ing these positive duties, though not enjoined by any positive precept. Why then may not we be as consistent, in believing and practicing infant baptism, though not required to do it by any positive precept, as they and we are, in believing and practicing other positive duties, without any positive command? Our brethren, therefore, have no right, from the nature of the case, nor from their own practice, to consider the want of express precept as a bar to our inquiry concerning the propriety of baptizing infants. Hence, the way lies fairly open to consider what may be found in favor of baptizing the infant seed of believers; and if there be any arguments in favor of this practice, they ought to have their full weight. Let us, then, without any bias from education on the one hand, and without any party prejudice on the other, impartially attend to what may be offered in support of the almost universal, and the absolutely immemorial practice of the Christian church. Here I would observe,

1. That baptism comes in the place of circumcision; from which it is very natural to conclude that it ought to be applied, as that was, to the infant seed of believers. Circumcision was

an appendage of the covenant of grace; that is to say, circumcision was a duty enjoined upon believers only. We are told that circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham, or a duty enjoined upon him as a real saint. But when Christ came into the world, he took away this appendage of the covenant of grace, and instituted baptism in the room of it. He might indeed have abolished circumcision without instituting baptism, or any other ordinance, to supply its place. And supposing he had done this, no person in the world, perhaps, would have thought of baptizing either infants or adults. For the abolishing of one ordinance can never be considered as the instituting of another. We do not pretend, therefore, to derive the institution of baptism from the institution of circumcision; nor to plead that believers now ought to baptize their infant seed, because they were once required to circumcise them. All we mean to say here is, that since circumcision has been abolished, and baptism has been instituted in its room, therefore it is reasonable to suppose that baptism may be applied to the same subjects to which circumcision was applied. We do not pretend to assert that this must be the case. For when Christ abolished circumcision, he might have instituted the baptism of adults only, and not the baptism of infants. But if he had actually done this, it is reasonable to suppose that he would have expressly excluded infants from the ordinance, or virtually excluded them from it, by expressly confining it to those of adult years. There is the more reason to

think that Christ would have been more explicit in excluding infants from baptism, if he had meant to exclude them, because believers had been so long used to the devoting of their infant seed to God, by a sacred rite, and were so extremely fond of the practice.

But, to return from this digression, if it be one: we have said that baptism comes in the place of circumcision. The truth of this assertion appears from two considerations. One is, that baptism signifies the same thing that circumcision signified. Circumcision signified the renovation of the heart, and baptism signifies the washing of regeneration. This resemblance between baptism and circumcision plainly intimates that baptism supplies the place of circumcision. Besides, baptism is the appointed pre-requisite of admission into the visible church, under the gospel, just as circumcision was the appointed prerequisite of admission into the visible church, under the law. The visible church has always been the same; that is, composed of visible saints. The members of the Jewish church were professors of godliness, as much as the members of the Christian church. The visible church of God has been, in all ages, a society of visible believers. Under the law, none could be admitted into the visible church without being circumcised; and under the gospel, none can be admitted into the visible church without being baptized. In this important respect, baptism certainly serves the same purpose that circumcision did; and therefore in this important respect, it certainly comes in the place of circumcision.

Now this analogy between circumcision and baptism affords a plain presumptive argument in favor of baptizing the infant seed of believers. We know to whom circumcision was to be applied. Believing parents were to circumcise their children and all under their care. Thus Abraham, according to the divine command, first circumcised himself, then Ishmael his son, and then all that were born in his house, or bought with his money. And his posterity, in the line of Isaac, continued to circumcise their male infants and male proselytes, until the coming of Christ, who abolished that institution, and appointed baptism to supply its place. But if baptism comes in the place of circumcision to adults, why not to infants? We can think of no reason from the nature of the case, and we can find none given in the New Testament, why baptism should not be administered to infants as well as to adults. Supposing Christ had said to the apostles, "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them, instead of circumcising them;" would they not have naturally concluded, from the well known extent of circumcision, that they were to baptize, not only believers, but also their infant

seed? And would they not have given us the very same accounts of their practice, which we now find recorded in the New Testament, that they baptized such an one, and his household; and such an one, and all his? Does not analogy lead us to reason in this manner, in another instance of instituted duty? Do we not suppose that the first day of the week now comes in the place of the seventh? And do we not conclude, from this single circumstance, that the first day of the week is of the same duration as the seventh, and to be employed in the same kind of public and private devotion? Any argument drawn from analogy has weight, in proportion to the degree of analogy from which it is drawn. In this case, the degree of analogy between baptism and circumcision is very great; and therefore there is great reason to conclude that baptism, which takes the place of circumcision, is to be administered, as that was, not only to believers, but also to their infant seed. This leads me to observe,

2. That it appears from several instances of the apostles' conduct, that they baptized some, on account of the faith of others. It has been just observed that their commission to baptize the converts to Christianity, would naturally lead them to administer baptism to the same subjects to which circumcision had formerly been applied, unless they were directed to the contrary. And the accounts of their baptizing exactly correspond with this supposition. For they baptized not only believers, but their families on their account, as we do at this day. It is true, we read of their baptizing many individuals on their own account; but in such instances there is no intimation of their having families; or if they had, there is no intimation of their families being present, when they were baptized. We find not a single instance of their baptizing the head of a family, and yet neglecting to baptize the children, or servants, because they were not believers. But whenever we read of their baptizing a master or mistress, we also read of their baptizing all under his or her care. Let us consider two remarkable instances of this kind, which are related in this chapter. The first instance is the baptism of Lydia and her household. The account which the apostles themselves give of it, is this: "And a certain woman named Lydia, a 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 of 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." According to this representation, it appears that Lydia's household were baptized wholly on her account. It is said that she

both heard and believed the gospel; but it is not said that they either heard or believed it. Nay, it is very plainly suggested in the thirteenth verse, that they were not present when Paul preached. "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made, and we sat down and spake unto the women which resorted thither." None but women, it seems, heard Paul preach, and none but Lydia's heart was opened to receive the truth in love. And from this we may fairly conclude that her household neither heard nor embraced the gospel; and, of consequence, that they were baptized not on their own, but solely on her account.

The baptism of the jailer and of his family is very circumstantially related in our context. When he had brought the apostles out of prison, he 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 set meat before' them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." The apostles here speak the language of the former dispensation, in promising salvation to the jailer and his house, on the condition of his believing. And Christ addressed Zaccheus in the same style. "Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, for as much as he also is a son of Abraham." Such expressions as these plainly suggest that the faith of parents is of some peculiar spiritual advantage to their children and households. The apostles' language to the jailer, therefore, perfectly accords with their conduct towards him, in baptizing his family on his account. There is not a single circumstance related, which indicates that his family were believers. Though the apostles preached to all in his house, that is, to all the spectators collected on that extraordinary occasion; yet he is distinguished from all the rest, as the only person awakened, convinced and converted. I know it is said, in our translation, that "he rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." But according to the original it is, "he rejoiced in every part of the house, believing in God." This represents him as feeling and acting with great propriety, after he had devoted himself and his family to the service of his Maker, agreeably to the divine institution. The most critical and candid examination of this whole transaction, can discover no evidence that any person believed but the jailer; and, therefore, we must conclude that his family were baptized entirely on his account.

It may now be proper to make a few plain and obvious

remarks upon these two instances of household baptism, which we have just been considering. And here,

First, If these families actually believed, and were baptized on their own account, then there was as much reason, at least, for relating their faith, as relating the faith of Lydia and of the jailer. Nay,

Secondly, There was a great deal more reason for relating the faith of these families, than the faith of the heads of them. For if each of these families were converted at once, it was a remarkable display of divine grace. No other instances of the same kind can be found in the Bible. We there find many instances of pious parents having very wicked and rebellious children; but we find not a single instance of a pious parent's having his whole family converted at once. Such instances of

the conversion of households are contrary to God's usual dispensations of grace. It has always been his common method to take one and to leave another; to take one of a family, and two of a city, and lead them to Zion. If the whole, in each of these families, therefore, had been converted at once, their conversion would have been worthy of transmission to all future ages. Their faith would have been far more remarkable than their baptism. But the inspired historian has related their baptism, without the least intimation of their faith; which is a strong presumptive evidence that they were not believers. This leads me to add,

Thirdly, That their baptism is related in just such a manner as we might have expected, had they not been believers. If only Lydia believed, and her household were baptized on her account, then it was proper to mention her faith, and say nothing more about her household than barely that they were baptized. And if only the jailer believed, then it was proper to mention his faith, and simply mention the baptism of his family. This is just such an account as we might have expected in the case of infant baptism. Should a missionary among the natives of this country give us an account of his baptizing believers and their children, he would naturally say that he baptized such a man and his household, and such an one and all his. He would not think it necessary to call the children or servants by name, nor to say any thing about their believing, or not believing. But were he to give an account of the baptism of a whole family, who were all converted at once, he would think it very proper to mention their conversion before their baptism; or at least, he would think it very improper to mention their baptism, and wholly omit the account of their conversion, which was far more remarkable and interesting. If the inspired writer had told us that Lydia and all her house