infant offspring admission to all the privileges of the Christian church.

Perhaps, however, it may be said that there are difficulties in the way of admitting infants to the Lord's Supper, which do not exist in relation to the other distinguishing ordinance of Christianity. Many of the advocates of infant baptism are reflecting men; and it can hardly be supposed that they would make such a difference in regard to the subjects of these two ordinances, without some reason for it. And although every believer in divine revelation will see that if an act is required by that revelation, difficulties in the way of performing that act do not release us from the obligation to perform it, but only render the performance a better test of obedience, yet it is a fact that such difficulties too often prevent even the professed disciples of Christ from acting in accordance with the claims of duty. It may, therefore, be proper to inquire, especially as there appears to be no other ground for making such a distinction between the two ordinances of the Christian church, whether this, unsatisfactory as it must appear to the obedient disciple of the Lord, can be maintained with any plausible degree of success.

It may probably be urged, as an objection against admitting infants to the Lord's Supper, that there is no express command for it in Scripture. But the same objection may be urged, and has often been urged against infant baptism. Even the most strenuous advocates for this practice admit that there is no express command for it. "The proof," they say, "is to be made out in some other way." If this objection, therefore, does not hold good against infant baptism, neither does it against infant communion.

The expression of the apostle, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup," has been mentioned as an objection to infant communion. But, as has justly been remarked, all those passages of Scripture which speak of faith as a pre-requisite to baptism, may be urged with equal propriety against infant baptism. It is true, it is sometimes said that those texts require faith, as a condition of baptism, in those only, who are capable of exercising it; and it may also be said, that self-examination is required of those only, who are capable of practising it. Perhaps it would not be

very easy to prove that the apostles ever regarded any persons as fit subjects for either ordinance, who did not possess the qualifications specified; but surely those who have taken it upon them to decide that the qualification was to be dispensed with, in some cases, in the administration of baptism, cannot complain if others follow their example, and claim that the corresponding qualification for admission to the Lord's Supper may also be dispensed with in some cases. The difficulty is as great on one side

as it is on the other.

It may also be said that the admission of infants to the Lord's Supper would diminish the solemnity of the ordinance, and thus render it less effectual as a means of grace. But this is an objection which will hardly be urged by those who have observed the striking contrast between infant baptism and adult baptism in respect to solemnity, unless they are prepared to rank the admission of infants to either of the ordinances of the church among the corruptions of Christianity. If it is true that infants and young children, if admitted to the Lord's Supper, would often, by their disregard of propriety, and indifference to the sacred character of the ordinance, mar its beauty, and destroy its impressiveness as a part of religious worship, it is certainly no less true that, in administering the rite. of baptism to infants, the same traits of character have not unfrequently rendered the scene any thing else than one of solemn and serious devotion.

There are many who would probably object to receiving infants to the communion, on the ground that it would ultimately tend to produce and cherish a spirit of selfrighteousness-that it would lead them, while still unrenewed, to look upon themselves as having the favor of God in preference to others, and as having a fairer prospect than others of obtaining eternal life. But do not the very same dangers attend infant baptism? Will not the young mind naturally come to the conclusion, that baptism would not be administered to those who are incapable of understanding its nature, if it did not, in some way, make their religious condition more desirable, and themselves more acceptable to God? And are there not many who have actually witnessed in baptized children. manifestations of this very state of feeling? Not that it is shown by all baptized children. Perhaps it is not felt by

all. But by some, it is both felt and shown.

Thus, so

far as a tendency to produce self-righteousness is concerned, infant baptism and infant communion lie open to the same objections.

Some may object to infant communion, on the ground that many of those who would thus be admitted to the church, would in all probability dishonor the cause of Christ by their unholy lives and conversation. This is certainly a serious objection. But does it not lie against admitting them to the church at all, and consequently against infant baptism, rather than against admitting them to communion with the church after they have by baptism become connected with it? At any rate, has the church of Christ any reason to fear that her interests will be injured by consistently following out the principles of the Bible? If God has given her, in his word, the same authority for receiving infants to the communion as for baptizing them, shall she undertake to say that she will practise the latter and neglect the former, because such a course seems to her the safest? Is not this too much like being "wise above what is written?" Besides, is it not a fact, that the very same objection is urged against infant baptism, which, it is here supposed, might be urged against infant communion? Indeed, just so far as infant baptism is supposed to connect its subjects with the church, it must, from the nature of the case, be exposed to the same objections, on this ground, which are urged against infant communion; and there are probably few, if any, who will assert that it does not connect them with the church at all.

It may also be urged that infant communion would tend to render the line of demarcation between the church and the world less distinct, and thus to unite the former with the latter. But is not this precisely the effect which infant baptism tends to produce? The existence of a class of persons holding an intermediate position between the church and the world, forming, as it were, a steppingstone from the latter to the former, and sustaining a relation to the church, which renders the act of debarring them from its privileges an act of inconsistency, can hardly fail to have a direct tendency to produce such a union between the two, as has ever proved injurious to the best interests of both. That this is not mere theory,

the history of the church affords ample evidence. Let him who doubts that such is the tendency of infant baptism, examine impartially the history of those churches which adopted the system called "the half-way covenant," once so common in New England, and he will probably find no longer any room for doubt.

It appears, then, that infant communion is sustained by the same arguments as infant baptism, that they are both exposed to the same objections, and that these objections must be answered, if answered at all, on the same principles. Why then should the advocates of infant baptism hesitate to carry out their principles fully? Let them act consistently, and admit the offspring of believers to all the other privileges of the church, as well as baptism. If their principles are founded in truth, they need not fear the result. If they are founded in error, the sooner they are brought to a test which will make that error manifest, the better. "There are many devices in a man's heart: nevertheless, the counsel of the Lord, that shall stand."

ARTICLE III.

THE CANAANITISH WARS.

R. A. C.

HOW ARE THE CANAANITISH

WARS TO BE RECONCILED WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIANITY?

THESE Wars are selected from all the other wars recorded in the Old Testament, for the reason that these were, professedly, in a far higher degree than any others, waged under the direct authority and by the explicit command of the Deity. If any wars in which the agency of God was concerned are in their nature opposed to the spirit of the gospel, the Canaanitish wars must be so. But if in these the Most High hath not shown himself to

VOL. XIII.-NO. LI.

30

be a friend to war, then we may safely say that he has not in any instance whatever shown himself to be such.

In order to the solution of the question proposed, we must first inquire as to the facts in the case. Is there any opposition between these wars and Christianity? and if there is an opposition, we are to inquire whether it is real; whether there is a collision of principles; or whether the contradiction is only apparent. We shall first endeavor to ascertain what is the true relation of Christianity to war; and secondly, we shall examine the character of the Canaanitish wars, comparing them with the teachings of the gospel.

I. Christianity stands in irreconcilable opposition to war in general, as may be seen from the following state

ments.

1. The author of Christianity is called the Prince of peace. At his birth the angels sung, Peace on earth, good will to men.

2. It is the professed purpose of the gospel to abolish war; and it is prophesied that it will succeed in its purpose. "The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord." The prophet foretells the same delightful period in plainer terms, and shows distinctly that such a result is expressly aimed at and is finally secured through the direct agency of God. "And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

3. Christianity forbids, under the sanction of the greatest penalties, the infliction of all kinds of injuries upon our fellow creatures. It enjoins upon us the duty of loving our neighbor as ourselves-to do unto others as we would that they should do unto us-to do good unto all men-because God doeth good to the just and unjust. So highly