this, the apostle asked, "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ?" i. e. Can any of my Jewish brethren object to the baptism of these Gentile converts, seeing God has owned them by giving them the Holy Ghost? But here is not a single word about the baptism of any, whether old or young, who had not received the Holy Ghost. This is mentioned as the ground on which their claim rested.

The planting of the church at Corinth perfectly accords with the preceding. It proceeds as follows, "And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed, and were baptized." ACTS XVIII. 8. Not a word do we find as yet of the baptism of infants.

But there are two or three households mentioned, is it not likely there were some infants in them? These certainly bid fairest to furnish the desired information. It will be remembered, however, that we have just mentioned one household, which, we are informed, were all believers, and therefore not infants. Although nothing directly is said of their baptism, unless they are included with the other Corinthians.

The next account of baptism, is the jailor and his family. This man, it appears, had in his custody Paul and Silas, whom he had put into the inner prison, and secured in the stocks. At midnight, they prayed and sung praises. God heard them, and answered their prayers by an extraordinary earthquake, which opened all the prison doors. The affrighted jailor, waking out of sleep, and finding the doors all open, and supposing the prisoners had availed themselves of this opportunity to escape, drew out his sword with a view to kill himself. Paul prevented him, by declaring that the prisoners were all quiet.. The jailor, convicted in his own conscience by the Spirit of God, fell at the feet of Paul and Silas, and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved and all thy house :" That is, thy household

also, if they believe, shall be saved: for no one will suppose that the jailor's family could be saved in unbelief, any more than others. The account proceeds, "And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night and washed (not baptized) their stripes, and was baptized, he and all his straightway. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." If this passage were not specially wanted to countenance infant baptism, no one would dispute this household's being all believers any more than they would the household of Crispus, mentioned above. The whole account, without the least torturing, is in perfect agreement with our views of gospel order. The word was first spoken to the jailor and to all in his house. It is said, he believed in God with all his house, and they were all baptized.. They were all fit subjects of the ordinance according to our sentiments.. I should rejoice to baptize such. households at any time.

Our Pædobaptist brethren suppose there were infauts in the jailor's household, and reason from this supposition as though it were an admitted fact. But on what ground is this supposition supported? I know not, unless it be on this, that it is common in some families to have infants.. Hence they suppose there were some here. I suppose there were none; and have been brought to this conclusion from the following reasons. 1. There are none mentioned : this alone is sufficient to destroy any supposition to the contrary. 2. The apostle spake the word to all that were in the house: it is highly improbable that any would be collected on this midnight occasion who were incapable of understanding the word. 3. It is expressly said he believed in God, with all his house. No piece of sacred history, without special, manage, ment, would look, with more forbidding aspect upon infant baptism than this. The pains that have been taken to render this passage subservient to the baptism of unbelievers, must excite a strong suspicion that its

advocates are hardly pushed, and that they find the scriptures exceedingly barren of any positive proof of the point.

1

In the same chapter we have an account of the conversion and baptism of Lydia. The subject is treated with great brevity; yet the incidents related are sufficient to direct us in forming a correct judgment of the transaction.

On the Sabbath day, Paul and his companions went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made probably to a Proseucha, or place where devout people collected for prayer. Here he spake to the women that resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us. ACTS XVI. 13, 14. But what is there here to support infant baptism? Nothing more than merely that a household is mentioned.

But neither husband nor children make any part of the account. Who Lydia's household were we are left to conjecture, excepting that it is said in the 40th verse: "And they went out of the prison, (that is, Paul and Silas,) and entered into the house of Lydia : and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them, and departed." There is the greatest reason to conclude, that these were the persons baptized with Lydia, and probably, persons in her employ. This appears the more probable, as she is represented as still belonging to Thyatira, but who was led by her commercial concerns, to reside, a part of her time at least, in the city of Philippi. Further the scripture saith not.

I have designedly omitted giving any particular account of the baptism of Paul; because no one disputes his being a real convert at the time of his baptism; and as no one was baptized with him, it is

impossible that it should afford any pretence for infant baptism. Nor do I conceive that any argument can be drawn from what is mentioned in the 19th of Acts, respecting some of John's disciples, with whom Paul met at Ephesus. Whether these were re-baptized or not, does not affect the argument, either as it respects the subjects or mode. They are said to be men, and not babes. The question respecting them was not whether they were believers, or whether they had been properly baptized; but whether they had received the Holy Ghost since they believed!

I have now, my dear Friend, placed before you all the instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament, during the ministry of Christ and his apostles; a space of nearly thirty years. And not a single instance is to be found in this whole history, of the baptism of an infant. Had these apostles been of the same sentiments of our Pædobaptist brethren, would they not, in giving an account of their planting churches, and frequently baptizing, have somewhere mentioned children? To me, it is morally certain that they would. To satisfy you, however, that I have some reason for this opinion, you will permit me to introduce two or three extracts from their journals; and you will then see whether they agree with those given by the apostles, which we have been considering.

My first extract shall be from the journal of the late Rev. David Brainerd. It is as follows: "Lord's day, July 21, 1745, I baptized my interpreter, and wife. July 26, baptized my interpreter's children.

-Lord's day, Nov. 3, I baptized 14 persons of the Indians, 6 adults, and 8 children. Nov. 4, baptized a child this day.- -I have now baptized 47 persons of the Indians, 23 adults, and 24 children." far Mr. Brainerd. Had we found any thing like this in the Acts of the Apostles, the dispute would be at an end.

Thus

I will now present you with an extract of a later date. This I take from a communication made to the Congregational Massachusetts Missionary Society. It is dated Haverhill, Oct. 29, 1804. "Yesterday I

returned home from my mission to the new settlements, in the North Western parts of the State of New York; have been out upward of 17 weeks: during which time, I rode 1320 miles, preached 88 sermons, administered the Lord's supper 5 times, baptized 35 children," &c.* These may serve as a general specimen of their journals.

We should suppose it impossible, for any one to compare these accounts with those given by the apostles, and not be struck with the manifest difference between them. If both parties proceeded alike, how can this difference be accounted for? Or, if indeed the apostles baptized children, what possible reason can be assigned for their neglecting ever to mention it? Is not the very supposition of such neglect an impeachment of their integrity? Especially, as they were appointed by Christ, to plant churches, and set in order the things that were wanting; and as their conduct in this respect was to be considered as a model for all succeeding ages?

But if there be no mention of infant baptism in the scriptures, you will ask, why is it then practised ?> And on what ground do any attempt to defend it? I answer, they infer it from what is called in the New Testament the covenant of circumcision. This covenant is found at large in the 17th chapter of Genesis. By this covenant, Abraham was commanded to circumcise himself when he was 99 years old; and also to circumcise all the males of his house, without any regard to their moral or religious characters. The extent of this requirement may be seen in the words following. VERSES 11, 12, 13, 14." And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child of your generations; he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger,

* Mass. Miss. Magazine, pages 245, 246. † Acts vii. & Isaac, the heir of promise, was not yet born.