was, and so it is still. But when he improved the condition of his flock, and shed new light and joy around them, he changed the mark of circumcision, for baptism; and commanded his ministers to proselyte all nations, baptizing them. And the new mark, baptism, is of no higher character than the other was. Circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, and baptism has no higher character.

But if the Lord is a God to his people now, in a sense as high and holy as he was to Abraham and Israel-if his people are now interested in the righteousness, of faith, of which circumcision was a seal-and if God has not broken the covenant connexion between them and their children, and their children and himself, then, this covenant connexion is strong, and we have no right to break it their right to the token, or seal, of the covenant, is good, and we have no right to withhold it from them.

Hence, it clearly appears, that it must have been very plain to the apostles, and may be very plain to us, that baptism, the token or seal of God's gracious and everlasting covenant, should be applied to the infants of God's believing covenanting people. This will further appear, if we consider,

18. The apostles well knew, that God had declared, that when he should multiply, and glorify his people, their children should be as aforetime.

Their children should be as aforetime, so far as God did not direct to the contrary. Aforetime, they were included in the covenant of God with his people, and the token of the covenant belonged to them, and was applied to them, by the command of God. This was a great privilege, one which the Scriptures teach us, profited much every way. The days of the Gospel, are, especially, the season in which God multiplies and glorifies his people. And as the apostles knew, that the Scriptures did not set children aside from the privileges, and token of the covenant, although the token was changed, therefore, they must also know, that, in these respects, the children should be as aforetime. If the apostles knew these things, it must have been very plain to them, and may be to us, that baptism, the token of the covenant, should be applied to the infants of believers in covenant with God.

But this will appear still more evident, if we consider, 19. Baptism was in use before the days of our Saviour.

Although baptism was in use before, it was not called Christian baptism, till since. Just as good people existed before, but were not called Christians till since. That baptism was in use before the days of our Saviour, we have not only the testimony of many human authors, but we have the unerring testimony of the word of God. Saint Paul, speaking by inspiration of God, plainly tells us, that the Jews had (Diaphorois Baptismois)* di

1 Cor. x. 2.

Exod.

John i. 25.

vers baptisms. And the same apostle tells us that the Israelites were all baptized,† when they passed through the sea, on dry ground. Morexiv. 21,22. over, the question put to John, by the priests and Levites whom the Jews sent to inquire who he was, shows that baptism was no new thing. They ask him; "Why baptizest thou then if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" It clearly appears from this question, that the priests and Levites were well acquainted with baptism. For they do not ask John, "What meanest thou by this new ceremony?" But " Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet?" Baptism then was certainly in use, before the words of our text were spoken. And as our Saviour did not mention either infants, or adults, particularly, but used the word nations, which includes all ages, he could not be understood, by the apostles, to exclude any from baptism, who had before, been the subjects of it. But the apostles would naturally understand, that they should baptize adults only, or adults, and infants also, according to the practice of the church and nation to which they belonged, so far as Christ did not direct them to the contrary. If it were the former practice of their church and nation to exclude infants from baptism, they would, of course, exclude them from Christian baptism. But on the other hand, if it * Greek Testament, Heb. ix. 10.

The Israelites took their little ones with them when they left Egypt, but whether they had any at the time of their baptism in the sea, the Scriptures do not tell us.

Dr. Lathrop's Disc., page 42.

was not the practice of their church and nation to exclude infants from baptism, they would not do it, unless they were particularly directed to. The practice of the church and ecclesiastical body, with which they were well acquainted, and to which they belonged, would have the same influence, in determining the meaning of their commission, as the practice of the church and ecclesiastical body, to which missionaries belong, has, in determining the meaning of their commission. The apostles were missionaries. But what is this influence which a former practice has, on a commission of our missionaries to the heathen? It determines the meaning of their commission, in regard to the PROPER SUBJECTS of baptism.

A Baptist minister is commissioned to go and preach the Gospel to the heathen, and administer the ordinances, baptism, and the Lord's supper. And he concludes, at once, that it is according to his commission, to exclude infants from baptism. But why does he so conclude? because this was the practice of the whole religious body to which he belonged, and he knows, if they had intended any alteration in favor of baptizing infants, they would have mentioned it, particularly, in this commission. But as no alteration of this kind is mentioned, he firmly believes, that no such alteration was intended. Though no age, or sex, is particularly mentioned, he considers his commission directing him to baptize adults only, according to former practice.

But a missionary who is not a Baptist-one who has grown up amidst the practice of baptizing infants, and understands the duty, and knows it to be practised by the church, and ecclesiastical body, to which he belongssuch a missionary, when he is commissioned to go and preach the Gospel to the heathen, and administer the ordinances, baptism, and the Lord's supper, understands, that he is to baptize infants. Indeed, he has no doubt, that it is according to his commission to baptize them.But why? Because it is the practice of his brethren, in that religious connexion to which he belongs.

When I was ordained as an evangelist, the charge which I received, contained this direction; "Administer baptism and the Lord's supper to proper subjects." By this I understood, that I was to baptize infants. The

religious connexion to which I belong have always practised it. And when I received my commission to go forth as an evangelist, I understood that it included the duty of infant baptism, because that commission did not direct me not to baptize them. These were the circumstances in which I received my commission, and this is the manner in which I understood it. Missionaries to the heathen receive their commission, in the same circumstances, and understand it in the same manner. The apostles received their commission in like circumstances, and must have understood it in like manner. They were Jews, and they received their commission from a Jew. He directed them to administer baptism to proper subjects. The religious connexion to which they belonged, and in which they had been educated, applied the token of the covenant to infants. Hence, though the token was changed, they would naturally conclude, it was to be applied to infants still, if they were not told otherwise, Moreover, the religious connexion to which they belonged, and in which they had been educated, considered infants proper subjects of baptism, before it was adopted as the token of the covenant. And Christ, when he commanded them to baptize, did not tell them not to baptize infants. But as the Jews understood language, he directed his apostles to baptize infants. By proselytes, the Jews understood infants as well as their parents. They called infants proselytes. And Christ commanded his disciples to proselyte all nations, baptizing them. This certainly means, that the proselytes should be baptized. I will now prove, that the Jews baptized their proselytes, and exhibit further proof that they considered infants proselytes, and baptized them. On this subject, I now bring forward the following witnesses.

Dr. Rees. "We find it to have been the custom of the Jews solemnly to baptize, as well as to circumcise, all their proselytes. As their writers treat largely of the reasons for this rite, and give no hint of its being a novel institution, it is probable, that this had always been the custom antecedent to the time of Moses, whose account of the rite of circumcision, and of the manner of performing it, is by no means circumstantial. The Jewish writers, without one dissenting voice, allow the fact, that the

practice of Jewish baptism obtained before and at as well as after, our Saviour's time. There is also a strong intimation, even in the Gospel itself, of such a known practice among the Jews in the time of John the Baptist. John i. 25. The testimonies of the Jewish writers are of the greater weight, because the practice, reported by them to have been of so ancient a date, did still remain among them; for if it had not been of that antiquity to which it pretends, viz. before the time of Christ, it is not likely that it would ever have become a custom among the Jews afterwards. Would they begin to proselyte persons to their religion by baptism, in imitation of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they held accursed? And yet, if this proselyte baptism were adopted by the Jews since the time of Christ, it must have been a mere innovation in imitation of Christians, which is not very likely.'

Pirie. "The infants of proselytes were also baptized both male and female." To prove this statement, Pirie brings forward passages from the writings of the Jewsthe gemara, the Glosse, and the celebrated Jew, Maimonides. "Says the gemara; They baptize the little proselyte: and the Glosse adds, that the rulers of the consistory take care of it. So also Maimonides; They baptize the infant, or little stranger."+ See the following also from

Maimonides. "In all ages whensoever any gentile was willing to enter into the covenant, and to be gathered under the wings of the Shechinah, and to undertake the yoke of the law, he was bound to have circumcision, and baptism, and a peace offering; and if it were a woman, baptism and sacrifice. Baptism was in the desert before the giving of the law. If an Israelite take a gentile child, or find a gentile infant, and baptize him in the name of a proselyte, behold, he is a proselyte."+

Talmud of Babylon. (A book highly valued by the Jews.) "Any male child of a proselyte, under the age of thirteen years and a day, and any female, under the age of twelve years and a day, was baptized as an infant, at the request, and by the assent of the father, or the authority of the council."

* Dr. Rees' New Cyclopædia, in article Baptism.

+ Pirie's Dissertation on Baptism, pages 101, 102, 103. As quoted by Fisher and others.