of men. Who hath required this at thine hands ?". These and similar passages are frequently repeated in the ears of Podo-Baptist parents and ministers, to dissuade them from their present practice.

If it indeed be true that we are actually prohibited to do in a way of religious worship whatever we are not expressly commanded to do, it will inevitably follow that both Baptists and ourselves have been verily guilty in several important particulars. None since the days of the Apostles have been expressly commanded to preach the Gospel, or to administer either baptism or the Lord's supper. In no part of the scriptures are we commanded to observe the first day of the week as a season for religious duties and exercises, or to pray in our families morning and evening. In no part of scripture is there an express command for the admission of females to the Lord's supper, nor for ma ny other particulars which both baptists and ourselves. have practiced as parts of religious worship. We are, unable to prove the perpetuity of the christian ministry the perpetuity and change of the sabbath, the continuance of the christian sacraments in the church and the right of the pastors of particular churches to administer them, and the right of females to communion at the table of the Lord, by any other species of reasoning than the one which we adopt to prove the right of the infant seed of believers to baptism. If this species of reasoning be inadmissible in respect to the duties and institutions of religious, worship then infant baptism must indeed fall, but it will not fall alone. The christian ministry the christian sacraments, the christian sabbath, and all positive duties and institutions will fall with it. The very instrument which the Baptists have fabricated and sharpened for the destruction of infant

baptism, would as really destroy these other institutes if applied to them, as this.

Our Baptist brethren have not proved, neither are they able to prove, that an express command is essential to constitute a warrant for the administration of any christian rite. This is a sentiment no where taught in scripture, and it is difficult to ascertain in what sense they believe it themselves, since their practice in every thing else appertaining to religioua worship than infant baptism, is inconsistent with it.— Ask one of them to show the warrant which he has to preach the Gospel, or which females have to come to the Lord's supper, and he will immediately resort to that mode of reasoning which Podo-baptists adopt to prove the right of infant baptism.

We may be virtually commanded to do that for which we have no express command. Paul and Barnabas were virtually commanded to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, although they were not expressly commanded to do it. Acts 13, 46. And for reasons which will hereafter be stated, may infant baptism be virtually commanded, though an express command for it be no where found.

The scriptures, continue our brethren, record no certain instances of infant baptism. They inform us that our practice is wholly without precedent on the sacred page, that the baptisms of which we have an account are all the baptisms of professed believers.

Whether all the baptisms of which we have an ac count in scripture are, or are not the baptisms of professed believers, will be considered in another part of the discourse. For the present, let us admit what our brethren so confidently and so frequently assert. Would it certainly follow that none but professed believers, during the days of the Apostles, were bapti

zed? Certainly not. It is conceived that a Shaker might as conclusively argue from these premises that none baptized in the days of the Apostles had children as do our brethren that no children were baptized.The fact is, neither the conclusion of the Shaker on the one hand, nor that of our brethren on the other, is

contained in the premises before us. As the Baptists suppose that what is not expressly commanded in regard to baptism is expressly prohibited, so they ap pear to suppose that what is not related in respect to it, never took place. They are willing however to believe that the men and women mentioned as receiving baptism at the hands of the Apostles, had children, although no mention is made of it, because if they had none, the case would furnish no argument against infant baptism,

Let us grant that these men and women had children. What would certainly follow? Why reply our brethren, " they were not baptized!" But how, we ask, can this be certainly determined? Why, say they there is no record made of it.

Let us apply this mode of reasoning to another case. We have an account in the New Testament of the establishment of several churches and not a word is related in regard to their baptism. As nothing in relation to the administration of baptism in the days of the apostles, could have taken place which is not recorded, these churches certainly were not baptized!!

But can the Baptists find on the sacred page a re cord of a solitary example in their favor? Can they point us to a single descendant of a believer, in the days of the apostles, that was baptized at adult age? Can they prove that in any case of adult baptism administered by the apostles, the subject was a child of parents who at his birth or a few years afterwards,

were professed believers? No such cases-no such examples are recorded, and, as a consequence, our brethren, in withholding baptism from the infant seed of be-lievers, act without example, and wholly without precedent. It is as really a part of their system to suffer the seed of believers to become adults before baptism, as it is a part of ours to baptize them while in infancy. A certain example in apostolic practice favoring this part of their system, they certainly have not, let the case be with us as it may.

It is further objected that repentance and farth are the appointed conditions of baptism, and that the apostles required a profession of these graces before they administered the ordinance, and that Christ in the baptismal commission which he gave his apostles, commanded them to preach the gospel to every creature, to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Trinity, and added, that "He that believeth and is bap tized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned, manifestly implying that none but believers were to be baptized, and, by consequence, direct evidence is here furnished, that Christ intended to exclude the infants of baptized believers from baptism."

As this is a material argument with our brethren, it may not be improper somewhat carefully to examine

it.

That the Apostles required a profession of faith and repentance in adults in order to baptism is most cheerfully admitted. All evangelical Podo-baptists do the same. When an unbaptized adult inquires of them. what is necessary for him in order to baptism, they decidedly inform him, "repentance towards God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." In requiring such a profession of an unbaptized adult in order to baptisma for himself, they see nothing inconsistent with adminis

tering the same ordinance to his infant seed wholly without such a profession, solely on account of that relation to the visible church of God into which by his profession and baptism they are brought.

necessary

A profession of faith in the God of Israel was no less in an uncircumcised adult in order to circumcision formerly, than is a profession of faith and repentance in an unbaptized adult in order to baptism now. Yet the infant seed of all adults admitted to circumcision on a profession of faith in the God of Israel were admitted to this ordinance also. The want of a profession of faith did not debar them from it, yet their admittance was as really inconsistent with the rule that required a profession of faith as a condition on the part of the adult, as is the admittance of the seed of believers to infant baptism now with the rule that requires a profession of faith on the part of the unbaptized adult.

It is a maxim among logicians that an argument which proves too much, proves nothing. This maxim in its full extent is applicable to the argument against infant baptism drawn by the Baptists from the words of Christ; He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, &c. If Christ's omitting to mention infants in the commission with which these words stand connected,. be indubitable evidence that he meant to exclude them from baptism, then it is indubitable evidence that he intended to exclude them from salvation. For it is as expressly said that those who do not believe shall be damned, as those who do believe and are baptized shall be saved! There is no evading this consequence. Infants have an existence, and if a Baptist consider these words of Christ as respecting them in relation to the subject of baptism, he must include them somewhere either among the persons to be baptized, or among

1