pany, or society, from the nation at large, and were initiated by baptism. And to this society he gave ministers, laws and privileges, till his whole will was declared. And it continued to increase and spread.

Although it is often plead that no church essentially new has been set up, all must admit that the form and constitution of the church are greatly altered. There certainly was a time when the believers in Jesus began to be considered the New Testament Church, in distinction from the body of the Jewish nation, whereas they had not been thus considered before; whether it be supposed that they were called out, and separated from the great body of the nation and its rulers; or that the unbelieving part were cut off, or excommunicated, leaving the believing part to subsist, and act, in a separate capacity.

And this change, or revolution, must have been the introduction of the kingdom of heaven, which is spoken of in the scriptures, both of the Old and New Testaments, with so much emphasis.

The question, therefore, now before us, is, when did this change take place? The true answer, as I have fully shown, is, at or near the commencement of our Lord's publick ministry. It is evident, also, that it consisted in calling out a believing people from the body of the nation, rather than in a formal excommunication of the unbelieving part. This calling out of the true Israel, and embodying them under the Messiah, prepared the way for the ultimate breaking of the Sinai covenant with the body of the nation, and their final rejection.

I admit that Christ has never had but one church in the world, which has existed under different dispensations and constitutions.

The Abrahamick church was the same that existed in the days that were before the flood; yea, from the first dawn of mercy to our world; yet it was under a very different constitution.

In like manner, the Christian church is the same as the Abrahamiek; yet under a very different form and constitution, one that is much more perfect; and one that is intended to be final, as to this world.

But although the church is now essentially the same as formerly, it is never styled the kingdom of heaven, until Christ, the Lord, actually came down from heaven to reign in human nature, and to give it its ultimate type and privileges. The kingdom of God had not come before, in the sense which the scriptures intend by this phrase. The church was before national, at least among the Jews, and was connected and identified

with a worldly kingdom. But under the gospel, it is wholly spiritual in its organization; separate from all worldly associations; and from all the laws and regulations of men; and placed under the mediatorial government of Christ. Yet it is so formed and constituted as to live among any nation, and under any form of civil government; and the members, as citizens, are expressly required to be subject to the powers that be. It is under this new and final constitution and form, that it is called the kingdom of God, or of heaven.

As when a new king commences his reign, he requires of his subjects the oath of allegiance, and makes new laws and regulations; so our Lord Jesus (hrist, when he became incarnate, and entered upon his mediatorial kingdom, by the consent and appointment of the Father and the Spirit, commenced his reign by calling his subjects to swear allegiance to him; or, in other words, by calling them openly to own and submit to him as their Saviour and King, and to receive a significant badge of this acknowledgment and submission in baptism, by which they might be openly and emphatically known and distinguished from the rest of the people.

He gave also other institutions and laws, whereby his reign is distinguished, and his kingdom perfected.

This kingdom is both spiritually and visibly diverse from all others, as it was foretold that it should be. None have a right of admission by virtue of their natural birth, as in other kingdoms, even in the Jewish kingdom; but they must be called into it by renewing grace; otherwise they have no right to enter. And although men, having no access to the hearts of others, cannot wholly exclude those of unsound minds, they ought not to receive any but such as give credible evidence of grace. The members of the gospel church are, by profession, Christians and brethren-a household of taith, a select, spiritual society..

Now, such a state of things having been actually introduced, during our Lord's continuance on earth, the apostles would naturally take this to be the rule of their procedure afterwards. They would not depart from the precedent established, without express instructions. There is great weight in this argument from the early type of the Christian church, as a society of believers only, to show that infant baptism is wrong. should naturally expect that Christ would settle the question who were to belong to his kingdom, and who were to be baptized, in the very beginning of his reign; so we find that he did, and he gave no different instructions afterwards. All that has been observed under this head goes to show that I have given

As we

the true sense of the apostolick commission. Every attempt to include infants fails. This commission must be altered and amended, and the very nature of the gospel kingdom changed from what we find it in the gospel records, to make out a warrant for infant baptism. But we have certainly no right to do this. It is impiety and presumption to do it.

CHAPTER VII.

The memorable passage, Acts, ii. 38-41, particularly examined.

THE practice of the apostles, acting under the immediate inspiration of the Spirit, as well as the commission which they received of the Lord Jesus, is naturally regarded as a proper source of information in relation to the present question.

Hence great efforts are made by Pedobaptists to show that the apostles did, in fact, practise the baptism of infants, and consequently, that this shows how they understood their commission. We frequently hear it asserted, in positive language, that the apostles practised infant baptism.

If this could be clearly made out, I admit that the practice would be correct. In that case, it would appear that Christ gave them additional instructions to those contained in the aforesaid commission.

But it evidently cannot be made out. The apostles have given no notice of having received additional instructions on this point, which include infants; neither are there any facts recorded which show that they did baptize them. But their whole history, as we have in fact seen already, and shall see more fully hereafter, goes to establish believers' baptism as the only gospel baptism.

It is, indeed, argued from the passage referred to at the head of this chapter, that the promise mentioned is that memorable promise made to Abraham, that God would be a God to him and to his seed after him; that baptism is represented as a token, or seal, of this promise, as circumcision was previously; and that the promise is to believers and their children as it always had been. So that here is a warrant for the baptism of infants.

But a careful examination of the passage will show that this construction is unwarranted and grossly erroneous. It reads thus: "Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all