Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2015 
 
 https://archive.org/details/conversationsbetOOfull 
 
CONVERSATIONS 
 
 BETWEEN TWO LAYMEN, 
 
 ON 
 
 STRICT AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 BY J. G. FULLER. 
 
 Price, Four Shillings and Sixpence. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following pages are the result of a careful 
 examination, for the third time, of the arguments 
 usually advanced in favour of mixed communion. 
 This examination is assignable, not so much to 
 the recent publication of a compendium of those 
 arguments, from the pen of their most eloquent 
 advocate, as to an expectation, generally enter- 
 tained, that mixed communion might shortly 
 become a practical question in the church of 
 which the writer is a member. This circum- 
 stance has certainly induced him to devote more 
 attention to the controversy, than its merits, as 
 
 a 2 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 a speculative inquiry, would either demand or 
 justify : and, as the design, though for a time 
 abandoned, may not be entirely relinquished, he 
 offers no apology for respectfully submitting to 
 the candid and serious consideration of all who 
 feel interested in the inquiry, the reasons, which 
 appear, to him, to justify an adherence to the 
 confessedly scriptural pattern of restricted com- 
 munion. 
 
 If the most cordial esteem for many of those 
 whose sentiments are opposed to his own, both 
 Baptists and Pedobaptists, and a grateful recol- 
 lection of friendly intercourse for a series of years, 
 might induce neutrality, or even a silent opposition 
 to such an innovation, this formal defence of 
 what, in the opinion of the writer, is unequivocally 
 " Christian Communion," would never have been 
 pubUshed. But the inquiry. What is truth ? 
 recognizes, not personal friendships, but Christian 
 principles ; and when the constitution of a church 
 is invaded, or threatened, it becomes the duty o 
 every member who believes it is scriptural, instead 
 of timidly resigning the cause, under the spe- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 VII 
 
 cious pretence of preserving peace, temperately, 
 but firmly, to defend it to the utmost of his 
 ability. The circumstance of our opponents being 
 Christians, and Christian friends, while it must 
 necessarily render an opposition to their measures 
 extremely painful and distressing, may not for a 
 moment be pleaded in justification of a compro- 
 mise of principle ; and should we ever impose on 
 ourselves such a manifest delusion, we should 
 richly deserve the ridicule and contempt which 
 would be our inevitable portion. "The wisdom 
 that is from above, is first pure, then peaceable : " 
 and that peace which is purchased by the pros- 
 tration of principle, is an ignominious peace — 
 unscriptural in its origin, unholy in its nature, 
 pernicious in its tendency, and eminently pre- 
 carious in its tenure and duration. 
 
 One circumstance, and one alone — (for "re- 
 ligious inquiry is an affair of principles, not of 
 persons,") — induces the writer, in this place, to 
 make a special, individual allusion to his highly- 
 respected friend, whose publications have again 
 fanned to a flame the dying embers of this 
 
VI 11 
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 unhappy controversy — that honoured individual 
 is his Pastor ; nor, apart from the revival of this 
 dispute, and certain irregularities to which his 
 theory naturally tends, has the pleasure with 
 which that important connexion was contemplated 
 been in the least degree impaired. Unconvinced 
 by his reasonings on terms of communion,* the 
 
 * It is a most singular coincidence, that at the very time when 
 the " Reasons for Christian Communion" made their appearance, the 
 Unitarians (for they also, it seems, have their bigots and liberals !) 
 had just terminated a magazine controversy, in which certain reasons, 
 not altogether dissimilar, were assigned in favour of antichristian 
 communion, or a church-fellowship of Unitarian believers and avowed 
 unbelievers ! A Mr. Noah Jones lamented the existence of such 
 mired communion, and ventured to protest against it ; when, as he 
 might rationally have expected, he was hberally assailed, by a host 
 of latitudinarians, with the convenient, common-place phrases, 
 "intolerance — bigotry — narrow-mindedness — sectarianism," &cc. &c. — 
 the special accusation of "schism" not excepted ! Of the reasons 
 advanced by the liberal party, in favour of the ri^ht of unbelievers to 
 a place in Unitarian societies, and against the impolicy of rejecting 
 them, the following may serve as a specimen : — 
 
 Their error is sincere, coNsciENXiors, akd involuntary- 
 — " They canjiof believe." — "There is no doubt, as most of them 
 are sincere, they would be glad to have their minds settled, and their 
 anxiety reUeved. Some of them are desirous to hear their difficulties 
 discussed." — " Shall we be following the example of Jesus, or acting 
 upon his spirit, when we say to our brethren, for an iniohmtary 
 difference of opinion, ' Stand by, for we are holier than you' ? " — 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 IX 
 
 writer would reflect discredit on himself, were he 
 insensible, either to the charms of his eloquence 
 
 " A great distiuction ought to be made, between the irreligious 
 infidel ; and the serious, the religious sceptic ; who is anxious, but 
 unable to obtain conviction ; who is moral, conscientious, and devout." 
 — "May not the opinions of the unbeUever be the result of as 
 diligent, candid, honest, sincere investigation, as those beUeved to be 
 true by the Christian ? Is it not within the range of probabihty, 
 that, from the evidence which strikes his mind, his conclusions may 
 be correct? (!) Such an assumption, surely, is not unfair: why 
 then should this reformer presume to hold him up to notice as an 
 unworthy member of any society? Would he not have exhibited 
 more modesty, had he acquired more correct notions of Christian 
 charity, before he threw out his ilUberal insinuations against men 
 who are as sincere and virtuous, as they are benevolent and in- 
 telligent 1. " 
 
 Ch AniTY. — " The spirit of Christianity is an enlarged, a benevolent 
 spirit, which fears no imaginary contamination, and can extend the 
 right hand of fellowship to every sincere and virtuous man." — " In 
 comparison with a society of men acting upon such narrow notions of 
 the genuine spirit of Christianity, as Mr. J. seems to entertain, how 
 much superior would be his ' curious Christian church, consisting of 
 a mixed assemblage of Christian believers, and Deists, Jews, and 
 Mahometans.' " — " Jesus was no respecter of persons. He was not 
 so exclusively squeamish, or delicately particular, as Mr. J. is de- 
 sirous modem Unitarians should be. He deemed it to be of more 
 importance to impress upon his followers, that they would be known 
 to be his disciples, if they ' bved one another.' " 
 
 Weak in the faith. — ' If they do not, with us, believe in the 
 Divine mission of Jesus, they believe he was the greatest of men, 
 superior even to Socrates,' — " Let us set the example of a true — an 
 
X 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 in the Christian cause, or to the superior attrac- 
 tions of his Christian character. And though he 
 
 universal toleration ; and receive every one of every denomination, 
 however dark in faith. — It has been said, ' Him that is weak 
 in the faith receive ye :' and we must first abjure our own best 
 and most sacred principles before we can attempt to cast them 
 out." 
 
 God will receive him. — " Do we not believe, that ii virtuous 
 and true to his convictions, he will be acceptable to his Maker now, 
 and the heit of eternal life hereafter ? May he not possibly be our 
 companion in future f and shall we shun him in this life 1 " 
 
 You REJECT BETTER MEN THAN YOU RECEIVE. " He may be 
 
 an object of as great, if not of greater approbation, in the sight of 
 his Maker, than one who has faith to remove mountains, and yet 
 has not the spirit o{ his Master." — "Should a man make a con- 
 fession of Christ, Mr. J. is willing to be his associate, and to allow 
 him all the privileges of a society of Christians : if he be a Gardiner, 
 a Bonner, or a Horsley, he will give him the right hand of fellow- 
 ship. But should he be a Hobbes, a Collins, a Hume, or a Dr. 
 Franklin, he must be banbhed a Unitarian Society ! " 
 
 A NEW CASE. — Mr. Jones and his friends had intimated that our 
 Saviour and his apostles drew a line of separation between believers 
 and unbelievers ; and doubtless they thought this was conclusive : 
 but they were mistaken ! a new case presents itself! — " I am pre- 
 pared to say, (says one of these advocates for mixed communion,) 
 that in the time of our Saviour and his apostles, there did not exist 
 such a body of men as the present class of unbelievers; I mean, 
 inquiring, conscientious unbelievers." 
 
 Impolicy of strict communion. — " Would it not be very 
 improper to do any thing which might prevent unbelievers from 
 coming to our religious meetings, where they have the best chance 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xi 
 
 would be ashamed to apologize to the most ele- 
 vated of his fellow-men, for a firm resistance to 
 what he sincerely believes to be an unscriptural 
 and unauthorized innovation, yet he feels he 
 should be deficient in the respect due to a pastor, 
 were he to withhold, what, under other circum- 
 stances, might be presumed unnecessary, or even 
 officious — an unequivocal expression of the most 
 cordial attachment to his ministry, accompanied 
 by the sincere prayer that his Christian services 
 may be prolonged to a very distant period. 
 
 of receiving instruction in the evidences of Christianity, of hearing 
 judicious answers to their objections," &c. — " Will it be wise in us 
 to exclude them from perhaps the only opportunity they have of 
 gaining these advantages, and of hearing the truth as it is in Jesus "> 
 Will it be a proof of wisdom, instead of preaching to those who 
 require to be convinced, to confine our instructions to those alone 
 who need no enlightening, whose principles have long been con- 
 firmed ? " — " How are we to make converts to our own clearer light, 
 if we close our doors on all who are not of our manner of thinking ? 
 Where else are they to hear our sentiments? " 
 
 In the course of the controversy, an avowed Deist unites in the 
 hue and cry against the bigotry and intolerance of poor Mr. Jones, 
 and of one or two others who had ventured to defend the plan of 
 restricted communion ; eulogizes the liberahty and candour of the 
 more enlightened party ; and congratulates his brethren on " the 
 glowing eloquence " with which their rights had been asserted ! 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The writer feels no disposition to attribute to 
 personal disesteem, the remarks contained in some 
 of the publications alluded to, relative to his de- 
 ceased parent ; since, apart from the present 
 controversy, few, if any, have more respectfully 
 eulogized his character, than the writer of those 
 remarks. While, therefore, certain matters of 
 fact excepted, he believes they are totally un- 
 founded, he is at no loss to account for them on 
 other principles : he is only astonished, that a 
 mind so exalted, should be capable, even in con- 
 troversy, of condescending to an indiscriminate 
 depreciation of the performance of an opponent, 
 by the imputation of dishonourable motives. It is 
 a little singular too, and rather amusing, to wit- 
 ness such a disproportionate expenditure of in- 
 genuity and labour, to invalidate arguments so 
 very feeble and equivocal ! The reader is informed, 
 that Mr. Fuller's pamphlet on Communion is 
 " the feeblest of all his productions." Then, 
 surely, it was scarcely worth while violently to 
 torture and pervert his motives, and even to 
 insinuate, that, within a few months of his decease, 
 he employed himself in m,aking experiments on the 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xiii 
 
 credulity of his surviving admirers ! To say no 
 thing of the injustice of such insinuations, where 
 existed the necessity of employing them against 
 arguments so feeble and precarious ? The in- 
 telligent reader will scarcely fail to suspect, that 
 a production which required such a mode of reply 
 is not exactly so insignificant as is pretended. 
 But, whatever be the merits of the pamphlet, (of 
 which the present writer will scarcely be con- 
 sidered an impartial judge,) it is rigidly due to 
 its author, and to the cause which he at least 
 honestly pleaded, to supply a slight omission in 
 the " Reasons for Christian Communion," in re- 
 lation to the transaction at Cambridge ; which 
 might, and which should have been supplied, 
 by its eloquent author, from the very first page 
 of the pamphlet he has so singularly criticised. — 
 " So far (says Mr. Fuller,) have I been from 
 indulging a sectarian, or party spirit, that my 
 desire for communion with all who were friendly 
 to the Saviour, has, in one instance, led me prac- 
 tically to deviate from my general sentiments on 
 the subject — the reflection on which, how- 
 ever, HAVING AFFORDED ME NO SATISFACTION, 
 b 
 
xiv 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 I DO NOT INTEND TO REPEAT IT."* The 
 
 partial representation alluded to, in connexion 
 
 * The writer desires, in this place, to express his grateful ac- 
 knowledgments to j\Ir. Ivimey and j\Ir. Kinghom, for their prompt 
 and generous defence of his deceased parent, from the charge of 
 controversial duplicity. He presumes he may take the liberty of tran- 
 scribing two or three short extracts &om their publications. 
 
 " I fearlessly ask, (says Mr. Ivimey,) Who, that knew Mr. Fuller's 
 doctrine and manner of life, will be of Mi. Hall's opinion — that 
 Andrew Fuller should leave a manuscript, with a solemn charge to 
 print it after his death, if jNIr. Hall should publish in support of 
 open communion ; and this, not as ' the result of liis deliberate and 
 settled conviction,' but 'rather with a view to provoke further 
 inquiry'!' I could almost as soon believe, that the Apostle Pan! 
 wrote his Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, merely with a 
 view to provoke inquiry as to what could be said of the merit of 
 man's good works, and not to establish the doctrine of justification 
 by faith, ^\-ithout the deeds of the law." — Communion at the Lord's 
 Table Regulated hy the Revealed Will of Christ, not Party but Christian 
 Communion, Pref. p. 7. 
 
 " Mr. Hall insinuates, (observes Blr. Kinghom,) that Mr. Fuller 
 did not sincerelif believe that strict communion was founded on truth. 
 He produces what he calls ' circumstances,' wliich led him to believe 
 tliat ' all along Blr. Fuller felt some hesitation on the subject, and that 
 his miud was not completely made up ; ' and afterwards adds, ' Hence 
 I am compelled to consider his posthumous tract rather as a trial of 
 Wiiat might be adduced on that side of the controversy, with a view 
 to provoke farther inquiry, tlian the result of deliberate and settled 
 conviction.' — So then, IMr. Fuller wrote a pamphlet in defence of 
 what he did not fully believe, and authorized Dr. Newman, on con- 
 ditions, to publish it as his opinion ! If Mr. Fuller did this, he was 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Xv 
 
 with the concealment of the avowed motives, and 
 the imputation of reasons which had no existence, 
 while it is eminently calculated to mislead, and 
 doubtless will mislead no inconsiderable number 
 of Mr. Hall's admirers, furnishes a lesson we 
 shall do well to remember — we see now, with 
 all their pretensions to superior liberality, what 
 an ungenerous advantage will be taken by our 
 opponents, if, in an unguarded moment, under 
 the influence of feeling, or of affectionate per- 
 suasion, we should permit ourselves to forget the 
 dictates of a cool and deliberate judgment. 
 
 Two objections have generally been urged 
 against a conversational discussion of a contro- 
 
 not tlie mau we took him to be. — It is very surprising that any one 
 should suspect him, who has any acquaintance witli his character, 
 and who has read only the first sentence of his work. It was 
 written in the form of a letter to a friend ; and he begins it by say- 
 ing, 'The long and intimate friendship that I have lived in, and 
 hope to die in, with several who are differently minded with me on 
 this subject, may acquit me of any other motive in what I write, 
 
 than A DESIRE TO VINDICATE WHAT APPEARS TO ME TO EE THE 
 
 MIND OF Christ.' " — Arguments against the Practice of Mixed Com- 
 launion, with Preliminary Obiervatims on Rev. R. Hall's Reasons for 
 Christian, in Opposition, to Party Communion, pp. 23, 24. 
 
XVI 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 versy — that the arguments of an opponent are 
 feebly constructed, and that victory is invariably 
 awarded to the author. Both these objections, 
 the present writer has endeavoured to obviate ; 
 for, while a sense of delicacy induced him to 
 represent the controversy as conducted between 
 two laymen, (which is not entirely a fiction,) the 
 arguments in favour of mixed communion have 
 been generally and copiously quoted from those 
 publications to which the friends of that system 
 are proud to refer us, as their highest human 
 authority.* Nor, in a single instance, has the 
 writer represented his opponent as conceding 
 the point at issue — an artifice, as flimsy as 
 it is contemptible ; since, whatever be the 
 conviction of either party, the public will not, 
 in deference to our self-complacency, resign 
 their undoubted privilege of judging for them- 
 selves. 
 
 * On Terms of Communion. Secotid Edition. 
 
 Essentia] Difiference between Christian Baptism and the Baptism 
 of John. Third Edition. 
 
 Reply to BIr. Kinghom. First Edition. 
 
 Reasons for Christian, in Opposition to Party Communion. Fint 
 Edition. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 XV a 
 
 It may possibly be regretted, that so much at- 
 tention has been devoted to the nature of John's 
 baptism : it will be proper, therefore, to observe, 
 in explanation, that it was dictated, not so much 
 by a conviction of the intrinsic importance of the 
 argument in its bearing on the general question, 
 as by the fact, that some highly respectable in- 
 dividuals have changed their views on the terms 
 of communion, avowedly in deference to that 
 argument alone, as illustrated by our eloquent 
 opponent ! 
 
 The preceding observations, with the exception 
 of the notes, were written in 1826. Since then, 
 many circumstances have concurred to induce the 
 writer to submit to the candid attention of his 
 Denomination, the pages originally written, but 
 not now published, with a special reference to a 
 particular church. The tendency of mixed com- 
 munion is becoming every day more apparent, 
 and its deteriorating and dissociating influence 
 more visible. Every successive month brings 
 " certain strange things" to our ears — a standing 
 
XVlll 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 ordinance of Jesus Christ displaced, contemned, 
 and decried — its very mention deprecated — 
 natural allusions to it studiously avoided — the 
 almost total suppression, in the Christian ministry, 
 of one part of "the counsel of God" — the re- 
 ception of members, without any baptism, with- 
 out Christian baptism notwithstanding a renun- 
 ciation of the ceremony performed in infancy, 
 and without any public confession of faith in 
 Christ, beyond a knowledge of character and 
 personal appearance in the temple of mixed com- 
 munion — clandestine admissions of unbaptised 
 persons to the Lord's-table — attempts to enforce 
 mixed communion — unnecessary and unwelcome 
 collision with Pedobaptist churches* — the con- 
 stitution of Baptist churches altered by way of 
 experiment — the necessary expulsion of conscien- 
 tious Strict Baptists — defective discipline — a 
 general relaxation from primitive Christianity — 
 
 * For some admirable observations on this subject, combining 
 with sound argument, the most genuine Christian feeling towards 
 our Pedobaptist brethren, the reader is referred to Mr. Ivimeys 
 " Baptism the Scriptural and IndisBensable Qualificatimfor Communion 
 at the Lord's Table." Chap. II. 5 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xix 
 
 a disposition to sacrifice another "non-essential," 
 the Lord's-supper, whenever the supposed interests 
 of peace and union shall make the demand — 
 private baptisms, in compliance with the special 
 desire of Pedobaptist members — the celebration of 
 believers' baptism in the morning, and of infant 
 baptism in the afternoon of the same day, 
 in the same place, the morning preacher being 
 especially requested not to plead for his views of 
 baptism, by a non-compliance with which the 
 Pedobaptist members were greatly offended ! — 
 indications these, (and others might be enu- 
 merated,) clear and strong, of the tendency of 
 mixed communion. 
 
 One portentous result of the proposed inno- 
 vation, conceded by our eloquent opponent himself, 
 ought never to be forgotten — the extinction 
 OF BAPTIST churches! "Were that practice 
 universally to prevail, (he says,) the mixture of 
 Baptists and Pedobaptists in Christian societies 
 would probably, ere long, be such, that the ap- 
 pellation of Baptist might be found, not so pro- 
 perly applicable to churches as to individuals." 
 
XX 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 In this, then, all parties are agreed — that the 
 tendency of mixed communion is to annihilate, as 
 such, all the baptist churches in Christendom ! — to 
 dissolve the only community of Christians, which, 
 (in the opinion of Sir Isaac Newton,) never sym- 
 bolized with the church of Rome ! — to unchurch the 
 only churches in the world, in which, (our opponents 
 themselves being judges,) the ordinances of Jesus 
 Christ are kept as they were delivered! " They 
 that have ears to hear, let them hear !" 
 
 On this subject, Mr. Kinghorn observes, that 
 "the greatest enemies the Baptists have, cannot 
 wish for more than to see them placed in the 
 situation to which Mr. Hall's system would, 
 by his own confession, conduct them ; — without 
 churches of their own — merely individuals blended 
 with others of opposite views — neutralized in their 
 statements — with ministers who, perhaps, are not 
 Baptists, or who, if they are, in that liberal state 
 of things would surely not be such " bigots," as 
 to run the risk of offending any of their hearers 
 by pleading for baptism — and surrounded by those 
 who directly or indirectly would continually be 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 repeating the sound, that positive ordinances are 
 of very little consequence, and whether they are 
 received or rejected is of no importance, provided 
 every one is fully persuaded in his own mind ! 
 It is time for us, in this state of things, to act with 
 circumspection and becoming firmness. It is ma- 
 nifestly the duty of the members of our churches, 
 and of those who sustain the office of deacons and 
 ministers, to put the question to themselves and 
 to each other — Do you wish to promote the dis- 
 solution and ruin of the Baptist Denomination, as 
 such? If you do, Mr. Hall tells you his system 
 will effect the purpose : but if you do not, take 
 heed to your ways ! " * 
 
 Whether the sentiments advanced in the fol- 
 lowing pages, or their publication, be approved or 
 disapproved, the writer hopes he shall at least 
 obtain credit for sincerity. He has not written by 
 way of "experiment;" but from "a deep and 
 deliberate conviction," on the one hand, that 
 
 • Arguments against the Practice of Mixed Communion, pp. 26, 
 27. — An unanswerable epitome of the whole contrOTCrsy, comprised 
 in a few pages, at a very moderate price. 
 
zxii 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 the system of mixed communion is not "from 
 heaven," but " of men," — an infringement on the 
 authority of the Christian Legislator, neither right 
 nor wise ; and, on the other hand, that the cause 
 which he has the honour to advocate, is un- 
 equivocally the cause of God and truth — of peace 
 and "Christian communion." 
 
 In conclusion, he would merely observe, that 
 should he be instrumental in convincing only a 
 few, of the duty of adhering, in the constitution 
 of their churches, to the confessedly "natural and 
 prescribed order" of the Christian ordinances, 
 they will possess an advantage peculiarly their 
 own — their honest conviction will be in no danger 
 of being invalidated, by the imputation that they 
 have surrendered their judgment to the authority of 
 
 " A GREAT NAME." 
 
 Bristol, 1828. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CONVERSATION I. p^^^ 
 
 General and Preliminary Observations 1 
 
 CONVERSATION II. 
 Baptism and the Lord's-supper, anterior and subsequent to 
 the Death of Christ, circumstantially different, but essentially 
 
 the same 25 
 
 CONVERSATION III. 
 Baptism as indispensable a Pre-requisite to external Church- 
 fellowship, as Faith is to Baptism 65 
 
 CONVERSATION IV. 
 The Example of the Apostles, in their Obedience to their Lord's 
 Commission, an inspired Explanation of their Lord's Will, 
 and a Pattern intended for the Imitation of the Church in all 
 succeeding Ages 99 
 
 CONVERSATION V. 
 A Strict Adherence, in the Constitution of our Churches, to the 
 Laws of Christ, as exemplified in the uniform Practice of the 
 Apostles, not Schism, but Christian Union 133 
 
 CONA'ERSATION VI. 
 A Reception to Church-fellowship of all whom God has re- 
 
 ceived, in Obedience to the Christian Commission, but not in 
 Deviation from it, the imperative Duty of Christian Churches, 
 notwithstanding a Diversity of Opinion and Practice in re- 
 lation to Matters of Indifference 171 
 
 CONVERSATION VII. 
 A Strict Adlierence to the Commission of Christ, in the Forma- 
 tion of our Churches, neither Bigotry nor Folly ; and a 
 Deviation from it, in Deference to Rlodern Error, neither 
 Charity nor Christian Wisdom 205 
 
CONVERSATION I. 
 
 GENERAL AND PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
ANALYSIS. 
 
 The controversy introduced by IMixtus. — Christian and party 
 communion. — The Anti-sectarian sect. — All Christians entitled to 
 the privileges of the Christian church, but not in deviation from 
 the order of Divine appomtment. — Pious Pedobaptists entitled 
 to the privileges of church-fellowship. — But their title does not in- 
 volve our obligation to unite with them. — Their uniform wilhngness 
 and desire to unite with Baptists, in the celebration of the Lord's- 
 supper, accounted for.— Dr. Dwight's defence of strict communion, 
 in which he is supported by Dr. Doddridge. — The consciences of 
 Pedobaptists their directory, but not ours. — Our actions must be re- 
 gulated by our own consciences. — Further discussion proposed. — The 
 feelings of a Christian no certain criterion of truth. — Feehng should 
 be subject to an enhghtened judgment, and both must agree with the 
 mind of Christ. — Strict communion not opposed to the genius of the 
 gospel. — Nor a mortification of our best and hohest propensities — 
 Occasional communion. — A worse mixed communion alleged against 
 us, acknowledged, and defended. — In receiving Christians to 
 church-fellowship, we must recognize the authority of the Head of 
 the church. — Illustration of the principle on which we advocate strict 
 communion. — No bigotry in this. — Baptism, it is universally acknow- 
 ledged, was a term of communion : therefore a term of communion still, 
 unless the law which made it such was of temporary obhgation, or 
 has since been abrogated. — If the law be abrogated, where is the 
 authority for restricting baptism to believers ! if it be twt abrogated, 
 that is our authority for strict communion. — Let our opponents 
 acknowledge the commission as a whole, or not at all. — Invitation 
 to further discussion accepted. — Jliitus proposes to quote Mr. Hall. — 
 John's baptism. 
 
1. 
 
 MiXTUS. Good evening, friend Strictus : 
 I was just wishing you would call. 
 
 Strictus. I am obliged to you : I hope you are 
 well. 
 
 M. Very well, I thank you; and quite in high 
 spirits. 
 
 S. So I perceive : but why ? 
 
 M. Why, my friend, I have just been reading 
 Mr. Hall's " Reasons for Christian Com- 
 munion"; and they are so clear, and so conclu- 
 sive, that I cannot help hoping they will convince 
 even you ! 
 
 S. Indeed ! and of what do you suppose they 
 will convince me ? 
 
 M. Of the duty of "Christian Communion." 
 
 5. But I am convinced of that already. 
 
 M. Not you, indeed : yours is " Parti/ Com- 
 munion." * 
 
 ' " It is no sin to belong to o party ; for tliat unavoidably results 
 from the exercise of private judgment, and tbe tendency to union in 
 kindred minds. — Those who profess to belong to no party, seem to 
 be little aware that they are themselves a party. They liave some very 
 respectable leaders, and they are The Avn-stCTAnijiN Sect." — 
 Dr. Newman. Baptism an Indispetuabte Prerequisite to Communion at 
 the Lord's Table. 
 
4 
 
 GENERAL AND 
 
 .S'. But I hope the party to which you and I 
 belong, are Christians. And surely, communion 
 ■with those who are not only Christians in common 
 with other denominations, but who, in distinction 
 from them, have avowed their Christianity in the 
 precise mode which Christ expressly appointed for 
 that purpose, must be Christian communion. 
 
 31. Still, it is partt/ communion, being re- 
 stricted to Christians of one parti/ only : but Mr. 
 Hall has proved that all Christians are entitled to 
 the eucharist. 
 
 .S'. A position, which no one denies. Un- 
 doubtedly, they are entitled, in the strictest sense 
 of the term, not only to the Lord's-supper, but to 
 all the privileges of the Christian church ; but it 
 does not follow that they are entitled to any, in de- 
 viation from the order of Divine appointment. Nei- 
 ther are baptism and the Lord's-supper privileges 
 only : they are also duties, incumbent on all believers. 
 But then. He who enjoined their observance, also 
 fixed the order in which they should be observed ; 
 and that order, being of Divine appointment, 
 is, in our opinion, as imperative as the duties 
 themselves. 
 
 M. But Mr. Hall contends that sincere and 
 conscientious Pedobaptists, whose mistake is in- 
 voluntary, are entitled to a participation of the 
 privileges of church-fellowship. 
 
 6'. And here again we are agreed. Most 
 assuredly, on their own principles, they are entitled 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 5 
 
 to the privileges of church-fellowship. Sincerely 
 believing they have entered the visible church in 
 the way of Divine appointment, their title to its 
 peculiar privileges inevitably follows ; since every 
 Christian is under a sacred obligation to recognize 
 what he sincerely believes to be the Divine will. 
 Unquestionably, it is the duty of every man to 
 believe and obey the truth : but then, it is equally 
 evident, that every man must ascertain for himself 
 what is truth, and what is duty ; and that which, 
 after an impartial examination of the best evidence 
 within his reach, he believes to be the truth, he is 
 undoubtedly bound to obey. His belief may be 
 erroneous ; but while it is his belief, his practice 
 must correspond, or he will be convicted of living 
 in the neglect of that which he believes to be a 
 Christian duty. Whatever blame attaches to him, 
 if any, is imputable, not to his practice, but to his 
 belief, of which his practice is the necessary result; 
 and his belief, if erroneous, is criminal or innocent, 
 in proportion as it is voluntary or involuntary. 
 But they who honestly believe, after an impartial 
 examination of the best evidence, that they have 
 received Christian baptism— that they have entered 
 the visible church in the way of Divine appoint- 
 ment — are undoubtedly entitled to a participation 
 of its peculiar privileges. 
 
 M. And yet you would not U7iite with these 
 sincere and conscientious Pedobaptists, in the 
 duties and privileges of church-fellowship ! 
 B 2 
 
6 
 
 GENERAL AND 
 
 S. Would you, my friend, uitile with them, in 
 the ceremony which they believe to be Christian 
 baptism ? 
 
 M. Certainly not. 
 
 S. And yet we think they are as justly en- 
 titled to baptize without a profession of faith, 
 as to partake of the Lord's-supper prior to their 
 reception of Christian baptism. They have, in 
 our opinion, no scriptural authority for either. In 
 both cases they act on their own belief, and on 
 their own responsibility : consequently, on their 
 own principles, they do right in partaking of the 
 Lord's-supper, though in our opinion unbaptized — 
 their conviction, and not ours, being their proper 
 directory. But, in neither case, may the dictates 
 of their consciences be the directory of wij/ actions : 
 these must be regulated by the dictates of my con- 
 science : and it is no more a consequence, that, 
 because, on their own principles, they are entitled 
 to the Lord's-supper, therefore it is my duty to 
 unite with them in that ordinance, than that, 
 because, on their own principles, they are entitled 
 to baptize their infants, therefore it is your duty 
 lo unite with them in that ceremony. Their pri- 
 vilege and our duty, are not, in either case, ne- 
 cessarily identified. And if Mr. Hall has proved 
 no more than he proposes to prove, viz. That all 
 Christians are entitled to the privileges of church- 
 fellowship ; so far as his ultimate object is con- 
 cerned, he might just as well have done nothing. 
 
PREI.IMINAUY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 7 
 
 His ultimate position is, that it is our duty to unite 
 with Pedobaptists in church-fellowship ; but all 
 he even proposes to establish, in his last publica- 
 tion, is, their title to the eucharist. But who does 
 not perceive the difference between these two 
 propositions ? and that proof of the latter falls 
 short of establishing- the former ? Suppose t/ieir 
 title to the privileges of the Christian church were 
 established by arguments the most numerous and 
 conclusive — what then? what is accomplished? 
 what is produced ? A fine chain of reasoning, 
 complete in itself, perhaps; but, for tlie purpose 
 for which it was wrought, utterly useless — dangling 
 in the hand, and falling to the ground, just for 
 want of a single link, to unite tlie last in the 
 chain with the ultimate position — a connecting 
 argument, that shall clearly prove that the pri- 
 vilege of the Pedobaptist and the duty of the 
 Baptist are inseparable. 
 
 M. But in a joint participation of the eucharist, 
 you would unite in an ordinance concerning which 
 you are agreed, and in which both act conscien- 
 tiously, each believing himself to be baptized. 
 
 S. But not each believing that the other is 
 baptized. Our Pedobaptist brethren would act 
 consistently throughout : acknowledging our bap- 
 tism equally with their own, they would not make 
 the slightest sacrifice of principle ; and this will 
 account for their uniform willingness to unite with 
 us. With a few modern exceptions, theij could 
 
8 
 
 GENERAL AND 
 
 not, any more than the Strict Baptists, unite in 
 church-fellowship with any whom they thought 
 unbaptized ; and their desire that their Baptist 
 brethren should unite with them at the Lord's- 
 table, arises, generally, not from a conviction 
 that baptism is not essential to church-fellowship, 
 but from a wish that we should acknowledge them 
 as baptized — an acknowledgment, which even you, 
 in the plenitude of your candour, are not prepared 
 to concede. But while our Pedobaptist brethren 
 believe that we are baptized, and while we believe, 
 with Mr. Hall, that their baptism is " a nullity," 
 we meet on unequal ground ; and though they 
 would act consistently throughout, I should, un- 
 questionably, deviate from the principle avowed 
 by us both — that baptism is essential to church- 
 fellowship." In a participation of the Lord's-supper 
 with Pedobaptists, there are two acts, both of 
 
 ' Dr. Dwight, in bis Si/stem of Theology, (in agreement with the 
 learned Dr. Doddridge,) maintains the principle in question, in 
 the most uuquahfied terms.—" ' Except a man be bom if uadr and of 
 the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kinj^dom of God.' — To be bom 
 of water, is to be baptized. To be bom of tlie Spirit, is to be re- 
 generated. ' The kingdom of God,' is a phrase, used, in the gospel, 
 in a two-fold sense, and denotes his visible, and his invisible kingdom ; 
 or the collection of apparent, and the collection of real saints. The 
 indispensable condition of entering the former, or visible kingdom, 
 is here made, by our Saviour, baptism. The indispensable qualifi- 
 cation for admission into the invisible kingdom, is regeneration — the 
 great act of the Spirit of God, wliich constitutes men real saints. 
 Baptism, therefore, is here made, by Christ, a condition absolutely 
 necessary to our authorized entrance into his visible church." — 
 Serai. 156. 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 9 
 
 which, being my own acts, must be regulated by 
 my own principles: 1. Receiving the ordinance : 
 2. Uniting with unbaptized persons in receiving it. 
 For the first of these, I have scriptural authority : 
 for the last, I have none ; such a union being a 
 a direct inversion of the order confessedly universal 
 in the purest age of the church : — an order, in my 
 humble opinion, not incidental, not circumstantial, 
 not local, not temporary and evanescent ; but in- 
 tentionally prescribed by the Christian Legislator, 
 in his last commission to his apostles ; the ob- 
 servance of which, therefore, is as imperative, and 
 the obligation as perpetual, as the celebration of 
 the ordinances themselves, and tiie obligation to 
 preach the gospel to every creature. If this view 
 of the subject be correct, then the only question 
 is — Is infant sprinkling Christian baptism ? In 
 our opinion it is not: consequently, in our opinion 
 our Pedobaptist brethren have not complied with 
 that ordinance, which, in the Christian commis- 
 sion, is enjoined on every disciple, immediately on 
 his believing the gospel, and prior to his ob- 
 servance of all the things which Christ has 
 commanded. ' But our Pedobaptist brethren be- 
 lieve they have complied with the prior obligation.' 
 True; and their duty is plain. But this is not 
 the question. The question is — What is our duty? 
 And the answer is obvious — -If it is incumbent on 
 them to act upon their belief, it cannot be less in- 
 cumbent on us to act upon our belief, both as to 
 
10 
 
 GENERAL AND 
 
 what is Christian baptism, and what is its relative 
 situation in the Christian commission ; and this, 
 not only in relation to our individual practice, 
 but likewise in the constitution of our particular 
 churches. If, however, you contend that baptism 
 does not occupy that place in the Christian com- 
 mission which we have assigned it, we shall feel 
 obliged by your pointing out what place it does 
 occupy. Or if, compelled to admit that this is 
 its relative situation, you yet maintain that this 
 order is not obligatory, then we should be glad to 
 be informed what part of the Christian commission 
 is of perpetual obligation, and which part is dis- 
 cretional — and why the order is imperative in 
 relation to faith and baptism, and not equally 
 imperative in relation to baptism and church- 
 fellowship. Who or what, my dear friend, has 
 authorized a Christian practically to declare, in 
 relation to the order of his Lord's commission — 
 ' Hitherto will I come, but no further''^' 
 
 M. I perceive, my friend, we shall not agree 
 to-night : but, if you have no objection, as the 
 controversy is agitated, and may become a practical 
 question in the church of which we are members, 
 we will resume the discussion on some future 
 occasion. Perhaps, a few friendly conversations 
 may place the subject in a clearer light ; and few 
 things would give me greater pleasure, than to 
 convince you that your sentiments, on this ques- 
 tion, are decidedly erroneous. For, sincerely as 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 11 
 
 I esteem you, I cannot but think you have em- 
 braced a most unlovely and repulsive system. On 
 the contrary, the practice for which we plead, 
 commends itself so forcibly to the feelings of a 
 Christian, that, to me, it is perfectly astonishing, 
 that any man, with the least pretension to Chris- 
 tianity, should hesitate to adopt it. It is a lovely 
 system ! 
 
 S. But is it, I would ask, a scriptural system ? 
 That is the question. I confess, I am not quite 
 prepared to admit that every thing a Christian 
 feels to be lovely and right, is right. On this 
 principle, there is no certain standard of truth, to 
 which inquirers can appeal. On the contrary, 
 truth and error, will-worship and Christian obe- 
 dience, would, in different circumstances, present 
 equal claims ; different Christians feeling differ- 
 ently, and the feelings of the same persons, at dif- 
 ferent times, being diametrically opposed. But the 
 truth is established on a rock, and remains per- 
 fectly unmoved by the fluctuating tides of feeling. 
 The affections of a Christian are so intermingled 
 with the affections of his nature, and both are so 
 strangely influenced by extraneous and contingent 
 circumstances, that to build any part of the 
 Christian fabric on feeling, is a folly not surpassed 
 by the man who should attempt to rear an edifice 
 on a sand-bank on the margin of the restless ocean. 
 The habitual feeling of a Christian, indeed, under 
 certain circumstances, and in certain situations. 
 
12 
 
 GENERAL AND 
 
 may be received as an additional sanction of that 
 which habitually commends itself to an enlight- 
 ened judgment: but, unless both the feeling and 
 the judgment agree with the mind of Christ, they 
 are both erroneous. Whatever place is assignable 
 to feeling, in the regulation of Christian action, 
 it must be confessed to be much too uncertain 
 and wavering to be the mainspring of Christian 
 obedience. Instead of the judgment being con- 
 trolled by the feeling, the feeling should be subject 
 to the judgment ; and both should hear the voice, 
 and obey the dictates, of the immutable oracles 
 of divine truth. 
 
 M. But surely that system cannot be scriptural, 
 which is totally opposed to the genius of the gospel. 
 " The genius of the gospel, let it be remembered, 
 is not ceremonial, but spiritual; consisting, not in 
 meats or drinks, or outward observances, but in 
 the cultivation of such interior graces as compose 
 the essence of virtue, perfect the character, and 
 purify the heart. These form the soul of religion ; 
 all the rest are but her terrestrial attire, which she 
 will lay aside when she passes the threshold of 
 eternity. When, therefore, the obligations of 
 humility and love come into competition with a 
 punctual observance of external rites, the genius 
 of religion will easily determine to which we 
 should incline." — Terms, 190, 191. 
 
 S. So then, the adherence of Christian churches 
 to the order of their Lord's commission, is opposed 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 13 
 
 to the genius of the gospel ! Who would have 
 thought it ! But if so, by all means, let the com- 
 mission be cancelled ; and evermore let us banish 
 from our minds the antiquated notion, that obe- 
 dience to the Christian commands, so far from 
 being opposed to the genius of the gospel, is 
 the very criterion, not only of love to the Saviour, 
 but likewise of love to the brethren — principles, 
 let it be remembered, which constitute the very 
 essence of the genius of the gospel. It is very 
 true, indeed, that our Lord required of his dis- 
 ciples this proof of their affection : " If ye love me, 
 (said he,) keep my commandments." — " Ye are my 
 friends, if ye do ^vhatsoever I command you." 
 And it is equally true, that the beloved and affec- 
 tionate John never entertained the least appre- 
 hension that Christian obedience was incompatible 
 with love to the brethren: "For (said he,) by this 
 we know that we love the children of God, when 
 we love God, and keep his commandments. For this 
 is the love of God, that we keep his command- 
 ments : and his commandments are not grievous." 
 But what then ? All this was a long time ago, 
 and, at that time, perfectly in harmony with the 
 genius of the gospel : but since then, it seems, 
 the c4rcumstances of the Christian church are 
 changed : now, therefore, an adherence, in the 
 constitution of our churches, to the order of our 
 Lord's commission, in relation to the gospel ordi- 
 nances, is opposed to the genius of the gospel ! 
 
14 
 
 GENERAL AND 
 
 Astonishing ! But is it so ? Let us examine. 
 And allow me to inquire, in the first place, Who 
 authorized the assertion, that " the genius of the 
 gospel is not ceremonial, but spiritual ; consisting, 
 not in outward observances, but in the cultivation 
 of such interior graces as compose the essence 
 of virtue, perfect the character, and purify the 
 heart."? That the genius of the gospel is spiritual, 
 is universally admitted ; but that it is exclusively 
 spiritual, none, it might be presumed, but those 
 who deny the perpetuity of the Christian ordi- 
 nances in toto, will venture deliberately to affirm. 
 It will not avail, to remind us of the words of an 
 Apostle — that " the kingdom of God is not meat 
 and drink;" because the application of this ex- 
 pression to either of the solemn and affecting rites 
 peculiar to the gospel dispensation, is a manifest 
 perversion of the Apostle's meaning; the meats 
 and drinks to which he referred, being placed in 
 direct contrast with the " righteousness" pertain- 
 ing to the kingdom of God, of which we have the 
 very highest authority for asserting that baptism 
 is a part: "Thus it becometh us, to fulfil all 
 righteousness." Besides, such an affirmation is 
 equally opposed to the allowed and systematic 
 practice of our opponents themselves. Their re- 
 ligion, however spiritual, is partly ceremonial. 
 Do they not habitually partake of the symbols of 
 the Redeemer's death ? Have they not submitted 
 even to the despised and undervalued ordinance 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 15 
 
 of Christian baptism ? And what are these, but 
 ceremonies — the solemn and significant ceremonies 
 of the gospel dispensation ? Were the position 
 advanced by a Friend, however erroneous, it 
 would at least be intelligible and consistent ; 
 but, for a Baptist to maintain that the genius 
 of the gospel is not in part ceremonial, is to pass 
 a sweeping condemnation on his own acknow- 
 ledged practice. But you tell us, that " the 
 interior graces form the soul of religion," and that 
 "all the rest are but her terrestrial attire, which 
 she will lay aside when she passes the threshold 
 of eternity," Now, my friend, this beautiful de- 
 scription may be very just : but what then? It 
 is perfectly inapplicable to the present controversy. 
 For it so happens, that we are, at present — and all 
 Christian communities, as such, must necessarily 
 continue to exist — on this side the threshold of 
 eternity. Our present duty, therefore, as Chris- 
 tians, and as Christian communities, is, not to 
 " lay aside the terrestrial attire of religion," but, 
 rather, to " pnt on the Lord Jesus," in the way of 
 his own appointment ; and in all respects to adapt 
 our practice to the requirements of the Christian 
 Legislator, in the present probationary state. 
 " Until he come," we have no right to " hii/ aside" 
 the terrestrial attire of religion ; but are required 
 to conform to the regulations of our Lord's house, 
 in a punctilious attention to those outward rites, 
 which, for wise purposes, he has enjoined, no less 
 
16 
 
 GENERAL AND 
 
 than in the cultivation of those duties which are 
 essentially spiritual. The graces of the Spirit 
 were never intended to supersede obedience to the 
 ritual precepts. If, indeed, ritual obedience were 
 necessarily subversive of spiritual religion, or if a 
 punctual observance of the former involved the 
 neglect of the latter, there might be some justice 
 in your observation: at present, there is none; 
 since, whatever degree of importance is attached 
 to each, they are equally imperative — both having 
 emanated from the same Supreme Legislator. He 
 who commanded his disciples to /ove one another, 
 also commissioned his apostles to " teach all na- 
 tions, baptizing them, in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost :" and this, 
 before they taught them to observe all things that 
 he had commanded them. Instead, therefore, of 
 appealing to the genius of religion, to " determine 
 to which we shall incline," we should recognize 
 the spirit of our Lord's admonition, on another 
 occasion — " These ought ye to have done, and not to 
 leave the other undone." 
 
 M. But — (further to adopt the language of 
 our eloquent friend,) — "Strict communion sets 
 the conduct and the feelings at variance ; and 
 erects into a duty the mortification of our best and 
 holiest propensities." — Reasons, 17, 18. 
 
 .S'. That I cannot allow. Our best and holiest 
 propensities, are, undoubtedly, those which induce 
 a rigid adherence to the commands of the Chris- 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS, 
 
 17 
 
 tian Legislator, in preference to a union, even with 
 Christians, in what we beheve to be a deviation 
 from his revealed will. Whether a permanent 
 union with unbaptized Christians, in church- 
 fellowship, or occasional communion with them, 
 in a single ordinance peculiar to that relation,' 
 
 There are some Christians, who are unnilHng to receive pious 
 Pedobaptists into /'»(( chiirch-felbuihip, but who have no objection to 
 what is called occaswnal ammiuiirm , or even to hubilual communion, 
 provided it extend no farther than the celebration of the Lord's-supjier. 
 But is not this admitting them to the greater privilege, and denying 
 them the less ? Surely we ouglit not to be more tenacious of the 
 exclusive privileges of church-membersliip, than of exact obedience 
 to our Lord's instructions, contained in his last commission. But 
 from these instructions, occasional conmiuuion at the Lord's table, 
 with unbaptized persons, is, in the writer's opiiiiou, an occasional 
 deviation — and habitual communion, habitual deviation. And the 
 only plausible objection — indeed, the only objection, that can be 
 urged against full church-membership, after such an innovation on 
 tlie order of the Christian commission, is, that it is ineipeJieitt. 
 A Christian who practises mixed communion m a participation of 
 a church-ordinance with Pedobaptists, cannot object to receiving 
 them to full church-membership, on any other ground than alarm 
 lest his privileges as a Baptist should be endangered ! But is this 
 Christian allegiance ? Is it not a symptom that we are more jealous 
 for the jirivileges of church-membership, than for the honour of 
 Christ? Surely, those who, either under the influence of feeling, 
 or from motives of convenience, have been induced to deviate from 
 the order of their Lord's commission, by a union with unbaptized 
 pftrsons in a church-ordinance, while, at the same time, they refuse 
 to admit them to church-membership, will seriously reflect, whether 
 they are not laying greater stress on expediency than on principle. 
 If communion in a church ordinance with unbaptized persons he a 
 deviation from the order of the Christian commission, as illustrated 
 by the uniform example, and enjoined by tlie concurrent authority 
 of the apostles, it is a weightier consideration than expediency, and 
 ought to be more influential. Even that which is lawful, may not be 
 expedient : but that which is unlawful, cannot be expedient — either 
 
 c 2 
 
18 
 
 GENERAL AND 
 
 be a deviation from the mind of Christ, is a 
 question for consideration : but if it be, or if a 
 Christian believe that it is, the corresponding 
 practice of strict communion is, not a mortification, 
 but an exemplijication, of the best and holiest pro- 
 pensities. 
 
 M. But you practise a worse mixed commu- 
 nion than that against which you inveigh ; retain- 
 ing in your churches, members, of whose moralittj 
 the most charitable are compelled to doubt. 
 
 S, True, my friend, we do. But, permit me 
 
 totally or partially, habitually or occasionally. The preservation of 
 the exclusive right of suffrage in a baptist church, is not worth a 
 thought, in comparison with a strict adherence to the law of Christ. 
 If mixed communion in a church-ordiuance were not a deviation 
 from the mind of Christ, who are we, that we should presume to 
 hold up a finger to prevent the full recognition of pious Pedobaptists 
 as members of our churches \ The perpetuity of the Baptist deno- 
 mination, as sucli, shrivels into perfect insignificance, upon any other 
 consideration than this — It is the only denomination in the 
 
 WORLD, IN WHICH THE ORDINANCES OF JesVS ChRIST AKK KEPT 
 
 AS THEY WERE DELIVERED.* This IS the reasoD, and perhaps the 
 only justifiable reason, for a separation from such of our brethren as 
 do not impose upon us the observance of their unscriptural rites and 
 ceremonies. But in proportion as this consideration is received into 
 the mind, and maintains its proper influence, ^^e shall practise strict 
 communion in our churches, not simply from expediency, but from 
 principle ; not merely in defence of our supposed privileges, but from 
 a profound regard for the honour of Christ ; not only partially, but 
 uniformly. An adherence to the mind of Christ cannot be manifested 
 too punctiliously ; nor is the slightest deviation from it, under any 
 pretence whatever, but physical inability to obey it, defensible, even 
 occasionally. • 
 
 * Sir Isaac Newton frequently declared bis conviction, that ihe Eapti«is 
 were the only Christians who had not symbolized with (he Cbsrcb ol 
 Rome. 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 19 
 
 to ask, Have we any rule — that immorality shall 
 be no har to communion ? Do we systematically 
 agree to tolerate it ? Is this a part of our con- 
 stitution ? Do we tell our members, or candidates 
 for membership, that though, in our humble 
 opinion, all Christians should be moral characters, 
 and especially, if they sincerely believe that 
 morality is a duty; still, while they are of opinion 
 either that they are moral, or that they are " not 
 under the law " as a rule of life, the absence of 
 morality is no bar to communion ? True, we do 
 retain improper characters in our churches ; and 
 so do you : but why ? Why, simply because of 
 the difficulty of proving their immorality ; without 
 which, on what principle of justice, I should be 
 glad to know, could they be expelled ? If we 
 maintained, that known and acknowledged im- 
 morality were no disqualification, there would be 
 some pertinence in the remark : but surely, there 
 is a wide difference between bearing with indi- 
 viduals, even in things which are evil, where that 
 evil is very difficult of detection — and making 
 a rule to tolerate evil. As the late Mr. Fuller 
 observes — " It was no reproach to Christ and his 
 Apostles, to have had a Judas among them, though 
 he was a thief, so long as his theft was not mani- 
 fest : but had there been a rule laid down, that 
 covetousness and even theft should be no har to 
 communion, the reproach had been indelible." — 
 Letter to a Friend, 27. 
 
20 
 
 G EN Eli A L AND 
 
 M. But some whom you reject are better 
 Christians than some whom you welcome to your 
 communion. 
 
 S. It may be so ; and at my own table, 
 I should prefer their company : but in receiving 
 Christians to the Lord's table, we must recognize 
 his authority. As the subject relates to the 
 church-militant, perhaps you will allow me a 
 military illustration. An officer beats up lor 
 recruits, to resist a foreign invasion. A fine young 
 man, disapproving of judicial oaths, offers his 
 services. He is taller, by head and shoulders, than 
 some who have been enlisted. The officer surveys 
 him, and thinks he lias obtained a prize. He 
 welcomes him to His Majesty's service, and pro- 
 ceeds, on the first convenient opportunity, to 
 administer the oath of allegiance. The young man 
 says, ' No : I cannot take the oath : I should not, 
 indeed, object to affirm my loyalty; but the truth 
 is, I have done so already, many years ago, in my 
 very infancy.' This does not satisfy the officer. 
 He knows, that, whatever may be the case else- 
 where, in the army an affirmation is not equivalent 
 to the oath of allegiance ; and, as he is instructed 
 to have the oath administered, and the young man 
 declines to take it, believing that his affirmation 
 is equivalent, the officer promptly replies, ' Then 
 I cannot receive you. Your scruples may be 
 conscientious ones ; I presume they are ; and you 
 may be a loyal .nan, and might make a very good 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 21 
 
 soldier; and if the King, my master, were here, 
 and were to intimate that in this instance I might 
 deviate from ray instructions, then I would receive 
 you with all my heart. But here is the Royal 
 Commission : read it, if you will ; and you will 
 find that it runs thus — Enlist all the young men 
 in the district, administering to them the 
 OATH OF ALLEGIANCE, and Send them to the 
 regiment to be further instructed. Now, can any 
 thing be plainer than this? more explicit, or more 
 peremptory? What can I do? I am "a man under 
 authority : " it is at my peril to deviate from my 
 instructions — -I cannot receive you. And if 
 you were to go to the regiment, and propose to 
 join their ranks ordi/ for a single day* if they 
 believed you had not taken the oath of allegiance, 
 they would not admit you. In vain would you 
 plead your loyalty, or that you had ajfirmed your 
 loyalty, or that in other services they did not re- 
 quire the oath. They would reply, to a man, — 
 'We do not dispute either of these points: but 
 The King's regiments must be formed 
 
 AND regulated BY THE KiNg's INSTRUCTIONS. 
 
 The oath of allegiance always has been, and (until 
 the King himself annul his Royal Commission) 
 always must be, the term of admission into the 
 King's regiments. Your scruples may be con- 
 scientious, and therefore may justify _yoii ; but we 
 
 * Occaiioriel commiin'uiii. See Note, p. 17. 
 
22 
 
 GENERAL AND 
 
 are not to deviate from our instructions in de- 
 ference to your scruples : that would be honouring 
 your scruples more than His Majesty's orders. 
 Our laws are explicit and peremptory: we can- 
 not KECEIVE YOU INTO THE REGIMENT. But, 
 
 engage in any service for which the oath is tiot 
 required, and we will, according to the best of 
 our ability, unite with you in it, and cordially 
 wish you success in the King's name. And when 
 the war is over, and the army is disbanded, we 
 will unite with each other as loyal subjects, who 
 have served His Majesty, each agreeably to the 
 dictates of his own conscience, all of whom, there- 
 fore, may cordially unite in the celebration of his 
 triumphs.' ' Now, my friend, I think you cannot 
 fail to discover t/ie principle on which we act — a 
 principle, in which no candid mind will perceive, 
 and in which I challenge the most uncandid 
 and talented mind to discover, one single iota 
 of that odious and bitter feeling, so freely al- 
 leged against us, called bigotry ! We admit that 
 our Pedobaptist friends are Christians; and, as 
 such, we unite with them in every Christian exet- 
 cise for which we believe baptism is not a pre- 
 requisite. We give them credit for sincerity and 
 conscientiousness: but still, in our opinion, infant 
 sprinkling is not Christian baptism, and Christian 
 baptism is the only appointed and authorized 
 mode of entrance into the visible church. While, 
 therefore, we unite with them in those exercises 
 
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 
 
 23 
 
 which were duties before baptism was instituted, 
 and which would have been duties to the end of 
 time had there been no Christian churches, we 
 contend, that The churches of Christ must 
 
 BE CONSTITUTED AGREEABLY TO THE LAW OF 
 
 Christ ; and that, in no case, may a conscientious 
 deviation from the Christian law, be considered 
 equivalent to Christian obedience. 
 
 M. Still, the question occurs — Is the admission 
 of unbaptized persons to the eucharist, a deviation 
 from the law of Christ ? 
 
 5. Why, my friend, you yourself acknowledge 
 that baptism was a term of admission into the 
 visible church ; ^ and the inevitable conclusion is, 
 either, that the law which made it such was not 
 of perpetual obligation, or, that baptism still is a 
 term of communion. If the law be not of perpetual 
 obligation, where is i/our authority for restricting 
 baptism to believers ? If it be of perpetual obli- 
 gation, that is our authority for receiving to 
 the privileges of church-fellowship, only baptized 
 believers. Take which ground you please, my 
 friend ; but, to be consistent, either attach 
 yourself to the Pedobaptists, or come over to 
 us ; your present position appearing, to me, 
 perfectly untenable. But, not to pursue the in- 
 quiry now, I will with pleasure accept your pro- 
 posal to resume the discussion in a few friendly 
 
 ' Mr. Hall believes it was " essential to salvation, " — Reply, 43. 
 
24 
 
 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION 
 
 conversations ; and perhaps it will be convenient 
 to make an early appointment. 
 
 M. Any day you please, next week ; as early 
 in the week as may be convenient to yourself. 
 And, as Mr. Hall is, unquestionably, the best 
 writer on our side of the controversy, and as my 
 views exactly coincide with his, I shall take the 
 liberty, occasionally at least, perhaps generally, to 
 quote from his publications. I presume you have 
 no objection. 
 
 S. None whatever. What shall be the subject 
 of our next conversation ? 
 
 M. Unless you are disposed to abandon an 
 argument usually maintained by the advocates of 
 strict communion — the supposed identity of John's 
 baptism with Christian baptism — that, probably, 
 would form the most appropriate commence- 
 ment. 
 
 i\ Certainly, I am not prepared to yield the 
 point; though it does not appear, to me, to be of 
 much consequence. But, as Mr. Hall considers 
 it " demonstrable," that they were two distinct 
 institutes, and, consequently, that the Lord's- 
 supper was celebrated prior to the institution of 
 Christian baptism, this part of the controversy 
 may engage our attention on Monday evening. 
 
CONVERSATION II. 
 
 BAPTISM AND THE LORD'S-SUPPER, ANTERIOR AND SUB- 
 SEQUENT TO THE DEATH OF CHRIST, CIRCUMSTANTIALLY 
 DIFFERENT, BUT ESSENTIALLY THE SAME. 
 
 D 
 
ANALYSIS. 
 
 A difference, bat not an essential difference, between the ordi- 
 nance of baptism anterior and subsequent to the death of Christ. — 
 Also a difference, in many particulars corresponding, between the 
 Lord's-supper before and after that interesting event. — The epithets 
 applied to John's baptism, and the absence of any distinctive appel- 
 lation in connexion with the Christian ordinance, in favour of our 
 hypothesis. — John's baptism not contrasted with water-baptism after 
 the Pentecost. — The effusion of spiritual gifts did not invariably 
 accompany the latter. — If these preternatural gifts were an essential 
 appendage to the Christian ordinance, and none but the apostles 
 had the power of conferring them, the Ethiopian eunuch, and pro- 
 bably many others, even in the apostohc age, did not receive Cliris- 
 tian baptism! — On this principle, our baptism also uncliristianized ! — 
 The name of Jesus. — iSIiracles in the name of Messias contemporary 
 vrith John's baptism. — The requirements from John's converts, and 
 from the disciples at the first celebration of the Lord's-supper, both 
 future. — The spiritual import of both ordinances equally obscure, 
 until illustrated by our Lord's death.— That the Christian dispensa- 
 tion commenced with the ministry of John, asserted by the Evangehst 
 IMark, and confirmed by the literal and figurative representations of 
 our Lord himself. — John's baptism not uncliristianized because he 
 received his commission from the Father. — Such a supposition would 
 divest of their Christian character, the doctrine, the works, and the 
 precepts of Jesus himself. — The baptisms administered by Christ's 
 disciples, during his personal ministry, must have emanated from his 
 authority ; and, being peculiar to tlie Christian dispensation, must 
 have been Christian baptism.^ — But !Mr. Hall maintains that these 
 baptisms "in no respect differed from John's." — The two baptisms, 
 therefore, on ilr. Hall's owti showing, not " essentially different," 
 but identically the same ! — Certainly, the Messiah was not John's 
 assistant ! — Of the three thousand who were baptized at the Pente- 
 cost, none could have been John's disciples. — The tn-elve disciples 
 at Epbesus not re-baptized. — After all, om principal argument for 
 t!ie priority of baptism to a joint -participation of a church-ordinance, 
 derived from our Lord's commission. — Connexion of baptism and 
 church-fellowship. 
 
11. 
 
 MiXTUS. My dear friend, I am glad to see 
 you. I hope, since our last interview, you have 
 carefully weighed the arguments adduced to 
 prove "the essential difference" between John's 
 baptism, and the baptism practised after our 
 Lord's decease : because, " if it should clearly 
 appear that these were two distinct institutes, it 
 will be evident that the eucharist was appointed 
 and celebrated before Christian baptism existed." 
 (Terms, 14, 15.) That they were separate in- 
 '•stitutions, is, in my opinion, " demonstrable." — 
 Reasons, 21. 
 
 Strictus. Doubtless, my friend, there was 
 a difference between them ; but I cannot perceive 
 an " essential difference," or such a difference as 
 shall constitute them " two distinct institutes." 
 But then, there was also a difference between the 
 
28 
 
 John's baptism, 
 
 Lord's-supper, as celebrated before and after the 
 death of Christ — a difference, in many respects, 
 corresponding with that which existed between 
 the ordinance of baptism, before and after that 
 interesting event. Consequently, they agree with 
 each other ; and we might spare ourselves the 
 fatigue of disputing a point, which, after all, does 
 not materially affect the main argument ; and 
 proceed, at once, to the consideration of The 
 Commission, which our Lord gave to his dis- 
 ciples after his resurrection ; and which, in my 
 humble opinion, whatever may be the result of 
 the present inquiry, is the law to which all 
 Christians must appeal, and by which, as ex- 
 plained by the uniform practice of the apostles, 
 the question must be decided. 
 
 M. I am of opinion, certainly, that " the con- 
 nexion of this question with the point in debate, 
 is casual and incidental, rather than real and 
 intrinsic ; since the only possible advantage to 
 the cause of mixed communion resulting from its 
 decision, is the overthrow of an argument most 
 feebly constructed. To be convinced of this, it is 
 only necessary to remember that the admission of 
 what you contend for, would merely prove that 
 the ordinance of baptism was promulgated at an 
 earlier period than the Lord's-supper. But in 
 determining a question of duty resulting from 
 positive laws, the era of their promulgation is a 
 consideration totally foreign." — Ess. Diff\ 6, 7. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 29 
 
 S. Without conceding that the admission of 
 your opinion would be of the least service to you, 
 since, whatever be the nature of John's baptism, 
 both the ordinances are involved in the same 
 predicament ; still, perhaps, a patient examination 
 of the question may be more satisfactory, than for 
 either party to assert that his own sentiment is 
 "demonstrable." Wherein do you suppose the 
 points of difference consist ? 
 
 M. There are, in my opinion, several. I may 
 instance, in the first place, that "the rite per- 
 formed by John, is rarely, if ever, introduced 
 without some explanatory phrase, or epithet. — 
 It is sometimes denominated the baptism of 
 John ; on other occasions, baptism in water ; and 
 the baptism of repentance : but it is never ex- 
 pressed in the absolute form in which the mention 
 of Christian baptism invariably occurs. — Though 
 innumerable persons were baptized by St. Paul, 
 we read of no such expression as the baptism of 
 Paul. On the contrary, in his Epistle to the 
 Corinthians, he expresses a sort of pious horror, 
 at the very idea of such a supposition. Whoever 
 considers the extreme precision which the inspired 
 historians maintain in the choice of the terms 
 employed to represent religious ordinances, will 
 perceive this circumstance to possess considerable 
 weight."— Ess. Dif. 10. 
 
 S. Innumerable persons baptized by St. Paul ! 
 When? Where? Who? Really, my friend, if 
 D 2 
 
30 
 
 John's baptism, 
 
 you had not so pointedly referred to one of Paul's 
 Epistles, I should have thought you meant Peter, 
 and at once have resolved the mistake into a 
 lapsus lingua ! But, passing this, the reason 
 of the epithet "the baptism of John," I humbly 
 conceive to be, because it was the baptism which 
 John introduced. It was anew rite; and that a 
 new institution should be designated by certain 
 descriptive epithets, is perfectly natural : conse- 
 quently, as baptism in water subsequent to the 
 Pentecost, has, appended to it, no epithet by which 
 it is distinguished from the former — in fact, no 
 marked designation whatever — the fair inference 
 is, that, so far from being a " distinct institute," 
 it is, with whatever circumstantial difference, es- 
 sentially a continuation of the rite introduced by 
 John. Thus, the " extreme precision" of the in- 
 spired historians, is in favour of our hypothesis, 
 rather than of yours. 
 
 M. But you seem to have forgotten, my friend, 
 that " John himself contrasts his baptism with a 
 superior one, which he directs his hearers to ex- 
 pect at the hand of the Messiah. ' I indeed, (said 
 he,) baptize you in water; but there standeth one 
 among you, whose shoe-latchets I am not worthy 
 to unloose : he shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost 
 and in fire ; ' referring unquestionably, to that re- 
 dundance of prophetic and miraculous gifts, which 
 were bestowed on the church, after the eflusion of 
 the Spirit."— Ess. D//. 11. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 31 
 
 S. Undoubtedly, my friend, John contrasted 
 his baptism with the baptism of the Spirit. But 
 what then ? Who ever confounded them ? Even 
 Christian baptism is distinguished from that — 
 the one being denominated water bajjtism ; the 
 other, the baptism of the Spirit. 
 
 M. Nay, but the question is, " whether John, 
 in foretelling that the Messiah should baptize 
 with the Holy Ghost, intended to allude to the 
 sacramental water, or whether his attention was 
 directed solely to the effusion of the Spirit, with- 
 out reference to the external rite." — Ess. Dijf. 
 49, 50. 
 
 5. But John does not so much as mention 
 water, in connexion with the baptism of the 
 Spirit. 
 
 M. True ; and " his suppression of the men- 
 tion of water, is in perfect accordance with the 
 genius of oriental speech, which, in the exhibition 
 of a complex object, is wont to represent it only 
 by its boldest and most impressive feature." — 
 Ess. Diff. 50. 
 
 S. But the effusion of spiritual gifts did not 
 invariably accompany baptism. 
 
 M. Nor is this necessary. " It is quite suffi- 
 cient to account for the language of John, as well 
 as to sustain the inference deduced from it, that 
 such was the stated order." — Ess. Diff. 50. 
 
 S. That the preternatural gifts of the Spirit, 
 by the laying on of hands, were, at one period 
 
32 
 
 John's baptism. 
 
 of the church, the usual appendage of baptism, 
 (as they also were, during the same period, of 
 other Christian ceremonies,) is unquestionable : 
 but the simple circumstance of there having been 
 deviations from the rule, clearly shows that the 
 baptism of the Spirit was not a constituent part of 
 the ordinance enjoined by Christ, but something 
 perfectly distinct. How do you account for the 
 baptism of the Samaritans, recorded in the 8th 
 chapter of the Acts, being unaccompanied by the 
 miraculous gift of the Spirit ? 
 
 M. " Because the apostles, to whom alone 
 the power of conferring it belonged, were not 
 present. — Ess. Diff. 51. 
 
 S. But if the presence of the apostles was 
 necessary to the communication of the miracu- 
 lous gifts of the Spirit, one of two consequences 
 is inevitable : Either, (1.) These preternatural 
 gifts did not form a constituent part, or even an 
 essential appendage, of the ordinance enjoined by 
 Christ : Or, (2.) The Samaritans, the Ethiopian 
 eunuch, (whose confession, surely, was Chris- 
 tian !) and probably multitudes besides, who 
 were baptized subsequent to the Pentecost, did 
 not receive Christian baptism ! For who will pre- 
 tend that the apostles Avere 'present on all occa- 
 sions of baptism? And if the absence of this 
 glorious appendage establish an essential differ- 
 ence between John's and Christian baptism, then 
 our baptism also will be unchristianized : and the 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 33 
 
 alarming result will be, that there is not an in- 
 dividual in all Christendom, from the meanest 
 member of the least of the " little Baptist 
 churches," to the most elevated of our " public 
 teachers," who has received Christian baptism ! 
 Surely, my friend, for once, you will yield to 
 circumstances, and permit fact and common sense 
 to triumph over theory. 
 
 M. But I have other reasons in support of my 
 theory, which must be disposed of, before it is 
 •abandoned. " It is universally admitted, that 
 Christian baptism has invariably been adminis- 
 tered in the name of Jesus, and that circumstance 
 is essential to its validity ; while it is evident, 
 from the solicitude with which our Saviour avoided 
 the avowal of himself as the Messiah, that during 
 his public ministry, his name was not publicly 
 employed as the object of a religious rite. — The 
 practice of baptizing in his name, must have been 
 equivalent, at least, to a public confession of his 
 being the Messiah, — The historian informs us, 
 that while John was baptizing, all men were 
 musing in their hearts whether he were the Christ 
 or not. — But how is it possible, let me ask, that 
 such a question should arise amongst the people, 
 on your hypothesis ? or how could it enter into 
 their imagination to infer, from his baptizing in 
 the name of Jesus, that he himself was, or that 
 he pretended to be, the Messiah 1 " — Ess. Diff. 
 12—14. 
 
34 
 
 JOHN S BAPTISM 
 
 S. These difficulties, supposed to be so for- 
 midable, admit, I humbly conceive, of a very easy 
 solution. I believe it is not universally admitted 
 that Christian baptism has been invariably ad- 
 ministered verbally in the name of Jesus ; but, in 
 connexion with the Father and the Spirit, in the 
 name of the Son. Thus, it is not pretended, that 
 John's baptism was administered verbally in the 
 name of Jesus, but in the name of Messias, or the 
 Christ : and this apparently trivial distinction, 
 while it furnishes an obvious reason for the cogi- 
 tations and inquiries of the people concerning 
 John — " whether he were the Christ or not " — 
 is all that is necessary to expose the fallacy of 
 your argument. John, and after him the dis- 
 ciples of Jesus, might have baptized the whole 
 Jewish nation in the name of Messias, or the 
 Christ, not informing them, at the same time, 
 that Jesus was the Christ, without, in a single 
 instance, counteracting the caution and solicitude 
 which Jesus confessedly manifested, to avoid an 
 indiscriminate verbal avowal of that interesting 
 fact. But I would observe, further, it is unde- 
 niable, that, during his personal ministry, our 
 Lord commissioned, not only the twelve apostles, 
 but the seventy disciples also, to perform, in his 
 name, acts, at least equally calculated to excite 
 attention, and to give publicity to whatever the 
 action revealed, with baptizing in his name. They 
 were to preach the gospel, heal the sick, work 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 35 
 
 miracles, and cast out devils : and, having fulfilled 
 their mission, they returned, exulting, " Lord, 
 even the devils are subject to us, through thy 
 name." Now, my friend, on your hypothesis, — 
 that a public act in the name of Jesus must have 
 been at least equivalent to a public confession that 
 Jesus was the Messiah, — what a dangerous ex- 
 periment was this ! how inconsistent with that 
 caution which our Lord uniformly observed ! here 
 was publicity ! here was exposure of a profound 
 secret ! how widely and rapidly would this blazon 
 abroad the news that Jesus was the Messiah ! 
 For surely these miracles, these exorcisms in our 
 Lord's name, must have attracted at least equal, 
 probably more attention, than the administration 
 of baptism in his name.^ The simple truth appears 
 
 •> It lias been suggested to the writer, by a highly-esteemed friend, 
 that the expression, Jn the name of Chrut, may mean simply, By tlie 
 authority, or jiotcer of Chrkt. Doubtless, this idea is included in 
 the expression ; but that this alone is intended, is not quite so 
 clear. On the contrary, it is demonstrable, that, at least on one 
 occasion-, the action was accompanied by a distinct verbal amwal of 
 the name, or authority, by which the exorcism was etFected. How 
 else, it may be asked, came our Lord's disciples to know that certain 
 persons, whom they saw casting out devils, wrought the miracle iu 
 their Master's name'! For the action, they had the evidence of their 
 sight ; but before they could know in whose name, or hii what au- 
 thority, or jwiier, the action was performed, some distinct evidence 
 must have been addressed to their hearing. Here, then, it is evident, 
 the name of Jesus, or of the Messias, must have been "publicity 
 employed." And if in this instance, why not in others ? And if in 
 connexion with miracles, what shoidd render its use more dangerous 
 in connexion with baptism ? 
 
36 
 
 John's baptism. 
 
 to be, that though our Lord studiously avoided 
 an indiscriminate, verbal declaration that he was 
 the Christ, he never shrunk from such an avowal 
 of his Messiahship as might be inferred from his 
 works. " The works that I do, (comprehending, 
 of course, the works performed by his disciples, in 
 his name,) bear witness of me, that the Father hath 
 sent we." 
 
 M. But " if St. Paul's citation of the language 
 of John, in the 19th of the Acts, be correct, what 
 he said to the people was this — ' That they should 
 believe on him who was to come.' The epithet 
 o EpxojUEvoc, he who is coming, it is generally ad- 
 mitted, was the usual appellation applied to the 
 Messiah at that period, which, while it expresses 
 the certainty and near approach of the event of 
 his coming, intimates not less clearly its futurity. 
 — The language which the forerunner held, was 
 precise and appropriate : it was not a demand of 
 present faith in any known individual, but was 
 limited to a. future faith on a certain personage 
 who was about to evince his title to the character 
 he assumed, by his personal appearance and mi- 
 racles. He said to the people that they should 
 beUeve in him that was to come. Could the same 
 person, let me ask, at the same moment, be de- 
 scribed by terms expressive of the present and of 
 the future tense — at once as an existing individual, 
 a person historically known, and as one that was 
 to come ? "— £45. Dif 14, 15. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 37 
 
 5. And what then ? Admitting the correct- 
 ness of all you have advanced, it would avail you 
 nothing ; since the Lord's-supper, as celebrated 
 anterior to the death of Christ, is involved in the 
 same predicament. If this kind of argument 
 establish an essential difference between baptism, 
 as administered before and after the death of 
 Christ, it must also establish a difference equally 
 essential, between the Lord's-supper, as celebrated 
 anterior and subsequent to that interesting event. 
 In the first instance, like baptism, it was pros- 
 pective: it was required of its recipients that they 
 should, at some future time, thus commemorate 
 the melting transaction which was yet future. 
 In the latter instance, it was retrospective — a 
 commemoration of an event which had actually 
 transpired. 
 
 M. But " the spiritual import of Christian 
 baptism, as asserted by St. Paul, transcends in- 
 comparably the measure of religious knowledge 
 possessed during the ministry of John. ' Know 
 ye not, (is his appeal to Christians.) that so many 
 of you as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were 
 baptized into his death ? ' — What is the meaning 
 of the words baptized into his deaths Whatever 
 else it may comprehend, it unquestionably means 
 the being baptized into a belief of his death. But 
 at the time that John was fulfilling his course, this 
 beUef was so far from possessing the minds of his 
 converts, that even the apostles were not only 
 
38 
 
 John's baptism. 
 
 ignorant of that event, but impatient of its men- 
 tion. — 'As many of us, (says St. Paul,) as were 
 baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his 
 death ;' which is surely equivalent to affirming 
 that whoever were not baptized into his death, 
 were not baptized into Christ. But the disciples 
 of John were not baptized into (the belief of) his 
 death. Therefore they were not baptized into 
 Christ."— Ess. Diff. 15—17, 
 
 S. This argument also, my friend, like the 
 last, would, if it were valid, apply with equal 
 force to the Lord's-supper, as celebrated before 
 and after the death of Christ. It is not only a 
 contradiction in terms, to say that the apostles 
 commemorated an event before it occurred ; but 
 " the spiritual import" of the Lord's-supper, as 
 asserted by the Apostle Paul, exceeds the measure 
 of religious apprehension which possessed the 
 minds of its recipients at its first celebration. "As 
 often (says Paul,) as ye eat this bread, and drink 
 this cup, ye do show the Lord's death." What is 
 meant by the phrase, showing the Lord's death ? 
 Whatever else it comprehends, it unquestionably 
 includes the belief of his death. But at the first 
 celebration of the sacred supper, this belief was 
 so far from possessing the minds of the apostles, 
 that it was a mystery they could not unravel ; and 
 even subsequently, the death of their Lord was 
 most abhorrent from their minds. When Jesus 
 was apprehended, we find the very prince of the 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 39 
 
 apostles engaged in active combat, to prevent that 
 identical tragedy, the commemoration of which is 
 the ex|)ress design of the Lord's-supper. " As 
 often (says Paul,) as ye eat this bread, and drink 
 this cup, ye do show the Lord's death ;" which, 
 adopting your own mode of reasoning, is surely 
 equivalent to saying, that those who did not 
 thus show the Lord's death, did not partake of 
 the Lord's-supper. But the apostles, at its first 
 celebration, did not thus show (their belief of) the 
 Lord's death. Therefore, on your hypothesis, the 
 apostles did not, at that time, partake of the 
 Lord's-supper ! The truth is, my friend, that 
 both the ordinances, previous to the death of 
 Christ, were necessarily different, (though, in my 
 opinion, not " essentially different,") from what 
 they were afterwards : the events which each 
 recognized, were future events; and the recipients 
 of both, were comparatively ignorant of the full 
 import of the rite to which they attended. It was 
 then only the twilight, the dawn, of the gospel 
 day. The mists and shadows of the night had 
 not entirely departed. Previous to the death of 
 Christ, there was a dimness, a mystery, which 
 obscured every event intended ultimately to illus- 
 trate and endear the death of Christ. The im- 
 perfections assignable to baptism, during this 
 spiritual twilight, are also assignable to the first 
 celebration of the Lord's-supper. Both the or- 
 dinances are involved in similar obscurity ; nor 
 
40 
 
 JOHN S BAPTISM 
 
 could the recipients of eitJier discern the amazing 
 transaction, to which both, at that period, pointed, 
 as to a glory yet to be revealed. What then ? 
 Shall we consign them to the darkness of the 
 preceding dispensation? Or, shall we not, rather, 
 recognize them as containing the germ, the first 
 elements, the incipient qualities, of the impressive 
 and affecting ordinances, the import of which has 
 been discovered and realized by the clear shining 
 of the gospel day ? To the argument, it is imma- 
 terial ; since, whatever be their destiny, the two 
 ordinances, as celebrated anterior to the death of 
 Christ, stand or fall together. But it is not a 
 matter of absolute indifference. For, take away 
 the ordinances as they existed during our Sa- 
 viour's personal ministry, and, in teaching men to 
 observe " all things whatsoever he had com- 
 manded," how will you be able to discover and 
 establish any duty, peculiar to church-fellowship, 
 which he had commanded ? 
 
 M. But, "as the ministry of John commenced 
 previously to that of the Messiah, which suc- 
 ceeded his baptism, no rite celebrated at that 
 time, is entitled to a place amongst Christian sa- 
 craments, since they did not commence with the 
 Christian dispensation, nor issue from the autho- 
 rity of Christ, as Head of the Church." — Ess. 
 Biff. 17. 
 
 S. Here are two distinct objections. Let us 
 attend to each separately. First, you say, the 
 
OIRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 41 
 
 ministry of John did not commence with the 
 Christian dispensation. I think it did ; or, rather, 
 that the Christian dispensation commenced with 
 the ministry of John. 
 
 M. But that is impossible ; for, " during our 
 Lord's residence on earth, until his resurrection, 
 the kingdom of God is uniformly represented as 
 future, though near at hand." — Ess. Diff. 18. 
 ■ S. Not quite uiu/ormh/, my friend. On one 
 occasion, you may remember, our Lord said, " If 
 I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the 
 kingdom of God is come unto you." And, on an 
 inquiry by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of 
 God should come, he replied, "The kingdom of 
 God Cometh not with observation. Neither shall 
 men say, Lo here ! or Lo there ! for behold the 
 kingdom of God is within you." Nor is it possible 
 to evade the force of this argument, by distin- 
 guishing between our Lord's personal ministry, 
 and the ministry of John ; since the Evangelist 
 Mark expressly informs us, that the coming of 
 John was in " the beginning of the gospel of Jesus 
 Christ, the Son of God." In addition to this, it 
 is worthy of remark, as placing the matter beyond 
 all contradiction, that, during John's imprison- 
 ment, our Lord himself most unequivocally cha- 
 racterizes the ministry of the Baptist as the com- 
 mencement of the gospel dispensation : " From 
 the dat/s of John the Baptist until now, (said he,) 
 the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence," S^c. — 
 E 2 
 
42 
 
 John's baptism. 
 
 in allusion, doubtless, to the eagerness with which 
 the common people received the doctrine pro- 
 pounded by John. The parabolical descriptions, 
 also, of the Christian dispensation, are decidedly 
 opposed to your hypothesis. The kingdom of 
 God is compared to " leaven, hid in three mea- 
 sures of meal ;" and this accords with fact. During 
 our Lord's abode on earth, the gospel silently and 
 gradually insinuated itself into the minds of the 
 people. It is also compared to " a grain of 
 mustard-seed." This also accords with fact. At 
 first, the gospel of the kingdom grew underground, 
 and put forth its shoots gradually, and imper- 
 ceptibly to those who were expecting some sudden 
 and glaring display of the power of Messiah, 
 Now, on the supposition that the kingdom of 
 God, or "the gospel of Jesus Christ," commenced, 
 as Mark says, with the ministry of John, iher 
 is a Jitncss, and resemblance — a thorough good 
 keeping — between the comparison and the reality. 
 While, on the contrary, if we could suppose, 
 with you, that the Christian dispensation com- 
 menced with the glories of Pentecost, nothing 
 could less illustrate it, than " leaven, hid in three 
 measures of meal," and a single grain of the 
 " smallest of all seeds." Nor will it avail to reply, 
 that, during our Lord's personal ministry, the 
 kingdom of God is occasionally represented as 
 future. This is admitted. But what then ? Does 
 it tlicrefore follow that its commencement was 
 
CHRISTIAN B.VPllSM. 
 
 43 
 
 future ? By no means. And to affirm this, would 
 be just as conclusive, or rather inconclusive, as 
 to affirm, that we have not to this day witnessed 
 its approach, because in our daily aspirations to 
 heaven, we are directed to say, Thij kingdom come. 
 The result is, my friend, that, as the first streaks 
 of light which shoot across the horizon, contain the 
 incipient elements of day ; so those glimmerings 
 of the gospel, which characterized the ministry of 
 John, and which became gradually brighter during 
 the ministry of our Lord, were the begiiniiiig, the 
 earltf dawn, and contained the essential properties 
 of the overwhelming splendour of " the ministra- 
 tion of the Spirit." 
 
 M. But surely you will not pretend, that 
 John's baptism issued from " the authority of 
 Christ, as Head of the Church." 
 
 S. I do not pretend, certainly, that John 
 received his commission from Jesus in person. 
 Undoubtedly, he received it of " tlie Father." 
 But what then ? Does this prove that his baptism 
 was not a Christian institute ? By no means. 
 On the contrary, such a supposition is fraught 
 with the most alarming consequences. On this 
 principle, not only would the whole of John's 
 mission be unchristianized— (the gospel which he 
 preached, no less than the rite which he per- 
 formed,) — but the gospel which our Lord himself 
 preached, and the miracles which he performed, 
 would be involved in a similar predicament. In 
 
44 
 
 John's baptism. 
 
 support of this assertion, it is only necessary to 
 inquire, From whom did our Lord receive his 
 commission ? By whom was he sent ? And by 
 what authority did he uniformly act ? Was he 
 self-commissioned ? self-sent ? self-authorized ? — 
 Without intending, for a moment, to derogate from 
 our Lord's essential divinity, we maintain, that, as 
 the Messiah, his authority was precisely the same 
 as that of the harbinger. This is strongly im- 
 plied in that memorable interrogatory answer to 
 the chief priests and elders, who came to him as 
 he was teaching in the temple, and said, " By 
 what authority doest thou these things ? and who 
 gave thee this authority ? Jesus answered, I also 
 will ask you one thing, which if ye tell me, I in 
 likewise will tell you by what authority I do these 
 things : The baptism of John — whence was it ? " 
 evidently implying, that the answer to this ques- 
 tion would be the appropriate reply to theirs. 
 But, to place the matter beyond a doubt, we have 
 only to refer to our Lord's discourses, recorded by 
 the Evangelist John. " I am come in my Father's 
 name, and ye receive me not." — " I do nothing of 
 myself; but as 7ny Father hath taught me, I speak 
 these things." — "The works that I do in my 
 Father's name, they bear witness of me." — " As 
 my Father has sent me, so send I you." Now, 
 on the hypothesis, that it is essential to a Chris- 
 tian ordinance, that it should have been instituted 
 by Christ, i.i distinction from the Father, the 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 45 
 
 works which Jesus himself performed are divested 
 of their Christian character. The gospel which 
 he preached, was not the Christian doctrine ! 
 the miracles which he wrought, were not Christian 
 miracles! the commands which he issued, were not 
 Christian commands ! And yet, that the gospel 
 which our Lord preached, was the Christian doc- 
 trine ; that the miracles which he wrought, weie 
 Christian miracles; and that the commands which 
 lie issued, were Christian commands, no one will 
 presume, for a moment, to deny. Then why deny 
 that John's baptism was a Christian institute, 
 simply because he received his commission, not 
 from Jesus in person, but from the Father? — 
 But now, my friend, allow me to direct your 
 attention to other instances of baptism, than those 
 performed by John — baptisms, which must have 
 emanated from the personal authority of Christ, 
 and which were undeniably anterior to the insti- 
 tution of the sacred supper. In early life, Jesus 
 had been engaged " about his Father's business," 
 as a Prince during his minority, in privacy and 
 seclusion : but, when he was " about thirty years 
 of age," he assumed the legislative character, and 
 took into his own hands the reins of government. 
 His first legislative act, in person, we may pre- 
 sume, was a command to his disciples to teach and 
 baptize ; for, on what other supposition can their 
 performance of these services be explained ? The 
 only question for our consideration is. Was the 
 
46 
 
 JOHN S BAPTISM, 
 
 rite which they administered, John's baptism ? 
 To the argument, it is immaterial ; for, if it was 
 not, it must have been the commencement of a 
 new baptism — an undeniably Christian baptism. 
 But Mr. Hall, I remember, in his Terms of Com- 
 munion, (p. 196.) tells us it was — "that the bap- 
 tisms celebrated by Christ's disciples during his 
 personal ministry, in no respect differed from 
 John's, either in the action itself, or in the import, 
 but were merely a joint-execution of the same 
 work." But then it so happens, that not only did 
 these baptisms, as we have seen, belong to the 
 Christian dispensation, but they must have ema- 
 nated from " the authority of Christ, as Head of 
 the church," or we shall be presented with the 
 appalling spectacle of self-appointed apostles, as- 
 suming a greater authority than their Sovereign 
 Lord. These baptisms, then, belonging to the 
 Christian dispensation, and being performed in 
 obedience to the command of the Christian Legis- 
 lator, were, undeniably. Christian baptism. But 
 Mr. Hall affirms, that " these baptisms in no 
 respect difered from John's." Consequently, 
 John's baptism and Christian baptism, so far from 
 being " essentially different," were, on Mr. Hall's 
 own showing, identically the same ! 
 
 31. Not quite so fast, my friend. That our 
 Lord authorized his disciples to baptize, is easily 
 accounted for. John, " most probably, employed 
 coadjutors:" and "our Lord was, in consequence 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 47 
 
 of his being the Messiah, undoubtedly authorized 
 personally to perform any religious rite or office 
 which was at that time in force, as well as to 
 delegate to others the power of performing it ; 
 and as immersion in token of repentance and 
 preparation for the kingdom of God, then at 
 hand, was an important branch of the religion 
 then obligatory, it was with the greatest pro- 
 priety that he not only submitted to it himself, 
 but authorized his disciples to perform it. This, 
 however, — could not be considered as originating 
 a new institution, but as a mere co-operation with 
 his forerunner in one and the same work." — 
 Terms, 193, 194. 
 
 S, So then, the greater was the servant of the 
 inferior ! the " bridegroom," the assistant of his 
 " friend ! " and the Lord Messiah, the coadjutor of 
 his harbinger ! Who can believe it ? True, on 
 one occasion, he " submitted" to John's baptism : 
 but the objection of John on that occasion, the 
 implied admission of its justice, and the peculiar 
 reason assigned for waiving it in that one instance, 
 — ("Suffer it to be so tiow ; for thus it becometh 
 us, to fulfil all righteousness !") — forbid, most 
 emphatically, the injurious supposition, that on 
 (iiiij other occasion, there should be the least ap- 
 proach even to equal pretensions, much less to an 
 im|)lied inferioiity . Tliank you, my friend, for 
 admitting that Christ did authorize his disciples 
 to baptize, and that his right to do so originated 
 
48 
 
 John's baptism. 
 
 in his being the Messiah. Whether this was a 
 new institution, or a continuation of the rite in- 
 troduced by John, is immaterial; since, whichever 
 it was, it was an ordinance peculiar to the Chris- 
 tian dispensation, and was performed by Christ's 
 disciples, in obedience to Christ's command ; and 
 was, consequently, to all intents and purposes. 
 Christian baptism. But that this was " a mere 
 co-operation with John," is by no means evident. 
 Certainly, John's own disciples were not of this 
 singular opinion ; since they endeavoured to pro- 
 voke their master to jealousy, and represented 
 Jesus as his rival, for no other reason whatever, 
 than because, by his disciples, he baptized, and all 
 men came to him. Either they had not the wis- 
 dom to discover, or the candour to acknowledge, 
 that this was not rivalry, but " co-operation." ! 
 But why did not John undeceive them ? Why 
 did not he tell them they were mistaken — that 
 Jesus was acting as his " coadjutor"! For the 
 best possible reason. This would not have been 
 the truth. On the contrary, John acknowledges 
 the rivalry— and accounts for it — and intimates 
 that it is exactly what he had given them to 
 expect — and actually rejoices in it! It was, in 
 fact, a rivalry without opposition, and with the 
 full concurrence of the harbinger. " Ye yourselves 
 bear me witness, (said he,) that I said I am not 
 the Christ, but that I am sent before him. He 
 that hath the bride is the bridegroom : but the 
 
CHKISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 49 
 
 friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and 
 heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the 
 bridegroom's voice : this, therefore, ray joy, is 
 fulfilled. He must increase ; but I must decrease." 
 And it is a fact, not unworthy of remark, that we 
 never, after this, read of John's baptizing. He 
 rejoiced in what his disciples communicated, not- 
 withstanding it was at the expense of his own 
 personal greatness ; cordially acquiescing in that, 
 which, to a proud spirit, would have been un- 
 speakably mortifying : He must increase ; but I 
 must decrease. Indeed, this is in exact accordance 
 with the office of the forerunner. He did not 
 come to establish his own doctrine, or to introduce 
 a kingdom of his oion : he came as the harbinger 
 of Christ, to " prepare the way of the Lord." 
 Consequently, when Jesus entered on his personal 
 ministry, and assumed the reins of government, 
 John's office naturally ceased : his work was ac- 
 complished, and the harbinger retired. 
 
 ilf. But " when we consider the great popu- 
 larity attached to the ministry of the forerunner, 
 and the general submission of the Jewish people 
 to his doctrine, it is in the highest degree impro- 
 bable, that of the three thousand who were added 
 by St. Peter to the church on one day, there were 
 none who had been previously his disciples : this in- 
 credible supposition is reduced to an impossibility, 
 when we recollect, that of the twelve Apostles, two 
 are actually affirmed by an Evangelist to have been 
 
 F 
 
50 
 
 John's baptism. 
 
 of that number. But as it is universally admitted 
 that they who were savingly convinced of the truth 
 of Christianity after the Pentecost, were baptized 
 on that occasion, what conclusion can be more in- 
 evitable, than that the rite administered by the har- 
 binger of our Lord, was essentially distinct from 
 the Christian ordinance?" — Ess. T)iff. 18, 19. 
 
 S. This, my friend, is one of those arguments 
 which prove too much, and contains within itself 
 the materials for its own refutation. It is by no 
 means certain, that, with the exception of the 
 apostles, any of John's disciples were even present 
 on the occasion to which you refer. It is a fact 
 worthy of notice, that Peter's auditors were by no 
 means exclusively, or even principally, residents 
 in Judea. There were " Parthians, and Medes, 
 and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, 
 and in Judea, andCappadocia, inPontus, and Asia, 
 Phrygia, and Paraphylia, in Egypt, and in the 
 parts of Lybia about Cyrene, and strangers of 
 Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians." 
 Now, for a congregation derived from three quarters 
 of the globe, to be composed of such persons as 
 had never submitted to John's baptism, is at least 
 credible. But if any of John's disciples were pre- 
 sent, it does not follow, that they were baptized on 
 this occasion : for if so, the apostles also should 
 have been re-baptized — a supposition, of which 
 there is not the least shadow of proof. Con- 
 sequently, there were some of John^s disciples 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 51 
 
 present, who doubtless united in church-fe]lowslii|3, 
 and who were not re-baptized. But that which 
 was true of some, may have been true of others. 
 Whether any others ivere similarly situated, wo 
 cannot ascertain. But, one thing appears de- 
 monstrable that NONE OF THOSE WHO WERE 
 
 ON THIS OCCASION BAPTIZED, WERE JoHN's 
 
 DISCIPLES. All who were baptized on this occa- 
 sion, were now, for the first time, "pricked in their 
 hearts:" this was the period of their conversion ; 
 and Peter exhorted them to be baptized "for the 
 remission of sins." But all John's disciples had 
 already complied with this exhortation. The bap- 
 tism of John, the Evangelist Mark informs us, 
 was " the baptism of repentance for the remission 
 of sins;" and to this baptism, "confessing their 
 sins," all the disciples of John had previously 
 submitted. Consequently, this could not be the 
 period of their conversion : they could not now, 
 for the first time, be " pricked in their hearts." 
 If, therefore, any of them were present on this 
 occasion, and united in church-fellowship, it must 
 have been by virtue of their former confession, as 
 in the instance of the apostles. Your argument, 
 my friend, admits of exactly the same reply as you 
 would furnish to our Pedobaptist brethren, wlio 
 infer, that, because households were baptifced, 
 therefore the apostles baptized infants. Whether 
 there were infants in the households, or not, you 
 do not care to decide ; for you maintain, that if 
 
52 
 
 John's baptism, 
 
 there were, they were not baptized: and why? 
 Why, because there are certain circumstances 
 stated of all who were baptized, tohich could not 
 apply to infants. Now, my friend, I call this sound 
 reasoning — reasoning so conclusive, that I glory 
 in being able to adopt it on the present occasion. 
 Whether, with the exception of the apostles, any 
 of John's disciples were present, or not, I neither 
 pretend nor care to decide ; for I maintain, that if 
 there were, they were not now baptized: and why? 
 Why, because there are certain circumstances 
 stated of all who were now baptized, which could 
 not apply to John's disciples. What those circum- 
 stances were, it is unnecessary to repeat. 
 
 M. But we have reason to conclude, that the 
 repentance of John's disciples was " superficial, 
 and that the greater part of such as appeared for 
 a while most determined to press into the kingdom 
 of God, afterwards sunk into a state of apathy. — 
 And even of the professed disciples of our Lord, 
 many walked no more with him. A general de- 
 clension succeeded, so that of the multitudes who 
 once appeared to be much moved by his ministry, 
 and that of his forerunner, the number which per- 
 severed was so inconsiderable, that all that could 
 be mustered to witness his resurrection amounted 
 to little more than five hundred, a number which 
 may be considered as constituting the whole body 
 of the church, till the day of Pentecost." — Terms, 
 34, 35. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 53 
 
 >S'. That the number of disciples who were 
 present after our Lord's resurrection, amounted to 
 about five hundred, is certain ; but that more could 
 not have been mustered, or that this number con- 
 stituted the aggreoate amount of the church, will 
 not be so readily conceded — the former position 
 being confirmed by scripture, the latter being en- 
 tirely destitute of proof. But, be that as it may, 
 we know that John was exceedingly particular in 
 his reception of disciples. When he saw " many 
 of the Pharisees and Sadducees," coming to his 
 baptism, he rebuked them ; saying, " Who hath 
 warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring 
 forth fruits meet for repentance." Luke informs 
 us, that this expostulation was addressed to " the 
 multitude that came forth to be baptized of him." 
 Tlie probability is, therefore, that, as all whom 
 John baptized, were baptized "confessing their 
 sins," multitudes came to his baptism who never 
 submitted to that rite. Possibly, to adopt an 
 expression used by our eloquent friend, "prodigious 
 multitudes" came to his baptism ; but that "mul- 
 titudes," who presented themselves, were not ad- 
 mitted to that sacred rite, is established beyond a 
 doubt. But if, for a moment, we were to admit 
 your hypothesis, — that among the three thousand 
 Ijaptized at the Pentecost, there were some of 
 John's disciples, — then I should be glad to be in- 
 formed why they were re-baptized ? Was it on 
 the ground of their transient apostacy ? or, of the 
 F 2 
 
54 
 
 John's baptism. 
 
 invalidity of their former baptism ? If on the 
 ground of their apostacy, while re-baptism for 
 such a reason would not invalidate John's baptism 
 as such, it would render obligatory in our churches, 
 a practice perfectly novel to modern Christians, 
 and of which no traces can be discovered in eccle- 
 siastical history — the re-baptism of penitent back- 
 sliders, prior to their restoration to the privileges 
 of church-fellowship. On the other hand, if this 
 supposed re-baptism were on the ground of the 
 invalidity of the ordinance administered previous 
 to the Pentecost, — then, not only should these 
 supposed apostates have been re-baptized, but all 
 John's disciples, and Christ's disciples too, the 
 faithful and the faithless, in one indiscriminate 
 mass ; those who adhered to their original pro- 
 fession, no less than those who had abandoned it, 
 but who now repented : — the twelve apostles, the 
 seventy disciples, the five hundred brethren, — all 
 whom death had not removed previous to the 
 Pentecost, and who now retained their fidelity, 
 must have been re-baptized, either on this occasion 
 or subsequently, before they were admitted to the 
 privileges of the Christian church — a supposition, 
 too absurd to be entertained for a single moment. 
 Where, let me ask, is there a solitary instance of 
 such a repetition of baptism? 
 
 M. I answer, confidently, that just such an 
 instance occurred at Ephesus; where twelve of 
 John's genuine disciples were re-baptized by St. 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 53 
 
 Paul; the particulars of which are recorded in the 
 19th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. 
 
 S. This is coming to the point, my friend, 
 certainly ; nor am I surprised at the confidence 
 you express ; since there is scarcely any thing, in 
 the whole controversy, which Mr. Hall asserts 
 with so much positivity. But, confident as you 
 feel, there are two points to be established, before 
 I can acquiesce in your judgment: 1. That they 
 were re-baptized : and 2. That (if they were,) their 
 submission to John's baptism was anterior to the 
 Pentecost. If they were 7iot re-baptized, your 
 position fails you in toto. And even if they were 
 re-baptized, still, if their submission to John's 
 baptism were subsequent to the Pentecost, then 
 there existed a reason for their re-baptism, peculiar 
 to themselves; since no one pleads for the validity 
 of John's baptism if administered after the esta- 
 blishment of the more perfect form, instituted by 
 Christ, in his commission. Their re-baptism for 
 such a reason, would not be of the least service 
 to your argument ; since it would not affect the 
 validity of John's baptism as such, and prior to 
 the Pentecost. On the contrary, it would be of 
 essential disservice to you, in the very core and 
 substance of the controversy; since it would show, 
 most unequivocally, the necessity, in the judg- 
 ment of the Apostle Paul, of a submission to the 
 ordinance of baptism, as instituted by Christ, 
 previous to visible church-membership. — But, to 
 
56 John's baptism, 
 
 begin with the first question — (the result of which 
 will, I believe, render the consideration of the last 
 unnecessary,) — -you are aware, of course, that 
 the fact of their re-baptism has been disputed. 
 
 M. "It does not appear that any of the 
 Fathers entertained a doubt on the subject." — 
 "St. Austin," and " Chrysostom," are "decidedly 
 in our favour." — Terms, 30, 31. 
 
 S. And you might have added several names 
 of modern celebrity : in reply to which, I might 
 adduce other great names, as decidedly opposed 
 to you ; as Drusius, and Beza, and Bochart, and 
 Du Veil, and Poole, and Lightfoot, and Gill, and 
 (your own partizan on the general question,) the 
 ingenious Robert Eobinson ; all of whom concur 
 in opinion, that "the particle St (ver. 5.) answers, 
 as a redditive, to fitv (ver. 4.) and that a new 
 sentence never begins, as in the 5th verse, with 
 
 and a participle, where jutv so immediately goes 
 before it, as in the 4th verse." But you seem to 
 forget, my friend, that Mr. Hall has laid an 
 interdict on " great names." Besides, if we were 
 at liberty to refer to them as " authorities," we 
 should be placed in an awkward dilemma ; seeing 
 that the ancient Saints and the modern Doctors 
 cannot agree in their verdict : and 
 
 "Who shall decide, when Doctors disagree?" 
 
 M. Undoubtedly, we must examine, and form 
 a judgment, for ourselves. And for that purpose, 
 ust be so good as to read the whole passage ; 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 57 
 
 " which I am persuaded will leave no doubt on the 
 mind of an impartial reader." — Terms, 28. 
 S. I will. Acts xix. 1—7. 
 
 (1.) And it came to pass, that while ApoUos was at Corinth, Paul, 
 having passed through the upper coasts, came to Ephesus. 
 
 And finding certain disciples, (2.) he said unto them, " Have ye 
 received the Holy Ghost since ye believed ?" 
 
 And they said unto him, " We have not so much as heard whe- 
 ther there be any Holy Ghost." 
 
 (3.) And he said unto them, " Unto what, then, were ye 
 baptized 1 " 
 
 And they said, " Unto John's baptism." 
 
 (4.) Then said Paul, " John, verily, baptized with the baptism of 
 repentance, saying unto the people, that they should beUeve on Him 
 which should come after him ; that is, on Christ Jesus : (5.) when they 
 heard this,'' they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." 
 
 (6.) And when Paul had laid hishands upon them, the Holy Ghost 
 came on them, and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. 
 
 (7.) And all the men were about twelve. 
 
 M. But how strangely you read ! You pay 
 no regard to punctuation : you make full stops in 
 the middle of verses ; and join verses together, 
 which in the scriptures are separate ! It is very 
 evident you are not an impartial reader. 
 
 5. Perhaps, neither of us can make any veri/ 
 high pretensions to that rare accomplishment — 
 each being the subject of a preconceived opinion. 
 As to the human invention, of dividing the scrip- 
 tures into chapters and verses, it has been such a 
 fruitful source of obscuring the meaning of the 
 Sacred Writers, arising, perhaps, in a great degree, 
 
 ^ Literally, " But they who heard," {litis being supplementary.) 
 Or, understood : AKOvaavng, from A/couu, intelligo. 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 2. 
 
68 
 
 John's baptism, 
 
 from the careless and slovenly manner in which it 
 was executed, that I cannot condescend to offer 
 the slightest apology for attempting, in reference 
 to the present passage, a more rational division. 
 Of course, you are at liberty to object against 
 my arrangement, if you can furnish a sufficient 
 reason. 
 
 M. Then I object to the union of the 5th verse 
 with the 4th, by which you convey an impression 
 that the 5th verse is the language of St. Paul, 
 relative to John's converts in general; whereas 
 I am decidedly of opinion, that it is the language 
 of St. Luke, the historian, respecting the twelve 
 who were then present. 
 
 S. We are agreed, I see, on one point — that 
 " the question rests entirely on the interpretation 
 of the following words : When they heard this, 
 they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." 
 But why do you suppose that this is the language 
 of the historian ? 
 
 M. Because " the persons on whom Paul is 
 asserted to have laid his hands, are unquestionably 
 the identical persons, who are affirmed, in the 
 preceding verse, to have been baptized." — 
 Terms, 29. 
 
 S. Not unquestionably, my friend ; since it 
 happens to be the identical question in dispute. 
 Common sense teaches us who they were, on 
 whom Paul laid his hands : but it is yet a 
 question, most assuredly, whether they and the 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 59 
 
 persons alluded to in the preceding verse, are 
 " identically the same." 
 
 M. But "there is no other antecedent." — 
 Terms, 29. 
 
 S. I think there is. 
 
 M. Where? 
 
 S. In the 3d verse. 
 
 M. " In the whole compass of theological con- 
 troversy, it would be difficult to assign a stronger 
 instance of the force of prejudice, in obscuring a 
 plain matter of fact." — Terms, 30. 
 
 S. Thank you, my friend .' But why should 
 you object to my construction, which is equally 
 grammatical with your own ? Where is the im- 
 propriety of my pleading that the pronoun "they," 
 in the 5th verse, should be connected with its 
 nearest antecedent, "the people" in the 4th verse? 
 It certainly cannot be complained of, as ungram- 
 matical in itself. The only objection that can 
 possibly be urged, is, that it occasions a greater 
 distance between the relative pronoun in the 6th 
 verse, and the antecedent in the 3d verse. But 
 if, after all, it shall appear that the 5th verse is 
 the language of Paul, then I think it would 
 puzzle the most acute grammarian to discover a 
 single grammatical flaw in the construction of the 
 vvhole passage. Nor would the distance you 
 complain of, between the relative pronoun in the 
 6th verse, and its supposed antecedent in the 3d 
 verse, appear so formidable, but for tlte division 
 
60 
 
 John's baptism. 
 
 into verses. It is this, and, in my opinion, this 
 alone, that gives even an air of plausibiUty to your 
 objection. 
 
 M. Still, the question remains — Is the 5th 
 verse the language of St. Paul ? 
 
 S. Granted ; and having shown that such 
 a supposition does not involve a grammatical 
 inaccuracy ; and that " the people," in the 4th 
 verse, is the nearest, and consequently, if in keep- 
 ing with the whole passage, the most natural 
 antecedent ; I will endeavour, by an examination 
 of the account on both hypotheses, to show that my 
 interpretation is most consistent with the principles 
 of right reasoning. First, be so kind as to slate 
 1/our view of the 5th verse. 
 
 M. I understand it thus: — When they (the 
 twelve) heard this (definition of John's baptism,) 
 they (the twelve) were baptized in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus. 
 
 S. To this construction, my friend, I have, 
 what appears to me, an important objection. 
 There is no conceivable connexion between Paul's 
 definition of John's baptism and the supposed re- 
 baptism of the twelve — no injlusncing motive — 
 nothing like cause and effect. On your hypothesis, 
 the re-baptisra of the twelve must have been m 
 consequence of what Paul said concerning John's 
 baptism ; and yet there is nothing whatever, in 
 what Paul said concerning John's baptism, the 
 natural tendency of which is to produce such a 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 61 
 
 result. This is a discrepancy, which, in my humble 
 opinion, is fatal to your interpretation. 
 
 M. Having urged your objection to my view 
 of the passage, be so good as to state on what 
 principle you adopt your own. 
 
 6'. I will ; first explaining how I understand 
 the 5th verse. When they heard this, (5fc. i. e. 
 When they (the people, in the 4th verse,) heard 
 (the doctrine propounded by John,) they (the said 
 people,) were baptized in the name of the Lord 
 Jesus. Now, here, you must perceive, there is 
 a connexion : the baptism of John's disciples 
 naturally follows on his statement of the nature 
 and requirements of the rite which he performed. 
 Having heard, or understood, what he said about 
 his baptism, they submitted to it. Can any thing 
 be more easy, obvious, and unforced ? 
 
 M. But, admitting your interpretation were 
 correct, you have still to show the bearing of St. 
 Paul's observations on the whole transaction. 
 
 i\ Which, I believe, is more than any man 
 can do on your hypothesis. To support your view 
 of the passage, he should have depreciated John's 
 baptism : he should have said what it was not : 
 he should have exposed its defects. Unfortunately 
 for you, he states what it was, and eulogizes it ; 
 showing that, (whatever circumstantial difference 
 there might be between that rite and baptism since 
 the death of Christ,) it was essentially the same — 
 recognizing the incipient principles of repentance 
 
62 
 
 JOHN S BAPTISM, 
 
 and faith. And the bearing of Paul's definition 
 of John's baptism, on the whole transaction, is just 
 this: while it satisfactorily accounts for the twelve 
 not having heard of the preternatural effusion of 
 the Holy Spirit, it establishes their qualification 
 for its reception — inasmuch as they had been 
 baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
 
 M. Have you any other reason for adopting 
 this view of the passage ? 
 
 S. I have. For, while on your hypothesis, the 
 transaction would furnish a solitary instance of 
 what cannot possibly be proved from any other 
 source, the interpretation which I have adopted, 
 harmonizes with every other representation of the 
 ordinance of baptism, recorded by the inspired 
 penmen. 
 
 M. I have listened very attentively, my friend, 
 to all your observations this evening, and will give 
 them due consideration. You will not, of course, 
 expect me now to express my opinion of their 
 validity ; though I have no doubt yon think them 
 conclusive ! But, even if they be, how unimpor- 
 tant is your victory ! What, after all, have you 
 achieved ? As I observed, at the commencement 
 of this Conversation, " the admission of what you 
 contend for, would merely prove that the ordinance 
 of baptism was promulgated at an earlier period 
 than the Lord's-supper. But in determining a 
 question of duty resulting from positive laws, the 
 era of their promulgation is a consideration totally 
 
CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 63 
 
 foreign ; we have merely to consider what is en- 
 joined, and to what description of persons or things 
 the regulation applies, without troubling ourselves 
 to inquire into the chronological order of its enact- 
 ment. In the details of civil life, no man thinks 
 of regulating his actions by an appeal to the 
 respective dates of the existing laws, but solely 
 by a regard to their just interpretation ; and were 
 it once admitted as a maxim, that the particular 
 law latest enacted must invariably be last obeyed, 
 tlie affairs of mankind would fall into utter con- 
 fusion. — It is a principle as repugnant to the 
 nature of divine, as it is to human legislation. It 
 appears from the history of the patriarchs, that 
 sacrificial rites were ordained much earlier than 
 circumcision ; but no sooner was the latter en- 
 joined, than it demanded the earliest attention, 
 and the offerings prescribed on the birth of a child 
 did not precede, but were subsequent to, the cere- 
 mony of circumcision." — Ess. Dif. 6 — 8. 
 
 S. Pardon me, my dear friend, if I venture 
 to think that you reason much more conclusively 
 respecting the details of civil life, than in relation 
 to divine institutions. Surely, you must have 
 forgotten your own rule of interpretation, — that 
 we have not merely to consider what is enjoined, 
 but also " to what description of persons or things 
 the regulation applies," — or you never would have 
 hazarded the assertion, that " sacrificial rites were 
 ordained earlier than circumcision." For, while 
 
64 John's — christian baptism. 
 
 this is true in itself, it is not true in relation to the 
 persons to whom the rite of circumcision applies. 
 Sacrifices were not enjoined on them, prior to cir- 
 cumcision ; except, indeed, in the instance of its 
 first recipients, who attended to each in the order 
 of divi)ie appointment. Consequently, your in- 
 ference is not sustained. In relation to the affairs 
 of civil life, and distinct regulations, your remarks 
 may be just. But suppose one law is not only 
 promulgated at an earlier period than another, 
 but, in a subsequent code of laws, is appointed to 
 be observed in a certain order — immediately after 
 obedience to previous duties, and before the ob- 
 servance of certain other duties — to such a case 
 your reasoning is totally inapplicable. It is not 
 merely because baptism was promulgated at an 
 earlier period than the Lord's-supper, that we 
 plead for our practice : but because, in our Lord's 
 commission, which is the law to which we refer 
 you, and which was invariably acted upon by the 
 apostles, the order in which baptism is to be observed 
 is distinctly stated — a deviation from which, is, 
 in our opinion, a breach of the law. — But we must 
 not now enter on the general question. If you 
 please, our next Conversation shall be on the con- 
 nexion between baptism and church-felloivship. 
 M. Agreed. 
 
CONVERSATION III. 
 
 BAPTISM AS INDISPENSABLE A PREREQUISITE TO EXTERNAL 
 CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP, AS FAITH IS TO BAPTISM. 
 
 G 2 
 
ANALYSIS. 
 
 'J'he Christian commission the law of the Christian church ; in 
 which the separate laws of faith, and baptism, and church-fellowship 
 are exliibited in connexion, each occupying its appointed, and there- 
 fore unchangeable place. — Baxter, in confirmation. — His inconsis- 
 tency. — Bishop Taylor reasons as if the minimum of evidence con- 
 tained the maximum of truth ; and xice verm '. — The order for which 
 we contend, confessedly "the prescribed order;" consequently, unless 
 we know better than the Legislator, it must be the order observed. — 
 A peculiar reason for a prohibition in relation to ciroimcision and 
 baptism. — A ])rohibition of an unbaptized believer from the Lord's- 
 supper would be perfectly ridiculous, the law not allowing such an 
 anomaly. — A Baptist, of all others, no right to require a prohibition. — 
 The IMixed Baptist reasons with Pedobaptists as we reason with him ; 
 and then, when ue adopt it, is dissatisfied with his own reasoning ! — 
 The arguments for restricted communion precisely similar to those 
 for restricted baptism. — And lice versa. — Neither the IMixed Baptist, 
 nor the Strict Communion Pedobaptist, can plead the order of the 
 Christian commission, or apostolic precedent, without an exposure 
 to the mortification of a retort — Mixtus and Mr. Hall of different 
 opinions respecting "the natural order of the Christian sacraments ;" 
 Strictus agreeing with Mr. Hall ! — Mixtus, to be consistent, should 
 renounce the order of the Christian commission in fo(o, and be a 
 Mixed Pedobajitist ; or adhere to it as a ulioU, and be a Strict Bap- 
 tist. — The Strict Baptists grossly misrepresented. — Baptism, pro- 
 perly administered, superior to any pulpit exercise whatever. — Want 
 of common honesty in some Mixed Baptists, under the pretence of 
 Christian love ! — Our union with Pedobaptists, in prayer and prais« 
 and preaching the gospel and Christian benevolence, not a violation 
 of our principle. — Mixtus ridicules the distinction between universal 
 Christian duties and exercises peculiar to church-fellowship, as a 
 mere logomachy. — Which Mr. Hall, more sensibly, recognizes and 
 avows ! — The hypothesis, that the rules of admission into the 
 church-militant and the church triumphant are the same, a mere 
 assumption,* totally incapable of proof. — Christ acts as a Sovereign : 
 we must act as servants. — Church-members to be instructed to ob- 
 serve all things ivhatsoever Christ commanded: but those who are not 
 church-members, not to be instructed to observe alt things, but only 
 such things as are obligatory irrespective of church-membership. — 
 Apostolic precedent. 
 
III. 
 
 JMlXTUS. Good evening, my dear friend : 
 I presume we shall have but a short discussion, 
 to-night; since I am of opinion, with Mr, Hall, 
 that " the chief, I might say, [almost] the only 
 argument, for the restricted plan of communion, is 
 derived from the example of the apostles, and the 
 practice of the primitive church.'" — Reasons, 7. 
 
 Strictus. This is not exactly correct. I humbly 
 conceive, that our arguments for restricted com- 
 munion are precisely as numerous and concliisive 
 as yours for restricting baptism to believers ; and 
 that, to be consistent, you must either abandon 
 your own position — that faith is an indispensable 
 prerequisite to baptism; or admit ours — that bap- 
 tism is an indispensable prerequisite to church- 
 fellowship : both positions being established on 
 the same evidence. Undoubtedly, the example of 
 
68 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 the apostles is extremely valuable to us, as well as 
 to you ; since it shows how they understood their 
 Lord's commission, and how punctiliously they 
 adhered to it. Indeed, without John's baptism 
 and the example of the apostles, both the Baptist 
 and the Strict Baptist would have a more difficult 
 task to perform, each in confuting his respective 
 opponents, than at present falls to their lot. The 
 example of the apostles is, unquestionably, an im- 
 portant auxiliary to us both ; since it elucidates 
 the meaning of our Lord's commission, beyond all 
 contradiction. Besides which, their injunctions 
 on the first churches, to imitate their example, 
 to " keep the ordinances as they delivered them," 
 must equally apply to our churches. But, follow- 
 ing your own example in reasoning with your 
 Pedobaptist brethren, it is to the commission, the 
 law itself, that we refer you, as the authority on 
 which our practice is founded — as the primary, 
 direct, authoritative rule — (confirmed and re- 
 iterated and enforced by the apostles,) by which 
 we must be governed in the organization of our 
 churche.s — a law, we humbly conceive, of pe- 
 remptory and perpetual obligation. 
 
 M. My good friend, " we are agreed with you 
 repecting the law of baptism. — But the present 
 inquiry turns, not on the nature or obligation of 
 baptism, but on the necessary dependance of another 
 institution upon it. — It is inconceivable, how any 
 thing more is deducible from the law of baptism. 
 
AND CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 69 
 
 than its present and perpetual obligation. The 
 existence of a law establishes the obligation 
 of a corresponding duty, and nothing more." — 
 Reply, 16, 17. 
 
 S. Thank you, my friend, for conceding that 
 the existence of a law does establish the obligation 
 of a corresponding duty — a position, we presume, 
 of universal application. But you totally mistake 
 us, if you imagine we refer to the law of baptism 
 only. Not, indeed, that I am surprised at this ; 
 for it is a mistake into which the advocates of 
 mixed communion are perpetually falling : as if 
 the laws of baptism and church-fellowship were so 
 totally distinct, that they could never be viewed in 
 connexion ; while, with marvellous inconsistency, 
 they confidently maintain, that both these laws 
 are inseparably connected with a prior, and equally 
 distinct law — the law of faith ! But the law to 
 which we refer, embraces all these, and exhibits 
 their connexion, and their dependance on each 
 other. It is. The Commission of Christ; and 
 may be appropriately designated. The Law of 
 THE Christian Church — a law, in which the 
 distinct laws of faith, and baptism, and visible 
 church-fellowship, are introduced as parts, or 
 sections, of one complete whole, each part occu- 
 pying its appointed, and therefore unchangeable 
 place. It is one law, and requires the performance 
 of certain duties in a certain order. The order in 
 which these duties were first enjoined, is of com- 
 
70 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 paratively inferior importance ; but the order in 
 which they are here commanded to be observed, is 
 the order in which they must be observed, or the 
 law is violated. As the pious Richard Baxter 
 observes, relative to this law, — {Disputation of 
 Right to Sacraments, 149, 150.) — " This is not 
 like some occasional, historical mention of baptism ; 
 but it is the very commission of Christ to his 
 apostles ; — and purposely expresseth their several 
 works, in their several places and order. Their 
 first work is, by teaching, to make disciples ; 
 which are, by Mark, called believers. Their 
 second work is to baptize them. Their third work 
 is to teach them all other things which are to be 
 learned in the school of Christ. To contemn this 
 order, is to renounce all rules of order ; for where 
 can we expect to find it, if not here ? I profess 
 my conscience is fully satisfied, from this text, 
 that it is one sort of faith, even saving, that must 
 go before baptism." He might have added, by a 
 parity of reasoning, that it is one sort of baptism, 
 even that which Christ enjoined, that must go 
 before church-fellowship. Indeed, in his Plain 
 Scripture Proof, (p. 126.) he does say, " If any 
 should be so impudent, as to say it is not the 
 meaning of Christ, that baptism should immediate- 
 ly, without delay, follow discipling, they are con- 
 futed by the constant example of scripture. So 
 that I dare say this will be out of doubt with all 
 rational, considerate, and impartial Christians." 
 
AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 71 
 
 And, in the 24th page of the same publication, 
 he asks, "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 ? " and replies, 
 " Yet they that will admit members into the 
 visible church without baptism, do so."** 
 
 M. But, "to justify the exclusion of sincere 
 and conscientious Pedobaptists, it is not sufficient 
 to allege the prescribed oi'der of the institutions : 
 it is 
 
 S. Excuse me, my friend, for interrupting 
 you : but a remark at the beginning of a sentence 
 may be forgotten, if not noticed immediately. 
 I merely wish to observe, that the prescribed order 
 must be observed, unless we pretend to be wiser 
 than the Legislator by whom it is prescribed. If 
 
 ' How Mr. Baxter coalJ reconcile the above, and the quotations 
 below," with his practice as a Pedobaptist, is, to us, rather myste- 
 rious : but, believing he was " sincere and conscientious," we pre- 
 sume be came to some such conclusion as Jeremy Taylor ; who 
 lionestly confesses, " I think there is so much to be pretended 
 a^'ainst that which I beheve to be the truth, that there is much more 
 truth than evidence on our side." — Liberty of Prophcwn^, xviii. 243. 
 The only difficulty is, to conceive how, witii such a prepointeruiice 
 (if evidence against liim, the j^ood Bishop sliould be so unphilosnphical 
 as to believe that his sentinu'iits were true ! 
 
 wiUiout Ihr iiM ( ; , . , I, , ,1 L, I 
 
 Sacranwnfs, 140. 101. ^ 
 
 Rom. ix. 4. 6, 7, 8. Rom. iv. II, 12, 13. So Gal. iii. 0— 9. IJ. 16." 
 
 But, pcihaps, Mr. RaMer bapli/.cd inf.inls, as the s, 
 such thini;. He tells us, in Ihe same perl\>rni:ini e, i 
 Abraham's seed, in scripture, ^uspel sense, but those < 
 believers; and those appearinglt/, that profess true 
 
72 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 the order were accidental, we miojht, perhaps, ven- 
 ture to deviate ; but, since what we plead for, is, 
 on your own confession, " the prescribed order," 
 it must, if we would maintain any pretensions to 
 obedience, be the order observed. — But please to 
 proceed. 
 
 M. I was about to observe, that "it is not 
 sufficient to allege tho prescribed order of the in- 
 stitutions ; it is necessary also to evince such a 
 dependance of one upon the other, that a neglect 
 of the first, from involuntary mistake, annuls the 
 obligation of the second. Let this dependance be 
 once clearly pointed out, and we give up the cause. 
 It has been asserted, indeed, with much confidence, 
 that we have the same authority for confining our 
 communion to baptized persons, as the ancient 
 Jews for admitting none but such as had been 
 circumcised, to the passover." But the contrary 
 is demonstrable. In the former case, there is an 
 express prohibition — No uncircumcised person shall 
 eat thereof. " But where, let me ask, is it asserted 
 in the New Testament, that no unbaptized person 
 shall partake of the eucharist ? " — Terms, 46, 47. 
 
 S. Nowhere, certainly. But why ? Why, 
 because such a prohibition is not only perfectly 
 unnecessary, but would be ineffably absurd. I 
 might ask, with at least equal propriety — Where 
 is It asserted, in the New Testament, that an un- 
 baptized person mai/ partake of the Lord's-supper ? 
 and you would be compelled to reply. Nowhere. 
 
AND CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 73 
 
 There was a reason, my friend, for an express pro- 
 hibition in relation to the Old-testament rites, 
 which does not exist in relation to those of the 
 New Testament. The passover was a family rite, 
 of which, consequently, without a prohibition, all 
 the family would naturally expect to partake ; 
 while there were some of its members, who were 
 not only uncircumcised, but who were not under 
 an obligation to be circumcised. But the Lord's- 
 supper is a church ordinance ; and there is not an 
 individual member of the church of Christ, on 
 whom baptism is not obligatory. If, indeed, there 
 were any believers who might remain unbaptized, 
 then, to justify their exclusion from the Lord's- 
 supper, a prohibition might be necessary ; but, 
 seeing that baptism is enjoined on all believers, 
 the prohibition of an unbaptized believer would be 
 in the very last degree ridiculous. Such a singular 
 document, — (a virtual repeal, in fact, of the law 
 of baptism, conveying an implied permission to 
 neglect it !) — would exhibit an indecision, not to 
 say imbecility, utterly unworthy of Him, who is 
 "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever." 
 Consequently, whatever may be thought of the 
 inference in favour of restricted communion, drawn 
 from the connexion which subsisted between cir- 
 cumcision and the passover, the absence of a 
 prohibition in relation to the Christian ordinances 
 ought never to be urged against it. Besides, my 
 friend, with what show of fairness can you require 
 
 H 
 
74 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 a prohibition? — you, of all others ! who deny the 
 right of your Pedobaptist brethren to require of 
 you a similar prohibition of their practice ? You 
 maintain a iiecessary comiexion between faith and 
 baptism. You assert, not only that faith is a duty, 
 that baptism is a duty, and that both are of per- 
 petual obligation ; but also that >io unbeliever i$ 
 entitled to baptism: nor will you allow the "in- 
 voluntary" unbeliever — the unconscious babe — 
 who, if it were to die, would be " instantaneously 
 admitted to glory," — the privilege of being an 
 exception to your sweeping exclusion. Your Pe- 
 dobaptist brother might turn round upon you, and 
 say, (adopting your own reasoning with us,) ' To 
 justify the exclusion of infants from baptism, it is 
 not sufficient to allege the prescribed order of faith 
 and baptism : it is necessary also to evince such a 
 depe?idance of one upon the other, that the involun- 
 tary absence of the first annuls the obligation of 
 the second. And where, let me ask, is it asserted, 
 in the New Testament, that no unbeliever shall be 
 baptized?' In reply, my friend, you would be 
 compelled to resort to the same mode of reasoning 
 as we adopt in the present controversy ; but with 
 Avhich, when we adopt it, you, with glaring in- 
 consistency, profess yourselves dissatisfied ! Our 
 reasons for refusing to unite with the unbaptized 
 in church-fellowship, are as conclusive as yours 
 for refusing to administer baptism to infants. 
 You have no more scriptural evidence that faith is 
 
AND CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 75 
 
 an indispensable term of baptism, than we have 
 that baptism is an indispensable term of com- 
 munion. You cannot produce, any more than we 
 can, an expressed necessary connexion. It is no- 
 where explicitly stated that faith and baptism are 
 inseparable. You cannot furnish a prohibition of an 
 unbeliever from baptism. And yet you confidently 
 maintain your position, and uniformly act upon 
 it, not excepting even the involuntary unbeliever : 
 and then, with the most flagrant injustice, you 
 deny us the privilege of maintaining our posi- 
 tion on precisely your own principles ! Is this 
 liberality ? A Pedobaptist might say to you, ' If 
 teaching and faith be indispensable to baptism, 
 why did not Jesus Christ explicitly say so, and 
 forbid his ministers to baptize any who were not 
 thus qualified ? ' In fact, they do argue thus ; 
 and are you silenced? No, indeed. You reply, 
 and very properly, ' A prohibition is not necessary . 
 the command is sufEcient. Read our Lord's com- 
 mission : " Go, teach all nations, baptizing them 
 in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Ghost." Is not this plainly the 
 order in which these duties are to be performed ? 
 First, we are to teach men the gospel ; and then, 
 secondly, on their believing the gospel, we are to 
 baptize them.' But, my friend, this is precisely 
 what we plead, extending the argument, with per- 
 fect consistency, to the conclusion. You remind 
 me very forcibly of our Pedobaptist brethren, who 
 
76 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 stop short at the word children, in that memorable 
 promise of the Holy Spirit, quoted from the pro- 
 phecies of Joel, by the apostle Peter, in his pente- 
 costal sermon. But why do you stop short, before 
 you come to the conclusion ? Is not the latter 
 part of our Lord's commission as authoritative as 
 the former? Or, is the order of it binding in one 
 particular, and discretional in another? Do not 
 we as conclusively maintain that the second duty 
 must precede the third, as you insist that the first 
 duty must precede the second ? Surely, if teach- 
 ing be intentionally enjoined as the jirst duty, 
 baptism is intentionally enjoined as the second 
 duty, and visible church-fellowship as the third 
 duty ; and, I humbly conceive, we are no more at 
 liberty to invert the order in one case, than in 
 another. We have precisely the same authority, 
 then, for maintaining that baptism should precede 
 visible church-fellowship, as you have for insisting 
 that faith should precede baptism. The two po- 
 sitions stand or fall together.^ With what show 
 
 ' And were the writer, as a Baptist, reasoning with his Pedo- 
 baptist brethren, — (who almost unanimously practise strict com- 
 munion, refusing to admit to their communion any but those who are 
 in their judgment baptized ;) — he might adopt the same principle, 
 only reversing the argument, and say, We have precisely the same 
 authority for maintaining that teaching should precede baptism, as 
 you have for insisting that what you believe to be Christian baptism 
 should precede visible church-fellowship. The two positions stand 
 or fall together. But, from either a Mixed Communion Baptist or 
 a Strict Communion Pedobaptist, this argument would be nugatory ; 
 for though each should convict his brother of inconsistency, both 
 
AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 77 
 
 of fairness, my friend, can you require more ex- 
 plicit evidence from us, in favour of restricted 
 eommunion, than you can furnish to your Pedo- 
 baptist brethren, in favour of your own plan of 
 restricted baptism? Do you plead the commission? 
 So do we. Do you say, there is 7io command 
 to baptize infants? Neither can you produce a 
 command to receive the unbaptized to church- 
 fellowship. Do you maintain that there is no 
 example of infant baptism ? Neither is there any 
 example of mixed communion. Were the candi- 
 dates for baptism, in the judgment of the apos- 
 tles, invariably believers'? The members of their 
 
 might expect the retort courteous — ' And what then ? If we be in- 
 ronsistent with ourselves, you should be silent ; for so are \ov : if 
 we invert the order of the commission in otte particular, you invert 
 it iu another.' And thus, wliile they peisisted in obeying the com- 
 mission between ihem — one party pleading for one part only, and the 
 other exclusively for the remainder — leither would be likely to 
 produce con^action in the mind of his brother. Those, and those only, 
 who observe the order of the commission as a whole, can point out 
 the deviations of their brethren, without exposing themselves to the 
 mortification of a retort. Before either the Strict Pedobaptist 
 or tlie Blixed Baptist can, with any propriety, impugn our 
 peculiar sentiments, they must abandon, the former his strict com- 
 munion, and the latter his baptism. They would then, certainly, be 
 <me. body, — having one Lord, one faith, and avowedly one baptism ; 
 and they might unite in one common cause. But what a union ! — 
 a union in displacing hoih faith sind baptism from the position in 
 which they were fixed by their common Lord ! We, however, with 
 all humihty, as becometh "a sect every where spoken against," 
 would be well content with the cast-off-principles of our brethren : 
 and should they dispute our right of possession, to these, we are 
 prepared with an unimpeachable title — a special bequest, in the last 
 Will and Testament of our Sovereign Lord. 
 H 2 
 
78 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 churches were, in the same judgment, uniformly 
 baptized believers. 
 
 M. But there is a natural connexion between 
 faith and baptism, which certainly does not exist 
 between baptism and the Lord's-supper. Baptism 
 is a profession of faith ; and the profession of that 
 which has no existence, is, in the last degree, un- 
 meaning and absurd. But, "that there is no 
 natural connexion between baptism and the 
 Lord's-supper, is obvious. They were instituted 
 at different times, and for different purposes : 
 baptism is a mode of professing our faith in the 
 blessed trinity, the Lord's-supper is a commemora- 
 tion of the dying love of the Redeemer : the for- 
 mer is the act of an individual, the latter of a 
 society. The words which contain our warrant 
 for the celebration of the eucharist, convey no 
 allusion to baptism whatever : those which pre- 
 scribe baptism carry no anticipative reference to 
 the eucharist." — Reasons, 21. 
 
 5. But how is this, friend Mixtus ? You 
 are at variance with your friend ISIr. Hall ! And, 
 (which, perhaps, you will consider more wonder- 
 ful still,) I am perfectly satisfied he is correct ! 
 He honestly concedes that there is a natural con- 
 nexion between baptism and the Lord's-supper. 
 Allow me just to read a sentence or two from his 
 first publication on this controversy : — (Terms, 69.) 
 " I must remark, (he says,) that, in insisting upon 
 the prior claim which baptism possesses to the 
 
AND CHURCH FULLOWSHIP. 
 
 79 
 
 attention of a Christian convert, the advocates of 
 strict communion triumph without an opponent. 
 We know of none — [Of course, this was previous 
 to his intimacy with my good friend Mixtus ! But 
 listen !] — We know of none, (he adds,) who contend 
 for the propriety of inverting the natural order 
 of the Christian sacraments, where they can both 
 be attended to, that is, when the nature of each 
 is clearly understood and confessed." 
 
 M. But in this I cordially agree with my 
 friend. 
 
 6\ In one particular, I admit you do. You 
 have no desire to invert the natural order of the 
 two ordinances, except in certain circumstances. 
 But on another point, (the point for which I am 
 contending,) you are not agreed. For, while he 
 pleads for the inversion of the natural order on 
 some occasions- — (which, indeed, is not surprising; 
 since he also pleads for the inversion of the order 
 which, by his own confession, Christ himself 
 prescribed!) — he does admit that the order for 
 which we plead, is " the natural order : " which 
 you deny. He says, the order for which we plead, 
 and which he would observe, except under certain 
 circumstances, is " the natural order of the Chris- 
 tian sacraments." You, on the other hand, assert, 
 that between these two ordinances " there is 7to 
 natural connexion." Now, my friend, I cannot 
 agree with both of you; and niy judgment cer- 
 tainly coincides with Mr. Hall's, 
 
80 
 
 CONNEXION OF HAPTISM 
 
 M. But, I have some reason to believe that 
 my friend Mr. Hall has changed his opinion on 
 this point, and that now he agrees with me. Con- 
 sequently, the question returns upon you : — Is 
 there, or is there not, between the sacraments, 
 a natural connexion ? That there is not, is, in 
 my opinion, obvious, for the reasons I just now 
 stated.— (ill. p. 78.) 
 
 S. But surely, my friend, you do not mean 
 to affirm, that, because the nature and design of 
 the two ordinances are not in all respects the 
 same, therefore there can exist between them no 
 natural connexion ! On this principle, nothing 
 would be easier than to undermine the connexion 
 between faith and baptism, the points of difference 
 being equally obvious. A Pedobaptist, availing 
 himself of your own reasoning against us, might 
 say, ' Brother Mixtus, I admire your arguments 
 exceedingly ; I think tliey are perfectly conclu- 
 sive ; and I cannot but indulge the hope that you 
 will perceive their force also in relation to the 
 alleged connexion betv/een faith and baptism. 
 That there is no tiatural connexion between them, 
 is obvious. Faith is a divine principle, an exercise 
 of the mind ; baptism is an external ceremony, 
 "the sacramental use of water." Faith is required 
 to be in constant exercise ; baptism is "a transient 
 rite," to be administered but once. Faith is es- 
 sential to salvation ; but myriads, we trust, are in 
 heaven, who were never baptized.' It is true. 
 
AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 81 
 
 my friend, if your Pedobaptist brother practised 
 strict communion, (as most of them do,) you 
 might exchange these arguments ad injiuitum ; 
 alternately ' accusing and excusing ' one another. 
 But just suppose he was one of a modern few 
 among them, who agree with you on communion — 
 then how would you reply ? If you admitted his 
 argument, you would abandon tlie connexion 
 between faith and baptism : if you rebutted his 
 reasoning, precisely your own arguments would 
 confute your present position — that there is no 
 natural connexion between baptism and the 
 Lord's-supper, Baptism is the divinely -appointed 
 mode of avowing our union with the Head of the 
 Christian church : a public pledge, before the 
 church and the world, that having cordially ac- 
 cepted the offers of his grace, we devote ourselves 
 unreservedly to his service, and will continue 
 faithful unto death. But surely, the natural po- 
 sition of such an ordinance, is, obviously, at the 
 commencement of the new relation, and prior to a 
 participation of any of its peculiar privileges. 
 Baptism, like the connubial rite, recognizes equally 
 the past and the future. A public avowal of a 
 union with Christ prior to its existence, and a 
 participation of the privileges peculiar to such a 
 union previous to its avowal, in the mode, and 
 only mode of Divine appointment, are equally an 
 inversion of the order of nature. Consequently, 
 the Lord's-supper being an ordinance peculiar to 
 
82 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 a church-relation, and baptism being the divinely- 
 appointed mode of entrance into the visible church, 
 the priority of baptism to the supper is founded 
 no less in the nature of things, than in the uniform 
 representations of scripture, whether in relation 
 to the Christian commission, or to the undeviating 
 practice of the first and purest age of the Christian 
 church. And to unite with any person in the 
 celebration of that ordinance which is a comme- 
 moration of the death of Christ, who has not, in 
 obedience to his command, been " baptized into 
 (the belief of) his death," appears to me, (no less 
 than, a few years ago, it appeared to Mr. Hall,) 
 a manifest inversion of " the natural order of the 
 Christian sacraments:" which we also unite in 
 believing to be " the prescribed order." The only 
 point on which we are at issue is, whether we are 
 at liberty to invert this order, in deference to the 
 erroneous notions of modern Christians — in other 
 words, whether we may make a nose of wax of 
 our Lord's commission, to be moulded into any 
 shape, to accommodate every error of every 
 Christian. My belief is, that the law of Christ is 
 immutable, no less in its order than in its re- 
 quirements — an order, equally commending itself 
 to the judgment, whether we appeal to the 
 commission, to the uniform practice of the apos- 
 tles, or to the dictates of reason, suggested by a 
 calm consideration of the design of the two ordi- 
 nances. Baptism is a "putting on" Christ ; and 
 
AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 83 
 
 the onlif appointed mode of entering his visible 
 church. But the Lord's-supper is a perpetual 
 remembrance of that affecting transaction, into 
 the behef of which all its recipients, in the first 
 churches, were previously baptized. To invert this 
 order, therefore, is a deviation from both scripture 
 and reason, and, as Baxter has well said, a renun- 
 ciation of all the rules of order. From a review 
 of the whole, my friend, you must allow me again 
 to remind you, that, if you would make any pre- 
 tensions to consistency, you must either abandon 
 your own position, that faith is indispensable to 
 baptism — (unless, indeed, you can establish it on 
 higher authority than the commission of Christ, 
 the uniform practice of the apostles, and the na- 
 ture of things !) — or, you must allow that precisely 
 the same arguments are conclusive in proof of 
 restricted communion. You, cannot, with any 
 show of reason, maintain their validity in the one 
 case, and deny it in the other. The two positions 
 are supported by the same kind of evidence, and 
 must stand or fall together. Take your choice, then, 
 my friend : renounce the order of the commission 
 in toto, and be a Mixed Pedobaptist ; or adhere 
 to it as a whole, and be a Strict Baptist. In either 
 case, you will, at least, be consistent. 
 
 M. But I am not quite satisfied of yortr own 
 consistency yet ! Either, you should " follow out 
 your principles to their just consequences, by 
 withholding from the members of other denomina- 
 
84 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 tions evtrij token of fraternal regard; or freely 
 admit them to the Lord's table. As the case 
 stands at present, your mode of proceeding is 
 utterly untenable. In a variety of instances, 
 you indulge yourselves in those acts of com- 
 munion with Pedobaptists which are peculiar 
 to Christians : you frequently make them your 
 mouth in addressing the Deity, exchange pulpits, 
 and even engage their assistance in exercises in- 
 tended as a preparation for the eucharist ; and 
 after lighting the flame of devotion at their torch, 
 you most preposterously turn round to inform 
 them that they are not worthy to participate ! — 
 Is the observance of an external rite, let me ask, 
 a more solemn part of religion than addressing the 
 Majesty of heaven and of earth? And shall we 
 depute him to present our prayers at his footstool 
 who would defile a sacrament by his presence?" — 
 Reasons, 37, 38. 
 
 S. Far be it from me, my friend, to depreciate 
 the solemn exercise of prayer : but neither should 
 it be exalted at the expense of an ordinance of 
 Jesus Christ, equally imperative, equally an act of 
 worship, equally edifying ; and, when it is attend- 
 to, as it ought to be, " with all the heart, and 
 mind, and soul," more interesting, more solemn, 
 more affecting, more beneficial, than any ordinary 
 pulpit exercise whatever. True, indeed, this 
 " sacramental use of water," this " transient cere- 
 mony," as it is designated, has, in some places, 
 
AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 85 
 
 degenerated into a very vapid, dull, tarne, un- 
 interesting sort of thing — as much like a mere 
 ceremony, as any thing not a mere ceremony can 
 possibly be. But, my friend, let the ordinance of 
 baptism occupy its proper place, and be viewed in 
 its scriptural import, and its important bearings 
 and relations, — and, next to the conversion of 
 a sinner, it becomes the most interesting spectacle 
 on earth, that men or angels witness. — Passing 
 this, however, I must be allowed to remark, that 
 you grossly misrepresent us. We are not charge- 
 able with the inconsistency you allege against us. 
 We do not tell our Pedobaptist brother that he 
 is "not worthy" to partake of the Lord's-supper. 
 Wedono? affirm that he would " defile a sacrament 
 by his presence." We only refuse to unite with 
 him in what ive believe to be an irregular and un- 
 authorized reception of it. And we never insult 
 a Pedobaptist minister, by inviting him to " assist 
 in an exercise intended as a preparation for the 
 eucharist." For his services on such occasions, 
 we are indebted, we presume, to the friends of 
 mixed communion ! 
 
 We may charitably presume, that such an arrangement is 
 simply the result of incoiisideratiim. But what shall be said of tlvose 
 ministers, who, (under a pretence of Christian candour '.) deliberately 
 imjjose a cheat on their ciiurches, either by concealing, or mis- 
 representing the circumstances of their unbaptized friends, who wish 
 for occasional communion ! It is perfectly unnecessary to inquire 
 whether this is Christian candour. Is it common honesty ? Is it not 
 wilful falsehood ? No one who is acquainted with i\Ir. Hall, will 
 suspect him of such a contemptible and unchristian artifice. 
 I 
 
86 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 M. But still, you do unite with Pedobaptists, 
 voluntarily and spontaneously, in innumerable 
 Christian exercises ; in prayer, and praise, and 
 preaching the gospel ; and in a variety of bene- 
 volent institutions for the amelioration of the 
 miseries of mankind, and the extension of the 
 Redeemer's kingdom. 
 
 5. Undoubtedly we do ; but what then? None 
 of these exercises are peculiar to church-fellowship. 
 They are incumbent upon us in our individual ca- 
 pacity, whether we are connected with a Christian 
 church or not. You greatly mistake, if you sup- 
 pose we consider the absence of baptism as a dis- 
 qualification for the Lord's-supper only. Baptism 
 being the divinely-appointed mode of entrance into 
 the visible church, we consider the absence of 
 it, (as far as our concurrence is concerned,) as a 
 disqualification for all the offices and exercises 
 peculiar to churches. We decline a union with 
 Pedobaptists in the celebration of the Lord's- 
 supper, because it is a church ordinance ; and to 
 unite with those as church-members, who, in our 
 opinion, have not entered the church by the door 
 of Christ's appointing, would be, we conceive, a 
 most unworthy reflection on his wisdom, and 
 disregard of his just authority. Since He has 
 appointed baptism as the mode in which all 
 believers shall be admitted to visible church- 
 fellowship, who are we, that we should presume 
 to receive them without baptism, to any of the 
 
AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 87 
 
 exercises peculiar to Christian churches, as such ? 
 We should not elect a Pedobaptist to the office 
 of either pastor or dmcon; for they are church 
 offices; and, on the same principle, we decline a 
 joint-participation of the Lord's-supper. But 
 prayer, and praise, and preaching the gospel, and 
 Christian benevolence, are not acts peculiar to 
 churches. They were duties before the formation 
 of a single Christian church, and would have been 
 duties to the end of time, had no such institution 
 existed. A union with Pedobaptists, therefore, 
 in these exercises, is not a deviation from our prin- 
 ciple. In such a co-operation, we should unite 
 with them, not as churcli-members, in the cele- 
 bration of an ordinance peculiar to churches ; but 
 as Christians, in the pursuit of objects in which 
 all good men should engage, whether united to a 
 church, or not. In uniting with Pedobaptists, in 
 prayer, and praise, and preaching the gospel, and 
 acts of benevolence, we cultivate such a union 
 as evidently is our duty : but a joint-participation 
 of the Lord's-supper with Pedobaptists would be 
 a deliberate concurrence in such a reception of the 
 ordinance as is, in our opinion, decidedly unscrip- 
 tural ; and this cannot be our duty. It may be their 
 duty to partake of the Lord's-supper ; since they 
 believe they have attended to " the prior obliga- 
 tion," every man being required to act on his own 
 principles: but while our belief is the very reverse 
 
88 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 of theirs, our union with them, in what we believe 
 to be an unscriptural reception of the ordinance, 
 would undoubtedly be, on our part, a manifest 
 dereliction of principle. Nor can even the Mixed 
 Baptist be exonerated from blame, until he can 
 show that he has a right to unite in that system 
 of church-fellowship, which he also is compelled to 
 acknowledpje is unscriptural. When you detect us, 
 my friend, in uniting with persons, who are in our 
 estimation unbaptized, in ani/ office, in any exer- 
 cise, peculiar to church-fellowship, then you may 
 inveigh against our inconsistency ; but otherwise, 
 your allegation is groundless. We unite with 
 Pedobaptists in prayer, and praise, and Christian 
 benevolence ; for they are universal duties. We 
 unite with them in preaching the gospel, because 
 it is the duty of all who "know the joyful sound," 
 to publish it. We love the brethren, because we 
 are commanded to love them, and because there is 
 that in Christianity with which the heart of every 
 Christian beats in unison. And, inasmuch as we 
 are commanded to love them " for the truth's sake 
 that dwelleth in them," we entertain the highest 
 regard for those who appear to live most under 
 the influence of Divine truth in general, irrespec- 
 tive of their sentiments on any one point of truth 
 whatever. But when we are required to unite 
 with Pedobaptists in an ordinance peculiar to 
 Christian churches, our minds naturally revert to 
 
AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 89 
 
 the Christian commission — the peremptory and 
 perpetual law of the Christian church, no less in 
 its order than in its requirements : and, while we 
 should rejoice to receive our brethren in the way 
 which Christ has appointed, we do not feel at 
 liberty to receive them in any other way. — But, 
 why do you smile ? 
 
 M. Why, truly, my friend, I cannot help it. 
 "The only colour invented to disguise this glaring 
 inconsistency, is so pure a logomachy, that it is 
 difficult to think of it with becoming gravity. 
 You remind us, forsooth, that the expressions of 
 Christian affection in praying and preaching for 
 each other, are not church-acts, as though there 
 were some magic in the word church, that could 
 change the nature of truth, or the obligations of 
 duty. If it is our duty to recognize those as our 
 fellow-christians who are really such, what is there 
 in the idea of a church that should render it im- 
 proper there ? " — ( Reasons, 38, 39.) — But, how 
 serious you look ! I hope I have not offended 
 you. 
 
 S. No, my friend, I am not offended ; but I 
 confess I feel hurt at the manner in which you 
 speak of a Christian church. Allow me, on this 
 subject, to refer you to our excellent friend, Mr. 
 Hall. If you were to consult him, he would teach 
 you better. In his Memoir of the late Mr. Toller, 
 of Kettering, he says " Churches are the institu- 
 tion of God." If so, Chri&tian churches are the 
 I 2 
 
CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 institution of Christ, and deserve to be mentioned 
 with a little more decorum. And allow me just 
 to say, my friend, that we do not think there is 
 any " magic in the word church," that can change 
 the nature of truth, or the obligations of duty. 
 We do not suppose there is any thing in the idea 
 of a church, that should render it improper there 
 to recognize as fellow-christians those who are 
 really such. But we do suppose it would be im- 
 proper to receive even Christians to a church 
 ordinance in any other way than that appointed 
 by the Head of the Christian church. And, 
 " pure a logomachy" as you are pleased to desig- 
 nate our distinction between universal Christian 
 duties and church-fellowship, it is a distinction 
 WHICH Mr. Hall recognizes and avows, and 
 
 PARTIALLY REDUCES TO PRACTICE. 
 
 M. Impossible ! 
 
 S. Nay, my friend, I assure you I am serious. 
 Upon what other principle, let me ask, could he 
 have penned that most extraordinary paragraph, 
 commencing on the 12th page of his Reasons for 
 Christian Communion? In that passage, he intro- 
 duces to our attention a candidate for church- 
 fellowship ; and represents " the minister," — (a 
 Mixed Baptist !) — as inquiring into his views of 
 the ordinance of baptism ! — and this, as a matter 
 of course ! But why, I wonder, should he institute 
 an inquiry on that particular subject, at that par- 
 ticular time ? — an inquiiy, natural enough, (we 
 
AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 91 
 
 should say,) from one who maintains a peculiar 
 connexion between baptism and church-fellowship : 
 but how are we to account for his putting the 
 question ? Is he accustomed to introduce this 
 subject in relation to other Christian unions 1 If, 
 for example, his friend, instead of desiring the 
 privileges of church-fellowship, had proposed that 
 they should unite in a social prayer-meeting, 
 or in preaching the gospel, or in promoting the 
 interests of an Auxiliary Bible Society, — would 
 he, on either of these propositions, (think you,) 
 have sounded his friend on the subject of baptism'^ 
 Nay, would lie not indignantly repel the insinu- 
 ation, and unhesitatingly pronounce the man who 
 would institute such an inquiry, in such a con- 
 nexion, a bigot of the very deepest tincture? But 
 why does he observe a difference? Why does he 
 make a distinction? Why does he pointedly — 
 however " respectfully," — put the question in one 
 case, and not in a//? On other occasions, he 
 would spurn the idea of trying the consciences of 
 his Pedobaptist brethren on the subject of bap- 
 tism ; except, indeed, in friendly discussion, on 
 equal ground : but let them propose to join his 
 church, and the case is altered — a tribunal is 
 erected — and they must pass through an ordeal ! 
 He does not, indeed, require, as a sine qua non, 
 that they shall be baptized : but he does require, 
 either that they shall be, or that they shall believe 
 they hace been baptized ! But why'?- Why even 
 
92 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 this stipulation? Why cannot he receive them 
 to a church union, as well as to a union in other 
 Christian exercises, without instituting any in- 
 quisitorial process, however gentle and respectful, 
 on the subject of baptism'^ Surely, that heterodox 
 and narrow notion, maintained by us — that there 
 is a PECULIAR connexion between baptism and 
 church-fellowship — must, by some strange, un- 
 accountable fatality, — (or, rather, may we not 
 hope, by a sort of scriptural instinct !) — have taken 
 possession of his mind, and, nolens voleris, con- 
 trolled his pastoral examination ! Seriously, ray 
 friend, — seeing he would not introduce the subject 
 of baptism in relation to a proposed union in the 
 exercises of prayer, and praise, and preaching the 
 gospel, and Christian benevolence, (as, indeed, 
 he ought not;) — and seeing he would — and would 
 as a matter of course — introduce the subject in 
 relation to a church union ; the conclusion is in- 
 evitable — that Mr. Hall distinctly recognizes, and 
 avowedly reduces to practice, the identical prin- 
 ciple, for the statement of which, you hold us up 
 to ridicule — viz. that there is a peculiar connexion 
 between baptism and church-fellowship ! 
 
 M. But the case to which you allude, is only 
 a supposed case. 
 
 S. Very true; but it is a case of Mr. Hall's 
 own supposing ; and is introduced as a specimen 
 of the course which he and his Mixed Communion 
 brethren would pursue on all such occasions. 
 
AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 93 
 
 M. Leaving Mr. Hall to defend himself, — 
 (which, be assured, he is well able to do! ) — let us 
 proceed. — There is another, most lamentable in- 
 consistency into which you are betrayed. You 
 " acknowledge that many Pedobaptists stand high 
 in the favour of God; enjoy intimate communion 
 with the Redeemer ; and would, on their removal 
 hence, be instantaneously admitted to glory — 
 
 S. Undoubtedly. 
 
 M. " Now, it seems the suggestion of common 
 sense, that the greater includes the less, that they 
 who have a title to the most sublime privileges of 
 Christianity, the favour of God, the fellowship of 
 Christ, and the hope of glory, must be unques- 
 tionably entitled to that ordinance whose sole 
 design is to prepare us for the perfect fruition of 
 these blessings. To suppose it possible to have 
 an interest in the great redemption, without being 
 allowed to commemorate it; that he may possess 
 tlie substance who is denied the shadow ; and, 
 though qualified for the worship of heaven, be 
 justly debarred from earthly ordinances ; is such 
 an anomaly, as cannot fail to draw reprobation 
 on the system of which it is the necessary 
 consequence. Men will, ere long, tremble at 
 the thought of being more strict than Christ, 
 more fastidious in the selection of the members 
 of the church militant, than he is in choos- 
 ing the members of the church triumphant." — 
 Reasons, 39, 40. 
 
94 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 •S'. This argument, my friend, so specious and 
 so plausible, is generally advanced with such an air 
 of confidence and triumph, as often to silence the 
 opponent whom it fails to convince. It is, never- 
 theless, founded in misapprehension, and perfectly 
 fallacious. In the first place, you misrepresent 
 us. We admit that our brethren are entitled to 
 the Lord's-supper, inasmuch as all Christians are 
 entitled to all the privileges of the Christian 
 church. But it does not follow that they are 
 entitled to deviate from the regulations pre- 
 scribed hy the Founder of the feast. He pre- 
 scribed, on your own confession, that baptism 
 should precede visible church-fellowship. To say, 
 then, that a Christian is absolutely entitled to any 
 of the privileges peculiar to church-fellowship 
 prior to baptism, is taking leave of your friends, 
 to dispute with the Christian Legislator ; and 
 there, my friend, I am perfectly willing to 
 leave the decision of that point. But, besides 
 this absolute title of all Christians to all the pri- 
 vileges of the Christian church, in the way and 
 order prescribed by the Christian Legislator, we 
 admit that sincere and conscientious Pedobaptists, 
 as such, are, in an inferior sense, justly entitled to 
 the Lord's-supper, inasmuch as they believe they 
 /jfl«;e complied with "the prior obligation;" and 
 all men are under a sacred obligation to act on 
 their own belief. Consequently, this eloquent 
 appeal in justification of the title of our brethren 
 
AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 95 
 
 to the " earthly ordinances/' and the insinuations 
 that we deny them the privilege, might have been 
 spared. On this point all parties are agreed, ex- 
 cept in one particular. You contend, that, in 
 relation to baptism and the Lord's-supper, they are 
 entitled to invert "the prescribed order" of the 
 institutions : theij contend that they are not: in re- 
 lation to faith and baptism, you both change sides: 
 while we, at least consistently, plead for the strict 
 observance of our Lord's commission, in all its re- 
 quirements, and all in their "prescribed order." 
 When either of you can show that the Legislator 
 has granted permission to waive a compliance with 
 liis injunctions, or, on any pretence, to invert 
 the order, — however mysterious such a permission 
 may appear, we shall bow to his new authority 
 with the most profound reverence. But, in the 
 absence of such a singular document, it appears, 
 to our simple, uninspired judgments, that while 
 our Lord continues faithful to the promise he has 
 graciously annexed to the commission — to be with 
 his church — (which will be " always, to the end 
 of the ivorld;") — so long he expects, and has a 
 right to expect, that his church shall be faithful 
 to the commission he united with the promise — 
 faithful alike to the duties he has enjoined, and 
 to the order in which he has commanded that 
 these duties shall be observed. Surely, my friend, 
 it is one thing to admit that all Christians are 
 entitled to all the privileges of the Christian 
 
96 
 
 CONNEXION OF BAPTISM 
 
 church in obedience to the Christian commission ; 
 and quite another thing to contend that they are 
 entitled to them in deviation from it : — it is one 
 thing also to allow, that, in an inferior sense, 
 " sincere and conscientious" Pedobaptists are en- 
 titled to such a reception of the Lord's-supper as 
 is in their opinion in agreement with " the 
 prescribed order;" and a very different thing 
 indeed, to assert that equally " sincere and con- 
 scientious " Baptists, who believe the very reverse, 
 are entitled to unite with them. Thej/ believe they 
 have entered the visible church by Christian 
 baptism, and act accordingly. We believe they 
 have not, and ought to act accordingly. Their 
 Christianity is indubitable ; but what then ? Will 
 the Christianity of individuals justify churches, 
 as such, in deviating from the order of their 
 Lord's commission ? The fallacy of your reason- 
 ing consists in confounding things that differ. 
 You take it for granted, that the rule of admission 
 into the church militant and the church triumphant 
 is one and the same rule — a position, perpetually 
 asserted and assumed, but totally incapable of 
 proof. In the admission of members to the celes- 
 tial church, Christ acts as a Sovereign: in the 
 admission of members to Christian churches on 
 earth, we must act as servants — yielding implicit, 
 undeviating obedience to the directions of our 
 Sovereign Lord. To reproach us with being 
 "more fastidious in the selection of the mem- 
 
AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 97 
 
 bers of the church militant, than Christ is in 
 choosing the members of the church triumphant," 
 may be applauded as unanswerable argument, by 
 those who are less attentive to sense than to 
 sound — to reason, than to the charms of eloquence. 
 Could you reproach us with being more strict, 
 more fastidious, in the selection of our members, 
 than the commission of Christ requires us to be, 
 there would be some justice in the rebuke : at 
 present there is none ; and it may better become 
 tliose to "tremble," who are less strict, less "fas- 
 tidious," than their Lord's commission, and who 
 wish to receive members into their churches in 
 a way which Christ never authorized. 
 
 M. But if the absence of baptism disqualify 
 for a participation of the eucharist, as one of the 
 " all things" which Christ commanded to be ob- 
 served, must it not equally disqualify for the 
 observance of everi/ other duty comprehended in 
 the same expression ? 
 
 S. Certainly not. From our Lord's commis- 
 sion, we infer, 1 . That baptized believers are to 
 be instructed to observe " all things whatsoever," 
 which Christ has commanded : 2. That others 
 are not to be instructed to observe all things, but 
 only such things as are their duty irrespective of 
 church-membership. And what inconsistency there 
 IS in this conclusion, I cannot imagine. 
 
 M. But "if it be once admitted, that the 
 clause on which so much stress is laid, is not to 
 
 K 
 
98 BAPTISM AND CHURCH FELLOWSHIP. 
 
 be interpreted so as absolutely to exclude unbap- 
 tized Christians from the whole of its import, to 
 what purpose is it alleged against their admission 
 to the eucharist? or how does it appear that this 
 may not be one of the parts in which they are 
 comprehended ? " — Terms, 45. 
 
 S. Because the Lord's-supper is a church 
 ordinance : and there is a peculiar connexion 
 between baptism and church-fellowship. To at- 
 tempt any elaborate proof of this position, must 
 be perfectly unnecessary ; since, whoever else may 
 dispute it, it is presumed, that, on reflection, you 
 will not ; it being a position, clearly recognized, 
 deliberately avowed, and partially reduced to 
 practice, by your eloquent friend himself ; between 
 whose opinion and your own, it were a libel to 
 suppose there existed a single shade of difference ! 
 Perhaps we may now dismiss this branch of the 
 inquiry — what shall we consider at our next 
 interview ? 
 
 M. The argument derived from Apostolic 
 Precedent, if you please : a point, on which 1 
 think the advocates of strict communion have 
 greatly miscalculated their strength. 
 
 S. Well — " to the law and the testimony." 
 If our sentiments will not bear that scrutiny, they 
 cannot be true, and ought to be abandoned. 
 
CONVERSATION IV. 
 
 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES, IN THEIR OBEDIENCE 
 TO THEIR LORD'S COMMISSION, AN INSPIRED EXPLANATION 
 OF THEIR LORD'S WILL; AND A PATTERN, INTENDED FOR 
 THE IMITATION OF THE CHURCH IN ALL SUCCEEDING 
 AGES. 
 
A A L V S I S. 
 
 The killing influence of a literal imitation of apostolic obedience 
 to the Christian commission ! — The melting of the elements ! — The 
 spirit and principle by which the apostles were govemed.^ — Important 
 errors in the first cliurches. — That none are recorded on baptism, an 
 argument for the clearness of the law.— We possess an accumulation 
 of evidence, which the first churches could not possess. — Baptists do 
 not monopolize a single means of forming a right judgment. — 'XTiat 
 may be conscientious, which is not involuntary. — !Many, who are 
 sincere in their professions, believe without personal examination of 
 the only certain evidence. — The tendency of pedobaptism to produce 
 this result. — Robert Robinson and the innocence of error. — Barter's 
 noble remonstrance, and strange inconsistency. — JMiied churches not 
 baptist churches. — Modem Pedcbaptists in the same predicament as 
 their predecessors, — Anticipation of the speedy extinction of the last 
 spark of baptist evidence ! — A friendly challenge. — Baxter and other 
 eminent Pedobaptists ' avowed their conviction of one system, and 
 acted upon another.' — Consequently, ]\Ir. Hall could not, without 
 violating his owti pretensions, have received them to his communion ; 
 and on him, therefore, the odium rests, which, for the theoretical re- 
 jection of the very same men, he casts upon us. — All Christians not 
 only entitled, but under a sacred obligation to receive the Christian 
 ordinances, in the order of Divine appointment. — A strict adherence 
 to the discipline of the church, as "prescribed by Christ and liis 
 apostles," the duty of Christian churches, in reference to positive and 
 perpetual regulations, regardless of new cases. — Apostolic obedience 
 to their Lord's conmiission, not to be classed with their mere local 
 and temporary actions.- — Inspired precedents of thought ! — The apos- 
 tles evidently thought faith should precede baptism, and baptism 
 church-fellowship.- — And, bad such Pedobaptists as our brethren ap- 
 peared in their day, we venture to think that they would have thought 
 they were unbaptized believers, and have acted on their previous in- 
 spired thoughts. — That the apostles would have made a cenespondens 
 difference in their treatment of the sincere and insincere, and that they 
 would have made such a diii'erence as that for which Mixed Baptists 
 plead, two very different propositions. — The insinuation, that they 
 would in uHi/case, the most conscientious and involuntary, recommend 
 a deviation from the Christian commission, a Ubel on their Christian 
 fidelity. — The apostolic injunctions on ministers and churches, equally 
 binding on our ministers and our churches. — Specimen. — Apostolic 
 Recantation, in favour of mixed communion. — Schism. 
 
IV. 
 
 MiXTUS. I hope you are well, my dear 
 friend. If I recollect right. Apostolic Precedent 
 is the subject appointed for this evening's Con- 
 versation. 
 
 S. It is ; and while we appeal to our Lord's 
 commission as our primary authority, we consider 
 the example of the apostles an important auxiliary, 
 both as an inspired explanation of the law, and 
 a pattern of obedience evidently intended for our 
 imitation. 
 
 M. But " precedent derived from the practice 
 of inspired men is to be regarded as law, in exact 
 proportion as the spirit of it is copied, and the 
 principle on which it proceeds is acted upon. If, 
 neglectful of these, we attend to the /e«er only, 
 we shall be betrayed into the most serious mis- 
 takes."—" The letter killeth, (says St. Paul,) the 
 spirit giveth life." — Reasons, 8. 12. 
 k2 
 
102 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 5. Well, I am astonished ! The letter killeth ! 
 It must, indeed, be confessed, that this is a literal, 
 or nearly a literal quotation from the Apostle Paul ; 
 but a more glaring perversion of words is scarcely 
 conceivable. The letter killeth ! What letter, my 
 friend ? The letter of Neiv-testament ordinances ? 
 Alas .' alas ! In what a deplorable condition, then, 
 must thei/ be, who, month after month, and year 
 after year, literally celebrate the Lord' s-supper ! " 
 True — the letter killeth : but what letter? A literal 
 imitation of apostolic obedience, in relation to 
 their Lord's commission ? O that the whole world 
 were involved in siuh a massacre ! But, my good 
 friend, if, as you say, "the example of the apostles 
 is to be regarded as law, in proportion as the spirit 
 of it is copied, and the principle from which it 
 proceeds is acted upon ; " then, their example, in 
 requiring that all believers should be baptized pre- 
 vious to external church-fellowship, must be law ; 
 for, by what spirit and what principle c(nild they 
 have been actuated, but a spirit and principle of 
 profound regard for their Lord's injunctions 1 
 
 " A Friend, some years ago, in the hearing of the late Andrew 
 Fuller and Samuel Pearce, heartily concurred in the idea of the hUing 
 influence of a literal imitation of the apostles, relative to the oot- 
 ward ordinances of baptism and the Lord's-supper ; and, to prove 
 that the strict adherents to the letter of their example in this respect 
 were under an awful delusion, observed — Thos sayeth Peter, The 
 tLEMENTS shall melt mthferceitt heat '.! — The remark of one of these 
 good men, on retiring, though admirably in point, and perfectly inno- 
 cent, is rather too facetious for insertion. But who does not perceive, 
 that, in both cases, the ^scument is exceedingly imposing f 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 103 
 
 M. But " there are a thousand actions recorded 
 of the apostles, in the government of the church, 
 which it would be the height of folly and pre- 
 sumption to imitate." — Reasons, 8. 
 
 5. If there were ten thousand, what then ? 
 Unless, indeed, their strict adherence to the order 
 of their Lord's commission were owe of such 
 actions : which it would be " the height of pre- 
 sumption" to affirm. 
 
 M. " The apostles, it is acknowledged, ad- 
 mitted none to the Lord's-supper, but such as 
 were previously baptized : but under what cir- 
 cumstances did they maintain this course ? It was 
 at a time, when a mistake respecting the will of 
 the Supreme Legislator on the subject of baptism 
 was impossible: it was while a diversity of opinion 
 relating to it could not possibly subsist, because 
 inspired men were at hand, ready to remove every 
 doubt, and satisfy the mind of every honest in- 
 quirer." — Reasons, 8. 
 
 S. Certainly, we have no intimation of a di- 
 versity of opinion on the subject of baptism, 
 during the ministry of the apostles. But to say 
 that a mistake on this subject was impossible, is 
 to assert more than can be proved. It was not 
 impossible for the Corinthians awfully to pervert 
 the Lord's-supper, nor to entertain the most er- 
 roneous notions concerning the resurrection. It 
 was not impossible for the church at Rome, and 
 the churches of Galatia, to depart from the sim- 
 
104 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 plicity of the doctrine of justification by faith. 
 Why, then, should it be thought a thing " im- 
 possible," that a mistake should subsist on the 
 subject of baptism? 
 
 M. "The instructions of the apostles were too 
 plain to be mistaken, and their authority too sacred 
 to be contemned by a professor of Christianity, 
 without being guilty of daring impiety. In such 
 a state of things, it may be asked, how could 
 they have acted differently from what they did ? " — 
 Reasons, 9. . 
 
 S. And yet, on some subjects, either their 
 instructions were not sufficiently plain, or their 
 authority was not sufficiently sacred, or, (which 
 appears, to me, a much more rational conjecture,) 
 these inspired men were not always "at hand," 
 to prevent very important errors on some of the 
 doctrines of Christianity. On some points, there 
 evidently existed, from some cause or other, the 
 most erroneous conceptions. — But if, my friend, 
 as you affirm, their instructions on baptism were 
 too plain to be mistaken, what has rendered them 
 1 ^ss plain now ? Why should not the written law- 
 be as explicit and as binding, as the law verbally 
 delivered ? If the apostles were inspired, when 
 they first opened their commission, and acted 
 upon it, were they less inspired, when, for our 
 guidance, they committed it to writing? Had 
 ihe first churches the law ? So have we. Had 
 they the example of the apostles? It is recorded, 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 105 
 
 by inspired penmen, for our instruction. Were 
 distant churches favoured with apostolic epistles? 
 These epistles, by a special providence, have 
 been preserved and perpetuated, a precious boon, 
 for the guidance and consolation of the Christian 
 church, in every successive age, and under every 
 changing scene, till time shall be no longer. We 
 possess, in fine — in the Gospels, the Acts, and the 
 Epistles — ail accumulation of evidence, which no 
 Christian, in the first age of the church, could 
 possibly enjoy. 
 
 M. But " the most rigid Baptist will probably 
 admit, that, however clear and irresistible the 
 evidence of his sentiments may appear to himself, 
 there are those whom it fails to convince, and some 
 of them at least, illustrious examples of piety ; 
 men, who would tremble at the thought of de- 
 liberately violating the least of the commands of 
 Christ, or of his apostles." — Reasons, 11. 
 
 .S'. But will/ are they not convinced ? Is the 
 failure, think you, in the evidence, or in them- 
 selves ? You will scarcely admit, I presume, that 
 the evidence which the Divine Spirit has supplied, 
 is, in itself, insufficient. If it be, unquestionably 
 our Pedobaptist brethren are not only blameless, 
 but worthy of commendation ; for who can require 
 faith and obedience, without sufiicient evidence 
 of the nature and obligation of the supposed 
 duty? But, on this hypothesis, our own faith is 
 invalidated ; and, with all our pretensions, we 
 
106 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 shall stand convicted of the supreme folly of 
 believing without sufficient evidence ! The evi- 
 dence either is sufficient, or it is not. If it is not, 
 how came you, my friend, to be convinced ? If 
 it is sufficient, how is it our brethren are not 
 convinced ? Have we the commission ? So have 
 they. Have we, in the practice of the apostles, 
 an inspired explanation of that law? So have 
 they. Have we the assistance of the learned ? 
 So have they. Finally, Have we a capacity for 
 judging? It were a libel to breathe any other 
 response than — So have they. In short, we do 
 not monopolize a single privilege ; we do not 
 possess a single advantage peculiar to ourselves. 
 Then why are they not convinced ? 
 
 M. It is sufficient for me, that they are 7Wt 
 convinced ; and surely you will allow that their 
 error is " involuntary and conscientious." 
 
 S. My friend, I can readily concede, that 
 our Pedobaptist brethren are sincere and conscien- 
 tious ; but I am not prepared to allow that their 
 error is, in every sense, involuntary. That may 
 be conscientious, which is not involuntary. Mul- 
 titudes, who believe what they profess, and who 
 are, therefore, conscientious, might believe other- 
 wise, and probably would, if, in the investigation 
 of Divine truth, they would be satisfied with the 
 evidence supplied by the Divine Spirit. But if they 
 will desert the only infallible oracle, and inquire of 
 those whose highest pretensions are ambiguous, 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 
 
 107 
 
 uncertain, and uninspired ; their sincere conviction, 
 under such a wilful choice of inferior testimony, 
 cannot, by the greatest stretch of charity, be de- 
 nominated involuntary. Some, probably, of all re- 
 ligious communities, believe without examination, 
 relying on the testimony of their minister, and of 
 their intimate friends : others deem it indispensable 
 to profess the sentiments of their immediate an- 
 cestors : the belief of a third class is regulated by 
 feeling: while a fourth indolently assumes that the 
 religion of the majority is infallibly true. These, 
 and a multitude of inferior considerations, it is to 
 be feared, induce a large proportion of the pro- 
 fessing community — I do not say, to avow their 
 conviction of what they do not believe to be the 
 truth ; but, unquestionably, to believe, without 
 personal examination of the only certain evidence.'* 
 
 " A shrewd reader may possibly wish to inquire, whether the 
 writer intends to intimate tliat Pedobaptists are more accustomed 
 than Baptists, to believe without personal examination "] In reply, 
 without intending any unkind reflection on his brethren, he would 
 a])|it-al to the common sense of his reader, and ask — whether it is 
 uot HIE NATURAL TENDiiNCY of Pedobaptism to produce such a 
 result. Who are most likely to " search the scriptures" on baptism ? 
 — those wlio are taught, from their earliest youth, that they have 
 been I)apti2ed t or those who have received no such impression, but 
 wlio know they have not been baptized ! Indeed, those persons must 
 have had little intercourse with candid Pedobaptists, who are not 
 lamiliar with such an avowal as this: — 'If I had not been baptized 
 ill Miy infuiuy, I should feel it my duty to examine: but as I have, 
 anil as I am now, 1 trust, a believer, and as the mode cannot be of 
 ruiisequence, I do not think it worth while, at my time of life, to 
 baruss and perplex my mind about it.' 
 
108 
 
 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 Now, the professions of such persons may be 
 sincere; they actually believe what they profess to 
 believe ; but their errors are not involuntary, in- 
 asmuch as they choose to believe without a personal 
 examination of the only certain evidence. They 
 might, and probably would believe otherwise, if, 
 in imitation of the Bereans, instead of relying on 
 any inferior testimony, they were to " search 
 the scriptures" for themselves, and receive the 
 inspired testimony "with all readiness of mind."^^ 
 It is not enough, my friend, that we act con- 
 scientiously, unless our consciences are enlightened 
 by the word of God. Conscience itself may err. 
 And a conscientious error cannot, by the utmost 
 ingenuity, be converted into scripture truth ; nor 
 
 It is a little singular, that the liberal-minded Robert Robinson, 
 who advocated the cause of mixed communion on principles " more 
 lax and latitudinarian" than Mr. Hall could approve ; and who not 
 only aflirmed that pedobaptism was an involuntary mistake, but 
 whose favourite position was the inkocence of error, in relation 
 to Divine truth ; should also have maintained, (in his General Doc- 
 Irine of ToUraVion, Sfc. 42, 43,) that "the New Testament is utterly 
 unacquainted with infant-sprinkling ;" that "the dipping of adults on 
 their omi personal profession of faith and repentance is plain ;" and 
 that " the New Testament is a book so plats, that any man ofcom- 
 mon sense inight understand it, if he would." In the pulpit, he 
 repeatedly inculcated this proposition ; and, in the first of the volume 
 of '\"illage Sermons — (The Christian Religion easy to be understood,) — 
 he amplifies and illustrates it with his characteristic ingenuity ; pre- 
 facing his observations with this remarkable sentence : — " When I 
 say all may understand it, I mean if their own DErnAviiY does 
 NOT PREVENT IT." The Consistency of this sentiment with the 
 involuntariness and innocence of error, is not exactly, like the Christian 
 religion — "easy to he understoo<l." 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 109 
 
 is a practice founded on that error, scriptural 
 obedience. The truth is, that many of the most 
 eminentPedobaptists have candidly acknowledged, 
 that the New Testament does not, by a single 
 precept, or a single example, sanction the cere- 
 mony of infant baptism. — (See Booth's Pedobaptism 
 Examined.) — ^This is true of Baxter, and Owen, 
 and Leighton, and many besides, among the 
 "myriads" of Pedobaptists, whom Mr. Hall is 
 pleased to represent as sacrificed on the altar of 
 our bigotry and intolerance. But surely it is not 
 enough that they are conscientiously of opinion, 
 for some reason or other, that pedobaptism is 
 lawful, while, at the same time, they avow their 
 conviction that it is not sanctioned by Divine 
 precept, or by apostolic example. On whatever 
 evidence they have formed their conclusion, they 
 are, on their own confession, without the sanction 
 of the best, the orili/ certain testimony — the ap- ^ 
 |jointment of the Christian Legislator, and the 
 practice of his apostles. On this subject, Mr. 
 Baxter himself presents us with a noble remon- 
 ^>trance, the principle of which will apply equally 
 fo baptism and church-fellowship. "What man, 
 ( says he,) dare go in a way which hath neither 
 precept nor example to warrant it, from a way 
 that hath full current of both ? — Who knows what 
 will please God but himself? And hath he not 
 told us what he expecteth from us ? Can that be 
 iibedience which hath no command for it? Is not 
 
 L 
 
110 THK EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 this to accuse God's ordinances of insufficiency? 
 O the pride of man's heart! that, instead of being 
 a law-obeyer, will be a law-maker ! and, instead 
 of being true worshippers, will be worship-makers ! 
 For my part, I will not fear that God will be 
 angry with me for doing no more than he hath 
 commanded me, and for sticking close to the 
 rule of his word, in matters of worship." — (Plain 
 Scripture Proof, 24. 303.)— Now, how, with these 
 views, acknowledging, likewise, that " there is 
 neither precept nor example, in scripture, of infant 
 baptism," this good man could be a Pedobaptist, 
 is, to me, utterly inconceivable. Doubtless, he 
 had his reasons — reasons, to himself satisfactory : 
 but, that they did satisfy his conscience, and that 
 they should have satisfied his conscience, are 
 two very distinct propositions. 
 
 M. But surely you will not have the hardihood 
 to impugn his Christianity ! 
 
 S. Certainly not ; but what then ? Are we to 
 violate the scriptural constitution of our churches, 
 in deference to the erring consciences of persons, 
 who substitute a ceremony confessedly unsanc- 
 tioned by scripture precept or example, for a 
 Christian ordinance which they acknowledge is so 
 sanctioned — simply because they are Christians? 
 Would not this indicate a greater regard for 
 Christians than for Christ ? Mr. Baxter's sen- 
 timents on baptism, were, on his own showing, 
 precisely of this description. 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. Ill 
 
 M. But if a person, proposing himself " as a 
 candidate for admission to a baptist church," were 
 to confess that he was " not convinced of the 
 divine authority of the rite which was administered 
 to him in his infancy ; and that, on mature de- 
 liberation and inquiry, he considered it as a human 
 invention; and yet refused to confess Christ before 
 men, by a prompt compliance with what he is sa- 
 tisfied is a part of his revealed will ; alleging that 
 it is not essential to salvation, that it is a mere 
 external rite, and that some of the holiest of men 
 have died in the neglect of it ; " Mr. Hall himself 
 has " no hesitation in affirming, that such an in- 
 dividual is disqualified for Christian communion." 
 Reasons, 12, 13. — But why do you smile? 
 
 S. Because, ray friend, notwithstanding the 
 tendency of your system, you instinctively cling to 
 the once descriptive epithet — "a baptist church;" 
 whereas you must be well aware, that, if your 
 sentiments were universally prevalent, there would 
 not be a single baptist church in all Christendom ! 
 But why — (provided his Pedobaptist members did 
 not out-vote him !) — would Mr. Hall reject such 
 a person ? 
 
 M. Because, " to receive him under such cir- 
 cumstances, would be sanctioning the want of 
 principle, and pouring contempt on the Christian 
 precepts." — Reasons, 13. 
 
 S. Perhaps there are scarcely any Pedobaptists 
 who would confess quite as much as your sup- 
 
112 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 posed candidate ; nor, among our contemporaries, 
 have any been found who acknowledge as much 
 as their predecessors. But if modern Pedobaptists 
 have found scripture precept or example for their 
 practice, it follows that their predecessors conceded 
 too much : if they have not, they concede too little. 
 If they have, of course they can produce them : 
 otherwise, whether they make the acknowledgment 
 or not, they are in the same predicament as their 
 forefathers ; and their reception into our churches, 
 under these circumstances, would be, in my 
 opinion, on our part, equally " pouring contempt 
 on the Christian precepts." 
 
 M. But " the evidence by which our views 
 are supported, though sufficient for every practical 
 purpose, is decidedly inferior to that which accom- 
 panied their first promulgation : the utmost that 
 we can pretend, is a very high probability." — 
 Reasons, 13, 
 
 S. I am pleased, my friend, to hear you say 
 that the evidence is " sufficient for every practical 
 purpose :" because that is an ackowledgment that, 
 in your opinion, pedobaptism is not attributable to 
 the want of " sufficient evidence." But I am lost 
 in astonishment and shame, that a Baptist should 
 talk about the " decided inferiority" of the evidence 
 in favour of his sentiments ; and allege that sup- 
 posed inferiority in extenuation of his mistaken 
 brethren ! On this hypothesis, the present "very 
 high probability," may soon become moderately 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 113 
 
 high ; that again may dwindle to a very humble 
 probability; and a few more gentle touches by the 
 destroying wand of time may reduce even that to 
 a certain indistinct something — )ust a. possibilitt/ ; 
 so dim and obscure and equivocal, that the rejection 
 of such evidence, rather than its admission, may be 
 the suggestion of reason ! And, if the successive 
 transitions proceed as rapidly as the descent from 
 a superior elevation occupied by our eloquent friend 
 in 1818, when ( Repli/ , Pref. xxiii.) he thought 
 the evidence was " overwhelming," to his present 
 humiliating position, the existing race of Baptists 
 can scarcely hope to escape the mortification of 
 contemplating the dying embers, and of witnessing, 
 with emotions more easily conceived than described, 
 the extinction of the last "illustrious spark" of 
 that evidence which had been a faithful light to 
 their pious ancestors for eighteen centuries ! Nor 
 shall we alone be affected. For, inferior or not, 
 "overwhelming" or fast ebbing to a Lethean gulf, 
 it may be well to consider, that it is the orili/ certain 
 evidence on the subject of baptism with which the 
 church ever was, or ever will be favoured. Con- 
 sequently, if this be subject to decay and disso- 
 lution, we have nothing to do, but, one and all, 
 Baptists and Pedobaptists, to convene a solemn 
 assembly, elect some good Friend Barclay as our 
 president, and, in profound stillness, muse on that 
 which was, but which, alas, for want of better 
 evidence, hath vanished away ! Nor is this all. 
 L 2 
 
114 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 For when the evidence of scripture on this subject 
 is neutralized and dried up, what becomes of 
 those evidences of the whole of Christianity de- 
 rived from the inspired records ? — But, at present, 
 you admit that the evidence is " sufficient for 
 every practical purpose." And so certain do I 
 feel that our sentiments on baptism are scriptural, 
 and that pedobaptism is not, that I challenge 
 the whole world to produce a single scriptural 
 proof that it is of Divine appointment — whether 
 of precept, example, or certain inference. The 
 evidence for baptizing professing believers onli/, 
 appears, to me, as a few years ago it appeared 
 to Mr. Hall — "overwhelming;" almost as clearly 
 revealed as the way of salvation. 
 
 M. But that may be clear to you, which is 
 not clear to them, and vice versa ; and " the 
 apostles refused the communion of such, and such 
 only, as were insincere, ' who held the truth in 
 unrighteousness,' avowing their conviction of one 
 Bystem, and acting upon another ; and wherever 
 similar indications display themselves, we do pre- 
 cisely the same." — Reasons, 13, 14. 
 
 Indeed ! Far be it from me to say, that 
 the pious Richard Baxter " held the truth in 
 unrighteousness," in the worst acceptation of the 
 phrase ; but that he " avowed his conviction of 
 one system, and acted upon another," is as clear 
 as the sun in the firmament. And, consequently, 
 you could not, without violating your own preten- 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 115 
 
 sioiis, have received him to your communion ; nor 
 any of those otherwise excellent men, who, on the 
 same question, displayed, on their own showing, 
 this glaring inconsistency : and yet where, on the 
 whole, you will find better men, either in our own, 
 or in any other denomination, I am at a loss to 
 conceive.** 
 
 M. But tlie Pedobaptists of the present day 
 are "restrained from following our example by 
 deference to the will of God." — Reasons, 17. 
 
 S. Or, rather, by deference to what they pre- 
 sume is the will of God ; for surely you do not 
 mean to affirm that the ceremony they call infant 
 
 '■' It will be obvious, to the attentive reader, tliat, on bis own 
 principle, of rejecting tliose who " avow their conviction of one 
 system, and act upon another," Mr. Hall must have refused to admit 
 these good men to communion ; and, consequently, that on himself 
 will rebound all the odium and criminahty, with which, for the 
 theoretical rejection of the very same men, be uns])aringly loads his 
 Strict Communion brethren. — Terms, 133. 135. Replii, 124. 265. 
 The writer freely concedes that he has pursued this inquiry, into 
 the inconsistency of these eminent Pedobaptists, much farther than 
 the general argument required ; and it was only in deference to tlie 
 plea of his Mixed Communion brethren that he noticed it at all. 
 But the truth is, that, were every Pedobaptist in the w orld as sincere 
 and conscientious in maintaining his error, as the most sincere and 
 conscientious Baptist that could be selected, is in maintaining the 
 truth, and were the errjr as invohuitarii as is represented, this would 
 not in the slightest degree affect our system ; since the principle on 
 which we act, is — not that our Pedobaptist brethren are culpable in 
 their faith and practice — (that depends on circumstances,) — but, 
 that, while tliey are in our estimation uiihupihed, our union with 
 them in chiircli-felLmship, would be, on our pari, a manifest deviation 
 from the mind of Christ, as expressed in his memorable commission 
 to the eleven npostles . 
 
116 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 baptism is the will of God ! But they could not 
 even suppose it is the will of God, but upon the 
 assumption that that is his will which he has not 
 revealed ; and that they are at liberty to celebrate 
 as a Christian ordinance, a ceremony, for which 
 the ablest among them cannot produce a single 
 precept or example, or even a certain inference, 
 from the Christian scriptures. 
 
 M. Still, you admit that they are Christians : 
 and " the apostles never give the slightest intima- 
 tion of the possibility of possessing the inward 
 and spiritual grace, without being entitled to the 
 outward sign. The assertion of such an opinion, 
 and the practice founded upon it, is a departure 
 from the precedent and example of the earliest 
 age, which it would be difficult to parallel." — 
 Reasons, 16. 
 
 S. And what then ? We are not chargeable 
 with " the assertion of such an opinion ;" nor is 
 our "practice founded upon it." On the contrary, 
 we assert, not only that the possession of the thing 
 signified entitles its possessor to the sign ; but also, 
 that, being so qualified, he is under an obligation 
 to receive it. He who is sanctified and redeemed, 
 is not only entitled to the symbols of sanctification 
 and redemption, but is under a sacred obligation 
 to be baptized and to celebrate the Lord's-supper : 
 but then, it is equally imperative that he should 
 receive both these ordinances, and each in the order 
 in ivhich Christ appointed they should be received. 
 
A PATI-ERN FOE OUR IMITATION. 117 
 
 M. But " the discipline of the church, as pre- 
 scribed by Christ and his apostles, is founded on 
 principles applicable to every age, and to every 
 combination of events to which it is liable, in 
 a world replete with change, where new forms of 
 error, new modes of aberration from the paths of 
 rectitude and truth, are destined to follow in 
 rapid and unceasing succession. Among these, 
 we are compelled to enumerate the prevailing 
 notions of the Christian world on the subject 
 of baptism — an error, which, it is obvious, could 
 have no subsistence during the age of the apostles. 
 Here then arises a new case, and it becomes a 
 matter of serious inquiry how it is to be treated. 
 It plainly cannot be decided by a reference to 
 apostolic precedent, because nothing of this kind 
 then existed, or could exist."^ — Reasons, 18. 
 
 S. My friend, when you can show that Chris- 
 tians did not fall into any error in the apostolic 
 age, then you may with some plausibility assert 
 that this error could not exist. But while we 
 know that they fell into gross doctrinal error, and 
 awfully perverted the Lord's-supper, this favourite 
 position of yours will not be received as an 
 " obvious" truth. That they did 7iot fall into this 
 error, as far as our information extends, furnishes 
 an additional testimony to the clearness of the 
 law ; for it would be absurd to suppose that the 
 apostles were always present, to solve every rising 
 difficulty in the minds of the first Christians. But 
 
118 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 the law is the same now as ever, and the authority 
 of the New Testament is surely tantamount to that 
 of the apostles and evangelists — it being, in fact, 
 identically their own testimony. We are obliged 
 to you, my friend, for conceding that " the disci- 
 pline of the church is prescribed by Christ and his 
 apostles ;" because, being once satisfied of that, 
 we shall take the liberty of adhering to it, in re- 
 ference to a positive and perpetual law, regardless 
 of any " new form of error," or any " new mode 
 of aberration from the paths of rectitude and 
 truth." The question on which we are at issue, 
 is plainly this : — Whether the constitution and 
 discipline of our churches shall be conformed to 
 the commission of Christ ; or whether a strict 
 adherence to that law of the Christian church 
 shall occasionally be waived in deference to the 
 erroneous notions of Christians? Your opinion 
 has been distinctly avowed. Our opinion is, that 
 the Christian commission is immutable, in its 
 order no less than in its requirements, and of pe- 
 remptory obligation as long as the promise attached 
 to it remains in force — " always, to the end of the 
 world:" and, consequently, that we are not at 
 liberty to deviate from it, in compliment to " new 
 forms of error," or " new modes of aberration from 
 the paths of rectitude and truth." You say, the 
 present case cannot be decided by a reference to 
 apostolic precedent : but this is neither more nor 
 less than saying, that though the apostles, in 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 
 
 119 
 
 the admission of church-members, were under 
 an obhgation to adhere uniformly to the matter 
 and order of their Lord's commission, modern 
 Baptists, in the admission of members to their 
 churches, are at liberty to deviate from either or 
 both ! It is freely admitted, that some particular 
 actions of the apostles originated in the particular 
 circumstances under which they were called to 
 act, and were not attributable to any express in- 
 junction of the Christian Legislator; and these 
 precedents, of course, are imperative on us, only 
 in proportion as we are similarly situated. But 
 their uniform practice of baptizing only believers, 
 and of receiving to church-fellowship baptized be- 
 lievers only, may not be confounded with such 
 precedents, being clearly referrible to the Christian 
 commission. Their conduct, in relation to the 
 Christian ordinances, was doubtless congenial with 
 existing circumstances ; but to say that it originated 
 in those circumstances, is to ascribe it to an in- 
 ferior and variable cause, during the co-existence 
 ot a cause infinitely superior and immutable — 
 a mode of reasoning, unphilosophical in itself, and 
 alike dishonourable to Christ and his apostles. 
 The will of the Christian Legislator is surely a 
 weightier consideration than circumstances; and 
 with the apostles, was, doubtless, more influential. 
 But His injunctions are as binding on modern 
 Baptist ministers, little or great, as they were on 
 the apostles ; and, whatever may be said of their 
 
120 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 local and circumstantial actions, their unbending, 
 undeviating obedien«;e to their Lord's commission 
 is a precedent, an example, which it is incumbent 
 on every Christian church, in every age, and under 
 every combination of circumstances, punctiliously 
 to imitate ; regardless of a)ty of those " new forms 
 of error, and new modes of aberration from the 
 paths of rectitude and truth," which you tell us 
 are " destined to follow in rapid and unceasing 
 succession." 
 
 M. But, " if action be founded on conviction, 
 as it undoubtedly is in all well-regulated minds, 
 we are as much obliged to mould our sentiments 
 into an agreement with those of the apostles, as 
 our conduct : inspired precedents of thought are 
 as authoritative as those of action." — Reasons, 19. 
 You smile at this, my friend ; but I assure you 
 I am serious. 
 
 S. But, my dear friend, where are these said 
 "precedents of thought" to be found ? Not being 
 recorded for our instruction, we are obliged to 
 infer what they were from inspired precedents of 
 action. But the uniform actions of the apostles 
 lead us to infer that they thought I'aith ought to 
 precede baptism, and that baptism ought to pre- 
 cede church-fellowship. 
 
 M. " But if we should treat all Pedobaptists 
 exactly as the apostles would have treated unbap- 
 tized persons in their day, must we not, for the same 
 reason, think the same of tluni 1"— Reasons, 19. 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 121 
 
 •S'. Undoubtedly, my friend, we should think 
 of modern Pedobaptists as the apostles would 
 have thought of exactly such unbaptized persons 
 in their day, who, notwithstanding their erroneous 
 sentiments on the subject of baptism, exhibited as 
 clear and satisfactory proofs of Christianity as our 
 contemporaries. It is reasonable to conclude, that 
 if just such persons had existed in their time, they 
 would have thought they were unbaptized Chris- 
 tians, and have treated them as such ; that while 
 they must unquestionably have recognized their 
 Christianity, they would not, in a single iota, have 
 deviated from the law of Christ in deference to 
 their erroneous notions. The supposition of there 
 having been such, or any other Pedobaptists, is 
 merely hypothetical, introduced in deference to 
 your novel notion of inspired precedents of thought. 
 As there are no thoughts of this description re- 
 corded, we cannot speak with certainty ; but it 
 commends itself to our simple, uninspired judg- 
 ments, that it is imperative on us both to think of 
 people, and to act towards them, agreeably to 
 what they are, or appear to be. Consequently, it 
 is incumbent on us to think our Pedobaptist bre- 
 thren are Christians, and to treat them as such ; 
 and to think they are unbaptized, and to treat them 
 as such ; regulating our thoughts and our actions, 
 in both instances, by the laws of Christ — one of 
 which is, that we are to judge of men by their 
 fruits ; the other, that believers arc to be baptized 
 
 M 
 
122 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 before they are instructed to observe " all things" 
 which Christ has commanded. Agreeably to the 
 first of these laws, we judge that our Pedobaptist 
 friends are Christians, and should rejoice to re- 
 ceive them to church-fellowship : but, agreeably 
 to the second, we require that they shall be received 
 in the way, and the only way of Christ's appoint- 
 ing. Seriously, my friend, I am of opinion, that 
 neither our thoughts, nor our actions, towards sin- 
 cere and conscientious Pedobaptists, vary from 
 what would have been the thoughts and the ac- 
 tions of the apostles, if preciseli/ such unbaptized 
 persons had appeared in their day. 
 
 M. But " the difference is immense, between 
 a conscientious mistake of the mind of Christ, on 
 a particular subject, and a deliberate contempt or 
 neglect of it. Who can doubt that the apostles 
 would be the first to feel this distinction ; and, as 
 they would undoubtedly, in common with all con- 
 scientious persons, regulate their conduct by their 
 sentiments, that, could they be personally con- 
 sulted, they would recommend a correspondent 
 difference of treatment ?" — Reasons, 20. 
 
 .S. Undoubtedly, "they would recommend a 
 correspondent difference of treatment ; " but that 
 they would recommend such a difference as 
 that for which you contend, is not quite so 
 clear. A deviation from the law of Christ, in de- 
 ference to the mistakes of Christians, however 
 conscientious, would indicate a greater regard for 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 
 
 123 
 
 the erring servant, than for the infinitely wise and 
 supreme Lord. In all probability, could the 
 apostles be personally consulted, they would re- 
 commend just such a dijfei'ence as that which tve 
 observe. While they must have considered a 
 " deliberate contempt or neglect" of the mind of 
 Christ as invalidating the Christian pretensions of 
 the party, and have acted accordingly ; they would 
 have allowed, we presume, that a sincere error, 
 though not entirely involuntary, was compatible 
 with Christianity ; and if they could not have 
 produced a conviction of the truth, doubtless they 
 ^vould have treated the party as an erring Christian, 
 and have recommended, as in the case of a men> 
 ber of the church at Thessalonica, who walked not 
 according to their commandment, that while the 
 church should " withdraw themselves" from such 
 a person, they should " yet not count him as an 
 enemy, but admonish him as a brother." It is 
 not pretended, that the cases are precisely similar; 
 cue one being a moral, the other a ritual dere- 
 liction ; the suspension of the former from church- 
 fellowship having been designed as an expression 
 of disapprobation, and the non-recognition of 
 Christians as church-members without baptism 
 being intended solely as an act of obedience on 
 our part to the order of our Lord's commission. 
 But they are sufficiently similar, to exhibit all 
 that is desired : viz. an example of treating a 
 Christian " as a brother," — without the joint- 
 
124 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 participation of those exercises which are peculiar 
 to church-fellowship. This is the course we pursue. 
 And to say that the apostles would, in ani/ case, 
 recommend a deviation from the laio of Christ, is 
 a libel on their Christian fidelity. Assuredly, no- 
 thing so derogatory to their character can be found 
 in the inspired record of their actions, or in their 
 equally inspired epistles. What they addressed 
 to the churches, they had previously " received of 
 the Lord," not in relation to one ordinance only, 
 but to both ; and likewise to the order in which 
 the relative duties of faith and baptism and 
 church-fellowship should be observed. To the 
 order of their Lord's commission, as a whole, they 
 invariably required implicit submission ; nor is it 
 possible, without manifest injustice, to imagine 
 for a moment, that their uniform adherence to this 
 course of action, originated, not in a profound 
 regard for their Lord's expressed will, but in sub- 
 mission to "circumstances;" or to insinuate that, 
 had these "circumstances" varied, not only would 
 they have observed a correspondent difference, but 
 that that difference would have consisted in an 
 abandonment of the " prescribed" order of their 
 Lord's commission. No ! we hear not a word 
 about the law being binding in some cases, and 
 not in others; not a syllable, about accommodating 
 it to " new forms of error," or of waiving it in 
 compliment to " new modes of aberration from the 
 paths of rectitude and truth ;" not a breath in 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 125 
 
 favour of a certain fashionable distinction between 
 essentials and non-essentials. And, besides their 
 own rigid adherence to one straight line of simple 
 obedience, their epistles abound in exhortations 
 to the churches, to " keep the ordinances as they 
 were delivered." And as these exhortations were 
 principally addressed to ministers and churches, 
 as such, they must be equally binding on us, not 
 merely as individuals, but in our official capacity, 
 as Christian ministers and Christian churches}'^ — 
 
 To the Romans, the Apostle Paul writes: " Now, I beseech 
 you, brethren, mark them which cause diTisions and offences contrary 
 to the doctrine wliich ye have learned." 
 
 To the CoRiNTiiiANs, in his First Epistle, he writes ; "Now I 
 beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
 ye all speak the same thing, and that tliere be no divisions among 
 you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and 
 in the same judgment." — " I beseech you, be followers of me. For 
 this cause, have I sent Timotheus, my beloved son, and faithful in 
 the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which 
 be in Christ, as 1 teach every where, in every church." — " Be ye 
 followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now, I praise you, bre- 
 thren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances 
 as I delivered tliem to you." — " If any man think himself to be 
 a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I 
 write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." 
 
 To the Philippians, he writes: "Brethren, be ye followers 
 together of me ; and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an 
 ensample." 
 
 To the CoLOSsiANS, he writes: "Though I be absent in the 
 flesh, yet I am with you in the spirit, joying, and beholding your 
 order, and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ. As ye have 
 therefore received CJhrist Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him : rooted 
 and built up in him, and estabhshed in the faith, as ye have been 
 taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any man 
 2 M 
 
126 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 Nor will it avail to reply, that these exhortatious 
 have not a special reference to baptism; since 
 
 spoil you, through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of 
 men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." 
 
 To the Thessai.onians, he writes : " We beseech you, brethren, 
 and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us 
 how ye ought to walk, and to please God, so ye would abound more 
 and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you, by the 
 Lord Jesus." — "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the tra- 
 ditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." 
 — " We have confidence in the Lord, touching you, that ye both do, 
 and will do, the things which we command yoa." — "Now we 
 command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
 ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, 
 and not after the tradition which he received of us." 
 
 To Timothy, he writes: "O Timothy, keep that which is 
 committed tn thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and 
 oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing, have 
 erred concerning the faith." — " Hold fast the form of sound words, 
 which thou hast heard of me, in faith and love, which is in Christ 
 Jesus."^ — "The things that thou hast heard of me among many wit- 
 nesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to 
 teach others also." — " Thou hast fully known my doctrine, C^c. — 
 Continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been 
 assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them." 
 
 To Titus also, he writes; " A bishop must be blameless, as the 
 steward of God. — holding fast the faithful word as he hath been 
 taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to 
 convince the gainsayers : for there are many unruly and vain talkers 
 and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision. — Rebuke them 
 shsrply, that they may be sound in the faith ; not giving heed to 
 Jewish fables and commandments of men, that turn from the 
 truth." 
 
 And even the affectionate Apostle John, who, more than any 
 other, might be supposed to be carried away by feeling, writes in 
 nearly the same strain. In his First Epistle, he informs those IB 
 whom he wrote : — " By this we know that we love the children of 
 God, — when we love God, and keep liis commandments. For this 
 is the love of God, that we keep his commandments ; and his com- 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 
 
 127 
 
 it is evident they have a special relation to 
 tlie duties of churches generally, of which the 
 scriptural administration of baptism is by no 
 means the least interesting or important ; while 
 some of them related to temporary customs, 
 inferior to any command whatever of perpetual 
 obligation. How any person, who is familiar with 
 the Epistles, and observes with what particularity 
 and reiteration churches as siich are urged to obey 
 and to require obedience to the injunctions of 
 Christ, as exemplified by his apostles, can yet 
 deliberately believe that if tlie apostles could now 
 be consulted, they would recommend a deviation 
 from the matter and order of that commission 
 wliich they uniformly enforced, and thus impugn 
 
 mandments are not grievous." — In his St-cond Epistle, addressed to 
 a Christian matron, he says, " I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy 
 cliihlren walking in trutli, as we Iiave received a commandment from 
 the Father. And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though 1 wrote a 
 new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the be- 
 ginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk 
 alter his commandments. This is the commandment, That as ye 
 liave heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it." I'hus, so far 
 from a rigid adherence to the commands of Jesus Christ indicatmg 
 the akence of love, tlie most aft'ectionate of all tiie apostles represeiit.s 
 such a scrupulous adherence to them, as the very end i ion and evidence 
 of that Christian grace. 
 
 The Apostle Jude also, in his General Epistle, exhorted those to 
 wliom h - wrote, that they should " earnestly conttnd for the faith 
 onct delivered to the saints." 
 
 And it is worthy of remark, that two of the seven Asiatic cliurciies, 
 those at Pergamos andTiiYArinA, were reproved, not so much for 
 an iiidividual participation in erroneous doctrine, as for tacitly allou iiig 
 It 111 their respective communities. 
 
128 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 and nullify their own solemn injunctions, surpasses 
 all conception. Such a recommendation, if we 
 could suppose it possible, should be entitled — 
 
 THE 
 
 RECAXTTATIOir OF THE APOSTIiES, 
 
 OR 
 
 A Modern Explanation of their inspired Injunctions 
 to the Primitive Churches.^^ 
 
 In the abeence of the real Recantation, (for which all Mixed 
 Baptists are in duty bound to make diligent search,) the following, 
 if not in exact agreement with the letter, may, perhaps, be received 
 as a free imitation of the s;iii-i( of that most singular document. And 
 should the reader experience a momentary emotion of wonder, at 
 perceiving certain (jiiotations, he has only to imagine — (and what can 
 be less romantic ? or, to the author, more honourable t ) — that the 
 apostles have read and approved the pubUcations from which they 
 are transcribed. 
 
 To the Churches of the Nineteenth and iuccessive Centuries, the Apoitla. 
 in this, their Epistle Eitraordinary , send greeting. 
 
 SSE^tTtaS it has come to our knowledge, that, in these latter 
 days, there are certain Cliristians who are conscientiously of opinion, 
 that, though they cannot discover a single scripture precept or 
 example of infant sprinkling, yet they are, for certain other reasons, 
 justified in substituting that ceremony for a Christian ordinance, 
 which they acknowledge it commanded, and of which numerous ex- 
 amples are recorded in the New Testament . — 
 
 UntJ toljttcas it has also come to our knowledge, that certain 
 other Christians, under a pretence of adherence to the Christian 
 commission, and of imitating our example, and of keeping the ordi- 
 nances as we delivered them to the primitive churches — (thereby 
 calculating upon our commendation !) — do pertinaceously refuse to 
 unite with their erroneous, though confessedly Christian brethren, 
 in church -fellowship : — 
 
 ^f)is is to tcrtifg, That when we commended the churches for 
 keeping the ordinances as they were delivered, and enjoined on them 
 an exact imitation of our uniform obedience to the Christian com- 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 129 
 
 For, if the apostles would now recommend a de- 
 viation from their example, they must, contradict 
 
 mission, and exhorted them to be followers of us as we had followed 
 Clirist, — we did not intend to regulate the conduct of churches in 
 successive ages of the world, but only the affairs of those which were 
 planted by our own instrumentality, or which existed during our 
 ])ersona] ministry. Our authority, (except in gTanting dispensations, 
 and rebuking "schismatics" and "narrow-minded bigots,") ter- 
 minated with our lives. 
 
 13c it tijcrcforc {inotnn to gon, That, in future, the law of Christ 
 is to be accommodated to "circumstances," to " new forms of error," 
 and ' ' new modes of aberration from the paths of rectitude and truth ;" 
 and that, henceforth, no church is under an obligation to require 
 obedience to tlie laws of Christ, if any Christian applying for admis- 
 sion be conseientiously of opinion, either that he has obeyed them, or 
 that it is not /lis duty to obey them; although it shall be clear to such 
 a church that he has mt, and that such obedience is his duty. {JJjat 
 is 10 sag. Your conduct as a church, as well as his individually, must 
 be regulated, not by youT own views— (whether of faith, of baptism, 
 or of church-fellowship,) butby /lis; and consequently, (to apply 
 this " general rule," this "broad principle," this " maxim of universal 
 application," to a particular case,) if /le believe he is baptized, though 
 you believe he is not, not only is he at liberty to think and act for 
 himself, without being amenable to you — (a position, we believe, 
 \\ hicli you never disputed,) — but you, in deference to his sincerity, 
 must receive him to church-fellowship without baptism^ — his alleged, 
 unconscious obedience being equivalent to actual obedience. True, 
 ue never acted on this principle, except in relation to matters of 
 indifference : but what then 1 We were inspired, and ite could work 
 miracles. How strange, then, it is, that it should never have occurred 
 to you — and that, now your brethren suggest so rational a position, 
 ye will not believe — that, no sooner did any doubt arise in the mind 
 of any convert, on the subject of baptism, than, wherever either party 
 might have been an hour before, we were instantly " at hand," to 
 solve every difficulty, and remove every doubt ! Before, therefore, 
 you presume to imitate the letter of our example, even in our 
 punctilious obedience to our Lord's commission, do take into serious 
 consideration the prodigious difl'erence of cinuvKtuncm, in that age 
 and this. 
 
130 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES 
 
 their own epistles, they must revoke their former 
 injunctions, they must nuHify the whole course 
 
 ■NotD, lljcrcfotc, The errors of Cbristians, not only in relation to 
 abrogated Jewish rites, and things indifferent, as aforetime, but also 
 in relation to a perpetual law of Christ, must be accommodated ; and 
 you must relax the rigid, bigotted, and intolerant customs of your 
 forefathers, and also of your ownselves ; and adopt the mild, and 
 gentle, and persuasive law of liberality and candour. The Christian 
 commission wzis not intended to be kept inviolably : it is to be obeyed 
 or not, just as "weak brethren" may decide. Siuceritti is every thing. 
 In future, therefore, you must not be so strict, in requiring men to 
 believe aud obey the truth ; it is quite sufficient that they practise 
 what they believe. And if what they practise be in their judgment 
 right, on whatever evidence they have come to that conclusion, or if 
 without evidence, — still, not only wiW God receive them, who is 
 not subject to any law ; but you cdso, who have a rule of church- 
 fellowship, must receive them, just as if that rule had been burnt, 
 and its ashes scattered by the four winds of heaven, at the destruction 
 of Jerusalem — conscientious error being equivalent to truth, and a 
 practice founded on that error, equivalent to Christian obedience. 
 
 "NotD, tfjtrtfort, Ide commcnll, n«t those who keep the ordinances 
 as we delivered them ; but those who, in compliment to sincere 
 error, are willing occasionally to invert " the natural and prescribed 
 order of the Christian sacraments." And we solemnly warn the 
 rigid, strict adherents to the tetter of our former injunctions, hence- 
 forward to pay no manner of deference whatever, either to our 
 practice, or to the law on which that practice was founded, whenever 
 such attention to either shall appear, to any respectable individual, 
 " harsh and illiberal." 
 
 W.e, iijmtm, publisl) to all ti)£ ©IjnrcJjcS,— hereby revoking om 
 former injunctions, save and except as shall be hereafter excepted, — 
 that, in future, our directions to keep the ordinances as they were 
 dehvered, are not binding. ^Inll — (not now to provide for other 
 innumerable diversities, from Popery downward,) — tDC ICIommcnS, 
 for the sake of consistency, the publication of three editions of the 
 New Testament : One, for the use of the Strict Communion Pedo- 
 baptists, with such inferences and improvements as may be required : 
 Another, with suitable variations, for the use of the iNIixed Baptists : 
 And a third, for the use of the Strict Baptists, verbatim et literatim : 
 
A PATTERN FOR OUR IMITATION. 
 
 131 
 
 of their actions ; and thus be guilty of the most 
 astonishing felo de se ever perpetrated. 
 
 for apon them individuaUy, the law of Cluist and oar former injunc- 
 tions are stiU binding ; becaase they beUere so : bat Baptist churches 
 are eiliorted to conform to " the genius of the age to receive to 
 their commanion icMout baptism, all good men, of every faith ; and 
 thos show to an admiring world, with what tmparalleled generosity 
 they can sacrifice their very existence as a commanity, in amiable 
 condescension to the diversified " aberrations" of their sincere 
 " weak brethren." ^Ijat IS to 5S0, Every imiiiidual of every church 
 is to do right in his own eyei : but every church, as sach, most agree 
 to observe or to abandon, as circumstances may dictate, the regula- 
 tions confessedly " prescribed" by their Sovereign Lord. 
 
 T If a Papist apply for admission, who sincerely believes he 
 ought to receive the Lord's-supper in one kind only, you must 
 receive him — hi is cnnscienticius. 
 
 And if a KiTABAmsT apply for admission, sincerely beUeving 
 that baptism is not of perpetual obligation, but that the Lord's-supper 
 is, you must receive liim — he is comcientiiruj. 
 
 And if a Friend apply for admission as a cknrch-member, who 
 denies the perpetuity of both the sacraments, yon must admit him : 
 his not receiving the Lord's-supper must not be any obstacle to 
 chnrch-fellowship, any more than his not being baptized — he ii 
 conscientiotii. 
 
 And if a Sibbataeian' apply for admission to the celebration of 
 the Lord's-supper only, though all the remainder of the day, and on 
 all other Lord's-days, he follow his worldly calling, or his innocent 
 amusements, you must receive him — he is consaentiijus. 
 
 In fine, if asy professed Christian" apply for admission into 
 your churches, whatever he may practise, or whatever he may 
 neglect, so that he be sincere, you must receive him. 
 
 Seeing therefore, that none of these diversified Christians impose 
 upon you any of their erroneous practices ; and seeing that, whatever 
 differences exist between you, you are of one mind with them all in 
 lAat identical particular in ichich they request to unite icith you; you must 
 receive them all — they are all conscientiocs. 
 
 This to continue in force, until some " genius of the age," still 
 more remote from the letter of the ancient precedent, may render 
 it expedient to procure a new and more U'beral dispensation. 
 
132 THE EXAMPLE OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 M. But, as you are such an advocate for a 
 rigid adherence to apostohc precedent, allow me 
 to remind you how grossly you depart from it. 
 By a formal separation from true Christians, you 
 divide the true church, and are guilty of schism — 
 a sin against which the apostles most earnestly 
 inveighed. 
 
 .S'. My friend, the question is, Do we separate 
 from our Christian brethren? or. Do they separate 
 from us? And the answer to this inquiry involves 
 another — Whose churches are constituted on the 
 apostolic pattern ? — theirs, or ours ? If ours be, 
 (which I confess is my opinion,) then thei/, and 
 not we, are the schismatics. — But this is a 
 serious accusation, and a question of consider- 
 able importance : we will, therefore, if you 
 please, defer any farther discussion until our next 
 interview. 
 
CONVERSATION V. 
 
 A STRICT ADHERENCE, IN THE CONSTITUTION OF OUR 
 CHURCHES, TO THE LAWS OF CHRIST, AS EXEMPLIFIED IN 
 THE UNIFORM PRACTICE OF THE APOSTLES, NOT SCHISM, 
 BUT CHRISTIAN UNION. 
 
 N 
 
ANALYSIS. 
 
 Cliurclies who adhere to the Christian model not giiilty of schism. 
 — MisappUcation of Paul's anti-schismatical address to the church 
 at Corintli. — Mixed churches necessarily scliismatical, both in their 
 constitution and experience. — DupUcity of some professed Baptists. — 
 A Christian ordinance and a worldly ceremony ought not to coalesce. 
 — Thyatira and Pergamos. — Mixed churches either compromise 
 their peculiarities, or violate equally " the unity of the Spirit," and 
 "the bond of peace." — Four distinct parties: Strict £uid Mixed 
 Baptists, and Strict and Mixed Pedobaptists.- — If the first are schis- 
 matics for maintaining the order of the Christian commission, so are 
 the second and third, for they both maintain it in part. — If the last 
 are schismatics for abandoning this order, so are the second and third, 
 tor they both abandon it in part. — We desire a church-union with all 
 Christians, on the principles of the Christian commission ; but we 
 cannot make a schism in the building, to accommodate them with 
 a side-entrance. — Mixed communion a combination of the members 
 against the Head, and productive of the identical schisms again>t 
 which the Apostle inveighs. — I\Iixed churches a direct violation of 
 t)ie unity which Christ prayed might subsist among his disciples. — 
 "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," ought to characterize every 
 Christian church. — We rejuice in such a union as Christ did pray for; 
 but cannot consent to an uns.-riptural alliance. — No scriptural au - 
 thority for the invidious distinctions instituted by ]\Iixed Baptists 
 between difl'ercnt Christian precepts. — Undoubtedly, love is the car- 
 dinal grace ; but where is it asserted, in the New Testament, (hat 
 love means mixed communion ? — A new Test Act. — Consequences 
 of making mixed communion the test of love. — Hints for a new 
 translation. — Mistus accuses us of not exhibiting external indications 
 of esteem tovi ards Pedobaptists. — Mr. Hall reproaches us with in- 
 consistency btcause we do ! — Christian communion not limited to 
 the Lord's table. — Christian precepts not to be classed with "petty 
 speculations and minute opinions." — Perfect uniformity neither 
 practicable nor important ; but a uniformity in relation to the com- 
 mands of Jesus Christ, of perpetual obligation, both practicable and 
 imperative. — Receiving the weak in the faith. 
 
MiXTUS. Good eveninij, friend Strictus : 
 you are true to your engagement ; and perhaps 
 equally true to your cause. 
 
 S. I am : still, I hope there will be no alien- 
 ation in our feelings. But I am concerned about 
 this charge of schism, which you pref er against the 
 advocates of strict communion. 
 
 M. Certainly, it appears to me, that, in for- 
 mally and systematically separating yourselves 
 from other Christians, you are chargeable with 
 schism — with dividing the body of Christ. 
 
 S, But, as I intimated at the close of our 
 last Conversation, the schismatics are those who 
 separate from churches formed on the Christian 
 Model. Undoubtedly, if Pedobaptist churches 
 are constituted on the principles prescribed by 
 Christ, and exemplified by the apostles, then 
 we are, most unequivocally, schismatics — you, my 
 
136 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 friend, no less than ourselves ; inasmuch as you 
 voluntarily united yourself, not to a pedobaptist, 
 but to a baptist church. Or, if Mixed Communion 
 churches are thus sanctioned, then we and our 
 Pedobaptist brethren must unite in humble con- 
 fession. But if, as is in my opinion demonstrable, 
 Strict Baptist churches are the only churches 
 whose constitution and practice agree with the 
 rule of church-fellowship prescribed by Christ, 
 and strictly obeyed and enjoined by his apostles, — 
 then, to whomsoever the charge is applicable, we 
 cannot, by the utmost ingenuity, be convicted of 
 this heinous sin. This reply, I humbly conceive, 
 is of itself sufficient to repel the charge : but I 
 shall be glad to hear any thing you may please to 
 advance, in support of your allegation. 
 
 M. Thank you, my friend. You must admit, 
 that "a schism in the mystical body of Christ is 
 deprecated as the greatest evil, and whatever tends 
 to promote it is subjected to the severest reproba- 
 tion. ' Now I beseech you, by the name of the 
 Lord Jesus, (is the language of St. Paul,) that ye 
 all speak the same thing, and that there be no 
 divisions among you ; but that ye be perfectly 
 joined together in the same mind and in the same 
 judgment. For it has been declared unto me by 
 them who are of the house of Chloe, that there 
 are contentions among you. Now this I say, that 
 every one of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of 
 Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. Is 
 
NECESSARILY SCHISM ATICAL. 
 
 137 
 
 Christ divided ? was Paul crucified for you ? or 
 were ye baptized in the name of Paul '.' ' " — 
 Reasons, 24. 
 
 S. Undoubtedly, my dear friend, I must admit, 
 not only that schism is an enormous evil, but also 
 that the Apostle, in the passage you have quoted, 
 deprecates it in terms of" the severest reprobation." 
 But what then ? This does not fix the sin on us ! 
 Of all the texts you could possibly have selected 
 for your purpose, this, it appears to me, is decidedly 
 the most unfortunate ; being most unequivocally 
 opposed to the system for which you contend. 
 Assuredly, the Apostle exhorts the Corinthians — 
 (and the exhortation is, we presume, equally 
 applicable to everi/ church,) — that the members 
 should all " speak the same thing that there 
 should be " 710 divisions ;" that they should be 
 " perfectly joined together in the same mind, and 
 in the same judgment." But this, my friend, is 
 an exhortation, to a compliance with which, your 
 mixed churciies cannot, by any possibility, make 
 the slightest pretensions. The exhortation (as far 
 as it extends,) mai/ be obeyed by a pedobaptist 
 church, and by a baptist church ; but it is an 
 injunction of which a mixed church is, in its very 
 constitution, and of rigid necessity, a palpable 
 violation: nor, in the whole range of scripture, 
 are we presented with a more explicit and unequi- 
 vocal interdict of those diversified communities. 
 The only question necessary to be decided, lies 
 N 2 
 
138 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-riiLLOWSHIP 
 
 between us and our Pedobaptist brethren : but, 
 whatever be the result, your churches can have 
 neither part nor lot in the matter. The question 
 for decision is— In what were the Corinthians to 
 be of one mind? were they all to maintain mis- 
 taken, or correct sentiments? What were they all 
 to speak ? the mind of Christ, or human traditions ? 
 What judgment were they all to entertain ? that 
 which is uniformly dictated by the oracles of truth ; 
 or that which has no foundation in scripture or 
 reason ? Most assuredly, they were not to call 
 any mere man Master — whether Paul, or Cephas, 
 or Apollos : but they were to call Christ Master, 
 who had been crucified for them, and in whose 
 name they had all been baptized. So far, then, 
 from the passage under consideration militating 
 against us, it is the very passage, of all others, 
 which we should select, as containing the most 
 unequivocal sanction of baptist churches, and the 
 most positive interdict of churches on the mixed 
 principle. The Apostle exhorts the church at 
 Corinth to be of one mind, and that undoubtedly 
 the mind of Christ: but mixed churches are, by 
 special agreement, of tico minds respecting the 
 very first duty %vhich Christ enjoins on his dis- 
 ciples ; and, under pretence of promoting a unity 
 of feeling, (than which, after all, nothing can be 
 more precarious,) you establish a "division" at 
 the very entrance — one company entering in by 
 the front-door of Christ's appointing — the others. 
 
NECESSARILY SC H I SM ATI C A L. 
 
 139 
 
 by a private, side-entrance, of human invention. 
 Nor is this all. Other "divisions" follow in the 
 train. Unless both parties agree to compromise 
 their peculiar principles, each studiously avoiding 
 the inculcation of that, which, if he be sincere, he 
 considers a Christian precept, your churches, like 
 the church at Corinth, will be the scene of con- 
 tentions and internal schisms. One will say, I am 
 a Baptist ; another, I am a Pedobaptist ; a third, 
 I am for neither : a fourth, I am for either; or, — 
 to secure the smiles of both " God and Mammon," 
 — / am for both ! ! The additions to the 
 church, too, instead of exciting one general feeling 
 of satisfaction and delight, will create jealousies, 
 as the numbers of either party may happen to 
 
 " The writer cannot find terms sufficiently strong, to express the 
 mingled emotions of grief and indignation and shame and contempt, 
 wliich rise in his breast, wlienever he is compelled to think of the 
 DUPLICITY, or, (as Johnson defines the word,) the " doubleness 
 OF HEAiiT oil OF TONGUE," of which those professed Baptists are 
 guilty, who, for the sake of securing some temporal advantage to 
 their children, allow them to be c/iristened a( c/mrcft.' And what is 
 their excuse"! They consider it, forsooth, not a religious ordinance, 
 but a mere secular- ceremony, the observance of whicli is rendered 
 expedient from the supposed insecurity of lay registration. So then, 
 to secure to their children the chance of a fortune, these coiiscieritioits 
 Dissenters and Baptists deliberately require the ])erformance of a 
 service, which, (if, indeed, they be Baptists ! ) they must consider, 
 in their case at least, a solemn mockery — an awful profanation of a 
 Christian ordinance — a mere secular job, in which the sacred names 
 of the blessed Trinity — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, 
 are prostituted at the shrine of tlie god of this world ! Such Baptists ! 
 Oh, that it were possible to cast the mantle of forgetfulness over their 
 very existence I 
 
140 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 preponderate. Thus you would systematically 
 and unscripturally divide at the very entrance, 
 and be perpetually exposed to internal jealousies, 
 discords, and schisms. It will be of no avail to 
 reply, that the common bond of love to Christ will 
 prevent the exercise of these party feelings. That 
 it should and that it would, are two very distinct 
 propositions. Every attentive observer of human 
 nature is aware that men are much more sensitive 
 to that which divides them, than to that which 
 unites them. But I am unwilling to concede, 
 that the bond of love to Christ either would or 
 should render it a matter of indifference to Chris- 
 tians, whether obedience to a command of Christ, 
 or the practice of a human invention, shall prevail 
 in the church. In my humble opinion, obedience 
 to a Christian ordinance, and the practice of a 
 worldly ceremony, ought not to coalesce. Baptism 
 is an ordinance of Christ; but pedobaptism, your- 
 self being judge, my friend, is not an ordinance of 
 Christ, but a human tradition — worldly in its 
 origin, worldly in its subjects, and worldly in its 
 tendency. Now, these opposite institutions ought 
 never to coalesce : they ought never to be per- 
 formed in the same community. It will be of no 
 avail to reply, that your pedobaptist members do 
 not impose upon you the observance of their cere- 
 mony, while the church, as a body, recognizes and 
 practises two baptisms. You are responsible, not 
 only as an isolated individual, but as a member of 
 
NECESSARILY SC H ISM ATI C A L. 
 
 141 
 
 a community. As one of the church, you are 
 accountable for the customs of the church ; and 
 though individually you do not practise pedo- 
 baptism, yet, if you suffer it in your chwch, you 
 are exposed to the rebuke of Him who reproved 
 the church at Thyatira, not for an open and 
 avowed participation of false doctrine, but for 
 tacitly suffering it in their community. It is 
 worthy of remark also, that while the church at 
 Pergamos were commended because they held fast 
 the name and faith of Christ, they were censured 
 for having among them those who held false doc- 
 trine. A Christian should neither adopt, nor 
 suffer in the church of which he is a member, the 
 substitution of what he believes to be a human 
 invention for a command of Jesus Christ. And, 
 unless both parties consent to preserve an un- 
 worthy, an unchristian silence on the very first 
 personal obligation of a believer, your mixed 
 churches, instead of presenting an antidote, would 
 be fruitful sources of the most baneful schism — 
 not only a schism in practice, but an incurable 
 alienation of affection — a violation, equally, of 
 " the unity of the Spirit," and of " the bond of 
 peace." 
 
 .1/. But allow me just to ask two questions. 
 " First, Are our pedobaptist brethren a part of the 
 mystical body of Christ? or, in other words. Do 
 they form a portion of that church which he has 
 purchased by his precious blood ? — You are loud 
 
 I 
 
142 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 in your professions of esteem for pious Pedo- 
 baptists, nor is there any thing you would more 
 resent than a doubt of your sincerity in that par- 
 ticular. The persons whom yon exclude from 
 your communion are then, by your own confession, 
 a part of the flock of Christ, a portion of his 
 mystical body, and of that church which he has 
 bought with his blood. The next question is, 
 Whether a formal separation from them, on the 
 account of their imputed error, amounts to what 
 the scripture st\les schism? Supposing one part 
 of the church at Corinth had formally severed 
 themselves from the other, and established a 
 separate communion, allowing those whom they 
 had forsaken, at the same time, the title of sincere 
 Christians, would this have been considered as a 
 schism That it would, is demonstrable from the 
 language of St. Paul, who accuses the Corinthians 
 of having schisms ((T\t(T fiara,) among them, though 
 they never dreamed of forming a distinct and se- 
 parate communion. If they are charged with 
 schism, on account of that spirit of contention, 
 and that alienation of their affections from each 
 other, which merely tended to an open rupture, 
 how much more would they have incurred that 
 censure, had they actually proceeded to that ex- 
 tremity. — If there is any meaning in terms, this is 
 schism in its highest sense." — Reasons, 25, 26. 
 
 5. That an open rupture is a schism is certain ; 
 but it does not follow that we are the schismatics. 
 
NECESSARILY SCH ISM ATICAL. 143 
 
 Suppose the church at Corinth had proceeded to 
 an open separation, who would have sustained 
 that odium? The party who observed, or the party 
 M ho abandoned the regulations prescribed by the 
 Christian Legislator? It is very far from grateful 
 to my feelings, even by implication, to fix the 
 charge of schism on any of my brethren, who, 
 though decidedly erroneous, are sincere and con- 
 scientious. But on what principle we can be 
 convicted of this heinous sin, I am totally at a 
 loss to conceive. If those who strictly adhere to 
 tlie order of their Lord's commission, notwith- 
 standing the Christian character of their oppo- 
 nents, are chargeable with schism, then you are 
 schismatics for insisting on the prescribed order of 
 faith and baptism : if, on the contrary, such an 
 adherence to the order of the commission does 
 not convict you of schism, how can a similar 
 adherence to the same commission, in relation to 
 the equally '-prescribed" order of baptism and 
 church-fellowship, constitute us schismatics ? — 
 \ uii require such a confession of faith as you be- 
 lieve is scriptural, before you will admit any one 
 lo I)aptism, We, on the same principle, require 
 
 I li baptism as we believe is scriptural, before 
 li'ceive any one to church-fellowship. With a 
 
 \v modern exceptions, ail Pedobaptists— whether 
 Independents, Presbyterians, or Episcopalians — 
 d" the same. Consequently, if t/iis be schism, 
 . icat is the company of schismatics — the only 
 
144 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 "little flock," who can walk erect, and, with a 
 bold front, and a firm step, and an unfaltering 
 accent, declare, in the hearing of all Christendom, 
 that they are not schismatics, — being a modern sect, 
 of Mixed Communion Pedobaptists — a party, 
 who, with perfect consistency, deviate from the 
 order of their Lord's commission in toto, baptizing 
 without faith, and receiving members to church- 
 fellowship without baptism ! They and the Strict 
 Baptists, of course, occupy extreme positions ; 
 while between us, moving hither and thither, in 
 busy succession, are seen a diversified crowd, 
 constituting two principal bodies — Mixed Com- 
 munion Baptists, and Strict Communion Pedo- 
 baptists — each with his party banners ; those of 
 the former being, on the right, "Faith and 
 Baptism;" on the left, "Faith, [^^^s^^I and 
 Church-fellowship:" those of the latter be- 
 ing "Natural Descent and Baptism," and 
 "Baptism, Faith, and Communion:" by 
 baptism, the former meaning immersion, the latter 
 affusion. Both these parties are alternately here 
 and there, with us and with our opponents, for each 
 and against each, accusing both and defending 
 both. Parading up and down, exulting in their 
 union, yet disagreeing in toto with each other, 
 and dividing the Christian commission between 
 them, (What a schism !) both prove that we are 
 right, while both tacitly imply that they think our 
 opponents right. Whenever we baptize, one party 
 
NECESSARILY SCHISMATICAL. 
 
 145 
 
 defends us with the first half of the commission, 
 while the others are with our opponents — of course 
 without that sanction : no sooner, however, are we 
 engaged in church-fellowship, than away start our 
 Mixed Baptist friends to the opposite side of the 
 camp — without the commission, of course ; while 
 their places are supplied by the Strict Communion 
 Pedobaptists, with the other half of that important 
 document.^^ Now, my friend, we are not satis- 
 fied with these flying, transient visits : we wish 
 for a permanent union with all of you, on the 
 principles of our Lord's commission. Whether, 
 however, the Strict Communion Baptists, or 
 the Mixed Communion Pedobaptists, are the 
 schismatics, is a question between them and us. 
 
 " Baxter.—" 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." — Plain Scripture Proof, 24. 
 
 Wall. — " No church ever gave the communion to any persons 
 before they were baptized. — Among all tlie absurdities that ever 
 were held, none ever maintained that, that any person should 
 partake of the communion before he was baptized." — History of 
 Infant Baptism." Part II. Chap. IX. 
 
 Doddridge. — "It is certain, that as far as our knowledge of 
 primitive antiquity reaches, no unbaptized person received the 
 Lord's-supper. — How excellent soever any man's character is, he 
 must be baptized before he can be looked upon as completely a 
 member of the church of Clirist." — Lectures, 511, 512. 
 
 DwiGHT. — " It is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance, 
 [the Lord's-supper,] that the candidate for communion be a member 
 of the visible church of Christ, in full standing. By this I intend, — 
 that he should be a person of piety ; that he should have made a 
 public profession of reUgion ; and that he should have been baptized." 
 System of Theology, Serrn. 160. 
 O 
 
146 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 But whichever shall be convicted of schism, your 
 case is deplorable indeed. For if either are 
 schismatics, it inevitably follows — so are you. 
 For example: Are they schismatics for abandoning 
 the "natural and prescribed order" of faith and 
 baptism and church-fellowship, then you are 
 guilty of schism ; for you also abandon this 
 natural and prescribed order in relation to baptism 
 and church-fellowship. Or, Are we schismatics 
 for maintaining " the natural and prescribed order" 
 of faith and baptism and church-fellowship, still 
 you are guilty of schism ; for you likewise maintain 
 this natural and prescribed order in relation to 
 faith and baptism. Consequently, whether a strict 
 adherence, as Christian churches, to the order of , 
 the Christian commission, or a two-fold inversion | 
 of that order, be schism, you are unquestionably 
 involved ; and how you are to extricate yourself 
 from this dilemma, except by adhering to the 
 order of the commission throughout, I am at a 
 Ios» to conceive. — But, to return to ourselves, (for 
 I had almost forgotten that we were on trial !) — 
 you misrepresent us, my friend. We wish to re- 
 ceive our Christian brethren to church-fellowship; 
 we should rejoice to receive them all; we never 
 reject ant/ who are willing to enter by that porch 
 in the front of the church which Christ erected 
 for the purpose : we set this divinely-appointed 
 door wide open — (thus showing our attachment to 
 open, though not to mixed communion ! ) — and we 
 
NECESSARILY SCHISMATICAL. 147 
 
 proclaim, audibly and distinctly, 'Ho! ye believers 
 in our Lord Jesus Christ, desiring a participation 
 in the provisions of his table. Come and welcome! 
 This is the way of his appointing — the gate of 
 the Lord— at which all the righteous may enter. 
 Who can forbid water, that you should not be 
 baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as 
 well as we ? Come in, ye blessed of the Lord : 
 wherefore do ye stand without ? ' Now, my 
 friend, if, after such a full and free and scriptural 
 invitation as this, they turn away, intimating that 
 they do not think it essential they should enter 
 in that way, they are the separatists — not we. 
 What can we do ? Tfe did not erect the porch. 
 Christ erected it ; and we have not received any 
 orders, either to pull it down, or to block it up ; 
 nor have we been furnished with instructions to 
 leave this scriptural, Grecian porch, open, for the 
 use of one class of Christians only, and to make a 
 breach — a schism in the building, to accommodate 
 otiier Christians with a side-entrance of Roman 
 architecture. The question is. Shall we venture 
 on such a schism without instructions? You may. 
 We never will. If a separation on these 
 grounds be schism, still the odium and criminality 
 of this heinous sin cannot attach to us ; since we 
 are desirous of a scriptural union with " all who 
 love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." But 
 such a union as you propose, would be a com- 
 bination of the members against the Head ! — a 
 
148 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 schism of the most appalling description. Nor 
 would such a combination be likely to promote 
 harmony among the members. As we have al- 
 ready observed, such a union, unless, indeed, both 
 parties agree to treat a positive command of Jesus 
 Christ as a matter of indifference, must, of rigid 
 necessity, promote the identical schisms against 
 which the Apostle directs his censure — internal 
 schisms, contentions, jealousies, and mutual re- 
 criminations. A formal separation, if it be schism, 
 is not such a schism : it is perfectly compatible 
 with Christian love, and Christian union in those 
 Christian pursuits which are not peculiar to 
 church-fellowship ; and for which, therefore, bap- 
 tism is not a prerequisite. But to decline to form 
 a church-union on principles not authorized by 
 the New Testament is noi schism ; and a Baptist 
 is the last person in the world, who should crimi- 
 nate his brother for such a separation. 
 
 M. But " it deserves your serious consideration, 
 that you are contending for that schism in the 
 body of Christ, against which he so fervently 
 prayed, so anxiously guarded, and which his 
 apostles represent as its greatest calamity and 
 reproach. ' The glory, (said our Lord,) which 
 thou hast given me, I have given them, that they 
 may be one, even as we are one ; I in them, and 
 thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; 
 that the world may know that thou hast sent me, 
 and hast loved them as thou hast loved me.' Here 
 
NECESSARILY SC H ISM ATI C A L. 
 
 149 
 
 it cannot be doubted that our pedobaptist brethren 
 are comprehended in this prayer, because our Lord 
 declares it was preferred, not merely for the dis- 
 ciples then existing, but for those also who should 
 hereafter believe through their word, adding, 'that 
 they all may be one, as thou Father art in me, 
 and I in thee, that they also may be one in us, 
 that the world may believe that thou hast sent 
 me.' In these words, we find him praying for a 
 visible union among his disciples, such a union as 
 the world might easily perceive, and this he in- 
 treats in behalf of them all, that they all may be 
 one. The advocates of strict communion plead 
 for a visible disunion.'" — Reasons, 28. 
 
 S. And perhaps it will appear that they plead 
 for a visible union too ; not, however, such a visible 
 union as our Lord did not pray for ; but such a 
 visible union as he evidently did pray might sub- 
 sist among all his disciples — a visible union in 
 observing his will, and in extending the boundaries 
 of his kingdom. That our Lord's intercession 
 included all true Christians, in every age of the 
 church, is freely admitted ; and that he prayed 
 that they might "all be one," is equally certain. 
 But allow me to ask, my friend. In what was this 
 oneness to consist? Evidently, judging from the 
 context, one bond of this union was to be the truth. 
 " Sanctify them through thy truth : thy word is 
 truth. For their sakes also I sanctify myself, that 
 they also might be sanctified through the truth." 
 o 2 
 
150 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 A union, therefore, which systematically com- 
 promises any part of the truth cannot be included 
 in our Lord's intercession. It is a manifest ab- 
 surdity, to suppose that our Lord should appoint 
 baptism in his name as the very first personal duty 
 of all his disciples, and yet pray that they should 
 form a church-union, in which it should be stipu- 
 lated, that of some disciples obedience to this com- 
 mand should not be required ! Of whatever kind 
 was the union for which Christ prayed, it could 
 not possibly be such a union as that for which you 
 contend ; since baptism is demonstrably the first 
 personal obligation of all who are included in the 
 prayer. The command is as extensive as the in- 
 tercession. Did the prayer include all believers, 
 in every age of the church ? So does the command. 
 And every attempt to promote the object of the 
 former at the expense of the latter, is, at the best, 
 equivocal obedience, and a systematic dereliction 
 from one part of Christian duty. — Again, if we 
 take into consideration the model of this union, 
 it will be evident that a mixed communion church, 
 as such, cannot possibly be an exemplification. 
 Our Lord prayed that all believers might be one 
 as he and the Father were one. Now, in what 
 particulars, applicable to believers, were Christ 
 and the Father one? If we examine only the 
 context, taking the prayer as a whole, we shall 
 find, that, whatever unity besides was intended, 
 the Father and the Son were of one mind in a 
 
NECESSARILY SCHISM ATICA L. 
 
 151 
 
 certain particular, concerning which the members 
 of a mixed communion church systematically 
 agree that such unity is unnecessary — they 
 were of one mind respecting the commands 
 which Christ delivered to his disciples. " Now, 
 (said our Lord, addressing his Father, in allusion 
 to his disciples,) they have known that all things 
 whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. For 
 I have given unto them the words which thou gavest 
 me; and they have received them. / have given 
 them thy word." Here, it is evident, Christ and the 
 Father were of one mind respecting the Christian 
 commands ; and this is one part of the model of 
 that union which our Lord prayed might subsist 
 among all his disciples. On the contrary, mixed 
 communion churches, as such, are theoretically, 
 practically, and by special agreement, of two 
 minds, respecting the very first command whicji 
 Christ requires his disciples to obey. Christ also 
 assured his disciples, " Every plant which my 
 Heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted 
 up." Now, on your own confession, pedobaptisra 
 is a plant which our Heavenly Father has not 
 planted. But, instead of adopting all scriptural 
 expedients for rooting it up. Mixed Baptists 
 nurse it, and cherish its growth, transplanting 
 it into their own soil ; and, by displacing the 
 plant which our Heavenly Father has planted, 
 perpetuate the unscriptural exotic. Christ, in 
 praying that his disciples might be one as he and 
 
152 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 his Father were one, prayed for a union in honour- 
 ing his commands; you plead for a union, the 
 distinguishing feature of which is a covenant, that 
 obedience to the first command enjoined on a 
 believer shall not be required ! It is true, you 
 profess to be of opinion that pedobaptism ought to 
 be rooted up ; but, with strange inconsistency, 
 you introduce into your churches, persons, who, 
 however estimable their characters, feel a deep 
 interest in its growth! And, as members of the 
 same church, possessed of the same rights and 
 privileges, it is "absurd to plead, that, because you 
 do not individually practise pedobaptism, therefore 
 you are not actively concerned in its promotion ; 
 while it is evident to every one but yourselves, 
 that as a church you do practise it: and for the 
 practice of the church every member is accountable. 
 You may say you only tolerate it; but nothing can 
 be more futile. While you are the majority, you 
 directly sanction it by your votes in its favour : 
 when you become the minority, in addition to this 
 sanction, you will form a constituent portion of a 
 community, the major part of which pleads for it, 
 and promotes it by individual practice. And, 
 having once admitted your Pedobaptist friends, 
 you have empowered them to demand, as a right, 
 that the church of which they and you are equally 
 members, shall practise, and formally agree to 
 continue to practise, two baptisms — an innovation, 
 inferior in importance only to the introduction of 
 
NECESSARILY SCHISMATICAL. 153 
 
 two Lords and two gospels. " One Lord — One 
 Faith — One Baptism:" — ought to be inscribed, 
 in legible characters, in the most conspicuous 
 place in every Christian church. Christ prayed 
 that all his disciples might be one as he and the 
 Father were one. But Christ commanded all 
 believers to be baptized, appointing this ordinance 
 as the mode in which they should profess their 
 faith in him, and enjoining on Christian ministers 
 to require, 1, Faith. 2. Baptism. 3. Church- 
 fellowship. This command, in common with all 
 others, he received of The Father. And further. 
 The Holy Spirit so enlightened the minds of 
 the apostles, that they could not misunderstand it; 
 and inspired the sacred penmen to record it, in 
 connexion with its practical exemplification, for the 
 guidance of all believers, in every succeeding age. 
 Here, then, is a command, concerning which the 
 the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are of 
 one mind ; but respecting which your mixed 
 churches deliberately agree to be of two minds, 
 and to adopt two practices ! In whatever, there- 
 fore consists the union for which Christ prayed 
 on behalf of his disciples, he could not, by any 
 possibility, have intended a union of Baptists and 
 Fedobaptists in mixed church-fellowship. But 
 we should hail with sincere delight, such a union 
 as that for which Christ evidently did pray — 
 a union, the bond of which should be love to God, 
 and love to Him who "loved the church, and aave 
 
154 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, 
 by the washing of water, through the word ; that 
 he might present it to himself, a glorious church, 
 not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing." 
 But such a union, while it undoubtedly includes 
 Christian affection towards " all who love our 
 Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity," must, of necessity, 
 be a union in keeping the commands of Christ — a 
 union in promoting the interests of the Redeemer's 
 kingdom, by personal obedience to his laws, and 
 by a systematic inculcation of them on all who 
 would unite with us in church-fellowship. The 
 first relative duty of every Christian, whether he 
 be a member of a church, or not, is undoubtedly, 
 (as he possesses ability and opportunity,) to tell 
 the glad tidings of salvation to his fellow-men. 
 In this Christian duty, which is not peculiar to 
 a church-relation. Baptists and Pedobaptists can 
 consistently unite. Here, we are of one mind, 
 one heart, and one soul ; our principles are one, 
 our directory is one, our practice is one, our aim 
 is one. The love of Christ constrains us both ; 
 both are borne away by its impelling influence. 
 Here, then, we occupy common ground : there is 
 a oneness of feeling, of interest, and of object. 
 Here, we are emphatically one. But there is 
 another duty, which, if not equally important, is 
 equally imperative with that of publishing the 
 gospel, and which, in the New Testament, imme- 
 diately follows, and never precedes, the belief of 
 
NECESSARILY SC H I S M ATI C A L. 155 
 
 tlie gospel — Christian baptism — a duty which all 
 believers should not only personally obey, but in- 
 culcate on those believers who have not obeyed it. 
 But Baptists and Pedobaptists are of two minds 
 respecting this ordinance ; the latter, indeed, (with 
 a few modern exceptions,) agreeing with its, that 
 baptism is the appointed, and the only appointed 
 mode of entrance into visible church-fellowship, 
 but opposed to us both, respecting its subjects and 
 mode of administration. In church-fellowship; 
 tlien. Baptists and Pedobaptists cannot consistent- 
 ly unite. Here, they cannot be one ; for, which- 
 ever is right, one party obei/s the command, and 
 the other does not obey it ; and, by consequence, 
 one party inculcates Christian obedience, and the 
 other inculcates a deviation from the Christian 
 law. Here, then, we divide, and here we must 
 divide, each acting agreeably to the dictates of 
 his own conscience. While Pedobaptists persist, 
 for whatever reason, in declining a compliance 
 with what we believe to be Christian baptism, 
 our union with them in church-fellowship would be 
 an anomaly equally opposed to reason, to their own 
 sentiments, and to Christian principle — a union, 
 which cannot plead the least shadow of scriptural 
 authority. What is Christian church-fellowship, 
 but a union of Christians in keeping the Christian 
 ordinances as they were delivered ? But a mixed 
 church, so far from exemplifying such a union, 
 is a fellowship established on a solemn compact, 
 
156 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 the leading article of which is, that a compliance 
 with the very first personal obligation of every 
 believer shall not be enforced — a special agreement 
 that its members shall ?iot be required to comply 
 with their Lord's commission, either in the matter 
 or the order of it ; but that some members shall 
 be at liberty to deviate from either or both ! 
 Christian union commends itself to the heart of 
 every Christian : but let us be disunited to the 
 end of time, rather than form an unscriptvral 
 alliance. If our Pedobaptist brethren cannot see 
 it their duty to be baptized, — rather than compro- 
 mise the principle, which the)/, for the most part, 
 equally with the Strict Baptists, profess to derive 
 from the New Testament — that baptism is essential 
 to church-fellowship, — let us form our churches, 
 each on the plan which he believes to be the mind 
 of Christ; and unite with each other in every 
 Christian feeling, and in every Christian pursuit, 
 to which baptism has not a special relation. In 
 my humble opinion, this will be a much happier 
 exemplification of " Christian communion," and of 
 the union which our Lord prayed might subsist 
 among all his disciples, than a connexion which, 
 on the part of the Baptists at least, involves the 
 occasional sacrifice of a Christian ordinance. 
 
 M. Still, you plead for " a visible disunion ; 
 nor will it avail you to reply, that you cultivate a 
 fraternal affection towards Christians of other de- 
 nominations, while you insist on such a visible 
 
NECESSAllILY SC H ISM AT 1 C A L. 157 
 
 separation, as must make it apparent to the world 
 that they are not one. Internal sentiments of 
 esteem are cognizable only by the Searcher of 
 hearts; external indications are all that the world 
 has to judge by ; and so far are you from exhibit- 
 ing these, that you value yourselves in maintaining 
 such a position towards your fellow-christians, as 
 confounds them, in a very important point, with 
 infidels and heathens. — What degree of criminality 
 may attach to such a procedure it is not for me to 
 determine ; but I have no hesitation in affirming, 
 that it is most abhorrent from the intention of the 
 Head of the church, and miserably compensated 
 by that more correct view of the ordinance of bap- 
 tism which is alleged in its support. ' Charity 
 is the end of the commandment,' ' the fulfilling of 
 the law and since the religion of Christ is not 
 ceremonial, but vital, and consists less in correct 
 opinions, and ritual observances, than in those 
 graces of the Spirit, which are the ' hidden man 
 of the heart,' it deserves serious consideration, 
 whether so palpable a violation of the unity of 
 the church, is not more offensive in the eyes of 
 Him who ' tries the heart and the reins,' than an 
 involuntary mistake of a ceremonial precept." — 
 Reasons, 29, 30. 
 
 S. My dear friend, this is a serious charge. 
 That we plead for a separation, is true; but whi/? 
 If you imagine that we do not sincerely deplore 
 this separation, you do us an injustice. It is not 
 p 
 
158 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 a schism for which we are accountable ; nor can 
 we prevent it, except by a deliberate abandonment 
 of the principles of church-fellowship confessedly 
 "prescribed" by Christ and his apostles. A 
 necessity is laid upon us, by the sentiments of our 
 brethren ; and, being driven to a choice of one of 
 two evils, we conscientiously choose that which 
 appears to us to be the least. We love our bre- 
 thren ; but we do not, and we hope we never 
 shall, so love even the best of Christians, as to 
 deviate from our own views of the Christian com- 
 mission in deference to theirs. Assuredly, this is 
 not that " charity, which is the fuljilluig of the 
 law," but a charity in deviation from the law. " By 
 this we know that we love the children of God, 
 (said the most affectionate of all the apostles,) when 
 we love God, and keep his commandments." This 
 is a principle, my friend, which you would not for 
 a moment hesitate to apply to individual obedience. 
 We, in addition, extend it to the obedience of our 
 churches, as such. We are no advocates for a 
 succedaneous love — a species of charity nowhere 
 delineated or commended in the New Testament. 
 Nor will the most attentive perusal of that inspired 
 volume present us with a solitary instance of that 
 undervaluation of Christian baptism which forms 
 so prominent a feature in the argument for mixed 
 communion. Assuredly, "the graces of the Spirit" 
 were never intended to be placed in opposition 
 to the ritual institutions of Jesus Christ. But, 
 
NECESSARILY SC H I SM ATI C A L. 
 
 159 
 
 if Christian baptism is to be depreciated and 
 lightly esteemed, on what principle are we to 
 account for the profound reverence which is 
 manifested by all our brethren for the Lord's- 
 supper? How is it that tliat "ceremonial precept" 
 is never despised and undervalued ? and, instead 
 of being celebrated, as it deserves, with the most 
 affectionate veneration, virtually stigmatized as a 
 " petty speculation, and minute opinion ? " Does 
 universal suffrage confer a dignity on one "ritual 
 observance;" and is another "ceremonial precept" 
 rendered unimportant, simply because it is un- 
 popular? On this principle, the Christian rehgion, 
 as a whole, being decidedly the most unpopular of 
 any, must be the least dignified. Who authorized 
 you, my friend, to observe such a marked differ- 
 ence in your treatment of two " ceremonial pre- 
 cepts," enjoined by the same Lord, in a certain 
 order, on precisely the same persons ? What is 
 there, we should be glad to know, in the whole 
 of the New Testament, to justify such an invidious 
 distinction ? The Christian rituals are not rivals : 
 both emanate from the same glorious Lord, are 
 invested with the same Divme authority, and 
 equally demand the devout homage of every 
 Christian, and of every Christian church. But 
 even if a strict adherence to the order of our 
 Lord's commission were as the tithing of "anise 
 and mint and cummin," (which it were impiety to 
 suppose;) — if a cordial submission to Christian 
 
160 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 baptism were but as a single grain in the scale 
 of Christian obedience, (as has been gravely 
 asserted ! ) still the observance of the moral pre- 
 cepts can never sanction the neglect of those 
 which are ritual, and which, whatever may be 
 their relative importance, are equally imperative — 
 both having emanated from the same Supreme 
 Legislator. "These ought ye to have done, and 
 not to leave the others undone." The Jews were 
 not reproved for a strict adherence to ceremonial 
 precepts, but for neglecting the weightier matters 
 of the law ; and if our attention to the Christian 
 rites, or to either of them, were a succedaneum for 
 Christian love, there would be some pertinence in 
 your rebuke: at present, there is none. What 
 right, we should be glad to know, have Mixed 
 Baptists to assume that they are the only Bap- 
 tists who "cultivate a fraternal affection towards 
 Christians of other denominations ? " Is a union 
 with Pedobaptists in one Christian ordinance a 
 more certain indication of love than an equally 
 cordial union with them in every Christian exer- 
 cise not peculiar to external church-fellowship ? 
 Or is that one association so superlatively and ex- 
 clusively lovely and splendid, as to obscure and 
 extinguish the character of every other Christian 
 association ? So then, a union in prayer, and 
 praise, and preaching the gospel, and the various 
 exercises of Christian benevolence in which we do 
 coalesce with our Pedobaptist brethren, is nothing: 
 
NECESSARILY SCHISMATICAL. 161 
 
 and a joint-participation of one Christian ordinance, 
 in which, for certain conscientious reasons, we are 
 not a party, is every thing — the all in all — the one 
 omnivorous, all-absorbing indication of Christian 
 love ! We do not need to be told, that every thing, 
 unaccompanied with love, is nothing. We are fully 
 convinced that love is the cardinal grace : but 
 then who authorized the assumption that mixed 
 communion is love, and that, in the New Testament, 
 Love means Mixed Communion? Or where 
 is it asserted, that the joint-participation of the 
 Lord's-supper is to constitute the test of Christian 
 charity? especially, such a union at the Lord's 
 table as is confessedly, (though, in your opinion, 
 justifiable !) an infringement on the regulations 
 prescribed by " the Governor of the feast," in his 
 last commission ? Surely, my dear friend, this is 
 A NEW Test Act ; and, strange to tell, enacted 
 BY A Protestant Dissenter of the Nine- 
 teenth Century ! Now, just consider, for a 
 moment, the consequence of making our union 
 with Pedobaptists at the Lord's table the test of 
 our Christian regard towards them ; and I am 
 persuaded, your benevolent mind will abandon 
 the position for ever. On this principle, it 
 follows, of necessity, that the Strict Baptists (let 
 the fact be as it may,) are to be considered as 
 destitute of Christian love ! — Ergo, they are to 
 be considered as having no title to the comfort- 
 able persuasion that they have " passed from death 
 V 2 
 
162 
 
 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 unto life:" for hereby "we know that we have 
 passed from death unto life — because we love the 
 brethren." — Nay, it becomes a matter for grave 
 consideration with the church, whether these strict 
 adherents to the order of their Lord's commission 
 have " received the grace of life :" for " he that 
 loveth not his brother, abideth in death." — And 
 is it not very presumptuous in Pedobaptists to 
 repose in unsuspicious security while their persons 
 are accessible to these enemies of mixed com- 
 munion? for "whoso hateth his brother is a mur- 
 derer! and,"- — Nay, in pity stop — peradventure 
 they may have repentance ; and, by yielding to 
 a lovely deviation from their Lord's commission, 
 be acknowledged as exhibiting " the movements 
 and expressions of charity," and be released from 
 the painful suspicion, for want of evidence to the 
 contrary, of being murderers, destitute of spiritual 
 life, and exposed to eternal death ! Now, my 
 
 " If the practice of our opponents aere, as is represented, the 
 sine qua non of Christian charity, what an essential service might be 
 rendered, in the event of a new translation, by the substitution of 
 the term miied communion, for the words love and charity, in all those 
 texts in which the expressions relate to the exhibition of this grace 
 towards our fellow-christians. Not tliat these terms are considered 
 precisely sytumymous ; for though the Strict Baptists cannot obtain 
 credit for " exhibiting external indications of esteem towards Pedo- 
 baptists," the existence of a sort of latent love in their breasts, is 
 not, we believe, in every case, absolutely denied. As a synecdoche, 
 the alteration must be very imposing, and " in perfect accordance 
 with the genius of Oriental speech, which, in the exhibition of a 
 complex object, is wont to represent it only by its boldest and most 
 impressive feature." — The following may serve as a specimen : — 
 
NECESSARILY SC H I S JI ATI C A L. 163 
 
 friend, I cannot for a moment suppose that you 
 believe we are destitute of Christian love to our 
 Pedobaptist brethren, and therefore obnoxious to 
 these tremendous consequences. Then why, by 
 perpetually exhibiting strict communion as indi- 
 cating the absence of that grace, convey such a 
 hateful insinuation ? How studiously, and indus- 
 triously, and successfully, this false imputation 
 must have been circulated by some of our "public 
 teachers," (from whom, Mr. Hall assures us, al- 
 most every error is derived !) is evident, from the 
 circumstance, that among our liberal opponents, 
 a Strict Baptist and a strait-laced bigot, are, very 
 generally, convertible terms ! My dear friend, 
 however charitable you may feel, and justly feel, 
 towards Christians of other denominations, you 
 have no right to misrepresent the Strict Baptists. If 
 
 Now abldeth faitli, hope, miied communion, these three : but the 
 greatest of these is mixed commnnion. 
 
 Put on — bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meek- 
 ness, long-suffering ; forbearing one another, and forgiving one 
 another. — And above all thet.e things, put on miied communion, which 
 is tlie bond of perfectness. 
 
 Neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision ; but 
 faith, which worketli by miied communion. 
 
 It might be still more desirable, with respect to the last of tliese 
 passages, to convince the new Translators of the propriety of deviating 
 from the letter of the original, in favour of its supposed spirit, by 
 the substitution of baptism for circmncision, and of no bupliim for 
 uncirrnmcision. With these trifling corrections, the argument would 
 be complete, and this unhappy controversy would be laid to rest for 
 ever. No Strict Baptist, however bigoted, could withstand such 
 irrefragable evidence ; and all Christians might form one glorious 
 communion, having one Lard, many faiths, and no bapt^s^n, 
 
164 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 you have expended all your candour, pray bestow 
 upon us a scantling of justice. To bring us into 
 disrepute, you tell the world that Strict Baptists 
 exhibit "no external indications of esteem towards 
 Christians of other denominations." But this is 
 not true. And for proof of my assertion, I appeal 
 to our mutual friend, Mr. Hall. It is not long 
 since, adopting his language, you charged us 
 with inconsistency for doing that, which you now 
 accuse us of not doing ! — for acting towards other 
 Christians, in even/ particular except church- 
 fellowship, precisely as you do. But that acknow- 
 ledgement, or, rather, that accusation — (for our 
 very virtues are represented as a stigma and a 
 reproach ! ) — that we do act in every other par- 
 ticular just as you act, and do not withhold from 
 them other tokens of fraternal regard, — is utterly 
 irreconcileable with the charge you now prefer ; 
 viz. that, "so far from exhibiting external indi- 
 cations of esteem, we value ourselves in maintaining 
 such a position towards our fellow-christians as 
 confounds them, in a very important point, with 
 infidels and heathens." It will not avail to reply, 
 in mitigation of the severity of this charge, that 
 you alluded merely to communion at the Lord's 
 table ; because you have alleged this single re- 
 striction as the very proof that we do not exhibit 
 towards Pedobaptists ani/ external indications of 
 esteem. But, one of these accusations must be 
 withdrawn : it is impossible, in the nature of 
 
NECESSARILY SC H ISM ATI C A L. 165 
 
 things, that both should be true : one of them 
 must be a fiction, not to say a calumny. You tell 
 us, in the first place, in agreement with Mr. Hall, 
 how inconsistent we are, in not withholding from 
 Pedobaptists every token of fraternal regard. 
 Well, we admit the fact, and have endeavoured to 
 repel the alleged inconsistency. But it is too 
 much, after this, to turn round, and tell us, in the 
 next place, that we do withhold these tokens of 
 fraternal regard ; or, in other words, that we do 
 not exhibit external indications of esteem towards 
 Christians of other denominations ! My friend, 
 we admit the first accusation, and repel the sup- 
 posed inconsistency. But we deny the last, and 
 challenge you to the proof. What ! Is there no 
 external " Christian communion," but at the 
 Lord's table ? Undoubtedly there is. But, as 
 you may hesitate to receive my opinion, just be 
 so kind as once more to consult our good friend 
 Mr. Hall ; and you will instantly discover, that 
 in this particular we are precisely of one opinion. 
 " Nothing is more certain," says that great writer, 
 ( Reasons, 35, 36.) " than that the communion of 
 saints is by no means confined to one particular 
 occasion, or limited to one transaction, such as 
 that of assembling around the Lord's table : it 
 extends to all the modes by which believers recog- 
 nize each other, as the members of a common 
 head. Every expression of fraternal regard, every 
 participation in the enjoyments of social worship. 
 
166 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 every instance of the unity of the Spirit exerted in 
 prayer and supplication, or in acts of Christian 
 sympathy and friendship, as truly belongs to the 
 communion of saints, as the celebration of the 
 Eucharist." — And, however you may be disposed, 
 he avows his conviction, that in all these particulars 
 but one, we act just as you do. I hope, therefore, 
 in future, you will study your author to better 
 purpose, than again to accuse us of not doing that, 
 for doing which, while we decline to ascend the 
 last step of his ladder of perfect love, Mr. Hall 
 reproaches us with inconsistency. I do not expect 
 you to agree with me ; but do, for your own credit, 
 agree with your friend. 
 
 M. Well well — I did not mean to disagree with 
 Mr. Hall, I assure you ! I suppose I must have 
 forgotten what he said. But, as I perceive now, 
 that he has given you credit for acting towards 
 Christians of other denominations just as we do, ex- 
 cept in one particular, I will not again accuse you 
 of not exhibiting towards them external indications 
 of esteem. — But, allow me once more to recur to 
 the vain boast of the Strict Baptists, of a scru- 
 pulous adherence to the example of the apostles. 
 " Say, did the apostles refuse the communion of 
 good men ? Did they set the example of dividing 
 them into two classes, a quahfied and a disqualified 
 class; and while they acknowledged the latter 
 were objects of the divine favour, equally with 
 themselves, enjoin on their converts the duty of 
 
NECESSARILY SC H ISM ATIC AL. 
 
 167 
 
 disowning them at the Lord's table? Are any 
 traces to be discovered in the New Testament, of 
 a society of Purists, who, under the pretence of 
 superior illumination on one subject, kept them- 
 selves aloof from the Christian world, excluding 
 from their communion myriads of those whom 
 they believed to be heirs of salvation ? Did they 
 narrow their views of church-fellowship — for the 
 purpose of holding up to view one neglected truth? 
 — The direct tendency of such a principle is not 
 merely to annihilate the unity of the cliurch, but 
 to contract the heart, to narrow the understanding, 
 and in the room of ' holding forth the word of life,' 
 to invest every petty speculation, and minute 
 opinion, with the dignity of a fundamental truth." 
 —Reasons, 30, 31. 
 
 6'. Gently, ray friend, gently. You have no 
 right, even by implication, to class a Christian 
 precept with " petty speculations, and minute 
 opinions." Does the Lord's-supper also, as you 
 celebrate it, occupy the same degraded position? 
 I humbly conceive, that the least of the Christian 
 commands is as imperative as the greatest. But 
 who will have the hardihood to affirm that baptism 
 111 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and 
 of the Holy Spirit, is a little command'? That a 
 Christian community cannot be expected to main- 
 tain a uniformity of sentiment in " every petty 
 speculation, and minute opinion," is freely ad- 
 mitted : but nothing is more clear, than that they 
 
168 MIXED CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP 
 
 can and ought to maintain a uniformity of botli 
 sentiment and practice, in relation to all the com- 
 mands of Jesus Christ, of perpetual obligation.' 
 There may be speculations, respecting which 
 uniformity may be unimportant ; but to place a 
 single command of Jesus Christ, of perpetual ob- 
 ligation, on a level with these, indicates no high 
 degree of reverence for his supreme authority. — 
 In reply to your string of questions relative to the 
 apostolic church, you must allow me to ask a few 
 previous questions. Did any good man ever apply 
 to the apostles, to be received without Christian 
 baptism ? Would he have been so received, if he 
 had made the application ? Did two such classes 
 of Christians as we are acquainted with, exist in 
 the apostolic age ? // they had existed, rvuuld 
 the apostles have deviated from their instructions i 
 Are there any traces in the New Testament of such 
 Mixed communities as yours, having one Lord, 
 one faith, and two baptisms ? some of the members 
 being allowed to substitute a human invention for 
 a Christian command, {that Christian command 
 too, which was enjoined as " the prior obligation !") 
 thus ' making void the law of Christ by their 
 traditions?' The direct tendency of such a sj-s- 
 tem is, as we have already seen, to undermine 
 the authority of Christ, to destroy the unity which 
 he prayed might subsist among his disciples, and, 
 under the specious pretence of charity, to promote 
 the most baneful and incurable schisms. 
 
NECESSARILY SC H I SM ATI C A L. 169 
 
 M. It is not pretended, certainly, that there 
 were any churches, in the apostohc age, composed 
 of Baptists and Pedobaptists, for a very obvious 
 reason. But the principle on which we proceed, 
 in the admission of our erroneous fellow-christians, 
 is distinctly recognized by St. Paul. He did not 
 require uniformity of sentiment and practice ; 
 but inculcated on the church at Rome, in a spirit 
 of the most enlarged catliolicisra, the toleration of 
 their erroneous brethren : " Him that is weak in 
 the faith, receive ye. — F.or God hath received 
 him." From hence we conclude, that we ought to 
 receive all whom God has received : and, as our 
 Pedobaptist brethren are unquestionably of that 
 number, their reception is as imperative as if they 
 had been mentioned by name. 
 
 S. I am quite aware, my friend, that this is 
 your strong position. And I can assure you 
 I have not the slightest desire to evade any argu- 
 ment which you may please to advance. We will, 
 therefore, if you please, make this the subject of 
 our next Conversation. 
 
 M. We will : and if you are not then convinced 
 of your error, in rejecting pious Pedobaptists, 
 I shall begin to think you are incorrigible. 
 
 S. Perhaps, my friend, we should not reject 
 such as the apostles would have received. But 
 we must not anticipate : when shall we meet 
 again ? 
 
 Q 
 
170 
 
 SCHISM. 
 
 M. To-morrow evening, if you please : and 
 recollect, I am quite prepared to receive you, my 
 friend, weak in the faith as I think you are ! 
 
 .S'. Receive me, indeed! And is that all? 
 You must surely have forgotten your precedent ! 
 The Apostle enjoins, not only that the strong 
 should receive their weak brethren ; but also, 
 that, rather than throw a stumbling-block in their 
 way, they should even abandon their own practice! 
 Now, it is notorious, that this practice of yours 
 — this mixed communion — has proved a great 
 stumbling-block to some of your Baptist brethren. 
 Under a momentary impulse oi feeling, after many 
 hesitations and doubts, they have at length been 
 induced to yield to the fascinations and allure- 
 ments of your mixed assemblies, contrary to the 
 dictates of a cool and deliberate judgment, where- 
 by their " weak" consciences have been wounded. 
 You must, therefore, if you would make any 
 pretensions to " walking charitably," extend your 
 courtesy; stretch it out to the full length 
 OF YOUR precedent; and not only recea-e us, 
 but, in deference to our " weakness," abandon 
 your favourite practice ! Just be so kind as 
 to think this over, my friend, before our next 
 interview. 
 
CONVERSATION VI. 
 
 A RECEPTION TO CHURCH-FELLOWSHIP, OF ALL WHOM 
 GOD HAS RECEIVED, IN OBEDIENCE TO THE CHRISTIAN 
 COMMISSION, BUT NOT IN DEVIATION FROM IT, THE IM PE 
 RATIVE DUTY OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, NOTWITHSTANDING 
 A DIVERSITY OF OPINION AND PRACTICE IN RELATION 
 TO MATTERS OF INDIFFERENCE. 
 
A X A L Y S I S. 
 
 The 14tli chapter of the Epistle to the Romans inapplicable to the 
 present controversy. — The situation of the parties reversed. — The 
 ancient peculiarities discretional ; both being allowable, but neither 
 imperative. — What Baptist will venture to afBrm this of the modem 
 peculiarities ? — The principle on which toleration was enjoined. — The 
 ancient diversities not subversive of any existing Divine law. — In the 
 opinion of the Baptists, their Pedobaptist brethren make void a law 
 of Christ by their tradition. — The application of the injunction to 
 our diversities equally illogical and unscriptural. — The Apostle him- 
 self expressly distinguishes between the diversities then tolerated 
 and existing Divine commands. — The difference between innocent 
 will-worship, and the neglect of a Christian injunction. — The early 
 churches were neither requiied nor allowed to tolerate any practical 
 deviation from the standing law of Christ. — The apostles accused of 
 neglecting an express command of Clirist, of the highest moment.— 
 But uot convicted. — Consequently, they were not tolerated as good 
 men, "weak in the faith," with liberty to persist in the alleged neg- 
 lect of a Christian command ! — The kind of diversities to which the 
 injunction is applicable. — Example. — The Christian Fasts and Fes- 
 tivals, so called. — Strict Baptists not guilty of departing from the pre- 
 cedent.— The general rules of the Bible not subversive of the particular 
 laws of Christ. — Cornelius and his household. — We imitate Peter's 
 reception of diversified Christians, lest we should withstand God. — The 
 members of the true church tobe received to external church-fellowship 
 in obedience to the Christian commission, not in deviation from it. — 
 The baptism of the Spirit not intended to supersede water baptism. — 
 Peter assigned the evidence of the former as the very reason for 
 submission to the latter.' — The precedent in the 14th chapter of tlie 
 Epistle to the Romans is applicable to such diversities as ours, or it 
 is not. — If it is appUcable, it enjoins a personal abandonment of a 
 Christian command, whenever obedience would in any way occasion 
 an erroneous brother to commit sin. — If it is not applicable to such 
 diversities, then it does not sustain the argument for mixed com- 
 munion. — We should adopt the precedent «s a whole, in relation to 
 similar diversities. — The tendency of the respective systems. 
 
VI. 
 
 MiXTUS. Welcome, friend Strictus! I have 
 always been glad to see you; but I am particularly 
 pleased this evening. Our Conversations hitherto 
 have not been very congenial with my feelings ; 
 and it is to me, I assure you, quite " refreshing," 
 to turn from "the rigid and repulsive principles," 
 which have at present engaged our attention, to 
 the contemplation of " the generous maxims of the 
 New Testament." 
 
 Stricius. Then perhaps we may agree, to-night; 
 for I assure you, my friend, I am quite as disposed 
 to adhere to the " generous maxims" of the New 
 Testament, as to what you designate our " rigid 
 and repulsive principles." I am no advocate for 
 dividing the scriptures between us, appropriating 
 one set of texts to my own party, and the others 
 to our opponents. I would not only say, with 
 ChiUingworth, "The Bible alone is the religion 
 q2 
 
174 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 of Protestants;" but. The scriptures, even all 
 the scriptures which are applicable, shall be the 
 foundation of every part of my religious system. 
 That creed or that practice which requires the 
 rejection of any relevant part of the word of God, 
 in its intended application, must, I conceive, be in- 
 defensible. Now then, my friend, be so kind as to 
 state these " generous" maxims of the New Tes- 
 tament, that we may ascertain whether, or not, 
 they are opposed to what you are pleased to deno- 
 minate our " rigid and repulsive" principles. 
 
 M. Besides innumerable inculcatious of kind- 
 ness and brotherly love, in their most amiable 
 forms, there is one exhortation to which I would 
 invite your particular attention. " We are ex- 
 pressly commanded in the scriptures, lo tolerate 
 in the church those diversities of opinion which 
 are not inconsistent with salvation. We learn 
 from the New Testament, that a diversity of views 
 subsisted in the times of the apostles, betwixt the 
 Jewish and Gentile converts especially, the former 
 retaining an attachment to the ancient law, and 
 conceiving the most essential parts of it to be still 
 in force; the latter, from correcter views, rejecting 
 it altogether. Some declined the use of certain 
 kinds of meat forbidden by Moses, which others 
 partook of without scruple : ' one man esteemed 
 one day above another,' conscientiously observing 
 the principal Jewish solemnities ; ' another es- 
 teemed every day alike.' — Instead of attempting 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 175 
 
 to silence these differences, by interposing his 
 authority, St. Paul enjoins mutual toleration. 
 ' Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, not to 
 doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he 
 may eat all things ; another, who is weak, eateth 
 herbs. Let not him that eateth, despise him that 
 eateth not ; and let not him that eatetli not, judge 
 him that eateth: for God hath received him. Who 
 art thou that judgest another man's servant? unto 
 his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he 
 shall be holden up ; for God is able to make him 
 stand. One man esteemeth one day above ano- 
 ther : another esteemeth every day alike. Let 
 every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.' 
 (Eom. xiv. 1 — 5.) To the same purpose are the 
 following injunctions in the next chapter : — ' We 
 then that are strong, ought to bear the infirmities 
 of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Now the 
 God of peace and consolation grant you to be 
 like-minded one towards another, according to 
 Jesus Christ, that ye may with one mind and with 
 one mouth, glorify God, even the Father of our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore receive ye one ano- 
 ther, as Christ also received us, to the glory of 
 God.' Rom. XV. 1. 5 — 7. It cannot be denied, 
 that these passages contain an apostolic canon for 
 the regulation of the conduct of such Christians 
 as agree in fundamentals, while they differ on 
 points of subordinate importance : and by this 
 canon they are commanded to exercise a reciprocal 
 
176 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 toleration and indulgence, and on no account 
 to proceed to an open rupture. — In order to de- 
 termine how far these apostolic injunctions oblige 
 us to tolerate the supposed error of our Pedobaptist 
 brethren, we have merely to consider whether it 
 necessarily excludes them from being of the num- 
 ber of those whom Christ has received to the glory 
 of the Father, whether it be possible to hold it 
 with Christian sincerity, and finally, whether its 
 abettors will stand or fall in the eternal judgment. 
 If these questions are answered in the way which 
 christian candour irresistibly suggests, and which 
 your own judgment approves, they conclude in 
 favour of the admission of Pedobaptists to com- 
 munion, not less forcibly than if they had been 
 mentioned by name ; and all attempts to evade 
 them, must prove futile and abortive. If it be 
 asserted, on the contrary, that a mistake on the 
 subject of baptism is not comprehended in the 
 above description, the passages adduced must be 
 acknowledged irrelevant, and the whole contro- 
 versy assumes a new aspect." — Terms, 96. 98, 
 99. 101, 102. 
 
 S. My dear friend, I have been listening to 
 your observations with profound attention, and 
 cordially approve of the toleration and forbearance 
 enjoined by the Apostle. And though the reception 
 here recommended could not be a reception to 
 external church-fellowship, since both parties were 
 already members ; still, as they were members. 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 177 
 
 and continued to sustain that relation, it appears 
 to me, a fair inference, that, had they now, for 
 the first time, applied for admission into the 
 church at Rome, their points of difference would 
 not have prevented their reception. But what 
 then ? Why, simply this : That similar diversities 
 are to be tolerated in our churches. This is the 
 ultimatum ; and, consequently, the precedent is 
 
 TOTALLY INAPPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT 
 
 coNTBOVERSY. Do you scriougly believe that 
 the circumstances of the respective parties are 
 similar? 
 
 31. I do. "The forbearance which the Apostle 
 enjoins was exercised towards a class of persons 
 exactly in the same situation, as far as its 
 principle is concerned, with the modern Pedo- 
 baptists; that is, towards persons who violated 
 a precept which was still supposed to be in force." 
 Reply, 168. 
 
 S. True — "sMjjposeJ" to be in force ! But, allow 
 me to ask, my friend. Is the violation of a precept, 
 which, (allowing the utmost for which you plead,) 
 was only supposed to be in force, but which, on 
 your own confession, was not, at the time, actually 
 in force, and which, if it ever were in force, was 
 never binding on the party accused of violating 
 it, — to be placed on a level with the neglect of a 
 Christian precept, which, on your own confession, 
 is in force, which is binding, and binding on every 
 believer? The practice of the Gentile was, on 
 
178 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 your own showing, "correct:" it was perfectly 
 unexceptionable : while the utmost that can be 
 pretended of the scrupulosities of the Jew, is, that 
 they were allowable. Are you, then, prepared to 
 affirm the former of pedobaptism, and the latter of 
 the sacred rite to which you have attended ? 
 The Jew was the weak brother : the Gentile was 
 strong. Are you weak ? And are the Pedobaptists 
 strong? If so, the controversy assumes a new 
 aspect ! If not, the situation of the parties, (as far 
 as this view is concerned,) so far from being 
 " exactly similar," is, in the very last degree, 
 dissimilar. 
 
 M. But " it is not, be it remembered, by a 
 peremptory decision of the controversy, or by 
 assigning the victory to one in preference to the 
 other, that the Apostle attempts to effect a re- 
 conciliation. He endeavours to bring it about 
 while each retains his peculiar sentiments ; from 
 which it is manifest that there was nothing in the 
 views of either party, which, in his judgment, 
 formed a legitimate barrier to union. The attach- 
 ment of the Jew to the observation of the legal 
 ceremonies, was not, in his opinion, a sufficient 
 reason for refusing to unite with him, by whom 
 they were disregarded." — Reply, 168. 
 
 S. Nor was it a sufficient reason. That the 
 Apostle endeavoured to reconcile those parties, 
 while each retained his peculiarities, is undeniable; 
 from which, as you justly observe, it is evident 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 179 
 
 there was nothing in their views which formed 
 a legitimate barrier to their union. But whether, 
 from a similar conviction, he would, if presented 
 with the opportunity, adopt a similar conduct, in 
 relation to our peculiarities, is quite another 
 question. Be that as it may, you must allow me 
 to dissent in toto from your preliminary observation. 
 My friend, the Apostle did decide the controversy. 
 He did say which was the weak brother : " Another, 
 w/io is weak, eateth herbs." He clearly justified 
 the Gentile converts, while he respected the con- 
 scientious scruples of his brethren in the flesh : 
 
 "I KNOW, AND AM PERSUADED, (sayS he,) THAT 
 THERE IS NOTHING UNCLEAN IN ITSELF: but 
 
 to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to 
 him it is unclean." A more "peremptory decision 
 of the controversy," than this, is scarcely con- 
 ceivable. And even in exhorting the Gentiles 
 not to throw a stumbling-block in the way of their 
 weak brethren, he affirms that their practice is, 
 in itself, good. " Let not your good be evil spoken 
 of." Unquestionably, the Apostle recommended 
 mutual toleration, while each party retained his 
 peculiarity: butW/j/? Plainly, because the praetice 
 for which each party contended, was discretional. 
 Each party might retain his peculiarity ; but the 
 peculiarity which each party might retain, was not 
 binding, either on himself, or on his brother. The 
 indiscriminate participation of meat was not 
 obligatory, either on the Gentile, or on the Jew ; 
 
180 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 for it was not commanded : nor was a scrupulous 
 abstinence imperative, either on the Jew, or on the 
 Gentile ; for it was not commanded. Both prac- 
 tices, if attended to conscientiously, and without 
 a violation of the law of love, were clearly allow- 
 able, but as clearly unimperative. Show that this 
 is true of baptism and pedobaptism, and the con- 
 troversy will be decided. But who will venture 
 to maintain that the substitution of a worldly 
 ceremony for a Christian ordinance, is allowable, 
 in awy Christian ? or that Christian baptism is 
 not enjoined, on all believers ? The other pecu- 
 liarity to which you refer us, is subject to the 
 same decision. One man esteemed " one day 
 above another : " another esteemed " every day 
 alike." Here also they are exhorted to mutual 
 toleration. But wlii/? Plainly, because, as in 
 the fermer case, the peculiarity of each party, 
 though allowable, was unimperative. But who will 
 presume to affirm this of our peculiarities? If the 
 scriptures may be permitted to decide, pedobaptism 
 is neither imperative nor allowable. They who 
 " teach for doctrines the commandments of men," 
 are expressly said to "make void the law of God" 
 by their traditions. On the contrary, if we may 
 form a judgment from the same infallible tes- 
 timony. Christian baptism is not only justijiable, 
 but imperative ; and imperative, not on one class 
 of Christians only, but on all penitent behevers. 
 The observance of days, and abstinence from 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 181 
 
 meat, though confessedly weaknesses, were clearly 
 allowable. Will you affirm this of pedobaptism, 
 and of the neglect of the Christian ordinance ? 
 The non-observance of days, and the participation 
 of meat, though "good," were unimperative, and 
 the latter was not only not to be required of the 
 " weak in the faith," but was actually to be 
 waived on the part of the strong, in deference 
 to their weak brethren ! But what Baptist would 
 be so accommodating? And yet pedobaptism 
 7nust be allowable, and Christian baptism must 
 be unimperative, or the ancient and the mo- 
 dern controversies are, in their principle, totally 
 dissimilar. 
 
 M. But "neither of the ancient, nor of the 
 modern error, is it pretended that they are funda- 
 mental, or that they endanger the salvation of 
 those who hold them. Thus far they stand on 
 ! he same footing, and the presumption is that they 
 ought to be treated in the same manner. Before 
 we come to this conclusion, however, it behoves 
 us to examine the principle on which the Apostle 
 €njoins toleration, and if this is applicable in its 
 full extent to the case of our Pedobaptist brethren, 
 no room is left for doubt. The principle plainly 
 is, that the error in question was not of such 
 magnitude as to preclude him who maintained 
 it from the favour of God. 'Let not him who 
 eateth, despise him who eateth not; and let not 
 him who eateth not, judge him who eateth; for 
 
 R 
 
182 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 God hath received him. Who art thou, that 
 judgest another man's servant ? To his own 
 master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be 
 holden up ; for God is able to make him stand.' 
 In the same manner, in the next chapter of the 
 same Epistle, after reminding the strong that it is 
 their duty to bear the infirmities of the weak, he 
 adds, ' Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ 
 also hath received us to the glory of the Father.' 
 If such is the reason assigned for mutual tolera- 
 tion, and it is acknowledged to be a sufficient 
 one, which none can deny without impeaching 
 the inspiration of the writer, it is as conclusive 
 respecting the obligation of tolerating every error 
 which is consistent with a state of salvation, as 
 if that error had been mentioned by name ; and 
 as few, if any, are to be met with, who doubt the 
 piety of many Pedobaptists, it not only justifies 
 their reception, but renders it an indispensable 
 duty." — Reasons, 33, 34. 
 
 S. It is freely admitted, my friend, that your 
 statement of the principle on which toleration was 
 enjoined in the church at Rome, is, as far as it 
 extends, correct ; and if what you have advanced 
 were the whole of the principle on which the 
 Apostle proceeded, I do not see how your con- 
 clusion is to be resisted. But it is not. The 
 principle is evidently compound, consisting of three 
 essential particulars. 1. God had received the 
 parties, 2. They were conscientious. 3. Their 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 183 
 
 peculiarities were not subversive of any existing 
 Divine law.*" Now, my friend, the apparent 
 weight of your argument arises from the partial 
 representation you give of this three-fold principle. 
 You select a part, and reason from that as if it 
 were the whole ! On the contrary, we contend 
 for the recognition of the principle as a whole, 
 and feel no disposition to evade the conclusion. 
 Reduced to a simple proposition, the conclusion is 
 neither more nor less than this: — Christian 
 
 CHURCHES ARE TO RECEIVE ALL WHOM GOD 
 HAS HECEIVED, WHO ARE CONSCIENTIOUS AND 
 WHOSE PECULIARITIES ARE NOT SUBVERSIVE 
 
 OF ANY EXISTING DIVINE LAW. Butwhatthen? 
 Does this rule enjoin the reception of pious 
 Pedobaptists? Let us examine. Has God re- 
 ceived them? He has. Are they conscientious ? 
 They are. Is their peculiarity subversive of any 
 existing Divine law ? In the opinion of every 
 Baptist, it is. Consequently, their reception into 
 Baptist churches, would be, on the part of the 
 receiving members, a deviation from the principle. 
 
 It will not avail to reply, that, by the substitution of — "not 
 incompatible with a state of salvation,"— (or — "not subversive of any 
 existing Divine law," — the error would be truly designated, and the 
 conclusion in favour of mixed communion : for, besides that this 
 is necessarily included in the expression " God hath received him," 
 it is a defective definition, and its substitution would necessarily 
 exclude a distinguishing feature of the principle on which the Apostle 
 reasoned ; viz. That the PECULiARniES did not affect ths 
 
 BICHTEODSNESS PERTAINING TO THE EXISTING DISPENSATION. 
 
184 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 Before the obligation of receiving Pedobaptists 
 can be established from the precedent in the I4th 
 chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, the follow- 
 ing syllogism must be conclusive reasoning : — 
 
 The toleration enjoined on the church at Rome is binding on all 
 Christian churches. 
 
 But the toleration enjoined on the church at Rome was a reception 
 of tliose whom God had received, who were conscientious and whose 
 peculiarities were not subversive of any existing Divine law. 
 
 Therefore it is binding on all Christian churches to receive those 
 whom God lias received, who are conscientious and whose pecu- 
 liarities are subversive of an existing Divine law .' 
 
 But who does not perceive the sophistry of this ; 
 and that so far from exemplifying, it is a manifest 
 departure from the precedent you exhibit for our 
 imitation ; and such a departure as the Apostle 
 himself most pointedly deprecates ? The fallacy- 
 lies in confounding things essentially different. 
 Surely, it is one thing to tolerate in a Christian 
 church a matter of indifference, and quite another 
 thing to tolerate the substitution of a human in- 
 vention for a Christian ordinance. It is one thing 
 to dispense with that uniformity which was not 
 required in the primitive churchlps, and quite 
 another thing to dispense with that which was 
 required : one thing to abstain from making imu 
 terms of admission, and quite another thing to 
 deviate from the old terms, of Divine appointment, 
 even though in both cases the parties be Christians. 
 A profession of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and submission to Christian baptism, were the 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 185 
 
 terms of admission ; and unless we are at liberty 
 to deviate from this Divine appointment, the pro- 
 fession of whatever is essential to saving faith, and 
 submission to whatever is essential to Christian bap- 
 tism, must be terms of admission still. The ancient 
 diversities, my friend, were not subversive of ani/ 
 existing laxo, there not being any such law to 
 which they could be referred. But the modern 
 diversities are referrible to a law — a Christian law — 
 a law of perpetual obligation, which law is obeyed 
 by one party, and subverted by the other. The 
 diversities, therefore, bear no analogy. But not 
 only is your mode of reasoning illogical : it is 
 equally unscriptural. As if on purpose to prevent 
 the identical perversion with which you are 
 chargeable, the Apostle, in the very context, 
 ex'pTess\y distinguishes the diversities then practised^ 
 from the righteousness pertaining to the kingdom 
 of God. " The kingdom of God, (says he,) is not 
 meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace and 
 joy in the Holy Ghost." And to the same pur- 
 pose, even in relation to what had formerly been 
 imperative, he addresses the church at Corinth : 
 " Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcisiop is 
 nothing; but the keeping the commands oCGod." 
 What is this, my friend, but pointedly and stu- 
 diously exposing the essential difterence, wliich 
 you as studiously conceal, between abrogated rites 
 and things indifferent in themselves,— and existing 
 Christian commands 1 If he had set himself 
 R 2 
 
186 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 expressly to prevent your perversion of his exhorta- 
 tion to the Romans, he could scarcely have written 
 more pointedly. It is as though he had said, 'Do 
 not mistake one part of the principle on 
 which toleration is enjoined. The points of dis- 
 agreement between you, if observed conscientiously 
 and charitably, not being subversive of any law, 
 may be left to your own discretion. Each party is 
 at liberty to eat meat or to eat herbs, to observe 
 days or to disregard them, as his own judgment 
 may dictate. But beware of abusing this toleration. 
 Remember, though the kingdom of God — the 
 Christian dispensation — consisteth not in tneat and 
 drink, it does consist in righteousness, and peace 
 and joy in the Holy Ghost. It is imperative, there- 
 fore, that you " fulfil all righteousness," in the 
 manner and order of Divine appointment. And 
 though circumcision is nothing, and uncircum- 
 cision is nothing, this cannot be pretended of 
 existing Divine ordinances : the " keeping of the 
 commandments of God " is iijaperative.' That the 
 Apostle made any special allusion to baptism, in 
 distinction from other branches of the righteous- 
 ness pertaining to the new dispensation, is not 
 pretended ; but that the principle on which he 
 reasoned applies to baptism, as a part of that 
 righteousness, as a duty incumbent on all behevers 
 in the order of Divine prescription, must be obvious 
 to every understanding. The duties belonging to 
 the Christian dispensation, so far from being 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 187 
 
 confou7ided with the peculiarities then under dis- 
 cussion, are exhibited in direct cow^ras^ ; to treat 
 them as similar, therefore, is preposterous, and 
 diametrically opposed to the principle on which 
 the Apostle reasons. You say the ancient and 
 modern diversities are similar : he says they are 
 dissimilar. You propose to treat them alike : he 
 would have treated them differently. To argue, 
 therefore, as you do, that, because a diver- 
 sity of opinion and practice relative to things 
 indifferent and abrogated Jewish rites, was no bar 
 to church-fellowship, therefore a diversity of 
 opinion and practice in relation to an existing 
 Christian ordinance is to be tolerated in our 
 churches, appears to me, equally opposed to soimd 
 reasoning and to scripture principle, and eminently 
 calculated to nullify the authority of the Christian 
 Legislator. 
 
 M. My friend, you seem wonderfully partial 
 to this distinction. "There is nothing, however, 
 in reason or in scripture, from which we can infer, 
 that to omit a branch of duty not understood, is 
 less an object of forbearance, than to maintain the 
 obligation of abrogated rites. Let my friend as- 
 sign, if he is able, a single reason why it is less 
 criminal to add to, than to take away from the 
 law of Christ ; to receive an obsolete economy, 
 than to mistake the meaning of a New-testament 
 institute. How will he demonstrate will-worship 
 to be less offensive to God, than the involuntary 
 
188 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIAWS 
 
 neglect of a revealed precept ? " — Reply, 165, 
 166. 
 
 S. My friend, there is just this difference be- 
 tween will-worship and the omission of a branch 
 of Christian duty. Of the former, we have an 
 example, and perceive that it was tolerated. Of 
 the latter, there is no example ; and the pointed 
 distinction instituted between the ancient diver- 
 sities and the righteousness pertaining to the 
 Christian dispensation, clearly shows, that had 
 any such innovation been attempted, it would not 
 have been tolerated. There existed a reason for 
 the toleration of the former, which will not apply 
 to the latter : the observance of obsolete rites was, 
 at that time, discretional ; but existing Christian 
 commands are of perpetual obligation. It is tire- 
 some to be obliged so frequently to advert to 
 this distinction ; but the necessity arises from 
 your persisting to consider and to treat as similar, 
 things, between which there not only exists an 
 essential difference, but which essential difference 
 is most emphatically expressed by the Apostle 
 himself, both in his Epistle to the Corinthians, 
 and in immediate connexion with the very trans- 
 action to which you refer us. You must also 
 allow me to observe, my friend, that your remarks 
 are replete with misrepresentation. You contrast 
 "the omission of a branch of duty not understood," 
 with " maintaining the obligation of abrogated 
 rites;" and represent the Jew as adding to the law 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 189 
 
 of Christ. But it is obvious, that the Jew was 
 not allowed to maintain the obligation of his 
 peculiarity : he was only permitted to observe it. 
 Nor was he allowed to consider his practice as any 
 addition to tlie law of Christ : both parties were 
 expressly told, that meat and drink did not belong 
 to the Christian dispensation. And you are equally 
 incorrect, my friend, in relation to the modern 
 parties. Neither are our Pedobaptist brethren the 
 counterpart of the Jew, nor the Baptists of the 
 Gentile. The believing Jew was tolerated on 
 the express understanding that his peculiarity did 
 not belong to the kingdom of God : but Pedo- 
 baptists insist that their ceremony does belong to 
 the kingdom of God — that it is, in fact. Christian 
 baptism. The practice of the believing Jew was 
 not a substitute for Christian obedience, and sub- 
 versive of the law of Christ; but, pedobaptism, 
 yourself being judge, is a substitute for Christian 
 obedience, and its abettors "make void the law of 
 Christ by their tradition." Nor are the Baptists 
 similarly situated with the Gentile converts. They 
 were not required to receive their Christian bre- 
 thren without obedience to the very first command 
 enjoined on a believer. Thet/ were not required 
 to invert the "natural" and "prescribed" order of 
 the Christian institutions. They were not required 
 to show their love to the brethren, by deviating 
 from the order of their Lord's commission — the 
 perpetual law of the Christian church. Thei/ were 
 
190 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 not required to destroy the unity of the church, by 
 the admission of two baptisms. Whatever diver- 
 sities existed, the primitive churches were neither 
 required nor permitted to tolerate any practical 
 deviation from the law of Christ. In that respect, 
 there existed the most perfect uniformity. 
 
 M. On the contrary, my friend, we have " an 
 instance of men's being tolerated in the primitive 
 •church who neglected an express command of 
 Christ, and that of the highest moment. We 
 must only be allowed to assume it for granted that 
 the Apostles were entitled by the highest right to 
 be considered as members of the church which 
 they planted, and of which they are affirmed to 
 be the foundation. These very Apostles, however, 
 continued, for a considerable time, to neglect the 
 express command of their Master, relating to a 
 subject of the utmost importance. It will not be 
 denied that he expressly directed them to go forth 
 immediately after the descent of the Spirit and 
 to preach the gospel to every creature. Did they 
 immediately attempt to execute this commission? 
 From the Acts of the Apostles, we learn that they 
 did not ; that, for a considerable period they made 
 no effort to publish the gospel except to the Jews ; 
 and that it required a new revelation to determine 
 Peter to execute this order in its full extent, by 
 opening the door of faith to the Gentiles. But 
 for the vision presented at Joppa, from all that 
 appears, the preaching of the word would have 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 191 
 
 been limited in perpetuity to one nation." — 
 Reply, 171, 172. 
 
 S. It must be admitted, certainly, that the 
 Apostles and primitive Christians were some con- 
 siderable time before they fully complied with 
 the extent of their Lord's commission ; but, that 
 they are fairly chargeable with " neglecting an 
 express command" is by no means a consequence. 
 They were not commanded to go " immediately" to 
 the Gentiles. It is remarkable, that neither are 
 the facts of the case as they are stated ; nor, if 
 they were, would they reach the position in sup- 
 port of which they are adduced. Allowing that 
 the facts were correctly stated, there are two 
 important particulars to be shown, before the cases 
 can, with any propriety, be considered analogous : 
 
 1. That the church believed that the Apostles 
 " neglected an express command of Christ." 
 
 2. That, with this conviction, they tolerated the 
 Apostles as " weak brethren," permitting their 
 continuance in the church while they persisted in 
 this neglect, simply because, though confessedly 
 "weak in the faith," they were good men, whom 
 God had received! But, my friend, the facts 
 themselves are incorrectly stated. You presume 
 " it will not be denied that Christ expressly directed 
 his apostles to go forth immediately after the 
 descent of the Spirit and to preach the gospel to 
 every creature." But it is denied that they were 
 directed to go "immediately" to the Gentiles- 
 
192 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 You ask with an air of confidence, " Did they 
 immediately attempt to execute this commission ? " 
 and triumphantly reply, " From the Acts of the 
 Apostles, we learn they did not." But, my friend, 
 notwithstanding this decided negative, I am bold 
 to maintain that they did, and did immediately 
 after the descent of the Spirit, attempt to execute 
 their Lord's commission. Allow me to ask. What 
 were their instructions'^ That "immediately" after 
 the descent of the Spirit, they should leave Jeru- 
 salem, and travel by forced marches to the nearest 
 seaport, and take their passage in the first ship 
 bound to some remote heathen country, and there 
 commence the gospel campaign, resigning their 
 own countrymen to the just award of their 
 crimes ? No. Their Lord mercifully ordained, 
 that " repentance and remission of sins should 
 be preached in his name, among all nations, 
 beginning at Jerusalem." And, faithful even to 
 the letter, as well as to the spirit of their instruc- 
 tions, they did preach the gospel among allnations, 
 " beginning at Jerusalem." From the Acts of the 
 Apostles, we learn, that their Lord also appointed 
 that after the descent of the Spirit, they should 
 be his witnesses, " both in Jerusalem, and in all 
 Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost 
 parts of the earth." And these instructions they 
 faithfully obeyed. As Mr. Kinghorn observes, 
 " a large field was to be the scene of their labours 
 before they went to the Gentile nations, and they 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 193 
 
 occupied every part of it in its order." But, 
 because they did not invert the prescribed order, 
 and, regardless of their Lord's instructions to the 
 contrary, immediate 1 1/ go among the Gentiles, they 
 are accused of neglecting an express command of 
 Jesus Christ ! Surely, my friend, on reflection, you 
 will be disposed to withdraw the indictment. — 
 Passing that, as we decidedly disapprove of your 
 application of the injunctions in the 14th chapter 
 of the Epistle to the Romans, it is but fair, both 
 to you and to ourselves, to show that we con- 
 sider the injunction binding in relation to similar 
 diversities — diversities not subversive ofani/ existing 
 Divine law. As a familiar, and perhaps not in- 
 appropriate illustration, suppose some of the mem- 
 bers of our churches were very tenacious for the 
 religious observance of Christmas-day, and Lent, 
 and Good Friday, and Easter, and Whitsuntide, 
 or any other " Christian Fasts and Festivals," as 
 they are designated ; while others, not perceiving 
 either precept or precedent for their celebration, 
 declined thus to observe them ; and suppose the 
 parties were perpetually disputing on the subject — 
 those who observed the days "judging" those 
 who did not observe them, and those who declined 
 to observe them "despising" those who regarded 
 them, — here the apostolic injunctions would be in 
 point. He who observes these seasons religiously, 
 observes them, we may charitably presume, to the 
 Lord; while he who disregards them, recognizes 
 s 
 
194 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 the same principle — he declines to observe them 
 religiously, because the Lord has not enjoined 
 their observance, either personally or by his re- 
 presentatives the apostles : and, as neither pecu- 
 liarity is subversive of any existing Divine law, 
 it is not, in itself, a disqualification for church- 
 fellowship. Since, then, we are prepared to 
 receive the weak in the faith, in nearly the same 
 circumstances as those to whom the exhortation 
 was originally addressed, " how preposterous is it, 
 (to adopt Mr. Hall's rebuke on another occasion,) 
 to charge us with departing from the apostolic 
 injunction. In the same circumstances, or in 
 circumstances nearly the same, we are ready in- 
 stantly to act the same part : let the circumstances 
 be essentially varied, and our proceeding is pro- 
 portionably different." The apostles tolerated men 
 -ivhose sentiments differed from their own, pro- 
 vided they did not refuse submission to existing 
 Christian commands ; and so do we. They 
 received, and exhorted Christian churches to 
 receive the weak in the faith, whose errors were 
 not subversive of the law of Christ ; and this is 
 precisely the course we pursue. Prove that the 
 apostles would have done more, and we will 
 imitate their example. We will receive all whom 
 God has received, who are conscientious, and 
 whose errors are not subversive of the regulations 
 which Christ has prescribed for the perpetual 
 regulation of his church : but we do not feel at 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 195 
 
 liberty to violate the trust reposed in us by a 
 reception even of Christians to external church- 
 fellowship without obedience to that significant 
 ordinance prescribed by our Sovereign Lord as 
 the mode in which all believers should profess 
 their faith in him. 
 
 M. "Nothing can be more futile than the 
 attempt to turn aside the edge of our reasoning, 
 by remarking that there is no mention of baptism, 
 and that this is not the subject of which St. Paul 
 is treating ; as though the Bible contained no 
 general principles, no maxims of universal ap- 
 plication, but that precise directions must be 
 found for every possible emergence that in the 
 lapse of ages may occur. Were it constructed 
 upon this plan, the Bible must be infinitely more 
 voluminous than the statutes at large. It is com- 
 posed on one widely different: it gives general 
 rules of action, broad principles, leaving them to 
 be applied under the guidance of sound discretion ; 
 and wherever it has decided a doubtful question, 
 accompanied by an express statement of the prin- 
 ciple on which the decision is founded, such 
 explanation has all the force of an apostolic canon, 
 by which we are bound to regulate our conduct 
 in all the variety of cases to which it applies." — 
 Reasons, 34, 35. 
 
 S. But, my friend, it is not by remarking, that 
 in the example before us there is " «o mention" of 
 baptism, that we attempt to turn aside the edge 
 
196 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 of your reasoning : it is rather by showing that a re- 
 ception to church-fellowship without baptism would 
 be opposed to the principle on which the Apostle 
 proceeded, an essential feature of which was, that 
 the peculiarities were not subversive of any com- 
 mand pertaining to the existing dispensation ; 
 plainly implying that such practical diversities 
 would not have been tolerated. Surely, my friend, 
 the " general rules" of the Bible were never in- 
 tended to subvert, or to tolerate the subversion of 
 the particular laws of Christ ! Are the scriptures 
 at variance ? Does the Lord Jesus Christ enjoin 
 baptism on every believer, for a special purpose, 
 at the commencement of the Christian life ; and 
 does the Bible furnish a " general rule," au- 
 thorizing modern churches to receive members as 
 if that injunction were obsolete? In what part 
 of the Bible is this " universal maxim," this 
 " general rule," this " broad principle," this 
 " apostolic canon," to be found l Not in the 
 14th chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. That 
 rule of toleration, judging, not merely from ji 
 solitary expression, but from the whole context, 
 and from the tenor of the Apostle's reasoning, is, 
 as we have already observed, neither more nor 
 less than this : — A reception of all whom God has 
 received, who are conscientious, and whose prac- 
 tice is not subversive of any existing Divine law. 
 This is the rule, my friend, and we apply it in 
 every case to which it is applicable. You, on the 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 197 
 
 contrary, apply it, where, as a whole, it is not 
 applicable, inasmuch as, yourself being judge, 
 pedobaptism is subversive of an existing Divine 
 law. Which acts most under the influence of 
 " sound discretion," may be left to the decision of 
 others. We are willing to receive all whom God 
 has received in obedience to the Christian com- 
 mission ; but assuredly we have no authority, 
 either from the example to which you refer us, or 
 from any other part of scripture, to receive even 
 those whom God has received, in deviation from 
 it. We do not feel at liberty to set two scripture 
 canons at variance ; and to countenance the sub- 
 version of one by an unauthorized application of 
 another. 
 
 M, But, in rejecting pious Pedobaptists, you 
 are guilty of withstanding God. Allow me to 
 remind you, my friend, of the Apostle Peter. — 
 "When the Holy Ghost fell upon the Gentiles 
 assembled in the house of Cornelius, though he 
 had a short time before doubted the lawfulness 
 even of eating with them, he considered it as such 
 a seal of the Divine approbation, that he felt no 
 hesitation in immediately admitting them to all 
 the privileges of the church. He did not presume 
 (with reverence be it spoken) to be stricter or more 
 orderly than God. 'Forasmuch (said he,) as God 
 gave them the like gift as he did unto us who 
 believed, who was I, that I should withstand 
 God ? ' — a question which I presume to recommend 
 s 2 
 
198 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 to your serious consideration. The principle on 
 which he justified his conduct is plainly this, that 
 when it is once ascertained that an individual is 
 the object of Divine acceptance, it would be im- 
 pious to withhold from him any religious privilege. 
 Until it be shown that this was not the prin- 
 ciple on which he rested his defence, or that the 
 practice 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 horror, as withstanding 
 God: and when I consider it in this just and 
 awful light, I feel no hesitation in avowing my 
 conviction that it is replete with worse conse- 
 quences, and is far more offensive to God, than 
 that corruption of a Christian ordinance, to which 
 it is opposed. The latter affects the exterior 
 only of our holy religion, the former its vitals; 
 where it inflicts a wound on the very heart of 
 charity, and puts the prospect of union among 
 Christians to an interminable distance." — Reply, 
 86, 87. 
 
 S, But, in my opinion, a candid attention 
 to the history will show that you, not we, deviate 
 from the principle and practice of the holy Apostle. 
 Perceiving that God had received the Gentiles, 
 he received them. But hoto did he receive them? 
 As you would? No. But as we receive those whom 
 God has received. He said, "Can any man 
 forbid water, that these should not be baptized. 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 199 
 
 who have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? " 
 And this is the principle which we adopt. On the 
 contrary, this is the echo of your principle — ' Can 
 any man forbid that these should be received 
 WITHOUT BAPTISM, who have received the Holy 
 Ghost as well as we?' — a very different question 
 from Peter's, which we humbly recommend to 
 your serious consideration. True, the Apostle 
 was not " stricter or more orderly than God : " 
 but was he, I would ask, less strict, or less orderly, 
 than his Lord's commission required him to be ? 
 Nor could we more grossly insult his memory, 
 or traduce his character, than by insinuating 
 that, under any circumstances, he would have 
 deliberately deviated from his Lord's commission, 
 in deference to the erroneous conscience of any 
 man whatever. He would not withstand God, 
 by rejecting the beUeving Gentiles; for Jesus 
 Christ was " Lord of all," of the Gentile no less 
 than of the Jew. But he was not so enamoured 
 with a spurious Catholicism as to forget that he 
 was " Lord of all," and as such entitled to the 
 obedience of all. He therefore received them 
 BY BAPTISM. And this is precisely the course 
 xoe pursue. You set the scripture canons at 
 variance: we contend for their union. Surely, it 
 cannot be horrible to withstand God, and the very 
 essence of Christian charity to withstand Christ ! 
 Can it be, that " the corruption of a Christian 
 ordinance" is a less evil than a strict adherence to 
 
200 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 the confessedly "prescribed" order of the Christian 
 institutions ? and that a deference to that uniform 
 practice of the apostles which was founded on 
 Divine appointment, is "far more offensive to God" 
 than the subversion of a law of Christ, by the 
 substitution of a human invention? Such, it 
 would seem, is the ' unhesitating avowal' of our 
 eloquent friend ! " No wonder, (as Mr. Kinghorn 
 very justly observes,) that Pedobaptists are so 
 attached to Mr. Hall : they never met with such 
 a Baptist before ! " — My friend, we have con- 
 sidered the question of the Apostle, long ago; 
 and the result is, a determination to do as Peter 
 did, lest we should withstand God.-^ I am not 
 
 " It has been suggested to the writer, by a highly-esteemed 
 friend, an advocate for mixed communion, that an additional Con- 
 versation should be introduced in deference to the argument drawn 
 from the circumstance that pious Pedobaptists are a part of the true 
 church. But why'! It has received more attention aheady, both in 
 the preceding, and the present Conversation, than, as an argument, 
 it merits. For to what, after all, does it amount ? To just this : 
 ' They are members of the true church ; therefore, rather than not 
 unite i\-ith them in external church-fellowship, you must deviate from 
 the rule ]:rescribed by the Lord Jesus Christ, far the regulation of his 
 churches " to the end of the world." Receive them in Chrisi's 
 way, if you can : but at all events receive them ! ' That pious Pedo- 
 baptists, as well as pious Quakers, pious Katabaptists, &c. &c. 6cc. 
 are members of the true church, is certain. But what then 1 Will 
 that justify us in deviating from our instructions 1 We are some- 
 times told that the baptism of the Spirit is a sufficient qualification 
 for external church-fellowship, without Christian baptism. But it 
 is very evident the Apostle Peter did not think so. On the contrary, 
 perceiving that Cornelius and his household had received the bap- 
 tism of the Spirit, he assigned that as the very reason why Christian 
 baptism was their immediate privilege and duty. " Can any man 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 201 
 
 aware, indeed, that there is a single example 
 which we do not imitate, or a single injunction 
 which we do not obey, in relation to the reception 
 of Christians to external church-fellowship. — To 
 recur, however, once more to your favorite prece- 
 dent, in the 14th chapter of the Epistle to the 
 Romans,) — allow me to ask, Are you prepared to 
 adopt the whole the injunction ? The Apostle, 
 as was hinted at the close of our last Conversation, 
 enjoined, not only that the weak in the faith 
 should be received, but also that the strong, in 
 deference to their weak brethren, should abandon 
 their own correct practice : to which, it is presumed, 
 you would never agree. But why not ? It will 
 not avail to reply, that the practice of baptism is 
 not calculated to produce the same results as the 
 participation of meat. It is very true, baptism is 
 not, quite so fascinating as mixed communion : 
 there is not much danger of " the weak in the 
 faith" being baptized against their conviction ! 
 But are you prepared to admit the principle, and 
 to adopt the whole of the precedent in relation to 
 the weak consciences of all whom God has re- 
 ceived, all for whom Christ died? The question 
 for consideration is, — Would you intentionally 
 
 forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received 
 the Holy Ghost as well as we ? And he commanded them to be 
 baptized." Had Peter either refused these good men the privilege 
 of Christian baptism, or hesitated to recjuire their submission to the 
 ordinance in the order of Divine appointment, he would ecjually 
 have WITHSTOOD God. 
 
202 CHURCHES TO RECEIVE CHRISTIANS 
 
 neglect a Christian injunction if your ohedi' 
 ence would in any way occasion a weak brother 
 to sin? That you would not, I firmly believe. 
 But then you abandon your precedent. And why? 
 Is not the injunction applicable? That is our 
 argument. We say the Apostle did not allude 
 to such peculiarities, and therefore consider any 
 appeal to the injunction perfectly irrelevant. Will 
 you say that the precedent applies in part ? Then 
 why not in toto?^^ Is the " apostolic canon" im- 
 perative in part, and discretional in part ? There 
 is the most exact agreement throughout, both in 
 the subject and the principle of reasoning. With 
 what show of consistency then, can you, from this 
 precedent, maintain the right of receiving "the 
 weak in the faith," whom God has received ; and 
 refuse to abandon a peculiarity the neglect of 
 
 ^' On the contrary, wf. should adopt the precedent as a 
 WHOLE, in relation to similar diversities. For example, if a pious 
 friend, conscientiously abstaining from certain meats on certain days, 
 were to dine ivith us on any of those days, we should consider it a 
 religious duty to avoid the introduction of any food of which he could 
 not partake v^-ithout violating his conscientious scruples. " It is good 
 neither to eat flesh, nor to drink -Kvae, nor any tiling whereby thy 
 brother stumbleth." The principle may also be applied to certain 
 amusements, and festivals, and associations, not in themselves sinful. 
 Though our consciences might not upbraid us, yet if our compliance 
 would in any way occasion a brother to commit sin, certainly we 
 ought to deny ourselves a gratification, which otherwise we might 
 innocently enjoy. But to apply the principle to any christian 
 INJUNCTION, is subversive of Christianity. And yet it must apply 
 to Christian institutions, or its application to the present controversy 
 is a PERVERSION of the Apostle's meaning. 
 
IN OBEDIENCE TO THE COMMISSION. 203 
 
 which you have agreed to tolerate, in deference to 
 the weak consciences of those yb?- whom Christ 
 died'? The Apostle enjoins both practices, and 
 uiges both on the same principle. Adopt the pre- 
 cedent then, as a whole, or reject it altogether. 
 If the injunction to receive the weak in the faith 
 be in point, the injunction to abandon the correct 
 practice cannot be irrelevant. If the Apostle did 
 not enjoin the abandonment of a Christian com- 
 mand under certain circumstances, neither did he 
 enjoin the toleration of the neglect of such a com- 
 mand. Whatever it was, the neglect of which 
 he tolerated in the weak brother, that practice 
 was to be abandoned by the strong in the faith. 
 It will not avail to reply, that it is one thing to 
 unite in church-fellowship with those who neglect 
 a Christian ordinance which they are not convinced 
 is binding, and quite another thing personally to 
 neglect what we believe is a Christian duty ; and 
 that many who approve of the former would shrink 
 from the latter. We can easily believe they would. 
 But WHY? We have not any more scriptural 
 authority for the former than we have for the 
 latter. Do you appeal to the injunction under 
 consideration? If that enjoins the former, it also 
 enjoins the latter : if, on the other hand, it does 
 not enjoin the latter, then neither does it enjoin 
 the former. Once admit that it is applicable to 
 the present controversy, and you must assert, not 
 the lawfulness of mixed communion only, but the 
 
204 
 
 RECEPTION OF CHRISTIANS. 
 
 duty q/'pERSONALLY DISOBEYING Christ, when- 
 ever obedience to his injunctions would in any way 
 occasion those to sin " for whom Christ died." — 
 If, on the Other hand, to repel this conclusion, 
 you remind us that the apostohc injunction was 
 not intended to apply to such diversities, that is 
 our argument, and is conclusive, not only against 
 personal disobedience, but likewise, as far as this 
 injunction is concerned, against the lawfulness of 
 mixed communion. 
 
 M. I am sorry, my friend, that we cannot 
 agree. There is one point more to be discussed — 
 the tendency of our respective systems. I cannot 
 but think that yours is as impolitic as it is repul- 
 sive. On the contrary, "the generous confidence" 
 imparted in mixed communion, appears, to me, 
 eminently adapted for the insinuation of our 
 sentiments on baptism. 
 
 '' S. "Whatever is right, is wise." But if mixed 
 communion be, as I believe, a deviation from the 
 rule prescribed by Christ for the regulation of 
 churches, " to the end of the world," then it cannot 
 be politically wise. Still, as you believe it to be 
 right, I am ready to consider whatever you may 
 advance in support of its policy. 
 
 ill. Then this, in connexion with the impolicy 
 of strict communion, shall form the subject of our 
 next, and final Conversation. 
 
CONVERSATION VII. 
 
 A STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE COMMISSION OF CHRIST, IN 
 THE FORMATION OF OUR CHURCHES, NEITHER BIGOTRY 
 NOR FOLLY ; AND A DEVIATION FROM IT, IN DEFERENCE 
 TO MODERN ERROR, NEITHER CHARITY NOR CHRISTIAN 
 WISDOM. 
 
ANALYSIS. 
 
 Churches not at liberty to displace a Christian ordinance. — Mr, 
 Hall's shield against pedobaptist ridicule and clamour doubly ser- 
 viceable. — Strict Baptists made the scapegoats of all Christendom. — 
 Spirit and manners of the age. — Impotent violence. — Dr. Dwight's 
 protest against the undervaluation of baptism. — Serious evils which 
 Baptists unnecessarily court, by forming mixed communion churches. 
 — The church at Oxford. — Mixed communion and mixed member- 
 ship.- — The Rev. Christmas Evans, and his noble determination. — 
 lVIi.\:ed conmiunion bridge, &c. — A candid proclamarion. — Shrewd- 
 ness of a Bristol Pedobaptist.— Facts verms theory. — Buoyan, and 
 the church at Bedford. — Dr. James Foster. — Three specimens, from 
 Mr. Giles's Letters to Sir. Hall. — Christ expects churches, no less 
 than individuals, to adhere to his commission. — -Strange, that a 
 Baptist should pursue with eagerness the complete extinction of Baptist 
 churches ! — The candid appellation of bigot. — Call us names, but 
 spare our churches. — The amiable and beloved Dr. Rj'land. — 
 Christian candour of the late Rev. W. Clarke, of Exeter. — Robin- 
 son's singular apology for the Strict Baptists. — Noble remonstrance 
 of the Rev. J. H. Hinton, of Reading, against an uncliristian article 
 in a respectable Review. — Others of our opponents equally candid 
 in appreciating the principles by which we are actuated. — Liberal 
 bigots, and bigoted liberals. — Paltry persecution.- — Cry of Shame ! 
 from the Pedobaptist camp.— Mixed Communion, (though not a 
 tenn of salvation ! ) .1 term of .4d.mission into modern churches. 
 — They reject none, but injidels, heathens, and pious Strict Baptists! — 
 What now becomes of !Mr. Hall's leading position t — Either that, 
 or his mixed communion churches, must be abandoned. — A difficult 
 task, for those who alter the terms of communion. — Romantic 
 scenery, in the East and the \Vest. — Correct judgment and good 
 feeling of a Pedobaptist Missionary.— Conclusion. 
 
VII. 
 
 MiXTUS. Once more we meet as friendly 
 disputants. If, in glancing at the tendency of 
 our respective systems, I can show that mixed 
 communion is favourable to the prevalence of our 
 views of baptism, surely you will be a little 
 more enamoured with it than you have hitherto 
 appeared. 
 
 Strictus. Undoubtedly, my friend, I am desirous 
 of promoting the practice of Christian baptism ; 
 for I believe it is the very first act of allegiance 
 which Christ requires of all his disciples : but, 
 neither do I believe that your system is calculated 
 to accomplish so desirable an object ; nor, were 
 such a result demonstrable, could I approve of the 
 expedient you propose to adopt. We are not at 
 liberty, I conceive, to displace a Christian ordi- 
 nance from the position which Christ assigned it. 
 
208 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 or to form churches opposed to the principles of 
 our Lord's commission, with a view to the indivi- 
 dual practice of the ordinance itself. In the pro- 
 motion of the Redeemer's kingdom, means must, 
 unquestionably, be employed ; but, assuredly. He 
 who " hateth robbery for a burnt-offering," can- 
 not be pleased with an expedient so derogatory 
 of his just authority. This, my friend, is my 
 view of the question. Still, as you believe 
 mixed communion is lawful, I shall listen with 
 attention to any observations you may be disposed 
 to make. 
 
 M. Then allow me, first, to direct your at- 
 tention to the inexpediency of strict communion. 
 " The first effect necessarily resulting from it, is a 
 powerful prejudice against the party which adopts 
 it. When all other denominations find themselves 
 lying under an interdict, and treated as though 
 they were heathens or publicans, they must be 
 more than men not to resent it ; or if they regard 
 it with a considerable degree of apathy, it can 
 only be ascribed to that contempt which impotent 
 violence is so apt to inspire." — Reasons, 41. 
 
 S. But, if Pedobaptists " resent" our conduct, 
 they resent that in us, which, (with a few modern 
 exceptions,) they themselves practise : and if 
 they feel "contempt" of what you designate our 
 "impotent violence," it would better become them 
 to inquire whether it is not equally chargeable on 
 themselves. Whatever qualities belong to strict 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 209 
 
 communion are as attributable to them as to us ; 
 they, for the most part, equally with ourselves, 
 declining to unite in church-fellowship with any 
 who, in their opinion, are unbaptized. Whatever 
 stigma, therefore, it may please you to inflict, 
 they cannot apply any epithet to our practice, 
 which will not rebound on themselves. I fear 
 you have again forgotten the testimony of our 
 friend, Mr. Hall; who tells us that the Strict 
 Baptists and the Pedobaptists " both concur in 
 a common principle, from which the practice 
 deemed so offensive is the necessary result." It 
 is his opinion, too, that " this may suffice to rebut 
 the ridicule, and silence the clamour of those, who 
 loudly condemn the Baptists for a proceeding, 
 which, were they but to change their opinion on 
 the subject of baptism, their own principles would 
 compel them to adopt." — Reasons, 6.^ But, my 
 
 " What a pity it is, that our Mixed Communion brethren cannot 
 apply this reasoning to the diflference which exists between us and 
 themselves. It is only the behef of an abstract proposition — that 
 Christian baptism, no less than a credible profession of the Christian 
 faith, is an indispensable pre-requisite to external church-fellowship ; 
 the church, in both cases, deciding according to their own views of faith 
 and baptism. If they believed this, they must necessarily act as we 
 act, our opinion as to what is essential to saving faith and to Chris- 
 tian baptism being the same. The difference between us and them 
 is surely not wider, nor, while we advance icriptnral reasons, more 
 criminal, than the difference between us both and our Pedobaptist 
 brethren : the chasm, indeed, is not so wide as that between the 
 Mixed Communion Baptist and the Strict Communion Pedobaptist. 
 Then why should ue be selected as the scape-goats of an over- 
 whelming majority of the Christian community — Episcopalians, 
 T 2 
 
210 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 friend, you grossly misrepresent us. We do not 
 treat our Pedobaptist brethren as "heathens or 
 publicans;" but as Christians, whom we shall 
 welcome to the Lord's-table immediately on their 
 compliance with what we believe the Lord himself, 
 the Founder and Governor of the feast, has 
 been pleased to enjoin as a previous duty. They 
 know, and some among them acknowledge this to 
 be our feeling towards them : they do not reproach 
 
 Presbyterians, Independents, and Methodists 1 Is ii, that, from 
 a deep sense of gratitude, the Christian community may be induced 
 to return the compliment, and make us the Baptist scape-goat also'! 
 If so, tlie sooner we flee into some wilderness the better ; for how 
 shall such a feeble few bear away the reproach of all Christendom '. 
 But, to recur more particularly to our Baptist brethren — Why should 
 we be perpetually reproached with the necessary consequences of 
 our belief, and criminated for a course of comluct which they must 
 adopt if they understood the Christian commission as we understand 
 it ? " That our practice is (in their view) harsh and illiberal, is freely 
 admitted ; but it is the infallible consequence of the opinion we 
 entertain respecting the terms of communion, conjoined with our 
 views of the baptismal rite." Then why should not the recollection 
 of this " suffice to rebut the ridicule, and silence the clamour of those 
 who loudly condemn the (Strict) Baptists, for a proceeding, which, 
 were they but to change their opinion on the subject of" communion, 
 " their own sentiments would compel them to adopt " ? It cannot be 
 denied that Mr. Hall has furnished us with an excellent shield against 
 the attacks of Strict Communion Pedobaptists. But, as we are 
 «5ven more violently assailed from another quarter, we hope he will 
 excuse the liberty we take, in presuming to use it "to rebut the 
 ridicule, and silence the clamour," of some of the Mixed Commanion 
 Baptists. We should feel sincerely grateful for this shield, did 
 not other circumstances seem to justify Mr. Giles's construction of 
 the affair. ( Lelters, p. 5.) Without arraigning the motive, however, 
 the fact is notorious : we have been shielded from the whip^ and 
 chastized with scorpions. 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 211 
 
 US, as you do, with treating them as " heathens 
 or publicans."^ And why, my friend, should 
 
 " Unhappily, (such is the contagion of a great example,) this 
 Cliristian candour is becoming more rare and limited. Before the 
 revival of this controversy, some dozen years ago, nothing was easier 
 than to convince intelligent Pedobaptists, that, however stupid we 
 were in not being able to discern that their ceremony was Christian 
 baptism, still, that was the sum total of our offence. Since then, 
 however, they have studied in a new school, and their proficiency is 
 truly astonishing. They have made two important discoveries : 
 that Christian baptism is a triile ; and that the crowning sin of 
 the Strict Baptist is a position maintained by their own body from 
 time immemorial, and by most of them to the present day ! ! The 
 following specimen, selected from half-a-dozen pages of a Revievr 
 of certain publications on both sides of the present controversy, vrill 
 serve to illustrate the spirit and manners of the aoe — of — 
 what shall we call it 1 liberality and candour ? 
 
 " Gold — silver — liberal — Christian world — victory — gi-eat powers 
 — comprehensive views — intellectual giant— generous — acute under- 
 standing — ingenuous and noble aidour — inspirations of genius and of 
 truth — rare assemblage of excellencies — countercharm of intolerance 
 — genius of emancipation — enlightened instructor — enlightened and 
 benevolent eflbrts — temperate and masterly production — palm of 
 victory — lucid — powerful— great judgment — Christian spirit— well- 
 sustained argument — considerable acumen, and invincible force — 
 forbearance — transcendant — illustrious name — halo of glory." 
 
 " Iron — clay- — intolerance — human presumption — insignificant 
 asd rapidly-decreasing party — sectarian aggression — contumely and 
 disdain — pigmies — arrogant assumption of infallibility — excommuni- 
 cating — pernicious errors — ignorance, pride, and intolerance— mental 
 and spiritual bondage— chain of prejudices — ton'ent of ungrateful 
 abuse — enslaved people — iguorance and bigotrv — rancorous hostility 
 — blinded by prejudice — impervious to all arguments — exasperated — 
 close the gates — hurl defiance — intolerant position — not the show of 
 argument— weakness — puerility — infantile taleiits — feeble assailant 
 — great ignorance — immeasurable illiberality — foulest charges — paw 
 of the bear — ' deplorably imbecile and narrow' — ' Thick-skinned 
 monsters of the ooze and the mire, which no weapon can pierce, 
 no discipline tame.' " 
 
212 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 you designate our practice " impotent violence"? 
 Of what " violence" are we guilty ? and wherein 
 is that alleged violence " impotent " ? Is a strict 
 adherence to the order of our Lord's commission, 
 and keeping the ordinances " as they were de- 
 livered," to be designated "impotent violence"! 
 If it be, it is a violence in the exercise of which 
 we are sanctioned by apostolic commendation : 
 and if not, then you, with all your pretensions to 
 superior candour, are chargeable with applying 
 to our practice, violent epithets, as undeserved 
 as they are impotent. 
 
 M. " We are incompetent judges of the 
 light in which our conduct appears to those 
 against whom it is directed ; but the more 
 frequently we place ourselves in their situation, 
 the less will be our surprise at the indications 
 of alienation and disgust which they may evince. 
 The very appellation of baptist, together with the 
 tenets by which it is designated, become associ- 
 ated with the idea of bigotry ; nor will it permit 
 the mind which entertains that prejudice, to give 
 an impartial attention to the evidence by which 
 our sentiments are supported. With mingled 
 surprise and indignation they behold us making 
 pretensions which no other denomination of pro- 
 testants assumes, placing ourselves in an attitude 
 of hostility towards the whole Christian world, 
 and virtually claiming to be the only church of 
 Christ upon earth. — The power of prejudice to 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 213 
 
 arrest the progress of inquiry is indeed to be la- 
 mented : nothing could be more desirable, than 
 that every opinion should, in the first instance, be 
 judged of by its intrinsic evidence, without regard 
 to the conduct of the persons who embrace it : 
 but the strength and independence of mind requi- 
 site to such an effort, is rather to be admired than 
 expected. There are few who enter on the in- 
 vestigation of theological questions in that elevated 
 state ; secret antipathies or predilections will be 
 sure to instil their venom, and obscure the per- 
 ception of truth, and the suggestions of reason." — 
 Reasons, 42, 43. 
 
 S. My friend, we deny the charge of "placing 
 ourselves in an attitude of hostility towards the 
 whole Christian world." But we do claim, (and 
 of this presumption, you, equally with ourselves, 
 are guilty!) we do maintain that Baptist churches 
 are the only churches in the world who " keep the 
 ordinances as they ivere delivered." And if this 
 is to subject us to "indications of alienation and 
 disgust," and to occasion the mingled emotions of 
 " surprise and indignation," so be it ; we are not 
 careful to shun the honest avowal of our principles. 
 If our Pedobaptist brethren allow your misrepre- 
 sentations of our conduct, and their own mis- 
 conceptions and " secret antipathies," to "instil 
 their venom, and obscure the perception of truth," 
 the blame does not lie at our door. If we 
 were as bigoted as some of our liberal friends 
 
214 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 are pleased to represent, or ten thousand times 
 more so, the word of God is as true, and obe- 
 dience to the laws of Christ as imperative, as if 
 we were more liberal than the most liberal of all 
 the liberals within the widest pale of the catholic 
 church, 
 
 M. But, " by the stern rejection of the mem- 
 bers of all other denominations, until they have 
 embraced our distinguishing tenets, what do we 
 propose to effect? to intimidate, or to convince? 
 We can do neither. To intimidate is impossible, 
 while there are others far more numerous than 
 ourselves, ready to receive them with open arms. 
 The hope of producing conviction by such an 
 expedient is equally groundless and chimerical ; 
 since conviction is the result of evidence, and no 
 light whatever can be pretended to be conveyed 
 by interdicting their communion, unless it be that 
 it manifests our intolerance. We propose to 
 extirpate an error, and we plant a prejudice; and, 
 instead of attempting to soften and conciliate the 
 minds of our opponents, we inflict a stigma." — 
 Reasons, 43. 
 
 S. Who, but yourself, my friend, could ever 
 imagine, that, in declining to receive Pedobaptists 
 to our communion, our object was either to " in- 
 timidate," or to "convince"? Our object is to 
 "keep the ordinances as they were delivered," 
 regardless of " new forms of error, and new modes 
 of aberration from the paths of rectitude and truth." 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 215 
 
 If we are under a delusion, convince us; but, by 
 applying to us epithets, as undeserved as they are 
 wounding, reproaching us with consequences to 
 which our system does not necessarily lead, and 
 impugning, not only the validity of our arguments, 
 but the integrity of our motives, — while you pro- 
 pose to extirpate what you believe to be an error, 
 you " plant a prejudice ; " and, instead of attempt- 
 ing to conciliate the minds of your opponents, 
 you "inflict a stigma." Such expedients, my 
 dear friend, will neither " intimidate" nor " con- 
 vince ;" but they may alienate the heart. 
 
 Af. But, " you do all in your power, to place 
 our Pedobaptist brethren beyond the reach of 
 conviction. Since it is unreasonable to expect, 
 however attractive the ministry, that a pious 
 Pedobaptist will statedly attend where he must 
 despair of ever becoming a member, and of en- 
 joying the privileges to which every serious person 
 is supposed to aspire : he attaches himself, as a 
 necessary consequence, to a connexion in which 
 there is no such impediment, but where he is 
 certain of hearing nothing but what will foster his 
 prejudices, and confirm his error. Thus he is 
 excluded from the only connexion where the 
 arguments for adult baptism are stated, and is 
 exposed to the constant operation of an opposite 
 species of instruction."— jReaso«s, 44. 
 
 .S'. And what a prodigious disadvantage ! For, 
 seriously, unless the subject of baptism were in 
 
216 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 troduced more frequently than it is at present, 
 he might, in some of our congregations, attend 
 constantly, from January to December, without 
 once being instructed either in the nature or 
 the requirements, the mode or the subjects, of 
 this interesting Christian ordinance.^ We never 
 introduce the subject but when we baptize ; nor is 
 
 " " It is not unusual, (says the late Dr. Dwight,) for a minister 
 of the gospel to devote twenty-four sermons annually to the consi- 
 deration of the Lord s-supper. — On baptism, at the same time, 
 ministers rarely preach. — Wliy such a difference is made between 
 two institutions of Christ, invested with the same authority, solemnity, 
 and influence, I am unable to determine. But, whatever be the 
 ground of this distinction, I am satisfied it cannot be a good one." — 
 System of Theology, Seem. 156. 
 
 It is a most fortunate circumstance, that this pointed remonstrance, 
 equally applicable to some of our churches, proceeded from the pen 
 of a Pedobaptist ! It contains not, of course, the smallest particle 
 of bigotry ! Without replying for his Pedobaptist brethren, or sup- 
 j)0sing that the Doctor wished for exactly twenty-four baptismal 
 sermons per annum, the writer cordially acquiesces in the spirit of 
 his protest against that marked distinction between the two institu- 
 tions, and that undervaluation of the ordinance of baptism, which 
 characterizes some of our brethren. Besides the tendency of mix- 
 ed communion to produce this result, there is another injurious 
 custom, which is common, perhaps, to most baptist churches — the 
 system of deferring the administration of the ordinance until several 
 candidates present themselves ; a system, for w hich the only plea 
 generally advanced is — convenience ! But, apart from the injustice 
 of this mode of procedure to some of the candidates, it is obvious, 
 that the administration of the ordinance when beUevers presented 
 themselves, without waiting for several more, while it would be 
 in agreement with the primitive practice, would greatly conduce to 
 restore the ordinance to that scriptural eminence, from wliich, 
 partly owing to the infrequency of its administration, and partly in 
 consequence of the depreciating influence of mined communion, it 
 lias so lamentably fallen. 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 217 
 
 it then uniformly discussed controversially ; and 
 if it be, the statement is sometimes accompanied 
 with apologies and concessions, eminently calcu- 
 lated to neutralize the truths, which, nolens vole ns, 
 in spite of the most liberal pretensions, will force 
 an utterance from the lips of the preacher, and an 
 entrance into the. judgments of the hearers. This, 
 in some churches, is the state of things at present; 
 and he must be a very superficial observer of 
 human nature, who should gravely affirm that a 
 union with Pedobaptists would produce an im- 
 provement. The probability is, that, from delicacy 
 to their feelings, the subject would be consigned 
 to oblivion; or, if occasionally lightly touched, 
 the most cogent arguments would be blunted, by 
 the simple circumstance of some of the member.<5 
 having been received, avowedly as unbaptized. 
 They will have learnt a lesson, which it will be well 
 if they ever forget — not only that they are eligible 
 to admission into heaven in agreement with the 
 Divine rule, (John iii. 16.) — but also that they 
 have a right to a place in the churches of Christ 
 on earth in deviation from a Divine rule, for 
 the regulation of ministers and churches " to 
 the end of the world." Matt, xxviii. 19. In 
 vain will you maintain that your sentiments are 
 true, while you practically admit that they are 
 unimportant. — Besides, it may not be improper to 
 remind you, that having once admitted your Pedo- 
 baptist brethren as members of your churches, it 
 u 
 
218 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 will be manifest injustice to require that they 
 shall listen to your views of baptism, without 
 allowing them the privilege of a reply . They will 
 have as good a right to introduce their sentiments, 
 and their practice into the church, as you have to 
 introduce yours. Now, either by an inglorious 
 silence on both sides, the truth, on whichever side 
 it be, will be compromised ; or, by the admission 
 of both parties, as even-handed justice undoubtedly 
 decides, to the privilege of defending each his pe- 
 culiarity, the pulpit, from which nothing but the 
 truth ought ever to emanate, will become the 
 arena of conflicting sentiments, and a powerful 
 instrument in the promotion of antipathies, dis- 
 cords, and schisms — schisms, be it remembered, 
 a thousand times more injurious than a formal 
 separation. In open controversy, whether from 
 the pulpit or the press, there is something manly, 
 and fair, and honourable. But there is nothing 
 more pitiful, or more annoying to the feelings, or 
 more subversive of Christian affection and the 
 exercises of social religion, than occasional, un- 
 expected, uncalled-for hints from the pulpit, in 
 favour of any practice, concerning which the 
 members of a church are nearly equally divided in 
 opinion, and to which the dissentients can never 
 have the privilege of replying. The uniform tri- 
 umph and exultation of one parly will be death 
 to the other ; and, whatever be the result in rela- 
 tion to the subject of dispute, an incurable wound 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 219 
 
 will be inflicted on the very heart of charity. On 
 this principle, it appears manifestly improper to 
 introduce the subject of baptism to a church com- 
 posed of Baptists and Pedobaptists. You could 
 not honourably introduce one side of the contro- 
 versy only. Common fairness requires that all 
 the members shall possess equal privileges ; and, 
 to avoid the most flagrant injustice towards one 
 party, either truth and error must be published 
 from the same pulpit, and a Christian command 
 and a human invention be practised in the same 
 church; or both parties must enter into a compact, 
 either to banish into the land of forgetfulness, or 
 to observe " without the camp," each his peculiar 
 reproach. To permit each party publicly to vin- 
 dicate his sentiments, (not to mention that one 
 must necessarily disseminate error,) would be a 
 glaring violation of your favourite Apostolic pre- 
 cept — " Receive ye one another, but not to donhtful 
 disputations." For one party to arrogate the ex- 
 clusive privilege of defending his practice, would 
 be flagrant injustice to the other. And for both 
 parties to agree to consign their peculiarities to 
 the shades, or to observe them without the re- 
 cognition of the church, would be an unworthy 
 sacrifice of principle on the shrine of a suspicious 
 and precarious affection ; and the declaration of 
 one part of "the counsel of God" would be 
 systematically restrained. And truly, my friend, 
 how either of these expedients is calculated to 
 
220 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 convince or to edify, I am totally at a loss to 
 perceive.*^ 
 
 * On the mischievous internal tendency of the system, the late 
 venerable Abraham Booth, in his Apology for the Baptists, (131, 132, 
 1812 Edition,) introduces some pointed interrogations and remarks, 
 evidently drawn from personal observation. And, in a modem most 
 interesting piece of biography, we are, with a candour which ex- 
 ceeds all praise, presented with a highly-instructive exemplification, 
 in the early history of the church at Oxford, under the pastoral 
 care of the late amiable and excellent Mr. Hinton. Sincerely and 
 cordially attached to the principle of mixed church-fellowship, this 
 good man experienced, in his own person, some of its almost inevi- 
 table evils. Although the ordinance of baptism was not at that time 
 administered at Oxford, but at Abingdon, to which place also the 
 arguments in favour of Christian baptism were principally confined ; 
 yet, because a principle of Christian integrity would not allow 
 the entire exclusion of the subject from the pulpit at Oxford, its 
 introduction for the first time in 1790, (ten years after the form- 
 ation of the church,) proved "a source of dissatisfaction."* Early 
 in the same year, too, an individual instituted " a complaint that 
 ■Mr. Hinton had catechized, or improperly questioned, a gentleman 
 of pedobaptist connexions, who wished to join the church." This 
 complaint, however, the church discountenanced. But, about five 
 years after, a reason assigned by our highly-esteemed friend in favour 
 of a removal, presents an unequivocal indication that the offences 
 complained of were now become more general, and attributable, not, 
 as formerly, to the discontent of an individual, but to the system. 
 " I cannot (says he,) be free in my ministry ^vithout giving oflFence : 
 
 • And no wonder ; for, instead of complimenting his Pedobaptist hearen 
 on the involuntaiiness of their error, Mr. Hinton had the candoar to relate 
 some causes which had come under his own personal obser^'ation. — Onr bre 
 thren (says he,) will allow Ihat the prejudices of education, together with the 
 fear of being singular and of incurring ridicule, operate very strongly against 
 our sentiments. — I have found not a few who have acknowledged themselves 
 afraid 10 pursue the subject of believers' baptism, lest they should be con- 
 vinced of its obligation ; and some who have even allowed that Scripture is 
 very much in our favour, but "ho, having formed their connexions, and not 
 liking a public disavowal of their former sentiments, have neglected what 
 they at least suspected to be their duty. This, ( I speak seriously and without 
 the least exaggeration,) I have fouml to be the case with many of my ac- 
 quaintance.'' 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 221 
 
 M. But " he who was really solicitous to ex- 
 tend the triumphs of truth, would surely leave 
 
 the congregation is of so mingled a nature that I find it impossible 
 to escape censure, either from Baptists or Pedobaptists, from Dis- 
 senters or friends of tlie Establishment." — Biogruphical Portruilure 
 of the late licv. James lUnton, M. A. «f Oxford, by his Son, the Rev . 
 John Howard Ht,it,m, il/. A. Part II. Chap. III. 
 
 It is rigidly du(> to the Biographer, who is one of the most candid 
 and honourable of our opponents, briefly to notice the distinctiim of 
 which he reminds us, between mixed cimmiin 'wn and mixed memheisliiit. 
 We are fully sensible of the dift'erence, and that the history of the 
 church at Oxford is a specimen of tlie latter ; an appeal to whicli 
 tlierefore, in these pages, will, it is presumed, appear perfectly 
 justifiable, on the consideration that it is mixed memherslnp for 
 which Mr. Hall so strenuously pleads. The subject being introduced, 
 however, it ought not, perhaps, to be dismissed without a few words 
 (additional to iVote 3, pp. 17, 18.) as to the propriety of the dis- 
 tinction itself. It is the decided conviction of the writer that there 
 is no scriptural authority for either mi.^ed communion or mixed 
 membership. But if there be any scriptural authority for the former, 
 is there not the same authority for the latter ! The distinction itself 
 has no foundation in scripture. The recejition of the weak in the 
 faith, for instance, to whatever kinds of diversities it may apj)ly, in- 
 cluded, we presume, full church-membership. If not, which party 
 were members of the church"! and which only communicants '! If 
 it be replied that some things are lawful, which are not expedient ; 
 we would ask, Is the reception of the weak in the faith one of ;hese 
 things? On the contrary, it is an apostolic injunction, and not a 
 question of expediency. We say, tlie [irecept does not apply to such 
 diversities as are subversive of a standing law of Christ ; and act ac- 
 cordingly : our opponents believe it does ; but some of them obev it 
 in part only, rejecting from church-membership the weak in the faith 
 whom they receive to a church-ordinance I But the apostolic precept 
 enjoins both or neither. If it enjoin mixed communion, it also enjoins 
 mixed membership, with its train of evils ; or, rather, for the pre- 
 servation of peace, with an absolute silence on the subject of 
 dispute ! If, on the contrary, it do not enjoin such an union with 
 Pedobaptists in church-membership, neither does it autliorize their 
 reception to communion in a church-ordinance. 
 
 u 2 
 
222 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 nothing unattempted to break down the rampart of 
 prejudice,-^ and, by making the nearest approaches 
 
 " "Rampart of jyrej iidice." — We are perfectly willing to break 
 down this, and every other barrier to communion, of liuman origin ; 
 but tlie barrier in the present instance, as far as we are concerned, 
 is of Divine origin. If, indeed, Christian baptism were " a little 
 punctilio," a mere trifle, then we might displace it. But we dare 
 not displace a Christian barrier. On this subject, tlie Rev. Christmas 
 Evans, "the Apostle of the Principality," has some very pertinent 
 observations, in his characteristic style. Delighted with the idea of 
 universal Cliristian communion, the venerable man convenes a Ge- 
 neral Congress, and exhorts Christians of every communion to make 
 a sacrifice of what is their own. He finds there are two principal 
 barriers — the Baptist and the Pedobaptist. " Willing (says he,) to 
 do every thing in my power, to promote a general communion of all 
 Christians, I took my pickaxe in my hand, and went up to the Bap- 
 tist barrier. Pausing a little, to examine the wall, I perceived some- 
 thing divine emanating from it I But, being resolute, I said, ' Cer- 
 tainly, it IS better to pull thee down, than that thou shouldst be the 
 occasion of keeping thousands from conununion whom I expect to 
 meet in heaven ! ' Directly I lifted up my pickaxe to break down 
 the barrier ; but I imagined, in one moment's time, that twelve 
 personages of heavenly extraction confronted me, hard by the wall, 
 exclaiming, vdth loud but heavenly voices, ' Mortal man, hold thy 
 hand ! What art thou about to do t ^\'ilt thou presume to sacrifice 
 what is not thine own ? Art thou so full of temerity as to attempt 
 the demolishing of this barrier which heaven erected, and which was 
 sanctioned by the INIessiah to be the visible wall of separation be- 
 tween his kingdom and the world ; and that, not only daring one 
 century, but to the end of time ? Know, vain man, that he expects 
 to find this barrier in good repair at his second coming." — Their ex- 
 postulation pierced my soul ; my heart failed within me ; and I ex- 
 claimed, ' I will never touch this sacred wall of separation, for the 
 sake of any man Uving, let my veneration be what it may for his 
 talents and piety.' — Notwithstanding, I was not convinced that no 
 sacrifice could be made on the other side. Immediately, therefore, 
 we went to the other separating wall, commonly called Pedo- 
 baptist Barrier. Then I said, ' Dear brethren, I have been attempt- 
 ing the pulling down of the Baptist Barrier on my side, and to Ja- 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 223 
 
 to his opponents, consistent witli truth, avail 
 himself of all the advantages which a generous 
 
 crifice it for the promotion of general communion among the godly ; 
 but these heavenly personages wlio are with me, prevented me, by 
 asserting that the wall was not of human invention, but according to 
 the counsel of God. Brethren, cannot you make a sacrifice of your 
 barrier, without offending these noble personages of the court of 
 heaven ? They allege, that there is no written patent in the volume 
 of inspiration, for your wall.' They, however, refused, and pleaded, 
 for their barrier, its great antiquity ; asserting, that they had unin- 
 spired papers, proving its existence in the second century ! Tlisy 
 produced large bundles of analogical reasonings— tlie act passed for 
 circumcision, &c. They said the .silence of the Bible was in favour 
 of their barrier, as it did not contain any prohibition against the 
 wall,' &c. kc. &c. ' Dear brethren,' I replied, ' It vvas not from 
 any blind attachment to the barrier on my side, that I refused 
 to destroy it; but because it is according to the wxittcn patent. — 
 It is presumed you can demolish the barrier on your side, without in- 
 curring the displei'iure of heaven. Pray indulge no undue attachment 
 to what is not written ; but sacrifice it for the communion of the godly.' 
 Still they refused ; and I said, ' It is now easy to see where the blame 
 lies, for keeping up the bar to communion.' — Let us by all means make 
 sacrifices towards promoting general communion ; but we must go to 
 our own fields to get victims ! We have a great many fields, full of 
 suitable sacrifices, had we a heart to bring them to the horns of the 
 altar — men's-tradition field— human-invention field, kc. kc. Let 
 us catch all the animals feeding in these, and bring them to the 
 Great Union's altar, fixed on the summit of Zion's mount ! Let us 
 sacrifice them there, for the interest of a general ccnimuiiion ci' the 
 godly! — My brethren, it is not proper to take the lambs and the 
 bullocks which are the right of another, (Isa. l;;i. R.) and to kill 
 them fo feed the passion for mixed communion. It may apj)tar easy 
 work for us to enter the premises of the Great Loyd of the soil, tak- 
 ing liis property to sacrifice ; — but then the groves will be eiiaaily 
 honoured as the temple, and the union will be promoted at the ex- 
 pense of sacred things." Decision, of « General Congrea, 12 1.5. 
 
 Let it not be replied, that we are not required to mcrijice the or- 
 dinance : we are required to rf.move it fuom iiii; position i:^ 
 
 WHICH IT WAS PLACED BY JeSUS CbRIST. 
 
224 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 confidence seldom fails to bestow, for insinuating 
 his sentiments, and promoting his views." — 
 Reasons, 46. 
 
 <S. So then, your mixed communion churches 
 are so many beautiful gardens, into which Pedo- 
 dobaptists are to be allured — so many enchanted 
 islands, to which, in condescension to their weak- 
 ness, you kindly give them access, by a newly- 
 invented, finely-wrought, reticulated bridge,^ — 
 that you may with the greater facility " insinuate 
 your sentiments, and promote your views"! — 
 Oh ! that I had a voice that could be heard from 
 one end of their community to the other. In 
 
 The external appearance of this bridge Ls verj- beautiful, but 
 we suspect the foundations ; and at present it does not work so 
 smoothly as we have been given to understand. The ornaments are 
 showy, not solid : and we are not able to discover that it has re- 
 ceived the sanction of " the Royal Letters Patent" When its 
 admirers produce that important document, and we have "obtained 
 leave" from the Royal Commissioners, to bmld a bridge, then 
 indeed, we may appreciate it more higlily. We must candidly 
 confess, however, that we should feel rather ashamed to petition for 
 a bridge ; it would wear- so much the appearance of a reflection on 
 tlie King, who surrounded these ecclesiastical spots with water with 
 a special design — that it should be passed through, not passed oier. 
 Besides, the present law resembles the laws of the INIedes and Per- 
 sians — it " ALTERETii ^'0T." And to US it secms perfectly ridiculous, 
 quite unworthy of cur Sovereign, to make one law that ult his loyal 
 subjects should pass through the water, and another law permitting 
 s>me of them to pass over it ! Nothing would be wanting to complete 
 the absurdity, but a third law in favour of the remainder, providing 
 a patent mixed-metal tunnel, through which they might enjoy the 
 privilege of passing under the bed of the river ; and when the novelty 
 of that should have subsided, a fourth, commanding the opening of 
 tlie sluices, and the letting off the water altogether ! 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 225 
 
 common honesty, and for the credit of my deno- 
 mination, I would proclaim, 'Ho, ye Pedobaptists ! 
 Beware of mixed communion churches ! 
 With a soft and persuasive eloquence you are 
 invited to their communion ; but be not deceived. 
 Scarcely any thing would be more indignantly 
 resented by the Baptists among them, than the 
 insinuation that they attach less importance to 
 the ordinance of baptism than their Strict Com- 
 munion brethren. If, then, you have the slightest 
 objection to hear your sentiments discussed, and 
 your practice denominated " a niiUity," do not 
 flatter yourselves that you will escape this mor- 
 tification by taking refuge in a mixed communion 
 church. Beware of these diversified communities ; 
 for though probably you will not hear much of 
 baptism from the pulpit, (indeed, you ought not 
 unless you have the privilege of replying,) yet be 
 it known to you, one avowed object of the Mixed 
 Communion Baptist, in thus joining affinity with 
 his Pedobaptist neighbours, is to extend and per- 
 petuate his peculiarities ; and, by bringing you 
 into closer contact, to "insinuate his sentiments, 
 and promote his views." Beware, then, of 
 mixed communion churches ! '-9 
 
 ^ Some of our Pedobaptist brethren, rather precipitately, laud 
 the system to the skies. But, one of their ministers, some years ago, 
 manifested superior shrewdness ; when, on liearing that Dr. Evans 
 had formed a small community of this description at Bristol, he hu- 
 mourously proposed to indict Brother Evans for sheep-stealing ! 
 
226 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 M. Thank you, my friend ! Then you admit 
 that we do endeavour to extend and perpetuate 
 our sentiments. Certainly, this is a concession 
 I little expected from a Strict Baptist! 
 
 S. Nay, my friend ; while I give you full 
 credit for sincerity, I have neither affirmed that 
 you would take any pains to disseminate your 
 principles, nor that such an attempt would be 
 attended with success. I have simply reiterated 
 your own avowal, that such is your intention. 
 But you would, or you would not. If you would, 
 (to say nothing just now of the tendency of such 
 a course to produce unpleasant consequences,) 
 it is not enough that the intimation is made to us, 
 as a recommendation of your system ; but the 
 Pedobaptists, who might view it as an objection, 
 should be especially apprised of your design, that 
 they may not enter your enclosures ignorant of 
 their danger. If you would 7iot spontaneously 
 introduce your views of this part of the mind of 
 Christ, (which, notwithstanding your intention, 
 is, I am inclined to think, the more probable sup- 
 position,) then our churches, in which there exists 
 no temptation to withhold the truth on Christian 
 baptism, would, in my humble opinion, be much 
 better calculated than yours, to " promote the 
 restoration of a Divine ordinance to its primitive 
 simplicity and purity," — "an honest solicitude for 
 which (Mr. Hall tells us,) is not only innocent, 
 but meritorious." 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 227 
 
 M. On the contrary, " of the tendency of 
 mixed communion to promote a more candid 
 inquiry into our principles, it is scarcely possible 
 to doubt.*" Whether it woujd have the effect of 
 
 ^ Facts speak louder than theory. Let the reader attentively 
 peruse the following practical illustrations, and then judge of the 
 expediency of mixed communion : — 
 
 " The eminent John Bunyan, who zealously advocated the cause 
 of mixed communion, seems to have had no great success in pro- 
 moting the interests 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 favourite 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 Pedo- 
 baptist : and from the year 1688, in which he died, to the year 
 1788, when Mr. Joshua Symonds died, the ministers who suc- 
 ceeded him were Pednbaptists ; 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 j\Ir. Symonds 
 continued at Bedford, it was 'on the comlitiwis that he should not 
 introduce the controversy into the jndpit, nor into cnnierfatiou unless it 
 was first mentioned by others!' We have also been informed that one 
 instance occuiTed in the year 1700, and another in 1724, in which 
 the church refused to grant a dismission to members w ho desired to 
 unite with two Baptist churches in London, because they were 
 strict communion churches." — Kinirhorn's Defence, Pref. xv. — The 
 present pastor of the church at Bedford is a very respectable Pedo- 
 baptist ; and, while we cannot but highly esteem his Christian cha- 
 racter, we should tliink he can scarcely repress an occasional smile 
 at the credulity of his eminent predecessor, the Apostle of mixed 
 communion. The "pilgrims," in their "progress" from the " House 
 of the Interpreter" to the "House Beautiful," are not now so 
 " orderly," we presume, as they should be. Some of them are taken 
 to the "bath in the garden," — (ill, probably, who sponluneouslv desire 
 it; but the Interpreter does not instruct them to "go orderly." He 
 considers a kind of seal on their foreheads before they set out, as at 
 least equivalent to the batli ; and has adopted a Roman invention, 
 
228 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 rapidly extending the baptist denomination as such, 
 is less certain. For were that practice universally 
 
 of sealing the children of pilgrims, and, indeed, of some who are no 
 pilgrims, if the parents are willing : in fact, he prefers this to the 
 bath ! And this is the result of Bunyan's mixed communion ! 
 
 " Dr. James Foster, who was more than twenty years pastor of 
 the General Baptist church in Barbican, London, and who in his 
 day advocated 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 
 expedience of mixed communion as the means of leading men to 
 consider what the Baptists had to urge m defence of their sentiments, 
 yet J\lr. Grantham Killingwoith informs 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 bafitized.' " — Kinghom's Defence, 
 Pre/. 16. 
 
 Mr. Giles, in his very interesting Letters to the Rev. Robert Hall, 
 (63 — 6j.) presents us with some striking exempUfications of the 
 tendency of both mixed and strict communion. "The following, (he 
 says,) have come under my own observation: — 
 
 " In a town in the south of our island, a most serious division 
 took place ia an Independent congregation. Sixty or more of 
 its members separated from their brethren, attended the baptist 
 meeting-house, and expressed their desire to join in communion with 
 the church. The Baptists, from a wish to evince their brotherly 
 aft'ection, and from a confident persuasion that such an act of liberality 
 would not fail to be followed with conviction, at least among some 
 of these mistaken brethren, agreed to alter their terms of communion, 
 and receive them. Some of their members, and some of the neigh- 
 bouring ministers and brethren, remonstrated with them, and assured 
 them that the result would prove to be the opposite to what they 
 expected. But these remonstrances w ere disregarded, and the liberal 
 plan adopted, with a confident persuasion cf its success. Tliis 
 mixed fellow ship continued for, I believe, a year and a half, or more ; 
 but not one of the Pedobapti.'ts could see baptism to be of suficient 
 importance to submit to it ! At last, some Independent minister, 
 from the kindest motives, no doubt, attempted, and really effected. 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 229 
 
 to prevail, the mixture of Baptists and Pedo- 
 baptists in Christian societies would probably, ere 
 long, be such, that the appellation of baptist 
 might be found not so properly applicable to 
 
 a reconciliation between the remaining members of the church and 
 the bretliren that had seceded, the result of which was that every one 
 of them returned to his own fold, leaving the Baptists without the 
 accession of a single member from tliem ! There is no one but would 
 rejoice in such a rt»conciliation ; but it assuredly proves, that your 
 doctrine of expediency is not so certain in its results as you would 
 have us believe. I think I might venture to affii-m, from what I 
 have experienced, that had this church stood firm to its own previous 
 system, some of those Pedobaptists would have been induced so to 
 examine the subject of baptism, that conviction would have followed, 
 and that they would have been baptized. I am acquainted with 
 
 another church at . This church, for the sake of receiving 
 
 a few unbaptized persons, altered its constitution. Tlie consetiuence 
 was, that as soon as the alteration was made, as many baptized 
 bretliren withdrew as unbaptized persons joined. This church has 
 tried your plan for some years ; and, strange as it may appear, though 
 it retains these Pedobaptists in communion, it has resolved never to 
 receive another unbaptized person into fellowship. The reason for 
 this extraordinary resolution, given both by the minister and some of 
 its members, was, that they had tried and proved the inexpediency 
 of mixed communion, and on that ineipediencii alone, had resolved in 
 future to prevent it. Tliis, Sir, is another matter-of-fact against the 
 expediency of your theory. The last that I shall mention, and 
 which I had related to me very recently by the pastor of the church, 
 
 forms the opposite to the two cases already stated. At , an 
 
 unhappy division took place in an Independent congregation, which 
 resulted in the ultimate removal of its pastor. Many of this congre- 
 gation united in worship with the Baptists. The Baptists retained 
 their accustomed terms of strict commmiion ; and several of these 
 Pedobaptists have been baptized, have joined the church, and now rank 
 amongst its most pious, active, and useful members. These cases. 
 Sir, confirm the truth of the adage, ' Honesty is the best policy ; ' 
 and of the maxim, that ' What is morally wrong, can never be 
 politically right.' " 
 X 
 
230 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 churches as to individuals, while some more com- 
 prehensive term might possibly be employed to 
 discriminate the views of collective bodies. But 
 what then? Are we contending for names or for 
 things? If the effect of a more liberal system 
 shall be found to increase the number of those 
 who return to the primitive practice of baptism, 
 and thus follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth, 
 he must be possessed of a deplorable imbecihty 
 and narrowness of mind, who will lament the 
 disappearance of a name, especially when it is 
 remembered, that whenever just views on this sub- 
 ject shall become universal, the name by which we 
 are at present distinguished will necessarily cease. 
 An honest solicitude for the restoration of a divine 
 ordinance to its primitive simplicity and purity, 
 is not merely innocent, but meritorious ; but if 
 the ultimate consequence of such an improvement 
 should be to merge the appellation of a party in 
 that which is derived from the Divine Founder of 
 our religion, it is an event which none but a bigot 
 will regret." — Reasons, 46, 47. 
 
 S. But if an honest solicitude to perpetuate 
 the individual practice of baptism be meritorious, 
 it cannot be right in ministers and cliurches to de- 
 viate from the Divine injunction, and the universal 
 practice of the first churches, in the reception of 
 members. Is compliance with the Divine rule 
 the duty of individuals, and non-compliance the 
 privilege of churches? Allow me again to remind 
 
AND MIXKD COMMUNION. 
 
 231 
 
 you of our friend Mr. Hall. You will excuse me — 
 but really, I cannot compliment you as a very apt 
 disciple ! You may recollect, perhaps, that he 
 says, " the duty of churches originates in that of 
 the individuals of which they consist; so that 
 when we have ascertained the sentiments and 
 principles which ought to actuate the Christian in 
 his private capacity, we possess the standard to 
 which the practice of churches should be uniformly 
 adjusted." ( Reasons, 39.) If, then, individual 
 Christians are under an obligation to obey the 
 commands of Christ, the organization of churches 
 can never have been designed to nullify that ob- 
 ligation. It is no more the duty of individuals, 
 than it is of churches, to " follow the Lamb whi- 
 thersoever he goeth." Do the oracles of God 
 vary? Are they chargeable with duplicity ? Do 
 they make one annunciation to the individual 
 inquirer, and another to the community ? On the 
 contrary, their testimony and requirements are 
 uniformly the same. That which is required of 
 one, is required of all. And to organize churches 
 upon a principle systematically allowing the non- 
 observance of that ordinance which Christ himself 
 commissioned his ministers to require prior to 
 church-fellowship, is inflicting a wound upon him 
 "in the house of his friends." Our Pedobaptist 
 brethren, generally, are chargeable with no such 
 inconsistency. They do require, in every member 
 of their churches, what the church believes to be 
 
232 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 Christian baptism. It is the Mixed Communion 
 Baptist, and until very lately he alone, who main- 
 tains that submission to baptism was "prescribed," 
 as a duty prior to church-fellowship, and yet sys- 
 tematically provides for its non-observance, in the 
 constitution of the church ! My friend, all the 
 primitive churches, you must admit, were Baptist 
 churches ; and surely they were constituted on 
 principles authorized by the Great Head of the 
 church. And who is possessed of sufficient te- 
 merity to impugn that authority? For a Baptist 
 to view with complacency, and pursue with eager- 
 ness, not the perpetuity, but the annihilation, as 
 such, of all the Baptist churches in the world, 
 appears, to me, an anomaly which no terms can 
 describe, a mystery which no skill can unravel, 
 and a deviation from the Christian commission, 
 the standing law of the Christian church, which 
 no ingenuity, no eloquence, no talents can vin- 
 dicate. With respect to the candid appellation of 
 " BIGOT," it is now become so stale and so general, 
 that its sting is extracted — its venom neutralized. 
 It is a missile thrown with perfect harmlessness 
 by infidels, hberals, and formalists, at saints of 
 every communion ; by "Rational Christians," and 
 some of a superior order, at the Calvinist ; by 
 the Pedobaptist at the Baptist; and finally, the 
 weapon with which you have been assailed, you 
 pluck from your bosom, and ungraciously, but 
 with inimitable dexterity, fling at your Strict 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 233 
 
 Communion brother ! What a difficult lesson it 
 seems for even Christians to learn, that a steady 
 adherence to a practice for which scriptural reasons 
 are assigned, is not bigotry ! But, ray friend, 
 charge us with " imbecility and narrowness of 
 mind," and welcome : the way of truth is a 
 " narrow way," in ritual, no less than in moral 
 observances. Call us " bigots," if you please, 
 or any other opprobrious epithet which human 
 ingenuity can devise, and which the men who 
 are "fierce for moderation" may applaud : but, 
 by all that is sacred, we beseech you not to violate 
 the scriptural constitution of our churches. If, 
 in the organization of our churches, a rigid ad- 
 herence to the perpetual law of the Christian 
 church is to be stigmatized as bigotry, we glory in 
 the epithet ; we will bind it as a diadem on our 
 brow ; and descend into the grave exulting that 
 we have been counted worthy of the reproach of 
 Christ.31 
 
 " The writer rejoices in an opportunity of paying a just and 
 affectionate tribute to the Christian candour and liberality of his 
 venerable and beloved friend, the late Dr. Rvland, whose memory 
 will ever be fragrant to the denomination of which he was, for more 
 than half a century, a most honourable member. In the Preface to 
 his " Candid Statement of the Reasims which induce the Baptists to 
 Differ in Opinion and Practice from so many of their Christian Brethren," 
 he introduces the subject of the present discussion with liis cha- 
 racteristic meekness and simplicity : " I have practised Open Com- 
 munion, (he observes,) not from motives of policy, which I should 
 abhor in matters of religion, but from conscience, for nearly seven 
 and forty years ; (in 1813.) and my most intimate friends know that 
 I have argued the point with them ; although I respect their con- 
 
 X 2 
 
234 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 M, " It were well, if the evil resulting from 
 the practice of strict communion were confined to 
 
 scientious scruples on the one hand, as well as those of the Pedo- 
 baptists on the other. I say, 'It is the Lord's-table, and not mine ; 
 therefore I dare not refuse those whom he has accepted, (however 
 mistaken they may be respecting the other ordinance,) unless he 
 had commanded me.' Bly Strict Communion Brother also says, ' It 
 is the Lord's-table, and not mine ; therefore I dare not admit them, 
 (though I doubt not he has accepted them,) unless I had his 
 warrant.' We agree in our premises, but draw a different inference. 
 Both cannot be right in their conclusion. True. Nor could both 
 sides in the controversy respecting the distinctioir^f meats and days. 
 But I think it the part of true candour to keep in mind what the 
 Apostle said, in Rom. xiv. 5, 6. Some, (who are like those de- 
 scribed by Dr. Witlierspoon, 'fierce for moderatioji' !) have no candour 
 at all towards those whom they please to dub bigots : I wish mine 
 to extend to all whom I believe to be conscientious, though I may 
 think them erroneous in their judgment. I have also seen cause to 
 suspect, that some who are most severe upon the Strict Com- 
 munionists, would not be pleased, if my own opinion and practice on 
 that head were embraced by all the Baptists." — Second Edition, 
 Pref. pp. X. xi. 
 
 In A Letter on Communion, by the late Rev. W. Clarke, of 
 Exeter, printed (for the first time) in connexion with Dr. Ryland's 
 Candid Statement, we have the following expression of genuine 
 Christian candour : "I make no doubt but those who are for refusing 
 such an admittance into a church of Christ, act from a principle of 
 conscience, and a regard for tlie honour and glory of the Great Head 
 of the church. I do not imagine that a party spirit, or a want of 
 Christian love and charity, is the spring of their conduct ; I can 
 easily consider them as possessing the most warm and affectionate 
 regard, even for those whom, from a principle of conscience, they 
 cannot admit as members among them." — Page 4. 
 
 Nor can we omit the following very singular apology, from the 
 pen of the ingenious Robf.rt Robinson. " Impartial justice obliges 
 us to declare, that all our congregations, whether they tolerate infant 
 baptism in tlieir own communities or not, are warm friends to civil 
 and religious Uberty, and to universal toleration in a state. Even in 
 popery, that worst of all pretended Christianity, they distinguish the 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 235 
 
 its effect on other denominations. If I am not 
 much mistaken, it exerts a pernicious influence on 
 
 religion ft-oni the civil polity incorporated with it, and would tolerate 
 the fonner while they execrate the latter as men and as Britons.— 
 An apology, too, ought to be made for their refusing to tolerate 
 infant baptism in their own churches. Sprinkling is so different 
 from dipping, the incorporating of infants by sprinkling into the 
 Christian church is so incompatible ^^^th the nature of a rational 
 religion to be received and professed on a conviction of the truth 
 and excellence of it, the New Testament is so utterly unaci]uainted 
 with infant sprinkling, the arguments brought to support it are so 
 weak and far-fetched, the concessions of learned divines are so nu- 
 merous, and the mischiefs attending it so notorious, that they may 
 well be excused for their aversion to it. — Again, Christ's right of 
 legislation is so clear, the perfection of the scriptures so fully ascer- 
 tained, the dipping of adults on their own personal profession of 
 faith and repentance so plain, the honour put upon this institution 
 by the example of Jesus Christ so conspicuous, the pleasure enjoyed 
 by large congregations in hearing persons profess faith and repen- 
 tance so refined, and the heart-felt satisfaction of conscientiously 
 administering and receiving this ordinance so invigorating, heightened 
 too by a consciousness of disinterested motives, capable of suffering 
 the cross and despising the shame of popular ridicule and censure ; 
 all these are so forcible, that we must not be too severe on the men, 
 who, in the transports of their zeal, considering themselves as the 
 Cjnly defenders of this part of primitive religion, hold infant sprinkling 
 in abhorrence, and refuse to tolerate it in their churches. — Further, 
 The whole denomination has, through successive ages, been mis- 
 represented, and treated %vith more partiality and rigour than any 
 other nonconformists. They were generally nicknamed Anabaptists, 
 or people who baptized twice, because they baptized some pecpli- 
 once, who had been sprinkled in infancy, which s])rinkling in theiv 
 opinion was no baptism at all. Orthodox writers i'gainst heresy 
 always took care to put Anabaptists into tlje list of most pestilent 
 hereticks, because tbey ex])loJed that impenetralde jargon, which 
 the schools had incorporated with Christianity. Writers on church 
 govenment abused them asfomentors of anarchy, enemies to monar- 
 chy, and abettors of republicanism, because they detested despotism, 
 and denied the autliority of civil magistrates over conscience ui 
 
236 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 our own. Were it consistent with propriety, it 
 would be easy to adduce exceptions : individuals 
 
 matters of religion. Ecclesiastical historians affirmed, they wert 
 atheists, antinomians, and libertines, because they thought univetsal 
 toleration in a state, a necessary part of sound civil polity. The 
 literati slandered them as an ignorant illiterate crew, because they 
 constantly affirmed, that the New Testament was a book so plain, 
 and the religion of it so easy, that any man of common sense might 
 understand it, if he would. Priests calumniated them as an uncandid, 
 sour, malignant, implacable sect, because they thought Christianity 
 unchangeable, and compliance and compliments crimes in religion. — 
 Do we wonder that such men refuse to tolerate infant sprinkling ? — 
 Moreover, they have been distinguished from all other protestants 
 as men the least desennng of equity or pity, and that by protestants 
 too, from whom better treatment might have been expected. Even 
 Cranmer thought it no crime to bum an Anabaptist woman, and his 
 bloody example was imitated both by Q. Elizabeth and K. .Tames I. 
 Some of this denomination were the last that were burnt for religion, 
 and since they were allowed to die in their beds, their corpses were 
 denied the right of what is called Christian burial. — Even good men, 
 men, who in all other respects behaved with the dignity of men, 
 and the delicacy of Christians, frequently caught the fashionable 
 ton, and treated this denomination with an insolence truly provoking. 
 They suffered themselves, against the just and humane feelings of 
 their own good hearts, to be made the dupes of interested leaders, 
 who were blinded with prejudice, bloated with pride, and void of 
 every principle except love of self. Let us cease to wonder then, 
 that some Baptists treat infant sprinkling with peculiar dislike, and 
 refuse to put it among the errors that may be tolerated in their com- 
 munities. It is an excess: but it is an excess of virtue, and ex- 
 cessive virtue is the most pardonable of all vices." — General Doctrine 
 ofTolernlion, pp. 42—44. 
 
 Of our coutemporaries, the Rev. .Tobn Howard Hinton, of 
 Reading, deserves most honourable mention. — .\ certain Reviewer, 
 (no matter who,) was pleased, once upon a time, in the pleni- 
 tude of his candour, to charge such men as Booth and Fuller and 
 Kinghorn, and, in fact, all the advocates of strict communion — (of 
 which it so happens that the majority are Pedobaptists !) — with 
 inculcating " ihe duty of schism." On this, Mr. Hinton, thougk 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 237 
 
 have come within the narrow range of my own 
 observation, whose temperament has been so 
 
 opposed to us in principle, stepped forward in our defence with a 
 manliness, a grace, and a regard to Christian integrity, wliich merits 
 the admiration and esteem, not only of the unhappy class for whom 
 he so ably and so honourably pleaded, but of every Christian, 
 in every communion, who conscientiously differs in opinion and 
 practice from any of his Christian brethren. For himself, the 
 writer can truly say that he never performed a duty to a fellow- 
 christian with more exquisite pleasure than he now feels in acknow- 
 ledging this noble instance of genuine Christian chivalry. " In the 
 Eclectic Review, (says Mr. H.) there is an article (on the Life of 
 the late Rev. James Hinton, of Oxford,) on which I am desirous of 
 making a few observations. Not that I am personally aggrieved : on 
 the contrary, I am highly obliged by the manner in which the Re- 
 viewer speaks, both of the subject of the work and its author." — But 
 "nothing can be more flagrantly unjust than the sentence which the 
 Reviewer pronounces on the Strict Baptists. He represents them 
 as inculcating "the duty of schism:" thus identifying schism with 
 strict communion, and unequivocally ascribing to all its advocates a 
 schismatical spirit. Notwithstanding my decided opinion, that the 
 practice of strict communion has no sufficient scriptural support, I can 
 by no means concur in this sweeping condemnation. To judge of the 
 motives of men further than they are avowed, is always a difficult, 
 and ought to be an unwelcome task ; and it is never justifiable to 
 impute bad motives even to bad men, beyond the necessity arising 
 from known facts. But here is a bad motive ascribed to good men, 
 men of acknowledged and eminent piety : viz. a schismatical spirit, 
 as the source of all that is done, or said, or thought, in favour of 
 strict communion. And upon what ground 1 Under what ne- 
 cessity 1. Is it then impossible to solve the problem in any other 
 method ? Is there no degree of ignorance or mistake, no obliquity of 
 the understanding — to which the astoundmg phenomenon may be 
 referred ? Why is it utterly incredible that these good men should 
 find obstructions to mixed communion in their views of the will of 
 Christ, rather than in alienation of heart from their brethren This, 
 it is certain, they have solemnly affirmed ; and tlieir known character 
 entitles them to credit, notwithstanding the opinion of this Reviewer, 
 until there shall be substantiated against the revered names he lias 
 
238 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 happy, that they have completely surmounted the 
 natural tendency of their principles, combining- 
 the greatest candour towards Pedobaptists, with a 
 conscientious refusal of their communion. Such 
 
 (juoted, and many others ; a charge, not merely of bigotry, but of 
 hypocrisy and falsehood. For my own part, I am free to declare, 
 that so long as any Baptist thinks it the will of Christ that persons 
 unbaptized should not receive the Lord's-supper, his maintaining 
 strict communion is necessary to the integrity of his character, and 
 directly entitles him to the esteem of every upright man. To 
 rehnquish his practice, while he retained his opinion, would be to 
 resign all claim to the respect, and, consequently to the aflFection of 
 his brethren, and to abandon himself to the scorn of those whose 
 favour he might be supposed to court, not excepting this very 
 Reviewer. — The Strict Baptists are undoubtedly equal to their own 
 defence : but I have been induced to offer these remarks, because 
 the spirit of the review is so singularly opposite to that which my 
 father eminently manifested, and which I have sincerely and un- 
 equivocally expressed in my account of his life. It is a spirit with 
 which 1 should exceedingly regret that either the subject or the 
 author of the work should be identified. At the same time it affords 
 me pecuhar pleasure, as an advocate for open communion, to say, on 
 behalf of the Strict Baptists, what, doubtless, many have felt, but what 
 none, perhaps, could so freely have said." — Baptist Magazine, Oct, 
 1824. pp. 436, 437.* 
 
 Doubtless there are others, among our opponents, (indeed, the 
 writer is intimately acquainted with several,) who are equally 
 characterized by genuine Christian candour. He sincerely believes 
 that their sentiments have no scriptural sanction, and that their 
 mistake is by no means unimportant ; but he is as certain of their 
 conscientiousness as he is of his own, and feels a communion of 
 spirit with them he would not resign for the world. 
 
 • It is extremely painful to be compelled lo add, that, a month or two 
 afterwards, a " Notice to CoRREspoNDtNTs" appeared, more objection- 
 able, if possible, than the original Review. This roused Mr. Kinghorn, in 
 whose spirited reply, entitled " Considerations addressed to the Eclectic 
 Reviewer," &c. the reader will find a luminous and complete expoiart of 
 luich unchristian criticism. 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 239 
 
 instances, however, must, in the nature of things, 
 be rare. Generally speaking, the adoption of a 
 narrow and contracted theory, will issue in a 
 narrow and contracted mind.'* It is too much to 
 
 This would be high praise indeed, if, instead of being attributed 
 to " a happy temperament," it were assigned to its legitimate cause. 
 Christian principle : and probably the exemplifications are not quite 
 so "rare" as is supposed. But, if they, who, with an alleged 
 " narrow and contracted theory," combine "the greatest candour 
 towards Pedobaptists with a conscientious refusal of their commu- 
 nion," are esteemed worthy of commendation ; of what are they 
 worthy, who so " surmount the natural tendency of their principles," 
 as, with an avowedly catholic and liberal theory, to combine with a 
 becoming candour towards Strict Communion Pedobaptists, a — what 
 shall we call it! — a (coiiscientiniis?) system of bitter persecution 
 towards their net more strict Baptist brethren? Such instances, 
 we would charitably hope, are "rare:" exceptions, we know, are 
 numerous: but that such unnatural Baptists exist, is as noto- 
 rious as the noon-day sun. The writer glories in being able to 
 state, from the very highest authority, that with all liis zeal for 
 mixed communion, Rlr. Hall has, in more instances than one, nobly 
 resisted this unchiistian spirit. But what must be thought of those 
 Baptists, who, without possessing the power, should feel a high 
 degree of satisfacUon in exerting their influence, to shut the 
 gates of their city, and to bolt and bar (hem for ever, against the 
 " cases" of such Baptist churches as steadily adhere to what they 
 believe, and to what these men once professed to believe, is the mind 
 of Christ ■? Pedobaptists, with astonishment, cry, Shame ! Much 
 consideration is due to our brethren who have uui/'ormtii esteemed 
 mixed communion to be sanctioned by Christ and his apostles. 
 They know not the heart of an honest Strict Baptist : however 
 <lispo»ed they may be to pity him, sympathy is out of the (juestion : 
 yet they, if tliey would be consistent, should not violate the charitie* 
 due to " a weak brother. ' But proselviis, of all others — and 
 especially proselytes to Lovt — should be the very last men in 
 Christendom to ride the stalking-horse of paltry persecution ! Surely, 
 these "oppressors" of their brethren should remember that they 
 were once " strangers in Egypt ; " that theii were once enveloped 
 
240 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 expect that a habit of treating all other Christians 
 as aliens from the fold of Christ, and unworthy of 
 a participation of the privileges of his church, can 
 be generally unaccompanied with an asperity of 
 temper, a proneness to doubt the sincerity, to 
 censure the motives, and depreciate the virtues 
 of those whom they are accustomed to treat with 
 so much rigour. Conceiving themselves to be a 
 highly privileged class, as the only legitimate 
 members of his cliurch, they are almost inevitably 
 exposed to think more highly of themselves than 
 they ought to think ; and, founding their separa- 
 tion, not on that which distinguishes the followers 
 of Christ from the world, but on a point in which 
 Christians dissent from each other, they are na- 
 turally tempted to attach superlative importance to 
 the grounds of difference. — The history of the pre- 
 sent controversy affords a melancholy confirmation 
 of these remarks; for the few who have ventured to 
 appear on the liberal side of the question have, for 
 the most part, been assailed by ungenerous insi- 
 nuations, and odious personalities. Their claim to 
 
 ill this palpably " thick darkness ;" that they — unless, indeed, they 
 were calumniated — were then as blind and enslaTed, as intrenched 
 and bigoted, as they now insinuate of their former companions ! 
 What ! Have they no remembrance of conscientious scruples ? no 
 recollection of their own strict adherence lo what at that time they 
 ])ronounced true as the gospel ! Were all their professions, then, a 
 phantom ? Or is mixed communion a Lethean gulpb, in w hich its 
 proselvtcd vot;iries are baptized into a profound forgetfulness of 
 previous associations ? \\'here is charity ? Where is sympathy ? 
 Where is justice 1 Where is Christian honoui' ? 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 241 
 
 be considered as Baptists. is very reluctantly con- 
 ceded ; and the part they have taken has been 
 imputed to the love of popularity, or to some still 
 more unworthy motive." — Reasons, 47 — 49. 
 
 S. I assure you, my friend, I deprecate as 
 sincerely as you do, all such unhallowed expe- 
 dients. The weapons of the Christian warfare 
 ought not to be carnal. But it surely can be no 
 information that the conduct to which you allude 
 is not the exclusive sin of either party. With 
 honourable exceptions on both sides, individuals 
 of each party have been ' verily guilty concerning 
 their brother.' Such things ought not to be. 
 Even retaliation, for the purpose of irritating an 
 opponent, rather than of exposing his system, or 
 his manner of defending it, is totally indefensible. 
 The Strict Baptist ought not to render " railing 
 for railing." It is a violation of the law of Christ. 
 But surely it is with peculiar infelicity that thei/ 
 complain, who have set the example and main- 
 tained the pre-eminence. My friend, whatever 
 may be the character of our respective systems, 
 candour and bigotry are qualities of the mind, not 
 tendencies of a creed. Whichever system be 
 adopted, yours or ours, he that is candid will 
 be candid still, and he that is a bigot will be a 
 bigot still. 
 
 M. But " some churches, in their zeal, have 
 lost sight of their own principles, and substituted 
 the doctrine of strict communion as a term of 
 
242 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 admission, instead of the ordinance of baptism. 
 Others have refused the privilege of occasional 
 communion to such as have been known to sit 
 down with Pedobaptists at the Lord's table." — 
 Reasons, 49. 
 
 S. Not exactly so, I presume. Even if these 
 churches do make strict communion a term of 
 church-fellowship, it certainly does not follow that 
 they have "lost sight of their own principles." 
 On the contrary, it involves a contradiction to say 
 that they require strict communion " instead of 
 the ordinance of baptism," seeing that the latter 
 is necessarily included in the former. Whether 
 the practice to which you allude be defensible, 
 or not, it is with a remarkably ill grace that 
 you complain — you, my friend, whose deliberate, 
 settled, uniform, strenuous aim, is, to organize 
 churches, whose distinguishing term of admission 
 shall be Mixed Communion! You may not, 
 indeed, be chargeable with ' losing sight of your 
 mvn principles;' but mixed communion churches 
 are chargeable with losing sight of scriptural 
 principles, hy substituting mixed communion, "as 
 a term of admission, instead q/" the ordinance of 
 baptism!" Far be it from me, to reiterate the 
 unkind accusations which some of our liberal 
 opponents have heaped upon us, for retaining 
 baptism as a term of admission ; for they are 
 as unjust as they are unkind, and ought to be 
 retracted. But just suppose, for a moment, that 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 243 
 
 they were applicable ! Tlien, my friend, the 
 odium and the obloquy which you have endea- 
 voured to attach to strict communion churches, 
 would inevitably attach to your communities ! 
 Do we retain the ancient, baptist barrier ? 
 you remove it from the position in which it 
 originally stood, and erect in its place, a modern, 
 mixed communion barrier. Do we close the doors 
 against our uiibaptized brethren ? you, to receive 
 them, necessarily exclude many of your baptized 
 brethren. Are those Pedobaptists to be pitied, 
 who reside where there is only a baptist church ? 
 alas ! what kind-hearted Christian is there, to 
 
 " Pity the sorrows of a strict old man, 
 
 Whose trembliug hrabs have borne bim to your door!" 
 
 Say not, he may wait till your more illustrious 
 guests are served, and that then you will come 
 and attend to him in your out-house! He will 
 
 NEVER SUBMIT TO SUCH AN INDIGNITY ! 
 
 Say not, he might enter your presence-chamber, 
 if he would ; the whole amount of that liberty 
 being a permission to enter on your own terms — 
 a privilege, it is presumed, which even the papal 
 hierarchy has never refused ! But, my friend, we 
 freely concede to you the right of enacting your 
 own terms, in your own churches, if you believe 
 they are scriptural ; and, whatever be our opinion 
 of the terms themselves, we should be ashamed 
 of applying to you a tithe of the opprobrium 
 which you have endeavoured to fasten upon us. 
 
244 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 for precisely the same conduct. But, surely it 
 cannot be commendable to make mixed communion 
 a term of church-fellowship, and criminal to retain 
 baptism as such a term ! It is true, there is 
 one particular, and only one, in which the cases 
 are not parallel — the Baptists among you in- 
 stitute that as a term of admission into your 
 churches which they do not believe is essential to 
 church-fellowship! They will commune with us, 
 notwithstanding we are " sinners above all sin- 
 ners;" but we must consent to mixed commu- 
 nion, if we desire to cross the threshold of 
 their sacred enclosures ! Not that we should 
 for a moment complain of this, if our friends be- 
 lieved mixed communion were essential to church- 
 fellowship : in that case, they ought to make it a 
 barrier, and if they did not, they would expose 
 themselves to the contempt of every upright mind. 
 But, to make that a term of admission into your 
 churches, which you do not believe is essential to 
 communion in a church ordinance, is surely, a 
 needless, not to say unnatural separation, from your 
 Baptist brelhren, in favour of pious Pedobaptists ! 
 You include all, my friend, except injidels, heathens, 
 and pious Strict Baptists ! And now, let me ask, 
 ■what becomes of Mr. Hall's leading position — that 
 
 " NO CHURCH HAS A RIGHT TO ESTABLISH TERMS 
 OF COMMUNION, WHICH ARE NOT TERMS OF 
 
 SALVATION."? Is mixcd conmunion a term of 
 salvation ? Then why make it a term of admission 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 245 
 
 into your churches? Allow nie to inquire, my 
 friend, ' whether the Strict Baptist, dying in the 
 possession of his supposed error, is disqualified to 
 join "the spirits of just men made perfect ; " to 
 mingle with " the general assembly of the church 
 of the first born." If this is not affirmed, let mixed 
 communion churches reflect on the enormous im- 
 propriety of — pretending to render a Christian so- 
 ciety an enclosure more sacred, and more difficult 
 of access, than the abode of the Divine ma- 
 jesty — ^and of investing themselves with the pre- 
 rogative of repelling from their communion a 
 Kiffin, a Booth, a Fuller, or a Pearce, whom 
 the Lord of glory will welcome , to his presence.' 
 If our friend Mr. Hall were consulted, would he 
 not indignantly reply, " Transubstantiation pre- 
 sents nothing more revolting to the dictates of 
 common sense ! " ? — See his Reply to Kiughom, 
 p. 265.^^ So then, after all the clamour about 
 candour and liberality, about non-essentials and 
 minor points, the "conclusion of the matter" is 
 
 ^ We trust we shall never again be reminded of a second table. 
 From our Pedobaptist brethren, if we needed such an accommoda- 
 tion, we should receive it as an act of Cliristian kindness, and cheei'- 
 fuUy return the civility if they desired it. liut, from Baptists to 
 to Baptists, such a proposition is an insult. Nor let it be replied 
 that we might join the mixed church, if we would : we know we 
 might, if we could submit to mixed communion ; and so might pious 
 Pedobaptists join ours, if they could submit to baptism. But the 
 question is, V\ ould mixed churches receive us on our tenns ? If not, 
 how can they reproach us for not receiving Pedobaptists on their 
 tsrms 1 
 
 Y 2 
 
246 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 just this: — that MIXED communion churches 
 are a violation of Mr. Hall's leading position, and 
 a striking exemplijication of the identical evils 
 alleged against baptist churches!! Do our 
 churches make that a term of admission, which 
 is not a term of admission into heaven? So do 
 yours ! Do our churches make that a term of 
 admission, which is not essential to salvation? So 
 do yours ! Nay, you exceed us in strictness ; in- 
 asmuch as you make that a term of admission into 
 yoMr churches, which you do not consider essential 
 to church-fellowship ! And what is the consequence? 
 Why, one of two results is inevitable. Mr. Hall 
 must abandon his leading position, or his mixed 
 communion churches ! If he adhere to his leading 
 position, his mixed communion churches are not 
 only " in danger," but must inevitably fall. If, 
 on the other hand, he cling to his churches, he 
 discards his leading position ; and then all the fine 
 arguments he has reared upon this frail fabric, 
 against the constitution of Baptist churches, will 
 immediately vanish ! And even then, his churches 
 are in imminent danger ! For on what are they 
 founded? On our Lord's commission, and the 
 uniform practice of the first churches ? On the 
 contrary, mixed communion is confessedly an 
 inversion of " the natural and prescribed order" of 
 the divine institutions, and a departure from the 
 example of the apostles, in deference to "new 
 forms of error, and new modes of aberration fro 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 247 
 
 the paths of rectitude and truth."! Baptism is 
 a scriptural term of church-fellowship; mixed 
 communion is uiiscriptural. Baptism is of Divine 
 origin ; mixed communion, (a collateral branch of 
 pedobaptism,) is of human invention. Surely then, 
 those who make mixed communion a term of 
 admission into their churches, are the very last 
 men in the world who should become "accusers of 
 their brethren," for retaining baptism as a term 
 of communion ! We do not " alter the terms of 
 communion." Faith and baptism are the original 
 terms of church-fellowship: but faith and mixed 
 communion are an old and a new term ; and, 
 like Nebuchadnezzar's image, a mixture of gold 
 and clay. Mr. Hall assures us, {Reply, 255.) 
 that "he who alters the terms of communion, 
 changes the fundamental laws of Christ's king- 
 dom. He assumes a legislative power; and ought, 
 in order to justify that conduct, to exhibit his 
 credentials, with a force and splendour of evi- 
 dence, equal at least to those which attested the 
 divine legation of Moses and the Prophets." Let 
 the advocates of mixed communion do this, and 
 the controversy will be decided. In the mean 
 time, they surely cannot complain if we steadily 
 adhere to the old terms. 
 
 M. My friend, I am weary of disputation. 
 Leaving, therefore, " to those to whom it may be 
 more grateful, the unwelcome office of exposing 
 the infirmities of their brethren, let me close this 
 
248 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 subject by one more remark. In addition to all 
 the other reasons for retracing our steps, we may, 
 with great propriety, allege the spirit of the times, 
 the genius of the age, distinguished, as it is, 
 beyond all former example, by the union of Chris- 
 tians in the promotion of a common cause, and 
 their mergmg their minor differences in the cul- 
 tivation of great principles, and the pursuit of 
 great objects. Instead of confining themselves, 
 each to the defence of his own citadel, they are 
 sallying forth in all directions, in order to make a 
 powerful and combined attack on the kingdom of 
 darkness. The church of Christ, no longer the 
 scene of intestine warfare among the several deno- 
 minations into which it is cantoned and divided, 
 presents the image of a great empire, composed of 
 distant, but not hostile provinces, prepared to send 
 forth its combatants, at the command of its in- 
 visible Sovereign, to invade the dominions of 
 Satan, and subdue the nations of the earth. The 
 weapons of its warfare have already made them- 
 selves felt in the East and in the West ; and 
 wherever its banner is unfurled, it gathers around 
 it, without distinction of name or sect, " the 
 called, the chosen, the faithful," who, at the 
 heart-thrilling voice of Him whose vesture is 
 dipped in blood, and who goes forth conquering 
 and to conquer, rush to the field, unmindful of 
 every distinction but that of his friends and 
 foes, and too eager for the combat to ask any 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 249 
 
 other question, than, Who is on the Lord's side ? 
 Who ? "—Reasons, 49, 50. 
 
 <S. This is a brilliant picture, my friend ; but 
 who, that is generally acquainted with the 
 Christian world, will venture, calmly and delibe- 
 rately, to pronounce it correct? That there is 
 more show of candour than ever, is undeniable — 
 save and except towards the unfortunate Strict 
 Baptists ! It is to be hoped also, that there is 
 more genuine candour, among Christians of differ- 
 ent denominations. Christian candour, however, 
 does not consist in undervaluing an ordinance of 
 Jesus Christ; but in thinking highly of Christians, 
 notwithstanding their minor differences. The 
 union of Christians of all denominations, at home 
 and abroad, is undoubtedly a most delightful fea- 
 ture of the age : but the glory of this union would 
 be essentially impaired, if it involved the slightest 
 sacrifice of truth and Christian allegiance. Hap- 
 pily, Christians in general are as tenacious of what 
 they believe to be Christian truth, as of Christian 
 love ; and whenever love to the brethren shall 
 require the sacrifice of a single Christian duty, it 
 will from that moment cease to be Christian love. 
 But it is not true, my friend, that Christians have 
 learned to view their peculiarities as unimportant. 
 Even Christian missionaries, in the zenith of their 
 philanthropic zeal, are not blind to the difference 
 between love to the brethren " for the truth's 
 sake," and the compromise of what either they or 
 
250 
 
 TENDENCY OF STRICT 
 
 their brethren believe to be Christian truth.** 
 They unite in the evangelization of the world, but 
 they do not, nor can they without a change of senti- 
 ments, unite in the constitution of their churches. 
 Your picture of the missionary field is perfectly 
 Utopian. The various Christian sects, both in 
 the East and the West, form their churches, each 
 on its own principles. The Episcopalian does not 
 sacrifice a single iota of his church establishment: 
 the Methodists form their communities on the 
 principles prescribed by their Conference : the 
 Pedobaptist administers to the children of his 
 converts what he believes to be Christian baptism : 
 while the Baptist, with at least equal propriety, 
 retains his peculiarity. To what purpose, then, 
 but to dazzle and confound, is all this flourish of 
 trumpets and waving of banners, about union and 
 unanimity? Christian union there is; but una- 
 nimity is the figment of a glowing imagination. 
 There is as much Christian union at home, as 
 there is abroad ; and as little unanimity abroad 
 
 ^ Take the following as a specimen. At , a Baptist 
 
 Missionary Station, in tbe East Indies, a Pedobaptist Missionary, 
 unexpectedly present, was invited to preach. He did so; and after 
 the service, it being ordinance-day, he was respectfully reminded 
 that the church considered baptism as a term of communion. He 
 supphed the inference — and what then ? Did he turn upon his heel, 
 and raise a dust and a whirlwind about caste and bigotry, little 
 punctilios and intolerance No I He understood the principle, and 
 appreciated the motive. His reply was, " I cannot blame yoc : 
 
 I HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT THE COKTBARY PRACTICE UNJUSTJ- 
 FIABLE IN BAPTISTS." 
 
AND MIXED COMMUNION. 
 
 251 
 
 as there is at home. Christians never did, and 
 while they believe their peculiarities are sanctioned 
 by Christ, never will, without so far violating their 
 Christian allegiance, " merge their minor differ- 
 ences in the cultivation of great principles, and 
 the pursuit of great objects." They will rather 
 unite in " the cultivation of great principles and 
 the pursuit of great objects," notwithstanding their 
 "minor differences." Certainly, they will not 
 "confine themselves, each to the defence of his 
 own citadel;" but that each party, when assailed, 
 will defend his own citadel, is as evident as that 
 they unite their forces against the common enemy. 
 They do not abandon " the distinction of name or 
 sect." They are not " unmindful of every dis- 
 tinction but that of friends and foes." They are 
 not " too eager for the combat, to ask any other 
 question than 'Who is on the Lord'sside? Who?'" 
 In the formation of their churches, they do ask 
 other questions : and their differences are precisely 
 the same,. in number and importance, as ever they 
 were. Your glowing representation is a poetic 
 fiction : it fails in every particular but one — their 
 cordial union in the evangelization of the world. 
 But in this union, the Strict Baptist is as ardent 
 to join, as the most liberal of his Christian bre- 
 thren. My dear friend, let us not impose upon 
 ourselves, and in our eagerness for union, forget 
 that " Christian communion" is not only a union 
 of Christians; but a union in Christian obedience. 
 
252 
 
 TENDENCY OF THE SYSTEMS. 
 
 on Christian principles, from Christian motives, 
 and with the sanction of the Great Head of the 
 Christian church. It is not necessary, either that 
 you should be of my sentiments, or that I should 
 be of yours, in order to Christian communion. 
 Let us both act as we conceive agreeably to the 
 mind of Christ, each being open to conviction : 
 and if we cannot be of one judgment, "let each 
 be fully persuaded in his ..own mind." And let 
 both show their " love to the brethren," not by 
 deviating from the Christian commission, in com- 
 pliment to modern error, however conscientiously 
 that error may be maintained ; but by an inter- 
 change of every friendly feeling, and friendly 
 intercourse, which involves no sacrifice of what 
 either party believes to be the mind of Christ. 
 
1012 01029 1971