and modes of church government, both are in general Congregationalists; and in their views of doctrine, and manner of preaching, and in labors to promote the kingdom of Christ, they harmonize almost as well as the members of either denomination do among themselves. They have, in most respects, the same hopes, and fears, and dangers, and interests, while the single point of disagreement is the subject of Baptism— a subject, to be sure, of very considerable importance, but not, in the judgment of either party, essential to salvation. Between brethren so situated, there obviously ought to be a good understanding, and as much union and affection as possible; and all methods should be taken, not to increase asperities, but to allay them; not to magnify, but to diminish and remove remaining differences of opinion, so far at least as they are a hindrance to good fellowship, and to the mutual exercise of Christian love. But in what manner shall these differences of opinion be treated, so as to secure this important end? Can they be buried in silence, shut out of sight, and in this way lose their interest, and be forgotten? I have no confidence that such a course of procedure will be adopted, or that such a result can be realized: For, in the first place, our Baptist brethren manifest no disposition to bury their peculiarities in silence; and, secondly, the subject does not seem to be of a nature to be disposed of in this way. It is one of daily concern and practice, which must necessarily lead to thought and inquiry, and these will lead to conversation and discussion. Discussion, then, there must be, in some form; and the only question to be determined is, as to the form which it shall assume, and the manner in which it shall be conducted. Of angry discussion-of vapid and sarcastic declamation, carried on for the purpose of gratifying a party and securing a triumph, there has been enough, and more than enough, already. May such warfare come to a final end. But much as has been written on the subject of baptism, I see no reason to despair of the influence of discussion, kindly, calmly, critically conducted, with a view to discover, and a disposition to receive, the truth. At least, I see no other way in which the differences between Baptists and Pedobaptists are likely ever to be adjusted. In respect to the manner in which the discussion of disputed points is conducted in the following pages, the religious public will decide. That I have expressed my views, in general, strongly, and written like a man in earnest, I acknowledge. I should have been unjust to my subject, and to my own convictions, if I had done otherwise. But, if I have, in any instance, misrepresented my brethren who differ from me, or treated them unkindly, or their arguments unfairly, or in any way given them needless pain; I shall feel that I have injured myself more than them, and shall be ready, on. conviction, to make all the reparation in my power. The subject of the third part of the following Treatise has been with me in years past, as I fear it has been with not a few of my brethren, comparatively an untrodden field. It certainly is a subject of great importance, and one demanding increased and prayerful attention. I have endeavored to examine it, uncommitted to any theory or hypothesis, and with no object in mind but merely to understand and explain the Scriptures. The views I have expressed, I am satisfied, are not far from the truth. In regard to this part of the subject, however, I must throw myself on the candor of my brethren, and shall be glad of any suggestions which they may offer. The subject of close communion I should not have touched in this connexion, could I have been satisfied, without doing it, to have laid down my pen. Whatever may be the result in regard to other points of difference between Orthodox Baptists and Pedobaptists, I do feel that it is high time that close communion was done away. In this nineteenth century, and, within sight (as we hope) of the latter day glory, it does seem that persons, who acknowledge each other as true believers and members of the church of Christ-who are embarked in the same great cause and aiming at the same results-who associate in many ways as ministers and private brethren-who agree in all the fundamentals of godliness, and differ only in regard to one of the rites of Christianity;-it does indeed seem that such persons ought to be able to commune together, at least occasionally, at the table of the Lord. I am satisfied that the course of events now in progress is strongly tending to expose and remove close communion; and that the practice cannot be much longer retained without merited injury and disgrace. The work, such as it is, I would in conclusion commit to those into whose hands it may fall; only claiming for myself the credit of upright intentions, while I cheerfully leave the event with Him who is head over all things to His people. Bangor, March 15, 1833. CONTENTS. The Mode of Christian Baptism. - The question stated. Proof that immersion is not essential ;—from the unfitness of this mode for universal practice; from the signification of baptism; from the signification of the original words denoting this ordinance, as as- certained from their etymology, from authority, and from general use; from the circumstances attending most of the baptisms re- corded in the New Testament; and from the history of the church. An objection considered. pp. 13, 14, 15, 18-30, 37, 42, 51. The Visible Church the same under both Dispensations. from the identity of the real church; from the identity of the re- ligion professed under both dispensations; from the declarations and prophecies of Scripture; and from facts. pp. 53, 54, ib., 56— 60, 61. The Covenant of the Visible Church the same under both Dispensa- tions. The Covenant with Abraham shown to be the Covenant of the ancient church. This shown to be still the Covenant of the church, from the fact established in the foregoing Section; from its having never been abolished; from the nature of its promises and requisitions; from other representations of Scrip- ture; and from its being called an everlasting Covenant. pp. 62, The children of covenanting parents stand in a peculiar relation to the church. Proved by inference; from various representations of Scripture; and from the history of the church. pp. 73, 74, 78. The substitution of Baptism in the place of Circumcision. Proved by inference; from the fact that baptism and circumcision are of the same general import; from the representations of Scripture; and the testimony of the fathers. Objections answered. pp. 79, The infant children of believing, covenanting parents to be baptized. Proved by inference from the preceding Sections; from the rea- sonableness of the rite; from the analogy of God's covenant deal- ings; from the consideration that the privileges of the present dispensation are not less than those of the ancient; from the fact that the early Jewish believers made no complaint; and from the Jewish Proselyte baptism. Christ and his Apostles taught and practised just as we might expect, on supposition that children are to be baptized. The testimony of history in proof of infant The Import, Design, and Uses of Infant Baptism. of the subject. Import of Infant Baptism as a sign. Its import as a seal. Connexion of baptized children with the church. Ob- jections answered. Inferences deduced. Importance of Infant baptism. Address to parents-to baptized children—and to churches. pp. 116, 117, 121, 125, 127, 128, 133, 135, 137, 138. Close Communion. Close Communion unscriptural; contrary to the practice of the church in the ages succeeding the Apostles; leads to various and palpable inconsistencies; interrupts mutual charity; results in cases of real hardship; is upheld from sectari- an motives; and is opposed to the spirit of the age. Difficulties in the way of its removal considered and obviated. pp. 140, 144, |