If we believe, with the Church of Rome, that the Church is in such a sense the institute of salvation that none are united to Christ save through the instrumentality of her ordinances, then we shall inevitably determine the proper subjects of her ordinances in one way. If, on the other hand, we believe, with the Protestant bodies, that only those already united to Christ have right within His house and to its privileges, we shall inevitably determine them in another way.
I read this far and stopped. Why? Because, although I'm no theologian, there are two falsehoods in the first paragraph.
First, belief in infant baptism does not mean that one must believe in the church's "ordinances" as the instrument of salvation, but instead means that one believes that it is through G*d's grace alone that we are saved. In other words, we are all sinners and there is nothing we can do is enough to earn the gift of salvation. Since there is nothing we can do to be worthy of salvation, why wait until you're older to be baptised? I understand that some churches feel differently, but belief in infant baptism is not a belief in the primacy of the church, but in the primacy of the Lord.
Second, many protestant denominations practice infant baptism. I'm not Catholic. I was born into the the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), spent my adolescence in the Presbyterian Church, attended the Espicopalian Church regularly in college and graduate school, and am now a Lutheran. Three out of four (and maybe all 4) practice infant baptism.
It is easy to craft a compelling argument, when you get to create the premises for it from whole cloth. With such a faulty foundation, I didn't feel the need to read it all.
Maybe you should have kept reading.
The Essay (article + first 9 posts) argues for the validity of infant baptism.