which we deem idolatrous or superstitious, or without a surrender of that liberty in which we are commanded to stand fast, we must as we value our allegiance forego, however reluctantly, the advantages of such a union. Wherever purity and simplicity of worship are violated by the heterogeneous mixture of human inventions, we are not at liberty to comply with them for the sake of peace, because the first consideration in every act of worship is its correspondence with the revealed will of God, which will often justify us in declining the external communion of a church with which we cease not to cultivate a communion in spirit. It is one thing to decline a connection with the members of a community absolutely, or simply because they belong to such a community, and another to join with them in practices which we deem superstitious and erroneous. In the latter instance, we cannot be said absolutely to refuse a connection with the pious part of such societies, we decline it merely because it is clogged with conditions which render it impracticable. It is impossible for a Protestant Dissenter for example, without manifest inconsistency, to become a member of the Established Church; but to admit the members of that community to participate at the Lord's table,

without demanding a formal renunciation, of their peculiar sentiments, includes nothing contradictory or repugnant. The cases are totally distinct, and the reasons which would apply forcibly against the former, would be irrelevant to the latter. In the first supposition, the Dissenter, by an active concurrence in what he professes to disapprove, ceases to dissent; in the last, no principle is violated, no practice is altered, no innovation is introduced.

Hence arises a question, how far we are justified in repelling from our communion those from whom we differ on matters confessedly not essential to salvation, when that communion is accompanied with no innovation in the rites of worship, merely on account of diversity of sentiment on other subjects. In other words, are we at liberty, or are we not, to walk with our christian brethren as far as we are agreed, or must we renounce their fellowship on account of error allowed not to be fundamental, although nothing is proposed to be done, or omitted, in such acts of communion, which would not equally be done, or omitted, on the supposition of their absence? Such is the precise state of the question which it is my intention to discuss in these pages; and

it may possibly contribute to its elucidation to observe, that the true idea of christian communion is by no means confined to a joint participation of the Lord's supper. He who in the words of the Apostle's creed expresses his belief in the communion of saints, adverts to much more than is comprehended in one particular act. In an intelligent assent to that article, is comprehended the total of that sympathy and affection, with all its natural expressions and effects, by which the followers of Christ are united, in consequence of their union with their head, and their joint share in the common salvation. The kiss of charity in the apostolic age, the right hand of fellowship, a share in the oblations of the church, a commendatory epistle attesting the exemplary character of the bearer, uniting in social prayer, the employment of the term brother or sister to denote spiritual consanguinity, were all considered in the purest ages as tokens of communion; a term which is never applied in the New Testament exclusively to the Lord's supper. When it is used in connection with that rite, it is employed, not to denote the fellowship of Christians, but the spiritual participation of the body and blood of Christ.*

* 1. Corinthians, x. 16.

When we engage a christian brother to present supplications to God in our behalf, it cannot be doubted that we have fellowship with him, not less real or spiritual than at the Lord's table. From these considerations it is natural to infer, that no scruple ought to be entertained respecting the lawfulness of uniting to commemorate our Saviour's death, with those with whom we feel ourselves at liberty to join in every other branch of religious worship. Where no attempt is made to obscure its import, or impair its simplicity, by the introduction of human ceremonies, but it is proposed to be celebrated in the manner which we apprehend to be perfectly consonant to the mind of Christ, it would seem less reasonable to refuse to co-operate in this branch of religion than in any other, because it is appointed to be a memorial of the greatest instance of love that was ever exhibited, as well as the principal pledge of christian fraternity. It must appear surprising that the rite which of all others is most adapted to cement mutual attachment, and which is in a great measure appointed for that purpose, should be fixed upon as the line of demarcation, the impassable barrier, to separate and disjoin the followers of Christ. He who admits his fellow Christians to share in every other

spiritual privilege, while he prohibits his approach to the Lord's table, entertains a view of that institution, diametrically opposite to what has usually prevailed; he must consider it not so much in the light of a commemoration of his Saviour's death and passion, as a religious test, designed to ascertain and establish an agreement in points not fundamental. According to this notion of it, it is no longer a symbol of our common Christianity, it is the badge and criterion of a party, a mark of discrimination applied to distinguish the nicer shades of difference among Christians. How far either scripture or reason can be adduced in support of such a view of the subject, it will be the business of the following pages to inquire.

in or

In the mean while it will be necessary, der to render the argument perfectly intelligible, to premise a few words respecting the particular controversy on which the ensuing observations are meant especially to bear. Few of my readers probably require to be informed, that there is a class of Christians pretty widely diffused through these realms, who deny the validity of infantbaptism, considering it as a human invention, not countenanced by the scriptures, nor by the