plainly declares this: and indeed that whole Service was devised and appointed for this very reason, that strict discipline was not regarded as a point attainable. Our Reformers considered it very desirable, but not essential. Therefore they gave their most earnest heed to that which is far more important, and indeed essential,—which is faithful preaching,―urging every one, with the greatest possible earnestness, to self-examination. If you will look to the Scriptures also, you will find nothing there that makes strict discipline absolutely essential. It was a true Sacrament, when our Lord instituted His Supper, though Judas was there, and the other Apostles knew that a traitor was among them. Who shall say that the Sacrament of Baptism was improperly administered, when Simon Magus was baptised? (Acts viii. 24.) And let us remember that the instances of excommunication recorded in Scripture, were all on occasion of very gross offences. At Corinth, it was actually a case of incest. Hymenæus and Alexander had not only sinned against conscience, but made shipwreck of the faith, and were guilty of blasphemous heresies. (1 Tim. i. 19, 20.) Certainly there is provision in our Church for the exclusion of such open scandals. See the Rubrics before the Communion Service. And those Ministers who do not act accordingly, have a fearful account to give. But that strictness of discipline which would attempt to exclude all but real believers is, I firmly believe, neither practicable nor desirable. The parable of the Tares forbids us to attempt it. The visible Church can never, in the present state of things, be exactly co-extensive with the invisible. The Court of the Tabernacle (which typified the visible church,) was far larger than the Tabernacle itself, (which typified the invisible.) Our Reformers saw clearly that really faithful preaching must lead the way, in order to any real reformation in other respects. It is equally so now. We need a vast improvement in regard to faithful preaching. If we should attempt anything beyond the first elements of discipline, before this takes place, we should do evil rather than good. For this therefore let us pray. I do not think you quite enter into the views of our excellent Reformers in compiling the Liturgy, and setting up therein so high a standard. But, “I had many things to write, but I will not, with ink and pen, write unto thee. But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face." I hope, however, that this hasty letter may prepare the way for profitable conversation: and oh, that the Lord may be with us when we meet, and fulfil unto us abundantly His gracious promise, Matt. xviii. 19, 20! June 12, 1834. MY DEAR FRIEND AND SISTER IN * I must now come to your difficulties on the subject of Infant Baptism,-for which you think you can find no express warrant in Scripture. And, if not, who shall dare to forbid it? or to charge all the evils with which the visible Church abounds upon the observance of that, which is no where forbidden in Scripture, directly or indirectly,—when so many things expressly commanded in the Scriptures have been neglected, and so many things forbidden have been continually done, which are abundantly sufficient to account for all these evils? It is evident that in the time of Cyprian, when the Council of Carthage was held, in the year 253 (scarcely 150 years after the death of the Apostle John,—only 86 after that of his disciple Polycarp) the notion of confining Baptism to adults was unknown in the Church. Infant Baptism has therefore been the received practice of the Church of Christ from the time of our earliest records downward. Those, therefore, who oppose it, are bound to produce plain Scripture to forbid it. By which I only mean to say, that when persons oppose any received doctrine or practice of the Church of Christ, the whole burden of the proof (the onus probandi) rests properly upon them they do not act fairly or honestly if they attempt to shift the burden from themselves, and cast it upon us. And herein it is, my dear Sister, that your letter is altogether deficient there is a total want of scriptural argument. You charge the corruptions of the Christian Church, in very strong terms, upon the custom of baptizing infants. But where are the texts or arguments drawn from Scripture by which you support so grave a charge? Till these are produced, will it not be fair and sufficient to meet facts with facts? The visible Church of Christ is horribly corrupt. It is filled with multitudes of Baptized |