leges annexed to it-the being made "members of Christ, and inheritors of the kingdom of heaven," on every account, it is a practice to be earnestly contended for, as an integral part of the Christian system. Entertaining these views of its importance, we cannot but think the author of the little work announced at the head of this article, has done an essential service to the cause of truth, by the publication of his "Conversations." The popular objections to the custom of baptizing infants, are, we believe, fairly and correctly stated-the authority for the practice is vindicated, in a clear and logical, and as appears to us, unanswerable series of arguments; and to those who may not have the leisure or opportunity to consult the more elaborate treatises of Hooker and Wall, we would recommend the present work, as containing most that is necessary to the vindication of a rite, in which almost all the Christian world are agreed. Whether the Baptists in this country are distinguished by a peculiar zeal for proselyting to their system, is a point we do not stop to ascertain: but if any members of the Episcopal Church have found themselves in the situation of the "parishioner," (see p. 4) we doubt not they will be glad of so able a guide to direct their enquiries, as is found in the present volume. In this age of innovation,when we are invited to "turn aside and see great sights"-when lo! here, and lo! there, have become the watch-words of exclusive religionists, it becomes necessary that men should receive their religious opinions as little as possible on trust, but take every pains to satisfy themselves of the truth of "those things, which are most surely believed amongst us." We would have them go to the Scriptures, with a prayerful disposition that God would "enlighten the eyes of their understanding;" and instead of turning over the leaves in search of passages to support a creed alrea dy formed, we would have them read with the humble desire of being instructed. When the Sacred Book shall be universally approached with these dispositions, we may hope that the differences which now distract the Christian world, will be merged in a general spirit of reconciliation and unity-that the dismembered limbs of Christ will be gathered up and reunited in one body; and that as Christians now acknowledge one Lord, one Faith, and one God and Father of all," so shall they acknowledge "one Baptism for the remission of sins." The work before us is written in the form of "Conversations" between a Minister and one of his parishioners; who, from the representations of his Baptist friends, had been brought into some perplexity about the propriety of Infant Baptism, and had been carried away to their meetings, with a view of becoming better acquainted with their peculiarities, and the nature of their doctrines and religious discipline. We propose to give in a few pages, a brief analysis of the arguments employed by the author; and although it is difficult to preserve the sprightliness of the dialogistic form, yet the importance of the subject, we hope, will be a sufficient inducement to our readers, to follow us through a short, though somewhat dry abridgment. It is maintained by the objectors to infant baptism," that nothing less than either a command to baptize infants, or a plain example of the fact, appears capable of deciding the point ;" and the author opens the discussion, by examining what degree of weight is due to the assertion.The objection is a very specious one, and extremely well calculated for the popular ear; but it would be hard to say why a doctrine, proved by unavoidable inference from Scripture, should be less worthy of credit, than when it is found expressly stated there in so many words. We suppose truth to be the same in whatever way we arrive at it, and we cannot readily see the propriety of having the mode of proof prescribed, so long as its validity and conclusiveness are not called in question. On this subject the author reasons as follows: "Minister.-Am I, then, to understand, that the class of Christians, whom you think the most correct in their doctrines and discipline, administer the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, precisely as they were practised in the days of the Apostles? "Parishioner. They certainly do profess to adhere to apostolic practice as closely as possible. "Min. Are they able to ascertain precisely in what manner these institutions were administered? and do they depart in no instance from what they conceive to be the primitive practice? "Par. They conceive that no institution can be binding upon Christians, which is not clearly defined; and they consider that any deviation from the original practice, would destroy the nature of the whole. "Min. Did the primitive Christians baptize in places of worship, or in the open air? in baptisteries, or in rivers? "Par. It appears that they baptized publicly, and in rivers. "Min. Have you any authority from Scripture for the use of particular garments in baptizing? "Par. None. "Min. Have you any example in Scripture of persons delivering to the Church, a profession of their faith, before they were baptized? "Par. We read of those who came to John's baptism, confessing their sins; but it must, at the same time, be acknowledged, that this bears no resemblance to the custom of requiring a considerable length of time to determine whether the candidate for baptism be a proper character, and VOL. I. No. II. 7 then that he should deliver to the Church an account of his faith, on which the minister and members are to decide, whether the individual be thing itself, however, appears so proa proper subject for baptism. The per, and even necessary, that it is fact, the apostolic custom. fair to conclude, that this was, in that the converts to the Christian Min. Yes, it is highly probable faith did give a statement of their Christian knowledge and experience, before they were admitted to the rite of baptism; but you recollect that right of drawing any conclusion from you have excluded yourself from the the reason, or probability, or decenby having stated, that whatever has cy, or even the necessity of the thing, not the sanction of a command or an example in the ordinance of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, is not of God but of men, and destroys the nature of the institution itself. baptize infants, because we have no You assert that we ought not to instance of the practice in the Apos tles' times, nor any direction for that purpose. Can you produce any exTestament, to authorize the practice ample or any precept from the New of females receiving the Lord's Supper r? expressly told that women were bap"Par. Certainly not; but we are clude that they were also partakers tized; and it is reasonable to conof the ordinance of the Lord's Sup per. the privilege of drawing any conclu- "Par. But it is expressly said, "Min. The inference, I think, is unavoidable; and if you will allow us to draw our inferences, we think we can as clearly prove that infants have a right to baptism. But you limit us to precept, or example; and when we begin to reason and draw inferences, you stop us, by saying, that this is not the proper evidence in matters relating to postive institutions; and you ask us for an instance where an infant was baptized, or a direction to baptize them, and tell us that till we can do this, we have done nothing at all. Now, to this we reply, and surely nothing can be more just than the answer,-that when you produce your example or precept for females partaking the Lord's Supper, we will produce ours for infants being baptized; and when you say that you can prove your custom by the clearest reasons and inferences; we reply, that we also are ready to do the same in behalf of our custom of baptizing infants. Again; in celebrating the Lord's Supper, you perform the ceremony at noon; instead of making it a meal, you satisfy yourselves with a morsel of bread and a mouthful of wine; and instead of using leavened bread, which it is evident Jesus Christ did, you use common bread. In what way do you justify these deviations from apostolic custom? You object to our use of a small portion of water in sprinkling infants in baptism, and ask for our authority for this deviation from apostolic practice: our reply again is-Supposing there were no such authority, when you adduce yours for your custom, we shall have discovered the same authority for our own; and surely it becomes our objectors to be silent on this subject, till they have cleared their own practice from the very charges they allege against ours." p. 9-14. The author next proceeds to consider the argument against infant baptism derived from the fact, that adults only are said in the New Testament to have partaken that ordinance. The fact that those, of whose baptism we have a distinct account, were adults, proves nothing indeed in the present argument. The new converts to Christianity were of course adults, and could be baptized only when adults. Our opponents sometimes seem to argue as though the practice of adult baptism was confined to themselves; whereas we believe it is a rite of every Christian Church which admits baptism in any shape; and in our own Church, we have a distinct service expressly provided for the baptism of believing adults. "When, therefore," as Mr. Jerram very properly observes, "our opponents refer us to the cases of adult baptism recorded in the New Testament, as a proof of the correctness of their practice, and of the impropriety of ours, we reply, that this fact proves nothing at all in the present controversy. It is as much our own practice as theirs to baptize adult believers; and among the heathen, when the Christian religion is first preached, every instance of conversion to it would furnish an example of adult baptism. It was impossible that the primitive Christians could have been baptized when they were infants, for Christianity did not then exist; and if they were baptized at all, it must be when they were adults, and first believed the doctrines of Christ. The case of the heathen is exactly parallel with theirs and the missionaries of the Established Church baptize adults, when any are converted to the Christian faith, as the disciples of Christ baptized the first believers in their time. There is, therefore, no dispute between us about baptizing believing adults; the practice is common to us both; and I am sometimes a little surprised that our adversaries should so continally refer us to the practice of the first Christians in baptizing believers, as deciding the question against us: our doctrine and prac tice are precisely the same as theirs upon this point, and every example they adduce of this custom, confirms our tenets just as strongly as it does theirs. We agree that believing adults should be baptized; and the only question is, whether the infants also of Christian parents are not entitled to the same privilege. p. 16 17. We come next to the threadbare objection, so often urged and as of ten refuted, that faith was always demanded as a prerequisite to baptism; and that infants, being incapable of faith, are not proper subjects of this ordinance. "He that believeth and is baptized," says the objector, "shall be saved;" and the misconception of this passage has given currency to the opinion, that it makes conclusively against the received custom. Believing," says he, "stands be fore baptism; we must therefore believe before we are baptized: but infants do not believe, and infants therefore ought not to be baptized." Whoever reasons in this way would do well to read the verse to the end, before he draws his conclusion; for he will find that it makes as much against the salvation of infants, as against their baptism. If the want of faith necessarily excludes them from this ordinance, it equally excludes them from the kingdom of heaven; for it is also asserted, that "he that believeth not shall be damned." Or, to state the argument in terms, believing stands before salvation; we must therefore believe before we can be saved: but infants are incapable of believing, and infants therefore cannot be saved-that is, they must be damned. This is precisely the force of the passage, if it is explained on the principles of the Baptists: and unless the horrid idea that all infants must be lost, forms an article in their creed, which it most assuredly does not, we hope they will never urge this passage again in support of their views. We utterly object to this practice of tearing the Scriptures to pieces for shreds to patch out a sys tem; for unless we consent to receive the doctrines of the Gospel "in such wise as they are generally set forth to us in Holy Scripture," there is no absurdity which may not be palmed on the Word of Truth. The fact is, the passage in question has no allusion whatever to infants. It is a part of our Lord's commission to the disciples to go and teach all na tions, baptizing them, &c. They were to instruct such of the heathen as were of an age to be instructed, and then to baptize them on a profes sion of their belief; and "the direc tion is exactly such as would be given to any Christian missionary going out from the Church, who would consider it as forbidding him to baptize any adult whom he had not first taught the principles of the Christian religion; but as having nothing to do with the case of infants, whom he would treat in the same manner as the Church does from which he went out." Perhaps the question might be put with some emphasis, why infants, whose incapacity for the exercise of faith does not exclude them from the Church of Christ above, should be thought disqualified from being made members of his Church below? Whatever spiritual benefits may be suppoposed to attach to the ordinance, it is certainly the only mode of induction into Christ's visible kingdom; and there seems to be something like ab"surdity in denying the lesser privilege to those, who at the same time are acknowledged capable of inheriting the greater. Thus far we think the author has been completely successful in establishing his point; and if infant baptism is to be overthrown, it must be done by other weapons. He next meets the objection, that "no one instance is recorded in Scripture of an infant being baptized ;" and contends, that if it be made to appear thing was to continue in the service which had been customary, because nothing was mentioned in the procla mation to the contrary. "Min. Very good. And when a proclamation is made by Jesus Christ, that his disciples should baptize all nations; would you not infer that the same classes of persons should be the subjects of baptism as always had been, if they were not expressly pro-. hibited? "Par. I am bound by my former declaration to answer in the affirma. tive. "Min. If, therefore, infants always had been admitted to baptism, we must conclude that it was intended they should still enjoy that privilege, unless their case were particularly excepted. It rests, then, with our opponents to bring forward the precept which forbids us to baptize infants. So that it appears, after all that has been said against the custom of our Church in this respect, on the ground that we have no command for it in the New Testament, that our objectors are the persons who should produce their interdictory precept: and that till they do so, we are bound to adhere to the universally received practice." p. 28-29. that the practice rests on as good foundation, as that females ought to be admitted to the Lord's Supper, of which fact we have neither example nor precept in the New Testament, it ought to be fully admitted. He goes further. He contends that it would have been purely incidental if such an instance had been found recorded there; and moreover, that if infants ought not to be baptized, the adversaries of the custom should tell us in what passage of Scripture it is forbidden. The propriety of making this demand is seen at once, when we recollect that the Jews, at the time of our Saviour, were in the habit of baptizing as well as circumcising their converts from heathenism; and we are expressly informed by Jewish writers, that the infants of such were also baptized. The practice was one of public notoriety, and must have been well known to our Saviour and his Apostles. It follows as an una voidable inference, that if our Lord intended to introduce any change in this particular, he would have announced it in explicit terms; but inasmuch as both he and his Apostles maintained an entire silence on the subject, we are authorized to infer that no such change was intended. It therefore lies with our opponents to produce some precept for its discontinuance; and till this is done, we have a right to conclude that the practice remained as it was before. The following illustration of this part of the argument will be deemed satisfactory:"Minister. Suppose a proclama-factorily pursued; but our limits will tion were made, that every man should resort, on every Lord's day, to the public assembly of the Church; to the public assembly of the Church; should you conclude that there were neither prayers, singing of psalms, nor sermons in that public assembly, because no mention was made of them in the proclamation ? "Parishioner.-Certainly not; I should rather conclude, that every The second "Conversation" is tian Church is but a continuation of occupied in showing that the Christhe Jewish, and that children under the latter dispensation are entitled to the same privileges which belonged to them under the former. The deductions of the author are still satis not permit us to follow his reasonings, which scarcely admit of abridgment. He meets the objection, that circumcision was a mere carnal ordinance, by showing "that it laid the person conforming to it under similar obligations with him who is baptized." Was it not "a token of the covenant between God and Abraham, to |