The evidence which the New Testament affords of _the right of infants to baptism_, is, however, abundant and various; so much so, that scarcely an outline of it can be given in the small space allotted to it in this discourse. The commission which Christ gave to his apostles, refers not only to baptism, but also to the christian instruction with which baptism is to be connected, and which it is the great design of the ordinance to secure. “Go,” says he, “and teach all nations, baptizing them unto 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.” Circumcision had been confined principally to one nation, baptism is to be extended to all nations; and as the sphere of the ordinance is thus enlarged, is it at all likely that the subjects of the ordinance are to be diminished? and that children, who were admitted to the initiatory rite of the limited Jewish dispensation, are to be excluded from the initiatory rite of the universal dispensation of the gospel? If they had been excluded, would the Jews have been silent about it? Would they not have made it a subject of complaint? and would they not have referred to the exclusion of their children as an argument in favour of Judaism, and against Christianity? Undoubtedly they would; and their silence is a strong presumptive evidence that the baptismal, as well as the circumcisional commission, included infants. The word “teach,” in the former part of the passage, is not, in the original, the same word as that which is translated “teaching” in the latter part; but a word which literally signifies to disciple, or to make disciples; so that the apostles were directed to “go and make disciples,” not of Jews only, but “of all nations.” And how was this to be done? By baptizing and by teaching. “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them and teaching them.” The language of course implies that some degree of instruction must go before baptism, in the case of ignorant adults; but it is evident that _the_ “_baptizing_” _is to be introductory to the_ “_teaching_” just as circumcision was. The first persons who would be baptized, would of course be adults, as was the case when circumcision was instituted; but there is nothing, either in the nature of baptism, or in the terms of this commission, to exclude infants. If it had been written, “Go and make disciples of all nations, circumcising them, and teaching them all things,” who would have said that the language excluded infants from circumcision? and as baptism has succeeded circumcision, and as it means the same thing, why should infants be excluded by a mere change in the ordinance? especially as the ordinance of baptism seems to be more suited to an infant than circumcision was. If, nevertheless, it be maintained that no person is to be baptized until he has been taught—taught to observe all things whatsoever Christ has commanded, infants I admit will