strict communion?"* And, suppose it be, what then? Will it follow that strict communion does not destroy it? Whether it has this effect or not, is the only inquiry; not whether something else may produce the same effect in an equal degree. He adds, "is there any sense in which the church of God is, or can be considered as one, in this imperfect state, except in that which will include all those good men, who, from conscientious differences, cannot unite together on earth?", For the conduct of those good men who refuse to unite with us, unless we consent to the performance of rites which, in our estimation, are unscriptural and superstitious, they alone are responsible; but, where nothing of this nature is proposed, as is the case in the present instance, to deem them personally disqualified for communion, and on that ground to refuse it, is totally repugnant to every conception of unity.

In the above passage, the author breaks his mysterious silence, and, for the first time, acknowledges that all good men are component parts of the church of God, and are, consequently, members of Christ's mystical body. But he who concedes this, unless he suppose the Scriptures repealed, must confess his obligation to regulate his treatment of those members by the rules and maxims the New Testament enjoins, which prohibit the least degree of alienation, and assert the Baptism a Term of Communion, p. 101.

*

1

equal claim to regard which each individual, as a part of the body, possesses; insomuch that no language, except that which the Holy Ghost has employed, is sufficient adequately to represent that oneness of spirit, that perfect cooperation, that conjunction, or identity rather, of interests and affections, which ought to penetrate and pervade the whole. All other unions of a moral nature are, in reality, lax, feeble, and evanescent, compared with that which joins the members of Christ to each other, and to their Head. But will it be asserted that the practice of strict communion corresponds with these ideas? or that the treatment of the persons whom it excludes is a practical exemplification of the conduct which the christians at Corinth were commanded reciprocally to maintain? It will not be pretended; and since these passages, which imperatively enjoin such a behaviour on the members of Christ, and expressly and repeatedly assure us that his body is the church, are still in force, the above concession must either be retracted, or a practice, so directly subversive of it, be relinquished. If a society, of whatever description it may be, has by mutual consent selected a ceremony as the symbol of its union, those individuals, who, for the express purpose of marking their separation, refuse to perform the ceremony, have most unequivocally renounced that society; and, by parity of reason, since the joint celebration of the Lord's

supper is established in the church as the discriminating token by which its members are to recognise each other, to refuse to join in it, is equivalent to an express declaration, that the persons from whom we withdraw as personally disqualified, are not considered as parts of the church. It is acknowledged, however, in the foregoing passage, that all good men belong to it. But if so, they are also members of the body of Christ, and consequently entitled to exactly the same treatment as was enjoined on the Corinthians towards each other. But supposing, in consequence of minor differences of opinion, the latter had proceeded to an open rupture of communion, and refused to unite in the celebration of the eucharist; will it be asserted, that the pathetic and solemn injunctions of their inspired teacher would not have been violated by such a measure? The answer to this question is obvious, and its application to the point under discussion irresistible. The advocates of the exclusive system, on whatever side they turn, are surrounded and pressed with difficulties, from which it is utterly impossible for them to escape. To affirm that pædobaptism is of so malignant a tendency as to sever its patrons from the mystical body of Christ, is at once to impugn the hopes of salvation; since the supposition of a vital efficacy, imparted from Christ as the Head, which fails to constitute the subject of it a member, is equally unintelligible

and unscriptural. The language adopted on this subject is confessedly figurative, but not on that account obscure. Its foundation is evidently laid in that derivation of spiritual life to the souls of the faithful, for which they are indebted to their union with the Saviour; for which reason, it would be the height of absurdity to refuse the application of the figure on an occasion which comprehends its whole import and meaning. We may therefore with confidence affirm, that all genuine believers are alike members of Christ's body. But if this be admitted, they are as much entitled to the benefit, not merely of admission into the church, but of all those benevolent sympathies and attentions prescribed in the preceding passages, as though they had been mentioned by name; since the only ground on which they are enforced, is the relation the objects of them are supposed to sustain to that body.

Thus we perceive, in the principles and practice of our opponents, another glaring instance of gross violation, as well of the dictates of inspiration, as of the maxims of christian antiquity; both which concur in inculcating the doctrine of the absolute unity of the church, of its constituting Christ's mystical body, and of the horrible incongruity, I might almost say impiety, of attempting to establish a system, which represents a great majority of its members as personally disqualified for com

munion.

Once more; what foundation will they find, in ancient precedents, for the peculiar distinction allotted to one particular ceremony above every other, in consequence of which they allow the cultivation of the most intimate religious intercourse, of the most perfect intercommunity, in every branch of worship, with members of other denominations, providing they do not so far forget themselves as to lose sight of their disputes at the Lord's table? The Holy Ghost informs us, that the end of Christ's death was "to gather into one the children of God who were scattered abroad." It seems strange, that one of the principal purposes of its celebration should be to scatter abroad those children of God, who are gathered together every where else. Be this as it may, we challenge these zealous champions of precedent to produce the faintest vestige of such a practice in the ages of antiquity; or to direct us to a single nation, or sect, or individual, for an example of that capricious and arbitrary distinction attached to, the eucharist, by which it is refused to an immense multitude, who are considered as entitled to every other mark of christian fraternity.

These observations, we trust, will be amply sufficient to justify the assertion, that our opponents have violated, with respect to ecclesiastical economy, more maxims of antiquity than any other sect upon record; nor will the intelligent reader be at a loss to perceive, that the weight of this censure