privileges which, under that covenant, were granted to the Jews?

When the Saviour instituted the Lord's Supper, he said. to his disciples, as he distributed the bread among them, "Take, eat; this is my body." And of the cup, he said "Drink ye all of it." And the apostle Paul says, 1 Cor. 11: 26, "As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till he come." These expressions were addressed to the church. If then infants belong to the church under the Christian dispensation, as they did under the Jewish, how can we question their right to partake of this ordinance? Can the command, "Drink ye all of it," be obeyed without admitting them? How can all the church drink of it, when some are not allowed to come?

Perhaps some may question whether baptized infants are church members. But is there really any room for doubt on that point? Does not baptism admit them to the church? If not, what does it do for them? Can an instance be found in Scripture of the baptism of persons who were not admitted to the church? Besides, Dr. Dwight, the former distinguished President of Yale College, has declared his belief that infants are church members; and the same position is strenuously maintained by the author of the work entitled "Apostolic Baptism," a work which has been spoken of, as unanswered and unanswerable. So also Mr. Stearns. It is true, Dr. Dwight seems somewhat puzzled to know what to do with them, after he gets them into the church. But he did not believe in infant communion. If he had, one, at least, of his difficulties would have been removed.

But this is not all. The terms yo, saints or holy, and ro, believers or faithful, are, in the Greek Testament. applied to children. Thus in 1 Cor. 7: 14, "Else were your children unclean; but now they are holy," yo. And in Titus 1: 6, "having faithful children." Gr. πιςτοι,

It is true, that Baptists regard these texts as having nothing to do with the question of infant church membership, but as some of the most able Pedobaptist writers adduce the passage in Titus, and nearly all of them, that in 1 Cor. in support of infant baptism, it seems equally proper to adduce them in support of infant communion, the ground in each case being the same: viz.,

VOL. XIII.NO. LI.

29*

that infants may rightfully become church members. It can hardly be doubted, that these texts furnish, at least, as strong an argument in favor of the latter practice as they do in favor of the former.

A similar course of reasoning may be applied to the use of the terms, house and household, in the Bible. It is strenuously urged by the advocates of infant baptism, that the instances of household baptism, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, clearly imply the application of that rite to infants. Let them then carry out the principle, and assert that the connection of the same term with the other distinguishing ordinance of Christianity implies, with equal clearness, the admission of infants to that ordinance. In Acts 2: 46, we read of "breaking bread from house to house." In Rom. 16: 5, "greet the church that is in their house." It is supposed by many, that the word translated "house," might with equal, or greater propriety, have been translated "family." And a Pedobaptist writer, of some distinction, remarks that "if our translators had employed the term "family," instead of the words "house" and "household," the sect of Baptists never would have existed." Without stopping to inquire how far the well established fact, that there were Baptists in existence long before the Bible was translated into English, will invalidate this writer's position, it may not be amiss to ask whether such a translation would not have been as effectual in annihilating the opponents of infant communion, as in preventing the existence of the Baptists, long after that existence had commenced. Translate 1 Cor. 16: 19, and Col. 4: 15, in this way, and see if they do not render the proof absolutely conclusive. "Nymphas and the church which is in his family." "Aquila and Priscilla, with the church that is in their family." If the church was in the family, who can say that there were no infants in the church? If there were infants in the church, where do we find the slightest intimation that they were debarred from the communion?

In addition to these considerations, we may with propriety ask if baptized infants were not admitted to the communion in apostolic times, would not the Jewish converts have complained? They had been accustomed to see circumcised children partake of the passover, and they had been told that Christianity offered an enlargement of

the privileges conferred by Judaism. Would they not expect then, that baptized children would have as free access to the Lord's Supper, as circumcised children had to the passover? How is it, then, that we hear no complaint from them on this point, if their children, after having been admitted into the church, were debarred from the enjoyment of one of its most important privileges? May we not safely conclude, then, that every baptized child was admitted to the table of the Lord? Indeed, it seems as if there was hardly any room for doubt on this point.

We proceed to notice some of the historical evidence relating to this subject. There is abundant evidence that infant communion was early practised in the Christian church. It appears to have been coeval with infant baptism; so that whatever historical evidence there is in favor of infant baptism, there is the same in favor of infant communion.

Jerome, Austin, and other Christian Fathers, testify that they who were baptized, not only adults, but also infants, without any delay received the Lord's Supper.

Suicerius says, "It is notorious from antiquity that the eucharist was given to infants."

The distinguished Chillingworth says, "St. Augustine, I am sure, held the communicating of infants as much apostolic tradition, as the baptizing of them."

Venema remarks, that in the ancient church, these two sacraments, in respect of the subjects, were never separated the one from the other." Dr. Priestley says, "It is remarkable that in all Christian antiquity, we always find that communion in the Lord's Supper immediately followed baptism. And no such thing occurs as that of any person's having a right to one of these ordinances, and not to the other. There is no express mention of infant baptism before this (referring to a passage quoted from Cyprian) of infant communion. The apostle Paul seems to have referred to the custom of giving the eucharist to children, in 1 Cor. 7: 14. In all Christian churches that have never been infected with the Romish superstition, and subject to the Papal authority, the right of infants to Christian communion was never invaded. Infant communion is, to this day, the practice of the Greek church, of the Russians, the Armenians, the Maronites, the Copts,

the Assyrians, (probably a mistake for Syrians,) and probably of all other oriental churches; and it was also the practice of the Bohemians, who kept themselves free from the Papal authority till very near the Reformation."

Quotations of this sort might be multiplied, but it seems unnecessary. The passages above quoted sufficiently show that infant communion is as ancient as infant baptism, and has equal claims to be regarded as an apostolic rite. Not a few Pedobaptist writers, sensible that this is the fact, have argued with no inconsiderable force in favor of admitting infants to the Lord's Supper. Most, if not all, of those whose writings are above quoted to prove the antiquity of infant communion, are of this class, and many more names might be added. The question then, which is sometimes asked by the advocates of infant baptism, if this practice did not commence with the apostles, who can tell where it did commence? may be asked with equal propriety, in defence of infant communion. To the Baptist, this question presents no difficulty. He regards both infant baptism and infant communion as among the first developments of that great apostasy, which, in its ultimate results, almost blotted out Christianity from the face of the earth. But the intelligent Pedobaptist, if he would be consistent, cannot urge the antiquity of infant baptism as an argument in its favor, without admitting that the same argument can be urged with equal force in favor of infant communion.

The advocates of infant baptism often appeal to parental feeling in its support. They tell how happily this rite harmonizes with feelings congenial to every Christian heart, with what pleasure the Christian parent consecrates his infant offspring to that God whom he adores, to that Saviour by whom he has been redeemed,-and how vividly and powerfully the obligation to "bring up his children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," is thus impressed upon the heart of the believing parent. Now may not the same appeals be made with equal force in favor of infant communion? Indeed has not infant communion this very important advantage in its favor, that, recurring, as the Lord's Supper does, at regular intervals, the influence which it exerts over the parent's heart gains strength by frequency and repetition? It would be easy to dwell here on the happiness which the

Christian parent would feel in bringing his family to the table of the Lord, and on the solemn obligations which he would feel to be resting upon him to watch over them, not only as his family, but as members of the same church, bound by the same covenant, and sharing in the same privileges with himself. But it is unnecessary to trace the analogy between the two ordinances any farther in this direction. Enough has been said to show that if it is right to make appeals to parental feeling in behalf of infant baptism, such appeals may be made with at least equal propriety in behalf of infant communion.

The advocates of infant baptism often assert that the influences which this rite exerts on the minds of its subjects, are very important and highly salutary. The correctness of this assertion may perhaps be questioned by those who have seen, in children who are the subjects of this rite, a manifest disposition to be proud of it, and to regard it as giving them a moral elevation above their unbaptized associates. But without undertaking to settle this question, it may safely be asserted that the same. course of reasoning may be applied with, at least, equal force to infant communion. Is it said that the knowledge of the fact that he has been devoted to God in baptism, will tend to prevent the child from yielding to the assaults of temptation? Can it be doubted, then, that a far more. efficient influence, in this way, will be exerted by his knowing that he is numbered among the professed people of God, and that he is, from time to time, to unite with them in commemorating the sufferings and death of that Redeemer, who died to "save his people from their sins?" Is it asserted that infant baptism tends to make the subjects of it more sensible of their obligation to love and serve God, and thus increases the probability that they will become the subjects of renewing and sanctifying grace? And can it not be shown that infant communion has the same tendency in an equal, if not a superior degree? If the former rite, administered once, and only once, exerts so beneficial an influence, how much more decisive, how much more beneficial must be the influence exerted by the latter rite, repeated as it is, again and again, and at intervals comparatively brief! Surely, then, a consistent advocate of infant baptism will follow out his principles to their legitimate result, and seek for his