433

proves, that there is no positive command requiring baptism in any form, as a prerequisite for church communion. This is left to the conscience and judgment of every christian. Any one sincerely believing the Gospel, and thinking it his duty to approach the Lord's table, cannot be rightfully denied this privilege, although he may not be convinced that the law of Christ demands his submission to the ordinance of baptism. The author considers both of the ordinances as of divine institution, and as designed for every christian; but at the same time he does not suppose there is any immediate connexion between them, nor that any christian minister or church has a right to refuse one to a brother, who may desire it, because he cannot see his way clear to participate of both. There is as much impropriety in withholding the Lord's supper till baptism be performed, as there would be in refusing baptism till the person had become a communicant. Neither the Saviour nor the Apostles have declared, that either of these shall precede the other, nor that one shall be denied, if the other have not been complied with.

Such are the views of the author as expressed at large in this essay, where they are unfolded with his usual freedom and perspicuity, and with more than his usual method, closeness of thought, and sound argument. This may be ranked among his best specimens of composition, and has almost none of his peculiar defects. He has succeeded in checking the busy meddlings of his fancy, which, on other occasions, is too apt to lead him astray, and prove a treacherous guide to his taste and judgment. He thought the subject of high importance, as it truly is, in its bearing on the principles and practice of christian fellowship. If his views are correct, and he

brings scripture and reason to prove them so, many of the formidable barriers, which have been raised to keep christians asunder, to frighten the timid and harden the obstinate, to scatter the brands of discord and heat the fire of persecution, may be pulled down, and the ground left open and free where all the sincere disciples of Jesus may meet in love and peace, in fellowship and kind feeling.

One head of the essay relating to the history of the controversy concerning free communion, among the Baptists, and also a few closing reflections, are omitted, as not immediately connected with the subject of baptism, to which the parts of the essay here given are confined.]

THE most diligent and upright disciples of Jesus Christ have always entertained, and do yet entertain various sentiments concerning articles of faith and modes of divine worship, and there are but two ways of acting among christians in this case.

The first, which the far greater part profess to pursue, is that of obtaining, some way or other, unity of faith, and uniformity of practice. In the papal corporation, and in some reformed communities, riches and power contend with weakness and want to silence scruples, and to force a real or professed uniformity. In some of our nonconformist churches, learning, argument, and beneficence are employed to produce the same effect. At length, however, unquestionable facts prove, that, how upright soever the attempt may be, the end is unattainable. The mind of man, uncontrolled in its operations, and for

ever diversifying its modes of thinking, refuses to submit to restraint, and it is the virtue of such a mind to avow its refusal.

If uniformity cannot be obtained, say the other, and the smaller part of christians, there remains only one thing for us to do; we must so constitute our churches as to allow variety of sentiment and practice, and by so doing acknowledge the force of nature for the voice of God. Let us put, say they, toleration in the place of uniformity; this can never be produced; but that lies within the reach of every society.

The English nonconformists have, of all mankind, best understood, and most practised christian liberty; but there have arisen in many of their churches, as may naturally be supposed of men zealous for their religious principles, doubts and debates concerning the extent of that toleration, which christian liberty implies, but which, however, ought not to run into licentiousness, as it would if it went so far as to hazard the purity of gospel worship and order.

Under this consideration comes the well known controversy among our Baptist congregations, whether churches consisting of members all baptized by immersion on a profession of faith and repentance, ought to admit into their fellowship such persons as profess faith and repentance, and desire communion with them, but refuse to be baptized by immersion, because they account they have been rightly bap

tized by sprinkling in their infancy. To this question, and to this only, we shall confine our attention.

This whole debate, I should suppose, may be divided into a case of fact and a case of right.

CASE OF FACT. On the one hand, it is a matter of fact, that many sincere disciples of Christ declare, that, having renounced all authority except that of the holy Scriptures to decide in all matters of faith and practice, and having searched the Scriptures with all the diligence and rectitude, of which they are capable, they think infant baptism of divine appointment, and rightly performed by sprinkling water on the face.

It is a matter of fact, that many baptist churches do conscientiously admit such persons into their fellowship.

It is also a fact, that these churches affirm, and they are best capable of giving evidence in this case, that no inconvenience has arisen to them from the mixture of their communion. The writer of this has been a member of such a church more than twenty years, but has never heard of the least disadvantage arising to the community from it, and he has received a like attestation from the ministers of several other mixed churches.

Further, it is a fact, that these members perform all the duties of church fellowship, glorify God in their lives and conversations, and support the charac

ter of christians as honourably as the baptist brethren do.

Moreover, it is a matter of fact, that some churches have been mixed from before the time of the civil war in the reign of Charles I. when the baptists first made their public appearance in England.

In fine, it is an undeniable fact, that, during the time of the great papal apostacy, while churches were congregated in private for fear of prelatical persecution, believers, who held infant baptism, and believers, who disowned it, were united in the same community, as ancient manuscripts and authentic records abundantly prove.

On the other hand, it is certain, that, from the first public appearance of baptist churches in England, many have refused, and to this day continue to refuse to admit into their fellowship all manner of persons, however qualified in other respects, who have not been baptized by immersion on their own profession of faith and repentance.

It is equally true, that all these baptists allow the piety and virtue of unbaptized believers, account them members of the mystical body of Christ, and some of them possessors of knowledge and piety far superior to their own, and they hold themselves bound to discharge every kind office to them, except this one of admitting them to church fellowship.

It is a fact, that these churches do not believe baptism a saving ordinance, nor do they think it a test of