This is virtually admitting that the Waldenses were anciently Anti-Pedobaptists, or at least many of them. This also is capable of other proof. Of course, the opposition to infant baptism is carried back to the seventh century, for that is the period in which these people "fled into the valleys." This view of the subject is corroborated by the testimony of Reinerous Sacco, as quoted by Mosheim's translator, in a note, vol. iii. p. 316, "who lived about eighty years after Peter Waldo, (i. e. in the twelfth century,) and who persecuted these people, and speaks of them as a sect which had flourished above five hundred years, (which term carries us back to the seventh century.) Nay, he mentions authors of note who make their antiquity amount to the apostolick age."

It is evident, therefore, that infant baptism has been long and faithfully opposed-opposed as well as maintained, by eminent men-men that have forsaken all for Christ: and that no period short of the apostolick age can be assigned when this opposition first commenced. Although the baptism of infants, or, at least, of small children before they could give a reason of their hope, began to be practised in the forepart of the third century, and subsequently, for a long time, appears to have generally prevailed, it does not appear that it has ever been practised universally. There is reason to believe there have always been opposers to it, when it has been carried to its greatest height. And as to the practice of the truly primitive church, I have abundantly shown from the scripture records themselves, that it was altogether against it, and in favour only of the baptism of believers.

CHAPTER XVII.

Containing remarks on Female Communion, and the Change of the Sabbath.

MANY allege that the foregoing view of the nature of positive institutions, and the demand which has been made for an explicit warrant in the case of infant baptism, will lead to the exclusion of females from the Lord's table, and to the denial of the change of the Sabbath.

In regard to the first, it is plead that there is no explicit war. rant for the admission of females to communion; but that their right is based merely on inference and analogy-the same kind. of proof which is offered in the other case. This statement, however, will be found, on examination, to be incorrect.

An explicit warrant is a plain and positive expression of the will of Christ in the institution itself which contains the duty, or a plain apostolick example in relation to the case.

And such a warrant is manifestly furnished in regard to female communion. For,

1. The order to attend upon the supper was given to disciples without regard to sex. Our Lord manifestly brake bread to the twelve, at first, not as apostles, nor as ordinary ministers, nor as men in distinction from women; but as disciples. The occasion was one on which he was present, with his own particular family, which consisted of the twelve, for the purpose of celebrating the passover according to custom. To these, merely in the character of disciples, he brake the symbolick bread, saying, "Do this in remembrance of me." This command obviously includes other disciples-yea, all others, down to his second coming, without regard to sex. "In Christ, there is neither male nor female;" but all "are one."

2. It is perfectly obvious that this ordinance was celebrated by the whole church of Jerusalem, which consisted of males and females.

That it consisted, in part, of females, appears from the consideration that the assembly on the day of Pentecost was promissuous; that, agreeably to the prophecy of Joel, referred to on

that occasion, Acts, ii. 17, 18-the Spirit was poured out upon "God's sons and daughters, servants and handmaids;" that "the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved," without regard to sex; and that "believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes, both of men and women." So that here is positive proof that women belonged to that church as well as men, being alike baptized upon a profession of their faith. And it is expressly said, that "all that believed were together;" and that "they continued steadfastly in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." Here, then, the proof is positive, that women partook of the supper, in common with men. It is plainly recorded, that they believed and were added to the Lord; and that all that believed were together, and continued in the apostle's doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread. The proof is just as express for female as for male communion.

3. There were women, also, in the church of Samaria: Acts, viii. 12. "For when the Samaritans "believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." The communion of that church, also, must have included females as well as males.

4. There is both an express order to the church of Corinth, as a body, consisting of males and females, to celebrate the supper, and an express record that they did so.

That this church consisted of women as well as men, appears from I. Cor. x. 34, 35: "Let your women keep silence in the churches; for it is not permitted unto them to speak. If they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church."

The order to that church to observe the supper is in chap. xi. 23. "For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread, &c. The pronoun you, includes the church collectively, females as well as males, for of such it consisted. And the order was to the whole church. Hence the institution itself, as repeated and enjoined by Paul, contains an explicit warrant for female communion.

Besides, the apostle says, chap. x. 16, 17, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread." Here, therefore, is a plain and positive record, that the Corinthian church did all partake of the supper. It is.

just as obvious that the females partook of it as it is that the inales did. They are included in the pronoun "we," and in the adjective" all," as it is evident at first sight.

The proof, then, is explicit, that there were women in that church-that the church collectively was ordered to attend upon the supper; and that they actually did so. Besides, the last clause of the last cited passage, viz. "we are all partakers of that one bread," includes all other Christians, so that the case of that church was not peculiar.

It is said, indeed, verse 28, "But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup;" but this does in no measure restrict the privilege of communion to males; for the word anthropos, (man,) is here, as in many other places, evidently used as a name for the species, and not to distinguish a man from a woman.

In view, therefore, of all this, the warrant for female communion is, properly speaking, explicit, and not based upon inference and analogy.

Let such testimony be brought in the case of infant baptism, and it will suffice.

But in relation to that subject, as we have seen, all is silent. There is not so much as a plain and necessary inference from scriptural premises in support of it.

In regard to the change of the Sabbath, I would remark, that this is a moral duty, in part, at least; and, therefore, the subject will admit of proof by way of inference and analogy. So far, at least, as the institution respects the keeping of a seventh part of time holy, it is of a moral nature; otherwise it would not have been inserted in the moral law, but have been placed in the ceremonial. It being, therefore, a moral precept, the above kind of proof may be brought in relation to the change from the seventh to the first day of the week. There are now the same reasons for observing the latter, which there were anciently for observing the former.

2. The example of the Apostles and primitive Christians, is in favour of this change. The first day of the week was observed by them as a day of religious worship, and breaking of bread. It is, hence, denominated the Lord's day in distinction from other days, which is a plain intimation of the change.Moreover, it was particularly distinguished and honoured by Christ's appearing thereon to his disciples after his resurrection.

There is reason, also, to conclude that the apostle Paul alludes to this change, and to the New Testament Sabbath in Heb. iv. 9: "There remaineth therefore a rest (in the Greek, Sabbatismos, a Sabbath) to the people of God."