amined it. And non-communion with those who practise such abominations, is a trifling matter. By these means and such as these, the conscience is warped from its natural hold; and then the new convert is prepared for close communion. Never till then-never till he becomes fully sectarianized, is he prepared to go with his eyes open and shut himself out from the great mass of Protestant Christendom, and sit down at an exclusive table of the Lord-a table which, though it contains many true disciples of Christ, is nevertheless a Baptist table, one of denominational peculiarity, and not one of enlarged Christian catholicity.

Why is adult immersion any better than infant sprinkling? Neither of them is baptism, as we have already seen, unless performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, as a religious ordinance, a ritual purification. And baptism can do as much good to an infant as to an adult, provided it be the appointment of God that it be administered. It is not at the moment of baptism that good takes place, but in its influence afterwards. It is the consciousness of being externally devoted to God, which, if followed by internal acts of obedience, is the mark of God, the Christian badge which separates us from the world. Now it is precisely the same thing in its influence on the individual, whether it be applied in infancy or in adult years. It is still the badge of discipleship, which becomes such in its completest degree when our other obedience to God's commands takes place, and not before.

Now, why all this preoccupying the mind with distorted views of other men's practices on baptism? Why should Infant Baptism, which is connected with the most sacred of our associations, be subjected to ridicule and treated with contempt? There can be no other reason than to throw an air of incredulity about a subject which requires some examination, in order to conceal the enormities of another subject which strikes the mind unfavorably at first sight. We do not say that this is the deliberate intention of any, but this is the effect, and this is the principle upon which it proceeds. The natural dictate of the Christian conscience is love. And it is love not contradicted by official acts of church fellowship. No man was ever yet born into the kingdom of Ged in contention. He that begins to contend the moment he begins to hope in the mercy of God through Jesus Christ, is never truly born again. Such converts always show the fact by their after life. It is under the sweet influence of love that a man begins to breathe the air of Jerusalem. The first promptings of that spirit are love to all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity-carried

out in appropriate acts. He chooses one denomination rather than another sometimes, because, according to the light he has, he believes they are the most correct; but more frequently, because circumstances have thrown him there. But the communion of saints, which embraces the whole family of the faithful-from that his conscience must be warped off by extraordinary means, or he abides by it with all his heart. We have had intercourse with many hundreds of young converts, and in no instance did we ever perceive other than the feelings we have described. Indeed, so universal is the dictate of a Christian conscience on this subject, that not a few who are regular members of Baptist churches, have no fellowship with close communion; and were it not for offending their brethren, they would sit down at the table of the Lord with churches of other denominations whenever the opportunity presented. With the Bible in their hand, and the evidence beaming upon them which none of them, not even the straitest sect of close communion, will deny, that other denominations have men of as great piety and discernment as theirs; and that the Lord owns these denominations by baptizing them with the Holy Ghost, and meeting them at the Lord's table in the communion of saints; they dare not call that common or unclean which God has so manifestly cleansed.

These are a few of the considerations which seem to our minds, aside and beyond the utter indefensibleness of close communion on the ground assumed by its advocates, to place that subject at a point directly the reverse of Christian charity, and to show it altogether unbecoming in the household of God. But we have from the apostle Paul, an actual definition of communion at the Lord's table: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" 'Aye,' says the advocate of close communion, it is such in certain circumstances. It is baptism that must give it the finishing touch. The communion of baptism must stand out in prominence. The communicants must all agree on the subject of immersion, and have all been under the water as a preparatory step. How can we commune with those who are not baptized? How can we hold a communion in the body and blood of Christ with such as differ from us in other things?' The answer is, you are not asked to commune in anything else at this ordinance than the body and blood of Christ. Perhaps some who are externally baptized, have no faith by which alone they can commune in the body and blood of Christ. But all who have this faith, if they submit to the known

requirements of the Saviour, without which faith cannot be said to exist, are qualified, according to the apostle's definition, for communion. The evidence of faith is not made out unless the subject of it be willing to submit to all the requirements, whether external or internal, which he perceives are of God. And when this evidence exists, who shall say that he cannot commune with all his brethren of every subordinate name, in the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he receives with all his heart as his only Saviour? If communion at the Lord's table consist in similarity of views in regard to baptism, which the apostle counted so small a matter that he thanked God he had baptized but few at Corinth; if it consist in similarity of views in regard to any thing but the great point which is there represented; we see not how the apostle's definition can be sustained.

As we lay down our pen we have one request to make. If any should attempt to reply to our humble efforts, we ask them to point us to the chapter and verse of our Bible, where it is enacted that baptism shall be an antecedent of communion. We shall not be satisfied with inferences coming from those who professedly discard all inferences when reasoning on the positive institutions of God. We require, and so does every man who turns his attention to the subject, that they shall be consistent with their principles and show us a direct Thus saith the Lord. Till they do this, they fail of defending close communion, except at the expense of every thing they hold dear as Baptists.

ART. VI. SELF-DEVELOPMENT, NOT AGGRESSION, THE TRUE POLICY OF OUR NATION.

THERE are two widely different methods of seeking national Strength or Greatness. The one may be characterized as the Self-developing method, the other as the Aggressive. The nation adopting the former seems not to interfere in the domestic affairs of other nations, not to be entangled in offensive and defensive alliances with them, not to encroach by artifice or arms on their territory,-but quietly to develop its own strength. It admits of and encourages the intercourse of its

citizens with their citizens by commerce, letters, and the amenities of civilized life. It even stimulates to the utmost energy and enterprise in such intercourse, so far as it is calculated to develop its resources, and not suppress them. But

in its national character and in all its relations to other governments, its aim is to maintain peace, and so conduct its affairs as to secure the confidence of all with whom it has to do. It seeks strength, but that strength which comes by bringing out its own resources and possibilities, and firmly withholds itself from appropriating power foreign to it.

The nation adopting the latter method, on the contrary, aims not so much as to draw out of, as into itself. It mainly looks abroad for its strength, to what it can transfer from other nations. Itself it regards as a gatherer and combiner and holder, rather than a producer of power. And it embraces every opportunity to bring under its sway whatever will build it up, or would be likely to build up a rival. Accordingly it deals much in arms, much in diplomacy, much in real, though perhaps clumsily concealed, national freebooting. It has a voice and a hand in the commotions around it, and impatiently waits to gain some advantage from them. It is an Ishmaelite among the nations.

The characteristic difference between the two may be briefly stated in this way: The one seeks by some means-by arms, acquisitions, alliances-to bring greatness to itself; the other, by some means-by the arts and vitalities of peace to bring greatness out of itself.

The latter we regard as the true policy for every nation to adopt, but especially for this one. And our object, in this Article, is to enforce and illustrate this position, and then to point out some of the sources of danger that our country may eventually be drawn into the opposite course.

We may commence, then, by referring to the general principle, that true strength is the result of growth, not of aggression. No living object can become strong, save by the process of self-development. Whatever comes to it from abroad, must be taken up into it and become a part of it by a vital process, or it is still foreign and does not contribute to its intrinsic vigor. Without growth, there is no living union of parts; and without this, while there may be accumulation and enlargement, there can be no increase of living power. The parts will be without sympathy or concert. The one will derange and embarrass the others. But where a healthful growth takes place, they are blended in one living whole, and combined so as to secure the greatest amount of vigor.

Now, society, and a nation as being one of those natural unities of humanity, which constitute society, come under the same laws of growth. Society, according to its true idea and construction, is a living thing, made up of those whose views, sympathies, manners, pursuits, stations, are indeed not common, but dovetail into each other-nay, meet and intertwine in one tangled, living and inseparable mass of humanity, like the roots of different grasses in a common sward. It is a living convolution, where different trades, ranks, professions, are rolled up and grown together. And such a state of society cannot be made; it must grow. Time and quiet are necessary. But when and where it does exist, it is strong. Each citizen, heathfully filling his station, however humble, adds something to the aggregate power, is a unit in the greater unit. But if the best of men, having no common working purpose or sympathy sufficiently strong to absorb and reconcile their differences, should be assembled in one locality, from all parts of the world; if such an aggregation were bound together by the best of laws, and the best of institutions were transferred among them, there would be no more cohesion between them than between the particles of a heap of sand. It would be necessary that the vital process should go on for years, perhaps for generations or centuries, before they could be sufficiently fused, assimilated, and grown together to present any high form of unity or strength.

Moreover, in those communities where this unity exists. because they have followed the laws of growth, and when consequently there is a measure of strength, the true method of increasing it is everywhere by self-development. It is to bring out the latent power, rather than to introduce foreign power. There are always resources that will bear further expansion, and when these are developed, the increase of power is compact, native, and reliable. And the ratio of advance among the nations on the scale of power, is much greater than the ratio of the development of resources. If a people, having the average self-development, were to double it, their relative power would be increased many fold; on the same principle that, if a man were to have his present ability, which we will suppose already compared favorably with that of those around him, increased twice, his rank for ability as compared with them, would be increased ten times, and more.

The true way, therefore, for a nation to become strong, is not to grasp after advantages from abroad, for that would leave themselves still intrinsically weak; but to test their own capabilities to the utmost-to press their agriculture to its verge,