and, with refpect to him, St. Mark informs us, ch. i. 9, 10, 11. And it came to pass in thofe days, that Jefus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. (or as it might have been truly and better rendered, dipped of John into Jordan) And ftraightway coming up out of the water, he faw the heavens opened, and the fpirit like a dove defcending upon him. And there came a voice from heaven, faying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleafed. The other is in the book of the Acts, after our Lord's afcenfion, and fending down the Holy Ghost upon the apoftles, which was promifed to lead them into all truth, John xvi. 13. and by which they were dued with power from on high, to confirm their doctrine. And under the influence of this, Philip was directed to attend the chariot of the eunuch, and preach the gofpel to him; the iffue of which is thus related by St. Luke. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch faid, fee, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip faid, if thou believeft with all thine heart, thou mayeft. And be answered and faid, I believe that Jefus Chrift is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to ftand ftill: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch; and he baptized [or dipped] him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the Eunuch faw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. Acts viii. 36-39." This is fufficient, as a general detail of the argument under the first head of inquiry. I now proceed to the fecond, which is this: Who are the proper fubjects of baptifm, and that they are only the adult, upon their making a free and voluntary profeffion of their faith in Chrift, and repentance towards God, is, I think, abundantly confirmed by the whole ftrain and current of the New Testament. Of this Gal. iii. 27. in particular appears to me to afford a manifeft and ftrong demonftration, in which is directly afferted, that as many, that is, all without exception; for St. Paul himself does not exclude one fingle cafe, and therefore Chriftians ought not; however neceffary it may be to the fupport of a favourite fcheme, to which they are moft zealously and fondly devoted; in this text, I fay, it is directly afferted, that all without exception, who are baptized into Chrift, do put on Chrift. The phrafe plainly denotes a voluntary act of their own, an act of piety in the fubjects of baptifm, and not a forced ty, not a mere external and and mechanical operation; and confequently, infants are plainly declared, by this paffage, to be incapable of baptifin, if we proceed rightly, according to the christian rule, because they are incapable of reafon, and faith, and free determination. And this interpretation the fame apoftle has confirmed beyond all contradiction in another place, where he opposes putting on the Lord Jefus Chrift to making provifion for the flesh, reprefenting both as actions equally voluntary, and that relate to a moral character. As to put on the new man is explained by being renewed in the fpirit of our mind; fo to put on Chrift is to take upon us the chriftian character, and to bind ourselves, in a folemn engagement, to imitate the temper and life of Chrift; as all did, if we may give credit to St. Paul, who were baptized in the firft age of Chriftianity, but infants cannot poffibly do; and therefore the baptizing fuch can be regarded in no other light than that of an innovation, abfolutely unknown in the apoftolical times. And indeed, if we examine the commiffion itself, which our Lord gave the apostles to baptize, this error of modern Chriftianity will appear in as full and diftinct a view. The commiffion runs thus, Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft; where it is obvious to obferve, First, that the stated order is to teach, and then to baptize. And, Secondly, that there is no more reafon to affirm that all, who were taught, were obliged to be bap-. tized, than that all, who were baptized, were to be previously taught. The text is equally explicit in both cafes, and the fubjects of both are of exactly the fame extent, all nations. But I muft only fuggeft hints; and therefore proceed to mention fome other texts, which undeniably prove, that the practice of the apoftles was ftrictly conformable to the rule established by their great Lord and mafter. Thus, when by St. Peter's first fermon the people, who heard him, were convinced of the fin and infinite danger of their unbelief and ftubborn contempt of the gospel, and faid to him and to the reft of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? His answer was, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jefus Chrift, for the remiffion of fins. And it is afterwards added, then they that gladly received his word, were baptized. In like manner, when the Eunuch, upon a firm perfuafion of the truth of Christianity, defired to be admitted to baptism, וי. Philip laid before him the neceffary and unalterable condition of his receiving that privilege, in thefe words, If thou believeft with all thine heart, thou mayeft. And to suppose, that there are two forts of qualifications for one and the fame ordinance, when no diftinction at all is once intimated in any fingle paffage of the New Teftament s nay, to imagine that the qualifications are equally valid, which are as different from each other, as faith, and no faith; or, which amounts to the fame, as knowledge and ignorance, a voluntary profeffion of Chriftianity, and the being capable of no religion at all; this is not only framing an arbitrary scheme, but, in my opinion, an absolutely incoherent and incredible fcheme. The nature and ends of baptifm as adminiftered to believers, and the nature and ends of it, if it be adminiftered to fuch as cannot believe, muft certainly be as different, as thofe of any two different ordinances, that we can poffibly conceive of But the nature and ufes of chriftian baptifm are always defcribed in one uniform ftrain, fuited to the cafe of adult believers only, and impoffible, by any force or ftretch of invention, to be adapted to the ftate of infants. Upon the whole then, as it is generally acknowledged, that there is no exprefs command for baptizing infants, nor a fingle precedent to be found in favour of it, throughout the whole New Teftament; fo neither is there the leaft, moft obfcure, involved, and diftant hint, that it had ever been practifed, or was in itfelf allowable. The commiffion, the examples, the defcriptions and accounts relating to baptifm, are confined to quite different fubjects, and abfolutely difcourage all fuch pretenfions. Upon what foot then, it may be afked, can a cuftom, of which there are no traces in the religion of Chrift, and which feems, indeed, to be quite alien from the genius and complexion of it, as a rational and moral inftitution; upon what foot, I fay, can this cuftom be defended, by fo many upright, and, in other refpects, judicious Chrif tians, who profefs to take the gofpel for the only rule of chriftian order and worship? い I answer, that our brethren themselves are not rightly and thoroughly agreed upon the fundamental principle, on which to raife and eftablish their fcheme. Some talk of the Abrahamic covenant, which they tile the covenant of grace, the fame in fubftance with the difpenfation of the gofpel; and that as infants were admitted to circumcifion, which they make the feal of this Abrahamic cove nant nant of grace, they muft, by a parity of reafon, have a right to baptifm; fince it cannot be conceived that their privileges are retrenched, but it may rather be expected, that they would be confiderably enlarged under a religion, which is the completion of all others, and 'contains the fulleft and brighteft difplays of the grace and tender mercies of God. The following remarks will, I apprehend, be abundantly fufficient to fhew, that this is a foundation much too weak to uphold the fuperftructure that has been erected upon it, and a principle clogged with heavy and unfurmountable difficulties. f. What they call the Abrahamic covenant does not appear to have any thing in it like a covenant. It was onTy a promife, by way of prediction, of bleffings that would be derived to the faithful, from Abraham's feed, in future, and far, far diftant ages. It was not a ftipulation of bleffings, as this ftrange and perplexed notion of a cove'nant implies; it was not, I fay, a ftipulation of bleffings, which Abraham himself would ever live to fee or enjoy; but of a privilege, not defigned to be communicated till the times of the Meffiab. And tho' this is declared, by St. Paul, to be a preaching the gospel to Abraham, it is only in a more improper and figurative fenfe: juft as many prophecies and promifes of the Old Teftament might be faid to be preaching the gospel, long before that holy and moft fpiritual inflitution comn.enced, to the whole fewifh nation. 2. Circumcifion is never ftiled the feal of any covenant, but if it belonged to the covenant of grace, it was a feal not at all neceflary with refpect even to fuch, as are allowed to have been really interested in that covenant. For all females were utterly excluded from it, without any the leaft prejudice, I would hope, to their spiritual and eternal concerns. If infants therefore are excluded from baptifm, they alfo may fuftain no damage. So that the whole of this plea for infants is a heap of confufion and inconfiftency; and all the warm and pathetic exclamations, that are fo often mixed with it, are mere difmal founds, that have no energy in them, can never convince the truly confiderate and divefted of all prejudice, nor anfwer any valuable purpofe. Infants are as fafe, their privileges as entire, and their state as good, upon this principle, without baptifm, as with it; as that of one half of the Jewish nation was without circumcifion. Why then fhould they be forced, without their confent, to undergo what what is called the ordinance of baptifm, without any encouragement from, and against the plain rules and examples of, the New Teftament? But, 3. What has been offered under the foregoing head affords, I think, a strong probability that circumcifion had, and could have, no relation at all to the covenant of grace, but only to the peculiar immunities of the race and defcendants of Abraham. For did the great God, whose tender mercies are over all his works, enter into a covenant relation with the males only? Or if an instituted feal of the covenant be fuch an extraordinary privilege, as our brethren profefs it to be, could not one have been inftituted, that would have difcovered univerfal and more impartial goodness; that might have been equally a feal to all that were included within the terms of the imagined covenant? But, Finally, and to difmifs this topic, that circumcifion could not belong to the covenant of grace, or to the gofpel preached to Abraham, is manifeft, even to a demonftration, from what St. Paul has fo ftrenuofly afferted, and copiously argued, in his epiftle to the Galatians; where he refers it entirely to what, in the language of fchool-divinity, is ftiled the covenant of works, according to the ftrict tenor of which, no man could reasonably hope for falvation. If, fays this great apoftle, ye be circumcifed, Chrift fhall profit you nothing. For I teftify again to every man that is circumcifed, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. (which law ran in this fearful, rigid ftrain, Curfed is every one, that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them, Gal. iii. 10.) Chrift is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are juftified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. Gal. v. 2, 3, 5. By thefe, it is likely, and other confiderations of a like nature, feveral of our Pædobaptift brethren have been fo ftruck and convinced, that they have deferted the old foundation, and built upon a new one; and that is, the cuftom of baptizing profelytes and their children, in ufe, as they fay, before our Saviour's coming, amongst the Jews, and which he intended his difciples fhould imitate. To which I fhall only fay, First, that if this be a good argument for infant-baptifm, it must hold equally ftrong for baptizing none but profelytes and their children. Secondly, that our Lord, by inftituting baptifm only for difciples inftructed and believing, has plainly difcovered, that he intended different fubjects of baptifm from thofe, which this argu ment |