£3 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 •j? 
 
 cd 
 
 CL 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 .5 
 
 
 
 x !• 
 
 a. 
 
 
 
 *& 
 
 03 
 
 
 
 -*- ._ 
 
 — 
 
 
 
 .§ * 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 
 §> ft 
 
 
 "o 
 
 
 
 4m^Z 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 
 S ft 
 
 
 a> 
 
 
 j 
 
 2 O 
 
 
 tfl 
 
 
 ; 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 0) 
 
 
 4 
 
 o fc 
 
 
 £ 
 
 
 M 
 
 *5i H 
 
 1 GO 
 
 
 St 
 
 •5 
 
 P4 
 
 i_ 
 
 
 & 
 
 -W-* 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 r$ 
 
 C* 
 
 >> 
 
 
 *Q 
 
 
 _Q 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 -a 
 
 
 $ 
 
 ! 1 
 
 -t-« 
 
 r; 
 CD 
 if) 
 
 0) 
 
 CL 
 
 
 8 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 S> !c 
 
 
 

 
 
v. .Vt^\ Tsl ry^H^ 
 
 V * 
 
 * 
 
 •-* * 
 

 A 
 
 SERIES OF LETTERS, 
 
 ON 
 
 THE RELATION, RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND 
 DUTIES 
 
 OF BAPTIZED CHILDREN, 
 
 BY JOHN M'FARLAND, 
 
 Pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Paris, Ky. 
 
 LEXINGTON, KY. 
 
 PRINTED BY JOSEPH G. NORWOOD, 
 
 300K AND JOB PRINTER, NORTH-EAST CORNER OF MA£j 
 AND MILL STREETS. 
 
 1828. 
 
V\ \ 
 

 To Subscribers, and to the Members of the Presbyterian 
 Church, 
 
 The publication of the ibiiowing Letters, has 
 been delayed sometime beyond the period contem- 
 plated. The author was fully aware of the seri- 
 ous responsibility attached to the publication of his 
 views, which some consider new, and of very injuri- 
 ous tendency to the Church, which God has purchas- 
 ed with his own blood. He has now heard the 
 main subject partially investigated in a session, and 
 presbytery — and his general and more peculiar 
 views discussed in the Synod of Kentucky; and no 
 books have been neglected that were within his 
 reach, which could afford any aid, in the examina- 
 tion of the important subject. It is impossible to 
 say how the author may hereafter be treated, or his 
 sentiments canvassed ; but nothing has vet taught 
 him to expect, a calm, scriptural REFUTATION. 
 If such a thing, however, should appear, he will be 
 thankful for it. Replies — personal remarks — dog- 
 matical assertions, impeaching of motives, &c. he 
 has experienced in some measure, but these things 
 cannot destroy FACTS — or make the word of God 
 of none effect — cannot in the present day screen 
 ►error, or refute sound arguments. The publication 
 is now made under the deliberate and mature con- 
 viction that the cause of TRUTH requires it, and 
 that it may profit the Church of God. 
 Paris. Ky. March, 1828. 
 
Copy-right secured, according to. Law. 
 
LETTER 1. 
 
 Documents, and certain considerations zuhich are givcn^ 
 as reasons for agitating the subject. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 You inform me that you have heard muck 
 respecting my views and discussion of the relation, 
 and duties of the baptized members of the church; 
 and that the report which has gone abroad is, that 
 I am both novel and erroneous on this subject. As 
 a friend, you wish my views in writing, and advise 
 me, in justice to myself, to publish them to the 
 world. I have received similar communications 
 from others, and after much prayer and reflection 
 have concluded to comply with your advice. I 
 hope, however, I have a higher motive than to ren- 
 der justice to myself. I am not my own, nor am I 
 o seek my own, but the honour of my Master, and 
 the interests of his kingdom. And I am not at all 
 anxious to defend my character against false and 
 slanderous reports, farther than is necessary for my 
 usefulness in the gospel ministry. 
 
 I am fully aware of the force of prejudice in good 
 
 and pious people • and how difficult for an author 
 
 A* 
 
6 LETTER I. 
 
 to please the critics, who read and decide for their 
 readers what is sufficiently correct, and elegant 
 both in literature and religion. After publishing I 
 expect still to be misrepresented and condemned 
 as heretical by multitudes, who have not, and will 
 not read for themselves, one single page. I have no 
 sanguine anticipations of any speedy happy results. 
 The deep, and extensive reform called for in the 
 church respecting her youth is not to be affected by 
 my feeble pen. I may, however, excite to such an 
 investigation as may terminate, with other causes, 
 under the direction of the infinitely wise and mighty 
 Lord of all, to restore, "the kingdom to the Saiyits" 
 and "turn the heart of the fathers to the children, 
 and the heart of the children to the fathers*" 
 
 That there were good reasons for agitating the 
 present subject, the following documents and obser- 
 vations will show. 
 
 In January 1826, at a meeting of Ebenezer Pres- 
 bytery, of which I am a member, the following re- 
 quest, by one of the brethren, was handed in, viz. 
 The session of Millersburg church requested an 
 answer from the presbytery to the following ques- 
 tion. "What course should a session pursue with a 
 baptized member of the church, who has come to 
 years of maturity, and is habitually guilty of open 
 immorality?" The presbytery refered said session 
 to Book ii. of Discipline, chap. 1, and specially to 
 sec. 6th. 
 
 "Resolved that all the church sessions belonging io 
 
LETTER I. % 
 
 this presbytery be, and they hereby are enjoined to 
 deal with baptized members under their care, ac- 
 cording to the aforesaid chapter and sections; and 
 that session be enquired of annually respecting their 
 compliance, and any, and every session refusing 
 to comply shall be considered contumacious, and 
 delinquent, and be dealt with accordingly."* 
 
 I considered it my duty to lay a copy of the above 
 minute before my session, and to endeavour to influ- 
 ence them to comply with its requisitions. This I 
 did. The subject was taken up, and considered at 
 great length, at several different meetings. And in 
 order to come to some issue, a written paper, of 
 which the following is a copy, was introduced; viz, 
 
 "The session having taken into consideration, the 
 situation of persons born within the pale of the visi- 
 ble church, to whom baptism has been administered: 
 in pursuance to the injunctions of the late act of 
 Ebenezer presbytery, after due and solemn deliber- 
 ation had, have come to the following resolution 
 thereupon ; viz. Ptesolved, that the ordinance of 
 Baptism, which by the tenets and practice of this 
 church is administered to infants, is a recognition of 
 #iat membership which infants born within the pale 
 of the church have by their birth; and that this ordi- 
 nance is equally sacred and solemn with that of the 
 Lord's supper — that such baptized infants, or chil- 
 dren with their parents compose the visible church 
 of Christ, and are full members thereof, and un- 
 *Minutes of Pre$bytery. 
 
8 LETTER fc 
 
 derher care, with their right to the sealing ordi- 
 nance of the supper, only suspended till they arrive 
 at the years of discretion — that under the inspection 
 and government of their parents, and the church, 
 they ought to be brought up in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord, and be taught to read and un 
 derstand the word of God ; to repeat the Catechism ; 
 to be taught to pray; to abhor sin — to fear God, 
 and to obey the Lord Jesus Christ — that so soon 
 as they arrive at the years of discretion, if they be 
 free from scandal, are sober and steady, and are 
 possessed of sufficient knowledge to discern "the 
 Lords's body" by understanding the nature and de- 
 sign of that ordinance, which represents his broken 
 body and shed blood, they ought, without other re- 
 quisitions to be declared by name entitled to par- 
 take of the Lord's supper, by a sessional act, and to 
 be thus informed, that it is their duty and their 
 privilege to approach his table. And if they fail, 
 or refuse to do so, they, and all others, baptized, 
 who are scandalous in their lives, or who live in the 
 neglect of this ordinance, and fail, or refuse to pro- 
 fess Christ before men, and honour Him at his table, 
 are proper subjects of the discipline of the church; 
 and ought first to be admonished, exhorted, reprov- 
 ed, and entreated, with mildness and love, to desist 
 from the error of their way, and if they will obsti- 
 nately persist, to be cut off from the church. 
 
 "Resolved, that this session relying on the great 
 Head of the church, and imploring his aid, assis- 
 
LETTER I. 
 
 3 in the exer 
 duty, will proceed, in future, according to the fore- 
 going course, to treat baptized children, in this con- 
 gregation, who are not in full communion." 
 
 These resolutions passed in the session, one nieittr 
 ber out of four, dissenting. Aware of the difficulty 
 of carrying them out, unless unanimity in the session 
 and an acquiescence of the congregation could be 
 obtained : the following resolution was adopted, viz, 
 
 "Whereas the above resolutions were not unan- 
 imously adopted, Resolved, that it be deemed in- 
 expedient, to put them into execution immediately, 
 and that the subject be taken up by the Moderator 
 in a series of discourses, before the congregation-}' 
 and that the members of the church be requested to 
 hear, and examine for themselves ; and finally to de- 
 termine whether they will support the session in 
 the execution of the aforesaid resolutions, or not. 
 
 In compliance with the above resolution Iproceeded 
 to the task assigned me, and delivered to my congre- 
 gation a course of Lectures, on the Relation, Rights^ 
 Privileges, and Duties of baptized children and 
 youth. It has been stated by some that I was to 
 blame for taking up this subject unnecessarily, to 
 the disturbance of the peace and harmony of the 
 church, and that I would have been much better 
 employed in preaching the gospel. You must judge 
 of the correctness of this charge when you have at- 
 tended to the documents which I have now submit- 
 ted, and to those which follow, taken from much 
 
10 LETTER 1. 
 
 higher authority. "Son of man, I have made thee 
 a watchman unto the house of Israel, therefore hear 
 the word, at my mouth, and give them waramg 
 from me &c.* Thou son of man, shew the house to 
 the house of Israel, that they may he ashamed of 
 their iniquities: and let them measure the pattern. 
 And if they be ashamed of all they have done, shew 
 them the form of the house, and the fashion thereof, 
 and the goings out thereof; and the comings in 
 thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all the ordi- 
 nances thereof, and all the forms thereof, and all 
 the laws thereof: and write it in their sight, that 
 they may keep the whole form thereof, and all the 
 ordinances thereof, and do them."t 
 
 This house which Ezekiel was to show to the 
 house of Israel I have supposed, was the church of 
 Jesus Christ, as it was to exist in New Testament 
 times. If I am mistaken, still I think Ezekiel's du- 
 ty is recorded for our example. And I would 
 wish to say to my people, as Paul said to the Elders 
 of the church of Ephesus. "1 take you to record 
 this day that I am free from the blood of all men. 
 For I have not shunned to declare unto you the 
 whole counsel of God." Let ministers of the gospel 
 shun, if they will, to declare the counsel of God re- 
 specting the relation, rights, privileges and duties 
 of those children baptized in the name of the blessed 
 Trinity, and thus pursue what they call the peace, 
 and harmony of the church — I cannot pursue such 
 *Eie* iii. 17-21. \Ckap. xjiii. 10-11. 
 
LETTER I. 1 1 
 
 a course. I hope I shall he granted the liberty of 
 feeling my own responsibility to the Master, and of 
 preserving my own conscience from the charge of 
 "crying peace, peace, when there is no peace." 
 
 When you have compared the resolutions of the 
 Paris session, respecting baptized children with the 
 following extracts from the Confession of Faith of 
 the Presbyterian church, you can form some opinion 
 how far they are, or are not novel, 
 
 '•The visible church, which is also Catholic, or 
 universal, under the gospel, (not confined to one na- 
 tion, as before, under the law) consists of all those 
 throughout the world, that profess the true religion, 
 together with their children.* 
 
 "All baptized persons are members of the church, 
 are under its care, and subject to its government 
 and discipline : and when they have arrived at the 
 years of discretion, they are bound to perform all 
 the duties of church members."! "Children born 
 within the pale of the visible church, and dedica- 
 ted to God in baptism, are under the inspection 
 •and government of the church ; and are to be taught 
 to read, and repeat the catechism, the apostles 
 creed, and the Lord's prayer. They are to be 
 taught to pray, to abhor sin, to fear God, and to 
 obey the Lord Jesus Christ. And when they come 
 to years of discretion, if they be free from scandal, 
 
 *Con. of Faith, Chap. xxv. Sec. ii. a/50 Larger Cate- 
 chasm Ques. 62, and Form of Gov. Chap. ii. Sec. ii. 
 IBook of Discipline, Chap. i. Sec. 6. 
 
12 LETTER I. 
 
 appear sober and steady, and to have sufficient 
 knowledge to discern the Lord's body; they ought 
 -to be informed that it is their duty and their privi- 
 lege to come to the Lord's supper."* 
 
 In the report of a committee appointed by the 
 general Assembly in relation to baptized children, 
 1811, and published and recommended to the seri- 
 ous consideration of all the Presbyteries and Mia- 
 isters, in 1812, there are the following declarations. 
 
 "As the children of those who profess faith in 
 Christ, and obedience to his commands, are mem- 
 bers of the church by virtue of the promise made 
 to such parents, and therefore baptized, so they are 
 necessarily, upon every principle of correct reason- 
 ing, subjects of discipline.! When admonition has 
 &iled, and a suitable time has elapsed, with a dis- 
 tinct understanding on the part of offending chil- 
 dren of this issue, the church must proceed to ex- 
 clude them from her communion. This exclusion 
 is commonly known by the name of excommunica- 
 tion. 
 
 "If at that age (the age of discretion) after hav- 
 ing all the care and attention already prescribed as 
 necessary, they do not conform to all the institutions 
 of Jesus Christ, 'there is every reason to suppose 
 that they will commit such open sins, as will make 
 it evident to all, that they deserve to be thus cut off; 
 or if not, they will still deserve to be thus cut off. 
 
 * Directory for worship. Chap, ix. sec, 1. t Page 4V» 
 
LETTER I. 13 
 
 "1. For not improving their religious education. 
 
 2. Slighting warnings administered by parents 
 teachers, and ministers. 
 
 3. Neglecting to fulfil the vows which baptism 
 imposes. 
 
 4. For irreligion, breaking the covenant of their 
 God." Page 55. 
 
 Nothing more, I presume is necessary to clear 
 the session of which I am a member, of the charge 
 of novelty. It is however, proper to remark, that I 
 had no hand in drawing up the Resolutions, which 
 they adopted, as expressive of their sentiments, and 
 the course they would pursue ; and I do not feel 
 myself bound to defend every sentiment, or form of 
 expression they have exhibited. How any, Presby- 
 terian should consider them novel, or erroneous, is a 
 little marvelous. 
 
 As to the report that you have heard, that I am 
 disposed to violate, and set aside the confession of 
 Faith, I would remark, 
 
 1. That from the documents now before you, it 
 appears my object to support and carry out the Con- 
 fession of Faith, 8lc. I know some who profess to 
 venerate that book very much, and are active in cir- 
 culating the above report respecting me, who never 
 attempted to put in practice what it declares re- 
 specting baptized children. They put me in mind 
 of idolaters who are always professing great rever- 
 ence for their idols, and are ready to resent the 
 
 least disrespect to them, and yet have no real fear, 
 B 
 
14 LETTER I. 
 
 or regard for them. None more frequently put their 
 feet upon the confession of Faith, and show that 
 they read it but very seldom, than those, who charge 
 me with laying it aside. 
 
 2. So long as I am in the presbyterian church I 
 shall hold to the Confession of Faith, because I have 
 read it, and I hope in some measure understand its 
 nature and use. I value it not only for the doctrine 
 it contains, but because I consider it a charter secu- 
 ring me, as a member of the presbyterian church, 
 against all ecclesiastical tyranny. The following 
 declarations, I esteem as the fundamental principles 
 of the social compact in the presbyterian church ; 
 viz. "All church power whether exercised by the 
 body in general, or in the way of representation, by 
 delegated authority, is only ministerial, and declar- 
 ative. That is to say, that the Holy Scriptures are 
 the only rule of faith and manners ; that no church 
 judicature ought to pretend to make laws to bind 
 the conscience in virtue of their own authority; 
 and that all their decisions should be founded upon 
 the revealed will of God. 
 
 "The authority of the Holy Scriptures for which 
 it is to be believed and obeyed, dependethnot upon 
 the testimony of any man, or church, but wholly 
 upon God, (who is truth itself,) the author thereof. 
 
 "The Old Testament in Hebrew, (which was the 
 native language of the people of God, of old) and 
 the New Testament in Greek (which at the time 
 of the writing of it, was most generally known to 
 
LETTER I. 15 
 
 the nations,) being immediately inspired by God, 
 and by his singular care and providence kept pure 
 in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all 
 controversies of religion the church is finally to ap- 
 peal unto them. 
 
 "The supreme Judge, by whom all controversies 
 of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of 
 councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of 
 men, and private spirits are to be examined, and 
 in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other 
 but the Holy Spirit speaking in the scripture." — 
 Con. Faith, Chap. i. Any use, or application, of 
 any other parts of this book, which are irreconci- 
 leable with these now quoted I consider inadmissi- 
 ble,, and anti-protestant. I do not think that I im- 
 pugn, "the system of doctrine," which the Confes- 
 sion of Faith contains, and in adopting it, I am 
 bound to, "believe the scriptures of the Old and 
 New Testament to be the word of God, the only 
 infallible rule of faith and practice." According 
 to this rule I have proceeded in endeavouring to 
 ascertain what are the relations, rights, previleges 
 and duties of baptized children. And if in all points 
 on these subjects, I should not speak the precise lan- 
 guage, and carry out the sentiments of the Confes- 
 sion of Faith, as some may construe them, I am sure 
 no independent, and consistent Presbyterian, will 
 try me by any other rule, than "the only infallible 
 
16 LETTER I. 
 
 If any other apology than what has now been 
 given, be required for agitating the cause of bapti- 
 zed children, it maybe found in the following facts. 
 
 1. Although the subjects discussed are not 
 classed among the essentials of a sinners salvation, 
 yet they are among the essentials for the welfare 
 and prosperity of the Church of Jesus Christ; and 
 thus indirectly involve the eternal happiness, or 
 misery of immortal beings. 
 
 2. The declarations in the Confession of Faith, 
 contained in the extracts which I have given, re- 
 specting Children being members of the Church 
 and subject to her government and discipline, are 
 little else, practically, than a dead letter. Where 
 is the Church session that puts them in practice? 
 Many will grant that "baptized children are, mem- 
 bers in part, but not full members." They appear 
 unwilling to give up infant baptism, and unite 
 with their Baptist brethren, and hence maintain 
 that the infants of beleivers are members; but 
 farther than baptism of what avail is their member- 
 ship? How many of the Presbyterian Clergy can 
 agree on the precise relation in which the baptized 
 children stand to the Church, and what are their 
 lights, privileges and duties.? Is it not a little 
 strange that Ministers of the Gospel — that sessions, 
 and even a Synod,* should come forward in the 1 9th 
 century, and in darkness, and in difficulty, ask, 
 "what is to be done with a member of the Church 
 
 * Synod of Kentucky. Assembly's Digest. Page 328. 
 
LETTER I. 17 
 
 -habitually guilty of open immorality," or, "what 
 steps should the Church take with baptized youth, 
 not in communion, but arrived at the age of matu- 
 rity, should such youth prove disorderly and contu- 
 macious." 
 
 Such questions remain unanswered, year, after- 
 year, even by the General Assembly of the Presby- 
 terian Church. From these facts, one, or other of 
 the following inferences must be drawn, either, the 
 king and lawgiver of the Church, has left her with- 
 out law on this important point ; or the law is not 
 yet understood; or if understood, there is an awful 
 want of faithfulness, and a sense of responsibility 
 among us, whose duty it is to study, explain and ap- 
 ply the law. I come to the same conclusion from 
 another fact, namely, that one third, and in many 
 cases, one half of the baptized members of the 
 Church, in the western country, are raised to fill the 
 ranks of her enemies; and do actually disclaim her 
 jurisdiction, mingle with the world and go down 
 .the broad road to perdition. A civil community 
 that would raise one third of her youth, or one half, 
 to swell the ranks of a powerful, hostile neighbour- 
 ing community would, in this enlightened age, be 
 considered either destitute of a wise and necessary 
 organization, or else its administration must be ig- 
 norant, corrupt, and unfaithful in the extreme. It 
 becomes us, sir, most seriously and industriously to 
 examine this subject and ascertain, if possible, 
 where the fault lies. According to mv understand- 
 
*18 LETTER L 
 
 jngof the Scriptures, and the present state of the 
 Church, there is an alarming measure of guilt 
 somewhere; the guilt of all those persons, who 
 have been recognized as members of the church, by- 
 Baptism, and having left her jurisdiction, are living 
 in the habitual, open, and scandalous violation of 
 God's law. In the Presbyterian Church there are 
 vast numbers, who are guilty of the same, op 
 similar enormous crimes, for which God said, by his 
 prophets, to his ancient people, "shall not my soul 
 be avenged on such a nation as this." 
 
 So long as the church will not through her rulers 
 cast out, or discipline those transgressing members 
 she must bear their guilt. Such are my views, and 
 I feel myself prepared to support them, not merely 
 by the Confession of Faith, but by the word of God. 
 How then can I be silent on this subject? How 
 can I consider it a subject in which I have not an 
 individual concern, and responsibility, and which 
 had better be left to slumber until I am called to 
 give in an account of my stewardship? The re- 
 marks frequently made, that I wish to be a reformer^ 
 ctnd singular — that the proposed reform should be 
 effected through the General Assembly, if necessary 
 — and that the session of the Paris Church have 
 assumed the Legislative powers belonging to the 
 highest court of the Presbyterian Church, need no 
 serious reply. For a deliberative body to originate, 
 or take up and carry out a reform until formed by 
 public opinion, or the success of some one indivi- 
 
LETTER!, Ife 
 
 dual, would be^a new thing under the Sun. Your 
 large deliberative bodies are the last to fall in with 
 any reform, or any new, benevolent plan. Look at 
 the history of reformations — of the Missionary, 
 Bible, and Tract societies. Look at the history of 
 Sabbath schools, and the improvements made in the 
 management of education. The fact is, I trust . 
 much more to the inevitable effects of INFANT, 
 AND SABBATH SCHOOLS, to evince and force 
 upon the Church the adoption and practice of my 
 principles, than to any arguments I can advance, or 
 any interference of ecclesiastical bodies. These 
 schools are making a grand experiment, which will 
 revolutionise the Church, and bring her to know 
 and practice the Statute book of her infinitely wise 
 Legislator. Shall we as ecclesiasticks always be 
 content to march in the rear, and leave it to indivi- 
 duals, and benevolent, voluntary Associations, to 
 originate, and mature every good thing which is to 
 bless the Church and the world ? Are these Asso- 
 ciations running ahead of the Bible? 1 believe not. 
 But they are teaching us to understand the Bible. 
 Let us study it, and take it for our guide, and we 
 wrill be able to enlighten, and accelerate the mighty 
 movements of those Associations ; and help to usher 
 in that glorious state of things when the Children of 
 the Covenant shall no longer be excluded from the 
 Church of God, or treated as little aliens, and infr 
 dels. 
 
 Yours &c. 
 
USTtfER 2. 
 
 Com?no?i ground stated — The relation in which Baptis* 
 ed Children stand to the Church — Membership — 
 Scriptural viezo of it. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 In discussing subjects, on which there may 
 be difference of opinion, it is of importance to ascer- 
 tain, in the first place, how far the parties may 
 agree. It appears that if I should have opponents 
 on the subject under consideration, I may look for 
 them not only among my Baptist but also my Paedo- 
 baptist brethren. The latter and I, it is presumed 
 will agree on the following general principles. 
 
 1. That the Church of God was organized in 
 the family of Abraham — that he and his infant seed 
 were members, in their successive generations — 
 that the charter, or Constitution of the Church re- 
 mains unaltered respecting those who were mem- 
 bers, and the privileges they were to enjoy. 
 
 2. That the distinguishing ordinances of the 
 New Testament are no more holy than the distin- 
 guishing ordinances of the Old Testament, and that 
 Baptism is as holy as the Lord's Supper. 
 
 3. I hope my Pasdobaptist brethren will con- 
 cede to me the following principle of interpreting 
 the word of God ; vizr That when God has opco 
 
LETTER II. 2i 
 
 Legislated on a subject necessarily requiring his 
 legislation, and he never alters, or repeals the act, it 
 stands forever. For example, I give the case under 
 consideration. The subject of membership in the 
 Church of God, and the rights, privileges and du- 
 ties of members, are subjects which necessarily re- 
 quire God's explicit and particular Legislation. — 
 They are subjects that cannot be left to human 
 wisdom, or prudence. On these subjects, or on 
 fome of them God may have legislated only once, 
 and that in the Old Testament, and there can no 
 altering, or repealing act be found in the New Tes- 
 tament — if so, then the ancient law is still in force, 
 and as obligatory as if enacted over again by Christ, 
 or his Apostles. It is a case in which God's positive 
 act cannot be dispensed with, and he has shown 
 that it is essentially necessary by ingrafting it, into 
 the original constitution and law of the Church. 
 
 I consider it of some importance to have this 
 principle of interpretation conceded and kept in 
 mind. I have found it a common thing to evade 
 direct and decisive authorities from the word of 
 God by such replies as these. "Ah! that is from 
 the Old Testament — it belonged to the ceremonial 
 law — and you are to recollect we are not Jews but 
 Christians" If such replies are always good — al- 
 ways in point, and always worthy the intelligent and 
 ingenuous advocates of God's TRUTH, let us say so 
 at once and unite with the open rejectors of the Old 
 Testament; if we are not prepared for this, let us 
 
22 LETTER II. 
 
 not throw one of God's moral, or judicial statutes 
 into the ceremonial and typical law, merely to foil 
 an opponent, or shield ourselves from the sword of 
 the spirit. If membership in the Church, and the 
 law which points out who are members and who 
 not, what are the privileges of members, and when, 
 and how they are to enjoy them, be subjects of cere- 
 monial, or typical import, let the fact be demonstra- 
 ted. I am persuaded that none of my Pasdopabtist 
 brethren will seriously undertake the demonstra- 
 tion,* and therefore I shall consider the principle of 
 interpretation plead for, conceded, and directly ap- 
 plicable to the question respecting the Membership, 
 Rights, and Privileges of baptized Children. 
 
 Other principles might be mentioned as constitu- 
 ting common ground between me and my Paedo- 
 baptist brethren, and which have a direct bearing 
 upon the subject under consideration. But as some 
 few might object to them, they will be brought in a6 
 we proceed in the discussion. 
 
 The RELATION in which baptized children 
 stand to the Church is the first thing to be consider- 
 ed. This relation has been expressed by memberships 
 and such children are declared, "Members of the 
 Church," in the language which has been quoted 
 from the Book of Discipline. This language, howe- 
 ver plain, and easily understood, when used with 
 
 * To my astonishment 1 have found that I was mis- 
 taken, and that some of my brethren, attempted the de- 
 monstration. 
 
LETTER II. 23 
 
 respect to a family, or civil community, appears 
 to convey no difinite idea, as used among us, 
 with regard to baptized children." They are mem- 
 bers, but we are told they are not "full members — 
 they are members in part — and members not by 
 their own act, or consent." The precise relation, 
 then, in wnich they stand to the Church, is yet mat- 
 ter of inquiry. The Scriptures must determine 
 this point. Your attention will be directed to them 
 a few minutes. The Apostle treats the subject ex- 
 plicitly in the folio wing quotations. "For as the body 
 is one and hath many members, and all the mem. 
 bers of that one body, being many, are one body, so 
 also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all bap- 
 tized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gen- 
 tiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been 
 all made to drink into one spirit.* For as we have 
 many members in one body, and all members have 
 not the same office ; so we being many are one body 
 in Christ, and every one members one of another.! 
 "And hath put all things under his feet, and gave 
 him to be the head over all things to the Church, 
 which is his body, the fulness of him that iilleth all 
 in all."}: "For we are members of his body, of his 
 flesh, and of his bones."|| 
 
 These declarations of the Apostle teach us incon- 
 testably the following things. 
 
 1. That the Church of Jesus Christ is a com- 
 
 *1 Cor. xii. 12, 13. IRom. xii. 4, 5. 
 lEph. i. 22, 23. \\Chap. v. 30. 
 
24 LETTER II. 
 
 pletely organized body; a body which we call, cor. 
 porate and federal. It must, according to the illus- 
 tration, exhibit in its nature, and constitution, the 
 variety, order, unity, and harmony of the human 
 body. 
 
 2. The members of the Church, the body of 
 Christ must differ in size, character, and situation, 
 as do the members of the natural body. 
 
 3. One member, of the Church however, large or 
 small, is as much a member as any other. No per- 
 son can be partly a member of the Church and 
 partly not. Every individual must be wholly a 
 member or not at all. It would be perfectly ridi- 
 culous to say, that my hand is partly a member of 
 my body, and partly not ; or that my little finger is 
 not so fully a member as my hand, or my foot. 
 
 4. The members of the Church have mutual 
 cares and sufferings, and all have duties to perform 
 according to their age, gifts, and standing. 
 
 Some may grant that the Church of Christ is in- 
 deed a complete body corporate, and federal — that 
 the members may differ in size, gifts, &c. and vet 
 they be all of mature age, or like the members of a 
 banking, or manufacturing company, who become 
 members by their own voluntary act and deed. — 
 This we will find not the fact, from the following 
 illustrations of Church membership. 
 
 The Church is represented in the Scriptures as a 
 kingdom — Christ is the king, and the Members are 
 his^ubjects. You will not require any instances as 
 
LETTER II. 25 
 
 proof of this* Now in every kingdom there are 
 subjects of all ages. A kingdom without infants 
 would be a new thing under the §un. There are 
 generally in every kingdom natural born subjects, 
 and foreigners who have become subj ects by adop- 
 tion, or naturalization. And it is a principle which 
 appears founded on the nature of things, and which 
 is universally acted on, that no one can be a subject 
 of two distinct, independent kingdoms at the same 
 time. And here you perceive essential points of 
 difference between a kingdom and a banking compa- 
 ny, or any such corporate body. A man may pur- 
 chase and hold stock in ten or twenty banks, and 
 have control in them all. And we may say that 
 he and his funds are partly merged in one, and 
 partly in another. But in a kingdom his whole 
 person as a subject is merged, and owing allegiance 
 there, he can owe it no where else. Now if the 
 Church be correctly exhibited by a kingdom, then 
 she embraces subjects of every age—parents and 
 children are equally and wholly subjects. This 
 the Scriptures enable us to make out still more con- 
 clusively. We find the Church called a city and 
 a commonwealth, and her members, citizens— a 
 house or family and her members children, I will 
 call your attention particularly to Ephesians ii. 12, 
 19. "At that time ye were without Christ, being 
 aliens from the Commonwealth of Israel and stran- 
 gers from the Covenants of promise, having no hope 
 and without God in the world. Now therefore ye 
 C 
 
96 LETTER II. 
 
 are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow- 
 citizens with the Saints and of the household of God." 
 The members of the Church are here called citi- 
 zens, in opposition to aliens, and foreigners ; and they 
 are called members of the household, or family of 
 God in opposition to strangers, or sojourners. As the 
 Apostle speaks in allusion to the city of Jerusalem 
 or the Mount Zion, the city of the living God, and 
 to citizenship among the Jews, we must have re- 
 course to their laws on the subject. 
 
 It is well known that all the heathen nations were 
 aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and were 
 excluded from the rights and privileges of Jerusa- 
 lem. All the natural born Israelites were citizens 
 of the commonwealth, and all born of citizens in Je- 
 rusalem were citizens of that city. Gentiles could 
 become citizens by renouncing their idolatry, pro- 
 fessing faith and allegiance to the God of Israel, by 
 receiving circumcision, baptism, and offering sacri- 
 fice in the Tabernacle, or Temple. These were 
 called proselytes of righteousness. There were 
 others called proselytes of the gate, who professed 
 the righteousness of the Jews, but refused to be 
 circumcised, and to conform to all the laws of Moses. 
 These were permitted to sojourn in the land, and to 
 worship at the gate in the outer court of the Gen- 
 tiles ; but they could not purchase, and hold landed 
 estate, nor were they considered, in any sense, citi- 
 zens. They are particularly designated by the 
 Apostle as foreigners. 
 
LETTER II. 27 
 
 These foreigners by the preaching of the Gospel 
 and the Grace of God, became, fellow-citizens wittc 
 the Saints — that is, the) v, ere naturalized and adopt- 
 ed, as members, into the Church of God 5 and then 
 they were no longer foreigners. They were not 
 only fellow-citizens with the Saints, but they were also 
 "of the household of Gun/' The allusion is to those 
 who literally were admitted into the Temple, the 
 house of God, and partook of all the privileges, of 
 that house The Priests and Levites were, in the 
 strictest sense, the household of God, under the law j 
 but all God's people are now made Kings and Priestj 
 unto God — they dwell in his house, and are account- 
 ed his children. Into this number the Ephesians 
 were adopted. They were not members "in part," 
 and entitled to some privileges and debarred from 
 others. Parents and children were equally citi- 
 zens of the commonwealth of Israel, and of the city 
 of God — they entered with their Parents into the 
 house of God, and with their parents enjoyed the 
 privileges of that house. The children of the be- 
 lieving Ephesians must also be citizens, and enter 
 with their parents into the house, the Church of 
 God, there to enjoy all the privileges. There is. 
 no getting clear of this, without charging the Apostle 
 with using illustrations, of membership and privi- 
 leges in the Church which are inappropriate, and 
 calculated to lead plain, honest people astray. 
 
 Various other metaphors, and comparisons, are 
 made use of in the Scriptures to illustrate the nature 
 
28 LETTER H. 
 
 and Constitution of the Church, and to define her 
 members, with their privileges and duties. She is 
 called a garden — a vineyard — asheepfold — ajflock; 
 and in corresponding terms, her members are called 
 plants, trees, vines, sheep, and la?nbs. All .these 
 illustrations exhibit the Church as a Societv rezu- 
 larly organized, composed of children and grown 
 people — all equally members and entitled to the 
 same privileges. If these things are not clearly, 
 and decisively established by the preceding illustra- 
 tions, I have yet to learn for what they are introdu- 
 ced into the Sacred writings? If there be no simi- 
 larity between the metaphors, and figures used, and 
 the Church and her members, they are worse than 
 useless — they are calculated to lead us into error, 
 and leave us, "in endless mazes lost." It appears 
 from the views expressed by some, that the Church 
 of God is wholly unlike every other Society upon 
 earth, and that when he instituted her, he departed 
 from every other of his known institutions. If this 
 were the fact, how can we account for the inces- 
 sant references in the Scriptures to those institu- 
 tions? Instead of showing us the similarity between 
 the Church and the human body, a kingdom, city, 
 Commonwealth, &c. the Sacred writers should have 
 been employed in showing that there is no similarity 
 hetweenthem. It is readily granted that the Church, 
 like every other Society, has her characteristic pe- 
 culiarities, and in these she differs from all others. 
 For example, she is of Heavenly origin — her Ofgan 
 
LETTER It. 29 
 
 ization, her laws and ordinances are divine — hep 
 king and head, is a mysterious and glorious person- 
 age — Emanuel God with us. Iier great and speci- 
 fic objects, and the manner of accomplishing them 
 are peculiar. But because she has her peculiarities, 
 are we thence to conclude that she is in all respects 
 unlike every other society on earth? Nothing is 
 more absurd, and repugnant to the whole tenor of 
 Scriptural illustration. 
 
 I have spent some time in examining the laws re- 
 specting citizens, and the alien laws, existing 
 among the Jews, Greeks, Romans, English, and 
 Americans, and was surprized to find that they all 
 agree on the following points ; in denying to Aliens 
 and foreigners the right to vote in public elections — 
 the right to hold any office under Government — and 
 the right to hold landed property. They all agree 
 in granting these rights to citizens — they all agree; 
 in adopting foreigners, with their children as citi- 
 zens, upon certain term*, differing in some respects. 
 They all agree in considering the children of citi- 
 zens, whether natural, or adopted, as subjects be- 
 fore any oath of allegiance, or formal consent of the. 
 children, when come to the years of maturity. And 
 all agree that the Slate or Government has certain 
 rlaims upon all citizens, and can enforce these claims : 
 or in other words, all citizens owe certain duties to 
 the Government, of which they are members, and 
 which affords them protection, prior to their consent, 
 and if they refuse to perform* those duties, thev fall 
 C* 
 
30 LETTER 11. 
 
 under the appropriate penalty. Now as we have 
 ascertained the law among the Jews, respecting 
 aliens and citizens, and as the Apostle shows that 
 the same law regulates membership in the Church 
 of God, we have gotten something clear, explicit, and 
 definite on that relation in which baptized children 
 stand to the Church. They are members, and such 
 a thing as members in part, was never heard of ex- 
 cept among some modern religionists. Baptized 
 children are members, and if members, they are en- 
 titled to all the privileges of the Church? and are 
 bound to perform all the duties of members accor- 
 ding to age, gifts and standing. 
 
 You may, however, say, "they are members in 
 minority, and therefore cannot exercise their rights." 
 I answer, that I have no objection that the law of 
 minors sbould be applied to children in the Church; 
 but I shall insist, that God shall regulate this matter 
 in his own house. That he has done it, and that 
 the years of discretion necessary for the performance 
 of certain duties, and the enjoyment of certain priv- 
 ileges are not left to the prudence of men, to de- 
 termine, will hereafter be shown. This I would now 
 remark, that minors are under parents, tutors and 
 governors — that from infancy they are bound to be 
 obedient, and must enjoy the privileges of the pa- 
 ternal roof, particularly the family table. To 
 deny them these, because minors, would be worse 
 than savage. Were the .children of those Ephe\ 
 «siaus, who became, of the household of God, denied; 
 
LETTER II. 31 
 
 these privileges? Be not alarmed sir, I know you 
 have a tender concern for LITTLE ONES. For 
 them I am pleading. 
 
 Yours, Respectfully. 
 
 LETTER 3% 
 
 The Rights of Children — Right to Baptism — to a good 
 Religious education — and to the Lord's Supper, 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 In modern times we have heard 
 much respecting the rights of men, but we have 
 jheard little of the rights of God, and the rights of 
 the children born under the Constitution of hi* 
 Church. That the latter have rights as well as the 
 former, none can deny. We have ascertained that 
 children, born of believing parents, are members of 
 the Church, and entitled, to all the privileges of 
 members. I need but barely state, that they have 
 a right to baptism, and that it is the duty of their pa- 
 rents, their natural guardians, to put them in pos- 
 session of baptism. This ordinance has been called 
 an initiating ordinance. It is so, visibly, and formaL 
 ly. But every adult presented for baptism, is sup- 
 posed to be received previously, as a member of the 
 Church; an^ baptism is therefore, an open recognn, 
 
ie- LETTER lit 
 
 (ion of membership, and the vfeible seal of God's, 
 visible covenant put upon the subject already ac- 
 knowledged in private. It thus becomes a distin- 
 guishing^ and a significant ordinance. Water in this, 
 ordinance is significant of the Holy Spirit, the sanc^ 
 tiner of God's people. Here we remark that it is 
 an holy ordinance. It is the ordinance of a holy 
 God, and is significant of the Holy Spifit, and dis- 
 tinguishes God's holy people from the unholy 
 world. But its holiness is of an arbitrary, or con- 
 stitutional kind. The water is not made intrinsical- 
 ly more holy than other water. It becomes ecclesi- 
 astically holy and is applied to infants, not because 
 intrinsically holy, or born again of the Spirit, but be- 
 cause ecclesiastically holy. Hence there is no pro* 
 fanation of the ordinance when applied to them as 
 the members of the Church. But if they were not 
 members, and therefore not ecclesiastica.lv holy, it 
 would be a profanation of baptism, which is thus 
 holy, to apply it to them. 
 
 But it may be said, as baptism is a significant or- 
 dinance, it implies that all who with propriety par- 
 take of it, should have understanding sufficient to 
 perceive the nature of the things signified; and m 
 infants have not this understanding, they are noi 
 entitled to it. To which, we Peedobaptists reply. 
 God alone must determine this matter: and he has 
 determined that the children of members of his 
 Church are ecclesiastically holy, and have a righi 
 to. be recognized aj sneh^.bv the sealing and distin- 
 
LETTER III. 3a 
 
 flushing ordinances, which he has instituted, whate- 
 ver they may be. We also say, that Baptism is not 
 merely a significant ordinance, but a sealing and 
 distinguishing ordinance, and as such is of use to in- 
 fants, and is applied to them with the same propri- 
 ety that it is applied to grown persons. Sealed, and 
 distinguished by it in infancy, they enjoy an impor- 
 tant privilege, and when they advance to years of 
 understanding, they can improve it as a significant 
 ordinance. It is thus, sir, that we defend infant bap- 
 tism against our Baptist brethren. And I presume 
 that you agree with me, in admitting, that the chil- 
 dren of Church members have a right, a divine 
 right to baptism, and that parents are highly crim- 
 inal in withholding baptism from them, when not 
 providentially hindered. 
 
 The second right that children have, who are 
 born of members of the Church, is, the right to the 
 LORD'S EDUCATION. This proposition you 
 will find at once illustrated and supported, by refer- 
 ring to the following passages in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures. Deut. iv. 8-10. vi. 1,9, 20, 25. xi. 18-21. 
 xxxi. 10-13. Joshua, xxiv. 15. i. Sam. iii. 12-14. 
 Psalm, lxxviii, 1-8. Prov. iv. 1-13. viii. 32-36, xiii. 
 24, xix. 18, xxii. 15, xxiii. 13, xxix. 17. Eph. vi. 1 
 -4. Col. iii. 20-21. 1 Tim. iii. 4, 5, 12, v. 10-14. 
 
 On these declarations of God, I shall at present, 
 make only the following general remarks. 
 
 1. The book, from which a good religious edu- 
 cation is to be given to the children of the Church, 
 is the BibK 
 
34 LETTER III. 
 
 2. This education, as there delineated, consists 
 in administering the Lord's instruction, and the 
 Lc;u's government and discipline. By discipline I 
 understand, r.ot merely the admonitions, checks and 
 censures which will he found presented in the Scrip- 
 tures, but the proper exercise and training of all the 
 powers of the soul. Does this education of the 
 Lord abound in our Church? 
 
 3. The Holy Scriptures, containing the Lord's 
 education, are deposited by him, in his Church. as a 
 legacy for her children; and her officers, and those 
 intrusted with these children are bound to put them 
 in possession of it. 
 
 4. When this education is faithfully, and pru- 
 dently given, relying on God for his promised bles- 
 sing, the general consequence is, that these chil- 
 dren grow up in the knowledge, love and obedience 
 of the Lord; and are prepared for the performance 
 of all incumbent duties and the due improvement of 
 all rights and privileges. One main object of all 
 education, as it respects the present life, is, to pre- 
 pare for action, and the exercise of rights and priv- 
 ileges; and need I prove that this is one main 
 object of the Lord's education? Before any say, 
 that it is an insufficient mean for this purpose, and 
 that it may be given, and yet the subject remain 
 unqualified for the enjoyment of all privileges in the 
 Church and the performance of all incumbent du- 
 ties, let the full and fair experiment be produced. 
 I am aware that many instances are produced^ as 
 
LETTER III. 3*5 
 
 proof that the "Lord's nurture and admonition'' have 
 been given in vain, and worse than in vain, inasmuch 
 as the subjects often become more vicious than 
 others, I, however, have never yet been satisfied 
 that such is the fact. And in every instance that 
 has come uuder my observation, of the children of 
 religious parents turning out worse than the children 
 of unbelievers, I have found that the Lord's nurture 
 and admonition had not been given. I know, and 
 acknowledge the innate depravity of human nature, 
 and that children left to themselves, will remain 
 destitute of the scriptural fruits of righteousness j 
 and I would not say, that every one receiving the 
 Lord's education must necessarily become a new 
 creature, and go to Heaven ; but I believe that his 
 education as generally produces these happy effects, 
 as the prudent, faithful and persevering labours of 
 the husbandman produce a plentiful harvest. After 
 he has done all, the showers of blessing must de- 
 cend from the God of Heaven, or his labour is in 
 vain; so is it with children. But may not the far- 
 mer expect these showers, and is it not in the hope 
 of these showers, that he fences, ploughs and sows? 
 And is not his hope generally realized? Now, Sir, 
 the many suitable allusions to the husbandman, in 
 elucidating the Church of God and the effects of his 
 ordinances ; and likewise matters of fact, show that 
 the Lord's nurture and admonition properly given 
 by parents and chjurch officers, will have as certain 
 and as general an effect in changing the hearts, an,4 
 
36 LETTER III. 
 
 saving the souls of the children committed to then 
 care. There are some soils so hard and barren that 
 they will produce nothing, except thistles, briars, 
 and thorns, or they are so miry that all cultiva- 
 tion is impracticable; but such bear a very small 
 proportion to the land that can be cultivated and 
 rendered productive. And in this, the comparison 
 is applicable to the children of the Church. And 
 when it so happens that any of them, after many 
 years of assiduous attention, and careful religious 
 cultivation, according to the word of God, produce 
 none of the fruits of righteousness, but are mere 
 cumberers of the ground, or yield briars and thorns, 
 the pernicious products of sin, we are told what is 
 to be their doom, they are to be cut dozvn — they are to 
 be rejected — they are nigh unto cursing, whose end is to 
 be burned.* I shall in another letter attempt to 
 shew more fully, the grounds of encouragement 
 which are afforded for the religious cultivation of lit- 
 tle children. What is now advanced may prove 
 that the children of the Church have a right from 
 God, their Heavenly Father, to the Lord's educa- 
 tion; and that this education is supposed to qualify 
 for the discharge of all incumbent duties, and the 
 full enjoyment of all privileges, at the age of matu- 
 rity. If these ends be not intended by the Lord, 
 in prescribing his education, I would wish to be in- 
 formed what purposes he had in view. 
 
 *Luke, xiii. 6-9< Heb. vi. 7, 8. 
 
LETTER in. 37 
 
 The third right which children have, that are 
 born, or recognized as members of the Church, is, 
 the right to the Lord's Supper. It is at once their 
 right, privilege and duty to partake of this ordi- 
 nance. This follows from the fact of their being 
 members, and from their participation of baptism 
 and the " Lord's nurture and admonition." They 
 have been born in the house of the Lord — they have 
 been recognized as members of his family — they 
 have received his education, and have arrived at 
 the age when they are expected to act for him, the 
 part of discreet, grateful and obedient sons and 
 daughters. They may say, we are willing to relin- 
 quish our right to the Lord's table, and forego our 
 privilege of participating; but can they clear them- 
 selves of the obligation of duty, to honour and obey 
 their Lord and Saviour in his dying command? 
 They have arrived at that point, when the question 
 is, will you obey, or will you rebel — will you freely 
 espouse me, and my cause, or will you go off, and 
 j oin my enemies ? Will you become apostates ? 
 
 But suppose the children of baptism should come 
 forward and say, we know that we are members of 
 the church, and that we have now arrived at that 
 age when it is our privilege and duty to celebrate 
 the dying love of the Saviour, at his own table, and 
 we aje now about to do it, what ought the officers of 
 the church to do ? I know well that various answers 
 may be given, and have been given to this question ; 
 and it will take some time to clear it of all the dif& 
 D 
 
38 LETTER III. 
 
 culty under which, it at present labours. It brings 
 me to the ground of defence, which I would take in 
 behalf of the Paris session, and of the documents of 
 the Presbyterian church respecting the privilege 
 and duty of baptized children to partake of the 
 Lord's Supper. I shall, hereafter, endeavour to put 
 in a more satisfactory defence, but it may suffice now 
 to state, that the Paris session believed that baptiz- 
 ed children are members of the church and that 
 they have a right to the Lord's education ; and that 
 when it is given, these children would be prepared 
 to go to his table. For they say, that "baptized 
 children are members of the church, and should 
 be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the 
 Lord — that they should be taught to read and un- 
 derstand God's word, to abhor sin, to pray, to fear 
 God, and obey the Lord Jesus Christ." They sup- 
 posed that when a child of baptism was taught all 
 these things for twelve or fourteen years, he must 
 have made some progress ; and either be a fit subject 
 for the Lord's table or for the kingdom of Satan. Now 
 if in the end of the special educating years, whatev- 
 er age maybe fixed on, the subject of education has 
 learned to read and understand God's word, has 
 learned to abhor sin, to pray, to fear God, and obey 
 the Lord Jesus Christ, I wish to know what other 
 requisitions are necessary for his partaking of the 
 Lord's Supper. But if he has received the Lord's 
 education in vain, and does not pray, abhor sin, 
 fear God and obey the Lord Jesus Christ, what is to 
 
LETTER III. 39 
 
 be done with him? The Paris ses sion* and the Book 
 of Discipline, say, he is a tit subject of discipline. — 
 That is, admonition, exhortation, reproof and rebuke 
 are to be administered with meekness and tender- 
 ness, and if after ail these means of salvation are 
 used for some time, (it is not said how long,) and 
 there should be an obstinate continuance in the 
 course of disobedience, then, the lait ordinance and 
 mean of salvation is to be resorted to, that is, cutting 
 off or what is the same, ex-communication. Now 
 sir, what other course do the scriptures, and com- 
 mon sense point out? Would you, after the process 
 has commenced with the culprit, and before it has 
 produced repentance, stop short, and say, mat ex- 
 communication is so abhorent, and disgraceful a 
 mean of salvation, that it ought not to be applied? 
 Better let the disobedient, the hardened and refrac- 
 tory, lie undisturbed in the bosom of the church, 
 and show with impunity his contempt of the Lord 
 Jesus, on all future sacramental occasions! Why, 
 sir, such a course is nothing short of treason to the 
 Saviour — cruelty to the soul of the unhappy sinner, 
 and strong evidence of an unholy heart. Many, I 
 know, would shudder at seeing the subject of disci- 
 pline, approaching the holy sacrament, without re- 
 pentance and faith, but. they can nevertheless retain 
 him in the holy church of God. This must arise, 
 from very erroneous views, or a very great igno- 
 rance of God's church, and ordinances. We have 
 already ascertained that the right to all ordinances, 
 
40 LETTER] if t 
 
 and privileges arjses from the fact oi membership*, 
 and if a person is not too unholy to be a member of 
 the church, he is not too unholy for the participa- 
 tion of all her ordinances: and if too unholy for this 
 participation, he is too unholy for being a member. 
 The sin. therefore, of permitting a person to con- 
 tinue in the church who remains too unholy, to 
 partake of the Lord's Supper, after all due means 
 have been used for his sanctiheation, for a suffi- 
 cient length of time, except the last mean, which is 
 cutting off, is attended with as much guilt, as the sin 
 of admitting him to all holy ordinances. I hope that 
 in due time I shall be able to show tha.t the ques- 
 tion of admitting, or not admitting baptized youth 
 to the Lord's Supper, when they have arrived aka 
 suitable age, is a question whether they shall be, or 
 not be, mem-bers of the church. As members they 
 have the right, and the privilege of partaking, and 
 it is their duty to partake. If they be debarred, 
 process must be entered, and reason shown that 
 they have lost their right and privilege, by forfeiting 
 their membership. To debar them without con- 
 victing them of crime which is a forfeiture of mem- 
 bership, would be grossly inconsistent, and outra- 
 geously tyrannical. You may say that granting 
 these remarks to be correct, they do not remove, 
 but increase the difficulty; for they reduce to this 
 dilemma, either to admit to the Lord's Sapper the 
 unregenerate members of the church, or else insti- 
 tute process against them, and ex-communicate 
 them for their unregencracy. And whoever heard 
 
LETTER III. 41 
 
 of a church court entering a process against a man 
 for the sin and scandal of being unregenerate . 
 Should any commence so novel a process, the accus- 
 ed might put his prosecutors upon the proof of the 
 charges and plead that they could with no propriety 
 compel him to testify against himself. But were 
 he to acknowledge the charges he might ask why 
 he was ever recognised as a member of the church, 
 he being unregenerate; and if a member, publicb 
 recognized without regeneration, why he was now 
 arraigned, and made to endure the pains, and pen- 
 alties of a criminal, when no change for the worse 
 could be alledged against him? These queries, 
 my dear sir, bring us to what may be termed, the 
 stopping point. Sessions, Presbyteries, Synods and 
 the general assembly, it seems, have been unable 
 to remove, or get over this formidable difficulty. 
 Has God or man formed this difficulty? Has it ori- 
 ginated in the constitution and laws of the church 
 of Jesus Christ? This cannot be supposed for a 
 moment. If we go to Moses and the Prophets — 
 Christ and his Apostles, this difficulty will vanish, 
 or we will see that it is entirely of man's creation. 
 When he attempts to legislate for God, or repeal 
 the laws of infinite wisdom, it is not strange if he 
 should be involved in serious difficulties. I must 
 now leave the Paris session, and all others to carry 
 out the Confession of Faith, or boggle, and fail in 
 the attempt as they may; and endeavor, in my own 
 humble way to vindicate the ways of God to man, 
 with respect to baptized children. Yours, &:c. 
 D* 
 
l»ET^ER 4s 
 
 A more extensive view of the subject — Minority, and its 
 different classes — General principle of unity between 
 Parents and Children — Reason for the institution of 
 4he Passover — Jts uses — That little children partook 
 &f improved. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 "When I undertook the task assigned 
 me by the Paris session respecting baptized chil- 
 dren, I cherished the idea that I understood the 
 subject. Upon a re-examination I found that my 
 knowledge had been of the second-hand and com- 
 mon place kind, and was far from being perfect. 
 Serious difficulties lay in the way of carrying into 
 practice the principles recognized in our Confession 
 of Faith, and Book ©f Discipline. The inconsisteia- 
 cy between our profession and our practice, and a 
 conscientious concern to know and perform duty^ 
 pressed upon many. The general assembly, thou<& 
 applied to frequently had furnished no relief. No 
 .consistent and practicable course had been suggested. 
 I was compelled to take a more extensive view of 
 the subject, and the result I now give you. 
 
 The baptist controversy has elicited much reg» 
 peeling infancy, but 1 have not been able to find a 
 single essay, or discourse that treats of minority i$ 
 
LETTER IV. 4S* 
 
 all its stages, subsequent to infancy. House-hold 
 baptism has been maintained by Pasdobaptists, but 
 when the members of a family shall be so old as to 
 be precluded from baptism upon the profession of 
 faith by their parents, has not yet been satisfactor- 
 ily determined. Difference of opinion and prac- 
 tice still prevails on this point, and some have very 
 serious difficulties. Has God famished us with no 
 instances on a subject of :uch practical importance 
 in his church? To what age the period of minority 
 shall extend he has no where precisely determined, 
 in his word. He, however, has, by that law of na- 
 ture, which regulates and perfects the human spe- 
 cies, in their bodily, and intellectual powers ; and by 
 special revelation taught enough for all practical 
 purposes. We know, that man comes to maturity, 
 and enters upon the exercise of all his rights, at ant 
 earlier period, in some countries and climates, than 
 in others ; and therefore it would be irrational to ex- 
 pect that the God of nature, and the author of this 
 variety, would establish one standard in his word, 
 fixing the precise age when the minority should 
 end, and manhood should commence. For the same 
 reason we cannot expect that the various periods of 
 minority, such as belong to little children and youth, 
 should be marked out with precision by a positive^ 
 revealed law. Reason and common sense, from the 
 indications of God in nature, are supposed adequate 
 to fix these several periods, so as best to answer 
 4be ends of society. In tfce scriptures we have wfe 
 
44 LETTER IV. 
 
 nors of various classes, and in some cases we have 
 their particular ages designated, and their rights 
 and duties exhibited. The following appellations 
 are familiar to all who have read the Bible. In- 
 fants, suckling?, babes — little children, boys and girls — 
 youth, young men, and women. The first three of 
 these, express, in our language, generally the same 
 class, that is, children from the birth until weaned, 
 and able to make use of their limbs, and the powers 
 of speech in some measure. The term, however, 
 which we have rendered babe, expresses in the origin- 
 al, more properly, a little boy, or lad, both belonging 
 to the class subsequent to infancy. Among the He- 
 brews, infancy included the three first years. Chil- 
 dren were in many instances suckled for this period 
 of time ; and so long, if sickly, their circumcision 
 and registry in the family record, might be delayed, 
 but no longer.* Among the Greeks children were 
 suckled until four years of age,t and this, with 
 them, marked the period of infancy. Children in 
 general and infants in particular, were expressed by 
 nouns in the neutre gender. They were considered 
 
 * Evidences on Baptism by the Editor of Calmets 
 Diet, of the Bible. Letter 4, p. 20. Ubid. p. 24. 
 
 ( This authors name is Taylor — a man of profound 
 learning.) 
 
 It is not to be understood that all children among the 
 Jews were suckled until three years of age, and among 
 the Greeks until four; but the extreme to which many 
 were suckled, is put for the extreme of infancy, and to 
 fncly/k and limit the class of infants. 
 
LETTER IV. 45 
 
 as property, and accountable, as moral agents sub- 
 ject to public law. And we, speaking of an infant, 
 use the neuter pronoun, it. 
 
 So long as infancy continues, the child, by the 
 law of nature, and its necessary dependence on the 
 mother, is identified with her. It lies on her breast, 
 and receives its nourishment and protection there, 
 and not separately at the family table. The acts, 
 and duties, of this table belong not to it, and to en- 
 force them would be irrational and cruel. Infants? 
 therefore, are precluded, by the God of nature from 
 partaking of the Lord's table, both under the Old 
 and New Testament dispensations. 
 
 Among all nations infants, at their birth undergo 
 a baptism, or washing. And among the Athenians 
 the parents named them, and offered sacrifice, when 
 seven or ten days old ; and a few days after they 
 initiated them into the Eleusinian mysteries.* 
 
 Our English Dictionaries extend infancy to seven 
 years. And in the language of English law, infan- 
 cy extends to the age of twenty-one. An heir, with 
 us, is termed an infant heir, until that period. In 
 this sense the term is never used in the holy scrip- 
 tures. 
 
 The next class of minors mentioned in the scrip- 
 tures is composed of those called little one** and lit- 
 tle children. This appellation in its primary and 
 literal signification, is applied sometimes to a whole 
 family of children including infants: as in Genesis, 
 
 * Travels of Anacharsh, Chap. xxvi. 
 
46 LETTER IV. 
 
 xlvi. 5. But very frequently it is applied to ex- 
 press children from three to twelve years of age; 
 and often from three to somewhere about seven. In 
 this latter restriction we find it used frequently in 
 the New Testament. Such were the little ones, that 
 came to our Saviour, and were taken up in his arms 
 and blessed. They were able to come, and yet they 
 were brought and Luke calls them both infants, and 
 little children;* by which we learn, that they were 
 somewhere about three years of age. 
 
 As the class of little children, and little ones, inclu- 
 ded children as old as twelve years, we find the ap- 
 pellations of lad-hoys, and girls used indefinitely, but 
 refering more particularly to those above seven. 
 
 As little ones were fondled upon the knee and were 
 objects of endearment, the appellation obtained a se- 
 condary, and figurative application, to grown per- 
 sons, addressed in the familiar and endearing lan- 
 guage of a father. In this sense our Saviour called 
 his disciples children, and in the original, little chil- 
 dren. But let it be noted that when the word is us- 
 ed in its literal and primary signification it is never 
 applied above the age of twelve, in the New Testa- 
 ment. Every Greek scholar knows that the two 
 words, which we have translated little children, lit- 
 tle ones and young children vre both in the neuter 
 gender. The reasons have been suggested — chil- 
 dren, thus expressed, are yet under the controul of 
 of the parents — are considered their property, and 
 *xviii. 15, 16. 
 
LETTER IV. 47 
 
 have not arrived at years sufficient to render them 
 amenable, as moral agents, to public law. As yet, 
 they are under law to God, and their parents or 
 guardians, but have not the liberty of acting for 
 themselves, and have not formed their moral char- 
 acter. Hence termed, things, without moral char- 
 acter. So soon a* children passed out of the class 
 of little ones, and became subjects of public law 
 they were no more called by this name, unless by 
 way of endearment. 
 
 Little children among the Jews were instructed 
 at home until five years of age — then they were 
 sent to school where they were taught to read, and 
 understand the five books of Moses, and then two 
 or three years were spent in the study of the Jew- 
 ish Institutes. Until thirteen, a son was called, the 
 little son of the lazv, and after that the son of the pre. 
 cept. The meaning of which is, that until thirteen 
 he is a learner of the law, and his father is account- 
 table for his conduct, and must answer for his 
 crimes, if guilty, but after that, having learned the 
 law, he is considered prepared for obedience, and 
 for attending to the divine precepts, and must an- 
 swer for his crimes before the public tribunals.* 
 Accordingly as a mark of subjection, all boys under 
 thirteen were bound to have their heads covered, 
 after which girls continued covered, and boys went 
 with their heads uncovered, and their feet covered.t 
 
 * Lewis' Hebrew Republic, Book vi. Chap 30 & 31. 
 Brown's Antiquities of the Jews. Vol. ii. 166, 167. 
 Ubid* and Buxtorfs Synagoga Judaica. Chap. iii. 
 
48 LETTER IV. 
 
 Among the Greeks the children were not sent to 
 school until five years of age, and some not till se- 
 ven. From that till seventeen they were called 
 hoys. In Persia the same custom prevailed.* 
 
 The third class of minors, as we find them noticed 
 in the holy scriptures, is called youth. It was com- 
 posed of those from twelve years of age to eighteen. 
 At twelve years of age the females were called 
 young women, and were considered marriageable, 
 but the males not until eighteen. The boys when 
 fully twelve years old were presented by the father 
 before ten elders or respectable men, and in their 
 presence he resigned his charge, and declared him- 
 self no longer accountable for the conduct of his 
 sons.j From this period they were never designa- 
 ted, in the Greek language, by nouns in the neuter 
 gender, but were now considered as public mora] 
 characters; and as such, the class of youth are rep- 
 resented invariably throughout the holy scriptures. 
 In conformity with this, our Saviour, when twelve 
 years old, was taken up to Jerusalem, and exercis- 
 ed the common privilege enjoyed by Jewish youth. 
 He left his parents, tarried behind them at Jerusa- 
 lem in attendance upon the Jewish doctors, who 
 may be considered as his new teachers. This clears 
 him of any just charge of insubordination, to which 
 some might, judging from the custom among us, 
 
 ^Xenophorfs Cyropcedia. Book i. Anach. Trd%* 
 Chap. 26. 
 iLezvis and Brown, as just quoted* 
 
LETTER IV. 49 
 
 consider him liable. He wag now at liberty to pur- 
 sue his heavenly Father's business, and was not ao 
 countable to his earthly parents.* 
 
 Among the Romans, and Persians the male chil- 
 dren were called boys until seventeen years of age, 
 and this period corresponded in many respects to the 
 age of twelve among the Jews. The Toga, or 
 manly gown was put on among the Romans, at se- 
 venteen, and then they were subject to military 
 law, and could be called out in the service 01 their 
 country.! Among the Persians they passed out of 
 the class of boys into that of youth, at seventeen, and 
 the period of youth continued till twenty-iive.j: A- 
 mong the Greeks, they were called boys until eigh- 
 teen, and then youth, or young men to twenty-five. 
 
 In England, " a male may take the oath of alle- 
 giance at twelve ; at fourteen is at years of discretion, 
 and therefore may consent, or disagree to marriage — - 
 may choose his guardian, and if his discretion be ac- 
 tually proved, raay make his testament of his per- 
 sonal estate ; at seventeen may be an executor, and 
 at twenty-one is at his own disposal. In criminal 
 cases an infant of the age of fourteen years may be 
 capitally punished for any capital offence, but un- 
 der the age of seven he cannot. The period be- 
 
 * Luke ii. 42-49. 
 
 1 Adams' Rom, Ant. p. 389,450. Sec'd. Am:r. Edi. 
 \ Xenophon and Anacharsis, as before quoted. 
 E 
 
oQ LETTER IV. 
 
 tween seven and fourteen is subject to much uncer- 
 tainty.* 
 
 It is not necessary for our present purpose to 
 pursue this subject farther. We have ascertained 
 that the light and law of nature have marked out 
 the age of infancy, and of childhood, in which chil- 
 dren are wholly under the centroul of their parents, 
 so clearly, that little variation appears among the 
 laws and customs respecting these classes of mi- 
 nors, in different countries, and nations. We have 
 also ascertained that when childhood ends, and 
 youth begins, the personal accountability of children 
 to public law and officers commence*, and that pre- 
 vious to this, they are only acountable to God, and 
 their parents. The uses which are made of these 
 facts in the scriptures, and the use which I shall 
 endeavor to make of them, will hereafter appear. 
 One general principle which they exhibit, and 
 which here requires particular notice^ is, that God, 
 by the constitution and law of nature, has establish- 
 ed a unity between parents and their children until 
 the latter are considered able to act for themselves. 
 They are so identified with their parents, that they 
 cannot be rendered self-dependent and accountable. 
 The parents stand before them as directors^ supporters 
 and protectors. We know that this unity, and iden* 
 tity may be violently destroyed. Death, or captiv- 
 ity, or some such calamity may separate the infant 
 and tittle one from the parent. But the separation 
 * Blackstone's Corn. Book i. Chap. 17. 
 
LETTER IV. 81 
 
 is against nature. Has the God of nature establish- 
 ed this order of things respecting the domestic cir- 
 cle, and has he violated it in any of his positive in- 
 stitutions revealed in the scriptures? In other words, 
 does his revealed law in the Bible, stand in opposi- 
 tion to his law, as found in his natural constitution? 
 If infidelity could have found an instance of thi* 
 kind, when the diligent search was made, in the 
 last century, it would have triumphed. But no 
 such instance can be fouud. God must always be 
 consistent with himself. His institutions in the nat- 
 ural world, and in his church must harmonize. 
 Notwithstanding this principle is so clear and self 
 evident, such are the views prevailing with respect 
 to the relation of the children of church members, 
 that it becomes necessary to show, at some length, 
 that God has not by his positive institutions in the 
 holy scriptures separated between parents and chil- 
 dren, and marred that unity, which he has constitu- 
 ted by the law of nature. 
 
 We who believe that the church of God was or- 
 ^uii^cd in the family of Abraham, and that its char- 
 ter, or constitution is to be found, particularly, in 
 Genesis xvii. find parents, and their infant seed, 
 there indentified. No separation was made, by the 
 visible, distinguishing token of the constitution, 
 between parents and their children. We hence 
 argue against our baptist brethren in favour of in- 
 fant baptism, and argue with no small force. For 
 it becomes them to show that God in the New Tes- 
 
52 LETTER IV. 
 
 tament has separated between parents and their chil- 
 dren, by the visible distinguishing rite of baptism, 
 contrary both to his constitution of nature, and his 
 constitution with Abraham. 
 
 As the dependents of Ishmael, of Kcturah, and 
 Esau practised circumcision, and as some of the 
 Egyptians, especially the Priests, and connections 
 of Joseph's wife, may also have accepted it, here 
 appears to have arisen the necessity of another 
 distinguishing rite, wkn the children of Abraham 
 through Isaac and Jacob were to be separated from 
 all others, and exhibited as the Lord's peculiar peo- 
 ple. Their redemption from the yoke of Pharaoh, 
 and their separation from +he Egyptians, afforded 
 a very suitable occasion for the institution of this 
 new, necessary rite. Accordingly the Passover was 
 instituted. Exo. xii. This rite is called a feast 
 to the Lord,* that is. it was a religious feast. It is 
 also called a sacrifice,! and hence, like all the other 
 sacrifices, holy. It was a feast upon a «acrifice. 
 The blood of the paschal lamb was shed, and sprink- 
 led, as atoning blood, and then the Israelite f^astta 
 upon the body. Unleavened bread and bitter 
 herbs were used; and as wine was to be offered 
 with all their sacrifices, it appears to have been 
 used aho in this ordinance in aftertimes;; 
 
 The objects, or uses of the passover, were three; 
 to distinguish God's people from all others— to pwi 
 
 *Exo. xii. 14. t Verse 27. 
 \Xurn. xv 4 and xxviii. LukexxiL 17, 18, 
 
LETTER IV. 3S 
 
 •mmorate their redemption from Egypt, and to signi- 
 fy typically the Lord Jesus as the true, atoning 
 sacrifice. The apostle says, " Christ our passover 
 is sacrificed for us."* 
 
 It claims our attention at this time particularly 
 as a distinguishing ordinance. And the question to 
 be determined is, who partook of it, and were thus 
 distinguished as God's peculiar people? Was it a 
 separating line between parents and their little ones? 
 Did this positive institution break in upon the fam- 
 ily unity, established by the law of nature, and 
 throw off the children from their affectionate par- 
 ents? One might suppose that these questions ad- 
 mit of but one answer. But here, strange to tell, 
 I am at issue, not merely with my Baptist, but 
 also with my Pasdobaptist brethren. All that I 
 have conversed with deny that little children par* 
 took of the passover, according to its institution and 
 observance among. the Israelites. I must therefore 
 endeavor to show that this positive ordinance did 
 not violate God's law of nature, and that children 
 from three years old and upwards did partake of 
 it with their parents. 
 
 All the congregation were to kill the lamb; and 
 they were to eat it by families; that is, each family 
 was to kill and eat a lamb, and if one family was 
 too small then two were to unite together. Now it 
 must be granted that there were many families, in 
 Israel, in which all the members, except the par- 
 
 * 1 Cor. v. 7. 
 
 E* 
 
5* LETTER IV. 
 
 ents were under twelve years of age. In such inr 
 stances did the parents go from their houses and leave 
 their little ones, there, and unite with families where 
 all were above twelve years — where there were no 
 little ones ! Verily, this would have been so repugnant 
 to nature, that it would have required a more expli- 
 cit and imperious command than will be found in 
 the twelfth of Exodus. There is nothing said there, 
 of separating families — of leaving houses and little 
 children exposed to the destroying angel, without 
 the blood of sprinkling. There are no directions 
 to the parents to kill, and eat, with their grown sons 
 and daughters, but to drive back their little ones. 
 All the members of the families, except the infants, 
 identified with their mothers, had usually took their 
 stand, or seat with their parents around the family 
 table. This table on the passover night became 
 the table of the Lord — there was no provision in 
 the house but the unleavened bread, and the body 
 of the paschal lamb* — they are spread upon the 
 Lord's Table — the Father of mercies and the God 
 of all comfort presides — he says to the family come 
 and eat — they all young and old come forward — 
 and who now will make the separation? Who will 
 step forward and say, the Father, whose this table 
 is, meant by the family only the parents and those 
 who have arrived at mature age — the years of dis- 
 cretion? Why Sir, we must look for such bold, and 
 heaven daring expositors somewhere else tjian 
 * Verse 15. 
 
LETTER IV, 66 
 
 among the simple hearted Iraelites, or those unfet- 
 tered by " the doctrines and commandments of 
 men." All such exposition appears to be preclu- 
 ded by the maker of the feast. " According to the 
 number of the souls, every man according to his 
 eating, shall make your count for the lamb." The 
 number of souls in the house were to be counted — 
 but this in some instances, would include infants; 
 true — and can infants eat the flesh of the lamb, and 
 the unleavened bread and bitter herbs? No, and 
 therefore some restriction must be made with res- 
 pect to the number of souls; and this restriction is 
 added, u every man according to his eating" — that 
 is, according to his caters. Every man knew how 
 many of his family eat at the family table, and he 
 knew how much they usually eat at an ordinary 
 meal ; and thus he was to make his calculation with 
 respect to the passover. How any person, from 
 such plain definite language, could take up the idea 
 that little children, weaned from the breast and par- 
 taking of the family table, were debarred from par- 
 taking of the passover, is truly marvellous. 
 
 2. If little children did not partake of the passo- 
 ver, how did it operate as a distinguishing ordinance? 
 The face of the history shows that it was intended, 
 and did actually separate between the families of 
 the Israelites and Egyptians — between the circum- 
 cised, and the tincircumcised. It is said explicitly, 
 that no stranger should eat of it. And in aftertimes 
 if any stranger would eat of it ? all his males were 
 
3tf LETTER IV. 
 
 first to be circumcised. Now if all his males who 
 eat at his table were not to eat of the passover, 
 and if even the infant on the mother's breast, and 
 identified with her, was not to be present, why 
 must they all be circumcised? In one ordinance 
 they and their parents are recognizee and distin- 
 guished as the Lord's people ; in the other some of 
 them are recognised, and distinguished as his, and 
 the others are disowned and put out with the un- 
 
 :umeised! Thus the passover would operate 
 upon the family of the stranger coming in among 
 God's people, and thus it would operate upon the 
 families of Israel. And instead of having the line 
 drr.wn between the Egyptians and Israelites, the 
 circumcised and uncircumcised, it runs through the 
 families of the latter, and separates all the little ones 
 from the parents, and their elder brothers and sia* 
 faffSj and throws them among the former! 
 
 3. The demand which God made by Moses and 
 Aaron upon Pharaoh, was, u let my people go that 
 they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness." 
 And this feast is called, "a sacrifice unto the Lord."* 
 When Pharaoh was sorely pressed with the judg- 
 ments of God, he enquired of Moses and Aaron, 
 Who should go to hold this feast? They replied, 
 * we will go with our YOUNG, and with our old, 
 with our sons and with our daughters, -with our 
 flocks and v.ith our herds, will we go: for we must 
 Lolu a least unto the Lord. And he said i^ito thorn* 
 
 * Exo. * 1-3 andx. 9, 23- 
 
LETTER TV. 57 
 
 let the Lord do so with you as I will let you go and 
 your little cries"* The reason why the flocks and 
 herds must go, was afterwards explained — they 
 were necessary for sacrifice. But where was the 
 necessity of the little ones going if they were not to 
 partake of the Lord's feast, and sacrifice? Wheth- 
 er the passover was particularly meant by this feist 
 or not, does not affect my argument. The passover 
 was a feast, and a sacrifice unto the Lord, or a fev.st 
 upon a sacrifice, and therefore required the same 
 qualifications in those who partook that any c*her 
 feast upon a sacrifice did, and no objection* can be 
 produced against little ones, pp.rtakmg of the passo- 
 ver, that will not be equally strong agam*;t their 
 partaking of any feast upon a sacrifice to the Lord* 
 Pharaoh wished, as a cruel monster, to violate the 
 law of nature and separate them from their par- 
 ents ; but Moses and Aaron said, " we hold a feast 
 unto the Lord," therefore the little ones must ac- 
 company us — we cannot appear at the feast o? ,: ft£ 
 Lord T>Uliout them. He might have ~f«ed ^ith 
 the logic of modern times p- j said > "what is the 
 use of their attendo^- — ^ ^ ls a ^ east to tfV3 *-^-d 
 it is holy, and they will profane it — If it is a sacri- 
 fice, it is significant, and requires f he exercise of 
 mat are understandings, which they have not, and 
 -fore they are precluded. 5 " 
 
 Will any one say that the little ones were to go 
 to be mere spectators : and that when their parents 
 
 *JEa». x. 10. 
 
38 LETTER IV. 
 
 feasted upon the sacrifice of the Lord at his table, 
 they were pushed off to eat something else by them- 
 selves? This is too grossly absurd to be serious- 
 ly urged by any rational man. The feast of the 
 passover was one of the feasts celebrated in the 
 wilderness ;* and the law of its institution stands thus, 
 " seven days shall there be no leaven found in youi> 
 houses: for whosoever eateth that which is leaven- 
 ed, even that SOUL shall be cut off from the congre- 
 gation of Israel, whether he be a stranger or born 
 in the land. Ye shall eat nothing leavened: in all 
 your habitations shall ye eat unleavened bread"} 
 Here every 6oul was shut up to a participation in 
 this feast, or to cutting off and starvation. It may 
 be said that the little children partook of the feast 
 of the passover, but not of the passover itself, or of 
 the flesh of the lamb. This is a distinction worthy 
 a Jesuistical casuist. Upon the same principle, 
 and with as good reason, there may a distinction be 
 meuj e between the bread and the wine in the Lord's 
 SnppPT; ana ^ p one \y e made common for diiWim 
 and the other sacreo, f OT t ^ e a dult. But on the 
 night that the passover was r^* celebrated, when 
 all the family that could walk, and for want of 
 wagons, or carriages, must walk, and had a hard 
 days march before them, were drawn up around 
 the paschal table, with their loins girded, their shoes 
 on their (eeU and their staves in their hand, and re- 
 quired to eat in haste, did not the little ones need thf? 
 *Num. ix. 1Exo. xii. 19, 
 
LETTER IV. o9 
 
 •<i)hole supper as much as the older and more robust? 
 How could they be put off with the unleavened 
 bread and bitter herbs? Admit that a thing so un- 
 natural and unfeeling could be commanded, and 
 attempted, could it be carried out? Could the lit- 
 tle children be made to submit to sucn a regula- 
 tion? I believe it would be utterly impracticable 
 in any family with which I have been acquainted. 
 If these little ones were to partake of the feast of 
 the Lord, the feast of the passover, they inevitably 
 partook of the paschal lamb. 
 
 4. Inclosing my remarks upon the proof in Exo. 
 xii. in favour of little children partaking of the 
 passover, I would simply notice the fact, that they 
 were contemplated as being present in aftertimes 4 
 and enquiring of their parents the nature of the or- 
 dinance. How soon children would take notice of 
 so singular and unusual a meal, and make enquiries 
 respecting it, every one may easily determine. 
 Children are very inquisitive and discerning at 
 three years of age. Why were they to be present 
 and to fcave the ordinance explained to them, if they 
 were not to partake? So far, we have found noth- 
 ing in the positive constitutions of God that violates 
 his law of nature aad breaks up the family unity 
 which he has established. Yours, &c. 
 
BETTER 
 
 t>« 
 
 i 
 The subject continued — Argument from the Congre- 
 gation of the Lord — Elkanah and his family — ■ 
 Passover observed by King Josiah — Jewish practice~~ 
 Certain propositions considered proved. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 The testimony in favor of little chil- 
 dren partaking of the passover which was consider- 
 ed in the last letter is so clear and decisive to my 
 mind that some apology seems necessary for addu- 
 cing more. The subject is important, and it estab« 
 iished will have a decisive bearing on the rights and 
 duties of baptized children. The evidence, which 
 to my mind is conclusive may not be so to the mind 
 of another, especially on a point where strong prej- 
 udices and a favorite system must be relinquished. 
 In such cases I am aware that God must speak once^ 
 yea twice, yea many times, before the mind is car- 
 ried. It may not be unnecessary therefore to con- 
 sider the additional and corroborating testimony 
 furnished by the scriptures and the Jewish writings. 
 
 I find that an incorrect notion prevails respecting 
 the Congregation of L*e Lord, and which alone in 
 times subsequent to its first institution was to par- 
 partake of the passover. This congregation did 
 
LETTER V. 61 
 
 not include all the nation of Israel, as is generally 
 supposed. There went up out of Egypt, a mixed 
 multitude.* Many strangers, and uncircumcised 
 attached themselves to the Israelites. They so- 
 journed among them — and in subsequent times we 
 find the stranger and the children of Belial, and 
 many unclean persons belonging to, and living in 
 the nation. These however did not belong to the 
 Congregation of the Lord — they were not permitted 
 even to enter it. All ex-communicated persons 
 whether for a shorter or longer period were exclu- 
 ded from this congregation — they however continu- 
 ed subjects of the nation, unless in some cases when 
 capitally punished. This congregation was select- 
 ed out of the nation, and when actually formed 
 there was always a visible and distinct separation 
 made. Such from among the heathen as renounced 
 idolatry, professed allegiance to the God of Israel, 
 and were circumcised, became members of this con- 
 gregation.! But the illegitimate Israelites, and the 
 Ammonites and Moabites could not enter it until 
 the tenth generation, but the Edomite and Egyp- 
 tian could enter in the third.| The unclean who 
 were put out of this congregation for a time, if they 
 refused to attend to the prescribed rites of cleans- 
 ing, were to be cut ofT entirely. |{ 
 
 The manner of forming this congregation from 
 
 *Exo. xii. 33. t£ro. xii. 47, 49. Mim.xv. \b. 
 %DeuL xxiii. 2, 3. JYeh. xiii. 1,2, 3. 
 || Lev. xiv. JVum. xix. 20. 
 F 
 
LETTER V. 
 
 time to time shows that it did not include the Na- 
 tion. The Tabernacle was built in the wilderness 
 for the public, and special worship of God. In it 
 was the holy place where the sacrifices were offer- 
 ed, and the most holy, where was the ark of the 
 covenant, and where the high priest alone entered 
 once a year, to make atonement before God for 
 himself and the Congregation. Before the door of 
 the Tabernacle was a large court, where the con- 
 gregation met for worship, offering their sacrifices, 
 and partaking of their holy things. When they ap- 
 peared in this court, they are said to present them- 
 selves before the Lord. The Tabernacle was pitch- 
 ed far off without the camp. The court before it. 
 and all its apartments were holy. The stranger 
 that approached it was to be put to death,* but the 
 Congregation of ihe Lord assembled in the court, 
 and a visible separation from the camp was made, 
 every time they appeared before the Lord. The 
 camp included the nation, the court of the Taberna- 
 cle included exclusively the Congregation of the. 
 Lord. 
 
 The Temple built by Solomon, had, like the Tab- 
 ernacle, three apartments, the most holy place, 
 the holy, and the court of Israel. In the second 
 temple there were added two other courts, called 
 the court of the TVomenand the court of the Gen- 
 tiles. The temple with all its courts was called 
 the house of God, and was holy, but not equally so 
 *Num. i. 51 and iii-10, 38, and xiii. 4-7, 
 
LETTER V. & 
 
 in all its part?. The court of the Gentiles 
 more holy than Jerusalem — the court of the women, 
 and of Israel was more holy than the court of the 
 Gentiles, and the court pf the priests, called the ho- 
 ly place, was more holy than the court of Israel, 
 and the inner court, where was the ark of the cov- 
 enanant, was the holiest of ail.* All who properly 
 composed the congregation of the Lord were priv- 
 ileged with entering the court of Israel, and there 
 presenting themselves before the Lord and parta- 
 king of his ordinances, and uniting in all the acts 
 of worship belonging to that court. Watchmen and 
 porters were placed at the eastern gate, the gate 
 of entrance, to prevent the stranger, the uncircum- 
 cised, and unclean from profaning the house of God. 
 It is thus very evident that Israel, as a nation, did 
 not compose, or constitute the Congregation of the 
 Lord, which formed, from time to time, and often 
 daily in the tabernacle, and afterwards in the tem- 
 ple. 
 
 One thing respecting this congregation, the court, 
 where it assembled, and the ordinances there en- 
 joyed, is worthy of particular notice, viz. there was 
 no difference between them with respect to holiness. 
 If a person was holy enough to be a member of the 
 congregation, he was sufficiently holy to enter the 
 court of the tabernacle, and there appear before 
 God in all ordinances and worship prescribed for 
 that court. Actual membership in the congrega- 
 ted, ix. 3. Browns Ant. Jens. vol. i. 201, 202. 
 
64 LETTER V. 
 
 tion ensured a participation, in the court of the 
 tabernacle, of all its privileges. Hence we have 
 a profanation of God's house and sanctuary com- 
 plained of more frequently than a profanation of 
 his ordinances. Of this you may satisfy yourself 
 by the use of a concordance, and a reference to the 
 texts, at the bottom of the page.* The watchmen 
 and officers of God's house were not left to consider 
 any as sufficiently holy for membership in the Lord's 
 congregation, and at the same time too unholy to 
 enter his courts- or as holy enough to enter his 
 courts, and too unholy to partake of the holy thing? 
 there to be enjoyed. 
 
 These statemen/s now made and the proof refer- 
 red to in support of them, I shall consider correct 
 and valid, not liable to be even controverted. 
 
 Our enquiry now shall be, did little children be- 
 long to the congregation of the Lord., mid did they en- 
 ter with their parents into the court of 'fie tabernacle 
 and temple, and there appear before him ? The follow- 
 ing texts of scripture may determine this question. 
 i4 Thrice in the year shall all your men children ap- 
 pear before the Lord God, the God of Israel.! And 
 Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah 
 and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord, before the 
 new court. And all Judah stood before the Lord, 
 with their little ones, their wives and their children."}. 
 
 *Lcv. xix,30,and 21. xii, 23, and 22. ix, 15. 
 Num. i. 3, 10, 38, and 1 8. vii. 32, and 1 0, 20. 2 
 Chron. xxxvi. 14. Eze. xxii. 26,andxxiii. 38,& xliv. 
 7. Zeph. iii. 4. Zech. xiv. 21. Mat. xxi. 12, 13. Acts. 
 21. 28. ]Exa. xxxiv. 23. t 2. Chron, xx. 5, 13. 
 
LETTER V. 6 
 
 Here little ones, and i 
 
 The free will offerings of G of the 
 
 Lord, and the : 
 ted under the com; 
 
 and Levites, touted, 4 '?- . the great 
 
 is to the small', .eir genea ! 
 
 THREE YEARS old and upward, 
 one that ENTERETH INTO THE HOUSE of 
 the Lord. And to the genealogy of all their little 
 ones, their wives, and their sons and their daugh- 
 ters -through all the congregation... 
 
 ! ^zra had prayed, and when he had 
 confe • | ;ng, and casting himself down before 
 
 af God, (i. e. in the court of Israel) there 
 'led unto him out of Israel a very great con- 
 gregation of men, and women and children.] Blow 
 the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn 
 assembly. Gather the people, sanctify the congre- 
 gation, assemble the elders, gather the children and 
 and those that suck the breasts.-"! The little chii- 
 babes and sucklings, hailed Jesus in the 
 le, and there tg his praises.!! These 
 
 itions are t.o show tie children 
 
 belonged to the coi e Lord, a 
 
 tbers of that congregation entered into the 
 
 house of God, and . before him. If 
 
 so, they must have partook of the holy thing - 
 
 sacrifices there offered, and feasted on by their par- 
 
 The oblations and sacrifices offered in the 
 
 *2 Chron, xxx'. 14-20. \Ezfa xii. 1. 
 % Joel ii. 15-16. '. xxi. 15, l^;. 
 
 F* 
 
6<? LETTER V. 
 
 house of God, were divided into the most holy, 
 enten by the priests — the holy eaten by the Levites. 
 and common people in the tabernacle, or temple, 
 and the less holy, which were takenhome, and eaten 
 in private families.* Accordingly the distribution was 
 made, 2 Chron. 31 and made to the children of three 
 years old and upward. The children of the priests 
 partook with their parents — the children of the Lev- 
 ites with their parents, &c. This was according to the 
 law given by Moses, as you may see by consulting, 
 Lev. vi. 16,17. and xxii. 5-16. Num. xviii. 8-32. 
 Deaut. xii. 7. and xiv. 24-26. Will any one say that 
 the sacrifice of the passover is not particularly men* 
 tioned in the feasts and sacrifices of which the chil- 
 dren, the little children partook with their parents, 
 and therefore this proof is inconclusive? I answer, 
 that the objection is without force, unless it be 
 shown that the passover was not a sacrifice, or that 
 there was something in it singular, and which made 
 it improper for little ones. 
 
 Again, the passover was one of the three feasts 
 at which all the males were to appear annually, be- 
 fore the Lord. For what did they come up to Je- 
 rusalem, and how could they appear before the 
 Lord in this ordinance unless they partook with 
 their parents? Would the males, who had arrived 
 at maturity have complied with the requisition, if 
 they had merely presented themselves in the court 
 of the house, and not eaten of the Lamb ? But law 
 is express on this point.! The history of Elkanah. 
 
 * Brown? s Ant. Jews. vol. 1, 340. 
 
 Weaut. xii. .5-1 8. and xiv. 22-26. 
 
LETTER V. 67 
 
 the father of Samuel, the prophet, affords something 
 like a practical comment on the observance of the 
 passover among the Israelites. 4i He had two wives ; 
 the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of 
 the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children 
 but Hannah had no children. And this man went 
 up out of his city yearly to worship, and to sacri- 
 fice unto the Lord of Hosts in Shiloh. And the 
 two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of 
 the Lord were there. And when the time was fhat 
 Elkanah offered, he gave to Peninnah his wife, and 
 to all her sons and daughters portions: but unto 
 Hannah he gave a worthy portion."* Again, after 
 samuel was born, it is said, " the man Elkanah and 
 all his house, (^that is all his family) went up to of- 
 fer unto the Lord the yearly sacrifice and his vow."t 
 And when Samuel was weaned, that is, was some- 
 where about three years old, he was taken up and 
 admitted into the tabernacle, there to stay and min- 
 ister. 
 
 Upon this part of the same history I make the 
 following remarks. 
 
 1. There must have been little ones in the fami- 
 ly of Elkanah. All his sons and daughters by Pen- 
 innah could not have been grown at the birth of 
 Samuel. 
 
 2. As all his family went with him to offer sacri- 
 fice, they all must have partook of it with him. And 
 it is said explicitly that he gave them portions, or 
 parts of the offering. 
 
 * 1 Sam, i. 2-5, t Verse 21. 
 
bS TTER t 
 
 3, V 1 wai ee years old, he 
 went up h ifcfa s the family as usual, and the annual 
 ?jcrifice was offered and E gave portions, a^ 
 usual, to ail his sons and dai 
 
 Samuel included, or exclo 
 
 4. Unless it can be prove . rhree 
 annual festivals observed by the Isr .as more 
 holy than another; and that the sacrifice of the 
 passover was so different frcm the sacrifice in 
 
 i at little children might partake of 
 the latter, but necessarily be debarred from the for- 
 frill not affect my argument to deny that 
 a al sacrifice attended on by Elkanah and all 
 his family, was the passover. I am constrained to 
 take it as a fact, that must be conceded, that if lit- 
 tle children from three years old and upward par- 
 
 : of the sacrifice to the Lord in one of the three 
 annual festivals, they partook, with the same pro- 
 priety, and under the same law, of the sacrifice in 
 all of them. But why may we not understand by 
 
 yearly sacrifice of Elkanah each of the three 
 annual festivals instituted by God, for the obser- 
 vance of all Israel? If Elkanah was a conscien- 
 cious observer of one, why not of all? There is little 
 doubt in my mir.d that he did observe all thai the 
 children of Israel then observed ; but there arc cer- 
 tain circumstances in the history of Elkanah's year- 
 ly sacrifice that show that it was none other than 
 the sacrifice of the passover. All the men chil- 
 dren — all the males, were to appear thrice in the 
 
LETTER V. 69 
 
 year before the Lord; but there was no special law 
 requiring the attendance of the females. But the 
 law respecting the passover required that, " the 
 whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall 
 kill it in the evening." But they were to kill it by 
 their families, a lamb for a family.* This included 
 the females. And accordingly the Jews understood 
 the law respecting the passover and the two other 
 annual festivals. They said that the women were 
 bound as well as the men to attend the passover.t 
 Now Elkanah and all his family went up to offer 
 unto the Lord the yearly sacrifice — his two wives 
 and his sons and his daughters; and even little 
 Samuel took his portion along with them, when not 
 more than three yeas of age. It may be said that 
 on this occasion, only three bullocks were taken 
 along for sacrifice, and no mention made of a Lamb 
 for the passover, and that Samuel, and the other 
 minors of the family partook only of the sacrifices 
 which accompanied the passover. This is the Jesuit- 
 ical distinction already exploded. It is no of force ; 
 for these sacrifices were eaten in the courts of the 
 Lord's house, but the body of the paschal lamb 
 was carried home, or to the private lodgings, and 
 eaten there, and thus was the less holy sacrifice, 
 The paschal lamb must be provided on the tenth 
 day of the month, and kept up until the fourteenth; 
 and hence when the passover was to be celebrated 
 in the one place which the Lord should choose, 
 *Exo. xii. 3, 6. 1 Lewis' Heb. Rep. Book iv. Chap. 3* 
 
7© LETTER Y. 
 
 lambs were provided, and kept in readiness by 
 priests and Leviies, and sold to the people, as they 
 needed.* When the parents of Samuel, there I 
 went up to observe the passoverat Shiioh, we are 
 not to expect to find the paschal lamb mentioned 
 with the three bullocks for sacrifice. According 
 to the law, Samuel should have been presented be- 
 fore the Lord with sacrifice shortly after his birth.t 
 It was, however, delayed, because he was to be 
 dedicated entirely, and forever to the Lord, to 
 abide and minister in his house. His mother chose 
 the passover occasion, to make the necessary sac- 
 rifices of redemption, and special dedication. Hence 
 three bullocks were taken up on this occasion. 
 
 The proof and argument here advanced to show 
 that the annual sacrifice on which Elkanah and all 
 his family attended was the passover, are strongly 
 supported by the practice of Joseph and Mary, the 
 parents of Jesus. It is said, " his parents went to 
 Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. 
 And when he was twelve years old they went up 
 to Jerusalem, after the custom of the feast."[| Jo- 
 seph might have attended the other annual festivals, 
 by himself, but his wife attended with him at the 
 passover, as was the custom from the days of Elka- 
 nah. 
 
 You must bear with me whilst I produce some 
 
 * Lewis* Heb, Rep. Book iv. Chap. 3. Dent xiv. 
 24-26. \Luke\u 22-24. || Luke ii. 41, 42. 
 
LETTER V. 71 
 
 scriptural proof in favor of little children partaking 
 of the passover. We have seen from 2 Chonicles 
 31, that the most holy things, and the free-will of- 
 fering and oblations were distributed to the males 
 from three years old and upwards — to all their lit- 
 tle ones, their wives and their sons and their daugh- 
 ters. It may be argued that the distribution was 
 made only to the little ones of the priests and levites. 
 Should this be admitted nothing is gained. For if 
 the little ones of the priests and levites eat of the 
 same holy things that the parents eat, then the lit- 
 tle ones of the common people eat of the same ho- 
 ly things that their parents did. That they did 
 eat of the passover, with their parents, observed 
 by Josiah, as recorded in the 35th Chapter, there 
 can be no doubt. On this occasion, " Josiah gave 
 to the people, of the flock, lambs and kids, all for 
 the PASSOVER OFFERINGS, for all that were 
 present to the number of thirty thousand, and three 
 thousand bullocks, these were of the King's sub- 
 stance."* The priests, Levites and people were 
 supplied in like manner by the princes. The dis- 
 tribution was made for all that were present — were 
 no families present? no little ones? If there were, 
 would not the distribution be made as it was made 
 uider Hezekiah a few years before, when all the 
 little ones, from three years old, partook? The 
 paschal lambs and kids, as well as the other victims, 
 are, in this instance, specified. It is said that no 
 * Verse 7. 
 
72 LETTER V. 
 
 passover, such as this kept by Josiah, had been kept 
 in Israel since the days of Samuel. Did its singu- 
 larity, and glory consist in this, that it was not cele- 
 brated by families — that all little ones were exclu- 
 ded? 
 
 If the proof now advanced from the word of God 
 does not satisfy you and every candid man, that lit- 
 tle children, from three years of age, partook of the 
 passover, I shall despair of producing conviction on 
 any subject, by mere scriptural authority. 
 
 There appears no necessity, after such an array 
 of scriptural proof, to have recourse to Jewish au- 
 thorities, or Jewish practice in favour of little chil- 
 dren partaking of the passover. It may however 
 be satisfactory to know what that authority and 
 practice were. Josephus says, all the people cel- 
 ebrated the passover having purified themselves 
 with their wives and their children.* Buxtorf says, 
 the cup of wine was administered to everyone, the 
 younger as well as the older, and even to infants.! 
 Lewis, in his Antiquities of the Hebrew republic, thus 
 writes. " Ordinarily were men, women and chil- 
 dren, masters and servants (if circumcised) en- 
 tertained together," at the passover. "There were 
 two, or three cakes of unleavened bread provided, 
 and the eating of this bread they thought so abso- 
 lutely necessary, that it was to be offered to infants, 
 and sick persons; and if they were not able to eat 
 it dry, they had it soft and macerated in something li- 
 * Ant* xi. iv. 8. t Synagoga Judaica Chap, xiii. 
 
LETTER V. 73 
 
 quid, that so they might eat of it, at the least to the 
 quantity of an olive."* 
 
 Those who were excused from attending the 
 three feasts of the passover, pentecost and tabernacles 
 were the following: the deaf, the dumb, the foolish, 
 :he lame, the. unclean, and the uncircumcised, those 
 that were very old, the sick, tender, and unable to 
 travel on foot, and infants till they were able to 
 walk up to the mountain of the house holding their 
 fathers by the hand.j 
 
 It was the custom of the children, or some others 
 to enquire into the nature of the supper, and if there 
 were none who enquired, the president explained. 
 * * * * * |{- g enera ]ly happened that there were 
 children, whom he kindly addressed, according to 
 their capacity. IS very young he would say, chil- 
 dren, we were all servants like this maid servant 
 or this man servant that waiteth, and on this night, 
 many years ago, the Lord redeemed us and brought 
 us to liberty. But to children of greater capacity, 
 and the rest of the company he would particularly 
 relate the wonders done in Egypt, &c.".{ 
 
 The modern Jews observe the passover in the 
 following manner. " The matron of the family 
 spreads the table ; sets upon it two unleavened cakes, 
 
 *Book iv. Chap. 3. This mas attributing a super- 
 stitious virtue to the bread and wine.-^- Editor. 
 
 ILewis. Book iv. Chap. 3. Brown's jS.hU Jews. 
 Vol. ii. 168. % Brown's Ant. of the Jews. First 
 
 4mer.Edi.voL i. p. 412. 
 
 G 
 
74 LETTER V. 
 
 and two pieces of Lamb, viz. a shoulder boiled, and 
 a shoulder roasted, to which she adds bitter herb-, 
 g CCt * * * # The table being furnished, the father 
 of the family sits with his children and servants, be- 
 cause his ancestors were once slaves in Egypt* 
 takes of the bitter herbs, dips them in the mustard. 
 •distributes the remainder among the rest; divides 
 also the pieces of the lamb, &c."* 
 
 The following extract from Lewis appears to 
 hold forth the idea that children did- not partake of 
 the passover until they were thirteen years of age. 
 " During the time the boy is learning the Jive Books. 
 "he is called the son of the law. and when he is thir- 
 teen 3"ears old, he is styled the son of the precept ; for 
 now the youth receives the passover, and is purified : 
 until he comes to be a son of the precept, the Fath- 
 er stands chargeable for all his miscarriages, but at 
 thirteen years old the lad being supposed to be able 
 to discern virtue from vice, and good from evil, he 
 is bound to answer for his own faults."! Does Lew- 
 is here contradict what he had before asserted? 
 By no means. Until the child arrived at thirteen 
 it was his privilege to partake of the passover, but 
 it lay with his parents whether he partook or not. 
 If they lived so far from Jerusalem that they could 
 not take up their little ones, they were excused, and 
 their little ones were not accountable to the public 
 officers. At thirteen they were accountable, and 
 
 * Brown's Ant. of the Jczcs. First Amer. Edi, vol. i, 
 p, 428. f Book vi, Chap, 39, 
 
LETTER V* 
 
 bound to partake of the passover. Before it was 
 their privilege; and the duty of the father to put 
 them in the enjoyment of their privilege, if no natur- 
 al, or legal, obstacle rendered it impracticable— 
 but now, it was at once their privilege and their duty ; 
 and if they refused to enjoy their privilege and per- 
 form their duty they were liable to be cut off by 
 the judges.* This was the law respecting all that 
 were accountable to the rulers for their conduct, 
 and would not partake of the passover. When a 
 man was unclean, or on a journey so that he was 
 prevented observing the passover on the fourteenth 
 day of the first month, there was a second passover 
 for such on the fourteenth day of the second month ; 
 and he who was clean and not on a journey, and 
 would not keep the passover was to be cut off.t If 
 unclean, it appears they had a month to attend to 
 the duty of cleansing, but no longer. They could 
 not plead, that the time was too short — that they 
 could not cleanse themselves, and that God must do 
 it for them; and that until he did it for them, ex- 
 communication must be delayed.^ 
 
 The following propositions may now be consider- 
 ed as established. 
 
 * Lewis as before cited. INum. ix. 10-14. 
 
 \Until the preceding evidence was submitted to the 
 Kentucky Synod, I found none who would grant that lit- 
 tle children partook of the passover, and some said if 
 it could be prove <i, thuh < i^ht to the Lorars Supper 
 would be established beyond all refutation. This is run 
 apology for spending $p much time on this point, 
 
76 LETTER V. 
 
 1 . Infancy among the Jews, and according to the 
 law of God, natural and revealed, included three 
 years from the birth ; and that children of this pe- 
 riod, were identified with the mother, and that no 
 provision was made for them in the feasts upon the 
 sacrifices, offered to the Lord. 
 
 2. When three years old there was provision 
 made for them — they partook of the passover with 
 their parents ; and of the other holy things, as their 
 privilege, until thirteen years of age and then it be- 
 came their indispensible duty. 
 
 3. Those who were unprepared to partake of the 
 passover according to the law, and did not become 
 prepared in a month, were excommunicated. 
 
 4. The religious, and positive institutions of God 
 in the Old Testament, particularly the passover, 
 did not violate the law of nature establishing the 
 family unity, by which children, until capable of 
 acting for themselves, are identified with their par- 
 ents, and live, and enjoy privileges through them. 
 
 Whether the laws of God, natural and revealed, 
 contained in the above propositions have been re- 
 pealed, will be a question for future consideration. 
 
 Yours, &c. 
 
LETTER 6. 
 
 The Law of the, Passover riot annulled — but hi jl-rc? 
 with respect to the Lord's Supper — proved from tho 
 Scriptures; and that Utile children did 'partake of 
 this ordinance under the administration of the Jpo- 
 iles. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 The Pasdobaptists generally mainuui. 
 that baptism has come in the room of" circumcision, 
 and the Lord's Supper m the room of the passover/ 
 They also contend that the law of church member- 
 ship, by which infants were formerly members has 
 remained unaltered. If this be so, a question arises 
 which we must endeavor to determine; viz. Wa< 
 the law of the passover annulled, and has a new lav> 
 been introduced respecting the Lord's Table by 
 which other terms of admission are required, and 
 little children are excluded, contrary to the origin- 
 al law of nature, tenderly regarded in the Old Tes 
 tament? You must not think it strange, and heret- 
 ical if I take the negative of this question, and en- 
 deavour to support it. If I should have opponents, 
 who take the affirmative, I would request them, to 
 
 * 'This, to my great astonishment was denied in the 
 Synod of Kentucky at its last meetings by two cham** 
 j>ions for the faith ! 
 
78 LETTER VI. 
 
 show explicitly that the law of the passover was re- 
 pealed ; and that the privilege, which little children 
 enjoyed of partaking of the passover was taken from 
 them by the Saviour, or his Apostles, and that he 
 debarred them from the Supper, which he instituted 
 in its place. In other words they must show from 
 the New Testament, that the covenant with Abra- 
 ham, the original charter of the church was altered ; 
 and that new terms of membership and of enjoying 
 distinguishing privileges were introduced. When 
 they have done this and driven me from my posi- 
 tion, how will they face the Baptists, and maintain 
 the membership and baptism of infants? With this 
 hard task, and in this awkard situation I might safe- 
 ly leave all my Pasdobaptist opponents, and spare 
 myself the trouble of any further argument. But 
 to satisfy some, and to remove the prejudice, which 
 has been supported by the practice of ages, it be- 
 comes necessary for me to endeavor to prove the 
 negative — to prove that the law of the passover, is 
 the law of the Lord's supper — to prove that the lit- 
 tle children of baptism are as highly privileged un- 
 der the Saviour, as the little children of circumcis- 
 ion were under Moses ; and that as the latter par- 
 took of the passover the former have the right to 
 partake of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 We have been in the habit of arguing thus against 
 our Baptist brethren. " The membership of chil- 
 dren, in the church, under the Old Testament, 
 and their participation of circumcision were privi- 
 
LETTER VI. T9 
 
 leges, which parents held so dear, and precious, 
 that they never would relinquish them quietly, with? 
 out some equivalent. But not a syllable of com- 
 plaint can be found in the New Testament, against 
 our Saviour, either by friend or foe, for his inter- 
 fering with the law, and custom, and taking away 
 these privileges. The obvious inference is, that he 
 left the membership and privileges of children as 
 they were. Now if it was the privilege of little 
 children to partake of the passover, and if they did 
 partake of it, as often as it was in the power of their 
 parents, is not the argument against the Baptists, as 
 good and valid in my favour, as in favour of infant 
 baptism? Will it not as effectually secure the Lord's 
 Supper, which has come in the room of the passo- 
 over,* to little children, as it will secure infant 
 baptism, which has come in the room of circumcis- 
 ion? Jewish parents would relinquish the one 
 privilege, without murmuring just as soon as the 
 other ; and I do consider this argument in favour of 
 infant baptism, and the communion of little children 
 in the Lord's Supper, strong and unanswerable. 
 So grevious must it have been to Jewish parents, to 
 have their little ones shut out of the house of God, 
 and debarred from his table, where they had so 
 long sat and feasted together, that they must have 
 been prepared for it both by prophecy, and by John 
 
 *As this has been denied recently, by Presbyterians of 
 no inconsiderable standings it will be supported with 
 proof, in a subsequent letter. 
 
so Letter vi. 
 
 the Baptist, or they never would have silently ac- 
 quiesced ; and those who remained the envious, and 
 malignant opposers of Jesus Christ, and never fail- 
 ed to lay hold of every thing which could prejudice 
 the people against him and justify their own con- 
 duct, would certainly not have heen silent, when 
 ihey found him, contrary to the law of nature and 
 o( Moses — the prejudices and tender feelings of 
 parents, and every thing known among men, clear- 
 ing the house of God of little children, and driving 
 them away from the family table. There are no 
 complaints, however, but entire silence, respecting 
 this offence in our Saviour, throughout his history 
 by the Evangelists; and his Apostles stand as free of 
 charge, as he does, on this point. This is strong 
 presumptive proof that children occupied the same 
 standing under Jesus and his Apostles and enjoy- 
 ed substantially the same privileges, which they 
 did under the Abrahamic and Mosaic dispensation. 
 Did prophecy declare so clearly, and decidedly, 
 that children should lose the standing and privi- 
 leges which they enjoyed under Moses, when Mes- 
 siah came; and did John the Baptist so perfectly 
 prepare the Jewish nation to acquiesce in the be- 
 reavement, that no one murmured, or made any 
 complaint when it was inflicted? You will excuse 
 me, Sir, for not attempting to prove this, and will 
 be as well satisfied, if I prove the contrary. 
 
 First, what says the spirit of Prophecy? That 
 ia Abraham, " all the FAMILIES of the earth 
 
LETTER VI. 81 
 
 should be blessed."* As parents and children were 
 included in the covenant which the Lord comman- 
 ded Moses in the Land of Moab, so children are to 
 be included with them in their final restoration from 
 all nations.t That restoration is yet future, and 
 when restored, their religious ordinances, and wor- 
 ship will be christian, not Jewish, and their children 
 will be with them. The Messiah, among other things 
 was not to forget the little ones. " He shall feed 
 his flock like a shepherd; he shall gather the lambs 
 with his arm and carry them in his bosom, for they 
 are the seed of the blessed of the Lord and their 
 offspring with them."! "Their children also shall be 
 as aforetime and their congregation shall be estab- 
 lished before me, and I will punish all that oppress 
 them."1F And they shall dwell in the land that I 
 have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your 
 fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, 
 even they and their children, and their children's chil- 
 dren forever.§ And it shall come to pass that ye 
 shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, 
 and the strangers that sojourn among you, which 
 shall beget children among you; and they shall be 
 unto you as born in the country among the chil- 
 dren of Irael."|| Behold I will send you Elijah the 
 prophet before the coming of the great and dread- 
 ful day of the Lord : and he shall turn the heart of 
 
 * Ge?i.xii. 3. t Dent. xxix. 1, 11. an<3 xxx. 1-3. 
 X ha. xl. 1 1, lxv. 23. %Jer. xxx. 20. §£?e» xxxvii. 
 25. II xlvii. 23. 
 
m. LETTER VI. 
 
 the fathers to the Children^ and the heart of the 
 Children to their fathers, lest I come and will smite 
 the earth with a curse/'* Admitting that the Jew- 
 ish doctors, and lawyers were bad expositors of the 
 law, and the prophets must not they, and every pi- 
 ous reader of the above prophecies understand by 
 them that children were to occupy the same rela- 
 tion, and privileges which they had done from the 
 days of Abraham? Any christian expositor, who 
 understands the plain meaning of words, would ap- 
 ply the passages quoted in their natural, and literal 
 sense. I have omitted man}*, that may with some 
 reason be taken figuratively, that is, children may 
 mean new born, or young converts to Messiah ; but 
 in those produced, this cannot with any propriety 
 be done. Prophecy then did not prepare the Jews 
 silently to suffer their children to be cast out of 
 their church standing and privileges, but cheered 
 them with the hope that the Messiah would reign 
 over and bless them, and their families. 
 
 Did John the Baptist prepare them to give up 
 their children, to have them cast out, and treated 
 as heathen? We are taught explicitly in the New 
 Testament that he was the Elijah spoken of by 
 Malachi; and that he should perform what was 
 there promised and foretold. t If he, therefore, 
 did not prepare fathers and children, that ia fami- 
 lies, for the reception of the Messiah, he did not 
 
 * Mai. iv. 5, 6. See also Psalm, viii. 2. 
 KMat.xi. 13,14. xvii. l?. )?. Luke i. IT.- 
 
LETTER VI. 83 
 
 answer the great purpose for which he was born, 
 and commissioned, as the messenger of the Lord. 
 [ might spare any thing more as proof, or argument 
 that John did turn the heart of the fathers to the 
 children, and the heart of the children to their fath- 
 ers, and thus, " made ready a people prepared for 
 the Lord." But, 1 would call your attention a few 
 minutes to the history of John the Baptist, and our 
 Saviour. 
 
 When, "all Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the 
 region round about Jordan," went out to John, 
 preaching, and baptizing in the wilderness, were 
 there no children included? On two similar occa- 
 sions, when our Saviour fed the multitudes mira- 
 culously, there were women and children present 
 and partook along with the men. If children were 
 then, as they are now, it would have been next to 
 impossible to have kept them away from John. And 
 when many of the Pharisees and Sadducees came to 
 his baptism, and appear to have calculated on r 
 ceiving it without repentance, upon the groun a 
 that they were the children of Abraham, did he in- 
 form them that the covenant of Abraham had come 
 to an end — and that he was to have no more chil- 
 dren — and that children were no longer to inherit 
 the blessing of a name and place in the church? 
 Far from it. He teaches explicitly that Abraham 
 was still to have children, though raised from the 
 stones lying before him — he teaches that the un- 
 fruitful trees were to be cut down and of course 
 
34 LETTER VI. 
 
 the fruitful were to be left standing, in the vine- 
 yard, with all their branches — he teaches, that the 
 Lord, whose way he was preparing, would purge 
 his floor, not burn it up, with the chaff. It may be 
 said that John preached repentance, and that little 
 children could not repent, and therefore they must 
 be excluded from the number prepared for the re- 
 ception of the Messiah. I answer, that by repen- 
 tance, I am taught to understand, a change of views, 
 disposition, and conduct, and particularly, of views, 
 respecting the character and mission of Christ. 
 Now if little children could not repent, the reason 
 must be that they had no need of repentance. They 
 had no views right or wrong respecting the Messi- 
 ah, and were naturally incapable of being convict- 
 ed by John, or any other of cherishing an impro- 
 per disposition, or conducting contrary to the law 
 of God. This being so, they were without blame, 
 and of course were as fit subjects of Christ's reign, 
 as those who were of mature age and repented. 
 But I feel disposed to deny that little children — 
 that is, those between three, and seven years of 
 age, did not need repentance in the days of John. 
 The views, the disposition and the conduct of their 
 parents they would notice, admire, and imitate. 
 Education among the Jews commenced with the 
 children before they were three ye*ars old. And 
 when the hearts of the fathers were turned to their 
 children, they would teach them, and enforce up- 
 on them what John had preached. 
 
LETTER VI. 8* 
 
 Matter of tact show? that families, and families 
 including little children were prepared for the re- 
 ception of the Saviour. He did not smite the earth 
 with a curse. Some families received him into 
 their houses, and enlisted under him as their 
 Messiah. Thus he had a people to reign over, 
 and to exercise some little hospitality towards him* 
 When the master of a house received his Apostles 
 they were to say peace to this house, which was 
 certainly peace to the inhabitants, or to the whole 
 family. And when he himself visited one of these 
 families, and was received, as instructed by John or 
 the Apostles, how could the little children, be ex- 
 cluded from his presence, his friendly notice and 
 blessing? "V Ve are informed explicitly that on one 
 occasion/ keing in a family, Jesus called a little 
 rhil^ t0 mm > -°°k i- U P * n ms arms, and said, " who- 
 mever shall receive this child in my name receiv- 
 ethme.*'* If this little child had not been Christ's 
 and a subject of his reign, it could not have been 
 received in his name. The subject under consid- 
 eratian at the time was, membership in the king- 
 dom of Jesus Christ; and he taught his disciples 
 that they must enter as little children, and that as 
 officers they must receive little children, as he did- 
 Again, little children atanothertime were brought 
 to our Saviour, that he should lay his hands on 
 them and pray. Luke calls them infants, and lit- 
 tle children;! by which we are taught that the> 
 *Mat. xviii. 2-5. Mark, ix. 33-37. and Luke ix. 
 . j 3. \L\ike xviii. 1 5, 1 6. See also Mat, xix. 1 3-1 5 
 H 
 
6# LETTER VI^ 
 
 -were somewhere about three years of age. It ap- 
 pears that the disciples considered them unfit sub- 
 jects of Christ's reign, or Kingdom, and rebuked 
 those that brought them. " But Jesus called them 
 unto him, and said suffer little children to come un- 
 to me, and forbid them not, for of such is the King- 
 dom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall 
 not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, 
 (receives it) shall in no wise enter therein." These 
 children, young as they were, could come to Christ 
 at his call — they were fit subjects of his reign, and 
 in receiving him in his kingdom, or reign, were the 
 models of instruction to all grown persons who 
 would become his subjects. I knew that the com- 
 mon understanding of those words of 0-3 r Saviour is 
 ihat, all must receive Christ in his reign, ^jth the 
 meekness, humility and simplicity of little chiu reii . 
 This is true doctrine, but a false, or incorrect intei 
 pretation. If our Saviour teaches any thing ex- 
 plicitly in this passage, he teaches that little chil- 
 dren were the subjects of his kingdom, and that 
 they had received the kingdom. The grammatical 
 construction, the circumstances of the case, and the 
 scope of the whole, will admit of no other meaning. 
 In support of this interpretation and of my main ar- 
 gument, I would call your attention to the fulfil- 
 ment of the eighth Psalm by the little children in 
 the temple, when our Saviour made his public en- 
 trance into Jerusalem,* If you compare Matthew 
 *Mat» sxi. Mark, xi, Li>h xix,- 
 
LETTER VI. 87 
 
 with Luke, you will find that what one says, the di+ 
 ciples did, the other says the children did ; and these 
 children are called babes and sucklings. They were 
 such, however as could walk up to the mountain of 
 the house; could sing, and be classed with disciples, 
 that is, learners. They received him in the tem- 
 ple as the son of David their father, and their re- 
 ception of him appears to have been so necessary, 
 that had they been silent, the very stones would 
 have cried out. What were the old and middle 
 aged about that they could not perform sufficiently 
 the part performed by these children? The simple 
 fact is, there were few believers in Jesus, in Jerusa- 
 lem ; and those parents who believed, had believing 
 children, and these children were more numerous 
 than the grown believers. The former may have 
 joined the multitude of the disciples that conducted 
 our Saviour into Jerusalem, whilst the children, 
 instructed respecting his character, and prepared 
 to receive him, ran before and occupied the courts 
 of the temple to hail him there. You may say, 
 what is the bearing of all this, as these children 
 were miracuously inspired by the Holy Ghost to 
 perform this part in honour of Christ? I reply, 
 that the Holy Ghost no doubt had moved upon the 
 minds of these children, but he was not yet miracu- 
 lously poured out; and why introduce a miracle, 
 when the fact can be accounted for without? If 
 the parents of these children had been instructed 
 and baptized of John, and if they had heard Jcsi3 
 
88 LETTER VI 
 
 or heard of him, and believed, they would commun^ 
 cate to their children, and their children would 
 believe, and be influenced accordingly. All this 
 would be the result of John the Baptist turning the 
 hearts of the fathers to the children, &x. The 
 bearing of the whole, then is, that John the Bap- 
 tist instead of preparing a people to give up their 
 children to be cast out of their ecclesiastical rela- 
 tion and privileges, prepared, parents and children 
 to receive the Lord Jesus, and they did receive 
 him and were recognized * as the members of hk 
 kingdom. One more instance of our Saviour ex- 
 tending the blessings of his reign to families upor^ 
 the principle of the Abrahamic covenant, I cannot 
 omit. It is that of the family of Zaccheus.* This 
 man appears to have been truly made a new crea- 
 ture, and when he received Christ as a guest at his 
 table, much to the offence of the Jews, " Jesus said 
 unto him, this day is salvation come to this house, 
 for as much as he also is a son of Abraham." The 
 building in which Zaccheus dwelt did not need the 
 salvation of God; it must be understood, therefore? 
 as house, often is, in the scriptures, for the family. 
 In Abraham all the families of the earth were to be 
 blessed, and the family of Zaccheus was blessed 
 because he was a son of Abraham. Take this and 
 all that had been advanced on this subject, together 
 with Christ's charge to Peter to feed his sheep and 
 
 lamb«, and what we have in the acts of the Apo>- 
 
 * fake xix. 2, 10. 
 
LETTER VI. 89 
 
 ties and the writings of Paul, and the conclusion is 
 inevitable, that parents and children stand, and en- 
 joy privileges in the church of Jesus Christ as they 
 did before his incarnation. 
 
 Let us now attend to another view of the sub- 
 ject. We have generally taken it for granted thai 
 baptism has come in room of circumcision, and the 
 Lord's Supper in the room of the passover. The 
 fact appears to be, that the heathen were taken in- 
 to the church of God among the Jews by three 
 rites, viz# circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice : but 
 when Christ came and shed his blood, the bloody 
 rites of circumcision, and sacrifice ceased to be ob- 
 ligatory, or necessary, and baptism was retained as 
 answering every purpose. In the passover the 
 flesh of the lamb, unleavened bread and bitter 
 herbs, and wine were the symbols used — in the 
 Lord's Supper, the bread <md wine were retained, 
 and the other symbols laid aside. The table of the 
 Lord in the passover was his table in the Supper. It 
 was not even drawn, and spread again. All there- 
 fore who sa^ at it in the passover, must be consid- 
 ered worthy to continue it when the bread, and the 
 wine ^ere again consecrated, as the symbols of the 
 Ne^v Testament. Had little children been there 
 celebrating, according to custom, would the Sa- 
 viour have removed them, when he took and ad- 
 ministered the bread and wine the second time ? I 
 know there were none there, nor were there any 
 
 H* 
 
90 LETTER \l 
 
 women; but supposing they had been there, woula 
 they have been made to rise and walk off ? 
 
 Before I advance apostolic"example, and author- 
 ity to prove that ihe law of the passover, was net 
 repealed bat continued as the law of the Lord's 
 Supper, some remarkson the place and manner of 
 forming the Lord's congregation in the New Tes- 
 tament, and of partaking of that ordinance,, are ne- 
 cessary. We have seen hew the Lord's congregation, 
 was formed under the Mosaic dispensation. When 
 our Saviour tabernacled in flesh, the synagogue 
 worship had been instituted: and he by his joining 
 in this worship and preaching in the Jewish syna- 
 gogues, sanctioned the same. The synagogues- 
 were built after the form of the temple, and con- 
 sidered holy. The congregation there assembling 
 must be holy. No heathen, or unclean person was 
 permitted to enter, and unite with the congrega- 
 tion in their worship. A iew under the sentence 
 of the first degree of ex-communication might be 
 present, but was not permitted to tome nearer any 
 other, than four cubits, (about six fee\-) and when 
 he was delivered over to satan, by the sentence of 
 the higher ex-communication, he could no more en- 
 ter the synagogue. He was then literally cast out-. 
 and was to be treated as an heathen and a puWi- 
 can.* Thus the expressions, of casting out — putting 
 out — ihem that ai» without — and them that are within* 
 
 * Lewis. Book i. Chap 9. John ix. 22, 34. xvj* 
 % Mat. x^iri- 17- 
 
LETTER VI. 91 
 
 which we find used in the New Testament, respec • 
 ting the ex-communication of church members — - 
 and those who belong to the church and those who 
 do not, signify literally a putting out of the house of 
 worship, and those who were permitted, or not per- 
 mitted to be present in the religious assembly iu. 
 the celebration of their sacred rites. The large- 
 upper rooms which were used for celebrating the 
 passover, one of which our Saviour and his disci- 
 ples occupied were not common to all who might 
 wish to attend as spectators. All who did not par- 
 take, were excluded. In these large upper room-: 
 we find the disciples assembling after* our Saviour's 
 ascension;* and it is very evident that none but the 
 disciples were present. After sometime they as-* 
 sembled in houses procured, or erected for the 
 purpose of accommodating large numbers; and these 
 houses were called churches j\ as well as the congre* 
 gation that assembled in them for worship. The 
 heathen and unbelievers might attend without, or 
 at the doors to hear the word, and in later times 
 might be admitted within, but they were not per- 
 mitted to be present when the Lord's Supper was 
 administered. This custom continued in the church 
 until the fourth century.J How it came to be dis- 
 pensed with, and persons permitted to attend as 
 spectators, without partaking, I may hereafter give 
 some account. This we may rely upon as a fact 
 
 *.fas i. 13. and xx. 8. t 1 Cor, xi. 10. and i. % 
 
 XKing's Primitive Church* 
 
 * 
 
9# LETTER V!. 
 
 that when 4; the disciples came together to break 
 bread/' when the church came together to eat the 
 Lord's Supper, none were admitted to meet with 
 them, or be within the walls of the large upper 
 room, or the house, who did not partake of the holy 
 symbols. Bearing this fact in mind let us attend 
 to the notices given in the Acts of the Apostles and 
 in the Epistles of Paul, respecting the Lord's Sup* 
 per. The first is in Acts ii. 42, 46* and they con- 
 tinued stedfastly in the Apostles' doctrine, and fel- 
 lowship, and in breaking of bread, ( Ton avion, the 
 Loaj\) and in prayers — and they continuing daily 
 with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread 
 Vom house to house, did eat their meat with glad- 
 ness and singleness of heart." On these two ver- 
 ses and the intervening ones, 1 remark : 
 
 1 . That it has been generally conceded that the 
 breaking of bread in the 42d verse, signifies tha 
 Lord's Supper, but some have supposed that in the 
 46th verse it means a common meal. I am disposed 
 to consider the latter as more explicit, and as ex- 
 planatory of the former. That all the exerciser 
 mentioned in these two verses, except the breaking 
 of bread, were religious, there can be no doubt 5 
 find why it should not be, seeing there was a reli- 
 gious breaking of bread, no good reason appears. 
 Eating their meal (literally their food) with glad- 
 ness, and singleness of heart may mean their ordin- 
 ary meals — but at the same time these meals were 
 partook of exclusively by the company of believers* 
 
LETTER VL 
 
 in& in a religious manner. It is said, •• all that be 
 lieved were together, and had all things common ; 
 and sold their possessions and goods and parted 
 them to all, as every man had need." Now were 
 there none among the believers that had families, 
 and families including little ones that needed to 
 partake with their parents in the things which were 
 made common? Surely the first Jewish christians 
 would not feed the needy parents, and withhold 
 from the more needy children, It is obvious that 
 there was no separation, or distinction made be- 
 tween parents and children in this common distri- 
 bution. Now should we admit, that eating meat, 
 as mentioned in the 46th verse, means eating in or- 
 dinary meals, what had been made common to all, 
 we must have little ones included among the parti- 
 cipators: and then if the company of believers con- 
 tinued in fellowship, and in breaking bread, as in 
 the 42d verse, and this signified a partaking of the 
 Lord's Supper, upon what principle then known 
 and practiced, were the little ones debarred? No 
 instructions had been delivered by Peter, or any of 
 the Apostles informing the believing Jews, that 
 their children were not to partake with then in the 
 New Testament passover, and the :'• 
 living it. as had been the lav a - om the 
 
 daysoi - they wbu reforemost certainly 
 
 admitthen . 
 
 2. I mi . irk, t:iat there appears a direct ref- 
 
 ce in the 46th verse to the manner of celcbpa- 
 
M LETTER VI. 
 
 *ing the passover. The Israelites were to cele- 
 brate it by families — each man according to rm 
 family. And the words used by the LXX. transla* 
 tors of the Old Testament into Greek, in transla- 
 ting Exo. xii. 3, 21. are the same that are used by 
 the sacred historian, in the 46th verse of Acts. ii. 
 and our translators translate precisely the same 
 words in Chapter v. 42, every house. The literal 
 translation would be, breaking bread according to the 
 family. The act was participated in by the whole 
 family in opposition to the acts of the whole congre- 
 gation performed in the Temple. No one private 
 house could contain three thousand, so that they 
 might celebrate the New Testament passover in 
 one house and then in another. But they could all 
 meet in the temple, and perform their other acts of 
 worship there, and then divide off into families, and 
 celebrate the dying love of the Saviour after the 
 manner of the passover. And this appears to be 
 the simple meaning of the language which seems to 
 "be used designedly, by the historian, in his first no- 
 tice of the Lord's Supper in the christian church. 
 It is obvious that the unbelieving Jews would not 
 permit the the followers of Jesus to celebrate his 
 supper in the Temple, commemorative of his death, 
 and significant of life through him. 
 
 The next, and only notice of the Lord r s Suppe 1 ' 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, is in the 20th Chapter; 
 a-nd it is introduced just after mention had been 
 atade of the feast of unleavened bread, that is, the 
 
LETTER VI. 95 
 
 feast of the passover, verses 6-7. This instance 
 was about twenty-five years after the day of Pente- 
 cost, and in a heathen City where the Gospel had 
 "been preached, and a church formed. The disci- 
 ples came together to break bread, on the first day 
 of the week ; and they met in an upper chamber, of 
 the third story; verse, 3-9. Let it be noted, that 
 the disciples came together in this private apart- 
 ment for the express purpose of breaking bread. 
 Paul made use of the occasion for other religious 
 exercises — he preached to them — broke bread, and 
 talked a long while, even to break of day. It was 
 not a promiscuous assembly, composed of commu- 
 nicants and non-communicants, but exclusively of 
 disciples. Now the question is, had any of these dis- 
 ciples families, including little children, and did 
 their children meet with them on the first day of 
 the week for the public worship of God ? If chil- 
 dren were there, they were disciples, and came to 
 break bread with their parents. You may attempt 
 to evade this hy saying, if the disciples had children, 
 they were all left at home. And then I would sim- 
 ply state that you have a religious worshipping as- 
 sembly, unknown either among Jews or christians, 
 k^.h evasion nothing but a bad cause i ould require. 
 Le us now attend to the Epistles of Paul. He 
 takes u^the Lord's Supper explicitly in the 11th 
 chapter ofri s first Epistle to the Corinthians ; and 
 here is the principal repeal of the Law of the passo- 
 over, which I have found advanced by any living 
 
96 LETTER VI. 
 
 opponent, or dead author. " Let a man examine 
 himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink 
 of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh un- 
 worthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself 
 not discerning the Lord's body." The repealing 
 force of this passage is this; " self examination, and 
 discerning the Lord's body are required of all who 
 worthily partake of his table, and these exercises 
 imply the possession of knowledge, faith and love 
 of which little children must be considered incapa- 
 ble, and therefore they are, by these declarations 
 of the Apostle, debarred from this ordinance*" 
 In reply I would remark: 
 
 1. That it is a little strange that a repealing act, 
 setting aside the right and privilege, formerly en- 
 joyed by little children, should never once mention 
 them, nor the law under which they enjoyed their 
 right and privilege,! 
 
 2. The Apostle wrote his first Epistle to the Cor- 
 inthians about twenty-four years after the resurrec- 
 tion of our Saviour. All this time the law was un- 
 repealed which authorised and required the chil- 
 dren of God's people to partake of the Lord's Ta- 
 ble. This shows that it was not a part of the cer- 
 emonial law, for that law ceased with the sacrifr- e 
 of Christ, and needed no repeal at so late a r^ r i°d» 
 
 3. The occasion of repealing little chih*' ftn from 
 the Lord's Table, if this was a repea' °f the law, 
 does not comport with the character of the Apdstle, 
 or the spirit of inspiration,by which he wrote* The 
 
LETTER VI. 97 
 
 old ones, or the leaders of the factions in the 
 church of Corinth grossly profaned the table of th 
 Lord; and reproof and exhortation are all the cen- 
 sure indicted upon them, whilst the unoffending til- 
 th sues are ex-communicated, and by a repeal of the 
 jaw heretofore securing them the privilege of the 
 Lord's table, they are forever to be separated from 
 their parents in this holy ordinance!! 
 
 4. The law which was repealed, was clear and 
 explicit respecting the subjetcs of the Lord's table. 
 By it the officers of the church had a plain rule to 
 regulate them, in admitting and debarring; but the 
 repealing act furnishes no such law. It in fact 
 leaves, church officers without one syllable, and di- 
 rects the whole that is said to individual communis 
 cants. It is, " let a man examine himself" and not 
 let the church officers examine him whether he be 
 regenerate, or not. 
 
 5. If little children were permitted to constitute 
 a part of the religious assembly at the administra- 
 tion of the Lord's Supper, and were by this repeal- 
 ing act of the Apostle debarred from participating, 
 then they formed a party in the church of that sort 
 which he condemns. They to be sure were not 
 u of Paul, of Apolos, or Cephus, but they were a 
 party by themselves; and if so, they probably were 
 those who the Apostles savs were hungry, whilst 
 their parent- were drunken! These little ones at 
 Corinth, it appears, according to the interpretation 
 given, were very hardly dealt with, whilst the old 
 
 I 
 
9fi LETTER VJ, 
 
 sinners had joyful times and received no exrcommu 
 nication. 
 
 6. According to the improper mode of celebra- 
 ting the Lord's Supper by the Corinthians, the 
 forming of groups, or seperate parties in the church 
 is specifically mentioned. If the children were 
 present, and debarred from the participation of the 
 elements, then they formed a separate party, and 
 thus fell under the censure of the Apostle. In one 
 place there was the party of Paul, in another the 
 party of Apollos — in another the party of Cephus — > 
 and in another the party of the little ones; and this 
 last party had no provision made for them. Might 
 we not, according to this view suppose that they 
 were the hungry ones mentioned by the Apostle, 
 and their parents, the drunken? 
 
 7. The argument drawn from these words of the 
 Apostle is the same precisely with that drawn by 
 our Baptist brethren against infant baptism, from 
 Mark. xvi. 15, 16, and Acts viii. 37. He that be- 
 lieveth and is baptized shall be saved — if thou be- 
 Hevest with all thine heart thou maye9t." The ar- 
 gument i»> " believing is the condition here laid 
 down for receiving baptism; infants and little chil- 
 dren cannot believe, and therefore they are not to 
 be baptized." How do we meet our baptist breth- 
 ren, and spoil their argument? Why we say the 
 condition of believing in order to baptism is made 
 for adults, not infants; and if it includes infants t then 
 they cannot be saved; for believing is as. much a 
 
LETTER VI. 39 
 
 •condition of salvation, as of baptism. This reply 
 in my opinion, unarms the baptist fairly, and the 
 texts which he brings to repeal infants out of the 
 church, and from baptism cannot touch them. You, 
 as a good Psedobaptist will agree with me in this; 
 if so where is the force of the texts requiring self 
 examination, and discerning the Lord's body as the 
 condition of partaking of his table, when brought to 
 bear upon little children? Were they the sinners 
 in the church of Corinth against which Paul levell- 
 ed his severe reproofs, and tendered his exhorta- 
 tions? Or did the leaders of the church, sin, and 
 grossly profane the table of the Lord by admitting 
 their little children to partake with them? Where 
 no law is, there is no transgression ; and these Cor- 
 inthians had no law forbidding their children to 
 partake of the New Testament passover. We know 
 from the explicit declarations of the Apostle, that 
 the unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper by 
 the Corinthians consk$«d in something ehe than the 
 admission of little children. 
 
 8. The Apostle, in this same Epistle, Chap. vii. 
 14. had declared that the children of these Corin- 
 thians were holy. That is, as we Pasdoba prists un- 
 dertand it, they were federally, or ecclesiastically 
 holy — holy enough to be church members, and to 
 enjoy the holy ordinance of baptism. Had they 
 lost their membership and their holiness, by the 
 time the Apostle had written on to the eleventh chap- 
 ter J The Aposi'e wrote to the church of Corinth — 
 
100 LETTER VL 
 
 he informed that church that their children were 
 holy — were members along with their believing 
 parents, and, if even one was a believer. That 
 church met together in one place — came together 
 in the church.* the house of public worship; were 
 Their children now left at home, as too unholy to 
 enter the house of God ? Take notice, this church 
 met professedly in one place to eat the Lord's Sup- 
 per. None but members were present, and all who 
 were present must partake. The Apostle in his 
 Epistle to the church of Ephesus, makes out all 
 their children, who could understand and obey the 
 fifth commandment; believers and saints — that is 
 faithfuls and holy ones, as you will see by comparing 
 chapter i. 1. with vi. 1-4. Such were the children 
 of the church of Corinth, and did he mean to debar 
 the faithfuls and holy ones from the table of the 
 Lord ? Such an interpretation, cannot be admitted, 
 of the terms, self-examination — and, discerning the 
 Lord's body. The simple meaning of the passage is, 
 that the leaders of the church of Corinth had split 
 it up into factions — these factions assembled in the 
 church professedly to eat the Lord's Supper, but 
 they made it their own party supper — made it to 
 distinguish between the several parties, and some 
 eat and drank to excess. There was no discerning 
 of the Lord's body, by the symbols, but they were 
 used at common bread and wine. For this profan- 
 ation of the ordinance the Apostle reproves thern.. 
 Chap xi. 18-20. 
 
LETTER VI. iuj 
 
 and efchorts every man to self-examination and a 
 proper use of the sacred symbols, for time to come. 
 If you choose you may implicate the children in the 
 sins of their parents, but until thirteen years of age 
 they were not accountable to the officers of the 
 church, and therefore the reproof of the Apostle 
 would apply exclusively to their parents. We thus 
 see that this clause so frequently, and triumphantly 
 brought forward by some Paedobaptist, as constitu- 
 ting virtually a repeal of Old Testament law, and 
 establishing a new law respecting the passover, in 
 the Lord's Supper, has been grossly perverted. No 
 lawyer of common sense could ever find a repeal of 
 a law in this ; and the context with other declara- 
 tions of the Apostles, affords strong presumptive 
 proof that little children, in the church of Corinth, 
 partook lawfully of that ordinance. 
 
 This presumptive proof is supported by the chur- 
 ches which are mentioned in the Epistles as consti- 
 tuted in single families, or houses. There was 
 a church in the house of Priscilla, and Aquila.* 
 There was also a church in the house of Nymphas.j 
 One would suppose from the expression in these 
 cases, as it stands, in the common translation, that 
 some of the neighbours of Priscilla, Aquila and 
 Nymphas had been constituted into churches* and 
 met in the private houses of these men, for public 
 worship. This, however, is not the idea expressed 
 in the Greek. The words are the same which are 
 
 *Rom. xvi. 5. i. Cor. xvi. 19. \Col iv. 16. 
 I* 
 
m LETTER VL 
 
 translated, Acts ii. 46 from home to house — and lH 
 v. 42, in every house.* But as we have seen in these 
 instances, and according to the sense and use of the 
 terms, the meaning is, according to the family, or by 
 the family. When therefore a church is said to be 
 in a man's house, the meaning is, a religious society 
 Consisting of his family, or that section or part of the 
 church composed by his family. In this view, families^ 
 as families including the young and middle aged 
 belonged to the- church ; assembled together as fam- 
 ilies for worship, and as families thus assembled in 
 a church capacity, mnst have partook of the Lord's 
 Supper the distinguishing ordinance of church 
 members. In connection with these remarks it 
 may be observed that household, or more properly, 
 family baptism, is taught in the New Testament^ 
 as practiced, but not as anew thing, recently insti- 
 tuted. No description is given of the age, or quali- 
 ftcations of the members. We are told that all of 
 a certain age may come in through the church 
 standing or professed faith of their parents, and that 
 all-over a certain age must be baptized upon a prox- 
 ies ion of their own faith. The practice had come 
 down from the household or family baptism of pros- 
 elytes among the Jews, who baptized all the chil- 
 dren under thirteen years of age upon their par- 
 euts profession of faith in, and obedience to the 
 God of Israel.t 
 
 *In a house, is not expressed in the Greek New Tes- 
 tament by Kata oikon, but by, en oikia, or oiko. 
 1 Lewis'* Heb. Ant. iv. 2. 
 
LETTER Yt 103 
 
 From household baptism, as mentioned in the 
 New Testament we have argued with propriety and 
 no small force in favour of infant baptism. But the 
 argument is equally valid and forcible in favour of 
 little children partaking of the Lord's Supper. The 
 sum of the matter, on this point, is, that the law- 
 respecting the membership of children in the church, 
 and their rights and privileges remained unaltered 
 by Christ and his Apostles. Deny this, and grant 
 that there was an alteration of the law, depriving 
 them of membership, and of their rights and privi- 
 leges, and you and the Baptists are on the same 
 ground. You must produce a new law from the 
 New Testament, respecting their membership, 
 rights, and privileges, as clear and as explicit as the 
 law of the Old Testament. You must show from 
 the new law that their membership, and their priv- 
 ileges are curtailed, and not the same substantially 
 that they were before Christ came. When you 
 have done this, I know a certain people, who would 
 be disposed to erect a monument to your genius. 
 
 Hebrews viii. 7-13 has been adduced as contain- 
 ing a repeal of the law respecting the passover, dnd 
 the right of children to partake of the Lord's Ta- 
 ble under the Mosaic economy. It is here argu- 
 ed that the passover belonged to the Sinai cove- 
 nant — that, that covenant passed away, and the 
 passover, and the law designating those who were 
 worthy communicants passed away with it. To all 
 which it might be replied, that the law of the pass* 
 
104 LETTER VT. 
 
 over was given to the children of Israel in Egypt, 
 and not at Sinai; and that though connected with 
 that covenant, and typical, as far as the body and 
 blood of the Lamb were used as symbols, yet it was 
 an ordinance previous to the giving of the covenant* 
 and the ceremonial law at Sinai, and the regula- 
 tions respecting the characters who were to ap- 
 proach unto God in this distinguishing ordinance 
 were not ceremonial. But waving this, I remark 
 secondly, that the new covenant which was to su- 
 percede the old, according to the Apostle, in the 
 passage referred to, there was not to be a curtail- 
 ment of privileges, but an increase. The excel- 
 lence, or superiority of the new covenant, did not 
 consist in debarring children from approaching un- 
 to God, with their parents in his distinguishing or- 
 dinances, but in " better promises." And what 
 were some of those promises? 
 
 1. This new covenant was to be made, as the old 
 was, with the house (the family) of Israel and Ju- 
 dah, and God's laws were to be put, not in an ark or 
 chest, but in the hearts and minds of his people. 
 
 2. He was to Jae a God unto them and they were 
 to be unto him a people* A people must include 
 little children. This is not left to inference. 
 
 3. The third promise of the new covenant, but 
 which may be considered, the second " better prom- 
 ise," is, that, " all shall know the Lord" — and that 
 little children might not be excluded, it is adde«J, 
 "' from the least to the greatest." If this does not 
 
LETTER VII. 
 
 include little children from the time they can knov. 
 the Lord, what can it mean? He who can see a 
 repeal of little children from the Table of the Lordi 
 in this passage, has "optics sharp I wean.*" 
 
 Yours. &r> 
 
 LETTER 7. 
 
 The argument continued— -The Holy Scriptures fur- 
 ther considered. 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 You will recollect that in a former 
 letter I considered the following principle of inter- 
 preting the word of God conceded by my Pasdobap- 
 tist brethren, viz: u that when God has once legis- 
 lated on a subject necessarily requiring his legisla- 
 tion, and he never akers or repeals the act. it stands 
 forever." The law regulating membership in the 
 church, and the privileges, and duties of members 
 is essential to the very being of the church, and we 
 have found an explicit law of God, embracing these 
 subjects, in the Old Testament. No repeal of that 
 law in the New Testament has yet been shown, and 
 I may venture to say never will he shown. Nor 
 ean any law bs produced as a substitute, regtila- 
 
•06 LETTER VII. 
 
 ling membership, and the enjoyment of church pri\> 
 ileges. It will not do to say, that the law of the 
 passover was ceremonial, or typical, and ceased of 
 course when Christ came. If the law itself was a 
 type, we ought to have a law from Christ, as its an* 
 ti-type, or substance. If the membership of in- 
 fants, and little children, was typical, and typical of 
 the membership of those newly born again, and ad- 
 vanced a little in the christian life under Messiah, then 
 the membership of infants, born of religious parents, 
 is gone, and the baptists are right. If the law 
 granting to children of three years and upwards, 
 the privilege of partaking of the passover, was typi- 
 cal, I wish to know of what? If we must, right or 
 wrong, make it typical, I would suppose it typical 
 of children of three years, and upwards, partaking 
 of the Lord's Supper which was to supercede the 
 passover. But if the law of the Lord's Table in 
 the passover was a typical law — and if the church 
 then was a typical church — and her members typi- 
 cal members, why not upon the same principle 
 maintain that the God of Israel was a typical God — 
 and that then there were only typical penalties, 
 and rewards — a typical hell, and a typical heav- 
 en; and that when Messiah came we got the 
 substance of all these types? For my part 1 must 
 believe that there was among the Israelites a true 
 ©jid substantial God — a true and substantial church 
 with true and substantial laws, members and Table 
 -and this God and hi* Table were as holy then 
 
LETTER yiL 10? 
 
 they are now, and that there/ore the same law must 
 regulate the approaches to that God and that Table 
 — it must admit and debar the same kind of char- 
 acters. If we have another God^ — another church — 
 another Table, and other sort of characters parta- 
 king of that Table, then there is a propriety in lay- 
 ing aside the old law, and substituting a new. A 
 little discrimination may relieve the mind of any so- 
 berly reflecting person, with respect to this subject. 
 Certain symbols used, at the Lord's Table under 
 the Old Testament, it is granted, on all hands, were 
 typical, but it does not thence follow, that the Table 
 was typical, or that the law regulating admission to 
 that table was a typical, or ceremonial law. The 
 body of the Paschal Lamb was one of the symbols 
 formerly laid on the Lord's Table and was typical: 
 it was discontinued when Christ the true Lamb of 
 God was sacrificed, of whom it w r as a type, but the 
 Table, the bread, and the wine were^not laid aside. 
 If they were formerly types they are so still — if they 
 were ceremonial, they are ceremonial still. 
 
 The Apostles in illustrating the nature of the 
 church of Christ, and the privileges and duties of 
 her members, had recourse to the house of God, and 
 those who partook of its privileges under the old 
 dispensation; and they are far from inculcating a 
 a change of the law respecting that house, w which 
 is now the church of the living God." 
 
 We have before ascertained that those who were 
 considered worthy tostaafl in any one court of the 
 
*08 LETTER VII. 
 
 house of God, were worthy to enjoy the ordinan- 
 ces there administered; and it was as criminal to 
 profane the house by an unhallowed entrance, as 
 to profane its ordinances. The use I now am about 
 to make of this, may expose me to the charge of Ju- 
 daizing, I therefore produce Paul and Peter, as my 
 precedents. They both teach us that th« church 
 under Christ answers to the house of God under 
 the Mosaic dispensation. "Paul taught Timothy, 
 " how to behave in the house of God, which is the 
 church of the living God."* And in addressing 
 the Corinthian church, he writes thus ; * know ye 
 not that ye are the Temple of God? If any man 
 defile the Temple of God, him will God destroy, for 
 the Temple of God is holy which Temple ye are."t 
 Again, what agreement hath the temple of God 
 with idols; for ye are the temple of the living God; 
 as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in 
 them, and I will be their God and they shall be my 
 people. v | To the Ephesian church he writes; "in 
 whom (that is Christ) all the building fitly framed 
 together groweth unto an holy Temple in the Lord : 
 in whom ye also are builded together for an habita- 
 tion of God through the Spirit."? Peter says to 
 believers ; u ye are a chosen generation, a royal 
 priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people, that 
 ve sb^ld shew forth the praises of Him, who hath 
 called you out of darkness into his marvellous light."§ 
 
 * i. Tim. iii. 15. t i. Cor. iii. 16, 17. \ ii. Cor. \ 
 ^EpK'n- 21,22. §i.Pe£,ii. 9, 
 
LETTER VII. 109 
 
 What nre we taught by all this? First, that the 
 church of God now is his house where he dwells as 
 really, as were the Tabernacle and Temple — and 
 that it is equally holy. 
 
 Second, that the gross violation of God's law by 
 the members of the church is as displeasing to him, 
 and dangerous to them, as it was in the days of Mo- 
 ses and Solomon. 
 
 Third, that all the visible members of the church 9 
 old and young together, are a royal priesthood ', and 
 a holy nation, and as such, have a right to a place 
 in God's house, and to all the holy ordinances 
 thereof, as the priests, and God's hoi} people, had to 
 the Tabernable and Temple, and all the holy ordi- 
 nances there enjoyed. 
 
 Fourth, that to continue any one in the church, 
 registered as a member, who is unholy, and immor- 
 al in his conduct, is as criminal a profanation of the 
 church of God now, as it was to admit, and contin- 
 ue the unclean, or strangers in the Tabernacle, or 
 Temple. The Apostles, it appears evident, had 
 not learned, that there were some members of the 
 church, who were merely holy enough to be mem- 
 bers, and not holy enough to partake of the Lord's 
 Supper — some who might continue in the house, 
 and were worthy of retaining their names there, 
 but not worthy to sit at the Table, spread for the 
 inmates of the house. And, indeed, it appears a 
 little strange, how any ever learned to cherish such 
 
 an unscripturai and absurd notion. Let us he at 
 K 
 
LETTER VII. 
 
 least consistentj and deny to parents, altogether 
 the recognition of their children as members of the 
 church by baptism. If we recognise them, and say 
 they are members and still continue them on record 
 as members, let us treat them as such. Let us not 
 say, to them, you may -ray in the house of God, bu£ 
 you shall not partake of his Table — you may con- 
 tinue in the family of God, and perform none of the 
 duties of a member, but even grossly violate the 
 law by which it is governed, and all the penalty 
 we will inflict, is, that you shall not partake of the 
 family Table in a particular feast. Why Sir, if we 
 were not under a merciful dispensation, such a pro- 
 fanation of God's house would be instant «d< s 
 tion. One of the objections to the views and pro- 
 ceedings of the Paris Session, which has been urged 
 and urged with much effect with seme, is that the 
 consequence must be, to fill the church with irreli- 
 gious and wicked members. Whereas it is one 
 principal object of the Session to clear the church 
 of euch members, and to take measures to prevent 
 their multiplication for the future. In the lan- 
 guage of scripture, it is their object, 4i to cleanse the 
 hou-eof God," and to stand as porters and watch- 
 it the entrance of the •stranger and the 
 an. The objection urged, must take it for 
 1 :d, that baptized children are not in the church, 
 the house of God, that is, they are not church mem- 
 be]-. Let this ground be taken, and then there 
 will b But so long as persons 
 
LETTER VII. i i i 
 
 will hold to infant baptism, and will bring forward 
 their children, to be iccognized as members of the 
 church, and put under consecration to God in bap- 
 tism, and then permit them to grow up in ignorance, 
 disobedience, and the open violation of his law, 
 and cry out bitterly against their being cut off, such 
 persons, and not Paris Session are really filling the 
 house of God, which is the church of the living 
 God, with irreligious and wicked members. Of 
 Such God complained of old, when he said, " they 
 have dealt treacherously against the Lord; for they 
 have begotten strange (heathen) children.* Thus 
 saith the Lord God, O ye house of Israel, let it suf- 
 fice you of all your abominations in that ye have 
 brought into my Sanctuary strangers uncircumcised 
 in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh to be in my 
 Sanctuary to pollute, even my house."! Multitudes 
 of such are now in God's church, his holy house. 
 and their number is daily and rapidly increasing, 
 much more rapidly than the number of the truly pi- 
 ous. Parents rush with their children to baptism— 
 the watchmen and porters admit them — they stand 
 registered on the church's records, as members — - 
 they disregard her instructions— -trample upon her 
 iaws — spurn her government — mingle with the 
 world in sin and folly, and if there should be a few 
 faithful watchmen, to raise their voice, and talk of 
 discipline, and ex-communication, they do so at 
 
 *Hos. v. 7. \Ezc xiiv. 6. 1 In the Hebrew— 
 u children ofstranga , 
 
112 LETTER VH. 
 
 their peril! O Sir! were the Saviour to come a* 
 mong us would he find his Father's house in a pur- 
 er state than he found it among the Jews ? A faith- 
 ful observance and execution of the constitution 
 and laws of Christ's church can never fill it with 
 irreligious and unholy members: but the neglect of 
 those laws, and the substitution of the doctrines 
 and customs of men have filled it with such charac- 
 ters. 
 
 You will pardon, Sir, this digression which you 
 may term declamation and invective, and return 
 with me to the argument. 
 
 The illustration which the Apostle Paul gives, 
 in the eleventh chapter of his Epistle to the Ro- 
 mans, of the church; and the casting out of the 
 Jews, and the bringing in of the Gentiles, under the 
 figure of an Olive Tree, has been used with great 
 force in favour of infant baptism. Is it not of equal 
 force in favour of little children partaking of the 
 Lord's Supper? The natural branches, the Jews 
 and their children were cut off, and the branches of 
 the wild Olive, the Gentiles, and their children 
 were grafted in ; and being in, they partook of the 
 same privileges, if not in form, at least in substance, 
 that were enjoyed by those that were cut off. This 
 is the Pasdobaptist argument ; and I have never yet 
 heard it refuted. Now if children of three years 
 old and upwards partook of the passover with their 
 parents among the Jews; and the Gentiles and 
 their children have come into the same church 
 
LETTER Vlfr 113 
 
 standing and privileges, must they not partake to- 
 gether of that ordinance which answers to the pass- 
 over? How any consistent Psedobaptist can evade 
 this argument I know not; but should he succeed I 
 know the Baptists will be indebted to him for a ve- 
 ry great favour. 
 
 In connection with this argument let us attend to 
 another of the same nature furnished by the Apos 
 tie in his Epistle to the Ephesian church. That 
 church was addressed as made up of saints and faith* 
 /«/, and when the Apostle in the application of the 
 doctrines and instructions advanced in the body ol 
 the Epistle addresses, by way of exhortation, the 
 several classes of which the church was composed, 
 mentions wives and husbands — children and parents — ■ 
 servants and masters.* If any one should say that 
 children here, are children come to the years of 
 maturity; I reply, and say, if so, then the exhorta- 
 tion of the Apostle will not apply — for they are ex- 
 horted to be obedient to their parents; and their 
 parents are exhorted to bring them up in the nur- 
 ture and admonition of the Lord. They were not 
 yet brought up; and they were such as were sub- 
 jects of the fifth commandment given to the children 
 of Israel at Mount Sinai. 
 
 Again, if any should say that the children of the 
 church of Ephesus were not saints and faithfuls^ 
 then I say, with the same propriety, that the wives 
 and husbands, the parents, servants and masters^ 
 
 *Chap.y. 22-25. vi. 1-9. 
 
 R* 
 
114 LETTER VII. 
 
 that were addressed as constituting the church 
 were not saints and faithfuls. You may fix what in- 
 terpretation you please to the terms saints and fc/M 
 fid; whatever the Apostle meant by them that the 
 children were as truly as the parents. Now the 
 saints and faithful at Ephesus, when in their heathen 
 state had been aliens from the commonwealth ot 
 Israel, and strangers to the covenant of promise, 
 having no hope, and without God in the world, but 
 when they embraced the Gospel, they became "fel- 
 low-citizens, with the saints, and of the household 
 of God.* Fellow-citizens of what saints? Why 
 those who had been of the commonwealth of Israel, 
 and had the covenants of promise, securing all 
 church privileges to families — to parents and their 
 children. The Ephcsians therefore becoming fel- 
 low-citizens of the saints, were saints themselves, 
 and they came into all the privileges of citizens — 
 the privilege of being recognised as citizens by the 
 distinguishing ordinances, appointed for the purpose. 
 In this way the Apostle reasons, when he says, " the 
 Gentiles are fellow heirs, and of the same body, and 
 partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel."t 
 Fellow heirs of what ? Of every privilege which the 
 Israelites enjoyed, and which the first believing 
 Jews enjoyed, before the Gentiles were brought in. 
 If these Jews, by believing on Christ had their 
 privileges curtailed — and lost the privilege of hav- 
 ing their children recognised with them in the dis- 
 * Chap. ii. \% 19. tChap, iii. 6. 
 
LETTER VII. \U> 
 
 1 i nguishing seals of God's covenant, then they were 
 not heirs of Abraham and the promise made to him. 
 and the Gentiles uniting with them were not fellow 
 heirs. The inheritance had passed away, and they 
 were fellow heirs of •. 
 
 If the Apostle's argument, has any foundation, 
 and any force, the Gentile believers came into the 
 enjoyment of all those privileges from which they 
 had been debarred by the former dispensation, in 
 the commonwealth of Israel. Now, Sir, admit this 
 and the little saints and faithfuls, partook of the dis- 
 tinguishing privileges, along with their parents in 
 the church of Ephesus. If any deny that they par- 
 took of the Lord's Supper, I deny that they partook 
 of baptism. 
 
 In support of this argument, I would remark, that 
 the Apostle, not only illustrates the church mem- 
 bership and privileges of the saints of Ephesus by 
 the former membership and privileges among the 
 Jews, but also by contrasting the mysteries of the 
 Gospel with the mysteries of the Heathen, or those 
 mysteries into which the Ephesians had been initia- 
 ted, and which they enjoyed in the Heathen, idol- 
 atrous state. To be satisfied of this, compare 
 Chapter Hi. 2-12 with v. 7-13: and consult Mo 
 Nigh? s preface to this Epistle, Sect. vii. 
 
 Infants were initiated into these Heathen myste- 
 ries among the Greeks, as was before shown, and 
 they partook of the wicked and idolatrous rites with 
 cthe\r parents, which were celebrated in the in^ 
 
11G LETTER VII. 
 
 rior of their Temples, in the darkness of night. Im- 
 itating, but corrupting and prostituting, the reli- 
 gious rites instituted by the true God, among the 
 Isralites, the heathen had their sacred Temples — 
 their lustrations, their feasts upon sacrifice; from 
 all which the profane, and those not initiated were 
 excluded. Above the doors of their Temples was 
 written in large letters, Procul, Procul este profani; 
 O, ye profane, keep far, far away! Thus the reli- 
 gious rites enjoyed within their temples were free 
 only to the initiated, and no other were permitted 
 to be present. Hence these rites were called mys- 
 teries* They were kept secret and out of view of all 
 but the worshippers, who had been initiated and 
 professed allegiance to the God, or Godess to whom 
 the Temple had been dedicated. The Apostle, in 
 allusion to this, says, in his first Epistle to the Cor- 
 inthians, " the things which the Gentiles sacrifice 
 they sacrifice to Devils and not to God, and I would 
 not that ye should have fellowship with Devils. Ye 
 cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of 
 Devils ; ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's Ta- 
 ble and the Table of Devils."* It appears that the 
 Gentiles had initiated the people of God in their 
 sacrifices, and feasting upon them, but now they are 
 contrasted with the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus and 
 the feast instituted upon it. The Jews and the 
 Gentiles had their children initiated — had them 
 partakers of their sacrificial feasts, their mysteries—- 
 *Chap. x. 20, 21. 
 
LETTER VIL ?17 
 
 the church of Ephesus was composed of parents 
 and children — all declared to be saints, initiated by 
 baptism — they had left the Heathen mysteries, and 
 become heirs of the mysteries of the Gospel — they 
 had left the Table of Devils and came to the Table 
 of the Lord ; would they contrary, both to Jews 
 and Heathen, separate from that table the little 
 ones? You cannot with any consistency, or the 
 least shadow of authority say, that the inheritance 
 shall descend to some of the heirs and not to others. 
 The church of Ephesus was called into the fellow- 
 ship of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, and that 
 church was composed of wives and husbands — chil- 
 dren and parents — servants and masters, and with 
 the same propriety that you debar one of these- 
 classes from the Table of the Lord, the whole may 
 be debarred. 
 
 The Apostle John affords some incidental proof 
 similar to that now advanced in favour of little 
 children forming a class in the church of God well 
 known as entitled to distinguishing privileges. In 
 his first Epistle he addresses christians in general 
 under the endearing appellation of " my little chil- 
 dren.'** That the words are here used in their se- 
 condary, and figurative sense there can be no doubt. 
 But when he addresses the same christians, accor- 
 ding to their differents ages, he uses the words, 
 little children in their literal meaning, without the 
 endearing adjective, my — "I write unto you, little 
 
 * Chap, ii, 1, 18, 28, 
 
LETTER VII. 
 
 children— I write unto you fathers— ^1 Write tin 
 
 you young men/'* This is an additional instance 
 of children forming a constitutional class, and part 
 of a christian church, and the special objects of A- 
 postolic instruction; and an instance that little chil- 
 dren, not thirteen years of age, are under special 
 obligations, and called to perform their part as 
 church members. It shows that minors after in- 
 fancy were fcnown and distinguished, as little chil- 
 dren, and youth. The class of infants is not men- 
 tioned in this place, because they could not yet, be 
 fit subjects of instruction and exhortation. But I 
 have introduced this passage, principally, to show, 
 that what was said before respecting the different 
 classes of minors, was known and recognised in the 
 New Testament church; and for the purpose of 
 supporting what will hereafter be introduced Oh 
 the subject. 
 
 The evidence now submitted appears to me, to 
 clear the Cod of the Bible from \ iolating, in his 
 I ositive institutions, the unity which he established 
 . the law of nature, between parents and their 
 children. A clear and explicit law from the Old 
 Testament has been produced, securing to children 
 with their parents, membership and the distinguish- 
 ing privileges of the church of God; and the New 
 Testament, so far from containing a repeal of this 
 law, plainly recognises it and the law of nature as 
 in force, regulating the Apoatlic churche*. 
 ;V Verses 1 2, 1 3. More properly, yc 1 1 ( k 
 
LETTER VII. 
 
 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 respec- 
 ting little children partaking, should he produced. 
 Why are we not told in so many words that it was* 
 their privilege and duty to partake of this ordi- 
 nance ; 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 im- 
 portance, 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 par- 
 ents, 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 sub- 
 jects 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 
 
 ,; doctrine of the resurrection, or of justifica- 
 tion 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 
 
120 LETTER VII. 
 
 from them in the precious and distinguishing privi-- 
 leges of the church, we have precisely such notices in 
 reference to infant membership, infant baptism and 
 the communion of little children as might be ex- 
 pected. As the case was, it would be strange in- 
 deed if these subjects had been taken upand discuss- 
 ed 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 ta- 
 ken their seats with their parents at the Lord's Ta- 
 ble in the passover from the days Moses. No one 
 thought the law, and the practice, after an experi- 
 ment, of nearly two thousand years, unnatural, in- 
 jurious, 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 con- 
 troversy 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 as- 
 sert that he has, they are bound to prove their as- 
 sertion. But, however, the evidence in favour of 
 the negative may be deficient in explicitness and 
 fullness, I must consider it satisfactory until some* 
 ;hing more explicit and full be advanced in support 
 of the affirmative. 
 
 I am yours, &c. 
 
£,ETTER 8. 
 
 Church. History — Ignatius — Primitive churches — fnfcmt 
 communion — Church of Rome — Reformed chur- 
 ches — Differ in their vitictis and practice in the seven- 
 teenth and eighteenth centuries — American churches* 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 As the holy scripture? are the^er- 
 fee! 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 ap- 
 pear superfluous to call in the aid of church histo- 
 tory, 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 pre- 
 ceding 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, ve- 
 ry explicit on the subject of little children parta- 
 king of the Lord's Supper in the first and second 
 centuries. The subject was not agitated — there 
 
 L 
 
IjB LETTER VIII. 
 
 ;vere none to deny them the privilege, which ther 
 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 stron- 
 ger. 
 
 All ecclesiastical historians of any note, agree 
 that the Lord's supper for nearly the two first centu- 
 ries, 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 pa- 
 rade — no lengthy religious exercises, were then ap- 
 pended to it; hut it'was observed with the simplici- 
 ty that marked its first celebration by Christ and 
 his disciples. 
 
 Ignatius, Bishop of the ehurch of Antioch, and 
 who suffered Martyrdom, A. D. 107, wrote certain 
 Epistles to the churches of Asia, which are yet ex- 
 tant. In these, he exhibits the church as "the Tem- 
 ple of God" — and church members as those admit- 
 ted within unto the Altar, by the Bishop, and El- 
 ders, and Deacons.t 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. 
 Cahins Inst. dart. The Lord's Supper. 
 
 ]Epis. to the Magnesians — to the. Phitadelphiem^ 
 Evhesians and Trallians, 
 
LETTER VIIL 
 
 . 
 
 Admonish you, that you use one faith, one preach 
 ing, and one Eucharist ; for there is one flesh of dur 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and his one blood shed for us, one 
 bread broken for all, and one cup distributed to all t 
 one altar for every church, and one fhshop with 
 the Presbytery and the Deacons, my fellow citi- 
 zens." And in the same Epistle, like the Apostle 
 Paul, he addresses the various classes which com- 
 posed 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 
 ip the days of the Apostles. All that were permit- 
 ted to be present were communicants. All the 
 church were exhorted to meet together in one place, 
 and to " be diligent to come together more frequent- 
 ly to the Eucharist of God for his glory. 5 ' 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 commun* 
 ion and much superstition. He calls the bread 
 broken, "the medicine of immorality — the anti- 
 dote 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 
 
m LETTER VI1L 
 
 centuries, we have the three following classes m6fl 
 tioned — the Audientes, the mere hearers— the Cai& 
 chwnem. those from the heathen who were under 
 catechetical instruction as preparatory for admis- 
 sion into the church by Baptism, and the perfect, or 
 faithful, who were members entitled to all the priv- 
 ileges of the church. The first class might enter 
 rhe place of worship, and hear the word read, and 
 preached; but they could not be present when the 
 prayers were' offered. The second class might not 
 only hear, but remain and join in tat prayers: 
 could not be present at the celebration of the Lord's 
 Supper, until they had advanced to the degree of the 
 competents or perfect. Then they were baptized and 
 partook of the otherordinances.* "All those that were 
 baptized were looked upon as members of the church, 
 and had a right to all the privileges thereof, except 
 they had been guilty of gross and scandalous sins, 
 as idolatry, murder, adultery, and such like, for then 
 *hey were cast out of the church.*'! "When the 
 other parts of divine worship were ended and the 
 celebration of the eucharist was to begin, the Ca- 
 techumens, the penitents and all except the cemmu- 
 eants were to depart, as Tertullian says hereon "pi- 
 ous initiations drive caoay the profane" These being 
 mysteries which were to be kept secret and conceal- 
 ed from all except the faithful, inasmuch as to othf 
 j rs, the very method and manner of their action* 
 
 * 'King's Primitive church* Part i. Chap. vi. 
 Ubid, 
 
LETTlEfl Vm. 125 
 
 herein were unknown, which was observed by the 
 Pagans, who objected to the christians the secrecy of 
 their mysteries; which charge Tertullian does not 
 deny but confessing it, answers, that, that was the 
 very nature of mysteries to be concealed, as Ceres's 
 were in Samothracia."* tt The elements being 
 blessed, the Deacons give to every one present of the 
 consecrated bread and wine."t This was the prac- 
 tice in Samaria and other countries, in the days of 
 Justin Martyr, A. D. 150. Now the question is 
 were the children put out as often as the Lord's 
 Supper was administered, that is, at least every first 
 day of the week, with the unbelieving, the unbap- 
 tized and profane, or were they included wiih 
 their parents, and with them called faithfuls ? Were 
 they kept ignorant of the mysteries of the church in 
 which they were brought up, and received the 
 Lord's nurture and admonition? I answer no4 The 
 children always composed with their parents the 
 public worshipping assembly and were called faith' 
 fuls — they were not treated as aliens and sepera- 
 ted, at once from their parents, and the house of 
 God. This would have been so contrary to the 
 law of nature, and all former practice that it would 
 have required nothing short of an imperative, di- 
 vine injunction. Pliny writing to the Emperor 
 Trajan, A. D. 106, respecting the christians in By- 
 
 * King's Brim, Church. Part ii. Chap. vi. 
 Mbid. \WallHis. Inf. Bap. Part ii.-Cbap. 9, 
 and Part i. Chap. 1 2 and 1 5. 
 L* 
 
ne LETTER VIII. 
 
 thinia, and enquiring how the persecuting and 
 bloody edict was to be executed against them ; says, 
 ^ that all ranks and ages, and even of^both sexes 
 would be involved ;" and asks, " whether no distinc- 
 tion was to be made between the young and the 
 adult." He says that according to his informa- 
 tion, " the whole of their guilt, or their error was. 
 that they met on a certain stated day, before it was 
 light, and addressed themselves in a form of prayer 
 to Christ, as to some God, binding themselves by a 
 solemn oath, &c. after which it was their custom to 
 separate and then re-assemble, to eat in common- a 
 harmless meal." The young and adult — all ranks 
 and ages and even of both sexes were liable to fall 
 under the persecutions prescribed ; and they eat in 
 common a harmless meal, when assembled together. 
 Now if this was not the harmless meal that distin- 
 guished them as Christians— if it was not the Lord's 
 Supper, and if the young as well as the adult wcrt 
 not found there, how, could they as christians be in 
 danger? In A. D. 210, " Cecilius, the heathen 
 interlocutor says— the christians come together or 
 an appointed day with all their children, their sisters 
 and mothers: persons of each sex, and of every 
 condition. After feeding plentifully, the lights are 
 put out."* It is merely necessary to remark thar 
 this enemy of the christians, in the first sentence* 
 stated what was the truth, and in the second adds 
 what was false for the sake of calumniating. Hac 
 * Evidences on Baptism, Letter iv. 107. 
 
LETTER VIII. 127 
 
 ihe first been false, the calumny would have had no 
 ostensible foundation to support it. Christians did 
 come together on the appointed day, that is, the 
 Lord ? s day, to keep the feast commemorative of his 
 death. And this heathen had seen them go with 
 ail their children; but as none except the initiated 
 could be present at the celebration he knew nothing 
 about the manner they conducted on the occasion., 
 and thence forged his calumny. 
 
 Again, that little children composed in part the 
 public religious assemblies of the early christians 
 and of course partook of the Lord's Supper- with 
 their parents, appears from the following facts star 
 ted by good authority. Previous to baptism some 
 such creed as this was proposed to the candidate, 
 and his assent required; viz: w Whether he believed 
 m God the father, Son and Holy Ghost, remission of 
 nns and eternal life through the church! In later 
 times this creed was enlarged and called the Apos- 
 tles creed. For a long time, however, it was not 
 committed to writing, and proposed in various 
 words, in different churches. Christian writers of 
 the third, fourth and fifth century call it, the rule of 
 the faith and truth — the gift of salvation — the faith of 
 the Catholic Sacrament — the seal of our heart, and a 
 military sacrament — the illumination of the soul, the 
 perfection of believers — the entrance into life — the gate 
 of salvation — the covenant of life— the plea of salvation, 
 ■md the indissoluble sacrament of faith between God and 
 \is. Jerome of the fifth century informs us that ? 
 
128 LETTER VIII. 
 
 this symbol of our faith and hope delivered by the Ajm- 
 tles teas not written in paper and ink, but in the fleshly- 
 tables of the heart. And Petrus Chrysologus of the 
 same century, frequently exhorts his hearers, to pre- 
 serve this gift in the most inward recesses of their heart*, 
 not to permit vile paper to depreciate this precious gift, or 
 black ink to darken this mystery of light."* "This 
 creed was studiously concealed from the pagan 
 world and not revealed to the Catechumens till just 
 before their baptism, or initiation in the christian 
 mysteries, when it was delivered unto them, as that 
 secret note, mark, or token by which the faithful, in 
 all parts of the world should interchangeably know 
 and be known."! But whilst the creed was thus 
 kept secret from the world, and even the Catechu- 
 mens, it was not so with respect to the children of 
 believers. "It was handed down from father to 
 son.'*J Being so highly prized, christian parents 
 would necessarily include it in the nurture and ad- 
 monition of the Lord, which they were bound to 
 give their children. But this creed was the secret 
 -note mark, or token by which the faithful were dis- 
 tinguished and known. It was the sign of church 
 membership, and the passport to all church privile- 
 ges. It was one of the holy mysteries of the church — 
 and the gift of salvation. Now as children had it 
 communicated to them by their christian parents 
 they were reckoned among the faithful and were 
 
 *King'*s His. of the Apostles creed, Cap. i. 
 \1bi£ tKing's Prim. Church, Part iu Chap. 3# 
 
LETTER VIII, 129 
 
 I slrat out with the world and the Catechumens 
 when the Lord's Supper was administered. But if 
 they were permitted to he present they partook; 
 for as already shown, none were permitted to he 
 present but the communicants. 
 
 The history of infant communion, which prevailed 
 in the church at an early period, affords strong 
 proof that the communion of little children came 
 down from the Apostles. Ecclesiastical historians 
 differ respecting the period when infant cetmminimi 
 in the Lord ? s Supper became generally prevalent. 
 Mosheim, and Dr. Samuel Miller assert, that it 
 prevailed in the second century, but do not deter- 
 mine to what extent.* Spanhemins, and Wall deny- 
 that it was practiced so soon — the first, grants that 
 it was introduced in the third century:! and the 
 latter, in the beginning of the fourth.; The proba- 
 ble fact appears to be this, that infant communion, 
 like superstition, in every form, was gradually in- 
 introduced — that in a few churches it might have 
 been practiced in the end of the second century — 
 that it spread in the third, and was very general and 
 openly pled for and defended in the fourth, and 
 fifth. Dr. Miller admitting the fact that the cor- 
 ruption existed in the second century, considers it 
 unaccountable. He says, " now that this practice 
 had no foundation either in scripture or Apostolic. 
 
 Mosheim Eccl. His. Cent. ii. and Dr. Millers Let- 
 ters, i. Series Let. 8. \Samma His. Eccl. Cent. 
 *i.and iii. \Hh. of Inf. Bap. Part. ii. chap 
 
*3G LETTER VIIK 
 
 example is conceded by the whole christian worlds 
 How then shall we account for its introduction and 
 general adoption in the church?" To clear this 
 part of church history of difficulty the following re- 
 marks are offered ; and they will I hope satisfactor- 
 ily evince, that although infant communion was a 
 superstitious innovation made in the church at an~ 
 early period, yet the communion of lutie children, 
 from three years and upwards, did prevail in all the 
 churches, and was no superstitious innovotion. 
 
 First, the modern writers, both in theology, and 
 ecclesiastical history appear never to have ascer- 
 tained, and clearly defined what infancy is — how 
 far it extends, and what is the character, standing 
 and rights of children in the church of God, when 
 infancy terminates. Hence in their writings, in- 
 fants, little children and youth are confounded and 
 grouped together and thus what in ancient history 
 was said of one of these classes, is attributed to an- 
 other, or to all of them. If the moderns would first 
 inform us that infancy among the Jews extended to 
 three full years, and among the Greeks to four*-— 
 that then the age of little ones commenced, and ter- 
 minated somewhere about thirteen or fourteen ; and 
 then in their subsequent references to these various 
 classes observe the distinction, much obscurity would 
 be obviated, and many unaccountables would be ea- 
 sily accountable. That the early christian writers 
 observed the "above distinction, and which in a for- 
 mer letter was shown to exist in the holy scripture 
 
LETTER VIII. rsl 
 
 will appear by an extract from Ireneus Bishop of 
 Lyons, in France, in the second century, and who 
 was the disciple of Poly carp the disciple of the Apos- 
 tle John. Speaking of Christ, he says, "therefore 
 as he was a master he had also the age of a master. 
 Not disdaining, nor going in a way above human 
 nature, nor breaking in his own person, the law 
 which he had set for mankind 5 but sanctifying eve- 
 ry several age by the likeness that it has to him; 
 for he came to save all persons by himself — all I 
 mean who by him are regenerated (\>r baptized) 
 unto God — infants, and little ones and boys and youths 
 and elder persons; for infants being made an infant 
 sanctifying infants. To little ones he was made a 
 little one, santifying those of that age, and also giv- 
 ing them an example of Godliness, justice and du- 
 tifulness ; — to youths, he was a youth, &C. 5 ** Poly- 
 carp had this classification, no doubt, from the A- 
 postle John, as it has been noticed in substance in 
 the second chapter of his first Epistle. Ireneus had 
 it from Polycarp his master. And let it be noted 
 that he says Christ became a little one, giving them 
 of this age an example of Godliness, &c. Let us 
 now advert to the declarations of some ecclesiasti- 
 cal writers. King says, that, in the time of Cyprian, 
 Bishop of Carthage, which was about the middle 
 of the third century, " it was usual for children 
 
 * Wall. His. Inf. Bap. Part i. Chap. 3. 
 In the above I have translated, pueros boys, different 
 from- Mr* Wall who translates it children. 
 
132 LETTER VHI. 
 
 /nnd sucking infants to receive the sacrament."* 
 Here children and infants are both mentioned. 
 Wall denies that there is any proof that mere in- 
 fants partook of the Lord's Supper in the days of 
 Cyprian, but says, that children of four or five 
 pears did partake of it in the church of Carthage, 
 and in giving what he considered most probable on 
 the whole matter from all that he could ascertain, 
 he says, 
 
 " 1. That in Cyprians time the people of the 
 church of Carthage did often times bring their 
 children younger than ordinary to the communion. 
 
 " 2. That in St. Austin and Innocent's time, 
 (fourth and fifth century) it was in the western parts 
 given to mere infants, and that this continued from 
 that time about 600 years. 
 
 • ; 3. That sometime during thi? space of GOO 
 years, the Greek churchy which was then low in the 
 world, took this custom of the Latin church, which 
 was more flourishing. 
 
 " 4. That the Roman church about the year 1000 
 entertaining the doctrine of Transubstantiation, let 
 fall the custom of giving the holy elements to in- 
 fants, and the other western churches mostly follow- 
 ing their example, did the like, upon the said ac- 
 count; but that the Greeks not having the said doc- 
 trine, continued, and do still continue the custom of 
 communicating infants." Again he says, " that it 
 is not time, that all christians are satisfied that the 
 
 "Prim. Church. Partii. Chap. 6. 
 
BETTER VIII. 
 
 indents did ill in giving infants the Eucharist; for 
 nearly half the christians in the world do still con- 
 tinue that practice. The Greek church, the Arme- 
 nians, the Maronites, the Cophti, the Abassens and 
 the Muscovites — and fqr ought I know do all I 
 rest of the eastern christians.* If Wall he correct, 
 then it was not infant communion, hut the commun- 
 ion of little children, as young as four or five years, 
 that prevailed in Carthage, in Cyprian's time. And 
 
 - ichhave been incorrectly termed infants, by ma- 
 ny, i;, u the same error, was called 
 Li the fourth and fifth century, 
 when infant communion did prevail, ai.d its advo- 
 cates, declared that it came down from the Apos-* 
 lave alluded to the communion of 
 
 le ones and confounded the two together. Bat 
 as before remarked, infant communion might have 
 been practiced in some few churches as early as 
 latter part of the second century, or beginning 
 of the third, and Wall, nevertheless, be correct 
 with respect to its general prevalence, and pub- 
 lic defence. If we advert to the glowing figura- 
 tive language of Ignatius at the beginning of the 
 second century, respecting the bread in the Lorn"? 
 Supper; and to the construction and application of 
 John vi. 53-58, made by the christian writers of 
 t his century: and if we also admit that it had been 
 .he custom for little children to commune, with them 
 there is no difficulty in accounting for infant commun- 
 
 *H&. Inf. Bap. Part. ii. Chap. 9. 
 M 
 
134 LETTER VIII. 
 
 ion in some churches falling into superstition in tht 
 beginning of the third centuiy. But if none under 
 fourteen, or fifteen, or the age, which we have been 
 in the habit of considering, the age of discretion, had 
 enjoyed the privilege of partaking of the Lord's Ta- 
 ble among the Jews, the Apostolic christians, and 
 those succeeding, I agree with Dr. Miller, that the 
 prevalence of infant communion in the second, third, 
 or even the fourth centur}* is unaccountable. But 
 in- view of the facts just stated, there is no difficulty 
 in the case. So soon as there was a life-giving vir- 
 tue attributed, by the doctors of the church, to the 
 sacred elements, and their participation made es- 
 sential to salvation, it was very easy and natural to 
 pass on from the little ones of three or four years, to 
 infants. A similar process had been made among 
 the Jews respecting infant communion in the passo- 
 ver, when they gave place to superstition and the 
 commandments of men. But to pass from youth of 
 fourteen to infants, in the administration of the 
 Lord's Supper, in the second or third century, is 
 truly unaccountable. It would have been so great 
 a stride, so wonderful and daring an innovation, 
 that it would have agitated the whole christian 
 church, and produced a contention as memorable 
 as that which arose respecting the observance of 
 Easter. 
 
 These remarks make the several ecclesiastical 
 historians intelligible; and enable us to see how 
 their apparent different statements respecting ir^ 
 
LETTER VIII. 135 
 
 font communion, arc not really contradictory, and 
 that the communion of little ones preceded, and 
 was by some confounded with it. This, taken in 
 connection with the other evidence advanced from 
 Ignatius and church history, prove to my mind very 
 satisfactorily, that the church admitted little chil- 
 dren to partake of the Lord's Supper from the days 
 of the Apostles until that communion was entirely 
 blended with infant communion in the prevalence 
 of superstition. From that period to this the 
 distinction has been lost. Infants, little ones, and 
 youth are all classed together. 
 
 After the third or fourth century, the church's 
 practice and authority with regard to almost any 
 subject, are of very little weight with protestants. 
 An historical sketch, however, of the Lord's Sup- 
 per down to our own times is necessary to remove 
 some diiilculties, and meet some objections that may 
 be urged against the views which I have been en- 
 deavoring to establish. 
 
 From the second century, pompous appendages 
 and rites were thrown around the church and ordi- 
 nances of God. This was particularly the case with 
 respect to the Lord's Supper, as you may see by 
 consulting ?tIosheim, or almost any other ecclesi- 
 astical historian. Its importance, its saving virtue 
 and holy nature were the themes of the most glow- 
 nthusiastic acclamation. So much sane-, 
 tity and terror wot- thrown around it in the days 
 
136 LETTER VIH. 
 
 of Ambrose. Chrysostom, and Augustin,*' that peo- 
 ple, the members of the church began to abstain 
 from communing. They would sometimes enter 
 the church, hear the sermon, and then retire, which 
 practice was severely censured by the above nam- 
 ed Fathers.! Decrees of councils were passed to 
 compel them to commune, at least once a year. 
 This at length became the common practice. Oth- 
 er reasons are given by Brown of Haddington, in 
 his apology for the more frequent administration of the 
 Lord's Supper, why the practice of communing so 
 seldom became prevalent in the fourth century, and 
 no doubt some of them had their influence; but it 
 appears from Chrysostom, as quoted by Calvin, 
 that the plea of the people was, that they were not 
 prepared. The ceremonies were numerous — no- 
 tions, which terminated in transubstantiation, were 
 prevailing, the danger of eating and drinking judg- 
 or as we have it translated, damnation, was 
 proclaimed i: 1 dreadful tones — 
 
 ce, the 
 -eldci • conscien- 
 
 ces condemned and lis snper^fr 
 
 / and : lavish fear for the 
 I . . ad ;.!.<! • 
 . and blo< •! of Christ, and (hen 
 n peo- 
 
 , J odk h . 
 ap. 17. ai 1 ■ . 
 
LETTER VIII. 13? 
 
 pie ; and the clergy alone were considered sufficient- 
 ly holy to partake of the sacred symbols. Monkery 
 in the dark ages had extirpated nearly all the so- 
 cial virtues. All the tine and tender feelings of the 
 ge state — all the sympathies and silken 
 .ween husband and wife, father and children 
 were sacrificed to Moloch; and thus the Monks? 
 were preapared, butchers of the man of sin, 
 
 to drive the i.i le childrei . info ts and all from the 
 Lord. B liness, and a professed re- 
 sacred elen ■ re the pretexts for 
 
 this unnatural. e d. 
 
 At whaj of the church were 
 
 opened for I Ion of mere spectators of the 
 
 celebration of Vipper, I have not been 
 
 able to ascertain. We may, however, reasonably 
 conclude, that when i, became customary for mem- 
 bers of the church to be mere spectators, and when 
 the great men of the world became the patrons of 
 Christianity, as was the case in the days of Constan- 
 tine, some would be gratified with beholding the 
 mysteries, without making a profession, and receiv- 
 ing baptism. The doors once opened could not be 
 easily closed. And when the church became en- 
 tirely corrupt, when the sacred elements were car- 
 ried about for the adoration of the people, and the 
 world and wicked men obtained the ascendancy, 
 it is easy to see that the separating, distinguishing 
 line, constituted by the Lord's Supper, between 
 
138 TTER VIII. 
 
 \c of Gcd and the rest oi 
 the * 
 
 Th • : . til century restor- 
 
 h : •-.. .' . and ape 
 v and abominations 
 rated and defiled the churc) 
 God. The bread and the wine were restored to 
 laity, in the lord's Supper; but i] I d Ut- 
 
 ile children being classed together and both cor 
 ered equally unfit, or incompetent to partake wor- 
 thily of that holy ordinance, were left where 
 they had been put by the saintly agents of the 
 man of sin. Ic appears thai some plead for tl e 
 restoration of infants, but were unsuccessful, so iir 
 as I have been able to learn, in the reformed 
 chare he?.! Had they examined the scriptures and 
 le the proper distinction between infants, and 
 little children, and advocated the cause of the lat- 
 ter, leaving the former to commune in the per- 
 of their mothers, there 'would, in all probabili- 
 ty, have been no occasion, or necessity for writing 
 present letters. 
 With respect to the qualifications of those admit- 
 ted to the church and her distinguishing privileges, 
 oe remarks are necessary. The practice of the 
 
 * In 1548 a denunciation was to be pronounced in 
 the churches of England, and all who had not repent- 
 ed were required to withdraw, lest the Devil should en- 
 ter into than as he aid into Judas. Aral's His. Pir- 
 .:, Chap. 2. \VdiCs Econ. Lered's Supper. 
 
LETTER VIII. 139 
 
 to have been first to preach the 
 Gospel, that is, deliver their testimony fully and 
 clearly, respecting Jesus Christ, and the way of ob* 
 taining salvation through him; and if any professed 
 to believe the testimony, and a willingness to take 
 him for their Saviour and ruler, they were baptized, 
 and in due time organised into a church, for 
 enjoyment of all privileges. Thus a p'dfession of 
 faith and obedience to Christ, was all that was 
 quired for admission into the church, and a parti- 
 cipation of all privileges. There was no doi 
 some difference made between the Jewish converts 
 who had been instructed from the Old Testament, 
 and the heathen who had every thirg respecting the 
 true God and his worship to learn: yet the proces? 
 was short, and the qualification for membership, a 
 simple profession of faith ad obedience. When 
 superstition began to prevail, and ^al godliness 
 declined — when firms, instead of substance, and a 
 technical, philosophical theology, gradually sup- 
 planted the simple religion of the Bible, it became 
 much more difficult to get into the church, and to a 
 participation of the Lord's Supper. The Catechu- 
 mens had to pass through a long process, of instruc- 
 tion and discipline, and at last entered with fasting 
 and many ceremonies of men's invention.* Penitents, 
 that is, those who had apostatized or fallen from 
 their profession of Christianity, could not be restor- 
 ed without a lo! g series of penance and mortiiica- 
 * Kings Prim, Church. 
 
140 LETTER Vllf. 
 
 lion. Thus things went on until superstitious riteh 
 and ceremonies — austere forms, Jewish, or pagan 
 lustrations, &c. Szc. drove all true religion from the 
 church ; and at last no quail': :a;tion short of priestly 
 y- ler , could obtain the bread and the wine in the 
 Lord's Sapper. 
 
 n what -.. law and custom a- 
 
 • ; to their children par- 
 lirteen they partook 
 :h their pare its. Being circumcised and con- 
 taminated with no ceremonial, or legal uocleaness 
 they received the sacred symbols of the Lord's Ta- 
 nk, in the passover, upon the responsibility of their 
 natural guardians. In other words, their parents, 
 if the expression he proper, qualified for them. But 
 when thirteen years old, the father resigned his 
 trust and responsibility, and the education they had 
 received, and the maturity to which they had arriv- 
 ed, were the qualifications which were supposed 
 necessary to constitute them suitable communi- 
 cants in the passover, as personally responsible 
 moral agents, and members of the church. If 
 afterwards they should, in any thing, act un- 
 worthily, or violate the laws of God's house they 
 were subject to discipline. Now, although I can 
 find no explicit authority, to show that the same 
 law and custom prevailed in the christian church, 
 yet from the nature of things, and a ceremony 
 which is early noticed, and has in later tim^s been 
 called confirmation, there can be little doubt that 
 
LETTER YIII. 141 
 
 such was the fact. Imposition of hands had hcen 
 customary from the days of Abraham, as a form of 
 setting apart to the enjoyment of blessings, and of 
 office; and by it, in the days of the Apostles, the Ho- 
 ly Ghost was given. Paul speaks of the doctrine of 
 the laying on of hands;* and in the early days of the 
 christian church it was used after baptism; and by 
 some called absolution and consummation. The hands 
 were imposed, aiid prayer at the same time offered, 
 for the communication of the holy spirit, who con- 
 summated the work of the souls conversion unto 
 God. Chrism, or annointing with oil was at the 
 same time used by some, and in process of time be- 
 came common, both in baptism, and the laying on of 
 hands. t According to this signification and use of 
 the laying on of hands, it might very naturally be ap- 
 plied to the children of the church, when they passed 
 from the period of childhood, to that of youth, and 
 were considered capable of choosing and acting for 
 themselves in the matters of religion. They were 
 1 recognized and set apart upon their own per- 
 sonal responsibility, to the discharge of the duties, 
 and the enjoyment of the privileges of church mem- 
 bers. Although there be not very clear authority 
 fortius, yet it is the only foundation which Papists 
 have for their sacrament of confirmation ; and the 
 Episcopaieans •. who do not call it a sacrament, but 
 
 *Heb* vi. 2. '(King's Prim. Church. Part ii. 
 Chap. 5 and Dr. Iky'- Lectures. Book iv. Art. 25, 
 
 Sec, 3. 
 
U2 LETTER VIII. 
 
 an ordinance, or rite, which youth are to secure, 
 before they receive the Lord's Supper. The for- 
 mer say, ;i that confirmation is not to be given till 
 young persons have the use of their reason; and 
 therefore it must be deferred till they are eleven 
 years old, or however till they are six.'' The lat- 
 ter, that they should not be confirmed under four- 
 teen.* The reformed French church fixed the 
 communion of young persons at above twelve years 
 of age. t This, or fourteen is generally coi sidered 
 by all protestants, as the period at which they ar- 
 rive at the years of discretion, and when they ou^ht 
 to partake of the Lord's Supper. The qualifica- 
 tions which they have required have varied in dif- 
 ferent churches, and sometimes in the same church. 
 In the English church, in the days of Edward VI. 
 it was enjoined upon church officers; " that, they 
 examine such who come to confession, whether 
 they can recite the Pater-noster, (the Lord"? prayer.) 
 creed, and ten commandments in English before they 
 receive the sacrament of the Altar, else they ought 
 not to come to God's board. '"I The reformation 
 hen, far progressed, from popery, in the 
 h church ; but to this day little more is requir- 
 ed according to the liturgy and form of con 
 It should be remarked, however, that in all the re- 
 formed churches there was what they termed the 
 power of the Keys; and (lie Key of doctrine a? d the 
 * See Hey as just cited. \Stc:':i:rfs Coh Look ii. 
 Tit. 4. \MeaPsHis. Puri. 2. a note. 
 
LETTER VIIL 143 
 
 Key of discipline. In the use of the Key of doctrine, 
 they would declare who in God's sight, and accor- 
 ding to his word were fit and worthy communicants, 
 and seldom fail to pronounce damnation on those 
 who partook unworthily. But in the exercise of 
 the Key of discipline, they debarred none, but those 
 who in the sight, and judgment of men were grossly 
 scandalous or ignorant, and admitted all upon a 
 credible profession of their faith in Christ, And 
 when the baptized children of the church had ar- 
 rived at somewhere about twehre or fourteen years 
 of age; and could repeat the Lord's Prayer, the 
 Apostle's Creed, the ten commandments, and some 
 little church catechism, they were considered qual- 
 ified for the participation of the Lord's Supper, and 
 accordingly by the Key of discipline were admit- 
 ted. Such were the requisitions, and such the 
 practice of the reformed churches, until the rise of 
 the Independents, about the beginning of the seven- 
 teenth century. From that period, the views and 
 practice have varied in different churches, respec- 
 ting the qualifications which are to entitle persons, 
 in the judgment of church officers, to a seat at the 
 Lord's Table. In the days of Richard Baxter, 
 there was much controversy respecting church 
 membership and the terms of admission to the Lord's 
 Supper, He blamed the Episcopaleans for requir- 
 ing too little, and the Independents for requiring too 
 much. Tie former pursued the course before sta- 
 ted, the latter required what some call an expe* 
 
144 LETTER VIII. 
 
 rience. That is, applicants must give the time, 
 place and manner of their conversion. They must 
 not only profess faith and obedience to the Saviour, 
 but they must profess a hope that they had been 
 changed in heart, and give the particular reasons of 
 that hope.* This Baxter considered tyrannical and 
 erroneous, and one cause of the contentions and di- 
 visions in his day. It, in part, laid the axe to the 
 root of church union and communion. Every par- 
 ticular church must, in consistently carrying out 
 tins principle, deny communion to all members, 
 from other churches, whose views and practice 
 were different. They must have satisfactory evi- 
 dence that all who would commune with them were 
 truly regenerated; and for this they could seldom 
 rely upon the judment and veracity of others. Con- 
 tention, harsh judging and division must be the 
 consequence. Baxter says, that he examined the 
 question of a persons admission to communion more 
 particularly than any other subject, and he could 
 rest on no other ground than this, u a credible pro- 
 fession of true faith and repentance,''' And further 
 says, " the Independents bring in tyranny and con- 
 fusion, whilst they will take no profession as credi- 
 ble, which hath not more to make it credible than 
 God and charity require; and that every man's 
 
 *Savoy Con. Faith. Inst, and order. Isaac Chan- 
 cers Divine Inst, of Cong. Ch. Chap. xii. Baxter's 
 Life. Parrti. p. 113, 143. Appendix No. 4, Pan e 
 79. 
 
LETTER VIII. 145 
 
 Word is to be taken, as the credible profession of his 
 own mind, unless he forfeit the credit of his word 
 by gross ignorance of the matter professed, or by 
 a contrary profession or by an inconsistent life.'- 
 Again, "to exclude any from communion that are 
 baptized, and at age have owned their Christiani- 
 ty, and are not proved by sufficient witnesses to 
 have nullified that profession by apostasy, heresy, 
 or a wicked or scandalous life, is church tyranny 
 and injustice, of which all are guilty that do it or 
 desire it."'* The Westminster divines held that 
 all who professed the true religion were members of 
 the church, and none such were to be debarred 
 from the Lord's table except those who were igno- 
 rant and scandalous.! The church of Scotland 
 -ays, w Those that are to be admitted to this sacra- 
 ment must be found to have a competent knowledge 
 of the fundamentals of the christian religion, and 
 to be of such an inoffensive walk and conversation, 
 both towards God and their neighbours that they 
 are not known to be guilty of any scandal that mer- 
 iteth church censure."| I am speaking of the 
 exercise of the key of discipline. The Confession 
 of Faith and Catechisms formed by the Westmin- 
 ster divines, and received by the Church cf Scot- 
 land, are very full and particular, respecting those 
 graces, dispositions aud spiritual exercises required 
 
 * Baxter's Life as before cited, t Con. Faith. Chap, 
 xxv. 2. 8l xxvi. 2. Larger Cat. Ques. 173. \Stem- 
 -arts Collections Tit. 4. 
 
 N 
 
146 LETTER VIII. 
 
 by the heart searching God, of those who approach 
 him at the Table of the Lord. It appears that the 
 church of Scotland and many others held the mid- 
 dle ground between the Episcopaleans and Inde- 
 pendents ; but they too generally appear to have 
 considered the Lord's nurture and admonition, as con- 
 sisting in a knowledge of the Lord's prayer — the 
 Apostle's creed, the ten commandments, and the 
 formularies of the church. The Bible was not dis- 
 carded, or altogether neglected in the religious ed- 
 ucation of youth, but it gave not the length and 
 breadth, the height, and depth of that education, 
 and was not the standard of the religion required 
 for admission to the Table of the Lord. The Bi- 
 ble epitomized, or reduced to brief ybrms and sum- 
 maries, naturally produced a formal and sinnmary 
 religion. This was lamentably the case in the best 
 of the reformed churches, and in some, the spirit, 
 life and power of the religion of the Bible seldom 
 appear. And when we consider, how prone men 
 are to extreme it is not to be wondered at, that the 
 Independents took the course, so severely censured 
 by the pious and judicious Richard Baxter. 
 
 In the. last century the discordant views, and 
 practice of the preceding one continued ; and much 
 furious controversy prevailed. Infnnt communion 
 was agitated. A Mr. Pierce and Dr. Dodridge 
 are mentioned among the disputants.* Mr. 
 Charles Buck, who gives a short notice of this con- 
 
 Buck's Theo. Diet. Article, Infant community. 
 
LETTER VIII. 147 
 
 1 1 overs), is of opinion that although infant com- 
 munion cannot be sustained, yet if children were 
 properly instructed they might commune very 
 young. 
 
 It is well known that the Rev. George Whitfield 
 and John Wesley were instrumental in producing 
 a powerful religious excitement through the King- 
 dom of Great Britain and the United States. Cold- 
 ness and formality appear to have generally over- 
 spread the churches, and a revival of religion was 
 greatly needed. In New England, and in some 
 other places a revival was enjoyed ; and one con- 
 sequence was, that many ran to the extreme of en- 
 thusiasm, and others to the most furious opposi- 
 tion. "Old side and new side — Schemers — en- 
 thusiasts, new lights," and other not very flatter- 
 ing appellations, tradition informs us, were then 
 in common use. The new side, who advocated the 
 revival were for admitting none to the communion 
 but those who could narrate great experiences, and 
 give satisfactory evidence that they were born 
 again. This the old side termed enthusiasm, and 
 stood firmly for their former terms of communion. 
 viz: a recitation of the Lord's prayer — the apos- 
 tle's creed and ten commandments, &e. or by a sim- 
 ple, cold profession of faith in the scriptures, and 
 common Christianity. The judicious reader will 
 doubtless conclude, that here were two extremes, 
 and that a just medium was necessary to be drawn. 
 This was undertaken by the celebrated Jonathan 
 
143 LETTER VIIL 
 
 Edwards, and may be seen in the first volume of 
 his works. He however declined the discussion of 
 the relation, rights and duties of baptised children. 
 He speaks of their being members of the church in 
 some sort — but not in full and complete standing — 
 he speaks of their becoming adult, and falling 
 short of the qualifications for the Lord's table and 
 yet not cast out of the church, but continuing mem- 
 bers in some respect. But what sort of members 
 they are, or in what respect they are members, he 
 does not attempt to tell.* The qualifications of 
 adults who are to be admitted to the Lord's table, 
 he labours through a large octavo volume ; and 
 were he treating merely of adults from the world, 
 applying for admission into the church and to her 
 sealing ordinances, no reasonable objection could 
 be urged against his views. One of the forms of 
 profession, with which he says he would be content, 
 although he would not wish to be confined to it, is as 
 follows — " I hope I do truly find a heart to give up 
 myself wholly to God according to the tenor of that 
 
 * When my viezos were known to some of my breth- 
 ren, they referred me to President Edwards, as one zcho 
 would give me clear, and correct views, with respect to 
 the qualifications, and characters of all zvho should be 
 permitted to commune. 1 confess that I read him with 
 no little interest and profit ; but on the subject of baptiz- 
 ed children I was unhappily disappointed. He takes 
 them, and the world up together, and thus treats them 
 as he treats aliens and foreigners; and inno sort at 
 members. 
 
LETTER Ylii. 149 
 
 covenant of grace, which was sealed in my baptism; 
 and to walk in a way of that obedience to all the 
 commandments of God, which the covenant of grace ? 
 requires, as long as I live.*' 
 
 Again, " nor do I think it improper for a minister 
 to acquire, and know of the candidate what can be 
 remembered of the circumstances of his christrian 
 experience ; as this may tend much to illustrate his 
 profession, and give a minister great advantage for 
 proper instructions; though knowledge and remem- 
 brance of the time, and method of the first conver- 
 sion to God, is not to be made a test of a person's 
 sincerity, nor insisted on as necessary in order to 
 his being received into full charity. Not that I 
 think it at all improper, or unprofitable that, in 
 some special cases, a declaration of the particular 
 circumstances of a persons first conversion and the 
 manner of his convictions, illuminations and com- 
 forts should be publicly exhibited before the whole 
 congregation, on occasion of his admission into the 
 church; though this be not demanded as necessary 
 to admission. I ever declared against insisting on 
 a relation of experiences* in this sense, (viz. a rela- 
 tion of the particular time and steps of the opera- 
 tion of the spirit, in first conversion,) and the term 
 of communion: yet if by a relation of experiences, 
 be meant, a declaration of experience of the great 
 things wrought, wherein time, grace, and the essen- 
 tia^ acts and habits of holiness consists: in this sense* 
 
150 LETTER VW. 
 
 I think an account of a person's experiences neces- 
 sary in order to full communion in the church."- 
 
 You may complain of some obscurity in the dis- 
 tinctions which he makes; but it is evident that he 
 did not make regeneration, or a narrative of expe- 
 riences, as satisfactory proof of regeneration, the 
 ground of admission to the church and the Lord's 
 Table, by the officers of the church; and at the 
 same time he insists on experimental religion as es- 
 sential to a true, genuine member of the church, 
 and to eternal life. This he maintains throughout 
 his treatise. And had he disposed of baptized chil- 
 dren and shown from the scriptures, what standing, 
 rights and privileges they are entitled to in the 
 church, his book would have been of incalculably 
 more benefit to the citizens ofZion. 
 
 President Edwards had opposers, particularlv a 
 Mr. Williams, and Lis own congregation, in North- 
 hampton, Massachusetts. In the American chur- 
 ches, farther south, great contentions prevailed. A 
 schism took place among the Presbyterians, and it 
 is said, one party excommunicated the other.! Time 
 and grace healed the breach, but uniformity of views 
 ^and practice, with respect to the terms of commun- 
 ion, does not yet prevail it) the Presbyterian church, 
 
 * Preface to a sermon prefixed to vol. i. of Edward's 
 Works. 
 
 \For this and some other facts slated I am indebted 
 to sortie aged, people, who recollect the doings of those 
 
 days, or had them from their parents. 
 
LETTER VIIJ. 151 
 
 The reformed thurch, which claims lobe the ori- 
 ginal reformed church from popery, in the united 
 kingdoms of Great Britain and is known more gen- 
 erally under the name of Covenanters, declares, 
 through one of her distinguished Doctors, that, " we 
 are not to receive a man to communion merely he- 
 cause he is regenerate, nor are we to reject him mere- 
 ly because he is unregenereite.''' Among other rea- 
 sons which he assigns, 1 shall give three. 
 
 1. "We are not officers of the invisible church, 
 Saintship is. in it, the criterion of membership. 
 
 2. " It is impossible that regeneration is the crite- 
 rion of membership in the visible church: no mere 
 man can judge the heart. Upon this principle we 
 never could associate in the church with confidence. 
 We cannot be certain of one another's regeneration. 
 
 3. " The principle, that regeneration is the cri- 
 terion of membership, is pregnant with much mis- 
 chief. It encourages ignorance in ministers — it is 
 <m engine of tyranny — it encourages spiritual pride : 
 it is destructive of piety; the church upon my ad- 
 mission has pronounced me regenerate. I have no 
 need of self examination. It encourages licentious- 
 ness. It is a certain method of banishing saints 
 from the church and of receiving hypocrites." Ac- 
 
 ording to this writer, the qualifications for admis- 
 sion into the church, or to any of its privileges are 
 these, the candidate must " knowingly profess a 
 belief of the doctrine of Christ; promise submission 
 to all his institutions: evidence repentence of all 
 
152? LETTER VIII. 
 
 his sins, and manifest no prevailing inclination to any 
 kind of wickedness.* 
 
 In the Associate Reformed Church, a writer of 
 high standing, distinguishes between the terms of 
 admitting adults into the church from tie world, 
 and the admission of her children, to her peculiar 
 privileges. With respect ^o admitting adult mem- 
 bers, he says, '• upon the whole we may conclude, 
 that an adult* in order to his right reception into 
 the christian church. 
 
 Must be acquainted, with at least the leading 
 doctrines of revelation : 
 
 Must be able to give a reason of the hope that is 
 in him/' by showing that these doctrines have ope- 
 rated upon his experience: 
 
 Must make an open, unequivocal avowal of the 
 Redeemer's name: and, 
 
 Must be vigilant in the habitual discharge of his 
 religious and moral duty. 
 
 He in whom these things meet, is a christian, and 
 to be recognized as such by the christian church.*'! 
 The four following terms of admission are discar- 
 ded by this writer, and by the church to which he 
 belonged. 
 
 1 . A general profession of Christianity. 
 
 2. Soundness in the doctrines of revelation, with- 
 
 *Df*A.McLeocPs Ecclesiastical Catechism. Que?. 
 22, and 26. and Note B. 
 \ Christian's Magazine, Fbl. i. 278. 
 
LETTER VIII. 153 
 
 out scrutiny into particular character, or without 
 solicitude on that point. 
 
 3. Doctrinal soundness combined with fair mor- 
 als. 
 
 4. Religious experience, and regeneration. 
 With respect to the children of believers, they 
 
 are in the church ; and the relations and benefits of 
 the covenant, are theirs by hereditary descent, ac- 
 cording to this writer. And they are " bound to 
 own their relation to the church of God by profes- 
 sing the name of the Lord Jesus Christ; showing 
 forth his death in the communion of the holy sup- 
 per, and walking in all his ordinances and com- 
 mandments blameless."* 
 
 I have not the means of ascertaining precisely the 
 terms laid down by other denominations of protes- 
 tants, for admission into the church ; and for the ad- 
 mission of baptized children to the Lord's Table. The 
 Presbyterian church has been as specific as any other 
 in her directory: Chap. ix. After speaking of the 
 manner of admitting baptized children: Sect. i. to 
 the table of the Lord, the mode of admitting unbap- 
 tized persons into the church is stated, sect. iv. The 
 third section says, that " those who are to be admit- 
 ted to sealing ordinances shall be examined as to 
 their knowledge and piety." Are we to under- 
 
 *Christians Magz.vol. i. 274-184. Vol. ii. 409- 
 416. This authors essays on the church of God arc zvor- 
 ihi) the perusal ofezery theologian. 
 
154 LETTER VIII. 
 
 t 
 
 stand this as confounding baptized children and the 
 mode of admitting them, expressed in section first, 
 with the unbaptized adults and their admission, 
 section fourth? or does it mean that church officers 
 shall examine all, with respect to their knowledge 
 and piety, so often as they admit them to baptism 
 and the Lord's Supper? This latter is the most 
 natural construction, and coincides with the views 
 expressed by some, viz. that known piety, or as they 
 express it, satisfactory evidence of regeneration, is 
 the ground upon which church officers are to ad- 
 mit to the Lord's Table. Now if this be so, when 
 any, who have by a mere profession of piety, ob- 
 tained a seat at the Lord's Table, manifest that they 
 have not piety — are not regenerated, they are to 
 be admitted no longer; that is, they are to be vir- 
 tually excommunicated. I have however found 
 none that thus consistently carry out their own prin- 
 ciple. All Presbyterian church sessions fail to cast 
 out from the communion those professors, who 
 merely fail to give satisfactory evidence of their 
 regeneration. They all have to lament that hy- 
 pocrisy and formality prevail in their congregations: 
 and many will say, " had we the same evidence of 
 such, and such member's hypocrisy; and had we 
 wanted the evidence which we now do, of their be- 
 ing regenerated, when we admitted them to sealing, 
 ordinances we certainly would have refused to do 
 so." But if the section in the directory re^pectir.s; 
 knowledge and piety, be thus understood and ap- 
 
LETTER IX. 155 
 
 plied by them in admitting to the Lord's Table, 
 why not understand and apply it in the same way* 
 in debarring? If a man is once examined with res- 
 pect to his piety, and obtains admission to the Lord's 
 Table, must he never be examined again and de- 
 barred when no piety is manifested — must he al- 
 ways commune, until guilty of something worse 
 than the want of piety, or regeneration? It is evi- 
 dent there is inconsistency here ; and that those who 
 substitute regeneration in the room of piety, as ex- 
 pressed in the directory and make this the rule of 
 admission to the Lord's Supper, by the officers of 
 the church, do not carry out their own principle. 
 
 If I understand the language of the directory, 
 the Presbyterian church, does not differ materially 
 from the two last mentioned churches. 
 
 I am vours, &c. 
 
 LETTER 9. 
 
 Some objections answered*, and additional considerations-* 
 
 Dear Sir: 
 
 Matters of fact, and the holy scrip- 
 tures, to those who admit them to be the w r ord of 
 God — the only infallible rule of faith and practice, 
 ought to be more decisive on any subject than an- 
 cient customs or the opinions and practices of men. 
 You must perceive that these have constituted my 
 
156 LETTER IX. 
 
 chief resort in the preceding investigation, it has 
 been my aim to ascertain facts, and what saith the 
 law and the testimony? Certain topics were thus 
 introduced, which furnish strong arguments in sup- 
 port of the position taken, but which according to 
 my plan could only be noticed in a cursory manner. 
 To obviate objections and to leave no ground for 
 evasion, it is necessary to resume some of these to- 
 pics. 
 
 It was taken for granted, that the Lord's Supper 
 has come in the room of the passover, or that one 
 is a continuation of the other, with some alteration, 
 with respect to the bloody symbols. It was not sup- 
 posed that this would be denied by any Pasdobap- 
 tist or Presbyterian. In this 1 have been mistaken. 
 It has been boldly asserted that the Lord r s Supper 
 has not come in the room of the passover — and that 
 therefore the law of the one does not regulate the 
 other. So say our baptist brethren with respect to 
 circumcision and baptism and certainly with much 
 more apparent reason. Yet my Presbyterian breth- 
 ren reject both their assertion and their reason. 
 They are also at issue with their own Confession of 
 Faith, with Calvin, Witsius, and other of their favour- 
 ite fathers — and what is more with the word of 
 God. 
 
 What says the Confession of Faith on this sub- 
 ject; "the Sacraments of the Old Testament in re- 
 gard of the spiritual things thereby signified and 
 
LETTER IX. 15? 
 
 exhibited, were for substance the same with those 
 of the new.* 
 
 In support of this declaration, the following texts 
 are found in the margin, and those who put them 
 there, understood them as containing something like 
 proof: "Moreover brethren, I would not that ye 
 should be ignorant, how, that all our fathers were 
 under the cloud, and all passed through the sea and 
 were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in 
 the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and 
 did all drink the same spiritual drink, (for they 
 drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and 
 that rock was christ.)"'t " Purge out, therefore, the 
 old leaven that ye may be a new lump, as ye are 
 unleavened. For even Christ, our passover is sac- 
 rificed for us. Therefore, let us keep the feast, not 
 with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice 
 and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of 
 sincerity and truth.* 7 ! But our saviour at the time 
 of instituting his New Testament supper, appears 
 to decide this question beyond all cavil. 
 
 It has already been observed that the table of 
 the Lord, in the celebration of the last passover, 
 was the table of the Lord, in the first celebration 
 of his New Testament supper. It was not even 
 drawn and spread again. The body and blood of 
 the paschal lamb, were not again presented ; but 
 the bread and wine were — and for what purpose? 
 
 *Chap. xxvii. Sec. v. |1 Cor. x. 1. 2. 3. 4. tl Cor, 
 v. 7. 8. 
 
 O 
 
138 LETTER TX, 
 
 Why, says the Saviour, you have just had the blood 
 of the Old Testament sprinkled: you have made use 
 of the body of the lamb, and of the bread and wine ; 
 all these belonged to the Old Testament. I bow 
 give you the same bread as significant of my body, 
 and henceforward, it stands in the room of the body 
 of the paschal lamb. I give you the same cup of 
 the passover — but now it is the cup of the jVey, not 
 of the Old Testament significant of my blood shed 
 for the remission of sins. How would the disciples 
 of our Saviour understand him? Or what was his 
 language calculated to teach them? That his table 
 and the passover were swept away? That nothing 
 of the same nature and uses and for the same kind 
 of characters could be found, but "an entirely new 
 ordinance, new table, new regulations, new sym- 
 bols and new communicating subjects. Certainly 
 not. Examine the evangelists once more on this sub- 
 ject. How readest thou? With respect to the pass- 
 over and Lord's supper, I read thus: "And he said 
 unto them, with desire I have desired to eat this 
 passover with you before I suffer; for I say unto 
 you, I will not any more eat thereof, until (the 
 meaning of) it be fulfilled (by my death) in the; 
 Kingdom of God (the Gospel dispensation.) "And 
 he took the cup, (probably the third cup which the 
 Jews used in the passover,) and gave thanks, (as 
 they usually did,) and said, take this and divide it 
 among yourselves, for I say unto you, I will not 
 drink of the fruit of the vine, until the Kingdom o% 
 
LETTER LV. i5f 
 
 Gccl (the Gospe ! b or dispensation) shall 
 come." 
 
 So much he spake concerning the elements of the 
 over before he exhibited the new form of the 
 tame ordinance as suited to the Gospel dispensa- 
 tion : then he proceeds with his New Testament 
 passover, in these words "and he took bread*' cer- 
 tainly some of the unleavened bread just used in 
 the passover, ar:d crave thanks and brake it. and 
 gave unto them saying: tins is (a symbolical repre- 
 sentation of) my body "which is (aboutto be) given 
 for you. This do in remembrance of me. Like- 
 wise also the cup after supper, (beirg the fourth 
 cup of the passover, according to Jewish u?:r .' 
 saving, this cup is the New Testament in my blood, 
 which is (about to be) shed for you." Luke xxii. 
 15-20. Markxiv. 25. 
 
 On these passages I remark — 
 
 1. That, by the kingdom of God, here mention- 
 ed, we must understand the reign of Christ, in hie 
 church. - resurrection, here on earth. For 
 the passover is not to be fulfilled, and the fruit of 
 the vine to be used in Heaven. 
 
 2. When the Kingdom of God was come, then 
 the passover, as far as typical, should be fulfilled, 
 but the cup, the fruit of the vine, should be drank 
 by our Saviour; that is. the same symbol should be 
 
 i by him and his disciples, in the passover. K 
 would drink it new in the Kingdom. How new* 
 Why, with respect to the new dispensation or tes* 
 
*60 LETTER IX, 
 
 lament. This cup is the new testament in my bfe * . 
 The cup is not a new symbolical cup. but it is to 
 be drank new. The table of the lord is not to be 
 a new table, nor the symbols spread on it new sym- 
 bol?, but two oi' (he old symbols are to be used as- 
 the symbols o . • ,ent. But by v. horn i 
 
 Are any who partook of them formerly, now to be 
 debarred? Let this be shewn. 
 
 If my brethren will still insist that the Lord's 
 Supper is neither a continuation of, nor a substitute 
 for the passover, but that it is a new ordinance, gov- 
 erned by new laws, and little children are to be ex- 
 cluded for want of express authority, admitting 
 them, in the New Testament, they must carry the 
 exclusion still farther and exclude all females. For 
 I may venture to challenge the production of ei- 
 ther precept or example, of female communion in 
 the New Testament. I may be told that the pre- 
 cept in 1 Cor. xi. 28: "Let a man examine himself 
 him eat,* 5 embraces women — that the 
 word utnJthrtypos in the original, translated man, is 
 imon gender, and includes both male and fe 
 , or mankind, and ef course women are inch*- 
 and commanded to partake. If the right of 
 women to commune rests on this precept, ifc is a 
 thread. It may be granted that antkropo 
 - used including both sexes, but it 
 is also freque : tly used to designate man as opposed 
 excluding woman, as the following passage 
 will prove: 
 
LETTER IX. 161 
 
 Mat. xix. 3. "Is it lawful for a man, (anthropos) 
 to put away his wife for every cause?" v. 5. "For 
 this cause shall a man (anthropos) leave father and 
 mother and cleave to his wife:" v. 10. "If the case 
 of a man (anthropos) be so with his wife, it is not 
 good to marry." Here are three instances where 
 the word anthropos is used to exclude women. But 
 lest it should be said that the gospel by Matthew is 
 a translation from Hebrew to Greek, and, there- 
 fore, not as accurate in language as other books — 
 I will cite you to a passage from the apostle Paul 
 himself, in this same epistle to the Corinthians. la 
 the first verse of the 7th chapter, he says, "now con~- 
 cerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me, it is 
 good for a man (anthropos) not to touch a woman.'* 
 Now sir, I ask, is it safe to rest the right of females 
 to admission to the Lord's Table, on the meaning 
 of a word which at best is equivocal, and used by 
 the same apostle and at least one other New Tes- 
 tament writer to exclude woman from the meaning. 
 The precept relied on, therefore, fails, and does not 
 necessarily include women, and there is no exam- 
 ple expressly in point, and the demand may be 
 made of my opponents, to produce their warrant 
 for such a practice. Now nothing is more easy on 
 the old and well matured doctrine that the Lord's 
 Supper has succeeded the passover and is govern- 
 ed by the same law. Instances enough can be pro- 
 duced by way of example, as well as precept suffi- 
 ciently plain, proving that women are entitled to 
 
162 LETTER IX. 
 
 admission to the Lord's Table, and the right of 
 children rests on the same base, and it is not con-= 
 sistent to admit one, by the law of the passover and 
 yet exclude the other^ when the law is equally 
 plain, with respect to both. 
 
 One consideration more. — 
 
 The passover was a distinguishing, significant, 
 and commemorating ordinance. Are not these the 
 great objects of the Lord's Supper? Did not the 
 people of God hold communion with him at his 
 table in the passover through the symbols of Christ's 
 sacrifice, and do not his people hold communion 
 with him at his table in the Lord's Supper, through 
 the symbols of the same sacrifice? You must per- 
 ceive Sir, that the cause which requires its advo- 
 cates to deny that the T word's supper has come in 
 the room of the passover, or is substantially a con- 
 tinuation of it, is a cause that needs new measures 
 and a very daring spirit. A remark was made in a 
 former letter, and a promise given to make it good, 
 that to debar church members from the Lord's Sup- 
 per, involves the question of their .membership, and 
 is a virtual excommunication of them. In support 
 of this position the following proof is submitted: 
 
 Much importance is attached in the holy scrip- 
 tures to religious and Church VISIBILITY. Our 
 Saviour has clearly taught us that we must confess 
 him before men, if we would be his followers. We 
 must come out and be separate, or he will not re 
 
LETTER IX. it- 
 
 ccive us. If we are ashamed of him before men, 
 
 he will be ashamed of us before his Father. 
 
 One i{reat object of the sealing ordinances, both 
 under the Old and New Testament is to give visi- 
 bility to the church and her members. This was 
 one important use of all the religions rites and cere- 
 monies given to the Israelites. Even day a \ 
 difference was made in some form or other between 
 the clean and unclean; between those who were 
 members of the congregation of the Lord and those 
 who were not. Circumcision and all the sacriiice". 
 including the passover drew a visible line between 
 the holy and the unholy. There was then no visi- 
 ble mingling of these two classes together in reli- 
 gious rites. Was it an object or a necessary conse- 
 quence of the abrogation of that system and the re- 
 moval of the partition wall, that the people of the 
 Lord became amalgamated with the ungodly world, 
 and no visible line of demarcation between the 
 Kingdom of Christ and the Kingdom of Satan was 
 left? If so, the church instead of becoming more 
 gloriously visible by the appearance of Messiah, 
 has lost her visibility altogether, as an organized 
 distinct society. As she now is, it is obvious she is 
 merged in the world. A sort of dovetailing con- 
 nexion exists, and in none of her ordinances does 
 she stand out a distinct visible body. In her sacra- 
 mental solemnities, we may see a few, and often- 
 times comparatively few, communicants surround- 
 ed by a great number of children and youth, which 
 
164 LETTER IX. 
 
 by the language of her confession?, and the once re- 
 pealed rite of baptism, are declared to be rnenv 
 hers; by some a partial or particular kind of mem- 
 bers, and in common practice, all nondescripts min- 
 gled and blended with the world, assigned practic- 
 ally by the church to Satan's Kingdom, but for- 
 mally admitted to be members. It is immaterial 
 how moral or even pious they may be, they still are 
 classed with the world; or however immoral and 
 disorderly they are, still they are not excommuni- 
 cated, and are classed with the church. Thus the 
 line of demarcation between the church and the 
 world, cannot be perceived by human eyes. This 
 state of things did not exist in the apostle's days, 
 nor ought it to exist now. When the daily sacri- 
 fice was taken away; when' the ceremonial distinc- 
 tion of meats and drinks; of clean and unclean 
 ceased, how was the church of God still made a 
 separate, visible, distinct body? Not by baptism. 
 For this being but once administered and leaving 
 no visible mark on the body, did not distinguish 
 from the world those who enjoyed it. Preaching 
 of the Gospel, public prayer and praise are not 
 now distinguishing ordinances. The two latter 
 were used as such by the early christian church. 
 We, however, consider none distinguishing and seal- 
 ing ordinances, but baptism and Ihe Lord's Supper. 
 And as baptism docs at no one time exhibit visibly 
 the Church of Clwist in any place, the whole busi- 
 ness of giving visibility to the church which was ac* 
 
LETTER IX. 165 
 
 [shed by all the sacrifices and religious rites 
 tinder the law, devolves upon the single ordinance 
 of the Lord's Supper. This accounts for the week- 
 ly and even daily celebration of that ordinance by 
 the apostles and the Christian Church, until the 
 third or fourth century. 
 
 The sacrifice of Christ is exhibited in this ordi- 
 nance, and therefore it stands not only in the room 
 of the passover sacrifice, but of all the sacrifices 
 which prefigured Christ and drew the seperating 
 line of visibility between the people of God and the 
 people of the world. This to my mind is a satisfac- 
 tory reason for the Lord's Supper being daily cele- 
 brated; whereas the passover was celebrated but 
 once a year. Believers were added to the church 
 daily by baptism, but how were they to be daily ex- 
 hibited as one visible body with all its accessions? 
 Not at all, unless by the Lord's Supper — the New 
 Testament passover, from which all but the church 
 members were excluded. The walls of the house 
 as we have already seen formed the separating line. 
 The visible members of Christ's kingdom were with- 
 in, and the visible members of Satan's kingdom 
 were without, every time this distinguishing ordi* 
 nance was administered. Resort might be had to 
 the records and registry of the church, if any were 
 kept to ascertain whether a pers©n were baptized, 
 and in good legal standing, yet the records and re- 
 gistry did not habitually and visibly exhibit the 
 church and the world as two separate b.-><ii(<>. hr*. 
 
166 LETTER IX; 
 
 cause the registry is a mere measure of convenient 
 kept for evidence to the church itself. Indeed I 
 might have assumed, without attempting to prove, 
 that the Lord's Supper is a distinguishing ordinance. 
 This idea is advanced in the Confession of Faith as 
 one of the doctrines of the church. It is there said 
 that one-of the uses of a sacrament is "to put a vi- 
 sible difference "between those that belong unto the 
 church and the rest of the world ;" and that while 
 it is used to testify ar d cherish love and commun- 
 ion between church .'-i Is also used to dis- 
 tinguish them frc ose e without.* But 
 without resc ai 'I con- 
 ceive fch - ~id- 
 h A first Corintb;ar.s, in 
 
 aalo -y or rather iden- 
 
 •een the Jewh and Christian Church, and 
 in the -;£nifieation of the ordinances of the church 
 in every age, and also argues from the ordinances 
 the unity and community of the church as opposed 
 to the world, and makes mention of the ordinance 
 of the supper as the distinguishing rite of the 
 church, and then concludes "you cannot drink of 
 the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils; ye can- 
 not be partakers of the table of the lord and the 
 
 devils." I say, suppose no one who will 
 candidly read this chapter and understand it, would 
 require any other proof, that the Lord's Supper h 
 
 *Con. F, Choi), xxvii. Sec. I. Large Cat. Quest. 
 162. 
 
LETTER IX. 167 
 
 the distinguishing ordinance which draws the line 
 between the church and world. 1 do not exclude 
 the idea of the church shining in the holy lives of 
 her members and thus becoming visible ; but I speak 
 of her and her members as constituting an organiz- 
 ed and visible body, separate from the world br- 
 acts cognizable by the senses of every one ; and 
 in this sense, I trust Sir, you will agree, that, ac- 
 cording to the scriptures the ground of visible 
 membership is narrowed to the single ordinance of 
 the Lord's Supper. Therefore, if you debar any 
 church members from that ordinance that are able 
 to come and partake of it in an orderly manner, 
 you unchurch them; you declare before the world 
 that they are not members, by throwing them out 
 with the world. But baptized children of three 
 years of age, or of any age when infancy ends with 
 the Lord's nurture and admonition, their coven- 
 ant birthright, are capable of coming and partak- 
 ing of that ordinance in an orderly manner; There- 
 fore, when they are debarred they are unchurched, 
 they are declared to be no church members. You 
 may say that this position and reasoning will prove 
 too much, as it will prove that all suspended mem- 
 bers and all who are not in good standing are un- 
 churched and have lost their membership. I reply 
 that in all such cases there is implied a forfeiture of 
 membership, and for the time being it is taken from 
 them, with the understanding that they are not to 
 enjoy it again without repentance. Suspension is- 
 
168 LETTER IX, 
 
 temporary excommunication, and excommunication 
 is a cutting off from the church and her distinguish- 
 ing privileges. A member who is not in good stand- 
 ing in the church, is supposed to be under charges 
 and a process of trial, and if that terminates ac- 
 cording to the word of God, he is either in good 
 standing, or has no standing at all, in the church. 
 But how will the objection apply to little children 
 who are neither suspended nor are under process be- 
 fore the church? They are members, and members 
 in good standing until charges are brought, and sen- 
 tence of condemnation passed. Separate them 
 from their parents at the Lord's Table, and throw 
 them among the people of the world, and you un- 
 church them, without a charge or a hearing. This 
 Sir, is a high-handed doing, which certainly re- 
 quires the high authority of Heaven for its justifi- 
 cation. 
 
 We have seen from evidence satisfactory, thai 
 little ones were of old, in the church of God. In- 
 fants were circumcised, and little ones ate the pass- 
 over. If they were once m, w r e ask for the authori- 
 ty which puts them out of the church. Our Sav- 
 iour frequently reproved the Jews for their altera- 
 tions and additions to the law of God by their tra- 
 ditions. That little ones ate the passover in his day, 
 as matter of historj cannot be questioned, yet he 
 never reproved the Jews for this as corruption, 
 though year after year he attended the feast of the 
 passover, both before and after his public ministry 
 
LETTER IX. 169 
 
 commenced, and yet he never once intimated to the 
 jews that they were profaning the passover, by the 
 admission of little ones. tVe must from his silence 
 draw one or two conclusions, either that this prac- 
 tice had his approbation, or that knowing it to be a 
 profanation of the ordinance, he so far failed in his 
 duty as never to caution his nation against the hor- 
 rid deed. The latter is wholly inadmissible; the 
 former must, therefore, be taken. He did not feel 
 so much shocked as some of our moderns do at the 
 thought that a little one should touch the august 
 symbols of the Saviour's body and blood ; and these 
 same persons can without any concern or alarm be- 
 hold the svmbol of the Holy Ghost, that august 
 person in the adorable Trinity, against whom blas- 
 phemy committed shall never be forgiven, adminis- 
 tered to unconscious infants who cannot have the 
 least idea of the ordinances. To be consistent, it 
 is conceived they ought to shudder as much at one 
 administration as the other. 
 
 We have seen that our Saviour was not only si- 
 lent with regard to excluding children from the 
 passover, but that he clearly and explicitly admit- 
 ted little children to be members of his kingdom, 
 and spoke of their receiving his kingdom, and of 
 his officers receiving them into his kingdom. We 
 may also go farther and see that he adminstered his 
 supper for the first time to persons who, it is con- 
 ceived could not pass the ordeal which moderns 
 
 have created for baptized members, and sain at this 
 P 
 
170 LETTER IX. 
 
 day admission to the same supper. A little exam- 
 ination into the history of the twelve apostles will 
 prove beyond a question, that they had made but 
 poor progress in christian knov, ledge, and were ve- 
 ry ignorant of the nature of that Kingdom into 
 which they had entered, till after the ascension of 
 Jesus, notwithstanding their teacher taught and 
 spake as never man spake. He had told them that 
 he should be betrayed, that he should be slain, that 
 he should rise on the third day. Peter took offence 
 at this and told his master that this should not be 
 done, and thus drew from our lord the appellation 
 of Satan applied to Peter both for his ignorance and 
 his rashness. How often did they enter into the 
 controversy among themselves, who should be great- 
 est in that temporal kingdom, which they believed 
 our Saviour was about to erect, and in which they 
 conceived they were to have honors and offices? 
 Indeed St. Luke tells us in his 22d Chap, and 22 
 verse, that even on the very evening of the Lord's 
 Supper, and immediately after its celehratio;., they 
 stirred this controversy even to strife, and then 
 wanted the question settled, who was entitled to 
 the greatest share of temporal honors. On that 
 same night, although so much had been said and 
 done by the Saviour, to fit them for the crucifixion; 
 and after he had exhibited to them the symbols of 
 his broken body and shed blood, they all forsook 
 him and fled, not being able to see how the great 
 temporal redeemer of Israel, which they believed 
 
LETTER IX. 17"i 
 
 .ii m to he. could be crucified; nor were they wil- 
 ling to risk themselves, for a supposed malefactor, 
 when they expected an earthly deliverer. 'TV hat 
 ill more, the three appointed days rolled round j 
 the mighty Conqueror arose from the tomb as he 
 had predicted, and as he had assured these apos- 
 tles, yet the report of his resurrection was to them 
 as idle tales, and two of them on their way to Em- 
 maus, wondered what these things could mean, and 
 trusted that it was he that should redeem Israel 9 
 which they did rot then suppose possible. They 
 were in astonishment, occasioned by their own ig- 
 norance and inattention, so much so that our Lord 
 himself, who had administered his supper to them 
 so lately, now pronounced them "fools and slow of 
 heart "to believe." Never indeed till the descent 
 of the spirit did they understand this great myste- 
 ry or comprehend what was the reign of which Je- 
 sus spoke notwithstanding they were church mem- 
 bers in full communion, admitted by our lord him- 
 self, and that at the administration of the ordin- 
 ance, which he designed as a model for future gen- 
 erations. Now Sir, I ask you, how would such ap- 
 plicants now fare, if they were to present them- 
 selves at the door of many churches? Would it not 
 be accounted a profanation of the ordinance to ad- 
 minister it to such ignorant believers? But 1 still 
 enquire, and entreat a candid answer, how would 
 such communicants appear when examined beside 
 the little children after they have had the Lord's 
 
172 LETTER IX, 
 
 nurture and admonition in the present day? 1 ask 
 seriously whether these little members could not 
 give a better account of the nature of the Lord's 
 Kingdom, and of the nature of the feast which they 
 were about to celebrate, than the twelve apostles 
 could have done, on the night of its first celebration? 
 I will venture to affirm that such young disciples 
 could more clearly discern the Lord's body in the 
 sense contemplated by Paul, as exhibited in the 
 feast than the twelve could on that fatal night, and 
 for many days and nights afterwards. It certainly 
 becomes us to be more humble learners from the 
 acts and precepts of the Saviour. If he adminis- 
 tered his ordinance to those who were ignorant and 
 only sincere, why ought we to be so afraid of pro- 
 fanation. If he has placed infants and little ones in 
 his church either under the new or old dispensation, 
 we ought not virtually or practically to exclude 
 them, without a 4, thus saith the lord," and we ought 
 not to become so zealous of the holiness of his or- 
 dinances, as to fear profanation and abuse, by ex- 
 cluding his little ones, which he has admitted, for 
 fear of their ignorance and irreverence, especially 
 as the apostles themselves were not more wise in 
 understanding the nature of the ordinance, when 
 they first partook, than our little ones may be, if 
 rightly taught at the most early age claimed as 
 proper for admission. 
 
 I have now Sir, given you an outline of the ar- 
 guments by which I support the rights of baptized 
 
LETTER IX. 173 
 
 little ones, to the sealing ordinance of the Lord's Sup- 
 per, and maintain the right of cutting off those who 
 will not partake. They are not as full as might be* 
 and ill health has prevented their completion in the 
 manner intended. I ask for them a candid and 
 fair hearing, and if they are opposed and I shall 
 not be convinced that I am in an error, I trust that 
 I shall be able, if spared, to corroborate and sus.* 
 tain any that I have advanced. 
 
 Yours, respectfully, 
 
 THE END, 
 
 p* 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Advertisement. 
 
 Letter I. — Introduction. — Documents, and certain con- 
 siderations which are given as reasons for agitating the 
 subject. 
 
 Letter II. — Common ground stated — The relation in 
 which Baptized Children stand to the Church — Member- 
 ship — Scriptural view of it. 20 
 
 Letter III. — The Rights of Children— Right to Baptism— 
 To a good Religious education — and to the Lord's Sup- 
 per. 31 
 
 Letter IV 7 . — A more extensive view of the subject — Mi- 
 nority,_and * ts different classes — General principle of 
 unity between Parents and Children — Reason for the in- 
 stitution of the Passover — Its uses — That little children 
 partook of it, proved 42 
 
 Letter V. — The subject continued — Argument from the 
 Congregation ol the Lord — Elkanah and his family — 
 Passover observed by King Josiah — Jewish practice — 
 Certain propositions considered, proved. 60 
 
 Letter VI. — The Law of the Passover not annulled — but 
 in force with respect to the Lord's Supper — proved from 
 the Scriptures; and that little children did partake of 
 this ordinance under the administration of the Apostles. 77 
 
 Letter VII. — The argument continued — The Holy Scrip- 
 tures further considered. 105 
 
 Letter VIII. — Church history— Ignatius — Primitive chur- 
 ches — Infant communion — Church of Rome — Reformed 
 churches — Difler in their views and practice in the seven- 
 teenth and eighteenth centuries — American churches. 121 
 
 Letter IX.— Some objections answered, and additional 
 considerations. 155