6. "For some public attempts to increase the blindness of many as to the subjects of Gospel baptism."

7. "For having impeached the honor of the Christian lawgiver.

Vain have been our hopes that the doctrine of infallibility was laughed out of countenance. No; it has a hundred lives. Surely your brethren must hang their heads when they see this dogmatizing; this dispatch at Robesperian policy recalled into public view.

I most heartily forgive you all this abuse, and hope to meet you still in a better world; but, if I pursue this controversy any farther, it must be with a disputant from whom a little more modesty is to be expected.

Yours, &c.

SAMUEL AUSTIN.

WORCESTER, April 26, 1805.

CONCLUSION.

THE writer of the foregoing Letters has now closed his public correspondence with Mr. Merrill. He has consulted brevity, having no wish to obtrude on the public prolix

discussions of a subject which has been largely canvassed by learned and ingenious men. He refers to the subject of the mode of baptism. This is the point of the most labor, and the greatest confidence in Mr. Mer-rill's publications. Should any other writer appear to advocate the doctrine, that immersion is the exclusive mode of baptism, and essential to it, he will not be entitled to a public reply, unless he shall make use of some new topic of argument, or give old arguments a much more plausible form than they have yet assumed.. And he must be holden to the scripture as his source of evidence, because there can be no essential doctrine, institution or duty, which the scripture itself does not clearly ascertain.

The subject of free communion is one in which the author of these letters feels especially interested; free communion, he means, among all who give evidence that they love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity and in truth.. If a man is evidently governed by the carnal heart which is enmity against God; if he. prove this by opposing the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, or neglecting its selfdenying, unquestionable duties, he is not a visible saint. For free communion with persons of this description, the writer does not

not."

contend. He is altogether against it. But for such communion with all who are acknowledged to be "the seed which the Lord hath blessed," he is an advocate. A visibility of this, of a person's being of this seed, is the only principle of separation between the church and the world. The question is, are we visibly for Christ, or against him? Do we gather with him or scatter abroad? If we are constrained to decide in the affirmative, the direction of Christ applies, "Forbid him We may be of the former character, and yet err in some of our opinions, and be faulty in some of our practice. But no errors, either in sentiment or practice, short of what must exclude us from a visible standing in the covenant, can warrant any one to deny us christian fellowship. To do it is certainly to withhold the blessings of grace from those to whom the covenant has bequeathed them. It is to oppose the harmony of brethren, and to put asunder what God has joined. It is to give occasion to the enemies of religion to blaspheme, and to offend those whom Christ has redeemed.

There are antipædobaptists, who seem to be governed by a mere sectarian spirit; and who are so tenacious of the doctrine and practice of close communion, that they have not eyes to see evidence, though it be demonstra

tive. To such persons we preach and write in vain. Others, governed by the uniting spirit of Christianity, are free communionists in principle. They are our brethren.

We

meet them at the throne, and in the ordinances of our common Savior with perfect cordiality. Others there are who practice close communion with much hesitation, and rather through the influence of those with whom they are immediately connected, than from any settled conviction in their own minds of the justness of it. Such persons are susceptible of instruction. They will attend to evidence. Their establishment in the truth on this article is a matter of hope. The subject has not, it is apprehended been fully investigated. A farther investigation of it would promise material advantage to the interests of religion. And as the writer of these pages has ventured into the field, he holds himself prepared to defend the doctrine of free communion, according to the principle just stated, and to disprove the right of the opposite. But should the discussion of this subject be farther pursued, it must be done fairly, without personal variance, and with a strict attention to proof as the sole object of enquiry.

The Rev. SAMUEL WORCESTER, of Salem, has sent forward the following Remarks, in reply to what Mr. MERRILL has thought proper to address to him, at the close of his Letters to the Author; with a request that they might have a place in this publication as the most convenient way of laying them before the public.

1. MR. WORCESTER is ready to prove by substantial witnesses, that Mr. Merrill has said, he was thankful, or desired to be thankful, that he knew the Greek as well as any man. It was understood that he was thankful, or desired to be thankful To GOD. To whom else should he be thankful?

It will not be denied, that some of the most learned men as well of former ages as of the present age, are to be numbered among "the opposers" of the antipædobaptists. Mr. Merrill acknowledges "that he may have said something to this purport, that he understood the Greek words which relate to the ordinance of baptism, as well as do the opposers." To know these words as well, he must be as well read in Greek authors, and have as good a knowledge of the Greek language. Is he then, offended because Mr. Worcester "has charged, most ungenerously charged," to his account, that he is thankful, or "desires to