lytes in the second century, and have continued to do so in all periods since. But how did they come in possession of this rite? Did they copy it from the Christians? Is it likely that, so early as the second century, when Christianity was "every where spoken against," and not sufficiently established to invite the imitation of any, the Jews, its most inveterate enemies, should copy one of the sacraments of the despised Nazarene, and incorporate it among the institutions of their venerated lawgiver? To those who have any knowledge of Jewish prejudices, the supposition is utterly incredible. It follows, therefore, that the Jews must have received the custom of baptizing proselytes (as they profess) from the patriarchs of their nation, and that it was in common use at the coming of the Saviour.

When John commenced baptizing in the wilderness of Judea, he introduced no new rite into the religion of the Jews, nor was he ever complained of as an innovator. And when our Saviour directed his disciples to go and baptize the nations, he instituted no new rite, but merely adopted and sanctioned a previously existing Jewish institution.. "The work of proselyting men to the true religion had before been carried on within narrow limits. It was now to be carried on extensively, and baptism (as before) was to be administered to all proselytes. 'Go ye, and proselyte the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'” Clearly, the disciples must have understood their Master to intend here that kind of baptism to which both they and he had been accustomed, viz. the baptism of children with their parents. Under these circumstances, instead of needing an express command to authorize the baptism of children, they must have needed a prohibition to pre vent their doing it.*

**See Appendix, Note G,

But this leads me to observe,

6. That Christ and his Apostles taught and practised just as we might expect, on supposition they intended that children should be baptized; and just as we should not expect, on the contrary supposition. In order to determine what we might or might not expect of Christ and his Apostles, it will be necessary that we keep in mind the established customs of the period in which they lived. In the Jewish church, children had always been connected with their parents. They were early given up to God, and received the seal of his everlasting covenant. Also the children of proselytes were connected in covenant with their parents, and entitled to the initial rites of circumcision and baptism. What then might be expected of Christ and his Apostles, on supposition they intended to put an end to this state of things? Not silence, surely. Silence would have been a virtual approbation of it. The further connexion of children with their parents they would have constantly condemned, They would have lost no opportunity of insisting on the great change, in this respect, which had taken place under the new dispensation, and of pressing a conformity to it in the practice of Christians. Did they pursue such a course? Never, in any instance.*

But what might be expected of Christ and his Apostles, on suppositition they intended that the connexion of children with their parents should be continued? Not, indeed, that they should enjoin it by express precepts; for this would be to enjoin expressly what every one already understood and practised. But they would be likely often to allude to it with approbation, and to drop expressions which implied it. They would be likely also, as occasions occurred, to baptize households, when those

* See Appendix, Note H,

at the head of them made profession of their faith. And this is the precise course pursued by our Saviour and his Apostles. The peace of Christ is promised to rest upon that house or family over which a son of peace presides. Luke x. 6. Salvation came to the house or family of Zaccheus, when he became a true child of Abraham. Luke xix. 9. Our Saviour applauded the practice of bringing infants to receive his blessing, and declared that" of such is the kingdom of God." Luke xviii. 15. He spoke of little children being received in his name, or as belonging to him. Mark ix. 37, 41. Peter taught converted parents, that the promise was to them and to their children. Acts ii. 39. Paul affirms that "the blessing of Abraham❞—an important part of which consisted in the covenant connexion of his children-" has come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ." Gal. iii. 14: He denominates the children of believing parents holy,. 1 Cor. vii. 14; and addresses them as being in some way connected with the churches.* He repeatedly baptized households on the profession of parents, or of those who presided over them. Lydia believed, and she and her household were baptized. The jailer believed, and hẹ and all his were baptized straightway. Acts xvi. 15, 33. Paul also baptized the household of. Stephanas. 1 Cor. i. 16.

I know it will be said that the term household does not necessarily imply infants; and perhaps it does not necessarily. Still, few instances can be found, among the many in which this word is used in Scripture, where children are not evidently included. And "the stress of the business," as Dr. Lightfoot remarks, "lies not so much in this, whether it can be proved there were children in these households, as that, if there were, they certainly were baptized."

* Compare Eph. i. 1 with Eph. vi. 1; and Col. i. 2 with Col. iii. 20.

It must have been very extraordinary, even in Apos tolic times, if each of these households was composed entirely of adults, who were all converted and baptized together on a personal profession of faith. It may be doubted whether there have been three other such. instances from that day to the present.* . And why, if these remarkable events took place, were they not distinctly recorded?. If the conversion of merely the heads.of these families was of sufficient importance to have place in the sacred history, why should the simultaneous conversion of each of their households be passed over in silence?

It is urged as evidence that the family of Lydia were all professing believers, that before Paul and Silas left Philippi, they entered into her house and saw and comforted the brethren. Acts xvi. 40. But who were the brethren? Doubtless, the whole infant church. The members would all wish to come together, to hear the instructions and receive the parting blessing of their spiritual father; and what more convenient place than the house of Lydia? It is evident, on the face of the record, that of the family of Lydia she only was a believer. Her "heart the Lord opened." And after she and her household had received baptism, she said, "If ye have judged me to be faithful, come into my house." Acts xvi. 14,

15.

The jailer, it is said, "rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house."-If there is an ambiguity in this English phrase, there is none in the original ; ήγαλλιάσατο πανοιχὶ πεπιστευχώς. It is certain from the Greek, as every one acquainted with the language must perceive, that the believing and rejoicing here spoken of, being in the singular number, can refer to the jailer only.

The Apostle, we are told, testifies of the household of

* See Appendix, Note I.

Stephanas, that "they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." 1 Cor. xvi. 15. But when the Apostle wrote this, they had been baptized several years. Shall we suppose, then, that, for years after their conversion, they were unmindful of the necessities of saints? Or is it not far more probable that they were not all converted at the time when they were baptized?

In the cases here considered, we have full evidence of the baptism of the households of Christians, in connexion with that of their parents, or guardians. It is worthy of remark, that we have no instance in the New Testament of the baptism of the children of professing Christians, except in such connexion. In other words, we have no instance of the baptism of such children, on their own profession. Is not this a remarkable circumstance, and one hard to be accounted for on the principles of those who reject infant baptism? The children of professing Christians, during the Apostolic age, had become very numerous; and in all probability, they were often converted. And why is it, if they were not baptized with their parents, that we have no intimation, in any instance, of their subsequent baptism?

To me, the New Testament appears, in this respect as in others, precisely what we might expect it would be, on supposition that the covenant connexion of children with their parents was intended to be continued and perpetuated.

7. It only remains that I adduce the testimony of history in favor of the practice of infant baptism. The pertinence and weight of this kind of evidence may be seen in the following quotation from an eminent Baptist writer: "I will grant it is probable, that what all or most of the churches practised immediately after the Apostles' times, had been appointed or practised by the Apostles themselves; for it is hardly to be imagined that any con