this institution as to baptifm, and might be addressed with as much pathos to the tender feelings of a parent. Let Mr. Edwards, or any other man, difprove the right of infants to the communion table, and we pledge ourfelves by the fame arguments to difprove their right to baptifm. To give additional force to the preceding obfervations, let it be remembered, that infant baptism, and infant communion, make their appearance in ecclefiaftical hiftory nearly together. The Rev. Mr. James Pierce, of Exon, about eighty years ago, volunteered his fervice in the caufe of infant communion, as Dr. Ofgood has lately done in favour of their baptifm. Mr. Pierce has fuftained the right of infants to the eucharift on the fame ground, and defended it by the fame arguments, as modern Pædobaptifts do their right to baptifm. It will be difficult to fhew wherein his arguments fail of being equally as conclufive as theirs. Should it be faid that there is no mention made in the New Teftament of infant communion, the fame may be faid of infant baptifm. It will be equally in vain to urge their incapacity to understand, or to derive fpiritual advantage from this folemn rite; the fame may be objected to their baptifm. That the eucharift was given to fome who were called infants, towards the clofe of the third century, we have the authority of Dr. Mofheim. It is not certain, however, that thefe infants were babes. It appears to have been a cuftom at this time to call all minors infants. It is evident beyond a doubt, that the infants whose baptifin Tertullian oppofed, were not babes, but probably children of feven or eight years old. Such as were capable of "afking to be baptized," but fuch as, in his judgment, were not fufficiently enlightened and establithed in the doctrine of Chrift. His words are thus rendered; "The condefcenfion of God may confer his favours as he pleases; but our wishes may mislead ourselves and others. It is therefore moft expedient to defer baptifm, and to regulate the administration of it, according * Eccl. Hist. Vol. L. p. 283. : to the difpofition, and the age of the perfons to be baptized (præcipue tamen circa parvulos) and especially in the cafe of little ones.' The general tenor of his reafoning obliges us to understand him in this light. This will appear lefs fingular when we confider that he had been in the practice of the law, before he became à teacher of religion. That minors are frequently called infants in law, will appear by a quotation from judge Blackstone: "Infancy, " fays he," is nonage, which is a defect of the understanding. Infants under the age of difcretion ought not to be punished by any criminal profecution whatever. What the age of difcretion is, in various nations, is matter of fome variety."+ It matters not, however, in the prefent argument, whether thefe infants were mere babes, or children who were old enough to ask for baptifm. It is evident that infant communion commenced nearly if not exactly at the fame time that infant baptifm did. Dr. Wall makes this acknowledgment, when speaking of giving the communion to infants. "Very near half the Chrif tians in the world do ftill continue that practice. The Greek church, the Armenians, the Maronites, the Cophti, the Abaffins, the Mufcovites, &c. ;-and fo, for aught I know, do all the rest of the eastern Christians." The Doctor further acknowledges, that this custom prevailed in St. Auftin's time, who commenced his miniftry in the year 391, (about as early as we have any authentic account of infant baptifm)-That it continued in the western church for fix hundred years—" That the Roman church, about the year one thousand, entertaining the doctrine of transubstantiation, let fall the custom of giving the holy elements to infants; and the other western churches, moftly following their example, did the like upon the fame account. But that the Greeks, not having the faid doctrine, continued, and do ftill continue, the custom of communicating infants."§ Parvulus, the word used by Tertullian, is of vague fignification, It is not neceffarily, and in this cafe can by no means be, confined to an infant. + Comment Book iv. Chap. ii. Hift. of infant baptifm, p. 517. $ Ibid. As the preceding quotations refer us back to Aus tin,* we think it best to give our readers his fentiments upon the fubject in his own words. It appears that from a miftaken view of thofe words of Chrift, John iii. 5. Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God; he, with many others, inferred the neceffity of baptizing infants in order to their falvation. The fame erroneous conftruc tion of John vi. 53. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; led him with much zeal to plead for the admiflion of infants to the Lord's table. With regard to the latter, his words are, "Let us hear the Lord, I fay, not indeed fpeaking this of the holy laver, but of the facrament of the holy table, (whither NONE rightly comE UNLESS BAPTIZED) Except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, ye fhall have no life in you. What do you feek for further? What can be faid in answer to this, unless one would fet himfelf against clear and invincible truth? Will any one dare to fay this, that this paffage does not belong to infants; and that they can have life in themfelves without partaking of his body and blood ?" And the neceffity of this, as well as of baptifm to eternal life, he fays, the African Chriftians took to be an ancient and apoftolic tradition. They did not pretend that either of them were in the Bible. It will be afke how came infant communion to be laid afide, after its having travelled hand in hand with infant baptifm for fo many centuries? The reafon affigned by Dr. Wall is, the admiffion of that ghoftly doctrine of tranfubfiantiation: We are at a lofs how this fhould affect it; unlefs by this fuppofed change of the elements, they thought them too holy to be trifled with in this way. That thefe little Chriftians, who had not yet been drawn from the breaft, nor learnt doctrine, might not refufe the elements when offered, the following rule was establithed; "Care," fay they, "is to be taken concerning infants, that they fhould not without the utmost ne * Auguftine, but as often called Austin. ceffity receive any food or fuck after they are baptized, before they communicate in the facrament of our Lord's body."* It will require much ingenuity to maintain the right of infants to membership in the gofpel church on the footing of circumcifion, and not admit all the confequences above stated. For ourselves, we fee no way to embrace one, without admitting the other and to admit either, appears to us to be fubverfive of the great defign of the gofpel, which was to form a church, diftinct from the world. But if infant baptifin brings them into the church, it totally deftroys that distinction, and blends the world and church together. This idea will be more particularly confidered in its proper place. As our Pædobaptift brethren lay fo much ftrefs upon this part of the subject, we must be allowed to view it on all fides. Could we be brought with them to confider the infant offspring of Gentile believers, as ftanding in the fame covenant relation to God as the natural feed of Abraham did, yet ftill we fee nothing, either in the old or new law, which would authorize their baptifm. An article every way fo different as baptifm is from circumcifion, feems not to be fufficiently fupported by mere inference, but needs the firin bafis of plain pofitive institution to rest upon. To infer the right of infants to baptifm from the covenant, of circumcifion, appears to us extremely forced and unnatural. Some of the difficulties that an inference of this kind labours. under, are the following: 1. The law of circumcifion was a pofitive law, not at all dependent on the nature and fitnefs of things :i hence every thing which related to the inftitute, depended on the exprefs declaration of the inftitutor. This is precifely the cafe with baptifin; therefore there can be no arguing from one to the other. 2. The institution of circumcifion was exprefsly lim-' ited to males. Females, though defcending from the fame parents, were not fubjects of the token of that cov *Ordo Romanus, Tit de Bapt. in Pierre. enant but the baptifmal inftitution includes both men and women. 3. The law of circumcifion required no previous profeffion of faith and repentance, neither in adults nor infants, as a qualification for that inftitution: but the gofpel pofitively requires fuch a profeffion in order to baptifin, without even an exception in favour of in, fants. 4. A male flave bought with money of an age above eight days, whether a believer or an infidel, whether an idolater or an atheist, had the fame right to circumcif ion as the infant feed of his mafter had. The gospel inftitution makes no provifion for flaves until they are made free by the Son; and then it requires, as a pre-requifite to baptifm, the fame public profeffion of them as of their believing mafters. 5. The rite itself is fo very unlike the gospel inftitute, that it appears extremely unnatural to infer one from the other. Circumcifion was a painful bloody rite, performed by cutting the flesh of a particular part, (which delicacy forbids us to name.) Baptifm is an immersion, or washing of the whole body in pure water. 6. Circumcifion might be lawfully adminiftered by any perfon, at least by any head of a family, whether male or female.* Baptifm is to be administered by particular officers in the Chriftian church, called and qualified for the work, Other diffimilarities might be urged, but these are thought fufficient to fhew, that it is not the eafieft thing in the world to infer baptifm from circumcifion. It certainly requires a large ftock of myftical jefuitical ingenuity, to make an inference appear plaufible, where the nature, act, and defign are fo different. If infants are to be baptized, there can be no doubt but the infti tution makes ample provifion for them, without fubjecting us to the perplexity of tracing it out from an antiquated Jewith rite. Pædobaptifts, when they reafon with one another, and are not suspicious that the Baptifts are watching to * Zipporah circumcifed the two fons of Mofes with a fharp ftone. Midwives have frequently administered baptifm, that is, fprinkling, to wing infants. Vid. Robinson's Hist. of Bap. |