believeth and is baptized; it is not-He that believeth not shall not be baptized. Are we then to say, because our babes cannot work, that they shall have no food? Verily this would exhibit dark prospects of the duration and continuance of the species in the world, as the exclusion of babes from membership ould do of the Church.

But, moreover, apply this rule a little farther, and you will not only have none of them in the Church below, but you will also shut against them the gates of the Church above. Although it is not said he that believeth not shall not be baptized, it is said "He that believeth not shall be damned.". Now, it is evident according to the way our opponents argue, that infants cannot be saved. Apply the adult rule to infant subjects, and you see what horrid conclusions force themselves upon you. The Anabaptist reasons-Because the infant cannot believe, therefore it cannot be baptised. By a much clearer inference it might be said, because they cannot believe, they cannot be saved. It must be here observed that I do not blame the Baptist for holding either of these opinions, to wit: that children should be starved; or that they will all be excluded the kingdom of heaven. It is their system and not their hearts, that holds both of these shocking tenets. They would, in humanity, administer food to the hungry babe-they would, in pity, pray that babes might, in divine mercy be saved. would be but reasonable, however, to consider consequences and renounce systems, which, if

It

followed, would be so horrid in their results. We have seen then that infants may be disciples, that those who are made disciples in the Church are to be baptized, that the tendency of the rea-' soning which opposes this, would lead to the starvation of children and the denial of their salvation. No scripture rightly understood can lead to absurdity, and scripture should be compared with scripture, before we draw inferences and conclusions, which we would not ourselves with. their whole train admit..

Let us see then what other parts of holy writ will say upon this subject. Before we finally decide upon this interesting question, whether or not infants should be baptized, we must try what way the Apostles understood their instruction. We cannot do this better than by noticing their practice under this general direction. We have not any, instance of a nation becoming. Christian during the ministry of inspired men. Of course we have no Apostolic model for regulating a national Church.

Several years, yea centuries of years had to elapse from that period, before the kingdoms of the world should become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ. However, they made full proof of their ministry. They labored to bring about the much desired time. They endeavored to compel men to enter into the kingdom. We have no instance of their ever refusing to baptize the infants of professors-no instance, after the regular establishment of the

Church in any place, that the children of adult members upon growing up, were baptized. We have very strong evidence that they did, under the direction of their permanent commission, baptize the infants of believing proselytes. What evidence ought to be required upon this head? Would it not be sufficient, if we had the ancient promise confirmed and ratified in connection with the command to receive this seal? Indeed only for the slowness of man's heart to believe, there would have been no necessity to confirm and ratify a divine grant. The heavens may depart and the earth be removed, but he will never fail of any thing he has promised. We might therefore have said, If he has not withdrawn his promise from the children; but we are not under the necessity of reasoning closely to maintain their right; we bave line upon line and promise upon promise. To illustrate and prove our point let us suppose an instance;

Suppose a king possessed of large territories entirely at his own disposal, should first have enfeoffed his land to the adults and infants of a certain tribe. This enfeoffment is made by a seal attached to a charter. The original occupants forfeit their right, and by their rebellion alienate the property. After some time he alters the seal, and extends his royal munificence to all other tribes indiscriminately, upon their agreeing to come and be orderly residents in the region. He sends out factors and agents to seal and deliver over legal rights to the new settlers. Would any

person suppose that the children, in this new arrangement were to be excluded? Certainly not. If some agents were afterwards to refuse this, would not the settlers have a right to enquire into the reason of the alteration. If none could be

given but such as might, with equal propriety, have been advanced against the ancient, known custom and regulation of the tenure; would not all think that these agents did not understand the nature of their lord's grant?

The case, you will see, is similar to the one in hand. Examine Acts ii. 39. "For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." The first of these characters are the descendants of Abraham, unto whom and to his seed the promise was originally given. The second, are the nations who are to be blessed in his seed, chap. iii. 25. "Ye are the children of the prophets and of the covenant which God made with our fathers saying to Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." The promise can be no other than what we have been already considering in the second part of our plea, to wit, "I will be your God and the God of your seed." But this promise was sealed. Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith. His seed also received the seal. Male infants were to be cir. cumsised. This promise is mentioned, confirmed and ratified in connection with a command to respect the seal and sacrament of baptism. This

itself is no obscure hint that baptism came in the room of circumcision and should, of course, like its predecessor be administered to infants, unless. you would make the type more condescending and kind to babes than the antitype. Peter had charged home upon the awakened consciences of some, the terrible deed of crucifying the Lord. They cried under pungent conviction, "Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, 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."

In the verse already quoted, he assigns this as a reason, For the promise is unto you and to your children." Why should children be here mentioned, if they have nothing to do with the promise nor its seal? It is trifling to say that the promise would be to their children, when they were grown up to be men and women, i. e. when they are no longer children. It is evident that; according to this way of explaining, or rather, wresting the passage, there is no promise to children. It is further added, lest any should be led to believe that the Gentiles should not have the same privileges; "And to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” If none but adults have an interest in this promise, it will mangle and destroy the promise itself. The promise is, "I will be the God of your seeds as well as I will be your God." The promise then was not according to its original form to