CHAPTER III..

Containing the argument for Open Communion, based upon the principle that the mode of baptism is not essential.

One of the main pillars of the close communion system is, the opinion that there is no valid baptism except by immers. ion. This is that, in particular, which separates the two great bodies of Christians, denominated Baptists and Pedobaptists; or which divides a very great portion of them.

Some of the denomination of Baptists are in favour of open communion; but, in this country, most of this class are what are termed free-will Baptists. The Calvinistick Baptists generally hold to close communion, i. e. they do not receive any to the Lord's table except those of their own faith and order. Although they agree in the great leading doctrines of the gospel with Pedobaptists-particularly with Presbyterians and Congregationalists, they will not commune with them.

And they justify their practice,' upon the ground that baptism is a prerequisite to communion, and that there is no valid baptism except by immersion. They say they cannot, consistently, commune with Pedobaptists, because they have not been baptized.

This bar to open communion is removed, at once, by showing that immersion is not essential to the validity of this ordinance.

This is what I have attempted to do, and think I have fully done, in the second part of this work, to which the reader is referred. It is unnecessary to repeat the arguments there adduced.

The validity of the different modes of baptism in use among the churches being established, the principle of open communion is easily defended. For, although some difficulty may arise on account of the baptism of infants, which I shall endeavour to remove, the great objection in regard to the mode of administration is completely answered. None ought to be debarred from the table of the Lord, because they have not been immersed. To commune with Pedobaptists, who have simply been washed, poured upon, or sprinkled, is not communing

with unbaptized Christians; but with those who have been duly baptized, so far as the mode is respected. No objection, therefore, can lie, from this quarter, against open communion with all evangelical Christians. And if this be a true principle, it is of high importance that it should be understood, and defended. The reader is earnestly requested to consider candidly and impartially what hath been advanced under this head.

Respecting the above-mentioned difficulty arising from the performance of baptism in infancy, I would remark, that this does not pertain to all the members of Pedobaptist churches; but, merely, to those who have received no other than infant baptism. Many of the Pedobaptists have received baptism in adult age upon their own profession of faith. These, therefore, may, upon the principle now stated, be received to communion without hesitation.

The baptism performed in infancy is manifestly premature. It cannot be considered as a complete gospel baptism, or as a submission to the ordinance according to the direction of our Lord, and according to its manifest design and end; although I am not disposed to consider it a mere nullity.

The action of the officiating minister is, in itself, valid, though performed upon an improper subject. It is a kind of half-way baptism; or, to speak more correctly, it is a baptism prematurely performed.

Hence, those Christians that have received no other than infant baptism, are not to be considered altogether in the light of unbaptized persons, and precluded, on that account, from the communion; but as persons baptized before they were duly qualified, and before they were duly called upon to make a profession of their faith.

Nevertheless, if their consciences are satisfied with their infant baptism, and they do not feel the obligation of coming forward personally to the ordinance, they ought not to be debarred from communion on account of this defect in their baptism.

The difficulty now stated is not peculiar to the scheme which I have adopted. It belongs to the scheme of Pedobaptists in respect to those baptisms which were performed upon the plan of the half-way covenant, as it is commonly called, and to those performed upon the plan of the indiscriminate administration of the ordinance. According to the prevailing views of Pedobaptists in this day, especially of Presbyterians and Congregationalists, there was a very material defect in those baptisms, viz. the want of faith in the parents by whom the children

were offered. And very many have scrupled the validity of their baptism on this account. Yet such baptisms have generally been considered valid by Pedobaptists. Few ministers, if any, have consented to re-baptize on account of this want of faith in the parents.

If, therefore, they are consistent in allowing the validity of those baptisms, where the faith of the parents, which they hold to be required to give a right to the baptism of the children, is wanting, they cannot charge any inconsistency to my view of the baptism of infants, although their own faith, which I hold to be requisite to give them a right to the ordinance, is wanting. The cases are manifestly parallel. I do not admit the baptism to be full and perfect where the faith of the subject is wanting. Neither do they, upon their scheme, where the faith of the parents is wanting. Therefore, if they can consistently admit Christians to communion notwithstanding the latter defect, it is manifest that I can admit them notwithstanding the former.

If, however, those who have been baptized in infancy upon the faith of their parents, are convinced, when they come to years of understanding, and are brought to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, that it is their duty to be baptized again, upon their own faith, they ought to be admitted to enjoy the privilege. The defect above noticed is an adequate reason for repeating the ordinance. And it cannot be justly considered as treating the subject lightly, or as profaning the name of the Lord, to perform baptism anew in the manner directed, when it is discovered that it was not so performed at first.

When I first became enlightened to see that believers are the only proper subjects of Christian baptism, it was not clear to me that the ordinance ought to be repeated, notwithstanding this deficiency. But, after due consideration, I perceived that believers ought not to be precluded from offering themselves in baptism, because their parents, through misapprehension, had previously offered them.

Baptism is evidently a duty which cannot be duly discharged by proxy. It is a matter in which the subject is to act in person, and for himself; openly submitting to the command of Christ, and receiving the badge of discipleship.

It is a privilege, also; a precious and peculiar privilege, of which the subject ought not to be deprived by means of the mistakes and traditions of men.

Moreover, it is a duty so plain; so positive; and so natural, under the constitution of the gospel; and so intimately connected with the putting on of Christ, that the Spirit of God is wont to incline the hearts of believers to obey it. I will not say he

does this in all cases; but he does in multitudes of cases, and, I believe I may say commonly. It is one of the first things which are wont to occupy the minds of the newly converted, especially when they contemplate the subject of following Christ by an open profession of religion. Very many of those who are called from among Pedobaptist congregations, and who have been baptized in their infancy, have a desire to be baptized on their own faith. This desire is often expressed, and ministers are conversed with upon the subject; and much pains are required to convince them that their infant baptism will do. It is frequently a long time before the desire to be baptized is repressed, and in various instances the mind is never wholly relieved.

Besides the instances of this kind which are known, many are secretly tried upon the subject, and do not make their difficulties and desires manifest, because they conclude it will be unavailing that there is no relief in their case, except they withdraw from the churches with which they would wish to be connected, and join in close communion, which they are not willing to do.

And this desire among believers to be baptized, and these embarrassments which grow out of the usages of Pedobaptist churches, are evidently increasing. The more the Holy Spirit is poured out, and converts are multiplied, and the more the light of evangelical truth breaks in upon the world, the greater the number of persons who wish to come forward, upon their own profession, to Christian baptism: and, at the same time, the greater is the aversion to close communion.

This is a subject which is exciting deeper and deeper interest in every direction. There are multitudes who know not how to get by this gospel institution. And yet they regard all that are born of God as their brethren, and cannot be fettered with close communion. That undue limiting of Christian love, sympathy and fellowship to one's own sect or party which is so lamentably prevalent, is not a feature of the young convert. He loves all that love Jesus Christ. It is not till he is trained to human systems, and loses, in a degree, the simplicity of his first love, that he learns to adopt the Shibboleth of party.

Now, this early desire to be baptized upon an open profession of faith which exists among the converted, is manifestly the fruit of the operation of the Spirit of Christ. And it ought not to be repressed, because the subjects, in many instances, have been prematurely brought forward by their parents in the helpless age of infancy, of which transaction most are wholly unconscious.

CHAPTER IV.

Containing the argument for Open Communion, based upon the right and privilege of private judgement.

It is a plain principle of the word of God, that Christians have the right of examining and judging for themselves, in matters of religion. One has no right to dictate to the conscience of another.

We

It is not meant, that every one has a right, in the sight of God, to form his own opinion of his truths and precepts. In that respect he is bound to construe things rightly, and really to know his Master's will. But the right of private judgement, which is plead for, pertains to us in regard to our fellow Christians. may labour to instruct and convince others, and they, in their turn, to instruct and convince us; but neither have the right of exercising dominion over the faith of the other. "Who art thou," says Paul," that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standeth, or falleth." The solemn truth that each of us shall give an account of himself unto God, forbids the idea that others may judge for us, or prescribe to us in matters of religion.

Therefore, in the case before us, one class of believers have as good a right to determine what constitutes a valid baptism as another. If the one come forward and say that they have been baptized into Christ, and are otherwise entitled to Christian charity, they are to be admitted to communion by the other, upon this declaration, although they have not been baptized according to their views of the institution. The latter, having no right to exercise dominion over the faith of the former, are bound to receive them upon the principle that, in their own opinion, they have been baptized, and that the right of judging in the case for themselves, is one of which they cannot be divested. If they should be refused the privilege of coming to the table, this would be, at once, exercising a lordship over their consciences, which is not admissible.

Should it be said that this principle will oblige us to receive all who apply for communion, however gross their opinions or conduct may be; I would reply, that it will not, for this