WHITBY. "These words will not prove a right of infants to receive baptism; the promise here being that only of the Holy Ghost, mentioned in verses 16, 17, 18, and so relating only to the times of the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost, and to those persons who, by age, were capable of these extraordinary gifts." Annot. on the place.

DODDRIDGE. "The promise is to you and to your children. Considering that the gift of the Spirit had been mentioned just before, it seems most natural to interpret this as a reference to that passage in Joel, which had been so largely recited above, ver. 17, &c. where God promises the effusion of the Spirit, on their sons and their daughters." Fam. Expos. Note on the place.

2. The word, in the original, Teva, rendered children, signifies posterity; and does not necessarily imply infancy.

HAMMOND. "If any have made use of that very unconcludent argument [referring to this passage, Acts ii. 39,] I have nothing to say in defence of them.-The word children there, is really the posterity of the Jews, and not peculiarly their infant children." Works, Vol. I. p. 490.

LIMBORCH, a learned divine of Amsterdam. "By TV the apostle understands, not infants, but posterity; in which signification the word occurs in many places of the New Testament; see, among others, John viii. 39. [If ye were Abraham's CHILDREN, ye would do the works of Abraham.] Whence it appears, that the argument which is very commonly taken from this passage, for the baptism of infants, is of NO FORCE, and GOOD FOR NOTHING." Comment. in loc.

3. The words of the apostle immediately following, explain his own meaning in the most decisive terms: "The promise is to you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even TO AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL,”—to as many of you and your children, and the Gentiles afar off, as God should call by his word and Spirit to this great privilege.'

MATTHEW HENRY. "To this general, the following limitation must refer, even as many of them, as many particular persons in each nation, as the Lord our God shall call effectually into the fellowship of Jesus Christ." Expos. of the place.

Inference. From the whole, it appears most evident, that none were, in this case, encouraged to hope for Christian baptism, but such as gave evidence of being called effectually by grace; and NONE WERE, IN FACT, baptized, but such as "gladly received the word." So far, the word of God is our plain guide.

§ II. Philip baptizing at Samaria.

Acts viii. 5. THEN Philip went down to the city of Sa maria, and preached Christ unto them. 6. And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip

spake, hearing, and seeing the miracles which he did. 8. And there was great joy in the city.

12. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13. Then Simon himself believed also; and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

In this instance, as in the former, the commission of Christ is lite rally fulfilled. Philip began his work by preaching Christ to them; and when they had heard the doctrines and saw the miracles, they were filled with joy. Not a word about baptizing, till some of the people "believed" the things concerning Jesus Christ; then "they were bap tized, both men and women,"

Now, if it were the will of Christ that infants should be baptized, and it were true that the Apostles, (like Pædobaptist Missionaries among the Heathen,*) were accustomed to baptize children together with the parents; then, if any of those "men and women" at Samaria had children, (which surely is highly probable,) Philip must have baptized them: but, had he baptized men, women, and children, is it to be imagined that the inspired historian, writing, (as he says,) "of ALL that Jesus began to do and to teach," and "having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first;" and his avowed design being that his reader "might know the certainty of things;" is it to be imagined that he would particularize the two, out of the three descriptions of the baptized, and omit the third? This I conceive impossible; and therefore draw this

Inference. When the Evangelist states, "they were baptized, both men and women," had infants also been baptized, he must have added, to have completed the record of the circumstance, “and children;" but not making that natural and necessary addition, I infer, that men and women only were baptized; and that no infants received the ordinance with them; therefore, that the practice at that time did not exist.

* In the accounts we are often receiving from Pædobaptist Missionaries among the heathen, our brethren naturally inform us of the children, as well as the adults, they baptize. For example, in the "Missionary Register" for the year 1821, at page 19, a Report from South Africa, states-" During the year 1819, 20 adults and 21 children were baptized." At page 293, a Missionary in Western Africa, states -"September 3d, Sunday I preached, &c. and then baptized 23 adults and 3 infants." Page 294, Nov. 29th,-"On the first Sunday of this month I baptized 34 adults and their children; 48 in all."

Rev. C. Mault writes from Nagercoil, East Indies, in March, 1826: "Last month I baptized 5 adults and 4 children." Rev. C. Barff writes from Huahine, SouthSea Islands, June 5, 1825, "30 were added to the church during our visit, and a number baptized. Among those baptized were 16 infants."-Missionary Chronicle, for November, 1826.

Are not such accounts quite natural where infant baptism prevails? And why is there a perfect silence throughout the history of apostolical labors on this subject Their practice surely was not the same,

§ III. The Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch.

THE eunuch described in this chapter was a person of high authority in the kingdom of Ethiopia, but it would seem a proselyte to the Jewish religion. He is here returning from Jerusalem. Philip is directed to meet him in his way. He found the eunuch reading, as he proceeded in his chariot, the prophet Isaiah, chap. liii. 7. "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter," &c. He is desirous that Philip should explain to him, Whether the prophet, in that place, spake of himself or of some other? and he took him up into his chariot for that purpose: upon which the Evangelist adds:

Acts viii. 35. Then Philip opened his mouth and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36. And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37. And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered, and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38. And he commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, and the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

My reader will not need to be reminded of the Commission of his Redeemer, after perusing these verses, We have here a plain example of the practice of the apostles, before they admitted a person to baptism. Philip might have deemed the Eunuch, after having heard the gospel, a proper subject for baptism, by being directed from heaven to teach him, he might have inferred it also, from his sincere request of it; yet he does not, he dares not, baptize him, until he openly profess to "believe with all his heart," remembering, no doubt, that Christ had appointed the ordinance for such, and for such only. Nothing can demonstrate more clearly than this, that a DECLARATION OF FAITH WAS INDISPENSABLY REQUIRED PREVIOUS TO BAPTISM,*

OF THE MODE OF THE EUNUCH'S BAPTISM.

We have, in this case, the circumstances attending the administration of baptism more minutely described than in any other instance recorded in the New Testament. The reader is requested to observe the following things:

Those who contend, that servants and children were all baptized in those days, with, and on account of, their masters and parents, would find it difficult to support their hypothesis in this case. It is the greatest absurdity to suppose that Philip would admit the eunuch's servants to baptism, without any profession, or even instruction, when he would object to the pious master, after he requested it, unless he was able to give a frank and open profession of faith in Christ. But he baptized NONE but the eunuch; and, therefore, we may safely conclude, the apos tles had "no such custom, neither the churches of God."

1. If sprinkling or pouring were the mode of baptism ordained by Christ, and practised by the apostles, we are assured, by the best authority, that travellers through those deserts "never omitted" to furnish themselves with vessels of water for their journeys; that this provision was "absolutely necessary;" and, if so, the eunuch had all that was required for the ordinance, without waiting till they came to a place of water. See Doddridge, as presently cited, and Shaw's Travels, as referred to by him.

2. We are here, however, informed, verse 36, that they proceeded on their journey till "they came" (i, ad) "UNTO a certain water. And it appears that it was the sight of this place of water, that suggested to the eunuch his immediate submission to the ordinance. "See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" How unmeaning would this be if he had the requisite water before!

3. If we admit that the eunuch was not previously provided with water, now when they were "come to a water," it would have been easy, and natural to be expected, for one of the attendants to have conveyed to him as much water as was required, without his, or Philip's, proceeding farther. But, though "he commanded the chariot to stand still," no command is given upon this point,-of bringing water to him. But,

4. Leaving the chariot, verse 38, "they went down INTO the water;" (as To idwg, in aquam.) Here the reader will remark, It was not sufficient to come to the water, (which we are often told is all that the original means,) for this they had done before; but here is a second circumstance, after they had come to it, they went down into it.

5. The inspired historian also adds, that it was not the eunuch alone that went into the water, but "they went down BOTH;" and this is repeated again, as if to make quibbling or doubting on this subject impossible, "both Philip and the eunuch." Such was the mode of baptism, as now established by the Son of God, that it could not, in this case, be administered unless Philip attended the eunuch into the water. And

6. While in this situation, both of them in the water and surrounded therewith, "he baptized him;" that is, if the word be translated, “he immersed him," in the name of the Tri-une Jehovah. For this solemn act, the circumstances before noticed were necessary, but for any other mode they would be absurd.

7. The sacred rite being performed, it is lastly added, "when they were come up, (èx rou idures) OUT OF the water," they were parted asunder; probably to meet no more till they should enter the presence of Him to whom they now rendered this act of prompt and cheerful obedience.

It is not easy to imagine how the mode of this sacred ordinance could be more minutely described. That we have here an example of IMMERSION, is allowed by the learned and candid of all denominations,

MR. TOWERSON. "For what need would there have been of-Philip and the eunuch going down INTO this [water] were it not that the baptism-was to be performed by immersion, a very little water, as we

know it doth with us, sufficing for an effusion or sprinkling." In Pæd. Exam. Vol. I. p. 209.

CALVIN, in his Comment on this place, observes, "Here we perceive how baptism was administered among the ancients, for they immersed the whole body in water." Ibid. p. 194,

DODDRIDGE. "They both went down to the water. Considering how frequently bathing was used in these hot countries, it is not to be wondered that baptism was generally administered by immersion, though I see no proof that it was essential to the institution. It would be very unnatural to suppose, that they went down to the water merely that Philip might take up a little water in his hand to pour on the eunuch. A person of his dignity had, no doubt, many vessels in his baggage, on such a journey through a desert country; a precaution absolutely necessary for travellers in those parts, and never omitted by them. -See Shaw's Travels, Preface, p. 4." Fam. Expos. Note in loc. See numerous other authors in Booth's Pæd. Exam. Vol. I. p. 191 to 224.

Inference. If I find one sufficient proof of the mode of baptism in the days of the apostles, whatever that mode may be, I infer that I have ascertained what was their invariable practice. Because it cannot be imagined that the apostles (having probably witnessed, and certainly knowing well, the mode by which the Lord Jesus was baptized, and having all received the same instructions from their Lord and Master,) could be divided either in sentiment or practice. And if immersion be proved in one case, and from thence it be granted that JESUS was THUS baptized, and that HE COMMANDED the ordinance THUS to be administered, would not the amiable and pious Doddridge, who grants above, baptism was generally administered by immersion," allow me to infer, (from the authority of Christ's example and command,) that this mode is "essential to the institution ?" Here I have an instance of immersion, and from this I am authorized to conclude, and I do it with the utmost confidence and satisfaction of mind, that IMMERSION WAS WHAT CHRIST ORDAINED, and his obedient apostles and disciples INVARIABLY PRACTISED; and, consequently, any departure from this practice, is a departure from the revealed will of Christ; and such an act can be viewed in no other light than an act of rebellion against his Divine Authority.

66

§ IV. The Baptism of the Apostle Paul.

SAUL, while breathing out threatenings against the disciples of Christ, is met, in his career of persecution, by the Lord himself, at whose exceeding glory he falls prostrate on the ground. Ananias, a devout disciple, is directed of God to go to him, and teach him what he is to do; and for his encouragement in visiting the persecutor, he is informed that Saul was praying, and that God had made him a chosen vessel to himself.

Acts ix. 17. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him, said, Bro ther Saul, the Lord, even Jesus that appeared unto thee in