(1.) An argument in favor of infant baptism is drawn, in the first place, from the state of the church as it existed under the former dispensations, compared with the church, as it exists under the Christian dispensation. The general views, involved in this argument, are these: That the church under both the old and new dispensations has ever been the same, although under a different form; That infants, as well as parents, were admitted into the church under the earlier dispensations; the rite of circumcision being the sign of their introduction into it; And that the Christian dispensation, (as the Savior came not to destroy, but to fulfil the Law and the Prophets,) did not annul or abridge any of the privileges of the church, that were possessed under the dispensations of former times. But as the right of children, who are bound to their parents by the strongest natural tie, to be solemnly and visibly dedicated to God, and to come within the pale and under the watch of the church, is a blessing and a privilege, we are entitled to ask for the passages in the New Testament, which require its abandonment. We take it for granted, that children are to be publicly dedicated to God, now, as in former times, unless some positive directions can be shown to the contrary. It appearing, therefore, that children may be dedicated to God by their parents in some public and visible way, and there remaining no outward ceremony under the christian dispensation, suitable to that purpose but baptism, we infer, that baptism is designed to take the place of circumcision, and that children may be baptized. And these views are thought to be encouraged by the affectionate saying of Christ; Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Mark x. 14.

(2.) A second argument in favor of infant baptism is derived from the repeated accounts, in the book of Acts

of the baptism of whole families. The families referred to are those of Lydia, a seller of purple in the city of Thyatira; of the jailer in the same city; and of Cornelius, the centurion of Cæsarea. It may perhaps be admittted, that instances of this kind, taken by themselves and independently of other proofs, are not to be considered as conclusively proving the scripture authority of infant baptism; but they form a presumptive argument in its favor of great weight.

3. And further, it may be shown from Ecclesiastical history, that the baptism of infants was practised in the time of the primitive christians. This being the fact, the conclusion seems to follow irresistibly, that they received the practice from the Apostles, and that it was, therefore, known and recognized by the Savior himself. And if it were known and recognized by Him, or even introduced subsequently and solely by those he commissioned, it must be received, in either case, as the will of Christ, and as a law of the christian dispensation.

§ 194. Relation of baptized children to the Church.

The relation of baptized children to the church is often spoken of as infant membership. Nor is there any very serious objection to the use of the phrase, provided it be limited in its meaning by the peculiar situation of those, to whom it is applied; for it cannot be meant to be said, that they are members in full, or members in the ordinary sense of the term. The prevalent views on this subject seem to be briefly these.

As infants have been dedicated to God in the way of his appointment, they may be regarded as members of the universal or general christian church; and perhaps in a sense similar to that, in which all children are members of the civil community, and partakers in the benefits of the same. From the moment of their birth children

are members of the civil community, and entitled to its protection; but new rights, obligations, and responsibilities arise, as they advance in years. The same in re

gard to baptized infants. As they advance in years, new truths are disclosed; new relations arise; and new duties are devolved upon them; and they are candidates for that particular relation, which results from full membership in a particular church.

The situation of baptized infants may be compared, in some respects, to that of baptized adults. Baptism, when applied to adults, is a sign that they are members of the universal church, and, in consequence of having this sign affixed to them, they are entitled to a participation in the prayers and friendly interest of Christ's followers; and still the mere fact of their baptism, as we have already. seen, does not constitute them members of a particular church. And in like manner baptized infants bear the holy seal of membership in the great household of Christ, and have a claim on the prayers, and interest, and faithful exertions of his followers, particularly of that church, by which the sacramental seal was affixed; but they cannot be said to belong to, to be members of any particular church, in distinction from the church at large, except perhaps in reference to the near connection formed by natural and local ties, and consequently in an imperfect or mitigated sense. (See § 196, Prop. II.)

Hence when they present themselves for full admission into such particular church, they are justly required to assent to its Articles of belief and to its Covenant, and to give suitable satisfaction in respect to their serious intentions and christian character. It is as much the duty

* A full view of the arguments, relating to infant baptism, cannot be expected here. Such a view would occupy the whole space, allotted to this brief work. The reader may see it, however, discussed somewhat at length in President Dwight's Theology, SEKM. CLVI-IX, and also in the recent Lectures of Dr. Woods on Infant Baptism. 19*

of such church to reject them, if they find them wanting in the suitable qualifications, as it would be to reject an adult, who had been baptized, but was subsequently found to be wanting in piety.

§ 195. Of the baptism of adopted children.

Sometimes benevolent Christians adopt orphans, or the children of those who are living, purposing to bring them up as their own, and to treat them in all respects, as is suitable in a Christian parent. According to primitive practice, such adopted children may be admitted to baptism; one or both of those, who adopt them, being members of churches. It is no matter, whether they be relatives of the children or not; as the baptism is administered, not on the ground of relationship, but of Christian character and church-membership in those, who adopt.

"There is large promise, (says Cotton, WAY of the CHURCHES of Christ in New England, CH. IV. § 6,) to Abraham, stretching the Covenant to his seed, not only to the children of his own body, and to his proselyte servants, but also to all, that were born in his house, or were bought with money, Gen. XVII. 12, 13; which happily may grant so much liberty to a Christian sponsor, that if a stranger or wicked man should give him his child from his infancy to be brought up as his own, it may be baptized as his own."

"But that is the utmost bounds of liberty in this case. We know not any ground at all to allow a faithful man, [i. e. a member of the church,] liberty to entitle another man's child [i. e. to present and maintain its claim,] to baptism, only upon a pretence of his own promise to have an eye to its education, unless the child either be born in his house, or resigned to him to be brought up as his OWN." (See also Chap. vII. § 8; and the Answer to XXXII. Questions, Qss, VI, VII.)

§ 196. Duties of particular churches to their baptized children.

Although as we have had occasion to remark, the seal of baptism, as applied to children, indicates their relationship rather to the general or catholic, than to a particular church, still it has ever been held, that especial duties in respect to such children devolve upon those churches, to which their parents belong and by whose instrumentality the ordinance has been applied to them. The prevalent opinions on this subject appear to have been sufficiently expressed in the doings of the Cambridge Association already often referred to. In answer to the question, Whether, and how far the discipline of our Lord in our churches is to be extended to the children therein baptized, they offer the following propositions.

(I.) We judge, that the discipline of our Lord Jesus Christ in our churches ought to be extended unto the children baptized in them; inasmuch as these persons are certainly those, which the scripture calls within, and not without; and the lambs, as well as others in the flock are to be fed; and the practice of the purest churches has been agreeable to this principle, as well the primitive before, as the Bohemian and others, since the Reformation. Reason also says, that, where a privilege is expected, a discipline is to be acknowledged.

(II.) Although it is a membership in the Catholic church, that gives right unto baptism, yet particular churches, as well as the pastors of those churches, owe a duty to the Catholic church, part of which duty is the application of discipline unto those baptized persons, whom the providence of God shall cast under their inspection.

(III.) The discipline, which we count owing unto these persons, is an instruction in the laws of our Lord Jesus Christ;-an admonition upon a scandalous violation of those laws;-and upon incorrigibleness in evil, an open