stances in which the apostles baptized whole families, that is, according to the ordinary signification of the terms, both parents and children.

a) The family of Lydia, Acts 16:15. And when she (Lydia) was baptized and her household.

b) The family of the Jailor at Philippi. 16: 33. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized, he and ALL HIS, straightway.

c) The family of Stephanas, 1 Cor. 1: 16. I (says Paul) baptized also the household of Stephanas. In reference to all these cases it is to be observed; first, that the terms used "household" (oxia) and “ all his,” are those, which, in the ordinary language of men, would be employed to designate whole families, that is, parents, together with their children, and such other minors as constituted part of the family. The force of this evidence will be the more clearly understood from the fact that in all the histories of those churches, which reject infant baptism, not a single case occurs in which this phraseology is used. In short, it would be entirely unnatural for those who admitted only adults, to speak of baptizing certain parents, " and their families." Who ever heard of family baptisms, in the accounts published of the Baptist missionaries? Secondly, it appears evident in the above scripture examples, that the faith of Lydia, of the Jailor and of Stephanas, was the ground on which the family of each of them was baptized; otherwise it is unaccountable, that in no case the faith or profession of any others of the family is mentioned. But according to the rejectors of infant baptism, the faith of parents is not the ground for the administration of this ordinance to any but themselves. The language of scripture is, therefore, in this respect also, inconsistent with their views, and evidently implies pedobaptism.

The above historico-exegetical view of this disputed subject seems to us perfectly conclusive. There are however others of perhaps equal strength.

II. The propriety of infant baptism may be proved from the essential unity of the church of God in the Old and New Test. dispensation. The argument may be stated thus: An ordinance which God himself appointed in his church, and which he never revoked, we have no right to reject;

But God did confessedly appoint infant membership in his church, and did never revoke it;

Therefore, we have no right to reject it.

The first of these propositions (the major), is admitted by all. When God first appointed circumcision as the badge of external membership, he also expressly commanded its application to infants on the eighth day. Nor is it pretended that God ever revoked this ordinance, for not a syllable of such an import is contained in the bible. But it is contended that the Old and New Test. church is totally distinct, that the old was torn down, and an entirely new church erected in its stead, so that if infant membership were intended to be retained, it must needs be commanded anew. The New Testament, however, teaches a different doctrine representing the Christian church as built on the Jewish, as being only the more perfect and complete economy of the one church of God. "Think not," says the blessed Saviour, "that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil," or rather to make perfect (λnowoal to complete). The apostle Paul, also, speaking of the future restoration of the Jews, says; They also if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in for God is able to graff them in again. For if thou (gentile) wert cut out of the olive tree that is wild by nature (heathenism); and wert graffed contrary to nature, into a good olive tree (the Jewish church); how much more shall these (Jews), who are the natural branches, be

1 Gen. 17: 12. And he that is eight days old, shall be circumcised among you; every man child in your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, who is not of thy seed.

2 Matth. 5: 17.

graffed into their own olive tree (church)? The olive tree here must signify the Jews, either as a nation or a religious community, a church of God. It cannot mean the former, for the gentiles never were graffed on the Jewish nation. It must then mean the church. Now the apostle teaches, that the Jews were cut off from this church, by unbelief, and the gentiles received or graffed into it, and in the fulness of time the Jews shall again be received into their own church or olive tree, which must therefore be still standing: that is, the Christian and Jewish churches are essentially one and the same church. When therefore an ordinance is once established in it, it remains in force until revoked by God. Hence as infant membership has confessedly not been revoked by God, our conclusion irresistibly follows, that we are not at liberty to reject it.

III. A third argument for infant membership may be deduced from the fact, that the reason which led to its appointment under the Old Testament dispensation, exists with equal force under the New. That reason doubtless was, the peculiar necessity of children to be instructed, and consequent propriety of placing them under the religious direction of parents and of the church. No instance can be specified, in which an ordinance of the Old Testament was abolished, if it was equally necessary in the New, unless a substitute was appointed. Here no substitute is pretended, and yet the reason for the original rite remains undiminished. The appointment itself therefore remains in force until revoked.

IV. Another argument for infant membership is derived from the fact, that the New Testament speaks of children, just as the Old does when they certainly were members. That is, they are represented as candidates for eternal glory, to be trained up by Christian instruction, and numerous directions are given, how to rear them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.1

1 Eph. 6: 4. Col. 3: 21.

V. Another argument may be derived from the acknowledged circumstance, that baptism has come in the place of circumcision, that is, appointed to accomplish the same general ends, to be an initiatory ordinance into God's church, and to represent moral purification. Now as baptism has evidently been substituted instead of circumcision, it is reasonable to suppose that its application is at least equally general, since no restriction is found in scripture.

But here, the opponents of pedobaptism would reply, such a restriction does really exist. Faith is often connected with baptism, and hence, say they, we may infer, that as baptism is a seal of faith, it cannot with propriety be administered to those who are unable to believe, as is the case with children. It is admitted that faith is in some passages connected with this ordinance, and therefore is necessary to all those who are capable of exercising it. But precisely the same was also the case with circumcision: Abraham "received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised." But, because circumcision required previous faith in adults, was it therefore inapplicable to children? Here then God himself teaches us, that the requisition in an adult, of a qualification of which children are incapable, is no proof that children shall be excluded from an ordinance of his church. How then should we venture, for such a reason, condemned by God himself, to deny baptism to children? It is a dictate of common sense, which all men observe, and the opponents of pedobaptism also in all cases except this, that any passage of scripture, requiring a qualification or action of which children are incapable, is intended to be applied only to adults. Thus, when the apostle says: "If any will not work, neither shall he eat;" do they infer that as children cannot work they shall be starved ?

1 Rom. 4: 11.

When the Saviour utters these solemn

words: He that believeth not shall be damned, does the opponent say, children cannot believe, therefore they must be damned? No, he rationally affirms, "Children cannot work, or believe, and yet their inability to perform these requisites must not exclude them either from eating or from salvation. And, for the same reason, we add, their inability to believe forms no barrier to their baptism.

This entire mass of evidence, is rendered still more conclusive by the fact, that, according to the best light of the earliest Christian fathers, infant baptism was practised in the apostolic church; and from that to the present time it has been the prevailing practice of the great body of Christians.

Justin Martyr, who was born about the time of St. John's death, says, in his Apology, that among the members of the church in his day, "there were many of both sexes, some sixty, and some seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ in their infancy.” The word which he uses, (εμαθητεύθησαν) is the very one used by the Saviour in his commission; "Go ye, and make disciples of all nations." It is evident therefore that Justin Martyr regarded the command of the Saviour as applicable to children.

Irenæus, a pupil of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John, was born about the close of the first century, and uses the following language:1 "Christ came to save all those persons, who by him are born again unto God (renascuntur) infants and little ones, boys, youths and elder persons." Now it is certain,2 that the word renasci, in the writings of Justin, Irenæus, and other early fathers, signifies baptism, so that none but baptized persons were ever termed "regenerate" by them.

The testimony of Origen is also very explicit and important. He was born only eighty-five years after St. John's death,

1 Contra Haereses, L. II. ch. 22. § 4.

2 See Storr's Biblical Theology, Vol. II. p. 304.