We agree in the belief that the duty of a public profession of faith in Christ, or of entering into visible covenant with God and his people, is binding on all Christians. In the nature of things, before one can enjoy in another the confidence necessary to Christian communion the latter must give the former satisfactory evidence of piety. For the same reason, before one can enjoy communion with the church he must give the members adequate evidence of oneness with Christ and with themselves. We agree in accepting the same free scriptural form of church polity-congregationalism a system of which evangelical love and individual rights of conscience are the centre and circumference. We agree that baptism and the Lord's supper are sacraments outward signs of the indwelling sentiments and feelings implied in regeneration and in union to Christ— to be observed to the end of time; and that it is fitting, in all ordinary cases, that the administration of the former precede the administration of the latter. We agree in the duty of church discipline, of Christians exercising watch and care over the brethren; and of proceeding to excommunication, not less in cases of gross violation of Christ's rules of holy living than of fatal error.

We also agree, or should agree, in the charitable conviction that, as denominations, we are equally anxious to ascertain the will of God; that we study the scriptures with the same earnestness, and with equal freedom from prejudice; in a word, that we are equally conscientious in entertaining our different doctrinal sentiments and in adopting our different ritual practices; otherwise, we can have little hope of success in promoting Christian harmony by friendly discussions on mutual differences. We believe a want of confidence in each other's conscientiousness and sincerity has greatly retarded, in the past, the progress of truth — certainly the progress of Christian friendliness- by means of controversies between evangelical denominations; and in none more than in discussions on the present subject. A great point would be gained, not only to the cause before us,

but to all debatable topics in the religious sphere, could we persuade ourselves that we are mutually conscientious, and mutually acting for the highest interest of the Redeemer's kingdom. Indeed, consistency demands that Baptists and Pedobaptists be thus persuaded, or decline longer to receive and hold communion with each other as Christians.

We are now prepared to understand the exact point of difference between us. It is summarily a difference of belief and practice respecting baptism; mainly, touching the mode of administering the rite and the order of administering it. The Baptists belive that immersion is the only scriptural mode of baptism, and that as Christ has enjoined baptism as a prerequisite to the eucharist, they must exclude from its reception all unbaptized persons. Consequently the Pedobaptists, who consider sprinkling or pouring baptism equally with iminersion, must be included among the unbaptized, and deemed unqualified to participate in the communion service. This is the central point around which all their arguments for restricted communion revolve.

True, they allege another ground of difference: the vindication of believers' baptism, and the consequent denial of infant baptism. But the denial of infant baptism does not materially change, though it may enlarge, the ground of difference between us. It is still a difference of mode in a broader sense. The Pedobaptists as earnestly maintain that faith is the only scriptural ground of baptism as do the Baptists. The difference is simply this. The Baptist believes that his personal faith gives warrant for his personal baptism only; the Pedobaptist, that it gives warrant for his baptism and for that of his children also; while he maintains, most decidedly, that the privilege of baptizing children is exclusively confined to believing parents; and that baptized children have the privilege of being admitted to full communion of the church only after personally believing and recognizing as their own the parental act of dedication performed in their behalf, binding their infancy to the altar of God before they were qualified to do it for themselves.

We are aware that some Baptists disavow any dispute between themselves and us concerning the mode of baptism, affirming that immersion is "the thing itself, and alone the thing required." But this is little more than a petitio principii. The whole history of the controversy, and the present attitude of the parties demonstrate, that there is a dispute about the mode of baptism; certainly, whether only one mode or several modes are allowable. If they insist that the rite is modal, and we deny it, is there not a difference respecting mode? But we have no disposition to contend on this point. What we mean by a different mode of baptism, in its broader sense, is substantially what they mean by different views of baptism; and we shall use these phrases interchangably in this discussion.

There are one or two other supposed differences, but which, when analyzed, will be found only differences in manner or process.

Our Baptist brethren allege that their doctrine of a pure church, composed only of believers, is a point of difference between us; averring that we introduce infants into the church by baptism, and consequently that our churches are, in part, composed of members without personal faith. But on this point there is no real difference between us. However loosely some Pedobaptists may express themselves respecting infant church membership, we neither practically nor theoretically maintain that the gospel church, as a communicating body, may contain unbelievers. The profession of personal faith we deem indispensable to full membership. One can commune with Christ only by being united to him, and the sinner is united to him only by faith. We by no means regard baptized children as members of the church in such a sense as to entitle them to commune at the Lord's table. Such come into church relations proper only by a personal profession of faith, by personally entering into covenant, and personally recognizing the baptismal act of parents in their behalf as their own. The precise relation which baptized children sustain to the church is a matter

which alone concerns ourselves, not at all our opponents, so far as it relates to intercommunion. We may be in error, but the error affects not the grand element of a pure church. We being as stringent advocates as themselves of the doctrine that none but evangelical believers, nor any who recognize not the law of baptism as a token of faith, should be received into full communion with. Christ's visible body, our churches contain none who are not professedly baptized believers. Hence, should our opponents commune with us, they would commune with none who dissent from their own principles respecting the character of the church; nor, should they invite us to commune with them, would they invite any who profess not to believe and to have been baptized. All that divides us, therefore, is a difference of manner in professing our personal faith by baptism. Our churches are composed, equally with theirs, of believing members.

per

Our opponents pretend another difference, alleging that we do not comprehend the gracious affections signified by baptism as they do; we administering it to unconscious babes; they maintaining that the gospel, as a spiritual system, requires the rite to be a personal act, expressive of sonal faith. But this is fundamentally identical with the last-named difference, and like it may be resolved into a difference of manner or process. We essentially agree with them concerning the spiritual affections which baptism implies. As a rule, we receive no one to the full communion of the church who submits not professedly to baptism, either through his parents or by his own act, and as a sign of personal faith. The real difference, therefore, between us on this point is only a difference in the manner or process by which baptism becomes expressive of personal faith or dedication.

Our opponents admit that mistakes concerning the mode of any other external act or rite destroy not its validity or its acceptableness to God; not mistakes even concerning the most precious of all Christian rites - communion with Christ in the commemorative emblems of his death. The form of

But

administering this, they deem of little consequence. the mode of baptism occupies a very different place in their consideration. This they single out from all other rites and ceremonies, or forms of worship, and insist that it must be administered in the precise manner which they believe the scriptures demand, viz. immersion. Not only so, but they make the mode of its administration the foundation of their distinctive church organization, aud, planting themselves on this narrow platform, logically unchurch all other Christians. On the other hand, we do not believe that form is more essential to baptism than to any other ordinance.

More than this: they concede that indulgence should be given to many differences of opinion respecting the doctrines of grace; and, notwithstanding these differences, they freely receive those who entertain them to the communion; but they claim that to different opinions and practices touching baptism there should be shown no forbearance, no tolerance. The great Head of the church has made this rite so essential a qualification for the eucharist, and defined its mode so clearly by the verb baptizo, that no indulgence should be shown those who consider anything baptism aside from immersion, or give it any other position than at the entrance to the church, however conscientious they may be. We, on the other hand, do not believe that charity is to be thus restricted in her benign workings. We behold her wearing a countenance radiant with a nobler and more impartial benevolence, and spreading her mantle not less freely over misconceptions of outward observances than over errors touching vital truths. While, therefore, our opponents practically maintain that errors concerning an outward rite are more important than errors respecting the doctrines of grace within the limits of credible piety, and are more efficient to debar from the Lord's supper; we maintain that errors respecting a rite are no more offensive to God than errors touching doctrines directly bearing on the spiritual affections, and have, therefore, no more efficacy to obstruct the way to the communion board. Indeed, we believe the former errors