original fountains of nature, or else bursts forth from smitten rocks. To evince the truth of these remarks, we need only to refer to the table of contents in volume second of the "Elements." We find there anything but the proofs of analytical power. No combinations are there resolved into their elements; nor is the subject of Reasoning separated into its natural divisions. "Continuations of the Subject," "Observations" and "General Remarks," usurp the place of Principles, Laws, aud General Truths. Instead of short comprehensive sentences, each expressing some one entire separate topic, the page is well nigh covered with a general description of the contents. Now the Index of a volume is also the index of the writer's mind. The orator's division of his subject, and the preacher's specification of the topics included in his text, are sufficient to determine the character of the speakers, as well as of their performances.

Many excellent criticisms, however, are found in these volumes-many subtle disquisitions please and instruct. the reader. The numerous discussions about the meaning of philosophical terms, though they are too long and have too little point, charm us by the ease and elegance with which they are written. Many useful practical suggestions, respecting the spirit in which philosophical inquiries should be conducted, are also frequently interspersed. If a rich fancy often seduces Mr. Stewart from rigid investigation into speculation and conjecture, it yet compensates in part for the injury, by the grace and beauty which it imparts. Hence it is with much truth that Mr. Stewart is called a "beautiful writer." His diction is pure, elevated and chaste. His style is easy and uniform. It is admirably adapted to essay writing.

As a man, Mr. Stewart every where displays fine sensibility, and an excellent spirit. Towards the many writers. to whom he refers, he uniformly manifests the kindest feelings. He always acknowledges what he borrows or imitates from others. If he is obliged to make a free translation from another language, he is sure to present a satisfactory reason for it. His large benevolence constantly prompts the endeavor to make his writings beneficial. His view of life is generous and comprehensive. "It is vastly more important," he writes in the Introduction to

the first volume, "to be a man, than to be a mere mathematician, metaphysician or poet."

So extensive was his acquaintance with literature, both ancient and modern, that he could boldly affirm that "Bacon did not lay down a single principle which is not to be found in some preceding author." His frequent classical allusions, and his numerous references to other writers, afford abundant proofs of the extent of his reading, and of the accuracy and readiness of his memory. These qualities were precisely fitted to give Mr. Stewart that popularity as a lecturer, which he so preeminently enjoyed. His amiable disposition, his winning manners, his animating style of address, together with his rich store of knowledge, rendered his lectures attractive and interesting, especially to the young men of rank and fortune to whom they were addressed. So happy an exemplification of the advantages of learning and refinement, had a direct tendency to engage his youthful hearers in the pursuit of liberal studies. He ever inculcated upon them the noblest sentiments, and ever sought to engage them in the cultivation of every Christian grace, every manly virtue, and every noble quality of heart and of mind that adorns human character. The good which he thus effected for the young of his own generation, and through them, for future generations, was indeed very great. Hence although the merits of Mr. Stewart as an Intellectual Philosopher are comparatively small, yet as a man, he is deserving of much praise. Although he failed to conduct his investigations in a severe and rigid manner, and consequently brought out little that was new or original, yet his essays, for such they properly are, will always be read with profit, because of the valuable learning which they contain, and the kindly spirit with which they are pervaded.

VOL. XIII.-NO. LI.

29

ARTICLE II.

INFANT COMMUNION.

WHEN a principle is equally applicable to two cases, and yet the advocates of that principle apply it fully to one case, and do not apply it at all to the other, the charge of inconsistency fairly lies against them. They are bound either to show such a want of correspondence between the two cases as will justify their course of procedure, or else to carry out their principle fully and unhesitatingly in its application to them both. Nor is inconsistency the only charge to which they are exposed. They are chargeable with wrong, as well as with inconsistency. If the principle is a sound one, their action ought to be conformed to it throughout: if unsound, it ought not to be conformed to it at all. Thus it is manifest, that in all cases of moral action, such inconsistency involves wrong. It is true that if the principle is wrong, it may not do so much injury to make only a partial application of it as it would to carry it out fully. But there is this peculiar infelicity connected with such inconsistency, that, let the principle be right or wrong, those who make such a partial application of it are sure to be in the wrong. For, if the principle is correct, they are wrong in not carrying it out fully; and if it is incorrect, they are wrong in acting upon it at all.

The advocates of infant baptism appeal to several different principles in support of that practice. It is not the object of this essay to show the correctness or the incorrectness of those principles; but to make it appear that, whether they are correct or incorrect, they are as applicable to one of the distinguishing ordinances of Christianity as to the other, and that therefore Pedobaptists, if they would be consistent, must either recognize the right of infants to both of these ordinances, or deny their right to either of them. Their present position necessarily involves error. If their principles are right, they err in not

admitting infants to the Lord's Supper; if wrong, they err in admitting them to baptism.

One of the arguments adduced in favor of infant baptism is drawn from the relation supposed to exist between the Jewish and the Christian church. It is urged that the latter is a continuation of the former; that baptism, the initiating ordinance of the latter, was substituted by Christ for circumcision, the initiating ordinance of the former; and that therefore, baptism is as applicable to infants under the Christian dispensation, as circumcision was under the Jewish. The covenant which God made with Abraham is regarded as the foundation of the Jewish dispensation. Of this covenant circumcision was the seal. No other ordinance was appointed at the time when that covenant was made; but, about 430 years afterwards, the ordinance of the passover was instituted, which all the Jewish nation was required to celebrate. Now let us look at the evidence that the Lord's Supper was substituted for the passover, and see if it ought not to be conclusive with those who assert a like substitution in the case of circumcision. The Lord's Supper is the commemorative ordinance of the Christian dispensation, just as the passover was of the Jewish. Now if the church under both dispensations is the same, have we not as much reason for supposing a substitution of the commemorative ordinance connected with the one dispensation for that connected with the other, as we have for supposing a like substitution in respect to the initiatory ordinance? Besides, the apostle Paul says explicitly that "Christ our passover is sacrificed for us," thus showing the connection of the passover with that event, which the Lord's Supper was specially designed to commemorate. observable too, that the disciples of Christ did not keep the passover after the Lord's Supper was instituted; while circumcision continued to be practised among them for some time after Christian baptism was instituted. when two ordinances are practised together, the very fact of their being so practised is an argument against the position that one of them was substituted for the other; for why should the original be continued, after the substitute has taken its place? There is, therefore, less evidence that baptism is a substitute for circumcision, than there is that the Lord's Supper is a substitute for the passover.

Now

With this evidence on the subject before him, can any consistent advocate of infant baptism object to infant communion? The command respecting the celebration of the passover runs thus: "In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for a house. And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it, according to the number of the souls: every man, according to his eating, shall make your count for the lamb." Exodus 12: 3, 4. It is manifest from this statement, that the whole household partook of the passover. If, then, the ordinances of the Christian church are merely substitutes for those of the Jewish church; can we avoid the conclusion that every member of a Christian church ought not only to partake of the Lord's Supper himself, but also to let his whole family partake of it with him?

In Acts 7: 38, the Israelites are called "the church in the wilderness." And Paul says, Gal. 3: 29, "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." These passages seem to be regarded by many Pedobaptists, as furnishing conclusive evidence that the Christian church is but an enlargement of the Jewish church; and that, therefore, the infant children of Christians have the same right to baptism, that those of Jews had to circumcision. If this is a correct view of the relation of those texts to the subject before us, by what right can we shut out infants from the only commemorative ordinance of the Christian church, notwithstanding that they were unquestionably admitted to the corresponding ordinance in the Jewish church? Who has ever excluded them? Who has authorized us to exclude them?

It may perhaps be objected to this, that the covenant was made with Abraham, and that the passover was not instituted till long after. True, but was not the covenant renewed with Israel? Were not the Israelites the covenant people of God? Did they not partake of the passover, as such? If not, on what ground did they partake of it? If then the privileges of the Christian church. flow from the Abrahamic covenant, and are determined by it, are not the disciples of Christ entitled to all the