continue to incite me in the pursuit of that learning, which is indispensable to the Christian Ministry, and in that performance of its duties, without which I cannot hope to deserve your Lordship's further approbation.

I have the honor to be

Your Lordship's

Most obliged and obedient

Servant,

JOHN F. COLLS.

ON INFANT BAPTISM.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS.

BEFORE I proceed to consider this subject in detail, I think it necessary to give the reader a summary view of the whole question, to enable him to arrive the more readily at a clear comprehension of the particular bearings of this important and much-agitated inquiry. The Antipædobaptists sometimes complain that, while they have the best of the argument, popular prejudices and popular publications are almost wholly on the other side; and that they have, therefore, the disadvantage of labouring against the prevailing opinions, and the theological literature of the age. I am far from thinking that, with superficial readers, of which the number is by no means inconsiderable, their disadvantages are so great as they would have us believe; and I am sure that I

B

detract nothing from the decisive evidence which I am about to produce in defence of Infant Baptism, when I avow, that the Antipædobaptist argument wears, on the first surface of it, an ensnaring and deceitful plausibility. It is not in the mere statement of their opinions that our opponents feel the difficulties of their tenets: for this is so specious, and so apparently in accordance with some passages of the New Testament, that the generality of readers are liable to be misled by what, on a closer and deeper investigation, will be found to give no support whatever to those erroneous notions, in proof of which they are advanced by those who reject the baptism of infants. It is for this reason that I have been induced to endeavour, in the first place, to remove those difficulties, which are apt to embarrass such persons as have not carefully considered the arguments of the Antipædobaptist.

THE principal objections, which have been alleged against the baptism of infants are these:

I. That it is an unreasonable practice, because infants are not capable of knowing any thing of the covenant into which they are to be admitted by it.

II. That it is contrary to the Institution of our Saviour, which, requiring instruction before baptism, thereby excludes infants, because they are not capable of instruction.

III. That it is an unwarrantable and unlawful practice, since there is no precept for it in the Scriptures.

IV. That there is no mention made of any such practice among the Apostles, or in the primitive times.

These objections I will now proceed to answer in the order in which they are stated.

I.-It is objected, that Infant Baptism is an unreasonable practice, because Infants are not capable of knowing any thing of the Covenant into which they are to be admitted by it.

In answer to this objection I observe, that it is not inconsistent either with the reason or practice of mankind that infants should be bound by covenants to the future performance of conditions, which they at present know nothing of, nor are capable of performing until they grow up. This

is common among men, and is practised almost every day. Every will, and every conditional settlement of an estate on heirs is a covenant, and every contract that a guardian makes for a minor in infancy, is made in that infant's name, and he is bound by it, and really enjoys the benefit of it, in expectation of the future performance of the conditions by him; and baptism is the seal of a covenant between God and man. Why, then, should it be thought strange or incredible that God should thus deal with us in a covenant of grace and mercy ?

Moreover, if the incapacity of infants were in the nature of things an insuperable bar, it must be an universal and indispensable one, and must exclude infants from all covenants with God, of whatever kind they may be, whether of works or of grace; whether by the law, or by the gospel. For what arises absolutely from the nature of things must be universal and perpetual, and must always have the same influence.

But that the incapacity of infants is not an universal and perpetual bar to all covenants, the Antipædobaptists themselves will, I hope, allow; since infants were admitted into a covenant with God, under the patriarchal and Mosaical dispensations. If then God is pleased, in his infinite