as well as adults; and of course that baptism was an indispensable requisite to their salvation; they should generally go into the practice of infant baptism;" so it would seem very strange, if any one were to deny the propriety and obligation of infant baptism, who had adopted fully the principle of infant membership. They are so obviously and so inseparably connected, that infant baptism seems to have been gone into as a matter of course; and explicit precepts enjoining it, as in the case of female communion, appear to have been omitted, as superfluous. The additional evidence we have of it, comes in therefore by the by. The Jewish believers wanted no farther proof of the propriety of continuing to circumcise their children, than the divinely authorized principle upon which Israel had ever practised, that they were born unto God as an holy seed. And as baptism was appointed to the Gentiles in the room of circumcision, and a seal of the one gracious covenant, upon which the Church was founded, no farther proof seemed to be necessary to warrant the application of baptism to their infant children. Baptism was administered to adults upon their becoming united to Christ, and as a token of their membership in him. And if the infant seed stood in the same relation to him as members of his body, the consequence was inevitable, that it behoved them to be baptized. The law of circumcision, especially as it had been extended by God to proselytes, involved an obligation to baptize them; just as the fourth commandment involves an obligation upon us to keep the Lord's day. The reason of the law remained in all its force; and it could not cease to be obligatory, in the spirit of it, merely because the seal was changed, in kind.*

To infant baptism, as neceffarily following upon infant membership, Dr. Gill declares himself ready to submit. "Let it be proved," fays he, "that infants are or ought to be members of Gospel Churches, and we shall readily admit them." i. e. to baptism. Answer to Dickinson, page 89. A full demonstration, of this, it is thought has been given. The reader must judge. But let him beware of being swayed by prejudice against it. This prejudice is extensive. It has had deep possession of the author's mind; owing to the misrepresentations which have been given of this sort of membership, and the abuses to which it has been subjected. If it be God's plan of building up the Church, it is undoubtedly a wise plan, and must not be rejected.

Notwithstanding infant baptism follows so necessa rily from infant membership, it is proper to confirm it by other evidence. We shall therefore spend a little time in considering the collateral, and incidental proofs of it, which the Gospel furnishes.

1. Let us notice the evidence contained in the commission given by Christ to his disciples to preach the Gospel over the world. "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commended you; and lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." Math. xxviii, 19, 20. We have already commented upon this passage; and shewn, that it proves the continuance of infant membership in the Christian Church. It has appeared, that the commission is incapable of being executed but upon the supposition of it. Had the preaching of the Gospel been so extensive, and so effectual, as to recover all nations to Christ, and to interest them in his salvation, a multitude of infants would necessarily have been brought into his church. But then they must as necessarily have been baptized. For the direction to baptize, is coextensive with the objects whom the commission respected. "Baptizing them," the nations.

Had there been no alteration of the seal, and had the term circumcising been used by Christ, instead of baptizing, there is not probably an individual on earth, who would not conclude, without a moment's hesitation, that circumcision was to be extended to the households of converted Gentiles. The opposite principle would have produced such a manifest difference be tween the Jewish, and Gentile believers, as would have destroyed the unity of the church.

The law respecting circumcision; the nature of the covenant of which it was a token; the blessing it sealed; the language of God respecting the children of his people, as born to him; and the uniform practice of the Israelitish church, led irresistibly to this conclusion. And can the mere circumstantial difference, in

the nature of the token, be of any force with a candid mind, to weaken this conclusion? At any rate, we see that the commission of Christ, from the very terms of it, necssarily involves infant baptism.

2. The declaration of our Savior, John iii. 5, is of weight to determine that baptism ought to be extended to the infant seed of believers. "Jesus answered,

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man, (Tiσ, any one) be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Here water baptism is placed in connexion with the renewing of the Holy Ghost; and the former is made as essential to an entrance into the kingdom of God as the latter.* It is made as essential to infants as to adults; if they equally need regeneration; and if they are comprehended under the universal term Tic. This declaration of Christ, introduced with a double asseveration, is equivalent with that of the apostle Peter, I Peter, iii. 21. "The like figure whereunto, even baptism doth now save us." It is equivalent also with what God told Abraham, with respect to circumcision. "And the uncircumcised manchild, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people." These passages concur in the absolute necessity of our observing the ordinances of God when made known to us. To trample upon any of them is fatal.

As to this passage in John, it is certain, that the primitive fathers very generally understood it as precluding salvation, at least in ordinary cases, without water baptism; and this with respect to infants as well as adults. The letter of the passage certainly concludes in this principle. And the parallel places coincide with it. Let who dare go directly in the face of the Savior's declaration and say, that millions may enter the kingdom of God, who are not born of water.† Dr.

It is supposed, that in this case, as in the case of circumcision, a neglect, not founded in permission, or involuntary gnorance, but in impiety, is that which excludes from the kingdom of God. An adult may be disinherited of the blessing by this impiety; and he may, according to divine constitu tion, disinherit his child. It is as great impiety to trample upon an instituted rite, as to live in the commission of any other sin.

+ Some persons insinuate, that water baptism is not here intended. Dr Bald win seems to take this for granted. But upon what grounds I cannot conceive,

Ни

Gale denies that this passage has any application to infants. His reason is, that not being subjects of sin, they are incapable of renovation of heart. They are, according to him, to be classed with brutes, as incapable of any sort of moral action, and therefore both of the blessing and of the curse. This Pelagian doctrine, it is apprehended few, who oppose infant baptism, will in these days, readily adopt. Certainly many antipodobaptist writers contend for the opposite sentiment.-The limitation, which the Doctor's construction makes, is against the letter of the passage; and the principle upon which it is founded, is repugnant to the current of scripture. It is not contended, that infants are to b'ame that they are not baptized. Nor were they to blame, under the former dispensation, if they were not circumcised. But all are by nature children of wrath; and God has a sovereign right to extend salvation to whom he pleases; and to except whom, and in such a way as appears to him wisest, from being subjects of it. Allowing that, if infants are saved, they are saved wholly by grace, and as subjects of sanctification, we cannot reasonably consider the words of our Savior as less applicable to them than to adults. And if he designed the salvation of any of them; and we see that the promise of salvation terminates upon the seed, we shall be constrained to admit, that he has made provision for their being baptized. The passage then concludes, that baptism, according to Christ's institution, extends to proper subjects among infants, as well as to proper subjects among those who have arrived to adult years. Whether by the kingdom of God, is to be understood, the real church of the Messiah on earth; or that church in its glorified state in heaven, the conclusion is the same; though it seems necessary to understand the latter.

Surely no words can be plainer. Dr. Doddridge understands the passage of water baptism; and so did all antiquity. I do not see how it is possible to give any other construction of it, which shall be at all in agreement with the analogy of scripture, or with common sense. Poole, it is true, introduces a manner of constructing the passage, which some have been disposed to adopt, which makes this clause altogether figurative. But it is too absurd to be entitled to notice. Here is nothing like a figure, unless it be in the term born.

3. The fact, that Jewish believers continued, after the typical design of circumcision was answered, and till the distinction between Jew and Gentile was lost, to cirumcise their children, affords proof that baptism ought to be applied to the seed of Gentile believers. That this was a fact, has been sufficiently estab lished, and probably no one will deny it.. This fact has been introduced to prove the perpetuity of infant membership in the church of Christ. Now it is introduced in proof of infant baptism. If the children of Jewish parents were circumcised, because they were children of the covenant; and held with their parents a membership in the church, it seems but a necesary inference, that the children of Gentile parents, who are partakers of the same faith, and fellow heirs of the same blessing, should, as they are equally with the others, children of the covenant, and members of the fam, ily, be baptized. All the reasons there are for the one, exist with respect to the other.

4. The entire silence of scripture, as to limiting bap tism to adult believers, is proof of the right of apply, ing it to infants. The silence of scripture, as to infant baptism, is often urged by antipodobaptists, as an unanswerable argument against it. But the argument in our hands, is altogether a better one than in theirs.An explicit precept is not necessary where other evidence is clear. If we had no such evidence, then it might be admitted, that an explicit precept would be requisite. This is precisely the case with antipodobaptists. They have scarcely a shred of an argument against infant membership, and infant baptism. In our opinion they have not even that. They scarcely attempt to prove a negative. The sorry plea, that baptism is placed in connexion with personal faith in adults, which is wholly irrelevant, is the sum of what they have to say. As they are so poorly furnished with other evidence; and oppose that, which, to say the least, has a considerable claim to be thought decisive, they ought to be able to produce an explicit restriction, which should finally determine the practice, and