A Dr. of Divinity, the pastor of a church, two or three years ago, in the city of Brooklyn, called with one of his deacons upon a lady whom he had often seen present at worship.-During the visit the facts came out that the lady was a member of the Reformed Dutch church, and that in ignorance of the rule by which she was excluded from communion, she had partaken thereof. She remarked to the clergyman that she enjoyed the last communion to a peculiar degree. After the pastor and deacon had retired, instead of expressing their holy horror," Why," said the former to the latter," did you not tell her not to come in that unlawful way to the communion?" The deacon replied, "I am glad she comes," " glad of it," the pastor joining in the same sentiment. This we had from the lips of that very pastor, who regards himself and is so regarded by others as one of the straitest of that sect. Surely there is nothing in the practice of free communion to shock the Christian heart, while to reveal the fact of the opposite practice is often, as in this case, painful to the Christian heart, too painful even to those who regard it the will of Christ.

The pastor of a church in one of the suburbs of New York city, a year or two since narrated to us the following incident: "My mother, a godly woman, and member of the Methodist church in Connecticut, was unfortunately present at my church on a communion occasion. I gave out the ordinary invitation, the same faith and order,' and my mother was accordingly set aside. My heart was wrung with pain; I was so pained that I could not sleep that night, nor did I find rest till I promised God, if he would let me live through that, I would never be guilty of the like act again. Since then I have never given out that invitation, and I never will. At every communion at my church, Pædobaptists partake with us." This, too, we had from the lips of the pastor. These tests manifest that the natural promptings of the regenerate heart are opposed to the practice of strict communion.

It is manifest, if the practice of strict communion has a proper foundation in the Word of God, that Pædobaptists have no right to observe the ordinance among themselves; that it is an act entirely unauthorized by the genius and spirit of Christianity. Yet a Dr. of Divinity, pastor of a Baptist church in New York city, says: This is carrying the principle too far. Pædobaptists undoubtedly observe the ordinance of the Lord's Supper in circumstances pleasing to Christ. And, he added even if formal baptism is a pre-requisite to the communion, as " I have current coin in my pocket, I have a right to partake of the communion among the Pædobaptists." He justly affirms that he has a right to communion wherever he finds it, despite the defects of others in the form of their profession, as he is not conscious of any such defect on his own part.

Another pastor in the same city stated to the writer a case, in effect as follows: "I was about to administer the communion one morning and a fine looking man arose in the midst of the audience, and said; Sir, I am a member of the Congregational church in New England [naming particulars as to place and pastor]. I am attending a daughter but a door or two distant; I cannot leave her sufficiently long to go to one of my own churches, and yet in these circumstances of affliction it would be a peculiar comfort for me to partake of the communion to-day. If you will allow it I will partake with you.' Upon the writer's interrogating the course pursued by the pastor, the latter replied: Do you suppose

I am a Mormon to exclude a brother in such a case ?" " No doubt, the Spirit of Christ cannot admit such an exclusion from the communion as an act germane.

The pastor of a strict communion Baptist church related to the writer the following incident :-One time he was laid aside, for some reason, from pastoral duties, and meanwhile became a member of a leading Baptist church in Boston. The pastor, who still has the same charge, encouraged this brother in the ministry to partake of the communion at a Pædobaptists church, in order that the pastor might cite him to trial for the offence, remarking that he thought the case would abolish the practice of strict communion in his church. Thus it is though strict communion has become a party test, yet the conviction that the opposite practice is according to the Christian spirit, is constantly making its inroads. To the same effect is the following incident, related to us by the pastor whom it concerns: He remarked, that he could discipline no longer in his church for the practice of free communion, because a majority of his church especially the influential portion, is, in conviction, committed to that view. The same brother, who is a pastor of a leading church in one of the cities named, remarked further, that, in his opinion, fifty years would not pass till strict communion would be the exception, and not the rule, in all the Baptist churches, and yet there is no cry of heresy among the most faithful of the watchmen, as if some practice opposed to the gospel were thus gaining ground.

A pastor in one of the churches above named, stated to us, not long since, that some members, of his choir belong to Pædobapist churches, and yet he admits them to communion, and the deacons knowingly distribute the elements without objection. Another pastor, in one of the cities above named, receives as members those who reserve to themselves their right to practice according to their free communion views. Yet in this state of things in so many Baptist churches, if a brother of known free communion views, leave his church and join one which is openly free communion, fellowship is formally withdrawn from him, as if he had fallen into mortal sin. Such a state of things shows that the papal heresy of an outward, visible, Catholic church, upon which the practice of strict communion must ultimately rest, is from time to time, brought clearly to view as in harsh conflict with the spirit of the times, as exhibited even in those churches that profess to hold it. To the same point we may cite the declining practice of re-ordination in the case of clergymen who pass from Pædobaptist denominations to the Baptists. The argument of the order of the ordinances upon which many base their strict communion practice really requires in every such case a re-ordination; for Baptists admit that ordination is a positive institution. Yet we are told it is becoming the practice when a Pædobaptist minister joins the Baptists to hold a simple recognition service instead of re-ordaining him. So far the argument founded upon the order of the ordinances is given up.

About a month ago, on a communion occasion, in one of the suburbs of New York, the pastor of the church in which it occurred, invited a free communion Baptist minister into his pulpit. The latter, after making a prayer just before the administration of the ordinance, retired as one not permitted, or, at least, not invited, to partake. There retired at the same time the wife of a strict communionist. She had formerly been a member

of the same strict communion church with her husband, but for conscience's sake she had become a member of a free communion Baptist church. At the same time sat by, excluded from the communion, the colporter of the very church that was celebrating the communion, because, for the sake of conscience, he was a member of a free communion Baptist church. It is not enough by the expositions of this infallible church, that a person be a pious Baptist in good standing in his own church, but he must belong to the church, or be excluded from communion.-Robert Hall, Bunyan, Baptist Noel, and Carson, these the church sets down as outside her pale. If from a local church of this the church a member join, for instance, the church of which Baptist Noel is pastor, that member with his same "faith and order" letter must, as is boldly asserted, receive as his farewell notice of mother church a bull of excommunication, called, by way of euphemism, the withdrawal of church fellowship. And why not? He is no longer a member of the visible church To such a pitiable extreme of stupid consistency the practice in question carries these brethren-a consistency we most devoutly pray, if not already an exception, may become one in less time than the fifty years allotted by one of the good pastors of Brooklyn.

One class of various incidents given, and many more like them at hand, shows that the practice of strict communion is felt more and more by the Baptists themselves to be an unseemly deformity that they can hardly endure. Another class shows that they fall into the papal error of confining Christ's church within the borders of one denomination, viz. :-their own and that, at bottom, this is the premise upon which their strict communion practice rests, instead of formal baptism, as a pre-requisite to communion. With those who intelligently embrace the baptismal basis we have urged our views of the principle of equity as opposed to what seems to us tyrannical prescription. The application of this principle, as we have carried it in mind and virtually in statement, is that which we admit does not transcend its application by Christ, our Head. Whom he receives to the real communion, in our unhesitating confession, despite their mistaken informality in the mere outward act of confession, let us not call common or unclean, as if the dispensation of Moses had not vanished from the presence of a better. Can it be grievous to the Lord of the better covenant that all whom we recognize as those he has redeemed by his body, unite in showing forth his death till he come in the ordinance by himself appointed to symbolize that glorious hope? When he comes, will it grieve him, if he find us all at one table?" Come quickly."

QUESTIONS ON BAPTISM,

Addressed to all Padobaptist Ministers of every religious denomination, and to all Unbaptized Adult Believers.

1st.--HAVE you derived any advantage from your Baptism in infancy? Answer.-No, not a particle, neither to your moral nor physical constitution, neither to your temporal nor spiritual interest.

2nd. Then why are you so tenacious of a vain, inoperative, unscriptural, ceremony?

Note.-A claim to property at law is not based on the fact of baptism in infancy, but on the registered evidence of legitimate descent.

3rd.-Do no moral evils result directly from Infant Baptism?

Answer.-Millions of godfathers and godmothers have voluntarily contracted the most sacred obligations on behalf of the millions of baptized infants, all of which sponsors, with few exceptions, have violated their solemn engagements.

4th-Does not this constitute national sin?

Answer.-Hundreds of thousands of Baptized infants are never confirmed. 5th. Is not this a violation of an imperative duty imposed upon them, which (when they arrived at a certain age) they were required to perform? 6th. Do not the hundreds of thousands of children who have been baptized, almost without exception, violate their baptismal vow,-"To renounce the Devil and all his works"-" that I should keep God's commandments," &c. Such was the vow. Has it been conscientiously per

formed?

7th.-Was Infant Baptism as positively enjoined as that of Adults? Answer.-No; it was not enjoined at all.

8th.-Was Infant Baptism administered during the life of Christ, or of the Apostles?

Answer.-No, not until A.D. 200.

Then, it is most palpable that Infant Baptism, and its accompaniment of sponsors, and its adjunct of confirmation, were mere human inventions; and that human authority dared to convert these fictions into solemn religious ordinances. Were not the Galatians as justifiable in corrupting the Gospel by observing days, and months, and times, and years, as the Christian priesthood in corrupting the rites of the Apostolic Church.

9th.-Has not Infant Baptism frustrated the Divine purpose of dividing mankind into two distinctly marked classes, viz. the baptized and unbaptized, or real believers and unbelievers, the children of God, and the children of Belial? Infant Baptism has obliterated this distinction, and prevented this important classification: wicked persons who have been baptized in infancy, consider and term themselves Christians, so that now we have the BAPTIZED infidel, or drunkard, or debauchee, mingling in our religious assemblies.

10th.-Is not Infant Baptism greatly encouraged by the exemption which it confers both on ministers and people, from the trouble and inconvenience of immersion?

11th.-Has not Infant Baptism been the means of corrupting the religious integrity of ministers; who, though they are convinced of the Divine obligation of Adult Baptism, yet comply with popular but ignorant prejudice, lest they should incur the dangers which would result to themselves from inculcating a contrary doctrine?

Note.-There is one predominant but pernicious idea existing in the public mind, to which we must ascribe the prevalence and perpetuity of Infant Baptism, viz. that they can be saved without Baptism. This general impression removes all suspicion or doubt, and precludes all enquiry on the subject. This is an error of judgment, but not fatal. I believe multitudes of pious characters embracing the above idea, are and will be saved. But there is another order of religionists who though convinced that Adult Baptism is a Divine command, yet deliberately live in a state

of non-compliance with the requisition. To such persons we think the following passages of Scripture are applicable :-"To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin." "Then are ye My disciples if ye do whatsoever I command you." "If ye love Me keep My commandments." Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom, but he that doeth the will of My Father who is in heaven." "He that knoweth his Master's will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes." "He that offendeth in one point is guilty of all." "Whosoever is ashamed of Me before men, of him shall the Son of Man be ashamed before the holy angels."

12th. If the persons last referred to neglect the performance of a recognized duty, are they not culpable, and do not the above scriptural quotations pronounce their decisive condemnation?

13th. Where are then the advantages accruing from Pædo-Baptism? Answer. They are absolutely Nil.

14th. What are the evils resulting from that practical perversion of the original rite?

Answer. They are incalculable in their baneful effects on the best interests, the purity, the prosperity, and the honour of the Church of Christ; evils which, in point of time, have existed since A.D. 200, and which, in point of locality, have extended from Africa to England.

15th. Where then is the wisdom, the piety, the love of truth, and of Christ as evidenced by the advocates and practical supporters of PædoBaptism?

16th. What religious sentiments are indicated or expressed by conforming to the Divine injunction of Adult Baptism?

Answer.-1st. We thereby pay a sacred homage to the Lord Jesus Christ, as the True Messiah-the Brightness of the Father's Glory.

2. We publicly recognize His office and authority, as the Legislator and Great Head of His Church.

3.-We publicly declare our obedience to His Divine Government. 4.-We publicly profess our faith in Him as the Only Propitiatory Sacrifice for our sins.

5. We publicly accept of Him, as our only Divine Prophet, Priest, and King.

6. We are publicly buried with HIM in Baptism, in the blessed

assurance that we shall rise with Him to eternal life.

7. We thus publicly dedicate ourselves to Him.

8. We publicly display an example of our allegiance to His Divine Royalty, and confidence in His infinite merits as our Saviour God.

17th. What are the Christian privileges we insure to ourselves by our obedience to this, and other Divine commands?

Answer. A plenitude of all the blessings included in the promises of the Gospel, or Covenant of Grace.

One thing I can declare, that since my cheerful fulfilment of the Saviour's injunction, I have realized a Divine satisfaction of mind, which no Pædobaptist Minister ever can enjoy in a state of Pædo-Baptism.

GEO. SANDERSON.