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 consum→ mation; 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 regene ration. "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 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.

of

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?

The argument from authority, however, when fairly stated, is entirely in our favor; nor would it be easy to assign an example of bolder deviation from the universal practice of the Christian church, than the conduct of our opponents supplies. They are the only persons in the world of whom we have either heard or read, who contend for the exclusion of genuine Christians from the Lord's table; who ever attempted to distinguish them into two classes, such as are entitled to commemorate their Saviour's death, and such as are excluded from that privilege. In what page of the voluminous records of the Church is such a distinction to be traced? Or what intimation shall we find in Scripture of an intention to create such an invidious disparity among the members of the same body? Did it ever enter the conception of any but Baptists, that a right to the sign could be separated from the thing signified; or that there could be a description of persons interested in all the blessings of the Christian covenant, yet not entitled to partake of its sacraments and seals?

In the judgement of all religious communities besides, and in every period of the Church, excommunication or exclusion has been considered as a stigma, never to be inflicted but on men of ill lives, or on the abettors of heresy and schism; and though innumerable instances have occurred, in which the best of men have in fact been excluded, they were either accused of fundamental error, or adjudged on account of their obstinate resistance to the authority of the Church, to have forfeited the privileges of Christians. They were not excommunicated under the character of mistaken brethren, which is the light in which we profess to consider Pædobaptists, but as incurable heretics and schismatics. The Puritans were expelled the Church of England on the same principle; and although at the Restoration, a vindictive spirit was unquestionably the chief motive to those disgraceful proceedings, yet the pretensions of ecclesiastical authority were carried so high in those unhappy times, as to furnish the pretext for considering them as contumacious contemners of the power, and disturbers of the peace of the Church. In the whole course of ecclesiastical proceedings, no maxim was more fully recognized than that the sword of excommunication cut asunder the ties of fraternity, and consigned the offender, unless he repented, to hopeless perdition.

In some dissenting societies also, it is true, creeds are established which every candidate for admission is expected to subscribe; and though these summaries of Christian doctrine frequently contain articles, which, admitting them to be true, are not fundamental, they were originally deemed such by their fabricators, or supposed at least to be accompanied with such a plenitude of evidence as no sincere inquirer could resist; and they are continued under the same persuasion.

The right of rejecting those whom Christ has received; of refusing the communion of eminently holy men, on account of unessential differences of opinion, is not the avowed tenet of any sect or community in Christendom, with the exception of the majority of the Baptists, who, while they are at variance with the whole world on a point of such magnitude, are loud in accusing their brethren of singularity. If we have presumed to resist the current of opinion, it is on a subject of no practical moment; it respects an obscure and neglected corner of theology; while their singularity is replete with the most alarming consequences, destroys at once the unity of the Church, and pronounces a sentence of excommunication on the whole Christian world.

Having without disguise exhibited in their full force the reasoning of the advocates of strict communion, and replied to it in the best manner we are able, it must be left to the impartial reader to determine on which side the evidence preponderates; of which he will be able to judge more completely, when we have stated at large the grounds of the opposite practice, which we have reserved for the second part of this treatise; where we shall have an opportunity of noticing some minor objections, which could not be so conveniently adverted to in the former.

PART II.

THE POSITIVE GROUNDS ON WHICH WE JUSTIFY THE PRACTICE OF MIXED COMMUNION.

SECTION I.

Free communion urged, from the obligation of brotherly love.

THAT we are commanded, in terms the most absolute, to cultivate a sincere and warm attachment to the members of Christ's body, and that no branch of Christian duty is inculcated more frequently, or with more force, will be admitted without controversy. Our Lord instructs us to consider it as the principal mark or feature by which his followers are to be distinguished in every age, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye love one another. As I have loved you, ye ought also to love one another;" whence it is evident, that the pattern we are to follow, is, the love which Christ bore to his Church, which is undoubtedly extended indiscriminately to every member. The cultivation of this disposition is affirmed to be one of the most essential objects of the Christian revelation, as well as the most precious fruit of that faith by which it is embraced. "Seeing," says St. Peter, 66 ye have purified your hearts by obeying the truth unto an unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." Agreeably to which, the beloved disciple affirms it to be the chief evidence of our being in a state of grace and salvation. "By this we know that we are passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren." Let it also be remembered, that the mode in which we are commanded to exhibit and express this most eminent grace of the Spirit, is the preservation of union, a careful avoidance of every temper and practice which might produce alienation and division. To this purpose, St. Paul reminds us of that union which subsists betwixt the several parts of the body, the harmony with which its respective functions are carried on, where the noblest organ is incapable of dispensing with the action of the meanest, together with that quick feeling of sympathy which pervades the whole; all which, he tells us, is contrived and adjusted to prevent a schism in the body. In applying this illustration to the subject before us, it is impossible not to perceive, that when one part of Christ's mystical body refuses