should not be baptised. We regard the minister as having no right to withhold the sign from those who are declared by Christ to possess the thing signified. We can deny baptism only for the same reason which would have justified a Jewish Priest in refusing to circumcise.

The commission given by Christ to his disciples, has been considered as excluding infants. We take just the opposite view. In that commission the Saviour says nothing respecting the age, sex, intellectual character, or moral state of the subject of baptism. He does indeed assert, that he who believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved;" but he does not say, "Believe and be baptised,” implying that belief is an essential condition of baptism. The only thing which the Saviour mentions as a condition of baptism, is, that the subject shall be a disciple. "Go gather disciples, baptising them, and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." This is the form of the commission. According to this, it is the duty of the minister first to ascertain who ought to be regarded as disciples; next, publicly to recognise their relation to the Church by the rite of baptism; then, to instruct them in all the doctrines and duties of the gospel, inculcating this great truth, that whatever may be a person's outward and visible relation to the kingdom of God, unbelief will exclude him from heaven. This is the order as stated by the sacred historian; and no one who demands express scripture warrant upon the subject, can complain if we insist that the commission ought to be executed in the precise manner pointed out by Christ.

As to the question, who were to be regarded as his disciples, the apostles could have had no difficulty whatever. They knew that when a Pagan became a proselyte to Judaism, he and his children became disciples of Moses, and that both parents and children must receive the seal of the covenant. They had been expressly taught that the Christian Church was founded upon the prophets, as well as the apostles, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone of both dispensations; they had heard the Saviour declare that the children of believers belonged to the kingdom of God, and unless they had been specially instructed not to regard the children of proselytes to the Christian faith as disciples of Christ, they would of course have received and baptised them as coming evidently within their commission. It is

vain to say, that infants are not mentioned. Adults are not mentioned: believers are not mentioned: sanctified persons are not mentioned: disciples only are pointed out as the proper subjects of baptism. And that the infant children of professed believers are as truly disciples of Christ, as the children of proselytes under the ancient dispensation were disciples of Moses, is perfectly plain. Who is a disciple? One who already possesses an adequate knowledge of all the peculiarities of the Christian system? Matthew when called from his table had not such knowledge. One who has been converted by the Spirit of God? Simon Magus was called a disciple, while in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity; and John called many of those whom he had baptised as disciples, a generation of vipers. One who will finally be saved? Many of Christ's disciples, when they came to understand the fundamental doctrines of his religion, or rather the full development of the system under which they were born, went back and walked no more with him. By a disciple we understand one who is received into the school of Christ, to enjoy its privileges, and to be trained up in the knowledge and service of God; one who is publicly and solemnly set apart for the purpose of being regularly taught all things whatsoever Christ has commanded us. The word disciple, or scholar, does not mark the degree of knowledge already attained, but the relation which a person sustains to his instructer, as the word slave does not indicate the age or strength of the individual, but the fact that, according to a certain law or custom, he is regarded as belonging to a master. Why may not an infant be a disciple of Christ? What is there in his condition or character which shuts him out from that institution which God has organized for the instruction and salvation of the world? Infants may be slaves on the ground that their parents are in bondage; infants were disciples of Moses in virtue of their parents' connexion with the Jewish Church; infants may be, and are included in a variety of provisions made for the promotion of the public good, and why should the kingdom of God be thought so narrow that it can extend its privileges only to adult professors, to the utter exclusion of their children? If it be so, then Christ in sending out his apostles to preach the gospel to all nations, reversed the plan which God adopted in the original organization of the Church,

and which he declared should be perpetual. He has violated the principle upon which human society is divinely constituted, and abandoned one of the most powerful means of enlarging the bounds and securing the perpetuity of the Church.

That the Apostles, acting with a full knowledge of their master's views and wishes, baptised the children of believers, is, we think, beyond a reasonable doubt. The instances of household baptism of which we have accounts in the New Testament, are too numerous and too plain to be rendered consistent with a denial of our doctrine. And their example in this respect, was followed by the whole Church for more than fifteen centuries, without an objection having been made against the practice, except such as were grounded upon some violent perversion of scripture or common sense. We say without any fear of contradiction, that the CHURCH has ALWAYS practiced infant baptism. It was not instituted by councils, but was enjoined from the beginning. It is from heaven, and not of men, and as much belongs to the constitution of the Church, as public worship, or the religious education of children. The doctrine that none but believing adults are proper subjects of baptism, is a recent error, and the badge of a new sect, which though now large and respectable, is but a small fraction of the Church.

There was therefore no need of the protestation with which Mr. Adams commences his book. So far is he from assuming a sectarian position, that standing upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets-the new and the old dispensations-Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, he is contending in a spirit eminently catholic, for the faith once delivered to the saints; and is with praiseworthy diligence, endeavouring to bring all Christians back to the primitive simplicity and purity of their holy religion. The "Baptized Child" is no more sectarian than the Bible from which it derives its doctrine and its spirit. The influence of this book will not be to "exalt a rite above its proper place as a means of religious benefit, or to make it a reason of schism;" but to take from the Spirit of Christ, the bond of a baptism truly sectarian, and to bring all who receive the gospel, and are anxious to fulfill all righteousness, into that unity of doctrine and practice with respect to the children of the Church, which is essential to the existence and perpetuity of true religion.

Mr. Adams, as has been said, attempts to develope the great principle of God's government in which infant baptism is grounded, or to use his own words:

"The object of this book is to show that the practice of infant baptism tends 'to promote parental faithfulness, and the early sanctification of children. The motive in preparing it, is, to assist those who practice the rite to do it with a full sense of its meaning and importance, and to see the beauty and use of the ordinance. The title of the book might be in part, THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF INFANT BAPTISM as a reasonable and scriptural service."

The

The motive here assigned, will, without doubt, be duly appreciated by Christian parents, and the design, which is very happily conceived-is executed in a manner which must, we think, be quite satisfactory to every reader. Certainly we have never seen the internal evidence of this ordinance exhibited with so much power and effect. following brief reference to the contents of the book, will show the variety and interest of its topics. The birth of an infant-The proportion of deaths in infancy, and the evidence that they are saved-The presentation of an infant for baptism-The beauty and power of infant baptism in heathen lands. The meaning of the ordinance, and what is implied on the part of the parents-The feelings of a parent in retiring from baptism-Principles in the treatment and education of a baptized child-The influence of baptism on parental conduct-The benefits of infant baptism to parents and children-Restriction of infant baptism to the children of believers-on being re-baptized-The mode of baptismthe authority for infant baptism-The relation of baptized children to the Church-The influence of a right observance of this practice in the conversion of the world.

In the developement of his ideas upon these topics, Mr. Adams makes it appear very plain, that the public consecration of children to God in baptism, is a reasonable service, and admirably fitted to promote the end for which the Church was organized. We do not see how any Christian who reads this book with a candid mind, and with a desire to know and to peform his duty, can justify himself in renouncing this practice, even if, as some presume to assert there is nothing but internal evidence to support it. It seems to us, that with regard to a practice which evidently grows out of the grand principle upon

which God originally founded his Church,-which is obviously essential to the unity and perpetuity of his kingdom upon earth, which is perfectly fitted to bind parents and children with new ties to the cause of Christ,-which is adapted to secure the early conversion of the children of the Church, which is confessedly congenial with the deepest and the purest feelings of the renewed heart,-which is inconsistent with no principle upon which the important concerns of human society are conducted,-which has been practised in all ages, and by the great body of believers in all nations, the proper and only question is, has God any where in his word forbidden it? If he has not, we are authorized to adopt it. There is a divine warrant in the nature and tendency of the ordinance. The time has been when even good men opposed the vaccination of children, on the ground that it was no where required in the word of God, a striking illustration of that over scrupulousness which demands a "thussaith the Lord," for a practice which the spirit of his whole administration justifies. We do not feel much respect for the objection, even if it could be sustained, that Christ did not in so many words command us to baptize our children. It is grounded upon an assumption which would deprive the Church of many of her most precious and necessary privileges; the assumption namely, that we are authorized to do nothing which is not expressly required in the New Testament. It is well for the opponents of infant baptism, that their general practice is inconsistent with their theory in respect to this matter, and that they feel authorized to do many things for which they would in vain attempt to produce the express warrant of Christ. They remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. They practice family prayer. They admit female believers to participate in that ordinance which the Saviour administered only to his male disciples. They perform public worship on the first day of the week. But who hath required these things at their hands? Where do they find it so written in the New Testament? In defending these practices against all opposers, they must adopt the mode of reasoning used in the work before us, and show from internal evidence a divine warrant. And plainly this would be the proper course. Why do we need an express command to bear us out in doing that which the whole spirit and design of the gospel renders necessary?