mael his fon, and all the men of his house, born in his house, and bought with money of the franger, were circumcifed with him.* Do Pedobaptifts administer baptism to the fame extent as Abraham did circumcifion? Is it ufual with them to baptize not only the children of a family, but all the domestics, upon the faith of the mafter, or head of the family?

The argument by which the right of infants is fupported is this," a precept once in force, and not limited to any certain period, is ever after to be confidered in force, unless known to have been repealed by the fame authority by which it was given."+ We afk, and hope we shall have a fair and candid anfwer, if fuch an one can be given, When, and where has the right of fervants as diftinguished from that of children been repealed? If the right of children to membership rests on this covenant, is not the right of fervants completely fecured by the fame? This we are equally bound to believe as the former, until it can be shown to the contrary.

How many men-servants Abraham had at the time circumcifion was inftituted, we know not; but fome time before he had three hundred. Probably as many, or more at this time. All, were they more or lefs, were circumcised. But would it not be a very novel fight to fee one of our fouthern planters baptized, and all the flaves on his plantation in the fame day. If they were all true Chriftians, it would be a bleffed fight indeed; but not otherwise.

This argument will probably be very unpleasant to our opponents, but we appeal to them, and to a candid public, whether it is not correct, and whether it can be fairly evaded? If the covenant of circumcifion will, by fair conftruction, fupport the right of infants to membership in the gospel church, we verily believe, and we must contend, that the right of fervants can be fupported by it to the fame extent.

2. A fecond confequence arifing from the premifes laid down by our brethren is, that infants, if admitted to baptifm, have an undoubted right to all the other priv

• Gen. xvii. 26, 27. + Mr. S. Worcester's Disc p. 56.

ileges of the gofpel church. It is conceived that no reafon can be affigned, why a perfon who is qualified for one ordinance, is not equally qualified for another. No diftinction has been made under any difpenfation. Circumcifion was the principal qualifying pre-requifite for communion in the pafchal feaft, and for all the privileges of complete membership in the Jewish church. Under the gospel difpenfation, They that gladly received the word were baptized; 'added to the church, and then united in breaking bread. Do Pædobaptifts admit all fuch as they baptize in their infancy, to a participation in all the privileges of the Chriftian church? It is well known they do not: and yet confiftency moft plainly requires-it.

That we reafon fairly, and agreeably to the views of Pædobaptifts themselves, the following quotations will abundantly fhow. " Circumcifion," fays a late writer, "was formerly the appointed pre-requifite of admission to the church of God; baptifm is now the appointed pre requifite of admiffion to the fame church. In a word, baptifm is of the fame import, and of the fame ufe in the church under the prefent difpenfation, as was cir cumcifion under the ancient."* Says another, " by this fignificant rite (circumcifion) they were dedicated to God, and diftinguished from the rest of the world, as his church and people." According to thefe gentlemen, and we believe they are correct in this, baptifm is the appointed medium of introduction into the Christian church. (It is hoped that the reader will remember this, as we fhall probably have occafion to make fome further use of it by and by.) But how glaringly inconfiftent must their conduct appear when compared with their reafonings

In order to carry a point against the Baptifts, they infift upon it that their baptized infants are church members. But their practice tells every body, that they believe no fuch thing. We appeal to common obfervation. Do they conftantly bring their children to the communion table? Do they maintain any church difcipline over them? Are they permitted to

S. Worcester's Disc. p. 52, 54.

+ Dr. Ofgood.

vote and act in church matters? Are there any inftances in which the profane and licentious have been the fubjects of church cenfure? A filent negative must be given to all these questions. From the general conduct of the churches that hold infant baptifm, a candid mind would naturally fuppofe, that the membership of infants, if it ever exifted, ceafed as foon as they were baptized.

Another circumftance which ferves to corroborate our laft obfervation is, that they admit all whom they treat as church members, in a manner fimilar to what we do. Hence we are frequently told, on fuch a day a number of perfons were received into the Rev. Mr.'s church, and at another time twenty more were added, and so on. If our Pædobaptift brethren seriously believe what they endeavour to make us believe, that all their baptized children were, by that act, admitted to visible membership in the church, we can hardly fee the propriety of their being admitted a fecond time; unlefs by fome mifconduct of their own, they had loft their standing, like the man in the church at Corinth, whom the apostle exhorted them again to receive, when he became repentant.

What conclufion would any candid perfon put upon the conduc of a Pædobaptist church, on feeing them receive by their ufual folemnity, a number of perfons into vifible fellowship with them? Would not the conviction be irresistible, that they had never before been confidered as church members? Indeed, for any to have obferved the conduct of thefe perfons, and of the church towards them, during the whole intervening period from their baptifm in infancy, to their making this engagement; would it be poffible to draw the conclufion, that any relation had fubfifted between them, which had had the least influence on the conduct of either? Is it not perfectly aftonishing, that men of learning and of piety, and who claim the privilege of being thought confiftent, fhould not fee as well as others, that their fentiments and practice are totally at variance with each other? As much as they find fault with our particular communion, they have never yet been able

to prove it inconfiftent with our fentiments refpecting baptifm. Indeed many Pædobaptifts have acknowledged, that they thought us entirely confiftent in this particular.

3. We proceed to notice a third confequence from the pofition laid down by our brethren, i. e. That if baptized perfons ftand in the fame relation to the church under the prefent difpenfation, as circumcifed perfons did under the former; they are equally obliged by the fame penalties, to attend the fubfequent duties of the gofpel church, as the others were those of the Jewith.

Our meaning will be fully illuftrated by carefully attending to the ordinance of the paffover. The law concerning it is in the following words; And the Lord faid unto Mofes and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the paffover; There fhall no ftranger eat thereof, but every man's fervant that is bought for money, when thou haft circumcifed him, then fhall be eat thereof: All the congregation of Ifrael fball keep it; and when any stranger shall fojourn with thee, and will keep the paffover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcifed, and then let him come near and keep it.*

Every circumcifed perfon, who was not prevented by ceremonial uncleannefs, or by being abfent, was not only permitted, but obliged to keep the paffover, on pain of being cut off from his people: for thus it is written; But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the paffover, even that fame foul fhall be cut off from bis people.+

Do our brethren confider all their baptized children and fervants under the fame obligation? If fo, ought not ministers tourge the duty, and heads of families and members of churches, to fee it carried into effect; and if any were stubborn, to cut them off by an act of exclufion? This would indeed establish infant communion to all intents and purposes; but what of that? Can there be an inftance produced, from the hiftory of the Jewish church, where a state of nonage or minority has been mentioned as a difqualifying circumftance for commu nion in the pafchal feat? We do not recollect any. + Numb. ix. 13.

* Exod xii. 43, 44, 47, 48.

The law of the paffover makes no diftinction between infants and adults. To be circumcised, and to be free from ceremonial uncleannefs, were the only conditions required.

Should any reply, that the Lord's fupper is a holy ordinance; and requires, in every recipient, faith to difcern the Lord's body, we readily grant it; but must be allowed to ask, is not baptifm a holy ordinance likewife? If fo, is not a perfon who is qualified for one, fit for the other? Do the fcriptures require dif ferent qualifications for the two ordinances? The arguments which are employed in behalf of infants, in order to evade the fcriptural requirements of faith and repentance, by Mr. Edwards, will equally ferve their turn with regard to the Lord's fupper. If what is faid of believing and repenting in order to baptifm, applies only to adults; the fame may be faid with regard to the facramental fupper.

To show that we reafon fairly, we will take one of his arguments, and only by placing the Lord's fupper in the room of baptifm, it will stand thus, " Are infants proper fubjects of the Lord's Supper, or are they not? It will clearly follow, that all thofe places which relate to believers can prove nothing; the reafon is, they have no relation to the queftion." If you pleafe, take another statement from the fame writer. "They (i. e. the Baptists) fay the fcriptures require faith and repentance in order to baptifm. I afk, fays he, of whom? the answer muft be, of adults; for the fcriptures never require them of infants in order to any thing.”* Very well, Mr. Edwards; you will have no great difficulty in this way, in getting them to the communion table. The want of faith to difcern the Lord's body, can no more be urged against the claim of infants to this inftitution, than the want of faith and repentance can be urged against their baptifm. The fame arguments which would prove their right to one inftitution, would equally fupport their claim to the other. The words of Christ, Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not, may be applied with quite as much propriety to

* Mr. Edwards, p. 2, 3, 21.