3. The fact, that Jewish believers continued, after the typical design of circumcision was answered, and till the distinction between Jew and Gentile was lost, to cirumcise their children, affords proof that baptism ought to be applied to the seed of Gentile believ ers. That this was a fact, has been sufficiently established, and probably no one will deny it. This fact has been introduced to prove the perpetuity of infant membership in the church of Christ. Now it is introduced in proof of infant baptism. If the children of Jewish parents were circumcised, because they were children of the covenant; and held with their parents a membership in the church, it seems but a necesary inference, that the children of Gentile parents, who are partakers of the same faith, and fellow heirs of the same blessing, should, as they are equally with the others, children of the covenant, and members of the fam ily, be baptized. All the reasons there are for the one, exist with respect to the other.

4. The entire silence of scripture, as to limiting bap.. tism to adult believers, is proof of the right of apply ing it to infants. The silence of scripture, as to infant baptism, is often urged by antipodobaptists, as an unanswerable argument against it. But the argument in our hands, is altogether a better one than in theirs.An explicit precept is not necessary where other evi dence is clear. If we had no such evidence, then it might be admitted, that an explicit precept would be requisite. This is precisely the case with antipodobaptists. They have scarcely a shred of an argument against infant membership, and infant baptism. In our opinion they have not even that. They scarcely attempt to prove a negative. The sorry plea, that baptism is placed in connexion with personal faith in adults, which is wholly irrelevant, is the sum of what they have to say. As they are so poorly furnished with other evidence; and oppose that, which, to say the least, has a considerable claim to be thought decisive, they ought to be able to produce an explicit restriction, which should finally determine the practice, and

harmonize the members of the church of Christ. It was infinitely important that the apostles, and their successors in the ministry, should know how they were to proceed in this article of duty. The subject intimately concerned the whole Church, and every pe riod of its existence. Upon the principle, that the infants of believers were to be passed by, in the administration of baptism, the church were extremely exposed to error. The nature of the covenant; the numerous promises of the Old Testament respecting the children of God's people; the relation these children had ever holden in Israel; the practice of infant circumcision, as an indispensable thing; the custom, which there is much reason to believe prevailed, of receiving proselytes and their children, by baptism, into the community of Israel; the declarations of Christ in favor of little children; the necessity of baptism to salvation, as taught by him, without any limitation of the doctrine to adults; the commission given to the disciples; and the language of prophecy; all concurred, with greater force than we at this day can well conceive, to lead them directly into infant baptism. Hence divines of very opposite theories in theology; and churches founded on very different principles in other respects, have harmoniously adopted infant baptism. Even when the foundation of it was not well understood, the collateral evidence has been sufficient to convince. It seemed therefore absolutely necessary, that, if baptism were to be restrained to believing adults, there should be an explicit restriction authoritatively binding the apostles and their successors, not to apply baptism to the seed. But no such restriction is to be found. The entire silence of the scripture in this regard, is therefore proof, that the children of christian parents, ought to be baptized.

5. The actual baptism of the households of Gentile believers, is proof that the children of believers ought to be baptized. Of this, we have at least three examples. They have been already mentioned. Lydia, and her household; the jailor, and his houshold;

and Stephanas, and his household. The cases of the two former are to be found in Acts xvi. and shall be

cited at large. "And a certain woman, named Lydia, seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us; whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken by Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us."The story of the jailor is this. "And at midnight, Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God; and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, -and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, Do thyself no harm, for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas; and brought them out, and said, Sirs, What must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them, the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he sat meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house." Both these persons were inhabitants of Philippi, a city of Macedonia. Stephanas, as has been observed, was an inhabitant of Corinth, a city of Greece. The baptism of his household is but transiently mentioned. I. Corinthians i. 16. The reader will here recollect the remarks which have been made on the manner of the apostle's expressing himself in this place.

It is a fact, that in these three cases, there is not a syllable put down, purporting that there was a believer, except those who are personally mentioned. Lydia is mentioned in her case; and she only, as receiving the words which were spoken by Paul. But why should she only be mentioned as doing this, if others in her family, and especially all who composed it, were joined with her at that time in the faith ? Would it be at all natural for one of our missionaries who should be sent into China to preach the Gospel, to report, that a certain female, at the head of a household, had received the word, omitting entirely to mention the members of her family,as subjects of the like faith, if they were in fact converted at the same time? Would not such an omission lead every reader to conclude that she was alone in believing? And if her family were bap. tized, would not every one understand they were baptized merely on account of her faith? Yes," says the baptist, "if it were known that the missionary was a podobaptist." But if he had gone out an antipodobaptist, would not this report lead his friends at once to suspect that he had changed his principles? Suppose it were not previously known, which of the opin-. ions he entertained, would not the conclusion of every unprejudiced mind be the same? But this is not a parallel case. We have found there is much evidence. indeed that the apostles went forth podobaptists. So far as this appears, the conclusion is, by the concession of baptists, the more irresistible. But, it is said, mention is made in the last verse of the chapter, of the household of Lydia as brethren, "And they went out of the prison and entered into the house of Lydia, and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed." There is no evidence that these brethren belonged to Lydia's family. They might have been in her house transiently. Or, if it were to be allowed that they were of her family, there is no evidence that they were the whole of her family, If they were, who can discern the propriety of the historians mentioning her alone as a subject of faith, and

of his mentioning her household in a distinct view? Upon this supposition there was no baptizing of a household. The baptisms administered were on the ground of personal faith, as much as if the subjects of them had no previous connexion. The account respecting the jailor is similar to that of Lydia. He and he only is represented as brought under conviction, and putting the enquiry, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved ?" To him personally, the direction is given, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." And upon the ground of his personal faith, the promise is added, "And thou shalt be saved, and thy house." The term believing, in the original, is in the singular, (TETiolevnwo) and applies to him only. Every circumstance concurs therefore, to impress the idea, that those who compos ed his house, were baptized by virtue of his faith. It is indeed said, that Paul and Silas "spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. But preaching is not always, it is seldom followed> with faith in them who hear. And not a word is said in this case, purporting, that those who were of his household believed; a circumstance which could hardly have been omitted, if it were a fact.

Nothing is said by Paul respecting the household of Stephanas, but simply that he baptized them.

Now, though it cannot be proved, yet every one will grant, there is ground for strong presumption in regard to each of these households, that there was one at least, whose infant age would not warrant baptism upon the ground of personal faith. Put the three households together and the presumption becomes proportionally stronger; that within the limits of the three, there was one such example. And we want but one, and the principle is decidedly gained. For the conduct of the Apostles was uniform. The reason which would justify infant baptism in a single case, would justify it in all cases.

Upon the whole, putting all these three cases to. gether, and the circumstances of them, and connecting the strong probability, from the manner of Paul's