merely upon that account, than before. If, therefore, they are disciples, it is not because they are real converts, or because they appear to be such; consequently, they must, as I said, be a third class, which the Bible knows nothing of.

2. It is plead that infants are included in this commission, because they are a part of the nations, and Christ said, " go teach" or disciple "all nations, baptizing them :" and there being no other way of discipling the nations as such, but by making disciples of infants by baptism, seeing they are incapable of being taught, they must, of course, be included in the commission in this sense.

If this argument has any force, it will go to support the idea of a national church, and of the indiscriminate application of baptism; which most of the orthodox would not relish.

But in fact, it has no force. The order to make disciples of all nations is, from its very nature, limited to such as are capable of being taught. It does not extend to mere infants and idiots.

If the Lord had bid his Apostles go and teach all nations the Hebrew language, common sense would lead us to restrict the order to such as were capable of being taught it. It is just as obvious that the order to make disciples of all nations is limited to such as have the capacity of being taught the great things of his kingdom.

There can be no doubt that infants are capable of being renewed and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, and of having the principle of faith implanted in them, and consequently of being saved, should they die in that age, through the merits of Christ.

But they are not capable of receiving gospel instruction, and of making a credible profession of faith; and therefore are not capable of being discipled, according to the obvious tenour of this commission.

And as they are not capable of giving evidence of grace so as to be numbered among the brethren; so they are not capable of doing the duties of church members, nor of enjoying the external privileges of the church. Hence it is abundantly evident that they were not intended to be included among the proper subjects of Christian baptism.

3. It is plead that infants are included in this commission, because the Lord Jesus was a Jew, and spake to those that were Jews; and that if the order had been, go teach all nations, circumcising them, the duty of circumcising children upon their parents' account, would have been considered as implied therein, provided nothing more had been added: and consequently, as baptism takes the place of circumcision under the New Testa-

ment dispensation, they must naturally have understood him to include infants in this commission.

In reply, I would remark, that if no new dispensation had been introduced, and no other instructions had been given than those contained in the Abrahamick covenant and the Mosaick law, and our Lord had said as above represented, without adding any thing more; it is admitted that they would have naturally inferred, that when the head of a family was taught and converted, all his males were to be circumcised as well as himself— "all that were born in his house and bought with his money." But they would not have inferred that his female children and servants had any thing to do with this rite, because they were not included in the original order for circumcision. So that the above conclusion as to children in general, or of both sexes, is not warranted by the premises, allowing them to be true. Much more will the conclusion respecting the baptism of children of both sexes appear to be unwarranted, when it shall be made manifest that baptism is not a substitute for circumcision.

To evince how perfectly inconclusive this whole argument is, as it respects even the baptism of male children and servants, I would observe that our Lord had actually introduced a new dispensation, and set up the kingdom of heaven, as foretold by the prophet Daniel, by calling out from the body of the Jewish nation, a company of disciples, and had taught expressly that his kingdom was "not of this world." He had also given. various additional instructions to those contained in the Abrahamick covenant and the Mosaick law, and had come for the purpose of annulling the ceremonial code delivered to Moses, and of instituting a new order of things, and had actually introduced two new rites, viz. baptism and the Lord's supper, the former of which had been applied, during his life, exclusively to disciples, and the latter had been confessedly applied to such merely; therefore, if he had said, under these circumstances, Go teach all nations, circumcising them, they would not have inferred even the duty of circumcising the male children of believers of all nations: much less the baptism not only of male, but female children, when he had never taught them that baptism was a substitute for circumcision. And what is still further unfortunate for this argument, is, that our Lord did not say to his apostles, Go teach, or disciple all nations, circumcising them; but baptizing them. There is not a word, or hint, about circumcision in the whole commission, or of baptism's coming in the room of it.

The ordinance of circumcision was never enjoined on any

but Abraham and his descendants, and such as were incorporated with them in their national capacity; and to them it has never been annulled, (which I shall show particularly in a subsequent chapter.) Therefore, baptism cannot be a substitute for that ordinance; and so the argument from circumcision is wholly lost.

4. It is plead that infants are included in this commission, upon the ground that baptism is a seal of the same covenant of which circumcision was, and appointed for the same purposes. But this ground is wholly untenable, and the argument is good for nothing. Where are we told that baptism is a seal of the same covenant of which circumcision was? or even a seal of any covenant whatever? Surely not in the Bible, although the sentiment is constantly. advanced as though it rested on the highest scriptural authority.

Besides, as circumcision was never obligatory on the Gentiles in their separate national capacity, and was never abrogated to the Jews, but remains in full force to them, there can be no ground to consider baptism as a substitute. As the case is, such a thing could not be.

It is capable of the clearest proof that circumcision was continued to the believing as well as to the unbelieving Jews through the whole of the apostolick age, and not the least notice is taken of baptism's being a substitute, when the circumstances manifestly required that this notice should have been taken, if such had been the fact. Therefore, it is perfectly unwarranted and preposterous to consider it a substitute for that rite.

Besides; should it even be admitted that the seal of the Abrahamick covenant is changed from circumcision to baptism; nothing could, hence, be conclusively argued, under all the circum. stances, in favour of the baptism of infants.

The question will naturally arise, when was it changed? Was it changed during our Lord's personal ministry? or not till after his resurrection? I believe it is generally maintained by Pedobaptists that it was not changed until after his resurrection; and that the baptism which he appointed before was a different thing, and not a seal of the covenant. But this opinion, as I have already shown, is unauthorized. It is certain that Christ introduced a baptism during his life, and at or near the commencement of his publick ministry. And we do not any where learn that he afterwards introduced a different one. He certainly made and baptized disciples in his life-time; and these were not baptized to John, nor to any other man; but to him, as his disciples. The record plainly says so. And those that were baptized after his resurrection, were not baptized other

wise than as his disciples. "As many of you, says Paul, as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Those who received baptism during our Lord's personal ministry were as truly admitted into his kingdom as those that received it afterwards. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that these baptisms were the same.

Consequently, if the seal of the Abrahamick covenant was changed from circumcision to baptism, the change must have taken place during our Lord's life and personal ministry.

But the application of baptism, which is called by Pedobaptists the new seal, was then determined, by his will and order, to belong only to believers of both sexes. He made disciples by teaching before he baptized them. There is not a syllable in favour of his baptizing any others. The argument, therefore, from the change of the seals, if such change were admitted, is inconclusive. The same change, whereby the new seal, as it is called, is applied to females, limits the application of it to believers of both sexes.

All will be forced to admit that there is a change in the application of the new seal, from that of the old; inasmuch as it is unquestionably applicable to females, whereas the former seal was expressly limited to males.

If, therefore, this change might be made, and if it be allowed that this was suitable and proper, under the new dispensation; a still further change might likewise be made, so as to restrict baptism to believers of both sexes, as best suited to the spiritual nature of the gospel dispensation; and this might be done without destroying the idea of its being a seal of the same covenant. Every one can see that it is not necessary to its being a seal of the same covenant, that it should be applied to infants, any more than that it should be limited to the male sex. If the lawgiver could consistently make the latter alteration, and yet it be the seal of the same covenant, he manifestly could the former. And such a change as extends the application of gospel baptism to females, and limits it to believers of both sexes, evidently befits the present more spiritual dispensation and economy, wherein, instead of taking one whole nation, as formerly, to be his people, in distinction from others, he takes believers from among all · nations.

And when we find that this ordinance was, in fact, thus limited, during our Lord's personal ministry, it was evidently not his pleasure that it should be applied to any but believers. And, hence, it would have been perfectly unnatural for the apostles to infer, under all the circumstances, that infants were included in their final commission. And the subsequent

history of their transactions shows, as we have seen, that they did not infer any such thing.

Therefore, nothing is materially gained to the cause of Pedobaptism, by admitting that the Abrahamick covenant is the one which we are now under, and that the seal thereof is changed as above.

But, in fact, the Abrahamick covenant is distinct from the new covenant, and baptism is not a seal of either, or of any other covenant. It is a simple ordinance of the New Testament, or covenant, which is a different dispensation of the covenant of grace, both from the Sinai and the Abrahamick dispensations. The only seal of the new covenant is the blood of Christ.

Moreover, baptism is a positive institution, the nature and use of which are, accordingly, to be determined by the words which contain it-by the very authority on which it rests, as signified therein, and not by inferences drawn from a previous appointment.

There is, indeed, some similarity in the nature and use of the two ordinances; although the one does not answer all the purposes of the other, and in some respects they serve different purposes. Yet this similarity in certain respects will not determine the extent to which baptism is to be applied. We are restricted in this case by the appointment of the lawgiver, and the known practice of his inspired apostles. And these determine that the ordinance belongs only to believers of both sexes.

That baptism does not answer all the purposes of circumcision, must be obvious to any one who will candidly examine the various items of the Abrahamick covenant.

Although one, or two, of the provisions of that covenant belong to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews, it does not belong to them as a whole. But circumcision had respect to it as a whole, confirming all its promises. Therefore baptism, which belongs to Gentiles as well as Jews, cannot answer all the ends of circumcision, allowing that it does some of them. And this very circumstance requires a difference in its application, and naturally limits it to believers of both sexes.

It is perfectly clear that a different use was made, at first, of baptism, from that which was made of circumcision. It was not applied to Jews in common, or promiscuously, like circumcision, nor to all the males of a man's house; but to select persons from among that circumcised people, and from among their respective families-to such only as became Christians, or believers in Jesus. Here, then, is a point in which there is a dissimilarity in the nature and design of the two institutions. We cannot therefore rightly infer the duty of infant baptism.