2. God commanded that the feal of the righteousness of faith should be administered to infants, who are received into the church with their parents. Circumcifion was once this feal in the church, but, under the gofpel, baptifin is the feal of the righteoufnefs of faith; therefore, by divine appointment, baptism must be administered to those infants, who are admitted into the church with. their parents under the gospel dispensation.

3. The great privilege, that infant children fhould be received into the church with their parents, and have the fign of the covenant, the feal of the righteousness of faith, adminiftered to them, is, under the gofpel, confirmed and continued to believers. Hence it clearly follows, fince baptifm is the feal of the righteoufnefs of faith, that when adult perfons, upon their repentance and faith, are admitted into the gospel church, their infant children are to be received with them, and to be baptized. Thus the apostle Peter, on the day of Pentecoft, in the application of that most successful fermon, applies the promise exactly to this purpose. He enforces on his affected audience the gofpel call to repentance, faith and chriftian baptifm, by this inestimable privilege. Acts, ii. 38, 39. "Then Peter faid unto them, Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jefus Chrift for the remiffion of fins, and ye fhall receive the gift of the Holy Ghoft. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God fhall call." It may not be improper here to take notice of fome other paffages of the facred fcriptures, which may be confidered as direct proofs of infant baptifm. The commiffion of our bleffed Saviour on this

point, claims our firft attention. Matt. xxviii. 19. Though it is brought by the Baptifts as an objection; yet, properly confidered, I think it is fo far from being in their favor, that it will afford a convincing proof of our doctrine to any person free from prepoffeffions.

1. The apostles were commanded to go out into all the world. Till then they had been confined to the Jews, and both circumcifion and baptifm were administered to those who embraced the gofpel, and to their infants. There was not the least hint antecedent to this, that infants were to be excluded, but much to the contrary, as has been fhewn. The apoftles themselves did not know that it would be lawful for them to go out to the Gentiles ; much less that infants, as the Baptists affert, were to be cut off from this privilege in the gofpel church. They were here commanded to teach all nations, and preach the gofpel to every creature. It is probable that even the Baptifts do not imagine, that this inimediately respects infants, as to the external teaching and preaching of the word, they being wholly incapable of this. But it certainly does fome way refpect them. The words are plain-The command is exprefs--Go teach all nations-Go preach the gospel to every creature. Surely our Saviour, who so tenderly took the dear little ones into his gracious arms, who fo affectionately bleffed them, I fay furely he did not forget them on this moft interefting occafion--Surely he was not ignorant of the tender feelings-Surely he was not a stranger to the pious breathings of the parental heart of his dear people in ages past. On this occafion, when the life of a thoufand poor Ifhmaelites was at ftake, he had not forgotten the

burft of Abraham's fatherly heart, "Oh, that Ishmael might live before thee !" Gen. xvii. 18. Nor was the compaffionate Saviour infenfible to those pious parental defires of true believers towards their infant offspring through all future ages, much less can any suppose, that he excludes them from the race of intelligent creatures, to whom the apostles were to preach the gofpel. We muft either deny that they are part of all nations-we must also either deny that they are rational creatures, or we must suppose that they are fome how included in the apostle's miffion.

"

2. The apoftles are hereby commanded, to teach (matheteufate) to difciple all nations, and preach the gospel to every creature. Since then it is certain, that the teaching and preaching of the gospel does fome way refpect infants, I confefs, upon the Baptift's plan, I am utterly at a lofs how to understand it, unlefs it be wholly to exclude them from christian baptifm, from the church, and from heaven; and either to ftrike them out of existence all together, or to plunge them headlong into eternal damnation. But if we understand the commiffion in the plain and natural fenfe, according to the circumítances in which it was fpoken, as an honeft, pious Jew would take it, and as it is clear the apoftles understood it, the whole matter is plain. The teaching and preaching of the gospel, were to difciple infants by baptifm with their believing parents, as had been a common known cuftom among the Jews, when they profelyted a heathen to the true religion.

The commiffion was exprefs-It was very easy to be understood by thofe to whom it was givenfance they were well acquainted with the command.

by which infants were to be received into the church with their parents-fince they knew this had always been the practice-and fince they had never heard any thing to the contrary drop from the bleffed lips of their divine master, but much in favor of fuch little ones, was it poffible for them to understand it in fuch a manner, as to exclude the infants of believers from the church and from baptifm?

Upon the whole, it is with me beyond all doubt that the apoftles fo understood their bleffed mafter, as fully to warrant and oblige them to receive infants into the vifible church with their believing parents, and baptize them. Agreeably to this they practifed, when it is faid that Lydia and her houfhold were baptized-when the jailer and all his were baptized, and when Paul baptized the house of Stephanus, &c. It thus continued, no doubt, through the apoftolic age; and from the beft account we have in hiftory, infant baptifm was generally, if not univerfally, practifed in the church more than twelve hundred years, though much corrupted. Notwithstanding fome have fince called it in question, yet, through all this long space of time, there was no church or fociety of chriftians which denied infant baptifm, except thofe who denied all baptifm with water. We have a particular authentic hiftory, both of the first rise and progrefs of this fect that denied infant baptifm. It first appeared in Germany at the place called Munfter, foon after the reformation from Popery.

If we grant, as the Baptifts affert, that infantbaptifm was neither allowed nor practifed by the church in the apoftolic age, it is utterly impoffible that it fhould have been introduced in any fubfequent period of the church. They, therefore,

*

might as well affert that it never has been practifed. Let us now candidly examine this matter.-Some confidently affirm, that this practice was first introduced into the church in the dark days of Popery. This cannot poffibly be true. It is easy to fhew from the most authentic writers in those times, that it was practised in the church long before; and, if I mistake not, fome of the Baptift writers themfelves allow that it was practifed in the African church before the dark period of Popery. But be this as it may, it was not then firft introduced into the church. If it was not the practice in the apoftles' day, it must have begun in fome of the fucceeding ages before Popery.-It is generally allowed that it commonly prevailed through all the churches after the fourth century. Mr. Tombs, on the part of the Baptifts, exprefsly fays, that St. Auftin's authority carried it in the following ages almost without control; but St. Austin most folemnly profeffes, that he never heard of any in his time that oppofed infant-baptifm. We have only the four first centuries to examine. We are certain that the practice was first begun in one of them. Let us, therefore, go back and fee if we can poffibly find when it was first introduced into the church. Our brethren, the Baptifts, are, with us, equally interested in this inquiry. St. Auftin, who lived in the fourth century, fpeaks of it as prevailing in his day; and that it was not decreed by any council, but had been ever in ufe. The fame author, in his dispute with the Pelagians about original fin, brings infant-baptifm as an unanfwerable proof of original corruption. This was about

Part 1, Section 5.