to them, that it was without any foundation; clearly imply the fact, that the believing Jews continued to circumcise their children as they ever had done. And Paul's readiness to use this expedient, for the reason urged, without saying one word in confirmation of the truth of the report proves, that he did not teach the discontinuance of circumcision; and therefore, that it continued to be practised, among all the believing Jews, not only throughout Judea, but through other countries. If it had always been practised, upon the principle of infant membership, as we have proved, doubtless it continued to be practised upon the same principle still. Had this very important part of church institution been revoked, it would have been the indispensable duty of Paul, and of the other apostles, to preach down infant circumcision; and the believing Jews would certainly have gone into the immediate disuse of it. They would have treated their children as no longer united with them in covenant bonds. The fact then, of the continuance of infant circumcision, till the distinction between Jew and Gentile was quite worn away, concludes strongly, in favor of the transmission of infant membership into the Gospel Church.

11. This last article of proof will be confirmed, and considerable evidence added, to substantiate the truth of the continuance of infant membership, under the christian dispensation, if we consider that the baptism of households is repeatedly mentioned, with respect to the Gentiles, but not once with respect to the Jews.This is a remarkable circumstance, which deserves to be noticed more than it has commonly been. There must have been some reason for it. The opposers of infant baptism tell us, that these households consisted of believers only. They say this without one jot of evidence. But suppose it were true; were there probably no similar cases among the many thousands of Jews, who embraced the Gospel in Judea, and in other countries? It can scarcely be doubted. Whence then this noticeable difference?

There are several intimations in the Acts, and the Epistles, respecting the union of Gentile households to the Church. The case of Cornelius is pretty clear. Acts xi. 14. "Who shall tell thee words whereby thou, and all thy house shall be saved." But the cases of Lydia, and her household; of the Jailor, and his household; and of Stephanas, and his household, are express.

Respecting this last case, particular remarks claim to be made. Stephanas was a member of the Church of Corinth; the children of which, the apostle pronounces holy. With our eye upon the testimony of Paul, that all the children of this church were holy, let us attend a moment to the case of the baptism of Stephanas, and his household. It is mentioned in the first chapter of the Epistle; and it is mentioned in a very singular manner. "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas ; besides, I know not whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." He had said before, "I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius, lest any man should say I baptized in mine own name." Many others were baptized; but the apostle left it to be performed by other hands; wishing to avoid the danger of being acknowłedged the Master. But he corrects himself, and says, "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas," and adds, "Besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." Here he seems to indulge a momentary pause. He is not certain. He has recourse to his recollection, lest he should mistake. He does not positively affirm. But if baptism were, in all other cases, confined to believers, as a personal thing; as Paul was the founder of this church, and well acquainted with its organization, why this hesitation? No cause of doubt could have existed. It is submitted to the reader therefore, whether this mode of speaking does not strongly imply, that, agreeably to the relative character given by the apostle of all the children of the church baptism was applied to them, though administered by other hands. It is wished that this consid

ἐσ

1

eration may have its proper weight in the reader's mind, and no more.

To return, without controversy, we have express mention of the baptism of three households, in which it is but reasonable to presume that there were some, so young at least, that they could not be baptized upon the ground of their personal faith. But be this as it may. How comes it to pass, that households, are thus mentioned among the Gentile converts, but no such thing with respect to the Jews? There seems to be "but one reason for it. The households of the Jews were circumcised; and those of the Gentiles were not. And this by the way accounts for it, that baptism is not once mentioned with respect to the children of believing Jews.

12. And finally; no inconsiderable degree of evidence of the perpetuity of infant membership, in the Church of Christ, is furnished from the source of history. Historic testimony, drawn from works of mere human composure, and not dictated by the infallible Spirit of truth, is not proper to be produced, as having authority of itself, to bind our faith. But it may be auxiliary. It may serve to strengthen our confidence in the construction we put upon God's word.

The historic evidence for infant membership may be classed under four divisions.

1. The first is, the entire silence of history with respect to the discontinuance of it. We are here to remember that the subject of enquiry is, whether the revocation of infant membership have taken place under the immediate direction of Christ, or his apostles; not whether it have taken place at a subsequent period, and by mere human authority. And we now resort to history, merely as witness to fact. It hath been shown that such a change could not have been made without affecting materially the economy of the Church, and exciting much public notice; and that we must have found records of it in sacred histo. ry; or at least evident allusions to it. For the same reason, it is hardly possible it should not have been

brought into view by Ecclesiastical Historians, and Commentators. Tradition is always active. It transmits its laws with a permanent effect, and must have told us something about it. But no such record is to be found. No such tradition is delivered.

2. The second species of historic evidence for infant membership, is the fact of the actual prevalence of this principle, recognized in dogmas, opinions and practices, asserting or implying it almost universally through Christendom, from the first century down to. the present period, without the possibility of tracing it to an origin, short of the covenant which God established with Abraham. I say almost universally. The antipodobaptists have dissented from this doctrine. But they have been a very inconsiderable portion of Christendom. They have been a sect. They have been opposed, and condemned by the whole body of the church; both the eastern and the western. Their origin, according to Dr. Mosheim, is hidden in the remote depths of antiquity, and is unascertainable. It will not be denied, that the Greek Church has ever embraced, and acted upon the doctrine of infant membership. This is equally undeniable, with respect to the Latin Church. True, it has been holden in unrighteousness, and turned to awful abuse. And so have the holy supper, the sabbath, and the Gospel.But who will deny, that the transmission of the supper, the sabbath, and the Gospel, as sacred deposits, by the concurrence of the whole church, through every period of it, is evidence that they are of a divine authority? Corrupters of a divine institution, may be as good witnesses of the authority of that institution, as pious observers of it. To invalidate their testimony, infant membership must be shewn to be itself a corruption. But the corruptions which have been introduced into the church, are capable of being traced to their origin in human. authority. This is not true of infant membership. It is therefore no corruption.The reformation did not reject it as such; but incorporated it into its system of faith, as an important part

of the economy of the church. Proof of this is found in almost all the formulas of faith, on which the churches of Europe are established; in the discipline which they have provided for, and practised upon the children of the church; and the constant admission of them to the communional services of it, I mean, pray- er and praise.

66

Antiquity itself testifies to the prevalence of the doctrine of infant membership. Dr. Wall introduces a quotation from Hermas, who, as he says, wrote his Pastor before St. John wrote his Gospel; which a mounts to a clear testimony to the prevalence of this doctrine in the primitive Church. That part of the quotation, which particularly applies to the point in hand, is this. Lapides, Domine, vero illi qui de profundo in structura aptati sunt, qui sunt? De cem, inquit, qui in fundamentis collocati sunt, primum seculum est; sequentes viginti quinque, secundum seculum est justorum virorum." "But Sir, What are those stones that were taken out of the deep, and fitted into the building? The ten, said he, which are laid in the foundation, are the first age; the next twenty five, are the second age of righteous men." Hermas is here, says the Doctor, relating a vision, importing the building of the Church; which is represented by the building of a Tower, wherein all things are shewed, and explained to him by an angel." One part of the materials of this holy edifice, according to Hermas, is that class which comes under the first age; i. e. the age which is below manhood. But this will necessarily comprehend infants. Infants then, in part, according to Hermas, constitute the Church of Christ. Another passage, quoted by this writer from Hermas, which is coincident with, and explanatory of the other, is this. "Omnes enim infantes honorati sunt apud Deum, et primi habentur." For all infants are in honor with the Lord; and they are esteemed the first of all. He is here speaking of the church, and has reference to infants in age. Dr. Gale does not deny the correctness of these quotations from Hermas.

GG