but those who had been baptized. But the case is different now; for our close communion brethren admit that there are many true Christians, who were never baptized. Hence the example of the apostles cannot prove, that there are no gospel churches now, but those whose members have all been baptized. If the members of the Pedobaptist denominations are acknowledged as evangelical Christians, then their churches must be acknowledged as evangelical Christian churches.

But suppose we admit that Pedobaptists are not members of the visible church, does it follow that they must be excluded from the table of the Lord? We think not, for the reason that the Scriptures have not established any inseparable connection between baptism and communion, or any dependence of one upon the other. Hence a failure to attend to one of them does not release any Christian from an obligation to attend to the other. All true believers have a right to commemorate the sufferings of Christ by partaking of the emblems of his body and blood; and as the fact that some have mistaken baptism, are still unbaptized, and by consequence according to the supposition, are not members of the visible church, does not destroy their evidence of Christian character, we ought therefore to admit them to the table of our common Lord.

We cannot conclude this part of our examination without noticing a subject of considerable importance. Baptists who practice open communion, (including not only the F. Baptists; but also many Calvinistic Baptist churches) have often been charged with inconsistency for not admitting unbaptized persons to membership in their churches. In order to meet this charge, it will be necessary to discuss the principle of denominational distinctions, and ascertain what gives rise to separate denominational organizations. The ground of denominational distinctions is a difference in doctrinal views. There

are numerous diversities of belief on doctrinal subjects among Christians, who acknowledge each other's sincerity and piety: "How can two walk together except they are agreed?" In order to secure harmony in the management of the internal affairs of the church, it has been found necessary to have separate denominational organizations. Those believers in a town, for instance, whose views correspond on the most important doctrinal subjects, unite together and form a church. Others in the same town, whose sentiments differ from the preceding, associate and form another church. Churches, whose doctrinal sentiments agree, in order by combination to assist each other, and give greater efficiency to their operations, associate, and thus denominations are formed. So long as diversity of sentiment on doctrinal subjects exists, it is best that there should be a plurality of denominations; it will not retard but promote Christian union. Each denomination can manage its own affairs in its own way, without any clashing of interests; and they can cooperate in their labors for the general good. Contention and proselytism are to be exceedingly deprecated; but they will always exist to some degree so long as sin and imperfection remain, and would not be removed by an abolition of denominational distinctions. Let churches and denominations keep the great object of their existence in view, viz. the salvation of souls, and govern themselves by the charitable requirements of the gospel, and their differences of doctrinal views and consequent separate organizations would not be detrimental to each other, or to the cause of Christ in general.

There is nothing in the method of procedure in the organization of churches and denominations, as detailed above, that conflicts with either the precepts or practice of Christ and the apostles. Now when churches are thus formed, composed of persons who acknowledge each other's piety, is there

any reason why they should mutually exclude each other from the pale of their Christian charity? Any reason why they should unchurch and unchristianize each other? For the harmonious management of their own internal affairs respectively, they do indeed choose to maintain separate organizations, and it is not practicable to confound them by admitting to membership in a church persons whose sentiments do not agree with those of its members. This could not be done without abandoning the principle of a plurality of denominations altogether. Hence an Independent ought not to apply for admission into an Episcopal church, nor a Methodist or F. Baptist into a Calvinistic church, or a Pedobaptist to a Baptist church, in preference to one of their own faith and order; and if they should it would be no evidence of uncharitableness or lack of Christian courtesy, if their requests were denied. These principles are recognized and acted upon throughout the entire Protestant church.

But does it hence follow, that these churches and denominations must refuse to unite with each other in the communion service? What propriety would there be in such a measure? The table is the Lord's, not theirs; and they are invited to it, to commemorate the sufferings of Christ, not to cherish a sectarian spirit. The ordinance was designed for the benefit of all the children of God; how then can a part of them assume the control of it, and exclude the rest from its participations?

It is not inconsistent then for a church to refuse membership to one of different sentiments, and yet permit him to unite with them in the communion service. They deny him membership with them, on the ground of his difference of doctrinal views from theirs; they allow him to unite with them in the communion service on the ground of his personal interest in the atonement of Christ. No injury is done to the individual; for if he cannot obtain member

ship in the particular church in question, he can in some other with whose doctrinal sentiments his own accord. One of the following courses must be pursued by churches of different denominations. 1. To commune with each other's members. 2. To deny that the communion was designed for all evangelical Christians. 3. To deny that any of those with whom they will not commune are evangelical Christians. Reader, decide between the only alternatives of which the subject allows.

We trust that the preceding explanations are sufficient to vindicate free communionists from the charge of inconsistency, so often preferred against them. Let us in turn inquire if the practice of close communionists is strictly consistent with their professions. They hold that baptism is an indispensable condition to communion, and, on this account, refuseto commune with Pedobaptists. From their writings we should suppose that to be the only obstacle to their communing with Pedobaptists. The substance of their apology, if we understand it, is this: "Let our Pedobaptist brethren submit to baptism, and we will cheerfully sit down with them at the table of the Lord; but while they continue in disobedience to that requirement, while they will not submit to that ordinance which we regard as preparatory to, and essential as a qualification for, admission to the communion, we cannot admit them to the latter ordinance." In view of such sentiments, should we not suppose that they would commune with any church composed entirely of baptized believers? This would be the natural inference, but such is not the fact. Most of the C. Baptist churches exclude the F. Baptists from their communion service, as much as they do the Congregationalists, or any other Pedobaptist denomination. Some of their churches, it is true, practice differently; but the number is small, and their course not approved of by their sister churches. On what principle is

this done? We (F. Baptists) baptize none but those who have been hopefully converted to Christ, and invariably by immersion. We are Trinitarians, hold that redemption was purchased by the atonement of Christ, and that regeneration, which is the work of the Holy Spirit, is essential to the salvation of every sinner; and as far as our knowledge extends, we are recognized as an evangelical denomination by all our sister denominations, unless the C. Baptists are an exception. Yet a large majority of the C. Baptists refuse to unite with us in the communion service. Why is this? It cannot be on account of baptism, for our sentiment and practice agree with theirs on this subject. Is it because they do not fellowship us as Christians? We can hardly believe this, since we are fellowshipped by all other evangelical denominations, and our C. Baptist brethren unite with us cordially in other religious services and efforts.

We would with the kindest feelings call the attention of our C. Baptist brethren to the position they occupy on this subject in respect to the F. Baptists. All Baptists, Freewill and Calvinistic, agree on one important point of doctrine, viz. baptism; in respect to which they differ from other denominations. Would it not be desirable, so far at least as this doctrine is concerned, that we should mutually cooperate and strengthen each other? But how can this be done while the bar of close communion is kept. up between us? We put the question to all our Baptist brethren, ought this bar to stand between Baptist churches? Is there any good reason why Calvinistic and Freewill Baptists should not unite in the communion service together? Is it not an inconsistency with acknowledged principles for one of these denominations to exclude the other from the table of the Lord? And if it is right that the F. Baptists should be admitted to the communion service with their C. Baptist brethren, should not the latB2