or other made a large proportion of the profeffing Chriftian world. But as a drawback upon this, they had a much larger proportion of nominal profeffors than fell to the fhare of other denominations. If it be a fact, that we have a greater proportion of nominal profeffors than Pædobaptifts, we are extremely puzzled to account for it. If we baptized infants, and infifted that they were all difciples, although they had never learned a word concerning Jefus Chrift, nor was it certain that they ever would: or if we admitted members into our churches without evidence of their having experienced a moral change, and in many inftances, without asking them a fingle queftion concerning their religious exercifes: or if a confiderable proportion of our minifters were ordained without any examination refpecting their particular fentiments or experimental knowledge of the truth, and who of courfe would be interested in keeping their hearers prejudiced against the fanaticifin of experimental religion; then we might reasonably conclude that we had a larger proportion of nominal profeffors than those churches who admit only fuch as give a fatisfactory reafon of the hope that is in them. It is true, indeed, we neither make disciples, admit members, nor ordain ministers, in this way; yet, after all our care in examining them according to the best light we have, we are very liable to err. Our brethren, it would feem, are not fo much exposed; for, if they have not overrated themfelves, "the light of the truth has been a hundred, perhaps a THOUSAND FOLD GREATER, in the Pædobaptift churches than in the Baptift."* Mirabile dictu! What an amazing difference! Who does not pity the poor benighted Baptifts? Alfo all the piety, learning, and talents, belonging to the Chriftian world, our brethren claim, almoft exclufively for themselves.+ For all this vaft fuperiority, we moft refpectfully tender them "the homage of our high confideration;" but beg them in future, not to overwhelm us with fuch arguments as these. Mr. Anderfon, in his zeal to make a fair fhow of eminent men in the Pædobaptift churches, has fomehow • Mr. Anderfon's Lett. p. 14. +Vid. Mr. Worcester's Difc. p. 68. F f flipped in among them the author of the PILGRIM'S PROGRESS.* * Bunyan, though a Baptift, we fuppofe it will be allowed was one of the good fort, for he held to open communion. This being the cafe, how came the Pædobaptifts to perfecute and imprison him? Was it for any immoral conduct that he was configned to a loathfome jail twelve years and a half? The reader, perhaps, could judge better, if he were to know the crime that was laid to his charge. The bill of indictment preferred against him runs thus: John Bunyan -hath devilishly abfained from coming to church, to hear divine fervice; and is a common upholder of feveral unlaruful meetings and conventicles, to the difturbance and diftraction of the good fubjects of this kingdom, contrary to the laws of our fovereign lord the king. For thus daring to preach the gofpel, contrary to the laws of a tyrannical hierarchy, this good man was fent to prison for twelve years and fix months! tr It has often been urged, as an argument in favour of the divinity of the Chriftian religion, that it made its way at first against the learning, power and policy of the world, by the inftrumentality of a few illiterate fifbermen! Does not this argument caft its full weight into the fcale, in favour of our diftinguishing fentiments, if the obfervations of our brethren refpecting us be juft? Let the candid mind decide. May the Lord preferve us from becoming vain by profperity. We have great reason to adore our Saviour God, that our duty is made fo plain in his bleffed word; that we have fuch abundant proof that we are treading in the footfteps of the flock, and are followers of them who through faith and patience are gone to inherit the promises. Notwithstanding our practice of immerfion, which " is deemed indecorous by most people accustomed to polished manners," and "denial of the external rite of baptifm to the infant feed of believers ;" yet, if it were not for our "antichriftian practice of close communion," it seems that our brethren could receive and treat us as Chriftians. We therefore add a few observations on free communion before we close. *Lett. p. 23. ↑ Notes on Claude, vol. ii. P. SECTION VIII. The Principles of Open Communion examined-The Subjec concluded. Is the communion for which our brethren plead, lim ited, or unlimited? If limited, we wish to be informed what are its boundaries. If unlimited, then it must, we conceive, embrace all who bear the Christian name. "In thefe United States (faith a refpectable writer) there are probably more than fix millions of people wearing the Chriftian name? Is open communion charitable enough to embrace all thefe? No, furely; the thought is too extravagant to be seriously entertained. A confiderable proportion of thefe, have no other connexion with Christianity, than only as it is the religion of the country in which they happened to be born. However, they are all brought forward, and each counts one against the Baptifts.† But to fay no more of this. If we open our doors for free communion, muft we not, to act confiftently, receive all whose right of membership can be fupported? If so, must we not commune with all the baptized children which belong to Pædobaptift congregations? Our brethren place the right of their infants on the fame footing with their own; therefore, if their argument be good, if we receive them, we must receive their children alfo. Should we admit the believing parents, and refufe their baptized children, might they not ftill continue the dreadful charge, that we "deny God's everlafting covenant of fuperabounding grace, the grand charter of the inheritance and privileges" of their infant feed? We fee nothing to forbid. But it may be faid, this is more than they practise themselves; and therefore, it would not be expected of the Baptifts. We grant that they do not practise it; and on that account we think them extremely inconfiftent. In contending with us, they ftrenucufly infift upon the right of their infants to membership, and yet themfelves deny them the moft effential privileges which every member has a right to enjoy! But fhould we give up this idea, and narrow the field of free communion, fo as to include only fuch as are actual members of Pædobaptist churches; we fhould ftill wifh to inquire, whether it would be expected, that we fhould commune with all of them, whether Calvinifts, Arminians, Semi-Arians, Socinians, of Unitarians? If not, where are we to fix the difcriminating line? Do the ftrict Calviniftic or Hopkinfian churches commune with those whom they confider as Arminians, or Semi-Arians? If not, do they not practife clofe communion as well as the Baptifts? Do thofe churches which require of every person in order to membership, either a verbal or written declaration of their experience of a work of grace upon their hearts, hold communion with thofe churches which require no fuch experience, and which believe nothing. in fuch a work? If they do not, are they not inconfiftent to blame us for our particular communion? If. they do, are they not ftill more inconfiftent ?· With a view to relieve thefe difficulties, fome have ftated the plan of free communion in this way :-That we should hold communion with all fuch, and with fuch only, as we confcientiously believe to be real Chriftians God's own dear children by the Spirit of adoption and a living faith. This is indeed by far the most confiftent plan; but even this is attended with fome ferious difficulties. It is believed that in all Chriftian communities there may be found fome of the above defcription. There were even in Sardis a few names. which had not defiled their garments, though living in a church which had moft awfully apoftatized from the truth. On this principle we might freely, commune with one member, and reject another at the fame time, whofe ftanding was equally good in the church to which they belonged. But what heart-burning and confufion this would produce; and yet it might be unavoidable in many cafes. The fact is, we conceive, that there is but one confiftent method, by which occafional communion can be practifed between the members of fifter churches. This is not upon the principle of individual, but of church fellowship. If we could receive one member of a church, by the fame rule we could receive every member of the fame church. We do not know the precife order in which our Pædobaptift brethren proceed; but think it the general practice in our churches, that when a brother, who is a ftranger, requests occafional communion, if by a certificate (or otherwife) he can fatisfy us, that he is a member in regular standing in any church of the fame faith and order with ourfelves, he is readily admitted. The only evidence which we have of the man in this cafe is, from the character of the church of which he is a member. We imagine the practice of our brethren is not very diffimilar. There are fome Pædobaptift churches which appear to be built of lively ftones, and where the truths of the gofpel in general are preached, and a good degree of difcipline maintained. With these we have no material difficulty, excepting in the article of baptifm. We could moft cheerfully unite with them in every act of Christian duty, which would not in our view contravene fome other part of the revealed will of Chrift. In the article of communion, we feel bound to treat them just as we do our own members, after they are received into our fellowship, but not baptized. Should we treat them as baptized perfons, would they not with great propriety charge us with our inconsistency? There are other churches, with which we freely acknowledge we could not commune, if we had no objections to their baptifm. It is not because we do not think them respectable members of fociety, but because we have no evidence that they are real Christians. We have no doubt but in thefe communities, there may be fome fincere believers; but where a change of heart is not confidered as a neceffary qualification for memberfhip, there is always a high probability, that a large proportion of the members are unacquainted with the truth as it is in Jefus. On the whole, we fee no way that looks more confiftent than our prefent practice. From all the evidence which has been fet before us, we cannot bring ourfelves to believe that any thing is f2 |