BAPTISM OF BELIEVERS ONLY,

AND THE

Particular Communion

от

THE BAPTIST CHURCHES,

EXPLAINED AND VINDICATED.

IN THREE PARTS.

THE FIRST-PUBLISHED ORIGINALLY IN 1789;

THE SECOND-IN 1794;

THE THIRD-AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS AND ARGUMENTS, WITH STRICTURES ON SEVERAL LATE PUBLICATIONS.

2

BY THOMAS BALDWIN.

PART III.

Bofton :

Printed and fold by MANNING & LORING, No. 2, Cornhill.

BE

District of Massachusetts, to wit:

E IT REMEMBERED, That on the tenth day of September, in the thirty-first year of the independence of the United States of America, MANNING & LORING, of the faid district, have depofited in this office the title of a Book, the right whereof they claim as Proprietors, in the words following, to wit:"The Baptifin of Be lievers only, and the Particular Communion of the Baptist Churches, explained and vindicated. In Three Parts. The firfl-published originally in 1789; the second-in 1794; the third-an Appendix, containing Additional Obfervations and Arguments, with Strictures on feveral late Publications. By THOMAS BALDWIN."

In conformity to the A&t of the Congrefs of the United States, entitled, "An Act for the encouragement of learning, by fecuring the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the Authors and Proprietors of fuch copies, during the times therein mentioned ;" and alfo to an Aft, entitled, "An Act fupplementary to an Act, entitled, An A&t for the encouragement of learning, by fecuring the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the Authors and Proprietors of fuch copies, during the times therein mentioned; and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of defigning, engraving, and etching hiftorical and other prints."

WILLIAM S. SHAW, Clerk of the District of Massachusetts.

APPENDIX.

SECTION I.

IT is with a mixture of regret and pleasure, that the Author of the enfuing work again refumes his pen in this unpleasant controverfy. To be obliged to oppofe the fentiments and practice of a body of Chriftians, fo refpectable for their number, learning, and piety, and for many of whom he entertains cordial fentiments of friendship and Christian affection, is matter of no finall regret. But he feels a degree of pleasure in believing, that he is not influenced by an improper partiality for a particular fect, but with a laudable zeal for the honour of Chrift, as Lawgiver and King in Zion.

The fubject of particular communion, has at length become the most important article of difpute, between the Baptifts and Pædobaptifts. The latter urge their objections with much addrefs, and feem determined if we will not give up this part of our practice, to have no religious connexion with us whatever.

We have attempted, in a very plain, undisguised manner, to affign the true reafons of our conduct. Thefe have been either overlooked, or deemed unfatisfactory. They on the other hand have laboured to convince us, that the whole of our practice wherein we differ from them, is unfcriptural, and oppofed to the true fpirit of the gofpel. We have, with all the candour we could command, endeavoured critically to examine and weigh their arguments, but have not been able to fee their conclufivenefs. Of courfe we remain unconvinced.

It is a fact well known, that the Baptift churches from time immemorial, have in general held and practifed, what is called clofe or particular communion. That is, they have refufed to communicate at the Lord's table with those whom they deemed unbaptized. When they were few in number, and univerfally defpifed, this was little complained of. It was fometimes juft mentioned in the clofe of a long catalogue of errors in this way, "And befide all this, they refufe to commune with us."

We wish not to attribute the unufual and increasing oppofition that is made to our fentiments in this particular, to unworthy motives; but we are at a lofs in fome inftances how to account for it, on the principles of Chriftian fincerity. Can we fuppofe, that thofe who unceafingly fcandalize our practice, and endeavour to reprefent our fentiments in the moft unfavourable light, are fincerely defirous of communicating with us at the Lord's table? We certainly cannot, unless we fuppofe them as inconfiftent as they reprefent us. For what purpose then, it may be asked, is this hue and cry fet up about clofe communion? It is believed by many, that the true answer would be, because it is known to be the moft popular objection which can be urged against our fentiments. Immerfion has confeffedly fo many advantages over fprinkling, and the baptifm of a believing adult to that of an unconfcious infant; that little head could be made against a practice which has fo much the appearance of being apoftolic, were it not for its connexion with the "antichriftian" fcheme of close communion.

Our Pædobaptift brethren know as well as we, that our particular communion is a natural confequence of our fentiments refpecting baptifm It is feen at once, that the former is directly connected with the latter; yea, that it arifes out of it. But instead of approving of it upon this ground, they infer, that our views of baptifmi muft be wrong, or they would not produce fuch unpleafant confequences. We are fatisfied that there is fault fomewhere. Either they are to blame for rejecting the counsel of God in not being baptized agreeably to

APPENDIX.

the institution; or we are, for not acknowledging them to be baptized when we verily believe they are not.

nance.

We think, however, we cannot be confiftently blamed, for refufing to communicate at the Lord's table with fuch as we deem unbaptized, especially by fuch as themfelves hold baptifm to be a pre-requifite for that ordiThis we confider to be precifely the ground on which our Pædobaptift brethren stand. We know of none who are esteemed found in doctrine, and orderly in practice, who do not agree with us, in refufing to communnicate with any perfons however pious and amiable, until they are baptized.

There are fome indeed, to get rid of the difficulty in the eafieft way poffible, who tell us, (but who never reduce their fentiments to practice) they could commune with those who had never been baptized in any way, provided they had fufficient evidence of their piety. But we conclude the Pædobaptifts in general, would join with us, in rejecting a fentiment fo fubverfive of gofpel order, and fay with the apostle, "We have no fuch cuftom, neither the churches of God."

If these observations be juft, they will bring us to the true ground of the controverfy; which is, not whether we ought to communicate with unbaptized perfons, but whether we ought not to believe that to be gospel baptifm which is administered by sprinkling only, and to fuch fubjects as make no profeffion of their faith? For notwithstanding they constantly blame us for refufing them communion at the Lord's table, they do it always upon the fuppofition, that they are baptized as well as we. We have repeatedly declared, that we could not confcientioufly believe them to be baptized, according to the requirement of the inftitution. We think our brethren ought to believe us. Our practice fufficiently demonftrates the fincerity of the declaration. For could we with a good confcience recede from a practice fo very obnoxious to other Chriftians, they certainly maft fuppofe we should wish to do it. Therefore to charge us with holding the fentiment merely from party fpicit, or with a view to' make a séhifin in the body of believers, is both ungenerous and unjuft.

We