A

SHORT STATEMENT,

&c.

Ir is admitted, by all denominations of Christians, with the exception of one, that the sacrament of the Lord's supper is of perpetual obligation, and that it was designed by its Founder for one of the principal indications and expressions of that fraternal affection which ought to distinguish his followers. Though the communion of saints is of larger extent, comprehending all those sentiments and actions, by which Christians are especially united, the joint participation of this rite is universally acknowledged to constitute an important branch of that communion. So important a part has it been considered, that it has usurped the name of the whole; and when any dispute arises respecting the terms of communion, it is generally understood to relate to the terms of admission to the Lord's table.

Whether all real Christians are entitled to share in this privilege, whether it forms a part of that spiritual provision which belongs to the whole family of the faithful, or whether it is the exclusive patrimony of a sect, who, (on the ground of their supposed imperfection,) are authorized to repel the rest, is the question which it is my purpose, in the following pages, briefly and calmly to discuss. The first conclusion to which we should naturally arrive, would probably favor the most liberal system; we should be ready to suppose that he who is accepted of Christ ought also to be accepted of his brethren, and that he whose right to the thing signified was not questioned, possessed an undoubted right to the outward sign. There are some truths which are so self-evident, that a formal attempt to prove them has the appearance of trifling, where the premises and the conclusion so nearly coincide, that it is not easy to point out the intermediate links that at once separate and connect them. Whether the assertion that all sincere

Christians are entitled to a place at the Lord's table is of that description, will more clearly appear as we advance; but I must be permitted to say, that a feeling of the kind just mentioned, has occasioned the greatest difficulty I have experienced in this dis

cussion.

It is well known that a diversity of sentiment has long subsisted in this country, in relation to the proper subjects of baptism, together with the mode of administering that rite. While the great body of the Christian world administer baptism to infants, and adopt the practice of sprinkling or pouring the sacramental water, there are some who contend that baptism should be confined to those who are capable of understanding the articles of the Christian religion, or in other words, to adults, and that the proper mode is the immersion of the whole body. They who maintain the last of these opinions, were formerly designated by the appellation of Anabaptists, but as that term implied that they assumed a right of repeating baptism, when in reality their only reason for baptizing such as had been sprinkled in their infancy, was that they looked upon the baptism of infants as a mere human invention, the candor of modern times has changed the invidious appellation of Anabaptist, to the more simple one of Baptist.

It is not my intention to attempt the defence of that class of Christians, though their views are entirely in accordance with my own; one consequence, however, necessarily results. We are compelled, by virtue of them, to look upon the great mass of our fellow Christians as unbaptized. On no other ground can we maintain our principles, or justify our conduct. Hence it has been inferred, too hastily in my opinion, that we are bound to abstain from their communion, whatever judgement we may form of their sincerity and piety. Baptism, it is alleged, is under all possible circumstances an indispensable term of communion, and however highly we may esteem many of our Pædobaptist brethren, yet as we cannot but deem them unbaptized, we must of necessity consider them as disqualified for an approach to the Lord's table. evident that this reasoning rests entirely on the assumption, that baptism is invariably a necessary condition of communion-an opinion which it is not surprising the Baptists should have embraced, since it has long passed current in the Christian world, and been received by nearly all denominations of Christians. The truth is, it has never till of late become a practical question, nor could it while all parties acknowledged each other's baptism. It was only when a religious denomination arose, whose principles compelled them to deny the validity of any other baptism besides that which they themselves practised, that the question respecting the relation which that ordinance bears to the Lord's supper, could have any influ

ence on practice. But a doctrine which can have no possible influence on practice, is received with little or no examination; and to this must be imputed the facility with which it has been so generally admitted that baptism must necessarily and invariably precede an admission to the Lord's table. The wide circulation, however, of this doctrine, ought undoubtedly to have the effect of softening the severity of censure on that conduct (however singular it may appear,) which is its necessary result; such is that of the great majority of the Baptists, in confining their communion to those whom they deem baptized; wherein they act precisely on the same principle with all other Christians, who assume it for granted that baptism is an essential preliminary to the reception of the sacrament. The point on which they differ, is the nature of that institution; which we place in immersion, and of which we suppose rational and accountable agents the only fit subjects; this opinion, combined with the other generally received one, that none are entitled to receive the eucharist but such as have been baptized, leads inevitably to the practice which seems so singular, and gives so much offence-the restricting of communion to our own denomination. Let it be admitted that baptism is under all circumstances a necessary condition of church fellowship, and it is impossible for the Baptists to act otherwise. That their practice in this particular is harsh and illiberal, is freely admitted; but it is the infallible consequence of the opinion generally entertained respecting communion, conjoined with their peculiar views of the baptismal rite. The recollection of this may suffice to rebut the ridicule, and silence the clamor of those, who loudly condemn the Baptists for a proceeding, which, were they but to change their opinion on the subject of baptism, their own principles would compel them to adopt. They both concur in a common principle, from which the practice deemed so offensive is the necessary result.

Considered as an argumentum ad hominem, or an appeal to the avowed principles of our opponents, this reasoning may be sufficient to shield us from that severity of reproach to which we are often exposed, nor ought we to be censured for acting upon a system which is sanctioned by our accusers. Still it leaves the real merits of the question untouched; for the inquiry remains open, whether baptism is an indispensable pre-requisite to communion; in other words, whether they stand in such a relation to each other, that the involuntary neglect of the first, incurs a forfeiture of the title to the last.

The chief, I might say the only argument for the restricted plan of communion, is derived from the example of the Apostles, and the practice of the primitive church. It is alleged, with some ap

pearance of plausibility that the first duty enjoined on the primitive converts to Christianity was to be baptized, that no repeal of the law has taken place since, that the Apostles uniformly baptized their converts before they admitted them to the sacrament, and that during the first and purest ages, the church knew of no members who had not submitted to that rite; and that consequently, in declining a union with those, who, however estimable in other respects, we are obliged to consider as unbaptized, we are following the highest precedents, and treading in the hallowed steps of the inspired teachers of religion. Such, in a few words, is the sum and substance of their reasoning who are the advocates of strict communion; and as it approaches with a lofty and imposing air, and has prevailed with thousands, to embrace what appears to me a most serious error, we must bespeak the reader's patience, while we endeavor to sift it to the bottom, in order to expose its fallacy.

Precedent derived from the practice of inspired men is entitled to be regarded as law, in exact proportion as the spirit of it is copied, and the principle on which it proceeds is acted upon. If neglectful of these, we attend to the letter only, we shall be betrayed into the most serious mistakes, since there are a thousand actions recorded of the Apostles in the government of the church, which it would be the height of folly and presumption to imitate. Above all things, it is necessary, before we proceed to found a rule of action on precedent, carefully to investigate the circumstances under which it occurred, and the reasons on which it was founded. The Apostles, it is acknowledged, admitted none to the Lord's supper, but such as were previously baptized; but under what circumstances did they maintain this course? It was at a time, when a mistake respecting the will of the Supreme Legislator on the subject of baptism was impossible; it was while a diversity of opinion relating to it could not possibly subsist, because inspired men were at hand, ready to remove every doubt, and satisfy the mind of every honest inquirer. It was under circumstances, that must have convicted him who declined compliance with that ordinance of willful prevarication, and stubborn resistance to the delegates and representatives of Christ, who commissioned them to promulgate his laws, with an express assurance that "whoever rejected them, rejected him, and whoever received them, received him," and that to refuse to obey their word, exposed the offender to a severer doom, than was allotted to Sodom and Gomorrah. (Matt. 10: 14, 15.) Their instructions were too plain to be mistaken, their authority too sacred to be contemned by a professor of Christianity, without being guilty of daring impiety. In such a state of things, it may be asked, how could they have acted differently from

what they did? To have received into the church men who disputed their inspiration and despised their injunctions, would have been to betray their trust, and to renounce their pretensions as the living depositaries of the mind of Christ; to have admitted those who, believing their inspiration, yet refused a compliance with their orders, would have let into the church the most unheard of licentiousness, and polluted it, by incorporating with its members the worst of men. Neither of these could be thought of, and no other alternative remained but to insist as a test of sincerity on a punctual compliance, with what was known and acknowledged as the apostolic doctrine. "We are of God," says St. John, “he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us; hereby we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error." (1 John 4: 6.) In short, the Apostles refused to impart the external privileges of the church to such as impugned their authority, or contemned their injunctions, which, whoever persisted in the neglect of baptism at that time, and in those circumstances, must necessarily have done.

But in declining the communion of modern Pædobaptists, however eminent their piety, there is really nothing analogous to their method of proceeding. The resemblance fails in its most essential features. In repelling an unbaptized person from their communion, supposing such a one to have presented himself, they would have rejected the violator of a known precept; he whom we refuse, is at most chargeable only with mistaking it. The former must either have neglected an acknowledged precept, and thus evinced a mind destitute of principle, or he must have set the authority of the Apostles at defiance, and thus have classed with parties of the worst description. Our Pædobaptist brethren are exposed to neither of these charges; convince them that it is their duty to be baptized, in the method which we approve, and they stand ready, many of them at least we cannot doubt, stand ready to perform it; convince them that it is a necessary inference from the correct interpretation of the apostolic commission, and they will without hesitation bow to that authority.

The most rigid Baptist will probably admit that, however clear and irresistible the evidence of his sentiments may appear to himself, there are those whom it fails to convince, and some of them at least illustrious examples of piety; men who would tremble at the thought of deliberately violating the least of the commands of Christ or of his Apostles; men whose character and principles, consequently, form a striking contrast with those of the persons, whom it is allowed the Apostles would have repelled. But to separate ourselves from the best of men, because the Apostles would have withdrawn from the worst, to confound the broadest