and secondly the want of union in practice. But our practice is the result of our faith, and we can not honestly join in practice, any further than we agree in faith. This principle is acted upon by the Baptist at the communion table, and by the pedobaptist in many other religious matters. The Rev. J. W. Eaton, pastor of the Baptist church in Bridgeport, Conn., was conducting a protracted meeting in his church, and wishing assistance, addressed a line to the Rev. J. H. Hunter, affectionately soliciting him and his church to unite in the work of laboring for the salvation of souls, and received in reply a letter bearing date Feb. 12, 1839, of which the following is an extract:

"There is one consideration, which, to my mind, creates an impediment in the way of my co-operating with you in the manner you have suggested. If the Baptist church and her ministry, within this place or elsewhere, while they believed and maintained that in administering baptism by immersion, and withholding the ordinance from infants, they followed a more excellent way-were still willing to concede that the administration of the ordinance by sprinkling is a valid and sufficient baptism; and that in applying the rite to children, we do not abuse and pervert it from its original design-the way would be open, so far as I can perceive, for concerted action in other respects. I do not insist upon the bar of close communion, for here I conceive that you are at least consistent with your other principles, in reference to baptism. Since I can not agree with the celebrated Robert Hall in his defense of open communion, who supposes that baptism is not an essential preliminary for admission to the Lord's supper.'

I remark First. This is true pedobaptist ground. They usually refuse to unite with the Baptiss in laboring for the salvation of souls; and the reason, as Mr. Hunter says, is because we differ in faith and

practice respecting baptism. With this in mind, how can they complain of our declining to partake of the Lord's supper with them, for the same reason.

Secondly. It is known that in Europe and America there is a sect of Christians denominated Open Communion Baptists. This sect and the regular Baptists, are as distinct as the Presbyterians and Episcopalians. Pedobaptists, who have not read extensively, have supposed that Robert Hall and others conceded that sprinkling was as valid baptism as immersion, and therefore admitted pedobaptists to the Lord's supper as baptized persons. But this is not correct. The position of Mr. Hall, and other Open Communion Baptists is, that immersion is baptism, and sprinkling is not; but they do not consider baptism an essential preliminary to the Lord's supper, as the Rev. Mr. Hunter says. They therefore commune with pedobaptists as unbaptized Christians.

Thirdly As the Rev. Mr. Hunter says, this open communion Baptist sentiment is evidently inconsistent; for it is a well known fact, that all Baptist churches do baptize all sprinkled Christians that join them. Now while we believe with the pedobaptists, that baptism is an essential prerequisite to the Lord's supper, suppose we should admit to the communion one who was only sprinkled, and afterwards that same person should be convinced that his sprinkling was not baptism, and request to be immersed; would the Baptists appear consistent to baptize one whom they had already admitted to the Lord's supper.

Fourthly: Since the Rev. Mr. Hunter has introduced Robert Hall, we will remark on two other positions of his. Mr. Hall says, "If a man is fit for the kingdom of heaven, he is fit for all the ordinances this side." This we readily admit; but still we do insist that God has established the order in which they should be received; and we should be as willing to be ruled by Christ's laws as saved by his grace; but

he who communes without being immersed, partakes in disobedience.

Again, Mr. Hall says, "It is the Lord's table, and all the Lord's people should come to it." We admit it is the Lord's table, and so is the church the Lord's house; and if we are obliged on this account to receive to communion all who wish to partake with us, whether we think they have the requisite qualifications or not, we must for the same reason receive to membership all who wish to join the church, whether we esteem them qualified or not: for if they are entitled on this ground to a seat at the Lord's table with us, they must be equally entitled to permanent membership. But no church on earth acknowledges this principle in the reception of members, nor can they consistently act on it in admitting persons to the communion. That pedobaptists consider themselves baptized, does not alter the case as it respects our duty; for unless we deem them baptized, we cannot conscientiously commune with them.

Although pedobaptists will give the Lord's supper to those only whom they esteem baptized, and thus are opposed to Open Communion Baptist principles, yet they have fallen into other errors equally great; for while they will exclude their own members for discarding infant sprinkling, they cheerfully invite to their communion the Baptists, who totally and constantly oppose it.

"New-England churches will suffer no man to continue a member of their communion who scruples infant baptism, or refuses to be present at the administration of it; and he that opposes infant baptism, or purposely departs the congregation at the administration of that ordinance, is liable, by their laws, to sentence of BANISHMENT." Dr. Lightfoot's Works. vol. 2, p, 531. Although Congregationalists will exclude from their ehurches, and banish from the country, those who op

pose infant sprinkling, still they say they wish for a Christian union with the Baptists. We can assure them that we are desirous of an union on gospel grounds; but while baptism in faith and practice is the great bar between us, it devolves on pedobaptists to remove it. This they can do, consistently with themselves and the Bible, while we can not; for they plead that immersion, pouring, and sprinkling, are equally valid baptism. Now all they have to do is to drop their sprinkling and pouring, and practice immersion only, and this difficulty is removed; and while it is just as far from us to the pedobaptists as it is from the pedobaptists to us, if they wish an union, why not come over; especially, as they can do it without any sacrifice of principle. But we can not go over to the pedobaptists without a sacrifice of principle; for if we commune with them before they renounce their sprinkling, we either grant that sprinkling is baptism, or that baptism is not a prerequisite to communion.

Pedobaptists say they will commune with all such persons as they hope to meet in heaven; but still they refuse to administer baptism to the infants of persons who are not members of their church. "The infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized, and those only." Saybrook Platform, chap. 29, sec. 4.

Here they declare that the infauts of unconverted persons are not saved, or confess themselves close communion and close baptism too, for they withhold both ordinances from these infants; and even their own baptized infant church members, to whom they say the blessings of the covenant of grace are sealed, (among which blessings must be the Lord's supper,) are not admitted to the communion, and many pedobaptists have complained of this close communion conduct. "I confess myself yet unsatisfied as to any convincing argument whereby it can be proved that

any were denied admission to the Lord's supper, who were owned as members." Dr. Lightfoot's Works, vol. ii. p. 433.

"If infants are capable of admission to the church above, they must be equally fit subjects of that on earth who God receives as subjects of his grace, we have no right to exclude from the visible fellowship of his people."

L. A Sawyer's Critical Dissertation, p. 12.

The reason why pedobaptists have such struggles of conscience about infant communion, is because they know that Christ has said, Matt. xix. 14, Suffer the little children and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Mark x. 14; Luke xviii. 16. But they are keeping these infant church members from Christ and his sacrament of the supper, to which they are as justly entitled as they are to baptism; and how can a mother feel reconciled in receiving the elements from the hands of a priest who is so close communion that he will not allow her to give a bit of the sacramental bread to her own baptized infant which she holds in her arms.It is replied by some, that infants are incapable of examining themselves, and therefore should not eat : But they are equally incapable of believing, and therefore should not be baptized. If the Bible warrants giving one ordinance, it does both. "What therefore God hath joined man put asunder."

Matthew xix. 6, together, let not

Pedobaptists plead that they are sincere in believ ing that sprinkling is baptism, therefore it is right.— But if sincerity makes a practice right, then the Baptists are right also, for we sincerely believe that immersion is baptism and sprinkling is not: and while communion is a church act, we can not extend it beyond church government and fellowship: for how can we commune with those over whose conduet we have no control.