, Sir, or your brethren will, perhaps, plead, that what I have denominated reviling, is a correct and sys- tematic proceeding, perfectly consistent with your close communion sentiment and practice. I am wil- ling. Sir, to admit, that your calling us " Antichrisf is consistent with your principle and practice of close commAUiion; and the most consistent ground which I have ever seen exhibited, on which to support the close communion practice. But this I cannot admit as an excuse for the practice of reviling. To this course of reviling the great body of the friends of God, I con- ceive you are reduced by your wish to support your close communion practice. But the conclusion which naturally results from this view of the m.attcr is, that your close communion system is a system which can- not be carried into effect, in its full extent, without the 17 most flagrant violation of the principles of moral recti- tude. If I adopt principles which will justify theft^ drunk- enness^ or murder^ or which will naturally lead me to the practice of such wickedness, am I to be excused from blame on this ground, that my conduct is con- sistent with the principles I have adopted ? No, Sir, If my principles are such as yN'Xi justify wickedness, or naturally lead to the practice of wickedness, they are such as ought to be reprobated and renounced. Charity compels me, however, to grant, that proba- bly many of the Baptist brethren have been led to adopt the practice of calling us " Antichrist," by the example of some popular leaders, while they know not the meaning of the term ; and have never considered that Antichrist is a character at war with Christ. For such persons I am willing to admit an apology. But what excuse can be made for those popular leaders, who profess to be learned, not only in our own lan- guage, but also in the language in which the New Testament was originally written ? You will, perhaps, farther plead, that the very per^ sons who call us " Antichrist,^'' do also call us Chris- tians, Very true ; and what is the inference, but this, that it is for party purposes, and iov reproach, that they call us " Antichrist .^" But, dear Sir, does not your admired Mr. Merril, in addition to what I have quoted, expressly assert, that " Anti-Pedobaptists have always denied that the Pedo- baptist church is the true Gospel church, and have ever considered Pedobaptism as a badge of Antichrist, if not her essential characteristic ?" On the first view of these assertions, I had some doubts respecting their correctness. I was not perfectly satis- fied that you had always carried the matter to such a length as to deny our being the ''true Gospel church," and had ever considered us as wearing the " badge of Antichrist," or as being an Antichristian church. And even now, I am sensible that many things have been said and done by your denomination which are incon- sistent with Mr, MerriPs assertions. Yet when I re- C 18 fleet on the general tenor of the conduct of your teach- ers towards us, the majiner in which they have attempt- ed to degrade and supplant our settled Ministers, to break up our churches and societies, the little regard they have shown to our feelings and to our solemn covenants^ together with their close communion prac- tice, I am ready to believe that Mr. Merril will be able to support his assertion, that you " have always denied that the Pedobaptist church is the true Gospel church." But, Sir, I must profess to you, that I am astonished at the degree of arrogancy and censoriousness implied in the ground you have taken, in calling us " Anti- christ," and claiming to yourselves the honor of being exclusively the church of Christ. This censure falls, not ojily on Congregationalists , but on Episcopalians ^ Presbyterians, and a variety of other denominations. Now, Sir, suppose that this land should at once be emptied of all the Ministers and professors of religion who are by you considered as belonging to *' Anti- christ," how small a portion o{ piety, religioti, and real worth would be k ft in the land ? Is it not to be fear- ed, that scarcely enough w^ould be found remaining to save the land from the fate of devoted Jerusalem, in a prospect of v/hich the Redeemer wept ? Besides, Sir, how empty would be your book-cases of valuable writings on divinity, if all were consumed which have been written by those Ministers whom you denounce as the adherents of " Antichrist P'* You have, indeed, a few writers who would be an honor to any , denomination of Christians ; and we esteem them highly for what they have written. But how very little. Sir, has been produced by your denomination in this country , excepting on your favorite subjects, baptism and close communion ? Are not the writings of one individual of the Pedobaptists, the^r^^ President Edwards, of tenfold more worth than all the writings of your denomination, in this country, from its first settlement to the present day ? Yet, this godly man, with myri- ads of others, must, by you, be traduced as the adhc-^ rents of Antichrist, the grand enemy of Christ. 19 Consider, Sir, what a cloud of distinguished wit- nesses Christ has had in the Pedobaptist church. How many thousands, -who have laid down their lives for his sake How many he has employed as champions for the truths of his religion, and as burning and shining lights in the world. And, in a comparative view, con- sider how sparingly he has bestowed such distinguished fovors and honors on your denomination. Is it, Sir, to be believed, that Christ has, for many centuries, uniformly, and almost universally, made use of the adherents oi ^'■Antichrist'''' tis his chief itistru- ments for the illustration and defonce of the great doc- trines of his gospel? But such, Sir, is the case, if your pretensions are well founded. Can you deny that a hundred fold more has been done by the Pedobaptist church, for the 'illustration of truth and the defence of the Gospel, than has ever been done by your denomi- nation ? And do you wish it to be understood, that the adherents oi Aiitirhristhaye done more for Christ than has been done by his exclusive fr'iends ? Is it, Sir, for the honor of Christ to have it believed, that he has been so in love with " Antichrist, ' as to bestow the greatest share of his distinguishing favors on her adhe- rents and supporters, to the neglect oihis " true Gos- pel CHURCH .^" God forbid ! It would, I think, have required no extraordinary share of prudence and modesty, in your writers, to have waved these high pretensions, in hope of a period, in which, what you shall have done for Christ would bear a better comparison with what has been done by those who are denounced as the adherents of " Antichrist.^^ And docs it not behove you, Sir, solemnly to inquire, in the light of Scripture, whether our adherence to in- fant baptism agrees better with the character and spirit of'-'' Antichrist,"* than your arrogant and censo- rious pretensions ? Unless I shall be made to believe, that, in God's ac- count arrogancy stands for humility, and censoriousness for christian candor and brotherly love, I shall ever fear to become an advocate for your exclusive claims. Your's, &c. 20 LETTER VIII. REV. SIR, I HAVE still farther reasons to give why I cannot be a Baptist — Therefore, 6. \fear to take ground on which the course of my conduct must be involved in self-contradiciion. Should I become a Baptist, if I am a Christian, it is reasonable to expect, that, at some seasons, the feel- ings of piety, humility, brotherly love, and Christian tenderness, would predominate. At such seasons, I should be coiistrained to feel and converse respecting many of the Pedobaptists, as though they were my breth- ren in the Lord. I should have to call them Christians, and the friends of God. I should wish to associate with them as such ; and should wish to exchange with pious Ministers of the Pedobaptist denomination, and to hear them preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. But whtn party affection Viud party zeal should become predominant, and I should have occasion to vindicate my conduct as a close co7n?nuniomst^ then 1 should change the tone of my conversation, accuse them of being -ivilfully blind respecting the order of Christ's house, and the ordinances of his kingdom. By giving liberty to my tongue, my zeal would be increased and inflamed, till the whole Pedobaptist church would be considered as belonging to " Antichrist."^ — Thus those, who in one hour would be considered as the children of God, in another would be treated as the children of the devil : and all this without any change in any one but 7nyself. This gloomy prospect. Sir, has resulted from reading and observation. I therefore fear to be a Bap- tist. 7. I fear to adopt a theory by which I should be led to employ my time and talents for the purpose of di- viding, or breaking up, peaceable societies and church- es ; and to use my influence in prejudicing the minds of people against godly Ministers. I very well know, that your denomination undertake to support, from the Scriptures, the propriety of their conduct in causing divisions. Nor am I wholly unac- 21 quainted with their mode of reasoning for this pur- pose, but I am afraid to adopt it. Christ, in foretelling his disciples what would be the consequence of his coming, by reason of the wickedness of the human heart, made use of these words, " Sup- pose ye, that lam come to give peace on earth ? I tell you nay, but rather divisions." And how often do we hear persons of your denomination quoting this text in vindication of their conduct, as though Christ had required it of them to make divisions in churches and societies ? — But why, Sir, do you not quote the paral- lel text in Matthew, to prove that it is lawful for you to propagate your sentiments by the point of the sword ? *' Think not," said Christ, *' that I am come to send peace on the earth, but a sword." The meaning of this text is probably the same as the meaning of the other. And why may not the latter text be urged in support of the method which Mahomet took to propagate his sentiments with as much propriety as your brethren quote the former in support of their practice in causing divisions ? I will take the liberty. Sir, to suggest for your seri- ous consideration, another text of somewhat similar import with those which have been mentioned. Matt, xviii. 7, " Wo unto the world because of oftences I for it must needs be that offences come ; but wo to THAT MA N by whom the offence cometh !" Though some of your denomination attempt to jus- tify their conduct in causing divisions, by the passage quoted from Luke ; yet as soon as we urge that it is our duty to mark those who cause divisions and offences^ and to avoid them : immediately they deny that they are the ones who cause division ; and affirm, that it is the Pedobaptists who cause the divisions, by having departed from gospel order. In one instance, there- fore, you own that you do make the divisions, and at- tempt to Justify your conduct ; in the other, you deny your making divisions, and charge the crime upon the Pedobaptists. If this, Sir, be strait sailing, what can be crooked ? Must we not. Sir, suppose, that a person finds it very difficult to justify his conduct, who will adopt such contradictory methods ? Vnnr's- Rrn. 22 LETTER IX. REV. SIR, 1 MUST add, 8. \fear to take ground on which I must urge the prevalence of my distinguislung sentiments as proof of their rectitude. The absurdity of this argument I endeavoured to show in my " Impartial Inquiries respecting the progress of the Baptist denomination. ' But I find, as absurd as it is, that it is still urged by your brethren ; and even by a Doctor in Divinity. I must therefore address to you a few observations on this point. If the prevalence of your peculiar sentiments may be admitted as /jroo/" of their rectitude, it must be for this reason, viz. that in this sinful world nothing but truth can h^Xhns prevalent. If it be as common for error to prevail as it is for truths then neither truth nor error can be knovvn by their prevalence — But if it be your opinion that the prevalence of a sentiment is an evi- dence of its truths to act consistently with this opinion, you must admit into your system of truth evey senti- ment that is /?r6'i^fl/c«if in the world. And must not this, Sir, be a very complex and heterogeneous sys- tem ? If you believe that the prevalence of your peculiar sentiments is an evidence that they are according to truth, why do you not admit the same plea in favor of the peculiar sentiments of the Methodists, and incor- porate their sentiments into your system ? The Me- thodists urge the same plea in their favor, and with as much reason as it is urged by your denomination. Besides, Sir, if it be your serious belief that the prevalence of your sentiments is an evidence of their truths how comes it to pass that you dare to reject and ridicule the sentiments of the Pedobaptists ? Their sentiments have been, and still are vastly more preva- lent than yours. Must it not. Sir, be true, that in urging this plea, the leaders of your denomination have been remarkahly deluded, or verily dishonest ? Has not this plea often 25 . been urged by those who saw its fallacy, merely for the sake of making proselytes ? And have you not, Sir, reason to fear that thousands have been persuaded to become Baptists by this fallacious and delusive dream? I dare not. Sir, venture my soul on such ground. Perhaps, Sir, I might without great impropriety, suggest to you that I fear to take ground on which I should be led to imagine that all the world will soon be Baptists, because that myself and a few other noted characters have recently adopted the Baptist scheme. But this I shall not urge, because I have a much more serious ground of fear to mention. Hence, 9. I seriously fear., Sir, to be in such a situation^ and in such a connection, that I must cry " persecution" under the pressure of a yair and just representation of my own conduct, or the conduct of my brethren. In my *' Impartial Inquiries" respecting the progress of your denomination, I very freely and candidly ad- mitted that, in some instances, the imprudence of Pe- dobaptists had given too much ground for the Baptists' cry of persecution. I am still willing to admit the same. But I think it my duty to declare it to you, as my serious belief, that your cry oi persecution has often been raised under the pressure of most serious stvidjusi representations of improper conduct. Permit me. Sir, on this particular to deal very plain- ly. Do not many preachers of your denomination ve- ry frequently act the part of aggressors and invaders ; enter our societies in an insidious manner, and tram- ple on the rights and the feelings of Pedobaptist Min- isters and Churches ? Do they not, as though they possessed the power of absolution^ induce many to a violation of sacred civil contracts and solemn religious covenants ? Have they not, in many instances, done all in their power to excite a prejudice in the minds of peo- ple against godly Ministers and humble Christians ? And when these irregular, insidious, and abusive pro- ceedings have been fairly, justly, and seriously repre- sented by way of reproof or warning, have not many Baptists, on such occasions, immediately resorted to their cry of " persecution," to divert the attention of 24 people from the impropriety of their own conduct, to excite a prejudice against their faithful reprovers, and to make proselytes to their own party ? In my next I shall give you an allegorical illustra- tion of some of my views. But if there be nothing of a public nature to which it will apply, the allegory will be inexplicable to all but the writer. Your's, &c. LETTER X. REV. SIR, ACCORDING to promise, I am now to give you an allegorical illustration. There was a man in the land of Freedom, whose name was Isaac. He was a good and upright man, and one who feared God, and sought his glory. Hav- ing the requisite qualification, he undertook the busi- ness of a shepherd. Disdaining all clandestine proceed- ings^ by fair and honorable means he obtained a flock of more than three hundred sheep. The welfare of his flock was near to his heart, and to the care of them he devoted his time — and from his flock he expected an annual support for himself and his family. After a few years, Ishmael, a native of the same country, also undertook the business of a shepherd. But instead of going where a flock might be had by honorable means, he cast his eye on the flock of Isaac. And by observation or information, he found that some individuals of the flock seemed to be uneasy an^ in- clined to ramble. They were often seen at a distance from the rest of the flock, and appeared to be looking for some opening in the fence, through which they might creep. With these Ishmael soon began to famil- iarize himself; and after a few days he made a breach in the fence, and enticed them to follow him out of the inclosure. He, however, allowed them frequently to re- turn and associate with the flock, in hope that others would be induced to follow their example. By such a course of conduct, with other arts which he employed, he gained a considerable number of Isaac's sheep. And, '25 not at all ashamed of the course he had adopted, he publicly advertised the number he had gained, and seemed to glory in his acquisition. Though Isaac was a prudent and candid man, he was not destitute of feeling, nor afraid to bear testimo- ny against such dishonest and inndious conduct. He therefore, remonstrated against the conduct of Ishmael, and represented it as dishonorable, and beneath the dignity of a Christian. As soon as the remonstrance came to the ears of Ishmael, he set up the cry o^ persecution. He affirmed, that he was treated just as Christ and his Apostles were treated : and seemed to glory in it, that he was accountedworthy to suffer for righteousness sake. From the circumstance of his being thus persecuted, he un- dertook to prove that he was a humble follower of Christ, and that his principles and conduct were ac- cording to the unerring Oracles of truth. Almost every thing which Isaac did, or that he ne- glected to do, which had a tendency to secure the rest of his flock from being ensnared by Ishmael, was made a ground for the cry of persecution. One instance of this may be mentioned. Isaac had in his inclosure a fold where he statedly fed his flock. When he went to the fold, the sheep of their own accord came to be fed. After Ishmael had obtained a part of the flock, and found that the remainder were shy of him, he, with professions of respect for Isaac, and great love to his flock, made aa offer of his service to go with Isaac to the fold, and to feed the sheep at his own expense. Isaac had discern- ment enough to see the object of this proposal, and prudence and firmness enough to reject it. But this rejection of the proposal of Ishmael was deemed suffi- cient ground for bitter and loud complaints. Thus, Sir, I have given you the allegory : and per- mit me to ask, whether you ever saxv or heard any thing like the conduct of Ishmael ? Or do you need Joseph or Daniel for an interpreter ? I will not. Sir, make use of reproachful epithets, but I will seriously ask you what epithets vou would use D 26 to characterize such a man as Ishmael, or to denomi- nate his conduct ? As capablej Sir, as I am of feeling pain, and as timid as I am by nature^ my feelings do not revolt so much at the thought of burning at the stake, as at the thought of following the example of Ibhmael. Your's, Sec. LETTER XI. REV. SIR, IN the preceding letters I have exhibited the princi- ple reasons which have operated in my mind to pre- vent m.y embracing your theory, and adopting your practice. While writing, it was my aim, on the one hand, t» make my representations in so plain a manner as to be fairly understood, and, on the other, to avoid every degree of misrepresentation, either in respect to senti- ment or practice. And, on a careful review of what I have written, I cannot find that I have, in any particu- lar, deviated from my purpose. But I wish it to be distinctly understood, that in what I have written, which implicates blame or im- proper conduct, it was not meant to be applied to all your denomination indiscriminately ; but only to those who are chargeable with the things implied or represen- ted. For many of the Baptist denomination I still feel a cxDrdial respect, and view them as brethren and sisters in the Lord. And indeed. Sir, I am not without hop6, that many of those whose conduct has been implicated as blameable, are good people, though led astray by party zeal and prepossessiojis. I am. Sir, far from any inclination to denounce you all as the eneinies of Christ, by calling you " Antichrist.^'' I hope I have so far learned Christ, as not to render reviling for reviling. 1 may with propriety add, that it has been painful to me to have occasion to imply such a degree of blame in writing on the conduct of professed Christians, Happy should I have been to have had nothing to op- pose, but your sentiment on infant baptism. But im- proper conduct of an habitual and public nature, is as 27 properly a subject of animadversion as error in senti- ment. I have tlierefore taken the liberty to suggest, for your consideration some things, which, in^my view, are highly improper, and which ought to be corrected. But if, in so doing, I have indulged and manifested any bitterness of Spirit^ in this I am inexcusable, and for tliis am justly reprehensible. But, Sir, 1 think you will be sensible, after proper attention, that I have re- stricted my animadversions to such conduct as is gen- erally known, and capable of the most substantial and abundant proof. But should I be convinced by you, or any other per- son, that I am chargeable with having injuriously mis- represented the views, or the practice, of any writer, or preacher, or others of your denomination, you may be assured that I shall frankly retract it, if my life should be spared for a sufficient length of time ; and that, I shall wot prove myself a false witness by republish- ing any misrepresentations '^hitv I am convinced that they arejalse and injurious. In respect to the allegory of Isaac and Ishmael, it may be proper for me to observe, that it was not in- tended to characterize the two denominations as such, nor all the Ministers of either denomination. It was intended to be applied only where it may be found ap- plicable. The name of Ishm.ael was not introduced for the purpose of reproach. I am not aware that any evi- dence exists by which it can be proved that Ishmael, the son of Abraham, was not a godly man. But as you reject the covenant made with Abraham, which was established with Isaac, while we adhere to that cove- nant as implying all the groimds of our hope, I will not deny that this circumstance had influence with me in adopting the names of Isaac and Ishmael. Nor will I pretend, that, while writing the allegory, I was so perfectly blind as not to discern some glimmerings of correspondence between the conduct I was describing, and the character of Ishmael as given by the spirit of prophecy. But vv^hat. Sir, have I reason to expect from your people in return for these just and dispassionate re- 28 presentations ? If I am to form my .ejipectations on the ground of past experience and careful observation, must I not expect to be loaded with reproach and vili- fied as 2i persecutor ? and that some, who profess to be children that rvill not lie, will make most abusive mis- representations of what I have written ? Such treat- ment I do not expect from all of your denomination who may read these Letters. Some of them I have no doubt will acknowledge the representations to be la- mentably just and important. But I fear that many others will adopt a very different course. And this, Sir, I fear far less on my own account than on theirs. I shall probably soon be out of the reach of benefit from applause, or of injui'y from reviling. But, Sir, it is a serious thing to despise reproof. For we have explicit warrant to say that " He that hateth reproof shall die.'' That the spirit of reviling has been too much indul- ged by both denominations, I have no inclination to deny. It is a sin, which, at the present day, greatly abounds in our land ; and, perhaps, more than any other vice, threatens the ruin of our nation. It appears to be a sin which very easily besets almost all classes of people. It is a sin which is generally concomi- tant with all disputes or controversies, whether civil, political, or religious. There are, however, but few vices more frequently and more decidedly spoken against in the Scriptures. But serious, dispassionate, and just representations of blameable conduct, of a public nature, spoken or written by way of reproof to the guilty, and tvarning to others, do not properly fall under the denomination of reviling or slander ; though, by those who cannot bear to be reproved, they are often thus denominated. Nothing, perhaps, is more direct evidence of a sel- fish heart, or a party spirit, or unwillingness to come to the light, than for a person, when candidly and seri- ously reproved, to denominate such reproof, railing or shnder. Every humble Christian is willing to come to the light, that his deeds may be reproved. He is v/iUing to be told his fi^ults, and to have the faults, of 29 . his brethren laid fairly before them. He will not, wHn reproved, immediately fly into a passion, nor resort to the practice of reviling, nor to the cry of persecution. But he will enter into a serious inquiry respecting the justness of the reproof. So far as. he finds himself guilty, he will humble himself, confess his faults, and amend his ways ; and he will use his influence to have his brethren receive and treat the reproof in a Christian manner. For a person, when justly and solemnly reproved, to attempt to excite a hue-and-cry^ against the reprover, may be considered as both an evidence of guilt and a proof oi impenitency. Permit me, Sir, to entreat you to receive what I have written, in such a manner as to evince that I have rebuked a wise 7nan, and not to evince that I have reproved a scorner. And you have my full con- sent to use the same freedom which I have indulged, to represent the faults of the denomination to which I belong ; that is, any faults which are equally common, and of a public nature. It is very probable that I may- be, in a degree, blinded as to my own faults, and the faults of those with whom I am connected. But I hope. Sir, that I can, with some sincerity say, " Let the righteous smite me, it shall be a kindness ; and let hirn reprove me, it shall be an excellent oil which shall not break my head : for yet my prayer also shall be in their calamities." But when I consider that some, for whom I have had an effectionate regard, have come forward, and, in th^ heat of their zeal, have denounced the w^hole Pedobap- tist church, in all ages, as belonging to " J?itichristy" I cannot be amazed at the blinding influence of part^ prejudice ; nor can I but entertain Si jealousy of my own heart, and a fear that something of this blinding na- ture has had undue influence in dictating what I have written. Should this be found to be true, I shall have deep cause of humiliation before God and man. It behoves me to look to Him who knoweth all things,^ and to say, " Search me, O God, and know my heart;, try me, and know my thoughts :" and if there be any dfthis blinding leaven wuthin liie, " purge me an^ 30 make me clean." — -Save me from whatever may wound thy cause, injure thy friends, or dishonor thy name ; and cause me to do unto others only as I would that they should do unto me. Now, dear Sir, with, as I hope, real and fervent de- sires for your best good ; for the peace and prosperity of Zion ; for more real and apparent union among all the members of Christ's body ; and with assured expecta- tion of meeting you and all the Baptist denomination at the tribunal of God, I bid you a solemn and effcc- tionate farewell. NOAH WORCESTER. (From the Massachusetts Missionafy Magazine. J A SERIOUS QUESTION PROPOSED IN A SERIOUS MANNER. To the Editors — Gentlemen y DIVINE Providence has cast my lot in a place where I am surrounded with people who call them- selves Baptists. By the constant and pressing solicita- tion of these people, several of whom are my particu- lar acquaintances and friends, I was prevailed on to attend their meetings. At first I was not remarkably pleased, neither was I displeased. The preacher ap- peared to be a good sort of man, and his preaching, though not searching and instructive, had the effect to catch the attention, to please the fancy, and to excite the passions. I did not forsake my own meeting ; yet I continued to go, from time to time, on conference and lecture occasions, and sometimes on the Sabbath, ■with my Baptist friends. They were exceedingly grat- ified, expressed great friendship and love, and almost overwhelmed me with their attentions. My mind was considerably carried away. I began to think there were no people so good as the Baptists ; at least that there were none who had so much zeal and so much love. My affection for the church, of which I was a member, for my minister, whom I had esteemed very highly in love, and even for my God and Saviour, grew inconstant and cold ; and, by degrees, gave place to an unaccountable something, vv^hich T cannot better describe, than by calling it a bexvitchirig fondness for 31 the Baptists. I began even to prefer light, and super- ficial, and boisterous addresses, to the solid, instruct- ive, pungent, and searching preaching which I had been accustomed to hear. And though I am now convin- ced, that the divine life in my soul was then in a state of awful decline, and that instead of genuine and solid religion, I was strangely taken, up with a fantastic zeal, and the mere movements of natural sympathy ; yet at the time, I really imagined that I was in a very good way, and had great religious enjoyment. In a w^ord, I seem to have been in a state of enchantment. I could not endure a word said against the Baptist way, and Gould hardly rest unless I was with them. But at length the enchantment was dissolved. It pleased the Lord, by means which I need not relate, to av/aken me to a sense of my situation. I was brought, I think, to see that I had been awfully deluded and led astray. Every thing now appeared in a dift'erent light. Though I still hoped that there was some true religion among the Baptists, I was, however, convinced, that a great share of their love and zeal was merely the eifu- sions and fervour of party ; and their assiduous atten- tions to me I could view in no other light, than, as at- tempts to draw me into a violation, and even a re- nouncement of my solemn vows. What I had for a while so much admired among them, instead of lead- ing to those views of the holy character of God, and of the deep depravity of the heart, which are necessary to preserve that humility and godly fear, without which religion becomes a vain and empty shew, I found had only a tendency to keep the mind in a light and flighty state. I, therefore, thought it my duty immediately to alter my course. I reasoned with myself thus : Did there exist a so- ciety of people, who openly reprobated the marriage covenant as generally holden, and inculcated the doct- rine that all matrimonial relations and vows, out of their own particular connection, were wrong, and in- stead of being sacredly observed, ought to be utterly renounced ; and who, accordingly, used their endea- vours to seduce husband from wife, and wifef rom hus- band, to break up families, and to cast helpless chil- dren, without father and without mother, upon the world : should I do right to seek the company of those people ? Should I act the part of " a chaste keeper at home,'' or of a discreet and faithful wife, were I stated- ly to go with them to their places of resort, to receive their assiduous attentions, and listen to their seductive solicitations? Should I not rather, in such a case, acta part exceedingly imprudent, give reason for my fidelity to be suspected, and most criminally expose myself to' temptation and seduction ? But is not my covenant with God and his people of a nature, as sacred and as' little to be trifled with, as the marriage covenant ? Can I consistently go with a people who openly deny this covenant, who propagate the doctrine that the religious vows which are made, and the religious relations which' are formed out of their own particular connection, are not to be sacredly observed, but ought to be utterly re- nounced ; and who use their endeavours to draw away our professors from their solemn engagements, to break up our churches, and to cast out our children, without any covenant provision for them, into the wide and ensnaring world ? On the whole, the case appeared"^ to me exceedingly plain. I was shocked at my conduct, and could not be sufficiently thankful that I was brought lo see it, in what I supposed to be its true light. And I have since endeavoured to conform my deportment to the views, which I have had of my covenant engage- ments. But for this I have been severely censured. My Baptist friends have utterly forsaken me ; and even some of my own brothers and sisters think me too ri- gid. Now, Messrs. Editors, if I am MTong in this point, I wish to be set right. And I am not alone ; there are several of my Christian acquaintances, who wish to be satisfied on this subject. Permit me, therefore, to re- quest an answer, as soon as convenient, to the follow- ing question : Is it, in ordinary cases, compatible with Christian fi- delity, for members of our churches to attend the meet- ings of those, who utterly deny our church covenant, refuse us Christian fellowship, arid labour to overthroAv our church state ? LYDIA. '*! ^^/^r ^"W'Wft^ osf^H^N*^ -p 4^ "^M; 5 ^S~ . i-'^^-J..,^ .* _^:-f:^'*i^ ^';^:^ ^^S" *=t:,-'.>>v^ -♦Sk..