dobaptists should respect these scruples, and not accuse Baptists of illiberality in this matter. It is pleasing to know that the most eminent Pedobaptists have borne unequivocal and cheerful testimony to the consistency and propriety of the Baptist position on the Communion question, (See Note, at the outset of this article.)

But may not Pedobaptists commune, and ought they not to do so? This is a question asked by the advocates of open Communion-asked with an air of triumph, as if the necessary affirmative answer must also involve free Communion; and we admit that the answers given by most writers for close Communion seem to tend to this. For instance, Prof. Curtis admits that Pedobaptist societies are churches, and contends that the Supper belongs to churches. If this is true, these churches have a legal right to commune; and it would therefore be no more illegal for a Baptist to commune with one of them, than with a Baptist church to which he did not belong. This mode of argument ignores

-not to say denies—the special connection between baptism and the Supper, which makes the former essential to the legality of the latter; it would, moreover, have no force save with those who admit that a person may commune only with the particular (local) church to which he belongs. Even Prof. Curtis shrinks from this conclusion, to which, however, all his argument tends, and makes the Supper a symbol not only of church relations actually existing, but of such also as might exist. Well, we think that if Pedobaptist societies are churches, and legally entitled to all the privileges and prerogatives of churches, there are circumstances in which both legally and properly a Baptist might unite with one of these churches, reserving those rights which would be cheerfully accorded to him, in many such churches, touching his peculiar views; and if this is so, he may, while not actually a member, commune with such a church, and symbolize his possible relation, of membership, to it. Other writers for close Communion leave open a yet wider door to the objector. They admit both that the Supper belongs to churches, and that Pedobaptist societies are such, whence it follows that the observance of the Supper

by these bodies is legal; while they do not contend for the peculiar restriction plead for by Prof. Curtis. If pressed, indeed. to tell why we may not commune with Pedobaptist churches, they say, "because that would sanction error!” But how is their Communion an error, if they are churches, and if Communion belongs to churches? The error must be in something else, and not in Communion. How is their error such that they may legally practice, and yet we may not sanction it? We deem the difficulty due to the admission that Pedobaptist societies are churches,-an admission, we believe, fatal to close Communion, and leading also to false conclusions in another direction; since if baptism admits to church membership, and Pedobaptists are already church members, Mr. Whitney's absurd conclusion, that Pedobaptists are not Scriptural subjects for baptism, seems to follow. But as this reasoning is logical, and as the first premise is undoubted, we must deny the second premise, which admits Pedobaptist societies to be churches.

We, too, would answer affirmatively the question, whether Pedobaptists may and ought to commune. Their Communion is illegal as an act; but that does not make it wrong, for them, if sincere, to commune; their mistake concerning one ordinance should not debar them from the other. Just so far as one is honest in his conviction, and has used suitable diligence and candor in the search for truth and duty, is he as a moral agent approved, though his act may be illegal, and he himself a sufferer from his non-compliance with the letter of the law. Accordingly, a Pedobaptist who has had this spirit, and has pursued this course in reference to baptism, and is still unbaptized, yet believes that he has been baptized, and regards Communion as the duty and privilege of the baptized, both has the privilege to commune, and is under obligation so to do, though his act of Communion in itself is illegal. But, now when he proposes to one not believing him properly qualified for Communion, to sanction his act by participating in it, another element is introduced;-namely, the co-operation in a known illegality, and this would be wrong; so that the Communion of a Pedobaptist is illegal, and yet need not be

morally wrong; while the deliberate sanctioning of the known illegal act by participating in it, would be both illegal and wrong. It does not take a grain of logic to see that while the Pedobaptist's conviction that he is duly qualified for the Supper may make it right for him to commune, it does not really constitute the qualification, and that while he may and must act in accordance with his view that he is qualified, so must we act in accordance with our conviction that he is not qualified. This distinction, obvious and important as it is, has not generally been made, even by those who have written upon this subject.

Baptized believers, then, are duly qualified for the Lord's Supper. The sum total of these constitute the visible Church of Christ ;-an entity which we find to our satisfaction in the New Testament. The mistake so generally made as to what constitutes the visible Church, together with the erroneous conclusions deduced from the definition, is what, in our judgment, has led most Baptist writers to the equal mistake of denying the existence of the visible Church. Since baptized believers are entitled to the Supper, and since they constitute the visible Church, the Supper comes incidentally to symbolize church fellowship, but this is by no means its final cause.

But the very important question presents itself, What are the circumstances under which those qualified to commune may exercise their privilege? While the Supper is in a general sense the privilege and duty of all Scripturally baptized persons, Christ has not left its observance so much. at hap-hazard as would have been the case, had no further provision been made. He has made it the duty of all baptized persons, whose local condition permits, to associate themselves together for mutual edification and for combined effort. These associations-and the New Testament knows no other—are churches. To them is committed the Supper, to be observed statedly when they assemble as churches. It is the duty of every church, as such, to observe the Supper, and to admit to it none but properly qualified persons, of whose qualifications each church must judge for itself. On the other hand, it would not be right for a church to ex

clude any such persons. We cannot see the ground for the idea that a church should not admit any to the Supper except its own members, whom, if need were, it might discipline. It is surely enough for a church to exclude from Communion those whom it actually would discipline. A church, should, we think, receive to its table all those whom it would receive, just as they are, to its membership. But while we believe that only church s, as such, may observe the Supper, we regard a New Testament church a very simple thing. Should a company of baptized persons, holding their membership in different churches, be thrown together on shipboard for some length of time, it would be proper for them to band together for religious work and worship; and, though without some of the usual forms, such an association would have the essential elements of a church. It would be their privilege and duty to observe the Supper. Clinic Communion, even when observed by a church as such, we should object to, from its great and obvious liability to abuse.

In the foregoing discussion we have conscientiously and earnestly sought to ascertain and to set forth the truth. The conclusions submitted are those which we firmly hold; but, at the same time, we are too conscious of the liability of man to err, not to submit our views with deference, and with the acknowledgment that, unknown to us, fallacy may lurk in some of our reasonings, and falsity attach to some of our conclusions. Let free discussion prevail, that the truth may be elicited, and Christ's kingdom be advanced.

We say, in conclusion, to those who hold to and practice close Communion, that they must expect to have their position and motives misunderstood, and should bear it patiently; and that, in all their efforts to sustain their position, they should unite the suaviter in modo with the fortiter in re, and at all times manifest such Christian courtesy and affection, as to put to silence the charge of pride and bigotry.

G. B. T.

ART. VI. THE NEW THEOLOGY AND THE OLD.

Christian Examiner. May, 1857.

Manual of Theology. By J. L. DAGG, D.D. Southern Baptist Publication Society, Charleston, S. C. 1857.

In the beginning of the number of the Christian Examiner, for May, 1857, is a long, wordy article, the object of which is to show, that every Christian age has had to recognize something, which-rightly or wrongly-has been called "A New Theology." Time was, the author says, when Unitarianism was so called; and from that he proceeds to show, that the last fifty years of controversy, while they have brought up new nominal points of attack and defence, have caused a mighty progression towards Unitarianism among the most intelligent of the leaders of all the orthodox denominations. We think that the progress has been just the other way, and that among the better, that is, the more spiritual, pious and profoundly philosophical—part of the Unitarians, there is a much closer approach to the very doctrines, on the ground of which, near half a century since, orthodox Christians instinctively withdrew from them. Professor Huntington's views and statements approach more closely to those of Andrew Fuller than to those of Priestley, on the points upon which they differed. So, if we mistake not, do those of the present President of Harvard University, especially on that critical point, the relation of the work of Christ to the forgiveness of our sins, and the work of the Spirit of God in producing the life of all piety. Let the writings of these men be compared, and it will be found that, except in the use of certain terms and forms of expression, they are, if honest in the expression of their views, (which we doubt not,) one in heart and one in Christ Jesus with the Old Theology, and utterly opposed to the dry, logical, skeptical and materialistic tendencies of the Priestley school.