rejected and suffered to grow up before they are baptized; I ask, where is your example? Did the Apostles refuse to baptize such? Or among the adults whom they baptized, do you find any that were born of christian parents? The history of the Acts contains a period of above thirty years, and the New Testament, a much longer period. There was time enough for two or three generations of infants to grow up to adult age. We have all along accounts of baptism. But it is remarkable, that in all this time, there is no intimation, that any one of the children of the early believers was baptized after he grew up; or that any one of those adults whom the Apostles baptized, was born of believing parents. It is plain then, there is not one example, which in the least, favours the opinion of our brethren, which is this, That the children of believers must be left to grow up before they are baptized. They ask, "Is it not a little strange, that we no where find children mentioned, if it were the Apostles' custom to baptize them with their parents?' And I ask; is it not very strange, that we no where find the children of believers bap

tized after they grew up, if it was the Apostles' custom to leave them unbaptized till they grow up? There is no example of this kind. But, we think, we have examples, and just such examples in favour of our practice, as we should have, upon supposition, the Apostles did baptize children with their parents.

Let us suppose infants were baptized: And what account should we have of it? Would the history tell us, such an infant by name of such an age, and such an one of such an age, was baptized? No: This minuteness could not be expected concerning infants, who are seldom known, by their names or ages, out of the families, to which they belong. All we could expect to be told is this; such a man was baptized and his family-such a woman and her houshold. And this we are told; Stephanas' household, Lydia and her household, the Jailor and all his were baptized; which are plain examples of families baptized upon the faith of their respective heads; as I shall shew more fully hereafter.

3. It is argued, that faith and repentance are the conditions of baptism; infants are not capable of these, and therefore not capable of baptism.'

But as well might our brethren say, 'Faith and repentance are conditions of salvation, and therefore infants, being incapable of these, cannot be saved.' It is expressly said, He that believeth not shall be damned. It is no where said, he that believeth not, or repenteth not, shall not be baptized. Faith and repentance are required on several particular occasions, when baptism was to be administered to adult persons; but we find no general rule given to exclude from baptism such as are incapable of faith and repentance. Our brethren will not exclude infants from salvation, upon the authority of those texts, which make faith the condition of it; and surely, if they will be consistent with themselves, they cannot exclude them from baptism, upon the authority of those texts, which make faith the condition of that; especially since these texts plainly respect adult proselytes. That such must profess their faith we allow. But the apos

tolic practice shews, that upon their profession, not only they, but their households also should be baptized; as under the ancient dispensation, when a Gentile became a proselyte, not only he himself, but all his male children were circumcised.

The instances in which faith or repentance is enjoined previously to baptism, are only when adult persons inquired what was necessary for themselves. The question was not concerning the qualification for baptism in general; but what was requisite in their own case. • What shall we do?'-' What hinders ME to be baptized?' The Apostles answer the question, as it respected those who proposed it. Repent ye and be baptized-if thou believest, thou mayst be baptized. These directions only prove, that a profession of faith and repentance is necessary to the baptism of adults, which none deny; but, in no degree affect the right of infants.

Faith was as much required under the Old Testament in order to circumcision, as it is under the new in order to baptism; but still infants were circumcised. The Gentile proselyte was not admitted to this rite,

till he professed his faith in the God of Israel; neither was the adult Jew. During the forty years that circumcision was intermitted in the wilderness, a new generation came on the stage. These were circumcised soon after they passed over Jordan.* But previously to this, they had solemnly avouched the Lord to be their God. Now because faith was a prerequisite to the circumcision of adults, shall we conclude that no infants were circumcised? This would be contrary to known fact. But this conclusion would be as just as the other, which determines against the baptism of infants, because a profession of faith was required in proselytes. The truth is, all arguments drawn from special and particular cases, are impertinent to an inquiry concerning a general rule of practice.

The author of the letters lays particular weight upon that passage, 1 Pet. iii. 21. The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth now save us, not the putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. Here,' he says, ' such a con

5

* Josh. 5.