adults, and, therefore, does not affect the case of infants, is at once to admit, that it contains no authority for infant baptism.

But if infant baptism be a duty, we certainly have a right to look for the expression of Christ's will in relation thereto, in the commission which he gave to baptize. And the fact that it is not contained, either in the final commission or in any previous commission which he gave his disciples for baptism, goes very far, (to say the least,) to show that the practice is wrong. Unless something very explicit in favour of the baptism of infants can be found elsewhere, (which, however, is not the case,) we ought to conclude at once, that it is not the will of Christ that they should be baptized. It would be so perfectly natural for the Lord Jesus, as the New Testament lawgiver, when appointing this ordinance, to determine the proper subjects of it, that if infants were intended to be baptized, we must reasonably conclude, they would have been mentioned in this commission. It is unaccountable that they are not mentioned, if indeed they are to be baptized. To say that the principle was settled before, in the practice of circumcision is not relieving the difficulty; because, as I shall show, the principle was not settled therein; and even if it had been, it would have been reasonable to expect a recognition thereof in this commission. So important an article would not have been omitted.

Especially, have we a right to look for the expression of Christ's will in this commission, if he intended infants should be baptized, as this is a positive institution, which, of course, is not based upon a previous moral fitness in the thing itself, but rests wholly on his will and pleasure; and hence does not admit of inference and analogy like moral precepts The commission, in this case, is the very instrument which must be expected to contain the rule of administration.

If Christ had not instituted baptism, we could not have inferred the duty of practising it from any moral precept contained in the Old Testament, or inculcated by himself, nor from any ancient custom, or rite, whatever. Whether there should be such an ordinance, depended wholly upon his will; and of course, it depended wholly upon his will how far this rite should be applied. It is therefore but just and reasonable to conclude that, if he meant it should be applied to infants, he would have given instructions to that effect. And his not having done so, naturally leads us to conclude that he did not intend it should be applied to them. To induce a belief that they are proper subjects of this ordinance, when the commission authorizes merely the baptism of disciples, or professed believers, there must be something positive produced from some other part of scripture;

a "thus saith the Lord," which will indubitably settle the question. But this cannot be done, as I shall hereafter show.

Instead of there being any thing elsewhere in the New Testament in favour of infant baptism, the construction which I have given of the commission is confirmed by the previous history of baptism, during the ministry of John, his predecessor; and during his own publick ministry; and by the subsequent history of this ordinance during the ministry of the apostles.

CHAPTER II.

The Baptism of John shown to be distinct from Christian Baptism, and only preparatory to it; yet that it reflects light upon the present question as it was applied to believers only.

It is abundantly manifest that the introductory baptism of John was limited to adult professors of repentance and faith in the coming Messiah. I do not recollect ever to have heard of one, who seriously maintained that John baptized infants. It appears to be universally conceded that he baptized only such as became his disciples by professing the repentance which he preached, and declaring their belief that the long-expected Messiah was about to make his appearance among them.

He came to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord;" to announce his approach; and to be the inspired and honoured instrument of pointing him out to the people.

Therefore, although there are good reasons for believing that his baptism was not Christian baptism itself; but merely an introductory rite, which commenced, and ended, with him; yet as an example of adult baptism merely, it reflects light upon the present question. The practice of making an open and publick distinction among the members of the Jewish Church, and of admitting select individuals from among those who were capable of being taught to a sacred and divinely appointed rite; and that with an express view of making "ready a people for the Lord," commenced with him; and this was known to the apostles, and would naturally have a bearing upon the subject of Christian baptism. It was an indication that this also belonged to select individuals, and was designed to make, or distinguish those who were called out of the world to be the acknowledged people of Christ. His baptism being confined to adults who professed repentance, not only served to lead the way to the ready understanding and reception of believers' baptism as instituted by Christ; but it occasioned an additional necessity for the express mention of infants, if he had intended the ordinance should be applied to them.

While the baptism of John, however, manifestly favours the doctrine now advocated, as above stated; the following reasons.

will show that it was distinct from the baptism instituted by Christ.

66

1. It is evident that the kingdom of heaven had not actually come when John commenced his ministry and baptism; but what he said and did was merely preparatory thereto. Therefore, his baptism could not have been Christian baptism itself. 2. John baptized the people unto repentance, saying that they should believe on him that should come after him." And although this was Jesus, as the event proved, he did not, in general, direct them to his very person. His commission had nearly expired before he pointed out Jesus as the Messiah whom they had been taught to expect. Therefore, to baptize them upon a belief that the Messiah was coming, and to baptize them upon a belief that Jesus was the very person, were manifestly different things. Many of the Jews believed that the Messiah was speedily coming, who rejected the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. And this might have been the case with some of John's disciples. Doubtless, those of them that were real converts, acknowledged Jesus when they came to know his claims, because their hearts were previously prepared therefor by divine grace. But it is probable that many of his disciples were not true converts, although they professed repentance; and these, like other impenitent Jews, probably did not acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah whom they had been expecting. Their being the disciples of John, evidently did not, as a matter of course, make them the disciples of Jesus Christ. Hence, the baptism of the former was distinct from that of the latter, and merely introductory to it.

3. That these baptisms were distinct, is manifest from the fact that some of John's disciples were re-baptized as the disciples of Christ. Of this we have an account in the xix chap. of Acts, verses 1-5. "And it came to pass, that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus, and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said, we have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what, then, were ye baptized? And they said, unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, i. e. on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus." Various attempts have been made to show that these disciples avere not re-baptized. But the word itself plainly shows that they

were; and this would not have been necessary, nor consistent, if John's baptism and Christ's had been the same.

These considerations appear to me sufficient to show that John's baptism was not Christian baptism; but merely introductory thereto yet in the ways before mentioned, it reflected light upon the present question.