exclusive societies? Of this, not the faintest trace or vestige is to be found in ecclesiastical history; and the supposition is completely confuted, by the concurrent testimony of ancient writers to the universal incorporation of orthodox christians into one grand community. We challenge our opponents to produce the shadow of evidence in favour of the existence, during that long tract of time, of a single society, of which adult baptism was the distinguishing characteristic. Tertullian, it is acknowledged, is the first who distinctly and unequivocally adverts to the contrary practice: and as he expresses disapprobation of it at the same time, without the remotest intimation of the propriety of making it the ground of separation, he must be allowed to form one instance of the practice of mixed communion; and unless we are disposed to assert that the modern innovation in the rite of baptism supplanted the original ordinance at once, multitudes must have been in precisely the same situation. We well know that in the latter period of his life, he did secede from the orthodox catholic church; but we are equally certain, that he was moved to this measure, not by his disapprobation of infant baptism, but solely by his attachment to the Montanists.

We, therefore, offer our opponents the alternative, either of affirming that the transition from the primitive to the modern usage, was sudden and instantaneous, in opposition to all that observation

suggests respecting the operations of mind, or of acknowledging that, for two centuries, the predecessors of the present baptists unanimously approved and practised a mixed communion-a communion in which baptists and pædobaptists

united in the same societies.

Thus it appears that the system we are advocating, instead of being, as Booth and Kinghorn assert, a "modern invention," was introduced as early as it was possible as early as the dissimilar materials existed, of which the combination under discussion is formed. It is evident, that no sooner did a difference of opinion on the subject of baptism arise, than the system of forbearance recommended itself at once to all who adhered to the sentiments of the modern baptists, throughout every part of the world; and that it is the opposite principle which has to contend with all the odium and suspicion attached to recent innovations.

When we descend to the third period, we are presented with a new scene. After the commencement of the fourth century, down to the æra of the Reformation, the baptism of infants was firmly established, and prevailed to such an extent, that few traces of the ordinance, in its primitive state, are to be discerned. Many of the Waldenses, however, are judged, with great appearance of evidence, to have held opinions on that subject coincident with those by which we, as a denomi

nation, are distinguished. By their persecutors of the Romish community they are usually stigmatized and reproached for holding the anabaptist heresy; while it appears, on the contrary, that there were not wanting some amongst them who practised the baptism of infants.* These opposite statements, exhibited with equal confidence, on this obscure branch of ecclesiastical history, are best reconciled and accounted for, by supposing them divided in their sentiments on that particular. No indication, however, is discoverable of a rupture in external communion having occurred on that account; and, from the acknowledged difficulty of ascertaining the separate existence of baptist societies during the middle ages, and until the period of the Reformation, the necessary inference is, either that there were none, during that interval, who adhered to the primitive institute, or, as is far more probable, that they were mingled and incorporated with persons of another persuasion.

Hence it is manifest that the concurrent testimonies of the fathers of the three or four first

See The History of the Baptists, by Mr. Ivimey, in which this subject is discussed with much care and impartiality. To those who wish for information respecting many curious and important circumstances, connected with the progress of the baptist opinions, I would earnestly recommend the perusal of that valuable work; for which the public at large, and our own denomination in particular, are much indebted to the pious and laborious author.

centuries, in proof of the necessity of baptism, to church-fellowship, are urged to no purpose whatever, unless it could be shewn that there was no mixed communion, no association of the advocates of adult, with the patrons of pædobaptism, known in those ages; a supposition which is at direct variance with facts. Nor is it at all difficult to assign a satisfactory reason for that combination of testimonies which the writings of the fathers supply in favour of the essential connexion of the two ordinances. The scanty writings which remain of the authors of the second century, afford no decisive indication of the existence of infant baptism, in the period in which they flourished; and, during the third, the few authors whose works have descended to us, appear, with the exception of Tertullian, to have imbibed the pædobaptist persuasion. It was natural for the first class of these fathers, who lived at a time when no doubt or dispute had arisen on the subject, to insist on a compliance with that ordinance; nor was it possible for the second, who extended baptism to infants, and considered it as the indispensable means of regeneration, to pursue another course.

量

That there was a mixture of persons, of different persuasions, in christian societies, during the period to which we have adverted, appears to be an unquestionable fact; but in what manner those who adhered to the primitive institution reasoned on the subject, as they have left no

writings behind them, or none which touch on this subject, must be left to conjecture. Whether they defended their conduct on precisely the same principles with ourselves, or whether they considered pædobaptism as not so properly nullifying, as corrupting or enfeebling, a christian ordinance, it is to little purpose to inquire. It is sufficient for us to know, that the practice which is stigmatized as modern, existed as early as a difference of opinion on the subject arose.

In my former treatise I had remarked, "that the decision of christian writers, that baptism, in some form or other, must necessarily precede the celebration of the eucharist, supposing it ever so unanimous, affords but a feeble proof, since it assumes for its basis the impossibility of the universal prevalence of error." The truth of this assertion is almost self-evident; for if it be possible for error to prevail universally, what should prevent the possibility of its doing so in this particular instance? "No," says our author, "it assumes a very different principle; that the human mind in all its wanderings never took this direction before.' But what is the difference betwixt affirming that the opinion which separates the title to communion, from baptism, was unknown until it was adopted by the advocates of mixed communion, and asserting "that the human mind

* Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 145.