tuted in special remembrance of his sufferings and death? Let those individuals and churches, who are delinquent in the practice of this duty, return speedily, and with repentance to their duty, lest they be cut off as fruitless branches.

CHAPTER II.

EXAMINATION OF ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF CLOSE COMMUNION.

Close communion is founded on the assumption that baptism is required as an indispensable prerequisite to admission to the Lord's supper. This, we freely admit, has been the ground taken by a great portion of the Christian world of all denominations: they have admitted 'no person to the communion whom they considered unbaptized. Now, if this position be correct, no baptist can consistently commune with a Pedobaptist, since Baptists do not recognize infant sprinkling as Christian baptism. And while Pedobaptists make baptism an indispensable condition to the communion, under all circumstances, they cannot expect the Baptists to unite with them in the communion, in consistency with the principles of both.

We have already admitted that a great portion of the Christian world have refused the Eucharist to all whom they regarded as unbaptized. As this is a practice which we must controvert as unauthorized by the Scriptures, it will be expected at the outset that we should account for its great prevalence. It is not necessary here to describe the manner in which numerous gross errors and corruptions found their way into the church during the first four centuries of the Christian era. Every reader of ecclesiastical history knows, that very early the doctrine became

prevalent in the church, that baptism is essential to salvation-of infants, as well as adults. Some supposed that unbaptized infants dying in infancy would be annihilated; others that they would be damned— Austin favored the latter opinion. Says a learned cardinal: "The church has always believed, that infants perish, if they die without baptism."* Even to this day the liturgy of the church of England puts all persons dying unbaptized on a level with suicides! The following from the rubric at the conclusion of the office for public baptism of infants, and that prefixed to the order for the burial of the dead authorizes the above statement. "It it certain by God's word, that children which are baptized, dying before they commit sin, are undoubtedly saved." "Here it is to be noted, that the office ensuing (viz: the burial office) is not to be used for any that die unbaptized, or excommunicated, or have laid violent hands upon themselves." One quotation more may suffice on this point. The council of Trent decreed as follows: "If any one shall assert that baptism is free, not necessary to salvation, let him be accursed."†

Considering that such abominable sentiments so early crept into the church, and were so generally adopted, it is not strange that the belief should become almost universal, that baptism is an indispensable condition to the communion. One follows the other as a matter of course. If baptism was considered essential to salvation, it must be also to communion.

Still some may startle at the idea of questioning whether baptism of some kind or what is regarded as baptism is not requisite, in order to be admitted to the communion. But TRUTH is the object to be sought, whether it conflicts with our preconceived

* Semper Ecclesia credidit, infantes perine, si absque Baptismo de hac vita vecedant. Bellarmo apud Amesium. Tom. III. p. 67.

Si quis dixerit baptismua liberum esse, hoc est non necessarium ad salutem, anathema sit. Sess. VII. Can. V.

opinions, or not; whether it subverts the dogmas of men of high standing and influence, or not. We must stand on consistent, scriptural ground, in supporting the ordinances of the Gospel. All the bulls of popes, or decrees of councils, or the declarations even of the best uninspired men, are insufficient to authorize an innovation upon the perfect rule of faith and practice which God has given us in his holy word. We do not suppose that the communion is open, either expressly or virtually, to the whole world, so that every one at his pleasure is at liberty to partake, and thus profane the sacred elements.That there are clear, definite restrictions and conditions to the communion, which effectually preclude it from profanation, we firmly believe, and hope to show in the sequel; but whether baptism is an indispensable prerequisite, under all circumstances, is a subject of investigation. This is the hinge question in the controversy.

If baptism is an essential condition to communion, the fact ought to be susceptible of proof. A "thus saith the Lord" will satisfy any one who acknowledges the divine authority of the Scriptures.The sacrament of the Lord's supper is a positive institution, and should therefore be observed strictly according to the requirement of the institutor. His will is the measure of our duty respecting it; and his will is ascertained by referring to the Book in which he has communicated it. There is no place here for our theories and conjectures, as there might be in relation to moral precepts, founded on the nature of relations. There is an important difference between moral and positive precepts, which it would be well to keep in mind. The precept "Children, obey your parents," is a moral one, founded on the nature of a relation, and not dependent for its authority on any enactment or promulgation of it. It is obligatory wherever the relation of parent and child exists, whether it has been formally promulga

ted, or not. But reason and conscience must determine as to the circumstances and extent of its application. There are cases where it would not be right for the precept to be literally obeyed, such as when a parent commands a child to commit sin. So, it will be seen, that circumstances modify its application; and reason and conscience must decide, in each case, how long, and to what extent, the child is under obligation to obey the parent. So much for the nature of moral precepts: now take a positive one-for instance the command of God to Moses to build the ark of covenant. There was nothing in the nature of the case, which could direct him in obeying this requirement-which could teach him of what materials, size, or shape to construct it. The whole was a matter of arbitrary appointment, and Moses therefore had to conform strictly to the precept, and make the ark "according to the pattern shown him in the mount." Any deviation on his part from the method prescribed would have been an act of daring impiety. These cases will serve to illustrate the difference between moral and positive precepts in their general application. The distinction must be perfectly obvious, and no one will deny its force in interpreting scriptural requirements-certainly no Baptist.

Now the precepts requiring the observance of the sacraments are positive ones. By no antecedent course of reasoning can their necessity be demonstrated; nor is there aught in the nature of things by which we could determine the time, manner, or any other circumstance of their observance. Being wholly dependent on the authority of Christ for their existence, his will is the measure of our duty in relation to them. This will of his is fully exhibited in the sacred volume. It was not left to be gathered by implication or inference, but is stated by the inspired writers in explicit and unequivocal terms; and their account of them must be received as ultimate and decisive. We refer then the question to their

decision. Is there such an inseparable connection between baptism and the Lord's supper, that the former is an indispensable prerequisite to the privileges of the latter? Is it required, under all circumstances, that those who come to the table of the Lord shall have been previously baptized? From the promptness with which this inquiry has received an affirmative answer, and the care taken to maintain an invariable practice in the churches in accordance with it, it might be expected that we should be immediately pointed to the chapter and verse containing the requirement. But no; not a precept of the kind can be found within the lids of the Bible. How is this to be accounted for? On the supposition that baptism is an indispensable condition to communion, the fact would be one of the most material subjects for precept in the two ordinances; yet Jesus did not mention it at the time he instituted the latter ordinance, nor at any other time. The apostles, in all their histories and epistles, in which are numerous detailed accounts of the two ordinances, are utterly silent respecting it. Under the Jewish dispensation none were admitted to the Passover unless they had been previously circumcised; and there we find an express precept directly in point. "No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." Ex. 12: 48. But there is no such precept respecting baptism and the communion. There is no more reason to conclude, from any passage contained in the Bible, that baptism is an indispensable prerequisite to the communion, than that it is an indispensable prerequisite to prayer. These statements are undeniable, and they are wholly irreconcilable with the idea of any such inseparable connection between the ordinances.The assumption then, that baptism is an indispensable condition to communion, is unscriptural, and without any good foundation. And if baptism is not an indispensable condition to communion, then the