And what they were sufficiently instructed in by the authority of a divine precept and command in the Old Testament, was not absolutely necessary to be repeated in the New. For to what purpose should there be a particular revelation to discover that which men might be sufficiently convinced of without one? Moreover,

2. The baptism of infants is founded on God's word, inasmuch as, though there be no precept or command for baptizing, in which infants are, totidem verbis, expressed, yet there is such a precept and command in which infants are certainly included. And this I prove in the following manner;

1. From St. Peter's words, Repent and be baptized that your sins may be blotted out, for the promise is to you and your children. In these words, children are implied at least as entitled both to the promises of the covenant, and to the sacrament that confirms it. I am aware that some slight this argument, and think it absurd to mention it, because men and women are called children in Scripture; as the children of Israel are often spoken of, where infants are not intended, but only men of the posterity of Jacob. But, though it be true that the word children may import no more

4 Acts ii. 38.

than posterity, yet the promise here spoken of is that very covenant into which infants were commanded to be admitted. So that if the promise which God made with Abraham and his children included infants, this promise made to Christians and their children will, by the same authority, include infants also; for the promise is still the

same.

The fourth and last objection is,

IV. That there is no mention made of any such practice among the Apostles, or in the primi

tive times.

I must here observe, that the state of the question is now changed from matter of law to matter of fact; and we are now only to inquire what discoveries we can find of such a practice in the time of the Apostles. To this objection, therefore, I answer

1. That though it were true that there is no mention made in Scripture of such a practice, yet this would not at all prove that there was no such thing in use, and especially when it is found not contrary to the laws of God. For we are no more

to expect an express, clear, and distinct account of all apostolical practices from the New Testament, than we are to expect a perfect history of the first ages of the world from the first five chapters of Genesis.

2. Though we have no declaration in express words that infants were baptized in the time of the Apostles, yet, from one expression of St. Paul, such a practice may reasonably be concluded. He speaks of the holiness of infants in such terms as clearly imply that those infants were admitted to baptism. The passage is 1 Cor. vii. 14, where, giving his determination respecting those Christians who were married to unbelievers, he contends for their continuance in the connubial bond by this argument: For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, (she being a believer,) and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. In which words, the Apostle founds his determination on this known and received opinion---that the children of Christian parents, and so also if but one parent were Christian, are holy. That infant children are here meant is plain from this, that St. Paul speaks of such whose holiness depended on the sanctification of the believing parent; which must respect infants only; because the holiness of adult

persons must be only from their own actual profession of faith.

I shall say nothing here of the evidence which we derive in support of Infant Baptism from the writings of the early fathers of the Christian Church, as my sole design in these preliminary remarks, is to give to the reader a summary view of the state of the case, as far as regards the testimony of Scripture, which the Antipædobaptists exult in as decisive of the question; and which many sincere inquirers may deem embarrassing, from an inability to detect and expose the sophistry, by which they are made by our opponents to serve a cause, which, when rightly understood, they obviously discountenance. The reader is therefore earnesly requested to obtain and bear in his remembrance a clear and distinct view of the evidence given above, before he proceeds to the following observations, in which whatever has been taken for granted, or is too concisely stated, above, will be found amply and satisfactorily proved and enlarged upon.

[I wish it to be understood that, in the following pages, I shall use the words ANTIPEDOBAPTISTS and BAPTISTS indifferently, to signify those who reject the Baptism of Infants. I do this in conformity with the practice of the generality of writers on this subject.]

ON INFANT BAPTISM.

CHAPTER I.

Infants proved to be fit subjects of Baptism, from our Lord's rebuke of those who forbade them "to come to him," and from several other passages of the New Testament.

MARK X. 13-17.--" They brought young children to Christ, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them."

The strength of the argument which may be drawn in favour of Infant Baptism from the above