PREFACE. AFTER having discussed so largely in some former publications the question of strict communion, that is, the prevailing practice in the Baptist denomination of confining their fellowship to members of their own community, it was not my intention to trouble the public with the subject any further, not having the least ambition for the last word in controversy. But it has been suggested to me that it would not be difficult to condense the substance of the argument within a smaller compass, so as to render it accessible to such as have neither the leisure nor the inclination to peruse a large performance. It has been endeavour to cut off every thing superfluous, and without doing injury to the merits of the cause, to present the reasoning which sustains it in a concise and popular form: how far I have succeeded must be left to the judgment of the reader. my I would only remark here, that all I have seen and heard concurs to convince me that the practice of strict communion rests almost entirely on authority, and that were the influence of a few great names withdrawn it would sink under its own weight. Among those of recent date none has been more regarded than that of the late venerable Fuller; and as he left a manuscript on this subject to be published after his death, he is considered as having deposed his dying testimony in its favour. That he felt some predilection to a practice to which he had been so long accustomed, and whose propriety was very rarely questioned in his early days, is freely admitted; but that he all along felt some hesitation on the subject, and that his mind was not completely made up, I am induced to believe from several circumstances. First, from the fact of his proposing himself to commune at Cambridge with the full knowledge of there being Pedobaptists present. Secondly, from a conversation which passed many years ago between him and the writer of these lines. In reply to his observation, that we act precisely on the same principle with our Pedobaptist brethren, since they also insist on baptism as an essential prerequisite to communion, it was remarked that this was a mere argumentum ad hominem, it might serve to silence the clamours of those Pedobaptists who while they adhered to that principle charged us with bigotry; but that still it did not touch the merits of the question, since a previous inquiry occurs, whether any thing more is requisite to communion on scriptural grounds than a vital union with Christ; his answer was, When mixed VOL. II.-O communion is placed on that footing, I never yet ventured to attack it. Hence I am compelled to consider his posthumous tract rather as a trial of what might be adduced on that side of the controversy with a view to provoke further inquiry, than the result of deliberate and settled conviction. Be this as it may, great as his merits were, he was but a man, and as such liable to err even on subjects of much greater importance. All I wish is, that without regard to human names or authorities, the matter in debate may be entirely determined by an unprejudiced appeal to reason and Scripture. The prevalence of this disposition to bow to authority and to receive opinions upon trust is strikingly illustrated by the following anecdote. A highly respected friend of mine, on asking one of his deacons, a man of primitive piety and integrity, what objections he had to mixed communion, he replied with great simplicity that he had two-in the first place, Mr. Fuller did not approve of it; and in the next, the Scripture declares that "he who pulls down a hedge a serpent shall bite him." The good man very properly placed that reason first which carried the greatest weight with it. In short, there is a certain false refinement and subtlety in the argument for strict communion which would never occur to a plain man who was left solely to the guidance of Scripture. In common with almost every other error, it derived its origin from the public teachers of religion, and with a change of sentiment in them it will gradually disappear; nor will it be long ere our churches will be surprised that they suffered themselves to be betrayed by specious but hollow sophistry into a practice so repulsive and so impolitic. Amicus Plato, amicus Socrates, sed magis amica veritas. OCTOBER 7, 1826. A SHORT STATEMENT. It 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 right 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 favour the more 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 discussion. 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 |