infants as well as others. The apostles had before been instructed to receive not only adults, but also little children in Christ's name, and as his disciples. Now a particular rite is appointed, by which they should receive or disciple them in his name. ciple all nations, baptizing them in the name. of the Father, and of the Son, &c.

Dis

But the author of the letters says, 'The disciples of Christ, during his ministry on earth, as well as the disciples of John, were well acquainted with the institution of baptism, for they baptized great multitudes; but they administered a baptism in which infants had no part. When therefore our Lord instituted his sacrament of baptism, if infants were to be received into it, it cannot be doubted but he declared this; otherwise men, who had been used to exclude infants, would not think of them as coming within this fresh commission.'

He expressly allows, that the Apostles would be determined very much by former usages, in judging whether infants came within this commission. Whether the disciples of John and of Christ had been wont

to baptize infants, it is not expressly said, And therefore to judge how the Apostles would understand their commission, we must go farther back than to John's ministry. These Apostles were Jews. They had been educated in the Jewish religion. They knew, that from the days of Abraham, and all along through the Mosaic dispensation, infants had been taken into covenant with their parents by the same initiating rite.They knew, this had ever been esteemed a great privilege; and they would naturally suppose, the privilege was still to continue, as the Abrahamic covenant was yet in force. They knew it had been the constant immemorial practice of the Jewish church, to receive Gentile proselytes and their infant children with them by baptism. cient Jewish writers testify. know, was no new thing in

This the an

Baptism, we
John's time.

The Jews appear to have been well acquainted with it. They don't ask him, What meanest thou by this new ceremony? But why baptizest thou, if thou art not the Christ, nor Elias, nor that Prophet? Their question. implies, that the Prophets had been wont to

baptize, and they expected Christ and Elias would do the same. John probably took up baptism, as he found it practised in the Jewish church, where it had been constantly administered to the infants of Gentile proselytes. And it is not only without proof, but against probability, that this author asserts, 'Infants had no part in John's baptism." Farther, these Apostles had been taught to look upon infants as belonging to Christ, and to treat them as his disciples. They had heard Christ pronounce them subjects of his kingdom, and give directions, that they should be brought to him. They had been reprimanded for attempting to hinder infants from being brought. They knew, that Christ came not to lessen the privileges of the church, (of which the admission of infants was one) but to enlarge them; and that baptism was now the rite of admission into it. Under these circumstances, how must they understand their commission? Certainly, upon this author's principles, they must suppose it to include infants; for he allows, they would understand it according to for mer usage. We may then retort his argu

When Christ instituted his sacrament of baptism, if infants were not to be received to it, it cannot be doubted, but he sufficiently declared this; otherwise men, who had always been used to see infants admitted into the church of God by the same token with their parents, would consider them as coming within this fresh commission, Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them.

Besides, When they saw the doors of the church now enlarged to admit new subjects, even all nations, they would not imagine, that the subjects, who had ever been admitted, were in future to be excluded. The commission therefore must be understood as a virtual command to baptize infants.

5. Children's right to baptism is very clearly taught, in those words of Peter to the awakened Jews, Acts ii. 38. 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 to you and to your children. He does not say, The promise is to you, and will be to your children when they become believers; but it is to both, to you and the chil

dren which you now have: And to all them that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call, i. e. wherever God sends the gospel to call the Gentiles, it carries this promise, which is in like manner to them and their children. The promise being made to them, is urged as a reason why they should be baptized. And the same reason holds for the baptism of all to whom the promise belongs, and consequently for the baptism of their children, for the promise is to them. Be baptized for the promise is to you and tò your children. The reason assigned for baptism is such as equally takes place with respect to both. If the parents interest in the promise is a reason why he should be bap tized, his children's interest in it, is just as good a reason, why they should be baptized. To suppose this promise is a just ground for the baptism of believers, but not for the baptism of their children, is to make the apostle talk thus absurdly and incoherently. The promise is to you, therefore be ye baptized→ and the same promise is equally to your children, yet they must not be baptized.