The degree of blame which attaches to the conduct of those who mistake the will of Christ with respect to the sacramental use of water, we shall not pretend to determine; but we feel no hesitation in affirming, that the practice of comparing it to a presumptuous violation and contempt of divine law, is equally repugnant to the dictates of propriety and of candour. Among the innumerable descendants of Abraham, it is impossible to find one since their departure from Egypt, who has doubted of the obligation of circumcision, of the proper subjects of that rite, or of its being an indispensable prerequisite to the privileges of the Mosaic covenant. Among christians, on the contrary, of unexceptionable character and exalted piety, it cannot be denied that the subject, the mode, and the perpetuity of baptism, have each supplied occasion for controversy; which can only be ascribed to the minute particularity with which the ceremonies of the law were enjoined, compared to the concise brevity which characterises the history of evangelical institutes. We are far, however, from insinuating a doubt on the obligation of believers to submit to the ordinance of baptism, or of its being exclusively appropriated to such; but we affirm that in no part of scripture is it calculated as a preparative to the Lord's supper, and that this view of it is a mere fiction of the imagination.

When duties are enjoined in a certain series, each of them, on the authority in which they originate,

become obligatory; nor are we excused from performing those which stand later in the series, on account of our having, from misconception of their meaning, or from any other cause, omitted the first. To exemplify this by a familiar instance: It will be admitted that the law of nature enforces the following duties, resulting from the relation of children to their parents: first, to yield implicit obedience in the state of nonage; next, in maturer age to pay respectful deference to their advice, and a prompt attention to their wants; lastly, after they are deceased, affectionately to cherish their memory, and defend their good name. None will deny that each of these branches of conduct is obligatory, and that this is the order in which they are recommended to our attention. But will it be contended that he who has neglected the first, ought not to perform the second; or that he who has failed in the second, ought to omit the third? To such an absurd pretence we should immediately reply that they are all independently obligatory, as respective dictates of the divine will; and that for him who has violated one of them to urge his past delinquencies as an apology for the present, would only prove an aggravation of his guilt. It is true that some duties are so situated, as parts or appendages of preceding ones, that their obligation may be said to result from them; as for example, the duty of confessing Christ before men arises from the previous duty of believing on him; and that of joining a christian society, presupposes the

obligation of becoming a christian. In such cases, however, as the connexion betwixt the respective branches of practice is founded on the nature of things, it is easily perceived, and rarely, if ever, the subject of controversy. In a series of positive precepts, this principle has no place; as they originate merely in arbitrary appointment, their mutual relation can only be the result of clear and express command; and as reason could never have discovered their obligation, so it is as little able to ascertain their intrinsic connexion and dependence, which, wherever it subsists, must be the effects of the same positive prescription which gave them birth. It cannot be pretended that an unbaptized believer is intrinsically disqualified for a suitable attendance at the Lord's table, or that it is so essentially connected with baptism, as to render the act of communion, in itself, absurd or improper. The communion has no retrospective reference to baptism, nor is baptism an anticipation of communion. Enjoined at different times, and appointed for different purposes, they are capable, without the least inconvenience, of being contemplated apart; and on no occasion are they mentioned in such a connexion as to imply, much less to assert, that the one is enjoined with a view to the other. Such a connexion, we acknowledge, subsisted betwixt the rites of circumcision and the passover; and all we demand of the advocates of strict communion is, that instead of amusing us with fanciful analogies drawn from an antiquated

law, they would point us to some clause in the New Testament which asserts a similar relation betwixt baptism and the Lord's supper. But here, where the very hinge of the controversy turns, the Scriptures are silent. They direct us to be baptized, and they direct us to commemorate the Saviour's death; but not a syllable do they utter to inform us of the inseparable connexion betwixt these two ordinances. This deficiency is ill supplied by fervid declamation on the perspicuity of our Lord's commission, and the inexcusable inattention or prejudice which has led to a misconception of its meaning; for let the persons whom these charges may concern be as guilty as they may, since they are still acknowledged to be christians, the questions return, why are they debarred from the communion of saints, and, while entitled to all other spiritual privileges, supposed to be incapacitated from partaking of the symbols of a crucified Saviour? How came the deteriorating effects of their error respecting baptism to affect them but in one point, that of their eligibility as candidates for communion, without spreading farther? That it just amounts to a forfeiture of this privilege, and of no other, is a conclusion to which, as it is certain it cannot be established by reason, we ask to be conducted by revelation; and we entreat our opponents for information on that head again and again, but entreat in vain.

Were we to judge from the ardent attachment which the abettors of strict communion, on all

occasions, profess to the positive institutes of the gospel, we should suppose that the object of their efforts was to raise them to their just estimation, and to rescue them from desuetude and neglect. We should conjecture that they arose from a solicitude to revive certain practices which had prevailed in the purest ages of the church, but were afterwards laid aside, just as the ordinance of preaching was, during the triumph of the papacy, almost consigned to oblivion; and that the consequence of complying with their suggestions, would be a more complete exhibition of christianity in all its parts. But their zeal operates in quite a contrary direction. The success of their scheme tends not to extend the practice of baptism, no, not in a single instance, but merely to exclude the Lord's supper. Leaving the former appointment unaltered and untouched, it merely proposes to abolish the latter; and, as far as it is practicable, to lay the christian world under an interdict. The real state of the case is as follows: On the subject of baptism, and particularly whether it is applicable to infants, opinions are divided, and the majority have come, as we conceive, to an erroneous conclusion. How do they propose to remedy this evil? By throwing all manner of obstacles in the way of an approach to the Lord's table, and, as far as their power extends, rendering it impracticable by clogging it with a condition at which conscience revolts. They propose to punish men for the involuntary neglect of one ordinance, by