why should it be called in question that the jailer's whole fam ily believed, when the fact is, as plainly asserted as in either of the other cases? yea, asserted in the very same terms? It is said of Crispus, that he believed in the Lord with all his house; and of the jailer, that he " rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." The phraseology in both cases is the very same. The fact, then, of the conversion of the whole family, is as positively asserted in the latter case as in the former. If the words. used, with regard to the jailer's family, do not imply that the whole of them believed, the same words used with regard to the family of Crispus, do not imply that the whole of them believed. And if not, what other terms would have conveyed to us the knowledge of the fact, provided it had been real? Surely, no other terms could have been more explicit and positive. So that if we may take the liberty to contradict such testimony as this, we might contradict, or evade, any other whatever. Upon this principle, there is no language but what may be construed, explained away, and evaded, to suit the fancies of men. O, the amazing influence of tradition and prejudice, when so artless, so explicit, and so unequivocal a record of the conversion of a whole family, in the same memorable night, and of their consequent baptism, upon their own personal faith, can be so twisted, shaped, and turned, as to be viewed as an apostolick example of infant baptism! How is it that men of apparent candour, knowledge, and piety, can be so attached to a preconceived opinion, as to overlook this plain and demonstrative evidence of the conversion of this entire family, and of their baptism on their own faith, and still produce this as an apostolick example of the baptism of infants upon the faith of their parent, or head. It is truly surprising to see so many, in the face of all this light, still disposed to say that the jailer was the only one that believed, and that his family were baptized upon his faith!

But leaving them to answer to their own Master, I feel authorized and constrained to say that this instance does not afford the least countenance to the practice of baptizing infants. It is a plain recital of the triumph of divine grace in rescuing a poor sinner from the very jaws of destruction, and in bringing him and his whole family, in one blessed night, to embrace the Lord Jesus Christ by faith, and joyfully to enter his gospel kingdom by baptism. And every man can see this for himself. Nor was it an unusual thing in that remarkable age, for whole families to repent and believe the gospel together, as the instances above cited will conclusively show.

If, therefore, after all which has been said, any will yet insist

that there is no evidence that the jailer's whole family believed and were baptized on a personal profession of faith; but that the family were baptized on his account, we may well despair of giving them conviction.

The third and only remaining instance of the baptism of a household, which is on the records of the New Testament, is contained in I. Cor. i. 16: "And I baptized also the household of Stephanas."

The same course requisite to make out an example of infant baptism in either of the other cases, is requisite also in this; otherwise it gives no support to the practice. But here, also, it cannot be proved that there were infants in the household, and that they were baptized on the faith of Stephanas. Even if there were infants in it, by taking Pedobaptist ground in another case, as already stated, I might fairly dispose of the argument for their baptism.

But there is no necessity for resorting to any such method; for the inspired apostle has given us the character of this family as a family of believers in this very epistle, chap. xvi. 15. "I beseech you, brethren, ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints." This is so plain a declaration that the household were all believers, that Doctor Guise, a strong Pedobaptist, in his paraphrase on the New Testament, consents to take it from the list of examples of infant baptism, and admits that this family "were all adult believers, and so were baptized upon their own personal profession of faith in Christ."

For al

The Doctor undoubtedly states the fact as it is. though the baptism of this family is recorded in the first place. without making any particular mention either of their faith, or of Stephanas' own; yet their character is carefully given afterwards. They were the first fruits, or converts, of Achaia. There is no doubt then, that they were baptized on their own faith. There is not the least intimation that Stephanas first became a convert, and had his family baptized upon his account, and that, some time afterward, they were converted, but the contrary. The date of their conversion was the same as his: they became first fruits in the same sense that he did. The scriptures no where speak of two kinds of first fruits. The apostle could not have used more appropriate language to denote the conversion of the whole family, than that they were the first fruits, or the first disciples, made in that region, and that they had given evidence of their sincerity by ministering to the saints.

These, then, are the only instances recorded in the scriptures of the baptism of a whole household ; and the proof is full and clear in the two last, at least, that they were families of believers; and in the remaining instance, viz. that of Lydia's household, the proof falls very little short, if any, of being positive. To say the least, there is decidedly the greatest probability, from the record itself, leaving out all other considerations, in favour of their all being believers. So that although it does not belong to me to prove that there were not infants in these families, but that they consisted wholly of adult believers, but to the Pedobaptists to prove that there were infants in them, and that they were baptized on the faith of their respective heads; yet I am able to furnish such proof, clearly and decidedly in two cases out of the three, and in the third it is nearly, if not quite, positive. At any rate, the greatest probability is in favour of this being a family of believers. So that it utterly fails of being an example of infant baptism.

Even if I were not able to prove that there were no infants in these families, so long as the Pedobaptists cannot prove that there were, they are of no advantage to their cause. In that case, they furnish no proof either for or against infant baptism. And hence the matter is left just where the commission and all the other recorded examples leave it, altogether in favour of believers' baptism, and that only.

I have now, therefore, evinced the assertion that the apostles practised the baptism of infants to be utterly unfounded. The three instances above examined furnish no evidence of any such thing. And there are no other; nor is there any thing else which furnishes this evidence, as I shall still more fully make to appear. The scriptures evidently guard against any inference being drawn from the facts and circumstances related, in favour of this practice.

CHAPTER IX.

The right of believers only to baptism confirmed by the constitution of the Apostolick Churches.

Ir is abundantly evident that the churches formed by the Apostles were societies of believers--select companies called out of the world by means of the gospel, through the accompanying power of the Holy Ghost; and professing gospel obedience. Hence the notion of infant-membership in the New Testament church, is without foundation. The constitution of the primitive churches forbids the idea of infants being born in the church, or of their being admitted into it by baptism upon the faith of their parents. This would make them, at once, to consist of professed disciples and acknowledged unbelievers; whereas the scriptures represent them as a household of faith-select companies of Christians, or brethren in Christ.

I have already shown that our Lord collected and baptized a company of disciples during his life, which was the origin of the New Testament church.

There was a company of disciples, at least an hundred and twenty, convened together at Jerusalem on the day of pentecost, to whom the three thousand were added on that day: and these three thousand were such as were awakened under Peter's sermon, and "gladly received his word." They were converts, as all will allow; such as appeared and professed to be cordial believers in Jesus as the Messiah. And those which were daily added to the church were "such as should be saved," or the saved, as the phrase might have been rendered, denoting that they were renewed persons, or at least, were so considered. And there is no mention of any other than believers being added.

And thus things went on. We soon read that “" many of them which heard the word believed, and the number of the men was about five thousand." Then we read of the "multitude of them that believed, who were of one heart and of one soul." Then again, that "believers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women," But no men

tion is made, in all these accounts, of any infants being added by baptism on their parents' account.

The history continues the same through the whole book of Acts. The Samaritan church consisted of those "who believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ," and who" were baptized, both men and women." The first Gentile church which was formed by Peter at Cesarea, consisting of Cornelius and his household and friends, were such as "received the Holy Ghost," spake with tongues, and magnified God." The church at Antioch, which was at first composed of Grecians, or Hellenist Jews, i. e. of Jews who spoke the Greek language, consisted of such as "believed and turned unto the Lord." They were such as were" added unto the Lord"-" disciples who were called Christians first in that place." So the word of God expressly describes them. And there is no difference in the subsequent accounts of the formation of churches. There is not the least hint given of any being received but those who were reputed believers.

And, in the epistles which were afterwards written to particular churches, and some to the church at large, the same character is given of the members. They are described and addressed as societies of believers, or renewed persons. For example, the inscription to the church of Rome is in these words: "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints." To the church at Corinth it is this: "Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours." To the Ephesians he writes thus: "To the saints which are at Ephesus, and the faithful in Christ Jesus." And to the Philippians thus: "To all the saints which are at Philippi: I thank my God upon every remembrance of vou-for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now-being confident of this very thing that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." St. Peter inscribes his first Epistle" to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Capadocia, Asia, and Bythinia, elect, according to the fore-knowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ."

These inscriptions afford a correct sample of the manner in which all the primitive churches were addressed. They were expressly written to, and described as Christian societies, not in the modern lax sense of the phrase, but in a peculiar and restricted sense, as societies of persons professing to be the children and