God in his providence opens a door for him in a regu lar manner to approach his holy table; and not to act foolishly like Saul, who grew impatient in waiting for Samuel, and forced himself and offered a burnt-offering."

I have endeavoured thus far to trace your argument, and have not yet found fufficient reafon to depart from the apoflolic practice; but as we are so happy as to be agreed in this point, that baptifm according to their practice was prior to coming to the Lord's table, on this ground we will bring the matter to trial. Now, Sir, I would wish to afk,, How we can confiftently communicate with you? If we communicate with you as baptized persons, we practically give up our princi ples; if we communicate with you as unbaptized, then we unwarrantably depart from the apoftolic practice. You cannot be infenfible, my dear Sir, that this is the very pith of the controverfy; and that one or the other of the above difficulties will inevitably fall to our share, in cafe we establish communion with you.

It is a fact generally known, and which we do not wish to conceal, that we cannot acknowledge infant Sprinkling to be gospel baptifm. Could this be allowed, the difpute would be at an end, and our fentiments at an end with it. For if the inftitution requires no more than Sprinkling, then plunging must be forever unneceffary; and besides, we shall be justly chargeable with re baptizing, a practice we condemn as much as you do. But you seem to be willing that we fhould be Baptifts, and yet blame us for not communicating with other denominations. But, why do you not lay the axe to the root of the tree, and blamé us for being Baptifts, and not blame us for being confiftent?

I doubt not but every unprejudiced mind will readily perceive that the matter comes to this point with us, that in order to communicate with you, we must either give up what you and we agree was the apoftolic prac tice, or our fentiments as Baptifts. One or the other of thefe will be a rational inference from our conduct.

From what has now been obferved, it will be eafy to perceive the different fituations we ftand in to each

1 Sam. xiii. 12.

other. When perfons join your churches, who have been baptized by us, I have never heard of your baptizing them again. On the other hand, we always baptize those who come from your churches to us, unlefs they have been immerfed upon a profeffion of faith. But is this difference of conduct to be attributed to catholicism in you, or the want of it in us? By no means. The truth is this, immerfion includes fprinkling; but fprinkling does not include immersion: therefore the perfon who is immerfed, is in your view lawfully bap tized; whilft he who is only fprinkled, is not fo in ours. It hence follows, that, confiftently with your fentiments and views of the apoftolic practice, you may invite us to communicate in your churches; while we, having the fame views, cannot invite you.

It is hoped that the preceding obfervations will fully fatisfy our Pædobaptift brethren, that our reafons for not communicating with them do not arife from the want of brotherly affection towards them; but from a confcientious regard to what we understand to be the order of the gofpel.

So long as we allow the gofpel to contain a complete system of faith and practice, we must endeavour to follow the rules there given, rather than imitate other fuppofed parts of the divine conduct.

But fhould we even carry the matter as high as you have fuppofed; that Chrift fhould perfonally come to one of your communions, and actually partake with you; and should addrefs you as his friends, and bid you eat and drink; I am not certain that his conduct in fo doing would call for our imitation, fo long as the eftablished laws of his kingdom remain as they now

are.

Never

When Christ first commiffioned his difciples, and fent them forth to preach the gospel, heal the fick, &c.—he commanded them faying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not.* thelefs, he himself went into the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and there healed the daughter of the Syrophenician woman, who was a Gentile. He alfo paffed + Mark vii. 24-30.

* Matt. x. 5.

through Samaria; converfed with the woman at the well, where he made known himfelf to her as the Mef fiah. And afterwards, at the request of the people, he tarried two days; in which time many more believed on him. Hence we fee, that Chrift did those things which his difciples were not authorized to do. There fore I conclude we are to follow the particular rules laid down by Chrift in his word, rather than any fuppofed appearances or manifeftations he may make to his people in any way whatever. If this be not the cafe, we are likely to ramble in eternal uncertainty! But, bleffed be God, we have a more sure word of prophecy, to which we do well to take heed.

It may be proper here to take notice of the confequences you have drawn, from the fuppofition of our proving, that a conformity to our mode of baptifm is an effential term of communion. You fay, Should this be made to appear, it will then also appear, that all the Pædobaptifts, who have thought they enjoyed communion with God at his table, have been moft miferably deluded. If fo, the confequence is dreadful indeed! Enough to fhock the tender feelings of every pious Pædobaptift, and lay an effectual bar in the way of their admitting the evidence of a truth fo difgufting, though fhining with the greateft clearnefs. You alfo conclude, that if baptifm in our mode be an effential qualification; then the Pædobaptifts are effentially wrong and wicked in coming to the table;' and their conduct an abomination in the fight of God.+ My dear Sir, are you fo intoxicated with fentiment as to forget your own fyftem? No farther back than page 20, you have faid, I deny that there can be any moral evil in conduct which proceeds from godly fincerity; yet I grant there may be natural evil, or incongruity, through inadvertency or mifapprehenfion.' Is it poffible that natural evil' or incongruity,' fhould account for all the frightful things now mentioned, fuch as miferable delufion, wicked' conduct, even fuch as is abomination in the fight of God? If not, your argument fails in one or the other:

* John iv. 26, 39, 40. + Page 28.

either your conduct must be chargeable with moral evil, or your confequences cannot be just.

In your next page you go on to fay, Granting that immerfion be the appointed mode of baptifm, and believers the only proper fubjects, yet if a Pædobaptift really think otherwife, and with an obedient heart offer up his children in our mode, his conduct is not chargeable with any moral evil. All the evil which is to be imputed to his conduct, is of the natural kind. And the perfon in fo doing is as well accepted in the fight of God, as if his external conduct had been according to the appointed mode of baptifm.' It is peculiar indeed, that with regard to the inftitution of baptifm, you fhould conclu le, that if you honeftly mistake both the Subjects and mode, and practife in a way entirely differ ent, it by no means hinders the divine approbation and acceptance; but with regard to the ordinance of the fupper, if it fhould be proved that you had as honestly made a mistake with regard to a previous duty, and have thought that you enjoyed communion with God at his table, the confequence muft be, that you have all been miferably deluded!

According to the above argument, all that is neceffary to render baptifm acceptable, is only to really think' you are right hence by a parity of reafoning, if you are not accepted of God in the ordinance of the fupper, we muft fuppofe you do not really think' you are right when you come to the table. But are you not as fincere in coming to the Lord's table, as in offering up your children? If you are not, I fhall join with you, that your conduct is an abomination to the Lord. But, allowing you to be fincere, and to really think you are right, and we must suppose that you have as much reafon to think you have been miserably deluded' in the former, as in the latter.

Thus, Sir, I have endeavoured carefully to attend to the argumentative part of your Friendly Letter, and have attempted to answer thofe arguments on which I fuppofed you laid the greateft ftrefs;, either in a direct way, or by fhowing the invalidity of the evidence by which they were fupported. And however an impar

tial public may judge, I have the fatisfaction to think, that in the preceding fheets the following particulars have been fairly established, by evidence from fcripture, reason, and the concurring teftimony of many eminent Pædobaptift writers. 1. That vifible, or profeffing believers, are the only proper fubjects of baptifm, known and defcribed in the word of God. 2. That an entire immerfion in water, is neceffary to the due administration of the ordinance. 3. That by apoftolic practice, which is a standing law to the church of Chrift, baptifin was, and therefore still is, prior to coming to the Lord's table. Hence it follows, by neceffary confequence,' that a conformity to our mode of baptifm (if that has been proved to be the gospel mode) is to be confidered as a neceffary pre-requifite or (if it suits you better) term of communion at the Lord's table, fo long as we think it important to follow the apoftolic practice? We do not mean by this to dictate to our brethren of other denominations with regard to their terms of communion ; but only fhow the general principles on which we proceed among ourfelves.

SECTION IX.

Obfervations on the Plan of Communion propofed in the Friendly Letter, with remarks on feveral other Things connected with the Subject.

SIR, your profeffed defign in writing, has too much of the appearance of friendfhip, to be paffed over unnoticed. But whether if your plan were adopted, it would produce the defired effect, is a matter of ferious inquiry.

To promote the peace and profperity of Zion, by opening a door for free communion betwen the Baptists and Pædobaptifts,' is your profeffed object. And notwithstanding I have appeared upon the other fide of