dolls. 25,00

5,

5,

3,

Account of Moneys received by the Treasurer of the Newton Theologica: Institution, from April 1, to July 18, 1829.

do.

Account of Moneys received by the Treasurer of the General Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States, for Foreign Missions, from June 22, to July 22, 1829.

Mr E. Lincoln, having been contributed as follows, viz.

25,90

10,60

1,75

A friend to missi ns in Dexter for printing tracts in the Burman language,

By a friend in Cornish,

5,00

20,00

Mrs Maria Keen, Dexter,

,50

Mr Thomas Ham, Ripley,

8,15

,50

Collected at ann meeting, Dover,

6,06

85,35

From Miss N. Coffin, for printing the Bible in
the Burman language, per Rev. Dr Sharp,
From Mrs Sally Vanderpool, Treas of the
Newark, NJ. Female Soc.*

Twenty five of which is a donation by
an individual to aid in the publication of
the New Testament in the Bur language.
From female friends, West Dedham, for Bur-
man Bible, per Rev. J. Aldrich,

H. LINCOLN, Treas.

* Interesting communications to the Treasurer often accompany the freewill offerings of our female friends We insert the following Note, addressed to us, from the Treasurer of this Society, under date of July 15, 1829.

Dear Sir,-Above is a remittance of Fifty dollars; twenty-five of which is a donation, by an individual who has directed that sum to be specifically applied to aid in the publication of the New Testament in the Burman language. The remaining twenty-five dollars is for the use of the Board as its exigencies may require, In a humble confidence on that God who has said, "Cast thy bread upon the waters, for thou shalt find it after many days," is this sum sent, believing that through the instrumentality of his children the Gospel. of the kingdom shall be published unto every nation on the earth.

2,00

50,00

5,00

The Treasurer of the Executive Committee of the Massachusetts Baptist Education Society has received $1922,00, since Jan. 1, the items of which will be published in the annual account.

A Letter on Communion at the Lord's Table; addressed to a member of a Baptist Church. By the Rev. EDWARD D. GRIFFIN, D. D. President of Williams College.

THE whole of this letter we transfer to our pages, that our readers may be furnished with a specimen of the arguments and representations which are commonly employed by the opposers of re stricted communion.

Dear Sir,

Williams College, March 25, 1829.

In our late interview you professed yourself an advocate for open communion, and requested me to give the reasons which operate in my mind in favor of that practice.

I do this with the more pleasure because some of my earliest associations attached me to the members and preachers of your communion, and awakened feelings of kindness which have accompanied me through life. I have repeatedly exchanged pulpits with your ministers. I have dismissed members from my church to join your churches. I have always considered baptism by immersion as valid; and were I imperiously called upon by the conscience of an applicant, and could do it without offence to others, I should have no hesitation in administering the ordinance in this form. In short, I regard your churches as churches of Christ. The question is, Is it reasonable in them so to regard us? The separating point is not about the subjects of baptism, but merely the mode. If we could be considered as fairly baptized, our Baptist brethren certainly would not exclude us merely because we apply the seal to infants. Many greater mistakes, (allowSEPT. 1829.

39

ing this to be one,) are made by those whom we do not exclude from our communion.

I agree with the advocates for close communion in two points: (1.) that baptism is the initiating ordinance which introduces us into the visible church: of course, where there is no baptism there are no visible churches: (2.) that we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course, are not church members, even if we regard them as Christians. Should a pious Quaker so far depart from his principles as to wish to commune with me at the Lord's table, while yet he refused to be baptized, I could not receive him; because there is such a relationship established between the two ordinances that I have no right to separate them; in other words, I have no right to send the sacred elements out of the Church.

The only question then is, whether those associations of evangelical Christians that call themselves churches, and that practise sprinkling, are real churches of Christ; in other words, whether baptism by sprinkling is valid baptism.

In my subsequent remarks I will assume (though I do not admit,) that immersion is the better form of baptism, and that we have misjudged as to the most suitable mode. The question is, Is this mistake so radical as to destroy the validity of the ordinance? I offer the following reasons against the exclusive system.

(1.) In the nature of things the validity of the ordinance cannot depend on the quantity of water, for the end is essentially answered by less as well as by more. Water, if the ocean were applied, could not wash out sin. It is only an emblem; an emblem which, voluntarily used, is a profession of faith in a purifying Saviour. Now if water be applied to the body, (though only to a part,) as an emblem of purification, and as a profession of faith, and from sincere respect to the authority of Christ, what more emblem do? What more could immersion do, unless to render the emblem still more significant?

can an

(2.) We have authority for saying that an emblem of purification applied to a part of the body, is as effectual as if applied to the whole body. It is found in what our Saviour said to Peter on the occasion of washing his feet: "Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part in me. [Meaning, If I do not produce that inward cleansing of which this is an emblem.] Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head. Jesus saith unto him, He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit;" (John 13. 8-10.) that is, is stampt with a full emblem of universal purity.

(3.) If the exact form of baptism were essential to its validity, the form would have been so clearly defined that no honest mind could mistake it. The old dispensation was a dispensation of ceremonies, and therefore the validity of its ordinances depended on an exact adherence to the forms prescribed. Nadab and Abihu were slain for burning incense with fire taken from the hearth instead of the altar. (Lev. 10, 1, &c. Numb. 8, 4.) Every thing

therefore was minutely and most explicitly prescribed, even to the putting of the blood upon the tip of the ear, and to the least pin and fringe of the tabernacle. Moses was commanded to make all things according to the pattern" shown him in the mount. (Heb. 8. 5, with Exod. 25. 9, 40.) The new dispensation is distinguished with greater light. If, therefore, the validity of any of its ordinances depended on their precise form, that form would have been as clearly defined at least as the forms of that darker dispensation. But,

4. There seems not to be a single form under the new dispensation so precisely defined, but that different denominations may and do practise differently without transgression. There is a great variety in the manner of their keeping the supper, administering baptism, performing prayer, and conducting all the forms of public worship. Unless therefore we condemn the whole, or nearly the whole church, we must admit that the validity of no ordinance under the gospel depends on its precise form. And this might be expected from a dispensation known to be spiritual, and not a dispensation of ceremonies; that is to say, a dispensation under which spiritual things are exposed in their own naked nature, and not set forth chiefly by pictures, on the exactness of which the whole exhibition depends.

In regard to baptism, none will pretend that the form is expressly prescribed, like the forms under the old dispensation. The disputants about the mode rely, on both sides, on the history and incidental remarks found in the New Testament. But laying aside the baptism of John, which, we hold, did not belong to the New Testament dispensation, (for a testament is not of force till after the death of the testator; Heb. 9. 15, 16.) and the baptism of Christ, which was received from John, and which, we hold, was only his ordination to the priestly office; laying these aside, and confining the attention to that baptism which was instituted after the death and resurrection of the "Testator," and was administered in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and the mode is left so uncertain that the most honest minds may be supposed to differ about it. If two perfectly holy men had been brought up in the centre of the earth, and on arriving at the surface should have a Bible put into their hands, and be requested to tell how the apostles baptized; and one should happen to fall upon the case of the Eunuch, and the other upon the scene at Pentecost, (where 3,000 seem to have been baptized by eleven men in a single afternoon, on the top of a high hill, in the centre of a populous city, and far from any river or brook deep enough for immersion ;) there would be an equal chance that they would bring in different reports. Could things be left so uncertain if the validity of the ordinance, and the very existence of a visible church, depended on the precise form of baptism?

(5.) If nothing but immersion is baptism, there is no visible church except among the Baptists. But certainly God has owned other associations of Christians as churches. He has poured his Spirit upon them in their assemblies, and what is more decisive,

at the table of the Lord; and has communed with them and built them up by means of that ordinance which, were they not churches, it would be profanity to approach.

What is a church? It is a company of believers, in covenant with God, essentially organized according to the gospel, holding the essential doctrines, and practising the essential duties. If you demand more, you may not find a church on earth.

Now here are associations of true believers, (our Baptist brethren will allow this,) who have entered into covenant with God, and sincerely observe all his ordinances as they understand them, and differ in nothing from the Baptist construction but in a mere form, and maintain all the essential doctrines, and spread around them the savour of the Redeemer's name by their holy examples and evangelical efforts, and are owned of God by the effusions of his Spirit, and are among the chosen instruments-are a great majority of the chosen instruments,—to carry the gospel to the heathen. And after all, are they to be disowned as churches of Christ?

(6.) If our Christian associations are not churches, our preachers are not church members,—are not baptized,—and therefore have no right to preach, and certainly are not ministers of Christ; (for how can one be an officer of the church who is not a member?) and therefore have no right to administer the Lord's supper, (to say nothing of baptism,) and are guilty of awful profanity in doing this. And yet these profane intruders into holy things, instead of being driven from the earth like Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, are owned of God, are made the chosen instruments of promoting revivals of religion, of saving the souls of men, of spreading the gospel at home, of sending it to the heathen, and of doing more than half that is done to extend the kingdom of Christ on earth. And they are owned as lawful preachers even by the Baptists themselves, who come to hear them, and whose ministers exchange pulpits with them.

(7.) The spirit of love and union which Christ inculcated upon his disciples. and by which the world was to know that God had sent him, binds evangelical churches with each other. This spirit has made a wonderful advance within the last thirty years, and is one of the leading characteristics of the present day, and has come in with those other glorious changes which all Christians ascribe to God, and which are manifestly putting things forward towards the millennial state. And this spirit, according to all prophecy, must go on in increasing, and banish the hideous spectre of bigotry from the world, before the happiest period of the church can be ushered in.

A noble advance has been made by our Baptist brethren in England. Many advocates for open communion have there risen up, among whom stands conspicuous the celebrated Robert Hall. In America, at the head of the liberal class stood the late excellent Dr Stillman of Boston, who was beloved by all the churches in that city, and respected by Christians throughout the United States.