66 were discipled to Christ in their childhood, do continue "uncorrupted." They were discipled to Christ; an expression which shews that they were discipled, not by instruction or conversion or by an unauthorized practice, as my Opponent would have it, but by baptism, the instituted discipline of Tertullian, who has declared baptism to be a discipline, even in that passage which my Opponent praises as "one of the best authentica❝ted testimonies of antiquity," in relation to "the ori"gin of infant baptism." It ought not to be omitted that when Justin Martyr speaks of their being discipled in their childhood, he uses the word padon, the one which enters into the composition of Pædobaptism; and the word which he uses for discipled, is ematheteuthesan,(t) the very word used by our Saviour in commanding his apostles to "disciple all nations, baptizing them." Is there then any room to doubt the correctness of my third point, that "As the scriptures recognize the dis"cipleship of infants, infants must be contemplated in "our Lord's command to his apostles to disciple all na❝tions by baptism ?"

You cannot now wonder, if I consider it proved, according to the tenor of my fifth proposition, that after the authoritative command recorded in the Old Testament, "The administration of this seal to infants has never since been prohibited by divine authority; that is, this command of God, originally given in the Old Tes

(1) οι εκ παιδων εμαθητευθεσαν τω χριζών

tament, is not repealed in the New Testament, but rather confirmed." According to promise, this has been shewn from what is said in the new Testament, concerning "the membership of infants, the holiness of infants, and the discipleship of infants."

My evidence in favour of a divine command for infant baptism has occupied more time than is usually spent on this subject. Respect to the good cause of truth, and to the understandings of my audience, required that I should pay a becoming attention to my Opponent's numerous contradictions and objections. None of these were advanced against my fourth proposition; and therefore, that proposition, though occupying one-fifth of the ground of my argument, was passed over in a few words. But when the other propositions were contradicted, it became necessary not only to refute those objections, but to develope an unusual portion of the ample stores of authority, which the scriptures contain in support of those propositions. These copious proofs are an evidence, not of the difficulty, but of the facility with which infant baptism is established. They shew, not the doubtfulness, but the certainty of the divine will. Neither is this certainty in the least affected, by the fact that we arrive at the conclusion by a circuitous route; since the very same complication has been shewn to attend the argument for female communion and many other things equally plain. Let any one take the propositions, and duly consider them, distinctly, and in their mutual relation, and ponder well the evidence by which they

are supported, and the conclusion to which they tend, and he will not wonder that the great body of Christ's people, from the beginning, have been Pedobaptists. To them the scriptures shew plainly, that, 1. Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God. 2. The Christian Church is a branch of the Abrahamic Church: or, in other words, the Jewish Society before Christ, and the Christian Society after Christ, are one and the same Church, in different dispensations. 3. Jewish Circumcision before Christ, and Christian Baptism after Christ, are one and the same seal, in substance, though in different forms. 4. The administration of this seal to infants was once enjoined by divine authority; that is, God once commanded it. 5. The administration of this seal to infants has never since been prohibited by divine authority; that is, this command of God, originally given in the Old Testament, is not repealed in the New Testament, but rather confirmed. Therefore, there is now in force, an unrepealed divine command, for administering to believers and their infants, the initiatory seal of the Church, which, under the Christian dispensation, is baptism. If the premises be true, the conclusion is inevitable: but the premises have been proved to be true; therefore the conclusion stands; and my first argument for infant baptism, drawn from a divine command, is valid, according to the infallible word of God.

S s

ARGUMENT II.

APOSTOLICAL PRACTICE. HOUSEHOLD BAPTISM. According to custom, my Opponent represents the argument drawn from household baptism as destitute of probability; and, if I remember rightly, there are some Pedobaptists who speak of it, as if it amounted to little or nothing more than probable evidence. I would ask such persons, upon what sort of authority do they receive females to communion? Is it probable or certain? They will say, with my Opponent, that the evidence is indubitable, because females are disciples, and for disciples it was instituted. Yet our Saviour gave no express command to administer it to a female; there was no female among the disciples to whom he administered it; and there is no express record of Apostolical practice, in favour of female communion. If, without these, the evidence is certain, how much more so, if, like infant baptism, it could be supported by divine command and apostolical practice. This practice of the apostles would have been taken as positive evidence, fully made out, if the Acts of the Apostles had recorded several instances in which heads of families communed; because heads of families would embrace females. Now we have evidence, in the Acts of the Apostles, that they baptized households, and we hope to shew that households embrace infants; and the fact that some households are without infants, is of no more avail in the one case, than the fact that some families have no female head, will avail in the other. In proving that infants are included in the baptized households of the New Testament, I shall, of course, make liberal use of Taylor's "Facts and Evidences," much of which Dr. Rice, of Virginia, has copied, with valuable additional matter of his own.

But the strength of our argument cannot be duly appreciated, without giving some attention to that of my Opponent. He speaks as follows, viz.*

*The reader will notice, that from p. 223 to note (u) on p. 331, is Mr. Campbell's argument.

"Mr. M'Calla has adopted the criticism of Rice and Taylor on the words oikos and oikia, and is to give us positive evidence of infant baptism from the import of these words, Mr. Rallston, who has written what he calls a "Brief Review' of the Debate at Mount Pleasant, has adopted the same, and mightily boasts of the importance of the criticism. Mr. M'Calla tells us it is founded on the decisions of Aristotle and Plato, and lays the greatest stress upon it. Now we have not read Rice's Pamphleteer, but we have read some [all] of the writings of Aristotle and Plato in the original, and we have read Dr. Samuel Rallston's Condensed View' of the criticism, and we boldly pronounce that it is a 'refuge of lies.' And we will go a little farther yet, and affirm, that not only is the criticism erroneous, but that assertions are made in the 'Condensed View' referred to, that are downright falsehoods. Mark it well, my friends, we have said falsehoods. Whether intentional or not, is not my duty to say. But if I do not prove to the satisfaction of every one who understands English, and especially to any one who knows only the Greek alphabet, all that I have now affirmed concerning this criticism and those assertions, I will say that I know neither English nor Greek. But this we will not attempt until Mr. M'Calla gives us the whole it. In the mean time, we will request your attention to the households baptized, or family_baptisms,' as some call them, mentioned in the New Testament. Of these there are but four. Of three of these we have positive proof that all baptized were professed disciples, capable of hearing, believing and obeying the word. The only family that admits of the least hesitation with respect to the members of it, is that of Lydia: and if there had not been another family baptized in the narrative than this one, or if there had been the same want of particularity in describing, incidentally or explicitly, the baptism of the others, it would be utterly impossible for any man living to furnish a positive evidence of infant baptism from Scripture testimony. We have, indeed, already shewn, that the apostles