thinking adoption of the practice by the multitude at the present day, as well as in various other religious habits of the community, we have abundant proof, that even in this greatly more enlightened age, ceremonies of this kind are, for the most part, adopted and adhered to by nations, not on account of their being regarded as of Scriptural origin and obligation; but in hereditary compliance with custom, or in servile deference to human authority.

I am, &c.

have, depend not on any arrogant dictates of men, that make so bold with God's judgments, as if they themselves were judges'-(judging, namely, that all infants shall, assuredly, be saved,) ..... Read that record of God, 1 John v. 11, 12,' 'That God has given to us an eternal life; and that this life is in, or by his Son. He that has the Son (or has an interest in the Son) has this life: He that has not the Son of God, has not life.' No man will, or dare say, Infants shall be excepted in that sentence, which requires they be in Christ, or have Christ for their Saviour. Nor can give any good proof, that they shall be excepted in this before us. For which way come they to belong to Christ, or to have him, but as they are dedicated and entered into his covenant, in the way that he has appointed for all whom he will save, to be entered?' The purport of this exhortation is plainly the same as that of the more declamatory appeal of Augustine; and it is scarcely conceivable that, in either case, any who held the same views of the danger of persons dying in infancy, would hesitate about getting them baptized, when they were so positively assured, that the ceremony secured their eternal salvation.

LETTER VIII.

MY DEAR FRIEND,

I have now noticed, I believe, -'s notes;

every statement or objection advanced in Mr. and, in some instances, at much greater length than I at first intended. Some other points also, have been adverted to, at the hazard of being found tedious: but I was unwilling to pass over any topic that might be regarded as furnishing evidence of the slightest importance in favour of the system I was combating. And though you are not to regard these desultory letters as giving a view of the evidence in support of the proposition it has been my object to establish, viz. that immersion into the faith of the gospel, is the bounden and exclusive duty of every Christian believer, with any thing like due fulness or force; enough has been advanced, I trust, to satisfy you, that this position rests securely on the basis of legitimate evidence and conclusive argument; and that the practice of sprinkling or even immersing infants, has no foundation in Scripture.

It would, of course, be incorrect to consider the notes commented on, as designed to give a full view of the arguments usually adduced by pædobaptist writers;-they are evidently indices of arguments, rather than arguments themselves, formally stated and skilfully enforced; and in this light I doubt not, they were regarded by their author; though of course, his positions and arguments, in so far as they are stated, ought to be in every respect, as sound and tenable,

as if they had been amplified and guarded with the most exquisite skill.

:

Were I aware of any other points being regarded by pædobaptists, as of any importance in their favour, I should readily notice them; for the cause of truth has nothing to fear from a close investigation of the whole compass of legitimate evidence. Nearly every topic, however, usually referred to by writers on the subject, has, I believe, been more or less taken into consideration and it has been my leading aim throughout, to give proper prominence to those points on which the question hinges; and by which, of course, your judgment of it ought to be determined. Mr. mentions, that his object in writing his notes was, 'to preserve the minds of young Christians from being greatly perplexed on the subject;' and I have no doubt his labours, as well as those of other pædobaptists with this view, are often much needed; for assuredly, the contradictory grounds on which infant baptism is by different parties placed, and the various and sometimes opposite benefits represented by them as conferred by it, must be matters extremely perplexing to every intelligent and reflecting adherent of the system. For you will observe, that while all pædobaptists concur in the conclusion, that infants ought to be baptized, they differ very materially in the premises, from which this conclusion is deduced. There has, in fact, been hardly a single statement advanced by any of them in its support, which has not by others, been pronounced untenable. And in confirmation of this, I may remind you, that some of the most conclusive arguments in the preceding pages, have been quotations from pædobaptist writers.

The most consistent advocates of the practice are obviously those who regard it in its true light, as a tradition of the early church. By such it is assumed, that a discretionary power was conferred on the rulers of the Christian body

D D

subsequent to the apostolic age, to adopt whatever regulations or practices of a beneficial tendency, the new exigencies of the church might seem to require. This is the ground usually taken by Romanists and Episcopalians and as it is matter of history, that the Fathers, as they are called, exercised this discretionary power, if we hold, they were warranted in assuming the authority in question, it is quite consistent to adopt infant baptism as well as their various other traditions. But Presbyterians and Independents who, though they have adopted this tradition, correctly contend that Christian bishops possessed at no time a right to decree religious rites and ceremonies, are compelled to relinquish the authority thus assumed by the rulers of the church, as a warrant for the practice. They have accordingly invented arguments, with a view to their own justification, derived from entirely new sources. And it is deserving of your notice, that almost every different denomination, has taken up different ground; and has not unfrequently attempted to rear its own structure on the ruins of some other pædobaptist system. It is owing to this, that we find the writers belonging to these various parties, differing not more from baptists, than they differ from one another. While some found the right of infants to baptism on the apostolic commission, others positively deny that this commission has any reference to infants. A few hold, that pædobaptism is a continuation of the Jewish proselyte baptism; while others question whether any such baptism was practised prior to the Christian era. Some maintain that the recorded practice of the apostles in baptizing households, furnishes direct and obvious evidence in favour of the practice; while by others, it is denied that the cases in question, furnish any evidence whatever in its support. Others again, con

*

* See Appendix.

sider it warrantable to continue the practice; inasmuch as baptism, in their view, took the place of circumcision, and the ordinance seals to infants the benefits of a covenant made with believers concerning their children, the same in substance with that made with Abraham concerning his posterity. But respecting the benefits accruing to infants from the covenant in question, a great variety of opinion prevails; and, indeed, many do not hesitate to affirm, that no such covenant exists. Some rest the right of infants to baptism, not on their parental connexion at all, but on the engagement of sponsors; while others ground it on the supposed faith of the infant itself, which seems to have been the opinion of Luther, who maintained, that little children ought not to be baptized at all, if it be true, that in baptism they do not believe.' Now of these various, or opposite grounds, it must, no doubt, to every reflecting pædobaptist, be matter both of difficulty and perplexity, to select satisfactorily the safest and the best!

Then with respect to the benefits supposed to be conferred by infant baptism, the views of different pædobaptists, seem not less perplexing than the various grounds on which it is by different denominations defended. By the Roman Catholic and Greek churches, it is considered essential to salvation. By the church of England, it is regarded as conferring spiritual regeneration; so that in baptism, children are made the members of Christ, the children of God, and the inheritors of the kingdom of heaven.' This view indeed, is by one section of that church controverted; and the practice is by this party very inconsistently regarded as only admitting infants into the visible church. I need not remind you, that the notion of a person being admitted into the visible church, on the supposition that he will be regenerated at a subsequent period, derives no countenance from the pages of the