You may say with respect to the evidence from the New Testament; "is it not strange that on a subject of so much importance as communion in the Lord's Supper, nothing more explicit respecting little children partaking, should be produced, Why are we not told in so many words that it was their privilege and duty to partake of this ordinance; and that they actually did partake of it in the days of the Apostles? To this I reply,

1. By asking, why on a subject of so much importance, as infant baptism nothing more explicit should be produced by its advocates from the New Testament?

2. If an alteration in the constitution of the church respecting the membership of children, and their enjoyment of privileges had been found necessary by Christ and his Apostles; or if any believing parents, either Jews, or Gentiles, had, in those days, fallen out with their children, and, regardless of all natural affection, wished them turned out of the church, by a repeal of the law, which made them members, then we might rationally expect to find something very particular and explicit on the subjects of their standing and their privileges. Infant baptism, and the right of little ones to the Lord's Table, we might find treated as clearly and as fully as the doctrine of the resurrection, or of justification before God, by faith alone. But as it appears there were none, in the Apostle's days so unnatural and wicked, as to wish their children separated

from them in the precious and distinguishing privileges of the church, we have precisely such notices in reference to infant membership, infant baptism and the communion of little children as might be expected. As the case was, it would be strange indeed if these subjects had been taken up and discussed with the same explicitness and fullness, as we find them treated in the Old Testament. Infants had been members-had enjoyed the distinguishing seal of God's covenant-and little children had taken their seats with their parents at the Lord's Table in the passover from the days Moses. No one thought the law, and the practice, after an experiment, of nearly two thousand years, unnatural, injurious, and such as should cease forever. Why then legislate again on these subjects when there was no necessity, and no one calling for it? You should recollect, that according to the rules of controversy I am not bound to prove a negative—that is, prove that God has not violated the law of nature, and has not repealed his law of the Old Testament, respecting parents and children. If any should assert that he has, they are bound to prove their assertion. But, however, the evidence in favour of the negative may be deficient in explicitness and fullness, I must consider it satisfactory until something more explicit and full be advanced in support of the affirmative.

I am yours, &c.

LETTER 8.

1441

Church history-Ignatius-Primitive churches-Infant communion Church of Rome-Reformed churches-Differ in their views and practice in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries-American churches.

DEAR SIR:

As the holy scriptures are the perfect and only rule of faith and practice in the church of God, and as they are very explicit and decisive on the subject we have been considering, it may appear superfluous to call in the aid of church histotory, and adduce human authority in support of what is abundantly established by divine. I, how ever, am aware that in the present case, as in many others, resort will be had to the practice and views of the primitive, and even more modern christian church. If I therefore can show that the views and practice given from the scriptures, in the preceding letters, are supported by church history much cavil may be obviated.

It may be necessary in this place to caution you against expecting any thing in church history, very explicit on the subject of little children partaking of the Lord's Supper in the first and second centuries. The subject was not agitated-there L

were none to deny them the privilege, which they had long enjoyed in the house of God. We may, therefore, look only for incidental references, and circumstantial proof, such as we have in the New Testament, though in many instances much stropger.

All ecclesiastical historians of any note, agree that the Lord's supper for nearly the two first centuries, was in most of the churches, celebrated with great simplicity, every Lord's day, and in some twice on that day, and two or three times through the week, or on every day.* No pomp-no parade-no lengthy religious exercises, were then appended to it; but it was observed with the simplicity that marked its first celebration by Christ and his disciples.

Ignatius, Bishop of the church of Antioch, and who suffered Martyrdom, A. D. 107, wrote certain Epistles to the churches of Asia, which are yet extant. In these, he exhibits the church as "the Temple of God"-and church members as those admitted within unto the Altar, by the Bishop, and Elders, and Deacons. And, "every one without the Altar was unclean, and deprived of the bread of God;" all within partook of that bread. To the Philadelphians, his language is, "I write to you and

*John Brown of Haddington's Spol. for Treg. Com. Calvins Inst. Aart. The Lord's Supper.

Epis. to the Magnesians to the Philadelphians, Ephesians and Trallians.

admonish you, that you use one faith, one preaching, and one Eucharist; for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and his one blood shed for us, one bread broken for all, and one cup distributed to all; one altar for every church, and one Bishop with the Presbytery and the Deacons, my fellow citizens." And in the same Epistle, like the Apostle Paul, he addresses the various classes which composed the church-and constituted the all, to whom the broken bread, and the cup were distributed, viz: wives and husbands-virgins, children and par ents-servants and masters.

In the same Epistles, he represents the church, or people of God as seperated, and alone in the par ticipation of the Lord's Supper, as was the custom in the days of the Apostles. All that were permitted to be present were communicants. All the church were exhorted to meet together in one place, and to "be diligent to come together more frequently to the Eucharist of God for his glory." Were not the little children included?

Speaking of the Lord's Supper, Ignatius, in one instance, uses very strong figurative language, which appears afterwards to have led to infant communion and much superstition. He calls the bread broken, "the medicine of immorality-the antidote of death, but life with God, through Jesus Christ-the medicamentum expelling all evils."

In the account which histories give us of the church and worship of God in the second and third