the privileges of the church have been enlarged. Was it a privilege of the Old Testament church that children were admitted to the seal of God's gracious covenant? The saints of those ages esteemed it an inestimable privilege; and the Apostle testified that it was a great privilege, profiting much every way. And can it be possible that under the New Testament dispensation, in which privilges have been professedly enlarged, such an important one has been taken away? Besides what reason can be given why the privilege should be taken away? Children have now as much need of an interest in the blessings of God's covenant, as they had of old; and they are as capable now of receiving baptism as they once were of receiving circumcision. These considerations afford, at least presumptive evidence, that God intended that the initiating seal under the New Testament should still be applied to infants. The question has been asked what does the child know about baptism, and what benefit canit receive from a transaction of which it is entirely ignorant? In reply it may be asked, what did the Jewish child know about circumcision? No more than the child now knows about baptism, and yet by the express command of God it was circumcised; and this circumcision which the child received, was a seal of the righteousness of faith, and baptism is no more. And this circumcision, of which the child was entirely ignorant, profited much every way; and thefore the ignorance of the child respecting its baptism, at the time of receiving it, can form no argument against the propriety of administering it.

It has been shown, that if the New Testament were entirely silent, it would be an invincible argument in favour of infant baptism. But it is not silent, it affords positive evidence in our favour.

Our Saviour said, "Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me; for of such is the kingdom of heaven;" Mat. xix. 14. By the kingdom of heaven we must understand, either the visible church of Christ in this world or the kingdom of glory above. Understood in either sense, the passage affords an argument in favour of the baptism of infants. For if they are fit members of the church on earth, undoubtly they have a right to the initiating seal, or baptism. And if they are fit to be members of the church of the first-born in heaven, undoubtedly they are fit to be members of the church on earth.

Again Peter, Acts ii. 38, 39; taught that the privilege of children to be admitted to a visible standing in the church was not taken away, but continued under the New Testament. And he urged the continuance of this privilege as a reason why the Jews should be baptized. The Jews alarmed under his preaching, on the day of Pentecost asked what they should do?" Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ,for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children." The Jews were very jealous of the privileges which they had enjoyed under the Old Testament; and as appears from many passages of the New Testament, they were very much attached to circumcision, by which their children were introduced to a visible standing in the church and covenant of grace. Peter urged them to embrace the gospel, and receive the new seal of the cov enant, assuring them that under the new dispensation, the promise should embrace their children as well as themselves, as it had done under the old.

Again, an argument in further confirmation of the right of infants to baptism, may be drawn from 1 Cor. 7. 14; "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." By holy here, must be meant, not an internal but a federal holiness, or a relation to the covenant, in virtue of the standing of the believing parent. And if it signifies their relation to the covenant they must have a right to the initiating seal, or baptism.

Again, we have several examples in the New Testament, of household baptisms. Lydia and her household. the jailer and all that were his, and the household of Stephanas, were baptized. It is true, there is no absolute certainty, that there were children in these families; but it is highly probable there were in some, if not in all of them. It is certainly far more probable there were, than that there were not. And a minister in the present day would certainly be warranted, by the example of the Apostle, in case an unbaptized head of a family should give him evidence of faith in Christ, and request baptism, to baptize him, and with him his household, even though there should be infants in that household. For Paul

baptized all the family when the head of it believed, without telling us of what ages the family were composed. And why may not we do the same? Yea following the example of the apostle are we not bound to do the same?

Again, in addition to all the evidence which has been adduced in favour of infant baptism, we have the testimony of the history of the church, that this was the constant practice, without dispute, for many hundred years. Permit me to quote some of the testimonies of the primitive fathers on this subject. In the writings of Justin Martyr who lived about the middle of the second century, we find the following passage, "We have not received the carnal circumcision, but the spiritual, by baptism; and all are in like manner bound to receive it, as formerly circumcision." In this passage he evidently supposed baptism to have come in the room of circumcision, and that therefore it ought to be administered to the same subjects. Origen who lived about one hundred years after the death of the apostles, declared the baptism of infants to have been the constant practice of the church.— In one of his homilies endeavouring to prove the doctrine of original sin, he used their baptism as an argument."Baptism (said he) is given to infants for the remission of sins; but wherefore by the use of the church, are they baptized, if they have no need of remission? Are not infants baptized, because that by the sacrament of baptism, the pollution of their first birth may be taken away."Again, he said, " for this cause the church received a tradition from the apostles to give baptism also to infants." Observe here, there appears in this early age to have been no dispute about the right of infants to baptism; the principle is assumed as universally acknowledged, and applied to prove another doctrine. About fifty years after this, in the third century, a question was proposed by one Fidus, whether baptism ought to be administered, according to the law of circumcision, on the eighth day?" Cyprian of Carthage, convened a council of sixty clergymen, who unanimously decided that there was no necessity to delay baptism until the eighth day, but that it might be performed sooner. Here again, observe, no doubt was expressed concerning the right of infants to baptism; but the only question was, whether baptism ought to be administered on the same day as circumcision had formerly

66

been. Ambrose another of the primitive fathers declared that the baptism of infants was the practice of the apostles and of the primitive church until his time." In the writings of Gregory Nazianzen is found this sentence, Baptism, in like manner as circumcision, may be performed on the eighth day; but should not be neglected longer than the second or third year." The learned and pious Augustine of the fifth century, in his writings against the Donatists said, "If any ask me for the divine authority of infant baptism, though it is that which the whole church uses, and which was not instituted by a council, but was always in use, he is answered, it is believed to be none other than that which was delivered by the apostles. Nevertheless we may justly estimate how much infant baptism profits from the circumcision which God's ancient people received." The last instance which I shall mention is from the same Augustine in his controversy with Pelagius who denied the doctrine of original sin, and taught that infants were born free of corruption. Augustine opposed this error of Pelagius, and used the baptism of infants, as an argument to refute it. "Infants (said he) are by all christians acknowledged to need baptism, which must be for original sin, seeing that they can have no other." And in another place, "Wherefore are they washed with the laver of regeneration, if they have no pollution?" Though Pelagius felt the weight of this argument, and was much confounded with it, yet he did not dare to suggest a doubt about the right of infants to baptism. But when some charged him with a denial of infant baptism, as a consequence of his doctrine, he denied the charge, and answered, "Men calumniate me with a denial of infant baptism," and added, "I have never heard infant baptism denied by the worst heretics." Pelagius was a scholar and a great traveller. He had come from Britain, and had travelled to Rome, Africa, Egypt, and Jerusalem, and yet he had never heard any one deny infant baptism; and he himself dared not deny it though it operated so much against his favorite doctrine.

These testimonies teach that the baptism of infants was universally held by the church from directly after the apostles' days,for many hundred years, and how can we account for this, except we admit, that the primitive church received it from the apostles?

VOL. II.

59

Permit me before I close, to mention one other consideration. Baptism is essential to a visible standing in the church of Christ on earth. By far the greater part of those who profess to belong to the church of Christ have received baptism in their infancy. If this be no baptism, of course, they do not belong to the visible church of Christ. And accordingly we find, that the most of those who deny infant baptism, will not suffer them, however exemplary their lives may be, to commune with them. I ask is it probable that God would show his approbation,as he has done, of so many who have been baptized in infancy, if they were aliens from the commonwealth of the christian Israel, and visible strangers from the covenants of promise? Is it probable that such men as Luther, and Melancthon, and Zuinglius, and Calvin, who put their lives in their hands, and were the honored instruments of the glorious reformation from Popery, were no ministers of Christ? And did not even belong to his visible church on earth? Were Cranmer, and Hooper, and Ridley, and Latimer, and Rogers, and a great many others, who preached the gospel with success, and became martyrs, in the cause of Christ-were these men no ministers of Christ? Nor even members of his visible church? Was Whitefield,whom the Lord so signally blessed, and who probably has more seals of his ministry, and more crowns of rejoicing in heaven than any man since the days of the apostles-was he no minister of Christ? Nor even a member of his visible church? Was the same the case with Owen, and Baxter, and Flavel, and Watts and Doddridge, and Newton, and Edwards and Dickinson, and Davies, and the Tennents, and thousands of others who shone as lights, in the world, who walked humbly with God, adorning the religion of Jesus, who enjoyed the presence of God, and whose labours, the Lord blessed to the conversion and edification of an almost innumerable multitude? It cannot be, God would not have so signally and extensively blessed men, and societies holding and practising infant baptism, if they were wrong, and especially on an article essentially affecting the visibility of his church on earth.

I conclude this discourse with summing up the reasoning which has been used in this and the former discourse, on the subject of infant baptism. The covenant made