change. That parents, Christian parents, saw their children rejected, who always had seen them admitted while they were Jews; and yet no murmur was heard, no explanation asked. Is this credible? This silence "pleads trumpet tongued" against the views of our Baptist friends, and has the weight of a hundred arguments for infant baptism.

The argument, therefore, is reduced to this: "If infant baptism is an innovation, it confessedly entered the church very soon after the canon of Scripture closed;" and in a few years more, "without a single precept to warrant, or a single example to encourage it; yea, with the well known practice of the apostles, and of all the churches they ever planted, directly, openly, palpably against it; under all these disadvantages, it so universally prevailed, that, upon the face of the whole earth, there was not a church found where it was not performed." Yea, more; it entered the church, it prevailed, it became universal, without a whisper of opposition, without a word of dispute. All parties in the eastern church, and all parties in the western church, confederating to connive at the error, to blot out every trace of it from the page of history, and never to utter a single word from which it could be discovered that they had departed from the gospel rule; to that man who believes this, what can be incredible? Such, surely, would make good disciples of the doctrine of transubstantiation. For such, we think, could easily take another step; and, denying the evidence of their

senses, swallow a wafer for the real body and blood of Christ.

A few observations more in reply to the question, Who are the proper subjects of baptism? and we shall close this part of the general argument.

We readily admit that believers, in the fullest. sense of that word, are proper subjects, and that the possession of the highest religious experience furnishes no bar to the reception of the outward sign. In reading the Acts of the Apostles, it will be seen that the ordinance was given both to those that had, and to those that had not, received the Holy Ghost. On the day of Pentecost, when three thousand inquired what they must do, Peter said, "Repent and be baptized every one of you, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." By what they saw and heard, especially the gift of tongues, by which each was enabled to hear the wonderful works of God in the language in which each was born, they were convinced of the Messiahship of Christ, and saw their own guilt and danger, and inquired of the apostles the way of escape. We presume it will not be said that they had a Christian experience, in the usual sense of that phrase. See Acts ii.

In the eighth chapter of Acts we find recorded the case of the Samaritans, who heard Philip "preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ; and when they saw the miracles which he

wrought, they believed his preaching upon the evidence of those miracles, and were baptized, both men and women.'" And it was not until "the apostles at Jerusalem had heard that Samaria had received the word of God," and had sent down Peter and John, who laid their hands on them and prayed, that the Holy Ghost came on them. Now if our Baptist friends should say, that what they received was not the ordinary, but the extraordinary gift of the Spirit of God, for the purpose of speaking with tongues, &c., they must say it upon their own responsibility, for there is not a shadow of evidence of it in the text. And if they should still persist in saying that they were genuine converts, experienced believers, before Peter and John came to them, then they admit that a man may be an experienced Christian without the Holy Ghost; and if one man, or many, (as in this case), then all might, and the conclusion would be, there is no need of the Holy Ghost in constituting men real believers, genuine converts. For Luke says, verses 15, 16, "Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."

But if our Baptist friends should still say that these people had a religious experience before they were baptized, then they throw themselves into another dilemma; for what is said of their

religion is said also of Simon's in verse 13 it is said, "Then Simon himself believed also; and when he was baptized," &c. Did Simon obtain the grace of evangelical faith before baptism? Then he must have fallen from grace, and fallen foully too; for Peter said to him, verses 21, 23, "Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter;" "Thou art in the gall of bitterness.”

66

Then what becomes of the favourite doctrine, once in grace, always in grace?" But perhaps I shall be told, Simon Magus never had any grace; then he got an experience without grace, or, if you like it better, he was baptized without grace, and if he was, so were the rest, for what is said of their faith is said of his. I may be told further, Simon was a reprobate, and never had any thing more than a common call and common grace. Then Philip baptized a reprobate. And even after he had offered to buy the Holy Ghost with money, Peter exhorted him to repentance and prayer, that he might be forgiven. Query: If Simon had given heed to Peter's exhortation, (and there is some proof that he did, verse 24, for he asked an interest in the apostle's prayers,) and had prayed, repented, and become a genuine believer, would our Baptist brethren have thought it necessary to re-baptize Simon? If they apply the same reasoning to adults that they do to children, in explaining the commission, or what Mr. Campbell calls "the law of baptism," namely, that baptism must always follow faith, and not go before it, in any case, as the commission says, "He that

believeth and is baptized;"-did Simon's want of evangelical faith vitiate, or render his baptism a nullity? If it did, then he ought to have been re-baptized upon his repentance; if it did not, then I cannot see how the baptism of an infant is rendered a nullity, by its unbelief, when at adult age.

The argument attempted to be drawn from the order of the words in the commission is entirely sophistical. As much so as if I were to say, that because "John the Baptist baptized in the wilderness, and preached the baptism of repentance," therefore John always baptized the people first, and preached the baptism of repentance to them afterward.

Having digressed thus far, I remark, this case of Simon's is a very perplexing case, especially to all CALVINIST BAPTISTS, for, when examined, it is found to endanger one of two of their favourite opinions. From both horns of the dilemma it is impossible to escape. Either Simon had no grace and was baptized without an experience, or he had grace when baptized, and afterward so utterly lost it, that he had no part or lot in the matter. They can take, candid reader, just which side of the question, just that horn of this dilemma that may suit them best. It is common, of two evils, for men in self-love to choose the least; and as grace is more valuable than water, even "much water," I suppose they will cling to the consolation of the Lord's dear people, "where he begins a work of grace, he always carries it on to the end," and will