hindered from baptism? And since it is only in his sacraments and ordinances our Saviour is now present with us, what way have we to bring our children to him, as he has directed, but by baptism to offer and dedicate them to him?

Some Baptist writers contend that these infants were brought to Christ to be healed by him! "That they were not brought to be healed of any diseases," says Gale*, "cannot easily be granted: for though it is not expressly said they were, yet since it was the Lord's custom frequently to heal by laying on his hands, it is probable enough this was the design of those who brought them to him, though it is only said they brought them to have his hands laid on them." Now if the infants were brought to be healed, can we suppose that the disciples would have had the heart to forbid them? Such conduct in them would argue both great inhumanity to the little children, and unwarrantable irreverence to their Master. The inhumanity which this interpretation implies is too obvious to need further proof. And can any thing be imagined more arrogant and disrespectful, than for the disciples officiously to interpose, for the purpose of preventing the miraculous agency of their Lord in a case of such an affecting nature

* Reflections on Mr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism. London, 1711, p. 431.

as this, where anxious parents are bringing forward their afflicted babes to be healed by the most benevolent of beings-to hinder him from performing an act, which would at once do good to man by healing the infirmities of the body, and bring glory to God by working a beneficent miracle for the confirmation of his own Divine character, which constituted the grand object of his ministry! That the conduct of the disciples was highly culpable is plain from the words of the Evangelist, who says that our blessed Saviour was "much displeased" with them; but it highly behoves the Baptists to remark, that the behaviour which our Lord thus severely rebuked in them was not that which they impute to them, but the very spirit which the Baptists themselves manifest in forbidding little children to become proselytes to Christ. How necessary is it for such to remember, that, except they become as little children, they shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven! Our Lord says, that infants, and only such as are like them, are fit for the kingdom of God; but the Baptists do not think them fit to be made members of the Church, into which there is but one way of admission, that is, by baptism.

We have also another clear and plain command for the baptizing of infants, in Matt. xxviii. 19. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son,

and of the Holy Ghost. This was our Lord's last commission and order for the administering of this Sacrament, and was delivered to the Apostles after his resurrection, before his ascension into heaven; it is intended to tell them in general who may be baptized, and in what form this may be done. It informs them, they might administer this rite to the people of any nation of the world, and that they must do it, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

I would here observe, that the word above rendered teach is unhappily translated in our Version; for it is of a much more extensive signification, and includes what is meant in the following part of the commission by Baptizing and Teaching. The word, in short, signifies proselytize, and the impropriety of rendering it by the term teach will be manifest to any reader who will take the trouble to read the 20th verse after the above passage thus" Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations........ teaching them"! The most careless reader must see that either the verb or the participle is erroneously translated, since the passage, as it now stands, is totally destitute of sense and meaning while with the correction I have ventured to suggest, the whole is made plain and consistent. Go ye, therefore, and proselytize 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 a great subject of cavil among the Baptists. Their strenuous and learned defender, Gale, in commenting upon this word μantεuw, most pertinaciously insists, that it always signifies to teach, (p. 287.) "To teach, instruct, &c. all nations," says he, " is good sense, but to be disciples all nations is nonsense, and cannot be the meaning of Infinite Wisdom." Here the learned writer deals with a most impolitic dishonesty, which proves nothing but the weakness of the cause of him who uses it. No Pædobaptist, in his senses, ever said that ualηrεvw means to be disciples, nor are we so ready to adopt a signification which would render the whole passage dark nonsense. But it would not have suited this author's purpose to quote his opponents fairly; and as he has chosen to misrepresent them, his friends are welcome to all the advantages they can claim from his ingenuity. The word, we maintain, signifies to make disciples: the word teach seems to have been adopted by our translators because they wished to avoid a periphrasis, and this, I humbly think, they might have done by employing the word proselytize.

In treating upon this part of our subject, it is amusing to see how Dr. Gale begs the question on

the subject of our Lord's commission.

66

If," says

he, (p. 251)" it does not speak of and enjoin teaching infants, it does not enjoin baptizing them; for if the term all nations comprehends infants, then they must be taught too, which is absurd; and if it can't comprehend infants, then they must not be baptized: one of these things is unavoidable." Thus, we see, the Doctor takes it for granted that all who are baptized must be previously taught. "Before baptism," he says, in another place (p. 310), " they are to be taught the truth of the Gospel, especially matters of faith; but after baptism, they are to be instructed in the Christian morals, and what concerns their practice." The Doctor has laboured hard to prove that discipleship necessarily presupposes, or includes, teaching, and, with this view, he has furnished us with a long muster-roll of critics, who take didαokev in this sense. But this will not do: surely no unprejudiced mind can be brought to believe that these critics must thence infer the unlawfulness of infant baptism-men who held the very principles the Doctor condemns! This, then, is the Baptist's argument: Because adults were not to be baptized until they were instructed; therefore, their infants were not to be baptized!

Now the commission respects adults only, and in its primary view only adult GENTILES (TAVTA Ovn). As if our Lord had said, " Hitherto, during