Set the Baptifts an example of gofpel, open, liberal communion, they will doubtlefs follow.

Moreover, almoft all the Pædobaptifts condemn your theory of open communion with unbaptized believers. The Pedobaptifts are nearly, if not altogether, as much clofe communionifts as are the Baptifts; yes, if I mistake not, they are more univerfally fo, for fome Baptifts will commune with profeffed believers who are not baptized, but I recollect not of fo much as one instance, in which a Pædobaptift confented to commune with one not baptized.

You will further observe, it is totally inconfiftent with the Pædobaptift fentiments to commune at the Lord's table before the ordinance of baptifm be administered. No uncircumcifed perfon fhall eat thereof,'* is a text which they confider of no fmall weight in this matter.

It is at once granted, that fome of your de nomination, and men of literature, talents and piety too, are fo defirous of union at the Lord's table, that they would difpenfe with the law of Mofes, which the Pædobaptifts, in this particu lar, ftand upon, and the law of Chrift, to which the Baptifts adhere.

I confefs, my dear Sir, you appear to me fomewhat out of order, whilft you ftand, as you fuppofe, upon the Pædobaptist ground, when you can fhow no title to it, and there fomewhat earneftly contend with the Baptifts' for practifing as the Pædobaptifts have, if I mistake not, generally, if not univerfally done.

* Exod. xii. 48.

The Pædobaptifts err, in that they admit to baptifm improper fubjects, as readily as they do thofe who have gofpel qualifications. But your denomination have rejected baptifm itself. You have, to fpeak plain truth, nothing left of it, fave the name.

You must, Sir, change your practice before your arguments, fuppofing them conclufive for the Pædobaptifts, can have the force you with them, in drawing the Baptifts to open their doors to you.

The Baptifts do not, to my knowledge, claim infallibility, as you intimate; but they confider the Scriptures to be fo. From which they have this information, that the period hath arrived, in which the way of holiness fhould be fo plain, that the way-faring man, though a fool, unlearned, thould not err therein; yet the man of learning, talents and piety, and all who follow him, may err; and do, fo far as they think to mend the fimplicity of the gofpel, by fubftituting the inventions of men for the commandments of the Lord,

In this letter we have introduced the fubject fomewhat abruptly, and not quite explicitly enough for every capacity; but you, Sir, can understand it; and in the following letters, we hope to handle the fubject with fo much candour, clearness, precision and evidence, that the weakeft mind may underftand, and receive conviction of what is truth. Should you be amongst the convinced, the triumph of truth will be to you more precious than rubies; and very grateful to him, who is

Your's with affection.

LETTER II.

Open Communion with all who keep the Ordinances as Chrift delivered them to the Saints.

BROTHER ANDERSON,

SINCE I have taken in hand to fet in order fome things, you will give me liberty to rectify mistakes, and to define matters minutely.

It gives me pain to rectify you, where the rectification will give you one unpleafant feeling. But every thing which obftructs the progress of truth muft give way. You fuppofe, dear Sir, that the Baptifts were very little heard of till after Luther arofe. Here you mistake, for they were, according to the hif tory of the Church, the principal, if not the only ones, who, for time immemorial, or up to the apoftolic age, held and defended the great and foundation doctrines of grace. Befides, Sir, you have made a mistake in whole, in another particular. The Baptifts, as to the article of baptifm, which is the principal, or one principal thing, which occafions what is termed close communion, have been as general and univerfal, all over Chriftendom, as you have represented them fcarce and fingular. I do not find one profeffing Chriftian, for eleven hundred years after Chrift, if not fifteen hundred, but was a Baptift in fentiment, and fo in practice, fome extreme cafes excepted.

Luther, Melancthon and Calvin, if not all the great reformers, were, from the most cor

rect information obtained, fentimentally Baptifts, as to the administration of that previous, diftinguishing, fignificant ordinance. They difagreed with the primitive Baptifts, as to the fubjects. They were alfo too much for accommodating, as to the primitive and fcripture practice.

On account of their difagreement as to the fubjects, they and a multitude before them and fince, took the name of Pædobaptifts. Now, Sir, were you and others, who, in the prefentday, fay fo many hard things against the Baptifts, Padobaptifts; that is, Did you baptize, or were you baptized at all, you would have a more plaufible ground on which to meet the Baptifts in this controverfy.

I muft now, to clear the ground, that we may have a field view of the fubject, do what I would not, did not the cause manifeftly require it. I muft define your denomination, and trace its rife. If my definition be just, be clear, be accurate, comprehending neither too much nor too little, if it have not one unkind word in it, you cannot in reafon take umbrage at it, and I defire you would not.

The definition which belongs to your denomination, and which gives its peculiar diftinction from all others, and by which you ought willingly to be known, in the close communion controverfy, is Padorantifts.

The rife of your denomination was among the Clinicks, or fick people, of ancient date. These were judged unable to receive baptifin, and yet the erring adminiftrators, fuppofing

baptifm effential to falvation, concluded, to fave the fouls of fick perfons, to change immersion into fprinkling, and ftill (in violation of Scripture, and of language, if not of common fenfe) to call it baptifm. This practice was in its infancy, as you suppose the Baptifts to have been, till after the reformation under Luther, Calvin, and others.

Years after the Reformation commenced, fome focieties began to think sprinkling not a fubftitute, but Scripture baptifm.* Now your denomination, ftrictly speaking, took its rife. Inftead of fprinkling from neceffity, you now began to fprinkle fentimentally. Yet, the most learned, if not the most pious, of your denomi nation, have in every age confeffed, that your practice was not apoftolical, or that the practice of the apoftles was immersion. My dear Sir, you see the strait to which I am driven; I am compelled to expose your anti-evangelical practice, in order to juftify the innocent, whom you condemn.

Now, fhould I grant you all which you claim in your fecond letter, for the Pædobaptists, yet you have little pretenfions to the honour which you there attribute to them. For you are not of that denomination, nor do I know of many in America who are. The Greek Church are, the Church of England are professedly fo, but not practically. Some, if not all the old reformers in Europe, of whom you fay fo many good things, were. Thefe, there

*There might be fome among the Papifts who were of this opinion before.