all nations, baptizing them." We then shew that infants were recognized as disciples; and conclude, that the apostles must have made them so by baptizing them, as they were made disciples among the Jews by circumcision.

66

In reference to this severe discipline, which was imposed upon Jewish professors and their infants, Peter says, Now, therefore, why tempt ye God, to put a "yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither 66 our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Dr. Gill says, that these disciples are "Gentile believers ;" thus probably meaning to frown upon infant discipleship, because infants cannot believe. He admits, however, that this yoke embraces circumcision, though he says, that "by it here is meant not circumcision only and barely." Now I would ask, What sort of disciples they were, on whose neck this yoke was first imposed? They were chiefly Jewish infants. I would again ask, What sort of disciples were they, on whose necks these Judaizing teachers wished to impose this grievous yoke when Peter spoke? Were they "Gentile believers" only? No, it was Gentile and Jewish believers and their infants; which would have still thrown the burthen of circumcision chiefly upon the infants, because a great proportion of the adults had been already circumcised. This then, shews, that the apostles understood their commission as we do; and, that in discipleing all nations, they discipled believers and their seed, "baptizing them."

That Jews and Christians thus understood the Old and New Testaments, cannot be reasonably disputed. Out of Dr. Wall's many instances of Jewish usage, I will

report only one, from Maimonides, as follows, viz. “An "Israelite that takes a little Heathen child, or that finds 66 an Heathen infant, and baptizes him for a Proselyte: "behold, he is a Proselyte."(p) Even Dr. Gill tells us, that "Jarchi interprets these children [mentioned in “Prov. xxxi. 28.] of disciples." The ancient Christian usage may be gathered from Tertullian, the great boast of the Baptists. His views of infant discipleship may be seen in a passage quoted already under the last point. He there tells us, that "The Apostle says, [in 1 Cor. "vii. 14.] that children born of a holy parent of either 66 sex, are themselves holy, [that is fit for baptism,] "well from seminal prerogative, as from the discipline "of institution [that is, Christ's institution for making "disciples.]"(r) That Tertullian really used this expression to signify the ordinance of baptism, by which Christ requires us to initiate adult and infant disciples into the visible church, will appear by another passage, from the same author, which my Opponent introduces against Mr. Walker, in the following pompous manner, viz. "But I have another testimony of Tertullian to "read, which I hope will be heard with all the impar"tiality you can command. It accounts for more than "the origin of infant baptism. It is doubtless one of "the best authenticated testimonies of antiquity." He then proceeds to give Tertullian's account of certain unscriptural customs, by which he professed to initiate and build up disciples, and which, for that reason, this

(†) Wall's Hist. Introduction, Sect. 4.

(r) Wall's Hist. Part 1. Chap. 4. Sect. 6. The Doctor has mistaken the meaning of the word discipline here, as the Baptists do in other places.

Father calls disciplines, but which my Opponent's translation calls practices, as follows, viz. "If you demand "a law for these practices, taken from the scriptures, "we cannot find one there." He should have translated it in something like the following manner, viz. "If, "for these disciplines, and others of the same sort, you "require scriptural authority, you can find none."(s) Among these unauthorized disciplines, we find the sign of the cross, and the use of milk and honey, and trine immersion in baptism. Doubtless, Mr. Walker, against whom this passage was so vauntingly produced, will agree with Tertullian, that the sign of the cross and the baptismal use of milk and honey, are unauthorized in scripture, and that trine immersion or any other immersion, is unauthorized there but he will also agree with the same Father in believing that Christian baptism is Christ's instituted discipline, by which discipleship is conferred upon those who have a seminal prerogative derived from a holy parent of either sex. These infant disciples are thus initiated into the visible church and have been considered as visible Christians, ever since the day that "The disciples were called "Christians first in Antioch." Some infants must have been thus discipled, immediately after this change of denomination, because, in old age they were the personal aquaintances of Justin Martyr, who speaks of them in the following language, viz. "Several persons among 66 us, of sixty and seventy years old, of both sexes, who

1

($)

"Harum et aliarum ejusmodi disciplinarum si legem expostulas scripturarum, nullam invenies." This is quoted in a note in Dr, J, P, Campbell's Review of Robinson, p. 133,

66 were discipled to Christ in their childhood, do continue "uncorrupted." They were discipled to Christ; an expression which shews that they were discipled, not by instruction or conversion or by an unauthorized practice, as my Opponent would have it, but by baptism, the instituted discipline of Tertullian, who has declared baptism to be a discipline, even in that passage which my Opponent praises as "one of the best authentica❝ted testimonies of antiquity," in relation to "the ori"gin of infant baptism." It ought not to be omitted that when Justin Martyr speaks of their being discipled in their childhood, he uses the word padon, the one which enters into the composition of Pædobaptism; and the word which he uses for discipled, is ematheteuthesan,(t) the very word used by our Saviour in commanding his apostles to "disciple all nations, baptizing them." Is there then any room to doubt the correctness of my third point, that "As the scriptures recognize the dis"cipleship of infants, infants must be contemplated in our Lord's command to his apostles to disciple all na❝tions by baptism ?"

66

You cannot now wonder, if I consider it proved, according to the tenor of my fifth proposition, that after the authoritative command recorded in the Old Testament, "The administration of this seal to infants has never since been prohibited by divine authority; that is, this command of God, originally given in the Old Tes

(ε) οι εκ παιδων εμαθητευθεσαν τω χριζω.

tament, is not repealed in the New Testament, but rather confirmed." According to promise, this has been shewn from what is said in the new Testament, concerning "the membership of infants, the holiness of infants, and the discipleship of infants."

My evidence in favour of a divine command for infant baptism has occupied more time than is usually spent on this subject. Respect to the good cause of truth, and to the understandings of my audience, required that I should pay a becoming attention to my Opponent's numerous contradictions and objections. None of these were advanced against my fourth proposition; and therefore, that proposition, though occupying one-fifth of the ground of my argument, was passed over in a few words. But when the other propositions were contradicted, it became necessary not only to refute those objections, but to develope an unusual portion of the ample stores of authority, which the scriptures contain in support of those propositions. These copious proofs are an evidence, not of the difficulty, but of the facility with which infant baptism is established. They shew, not the doubtfulness, but the certainty of the divine will. Neither is this certainty in the least affected, by the fact that we arrive at the conclusion by a circuitous route; since the very same complication has been shewn to attend the argument for female communion and many other things equally plain. Let any one take the propositions, and duly consider them, distinctly, and in their mutual relation, and ponder well the evidence by which they