Ireneus flourished about 67 years after the apostles. From him Dr. Wall produces the following quotation. Speaking of Christ, he says, "Ideo per omnem venit etatem,et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans infantes."

Therefore he passes through every age. He is made an infant to infants, sanctifying infants. That infants in age are intended in this passage, is undeniable; and whether the word sanctificans has respect to internal or external sanctification, it must imply membership in the kingdom.

"It was the custom in those times (about anno 250) to give the new baptized person, whether infant or adult, the kiss of peace; or, as it is called by St. Paul, and St. Peter, the holy kiss; or the kiss of charity, in token of their owning him for a christian brother." Wall, I. Vol. 85 page.

Dr. Wall translates a passage from St. Cyprian, where he is inveighing against those who, in the heat of persecution, yielded so as to conform to the prevailing idolatrous worship thus ; "And that nothing might be wanting to the measure of their wickedness, their little infants also, being led, or brought in their parents' arms, lost that which they had obtained, presently after they were born. Will not they, at the day of judgment say; We did nothing of this, neither did we, forsaking the meat and cup of our Lord, run of our own accord to the partaking of those defilements. 'Twas the apostacy of others that ruin'd us; we had our parents for our murderers. 'Twas they that renounced for us the Church from being our mother, and God from being our father." Here St. Cyprian plainly considers infants as belonging to the Church, as their common mother; and the manner of his speaking obviously implies, that this was a generally received idea, and that the church acted upon that principle.

3. The third species of historic evidence, in favor of the actual continuance of the membership of infants in the christian church, is that which results from the fact, of their being admitted, at a very early period, to communicate at the supper.

This fact is not here introduced, as an example to be followed; but merely as testimony to the doctrine of infant membership. The practice of infant communion is allowed to have been an error. But it is not the worse evidence on that account. Erroneous practice, which is grounded upon a particular principle, will no less certainly conclude in favor of the exis tence of that principle, than if the practice were correct. The prevailing notion of many of the primitive fathers, that children were regenerated by their baptism; and their administering baptism upon that ground, were undoubtedly errors; but they no less forcibly prove the fact, that infant baptism was practised, than if they were right. That infants were admitted to communicate generally, in the ages very near to the apostolic era, is made evident by the Rev. James Pierce, in an Essay, written at the beginning of the last century, for the purpose of restoring that ancient usage. This author is learned, accurate, and candid. Hallet says thus of him. "The late Rev. Mr. Pierce, has demonstrably proved, that it was the ancient prac tice to give the Eucharist to children, in an unanswerable essay on this subject, And as no one has, after many years, attempted an answer to him, I may well here take it for granted, that infants, in the primitive church, were admitted to the communion of christians." Dr. Baldwin concedes, "It is evident infant communion commenced nearly, if not exactly at the same time, that infant baptism did." This is to allow that it was practised as early, in the christian church, as we are able to prove from history, without respect to the scripture, that infant baptism was, The manner in which Dr. Baldwin has expressed this concession, insinuates, that infant baptism began to be practised at a period, a century or two removed from the apostolic era; and by placing these two practices on a parallel in this respect, he means to have his reader understand, that there is as little divine authority for the one as there is for the other. To this we altogether object. There is a vast disparity in the two cases.

However ingeniously Mr. Pierce has managed the defence of the right of giving the Eucharist to children; in our opinion, he has failed. The scripture will not bear him out in this doctrine. If it would, we should allow the argument from antiquity all its force. It would be corroborative evidence. This is exactly the case with infant baptism. As will be seen in the result of this enquiry, there is clear scriptural proof of the latter. It did not then commence, when giving the Eucharist to children did. The latter was an innovation. Still it is proof of infant membership.Could the elements of the holy supper be given to children, but upon the principle that they were of the church; that they had the same visible union to the Redeemer which adults had?

2

In proof of the fact of primitive infant communion, the following extract from Pierce, may be sufficient, Page 21. And what can be more full and express than St. Austin's testimony in one of his Epistles? Nullus qui se meminit catholicæ fidei christianum, negat aut dubitat parvulos, non accepta regenerationis gratia in Christum, sine cibo carnis ejus, et sanguinis potu,non habere in se vitam, et per hoc poenæ sempiternæ obnoxios. No one who professes himself a christian of the catholic faith, denies or doubts, that children, without receiving the grace of regeneration in Christ, and with out eating his flesh, and drinking his blood [i. e. without baptism, and the Lord's supper] have not life in them, and therefore are liable to everlasting punishment. Would Austin, do we think, ever talk after this rate, unless he knew it to have been the practice of the eastern, as well as the western churches, to give the Eucharist to children? He could not do it if he had believed that they practised otherwise. And very remarkable is another passage of St. Austin to our purpose; which Dr. Wall has taken notice of, and thus translated. The christians of Africa do well call baptism itself one's salvation; and the sacrament of Christ's body, one's life. From whence is this, but, as I suppose, from that ancient, and apostolical tradition, by which the

churches of Christ do naturally hold, that without baptism, and partaking of the Lord's table, none can come either to the kingdom of God, or to salvation, and eternal life? For the scripture, as I shewed before, says the same. For what other thing do they hold, that call bap. tism salvation, than that which is said; He saved us by the washing of regeneration; and that which Peter says; The like figure whereunto even baptism doth now save us? And what other thing do they hold, that call the sacrament of the Lord's table life, than that which is said, I am the bread of life, &c. And the bread which I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. And except you eat the flesh, and drink the blood of the Son of man, you have no life in you? If then, as so many divine testimonies do agree, neither salvation, nor eternal life is to be hoped for without baptism ; and the body and blood of our Lord, 'tis in vain promised to infants without them. This is, without doubt, clear evidence that St. Austin was satisfied that infant communion, was universally received in the catholic church in his time. He would not otherways have said, The Churches naturally hold it.”

The reader will agree with Pierce, that these declarations of Austin, decisively prove, that admitting infants to communicate at the Lord's table, was in very general practice in his time, and had been, at least for a considerable period before.

4. The last species of historical evidence for infant membership, is the early and universal practice of associating infant children in other communional services of the church. I mean prayer and praise. Beyond all doubt, prayer and praise are communional services. They are appropriate to the church. Strangers cannot intermeddle with them. The prayer of the wicked is abomination. The prayer of the upright is God's delight. "He who offereth praise glorifieth me." It is true, that in the christian church, in these days, multitudes are admitted to join, and do in fact ostensibly unite in these public communjonal services, who are not understood to be believers.

This mixture is entirely heterogeneous; and calculated to blind and stupify more and more the unawakened sinner. Pierce has proved that it was far otherways in the primitive church. He says, page 134, "I think in the primitive church, none were allowed to be present at any of their prayers, but such as had a right to partake of the Lord's supper. And indeed the only ordinary stated prayers they seem to have made then in the church, were at the administration of this ordinance. Heathens, catechumens of all sorts, and excommunicated persons, were suffered to be present at the reading of the scriptures, and at the exhortations, sermons, or homilies; but none might remain in the assembly, but the faithful, at their prayers.". And he produces several authorities from the writings of the Fathers. Hallet agrees with Pierce, and confirms his account. Yet it is undeniable that infant children were brought to the assemblies of christians, and associated with adult believers in the prayers and praises, which were publicly performed while they were together. Any supposed incapacity in the infant actually to partake of these services, is no valid objection to this argument. If the public prayers and praises of the church were considered ascommunional exercises, from which the world were avowedly excluded, and yet infants were not excluded from the assemblies of the faithful, when these exercises were performed; but there was care that they should be present, it certainly follows, that in the account of the church, they were

members.

INFANT BAPTISM.

FROM the perpetuity of infant membership, as an important part of the economy of the Church, the transition to infant baptism is natural, and inevitable. As Dr. Gale observes with respect to John, iii. 5. “It was not strange, that after the Fathers of the Church adopted the idea, that this passage embraced infants,