which, by God's appointment, the Jewish church had always received. But we hear of no murmurings upon this account, nor a single word from Christ or his Apostles, by way of prohibition. Hence I infer that it was the will of Christ that infants should be received into the church by baptism, and that they were accordingly admitted by the Apostles and their successors, to the present day.

This shows why the word children, or infants, is not in the commission; as they had ever been received, the words, all nations, comprehending every age and every sex, was sufficient.

Once more That the Apostles did consider their commission as empowering them to baptize infants, their own practice, and the practice of the universal church, from the Apostles to the present day, leave not a shadow of doubt. When we read of the Apostles, baptizing whole households and families, it would be a very extraordinary case should there be no children. By the same rule that one man says there were no children, I may assert, and with much more propriety, there were a number of children.

But be that as it may, it is certain that those Bishops and Pastors who received their authority and knowledge of christianity from the Apostles, could not be ignorant concerning these things; and we have the concurring testimony of all those Primitive Fathers, that the practice of baptizing infants was from the Apostles, coequal with the church itself, being both derived from Christ.

It is a proper question to put to those persons who deny this, When did the baptizing of infants commence? Or how could it be introduced and universally practised by the church if christianity had subsisted some years without it?

Supposing I should affirm, and endeavor to persuade the people of any town, that there was a particular spring in a certain place, to which every infant that was ever born in the town, had been carried and washed, and that they must continue the practice, or their children could never acquire the inheritance of their estates; Is there any grounds to believe that I could persuade one man, much less every inhabitant to believe this story, when no one had ever heard of, or washed his children in this spring?

Just as little reason is there to believe that infant baptism was not apostolical, if the christian church had existed a number of years without it; and then it was introduced and universally acknowledged to be apostolical.

On many subjects of this nature I know it does not become men to be too positive; but respecting these things I am so certain that they are apostolical, that I dare challenge all the world to ascertain a time, from any competent authority, when they did begin, short of the days of the Apostles. And if they cannot do this, they ought in good conscience, not to ridicule any one for the belief of them; but to acknowledge and believe that they did not have their beginning from a later date.

On the other hand if they demand when the christian church began to deny this to be apostolical, I answer, the christian church never did deny it. But we are able to tell when the dissenters from the church began to call it in question; even the persons, and the place where, and all from indisputable authority... Eleven hundred

and fifty years had passed away after Christ, before there was any one sect of christians on the globe, who acknowledged any baptism, but who administered it to infants. And it was even as late as A. D. 1530, before there were Baptists enough to organize themselves into any thing like a numerous body.

Is it reasonable to believe that the whole christian church, whe had received their knowledge of christianity from Jesus Christ, his Apostles and successors, were all mistaken in an article of religion so important as that of infant baptism, and continue in that mistake for more than 1500 years, and this error after so long a period should be discovered and rectified by a few ignorant fanatics, who rose against the state as well as against the church. I say, can any man in his right reason, with the bible and the history of the church in his hands, believe this? I could as soon believe that Simon Magus was more orthodox than St. Peter, and the incestuous Corinthian more virtuous than St. Paul.

The only way to avoid the force of this reasoning, is to say that no arguments drawn from history are of any force, or ought to be admitted in this case, and to demand plain positive texts of scripture. But I beseech such objectors to consider what mischief they are doing the christian cause by this means; they are weak. ening the most substantial evidence for its truth; i. e. the correspondence of ancient prophecy with historical facts, and the mutual agreement between sacred and profane history.

Our Savior while on earth prophecied the destruction of Jerasalem, the fulfilment of which will forever remain a powerful evidence of the truth of his divine mission. But for the truth of this, we must rely entirely upon human testimony, for the scriptures say not a single word about it.

Supposing a Deist should attack one of these people, and call Jesus an impostor for uttering such a prophecy: Undoubtedly he would say it was fulfilled. No, says the Deist-there is not a síngle passage in the bible to prove it. What would be the answer? Alas! he could not rescue his Lord and Master from the foul imputation of a deceiver.

Some people are weak enough to ask, "What good does it do to baptise an infant?" I answer, as much good as it did to circumcise an infant; that it was and is the will of God that they should be thus made visible members of the church, as preparatory to the church triumphant; as much good as it did to sprinkle blood upon the door posts, &e.

I also ask why was there more virtue in Abel's offering a lamb, than in Cain's offering the fruits of the earth?

Again what good did it do Naaman to dip seven times in the river Jordan? Was it the water that healed him? Certainly not.Would he have been cleansed if he had not obeyed the divine command? Certainly he would not. I further ask, what moral connection there is between Christ's sufferings and death, and the salvation of mankind, but that it was the will of heaven to appoint this way, and institute these means for the faith and obedience of men. Once more, I ask what good it does to baptize an adult? But thus the will of God is, that they should hereby be washed in the laver

of regeneration, and through the blood of Christ receive remission of sins, and be made lively members of Christ.

And, to quote the reasoning of Naaman's servants, if God had bid thee use some costly means to free your infant offspring from their original pollution, and entitle them to the covenant blessings of the gospel, would you not have done it? how much more, when he only bids you wash them, that they may be clean. Are we wiser than God? Has he commanded, and shall we not obey? How heaven-daring is that man who challenges the authority of God, by calling in question the efficacy and necessity of his institutions! This is not to learn of the meek and lowly Jesus, who is the author of peace andunity.

But after all this, and the arguments in favor of infant baptism are found unanswerable, the mode is called in question. As it respects the article of plunging or sprinkling, there is no doubt but what they were both used in the apostolic age, and hence they are both practised in the church, and I believe there is as much scripture in favor of sprinkling as of plunging, and that no one may be deceived, I will cite a few passages, as Numb. 8 & 7. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them, sprinkle water upon them. And again, The Priest shall sprinkle the water of separation. And that sprinkling might be continued under the gospel, the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel, alluding to baptism, say-So shall he sprinkle many nations ; and then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean from all your filthiness, and from all your idols will I cleanse you. That the apostles on many occasions did sprinkle, is apparent from many passages, as Heb. 10. 29. Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. That a person is thoroughly cleansed, in the scripture sense, without plunging, we learn from the 13th of St. John, where, after our Savior had washed the feet of his disciples, Peter insisted upon a more thorough washing. But Jesus saith to him, He that is washed, needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit. That there is any moral virtue, in much or little water, is contrary to scripture and reason, especially in that noted text of St. Peter, 1 Ep. iii. 21. alluding to Noah's being saved by water, he saysThe like figure whereunto even baptism doth now also save us: not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God. It is very evident that Noah was not plunged into the flood, but rode above it in the ark, which was a type of the church into which baptism doth admit us. Again-the children of Israel, who were all baptized in the sea, were so far from plunging into the water, that it was a wall upon each side, and they went over dry shod; there was a mist which sprinkled them, and by which they were baptized. The instance of the three thousand, who were added to the church by baptism upon the day of Pentecost, is one of those sacred lessons that is replete with much instruction; for it would have been impossible for the Apostles to have led them out of the city and plunged them all in some river or pond, according to the modern custom. I therefore infer, that, like the eunuch, professing their belief in Jesus, they were baptized without going out of the

W w

temple. But as the church does not refuse to plunge, no more need be said.

In the next place there is a great outcry against the promises made in baptism. To show that all objections against these are founded in prejudice, let us for a moment reflect. When a child is presented for baptism, after exhortation and prayers, the following question is put "Dost thou in the name of this child renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the sinful desires of the flesh, so that thou wilt not follow nor be led by them?" The answer—“ I renounce them all; and by God's help will endeavor not to follow nor be led by them."

Now, does any christian in his sober senses, expect to go to heaven, without using his endeavors to renounce these? Can he expect to bring up his children in the nurture, fear, and admonition of the Lord, without endeavoring to instruct them to renounce these?— Does any christian parent, in any sect, who ever offers his child in baptism, virtually promise less? and what softer expressions can be used? I beseech people who object against these engagements to consult their bibles and their consciences. God says, my son, give me thine heart; and commands that we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, &c.; and our Savior tells us we cannot serve God and Mammon; and he who loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Now can any man so far deceive himself as to believe he lives under the influence of these sacred truths, and object against renouncing the devil! especially if he reflects that he is solemnly commanded and encouraged to do this. Resist the devil and he will flee from thee.

Consider further, it is the vain pomps of the world that are renounced. There are many things in and of the world that are good, and we are commanded to use the world as not abusing it. How reasonable and perfectly agreeable to scripture is all this, summed up in these modest and pious words" I will by God's help." Dare any one believe God will accept any thing short of this? If so, pray tell me what it is. Will your neighbor ever accept such conditional promises as you object even to make to your God? No-your obligation must run, I promise-and this was the resolution of Joshua, who was not afraid to promise for himself and family. As for me and my house, says he, we will serve the Lord-If the Lord be God, then serve him, and be not ashamed to own and confess him for yourselves and your families, and bear it in mind, he has left it on record, that he who is ashamed of me and of my doctrine, of him will I be ashamed before my Father, and his holy angels.

Public acknowledgment of God, and solemn engagement by parents, for themselves and children, have been always used; and the very language of the church in renouncing the devil, &c. was used in the Jewish church, and continued by them and all christian churches of every denomination, for more than 1500 years after Christ.

If a boy fourteen years of age must choose a guardian to direct him in civil life, how strange that even an infant must have no sponsor to protect and direct him in his religious life!

But all this is not so strange as to object against these promises, because some people who make them do not use their endeavors to keep them. But are the institutions of heaven to be neglected because some people make a bad use of them? Were the Apostles to be blamed because they baptized Simon Magus? Was the net condemned for inclosing bad fish with the good; or the field for producing tares!

I wish those who are so very liberal in rash judgment and eagleeyed in discovering the motes and blemishes of their brethren, would listen to their Savior-Judge not lest ye are judged: let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

That there are those who neglect their baptismal vows, is sincerely to be lamented; and I do not hesitate to say they lie to God; and by thus causing the way of truth to be evil spoken of, they bring wrath upon themselves. Let all such remember our Savior has said, Woe unto him by whom offence cometh; it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the depth of the sea.

But it is further objected, we say the child after being baptized is regenerate and born anew. Is this more than the scripture says― Except ye are born of water and of the spirit (says the blessed Jesus) ye cannot enter into the kingdom of God. And says an Apostle, ye are saved by the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost. And again, as many as are baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. But no where does the scripture say that regeneration is conversion, nor does the church.

Much more might be said to show the happy agreement between the scripture and the Liturgy of the church, especially the office of baptism. But enough is said to convince the unprejudiced and impartial. And those who are determined to find fault with the church, enough can never be said, and the more that is said the more they oppose themselves. Let us leave such then to the mercy of God, and the prayers of all good people-knowing that whenever they read the scriptures to find the faith that was once delivered to the saints, they will embrace the church as their spiritual mother and the spouse of Christ.

That these things may be deeply engraven upon the reader's mind, and excite a serious enquiry for the true faith, I shall conclude with a short recapitulation.

I have proved that God ordained that the infant offspring of all · those who did enter themselves into his church, should also be admitted. I have shown that God's church has always been the same under different dispensations, and that the covenant established with Abraham was the covenant of grace, and that baptism succeeded circumcision, as a seal into the same covenant, and that every age and every sex are to be received-male and female, bond and free. I have moreover shown that the commission Christ gave his Apostles to baptize all nations, implied the baptizing of infants, and that they actually understood it in this sense and practised accordingly, baptizing whole families and households, in which it is more than probable there were infants, as many were baptized of whom