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,

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 circum-* cision 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 incorpora ted 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 cer

tainly 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 others ·

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