.-jiSLSi^iv'.- ■ ■ I «r
O IRINCETON. N. J. '^'
Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa.
Agueiv Coll. on Baptism, No.
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library
http://www.archive.org/details/defenceofbaptismOOking
DEFENCE
OF
" BAPTISM A TERM OF COMMUNION'
Printed by Wilkin and Youngman,
Market Place, Norwich.
DEFENCE
OF
" BAPTISM A TERM OF COMMUNION ".
IN ANSWER TO THE
REV. ROBERT HALL'S REPLY;
BY JOSEPH^'KINGHORN.
*' AMONG ALL THE ABSURDITIES THAT EVER WERE HELD, NONE EVER MAIN-
TAINED THAT, THAT ANY PERSON SHOULD PARTAKE OF THE COMMUNION
BEFORE HE WAS BAPTISED." — WalL; History of Infant Baptism.
NORWICH;
PUBLISHED BY WILKIN AND YOUNGMAN, MARKET PLACE ; BY BALDWIN,
CRADOCK, AND JOY, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON j
AND BY WAUGH AND INNES, EDINBURGH.
1820.
\.
CONTENTS. >^j, V^.
Preface Page ix
CHAPTER I.
Introductory Observations 1
CHAPTER II.
On the Statement of the Controversy , 19
CHAPTER III.
Mr. Hall's Reasonings, in the second and third chapters of
his Reply, examined 33
Section I. — Statement of the Principle on which the
present discussion depends, — Mr. Hall's
arguments respecting our Lord's Commis-
sion examined o 33
Section II. — Mr. Hall's arguments respecting Apostolic
Precedent, examined , . . , 42
Section III. — Mr. Hall's assertion that we assume infal-
libility, examined and repelled 50
Section IV. — Mr. Hall's concessions : — his attempt to
make the Apostles parties against us 55
Section V. — Mr. Hall's misrepresentation of the state-
ment, that Baptism is a term of christian
profession, exposed 69
Section VI. — ^The difference of sentiment among christians
respecting the doctrine of Election — the pro-
hibition to eat blood — and the imposition of
hands on the baptised — examined as to their
.supposed bearing on this controversy 74
VI
Section VII. — Mr. Hall's criticisms on the use of the term
"evidence" examined — He does not recog-
nise the scriptural design of baptism ; and
his system subverts the institution 02
CHAPTER IV.
An examination of Mr. Hall's third chapter on the connection
between the two positive institutes 92
Section I. — His statement of the question examined ; — his
reasoning refuted 92
Section II. — Mistakes of Mr. Hall respecting ]Mr. Fuller —
the Unities, Eph. iv. — and, Dr. Whitby. . 99
Section III. — Mr. Hall's reasoning concerning positive law
and prohibition, examined lOS
Section IV. — Mr. Hall's evasion of the argument on the
connection of the two ordinances — his accu-
sations confronted — his mistakes concerning
the " Scottish Baptists", &c 109
Section V. — A Review of the general subject: — the amount
of Mr. Hall's argument : — the advantage
he gives to the Poedobaptists : — recapitu-
lation of what has been conceded and
proved : — consequences resulting from our
author's system 127
CHAPTER V.
On Dispensing with a christian ordinance 132
CHAPTEIi VI.
Mr. Hall's misrepresentations of the argument respecting the
ground of dissent exposed 144
CHAPTER VII.
The Piedobaptists necessarily parties in the present con-
troversy 157
vu
CHAPTER VIII.
The scripture injunction respecting forbearance examined ... 164
CHAPTER IX.
Mr. Hall's argument for communing with Psedobaptists,
because they are part of the true church, examined .... 183
^ CHAPTER X.
The charge of excluding, excommunicating, and punisfeing
other denominations, considered , 188
CHAPTER XI.
Mixed Communion unknown in the ancient church , , 193
CHAPTER XII.
Conclusion 199
/O
PREFACE.
Although controversy has often been productive
of many evils, and has given great reason for
humiliation before God, yet it is frequently un-
avoidable, and we are indebted to it for a large
portion of important information. It is a very
remarkable expression of the Apostle Paul, when
speaking of the different opinions which existed
in the church of Corinth, " there must be also
heresies among you, that they which are approved
may be made manifest among you." (1 Cor.xi. 19.)
The departure of some from the faith once delivered
to the Saints, tried others, and shewed who were,
and who were not willing to adhere to the doc-
trine of the Apostles ; and those who did adhere
to the truth in its simplicity, were compelled
to contend for it with earnestness and vigour.
When apostacy from the faith of the Gospel had
become general, every attempt to bring men to a
just view of the will of the Lord occasioned
opposition and controversy, so that when the Re-
formers began the great work of turning men's
attention to the truth as it is in Jesus, tJiey
A
were obliged in the first place to establish the su-
preme authority of the New Testament. When
the Baptists came forth from the obscurity in
which they, in common with other protestants,
had been concealed, they had to contend in the
same field in the midst of difficulties peculiarly
severe. They called the attention of the world to
what they considered a nearer approach to apos-
tolic truth than other protestants had admitted ;
and they found enemies in the very men, who, in
opposition to the Roman Catholics, pleaded for
conformity to New Testament doctrine, and for
the ordinances of the Gospel as practised in the
apostolic church. They were esteemed Heretics
by all parties ; they were induced by their hard
circumstances to study the New Testament close-
ly, and to suspect the truth of many sentiments
which were generally received without suspicion.
Hence they were led to mark the difference
between the church of Christ as he formed it,
and a church established by the power of the
state ; and from this investigation they caught the
first glimpse of that important principle of reli-
gious LIBERTY which it was their honour to bring
forward to notice, and to defend in the midst of
censure and obloquy.
The source of their sorrows, and the cause of
their success, was their view of Baptism. De-
riving their opinion from the New Testament, and
appealing to that volume in their own defence,
they found themselves fortified beyond the power
of successful attack, because they could prove
XI
that tliey did no more than obey its injunctions.
In doing- what Christ commanded they were sure
that they were acting rightly, and they were
satisfied tliat their opponents could not bring
equal evidence in favour of sentiments and prac-
tices which were neither enjoined by Jesus Christ,
nor illustrated by the example of the apostolic
church.
Like those who of old were zealous in building
the temple of the Lord, they and their fellows
were men wondered at. (Zech. iii. 8.) All the ex-
pedients which persecuting rage, scorn, bitterness,
and misrepresentation could devise, were em-
ployed to sink them in public estimation, and to
run them down as a despicable party, who were
neither supported by truth, nor possessed of the
talents and literature necessary for their own
defence.
How vain is the storm that is raised by passion!
When "■ a great and strong wind passed by, and
rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks
before the Lord, — the Lord was not in the wind."
(1 Kings xix. 11.) Dr. Featly, a man of talent,
of learning, and of considerable popularity in his
day, took up his pen against the Anabaptists, and
gratified himself by abusing them. He was honest
enough to confess that he could hardly dip his
pen "into any other liquor than the juice of
gall"; but if he had not made this confession, his
book was a sufficient evidence of his temper. His
work was so popular that it passed through six
editions in as many years ; and doubtless many
Xll
would think, that between his arguments, his
literature, and his severity, the Baptists would be
so overpowered, that they would never raise their
heads again. The contrary, however, was the
fact : " the more" their opponents " alHicted them,
the more they multiplied and grew"; and could
Dr. Featly now rise from his grave, he would
find them increased beyond his greatest appre-
hensions, and have the moi'tification of hearing
that they bought his book as a curiosity, on ac-
count of its virulence, and often amused them-
selves by observing the violent explosions of his
temper.
A specimen of a better kind was exhibited by
Mr. Flavel, a man of a different spirit, but still
quite opponent to the Anabaptists. Mr. Philip
Cary, a Baptist minister at Dartmouth, had pub-
lished a book on baptism, entitled, ' A Solemn,
CalV; Flavel thought well of the author, yet he
deemed it necessary to reply to his work. He
treated him, however, respectfully, and appears
to have been very desirous of not misrepresenting-
him. But it is curious to observe how he intreats
him to consider the situation in which he had
placed himself by venturing to plead the cause of
' Anahaptism\ "As for your pretended solutions
of the incomparable Mr. Baxter's, and the learned
and accurate Dr. Burthogge's arguments, I ad-
mire at your confidence therein. Alas! my
friend, you little know what it is to have such
weak and inartificial discourses as yours, brought
under the strict exameii of such acute and judi-
xni
cious eyes/'* Between two such millstones, poor
Philip Cary was doubtless to be ground to
powder. Some things, however, resist all attacks,
and in their nature are too hard to be crushed by
human power. 3Ir. Carys sentiment still con-
tinues to make its appeal to men on the ground of
the New Testament representations, and spreads
more and more : the reason is manifest, it is to be
found in that sacred volume, and is supported by
it. There it is seen that those only who believed
in Christ were baptised ; and that neither precept
nor precedent can be discovered in favour of the
administration of baptism to persons of any other
description.
The debate which engages our attention at
present, does not lead us to inquire either into
the mode or subjects of baptism, but it directs our
regard to a question which in point of importance
takes the precedence of every other in the bap-
tismal controversy ; which is, whether baptism is
an ordinance to be maintained in the church ; or,
whether it is one of those indifferent and unim-
portant things which the church has no right to
consider as requisite to communion ? Time alone
can discover what will be the effect of the
attempts now made, to justify the introduction of
ipersoiis professedly unhaptised. We may be upon
the verge of a new system of corruption, and may
see the most unscriptural propositions and prac-
tices become popular : but so long as the New
• Flavers Works, vol. viii. p. 202. Ed. 8vo. 1770.
XIV
Testament is acknowledged to be the source
of authority, we shall say to those who adopt
the theory of Mr. Hall, as we do to our friends,
who plead for infant baptism ; — go to the scrip-
tures and find it there, and then w^e shall be
satisfied.
We do not intend to rest the argument on expe-
diency, but as Mr. Hall brought forward this
consideration himself (though he blamed us for
the notice we took of it), it may not be amiss
to mention a few facts which our forefathers
have preserved, and which shew what was the
tendency of the system of mixed communion in
their day.
Every one acquainted in any degree with Non-
conformist History, has often met with the name
of Mr. John Tombes, who strenuously pleaded
the cause of the baptists in his day, and by this
means, was of eminent service to the body at
large : but he held this sentiment, and his conduct
shewed its tendency; for though after the act
of uniformity had passed, he did not choose to
conform and hold a living in the Establishment,
yet he not only frequented the church of Eng-
land, but actually died in her communion, and
thus his conduct tended to neutralize his argu-
ments.
Mr. Baxter informs us of two "Anabaptists",
(as he calls them) who were induced by his argu-
ments and persuasion to adopt the plan of mixed
communion ; he says they both " turned from
anahaptistry and separation^; and he adds, that
XV
" in sense of their old error," they " ran into the
other extreme".*
The eminent John Bunyan, who zealously
advocated the cause of mixed communion, seems
to have had no great success in promoting the in-
terests of the Baptists. We hardly ever find an
allusion to the ordinance of baptism in his works,
except in his controversial pieces, in which he
practically undermines its authority. Nor was
the effect of his favouiite system conducive to the
spread of his opinion as a baptist ; for such was
the state of the church with which he was long
connected, that on his death they chose a Psedo-
baptist; and from the year 1688, in which he died,
to the year 1788, when Mr. Joshua Symonds died,
the ministers who succeeded him were P(Sclohap-
tists, except the last, who some years after his
settlement with the church, changed his sentiments
and became a Baptist. This took place in 1772 ;
but though Mr. Symonds continued at Bedford,
it was ' on the conditions that he should not intro-
duce the controversy into tlie pulpit, nor into con-
versation, unless it was first mentioned by others.'
We have also been informed, that one instance
occurred in the year 1700, and another in 1724,
in which the church refused to grant a dismission
to members who desired to unite with two Bap-
tist churches in London, because they were strict
communion churches.
* See his Life and Times, by Sylvester, pt. ii. p. lS'i),and pt.iii.p. 180.
The two persons were, Mr. Thos. Lamb and Mr. W. Allen ; the general
fact of their change of sentiment on this subject is confirmed by Dan-
VERS in the postscript to his ' Treatise of Baptism% p. 53, 54.
XVI
Dr. James Foster, who was more than twenty
years pastor of the General Baptist church in
Barbican, London, and who in his day advo-
cated the cause of mixed communion, left the
General Baptists, and accepted the pastoral
charge of the Independent church at Pinner's Hall,
London. But, though he had pleaded the expe-
dience of mixed communion as the means of lead-
ing men to consider what the Baptists had to urge
in defence of their sentiments, yet Mr. Grantham
KiLLiNGWORTH iuforms us, that in conversation
with him upon the point, "he could not pretend to
say, that one single person who was in communion
at Pinner's Hall before his going over to them, had
since submitted to that institution, [of baptism]
or shewn the least inclination to be baptised'.*
The instances above recited mark the tendency
of the system in times now considerably distant ;
at a later period Mr. Booth shews what was his
view of its tendency, and his manner of expression
clearly evinces that he drew his remarks from
facts. He says, *' I would also take the liberty
here to observe, that some of those churches in
which free communion has been practised, have
not been the most remarkable for brotherly love,
or christian peace and harmony. Has the pastor
of a church so constituted, being a Baptist, never
found, that his Paedobaptist brethren have been a
little offended, when he has ventured freely to
speak his mind on the mode and subject of
* Killiagworth's Answer to the Defence of Dr. Foster's Sermon of
Catholic Communion, p. 35.
XVll
baptism? When Pasdobaptist candidates for com-
munion have been proposed to such a church, have
those members who espoused the same sentiment
never discovered a degree of pleasure, in the
thouirht of haviniz; their number and influence
mcreased in tlie community, that has excited the
jealousy of their Baptist brethren? When, on the
contrary, there has been a considerable addition
to the number of Baptist members, has not an
equal degree of pleasure in them, raised similar
suspicions in the minds of their Pa^dobaptist bre-
thren ? And are not suspicions and jealousies of
this kind, the natural effects of such a constitu-
tion?" (Apol.p. 131, 132.) No one v/ho is acquaint-
ed with the character of Abkaham Booth,
will for a moment suppose that he was writing
from imagination: his concluding observation also,
is too forcible to be denied : — " now, as our oppo-
nents must allow, that their communities are liable
to all those other imperfections v/bich are common
to the churches of Christ ; so, I presume, the
reader will hardly forbear concluding, that free
communion exposes them to some additional dis-
advantages, which are peculiar to themselves."*
One effect it will always produce ; it will ex-
clude those who \X\\\\k. that the primitive consti-
tution of the church ought to be preserved ; and
invite those who for any reason are opponent,
either to baptism as an ordinance of Christ, or, to
the form and order of the christian church as it
* Some observations on the experience of tlie American Baptist
churches, the reader will meet with in the progress of the work.
a2
XVIU
was established by the Lord. Whether they
come as persons baptised, or the contrary, they
are equally accepted, and those who receive them
practically declare, that though our \iew of bap-
tism is justified by " overwhelming evidence,"
yet it does not now hold the situation in which it
was placed by Jesus Christ. To us this consi-
deration forms an unanswejable objection to the
scheme : it eventually strikes at i\\e permaneiicy of
the institution of the Lord ; and no acuteness that
has yet been brought into the discussion, can
prove that it needs be regarded at all, if Mr.
Hall's principles are admitted.
An anonymous author has lately shewn the
tendency of these principles in an indirect but
marked manner, in a pamphlet entitled, " Thoughts
on J3a])tism as an Ordinance of Proselytism, iiiclud-
ing observations on the controversy respecting terms
of Communion ; by Agnostos." This writer is the
opponent of all parties, for his sentiment is, that
if baptism was designed to be a standing ordinance
of the church. Missionaries are the only proper
administrators, and their proselytes the only pro-
per subjects. Hence it follows, on his plan, that
Baptists and Paedobaptists are equally wrong,
and if his theory were admitted, the controversy
respecting communion would immediately termi-
nate. With his sentiments, it is to be expected
that he would treat the principle of strict com-
munion as a mistake ; and that practically, he
would be on the side of Mr. Hall : yet so far as
the tendency of the sentiment is. concerned, he
XIX
throws his weight into the opposite scale. He
observes justly, — "what can be more inconsistent
than to maintain that Baptism is a positive insti-
tution and a standing ordinance of the christian
church, and yet treat it as a matter of indifference
and countenance the total neglect of it, by admit-
ting- to an equal partici})ation of all the privileges
of church fellowship those who are unbaptised,
with those who have paid a regard to that ordi-
nance ?" (p. 109.) The controversy he calls " a
contest between Christian principles and Saptist
principles"; and he says either the law of baptism
must be sacrificed, or the spirit of the Gospel of
Christ must be violated", (p. 101.) According to
this statement, what the author calls christian
principles, cannot admit that our Lord appointed
a positive rite to be obeyed, when his disciples
enter on a public profession of his Gospel. —
This, however, he must be aware, we should call
an assumption ; but if what he calls " Saptist
principles" are supported by the New Testament,
" Christian principles" will never be in opposition
to Christian institutions. It is, theiefore, only
needful to shew that " Haptist principles" are
scriptural, and then the subject is at rest, till it is
proved to be also scriptural that we should form
a church of persons unbaptised.
It is no part of our business to enter the lists with
" Agnostos" respecting his main argument, but
his observations on the tendency of mixed com-
munion deserve the more attention as they proceed
from a writer who was not led to make them from
-XX
any partiality to the cause we are advocating.
He grants that the objections urged against Mr.
Hall's system are well founded ; that in pro-
portion as it prevails, the cause of the Baptists
must sink ; (p. 1 12.) that the effect of mixed com-
munion, instead of inducing Pasdobaptists to
become Baptists, will tend in the contrary di-
rection, and Avhat tliey see and hear, will confirm
them in their former ideas, tliat Baptism is of
little or no importance, and altogether unneces-
sary, (p. 114.) Besides, he observes that where
Baptists and Ftcdobaptists are indiscriminately
associated, " it is generally wideniood, if not abso-
lutely stipnlaied, as a term of communion, that
baptism should be kept out of sight as much as pos-
sible ; that i( should scarcely ever be mentioned, and
never be insisted on, lest the peace of the church
should be disturbed, and the harmony of its
members be interrupted." (p, 114, 115.) Farther,
he observe.', it exposes a minister to the temp-
tation of shunninii' to declare the whole counsel
of God in order to avoid giving offence; and it
accustoms the people to see an achnoicledged duty
treated as a matter of indifference. And — it has
a tendency to excite a spirit of jealousy between
the two parties, destructive of peace and unity,
and thus, he obsei'ves, one of the strongest argu-
ments in favour of mixed communion is turned
against the practice, (p. 117.)
The tendency of Mr. Hall's reasoning is also
marked by a writer of a different description, who
asks him how he can justify his dissent from the
XXI
church of England, on the principles of his own
work ? The Rev. Charles Jerram, Vicar of
Chohham, in a volume entitled, "Conversations on
Infant Baptism, and some popular objections
against the Church of the United Kingdom,"
brings the subject forward in a long note. ('p. 152,
&c.) He classes Dr. Mason and Mr. Hall to-,
gether ; he compliments them both, and is glad
that he can appeal to such unexceptionable
authorities. He argues from what they have each
brought forward; and contends that on their prin-
ciples, Dissenters ought not to have left the Esta-
blishment. He observes, that Mr. Hall challenges
the Baptists to produce a single instance of with-
drawing from the ancient church on the account
of Tnfant baptism ; — that this shews at least the
sentiment of Mr. Hail, that diiference of opinion
on this important rile, a difference so great as to
ANNUL the ordinance in the minds of the Baptists,
is not a legitimate cause of separation. — That if
any thing may be considered as of such minor
importance, that it may be merged for the sake of
peace, the circumstantials in the administration
of the Lord's supper may be viewed in that light ;
and he tells us that " the doctrine which Mr. Hall
lays down as tlie foundation of a more extended
communion among the various denominations of
christians would undoubtedly lead to this conclu-
sion.'' — That " we have the authority of Mr. Hall
for asserting, that nothing less than a radical
defection from the purity of apostolical doctrine
and discipline can authorise the principle of
XX 11
separation or exclusion from christian commu-
nion." This Mr. Jerram says is, "a most imjwrtant
concession'! and lie adds, — " we may challenge the
world to substantiate such a charge against us, as
would render it improper, on these principles, to
continue within her pale, or make it a matter of
indifference to desert her community." f)j.lGO. 162.)
The reasoning that can dispose of an institution
of Christ, by removing it from its primitive station,
introduces so lax a principle, that no precept
which we do not consider essential to salvation,
can maintain its ground. If we are not bound to
adhere to a positive appointment of Christ, which
is confessedly permanent in its obligation, we
in vain assert, that it is of consequence to form
the church according to the plan which Christ
has furnished ; for it may always be retorted,
what avails your pleading scripture, when you
reason away the authority of one of its plainest
institutes ? Mr. Jerram is a man of sense, he
sees the advantage which is given him, and we
doubt not he will use it.
But it is time to conclude this long preface. I
have now discharged a duty which I owed to the
denomination of which I am an unworthy member;
and I commit the following pages to the reader s
attention, asking for nothing more, than that he
will consider how far the observations he may meet
with, agree with the New Testament. Should he
accuse me of repeating the same arguments in dif-
ferent parts of the work, my apology is, that it
arose from folloSving the detail of Mr. Hall's
XXlll
reasonings, which, in my apprehension, were con-
tinually in opposition to a few plain principles by
which the controversy must eventually be decided.
Repetition was therefore (to a degree at least)
unavoidable, unless I had adopted a totally differ-
ent plan, which would have been open to the
the objection, that I had not examined my oppo-
nent's arguments in their order. As my attention
has been awakened to this subject by a variety of
circumstances, I shall listen to SLuyfair and candid
argument which may yet be presented from any
quarter ; but unless something should be urged,
far superior to any thing that has yet appeared, it
is not likely that I shall trouble the world with a
reply. Contention is not desirable ; but, if we are
not willing tamely to surrender the cause of truth,
it is sometimes unavoidable. In pleading for
what I believe is the will of the Lord, I hope that
I earnestly desire to keep an eye on his character
and glory, while I intreat his forgiveness of my
weakness and imperfections in this attempt to di-
rect the attention of professing christians to the
ordinances of the Gospel, as Christ and his Apostles
delivered them unto us.
Norwich,
September, 1820.
CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.
X HE controversy respecting Terms of Communion has
various bearings on subjects not immediatelT connected
with the original qaestion. A disposition minutely to ex-
amine the principles on which Dissenting churches ought
to proceed in the regulation of their internal concerns,
has of late been very manifest : and, we trust, the inves-
tigation will promote the cause of truth. They who plead
for nothing more than what they find in the Xew Testa-
ment, need not fear the result of the inquiry, so long as
that volume is preserved entire, and is freely circulated
for the use of the Church.
If then, in the progress of the examination, it is asked,
on what terms persons were admitted into the Church in
apostolic times, and what was the platform of the primi-
tive discipline ; we reply, the New Testament informs
us, that he who professed faith in Christ, and whose pro-
fession was considered worthy of credit, was baptised, and
then took his place in the assembly of the faithful as one
who had "put on Christ." So long as he filled up the va-
rious duties to which God had called him, it does not
appear that he was subjected to further examination,
or required to renew his profession. It was taken for
B
2
granted, that he who continued to walk in the ways of the
Lord, was acting on the principles he had already profess-
ed. If he changed his residence, and went where he was
not known, "letters of commendation" were an introduc-
tion to other churches, on the ground of which, the stran-
ger was received, and treated as a brother. If, however,
in any period of his profession, he deviated from the path
of duty, he was warned and admonished ; if his conduct
rendered further severity needful, he was excluded ; but
if he repented and turned again to the Lord, he was again
admitted to the privileges of Communion.
The directions which the New Testament gives us on
this subject, relate only to the great points which should
ever be kept in view ; and not to those minutiae for which
no general rule could make provision. It was necessary
that the question, " dost thou believe on the Son of God J"
should be answered ; and the church had a right to expect,
that whoever wished to unite with them, would be " ready
to give a reason of the hope that was in him with meek-
ness and fear:" but the mode of making such a profession
is left undetermined. Whatever relates to particulars con-
cerning which we have no rule given, is fairly open to
examination, and if needful, to alteration. We ought to
take care lest by any unv>'ise haste we build upon the foun-
dation, wood, hay, and stubble ; or, lest by a suspicious
caution, we reject gold, silver, and precious stones.
But while we agree to give up all uncommanded prac-
tices to fair examination, and to let them stand or fall by
their respective merits, the case is totally different with
regard to institutions which the Lord has appointed. He
came as King of his Church : he gave laws which demand
our obedience. We are not authorized to set these aside,
that we may regulate the church by the taste of the times:
the question is not, what are our terms, but what are the
terms required by the Lord.
Here the Baptist takes high ground. He asks for no
more than was Tequired in the Apostolic church. In the
first instance, he asks for a declaration of faith in Christ.
This, it is granted, he has a right to expect from every
one who solicits communion. But if he and his bre-
thren have pressed their inquiries on this subject with
needless or distressing minuteness, and thus have hinder-
ed, rather than helped those who were desirous of walk-
ing in the ways of the Lord ; he ought, whenever the
point is proved, to acknowledge that he was in an er-
ror. He has no right to ask for more than a credible
New-Testament profession. In the next place, he adds,
the New Testament requires that believers should be
baptised. In this sentiment, he is supported by nearly
the whole christian community. That small part except-
ed, who deny the perpetuity of baptism, there is not one
to be found, who will venture to assert, that the believer
has discharged his duty to his Lord, if he is not baptised.
On this ground then, we take our stand. According to
the New Testament, a profession of faith and baptism on
that profession, took place previous to a person's being
considered as a Member of the church. In following such
authority we are not raising a wall of separation which
Christ has not raised ; we are not requiring terms of our
own devising ; we are doing nothing more than what we
find in the divine word. We maintain that we have no
authority to call in question the appointments of our di-
vine legislator, and since He requires believers to be
baptised, on their becoming the visible subjects of his
Kingdom, unless it be proved that baptism was tem-
porary in its duration, we are bound to act upon the same
plan. For as Dr. Campbell justly observes, " when
once a fence is established by statute, it is necessary, in
order to support its authority, that the letter of the statute
should be the rule in all cases" *.
We are aware it will be said, that this plan of receiving
* Pi'eliminary Dissertations to his translation of ths Gospels. Diss. vi. p. 4. § 11.
b2
Members into the Cburcb, keeps some at a distance who .
deserve to be esteemed, and does not always prevent im-
proper characters from entering^. But if this objection
has any force, it proves that Jesus Christ was the author
of an imperfect system, and that time has discovered its
defects. Our object, however, is not to defend the wis-
dom of his appointments: though it might easily be shown,
that his plans are more likely to be correct than ours, and
that wherever men have departed from them, evils in abun-
dance have poured themselves into the christian church.
Here, our Paedobaptist brethren will probably ob-
ject, that we are assuming, at least a part of the question
under consideration; that we are not contending for an
Institution of Christ, but for that Institution as we prac-
tice it ; that they think, neither the age of the subjects,
nor the mode of administration essential to the ordinance ;
and that therefore the question concerning baptism in our
view, and in their view, practically involves very differ-
ent consequences.
We reply, we admit that the questions are different —
whether we ought to receive those who allow that baptism
is an Institution of Christ, and who plead that they have
obeyed the command, though we think they have not ; —
and — whether we ought to receive those who either op-
pose or neglect the institution altogether. Nor do we blend
these questions ; they admit of a separate investigation,
and are to be met by arguments entirely distinct. But in
the controversy now before us, the query is not, whether
Psedobaptism is a valid administration of the ordinance,
for it is distinctly stated by Mr. Hall that Infant baptism is
A NULLITY (Reply, ps5J: and therefore the present
discussion unavoidably leads to the inquiry, ought we to
give u]^ Baptism as no longer necessary to communion
with the Christian Church ; or, ought we to maintain it
in its original situation ? an inquiry which, though at first
sight it seems to concern us only, yet in the issue, wiir
involve>principles, in which all who acknowledge the
permanency of the ordinances of the gospel are deeply
interested.
Since Mr. Hall began the present controversy, Dr. Ma-
son of New York has published a second edition of a work
entitled " A Plea for Catholic Communion in the Church
of God." The first Edition was printed in America under
the title of " A Plea for Sacramental Communion on Ca-
tholic Principles." The second was printed in London,
while the author was visiting this country. Mr. Hall
hails him as a brother, quotes his work with high appro-
bation, tells us that Dr. M. acknowledged the justness
of his leading principle, and is lavish in the praise of his
new ally, at the expence of those Baptists who do not
adopt the system of mixed communion. Yet whoever
reads the Doctor's work with attention, will perceive that
neither his reasonings nor his authorities, touch the pre-
sent question. He has written a large volume to prove,
that, "portions of two denominations" did rigbt in "com-
ing together on the broad ground of otie body, one spirit,
one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of all." Introd. p. xiii. His work proceeds on
the supposition that the parties whom he designs to con-
ciliate, are members of Churches, which have "the right-
ful possession of the Sacraments;" ( p. 9, 10.) which,
he observes, "is essential to the existence of a true
church." These, he informs us, are two. Baptism and
the Lord's Supper; he quotes the definition of the "Sa-
craments" given in the Wesminster Confession of Faith;
and his whole argument supposes that both these " Sacra-
ments " are viewed by each- party in the same light, and
practically regarded for the same ends. In the progress
of his work he brings forth a long list of authorities to
prove, that good men of various ages, have pleaded the
cause of Christian union, and have zealously urged their
brethren icho practiced the same institutions in their
6
respective Churches, and who agreed in the belief of the
same general system of doctrine, to commune together !
Tliese authorities were well adapted to Dr, Mason's pur*
pose in justifying his uniting with Dr. Romeyn at New
York; because the Churches under the pastoral care of
these two ministers, were on the same general ground
both respecting doctrine and practice ; but how they
would have applied, if one of these Churches had been in
the opinion of the other unhaptised. Dr. Mason does not
inform us. Every person at all acquainted with Ecclesi-
astical History knows, that communion in the Lord's sup-
per always supposed the previous baptism of the parties ;
and that the authorities, so abundantly quoted in the Doc-
tor's '* Plea," are pei'fectly nugatory, when applied to the
case of those who believe that the parties to whom they
object are not baptised.
Dr. Mason tbinks he has furnished " a sure and easy
rule of conscience in regard to church fellowship, viz. no
particular act of communion is to be interpreted as reach-
ing beyond itself, unless coupled with other acts by an
express or hiown condition." ( p. 329. ) We have no
objection to apply this "sure and easy rule" to the case
which concerns our present enquiry. The '' express" or
" known condition " which is " coupled " with every " act
of communion " between Baptists and Peedobaptists must
necessarily be " interpreted" as a declaration — either that
the Baptist acknowledges Paedobaptism to be valid ; or,
that he does not regard baptism to be at all requisite to
Communion. The first, no Baptist can acknowledge ; the
second, is the subject of the present inquiry, and, in our
view, is attended with unanswerable objections : but nei-
ther of them concerns Dr. Mason's great object, which is
to the last, to recommend communion among "those who
profess * one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one hope of
their calling'." (p. 395.)
Notwithstanding this constant reference to a state of
7'
opinions perfectly distinct from that before us in this
controversy, Dr. Mason in the preface to his second
edition, alludes to the present debate, and thinks proper
to say, " that all such differences, he they what they may,
are insufficient to justify the want of communion between
those that mutually own and honor each other's Christiani-
ty." ( p. viii,) How he can reconcile this system with the
sentiments of his own church does not appear. If the
Associate Reformed Church, of which he is a member,
acknowledge his theory in all its extent, they have far
departed from the opinions of their forefathers ; and if
they do not see a difference between the communion of
persons who use the same rites of baptism and the same
formularies in other things, and the admission of those to
communion who are without baptism, they have lost
their former acuteness.
From Dr. Mason's work Mr. Hall anticipates very
important results. " Let us hope that America, that land
of freedom, where our pious ancestors found an asylam
from the oppression of intolerance, will exert under the
auspices of such men as Dr. Mason, a powerful reaction
on the parent state, and aid her emancipation from the
relics of that pestilential evil, still cherished and retained
in too many British Churches." (Preface, p. viii, ix.)
What the American Baptists will do in future, time
alone can discover. In times past, we are told that many
of their churches acted on the plan of mixed communion ;
but they found that it so often both destroyed their peace
and impeded their prosperity, that in a great variety of
instances they have adopted the practise of communing
with baptised believers only. Benedict, in his General
History of the Baptist Denomination in America, printed
in 1813, mentions a number of cases of this kind, and
some churches, he says, have been "split to pieces by the
embarrassing policy." It is commonly supposed here in
England, by the friends of that system, that if it was
once admitted it would retain its influence ; but whoever
reads Benedicfs History, will see that American experi-
ence does not favour such an expectation.
Mr. Hall observes, that " some whose character com-
mands the deepest respect, are known to deprecate the
agitation of the present controversy from an apprehension
of the injury the denomination may sustain by the expo-
sure of its intestine divisions." {Preface p. xiii.) Proba-
bly by this time they are satisfied that their apprehensions
were well founded ; so far, at least, as relates to the pre-
sent effect of the discussion; for it cannot be imagined
that they were afraid lest the cause of truth, on which-
ever side it was found, would ultimately be injured.
The opponents of our denomination seem to think that
they have gained an advantage they never had before;
they consider Mr. Hall's work as sacrificing one impor-
tant part of our common system ; and as making a con-
cession which reduces the practical importance of bap-
tism to nothing. With their views of baptism, the case
of the unbaptised soliciting communion with them will be
of such rare occurrence, that it will very seldom require
consideration ; but if Mr. Hall's sentiment prevails, they
clearly see, that whenever a Paedobaptist wishes to unite
with us, we shall be expected practically to declare, that
the baptism for which we plead, however conformable to
the primitive institution, has lost its authority, and is no
longer to be retained in its original station. Hence the
result is, that all who dislike the Baptists, and all who
are inimical to the institution of baptism itself, with
Mr. Hall at their head, are loud in their exclamations
against us ; and if they go as far as he does, in the ex-
tent and severity of their accusations, they can at least
plead the sanction of his example in their defence. His
writings clearly shew that he is in avowed friendship with
those who oppose his own denomination; and that, accord-
ing to his own statement, the points in which he differs
9
from them are trifling, compared with those in which they
are both agreed. Is it surprising that men of discern-
ment, " whose character commands the deepest respect",
and who knew the extent of Mr. Hall's theory, should
have deprecated a system of which they saw this would be
the effect? Perhaps they were also afraid lest it should
separate the Baptists and Pasdobaptists to a greater dis-
tance than before, or render their intercourse less confi-
dential. But — the die is cast, and whatever consequen-
ces may follow, those who according to the New Testament
believe that baptism should precede communion, have not
to bear the blame of exciting this controversy ; and they
had no other option, but either to defend their cause ;
or — to sit down in silence, and bear the stigma of having
nothing to say, or of not daring to speak: they have made
their election, and leave the result to God.
They were compelled to defend themselves for the addi-
tional reason, that they viewed the opinion which Mr. Hall
advocates, as in the end attacking the permanency of Bap-
tism ; and since he attempts to establish his theory as the
law of the IVew Testament, it leads us directly to the
question, — has the sacred volume nullified its own institu-
tions, or does it still continue to support them ?
With respect to the effect which the discussion has
produced on the dispositions of the Baptists and Paedobap-
tists towards each other, as far as my observation has ex-
tended, the strict Baptists stand where they did ; their
conduct is not altered towards the members of other de-
nominations, and I hope their temper is not injured; they
are still willing to unite with their fellow christians on
common ground in promoting a common cause ; and I
doubt not many of the Paedobaptists will go as far with
us as they did before, and with the same general feeling.
Some of them are aware that Mr. Hall's favorite theory
relieves neither party from any difficulty. Others hold
different language ; and in proportion as they adopt his
10
opinion, the)' occupy a new station. How far they will
be aflFected by the change, time alone will discover.
Mr. Hall thinks that a " simple expedient " might set-
tle the difficulty which arises from the divided opinion of a
church, where the majority are in favor of mixed commu-
nion ; which is, to " admit pious Psedobaptists, without
hesitation, and to let those whose principles deter them
from joining in such communion receive the Lord's supper
apart." {Preface ]). xviii.) The success of this plan is
more than doubtful. What is to be done where the min-
ister is of a different opinion from the majority ? If such
a system as this should become popular, every minister, of
the sentiments now described, whatever may have been
the length or importance of his services, would feel his
confidence in those with whom he had long acted in unity,
so sensibly weakened, that he would not be surprised at
the rising of a storm that would drive him away. But
besides the effect which this expedient might have on the
minister, it would also produce an effect on the mem-
bers whose sentiments did not agree with those of the
majority. The older members especially, M'ho had been
labouring for a course of years in a common cause, would
feel themselves deeply aflFected by such an alteration.
What would they think, when they saw the constitution of
that church subverted, the prosperity of which had been
intimately connected with their purest enjoyments, and
their most vigorous exertions? How admirably would
this " expedient" promote the unity of the church, when
those who maintain its original principles would in real-
ity be expelled, instead of continuing to be recogni-
sed as joined to the Church in one body ? What would
they think of a scheme which under the pretence of increa-
sing the members of Baptist Churches, admitted Pizdo-
haptists, and dissevered Baptists ! Notwithstanding
Mr. Hall says this can be done " without inflicting the
slightest wound on these amiable and exemplary per-
11
sons," (p. xviii) it would be found an impossibility. Ma-
ny would never submit to the experiment ; and of those
that did, several would be found who would not repeat it.
They would too strongly recollect past days, and too pow-
erfully feel the alteration forced upon them, not to be fill-
ed with reflections which they would not wish to have
excited again. Though Mr. Hall attempts to put his
plan into smooth language, and if ever he means to con-
ciliate, one would suppose it would be, Avhen he was pro-
fessing to treat those members of our Churches who differ
from him with marked respect, as "amiable and exejuplary
characters," yet there is a manner in which he speaks of
them, which ought not and cannot escape their notice.
•* By this simple expedient" we are told, ** the views of all
parties will be met : the majority will exert their jirero-
gative, and act consistently with their avowed principles :
the PasDOBAPTlSTS will obtain ^/. 63.) "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 one 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 observe" alf
things whatsoever he had commanded them. Matt, xxviii.
19,20. Let Mr. Hall therefore either acknowledge, or deny.
95
that the Lord's supper was one of those things which the
disciples were commanded " to observed If he acknow-
ledges it, the " connection" is sufficient! v 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 ought to he 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,
though it is not only sufficiently 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 we
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 teni'
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." (p. 64.) Now, without
inquiring whether thej-eason 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 'perfecthj understood,'' the Lord's supper was
never administered to tlie 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 ?
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 sufficiently understood to settle
the present controversy ; for who will affirm, 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 terms? 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"* {pi 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 which, 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, either in the formation 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", (j). 03,)
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", (p.
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
X
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 nnhaptised
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 institution," even on
the concession of our opponents.
* Congregational Mag. June 1818. p. 324.
SECTION II.
Mistakes of Mr. Hall respecting Mr. Fuller — the
Unities, Eph. iv. — and, Dr. Whitby.
In •* Baptism a term of communion" an argument is ad-
duced, which was borrowed from " Mr. Fuller's Letter to
a Friend," intitled " The admission of unbaptised persons
to the Lord's supper, inconsistent with the New Testa-
ment." We stated the substance of one of Mr. Fuller's
arguments, though we did not copy his words. Mr. Hall
quotes our words, as if they were Mr. Fuller's: we then
added some observations on the Unities mentioned Eph. iv.
3, &c. These he also considers as Mr. Fuller's, though
they are not his, nor is there any thing in the connection
that would lead an attentive reader to this conclusion.
We then find a critique on Mr. Fuller's pamphlet, in
which he speaks of it in a very degrading manner, and
reflects on tlie editor for publishing it.
It was not unnatural for Mr. Hall to think lightly of
Mr. Fuller's work on a point opposed to his own favourite
theory : but why he should say, Mr. F — " felt some dis-
trust of the ground he was treading, which for several
reasons I strongly suspect," we know not. In conver-
sations which the writer of these pages had with him on
the subject some months before his death, he appeared
satisfied that his views were correct : and this is strongly
attested by the advertisement which is prefixed to the
pamphlet. In that advertisement there is an extract of a
letter sent with the manuscript to Dr. Newman, dated
Jan. 16, 1815, in which Mr. Fuller says, "if any thing be
written oa the other side, it may, if thought proper, be
100
printed, but not else," Mr. Fuller died before Mr. Hall's
treatise on " Terms of Communion" was published : when
that work appeared, Dr. Newman justly thought that he
ouffht no lonsjer to withhold Mr. Fuller's letter.
Those who read only what Mr. Hall has said concerning
it, will suppose that Mr. Fuller's work contains nothing-
more than the arguments he has noticed. But they who
read the work for themselves, will find many things which
bear on the point, and which, though they are slated
briefly, deserve consideration: and they will then judge of
the accuracy which Mr. Hall displayed, when he brought
together, an argument which we borrowed from Mr, Ful-
ler, — some observations of our own for which he is not
accountable, — and then added — " such is the substance
of Mr. Fuller's argumentation on this subject"! (p.GS.)
But to return : Mr, Fuller's argument was drawn fi'om
passages he had quoted, in which allusions were made to
baptism and the Lord's supper in a niiinner which shewed
the two ordinances were connected together in the mind
of the X\)os\\e, {Fuller s Letter, jy-V? — 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, aiford examples of an allusion to
the two ordinances at the same tijne, whence we may be
certain that they were present 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
©0 essential relation exists." Again, "In fact the warmest
advocates oi our practice would feel no sort of difficulty ip
adopting the same style, in an epistle to a church which
consisted on/j/ of bajJtists : 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
argnment from primitive precedent, tlie futility of which
has been sulliciently demonstrated." (^jj. (>5, 66.)
Here let us observe what our author has conceded.
It is allowed that the societies whom Paul addressed were
universally Baptists, and that in his address, the two
ordinances tvere present together in his mind: nay farther,
that Mr. H. and the advocates of his practice, would
feel no sort of difficulty in addressing" " a church which
consisted onhj of Baptists" in the same style. So that it
is only in a Baptist chnrch the expressions of the Apostle
can be used with propriety, Mr. Hall himself being jadge !
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
force 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 proved that notwithstanding
the proniinency given to baptism in the commission, and
in the practice of the christian church — notwithstanding,
on our author's ow^n confession, it was tJien essential, not
only to communion but to salvation, yet it was connected
with the Lord's supper in the Appstle'fS 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 I'ormed 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." {p.. 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 chnrch 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
liecessary 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 wiiicli, eitlier with respect to the subject,
or the mode, reduces it to a nullity. ^^ (p. 66, 67.) Here
it is conceded that there is one — only one valid baptism:
and virtually, that Padohaptism \& 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
tlie Apostle had in view, and to which all the enumerated
unities ivere 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 baptism"; 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 Prpdobaptist,
and an Episcopalian," is brought against us ; and a pas-
sage is quoted with great approbation ; 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 demonslratioii of Uie
principles we are abetting-, in the very words our opponents
urge for their overthrow." (p. 67, G8.)
It is no part of our intention to undervalue Dr. 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 hy which we do profess
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 by which we do profess this faith."
In this instance Dr. W. pleads the cause which ue advo-
cate ; and his inferences are denied by no protestant of
any party. Our controversy is not, on what 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.
Mr. HctlVs reasoning concerning positive late 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 prohibition of the ad-
mission of unbaptised persons to the Lord's supper?" (j).
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 law 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
]\Ir. Hall thinks proper to say, tliut 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, "sarely if this he the onh/
reason, the necessity must return when tljat reason ceases ;
or in other words, there will he a necessity for an express
prohibition of the unbaptised wlienever 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. Ih says
the ONLY reason which we assigned why a prohibition
Avas not necessary, was that the ordinance was perfectly
understood. If any per.«on will examine what v/e did say,
he will find ; — 1st. Jt 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 vjhich ren-
dered such prohihilion 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? 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 acknou;ledf/ed,
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 achnoiohdged. 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.) Whether it was the
only 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 sufTicient to shew how they reasoned, how
tJiey acted, and to rectify those who in their day were
attempting to introduce innovations. Those who in after
times choose to act a dilFerent part, are left to do as they
please. As Bisnoi' Blknet says, (speaking of the
alterations which the Papists made iu 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 Peedobaptist may demand " an express
prohibition" of infant baptism; a Churchman, of kneeling
at the Lord's supper ; and a lloinan 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 Xew 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 wa.s bap-
tised, than it is commanded ihdi lie ahould be baptiskd.
108
Yet if any one slioukl say, that he believed baptism itself
was a temporary institution, he might, on our author's
principles, be admitted to communion without hesitation.
For, however strongly the prohibition was expressed, that
the unbaptised should not partake of it, it might still be
replied, all this was true once while baptism was in force,
but now the connection between the two ordinances is
dissolved, and the prohibition abrogated. If, then, he
who denies the authority of baptism altogether may be
received, he who denies the force of a prohibition (which
could not last longer than the ordinance to which it related)
should not be rejected. What, then, would either the
directions or the prohibitions of Scripture avail, when
maxims which lead to such results are set in high places ?
Doubtless Mr. Hall expects to confound us by his suc-
ceeding ai'gument. " Has it, [the precept respecting^
baptism] or has it not, ceased (in our apprehension) to be
understood by modern Pa^dobaptists I If it be admitted
that it has, then, on his own principle, an express j^^'ohU
hifion of the unbaptised to receive the Lord's supper has
become necessary." {p. 71.) A powerful appeal indeed !
— but to use the words of BisJioj) Taylor, " it is a goodly
harangue, which upon strict examination will come to
nothing — it pretends fairly and signifies little."*
It is right to separate what has, from what has not
ceased to be understood. Mr. Hall endeavours to perplex
the argument by drawing off his reader's attention from
the important consequences arising from this distinction.
We retort therefore his own reasoning : — " Has it, or has
it not, ceased to be understood by modern Paedobaptists,"
that according to the New Testament, baptism ought to
precede the Lord's supper? On this point we have had
as yet, no controversy with them, nor do we expect any.
For unless they were to introduce infant communion, and
were to give the Lord's supper before they administered
* Liberty of Prophesying, § 18. p. 228. Ed. 1647— 4to.
109
baptism, their conduct shews that they and we understand
this part of the subject alike. So that if there were a
*' prohibition" in terms ever so " express", they would
reply, this does not affect us ; for we believe that we are
baptised. — Should they, however, profess an alteration in
their sentiments, and declare that the baptised and the
unbaptised have an equal right to communion, we will
consider their arguments as soon as we hear them. Till
then, Mr. Hall's question, bold as it is, does not require
an answer.
SECTION IV.
Mr. HalVs evasion of the argument on the connection of
the two ordinances — his accusations confronted — his
mistakes concerning the " Scottish Baptists", &)C.
We now come to Mr. Hall's attack on a few expres-
sions in * Baptism a term of Communion,' on the connec-
tion between baptism and the Lord's supper. The first
passage is taken from p. 30 — "if the above evidence be
justly stated, there is a real instituted connection between
baptism and the whole succeeding christian profession.
So that there is no reason why the connection between
baptism and the Lord's supper should be more distinctly
marked than between baptism and any other duty or pri-
vilege." In this passage the connection pleaded for, is
stated as an inference from evidence which had been
adduced : the appeal (as we have before stated) had been
fnade to the New Testament : to the principle which runs
110
tlirougli tli8 v.hole body of fact recorded in the apostolic
writings ; and to those collateral evidences which arose
from the notice taken of the ordinances of the gospel in
the Epistles of Paul. Baptism was a visible, ritual ob-
servance ; it was commanded by the Lord, and had its
appointed place. Among the various duties which marked
the visible profession of Christianity, baptism took the
lead. It laid the christian under an obligation to ''ob-
serve" all that tht? Lord had commanded : it was the first
link in the chain, and the rest followed in their order.
Here 3Jr. Hall fiies from the subject. He seems aware
that the Xew Testament says nothing that favours com-
munion with persons unbaptised, and that it is in vain to
go to that volume for proof of what was unknown till
centuries after it was \vritten. No objection is therefore
made to the evidence produced ; but he attempts to over-
set the whole by an inference : — " if this be the case, why
do they confine their restriction to the mere act of com-
munion at the Lord's table ? In every other respect they
feel no scruple in acknowledging the members of other
denominations as christians," &c. {p. 73.) The whole of
Mr, Hall's attack proceeds on the assumption, that we
ou^ht not to consider those as christians with whom we
do not think it right to commune : an opinion which pro-
testants justly treat as an absurdity, and which flourishes
no where in so much vigour as in the church of Rome.
We might refer to preceding observations, which shew
that we did not place the argument on a ground that un-
christianised those who differ with us ; we adopted a
theory so different from that imputed to us, that if the
reader peruses the two pages of " Baptism a term of
Communion", which lie open when he refers to one of
Mr. Hall's quotations on this subject, he will usually find
that his representations are in some material part flatly
contradicted. But it is not worth following him in his
misrepresentations. He may, as long as he pleases, stig-
Ill
matise those who do not think as he does ; this may
seriously injure him, but it cannot hurt them. He may
exclaim — " what in the mean time becomes of apostolic
practice and ancient precedent I How admirably are
these illustrated by their judicious selection of the Lord's
table, as the spot on which to suspend the ensigns of
party." {jj. 75) — and doubtless many people think this is
an admirable stroke ! But may not the same thing be
said in every instance in which any body of christians,
taking the New Testament for their guide, have left a
churcli which they thought had departed from the primi-
tive standard, and formed one which they deemed more
agreeable to the will of Christ ? The same imputation
falls on every protestant community in the world ; for
whatever produces a separation of communion for the
purpose of fulfilling the will of Christ, may always have
such harsh terms applied to it.
Mr. Hall is at full liberty to brand us as a " party" ;
but if we are a similar " party" to that body of christians
which existed in the days of inspiration ; if like them we
walk in the " Apostle's doctrine and in fellowship ;" if like
them we have " one Lord, one faith, one baptism," we are
contented ; and we accept the censure which he, or any
man casts upon us, as the consequence of our holding
fast " the faith once delivered to the Saints." It is
nothing more than a repetition of the Jewish reproach,
" as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is
spoken against."
Ever since the commencement of the Reformation the
question has often been discussed, how far ought chris-
tians to conform to the platform laid down in the Xew
Testament, in the structure and regulation of the church .''
That portion of the inquiry now in hand, contains only
a small part of the general question, and lies in a narrow
compass. Jesus Christ left only two visible institutions
in bis church, and the present discussion practically leads
112
us to ask, shall we support the authority of one of them,
or shall we neglect it I If we ought to dismantle the
church of one of its ordinances — if it is of little conse-
quence whether it is obeyed correctly, or incorrectly, or
even denied altogether — if a plan Confessedly opposite to
the constant practice of apostolic times ought to be
adopted, and that which visibly appears on the face of the
New Testament ought to be violently opposed as unchris-
tian, then we acknowledge we are wrong. But unless
these particulars are proved against us from a clear and
sound interpretation of the New Testament, we need not
be solicitous about our defence.
" Apostolic practice and ancient precedent" are not
easily set aside. Expressions of ours Mr. Hall can
torture and pervert; the body with which he is connected
he can degrade, and treat with great contempt ; but the
undeniable practice of the inspired servants of the Lord
still remains, and will remain, as a stumbling block in his
way. And while he is compelled to confess that the bap-
tists are the only body of christians that are baptised, the
ground which we occupy is instantly seen to be strong, if
the New Testament is to be our guide in the formation
of the church.
The provocation which he feels is increased by our
continuing not to condemn those as destitute of Chris-
tianity, who in our opinion are not correct in their judg-
ment and practice on the point of baptism. Hence violent
efforts are made to accuse us of inconsistency. A portion
of this irritation of spirit was to be expected from the too
common effect of controversy ; but when both the expres-
sions and argument of an opponent are distorted, and
turned to purposes which were never designed, it is then
evident, that there is some unmanageable impediment
which cannot be removed ; — some argument adduced,
which if not noisy, is distinct and forcible, and which is
attempted to be run down because it cannot be answered.
113
A passage occurs in Mr. Hall's " Reply," (p. 75,)
which clearly marks the state of his mind on the present
subject. He says, "when we read of Priscilla and Aquila
taking Apollos home, and instructing him in the way of
the Lord more perfectly, tve give full credit to the nar-
rative ; but had we been informed that these excellent
persons, after hearing him with great delight, refused his
admission to the supper of the Lord, on account of some
diversity of opinion, or of practice, the consent of all the
manuscripts and versions in the world would have been
insufficient to overcome the incredulity arising from an
instantaneous conviction of its total repugnance to the
maxims and principles of primitive clmstianity. Yet this
would have been nothing more than an anticipation of the
practice of our opponents." Bring the case to its proper
point; suppose that Apollos, who knew "only the bap-
tism of John," {Acts xviii. 25.) was in the same circum-
stances with the disciples at Ephesus, who were also
baptised " unto John's baptism" {Acts xix. 3.) — would
Priscilla and Aquila have received him to the Lord's
supper? If they would not, we see how their conduct
would be condemned by Mr. Hall ; if they would, how
can he account for the conduct of Paul to the Ephesian
disciples ? He believes that the Apostle commanded them
to be " baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus"; but
does he believe, or can he prove, that he received these
disciples to the Lord's supper before they were baptised ?
On his own interpretation of the passage, the conduct of
the Apostle in commanding those " to be baptised in the
name of the Lord Jesus," whose baptism he considered as
imperfect and invalid, was " nothing more than an antici-
pation" of that practice, which, had it existed in the case
before mentioned, Mr. Hall says, would have been in
"total repugnance to the maxims and principles of primi-
tive Christianity"!
He deserves, however, our thanks for his frankness ;
K
114
he fairly tells us, that if Priscilla and Aqnila had practised
strict communion, (which is nothing more than not uniting
in church membership with persons acknowledged to be
unbaptised) the consetit of all the manuscripts and versions
in the world, would have no weight with him : it is a
settled point in his mind, that such conduct is repugnant
"to the maxims and principles of primitive Christianity";
and had it been practised by the most "excellent persons"
in the times of inspiration, he would not have believed it
to be agreeable to the will of Christ !
Besides all that has been urged against us of a nature
to which the preceding observations will apply, a new
charge is brought forward — "a deviation from ancient
precedent" ! (p. 78.) What is this "deviation ?" It is, "that
the first christians did not interchange religious services
with those with whom they refused to communicate"! A
curious accusation indeed, Mr. H. allows that all the prim-
itive churches were baptised; he will not deny that they
had " one Lord, one faith, one baptism": — and the time
was not arrived when any one imagined the two christian
ordinances were independent of each other. That "de-
viation" from the one baptism of the christian dispensation,
" which, either with respect to the subject or the mode,
reduces it to a nullity,'' according to his own acknow-
ledgment had not taken place. So that the question had
not occurred, how far we might act with those who had
made such a " deviation." It is therefore in vain to charge
us with departing from " ancient precedent", till our author
has produced a precedent which applies to the present
case. There are, however, some cases on record which,
as far as they resemble the present state of things, deserve
consideration, since they furnish us with analogies. The
conduct of Paul in directing the Jlphesian disciples to be
baptised, has been noticed, both in this work, and in
' Baptism a term of Communion ;' and no one will venture
to say this is an " ancient precedent" against us, The
115
Apostle thought differently of these disciples than he did
of men in general, yet he commanded them to be baptised.
So also Priscilla and Aquila did not treat ApoUos as a
schismatic, but as a mistaken good man. The conduct of
the Apostles in attending the temple worship, furnishes
another case in our favour, " Peter and John went up
together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being
the ninth hour." (Acts iii. 1.) They did not forsake the
house of prayer whither they had been habituated to go, so
long as they had the opportunity. The Apostle Paul
also, many years afterwards, went up to Jerusalem to
worship : (Acts xxiv. 11.) This is his defence for being
found in the temple: and he contended, that though in the
way which the Jews call heresy, yet said he, *' so worship
I the God of my fathers ," ver. 14. the same God whom
they worshipped ; thus declaring that though he differed
from them, yet since there was one great point of union,
he acceded to their worship as far as he could: and his
taking the vow of a Nazarite upon him, and being found
in the temple for the purpose of fulfilling the commanded
rites, part of which consisted in an offering made by the
Jewish Priests according to the law, was a proof that, as
far as he thought them right, he gave them such complete
countenance, that he made use of their ministrations.
Indeed this part of his conduct was designed as a public
testimony that he could, and did worship God according
to the rites of the Jews ; and yet we know that his senti-
ments as a christian would necessarily prevent him from
holding complete communion with that people. So far,
therefore, as cases existed which have any resemblance to
our having a partial connection with those with whom we
cannot altogether agree, the spirit of " ancient precedent"
is not against us but /or us. Our maxim is, unite where
you can ; differ, only when you are compelled by your
views of the New Testament pattern of a christian church :
and when a better maxim than this is discovered, and
116
proved to be consistent with the sacred volume, we
will gladly adopt it.
A curious specimen of quotation occurs in that part of
Mr. Hall's work now under examination, and as he seems
to think he gains an advantage from what he brings for-
ward, and recurs afterwards to the same thing, it may
be proper to notice it in detail. He says, (p. 78.)
" Mr. Kinghorn himself deprecates the very suspicion of
placing even baptism on a level with the least of the moral
precepts of Christ." Again, (p. 105) — " Our author
acknowledges that baptism is not to be ' compared in im^
portance with the least of Christ's moral jarecep^s'."
{p. 107) — "he tells us that he is far from * equalizing bap-
tism with the least of Chris fs moral precej)is\" (p. 108) —
** the omission of a moral precept — the least of which,
he affirms, is of greater moment than baptism.'^
In none of the above pretended quotations does Mr.
Hall refer to any page, where such expressions may be
found : in two of them he puts certain words with inverted
commas, as if these were the very words which we had
used. The reader will observe that they are not the same
words; but this would probably lead him to suppose, that the
sentiment was repeated with some variation of expression.
The question however returns, where did Mr. Hall find
any of the professed quotations which he has brought
forward? — The answer is — not in -Baptism a term of
Communion' It is there acknowledged, "that many other
things are of greater consequence than baptism" {p, 164.)
It is there also said, (j3,87) (which is probably the passage
Mr. Hall had in his view) — " these remarks," [referring
to preceding observations] " are not made for the purpose
of raising this institution to an undue height ; nor in
any respect designed to exalt it in the place of the Sa^
viour, or of faith in him, or of obedience to the least of
his moral precepts ; but as they lie on the surface of the
New Testament, and have a strong bearing on the pre^
117
sent subject, we ought not to pass them without notice."
Here let the reader compare Mr. Hall's professed quo-
tations with our proposition ; and let him observe both
how different are tlie loords which he has put with inverted
commas, from those which are copied from the work it-
self; and how different is their design. We plead for the
regard due to the first positive christian institute, in the
station in which the Lord appointed it, whatever that
station is ; but we have no wish to displace the least of
the moral precepts, and make baptism a substitute in its
stead. But supposing that Mr. Hall's interpretation had
been just, and that the ordinance in question was allowed
to be less than any of the moral precepts, and even the
least of the precepts which Christ commanded, still it is
no part of our ambition to "break one of these least com-
mandments and teach men so," lest we should be called
*' the least in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. v. 19.
A train of confident assertions is brought forward by
Mr. Hall, (p. 80,) in which we are told, that the advo-
cates of the restrictive system must change their ground ;
they must either go forwards or backwards. — "They have
most unreasonably and capriciously stopped where no
mortal before ever thought of staying for a moment !"
It is not true that we have "stopped" — " where no mortal
before ever thought of staying for a moment". The ground
on which we have fixed our " encampment," is easily
described ; — we maintain the priority of baptism to the
Lord's supper, according to the New Testament direc-
tions and examples. Tliis is the place at which we have
"stopped"; and all who are acquainted with Ecclesiastical
History know, that for many centuries after the primitive
age, "no mortal" ever thought of quitting this ground.
"We acknowledge that we think better of those who differ
from us, than has sometimes been the case with contend-
ing parties in past days ; — a great crime indeed ! If in
this part of our conduct we avoid any portion of the mis-
118
takes Avhich excellent men made in former times, we
assume no merit to ourselves ; but we are thankful that
we have been led in any measure into a better way.
Mr. Hall thinks proper to call our conduct unreasonable
and capricious. If it is unreasonable, because we will not
walk even with good men in a path which we conceive is
different from that pointed out by the Legislator of the
church, our reply is brief, " whether it be right in the sight
of God to hearken unto you, more than unto God, judge
ye." (Acts iv. 19.) If it be capricious to lay down the
plain directions of the New Testament as our rule, and to
draw the outline of our " encampment," with that volume
in our hand, we had better be reproached for such capri-
ciousuess, than for the want of it.
Our author reiterates his stroke ; " they have already
made such near approaches to the great body of those
whom we deem unbaptised, as places them at an immea-
surable distance from the letter of the apostolic precedent,
though in perfect harmony with its spirit; while they
preposterously cling to that letter as the reason for re-
fusing to go an inch farther." (p. 80.)
Here we ask, what is meant by an " immeasurable dis-
tance from the letter of apostolic precedent"? Does the
*' letter^ of the *' apostolic precedent" afford a single
instance of membership and communion with the unbap-
tised^ If it does, let Mr. Hall produce it. In apostolic
example we have no precedent that will justify uninspired
men in displacing one of the ordinances of the Gospel
from its primitive station ; but Ave have precedents which
shew how they understood them, and how they practised
them. Here we have the option either of declaring the
letter of the precedents useless, or of conforming to it as
an inspired interpretation of the law : we have adopted
the latter, and are satisfied with our choice.
But is it true, that we can be at an " immeasurable dis-
tance from the letter of the apostolic precedent," while we
119
are " in perfect harmony with its spirit." If so, we
confess it is information. Again, if we are at an " im-
measurable distance from the letter of the apostolic pre-
cedent," how is it that we " preposterously cling to that
letter as a reason for refusing to go an inch farther"? This
"immeasurable distance" has in a moment disappeared,
and in the same sentence we are told, that, far as we were
froin the " letter of apostolic precedent," we still " pre-
posterously cling to^ it !
Our author proceeds, " they remain immoveable, to
change the figure, not because they rest on any solid
basis, but because they are suspended betwixt the love of
the brethren, and the remains of intolerance; just as
Mahomet's tomb is said to hang betwixt two magnets of
equal powers in opposite directions." {p. 80, 81.) We
will not offer any opinion respecting the assertion that we
do not " rest on any solid basis," but as the force of what
Mr. Hall says, is given us in "■' ^ figure" it is necessary
to examine it. Two things had been mentioned imme-
diately before, the spirit, and the letter of apostolic pre-
cedent ; two things are mentioned in the "figure" under
review, between which we are said to be " suspended,"
" the love of the brethren, and the remains of intolerance."
There we are told that we " preposterously cling" to the
letter of apostolic precedent ; here, that one of the two
magnets between which we are suspended is, *' the re-
mains of intolerance ! What inference can we draw from
these passages, except this, that it is intolerant to be
attracted by apostolic precedent !
'• The Scottish Baptists" are then brought forward by
Mr. Hall {p. 81.), and he tells us they " act consistently."
We suppose these are the same persons he had before
called, "Sandemanian Baptists," who shelter themselves,
" by a stern and consistent process of intolerance." (jo. 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 witliout pretending to judge of their final state,
treat them on EVERY OCCASION as men, whose religious
pretensions are doubtful." It is not necessary that 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,' We freely admit that there are
multitudes of God's dear children unenlightened as to hap--
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 real
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 pastors of the church with
which Mr. 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 another for the truth's sake ; and they bring forth
the fruits of righteousness. "f Other testimonies might be
* In A. Letter, intitled — 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 nowjudg-e of the accuracy of Mr. Hall's assertion re-
specting- the " Scottish Baptists."
But why, it may be asked, should 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 charg-e.
But the reason is manifest : Mr. Hal! 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 Ihe first act of christian obedience is
of course succeeded by the rest; and the required acknow-
ledgment of our faith in Christ, in the 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 J 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.
Iq commenting on this short paragraph, he says, the
author " designs to assert, that such is the prescribed order
of religious actions, — that unless that ordinance [baptism]
is first attended to, every other performaiice 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 dutij^l
Again, " He expressly tells us, that every other duty
must succeed, that is, come after baptism, which with re-
spect to the Pfftdobaptists is impossible on our principles,
whence it necessarily follows, that while they retain their
sentiments, they are disqualified for the performance of
duty." 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." {p. 82, 83.)
Our author adds, ** thus much for the duties ; let us
next hear what he says of the privileges 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 immu-
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 thatwhichhe ventures to jyrescribe." (p.S^.)
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; butperhapsitwas a grammatical oversight.
123
in the counection of the 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
differed 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 some 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 (p. 88), but an explanation of the author's
sentiments ; and in fact a condensed recital of what he
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. ^Q, 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 withstanding God. {p. 87.) But what did Peter
command? — That they should be baptised. Would 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 " withstand 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, HaU'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 new doctrine," adds Mr. Hall, " that the tenure
by which religious privileges are held, is appropriated to
the members of one incorisiderahle sect, must strike the
serious reader with astonishment. Are we in reality the
only jjersons who possess an interest in the common sal-
vation ?" (p. 87.) Who has said we are ? From our
authoi-'s own book it is manifest that ice 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
126
reserved to the last part of the chapter, and terminates
what Mr. Hall tells us, compreliends ** 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 ;" {p. 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"! (j9. 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
Coin. p. 30.) Who would ever have suspected that here
lay concealed the " opus 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 whom it is exercised.
Whenever violent statements, not called for by any
sufficient 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 opiis 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.
HalTs argument : — the advantage he gives to the Pcedo-
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. k.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. Hail 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-
ject of 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 ivorse than nothing. What-
ever was the strength of the argument in the two first
chapters of ' Baptism a term of Communion,' it remains
unimpaired. 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
unhaptised can, in that character, have a right to com-
munion. The discussion occasioned by this controversy
must always come to the inquiry; which is to give way —
the old system of apostolic times, or the new system of
Mr. Hall? No reasoning can prove the two plans to
bie 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 Paedobap-
tists have pleaded Mr. Hail's authority in their own favour.
They see that he has lowei-ed the practical obligation to
obey the law of baptism, and thus made a concession
which they can improve. Tiiey clearly perceive that if
we are vulnerable on that side, they gain an advantage
which nothing else could give them. Pa^dobaptists who
think baptism (as they view it) is of any importance, must
laugh at the inconsistency of those who would introduce
into the church persons who arc declared to be unhajjtised ;
and say, see what these Baptists are driven to concede !
With all their zeal 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
adm.it those who have had no baptism at all !
Mr. Hall has conceded that in the apostolic church
baptism was a term of communion^ — 2cas 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, —
tiiat his expressions were correct, as they were addressed
to a society which consisted only of Bajttists, — and that
there is a " natural order' in the christian institutions. It
has also been j^^'oved 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 the design of baptism, according to
the New Testament statements, shews us, that it natu-
ra//?/ 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 (jranted, and
on the oihex proved, 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
desiffnt 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 adminis-
tered them, we ought to follow it ; or else, it should be
proved that there was no 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 c?iVZact 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 the
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 rule, 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 ? 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 wro?igly : 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 ; for where it appears the
most precise, we shall err if we adopt it ! On this plan it
is in vain to look to the Neiv 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 the 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 this 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
wandering 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" inust be adjudged by the old rule, or it requires
a 7iew 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
to 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 conceniiug " tlie charge of dispensiug 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 v/hich
first ascertains the sense and bearing of an opponent's
argument, and then tries its strength; nor is it remarkauie
for the accuracy of its quotations, of which there may be
occasion to adduce instances.
Mr. 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 that I should not know that
the doctrine of dispensation was familiar to preceding
ages. {j). 96.) If on this point I had been in an error, it
wouid 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
133
that tliey assumed a power of tliis nature to a great ex-
tent. The " error" at vvliicli lie pretends to be surprised,
is an " error" of his own. That which was stated was,
what appeared to be the occasion which brought the ex-
pression " dispensing power" into common currency.
Though Mr. Hall thinks proper to find fault, he does
not shew that I was wrong, by proving that the exjiression
was in common, use hefore 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 theological controversy, and has been employed
by Mr. Booth and others in the present inquiry.
I shall now leave it with the reader to judge how far I
was justified in stating \cliat I did, and in stating it as
I did : namely, that " ihe expression 'dispensing power' —
was suggested, I apprehe7id, by a circumstance in English
History," (Bajj. 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 what, in our view icas
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 find 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." {p. 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 (l)at he hiys 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 viev/, the necessary result of obedience to that
comprehensiye 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 desiation 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." (p. 100.)
Comparing these passages together, it necessarily fol-
lows, that he who dispenses with a law, and he who tole?--
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, we
ought not to claim the power of dispensing with the law,
we can yet go quite as far, by tolerating 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 1 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-
ing 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.9S.) 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 law 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 understood." 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
forbearing 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,
135
and the system may then be carried to an interminahie
extent. If no such specimen can be found, and no Uiw
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 they had been taught
whether by word or apostolic epistle. (2 TJiess. 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 remark, 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 w ith the christian
church — had he shewn us what was the desifjn of that
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 c\xdiVge oi " sanctioning'' a
corruption of a sacred ordinance." {p. 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
bint whereby the place can be discovered. If the reader
takes Mr. Hall's word for it, he may go on without any
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") Mhich Mr. Hall has
137
marked, he must take considerable pains to obtain satis-
faction. In time he will be convinced that no such pas-
sage as that which Mr. Hall professes to quote exists!
Where he obtained it we know not. The participle,
sanctioning, we believe is never used except in quoting
our author's own words (see Baptism a term, ^c. p. 56) :
the verb to sanction, is used a few times ; but in no in-
stance that we can find, have we laid down such a propo-
sition as Mr. H. has brought forward, and of course we
need not support it.*
The succeeding paragraph brings foi'ward another pas-
sage, which Mr. Hall thinks fit 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, 106.) 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.
* When we have no reference we are left to conjecture; in Baptism a
term of Communion, p. 64, it is said, "The Protestants and Protestant
Dissenters refuse to unite with Roman Catholics and the Establishment,
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 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 adduces : but we have had instances of a similar mistake before.
138
But as he returns to the former proposition, which he
says is "untenable, we will attend briefly to his objec-
tions. He attempts to set the xVpostle 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,
whisperings, swellings, tumults, in the Corinthian church ;
— here was an omission of a law of Christ; — yet the
Apostle did not intimate "an intention to exclude' the
offenders — therefore, ou 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, were far 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 ; be expressed his fears that they
would be found such as he would not, and that God would
humble bim amono: them, bv brinarins: to light the e\il
tempers and evil conduct of those who he once hoped
were better cbaracters. But he was coming the third
time — the affair should be investigated — in the mouth of
two or tbree witnesses should every word be established ;
and he gave the offenders 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 will not spare. {See 2 Cor. s.ii. 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
he 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 laws should
be omitted. If in consequence of such a plea that law
was omitted, and the church which acted on this plan
received members who neither had obeyed that law, nor
ever intended to do so ; they then pursued exactlv the
same course as if the law was virtually repealed : and
their making toleration and forbearance reasons why thev
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 influence, would eventually operate as a
rejjeal of the law] It was in fact saying, Jesus Christ,
it is true, did enact such a law, but the state of things was
in his time different 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. Hero
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 " mistake," 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." (^jj.lOS.)
If Mr. H. means that this sentence expresses the sense of
our proposition, it is a " mistake" 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
who de7iy that baptism is obligatory, or who have no other
baptism than that which he denominates a nullity : 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
they ought to be sober, just, and temperate ; but when
they shewed, by displaying their evil passions, that they
were 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-
sent he would not spare. Would 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 identify have no similarity. The
Apostles would judge whether the profession of faith
made by those who offered themselves for baptism, was,
or was not sufficient, 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
support 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 pi-inciple, that though some of these laws not
only were not obeyed, but were no^ intended to be obeyed,
still they might be received with as much cordiality as if
they had obeyed them all. Yet this is the principle which
Mr. 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, (p. 110.) " the fffwrov -^svdog, 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 oi sulwerting under that jiretext the right of private
judgment^ The first part of this sentence is explained
by Mr. Hall himself in the following words ; " the 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 other means " to bind" the
consciences of others, than exhibiting what binds our
own : and as to our conduct towards those who do not
agree 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 presumplnous claim
of infallibiliiy , this assumption of the j)>'
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 v/hicli 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 vrhicli 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 thfe Gentile,
as the Gentile the Jew." We grant he was, for be 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, be 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 him, would
have heen 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
law : all that could be said concerning him was, *' let
every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
The A.postIe 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 believer ; — that he had no business
to judge another man's servant : " to his own master he
stand eth or falleth ; yea, he shall be 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 bad
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 Psedobaptist 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 Psedobaptists, 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
similar 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 Peedohaptism, 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 wliicli the Jew esteem-
ed to be still in force, and the Baptist, like the Jew, is
"weak in thefaitK\ 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
Paedobaptist 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 Paedobaptists, we shall not succeed fetter 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 supposes
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 weak brethren, who, it is true, were to
17-2
be lolerated, but who were very much prejudiced, and
very deficient in 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 applic3.tion.
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
Lope you will receive me, without pressing an attention to
mere ceremonies, of the importance of which I am not
convinced. No Pasdobaptist, 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 Pa>.do-
baptism (which Mr. Hall luwself tells us is " « mdliii/,"
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 ani/ other persons whatever.
Farther, the practical exhortation which the Apostle
gives {ver. 13, ^c. 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 stumblcth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast
M3
thou faith? have it to thyself before God." (uer. 21, 22.)
Though you are right, yet in 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 to
administer what they believe is an ordinance of Christ,
whenever it would hurt the minds of those who think it a
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 Pasdobaptist as a weak
hrotJier, 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 Pasdobaptist 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 Ptedobaptist, 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. 3Ir. 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." (/>, 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" rvas given against him ; and
though the Apostle was tender to his feelings, gave way
174
to his scruples, and acknowledged that to him who
" esteemeth any thing to he unclean, 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 whether 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 diflHculty; 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
m 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 iuAtance of this kind occurs in the Life of Josephus, the Jewish
Historian.
175
by their own countrymen. 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. Kinghorn'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 suppose 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 there is not a case on record, in
which forbearance and toleration were urged as reasons
for setting aside ANY divine institute, which at the timi
17(i
teas in force.'* Now what is Mr. Halls " instaRce"! 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." (p. 171.) Because they did not proceed immediatehj,
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 hegin at Jerusalem. {Luke xxiv. 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 ? If not, Mr. Halls
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, " in 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 his
Exposition on Mark xvi. 15.) So also on Matt. xyiviii. 19,
he says, " teach all nations, Jews and Gentiles, first the
one and then the other, the doctrines of the Gospel, and
178
the ordinances of it ; whatever they had learned from
Christ, or were ordered by him."
A part of Mr. Hall's charge against 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, repentaijce 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
revelation which God had made, or should think fit to
*" Brine's Refutatlou 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." (p. 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
lao
•was not the fact, the cases were not parallel. lu examin-
ing how tlie 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 Xew 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, ^re in the same
situation with the believing Gentiles when they were
baptised: but it is manifest that the cases are dissimilar,
and even,- 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 caase. Let him prove
that the Gentiles refused to be baptised, or that they re-
fused to comply with any other positi\e, universal precept
of Jesus Christ, and then we will allow, that whatever is
the principle of the Apostle's reasoning, will apply in botk
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 cot
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 modem inno-
vation are not the same, must be disposed of, and if an
answer cannot be found, it mast be run down.
Mr. Hall requests the reader to advert to the " inter-
minable discord and dissention with which this principle
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 amj
divine institute, which at the time was in force. His
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 I To make
his own cause look better, he enumerates varions 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," (j5. 175, 176.)
Such is his opinion of the systems which he himself brings
forward. Nowobserye his inference: " 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'' (JPref. 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 alFair
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
p^dobaptists, 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 members, 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." f|7.19-i,
194.) It seems then, that there may be societies, com-
posed of individual members 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 doubt. So that in the absence of certainty, even a doubt
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 adds,
" hut it is NOT upon this ground that my opponent objects
to the practice for which we are contending.'' If llic
reader refers to Baptism a term of Communion, he will
find in that chapter which relates to the present part ot
the argument, a variety of passages which shew the ground
on which it was placed, and he can then judge how liir
Mr. Hal! 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 princijjle 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. 194:.)
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 imaginable 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 our
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"; (/>. 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
we 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 term" yfhich
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
favourite 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 J" — 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.
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
18.9
membership. He 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 frojii 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 " pu?iishment", but let him prove that
we withhold from those who he confesses are unhaptised,
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 v,e 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 unhaptised, but the plain interpretation of
190
the will of Christ {See 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 Paedo-
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,
{p. 61.) that the cases were not similar : "in one case the
party is declared unworthy from moral delinquency : in
the other he is not declared umvorthy, but only unquali-
Jied". We should have supposed this statement was suf-
ficiently clear to answer the purpose for which it was
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
" unqualified": 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 "un-
worthy" any farther notice.
Enough has been said to prove that the question was
justly stated in ' Baptism a term 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"? Mr.
Hall quotes a few lines, — calls them an " evasion", and
attempts a reply, (p. 212, 213.) In the paragraph which
he had before hirn it is stated, that the question is not
whether the Peedobaptists 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 en
this basis ; on the contrary, he asserts that they have
not submitted to it at all. But to whatever extent ihei/
misconceive it, he gives it up ; for though he may admit
that it has a claim on a christian's attention in his indivi-
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 will 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 NewTestament,
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, they
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 Pajdobaptists] 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 the 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 7iot "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 disti4bnted into tliree 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 Psedobaptists 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 diflerence 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." (p. 219, 220.) "Hence", he says, "the
concurrent testimonies of the Fathers of the three or
u
194
four first cenlnries, 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 paedobaptism, 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 iinhaptised ? Did they admit them, while
they declared their baptism invalid, and a mdlity ? Did
they plead for their reception on the ground oi 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 imhaptised. 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 entertaii>ed of the consequence of baptism,
especially .when received from administrators who were
liigh in public estimation, and were supposed to have
185
spirituiil 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 tliat opinion of bap-
tism received in infancy, which Baptists now form of
paedobaptism.
In our former treatise Gyprian 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 V {Baptism a term of
C'om?nunion, p. 153, 15-1.) It is acknowledged such per-
sons were not admitted ; but it is alleged Cyprian admitted
Baptists and Padobaptists, 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 enjojed unless the one baplis?n 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 in 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 unity ! He supposed
that whoever did not hold the uniti/ 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. |Je
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, 5, &c.
197
strongly stated his own opinion, he did not prescribe it as
a law which other ministei's were bound to follow. (Vide
Epist. ad Julian. § 19, &c.)
But suppose we suffer Mr. Hall 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 some
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 unbaptised. 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." (p. 246.) But what are " the maxims of anti-
quity"? 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 absurdities 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. p. 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-
prian's "maxims," without condemning his own? How can
he shew that any of those "maxims" which declared bap-
tism to be the sacrament of unity that kept the church in
one body, can be applied to a church formed on his prin-
ciples ? How can he prove that the ancients anticipated
a " new case" in which the unity of the church was to be
promoted by holding different opinions, 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 Catholics 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 iheir
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, Ids 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 coidd be no mixed communion ; and, dur-
ing the succeeding early ages, it is manifest, there was 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
I 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 hy 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 np,
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 conform to the mandates of revelation," {p. 256) to
"organise" the church at owr pleasure, and to "enact"
that one of the ordinances which Christ lias appointed,
shall be removed from its place.
** The Baptists, Mr. Kinghorn informs us, consider
themselves as holding to notice one neglected truth." The
reference is, ' Baptism a term of Communion, p. 69."
What does Mr. Hall infer from hence ? " it is the jt?rm-
ciple thus distinctly avowed, to which 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. Hall deny either that they
do so, or that they ought to do so ? As to what he calls
** the principle,^' 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 practice of a jjarti-
€ular ceremony, 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 deny 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
the 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 little 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 notiiing more revolting to the dictates of common
sense." {p. 265.) This passage strongly shews the contempt
in which Mr. Hall holds little Baptist teachers, and informs
them with how much scorn he (hinks 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 these 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 him 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
little 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 pf no evidence
that any of them adopted his sentiments, or evei* 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 nulliti/.
Some assertions are 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
th» doctrine of transubstantiation is, and will continue to
repeat such an assertion, will probably meet with none
who will controvert his 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. 2C5.)
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 saci'ijice 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-membership 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 ai'e opposed to the unity of the church,
and our present defence will be accused of tending to
increase the spirit of division, let 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 Koman 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-r-baptism — and
obedience to what he has commanded. In the present
inquiry we have not had to contend for minuticB which we
supposed were concealed in the general expression, all
things whatsoever I have commanded you, and which, it
^light be said, were open to endless debate ; we have had
205
to call the reader's attention to an ordinance expressly
named bv the Lord himself, and which was the only visible
institution he thought proper to specify in his Commission.
Sino^ular as it may appear to some persons, whoever ad-
mits 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 in
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
amj9M?a;
-s*
("■