necessary consequence of this, their reasoning, if we choose to term it such, floats and undulates in such a manner, that it is extremely difficult to grasp it. On the pernicious influence of error in general we entertain no doubt, but we demand, again and again, to have that precise injurious effect of infant sprinkling pointed out and evinced, which is more to be deprecated than the probable result of those acknowledged imperfections to which they extend their indulgence. This must surely be deemed a reasonable requisition, though it is one with which they have not hitherto thought fit to comply....

The operation of speculative error on the mind is one of the profoundest secrets in nature; and to determine the precise quantity of evil resulting from it in any given case, (except the single one of its involving a denial of fundamental truth,) transcends the capacity of human nature. We must, in order to form a correct judgement, be not only perfectly acquainted with the nature and tendency of the error in question, but also with the portion of attention it occupies, as well as the degree of zeal and attachment with which it is embraced. We must determine the force of the counteracting principles, and how far it bears an affinity to the predominant failings of him who maintains it; how far it coalesces with the weaker parts of his moral constitution. These particulars, however, it is next to impossible to explore, when the inquiry respects ourselves; how much more

to establish a scale which shall mark, by just gradations, the malignant influence of erroneous conceptions on others! On the supposition of a formal denial of saving, essential, truth, we feel no difficulty; we may determine, without hesitation, on the testimony of God, that it incurs a forfeiture of the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant, among which the communion of saints holds a distinguished place. But such a supposition is foreign to the present inquiry.

Instead of losing ourselves in a labyrinth of metaphysical subtleties, our only safe guide is an appeal to facts; and here we find, from experience, that the sentiments of the pædobaptist may consist with the highest attainments of piety exhibited in modern times; with the most varied and elevated forms of moral grandeur, without impairing the zeal of missionaries, without impeding the march of confessors to their prisons, or of martyrs to the flames. We are willing to acknowledge these tenets have produced much mischief in communities and nations, who have confounded baptism with regeneration; but the mere belief of the title of infants to that ordinance, is a misconception respecting a positive institute, much less injurious than if it affected the vital parts of christianity. But, be it what it may, we contend that it is impossible, without a total disregard of truth and decency, to assert, that it is intrinsically and essentially more pernicious in its effects than the numerous errors and

imperfections which the advocates of strict communion feel no scruple in tolerating in the best organized churches. It is but justice to add, that few or none have attempted to prove that it is so; but have satisfied themselves with a certain vague and loose declamation, better adapted to inflame prejudice, than to produce light or con

viction.

In the government of the church, there is a choice of three modes of procedure, each consistent with itself, though not equally compatible with the dictates of reason or scripture.

We may

either open the doors to persons of all sentiments and persuasions who maintain the messiahship of Christ; or insist upon an absolute uniformity of belief; or limit the necessity of agreement to articles deemed fundamental, leaving subordinate points to the exercise of private judgement. The strict baptists have feigned to themselves a fourth, of which it is not less difficult to form a clear and consistent conception, than of a fourth dimension. They have pursued the clew by which other inquirers have been conducted, till they arrived at a certain point, when they refused to proceed a step farther, without being able to assign a single reason for stopping, which would not equally prove they had already proceeded too far. They have attempted an incongruous mixture of liberal principles with a particular act of intolerance; and these, like the iron and clay in the feet of Nebuchadnezzar's image, will not mix. Hence all that

want of coherence and system in their mode of reasoning, which might be expected in a defence not of a theory, so properly, as of a capricious sally of prejudice.

Before I close this part of the subject, I must just remark the sensible chagrin which the venerable Booth betrays at our insisting on the distinction betwixt fundamentals and non-fundamentals in religion, and the singular manner in which he attempts to evade its force. After observing that we are wont, in defence of our practice, to plead that the points at issue are not fundamental"Not fundamental!" he indignantly exclaims, "not essential! But in what sense is submission to

baptism not essential? To our justifying righteousness, our acceptance with God, or our interest in his favour? So is the Lord's supper, and so is every part of our obedience. They (the friends of open communion) will readily allow that an interest in the divine favour is not obtained by miserable sinners, but granted by the eternal Sovereign and that acceptance with the High and Holy God is not on conditions performed by us, but in consideration of the vicarious obedience, and propitiatory sufferings of the great Emanuel."

"To the pure, all things are pure." In the mind of Mr. Booth, nothing was associated with this language, I am persuaded, but impressions of piety and devotion; though its unguarded texture and ambiguous tendency are too manifest. For

my own part, I am at a loss to put any other construction upon it than this; either that faith and repentance are in no respect conditions of salvation, or that adult baptism is of equal necessity and importance. When it is asked-What is essential to salvation? the gospel constitution is presupposed, the great facts in christianity assumed; and the true import of the inquiry isWhat is essential to a personal interest in the blessings secured by the former, in the felicity of which the latter are the basis? in which light, to reply-The atonement and righteousness of Christ, is egregious trifling, because being things out of ourselves, though the only preliminary basis of human hope, it is absurd to confound them with the characteristic difference betwixt such as are saved, and such as perish. When, in like manner, an inquiry arises-What is fundamental in religion? as we must be supposed by religion to intend a system of doctrines to be believed, and of duties to be performed, to direct us to the vicarious obedience of Christ, not as a necessary object of belief, but as a transaction absolute and complete in itself, and to pass over in silence the inherent distinction of character, the faith with its renovating influence to which the promise of life is attached, is, to speak in the mildest terms, to reply in a manner quite irrelevant; and when to this is joined, even by implication, a denial of the existence of such a distinction, we are conducted to the brink of a precipice. The denial of this is