There is no mention made whatever of any infants being bap tized, or added to the church. And I can hardly think any sober Christian will maintain that there were any infants among the three thousand then baptized and added to the company of disciples. It is perfectly obvious that they were adult believers, or such as were baptized on their own faith; and those subsequently added were of the same character. For we are expressly told that the "Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved," or " the saved," as it might have been rendered.

The next account of baptism recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, is that of the Samaritans who were converted under the preaching of Philip. Acts, viii. 6. "But when they believed Philip, preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." Here, again, there is no mention made of any infants. But if infants had been baptized too, would it not have been recorded? It is certainly reasonable to suppose that it would.

In the same chapter, there is also an account of the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch. The condition required of him was, "if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." And the profession made by him was, " I believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God." So that here was the baptism of a believer. The next instance recorded is that of Saul, Acts, ix. 18, who was also a believer at the time. Then in Acts, x. 48, we have a history of the baptism of Cornelius and his friends, who were Gentiles; and the reason assigned therefor is, that "they had received the Holy Ghost as well as the believing Jews." "They spake with tongues and magnified God;" or, in other words, they were believers in Jesus. The record is perfectly silent as to the subject of baptizing infants.

In the next place, we read of the baptism of the households of Lydia and the jailer, Acts, xvi. 15, 33. But the record in either of these cases does not imply that there were any infants baptized on the faith of their parents. The former household are, in verse 40, characterized as brethren. And of the latter it is expressly said, verse 34, that the jailer " rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." There is, therefore, no evidence here that any were baptized but believers.

But as great stress is laid by Pedobaptists upon these instances, and that of the household of Stephanas, I intend, in another place, to give each a more particular consideration.

The next account of baptism is that of the Corinthians, Acts, viii. 8. "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, be

lieved on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." Infants, you see, are wholly left out of this record also. In I. Corinthians, i. 16, Paul says, "I baptized also the household of Stephanas ;" but he is careful, before he closes his Epistle, to give us their character as a household of believers. See chap. xvi. 15. "Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints."

There is another account of baptism given in the Acts of the Apostles, chap. xix. 1-5, which is that of the twelve disciples at Ephesus, and already noticed; which, of course, is only a record of believers' baptism.

In Paul's Epistle to the Romans, chap. vi. 3, we find this sentence: "Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ?" And in his

Epistle to the Galatians, chap. iii. 27, we find the following sentence, viz. " as many of you as have been baptized into Jesus Christ have put on Christ." The phrases, 66 so many of us," and "as many of you as," plainly mean "all that.". Hence all that were baptized "were baptized into Christ's death," and "put on Christ," which can import nothing less. than that they all made a profession of faith. Again, in Colossians, ii. 12, he speaks of Christians being "buried with Christ in baptism."

These are all the instances in which an express record is made of the administration of Christian baptism in the New Testament. And they are all examples of the baptism of believers only. There is not one solitary instance of the baptism of an infant upon the parents' faith in the whole New Testament history.

But the instances of baptism recorded, are a practical comment on the apostolick believers' commission. And these being instances of believers' baptism only, show conclusively how the Apostles understood the commission; that the order to baptize was limited to believers; and that no subsequent order including infants was given.

How different from the preceding accounts is the record which Pedobaptists give of the administration of baptism! They are wont to state the baptism of so many adults, and so many infants. Now if the Apostles had done the same, some. thing might have been gathered from their practice, which would have been to the purpose. But as they have not made any such record; but merely recorded the baptism of believ

ers; it is plain that they baptized no other; and that they did not understand their Lord to order the baptism of any other. And, here, it would seem that we might rest this part of the subject.

But as the apostolick commission is confessedly of high importance in this controversy, and as all appear to be sensible that this is the proper place to look for the warrant to baptize infants, if such warrant exists; and as various attempts are made to show that it does include such a warrant, or at least that it contains nothing which militates against their baptism, it is proper, for the sake of elucidating the truth, that these attempts should be distinctly considered.

CHAPTER IV.

The various attempts to include Infants in the Apostolick Commission for Baptism, considered and refuted.

1. Some maintain that infants are included among the disciples, and that as they are not capable of being taught, they must be made disciples by baptism, or be thereby brought into the school of Christ.

But this is manifestly an errour; for the words of the commission do not imply, or intimate, that there are two ways of making disciples, the one by teaching and the other by baptism. There is only one way described of making them, and that is by teaching, (the Holy Ghost accompanying the word,) and then baptism is to follow as the consequence. The notion, that when the head of a family becomes a disciple by teaching, his infants, or his household, become disciples, of course, or that they become such by being baptized, is wholly unfounded. None are disciples but such as are converted by means of the word.

It is not to be inferred that infants are to be made disciples in a different way from that of adults, on account of their incapacity to be taught. The words of the commission authorize no such conclusion.

This notion is not only unauthorized and absurd, but it plainly contradicts the sense of the commission. The very or. der of the words implies, that the proper subjects of baptism must become disciples before they are baptized. They are not made disciples by being baptized, for the very reason that they must become disciples first, and that they are baptized as disciples; not to make them such. Baptism is plainly stated as the consequence of discipleship, and not that which precedes it as the thing which constitutes discipleship. To talk of making disciples by baptism, is grossly to pervert language. It is turning the order of Christ into quite another thing from what his words make it. To maintain that this commission means that such as are capable of being taught should be made disciples by teaching, and that such as are not capable of being taught should be made disciples by baptism, is positively changing the commis

sion from its plain and obvious meaning. It is astonishing that men will take such liberty with the word of God!

Besides; if the incapacity of infants to be taught were any argument for their baptism, it would be in favour of the baptism of such only as are mere infants, and could not apply, at all, to the baptism of a whole household, provided it contains any that have passed the strict line of infancy. And yet we constantly hear of household baptism after the example of household circumcision. And many, and I believe most Pedobaptists, do apply baptism to children upon their parents' account, who cannot be considered as mere infants; but are fully capable of being taught themselves. And if they did not, the argument from household circumcision would be lost. It frequently happens, that a parent does not believe till he has a large number of children of different ages, from the mere babe, to children of twenty-one years of age and more, and yet at the time, he is the only believer in the family. Now, if the household is to be baptized upon his faith, they must all be baptized, at least all under age, together with the servants, whatever be their age. And, yet, the argument under consideration is, that infants must be baptized, and thereby be made the disciples of Christ, because they are incapable of being taught; otherwise they should be discipled by teaching. The argument, therefore, from household circumcision, and the one from the incapacity of infants, are manifestly inconsistent with each other. Infant baptism and household baptism cannot be defended on the same ground. If the argument from the incapacity of infants has any weight, it will exclude all of a family from baptism, except such as are so young as to be incapable of being taught, and consequently all, in general, over six years of age, and, frequently, all over four. And it will wholly contradict the argument for household baptism. Does it not hence appear, that errour is fated to run crooked?

Moreover; to suppose that Christ intended infants should be discipled merely by baptism, on account of their incapacity, is making three sorts of disciples; whereas the scriptures treat of but two; viz. those that are really converted, and those that are visibly and professedly converted, but not really. They do not any where describe a third class who are made disciples merely by baptism, from which it is obvious that no such class exists.

It cannot be justly pretended that infants are not a third class of disciples; but are to be reckoned with those who give credible evidence of being regenerated. For the children of believers are as depraved as the children of unbelievers, and they give no more evidence of piety after they are baptized,