JOHN'S baptism was not Christ's baptism. It was a preparatory institution. John was not sent by the Lord Jesus Christ, but by his Father. "Behold," said God the Father, "I send my messenger to prepare the way before thee."¹ John fulfilled his mission. He prepared a people for the Lord. Those whom he prepared had been, as we have seen, instructed before they were baptized. It is, then, just as evident that John's disciple's were not infants, as that they were not sprinkled.

      But Christian baptism is our theme. It was instituted by Jesus Christ; and neither by Moses, the lawgiver, nor by John, the reformer. When, then, did he institute it? Not at the beginning, nor at the end of his life. During his public ministry, and until he was crucified and buried, John's baptism had neither rival nor substitute. Jesus, indeed, says John, "baptized not, but his disciples baptized." The preparatory school continued during the whole personal ministry of the harbinger and the Messiah. But, when John was beheaded, and Jesus crucified, there was a people prepared for the Lord!! These were they that rallied around the Messiah during the last scenes of his life and after his resurrection. These were they to whom he showed himself alive after his passion, and to whom he communicated freely, during the period of forty days, the things concerning the kingdom of God.

      How many hundreds composed the preparatory school of the risen Lord, we are not informed. We learn from Paul, that, in one of their meetings, more than five hundred disciples were present. [219]

      But, as God did not deliver his law to the people at the foot of the mount, but to Moses in the mount, so the Messiah did not deliver his new institution and law to these hundreds, but to the select band of the Apostles, to whom he had already imparted his gracious purposes. To them he gave the commission, and the law of baptism, upon a mountain in Galilee. It was given immediately before his visible and personal ascension into heaven. It was his last act, the consummation of his work as a Lawgiver and King. It is most fully reported by Matthew, and is in the following words:--"All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

      This is the law of Christian baptism, the institution and origin of it; and, certainly, it is a clear and express precept. Though quite intelligible in the common version of it, as now quoted; it is, nevertheless, imperfectly and, indeed, in a comparative point of view, rather obscurely translated. It should, in strict accordance with the original Greek, be translated--"All authority in heaven and in earth is given to me: go you, therefore, and make disciples of call nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all the things that I have commanded you; and, behold! I am always with you to the conclusion of this state."

      According to the common version of this law of baptism, Jesus taught the Apostles first to teach all nations, then to baptize them; and again to teach them all his observances. The common reader would regard this as simply requiring that the nations be taught before and after baptism! But, in the original language, we have not this difficulty to contend with. We have two words of very different meaning, occurring in the same verse, translated by one and the same word, teach. These are matheteuoo and didascoo. They are visibly and audibly different words. They are not composed of the same characters, nor of the same sounds. They are just as different in sense. They both, indeed, mean to impart instruction; but it is a different kind of instruction. The first indicates that instruction necessary to make a disciple: the second imparts that species of instruction afterwards given to one who has become a disciple [220] with regard to his duties. The first represents the person, character, and claims of the teacher, and the necessity of becoming his pupil; the second represents the duties and obligations of the pupil to his teacher. The first intimates the simple preaching of the gospel as Mark the evangelist interprets it, chap, xiv. 16. His version of the whole commission is--"Go ye into all the world, preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned."

      Now, that three things, very different from each other in some essential attribute, are prescribed by the Lord Messiah in this commission, or law of apostolic and ministerial duty in his service, cannot admit of a rational doubt. What these three distinct things were, need scarcely be enumerated. Every reader must observe that they were first to preach the gospel, or make disciples--produce faith. Then they were to baptize them, so instructed into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. In the third place, they were didactically to propound to them, or teach them to observe and practise the Christian ordinances and duties.

      But, as every one will not admit, with entire freedom from prejudice, our interpretation of the law of baptism, I have concluded to collate the views and interpretations of this passage; entertained and taught by distinguished scholars and critics on the Pedobaptist side of this question. They will be heard by many of my readers with more authority and candour than I could claim for myself. Here, then, are a few samples of Pedobaptist interpretations of the law of Christian baptism. They are, for the most part, copied from "Booth's Pedobaptism Examined," a work of very great labour and of distinguished merit:--

      Grotius: "Seeing there are two kinds of teaching, one by way of introduction to the first principles, the other by way of more perfect instruction: the former seems to be intended by the word matheteuin, for that is, as it were, to initiate into discipline, and is to go before baptism; the latter is intended by the word didaskein, which is here placed after baptism." In loc.

      Calvin: "Because Christ requires teaching before baptizing, and will have believers only admitted to baptism, baptism does not seem to be rightly administered, except faith precede. Under this pretence, the Anabaptists have loudly clamoured against Pedobaptism." In Harm. Evang. Comment. ad loc. [221]

      Dr. Barrow: "What the action itself enjoined is, what the manner and form thereof, is apparent by the words of our Lord's institution: Going forth, saith he, teach, or disciple, all nations, baptizing them. The action is baptizing or immersing in water; the object thereof, those persons, of any nation, whom his ministers can, by their instruction and persuasion, render disciples; that is, such as do sincerely believe the truth of his doctrine, and seriously resolve to obey his commandments." Works, vol. i. p. 518, edit. 1722.

      Saurin: "In the primitive church, instruction preceded baptism, agreeably to the order of Jesus Christ; 'Go, teach all nations, baptizing them.' . . . Thus, likewise, we understand St. Peter, when he says, that the baptism which saves us, is 'not the putting away the filth of the flesh; but the answer of a good conscience.' The answer of a good conscience, is that account which the catechumen gives of his faith and knowledge. Whence it came to pass, that the ancients usually called a baptized person, one that was illuminated." Serm. tom. i. pp. 301, 302. Le Haye edit. 3d.

      Vossius: 'Respecting adults, it is required that they be taught the Christian religion and profess it, before they be baptized; for this the very institution of baptism teaches, (Matt. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15, 16.) We are taught the same thing by the practice of John the Baptist, and of the Apostles, (Matt. iii. 1, 2; Luke iii. 3; Acts ii. 38, 41.)" Disput. de Bap. disput. xii. § 3.

      Dr. Doddridge: "I render the word matheeteusate, proselyte, that it may be duly distinguished from didaskontes, teaching, (in the next verse,) with which our version confounds it. The former seems to import instruction in the essentials of religion, which it was necessary adult persons should know and submit to, before they could regularly be admitted to baptism; the latter may relate to those more particular admonitions in regard to Christian faith and practice, which were to be built on that foundation." Note on the place.

      Limborch: "They could not make disciples, unless by teaching. By that instruction, disciples were brought to the faith before they were baptized, (Mark xiv. 15, 16.)" Instit. 1. v. c. lxvii. § 7.

      Dr. Whitby: "Matheteuin here, is 'to preach the gospel to all nations,' and to engage them to believe it, in order to their profession of that faith by baptism: as seems apparent, (1) From the parallel commission, Mark xvi. 15, 'Go, preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.' (2) From the Scripture notion of a disciple, that being still the same as a believer. . . . If here it should be said that I yield too much to the Anti-pedobaptists, by saying, that to be made disciples here is to be taught to believe in Christ; I desire [222] any one to tell me how the Apostles could matheteuin, make a disciple of a heathen or an unbelieving Jew, without being mathetai or teachers of them; whether they were not sent to preach to those that could hear, and to teach them to whom they preached, that 'Jesus was the Christ,' and only to baptize them when they did believe this." Annotat. on the place.

      Venema: "'Go' says our Lord to the Apostles, 'teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' This is an excellent passage, and explains the whole nature of baptism. Before persons were baptized, it was necessary for them to believe the preaching of the Apostles, which faith they were to profess in baptism. For the word matheteuin, in the style of the New Testament, does not signify barely to admit into a school and instruction; but to admit after the doctrine is believed, and after a previous subjection to the school." Dissertat. Sac. 1. ii. c. xiv. § 6.

      Mr. Baxter: "Go, disciple me all nations, baptizing them. As for those that say they are discipled by baptizing, and not before baptizing, they speak not the sense of that text; nor that which is true or rational, if they mean it absolutely as so spoken: else, Why should one be baptized more than another? . . . . This is not like some occasional historical mention of baptism; but it is the very commission of Christ to his Apostles for preaching and baptizing, and purposely expresseth their several works, in their several places and order. Their first task is by teaching, to make disciples, who are, by Mark, called believers. The second work is to baptize them, whereto is annexed the promise of their salvation. The third work is to teach them all other things, which are afterwards to be learned in the school of Christ. To contemn this order, is to renounce all rules of order; for, where can we expect to find it, if not here? I profess my conscience is fully satisfied from this text, that it is one sort of faith, even saving, that must go before baptism, and the profession whereof the minister must expect." Disputat. of Right to Sac. pp. 91, 149, 150.

      It would be superfluous to add any thing farther, either in development or in proof of the fact that the Lawgiver and King of Zion did command his Apostles to first preach the gospel to every nation, in order to the conversion of the people; then to baptize those who believed; and, in the last place, to teach them to observe and do all things whatsoever he commanded them. In the judgment of those learned and candid Pedobaptists just now quoted, with whose judgment we fully concur, the Evangelist Mark gives the full substance and meaning of Matthew's version of the law of baptism, in quoting the sense rather than [223] the words spoken. "Go ye into all the world; preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth it, and is baptized, shall be saved; and he that believeth it not shall be damned." The word, indeed, must be spoken before it can be heard; it must be heard and understood before it can be believed; it must be believed before it can be obeyed; and it must be obeyed before it can be enjoyed. It is not in the power of angels or of men to change this order of things. Hence, no one can enjoy the benefits of Christian baptism that receives it in any other way than that suggested in his divine law. On the authority of the Apostle Matthew and the Evangelist Mark, we conclude, that the express will and command of the Lord Jesus Christ is, that none but an intelligent professing believer of the apostolic gospel is a fit and lawful subject of Christian baptism.

      Our second argument is drawn from the divinely-recorded practice of the Apostles, to whom this commission was given while they were employed in executing it. There is one historical book in the sacred writings of the Christian Institution that records the acts and deeds of the Apostles under this commission. Luke the Evangelist is the author of that book of the ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. To it, then, we shall look for a matter of fact exposition of the sense in which the Apostles understood the commission.

      In the first chapter of this book of Apostolic acts, we are informed, that the Messiah himself, in person, immediately before his ascension, gave them specific directions where to commence and whither to proceed, into all the world, in preaching the gospel to the whole human family. He commands them to begin at Jerusalem; thence to proceed through Judea; thence to Samaria, and thence to the uttermost parts of the earth. Now, a few examples of this mode of procedure in discharging these duties will fully demonstrate how they understood the divine precept under which they acted. We shall, then, examine a few cases.

      On Pentecost, Peter first preached the Christian gospel as developed and consummated by the resurrection, ascension, and glorification of the Lord Messiah. Thousands heard him, were convicted of guilt, and sued for mercy. They asked him what they should do. His response is most apropos to the question propounded--"Repent and be baptized, every one of you," said he. He does not say, "Be baptized and repent;" but, "Repent [224] and be baptized, every one of you:" Here, there appears to be a strict conformity to the Baptist John in his "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins."

      But still more definite and precise the historian in narrating who were that day baptized. "Then," says Luke, "they that gladly received his word were baptized." None else--not one; for so the words imply. He could not have said that they who gladly received his word were baptized if infants and persons not professing to have received it had been baptized. He ought in that case to have said, that they who gladly received his word, with all their families, were baptized. Then we should have had no objections to baptizing those who neither gladly receive the word nor profess to have received it.

      Passing from Jerusalem to Samaria, at which place we have the second report of Christian baptism, we find Philip, acting the evangelist, preaching the gospel to the people of Samaria. They hear him with candour, and multitudes believe. "When," says Luke, "they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women."² "Then Simon himself believed also, and when he was baptized he continued with Philip," &c. This is the whole report of preaching the gospel and of baptizing in Samaria. It is, then, indisputably evident, from the narrative, that Philip interpreted the commission as we have done; or, what is the same thing, he followed the example of Peter in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, who, doubtless, infallibly so understood it. None but "believing men and women" were baptized by Philip. Had there been children or babes baptized, he would, certainly, have specified them when going into the details of "men and women." But they are excluded not only by the omission of adding to the men and women the word children; but by giving to them the reputation of believing men and women. Had the historian only said, "When they heard Philip preaching the gospel, they were baptized, men, women, and children," there would have been, at least, some plausibility in pleading for the baptism of babes. Even then, however, it would have been incumbent on any one pleading for infant baptism from such language, to prove that these children, who are classed among them that heard the gospel, were speechless [225] babes. But, as it is, there is not the slightest ground to plead for infant subjects of baptism, from any precept, precedent, hint, or allusion, that could warrant such a practice, from any thing which as yet occurred in Jerusalem, Judea, or Samaria. We shall, then, next proceed with the Evangelist Philip to another field of labour.

      We next find him preaching in the desert to a political grandee, the treasurer of an Ethiopian queen--a gentleman, no doubt, of distinguished moral character. We have the narrative of this baptism in the same chapter with that of the Samaritan people. He solicited baptism, after hearing Philip preach the gospel from the Prophet Isaiah. Being a Jew, by nation, he was well read in the Prophets; and, so soon as his doubts and difficulties were removed, he desired to submit to the Lord. We hold the report of his baptism peculiarly important in this discussion; not because he was a well-educated adult believer of the gospel, but because of the answer given to him from the Evangelist Philip, on his demanding baptism--What hinders, or what should hinder my being baptized, Philip? Nothing, virtually responds the preacher, but the want of faith. "I believe, sir," said he, "that Jesus is the Son of God." Then he baptized him. This is a very striking proof that a profession of faith is, in all cases, essential to the reception of Christian baptism. Had not the question been thus formally propounded and responded to, there might have been some suspicion concerning the proper qualification of the subject of baptism. Now, as there is one baptism that makes faith an essential prerequisite, it lies upon those who assume a baptism without faith, to prove that there are two baptisms--one requiring faith, and one requiring flesh only in the subject.

      The next case of baptism reported in the history of the labours of the Apostles, is that of Saul of Tarsus. We need not prove that he was a believing subject. This case is circumstantially narrated in the ninth chapter of this book. "Arise, brother Paul, and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord."³ "And he arose and was baptized." This is a baptism that indicates faith, repentance, and a desire to honour the Lord, on the part of him who solicits it.

      A case, that comes nearer to us than any other, is reported in [226] the tenth chapter of this book. It is the conversion of the Gentiles. Cornelius and his family, his kindred and friends, were assembled at Cesarea, and the Apostle Peter is especially sent to open to them the kingdom of God. A more attentive and more deeply-interested audience never, we presume, assembled, than the first Gentile auditory. Peter opened to them the door of faith. While he spoke the word to them all, the Holy Spirit fell upon them all. They all spoke in foreign tongues. They all, of course, believed; and were all baptized by the authority of Peter.

      Some seven years are now passed away, since the commission was given to the Apostles. In the mean time, great multitudes have been converted. Myriads have been immersed in Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. The Gentiles, too, are visited, and many of them believed and are baptized: but, as yet, not one word, allusion, or reference, that could lead any one to imagine that an infant had been ever thought of as a subject of Christian baptism.

      The next cases of baptism reported are that of a lady of Thyatira; called Lydia, and her family; and that of the Philippian jailor, and his family. In these families, our Pedobaptist friends are peculiarly interested. Having borrowed several Papal traditions from the Roman Church, amongst which is that of infant christening, sometimes called infant baptism, and being, from family associations, desirous to retain them, they seize these two cases with great earnestness, and from them endeavour to extract some authority for this consecrated custom.

      On any subject of importance pertaining to this life, we would not impose upon ourselves so inconsiderately by gratuitous assumptions and fallacious reasonings as in this most important of all subjects--the salvation of our souls--the will of the Lord concerning our duty and happiness. From the beginning of Matthew, down to the sixteenth of the Acts of the Apostles, we have neither precept nor precedent, neither hint nor allusion on the subject of infant baptism. Notwithstanding this, there are some of our Pedobaptist brethren who seek to find a warrant for this tradition at so late a period, and in cases and details that have not a single allusion to it.

      We must, then, candidly examine these two cases. Lydia, it is assumed, was a married lady. It is assumed she had children. It is also assumed that some of her children were infant children. It is also assumed that she had these infant children with her, [227] although three hundred miles from home; for she was now at Philippi on business, her home being at Thyatira. On these four assumptions is the first argument for infant baptism drawn from the four gospels and Acts of Apostles. Now it being much more probable that Lydia was an unmarried rather than a married lady, being a dealer in purple and in ladies' apparel, having with her other females and servants on a journey from home, the chances are all against these four assumptions. What a hypothetical basis for a divine institution! Was there ever a positive ordinance founded upon such assumptions! But the internal evidences are still more fatal to the hypothesis. For she represents herself as a householder and the head of a family. "If," said she to the Apostle and his suite, "you have judged me faithful to the Lord, come into my house and continue there." It was a delicate thing for a Christian lady, most probably a maid, to invite the Apostle and his fellow-travellers to sojourn with her. Hence she places this matter upon Christian grounds. If you have confidence in my devotion to the Lord, make my house your home. They did so, and the sequel shows that her household was composed rather of adults than of infants: for, says Luke, before the Apostle left Philippi, on coming out of jail he visited Lydia's house, and seeing the brethren there he comforted them and departed. There is not, then, by any incident or allusion in this whole affair, the slightest ground for the hypothesis that there was an infant in the household of Lydia.

      The jailor's family is as barren of encouragement and of favour to the patrons of infant baptism, as that of Lydia. His family were all baptized, it is true. But who are they? Infants? That would be worse than a gratuitous assumption: for we are told that before they were baptized he "spake the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house;" and we are again informed that after his baptism and that of his family, the jailor "rejoiced, believing in God with all his family." These declarations negative, in very intelligible terms, the assumption that infants were baptized in the household of the jailor by the authority of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Paul did not preach the gospel to babes, nor did they rejoice, believing in God, because of blessings which they then neither could understand nor receive.

      There yet remain two other cases of baptism reported in the book of the Acts. These are the cases of the baptism of the [228] Corinthians and certain Ephesians. The cases are very obvious. That of the Corinthians is very beautifully told in the following words, when Paul preached in Corinth:--"Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his family; and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized." What a beautiful comment on the saying, "Faith comes by hearing--by hearing the word of the Lord." The Corinthians first heard, then believed, and then were baptized. Without hearing there is no faith, and without faith there is no fitness for baptism, and without the profession of that faith no one can be a fit subject of Christian baptism.

      It is, indeed, unquestionably true, that faith in the heart is essential to the enjoyment of every Christian precept, promise, and covenanted blessing; but faith in the heart unprofessed, or Christ in the heart unconfessed, would not, according to the practical decisions of the Christian Apostles, authorize any pastor, evangelist, or professor to baptize any man or woman. "With the heart man believeth for righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made for salvation." Hence the call upon the candidate--"Dost thou believe?" or "If thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest." The confession elicited by such a formal way of putting the question is--"I believe that Jesus is the Messiah the Son of God." Many of the Corinthians, we are informed heard, believed, and confessed. Now had they not confessed their faith, could either Paul, or Luke, or any one else say that they believed?

      The case of the twelve Ephesians, reported in the 19th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, is very remarkable and worthy of special consideration. These twelve men, when asked "whether they had received the Holy Spirit since they believed," declared that, so far from having received the Holy Spirit, they had not so much as heard that "there was any Holy Spirit." Paul responds--"Into what, then, were you baptized?" "Into John's baptism," they immediately replied. The mystery was then resolved. In the formula of John's baptism there was no Holy Spirit named. But in the Christian baptism there was, for so the commission prescribed. This is a full answer to all that class of speculators who affirm that because Luke does not state that the formula commanded was always pronounced by the Apostles--the Apostles did not baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. They cannot [229] appreciate the difference between baptizing in the name or by the authority of the Lord, and into the name of the Lord or into the name of the holy Spirit.

      The fact here stated, that these Ephesians had not heard of the name of the Holy Spirit, intimates that they had lived remote from the fields cultivated by the Apostles. They had not heard of the affairs of Pentecost, and consequently of Christian baptism. But that does not teach us that they had been baptized during John's ministry, but rather since it had ceased. Hence the necessity of confessing the Lord Jesus, and of being baptized into the new revelation of God, or "into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."⁴ That these twelve Ephesians were now immersed into the name of the Lord Jesus, is unequivocally affirmed. After this, on the imposition of the hands of the Apostles, they received the peculiar gift of that age--they immediately "spake with tongues and prophesied." As rationally and as credibly might any one affirm that these twelve Ephesians were twelve infants, as affirm that there is "in the four gospels or in the Acts of the Apostles" one word or syllable in favour of this Papal assumption. Tradition, and tradition only, and that from no reputable fountain, is the only protection and authority for infant baptism.

      But this is not strong enough. Positive laws imply their negative. If the negative commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," imply thou shalt be honest; or if the positive precept, "Honour thy father and thy mother," is equivalent to thou shalt not dishonour thy father or thy mother, then, to say the least, the law, "If thou believest thou mayest," is equivalent to another law, "If thou believest not thou mayest not be baptized." Hence the Lord promised salvation not to him who is only baptized, but to him who believeth and is baptized.

      The divinely inspired history of the Christian church, down to the 64th year of the Christian era, has now been fully examined, and every case of baptism on record considered. The commission enacted preaching, baptizing, and teaching. The Apostles did accordingly first preach the gospel to every individual whom they baptized. Then they immersed just so many [230] as said they believed the gospel. And, in the last place, taught them what they must do to please the Lord, to comfort their brethren, to convert the world, and to make their own calling and election sure. When the baptized are spoken of, they are represented as hearing the gospel first, then as believing it, and then as being baptized. This is the uniform and immutable practice during the apostolic age.

      In the two households reported in the Acts of Apostles, to which not a few look for countenance and encouragement in their infant baptism, we find not a hint or circumstance looking in that direction. Indeed, so unequivocal is the testimony of these households in favour of believing subjects, and believing subjects only, that all sensible and candid Pedobaptists give them up. A few citations from some eminent critics and commentators on the case of Lydia and that of the jailor may serve as an exponent of the views of the most learned and candid Pedobaptist commentators.

      Dr. Whitby, Acts xvi. 15, Paraphrase: "And when she and those of her household, were instructed in the Christian faith, in the nature of baptism required by it, she was baptized and her household."

      Limborch: "An undoubted argument, therefore, cannot be drawn from this instance, by which it may be demonstrated that infants were baptized by the Apostles. It might be that all in her house were of a mature age who, as in the exercise of a right understanding they believed, so they were able to make a public profession of that faith when they received baptism."

      T. Lawson, referring to this argument, says, "Families may be without children; they may be grown up, &c. So it is a wild inference to ground infant baptism upon."

      Assembly of Divines: "Of the city of Thyatira--a city of Asia--here dwelt Lydia, that devout servant of God." "And entered into the house of Lydia: doubtless to confirm them in the faith which they had preached to them--Lydia and hers, hearing of their miraculous deliverance, could not but be comforted and confirmed in the truth." Annot. on Acts xvi. 14, 40.

      From the same source we quote Doddridge, Matthew Henry, and Calvin, who stand side by side in my library:--

      Doddridge: "Thou shalt be saved and thine house. The meaning cannot be that the eternal salvation of his family could be secured by his faith: but that if they also themselves believed, they should be entitled to the same spiritual and everlasting blessings with himself; which Paul might the rather add, as it [231] is probable that many of them, under this terrible alarm, might have attended the master of the family into the dungeon."

      Matthew Henry: "The voice of rejoicing, with that of salvation, was heard in the jailer's house. He rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house: there was none in his house that refused to be baptized, and so made a jar in the ceremony; but they were unanimous in embracing the gospel, which added much to the joy."

      Calvin. "Luke commends the pious zeal of the jailer, because he dedicated his whole house to the Lord; in which also the grace of God illustriously appeared, because it brought the whole family to a pious consent."

      But I know not whether the candour and justice of these Pedobaptists that make such admissions as those of Doddridge, Henry, Calvin, &c., or the disingenuousness and violence of those commentators, such as Burkett, D'Oyly, and Mant, and who say with Burkett, "Having been so many ages in possession of this privilege, (infant baptism,) we may more reasonably require of the Anabaptists to prove by express Scripture that children [infants he means] were not baptized by the Apostles when they baptized whole families, whole nations according to their commission, than they can require of us to prove that they were." Notes on Acts xvi. 15. This from an Episcopalian commentator--"the Vicar and Lecturer of Dedham"--is no weak proof of the childish imbecility which the advocates of infant baptism are obliged to assume in defence of their tradition. What logician, or lawyer, or common-sense reasoner ever requires his opponent to prove a negative! Instead of proving that there were infants in those houses, he asks those whom he nicknames Anabaptists to prove that there were not infants in them!! Although we have shown from the descriptions given of those families or households, from their hearing the word of the Lord, from their rejoicing in God; and in the case of the household of Stephanie, "the first fruits" or first converts mentioned in the church of Corinth, from their having addicted themselves to "the ministry of the saints," that there could not have been infants in those families, or any one baptized but believers; still it is not in logic, or law, or reason, to ask or compel any one to prove a negative. It is passed into a universal law that the burthen of proof always lies upon him who affirms that there were infants in those families. Should any one place himself upon the estate of a Burkett or a Clark, and occupy his [232] premises for as many years as the centuries of infant baptism or infant communion, and when asked to prove his right or show his title to occupy the estate claimed by his reverence, should say, "Prove, sir, that I have no such right, and then, sir, but not till then, will I give up my possession." I would be pleased to hear with what attitude and tone his Grace would reply, Show me your right, sir; but ask me not to show what you have not got.

      The plea of ancient tradition is the strength of Popery and the weakness of Protestantism. She advocate not ancient, but original Christianity. The plea of high antiquity or tradition has long been the bulwark of error. It cleaves to its beloved mother, TRADITION, hoary Tradition, with an affection that increases as she becomes old and feeble. Errorists of all school:; are exceedingly devout and dutiful so far as the precept "Honour thy father and thy mother" is concerned.

[CBAC 219-233]