THE Baptist churches in general, have long been blamed for holding and practising what is commonly called close communion, as if wholly in­consistent with christian charity, or that mutual for­bearance which the gospel requires: and by some it is considered as incompatible with the existence of grace; and for which we have been loaded with many reproachful names.

WE are charged of making the want of a little water only, a bar to communion; and that we are so superstitiously fond of the watery element, that we place the whole of our religion in what they call a mere circumstance of the ordinance of baptism: and some even assert, that we hold that none can be saved without being immersed. And that thereby we put baptism in the place of redeeming blood.

BUT why such unfriendly charges? Surely they greatly impeach our doctrinal principles, and are perfectly inconsistent with our avowed sentiments and constant practice.

FOR it is too notorious to admit a plea of igno­rance, in any of our opponents, that we consider no [Page 6]one as a proper subject of baptism, who does not profess repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; who does not, in other words, appear to be in a state of salvation.

NAY, so far from making baptism a saving ordi­nance, we do not, we cannot, consider any one as a proper subject of it, who looks upon it in that light.

BUT however, we desire to pay a proper defer­ence to that, as well as any other of Christ's insti­tutions; and not to treat it as though it was left to our choice, either to practise or omit it: although we do not consider it as essential to salvation, yet it is essential to the visibility of a gospel church; and to consequently to communion at the Lord's [...]able; for that is a church ordinance, and ought never to be administered but to members that are in special covenant.

I AM persuaded that the Baptists are not the only people who believe baptism to be a pre-requisite to the Lord's supper.

WAS a Turk to be brought from Mecca to Ame­rica, and here should be convinced o [...] Mahomet's imposture, and become a true convert to christianity, immediately after should attend at a Paedo-Baptist church, it being one of their stated seasons to cele­brate the sacred supper; the solemnity attracts his mind, he sees the beauty of the ordinance, and de­sires to partake in it. Will they permit him? I am persuaded they will not. But what are their reasons? Is it because they do not look upon him as a Christian? No, for they really do. But do they not believe God has received him? Yes, they do. But do they not believe Christ communes with [Page 7]him spiritually? They do. How can they then shut him off? Doubtless, because they view him to be no baptized, and not a member of any church. Their conduct in refusing him, would be consistent with the tenderest feelings of christianity. There­fore we do not commune merely as Christians, but as such in a regular, visible, standing.

BUT to illustrate the point further, suppose a mi­nister of Christ was providentially in one of our new towns where were a number of inhabitants, respec­table on other accounts, but had never been bap­tized in their infancy, nor had any church been ga­thered in the place—he is invited to preach—his labours are so far succeeded, that in a few days con­siderable numbers are hopefully brought to the knowledge of the truth—the next Lord's day they desire him to break bread to them. What will he do? Why, it free communion is to be established, here is a good opportunity for it to operate in its full latitude; for if it be lawful and right to break bread to one that is unbaptized, it may be to a whole society. But however, if he be a Paedobaptist minister, I presume he will not be guilty of such an irregularity: nor would a consistent Baptist. And I feel safe to conclude, that our Paedobaptist brethren would not blame us for refusing communion with such a society, who did not submit to baptism in some mode or other, however amiable their christian characters might appear in other respects.

IF they would acquit us from blame in the fore­going instance, why should they fault us for refusing communion with those that we verily belive have [Page 8]never been baptized according to Christ's instituti­on: for, agreeable to an ancient writer, "They who are not rightly baptized, are, doubtless, not baptized at all ^*." Wherefore we conclude, that communion does not belong to christians merely as such, but to them as baptized members of some gospel church.

NEITHER yet should we be quite safe to open our doors for communion, to all who are in a church state, and profess to be baptized.

Therefore, it will be necessary in the next place, to attend to the scripture account of the Faith and Order of a Gospel Church.

A GOSPEL church must be built upon a gospel plan. Therefore, if we look into the scriptures, we shall easily perceive, that the church is a society of saints, and faithful men and women in Christ Jesus, that are joined together in holy fellowship, that are incorporated into a visible church-state, and by agreement meet together to carry on the worship of God, to glorify him, and edify one another.

THE church does not appear to be national, pro­vincial, or parochial; but truly congregational. It is not built of dead materials, but of lively stones ^†; each of them fitted before they are laid in the build­ing, "so that there is neither hammer nor axe heard in all the house while it is in building ^‡." how wonderful! how superb! and yet how exact the model, so that there needed no alteration to bring them altogether with that exactness, that bone comes to its bone.

[Page 9] THE church is called by St. Paul, "The pillar and ground of the truth ^*

THE gospel rule gives none a right in the church of Christ, but true believers: and all that enter not in by Christ the door, are thieves and robbers

THE church is Christ's m [...]st [...]cal body, which he hath loved and gave himself for, "that he might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water by the word ^†.

IF we wish to understand the apostolic form of a gospel church, we must expect to find it in the acts of the apostles, or some of their writings. The first gospel church that was gathered after the ascension of the Messiah, was that at Jerusalem, which is de­scribed in the following order, "Then they that gladly received his WORD were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls: and they continued stedsastly in the apostles doctrine and fellowship ^‡."

WHEN Ananias with Sapphira [...]s wife, came and lied to the Holy Ghost, and pretended they were friends to Christ, when they were not, and were both fallen dead; great fear tell upon the attending multitude. ^‖ "And of the rest durst no man join him­self unto them." (That is, such as they were, ca [...]na [...], hypocritical professors.)— "But believers were the more added unto the Lord multitudes both of men and women." So early did false pretenders try to get a place in the church of Christ.

THIS church at Jerusalem being gathered under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, may [Page 10]be considered as a model for all succeeding ones; every circumstance related concerning it, discovers it to be a body of true believers in Christ.

THE next church gathered by the Apostles was that at Samaria, which exactly agrees with that at Jerusalem —"When they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of GOD, and the name of JESUS CHRIST, they were baptized, both men and women." ^*

THE church of Corinth also appears to be in the same method; "Many of the Corinthians bearing, believed, and were baptized." ^† The church at Ephesus was addressed by the Apostle, as "Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus;" and as those who had been raised from the dead, and quickened by sove­reign grace, turned from the course of this world, delivered from the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience. The Corinthians "first gave their own selves unto the Lord, and unto one another by the Will of God." ^‡ And none can, in a gospel sense, give themselves up in church covenant, till they previously give themselves up to the Lord.

I think that no one that is indebted to the New Testament for his knowledge respecting a gospel church, will try to gainsay the foregoing description.

Therefore I would observe, that if the foregoing description be a scriptural representation of a gospel church; then consequently, that church that does not agree thereto, is not strictly upon a gospel plan, unless it can be proved, that there are two modes of gospel churches.

[Page 11] THAT there may be churches formed, that in many particulars may resemble a gospel church, I wish not to deny;—and that in those churches there may be many real Christians, is a matter I have no desire to scruple: so I have reason to suppose that there are many Christians, not un [...]ed to any church.

AGAIN, The Christian church is built on Christ's authority, and is supported and defended by the same: He is the chief corner stone, on which their spiritual building is erected—"disallowed, indeed, of men—but chosen of GOD, and precious.—Therefore, that church that is built on worldly establishments, and depends on civil aid for its sup­port, and defence, is not strictly conformed to the gospel plan.

EZRA, that ingenious scribe, refused to ask aid of the civil arm, to assist him against the enemies in the way, saying, "I was ashamed to require of the King a band of soldiers and horsemen, to help us against the enemies in the way: because we had spoken to the King, saying, The hand of our God is upon all them for good that seek him: but his power and his wrath is against all them that forsake him." ^*

CHRIST'S "kingdom is not of this world:" ^† and in a religious sense is not connected with, nor any ways dependent thereon for its being or support.

IT will doubtless be granted, that there are many churches in the land▪ that are not formed according to the foregoing method, as may be made evident, [Page 12]and will appear in the following particulars, i. e. That a heart belief, or saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, [...]s not considered by many of them as a pre-requisite to baptism, or to their being admitted into [...]ull communion: which does not agree with the truly apostolic rule. Philip's words to the Eunuch who desired to submit himself to the ordi­nance of baptism, were, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." ^* Philip was directed to this chariot by the Spirit of God, and must be con­sidered as acting under the influence of that thro' the whole transaction: and if he required any thing more of the Ethiopean convert, than what was ne­cessary, really necessary to that ordinance, it would discover a degree of partiality which few would be willing to admit, considering the influence he acted under. That this was not the case is evident from St. Paul's words, "With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." ^† This heart belief is the only belief that is unto righteousness, and this must precede a confession with the mouth, if not the confession will be but a falsehood.

AGAIN, Many of the Paedobaptists hold the covenant made with Abraham, called by Stephen "the covenant of circumcision," to be the covenant of grace. ^† From hence they infer the right of infant membership; and consider the natural feed of be­lievers as the children of Abraham; and hence claim the special privileges of the gospel for them [...]s such.

[Page 13] THIS rather differs from Paul's ideas, who tells us, "the promise—was not to Abraham nor to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed" ^* "And if ve be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the pro­mise." ^‡ Hence we may inter, that it we be not Christ's, then we are not Abraham's seed, and are not heirs according to the promise.

AGAIN, The apostle Peter calls the members of the Christian church, "an holy priest-hood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ;" ^§ which no carnal professor can do; neither can men in their natural state, for " spiritual things are foolishness to then;". but the children of God are "an holy nation, a peculiar people. to show forth the praises of him who hath called them out of darkness into his marvellous light." Can we by this description find the features or an infant in his natural state? or do they not rather resemble true believers in Christ. But it is further added, "which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God, which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."

BUT how will this agree with the notion of in­fants being born with an hereditary right to the spe­cial ordinances of the gospel? If it be true that they have a right, then there is no time when they are not a people after they are born into the world: and that they obtained mercy in the same way that [Page 14] Levi paid tithes, i. e. in the loins of his father. Up­on this scale, that parents convey a right of church privileges to their infant seed, I cannot see why they do not hold their church privileges by the same tenure as they hold their lands.

BUT perhaps it may be thought I am trying to expose a sentiment that the Paedobaptists do not hold, i. e. that grace is essential to church membership. I think one of two things is evident by their prac­tice, either 1st. That grace is conveyed as above described; or 2d. That grace is not essential to church membership. To suppose the former, would supersede the necessity of regeneration—to suppose the latter, would be to lay the foundation for a graceless church; and would leave no other difference betwix [...] that and the world, than what consists merely in name and external form.

IF what has been observed already from the last will and testament of our Lord be true, it must sufficiently appear, that evidences of grace are ab­solutely necessary to the admission of a member to church fellowship, or special ordinances.

AT a certain time our Lord enquired of his disciples, whom men said that he was. After a relation of the different opinions of others, Peter believingly affirms, "THOU ART THE CHRIST THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD. And Jesus answer­ed and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon­barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, thou art Peter; and upon this ROOK I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ^*

[Page 15] CHURCHES in general, of all denominations, im­prove this declaration as a promise in their favor. But to determine the propriety of the claim, it is necessary to consider two things, 1st. What we are to understand by the Rock. 2d. The manner of the building upon it.

Now, should we build upon another rock in stead of that referred to by our Lord, it would na­turally seclude us from the promise.

AGAIN, Should we build and lay the true rock as our foundation, but at the same time should not attend to the manner of building as described by Christ, we might still be left without any just right to the promise. Therefore I would here observe, that Christians in general (Papists excepted) ac­knowledge this rock to refer to Christ. But should the reader think I take something for granted that is not proved, let him consult the following scrip­tures, Isa. xxviii. 16. Behold, I lay in Zion for a foun­dation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation. 2 Sam. xxi. 2. The Lord is my rock. Again in the 32 verse, Who is a rock save our GOD. Also see 1 Sam. ii. 2. Neither is there any rock like our GOD. Again, 1 Cor. iii. 11. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is JESUS CHRIST. The apostle speaking of the household of God, says, They are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: Eph. 11.20.

BY all which I trust it is made evident, that this rock on which the church of Christ is built, is Christ himself, who is the "root and offspring of David, the bright and the morning star."

[Page 16] THIS is the rock implied in Peter's confession. But let us observe in the next place the manner of the building to be erected on this rock. A pro­fession of faith, in adults, in order to their admission to special communion, is a point generally acknow­ledged: but if this be the only idea that is to be taken, that they stand in the alley and give their tacit consent to the articles and covenant read; con­senting to subject themselves to the rules of any particular church: if this be all that is plead for as necessary to the building of the church of Christ, I shall take leave to demur. For most persons that have been educated in the theory of the Christian religion, could subscribe to this implicit faith: but those members that are fit materials for this spiritual building, make a confession in sub­stance as Peter did; and this springs fro [...] a Christ revealed in them; "flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee." Without such a revelation as this, no person can be a fit member for a gospel church; neither can they get upon this rock without it: for until this is made to their souls, they do not know God nor Christ; for it is expressly declared by Christ, Mat. xi. 27. No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. And if they do not know Christ, they are not his sheep: for he says. John x. xiv. I am the good, shepherd and know my sheep, and am known of mine. Now if they are not Ch [...]st sheep, what right have they in his fold. Christ fixes a saving issue upon coming to him, hearing his sayings, and doing [Page 17]them: Mat vi. 47. And it is said, John vi. 44. No man can come to me except the Father which sent me draw him: This is the man that digs deep and lays his foundation (by faith and repentance) upon this blessed ROCK

FOR the present let us view the matter in a dif­ferent light: if the divine rule will admit of one un­regenerate persons' being received as a proper mem­ber of a gospel church, it will of two; and it of two, it will of ten; and so consequently there may be a whole church and not a true believer in it: but would any one dare to call such a society of people, a church of Christ? Would it not rather resemble a synagogue of satan? But perhaps it will be objected, that it is not likely such an instance ever will take place; surely there is nothing but divine interposition to hinder it, if this method is al­lowed to be ruleable.

BUT it may be further objected, that a perfect church is not to be expected in this imperfect state. To which I answer, the divine rule requires that they be perfect: Mat. v. 48. 2 Cor. xiii. 11. Heb. xiii. 21. The question is not, whether, after all, we shall not have some hypocrites, or unregenerate persons in the church; but whether we may know­ingly receive such, or otherways receive them that give no evidence to the contrary.

NOW it will be readily granted that the divine rule requires every Christian to be perfect. But what if some should say. We don't expect Christians to be perfect, and so should take liberty to indulge themselves in sin, could the divine rule be plead in [Page 18]their favor? Would it not rather stare them in the face? Equally so does the gospel rule every carnal and hypocritical professor.

BUT it may be further objected, that it is the duty of every person to attend to all the external duties of religion, as means God has appointed for their conversion. To which I answer, it is the duty of every rational creature, immediately to love God, and that perfectly as Gabriel does; for without a principle of real love to God, the sinner cannot per­form any christian duty; for short of this, his du­ties are like a dead corpse without a spirit: For the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart: 1 Tim. i. 5.

IF the gospel directs the sinner to a progressive use of means or ordinances, in order to his conversion, then it does not require him immediately to believe, or to exercise evangelical repentance: means always precede the end for which they were designed. But to speak plain, every duty that the law or gospel re­quires of any creature, it requires it to be done from a principle of supreme love to GOD; and without that, all his pretensions to duty are but hypocrisy. Prayer, reading of God's word, attending to the word preached, and special ordinances (in an order­ly way) are duties held up before every person: but they are required to attend them with penitent hearts. If the sinner attempts to pray with a heart of impenitency and unbelief, he does but deceive himself and mock God: for his motives can't spring from a higher source than that which rules his heart, which is selflove. If he attends divine service, and [Page 19]imagines he has been worshipping God, he does but deceive himself: for they that worship God, worship him in spirit and in truth; whilst this inscription might be justly written upon his most refined acts of devotion, To the UNKNOWN GOD. Should he be sprinkled from the baptismal layer, or immersed in Jurdon's swelling flood, it would avail him no­thing without a new heart. Sould he come to the sacred table of our Lord, and receive the outward elements, yet still he does not commune with Christ: for Christ is light, and he is darkness, and they have no communion together.

THAT the proclamation of the gospel is to be made in the ears of sinners, will be readily granted: and where ever it comes, it makes a demand for the sinner immediately to surrender his heart. His re­fusal is criminal, and lays him under condemnation: John iii. 18. But that the gospel invites impeni­tents, while such, to partake of its special ordinan­ces, I choose rather to deny; for unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth: Psal. l. 16. But it may be possible that some may ob­ject, that I hereby excuse the sinner from attempt­ing any duty, because he has not love to God: I am far from making excuses for impenitents, but would rather show them their inexcusableness. Should the question be asked me, Whether it is the duty of a sinner to pray, I should readily answer, yes; and add, that he must pray in faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin: Rom. xiv. 23. And without faith it is impossible to please God: Heb. xi. 6. [Page 20] How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed: Rom. x 14. I can see no valuable end answered to the Redeemer's cause, or to the souls of men, either by urging or receiving unregenerate sin­ners into the church. If they can be persuaded that they are doing something that is acceptable to God as the matter of their duty, this may afford their consciences a temporary relief, and may be the means of their delay of imbracing that which alone can prove the salvation of their souls.

SHOULD one of the servants of Christ be called to visit a dying person, on entering the room should discover that death had stretched out his [...]icy arms to receive him—that he is past hope of recovery—the crisis is important—a few minutes will decide his safe for eternity! The dying man fixes his ghastly eyes upon him, as a master in Israel, and expects some directions from him, while with a faultering tongue he thus relates his sad case; I am a poor undone sinner, just going into eternity, and have no evi­dence of an interest in Christ! What shall I DO! Will the faithful minister now tell him, he must attend the use of means, as God's appointment for his con­version? Will he direct him to receive baptism, or to join to the church, or receive the sacred supper? all which he may do and yet be damned: or will he not rather adopt St. Paul's direction to the Jailor, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved: Acts xvi. 31.—And tell him, if he be­lieves not he shall die in his sins: John viii. 24. It will undoubtedly be granted, that the last mentioned is safest for the dying man; if so, it is also safest [Page 21]for living men; for living men are all dying men! and we know not which will die first, either the sick or the well! Therefore, we ought ever to give such directions to sinners at all times, as would be late to give them when on a dying bed.

THEREFORE, having taken a survey of the gos­pel doctrine relative to the character of God's pro­fessing people, and the churches of our Lord Jesus Christ, we find this to be the account: That those who had been so taught as to understand the doc­trine of the cross, and so learned of the Father as to come to the SON, immediately manifested their faith by their works of obedience, in submiting them­selves to the ordinance of baptism.—After thus publicly giving themselves up to the Lord, "they gave themselves to one another by the will of God," or according to his will. Then they broke bread and continued in fellowship.

BUT we have no account of any one's believing before taught, "for how shall they hear without a preacher." Nor of any one's being baptized before they believed. (or professed so to do.) Nor of any one that came to the sacred supper before they were baptized. We then believe it to be the apostolic order, to baptize none till they profess their faith in Christ; and that till then, they cannot be considered as qualified members for a gospel church, nor be received into their fellowship at the Lord's table.

THEREFORE, before we are blamed too much, let a different line of conduct be proved from the writings of the evangelists or apostles, and it will be our happiness if we are wrong to be convinced, that we may have opportunity to reform.

[Page 22] BUT that our reasons for refusing communion with other denominations, may more fully appear, let us go on to consider the following things:

THE Baptist churches believe, that no person can be a disciple of Christ, that is not capable of self-denial; for the Author of our religion has said, "Whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple: Luke xiv. 33." "Let him deny himself and take up his daily cross and follow me: Luke ix. 23." And if he be not a disciple, he cannot be considered a proper subject of special ordinances.

WE believe in one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism.

1st. That this one Lord is the Woman's SEED, the IMMANUEL, born of the Virgin, the one MEDIATOR between GOD and MAN, the HEAD of the Church, and ZION's KING,—a LEADER and COMMANDER of his people—the great Patern and Example for all true Believers.

2d. One Faith; that faith that works by love and purifies the beart; which is the only faith of GOD'S Elect, and which alone can give a right to special [Page 23]ordinances; for without it 'tis impossible to please GOD. And that this one faith, is particularly in each qualified subject, and cannot give a right to any but those that have it.

3d. One Babtism; that this one baptism is an immersion in water, in the name of the triune GOD; which is to be continued until Christ's second coming.

SHOULD any suppose this one baptism to be the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, spoken of by John Baptist and our Saviour, I shall take leave to dissent from their opinion; and give some reasons for my own.

THE baptism of the Holy Ghost was spoken of by Christ and his Harbinger, as that which had not then taken place.

I think any one would take singular freedom to say, that there was then no Christians that had ex­perienced the blessings of grace in an ordinary conversion; if it be not so, this consequence must follow—That those whom Christ had chosen, some of whom he had sent forth to teach and do miracles, were ignorant of the spirituality of religion, and were still in their sins.

AGAIN, further, if the baptism of the Holy Ghost be the one intended, it would exclude water bap­tism in every mode:—For we can as easily conceive of two Lords, as of two baptisms referred to one institution.

THE doctrine of baptisms mentioned by the Apostle, Heb. vi. 2, has no reference to the gospel institution of baptism; but is the same Greek word [Page 24]that is trat slated Washings in another chapter of the same epistle—Heb. ix. 10. There is a negation fixed to these baptisms, and they were to be left, because they were law ceremonies, and not gospel in­stitutions.

BUT here will a question arise, What are we to understand by the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire? spoken of by John, Matt. iii. 11, and by Christ, Acts i. 5. John's words are—"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire." Christ's words are—"And being assembled he commanded that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father; which, saith he, ye have heard from me, for John truly baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." Doubtless these, at this time, had as great a measure of the Spirit, as Christians in general have, and yet were not baptized with the Holy Ghost.

BUT the explanation of the foregoing, we meet with in the beg [...]ning of the next chapter, soon after Christ's ascension, "They were all with one accord in one place, and suddenly there came a sound from Heaven, as of a mighty rushing wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting: and there appeared unto then: cloven longues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance: Acts ii, 1, 2, 3.

[Page 25] HERE is the Holy Ghost and fire that was men­tioned.—For Jesus was now glorified, and the Holy Ghost according to his promise given. I think it is far evident, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost and fire, did not respect the ordinary influences of God's spirit, either in the conversion of sinners, or in its comforting influences on his people: But must re­spect the extraordinary and miraculous gifts bestowed on the apostles and others, for the confirmation of the gospel; such as the gifts of tongues, healing, prophecying, &c.

BUT as these observations may differ from the general opinion of others, therefore I must be a little particular. Will any person dare to say, that those believers at Samaria, whom Philip baptized, were not true converts? If they were not, then Philip baptized a number of unqualified subjects, that were strangers to the love of God. If they were true converts, I think my observation must stand; for it is further observed of them, that "when the apostles that were at Jerusalem, had heard that Sa­maria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John unto them, who grayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. (for as yet he was fallen upon none of then; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost:" Acts viii. 14, 15, 16. The same idea is further illustrated by St. Paul, who, when "he came to Ephesus, found certain disciples," and "he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" Their answer was, "We have not [Page 26]heard whether there be any Holy Ghost:" Acts xix. 1, 2—6. The apostle it seems presumed, that if they were disciples, they were baptized; therefore did not enquire, whether they were baptized, but unto what they were baptized. "And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them, and they spake with tongues and prophesied."

ALTHOUGH they had never heard of the Holy Ghost in these miraculous operations, yet they were disciples and believers.

THEREFORE I think I have a right to this con­clusion, that the baptism of the Holy Ghost ceased when these miraculous gifts ceased; and that the one baptism referred to, is Water-baptism: yea, even this baptism of the Holy Ghost never superceded or destroyed the necessity of Water-baptism, as an in­stitution of Christ. See it exemplified, Acts x. 44—48.

BUT let none conclude I mean to deny that Christians have any influences of the Holy Ghost in this day; I do not: neither do I believe they were without them when Christ was upon earth, or even before he came. And yet these extraordinary in­fluences were not given, for Jesus was not yet glorified. Therefore the institution of baptism stands unsha­ken upon the firm basis of a divine command, which will continue it until the end of time, not withstand­ing many ancient and modern corrupters; Socinians, Quakers. Universalists, &c.

THE Baptists not only believe that this one bap­tism is an institution of Christ, but that it is ever to be administered in one mode, and to one kind of [Page 27] subjects. Our opponents suppose (at least many of them) that it may be administered upon a profession of faith, or without it; either by immersion or sprink­ling. They acknowledge immersion to believers to be lawful baptism; could we, with a good con­science, allow the same of infant sprinkling, much of our dispute would be at an end. "But our fixed and avowed persuasion will not permit us to allow, that infant sprinkling, though performed with the greatest solemnity, is worthy of the name. Con­sequently, though they consistently with their own principles, may receive us to communion a­mong them, yet we cannot admit them to fellowship with us at the Lord's table, without contradicting our professed sentiments. For it appears to us, on the most deliberate enquiry, that immersion is not a mere circumstance, or a mode of baptism, but essenti­al to the ordinance: so that in our judgment, he who is not immersed is not baptized. This is one of our reasons for refusing communion to our Pae­dobaptist brethren, whom in many respects, we highly esteem, and towards whom we think it our duty to cultivate the most cordial affection." ^*

WE really believe one mode of baptism to be of divine appointment; all others but human invention.

BUT is this ordinance of our Lord left in such ob­scurity, that an honest mind must be always at a loss how to practice it? To plead this, is to impeach Christ, that he has not been as faithful in his own house as a son, as Moses was as a servant: Heb. iii. 5, 6.

[Page 28] BUT from whence does it appear that baptism is a duty? Not from any moral precept, but from a positive institution. "All positive institutions depend entirely upon the will and declaration of the person who institutes them, with respect to the end and design of them; and also the due manner of per­forming them." ^* But are not positive institutions as plain as moral precepts? If so, why do we blame the sinner for not complying with one, and excuse the Christian for neglecting the other?

BUT it is said, they do not neglect it, but only practice it in a different way! But is this different way divine institution, or something substituted in its room? If the former, we may presume that it is made plain in the word, as it is not designed for men of science only, but for unlearned men and wo­men, and for babes in Christ.

THE instance recorded in scripture concerning Saul who was sent to destroy Amaleck, with the prophets reply to him at his return, may serve as a specimen to discover the nature and effects of disobe­dience. The command was positive, and was in part obeyed; but "the best of the sheep and oxen were saved alive." But Saul was very confident he had performed the will of the Lord, and thus ad­dressed Samuel: "Blessed be thou of the Lord; I have performed the commandment of the Lord:" 1 Sam. xv. 12. And doubtless Saul would have carried his point, had not an inspired prophet with­stood him. It is likely Saul had some specious [Page 29]pretences for his conduct: he might flatter himself that these sheep and oxen might be a large saving of the property of Israel; and that to save them to do sacrifice to the Lord, was a laudable design; he did not pretend he had the least regard to self in the whole affair, but was now prudently taking care that Jeho­vah's altar might be loaded with the richest sacrifices. But the prophet soon gave him to understand, that obedience to divine appointments, such as depend entirely on an express command, is better in the sight of God than hecatombs of bleeding beasts, or clouds of smoaking incense: For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry: 1 Sam. xv. 23.

WHEN the children of Israel were returned from their captivity, they gathered themselves to Ezra the scribe, to be instructed in their duty out of the law—"And they found written in the law which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the chil­dren of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month: Neh. viii. 14." This was a positive institution, and justly claimed the obedience of all Israel. But notwithstanding this, it was not kept in the instituted way, from the days of Joshua, until the days of Nehemiah. Was the institution to blame for their neglect, or must the blame fall on them? On them surely. But might not some plausible objections be made against reformation? What if some had asked the question—"If this be so, why did none of the learned fathers find it out? Were not Samuel, David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Asa. Josiah and Hezekiah, all good men? and they did [Page 30]not keep this feast in booths." What if others had said, "we do not understand the word booths in such a point of light—a booth means a sort of tent, the design of which is to screen us from the scorch­ing beams of the sun, and defend us from the inju­ries of the weather; and as our hooses answer these purposes, we esteem it lawful for us to eat this feast in them."

BUT what would all these objections, and many more that might be made, avail in the mind of a man who was desirous for reformation, and had his eyes open to read in the law of the Lord? "It was found written in the law of the Lord;" therefore it was a sufficient reason for every one to engage in reformation, whose heart was brought to love the law of his God.

WE profess to take the word of GOD, for a per­fect rule of faith and practice; if so, we are not to follow the opinions of the best of men, though ever so learned and great, any further than they follow Christ, or walk according to his institutions; "to the law and the testimony," this is our only guide in matters of religion. And from hence we find, that baptism is a positive institution of Christ, left in his church for the benefit of his people; concerning which we can know nothing but from the revealed will of the Great Lawgiver. Had the baptism of unbelievers been intended, it would have been declar­ed; if it was either expressed or implied, the apostles must have understood it, and their practice would have discovered it; of which nothing certain has ever yet been made to appear.

[Page 31] IF sprinkling had been the divinely appointed mode, it would be rational to expect to find it exemplified in scripture; and that instead of their going to the water, that they brought the water to them. "It behoves us therefore, well to consider the rule which our Lord has given relating to this ordinance." ^* "Because we can have no other direction in these sort of duties, unless we have recourse to mere in­vention, which makes them our own institutions, and not the institutions of him who first appointed them." ^†

THEREFORE we find, after the most deliberate enquiry that there is such a real difference in our sentiments and practice, that what the Paedobaptists believe and practice for baptism, is so essentially dif­ferent from Christ's appointment, that in our opi­nion it cannot be baptism.

THEN surely we must be the most inconsistent set of Christians in the world, to hold up the necessity of baptism by our profession, and yet when we come to the Lord's table, practically deny it, by receiving those to our communion whom we do not hesitate to tell the world, we look upon as unbaptized per­sons; and so for the sake of holding free communion, we must " build again the things that we have de­stroyed, and thereby make ourselves transgressors," for once renouncing them.

BUT let us go on to see, what such a practice in built upon.

SHOULD all that has been observed in the preceding pages be assented to, yet this question may be put: Cannot the Baptist churches commune with the Paedobaptists, where they obtain satisfacti­on that they are Christians, and are sincere? The brother proposing to commune informs the church to whom he applies, that he has reason to suppose he was baptized in his infancy, and has never seen it to be his duty, to be baptized since.—Did he but see it to be duty, he would cordially comply with it; but as he does not, desires to partake with them as he is.

WHAT can the church do? Must the man be debarred from doing his duty in one instance, be­cause he cannot see it in another? Or will they drag him into the water, against the light of his own conscience? Surely not the latter. Some reasons must be given or the man ought to be received. But what is the ground of his application? Why, he is a Christian, and is sincere, and he is baptized to himself, or he considers himself so.

THAT he is a Christian the church is fully satisfi­ed; and that he may be sincere, they do not pretend to deny; but sincerity is not the term of communi­on: out being conformed to the apostle's doctrine and coutinuing stedfastly therein: Acts ii. 42.

[Page 33] IF sincerity be the term of communion, why might not Paul have been admitted when he was a mem­ber in good standing in the Jewish church? But it may be objected that he persecuted the saints of JESUS: it is true; but who can challenge his sincerity from his own declaration? I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth: Acts xxvi 9. And whatever we practice that is not according to the will of Christ, is contrary there to, although we be ever so sincere in doing it.

BUT may we not suppose that some of all deno­minations are sincere although ever so erronious. But to illustrate the idea, suppose one who had been educated a Roman Catholic, should become a true convert, so as to satisfy a judgment of charity —he asks for communion at the Lord's table, but at the same time lets the church know, that he could not, with a good conscience, receive the cup. Although he has renounced the church of Rome, the mother of abominations, yet he would not reject any thing that appears to him to be right, because that church held the same; he now acts honestly, according to the best light he has. Would any Protestant church commune with him? Surely if they mean to practice free communion they ought to. The man is allowed indeed to be in an error, but then it is of that kind that is called "non-essential, not foundamental, merely circumstantial"—"the strong ought to bear the infirmaties or the weak,"—he must be received.

[Page 34] AT their next communion season, there comes a disciple of George Fox, who denies water-baptism in every mode, but he has got convinced of one error in his party, respecting the sacred supper, and is now desirous to testify his obedience to this institution. Free communion is too liberal in its sentiments to re­ject him, his plea is sincerity, which no one has a right to scruple, without falling under that severe reproof, "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant; to his own master he stands or falls." Neither of the foregoing instances can be more in­consistent, than for a Baptist church to commune with a Paedobaptist, whilst they hold him to be unbaptized.

AND the arguments that will vindicate the con­duct of one, will serve the same purpose for the other.

BUT it may be profitable here to have recourse to the scripture doctrine in this matter, and it that ap­proves of such a line of conduct, we ought to drop the dispute; it not, to contend earnestly for this article of the Christian faith.

IT must be acknowledged, that there is a connec­tion between the two positive institutions of Christ, and that one of them must be prior to the other. For a man cannot partake of the Lord's supper, and be baptized, at the same time.

IT is reasonable to suppose, that these appoint­ments, with regard to their order and connection, depend as much on the sovereign will and pleasure of the Lawgiver, as the appointments themselves. "Here then the question is, Has our sovereign Lord [Page 35]revealed his will, in regard to this matter?—To the law and to the testimony:" How readest thou? "To determine the query, we may first consider the order of time in which the two positive institutions of the new-testament were appointed:—That bap­tism was an ordinance of God—that submission was required, and that it was administered to multitudes before the sacred supper was heard of or had exist­ance, are undeniable facts." ^* John Baptist, the Apostles, and even the Son of God incarnate, all practically recommended baptism, at a time when it would have been impious to have eaten bread and drank wine as an ordinance of divine worship. Baptism therefore had the priority in point of insti­tution.

LET us next consider the order of words in the great commission: when a risen Saviour tells his disciples, "ALL POWER is given to me in hea­ven and in earth, go ye therefore and teach all nati­ons, BAPTIZING them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to OBSERVE ALL THINGS WHATSO­EVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU:" Mat. xxviii. 18, 19, 20. The first article of the com­mission is, to teach, then—what? To baptize, or to administer the Lord's supper? let every conscience judge.

LET us next consider the apostolic practice. It is very evident the apostles understood our Lord in the sense for which we plead, and practiced accord­ingly. [Page 36]For when a number were "pricked to the heart, and erred, Men and brethren what shall we DO? Then Peter said unto them, repent and"—what, break bread? Nav verily; but "be baptized every one of you." The willing converts followed his direction; "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized."

THE next step was, to join themselves to the church, and afterwards they broke bread. This is apostolic order, and cannot be denied, without contradicting the oracles of truth.

WHEN Christ has thus revealed his will, for us to dispute it, is rebellion; it rather becomes us with humility, to rejoice that he hath made the path of our duty so plain.

IF what has already been observed stands consist­ent with scripture, a contrary practice cannot be proved from the word, unless it is like a leaden rule, that will apply to any thing. Then if this be the order in which the two gospel institutions stand, we shall do well to consider, who hath given us a dispensing power, to set aside one which claims a prior right on the convert's obedience, for the sake of indulging him in another.

MOSES had no right to alter a single pin in the tabernacle, but was admonished to make all things according to the pattern shown in the mount. And whosoever inverts the order of Christ's appoint­ments, must be considered as dictating INFINITE WISDOM.

THE next thing that I shall consider is, the argu­ments drawn from St. Paul's words to the Romans, [Page 37] Receive ye one another as Christ also hath received us: Rom. xv 7. Hence our opponents argue, that if GOD has received a person, and we have reason to suppose that he communes with them, we cannot, in the exercise of a Christian temper, refuse them. But is this receiving limitted to communing at the Lord's table? Is there no other way for us to man­ifest our love to our brethren of other denominati­ons, but for us practically to give up what we conscienciously believe to be the order of GOD'S house? Before we make such a movement, it will be safe to enquire into the apostle's meaning, and instead of giving my own thoughts on the text, I choose rather to transcribe a passage from a Paedo­baptist writer, ^* quoted by Mr. BOOTH, ^† who, dis­senting from what our opponents infer, observes—"This difference is glaringly forced and wide, discovering their ignorance of the true meaning and design of the text, who make it. The apostle is not here speaking of admission to church member­ship at all; nor does he consider those to whom be writes in the precise light of the church universal, but as members of a particular church or body, among whom there was some difference of opinion about means, &c. which was like to break their communing together, as is plain from the preceding chapter. The apostle sets himself to prevent this, and to accomplish a reconciliation: And after a number of healing things, he concludes with these [Page 38]words— Receive ye one another; that is, ve who are saints at Rome, who have agreed to walk together in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord Jesus; ye who are professedly united in church communion, receive ye one another in love, as be­cometh saints united in one body for mutual bene­fit. Bear ye one another's burdens: watch over and admonish one another in love, notwithstanding some difference in sentiment among you, as to the eating certain meats, and regarding certain days; but let not that difference make any breach in your communion together as a church of Christ. But let the strong dear with those that are weak; and the weak not be offended with the liberty of the strong. Judge not one another uncharitably; but let brotherly love continue. This is precisely the apostle's meaning, as will appear to those who look impartially into the connection of his argument, and by no means serves the purpose for which the objectors bring i [...]." There is an essential difference between their eating or not eating meats in the apostolic times, and our being baptized or not bap­tized, prior to communion at the Lord's table. The latter being a solemn institution of divine worship: out can this be asserted of the former? Surely it must be straining things beyond bounds, to set these obsolete, antiquated rites, in contrast with a gospel institution.

Another argument made use of in favor of free communion is, that if they are GOD'S children, he communes with them; and if so, it would be su­perstition for any to refuse to come to the sacred [Page 39]table with them. But it is not what GOD can or does do, but his revealed will that is the rule of our duty. Many have left the word of GOD out of a partial regard to the characters of great and good men But it may be remembered, that when the LORD sent the prophet from Judah to cry against the altar at Bethel, that he was forbid to eat bread or drink water in that place. For a time he kept close to the word of the LORD, and prospered. But after he was gone, an old prophet pursued after him, and finally prevailed with him to return; had he appeared as an open enemy, it is not likely the prophet would have heard to him; but this is the way in which he prevailed with him, by telling him— I also am a prophet—and that an angel spake unto me to bring thee back. But though a prophet, or an angel from heaven had spoken unto him, he had no warrant to leave the word of GOD; and for his disobedience was soon slain of a lion. ^*

ANOTHER argument made use of by them who plead for open communion is, that we can join in prayer, either in our families or in public, with Paedobaptists, or can hear them preach occasionally, and yet after all, cannot come to the Lord's table with them. It is true, and perhaps some cause can be showed for our conduct. We esteem it not only lawful, but to be our indispensible duty, to manifest our love to all that love the Lord, in every way that is not inconsistent with a revelation of the di­vine will in some other respects.

[Page 40] I PRESUME it will be a given point, that circum­cision was absolutely necessary for every male, in order to partake at the paschal supper; this was not the effect of any bigoted notion in the Israel­lies, but by a possitive command of Jehovah: Exod. xii. 48. Had Enoch who walked with GOD as a saint, and who, as a prophet, foretold the coming of Christ to judgment—or Noah, who was an Heir of the righteousness of faith, as well as a preacher or it—or Melchisedek, that illustrious type of the Great Messiah—had these been cotemporary with Moses, and sojourners in the same wilderness, they could not have been admitted to communion in the Israelit­ish church, without submitting to circumcision. Yet had Enoch been in the camp of Israel when Korah and his company mutinied, and had been disposed to have given the rebels a lecture on the second coming of Christ, I cannot suppose his offered service would have been rejected by Moses, merely because he was not circumcised. Had Noah been present when the tabernacle was erected, and had been disposed [...]o have given the people a sermon on the future in­carnation of the Son of GOD, and the righteousness of faith, of which that sacred structure had a typical regard, I cannot but think they would have given him a hearing; and yet the positive law of Jehovah, would have forbid their partaking at the paschal least.

OUR Lord, though he warned his hearers against the pride and hypocris [...], the unbelief and covet­ousness of the Pharisees and Scribes, yet exhorted the people to regard the truths they delivered: [Page 41]Mat. xxiii. 1, 2, 3. Yet would any assert that our LORD would have admitted these Ecclesiastics to communion in special ordinances?—When the beloved disciple said, "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and we forbad him, because he followed not with us:" Jesus answered, "For­bid him not; for he that is not against us, is for us:" Luke ix. 49, 50. From hence it appears, that we ought to encourage those who are fighting against the common enemy, and are propagating the common truth, although we cannot commune in special ordinances together.

ANOTHER argument made use of in favor of open communion, is the consequences that will follow upon close communion, i. e. that if Christi­ans cannot commune together in this world, how can they expect to enjoy fellowship together in Heaven.

THIS is something very frightful indeed! that there must be too heavens for separate spirits!

BUT this may be answered by attending to a few things. Who would dare to anathematize all those who deny the use of both ordinances? Or who will venture to say, that among the different kindreds, tongues and tribes, who will appear in that illustrious throng, at the decisive hour, there will be none who never saw nor practiced the sacred or­dinances in any form? Or who will affirm that none who are excommunicated persons will ever be admitted into heaven?

AND yet upon gospel principles, it would be unlawful to commune with them while such.

[Page 42] BUT these objections must appear of no weight to the candid. For where is there a church of any denomination that there is not such difference of opinion in some things among them, as at some times to produce trials, and at others, sharp con­tencions? And yet may we not suppose that one heaven will hold them all after death? Yes; death, the great leveller, will put an end to our party disputes, and bring the dust of contending christians to rest in sweet agreement in the grave! equally so will the fiery trial, which shall burn up all the hay, wood and stubble, from the soul—bring the spirits of all good men to dwell in a state of uninterrupted felicity.

THE last thing that I shall consider which is brought as a plea for open communion is, that the scripture account of baptism is left in such darkness and ambiguity, both as to the subjects and mode, that nothing certain can be determined. Therefore it calls for our charity towards them who differ from us. It may be remembered, that when the talents were committed to the servants to occupy, the two that improved made no complaints; the other had got a hard master, an austere man; a great many difficulties stood in the way of duty. That the baptism of infants is not made plain, we shall not deny: but, that believers were baptized, is as plain as words can make it; and shines through the new-testament as if written with a sun-beam. If sprinkling be the mode intended in the new-testament, we must concede to the proposition, that it is not made plain. It would seem like an ambi­guous [Page 43]affair indeed, to relate, that both the admi­nistrator and the person baptized, went down into the water, and came up out of it again, when all that was to be done, was only to sprinkle a little water in the face. Yea, to read in the volume of inspiration that multitudes were baptized IN the river Jordan; and that they were baptized in Enon, because there was MUCH water there, when a few basons of water would have served the purpose equally well: this would seem indeed to be so dark, that common sense must have been at a loss how to have reconciled this ancient account with modern practice, had it not been that some gentlemen of great invention, have lent their friendly aid, and cast peculiar light upon the subject, by informing the world, that the large quantity of water was necessary for the use of the camels and asses the people rode upon; whereas the only thing that the scriptures bring into view, is the conveniency of baptizing. That the Paedo­baptists consider it as not made plain in scripture; or, that it is left to be practiced indifferently, as circumstances may require, is abundantly evident from their conduct; for many of them administer both ways; some times in the meeting-house, and then in a river. What strange amphibious Christi­ans indeed!

IF the Greek verb Baptizo has not been rightly explained, we have no reason to suppose it ever will be.

AND this evidence we find in our favor from the various expositors upon it, that all the Baptists agree, that the word in its first or primary sense, [Page 44]signifies to dip or plunge, and only in a secondary and consequential sense, to wash ^* Many of the Paedobaptists allow the first sense of the word to be the same as we do: ^† and if others deny it, yet still the evidence stands in our favor; for none would give it up against themselves, if they were not obliged in justice to do it. A number of ancient, learned expositors upon the Greek, allow this sense. ^† The matter is out of dispute in our minds; and we really think, that the combination of words and circumstances recorded in the New Testament, have made it as plain as any others could, so that "He that runs may read;" so plain that "No wayfar­ing man, though a fool, needs err therein." Yet many who have been educated in the theory of the christian religion, from their early days, excuse themselves from this duty, because they cannot see it. But it is so plain that an Ethiopian Eunuch, who, but a few minutes before, did not understand what he read, is soon instructed in the weighty con­cerns of his soul, and believes in the truth with all his HEART; which immediately led him to come down from his charior, and go down into the water. Surely the Christian who boasts superior advantages [Page 45]above an Ethiopian, must stand admonished by this example. I [...] Annanias of Demascus. was to meet such an indifferent brother, would he not address him in his admonishing language, "Why tarriest thou? Arise and be baptized"—Would not the ready obedience of the Jailor, who "Arose the same hour of the night, and was baptized, he and all his straightway," such a delaying brother?

COULD not Lydia leave the river-side, where the LORD first opened her heart, before she gave proof of her faith, by submitting to this ordi­nance? Then let the doubting lift their eyes and see what a cloud of witnesses we are sur­rounded with, and lay aside every weight, and run the self-denying race—and fee that they do not make void the commandments of GOD, through their tradition.

HAVING thus gone through with what I proposed, I shall close the whole by a brief address to the Baptist churches.