a principle the most obvious and the most urgent, the previous obligation of obeying God, rather than man; but, if we object to a transient act of communion with a member of the body of Christ, on account of those errors or corruptions in which we are not called to participate, we are guilty of dividing that body. The reason of my adverting to a transient act, is, that I am supposing the cause of separation to rest with us, and that a member of a different community proposes merely to unite in an occasional commemoration of the ineffable love of the Redeemer, without either a formal renunciation of the peculiarities of his sect, or an attempt to introduce them. In such circumstances, occasional fellowship is all that can be looked for; the adoption of different modes of worship, a predilection for different rites and ceremonies, will naturally dispose him to prefer a permanent union with professors of his own persuasion. While, in the mutual intercourse of such societies, a disposition to recognise each other as christians is cultivated, the unity of the body is preserved, notwithstanding their disagreement in particular points of doctrine, or of discipline. Owing to a diversity of judgement, respecting the proper organization of churches, obstacles, at present invincible, may prevent their incorporation; and it is left to the conscience of each individual to determine to which he will permanently unite himself. An enlightened christian

will not hesitate for a moment, in declining to join with that society, whatever be the piety of its individual members, in which the terms of communion involve his concurrence in religious observances, of whose lawfulness he entertains any doubt. Hence arises, in the present state of religion, an impassable barrier to the perfect intercommunity of christian societies. But it is not upon this ground that my opponent objects to the practice for which we are contending. He rests his refusal to commune with members of other denominations, on the principle of their not being entitled to be recognised as christians. He protests against a union with them, not on account of any erroneous or superstitious observances, with which the act of fellowship is necessarily combined, but considers them as personally disqualified. His hypothesis is indeed so wild and incoherent, that it is difficult to state it with accuracy, or to preserve a steady conception of it in the mind. According to his theory, the pædobaptists occupy a station the most anomalous and extraordinary that ever entered the human imagination. Many of them are genuine believers, of whose exalted piety he avows the fullest conviction, yet they are not to be recognised as christians; they are members of the mystical body of Christ, or they could derive from him no saving influence or benefit, yet are excluded from all the advantages resulting from the union and cooperation of the

several parts of which it consists; and though, as a portion of the mystical body, it is impossible to deny them a place in the one catholic or universal church, yet it is the duty of every particular church to disown, and exclude them. In short, the great majority of the sincere followers of the Saviour, whose names are written in the Book of Life, are totally disqualified for performing the duties, and enjoying the privileges, which distinguish the church from the world; betwixt which they occupy some intermediate place, some terra incognita, whose existence it is as difficult to ascertain, as the limbus patrum, or a mansion in the moon. In the present state of the christian church, that extensive portion of the New Testament, which was designed to cement the affections, and to regulate the conduct of the faithful towards each other, is superseded; its precepts are in a state of suspension and abeyance, and in the midst of Egyptian darkness, which envelopes the christian world, the baptists alone dwell in the light of another Goshen. However strange these positions may appear, they form but a part of the absurdities which necessarily flow from our author's theory; nor is there any possible way of evading them, but by denying that pædobaptists belong to the mystical body of Christ, or demonstrating the consistency of their exclusion with the union and cooperation which St. Paul enjoins; or by asserting the existence of more mystical bodies than one, destined to subsist apart.

CHAP. IX.

The Injustice of the Exclusion of other Denominations considered as a Punishment.

IN the treatise On Terms of Communion it was urged, that, as exclusion from the communion of the church is the highest ecclesiastical censure which it is possible to inflict, it can only be justified on the supposition of a proportional degree of demerit in the objects of it. If the moral turpitude inherent in the practice of infant baptism is of an order which entitles it to be compared to the habitual indulgence of vice, or the obstinate maintenance of heresy, it is but fit it should be placed on the same level, and subjected to the same treatment; but, if the understanding and the heart equally revolt at such a comparison, that method of proceeding must be allowed to be unjust. To this our author replies by denying the propriety of applying the term exclusion to a bare refusal of admission. 66 Words," he informs us, "must strangely have altered their meaning before such an application of the phrase in question can be justified." To be compelled to dispute about the

meaning of terms is always humiliating, but that his assertion is unfounded, is sufficiently evident, from the authority of the most eminent critics. Our great lexicographer, under the word exclude, defines it thus, "to shut out, to hinder from entrance, or admission;" exclusion he defines, "the act of shutting out, or denying admission." Thus much for his accuracy as a grammarian. Let us next examine his reasoning.

He denies that the act of debarring every other denomination from admission is a punishment" it is not considered as such by sensible pædobaptists."* But why is it not? Solely because the baptist societies are too few and too insignificant to enable them to realise the effects of their system, in its full extent. Their principle involves an absolute interdict of church privileges to the members of every other community; but, being an inconsiderable minority, there are not wanting numerous and respectable societies, who stand ready to give a welcome reception to the outcasts, and to succour the exiles. That their rejection is not followed by its natural consequence, a total privation of the communion of saints, is not to be ascribed, in the smallest degree, to the liberality or forbearance of our opponents, but solely to their imbecility. The celebration of the eucharist they consider as null and void, when

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 60.