ceive any thing more absurd than to urge sinful men, under any pretence whatever, to imitate him in his baptism. It would be no more absurd to urge them to imitate him in his circumcision, in his keeping the passover, or in his obedience to any part of the Mosa

ic ritual.

For these reasons as well as some others which it is not necessary here to mention, I cannot as a christian, or as an honest man, urge a fellow creature to be baptized, nor consent to baptize him, under the idea of imitating Christ in his baptism. The baptism in which mankind are concerned is the one which Christ instituted, not the one which he received.

Our brethren still urge another objection against infant baptism. It is the difficulty of understanding it. Say they," the study of it is the most perplexing study in the world, but in the study of believer's baptism every thing is plain and easy." They represent us as maintaining our practice by "a long string of texts from the old testament and the New, none of which mention the thing, or have any reference to it."*

This mode of reasoning is neither novel, nor unusual, and, if allowed to be conclusive, will prove any thing to be true that is clearly understood, or any thing to be false which we cannot, or which we will not see.

It is often less difficult to understand a sentiment than to reconcile it with scripture. When Quakers inform us that water baptism should not be practised, we know what they mean, but find ourselves wholly unable to reconcile it with scripture. When Pelagi aus, Arminians, Unitarians, and Universalists state their peculiar sentiments, we may clearly understand them and yet be perfectly unable to reconcile what we understand with the instructions of God's word.

*See History of the Baptists, Vol. 1 p. p. 91

So far as Baptists and ourselves are agreed, so far we enjoy the same ease &endure the same labor in maining our sentiments. As we believe equally with them that adults should be baptized only on a profession of faith, it's not till we pass beyond this point that we differ. What we attempt to establish beyond this point, they attempt to destroy. What we attempt to build, they attempt to tear down. The only question to be decided, therefore, is this: Do Pado-baptists, in their attempts to rear up their edifice, labor more arduously than do Baptists in their attempts to tear it down? This question should be decided solely in respect to those who attempt to build on the one hand, and to demolish on the other, by argument. The mere dealers in burlesque, whether low or refined, should be noticed on neither hand.

If the representations of Baptists be correct, we bave an extremely difficult task not only in erecting our edifice, but also in keeping it in repair. It is, according to their representations, in a tremulous attitude, and its pillars sometimes so shake when Baptists do no more than quietly walk by, that all our strength is cal led into exercise to prevent its actually falling. An edifice in such an attitude and of so feeble a structure, it is natural to suppose, would certainly fall under a very trifling blast from its enemeis' camp. But how in the fact? We must judge of the supposed strength of a foe, from the preparations made, and the efforts put forth to crush him. Well, what are the preparations made and the efforts actuaily put forth by the Bap-tists, to demolish our system? Trembling as is its posture and weak as is its frame, they have nevertheless auch honorable conceptions of its strength, that they despair of its falling, unless its foundations be torn a way. Therefore they first set themselves to this work.

And how, let us inquire, do they, in their own view, ace. complish it? By declaring that the ancient Zion of the Almighty was partly a political constitution, that the covenant according to which it was formed was a mere temporary covenant, or a covenant of works; that its members were generally hypocrites, that the law which they were under, required no more than external obedience, that the ordinances which it appointed were. "pretty well adapted to please the carnally minded,” that God, as its Legislator and Head, acted only in the capacity of a Temporal Governor, or political monarch. and that circumcision, the rite administered to its in-. fants, was merely a sign of carnal descent, a mark, of national distinction, and a token of interest in temporal blessings. Having thus as they suppose, torn away the foundations, they proceed to attack the superstructure itself. And with what weapon? I answer, a weapon that cannot destroy this system without at the same time destroying, as has already been shown, all the positive institutions of the Gospel.

It cannot be supposed that Baptists have been proda igal of their labor. They have doubtless done no. more than they saw absolutely necessary to do, to disprove our sentiments, and force the scriptures te, harmonize with their own.

But to maintain our theory, we never have found it necessary to make such efforts, or to employ such violence. We can suffer the Ancient Zion of God to stand on that foundation on which He established it and to be connected with all those privileges and promises which he granted unto it, and, so far from liken, ing God to a temporal ruler, or a political monarch In his relation to that body, we can behold him existing and acting therein, as a prayer-hearing, covenant-keep ing, infinitely gracious, holy and righteous Gop; Yea,

we can view the constitution, laws, and ordinances of that church as honorable to the WISDOM and HOLINESS that appointed them and as directly calculated to promote the temporal and immortal welfare of all its members, and yet find our theory, so far from being weakened, actually strengthened.

There is indeed greater difficulty in understanding the Podo-baptist, than the Baptist system, and the reason is, there is more in it to understand. It is more difficult to understand two ideas than one. The Podobaptist system embraces the whole scheme of divine revelation, keeps steadily in view the analogy of all for mer economies of religion, and, considering the church as ONE VISIBLE CATHOLIC SOCIETY in which are deposited the oracles and the instituted ordinances of Jehovah, observes its march from one condition and dispensation to another, from its first visible organization down to the present time.

It is a feeble objection against any system or doctrine that it is difficult to be understood. Mysteries there are in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but so far from objecting against this gospel on the ground of these mysteries, the holy angels desire to look into them, 1 Pet. 1, 12.

And it is firmly believed that were our brethren to look into the mysteries of Podo-baptism with the temper, in the exercise of which angels look into the mys teries of Redemption, they would find less to perplex them than they now imagine, especially in reconcileing the system with the holy scriptures. An unwillingness that a sentiment should be true, is an almost insuperable barrier to a discovery of its truth. Those who cannot see are not so blind as those who will not!

Controversy has given rise to the leading difficulties which attend the investigation of almost every

controverted point. This evil, while it often embar rasses whatever properly belong to a subject, not un"frequently connects with it a vast assemblage of irrele vant matter. Had there never been any Socinians, Arminians, or Anti-Podo-Baptists, Trinitarian, Calvin istic or Pœdo-Baptist sentiments would never have been considered as especially difficult or perplexing.

Having noticed these objections against infant baptism, let us now proceed to notice the direct arguments in support of the practice.

If it can be shown that the Apos les practised this rite, all doubts respecting the Divinity of its origin will vanish.

That the Apostles did practise this rite, I shall now endeavor to prove :

I. From certain instances of their own conduct re corded in the New Testament:

11. From the views given in scripture of the church of God:

III. From the sameness of the import of circumcision: and baptism:

IV. From the silence of the Jews in respect to the conduct of the Apostles towards their children:

V. From the manner in which the Apostles spake of the children of Believers :

VI. From the history of the church during the first centuries after the christian era.

I That the Apostles practised the rite of Infant Baptism appears probable from certain instances of

their own conduct recorded in the New Testament.

One instance is recorded in the connection containing the text.

"And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down and spake unto the women which resor