These circumstances have, doubtless, prevented a fuller discussion, by Baptists, of the Communion question proper.

Jerome, confessedly one among the most learned and candid of the Fathers, wrote about A. D. 400. He says-in cap. 6, Epist. 2, ad Corinth-" Catechumeni communicare non possunt, etc.-Catechumens cannot communicate at the Lord's table, being unbaptized."

Austin, who wrote about A. D. 500, maintaining the absolute necessity of administering the Lord's Supper to infants-Epist. ad Bonaf. Epist. 106-remarks: "Quod nisi baptizati, etc.-Of which certainly they cannot partake unless they are baptized."

Bede flourished about A. D. 700. In his Hist. Eccl. Lib. 2 cap. 5, p. 63, he narrates the following incident: "Three young men, princes of the Eastern Saxons, seeing a Bishop administer the Sacred Supper, desired to partake of it as their royal father had done. To whom the Bishop replied-If you will be baptized in the salutary fountain as your father was, you may also partake of the Lord's Supper even as he did; but if you despise the former, ye cannot, in any wise, receive the latter."

Theophylact, in a work-Cap. 4, Mat. p. 83-published about A. D. 1100, remarks: "No unbaptized person partakes of the Lord s Supper."

Bonaventure, who wrote about 1200, observes-Apud Forbesium, Instruct. Historic. Theolog. lib. 10, cap. 4, sect. 9-" Faith, indeed, is necessary to all the sacraments, but especially to the reception of baptism, because baptism is the first among the sacraments, and the door to the sacraments."

Frid. Spanheim, who flourished about A. D. 1600, on the point before us asserts-Hist. Christian, Col. 623-"Subjecta ad eucharistiam, etc.-None but baptized persons are admitted to the Lord's table."

Lord Chancellor King wrote about A. D. 1700. He says-Enq. part 2. p. 44 -"Baptism was always precedent to the Lord's Supper; and none (ever) were admitted to receive the Eucharist till they were baptized. This is so obvious to every man that it needs no proof."

Now, we will give the views of several recent Pedobaptist writers:

Dr. Wall avers-Hist. Inf. Bap. part. 2. ch. 9-" No church ever gave the communion to any persons before they were baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever were held, none ever maintained that any person should partake of the communion before they were baptized."

Dr. Manton observes-Supp. to Morn. Exer. p. 199-"None but baptized persons have a right to the Lord's table."

Dr. Doddridge says-Lectures, p. 510-"It is certain that Christians in general, have always been spoken of, by the most ancient Fathers, as baptized persons. And it is also certain that, as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity extends, no unbaptized person received the Lord's Supper."

Dr. Dwight thus expresses his opinion-Syst. Theol. Serm. 160—“It is an indispensable qualification for this ordinance, that the candidate for Communion be a member of the visible Church of Christ, in full standing. By this I intend, that he should be a person of piety; that he should have made a public profession of religion; and that he should have been baptized."

The distinguished Dr. Griffin remarks "I agree with the advocates for Close Communion in two points: 1. That baptism is the initiating ordinance which introduces us into the visible Church: of course, where there is no baptism, there are no visible churches. 2. That we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course are not Church members, even if we regard them as Christians. Should a pious Quaker so far depart from his principles, as to wish to commune with me at the Lord's table, while he yet refused to be baptized, I could not receive him; because there is such a relationship established between the two ordinances that I have no right to separate them; in other words, I have no right to send the sacred elements out of the Church."

The case supposed by Dr. Griffin actually occurred in the experience of the late venerable Bishop Moore, of the Episcopal Church, in Virginia. See Taylor, pp. 23, 24, 25]

The Episcopal Prayer-Book virtually makes baptism a prerequisite to the

"What is the true limit to Communion ?" is, however, a question which ought to be thoroughly discussed, and settled upon its own merits. For it is not right, save in defensive argument, to rely upon an untrue or uncertain pre-· mise, even though it is generally admitted by our opponents. Nor is it, in this case, politic; since some Pedobaptists may refuse to admit this premise; in which event, our argument, with them, falls to the ground; and, unless we can then sustain this rejected premise, we shall seem to have used it in bad faith, or at least without intelligent conviction of its truth. Besides, with a Baptist it does not avail as an argument to prove, though it does favor the propriety of restricting Communion to baptized persons, that nearly the whole Pedobaptist world believe and act upon this doctrine. He, if a bold and thinking man, will ask, "Are they right in this belief and practice?" and, "What are the grounds upon which the doctrine itself rests?" And, in point of fact, these questions are being asked, openly, and by men of prominence in the denomination, as well as more secretly, and by those less known to fame. Thus, no less a man than the author of the "Principles and Practices of Baptists," has, in that work, supported the so-called “Baptist practice" of Close Communion, simply by the argumentum ad hominem, referred to; while he has gone so far as to say: "The question may yet be raised among us all, whether this (baptism) is the true limit to Communion."page 98. By which we understand the author to mean, not merely that all denominations have the right to discuss this question, which would be saying nothing; but that it is so far an unsettled one, that there is a propriety in its thorough re-discussion. Thus, also, Professor Ripley, in his recent review of Dr. Barnes' pamphlet on "Exclusiveism," suggests a similar view in the following paragraph, which we quote, partly with the intention of a subsequent reference:

Lord's Supper, by making Confirmation a prerequisite, to which baptism is a prerequisite. See the Order of Confirmation. The Presbyterian Confession of Faith does the same thing, making the Lord's Supper an ordinance "in the Church," and "baptism a sacrament of the New Testament ordained by Jesus Christ, for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church." -See chap. xxviii: 1; xxix: 1.

"All that is said in these pages proceeds on the supposition, that the principle is a true one which the author of the pamphlet before us acknowledges, and which is commonly laid down as an indisputable one, that baptism is a prerequisite to Communion at the Lord's table. The evidence on which this principle rests seems to be very strong; viz. the original practice in the time of the apostles. Yet probably a line of argument may be struck out which would materially modify that principle in reference to the present condition of Christendom; for Christianity, such is its genius and such its comprehensiveness, may contain some principles that will provide for exigencies created by the abnormal states into which individuals and churches may be brought. But such a line of argument has not yet been struck out; or if it has, it has not been made sufficiently clear to gain general assent. If the principle referred to could be shown not to be true, or, in the existing circumstances of Christians, not to be binding, or, if the design intended to be answered by that principle could be shown to be now sufficiently answered in a different way, and thus Communion at the Lord's table could now be properly placed on the simple ground of being disciples of Christ, or even of being publicly avowed disciples, no inconsistency would be involved in the united Communion which is thought so desirable, and in other acts of church-recognition."—pp. 52—3.

The most prominent of our denominational journals have, within the last half year, contained communications from Baptists, in different parts of the country, expressing, to say the least, the absence of satisfactory conviction that Baptism is "the true limit to Communion;" and, recently, in some of these journals have appeared communications which, in view of the prevalence of inquiry on the subject, call for another treatise in defence of Restricted Communion. We mention these circumstances, unimportant in themselves, as straws which show how the winds of opinion and feeling are blowing. The author himself is aware of not a few prominent Baptists, ministers and laymen, in different States-men not suspected of heterodoxy-who, more or less cautiously, avow, at least, that the arguments commonly used in favor of restricting Communion to the baptized, seem to them not entirely satisfactory. How many there are, practicing this restriction, who do so because they have received it from their fathers, or find it practiced by those around them, it were difficult to say, and not pertinent to our present object to inquire; though the fact that there are many such, would certainly be a reason for the rediscussion of the whole subject. In all the inquiry to which we have alluded, we rejoice. Not that we are glad to see dissatisfaction, in itself considered, upon any of our principles and practices, but because we would have them held intelligently; because fearless, candid inquiry is what we ask from our Pedobaptist brethren; because this alone can

secure intelligent conviction, while it can never jeopard the interests of truth, since

"Truth's like a torch, the more it's shook it shines ;"

and because this spirit of inquiry is eminently manly and Christian. Nor can it be checked by dogmatic, suspicious opposition, though this opposition may prejudice the mind against the views defended with such a spirit. Free inquiry is peculiarly the characteristic of the Baptist denomination, of our republican country, of this nineteenth century. It will, therefore, increase more and more. It should be met,

as it can alone be successfully met, with toleration and argument.

In view of all the foregoing facts and considerations, we deem another essay upon the terms of Communion not only not impertinent, but called for, especially in the Christian Review, so long the organ of American Baptists, and the exponent and defender of their peculiar principles and practices. We present our views, moreover, because, having reached them after painful doubts on the Communion question-doubts, we believe, as little engendered by mere feeling and prejudice as, in this world, and with infirm human nature, is well possible-we would fain hope that, though not claiming absolute originality, they may be deemed not wholly old, and may prove of some little service to other minds-not a few—which suffer with doubts similar to those which were our own.'

*

In this paper, it is proposed to inquire, first, what constitutes regular qualification for sacramental Communion; and, secondly, such qualification being ascertained, whether any modification thereof is warranted. We have placed at the beginning of these pages the titles of several works on the Communion question, not because we design a formal review of any of these works, which would destroy the unity of our own argument; but because that argument, in its natural course, incidentally meets, and, as we hope,

*We feel it at once a privilege and a duty to acknowledge the kind and efficient aid of Rev. A. M. POINDEXTER, of Virginia, in the investigations, the result of which is here presented.

to some extent answers the prominent positions assumed in some of these works, while, by being compared with other arguments on the same general side, its peculiarity may more clearly appear.

In solving the first of the questions propounded, we remark first, what none will deny, that Communion is a social ordinance. By this we mean that it is not one in which a single individual merely is concerned, as a subject, as in baptism; but that its celebration involves, as the term communion itself implies, association.

Our second remark is, that the association required is not of men indiscriminately who might choose to eat and drink together, and to call this the Lord's Supper; but that it is of those who, in whatever other respects they differ, agree in this one, that they are the professed subjects of the kingdom of God, the subjection professed being always generically the same, and involving repentance, faith and consecration, whichever one of these may, in any case, be more prominently expressed. That such professed subjection is essential to participation in the Lord's Supper, is evident alike from the circumstances of its institution, the nature of the ordinance, and the mode of its observance in apostolic times, and has been in all ages the unanimous belief of the Christian world. This proposition Mr. Whitney not only, in terms, admits, but contends for.- pp. 38 and seq. We now remark, that the profession made must be a good This seems involved in the very fact that a profession is required at all. This, too, Mr. Whitney virtually admits, when he says the profession (not the piety) must be "acknowledged."-pp. 38. What constitutes a good profession, one which ought to be "acknowledged," is a question which, for the present, we leave untouched; and only urge that such a profession is a prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, and that, consequently, whatever inadequacy or irregularity there is in a profession (irrespective of the character of the subject who makes it) does, just so far, render invalid and irregular the title to the Supper. If now there is, from any cause, a specific thing which is essential to a regular and complete profession, the absence of this thing

one.