with them the root and fatness of the olive tree. (Rom. xi. 17, &c.)

4. In the Christian church, Baptism has come in the room of circumcision; as the Lord's Supper has come in the room of the passover. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are the two sacraments of the Christian church, just as circumcision and the passover, were the two sacraments of the Jewish church. This is evident from the fact, that they have virtually the same meaning, and refer to the same things. The passover was typical of the very same thing, of which the Lord's Supper is commemorative and circumcision signified the same native depravity, and need of moral purification, that are represented by Baptism. These rites of the Jewish church were attended with the shedding of blood, as most of the institutions of that comparatively dark, legal, and typical dispensation were, in anticipation of the bloody sacrifice of the cross but Christ having come and offered himself a sacrifice once for all, and set up his gospel kingdom, and established his Church upon better promises-under a brighter, milder, and more spiritual dispensation, there is no longer occasion for bloody rites. We are told that, as an appendage to the paschal supper, as observed by the Jews in our Lord's time, they partook of a piece of bread and a cup of wine: and that also, to the rite of circumcision, administered to proselytes, they added that of Baptism, or washing with water, in token of their putting off the filthiness of heathenism, and assuming a new character. It would seem therefore that our Lord, in both cases, simply rejected the bloody parts of those rites, as inappropriate to the gospel dispensation; and substituted in their stead the unbloody parts, as they were then in common use. This seems to me to be a very easy and natural view of this subject; and hence we may understand why so little was said by way of explaining the nature of Baptism, it being a rite already in practice, and well understood, as an appendage to proselyte circumcision. Wherefore the apostle calis Baptism "the circumcision of Christ" or Christian circumcision. (Col. ii. 2.) All the early Fathers regarded Baptism as coming in the room of circumcision.

5. It follows as a necessary consequence, if our reasoning be correct, that the children of believing parents under the gospel, are to be regarded as having the same right to

Baptism, that the children of Jewish parents had to circumcision; unless their rights have been abridged, and there can be found some positive declaration to the contrary. But where is any thing like such a declaration to be found? It is certainly not to be found in the conduct of Christ towards little children. He took them up in his arms and blessed them, and said "of such is the kingdom of heaven." (Mat. xix. 13-15.) But some have said that the meaning of this is, that of such persons as are like infants in temper, disposition, &c. is the kingdom of heaven. But this interpretation cannot be maintained for two reasons. 1st. The original does not admit of this construction. It does not mean of such as are like infants, but of such infants is the kingdom of heaven: it might properly be rendered, as a similar phrase is elsewhere" For theirs is the kingdom of heaven." 2d. It is inconsistent with the scope of the passage. Christ gives it as a reason why children should be brought unto him. But his saying that the kingdom of heaven consisted of persons meek, docile, &c. like children, was no reason why infants should be brought unto him. There would be the same reason, says Mr. Henry, why lambs and doves should be brought unto him. Here then is a positive assertion, by the Saviour himself, that infants belong to the kingdom of heaven; that is, to the gospel Church. There is nothing like such a prohibition in the declaration of Peter on the day of Pentecost, who said, "For the promise is unto you, and to your children." (Acts ii. 39.) There is no such prohibition to be found in the New Testament. If then the Abrahamic covenant was the same covenant of grace, or gospel covenant, under which we all live; and if children were included in that covenant, and commanded to be circumcised as the sign and seal of it: if the Christian church is the same with the Jewish church, only rendered more spiritual, with some change of its external forms, and if Baptism and the Lord's Supper come in the room of circumcision and the passover; (all which, I think, has been fully proved on scripture authority;) then there was no occasion for a command to the apostles to baptize children, they would of course, and of necessity, so understand their commission, "go teach all nations, baptizing them," &c. When proselytes were made to the Jewish church, they received them, and both circumcised and baptized them and their children. And when the apostles

were sent out to make proselytes or converts to the Christian church, which was, and was understood to be, the same Church, with only some modification of its external rites; how could they without special instruction, refuse to receive children with their parents, as they always had done?

6. But we have what I conceive to be very satisfactory evidence, that the apostles did so understand their commission, and that when they received parents into the Church, they received and baptized their children with them. Thus we find them repeatedly baptizing whole households. Lydia was baptized and her household-the jailor, and all his straightway. Paul baptized the household of Stephanus. It is not indeed said that there were infants in any of these families; but the strong presumption is that there were. Where will you find three families, taking them at random, in which there are no children? Do we ever hear, in all the reports of the Baptist missionaries among the heathen, that they have baptized one household? But in the history of the apostles, in which there are but few cases of Baptism recorded, there are as many as three household Baptisms. In every case, as far as we are now capable of knowing, in which the parent or head of a family was baptized, the children or household, were also baptized. If a similar history were recorded of any missionary in a heathen land, with whose creed and practice on this subject, we were wholly unacquaintedthat in performing the act of Baptism the same number of times that it is recorded of the apostles in the New Testament, (which, I think, is not more than ten,) he had baptized as many as three households, would any one doubt that he was a Pedobaptist? Would our Baptist brethren be disposed to lay claim to such a missionary?

But the passage of scripture, (1 Cor. vii. 14,) must be regarded as very decisive upon this subject. "The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife; and the unbe lieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." How were the children holy? Not positively or personally-the faith of one or both parents will not effect that—but federally, i. e. within the pale of God's covenant-members of the invisible Church; and therefore entitled to Baptism. I know of no other interpretation of this text, consistent with the scope of the passage, and with the meaning of the

original words. Things and persons consecrated to God, are called holy. The people of Israel in covenant with God are called holy. The term holy is often used to express such a relation to God. (Exod. xix. 6, Deut. vii. 6, Ezra ix. 2.) Things not thus consecrated-Gentiles not thus in covenant with God, are called common and unclean. (compare Isa. xxxv. 8, and lii. 1. with Acts x. 28.) The evident meaning of the apostle then is, that the faith of either parent brought the child within the covenant -within the pale of the visible Church; and therefore federally holy-consecrated to God—and entitled to Baptism: otherwise, it was regarded as without the covenant -unclean-in other words a Gentile. And this was assigning a good and valid reason why the believing parent should not leave his or her unbelieving companion, which is the scope of the passage.

7. A very strong proof of infant Baptism we also derive from the history of the Church. If infant Baptism be not scriptural, and was not practised by the apostles; then it is an egregious error; and was introduced at a very early period; obtained a universal prevalence; and continued down uninterruptedly, without the least opposition, as far as authentic history gives us information on the subject, until near the time of the Reformation: nay, it continues to be practised even at the present day, by perhaps nineteen-twentieths of the Christian world. And yet we have no account of the introduction of this error, and no dispute about it by the early Fathers. The introduction of other errors is recorded, and the opposition that was made to them; but on this subject, there is a profound silence; except in regard to the fact that infant Baptism was universally practised, and held to be of apostolical origin. There was a dispute whether infants might not be baptized sooner than eight days old; the time when, under the law, circumcision was to be administered; (a plain proof that they regarded Baptism as coming in the room of circumcision ;) and this question was decided by a Council held at Carthage, A. D. 253, that they might be baptized as soon as they were born. "From the year 400 to 1150," says Buck, "no society of men in all that period of 750 years, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to baptize infants; and still nearer to the time of our Saviour there appears to have been scarcely any one that so much as advised the delay of infant Baptism. Irenæus, who lived.

in the second century, and was well acquainted with Polycarp, who was John's disciple, expressly declares that the Church learned from the apostles to baptize children. Origen, in the third century, affirmed that the custom of baptizing infants was received from Christ and his apostles. Cyprian, and a council of ministers (held about the year 254) no less than sixty-six in number, unanimously agreed that children might be baptized as soon as they were born. Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years from the apostles, declares that the Baptism of infants had been the practice of the apostles themselves, and of the Church, till that time. "The Catholic church every where declared," says Chrysostom, in the fifth century, "that infants should be baptized; and Augustine, (in the same age,) affirmed that he never heard nor read of any Christian, catholic, or sectarian, but who always held that infants were to be baptized. They farther believed, that there needed no mention in the New Testament of receiving infants into the Church, as it had been once appointed and never repealed."

Pelagius, who flourished in the latter part of the fourth and beginning of the fifth century, was among the most learned men of his day, and had travelled very extensively over a greater part of the Christian world, so that if there had been any sect however obscure, or even an individual of any note, who had denied the doctrine of infant Baptism, he could scarcely have failed to know it. And from the doctrine which he held in regard to original sin - that infants are born pure and innocent; or, in modern language upon the subject, without moral character-he was under strong inducements to deny the doctrine himself; insomuch that he was charged with doing so. But he indignantly repelled the charge as an injurious slander. "Men slander me," says he, "as if I denied the sacrament of Baptism to infants. I never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, who denied Baptism to infants."

8. It seems to be reasonable and natural, that while children are young, and incapable of choosing and acting for themselves, their parents should choose and act for them. This is done in all the ordinary interests and concerns of life; and why not so in religion? The institution of such a rite as Baptism, by which parents may publicly and solemnly offer up their children to God, have the seal