that it is founded on a legitimate interpretation of the oracles of God. The dispute is not concerning their authority, but their meaning; and we dispense with baptism in no other sense, than that of denying it to be in all cases essential to communion; in which, whether we are mistaken or not, is a point open to controversy; but to be guilty first of a misnomer in defining our sentiments, and afterwards to convert an odious and erroneous appellation into an argument, is the height of injustice.

With what propriety our practice is compared to that of the church of Rome, in confining the communion to one kind, the intelligent reader will be at no loss to perceive.* In that as in various other instances, that Church in order to raise the dignity of the priesthood, assumes a power of mutilating a divine ordinance. We are chargeable with no mutilation, nor presume in the smallest particular to innovate in the celebration of either sacraments; we merely refuse to acknowledge that dependence, one upon the other, on which the confidence of our opponents is so ill sustained by the silence of Scripture.

We will close this part of the discussion by remarking, that there is a happy equivocation in the word dispense, which has contributed not a little to its introduction into the present controversy. It may either mean, that we do not insist upon baptism as an indispensable condition of communion, in which sense the charge is true, but nothing to the purpose, since it is a mere statement, in other words, of our actual practice. Or it may intend, that we knowingly and deliberately deviate from the injunctions of Scripture; a serious accusation, which requires not to be asserted, but proved.

SECTION IV.

Our supposed opposition to the universal suffrages of the church considered.

In admitting to our communion those whom we esteem unbaptized, we are accused of a presumptuous departure from the sentiments of all parties and denominations throughout the Christian

*"It must, I think, be acknowledged," says Mr. Booth, "even by our brethren themselves, that we have as good a warrant for omitting an essential branch of an ordinance, or to reverse the order in which the constituent parts of an ordinance were originally administered, as we have to lay aside a divine institution, or to change the order in which two different appointments were first fixed. And if so, were a reformed and converted Catholic, still retaining the popish error of communion in one kind only, desirous of having fellowship with our brethren at the Lord's table; they must, if they would act consistently, on their present hypothesis, admit him to partake of the bread, though from a principle of conscience, he absolutely refused the wine in that sacred institution."--Booth's Apol. p. 51.

world, who, however they may have differed upon other subjects, have unanimously concurred in considering baptism as a necessary preliminary to communion.*

The first remark which occurs on this mode of reasoning is, that it is merely an argumentum ad verecundiam, an attempt to overawe by the weight of authority, without pretending to enter into the merits of the controversy. It assumes for its basis the impossibility of the universal prevalence of error, which, if it be once admitted, all hopes of extending the boundaries of knowledge must be relinquished. My next observation is, that it comes with peculiar infelicity from the members of a sect, who, upon a subject of much greater moment have presumed to relinquish the precedent, and arraign the practice of the whole Christian world, as far at least as they have been exhibited in these latter ages.

Quis tulerit Gracchos, de seditione querentes ?

After setting an example of revolt, it is too late for them to inculcate the duty of submission.

The question of the necessary dependance of communion on baptism, being of no practical moment whatever, in any other circumstances than our own, it is not to be wondered at, if it has never been subjected to scrutiny; since cases of conscience, among which this inquiry may be classed, are rarely if ever investigated, until circumstances occur, which render their discussion necessary. But as infant sprinkling is valid in the esteem of all but the Baptists, and there is no pretence for considering the latter as unbaptized, it is not easy to conceive what motive could exist for making it an object of serious attention. That crude and erroneous conceptions should prevail upon questions, the decision of which could have no influence on practice, will not surprise those who reflect, that truth has been usually elicited by contro

*This charge is urged with much declamatory vehemence by Mr. Booth in his Apology: A sentiment so peculiar, and a conduct so uncommon," he says, "in regard to this institution, ought to be well supported by the testimony of the Holy Ghost. For were all the Christian churches now in the world asked, except those few who plead for free communion, whether they thought it lawful to admit unbaptized believers to fellowship at the Lord's table, there is reason to believe they would readily unite in the declaration of Paul, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God that were before us. Yes, considering the novelty of their sentiments and conduct, and what a contradiction they are to the faith and order of the whole Christian church, considering that it never was disputed, as far as I can learn, prior to the sixteenth century, by orthodox or heterodox, by Papist or Protestant, whether unbaptized believers should be admitted to the Lord's table; they all agreeing in the contrary practice, however much they differed in matters of equal importance, it may be reasonably expected, and it is by us justly demanded, that the truth of their sentiment, and the rectitude of their conduct, should be proved, fully proved, from the records of inspiration."-Booth's Apol. p. 34.

versy, and that on subjects of too great importance to be entirely overlooked, opinions have prevailed to a great extent, which are now universally exploded. Though the employment of coercion in the affairs of conscience, is equally repugnant to the dictates of reason and of Scripture, it was for ages, successively resorted to, by every party in their turn; nor was it till towards the close of the seventeenth century, that the principle of toleration was established on a broad and scientific basis, by the immortal writings of Milton and of Locke. These reflections are obvious; but there are others, which tend more immediately to annihilate the objection under consideration. It is well known, that from a very early period, the most extravagant notions prevailed in the church, with respect to the efficacy of baptism, and its absolute necessity in order to attain salvation. The descent of the human mind from the spirit to the letter, from what is vital and intellectual, to what is ritual and external in religion, is the true source of idolatry and superstition, in all the multifarious forms they have assumed; and as it began early to corrupt the religion of nature, or more properly of patriarchal tradition, so it soon obscured the lustre, and destroyed the simplicity of the Christian institute. In proportion as genuine devotion declined, the love of pomp and ceremony increased; the few and simple rites of Christianity were extolled beyond all reasonable bounds; new ones were invented, to which mysterious meanings were attached, till the religion of the New Testament became, in process of time, as insupportable a yoke as the Mosaic law. The first effects of this spirit are discernible in the ideas entertained of the ordinance, so closely connected with the subject of the present treatise. From an erroneous interpretation of the figurative language of a few passages in Scripture, in which the sign is identified with the thing signified, very similar to the mistake which afterwards led to transubstantiation, it was universally supposed, that baptism was invariably accompanied with a supernatural effect, which totally changed the state and character of the candidate, and constituted him a child of God, and an heir of the kingdom of Heaven. Hence, it was almost constantly denoted by the terms illumination, regeneration, and others, expressive of the highest operations of the Spirit; and as it was believed to obtain the plenary remission of all past sins, it was often, in order to insure that benefit, purposely deferred to the latest period of life. Thus Eusebius informs us, that the Emperor Constantine, "finding his end fast approaching, judged it a fit season for purifying himself from his offences, and cleansing his soul from that guilt, which, in common with other mortals, he had contracted; which he believed was to be effected by the power of mysterious words, and the saving laver." "This," said he, addressing

the surrounding bishops, "is the period I have so long hoped and prayed for, the period of obtaining the salvation of God." Passing with the utmost rapidity through the preparatory stage, that of a catechumen, he hastened to what he regarded as his consummation; and no sooner was the ceremony completed, than he arrayed himself in white garments, and laid aside the imperial purple, in token of his bidding adieu to all secular concerns. (Euseb. in vita Constan. 1. 4. c. 61, 62.) We have here a fair specimen of the sentiments which were universally adopted upon this subject in ancient times. Even Justin Martyr, who flourished about the middle of the second century, confounds baptism with regeneration. "Whoever," says he, "believe the things which are affirmed by us to be true, and promise to live accordingly, are afterwards conducted to a place where there is water, and are regenerated by the same method of regeneration which we have experienced." (Apol. p. 159, Ed. 1651.) Theophilus, a contemporary writer, and the sixth bishop of Antioch, holds the same language. Tertullian, the earliest and most learned of the Latin Fathers, exclaims with rapture, "O happy sacrament, by which, being washed from the former sins of our blindness, we are delivered unto eternal life." (De Baptismo, Ed. 1676, p. 224.) And agreeable to the fantastic style of imagery, which characterizes his writings, he appears to be particularly delighted with denominating Christians, little fishes, who are born in water, and are safe only in that element. Were we to attempt accurately to trace the progress of these opinions, in the first ages, and adequately to represent the extent of their prevalence, we should be under the necessity, by numberless quotations from the Fathers, of extending this inquiry to a most unreasonable length.

Suffice it to remark, that there is scarcely a writer in the three first centuries, to descend no lower, who has not spoken upon this subject in a manner, which the advocates for strict communion at least, would deem unscriptural and improper; scarcely one from whom we should not be taught to infer, that baptism was absolutely necessary to salvation. That this is the doctrine, which pervades the formularies of the Church of England, is too evident to require to be insisted on; nor is it less so, that similar sentiments on this head are exhibited, to a greater or less extent, in the creeds of most, if not all established churches. Is it surprising then, that those who contend for baptism as essential to salvation, should consider it as an essential prerequisite to communion? Or is it not a much juster occasion for surprise, that our opponents should urge us with an inference, which it is acknowledged was deduced from erroneous premises, as though we were under the

necessity of admitting a conclusion, while the only argument, by which it is supported, is given up?*

For our parts, we must be permitted to look with suspicion, on the genuine product of error; no more expecting to derive truth from erroneous premises, than grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles. In the present instance, there is no doubt, that the opinion of the absolute necessity of baptism, previous to communion, sprang from those lofty and superstitious ideas, respecting its efficacy, which our opponents would be the first to disclaim. Ask a Roman Catholic, a Lutheran, or a member of the Church of England, on what ground he rests the absolute necessity of the baptismal rite, as a qualification for the eucharist; and each of them will concur in reminding you, that it is by that ordinance, we become the children of God, and heirs of his kingdom. The Augsburgh Confession, to which all the Lutheran churches are supposed to assent, and which was solemnly presented to Charles the Fifth at the Imperial Diet, as the authentic exhibition of their sentiments, expresses itself in the following terms; "Concerning baptism, they (the followers of Luther) teach that it is necessary to salvation; that by baptism is offered the grace of God; and that children are to be baptized, who being presented to God by baptism, are received into the grace of God. They condemn the Anabaptists, who disapprove of the baptism of children, and affirm, that children are saved without baptism." (Augs. Conf. Art. 9.) Some of the most learned divines of the Church of England have contended, that baptism is not only regeneration, but justification; and have made elaborate attempts to explode every other notion of that blessing. (See Waterland's Sermon on that subject.)

Such are the principles whence this vaunted unanimity is derived-principles, which our brethren reprobate on all occasions, while with a strange inconsistency they accuse us of presumption in refusing our assent to their legitimate consequences. Let it be recollected also, that the points in which they, in common with ourselves, dissent from a vast majority of the professors of Christianity, are of incomparably more importance than the particular in which they agree; for whether baptism be, on all occasions, a necessary preliminary to communion, is a trivial question, compared to that which respects the identity of baptism with regeneration.

When I consider the firm hold which these unscriptural ideas respecting baptism had taken of the minds of men, throughout all parts of the Christian world at an early period, and recollect the confidence with which ancient writers assert the impossibility even of infants being saved without baptism, the practice of infant sprinkling seems an almost necessary result. Who with such a conviction, possessed of the common feelings of a parent, could fail to secure to his infant offspring such infinite benefits?