places and in all ages, that it has continued without interruption in the church of God for above seventeen hundred years, we may safely conclude, it was handed down from the apostles, who best knew the mind of Christ.

10. To sum up the evidence; if outward baptism be generally, in an ordinary way necessary to salvation, and infants may be saved as well as adults, nor ought we to neglect any means of saving them: if our Lord commands such to come, to be brought unto him, and declares,' of such is the kingdom of heaven:' if infants are capable of making a covenant, or having a covenant made for them by others, being included in Abraham's covenant, (which was a covenant of faith, an evangelical covenant) and never excluded by Christ if they have a right to be members of the church, and were accordingly members of the Jewish: if, suppose our Lord had designed to exclude them from baptism, he must have expressly forbidden his apostles to baptize them (which none dares to affirm he did) since otherwise they would do it of course, according to the universal practice of their nation: if it is highly probable they did so, even from the letter of Scripture, because they frequently baptized whole households, and it would be strange, if there were no children among them: if the whole church of Christ for seventeen hundred years together baptized infants, and were never opposed till the last century but one, by some not very holy men in Germany: Lastly, If there are such inestimable benefits conferred in baptism, the washing away the guilt of original sin, the ingrafting us into Christ, by making us members of his church, and thereby giving us a right to all the blessings of the gospel : it follows, that infants may, yea, ought to be baptized, and that none ought to hinder them.

I am, in the last place, to answer those objections, which are commonly brought against infant-baptism.

1. The chief of these is: "Our Lord said to his apostles, (Matt. xxviii. 19.) Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' Here Christ himself put teaching before baptizing.

Therefore infants being incapable of being taught, are incapable of being baptized.

I answer, 1. The order of words in Scripture, is no certain rule for the order of things. We read in St. Mark i. 4. 'John baptized in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance.' And, ver. 5. They were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.' Now either the

order of words in Scripture does not always imply the same order of things; or it follows, that John baptized before his hearers either confessed or repented. But, 2. the words are manifestly mistranslated. For if we read, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them-teaching them to observe all things, it makes plain tautology, vain and senseless repetition. It ought to be translated (which is the literal meaning of the words) Go and make disciples of all nations, by baptizing them. That infants are capable of being made proselytes or disciples, has been already proved. Therefore this text, rightly translated, is no valid objection against infant baptism.

6

2. Their next objection is, "The Scripture says, 'Repent and be baptized;' Believe and be baptized.' Therefore repentance and faith ought to go before baptism. But infants are incapable of these. Therefore they are incapable of baptism.'

I answer, repentance and faith were to go before circumcision, as well as before baptism. Therefore, if this argument held, it would prove just as well, that infants were incapable of circumcision. But we know God himself determined to the contrary, commanding them to be circumcised at eight days old. Now if infants were capable of being circumcised, notwithstanding that repentance and faith, were to go before circumcision in grown persons, they are just as capable of being baptized; notwithstanding that repentance and faith are in grown persons to go before baptism. This objection, therefore, is of no force: for it is as strong against the circumcision of infants as infant-baptism.

3. It is objected, thirdly, "There is no command for it in Scripture. Now God was angry with his own people,

because they did that, which he said, 'I commanded them not,' (Jer. vii. 31.) One plain text would end all the dispute."

I answer, 1. We have reason to fear it would not. It is as positively commanded in a very plain text of Scripture, that we should teach and admonish one another with psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing to the Lord with grace in our hearts,' (Eph. v. 14,) as it is to honour our father and mother. But does this put an end to all dispute? Do not these very persons absolutely refuse to do it, notwithstanding a plain text, an express command?

I answer, 2. They themselves practise what there is neither express command, nor clear example for in Scripture. They have no express command for baptizing women. They say indeed, "Women are implied in all nations." They are; and so are infants too: but the command is not express for either. And for admitting women to the Lord's supper, they have neither express command, nor clear example. Yet they do it continually, without either one or the other. And they are justified therein by the plain reason of the thing. This also justifies us, in baptizing infants, though without express command, or clear example.

If it be said, "But there is a command, (1 Cor. xi. 28.) 'Let a man, av@gwros, examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread:' the word for man in the original signifying indifferently either men or women." I grant it does in other places, but here the word himself immediately following, confines it to men only. "But women are implied in it, though not expressed." Certainly: and so are infants in all nations.

"But we have Scripture example for it: for it is said in the Acts, "The apostles continued in prayer and supplication with the women.' True, in prayer and supplication; but it is not said, in communicating. Nor have we one clear example of it in the bible.

Since then they admit women to the communion, without any express command or example, but only by consequence

from Scripture, they can never shew reason why infants should not be admitted to baptism, when there are so many scriptures which by fair consequence shew they have a right to it, and are capable of it.

As for the texts wherein God reproves his people for doing what he commanded them not:' that phrase evidently means, what he had forbidden; particularly in that passage of Jeremiah. The whole verse is, 'They have built the high places of Tophet, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I commanded them not.' Now God had expressly forbidden them to do this; and that on pain of death. But surely there is a difference between the Jews offering their sons and daughters to devils, and Christians offering theirs to God.

On the whole, therefore, it is not only lawful and innocent, but meet, right, and our bounden duty, in conformity to the uninterrupted practice of the whole church of Christ from the earliest ages, to consecrate our children to God by baptism, as the Jewish church were commanded to do by circumcision.

Nov. 11, 1756.

[Having only a few pages to spare before we must close this Volume, and being, therefore, unwilling to enter upon a new subject, we embrace the opportunity, thus afforded us, of subjoining to the above, another excellent little tract on Infant-Baptism, which, although not of Mr. Wesley's Original composition, was extracted by him with great judgment and care from the larger work of a late Writer. We do this the rather because we believe our readers will be glad to see so important a subject still further elucidated and confirmed.]

THOUGHTS

UPON

INFANT-BAPTISM.

EXTRACTED FROM A LATE WRITER.

THE Baptism of Infants has been a troublesome dispute almost ever since the Reformation: but I shall only rehearse a few arguments commonly used to vindicate the practice of baptizing Children.

I. The Covenant made with Abraham and his seed, (Gen. xvii.) is the Covenant of Grace; it includes, and was designed to extend to all believers. When God promised to be a God to Abraham, and to his seed, St. Paul assures us, that by Abraham's seed is meant all that should -imitate the faith of Abraham, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, (Gal. iii. 7.) Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham,' (ver.29,) If ye are Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.'

The same spiritual promises and blessings, which belonged to the church under the Old Testament, belong also to it under the New, (Acts ii. 39; 2 Cor. i. 20.) Abraham is represented as the root, or stock of the visible church, (Rom. xi. 16, 17, &c.) The Jewish church are the natural branches of it: the Gentiles are ingrafted into the same stock, (ver. 17, 24,) and partake of the blessings of it.

From these texts, (and many others might easily be produced,) it seems evident, that the Jewish and the Christian

+