in the many advantages resulting therefrom,-we see evidence for the Divine origin of infant baptism, which if viewed separately is strong, and if considered in its mutual harmony, and its accordance with the genius of Christianity, is satisfactorily conclusive.

I. The rite of Christian baptism is, in its nature, as appropriate to infants, as it is to adults.

It is an emblematical purification, and as such it indicates the existence of some spiritual defilement. It would therefore be incongruous, if applied to those who were free from all connexion with guilt or sin. If children were not, in the administration of the Divine government, in any way affected, on the ground of their common nature, by the sins of their parents, and by the sin of the first parents of the human race, then they might with propriety be excluded from this rite. If their nature were complete in all its principles, holy in all its latent tendencies, and by its own development would rise to whatever was pure in feeling and right in practice, to sinless obedience and moral perfection,-then, too, children would be unmeet subjects for such a service. But it is not so. Though personally guiltless, they do participate in some of the evil consequences of the sins of others. This is taught both by Scripture, and by universal experience. And that the nature of all does need that change which the Spirit of God is promised to produce, is evident from the sinfulness, without one solitary exception, of those whose nature is developed under our observation. There is consequently an obvious propriety in administering a rite, which indicates some spiritual pollution, to those who, though innocent, unquestionably do share in the sad consequences of sin; and whose nature has the disorder of moral imperfection: as well as to those who are both guilty and imperfect; and whose nature has grown up in evil, receiving daily pollution from their own transgressions.

Again, an emblematical purification exhibits the attainment of spiritual purity as possible. It would therefore be improper to administer such a rite to those for whom there is no hope, who being morally impure, are doomed to be always so. If the salvation of Jesus Christ were offered only to a class of persons, Christian baptism would be unsuitable to those, who could afford no proof that they belonged to that class. But it is exhibited in the Gospel, as offered freely to the whole human race. There is no parent to whom the words of St. Peter may not be addressed by the Christian teacher: "The promise is for you, and for your children;"* and if the verbal promise is for them, why not also the visible promise? If they have any interest in the salvation promised, why should that baptism which is a sign of the promise, and an emblem of the salvation, be withheld from them? It is true they may not live to learn from the lips of any

*Acts ii. 39.

earthly teacher the Saviour's promise; but few will believe that those, who in infancy are removed from this world of sin and sorrow, are deprived for ever of all opportunity of participating in his salvation, who died that he might be the Lord both of the dead and of the living.— Because the meaning of the rite, in respect both to the past and the future, applies to infants as well as to adults, we conclude that infants were baptized by the apostles and early disciples of Jesus, and that they should be baptized by us at the present time.

II. The administration of baptism, as the initiatory rite of Christianity, shows that children as well as adults were baptized.

From the Scripture narrative, it appears that an acknowledgment of the Divine mission of Jesus preceded, in general, the reception of his instructions. This to some extent would naturally be the case, since only those who were convinced that he came from God would seek to be taught by him; and it seems also to have resulted from our Lord's own appointment. It was his will that his claim as a Divine teacher should be first admitted, and then that men should attend to the doctrines he taught. He therefore commenced his ministry by the performance of miracles, and not by the promulgation of truth; and he thus produced in the minds of many, that confidence in him, which was a prerequisite to the right reception of his instructions. The refusal to acknowledge the Divine mission of Jesus, when it was so clearly proved by the miracles he performed, indicated a state of mind, to which the exhibition of his truth would be injurious rather than beneficial. To such persons he spoke in parables; that seeing they might see, and not perceive, and hearing, hear, and not understand. But to his disciples,-to those who acknowledged his Divine mission,-he explained all things, communicating only to them the truth whereby they might be saved. Their acknowledgment of him was not to depend on their knowledge of what he taught, but on the evidence of what he did. Now the acknowledgment of the Divine mission of Jesus was made by the reception of Christian baptism. His disciples, in the more general sense of the term, were separated from others, by the observance of this rite. They were instructed in the peculiar doctrines which he taught, after their baptism. When St. Peter called on an assembly of Jews to be baptized, in acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, he told them that the forgiveness of sins would be the result of that repentance, of the commencement of which baptism was the expression. He said,

"When he was in Jerusalem, at the feast of the Passover, many believed him, beholding the signs he performed. But Jesus did not trust himself to them, because he knew all men,”—John ii. 23. Here belief is attributed solely to miracles; and it is intimated, that such belief, though necessary to the due reception of the truth, would not always lead to it. Multitudes who believed Christ, when they had only seen his miracles, rejected him when they became acquainted with his doctrine.

"Repent and be baptized each one of you, in acknowledgement of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of sins."* He assured them that if they trusted to the Saviour, they would obtain the gift of the Spirit, of which baptism was the emblem:-" Repent and be baptized...and ye will receive the Holy Spirit." The forgiveness of sins and the regeneration of the soul were not to precede baptism, but to follow it. To require of any the exhibition of Christian knowledge, the proof of forgiveness, and the evidence of regeneration, prior to baptism, is to require what the apostles never required, and what they could not require, without the most manifest inconsistency. How could they demand an account of Christian knowledge and experience from those, of whom many then for the first time heard of Jesus? Or how could they ask some reason for the hope that sins were forgiven, from persons to whom they said, "Be baptized for the forgiveness of sins?" Or how could they require the evidence of regeneration from those to whom they had said, "Repent and be baptized... and you will receive the Holy Spirit?" It is impossible. In regard to the three thousand then baptized, there could only be the presumption, that they understood the nature of the ceremony to which they were invited; and that they believed the concluding statement of St. Peter's discourse, to the establishment of which the whole was directed,-"that God had made that Jesus, whom ye crucified, both Lord and Christ." But children five years old are as capable of this knowledge and conviction, as men and women of fifty. We have no direct evidence that any were baptized at the latter age, nor is any deemed necessary. Yet it would be as reasonable to require this proof, to justify the practice of baptizing adults of any given age; as to require the proof that children of five years of age were baptized then, in order to justify the practice of baptizing such now. There is nothing in the customs of the age,—in the circumstances of the narrative,—or in the nature of Christian baptism, to render it more improbable that such children were baptized, than that such adults were baptized. From this narrative, and from the whole tenor of Scripture history, it is most clear and certain, that no knowledge or conviction was expected in those who received Christian baptism, which is not in general possessed by the children of Christian parents, even before the age mentioned. This argument will not prove that the baptism of infants is more scriptural than the baptism of young children; but it proves that the baptism of children who have to be taught, is far more scriptural than the baptism only of adults, who have been fully instructed, and who can give satisfactory evidence that they have been made new creatures by Jesus Christ. Christian baptism was an initiatory emblematical purification, indicating, when administered to adults, that they were to be instructed

*Acts ii. 38.

in Christianity; and that they needed, and might obtain by faith in Christ, the forgiveness of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. In all these particulars it is as appropriate to children as to adults.

He

III. The analogy of similar institutions of Divine appointment supports the conclusion, that infants as well others were baptized. Circumcision was an initiatory rite to Judaism: and baptism is an initiatory rite to Christianity. The former was a corporeal purification, an emblem of the purification of the mind: and so is the latter. who received circumcision, thereby acknowledged, without any verbal profession, the Divine origin of Judaism, and became a disciple of Moses: and he who received baptism, acknowledged in like manner the Divine origin of Christianity, and became a disciple of Jesus. The one ceremony was a sign of the promises of God to Abraham, and of the privileges and responsibilities of those who lived under the Mosaic dispensation: and the other ceremony is, in the same way, a memorial of the promises of Jesus to his disciples, and of their privileges and responsibilities who live under the Christian dispensation. Circumcision was also a condition of certain national and political advantages; and in this respect it has no parallel. But in respect to everything that is spiritual and religious, the analogy is complete. Now, since circumcision, though the initiatory rite to Judaism, was not confined to those who were capable of immediate instruction, but was given to infants eight days old; we may infer,-unless there be proof to the contrary,that baptism, the initiatory rite to Christianity, should also be administered to infants. As the one emblem of spiritual purity was given to those who were at the time incapable of possessing what the emblem indicated; so should the other. As the child was circumcised, though it had no belief in Moses, because its parents, or those who were to care for its education, acknowledged his Divine mission; so is the child to be baptized, though it can have no faith in Christ, because its guardians acknowledge his Divine mission. Some years would elapse, before the child, who was circumcised, could profit by the religious rite it had received; and so years must pass away, before the child who is baptized, can be benefited by the lessons his baptism exhibited. Both rites at the time of their observance would tend to the improvement of those who witnessed them; and both would subsequently tend to the improvement of those by whom they were received.

These considerations not only show that the apostles of Christ would see no impropriety in administering the ordinance of baptism to infants, but they show that they must have done so, unless withheld by a direct prohibition. With the views, feelings, and habits of Jews, they could not have restricted the rite to adults or to children who were able to understand its nature, and receive instruction, unless this were explicitly commanded. No such command is recorded, and we have no reason to suppose that it was ever given. There is nothing in their

history to countenance the supposition that they acted on this plan. In the initiation of children to Judaism the infants of proselytes were initiated, as well as the children who were capable of instruction, and all the children of Jews were initiated in infancy; and not the slightest ground is afforded by the New Testament for the conjecture, that the initiation of children to Christianity should be limited to those who can understand the nature, and assent to the meaning of the rite, and that all infants should be excluded.

The consideration of proselyte baptism is not at all necessary to our argument, but it may serve to illustrate and confirm it. By the law of Moses it was enjoined that all the unclean should be purified or baptized, by being sprinkled with water, before they were admitted to the full enjoyment of Jewish privileges. Those who had lived in heathenism, were morally and ceremonially unclean. When they came over to Judaism, the law required, that the father and his sons should be purified by circumcision, and that all the members of the family should be purified by baptism. Such was the requirement of the law, and such the practice of the Jews. As infants received circumcision, which was one part of the initiatory service; so did they also receive baptism, which was the other part. For the proof of these statements, references must be made to testimonies already given. And it will scarcely be denied, by any who admit that proselyte baptism was observed by the Jews, and that Christian baptism is an initiatory service; that the administration of Christian baptism to infants is a necessary consequence. When the head of a family expressed his desire to be taught the religion of the Jews, to worship their God, and to practise his laws, then, with all his household, unless some objected, he was baptized, infants as well as older children being included in the administration of the rite. It is not possible that they who were familiar with this baptism should, without direction, exclude infants from Christian baptism. That such a change was introduced into the religious usages of the early Christians cannot be admitted,-when there is no authority for thus deviating from a custom of Divine appointment,when no reason can be assigned for such a change,—and when no facts can be produced to prove that any such alteration was made in the initiation of children to religious privileges.

IV. The conduct of Jesus to little children, and his declaration concerning them, proves that they are not excluded from his kingdom, and accord with the practice of infant baptism.

The very affecting and instructive narrative, to which reference is made, is given by three of the evangelists.-Matt. xix. 13; Mark x. 13; Luke xviii. 15. Some persons who valued the benediction of Jesus, and who desired it for their children as well as for themselves, brought their little ones to the Saviour. They were so young that they were carried to him; in the hope that their infancy would not