them to abandon the other; and because they are uneasy at seeing them perform only half their duty, would oblige them if possible to omit the whole. Popery is the intolerance of power, this of weakness; the principle of both is the same.

It is alleged however in their defence, that baptism has been made a prerequisite to communion in ancient as well as in modern times; that they plead for no more than is admitted by nearly all denominations throughout christendom. This is their main support, and the opposite practice is to be regarded as a modern innovation. They therefore ask with some confidence, how does it come to pass that a sentiment in which all parties have been so long agreed, should now be found erroneous ?

To this plausible objection Mr. Hall replies, that it comes with an ill grace from those who upon a subject of much greater moment have presumed to relinquish the precedent, and arraign the practice of the whole christian world: and after setting an example of revolt, it is too late for them to inculcate the duty of submission. And as to the prevalence of the general practice, in making baptism necessary to communion, it may be accounted for from its not having been made a subject of enquiry; no circumstances having occurred to render such a discussion necessary, till the conduct of the strict communionists had called it forth. Baptism having been considered at a very early period as essential to salvation, it became of course

essential to admission into the christian church; and from hence may be dated the origin of a practice which has continued to the present day.

The descent of the human mind from the spirit to the letter, from what is vital and intellectual to what is ritual and external in religion, is the true source of idolatry and superstition in all the multifarious forms they have assumed; and as it began early to corrupt the religion of nature, or more properly of patriarchal tradition, so it soon obscured the lustre and destroyed the simplicity of the christian institute. In proportion as genuine devotion declined, the love of pomp and ceremony encreased; the few simple rites of christianity were extolled beyond all reasonable bounds; new ones were invented, to which mysterious meanings were attached, till the religion of the new testament became in process of time as insupportable a yoke as the mosaic law. From an erroneous interpretation of the figurative language of a few passages of scripture, in which the sign is identified with the thing signified, very similar to the mistake which afterwards led to transubstantiation, it was universally supposed that baptism was invariably accompanied with a supernatural effect, which totally changed the state and character of the candidate, and constituted him a child of God, and an heir of the kingdom of heaven. There is scarcely a writer in the three first centuries who has not spoken on this subject in a manner which the advocates for strict communion would deem

unscriptural and improper, scarce one, from whom we should not be taught to infer, that baptism was absolutely necessary to salvation. This doctrine pervades the formularies of the church of England, the Lutheran church, and nearly all other established churches in christendom. No wonder therefore that those who make baptism essential to salvation should consider it essential to communion. It is much more a matter of surprise that strict baptists should urge as an example, a practice which had its origin in a principle which they themselves would by no means allow. Nor is it any wonder that infant baptism should have been grafted on the same principle."

In opposition to the assumption of the opponent party, that mixed communion is a 'modern' practice, it is demonstrable that it must have prevailed in the church from the time that infant baptism was introduced. "In order to comprehend," says Mr. Hall, "the true state of the question respecting the practice of christian antiquity, it may be convenient to distribute it into three periods. The first including the time during which correct sentiments on the subject of baptism universally prevailed: the second, that in which a gradual transition was made from the practice of adult to that of infant baptism: the third, the period in which the latter obtained a general and almost undisputed ascendency."

"On the first of these periods little need be said. Where there are no dissimilar elements there

Ꮓ

can be no mixture, and therefore to affirm that the practice we are contending for was unknown in the earliest ages of the christian church, is little more than an identical proposition. While no demur or dispute subsisted respecting either the form or the application of the baptismal rite, a punctual compliance with it was expected and enforced by the presidents of christian societies, for precisely the same reason which suggested a similar mode of proceeding to the apostles. It was a part of the will of Christ, in the interpretation of which no division of opinions subsisted among the faithful.

"The next period is that during which an innovation was gradually introduced, by extending the ceremony in question to infants; a period which from the commencement of the third to the close of the fourth, probably comprehended the space of two centuries. Supposing the modern practice [of infant baptism] to have been first introduced towards the end of the second or beginning of the third century, which corresponds to the time at which it is distinctly noticed by Tertullian, the first writer who explicitly mentions it; we cannot imagine a shorter space was requisite to procure it that complete establishment and ascendency, which it possessed in the time of St. Austin. During that long interval there must have been some who still adhered to the primitive practice, and others who favoured and adopted the more recent innovation. In other words, there must have been baptists and pædobaptists contemporary with each

other. What then became of that portion of the ancient church, which refused to adopt the baptism of infants? Did they separate from their brethren, in order to form distinct and 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. Our opponents are therefore reduced to the necessity of acknowledging that mixed communion was unanimously approved and practised at least for two centuries, a communion in which baptists and pædobaptists united in the same societies, unless they mean to affirm that there were no baptists during that period.

"When we descend to the third period, we are presented with a new scene. After the commencement of the fourth century, down to the era 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 denomination are distinguished. By their persecutors of the romish community they were usually stigmatised and reproached for holding the anabaptist heresy, while it appears on the contrary that there were not wanting among them some who practised the bap