y^^Pvujii 
 
 J 
 
 
 m 
 
 '^ 
 
/ 
 
 
 "6^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 Q. 
 
 -T3 
 
 
 to 
 
 
 _c 
 
 
 Q- 
 
 
 M— 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 $ 
 
 
 <D 
 
 
 C 
 
 
 < 
 
 ^^ 
 
 <u 
 
 
 E 
 
 
 (T5 
 CO 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 5^--;. 
 
 ^ 
 
 BX 6339 .C5 H6 1846 
 Howell, Robert Boyte 
 Crawford, 1801-1868. 
 The terms of communion at 
 
THE 
 
 TERMS or COMMUNION 
 
 THE LORD'S TABLE. 
 
 ROBERT BOTTE cIlOWELl, D. D. 
 
 PASTOR OF THE SECOND BAPTISJ CHCUCH, RICHIIOXD, VA. 
 
 '* Now I praise you, brethren, that yo remember ma ifi all things, and 
 keep the ordinances as I delivered them unto you." — Paul. 
 
 KiKt^ ^?;Ci2?:aHlj, 
 
 PIITLADELPHIA : 
 
 AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY. 
 
 118 ARCH STREET. 
 
 /<?¥ 
 
 7 
 
Entered according lo the Act of Congress, in the year 1846, by 
 
 W. W. KEEN, 
 
 Treasurer of the American Baptist Publication Society : in the Clerk'i 
 
 Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 
 
 PHt-LADKI.rHlA t 
 
 KINO AND BAIRD, PRINTERS, 
 
 No. y George Street. 
 
"tC.JUAl 1881 
 
 ■YT^r^-^r^' 
 
 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 
 
 This little work has attained a popularity unanticipated 
 by the author. Its wide circulation in this country, and its 
 republication in England, he regards as the best testimonials 
 of its usefulness. He has attempted some improvements 
 in this edition, which he flatters himself will be acceptable 
 to his readers. What they are, will be seen by those who 
 may look over its pages. He again sends it forth, with his 
 sincere prayer to God for his blessing upon this effort to 
 defend and sustain the truth. 
 
 Nashville, Tennessee, 
 February 3, 1846. 
 
I 
 
 *,^. ^ -U*. Jiu» W -Jt 'ij? VA A W .5^ -»-* /u 
 
 
 TO THE 
 
 BAPTIST CONVENTION 
 
 STATE OF TENNESSEE, 
 
 By whose solicitation the work was undertaken, this little 
 volume is most respectfully inscribed. If the efTorts of the 
 writer to illustrate the law of God, and the duty of Christians, 
 in regard to Sacramental Communion, shall be so fortunate 
 as to merit the regard, and receive the approbation, of a body 
 so learned in the Scriptures, and so well qualified to determine 
 " what is truth," the recollection of his success wiU ever 
 pro\^e a rich reward to 
 
 Their fellow labourer in the Gospel, 
 
 And devoted brother in Christ, 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Sacramental Communion has not been sufficiently considered — Wlio 
 has written, and what — Why I wTite — We deplore the controversy-— 
 What part of the subject I have discussed — The internal controversy 
 —Why the Church has always been unpopular — Misrepresentations — 
 The argumentum ad hominum — Communion now the strong point of 
 attack upon us — Spirit in which I shall conduct the discussion — We 
 ask only to be candidly heard in our own defence. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Are we at liberty to adopt any terms of communion 
 
 NOT established BY JESUS CHRIST? - - 21 
 
 Definition of Communion — General object — Several opinions on this 
 question — Our own position defined — Nature of positive laws — Scrip- 
 ture proofs of our doctrines — Conclusions — Their general application 
 •—Their particular application — Powers of a Church — Church repre- 
 sentatires — Pvights of individuals — Error of New Test men — Conse- 
 quences of violating the principles advocated — Conclusion. 
 
 CHAPTER H. 
 
 The scriptural terms of com3Iunion at the lord's 
 table stated and proved, - - 35 
 
 Repentance, faith, and baptism are terms of communion — English 
 authors — Hudson River Association Circular — ^^The apostolic commis- 
 sion is the law of communion — The order of the sacraments — Their 
 order in the primitive Churches — Emblematical representations — In- 
 spired injunctions regarding the perpet'iitv of primilivejorder — By whom 
 the Siicrumejits are to be administered — How received — ConciusioUi 
 
•W CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 The history of opinion regarding the terms of com- 
 munion SHOWS THAT OUR DOCTRINE HAS BEEN UNIVER- 
 SALLY embraced on THE SUBJECT, - - 51 
 
 Baptism has been held in all ages, and by all denominations, to be « 
 a divinely prescribed preliminary to the Lord's supper — Dr. Priestley's 
 opinions — Testimonies in proof, Justin Martyr, Jerome, Austin, Bede, 
 Theophylact, Bonaventure, Frid. Spanheim, Lord Chancellor King, 
 Austin's rule — Modern divines — Wall, Doddridge, Manton, Dwight, 
 all the Catechisms and Confessions of Faith — Robert Hall. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Reply to such objections to our doctrines on this 
 
 SUBJECT AS are DERIVED FROM THE PRESUMED NATURE 
 
 OF John's baptism, - - - 58 
 
 Opinions of Mr. Hall, that John's was not Christian baptism, and 
 therefore that the original communicants had never been baptized— 
 His own reasons refute his conclusions — Contrast of John's with 
 Christ's baptism — Their respective formularies — Christ's desire to 
 conceal his own character — If, on account of the objects designed 
 to be represented, John's was not Christian baptism, for the same 
 reasons the first administration of the Lord's supper was not Chris- 
 tian — The same correspondence in spiritual import — Difference in the 
 ordinances before and after the death of Christ — Arguments as to 
 time — Mistake in regard to the source of John's commission — Com- 
 parison between the baptism of John, and of the disciples of Christ. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Reply to the arguments against our doctrine on 
 sacramental communion founded on the inspired 
 
 principles of CHRISTIAN TOLERATION, - 77 
 
 « 
 The proposition examined, that a change of circumstances justifies 
 a change of practice with regard to the ordinances — Inspired canons 
 of Christian toleration recited — They require forbearance with things 
 iudilTereut, but do not permit us to extend our fellov.'ship to errors 
 which are subversive of the divine law. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Reply to such objections to our doctrine on sacra- 
 mental COMMUNION as ARE FOUNDED ON THE SPIRITU- 
 ALITY OF THE GOSPEL, AND DRAWN FROM OTHER AND 
 MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES, - - - 91 
 
 The spiritual nature of the Gospel not inconsistent with its outward 
 forms — The promptings of Christian feeling — The duty of recogniz- 
 ing as such, all that we believe to be truly converted — Pedobaptista 
 sincerely believe themselves right — We associate with them in other 
 departments of worship — As every man is responsible for himself to 
 God, we are bound to respect their faith, and in receiving them do 
 not violate our own. 
 
 CHAPTER Vn. 
 
 We ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO ADMINISTER THE LORD's SUP- 
 PER FOR ANY PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE DESIGNATED 
 BY OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, - - - 103 
 
 The design of the Lord's Supper not a test of Christian love — Recip- 
 rocal confidence, or religious fellowship — Pedobaptists and Quakers 
 —Communion administered to secure popularity — Witliheld as a 
 punishment — Verbal nonsense — Open communion not an act of faith, 
 obedience, or worship 
 
 CHAPTER Vni. 
 
 We CANNOT UNITE WITH PEDOBAPTISTS IN SACRAMENTAL 
 COMMUNION -SVITHOUT AN ACTUAL ABANDONMENT, OR 
 PRACTICAL FALSIFICATION OF ALL OUR PRINCIPLES ON 
 BOTH BAPTISM AND THE lord's SUPPER, - - 118 
 
 Forced confessions — Anabaptism — Change of public feeling in regard 
 to us— Former persecutions — Parliament of Charles I. — Assembly of 
 divines at Westminster — Henry VIII. — Episcopal Convocation — Con- 
 
10 CONTENTS. 
 
 sequences — Queen Elizabeth and the Aldgate Church — Burning of 
 Baptist women — American persecutions — Danger of popularity — In- 
 fluence of open communion. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 We cannot engage in communion with our pedobaptist 
 brethren, because they are not baptized, having 
 received the rite in their infancy, - 131 
 
 There is no law for infant baptism — The commission does not au- 
 thorize it — The teachings of the Apostles — Their practice — The object 
 for which baptism is received — The actions of those baptized by the 
 Apostles — Infant baptism is an evil — It is prohibited in the word of 
 God. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 We cannot commune with pedobaptists because, not 
 
 HAVING been immersed, THEY ARE NOT BAPTIZED, 153 
 
 Immersion only is baptism, proved by the sense of the word — its 
 philology — Its sense confessed by critics — By theologians — Ancient 
 Confessions of Faith— The English Liturgy — Use of the word in our 
 common translation — Ancient version of the New Testament — rea- 
 sons why it received its present rendering — Translations into Hebrew 
 —Conclusions. 
 
 CHAPTER XL 
 
 We cannot commune with pedobaptists, because, NOT 
 HAVING been immersed, THEY ARE NOT BAPTIZED, 166 
 
 Objections to our conclusions founded on the New Testament refuted 
 —Facts considered — Passages of Scripture — Metaphorical allusions to 
 baptism — The design of baptism requires immersion — The places where 
 baptism was administered — Concurrence in our views by scholars 
 —Reasons of their agreement with us in sentiment, and different 
 practice — Conclusion. 
 
CONTENTS. 11 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Baptists cannot commune with pedobaptists, because 
 they administer baptism for illegal purposes, and 
 attach to it an unreasonable and unscriptural 
 degree of efficacy and importance, - 180 
 
 Pedobaptist doctrines of baptism — Baptismal regeneration held by the 
 fathers — This originated infant baptism, pouring and sprinkling — The 
 Catechism and Canons of the Council of Trent — All Pedobaptist 
 Churches believe in baptismal regeneration — Book of Common Prayer 
 — Confession of Faith — Discipline — Disciples of Christ — Conservative 
 influence of Baptist principles. 
 
 CHAPTER XIH. 
 
 Baptists cannot unite with pedobaptists in sacramen- 
 tal COMMUNION, because THEY ATTACH TO THE LORD's 
 SUPPER AN UNREASONABLE AND UNSCRIPTURAL IMPOR- 
 TANCE AND EFFICACY, - _ _ 203 
 
 Early superstition — Roman Catholics — Infant communion — Came mlo 
 the church with infant baptism and accompanied it for a thousand 
 years — Its abrogation — When and why — Opinions of the Episcopal 
 church — Of the Presbyterian — Of the Methodist — Communion with 
 them is an assent to their doctrines on communion which we can- 
 not give — Open communion is impracticable — It is subversive of all 
 discipline— The law of God the only safe rule — Close of this part of 
 the argument. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 ^ The POLICY of free communion considered, and shown 
 
 TO BE DISASTROUS TO THE CHURCH, - - 215 
 
 Close communion is odious — the Church would be more prosperous 
 were it abandoned — Argument from reason — from facts — Principles 
 of free communion B'.[)tiv:.= — Rc-'ult? of the practice— Bimyan'g 
 
12 CONTENTS. 
 
 church — Foster's — Hall's — Giles' instances — Open communion aban- 
 doned by its advocates — Close communion most consistent with pros- 
 perity and harmony. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Baptists, after all, are more free and liberal in 
 their communion than any class of pedobaptists 
 whatever, - - - - 228 
 
 Baptists are not the only close communionists — Between Pedobaptista 
 of different sects there is no more love or union than between them 
 and ourselves — All Pedobaptists exclude from the Lord's Table two 
 thirds of their own members — Episcopacy — Episcopal and Protestant 
 Methodists — New and Old School Presbyterians — Present contro- 
 versy on that subject in the Pedobaptist churches. Acts of Synods, 
 &c. — The tone of the religious press — Inconsistency. 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 Can THE BAPTIST CHURCH, IN MAINTAINING CLOSE COMMU- 
 NION, BE JUSTLY CHARGED WITH THE SIN OF SCHISM ? 245 
 
 That schism exists somewhere is evident — We have not produced it, 
 and are therefore not responsible — We have adhered to original prin- 
 ciples' — Baptists are identical with primitive Christians — When the 
 disciples became Pedobaptists they severed themselves from us — We 
 have maintained ever since a separate existence on original ground 
 not connected with Papists or Protestants — Historical proofs — Con- 
 fessions of Faith — Our name — Duty of Pedobaptists, having produced 
 the schism, is obvious — they are required to heal it — It is not difficult 
 to determine how it may be done — Its consequences. 
 
 CHAPTER XVH. 
 Recapitulation and conclusion, - - 265 
 
 Contents of the several chapters — Summary of the whole — Exhor- 
 tation — Union — Liberality — Prosperity — Firm adherence to original 
 principles — Our ultimate triumph. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 The terms of intercourse at the Lord's table, have not been 
 adequately discussed. Numerous fugitive productions have, 
 at diflerent times, appeared, mostly in the form of pamplilete, 
 tracts, ch-cidars of associations, and articles in die religious 
 journals of the day. A few reprints of transadantic works 
 have been made. Booth and Fuller have been issued by our 
 own denomination ; and by our Pedobaptist brethren, Bunyan 
 and Hall. But none of these, well written and useful, as 
 many of them are admitted to be, are considered exactiy of 
 tlie character demanded. They are eitiier too superficial and 
 brief, or too elaborate and profound. They deal in generals, 
 on the one hand, discuss arguments, and controvert doctrmes, 
 that do not obtain among us ; or, on the otiier, tiiey array the 
 investigation m a deep and metaphysical process of literaiy 
 and logical acumen, which render it of httie worth, except to 
 the few who are thoroughly educated. jMy object has been 
 to pursue the medium between these extremes. I have writ- 
 ten, not for scholars and divmes, but for the mass of the 
 people. I have sought, therefore, to avoid equally tiie ambi- 
 guity attendant upon studied sententiousness, die confusion of 
 toituous and protracted reasoning, and the tedium of a weary 
 prohxity. 
 
 To the several works of Robert Hall, in favor of Mixed 
 Communion, is devoted, as will be seen, rather special atten- 
 tion. If any apology is necessary for replying, as much at 
 large as our hmits would permit, to the unposing theories of 
 which he was the advocate, it may be found, not oidy in his 
 
 2 13 
 
14 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 great abilities as a writer, joined to the fascination of Iiis 
 glowing and brilliant style, — characteristics which must ever 
 invest tliem with no small degree of popularity, — but in the 
 additional consideration that, in all parts of our country, they 
 liave been procured in great numbers, and circulated with the 
 utmost industry, as the strongest weapons that can be em- 
 ployed against us. It was thought necessary that the charm 
 of his authority should be dispelled; the sophistry of his 
 prmcipal argiunents exposed ; and that our brethren who can- 
 not find time, or facilities, for extensive reading, should have 
 at command, in a small compass, the information requisite t6 
 meet and refute those who may employ his reasoning. How 
 far this object is accomplished, the event only can detemiine. 
 The sacred table should be surrounded only by purity and 
 brotlierly love. The many melting recollections with whiclv 
 it is associated, render a single discordant note there, painfully 
 repulsive. It is connected with every consideration calculated 
 to elicit the hohest feelings of the renewed soul, the most 
 entire consecration to God, and the most unfeigned love to his 
 people. We therefore expect to see every communicant 
 fully imbued with the spirit of Christ, and conscious of no 
 other feelings than those which prompted the gi-eat sacrifice, 
 of which this is the established memorial. V/e recoil from 
 the thought that censure, or reproach, should ever reach so 
 pure a circle, or that the principles of their intercourse should 
 become matter of invective and controversy. But upon earth, 
 alas ! we are not peniiitted to reahze perfection. Yet coiTupt, 
 and his passions still unsubdued, man's nature characterizes 
 every act in which he is engaged. Feelings of worldliness 
 find their way into the midst of his holiest devotions. As a 
 consequence, the Lord's supper has, of late, become the arena 
 upon which the fierce spirit of conflict battles for the mastery 
 in sectarian sti'ife. While our Pedobaplist brethren have 
 
INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 planted their artilleiy on these holy ramparts, as upon tlie 
 very citadel of Zion, that they may pour into our ranks a 
 more destructive fire; a disposition appears to be growing 
 among our own people, to employ it as a means of dispensing 
 rewards, and inflicting punishments. These agitations ouglit, 
 by every means in our power, to be resisted. While per- 
 mitted to prevail, they must be productive of incalculable 
 injury to the advancement of ti-uth and righteousness, as well 
 as to the cultivation of brotherly love, and Christian union. 
 
 Disappointment may, by some, possibly, be felt, when it 
 is found that I have not even alluded to several of the most 
 prominent topics which belong to the subject of Sacramental 
 Communion. To divest tlie rite of those mists m which it 
 has so long been enshrouded, by the Popish expositions 
 which represent it as an expiatory sacrifice, and teach tlie 
 transubstantiation, or, the no less irrational, though protestant 
 notion, the consubstantiation, of its elements, on the one hand ; 
 and, on the other, to refute the modern doctrine which assumes 
 it as an " effectual means and seal of grace," would be a work 
 of undoubted importance. Unless " the signs of the times" 
 are deceptive, a full discussion, in our country, of all these 
 dogmas will very soon be demanded. The task would be 
 equally profitable and delightful to illustrate the metaphorical 
 character of the eucharist, the various vital doctrines, and 
 amazing facts, it exhibits to our view, connected immediately 
 with our redemption, sanctification, and salvation ; the nature 
 of the spiritual measures by ^vhich its reception should be 
 preceded and accompanied ; the advantages arising from its 
 regular observance ; and numerous other considerations hav- 
 inor direct and collateral bearings upon the subject. But were 
 all these topics introduced, they would require more of bodi 
 tune and space than I have at present at command. Nor is 
 it particularly necessary, smce several works, embracing these 
 
16 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 topics, are accessible to our people, in some of which they 
 are discussed with candor, and in a few, the general style and 
 argument partake but little of the party prejudices which so 
 frequently disfigin-e the productions of all the sects in relation 
 to Christian fellowship and communion. 
 
 The internal controversy in relation to strict and free com- 
 munion, the American churches have, thus far, almost entirely, 
 escaped. I cannot but congratulate them on an event so 
 fortunate. Agitations of this character are always productive 
 of consequences the most lamentable. On the other side of 
 the Atlantic they have prevailed for more than a century, and 
 are now shaking the English church to its very foundation. 
 Individuals have been found in our country, who express 
 doubt as to the propiiety of strict communion. A few isolated 
 instances exist of communities who practise upon the opposite 
 principles. But no association, nor even a single church, 
 respectable for either numbers or intelligence, has, within the 
 compass of my information, seceded from the great body of 
 th^ denomination upon this ground. Our whole miglity 
 army, bearing the bamier of undeviating obedience to the word 
 of God, the whole word of God, and nothing but the word 
 of God, upon the ample folds of whibh is inscribed — " one 
 FiORD, ONE FAITH, ONE BAPTISM," prcseuts an unbroken front. 
 The internal controversy, therefore, need be considered, only 
 in so far as may be necessary to guard our churches against 
 its evils, and to maintain ourseh^es in opposition to the argu- 
 ments drawn from that source by Pedobaptists. 
 
 The docti'ine and worship of the tme church of Christ, 
 have never been popular with the world. Sometimes, and 
 in some countries, one portion, and in other ages and nations, 
 another, has been, during the whole Christian period, made 
 the occasion of bitter reproach, and pleaded in justification of 
 every persecution. It is still emphatically true, that "as 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 17 
 
 concerning this sect, we know that everywhere it is spoken 
 against." Our ecclesiastical polity has sometimes rendered us 
 peculiarly obnoxious. Uniformly, in all countries, modeled 
 upon the plan of the New Testament, it has ever necessarily 
 been strictly republican. Such a government has an inva- 
 riable tendency to exalt the intellectual powers, and to inspire 
 an urepressible love for pohtical freedom. The inalienable 
 right of all Christians to full hberty of conscience, free from 
 any control whatever from the civil magistrate, and their 
 accountability in matters of faith to God only, is another doc- 
 trme we have cherished, witli enthusiasm, from the days of 
 tlie apostles, until now. And, under all governments, we have 
 constantly protested against the unholy alliance of church and 
 state — the blending of the spiritual Math tlie civil power. 
 These and other similar characteristics, so offensive to a venal 
 priesthood, so odious to the minions of pohtical authority, and 
 which the populace have been taught to loathe and abhor, 
 could impress none but philosophers, and tndy enlightened 
 Christians. The multitudes have ever been ready to take 
 the yoke, and move as they were directed by their leaders. 
 In our own country, smce the adoption of the present form 
 of national government, these tenets, which, if history spealis 
 U-uly, had no small influence in fixing its character, have been 
 sufficiently popular. All parties now, tacitly or avowedly, 
 accord their approbation. Until that tune, however, as at the 
 present moment, in eveiy government in continental Europe, 
 and in all the American states south of the Rio del Norte, 
 they had called down upon the head of the church, the ven- 
 geance of every petty ruler, and ambitious despot. Pohtical 
 favorites have ever delighted to khidle the fires by which we 
 were consumed, and left no efforts unattempted to exterminate 
 us from the face of the earth. 
 
 AU the principles of the chuich of Christ, however, have 
 
18 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 not yet been adopted. Even Protestant denominations, and 
 in our own free land, ima^ning that they still have reason to 
 resist ns, do so, in a manner evincive that they have not lost 
 entirely the spirit of their ancestors. Their swords and chains 
 are broken, their prisons are demohshed, and their fires extin- 
 <,mished ; still they have the means of annoyance. It is con- 
 lidently alleged that our distinguishing doctiines had their 
 origin with " the madmen of Munster," that they yet remain 
 the same with theirs, and are, therefore, essentially revolu- 
 lionar}^, and fanatical ; our baptism is pronounced, in high 
 (quarters, indecent, revolting, and dangerous ; and our com- 
 munion is derided as, in principle, the very essence of bigotiy, 
 and, m practice, selfish, intolerant, and proscriptive. 
 
 To all this, were we so disposed, we might very success- 
 fully reply with the argumentum ad hominum. Were there 
 Baptists among the men of JMunster, and is our church there- 
 fore responsible for all the excesses of the mass in that scene ? 
 Then the Huguenots of France, are responsible for all the ex- 
 travagancies and impostiires of the Camisards, and the French 
 Prophets ; the Presbyterians are responsible for all the ravings 
 of Irvingism ; the Episcopalians for the fanaticism and fooleries 
 of the followers of Joanna Southcote ; the Methodists for those 
 of Anna Lee ; and the Pedobaptists generally for the Fifth 
 Monarchy Men of London, who rose for King Jesus, and 
 tlirew that metropolis into consternation. But no sensi])Ie 
 man will brand a whole denomination with shame, for the 
 follies, or the crimes, of a few individuals who may chance 
 to be ecclesiastically connected with it. We glory in our 
 whole spiritual ancestry, among whom we number the Apos- 
 tles of Christ, and the saints and martyrs of all ages. 
 
 The baptismal controversy is believed to be drawing near 
 its close. A centiny of conflict is about terminating tlie vic- 
 tory in favor of apostolic forms. The noise of the tumult in 
 
INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 that region is eviclentlj'- subsiding. As the light of science 
 has grown more and more bright, and candor has mingled 
 with the piety of christians, truth has gradually gained ground. 
 'J'hat infants should not be subjected to a rite which can do 
 them no good whatever, and which, so far as they are con- 
 cerned, is without authority in the word of God, is an im- 
 pression which is rapidly advancing ; and immersion, in the 
 name of the Holy Trmity, is so e\idently the only scriptural 
 baptism, that on these points our opponents feel themselves 
 driven to the wall. The growing popularity of the primitive 
 mode and subjects of baptism, is sufficiendy illusti'ated by the 
 fact that, after the most poignant and ingenious ridicule that 
 can be heaped upon them, all denominations are, even now, 
 forced frequently to employ them, or lose many of their most 
 estimable members. 
 
 One point of attack — Sacramental Communion — remains. 
 Here the popular breeze appears, for the moment, to favor 
 our assailants, and the onset is universal in all quarters. The 
 more grave of our neighbors read us solemn lectures on chris- 
 tian liberality, humility, brotherly affection, and the import- 
 ance of spirituality above mere form in religion. The 
 pedantic and flippant catch the theme of detraction, and shower 
 around us the shafts of their ridicule. The -vTilgar crowd 
 follow, with coarse epithets, and boisterous denunciations! 
 All these it becomes necessary for us to meet, in the best 
 spirit and manner we can command. In attempting to do 
 this, 1 would not be considered as laying claim to any know- 
 ledge on the subject not possessed by thousands of my 
 brethren, but simply as manifesting a disposition, which I 
 certainly deeply feel, to contribute my feeble aid to the triumph 
 of " the truth, as it is in Jesus." 
 
 It is my purpose to conduct this controversy in the true 
 spirit of our holy religion ; it is true, we differ with christians 
 
20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of Other denominations, yet, for them all, we can, with tlie 
 utmost sincerity, aver, that we cherish the most hearty good 
 will. We assail no one, we challenge no one, and trust tliat 
 to none we shall give offence. We confess ourselves not 
 indifferent to the good opinion of the virtuous, and intelligejit, 
 of every order in society. Nor is any thing further from our 
 intention than a design, by any thing that we may say, to 
 foster a sectarian spirit. We Avill not, if it can be avoided, 
 " widen the branch, already too capacious, between christians 
 of different denominations." We do not imagine that every 
 excellence is confined to our own ranks, nor are we reluctant 
 to acknowledge the children of God wherever they may be 
 found. On the other hand, we deprecate, with equal earnest- 
 ness, that spirit of liberalism which hesitates not to sacrifice 
 the commandments of God to the courtesies of religious 
 intercourse. If the pious tenor of a consistent christian life, 
 which embodies our own principles, with unconcealed free- 
 dom, candor, and affection to all, will do so, we shall secure 
 the favorable regard of our brethren of every class. But if 
 their kind consideration demands a departure from the inspired 
 law, we must not, we dare not, pay the price. Jehovah 
 alone is legislator in his own kingdom. He has formed un- 
 alterably its government, and institutions. It is ours, not to 
 repeal, change his laws, or add to their number, but humbly, 
 and faithfully, to obey him in all things. 
 
 We have one, and only one, favor to ask, on this, or on any 
 other subject in relation to either our docti'ine or practice ; it is 
 that we may be patiently heard in our own defence, and have 
 awarded to us a candid and impartial verdict. If, when so 
 judged by the law of God, we are fairly convicted of material 
 error, we will not shrink from, nor seek to avert the sentence 
 of condemnation. On the other hand, if we are clearly sus- 
 tained, we shall confidently expect to receive the ingenuous 
 approval of the wise and the good, oi evciy denoinii'iauon. 
 
»i£C.JUN Ml 
 THSOLOGICAI 
 
 ^t^it^x A I jT^ U ^- 
 
 TERMS OF COMxMUNION. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 WE ARE AT LIBERTY TO ADOPT NO TERMS OF COMMUNION 
 NOT ESTABLISHED BY JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 Definitions — General object — Several opinions — Our own doctrines 
 defined — Nature of positive laws — Scripture proofs — Their general 
 application — Their particular application — Powers of a Church — 
 Church representatives— Rights of individuals — Error of new testa 
 of fellowship — Consequences of violating the principles advocated. 
 
 Communion is friendly intercourse. Its existence does 
 not necessarily imply the presence of religion. The word is 
 not the less applicable, whatever may be the character of the 
 parties, the objects they pursue, or the motives which bind 
 them together. All famihar converse, and consultation, Is 
 communion. 
 
 Christian Communion is christian intercourse. This is 
 fully developed when -those who love the Redeemer, are 
 associated in consultation, in prayer, in conversation, in 
 co-operation for the benefit of each other, for the advancement 
 of the knowledge of Christ, and the salvation of sinners. A 
 late learned writer bears testimony to the correctness of this 
 exposition when he say s^—" Every expression of fraternal 
 regard, every participation in the enjojnnent of social worship, 
 every instance of tiie unity of the spu'it exerted in prayer and 
 
 21 
 
22 DEFINITION OF COMMUNION. 
 
 supplication, or in acts of cln-istian sympatliy and fiiendship," 
 truly belongs to the communion of saints. " It extends to all 
 the modes by which believers recognize each other as mem- 
 bers of a common head." 
 
 Sacramental Communion is a joint participation in the 
 Lord's Supper. Those who unite at the sacred table, and 
 together receive the eucharist, have, with each other, sacra- 
 mental communion. 
 
 This solemn act of divine worship is called a sacrament^ 
 not on account of any mystery now supposed to be attached 
 to it, either in its nature or effects, but because it is a public 
 declaration of allegiance to our Lord Jesus Christ. We also 
 denominate it the eucharist, because it is an act of personal 
 adoration and thanksgiving to God. It is the united social 
 reception of the appointed emblems of the body and blood 
 of the Redeemer, offered as a sacrifice for our salvation, in 
 the benefits of which we become interested through faith. 
 
 If in these expositions we do not materially err, it will be 
 clearly seen that communion is of three kinds — general, 
 christian, and sacramental. With the first we have, at 
 present, nothing to do. The second we should not now 
 consider, biU because it is so universally and improperly 
 confounded with the third. Christian communion and sacra- 
 mental communion are two distinct things. Either may be 
 in full and perfect exercise without the existence of the other. 
 A gentleman, for example, is eminently religious ; I am 
 delightfully associated with him in the service of the 
 Redeemer ; we " take sweet counsel together, and walk to 
 tlie house of God in company ;" but he has never been bap- 
 tized, and, therefore, cannot, without a violation of the law 
 of Christ, go with me to the Lord's table. Another comes 
 to the holy supper. I have, personally, no confidence in 
 liim as a christian, and never associate with him as siiclk 
 
DEFINITION OF COMMUNION. 23 
 
 Tills, however is only my own private opinion. lie is in 
 fellowship in llie church. He comes according to the law. 
 I cannot debar him. With him I sit dowm to the eiicharist. 
 It will be seen by tliese facts, tliat, widiout any inconsistency, 
 indeed, as a matter of necessity, I have christian communion 
 with those with whom I have no sacramental communion, 
 and sacramental communion with tliose with whom I have 
 no christian communion. 
 
 Between Baptists and the members of all the sun'ounding 
 evangelical denominations, I tmst, and believe, that, in all 
 respects, the most free and perfect christian communion 
 exists, and will continue to be sedulously cultivated. We 
 ciierish for tliem, as the people of God, the sincerest affection ; 
 Ave preach, pray, and labor together ; consult and co-operate 
 for the spread of tlie Gospel; and take pleasure in being 
 associated with them "in every good word and work." 
 Nothing would be more pleasing to us than to go with them 
 to the Lord's table, but we are repelled by the fact that a 
 preliminary duty is essential, and with this they have not 
 complied. We decline sacramental communion, not alone 
 with those who can offer no satisfactory testimony of their 
 soundness in the faith, or their purity of moral character, but, 
 yielding unqualified obedience to inspired rules, and not 
 without, in some degree, the concuiTjence of the several Pedo- 
 baptist chiu'ches in our interpretation of them, also with 
 christians, however endeared, who have not been baptized. 
 liCt us, then, in defence, and explanation, of our course in 
 this particular, proceed to consider the laws of the LonVs 
 Supper ; the preliminary preparation for its reception; 
 our reasons for declining a participation luith those tv/io 
 violate the principles upon which, in our opinion, it is 
 based ; the policy of a strict adherence to divine laws ) 
 and our claims, in doing so, to be considered as consult' 
 
24 DEFINITION OF COMMUNION. 
 
 ing'f by the only effectual means, the union and harmony 
 of the body of Christ. 
 
 Jesus Christ has established in his Church terms of 
 communion. In the general truth of this proposition, I 
 beheve, all denommations concur. Beyond this point agree- 
 ment ceases. The several varieties of sentiment prevailing 
 may, perhaps, with sufficient distinctness, be arranged under 
 three general heads. 
 
 Those of the first class hold that it is very difficult to decide 
 what Christ has appointed as terms of communion. They 
 teach us that the whole matter is involved in so much dark- 
 ness, and ambiguity, that it is impossible to arrive at any 
 certainty in relation to it. On this view of tlie case, it is 
 necessary to offisr, in this place, but a single remark. If it is 
 just, our condition is precisely the same that it would have 
 been had no terms of communion been designated. The 
 whole investigation is of no consequence, nor can our con- 
 clusions involve any practical obligations. It is evidently 
 preposterous to imagine that we can be responsible for our 
 obedience to a law, the import of which no ordinary mind is 
 able to discover. 
 
 The second class profess to have embraced the more 
 reasonable and consistent doctrine, that the terais of commu- 
 nion, as appointed by the Redeemer, are sufficiently plain and 
 definite to be readily comprehended and exacdy observed by 
 every Christian. They have, however, added the unsup- 
 ported and injurious notion that authority is granted to the 
 Church to vary them, at least in some particulars, to dispense 
 with them, or to adopt others of a dilFerent character, wlien 
 she may think such a course necessary, for purposes of dis- 
 cipline, or of conciliation, to preserve her purity, or to extend 
 her power and influence. 
 
 The third class maintain that Jesus Christ has established 
 
posiTivr. Axn moral lwv^. 35 
 
 aJl the terms of communion we are at liherty, under any 
 circumstances, to recognize ; that in liis word lliey are so per 
 fectly obvious as readily to be understood by every inquirer ; 
 that his church is obliged faithfully to conform to them in 
 eveiy respect ; and that we are not permitted to cliange, or 
 dispense with any of them, or to add to their number. 'JMiese 
 are the sentiments we have ourselves embraced, and shall 
 now attempt to sustain their correctness. We sliall be aided 
 m our efforts in tliis particular, if we consider, for a moment, 
 the nature of the laws by which this sacred institution is 
 governed. 
 
 The Lord's Supper, Uke baptism, is estabhshed hy positive 
 law. The obligations of obedience to this code differ from 
 those enjoined by moral law in several important particulars. 
 For our purpose, at present, it is sufficient to observe, that 
 the duties imposed by moral law are right in themselves ; 
 they are founded in the nature of things ; and proceed upon 
 tlie unchanging principles of justice between man and man, 
 and between man and his Maker. Those commanded by 
 positive law are right for no other reason than because tliey 
 are commanded. They are based solely upon the authority 
 of the Lawgiver, and are designed to test our disposition to 
 bow to his requirements. The difference between them is 
 plain. The former or moral code, is commanded because it 
 is right ; the latter or positive code, is right because it is 
 commanded. 
 
 In these distinctions and obsen^ations I advance no novel 
 or pecuhar sentiment. The pious and learned of all ages and 
 denominations fully concur with us. In proof of this state- 
 ment I might refer to numerous authorities, but I will satisfy 
 myself with two only. Dr. Owen says: — "That principle 
 that the church hath power to institute and appoint any thino-, 
 or ceremony, belonging to the worship of God, either as to 
 3 
 
XU LAW OF THE «:ACRAMRNT3. 
 
 matter, or to manner, beyond tlie orderly observanee of sueh 
 ci renins lances as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ 
 liimselt' has instituted, lies at the bottom of all the horrible 
 sujierstition and Avars, that have for so long a season spread 
 themselves over the face of the Christian world ; and it is the 
 design of a great part of the Revelation of John — to make a 
 discovery of tliis ti'uth."* 
 
 Bishop Hoadly is still more in point. He says : — " The 
 partaking of the Lord's Supper is not a duty of itself, or a 
 duty apparent to us from the nature of things, but a duty made 
 such to Christians l)y the jjosifive institution of Jesus Christ. 
 All positive duties, or duties made such by institution alone, 
 depend entirely on the will and declaration of the person who 
 histitutes or ordains them with respect to the real design and 
 end of them, and consequently to the due manner of perform- 
 ing them. For there being no other foundation for them with 
 regard to us, but the will of the institutor, this will must, of 
 necessity, be our sole direction, both as to our understanding 
 tlieir true mtent, and practising them accordingly ; because we 
 can have no other direction in this sort of duties, unless we 
 will liave recourse to mere invention, which makes them our 
 own institutions, and not the institutions of those who first 
 appointed them. It is plain, therefore, that the nature, the 
 design, and the due manner of the Ijord's Supper, must, of 
 necessity, depend on what Jesus Christ, who instituted it, has 
 said about it."t 
 
 As an institution brought into existence by positive law, 
 the observance of which is enjoined as a proof of our love, 
 the words of the statute which exacts the communion are the 
 only rule of obedience. This is a sufficient rule ; and if it 
 were otherwise, we could not arrive at any knowledge of our 
 
 * Commun. witli God, part 2, ch. 5, p. 169. 
 t Works, vol. 3, p. 845, &c. 
 
INSPIRED STATl.TES. 27 
 
 duty respecting it by absh'art or analogical reasoning, becaii.-e 
 such reasoning does not apply to tliis class of laws. It' any 
 tiling is dedncted from it, or added to it, this at once makes 
 it, in the language of Bishop Hoadly, our own, and not the 
 institution of Jesus Christ. 
 
 These views of the question before us are not without tlie 
 amplest support from the word of God. Respecting the ritual 
 as well as other services of the Old Testament, Jehovah has 
 said : — " Ye shall not add unto the word which I command 
 yon, neither shall ye diminish aught from it ; that ye may 
 keep the commandments of the Lord your God, which I com- 
 mand you."* This law is frequently, and in various fonns, 
 repeated to the children of Israel ; and by the prophets they 
 are often upbraided for their v/ant of conscientious and literal 
 compliance. By Malachi the Lord says to them: — "Even 
 from tlie days of your fathers ye are gone away from m.ine 
 ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I 
 will reuirn unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said — 
 Wherein shall we return?"! That equal stress is laid by 
 Jehovah on a similar conformity to the ritual commands in the 
 New Testament is abundantly evident. To John the Baptist 
 Christ said — " Thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteous- 
 ness ;"± and to his disciples — " If ye love me, keep my com- 
 mandments."§ The apostle, referring to the same subject, 
 thus addresses the Corinthians — " Now I praise you, brethren, 
 that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances 
 as I delivered them to you."l| At the close of the inspired 
 canon, as if, by his parting words, solemnly to impress every 
 heart v/ith the importance of the admonition, Christ empha- 
 tically says — " If any man shall add unto these things, God 
 shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book/' 
 
 * Deut. iv. 8. t Mai. iii. 7. t Matt. iii. 15. 
 
 ^ John xiv. 15. 11 1 Cor. xi. 2. 
 
28 INSPIRED STATUTES. 
 
 Tliese passages selected, almost at random, from the mul- 
 titude with which the holy word abounds, together with the 
 admitted nature and obligations of positive laws, most amply 
 establish the great truth, that to his commandments we, as 
 Christians, are under the most solemn obligations to conform, 
 without addition, diminution or change. Let us now apply 
 the deductions at which we have arrived, to tlie subject gene- 
 rally, and particularly to our duty with regard to the divinely 
 appomted terms of communion. 
 
 They are obviously susceptible of a general application. 
 A church, for example, is a voluntary association.* No one 
 enters it, on Baptist principles, but by the free and unbiassed 
 consent of his own will. When he has done so, or in the 
 act itself, he is not at hberty to give influence to any motive, 
 or to be guided by any laws other than those revealed and 
 approbated by Jehovah. The same remarks are true even 
 of civil society in all its forms. Men are at liberty to choose 
 whether they will live in solitude or in company with others. 
 If they detennine upon the latter alternative, as God has pre- 
 scribed the principles upon which the association shall be 
 formed, they dare not enter it in contravention of his enact- 
 ments. They may not do so, for instance, on the principle 
 that a majority may control the consciences of the minority, 
 or interfere with the rights and duties of parents and children, 
 or of husbands and wives. For these facts, besides the 'law 
 of God on the subject, there are most substantial reasons. 
 The former would despoil men of their character as moral 
 agents ; and the latter would remove the responsibility from 
 the only persons who will feel its weight, and who, therefore, 
 ■jxe likely, with fidehty, to perform the duties involved in these 
 relations. 
 
 * See Dr. Wayland's Extent of Human Responsibility, pp. 128, &c., 
 some of whose sentiments I have copied. 
 
RIGHTS OF ClIUKCH MEMBERS. 29 
 
 The right of admission to membership m the church is 
 estabUshed, in any specified case, by the proof that the can- 
 didate is conformed in heart and in Ufe to the requirements 
 of tlie Gospel. Such a man cannot be withheld from all the 
 ordinances and privileges of the church, provided he receive 
 tliem as they are enjoined. And while he continues to ob- 
 serve tlie divine rule, he is entided to enjoy them. He is 
 under law to God, no other is obligatory, or admissible. 
 When we form, with our fellow Christians, the ecclesiastical 
 tie, we promise merely to obey Christ, and while we do this, 
 as we have never pledged ourselves to obey the commands 
 of each other, every man is as free of his brother, as his bro- 
 ther is of him. We are bound to obey Christ, and no one 
 else. Such is the only rational exposition of true chrislian 
 liberty. The church has no authority as a body to make 
 laws for us, nor can she enforce any, but the laws of Christ. 
 We have never sun-endered to her such right. An attempt 
 to exercise it, therefore, to say nothuig of its despotism, would 
 be a violation of the spirit of religion, and a manifest infrac- 
 tion of the statutes of Jesus Christ already recited. No man, 
 whatever may be the dignity of his office ; nor company of 
 men, however large, or wise, or sincerely desirous to do good, 
 can change any tiling which Jesus Christ has appointed, ab- 
 solve our obligations to the least of his commandments, or 
 make biiuhng any thing he has not required. The church has 
 no such power, and consequently can neither exercise it her- 
 self, nor delegate it to others. 
 
 These inductions apply to all ecclesiastical bodies of every 
 description, district associations, general associations, councils, 
 state and church conventions, and every other. Each of 
 tliese, like a single church, is a society of which Christ is m 
 fact, if not confessedly, the head, and sole Legislator. None 
 of them have, consequendy, any more authority in thia cha- 
 
 ij* 
 
30 ECCLESIASTICAL BODIES. 
 
 racter tlian they would ha^'e in the separate churches of 
 \vhich they are composed. The powers not bestowed by 
 Jesus Christ are withheld for wise and benevolent purposes, 
 their exercise is, therefore, prohibited. No legislative powers 
 are granted by him to any church, or combination of 
 churches, or individual, or body of ministers, or any otlier 
 -.issociation whatever. If not, they are clearly prohibited. 
 God has, indeed, in his word, nowhere more emphatically 
 cnjomed obedience to his laws, than he has interdicted the 
 exercise by us in any conceivable capacity of all such powers 
 for any purpose imaginable. It is treason against high Hea- 
 ven to presume that any object the Gospel proposes to accom- 
 plish, cannot best be secured by the means which Christ has 
 himself appointed. We may be asked what poAver then is 
 granted, and whether we would fetter the church, and leave 
 her fast bound in inextricable ti'ammels ? I answer, executive 
 only; and this is sufficient for all desirable purposes. Our 
 duty is to obey, not to command, and only when we are 
 found in conformity to this principle are we happy and useful. 
 We regard a knowledge and belief of these doctrines the 
 more important, because there is really no stable medium 
 between them and all the absurdities of popery. Suppose 
 we surrender these fundamental truths, and allow that the 
 church, or the ministry, either in person, or by their repre- 
 sentatives, or in any other manner, may make laws^ binding 
 on the consciences of men, or modify, change, or dispense 
 with any estabhshed by Messiah, where do we find ourselves ? 
 All the hoiTors of poper)'' are at once in view. The whole 
 hideous superstructure of that corrupt church finds a license 
 and support in the assumption that she has the power to rule 
 men by her enactments as a legislative body, in faith and 
 practice. Grant this, and all the requisite ability is conveyed, 
 and if it is not now, it may soon, with impunity, be exercised 
 
NECESSARY GUARDS. 3i 
 
 The principle is tlie same, whether adopted by Papists or 
 Protestants. " If my conscience is to be bound by my fellow- 
 men," says Dr. Wayland, " it matters not whether these men 
 be a conclave of bishops and carchnals, or whether they be 
 my brethren whom I meet every day, and with whom I sit 
 down around the same communion table. My brethren will, 
 I doubt not, use their usurped authority more mildly, but this 
 alters not the fact that the authority is usurped, nor does it 
 offer any ^larantee that it may not, in the end, be as op- 
 pressive as the other." 
 
 I designed, hov^^ever, to make of the doctrine under con- 
 sideration, more especially, a particular application to the case 
 in hand. 
 
 If the obligations of the divine law are imperative, and the 
 declarations of the word of God are what we have represented 
 them to be, and it is hardly possible we can be mistaken, it 
 follows that no exigencies or circumstances can exist, which 
 will authorize us to dispense with any quaUfications to mem- 
 bership in the church which Christ has required ; to adopt 
 any terms of communion he has not established ; or to 
 demand of a candidate any thing which he has not demanded. 
 I am aware that numerous and most specious reasons are 
 often pleaded for a violation of these principles. It is con- 
 tended that in this manner the church may be defended from 
 encroachments, her doctrines be preserved pure, and many 
 important and useful designs be gready facilitated. But is it 
 possible that such can l>e the case? The opinion is dis- 
 honorable to Christ, and essentially popish. When its practice 
 has been attempted, as it often has, although for a time the 
 results have appeared to favor the accomplishment of the 
 objects proposed, they have ultimately proved themselves to 
 be evils a hundi'ed fold more enormous than those they were 
 intended to remedy. What has Christ hmiself made the 
 
32 POINTS OF DANGER. 
 
 terms of communion ? This is the only inquiry permitted, 
 and to it the Gospel affords a plain and definite reply. If 
 what we wish to enjoin is not commanded by him, we dare 
 not require it; if it is, we dispense with it at our peril. 
 " What thing soever I command you," says Jeliovali, 
 " observe to do it. - Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminisli 
 from it." Christ is the sole Legislator. No one may make 
 laws but himself. It is his church, not ours. Our designs 
 may be benevolent, our purposes honest, and our objects 
 good ; but the powers of which we speak are his alone, and 
 we have no more right to assume them for a good object, 
 than we have to accomplish purposes known to be evil. 
 
 The department of the Gospel, however, in which even 
 intelligent and sincere Christians are most liable to infringe 
 upon the doctrines now established, is that wherein the great 
 Lawgiver has enjoined upon his people only a particular 
 temper of mind, the motives to excite which he has suggested, 
 but has not specified the outward manner of its manifestation. 
 It may be asked whether, in such cases, the church may not 
 adopt RULES for the guidance of her members, such as she 
 may think wise and salutary ? I answer, unhesitatingly, in 
 the negative. Where Christ has made no laws, we are at 
 liberty to allow none. He, for example, has ordered me to 
 be temperate, to love the souls of my fellow sinners, and to 
 do good to all men. These the church may and ought to 
 require. If I violate the laws of temperance she is under 
 obligations to debar my approach to the holy table. But she 
 has no authority, by way of enforcing more effectually the 
 duty in question, or on any other pretence, to oblige me to 
 join a temperance society ; nor, if I think proper to adopt 
 this method of manifesting my sense of obligation, dare she 
 prohibit me from exercising my inherent riglit to act in the 
 case according to my convictions of duty. The church may 
 
BENEVOLENT SOCIETIES. 33 
 
 assure me ihat if I do not love tlie souk of men I cannot 
 enjoy her fellowship, because it is impossible that he wlio 
 does not cherish this spirit can be a disciple of the Redeemer. 
 But she is not permitted to prescribe to me, as the manner 
 of evincing the required disposition, that I shall join a benevo- 
 lent society — Missionaiy, Education, Biljle, or any other. 
 Nor, if I think proper to select this method of manifesting my 
 love, has she any right, such as is exercised by the New 
 'J'est churches of the South-west, to enact a prohibition, and 
 make obechence to her order a condition of my approach to 
 the Lord's table. Such a transaction is, as we have seen, 
 essentially popish, and cannot, if persisted in, but be attended 
 with the most disastrous consequences. It is a departure 
 from the plain path in which Christ has commanded us to 
 walk, and may lead we know not whither. As a precedent 
 it will justify all the enormities which have been exercised by 
 the Roman see, and with which the world has been cursed 
 for a thousand years. It is, in fact, the same thing in naiTOW 
 circumstances, and upon a small scale, and nothing is wanting 
 but the secular sword for its enforcement, to enstamp upon it 
 the same character of atrocity and blood. If, by sordid 
 selfishness, I show myself destitute of love to God and the 
 souls of men, the church ought to withdraw from me her 
 fellowship. But to do so because I clioose to exercise my 
 discretion as to the mode of manifesting my christian spirit, 
 while I evince that I do possess the required temper of heart, 
 is to dispense with the laws of Christ, and assume the right 
 to institute other tenns of communion than those which he 
 has appointed, a usurpation of authority, and a violation of 
 the divine injunctions, against which it is the duty of every 
 sincere Christian to enter his immediate and most solemn 
 protest. 
 
 The truth of the proposition is, I ti'ust, rendered without 
 
34 CHRISTIAN LIBERTY. 
 
 further argument sufficiently apparent, that we are not at 
 Uberty to admit any terms of communion but those estabhshod 
 by Jesus Christ himself, the only Lawgiver of his people. 
 We have now considered briefly, the definition of communion, 
 stated our ol^iject, and seen the various opinions which have 
 prevailed, in regard to it, defined our own position, illusn-ated 
 the nature of positive laws, which is the code that governs 
 the sacrament, recited inspired commands, precepts and 
 admonitions, requiring undeviating obedience on the part of 
 the people of God, shown that Christ has established all the 
 laws we are at liberty, under any circumstances, to recognize, 
 that, in his word, they, are so plain and obvious as readily to 
 be understood by every inquirer, that his church is obliged 
 faithfully to conform to them in every respect, and that we 
 are not permitted to change, or dispense Avith any of them, or 
 to add to their number. Of these conclusions we have made 
 a general and a particular application, illustrated the awful 
 consequences of departing from the principles we advocate, 
 and have seen that they bear with all their force upon the 
 terms of communion as established by Christ, requiring us to 
 receive those enjoined by him, and to repudiate all others, 
 from whatever quarter, or authority, they may have been 
 derived. From these conclusions no Baptist, who deserves 
 the name, will, I am assured, dissent. And to admit their 
 correctness, what Christian of any church can hesitate, who 
 has adopted the immortal maxim of Chilling-worth, so often 
 avowed in theory and violated in practice, and which deserves 
 to be written in letters of gold upon every sanctuary in which 
 man bows in the worship of his Maker : — " The Bible, the 
 Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants." *• 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE SCRIPTURAL TEipiS OF COMMUNION AT THE LORd's 
 TABLE DESIGNATED AND PROVED. 
 
 Repentance, faith, and baptism are terms of communion — English 
 authors — Hudson River Association circular — The apostolic com- 
 mission is the law of communion — The order of the sacraments — • 
 Their order in the primitive Churches — Emblematical representa- 
 tions — Inspired injunctions regarding the perpetuity of primitive 
 order — By whom the sacraments are to be administered — How 
 received — Conclusion. 
 
 What are the Scriptural tenns of communion ? To this 
 inquiry it is not, I think, difficult to furnish a satisfactory- 
 reply. I answer, and to sustain this proposition is the object 
 of the present chapter, that they are repentance, faith, and 
 baptism. Between our own and the several Protestant 
 Pedobaptist denominations, there is, except, perhaps, our 
 Methodist brethren, who admit "seekers" to the Lord's 
 table, as " a means of gi'ace," in some sort, an agreement on 
 this subject. I say in some sort, because, it may be, we 
 totally disagi-ee as to what faith, repentance, and baptism are, 
 yet they require exercises and acts to which they give these 
 names. With these explanations I remark, that however it 
 may have formerly been, when infant communion was prac- 
 tised, we all now concur in maintaining that the candidate, to 
 quahfy him for the sacred supper, must, at least, be a sincere 
 penitent, must believe himself regenerated, that he must not 
 have forfeited his claims by immorality since his profession, 
 nor by falling into heresy, and that he must have been 
 baptized. 
 
 35 
 
36 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 The principal works on botli sides of the question, M'hether 
 baptism is required as a preUminary to the Lord's Supper, 
 befi^nning with that of the .pious John Bunyan, entitled, 
 " Water baptism not a term of communion," and extending 
 down to our own times, have been carefully re-examined, 
 and their arguments will be reviewediin the proper place, as 
 much at length as the brevity of this volume will permit. 
 After comparing the deductions of tliem all wdlh the word of 
 God on the subject, I am, if possible, still more fully con- 
 vinced that my original conclusions are correct. The Hudson 
 River Association, in a circular written by Rev. Dr. Cone, of 
 New York, has presented the true exposition of the doctrine 
 in question. " 'I'he children of God," says that Association, 
 " are bound to give thanks always to their heavenly Father, 
 because he hath chosen them, from the beginning, to salva- 
 tion, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the 
 ti'uth, whereunto they are called by the Gospel ; and then, 
 as hvely stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priest- 
 hood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by 
 Jesus Christ ; and to manifest their attachment to the laws, 
 docti'ines, and ordinances once delivered unto the saints. If 
 the primitive churches received only such as professed to be 
 born of God, and gave evidence that they were begotten again 
 unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the 
 dead, we sliould imitate their example ; and if there come unto 
 us any, and bring not this doctrine, we are commanded not to 
 receive them into our houses, neither to bid them God speed ; 
 for he that biddeth them God speed is partaker of their evil 
 deeds : and how can Ave more fully do this than to receive 
 them to our communion? All candidates, therefore, for 
 communion or membership, must give evidence that they 
 are born again. This is the first Scriptural term of commu- 
 nion ;" and the second is, that they shall have entered the 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE COMMTSSTON. 37 
 
 clnircli by baptism. " Should this fundamental principle 
 ever be abandoned, I hesitate not to believe the fine gold will 
 become dim, die glory will depart from us, and the vengeance 
 of him wlio walketh in the midst of tlie golden candlesticks 
 may be fearfully appreliendod." 
 
 The inspired law regidating the preliminaries of the com- 
 munion, is the commission of the aposdcs. On tliis point 
 the lamented Judd, in his truly learned and triumphant 
 Review of Stuart,* jusdy remarks: "The Saviour," in 
 tliis statute, requires " his ministers to go into all nations, 
 and preach the Gospel, liaptizing those who believe, with the 
 promise that he will be wi;h them, to aid and bless them, till 
 the end of the world. As long, then, as it is the duty of 
 ministers to preach, and of siiuiers to believe, so long it will 
 be the duty of believers to be baptized. In other words, 
 while tlie economy of grace is continued, that is, to the end 
 of the world, baptism must be the appropriate badge of the 
 Christian profession. So likewise the communion is enjoined 
 on the church till the second coming of Christ." In reladon 
 to die divine injunction instituting the sacrament itself, Paul 
 gives us the following account : " I have received of the Lord 
 that which I also dehvered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, 
 the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread, and 
 when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said — Take ; 
 eat ; this is my body which is broken for you. 'iliis do in 
 remembrance of me. After die same manner, also, he took 
 the cup, when he had supped, saying — This cup is the New 
 Testament in my blood. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, 
 in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this bread, and 
 di-ink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come:'^^ 
 
 * P. 120. To whom I ffladly acknowledse my indebtedness on this 
 part of the subject, and whose lau^uage I shall tretiueutly employ. 
 t 1 Cor. xi. 23—26. 
 
 4 
 
38 TF.RMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 The whole inquiry to be decided in this argument is, 
 whether the several duties commanded in the apostolic com- 
 mission are, as we have intimated, to be observed in the order 
 in which they were enjoined by Christ — first, to hear the 
 Gospel, then to believe, afterwards to be baptized, and finally 
 to partake of the Lord's supper ; or are they left to be regu- 
 lated by the convenience or inclination of the disciples. The 
 former conclusion is maintained by us, and in which we 
 have, substantially, the concurrence of most of the Pedobap- 
 tist world ; the latter is defended by our opponents, consisting 
 principally of open communion Baptists. Of this class of 
 polemical writers, incomparably the most learned and vigorous 
 is the late Rev. Robert Hall, of England. He remarks — 
 *' It has been inferred, too hastily, in my opinion, that we are 
 bound to abstain from their communion" — that of unbaptized 
 persons-—" whatever judgment we may form of their sincerity 
 and piety. Baptism, it is alleged, is, under all possible 
 circumstances, an indispensable term of communion; and, 
 however highly we may esteem many of our Pedobaptist 
 brethren, yet, as we cannot but deem them unbaptized, we 
 must, of necessity, consider them as unqualified for an 
 approach to the Lord's table. It is evident that this reason- 
 ing rests entirely on the assumption that baptism is, invariably, 
 a necessary condition of communion — an opinion which it is 
 not surprising the Baptists should have embraced, since it has 
 long passed current in the Christian world, and been received 
 by nearly all denominations of Christians."* His own con- 
 clusions he states in another place — in the following terms : 
 *' It remains to be considered whether there is any peculiar 
 connection between the two ordinances of baptism and the 
 Lord's supper, either in the natiu-e of things, or by divine 
 appointment, so as to render it improper to administer ttio 
 
 * Worki, vol. ii. p. 212. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE COSiyUSHlOS. 39 
 
 one without the other. That there is no natural connection 
 is obvious. They were instituted at different times, and for 
 diflerent 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 former is the act 
 of an individual, tlie latter of a society. The words which 
 contam our warrant for the celebration of the eucharist, con- 
 vey no allusion to baptism whatever ; those which prescribe 
 baptism carry no anticipative reference to the eucharist. To 
 all appearance the rites in question rest upon independent 
 grounds. But perhaps there is a special connection between 
 the two, arising from divine uppointmenf. If this be the 
 case, it will be easy to point it out. Rarely, if ever, are they 
 mentioned together, and on no occasion is it asserted, or 
 msinuated, tliat die validity of the sacrament depends on the 
 previous observance of the baptismal ceremony."* 
 
 1 pause not now to consider the discrepancies of these 
 opinions of the learned gentleman, such as that baptism is 
 a mode, and not the mode of professing our faith ; that the 
 Lord's supper is an ordinance, not of an individual, but of a 
 church, and therefore baptism is not a condition of its recep- 
 tion, as if persons could be lawfully in the church without 
 baptism ; and several others. These and many more of a 
 similar character we shall examine when we come to reply 
 to the objections which have been made to our deductions. 
 The exposition of Mr. Baxter, is much more Christian-like, 
 natural, and evidendy correct : " This paramount law of the 
 great Institutor, the commission, is not like some occasional 
 historical mention of baptism, but is the very command of 
 Christ, and purposely expresseth their several works, in their 
 several places and order. Their first task is, by teaching, to 
 make disciples, wliich Mark calls believers. The second 
 
 * Vol. ii. pp. 218, 219. 
 
40 TERMS OP COMMUNION. 
 
 work is to baptize them. The third work is to teach them 
 all other things which are, afterwards, to be learned in the 
 school of Christ. To contemn this order, conthiues Mr. 
 Baxter, " is to renounce all rules of order, for where," he 
 asks, "can we expect to find it, if not here?"* That this 
 order is divinely prescribed we propose now to prove, by 
 the apostolic commission itself, by the example of the 
 apostles, and by the design of the two institutions. 
 
 That the order indicated is divinely prescrilDcd, is proved, 
 in the first place, by the tenor of the apostolic commission 
 itself. 
 
 " Go ye, therefore," said Messiah, " and teach all nations, 
 baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
 and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things, 
 whatsoever I have commanded you ; and, lo, I am with you 
 alway, even unto die end of the world. "t This is " the 
 STATUTE, emphatically, of the Christian Church." It 
 is one complete whole, of Avhich the distinct laws command- 
 ing the propagation of the gospel, the exercise of faith, the 
 duty of baptism, and visible church fellowship, form so many 
 separate sections ; each occupying its appointed, and there- 
 fore, unchangeable place. The disposition with regard to 
 time in which these duties were first brought into being, and 
 which is here preserved, although not wholly irrelevant to 
 the argument, is still of comparatively inferior importance ; 
 but the arrangement in which they are commanded to be 
 observed, is that in which they must be obeyed. A disregard 
 of this divinely ordained series is most clearly a violation of 
 tlie law. The order of the duties is as imperative as the 
 duties themselves. The command requires us, in tlie first 
 place, to preach the gospel, and, in the second place, to bap- 
 
 * Disp. of Right to Sacra, pp. 91, 149, 150. 
 t Mark xvi. 15, 16 : Mat. xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM THE COMMISSION. 41 
 
 tize those who beheve. Now, instead of conforming in tliis 
 respect, suppose we baptize men first, and afterwards preach 
 to them the gospel, in expectation tliat they will believe, is 
 not the law violated ? Unquestionably. But in what does 
 the infraction consist ? Simply in reversing the order of our 
 obedience. It is just as obvious, therefore, that we are 
 restricted in the administi-ation of baptism to a certain defmite 
 class of subjects, as that we are authorized to baptize at all ; 
 for on no rational principle of interpretation can the commis- 
 sion be supposed to warrant the baptism of any, but disciples, 
 or such as are taught and believe the gospel. If this exposi- 
 tion is con-ect, and I presume all Baptists will admit it, since 
 if it is not, baptism may be administered to any one, although 
 not a believer, it is equally clear, for precisely the same 
 reason, that baptism is an indispensable preliminary to that 
 part of church fellowship of which the Lord's supper is con- 
 sidered as an expression. If the former part of our Lord's 
 commission is authoritative in the order of its successive 
 injunctions as well as in the injunctions themselves, and this 
 is fully conceded, the latter part of it certainly cannot be less 
 so. Is it possible the order of it can be binding in one part, 
 and discretionary in another ! If baptism is not necessary to 
 communion, faith, for the same reason, is not necessary to 
 baptism ; for it may certainly be as conclusively maintained 
 that the second duty must precede the third as that the first 
 must precede the second. We cannot but believe that teach- 
 ing and faith are intentionally enjoined as the first duty. 
 Baptism, therefore, is intentionally enjoined as the second, 
 and visible church fellowship as the third duty ; and we are 
 no more at liberty to invert the order in the latter case than 
 we are in the former. We maintain, then, with exactly the 
 same authority and conclusiveness that baptism should pre- 
 cede cOiUmunion, as that faiih should precede baptism. The 
 4^ 
 
42 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 two positions must stand or fall together. If we abandon tlie 
 one it is impossible for us to adhere to the other. The same 
 argiuTients, consequently, which make us open communion- 
 ists make us at the same time Pedobaptists. But if we per- 
 severe in our principles, and baptize believers only, then it 
 follows Jhat to administer the Lord's supper to unbaptized 
 persons, even if they are undoubtedly converted, is a manifest 
 violation of the rule by which Christ governs his churches. 
 Without obedience to the law we have no right to expect the 
 fulfilment of the promise. Christ may bless, with his pre- 
 sence and favor, those who disregard his injunctions, but he 
 has not covenanted to do so. Ths statute has not been 
 abrogated, or changed. He designed that it should be obli- 
 gatoiy as long as the promise attached to it remains in force- 
 till he shall come the second time, without sin, unto salvation. 
 That the order in which the several duties are enjoined in 
 the commission is divinely prescribed, is thus conclusively 
 established by the commission itself. The same fact is, in 
 the second place, plainly confirmed by the example of the 
 apostles. 
 
 These holy men were instructed to go, ultimately, into 
 all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, but, 
 for the present, they were required to wait at Jersusilem 
 until they should receive power from on high — the rcquwite 
 endowments by the Spirit of God — to qualify them for the 
 great work of organizing among our fallen race the kingdom 
 of the Redeemer. Fifty days from the resun-ection of Christ 
 had elapsed. The day of Pentecost was fully come. It was 
 the glorious Christian sabbath. The followers of Messiah 
 were assembled together " with one accord." Thus in ex- 
 pectation of the fulfilment of the Father's promise, they ^vc.r8 
 associated. " Suddenly there came a sound from hea^fn, 
 as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the place wlrJ-re 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC EXAMPLE. 43 
 
 tliey were sitting. And there appeared unto tliem cloven 
 ton^'-Lies, like as of lire, and it sal upon each of them. And 
 they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak 
 with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance." A 
 flood of light now burst upon their minds. No longer were 
 tlicy in darkness m relation to any christian duty, 'i'he pro- 
 phetic Scriptures, as well as the doctrines they had received 
 from the hps of the Saviour liimself, shone forth in all their 
 transparent brilhancy, and they, for the first time, fully and 
 con-ectly, conceived the spiritual and heavenly nature of die 
 kingdom of Jesus Christ. The fame of these occurrences 
 went out, and a numerous crowd were soon attracted to die 
 place of the apostohc assembly. The apostles now pro- 
 ceeded in their great work by an address to the muldtude, in 
 relation to die mission, the character, death, resurrection, and 
 ascension of Christ ; the reasonableness and necessity of 
 faith in him for salvation; and the awM consequences of 
 despising and rejecting his Gospel. " The " word of truth 
 and soberness," simple indeed in its aiTangement and enun- 
 ciation, but might}^ in power, was carried with overwhehning 
 conviction to the consciences of the auditors. They at once 
 perceived their danger, the enormity of their guilt, and cried 
 out, in the anguish of their hearts :— " Men and brethren, 
 what shall we do ?" To this anxious inquiry Peter responded 
 — " Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name 
 of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye sliall re- 
 ceive the gift of the Holy Ghost ; for the promise is unto you, 
 and to your children, and to all that are afar off, e^^en as many 
 as the Lord our God shaU call."* The number of the peni- 
 tents became exceedingly great. They recoived die divine 
 declaration of mercy with joy, came forward unhesitatingly, 
 and boldly avowed themselves converts to die Christian faidi. 
 * Acts ii. 38, &c. 
 
44 
 
 TERMS OF COMMUNION 
 
 The apostles were now called upon to give a practical ex- 
 position of their sense of the duties confided to them by the 
 supreme Legislator. Examine their procedure, and it will be 
 found to accord precisely with the order in which they are 
 prescribed in the commission — " Then they that gladly re- 
 ceived his word were baptized." They first, preached; 
 secondly, the people believed; thirdly, they that believed 
 were baptized ; and, fourthly, they that gladly received the 
 word and were baptized, " continued steadfastly in the apos- 
 tles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, 
 and in prayers" — those acts expressive, generally, of church- 
 fellowship, and, particularly, of sacramental communion. 
 
 Thus was formed and ordered, upon the model drawn by 
 Christ himself, the first Gospel church. The aposdes who 
 executed his commands were under the special inspiration 
 and guidance of the Holy Spirit. That the organization of 
 this church was faultless, all will admit. Nor Avill any one 
 hesitate to concede that it v/as designed as "a pattern" for 
 all succeeding churches, to the end of time. Its essential 
 features were, accordingly, preserved, uniformly, in all the 
 churches gathered by the apostles, at sul^sequent periods, and 
 in diiTerent countries. Not to admit this fact would involve 
 an absurdity too glaring for^ny man of judgment to tolerate, 
 besides a direct contradicdon of several positive declarations 
 contained in the Gospel history. "For this cause," says 
 Paul to the Corinthians, " I have sent unto you Timotlieus, 
 who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall 
 bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, 
 as I teach every lohere in all the churches.'^* All the 
 aposdes spoke and taught the same things. They never 
 countermanded in one church what they had ordered and 
 taught in anodier. At Jerusalem they required faith as a 
 
 * 1 Coi. iv. 17. 
 
THE ARGUMENT FROM APOSTOLIC TEACHING. 45 
 
 preliminary to baptism, and baptism as a condition to the 
 Lord's supper, or "breaking of bread." The order they 
 estabUshed in one church was the order of every churcli ; 
 therefore, faith and baptism were, in primitive times, invari- 
 ably, teniis of communion. No instance can be found in which 
 any person was received into the church, and admitted to enjoy 
 its privileges, without them. 
 
 After havmg heard, and believed the inspired message, 
 baptism was, without an exception, required as the very first 
 act of obedience, and the Lord's supper was always subse- 
 quent. This was the course pursued, as we have seen, at 
 Pentecost. When the people of Samaria believed Pliilip 
 preaching the things concernhig the kingdom of God, they 
 were not received immediately to the communion, but were 
 first baptized. When Paul, being opposed by the Jews at 
 Corinth, tiu-ned to the Gentiles, we are told :— " Many of the 
 Cormthians, hearing beheved, and were baptized." And when 
 the Holy Spirit fell on the Gentile converts at Cesarea, evincing 
 to the apostles that God had accepted them, " he commanded 
 them to be baptized." In no instance, until they had sub- 
 mitted to baptism, were the disciples ever permitted to ap- 
 proach the holy table. We could multiply examples, but it 
 is unnecessary. Search the New Testament in every part ; 
 scrutinize the history of individuals, and of churches ; and as 
 far as the events of the times have been written, the series 
 of the commission, without a doubt, go\'erned all their acts. 
 Faith is uniformly antecedent to baptism, and baptism is as 
 constandy required as a preparation for the communion. In 
 the constitution and discipline of all the apostolic churches, 
 tliis rule is never violated. Can we see all these facts, and 
 fail to be convinced.as to the mterpretation of the commission 
 received by the first, and inspired teachers of rehgion ? Their 
 recorded example proves that diey conducted all their adminis- 
 
46 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 trations with scnipulous regard to the order of its several le- 
 quirements. Faith and baptism, therefore, are ordained by 
 Jehovah, unchangeably, as terms of communion, and their 
 position, with respect to each other disiincdy fixed, cannot be 
 changed witliout a flagrant violation of the law of God. 
 
 That the order in which the several christian duties are 
 enjoined in the apostohc commission is divinely prescribed 
 is, in the third place, proved by the design of the two insti- 
 tutions. 
 
 The sacraments of the Gospel are emblematical represen- 
 tations of great and glorious facts. It may be said of them 
 that they constantly hold up to our view the torch of truth, 
 that we may avoid error in our knowledge and practice of the 
 word of life. It will be our wisdom not to permit " the light 
 that is in them to become darkness !" If we do, " how gi'eat," 
 perplexing, and melancholy " will be that darkness !" " The 
 true doctrine of the Trinity," says Dr. Watcrland, " and the 
 atonement of Christ, have been kept up in the Christian church 
 by the institudons of baptism and the Lord's supper, more 
 than by any other means whatever." Dr. Ryland observes 
 — " These last legacies of a dying Saviour, these pledges of 
 his eternal and immutable love, ought to be received with the 
 greatest reverence, and the warmest gratitude. And as they 
 relate direcdy to the death of the great Redeemer, which is 
 an event the most interesting, an action the most grand and 
 noble, that ever appeared in the world, they ought to be held 
 in the highest esteem, and performed with the utmost solem- 
 nity. Of these institutions bapdsm calls for our first regard, 
 as it is appoin ted to be first performed. ' ' * The venerable Booth 
 speaks more direcdy with reference to their metaphorical bear- 
 ings : — " In submitdng to bapdsm we have an emljlem of our 
 union and communion wiUi Jesus Christ, as our great repre- 
 
 * Beaut}' of Social Religion^ p. 10. 
 
THE nF.STCN' OF TUT. ORDTXAXrE. 47 
 
 sentnlive, in his Joatli, burial and resiirrection, at the siame 
 lime declaring that we ' reckon ourselves to be dead indeed 
 inito sin, but alive unto God,' and that it is our desire aa well 
 as our duty to live devoted to him. And as in baptism we 
 profess to have received spiritl^al life, so in communicating at 
 the Lord's table we have the emblems of that heavenly food 
 by which we live, by which we grow, and in virtue of 
 which we hope to live for ever. And as we are bom of 
 God but once, so we are baptized but once ; but as our spi- 
 ritual life is maintained by the continued agency of divine 
 gi'ace, and the comforts of it enjoyed by the habitual exercise 
 of faith in a dying Redeemer, so it is our duty and privilege 
 frequently to receive the holy supper."* Baptism, therefore, 
 being the emblem of the reception of life, and the eucharist 
 of the food by which we are sustained, the metaphorical re- 
 presentation requires that baptism should always be received 
 as a condition of communion, since we must necessarily live 
 before we are capable of receiving the food by which life is 
 supported. "Baptism," says Mr. Judd, in his late able Re- 
 view, " as an emblematical representation of death and resur- 
 rection, exhibits the believer as a new creature ; as born 
 again, and becoming a child of God, and a subject of Christ's 
 kingdom. Of course the proper position of the initiating ordi- 
 nance is at the commencement of this new relation. The 
 nature and fitness of things seem to require that it should be 
 the first public act after believing. On the other hand, the 
 Lord's supper is a communion, or social commemoration of 
 the Saviour's dying love, and, therefore, necessarily a church 
 ordinance, and not obligatory on the Christian until he has 
 entered by baptism into a church relation." 
 
 We are now, I trust, prepared to say confidently that the 
 order of proceeding for which we contend agrees widi the 
 
 * Booth's Vindication in Bap. Manual. 
 
48 TF.HMS or rOMMUMOlV. 
 
 time in which the two instllntions were appointed, with the 
 words of the commission in wliich the observation of them 
 was enjoined, witli the invariable practice of the inspired 
 apostles and primitive churches, and with the emblematical 
 representations of the two ordinances. It is, therefore, die 
 order of ti'uth, the order of propriety, the order of duty, tlie 
 order divinely prescribed, the desecration of which cannot 
 take place without a palpable breach of the fundamental statute 
 enacted by God for the government of his people until the 
 end of the world. It was doubtless with respect to their 
 relative positions as well as to the institutions themselves, and 
 other duties, that the apostles were so particular as we find 
 them to have been, in admonishing the churches. The ordi- 
 nances delivered to them they were assured had been, by 
 themselves, received, immediately, from the Lord Jesus, 
 They insisted, therefore, that they should conform to them, 
 they commanded their obedience in these particulars, they 
 cautioned them of neglect, and exhorted them to perseverance. 
 They had a right to do this, because they were ministers and 
 stewards of the mysteries of God. Guided by the spirit of 
 truth, they ga\^e, also, in all these particulars, an infallible 
 expression ol the mind of Christ." " I have," say they, 
 " received of tlie Lord Jesus that which also I delivered unto 
 you."* " Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ. 
 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember — /.i^i^vy^-'ds, 
 follow — me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I dcU- 
 vered them to you."t " I beseech you, be ye followers of 
 me. For this cause I have sent unto you Timotheus, my 
 beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into 
 remembrance of my ways, which be in Christ, as I teach 
 every where, in every church. "J " Brethren, be ye followers 
 of me, and mark them which walk so, as ye have us for an 
 
 * 1 Cor. xi. 23. ' t Cor. xi. 1,2. t 1 Cor. iv. 16, 17. 
 
APOSTOLIC EXHORTATIONS. 49 
 
 ensamplc."* " Thougli I ])c absent in the flesh, yet am I 
 with you in the spirit, joying, and beholding your order, and 
 the steadfastness of your faith in Christ. As ye have there- 
 fore received Christ Jesus tlie Lord, so walk ye him ; rooted, 
 and built up in him, and established in the faith as ye have 
 been taught, abounding therein, with thanksgiving. Beware, 
 lest any man spoil you through pliilosophy and vain deceit, 
 after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, 
 and not after Christ.'"! " Therefore, my brediren, stand fast, 
 and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether 
 by word, or our episde."."!: Such are the inspired exhorta- 
 tions and mstructions addressed to us regarding our unde- 
 viating observance, in its primitive form, and with all its pre- 
 liminaries and concomitants, of tliis sacred institution. 
 
 That the eucharist ought to be administered by a regularly 
 authorized minister of the Gospel, I take it for gi-anted, is ad- 
 mitted by all, for the same reasons that apply in the adminis- 
 ti'ation of baptism. 
 
 I have several times alluded to the fact that this ordinance 
 is to be received by us in a social capacity. I shall not stop 
 now to elaborate tliis proposition. If any one is disposed to 
 assume the opposite, he will, of course, feel himself obliged 
 to sustain his hypothesis by the requisite testimony. 
 
 It is now sufficiently evident that the sul^ject before us is 
 not an exception to the general rule, that whatever is import- 
 ant either m doctrinal ti'uth, or practical religion, is plainly 
 tauglit in the word of God. The law, particularly, by which 
 the constitution of the Christian church is fixed, the qualifica- 
 tions of its members denned, and the order of its sacraments, 
 and worship, established, is written as with a sunbeam in 
 letters of light, and therefore so plain and unequivocal that it 
 
 * Phil. iii. 17. + Col. ii. 5— S. \ 2 Tliess. ii. IJ 
 
 5 
 
50 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 is difficult to conceive how it could, by an honest mind, be 
 overlooked, or misinterpreted. 
 
 I liave thus placed, as I believe, beyond the reach of suc- 
 cessful controversy, the facts I proposed to establish, respect- 
 ing the terms of communion, as prescribed by Jesus Clirist. 
 If tlie Christian commission be authoritative ; if apostolic ad- 
 ministration and example are to be regarded ; if the nature 
 and design of the two ordinances are Avorthy of notice in 
 setding their relative positions ; if the positive and repeated 
 injunctions, and exhortations of the apostles to the churches, 
 to keep the ordinances as they delivered them from the hands 
 of Christ to the care and observance of his people, be obliga- 
 tory — and if all these may be unheeded by us, what can be 
 presented with sufficient force to claim, our attention ? — then 
 must it be admitted that repentance, faith, and baptism, are 
 indispensable qualihcations for the admission of a candidate to 
 the fellowsliip of the church, and that they are the divinely 
 ordained, and unchangeable terms of Sacramental Com' 
 mwiion. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE inSTORY OF OPINIONS REGARDING THE TERMS OF COM 
 MUNION SHOWS THAT OUR DOCTRINES HAVE BEEN UNIVER- 
 SALLY EMBRACED ON THE SUBJECT. 
 
 Baptism has been held in all ages, and by all denominations, to be a 
 divinely prescribed preliminary to the Lord's Supper— Dr. Priestley's 
 opinions — Testimonies in proof, Justin Martyr, Jerome, Austin, Bede, 
 Theophylact, Bonaventure, Frid. Spanheim, Lord Chancellor King, 
 Austin-s rule— Modern divines— Wall, Doddridge, Manton, Dwight, 
 all the Catechisms and Confessions of Faith — Robert Hall. * 
 
 The history of opinions regarding the divinely ordained 
 temis of communion at the Lord's table, affords the amplest 
 testimony that the conclusions to which we have been con- 
 ducted on the subject are not wholly noA'el, nor peculiar to 
 our cliiirch. Baptism especially, and in purer communities 
 and later times, repentance and faith also, have been held as 
 indispensable prerequisites, the first, certainly, by all sects 
 and denominations in all ages and m eveiy country, from the 
 days of the aposdes, until within the last two hundred years, 
 during which period some of our own people have seceded ; 
 and their opinions, set fordi so ably and eloquently by Bun- 
 yan and Hall, have been embraced, probably, by a few indi- 
 viduals of Pedobaptist churches. " Before the grand Romish 
 apostacy," says Mr. Booth, "in the very depths of that 
 apostucy, and since the Reformation, both at home and abroad, 
 tJie general practice has been to receive none but baptized 
 pcpoons to communion at the Lord's table." I may add that, 
 during a thousand years, as I shall hereafter take occasion 
 
 51 
 
52 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 fully to demonstrate, the practice was as invariable to admit, 
 and require to come to the communion, all, whether infants 
 or others, who had received the baptismal rite. And, indeed, 
 many of those who have the sagacity to perceive tlie incon- 
 sistency of abandoning Pedo-communion, while they adhere 
 to Pedo-baptism, still insist that as baptism is required as a 
 preliminary to communion, so ail those who receive it are 
 entitled and should be immediately brought to the eucharist. 
 T)\\ Priestley may be refen-ed to as an example of this class 
 of writers. "No objections," says he, "can be made to 
 tJiis custom" — of giving the Lord's supper to infants — "but 
 what may, with equal force, be made to the custom of bap- 
 tizing infants." He adds, " Infant communion is, to this 
 day, the practice of the Greek churches, of the Russians, the 
 Armenians, the Maronites, the Copts, the Assyrians, and, 
 probably, all other Oriental churches."* 
 
 In regard, however, to the object especially before us, I 
 shall sustain the proposition that baptism has ever been re- 
 garded as an essential preparation for the Lord's Supper by 
 competent proof. I begin with the earliest Christian fathers, 
 and shall quote at least one accredited writer in every cen- 
 tury, or in every two or three centuries, down to our times, 
 and ihus make the truth of the statement I have submitted no 
 longer a matter of doubt.f 
 
 Justin Martyr wrote about A. D. 150, not more than fifty 
 years after the death of the apostle John. On the subject 
 before us, he says : " This food is called by us the eucharist, 
 of which it is not la^vfid for any to partake, but such as be- 
 liove the things that are taught by us to be tme, and have 
 been baptized.":}: 
 
 * Address to Protest. Dissent., po. 28, 31. 
 t Vide Booth's Vindication, Part first. 
 X Apol. 2, p. 102, apud Suicerus. 
 
INCONSISTEN'CY. 53 
 
 Jerome, confessedly one among the most learned and can* 
 did of the fathers, wrote about A. D. 400. He says, " Cate- 
 chumen! communicare non possunt, etc. — Catechumens can- 
 not communicate at die Lord's table, being unbaptized."* 
 
 Austin, who wrote about A. D. 500, maintaining the abso- 
 lute necessity of administering the Lord's supper to infants, 
 remarks : " Quod nisi baptizati, etc. — Of which certainly they 
 cannot partake unless they are baprized."t 
 
 Bede, who flourished about A. D. 700, nan-ates the fol- 
 lowing incident: " Three young men, princes of the Eastern 
 Saxons, seeing a bishop administer the sacred supper, desired 
 to partake of it as their royal father had done. To whom 
 the bishop rephed- — If you will be baptized in the salutary 
 fountain as your father was, you may also partake of the 
 Lord's supper as he did ; but if you despise the former, ye 
 cannot, in any wise, receive the latter."| 
 
 Theophylact, in a work, published about A. D. 1100, 
 remarks : " No unbaptized person partakes of the Lord's 
 supper. "§ 
 
 Bona venture, who wrote about 1200, observes, "Faith, 
 indeed, is necessary" to all the sacraments, but especially to 
 the reception of tfaptism, because baptism is the first among 
 the sacraments, and the door to the sacraments. "|| 
 
 Frid. Spanheim, who flourished about A. D. 1600, on the 
 point before us asserts — " Subjecta ad eucharistiam, etc. — 
 None but baptized persons are admitted to the Lord's table. "^ 
 
 Lord Chancellor Kuig wrote about A. D. 1700. He says 
 — " Baptism was always precedent to the Lord's supper ; 
 and none (ever) were admitted to receive the eucharist till 
 
 * In cap, 6, Epist. 2 ad Corinth. t Epist. ad Bonaf, Epist. 106. 
 
 t Hist. Eccl. Lib. 2, cap. 5, p. 63. ^ Cap. 4, Mat. p. S3. 
 
 II Apud Forbcsium, Instruct. Historic. Thcol. lib. 10, cap. 4, sect. 9. 
 IT Hist. Christian Col. G23. 
 
 5^ 
 
54 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 they were baptized. This is so obvious to cveiy man that it 
 needs no proof."* 
 
 These authorities, which I ha^^e selected from hundreds in 
 my possession,' all of which speak invariably the same lan- 
 ^lage, sufficiently deraonsti'ate what has been the doctrine of 
 the church in' every age. They are quoted simply as wit- 
 nesses of a matter of fact, in which capacity they are 
 undoubtedly competent. I am not unapprised that there 
 were people of several classes, who, in the second and third 
 centuries, made profession of the name of Christ, and who 
 wholly rejected baptism. They, however, generally ti-eated 
 the Lord's supper in the same manner. A learned writer 
 says of them all, that, generally, they entirely renounced the 
 Scriptures as the word of God.t Nor am I ignorant of the 
 fact, that in the latter end of the sixteenth century, Socinus,. 
 and his followers, considered the reception of baptism as 
 indifferent, except in reference to such as are converted from 
 Judaism, paganism, or mahommedanism.J But none of the 
 denominations which prevail in our country, and it is evident 
 that all the respectable writers we have quoted, and others of 
 all evangelical churches concur with them, would admit that 
 eitlier these ancient corrupters of Christianity, or the more 
 modern Socinians, are worthy to be called churches of Christ. 
 
 Let us now apply to the decision of this matter the cele- 
 brated rule of Austin,§ and surely if any doctrine or practice 
 can, by this means, be proved apostolical, that now under 
 consideration has claims to the distincdon not inferior to any 
 other, however firmly established. Dr. Wall ti-anslates it 
 thus : — " What the whole church, through all the world, does 
 
 * Enquiry, part 2, p. 44. 
 
 t Suicerus Thesaurus, Eub. voce Ban-rto-fta. 
 
 X Wall's Hist. &c. part 2. ch. 5. 
 
 % De baptisuio contra Doiia. Lib, 4, cap. 23, 
 
THE HISTORY OF OPINION. 55 
 
 practice, and yet it has not been instituted by councils, but 
 has been always been in use, is, with very good reason, 
 supposed to have been settled by authority of the apostles." 
 That it is necessary to receive baptism prior to the Lord's 
 supper is "what the whole church, through all the world," 
 has ever " practised ;" it " never was instituted by councils ;" 
 it has, also, " been always in use." " With A'ery good 
 reason," therefore, is it " supposed to have been settled by 
 authority of the apostles." 
 
 It is now determined tliat we have the concurrence of all 
 Christians in every age and country in the conclusion that 
 baptism, at least, must always be receivt.d before the eucharist. 
 To prove the other part of our proposition — that we have, in 
 this doctrine, at the present day, the unanimous suffrage as 
 such, of all the prevaihng denominations — I will briefly refer 
 to a few of their most popular writers of recent date. 
 
 Dr. Wall avers — " No church ever gave the communion 
 to any persons before they were baptized. Among all the 
 absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that 
 any person should partake of the communion before they 
 were baptized."* 
 
 Dr. Manton obser^-es — " None but baptized persons have 
 a right to the Lord's table."! 
 
 Dr. Doddridge says — "It is certain that Christians in 
 general, have always been spoken of, by the most ancient 
 fathers, as baptized persons. And it is also certain that, as 
 far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity extends, no 
 unbaptized person received the Lord's supper."± 
 
 To these decisive testimonies, we will only add that of 
 Dr. Dwight, who thus expresses his opinion — "It is an 
 
 * Hist. Inf. Bap. part 2. ch. 9, 
 t Sapp. to Morn. Exer. p. 199.. 
 t Lectures, p. 510. 
 
5G 
 
 TFRMS OF COMMUNIO.V. 
 
 iRflisponsablc qualification for Uiis ordinance, tliat the candi- 
 date for communion be a member of the visible church of 
 Christ, in full staiidiuir. Hy this I intend, that he should Ihj 
 a person of piety ; that he should have made a public profes- 
 sion of reliipon ; and tliat he should have been baptized."* 
 
 Perfectly confonnablc to these views of tlie subject are the 
 catechisms, and confessions of faith, that have been published 
 at any time, or by any denomination of Christi^ms. If the 
 mention of tlie positive institiitions of Christ is not wholly 
 omitted, baptism is not only idways spoken of first, but gene- 
 rally in sucli a way, if that fact is not declared in so many 
 words, as intimates that it is regarded as a prerequisite to the 
 Lord's t;ible. 
 
 'i'o botli these solemn appointments our Pedobaptist 
 breiliren attach an importance which we can by no means 
 admit, and administer them for purposes we cannot appro- 
 bale. To these considerations we shall pay our respects in 
 due time. Still we do not derive the less pleasure from the 
 fact that they agree with us, and ever have done so, in holding 
 baptism as one of the terms of communion, and, as we have 
 before remarked, in purer communities, and later limes, that 
 they geneniUy also require both repentance and faith. So 
 Christ ordered in the commission ; so the aposdes adminis- 
 tered the discipline of tbe gospel, and admonished all subse- 
 quent churches to fi)llow their example ; and so have Cliristiiuis 
 conducted the liouse of God in all ages. What more need 
 we say firmly to settle tlie principles of our faitli ? In relation 
 to so plain a truUi it is difiicult involuntarily to err. 
 
 The influence of these facts and consjilerations, when they 
 come to be understood, which must be the case at no distant 
 day, for the people cannot always l)e kept in ignonmce of 
 them, will be felt by tlie denominations around us. " The 
 
 • Sysl. Tlicol. Serm. IGO. 
 
ARGUMENTUM AD IIOMIXEM. 57 
 
 wide circulation," says Mr. Hall, "of the doclriiio," tliat 
 baptism must, agreeably to the law of Christ, be received 
 anterior to the Lord's supper, " ought, undoubtedly, to ha^'e 
 the effect of softenuig the severity of censure on that conduct 
 which is its necessary result; such is that of the great 
 majority of the Baptists in confining their communion to 
 those whom they deem baptized : wherein they act precisely 
 on the same principle with all other Christians, who assume 
 it for granted that baptism is an essential preliminary to the 
 reception of the sacrament. The point on which they differ 
 is the nature of that institution, which we place in immersion, 
 and of which we suppose rational and accountable agents the 
 only fit subjects; this opinion, combined with the other 
 generally received one, that none are entidod to receive the 
 euchaiist but such as have been baptized, leads inevitably to 
 the practice which seems so singular, and gives so much 
 offence — tlie restricting of communion to our own denomxina- 
 tion. Let it be admitted tliat baptism is, under all circum- 
 stances, a necessary condition of church-fellowship, and it is 
 hnpossible for the Baptists to act otherwise. The recollection 
 of this may suffice to rebut the ridicule and silence the clamor 
 of those who loudly condemn the Baptists for a proceeding 
 v/hich, w^ere they but to change their opinion on the subject 
 of baptism, their own principles w^ould compel them to 
 adopt. They both" — Baptists and Pedobaptists — " concur 
 in a common principle, from which the practice deemed so 
 offensive is the necessary result. Considered as an argu- 
 mcntmn ad homi?icm, or an appeal to the avowed principles 
 of our opponents, this reasoning may be sufficient to shield 
 us fi'om that severity of reproach to which we are often 
 expased, nor ought we to be censured for acting upon a 
 system, Avhich is sanctioned by our accusers."* 
 
 * Works, vol. 2. pp. 213, 213. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 
 
 REPLY TO SUCH OBJECTIONS TO OUR DOCTRINES ON THIS 
 SUBJECT AS ARE DERIVED FROM THE PRESUMED NATURE 
 
 OF John's baptism. 
 
 Opinions of Mr. Hall, that John's was not Christian baptism, and 
 therefore that the original communicants had never been baptized— 
 His own reasons refute his conclusions — Contrast of John's with 
 Christ's baptism — Their respective formularies — Christ's desire to 
 conceal his own character — If, on account of the objects designed to 
 be represented, John's was not Christian baptism, for the same 
 reasons the first administration of the Lord's Supper was not Chris- 
 tian — The same correspondence in spiritual import — Difference in 
 the ordinances before and after the death of Christ — Arguments as 
 to time — Mistake in regard to the source of John's commission — 
 Comparison between the baptism of John, and of the disciples of 
 Christ. 
 
 The principles we have established in the two preceding 
 chapters, venerable, and almost universally received, as we 
 have seen that they are ; enjoined by divine law, of which 
 there has been, and can be no repeal, do not appear, to tv\^o 
 classes of logicians, to be satisfactorily sustained. Open 
 communion Baptists, and some individuals among Pedobap- 
 tists, who have been persuaded to adopt their opinions, 
 dissent. Their reasons it is proper for us now to examine, 
 and dispassionately determine whether they are sufficient ta 
 invalidate in any respect, or even to weaken the force of our 
 conclusions. All the olijections Avorthy of our attention may 
 be arranged under three general heads ; the presumed character 
 of die dispensation of John the Baptist ; the inspired principles 
 
 5S 
 
joiix s BAP rrsTvi. 59 
 
 of cliristian toleration ; an J the spiritival nature of tlie Gospel 
 of Christ. Besides these it will be necessary to notice only 
 a few of a miscellaneous description. A consideration of the 
 first I have mentioned will occupy the present chapter. 
 
 By Hir die most able and successful individual, as a writer 
 and divine, who has ever employed his pen in opposition to 
 restricted communion, is, as I have before remarked, tlie late 
 Rev. Robert Hall, of Bristol. His work on the subject is 
 ample, and elaborate. Enjoying the unlimited confidence of 
 all parties, he may be considered as speaking by autliority. 
 As such we shall regard him. And as we shall have occa- 
 sion to scrutinize his opinions somewhat at large, and may 
 sometimes be tempted to do so with severity, I owe it to 
 myself to say of him, in advance, as he does,* of the excellent 
 Booth : " I tmst the free strictures which it will be necessary 
 to maJie on his performance, will not be deemed inconsistent 
 with sincere veneration for his character, which I should be 
 sorry to see ti-eated with any disrespect." This learned and 
 eloquent man presents his proposition on the question now 
 to be decided in the following terms — "It is demonstrable 
 that John's baptism was a separate institution from that 
 which was enacted after our Lord's resurrection," therefore, 
 " the Lord's supper is evidently anterior to baptism, and the 
 original communicants consisted, entirely, of such as had not 
 receiv*d that ordinance. "t 
 
 The apostles were not baptized, in the Christian sense of 
 that term, at the time the Lord's supper was instituted ! 
 Indeed, as they unquestionably did not afterwards perform 
 that duty, they never did receive christian baptism at all ! 
 The great mass of the first Christians, all, in truth, baptized 
 by John and the disciples, v/ere in the same predicament ! 
 
 * Worl<!^, vol. i. p. 295. 
 
 t Works, vol. ii. pp. 218, 219. 
 
CO TERMS OF COM^WUNIOIS:. 
 
 Tlif^se nre certainly strange opinions. They appear to us 
 palpably preposterous. Eat for the respectability of their 
 origin they would not be thought worthy of notice, or to need 
 a single w^ord of refutation. What, we would ask, are the 
 reasons which induced Mr. Hall, and weigh with his admirers, 
 on account of which they imagine that " John's baptism was a 
 separate institution from that enacted after our Lord's resur- 
 rection?" He explains himself* — " The rite performed by 
 John is rarely, if ever, introduced without some explanatory 
 phrase or epidiet. It is sometimes denominated the baptism 
 of John ; on other occasions, baptism in water, and the bap- 
 tism of repentance ; but it is never expressed in the absolute 
 form in whi(Ji the mention of Christian baptism invariably 
 occurs."! 
 
 These are the first reasons. We have considered them 
 carefully, and find ourselves utterly incapable of perceiving 
 their applicability or force. Let all the facts enumerated be 
 admitted, and what then ? Do diey prove any thing ? Tliey 
 only show that John's baptism was a new rite, introduced by 
 him. That such a new institution should be designated by 
 certain descriptive phrases and epithets, is perfectly natural. 
 It could not be otherwise. But we go further than this. 
 The suggestion places in our hands the means of additional 
 confirmation of our own conclusions, and enables us to tm-n 
 the arguments of our opponents against themselves. The 
 true inquiry is this — In speaking of baptism in water subse- 
 quent to the pentecost, do the inspired writers ever append 
 to it any " explanatory phrase or epithet," by which to dis- 
 tinguish it from John's baptism ? Had it been different, they 
 would doubtless have so represented it ; but if they do, I 
 have never been able to make the discovery. The natural 
 
 * I quote the New York edition, 1S35. 
 t Works, vol. i. p. 3G9. 
 
John's daptism. ^-^ 
 
 inference, therefore, is, not that Christian baptism is " a disihiet 
 msutuuon" from tl.at of Jolm, bnt, with whatever eircumstan- 
 dal differences, essentially the same baptism. The ar<n,ment 
 rehed upon to prove it a different baptism^ consequently, 
 turns actually in our favor. It shows tltat if the baptism 
 admmistered after the ascension of our Lord had been, in any 
 imporlant respect, dissimilar to that administered previously 
 some distmctive appellation would have been inlrodueed i,,' 
 conneciion with it to apprise us of that fact. No such intima- 
 tion IS given. We cannot, therefore, avoid the conclusion, tliat 
 Jonn s baptism and Christian baptism are identical, and that 
 tliey form but the "one baptism" of the gospel eeonomy.* 
 
 A second reason for the conclusion that "John's baptism 
 was a separate institution from that which was enacted after 
 our Lord's resuiieefion," and that as a consequence the 
 Lord s supper was anterior, and of which, when tlie first 
 communicants' partook, they had never received Christian 
 baptism, is thus stated by the distinguished writer already 
 quoted-" Joh.1 himself contrast his baptism with a superior 
 one which he directs his hearers to expect at the hands of 
 the Messiah."t 
 
 _ Upon tliis matter but a single remark is necessary. John 
 It IS true, does contrast his own with a superior baptism' 
 w.iicli he directs his hearers to expect at the hands of tlie 
 Alessiah. But who is so ignorant of die word of God as not 
 to know, especially as John himself declares it, that this ban- 
 teui to be expected from Christ was not of water but of the 
 Holy Ghost-" I, indeed, baptize you with water, but he shall 
 baptize you with the Holy Ghost." From this, therefore, 
 
 t Works, vol. i. p. 8G9. 
 
 6 
 
62 TERIMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 Christian baptism, all will admit, is as distinct as that of Jolin 
 could possibly be. Where then is the applical)ility of the 
 argut7i*>nt to the question at issue ? It has evidently none 
 wliatever. 
 
 A third reason for the conclusion that John's was not 
 Christian baptism, is expressed in these terms — " It is univer- 
 sally admitted that Christian baptism has been invariably 
 administered 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. — 
 'I'he historian informs us that, while John was baptizing, — 
 all men were musing in their hearts whether he were tlie 
 Christ, or not. — But how is it possible, let me ask, tliat such 
 a question should arise among tlie people on the supposilion 
 that John baptized in his name ?"* 
 
 This view of the matter is radically defective, primarily, 
 because it misstates the matters of fact. Tliat Christian 
 baptism was invariably administered, verbally., in the name 
 of Jesus, is not true. Its formulary was — " In tlie name of 
 the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Gliost." Neither 
 was John's baptism administered, verbally, in tlie name of 
 Jesus ; but in the name of Messias, or tlie Christ — him who 
 was to come — o f^x^fifvo^. " John— says Paul — \'erily bap- 
 tized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, 
 tliat they should believe on him who should come after him— 
 that is, on Christ Jesus." These distinctions are vital to a 
 just conception of the argimient. As the name of Jesus of 
 Nazareth did not occur in the form of words used by Joiiii' 
 
 * Works, vol. i, p. 370. 
 
JOHN S BAP ILSM. 
 
 in the rite he admiuiytered, ample room is furnished for the 
 musings and inquiries of the people, whether the son of 
 Zecliariah was really the Christ, the expected deliverer. 
 Thus also is fully exposed the fallacy of tlie objection 
 founded on the supposed solicitude of the Redeemer to 
 conceal, for the present, his character and office. These 
 corrections as to the facts, remove instantly every difficulty. 
 It is very evident that John, and after him the disciples of 
 the Saviour, might have baptized the whole Jewish nation 
 in the name of Measias, or the Christ, and had they not 
 Aiformed the people, at the same time, that Jesus was the 
 person entitled to be so considered, they would not, in a single 
 instance, have violated the caution he manifested to avoid an 
 indiscriminate avo^val of his claims to Messialiship. 
 
 Having noticed one so material an error, in these postu- 
 lates of our opponents, we are naturally inclined to suspect 
 the presence of others. To ascertain their existence let us 
 inquire whether i\lr. Hall does not lay too much stress on 
 the desire of Christ for concealment. It will not be denied 
 that, during his personal ministry, our Lord commissioned, 
 not only tlie twelve apostles, but also the seventy disciples, 
 to perform, and that too in his name, acts calculated to 
 excite at least as much attention, and to give fully as much 
 publicity to whatever the action revealed, as could have 
 attended baptism in his name. They were authorized, and 
 instructed, to heal the sick, to cast out devils, to preach 
 the gospel, and to perforai miracles, in his name. They 
 went forth in obedience to the order of their appointment, 
 and having fuffilled their mission, they returned exulting in 
 their success. "Lord — exclaimed they — even the devils 
 are subject to us through thy 7?«?ne." A public act of tho 
 nature of any of these, in the name of Jesus, was, undoubtedly, 
 equivalent to a public confession that he was the Messiah. 
 
G4 TEUMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 These facts are inconsistent with the notion that he eitlicr 
 felt or exercised all the caution which the objection now 
 under consideration assumes. The secret which it is ima- 
 gined he was so solicitous to conceal, was as fully exposed by 
 these exorcisms, sermons, and miracles, as it could possibly 
 have been by baptizing in his name. Why, then, should 
 he command the former, while he prohibited the latter? 
 The whole matter, therefore, amounts simply to this. Our 
 Lord studiously avoided an indiscriminate verbal declara- 
 tion that he was the Christ, because he did not wish his 
 claims to rest on this ground. But he never shrunk from 
 such an avowal of his Messiahship as might be inferred 
 from his works. To these, indeed, he constantly appealed 
 as testimon)' of his objects and character. And can the 
 required proof be hence gathered that .John's was not 
 the Christian baptism ? No more than it can be estabhshed 
 by the same evidence that Peter had no right by v/hich he 
 could be recognized, as the aj)ostle of the circumcision. 
 
 A fourth reason is offered which it is imagined invalidates 
 the Christian character of John's baptism. It is the admitted 
 fact that the events baptism was designed to commemorate 
 liad not yet occurred — the death, burial, resurrection, and 
 ascension, of Jesus Christ. He, it is alleged, directed the 
 minds of his hearers to the Messiah to come, or the Christ 
 who is coming. And as an event cannot be commemorated 
 until after it has transpired, the baptism, which is defective 
 in this respect, cannot be Christian baptism. 
 
 Admit all this to be true — which, by the way, could not 
 have been long so, for John soon pointed to him in person, 
 and said to the listening multitude — " Behold the hnmh of 
 God, who taketh away die sin of the world" — ^iDut admit it 
 All to be true, and, therefore, that his baptism could not, like 
 tlie Cliristian, have represented events which had yet occur- 
 
John's baptism. 65 
 
 red, or trutlis already fully delivered, and what advantage 
 would our opponents tliereby secure to their cause ? We 
 can perceive none whatever. The Lord's sapper as adminis- 
 tered previous to the death of Christ is in^'olved in precisely 
 the same predicament. If this kind of armament estabhshes 
 an essential difference between that baptism which was ad- 
 ministered before, and that wliich was administered after, the 
 passion of our Lord, it must, by the same process, also estab- 
 lish a difference equally essential between the Lord's supper 
 before and after the same event. When first administered, 
 the transactions it was designed to celebrate had not taken 
 place. Both the ordinances were alike prospective. So, 
 then, if the baptism was not Christian, neither, for the same 
 reason, was the eucharist Christian. If we must seek for the 
 genuine Christian institutions in the administrations subse- 
 quent to die resurrection, baptism was received in every case 
 before the Lord's supper, and no one approached the latter 
 who had not submitted to the former. It follows, therefore, 
 that so far as this objection is concerned, whatever may be 
 considered true as to the facts involved, our conclusions remain 
 equally firm and unshaken. 
 
 A fifth reason for tlie opinion that Jolm's was not the 
 Christian baptism is staled in the following language — " The 
 spiritual import of Christian baptism, as asserted by Paul, 
 transcends, incomparably, the measure of religious knowledge 
 possessed during the ministry of John. ' Know ye not,' is 
 his appeal to Christians, ' that so many of us as were baptized 
 into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death V What is 
 the meaning of the words ' baptized into his death?'' What- 
 ever 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 belief was so far from pos- 
 sessing the minds of his converts, that even the aposdes were 
 6* 
 
66 TEllMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 not only ignorant of that event, but impatient of its mention. 
 * As many of us,' says Paul, ' as were baptized into Jesus 
 Christ were baptized into his death ;' which is surely equi- 
 valent 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. There- 
 fore, they were not baptized into Christ."* 
 
 This argument, to perceive its want of conclusiveness, 
 needs but a moment's examination. Were it valid, it would, 
 like that we have just dismissed, recoil with a force equally 
 fatal in its effects against the Lord's supper as administered 
 before the death of Christ. To illustrate tliis remark let us 
 briefly test its powers. To say that the apostles comme- 
 mor cited an event before it occurred, is plainly a contradiction 
 in terms. But this is not all. 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 ''ye do show 
 the Lord^s death .^" Whatever else it comprehends, it un- 
 questionably includes the belief of his death. But at the first 
 celebration of the sacred supper this belief was so far from 
 possessing the minds even of the apostles, that tliey were not 
 only ignorant of that event, but impatient of its mention. 
 When Jesus was about to be taken in the garden, we find 
 Peter, the prince of their number, engaged in active combat, 
 sword in hand, to prevent that identical tragedy. " As often," 
 says Paul, " as ye eat tins bread and drink this cup, ye do 
 show the Lord's death ;" which is surely equivalent to say- 
 ing that those who did not thus show the liOrd's death, did 
 iiot p:u:t;ike of the Lord's supper. But the apostles at ils first 
 
 ♦Works, vol. i. pp. 371,372. 
 
BArnS.M BETORE AND AFTER CHKISt's DEATH, 67 
 
 celebration did not thus show their behef of the Lord's death. 
 Therefore, they did not partake of tlie Lord's supper. Thus 
 have we demonstrated that the same ar^nnent tliat proved 
 that the baptism of John and of the disciples, was not a Chris- 
 tian rite, and, therefore, that they were not baptized, estabUshes, 
 with the same decisiveness, tliat the Lord's supper they re- 
 ceived was not a Christian ordinance, and, therefore, that they 
 did not, until after the resurrection of Messiah, receive any 
 Christian sacrament whatever. If so, baptism still maintains 
 its priority, and the state of the case continues unchanged. 
 
 The thought will readily occur to the mind of every one 
 "that both tlie ordinances in question, previous to the death of 
 Christ were in some respects, though not essentially, different 
 from what they were afterwards. This dissimilarity con- 
 sisted, not in their spirit, object, or manner, but simply in the 
 amount of information possessed by those who received them. 
 The recipients of both were not aware of their full import, 
 because the events they recognized were still in the future. 
 But their knowledge was sufficient, for the time being, for all 
 practical purposes, and, therefore, their deficiency in this 
 respect was not such as to vitiate the validity of the divine 
 appointments. The period of v/hich we speak was the twi- 
 light, the early dawn of the Gospel day. The shadows of 
 night had not yet departed. A dimness and mystery en- 
 shrouded every event intended ultimately to illustrate and 
 endear the death of the Son of Man. Previously the church 
 had been totally oJDScured and mvisible. Baptism by .John 
 and the disciples of Christ, began to make ready a people 
 prepared for the Lord, and thus to ti'ace the great outlines 
 of the kingdom. The Lord's supper completed the sacred 
 work. The Church, when it was received, although it had 
 not assumed all its destined beautiful proportions, was ren- 
 dered fully visible. The hnperfections assignable to cue 
 
68 TERMS or COMMUNION. 
 
 sacrament, are equally characteristic of both. The recipients 
 of either could not realize the amazing transaction to which 
 tliey pointed. This was a glory not yet revealed. Shall 
 we, however, on this account, consign ihem to the darkness 
 of a preceding dispensation ? Rather shall we not recognize 
 them, although in the incipient stages of being, as the im- 
 pressive and affecting ordinances the full signification of 
 wliich the clear shining of the Gospel was soon gloriously 
 to discover. Whatever may be their destiny, the two sacra- 
 ments, as administered before the death of Christ, must most 
 evidently stand or fall together. But suppose Ave repudiate 
 them, what Avill be the consequence. If these, as they existed 
 during the personal ministry of our Lord, are taken away, 
 how, as we have no others to which we may refer, in teach- 
 ing men, as the commission prescribes, to observe all things, 
 whatsoever he had commanded them, will any one be able 
 to discover, and establish, a single duty peculiar to the fel- 
 lowship of the church of Christ ? 
 
 A sixth objection is introduced. " As the ministry of 
 John," says Mr. Hall, "commenced previously to that of 
 the Messiah, which succeeded his baptism, no rite celebrated 
 at that time, is entitled to a place among Christian sacra- 
 ments, since they did not commence \\i\k the Christian dis- 
 pensation, nor issue from the authority of Christ, as head of 
 the church."* 
 
 In this short sentence we have two distinct reasons for 
 dissent. It is proper for us to notice them separately. The 
 former is, that the jninistry of John did not commence with 
 the Gospel dispensation ; and the latter is, that John's bap- 
 tism did not proceed from the authority of Christ as head of 
 the church. Upon both we join issue, and plead that nei* 
 tlier is entitled to the consideration of a matter of fact. 
 
 * Works, vol. i. p. 372. 
 
John's administration not christian. GO 
 
 In relation to the former, is it true, allow me to ask, that 
 tlie ministry of John did not commence with the Gospel 
 dispensation ? I know it is insisted,* that this is impossi- 
 ble, for the reason that — " During our Lord's residence on 
 earth, until his resurrection, the kingdom of God is uniformly 
 represented as future, though near at hand." This, also, is 
 a mistake, as will be clearly seen, the moment we consult 
 tlie Evangelists on the subject. " If I cast out devils," 
 said our Lord on one occasion, and that too, long before his 
 resurrection, " by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of 
 God IS COME imto you.'''' And when the Pharisees in- 
 quired of him when the kingdom of God should come, he 
 replied in these terms : " The kingdom of God cometh not 
 with observation. Neither shall men say, lo here ! or lo 
 there ! for, behold, the kingdom of God is ivithin you,^^ 
 Nor is it possible to evade the force of the arguments thus 
 furnished by distinguishing between our Lord's personal 
 ministry, and the ministry of John ; smce Mark expressly 
 assures us that his coming was " In the beginning of the 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God."t 
 
 * Ut supra. 
 
 t The commencement of the narrative of INIark i. l,is thus translated 
 by Michaelis in his German New Testament: — " The beginning of the 
 Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was made by John, who baptized 
 in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance for the re- 
 mission of sins ; as it is written, &c." He adds : — " If the first sen- 
 tence — The beginning of the Gospel of, &c. was" — as some contend- 
 " used as a title only to the rest of the book, then it would have begun 
 with (1)5 ysyfartrai, which would be an unsuitable commence to any 
 narrative." In the correctness of this exposition the following writers, 
 as Biblical critics and scholars, were obliged to concur : Bishop Marsh 
 — Notes to Michaelis, vol. iii. part 2, p. 5. Archbishop Newcome — 
 Notes to the Harmony of the New Testament, p. 1. Lightfoot — ^\Vorlis, 
 fol. ed. 1684, vol. ii. p. 331. Doddridge — Family Expositor, vol. i. p. 
 93, 8vo, 1810. Markland — apud Elsley in loc. Whitby — Comm. in loc. 
 Grotius — Annotationes in V. et N. T. in Compendium deducliE a Sam. 
 
70 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 That llie ministry of John was within Uie Gospel dispen- 
 sation is plainly declared by Jesus Christ himself, in sujh 
 terms as to place the question beyond dispute. " From thrf 
 days of John the Baptist until now," said he, speaking v/f 
 his precursor during his imprisonment, " the kingdom c: 
 heaven suffereth violence." He doubtless had allusion iu 
 this remark to the eagerness with which the people receiveu 
 tlie doctrine, and pressed to join themselves to the disciples 
 of John. But if his ministry had not been within, or as it 
 really was, the commencement of " the kingdom of heaveii," 
 in the New Testament sense of that phrase, that is the Gos- 
 pel, or Christian dispensation, how could this kingdom, this 
 dispensation, this Gospel, which did not visibly exist, have 
 been said to suffer violence ? Evidently it could not. The 
 figurative descriptions of the Gospel kingdom are also equally 
 as much at war with the opinions of our opponents, as the 
 plain representations just noticed. By the Great Teacher 
 himself the kingdom, of God is compared to ^^ leaven hid iu 
 three measures of 'meal," which commences, and by slow, 
 and, at first, almost imperceptible degrees, performs its work 
 of fermentation until the whole mass is leavened. This 
 accords with the facts as they are understood by us. Com- 
 mencing with the preaching of John, and contiiuiing through 
 the personal ministry of the Saviour, the Gospel gradually 
 insinuated itself into the minds of the people, until ultimately 
 the most glorious results were achieved. It is also compared 
 to "a grain of mustard seed." At first the Gospel grew in 
 obscurity, and put forth its shoots imperceptibly to those 
 who were expecting some sudden and splendid display of the 
 
 Moody, 4to 1727. Kuinoel — ■Comment, in lib. N. T. liistoricos, vol. ii. 
 p, 11, and many others, who consider the passage but the first phrase 
 of a long sentence, and, consequently, not to be separated from the 
 context. Vide Towuacnd in loco. 
 
JOHNS ADMINISTRATION NOT CHRISTIAN. 71 
 
 power of Messiah. On the liypolhesis that the kingdom of 
 God, or tlie Gospel of Jesus ('hrist, commenced, agreeahly 
 to t]ie declaration of Mark, with the ministry of John, there 
 is a fitness in these resemblances — a thorough kcepiii<r be- 
 tween the comparisons and the reality. While, on the con- 
 trary, if we could suppose, with Mr. Hall, that the Cliristian 
 dispensation commenced v/ith the splendors of Pentecost, it 
 must have burst upon the world, in a moment, with over- 
 wlielming majesty. Nothing- in such a case would have been 
 less appropriate to illustrate it than hidden leaven working 
 its elfoct in secret, and the unobserved germination of the 
 smallest of seeds. 
 
 To reply to us that during our Lord's personal ministry 
 the kingdom of God is always represented as future, is to 
 assume what, as we have already seen, is not ti'ue. Tliat 
 it is occasionidlij so represented is admitted. But this will 
 not avail to turn aside our argument. It was in part future, 
 because not yet fully revealed. But does it, therefore, 
 follow that its commencement was in the future? Surely 
 not. 'I'o affirm this for such reasons, as our opponents do, 
 is as inconclusive as it would be to contend that we liave not 
 to this day witnessed its approach, because in our daily 
 aspirations to God we are instructed to say — " Thy kingdom 
 come." As the first rays of light which shoot forth from 
 the east, and struggle v/ith surrounding darkness, contain all 
 the incipient elements of the perfect day, so the glimmering 
 of the gospel which characterized the ministry of John, wers 
 the same elements which continued to increase in bright- 
 ness during the ministry of our Lord, and contained all die 
 essential properties which constituted the blazing splendor 
 of the ministiy of the Spirit. So far, therefore, is it fioui 
 being true, that the ministry of John did not commence with 
 tlio Gospel dispensation, it is rendered certain beyond a 
 
72 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 doubt, that it constituted of it a most important and interest- 
 ing part — its auspicious commencement, tiie springing dawn 
 of its visible existence. 
 
 The latter objection of the two now under consideration 
 is that " John's baptism did not issue from the authority of 
 Christ as head of the church." In reply, I remark, that the 
 proposition, although it carries with it a semblance of ti-uth, 
 cannot be supported. Tliat John received his commission 
 from Jesus, in person, no one pretends. But if Christ is 
 God, one with the Father, and inseparable from the Triune 
 Deity, and from whom, as Jehovah, John certainly did 
 receive his appointment, and by whom he was clothed with 
 authority, how can it be said that he did not receive his 
 commission from Christ as head of the church ? It cannot, 
 without either manifesting an obvious disposition to sophis- 
 ticate by the aid of unmeaning distinctions, or palpably 
 derogating from the character of Jesus Christ as the God of 
 his people. And suppose it could, without an indignity to 
 the Messiah, be proved that John was sent by the Fatlier, 
 independent of any concurrence of the Son, would this prove 
 that his baptism was not a Christian institution ? Apply 
 the same argument in other cases, and it is, in any, equally 
 appropriate, and the consequences would be most alarming. 
 John's baptism, it is true, would, on this principle, be 
 unchristianized, but the Gospel he preached would share the 
 same fate. Nor could the desolating process of it be aiTested 
 here. The baptism of our Lord himself, the miracles which 
 he wrought, and the Gospel vv^hich he preached, would all be 
 found in the same unchristianized category, because he too 
 as well as John received his commission from the Father. 
 Christ was not self-commissioned — self-sent— self-authorized. 
 Whence, then, did he receive his commission? By whom 
 was he sent? By what authority did he preacJi, and act? 
 
John's baptism. 73 
 
 1 abhor the idea of detracting in any way, even by implica- 
 tion, from the perfect, the essential divinity of Jesus Christ. 
 We cannot be suspected of doing so if we maintain that, as 
 the Messiah, liis authority was received from the same 
 source, and was of the same character, with that whi("h 
 appointed John to the office and duties which he fulfilled in 
 the Christian kingdom. 
 
 Let us still further illustrate this topic. The chief priests 
 and elders, as he was teaching in the temple, interrogated 
 our Lord in this language, " By what authority doest thou 
 these things ? And who gave thee this authority ?" Jesus 
 answered them — " I will ask you one thing, which, if you 
 tell me, I, also, will tell you by what authority I do these 
 things — The baptism of John — whence was it?" 'I'his 
 question evidently implies that the answer to his inquiry 
 would be an api)ropriate response to that which they had 
 propounded to him. If we need any additional testimony 
 to place the correctness of our conclusions on this subject 
 beyond a doubt, we have only to refer to our Lord's dis- 
 courses themselves. " I am come," said he, " in my Father's 
 name, and ye receive me not — I do nothing of myself; but 
 as my 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 hath sent me so send I you." On the 
 presumption that it is essential to a Christian ordinance that 
 it should be instituted by Christ in person, in distinction 
 from the Father, the works Jesus performed, as they con- 
 fessedly have not that sanction, are at once divested of their 
 Christian character. The Gospel which he preached was 
 not, as we have seen, the Christian doctrine ; the miracles 
 he wrought were not Christian miracles; the commands 
 which he issued were not Christian commands ! Yet that 
 the Gospel which our Saviour preaclied was the Christian 
 
 7 
 
74 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 (lof^trine ; that tlie miracles which he psrformoJ were Chris- 
 tian miracles ; and that the commands which he issued luere 
 Christian commands ; who will, for a moment, pretend to 
 deny? Why, then, deny that John's baptism was the 
 Christian baptism, merely because it is imagined he received 
 his commission, not from Jesus in person, but from the 
 Father, who is one and the same with Christ ! Nothing 
 can be more supremely preposterous. 
 
 But numerous instances of baptism, other than those 
 administered by John, occurred before the resuiTection of 
 Messiah; They were performed by the disciples — for Jesus, 
 be it recollected, made and baptized more converts than John. 
 These baptisms must have emanated from the personal 
 authority of Jesus Christ, and they all occurred, undeniably, 
 anterior to the institution of the sacred supper. The rite 
 administered by the twelve, and by the seventy, under the 
 direction of the gi-eat head of the church, was either John's 
 baptism, or it was Christian baptism. If it was not John's, 
 then it was certainly the Christian baptism ; if it was John's 
 baptism, then John's baptism issued from the personal 
 authority of Christ. In either case Christian baptism was 
 administered before the death of Christ, was an institution 
 prior to the eucharist, and had been received by all who were 
 admitted to the Lord's supper. 
 
 This argument need not, I think, be pursued further. 
 Enough has been said to show that the proposition, " that 
 John's baptism was a separate institution from that which 
 was enacted after our Lord's resurrection, that the Lord's 
 supper was anterior to baptism, and that the original com- 
 jnunicants consisted entirely of such as had not received that 
 ordinance," is an error, and cannot lie supported. 'J'liis we 
 have demonstrated by examining and illustrating the fallacy 
 of the reasoning by which the notion in question is attempted 
 
John's baptisai. 75 
 
 to be maintained. There are .also, on tlie other hand, proofs, 
 most ample and conclusive, that John's was in every essen- 
 tial particular the Christian baptism. To these we can, at 
 present, but very briefly allude. John's baptism, and that 
 of the disciples, were administered widiin the period of the 
 Christian dispensation, by the authority of Christ, in the 
 nanre of Christ, in the same mode, and to the same subject, 
 with that of Christ, and no person who had recei^-ed it, not- 
 withstanding the imperative command to give Christian 
 baptism to every believer, ever was, afterwards, rebaptized, 
 either at Pentecost, or subsequendy. In the absence of all 
 proof to the conti-ary, and w^e have seen that no counter 
 testimony can be produced, if these facts do not constitute 
 John's baptism the Christian baptism, we have not now^ and 
 never have had, any ordinance that deserves the name, or that 
 can claim to be regarded as Christian baptism. So palpably 
 evident, indeed, is this truth, that on another occasion,* Mr. 
 Hall himself acknowdedges, perhaps by accident, when under 
 the influence of his better judgment, that our conclusions are 
 just and legitimate. "The baptisms," said he, "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." We have abeady seen that the baptisms of the 
 disciples did unquestionably emanate from " the authority of 
 Christ as the head of the church." These baptisms, there- 
 fore, all belong to the Christian dispensation ; and, having 
 been performed in obedience to the Christian legislator, were 
 undeniably Christian baptisms. But it is aflirmed that 
 " these baptisms, in no respect, difl^er from John's." Con- 
 seqviendy, John's baptism and Christian baptism are identi- 
 cally the same baptism. This fact being now estabhshed, 
 
 * Terms of Com. Amer. ed. Works, vol. i. p. 362. 
 
76 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 one of the most formidable objections against our doctrine is 
 overthrown, and forever destroyed, and it remains true that 
 repentance towards God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and 
 baptism, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 tlie Holy Ghost, are invariably and indispensably, prelimina- 
 ries to sacramental communion. 
 
CHAPTER V. 
 
 RILPLY TO THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST OTJR DOCTRINE ON 
 SACRAMENTAL COMMUNION FOUNDED ON THE INSPIRED 
 PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN TOLERATION. 
 
 The proposition examined, that a change of circumstances justifies a 
 change of practice with regard to the ordinances — Inspired canons 
 of Christian toleration recited — They require forbearance with 
 things indifferent, but do not permit us to extend our fellowship to 
 errors which are subversive of the divine law. 
 
 The revealed principles which regulate sacramental com- 
 munion, as explained and estabUshed by us, cannot, it is 
 alleged, however strongly they may appear to be supported 
 by the word of God, be always obligatory, because they are 
 modified, to meet the different circumstances under which we 
 may, at any time, be placed, by the inspired canons of 
 Christian toleration. The general views illustrative of this 
 hypothesis are set forth in the following terms : " The 
 apostles, it is acknowledged," says Mr. Hall, "admitted 
 none to the Lord's supper but such as were previously bap- 
 tized ; but under what circumstances did they maintain that 
 course?"* Circumstances have now changed, and it is 
 insisted our practice ought also to change ! When the 
 apostles required baptism as one of the terms of communion, 
 we are told, " a mistake respecting the will of the supreme 
 Legislator on the subject was impossible." At present, 
 however, than such mistakes nothing is more common, or 
 innocent ; they have even become an " infirmity." " Con- 
 
 * Works, vol. ii. pp. 213, 214. 
 
/S TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 vince our Pedobaptist brethren," remarks this eloquent writer, 
 " thai it is their duty to be baptized in tlie metliod wliich we 
 approve, and they stand ready, many of them at least, we 
 cannot doubt, stand ready to perfonn it. Some of them"— 
 who fail to be convinced, are " illustrious examples of piety."* 
 That they are not baptizeil is rather their infirmity than their 
 fault ! " Shall we separate ourselves from the best of men" 
 because of such mistakes? We might, perhaps, inquire, 
 why Infinite Wisdom did not foresee this state of things, and 
 provide for it by refraining to place baptism in the attitude of 
 a qualification requisite to prepare us for an approach to the 
 sacred table ? It is replied, baptism was essential to com- 
 munion in the apostles' days, not because there was or is 
 "any possible connection between the two ordinances," but 
 because baptism was then essential to salvation. Now it 
 has ceased to be so. Only regeneration is essenfial to salva- 
 tion ; and that alone is necessary to communion which is 
 required to fit us for salvation. " I assert, that bapfism, in 
 the apostolic age, loas essential to salvafion."t But in these 
 degenerate "latter days, it is a mere rite,"J the reception or 
 rejection of which is of so little moment that it cannot, in any 
 way, affect even church fellowship, or be of the least conse- 
 quence as respects our title to all the privileges and innnu- 
 nities of the kingdom of Messiah ! "This reasoning," it is 
 added, " proceeds not on the principles of the innocence of 
 error in general, or of infant sprinkling in particular ;"§ but,|| 
 " We may with great propriety allege the spirit of the times, 
 the genius of the age," as a reason for overleaping all tlie 
 ancient barriers. 
 
 • Works, vol. ii. pp. 214, 215. 
 
 t Reply to Kinghorn, Works, vol. i. p. 416. 
 
 t Ut Supra, Works, vol. i. p. 417. 
 
 % Vol. i. p. 338. II Vol. ii. pp. 229, 230. 
 
CHRISTIAN TOLERATION. 79 
 
 Sucli are the reasons of Mr. Hall for free communion, and 
 that, in these quotations I have not misrepresented him, all 
 will at once perceive, who have ever carefully examined his 
 works. Can it be necessary, before our enlightened churches 
 and friends, seriously to argue such monstrous propositions ? 
 Are the practice and order of the apostles, established as they 
 are upon unchanging principles, no longer examples for us to 
 follow ! Are we so difTerendy associated from the primitive 
 disciples that we must not be governed by the laws which 
 directed their obedience, but resort to circumstances, the spirit 
 of the times, the genius of the age, as more proper, and safer 
 rules of action ! The sprmkhng of an infant by mistake^ and 
 tlie refusal to be baptized., commonly its consequence, — > 
 acts which, in the aposdes' days, would have damned the 
 perpetrator — are now innocent and familiar things, absolutely 
 sanctioned by Jehovah ; or at the worst, regarded only as 
 mirstakes, perhaps wjirmitles, because not particularly 
 averse to " the spirit of the times, the genius of the age T* 
 All is defended as at least harmless, and that too, not on the 
 ground of " the innocence of error in general, or of infant 
 sprinkling in particular," but of some imagined mysterious 
 " canons of Christian toleration !" To such latitudinarianism 
 as this — to such self-contradictions — what can we say ? Had 
 they been proposed by an ordinary man, or were they divest- 
 ed of their sparkling beauty of manner, brilliancy of metaphor, 
 and gloAving elegance of style, they would at once be con- 
 demned by every man of ordinary judgment, as a jumble of 
 nonsense, indicative alike of weakness and insincerity. 
 
 Such are the general principles of open communion. The 
 specific and particular arguments are more tangible. The 
 inspired laws of Christian toleration, which, it is alleged, 
 clearly include the subject of communion, and which are vio- 
 lated by excluding from the Lord's table pious unbaptized 
 
80 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 Pedobaptists, are stated by Mr. Hall thus — " We are ex- 
 pressly commanded to tolerate in tlie cliurcli 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 Jew^ish 
 and Gentile converts especially, the former retaining an at- 
 tachment to the ancient law, and conceiving the most essential 
 parts of it to be in force, the latter from correcter views re- 
 jecting it altogether. Some declined the use of certain kinds 
 of meat forl^idden by Moses, which others partook of without 
 scruple. ' One man esteemed one day above another,' con- 
 scientiously observing the principal Jewish solemnities ; 
 * another esteemed every day alike.' Instead of attempting 
 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 be- 
 lieveth 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 eateth not, judge him that eateth ; 
 for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest an- 
 other 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 another. 
 Another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully 
 persuaded in his own mind.' Rom. xiv. 1 — 5. To the same 
 purpose are the following injunctions in the next chapter : 
 ' We, then, that are strong, ought to bear tlie infirmities of 
 the weak, and not to please ourselves. Now the God of 
 peace and consolation gi-ant you to be like minded, one to- 
 wards another, as Christ also hath 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 ag'ree in fundamentals, while 
 
CHRISTIAN TOLERATION. 81 
 
 Uiey diiTer on points of subordinate importance ; and by tliia 
 canon they are commanded to exercise a reciprocal toleration 
 and indulgence, and on no account to proceed to an open rup- 
 ture. In order to determine how far these apostolic injunc- 
 tions oblige us to tolerate the supposed eiTor of our Pedobaptist 
 brethren, we have merely to consider whether it excludes 
 them from being of the number of those whom Christ has 
 received to the glory of the Father."* In another place he 
 adds : " Neither of the ancient nor of the modern en'or, is it 
 pretended that they are fondamental, or that they endanger the 
 salvation of those who hold tliem. Thus far they stand on 
 the same footing, and the presumption is tliat they ought to be 
 treated in the same maimer." 
 
 This argrnnent is ingenious in its construction. I doubt 
 not ^Ir. Hall himself w^as deceived by it. But it is sophistical 
 in its premises, erroneous in its form, deceptive in its language, 
 inapplicable in its matter, and therefore mconclusive, and with- 
 out effect on the subject in controversy. It is sophistical in 
 its premises, because the argument is made to stand partly on 
 pounds admitted to be tiiie, and partly on grounds notoriously 
 untenable and inadmissil^le. It is eiToneous in its form, because 
 the reasoning founded upon the apostolic instructions in regard 
 to diversities of opinion and practice in the primitive churches 
 respecting old Jewish rites and things indiflerent, neither com- 
 manded nor prohibited in the Gospel, is made to apply to 
 baptism, an ordinance enjoined by divine law, and regulated 
 by an express statute of Messiah. It is deceptive in its lan- 
 guage. Whether the " supposed errors" are " fundamental 
 to salvation," is the form employed, when the only question 
 at issue is, whether they are subversive of any divine law. 
 No other reasons tlian these need be given for the assumption 
 
 * Works, vol. i. pp. 324, 325, et seq. 
 
82 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 that it is in-applicable in its matter, inconclusive, and without 
 eftect on the subject in controversy. 
 
 I will not, however, despatch this topic quite so summarily. 
 More extended remarks are to the sincere inquirer after truth 
 desirable with reference to three particulars — our doctrine 
 regarding Christian toleration in the aggregate ; the violence 
 inflicted on its prhiciples in forcing their application to free 
 communion ; and a correct exposition of inspired teaching 
 on the subject. 
 
 The duty, in the first place, of maintaining Christian tole- 
 ration in the broadest and most liberal sense of the legitimate 
 use of that term, we not only admit, but also strongly incul- 
 cate, and resolutely defend. The word of God teaches it; 
 the spirit of the Gospel illustrates it ; and I should feel my- 
 self unworthy the name of Christian if I did not reverendy 
 and gi'atefnlly appreciate it. For the generous, persevering, 
 profound, and noble ad^^ocacy, by her sons, of Christian 
 toleration, more than for any other distinction, has our vene- 
 rable and beloved church been rendered illustrious through 
 fifteen centuries. And shall we now cliange this honor into 
 a weakness and make it a positive defect ? In our enthusiasm 
 to maintain our reputation as the friends of religious liberty 
 shall we lose our discrimination, and cease to understand, or 
 apply, the laws of Jesus Christ. "All men," says a recent 
 distinguished writer, v/ith whom we most heartily and fully 
 concur, " are bound Id}' the laws of God, and are responsible 
 to him." Let that fact be distinctly recollected. " From this 
 primary and supreme obligation the conscience cannot be freed. 
 All human authority is subordinate to that which is divine, 
 and is submitted to with the reservation of allegiance to the 
 Universal Sovereign. That allegiance no man has a right to 
 forego. God may prescribe, as supreme Ruler, the ti-uths 
 necessary to belief, and the modes of worship acceptable to 
 
CHRISTIAN TOLERATION. 83 
 
 hun, and, if he phases, enforce conformity b}'" t.5mporal, as 
 well as eternal penalties. This he did once in the Hebrew 
 commonwealth. He there authorized the civil magistrate to 
 act in his name ; and armed him with coercive power to 
 maintain the revealed national religion. But this system was 
 changed on the mtroduction of Christianity. The Son of 
 God declined totally the use of the civil or coercive power in 
 the propagation of the Gospel," to maintain its doctrines, or 
 obedience to its commandments. " The obligation to love 
 God, and obey the Gospel, binds the conscience of every 
 man under this new dispensation as before ; but lie is now 
 made responsible, not to the magistrate, but to God. E^ery 
 thing is referred to the individual's own conscience, quickened 
 by the view of the divine tribunal. His fellow men have no 
 right to interfere. All human laws, therefore, whicli either 
 prescribe or prohibit certain doctiines or rites, not inconsistent 
 with the ci\'il peace, are manifestly unauthorized hj- the Bible, 
 and are obviously unjust. They invade the di\ine prero- 
 gative. They trespass on the most sacred right of the human 
 soul, the right of seeking and serving God in the manner we 
 are persuaded he requires. They are, therefore, null and 
 void, and no man is bound to obey them."* 
 
 These principles, every particular of which, were this the 
 place, I would sustain by the amplest testimony from the 
 word of God, are applicable to the church. She is now the 
 only lawful theocracy existing. Such a form of national 
 government cannot, under the Gospel, take place. Those 
 who enter the church must come as the laws of God pre- 
 scribe, and to no other can obedience be required. In her 
 fellowsliip these, and no other, are to be enforced. Should 
 any man refuse compliance he is to be resisted,' by moral 
 means alone. If in disobedience he claims privileges and 
 
 * Encyc. Rel. Knowl. p. 1014. 
 
84 
 
 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 immunities to which, by the divine mle, the submissive only 
 are entitled, tliey are to be withheld. Does he persevere in 
 his disregard of spiritual obligations ? The inspired remedy 
 is to be applied. This course alone Jehovah approves : — 
 " Withdraw thyself from every brother that walketh disor- 
 derly." Beyond this no church dare go. The delinquent 
 is not accountaljle to human authority, ecclesiastical or civil. 
 God only is his judge, and "to his own master he standeth 
 or falleth." So long as a man does not violate the civil peace 
 and order by the exercise of his religion, he cannot, by the 
 laws of the state, be disturbed. For his faith and practice he 
 is accountable only to God. Such are our doctrines on the 
 subject of religious toleration. 
 
 In applying these principles, we in the second place re- 
 mark, that to maintain free communion, as that phrase is com- 
 monly understood, there is inflicted upon them the most 
 palpable and injurious violence. 
 
 The scriptural canon, given in the passage quoted Irom Mr. 
 Hall, furnishes an inspired precedent, which is accompanied 
 by an application made by the apostle himself, fully illustrat- 
 ing what is required of us in its exercise. All matters in rela- 
 tion to which we have no inspired instructions, either con- 
 tained in particular injunctions, or involved in general prin- 
 ciples, and which are therefore indifferent, such as those 
 especially named by Paul, the eating or not eating certain 
 kinds of food, or the keeping or not keeping specified days 
 as holy, are certainly embraced in the laws of toleration, and 
 every man has a right to act without restraint, as he may " be 
 full}'' persuaded in his own mind." But Avhen he proceeds 
 to embrace doctrines and indulge in practices plainly and ne- 
 cessarily subversive of the law of God, must v/e still conduct 
 ourselves towards him in the same manner ? Would it be 
 fliidiful to God to do so ? Ought such a man to expect the 
 
CHRISTIAN TOLERATION. 85 
 
 church, ill siicli a case, to act upon tlie same principles as 
 they would were his peculiarity only a matter of eating certain 
 kinds of food, or of keeping a holy day ? Fedobaptism is 
 demonstrably a subversion of the law of Christ. Arguments 
 based upon the apostolic rules regarding Jewish peculiarities, 
 are wholly inapplicable here, and cannot, without great injury, 
 be forced into such a service. Is the desecration of a precept 
 which the Hebrew Christians supposed to be in force, but 
 which all now admit was not so ; and, whatever formerly 
 might have been true, never was obligatory on the Gentiles, 
 to be placed on the same level with the neglect of a Christian 
 ordinance, which all confess is binding upon every believer ? 
 The indiscriminate participation of meat was not binding on 
 the Jew or the Gentile, because it was not commanded. 
 Nor was a scrupulous abstinence imperative, for the same 
 reason. Each party might retam his peculiarity, and while 
 he did not violate the law of love, practice as his discretion 
 might suggest. Let our opponents prove that this is true of 
 baptism, and I, foi* one, have no more to say on the subject. 
 I will confess that to church fellowship it is a matter of no 
 consequence, and that if we believe a man is a Christian, that 
 he is born again of the Spirit, we are bound to receive him 
 to communion without baptism. But who will venture to 
 maintain that the substitute of a worldly ceremony, such, for 
 example, as infant sprinkling, for an ordinance of God, is ad- 
 missible under any circumstances ? Who will suggest that 
 Christian baptism is not enjoined on all behevers ? Until it 
 can be established that infant baj)tism is allowable, and Chris- 
 tian baptism indifferent, the apostolic canon recited can have 
 no application to the point m dci^ate ; and it remains true that 
 our docti'ine is yet untouched, which fixes repentance, faith, 
 and baptism, as the tenns of communion. 
 
 We ai*e here met, however, with the declaration that nei- 
 8 
 
86 TERMS CF COMMUNION. 
 
 ther a man's doctrine nor practice on the siil)jcct of baptism, 
 can be of "fundamental importance." He may rrject our 
 opinions, and yet he may ])e eminently pious. It is insisted, 
 therefore, that to tolerate every error not inconsistent with a 
 state of sah'ation, and Pedobaptism among the number, is not 
 only sanctioned by these rules, but is made an indispensable 
 duty. Consequently that all such professors, of whatever 
 denomination, as cannot be proved guilty of errors which 
 would preclude the hope of their attaining to everlasting life, 
 we are bound to invite, and admit to the Lord's tal)le ! But 
 how is this hypothesis to be upheld ? Not surely by any of 
 the "canons" recited. Paul's principles of toleration are 
 threefold. They require, first, that God shall have recei^'ed 
 the parties. Secondly, that they shall be conscientious. And, 
 thirdly, that their peculiarities be not subversive of any divine 
 law. All these were united in the case in question, decided 
 by the apostle of the Gentiles. Is it so in the matter now 
 before us ? If this much can be made to appear, there is an 
 end of the controversy. We must receive all candidates for 
 communion without troubling ourselves to inquire whether 
 they have been baptized. Mr. Hall selects a part of this 
 threefold principle, reasons from it as if it were the whole, and 
 thus arrives at a concl'usion unwarranted by the premises. 
 Reduced to a simple proposition, it amounts to this : Chris- 
 tian churches are to receive all whom God has received, who 
 are conscientious, and whose peculiarities are not subversive 
 of any existing divine law. Let us now see whether tliis rule 
 enjoins the reception to church fellowship of pious Pcdo- 
 baptists. Has God received them ? We trust he has. Are 
 they conscientious ? We are willing to admit that they may 
 it)e. Is this peculianty subversive of any existing divine 
 law ? Most assuredly it is ; nor is it admissible, as has been 
 done to turn aside the argument, to substitute for the phrase 
 
CIIUISTIAN TULEHATION. 87 
 
 "not subversive of any existing divine law," " not incompa- 
 tible willi a state of salvation." 'J'liis is a logical finesse, 
 makes a false issue, and cannot be allowed. Tlieir reception 
 by us would, on our part, amount to a conspiracy witii tliem 
 in their design to o\'erthrow the law of God, and render us, 
 not Christian communicants, but partners in their rebellion 
 against the authoril}^ of the supreme Legislator. 
 
 We are authorized, therefore, to conclude, that the apostolic 
 canons enjoining toleration, relate to things we have explained 
 by the term indifferent, and cannot be forced into the service 
 of open communionists. The fallacy which has led any 
 sensible man to a different conclusion, has been, as we have 
 now seen, induced by their confounding things Avhich are 
 essentially different, such as those we have just mentioned 
 ^tlie making principles subversive of a divine law, the same 
 thing with prmciples incompatible with a state of salvation. 
 Need I say a single word to demonstrate their palpable dif- 
 ference ? Surely it is one thing to tolerate, in a Cliristian 
 church, the eating or not eating certain food, and similar mat- 
 ters ; yet another to tolerate a human in^'ention which is 
 brouglit in to take the place of a Christian ordinance ; and 
 still quite another to be in a state of salvation. If these are 
 all the same, as the argument we are now controverting 
 assumes, vv^e may well exclaim, with the disciples, " Who 
 then can be saved ?" For in what direction do we cast our 
 eyes, among the sects around us, in w^hich we do not see 
 human inventions substituted for divine institutions ! It is 
 one thing to dispense with that uniformity which was not 
 required in the primitive churches, and quite another thing to 
 dispense with that which was, confessedly, demanded. It 
 is one thing to abstain from new terms of felloAvshap, and 
 altogether another thing to deviate from old terms, which are 
 of divme appointment ; unchangeable in their nature ; and of 
 
88 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 universal obligation ; even though in both cases the parties 
 may be Christians, and in a state of salvation. Repentance 
 towards God, a profession of faith in Christ, and submission 
 to baptism, were, it is acknowledged, in the primitive church, 
 the terms of communion. Unless we are at liberty to nullify 
 the laws of God by which they were made such, and to 
 enact others, it is still true that the experience of whatever is 
 essential to repentance for sin, the profession of whatever is 
 essential to saving faith, and the submission to whatever is 
 essential to Christian baptism, must continue to be the terms 
 of communion. Let us never forget the inspired admonition, 
 " There is 07ie Lawgiver,"* and forbear any attempts to sup- 
 plant him. His wisdom forbids us to imagine that by his 
 general enactments, he desti'oys the authority and obligation 
 of his special statutes, or that he Avill permit us to assume 
 his prerogative, and place our own inventions superior to his 
 laws in the government of his kingdom. 
 
 It remains for us, in the third place, — and in view of what 
 has now been said, we can do so with much brevity, — to 
 present a correct exposition of the word of God relating to 
 this subject. 
 
 As if he had foreseen, and designed to counteract, the 
 identical perversions now attempted to be made, Paul, m 
 the very context of the passages recited, setting forth the 
 inspired rules of toleration, expressly dist'nguishes the diver- 
 sities then practised, in relation to which these rules were 
 revealed, from the righteousness which pertains to the king- 
 dom of God. " The kingdom of God," he asserts, " is not 
 meat and drink, but righteousness, and peace, and jo}^ in the 
 Holy Ghost." And to the same purpose, in relation to 
 observances which under a former dispensation, had been 
 imperative, he said to the Corinthians : — " Circumcision is 
 
 * James iv. 12. 
 
CHRISTIAN TOLERATION. 89 
 
 notliing, and uncirciimcision is nothing, but l;:eeping the com- 
 mandments" of God is of great moment. Thus he carefully 
 distinguishes between abrogated rites, ceremonies indifferent 
 in themselves, and existing christian commands, obedience to 
 which is requisite to "fullil all righteousness." The apostle, 
 in other words, says to the primitive churches : — Do not 
 mistake tlie principle upon which toleration is enjoined. 
 The points of disagreement bet^veen you, if subversive of no 
 existing divine law, may be safely left to your own discretion. 
 Each party is at hberty to eat meat or herbs, to observe days, 
 or to disregard them, as his inclination may prompt. But 
 beware of extending this rule too far. Remember, that 
 tliough the kingdom of God consists not in meat and drink, 
 it does consist in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the 
 Holy Ghost. You are required to fulfil all rigliteousncss, 
 in the manner, and order, of the di\ine appointment. The 
 keeping of the commandments of God is of perpetual obliga- 
 tion. The duties belonging to the Christian dispensation, 
 consequently, although then* neglect may not be considered 
 destructive of the salvation of the soul, so far from being 
 confounded with the peculiarities of the Jews or of the 
 Gentiles, are exliibited by tlie apostle, in contrast with them. 
 To treat them as similar then is prejDOslerous, and diametri- 
 cally in conflict wdth the true intent and desiga of the very 
 canons so gratuitously pressed into service on the subject. 
 
 How, then, stands the case ? Mr. Hall asserts that the 
 ancient diversities respecting meats, holydays, and circum- 
 cision, and the modern diversities regarding the question 
 whether we shall or shall not be baptized, are similar ; Paul 
 declares they are dissimilar. Mr. Hall msists they should 
 be treated alike ; Paul tells us they must be treated differently. 
 I need not intunate which of the two is cntided to superior 
 respect, nor su2:gest the direction in which oar decision 
 8* 
 
90 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 should incline. A diversity of opinions and practice regard- 
 ing things indifferent, and abrogated Jewish rites, was, it is 
 gi'anted, no bar to Christian fellowship in primitive churches, 
 nor is it so at present. To argue on this account, that a 
 diversity of opinions and practice in relation to the subjects, 
 tJie substance, and the benefits of Christian baptism is alike 
 of no cDnsequence in our churches, and that the only pre- 
 liminary to sacramental intercourse now to be regarded is the 
 hope that the candidate may be in a condition " not incon- 
 sistent with salvation," is to place a public profession of 
 religion, in the form commanded by the blessed Redeemer, 
 on the same level with the old abrogated Jewish rites, and 
 things indifferent ; to advocate principles opposed equally to 
 sound reason, and plain Scriptm-e truth ; to plead in behalf 
 of a theory which, if permitted to enter into our practice, 
 must, in a variety of important respects, ultimately, render 
 "wholly inoperative the laws and authority of Jesus Christ. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 REPLY TO SUCH OBJECTIONS TO OUR DOCTRINE ON SACRA- 
 MENTAL COMMUNION AS ARE FOUNDED ON THE SPIRITU- 
 ALITY OF THE GOSPEL, AND DRAWN FROM OTHER AND 
 MISCELLANEOUS SOURCES. 
 
 The spiritual nature of the Gospel not inconsistent with its outward 
 forms — The promptings of Christian feeling — The duty of recogniz- 
 ing as such, all that we believe to be truly converted — Pedobaptists 
 sincerely believe themselves right — We associate with thcxn in other 
 departments of worship — As every man is responsible for himself to 
 God, we are bound to respect their faith, and in receiving them do 
 not violate our own. 
 
 The principles which we advocate for the regulation of 
 Christian communion, which we have shown to be scrip- 
 tural, and the only divinely appointed rules existing on the 
 subject, cannot, it is alleged, be maintained for another 
 reason. They are, it is affirmed, at war with the spirituality 
 inculcated by the Gospel. "The genius of the Gospel, lot 
 it be remembered," says ]Mr. Hall, "is not ceremonial, but 
 spiritual ; consisting not in outward observances, but in the 
 cuhivation 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 in competition with a punctual observance of 
 external rites, the genius of religion will easily detennine to 
 which we should incline."-^ 
 
 * Complete Works, Amer. ed. vol. i. p. 360. 
 
 91 
 
92 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 The dazzling beauty of style in which this argument Is 
 cloilied, must not Mdthdraw our attention from the fact, that 
 it proceeds wholly upon the assumption, that obedience to 
 tlie laws of the Gospel may be, and sometimes is, in conflict 
 with tlie genius of the Gospel. Is it possible that this can 
 ever be ti'ue ? If so, by all means let these laws, so inimical 
 to spirituality, be canceled. Let us banish the antiquated 
 notion tliat external rites are still obligatory. These are the 
 mere attire, the garments in which religion is dressed. They 
 may be Roman or English, Lutheran or Reforaied, Mahom- 
 medan or Christian. It is of no importance. Spirituality 
 is all ! But let us pause, and reflect. Is not obedience to 
 the Christian commands, the very criterion, not only of love 
 to the Saviour, but also of love to our brethren ? Can we, 
 without this testimony, give sufficient or satisfactory proof 
 of our spirituality ? Did not Christ require of his disciples 
 this evidence of their affection ? " If ye love me keep my 
 commandments. Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I 
 command you." Do you love me ; are you my friends ? 
 How do you establish the afhrmation of these inquiries? 
 By cultivating exclusively the interior graces of spirituality ? 
 So thought not Jesus Christ — Keep my commandments, for 
 by tliis means alone can you prove your claims to spirituality. 
 John, the beloved, the afl^ectionate, the spiritual disciple, 
 never once imagined that "the obligations of humility and 
 love" could possibly " come in competition with a punctual 
 observance of external rites," and thus violate " the genius of 
 religion." If he did he preached most strangely. "By 
 this," said he, " we know that we love the children of God, 
 when we lo\^e God, and keep his commandments. For this 
 is the love of God, that we keep his commandments, and his 
 commandments are not giievous." But I am reminded that 
 all this was long since. At that time it was in perfect 
 
SriKITUALITY OF THE GOSPEL. 93 
 
 harmony with tlie genius of the Gospel. A change has 
 since come over us. Years have passed, centiuies have 
 multipHed, hoary time ha5 set his seal of condemnation upon 
 these unfasliionable notions. The order established by 
 Christ, to govern the administration of Christian ordinances, 
 is noiv in conflict with the genius of the Gospel ! This, 
 indeed, is giving us new light, for which, as in duty bound, 
 we offer expressions of gratitude to the bold illuminator, 
 whose hand has unlocked the hidden reservoir of so much 
 effulgence. But let us analyze more closely its properties. 
 Is it not merely a phosphoric glare which has its origin from 
 buried puti'escence ? 
 
 By whom is tiie assertion authorized that " The genius 
 of the Gospel is not ceremonial, but spiritual ; consisting not 
 m outward obser\-ances, but in the cultivation of such interior 
 graces as compose the essence of virtue, perfect the character, 
 and purify the heart?" Certainly the great Author of Reve- 
 lation, in no part of his Vv^ord, gives any countenance lo such 
 a dictation. That spirituahty is an essential, and the most 
 essential feature, in the religion of the cross, all well regulated 
 minds firmly believe, and unwaveringly maintain ; but that 
 this is its only feature ; that it has no oi-ner ; in a word that 
 religion is exclusively spiritual, no one, I had supposed, but 
 a Quaker, would, for a moment, imagine. If religion is not 
 still, partly at least, ceremonial, consisting in external observ- 
 ances, why this controversy about partaking of the symbols 
 of the Lord's death ; this hubbub to decide who shall, and 
 who shall not, commune ? The eucharist is nothing but an 
 external rite, an outward observance merely. They ought 
 to discard this also as well as baptism. Let them both gc 
 together. They should, to be consistent, adopt a communion 
 that is wdioUy spiritual. These very sticklers for spirituality 
 and against form, have, however, all received what they call 
 
94 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 baptism, tliey insist too upon coming to llie Lord's table ; 
 and what are these, but ceremonies — the solemn, significant, 
 and divinely appointed ceremonies of the Gospel dispensa- 
 tion ? For a Baptist, or a Pcdobaptist, who derives his 
 nominal designation from his practice of ceremonies, to deny 
 that tlie genius of the Gospel partakes in any degree of out- 
 ward forms, is in one word to conti'adict and condemn himself. 
 
 It is in ^'ain to tell us that " The interior graces form the 
 soul of religion," and that "all the rest are but the terrestrial 
 attire, whicli she will lay aside when she passes the threshold 
 of eternity." It so happens that we are, at present, and all 
 (yhristian communicants must necessarily continue, while this 
 conti'oversy shall remain of any importance, on this side the 
 threshold of eternity. As Christians, therefore, whose dwelling 
 place is still the earth, our duty is not to lay aside the terrestrial 
 attire of religion, but to " put on the Lord Jesus." It would 
 not be seemly to receive into our family, and entertain a 
 man, destitute of garments. The decencies of society demand 
 that he shall be clothed. But it is equally uncomely to intro- 
 duce to the sacred table those who are not furnished with the 
 vestments of the former ordinance. We have no right, until 
 Christ shall call us hence, to lay aside the habiliments with 
 which he has supplied us, and which he has commanded us 
 to wear. 
 
 Punctilious attention to outward rites is unquestionably our 
 duty. So is the cultivation of spirituality. The authority 
 for both is the same. The graces of the Spirit were certainly 
 never intended to supersede the forms of religion; nor is 
 ritual obedience necessarily inimical to the cultivation of 
 such interior endowments as compose the essence of virtue, 
 perfect the cliaracter, and purify the heart. If a scrupulous 
 regard of one of these involved a neglect of the other, then we 
 would weigh them, select the more important, and abandon 
 
SPIRITUALITY OF TITF. GOSPEL. 95" 
 
 the rest. But as no such thing can be pretended, the inappli- 
 cabihty of the ar^iment renders it utterly poindess. He who 
 sent forth his Sphit to sanctify his disciples, and enjoined 
 them to love one anodier, also commanded them to teach all 
 nations, baptizing diem in the name of the t ather, and of the 
 Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This they were to do, and 
 subsequently admonish them to observe all other tlnngs 
 enjoined by the Redeemer. Instead, therefore, of appealing 
 to " the genius of rehgion," to determine " to which we shall 
 incline," we should be attentive to the insti-uctions of him 
 who has said " These things ought ye to have done, and not 
 to have left the other undone." 
 
 Can any thing be discoxered, I now ask, in the spiritual 
 nature of religion to change our conclusions regarding the 
 scriptural doctrines respecting the sacram.ent. I fearlessly 
 reply, it is impossible. It remains, for aught we have seen, 
 still true, that repentance, faith, and baptism, are the inspired 
 and indispensable terms of communion. 
 
 We shall close this branch of our discussion by replying 
 briefly to some ar^unents of a miscellaneous character, v.'hich 
 have been thought pertinent to the subject. The first of these 
 is that the promptings of religious afiection are inconsistent 
 with close communion. It is alleged that it " sets the con- 
 duct and the feelings at variance, and erects into a duty the 
 mortification of our best and holiest propensities." 
 
 Can this statement, let me ask, be true ? I think it can- 
 not. Are not our best and holiest propensities those which 
 lead us to a strict adherence to all the laws of Christ? When 
 forced to choose between a union with a particular class of 
 Christians, and a violation of our duty to the Redeemer, 
 which do our best and holiest feelings prompt us to select ? I 
 hold it to be evident, beyond question, that a refusal to unite, 
 even with those whom we most love, in an infi-acuon of the 
 
9Q TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 law of God, so far from being a mortification, is the most 
 appropriate exercise of our best and holiest propensities. The 
 Christian feehngs which are incapable of such decision cannot 
 be good or holy. 
 
 The second argument alluded to, maintains that we are 
 bound in duty to recognize at tlie Lord's table all those we 
 believe to be Christians. "The Bible," says Mr. Hall, 
 " 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 principle on which the decision 
 is founded, such explanation has all the force of an apostolic 
 canon, by which we are bound to regulate our conduct in all 
 the variety of cases to which it applies." 
 
 But Mr. Hall himself says, as we have before seen — " The 
 apostles, it is acknowledged, admitted none to the Lord's 
 sapper, but such as were previously baptized." Why then, 
 let me ask, should ive do so 1 Our opponents talk of " Gene- 
 ral rules, broad principles to be applied under the guidance 
 of sound discretion." Are the general rules of the Bible so 
 framed that they subvert its especial laws ? Are the " broad 
 principles" of the Scriptures at variance with the command- 
 ments of Christ ? Has our Lord given us rules of perpetual 
 obligation to regulate Christian and sacramental intercourse, 
 and then by a general arrangement, broad principles, authorized 
 us to dispense with them ? Baptism was, for a special pur- 
 pose, enjoined on every believer, at the commencement of 
 the Christian life ; but general rules, broad principles, are 
 furnished, which, " under the guidance of sound discretion," 
 justify us in dispensing with the injunction ! Does sound, 
 discretion teach us such a lesson ? Assuredly not. We are 
 to receive all he has received, and according to the laws, not 
 which we imagine jnny govern him in bestowing upon tliem 
 
GKNERAL LAWS. 97 
 
 salvation, but which he has enacted for our intercourse : 
 which are, as we have shown, ample in tlieir extent, and 
 obvious in tlieir import. We have no authority from any 
 laws, gcneraU or special, nor are we permitted to receive 
 any man, however undoubted may be his piety, in any other 
 manner than as he has prescribed and commanded. When 
 it was apparent to Peter that God had received those converts 
 who were assembled in the house of Cornelius, he imme- 
 diately inquired — " Can any man 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." 
 Our opponents propose to dispense with all such sectarian 
 proceedings. They will ask, simply, whether the Lord has 
 received them to commune with him. If this can be made 
 probable, they must receive them to all ecclesiastical privi- 
 leges without regard to any divine law on the subject. Can 
 it be pleasing to God, or religious in men, in deference to a 
 spurious Catholicism, thus to withstand Jehovah, and set at 
 naught his commandments ? I presume not. 
 
 A third objection is proposed against confining sacramental 
 intercourse to baptized believers. Pedobaptists, if they are 
 in error, it is alleged, sincerely believe themselves right; 
 their error, being " involuntary," is more an " infirmity" 
 than a fault. " The only method," observes Mr. Hall, " of 
 arriving at a satisfactory conclusion, is to consider how tlie 
 aposiles conducted themselves towards sincere but erring 
 Christians, together with the temper they recommend us to 
 cultivate towards such as labor under mistakes and miscon- 
 ceptions not inconsistent with piety."* 
 
 We undoubtedly ought to act towards such persons as the 
 apostles themselves would have done. But how shall we 
 judge of what their conduct would have been in relation to 
 
 * Worlvs, vol. ii. p. 217. 
 1) 
 
98 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 such, had any appeared in their churches, afflicted witli {he 
 malady of being- in invohintary error, and of sincerity, and 
 conscienlioiisness, in maintaining it ? I answer, by what, 
 under die influence of divine inspiration, they instructed 
 otliers to do. We can be at no loss, whatever, on this part 
 of our subject. Such a rule of judgment is not, I think, 
 likely to lead us mto material error in our decision. Had an 
 unbaptized Christian presented himself to the apostles, claim- 
 ing immunities on the score of his sincerity, or on any olher 
 score, they would certainly have treated him precisely as we 
 do Pedobaptists, as nothing more nor less than as an unliap- 
 tized Christian. They would have recognized his Chris- 
 tianity, but they would not have deviated from the law of 
 Christ in deference to his cn-or, however sincere he mi<dit 
 have been in embracing or maintaining it. This is precisely 
 the course we pursue. We think our Pedobaptist brethren 
 Christians, and we treat them as such. We believe them to 
 be unbaptized Christians, and we treat them as such. We 
 regulate our thoughts, and our actions, in both cases, by the 
 laws of Christ. One of these laws requires us to judge of 
 men by their fruits, and another obliges us to admit to ihe 
 communion only l:)aplizcd believers. By tlie former we de- 
 cide that our Pedobaptist brethren are Christians, and we 
 should rejoice to extend to them the fellowship of the church ; 
 but agi-eea])ly to tlie latter we can receive them in tliat way, 
 and in no otlier, which Christ has prescribed. Thus we are 
 perfecdy certain Ave act towards all such, and treat them pre- 
 cisely as the apostles would have done, had they appeared 
 in tlieir asseml)lies. 
 
 Those Christians who sincerely and conscientiously ex- 
 clude baptism from their system, may act in the matter to 
 please themselves. It is no concern of ours. To tlieir own 
 master they stand or fall. Tliev have, it may l)e, " conscien- 
 
SINCIiKITY OF 15kj,ii:f. 99 
 
 tiously mistaken the mind of Christ." Tliey govern ihem- 
 selves, individually and as churches, by their own convic- 
 tions of obligation. But am I, because such is the state of 
 the case, required, or if I felt inclined to do so, am I permit- 
 ted to infringe inspired injunctions by recognizing their sin- 
 cerity in error as a substitute for the practice of the truth, 
 and that too for no other reason than to prove that I enter- 
 tain for them a very high Christian regard ? Am I told that 
 I have nothing to do with the faith of another ; that he is 
 accountable alone to God? AU this is true as long as he 
 makes no pretensions to connect himself with me in church 
 feUowship. But apply the doctrine to church discipline, 
 that we have no right to inquire into the faith of our asso- 
 ciates, and whom could you ever exclude for heresy. Uni- 
 tarians, Momions, Universalists, and all other defamers of 
 evangelical piety, might fix themselves upon you like an 
 incubus, and you would be destitute of any remedy whatever. 
 No, when an individual enters the church he declares his 
 union with the faith of the church. Does a Pedobaptist 
 honestly believe, after an impartial examination of the best 
 evidence to which he can gain access on the subject, that he 
 has received Christian baptism, and that he has truly entered 
 the congregation of Christ, in the way of the divine appoin't- 
 ment. Let him prosecute the course he has adopted. But, 
 certauily, he has no right to expect me, on that account, to 
 abandon my own convictions and to unite with him in those 
 practices which he may have thouglit proper to adopt. I am 
 guided by my own faith, and not by the faith of any other 
 man. Baptism without a profession of fliith is justified as 
 readily as the administration of the Lord's supper without 
 baptism. They have no scriptural authority for either, but 
 they do both. They act upon their own belief, and upon 
 their own responsibility. But in neither case may the dictates 
 
100 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 of their consciences be the directory for my actions. It is no 
 more a consequence that, because on their own principles, 
 they are entitled to approach the Lord's table, that, therefore, 
 it is my duty to unite with them in that ordinance, than that, 
 because on their own principles they are obliged to baptize 
 their infants, that, therefore, I am required to unite with 
 them in that ceremony. Besides all this, it is to me evident 
 that a deviation from the law of Christ in complaisance to 
 the mistakes of Christians, however conscientiously enter- 
 tained, would indicate a greater value for the erring servant, 
 than for the infinitely wise and supreme Lord. Could we 
 regard their neglect of divine ordinances as a deliberate con- 
 tempt, this would invalidate, in our esteem, all their Chris- 
 tian pretensions, and we should govern our conduct towards 
 them accordingly. We cannot, however, but admit that an 
 error of this nature, sincerely entertained, though not entirely 
 involuntary, is compatible with Christianity. If we cannot 
 produce a conviction and practice of the truth, we have no 
 alternative but to be guided by the apostolic instructions 
 before recited to the church at Thessalonica, in the case of 
 a member who walked not according to the commandment. 
 They were directed to " withdraw themselves" from him, 
 yet " not to count him as an enemy, but to admonish him as 
 a brother." 
 
 It is suggested, as a fourth argument, that as we are 
 associated with Pedobaptists in all other forms, it is in- 
 consistent to withdraw from them in this department of 
 Christian worship. 
 
 We have, I observe in reply, already fully conceded their 
 general Christian character. As such we fraternize with 
 them in every form not sacramental. We deem this a suf- 
 ficient testimony of our good will, and desire for their pros- 
 perity, so far as they are engaged with us in the same com- 
 
INCOXSISTENCr. l(Jl 
 
 mon cause. AVe give them ercdit for sincerity, and for 
 conscientiousness. What more can be required ? The 
 exercises in which we unite with them were duties before 
 baptism was instituted, and M'ould have remained duties to 
 the end of time liad no Christian churches existed. Since 
 these flicts are undoubted, can die course on our part indi- 
 cated, be inconsistent with the opinions we entertain ? Such 
 a thing is impossible. It is our pleasure to pursue it, when 
 we think proper ; and still, in our judgment, infant sprinkling 
 is not Christian baptism : Christain baptism is the only- 
 authorized mode of entrance into the visible church ; the 
 church of Christ must be constituted and governed aoree- 
 ably to his laws ; and, in no case, can even a consicentious 
 performance of any ceremony not authorized by the supreme 
 Legislator, be considered equivalent to Christian obedience. 
 
 Numerous other objections have been started against strict 
 connnunion ; but, as they are of very little importance, and 
 will be alluded to, incidentally, hereafter, I shall not now 
 pause to consider them. They assume that the practice is 
 illiberal and harsh, that it is injurious, that it is odious, and 
 that it is unpopular. It is sufficient to respond to them all 
 by the single remark, that our blessed Redeemer is the best 
 judge as to what is illiberal, harsh, injurious, odious, and 
 unpopular. To him we cheerfully submit the decision. 
 
 We have now, briefly, but carefully, and impartially, 
 reviewed, in diis chapter and the two preceding, all the 
 arguments acknowleflged to be of any importance, employ- 
 ed to overthrow the principles we have established, and 
 by which sacramental communion is divinely regulalv^d ; 
 whether derived from the supposed nature of -the adminis- 
 tration of John the Baptist ; the inspired canons of Cliris- 
 tian toleration ; the spiritual nature of the Gospel ; tlie 
 promptings of religious feeling ; the obligatians of brotherly 
 
 9* 
 
102 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 love ; the duty of exercising lenity towards erring brethren ; 
 and the supposed inconsistency of engaging with Pedobap- 
 tists in other departments of worship, and declining their 
 intercourse at the Lord's table ; and we have seen that so 
 far from mvalidating or even weakening in the slightest de- 
 gree, they all combine to strengthen, and more fully confirm 
 our conclusions. Here we rest this part of the discussion, 
 under the fullest conviction that repentance towards God, 
 faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and baptism in the name of 
 the holy Trinity, are incontrovertibly the terms of communion 
 appointed and established by the King in Zion, and from 
 which we are forbidden, by the most sacred obligations, at 
 any time, for any purpose, or under any circumstances, to 
 depart. " What thing soever I command you," saith the 
 Lord Jehovah, "observe to do it. Thou shalt not add 
 thereto, nor dimmish from it." 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 WE ARE NOT AT LIBERTY TO ADMINISTER THE LORd's SUP- 
 PER FOR ANY PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE DESIGNATED 
 BY OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 The design of the Lord's Supper not a test of Christian love — Recip- 
 rocal confidence, or religious fellowship — Pedobaptists and Quakers 
 — Communion administered to secure popularity — Withheld as a 
 punishment — Verbal nonsense — Open communion not an act of faith, 
 obedience, or worship. 
 
 The inquiiy is now suggested whether we are at liberty 
 to administer the Lord's supper for any purposes other than 
 those appointed by our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us deter- 
 mine what these purposes are. We will also designate some 
 of the errors which have prevailed in relation to them, among 
 ourselves and our brethren of other denominations. Let us 
 inquire by what evils the errors in question have been at- 
 tentled. These considerations, if properly examined, and 
 fully understood, will more deeply impress us with the duty 
 of circumspection, and a firm and imyieldmg conformity in 
 all things to the teachings of the divine law. 
 
 What are the specific purposes for which the sacrament 
 of the Lord's supper was instituted? To determine what 
 is the con-ect answer to this question we can have no dif- 
 ficulty. " Do this," said the Saviour, " m remembrance 
 of me :" and, " as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this 
 cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come." The ob- 
 servance of the institution is to be continued in tlie church 
 until the .second advent of Messiah, and it is to be invaria- 
 
 103 
 
104 TERMS OP COMMUNION. 
 
 bly administered and received for these purposes, and for no 
 oilier. In its participation, we profess our faith in tlie elli- 
 cacy and vicariousness of the atonement of the Son of God, 
 and declare our belief of a personal luid saving interest in its 
 benefits, 'i'he broken body and slied blood of our Lord, 
 which characterized his 'sufferings and death, are thus con- 
 tinually held up to our view, and exhibited before the eyes 
 of the world, forming a memorial of his grace, and to per- 
 petuate our gratitude and love to him, more indestructible 
 than monumental brass. If in these opinions we are not 
 mistaken, the true inquiries to be made in relation to a can- 
 didate for the eucharist are not so properly, is he a Christian, 
 and am I required by this means to express towards him my 
 confidence and brotherly love ? Much less may we ponder 
 the questions, can I by receiving him advance my own, or 
 the interests of religion, and can I secure a greater degree of 
 popularity for a favorite doctrine, or specified system of the- 
 ology ? But, does he come according to the laws of Christ ? 
 Has he not, since his baptism, forfeited, by immorality or 
 heresy, his Christian character ? Does he propose to re- 
 ceive the eucharist with the views and purposes authorized 
 by the word of God ? These are the legitimate inquiries. 
 If they are answered in the afHrmative, the applicant m-ust 
 be admitted. If otherwise, it is at our peril that he is re- 
 ceived. Mistakes upon this point lead to errors that dete- 
 riorate religion, perplex Christians, and agitate and divide 
 those who ought to be united. Were this part of our sub- 
 ject studied and understood, we should never again be told 
 that if we decide that our Pedobaptist brethren, or any others, 
 are Christians, that God has received them into his favor, 
 we dare not debar them, and we phould no more be ivarned 
 tliat the Malliholding this test of our confidence and regard, 
 is a deniaJ of their claims to tlie chai'acter of Christians. 
 
NOT A TEST OF CHRISTIAN LOVE. 105 
 
 Such a view of llie matter can find no support in divine 
 revelation. 
 
 The Lord's supper"^ was not appointed to be so much a 
 test of our love and confidence in each other, as of our obe- 
 dience to Clirist. As it is a sacred feast, and an ordinance 
 of divine worship, mutual Christian affection among com- 
 municants at the same table is very becoming, and highly- 
 necessary ; but not more so than in any other branch of 
 social worship. That sittmg down witli them at the Lord's 
 talkie, however, should be considered as the criterion of our 
 love to individuals, or to any Christian community, does not 
 appear from the word of God. The supper of our Lord was 
 intended to teach the most wonderful of all truths, and to ex- 
 hibit llie most glorious of all transactions. It is a memorial 
 of God's love to us, and of Lnmanuel's death for us, in me- 
 mory of M'liom it is received. But the proof, the scriptural 
 proof, of love to the children of God, is not given at so clieap 
 and easy a rate. Many do this who give indubitable evi- 
 dence that they do not love the disciples for the ti'uth's sake. 
 The presence in our hearts of heavenly affections requires to 
 be sustained by better testimony. Christian love involves 
 the exercise of tempers, and the performance of actions, which 
 em.brace much of self-denial, and without which, no matter 
 how promiscuous may be our communion, or how loudly 
 we may talk of a liberal spirit, we shall remain destitute of 
 that charity, without which we are nothing. The true test 
 of mutual affection and confidence as Christians, is not 
 found in a joint participation of the eucharist, but m sym- 
 pathy with each other in affliction, in feeding the hungry, in 
 clothing the naked, and in doing for the suffering and misera- 
 ble of aU classes, but especially of the household of faith, 
 whatever good their necessities may require. For these facts 
 
 * See Booth's Vindication, 
 
106 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 I have tlie authority of the final Judge, who, in the last day, 
 wiJl say to his people, "Come, ye blessed of my Fatlier, 
 inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of 
 tlie world." But what are the claims on account of which 
 you receive so unspeakable a boon ? It is because you have 
 manifested your love to the saints by holding free communion 
 at the Lord's taiDle with Christians of all denominations ? Such 
 an intimation nowhere exists. This is too small and easy a 
 matter. The reasons are altogether of a different character. 
 " I was an hungered," said our Lord, " and ye gave me meat ; 
 I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink ; a stranger, and ye took 
 me in ; naked, and ye clothed me ; I was sick, and ye visited 
 me ; I was in prison, and ye came unto me." If the inquiry 
 is made, how all these things could have taken place, the reply 
 of the Redeemer is, " For as much as ye did it unto one of 
 these, my brethren, ye did unto me." The Lord's supper 
 was not designed, therefore, to be a test of Christian love. For 
 such a purpose it is incapacitated and inadequate. 
 
 What, however, it is asked, if the candidate for our com- 
 munion be truly a man of God, for whose Christian experi- 
 ence we have entire fellowship, and he sincerely believes 
 himself to be baptized ? It is maintained that, in such a case, 
 we ought to give him this evidence of our respect for the sin- 
 cerity of his faith, and that as a genuine disciple of Christ, we 
 dare not debar his approach to the holy table. 
 
 Were these, then, let me inquire, the objects for which 
 the sacrament was instituted ? Are we at liberty to admi- 
 nister, or receive it, for such purposes ? But the proposition 
 divides itself into two parts. We will notice each separately. 
 
 The former assumes that as the Pedobaptist sincerely, iv 
 such a thing be possible, believes himself baptized, he is to 
 be received by us as baptized. But still the question occurs, 
 is he baptized ? With whom is the decision of this matter 
 
PEDOnAPTISTS ARE CHRISTIANS. 107 
 
 to be lodged? If ive are to judge, he will inevitably be re- 
 jected, because it is impossible for us to believe any such 
 fallacy. If tlie candidate is the sole arbiter in the case, then 
 we adopt a rule the operation of which cannot be confined to 
 baptism. It irresistibly extends itself to all matters both of 
 faith and practice. To what results will such an interpreta- 
 tion lead us ? It forces us into the dogma adopted only by 
 sliallow minds, which constitutes, to the Popish denial of the 
 right of pri\'ate judgment, the opposite extreme, and which 
 meets and harmonizes with it in absurdity, that if a man sin- 
 cerely thinks a thing is right, to him it is right. This doc- 
 trine, aU must mslantly perceive, dethrones the Bible, exalts 
 sincerity in its place, and at once breaks down all distinc- 
 tions between truth and eiTor. A man's principles are of no 
 consequence. V/e dare not in any case inquire into them. 
 All we have to do is to determine whether he sincerely 
 believes they are scriptural. If so, he is entitled to all the 
 privileges and immunities of the church. Such extravagant 
 vagaries cannot need from me a serious refutation. 
 
 The latter takes it for granted, that, as this is the Lord's 
 table, and these are the Lord's children, they are entitled to 
 it, and we dare not debar them. This is a claim of grave 
 importance. Let us carefully consider it. 
 
 Yes, it is the Lord's table. All his children have an un- 
 doubted right to it, because whatever is his, is theirs. We 
 are not permitted to preclude them. We make no such 
 pretensions. But has the Lord established no laws for the 
 government of the feast ? If it should appear that he has 
 not, we will admit of none. Were it our taljle, we would 
 invite all our friends, and rejoice in their society. It is not 
 ours ; it is the Lord's table. All confess too, that he has 
 enacted laws for its government, and that they are para- 
 mount. What these laws are we have already been suiH- 
 
]03 TF.PMS OF COMMI'NIOV. 
 
 cicntly informrd. AVe need not repeat them. Pedobnptists 
 themselves fully concur with us in relation to some of them. 
 Dr. E. D. Grifiin, the late learned President of Williams Col- 
 lege, in his well known Letter on Conmiunion, embodies them 
 >n a small compass : — "I agree," says the erudite president, 
 " with the advocates of close communion, in two points. 
 First, that baptism is the initiating ordinance that introduces 
 us into the visil)le church ; and, secondly, that we ought not 
 to commune willi those who are not baptized, and, of course, 
 not members of the church, even if we regard them as Chris- 
 tians." We a^ipeal to their own principles. This is the 
 Lord's table, and we are his children ; and do these facts 
 authorize us to violate his laws ? Are we told that the par- 
 tics sincerely believe they have complied with all the required 
 rules ? But we have seen that this plea is insufficient. Our 
 Pedol)aptist ])rethren themselves will not act upon this prin- 
 ciple, when it is applied in the case of a candidate for their 
 communion, and they thereby evince that they do not think 
 that it is legitimate to administer the Lord's supper as a tes- 
 timony of confidence in the gracious state of an individual, or 
 to evince respect for the sincerity with which he entertains 
 the belief of the correctness of his opinions, irrespective of 
 their own convictions of what is required by the laws enacted 
 to govern the ordinance. 
 
 To illustrate this remark, let us suppose a case. A good 
 Quaker all charitably suppose to be a Christian. As such 
 he is entitled to the confidence and aflcction of all other 
 Christians. He is a child of God, and has a right to all the 
 ordinances of the Gospel. He, having, as Jie supposes, re- 
 ceived the baptism of the IToly Spirit, has complied with 
 that baptism which alone, he believes, is now authorized by 
 tlie New Testament. He sincerely believes himself to l)e 
 baptized. Tliis good Quaker, wlio is a Christian, one of the 
 
WE MUST PRACTICE OUR PRINCIPLES. 109 
 
 liOrd's children, whom God has accepted, and with M'liom 
 they expect to commune in heaven, presents himself at a 
 Pedobaptist communion talkie. Will they unite with him in 
 the sacred ordinance ? They respectfully decline. But why ? 
 His only deficiency is a want of baptism. In whose estima- 
 tion, liowever, does this defect exist ? Certainly not in his 
 own. He is rejected. On what account? Not because he 
 does not sincerely believe himself baptized ; but because his 
 Pedobaptist brethren do not believe that he is baptized. Thus 
 it is seen that they refuse to practice upon the principles they 
 recommend to us. The piety of the candidate for comnui- 
 nion, and the evidence it affords that God has accepted him 
 as one of his children, the sincerity and conscientiousness 
 with which he believes himself conformed, in every respect, 
 to the divine law, are no longer in their judgment arguments 
 applicable to the case. If God has some secret code by 
 which he saves those who habituall)^ violate his revealed 
 will, it is for his own govermnent, not ours. Pedobaptists 
 propose, in effect, that we shall repudiate God's written law, 
 and guide our conduct in this matter, by what is conceived 
 to be the law that will influence the acceptance of sinners in 
 the last day. This course, however, they design for us, not 
 for themselves. All classes of Protestant Pedobaptists, I 
 think, except, probably, the Episcopalians, confess that we 
 are unquestionably baptized. They can, therefore, if they 
 think us orthodox and orderly, commune with us without 
 any sacrifice of principle. We do not, we cannot, believe 
 that Pedobaptists are baptized. And, as they teach us, by 
 their example, to act, not upon their faith, but upon our own, 
 they thus nullify all their arguments against us, and justify 
 our course in refusing them, for the same reasons that they 
 decline communion with the Quaker. 
 
 One of three things we are compelled to do. We must 
 10 
 
irO TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 violate the acknowledged law of Christ respecliiig both the 
 qualifications of the candidates and objects of the ordinance, 
 and receive unbaptized believers ; profess tliat we belie\^e tlie 
 sprinkling they received in infancy true and lawful baptism ; 
 or we must decline the communion of Pedobaptists. Which 
 shall we choose ? The first would be an act of deliberate 
 and known sin ; the second would be the grossest hypocrisy; 
 we have, therefore, chosen the third, which, though it may 
 be a painful alternative, is an act candidly expressive of our 
 faith, and of unwavering fidelity to the Redeemer. 
 
 The hypothesis is sometimes assumed, that we may admi- 
 nister the Lord's supper to secure our own interests, the in- 
 terests of religion, a more ready acceptance of a favourite 
 doctrine, the popularity of a specified system of divinity, or 
 that it may be withheld as a punishment to compel our breth- 
 ren to embrace our opinions, or to abstain from the exercise 
 of their own. I consider myself justified in this statement 
 •by the numerous acts of nonfellowship with which the pro- 
 ceedings of our churches and associations in this country 
 abound, and such passages as I will now quote from the 
 works of Rev. Robert Hall. He remarks on this sul)ject — 
 " The first effect necessarily resulting from strict communion 
 is a powerful prejudice against the party which adopts it 
 When all oth(?r denominations find themselves lying under 
 an interdict, and treated as though they were heathens or 
 pulilicans, they must be more than men not to resent it; or 
 if they regard it with a considerable degree of apatliy, it can 
 only be ascribed to that contempt wliich impotent violence 
 is so apt to inspire."-^ The same writer discusses the expe- 
 diency and effect of " close communion considered as a pun- 
 ishment :" as the means of bringinnf a larger number within 
 tlie circle of our inffuence ; and of inducing men favorably 
 
 * Works, vol.ii. p. 226. 
 
INTEREST OF TRUTH CONSULTED. Ill 
 
 to consider, and to submit to, the ordinance of baptism.* He 
 observes — " Tlie hope of producing conviction by such aii 
 expedient is equally groundless and chimerical, since convic- 
 tion 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 oppo- 
 nents, we inflict a stigma. Professing serious concern that 
 the ordinance of baptism, as it was practised in the first ages, 
 is fallrn into neglect, we attempt to revive an unpopular rite 
 by a mode of procedure which, without the remotest ten- 
 dency towards the removal of error, or the elucidation of 
 trudi, answers no other purpose than to make ourselves un- 
 popular."t 
 
 If these arguments are used in seriousness, and I imagine 
 we must so regard them, they certainly assume that the 
 eucharist may be administered, not only, in commemoration 
 ©f the death and sufferings of our Lord, and as a testunony 
 of our united love and obedience to him, purposes alone 
 sanctioned by the holy word, but also, to evince our libe- 
 rality, to inflict punishment, to bring a larger number of per- 
 sons under our influence, to produce conviction in favor of 
 the correctness of our opinions, to extirpate error, to soften 
 and conciliate our opponents, to revive the neglected use of 
 baptism, in any way, and for almost any purpose, so as to 
 avoid making ourselves unpopular ! Need I say a single 
 word to expose the fallacious character of such opinions as 
 these? It is matter of no surprise that a man so great as 
 Mr. Hall, M-ith principles so loose and contradictory, should 
 have been, at once, the glory and the shame, the boast and 
 
 * Works, vol. i. p. 337, et seq. 
 t Works, vol. ii. p. 227. 
 
112 TERMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 tlie blight ol' the Baptist church. The ophiion prevails pretty 
 extensively, in some quarters, that the Lord's supper is de- 
 signed to be a pledge of Christian fellowship. I have already 
 alluded briefly to a collateral topic, the question whether it is 
 a test of Christian love, and, incidentally, to the view of the 
 subject now introduced. It, however, in my judgment, de- 
 mands a somewhat more extensive consideration. The New 
 'JV.'Siament must necessarily guide us in all our deductions, 
 but neither in the Gospels, nor in the Epistles,* is there the 
 least intimation that any such purpose was contemplated, nor 
 is there any thing in the nature of the ordinance indicating 
 that it should be so regarded. The true test of either indi- 
 vidual or social Christian fellowship must be sought in some- 
 thing else besides sacramental intercourse. Nothhig can be 
 plainer than the exposition on this subject by Christ and his 
 apostles. We are taught by them in the language already 
 quoted, that the solemn and expressive use of the bread and 
 the cup, with the forms of devotional exercise, is a symbol 
 of his mangled body and shed blood, and of our spiritual in- 
 terests in the great sacrifice thus offered. No evidence exists 
 which warrants the conclusion that this sacrament is to be 
 employed for any other purpose. Union and fellowship 
 among Christians, it is true, are indispensable to church 
 membership. For " how can two walk together except they 
 be agreed?" These, however, are secured by the previous 
 measures which connected them with the people of God in 
 their ecclesiastical relations. In the act of the Lord's supper 
 we are not to busy ourselves in scrutinizing those avIio are 
 present, to determine whether we have fellowship with all 
 who propoi5e to participate. These solemn moments should 
 be occupied in endeavours to direct our minds to Christ, and 
 
 * Vide an Essay, by Rev. John M. Peck, of Rock Spring, III. in the 
 Banner and Pioneer, 1S40. 
 
NOT A PLEDGE OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. 113 
 
 to realize out " fellowship with the Father, and with his Son, 
 Jesus Christ our Lord." If the communicants come accord- 
 ing to the laws Jesus Christ has established for the govern- 
 ment of the feast, and retain their places in the membership 
 of his church, our private opinion of them has nothing to do 
 with the perfoiTnance of our duty. 
 
 If in these conclusions we are correct, it is apparent that 
 several occasions of reproach from others, and difficulty 
 among ourselves, are entirely obviated. We are not unfre- 
 quendy told by unbaptized Christians — Christ communes 
 with us, but you will not — You expect to commune widi 
 us in heaven, but you will not do it on earth ! But a mo- 
 ment's thought, however, is necessary to show that all tliis, 
 and m.uch more of the same character, is the merest verl^al 
 nonsense. Do they mean to say that Jesus Christ comes 
 literally to their table, and actually eats bread and drinks wine 
 with them, when they celebrate the sacrament of the Lord's 
 supper ? They do not, surely, intend to convey such an 
 idea. How, then, does he commune with them on earth ? 
 By sympathy with them, by bestowing his favor upon them, 
 and by tlie blessings of his holy Spirit. Precisely the same 
 kind of communion, as far as we are capable, we are willirig 
 to hold with them, and do hold with them all — not sacra- 
 mental, but Christian communion. When, therefore, it is 
 alleged that Christ communes with them, and that we will 
 not, the statement is not entitled to the regard which is due 
 to truth, smce it is evident that, in all these respects, we 
 commune with them to the full extent of their communion 
 witli Christ. The other postulate in the argument is of the 
 same sophistical character, and appears to have weight merely 
 by a deceptive play upon the word communion, which is 
 assumed in one sense in the premises, and applied in anoilier 
 sense in the conclusion. We shall commune together, say 
 10* 
 
114 TEUMS OF COMMUNION. 
 
 tlioy, in heaven. AVhy not, therefore, commune togetho ^l> 
 eartli ? Is it true, that we shall actually sit down at Jia 
 communion table in heaven, and literally eat bread and (i./mk 
 wine in a sacramental sense ? No one, I imagine, supposes 
 that such will be the case. If not, should we happily reach 
 that "better land," our communion will be wholly spiritual. 
 We shall, therefore, assuredly, never commune with Pedo- 
 baptists in any manner in heaven, in which we do not now 
 commune with them on earth. The charge, so frequently 
 preferred, that, by refusing their communion, we declare 
 nonfellowship with them, and deny their title to the Chris- 
 tian character, is, as every one will readily perceive, based 
 upon tlie mistaken notion, the exploded dogma, that the 
 Lord's supper is designed as a test of Christian fellowship, 
 and that one purpose, at least, of its administration is to ex- 
 press mutual religious affection. AU such reasoning as this, 
 is indicative of singular obscurity of thought, and proceeds 
 upon the deception which narrows the vast field of Christian 
 communion to the limits of sacramental intercourse, a concep- 
 tion equally at war with philological accuracy, and religious 
 truth. And what is even more melancholy, the declamations 
 founded upon it, and they are in some parts of our land ex- 
 ceedingly exuberant, partake of the same attributes. They 
 are passionate appeals, not to enlightened and scriptural views 
 of the design of the ordinance, but to the strong prejudices 
 and coarser feelings of the human heart, emotions so easily 
 aroused, and so mischievous in their influence upon all tlie 
 interests of rehgion, and the courtesies of brotherly love. 
 
 The testimony now submitted, in proof that sacramental 
 intercourse at the Lord's table is not designed as a test of 
 Christian fellowship, and that we are not at liberty to ad- 
 minister the eucharist for such a purpose, if regarded as con- 
 clusive, will also serve to remove another perplexity, often 
 
NOT A PLEDGE OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. 115 
 
 found to exist in our own churches. Not unfrequently does 
 a member absent himself from the Lord's table on account 
 of the presence of some other member who has offended 
 him. He will not take his seat there, because he imagines 
 that by doing so he will express a fellowship that does not 
 really exist ; and he chooses not to falsify by his act, the true 
 convictions of his heart. Entire churches, similarly judging, 
 sometimes suspend wholly the observance of this ordinance, 
 for indefinite periods, on account of internal disagreement, 
 guided by the unscriptural impressions we are now attempt- 
 ing to remove. Offences, and consequent unholy feelings, 
 cannot always be avoided. They wdl, sometimes, find their 
 way among the people of God. Every proper effort should 
 be made to prevent them, and when tliey occur, to suppress 
 them, with the least possible delay. If, however, they are 
 found to have place, they afford no more reason for a sus- 
 pension of the regular commemoration of the Lord's supper 
 than of baptism, preaching, singing, prayer, or any other de- 
 partment of rehgious worship, all of which are no less foniis 
 of communion than the sacrament in question, and a united 
 participation in them, equally expressive of Christian fel- 
 lowship. 
 
 The conclusions to which we have been conducted will 
 enable us properly to estimate the acts of our churches and 
 associations, to which we have alluded, and by which they 
 have employed the Lord's supper, not only as an expression 
 of Christian fellowship, but also as an engine for the inflic- 
 tion of punishment. Movements such as these last by the 
 Roman See do not surprise us, nor when even Protestants 
 resort to them, are we much astonished, because, in other 
 respects, they symbolize with Popery. But that Baptists, 
 who profess to be guided, in all things, by the word of God, 
 are not more uilclligent and consistent, is matter of equal 
 
116 TEKMS OF COxMxMUNION. 
 
 grief and aiiiazcinent. The propensity to imitate others is 
 one of the most prominent traits in the human character, nor 
 has it failed to dovelope itself in this particular, as the nume- 
 rous proceedings, in all parts of our land, abundantly testify. 
 Every Baptist church, by the very articles of its constitu- 
 tion, is declared to be perfectly independent of every other, 
 obliged to be governed by no standard but the word of God, 
 and responsible only to her celestial Head for her faith and 
 practice. Yet one church is found nonfellowshiping, or 
 excommunicating anotlier; and the churches in one region 
 exscinding those in another region ! Could such wounds as 
 these be inflicted upon the body of Christ, did just concep- 
 tions prevail of the design for which the Lord's supper was 
 instituted? What, under existing circumstances, can be 
 gained by these proceedings ? Nothing whatever, but the 
 publication of our own errors and inconsistency, the exhibi- 
 tion of our intolerance, and the proof that Christian charity 
 has not yet assumed the entire control of our hearts. 
 
 Having now seen that we are not at liberty to administer 
 or receive the Lord's supper for any purposes other than 
 those designated by the great Lawgiver; determined what 
 those purposes are ; noted the errors that prevail on this sub- 
 ject ; and considered some of the evils, both among ourselves 
 and others, which have been the consequences ; it is unne- 
 cessar}^, probably, further to extend our discussions. I repeat 
 tlie important truth that, like every other department of the 
 divine service, communion has its laws by which it must in 
 all respects be governed. To violate them in its observance, 
 is a contempt of the authority from which they emanated, 
 and in consequence of such dereliction, where it exists, this 
 part of sacred devotion, and it would be true of any other 
 under similar circumstances, ceases, at once, to be an act of 
 either faith, obedience, or worship. " There can be no faitli, 
 
CONCLlJSIOiNS. 117 
 
 because that requires a promise, or some divine declaration ; 
 tliere can be no obedience, because that supposes a prece])ti 
 or something equivalent to it; and where there is no faith' 
 nor obedience, it is evident, tliere can be no acceptable' 
 worship." 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 WE CANXOT UNITE WITH PEDOBAPTISTS IN SACR\MF,NTAL 
 C03IMUNI0N WITHOUT AN ACTUAL ABANDONMENT, OR 
 PRACTICAL FALSIFICATION OF ALL OUR PRINCIPLES ON 
 BOTH BAPTISM AND THE LORd's SUPPER. 
 
 Forced confessions — Anabaptism — Changs of public feeling in regard 
 to us — Former persecutions — Parliament of Charles I, — Assembly of 
 divines at Westminster — Henry VIII. — Episcopal Convocation — Con- 
 sequences — Queen Elizabeth and the Aldgate Church — Burning of 
 Baptist women — American persecutions — Danger of popularity — In- 
 fluence of open communion. 
 
 Preparatory to entering upon a more full and explicit 
 exposition of the reasons why Baptists cannot unite with 
 Pedobaplists in Sacramental Communion, let us briefly re- 
 capitulate the topics which have passed in review, and to 
 which our conclusions must have immct^iate reference. We 
 have seen, in the preceding chapters, that we are not at liberty 
 to adopt any terms of communion not instituted and estab- 
 lished by our Lord Jesus Christ ; we have specified the terms 
 which are prescribed by him, and shown them to be such ; 
 the extent to which the opinions entertained by us on this 
 subject have been, and are, substantially, embraced by all 
 other denominations ; we have replied at large to the argu- 
 ments by which our conclusions are impugned, employed 
 particularly by open communion Baptists, and generally by 
 Pedobaptists ; and we have shown that we have no authority 
 to administer, or to receive the Lord's supper, for any other 
 purposes than those designated by the Christian Legislator. 
 If we have thus far comprehended the subject in all its rela- 
 118 
 
ABANDONMENT OF PRlNCiri-E. 110 
 
 tions and liearings, it ^vill not be difllciilt for us to specify 
 satisfactorily the particular reasons why m'C decline commu- 
 nion with Pedobaptists. We proceed to this part of our 
 
 task. 
 
 Three prominent considerations influence our condfict, into 
 which all tliose of a suljordinate character may be resolved. 
 The first is, that we cannot mingle with them in sacramental 
 intercourse without an actual abandonment, or practical falsi- 
 fication of all our principles on both baptism and the Lord's 
 supper ; the second is, because Pedobaptists are not baptized ; 
 and the third is, because they attach to both baptism and the 
 Lord's supper an unscriptural and unreasonable degree of 
 efllcacy and importance, and therefore administer them for 
 purposes not authorized by the word of God. The exami- 
 nation of the first of these reasons for strict communion will 
 occupy the present chapter. 
 
 When we receive the Lord's supper with Pedobaptists, we 
 either actually abandon, or practically falsify all our principles 
 in relation to the sacraments of the Gospel. These conse- 
 quences, one or the other, cannot be avoided. Do our bre- 
 thren of the several churches designated desire us to commune 
 with them without such an understanding, tacit or avowed? 
 I cannot persuade myself that they do. Any other hypo- 
 thesis would not express respect for their candor. We should 
 violate equally our own tenets and theirs, and thus adopt a fonn 
 of liberality which could in no wise increase their estimation 
 for us, either as intelligent men or ^conscientious Christians. 
 Dr. Worcester, a distinguished Pedobaptist of the present 
 century, in his Letters to Dr. Baldwin, expresses on this sub- 
 ject the unanimous sense of al] his brethren. He remarks : 
 " If professed believers are the only proper subjects for bap- 
 tism, and if inmiersion be not a mere circumstance or mode of 
 baptism, but essential to the ordinance, so that he that is not 
 
120 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 immersed is not baptized, the sentiments of strict communion 
 would be sufficiendy established." Both these, they all know, 
 we unwaveringly believe. Tiiey maintain, as will be perceiv- 
 ed, that if they held as we do in relation to baptism, they 
 would practice as we do in relation to tlie Lord's supper. 
 Now, is it possible they can wish us to admit them to com- 
 munion with us, or desire us to sit down Avith them, without 
 acknowledging the validity of their baptism ? The supposition 
 is unreasonable. I will not do them the injustice to presume 
 they would tolerate such a course, because they are fully as- 
 sured thai in adopting it, we must either violate tlieir prin- 
 ciples as well as our own, or incur, and justly, the charge of 
 dissimulation, neither of which are they likely to regard as 
 well befittmg the solemn services of the holy table. Read all 
 their books on this subject, and the conviction cannot be re- 
 sisted that they esteem our communion with them as worth 
 nothing except as an acknowledgment of their baptism, or a 
 renunciation of our own — an humble confession that, after all, 
 we are wrong and they are right. Who does not see that all 
 who do this, actually renounce their own principles as Bap- 
 tists, or practically falsify and dishonor them ? Why, then, 
 should any one claim to be still considered as a Baptist, when 
 the mere profession is all he retains, and even this is contra- 
 dicted and disproved by his whole life and conduct ? 
 
 Were I, as a minister of Jesus Christ, to go to the Pedo- 
 baptist communion table, without hypocrisy, and in the exer- 
 cise of a good conscience, I should, in that act, acknowledge, 
 as we all agree that baptism is an indispensable preliminary to 
 communion, that those who suiTOund me, and who haA'B only 
 been sprinkled in infancy, have, in that ceremony, been truly 
 baptized. I must, tlierefore, from that moment, cither refuse 
 to baptize such when they become believers, or if not, confess 
 myself guilty of rebaptizing them. Thus I should become most 
 
CONFESSION OF ANABAPTISM. 121 
 
 certiinly what I have ever disowned with abhorrence, an ana- 
 baptist, or re-baptizcr. But I never did, I never shall, know- 
 ingly, baptize any person who had been previously baptized. 
 I will therefore never lake a position whicli will force me to 
 confess that I have done so, or that, in other respects, will 
 embarrass my obedience to any command of the divine law. 
 That we do not materially err in the view of the su]:!Ject 
 now submitted, I feel the utmost confidence. What, then, I 
 ask, are we to think of all the railing and clamor in regard 
 to it with which our ears are perpetually stunned ? It is, be- 
 yond question, a mere ''coup de main'' — a stroke of policy, 
 either to roll upon us such a tide of public ol^loquy as will 
 overwhelm us by its force — a most brodierly and affectionate 
 act — or to drive us from our principles, and by involving us in 
 fatal contradictions, to break down our doctrines and destroy 
 our churches. Do we need stronger testimony to evince that 
 the 2inilleij professedly leveled against the restrictive feature 
 in our sacramental communion, is in reality designed to act 
 against our mode and sulijects of baptism ? It cannot be con- 
 ccided that the plain propriety and scriptural character of both 
 of these is a perpetual rebuke, which they constantly feel, and 
 from which, in this indirect and more popular way, they are 
 evidently striving to be delivered. When translated into in- 
 telligible English, it all amounts to about this : — You Baptists 
 are beyond measure stubborn and unaccommodating. Do 
 acknowledge our infant sprinkling to be true and lawful bap- 
 tism. When you baptize a person who has been sprmkled 
 by us in infancy, admit that you re-baptize him. You can 
 now make all these concessions in the easiest, in the most 
 affectionate, kind and agreeable manner imaginable. Just sit 
 down with us, or invite us to sit down with you, at the Lord's 
 table. That will be amply sufficient. Come, now, we love 
 you as Christians, and tlie alfection and confidence are mutual. 
 
 11 
 
122 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 Jesiis Christ communes willi us, and we slrall all commune 
 together in heaven. Why not upon earth ? You will not — we 
 have determined to give it such a direction that public opinion 
 will not permit you to decline our solicitation. Thus you 
 will accomplish all we desire. 
 
 To those who are fluniliar with the history of the Church, 
 tliis condition of things cannot but appear in singular contrast 
 with the tone and bearing formerly maintained towards us. 
 Different, however, as it may seem, it is nevertheless, dictated 
 by precisely the same spirit. Not two centuries have elapsed 
 since Baptists and Roman Catholics were denounced by the 
 Protestant world as equally abominal^le. If there was, in 
 their estimation, au}^ dillerence, the Baptists were regarded 
 with the greater abhorrence. In proof of this remark, I refer 
 to Dr. Wall,'^ who observes : " When the Protestants arose, 
 the Papists, in scorn, called them Anabaptists,! but the Pro- 
 testants disowned 'em, and wrote agamst 'em. And Sleidan 
 gives several instances wherein Protestant princes and states 
 declared aojainst harborins^ 'em ; and made answer to the re- 
 proaches of the Papists, that they took more care to rid their 
 countries of 'em than they themselves did." The Assembly 
 of Divines at Westminster was held during the Protectorate 
 of Cromwell. From Dr. Lightfoot's Works,j: we learn the 
 temper of that body towards us. Woolsey on Baptism§ 
 says, " While all, not Presbyterians, suffered on account of 
 their sentiments, the Baptists especially were made to feel the 
 weight of their power. Often did the Assembly, during its 
 
 * Hist. Inf. Bap. Lond. ed. 1705, vol. ii. p. 202. 
 
 t The Anabaptists of that day are, on all hands, confessed to be the 
 Baptists of our times. Does not this fact prove that Baptists are older 
 than Protestants 1 
 
 t Vol. xiii. pp. 299, 302. — Journal of Proceedings, &.c. from Jan. 1, 
 1643, to Dec. 31, 1644. 
 
 ^ Avptiiifix. 
 
WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY. 123 
 
 session, consult witli the House of Commons, how they 
 might suppress Baptists, or, as they were pleased to call 
 them, Anabaptists. As strange as it may appear, yet it is no 
 less true, that the Assembly of Divines attributed their Lord 
 General's defeat in the west to ' Parliament not being active 
 in suppressing Baptists.' "* The record for Friday, August 
 the 9th, is in these Avords : " Then did Mr. Marshall report 
 from the committee chosen to study a remedy against the 
 Anabaptists, Brownists, &c. This business was also ordered 
 to be sent to the House" of Parliament. When Charles H. 
 was restored to the throne of England, all his offending sub- 
 jects were pardoned, except such as had committed the crime 
 of becoming Baptists. Wall says — " The Parliament assem- 
 bled upon the restoration, expressed the dislike the nation 
 had conceived against the tenets and behavior of these men"t 
 — Baptists — " who" — in the language of Judge Hale, " pre- 
 tended so highly to liberty of conscience.! An act (was 
 passed at the same time) for the confirming all ministers in 
 the possession of their benefices, how heterodox soever they 
 had been, provided they would conform for the future, except 
 such as had been of this way" — had committed the unpar- 
 donable crime of embracing Baptist principles. 
 
 As I have mentioned these instances, and it may not be 
 considered entirely irrelevant to do so, I will, at the risk of 
 being thought somewhat prolix, introduce one or two other 
 facts of the same character. In a speech of Henry YHI., 
 made at the proroguing of Parliament, December 24, 1545, 
 complainmg of the discord among his subjects on religious 
 accounts, he exclaims — " What love and charity is there 
 among you, when one calls another heretic and Anabaptist, 
 
 * Journal of the Assembly, Sept. 9, 10, A. D. 1644. 
 
 t History Infant Baptism, vol. ii. p. 215. 
 
 } Bm-aet's Life and Death of Sir Mattliew Hale, p. 44. 
 
124 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 and he calls him a<ram Papist, liypocrile, and Pharisee !"* 
 A Convocation of the Episcopal church was held during tlie 
 same reigii, one specific o!iject of which was to condemn the 
 Baptists for maintaining that infants could be saved Vv^ithout 
 baptism. They set forth, for that purpose, several articles 
 " to be diligently preach'd for keeping the people steady," 
 among which we notice the folio wingt — "That the sacra- 
 ment of baptism was instituted and ordained in the New 
 Testament, by our Saviour Jesus Christ, as a thing necessary 
 for attaining everlasting hfe, according to the saying of Christ 
 — Nisi quis renatus fuerit, etc. — Unless one be born again 
 of water, &c. 2. That it is ofFer'd unto all men, as well 
 infants, as such as have the use of reason, that by baptism 
 they shall have remission of sins, &c. 3. That the pro- 
 mise of grace and everlasting life, which promise is adjoined 
 unto the sacrament of baptism, pertaineth not only to such 
 as have the use of reason, but also to infants, &c. — they are 
 made thereby the very sons and children of God. Insomuch 
 as children dying in their infancy shall undoubtedly be saved 
 thereby, otherwise not. 4. Infants must needs be chris- 
 ten'd because they are born in original sin, which sin must 
 needs be remitted, Avhich cannot be done but by the grace 
 of baptism, whereby they receive the Holy Ghost, which 
 exercises his grace and efficacy in them, and cleanses and 
 purifies them from sin, by his most secret virtue and opera- 
 tion. 6. That they ought to repute and take all the Ana- 
 baptist's and Pelagian's opinions contrary to the premises, 
 and every other man's opinions agreeable unto the said 
 Anabaptists's and Pelagian's opinions in this behalf, for 
 detestable heresies, and to be utterly condemned." The 
 publication of these articles was instantly attended with the 
 
 * Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. vol. ii. p. 210. 
 
 t Fuller's Church History, Lib. 5, sect. 4. Wall, vol. ii. p. 20S, 209. 
 
BURNING OF BAPTISTS. 125 
 
 most appalling consequences to our oppressed brethren. 
 Wall, whose language in substance I adopt, affirms that it 
 was but a short time ere ^^four Baptists, diree men and one 
 woman, were condemned to bear fagots at Paul's Cross, 
 and that three days after a man and woman of their sect were 
 burnt at Smithfield. Ten other Baptists were, in a few 
 weeks more, put to death ; and some months subsequently 
 fourteen more suflered the same fate, ' for the crime of de- 
 nying,' in die language of Fuller, the historian, 'that the 
 sacraments had any (saving) effect on those that received 
 
 em. 
 
 ' "* 
 
 On all occasions, when a crowd of heretics were con- 
 demned to the stake, whoever else received clemency, the 
 Baptists were sure to suffer. Even Queen Elizabeth, par- 
 don whom she miglit, had little compassion for us. As a 
 single instance among many, illustrative of the truth of this 
 remark, I observe that, when the litde church which had 
 been secredy collected at Aldgate, London, was, by the vigi- 
 lance of the police, unfortunately discovered, the officers of 
 " Her Majesty" succeeded in capturing twenty-seven of its 
 unoffending members. These were all imprisoned in the 
 severest manner, and eleven of them, ten of whom were 
 women^ were convicted of " anabaptism," and condemned 
 therefore as guilty of capital crimes against the peace and 
 dignity of the empire. Of these eight were banished from 
 the country, and two were burned at the stake in Smith- 
 field. Fox, the celebrated Martyrologist, interceded with 
 Elizabeth to save these two victims from the flames, and to 
 have their sentence commuted to banishment, that they might 
 go with the others. The Queen replied, that she could not 
 comply with his petition, because it was necessary to make 
 
 * Hist. &c. vol. ii. p. 220 ; and the same incidects are narru-ted ia 
 Fuller's Cli. Hist. Lib. 5, sect, 5. arid Ivlartyrolcgy, ed. 2. p. Soo. 
 11* 
 
126 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 examples of them ; and added : " I wonder tliat such mon- 
 strous opmions" — as those professed by the Baptists — 
 *' could come mto the mind of any Christian. But such is 
 the state of human weakness, if we are left never so little a 
 Avhile destitute of the divine light, whither is it that we do 
 not fall?"* Happy would it be for the memory of our 
 American Fathers if " the Statutes at Large" of Virginia, 
 and the musty Legal Tomes of the staid Puritans of New 
 England contained the only evidence of Pedobaptist intole- 
 rance towards us even in this country. Baptist blood has 
 stained the soil of the New as well as the Old world. But 
 I forbear. I have digressed too far. 
 
 Am I asked, w^hether I intend to charge the Pedobaptists 
 of the present day, with the guilt of all these monstrous and 
 sanguinary proceedings of former ages ? I reply that such a 
 thought is far, very far, fi'om my heart. Our brethren of 
 other denominations are now peculiarly friendly, and affec- 
 tionate, but, I presume, not the less, on that account, desirous 
 that we should abandon our odious anabaptism. I design 
 only to contrast the difference of spirit with which in various 
 ages they have approached us. In former days of darkness, 
 how bitterly would Protestants have scouted an invitation to 
 sit down with us at the Lord's table, and had a Baptist, with- 
 out a total and public abandonment of his principles, have 
 dared to venture among the crowed to their communion, they 
 would have spurned and driven him hence, with the deepest 
 indignation. We endured the spirit of the storm while it 
 prevailed ; the tempest at last exhausted the rage of many a 
 slow moving century, and we came forth still brighter, from 
 the conflict. A change has come. Our brethren, of the 
 several denominations, have discovered that we are really not 
 demons, and that it is possible that Baptist doctrines and 
 
 ♦ Fuller's Chiuch Hist. Book 9, seel. 3, pp. 42, 43. 
 
CHANGE OF SENTIMENT TOWARDS US. 127 
 
 obedience may claim affinity to Christianity. They, indeed, 
 now believe that, excepting our bigotry in pertinaciously 
 adhering to diose antiquated and obsolete forms of religion, 
 established by Jesus Christ, and believed and practised by 
 the primitive disciples, we are excellent brethren. They 
 accord us the honour of being " a branch of the Church of 
 Christ." They expect to " commune with us in heaven," 
 and they propose to antedate our celestial unity by an earthly 
 amalgamation. While prisons, and fires, and chains, were 
 their instruments, we stood firm and unmoved amidst them 
 all. Shall we at last be seduced from our allegiance by the 
 syren voice of flattery ? Of the two this is immeasurably 
 the stronger weapon. The danger that we shall now make 
 shipwreck of faith is greater than ever before. 
 
 *' Praise from the rival'd lips of toothless bald 
 Decrepitude, and in the looks of lean 
 And craving poverty, and in the bow 
 Respectful of the smutched artificer, 
 Is oft too welcome, and may much disturb 
 The bias of the purpose; how much more 
 Poured forth by beauty, splendid and polite. 
 In language soft as adoration breathes." 
 
 " Violence is no more heard in our land ; wasting nor de- 
 struction within our borders." The sunshine of prosperity 
 casts about us a halo of brightness. Our brethren approach 
 us, not with fetters and fagots, but with smiles and kindness. 
 'J'hey say to us in effect — Do give up your principles as 
 Baptists, and then we shall have no more difficulty. We 
 love you as brethren, but your doctrines and practices are 
 most unfortunate. They are indescribably odious; and 
 while they can be of no consequence to genuine religion, 
 they serve only to make you ^' unpopular.'^ Pray let us 
 blot out the Baptist church. It is such a stubborn, bigoted, 
 
12S REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNiON. 
 
 illiberal cliiirch, and, withal, in this country, so flourishing, 
 numbering, with its adherents, one fourth of the population. 
 Let us blot it out, and the result will be so glorious. Then 
 tliere will l^e no impediment, and we shall all unite in one 
 delightful fellowship of love and communion ! 
 
 Having bravely fought the batde, and, during eighteen 
 hundred years, maintained the faith once delivered to the 
 saints, shall we, so near the goal of all our hopes, ignobly 
 put off our armor, and ingloriously perish in the affectionate 
 embraces of fraternal liberalism ? But I am told that ail 
 this is mere fancy, a dream of the imagination, that our pro- 
 miscuous communion could not, and would not have any 
 such effect. We have already seen that it could not take 
 place without either an abandonment of our principles, or a 
 practical falsification of them. Of this fact it is impossible 
 to doubt. After having been thus despoiled of our integrity, 
 would the desire be worth even a thought still to continue in 
 separate existence ? What motive could remain to prompt the 
 inclination of being ? And even if cherished, with whatever 
 anxiety, it would be hopeless. The strongest advocate open 
 communion ever had, and all its most discerning friends con- 
 cur M'ith him, candidly confesses that its universal prevalence 
 would certainly, and resistlessly, anniiiilate the Baptist 
 church. On this sul^jcct Mr. Hall remarks — " Of the ten- 
 dency of mixed communion to promote a more candid inquiry 
 into our principles it is scarcely possible to doubt ; whcthci." 
 it would have the effect of rapidly extending the Baptisi 
 church as such, is less certain. For were that practice uni- 
 versally to prevail, the mixture of Baptists and Pedobaptists 
 in Christian societies would, probably, ere long be such that 
 the appellation of Baptists might be found, not so properly 
 applicable to churches, as to individuals, while some more 
 comprehensive term migh!; possibh' bo cnipkned to discri- 
 
EFFECT OF A CONTRARV PRACTICE. 129 
 
 minate the views of collective bodies. But what tlicii ? Are 
 we contending for names, or for things ? If the effect ot a 
 more liberal system shall be found to mcrease the numl^er of 
 those wlio return to the primitive practice of baptism, and 
 thus follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth, he must be 
 possessed of a deplorable imbecility, and narrowness of mind, 
 who will lament the disappearance of a name, especially when 
 it is remembered that whenever just views on the suliject 
 shall become universal, the name by which we are at present 
 distinguished will necessarily cease. An honest sohcitude 
 for the restoration of a divine ordinance to its primitive sim- 
 phcity 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 into that which 
 is derived from the divine founder of our religion, it is an 
 event that none but a bigot will regi'et."* 
 
 It is not my design to make any comment upon this pas- 
 sage, introduced so much at length. The proof which it 
 affords of the truth of our proposition now in question is 
 conclusive. Having renounced the faith of the Gospel as a 
 concession to Christian union, we next give up our existence 
 as a church, and distribute our members among the surround- 
 ing sects, and for what? In the vain hope that as a com- 
 pensation for our voluntary destruction, they will receive 
 baptism, Avliich to bequeath to them is the only motive for 
 our death. And what, should they condescendingly fulfil 
 our hopes, will they do Avith it ? They will add it to their 
 pedoism^ and engraft it upon their Arminianism and Calvin- 
 ism, their Presbyterianism, Lutheranism, and Episcopacy, 
 and what would their religion be the better of it ? To say 
 the least it would be not less heterogeneous in its composi- 
 tion, or inconsistent in its form, than it is at present. What 
 
 * Works, vol. ii. pp. 228, 229. 
 
139 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 Baptist is sufRciently free from " iinbecility, bigotry, and 
 narrowness of mind," to feel prepared for this " meritorious" 
 act of " improvement." Which of her sons will raise his 
 voice or his hand, rudely to extinguish the only church 
 which, like the sun in mid heaven, has poured the pure light 
 of truth upon the world. Such a religious /e/o de se would 
 be equally displeasing to God, and fatal to the interests of 
 piety among men. That close communion will ere long 
 cease to exist, we too are fully assured. The event, how- 
 ever, Avill not be induced by an abandonment of the truth, on 
 the part of its ad\'Ocates, nor by the destruction of the church 
 of the Redeemer, but b}'' the conscientious and full obedience 
 of all the people of God. Thus we have seen that, to adopt 
 the popular system of free communion, we must renounce 
 our cherished principles, confess that the sprinkling of infants 
 is true ajid lav/ful baptism, and that we are re-bap tizers ; or 
 otherwise practically falsify, and dishonor all our professions, 
 rnb the church of her honors, and abandon her to darkness, 
 and non-existence. We are not prepared to meet these re- 
 sults. No peculiar affection towards us, or promises, by 
 other denominations, of love, sympathy, or obedience, can 
 lay us under obligations to prove thus recreant to all that is 
 sacred and holy. The word of God is our only standard, 
 and to the duties it imposes we must conform at all Innes, 
 and in every particular. The consequences of our oljedicncc 
 we leave to Jehovah. These considerations constitute our 
 first reason for decliniug to unite with our Fedobaptist bret]> 
 ren in Sacramental Communion. 
 
CHAPTER IX. 
 
 WE CANNOT ENGAGE IN CONMUNION WITH OUR PEUU13APTIST 
 BRETHREN, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BAPTIZED, HAVING 
 RECEIVED THE RITE IN THEIR INFANCY. 
 
 There is no law for infant baptism — The commission does not authorize 
 it — The teachings of the Apostles — Their practice — The object for 
 which baptism is received — The actions of those baptized by the 
 Apostles — Infant baptism is an evil — It is prohibited in the word of 
 God. 
 
 A SECOND reason exists proliibiting our sacramental inter- 
 course with Pedobaptists. The law of Christ requires 
 baptism as a preliminary measure, and they have n-ot been 
 baptized. To this fact we have already very frequently re- 
 ferred, and we now proceed more fully to explain ourselves 
 in the premises. 
 
 " Baptism is an ordinance of Christ," says Dr. Gale ; " it 
 must, of necessity, be celebrated exactly as he appointed. 
 And since, to the very being of baptism, a subject to whom 
 it must be administered is necessary, and a mode of admin- 
 istering, without which it would only be a notion in the 
 brain, these things are as necessary as baptism itself."* In 
 another place he remarks : — " That only is baptism which 
 Christ appointed ; and, therefore, that which differs from 
 v/hat he appointed, differs from baptism ; and to bring in 
 alterations, is to change the tiling, and make it not the same, 
 but another." 
 
 On Wall, Loud. ed. 1S2S, p. G6. 
 
 131 
 
lrV2 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMTNION. 
 
 These propositions are most clearly so many axioms, and 
 in view of them I proceed to remark that Pedobaptists are 
 not baptized, because they received the rite in their infancy. 
 In religion, or in any of its nr(linnncp« we admit of no au- 
 thority but the Bible. Who, according to this standard, are 
 we to regard as entitled to receive baptism ? I answer, be- 
 Levers, and believers only. Of this fact we are assured by 
 the law of baptism J by the teachings of the apostles on the 
 subject ; by the practice they pursued in its administration ; 
 by the objects had in view in receiving the rite ; and by the 
 actions performed by the baptized. A very brief notice of 
 each of these points will be sufficient for my present purpose. 
 
 That believers, and believers only, are entitled to receive 
 this ordinance is proved, by the law of baptism. 
 
 This is the same law with that of the Lord's supper, — 
 the apostolic commission, in which it is proper to for us to 
 observe, that several distinct and dissimilar duties are en- 
 joined. " Go ye, and teach all nations." Such is the first 
 oljligation imposed. The word — fiaOsrsvaa-ts — ti'anslated 
 tench, is, as every scholar knows, properly rendered to 
 disciple. " It is used," says the Christian Review, " in no 
 single instance, either in sacred or classic writers, in which 
 the idea of instruction is not involved. • To become a disci- 
 ple of Christ is to l^elieve in him, and obey him. 'I'o disci- 
 ple all nations, therefore, is to bring them by faith into the 
 school of Christ in which they are to learn his will. When 
 this is accomplished, and not in any instance before, a second 
 duty becomes imperative. They are to be baptized, in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 How this is to be done, is an inquiry which belongs to a 
 discussion of the action of baptism. When this is accom- 
 plished, the disciples are, lastly, to be instructed to observe 
 all oilier tilings mjoined by the word of revelation : ' Tench 
 
PEDORAPTrSTS ARE NOT BAPTIZED. 133 
 
 ing them to observe all ihiiigs whatsoever I have commanded 
 you.' "* 
 
 To every one, who reflects a moment on the subject, it is 
 as obvious as that these commands have any authority at 
 all, that, to the acceptableness of our obedience, they must 
 be observed, as we have before fully seen, in the order in 
 which they were delivered. On this point, it cannot be 
 necessary for me now to add many remarks. This order is 
 not accidental, nor can it be violated without a breach of the 
 law itself. As long as it is the duty of ministers to preach, 
 and of sinners to believe, so long it will be the duty of every 
 beUever, when he becomes such, to be baptized. For the 
 correctness of this exposition of the commission, we have the 
 highest authority which the Pedobaptist world can produce 
 —the attestation of their own best, and most cherished 
 writers, some of which we will adduce. 
 
 Jerome, a celebrated Latin Father of the fourth century, 
 acknovrledged the most learned writer of the age in which 
 he lived, in commenting on the commission, alludes to the 
 point before us in the following lanffuage : — " They — tlie 
 apostles and their successors in the ministry — -first teach all 
 nations ; then, wlien they are tauglit, they baptize them in 
 water ; for it cannot be that the body should receive the 
 sacrament of baptism," unless the soul has received btfore 
 the true faith."t 
 
 John Calvin, of Geneva, the great Reformer, and father 
 of the Presbyterian church, in his Harmony of the Evan- 
 gelists, remarks: — "Because Christ requires teaching 
 btfore baptizing, and will have believers only admitted to 
 baptism, baptism does not seem to be riglitly administered, 
 except faith precedes. "."{: 
 
 * Vol. iii. p. 205. t Gale on Wall, p. 319. 
 
 X Comm. in loco. 
 
 12 
 
134 REASONS FOR STRTCT COMMUMOM. 
 
 To the Himcd Ridiard Baxter we have before had refer- 
 ence ; I will be pcnnitled to quote agaui from his work re- 
 specting the " Rig'hts to the Sacraments," in which he iniro- 
 duces the following passage: — "As for tliose that say ihcy 
 are discipled by baplizing, and not bffore baptizing, lliey 
 speak not the sense of the text, nor that whicli is true or 
 rational. Else why should one be baptized more than an- 
 other ? This is not like some occasional historical mention 
 of baptism, but is the very command of Clirist, and pur- 
 posely expresscth their several ivorks in their several 
 places and order. The first task is, by teaching, to make 
 disciples — which Mark calls believers. The second work 
 is to baptize them. The third work is to teach them all 
 other things which are afterwards 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 1 
 My conscience is fully satisfied from this text, that it is one 
 kind of faith, even saving, that must go before baptism, 
 and the profession whereof the minister must expect."* 
 
 We could readily quote numerous other writers who mam- 
 tam the same doctrine, whose piety and learning have adorned 
 every age of the church, but these are sufficient to prove that 
 our Baptist exposition of the commission, as respects the per- 
 sons lawfully entitled to receive the ordinance, is no novelty in 
 the science of herineneutics. 
 
 The Scriptures, in the hands of a man familiar willi all 
 tiieir parts, on most topics satisfactorily interpret themselves. 
 This remark is especially true in regard to the subject now 
 under consideration. The law of baptism, as recorded by 
 Maric,t affords a striking explanation of the same law as 
 recorded liy Matthew. t According to Mark, it has the fol- 
 lowing reading: " Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
 
 * Pp. 91, 1 19, 153. t Chap. xvi. 15, 16. t Chap, xxviii. 19, 20. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM IS UNLAWFUL. 135 
 
 Gospel to every creiitiire ; he that l)ehevetli and is bap- 
 tized shall be saved; and he that beheveth not shall be 
 damned." Matthew's version is : " Go ye, therefore, and 
 teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teacliing them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you ; and, 
 lo, I am widi you alway, even unto the end of the world." 
 A moment's comparison of this law, as recorded by the two 
 sacred writers named, must convince every man that the 
 persons called by one the tavght, are, as Jerom, Calvin, 
 B:ixter, and many more, justly maintain, by the other called 
 believrs. It is therefore true, beyond a reasonable doubt, 
 that if the law of Jesus Christ, and the only law on that 
 subject he ever enacted, or announced to the world, is to 
 govern us, believers alone are to be baptized, and every be- 
 liever, as soon as he becomes such, is required to submit to 
 the ordinance. 
 
 These facts, it will be seen, leave no room for infant bap- 
 tism. If such a rite has been administered, it was unlawful, 
 and we are not permitted to recognize it. The law requires 
 every man, when he becomes a believer, to be baptized. 
 The order of the commission is peremptory. No reserva- 
 tions or exceptions are admitted. The baptism of everv 
 believer, when he is a believer, is essential to a compliance 
 with the divine requisition. It is, therefore, true, that if even 
 an inspired command exists, m any other part of the word 
 of God, directing the baptism of unbelievers, or of infants, 
 or of any other classes of persons than those described in the 
 statute, it is another baptism, and does not, and cannot 
 affect, in the slightest degree, the validity and force of this 
 order, to baptize every man when and as soon as he becomes 
 u behever. The law, I a^rain remark, makes no exceptions. 
 None are mtimated. The aescription of the person to be 
 
13G REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 baptized, as obviously excludes all others, as it requires hiiTj 
 to obey. The baptism of infants, contended for by our breth 
 ren of other churches, if it has a legjl existence, is another 
 baptism. There is, however, but one bap f ism. Paul asserts, 
 that as there is but one Lord, and 07ie faith, so there is but 
 one baptism.^ There is, therefore, no baptism for infants, 
 or for any other class of persons but those who believe, evan- 
 gelically, in our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 
 That believers, and behevers only, are lawfully entitled to 
 receive the ordinance of baptism, is still further manifest by 
 the teachings of the apostles and evangelists on the subject. 
 
 They well knew the extent of the authority confided to 
 them by the great Head of the church in this matter. To 
 them, personally, the law was delivered ; they were endowed 
 with wisdom from on high to understand its true interpreta- 
 tion ; and they were preserved from error in their instructions 
 and administrations by the presence and inspiration of the 
 Holy Spirit. What did they teach on the subject before us ? 
 A correct reply to this inquiry is derived most easily from an 
 examination of their instructions. 
 
 A few days after the ascension of our Lord, the apostolic 
 company were all together in the city of Jerusalem, when 
 they addressed a vast assembly with the most astonishing 
 effect. The speech of Peter, on this occasion, has been pre- 
 served and transmitted to us. In that speech,! we find a re- 
 ference to baptism in the following language : " Repent, and 
 be baptized, every one of you." 
 
 On the memorable occasion when the Gospel was given 
 to the Gentiles, another instance occurs of the teaching of the 
 apostle of the circumcision. The word had been fully pro- 
 posed to the assembly in the house of Cornelius. They had 
 been taught, and had embraced the truth of the religion of 
 
 * Eph. iv. 5. t Acts ii. 38. 
 
PEDODAPTISTS ARE NOT BAPTIZED. 137 
 
 Christ. The Holy Ghost had descended upon them, re- 
 generating and filling their souls with joy and peace in be- 
 Ueving. Then said the apostle, " Who can 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."* 
 
 The teachings of the evangelists conform strictly to those 
 of the aposdes. Philip, when the church was scattered, and 
 its members driven from Jerusalem, by the violence of the 
 persecution which followed tlie martyrdom of Stephen, " went 
 down to Samaria, and preached Christ to them." It is added,t 
 " When they believed Philip preaching the things of the 
 kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were 
 baptized, both men and ivomen.^^ So scrupulous was tliis 
 evangelist in his determination to conform to the commission 
 by baptizing believers, and believers only, that on another 
 memorable occasion, although previously divinely instructed 
 as to his character, when the treasurer of Candace, queen of 
 the Ethiopians, had been taught by him, had avowed himself 
 a convert, and had made application for baptism, he paused 
 to question him on his religious experience, and replied to 
 his request,! by saying, " If thou believest with all thine heart, 
 thou mayest" be baptized. 
 
 When Saul of Tarsus had repented of his sins, had be- 
 lieved in the Lord Jesus Chiist, and, to employ the scrip- 
 ture terms which express his regeneration, " the scales had 
 fallen fi'om his eyes," Ananias, of Damascus, said to him, 
 ^^Noio why tarriest thou ? Arise, and be baptized, and wash 
 away thy sins, calhng on the nanie of the Lord."§ 
 
 Such are the instances of the teachings on this sulDJect, of 
 the apostles and apostolic ministers ; and they conform, v/ith- 
 
 * Acts s. 47. ''^' I Acts viii. 3S. 
 
 + Acts viii, 12. % Acts xsii. 16. 
 
138 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 «;iit an exception, to the interpretation of the cominis5\o' which 
 we have submitted. 
 
 Let it not be presumed that Baptists are alone m /ic firm 
 opinion that, in no instance, does an apostle, «f jpostolic 
 minister teach that any but believers should be Vapt'zsd. I 
 will ofler for consideration the opinions of two or three of 
 the great German critics, of the present century, all of whom 
 are Pedobaptists, and acknowledged to be among the most 
 profound Bibhcal scholars the world ever produced.* 
 
 The great Schleirmacher, in his Christian Theologj^ re- 
 marks : — "All traces of infant baptism which one will find in 
 the New Testament, must first be put into it."t Profc/rfor 
 Hahn, in his Theology, says : — " Baptism, according to its 
 origmal design, can be given only to adults, who are capable 
 of true knowledge, repentance, and faith. Neither in the 
 Scriptures nor during the first hundred and fifty years, i-s a 
 sure example of infant baptism to be found ; and we must 
 concede that the numerous opposers of it cannot be contra- 
 dicted on Gospel grounds. "J 
 
 Professor Lange, on Infant Baptism,§ observes: — "All 
 attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testa- 
 ment fail. It is totally opposed to the spirit of the apostolic 
 age, and the fundamental principles of the New Testament." 
 
 We need not extend our observations on this head. It is 
 now, I trust, sufficiently evident, so far as the teachings of 
 the apostles, and apostolic ministers are concerned, that be- 
 lievers only are entitled to receive the sacrament of baptism. 
 
 The doctrine we now defend is still further established by 
 the recorded practice of the apostles, and their associates, who 
 never, in a single instance, administered baptism to any but 
 
 * I quote the translation of the Christian Review, vol. iii. 197, 193, 
 t P. 383. t P. 5o6. ^ P. 101. 
 
TEDOnAPTISTS ARE NOT BAPTIZED. ]39 
 
 tliose who Tiad previously professed tlieir fliilh in our Lord 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 The first baptism administered after tlie ascension of Christ, 
 took place, as we have already intimated, in Jerusalem. On 
 this occasion those who were admitted to the ordinance are 
 particularly described •■ — " Theij that gladly received the word 
 were baptized." The pronoun they, as here employed, as 
 necessarily excludes all others from the ordinance then ad- 
 ministered, as it attests the fact tliat " tliey tliat gladly re- 
 ceived the word" were admitted. 
 
 Paul and his companions preached the Gospel in Corinth. 
 • — It is addedt — " Many of the Cormtliians, hearing, be- 
 lieced, and were baptized." 
 
 When the Eunucht had solemnly professed his faith in 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, " they both went down into the water, 
 and Philip baptized him." 
 
 The Samaritans, hoxh. men and ivomen,§ "when they be- 
 lieved, were baptized." 
 
 Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue in Philippi, 
 and every member of his family, through the instramentality 
 of Paul, who boarded in the house, believed, and were all 
 baptized, by tlie hands of the apostle hims^f. 
 
 Such are the instances of the apostles' practice. Those 
 who received the Holy Ghost, and spake with tongues, as 
 in the house of Cornelius ; and those who believed in the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and rejoiced in hope ; were baptized 
 "both men, and women;" but not the slightest intimation 
 is given that children, in a single instance, were admitted 
 lo this sacred rite. On the contrary no case can be found 
 on record in the Sacred Scriptures, in which it is not either 
 
 * Acts ii. 41. X Acts viii. 38. 
 
 t Acts xviii. 8. ^ Acts viii. 12. 
 
140 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 expressly stated, or plainly implied, that the person bap- 
 tized was, previously, a believer in our Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Lest, however, any one may presume that 1 have selected 
 the instances adduced to suit our own views, and that, al- 
 though none of these favor infant baptism, there are others 
 that do, I beg" leave to refer again to some of the most 
 learned and candid Pedobaptist divines, who, in their 
 works, deliberately arranged, written, and published to the 
 world, have explicitly admitted the truth of all the facts I 
 have now stated. 
 
 Dr. Goodwin, a mem.ber of the Assembly of Divines at 
 Westminster, holds this language : — " Baptism supposeth 
 regeneration sure in itself first. Sacraments are never ?.d- 
 ministered to begin, or work gi'ace." He adds — " R{;ad 
 all the Acts of the Apostles, still it is said — They belietedt 
 and were baptized."* 
 
 Professor Limborch says — " No instance can be pro- 
 duced from which it may be indisputably inferred that any 
 child was baptized by the apostles."! 
 
 To these testimonies we will only add that of a man of 
 our own age, whose name, and literary character, are known 
 to every scholar. I refer to Bretschneider. He says :|— - 
 " Rhcinard, Morus, and Doderlein, say — Infant baptism is 
 not to be found in the Bible." The Christian Review 
 quotes this passage and adds§ — " We need say nothing of 
 the literary character of these three great men." 
 
 AVe are now, I think, authorized to say, that the practice 
 of the aposdes justifies the conclusion that believers and be- 
 lievers only are entided to receive the ordinance of baptism. 
 
 I further observe that the objects designed to be effected 
 
 * Works, vol. i. part 1, p. 200. t Theology, vol. ii. p. 758. 
 
 t Com. Sys. Div. Lib. 5, cap. 22. ^ Vol. iii. p. 200. 
 
PEDOBAPTISTS ARE NOT BAPTIZED. Ill 
 
 by baptism can possibly be accomplished only when be- 
 lievers are the subjects of the ordinance. 
 
 Baptism is the appointed form in which, in part at least. 
 we make a profession of the religion of Christ. Such a 
 profession is not, and cannot be, complete without it. This 
 truth is so obvious that I suppose it will be cheerfully ad- 
 mitted by the well informed Christians of every denomina- 
 tion. If, in the apostolic day, a man was baptized, he was 
 regarded by all as having made a profession of religion. 
 So it is now, and so it has been in all ages and countries. 
 
 Paul teaches this doctrine in the plainest, and most une- 
 quivocal terms. He says to the Galatians — " Ye are all 
 the children of God in Christ Jesus."* But how could 
 this be true, on the Pedobaptist principle ? If some mem- 
 bers of that church were baptized inflmts, then either 
 Paul's statement of them was not true, — they were not all 
 the children of God in Christ Jesus ; or else he tar.ght the 
 doctrine that baptism alone, irrespective of belief in Christ, 
 or any work of the Spirit of God — of either of which infants 
 are mcapable — -did constitute the babes ^vho received it, as 
 fully as the regeneration of the souls of the believers, the 
 children of God in Christ Jesus. This would have been 
 contradictory, and manifestly absurd. He taught no such 
 doctrine. The apostle himself tells us why he assumed 
 this predicate of the Galatians : — " Ye are all the children 
 of God, in Christ Jesus, for" — or because — " as many of 
 you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ" 
 — have professed yourselves Christians. Not that bap- 
 tizing them made them Christians. This absurdity Paul 
 never countenanced. They were made Christians by faith 
 in Christ Jesus, upon a profession of which, he assumes it 
 as a matter of course, they had been baptized, ana united 
 
 * Ch. lii. 26, 27. 
 
142 REASONS FOR STRICT COMxMUNlON. 
 
 with the church. He, therefore, naturally concludes they 
 were all regenerated persons — in other words, " the chil- 
 dren of God in Christ Jesus." Archbishop Tillotson, with 
 whom, on this subject we entirely agree, expressly says* 
 — " In baptism we put on Christ" — or make a public pro- 
 fession of religion. 
 
 Baptism, therefore being the appointed form in which 
 we profess the religion of Christ, how can he who has no 
 religion make a profession of it, \vithout hypocrisy ? And 
 when baptism is applied to infants, incapable of any voli- 
 tion whatever, and much more of professions of any kind, 
 can it be supposed, without the abandonment of reason, 
 that the object of the ordinance is accomplished ? Unques- 
 tionably it cannot. The practice, sometimes adopted, of 
 appointing sponsors, who profess as the proxies of the child, 
 and in its name ; and bind themselves that at maturity, it 
 " shall renounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and 
 vanities of this wicked world," while it is an indirect con- 
 fession, in theory, of the truth of the Baptist doctrine, but 
 adds, in its practice, — ^besides the sin of religiously promising 
 what no one pretends to think he can perform, — another 
 item to the absurdity of Pedobaptism, by presuming that 
 the fiiith of one man can be appropriated to the justification 
 of another. 
 
 Neander, known in our country as the author of the 
 latest and best Ecclesiastical History that has been written ; 
 who is a converted Jew and Professor of Theology in the 
 most eminent University in Prussia ; a member of the Lu- 
 theran Church, and of course a Pedobaptist, refers to the 
 matter now under consideration in the following terms : — 
 " As baptism was closely connected with a conscious en- 
 trance into Christian fellowship, and as faith and baptism 
 
 * Works, vol. V. Serm. 7, p. 179. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM A NT'LLTTY 
 
 143 
 
 were ahvays joined together, it is altogether prol3abk3 tliat 
 it was administered only when these two things were 
 united."* How else, I ask, could the object of baptism 
 have been attained ? An involuntary confession of Christ, 
 and v.diich is true of baptism in every case, except in tliat 
 of a believer, is of no force or value, at the tribunal of either 
 God or man. 
 
 Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo, fourteen hundred j-ears 
 ago, defined baptism : " The outward and visible sign, of 
 the inward and spiritual grace." Most of the prevailing 
 denominations have adopted this ancient definition. But 
 what does it mean ? Its sense must be that in the regenera- 
 tion of the soul by the Holy Ghost, our sins are forgiven, 
 and the grace imparted which dwells within, of which bap- 
 tism is at the same time a figure and a profession. On this 
 account, baptism is metaphorically said to be the washing 
 away of sins. But what "inward and spiritual grace" is 
 there in the child, of which " baptism is the outward and 
 visible sign?" Surely regeneration is necessary to impart 
 " the inward and spiritual grace," or none can exist. Does 
 any one pretend that infants are regenerated before tliey are 
 baptized? ''The Standards''' maintain, 'as we shall have 
 occasion hereafter to show, that baptism imparts regenera- 
 tion ; but what Fedobaptist now confesses his belief in this 
 dogma? Is baptism necessary to salvation* Will the 
 opinion that it is, be, in this enlightened age, publicly 
 avowed ! That the word of God directly enjoins their 
 baptism, no well read man will, I presume, risk his repu- 
 tation by asserting. What benefit can it impart? It is 
 inipossible — physically and morally impossible — for the 
 unconscious babe to make a profession of religion. — Their 
 baptism, therefore, is without signification. It is of no 
 
 * Hist, of Apostolic Age, vol. i. p. 140. 
 
141 REASONS Foil STKICT COMMUNION. 
 
 benefit lo them in tliis world, nor in the world to come. 
 It is not an act, whether on the parts of the parents or tlie 
 child, of obedience to Christ, because he has not com- 
 manded it. Why, then, subject them to the rite, appointed 
 as the form in which Christians are to profess the religion 
 of Christ, and of which infants can at best be only the in- 
 voluntary and passive objects ? The design, therefore, pro- 
 posed to be effected by baptism, can be secured only when 
 believers are the subjects, and consequendy the ordinance 
 is to be administered alone to believers. 
 
 The actions said to have been performed by those who 
 received it, complete the proof that, in the days of the apos- 
 tles, believers and believers only were regarded as entitled 
 to baptism. 
 
 Those who were baptized on the day of Pentecost "gladly 
 received the word," and " continued, steadfastly, in the 
 aposdes' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, 
 and in prayers." The Corinthians " heard," and " believed." 
 The guests of the Centurion " received the Holy Ghost," 
 and " spake with tongues." The household of Lydia were 
 " comforted" by the promises of the Gospel. The house- 
 hold of the jailer of Philippi, believed in God, and rejoiced. 
 And so of all the others. Their feehngs and acts were such 
 as were dictated by enlightened and ardent piety. They 
 were natural to believers. They were, in the aggi-egate, 
 such as among Baptist churches, generally, we constantly 
 witness. But they were, without exccpdon, all impossible 
 to infants, and as necessarily exclude them from the ordi- 
 nance, as if it had been expressly affirmed, that those only 
 were baptized, who were members of the national council, 
 soldiers in the army, or merchants in business. The actions 
 of the baptized are particularly described in the New Testa- 
 ment ; they are those of which infants are incapable ; there- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM AN EVIL. t45 
 
 fore it is impossible that infants could have been baptized in 
 tlie days, or by the authority of the apostles. 
 
 In these plain and obvious conclusions, it gives us great 
 pleasure to have the concurrence of the best and most learned 
 writers among Pedobaptists themselves, the testimony of some 
 of whom I will be permitted to transcribe. 
 
 Dr. Wall, the great champion of infant baptism, has in his 
 history made an admission in these words : — "Among all the 
 persons that are recorded as baptized by the apostles, there 
 is no express mention of any infeiit."* 
 
 Martin Luther, also, the incomparable Reformer, a much 
 greater- man than Wall, has said : — " It cannot be proved by 
 the sacred Scriptures, that infant baptism was instituted by 
 Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the aposdes."t 
 
 In the facts and considerations now adduced we have 
 shown as we have proposed, from the plain sense of the law 
 of baptism enacted by Christ ; from the teachings and prac- 
 tice of the aposdes ; from the objects designated to be effected 
 by baptism ; from the actions performed by those who re- 
 ceived the ordinance ; and from the concessions of the greatest 
 and most learned men of the Pedobaptist world, fathers, re- 
 formers, and moderns, that believers, and believers only, are 
 lawfully entided to receive the ordinance of baptism. We 
 have also seen that infant baptism is not enjoined in the 
 Bible, was not practised by the aposdes, nor "'commenced 
 during the first, and purest ages of the church. How then, 
 when an infant is sprinkled, can we recognize this as true 
 Gospel baptism ? 
 
 But we go further than this. We propose to prove that 
 infant baptism is an evil^ and that it is positively prohibited 
 in die word of God. 
 
 * Introduction, pp. 1 
 
 t Inst. R's, apud Van. of Inf. Bnp. part 2, p. 8. 
 
 13 
 
14G REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 Before I proceed, however, in llie argument, I will briefly 
 reply to an inquiry which has, I doubt not, before this time, 
 suggested itself to the mind of my reader. The explanation 
 will also prevent the necessity of referring to the same topic 
 on collateral subjects in future. The numerous Pedobaptist 
 writers quoted in this and other chapters, certainly believed 
 the baptism of infants lawful and obligatory, otherwise they 
 would not have practised it. How, it may be asked, could 
 thev cherish such a belief, and still make the concessions 
 which have been recited? I answer, they certainly did both, 
 and seemed not to be at all conscious that any inconsistency 
 could be charged against them. 'J'here are men of little 
 reading and humbler abihties, who believe it is enjoined in 
 the New Testament ; but the great and learned men I have 
 quoted, received and practised infant l^aptism, not because 
 they presumed it to be directly taught in the divine law, — 
 this, they maintain, is not the case, — but because they found 
 it in the " Standards ;" it was the practice of the church ; and 
 they imagined they could not conveniently dispense with it ! 
 It has been defended by some on the ground of '"■ Christian 
 feeling^ This seems to be a favorite idea with the Ger- 
 man critics. Some advocate it because they say it wdll do 
 the child no harm, and probably render the parents more 
 sensible of their obligations to rear it in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord. Some derive it, by analogy, from the 
 circumcision of the Mosaic dispensation, others from prose- 
 lyte baptism, and others plead for it on tlie ground that all 
 men are born sinful and heathen, and baptism must he admin- 
 istered to wash away their sins, reclaim them from hea- 
 thenism, and initiate them into covenant with God. Others 
 still place it, like Calvin, upon the ground that the church 
 has the right to change the form of the sacrament ; and still 
 others, with the fathers of Protestant Episcopacy, claim that 
 
IXFAM" liAPTISM AN EVIL. 147 
 
 ♦' the Church has power to decree rites and ceremonies." 
 It is a remarkable fact, that although all the Pedobaptist 
 churches concur in baptizing their children, yet no two of 
 them can agree as to the reasons why they do so, or what 
 children they shall baptize. These facts explain the whole 
 mystery how the admissions we have quoted could be made, . 
 and yet their authors believe in infant baptism, and practice 
 the ceremony. Great men are not always great in every 
 thing. I shall not here attempt a refutation of their argu- 
 ments. For this purpose I refer my reader to the* admirable 
 History of Baptism, by the Rev. Isaac T. Hinton ; the 
 excellent little work of the Rev. Milo P. Jewett, with such 
 other books as Judd's Review of Stewart ; Carson on Bap- 
 tism, and many more of higli character. How can such 
 Pedobaptists as I have quoted read and applaud, as so many 
 of them do, the immortal maxim of Chillingworth, and yet 
 be Pedobaptists ? " The Bible — the Bible alone, is the re- 
 ligion of Protestants." How could Chillingworth himself 
 mingle so great a truth with his own Pedobaptisni ? But I 
 proceed with my argument. 
 
 My postulate is, that the baptism of infants is an evil. 
 
 This proposition may, at the first aimunciation, startle the 
 reader. He may even be tempted to pronounce it unpar- 
 donably bold. I beg indulgence, however, and attention, for 
 but a moment, and my reasons for the sentiment will have 
 been submitted. They will not be likely to pass for more 
 than they are worth. 
 
 The admission of infants to baptism destroys one of the 
 main designs had m view in the institution of baptism. All 
 denominations and all ages agree in regarding baptism as 
 constituting a principal part of the visible line which distin- 
 guishes the church from the world. No one can be recog- 
 nized as a member of any church who is not baptized ; and, 
 
148 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 on the Other liaiid, all, botli infants and adults, who have been 
 baptized, are considered, in some sort, members of the church. 
 Infant baptism, however, as far as it prevails, destroys this 
 distinction, and, by confounding them together, ruins the 
 church, without beiieliting the world. We will imagine, for 
 illustration, that from this moment, Pedobaptist principles 
 are fully adopted and practised by all people, upon the face 
 of the whole earth. Every child, as soon as born, would be 
 initiated into the church, and, as a consequence, in one gen- 
 eration, every man, woman, and child in the whole world, 
 would be in the church. As baptism in infancy renders no 
 one, in any respect, more moral or religious than he would 
 have been without it, or increases in any case the likelihood 
 of conversion, the church would exhibit, with perhaps a few 
 lioly men, as at present, a liorde of infidels, druukaids, mur- 
 derers, thieves, and robbers, all church members ! The visi- 
 bility of the church would be lost ; nor could it ever be 
 regained until, by a return to Baptist principles*, believers, 
 and believers only, were admitted to baptism. 
 
 Infant baptism is an evil on another account. It prevents 
 tliose who have received it from being, when they become 
 believers, baptized, as the law of Christ commands. This 
 law requires the baptism of believers : " He that believeth 
 and is baptized." To the believer is the promise made, and 
 to those who do not believe and yet are baptized, there is 
 made, on that account, no promise. Any ceremony, there- 
 ibre, which prevents obedience is an evil. 
 
 Infant baptism is an evil because the practice serves to 
 perpetuate the error that originated it — the supposition that 
 :ill repudiate, that all still feel, and to which, in n^oments of 
 excitement, they instinctively bow, that baptism is myste- 
 riously connected with the salvation of the child, or in some 
 way materially affects its condition and prosjMiati m ^v>ihcr 
 
INFANT BAI'TISM PKOIIIKITED. 149 
 
 stnte of being. If this be not so, how can we account for 
 the trembhng sohcitiide manifested by the mass of otlierwise 
 even intelligent people, when they imagine their little ones 
 in danger of death ? If the skies pour down floods, and the 
 earth is rocked in storms, if the living thunders are leaping 
 every moment from their tempestuous home, and darkness 
 lilve a man lie covers the world, not a moment must be lost, 
 the minister must come, and the child must be baptized at 
 midnight, lest it die! I reverence parental afl^ection ; but 
 why should it suggest a resort to baptism ? Disguise it as 
 we may, the deception is fixed in the soul. 
 
 Numerous otlier proofs of the same fact suggest themselves, 
 but these are sufficient. Infant baptism, therefore, is an evil 
 because it confounds the church with the world ; and because 
 by it liot?i parents and children are betrayed into radical error, 
 and deceived in relation to vital articles of the Christian faith. 
 
 I have said that the baptism of infants is peremptorily 
 and explicitly prohibited. 
 
 It is pro!ul)ited on the ground that it is useless, that 
 it is unreasonable, and that it is an evil. All these facts 
 we have fully proved, and the arguments need not be 
 repeated. 
 
 The apostolic commission prohibits the baptism of in- 
 fants. We have seen that this holy statute describes par- 
 ticularly the person to be baptized. They arc believers. 
 It is impossible that a command to baptize believers can 
 include infants. No explanation can bring tliem into it. 
 Even if there was a command, in some other part of the 
 word of God, authorizing or requiring the baptism of in- 
 fants, which we have seen is not tiiie, it vv'ould not, unless 
 some exception could be discovered, in which the law of 
 the commission, requiring every one to be baptized when he 
 becomes a believer, may bo suspended, interfere with its 
 1:5* 
 
150 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 regiibir administration. The law of God, therefore, pro- 
 hi!)its the baptism of infants. 
 
 But we have still more direct authority on the point in 
 question. 
 
 Baptism, as we have seen, is enacted by positive law. 
 The obligation to obey a positive law arises solely from 
 the authority of the Lawgiver. Therefore the law of the 
 institution is the only rule of obedience. If, then, there is 
 no plain command there is no law. We have seen that all 
 tlie great Pedobaptist writers confess there is in the Bible no 
 direct command for infant baptism. But the matter does 
 not rest here. AVith regard to all the commandments enacted 
 as positive laws, Jehovah has promulgated a special edict in 
 these words :— " Ye shall not add unto the word which I 
 command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that 
 ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God 
 which I command you."* So important does God regard 
 it to preserve his institution pure from all change and con- 
 tamination, that he twice repeats this solemn law, and adds 
 at last a most fearful penalty. He says : " What thing 
 soever I command you, observe to do it. Thou shalt not 
 add thereto, nor diminish from it."t And, " If any man 
 shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the 
 plagues that are written in this book ; and if any man shall 
 take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, 
 God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out 
 of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this 
 book. "J Is infant baptism directly commanded ? Its advo- 
 cates themselves confess that it is not. It is, then, directly, 
 explicitly, peremptorily prohibited, and he who glares to 
 introduce it, or carry it into practice, does so at his peril. 
 With all these facts before us, and witli our commou 
 * Deut. iv. 2. t Deut. xii. 32. t Rev. xxii. 18, 19. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM I'UOIIIBITED. 151 
 
 Baptist reverence for the word of God, and the teachings of 
 his holy apostles, it is not surprising that we should feel 
 shocked at the attempt of any body of men, professing to 
 be Christians, to bring into the church, not only without 
 authority to do so, but in direct opposition to the express 
 statute of the divine word which forbids it, the ceremony 
 of infant baptism, and plead for it as useful and obligatory. 
 To such a loose and licentious theology we cannot sub- 
 scribe. On the contrary, against it, in all its parts, we 
 feel ourselves bound to enter our most earnest and solemn 
 protest. 
 
 These, briefly, are our reasons, and we beheve they are 
 good and sufficient reasons, for refusing to recognize the 
 rite as legitimate when administered in infancy. Pedobap- 
 tists have received no other baptism but this, which is a 
 nullity. They are not baptized, and, therefore, we dare not, 
 until they are, admit them to the Lord's table. 
 
CHAPTER X. 
 
 WE CANNOT COMMUNE WITH PEDOBAPTISTS BECAUSE, NOT 
 HAVING BEEN IMMERSED, THEY ARE NOT BAPTIZED. 
 
 Immersion only is baptism, proved by the sense of the word — its phi- 
 lology — Its sense confessed by critics — By theologians — Ancient 
 Confessions of Faith — The English Liturgy — Use of the word in our 
 common translation — Ancient version of the New Testament^rea- 
 sons why it received its present rendering — Translations into He- 
 brew — Conclusions. 
 
 Pedobaptists are not baptized for other reasons than that 
 we have now considered, and especially because, aUhough 
 the subject might have been an aduU, and a behever, yet tlie 
 ordinance was administered by sprinkhng, or pouring, which 
 is not, and cannot be baptism, therefore, they have not com- 
 pUed with the preUminary law, the oljservance of which is 
 expressly required to qualify them to partake of the Lord's 
 supper. 
 
 Because a proft;ssion of religion is a declaration of our faith 
 in the death, burial, and resurrection of Clu'ist, and a determi- 
 nation, by his grace, to live a new and holy life, and baptism 
 is the divinely appointed form in which such profession is 
 required to be made, therefore, " we are buried widi Christ 
 by baptism into dcadi, that like as Christ was raised up from 
 the dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also, should 
 walk in newness of life." To be buried with Christ in bap- 
 tism is to he immersed ; and afier mature, protracted, and 
 anxious examination, we have arrived at the setded, and unrd- 
 tcrable conclusion, diat immersion in water, by an authorized 
 administrator, of a properly quaiiiied candidate, in the name 
 152 
 
PEUOiiAl'TlSTS ARE NOT BA!»TIZED. 153 
 
 of llie Father, and of tlie Son, and of the II')ly Ghost, and 
 tills alone, is Christian baptism. In proof of the correctness 
 of this opinion I shall offer a few brief considerations. 
 
 This proposition is sustained by the meaning of the word 
 employed in the New Testament to describe the action of 
 baptism. 
 
 The word invariably is BartT-i^w, m some one or other of 
 its forms. This word is derived from " Bant<o, which signi- 
 fies primarily to dip, and as a secondary meaning ob^•iously 
 derived from the primary, it denotes to dye. Every occur- 
 rence of the word may be reduced to one or the other of these 
 acceptations. It has been said that it signifies to icabh. 
 This meaning has been given by Lexicogi'aphers, and is 
 admitted by Baptists, but it is not warranted by a single 
 decisive example either in the Scriptures, or in classical 
 authors." It has also been said that it is a generic word, 
 and without respect to mode, or exclusive of all modes, de- 
 notes any application of water. This idea is wdiolly fanciful. 
 Except when the word signifies to dye, it denotes mode and 
 nothing else. 
 
 The root /Bart-r-w, and its derivative /3artrt^w, are often con- 
 sidered as synonymous. There is, however, " a very ob- 
 vious difference," says Carson, " in the use of the words ; 
 and a difference that materially and naturally affects the point 
 now at issue." It is this — ".iSa^rco is never used to denote 
 the ordinance of baptism, and ^a^rt^w," used for this pur- 
 pose, ''never signifies to dye. The primary word ,3a7trw 
 has two significations, the first to dip, and the second to dye. 
 15ut the derivative is formed only to modify the primary ; 
 and hi all the Greek language, I assert, that an instance cannot 
 be found in which it has the secondary meaning of the primi- 
 tive word. If this assertion is not correct it will be easy for 
 learned men to produce an example in contradiction. That 
 
154 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 pajtt^ is never applied to the ordinance of })aptism any one 
 can verify who is able to look into the passages of the Greek 
 'I'estamsnt, which refer to the ordinance. The derivative 
 jSartT't^co is alone used to describe the sacred ordinance , and 
 iji the whole history of the Greek language, it has bat one 
 meaning ; it not only means to dip or immerse, but it never 
 has any other meaning."* If any scholar disputes this state- 
 ment, let him bring forward the passages that sustain him, 
 from the Septuagint or from the New Testament ; from any 
 of the Greek classics, such as Elian's Varia Historia, the 
 Idyls of Theocritus, the works of Aristotle, of Aristophanes, 
 Sophocles, Herodotus, Homer, Hypocrates, or any others ; 
 or from any of the Greek Fathers. Let the passages be 
 produced. But the utmost eflbrts of ages have been exerted, 
 and it has not been done, it cannot be done. If, therefore, 
 any respect is due to the meaning of words used to describe 
 actions. Christian baptism is conhned exclusively to immer- 
 sion. 
 
 In these conclusions, regarding the meaning of the word, 
 we have the concurrence, strange as it m.ay appear, of tlie 
 great and the learned, even of the Pedobaptists themselves; 
 and given, too, with more or less cheerfulness, by men of all 
 the leading denominations of Christians. This fact is as 
 true as it is interesting and important, o-f wliich I shall at 
 once proceed to give satisfactory testimony. 
 
 Our first witness shall be that great man, before several 
 times quoted, whose name is synonymous with the Reforma- 
 tion. Martin Luther,t remarks : — " The term baptism is a 
 Greek word. It may be rendered a dipping, as when Ave 
 dip something in water, that it may be entirely covered with 
 water. And though that custom be utterly abolished among 
 tlie generality, for neither do they dip * * * * •'■' but only 
 * Carsoii; p. 19. | Apud Du Veil, on Acts viii. 3. 
 
BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. lo5 
 
 sprinkle with a Utile water, nevertheless tliey ouglit to be 
 wholly immersed, and presently drawn out again. For the 
 etymology of the word seems to require it. The significa- 
 tion of baptism is, that the old man of our nativity, which is 
 full of sins, which is entirely of flesh and blood, may be 
 overwhelmed by divine grace. The manner of baptism, 
 therefore, sliould correspond with the signification of baptism, 
 that it may show a certain and plain sign of it."* 
 
 No Baptist could have expressed his own sentiments more 
 lucidly than they are here declared by this distinguished 
 man. The German critics, though all Lutherans, still main- 
 tain the same doctrines. The necessity of consulting the 
 utmost brevity will permit me to present but a single instance. 
 Storr, who is distinguished alike by his learning and candor, 
 in a late profound work on Biblical Theology, emphatically 
 says : — ^t 
 
 " The disciples of our Lord could understand his com- 
 mand in no other manner than as enjoining immersion." 
 He then proceeds to prove that, in the fourth century, only 
 immersion was considered valid baptism, and to establish this 
 position he refers to a case nan-ated in the sixty-ninth epistle 
 of Cyprian— Ed. Bremo. p. 188 — and mentions the instance 
 of Novatian, contained in the letter of Cornehus, the Roman 
 bishop, recorded in Eusebius — Eccl. Hist. Lib. vi. cap. 43. 
 Speaking of the modern practice of sprinkling for baptism, 
 
 * "Luther De Sacramento Baptismi" — ^Vide works, Genoe 15.56, 
 Vol. i. p. 336, " Primo nomen Baptismus Grsecum est, Latiiie potest 
 veiti, mersio, cum immergimus aliquid in aquam, ut totum tegatur 
 aqua, et quamvis ille mos jam absoluerit apud plaerosque (neque enim 
 totos dcmergunt pueros, sed tantum pancula aqua perfundunt) debebant 
 tamen prorsus immergi, et statim retrahi. Id enim etymologia nominis 
 postulare videtur. Et Germani quoque baptismum tauff vocant, a pro- 
 funditate, quam tieff, illc sua lingua vocant quod profunde demergi 
 conveniat eos qui baptiscuntur."" 
 
 t Andovcr od. 1S:6, pp. 290, 291. 
 
15G REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 Storr adds : — " The ancient immersion ought not to have 
 been changed;" asserts that Luther himself was of that opi- 
 nion, and wished to restore the primitive practice. His words 
 are : — " It is certainly to be lamented that Luther was not 
 able to accomplish his wish with regard to the introduction 
 of immersion in baptism, as he had done in the restoration of 
 wine in the eucharist." 
 
 Our second witness shall be the renowned Reformer — 
 John Calvin. 
 
 In his Institutes of Religion, as translated by Allen, he 
 says : — " The word baptize, signifies to inmierse, and it is 
 certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient 
 church."* In several other instances this great man main- 
 tained the same important truth. For example, in his Com- 
 mentary on John iii. 23, and also on Acts viii. 38 — he has 
 this remark : — " From these words we perceive how ]'»aptism 
 was administered by the ancients, for they hnmersed the 
 whole Ijody in water." 
 
 Our tliird witness shall be the famous Episcopalian 
 writer — Dr. Wall. In his History of Infant Baptism, he 
 observes : — " This is so plain and clear [the necessity 
 3f innnersion to baptism] by an infinite number of pas- 
 sages, that, as we cannot but pity the weak endeavors of 
 such Pedobaptists as would maintain the negative of it, 
 so we ought to disown, and show a dislike to the profane 
 scoifs which some people give to the Antipedobaptists [Bap- 
 tists] merely for their use of dipping, when it was, in all 
 probability, the way in which our blessed Saviour was bap- 
 tized, and, for certain, was the most usual way by which the 
 ancient Christians did receive their baptism."! And in an- 
 other place Dr. Wall adds: — "The ordinary and general 
 
 * Vol. iv. cap. 15, p. 343. 
 
 t Hist.Nlnf. Bap. vol. ii. p. 351. 
 
TESTIMONY OF PEDOnAPTlSTS. 157 
 
 pmcfice of John, the apostles, and the primitive church, was 
 to baptize by putting tlie person into the water."* 
 
 Take, as a fourth witness, the learned body of divines who 
 composed the book called '• 'J'he Assembly's Catechism.'* 
 In tlieir Annotations on Colossians ii. 12 — " Buried with 
 him in baptism" — they say: "In this phrase the apostle 
 seemeth to allude to the ancient manner of haptism, which 
 was to dip the parties baptized, and, as it were, to bury 
 them under the v/ater." 
 
 The venerable John Wesley shall bear testimony as our 
 fifth witness. He, with the others, admits that baptism was 
 primarily so adminisiered.t In a sermon on Rom. vi. 3, 4, 
 using the language of Doddi-idge, he observes : " It seems the 
 part of candor to confess that here is an allusion to the man- 
 ner of baptizing by immersion."^ Dr. Adam Clark, in his 
 note on the same passage, says : " It is probable that the 
 apostle here alludes to the mode of administering baptism by 
 immersion, the v/liole body being put under the water." 
 
 The most ancient Confessions of Faith and Directories 
 speak on this subject in perfect accordance with what we 
 ha\'e now seen to be the sense of the word, and the under- 
 standing of the most learned even of Pedobaptists, as to the 
 form of Ijaptism. In illustration of this remark, we submit 
 two 01 three instances. 
 
 The Helvetic Confession of Faith, drawn up by Bucer, 
 in 1536, for the use of the Protestant churches in Switzer- 
 land, ten years before the death of Luther, and republished 
 by the Pastors of Zurich, has this passage : " Baptism was 
 instituted and consecrated by God, and the first that baptized 
 was John, who dipped Christ in the water in Jordan." 
 
 * Defence of Inf. Bap. p. 129. 
 
 t I do not intend to intimate that any of these .vitaesses thought 
 nothing baptism but immersion. 
 
 X Family Expositor. Note in loco. 
 
 14 
 
158 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 Ill the Confession of Faith, written by Melancthon, in 
 1551, and adopted by the Saxon churches, he says : " Bap- 
 tism is an entire action, to wit, a dipping, and a pronouncing 
 these words — I baptize you," &c. 
 
 The first Liturgy of the Englisli — Episcopal — cliurch was 
 drawn up in 1547, in which Augusti says: "Trine immor- 
 sioii was enjoined."* At the commencement of tJie reign 
 of James II. the Liturgy was revised, and the rubric thrown 
 into its present form, which runs thus — " Then tlie priest 
 shall take the cliild into liis hands, and ask the name, and 
 naming the child, sliall dip it in the water, so it be discreetly 
 and warily done, saying— N., I baptize thee," &c.t 
 
 We may now be permitted to oI)serve, that not only is 
 the word employed perfecdy and confessedly definite, but 
 such is the rich variety of the Greek language, in which the 
 New Testament is written, that a different term is used for 
 every possible application of water, whether for sacred or 
 any other purposes, such as ^atvw, ^airt^co, fxxf^i viriTu), xo'jw, 
 TiXvi'cc, ftartrcd, f^arf-Tt^w, ayvL^<^, xaSat^co, and a few Others. Some 
 of these words express different actions, and others the same 
 action with regard to different ol^jects, but all describe the 
 application of water for different purposes. It is inconsistent 
 with our conceptions of the wisdom and benevolence of God, 
 as taught by his holy word, to presume for a moment that 
 in his blessed revelation, respecting the instructions of which 
 it is so necessary for us to have correct ideas, that the Holy 
 Spirit did not use words with the utmost precision of import. 
 Among so many words, in the richest and most copious lan- 
 guage which ever existed, is there not one so delinite to 
 describe the acdon of baptism, that we may certainly know 
 precisely what that action is ? Let us take up our common 
 
 * Dunkewarcl, p. 229. t Prayer Book, Lond, ed. 1G39. 
 
SPRINKLING AND POURING NOT BAPTISM. 159 
 
 translation, and compare it Avith the Greek original, and we 
 shall find the following interesting results. In the origuial 
 we shall see that the word to sprinkle occurs sixty-two times; 
 the word to pour, and its derivatives, a hundred and fifty-two 
 limes ; to wash, and its derivatives, a hundred and thirty-nine 
 times ; to dip, with its derivatives, twenty-two times ; and to 
 pkmge, once. Let this inquiry be now answered — Did the 
 translators, in a single instance, render the word which means 
 to immerse, to sprinkle ? Not an example can be found. 
 Did they ever translate the same word to pour and to im- 
 merse ? Never. Did they, in any case, translate /SaTttt^w 
 to sprinkle or to pour ? Never. And not an instance occurs 
 in which ^aivu, or ^avti^io, is translated to baptize, to dip, or 
 to plunge. Are not these instructive facts ? In the judg- 
 ment of our translators, these words are so definitely expres- 
 sive of certain and fixed actions, that they never could be 
 rendered into our language by one and the same word, and 
 if not, the actions they describe cannot be one and the same 
 action. How then can baptism be performed indifier- 
 ently by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion ? It is impos- 
 sible. To sprinkle, therefore, is one action, and to baptize 
 is another and a very different action. To pour is one 
 action, and to baptize is another and a very different action. 
 To sprinkle and to pour so nearly resemble each other, and 
 in effect are so much the same, that ^at^w, and the compounds 
 of fxz^^, are both rendered to sprinkle, but so impassal:)le is 
 the g-ulf between pouring and sprinkling, and baptism, thst 
 never once is either ^atru, ?.odw, or fx;tfw, or uTtrw, or Tf/.wiOj 
 translated to baptize — to dip, or immerse. How, therefore, 
 can sprinkling or pouring be baptism ? It cannot be,— it is 
 impossible. 
 
 Had the Holy Spirit, in dictating his revelation, designed 
 to leave upon our mind an indefinite impression, which 
 
160 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 doubtless would have been tlie case, had he, as our Ped< 
 baptist brethren are wont to tell us, intended to conline baj" • 
 tism to no particular mode, he would not have adopted 
 ^urttL^i^ as the word to describe it, lest immersion should be 
 understood ; nor exxi^^y lest pouring should have been supposed 
 to be the action prescribed ; nor would he have chosen gatfw, 
 lest sprinkhng should have been considered as enjoined ; but 
 he would have selected some word, not, as is true of that 
 used, denoting mode and nothing else, but having reference 
 to the effect rather than the action. Was any such word at 
 command ? Instantly upon the suggestion of the inquiry, 
 are presented to our mind, ayrt^w, to purify, and xd9at^u>, to 
 cleanse, in any convenient method of applying water. But 
 the Holy Spirit did not adopt an indefinite term. He did 
 not, therefore, command an indefinite action to be performed. 
 The word used cannot, in any possible case, mean to sprin- 
 kle or to pour ; therefore it is impossible that baptism ever 
 can be performed by sprinkling or pouring. The term 
 selected by the Saviour conveys always the definite idea of 
 immersion, therefore God will regard only immersion as 
 Christian baptism. 
 
 Having now seen that the word which describes this ordi- 
 nance means immersion and nothing else, and that to this 
 definition the learned world, ancient and modern, substanUally 
 give their full sanction ; and that in the Bible it is so employ- 
 ed as never, in any instance, to be capable of expressing the 
 idea of pouring or sprinkling, we shall probably be asked, 
 why, then, our translators of tlie Bible did not honesdy ren- 
 der it to immerse, and save all the ill will and confusion 
 which have grown out of the controversy ? The history of 
 this matter is singular, and deserves in this place, a moment's 
 attention. 
 
 In. all the best ancient translations, and those also of more 
 
PEDOBAPTISTS ARE NOT BAITIZED. 161 
 
 modsm date, in wliich the example of England has not been 
 foUoweil, the word BartTi^^ has been rendered by terms m the 
 several lan^iages which mean to immerse, and, as all learned 
 men are fully aware, immersion is, at this moment, and ever 
 has been, the practice of the greater part of the Christian 
 world. The amplest evidence of the following facts in rela- 
 tion to the several n-anslations of the Scriptures, is accessible, 
 in some form, to almost every reader.* In the translation of 
 the Scriptures into the old Syriac, or Feshito, which was 
 made in the beginning of the second century, the word 
 Ba.-trtCw is rendered by am ad — to immerse. The Coptic, or 
 Egyptian, made in the second century, has to>ias — to im- 
 merse. The Suhidic, the language spoken in Upper Egypt, 
 made in the same century, has it, to immerse. In Ethiopic, 
 or Abyssinian, made in the fourth century, the word is ren- 
 dered by tamak — to immerse. The Arnharac, a language 
 descended from the Ethiopic, has the same word. Tlie an- 
 cient Armenian version, made in the fourth century, has 
 MUGURDEL — to immerse. The modern Armenian has the 
 same word. The Georgian, made in the eighth century, 
 has NATiiLisTEMAD — ^to immersc. The Arabic version, 
 made in the eighth century, has amad — to immerse. The 
 same facts are true of tlie Persian, Turkish, Tartar, and 
 many other Eastern languages. In regard to the Western 
 versions, I remark that the Gothic of Ulphilus, made in the 
 fourth century, has daupyan — to dip. The German trans- 
 lation by Luther, has taufen — to dip. The same Avord is 
 used in both the Swiss and Saxon translations. The Bel- 
 gian version, made by order of the Synod of Dort, has 
 DooPEX — to dip. The Danish has dobe — to dip. The 
 Swedish lias dopa — to dip. The Welch has bedyddio — 
 to dip ; and so of several others. Even the English dared 
 
 * Judd'3 Review of Stewart, p, 163, et seq. 
 
 14- 
 
1G2 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 not to translate the term by any other word than to immerse 
 or dip, and as they would not give either of these, for rea- 
 sons we shall presently show, they refused any translation 
 whatever. 
 
 When the English Church emerged from Popery, which 
 had bound the Western nations for so many centuries in her 
 heavy chains, she made, in several pardculars, commendable, 
 though somewhat tardy, advances towards more purity both of 
 doctrine and practice : yet she retained, and does still retain, 
 many things which had found both their origin and support 
 alone in that corrupt hierarchy. Edward VI., the son and 
 successor of Henry VIIL, appointed a committee of Bishops 
 to reform sdll further than his father had done, the offices 
 of the church. " In the prosecution of this work," says 
 Neal, in his History of the Puritans, " die committee ex- 
 amined and compared the Bomiah Missals of Sarum, York, 
 Hereford, Bangor, and Lincoln, and out of them composed the 
 Morning and Evening service, almost in the same form as it 
 now stands. From the same materials they compiled a Litany 
 — the same with that now used." This was not ah the Eng- 
 lish church retained from popery ; she also adopted all her 
 Ecclesiastical orders and vestments, infant church member- 
 ship, and, in some instances, sprinkling for baptism. Ah diese 
 had been received into the English church before the present 
 version of the Scriptures was made. It is necessary to re- 
 member this in order to understand the policy of the parties 
 concerned, and the reasons why they refused to allow any 
 translation to go forth, which should expose to the public 
 mind the unscriptural character of these emanations of po- 
 pery. Tiiey constituted the basis upon which stood the very 
 offices tliat had made them great, and given them honor, 
 dignity, and emolument. The Bishops, with the consent of 
 King James, prohibited, therefore, the translation of all " the 
 
BAPTIZE NOT TRANSLATED. 163 
 
 old ecclesiastical words," among wliich willi olliers baptlam 
 was found. 'J'hey required that tlie original Greek words 
 ghould be transferred, only changing ihem so much as to give 
 them an English termination. Thus the word baplimn ob- 
 tained admission into the version, and ijnmersion, the true 
 rendering, was excluded from our Bible. In testimony of 
 these facts, I refer to — "A complete History of the several 
 translations of the Holy Bible and New Testament into Eng- 
 lish," by John Lewis, A. M., &c., London ed. 1813. At p. 
 317, (fee, we have a copy " of his Majesty's instructions" — 
 also contained in Fuller's Church History, book x. pp. 46, 
 47 — the third article of which is in these terms : — " Tlie 
 old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the w^ord church, &c." 
 In giving the preface of the translators, Mr. Lewis represents 
 them as saying" — " They had, they said, on the one side, 
 avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who left the old 
 ecclesiastical words, and betook them to others, (i. e. trans- 
 lated them) as when they put ivashing for baptism^ and, on 
 the other hand, had shunned the obscuritie of the Papists in 
 their azymes, tunike, rational, holocaust, prepuce, pasche, 
 and a number such like." Of this course on the part of the 
 translators, there was much complaint at the time, and several 
 books written, among the best of which was one by John 
 Canne — 1664 — in which he insists upon yet another and 
 more faithful version, and among many other deficiencies 
 to be remedied — p. 343 — says, referring to these terms — 
 " Some words which are in the original tongues left untrans- 
 lated, should be translated, and their signification opened." 
 But when the temporal interests of men come in conflict 
 with any portion of divine truth, how prone is poor human 
 nature to sacrifice the latter to advance the former ! 
 
 A scene similar to this has been acted over again, in our 
 
 * P. 326. 
 
164 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 own day. " When the London Society for promoting Chris- 
 aanity among the Jews," says Mr. Frey, an eminent Hebrew 
 scholar, who was then a Pedobaptist, and, at the time Presi- 
 dent of the Society* — " commenced the translation of the 
 New Testament into pure Hebrew, they soon met with the 
 word under consideration, and which occasioned not a little 
 difiicLilty. Not with respect to the primary meaning of the 
 word, nor to find out a corresponding Hebrew word, but the 
 diiliculty was to avoid giving offence. Had tliey adopted the 
 word taval — or tabal — to immerse, *****- whilst they 
 would have done justice to the text, they would have given 
 ofl'ence to the mass or bulk of Pedobaptists ; on the other 
 hand, had they used the word shaphach — to pour, or zarak 
 •^to sprinkle, besides doing violence to the original, they 
 would not only have given offence to the whole large and re- 
 spectable body of Baptists, but even many pious and consci- 
 entious Pedobaptists would have condemned their conduct. 
 Policy, therefore, led them not to translate the word at all, 
 but" [as their predecessors had done with regard to the 
 English translation] " to metamorphose the Greek ^vord 
 into Hebrew, for the use of the text, and in the margin they 
 put the words taval, to immerse, and r achat z, to wash ; but 
 nowhere did they use the words shaphach, to pour, or zarak, 
 to sprinkle." A more recent attempt, by the British and 
 Foreign, and the American Bible Societies, to engraft upon 
 the Foreign Translations now in process, and heretofore 
 made by Missionaries, these Pedobaptist corruptions, has 
 severed them both, and they will ultimately meet the fate 
 which will, sooner or later, involve every effort to falsify, or 
 conceal, the teachings of the word of God. The Jewish So- 
 ciety, in their late translation of the New Testament into the 
 Polish Hebrew dialect, have, as I am informed, pursued a 
 
 * Essays on Bap. 1st ed. pp. 74, 75. 
 
pedobaptists are not baptized. 165 
 
 diflbrcnt course. Here the word taval is, in the text, inva- 
 riably adopted. 
 
 The arguments of our Pedobaptist brethren, founded on 
 tlie use of the preposition with whicli the verb is connected, 
 and by which they seek to turn aside the force of the word 
 3artTtC", might now be noticed, but I do not consider them 
 of sufficient importance to merit more than a passing remark. 
 Every one knows, who has thought or read at all on the use 
 of prepositions, that their meaning is subordinate to the prin- 
 cipal words in the sentence in which they occur. If it is 
 only said that a man went to the river, we should have no 
 evidence that he went into it. But if it is said he went to 
 the river and bathed, we at once know he went into the 
 water. So in relation to the prepositions y/-o??7, and out of. 
 Were you informed that your friend, having been immersed, 
 came up from the water, you could not resist the conviction 
 that he had bathed in the stream. AVhatever, therefore, may 
 be the sense of er, and ft?, sx, and arto, it cannot weaken, in 
 the slightest degree, the force of the Avord employed by the 
 inspired writers to describe the form of baptism. 
 
 \^'^e have now demonstrated, from the philology of the 
 word used to describe it, that immersion is essential to the 
 rite, and that without it there can be no baptism. Our Pe- 
 dobaptist brethren have not been immersed, therefore diey 
 nave not been baptized, and consequently cannot approach 
 the Lord's table without a violation of the di\'ine law. 
 
CHAPTER XL 
 
 WE CANNOT COMMUNE AVITH PEDOBAPTISTS, BECAUSE, NOT 
 HAVING BEEN IMMERSED, THEY ARE NOT BAPTIZED. 
 
 Objections to our conclusions founded on the New Testament refuted^ 
 Facts considered — Passages of Scripture — Metaphorical allusions to 
 baptism — The design of baptism requires immersion — The places 
 where baptism was administered — Concurrence in our views by 
 scholars — Reasons of their agreement with us in sentiment, and 
 different practice — Conclusion. 
 
 Several facts recorded in the New Testament, as well as 
 various passages, which relate to the ordinance, it is confi- 
 dently maintained by many persons, forbid the belief that 
 baptism was invariably, in the days of the apostles, adminis- 
 tered by immersion. These, before I dismiss this part of 
 our subject, I consider myself obliged briefly to examine. 
 
 It is alleged that the three thousand baptized on the day 
 of Pentecost could not have been immersed. For this opinion 
 two principal reasons have been assigned. The first is, that 
 there was not a sufficient number of administrators to have 
 performed the work in one day ; and the second is, that 
 water for the purpose could not have been found in sufficient 
 quantity. 
 
 In regard to the supposed difficulty of baptizing so many, 
 I observe, that three thousand candidates would have given 
 to each one of the twelve apostles two hundred and fifty. I 
 find by my own experience, that, proceeding with the utmost 
 deliberation, I usually baptize three in a minute. But sup- 
 pose the apostles only baptized two in a minute. They 
 would baptize the whole in a hundred and twenty-five niin- 
 16(3 
 
BAPTISM AT PENTECOST. 167 
 
 utes — tliat is, in two lioiirs and five minutes. Or if they 
 baptized three in a minute, the twelve apostles alone baptized 
 the whole three thousand in one hour and twenty minutes. 
 
 But besides the twelve apostles, there were seventy disci- 
 ples, authorized to baptize, mailing in all eighty-two adminis- 
 trators, present on the occasion. Now divide three thousand 
 candidates between eighty-two administrators, and you give 
 to each one about thirty-six, all of whom could have been 
 baptized, with perfect deliberation, in less dian fifteen minutes. 
 The case, therefore, presents not tlie least difficvdty. And if 
 iLdid, the objection lies rather against the trudi of the state- 
 ment of Luke, diat so many were baptized, than diat immersion 
 could have been the mode. This will be seen the moment 
 the fact is recollected, which every one knows who has wit- 
 nessed or administered the ordinance, that, in a given space 
 of time, as many, and with the same ease, can be immersed 
 as can be poured upon, or sprinkled. 
 
 The supposition that water, in sufficient quantity, could 
 not have been obtained in or about the city of Jerusalem, to 
 baptize so many, is scarcely worthy of attention. What ! 
 A city, with probably more than a million of inhabitants, 
 whose religion required of every one daily ablutions, in tha 
 midst of which were several large reservoirs for these very 
 purposes, as the pools of Siloam and Bethesda ; with a con- 
 siderable stream — the Gihon, running through it — another, a 
 branch of the Gihon — surrounding th.e end of it ; and the 
 Cedron laving its walls through the whole extent of one 
 side ; that such a city sliould not contain v»-ater enough to 
 immerse a few hwidred people is surely a dream, that never 
 could have found admittance into any but a distempered ima- 
 gination. The school geograpliy of a cliild will teach any 
 one that for s^ch a purpose there could, in the holy city, have 
 been no wimt of an abundance of water. 
 
ins REASON'S FOIl STRICT COMMT'NJOIV. 
 
 It is a little remarkal>lc, however, after all the ar;^imente 
 on tliis subject, that wlien we turn to tlie inspired writers we 
 find that they do not say that three thousand were baptized 
 on the day of Pentecost ! Tliey that gladly received the 
 word were baptized ; but how many there were of these we 
 are not informed ; and that day there were added unto them 
 about three thousand; many of whom might previously 
 have been baptized by John, and the disciples, and on that 
 occasion have been collected togetlier, emboldened by the 
 pouring out of the Spirit, and recognized as forming a part 
 of the church, that they might the more distinctly be known 
 to each other, and to the world, as the followers of Christ. 
 But that this number was baptized on that day we have no 
 evidence whatever. 
 
 n is again objected that baptism could not always have 
 been administered by immersion, because the Philippian 
 jailer must have been baptized in the house, where this form 
 of the ordinance could not have been observed. 
 
 Why should it be supposed that the jailer was baptized 
 in the house ? Do the Scriptures say so ? Examine the 
 passage — " Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and 
 came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and 
 brought them out, and said — Sirs : what must I do to be 
 saved ? And they said — Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake 
 imto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his 
 house. And he took them the same hour of. the night, and 
 washed their stripes, and was baptized^ he, and all his house, 
 straightway ; and when he had broiight them into his 
 houae, he sat meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in 
 God, with all his house."* 
 
 Several particulars in this narrative deserve attention. 
 
 * Acts xvi. 29-34. 
 
BAPTISM OF THE JAILER. 1G9 
 
 tho first place, the jailer brouglit Paul aiid Silas out of the 
 prison, before they began their discourse. He brought them 
 out. Where did he carry them? Undoubtedly into his 
 own house where his fainily resided. In proof of this fact 
 it will be observed it is expressly said — They spake unto 
 kiia the word of the Lord, and to all that tvere in his house. 
 'J'hey were now, therefore, in the jailer's house. Immedi- 
 ately on their profession, it is added: — "He was baptized, 
 and all his house straightway ; and when he had brought 
 them into his house, he rejoiced." This is now the second 
 time he had brought them into his house. They had pre- 
 viously come out of the prison, and they went out of the 
 house to be baptized, and after the baptism retin-ned. All 
 this the passage declares. This event took place at midnight. 
 If sprinlding or pouring was ever used, this, certainly, was a 
 proper occasion for it. But it was most convenient to have 
 done this in the house. Why then, under such circumstances, 
 and at such an hour, should they have gone out of doors to 
 administer this baptism, if immersion had not been essen- 
 tial to the ordinance ? The whole narrative is inconsistent 
 with the idea tliat any form but immersion was employed. 
 
 But we are told that washing and sprinlding must be bap- 
 tism, because that the — Sta^o^ot^ paTttt^uot^ — divers baptisms, 
 tmnslated, in our version, divei-s toashings, of wliich Paul 
 speaks ^' — " WHiich stood only in meats and drinks, and 
 diuers zvashlngs, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them 
 until the time of reformation" — included the washino- of 
 various vessels, and other utensils, and the sprinkling of the 
 priests for their consecration, as descriljed in Numbersf — 
 " Tiius — saith the Lord — thou shalt do unto them to cleanse 
 them, sprinkle wator of pr.rifying upon them." 
 
 In reply, I observe, tliat divers immersions were certainly 
 
 * Heb. ix. 10, t Numbers viii. 6, 7. 
 
 15 
 
170 REASONS For. STRICT COMMTNIOM. 
 
 used by the Jews, and that Paul in this passage int-Iuded the 
 idi;a of lavhijr cups, and sprinkUnjr priests with baptism, is all 
 imaginary, and destitute of reason or authority. Tlie most 
 learned Pedobaplists themselves translate these very words—. 
 Sia-jio^otj jSartritjfiorj — not " divei-s washings," but " divers im- 
 meraions,'^ among whom I would name Grotius, Whitby, 
 and Mackniglit — " Divers immersions, and ordinances con- 
 cerning the ilesh." This v/holc matter is easily made plain. 
 The reader h;is but to notice that, in tlie text, three distinct 
 classes of injunctions are inculcated. In the first, the Jews 
 were to worsliip God in meats and drinks ; in tlie second 
 tluiy were to worship him in various hmnersions ; and in 
 tlie third by carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the 
 coming of Christ. All that it concerns us to know is in 
 what these divers immersions consisted, and this Moses him- 
 self explains.* "And upon whatsoever a dead Aveascl, 
 mouse, tortoise, ferret, lizard, chameleon, snail, or mole, doth 
 fall, it shall be unclean ; wliclher any vessel of wood, or 
 raiment, or skin, or sack ; whatsoever vessel it be wherein 
 any work is done, it shall be put into roatcr, and it shall be 
 unclean until the even ; so it shall be cleansed" — by immer- 
 sion. Here then are divers immersions, and frequent occa- 
 sions for them. The general rule by which these immersions 
 were conducted is recorded in Numbers :t — " Every thing 
 that may abide the fire, ye shall make to go through the fire, 
 and it shall be cleansed ; yet il must be purified by the water 
 of separation ; and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make 
 go through the welter^ 
 
 The sense of the apostle, however, is definitely scllled l>y 
 the apostle himself, in die sama chapter in which the passiige 
 occurs. The moment you take up the orL'^ind you sec that 
 Paul contradistinguishes between t!ic divers baptisms, and 
 
 * Lcvit. xi. 32, &.C. t N-iiin'jcrs xxxi. 23. 
 
PUUIFICATIONS UNDER THE LAAV. 171 
 
 the (livers sprinklings of which he treats. When he speaks 
 of the immersions he uses the word ^o.7itia^oii : but he im- 
 mediately after has occasion to spealc of sprinlding, and ho 
 drops this word and employs ^aft t^w, the proper word de 
 noting that action. " For if the blood of bulls, and of goats, 
 and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkliiig — parTt^ovsa — the un- " 
 clean, &;c."* Verse 19 — Moses " sprinkled — sppav^'tcfs — both 
 the book, and all the people." And again, m verse 21 — He 
 " sprinkled — sppai'T'tcff — likewise with blood both the taberna- 
 cle, and all the vessels of the ministry." Thus we prove 
 that in the opinion of Paul baptism does not mean to wash 
 or to sprinkle. If he did not think so, or intended by the 
 word baptism in the 10th verse to convey the idea of sprink- 
 ling, why does he drop that v/ord and use another in three 
 successive instances in the same chapter when he speaks of 
 sprinlding ? We must be blind, mdeed, if we do not see 
 that Paul makes a difference between the purifying of the 
 cups, and other utensils, which was by immersing them, and 
 the sprinkling of the priests, which he calls a carnal com- 
 mandment. He sayst — The Jewish priests were made 
 after the law of a carnal commandment — they were, if you 
 please, sprinkled ; but our great High Priest, the Lord Jesus, 
 was made a priest, not after such a law — he was not sprin- 
 kled. In his opinion, therefore, die baptisms are immersions, 
 Lnd the sprinklmgs are carnal ordinances. 
 
 Some metaphorical allusions found in the Scriptures to 
 the sacrament of baptism, are supposed to have an important 
 bearing in deciding in \vhat manner the ordinance is to be 
 administered. 
 
 " The long suffering of God," says Peter, " waited in the 
 days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, 
 that is eight souls, were saved by water. The like figure 
 
 * Heb. ix. 13. t Ileb. viii. IG. 
 
172 RKASONS FOR STRICT COiMMUNlON. 
 
 whercunto baptism cloth even now save us, not tlie putting 
 away of the lUtli of llie ilesh, but the answer of a good con- 
 seit'iice towards God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."* 
 
 On tliis passiige I make three remarks. In the first place, 
 it is a ngiire. A figure, to render it such, must, necessarily, 
 difler from the thing which it represents. Secondly, the 
 preservation of Noah and his family, in the ark, from the 
 consequences of the deluge, is as nearly like an immersion as 
 any figure need be to the thing illustrated by it. They were 
 enclosed in the ark. In this consisted the metaphor, and not, 
 as some have supposed, in the sprinkling of the rain upon 
 the ark. If die sprinkling of the rain upon the ark was the 
 baptism, it was the ark which was baptized, and not the 
 people in the ark. Thirdly, as Noah and his family ob- 
 tained a temporal salvation in the ark, so we obtain a spiri- 
 tual salvation by Jesus Christ, of whose dcatli, burial, and 
 resurrection from the dead, our baptism is a figure. This 
 undoubtedly is a true exposition of the passage before us. 
 It is admitted to be such by Pedobaptists themselves. If 
 so, it forbids, as far as it has any influence on the subject, 
 the ielea that any thing is baptism but such an immersion 
 as encloses the candidate in water as thorouglily as Noah 
 and his family were enclosed in the ark. Such is the opin- 
 ion of Sir N. KnatchbuU, who says, in his Animadversions 
 — '* The proper end of baptism is the sign of a resuiTcction, 
 by faith in the resurrection of Christ, of which baptism is a 
 very lively and expressive figure ; also as the ark of Noah, 
 out of which he returned, as it were, out of a sepulchre to a 
 new life."t 
 
 Another passage of similar character is found in 2 Cor. x. 
 1 : — " Moreover, brethren, I would not that yc should be 
 Ignorant how that all our fathers vv'ire under the cloud, and 
 
 * 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. i la Lib. N. T. ad loco. 
 
PEDOBAPTISTS AKE NOT BArxIZED. 173 
 
 all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto Moses 
 in the cloud and in the sea." 
 
 The argument from this text is, that the Hebrew fathers 
 were all baptized, but they were not immersed, and there- 
 fore immersion is not essential to baptism. A moment's 
 reflection will, I am sure, convince any one that the conti'ary 
 of this conclusion is true. In what were they baptized ? In 
 the cloud, and in th^ sea. How? By passing through 
 the sea, and under the cloud. Is not the likeness this figure 
 bears to immersion about as near as it could well be, and 
 still remain a figure ? Dr. Whitby on this passage remarks : 
 " They," the Israelites, " were covered with the sea on both 
 sides, Exod. xiv. 22, so that both the cloud and the sea had 
 some resemblance to our being covered with water in bap- 
 tism. Their going into the sea resembled the ancient man- 
 ner of going into the water, and their coming out of it their 
 rising up out of the water."^' 
 
 The only other figurative allusion requiring our attention 
 is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is said to 
 have been poured out upon the people, and its reception bap- 
 tism, it is therefore concluded that pouring is baptism. 
 
 I remark, in reply, that the pouring out of the Spirit is 
 never, in the Scriptures, called the baptism of the Spirit : 
 nor indeed does it bear any more relation to it than the pour- 
 ing out of water into the baptistry does to the baptism of 
 water. It is not the mere sending forth of the Spirit that is 
 the baptism, but its reception as at Pentecost. When the 
 disciples were assembled, they heard a rushing sound, it 
 came dov\'n and filled the house. It was the sound which 
 is described. At the same time the disciples were JiUed 
 with the Spirit. If these events are to determine the mode, 
 then baptism is not pouring, sprinkling, or immersion, but 
 
 * Boutlry Pujd Ex;ini. vol. i. p. 1S7. 
 
17i REASONS FOR STIlICT COMMUNION. 
 
 filling the candidate with wafer. The baptism of the 
 Spirit is the putting men under his influence ; and the bap- 
 tism of water is the act of putting men under that element. 
 
 It cannot, I think, be questioned by any really intelligent 
 man, that, independent of the fact tliat figures never change 
 tlie literal meaning of plain texts, nor is tlieir exposition de- 
 termined by them, all the metaphorical allusions in the word 
 of God to the action of baptism, so far from casting any 
 doubt upon the subject, actually strengthens the force of oui 
 conclusions that immersion is essential to Christian baptism. 
 
 Tlie design for which baptism was instituted, to represent 
 the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, cannot be 
 effected unless the mode is immersion. 
 
 " How shall we that are dead to sin," asks the apostle,* 
 " live any longer therein ? Know ye not that so many of us 
 as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 
 death ?" Christ died for our sins. We, by faith in Christ, 
 are dead to sin. " Therefore we are buried with him by 
 ba])tism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the 
 dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk 
 in newness of life. For, if we have been planted together 
 in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness 
 of his resurrection." In other words, as Christ was buried 
 in the grave, so we are buried in the water of baptism ; and 
 as Christ arose and came out of the grave, so we arise and 
 come out of the water. Our representing his burial neces- 
 sarily briu-gs us to represent his resurrection. For if we 
 are planted together, or are baried as he was, we shall also 
 rise in baptism, in the likeness of his resurrection.- " Know- 
 ing this, that our old man," sinful nature, " is crucified with 
 him," in the person of Christ, who bore our sins in his own 
 body on the tree, " tliat the body of sin might be destroyed, 
 
 * Rom. vi. &c. 
 
BAITISM A BURIAL. 175 
 
 tliat licnceforth we sliould not serve sin. For he that is dead," 
 as by our religious profession we have declared ourselves to 
 be, to sin, and buried to the world, " is freed from sin. Now, 
 if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also Hve 
 with him ; knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, 
 dicth no more." We, if we be dead mdeed with him to sin, 
 and alive with him to righteousness, die no more, and there- 
 fore live to the glory of him who died for us and rose again. 
 
 Such are the great truths for the representation of which 
 baptism, according to apostolic teaching, received its specific 
 form, and from which two conclusions cannot be avoided. 
 One is, that worthily to receive baptism we must have a 
 living faith in the efficacy of the atonement of Jesus Christ, 
 and satisfactory testimony that its saving power has been 
 appHed to us, by the Holy Spirit ; and the second is, that, 
 as a man when he dies, leaves all the scenes and pursuits of 
 his former life, and enters upon a new state of being, so hav- 
 ing died to sin, and been buried in baptism, we leave all our 
 former folly, and live a new life of holiness, by faith in the 
 Son of God. The same doctrine is taught, and nearly in the 
 same words, in the epistle to the Colossians, and in other 
 portions of the word of God. 
 
 Particularly with regard to the representation by baptism 
 of the resurrection, as this point is more disputed than any 
 other, Paul asks* — " Else what shall they do who are bap- 
 tized for the dead ? If the dead rise not at all, why are they 
 then baptized for the dead ?" The apostle in this chapter 
 proves the doctrine of the resurrection of all flesh from the 
 dead, by tlie resurrection of Christ. Among others he uses 
 the baptism of the Corinthians as an argument. The sub- 
 stance of his reasoning is this — You have been taught that 
 your baptism is a representation of the burial and resurrec- 
 
 * 1 Cor. XV. 29. 
 
176 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 tion of Christ; but if tliere is no resurrection of the dead, 
 as the Sadducees contend, then is not Christ risen, and the 
 ordinance has no significancy, one half of it being based upon 
 an event which never occurred. " If the dead rise not, why 
 are ye then baptized for the dead?" "But now is Christ 
 risen from the dead, and become the first fruits of tliem that 
 slept," and it was no dream of the imagination which you 
 represented when you were buried in baptism, and rose again 
 from the emblematic grave. 
 
 If the object of baptism be to represent the death, burial, 
 and resurrection of Christ, and I think the proof I have now 
 submitted will convince the most incredulous that it is, I 
 need not ask whether this can be accomplished by pouring or 
 sprinkling. The importance of the mode of baptism, there- 
 fore, is apparent — " It marks, in a figure, the way in which 
 v/e become partakers in the benefit of Christ's death. This 
 is by our being, by a divine constitution, one with him. His 
 death is a proper atonement for us, because we die with him, 
 so that, in reality, his death is ours. This is not necessary 
 in all cases of substitution. To have a debt discharged by 
 another, there is no necessity to become one with him. But 
 it is not so in crime. Justice is not satisfied unless the crim- 
 inal himself suffers. And, by the divine constitution, that 
 makes believers one with Christ, they are all considered as 
 having died with him. The criminals have suffered, since 
 he wlio suffered is one with them."* In the same sense 
 they have triumphed over death, and arisen conquerors. 
 These are the glorious facts marked by baptism. It shows, 
 in a figure, that union with Christ, in his death, burial, and 
 resurrection, which we have by faith. The only baptism 
 which will do this, and, therefore, that only which God ap- 
 proves, is immersion. 
 
 * €cirson, p. 254. 
 
aiR. Lociic'ri Views. 177 
 
 If ill these senliineiits we have not the concurrence of some 
 whose minds are imprisoned in the dark cells of sectarianism, 
 I have the satisfaction of standing side by side with such 
 men as the great Locke, who in his Paraphrase says — " We 
 are baptized into a simihtude of his death. We did own 
 some kind of death by being buried under water, which 
 being buried with him, i. e., in conformity with his burial, 
 as a confession of our being dead, was to signify that, as 
 Christ was raised up from the dead into a new hfe with his 
 Fatlier, even so we, being raised from our typical deatli and 
 burial in baptism, should lead a new sort of life, wholly dif- 
 ferent from the former."* When we read this, and similar 
 expositions, and compare them with the cautious admissions, 
 the tortuous laljyrinths of special pleading, ajid the evasive 
 arguments of the diminutive polemics of the present time, we 
 cannot but feel that they are worthy the scholar, the philoso- 
 pher, and the Christian, who conceived the Essays on the 
 Human Understanding 
 
 All the considerations we have now adduced, in this and 
 the preceding chapter, taken together with the constant de- 
 claration that, in the days of the apostles, baptism was per- 
 formed in rivers, and in places affording much v/ater, and 
 the assurance that in its administration, they went down into 
 the water, and came up out of the water, none of which is 
 necessary or ever observed in pouring or sprinkling, render 
 the fact so unquestionable that immersion is the only scrip- 
 tural mode of baptism, that we shall here rest the case, and, 
 with one remark on a collateral subject, close the present, 
 arginnent. 
 
 The remark to which I allude, is in answer to the inquiry, 
 which proba1)ly will be made in reference to the action as 
 wc have already noticed in relation to the subjects of the 
 
 * On Kom. vi., &c. 
 
178 REASOxMS FOR KTRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 ordinance ; if the first and most respectable of all classes of 
 divines agree with the Baptists in opinion, that immersion 
 only is taught in the Bible, as would seem to be true from 
 our numerous quotations of their works, how does it come 
 to pass that they all practise pouring and sprinlding for bap- 
 tism ? Two of their greatest men shall reply in behalf of 
 the whole. John Calvin says — " The Church did grant 
 liberty to herself since the beginning to change the rife 
 somewhat, excepting the sid^stance f^^ — and Bishop Stil- 
 lingfleet sa,ys— "-Bites, and customs, apostolical are altered, 
 as dipping in baptism,^^\ Upon these statements I need 
 make no commentary. Their daring and sacrilegious pre- 
 sumption will meet a rebuke in every honest heart. Dr. 
 Cox most truly observes — "It is, in the highest degree, 
 hazardous to tamper with the positive institutions of God. 
 As they are supported exclusively by the expressed will 
 of the founder, we, although the act prescribed, in respect 
 of moral attributes may, in itself, be altogether indifferent, 
 are under moral obligation to obey.":}: The very essence 
 of obedience, also, consists in a rigid adherence to the 
 authoritative prescription, and, therefore, any alteration in 
 its forms of observance, or any substitution of one thing for 
 another, abrogates, wholly, the institution itself, and adopts 
 for the law of God, the commandments of men. Pedobap- 
 tists have done this very thing. They have taken the un- 
 conscious babe instead of the believer, and they have 
 sprinkled or poured water upon the candidate instead of 
 baptizing him ; therefore, Pedobaptists have never been 
 baptized, and the essential preliminaries being disregarded, 
 they cannot approach the table of the Lord. 
 
 * Comm. on Acts viii. 38. 
 
 t Apud Booth's Pffld. Exam. p. 215. 
 
 t Baptists iu America, p. 327^ 
 
PEDOBAPTISTS ARE NOT BAPTIZED. 179 
 
 We have now examined the word vised in the Scriptures 
 to describe the action of baptism, and find tliat it means im- 
 mersion, and notliing else ; that in all the ancient versions 
 of tiie Scriptures it is actually so rendered, that where 
 sprinkling or pouring is mentioned, words are employed 
 entirely dilFerent from baptism, and never used convertibly 
 with that term ; and that it is unaffected in its sense by the 
 prepositions with which it is associated ; we have examin- 
 ed all the facts, passages, and rnetaphorical allusions in the 
 New Testament, supposed to forbid the idea that baptism 
 was invariably administered by immersion, and we find them 
 utterly destitute offeree ; and we have seen that the design 
 for which baptism was instituted, and the circumstances at- 
 tendant npon its administration, prove that it could have 
 been alone by immersion ; we liave seen the principles npon 
 which the Confession of Faith and Pedobaptist Avriters and 
 divines have made the concessions we have quoted, and 
 proved that their substitutions and alterations have wholly 
 abrogated the ordinance, and that they have no such thing 
 as Christian baptism among them. 
 
 Thus we have submitted the second reason why v/e can- 
 not commune with Pedobaptists. 
 
CHAP'J^ER XII. 
 
 BAPTISTS CANNOT COMMUNE WITH PEDOBAPTISTS, BECAUSE 
 THEY ADMINISTER BAPTISM FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES, AND 
 ATTACH TO IT AN UNREASONABLE AND UNSCRIPTURAL 
 DEGREE OF EFFICACY AND IMPORTANCE. 
 
 Pedobaptist doctrines of baptism — Baptismal regeneration held by the 
 fathers — This originated infant baptism, pouring and sprinkling — The 
 Catechism and Canons of the Council of Trent — All Pedobaptist 
 Churches believe in baptismal regeneration — Book ofCommon Prayer 
 — Confession of Faith — Discipline — Disciples of Christ — Conservative 
 influence of Baptist principles. 
 
 The third reason wliy we cannot commune with pcdo- 
 baptists, is, because they administer both baptism and the 
 Lord's supper for purposes such as God has not authorized, 
 and attach to them an unscriptural and unreasonable degree 
 of efficacy and importance. 
 
 Independent of tlie inquiry, whether, as tliey liave never 
 received the initiatory ordinance, they can lawfully admin- 
 ister the rites of the church, a matter which I shall not 
 now pause to consider, Pedobaptists of all classes regard 
 baptism as the instrumentality of entering into the covenant 
 of salvation, and therefore as at least synonymous with re- 
 generation ; and the Lord's supper tliey look upon as a 
 " certain means and seal of grace." We must of necessity, 
 when administered for such purposes, decline to be their 
 recipients. 
 
 I ani aware that these very tenets, in all then- repulsivc- 
 ness, have been ,80 long and so industriously charged as a 
 capital defoot in our OAvn venerable church, that the world 
 180 
 
BAPTISM UNDULY EXALTED. 191 
 
 has come to believe tliat we, and not our opponents, are the 
 heterodox party. But the truth is, we are the only people 
 who do not unduly exalt the sacraments of the Gospel. In 
 regard, in the first place, to baptism, we shall attempt the 
 proof of the statement now made ; after which we shall 
 adduce testimony in relation to the other ordinance. 
 
 We reg^ird baptism as neither more nor less than a solemn 
 and practical profession of faith in Christ by a believer in 
 him, in the manner appointed by the King in Zion. But 
 what do our brethren of the several Pedobaptist denomina- 
 tions teach on this subject ? A superficial Imowledge of 
 ecclesiastical history is sufficient to convince any one that 
 but a few centuries transpired after the aposdes, before a 
 melancholy change was effected in the opinions of the 
 Christian world with regard to the design and efficacy of 
 the sacraments of the Gospel. Their importance was mag- 
 nified immeasurably, and they v»^ere soon believed to be so 
 intimately connected with the vitality of religion, that they 
 could not in any case be omitted without preventing the 
 salvation of the soul. In the third century and onwards, 
 the Christian fathers believed and taught that sins were only 
 forgiven in baptism, that infants, by this ordinance, were 
 purged from original pollution, and that all persons dying 
 without it were lost. 
 
 This may be considerd by some a bold assertion. I shall 
 sustain its truth by adequate proof; and for this purpose 
 shall submit such testimony as may be deemed requisite on 
 the subject.* 
 
 Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, wrote A. D. 250. On 
 this subject he remarks as follows : " As far as lies in us, 
 no soul, if possible, is to be lost. It is not for us to hinder 
 any person from baptism, and the grace of God : which rule, 
 
 * Vide Baptist Manual, p. 97. 
 1() 
 
182 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 as it holds to all, so we think it more especially to be ob- 
 served in reference to infants, to whom our help and the divine 
 mercy are rather to be granted ; because, by their weeping 
 and wailing, at their first entrance into the world, they do 
 intimate nothing so much as that they implore compassion." 
 Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, flourished A. D. 390. 
 He says : " No person comes to the kingdom of heaven, but 
 by the sacrament of baptism. Infants that are baptized are 
 reformed back again from wickedness to the primitive state 
 of their nature." 
 
 Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople, wrote A. D. 
 390. He remarks on this sujbject : — " The grace of baptism 
 gives us cure without pain, and fills us with the grace of the 
 Spirit. Some think that the heavenly grace consists only 
 in the forgiveness of sins, but I have reckoned up ten ad- 
 vantages of it. If sudden death seize us before we are bap- 
 tized, though we have a thousand good qualities, there is 
 nothing to be expected but hell."* 
 
 Similar testimonies, proving that, from the time we have 
 mentioned, the church considered baptism essential to sal- 
 vation, abound every where. "Wall's History of Infint 
 Baptism is full of them, and in v/hich. Vol. i. chap. G, 13, 
 14, and Vol. ii. ch. 6, will be found, and may be consulted, 
 the originals of the passages from the Fathers I have now 
 quoted. These proofs, from the Bishops of Carthage and 
 Milan, and the Patriarch of Constantinople, are amply sufli- 
 cient for our purpose. 
 
 This error originated.two others equally egregious. The 
 former v/as the administration of baptism to intlmts, in cases 
 of danger of death. In this, however, they did not, during 
 more than a tliousand years, dispense with the profession 
 of faith, so plainly and constantly required in the Gospel. 
 
 * Wall, Lond erl. 1705, vol. ii. pp. 133, 139. 
 
BAPTIriM ADMJMSTERED FOR UNLAWFUL rUllPOSFS. 1S3 
 
 But tliis was permitted to be made by proxies, who, under 
 the name of sponsors, or sureties, professed in behalf of the 
 infant, to repent, to renounce the devil, and to believe the 
 Gospel, upon which profession of the sponsor the infant 
 was baptized. This practice was continued in the Papacy 
 U[) to the time of the Reformation, and is still characteristic 
 not only of that fallen hierarchy, but also of the Episcopal 
 branch of Protestantism. The latter error was a substitu- 
 tion of a more agreeable form than immersion. Baptism 
 was found in such cases as have been named very inconve- 
 nient, resort was therefore had as an expedient, with which 
 they associated the priestly administrator and verbal formu- 
 lary, and Avhich they presumed would give it all necessary 
 authority, first to pouring, and afterwards to sprinkling. 
 
 The truth of these facts will not, I presume, by any well 
 read man, who is unprejudiced, be questioned. Still it may 
 be proper to sustain them by adequate testimony, which I 
 shall do by adducing the deposition of three learned and 
 candid Pedobaptist divines, and thus place their truth beyond 
 the reach of controversy. 
 
 Our first witness is Suiccrus, Professor of Greek and 
 Hebrew, Zurich, who says : — " This opinion of the absolute 
 necessity of baptism, arose from a wrong understanding of 
 our Lord's words — Except a man be born of water and of 
 the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven."* 
 
 Salmasius, the learned historian and critic, is our second 
 wdtness.t He remarks — "An opinion prevailed that no one 
 could be saved without being baptized, and for that reason 
 the custom arose of baptizing infants." 
 
 The third witness is Dr. Wall, Avho, in relation to the 
 opinion which .prevailed on this subject at the time of his 
 
 * Apud Booth's Picd. Exam. vol. ii. p. 129. ^ 
 t Booth, ut supra. 
 
1S4 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 writing rciiiarks : — " Most of the PeJobap lists go no further 
 llian St. Austin does ; they hold that God, by his Spirit, 
 does, at the time of baptism, seal and apply to the infant that 
 is there dedicated to him, the promises of the covenant of 
 which he is capable, viz. adoption, pardon of sins, transla- 
 tion from the state of nature to that of grace, (fee. On which 
 account the infant is said to be regenerate of (or by) the 
 Spirit."* 
 
 Tims it is seen why infant baptism, and ultimately sprink- 
 ling, found their way into the world. 
 
 The facts, and considerations, now submitted, sufficiently 
 illustrate the early prevalence, and extensive spread of the 
 doctrine which attributes to baptism a sanctifying and saving 
 power; and ive noiv assert, that the same doctrine, wilh- 
 out, as Dr. Wall remarks, any material modijication, is kela 
 in all the " Reformed Churches" ichich have admitted into 
 them the sprinkling of infants as true and lawful baptism. 
 'Jliis startling proposition, if sustained, will establish the 
 truth of the statement with which I set out, that they attri- 
 bute to baptism an unscriptural and unreasonable degree of 
 efficacy and importance. The reproach has been constantly 
 hurled against us of making a Saviour of baptism. We 
 shall now see who it is that entertains this absurdity. The 
 demonstration will be attempted that ours is the only denom- 
 ination who place this ordinance in its true position, where 
 it wa^ left by Christ, and his aposdes ; who refuse, on the 
 one hand, to despoil it of its solemn and appropriate forms, 
 and who do not, on the other, unduly exalt its importance 
 and efficacy. 
 
 The Roman Catholic is the oldest of the Pedobaptist de- 
 nomiiuitions. Let us examine on this subject, their Cate- 
 
 * VoL i. ch. 15, '). 148, Hist. Inf. Bapt. 
 
DOCTRINES OP ROMAN CATHOLICS. 185 
 
 chism, and Canons, of the Council of Trent, and in Session 
 7, Canon 5, we shall iind it thus written : — 
 
 *' If any one shall say that baptism is not necessary to 
 salvation, let him be accursed. Sin, whether contracted by 
 l)irth from our first parents, or committed ourselves, is, by 
 the admirable virtue of this sacrament, remitted and pardoned. 
 In baptism, not only sins are remitted, but also all the pun- 
 ishments of sins and wickedness are graciously pardoned ot 
 God. By virtue of this sacrament we are not onl}* delivered 
 from these evils, but also we are enriched with the best and 
 most excellent endowments. For our souls are filled with 
 divine grace, whereby, being made just, and the children of 
 God, we are trained up to be heirs of eternal salvation also. 
 To this is added a most noble train of virtues, which, to- 
 gether with grace, is poured of God into the soul. By bap- 
 tism we are joined and knit to Christ, as members to the 
 head. By baptism we are signed with a character which 
 can never be blotted out of our soul. Besides the other 
 things which we obtain by baptism, it opens to every one 
 of us the gate of heaven, which before, through sin, was 
 shut."* 
 
 These are the doctrines in relation to baptism, and in their 
 own words, of Roman Catholics. They are undisguised 
 and definite. The inquiry is now proper — Do the several 
 prevailing Protestant denominations of Pedobaptists embrace 
 this feature of Popery? Do they teach that baptism is 
 essential to regeneration, to the forgiveness of sins, to admit 
 us into covenant with God, to confer grace, and to secure the 
 salvation of sinners. I am fully aware of the earnestness, 
 and I doubt not the sincerity, with which many Avill protest 
 that they do not. What some individuals believe or teacli 
 on this sul^ject, does not concern our present inquiry. We 
 
 * Apud Judd's Review, p. 111. 
 
136 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 have but too much evidence to justify the conckision that 
 tiiere are men who will make baptism every thing, any thing, 
 or nothing, to suit the exigency, or popular current of the 
 moment, or what may happen to be the fancy of the times. 
 Not unfrequently they use the term baptism with a sort of 
 double meaning. Consequently, when, with Professor 
 Stewart they exclaim : — " Baptism is an outward ceremony, 
 and, therefore, no part of real religion ; the external mode 
 of an external rite never can, with our present views of 
 Christianity, become to us a matter of peculiar interest,"* 
 they mean only the mode of baptism, which they are, on 
 other occasions, accustomed to distinguish from baptism 
 itself. The mode, they tell us, is of no consequence. The 
 church, says Calvin, has changed it, and Bishop Stillingfleet 
 says it is altered. Ask them again, wliat they think of bap- 
 tism, and with the same mental reservation, leaving the rnode 
 out of sight, they wiU reply with Dr. Wall — " We hold that 
 God, by his Spirit, does at the time, of baptism, seal and 
 apply * * the promises of the covenant * * adoption, par- 
 don of sin, translation from the state of nature to that of 
 grace,"t in a word, that it is nearly the sum of religion, and 
 especially regeneration itself. With such equivocations, in- 
 sincerities, " palterings in a double sense," constandy before 
 me, I find it useless to ask what individuals or masses of 
 individuals believe or profess in the premises. Words are 
 but air. They must, to be tangible, be written, and receive 
 the ecclesiastical signature and seal. I appeal, therefore, to 
 the standards — confessions of faith, catechisms, &;c. — of the 
 several denominations. These all their people have solemnly 
 subscribed, and that they contain the true exposition of the 
 word of God, they have, in the presence of God and man, 
 
 * Judd's Review, p. 89. 
 
 t History, &c., vol. i. p. 148. 
 
rUEVARICATIONS OF TKOTESTANTS. 187 
 
 deliberately professed to believe. Either these standards, 
 particularly, and their accredited writers, genenilly, do em- 
 body their real sentiments, or else they lia\e acted hypocriti- 
 cally ia pubhcly emlDracing them. The latter they will 
 hardly confess. The former, therefore, is true. lierc wg 
 find a substantial position, and shall firmly occupy it. 
 
 The doctrine, on this point, of the Lutheran churcli, the 
 Reformed Dutch, and others of German origin, I sliall not 
 examine, because they do not prevail very extensively in diis 
 country. If I felt disposed to do so, I would point to the 
 ninth article of the Augsburg Confession of Faith, written 
 by Melancthon, and which is now embraced by seventeen 
 of the sovereigns, and near thirty millions of the inhabitants 
 of Europe. It is in these words — " They teach concerning 
 baptism, that it is necessary to salvation, because by baptism 
 the grace of God is offered. Infants are to be baptized, 
 who, being brought to God by baptism, are received into his 
 favor. They condemn the Anabaptists, who disallow the 
 baptism of infants, and affirm that they, may be saved with- 
 out it."* I proceed to consider the vicAvs of those Protestant 
 churches that more generally prevail here. 
 
 For an exposition of the doctrine of our Episcopal brethren 
 we take up the Book of Common Prayer, and turn to the 
 " Directory for the Administi'ation of the Sacraments." 
 Previous to administering baptism, the officiating priest, by a 
 prescribed form, is instructed to pray thus : — "Almighty and 
 immortal God, the aid of all that need, the helper of all that 
 flee to thee for succor, the life of them that believe, and the 
 resurrection of the dead ; we call upon thee for this infant, 
 that he, coming to thy holy baptism, may receive remission 
 of his sins by spiritual regeneration." 
 
 Tills prayer teaches us what they suppose the baptism 
 
 * Cox's Life of Melancthon, p. 162. 
 
188 BAPTISMAL UEGENEKATION. 
 
 will effect. And that infants are regenerated by it in tltcir 
 opinion, is shown by the fact that immediately after the bap- 
 tism in which they have prayed that this spiritual change 
 may take place, the clergyman is thus required to address 
 the church : — " Seeing, dearly beloved, that this child is 
 regenerate, and gi-afted into the body of Christ, let us give 
 thanks to Almighty God for these benefits." The prayer 
 too, now directed to be said, gives additional evidence that 
 they consider that the work is done. It begins thus : — "We 
 yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father, that it hath 
 pleased thee to regenerate this infant with thy Holy Spirit." 
 Thus much is taught in the Ritual. 
 
 The Catechism — -"that is to say, an instruction to be 
 learned by every person before he is brought to be confirmed 
 by the Bishop"— begins with the following questions and 
 answers. 
 
 ^' Quest. What is your name ? 
 
 ''.dns. N. or M. 
 
 " Quest. Who gave you this name ? 
 
 ^^Jlns. My sponsors in baptism, wherein I was made a 
 member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the 
 kingdom of heaven." 
 
 The second question and answer, after repeating the liOrd's 
 prayer, are these : — 
 
 " Quest. How many sacraments hath Christ ordained in 
 his church ? 
 
 '■'•Ans. Two only, as generally necessary to salvation^ 
 that is to say, baptism, and the Supper of the Lord." 
 
 Such are the teachings of the Catechism. 
 
 " The Directory" orders : — As soon as the children "can 
 say the Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Ten Command- 
 ments, and can also answer such other questions as in the 
 short catechism are contained," they shall be brought to the 
 
DOCTRINES OF EPISCOPALIANS. 189 
 
 Bishop to be confirmed. In llie process of the service, and 
 immediately before, and at the time, this prelate lays his 
 hands upon the candidates for confirmation, h6 reco^iizcs, in 
 his solemn prayer to God, and his assurance to the individu- 
 als, the regeneration conferred in their baptism in infancy, 
 thus : — ''Almighty and everlasting God, who hast vouchsafed 
 to regenerate these thy servants, by water, and by the Holy 
 Ghost, and hast given unto^ them forgiveness of all their 
 sins^^ — And to the candidates and audience, he says : — " We 
 do certify them, by this sign, of God's favor, and gracious 
 goodness towards them." 
 
 We have no need to carry this examination further. Their 
 Ritual, Catechism, and Directory, sufficiently develope the 
 doctrine of that church as to the objects for which they ad- 
 minister baptism. An infant, if the Book of Common Prayer 
 teaches us coiTcctly, receives in hdiptism forgiveness of sins, 
 is regenerated, is grafted into the body of Christ, is made 
 a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor 
 of the kingdom of heaven. All this is done in baplism, 
 which, with the Lord's Supper, is expressly declared to be 
 "necessary to salvation." Such are the doctrines on this 
 subject of the Episcopal church. No remarks are necessary 
 to prove that they are identical with those of the Council of 
 Trent. 
 
 We will now examine the baptismal doctrines of our 
 brethren of all classes and sects of the Presbyterian church. 
 What do their standard and accredited writers teach ? 
 
 To determine this inquiry we will take up the " Confes- 
 sion OF Faith," and we shall find a declaration in these 
 words : — 
 
 "IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in, 
 and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or 
 both believing parents are to be baptized." 
 
190 BAl"nSi\IAL KEGENEllATION. 
 
 " V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect 
 this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so insepa- 
 rahly annexed *unto it, that 1^o person can be regenerated 
 or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are im- 
 doubtedly regenerated."* 
 
 Much guarded caution characterizes the language of this 
 passage, indeed it appears to be almost a jumble of nonsense 
 — but the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is nevertheless 
 fully embodied, and maintained. Our brethren profess to 
 believe that grace and salvation are not so inseparably an- 
 nexed unto baptism as that they are conferred by that ordi- 
 nance in every case in which it is administered ; or to make 
 it in every case, absolutely essential to regeneration and 
 salvation. What then are its position and influence ? That 
 I suppose, maintained in the Book of Common Prayer- — it 
 is " generally necessary to salvation ;" and, in most cases, 
 those who receive the rite are by it regenerated. When the 
 Confession says — it is not positively certain that all who 
 are baptized are by this ordinance undoubtedly regenerated, 
 the idea is as unquestionably implied that some v/ho are 
 baptized are thereby undoubtedly regenerated, as that when 
 I assert that all who were at the battle of New Orleans 
 were not soldiers, I mean to maintain that some were sol- 
 diers, and that others were citizens. My reader may possi- 
 bly be curious to inquire, if any infants be regenerated by 
 baptism, why it should be doubted whether all that receive 
 it are not equally benefited. Our brethren who subscribe 
 the Confession of Faith in question explain themselves. It 
 is known that they are Calvinists. They believe in eternal, 
 personal, and unconditional election and predestination. Hear 
 their Confession upon this point — " By the decree of God, 
 for the manifestation of his glory, some men, and ajigels, are 
 
 * Phila. ed., 182S, pp. 121, 122, 123. 
 
DOCTRINES OF rilESIU'TERlANS. 
 
 191 
 
 prcdestinaled uiilo everlasting life, and others foreordcined to 
 everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated 
 and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed ; 
 and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be 
 either increased or diminished."- This being the case, they 
 doubt whether all the infants they baptize are of the elect. 
 But the Confession is still more in point — 
 
 " VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment 
 of time wherein it is administered ; yet notwithstanding, by 
 the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not 
 only \fered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the 
 Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that 
 grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's 
 oivn will, in his appointed time."t 
 
 Here we have the necessary explanations. The efficacy 
 of baptism is such that grace, either at the time of the ad- 
 ministration or afterwards, is really o^/fered, exhibited, and 
 conferred, in this ordinance, by the Holy Ghost ; provided 
 always, that the child so baptized is embraced in the coun- 
 sels of God's mercy— is one of the definite elect unto life— 
 and therefore one of those " that grace belongeth unto." If 
 he is one of the eternally chosen, the gi'ace that is only ex- 
 hibifed and offered to others, is upon him actually conferred, 
 and he is undoubtedly regenerated in baptism. 
 
 In the "Directory for the worship of God" of this 
 church, Article — " Of the administration of baptism" — the 
 minister reads to his people the reasons why an infant is to 
 be baptized. The form prescribed requires him to use this 
 language :— This infant is to be baptized not only because 
 some cliildren arc federally holy, but also because " we are 
 (all) by nature, sinful, guilty, and polluted, and have need 
 of cleansing by the blood of Christ, and by the sanctifying 
 
 * Pp. IG, 17. t P. 123. 
 
Ti92 BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 
 
 influences of the Spirit of God."* By federal holiness of 
 children they mean, I presume, only that their parents are 
 religious. My design, however, is to call attention specially 
 to the fact that this Directory teaches us that the object se- 
 cured by baptism is thereby to obtain an application of the 
 blood of Christ ; and the sanctifying influence of the Spirit 
 of God, to cleanse the recipients from pollution. I ask 
 whether the baptism of a child has this effect ? If so, and 
 they profess to believe it has, truly is it a capital article in 
 religion, and essential both to regeneration and to salvation. 
 
 The Cumberland branch of the Presbyterian church have 
 adopted substantially the same Confession of Faith, Cate- 
 chism, and Directory, with their mother church, repudiating 
 only the doctrine of election and predestination, and some 
 things in relation to the ministry. On baptism they teach 
 precisely the same doctrines, and in the same words with 
 their progenitor, as any one may see Avho will be at the 
 trouble of comparing their standards. The same remarks 
 are true of the Hopkinsians, the Old School, the New 
 School, and all the other sects of that denomination. 
 
 In the Articles now examined, we have again exhibited 
 before us the doctrines of the Council of Trent, which are 
 indeed still more fully, and with less disguise, taught by the 
 wisest and most eminent divines of their faith, to two of 
 whom, as a specimen of all the others, I shall briefly refer. 
 The former is the late learned President of Yale College, 
 Dr. Timothy D wight, whose System of Theology, in many 
 respects so excellent, is adopted as a standard work by the 
 several branches of the church, of which he was a distin- 
 guished member ; and the latter is the pious and eminent 
 commentator, Matthew Henry. 
 
 Dr. Dv/ight remarks — " When children die in infancy, and 
 
 * P. 431. 
 
DOCTRINES OF PRESBYTrRTAXS. 103 
 
 are scripiurally dedicated to God in baptism, there is much 
 and very consoling reason furnished to beUeve that they are 
 accepted beyond the grave."* 
 
 This is a very pretty, and apparendy a very pious passage. 
 But it is expressed with the cautiousness of a man who is 
 conscious that he is on dangerous ground. It is the statement 
 of a positive, and we only are concerned to know what the 
 negative is which it contains. When Dr. Dwiglit singles 
 out the baptized children who die in infancy, and tells us 
 " there is much and very consohng reason furnished to believe 
 that they are accepted beyond the grave," are we not to 
 understand him as maintaining negatively of unbapiized chil- 
 dren who die in infancy, that there is little reason furnished, 
 and none that is consoling, to believe that they are accepted 
 beyond the grave ? 
 
 Mr. Henry, in his " Treatise on Baptism," uses on the 
 subject under consideration, the follovving language : " The 
 Gospel contains not only a doctrine, but a covenant ; and by 
 baptism we are brought into that covenant. Baptism wrests 
 the keys of the heart out of the hand of the strong man 
 armed, that the possession may be surrendered to him whose 
 right it is. The water of baptism is designed for our cleans- 
 ing from the spots and defilements of the flesh. In baptism 
 our names are engraved upon the breastplate of the High 
 Priest. This, then, is the efficacy of baptism ; it is putting 
 t!ie child's name in the Gospel grant. We are baptized into 
 Christ's death, that is, God doth, in that ordinance, seal, con- 
 firm, and make over to us all the benefits of the death of 
 Christ." 
 
 If, as Mr. Henry here maintains, we are brought by bap- 
 Hsm into " the covenant of grace," cleansed from the spots 
 and defilements of the flesh, have our names put into the 
 
 * Svstem of Theol... first Senn. on Bapt. 
 
 17 
 
194 BArnsMAL regeneration. 
 
 Gospel grant, and secured to us all the benefits of the death 
 of Christ, which in that ordinance are sealed, confirmed, and 
 made over to us, it must be regeneration, sanctification, salva- 
 tion — indeed nearly the whole sum and essence of the reli- 
 gion of Christ. 
 
 We are now prepared to decide what the standards and 
 accredited writers of the Presbyterian church teach in relation 
 to tlie efficacy of baptism. They hold that, provided the 
 child is one of the elect, grace and salvation are annexed unto 
 baptism, and that in this ordinance, whether the recipient is 
 adult or infant, such grace and salvation are absolutely offered, 
 exhibited, and conferred by the Holy Ghost ; that in it are 
 applied to our cleansing from sin, the blood of Christ, and 
 the sanctifying influence of the Spirit of God ; that it brings 
 the child into covenant with God, and seals, confirms, and 
 makes over to it all the benefits of tlic death of Christ ; and 
 that it prepares it for acceptance with God beyond the grave I 
 Tliese undisputed and indisputable facts show that tlie Pres* 
 byterian comes behind no other church in the tenacity with 
 winch she upholds and supports the doctrine of baptismal 
 regeneration and salvation. 
 
 'I'he only remaining Pedolmptist denomination prevailing 
 extensively among us, is the Methodist. Do our brethren 
 of that church hold and teach the same doctrines on the sub- 
 ject in hand which we have seen are maintained by Roman 
 Catholics, Episcopalians, and all the branches of Presl^yte- 
 rians ? To this inquiry it is not difficult to furnish, from 
 authoritative sources, a full and satisfactory reply. 
 
 Let us examine the book of " Discipline." We find in 
 the order entitled " The ministration of baptism to infants," 
 that the minister is required to commence this service by 
 reading to his people an address, copied almost verbatim from 
 the Book of Common Prayer, as follows : 
 
DOCTRINES or Mr/niODTSTS. 1D5 
 
 " Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and 
 born in sin, and that our Saviour, Christ, saith, none can 
 enter into the kingdom of God except he be regenerate and 
 born anew, of water and of the Holy Ghost ; I beseech you 
 to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, 
 that, of his bounteous mercy, he will grant unto this child 
 that thing which by nature he cannot have ; that he may 
 be baptized with water and with the Holy Ghost, and be 
 received into Christ's Holy Church, and be made a lively 
 member of the same."* 
 
 I have, in this passage, emphasized the words that thing 
 — that God would grant unto this child that thing, which 
 by nature he cannot have. What thing ? To be regenerate, 
 and born aneiv of water and of the Holy Ghost. When ? 
 Now, in his baptism ! It is in this short quotation twice 
 repeated — by baptism, born anew of water and of the Holy 
 Ghost; and it is added — Our Saviour Christ saith, without 
 tliis none can enter into the kingdom of God. Without 
 what? Without being regenerated, and born anew of water 
 and of the Holy Ghost ! "We have here embodied the doc- 
 trine of this church regarding the advantages and efficacy 
 of baptism. All its members solemnly profess to believe, 
 and to take for their guide a book which teaches that, in 
 their baptism, infants are regenerated and born anew of 
 water and of the Holy Ghost, and that without this none 
 can be saved ! It is in perfect coincidence with this senti- 
 ment that the Discipline dictates to the minister a prayer for 
 the child, in which he is directed to beseech Almighty God. 
 that, in his baptism, he would " wash him, and sanctify him 
 with the Holy Ghost ;" and what is it to be waslied, and 
 ^an*" •'■■''■< with the Holy Ghost, but to be regenerated, which 
 
 New York cd. 1829, p. 100. 
 
11>(3 BAPTISMAL UEtiKiVA RATION. 
 
 tlie Discipline teaches us is done in baptism, and iliat with- 
 oui which none can be saved ! 
 
 Let no one imagine that I have either mistaken or mis- 
 represented th.e doctrine of the Disciphne upon this subject. 
 Lest some one should be inclined to indulge such an opinion, 
 I shall prove my exposition of it to be correct by testimony 
 that cannot be questioned. Mr. Wesley wrote, or copied 
 from the Book of Common Prayer this Discipline — certainly 
 this part of it. Whoever else may be mistaken, he himself 
 knew Avhat he intended to teach in the premises. His 
 opinions in other Avorks in which he has discussed the same 
 subject will illustrate and define his meaning in the book 
 before lis. In his " Treatise on Baptism," Mr. Wesley 
 says : " By baptism, we v/ho are by nature the children of 
 wrath, are made the children of God. And this ref^eneration, 
 Avhich our Church in so many places ascribes to buj)iism, 
 is more than barely being admitted into the Church, though 
 commonly connected therewith. Being grafted into the body 
 of Christ's church, we are made the children of God by 
 adoption and grace. John iii. 5. By Avater, then, as a 
 means, the tvater of baptism, we are regenerated and hern 
 again, whence it is called by the apostle, ' the washing of 
 regeneration.' In all ages the outward baptism is a means 
 of the imvard. Herein we receive a title to, and an earnest 
 of, a kingdom which cannot be moved. In the ordinary 
 way, there is no other way of entering into the Church, or 
 into heaven. If infants are guilty of original sin, then they 
 are proper subjects of baptism, seeing, in the ordinary Avay, 
 they cannot be saved unless this be washed away in bap- 
 tism."* 
 
 Who, that reads this passage, can doubt that the Discip- 
 
 * Works, vol. vi. pp. 15, 16. New York ed. issued by ihc Book Cou- 
 
 ceru 
 
 ol" lluit church. 
 
DOCTRINES OF METHODISTS. 197 
 
 line desi^s to teach baptismal regeneration and salvation, in 
 the broad sense of Austin, Jerom, and others of the fathers, 
 ■who figured so largely in the Pelagian controversy of the 
 fourth century. I am not unapprised of the objection that 
 Mr. AVesley v/rote the book I have quoted while yet an 
 Episcopalian, and before he escaped from the mists of that 
 age. I reply, it was long after he had organized his sociely, 
 and written his Discipline. I will not inquire whether he 
 ever left the Episcopal church, but will simply remark, that 
 among tlie last, if not the very last book he ever wrote, was 
 his "Notes on the New Testament." In relation to the 
 baptism of Paul, on these words — " Arise, and be baptized, 
 and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord," 
 he observes ; " Baptism is both the 'means and the seal of 
 pardon, and God did not ordinarily, in the primitive church, 
 bestow his grace upon any, save through this means." 
 
 Such are the doctrines of the Discipline and of its great 
 author. They are too unequivocal to admit of any misap- 
 prehension. They make regeneration and sab.ation dej^end- 
 ent on baptism. We are baptized, says the Discipline, 
 because we are conceived and born in sin, and our Saviour 
 Christ saith, none can enter into the kingdom of God except 
 he l)e regenerate and born anew of water and of the Holy 
 Ghost ; and because in baptism we arc waslied and sanctified 
 with the Holy Ghost; and we are baptized, says Mr. Wesley, 
 because by it we are made the children of God, are connected 
 witli the church, are regenerated and born again, receive a 
 title and earnest to heaven, and because without it infants, if 
 they are partakers of original sin, cannot be saved ! 
 
 With all diese facts before us, I appeal to the intelligence 
 of my readers, whether I have not, as I proposed, satisfac- 
 torily proved that all the prevailing reformed churches which 
 have admitted into them the sprinkling of infants as true and 
 17* 
 
198 BArnsMAL regeneration. 
 
 lawful baptism, attiibnte, as the Papists have ever done to 
 this ordinance, a sanctifying and saving power. Do they or 
 we, then, m^ignify most its importance and efficac}^ ? The ex- 
 act difference between our Pedobaptist brethren and ourselves 
 on this subject may now readily be determined. They bap- 
 tize to give a preparation and tide to heaven ; and we teach 
 that it is alone the experience and grace of salvation that can 
 give a title to baptism. 
 
 The inquiry will probabty be suggested whether sects 
 practising only adult immersion as baptism, have not some- 
 times appeared, who also maintain and teach that this ordi- 
 nance is essential to regeneration, and intimately affects 
 salvation ? I reply in the affirmative. Instances have 
 occurred in the Old World, and an example recently in our 
 own countiy. It is, however, a remarkable fact, that such 
 sects seldom arise, and when they do are of short continuance. 
 The doctrine soon leads, as it did in the third century, to 
 Pedobaptism, or its absurdity becomes so apparent, that, in 
 a few generations, it finds no advocates, and is abandoned. 
 
 The party maintaining the principles in question at present 
 in our country, has acquired all its importance within the 
 last twenty years. Tlie " Encyclopedia of Religious Know- 
 ledge," a work lately published,* cantains an article written 
 by Mr. Alexander Campbell, their founder, somewhat in the 
 form, and which serves the purpose of a declaration of fiith, 
 expressly for this volume, by which it will be seen that he 
 has named them " Disciples of Chris f — they are known 
 to the public by the name of Campbelliies. The speciiic 
 views on this point of the sect are set forth authoritatively 
 in the article in question in these words : " 'i'hey consider 
 immersion into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, 
 after a public, sincere, and intelligent confession of faith in 
 
 * P. 4o2, 463. 
 
DOCTRl-NE OF THE DISCIPLES OF CHRIST. 199 
 
 Jesus, as necessary to admission to the privileges of the king- 
 dom of Messiah, and as a solemn pledge on the part of Heaven 
 of the actual remission of all past sins, and of adoption into 
 the family of God. The Holy Spirit is promised only to 
 those who believe and obey the Saviour" — are immersed. 
 " No one is taught to expect the reception of that heavenly 
 Monitor and Comforter, as a resident in his heart, till he 
 obeys the Gospel" — is baptized. " They proclaim faith and 
 repentance — as preparatory to immxersion, remission, and the 
 Holy Spirit." We have here reiterated the same old doc- 
 trine of the Council of Trent, characteristic of Popery, that 
 baptism is essential to the remission of sins, to the bestow- 
 ment of the Holy Ghost, and that of these, and of our adop- 
 tion, it is the pledge of Heaven ! 
 
 These sentiments are more diffusely and perspicuously 
 expressed in their several relations, in the accredited organ 
 of the " Disciples of Christ." This work, edited by their 
 originator and leader, was commenced in 1823, and at that 
 time bore the name of " Christian Baptist." In one of its 
 articles Mr. Campbell says : " If a man can have any evi- 
 dence of tlie forgiveness of his sins without baptism, I would 
 advise him not to be baptized." Subsequently the name of 
 the periodical was changed to that which it now bears, " The 
 Millennial Harbinger." In Mill. Harb. Extra, No. 1, on 
 Reireneration, Mr. Campbell remarks: "On this side and 
 on that of baptism" — or before and after it—" mankind are 
 in quite different states. On this side they are in a state of 
 condemnation ; on the other they are pardoned, justified, 
 reconciled, adopted, and saved." In Mill. Harb. Extra, No. 
 1 , p. 30, we have this assertion : " If any of them wilfully 
 neglect or disdain immersion, we cannot hope for his salva- 
 tion." And in Mill. Harb. Extra, No. 1, p. 29, it is added: 
 " Nothing is personal regeneration but the act of immersion." 
 
200 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 Ill his recent Mork, entitled " Christianity Restored," Mv. 
 Campbell says : — " l?ut one thing we do know, tliat }iu}ie 
 can rationally, and with certainty, enjoy the peace of God 
 and the hope of heaven, but they who, intelligently and in 
 full faith, are born of water — or arc immersed for the remis- 
 sion of sins." 
 
 We cannot, with all these testimonies before us, and we 
 could add to their number indefinitely, mistake the doctrines 
 of the Disciples on the subject in hand. They embody all 
 the objectionable features of the several Pedobaptist sects, 
 with this exception in their favor ; they immerse only in 
 baptism, and administer the ordinance to none but " confess- 
 ing " adults. In all other respects, and particularly in hold- 
 ing baptism to be essential to regeneration and salvation, they 
 advocate the same doctrines W'ith the Book of Common 
 Prayer, the Confession of Faith, the Discipline, and the 
 Catechism and Canons of the Council of Trent. " By bap- 
 tism," says the Roman Catholic, "our sins are remitted and 
 pardoned, and we are joined and Imit to Christ, as members 
 to the head." " By baptism," says the Episcopalian, " we 
 are regenerated and made members of Christ, the children of 
 God, and heirs of the kingdom of heaven." " By baptism," 
 says the Presbyterian, " we are brought into covenant with 
 God, cleansed from the defilements of the flesh, and God 
 doth seal, confirm, and make over to us, all the benefits of 
 the death of Clirist." " By baptism," says the Methodist, 
 " we, who are by nature, the cliildren of wrath, are made 
 the children of God, are regenerated and born again." And 
 " by baptism," says the Disciple, " we are regenerated, par- 
 doned, justified, reconciled, adopted, and saved." 
 
 Such are the conclusions to which we are conducted by a 
 brief review of the several leading denominations of the Soudi 
 West. The evaiigeUcal portion of them will, I doubt not, 
 
I'EUOJJAri'IS'i' DOCTUINE. 231 
 
 earnestly protest that, whatever their books of faith, and 
 their ^eat writers may teach, they do not beheve tliat bap- 
 lisiii h.as any regenerating or saving influence whatever ; that 
 spirituahly, and not a mere rite, is the sum of rehgion. I 
 question not their sincerity. I respect it. I am gratified to 
 concede to them that their knowledge of the Bible, and of 
 experimental religion, has taught them the errors of their 
 creed-makers, and their schoolmen, and that in their preach- 
 ing, and other religious exercises, they forget them all, and 
 practise upon better principles. Yet there are two or three 
 matters connected with their conduct which to me are unac- 
 countable. One is, that notwithstanding their oft repeated 
 protests against them, still they solemnly subscribe these very 
 standards, publicly profess their belief that they do contain 
 the true exposition of the word of God, teach them to their 
 children, and publish them to the world as their articles of 
 faith. Another is, that they should inveigh so unceasingly 
 against the importance of baptism, with mental reservation, 
 wishing to make, on the public mind, an impression that 
 they mean baptism, when, in fact, they have reference only 
 to a particular mode of its administration. And the third is, 
 the excitement they manifest on this subject, when their un- 
 baptized children are in danger of death. The fact may be 
 disguised with all possible carefulness, yet the impression is 
 in the heart, latent indeed, but easily elicited, that baptism 
 does, in some way or other, afTect the happiness, and is a 
 very essential preparation for another world. I cannot repel 
 the opinion, and I hesitate not to express it, that nothing pre- 
 vents all the exti'avagant practices, formerly connected with 
 this sacrament, from being carried here to the same corrupt 
 extremes that they have reached in Catholic countries, but 
 the antagonist hifluence of Baptist principles. 
 
CHAPTER Xill. 
 
 BAPTISTS CANNOT UNITE WITH PEDOBAPTISTS IN SACRAMEN- 
 TAL COMMUNION, BECAUSE THEY ATTACH TO THE LORd's 
 SUPPER AN UNREASONABLE AND UNSCRIPTURAL IMPOR- 
 TANCE AND EFFICACY. 
 
 Early superstition — Roman Catholics — Infant communion — Came into 
 the church with infant baptism and accompanied it for a thousand 
 years — Its abrogation — When and why — Opinions of the Episcopal 
 church — Of the Presbyterian — Of the Methodist — Communion with 
 them is an assent to their doctrines on communion which we can- 
 not give — Open communion is impracticable — It is subversive of all 
 discipline — The law of God the only safe rule — Close of this part of 
 the argument. 
 
 The same unreasonable and iniscriptural efficacy and im- 
 portance, with which, as we have, in the last chapter, seen 
 our Pedobaptist brethren of all sects, invest baptism, they 
 also attach to the sacrament of the Lord's supper. The 
 proof of this statement, — for I ask no man to give it credit 
 without the amplest confirmation, — will occupy our present 
 attention. The Roman Catholics dispense it under the name 
 of the mass, as an expiatory sacrifice, and all the other de- 
 nominations refuse, on that account, and would continue to 
 do so had they no other reason, to receive it at their hands. 
 But the Protestants, with certainly no better authority, admi- 
 nister it professedly, as " an effectual means of grace ;" to 
 " seal and exhibit the benefits of the mediation of Christ ;*' 
 and as "necessary to salvation." When such objects are 
 avowed, is it possible Baptists can be among the recipients ? 
 Such an expectation ought not to be entertahied. AVe cau 
 202 
 
INFANT COMMUNION. 203 
 
 apj)roach the holy table only when the design is legitniiately 
 scriptural, — to "show tlie Lord's death till he come," to 
 express our faith in the vicariousness of his great sacrifice, 
 and to exhibit an emblem of that fellowship in spirit, which 
 we have " with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ 
 our Lord." The Protestant, though, perhaps, more modest 
 than the Popish dogmas, are to us, not less objectionable. 
 
 These propositions, however, we may be possibly told, 
 are extravagant and ridiculous. We appeal to the History 
 of the Church, the standards of the several denominations, 
 their writers of authority, and their public conduct and pro- 
 fessions. 
 
 Their greater antiquity entitles the Roman Catholics to 
 priority in our attention. On the decline of religion, about 
 the third century, when the transition in the minds of men 
 began to take place from its substance to its forms, baptism 
 and the Lord's supper arose together in public estimation. 
 They soon became the two leaves which compose the golden 
 gate of the New Jerusalem. If the former was an indis- 
 pensa1)le preliminary to the latter, both were alike necessary 
 to salvation. These facts we shall presently see fully estab- 
 lished. The motives, therefore, that prompted the baptism 
 of infants, very naturally led to the administi-ation to them, 
 without distinction, of the supper of the Lord. A fact so 
 singular as infant co3i>iunion will doubtless appear to many 
 who may peruse these pages, I will not venture to state, 
 without at the same time, giving such testimonies of its truth 
 as may seem to be requisite. Preposterous as infant com- 
 munion may appear, it is not more so than infant baptism, 
 Avith the whole system of which it is perfectly consistent. 
 History is exuberant upon this point. Dr. Wall asserts that 
 " the baptized person was, quickly after his baptism, admit- 
 ted to partake of the Lord's supper. This was always, and 
 
204 REASONS FOR STRICT COMM(JNION. . 
 
 in all places, used in the case of adult persons, and in some 
 ages and places in the case of infants."* 
 
 Mr. Daille, in his work on " The right use of the 
 Fathers," collates the testimony of Cyprian, Austin, and Pope 
 Innocent I., all of whom he proves to have been warm ad- 
 vocates and supporters of infant communion, and adds : — 
 " All the rest of the Doctors, in a manner, of the first ages, 
 maintained that the eucharist was necessary for infants ; if at 
 least you take Maldonatus' word, who affirms that — ' This 
 opinion was in great request in the church, during the first 
 six hundred years after our Saviour Christ,' Down as far 
 as the end of the sixth century," continues Mr. Daille, the 
 Fathers held that the eucharist is as 7iecessary to salvation 
 as baptism, — and consequently to be administered to infants ; 
 and concludes from that, as from one of his two chief in- 
 stances, how little heed — ^now that infant communion is aban- 
 doned- — " is given to the practice of primitive times." But 
 Maldonatus' meaning, we are assured, by the prosing Vicar 
 of Shoreham, was mistaken by Mr. Daille. He maintains 
 that — " This opinion [of the necessity to their salvation of 
 infont communion] began to be entertained in the year four 
 liundre;!, and continued from that period, six hundred years." 
 But Wall, himself, supplies the materials by which the opin- 
 ions he advocates are most readily refuted. lie exhibits, on 
 the matter now before us, one of the numerous instances 
 which occur in his works, of his singular blindness, when he 
 does not wish to see the facts that lie before him. We will, 
 for ourselves, consult the Fatliers, whose names have been 
 mentioned, with others who record the same history, and 
 maturely determine the nature of the lessons they teach us. 
 
 * Hist. Tnf. Bap,, vol. ii. ch. 9, from section 15, p. 353, to the end 
 of the chapter, vvliere will be found all the statements and authorities 
 here introduced. 
 
INFAN^T COMMUNION. 295 
 
 Cyprian, in his book De Lapsis, narrates numerous inci- 
 dents attending the administration, by himself, at Cartilage, 
 of the Lord's supper to infants, who were not yet old enough 
 to speak. The story is too prolix, fanatical, and visionary, 
 to be repeated. It may be seen by consulting the Magde- 
 burgenses, Salmasius, Suicerus, Wall, ut supra, and Hinton's 
 History of .Baptism."* It is sufficient for my purpose that 
 Cyprian refers to infant communion, and to the propriety of 
 it as undoubted. 
 
 " Innocent I., Bishop of Rome," says Wall, " does, indeed, 
 anno 417, plainly, and positively, say that infants cannot be 
 saved without receiving the eucharist, and that too in a Sy- 
 nodical Epistle, written to the Milevitan Council."! This 
 gi-ave and reverend conclave had, in a formal address, repre- 
 sented to Innocent, the master of the triple throne, and the 
 infallible arbiter of all truth, tliat the Pelagians had dared to 
 embrace and even to defend the sentiment that, possiljly, 
 infants might be saved without baptism. The Pontiff im- 
 mediately, and indignantly, replied in these words : — " That 
 which your brotherhood says that they teach — that infants 
 may, without the grace of baptism, have eternal life, is very 
 absurd, since — ' Except they eat the flesh of the Son of 
 Man, and drink his blood, they have no life in them ;' — they 
 can have no eternal life without receiving the communion ; 
 and they cannot do that until they are baptized." The cha- 
 racter, and stations, of the parties concerned in this corre- 
 spondence, evince the extent to which the Christian world 
 had, in that early age, adopted the principles, and practised 
 the ceremony of infant communion. 
 
 Austin writes in the following emphatic terais : — " The 
 Christians in Africa do well to call baptism itself one's sal- 
 
 * P. 326. 
 
 t Vide also Iniioc. Epist. 93, inter Epist. to Augustine. 
 18 
 
296 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 valion ; and the sacrament of Christ's body one's life. From 
 whence is this but, as I suppose, from that ancient and apos- 
 tohcal tradition, by which the churches of Clu-ist do naturally 
 hold that, without baptism and partaking of the Lord's table, 
 none can come either to the kingdom of God, or to salvation 
 and eternal life. Neither salvation, nor eternal life, is to be 
 hoped for, by any, without baptism, and the body and blood 
 of our Lord; it is in vain promised to infants without 
 them."* 
 
 We need not multiply testimony in the premises. All that 
 I proposed to establish is sufficiently apparent. Infant bap- 
 tism, and infant communion, beyond question, came into 
 existence at the same time, were sustained by the same argu- 
 ments, and flourished together for a thousand years. Both 
 were believed to be necessary equally to the salvation, whe- 
 ther of an adult or an infant, and they are certainly reserved, 
 when the church shall return to her primitive purity and 
 holiness, to share the same destiny. It is worthy of remark, 
 en passant, that modern advocates of infant baptism, dv/ell 
 with great emphasis on the statement of Austin, that this 
 practice had come down to them as an apostolic tradition. 
 But the same Father, and others also, assert, as we have just 
 seen, precisely the same thing in favor of infant communion. 
 That too was a tradition received from the apostles. If the 
 argument is conclusive in the former case, it cannot be defec- 
 tive in the latter. But here they reject its authority, and 
 have abandoned the practice. Few Pedobaptists have the 
 candor of Bossuet, who says — " The churcli has always 
 believed, and still believes, that infants are capable of receiv- 
 ing the eucharist as well as baptism, and find no more 
 obstacle to their communion in tlie words of St. Paul — ' Let 
 a man examine himself, and so let him eat,' than they {iin\ 
 
 * De Pccatorum, Mentis, lib. i. cap. 27. 
 
INFANT COMMUNION. 207 
 
 to baptism in these words of our Lord — ' Teach, and 
 baptize.' "* 
 
 In regard to tlie age at which the child was expected to 
 approach the Lord's table, and the manner in which they 
 commnnicated, we have the most explicit information. Re- 
 specting the former I observe, that the age of the communi- 
 cants is indicated by the several ordinals of the times, which 
 have come down to us. Gregory in his Sacramentarium, has 
 an order, in these words — " Infants should be allowed to 
 suck the breast before the holy communion, if necessity so 
 requires."! The lenity of this enactment was not always 
 permitted. The old Ordo Romanus, of the ninth century, 
 directs thus : — " Infants, after they are baptized, should not 
 eat any food, nor suck the breast, without great necessity, till 
 they have communicated in the sacrament of the body of 
 Christ." Salmasius observes on this subject — " It was the 
 invariable practice to give to catechumens the eucharist im- 
 mediately after they were baptized. Afterwards the opinion 
 prevailed that no one could be saved unless he were baptized, 
 so the custom of baptizing infants was introduced. And 
 because to adult catechumens, as soon as they were baptized, 
 no space of time intervening, the eucharist was given, so 
 after Pedobaptism was introduced, this was also done in the 
 case of infants. "J As touching the latter, the manner of 
 administering the Lord's supper to infants, Hugo de Sancto 
 Victora, who lived about A. D. 1000, with other writers, 
 gives us full information.§ The priest, he very gravely tells 
 us, dipped his finger into the chalice, and put it into the 
 
 * Bossueti Traile de Communion sous les deux Especes, part i. p. 3, 
 apiid Hinton's History of Baptism, p. 329. 
 
 t In Offic. Sabt. Sanct. 
 
 X In Libro De Consubstantione, contra H. Grotium, Hinton's Hist, 
 p. 329. 
 
 % Wall's History, 8cc., vol. ii. ch. 9. 
 
208 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 chiUrs mouth, for him to suck. This was the Latin custom 
 With the Greeks, who we are tokl still cling to^he practice, 
 the method was different. The wafer was mixed with the 
 wine, and given in minute quantities, in the manner of giving 
 medicine, not to preserve the body from disease, but to restore 
 the soul to holiness, and confer everlasting life. 
 
 The Papists, and all the Protestants who are or have been 
 under this influence, have, as we have already intimated, long 
 since abolished infant communion. On this subject Dr. Wall 
 remarks : — " The Roman church, about the year one thou- 
 sand, embraced the doctrine of transubstantiation, and an 
 excessive superstition prevailing in relation to the elements of 
 the eucharist, they let fall the custom of giving the holy ele- 
 ments to infants. And the other Western churches, mostly 
 following their example, did the like. But the Greeks — who 
 received this custom from the Latins — not having the said 
 doctrme [of transubstantiation] continued, and do still con- 
 tinue, the custom of communicating infants." The "cus- 
 tom," it is true, " was fallen in the west," still it was not 
 formally abrogated, until by a decree of the Council of Trent. 
 That council repealed what former councils, popes, and 
 fathers, time almost immemorable, had taught as a laiv of 
 God, and the practice it involved as inculcated by apostolical 
 authority. The reasons for its suppression will be found 
 among their proceedings thus stated : — " It [the Lord's sup- 
 per] is not at all necessary for them [infants] since, being 
 regenerated by the laver of baptism, and incorporated into 
 Christ, they cannot, in that age, lose the grace of being the 
 children of God, which they have now o1)tained." 
 
 Such are the origin, the doctrines, the forms, and present 
 condition of infant communion. " For ten centuries," says 
 Mr. Hinton,* the idea of withholding one sacrament from 
 
 * Hist. Blip. pp. 323, 324. 
 
SUPPRESSION OF INFANT COM.-^I UNION. 209 
 
 those who had partaken of the other, even in the case of 
 infants, had certainly never been conceived. This was re- 
 served for the most corrupt age of the church of Rome, when 
 the doctrine of transubstantiation ' was come to the full ;' so 
 that the Reformers have followed the corruptions of the 
 ancient church in giving baptism to infants, and the corrup- 
 tions of modern Romanism in withholding from them the 
 Lord's supper ; and then, in the adoption of this compound 
 error, witli the facts of history staring them full in the face, 
 they ask the Baptists to follow them." When we refuse to 
 do so they courteously pronounce us for our squeamishness, 
 exclusive, sectarian, self-riffhteous bigots. " But none of 
 these things move us." Kindly, but [irmly, we must decline ; 
 and soon, we trust, there will be no occasion for further con- 
 tention. Infant communion has already been nearly destroyed 
 by the influence of a like error, and infant baptism must ulti- 
 mately fall by the power of omnipotent truth. 
 
 I have occupied more time than was necessary to show 
 the importance attached by the Papists to the eucharist. I 
 offer as an apology my desire to illustrate, somewhat, the 
 collateral subject introduced, from the supposition that many 
 of our people are without the means of its satisfactory inves- 
 tigation. I will study more bre\ity in deciding the inquiry 
 whether the other Pedobaptist denominations attribute to this 
 sacrament the same unscriptural efficacy with which it is 
 regarded by the Romanists. 
 
 What the Episcopal church teaches her catechumens on 
 this subject we had occasion to notice in the last chapter. 
 When asked : — " How many sacraments hatli Christ ordained 
 in his church ?" they are instructed to answer, and to believe 
 they answer truly — " Two only, as generally necessary to 
 salvation^ baptism, and the supper of the Lord.'''' After 
 what we have before seen with reference to this sect, noUiing, 
 18* 
 
2li) REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 1 apprclieiid, need be addsd to prove that they attach to the 
 ordinance in question, an unreasonable and unscriptural effi- 
 cacy and importance. 
 
 The doctrine of all classes of Presbyterians may be learned 
 by the following passage from their standards — " Question 
 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of 
 SALVATION ? Answer. The sacraments become effectual 
 means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any 
 virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom 
 they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy 
 Ghost, and the blessing of Christ by whom they are insti- 
 tuted."* The manner in which the working of the Holy 
 Ghost, and the blessing of Christ are received in the eucha- 
 rist, in the next question and answer, is explained : — "Ques- 
 tion 162. What is a sacrament? Answer. A sacrament 
 is a holy ordinance, instituted by Christ, in his church, to 
 signify, seal, and exhibit, unto those vjho are ivithin the 
 Covenant of Grace, the benefits of his mediation." We 
 are here most certainly taught that the sacraments are effec- 
 tual means of salvation, and that they seal to those who 
 are within the covenant of grace the benefits of Christ's 
 mediation. All this must surely render them of unspeakable 
 moment in the work of salvation. 
 
 The service of the Methodist is nearly a transcript from 
 the Episcopal church, from which it originated. In the mat- 
 ter before us only some portions among the most absurd are 
 omitted, such as sponsors, and some other accompaniments. 
 The idea, hoAvever, that the Lord's supper is " a means and 
 seal of e'race," is professedly retained and carried out in all 
 their mmistrations. Dr. Adam Clark, it is presumed, speaks 
 the sentiments of his brethren when he says : " Every man 
 who beheves in Christ as his atoning sacrifice, should, as 
 
 * Coufcbaiou of Faith, pp. 284, 2S5. 
 
A MEANS OF GRACE AND SALVATION. 211 
 
 frequently as he can, receive the sacrament of tlie Lord's 
 supper. And every minister of Christ is bound to adminis- 
 ter it to every man luho is seeking the salvation of his 
 soul, as well as to all believers. Let no man dare to oppose 
 tliis ordinance ; and let every man receive it according to the 
 in>stitution of Christ."* That the practice of this denomina- 
 tion very generally corresponds with the vague and unscrip- 
 tural notion just quoted, I presume, is unquestioned. As an 
 illustration of this remark, I wiU introduce a statement of one 
 of my correspondents, not long since published in several 
 newspapers, on both sides of the AUeghanies : 
 
 " During the present summer, 1 attended a Methodist camp 
 meeting, was in the crowd when the Lord's supper was ad- 
 ministered, and persons were invited to unite themselves with 
 the church. Two presiding elders were present. One of 
 them solicited those who were professedly unregenerate to 
 join the church as a means of regeneration, and urged that 
 serious unconverted persons were more favorably situated to 
 be bom again who were church members, than those who 
 were not. He narrated several cases of individuals wlio 
 joined the church as seekers, who were afterwards brought 
 to trust in Christ, and who had since declared their convic- 
 tion that had they not done so, they never would have been 
 converted. Among the cases he mentioned, one was that 
 of a man who had connected himself with the church, was 
 baptized, and partook of the Lord's supper, and who ascribed 
 his spiritual change to the instrumentahty of this latter sacra- 
 m(;nt. He, therefore, invited all who intended to join them 
 to come to the sacred table with them. That evening seven 
 persons came forward, their names were registered, an invi- 
 tation was gi^^en to the unreo^enerate, Avho desired con'^'ersion, 
 to go into the ' altar ' to receive instruction, and to unite rn 
 
 * Comm. on 1 Cor. xi. &c. 
 
212 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 prayer, when, to my surprise, six of the seven went forward 
 and kneeled. I was asked by a Methodist why I did not 
 partake of the Lord's supper with tliem. I replied, that if 
 T had no other reason, the consideration would be insupera- 
 ble, that the ordinance had that evening been administered 
 professedly as a means of grace, regeneration, and salva- 
 tion, and that I considered m)'-self obliged to withhold my 
 assent from doctrines so unscriptural and injurious, and which 
 I thought proper to evince by declining a participation." 
 
 This, doubtless, is a practical illustration of what they 
 suppose to be taught by the Discipline, and accords with the 
 canons of Episcopacy, which order that this sacrament shall 
 be ofTered to all men. Clark* most strenuously contends, 
 that " There is not a Popish priest under heaven, who denies 
 the cup to the people, (and they all do this) that can be said 
 to celebrate the Lord's supper at all ; nor is there one of 
 their votaries that ever received the holy sacrament. All 
 pretensions to this is an absolute farce, so long as the cup, 
 the emblem of the atoning blood, is denied." We agree with 
 him here, most heartily. But let me ask, whether a dismem- 
 berment of the eucharist in reference to its object and design, 
 is not equally fatal with a similar disseverance of its ele- 
 ments ? If so, and I think its truth is obvious, the doctor's 
 conclusion is legitimate against himself, and he and his brethren 
 fail, after all, to receive the sacrament to which they attribute 
 such miraculous power and virtue. 
 
 What, now, is the sum of the argument submitted ? The 
 Romanists tell us there is no eternal life without the sacra- 
 ment of the body of Christ ; the Episcopalians, that it is 
 " necessary to salvation ;" the Presbyterian, that it is an " ef- 
 fectual means of salvation," and " seals'^ to the recipient " the 
 benefits of Christ's mediation ;" and the Methodist, that it is 
 
 * Ut supra. 
 
OPEN COMMUNION I3irUACTICAlJLE. 213 
 
 a means of grace and regeneration, and as snch to be admin- 
 istered to every man who is seeking the salvation of his 
 soul. Can all this be true ? It is impossible. Is not the 
 proof, therefore, perfectly conclusive, that all the Pedobaptist 
 denominations attach to the Lord's supper an unscriptural 
 and unreasonable degree of efficacy and importance ? If we 
 partake with them, we, by that act, publicly profess that we 
 recognize their doctrine as correct, and in substance declare 
 that we expect by it, not merely to perform an act of obedi- 
 ence, indicative of our love and submission to Christ, and to 
 show his death till he come, but also to receive the grace and 
 salvation of which they hold it to be productive, and have 
 sealed to us all the benefits of his mediation. That we can, 
 after an understanding of the subject, do this, is impmctica- 
 ble, without insincerity, hypocrisy, and sin. 
 
 Thus we have given our third and last principal reason 
 why we cannot commune with our brethren of the several 
 Pedobaptist denominations. 
 
 I might, indeed, add numerous others of minor import ; 
 such as that open communion is incapable of being carried 
 mto existence, and is, as we shall hereafter see, not practised 
 even by those who cISim so much credit on the score of 
 tlieir liberality. There is no principle upon which it can be 
 conducted. Who are we to receive ? If it is replied, aU 
 Christians, the difficulty is not removed. How are we to 
 know who are Christians ? We cannot, at such a time, stop 
 to examine candidates. The same remarks are appUcable 
 with regard to our intercourse with the several sects around 
 us. If we receive the members of two, or three, or four 
 denominations, and reject others, we are still on close com- 
 munion grounds, and yet subject to all the reproach which 
 has hitherto been heaped upon us. Shall we admit all who 
 have taken upon them the Christian name 1 This, I pre- 
 
214 REASONS FOR STRICT COMMUNION. 
 
 Slime, will be considered out of die quesdon. Open commu- 
 nion is also wholly subversive of all ecclesiasdcal discipline. 
 The church which adopts it must immediately renounce the 
 hope of preserving any order among her members. Exclude 
 whom slie will from her fellowship, he has only to go and 
 join some oilier denomination, a course constantly adopted, 
 and for which every facility is held out, and the next Lord's 
 day he returns and communes with the church, no longer 
 expelled. But I will not multiply considerations. 
 
 Let us recapitulate this part of our subject. We have 
 seen that we cannot commune with our Pedobaptist brethren 
 because, in the first place, to do so we must either actually 
 renounce, or practically falsify, all our principles in reladoii 
 to both bapdsm and the Lord's supper ; because, in the 
 second place, they have not been bapuzed ; and because, in 
 the third place, they attach to each of the sacraments an un- 
 scriptural and unreasonable efficacy and importance. We 
 have determined, therefore, as individuals, and as churches, 
 and, I believe, have determined wisely, to be guided, in this, 
 as well as every other duty, alone by the law of Christ, and 
 are prepared cheerfully to meet all the consequences attend- 
 ant upon undeviating fidelity. 
 
CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 THE POLICY OF FREE COMMUNION CONSIDERED, AND SHOWN 
 TO BE DISASTROUS TO THE CHURCH. 
 
 Close communion is odious — the Church would be more prosperous 
 were it abandoned — Argument from reason — from facts — Prirx-iplea 
 of free communion Baptists — Results of the practice — Bunyan'3 
 church — Foster's — Hall's — Giles' instances — Open communion aban- 
 doned by its advocates — Close communion most consistent with pros- 
 perity and harmony. 
 
 The opinion has been entertained, and often expressed, by 
 Baptists and others, that, notwitlistanding all we have said, 
 if the church w^ould adopt the pohcy of open communion, 
 she would be more prosperous and happy. TJiis impres- 
 sion, together with the disposition to shrink from the odium 
 attached to our present practice, has, in some places, prevailed 
 so extensively that whole congregations have been strongly 
 inclined to overturn the barriers that surround us, and adopt 
 the liberal system so much eulogized. " The first effect,'* 
 says Mr. Hall, appealing to the denomination in advocacy of 
 the course sug'gested, " necessarily resulting from restricted 
 communion, is a popular prejudice against the party whicli 
 adopts it." He adds : — " From him who is truly solicitous 
 to extend the triumphs of truth, we should expect notliing 
 would be more abhorrent than such a system" " It an- 
 swers no other purpose than to make ourselves unpopular." 
 
 That the practice of restricted communion lias been, with 
 many persons, rendered extremely odious, and that in various 
 quarters it is most unpopular, is readily conceded. The 
 9ti-ongcst prejudices of the human heart have been called forth, 
 
 215 
 
2lG TITE POMCY OP 
 
 and set in an array against it. All the ministers, and people, 
 without exception, whatever they may have yielded in pri- 
 vate, or through tlie press, of every denomination around us, 
 have industriously employed their whole energies during the 
 last fifty years, to create and fix this odium, this prejudice, 
 this unpopularity, and they have been but too successful. 
 But does any one on this account think for a moment of M- 
 tering in his course ? If so I must confess, and I do not 
 regret it, that with him I have no sympathy. I ask not, I 
 never will ask, whether any doctrine or practice of mine is 
 odious or unpopular.. All I wish to know is, whether it 
 embodies that truth and righteousness which God has re- 
 vealed. If I find it to be so, no earthly consideration shall 
 deter me from a strict and hearty obedience. Had the apos- 
 tles, the primitive Christians, and early martyrs, shrunk from 
 the odium of the Christian profession, then so unpopular and 
 withering, vv^here would now have been the religion of Christ ? 
 Is the close communion that we pfractise, which by the way 
 ' Ave intend presently to show is the most open and liberal 
 communion existing, odious ? Why should it be so ? Is 
 it on account of the principles which govern us, or the con- 
 sequences to which these principles lead us ? They are 
 botli the same in many respects which are professed by all 
 other Christian's. They too require faith and baptism as the 
 terms of communion ! What more do we ? What then 
 can it be that is so repugnant ? It is our baptism. To de- 
 stroy this is, after all, the great object for which they labor. 
 Is any Baptist prepared to barter an ordinance of Christ for 
 a miserable popularity ? Do we not in all these respects act 
 in accordance with the law of the Redeemer ? To avoid 
 the odium of obedience, must we become transgressors? 
 Miist we fear and honor men more than God, and that too, 
 not to advance truth, but to screen ourselves from the oppro- 
 
OPEN COMMUNION. 217 
 
 brill m of perverted minds ? While the odium of the cross 
 is remembered, which Jesus Christ bore to redeem us, let 
 me never be told of the unpopularity which may attacli to 
 that obedience requisite to preserve the purity of his sacra- 
 ments. 
 
 Does the reason of the case lead us to the conclusion that 
 were the church to adopt the open communion policy she 
 would be more prosperous and happy ? I presume not. Is 
 it lawful to commune with any but baptized persons ? Cer- 
 tainly it is not. Is the immersion in water, of a believer, by 
 a properly authorized minister, in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the only baptism ? 
 All Baptists reply in the affirmative. Then Pedobaptists are 
 not baptized. To commune with them, therefore, is to vio- 
 late the law of Christ. If promiscuous communion is in 
 contravention of the law of God, how can it be productive 
 of an increased degree of prosperity and happiness ? Did 
 not Christ know wliat is best for us, and for his cause, and 
 did he frame the rules of his word in conflict with the in- 
 terests of his people ? Shall we consult the advancement 
 of his church by violating the laws which he has enacted for 
 her government ? It is impossible. On the principles of 
 reason, therefore, open communion cannot be good policy. 
 
 Unibrtunntely for the happiness of the church, and for the 
 advocates of " the liberal policy," we are not left to be guided 
 in this matter alone by the doubtful lisfht of reason. We are 
 furnished by autlientic history with the means of setthng, 
 definitely, the question whether the practice we debate is 
 favorable to the prosperity of tlie church. The experiment 
 has been tried, and it has most signally failed. In England 
 there is, and has been ever since the days of John Bunyan, 
 Toombs, and others equally popular, a considerable number 
 of "Free Communion Baptists." Have thcv prospered or 
 J9 
 
218 B\n POLICY OF 
 
 ileclined ? The answer to this inquiry will solve the problem 
 now under consideration. 
 
 It is proper here to remark tliat tliese ministers and 
 churelies have been immeasurably applauded, as p^reat, leanied, 
 and liberal. Their works, especially Uiose of Bunyan and 
 Hall, have been industriously circulated by Pedobaptists, and 
 profusely quoted against us. That they deserved all the 
 reputation that has been accorded them I doubt not. But 
 "we would remind our Pedobaptist brethren, that open com- 
 munion Baptists difler much more widely from them in prin- 
 ciple than we do, and, therefore, ought to be regarded with 
 less favor. Tliey, as sincerely as ourselves, believe Pedo- 
 baptists to be unbaptized. " We are compelled," says Mr. 
 Hall, and Bunyan and others concur in the same sentiment, 
 " We are compelled to look upon the mass of our fellow 
 Christians as unbaptized."* They justify their practice on 
 one of two grounds, or on both, either that baptism is not a 
 prerequisite to communion, or that Pedobaptists are weak 
 and deluded, but sincere, and to be admitted in compassion 
 for their simplicity. Says Mr. Hall,t " The apostles admit- 
 ted the weak and erroneous, providing their errors were not 
 subversive of Christianity. We do precisely the same." 
 And ± " The only method of arriving at a satisfactory con- 
 clusion is to consider how the aposdes conducted themselves 
 towards smcere though erring Christians, together with din 
 temper they recommend us to cuUivate towards such as labor 
 \mder mistakes and misconceptions not inconsistent with 
 piety." In the former case — the supposition diat baptism is 
 not one of die terms of communion — if what in a former 
 chapter we have seen to be the faith of all nations and tiffrs 
 is to be respected, diey have embraced an error, and Pedo- 
 baptists ought to continue, as they have done heretofore, to 
 
 =' Works, vol. ii. p. 212. t Ibid. j). 216. \ Ibid. p. 217. 
 
FUEE COiMMUxMOxV. 219 
 
 bear their testimony against it. In the latter, I should think 
 their position much more repugnant than ours. Are our 
 brethren of other churches so ready to confess themselves 
 weak, deluded, and imbecile ? And even if it is so, the argu- 
 ment is nothing more than the absurdity, that if a man sin- 
 cerely believes a thing to be right to him it is right, thus 
 substituting sincerity for obedience, and fostering a deception 
 hurtful to truth and righteousness. Will Pedobaptists accept 
 communion on either of these grounds ? They may, never- 
 theless, find it convenient, on account of certain advantages 
 they imagine to be held out by open communion arguments, 
 to give their verdict in their favor, and extol the hberality and 
 wisdom of their authors, while they take good care not to 
 adopt the principles upon which they are based. 
 
 But Ave return to the inquiry, whether open communion 
 Baptist churches have been particularly prosperous. To 
 those familiar with Baptist history, the fact is well known, 
 that, notwithstanding all the advantages of popular prejudices 
 in their favor — if these can be considered advantages — and 
 the advocacy of the most learned and eloquent men the world 
 ever saw, these churches have, to say to least, gained nothing 
 by the practice, either in numbers, respectability, piety or 
 mfluence.* This fact may be demonstrated by an examina- 
 tion of Ivimy, Kinghorn, the younger Fuller, and other wri- 
 ters on the subject. Even Mr. Hall himself has unwittingly 
 borne testimony in favor of this statement. Referring to the 
 progress of Baptist principles in England, as open commu- 
 nion gained ground, he remarks — " It may be doubted whe- 
 ther, since the recent revival of religion, our progress is in a 
 fair proportion with that of other denominations. It may 
 be possible to assign the second causes of this remarkable 
 
 * This fact is elaborately, and incontrovertibly, sustained in the lata 
 English edition of this work, bv the learned editors. 
 
2**0 BAD POLICY OF 
 
 cvoiit, but :is second causes are always subservioiit to the 
 iiilL'iilions of the first, it deserves our serious consideration 
 whether we are not laboring under the frown of the great 
 Head of tlie church ; and 'is there not a cause V A visible 
 inferiority to oilier Christians in zeal and piety will hardly 
 be imputed ; nor have we been left destitute of that compe- 
 tent measure of learning and talent re(iuisite to the support 
 of our doctrines. The cause of the faiUire then is not to be 
 looked for from that quarter."* The learned writer wished 
 to make the impression that the denomination was suffering 
 because so few had embraced his favorite doctrines, but the 
 evil is now seen evidently to liavc had its origin in the extent 
 to which they liad been acted upon by the churches, and the 
 consequent agitation and disorganization with which they 
 were attended. 
 
 Let us, however, descend to somewhat more of particu- 
 larity. The fatlier, 1 suppose we may so call him, of open 
 communion, was the justly celebrated John Bunyan, author 
 of the Pilgrim's Progress, and numerous other reputable 
 works. He was pastor of the Baptist church in Bedford 
 England. This venerable church admitted Pedobaptists, and 
 as they were allowed all other privileges they could not be 
 denied membership, or what was the same thing, the right 
 of suffrage in the church-meetings, for it would be prepos- 
 terous habitually to commune with a man and then not per- 
 mit him to vote in ordinary matters, rivaling to the order and 
 instruction of the congregation. Tlie Bedford church was 
 not so illiberal. But the consequences were fatal. Tlie 
 Pedobaptist party soon became the most numerous. On tlie 
 discovery of this fact, they immediately took effectual mea- 
 sures, routed the Baptists, took possession of tlie meeting- 
 house, called a Pedobaptist pastor, and from that time liava 
 
 * Works, vol. i. p. 339. 
 
FREE COMMUNION. 231 
 
 generally held possession. " Such was the state of the 
 church," says Mr. Kiughorn, "with which he was long 
 connected, that on his death they chose a Pedobaptist ; and 
 from die year 1688, in which he died, to the year 1788, 
 when Mr. Joshua Symonds died (one hundred years), the 
 ministers who succeeded him were Pcdobaptisfs, except the 
 last, who, some years after liis settlement with the church, 
 changed his sentiments and became a Baptist. Tliis took 
 place in 1772, and though Mr. Symonds continued at Bed- 
 ford, it was on condition that he should not introduce the 
 controversy [on baptism] into the pulpit, nor into conversa- 
 tion, unless it was first mentioned by others. We have also 
 been informed that one instance occurred in 1700, and another 
 in 1724, in which the church refused to grant a dismission to 
 members who desired to unite with Baptist churches in 
 London, because they were sh-ict communion churches."* 
 Mr. Symonds was succeeded by Pedobaptist ministers. 
 Here is a practical illustration of the advantages of open 
 communion. Take another. 
 
 The Rev. James Foster, D. D., was, during more than 
 twenty years, pastor of the Baptist church in Barbicon 
 Place, London. "In his day," says Mr. Kinghorn,t "he 
 advocated the cause of mixed communion." The conse- 
 quence was, "he left the Baptists, and (without changing his 
 principles — ^still a Baptist minister) accepted the pastoral 
 charge of the Independent Church at Pinner's Hall." What 
 were the practical advantages ? The Barbicon church could 
 have received no benefit by his withdrawal ; Mr. Grantham 
 Chillino-worth assures us not one member of the Pinner's 
 Hall church ever was baptized ; and thus the serAices of 
 Foster were wholly lost to the Baptist denomination. Yet 
 Mr. Hall says : " Of the tendency of mixed communion to 
 
 * Delcncc, Pieiace, p. 15. t Ut supra. 
 
222 BAO POLICY OF 
 
 promote a more candid inquiry into our principles, it is 
 scarcely possible to doubt." 
 
 Tlie church in Leicester, of which Mr. Hall was pastor, 
 and afterwards tliat in Bristol, to wliich he removed, notwith- 
 standing their free communion, and the unrivalled eloquence, 
 amazing learning, unaffected piety, and unprecedented popu- 
 larity of their minister, who wrote on the subject the most 
 elaborate works wliich have ever been published, were no 
 more numerous or flourishing than many other churches of 
 fewer advantages, and who practised close communion. I 
 have the best authority for the remark — that of a clerical eye- 
 witness, the Rev. Jonathan Davis, author of the History of 
 the Welsh Baptists — that in this church not a single Pedo- 
 baptist habitually communed, nor was it to have been ex- 
 pected, unless, as in the case of Bunyan, they were assured 
 tliey could take possession of the church, and succeed its 
 Baptist pastor with a minister of their own. 
 
 " Mr. Giles," says Fuller, in his Conversations,* " in his 
 very interesting Letters to Rev. Robert Hall,t presents us 
 with some striking exemplifications 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 in our 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 affection, and from a confident per- 
 suasion that such an act of liberaHty would not fail to be fol- 
 lowed with conviction, at least among some of th-cse mistaken 
 brethren, agi'eed to alter their terms of communion, and receive 
 tliem. Some of their members, and some of their neighbour- 
 
 *Pp, 250, 251. t Pp. 63-65. 
 
FULli COMMUNION. 223 
 
 ing ministers and brethren remonstrated with them, and as- 
 sured them the result would prove to be the opposite to what 
 they expected. But these remonstrances were disregarded, 
 and the liberal plan adopted, with a confident persuasion of 
 its success. This mixed fellowship continued for, I believe, 
 a year and a half, or more ; but not one of the Pedobaptists 
 could see baptism to be of sufficient importance to submit to 
 it ! At last some Independent minister, from the kindest mo- 
 tives, no doubt, attempted, and really effected, a reconciliation 
 between the remaining members of the church and the breth- 
 ren that had seceded, the result of which was, that every one 
 of them returned to his own fold, leaving the Baptists without 
 the accession of a single member from them ! There is no 
 one but would rejoice in such a reconciliation ; but it assur- 
 edly 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 affirm, 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 w4th another church at , 
 
 This church, for the purpose of receiving a few unbaptized 
 persons, altered its constitution. The consequence was, that 
 as soon as the alteration was made, as many baptized breth- 
 ren 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, 
 tliat they had tried and proved the inexpediency of mixed 
 communion, and on that inexpediency alone had resolved in 
 
224 BAD POLICY OF 
 
 future to prevent it. This, sir, is another matter of fact 
 against the expediency of your theory. 
 
 " ' The last that I shall mention, and which I had related 
 to me very recendy by the pastor of the church, forms the 
 opposite of the two cases already stated. At an un- 
 happy division took place in an Independent congregation, 
 which resulted in the ultimate removal of its pastor. Many 
 of this congregation united in worship with the Baptists. 
 The Baptists retained their accustomed terms of strict com- 
 munion ; and several of these Pedobaptists have been bap- 
 tized, have joined the church, and now rank among its m.ost 
 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 politi- 
 cally right.' " 
 
 Such is a fair example, drawn from experiments and facts, 
 connected with their history, of the benefits derived from open 
 communion by the churches who have adopted it. I am as- 
 sured by a reverend brother, formerly of London, now of 
 Virginia, himself a disciple of the liberal school, that so well 
 convinced are many of the churches in that metropolis and 
 other parts of Britain, that free communion is bad policy, 
 that they have alone on this ground abandoned it. And is 
 the opinion still entertained by any man that there are many 
 persons who, but for our close communion, would cordially 
 unite with us, and who on that account join other denomina- 
 tions ? We are, it is true, often approached by individuals 
 in language like the following: I agree w^ith you in all your 
 great and essential doctrines. I am pleased with your ad- 
 mirable and Scriptural form of ecclesiastical government; 
 your truly primitive, solemn and impressive baptism ; your 
 piety, your zeal, and your principles and practice generally. 
 I am a Baptist in sentiment. But your dose conimunion — 
 
FKKL COMMUNION. '^i'^, • 
 
 1 cannot boar tliat. 0, it is horrible, liorriblc. I would jcjin 
 you but for this feature iu your discipline; but as it is I can- 
 not. I must unite with some other church ! Now this 
 man, perhaps, is sincere. He probably really thinks that 
 but for this obstacle he would be a Baptist. I for one, how- 
 ever, do not believe it. The persons who talk thus generally 
 want some excuse to offer to their consciences for not obey- 
 ing the truth, and here they imagine they have found it. 
 They are not accustomed to analyze the feelings of their own 
 hearts. They would, could they be persuaded to scrutinize 
 their motives, soon perceive that they are influenced by otlier 
 considerations, and this is presented only, and probably in- 
 voluntarily, for the double purpose of making a show of 
 friendship, and of concealing, almost if not quite, even from 
 themselves, the real considerations which impel them from 
 us. But some good, simple-hearted brother listens attentive- 
 ly to the story, and gives it entire credence. His soul is sad. 
 He regrets to lose, on any account, from his church, a man 
 who, in his opinion, would make so good a member ; and, 
 forgetting that appearances are deceptive, is strongly moved 
 to regard our practice as impohtic and injurious. The facts, 
 however, now before us, teach us another and a wiser lesson. 
 They prove conclusively that when Pedobaptists are invited 
 and even urged to come to the sacred table with us, they 
 refuse to comply, unless as a matter of self-advantage, and 
 that scarcely an individual would join us as open communion- 
 ists who would not and does not, under existing circum- 
 stances. 
 
 Of the great Baptist family in the United States, some 
 small fractions, the Free Will churches for example, practise 
 unrestricted communion. They are pious, intelligent, and 
 zealous, but are they more popular, prosperous, or happy, 
 tliaii we are ? It will not be considered invidious, every one 
 
226 BAD POLICY OP 
 
 knows it to be true, if I reply that they are not. The op- 
 posite, indeed, is the fact. Little churches have sprung up 
 in several states, at different times, upon the free communion 
 principle, lliey have had talented and laborious ministers, 
 and pious and efficient members. But they have invariably 
 dwindled, and in a few years ceased to exist. Such has been, 
 and such I apprehend ever will be, the history of churches 
 conducted upon this principle. Do these effects occur with- 
 out an adequate cause to produce them ? I presume not. 
 Do these facts prove that to free communion is attached the 
 quality of attracting and retaining members in the Baptist 
 church ? 
 
 These actual experiments and facts are sufficient to con- 
 vince any reasonable inquirer that free communion never, on 
 the one hand, leads to prosperity, and that, on the other, it 
 seldom fails to detract materially from the concord and hap- 
 piness of its supporters. Indeed, in Europe, as we have 
 seen, where its efficacy has been tested on a large scale, the 
 very brethren who still believe it to be right m principle, 
 have, nevertheless, from the conviction that in policy it is in- 
 jurious to the best interests of truth and righteousness, 
 abandoned it in practice. But, shall I respectfully inquire 
 how that can be right in principle which is wrong in policy? 
 If the Bible is the exclusive rule for our conduct, and the 
 immersion of a believer in the name of the Holy Trinity is 
 the only baptism, both of which propositions all Baptists 
 most firmly believe ; and if, as is admitted by Pedobaptists 
 of every gi'ade and denomination, baptism is an indispensable 
 preliminary to communion, how can it be lawful to join in 
 this sacrament with those who have only been sprinkled, and 
 who received even that unauthorized ceremony in unconscious 
 infancy ? That it is in conflict with the law of God I must 
 ever believe. Can Baptists, then, reasonably expect to bo 
 
FRF.F, coMMirxroN. 2*27 
 
 prosperous and happy in a practice which sets aside divine 
 authority, and is regulated by perverted and mistaken views 
 of mere expediency ? All experience proves, and its testi- 
 mony is corroborated by reason and revelation, that the hope 
 is vain and delusive. Are the dictates of our own prudence 
 a better guide in religious duties than the word of God? 
 Wisdom, benevolence, brotherly love, do they require for 
 their full and perfect exercise a disregard of the instructions 
 of him who said : — " If you love me keep my command- 
 ments?" What Baptist is there who can subscribe to an 
 opinion so monstrous ? How then can we account for the 
 fact that some of our most esteemed brethren have advocated 
 and practised open communion ? Is it a violation of charity 
 to surmise that, unconsciously, they may have been under 
 the influence of the same motives which have led the Pedo- 
 baptist world to persevere in unending declam.ation aofainst 
 what they are pleased to caU our bigotry and unchristian ex- 
 clusiveness ? Not so much a love for truth, as an overween- 
 ing desire for popular applause ! 
 
 *' popular applause ! what heart of man 
 Is proof against tliy sweet seducing charms ? 
 The wisest and the best feel urgent need 
 Of all their caution in thy gentlest gales; 
 But swelled into a gust, who then, alas ! 
 With all their canvas set, and inexpert, 
 And, therefore, heedless, can withstand thy power !'* 
 
CHAPTER XV. 
 
 BAPTISTS, AFTER ALL, ARE MORE FREE AND LIBERAL IN 
 THEIR COMMUNION THAN ANY CLASS OF PED0BAPTIST9 
 WHATEVER. 
 
 Baptists are not the only close communionists — Betv/een Pedobaptists 
 of different sects there is no more love or union than between them 
 and ourselves — All Pedobaptists exclude from the Lord's Table two 
 thirds oPtheir own members — Episcopacy — Episcopal and Protestant 
 Methodists — New and Old School Presbyterians — Present contro- 
 versy on that subject in the Pedobaptist churches, Acts of Synods, 
 &c. — The tone of the religious press — Inconsistency. 
 
 Sacramental communion as practised by our church has 
 been uniformly denounced by all other denominations, gene- 
 rally with earnestness, often witli great bitterness, as " an 
 antichristian dogma," guided and influenced alone by " the 
 bigoted and exclusive spirit of sectarianism" — as " the impo- 
 tent and deformed spirit of proscriptive and sectarian bigotry." 
 Such is the language which every where meets our eyes in 
 books and periodicals, and which we are condemned to hear 
 uttered even from the head of the holy table itself, when we 
 are so unfortunate as to stray into a Pedobaptist assembly at 
 the time of the administration of this ordinance. Do we, 
 when our principles and practice are candidly compared with 
 theirs, merit from them these unbounded denunciations ? So 
 far are we from it in fact, that it is my intention now, as I 
 have before intimated I would do, to prove, in the face of all 
 that has been said and believed on the subject, that we are 
 more free and liberal in our communion than are any class 
 of Pedobaptists whatever. If we sustain ourselves in this 
 228 
 
BAPTISTS MORF. FREE THAN PEDOBAPTTSTS. 229 
 
 attorn pt, niid the consideration is of any importance, we shall 
 take it for granted that we are entitled to credit for a superior 
 degree of liberahty. 
 
 We had occasion to remark in the outset, that Christian 
 communion, in its largest sense, " extends to all the modes 
 by which believers recognize each other as mernbers of a 
 common head. Every expression of fraternal regard, every 
 participation in the enjoyments of social worship, every in- 
 stance of the unity of the Spirit exerted in prayer and sup- 
 plication, or in acts of Christian sympathy and friendship," 
 truly belongs to the communion of the saints. Who are 
 more ready to acknowledge the Christian character of our 
 brethren of other denominations than ourselves ? Do we 
 not feel as much fraternal regard for them ; as ardendy par- 
 ticipate with them in social worship, and in efforts to save 
 sinners ; and give as unequivocal testimonies of sincere sym- 
 pathy and friendship as any of them do towards each other ? 
 In these particulars we are certainly not inferior to any of 
 our opponents, and are, therefore, to say the least, as free 
 and liberal in our communion But in sacramental inter- 
 course — in this, M'e are told, we do not unite. But we are 
 ready to meet them all there also, as we do everywhere else, 
 provided they will come according to the acknowledged laws 
 which Christ has enacted for the government of the feast 
 But even at the Lord's table we are not the only close com- 
 munionists ; indeed, in this particular, we do not hesitate to 
 say that we are still more free and liberal than any of the 
 sects around us. Does any one express surprise to hear 
 the remark now made ? Does he reply, I know of no close 
 communionists but Baptists — all the other denominations 
 hold and practise free communion ? I answer, no, sir ; I 
 presume not. At any rate the inquiry is worthy of a candid 
 examination. 
 
 20 
 
230 NO COMMUNION AMONG THE SECTS. 
 
 Do Episcopalians or Roman Catholics usnally receive— 
 do their clergy ever receive — the Lord's supper at the hands 
 of Presbyterian or Methodist ministers ? Every one knows 
 that they hold and teach that such ministers are without 
 ordination, have, therefore, no authority to officiate in sacra- 
 ments, and that when they do, it is a mere lay administration. 
 These Calvinistic and Wesleyan offices, with the sage advo- 
 cates of apostolical succession and divine right, are not recog- 
 nized, but endured, and that merely because public opinion 
 sustains them. Of these facts every intelligent Christian is 
 aware. Is there between them, therefore, any cordial com- 
 munion at the Lord's table ? None whatever. Of this fact 
 no additional proof is requisite. 
 
 In reference to the several Protestant denominations, I 
 believe they all hold that manifest corruption in doctrine and 
 worship is a disqualification for the reception of the Lord's 
 supper. Let that fact be remembered, and then how shall 
 we answer the following interrogations ? Do not Methodists 
 habitually and bitterly charge both these upon the Presbyte- 
 rians, on the score of their Calvinism ? Are the Presbyterians 
 less ready or adroit in hurling back upon the Methodists the 
 same imputations on the score of their Arminianism ? Each, 
 too, has its own internal war. Old School, New School, 
 Cumberland, Hopkinsian, and other Presbyterians ; and 
 Episcopal, Protestant, Whitfield, and other Methodists, strive 
 on the arena of ecclesiastical combat. Do they all commune 
 together ? If they do, is it a feast of union, and the love of 
 each other, for the truth's sake, which each denies is held 
 by the other ? If so, what means this clangor of arms, tiiis 
 shaking of shields, and the noise of their fierce combats 
 which I hear 1 If they unite in love at the Lord's table, 
 why do they denounce each other in derision immediately 
 after, in the Conference, the Session, and the Pulpit? Why 
 
BAPTISTS MORE FREE THAN PEDODAPTISTS. 231 
 
 do they excommunicate each other to day, " snatch from 
 God's hand the balance and the rod," and doom their com- 
 petitors to a place without the pale of Christian fellowship, 
 if they commune to-morrow with these very men who are 
 declared at the s»me time to be out of their communion? 
 Let me never imngle a want of sincerity, consistency, and 
 candor in s& solemn an act of divine worship. 
 
 For iae sake of brevity, we will select some testimonies 
 in reference to the point before us, from one of the prevailing 
 denominations, Avhich shall serve as an illustration of all the 
 others. 
 
 Dr. Engles, the editor of a leading journal of the Presby- 
 terian church,* has taken the ground that Old School Pres- 
 byterians cannot consistently commune vrith New School 
 men and Methodists. In reply to some resolutions of the 
 West Hanover Presbytery, Virginia, formally condemning 
 this doctrine, the editor observes : " As Presbyterians we 
 profess to receive our denominational distinction from the 
 symbols of faith which we adopt ; and we regard other de- 
 nominations as having their distinctive belief and character, 
 of which we judge by their pubhc symbols. The opinion 
 that Confessions or doctrinal formularies are only obligatory 
 on the ministiy, and not on the people of a church, is, in our 
 judgment, a most dangerous one; the adoption of it m.ust at 
 once destroy the homogeneity of a church, and give full 
 license to the people to embrace every fonii of error. On the 
 contrary, it is presumed that a Presbyterian beUeves in Pres- 
 byterian doctrine, or why is he a Presbyterian ? And that 
 a Methodist believes in the doctrines of his own church, or 
 why is he not something else ? The Methodist and Pres- 
 byterian alike believe that they have very good reasons for 
 being as they are ; nay, so potent are tliose reasons regarded 
 
 * Vide Philad. Presbyt. Sept. 12th, 1S40. 
 
232 PRESBYTERIANS AND METHODISTS. 
 
 to be, tli^t neither imagines he could ever be induced to 
 change his position. Now all we have conU^nded for is 
 consistency in carrying this principle out into practice." 
 
 "As our Methodist brethren *** have taken umbrage at 
 our language, let us ask them if they are prepared to advise 
 their people, on all favorable occasions, to go and commune 
 with the Presbyterians ? Do they wish them to think there 
 is no difference between the denominations ? Do they regard 
 the differences as so trivial as to' invite entire obhvion of 
 them by their flocks, when they stray into Presbyterian folds ? 
 We judge not. Why, then, should they be angry with us 
 for following their example ? Holding the faith we do, *** 
 can we, or ought we to say to the sheep of our folds — Yon- 
 der are pastures in which we believe there are poisonous 
 weeds growing, but still there can be little danger in feeding 
 occasionally there ? In this matter we have never found 
 our Methodist brethren a particle more hberal than ourselves. 
 We have never found them backward in decrying Presbyte- 
 rian doctrine ; and we, on the other hand, candidly tell them, 
 as we have often told them before, that we consider their 
 system as very erroneous. For each of us thus to think is our 
 right, in the exercise of Christian liberty, but is it quite pos- 
 sible that we should forget this, and lay aside our strong 
 feelings on the subject, while we commune together?" 
 
 Thus much Dr. Engles says in regard to our Methodist 
 brethren. Respecting the Old School particularly, and the 
 New School department of his church especially, he re- 
 marks : 
 
 " The West Hanover resolutions express as much solici- 
 tude to be on good terms with the New School as with the 
 Methodists. If we understand them, they wish the whole 
 world to know that they distincdy disavow the exclusiveness 
 which would refuse to commune with the men whom they, 
 
NEW AND OLD SCHOOL PRESBYTERLANS. 233 
 
 as Presbyterians, helped out of the church. If vre mistalce 
 not they took an honorable part in the exchisive measures by 
 which the New School lost their statues in our church ; we 
 say, their statues in our church, for although the exclusion 
 in question did not affect their ecclesiastical organization, all 
 the world knows that the excluded party are not now, and 
 never have been since the passage of the acts, in the com- 
 munion of the Presbyterian church. When, therefore, tliis 
 Presbytery publicly says that they wish, with all ' liberality 
 and Christian courtesy,' to hold coinmunion with them, 
 what must they think ? If such language does not sound 
 hke a bitter mockery in their ears, we are not well skilled in 
 sounds. The measure by which the New School were ex- 
 cluded from the communion of the Presbyterian church was 
 either righteous or unrighteous ; if the former, why should 
 we make any professions of attachment which our actions 
 do not sustain, or if the latter, why do we not magnanimously 
 avow it, and invite them back in a body ? We believe it 
 was righteous, and whether right or wrong in our belief, we 
 contend that, w^hile the causes exist Avhich led to it, it is 
 utterly inexpedient to hold communion luith those 
 churches.''^ 
 
 Another leading journal — The Phila. Christian Observer 
 — under the influence of the New School, referring to the 
 same transactions, remarks : — " Palpably inconsistent as is 
 his — Dr. Engles' — argument with his denial of this 'pre- 
 mise,^ and with his professions of regard for other Christians 
 than his own party, the inconsistency of the West Hanover 
 brethren (in resolving to commune with other denominations 
 with * liberality and Christian courtesy') is still more glar- 
 ingly palpable. For they not only helped their brethren out 
 of their New Basis concern, but after they were out they 
 would not recognize them as a church. They would not, 
 20^ 
 
2'M NHNV AND 01,D SCHOOL PRESBYTERIANS. 
 
 in ihc fall of 1838, ^vc Dr. Cnrroll a crrtifioate of dismis- 
 sion, rcco<rnizMi<r in any form llic lliird Presbytery of Pliila- 
 dclphia as any part of the church of Christ, or as having 
 any connection with it. Tliey would not even give him 
 such a dismission as it has been usual to give one going 
 from the Presbyterian church to other denominations. * • ♦ » 
 But now, forsooth, without a solitary expression of sorrow 
 for tlic wrong and insult, they have become so loving that 
 they would have the members of their church commune with 
 semi Pelagians." 
 
 Tlie Protestant and Herald, of Kentucky, referring to the 
 writers named, and to expositions of Dr. Pluinmcr of Vir- 
 ginia, resolves the whole, involuntarily no doubt, by assuming 
 precisely the Baptist ground. His language is: — "Every 
 believer in Christ, who has been baptized in the name of the 
 Holy Trinity, and is in connection with an evangelic church, 
 has complied with all the scripture requisitions in order to 
 an approach to the Lord's table ; and we dare not keep him 
 back." 
 
 On a mature examination of all these facts, and much more 
 to the same effect, may we not ask the question whether 
 Baptists have not all the liberality which any of these writers 
 or churches evince, with the advantage in addition of open 
 sincerity, and unshrinking candor ? But to make this matter 
 still more plain, we will extend somewhat further our inves- 
 tigations. 
 
 A distinguished Pedobaplist writer in a neighboring state,* 
 expresses himself in the following language : — " For the last 
 twenty years or more, I do not recollect of having entertained 
 a doubt that tlic opening of the doors of our communion to 
 all of what are denominated evangelical cburches is errone- 
 ous, that it will either be changed, or lead to errors of a still 
 
 • Vide ProlcsUul and Herald, Jan. 12lli, IS 10. 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION PRESBYTERIANS. 235 
 
 more serious nature, containing in itself essentially an indif- 
 ference to sound religious principle and practice, though slow- 
 in its development. On a subject of such extent I can say 
 but litde in a short communication, and even this, I have rea- 
 son to apprehend, may, by many in the present state of feel- 
 ing in the church, be considered quite inexpedient^ 
 
 " I object to the practice in the first place, because / have 
 never yet seen the man, however strenuously he might 
 advocate it, avIio could inform me how far it was right, 
 AND DUTY CALLED to cxtend the privilege — a very impor- 
 tant item in making out a line of conduct, and without which 
 it must be unsafe, in matters of conscience, to act at all. We 
 are told, it is true, that all who are evangelical, or who hold 
 the essentials of religion, are to be admitted to the Lord's 
 table ; but then these essentials are undefined ; some make 
 them but two or three, at most, others, perhaps, four or five, 
 and others still more. * * * 
 
 " I object to the practice, in the second place, because it 
 clearly implies that our church creeds or confessions contain 
 certain items of faith and practice the belief of which, or 
 CONFORMITY TO WHICH, IS uot Tiecessary to the right of 
 church privileges. This implies either that these things are 
 not based on divine authority, on which supposition they are 
 the works of men, they are schismatical too, dividing the 
 church where there is no conscientious principle involved, 
 and, therefore, ought to be rejected as evils ; or it implies 
 that, notwithstanding they are based on divine authority, they 
 are indifferent — of little importance, may be practised or not 
 as Ave may see proper, with impunity — which last conclusion 
 is to me revolting. * * * I suppose a case wliich I tliink is 
 in point. An individual applies to you for admission to l)ap- 
 tism and the Lord's supper. After examining him to full 
 satisfaction as to his experimental religion, you inquire of 
 
336 CLOSE COMMUNION PRESBYTERIANS. 
 
 him whether he will conform to the order of God's house, in 
 submitting to discipline, the discharge of religious duty, such 
 as family discipline, the Baptism of his children, &c. But 
 he replies, I do not approve of this government, and as to the 
 baptism of children, I consider it unauthorized. You would 
 reply, I presume, that you make subjection to this duty a 
 condition of church membership, and of privileges connected 
 "with it. But on the supposition you practise open commu- 
 nion, he would reply — You admit to all the privileges 1 de- 
 sire without such subjection, for you admit Baptists, and 
 those who neither believe nor practise it. You reply — Be- 
 cause they submit to their own order. He takes his depar- 
 ture, connects himself with those who will not require this 
 thing, and returns, and, at your invitation, enjoys with you 
 all he asked. I see, in such a case, a predicament I should 
 not envy. For what is your attitude now in the eyes of 
 your own members ? Most assuredly you appear inconsist- 
 ent, and they must feel in consequence that they lie under a 
 condition, their compliance with which guarantees them no 
 privileges. You lay every distinguishing feature of your 
 own church liable to prejudice and reproach. To me the 
 inference would be, your conduct being right, that your church 
 ought forthwith to relinquish its own distinctiveness, and 
 sink into the church Catholic, and every other church prac- 
 tisinof the same ouffht to do likewise." 
 
 " I am fully aware that my views on this subject are 
 esteemed very illiberal. This is the argumentum ad in- 
 vidiam, which with many weighs heavier than a thousand 
 others. I have, however, always been happy to consider 
 
 them LIBERAL TO TRUTH, AND SINCERITY IN THE TRUTH. 
 
 But the state of the case is misapprehended, the principle on 
 the ground of consistency and sincerity in the truth, applies 
 equally to all sects, who must, in charity, be supposed con 
 
CLOSE COMMUNION PKESBYTERIANS. 237 
 
 scientiously attached to their own pecuharities, for where tliis 
 is the case, they must needs do violence to their consciences 
 where tliey dispense with such pecuharities. And I would 
 here add that the practice is absolutely inconsistent, in my 
 opinion, with the very idea of fellowship, which in all cases 
 UBplies a community of responsibility." 
 
 We perceive, from these extracts, not only that our Pedo- 
 baptist brethren are close communionists as well as ourselves, 
 but that some of them, at least, carry their restrictions much 
 farther than we do. They not only require that a man sliall 
 have given them satisfactory evidences of his spiritual change, 
 and been baptized, but he must subscribe their particular 
 Confession of Faith, and assume with them " a, com.munity 
 of responsibility." They would not permit Baptists to 
 approach their table. Believing these doctrines, and failing 
 to avow them, while at die same time, from a fear of invidi- 
 ous imputation, and a desire to obtain popularity, by their 
 hberal professions, they pretend to practise/ree communion, 
 this writer charges his brethren, in the aggregate, with a 
 want of ^^ liberality to truth, and sincerity in the trufh.'^ 
 I shall not question the correctness, nor vouch for the legiti- 
 macy of his conclusions, but proceed to ascertain by what 
 means they manage to keep up a public impression that their 
 communion is free in the ordinary sense of that term, and 
 yet practise close communion. I have at hand some Sy- 
 nodical proceedings held in one of the Valley states which 
 will enable us widiout difficulty to solve the problem.* 
 
 llie Committee on Bills and Overtures, to whom Avaa 
 referred tlie question — " Is it proper that there should be 
 
 * Synodical Records of a Presbyterian Synod — Extracts published by 
 order, &c. — Vide Union Evangelist, and Presbyterian Advocate, 1820, 
 vol. li. pp. 96-93. 
 
238 
 
 SYNODICAL PROCEEDINGS. 
 
 intercommunication between Presbyterians and those deno- 
 minations who hold Arminian sentiments ?" presented the 
 foUowing report, which was adopted : — 
 
 " That after giving it all the attention which the importance 
 of the subject demands, they are of the opinion that for Pres- 
 byterians to hold communion in sealing ordinances with those 
 who deny the doctrines of grace, through tlie blood of Christ, 
 &c., is highly prejudicial to the truth as it is in Jesus. Nor 
 can such intercommunion answer any valuable purpose to 
 those who practise it, as two cannot walk together unless 
 they are agreed. Yet, as there are persons who have received 
 distorted views of the doctrines of grace, who notwithstand- 
 ing admit these doctrines in fact, although they are prejudiced 
 against the terms generally used in the discussion of these 
 subjects, your committee are of the opinion that, if any such 
 manifest a desire to hold communion with us, that, after being 
 conversed with, and having received satisfaction on these and 
 otber points on which their church and ours disagree, and 
 having obtained satisfactory evidence of their piety, charity 
 requires they should be admitted to occasional intercom- 
 munion." 
 
 Communion is not to be withheld, certainly not, this would 
 be illiberal sectarian bigotry. Should any manifest a desire 
 they are to be received, if they believe in the doctrines of 
 grace; if, when examined— for they must first be exam- 
 ined — they shall convince their inquisitors that they have 
 renounced their own, and embraced Presbyterian doctrine ; 
 and IF they shall give satisfactory evidences of their piety; 
 then they sliould be admitted ; not to habitual, but " to oc- 
 casional intercommunion." This is one specimen of Pedo- 
 baptist open connnunion, as regulated, not by the false glare 
 of pulpit declamation, but by the sober deliberations of sy- 
 
SYNOD! DAT, rROCF.F.OINO??, 239 
 
 nodical gravity. As a fiirtlier illustration of our inquiry we 
 will introduce another similar proceeding.* 
 
 *' The committee on a former resolution of Synod on the 
 sul-iject of intercommunion reported. The report was adopted, 
 and is as follows, viz :— 
 
 " The committee are of opinion that for Presbyterians to 
 hold communion in sealing ordinances "with those who belong 
 to churches holding doctrines contrary to our standards, is 
 incompatible with the purity and peace of the church, and 
 highly prejudicial to the truth as it is in Jesus. Nor can 
 such communions answer any valuable purpose, &c. In 
 accordance with these views, your committee are of opinion 
 that the practice of inviting to the communion all who are 
 in good standing in their own churches, is calculated to do 
 much evil, and should not be continued, while every church 
 session is, however, left at liberty to admit to occasional com- 
 munion members of other denominations, after having con- 
 versed with them, and received satisfaction of tlieir soundness 
 in the faith, and Christian practice." 
 
 Here again we have presented the same general views of 
 the subject. To avow candidly close communion is not 
 *' expedient." It would give effect to the argumentum ad 
 invidiam. Outward appearances must be maintained. In 
 deep conclave, however, it is solemnly enacted that indis- 
 criminate communion, the practice of inviting Christians — 
 yes undoubted Christians, baptized Christians — who are in 
 good standing in their own churches, is an evil. Commu- 
 nion with even such as these, unless they subscribe the 
 standards, " is incompatible with the peace and purity of the 
 church, and highly prejudicial to the truth as it is in Jesus." 
 
 * Extracts from Synodical Records, 1832, ut s-ipra, vol. iii. p. 240. 
 
240 GF.NrRAT, A?!Sr,MnLY. 
 
 Yet they are open communionists ! If any of us should be 
 so unfortunate as to wish to commune with them, what must 
 we do to accomplish our desires ? We must apply to the 
 church session, converse with the savan«, convince them that 
 according to their standards, we are sound in the faith and 
 Christian practice — Presbyterian faith and practice of course 
 — and if they are satisfied, and we can succeed in getting " a 
 token,'^ then, and in that case, " Synod" is kind enough to 
 say we may approach the holy table. We may, also, occa- 
 sionally, repeat our visits afterwards, if we will, whenever 
 we wish to do so, repeat the same process ! And these are 
 liberal, free communion Christians, the very men who de- 
 nounce Baptists as bigoted, selfish, exclusive, close commu- 
 nionists ! 
 
 These documents would perhaps be repudiated by many 
 of the sect, especially in public, for effect, and this very fact, 
 while it proves their own disunion, if sincere, serves as a full 
 and satisfactory illusti-ation of our present inquiry. 
 
 The synodical doctrines just noticed are fully sustained by 
 the highest tribunal of that denomination. The General As- 
 sembly of 1839 expressly says: " Every Christian church, 
 or association of churches, is entitled to declare the terms of 
 admission into its communion." The unanimous doctrine* 
 of their leading divines, is, that these terms consist in " agree- 
 ment in essentials.^^ If this be regarded as too indefinite, 
 and it is still necessary to inquire what they mean by " essen- 
 tials,^^ tlie reports just considered afford a definite reply. 
 
 The views of this denomination we have presented as an 
 example of all the others, and that it is both a fair and favorable 
 one will not be questioned, because no man can doubt but 
 tliat the Presbyterian church is as enlightened, liberal, and 
 candid as either the Methodist or Episcopalian. I am now 
 
 * Vide Prot. and Herald. 
 
INFANT MEMBERSHIP. 241 
 
 ready to submit tlie question to the decision of any impartial 
 tribunal, whetlier Baptists are not to the fullest extent as free 
 and liberal in their communion as any class of Pedobaptists 
 wliatever. Indeed, the testimony I have presented will evince 
 that we are much more so. To establish incontrovertibly 
 this latter proposition, I shall ofler one more argument. 
 
 Baptism and the Lord's supper having been associated by 
 Christ himself, remained inseparable from the days of the 
 apostles onward, for more than a tliousand years. When- 
 ever, in the Scriptures, or in the history of the ancient 
 church, one of these ordinances appears, the other is inva- 
 riably found in connection with it. With Baptists this sacred 
 union is still inviolably preserved. We most cheerfully sit 
 down at the table of the Lord with all those, if they have not 
 forfeited their claims by heresy or immorality, whom we be- 
 lieve to be baptized. Do our Pedobaptist brethren act with 
 the same liberality ? "Very far from it. Their public pro- 
 fessions would lead us to conclude that this is their practice, 
 but when brought to the point they positively refuse ! Is 
 proof of this statement needed ? I ask, then, do they not be- 
 heve their infants are baptized? Most certainly. Are they 
 eiiher heretical or immoral ? Neither is pretended. Do they 
 commune with them? No, never. Thus they at once ex- 
 clude two-thirds of the members of their own churches from 
 the Lord's table ! But is it a fact that their baptized children 
 are members of their churches ? Turn once more to the 
 Confession of Faith,* and it will be found thus written : "A 
 particular Church consists of a number of professing Chris- 
 tians, with their offspring, voluntarily associated together 
 for divine worship and godly living." Againt — " Children 
 born vjithin the pale of the visible clwrch, and dedicated to 
 God in baptism, are under the inspection and government of 
 
 * P. 273. t P. 327. 
 
 21 
 
242 PEDOBABTISTS EXCLUDE THEIR 
 
 the church — and when they come to years of discreiion, if 
 they be free from scandal, sober, and steady, and have suffi- 
 cient knowledge to discern the Lord's body, they ought to be 
 informed it is their duty and privilege to come to the Lord's 
 supper." In the Larger Catechism we find the following : 
 " Question 62. What is the visible church ? Answer. 
 The visible church is a society made up of all such as, in all 
 ages and places of the Avorld, do profess the true religion, 
 (ind their children,'' Porter on Christian Baptism, says : 
 ^'Baptized children are members of the visible clmrch.'^* 
 Dr. Dwight, in his Theology, as every one knows, maintains 
 tliat children are members of" the general church." 
 
 Dr. Miller, on this subject, and the same views are main- 
 tained by both Methodists and Episcopalians in their re- 
 spective formularies, distincdy remarks : — t 
 
 " Is there no advantage in solemnly dedicaUng our chil- 
 dren to God by an appropriate rite of his own appointment "^ 
 Is there no advantage in formally binding ourselves, by cove- 
 nant engagements, to bring up our chiklren 'in the nurture 
 and admonition of the Lord V Is there no advantage in pub- 
 licly ratifying the connection of our children, as well as 
 ourselves, ivith the visible church, and, as it were, binding 
 them to an alliance with the God of their fathers ? Is it a 
 step of no value to our children themselves to be brought, 
 by a divinely appointed ordinance, into the boso?n, and to 
 the notice, the maternal attentions, and the prayers of the 
 church, the mother of us all?" — Wlien our brethren are dis- 
 posed to be particularly severe, they are wont to say that — 
 " There are but two places in the universe where there are no 
 children, one is the bottomless pit, and the other is the Bap- 
 tist Church." Not to reply to them, that there is one other 
 place where there are no infants — that is, the Pedobaptist 
 
 * P. lOS. t On Iiinuit BiiDtii^m, 39-4:2. 
 
OWN MEMBERS FUOM COMMUNION. 243 
 
 communion table — I ask, does not tlieir argument imply that, 
 in their opinion, infants are members of their churches ? It 
 is then universally conceded ; and it is probable that this 
 class make up two-tliirds of their whole number, with none 
 of whom will they sit down to the communion. 
 
 Tlieir fathers did not, as we have seen in a former chap- 
 ter, act thus inconsistendy. Infant baptism was originated 
 in the third century. From tliat time onward, during more 
 than eight hundred years, they scrupulously took all their 
 baptized children with them to the Lord's table, rightly judg- 
 ing that they had the same title to the one that they had to 
 the other of these ordinances. They declared that they 
 administered them both to their infants upon the authoi'ity 
 of tradition from the apostles. When they discontinued, 
 in obedience to a decree from the Council of Trent, the 
 administration to them of the eucharist, it was because of 
 their superstitious notions regarding transubstantiation, with 
 whicli it is hoped Protestants are nof infected. The stand- 
 ards of all their sects, as we have seen, teach that between 
 the Lord's supper, as well as baptism, and the salvation of 
 the soul, there is an intimate and necessary connection. 
 Yet they totally withhold from them all this essential, this 
 " effectual" means and seal of grace. " When Pedobaptists," 
 says Hinton, "give their children both ordinances, they 
 will be consistent ; but while they withhold the Lord's sup- 
 per from their children, let them not complain of others with- 
 holding baptism. Whatever arguments will sustain the one, 
 v/ill be equally available for the other." But they profess 
 to believe them truly baptized, yet refuse to them the commu- 
 nion, thus practically excommunicating them all, a favored 
 few only of the great mass of their own members being per- 
 mitted to approach the sacred table. Of ours we receive all. 
 None are debarred. Ours, therefore, is by far the most free 
 
244 BAPTISTS MORE FREE THAN PEDOBAPTISTS. 
 
 and liberal communion of any denomination existing. Still 
 these wholesale restrictionists, who have infinite reason to be 
 silent on the subject, are perpetually decrying us for our 
 resti'icted communion ! Before they ever administer to us 
 another word of reproof, they, in all good conscience, by 
 communing with all their own members, should evince that 
 they themselves possess some portion of that liberality they 
 so much eulogize, and for the supposed want of which we 
 appear to them so very obnoxious. 
 
 Let all the facts now submitted be maturely weighed, and 
 we shall never again be told that Baptists are the only close 
 communionists, and more exclusive and illiberal than any 
 other Christians, the only people who exclude the members 
 of Christ, the children of God, from the holy table. Wlio 
 now can doubt that the Baptists are, to say the least, as 
 liberal in all things as any other Christians, and that in rela- 
 tion to communion particularly v/e are more open and liberal 
 than any class of Pedobaptists whatever. 
 
CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 CAN THE BAPTIST CHURCH, IN MAINTAINING CLOSE COMMU- 
 NION, BE JUSTLY CHARGED WITH THE SIN OF SCHISM ? 
 
 That schism exists somewhere is evident — We have not produced it, 
 and are therefore not responsible — We have adhered to original prin- 
 ciples — Baptists are identical with primitive Christians — When the 
 disciples became Fedobaptists they severed themselves from us — We 
 have maintained ever since a separate existence on original ground 
 not connected with Papists or Protestants — Historical proofs — Con- 
 fessions of Faith — Our name — Duty of Pedobaptists, having produced 
 the schism, is obvious — they are required to heal it — It is not difScult 
 to determine how it may be done — Its consequences. 
 
 Among the numerous charges preferred against us, not the 
 least important is that, in maintaining the principles, and fol- 
 lowing out the practice, based upon them, of strict communion, 
 we are guilty of severing the body of Christ, and thus pro- 
 ducing agitation and schism. Pedobaptists have not been the 
 most zealous in their denunciations on this head. I will 
 note a few passages from a distinguished author in our own 
 ranks. 
 
 " Are our Pedobaptist brethren," asks Mr. Hall — " a part 
 of the mystical body of Christ ? Or, in other words, do they 
 form a part of that church which he purchased by his precious 
 blood ? You are loud in your professions of esteem for 
 pious Pedobaptists, nor is there any thing you would more 
 resent than a doubt of your sincerity in this particular. The 
 persons whom you exclude from your communion are, then, 
 by your own confession a part of the flock of Christ, a por- 
 tion of his mystical body, and of that church which he has 
 bought witli his blood. The next question is, whether a for- 
 21* 245 
 
246 BAPTISTS IN STRICT COMMUxNION 
 
 mal separation from them, on the account of their imputed 
 eiror, amounts to what the scripture styles schism? Sup- 
 posing one part of the church at Corinth had formally severed 
 tiiemselves from the other, and established a separate commu- 
 nion, allowing those whom they had forsalvcn, at the same 
 lime, the title of sincere Christians, would this have been 
 considered as a schism? That it would is demonstrable 
 from the lanmiaore of St. Paul, who accuses the Corinthians 
 of having schism — ct;^^^^**^*? (divisions) — among them, though 
 they never dreamed of forming a distinct and separate com- 
 munion. 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 nipture, how 
 much more would they have incurred that censure, had they 
 actually proceeded to that extremity— If diere is any mean- 
 ing in terms this is schism in its highest sense."* 
 
 In another placet he observes — *' Still you plead for a 
 visible disunion, nor will it avail you to reply, that you cul- 
 tivate a fraternal affection towards Christians of other denomi- 
 nations, while you insist upon such a visible separation as 
 must make it apparent to the world that they are not one." 
 
 That a schism exists in the Christian church, and that the 
 crime of its production is referable either to Baptists or Pe- 
 dobaptists, is most true. Mr. Hall insists, and the Pedobap- 
 tist world concur of course with him, that the sin is ours. 
 The opposite I believe to be capable of the most satisfactory 
 demonstration. If upon examination it is found that their 
 churches are constituted and governed upon the Gospel model, 
 and ours is not, then we are the schismatics ; but if the con- 
 trary is true we cannot be liable to the charge of dividing the 
 body of Christ. Suppose the church at Corinth had proceed- 
 ed to an open rupture, who would have sustained the odium 
 
 * Works vol. i. p. 293. + P. 225. 
 
NOT CHARGEABLE WITH SCHISM. 247 
 
 and sill of the division ? Would it have \c.en the party who 
 observed, or the party wlio abandoned the regulations pre- 
 scribed by the great Legislator ? It is not gratefid to my 
 feelings to fix the charge of schism, even by implication, on 
 any one. But the question is made, and we are forced either 
 to suffer the reproach or place it where it tridy belongs. 
 Close communion did not originate with the Baptists. It 
 was brought into existence by Pedobaptists, and is still con- 
 thiued by them, and that too against our most earnest and 
 protracted remonstrances. If I establish this proposition, 
 and show that the ban'ier to universal Christian intercourse 
 at the Lord's table was set up, and is still kept up by Pedo- 
 baptists, it will be readily acknowledged, by every candid 
 man, that the crime of producing and perpetuating the schism, 
 and all the odium and responsibihty involved belongs exclu- 
 sively to Pedobaptists. 
 
 The terms of communion, as we have fully seen, are first, 
 repentance, secondly, faith, and thirdly, baptism. And when 
 once the holy table is thus approached by any one, he must 
 continue to have free access, so long as he remains orthodox, 
 and orderly. We have before proved that infant baptism is 
 clearly unlawful, and prohibited by the word of God. Who 
 foisted it into the church? Its friends and advocates of 
 course; and they did it, and persevere in the practice, 
 against the warm and continued protestations of the adherents 
 to primitive truth, from Tertullian down to the present time. 
 Thus they effected one part of the schism, and sundered the 
 body of Christ so far as it could be done by setting up that 
 part of the barrier which dispenses with repentance and faith 
 as a condition of baptism. It only remained after this for 
 them to abrogate baptism also. This they ultimately did by 
 adopting sprmldingor pouring, which is in reality to dispense 
 with baptism altogether. Then the gulf between them and 
 
248 BAPTISTS NOT SCHISMATICS. 
 
 US was completely fixed. Nothing more was required. 
 Thus they abolished all the scriptural terms of communion, 
 refusing to comply with any of them, and still they insist 
 that notwithstanding we shall either receive them to comnui- 
 nion, or else deny them to be Christians. We refuse to do 
 either. They then, by way of reprisal, attempt to fix upon 
 U8 the sin of their own schism. But this cannot be done. 
 Those who made the division must be convicted as the schis- 
 matics. We stand in this matter precisely where the apos- 
 tles did. We have not made, we do not intend to make, tlie 
 slightest alteration in any thing. They have made the change, 
 and thus set up the barriers to communion. They, therefore, 
 and they alone, are responsible, be they what they may, for 
 the consequences. When, therefore, our Pedobapdst breth- 
 ren prove that the crimes alleged are involved in close com- 
 munion, and, as is often the case, grow Avarm and eloquently 
 indignant in their declamations on the subject, they do but 
 publish their own guilt, and grace with the charms of rhetoric 
 the sentence of their own condemnation. 
 
 I have frequently in the preceding chapter spoken of the 
 church now called Baptist, as having existed in all ages since 
 the days of the apostles. I am aware that there are many 
 who will regard these claims as preposterous. In maintain- 
 ing the proposition that we remain unchanged and upon the 
 true Gospel foundation, with reference to the subjects involv- 
 ed in the present controversy, I shall have occasion to illus- 
 trate this truth. I assert that the Baptist church has existed, 
 in a state of comparative purity, connected with neither Papists 
 nor Protestants, in every period since Christ, and that in 
 this sense God has not left himself without witness. Before 
 I proceed to the proof of this statement I \vill make a rem.ark 
 on two collateral topics. 
 
 The former has reference to apostolical succession in the 
 
APOtilOLICAL SUCCESSION. 249 
 
 usual Episcopal seii&e of thai phrase. I deem such a suc- 
 cession of no consequence. Touching the validity of the 
 ordinances administered by our clergy, it is wholly unim- 
 portant whether we can trace a regular succession of bishops 
 up to the apostles. It is sufficient for us to know that we 
 are organized according to the establislied laws of Christ, 
 support the true doctrines of the gospel, that our constitution 
 and practice agree with the rule prescribed by him, and which 
 were strictly obeyed and enjoined by his aposdes, and that 
 we keep the ordinances as they were delivered unto the 
 saints. Such a church is Christ's representative on earth, 
 and, according to his word, possesses all the requisite autho- 
 rity to create and ordain ministers, whenever the cause of 
 Christ shall demand such a measure. If it were not so, the 
 race of ministers would be like that of the mastodon, or some 
 other similar class of animals. Should it by any providence 
 become extinct, it never could be reproduced, but by a second 
 direct exertion by Jehovah of his creative power. That an op- 
 posite opinion has prevailed in some quarters for fifteen centu- 
 ries I am fully aware. But the " divine righV^ of kings and 
 bishops stands on the same foundation, and is maintained by 
 the same arguments. The former is beginning to be repu- 
 diated; the discovery cannot long be delayed that the latter is 
 no less fallacious. God forbid that we should ever sanction 
 error merely because it is venerable for its age. 
 
 The latter is the question, somewhat mooted of late, 
 whether Baptists are Protestants. That we, like Lutherans, 
 Episcopalians, and Presbyterians, or, as they are called in 
 Continental Europe, the Reformed Church, ever had any 
 connection with Papists, no one will pretend ; but it is not 
 so readily conceded that we are not a " branch of Protest- 
 antism." I remark on this part of the subject, that a pro- 
 test must take place in a legislative or judicial assembly. It 
 
250 BAPTISTS NOT PROTESTANTS. 
 
 is, as we understand it, a solemn declaration of dissent on the 
 part of the minority from the proceedings of the majority in 
 such an assembly. A declaration of this description was en- 
 tered by certain princes and deputies, as may be seen in 
 Robinson's History of Charles V., and other works having 
 reference to the events of that period, of imperial towns against 
 the celebrated decree, dated April 19, 1550, of the Diet of 
 Spires. The dissentients were on this account distinguislied 
 by the name of Protestants, and this appellation was subse- 
 quently extended to all those sects, both on the continent and 
 in England, indiscriminately, which have revolted from the 
 See of Rome. With these facts in view, it will be seen, at 
 once, that Baptists for two reasons cannot possibly be Pro- 
 testants. The former is that we do not, and never did, recog- 
 nize either the legislative or judicial authority of any assembly 
 whatever in matters of faith ; and the other is, as we never 
 had any connection with Popery, we never could have been 
 a minority in any Roman Catholic legislative or judicial as- 
 semblies, and therefore never could have in that way pro- 
 tested against their decisions. No one, for example, would 
 think of calling the Jews Protestants, or of annexing the name 
 even to the Greek Christians. With as little reason can it 
 ever be associated with the name of Baptist. 
 
 Many careless thinkers have classed us among Protestants, 
 because they imagine that we sprung up among the numerous 
 sects that divided Christendom at the time of the Reforma- 
 tion ; and for a similar reason some have even called us dis- 
 senters ; an appellation we repudiate with as much earnest- 
 ness as we do the other. Luther, Calvin, and the English 
 Fathers, adopted it is true, many of the doctrines by which 
 we had ever been distinguished, but we must not on tliat ac- 
 count be called Lutherans, or Calvinists, or by the name of 
 any other modern divine. Neither can wc submit to be 
 
BAPTISTS NO MODERN SF.CT. 251 
 
 classed with those wlio, after casting off some of t].e shackles 
 of Catholicism, denominated themselves Reformed churches. 
 We call not our churches reformed, because we believe them 
 no better than their predecessors, established by the primitive 
 disciples. We are content widi the name first given us at 
 Antioch, and have allowed ourselves to be known by an 
 appellation of more modern times, first intended as a re- 
 proach, but still expressive of the fact that we admit only 
 believers to membership in our churches, and still adhere 
 to the form of initiation established by Christ — their baptism 
 in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 Thus it will be seen that we are not Protestants, nor Dis- 
 senters, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, nor Reformers, 
 but what we have been in all ages, the Church of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ. 
 
 We now return to the inquiry, whether the Church at 
 present known as Baptist has existed in all ages since the 
 days of Christ ? To answer satisfactorily the inquiry it is 
 necessary to observe that our church is distinguished by 
 two prominent traits — that she immerses exclusively in bap- 
 tism, and admits to the ordinance none but believers. Keep- 
 ing these facts in view we will, upon Pedobaptist testimony, 
 examine the primitive Christians. 
 
 Dr. Mosheim, a distinguished Lutheran divine and histo- 
 rian, in describing the manner in which the Christian rites 
 were administered during the first century, observes, " Those 
 who amended their lives were initiated into the kingdom of 
 the Redeemer by immersion."* In another place, " Con- 
 cerning baptism during the first hundred years," the same 
 learned writer remarks, " the sacrament of baptism was ad- 
 ministered without the public assemblies, in places appointed 
 
 * Eccl. Hist. vol. i. cent. 1, part 1, p. 55. 
 
252 APOSTOLIC CHURCHES BAPTISTS. 
 
 and prepared for ilial purpose, and was performed by im- 
 mersing the whole body in the baptismal font."* 
 
 In testimony of the manner in which this ordinance was 
 administered in the second century and beginning of the third, 
 I will, of many witnesses, for the sake of brevity, submit the 
 evidence of but two. Tertullian — " To begin with bap- 
 tism. When we are ready to enter into the water, and even 
 before, we make our protestations before the pastor and in 
 the church, we renounce the devil and all his pomps and 
 ministers, afterwards we are immersed in the water."t And 
 Mosheim adds — " The persons who, during the second cen- 
 tury, were to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed, 
 confessed and renounced their sins, and particularly the devil, 
 and his pomps and allurements, were immersed under ivaterf 
 and received into Christ by a solemn invocation of Father, 
 Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the express command- 
 ment of our blessed Lord."J 
 
 I have now only to ask if the Christians, down as far as 
 the beginning of the third century, were at present to be 
 classed, with what church would they fraternize in relation 
 to baptism ? The Baptist, unquestionably. 
 
 As to the other prominent trait — whether the primitive 
 Christians baptized infants — I will refer to a few Pedobap- 
 tist authorities. 
 
 The eminent Claudius Salmasius, in agi'eement with the 
 equally learned divine of Zurich, John Gaspard Suicerus, 
 explicidy states : " In the first two centuries, no one was 
 baptized except being instructed in the faith, and acquainted 
 with the doctrine of Christ, he was able to profess himself a 
 Christian."§ Curelleus of Geneva,|| asserts : " The baptism 
 of infants, in the first two centuries after Christ, was wholly 
 
 * Vol. i. p. 108. i" De Corona Militis, apud Diipin. 
 
 t Vol. i. cent. 2, ch. 4, fsec. 13. ^ Booth's Psed. Exam. II Ut supra. 
 
BAPTISTS IDENTICAL WITH PRIMTTIVH CHRISTIANS. 253 
 
 niikno'.vn, but in the third and fourth was allowed by some 
 few. In the fifth and following ages, it was generally re- 
 ceived." In the Christian Review,* we have the following 
 testimonies on the point under consideration. Kaiser : " In- 
 fant baptism was not an original institution of Christianity."! 
 Baunigarten — Crusius — " Infant baptism can be supported 
 neither by a distinct a[)ostoUcal command, nor apostolical tra- 
 dition "J Neander says : " The practice of infant baptism 
 was remote from the spirit of this age. Not only the late 
 appearance of any express mention of infant baptism, but 
 the long continued opposition to it, leads to the conclusion 
 that it was not of apostolic origin."§ I will only add the 
 statement of the learned Episcopius, as quoted by Booth. |I 
 He denies that even any tradition can be produced for Pedo- 
 baptism until a little before the Milevitan Council, A. D. 418, 
 and maintains that " the baptism of infants was not practised 
 in Asia until near tlie time of that council." 
 
 We will again ask, to what denomination would these 
 apostolic Christians, who repudiated infant baptism, and bap- 
 tized only by immersion, at this time be considered as be- 
 longing ? To Methodists, to Presbyterians, to Episcopalians ? 
 Does not every man reply they were certainly such religionists 
 as would now be called Baptists ? When the doctrines of 
 purgatory, infant baptism, prayers for the dead, episcopacy, 
 the worshiping of martyrs, affusion for baptism, and others 
 of simlar character began to be introduced, multitudes op- 
 posed and protested against them. Had we no other evi- 
 dences of these facts, the two which I will mention would 
 abundandy establish them. The former is the pressing ex- 
 
 * Vol. iii. No. 10, art. 4. t Bibli. Theol. vol. ii. p. 178. 
 
 X History of Theology, vol. i. p. 1208. 
 
 § In his Eccl. Hist, of the Apostolic Age, vol. i. p. 140. 
 
 II Pied. Exam. „„ 
 
254 BAPTISTS IN THE DARK AGES. 
 
 hortations addressed to professed Christians to come to bap- 
 tism, with which the early Christian writings abomid, and 
 of which we have an example in Basil's Oration ;* and the 
 latter is the awful anathemas constantly hurled by the domi- 
 nant party against those who denied infant baptism ; allusion 
 to which is had by Neander in the passage from his Ecclesi- 
 astical History, a moment since noticed. Of what denomi- 
 nation would these Christians now be considered ? They 
 were reduced to the necessity either of separating from their 
 brethren, who were thus corrupting the gospel, or of giving 
 their sanction to the perversions in question. They preferred 
 tlie former course, and that they acted with great forbearance 
 is manifest from numerous historical references to the 
 events of that period. Hooker, for example,! though he 
 speaks sneeringly, admits all that is necessary for our pur- 
 pose. He remarks : " These held and practised their own 
 opinion, yet with great protestations, often made, that they 
 neither loved a whit the less, nor thought, in any respect, the 
 worse of those who were of a contrary opinion." 
 
 The Athenian Society, a hterary association formed in 
 England two hundred years ago, was made up wholly of 
 Pedobaptists. The writer of its history represents it as in 
 every sense equal to the famed Royal Society. He saysi — 
 " All the endeavors of ail the great men of all nations and 
 ages, from the beginning of learning to this time, have not 
 contributed so much to the increase of knowledge as the 
 Athenian Society. They commenced previous to 1090 a 
 "weekly periodical, called the Athenian Gazette, which name 
 was subsequendy changed to Athenian Oracle. This work 
 was conducted by a committee of twelve of their most com- 
 
 * Exhort, ad Bap. Wall, part i. ch. 1.2, sec. 3. 
 
 t Eccl. Pol. Book 5. p. 324. 
 
 X Bapt. Chronicle, by E.ev. Dr. Baker, vol. i. 
 
BAPTISTS BEFORE THE REFORMATION, *25o 
 
 petent men, selected from all the learned professions. Their 
 volumes are quoted witli confidence as authorities, by Han- 
 nah Adnms, and other distinguished writers. In 1G91, this 
 society was tlirown into a controversy with the Baptists re- 
 specting the antiquity of the church, and they affirmed- that 
 " There never was a (separate) particular congregation of 
 Anabaptists until above three hundred years after our Sa- 
 viour. " Here we have an admission that there were separate 
 congregations of Baptists in the fourth century ; and their 
 testimony is enhanced in value by the consideration that it 
 was given by the enemies of our principles, and with a view 
 to our disparagement. 
 
 But this Athenian Society has introduced to us a witness 
 whose deposition is entitled to more respect than their own— 
 the celebrated Swiss reformer, Zuinglius, the contemporary 
 and co-laborer with Luther. Zuingle remarks,! — " Anabap- 
 tismi institutio non nupera et nova est, etc." — " The institu- 
 tion of Anabaptism is not a novelty, but for thirteen hundred 
 years has caused very great disturbances in the church, and 
 has acquired such strength that the attempt in this age to 
 contend with it, appeared futile for a time." What shall we 
 say to this declaration? Zuingle was born in 1487, was a 
 learned man, a doctor of the University of Basle, and enjoyed 
 better advantages than perhaps any other individual of his 
 day, for obtaining correct information on this subject. If his 
 testimony is reliable, it proves that Anabaptists, as we were 
 improperly called, existed for thirteen hundred years prior to 
 his time, that is, from the close of the second century, prior 
 to the period at which, as we have seen, ambitious leaders 
 began to connipt the ordinances of the gospel with their tra- 
 ditions, by substituting the commandments of men for the 
 
 * Supplement to the Athen. Ora., vol, iv, p. 161. 
 t De Paedobapt. apud Athen. Ora., vol. iv. p. 161. 
 
256 BAPTISTS KNOWN UNDER DIFFERENT NAMES. 
 
 precepts of heaven. There could, of course, until Pedobap- 
 tism was introduced, be no anii-Pedobaptists, and until pseu- 
 dobaptism was practised, there could be no anabaptism. The 
 testimony, however, of this great Swiss reformer further 
 proves, not only that the Baptists had a continued denomina- 
 tional existence from the close of the second century — and 
 prior to that period we have shown that all were Baptists — 
 to the time of the Reformation, but that they existed in such 
 great strength and numbers as to cause very serious difficulty 
 among their opponents, and to render " futile for a time " the 
 persev^ering exertions of Protestants to overcome and disperse 
 them. To the violence and cruelty of the efforts they em- 
 ployed for this purpose, we have before referred. At every 
 period the demon of persecution — 
 
 " With delight did he snuff the smell 
 
 Of Baptist blood on earth, and high upturn 
 His nostril wide into the murky air 
 Sagacious of his quarry from so far." 
 
 But we are told by many illiterate men, and even women, 
 who have been ambitious to write our history, that they do 
 not read of Baptists till the time of Cromwell ! Indeed ! 
 And do they not know that our present name is recent ? It 
 is not the name, it is the principle which we seek. Of whom 
 did Mosheim speak, when describing a body of Christians 
 every where existing during the wliole of the dark ages, and 
 up to the Reformation, in the following language :- — " They 
 held that no persons whatever w^ere to be baptized until they 
 came to the full use of their reason."* Stennett, in his 
 answer to Russen, speaking of the same churches, says they 
 entertained the belief recited : — " Because to all infants, that 
 know nothing of faith, and in whom there can be no desire 
 
 • Eccl. Hist. Coat. 12, ch. v. sec. 7. 
 
BAPTISTS IN EVERY AGE. 
 
 2o 
 
 for regeneration, or confession of faiih, (fee, the will, faith, 
 and confession of another, seems not in the least to apper- 
 tain."* Such were the avowed sentiments of a class of men 
 prevailing always and found in every country. They were 
 in more modern times known in Italy as the followers of 
 Gundulphus ; in France, under the name of Berengariaiis ; 
 of Paterenes in the Duchy of Milan ; of the Petrobussians 
 and Henricians in Langucdoc and Provence ; and of the fol- 
 lowers in Brescia of 'Arnold.t AH these are sometimes in- 
 cluded under the general name of Waldenses, and of whom 
 President Edwards says :— " Some of the Popish writers 
 own that that people never submitted to the church of 
 Ilome."J He adds — "One of these writers says— 'J1ie 
 heresy of the Waldenses is the oldest heresy in the v/orkl." 
 Beza aiTinns— " As for the Waldenses, I may be permitted 
 to say that they are the seed of the primitive and purer 
 church." These Waldenses were sometimes confounded 
 with the Albigenses, and all were not unfrequently called 
 Anabaptists or Memionites, and of whom Mosheim remarks 
 — " The true origin of thai sect which acquired the name of 
 Anabaptist by their administering anew the rite of baptism 
 to those who came over to their communion, [that is, im- 
 mersed when they became believers those who had h^^n 
 baptized in mfancy,] and derived that of Mennonites from 
 the famous man to whom they owe the greatest part of thfir 
 present felicity, is hidden in the remote depths of antiquity, 
 and is of consequence extremely difficult to be ascertained."§ 
 The editors of the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, under the 
 
 *P.84 
 
 + For more extensive information on this point, see Hinton'sHiatory 
 fo Baptism, chapter vii. sec. S. 
 
 X Hist, of Redemption, period 3, part 2. 
 ^ Eccl. Hist, vol.ii. ch. 3, p. 127, Baltimore edition. 
 22* 
 
2.58 BAPTISTS IN EVERY AGE. 
 
 head of Baptists,* say : — " Wlien we take a superficial view 
 of this sect, collected, as it were, into one society, and in its 
 present embodied form, nothing appears more easy than to 
 write its history, and to specify the doctrines which are 
 peculiar to it. But when we come to examine it more mi- 
 nutely, we find that it is composed of very different mate- 
 rials, and that its origin is hid in the remote darkness of 
 antiquity." In speaking also of Anabaptists, and mistaking 
 them for a different class of Christians from Baptists, they 
 represent them as " a sect whose origin it is difficult to trace ;" 
 and they add : — " There can be no doubt that there were 
 many who held these opinions before the time of the Refor- 
 mation." Robertson, m his Preface to Claud's Essay, while 
 tracing up the history of those whose followers, since the 
 origin and establishment of the Episcopal church, have been 
 known as Dissenters, says : — " All the Dissenters allowed 
 Christian liberty, and all were enemies to an estal)lished 
 Hierarchy reigning over the consciences of their brethren, and 
 one branch uniformly in addition to all this, denied the baptism 
 of infants." 
 
 The number of the Waldenses was, at the commencement 
 of the Reformation, estimated by one of their own writers, 
 at eight hundred thousand. Their opinions on the subject 
 of baptism,! prpve that in the aggregate they were Baptists. 
 *' The Book of Sentences of the Inquisition of Toulouse '* 
 describes them as holding sentiments thus delineated : — "Also 
 that baptism by water, administered by the church, was of 
 no use to children ; because the children, so far from giving 
 assent to it, cried at it." For this heresy they were " sen- 
 tenced^^ to tlic cells of the Inquisition, and doomed to expi- 
 ate their offence in the flames of the Auto Da Fe. They 
 
 • Amer. ed. Phila., 1812. t Jones' Ch. Hist. vol. ii. fee. 
 
ANCIENT CONFESSIONS OF FAITH. 259 
 
 are further described by Erinengardi* m tliis language : — 
 " These heretics say, moreover, tliat this sacrament can be 
 of no use to any but those vv'ho seek it with their own mouth 
 and heart. Hence drawing this erroneous conchision that 
 baptism can be of no advantage to infants." 
 
 All these are testimonies drawn from the enemies and de- 
 vourers of this persecuted people. What do they prove them 
 to have been ? What could they have been but Baptists ? 
 But let us examine their own declarations upon this point. 
 Their Confession of Faith, dated A. D. 1120, that is, seven 
 hundred and twenfy-one years ago, and four hundred 
 and thirty-one years before the Reformation, is sufficiently 
 definite. At that time, as all learned men agree, pouring or 
 sprinkling was scarcely ever practised, except in the cases of 
 clinics. In the twelfth article of the instrument in question, 
 they expressly confine both the ordinances of baptism and 
 the Lord's supper to believers ; and this, let it be remem- 
 bered, was at a tinx3 when infant baptism and infant commu- 
 nion were the Jachin and Boaz of Pedobaptist Christianity. 
 These early disciples furthermore held tliat " a Christian 
 church was an assembly of believers — faithful men and 
 women — and that of such a church, the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 and he alone — not the pope — is the Head ; that it is goV' 
 erned by his word, and guarded by his Spirit ; that it be- 
 hooves all Christians to walk in fellowship ; that the only 
 ordinances Christ has appointed for the use of his churches 
 are baptism and the Lord's supper ; that they are botli sym- 
 bolical ordinances, or signs of holy things — visible emblems 
 of invisible blessings." 
 
 In another of their Confessions of Faith, written and pub- 
 lished to abate, if possible, the vengeance of their bloody 
 persecutors, they say — " We believe that m the ordinance 
 
 * Contra Waldensium sectam, cap. 12. 
 
2G0 BAPTISTS IN EVERY AGE. 
 
 of baptism, the water is the visible and external sign, which 
 represents to us the renovation of our minds through Christ 
 Jesus ; and by this ordinance we are received into the holy 
 congregation of Christ's people, previously professing and 
 declarinij; our faith and change of /j/e." •■ I further observe, 
 that in a letter of some of the pastors of this truly primitive 
 church to OEcolampadius, dated A. D. 1530, they say :— ■ 
 "We have sustained for above \hese.four hundred years most 
 severe and cruel persecutions, but not without signal marks of 
 Christ's favor, as all the faithful can testify." Professing, 
 in these dark ages, doctrines, so scriptural, enlightened and 
 pure, it is an eulogy of no ordinary character upon us, which 
 was pronounced by the learned Limborch, Professor of Di- 
 vinity in the University of Amsterdam, when he said :-— 
 " To speak candidly what I think, of all the modern sects of 
 Christians, the Dutch Baptists most resemble both the Albi- 
 genses and Waldenses." 
 
 So much I thought m.y former declarations required me to 
 say in relation to the history of our church in the days of 
 the apostles, and through the dark ages up to the time of the 
 Reformation. From that to the present we need not trace 
 the events hj which we have been distinguished. Our his- 
 tory has been written in blood by the hands of our persecutors ; 
 still it is sufEcienriy distinct to prove beyond a reasonable 
 doubt that we have had a prominent existence from the days 
 of Christ in every age to the present hour. 
 
 But this is not our only line of descent. If the Christians 
 I have described had never existed, there would not have been 
 ^vanting witnesses for the truth. Among the Britons the true 
 church existed, and the legitimate doctrines and ordinances 
 were maintained from the time Christianity was planted in 
 that island to the present moment. 
 
 ♦ Jones' Ch. History, ed. 2, pp. 49, 50, 70. 
 
BAPTISTS IN BRITAIN. 261 
 
 Ivimy, ill his History of the EngUsh Baptists,* and the 
 same facts are detailed by Crosby, and others, assures us tliat 
 the British Christians embraced the pure gospel in apostolic 
 times, and until the year 596 remained undisturbed in its 
 exercise. In that year Gregory, the Bishop of Rome, sent 
 Austin with a train of monks to convert them to the Catholic 
 faith. He arrived, called their ministers together, and made 
 tliem three propositions, the second of which was in these 
 words : — " That ye give Christianity to your children," i. e, 
 that you christen, or baptize them. This they positively 
 refused to do. I need not pause here to inquire whether 
 these Christians were Baptists ; I proceed to remark that 
 their determination was reported at Rome, upon which 
 Gregory decreed in these words : — " Let all young children 
 be baptized as they ought to be, according to the traditions 
 of the Fathers." Still they refused. Soldiers were brought 
 upon them to enforce the order, and many were massacred. 
 Large numbers, however, escaped to the mountains of Wales, 
 in the fastnesses of which, by the providence of God, they 
 were preserved from extermination, and where, at this very 
 hour, they exist by thousands, in possession of the faith and 
 practice of the gospel, as it was delivered to them by the 
 apostles. But two or three centuries liave passed since, ac- 
 cording to the History of the English Dissenters by Bennet 
 and Bogue, except a few government officers and dependants, 
 all Wales was Baptist. On the opening of the New AVorld, 
 numerous whole churches were transplanted from thence, as 
 well as from the continent of Europe, to these western 
 shores, and the labors of whose ministers and members have 
 been the chief instrumentality in the amazing advancement 
 of our denomination in these United States. 
 
 These facts and considerations demonstrate that the Bap- 
 
 * Vol. i. pp. 42-45. 
 
202 iMiuoBArTisTis APa: the schismatics. 
 
 tist is the only church wliich can claim tlie apostolic ori^, 
 and that in its organization and objects it is conformed in all 
 respects to the word of God ; that the apostolic church was 
 Baptist, and that through several channels it may be readily 
 and surely traced in a state of comparative purity down to 
 our times ; tliat it struggled through the days of Popish dark- 
 ness, and Protestant ignorannce and intolerance, maintaining 
 its principles separate from both, ever bearing testimony to 
 the truth as a witness for God. And can it be that in main- 
 taining these principles unchanged, and adhering unwaveringly 
 to the faith once delivered to the saints, refusing to turn aside 
 from the laws of Christ in deference to every new fancy of 
 modern religionists, we are guilty of producing a schism in 
 the body of Christ? No, it cannot be credited by any intel- 
 ligent man. It is too late to utter such a charge against the 
 venerable church of which it is our honor to be members, 
 and which, as science, literature and the arts have enliglit- 
 ened the minds and humanized the hearts of men, has come 
 forth from the clouds of oppression and persecution, shining 
 in her original brightness, and is rapidly covering the earth 
 with the light of primitive and unadulterated truth. 
 
 "VVe have now proved that not the Baptists, but the Pedo- 
 baptists are the schismatics. If in the present state of reli- 
 gious intercourse between different churches, and the sevenil 
 classes of the same denomination, there is a departure from 
 the true spirit of religion, and the teachings of the word of 
 God, those alone are responsible who, by their aberrations 
 from the divine law have produced this state of things. Who 
 can read the prayer of Christ for the unity of his people 
 without feeling that it is criminal thus to resist the divine 
 will. " For them that shall believe in me," says the 
 blessed Redeemer, "I pray; that they all may be one ; as 
 thou Father art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be 
 
THE REMEDY FOR SCHISM. 263 
 
 one in us ; that the world may beheve that thou liast sent 
 me."* How is this union, for the blessed consummation of 
 which, all hearts must glow with anxious desire, to be pro- 
 duced? It must be a union in the truths otherwise it would 
 not deserve the name. It can be attained only by a return 
 to original gospel principles. The schism in question will 
 by this measure be instantly healed, every barrier removed 
 to free intercourse, and thus vvdll be secured the universal 
 union and communion of all Christians. If such a result 
 is desirable ; if, as we have seen, all the impediments to it 
 have been brought in, and thus far kept up by Pedobap- 
 tists ; if theirs is the sin, and they alone are responsible for 
 the consequences ; it requires no great skill in casuistry to 
 determine whose duty it is to apply the remedy. Let those 
 who introduced now remove the barriers, and all will yet be 
 well. This they can easily do without violating their con- 
 sciences in any particular. 
 
 When Pedobaptists find their interest in it, they can, and 
 do, as we all know, dispense with sprinkling infants. Let 
 them discard altogether this unauthorized practice. To save 
 a good member, or to satisf}^ his conscience, they can readily 
 immerse him when he becomes a believer, although he may 
 have been sprinkled in infancy. Such cases are of not un- 
 frequent occurrence. Why not, then, adhere to this practice, 
 and immerse all candidates. They are w^ont to tell us that 
 all these are non-essential matters, but Christian union is not 
 non-essential. They profess to be very anxious for universal 
 communion. As it is their duty to produce it, and as they 
 can so easily attain the utmost of their wishes, it is hoped 
 they will not hesitate to sacrifice a mere non-essential to the 
 union of the people of God. A believer as the candidate, 
 and immersion as baptism, all confess to be legitimate. 
 
 ' John xvii. 20, 21. 
 
204 THF, REMEDY FOR SCHISM. 
 
 To this intelligent Pedobaptists can, with a good conscience, 
 confine themselves. Beyond this we cannot, we dare not 
 go. Our conscience will not permit us. Thus far all per- 
 fectly harmonize. Here let us all pause, meet, and unite, 
 and the results will gloriously accelerate that concord to 
 which prophecy has taught us to look forward, when " every 
 one shall see eye to eye, and speak the same thing." 
 
CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION. 
 
 Contents of the several chapters — Summary of the whole — Exhortatioa 
 — Union — Liberality — Prosperity — Firm adherence to original prin- 
 ciples — Our ultimate triumph. 
 
 Having briefly touched in the preceding chapters the seve- 
 ral particulars considered most vital in this controversy, and 
 an explanation of which was regarded as essential to an in- 
 telligent decision, I hasten to close the discussion. For tins 
 purpose it may not be improper briefly to recall attention to 
 the principal topics of argument which have passed in review 
 before us. 
 
 In our introductory observations we have defined our 
 object, identified the points which we have proposed to in- 
 vestigate, deprecated the motives which have impelled men 
 in all ages to violate the laws of charity, and explained the 
 reasons which have rendered on our part an examination of 
 the principles of sacramental communion requisite. In seve- 
 ral succeeding chapters we have explained, enumerated, illus- 
 trated, and defended the fundamental doctrines of communion, 
 and shown that they are necessarily as immutable as that 
 great Being of whose divine will they are at once an emana- 
 tion and a transcript. They consist in the following radical 
 truths : The terms of communion — that we are prohibited 
 from adopting any terms, other than those ordained by our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and that to these we are at all times, and 
 in all circumstances, under obligations to adhere, individually 
 and collectively, without addition, diminution, or change. 
 ia3 265 
 
266 RECAPITULATION OF ARGUMENTS. 
 
 That, in the second place, repentance towards God, faith in 
 our Lord Jesus Christ, and baptism in the name of the Fa- 
 ther, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are indispen- 
 sable terms of approach to the Lord's table, and to which 
 those who have observed these preliminaries cannot after- 
 wards be debarred of access, but in consequence of a forfeiture 
 of Christian character, by immorality or heresy. These 
 facts we have seen are scriptural, reasonable, and that in 
 firmly maintaining them we have the full concurrence, with 
 the single exception of a few open communion Baptists, of 
 all the Ohristian world of all nations, ages, and denomina 
 tions. To all the arguments acknowledged to be of any 
 importance against these conclusions, such, for example, as 
 those founded on the presumed nature of the administration 
 of John the Baptist, the inspired canons of Christian tolera- 
 tion, the spirituality of the Gospel, and several others, we 
 have fully, and we trust satisfactorily replied, showing that 
 so far from invalidating in any particular, they confirm and 
 establish the doctrines for which we are professedly advo- 
 cates. And that, in the third place, we are not at liberty to 
 administer the Lord's supper for any purposes, however de- 
 sirable they may appear to us, or however great may be the 
 imagined advantages, other than for those designated by our 
 Lord Jesus Christ. 
 
 Having thus traced the outlines of our faith with regard to 
 the eucharist, we have enumerated the several reasons why 
 we cannot engage in sacramental communion with Pedobap- 
 tists, among which we have noted especially that in so doing, 
 we must necessarily either renounce or practically falsify all 
 those principles which we have explained, and so fully and 
 sincerely avowed, and which are held sacred and true equally 
 by Baptists and Pedobaptists, and tacitly assent to others the 
 truth or proprinty of which we cannot conscientiously ac- 
 
ARGUMENTS RECAPITULATED. 267 
 
 knowledge. We cannot commune with them, bet;ause Jesus 
 Ciirist expressly, as all of them confess, requires baptism as 
 a preliminary, and they have not been baptized. This dis- 
 qualification is apparent, not only from the fact that they 
 received the rite, if it may be called such, in unconscious 
 infancy, at which age the law of Christ not only does not 
 authorize, but positively forbids its reception, but also from 
 tlie consideration that sprinkling or pouring was in the ad- 
 ministration substituted for the ordinance of Christ, which 
 m ule what they received a rite of their own invention, and 
 in no sense obedience to the command of the adorable Re- 
 deemer. As our final reason, we have shown that all the 
 sects of Pedobaptists attach an immoderate and unscriptural 
 importance to both baptism and the Lord's supper, represent- 
 ing them as the seals of divine grace, the means of entering 
 into the covenant of mercy, and effectual instrumentalities of 
 salvation. When administered for such purposes, or for any 
 other than as testimonies of our love and obedience to Christ, 
 it is very evident that we can neither receive baptism at their 
 hands, nor mingle with tliem at the holy table. 
 
 The next topic we have submitted, is the tendency and 
 effect of open communion considered merely as a matter of 
 policy. Under this head we have pointed out the deceptions 
 liable to be practised upon our judgment, and our feelings ; 
 shown that, guided by the principles of reason, enlightened 
 by the word of God, it is impossible to reach the conclusion 
 that promiscuous communion is good policy ; we have intro- 
 duced its history and proved by all the facts attendant upon 
 its progress, in both hemispheres, and during the last hundred 
 years, that so far from exercising a salutary influence in our 
 favor, it has proved itself as a matter of policy absolutely 
 ruinous ; and, finally, that it is ingenuously confessed by its 
 warmest and most able advocates, that were the Baptist 
 
2G8 ARGUMENTS RECAPITULATED. 
 
 church universally to adopt unrestricted communion, we 
 should sooii cease to exist as such, and our members find 
 refuge in the little communities around us, the oldest of 
 which did not exist until our church had run a career of fif- 
 teen centuries. 
 
 We have also fully and satisfactorily shown, after all that 
 has been said of our selfishness and bigotry on the subject 
 of sacramental and religious intercourse, that we are palpably 
 more free and liberal m our communion than any class of 
 Pedobaptists whatever. This fact is demonstrated by com- 
 paring our course in reference to all our members who are 
 confessedly baptized, with those of Pedobaptists towards 
 theirs, two thirds of whom they themselves debar from their 
 own table, and still complain of our want of liberality; by 
 the exclusive claims of Episcopacy, and the intercourse, as 
 evinced by the Acts of Conferences, Synods, General Assem- 
 blies, and the tone of the religious press, existing between 
 the several Methodist and Presbyterian sects ; and by the 
 well known truth that the fraternal associations between 
 them and ourselves are, to say the least, as cordial, as be- 
 tween the several parties into which pedobaptism is divided. 
 
 We have closed the discussion by briefly considering, and 
 amply refuting, tlie charge so often, and so confidently, pre- 
 ferred against us, that, in maintaining a communion restricted 
 to baptized believers, of known orthodoxy and moral charac- 
 ter, and declining to institute any new terms of communion, 
 or to participate in the eucharist for any purposes other than 
 to evince our love and obedience to the Redeemer, and to 
 show the Lord's death till he come, we are guilty of dividing 
 the body of Christ, and obnoxious to the character of schis- 
 matics. We have demonstrated, by the word of God, that, 
 in doctrine, in polity, and especially m sacramental practice, 
 we are identical with the apostles ; and shown by ample 
 
ARGUMENTS RECAPITULATED. 
 
 references to the authentic history of the times, as recorded 
 by our opponents, that we coincide with the primitive Chris- 
 tians, during the first three hundred years ; that when pedo- 
 baptism, sprinkling, infant communion, and the train of 
 similar innovations, were introduced, their abettors broke off 
 from the true church, and became a corrupt religious society, 
 destitute of the divine favor, and despoiled themselves of 
 ecclesiastical character and authority ; their very persecutions, 
 enjoying the favor of the Roman emperors, and therefore 
 the stronger party, have, in part, enabled us to trace the 
 legitimate church of Christ, which we have distinctly done, 
 through two channels, separate, equally, from Protestants 
 and Papists, and the perpetual prey of both, down to our 
 times. Thus we have seen that those who have separated 
 themselves, and not we, who have ever maintained original 
 principles, are the schismatics. If the definition of Swift be 
 entitled to respect, this sin consists, not so much in separat- 
 ing from those who profess to be followers of Christ, as in 
 departing from the truth which he has revealed, we can, 
 in no sense, therefore, be implicated, nor shall we ever be- 
 come liable to the charge, unless we yield to the clamor of 
 open communionists, and go over to pedobaptism. Then, 
 indeed, shall we too be guilty, and the withering leprosy will 
 have covered the last healthy meml^er of the body of Christ. 
 The existence of schism and the criminality of its indul* 
 gence, have been fully recognized, and it has been shown 
 that the only method by which it can be healed, is the return 
 of all Christians to the pure and unadulterated Gospel of 
 Messiah, to embrace it without reserve, to practise with sin- 
 cerity, and to be governed by its laws in all things. When 
 tliis happy disposition shall prevail, and influence the actions 
 of men, and not until then, will the dying prayer of the Re- 
 deemer be answered, and the world be subjugated to his 
 23* 
 
270 EXHORTATION TO FIRMNESS. 
 
 peaceful rei^n. As the whole responsibility of the existing 
 condition of things in the religious world rests upon the Pe- 
 dobaptists ; as the evils that prevail are referable to them, 
 and can only be removed by them ; as they profess to feel a 
 deep interest in the union and communion of all the people 
 of God ; and as the appropriate movement on their part, 
 would undoubtedly accomplish all these great and glorious 
 results ; may we not hope that, laying aside all human ex- 
 pedients, inventions of men, and every time-serving system 
 of policy, and submitting to the guidance of the Spirit of 
 truth, they will, at no distant period, be found walking with 
 us, in the path of holy and full obedience ! 
 
 I have only to add my earnest and affectionate exhortation 
 to all our brethren, in every part of our wide spread land, to 
 stand unmoved on your original ground— 
 
 " Firm as the surge repelling rock." 
 
 On this subject I will not allow myself to entertain fears that 
 any one will hesitate or waver. The principles and practice 
 by which we have hitherto been characterized, so far as they 
 accord with the word of God — and all else we repudiate — • 
 may subject us to reproach ; they may, as they have done, 
 call down upon our heads the wrath and persecution of place, 
 ambition, and power, but they can never, in the smallest 
 particular, be abandoned. The spirit of true religion is too 
 exalted to stoop to the mean arts by which the demagogue 
 courts the smiles of popular favor. The reputation of a free 
 and generous liberality may, perhaps, be innocently desired, 
 but it can be of little ultimate value to him who must sacri- 
 fice for its attainment the approbation of a good conscience. 
 No Baptist can permit such considerations to occupy a place 
 in his heart. A union with our brethren of all denomina- 
 
ULTIMATE UNION. 271 
 
 tions, and a prosperity, however unbounded, which may be 
 purchased at tlie expense of revealed truth and Christian 
 fidelity, hold out no attractions for us. The bond of the one 
 would prove a rope of sand, an association equally displeas- 
 ing to God, and injurious to his people ; and the brightness 
 of the other but the glare of the ignis fal tins, which 
 
 " Leads to bewilder, and dazzles to blind." 
 
 Light is spreading. Truth is taking hold on the hearts 
 of men. Darkness is receding. The spirit of inquiry is 
 abroad. Revelation is assuming its rightful authority. Every 
 religious pretension must ere long be brought to this test. 
 Our triumph is not distant. Until it come, let every man 
 acquit himself with a firmness and intrepidity worthy of the 
 fiflorious cause it is our honor to defend. 
 
 THE END. 
 
A A A A A r^T't 
 
 4^^ BY MRS. A. M. EDMOXD. ^> 
 
 ^^ 13 mo. 228 pages. PRICE 50 CENTS. tg^ 
 
 ^j^? -^'""' ^^- ^- ^^'"'- ^^ Missionary to China. Q^ 
 
 '€* " I have just been reading the life of the late Mrs. Comstock, ^^^ 
 ^■i\ ^^^ think- it a model Memoir. Without opening the sanctuary of i^^ 
 
 'r§< domestic life to public inspection, without obscuring the scene by t^^^ 
 ^V*^ the shadow of the author, and with neither a want of incident A^ 
 
 »-M nor an excess of journaiisiu. this unpretending volume presents ^ 
 ^^ one of the finest and fairest pictures of the trials of Missionary V|«^ 
 ^^ life, and the triumph of Christian principle, to be found in modern S^ 
 j?^ biography. 1 wish it might be read by every Christian in the (T;^ 
 ^^ land." Yi 
 
 f>^ From the Clo-istian Times. *->»^ 
 
 ^fStS ••' The subject of this Memoir, like many other missionaries, y^g*' 
 
 ^ found an early grave in a foreign land. She made herself kn ^^ 
 <V|i^ offering to Christ, who, accepting the gift, took her early to him- Q^^ 
 
 t|y self. The incidents of her missionary life, her character as a ^^ 
 M"4? Christian wife and mother, are here happily sketched. The author >|»> 
 
 14^ shows a deep appreciation of her subject, and has done good ^^ 
 ^^ service to the cause of religion and missions." CK^ 
 
 ^ From the. New York Recorder. ^^. 
 
 ^♦|X "We welcome this volume as an interesting and valuable addi- i^'j^ 
 
 ^^ tion to the memorials of those noble women whom our American ('^^ 
 ^a? Zion has given to the missionary service, and believe it will .-^J^ 
 
 ■>^y awaken in many hearts a new sense of indebtedness to him who p^ 
 ^M^ has loved us. and quicken many purposes to follow her who so \\*t> 
 ^^ diligently followed her Lord." •;g^ 
 
 ^-"PP From the American Biptist Memorial. A^ 
 
 M^ "Well written, and issued in a handsome style. With the fjfi 
 ^ItaK heroism, the adventure, the self-sacrifice, the strange scenes of a rt^^ 
 
 j^ new land, the striking characteristics of an unknown people there ^|,, 
 ^^ is as.soeiated a consciousness of truth, of reality, in the volume. /"K^ 
 
 i^ that invests it with an interest to which fiction can never attain." ^^ 
 ^^ From the Watchman and Rejlector. CJ>£^ 
 
 '^ '• The book will be prized not only by a large circle of acquaint- f^^ . 
 ikWl ance and friends, but as adding another choice name to our 
 already rich and widening missionary biography." 
 From the Xew York Baptist Register. 
 '•We commend this book as presenting in Mrs. Corastock a fiJjV 
 model of Christian excellence and faithfulness. ^^r* 
 
 i^ 
 W' 
 
 nS ARCH STllKKT. I'illL.VDI'LPIITA. ^J 
 
 ^^ ^1^ j^^ ^^ ^;^ y»^ j'pi ?»;K '^ry ^7^ /T^ ^^ SS P^^ 
 '^ ^""•if"'^' i? %* "v V V V V %' V vfh»*'^ 
 
^i 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 Complete in One Volume, 12mo., 432 pp., 
 WITH SIXTY-THREE ENGRAVINGS. 
 
 Price $1.00. 
 
 New and Improved Edition. 
 
 TRAVELS IN SOUTH EASTERN ASIA : embracing Hindustan, 
 Mala>a, Siani and China; with notices of numerous Mission- 
 ary Stations, and a full account of the Burman Empire. By 
 Howard Malcom, D.D., President of the University at Lewis 
 burg. 
 Twenty Thousand copies of this valuable work have been already 
 sold. It has been reviewed favorably, by the leading magazines of 
 America, England, and the East Indies, and in most of the promi- 
 nent newspapers, and noticed also in many letters from Mission- 
 aries, and no statement in it has ever been contradicted or cor- 
 rected. 
 
 Opinion qf Dr. Adoniram Judson. 
 "There is more correct information in this book on sulijects con- 
 nected with modern Missions, than can be found in any other pub- 
 lication." 
 
 Opinion of Dr. Francis WayJavd. 
 " Unless we greatly err, this volume will become a stock book of 
 travels, and will remain as a book of reference and entertainment, 
 after many of its contemporary journals have been forgotten. * 
 * We hail the work as a valuable addition to our knowledge of 
 the East." 
 
 From the EccUctic Review, (England). 
 "We heartily and strongly recommend this volume as intrinsi- 
 cally valuable, and as embodying a mass of intelligence on India, 
 which so far as our information extends, will be sought in vain in 
 an ecpial number of pages of any volume of English literature." 
 
 p Jlmcricait lajtist lubiitntmn; Bmt\i, 
 
 m 118 ARCH STREET, PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 
t?.. *^i^ vjiT*/' \»V' %»*«/' \oV' 'i»*4'Vv*< '^v^ W '^' 
 
 ^:^J BY A MINISTER'S WIFE. t^^ 
 
 Wi 18mo. 337 pp. Price 50 cts. fP, 
 
 y^ 
 
 i}/U ly graphic power, in depth of insight, in variety of incident and Q*^ 
 ^^ character, and exquisite touches of moral application, "Western t.^- 
 'i*jr< Side," will claim the highest place among this popular class of Q^^ 
 
 books, as indeed, its original composition antedated them all. Our ^'f. 
 churches and ministers without exception may find lasting benefit Q^ 
 
 i> 
 
 i^ 
 
 ^!^^ as well as delight from it; perusal. A fine 12mo. edition is now 
 issued. Price, 75 cents. 
 
 From the Western Literary Messenger. ^>*^ 
 
 fWPMtprn Sirip is nrIn>iT-.qhlv siiitpi] tfi its rhnracter. and ^^ 
 
 " The style of Western Side is admirably suited to its character, and 
 as a whole the book is a faithful exponent of the spirit of the West. 
 It contains less incident but more reflection than ' Sunny Side,' 
 equal beauty, but more strength ; and we wish some of its pas- 
 sages were written with a pen of iron on every Christian mother's 
 heart in the land, that she might not by her ill-judged tenderness, Q^ 
 unfit tho! 
 heaven." 
 
 unfit those whom God has given her, to serve on earth or reign in f If. ?u 
 From the Christian Era. ^fl»^ 
 
 " As graphic and touching as either ' Sunny' or ' Shady Side. Qll 
 
 * * It will awaken a deeper interest in the cause of the minis- ^^ 
 
 try in the new states, and we hope for this reason it may be read ^ 
 
 extensively, and produce the same efifect on others that it did pp|> 
 
 on us.-' ^^.> 
 
 From the Mother's Jotirnal. -y^ 
 
 "We have noticed the different "■ Sidc^ successively, as they ^■^, 
 
 have been presented by their authors, and while we will give the j^^ 
 
 precedence in point of importance to neither, we must say that ^ 
 
 ' Western Side' is as worthy of consideration, and of as wide spread (^^ 
 popularity as the others. It is not only 'Western Side,' but the 
 other side altogether, and is a faithful delineation of the causes 
 of failure in the ministerial profession. * * It lis written in pleas- 
 ing style, full of principles and appeals." 
 
 <»■>> 
 
 
 Kiu 
 
 lis ARCH STREET, PHILADELPHIA. )^^> 
 
 
j(^ A A. A A A A A A A A A A _A 1^1 
 
 i&xm aiitr l^pastlcsljip 
 
 
 
 ILLUSTRATED IN THE LIFE OF JUDSOK W 
 
 BY R. W. CUSHMAN, D. D. ^^ 
 
 18mo. 144 pages. PRICE 25 CENTS. C^* 
 
 ' * " ' ' ~ ^^ 
 
 From the Zion^s Advocate. S>j 
 
 " This volume sets forth in an able and lucid manner some of -^^^ 
 the prominent traits in the character of Judsou, which render p-^j 
 iiim a worthy example for all the followers of Christ. The accom- |*^ 
 panyinc; address upon ' The moral Likeness of Men as a ground tN] 
 of EncouraK<'meiit in Missionary Labors,' exhibits very clearly an ''.|«|^ 
 important fact in human nature, and furnishes valuable hints ^^i 
 not only to the Missionary among the heathen, but to all who t;!^^ 
 labor for the conversion of men." Cfe^^ 
 
 Fi'om the National Magazine. -I*^ 
 
 "No man's life could more fitly illustrate grace and apostleship t^ 
 than that of this prince of missionaries, Judson. Though a Bap- '.^^^ 
 tist, his name and its peculiar associations, are the inheritance of U^i 
 the entire church. We Avarmly recommend a perusal of this t^^ju 
 volume." C^jj 
 
 From the Christian Era. ^-^♦^ 
 
 " Such a book will quicken the faith of God's people, and in- tsT 
 
 spire the saints with a more earnest desire to do the will of God f^S^ 
 
 according to the terms of the great commission. We heartily ^?.^^ 
 
 recommend it." {'•^■•i, 
 
 From the Michigan Christian Herald. Qh'i 
 
 "This little volume comes to us in the chaste and pure style r^'^ 
 which distinguishes all the author's productions. * * The cause tM?^ 
 of religion and of missions will rejoice in the wide circulation of i~ii 
 such a book." C}^i^ 
 
 From the W'sfern Recmrler. f^^ 
 
 " It appeared to us, as we read it through at one sitting, as the jfei^ 
 best portraiture of that wonderful man we had ever read. It is ^^t 
 certainly an excellent little work. We received more pleasure in 
 its perusal than from any work of the size we remember ever to 
 
 ^h:r 
 
 m 
 
 have read." > 
 
 From the Southern Baptist. 
 
 ^® " ^* 'bears throughout the stamp of the author's affectionate f^^j^ 
 
 iM na^ture and classic taste, but will be even more esteemed for the tKr 
 
 ^ lofty piety which it inculcates. The work is in character with its (fj^ 
 
 ^%K subject ; it cannot have a higher recommendation." iV/^ 
 
 (^ ****** ~~ — ■ 
 
 118 Alien STREET, PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 f^v-T^ 'T^,--tn tr^-^ ir~-.r^ fr:^^ '^\^ fr^^ g^^^;;^ 
 
Y.M^ A A^ A A A A A ^A A A A A A A z^^*^ 
 
 %^^^ xi^a? \^^ \is ^* */■ v*^ s-;^ ^i^;:/ \^'^ .-^' skv"''i;c' si-^.' \vi.' s^^ ^*v|t 
 
 f TilE STM OF'tHEIdDER^^ 
 
 *3;S THE HISTORY OF THE STANLEY FAMILY. ^ 
 
 B2 Inuxit ©obDlin^ ^t ^Ktt. 
 18nio. 132 pages. PRICE 30 CENTS. 
 
 * Ji) A Tale of truth admirably told, exemplifying in the most y 
 
 -^"^ touching manner the evils of intemperance, in its insidious pro- ff 
 
 Jj grcss, blighting the bpautiful promise of youth, talent, education, Q| 
 
 ^i>|s^ and position in society, and reducing a once lofty family to the pi 
 
 ^*Ji') depth?! of misery and ruin. We remember nothing of the kind A 
 
 "C^ more beautiful or more tragical. Would that every family in the ^^ 
 
 ^*jl'\ land might read it, and ponder its lessons. Its religious character A 
 
 TS is one of the chief points of excellence. ^ 
 
 ^*j{ From the Christian Era. ^ 
 
 ^^ "This is a true story from the pen of a daughter of Rev. Dr. 
 
 ^^\\ Dowling, and is designed to illustrate the evils of wine and strong 
 
 '^i drink. In the history of the Stanley family, we shall recognize 
 
 ^>0 the history of many other families, and our hearts will bleed over 
 
 >'^ the sorrows of those relatives who have given themselves up to 
 
 the evils of the cup." 
 
 i 
 
 3^.5. Prom the Michigan Christian Herald. 
 
 ^*Y\ '■ Another of 1 he interesting series constantly issuing from the ^||> 
 
 :g^ press of our Publication Society, calculated to interest, admonish ^^ri 
 
 ^i^ and instruct the young. The history of the Stanley family is a f^.ji 
 
 '^_^r) fearful warning on the subject of intemperance, giving the results (^g^ 
 
 ^I^ of unchecked indulgence in the use of intoxicating drinks." fj^'-Jt 
 
 '^g From the Western Recorder. ^Sj 
 
 ^^* " This is a neat little volume, and should be read by every ' Tj| 
 
 • j^J hu.sband, parent, and youth in our land. It is a tale of thrilling t^' 
 
 ^■\^ interest, founded on facts, in which the author has faithfully f^ 
 
 *^^ portrayed the drunkard, and the great evil of intemperance." ^ 
 
 ^^ From the Journal and Messenger. ff^ 
 
 ■jQ '■ The incidents are tragic, like all illustrative of the ravages of U 
 
 .'^4^ intemperance. They are related, woven together, and expressed fj 
 
 ^'^.) with power and pathos. It will prove a very effective little book Cj^ 
 
 ;*^'^ on the subject for general circulation." 
 
 '"^^ From the Amencan Baptist Memoriol. i} 
 
 .;^'^ " It so depicts the dangers and the woe of intemperance, that 
 •J^ we should think every youthful reader would shudder at the 
 3'^ sight of a bottle, and shrink from touching it, as they would from 
 a veritable adder." 
 
 118 ARCH STREET, PHILADELPHIA. 
 
 %7^ ^ V w^ sr v^ ^ V V '-^ w V ^^ ^* tf v^i-^ 
 
A^ PUBLISHED BY THE ^P^ 
 
 #i^ 118 Arch Street, Philadelphia. fe 
 
 TRAV^JHiS IN SOUTH-EASTERN ASIA: Embracing Hindnstan, 
 Mau.ya, Siam and China ; with notices of numerous Mis- 
 sionary Stations, and a full account of the Burman Empire. 
 By HoAVARD Malcom, D.D., President of the University at 
 Lewisburg, Pa. With sixty-three Engravings. Tenth Amer- 
 ican edition. 1 vol., 12mo. 432 pages. . . $1.00. 
 
 WILLIAM CAREY : A Biography. By Joseph Belcher, D.D., 
 With a superb Mezzotint of Carey and his Pundit, and other 
 flue and trutlaful Engravings. 12mo. 306 pages. 80 cents. 
 
 CHRIST OUR LIFE : In its Origin, Law, and End. ( A $1000 Prize 
 Essay,) by Joseph Angus, D.D., President of Stepney 
 College, London. 12mo. 336 pages. . . 75 cts. 
 
 THE ROCK OF FAITH IN CONTRAST WITH THE QUICK- 
 SANDS OF MODERN SKEPTICISM. By John Morrison, 
 D. D. LL. D. 18mo. 224 pp 35 cts. 
 
 THE BELIEVER'S POCKET COMPANION ; or Putting on Christ 
 the one thing needful. By Wm. Mason. 18 mo. 136 pp. 25 cts. 
 
 THE BAPTISMAL BALANCE. By J. Newton Brown. 18 mo. 
 70 pp 15 cts. 
 
 A WORD IN PASSING, to those who have abandoned the 
 Church of Rome, and her Traditions. Trani^lated from the 
 French of Rev. C. H. 0. Cote, M. D. 18 mo. 36 pp. 3 cts. 
 
 BUNSEN'S VIEW OF BAPTISM, Ancient o,nd Modern. By Irah 
 Chase, D. D. 18 mo. 36 pp. . . . . 3 cts. 
 
 GRACE AND APOSTLESIIIP, Illustrated in the Life of Judson. 
 By R. W. Cushman, D.D. 18 mo. 144 pp. . 25 cts- 
 
 ROME AGAINST THE BIBLE, AND THE BIBLE AGAINST 
 ROME or Pharisaism, Jewish and Papal. By William S. 
 Plumer, D. D. 18 mo. 130 pp. ... 25 cts. 
 
 SUNDAY SCHOOL BOOKS. Many new and attractive Sunday 
 School Books have recently been added to the already large 
 collection of the Society's Publications in this Department. 
 Also new Tracts, &c. &c. 
 
m 
 
 A »% A J^, A A A A A A A A A A , J^ff 
 
 ^S iir^ -V-a^ viS iiS? ^i2 ^:^] v^ vc-^ ^^^^ 
 
 llonte Hgninst t|e §iHe,g 
 
 % AND THE BIBLE AGAINST ROME: 
 
 >^ 
 
 ^:^> Or, Pharisaism, Jewish and Papal. 
 
 ^ 
 
 '<:) 
 
 -^^ BY WM, S. PLUMER, D. D. 
 
 ISmo. 129 pages. PRICE 25 CENTS. 
 
 ^ iVom tte Christian Chromde, fj? 
 
 ^*^) '•' This little volume is from the pen of a most able and accom- Clu 
 
 -..^'^ plished scholar. Dr. Plumer. of Baltimore, has but few equals as flSj 
 
 "^ an impressive preacher, or a vigorous writer. He is entirely at Q^ 
 
 ^:^ home with The nature, history, and results of the papal religion. ^ 
 
 ^ VS and in this book has presented the subject before the public in a g^ 
 
 ^i^ masterly manner. It will do good in the family, and especially ^ 
 in the Sabbath School Library." )^ 
 
 . -'^ From the ChrMian Secretary. ^m 
 
 K^^ '' It shows in a clear and precise manner, what Pharisaism was ^^ 
 
 ^.'*^ among the Jews, and that Pharisaism among the Papists goes 
 
 ^*Ml " ■■ ' 
 
 <i 
 
 beyond it. It also .=!hows the hostility of popery to the general Q 
 circulation of the Word of God — that this opposition is un.scrip- ^^ 
 tural and unreasonable, and is condemned by the voice of H 
 antiquity. It concludes with an address to Romish priests, to ^ 
 private members of the Romish church, and to Protestants." v! 
 
 From the New York Baj^tist Eegister. ^^ 
 
 <«- 
 
 'A'i '"''he writer shows clearly that Catholics are scarcely more t\C^ 
 
 r>^» favorable to the Douay vei-sion than to any other, and that their *v] 
 
 *-K opposition is to the Bible itself." (M^ 
 
 ,'"v^ Prom the Presbyterian Banner. f!^U«. 
 
 ' ,fA "This little volume is admirably cond<^n.sed. and filled with Cfe 
 
 ^-'ti!^ solid matter in the author's usual effective manner. * * It will t"^^ 
 
 '',Jij repay the labor of several perusals." vfel 
 
 ef ?i3 From the Presbyterian. d^ 
 
 Kv " The kind of book which should be placed in the hands of 2^ 
 
 ^♦ii< general readers, who wish to ascertain the true features of S^^^ 
 
 ^^ Popery. jh^ 
 
 ^*jK From the Episcopal Recorder. (^^ 
 
 JW) " A succinct and able compendium of the Protestant view on fWi, 
 
 ^'*j[i the important topic its title indicates." Cfe 
 
 y^ '^^^^ m?. 
 
 l^ %\i}&l^m SQiitlgt 1?qMIe^iIoi) Society, ^ 
 
 ^^ 118 ARCH STREET. PHILADELPHIA. C^-^ 
 
 U^ "^ ^ i^ i^ ^:^ %' %^ '^ %- -^ %^ ^ %' '^ V£^^^ 
 
A A A ^,0, A A A (:C^ 
 
 CHRIST OUR LIFE Cj^, 
 
 IN ITS ORIGIN, LAW, AND END. "^^ 
 
 A PRIZE ESSAY, 
 
 PRESIDENT OF STEPNEY COLIEGE, LONDON. 
 
 12mo. 336 pages. PRICE 75 CENTS. 
 
 From the Western Watchman. 
 
 "This book is remarkable for the originality, clearness and 
 simplicity of its plan, the exact and profound learning of which 
 it is the fruit, ■without the lumber of parade; the strength, sim- 
 plicity and classic beauty of its style ; the deep, yet lively religious 
 feeling which animates every sentence, and the gentle yet irre- 
 sistible march of thought by which every conclusion is reached."' 
 From the Watchman ami Reflector. 
 
 " This is a book of rare value to the general reader. It is a 
 Prize Essay, its merits being suflBiciently declared by the unani 
 mous award of the committee to whom it was submitted — all 
 members of the Church of England — after an examination of 
 sixty-four manuscripts. The book is, of course, free from all sec- 
 tarian bias, and is marked by great catholicity, as well as breadth 
 of view." 
 
 F-om the Christian Review. 
 
 " Christ in his character, incarnation, teaching, death, offices, 
 &c., constitutes the theme of the book. The style is clear and 
 forcible, and we are constrained to say that we have rarely 
 read a work more deeply imbued with the evangelical spirit. '\\ e 
 hope our readers will avail themselves of this truly valuable 
 contribution to our Christian literature." 
 
 From the Southern Baptist. 
 
 "A book like this has been long needed. The author is a Bap- 
 tist of high reputation. After the inimitable narratives of the 
 Gospel, this is the best life of Christ we have yet seen. It is an 
 excellent manual for the use of Bible classes." 
 From the Episcopal Recorder. 
 
 " To the American Baptist Publication Society we are happy to 
 express our obligation for this work. We think there are few 
 works directed to the same object, that Can rival it for perspicuity 
 and skill of construction." 
 
 
 lis ARCir Mill I r pniL\r)rLPiiiA. 
 
 
 ) ^ <i^ ^ V V V V V tf ^^ V ^ 1? ^ ^^ 
 
f^ A A A A A 
 
 V. A Biography. By Joseph Belcher, D. D. J-y' 
 
 #||< WITH A (^^ 
 
 ^^ Superb Mezzotint of Carey aud his Pundit, ^^ 
 
 f«^ -4«rZ other Engravings. 2^ 
 
 12mo. 306 pp. Price 80 cts. (^ 
 
 Tqe illnstrlons subject of this Memoir, its interesting style, and the 
 many new facts and incidents introduced combine to render it a 
 very important addition to our Missionary Literature. It has been 
 hailed by the public press with universal approbation. 
 
 From the Christian Observer, (Presbyterian). 
 "The personal history of Dr. Carey is a bright illustration of 
 Divine grace, and the sketch of it given in this Memoir, offers to 
 Christians of cverj' class, a hallowed example of the power of faith 
 to encourage or sustain their efforts to promote the great interests 
 of religion." 
 
 From the Christian Herald, (Presbyterian). 
 
 ^ 
 ^ 
 i^ 
 
 jj^^ " Dr. Belcher has executed his task not only skilfullj', but with t^a^ 
 
 ^J^ an affection, appreciation, and sympathy, which gives a peculiar Cl^^ 
 
 iSc charm to the work." >^\ 
 
 ^♦JiS From the Presbyterian. fl*^ 
 
 t^ " We think the author of this work has done well in preparing a f^-. 
 
 ^♦j< new biography of so excellent a man. * * * It is a more )%*^ 
 
 '^'i complete and readable 3Iemoir than that with which the Christian j§i 
 
 ^i^ public have been so manv years acquainted." f/ 
 
 ^i 
 
 FV<mi the Watchman and Beflector. 
 " This volume is one of the most readable, as well as valuable 
 of all our Missionary Memoirs. The engravings, which are seven 
 in number, illustrative and well-chosen, add, with a neat typo- 
 graphical aspect, atiraction and interest." 
 
 From the CJiristian Feview. 
 " Such a popular account of the life and labors of the fixther of 
 English Baptist Missions, has long been needed. We recommend 
 'JC) the work to our reaiiers, praying that it may deepen the Missionary 
 Spirit in our Cliurches." 
 
 P» 
 
 ¥ 
 
 From t?ie National Magazine. «^ 
 
 ^i»j3 "The Baptist Church has been greatly honored of God in her >l*^ 
 
 •}?^ Missionaries. * * * Dr. Carey will never be forgotten for his W'sl 
 
 ^^Q labors in Oriental literature. * * * The book before us is Q|^ 
 
 ^*jK one of great interest. * * * It is a worthy contribution to yj^^ 
 
 =^^ our Missionary Literature. Jaj 
 
 ^^ ^- m 
 
 ^ American "^^M '§\Mmtm Bm% 1^ 
 
 4^^ nS ARCH STREET, PHILADELPHIA 
 
 hf^ "v %^ sr ^ %^ V ^ V V V ■"¥ 
 
1 A A A A .?. A A A * A AAA ■* r«SJ 
 
 BY J. NEWTON BROWN, 
 
 EDITOR OF TllE ESCYCLOPEDIA OP RELiaiOOS KNOWLEDGE. 
 
 18mo. 70 pages. PRICE 6-15 CENTS. 
 
 THE iAPTiSMAL mtmm.-w 
 
 m 
 
 From the New York JReconUr. 
 
 " When Mr. Brown was editing the Encyclopedia of r.eligious 
 Knowledge, he prepared the contents of this little volume (except- 
 ing a few recent additions) for iusertion in that worl<, as a fair 
 statement of the difference, and grounds of difference, between 
 Baptists and Pedobaptists. The statement was stereotyped for 
 insertion after bteing approved by the ilev. Dr. Jeuks and the 
 Rev. Baron Stow. On the suggestion of one of the publishers, 
 however, it was sent to Professors Stuart and Woods, and came 
 back with compliments as to its fairness, &c., but with the s»g- 
 gestion that two articles, one from a Baptist and the other from a 
 Pedobaptist. each giving his own view, would be a better course 
 — this course was adopted, and the present piiblication has 
 slumbered until now." 
 
 From the Chi-istian Chronicle. 
 
 ^'- It is a candid, learned, Christian, and thorough discussion of 
 this disputed question of baptism. Blr. Brown s'ates the views 
 of Pedobaptists on one side, with the arguuienis employed by 
 them in their support; and also the views of the Baptists, with 
 the arguments employed by them in their support, on the other 
 side, and we think the latter ai'e shown to be scriptural and con- 
 clusive. It is one — considering its brevity— of the best pro- 
 ductions we have met on this important subject. Pastors and 
 students will receive much light for their future guidance by 
 patiently reading this little volume. 
 
 From the American Baptist. 
 
 '•It is ahrief, but remarkably clear and faithful statement of 
 the principal arguments on both sides of the Haptis;mal contro- 
 versy. So far as we can see, the writer lias ])crformi'd the tusk 
 he proposed to himself with entire impartiality, and in an emi- 
 nently catholic spirit. 
 
 From the Zioji's Advocate. 
 
 "It is a thorough and logical production, and having passed 
 the ordeal of criticism, by Pedobaptist scholars, may be relied on 
 as a fair presentation of the subject." 
 
 From the Presbyterian. 
 
 " Although the Baptismal Balance does not shake our faith m 
 the doctrine of Infant Baptism, we are free to confess that it is 
 written in an eminently good spirit. 
 
 (: 
 
 1> 
 
 l3» 
 
 118 ARCH STREET, PHILADEIPHIA. 
 
 -!<■' 
 
A A 
 
 A 4^ <^ y^ /i^ jk -^^ ^ - . - 
 
 NEW SUNDAY SCHOOL BOOKS lf> 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE V^** 
 
 118 Arch street, Philadelphia. ^ 
 
 DEW FOR THE DROOPING FLOWER : in N4ne Letters address- 
 ed to Miss Sarali Saunders during her laSt'ttlness. By John 
 Foster. 18mo. 93 pa^es. . . , 18-20 cts. 
 
 BIBLE RHYMES on all the Books of the Old and New Testaments. 
 By Hannah Moore. ISmo. 72 pages . . 16-18 cts. 
 
 WESTERN SIDE; or Lights and Shadows of a Western Parish. 
 By a Minister's Wife. 18mo. 327 pages. . . 50 cts. 
 
 Do. Do. fine Edition. 12mo. 327 pages. 75 cts. 
 
 MISSIONARY CONVERTS in Heathen Lands. By Uncle Jose- 
 PHUS. 18 mo. 118 pages. . . , 22 and 25 cts. 
 
 THRILLING FACTS from Missionary Fields. By Uncle Josephds. 
 13 mo. 131 pages. ..... 22-25 cts. 
 
 CURIOSITIES OF CHRISTIAN MISSIONS. By Uncle Josephus. 
 18 mo. 117 pages. ..... 22-25 cts. 
 
 MARY B ARTLETT : Or the Young Home Missionary. By Fkiend 
 Jane. IS mo. 60 pages. .... 15 cts. 
 
 A LILY GATHERED. The Conversion of James Laing ; who died 
 in Scotland, at the age of fourteen. By R. M. M'Chetne. 18mo. 
 57 pages. ....... 15 cts. 
 
 PHILIP GARLAND: Or Love One Another. 18mo. 129 pages. 
 
 25cts. 
 
 WINTER VACATION: Or how to be a Gentleman. ISmo. 49 
 pages. ...... 15 cents. 
 
 STING OF THE ADDER : Or the History of the Stanley Family. 
 By Jennie Dowung De Witt. 18mo. 132 pages. 28 cts. 
 
 LIFE AND TIMES OF MENNO, the celebrated Dutch Reformer. 
 With an accurate Portrait. By J. Newton Brown 18mo. 
 67 pages. ...... 16-18 cents- 
 
 ELLEN MASON : Or Prejudice Vanquished. 18 mo. 92 pages. 
 
 20 cents. 
 
 WONDERFUL HISTORY OF A PIECE OF WOOD. An Expo- 
 sure of Papal Idolatry. 13mo. 20 pages. . 15 cents. 
 
 COLMAN AND WHEELOCK : Or the Early Called of the Bunnan 
 Mission. 18mo. 136 pages. ... 25 cents. 
 
 %^ 
 
 V 
 
JliLIFE m TIMES OF MENNO,ij 
 
 fjj^ THE CELEBRATED DUTCH REFORMER. ^f 
 
 ^'JS BY J. NEWTON BROWN. 0*^ 
 
 ^l WITH AN ACCURATE PORTRAIT. ^ 
 
 4jj5 18mo. 70 pages. PRICE 16-18 CENTS. ^ 
 
 ^i^f) i^ro7H </(e Religious Herald. ^y 
 
 .^) '" The author is not only one of our best, but also one of our (j^,. 
 
 ^**\ mo^t cautious and reliable writers. Though but a small work, dej*^ 
 
 1» this is a valuable volume from the subjects and topics on which it ^M 
 
 ^*\\ treats. It is embellished with a jjortrait of jleuno, one of tbe /)|j^ 
 
 ^^ hncst couuteuances we have ever seen. We should be glad to ^^ 
 
 ^Pij 1' ain that a copy of this work was in the family of every Baptist siFiib 
 
 'J'i m the land." *m^ 
 
 ^^^ From Hie Mother'' s 'Journal . ^Ifl^ 
 
 "tAJ "'Much in a little,' may truly be said of this book. It is pre- ^^ 
 
 -^'^ paied with great care, and is a chapter in the history of the Re- (\fu 
 
 **JQ lormution not so frequently published, but of no less interest than Q^ 
 
 >^^ the others." ^^ 
 
 <3]0CLlvIAN AND ^HBBLOOSs^# 
 
 <^ OR, THE EARLY CALLED OF THE BURMAN MISSION. p|^ 
 
 ^J^ IBmo, 132 pages. PRICE 25 CENTS. m^ 
 
 \r^ < <>»>■» \'c*i 
 
 ^♦IK Fi-om the Widchman and Reflector. /'f*'^ 
 
 ^i "Though their devotion to the work of Foreign Missions, then J^ 
 
 ^♦i? viewed as hardly beyond an experiment, was seated by the offering Vfi^ 
 
 ^) up of life itself, and included characteristics and incidents worthy O^f 
 
 ^^O ot ,1 chronicle. Colman and Wheelock have wanted, hitherto soine (^^ 
 
 " ^^ '■rth memorial as this book furnishes. We are glad that the task ^*^ 
 
 -,^^ of preparing it has fallen under the skillful hand of our friend f|l^ 
 
 ^1^^ M A. C, and that so importfuit a link in the history of the Bur- ^^ftp^ 
 
 l>-^ man Mission, as is formed by these ' early called' servants of the f^, 
 
 "^Nq Loid, is hereby better prepared." df--^ 
 
 y'i^ From the Christian Chronicle. ^0, 
 
 **i) "Colman and Wheelock left their churches, their native land. Q^ 
 
 -,1^^ and their friends, for Burmiih, while the mission was yet in a fM- 
 
 ^*^) primitive state, and though their labors were of short duration. Q^^ 
 
 N^ thev are worthy of lasting remembrance. The Society have doue J^,^ 
 
 ^"jj "^ ^"""^ work in giving this book to the public.'' LM^ 
 
 ^*j6 118 ARCH 8TKKET, PTirLADELPIfTA. Q^ 
 
Theological Semmary-Speer Library 
 
 1 1012 01029 9578