folemnly declare, if we know the motives of our cons. duct, that nothing lefs than a confcientious regard to what we believe to be the will of God our Saviour manifested in his word, influences our practice in this particular.

If we have been able clearly to comprehend and state the fubject of the difpute, and to fhew where the dif ficulty lies; the next queftion will be, What can be done to bring the matter to a favourable iffue? We fee at prefent only two ways, in which this can be effected. The firft is, for each party to drop the difpute wholly, and to conclude his brother may be a Christian, though in fome points he may be erroneous. Each concluding to retain their fentiments entire, until they are convinced by the light of truth that they are wrong. Determining like the Bereans to fearch the fcriptures, and fee if these things are fo; and in the mean time to unite in every thing in which they are agreed, in aiding the common caufe of our glorious Redeemer.

Should the above be rejected, we conceive the only remaining way will be, for each party to bring their whole ftrength to the conteft, and determine to conquer, or be conquered.

The former of these, is certainly the most pleafant and defirable; and if it can be thought practicable ought to be purfued. What real objection can there be to a practice which approximates to that charity which believeth all things, hopeth all things? What objection? a very serious one, fays my Pædobaptist brother! You refufe to admit me to your communion table; and this. you pretend to do, because you fay I am not rightly baptized. You therefore evidently "confider me as one of the antichriflian world." And by thus treating me, "you place me without, where are dogs, and forcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." No, my dear brother, you infer too haftily. We do not confider you as "one of the antichriftian world," but as a dear child of God: yet we ferioufly think you are in an error respecting baptifm. We can by no means bring ourselves to believe, that

• Vid. Mr. Austin's Letters, p. 5. 8.

to be a Christian, and to be baptized, are precifely the fame thing. You feem to fuppofe, that we lay an undue ftrefs upon baptifm. But is it not evident that you lay much more? For the want of it, wholly unchristianizes a perfon in your view: in ours, it only proves. his obedience defective, without impeaching his motives. We fuppofe that blindness in part has happened to him, but do not determine his heart to be prevailingly wicked. The want of baptifm can take no more from a man, than the poffeffion of it could add to him; for if baptifm alone would not make him a Chriftian, then the want of it cannot wholly unchriftianize him. Befides, if you have that charity which beareth all things, and which endureth all things, will it not enable you to bear with us a little in, this folly,* if indeed you efteem it to be fuch?

are not

Should we not all act much more in character as Chriftians, to unite in every point of truth in which we are agreed, rather than to treat each other with fuch unchriftian indifference, merely becaufe we are agreed in every thing? No, replies another Pædobaptist brother, all your profeflions of friendship are of no avail, fo long as you "withhold communion from us, thereby treating us as unchriftened heathens, aliens. from the church and covenant of God."+ My dear Sir, you do not do us juftice. Your inference is the moft unfavourable that could be made. We certainlymean no fuch thing by the practice which you reprehend; nor can we fee that it neceffarily implies what you infer. Is there no other poffible way in which we can manifeft our Chriftian affection to each other, unlefs we meet at the fame communion table? If the members of a particular church have no other way of expreffing their love to each other, than at periodical feafons to meet together at the Lord's table, we must conclude they are unacquainted with many of the prin cipal advantages to be derived from the Chriftian pro

feffion.

The fcriptures lead us to conceive that this myftic rite was defigned by our bleffed Saviour to reprefent his,

* 2 Car, xi. x.

+ Dr. Ofgood's Difc. on Baptifni, p. 10.

death, and as an expreffion of our hope of intereft in it; and fo, by confequence, to be one token of Chriftian fellowship. But how many thousands of Chriftians there are of the fame denomination, who have fellowship with each other, but who never did, and perhaps never will, meet together at the fame facramental table.

It is fully believed that a confiderable proportion of the two denominations are agreed in the most important articles of the Chriftian faith. It is hence certainly defirable they fhould unite their efforts to advance this best of interests, and to oppose the enemies of our common falvation.

- Many of our brethren tell us, they have long ardently defired this union among all real Chriftians :-but; but what? Why we have, fay they, one very important objection; you will not admit us to communion with you. Suppofing we cannot confcientiously; what then? Why then, we think it beft to have no religious connexion with you whatever. Well, if it must be so, it muft. But admitting we are in an error in this particular, is it of fuch a nature as actually to forbid all Christian intercourfe with us? We really believe you to be in an error as it refpects both the fubjects and the mode of baptifm. We are willing to allow you to form the fame opinion of us with respect to our terms of communion; (for it must be remembered that you can readily overlook all the reft of our errors, if we would only confent to free communion) now what decifion can it be fuppofed an impartial judge would pafs upon our difference of opinion on these points? Would he not rationally conclude, that all who are in heart friendly to the Lord Jefus Chrift, and who agree in the effential articles of the Chriftian faith, ought cordially to unite their endeavours to build up the caufe of the dear Redeemer? Here we think we are willing to meet our brethren, and leave every thing of lefs moment to the light of truth to adjust. Who then are the blameable cause of the prefent difunion? Attempts will undoubt edly be made, to lay it at the door of the Baptists: yea, it is already placed to their account. For, fays a Rev. Pædobaptift brother, "Were they équally liberal

and candid, (as we are) the unity of the fpirit in the bond of peace might be preferved, and all clamour, ftrife, and divifion, happily prevented. Upon whom then, does the guilt of these evils lie?"* We are unwilling to bear the blame, if we can honourably clear ourselves of it; and we are determined to make an effort to that purpose.

In meeting our brethren on the ground above stated, we think we meet them fairly. We afk no relinquithment of fentiment on their part. We admit them just as they are. But in propofing to unite with us, they infift upon our giving up an article which is interwoven with every part of our fentiments as Baptifts. The impartial will hence judge which party is justly chargeable with the want of candour.

If our brethren are determined on this point, that they will have no religious connexion with us, nor fellowfhip us as members of the household of faith, unless we give up our particular communion, we think we have a right to expect from them fatisfactory proof of one of the two following articles. Namely,

Firft. That baptifm is not, by the order of the gospel, required as an indifpenfable pre-requifite to a vifible standing in the church of Christ, and confequently to a participation at the Lord's table. Or,

Secondly. That neither a visible profeffion of faith, nor an immersion in water, are effential to gospel bap

tifm.

We think we have a right to expect them to furnish proof on one of these points, or cease to blame us for our limited communion. We fee no way at present how we can give up the former, or admit the latter, without violating our own confciences. And yet every perfon of common difcernment must fee, that we practically admit one or the other, by uniting in free communion with fuch as we deem unbaptized.

Will our brethren, who charge us with being contracted in our views, attempt to prove, that believers in the apoftolic age were admitted to communicate together at the Lord's table, without firft fubmitting to

• Dr. Ofgeod's Difc. p. 11.

baptism, as a prior inftitution? We think they will not. An attempt of this kind would have to encounter not only the fcripture hiftory, but the univerfal fentiment and practice of Christians of all denominations, from the commencement of the gospel difpenfation, down to the prefent day we hence conclude none will undertake

As the fubject in difpute has not, as we recollect, been affumed on this ground, we fhall not at prefent attempt to adduce arguments to oppofe it. We shall therefore take it for granted, until fome one attempts to prove the contrary, that the two denominations are agreed on this point.

The question in difpute may be reduced then to this fingle point: Whether those who have only been sprinkled in infancy, before they had any knowledge of good or evil, and consequently before they were capable of profeffing faith in Chrift, are to be confidered as baptized perfons, (and hence duly qualified for communion at the Lord's table) according to the divine institution? To this question, the Baptifts give their decided negative. They have uniformly infifted, that none have a right to the inftitution, but such as profefs to believe with all the heart. It alfo appears clear to them, that any application of water, fhort of an entire immerfion, or bathing of the whole body, cannot be confidered as gofpel baptifm. The Pædobaptifts take the oppofite fide of the queftion, and attempt to prove the right of infants to baptifm, not from New Teftament authority, but from the covenant of circumcifion made with Abraham and his feed; and from the fameness of the Jewish and Christian churches. They alfo attempt to justify fprinkling, or any partial application of water for baptifi, principally on the ground that the inftitution is delivered in fuch indefinite language, that nothing more can be pofitively determined, than that water in the name of the facred Trinity is fome how or other to be applied.

From this plain ftatement, the reader will readily perceive the different ground the parties take, and will * Acts viii. 37.