other, involuntary error: in the one, the pride which opposes itself to the dictates of inspired wisdom, in the other, a specimen (an humbling one it is true) of that infirmity, in consequence of which, we all see but in part, and know but in part. Since whatever degree of prejudice or inattention we may be disposed to impute to the abettors of infant sprinkling, the principles on which they proceed are essentially different from those which could alone have occasioned the introduction of that practice in apostolic times, we are at a loss to conceive the propriety of classing them together, or of animadverting upon them with equal severity. The Apostles would have repelled from their communion men, who while they professed to be followers of Christ, refused submission to his inspired messengers; in other words, they would have rejected some of the worst of men: therefore, say our opponents, we feel ourselves justified in excluding multitudes whom we acknowledge to be the best. I am at a loss, whether most to admire the logic, the equity, or the modesty of such a conclusion.

Besides, this reasoning from precedent is of so flexible a nature, that it may with equal ease be employed in a contrary direction, and be turned to the annoyance of our opponents. As it is an acknowledged fact, that in primitive times, all the faithful were admitted to an equality of participation in every Christian privilege, to repel the great majority of them on account of an error, acknowledged not to be fundamental, is at once, a wide departure from the apostolic example, and a palpable contradiction to the very words employed in its first institution; "drink ye all of it; do this in remembrance of me:" words addressed, as has already been proved, to persons who had not received Christian baptism. If it be replied, that though all Christians originally communicated, yet from the period of the Pentecost, at least, they were all previously initiated by immersion, the inquiry returns, were they baptized on account of the necessary connexion of that appointment with the eucharist, or purely in deference to the apostolic injunction? To assert the former, would be palpably begging the question; and if the latter is affirmed, we reply, that as they practised as they did, in deference to the will of God, so our Pædobaptist brethren, in declining the practice which we adopt, regulate their conduct by the same principle.

The show of conformity to apostolic precedent is with the advocates of strict communion, and nothing more; the substance and reality are with us. Their conformity is to the letter, ours to the spirit; theirs, circumstantial and incidental; ours, radical and essential. In withholding the signs from those who are in possession of the thing signified, in refusing to communicate the symbols of the great sacrifice, to those who are equally with themselves

sprinkled by its blood and sharers of its efficacy, in dividing the regenerate into two classes, believers and communicants, and confining the church to the narrow limits of a sect, they have violat ed more maxims of antiquity, and receded further from the example of the Apostles, than any class of Christians on record.

We live in a mutable world, and the diversity of sentiment, which has arisen in the Christian church on the subject of baptism, has placed things in a new situation, and has given birth to a case which can be determined only by an appeal to the general principles of the gospel, and to those injunctions in particular, which are designed to regulate the conduct of Christians, whose judgements in points of secondary moment differ. These we shall have occasion to discuss in another part of this treatise, where it will, we trust, be satisfactorily shewn, that we are furnished with a clue fully sufficient for our guidance: and when we consider the impossibility of comprehending in any code whatever, every possible combination of future occurrences and events, we shall perceive the necessity of having recourse to those large and comprehensive maxims, which the prospective wisdom of the Father of lights, and the Author of revelation, has abundantly supplied.

Were it not, that more are capable of numbering arguments, than of weighing them, the mention of the following might be omitted. The signification of the two positive ordinances of the gospel is urged in proof of the necessity of baptism preceding the Lord's supper. The first, we are reminded by our opponents, is styled by theologians, the sacrament of regeneration, or of initiation; the second, the sacrament of nutrition.* To argue from metaphors is rarely a conclusive mode of reasoning, but if it were, the regenerate state of our Pædobaptist brethren would surely afford a much better reason for admitting them to the sacrament of nutrition, than their misconception of a particular command for prohibiting them, unless we choose to affirm, that the shadow is of more importance than the substance, or that the sacrament of nutrition is not intended to nourish.

Their actual possession of spiritual life, in consequence of their union to the head of the church, necessarily implies a title to every Christian privilege, by which such a life is cherished and maintained, unless there were an express prohibition to the contrary;

"In submitting to baptism," says Mr. Booth, "we have an emblem of our union and communion with Jesus Christ, as our great representative, in his death, burial, and resurrection. And as in baptism, we profess to have renewed spiritual life; so in communicating at the Lord's table, we have the emblem of that heavenly food by which we live, by which we grow, and by virtue of which we hope to live for ever. Hence, theological writers have often called baptism the sacrament of regeneration, or of initiation, and the Lord's supper, the sacrament of nutrition."—Booth's Apology.

nor is it to be doubted, that the acknowledgment of Pædobaptists, as Christians, implies a competence to enter into the full import of the rites commemorative of our Lord's death and passion. To consider the Lord's supper, however, as a mere commemoration of that event, is to entertain a very inadequate view of it. If we credit St. Paul, it is also a federal rite, in which, in token of our reconciliation with God, we eat and drink in his presence; it is a feast upon a sacrifice, by which we become partakers at the altar, not less really, though in a manner, more elevated and spiritual, than those who, under the ancient economy, presented their offerings in the temple. In this ordinance, the cup is a spiritual participation of the blood, the bread of the body of the crucified Saviour; (1 Cor. 11: 16.) and as our Pædobaptist brethren are allowed to be in covenant with God, their title to every federal rite follows of course, unless it is barred by some clear, unequivocal declaration of Scripture; instead of which we meet with nothing on the opposite side, but precarious conjectures, and remote analogies.

Our opponents are extremely fond of representing baptism under the New Testament, as essential as circumcision under the old, inferring from thence, that no unbaptized person is admissible to the eucharist, for the same reason that none who was not circumcised, was permitted to partake of the paschal feast. But besides that this is to reason from analogy, a practice against which, when applied to the discussion of positive institutes, they on other occasions earnestly protest, the analogy fails in the most essential points. Circumcision is expressly stated as a necessary condition of admission to the passover: a similar statement re→ specting baptism will decide the controversy. The neglect of circumcision, which could proceed from nothing but presumptuous impiety, incurred the sentence of excision; that soul shall be cut off from the people. Whatever may be meant besides by that commination, it will not be doubted, that it included the entire forfeiture of the advantages of that peculiar covenant, which God was pleased to establish with the Israelitish people; and the exclusion from the paschal feast, as well as from the other sacrifices, was the necessary appendage of that forfeiture.

The most violent Baptist will not presume to insinuate, that the neglect of baptism, from a misconception of its nature, is exposed to a similar penalty. It is evident, from the history of the Old Testament, that an Israelite became disqualified for sharing in whatever privileges distinguished that nation, only in consequence of such a species of criminality as cut him off from the covenant. An interest in that covenant, (the particular nature of which it is not necessary to insist upon) and a free access to all the privileges

and institutions of the Jewish people, were inseparable, so that nothing would have appeared to an ancient Jew more absurd, than to disunite the covenant itself, from the federal rites by which it was ratified and confirmed. The invention of this ingenious paradox belongs exclusively to the abettors of strict communion, who in the same breath affirm, that Pædobaptists are entitled to all the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant, and forbidden to commemorate it; and scruple not to assert, that though interested as much as themselves in the great sacrifice, it would be presumption in them to approach the sacred symbols, which are appointed for no other purpose but to hold it forth. It is certainly with a very ill grace, that the champions of such monstrous and unparalleled positions, ridicule their opponents for inventing a new and eccentric theology.*

Before I dismiss this head, I must remark, that in insisting upon the prior claim which baptism possesses to the attention of a Christian convert, the advocates of strict communion triumph without an opponent. We know of none who contend for the propriety of inverting the natural order of the Christian sacraments, where they can both be attended to, that is, when the nature of each is clearly understood and confessed. To administer them under any other circumstances, it will be acknowledged, is impracticable. We administer baptism, let it be remembered, in every instance in which our opponents will allow it ought to be administered; and the only difference is, that we have fellowship, in another ordinance, with those members of the body of Christ, whom they reject. Let it once be demonstrated, that the obligation of commemorating the Saviour's death, is not sufficiently supported by his express injunction, but derives its force and validity from its inseparable connexion with a preceding sacrament, and we are prepared to abandon our practice, as a presumptuous innovation on the laws of Christ. Till then we shall not be much moved by the charge of claiming a dispensing power with which we are frequently accused-a power which I presume no Protestant ever

"The last century," says Mr. Booth, page 36, "was the grand era of improvement, of prodigious improvement, in light and liberty. In light, as well divine as philosophical, by the labors of a Bacon, a Boyle, and a Newton. In pretended theological knowledge, by those of a Jesse or a Bunyan. Did the former, by deep researches into the system of nature, surprise and instruct the world, by discoveries of which mankind has never before conceived? The latter, penetrating into the gospel system, amused mankind by casting new light on the positive institutions of Jesus Christ; and by placing baptism among things of little importance in the Christian religion, of which no ancient theologian ever dreamed-none we have reason to think, that ever loved the Lord Redeemer." A little after he adds, "the practical claim of dispensing power by Jesse and Bunyan, made way for the inglorious liberty of treating positive institutions in the house of God just as professors please."

dreamed of usurping, and the assumption of which implies such impiety as ought to render a Christian reluctant to urge such a. charge.

To remind us of "the destruction of Nadab and Abihu by fire from Heaven, the breach that was made upon Uzzah, the stigma fixed, and the curses denounced upon Jerusalem, together with the fall and ruin of all mankind by our first father's disobedience to a positive command," is more calculated to inflame the passions, than to elicit truth, or conduct the controversy to a satisfactory issue. When the sole inquiry is, what is the law of Christ, and we are fully persuaded that our interpretation of it is more natural and reasonable than that of our opponents, it is not a little absurd, to charge us with assuming a claim of dispensing with its authority. We know that he commanded his followers to be baptized; we know also, that he commanded them to shew forth his death till he came; but where shall we look for a tittle of his law, which forbids such as sincerely, though erroneously, believe themselves to have complied with the first, to attend to the last of these injunctions? Where is the scriptural authority for resting the obligation of the eucharist, not on the precept that enjoins it, but on the previous reception of baptism? As the Scripture is totally silent on this point, we are not disposed to accept the officious assistance of our brethren in supplying its deficiency; and beg permission to remind them, that to add to the word of God, is equally criminal with taking away from it.

Do we neglect the administration of that rite to any class of persons, whose state of mind is such as would render it acceptable to God? Do we neglect to illustrate and enforce it in our public ministrations? Are we accustomed to insinuate, that serious inquiry into the mind of Christ on this subject, is of little, or no importance? Are we found to decline its administration in any case whatever, in which our accusers would not equally decline it? Nothing of this can be alleged. Do they argue from the language of the original institute, from the examples of Scripture, and the precedent of the early ages, that it is the duty of believers without exception, to be immersed in the name of Jesus ? So do we. Are they disposed to look upon such as have neglected, whether from inattention or prejudice, to perform this duty, as mistaken Christians? We also consider them in the same light. In what respect then, are we guilty of dispensing with divine laws? Merely because we are incapable of perceiving, that an involuntary mistake on this subject, disqualifies for Christian communion. But how extremely unjust to load us, on that account, with the charge of assuming a dispensing power, when the only ground on which we maintain our opinion, whether true or false, is our conviction