wisdom, to admit infants into a covenant under the Law, He may do so, if he will, under the Gospel; and if the Almighty may do so, it is neither improper, nor unreasonable, nor, in the nature of things, absurd. The difference in the conditions or substance of the covenant, makes nothing in the case. And where the whole stress of the objection lies in the natural incapacity of the subject, it must have as much force in the one case as in the other. If it be said that God may admit them, but does not, this is running before hand to a new objection, which shall be considered in its proper place. The only thing now in debate, is—whether the natural incapacity of infants be of itself a necessary bar; if it be, it must be an universal obstacle to all covenants whatsoever, as I have before remarked; but, we plainly see that it is not an universal obstacle, because God has admitted infants into covenant with him, and has bound them to the performance of conditions by that covenant. This objection, therefore, is of no force, because it does not necessarily conclude.

If, then, the incapacity of infants is not in the nature of things a necessary and universal bar to all covenants in general, let us inquire, in the next place, whether there be any thing peculiar to the Christian covenant which necessarily excludes them; and this leads me to the second objection.

II.—That Infant Baptism is contrary to the Institution of our Saviour, which, requiring Instruction before Baptism, thereby excludes Infants, because they are not capable of In

struction.

The Antipædobaptists maintain that the Apostles were to make disciples by instruction, before they were to baptize them. Matt. xxviii. 19. To teach all nations, and [then] baptize them. And Mark xvi. 15, 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. This, say our opponents, is the great charter of the Gospel, which, by making instruction and faith necessary qualifications for all that are to be baptized, effectually excludes all those who can have neither faith nor instruction.

I answer, in this commission, our Lord had a more peculiar regard to the persons to whom the Apostles were first and more immediately sent; who were, indeed, men and women; and therefore he mentions such qualifications, antecedently to baptism, as in reason and the nature of things were indispensably necessary, considering the state of the world at that time. Men were almost universally abandoned to idolatry, ignorance, superstition, profaneness, and other great iniquities; and in these circumstances

it was not fit that they should be admitted into a covenant of grace and reconciliation with God. They were, therefore, first to be instructed and reclaimed, before they could be baptized. And this is the great work to which the Apostles are here commissioned. Now if, from this, the Antipædobaptists infer that none ought to be baptized but those only who are thus previously instructed, I must beg leave to ask, how they can reconcile their belief of the salvation of infants with these texts? For they as much exclude infants from salvation, as from baptism. I am not now inquiring how infants shall be saved; since, in answer to that, my opponents will say,- secret things belong to God: but I am putting to them this plain and obvious question-how can they, who believe and confess that infants may and shall be saved, reconcile that opinion with these texts, and particularly with that of St. Mark, which, by the same consequence, proves that infants cannot be saved, as strongly as that they may not be baptized? For, observe the argument: Christ says, (Matt. xxviii. 19.) Go, make disciples of all nations, and baptize them: and, (Mark xvi. 15, 16) Preach the Gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned: from whence our opponents argue thus; none are to be baptized but those who are first made disciples by believing;

but infants are not capable of believing; therefore they ought not to be baptized. Now, in the very same manner, from the very same words, any man may argue thus,—That infants shall not be saved: He that believeth not (says our Lord) shall be damned: all infants are incapable of believing; therefore, all infants must be damned. This is precisely the same way of reasoning. How will the Antipædobaptists answer this? Will they stand to the dreadful inference, that no infant shall be saved? If not, they must maintain the same opinion as we do concerning these texts; that they are improperly and impertinently alleged in the case of infants; because they were never intended by our Saviour to extend to them. Otherwise, they will as certainly conclude against the salvation, as against the baptism of infants; inasmuch as faith and repentance are as necessary for the one, as for the other.

The case, then, is briefly this: men and women were first of all to be made disciples by instruction; the case of infants was distinct, to be considered afterwards, when their parents were converted; and though faith and repentance were necessary for the parents before baptism, this does not prove that their infants were to be excluded from the sacrament, because they could not actually believe.

III.

The third objection is,

That it is an unwarrantable and unlawful practice to baptize Infants, because there is neither precept nor authority for it in the New Testament.

This is the great sheet anchor of the Antipadobaptists, upon which they place the firmest reliance. For when we demonstrate, by God's own command and authority, that the natural incapacity of infants is no necessary bar to exclude them from the seal of the covenant, they reply, All this is nothing to the purpose, because there was an express and positive command for circumcising infants, but there is none at all for baptizing them. And when we argue that faith and repentance are made as necessary for salvation as they are for baptism, and, consequently, no more exclude infants from this sacrament than from salvation; they plead, that though infants are capable of, and within the covenant of grace, yet they ought not to be baptized, because it is no where commanded-in Christianity, nothing is to be done without the express authority of the word of God.

In answer to this I reply,