my life and abode with you on earth, your ministry has been confined to the Jews; I now enlarge your commission, and command you to convert the GENTILES also." If it were our Lord's intention to exclude infants, here was a time which imperiously required an intimation to this effect; for I will fearlessly leave the question to be decided by any fair unprejudiced person, (who understands the Jewish dispensation, and bears in mind that the Apostles had been Jews,) whether, when our Lord had given this commission to them, they must not have inevitably understood his commission to include the infants of those who should embrace the Christian faith? We have decisive scriptural evidence that they continued to circumcise their children, that they practised the other rites of the Mosaic law, and acted and spoke and thought as Jews, after their conversion to the faith of Christ. We know that according to the precepts of the Old Testament Scriptures, they were bound to regard and treat their children as disciples of Moses; and now that they were brought to a real belief of what Moses and the prophets testified, shall we suppose-contrary to attested fact, and contrary to the reason of the thing that they cast off subjection to the authority of those precepts? Made acquainted now with that long-predicted Messiah, who was α minister of the circumcision to confirm the promises

made unto the fathers, in bringing up their children as disciples of Moses, they would necessarily bring them up as disciples of Christ. In fact, as our Lord said to Nicodemus, when he expressed his astonishment at the doctrine of regeneration" Art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?" So, if the Apostles had said any thing to our Lord about Infant Baptism, (as they surely did not) he might, a fortiori, have said to them—" Are ye Jews, and know not these things?" Do ye, who have known that, from the commencement of the Abrahamic covenant, God has taken infants into the Church, ask now whether he is going to exclude them!!

Another argument against Infant Baptism is, that the Apostles never baptized infants. But to render this objection valid, it must first be shewn that nations have ever existed without children, since it is expressly declared that the Apostles baptized whole families, particularly the household of Stephanus, and others, of which mention is made in the New Testament. Amongst these, it may reasonably be presumed, there were some minors, if not babes and sucklings. In confirmation of these facts, Origen says-" The Church has received it by tradition from the Apostles, to baptize little children."* And Calvin observes

* Pro hoc Ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem accepit, etiam parvulis baptismum dare. In Rom. 6 tom. 2. p.543.

on this subject that "there is no writer so ancient as not to refer its origin to the apostolic age."*

Now, had the primitive Christians regarded Infant Baptism as unlawful, for want either of scriptural command for it or example of it, how easy and how unanswerable an argument would have been ready at hand for the employment of any individual who had been urged to an early baptism of his children. He would have urged that "Christ never commanded any such thing as Infant Baptism; that the Apostles never practised any such thing: there is neither precept for it, nor example of it, in Holy Scripture and therefore it is unlawful, and we dare not do it." And yet we find nothing of all this, it being evident that had our Saviour intended that his disciples, in baptizing nations, should not baptize infants, he would have said so. Thus then, although it would be unreasonable to carry infants to God by baptism, without any direction from him; it is perfectly in accordance with reason to understand infants to be comprehended in this duty, when no other way of bringing them to Christ has been pointed out.

There is the same need of children coming to Christ now, as then, and it may safely be said,

* Nullus est Scriptor tam vetustus, qui non ejus originem ad apostolorum sæculum pro certo referat. 4 Instit. cap. 16. § 8.

too, that there is the same mercy in him now as then. By this coming is meant not that they should come to Christ corporeally, but figuratively, as a disciple,* ελθειν προς, i. e. προσελυτος. If it should be asked by which children may way come Christ's disciples? I answer, by being baptized in his name, and with his baptism.

But to return to Dr. Gale.

be

The fallacy, then, that runs clean through Dr. Gale's book, like a thread, is this: that every thing concerning baptism that refers only to adults, plainly shews that infants may not and must not be baptized; and his numerous quotations from the critics, (who, by the way, are all Pædobaptists,) to shew that the commission, which certainly respects adults, implies teaching before baptism, are given with the most insidious and sophistical view of impressing the readers with the notion that they must admit that whenever infants are not named, they are invariably excluded. But I am clearly of opinion that, inasmuch as the Jews, before the coming of Christ, were the Church of God, and infants were, by his merciful command, admitted as members of that Church, (as I shall prove very shortly,) it lies upon our opponents to shew when and where they were excluded under the Christian dispensation.

* See Mat. xi. 28; and John, iii. 26, & v. 40.

D

"As only they who have heard," says Dr. Gale, p. 416," and are capable of understanding, can ever be willing to submit themselves to this ordinance of baptism, so neither can any others be saved by it—since the saving efficacy does not consist in the external washing, infants, who are capable only of that, cannot be saved by baptism, nor reap any benefit by it." As well might the Doctor have said, although God commanded that infants of eight days old should be circumcised, yet there was no obligation to do so. With regard to the external washing, we do not say that this ablution, per se, saves them, but the rite in obedience to a Divine command. Is baptism to be administered to those only who rightly receive it? That it avails those only, we admit; but that no others can receive it, we deny.

This was the very reason why the disciples rebuked those who brought their children to Christ, because they were little, not fit to be instructed, and therefore not fit that Christ should be troubled with them. This Christ rebukes in them, and tells them that the littleness of children is no argument why they should be kept from him. "Suffer them," said he, " to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." And what kind of argument had this been, if the text should be interpreted as the Baptists would have it? Suffer little children to