guage such as indicates the future continuance of the connection between parents and children which formerly subsisted. The proper way of answering them, therefore, is, to show that they do not, in any degree, warrant or countenance such an inference. I say, in any degree. It is not enough to show that they are not, in themselves, and apart from all other proof, conclusive. It would be

a very foolish way of disproving the strength of a chain, to take up any particular link, and show that it was not at the extremity, and had not an immediate connection with the final point of fixture. Each link, however remote, has a connection with that point, as real and as necessary, though not so immediate, as the last. Each in its own proper place, by its junction with that which precedes and that which follows it, contributes to the continuity and strength of the chain. And so does each argument, in a series of proofs, conduct to a conclusion. If each bears legitimately its own proportion of inference, this is all that should be expected from it. To reply to it, by showing that it does not bear more, that it is not in itself conclusive as to the ultimate point, is not candid. Thus, in answer to the above passages, it has been said, "We want direct proof, that the 'good' promised in them to the people of God and 'their children after them,' includes their baptism while infants." This is banter, not argument. The sole question should be, Do the passages give any countenance to the inference, that the connection between parents and children, which subsisted from the institution of the covenant with Abraham, and characterized the ancient dispensations, was to continue under the new? If the negative of this precise point is not made out, the passages are not fairly met, but evaded.— It has been further said, "We want positive proof that their children mean their infant children." But this too is little better than evasion. There can be no question, that in the promise of the original covenant, "I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee in their generations," infant children were included; for the token of the covenant was applied to them at eight days old :-this was the connection between parents and children which existed anciently, and which was familiar to the Israel

ites; and the question is, as before, whether the above, and other similar passages, do or do not contain any intimation that, in the predicted New Testament period of the church, the same thing was to continue.—I am satisfied they do, the attempt to explain them away having confirmed the conviction.

IV. I go on now to remark, in the fourth place, that the language of the New Testament intimates the continuance of the same connection; and intimates it exactly in such a way as, from the previous state of things, might have naturally been expected.

It is of essential importance, in interpreting the New Testament, that we should keep in mind the state of things preceding it. The reason is obvious. It is surely natural to expect, that its language should be affected by these existing circumstances; and the import of the expressions used we shall be unable, in many instances, correctly to appreciate, unless we take into our view a reference, in the mind of the writers, to what already existed and was familiarly known, and the existence and familiar knowledge of which rendered greater enlargement, and minuteness, and precision, unnecessary. This is a principle so obvious, and its influence so natural and unavoidable, that, with the man who should question the the admission of it as a legitimate cannon of interpretation, I should consider reasoning as thrown away. The strongest consideration alledged against it, we shall have occasion to notice by and by.

I have before observed, how the burden of proof lies on the side of the opponents of infant baptism. They seek a precept in positive terms-Let the infant children of proselytes to the faith of the gospel be baptized with their parents. But we demand a precept in similar positive terms-Let the children of proselytes be no longer admitted, as formerly, to the sign and seal of the blessings of the covenant of God.-We call for the production of an express declaration, that such admission is inconsistent with the spirituality of the new dispensation. But no

such thing is ever said: no hint of such a thing is ever given. So far from it, that let us mark in general terms, how the case stands.-After finding the connection in

question pervading the Old Testament, in the manner we have stated the children of the professed people of God circumcised with their parents; and the children of Geutile proselytes to the faith of Abraham introduced with their children, by the same rite, to the privileges of the ancient church; we then come forward to the history of the new dispensation. If this previous state of things were really inconsistent with its spiritual nature, it seems not unreasonable to expect that the language on this point should be plain and decisive. But what is the fact? Instead of plain and decisive intimations of this inconsistency, and of the necessary discontinuance of the practice, we meet with language in perfect accordance with the previous state of things: precisely such as writers whose minds were habituated to it would naturally use, and such as readers in similar circumstances could not understand in any other way than one." They brought young children to him, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them :""Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham :”"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost:-for the promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call :"-" A certain woman, named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, who worshipped God, heard us :— -whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended to those things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us," &c.—" They said unto him, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house: and they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house:

and he was baptized, he and all his, straightway :”—“I baptized also the household of Stephanas:"-" The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband-else were your children unclean; but now are they holy."*-It is not on one or another of these texts, taken separately, that I am resting my argument under this particular. It is on the intimation which, when taken together, they so clearly afford, of the continuance of the same state of things, in regard to families, as formerly. I profess myself unable to account for the language, on any thing like easy and natural principles of interpretation, unless upon this hypothesis. The unnatural straining which is employed, to get rid of some of the passages, we shall see immediately.-But, before leaving this particular, I must take notice of a highly ingenious, and, at first view, very plausible and imposing light, in which the objection has been placed to the mode of reasoning in general from the previous state of things, and of the minds of the Jews in reference to it. "By the same kind of reasoning," it is alleged, "it might, with equal plausibility, be proved, that the kingdom of Christ is a kingdom of this world. It might be argued, That though the kingdom of ancient Israel was a worldly kingdom, including their carnal seed, it was the kingdom of God that the prophecies relating to the kingdom of Messiah frequently represent it as a worldly monarchy, like the kingdom of Israel under the reigns of David and Solomon-that the Jews in general interpreted these prophecies of a worldly kingdom; their minds were habituated to this idea, and it was an idea deeply rooted in their hearts: They must therefore have understood John the baptist, or Christ and his apostles, when preaching that kingdom, in a sense consistent with their previous views, as intimating a continuance of the same worldly kingdom as formerly, but now to be restored to Israel, and raised to a higher pitch of worldly power and prosperity than ever."†

* Mark x 13-16. Luke xix. 9. Acts ii. 39. xvi. 14, 15 and 31, 33. 1 Cor. i. 16. 1 Cor. vi. 14.

+ Maclean's Rev. pp. 119, 120.

Now, ingenious and plausible as this mode of putting the question may seem, it is more than fallacious. I am sincerely obliged to the writer for it, because it serves to set my argument in a still clearer light, and to give it additional force and conclusiveness. It is admitted that the minds of the Jews were habituated to the expectation of a worldly kingdom, and that the idea was deeply rooted in their hearts. Let the passages, then, be pointed out, in which John the baptist, or Christ and his apostles, acted or spoke in a manner that harmonized with this expectation, and was calculated to countenance and to cherish, instead of unsettling and doing it away. The cases will then be parallel. But it is very far otherwise. Instead of parallelism, there is contrast. The whole conduct and discourse of our Lord are framed, as if for the very purpose of opposing their worldly and unscriptural conceptions. Every thing about him was fitted to put such conceptions down, and to thwart, and mortify, and wither the hopes arising out of them. His whole preaching when he proclaimed that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, was pointedly directed against the prevailing ideas of ins nature. The very first sentence of his sermon on the mount was enough to dissipate them for ever" Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven" and the whole description of character which follows has the same tendency. It is all spiritual, opposed to every worldly principle, to every carnal and earthly expectation. Of the same description in his first address to Nicodemus, intimating the necessity of a spiritual birth, in all the subjects of his kingdom— "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”—And how flatly and explicitly does he contradict what he knew to be the views and hopes of the Pharisees, when they asked him "when the kingdom of God should come". -"The kingdom of God," said he, "cometh not with outward show neither shall they say, Lo here, or Lo there; for behold the kingdom of God is within you."-All this is in harmony too with the "good confession" which he subsequently witnessed before Pontius Pilate," "My kingdom is not of this world."-In fact the very exist