/W8B5 
 
 M- al. KepK L 
 
 it/f 
 
& 
 
 
 §> 
 
 Q- 
 
 
 .§ 
 
 
 .2 
 
 
 /? 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 0) 
 J5 
 
 
 *^, 
 
 
 IE 
 
 
 
 »-» 
 
 Q. 
 
 
 # w 
 
 
 
 
 *s> 
 
 fc 
 
 O 
 
 
 ^O 
 
 
 5 
 
 
 o 
 
 fc 
 
 0> 
 
 c 
 
 
 c* 
 
 o 
 
 tJ) 
 
 C\ 
 
 15 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 fc 
 
 £ 
 
 .«o 
 
 <^ 
 
 M 
 
 «j 
 
 •a 
 
 A 
 
 rt 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 P4 
 
 
 ^ 
 «>>* 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 -a 
 <u 
 *-> 
 
 c 
 
 s 
 
 4 
 
 
 g 
 
 <# 
 
 CL 
 
 1° 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 scSB 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/lecturesoninfantOOwo 
 
lOTAOT ffiAMIOffi 
 
LECTURES 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM, 
 
 BY LEONARD WOODS, D. D. 
 
 Abbot Professor of Christian Theology in the Theol. Seminary, Andover. 
 
 ANDOVER: 
 PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY MARK NEWMAN. 
 
 Flagg &. Gould printers. 
 
 1828. 
 
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, to wit: 
 
 District Clerk's Office. 
 Be it remembered, that on the 23d day of March, A. D. 1828, and in the fifty 
 second year of the Independence of the United States of America. Mark Newman, of 
 the said district, has deposited in this Office the title of a book, the right whereof 
 he claims as Proprietor, in the words following, to wit .• "Lectures on Infant Bap- 
 tism. By L. Woods, D. D. Abbot Professor of Christian Theology in the Theologi- 
 cal Seminary, Andover." In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United 
 States, entitled, "An Act for the encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies 
 of maps, charts, and book?., to the' authors and proprietors of such copies, during the 
 times therein mentioned :" and also to an act entitled, " An act supplementary to an 
 act, entitled, An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of 
 maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the 
 times therein mentioned ; and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of design- 
 ing, engraving and etching historical and other prints." 
 
 JOHN W DAVIS \ Clerk °f the District 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The following Lectures on Infant Baptism make 
 a part of a regular course of Lectures, which the Laws 
 of this Institution require in the department of Chris- 
 tian Theology. The publication of them was request- 
 ed, about two years ago, by those theological students, 
 to whom they were first delivered ; and the same re- 
 quest has been made by many ministers and students 
 since. The reader will perceive, that the doctrine of 
 Infant Baptism is a doctrine which I very seriously be- 
 lieve, and which I feel it to be my duty earnestly to 
 maintain. He will perceive too, that the doctrine is 
 dear to my heart, and is associated in my contempla- 
 tions with the most sacred truths of religion, and the 
 most precious interests of Christ's kingdom. 
 
 My manner of treating this subject is not (fie result 
 of haste, but of repeated and long-continued investiga- 
 tion. It has been my object, as far as possible, to give 
 simplicity and clearness to the discussion, and to avoid 
 all approaches to the heat and asperity, with which the 
 controversy respecting Baptism has often been con- 
 ducted. I am persuaded that those whose opinions I 
 here oppose, and who constitute a very large and res- 
 pectable denomination of Christians, will never suspect 
 me of being deficient in affection for them, or in read- 
 iness to do what I can to promote their welfare. For 
 many years in the earlier part of my life, I had a de- 
 cided prepossession in favor of their peculiar sentiments 
 on the subject of Baptism ; and they have a right to 
 inquire for the reasons of my present belief. I here 
 frankly give them my reasons. In the following Lee- 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 tures they will find the principal considerations, which 
 satisfy my own mind in favor of Infant Baptism. And 
 they will see, that I have not contented myself with 
 barely stating arguments, but have endeavoured, in dif- 
 ferent ways, to illustrate the propriety and conclusive- 
 ness of the mode of reasoning which I have adopted, 
 and to show that it rests on principles generally admit- 
 ted in other cases, and that it is liable to no just excep- 
 tions. If I have, in different parts of these Lectures, 
 touched repeatedly upon the same general arguments, 
 and the same modes of illustration ; I hope the nature 
 of the subject will suggest to the mind of the reader a 
 satisfactory apology. 
 
 If any of those, who dissent from me, shall think 
 proper to animadvert upon what I have written ; I 
 wish them to do it in the spirit of Christ, and without 
 any expectation that I shall make a reply. Neither 
 the duties of my office, nor my views of what the wel- 
 fare of Christ's kingdom requires, would permit me to 
 pursue this subject in a protracted controversy. 
 
 1 have only to add, that in the discussion of this 
 subject, it has been my serious endeavour to do what 
 the God of love would approve. I have charged my- 
 self to remember, that the blessed Saviour looks, with 
 equal and unchanging love, upon all his true followers, 
 of whatever name ; and that it must be far more pleas- 
 ing to him, to see them united in affection, and labor- 
 ing diligently to spread his gospel, and to prepare 
 themselves and others for the kingdom of heaven, than 
 to see them contending about an external rite. 
 
 LEONARD WOODS. 
 
 Theological Seminary, Andover. 
 April, 23, 1828. 
 

 CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 Page. 
 Four Directions to theological students respecting the manner of treating the 
 subject of Infant Baptism. — Preparatory considerations as to the kind and 
 degree of evidence necessary. — The want of an express divine precept or 
 declaration, no valid objection. — This shown in regard to the Christian 
 Sabbath, female communion, and the authority of some of the sacred wri- 
 tings 9-22 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 Reasoning of the former Lecture confirmed by particular considerations in fa- 
 vor of Infant Baptism. 1. Its suitableness to the relation of parents and 
 children. 2. This relation had been marked by a religious rite through the 
 Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensation. — That rite respected spiritual bles- 
 sings. — Objection considered 23 — 35 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 The Christian religion founded on the Old Testament Scriptures. We cannot 
 conclude that Christ did not give specific instructions on any subject from 
 the fact that such instructions are not recorded. — The Scriptures of the 
 New Testament imply that children of believers are to be baptized. — Rule 
 of interpretation ; viz. we must put ourselves as far as may be, in the place 
 of those who gave, and of those who received instruction. Circumstances 
 of those to whom Christ gave the commission to proselyte and baptize all 
 nations. How they mu3t have understood this commission. Proselyte 
 Baptism. — General representation of Scripture and course of Providence 36 — 5& 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 The argument from the circumstances of the Apostles reviewed, and shown to- 
 be conclusive. — Mode of understanding a charter. — Did Christ give any 
 previous instruction which could have satisfied the Apostles in what man- 
 ner they were to understand their commission, or how they were to regard 
 children '—Matt. 19: 13, 14 particularly considered . . 51—74 
 
VIII CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 Page. 
 Whether there was any thing in the conduct of the Apostles, or any declara- 
 tion in their writings, to aid us in determining how they understood their 
 commission. — Household Baptism. — 1 Cor. 7: 14. .... 75 — 93 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 The argument recapitulated. Three additional considerations, — precepts re- 
 quiring the education of children ; — silence of the New Testament re- 
 specting Infant Baptism ; — and the feelings of parents. — Proof from Eccle- 
 siastical History that Infant Baptism was practised by the early Chris- 
 tians 94— 11G 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 Baptism a substitute for circumcision. — Seal of the covenant. — Difficulty aris- 
 ing from the difference between the former and the present economy, and 
 from the requisition of faith. — Import of Infant Baptism. — Utility. — Stand- 
 ing of baptized children. — Duties of parents and the church . .117 — 148 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Introductory remarks. — Two propositions. 1. It cannot be determined from 
 the New Testament that immersion is the only proper mode. 2. Christians 
 should not make the mode of Baptism of essential consequence . 149—174 
 

 ^ 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 Four Directions to theological students respecting the manner of treating the 
 subject of Infant Baptism. — Preparatory considerations as to the kind and de- 
 gree of evidence necessary. — The want of an express divine precept or decla- 
 tion no valid objection. — This shown in regard to the Christian Sabbath, fe- 
 male communion, and the authority of some of the sacred writings. 
 
 J he doctrine of Infant Baptism has been the sub- 
 ject of long-continued controversy in the Christian world, 
 and has given rise to more contention and asperity among 
 the followers of Christ, than almost any other subject. It 
 has been the occasion of separating into different com- 
 munions, those who have been united in their belief on 
 all other subjects, and animated by the same spirit of love 
 to Christ and his cause. It is in consequence of this sep- 
 aration, that the subject of Infant Baptism has produced a 
 warmth of feeling and discussion, so far beyond all just pro- 
 portions. But I trust the time has arrived, when this sub- 
 ject can be treated in another manner, and when those 
 who differ in opinion respecting it, will cherish feelings of 
 candor and forbearance towards one another. My ear- 
 nest desire is to promote such feelings ; being perfectly 
 persuaded that it is the will of Him whom all Christians 
 love and adore, that those who practise Infant Baptism, 
 and those who do not, should love one another with a 
 pure heart fervently, and diligently cooperate for the ad- 
 vancement of their common cause. 
 
 As you, my young brethren, for whom I have prepar- 
 ed these Lectures, will be called to act a part not only 
 2 
 
10 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 in private, but in public, in regard to this subject ; I shall 
 suggest a few precautions and directions, for the purpose 
 of rendering your influence more extensively useful to 
 the cause of truth, and the cause of love. 
 
 First. Take care not to magnify the subject beyond 
 its real importance. 
 
 The subject ought not indeed to be underrated, or 
 treated as a trifle. It is no trifle. It obviously possesses 
 a high degree of importance, and deserves to be main- 
 tained with firmness and zeal. But after all we must 
 remember, it is an outward rite, and does not belong to 
 the essential articles of the Christian religion. We ought 
 never to treat it, or to feel respecting it, as though it were 
 essential. If men are born of the Spirit ; if they love and 
 obey the Saviour, and are prepared for the kingdom of 
 heaven ; the great object for which Christ died, and for 
 which we ought to labor, is obtained. It is clear, then, 
 that the subject of Baptism cannot be regarded as bear- 
 ing any comparison in point of importance, with the con- 
 version and salvation of sinners. And whatever discus- 
 sion we may think it our duty to undertake, and with 
 whatever earnestness we may labor to bring men to re- 
 ceive what we sincerely believe to be a divine institution; 
 we ought still to consider their eternal salvation as infi- 
 nitely more important, than their receiving any particu- 
 lar rite. And if they show by their conduct, that they 
 are friends to Christ and heirs of his kingdom ; we should 
 cordially thank God, and rejoice, how widely soever they 
 may differ from us in regard to such a subject as this. 
 
 Second. Consider that men, whose Christian charac- 
 ter entitles them to our cordial affection and confidence, 
 may be led to a different conclusion from us in regard to 
 this rite. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 11 
 
 Whatever may have been the precepts of Christ, or 
 his apostles, to those who enjoyed their personal instruc- 
 tions ; it is a plain case, that there is no express precept 
 respecting Infant Baptism in our sacred writings. The 
 proof, then, that Infant Baptism is a divine institution, 
 must be made out in another way. And that other way, 
 though perfectly satisfactory to us, may not be so to those 
 who have been placed in different circumstances from 
 us. The circumstances of their birth and education may 
 have led them, as a matter of course, to entertain differ- 
 ent views on this subject ; and those views may have 
 been closely associated with the earliest and deepest im- 
 pressions of divine truth on their minds, and with their 
 most spiritual exercises and their purest enjoyments. 
 Thus, their differing from us may have been owing to the 
 influence which circumstances had upon the most amia- 
 ble and pious sensibilities of their hearts. Had any of us 
 been in their circumstances, we might have adopted the 
 same views. 
 
 Others, who come to the examination of this subject 
 without the influence of such predisposing causes in ear- 
 ly life, may unfortunately entertain such mistaken views 
 of the kind or degree of evidence which is necessary to 
 support a positive institution, that, with those mistaken 
 views, the very uprightness of their hearts, and their de- 
 sire to please God, may so operate as to prevent them 
 from acceding to the rite of Infant Baptism. 
 
 Now if we duly regarded such considerations as these; 
 instead of stigmatizing those Christians who reject In- 
 fant Baptism, or imputing wrong motives to them, we 
 should exercise towards them the sincerest candor and 
 kindness. If we can account for their peculiar views on 
 this subject from their peculiar circumstances, and from 
 
12 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 that imperfection of the human mind which is common 
 to them and to us, without any impeachment of their pi- 
 ety ; then why should we not entertain towards them the 
 same sentiments of love and confidence, and the same 
 desire for their improvement and happiness, as if they 
 were joined to the same denomination with us. 
 
 Third. Never introduce this subject in the way of 
 controversy, except when a pure regard to the interests 
 of Christ's kingdom requires it. 
 
 Undoubtedly a regard to the high and sacred inter- 
 ests of religion will lead you, at proper times, to exhibit 
 and defend what you honestly believe to be scriptural 
 views of this subject, and to do it with seriousness and 
 zeal. But when this is to be done, it will be important, 
 generally, that you enter upon it with particular prepara- 
 tion, and pursue it in a regular discourse, instead of re- 
 marking upon it in a hasty or cursory manner. The 
 practice of introducing such a subject, or even of allud- 
 ing to it, from day to day, and on all occasions, betrays 
 too much excitement of feeling, and is likely to promote 
 too much in others. Let this subject therefore be brought 
 forward only on occasions, when there is an obvious pro- 
 priety in doing it, and then let it be presented in connex- 
 ion with the weighty truths of religion, and treated with 
 great moderation and seriousness. Thus you will show 
 that it is a matter of conscience, not of passion. 
 
 Fourth. Treat those who differ from you in regard 
 to Infant Baptism, with uniform kindness. 
 
 Study to do them good. Cultivate towards them, not 
 only candor and good-will, but generosity ; and exhibit 
 this generosity in substantial acts. In this way you may 
 hope to produce candor and kindness in them, and to 
 prepare them to join their efforts with yours in promoting 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 13 
 
 those common interests of Christ's kingdom, which are 
 immeasurably more important, than the peculiar interests 
 either of their denomination, or of yours. And should 
 ^ou find that the object of your wishes is not at once ob- 
 tained, and that any of those, whom you labor to conci- 
 liate, and whose welfare you aim to promote, choose, after 
 all, to stand aloof, and to retain all the warmth of party 
 zeal, or even the spirit of animosity ; still persevere in 
 your kindness and candor towards them, remembering 
 that such conduct will undoubtedly accomplish much 
 more good in the end, than what appears at present : 
 and that, whatever else it may fail of accomplishing, it 
 will have a happy effect on your own mind, and secure 
 the approbation of God. Remember too, that the oppo- 
 site course, that is, the exercise of unkindness and sever- 
 ity towards those Christians who differ from you, will in- 
 jure their spiritual interests, and your own, and will aug- 
 ment all the evils of division and strife. 
 
 Having made these suggestions in regard to the spirit 
 of mind with which the subject of Infant Baptism should 
 be discussed, and the manner in which we should con- 
 duct ourselves towards those who differ from us, I shall 
 call your attention to considerations relating more direct- 
 ly to the subject itself. 
 
 As a preparation for a profitable discussion, it is of 
 special consequence that you should free your minds 
 from all mistaken apprehensions, as to the kind and de- 
 gree of evidence which is to be considered necessary. I 
 introduce this subject here, because it relates to the mode 
 of reasoning which is to be pursued, and it is obviously 
 best, as far as may be, to settle our minds on this point at 
 the outset. 
 
 Different conceptions respecting the proper mode of 
 2* 
 
14 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 reasoning are evidently the principal causes of the differ- 
 ence which exists among men in regard to the question 
 at issue. If in regard to any position, we look for evi- 
 dence, of which the subject is not capable, or which is 
 not accessible to us at the present time ; the most dili- 
 gent and persevering inquiry must leave us unconvinced. 
 The proposition laid down may be true ; but we shall 
 not be satisfied of its truth. It may have sufficient evi- 
 dence ; but our mode of estimating evidence is such as 
 to prevent conviction. Suppose a man is accused before 
 a court of Justice of a particular crime ; and suppose 
 there is clear circumstantial evidence, and that only, of 
 his guilt. If the court demand direct, positive proof of 
 the crime, the evidence which they have will go for no- 
 thing, and the man, though manifestly guilty, must be 
 pronounced innocent. But such is not the principle 
 which governs our courts of justice, even in those pro- 
 ceedings which relate to life and death. They look for 
 positive evidence, if it can be had. If not, they admit 
 satisfactory evidence of another kind. 
 
 The importance of just views respecting evidence is 
 obvious in regard to moral subjects generally. Even when 
 the evidence sought is of the right kind ; we must still 
 take care not to mistake as to the degree of it, which is 
 necessary to produce conviction. In regard to any moral 
 truth, it is not committed to us to determine by what ev- 
 idence it shall be supported. On this point, our expec- 
 tations, in many instances, may be greatly disappointed ; 
 and we may be obliged either to reject some of the most 
 important principles in natural and revealed religion, or 
 to be satisfied with evidence very different from what we 
 once supposed necessary and attainable. Our object 
 should be to discever the evidence, whatever may be its 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 15 
 
 kind or degree, by which a proposition may be satisfac- 
 torily proved. 
 
 We are to remember also, that much depends on our 
 prevailing disposition, or the state of our minds. Many 
 a doctrine is of such a nature, that if our moral state is 
 right, a small degree of evidence will be sufficient to pro- 
 duce entire conviction of its truth. There is something 
 in the original constitution, or in the acquired habit of 
 the mind, or in other truths already admitted, which pre- 
 disposes us to receive it. This constitution or habit of 
 the mind, and the admission of other truths allied to the 
 one under consideration, may have the effect of evidence; 
 and if it could be clearly perceived and defined, it might 
 appear also to have the nature of evidence. It may in 
 fact be evidence of the best kind, — most suited to the na- 
 ture of the subject, and most likely to produce a steady 
 and permanent influence. Sometimes this state of the 
 mind, and the evidence of other related truths, may be 
 the only proof we can now have of a very important truth. 
 And yet this truth may be as clearly apprehended and as 
 firmly believed, and may exert as useful an influence on 
 the mind, as though it were proved in any other way 
 whatever. It will be very easy for those, who have been 
 accustomed to think profoundly on moral subjects, to re- 
 call many instances of this. 
 
 The foregoing remarks will account for a fact of fre- 
 quent occurrence ; namely ; that a man unhesitatingly 
 believes a particular truth, and yet finds it very difficult to 
 exhibit definitely the reasons of his belief. The evidence 
 in such a case may be so concealed in its nature, or so 
 gradual and insensible in its influence, that it will be very 
 difficult, even for a nice observer of the operations of his 
 own mind, clearly to describe it ; and quite impossible, 
 
16 INFANT BAPTISiM. 
 
 for men of but little cultivation. So that it cannot by any 
 means be considered as a conclusive argument against 
 the soundness of a man's faith, that he is at present una- 
 ble distinctly to assign the reasons of it. The manner in 
 which he was brought to believe the truth may have been 
 perfectly conformed to right reason, and perfectly satis- 
 factory ; and yet he may not have the skill requisite to 
 trace it out, and describe it. To be prepared for this, he 
 must have some acquaintance with the philosophy of the 
 mind : and with the manner of developing its principles 
 and operations in proper language. But for acquiring 
 this, his situation may afford him no adequate advantages. 
 And yet that same situation need not deprive him of the 
 good effects of a rational and well established faith. 
 
 One more remark on this point. Although the evi- 
 dence, by which we are able to prove a particular truth, 
 may be feeble, or obscure ; we are not hence to conclude 
 that it has not, even now, clear and perfect evidence in 
 the view of those who possess a higher degree of knowl- 
 edge. To superior intelligences, and certainly to the 
 divine mind, every truth is attended with perfect evi- 
 dence. But this perfect evidence may be, in part, or al- 
 together, beyond the reach of the intellectual power 
 which we now possess. In our present condition, we 
 may be as unable to discern it, as we are to discern the 
 light which illuminates the most distant parts of creation. 
 But the growth of our mental faculties may hereafter en- 
 able us to discover more and more clearly the evidence 
 which now lies concealed. Such is the consequence of 
 our possessing limited powers of understanding, and our 
 acquiring all our knowledge gradually. 
 
 If you apply the remarks which have been made to 
 the subject under consideration, you will be satisfied at 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 17 
 
 once of the truth of the following position ; namely ; that 
 the icant of an express, positive command of Scripture 
 that infants should be baptized, is not to be considered as 
 a valid objection against Infant Baptism. As this posi- 
 tion is of special importance, I shall take some particular 
 pains to illustrate its truth. 
 
 Admitting, as we must, that all positive religious rites 
 are originally founded on an express divine command ; 
 we cannot safely conclude that such a command will be 
 repeated to all those who shall afterwards be under obli- 
 gation to observe those rites, or even that the original 
 command will be preserved and communicated to them 
 in the sacred writings. Neither of these can be consid- 
 ered as indispensable ; because sufficient evidence of a 
 divine institution may be afforded in some other way. It 
 may be afforded, particularly, by an unwritten tradition. 
 It is unquestionable, that the knowledge of some extra- 
 ordinary events of providence, or of some divine injunc- 
 tions may be as truly and as certainly communicated in 
 this way as in others ; and we should, in many cases, 
 consider a man, who should refuse to admit the truth and 
 authority of a tradition, to be as unreasonable, as if he 
 should refuse to admit the truth and authority of written 
 or printed records. 
 
 If we should insist upon the repetition of a divine com- 
 mand at different times, or upon a written record of it, 
 as indispensable ; we should set aside one of the methods 
 which God has in other cases adopted in regard to the 
 positive institutions of religion. For example : what 
 clear and certain proof have we, that the divine com- 
 mand, enjoining the observance of the Sabbath, or the 
 offering of sacrifices, was repeated to the successive gen- 
 erations of men from Adam to Moses ; or that they had 
 
18 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 evidence of either of those divine institutions, from his- 
 torical records ? And what certain proof is there of the 
 repetition of the divine command, or the existence of any 
 historical records, during the period from Abraham to 
 Moses, respecting the rite of circumcision ? And to 
 come down to later times ; what express command has 
 God given to us, or to any Christians since the days of 
 the apostles, requiring the first day of the week to be ob- 
 served as a Sabbath ? And what express declaration 
 have we in the sacred records, that such a command was 
 ever given either by Christ or his Apostles? In regard 
 to this, we who observe the Christian Sabbath, must ei- 
 ther say, that a divine command has been given directly 
 to us; or that a command originally given by Christ, has 
 been preserved to us in the sacred records, — neither of 
 which are we able to say ; — or we must justify ourselves 
 in observing the Lord's day, because some other consid- 
 erations show that such is the will of God. On what 
 ground then shall we proceed in regard to this subject 1 
 We must be sensible, that we have no direct command 
 from God to us, and no record of any former command, 
 to authorize us to regard the Christian Sabbath as a di- 
 vine institution. Shall we then admit, that it is proper 
 for us to fall in with the prevailing practice in regard to 
 a religious rite, merely because we judge it becoming and 
 useful ? This we cannot admit. We must then rest the 
 Christian Sabbath on the ground of the original institu- 
 tion of the Sabbath, as enjoined in the fourth command 
 of the Decalogue. And we must at the same time ad- 
 mit, that the original institution was particularly modified 
 at the commencement of the Christian dispensation, al- 
 though our sacred writings no where expressly require 
 such a modification. It cannot but be evident then, that 
 
IAFANT BAPTISM. 19 
 
 if we should insist upon the necessity of an express di- 
 vine precept, either originally addressed to us, or trans- 
 mitted to us by the sacred records, in order to justify us 
 in observing the rite of Infant Baptism ; we should con- 
 tradict our own practice in regard to another subject 
 very analogous to this. 
 
 And what shall we say in regard to female commun- 
 ion ? The Lord's Supper is allowed to be a divine insti- 
 tution. But it was enjoined originally upon the Apostles. 
 The command was not given to females ; and there is no 
 express mention in the New Testament of their having 
 ever received the Lord's Supper. We all believe it to be 
 the will of God that they should partake. But how do 
 we prove this ? Not by any express command of Christ. 
 Not by any definite account in the Scriptures, that they 
 actually did partake. The argument on which we rest 
 is derived from the reasonableness of the thing ; from the 
 uniform practice of the early Christian churches, as set 
 forth in Ecclesiastical History ; and from what appears 
 to be implied in the Scripture account. That is, we be- 
 lieve God has made known his will, that pious women 
 should partake of the Lord's Supper, without the least 
 appearance of any express command requiring it, and 
 without any mention in the Scriptures of their ever hav- 
 ing partaken in the first Christian churches. The single 
 question is, by what evidence we are satisfied that they 
 ought to partake 1 And if we are satisfied in this case, 
 without any express command ; why should we not be in 
 the other case ? 
 
 My object in this place is to remove a mistake as to 
 the kind and degree of evidence which shall be deemed 
 conclusive, and to show that demanding an express pre- 
 cept in favor of Infant Baptism, that is, demanding a new 
 
20 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 and explicit command in favor of the dedication of chil- 
 dred to God by the Christian rite of baptism, would be 
 unreasonable and inconsistent. I wish every man to set- 
 tle it in his mind perfectly and forever, that, in a multi- 
 tude of cases, other evidence ought to be received, and 
 is received, as satisfactory. 
 
 Consider a moment how we proceed in regard to so 
 momentous a subject, as the authority of some of the sa- 
 cred writings. Take, for example, the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews, which we receive as having been written by 
 inspiration of God. But why do we thus receive it ? 
 What is the kind of evidence we have of its divine inspi- 
 ration and divine authority ? Do the other Scriptures 
 give testimony to this Epistle, and require us to rect ive 
 it ? No. Does the author of the Epistle inform us that 
 he wrote by divine inspiration ? Does he even give us his 
 own name ? He does neither. We receive this book as 
 of divine authority, because Ecclesiastical History teach- 
 es that it was thus received by the generality of the early 
 Christians ; whom we know to have been far better qual- 
 ified than we are, to form a right judgment in regard to 
 its claims. It is primarily on the ground of such evidence 
 as this, that we admit the Epistle into the sacred canon. 
 The intrinsic excellence of the Book, and its correspond- 
 ence with other parts of Scripture, is also a consideration 
 of great weight in favor of its divine authority. But this 
 consideration is of a very different nature from what we 
 understand by express, positive proof from the word of 
 God. The same as to some other parts of the Chris- 
 tian Scriptures. What is the kind of evidence which 
 we have of their divine inspiration and authority 1 
 They are sanctioned by no voice from heaven ; by no 
 miracle ; and by no declaration of inspired writers. But 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 21 
 
 do we therefore reject them ? No. We receive them 
 as a part of the sacred canon on the ground of Historical 
 evidence. That is, the testimony of antiquity is in their 
 favor. We rely on that testimony, because it is the tes- 
 timony of men competent to judge. And why should 
 we not proceed on the same general principles in regard 
 to Infant Baptism ? If we have as good evidence from 
 history in favor of this, as we have that the Apocalypse, 
 and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and some other parts of 
 the Bible, were written by inspired men ; how can we 
 consistently reject it ? 
 
 Let it be remembered, that we did not originate the 
 human mind, or the doctrines and institutions of religion, 
 or the evidence which obliges us to believe those doc- 
 trines, and observe those institutions. The faculties of 
 the mind, the doctrines and precepts of religion, and the 
 evidence which supports them, are all of God. The man- 
 ner in which he has made known his will, and the kind 
 and degree of evidence which he has afforded in favor of 
 the truths and duties of religion, are unquestionably con- 
 formed to our intellectual and moral constitution ; and 
 they are specially suited to excite us to diligent efforts ; 
 to give due exercise to candor; to make us feel the ne- 
 cessity of being guided by the divine Spirit ; and finally, 
 to produce such a conviction in us, as will best subserve 
 the purposes of moral discipline. It is not God's way to 
 give us evidence of the highest possible degree. As to 
 many moral and religious truths, the evidence which sup- 
 ports them is far from being so clear and certain, as we 
 should naturally expect. It often comes indirectly. It 
 comes in the way of inference from other truths more 
 plain and obvious. It sometimes consists in a kind of 
 instinctive moral discernment, — a spontaneous operation 
 3 
 
22 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 of our faculties, which cannot be easily described. Some- 
 times it is the slow result of our experience and observa- 
 tion. And if a precept or institution is concerned, de- 
 pending ultimately for its authority on a special divine 
 revelation ; that revelation is communicated to us through 
 the channel of history or tradition, and the history or tra- 
 dition is frequently attended with no small degree of ob- 
 scurity. It is manifestly our duty, as intelligent beings, 
 and in the diligent use of our rational powers, to hold 
 ourselves ready to receive just such evidence, as God is 
 pleased to afford. And if any of us should undertake to 
 prescribe to him, or to determine beforehand what evi- 
 dence we must have to satisfy our faith ; and if we should 
 reject every thing, which is not attended with just such 
 evidence as we might judge most suitable ; we should 
 give up some, if not all of the most important moral truths, 
 and should fall into a state of skepticism, most fearful 
 in its influence on our present and our eternal interests. 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 Reasoning of the former Lecture confirmed by particular considerations in favor 
 of Infant Baptism. I. Its suitableness to the relation of parents aud chil- 
 dren. 2. This relation had been marked by a religious rite through the Pa- 
 triarchal and Mosaic dispensation. — That rite respected spiritual blessings. 
 — Objection considered. 
 
 In the last Lecture, I endeavoured to support the 
 following position ; namely ; that the want of an express 
 declaration of Scripture in favor of Infant Baptism is 
 not a valid argument against it. 
 
 Thus far my remarks have respected Infant Baptism 
 as a religious institution in a general view. But there 
 are special considerations in relation to this particular 
 rite ; considerations which will give to the remarks I 
 have made an additional force. That is to say, there is 
 special reason why we should not demand an express pre- 
 cept of Scripture for baptizing children, and special rea- 
 son why other evidence should satisfy us, that Infant Bap- 
 tism is a divine institution. 
 
 The reason is, that a religious rite of long standing, 
 and intended for the same general purposes with Baptism, 
 had, by express appointment of God, been uniformly ap- 
 plied to infant children. The existence of such a rite, 
 and the high importance which was universally attached 
 to it by the people of God, would make it easy to substi- 
 
24 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 tute in its place a rite of the same general import, but dif- 
 ferent in outward form. This last rite, or rather this 
 last form of a permanent institution, would require less 
 formality of divine injunction — less appearance of inter- 
 position on the part of God to introduce it, than to intro- 
 duce an institution which, in its design and application, 
 is entirely new. Those Christians, who had been famil- 
 iar with the previous rite of circumcision, that is, the 
 previous mode of consecrating children to God, must 
 have been predisposed in favor of Infant Baptism, and 
 must have been ready, at any intimation of Christ or his 
 Apostles, at once to receive it. Yea, they must have been 
 ready to fall in with it, as a matter of course. The pub- 
 lic consecration of children to God by a religious rite had 
 for many ages been a standing practice in the church. 
 It came not from Moses, but from Abraham, the father 
 of those who believe in all nations. And what is the 
 consecration of children to God by Baptism, but a pre- 
 vious institution of God, so modified in regard to its form, 
 as to agree with the Christian dispensation ? In such a 
 case, especially if the original institution was held in 
 high estimation, and attended with high endearments ; 
 what more could be deemed necessary, than that the di- 
 vine will should be made known, as to the new form of 
 the institution ? After such an expression of the divine 
 will, we should think, that the institution in its new form, 
 that is, the dedication of children to God by baptism, 
 would immediately go into practice, and that whatever 
 pertained to its general design and use, would be contin- 
 ued, unless some divine direction was interposed to pre- 
 vent. It must then, I apprehend, be manifest to all, that 
 in the case now under consideration, there was less occa- 
 sion for an express command from God, to give sanction 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 25 
 
 and prevalence to the new rite, that is, to the new form 
 of the original institution, than if no rite of similar im- 
 port had existed before. 
 
 In this as in other respects, you will perceive a stri- 
 king analogy between the institution of Infant Baptism, 
 and that of the Christian Sabbath. The institution of a 
 sabbath, one day in seven, had been established from the 
 creation of the world. Under the reign of Christ, the 
 original institution was to undergo a certain alteration. 
 But how was this alteration effected ? How was the 
 Christian church brought to give up the seventh day, and 
 to observe the first, as a Sabbath ? Was an express di- 
 vine command formally announced, in regard to the 
 Lord's day ? Did God come forth in his majesty, as he 
 did on Sinai, and say in the hearing of the apostles and 
 early christians, " Six days shalt thou labor and do all 
 thy work ; but the first day is the Sabbath of the Lord 
 thy God t" And was such a command as this put on re- 
 cord by the inspired writers, and transmitted from one 
 generation to another, as the fourth command in the Dec- 
 alogue was 1 Nothing like this has taken place ; nor 
 have we thought it at all necessary. How then have we 
 been brought to give up the seventh day as a Sabbath, 
 and to keep the first in its place ? We find no command 
 of Christ or his apostles. And we find no express decla- 
 ration of Scripture, that the Apostles and first Christians 
 uniformly kept the fkst day as a Sabbath. But there are 
 several things in the Acts and Epistles, which plainly 
 imply that they did so; and besides this, we have histor- 
 ical evidence that the Lord's day was generally observed 
 by the early Christian Churches, and that the seventh 
 day Sabbath gradually fell into disuse. Thus, without 
 any appearance of a positive command, on the ground of 
 3* 
 
26 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 what was practised by those who lived near the apostles, 
 and who had the best advantages to form a correct judg- 
 ment, and because too, though without any express decla- 
 ration of Scripture, there is reason to think, that such was 
 the practice of the Apostles; we feel ourselves authorized 
 and obliged to observe the first day of the week as a Sab- 
 bath. But would Christians have been so easily satisfied 
 of their obligations to keep the Christian Sabbath, had 
 there not been a weekly Sabbath enjoined by divine com- 
 mand, and uniformly observed by God's people through 
 preceding ages ? The more seriously I have reflected 
 on this subject, the more fully have I become satisfied, 
 that the previous existence of similar observances must 
 have produced such an effect on the minds of the first 
 Jewish Christians, as perfectly to prepare them to re- 
 ceive the Christian Sabbath and Infant Baptism, with- 
 out any new enactment, or any explicit declaration what- 
 ever in their favor. But they could not have been pre- 
 pared for this, had these institutions been altogether new. 
 
 After considering so particularly the proper mode of 
 reasoning, and suggesting what seemed necessary to pre- 
 pare the way for a fair discussion of the subject ; I shall 
 proceed to the arguments which, in my view, prove that 
 Infant Baptism is required of God. In treating this con- 
 troverted subject, I shall take the liberty to follow my 
 own habit of thinking, and, with little reference to the 
 views of others, shall lay before you those considerations, 
 which have had the greatest influence on my own mind, 
 and which, after much anxious inquiry, have conducted 
 me to a satisfactory conclusion. 
 
 The first consideration I shall suggest is, that the rite 
 of Infant Baptism manifestly corresponds with the natu- 
 ral relation between parents and children. It is not 
 
"INFANT BAPTISM. *M 
 
 enough to say that there is no inconsistency between the 
 two things, and that the relation of parents and children 
 can afford no objection against Infant Baptism. For 
 nothing is more evident than that this rite has a perfect 
 suitableness to the relation of parents and children. This 
 relation is of such a nature and attended with such cir- 
 cumstances, that Infant Baptism becomes obviously, and 
 in the highest degree, just and proper. I acknowledge, 
 that this argument does not by itself, prove Infant Bap- 
 tism to have been appointed by God, and to be obligato- 
 ry upon Christians. But it shows at least, that, if God 
 is pleased to appoint it, the appointment must be regard- 
 ed as having a perfect fitness and propriety. It shows too, 
 that we ought readily to fall in with the practice, if there 
 is any plain indication of God's will in its favor ; that a 
 lower degree of evidence is sufficient to bring us under 
 obligation to adopt it as a divine institution, than if it 
 had no such obvious fitness. 
 
 This view of the subject cannot be considered as ob- 
 jectionable by any one, who well considers how we form 
 our opinions in regard to many other subjects. How, 
 for instance, do we reason in regard to a subject referred 
 to in the last Lecture, that is, female communion ? We 
 say, it is manifestly suitable ; that pious women have the 
 same reason to commemorate the death of Christ, as 
 pious men ; that its being enjoined in general terms is a 
 sufficient indication of the divine will in regard to the or- 
 dinance, and that pious women, having all the general 
 reasons to partake of the ordinance with pious men, have 
 a fair title to partake, on the ground of the general ap- 
 pointment, without waiting for a command addressed 
 specifically to them. But we could not think this correct 
 in any case, where there was no evident fitness in the 
 
-*28 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 thing itself, and where every thing must depend on a 
 positive divine precept. 
 
 The same as to the Lord's day. We perceive it to 
 be altogether just and proper, that so important an event 
 as the resurrection of Christ should be commemorat- 
 ed, and that the day, on which it took place, should 
 be consecrated to the honor of the Saviour, by all 
 his followers. In this way we are prepared to think 
 favorably of changing the Sabbath from the seventh day 
 to the first. And being thus impressed with the fitness of 
 the thing, we are easily satisfied with the circumstan- 
 ces, which indicate that this is the will of God. When 
 we find that the Apostles and first Christians observed 
 that day, and that it became the practice of Christian 
 churches universally to do so ; we feel at once that the 
 practice was suitable ; that it corresponded with the na- 
 ture and ends of the Christian religion, and that what the 
 apostles and first Christians did, manifested the pleasure 
 of God; and so, without suspicion, we fall in with the 
 prevailing practice. But had we no such perception of 
 the fitness of the thing ; how could prevailing practice 
 have such an effect upon us ? 
 
 In forming our judgment on such a subject as this, 
 we should keep in mind, that God has given us rea- 
 son and moral sense, and thus rendered us capable of 
 discerning the relations of things, and of determining, in 
 most cases, what is suitable to those relations ; and that 
 it is often in this way only, that we are able to discover 
 the will of God. 
 
 The relation existing between parents and children 
 is seldom taken into serious consideration ; and it is still 
 more seldom the case, that its nature and importance are 
 Tightly apprehended. A little attention to the circum- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. '29 
 
 stances of this relation, particularly to the affections which 
 attend it, the obligations involved in it, and the conse- 
 quences resulting from it, will satisfy any one, that, it is 
 among the most interesting and momentous relations on 
 earth. 
 
 Every human being, from the commencement of his 
 existence, is the object of an affection indescribably ar- 
 dent and tender. This affection, which lodges in the 
 hearts of parents, and results necessarily from the consti- 
 tution they have received from their Creator, is universal, 
 except where that constitution is greatly perverted. 
 Whenever a child is born, an affection springs up in the 
 hearts of his parents, which will afford protection to his 
 weakness ; which will prompt them to constant, untiring 
 labors, and make it even a pleasure for them to forego 
 the common gratifications of life, and to endure self-de- 
 nial, watching, and fatigue, for the sake of that helpless 
 being who is entrusted to their care.* For a time this 
 affection operates without rational intercourse, without 
 acquaintance, and without any return of service, or even 
 of gratitude; for of every thing like this the new-born 
 infant is incapable. Parental affection is fixed and du- 
 rable. Causes which extinguish other kinds of affection, 
 generally leave this in all its strength, and often prove an 
 occasion of increasing its warmth and activity. The af- 
 fection of parents, instead of ceasing with the feebleness 
 and the wants of their offspring, extends its kind regards 
 over his whole life, and when regulated by religious prin- 
 ciple, aims at nothing less than to promote his happiness 
 through an immortal existence. 
 
 Now the mere fact that the relation of parents to 
 
 * See Brown's Lectures on the Philosophy of the mind. 
 
30 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 their offspring is attended with an affection of so unpar- 
 alleled a nature, marks this relation as one of vast con- 
 sequence, and indicates that God intended to make it 
 subservient to very important ends in his government. 
 
 This relation involves high obligations. The pre- 
 cepts of God's word on this subject are such as sound 
 reason must approve. Parents are required to bring up 
 their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
 The duties of parents are so various and constant, that, 
 if rightly performed, they must occupy a considerable 
 portion of human life ; and they are so arduous, as to re- 
 quire a high effort of our rational and moral powers, and 
 the aids of God's Holy Spirit. These duties are so im- 
 portant, that they cannot be neglected without consequen- 
 ces the most fatal to the interests of the church and the 
 world. The duties of parents, and the influence which 
 they ought to possess over their children, must generally 
 be considered as the chief means of forming the charac- 
 ter of the rising generation, and preparing them for use- 
 fulness ; the chief means of saving the souls of men, and 
 propagating the Christian religion from one generation to 
 another. 
 
 These remarks are all confirmed by the word and prov- 
 idence of God. From the beginning of the world, the char- 
 acter and condition of children have generally resulted 
 from the conduct of parents. The peculiar character of 
 a tribe or nation has commonly been derived from the 
 character of its father or head. This extends to the re- 
 ligious as well as to the social and secular character. 
 The history of the Christian church shows that, after it 
 has once been established in any place, it has depended, 
 for its continuance and increase, chiefly upon the suc- 
 cess of parents in promoting the piety of their children. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 3l 
 
 The foregoing remarks are not made to prove, that it 
 is in fact the appointment of God that children should be 
 baptized; but to show, that, according to our best views 
 of the subject, Infant Baptism has an obvious fitness. If 
 the relation between parents and children is so vastly im- 
 portant ; it is manifestly proper that it should have some 
 mark set upon it, to show in what estimation it is held by 
 the Creator of the world. And as this relation involves, 
 in so high a degree, the interests of religion ; it is mani- 
 festly proper that it should be marked by a religious rite. 
 If a public religious rite may be properly used for the 
 purpose of impressing truth or duty on the minds of men 
 in any case ; it may surely be in this. Thus the consid- 
 erations above stated, though they do not directly prove 
 Infant Baptism to be a divine institution, are sufficient to 
 show that such a religious rite entirely corresponds with 
 the nature and design of the relation between parents 
 and children, and that it is very reasonable that such a 
 relation should be marked by some expressive sign. 
 
 My second argument is, that the relation between pa- 
 rents and children was actually marked by a divinely ap- 
 pointed and significant rite, through the Patriarchal and 
 Mosaic economy. 
 
 Here observe that the same rite was appointed for 
 parents and children. Observe too, that this rite, intend- 
 ed for children as well as parents, did not originate in 
 the Mosaic ritual, but in the family of Abraham, the fath- 
 er of all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, and was 
 practised among the Israelites from generation to genera- 
 tion till the death of Christ. 
 
 This rite evidently had a primary relation to spiritual 
 blessings. It was a confirmation of that most gracious 
 and spiritual promise which God made to Abraham, / 
 
90 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 will be a God to thee and to thy seed. Circumcision, the 
 Apostle tells us, Rom. 4: 11, was a seal of the righteous- 
 ness of faith which Abraham had ichile uncircumcistd. 
 God's covenant with Abraham and his posterity did in- 
 deed include a great variety of temporal blessings ; par- 
 ticularly, their title to the land of Canaan, and all their 
 institutions and laws relating to their worldly state. But 
 these were only appendages of the spiritual good secured 
 to the obedient by the divine promises. The promises of 
 that economy were as high and spiritual, as any contain- 
 ed in the Scriptures ; and the principal one, J will be 
 your GocL is referred to in the New Testament, as in- 
 volving the most precious Gospel blessings. Heb. 8: 10. 
 2 Cor. 6: 16. The old Testament economy contained 
 also the most spiritual and holy precepts. It contained 
 the decalogue, and various other commands, requiring ho- 
 liness of heart and life. The character which God exhib- 
 ited was the same under the former dispensation, as un- 
 der the latter. The character, which he required of those 
 who were under the former economy, was the same as he 
 required of the followers of Christ. Thou shalt love the 
 Lord thy God with all thy heart. Be ye holt/, for I am 
 holy, Deut 6: 5. Lev. 20: 7. Matt. 22: 37. 1 Pet. 1: 15. 16. 
 It may indeed be alleged, that the Israelites, as a na- 
 tion, were not holy ; that they did not render to God a 
 sincere spiritual service, and that the economy, under 
 which they were placed, did not in fact secure to them 
 spiritual blessings. This is true. But this is not to be 
 charged to that system of laws and rites and promises, 
 which God gave for their benefit, but to themselves. 
 Had they been obedient to the laws of that economy, cir- 
 cumcision would have been an actual confirmation to 
 them of spiritual blessings. Now surely we are not to 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 33 
 
 judge of the nature of the former economy from the char- 
 acter of those who were placed under it. As a general 
 fact, their character was directly contrary to the nature 
 and design of that economy ; — as really so, as the char- 
 acter of the bulk of nominal Christians in the most cor- 
 rupt age of the church has been contrary to the design of 
 the Christian economy. But who would think of urging 
 the degraded, corrupt character exhibited at any time by 
 nominal Christians, as a proof that the Christian dispen- 
 sation was not intended to be of a spiritual nature, or that 
 its rites were not intended to be signs of spiritual bless- 
 ings ? No distinction can be more obvious, than that be- 
 tween the real nature of a divine economy, and the man- 
 ner in which it is used by those who are placed under it. 
 As to the former economy, the question is not, what was 
 the actual character of the Israelites ; but what was the 
 character which they ought to have possessed, — the char- 
 acter which the precepts and the spirit of the dispensa- 
 tion required them to possess 1 Now if, from generation 
 to generation, they had been obedient and holy according 
 to the laws of that economy ; who could ever have 
 doubted that the economy was a spiritual one, and that 
 circumcision was a seal of spiritual blessings ? So far as 
 they kept God's covenant, it was in fact a seal of spiritu- 
 al blessings both to parents and children. It set forth 
 God's design, that the true religion, with all its attendant 
 benefits, should, by means of parental faithfulness and 
 prayer, be transmitted from one generation to another. 
 And if the Israelites universally from Abraham to Christ 
 had truly conformed to that divine institution ; then cir- 
 cumcision would have been in fact what it was designed 
 to be, a confirmation of God's promise, / will be a God 
 to thee and thy iced. And let me repeat it, that the 
 4 
 
34 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 nature and design of a rite, instituted by God, cannot be 
 altered by the disobedience and perverseness of men. 
 
 I well know that there are some passages in the New 
 Testament, especially in the Epistle to the Galatians, and 
 to the Hebrews, which seem at first view to militate 
 against what I have advanced in regard to the spiritual 
 nature of the Mosaic economy. This is a subject which 
 requires a longer and more minute investigation, than 
 would be proper in this place. I must therefore refer you 
 to what others have written, after suggesting two things, 
 which I think very obvious. 
 
 First. The Apostle in his whole argument in Gal. in. 
 makes a distinction between the Mosaic economy, or law, 
 and God's covenant with Abraham; and he takes spe- 
 cial pains to teach, that the covenant with Abraham was 
 unalterable ; that believers in Christ come under that 
 very covenant ; that they are Abraham *s seed, and heirs 
 according to the promise, that is, the promise made to 
 Abraham ; and that it is the blessing of Abraham, — 
 the blessing promised to Abraham and his seed, which 
 all believers inherit. It must therefore be obvious, that 
 whatever there was in the Mosaic economy which was 
 earthly and changeable, God's covenant with Abraham 
 was spiritual and immutable, securing all the blessings, to 
 which believers in Christ are entitled. And it must not 
 be forgotten, that circumcision was first appointed to be 
 the seal, not of the Mosaic economy, but of this spirit- 
 ual and immutable covenant of God with Abraham. 
 
 Second. When in Heb. vin. the writer says, that the 
 first covenant, (evidently meaning the Mosaic or Sinai 
 covenant,) was faulty and ineffectual, that it had waxed 
 old and was ready to vanish away ; he evidently refers to 
 the Levitical Priesthood, and the ancient ritual, which 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 35 
 
 were both appointed only for temporary purposes, and 
 were to cease after the death of Christ. If so, then what 
 reason is there to doubt that a spiritual and unchangea- 
 ble covenant, the same as the one made with Abraham, 
 was contained in the Mosaic dispensation ? The spiritual 
 precepts and promises found there clearly prove that it 
 was so in fact. Accordingly, circumcision, though it 
 was connected with the Mosaic ritual and made a part of 
 it, was still, through that whole dispensation, what it was 
 originally designed to be, a confirmation to all true saints, 
 of the spiritual blessings secured by God's covenant with 
 Abraham. 
 
 The general position then stands firm, that the cove- 
 nant, of which circumcision teas appointed to be the seal, 
 was spiritual, gracious, and immutable. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 The Christian religion founded on the OJd Testament Scriptures. We canuot 
 conclude that Christ did not give specific instructions on any subject from the 
 fact that such instructions are not recorded. — The Scriptures of the New Tes- 
 tament imply that the children of believers are to be baptized. — Rule of inter- 
 pretation; viz. we must put ourselves as far as may be, in the place of those 
 who gave, and of those who received instruction. Circumstances of those 
 to whom Christ gave the commission to proselyte and baptize all nations. 
 How they must have understood this commission. Proselyte Baptism. — Gen- 
 eral representation of Scripture and course of providence. 
 
 TVe now come to the introduction of the Christian 
 dispensation, and the appointment of Baptism as a sign 
 of discipleship to Christ, or, which is the same thing, a 
 seal of God's covenant with believers. 
 
 Here let me remark, first, that the Christian religion 
 was evidently founded upon the Old Testament Scriptures, 
 and was a continuation of the religion there taught. 
 Christ frequently declares, that the Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament make known his character, and the princi- 
 ples of his gospel. He frequently appeals to the Law and 
 the Prophets and the Psalms, for the confirmation of what 
 he tauo-ht. The Apostles do the same, and clearly make 
 it known to be their wish, that the soundness of their in- 
 structions should be tested by the Scriptures. And we 
 well know that, whenever they speak of the Scriptures, 
 they refer to the Old Testament. Carefully peruse the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 37 
 
 Evangelists, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles, 
 and see in what manner Christ and the Apostles treat the 
 Scriptures, and how they labor to show, that Christianity 
 is not a new religion, but the very religion which was 
 taught in the Law and the Prophets : — from which con- 
 sideration they most justly conclude, that no man can re- 
 ject Christianity without rejecting the Old Testament 
 Scriptures, and that no one can truly believe those Scrip- 
 tures without believing Christianity. 
 
 I cannot think that any quotations in proof of the 
 foregoing remarks will be thought necessary by those who 
 are conversant with the Scriptures. 
 
 From such a view of the subject it seems very natural 
 to conclude, that any general principle of religion, and 
 any practice, established under the former economy, 
 will be continued, though it may be in a different 
 form, under the Christian economy, unless the reasons 
 have ceased on which that principle or practice was 
 founded, or unless God has expressly set it aside. For ex- 
 ample. It is just to conclude that public worship, which 
 was established under the former dispensation, will be 
 continued under the latter, though doubtless with such 
 changes in the form, as the peculiarities of the Christian 
 economy shall require. If Christ or his Apostles ever in- 
 timated to the Jews, that a change was necessary as to 
 the spirit or substance of their religion, they did it, un- 
 questionably,- with reference to the corruptions and abu- 
 ses which had prevailed, not with reference to the reli- 
 gion which was actually taught in the Old Testament. 
 
 The institution of the Sabbath, which has already 
 been referred to, furnishes another illustration of the pro- 
 priety of our reasoning on the present subject. This in- 
 stitution rests on the essential principles of our intelleo- 
 4* 
 
tJO INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 tual and moral nature. There must be a sacred day, — a 
 day devoted to the worship of God. There is the same 
 reason for it under both dispensations. The change 
 then, if there be any, must relate to outward form and 
 circumstance. By the will of him who is the Lord of the 
 Sabbath, the particular day to be observed under the 
 Christian economy is different, and the observance at- 
 tended with fewer and simpler ceremonies. Still there is 
 a sacred day every week under the present dispensation, 
 as really as there was under the Jewish or Patriarchal. 
 In respect to the necessity and utility of such a day, and 
 the command of God to observe it, there is no change. 
 
 The same appears to be true in regard to the seal of 
 God's covenant, and of the relation which his people sus- 
 tain to him. The importance of such a seal to promote 
 in the highest degree the ends of religion, must be obvi- 
 ous to all who are acquainted with the constitution of the 
 human mind ; and it must be equally obvious in all ages. 
 It is reasonable therefore to think that, under both dis- 
 pensations, God's covenant will have a seal, whatever 
 difference there may be in the form of it. Why should 
 not the unalterable relation of children to parents, and 
 of both to God, be marked by a religious rite now, as 
 well as formerly ? According to the will of God, that 
 rite, under the former economy, was circumcision ; un- 
 der the present, it is baptism. The general import of the 
 rite is the same; its form is changed. 
 
 But, I remark, secondly, that we cannot certainly 
 conclude that our Saviour did not give his Apostles spe- 
 cific instructions on this or any other subject, merely be- 
 cause such instructions are not preserved in the records of 
 the New Testament, The Evangelists have given us no 
 more than a very summary account of what Christ taught 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 39 
 
 during his public ministry. They could do nothing more 
 than this, as John plainly suggests at the end of his gos- 
 pel ; where he tells us, that if all should be icritten, the 
 world itself could not contain the books. We are not, 
 however, to infer from this, that the instructions of Christ, 
 which are not found in the sacred records, were unim- 
 portant ; or that they had no effect, or were of no use ; 
 or even that their effect does not reach to the present 
 day, or that they are of no use to us. They were design- 
 ed to have their primary and direct influence on the 
 minds of the Apostles themselves, who were to be teach- 
 ers of the Christian religion, and were, at the commence- 
 ment of Christ's reign, to give a right direction to all the 
 affairs of his kingdom. Accordingly, the effect of Christ's 
 instructions to them must have appeared in the constitu- 
 tion and form of the churches which they established. 
 In various respects this is the only method in which it is 
 possible for us to determine what Christ's instructions 
 were. And under proper restrictions, it is a just and 
 satisfactory method. 
 
 From the effects which the Apostles produced, we 
 may learn what they did. And from what they did, we 
 may learn what instructions they received from Christ. 
 In this way we proceed in regard to the Passover, and 
 the Seventh-day Sabbath. There is no record of any 
 direction of Christ to set aside either of them. But we 
 find that they were set aside among those Christians whom 
 the Apostles taught. From this we may reasonably con- 
 clude what instructions the Apostles gave ; and then, 
 what they received from Christ. And we form this con- 
 clusion respecting the last, without the mention of any 
 command or counsel from Christ to his Apostles, or from 
 the Apostles to Christian converts. We find, farther, 
 
40 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 that Christians did, in some special sense, observe the 
 first day of the week. This the sacred records clearly 
 show. We learn from other sources, that while the Sev- 
 enth-day Sabbath gradually ceased to be observed in the 
 primitive churches, the Lord's day was observed in 
 its place. From these circumstances we infer what 
 the Apostles taught the first Christians, and what they 
 themselves were taught by Christ. And I venture to 
 say, if the New Testament were altogether silent re- 
 specting the first day of the week being made a sacred 
 day, and if we only found that the Christian church does 
 now uniformly observe the Lord's day, as a Sabbath, and 
 that this has been the case from the time of the first 
 Christian churches ; we should be satisfied that such was 
 the will of Christ ; that he had so instructed the Apostles, 
 and that they had so instructed the first Christians. 
 
 The same general remarks apply to the present sub- 
 ject. There is no mention made in the New Testament 
 of any definite instructions of Christ to the Apostles, or 
 of the Apostles to Christians, in regard to the baptism of 
 little children. But can we infer from this, that no defi- 
 nite instructions were given ? Such instructions might 
 have produced the effect designed, first, upon the Apos- 
 tles themselves, and then, through them, upon the minds 
 of Christian converts. And it may remain for us to learn 
 what those instructions of Christ and the Apostles were, 
 from what we discover to have been the practice of the 
 first churches. We should unquestionably reason just so 
 now, in a similar case. Suppose, without any previous 
 knowledge of the subject, we should visit a place in Af- 
 rica, where a Christian missionary had successfully 
 preached, and founded a church, he having been the only 
 minister of the gospel who had labored in that place. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 41 
 
 And suppose our visit to take place some time after his 
 death. Would not the prevailing usages of that church 
 show, to our perfect satisfaction, what instructions he 
 gave? If we should find it the practice of that church 
 to baptize only adult believers, and to do it by immersion ; 
 should we not conclude at once, that the minister who 
 taught them was a Baptist ? But if we should find that 
 the church, thus founded by his faithful labors, and gui- 
 ded by his wisdom, was in the practice of baptizing their 
 infant children, and that this had been their uniform 
 practice from the beginning ; should we not conclude 
 that he taught them to baptize their children ? Most 
 certainly men in general, of whatever denomination, 
 would judge in this manner, and would be satisfied what 
 the instructions of any distinguished missionary were, 
 from the prevailing usages of a church founded by his in- 
 fluence. And such would be the conclusion we should 
 form, for a long time after his decease, unless the influ- 
 ence of subsequent teachers of different views, or some 
 other visible causes, had operated to produce a change. 
 Indeed it is clear, that the form and usages of a church 
 in any place must be derived from the principal teacher, 
 and conformed to his views. And if those Christians 
 who deny Infant Baptism, could, among the treasures of 
 antiquity, discover a history bearing every mark of au- 
 thenticity, and containing a particular account of the 
 churches in Asia Minor immediately after the days of the 
 Apostles, and if that history should plainly affirm that 
 those churches never baptized children, and that the 
 children of believers, on coming to adult years and pro- 
 fessing their faith in Christ, were then baptized ; I say, 
 if those who deny Infant Baptism, could find from au- 
 thentic records, that such was the usage of those church- 
 
42 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 es; they would doubtless think this to be a valuable 
 discovery, and the uniform practice of those churches to 
 baptize adult believers, and those only, to be a valid proof 
 that they were so taught by the Apostles. 
 
 But I shall now proceed to argue the point from the 
 inspired records, just as they are. My position is, that 
 the Scriptures of the New Testament, understood accord- 
 ing to just rules of interpretation, imply that the children 
 of believers are to be baptized. 
 
 The rule of interpretation, which is of the highest 
 consequence, and w hich will aid us most in discovering 
 the true meaning of the Scriptures in relation to the sub- 
 ject now before us, is, that we put ourselves, as far as 
 may be, in the place of those who gave instruction, and of 
 those who received it. 
 
 You will easily perceive the importance and necessity 
 of this rule. For in numberless instances, a declaration 
 or direction derives its peculiar meaning from the con- 
 sideration of the person who speaks, or of those to whom 
 he speaks. Who does not know that the same combi- 
 nation of words has a very different meaning in one place 
 from what it has in another ? Even when the general 
 sense of the words is the same, the circumstances of 
 the case must determine the extent of meaning which 
 they bear, or what is implied in the application of them 
 to the subject in hand. Some fact, some particular cus- 
 tom, or habit of thinking, may give them a specific signifi- 
 cation ; and without taking such fact or custom into view 
 we shall be likely to miss the exact sense and import of 
 the words. In how many instances should we be at a 
 loss respecting the meaning of historians, poets, and or- 
 ators, without taking into account the age and place in 
 which they lived, and the character, laws, and usages of 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 43 
 
 the people with whom they were conversant, and for whom 
 they wrote. 
 
 As a single illustration of the importance of this prin- 
 ciple ; look at a text in the Old Testament, in which 
 God requires that the Sabbath should be sanctified. 
 How do you ascertain which day is meant ? Simply by 
 considering what previous instructions and commands 
 were given to the Israelites on the subject, and what their 
 usage was. In this way we are satisfied that the seventh 
 day was meant. Look now at a law, in an English or 
 American statute book, requiring the people to abstain 
 from secular business on the Sabbath. How do you ascer- 
 tain which day is meant here ? In the same manner as 
 before, — by considering what has been the usage of Chris- 
 tians generally, and particularly of that people for whom 
 the law was made. In this way we are satisfied that the 
 first day of the week must be meant. 
 
 Let us now come directly to the subject. Christ ap- 
 pointed Baptism to be administered to all who should be- 
 come proselytes to his religion, that is, to all Christians ; 
 and when he was about leaving his Apostles, who were 
 to be employed as the instruments of converting the 
 world, he gave them this commission ; " Go ye, and teach 
 all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The word 
 fiu&tjTtvaciTe, rendered teach, properly signifies, make dis- 
 ciples ; proselyte ; convert to the Christian religion. The 
 commission then is this ; "Go ye, proselyte, or make dis- 
 ciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
 Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." This 
 command was given by a Jew, who was perfectly ac- 
 quainted with all the institutions and laws appertaining 
 to the religion of the Jews ; with the customs and usages 
 
44 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 of that people, and with the dispensations of divine provi- 
 dence towards them. And the command was addressed 
 to Jews. Now whatever there was in this general cir- 
 cumstance, which could have an influence upon the mean- 
 ing of the command, or which would naturally cause it 
 to be understood in one way or in another, is worthy of 
 special attention. 
 
 Let it be considered then, that the Jews had long 
 been accustomed to making proselytes from Paganism to 
 their religion. The obligation to do this had been 
 brought to view in the divine law, and rules had been 
 given for the proper treatment of proselytes. To make 
 proselytes was regarded as a great object; and the ef- 
 forts of the Jews to bring others to embrace their religion 
 were crowned with extensive success. Proselytes were 
 numerous both in Greece and in Rome ; and it seems 
 that, after the persecuting reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, 
 some whole nations, as the Idumeans, Itureans, and Mo- 
 abites professed the Jewish faith. And whenever Gen- 
 tiles embraced the Jewish religion, they were treated in 
 regard to circumcision, according to the Jewish law ; 
 that is, they were circumcised, — parents and children. 
 This was the law of the Jews ; and this was the uniform 
 practice. Hence it must be easy to determine, how 
 Christian Jews would be likely to understand the duty 
 of proselyting idolaters and unbelievers to the true reli- 
 gion. Suppose that God, previously to the Christian dis- 
 pensation, had selected twelve Jews, and sent them forth 
 to convert Greeks and Romans to their religion, and 
 without any mention of children, had merely given them 
 this commission ; Go ye, proselyte and circumcise them. 
 Would they not have understood such a commission as 
 requiring them to circumcise the children of converted 
 
INFANT BAPTISM, 45 
 
 Greeks and Romans ? Unquestionably they would. 
 And why ? Because they were Jews, and had alioays 
 been accustomed to the circumcision of children, as well as 
 of parents. In obedience to this divine command, they 
 would have gone to the people specified, and in all the 
 instances in which men were made proselytes, would 
 have circumcised them and their children. 
 
 Again. Suppose, in such a case, a command had 
 been given, which included baptism with circumcision; 
 thus : Go ye, and proselyte those nations, circumcising 
 and baptizing them. Still not a word about children ; 
 but simply, go and proselyte those nations to Judaism, 
 circumcising and baptizing them. Most certainly they 
 would have understood that baptism, as well as circumci- 
 sion, was to be applied to proselytes and their children. 
 
 But suppose that baptism had been put in the place of 
 circumcision, as the sign to be put upon proselytes to 
 Judaism ; and so the command to those Jewish teachers 
 had been ; Go ye, proselyte and baptize, the people of 
 Greece and Rome. Must they not have understood the 
 command in the same way 1 Surely those who were 
 acquainted with the commands and institutions which 
 God gave to Abraham and to Moses, and who had always 
 been accustomed to observe them, could have had no 
 doubt, that the rite whicli marked the relation of prose- 
 lytes to God, was to be applied to their children also. 
 
 Thus far all must have the same opinion. Such a 
 divine command to Jews before the time of Christ, 
 whether it appointed Circumcision only, or Circumci- 
 sion^ together with Baptism, or Baptism instead of Cir- 
 cumcision, as a mark to be applied to those who were 
 proselyted to the Jewish religion, must have been under- 
 5 
 
46 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 stood as intended to be applied also to the children of 
 proselytes. 
 
 You will keep in mind that I am now availing myself 
 of one of the most important principles of interpretation, 
 and attempting to show, what influence must have been 
 produced upon the meaning of Christ's direction by the 
 circumstance, that he was a Jew, and that he gave the 
 direction to Jews, whose laws and usages had been what 
 the Scriptures represent. 
 
 But, to illustrate this principle still farther ; suppose 
 it to have been the appointment of our Saviour, after his 
 public ministry began, that Circumcision should be ap- 
 plied to converts to Christianity, as it had been to con- 
 verts to Judaism ; and suppose him to have said to his 
 Apostles ; " Go ye, proselyte all nations, and circumcise 
 them," — making no mention of children. Could the Apos- 
 tles have doubted a moment, in such a case, whether cir- 
 cumcision was meant to be applied to the children of pros- 
 elytes ? But why should we suppose they would put a dif- 
 ferent construction upon the commission they received 
 from Christ, because Baptism was made the sign of pros- 
 elytes, instead of Circumcision ? There is evidently 
 nothing in the import of the sign, which would require 
 any difference in its application. For Baptism is ap- 
 pointed simply as a mark, or sign, to be put upon those 
 who are proselyted to Christianity. If Circumcision had 
 been continued, and Christ had commanded it to be put 
 upon Christian proselytes, as it had been upon proselytes 
 to the religion of Moses ; the meaning and use of it would 
 have been the same, as the meaning and use of Baptism. 
 
 But there is another consideration which may help to 
 satisfy us still farther, how the Apostles must have un- 
 derstood their commission to baptize converts to Chris- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 47 
 
 tianity ; namely ; the previous practice of the Jeivs to bap- 
 tize proselytes. 
 
 The evidence of such a practice among the Jews has 
 been satisfactory to many men of distinguished learning 
 and sound judgment. Knapp, in his Theology, gives 
 the following brief view of the arguments in proof of 
 Proselyte Baptism ; namely ; " The unanimous testimony 
 of all the Rabbins ; the universality of this practice among 
 the Jews of the second cent ury ;" (and he says, it 
 can scarcely be thought that they would have first adopt- 
 ed it from Christians, uho were so hated and despised by 
 them ;) " the striking similarity of the Jewish expressions 
 concerning the baptism of proselytes, to those which oc- 
 cur in the New Testament respecting the Christian rite ; 
 and the circumstance that Josephus, in his account of 
 John the Baptist, does not express the least surprise at 
 the practice of baptism, as a new and unwonted cere- 
 mony." Knapp suggests also, what I think to be deser- 
 ving of special consideration, that if the baptism of 
 proselytes was customary among the Jews at or before 
 the time of Christ, many things could be explained more 
 clearly from this circumstance, than in any other way.* 
 
 If then it had been the custom of the Jews to "baptize 
 proselytes to their religion, as we certainly have much 
 reason to think ; it is clear that the Baptism of Prose- 
 lytes by John and by Christ was no new thing. It is at 
 any rate clear, that Baptism, as a religious rite, was not 
 new, but had been familiarly known among the Jews, 
 
 * Those who wish to investigate this subject for themselves, 
 are referred to Lightfoot, on John in. Michaelis Dogm. 180. 
 Erntsti Vindiciae arbitrii divini, ? 49. Wail's History of Baptism, 
 Jahn's Archaeol. Wetstein on Matt. 3: 6. and the works of Dantz, 
 Zeigler, Less, and others. 
 
48 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 from the time of Moses. So that John, the forerunner 
 of Christ, did not institute a new rite, but took one which 
 had been long used for ceremonial purification, and which 
 probably had been used in the case of proselytes to the 
 Jewish religion ; and applied it to those Jews who listen- 
 ed to his instructions, and gave signs of repentance. And 
 afterwards Christ ordained, that Baptism, which had been 
 thus used among the Israelites for purification, and had 
 been applied to Jews who repented under the preaching 
 of John, and probably to converted Gentiles, should 
 from that time be applied to all in every part of the world, 
 who embraced Christianity. The work of proselyting 
 men to the true religion had before been carried on with- 
 in narrow limits. It was now to be carried on exten- 
 sively ; and Baptism, in the Christian form, was now to 
 be administered to all proselytes. " Go ye, and proselyte 
 all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In judging 
 of the true meaning and intent of this commission, the 
 Apostles would naturally consider in what manner Bap- 
 tism had been administered, and particularly, its having 
 been applied to proselytes and their children,—!^ as we ap- 
 prehend, that was in fact the case. This last circumstance, 
 in addition to the one with which they were so familiar, 
 that of having children, as well as parents, consecrated 
 to God by circumcision, must have had a direct and de- 
 cisive influence upon the construction which the Apos- 
 tles put upon their commission, and must have led them 
 to conclude, that, under the Christian dispensation, 
 children, as well as parents, were to be devoted to God 
 by Baptism, unless some contrary instruction was given to 
 prevent such a conclusion. " If Christ in his command 
 to baptize all, Matt. xxvm. had wished children to be 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 49 
 
 excepted ; he must have expressly said this. For since 
 the first disciples of Christ, as native Jews, knew no oth- 
 er way than for children to be introduced into the Is- 
 raelitish church by circumcision ; it was natural that 
 they should extend this to Baptism, if Christ did not ex- 
 pressly forbid it. Had he therefore wished that it should 
 not be done, he would surely have said so in definite 
 terms."* 
 
 Another consideration which shows, that it must have 
 been perfectly consistent for the Apostles to understand 
 their commission in the manner above stated, is, that the 
 Scriptures so often represent parents and children as re- 
 ceiving the same treatment from divine providence, and 
 as being closely connected together in respect to their 
 most important interests. " I will be your God, and the 
 God of your seed." — " Visiting the iniquities of the fa- 
 thers upon the children unto the third and fourth gene- 
 ration of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto 
 thousands," — that is, thousands of generations, " of them 
 that love me and keep my commandments." " That he 
 may prolong his days, he and his children." " Keep my 
 commandments, that it may go well with thee, and with 
 thy children after thee." " They are the seed of the 
 blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them." 
 With such representations as these the course of divine 
 providence had a striking correspondence. It was a 
 general fact that, whether mercies or judgments came up- 
 on men, their children were partakers of the same. And 
 this principle of the divine administration had a special 
 reference to the interests of religion. Now the Apostles 
 were perfectly acquainted with this principle. They had 
 
 * Knapp's Theology recently published in Halle. 
 5* 
 
50 TNFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the highest reverence for these sacred writings, which 
 exhibited such views of the connexion between parents 
 and children ; and they had been brought up under a 
 divine economy, which afforded continual confirmation 
 of what their Scriptures taught in regard to this connex- 
 ion. What violence then must they have done to all 
 those habits of thinking and feeling, which they had de- 
 rived from the word and providence of God, had they 
 supposed, that parents and children were no longer to be 
 connected together in the interests of religion, or in pub- 
 lic and sacred transactions, or that the connexion exist- 
 ing between them was no longer to be marked, as it al- 
 ways had been, with the sign of the dispensation under 
 which they were placed. 
 
LECTURE IV. 
 
 The argument from the circumstances of the Apostles reviewed, and shown to be 
 conclusive. — Mode of understanding a charter. — Did Christ give any previous 
 instruction which could have satisfied the Apostles in what manner they 
 were to understand their commission, or how they were to regard children I 
 — Matt. 19: 13, 14 particularly considered. 
 
 1 he general position, which I endeavoured to sup* 
 port in the last Lecture, was this ; that the Apostles, be- 
 ing native Jews, and having the impressions and habits 
 of thinking, which pious Jews would necessarily derive 
 from a familiar acquaintance with the rites and usages 
 inculcated in their Sacred writings, and with the repre- 
 sentations there made respecting the divine conduct to- 
 wards parents and children, must have understood their 
 commission to baptize proselytes, as intended to include 
 children with their parents. 
 
 The mode of reasoning, which has been pursued, 
 must, I think, be satisfactory. Its conclusiveness rests 
 wholly on a principle of interpretation, which is acknowl- 
 edged to be of the first importance ; namely ; that we 
 should place ourselves, as far as possible, in the circum- 
 stances of those who wrote the Scriptures, and of those 
 to whom they were addressed, and in this way endeav- 
 our to ascertain the meaning of what was written. From 
 Ecclesiastical History we can derive a very conclusive 
 argument, that the Apostles did in fact understand the 
 
52 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 institution of Baptism, as intended for believers and their 
 children. But why did they understand it in this man- 
 ner ? I answer, that without the supposition of any di- 
 rect and explicit instruction on the subject from Christ, 
 or from the Holy Spirit, there were reasons, in the cir- 
 cumstances in which the Apostles were placed, sufficient 
 to satisfy them, that such was the design of the institu- 
 tion. Take the New Testament just as it is, and con- 
 sider what instructions Christ gave his Apostles in re- 
 gard to Baptism, particularly his final commission to them 
 to go and proselyte all nations, baptizing them in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 Ghost. The proper inquiry is not how Greeks and Ro- 
 mans would have understood such a commission ; for 
 the Apostles were neither Greeks nor Romans, and their 
 Lord who commissioned them was neither a Greek nor 
 a Roman. Our inquiry is, how such a commission would 
 naturally be understood by those who were, both by 
 birth and education, Jeivs ; how it would be understood, 
 by those who had derived their opinions and usages from 
 the Jewish Scriptures, and were the willing servants of 
 one who was himself a Jew, and the King of the Jews ? 
 To me it appears evident, that the circumstances of the 
 case, taken together, must have had a decisive influence 
 in favor of the Baptism of infants. For it was a well 
 known fact, that the seal of God's gracious covenant had, 
 from Abraham to that time, been applied to children. 
 And this application of it was manifestly grounded on a 
 permanent, unchangeable principle, that is, the natural 
 relation between parents and children. The mark or seal 
 which was appointed to be put upon God's people under 
 the reign of Christ, was of the same general import with 
 the one previously used. In this view, therefore, there 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 53 
 
 was the same apparent reason for applying it to the 
 children of God's people then, as before. As to its form, 
 the sign was changed ; but as to its import, it was the 
 same. The relation of good men to God, which was 
 marked by this sign, was the same ; and the relation of 
 their children to them was the same. How then could 
 the Apostles have doubted that children were to be treat- 
 ed in the same manner ? With their impressions and 
 their usages ; with their sacred regard to the princi- 
 ples established by the Scriptures, and by the divine admin- 
 istration ; particularly, with their habit of looking upon 
 children as being, by God's appointment, closely united 
 to their parents in respect to character, and privileges, 
 and prospect of happiness ; they must, as it seems to me, 
 have understood the command of Christ to baptize Chris- 
 tian proselytes, as extending to their children also. Had 
 the promise of God, " I will be a God to thee, and to thy 
 seed," or had the circumcision of the children of God's 
 people in connexion with that promise, rested on any re- 
 lation or principle, which appertained to the Patriarchal 
 or Jewish dispensation in distinction from the Christian ; 
 the Apostles, placed at the commencement of the Chris- 
 tian dispensation, and instructed as they were in regard 
 to its nature, would have been satisfied of course, that 
 children were no longer to be marked with the seal of 
 God's covenant, or to be consecrated to him by any re- 
 ligious rite. But children's being comprehended with 
 their parents in the promise of God, and their receiving 
 the same mark of his covenant mercy and of consecra- 
 tion to him with their parents, all plainly rested upon 
 principles, which were universal and immutable, and which 
 were to have as much prominence and influence under 
 the reign of Christ, as before. 
 
54 
 
 IiNFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 We have seen too, that the reasoning in this case is 
 analogous to the reasoning, commonly relied upon, in re- 
 lation to the Sabbath. The reason of a Sabbath day 
 lies in the nature of man, and in his relation to God, 
 and so is immutable. Consequently, the fourth com- 
 mand, however changed as to form, or circumstances, 
 must continue as to substance. There must be a sa- 
 cred clay. Its becoming a Christian institution, and its 
 being observed on the first day of the week, instead of 
 the seventh, alters not the substance of the fourth 
 command, nor the obligation of Christians to obey it. 
 In the same manner, the reason for Infant-consecration 
 lies in the nature and importance of the relation existing 
 between children and their parents, and the relation of 
 both to God, and so must be the same in all ages. This 
 relation is as obvious and important, and as worthy of be- 
 ing marked by a religious rite now, as formerly. The 
 sign of consecration now is Baptism ; and all the rea- 
 sons in the case conspire to favor the application of it to 
 children. Thus we apprehend the subject must have 
 presented itself to the minds of the Apostles and first 
 Christians. 
 
 The view which we have adopted on this subject, 
 agrees best with the common method of understanding a 
 charter, securing to any society of men the enjoyment of 
 privileges. Such a charter is, by common consent, to 
 be understood in the largest sense it will bear. Suppose 
 the grant of privileges to a society is made in general 
 terms; that is, neither the individuals nor classes of men 
 belonging to the society are specified. Now he, who is 
 entrusted with the execution of the charter in the be- 
 stowment of the privileges granted, is bound to bestow 
 them on all who can fairly be considered as belonging to 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 55 
 
 the society. And if any one should object to the be- 
 stowment of the chartered privileges on any individuals 
 fairly comprehended within the Society, it would be in- 
 cumbent on him to show that those individuals were ex- 
 pressly excepted in the terms of the grant. Especially 
 would it be proper to give this wide construction to the 
 grant, if it were well known, that a previous grant, of 
 the same nature, had expressly required this extensive 
 application of its privileges. And it would be a stronger 
 reason still for understanding the charter in such a sense, 
 if the charter itself were evidently nothing more, than 
 the modification, as to outward form, of a previous char- 
 ter, which was more particular, and which, in the most 
 explicit terms, secured its privileges to those, whose title 
 is now called in question. In such a case, it would aid 
 us much in determining the extent of meaning to be put 
 upon the more general terms of the charter in its present 
 form, to inquire how it was with the charter when first 
 given. And if, on examination, it is found that it was 
 the will of the Prince, that the privileges, originally grant- 
 ed, should be thus extensively applied ; we should be sat- 
 isfied at once that the privileges of the charter in its 
 present form, were meant to be applied to an equal ex- 
 tent, — unless there teas an express limitation. And we 
 should feel this satisfaction in the highest possible degree, 
 if it appeared that the Prince made the alteration in the 
 form of the original charter, with the declared design of 
 carrying its privileges to a larger extent. 
 
 To make the principle I have laid down perfectly in- 
 telligible and satisfactory, suppose the following case. 
 In a time of sudden invasion, a king publishes a decree, 
 that these, who serve faithfully in the present war, shall 
 during life be entitled, they and their children, to the in- 
 
56 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 structions of the public teachers of learning and religion, 
 and to the attention of authorized physicians, at the pub- 
 lic expense. Children are specified ; and so no doubt 
 can exist as to the extent of privileges secured by the de- 
 cree. Some years after, another war takes place. The 
 king, gratified with the results of the former measure, 
 again publishes, his decree, and sends it forth to the 
 more distant parts of his empire, securing the same privi- 
 leges to those who serve faithfully in this war. But the de- 
 cree in its present form, contains no distinct mention of 
 children. During the war the king dies. Afterwards the 
 question arises, whether the decree, which he last pub- 
 lished, is to be understood as extending the privileges 
 specified to the children of those who served in the war. 
 On the negative, it is said, the children are not expressly 
 named in the decree ; and very young children are not 
 capable of enjoying all the privileges specified. On the 
 other side it is said, that in the original decree, publish- 
 ed for the very same purpose on a former occasion, chil- 
 dren were expressly named, and that their enjoying these 
 privileges was never a subject of complaint with any por- 
 tion of the community ; that there is the same reason 
 for extending the privileges to children now, as there 
 was before ; and that they are as capable of being bene- 
 fited by them. And it is urged finally, that it was the 
 well-known intention of the king in this case, to offer 
 greater privileges, and to hold up higher inducements to 
 public service, than on the former occasion. The ques- 
 tion is, how the decree, published in the last case, ought 
 to be construed. And I am persuaded, the united sen- 
 tence of the community would be, that it was the will 
 of the king in the last case, as well as in the former, to 
 
INFANT BAPTISM, 57 
 
 extend the privileges specified in the decree to the chil- 
 dren of those, who were the objects of the royal favor. 
 
 This construction of a decree or charter, securing 
 privileges to a particular description of men, and this 
 method of arriving at the knowledge of what was the in- 
 tention of the king, cannot be deemed otherwise than 
 just and satisfactory. And who, let me ask, would so 
 dishonor a king of a generous heart, as to attempt to take 
 away from the children of his faithful servants, any of 
 those privileges, which had, by his express direction, 
 been before conferred upon them in the same circum- 
 stances 1 
 
 Now all the considerations, which would lead us to 
 give such a construction to the decree or charter here 
 supposed, exist in relation to the subject of Infant Bap- 
 tism. Our inquiry is, whether the language, employed in 
 Christ's commission to baptize, would naturally be un- 
 derstood by his Apostles, as extending to the children of 
 believers ? In answer to this inquiry, I have endeavour- 
 ed to make it appear, that all the circumstances of the 
 case, which can be supposed to have had any influence 
 upon the minds of the Apostles, were in favor of extend- 
 ing baptism to children, and that, before they could un- 
 derstand their commission in any other manner, they 
 must have ceased to be children of Abraham, and must 
 have erased from their minds all the impressions which 
 had been made upon them by the word and providence 
 of God. 
 
 The want of qualifications in children is a subject 
 which may deserve particular consideration. It is suf- 
 ficient, however, for our present purpose, to say, that a 
 grant of privileges is often made to children prospective- 
 ly and conditionally. In such cases, some mark or sea! 
 6 
 
58 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 of those privileges, such as may be applied to children, 
 is always deemed proper ; and as to the privileges them- 
 selves, it is the common understanding, that they be- 
 long to children as soon as they have become capable of 
 enjoying them, and have complied with the conditions 
 on which they are granted. 
 
 Thus far we have considered merely those circum- 
 stances, which would be likely to influence the Apostles 
 in their understanding of the meaning of their commis- 
 sion. The reasoning has proceeded independently of 
 the consideration of any other means, which they might 
 have had, of knowing what was the will of their Lord. 
 
 But we shall not stop here, but shall proceed to in- 
 quire, whether there was any thing in the previous in- 
 structions of Christ, which could have contributed to sat- 
 isfy the Apostles in what light he regarded the children 
 of his people, and in what manner he would have them 
 treated; or which could have had any influence on their 
 minds in regard to the subject before us. 
 
 Here it is not to be concealed, that all the evidence 
 we can have is circumstantial, or by way of inference. 
 But such evidence, it will be remembered, is often as sat- 
 isfactory as any other. 
 
 The first passage I shall introduce in regard to this 
 subject is Matt. 19: 13, 14. " Then were brought to 
 Jesus little children, that he should put his hands on 
 them and pray ; and the disciples rebuked them. But 
 Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not to 
 come unto me ; for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 
 And he laid his hands on them." The same thing is 
 related in nearly the same manner by Mark, 10: 13, 14, 
 and by Luke, 18: 15, 16. In Luke pQtyri is used, 
 which denotes young children, infants. The kingdom 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 59 
 
 of heaven, or the kingdom of God, as Mark and Luke 
 have it, unquestionably signifies here, as it generally 
 does in the Evangelists, the Christian church, or the 
 kingdom of grace which Christ set up in the world, in 
 distinction from the Society of God's people, as it existed 
 under the former dispensation. It must have been in- 
 tended to point out a society or kingdom in distinction 
 from that, because it was often spoken of by Christ, as 
 what was to come, or was about to be established. 
 
 That part of this passage which relates more directly 
 to our subject, is the declaration at the close ; tcoj/ yag 
 zoioviwv 60tIi> *J paoiltiu twv ov(juvmv ; "for to such 
 the kingdom of heaven belongs." Christ's church or king- 
 dom is theirs. They have a right to its blessings. 
 
 The common rendering of the phrase is, " for of such 
 is the kingdom of heaven ;" — which is commonly under- 
 stood to mean, that the kingdom of heaven consists, or is 
 made up of such. But the rendering which I have given 
 and which I think more exactly agreeable to the sense 
 of the original, is the same as is given to a similar phrase 
 in Matt. 5: 3, 10. " Blessed are the poor in spirit, 
 bit ctviwis lout* /? fiaGiktlct xwi> ovquvojv, for theirs is 
 the kingdom of heaven," the kingdom of heaven belongs 
 to them ; they have a right to it. The same v. 10. 
 " Blessed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' 
 sake, bit, avnov eoziv r^ (3aaiktia xwv ququvwv ; for 
 theirs is the kingdom of heaven ;" it belongs to them. 
 
 The whole verse then will stand thus ; " Suffer little 
 children, and forbid them not to come unto me ; for to 
 such the kingdom of heaven belongs." They are en- 
 titled to its privileges and blessings. 
 
 There are two ways of interpreting this declaration. 
 According to one of them, the declaration relates to 
 
60 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 those who resemble little children ; that is, to those wh« 
 are docile, and free from ambition and malice. They who 
 adopt this sense of the passage, consider the declaration, 
 "of such is the kingdom of heaven," as signifying, that 
 the kingdom of heaven belongs, not to little children 
 themselves, but to those who are like them ; to real Chris- 
 tians. 
 
 The principal arguments in favor of this interpreta- 
 tion are the following. 
 
 1. It may be said, this interpretation is suggested by 
 the passages in which Christ professedly undertakes to 
 show what character his disciples must possess, from the 
 obvious qualities of a little child ; as in Matt. 18: 1 — 6. 
 The disciples, influenced by feelings of ambition, inquir- 
 ed, who was the greatest in Christ's kingdom. Christ 
 called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst, 
 and said ; Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, 
 and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the 
 kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble 
 himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the 
 kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such 
 little child in my name, receiveth me. But whoso shall 
 offend one of these little ones who believe in me, it were 
 better for him that a millstone were hanged about his 
 neck, and that he were drowned in the midst of the sea." 
 Here the phrase, naidlov toiovtov, such a child, is used 
 to signify one who resembles a child ; that is, a disciple 
 of Christ ; one who believes in Christ, as appears from 
 the next verse. When therefore Christ says, in the pas- 
 sage under consideration, " of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven," or to such, that is, to such little children, the 
 kingdom of heaven belongs ; he must evidently mean the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 61 
 
 same, as in the place where he speaks expressly of those 
 little ones who believe. 
 
 2. This interpretation of the passage, it is thought, 
 may be defended by what directly follows in the context, 
 as Mark and Luke have it. According to these Evan- 
 gelists, after Christ says, " Suffer little children to come 
 unto me, and forbid them not," he immediately adds ; 
 " Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God, as a 
 little child, shall not enter therein." This is evidently 
 intended to point out the character of his disciples ; and 
 why should not the declaration, " of such is the kingdom 
 of heaven," be understood as referring to the same ? So 
 Kuinoel understands it. " Toiovtch, sunt infantibus 
 similes." " Such, are those who resemble little chil- 
 dren." And he argues in favor of this sense of the pas- 
 sage, by what Christ says immediately after ; " whosoever 
 shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, 
 shall not enter therein." 
 
 3. There is a general reason for giving the passage 
 this sense, which, though I have not seen it distinctly 
 mentioned by any author, seems to me deserving of par- 
 ticular consideration. I refer to the fact, that Christ so 
 often took pains to instruct the people as to the nature of 
 his kingdom, and the necessary qualifications of those 
 who should be admitted to enjoy its blessings, and insist- 
 ed upon the preeminent importance of their being like a 
 little child, or their being free from pride and malice, 
 and possessing a humble, teachable disposition. Now it 
 would seem that a declaration of Christ, showing to whom 
 his kingdom belongs, would most naturally be intended 
 to refer to the character of true disciples. 
 
 These, so far as I know, are the chief reasons which 
 6* 
 
62 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 have been or can be urged in favor of this sense of the 
 passage. 
 
 But there are several considerations of no small 
 weight against this interpretation, and in favor of that 
 which makes the phrase, " of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven" or, to such the kingdom of heaven belongs, relate 
 to the children themselves, and to other children like them. 
 The first reason I shall mention is, that xotoviog, the 
 same as talis in Latin, properly signifies the nature or 
 quality of the thing to which it is applied, and not the 
 resemblance which something else bears to it. Accord- 
 ingly, the real import of zwv yag tqiqvxoiv strtlv r) ffaot,- 
 fciu tow ovgavwv, " of such is the kingdom of heaven," 
 is the same as, of these and such as these is the kingdom 
 of heaven, including of course the children themselves, as 
 having a right to the blessings of Christ's kingdom. 
 This sense of the word, which is a matter of great con- 
 sequence, is easily illustrated from the current use of 
 the word in similar circumstances in the New Testa- 
 ment. Matt. 9: 8. " The multitude glorified God, who 
 had given such power to men ;" lioimuv zqiu.vti]v, pow- 
 er of such a kind, — this very power, which was so great 
 and glorious, being intended. Mark 4: 33. " With ma- 
 ny such parables spake he unto them ;" Toiamaig nagoc- 
 Polaig, with these parables and many others of like kind, 
 — most surely including the parables which had just 
 been related. Mark 6: 2, — " that such mighty works 
 are wrought by his hands ;" dvva[.i€ig toiuvtcu, the ve- 
 ry miracles referred to, which were of such a remarkable 
 kind. Luke 9: 9. " Who is this of whom I hear such 
 things ; zoiavTCi, these things, or rather things of such a 
 nature as these. Luke 13: 2. " Suppose ye that these 
 Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 63 
 
 they suffered such things ; toiuutu the things which had 
 just been mentioned, which were of so remarkable a na- 
 ture. John 9: 16. " How can a man that is a sinner do 
 such miracles ?" Toiavra mifAtlu, miracles of so remark- 
 able a nature as those just mentioned. So in several 
 passages in Romans, 101 uvia. signifies the very things just 
 before mentioned, which were so manifestly and so highly 
 criminal. This appears to he the sense of roiovrog, ex- 
 cept when it is employed in a peculiar, unusual manner. 
 Accordingly, the phrase, " of such is the kingdom of 
 heaven," must mean, of such children as these, the very 
 children that were brought to Christ being included. 
 The other sense of xoiv toioviojv, namely, — of those 
 who are like these children is the kingdom of heaven, 
 that is, of docile, humble men, children themselves not 
 being included, would be altogether an exception from 
 the prevailing sense, and so ought not to be adopted, 
 without very imperious reasons. 
 
 I readily allow that naidiov tolovtov, in Matt. 18: 5, 
 may at first view appear to favor the other interpretation. 
 But a careful attention to all the circumstances will lead, 
 I think, to a different conclusion. " Jesus set a child in 
 the midst of his disciples, and said, except ye be convert- 
 ed, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into 
 the kingdom of heaven." Thus he directed the atten- 
 tion of those around him to the character of a true dis- 
 ciple. He represented a disciple, a member of his king- 
 dom, as like a little child, or as being a child in disposi- 
 tion. So that when, in the next verse, he says, " whoso- 
 ever shall receive one such child, " the way was prepared 
 for understanding him to mean a person of a lowly dispo- 
 sition, a true disciple. A person of this character had 
 been made the subject of discourse, — the subject on- 
 
64 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 which the thoughts of all were fixed. In these circum* 
 stances, natdiov toiovtov must of course have been ta- 
 ken to mean a person of a childlike disposition. And 
 we find in verse 6, tva tmv (nmQ&v, one of these little 
 ones, is expressly made to signify one icho believes in 
 Christ. 
 
 There is then an obvious difference between the two 
 passages. In one, the attention is fixed upon the char- 
 acter of a Christian, as the principal subject. In conse- 
 quence of the method which was taken to illustrate his 
 character, it became perfectly natural to call him a child, 
 a little child. Tlaidlov toiovtov, thus introduced, must 
 have been understood to signify a disciple of Christ. 
 But in the other passage, the subject presented before 
 the mind was, the little children themselves. They were 
 brought to Christ for his blessing. Upon them the atten- 
 tion of all was fixed. To them the objection of the dis- 
 ciples related. And surely what Christ said in the way 
 of reply to that objection , must also have related to them. 
 We rest then on a general principle ; namely ; that 
 words are to be taken in their literal sense, unless there 
 is a plain and satisfactory reason for taking them in a 
 metaphorical sense. In Matt. 18: 5, there is such a rea- 
 son. In Matt. 19: 14, there is not. 
 
 My second reason in favor of the interpretation we are 
 now considering is, that the declaration, "of such is the 
 kingdom of heaven," is expressly made the reason for suf- 
 fering little children themselves to come to him. " Suffer 
 little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, ziav 
 ydg TOiomo)v,for of such is the kingdom of heaven." 
 Both in the New Testament and in Classic Authors yap 
 is commonly used, to denote the reason of what has been 
 asserted or implied. The declaration, u for of such is 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 65 
 
 the kingdom of heaven," according to the common ac- 
 ceptation of the words, must then be understood to be 
 the reason for suffering the little children themselves to 
 come to him. But how could this be a reason for suf- 
 fering the little children to come to Christ, if it were not 
 they that belonged to his kingdom, but certain others 
 who resembled them ? When, however, I say that their 
 belonging to the kingdom of heaven is given as the rea- 
 son why they should be suffered to come to Christ, I do 
 not rely merely on the causative conjunction, yap ; 
 which, though it is commonly used in this sense, is some- 
 times used in a different sense. For even if this con- 
 junction were omitted, the very collocation of the words, 
 and the obvious relation of the ideas contained in the 
 former and in the latter part of the sentence, would 
 clearly suggest, that the fact last mentioned was meant 
 to be given as the reason of what was before said. The 
 disciples forbid little children to come to Christ. He re- 
 bukes them, and says, — Suffer the little children to come 
 unto me ; of such is the kingdom of heaven. Now who 
 could tell why this last should be said, if not meant to be 
 a reason for suffering the little children to come ? And 
 it is to be remembered, that the little children did come, 
 and that they came too in consequence of that very di- 
 rection which Christ gave respecting them, and which 
 was accompanied with such a reason. 
 
 These two considerations; namely; the prevailing 
 use of the word toiovtojv, and the assigning of the last 
 circumstance mentioned in the sentence, as the reason of 
 the direction just before given, are of great weight, being 
 the prominent considerations both of a philological and 
 logical nature, which relate to the interpretation of the 
 text. And if the last interpretation given is not the 
 
66 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 right one ; then the word ioiovtwv is not here used in 
 its common sense, and the reason assigned by Christ 
 for suffering the little children to come to him, seems to 
 have no weight or pertinence. 
 
 Now considering that this interpretation of the text 
 is supported by such considerations, we certainly ought 
 not to reject it, and to adopt another, without very strong 
 and conclusive reasons. But do such reasons exist ? 
 
 Let us first inquire, whether there is any thing in the 
 nature of the case, which is conclusive against this inter- 
 pretation. Is the kingdom of heaven, or the Christian 
 Church such, as would make it inconsistent to suppose 
 that it belongs to children ? I answer in the negative ; 
 and the propriety of this answer may be made to appear 
 in two ways. First ; Christ's kingdom may belong to lit- 
 tle children, or they may be members of it, in the high- 
 est sense. They may have been designated as heirs of 
 salvation, and the grace of God may have sealed them 
 for heaven. No one can show that the actual salvation 
 of little children is impossible, or improbable. 
 
 But secondly ; without supposing that all children, 
 or even all the children of believers, are actually mem- 
 bers of Christ's kingdom in the highest sense ; we may 
 consider them as belonging to it, and entitled to its priv- 
 ileges, in a lower, though a very important sense. We 
 may consider them as sustaining a very near relation to 
 their own parents, and through them to the church. 
 They may have a right to the privileges of the church, 
 somewhat as children may have a right to the privileges 
 of a particular civil community, of which their parents 
 are members. The children of pious parents may have 
 such a connexion with the church, as will secure to them 
 special advantages for moral improvement, and a pros- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 67 
 
 pect specially favorable to their final salvation. It may 
 be the design of God, that the Christian religion should 
 be transmitted from one generation to another, and per- 
 petuated in the world, generally, by the pious education 
 of those who are the children of the church, rendered 
 successful by the divine blessing. 
 
 Now this relation of children to the church, which I 
 consider to be a matter of fact, is of vast importance to 
 the interests of religion ; and resulting, as it evidently 
 does, from the constitution of human beings, and the ap- 
 pointment of God respecting his kingdom, it is deserving 
 of special notice. Such notice Christ seems to have giv- 
 en it in the passage under consideration. According to 
 the views which have now been suggested, this passage 
 may be paraphrased thus: — These little children, whom 
 you would hinder from being brought to me for my bless- 
 ing, are objects of my kindest regard. They, and such 
 as they, stand in a near relation to my church. The 
 kingdom, which I am setting up, is not to exclude or over- 
 look them, but to embrace and cherish them. Peculiar fa- 
 vor was shown to children under the former dispensation ; 
 think not that less is to be shown them under my reign. 
 Look not upon them, therefore, icith feelings of indiffer- 
 ence. Strive not to deprive them of my blessing ; but 
 suffer them to come unto me ; for to such children the 
 privileges of my kingdom belong. 
 
 My conclusion is, that as there is nothing in the na- 
 ture of the case, which makes it impossible or inconsis- 
 tent that little children should, in some important sense, 
 hold a relation to the church, and that the privileges of 
 Christ's kingdom should belong to them ; there is noth- 
 ing in the nature of the case, which can furnish any val- 
 
68 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 id objection against that interpretation of the text, which 
 I have undertaken to support. 
 
 Secondly. Is there any conclusive objection against 
 this interpretation from the other passage referred to, 
 that is, Matt. 18 : 1 — 6, in which Christ professedly 
 makes use of a little child to inculcate upon his disci- 
 ples the importance of humility ? There can, I think, be 
 no such objection, because the words of Christ recorded 
 here were spoken on an occasion, and for a purpose, en- 
 tirely different from the passage we have been examin- 
 ing. There little children were brought to Christ. His 
 disciples wished to exclude them. But Christ disapprov- 
 ed of their conduct, and gave them a reason why the 
 children should be permitted to come ; and the reason 
 was, that to such as they his kingdom belonged. But in 
 Matt. 18: 1 — 6, the disciples manifested the workings of 
 ambition ; and Christ, to teach them humility, took a 
 little child, and set him before them, and told them that 
 they must become unambitious, humble, like that child, 
 or they could not be admitted into his kingdom. In this 
 place, the character required of his disciples was the ob- 
 ject and the only object Christ had in view. He brought 
 forward a little child merely to illustrate that character. 
 In the other place, the children themselves were the objects 
 of attention, and the evident design of Christ was to 
 show how he regarded them, and, consequently, how he 
 would have them regarded and treated by his disciples. 
 Now because on one occasion, it was the object of Christ 
 in all that he said to inculcate humility upon his follow- 
 ers ; we cannot surely infer, that this and this only was 
 his object on another occasion, which was itself, and in 
 all its circumstances, different. 
 
 But, thirdly ; it is said, — and this is the last and the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 69 
 
 greatest difficulty I shall attempt to remove, — that on the 
 very occasion, on which Christ declared respecting little 
 children, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven," and 
 immediately after he had declared this, he inculcated the 
 same lesson of humility, and in nearly the same way, as 
 on the other occasion. See Mark 10: 15. " Whosoev- 
 er shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, 
 cog Tiaidiov, shall not enter therein." 
 
 My answer is, that Christ was accustomed to make use 
 of all the means which were at hand, to inculcate duty 
 upon his disciples, especially the duty of being humble ; 
 and that, after he had shown his affection for the little 
 children who were brought to him, and had declared that 
 the privileges of his kingdom belonged to them, it was 
 perfectly according to his usual manner, to introduce an- 
 other subject, and by means of the lovely children, who 
 were then before him, and who were entitled to such con- 
 sideration, to teach his disciples, what disposition they 
 must possess. It was clearly another subject, though in- 
 troduced on the occasion of the children's being brought 
 to him. Jesus chose that such an occasion should not 
 pass without profit to his disciples, whom he doubtless saw 
 to be in special need of the instruction then given them. 
 
 There is also a general consideration which was 
 mentioned in the former Lecture, and which should 
 not be overlooked in the interpretation of the text now 
 before us, and which is of special use in the interpreta- 
 tion of many a doubtful passage in the Evangelists, and 
 in the Epistles ; namely ; that it teas addressed to Jews. 
 We have already considered what influence this circum- 
 stance must have had on the manner, in which the Apos- 
 tles would understand the commission they received to 
 proselyte and baptize. Why should we suppose it had 
 
70 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 less influence here ? The Jews were accustomed to a 
 dispensation, under which the children of God's people 
 were considered and treated, as belonging to their sacred 
 community, and as entitled to inherit its blessings. Their 
 Scriptures plainly required that they should be treated 
 in this manner. But on the particular occasion now re- 
 ferred to, the disciples seem to have forgotten this prin- 
 ciple. They treated the little children who were brought 
 to Christ, as though it had escaped their recollection, 
 that children were the objects of God's favor, and that 
 they sustained so high a relation to the society of his 
 people. Had there not been something faulty in the 
 feelings of the disciples, they would not have done such 
 a thing, as to forbid the children to be brought to Christ 
 for his blessing ; and, most certainly, they would not 
 have incurred his rebuke. The answer of Christ was 
 perfectly suited to correct their mistake, and to teach 
 them what, as the posterity of Abraham, they would easi- 
 ly understand ; namely ; that children were to have the 
 same relation to the church of God, under the Christian 
 dispensation, as before. For I cannot but insist upon it, 
 that, as the disciples in that case were chargeable with 
 overlooking the importance of little children, and treating 
 them with a culpable indifference ; at least, with not 
 manifesting a suitable regard for them ; it is perfectly 
 natural to understand what Christ said in reply, as hav- 
 ing been intended to correct their mistake, and to show 
 in what light children were to be regarded under his 
 reign. 
 
 There is still one more consideration I wish to ex- 
 hibit, which is, that the sense I have given to the pas- 
 sage in Matt, may receive support from what St. Paul 
 says respecting children, 1 Cor. 7 : 14. " Else were 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 71 
 
 your children unclean, but now they are holy." This 
 text will be considered more particularly in the next 
 Lecture. At present my object is simply to show, that, 
 being understood according to the most respectable and 
 critical commentators, it has an exact correspondence 
 with my interpretation of the text in Matt. 19: 14. 
 
 " Else were your children unclean, but now are they 
 holy ;" vvu de ayiu toriv. According to Schleusner, 
 this means, but note are they held as members of the Chris- 
 tian Church ; " Jam vero habentur membra ecclesiae 
 Christiana?. " At the head of the article under which 
 this text is quoted, he says, He is called holy, who is to 
 be numbered icith the society of Christians. Wahl, re- 
 ferring to this place, says, it is spoken of one who is in 
 any way connected icith Christians, and therefore to be 
 reckoned among them. According to these and other 
 distinguished authors, the apostle Paul, who so perfectly 
 understood the nature and circumstances of the Chris- 
 tian dispensation, represented children, as those who were 
 to be numbered with the society of Christians, and to be 
 regarded as holding a place in the Christian Church, 
 even when only one of their parents was a believer. 
 This must have involved the general principle, that the 
 children of believers were considered as belonging to the 
 Messiah's kingdom, or the Christian church. And this 
 is the same thing as that which I have understood to be 
 taught by the words of Christ ; " Of such is the kingdom 
 of heaven." The declaration of Christ, and that of the 
 apostle, had relation to the same subject. They were 
 both intended to show in what light the children of be- 
 lievers were to be regarded. This comparison of the 
 two texts affords additional satisfaction as to the true 
 meaning of each. 
 
72 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 I have thus gone through with an examination of the 
 remarkable passage in Matt. 19: 14, and, without relying 
 on the opinions of others, have carefully attended to those 
 considerations on both sides, which appeared to be of 
 particular consequence to a right interpretation. I would 
 not suffer myself to feel any undue confidence in my own 
 opinion on such a subject as this ; and I would certain- 
 ly treat with great respect those who adopt a different 
 opinion. Having endeavoured impartially to exhibit 
 whatever appertains to a fair discussion of the subject, I 
 very cheerfully refer the whole to the judgment of en- 
 lightened and candid men. 
 
 The most respectable authors are divided. Accord- 
 ing to Rosenmuller and Kuinoel, Christ taught merely 
 that his disciples must resemble little children in humili- 
 ty and gentleness, and not that children themselves be- 
 longed to his kingdom. But many English writers de- 
 fend with various arguments the sense which I have giv- 
 en. And I find Storr and Flatt on the same side. And 
 they do not merely give their opinion, although that 
 would be entitled to great respect ; but what is better, 
 they give a reason for their opinion ; and that reason is 
 the very one, to which I have attached the highest im- 
 portance in the preceding discussion. The passage re- 
 lating to this text is the following.* " Tmv ydg toiov- 
 twv £otii/ ?] fiuoiXfid twv ovqccvwv ; for of such is the 
 kingdom of heaven. Children must have been included 
 in the ivord, such ; because the proposition, the kingdom 
 of heaven belongs to humble adults, — to those who have as 
 little pride as children, would be no reason why children 
 should not be prevented from coming to Jesus." 
 
 Now for the application of this passage, thus inter- 
 
 * See Stores Bib. TheoL Book 3. i 68, 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 73 
 
 preted, to the subject in hand. The general inquiry is, 
 in what way the Apostles must have understood the com- 
 mission which Christ gave them, to proselyte and baptize 
 all nations ; particularly, whether they would understand 
 the children of proselytes to be included. After attend- 
 ing to various circumstances directly pertaining to the 
 subject, and finding what reason we have to think, that 
 the Apostles must have understood the commission to 
 baptize as extending to the children of believers ; we 
 proceeded to inquire, whether Christ, the author of the 
 new dispensation, had previously given any instructions, 
 which could have an influence on their minds in regard 
 to this subject ; particularly, whether he had said any 
 thing to show in what light he regarded little children. 
 We fixed on the passage in Matt. 19: 14, as answering 
 this inquiry ; that is, as showing, that the children of 
 God's people were considered as belonging to his church, 
 or kingdom, just as they had belonged to the community 
 of his people under the former dispensation. Formerly, 
 they were considered a holy seed, consecrated to God y 
 and blessed with special privileges, in consequence of 
 being the children of his people. Christ here seems to 
 teach, that they were to be considered in the same li^ht 
 and treated in the same manner under his reign. "When 
 therefore the Apostles received a commission to prose- 
 lyte and baptize all nations, they had this special reason 
 for understanding it as extending to children, that Christ 
 himself had taught them before, that children were to 
 belong to his kingdom, just as they had belonged to the 
 society of God's people under the former economy. And 
 if, wherever the Christian religion should be propagated, 
 and the kingdom of Christ established, the children of 
 believers were, according to his instructions, to be in- 
 7* 
 
74 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 eluded, with their parents, in that kingdom, or to be 
 viewed as belonging to the society of the disciples ; there 
 could be no doubt that they were to receive the mark of 
 discipleship. If they were to be regarded as holy, that 
 is, consecrated to God ; they were undoubtedly to receive 
 the sign of consecration. 
 
 I cannot deny myself the pleasure of closing this 
 Lecture with a passage from Knapp's Theology, under 
 the head of Infant Baptism ; where he shews that he 
 gave the same sense to the text in Matt. 19: 14, and rea- 
 soned from it in the same manner, as I have done. 
 
 " That Infant Baptism, considered as a solemn rite 
 of consecration, cannot be opposed to the design and 
 will of Christ, may be concluded from his own declara- 
 tion, Matt, xviii. 14. Suffer little children to come unto 
 me and forbid them not ; kov yag toiovtcdv iailv r\ jSuat- 
 fala tov iitov ; for of such is the kingdom of God. This 
 is indeed no command for Infant Baptism. But if chil- 
 dren can and should have a share in the Christian church, 
 and in all Christian privileges, (fiuoiXeiu tov fieov) it 
 cannot be improper to introduce them into the Christian 
 church by this solemn rite of initiation. And if acccord- 
 ing to the design of Christ, children, from their earliest 
 youth up, are to have a share in the rites and privileges 
 of Christians ; it must also be agreeable to his will, sol- 
 emnly to introduce them, by this rite of consecration, in- 
 to the nursery of his disciples. Compare 1 Cor. 7: 14." 
 
LECTURE V, 
 
 Whether there was any thing in the conduct of the Apostles, or any declara- 
 tion in their writings, to aid us in determining how they understood thei? 
 commission. — Household Baptism. — 1 Cor. 7: 14. 
 
 \\ e have already inquired, whether there was any 
 thing in the particular instructions of Christ to his Apos- 
 tles, previous to the final commission he gave them, 
 which would naturally lead them to understand that com- 
 mission, as intended to include infant children. We 
 shall now inquire, whether we can be assisted in deter- 
 mining how they understood that commission, by any 
 thing in the conduct of the Apostles while executing their 
 commission, or any declaration made in their icritings. 
 
 The mode of reasoning which I have adopted, does 
 not require, and does not lead us to expect any thing like 
 a positive declaration, that they baptized infants, or con- 
 sidered them proper subjects of baptism. For if it was 
 so, that the Apostles and first Christians had a united 
 and perfect persuasion, that children were to hold a place 
 in the Christian community, similar to what they had 
 held in the community of God's people before, and that 
 they were to receive the new mark of special relation to 
 God, as they had received the old ; then there was no 
 more occasion for the Apostles to mention the fact that 
 children were baptized, than there was for Joshua, and 
 
76 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Samuel, and all the writers of the History contained in 
 the Old Testament, to mention at every period, that 
 children eight days old were circumcised. And the 
 case might be exactly so now. Pedobaptist ministers or 
 missionaries might write a history of their ministry, and 
 the success attending it, for many years, and yet say 
 nothing expressly as to the baptism of children. But we 
 should consider such an omission as this, to be no proof 
 that children were not baptized. For it would be obvious, 
 that such ministers might be in circumstances, which 
 would render it quite unnecessary for them to make any 
 express mention of Infant Baptism. It might be that no 
 one acquainted with them, would have the least doubt 
 respecting their practice. At the present day, indeed, 
 when Christians every where are divided on this subject, 
 such silence might not be what we should look for. 
 But were all Christians united in the practice of Infant 
 Baptism, as we apprehend the primitive Christians were, 
 there might be no occasion whatever to make particular 
 mention of it. In all such cases, we should understand 
 the practice of ministers to be according to what we 
 knew of their opinions. If they were Pedobaptists, we 
 should have no doubt of their being in the practice of 
 baptizing children, although in some brief account of 
 their ministry, they should say nothing about such a prac- 
 tice. 
 
 The evidence, to which I now invite your attention, 
 is incidental, or circumstantial. But it is not on that 
 account the less worthy of consideration. Indeed it can- 
 not be denied, that an undesigned reference or allusion 
 to the practice of Infant Baptism, or the declaration of 
 some principle or fact implying it, may afford evidence 
 as satisfactory, as a direct assertion of the Apostles. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 77 
 
 After these introductory remarks, let us proceed to 
 the inquiry above stated. My position is, that, although 
 there is no passage in the Acts of the Apostles, or in the 
 Epistles which expressly declares it, as a historical fact, 
 that the Apostles did baptize children, or which directly 
 affirms that they understood their commission to baptize, 
 as extending to children ; there are passages which im- 
 ply this, and which have a much more natural and con- 
 sistent sense on the supposition that Infant Baptism was 
 the Apostolic practice, than on the contrary supposition. 
 I shall first refer to the passages which speak of the 
 baptism of households, or families. It is said of Lydia, 
 Acts 16: 14, 15, that the Lord opened her heart to attend 
 to the instructions of Paul, and that she was baptized, 
 and her household. And in the same chapter, v. 33, we 
 are told that the Jailer was baptized, he and all his, that 
 is, all who belonged to him, straightway, or immediately. 
 And Paul says, 1 Cor. 1: 16, " I baptized the household 
 of Stephanas." 
 
 My reasoning from such passages is this. The word 
 oixiu, rendered house, or household, had been commonly 
 used to comprise children with their parents, much in 
 the same manner as the word, family, or household, is 
 used now. And it is well known, that it had been 
 the manner of the people of God, to consider and treat 
 their families, as consecrated to God, and intimately 
 associated with them in the concerns of religion. As, 
 therefore, we find that the Apostles, who were accus- 
 tomed to the language of the Old Testament, and to 
 the practice there enjoined, speak familiarly of their 
 baptizing households, or families ; it is no more than 
 reasonable to suppose, that those families, generally, con- 
 tained children, and that those children were baptized. 
 
78 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 And if this was the case, then the Apostles must have 
 understood their commission, as including children. It 
 will be observed, that whenever the Apostles speak of 
 baptizing households, they speak of it without any re- 
 striction. They do not say that Lydia was baptized, 
 and those of her family who believed ; or that the Jailer 
 was baptized, and as many of those who belonged to him 
 as believed. There is no such limitation as this. Ly- 
 dia was baptized, and her family. The Jailer was bap- 
 tized, and all his. And considering how very succinct 
 the history of baptisms is, the number of household-bap- 
 tisms particularly mentioned, must be allowed to be 
 considerable, and to be quite a noticeable circumstance 
 in that history. Now is this a circumstance ever to be 
 met with in histories, written by those ministers who do 
 not baptize infants ? For them to speak familiarly, and 
 without restriction or explanation, of baptizing families, 
 would be inconsistent with their views, and their prac- 
 tice. As to the instances mentioned in the New Testa- 
 ment of the baptism of families, — who has any right to 
 say, that those families contained none but adults, — and 
 none but adult believers ? Who can think this in any 
 degree probable ? 
 
 To show still more clearly what is the natural import 
 of the account given in the New Testament of family 
 baptisms, suppose the following case. Two missionaries 
 have for a number of years been successfully laboring for 
 the conversion of a particular tribe of Savages in the 
 wilderness of America. We have heard of their labors, 
 and of their success, and have rejoiced in it ; but have 
 never learned, and have never to this day inquired, 
 whether they practised Infant Baptism, or not. For 
 special reasons, this now becomes a subject of inquiry ; 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 79 
 
 and the only means of information which we have at 
 hand, is a brief history which those missionaries have 
 published of their labors. In that history, which is now 
 subjected to a careful examination, we find that they 
 speak of several instances, in which individuals embraced 
 Christianity, and received baptism. And they inform 
 us, that at such a time they baptized one of the chiefs, 
 and his family ; and that, at another time, they baptized 
 such a man, and all his ; and again, another man and 
 his household. This is all the information they give. 
 They mention, without explanation or restriction, the 
 baptism of several persons, and their households, and so 
 make family-baptisms a noticeable circumstance in the 
 history of their mission. Would not such a circum- 
 stance lead us to think it altogether probable, that they 
 practised Infant Baptism 1 Be sure, it might be said, 
 that they do not expressly mention the baptism of little 
 children, and that all who belonged to those families may 
 have been adults, and adult believers. This, I admit, 
 would be possible. But would it be probable ? Would 
 those, who do not baptize children, be likely to speak in 
 this manner ? Should we not think it very singular, to 
 find accounts of family-baptisms in a history of Baptist 
 Missions ? 
 
 The circumstance under consideration, it is readily 
 conceded, cannot be made a decisive argument. But 
 does not the account, which the Apostles give of the 
 baptism of households, best agree with the supposition, 
 that they were in the practice of baptizing children ? If 
 we admit that they understood children to be proper sub- 
 jects of baptism, as they had before been of circumcis- 
 ion ; such an account is just what we should expect : 
 otherwise, not. 
 
80 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 I have already referred to the text, 1 Cor. 7: 14, as 
 affording collateral support to the construction which was 
 given to Matt. 19: 14. I propose now to give this text 
 a more particular examination. After suggesting with 
 perfect freedom the thoughts which have occurred to 
 me respecting the sense of this passage, I shall most 
 cheerfully leave you to adopt such a conclusion, as shall 
 appear to you most consistent and just. 
 
 There are two interpretations of the text, which de- 
 serve special notice. The first I shall mention is that 
 of Dr Gill, a very distinguished Antipedobaptist writer ; 
 who expresses what he understands to be the meaning 
 of the text, in the following paraphrase. The unbeliev- 
 ing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving 
 icife is sanctified by the husband : else were your children 
 unclean ; but now are they holy. The parties spoken 
 of " are duly, rightly, and legally espoused to each 
 other ; — otherwise, that is, if they are not truly mar- 
 ried to each other, the children must be spurious, 
 and not legitimate. — Else were your children unclean, 
 but now are they holy ; that is, if the marriage contract- 
 ed between them was not valid, and if, since the conver- 
 sion of one of them, it can never be thought to be good ; 
 then the children begotten and born, either when both 
 were infidels, or since one of them was converted, must 
 be unlawfully begotten, base-born, and not a genuine, 
 legitimate offspring ; but as the parents are lawfully mar- 
 ried, the children born of them are in a civil and legal 
 sense holy, that is, legitimate." 
 
 The most powerful argument which has been urged in 
 favor of this interpretation, and one attended with much 
 plausibility is, that it seems, at first view, to agree with the 
 object of the Apostle, who directs that a believer should 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 81 
 
 not put away an unbelieving partner, and to make this 
 direction appear just, asserts, as Dr Gill understands him, 
 that the believing and unbelieving partners are lawfully 
 joined in marriage ; and that, were it not so, their chil- 
 dren would be illegitimate ; but that, in consequence of 
 the lawfulness of the connexion between the parents, 
 their children are legitimate. 
 
 In reply to this, it may be said, that a different sense 
 will agree, to say the least, equally well with the mani- 
 fest object of the Apostle. The very direction, that an 
 unbelieving husband or wife should not be put away by 
 the other party, implies, that there is a matrimonial con- 
 nexion between them, and that the connexion is lawful. 
 But the Apostle wishes to enforce this direction by a 
 proper reason ; and the reason he suggests, as I under- 
 stand it, is this ; that the unbelieving husband or wife is 
 sanctified by the believing partner in such sense, that, 
 in consequence of it, their children are separated from 
 heathenism, consecrated to God, and brought into the so- 
 ciety of Christians. This was then, and would be now, 
 a consideration of great weight, — much greater, I should 
 think, than the mere legitimacy of the children. This 
 consideration did indeed presuppose their legitimacy ; 
 but it had this important point in addition, namely, that 
 the children icere a holy seed, consecrated to God, and en- 
 titled to the specicd privileges of the Christian dispensa- 
 tion. Now this consideration, as it includes the other, 
 and has so much in addition, must be a more powerful 
 reason to enforce the observance of the direction, than 
 the other taken by itself. So that, in respect to the de- 
 sign of the Apostle, and the reasoning employed, Dr 
 Gill's interpretation has certainly no advantage over the 
 other. 
 
 -3 
 
©2 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 But there are considerations of great importance, 
 which stand directly against Dr Gill's construction. 
 
 The first is, that it is contrary to the usus loquendi. 
 It puts a sense upon the words yytciorat, and dylu, which 
 is widely different from the prevailing sense ; yea, differ- 
 ent from the sense which they have in any other passages 
 of Scripture. And Dr Gill himself does not pretend 
 that either of the words is used in the sense he contends 
 for, in any other text. He does indeed attempt to sup- 
 port his rendering by referring to the use of the Hebrew 
 ttn.p in the Talmudic books, where it has the sense of 
 espousing merely. But Schleusner objects to the argu- 
 ment, and says, " that the notion of espousing, which 
 certain interpreters have attributed to the word tw dyiu- 
 £iiv from the use of the word 'jnp in the Talmudic 
 books, is, as any one must see, manifestly foreign to this 
 place. 5 ' There is not one of the senses of fcnj?, given 
 by Gesenius, and not one of the many senses of dyt-a£(a, 
 given by Schleusner and Wahl, which favors the render- 
 ing of Dr Gill. The same is true of the adjective dylcc. 
 Schleusner and Wahl give a great variety of senses, but 
 none of them relate to the legitimacy of children. Nor 
 is dxadccgtog, nor the corresponding Hebrew tfttE, ever 
 used to designate a spurious, or illegitimate offspring. 
 Good use, then, is entirely against the rendering of Dr 
 Gill. 
 
 Second. Although the advocates of Dr Gill's in- 
 terpretation of the text say much of its perfect corres- 
 pondence with the object and the reasoning of the Apos- 
 tle ; I think the reasoning, or the train of thought, in 
 one important respect, though not mentioned by any 
 writer whom I have consulted, is clearly inconsistent 
 with that interpretation. The Apostle says, " Other- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 83 
 
 wise" that is, were it not as I have said, that the un- 
 believing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the un- 
 believing wife by the husband ; M your children would be 
 unclean, but now are they holy." The children are ho- 
 ly, in the sense intended, in consequence of the influence 
 which the believing wife has upon the unbelieving hus- 
 band, or the believing husband upon the unbelieving wife. 
 He is sanctified by her, and she by him ; and in conse- 
 quence of this sanctif cation, whatever it is, the children 
 are holy. Without this sanctification of the unbelieving 
 party by the believing, the children would be unclean. 
 Suppose now husband and wife are both unbelievers. 
 The sanctification spoken of, whatever it is, does not ex- 
 ist ; of course, the reason or cause of the holiness of the 
 children does not exist. And if the cause of their holi- 
 ness does not exist, they cannot be holy ; they are un- 
 clean. But are they illegitimate 1 May there not be 
 lawful marriage between a husband and wife who are 
 both unbelievers ? Is it necessary to the lawfulness of 
 marriage and to the legitimacy of children, that the hus- 
 band or the wife should have Christian faith 1 How 
 was it with those who were married and had children 
 while they were heathen ? Were their children bastards 1 
 Were they ever considered and treated so by the Apos- 
 tles ? They certainly would have been considered so, 
 had not their parents been lawfully married. But if law- 
 ful marriage may exist, where neither husband nor wife 
 is a Christian; they may surely have legitimate children. 
 But they cannot have children who are holy, in the sense 
 of the Apostle ; because being holy in that sense is evi- 
 dently the consequence of an unbelieving father being 
 sanctified by a believing mother, or an unbelieving mo- 
 ther by a believing father. — Or the argument may be 
 
£4 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 stated thus. If both parents are unbelievers, — if the) 
 are both pagans ; most surely their children cannot be 
 considered a holy seed, in the sense of the Old Testa- 
 ment, or the New. They are ccxadagza, unclean, pagan. 
 But are they illegitimate ? If not, — if those who are 
 joined in marriage, though both of them are unbelievers 
 and pagans, may, by the acknowledgment of all, have 
 legitimate children ; then clearly the faith of one of the 
 parents, and the sanctification of the other by means of 
 that faith, cannot be necessary in order to the legitimacy 
 of the children. But it is necessary in order to their be- 
 ing holy in the sense of the Apostle ; for he says express- 
 ly, that were it not for such a sanctification of one parent 
 by the other, the children would be unclean, which is 
 the opposite of being holy. Thus it becomes manifest 
 that dyla and axuftuQTa cannot be rendered legitimate 
 and illegitimate, without involving us in inextricable diffi- 
 culty as to the Apostle's reasoning. But this difficulty 
 is avoided by another interpretation, as we shall see in 
 the sequel. 
 
 There is no occasion to dwell upon the opinion of 
 those, who consider the Apostle as speaking of the real 
 conversion of an unbelieving by a believing partner, or 
 of the prospect of such conversion. For although this 
 opinion may seem to derive some support from v. 16, it 
 does not, on the whole, agree with the statement of the 
 case. 
 
 The other sense of the text which I shall particularly 
 consider, is this : The unbelieving husband, by his vol- 
 untary connexion with a believing wife, is, in a manner, 
 separated from the heathen, and brought into an alliance 
 with Christians. His being " pleased to dwell with" 
 such a wife shows, that he is not an outrageous infidel. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 85 
 
 but that he has some sober reflection, and is willing to 
 be in Christian society. He stands in that relation to 
 his wife in which, as Scripture teaches, he becomes one 
 with her. On account of this near relation, he is to be 
 regarded and treated very differently from what he would 
 be, if no such relation existed. He has been and is so 
 sanctified, qyiaotat, — his condition relatively, is so af- 
 fected by his marriage with her, that her living with him 
 will make no difference as to her state, or the privileges 
 she may enjoy ; so that she has no occasion to put him 
 away, but may as lawfully and properly continue to dwell 
 with him, as if he were a Christian. Were it not for 
 this ; that is ; were it not that his state relatively is thus 
 affected by his connexion with her ; in other words, 
 were he in all respects to be reckoned among the un- 
 sanctified heathen ; were he openly and entirely united 
 to their society ; were his wife's piety and her relation 
 to him a matter of no consideration, and were he to be 
 regarded just as he would be, if he had no connexion at 
 all with God's people ; then indeed his children would 
 be unclean. Their relation to such a father, if his state 
 were in no way made better by his connexion with a pi- 
 ous wife, would render them heathen children, and would 
 exclude them from the peculiar privileges of the children 
 of God's people. But now, as his condition is so altered 
 by his matrimonial connexion with a believing wife ; as 
 he is by that connexion so sanctified, that he stands 
 well in respect to his domestic state ; his children are 
 not to be regarded as heathen children, but as a holy 
 seed, a Christian offspring, entitled to a place in Chris- 
 tian society, and to the seal of the Christian economy. 
 
 That this interpretation agrees perfectly with the de- 
 sign and reasoning of the Apostle, must, I think, appear 
 8* 
 
86 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 from what has already been advanced. The chief argu- 
 ment which I shall now urge in its support, is the usus 
 loqucndi, that is, the sense generally attached in other 
 parts of Scripture to the principal words, on which the 
 interpretation must depend ; and especially the sense 
 which these words have, when applied to the same sub- 
 jects. It should be kept in mind as a matter of great 
 consequence, that the Apostle Paul, who wrote the book 
 containing the text under consideration, was by birth 
 and education a Hebrew ; that he was perfectly familiar 
 with the Hebrew Scriptures, and that in a very remark- 
 able degree he transfused the peculiarities of those Scrip- 
 tures into his own writings. He adopted the phraseolo- 
 gy of the Hebrew Scriptures. He wrote in their idiom. 
 Accordingly it will be of the first importance to notice 
 the peculiar Hebrew sense of the principal words found 
 in the passage before us. 
 
 * Ay.uQu<jtq<z, according to Schleusner, signifies, thai 
 which is prohibited by the Mosaic law, or that from which 
 the people of God were required to separate themselves. 
 Referring to Acts 14: 28, he says; "A man is there 
 called uxa&ugrog, unclean, with whom the Jews thought 
 it unlawful to have any familiar intercourse." He repre- 
 sents it as often used to denote a pagan, an alien from 
 the icorship of the true God, or one who does not belong to 
 the people of God, or to the society of Christians. The 
 text undei consideration he renders thus : " Alioquin et 
 liberi vestri remoti essent a societate Christianorum ;" 
 Otherwise your children also would be removed from 
 the society of Christians. He quotes the passage in 2 
 Cor. 6: 17, as exhibiting the sa'ne sense of the word : 
 'uixa&uQTOv fAtj amia&t : touch not the unclean thing; 
 i. e. as the connexion shows, have no intercourse with pa- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 87 
 
 gans. Wahl agrees with Schleusner : u If it were other- 
 wise, it would follow that your children also were not to 
 be considered as belonging to the Christian community." 
 Lightfoot is of the same opinion. He says; " That the 
 words dxci&ctgza and dyiu refer not to legitimacy or 
 illegitimacy, but to the Gentile or Christian state ; that 
 the children of Gentiles, or pagans, were by the Jews 
 considered as uy.dOaoia, unclean, and the children of the 
 Jews, dyla, holy, and that in the passage under conside- 
 ration, the Apostle refers to this well known sense of 
 the w r ord ; that his treatment of the subject does not 
 turn on this hinge, whether a child, born of parents, one 
 of whom was a Christian and the other a heathen, was a 
 legitimate offspring, but whether he was a Christian off- 
 spring." Whitby presents the argument still more fully. 
 " The Apostle does not say, else were your children bas- 
 tards, but now are they legitimate ; but else were they 
 unclean, i. e. heathen children, not to be owned as a ho- 
 ly seed, and therefore not to be admitted into covenant 
 with God as belonging to his people. That this is the 
 true import of the words d/.uftagTa and dyla, will be 
 apparent from the Scriptures, in which the heathen are 
 styled the unclean, in opposition to the Jews in covenant 
 
 with God, and therefore styled an holy people. The 
 
 Jews looked upon all heathens and their of spring, as un- 
 clean, by reason of their want of circumcision, the sign 
 of the covenant. Hence, whereas it is said that Joshua 
 circumcised the people, the Septuagint say, ntgitxdita- 
 
 gev, he cleansed them. To this sense of the words 
 
 unclean and holy, the Apostle may here most rationally be 
 supposed to allude, declaring that the seed of holy per- 
 sons, as Christians are called, are also holy. And 
 though one of the parents be still a heathen, yet is the 
 
!50 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 denomination to be taken from the better, and so their 
 offspring are to be esteemed not as heathens, i. e. un- 
 clean, but holt/, as all Christians by denomination are. 
 So Clemens Alexandrinus infers, saying ; ' I suppose 
 the seed of those that are holy, is holy, according to that 
 saying of the Apostle Paul, the wife is sanctified by the 
 husband &-c.,' referring to the passage under considera- 
 tion. Whitby confutes the other rendering, " Else were 
 your children bastards," by saying ; " The word used 
 for bastard by the Apostle being voftog, Heb. 12: 8, and 
 the word yvymog being the proper word for a legitimate 
 offspring; had the Apostle intended such a sense, he 
 would have used the words, which in the Greek writers 
 are generally used in that sense, and not such words as 
 in the Septuagint and in the Jewish writers always have 
 a relation to federal holiness, or the want of it." 
 
 The authors to whom I have referred, and other writers 
 of the highest character as philologists and commentators, 
 are all of one mind as to the sense of the phrase, " now 
 are they holy." Now are they considered as belonging to 
 the Christian community. Wahl says, " it is spoken of one 
 who is in any way connected with Christians, and there- 
 fore to be reckoned among them." So also Calvin. 
 " The children of the Jews, because they were made 
 heirs of the covenant, and distinguished from the chil- 
 dren of the impious, were called a holy seed. And for 
 the same reason, the children of Christians, even when 
 only one of the parents is pious, are accounted holy, and 
 according to the testimony of the Apostle, differ from 
 the impure seed of idolaters." He evidently means to give 
 this sense to the text we are considering.* Doerderlein 
 
 * See his Institutes, Book IV. Chap. 16. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 89 
 
 alludes to this text as having the same sense ; and the 
 late learned and judicious Knapp, in his Theology, refers 
 to the passage in connexion with Matt. 19: 14, as hav- 
 ing a relation to Infant Baptism. Doddridge says : "on 
 the maturest and most impartial consideration of this 
 text, I must judge it to refer to Infant Baptism. Noth- 
 ing can be more apparent than that the word, holy, sig- 
 nifies persons who might be admitted to partake of the 
 distinguishing rites of God's people." Against suppo- 
 sing that the Apostle meant to assert the legitimacy of 
 children, Doddridge urges, that " this is an unscriptural 
 sense of the word, and that the argument will by no 
 means bear it." 
 
 It may perhaps be said by way of objection to this 
 rendering, that riylaotuv must have the same general 
 sense with dyia ; and that if dyia, holy, implies that the 
 children, to whom it was applied, were devoted to God 
 in baptism, and were entitled to special privileges in the 
 Christian community, then yylaGTCti, is sanctified, or 
 made holy, must imply, that the unbelieving husband or 
 wife was in like manner devoted to God, and was enti- 
 tled to the same special privileges. 
 
 But to this it may be replied, that it is nothing un« 
 Gommon for the same word to have a variety of signifi- 
 cations, not only in different sentences, but in the same 
 sentence. Instances of this might easily be pointed out 
 in the Scriptures, and in other writings. In all such ca- 
 ses, the obvious nature and circumstances of the subject, 
 to which the word is applied, must help us to determine 
 in what particular sense the word is used. Any one, 
 who will consult Johnson's English or Ainsworth's La- 
 tin Dictionary, or Schleusner's Greek Lexicon, may see 
 how different subjects, and the different circumstances 
 
90 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 of the same subject, constantly vary the signification of 
 the same word, sometimes in small and almost impercep- 
 tible degrees, and sometimes in higher degrees. And if 
 the sense of the same word thus varies ; surely it can be 
 nothing strange that these two words, one a verb, and the 
 other an adjective, should vary in their signification, 
 when applied to subjects so different, as those now refer- 
 red to. So that our giving somewhat of a different sense 
 to r\yla(5xai from what we give to ctyiu, is no valid objec- 
 tion to our interpretation of the text. But after all, it 
 will be seen that, according to this interpretation, the 
 two words, though the one is a verb and the other an ad- 
 jective, have really the same general sense, i. e. the 
 sense of being separated, set apart, or made Jit for a 
 particular use, and that the difference, so far as there 
 is any, arises from the obvious difference of the subjects. 
 The general notion of being sanctified is first applied 
 to an unconverted heathen, connected in marriage with 
 a Christian ; and it is applied in reference to a particu- 
 lar question, that is, whether it is proper and advisable, 
 that a Christian should continue to live with an unbe- 
 lieving partner. Now when the Apostle says, in refer- 
 ence to this question, " the unbelieving husband is sanc- 
 tified by the wife," it is natural to understand him to 
 speak of a sanctifi cation adapted to the subject under 
 consideration. And a sanctification adapted to that sub- 
 ject would seem to be this ; that by his connexion in 
 marriage with a believing wife, he is, in some sort, sepa- 
 rated from the society of the heathen, certainly from the 
 familiar intercourse with them which he once had ; that, 
 on account of the pious woman with whom he is so close- 
 ly connected, he is to be regarded in a light different 
 from that, in which he could be regarded, if he were al- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 91 
 
 together a pagan, and had no such relation to a Christian 
 partner ; and that, by the effect which her faith produces 
 upon him, he is brought into such a state, that she may 
 with propriety continue to live with him. Their inter- 
 course comes under a sanctifying influence, by means of 
 her piety. This interpretation, it is evident, gives the 
 same general sense to 7' i y!u(JTac as to oyla, the last be- 
 ing applied to children, and denoting that they are, by 
 their very birth, separated from paganism, and brought 
 into the nursery of the Christian church. 
 
 It will cast a still clearer light on the meaning of the 
 text, to consider what was the occasion of the doubt 
 which arose in the minds of the Corinthian converts, and 
 which rendered the advice of the Apostle necessary. 
 This doubt unquestionably arose, not from any thing 
 which belonged to the original institution of marriage, 
 but in consequence of the special law of God in relation 
 to the Israelites, forbidding them to contract marriages 
 with any of the idolatrous people around them ; a law 
 which was intended, like many others, to preserve them 
 a holy nation, separate from the rest of the world, till the 
 coming of Christ. The doubt might be occasioned more 
 directly by the instances, in which such prohibited mar- 
 riages had been dissolved by divine direction, particular- 
 ly in the time of Ezra. In opposition to the command 
 of God, the people had formed marriages with the daugh- 
 ters of the surrounding nations ; so that, as it was said, 
 the holy seed, i. e. the Jews, had mingled themselves 
 with those idolatrous people. After a time, they who had 
 thus offended, were brought to consider the evil of what 
 they had done ; and they made a covenant with God to 
 put away all the wives, and such as were born of them, ac- 
 cording to the divine command. See Ezra, chap. ix. and 
 
92 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 x. Now the Apostle virtually told the Corinthian 
 Christians, that that ancient, national law was not bind- 
 ing upon them, any more than the law of circumcision ; 
 that those believers who were lawfully married to unbeliev- 
 ers had no occasion to dissolve the marriage bond. And 
 he suggested to them one consideration of great weight ; 
 namely ; that if according to the Mosaic law, and the ex- 
 ample of the people in the time of Ezra, they were to 
 put away their unbelieving partners, and so treat them 
 as pagans, axaftaQTa, unclean, they must consider their 
 children also as unclean, i. e. heathen children, and put 
 them away likewise, as the people did in the case refer- 
 red to. In opposition to this, the Apostle appeals to a 
 fact which, as all Pedobaptists believe, was well known ; 
 namely ; that the offspring of such marriages were con- 
 sidered, as they are now, to be a holy seed, dyicc, just as 
 if both parents were believers, and so were fit to be de- 
 voted to God, to receive the seal of the covenant, and 
 enjoy other special privileges. 
 
 It will be seen that, in this extended examination of 
 the passage before us, my chief reliance is upon well 
 known usage as to the word ay tog; that is, the prevailing 
 sense of the word and its corresponding Hebrew unp 
 among the Jews, especially when applied to Israelites, 
 whether men or children, by way of distinction from 
 other nations. 
 
 I have only one more remark. All Pedobaptists be- 
 lieve, that the children of Christians, even those children 
 who had only one believing parent, were, in the Apostle's 
 time, and in the Corinthian church actually devoted to 
 God in Baptism, and so brought into a peculiar relation 
 to the Christian church. Now on this supposition, what 
 could have been more natural, than for the Apostle to 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 93 
 
 express this fact relative to the children, by saying they 
 were dyia, holy, i. e. set apart, consecrated to God, just 
 as the children of God's people were formerly called ho- 
 ly on the same account. 
 
 The text, thus interpreted, presents a very satisfacto- 
 ry view of the subject under consideration, and shows 
 how the Apostles understood their commission. For we 
 see, that wherever the Christian religion took effect, and 
 men became believers, and formed themselves into a so- 
 ciety, their children were considered as appertaining to 
 the same society, and as set apart, and devoted to God ; 
 just as they were under the former economy. And as 
 they were thus considered to be dyicc, a holy seed, sepa- 
 rated from paganism, and consecrated to God ; how can 
 we reasonably doubt that they had the sign of consecra- 
 tion put upon them 1 Whitby states the argument from 
 this text in favor of Infant Baptism, thus. " If the holy 
 seed among the Jews were to be circumcised, and be 
 made federally holy by receiving the sign of the cove- 
 nant and being admitted into the number of God's people, 
 because they were born in sanctity, or were seminally 
 holy ; for the root being holy, so are the branches ; then, 
 by like reason, the holy seed of Christians ought to be 
 admitted to Baptism, the sign of the Christian covenant, 
 and so to be entered into the society of the Christian 
 church." Whitby refers to Tertullian, de Anima, cap. 
 39, as having the substance of this argument. 
 
LECTURE VI. 
 
 The argument recapitulated. Three additional considerations, — precepts re- 
 quiring the education of children ; — silence of the .New Testament respect- 
 ing Infant Baptism ; — and the feelings of parents. — Proof from Ecclesiastical 
 History that Infant Baptism was practised by the early Christians. 
 
 In order to give simplicity and unity to my reason- 
 ing on the subject of Infant Baptism, I have made it rest 
 on the single inquiry, how the Apostles must have un- 
 derstood the commission they received from Christ, to 
 proselyte and baptize all nations. I have considered the 
 point at issue, as relating altogether to the just interpre- 
 tation of Scripture. And as the passage which records 
 the commission, does not explicitly inform us, whether 
 infant children were meant to be included or not ; I have 
 thought it indispensable to consider what there was in 
 the circumstances of the Apostles, as native Jews, espe- 
 cially in their usages in respect to children, which would 
 be likely to influence them in their understanding of such 
 a commission from one, who was born and educated in 
 the same community with them. I have thought it im- 
 portant also to inquire, whether there was any thing in 
 the previous instructions of Christ, or in the writings of 
 the Apostles afterwards, which could help to show in 
 what light they regarded little children. And here we 
 have found, that Christ, exactly in accordance with the 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 95 
 
 principle which was established by the God of Abraham, 
 Isaac, and Jacob, represented little children, as entitled 
 to the privileges and blessings of his kingdom, and that 
 the Apostle Paul, as we understand him, represented it 
 as a fact, generally known and acknowledged, that the 
 children of believers were a holy seed, consecrated to 
 God, and admitted to the privileges of the Christian com- 
 munity. And if this was the case, we have supposed it 
 would follow of course, that Baptism, the sign of such 
 consecration to God, and of such a relation to the 
 church, was administered to them. Every consideration 
 of this kind will be strengthened, and every such proba- 
 ble conclusion confirmed, by the proof which will by and 
 by be produced, that Infant Baptism was actually prac- 
 tised in the early Christian churches. This proof might 
 indeed have been exhibited before any other considera- 
 tion ; and this method might have been attended with 
 some special advantages. But it must be remembered, 
 that, according to the belief of all Pedobaptists, there 
 were in fact considerations, which influenced the Apos- 
 tles and early Christians to practise Infant Baptism. 
 Now what can be more natural than for us first of all to 
 inquire, and, as far as we are able, to ascertain, what 
 those considerations were ; and afterwards to present 
 the evidence of the fact, that Infant Baptism was prac- 
 tised in the early Christian church ? In this way we be- 
 come satisfied, that the considerations, which operated 
 upon the minds of the Apostles, actually produced the 
 effect which we have supposed. According to our views, 
 they were the men who began Infant Baptism ; of course 
 they could not have been influenced in their judgment as 
 we are, by the consideration of Infant Baptism as a practice 
 already existing. They must have been influenced alto- 
 
96 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 gether by other considerations. The method which I 
 have chosen is, first, to inquire into the circumstances 
 and usages of the Apostles, as members of the Jewish 
 community, and to satisfy ourselves, as far as may be, 
 what were the considerations, which would naturally 
 lead them to understand their commission to proselyte 
 and baptize, as including children ; next, to attend to 
 any thing recorded in the New Testament, which has 
 an obvious correspondence with the supposition, that In- 
 fant Baptism was practised by the Apostles ; and finally 
 to exhibit the proof, that Baptism was in fact applied to 
 children in the early Christian churches. This order 
 appears best suited to present the whole subject in a 
 clear light, and to make a just impression on the minds 
 of Christians. 
 
 Before proceeding to the argument from Ecclesiastical 
 History, I shall advert to three additional considerations. 
 
 First. The manner in which the Apostle requires 
 children to be educated. In Ephesians 6 : 4, Christian 
 parents are required to bring up their children in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord. This is the gener- 
 al precept. Others more particular, but of the same 
 import, might be cited. According to Apostolic direc- 
 tion, the children of believers were, from their earliest 
 years, to be instructed in the principles of the Christian 
 religion. They were to have the doctrines and pre- 
 cepts, the invitations and promises, the warnings and 
 threats of God's word clearly set before them, and ear- 
 nestly inculcated upon them. They were to be consider- 
 ed and treated, as scholars, placed in the school of Christ, 
 and there to be brought under the influence of faithful 
 instruction ; so that, through the divine blessing, their 
 minds might be enlightened, and their affections and ac- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 97 
 
 tions conformed to the principles of Christianity. In a 
 word, their education was to be conducted with a single 
 view to their being made followers of Christ, and active 
 members of his spiritual kingdom. Now the precepts of 
 the New Testament, requiring all this instruction and 
 discipline of children, perfectly agree with the view we 
 have taken of their state. If God is pleased to place 
 our children in such a near relation to us, and if he re- 
 quires us to consecrate them to him, and to put upon 
 them the sign of consecration, the mark of discipleship, 
 that is, the mark of their being placed, as young disciples, 
 in the school of Christ ; it becomes perfectly suitable, 
 that he should require us to treat them with- all this af- 
 fection and care, and so to endeavour to bring them up 
 for God. And it is true not only that these precepts of 
 the New Testament, pointing out the duty of parents, 
 are perfectly consistent with the doctnne we maintain, 
 but that they derive additional importance from this doc- 
 trine. If, according to divine appointment, we public- 
 ly dedicate our children to God by a solemn religious 
 rite, and thus bring them into a special relation to the 
 church of Christ, and secure to them a prospect of spe- 
 cial blessings; we must surely feel, that we are under 
 very strong obligations to cherish a tender affection for 
 them, and to labor, by all the methods of a wise Chris- 
 tian discipline, to make them, what the privileges of their 
 birth and the commands of God require them to be. 
 So the divine precept given by Moses, that parents 
 should teach their children diligently the things of re- 
 ligion, laboring to inculcate them, morning and evening, 
 and all hours of the day, became specially suitable, and 
 acquired a special force, on account of their children 
 9* 
 
98 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 having been publicly devoted to God, and marked as his, 
 by circumcision. 
 
 These observations are not meant to imply, that those 
 who do not devote their children to God by Baptism, 
 may not feel their obligation to bring them up in the nur- 
 ture and admonition of the Lord ; but that those, who 
 practise Infant Baptism, will find themselves drawn to 
 this duty by a special obligation, and will be likely to 
 perceive, with additional clearness, and to feel with ad- 
 ditional force, the propriety and importance of giving 
 them a religious education. Now the circumstance, 
 that Infant Baptism, considered as a divine institution, 
 has such an obvious and striking correspondence with 
 those precepts which point out the duty of parents, and 
 invests those precepts with new force, is a circumstance 
 in favor of Infant Baptism. Whereas, if the contrary 
 were fact ; that is ; if the doctrine of Infant Baptism 
 were calculated to diminish in our view the importance 
 of a religious education, or to render us less attentive to 
 the duty ; if, while holding to Infant Baptism, we felt a 
 less powerful motive, than we otherwise should, to bring 
 up our children in the nurture and admonition of the 
 Lord ; this certainly would be a consideration of no 
 small weight against it. Because it is the manifest de- 
 sign of all the positive institutions of religion, to have an 
 effect upon our minds in favor of its moral precepts, and 
 to excite us, by stronger motives, to the performance of 
 our duty. 
 
 The second consideration referred to, is, the silence of 
 the New Testament respecting the subject of Infant Bap- 
 tism. This circumstance has already been noticed in 
 another connexion. But I wish to dwell upon it more 
 
INFANT BAPTISM, 99 
 
 particularly here, as I think it must appear on the whole 
 to be an argument in favor of our doctrine. 
 
 I can by no means admit, as I intimated in a previous 
 Lecture, that the New Testament does not contain any 
 thing which has a bearing upon Infant Baptism ; nor 
 can I admit that it does not contain that which fairly im- 
 plies it. But it is evident that Infant Baptism is not in- 
 troduced as a subject of particular discussion in the 
 New Testament ; that it is neither explicitly enjoined 
 nor prohibited ; and that neither the practice of baptiz- 
 ing children, nor the absence of such a practice is ex- 
 pressly mentioned. 
 
 I. The fact, that Infant Baptism is not expressly en- 
 joined as a duty, that the principle involved in it is not 
 particularly discussed, and that the practice is not ex- 
 pressly mentioned, is no argument against Infant Bap- 
 tism. 
 
 It is manifest that this general fact cannot be urged 
 as an argument against Infant Baptism, because, as cir- 
 cumstances were, there was no occasion to enjoin it, and 
 no occasion to discuss the subject, or even to mention it. 
 These circumstances have already been brought into 
 view. The Jews had always been accustomed to have 
 their children consecrated to God by the same rite, as 
 was appointed originally for Abraham, the father of the 
 faithful, and his seed, and afterwards, for all men from 
 among the Gentiles, who should become proselytes to 
 the true religion. They had always been accustomed to 
 see children treated as a holy seed, and members of the 
 society of God's people. They had never heard the 
 propriety of this questioned, and had never been ac- 
 quainted with a contrary practice. In these circumstan- 
 ces, it was, I apprehend, a matter of course, that they 
 
100 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 should understand the divine appointment of Baptism for 
 Christian Proselytes, as including their children. And 
 it being a matter of course that they should so under- 
 stand the subject, there was not the least necessity, that 
 the Baptism of children should be expressly required, or 
 even mentioned. 
 
 To be perfectly satisfied on this subject, just look at 
 the manner in which circumcision is spoken of, Acts 15: 1 . 
 Certain Judaizing Christians came from Judea to Antioch, 
 and said to the brethren there, " Except ye be circumcis- 
 ed after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." Why 
 did they not express all that they meant, and say, " Ex- 
 cept ye and your children be circumcised, ye cannot be 
 saved ?" And afterwards, v. 10, when Peter spoke in op- 
 position to the Judaizing Christians in regard to the same 
 subject, and said, " Why tempt ye God to put a yoke up- 
 on the neck of the disciples," — that is, Why do ye re- 
 quire the disciples to be circumcised ? — Why did he not 
 in so many words object to laying this burdensome rite 
 upon the disciples and their children ? The answer to 
 both questions is the same. There was no occasion for 
 the mention of children, because it was perfectly under- 
 stood by all, that children were to be included with their 
 parents. It had always been so. And who could need 
 to be informed, that it was to be so still ? The same I 
 think must have been' the case, when Baptism was ap- 
 pointed, instead of circumcision, as the mark to be put 
 upon the people of God. The Apostles and Jewish 
 Christians had always been accustomed to consider chil- 
 dren, as united with their parents, as members of the 
 same religious community, and as entitled to the same 
 mark of consecration to God. They would understand, 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 101 
 
 that this practice of applying the sign of consecration to 
 children, as well as parents, would be continued under 
 the Christian dispensation, because the reasons for it 
 continued, it being founded on a natural and unchange- 
 able relation ; and because nothing icas said or done by 
 the Author of the new dispensation implying, that there 
 teas to be any alteration in this respect. So that it can- 
 not be regarded as any thing strange, that children are 
 not expressly mentioned in the command to baptize, or 
 in the accounts of Baptisms contained in the New Tes- 
 tament. Nor is it strange that no express declaration 
 on this subject is found in the writings of the early Chris- 
 tian Fathers ; as, according to our belief, the practice 
 had never been objected to, and had never occasioned 
 any controversy. This silence of the Scriptures and of 
 the early Fathers respecting the Baptism of children, is 
 analogous to the fact, that the circumcision of children 
 on the eighth day is scarcely mentioned for a thousand 
 years before Christ. Now as we can satisfactorily ac- 
 count for the fact, that the New Testament contains no 
 express mention of Infant Baptism, on the supposition 
 that Infant Baptism, was admitted and practised by all 
 Christians without any controversy ; this fact cannot 
 surely be considered as affording a valid argument against 
 Infant Baptism. 
 
 But, II. I think it can be shown that the silence 
 which we find in the New Testament in the other re- 
 spects mentioned ; that is ; the fact that there is no 
 command prohibiting the practice of Infant Baptism, 
 and that there are no such remarks as would natural- 
 ly arise from the absence of the practice, is an impor- 
 tant argument in favor of Infant Baptism. As it had 
 always been the custom of God's people from the time of 
 
102 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Abraham, to consecrate their children to God, to put upon 
 them the seal of the covenant, and to admit them as be- 
 longing to their holy community ; if Christ had intend- 
 ed to make any alteration as to the manner in which they 
 were to be regarded and treated ; we should suppose that 
 he would have mentioned such alteration ; and that 
 when he commanded his Apostles to proselyte and bap- 
 tize all nations, he would have expressly informed them, 
 that under the new dispensation children were not 
 meant to be included. 
 
 But there is another view of greater consequence 
 still. All the Jews, those who embraced Christianity, 
 and those who rejected it, had always been accustomed 
 to consider their children as a holy sted, consecrated to 
 God, and to see them receive the seal of God's covenant. 
 Now if Christianity had cut them off from this relation 
 to God, and had deprived them of the sign of being con- 
 secrated to him, and had treated them as having no 
 part or lot with God's people ; can we think that such a 
 change as this could have been made without occasion- 
 ing some animadversion ? Can it be that neither the 
 friends nor the enemies of Christ would have made any 
 complaint ? The unbelieving Jews, and even some who 
 professed to believe, were ready enough, on all occasions, 
 to complain of innovation, and of every thing in Christi- 
 anity, which implied the giving up of what belonged to 
 the Jewish religion. How earnestly, for instance, did 
 they object to giving up circumcision, although Baptism 
 was introduced in its place, as a mark of discipleship ? 
 But in consequence of the ardent affection which, as men, 
 especially as Israelites, they cherished for their offspring, 
 they must have felt a much stronger objection to depriv- 
 ing them wholly of the privilege of being consecrated to 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 103 
 
 God by any religious rite, and to excluding them wholly 
 from that sacred relation which they had always sustain- 
 ed to the church of God, than to a change merely in 
 the rite. But, with all their disposition to complain, 
 what complaints did they ever make of Christ, or the 
 Apostles, for treating children with less regard, than had 
 been exercised towards them before 1 There is not the 
 least appearance of there having ever been any complaint 
 or any controversy on this subject in the time of Christ, 
 or his Apostles, or in the period succeeding. Now I 
 cannot but regard this as utterly unaccountable, on the 
 supposition that Baptism, the initiatory sign appointed by 
 Christ for his disciples, had been withheld from their 
 children. Of all the subjects of complaint, this must 
 have been first among those Jews who rejected Christi- 
 anity, and even among those who embraced it. And as 
 there is no trace of any such complaint, and no command 
 or intimation respecting children, which could have oc- 
 casioned such a complaint ; in a word, as there is per- 
 fect silence among the writers of the New Testament, 
 and of the early Fathers, respecting any change in the 
 standing or privileges of children ; we must conclude 
 that no change took place, and that they were regarded 
 and treated by the teachers of Christianity, as they had 
 been by the people of God before. 
 
 We come now to the third consideration referred to ; 
 namely ; the feelings of pious parents. 
 
 My position is, that Infant Baptism, when apprehend- 
 ed correctly, must be agreeable to the best feelings of pi- 
 ous parents respecting their infant offspring. This is 
 not produced as an independent argument. But after 
 having attended to the principal reasons which support 
 the doctrine of Infant Baptism, it surely must be a grati- 
 
104 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 fication to find, that the doctrine corresponds with our 
 purest and best affections. It would, on the contrary, 
 be a serious difficulty in our way, and would lead us, af- 
 ter all, to question the soundness of our arguments, if 
 the most tender and pious dispositions of our hearts were 
 found in array against the practice for which we plead. 
 The laws and institutions of religion are all intended to 
 exercise and improve our benevolent and pious affections. 
 And when we perceive in them an obvious fitness to do 
 this, we cannot but consider it an argument in their 
 favor. How common is it, for example, to illustrate and 
 enforce the obligation of men to pray, and to attend on 
 the Lord's Supper, from the consideration, that these 
 duties perfectly agree with our most devout feelings, and 
 are suited to improve them ? Indeed how often do we 
 satisfy ourselves that it is our duty to perform certain 
 things, not expressly enjoined by the word of God, be- 
 cause we are drawn to them by those affections which 
 we consider to be right ? Eut if we find that any prac- 
 tice stands in opposition not only to our natural affections, 
 but to the feelings of benevolence ; we are wholly disin- 
 clined to believe that it could ever have been appointed 
 by God. With these things in view, we come to the sub- 
 ject now before us. And let me ask what pious parent 
 rightly apprehending the nature and design of Infant 
 Baptism, would not acknowledge it to be a benevolent 
 appointment of God ? Who would not be gratified to 
 find such a doctrine as that of Infant Baptism true 1 
 Who would not deem it a privilege to be permitted to 
 perform such a duty 1 And who would not regard it as 
 a subject of heartfelt grief to be deprived of such a privi- 
 lege ? It must surely be the wish of pious parents to 
 give up their children to God ; and to do this in the tern- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 165 
 
 pie of God, where the prayers of many will ascend with 
 their own to the Lord of heaven and earth, in behalf of 
 their children. Publicly to apply to them a sacred rite 
 which marks them for God ; which signifies that they 
 are placed in the school of Christ, and in the nursery of 
 the church, — that they are to enjoy faithful parental in- 
 struction, the preaching of the gospel, and the affections 
 and prayers of Christians ; which signifies too, that they 
 are to come under the influence of a divine economy, 
 fraught with the most gracious promises, and the most 
 precious blessings ; — to apply to children a sacred rite of 
 such import, must be inexpressibly delightful to godly 
 parents. If then such parents give up Infant Baptism, 
 they give up a privilege, which I should think they 
 would regard as of more value to their children, than all 
 the riches of the world. Now I cannot but deplore 
 a mistake, which leads parents to act against those sin- 
 cere and devout affections, which God requires them to 
 cherish, and which religion, with all its observances, is 
 designed to improve. Pious parents, I repeat it, who 
 rightly apprehend the doctrine of Infant Baptism, cannot 
 but wish it true. And it would seem to me that their 
 first inquiry must be, whether they may be permitted 
 thus to devote their dear offspring to God, and to apply 
 to them the seal of his gracious covenant. If nothing is 
 found to forbid their doing this; especially, if they have 
 reason, from the word and providence of God, to believe 
 that he would approve it ; I should suppose they would 
 embrace such a privilege with the sincerest gratitude 
 and joy, and hasten to confer such a blessing, upon their 
 children. — That it is a privilege and a blessing will be 
 made still more evident, by the remarks I shall offer in 
 another place, on the utility of Infant Baptism. 
 10 
 
106 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 I now proceed to the argument in favor of Infant 
 Baptism, from Ecclesiastical History. 
 
 The testimony of Ecclesiastical History on this sub- 
 ject, is just such as we should expect, on the supposition 
 that Infant Baptism was, from the beginning, universally 
 regarded as a Christian institution. In this respect, the 
 same remarks, as have been made on the manner in 
 which the subject is treated in the New Testament, will 
 apply generally to the early Christian Fathers. They 
 had little or no occasion to enter on a particular discus- 
 sion of the subject, or even to make any express mention 
 of it. Accordingly we find in the writers, who next suc- 
 ceeded the Apostles, only allusions to Infant Baptism. 
 These allusions, however, are of such a nature, as to af- 
 ford satisfactory evidence, that it was the uniform prac- 
 tice. But the Fathers, who wrote in the following ages, 
 were more and more particular and explicit in their tes- 
 timony. 
 
 My intention is only to make citations sufficient to 
 show the nature of the argument, referring you to Wall's 
 History of Infant Baptism, and other works, where the 
 subject is treated at full length. 
 
 My first citation is from Justin Martyr, who was 
 born near the close of the first century, and who wrote 
 his apology, from which the citation is made, near the 
 middle of the second century. Among those who were 
 members of the church, he says, there were many of both 
 sexes, some sixty, and some seventy years old, who were 
 made disciples to Christ from their infancy. The word 
 he uses, is ifiaftrjifv&tioccv, they were proselyted, or made 
 disciples ; the very word which Christ had used in his 
 commission to his Apostles : " Go ye and make disciples 
 of all nations ;" (Aa&fjTevaurs. The persons referred to, 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 107 
 
 Justin says, were made disciples in ncudtov, from their 
 early childhood. The word is applied to the little chil- 
 dren, whom Christ took in his arms and blessed. It is 
 evident therefore that Justin understood the command of 
 Christ to make disciples and baptize, as applicable to 
 little children. And he wrote only about one hundred 
 years after Matthew, who records that command. 
 
 Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple 
 of John, was also born near the close of the first century. 
 He says ; " Christ came to save all persons, who by him 
 are born again unto God, (renascuntur in Deum,) infants, 
 and little ones, and children, and youths, and elder per- 
 sons." Wall and Schroeckh, and other writers of the 
 first ability, have satisfactorily shown, that the word, re- 
 nasci, in the writings of Irenaeus and Justin, signifies 
 Baptism. In this argument we are not concerned at all 
 with the opinions entertained by Irenaeus, as to the effi- 
 cacy of Baptism. Our only inquiry is, whether it appears 
 from his writings, that Infant Baptism was the prevailing 
 practice. The passage above cited contains satisfactory 
 proof of this, as it fairly admits of no construction which 
 can lead to any other conclusion. 
 
 Tertullian, who was born about the same time with 
 Irenaeus, entertained some singular notions in regard to 
 Baptism, and argued in favor of delaying it in the case of 
 little children. But it is manifest, that what he said on 
 this subject was in opposition to common use, and in fa- 
 vor of introducing a new practice ; — just as much as his 
 argument for delaying Baptism in regard to those who 
 are unmarried, and in regard to widows. But his opin- 
 ion and his argument in favor of such delay had no in- 
 fluence. The practice of the church had been and con- 
 tinued to be entirely against it. 
 
108 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 The testimony of Origen is very explicit. " The 
 church received a tradition, or order, from the Apos- 
 tles, to give Baptism to little children also »•" etiam 
 parvulis dare baptismum. The reason which he gave 
 for this was, that all were contaminated with sin, and 
 needed to be cleansed by water and the spirit. In oth- 
 er places, he speaks expressly of the usage of the church 
 to baptize infants. 
 
 This testimony of Origen is of great weight. For in 
 the first place, he was born before the close of the se- 
 cond century. In the next place, he was descended 
 from Christian parents, and, being a man of more infor- 
 mation than any one of his time, must have had a par- 
 ticular acquaintance with the Christian church in the 
 different countries where it was established. In the 
 third place, these testimonies are so plain and explicit, 
 as to need no addition or explanation, and to admit of 
 no doubt. And they not only show that Infant Baptism 
 was generally known and practised, but represent it as 
 having been ordered by the Apostles. 
 
 In the time of Cyprian, the question was agitated, 
 whether Baptism should be administered to children on 
 the second day after their birth, or whether, in allusion 
 to circumcision, it should be postponed till the eighth 
 day. This question was referred to a Council of Bishops 
 in Africa. But not a single Bishop in Africa was in fa- 
 favor of delaying the Baptism of infants. And Cyprian 
 himself, who was very partial to Tertullian's views, nev- 
 er made the least reference to him, as one who rejected 
 Infant Baptism. 
 
 Augustine, who was born in the middle of the fourth 
 century, says ; " The whole church practises Infant 
 Baptism. It was not instituted by Councils, but was a!- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 109 
 
 ways in use." He adds, that he does not remember ev- 
 er to have heard of any person, whether Catholic or here- 
 tic, who maintained that Baptism should be denied to in- 
 fants. 
 
 I shall close these citations with the testimony of Pe- 
 lagius. He found it difficult to reconcile his views re- 
 specting the native character of man with Infant Bap- 
 tism. Under the pressure of this difficulty, he would 
 have been very ready to assail the custom, had he been 
 able. He was indeed charged with denying Infant Bap- 
 tism. But he directly and indignantly pronounced the 
 charge to be false ; and though he was so strongly tempt- 
 ed to do it, he never expressed the least doubt / that the 
 practice of baptizing children was of Apostolic authority. 
 On the contrary, he declared, that he never heard of any 
 one, even the most impious heretic, who asserted that in- 
 fants are not to be baptized. Pelagius was born in 
 Great Britain, and travelled through France, Italy, and 
 Africa, to Jerusalem. Had there been any church, or 
 any respectable individuals, who denied Infant Baptism, 
 it is altogether improbable that he would have been ig- 
 norant of it. But he declares, that the practice of In- 
 fant Baptism prevailed universally, and always had pre- 
 vailed. 
 
 Thus it appears that we have evidence as abundant, 
 and specific, and certain, as history affords of almost any 
 fact, that Infant Baptism universally prevailed from the 
 days of the Apostles through four centuries. During 
 this period, no one denied it ; and no one argued 
 against it. Tertullian indeed pleaded for the delay of 
 Infant Baptism, but never questioned its being of divine 
 authority. And there is no evidence that the least con- 
 troversy ever existed in any of the churches, respecting 
 10* 
 
110 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the propriety of applying Baptism to children, or the au- 
 thority they had from Christ to do it. 
 
 On the value of this argument from early Ecclesiasti- 
 cal History, I shall offer a few remarks. 
 
 It must be allowed by all, that those Christian wri- 
 ters, who have, in different ways, given testimony to the 
 prevalence of Infant Baptism in the early ages of Chris- 
 tianity, were honest and impartial men, and that we have 
 reason to confide in their veracity. It must be allowed 
 too, that they were under the best advantages to know, 
 whether the practice of Infant Baptism commenced in 
 the time of the Apostles. On this subject they were not 
 liable to mistake ; and so their testimony is entitled to 
 full credit. 
 
 Infant Baptism was a subject, in which early Chris- 
 tians must have felt a very lively interest. It was a thing 
 of the most public nature, and a mistake concerning it 
 must have been altogether improbable, — I might say, im- 
 possible. It was certainly impossible that Christians 
 should be mistaken, as to the question whether Infant 
 Baptism was generally practised in their own age. And 
 it must have been almost as impossible for them to be 
 mistaken, as to the practice of the preceding age. For 
 they had memories, as well as we ; and they had oral 
 traditions ; and they had written records also. And why 
 should not they have known what took place in the time 
 of their fathers, as well as we know what took place in 
 the time of our fathers ? But surely we have no doubt 
 whether we were baptized in our infancy ; or whether 
 our parents were baptized in their infancy ; or whether 
 in the days of our fathers it was the uniform practice of 
 the churches, with which we are connected, to give Bap- 
 tism to children. Who can imagine that we are in any 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. Ill 
 
 danger of mistake, as to the practice of the first churches 
 of New England relative to their infant offspring 1 
 If any one should take upon him to deny, that those 
 churches baptized their children ; should we not think 
 him extremely ignorant, or in sport 1 We think it 
 sufficient, that our fathers have told us it was so, and 
 that we never heard any one question it. But besides 
 this, there are many circumstances which plainly im- 
 ply it ; and we have books, written at the time, which 
 contain indubitable evidence of the fact. And we say 
 too, that the very existence of the practice at the present 
 time, considering how public and how important a thing 
 it is, must be regarded as conclusive evidence, that it was 
 the practice before ; unless it can be made to appear, 
 that a change has taken place, and that our churches 
 have been induced to renounce their former views, and 
 to become Pedobaptists. If such a change has taken 
 place, nothing can be easier than to make it appear. 
 And it must belong to any one, who asserts such a change, 
 to produce the evidence of it. If no evidence of this 
 can be produced, we feel it just to conclude, that no 
 change has taken place, and that the present practice is 
 only a continuation of that which formerly prevailed. 
 
 These remarks are all applicable to the subject under 
 consideration. My position is, that the Fathers, from 
 whom I have made citations relative to the practice of 
 Infant Baptism, were upright men, and were under the 
 best advantages to know whether the practice had pre- 
 vailed from the days of the Apostles, and accordingly 
 that their testimony on the subject is entitled to full cred- 
 it. One and another of them, in different circumstances, 
 and in different countries, stand forth as witnesses, that 
 Infant Baptism had been the uniform practice of the 
 
112 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 Christian church from the beginning. Although they 
 lived at different periods, they were all near enough to 
 the time of the Apostles, to obtain correct information res- 
 pecting a practice like this. In their own time the prac- 
 tice was universal. They tell us it had been so from the 
 beginning. Some of them would have been quite ready 
 to deny this, if they could have found any reasons for do- 
 ing so. But they unite in declaring, that the practice 
 had been universal in the Christian church from the time 
 of the Apostles. 
 
 Should any one say, that there might have been a 
 change, and that the Baptism of infants might have 
 been introduced either gradually or suddenly ; I would 
 ask, where is the evidence of this ? Even if all, who liv- 
 ed at the time, had been united in such a change, it 
 could not have taken place without leaving some clear 
 proof of the fact ; some traces, which would have been 
 visible to those who succeeded. But it is in the highest 
 degree improbable, that all who lived at the time of such 
 a change, would be united. And if they were not unit- 
 ed, there must be some evidence of the disunion ; some 
 traces of the controversy of disagreeing parties ; some 
 account of the remonstrances of the more conscientious 
 and faithful against those, who were unstable, and who 
 wished to make unwarrantable changes, — and of the ar- 
 guments of such innovators to justify themselves against 
 the charge of corrupting the simplicity of a Christian in- 
 stitution. But where is the evidence of the change sup- 
 posed ? Where do we find any traces of it? What de- 
 claration, or suggestion, or aliu-ion is there, in any writ- 
 ten history, or in any tradition, making it certain, or in 
 the slightest degree probable, that such a change ever 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 113 
 
 took place ? Who ever heard of the contention of par- 
 ties on this subject; of the remonstrances of the faithful, 
 or the apologies of innovators 1 Now if the early Chris- 
 tians had among them any of the vigilance and zeal of 
 those who, in modern times, have denied Infant Baptism ; 
 could the Baptism of infants have been introduced with- 
 out exciting dissatisfaction, complaint, and opposition ? 
 Take the Baptist churches now existing, and distinguish- 
 ed for their piety and zeal, in Great Britain, in America, 
 or in India. Should any of these churches attempt to in- 
 troduce Infant Baptism ; do you not think that a loud 
 voice would speedily be raised against them ? Would 
 they not be obliged to encounter arguments too many, 
 and opposition too decided, to be either despised, or for- 
 gotten ? Now turn to the primitive churches. If they 
 did not consider Infant Baptism a divine institution ; 
 why did they not lift up their voice and array their ar- 
 guments against it, when first brought into use ? We 
 have very ancient and particular accounts of controver- 
 sies and heresies on a great variety of subjects, both doc- 
 trinal and practical. How happens it, that we have no 
 account of the heresy of the Pcdobaptists, and no ac- 
 count of any controversy with them ? If we may judge 
 from what has appeared in modern times, we should 
 think, that there are few subjects more likely to excite at- 
 tention, than this, and few subjects on which the disa- 
 greements of Christians would be more likely to be at- 
 tended with warmth, or more likely to be remembered. 
 
 These remarks are sufficient to shew the value of the 
 argument from Ecclesiastical History. The testimony 
 of the early Christian writers in favor of Infant Baptism, 
 as the uniform practice of the church, is worthy of entire 
 credit, and, as the circumstances were, affords a conclu- 
 
114 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 sive argument, that it was a divine institution. And I 
 am very confident, that an argument like this on the op- 
 posite side, would be quite as much relied upon by those 
 who deny Infant Baptism, as this is relied upon by us. 
 If they could but make it appear by citations from the 
 best Ecclesiastical Histories, that the churches, imme- 
 diately after the time of the Apostles, were united in re- 
 jecting Infant Baptism, and that this continued to be the 
 case for more than a thousand years, without the excep- 
 tion of a single church or individual Christian who plead- 
 ed for the practice ; would they not earnestly seize this 
 fact, and confidently rely upon it, as a mighty and unan- 
 swerable argument, against Infant Baptism ? I would 
 seriously propose this view of the subject to the candid 
 and impartial consideration of those, who differ from us 
 on the question at issue. Let them remember how 
 much, and with what zeal, writers on their side have la- 
 bored to show, that Infant Baptism was not the universal 
 practice of the early Christian churches ; and how much 
 stress they have laid on the least shadow of evidence, that 
 primitive Christians, in any instances, did not baptize 
 their children. Now if the evidence they are able to pro- 
 duce in regard to those single instances really amounted 
 to clear, indisputable proof ; especially, if they could make 
 it appear, that Christians in general were not accustom- 
 ed to baptize children ; if they could produce one plain 
 declaration, or even a suggestion, or hint, from Origen, 
 from Augustine, or from Pelagius, showing that Infant 
 Baptism was not practised by the first Christian church- 
 es, and that no order or tradition in favor of it was ever 
 received from the Apostles ; would they not consider 
 this as an unquestionable proof against Infant Baptism 1 
 And would not their confidence in such a conclusion rise 
 
INFANT BAPTISxM. 115 
 
 to the very highest pitch, if they could make it appear 
 that, when Infant Baptism was first introduced, earnest 
 and repeated remonstrances were made against it, as a 
 dangerous innovation ? But as the proof from Ecclesias- 
 tical History is wholly on the other side, and shows clear- 
 ly, that Infant Baptism was the uniform practice of the 
 church in the ages succeeding the Apostles ; is it not the 
 part of candor, that they should acknowledge this to be a 
 valid argument in favor of Infant B iptism ? 
 
 If there should be any remaining doubt in your minds, 
 as to the propriety of relying on the testimony of unin- 
 spired men on such a subject as this, and if you should 
 think, that nothing but an express declaration from the 
 word of God ought to satisfy us : I would turn your at- 
 tention for a few moments to the consequences of adher- 
 ing to this principle. For, in the first place, what evi- 
 dence have you, except the testimony of uninspired men, 
 that the several books which constitute the Old Testa- 
 ment, as we now have it, are the very books to which 
 Christ and the Apostles referred as the word of God ? 
 Neither of them has given us any specific instruction 
 on this point ; and we go to Josephus, who was no 
 inspired man, and no Christian, — and we go to the 
 Talmud, and to Jerome, Origen, Aquila, and other 
 uninspired men, to find a list of the books, which w r e 
 are to receive as given by inspiration of God ; and hav- 
 ing proved from their testimony, that these were the books 
 which Christ and the Apostles regarded as sacred writ- 
 ings, we prove in other ways, that those writings have 
 come down to us without any material alteration. And 
 we must use the same kind of reasoning in regard to the 
 New Testament. We have no voice from heaven, and 
 no express testimony of any inspired writer, that the sev- 
 
116 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 eral books, which compose the entire Canon of the New 
 Testament, were given by inspiration of God, or that 
 they were all written by Apostles, or even by Christians. 
 But we go to Eusebius, and to other uninspired writers, 
 and we find, that they regarded these books, as the gen- 
 uine productions of those to whom they are commonly 
 ascribed, and as having divine authority. It is on such 
 evidence as this, that we rely for the support of those 
 sacred books, which are the basis of our faith, and which 
 teach us what are the doctrines and precepts and rites 
 of our religion. And why may we not as safely rely on 
 their testimony, in regard to the manner in which a relig- 
 ious rite was understood and applied by the churches, in 
 the first ages of Christianity ? Why may we not confide 
 in them as credible witnesses of a fact, concerning which 
 they had the best opportunity to obtain correct knowl- 
 edge 1 
 
LECTURE VII. 
 
 Baptism a substitute for circumcision. — Seal of the covenant. — Difficulty aris- 
 ing from the difference between the iormer and the present economy, and 
 from the requisit ion of faith. — Import of Infant Baptism. — Utility. — Stand- 
 ing of baptized children. — Duties of parents and the church. 
 
 I have now exhibited, as far as my present object re- 
 quires, the arguments, which I regard as most weighty 
 and conclusive, in favor of the position, that the Apostles 
 understood their commission to proselyte and baptize, as 
 including children. There are, however, several remain- 
 ing topics, more or less related to the subject, which must 
 be carefully considered. And when thus considered, 
 they will afford important collateral evidence in support 
 of Infant Baptism, and will have a very satisfactory influ- 
 ence upon the minds of candid inquirers after the truth. 
 
 The first of these remaining topics is, Baptism con- 
 sidered as a substitute for circumcision. 
 
 It is common to speak of one thing as coming in the 
 place of another, when there is a general agreement be- 
 tween them, as to the object sought, or the end to be 
 answered, how different soever they may be in other res- 
 pects. Thus our meeting-houses, or churches, are some- 
 times spoken of as coming in the place of the Jewish 
 Temple and Synagogues, because they agree in this, 
 that they are designed for public worship, and public ve- 
 il 
 
118 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 ligious instruction. As to the form of the buildings, and 
 the particular mode of worship and instruction, they dif- 
 fer greatly. — We also consider ministers of the gospel, as 
 coming in the place of the Levitical Priesthood ; the 
 more spiritual services of Christians, in the place of the 
 daily sacrifices of the Jews ; and the Lord's Supper, in 
 place of the Passover. In each of these cases, there is 
 an obvious agreement, in regard to the general object 
 sought, between the former institution, and that which 
 comes in its stead. So in civil matters. A law former- 
 ly existed, requiring a thief to be punished by scourging; 
 but that law has been set aside, and another enacted, re- 
 quiring a thief to labor in prison, with solitary confine- 
 ment at night. Now we speak of this law, or this mode 
 of punishment, as a substitute for the other, because it 
 relates to the same subject, and is intended to answer 
 the same general purpose. In the same manner, we 
 speak of the punishment of death, as commuted for exile, 
 or of exile, as substituted for death. 
 
 From these and other like examples, we learn how 
 such language is commonly used. And it must be con- 
 sidered proper to use it in the same sense, in relation to 
 the subject before us. The position which has been 
 maintained by the ablest writers, and which I shall en- 
 deavour to defend, is, that Baptism comes in the place of 
 circumcision. This position is not founded so much on 
 any particular text, as on the general representations of 
 Scripture, and the nature of the case. When God adopt- 
 ed Abraham and his posterity to be his peculiar people, 
 he commanded them to be circumcised ; and it appears 
 from the representations of Moses and Paul, that those, 
 who received this rite, were under special obligations to 
 be holy. Circumcision was, then, a sign put upon Abra- 
 
INFANT BAFTISM. 119 
 
 nam and his seed, showing them to be a peculiar people, 
 under peculiar obligations to God, and entitled to pecu- 
 liar blessings. Just so Baptism is a sign, put upon the 
 people of God under the new dispensation, signifying 
 substantially the same obligations and blessings, as those 
 which were signified by circumcision ; — the same, I say, 
 substantially, though in some circumstances different. 
 If then circumcision was a rite, by which persons were 
 admitted into the society of God's people, and set apart 
 for his service, under the former dispensation ; and if 
 circumcision is set aside, and Baptism is the appointed 
 rite, by which persons are admitted into the society of 
 God's people and consecrated to his service, under the 
 new dispensation ; it is evident that Baptism has succeed- 
 ed in the place of circumcision. We cannot but be sat- 
 isfied with this conclusion, if the design of one of these 
 rites was, in all important respects, the same as of the otta- 
 er ; and particularly, if they were both appointed, as a 
 seal of the same general promise of God to his people, 
 and of the same general relation of his people to him. 
 
 Now if Baptism comes in the place of circumcision, 
 and is, in all important respects, designed for the same 
 purpose ; what is the natural inference respecting the 
 extent of its application ? Plainly this ; that it is to be 
 applied as extensively at least, as circumcision was. Un- 
 der the former dispensation, if any, who had been aliens 
 from the commonwealth of Israel, were made proselytes 
 to the Jewish religion, they were circumcised. Accord- 
 ingly, if, under the present dispensation, any who have 
 been enemies to the spirit of Christianity, are converted, 
 and made disciples of Christ, they are to be baptized. 
 This conclusion, which we should naturally adopt from 
 the circumstance, that Baptism was substituted in the 
 
120 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 place of circumcision, perfectly agrees with the particu- 
 lar instruction we have in the New Testament. The 
 command to be baptized related primarily to those, who 
 became proselytes to Christ, whether they were Jews or 
 Gentiles. It related to believers. These were to be bap- 
 tized, just as adult proselytes to Judaism had before 
 been circumcised. And what is the natural conclusion 
 respecting the children of believers 1 It is plainly this ; 
 that as the children of Abraham, the father of believers, 
 and the children of all proselytes to the true religion, 
 were formerly circumcised ; so the children of all believ- 
 ers are now to be baptized. This must be our conclu- 
 sion, unless the word of God expressly forbids Infant 
 Baptism, or unless there is something in the nature and 
 design of Baptism, which makes it manifestly unsuitable 
 to apply it to infant children. 
 
 The fact that circumcision was applied only to men, 
 is of no consequence, as to the argument ; because wo- 
 men in that case, as in many others, were evidently con- 
 sidered, as represented by men, and virtually included 
 with them. Consequently, the meaning of infant cir- 
 cumcision must have been perfectly the same, as though 
 it had been applied to persons of both sexes. But the 
 distinction, formerly made between male and female, 
 is done away under the Christian dispensation. The 
 seal of the covenant is now to be applied to believers of 
 both sexes ; and of course to all their children, whether 
 sons or daughters. 
 
 The reasoning above stated, by which Infant Bap- 
 tism is inferred from Infant circumcision, I once thought 
 inconclusive. But the fact, that it is relied upon by all 
 the ablest and most candid defenders of Infant Baptism, 
 induced me carefully to reexamine it. This reexamina- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 121 
 
 tion has brought me to the conclusion, that the appoint- 
 ment and uniform practice of Infant circumcision, in 
 connexion with the reasons on which it rested, and the 
 circumstances attending it, would naturally lead the 
 Apostles, and must lead us, to understand the rite of 
 Baptism, as coming in the place of circumcision, and as 
 meant to be applied to infant children. The reasoning 
 which appertains to this subject will be brought into view 
 more fully in another place. 1 might make citations 
 from a multitude of the most respectable authors, con- 
 taining statements of this argument in different forms. 
 But I shall content myself with referring to Calvin's In- 
 stitutes, Book 4. ch. 1(3. Divight's Discourses on Infant 
 Baptism; Storr's Bib. Theol. Book 4. ) 112. together 
 with 111. 4th of the same Section ; and Knapp's Theolo- 
 gy ; § 142, 2. 
 
 Second. Meaning of the phrase, seal of the covenant. 
 
 If we would ever arrive at clear and satisfactory views 
 on this subject, we must dismiss all indistinct and ob- 
 scure conceptions and come directly to the Scriptures, 
 to learn, by diligent inquiry, in what sense the word 
 covenant is there used. 
 
 The Greek dia&fjxii, like the corresponding Hebrew 
 rP")n, signifies, in general, any arrangement, constitution, 
 establishment, economy, or plan of proceeding. Schleus- 
 ner says, notat dispositionem, qualiscunque ea sit ; and 
 generally, omne, quod cum gumma certitudine et fide fac- 
 tum est. The use of the word in the Septuagint he rep- 
 resents to be the same : Omne, quod cerium et consti- 
 tution est : whatever is appointed and made sure ; an es- 
 tah'is'ed constitution, or /jinn. It is from this general 
 sense, that all the particular senses are evidently derived. 
 Thus dta&ijArj, appointment, plan, establishment, is some- 
 11* 
 
1*22 INFANT BAPTISM 
 
 times a Will, or Testament ; sometimes ^promise ; some- 
 times a precept ; sometimes a compact ; and sometimes 
 an economy, or method of acting. The word signifies one 
 or another of these, just as circumstances require. Thus 
 in Heb. 9: 16, 17, dictd-yxr} must evidently mean a Tes- 
 tament, or Will, as the passage could have no consistent 
 meaning without giving this sense to the word. The 
 writer says, a Testament, diaBi]y.r}, is of force after men 
 are dead, and that it is of no force, while the testator 
 liveth. Here the word signifies, the arrangement, or dis- 
 position, which a man directs to be made of his affairs 
 after his decease. In Luke 1: 72, the word denotes the 
 divine promise. Zacharias celebrates the faithfulness of 
 God in " remembering his holy covenant, the oath that 
 he svvare to Abraham," referring to the promise of a Sa- 
 viour. Here dia\+t]y.rj signifies that divine arrangement, 
 plan, or appointment respecting a Saviour, which was 
 made known in the way of a promise to Abraham. In 
 Gen. 9: 9 — 18, God speaks of making a covenant with 
 man, and with the whole animal creation, and with the 
 earth too, and represents this covenant, as between him 
 and them. Many persons understand such a phrase to 
 denote a proper agreement, or contract, in which two par- 
 ties unite, and in the execution of which both parties 
 have an agency. But this cannot be the meaning of the 
 phrase in the present case ; for the irrational part of the 
 creation were incapable of having any agency either in 
 forming or executing such an agreement. The thing 
 promised was, that the earth should not be again destroy- 
 ed by a deluge. This was God's covenant; and it was 
 said to be between God and all the inhabitants of the 
 earth, rational and irrational, because the thing which 
 God determined and promised, related to them. They 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 123 
 
 were all to be preserved from being destroyed by anoth- 
 er deluge. So that what is here called God's covenant, 
 was in reality, his determination and promise as to the 
 manner in which he would treat man, and beast, and the 
 earth. The earth and its inhabitants were in no sense 
 a party to this divine covenant or arrangement, except 
 as they were to be benefited by it ; that is, were to be 
 preserved from another deluge. This establishment, or 
 declared purpose of God, had a seal. "God said, I will 
 set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a token of the 
 covenant between me and the earth* 1 The rainbow was 
 appointed to be a sign of the truth of God's promise ; a 
 pledge of the certain execution of the purpose he had de- 
 clared, that he would not again destroy the earth by a 
 flood. 
 
 From this case we learn, that a covenant of God may 
 have respect to those, who are incapable of having any 
 agency either in agreeing to it, or in carrying it into ex- 
 ecution. It may respect the animal creation, day and 
 night, and the earth itself. And if so, it may surely have 
 respect to infant children. And this is no more than 
 saying, that God may have a determination, or settled 
 purpose, as to the manner in which he will treat infant 
 children ; and that he may make known such a deter- 
 mination by his word. To such a determination, or set- 
 tled plan of conduct, the Scriptures give the name of cov- 
 enant. 
 
 In some passages, dict&i'ixrj signifies a command. 
 Acts 7: 8. "God gave him the covenant of circumci- 
 sion ;" that is, as Schleusner understands it, gave him a 
 command to circumcise. I apprehend, however, that the 
 word has a broader meaning here, and denotes the whole 
 economy, which God established in regard to Abraham 
 
124 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 and his seed, including precepts, promises, and privile- 
 ges ; of which economy circumcision was the sign. And 
 if so, the word in this place has nearly the same sense 
 as it appears to have in Gal. 4: 24, where the phrase 
 two Covenants, dvo Stw&tjxai,, clearly means, the Mosa- 
 ic and the Christian economy. So in Heb. 9: 15, the 
 first covenant doubtless means the Mosaic dispensation, 
 and in v. 20, the blood of the Covenant is the blood, by 
 which that divine economy was confirmed. In the 
 same way we must understand the words of Christ when 
 he instituted the Supper : " This cup is the New Tes- 
 tament in my blood." This cup of wine represents my 
 blood, by which the new dispensation, or the Christian 
 covenant is confirmed. 
 
 There is hardly any passage in the Bible, where cov- 
 enant directly and properly means a compact, or agree- 
 ment between two parties. But in various instances, it 
 may imply this, or something like this, by necessary con- 
 sequence. For when the word dia&i'jxrj, signifying a 
 divine appointment, precept, or promise, has respect to 
 moral agents, there must be an obligation on their part 
 to accede to such appointment, precept, or promise, and 
 to act according to it. But when the divine covenant, 
 that is, the divine appointment, or constitution, has re- 
 spect to things not possessed of moral agency ; it cannot 
 imply, that they are under any obligation to conform to 
 it, or that they are in any way parties in the covenant, 
 except merely that it has a relation to them. The word 
 covenant, therefore, considered as the translation of 
 diw&tjxt}, and of the corresponding Hebrew rPn3, no 
 more signifies an actual agreement between two parties, 
 than the word economy, law, or appointment. 
 
 We see then, that the Scripture sense of the word 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 125 
 
 dia&t'ixi], covenant, is materially different from the mean- 
 ing of covenant in common discourse, where it denotes 
 a mutual agreement. It is of special importance to note 
 this, because the supposition that the word, as used in 
 the Common Version of the Bible, has its common sig- 
 nification, must encumber the subject before us with 
 needless difficulties. For if dia&rixri, covenant, is un- 
 derstood to mean an agreement between two parties in 
 relation to the interests of religion ; then there must be 
 two parties capable of such agreement, — capable of en- 
 gaging in a mutual religious transaction. God must be 
 one of the parties ; and the other must be, intelligent, 
 moral agents, capable of acting in religious concerns. 
 Of course, infant children must be excluded. Whereas 
 if we duly consider the nature of a covenant in the Scrip- 
 ture sense, we shall see, that it may just as well relate to 
 infant children, as to adults. For surely God may have 
 a determination, may make a promise, may settle an econ- 
 omy, ox plan of proceeding, in regard to children, as well 
 as in regard to men. And such a determination, prom- 
 ise, or economy, being a matter of great consequence, 
 may with the utmost propriety, be marked by a religious 
 rite. And a religious rite, thus introduced, may very 
 justly be considered a seal, or confirmation, of God's 
 gracious economy. The obvious use of such a seal is, 
 to keep in lively remembrance the divine determination 
 and promise ; to impress the minds of parents with the 
 obligations it imposes on them ; and in due time to be 
 a remembrancer to the children of the privileges, which 
 the God of their fathers has granted them, and of the 
 gracious economy, under which they are placed ; and in 
 this way, to produce in their minds a becoming sense of 
 their peculiar obligations, as the children of pious par- 
 
126 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 ents. These remarks are sufficient to show, generally, 
 the suitableness of applying the appointed seal of the di- 
 vine covenant to children, as well as to parents. Both 
 parents and children have an interest in the covenant, 
 and its seal has an obvious and important significancy, 
 whether applied to the former, or to the latter. 
 
 The Scriptures teach us, that God made a covenant 
 with Abraham and his seed ; that is, that he made known 
 what was his purpose respecting them ; that he declared 
 how he would treat them. But what was this purpose of 
 God ? What was to be his economy, or the course of 
 his administration, towards Abraham and his seed? 
 The Scriptures furnish the answer. God said ; " Thou 
 shalt be a father of many nations. And I will establish 
 my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after 
 thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to 
 be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I 
 will give to thee and to thy seed after thee — all the land 
 of Canaan for an everlasting possession; and I will be 
 their God." Such was the determination which God 
 made known ; the economy which he had established. 
 This economy involved essential conditions on the part 
 of Abraham and his seed. And these conditions, de- 
 clared in one way and another, were, briefly, that they 
 should walk before God, and be upright and obedient. 
 But the circumstance, that a divine promise or plan of 
 proceeding is conditional, may not diminish its impor- 
 tance, nor render it any the less proper that it should be 
 marked by a religious rite. 
 
 Still more specific views of the nature and extent of 
 God's covenant with Abraham and his seed, may be de- 
 rived from other declarations of Scripture, and from that 
 conduct of God's providence, which is, in this case, and 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 127 
 
 in others, the best interpreter of his word. I shall refer 
 only to one text. Rom 9: 4. Here, in a very summa- 
 ry way, the Apostle mentions the peculiar privileges of 
 the Israelites, and says, that to them belonged " the 
 adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giv- 
 ing of the law, and the service of God." This agrees 
 with the representations, elsewhere made, of the pecu- 
 liar favors which God bestowed upon that people. He 
 adopted them as his children. He gave them a holy 
 law, written on tables of stone, and a great variety of 
 other precepts, moral and ceremonial, suited to their 
 condition. He raised up prophets to teach and warn 
 them. He displayed his glory in the midst of them ; 
 made great and precious promises to them, and from 
 time to time, wrought wonders of power and mercy in 
 their behalf. Thus the children of Israel were a highly 
 favored people ; and the place, where they dwelt, was 
 a highly favored place. Those who were born there 
 from generation to generation, were born in propitious 
 circumstances. They inherited special privileges. It 
 was the pleasure of God, that they should all be pla- 
 ced under the operation of a gracious economy ; should 
 be taught by pious parents, and by consecrated men ; 
 should, from their earliest years, hear what God had 
 done for their fathers, and what a holy law he had given 
 them ; and should come under those divine influences, 
 which, if cherished, would impart to the various privili- 
 ges they enjoyed, a saving efficacy. This was God's es- 
 tablishment respecting Abraham and his seed. This 
 was his chosen method of transmitting the true religion 
 from one generation to another; of continuing a church 
 in the world, and of training up his people for heaven. 
 It was a system of religious education. The children of 
 
128 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 God's people were to be considered from their birth, as 
 consecrated to him ; and, as soon as they were capable, 
 were to have the doctrines and precepts of his word in- 
 culcated upon them, accompanied with the pious exam- 
 ple and the prayers of parents, and all encouraged and 
 followed by the promised blessing of God. Children 
 born under that gracious economy, were thus, by their 
 very birth, brought into a state, highly auspicious to their 
 present and eternal welfare. The token of God's cov- 
 enant, that is, circumcision, was a token of all this kind- 
 ness on his part, and of all these privileges, prospects, 
 and obligations on the part of parents, and children. 
 
 Now the divine economy under the reign of Christ 
 is, in all important respects, the same as it was former- 
 ly. Children have the same relation to their pious pa- 
 rents, and that relation is of equal importance in the 
 concerns of religion. It is as much the constitution of 
 God, as it was formerly, that religion shall be preserved 
 in the world, and transmitted from one generation to 
 another, through the influence of a pious education. 
 The children of Christian parents are born into a state 
 as favorable, at least, as the children of Israelitish par- 
 ents were : I might say, much more favorable. It is 
 as much the will of God, as it was formerly, that they 
 should be piously consecrated to him, and that they 
 should enjoy a religious education, including all the 
 proper forms of instruction and discipline, and all the ac- 
 companying influence of a good example, and of prayer. 
 And it is as much the appointment of God now, as it 
 ever was, that his blessing shall attend this mode of ed- 
 ucating children, and that in this way generally, persons 
 shall be brought into the kingdom of Christ. This is 
 the plan of the divine conduct now, as much as it ever 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 129 
 
 was. So that in regard to the great interests of man, the 
 children of believers are now brought, by their birth, in- 
 to a state, similar to that of the children of God's people 
 in former times. The only important difference is, that 
 God's establishment, diu&rjxt], is more merciful now, — 
 is fraught with higher blessings, than formerly. So that 
 there are all the reasons, which formerly existed, and 
 some in addition, for applying to the children of pious pa- 
 rents a religious rite, which is the appointed token of 
 that gracious economy, under which they are placed. 
 
 Thus when we consider what God's covenant or 
 plan of conduct respecting children was formerly, and 
 what it is under the reign of Christ ; we cannot but 
 conclude that it is as reasonable and proper to apply to 
 them the present seal of the covenant, as it was the for- 
 mer. And this view of the subject is, at least, sufficient 
 to expose the futility of any conceivable presumption 
 against Infant Baptism, and to show that the presumptive 
 arguments are decidedly in its favor. 
 
 The common difficulty which meets us in regard to 
 this reasoning, is, that the transition from the former 
 economy to the latter implied a great change ; and that, 
 as the Christian economy is so widely different from that 
 which preceded, ice cannot reason from the one to the oth- 
 er. 
 
 I readily admit, that a very great change took place, 
 when the people of God passed from the Mosaic to the 
 Christian economy ; a change from obscurity to noon- 
 day light ; from a state, in which the Saviour was set 
 forth in promises and symbols, to a state, in which he 
 was presented in all his glory, as actually come, and ful- 
 ly invested with the office of the Prophet, Priest, and 
 King of the church : — a change too respecting the place 
 12 
 
130 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 and mode of worship, the power of the motives which 
 enforce the obligations of religion, and the extent to 
 which the blessings of salvation were to be diffused. But 
 whatever was the nature of the change, and to whatev- 
 er objects it related ; it certainly did not imply any 
 diminution of privileges to children, and, of course, it 
 could have no influence to prevent the application to them 
 of the seal of the new economy. So far as the change 
 which took place affected any particular subject, we can- 
 not indeed infer what is proper respecting that subject 
 since the change took place, from what was proper be- 
 fore. The change, for example, affected the subject of 
 sacrifices, and the line of separation between Jews and 
 Gentiles. Accordingly, it would be absurd for us to ar- 
 gue, that, whereas sacrifices were offered, and a separa- 
 tion between Jews and Gentiles made under the former 
 economy, the same must be continued now. But in ma- 
 ny respects, it is perfectly proper to reason from one 
 economy to the other. Christ, and the Apostles did rea- 
 son from one to the other ; and it would be easy to pro- 
 duce various instances in which this must be acknowl- 
 edged by all to be perfectly proper. If, for example, it 
 was the duty of men under the former dispensation, to 
 worship God, and if the worship required compiehended 
 confession, thanksgiving, and supplication ; and if it was 
 their duty to love their neighbours as themselves ; the 
 same must be the case now. But why ? Because the 
 change which took place, had no respect to these sub- 
 jects. These duties rested on principles common to both 
 dispensations. Just so it is with the duty of consecrating 
 children to God by a religious rite. This duty rested on 
 the natural and immutable relation between parents and 
 children, and on the general purpose and promise of 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 131 
 
 God to propagate religion and perpetuate the church, by 
 sanctifying the seed of believers. This was the divine 
 economy formerly ; and it is so now. It has as much 
 influence now, as it formerly had. Its importance is 
 above all conception, involving as it does, the religious 
 character and the eternal destinies of men. Now the 
 same token of this gracious economy, and of consecra- 
 tion to God, was formerly applied to parents and to chil- 
 dren, and was thus applied for reasons, which are com- 
 mon to all ages. It is plain, therefore, that the differ- 
 ence existing between the two dispensations cannot in 
 any way affect the subject before us, and that it is as 
 suitable to apply the token of the Christian economy to 
 children, as it formerly was, thus to apply the token of 
 the Abrahamic economy. 
 
 This course of reasoning, which is only auxiliary to 
 the main argument, was introduced for the particular pur- 
 pose of removing the difficulties, which have frequently 
 been felt in regard to Infant Baptism, on account of the 
 change from one dispensation to another. This change, 
 which is admitted to have been great and extensive, 
 could not affect the propriety of consecrating children to 
 God by a religious rite, for the plain reason, that it did 
 not affect the principle, on which such consecration rest- 
 ed. Though it affected the form of the rite; it did not 
 affect the propriety of applying it to children ; because 
 the Christian economy, of which Baptism is the seal, as 
 properly relates to children, as that economy, of which 
 circumcision was the seal. Consequently no reason 
 against Infant Baptism can arise from the difference be- 
 tween the Christian and the Abrahamic economy. 
 
 The requisition of faith in order to Baptism, may be 
 thought to be a proof, that the application of Baptism 
 
132 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 was meant to be more limited, than that of circumcision. 
 But before admitting this, we ought carefully .to examine 
 the subject. 
 
 Of whom, then, was faith required in order to Bap- 
 tism? Of those, evidently, who were capable of under- 
 standing the nature of the requisition. The command 
 to believe could relate to no other. This was so perfect- 
 ly obvious, that no teacher of Christianity could have 
 any occasion to mention it. This command, or any 
 other command, coming from a just God, must be un- 
 derstood as relating to those only, who were capable of 
 complying with it. So that the fact, stated exactly, was 
 this : Those who were capable of believing, that is, 
 adult persons, icere required to believe, in order to be bap- 
 tized. A requisition, not unlike this, was made under 
 the former dispensation. Adult persons, in order to be 
 admitted by circumcision into the society of God's peo- 
 ple, were required to renounce idolatry, to believe in the 
 God of Abraham, and to submit to the institutions and 
 laws which he gave by Moses. Such faith as this, under the 
 Mosaic economy, answered to the faith which is re- 
 quired under the Christian economy . The requisition of 
 faith, then, in order to Baptism, has nothing new in it, 
 but this , that the faith .required is to be adapted to 
 the circumstances of the Christian dispensation ; whereas 
 the faith required before, was to be adapted to the Mo- 
 saic dispensation. Thus, in regard to adult persons, the 
 case is very similar under both dispensations. How 
 then can the fact, that Christ required adult persons to 
 believe in order to be baptized, prove that Baptism was to 
 be more limited in its application, than circumcision ? 
 
 But it is said, that the circumcision of children was 
 expressly commanded, and that, without this command. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 133 
 
 no one could have inferred from the institution of cir- 
 cumcision for adults, that children were to be circumcis- 
 ed. I grant, that an express command was necessary 
 at first, to authorize the application of the seal of the 
 covenant to children. And if Baptism had been the 
 first seal, such a command would have been necessary 
 in relation to this. But the principle having been once 
 established, that the seal of the covenant is to be applied 
 to children, there is no occasion for the repetition of a 
 divine command to justify an adherence to that princi- 
 ple. In respect to circumcision, an express command 
 was necessary ; because circumcision was the first rite 
 which was appointed to be the' seal of God's covenant. 
 Had Baptism been the first seal, and had Infant Bap- 
 tism been settled by divine command, as Infant Circum- 
 cision was ; and had the practice of God's people been 
 for ages conformed to it ; and had circumcision been 
 then introduced in the place of Baptism, as the seal of 
 the Christian covenant ; it appears evident that no new 
 command would have been necessary to authorize the 
 circumcision of infants. But, on the other hand, if so 
 great a change was to be made, as the withholding of 
 the seal of the Covenant from the seed of believers ; 
 such a change would surely require a new divine com- 
 mand to authorize it. 
 
 If any one still thinks, that Christ's requiring men to 
 believe and be baptized, implies that infants are not to be 
 baptized, because they cannot believe ; I would ask him ; 
 whether the same mode of interpreting scripture would 
 not debar infants from salvation? "He that believeth 
 shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be con- 
 demned" is the grand principle of the New Testament 
 Faith is required in order to salvation as much, certain- 
 12* 
 
134 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 ]y, as in order to Baptism. And this requisition fur- 
 nishes as much reason for excluding infants from salva- 
 tion, as for excluding them from Baptism. But all Chris- 
 tians are united in holding, that the requisition of faith 
 in order to salvation, cannot be applied to children. 
 And to be consistent, they must hold, that the requisi- 
 tion of faith in order to Baptism cannot be applied to 
 children. The requisition most evidently has as much 
 to do with salvation, as with Baptism. The two cases 
 then are alike. Christ requires men to believe, in order 
 to be saved. But when he requires this, he does not say, 
 that infants are excluded from salvation, because they 
 cannot believe. So he requires faith in order to Baptism. 
 But he does not say, that infants are excluded from Bap- 
 tism, because they cannot believe. Thus, so far as the 
 requisition of faith is concerned, there is no more pro- 
 priety in excluding infants from Baptism, than in ex- 
 eluding them from salvation. Now if we admit that, 
 notwithstanding this requisition of faith, infants may be 
 saved; we must admit, also, that they may be baptized. 
 The requisition of faith, which is intended only for adults, 
 proves nothing one way or the other, as to children. 
 The question of their being baptized, or saved, must be 
 determined on other grounds. We ask not whether 
 they believe; for this they cannot do; but, whether there 
 are other reasons for baptizing them, and other reasons 
 for thinking they may be saved. 
 
 The same principle may be satisfactorily illustrated 
 by 2 Thess. 3: 10. The Apostle says ; " This we com- 
 manded, that if any one would not work, neither should 
 he eat." But who ever understood this command as re- 
 lating to children, and as implying, that they were to be 
 kept from eating, because they did not work ? 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 135 
 
 The command to believe and be baptized, which has 
 now been considered, is the most plausible argument ev- 
 er advanced against Infant Baptism. And, if I mistake 
 not, our opponents rely upon it more, than upon any 
 other. But they ought well to consider, that the mode 
 of reasoning which they adopt, would exclude all infants 
 from salvation. And they certainly have good reason to 
 pause, before they admit the conclusiveness of an argu- 
 ment, which would lead to such fearful consequences. 
 
 Having thus endeavoured to show that there is no 
 valid proof, that the application of Baptism was meant to 
 be more limited, than that of circumcision ; I must take 
 the liberty to say, there is in one respect, clear and incon- 
 trovertible proof, that it was meant to be applied more ex- 
 tensively. By common consent, Baptism is to be ap- 
 plied to females, though circumcision was not. This 
 fact suggests the following inquiries. Who can see any 
 reason, why the seal of the Covenant should be applied 
 to females now, more than formerly, except this, that the 
 Christian economy has a spirit of more expansive benevo- 
 lence, and was intended to diffuse its privileges to a great- 
 er extent, than the former economy 1 And if the Chris- 
 tian economy really possesses this character, as it un- 
 doubtedly does; and if from this expansiveness of its 
 spirit, and this enlargement of its privileges, it has, in one 
 important case, applied its distinguishing seal more ex- 
 tensively, than the former economy did ; who can sup- 
 pose that, in another case, without any apparent reason 
 whatever, it would apply the same seal less extensively 1 
 What but an express divine command, or a well known 
 example of inspired men, could satisfy us of this ? 
 
 Third. Import of Infant Baptism. 
 
 This may be understood from the preceding discus? 
 
136 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 sion. Circumcision was the seal of God's covenant with 
 Abraham and his offspring ; that is, of his gracious de- 
 sign and promise respecting them. This design and 
 promise was, in brief, that he would be their God. Cir- 
 cumcision signified, that such was the promise of God, 
 — such the plan of administration he had fixed upon to- 
 wards Abraham and his seed. And it manifestly implied, 
 that there were obligations on their part, to love, wor- 
 ship, and obey him, who promised to be their God. 
 Thus it was a seal of God's promise to them, and of their 
 obligations to him. But it was never intended to signi- 
 fy, that all, to whom it was applied, were actually, at the 
 time, intelligent worshippers and servants of God. In 
 regard to infant children, this was impossible. But the 
 rite did signify, that, in process of time, they would be 
 under high obligations to worship and serve God, and 
 that he would pursue a course of conduct towards them, 
 which would be suited to influence them to this. As to 
 those, who had attained to mature understanding, and 
 were voluntary in receiving the rite of circumcision, it 
 signified their readiness to accept the good promised, and 
 to perforin the duties required. In them, it was an indi- 
 cation of right feeling ; ^profession of piety. But it be- 
 came so, not as the direct and necessary import of the 
 rite, but from their voluntary agency in its application. 
 So far as circumcision was concerned, this view of the 
 subject must be admitted by all to be correct. And why 
 not in regard to Baptism ? The divine economy, though 
 circumstantially different, is the same in substance now, 
 as before the coming of Christ, — the same, most evident- 
 ly, so far as relates to the connexion between parents and 
 children, and the high interests which that connexion 
 involves. When this Christian rite is applied to bcliev- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 137 
 
 t-rs, it is a seal of the new dispensation towards them. 
 And it signifies their consent to this economy ; their be- 
 lief of its truths, and their readiness to receive its bless- 
 ings, and comply with its obligations. But it comes to 
 signify this, and so to be ^profession of piety, not as the 
 direct and necessary import of Baptism, but from the 
 fact, that it is applied to those, who have a voluntary 
 agency in receiving it. Its general import, as a token 
 of God's gracious economy, is as consistent with its be- 
 ing applied to children, as to men. Its particular import 
 varies with the state and circumstances of those, to whom 
 it is applied. 
 
 Baptism by xcater may always be considered as signi- 
 fying, that those, to whom it is applied, are the subjects 
 of moral pollution, and need that spiritual cleansing, or 
 purification from sin, which is effected by the Holy Spir- 
 it, through the blood of Christ. When adult believers 
 receive Baptism themselves, they hereby express their 
 belief, that they are by nature polluted with sin, and 
 must be sanctified by the Spirit of God in order to be ad- 
 mitted into heaven ; and they express their desire for 
 such sanctification, and their determination to seek after 
 it in the diligent use of all appointed means. When we 
 present our infant children for Baptism, we express our 
 belief, that they are the subjects of moral pollution, and 
 must be born of the Spirit in order to be admitted into 
 the kingdom of heaven ; and we express our earnest de- 
 sire that they may experience this spiritual renovation, 
 and our solemn determination to seek after it by fervent 
 prayer to God, and by faithful attention to all the duties 
 of Christian parents. This seems to me a perfectly na- 
 tural and satisfactory view of what is signified by the Bap- 
 tism of children. The use of water in this Christian rite 
 
138 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 is indeed a token of spiritual cleansing, not however as 
 a thing actually accomplished, but as a thing which is 
 absolutely necessary. Whether we are concerned in the 
 Baptism of children as ministers of the Gospel, or as 
 members of the church, we do. by this public token, ex- 
 press our belief, that spiritual purification is indispensa- 
 bly necessary for the children who are baptized, and our 
 determination to do whatever belongs to us, severally, 
 for the accomplishment of that important end. And it 
 is of great consequence to the interests of religion, that 
 this obvious import of Infant Baptism should be often set 
 forth, and that the obligations of parents and churches 
 should be often explained and inculcated, especially at 
 the time of the Baptism. 
 
 Fourth. The utility of Infant Baptism. 
 
 The utility of positive institutions consists, generally, 
 in the moral influence they exert upon us ; in. their adapt- 
 edness to promote good affections, and to excite us to 
 the diligent performance of duty. Now there is no in- 
 stitution of religion, which is more evidently suited to 
 have a salutary influence, than this. When we conse- 
 crate a child to God in Baptism, we have our eyes turned 
 directly to that glorious Being, to whom we and our off- 
 spring belong, and we are made to feel the perfect rea- 
 sonableness of such a consecration. We look to God's 
 holy and merciful economy, of which Baptism is the ap- 
 pointed token, and are impressed with the divine conde- 
 scension and goodness manifested in it, and the invalua- 
 ble blessings resulting from it. The transaction is pub- 
 lic, and on this account is likely to excite in us a more 
 constant recollection of the sacred obligations which bind 
 us as parents, and greater diligence in performing the 
 duties we owe to our children. 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 139 
 
 For the truth of these remarks, I make my appeal to 
 thousands of pious parents. They well know how their 
 hearts have been affected with the love of God, and the 
 interests of the soul, while they have been engaged in 
 consecrating their children to God in Baptism ; how 
 earnestly they have longed and prayed for their salvation ; 
 what resolutions they have made to bring them up in the 
 nurture and admonition of the Lord ; and how sensible 
 the effect of this transaction has been upon them after- 
 wards. The view they have taken of God's gracious 
 promises and administration, proves a mighty encourage- 
 ment to earnest endeavours and prayers for the good of 
 their children. If, for a time, their endeavours and 
 prayers seem to have little or no effect ; still they are not 
 disheartened. They look upon their children, as having 
 been placed under that gracious economy, in which God 
 says to them, I will be your God, and the God of your 
 seed. They remember with what glorious success he 
 has crowned the persevering endeavours of pious parents, 
 and how frequently he has done this, after many years 
 have passed away in sorrowful disappointment. Their 
 confidence in the merciful covenant of God, which has 
 been sealed to them and their children by the sacred rite 
 of Baptism, bears them above discouragement, and in- 
 spires a hope of the salvation of their offspring, which 
 nothing is able to destroy. Now it is evident, that all 
 the effect which this public and sacred rite produces 
 upon pious parents ; this deep impression of their obli- 
 gations ; this excitement of their good affections ; their 
 faithful endeavours, and their fervent, persevering prayers, 
 turn directly to the benefit of their children. We are 
 not to look at the mere Baptism of a little child, and to 
 confine our thoughts to the act itself, or to the present 
 
140 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 effect of it upon the child. We must view this transact 
 tion in all its relations and consequences. We must 
 consider, that the child is a rational, immortal being, 
 just entered on his probationary state ; that his eternal 
 happiness depends on the formation of a virtuous and ho- 
 ly character ; and that his character depends, in a great 
 measure, on the circumstances in which he is placed, 
 and the moral causes which act upon him, in the first 
 periods of his existence. We must then consider that 
 the child, who is baptized in a manner correspondent 
 with the spirit of the institution, is, at the very com- 
 mencement of his being, brought into circumstances 
 highly auspicious ; that he is placed under a divine econ- 
 omy, which secures to him the affections and prayers of 
 parents and other Christians, and which distils upon 
 childhood and youth the dews of divine grace. He is 
 placed in a school, where he is to receive faithful instruc- 
 tion and discipline, and to be trained up for the service 
 of Christ. The child, who is offered up in Baptism by 
 devout parents and a devout church, is placed in these 
 circumstances, and is entitled to these privileges; the 
 substance of which is, a faithful, Christian education, ac- 
 companied with the divine blessing. All this is signifi- 
 ed by Baptism. The design of the transaction evidently 
 is, to produce a moral effect upon parents and children ; 
 upon parents directly, and upon children, as a conse- 
 quence. 
 
 It would avail little to say, in the way of objection, 
 that parents would be under all these obligations, and 
 would have sufficient motives to faithfulness, without 
 such an ordinance as Baptism. The obvious design of 
 Baptism is, to cause these obligations to be felt more deep- 
 ly and constantly, and to give greater efficacy to these 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 141 
 
 motives. The influence of public rites and observances 
 has been acknowledged in all ages, both in civil and re- 
 ligious concerns. In our own country, and in other 
 countries, they are kept up, in order to perpetuate the 
 principles of civil government. Among the Israelites, 
 they were established for the purpose of giving to one 
 generation after another, a knowledge, and a lively im- 
 pression, of the principles and laws of their religion. 
 The human mind is so constituted, that it is very doubt- 
 ful, whether the truths of religion could be inculcated 
 and impressed with the necessary efficacy, without the 
 help of public rites and observances. The utility of the 
 Lord's Supper, which is generally acknowledged to be 
 great, rests on the very same principle, as that which 
 gives importance to Infant Baptism. Thus it was also 
 with the utility of the Passover and Circumcision. And 
 we may as well say, that the principles of religion might 
 have been effectually taught, and impressed, and trans- 
 mitted from one generation to another among the pos- 
 terity of Abraham, without the Passover, or Circumcis- 
 ion, or any of their sacred rites ; and that the principles 
 of the Christian religion might be effectually taught and 
 impressed, and its motives rendered sufficiently power- 
 ful, without the Lord's Supper ; — we might say this with 
 just as much propriety, as that the influence of such a 
 rite, as Infant Baptism, is unnecessary, and that parents 
 will be as likely to feel their obligations and attend to 
 their duties without it, as with it. The experience of 
 the whole world is in favor of visible signs and tokens, 
 of public rites and observances. The human mind re- 
 quires them, as means of inculcating moral and religious 
 truth. To undervalue them would be a discredit to our 
 13 
 
142 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 understanding ; and to neglect them, an injury to our 
 moral feelings. 
 
 But suffer me here to say, that the utility of Infant 
 Baptism cannot be measured, by the influence which it 
 has actually exerted upon the generality of Christians. 
 For what sacred institution, and what divine truth, has 
 not fallen short of the influence which it ought to have 
 upon the conduct of men 1 The question is, what effect 
 is Infant Baptism designed and adapted to produce ? 
 What has been its influence upon those parents, whose 
 minds have been in the best state ; whose parental affec- 
 tion has been most highly sanctified, and whose piety, 
 most active ? And what will be its influence, when the 
 great body of Christians shall come to be fully awake to 
 the interests of religion, and shall make it the constant 
 object of their solicitude, and labors, and prayers, that 
 their offspring, from one generation to another, may be- 
 come children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heav- 
 en 1 The value of this sacred rite, taken in connexion 
 with the divine economy, of which it is the sign, and 
 with the obligations of parents and churches, which it is 
 intended to enforce, cannot be perfectly known, before 
 the present low state of religious feeling among Chris- 
 tians shall give place to a more elevated piety, and to 
 more constant and more faithful exertion to promote the 
 welfare of the rising generation. In my apprehension, 
 it is chiefly to be attributed to the unfaithfulness of pa- 
 rents and churches, and their failing to act according to 
 the spirit of this divine ordinance, that it has so far fall- 
 en into disrepute, and that any can feel themselves justi- 
 fied in saying, it is of no uss. 
 
 There is still another way, in which children may 
 experience the salutary effect of Baptism. When they 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 143 
 
 come to adult years, they may be induced to attend to 
 the duties of religion, by means of the Baptism which 
 they received in infancy. When a child of ours becomes 
 capable of being influenced by rational considerations ; 
 we may address him in such a manner as this : In your 
 infancy, we devoted you to the service of your Creator and 
 Redeemer ; and we put upon you the mark of that gra- 
 cious economy, under which you were placed by your birth. 
 In that transaction, we bound ourselves to bring you up 
 for God, and to seek diligently your eternal happiness. 
 As you are now come to years of understanding, you are 
 bound to devote yourself to God, and, by your own act, 
 to confirm what your parents did for you in your infan- 
 cy. — The child may be taught, that there is nothing so 
 reasonable, nothing so conducive to his highest interest, 
 as for him to choose the God of his parents for his God. 
 It may be inculcated upon him, that, by neglecting his 
 soul, and living in sin, he will be guilty of casting con- 
 tempt on the pious solicitude, the exertions and prayers 
 of his parents ; on the sacred ordinance, by which he 
 was consecrated to the service of Christ, and on all the 
 obligations laid upon him. and all the privileges secured 
 to him, by such an early consecration. If a youth, who 
 was devoted to God by Baptism in infancy, possesses 
 even an ordinary degree of moral sensibility; considera- 
 tions like these must produce a powerful effect upon him, 
 and, through the divine blessing, may prove the means of 
 his salvation. 
 
 The view which I have taken of this subject is, you 
 perceive, very different from that which was entertained 
 by many of the early Christian Fathers. They attribut- 
 ed to Baptism itself a mysterious inherent ejficacy. They 
 supposed that it directly conveyed grace and salvation to 
 
144 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 the soul, and that, without it, no one could be saved. 
 But 1 have represented the utility and efficacy of Infant 
 Baptism, as consisting primarily, in the influence it has 
 upon the feelings and conduct of parents ; and then, 
 secondarily, in the effect which parental instruction, ex- 
 ample, and prayer produce upon children. This effect I 
 have considered, as resulting from God's gracious econo- 
 my ; that is, his appointment and promise. And I have 
 referred, and always would refer, to facts which occur in 
 the course of divine providence, as proof of the correct- 
 ness of these representations. These facts are striking 
 and momentous, and deserve to be contemplated again 
 and again with the liveliest interest. — Behold the mighty 
 influence of parental character and instruction ! How 
 is it that pagan idolatry, Jewish infidelity, and the vio- 
 lent superstition of Mohammed are continued in the 
 world, and transmitted from one generation to another ? 
 What is it, which leads us to expect that, according to 
 the common course of events, the children of pagans will 
 be pagans, and that the children of Mahometans will be 
 Mahometans, and the children of Jews, Jews? It is the 
 weneral principle, established by God himself, that the 
 character of children is formed by parental influence. 
 And is not this as true in regard to Christians, as in 
 regard to any other class of men ? In ordinary cases, 
 the children of faithful Christian parents will be Chris- 
 tians ; and they will become so, by means of the influence 
 which their parents exert upon them, in their early edu- 
 cation. Such is the divine economy. That children 
 are placed under it is signified by Baptism. And the ap- 
 plication of Baptism to children, is a suitable expression of 
 the piety of parents, and of their love to the souls of their 
 offspring, and is a powerful means of exciting them tore- 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 145 
 
 collect and feel their orbligations, and to be active and 
 persevering in the performance of parental duties. And let 
 me add, that when the piety and diligence of parents shall 
 rise to a proper height, and they shall address themselves 
 to the duties, which they owe to their children, with unit- 
 ed zeal and prayer ; the true import of Infant Baptism 
 will be more fully understood, and its utility acknowl- 
 edged with more fervent gratitude to God. 
 
 Fifth. Relation of baptized children to the church. 
 
 This relation of children to the church the most res- 
 pectable authors generally represent, as infant member- 
 ship. And I can see no valid objections against this, if 
 the language is understood with suitable qualifications. 
 Baptized children may, in a very important, though a 
 qualified sense, be considered as infant members of the 
 Christian church ; just as formerly, the infant children 
 of the Priests were infant members of the Priesthood ; 
 and as now, all children that are born here, are consider- 
 ed as infant members of our civil community, entitled to 
 enjoy, as they may be capable, the benefits of society, 
 and in due time to become complete and active members. 
 But whatever may be the language which we choose to 
 employ, it is perfectly clear, that baptized children must 
 be considered, as bearing a real and very endearing rela- 
 tion to the church. And although they are not at pres- 
 ent capable of being members, in the full sense in which 
 adult believers are ; they are, even now, capable of en- 
 joying some of the benefits resulting from their condi- 
 tion, as children of the church, and they will be more 
 and more capable of enjoying these benefits as they ad- 
 vance in age ; and at length, unless their own wicked- 
 ness shall prevent, they will become active, faithful 
 Christians. Such is the design of the economy under 
 13* 
 
146 
 
 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 which they are placed ; such the end of their being con- 
 secrated to God, and placed in the school of the church. 
 And we may hope that, through divine mercy, this will 
 ordinarily be the happy result. 
 
 Sixth. Duties of parents and the church towards 
 baptized children. 
 
 On this subject, which is of the highest practical im* 
 portance, my remarks must be very summary. 
 
 The general duty of parents, and of the church, is 
 the same ; namely ; such a course of pious instruction 
 and discipline, such an example of holiness, and such 
 fervent prayer both in public and private, as are suited 
 to promote the salvation of the rising age, and to trans- 
 mit the Christian religion, with all its institutions and 
 blessings, to future generations. This duty belongs pri- 
 marily to parents. In every thing which is important to 
 their children, they are to take the lead. But their pi- 
 ous efforts are to be encouraged and sustained by the 
 whole body of Christians, with whom they are associat- 
 ed. These are all under obligation to cherish a lively 
 interest in the children of the church, and with unwea- 
 ried diligence to labor for their good ; always looking to 
 God for those spiritual blessings, which result from his 
 gracious covenant. 
 
 It is impossible for me, in this place, to give a par- 
 ticular enumeration of the methods, which ought to be 
 pursued by parents and by the church, for the welfare of 
 children. I shall only say, that our benevolent efforts 
 are to be made in various ways, and to be continued so 
 lon»{ as there is any hope of success ; and I know not 
 why we should abandon such a hope, while the life of 
 our children continues. 
 
 On the question, whether the church ever ought, by 
 
INFANT BAPTISM. 147 
 
 a public act, to cut off those, who give evidence of obsti- 
 nate impiety, there have been various opinions. That 
 view of the subject, which I have found the most satis- 
 factory, is briefly as follows. The church is to join with 
 parents in administering instruction, admonition, and 
 warning to children and youth in the most discreet, af- 
 fectionate, and faithful manner ; and to do this persever- 
 ingly. In judging of the reasons, which ought to en- 
 courage us to exertion, we are not to attend chiefly to 
 present appearances ; but are to consider the forbear- 
 ance and long suffering of God, and the multiplied in- 
 stances, in which his grace has visited those who had 
 long lived in sin, and who, in human apprehension, had 
 been fitted for destruction. When those who have been 
 devoted to God in Baptism, wander far and long from 
 the path of duty, and show fearful symptoms of obdura- 
 cy ; we are not quickly to despair of their salvation, but 
 are to follow them with every effort which the sincerest 
 love can dictate. And when no other effort seems to 
 promise any good, we are to abound in prayer, relying 
 on the infinite grace of God, and earnestly hoping that 
 our prayers .will prevail, and that our children will at 
 length be persuaded to consider their ways, and turn to 
 the Lord. 
 
 It is, in my view, utterly inexpedient to attempt to 
 fix upon any particular age, at which those who were 
 baptized in infancy, and who exhibit no evidence of pi- 
 ety, are to be abandoned by the church, as those for 
 whom no farther efforts ought to be made. For suppose 
 you fix upon the age of eighteen, or twenty, or twenty 
 one : who can be sure that a youth at that age, though 
 without any evidence of regeneration, may not be in a 
 state of mind, which is more susceptible of good impres- 
 
148 INFANT BAPTISM. 
 
 sions, and which affords more hope of salvation, than at 
 any period of his life before ? Now if any person should 
 be in this state, and the church should adopt a princi- 
 ple like what I have referred to ; they must forthwith 
 exclude such a person from all the advantages of their 
 Christian friendship ; and they must do this at the very 
 time, when those advantages would be most highly prized. 
 How directly would such a principle oppose all the feel- 
 ings of Christian benevolence and compassion ! And 
 what havock would it make of the interests of the soul ! 
 
 To conclude. The day of Zion's glory draws near. 
 And when that happy day arrives, a clearer light will 
 shine upon the minds of God's people, as to the princi- 
 ples and rites of Christianity. The duties of parents to 
 their children will be more correctly understood, and 
 more diligently and successfully performed. Division 
 and strife will cease ; and those who love the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, will be of one mind. The shortest and 
 best way, therefore, to solve our doubts, and settle our 
 differences, is, to labor unitedly and earnestly to hasten 
 the arrival of that blessed day, when a brighter sun 
 will arise upon the church, and quickly chase away all 
 the shades of night. Then Christians, having a more 
 perfect illumination, and being united in judgment and 
 feeling, will more justly prize the blessings of the Chris- 
 tian economy, and will combine their prayers and efforts 
 to transmit those blessings from one generation to anoth- 
 er, and to promote the increasing and perpetual prosper- 
 ity of the Redeemer's kingdom. 
 
LECTURE VIII. 
 
 3IODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 Introductory remarks. — Two propositions. 1. It cannot be determined from 
 the New Testament that immersion is the only proper mode. 2. Christians 
 should not make the mode of Baptism of essential consequence. 
 
 The subject of Infant Baptism has no necessary 
 connexion with the mode of Baptism. Christians who 
 baptize by immersion, as well as those who baptize in 
 other ways, may apply Baptism to infants, and in instan- 
 ces not to be numbered, have in fact done this. While, 
 on the other hand, those, who administer Baptism by 
 sprinkling, as well as those who use immersion, may con- 
 fine it to believers. If Pedobaptists were now convinc- 
 ed, that immersion is the only proper mode, it would 
 make no difference in their belief, as to the duty of In- 
 fant Baptism. This being the case, I was much inclin- 
 ed to treat the subject of Infant Baptism by itself, and 
 not to enter on the controversy respecting the mode of 
 Baptism. 
 
 But on farther consideration, I have become satisfied, 
 that my intended silence on the mode of Baptism would 
 be liable to misconstruction. I have therefore concluded 
 to make a few remarks on this point, though with all pos- 
 sible brevity. 
 
150 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 It must not be forgotten, that the particular mode of 
 Baptism is regarded by Pedobaptists generally, as a sub- 
 ject of no essential consequence. For myself, I could, 
 without any serious scruple of conscience, adopt immer- 
 sion, as the usual mode of Baptism. And it would afford 
 me real pleasure to conform in this respect to the views 
 of my Baptist brethren, and thus to do all in my power 
 to put an end to a controversy, which so unhappily di- 
 vides the friends of Christ, and proves such a hindrance 
 to the spread of the Gospel. With Pedobaptists, the 
 question as to the mode of Christian Baptism, is a ques- 
 tion of expediency. Are the reasons for making immer- 
 sion exclusively the mode of Baptism sufficient to overbal- 
 ance the reasons, which exist against this, and in favor of 
 some other mode ? 
 
 In this concluding Lecture, I propose to suggest, un- 
 der two distinct propositons, the principal thoughts 
 which have occurred to me on the manner of performing 
 this rite. 
 
 First. It cannot be determined from the New Testa- 
 ment, that Baptism was administered by immersion. 
 
 There is no express declaration in the New Testa- 
 ment, that every one who was baptized was completely 
 immersed in water. Nor is there any command of Christ, 
 or of his Apostles, expressly requiring that Christians 
 should be baptized by total immersion. The manner of 
 various purifications and other rites, under the Mosaic 
 economy, was exactly described ; and thus it was made 
 evident, that God would have those rites executed in one 
 precise form. But the particular manner of administer- 
 ing Baptism is not described. 
 
 It cannot be certainly determined, that total immer- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 151 
 
 sion was the only mode of Baptism from the signification 
 of (3tt7iTi£o), and the nouns derived from it. 
 
 There are many reasons for supposing, that /JarrW^a), 
 being a derivative from §utxtoi, has a less definite and 
 less forcible sense, than the original. And yet even 
 /?«:rrco does not always signify a total immersion. This 
 might be made evident from classic usage ; and it is per- 
 fectly evident from the New Testament. See Matt. 26: 
 23. " He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish ;" 
 tf-ifiayug — Ttjv y^gu. Mark has it, 6 tfifiamofitvog, 
 " he, the person, that dippeth with me in the dish." 
 Now whatever liquid the dish contained, it cannot be 
 supposed, that Judas plunged his hand all over in that 
 liquid. Nothing more can be meant, than that he took 
 the bitter herbs which were eaten at the Passover, or 
 other articles of food, and with his fingers dipped them in 
 the sauce prepared. And yet it is said by Matthew, that 
 Judas dipped his hand, and by Mark, that he himself dip- 
 ped in the dish. Bocmi±a), baptize, does indeed signify 
 to immerse or dip in icater ; but it also signifies to wash, 
 and to wash in different ways. " Divers washings" are 
 mentioned Heb. 9: 10. The original is d'taqogot-s §ct7i- 
 TiGi.tolg, divers baptisms. These were not all performed 
 in one way ; and certainly not by immersion. The ad- 
 jective diaqooog signifies different, of various kinds, dis- 
 similar; as in Rom. 12: 6. The divers baptisms, or ab- 
 lutions, mentioned Heb. 9: 10, doubtless included all the 
 different ablutions, or ceremonial cleansings, prescribed 
 in the Mosaic law. These were performed in different 
 ways, but chiefly by sprinkling consecrated water. The 
 word pumiofjiog, baptism, is used with great latitude of 
 signification in Mark 7: 4. The Evangelist says, the 
 Pharisees hold many other usages, " as baptisms of cups, 
 
152 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 and pots, and brazen vessels, and beds." The common 
 version has tables ; for what reason I am unable to say ; 
 as the word xXlvrj uniformly denotes a couch to sleep on, 
 or to recline upon at meals. Now the baptism, or cere- 
 monial purification of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, 
 and couches, might be performed in different ways. Cups 
 and pots and brazen vessels might possibly be im- 
 mersed all over in water ; though this is not probable. 
 But to suppose that beds, or couches, were immersed in 
 the same way would be unreasonable, especially since 
 one of the prescribed modes of ceremonial purification, 
 and indeed the most common mode, was, the sprinkling 
 of consecrated water. 
 
 Since then it appears, that ^antta^iog, baptism, when us- 
 ed to denote ceremonial purification, did not by any means 
 signify immersion exclusively, and generally signified oth- 
 er modes of purification ; why should we suppose that the 
 word, (3am l£o), always signifies to immerse when used to de- 
 note the rite of Christian Baptism 1 If baptism was per- 
 formed in different ways under the former dispensation ; 
 how can we determine, merely from the use of the word, 
 that it is not to be performed in different ways under the 
 present dispensation 1 What is there in the Christian re- 
 ligion which would prevent a word from being used with 
 as much latitude of signification, as it was under the Mo- 
 saic economy 1 
 
 But even if it were the case, that (3ci7itI£oj always sig- 
 nifies to dip or immerse all over in water, when appli- 
 ed to other subjects ; it would by no means certainly fol- 
 low that it has this signification, when applied to the 
 Christian rite of Baptism. There may be sufficient rea- 
 sons, why a religious rite, though denoted by a word in 
 common use, should not be performed in a manner ex- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 153 
 
 actly in conformity with the common signification of that 
 word. This we well know is the case with the words, by 
 which the other Christian ordinance is denoted. The word 
 Supper in English, and delnvov in Greek, have a very 
 different sense when applied to that institution, from 
 what they have in ordinary cases. Eating a morsel of 
 bread does not constitute a supper, a principal meal; al- 
 though this is the common signification of dtinvov. But 
 in this religious rite, eating a small morsel of bread is 
 called a Supper. 1 Cor. 11 : 20. And the Apostle 
 charged the Corinthians with abusing the ordinance, be- 
 cause they made use of more food, than the design of the 
 ordinance required. Now if the word which denotes 
 one Christian rite, has a sense so widely different from 
 its usual sense ; why may it not be so with the word, 
 which denotes the other Christian rite ? As dtinvov, in 
 reference to one rite, signifies, not a usual meal, but on- 
 ly a very small quantity of bread ; why may not fktmifc, 
 in reference to the other rite, signify, not a complete dip- 
 ping or washing, but the application of water in a small 
 degree ? This would present the two institutions in the 
 same light. In the first ; as bread and wine are used, 
 not to nourish and invigorate the body, but for spiritual 
 purposes, or, as a sign of spiritual blessings; a very 
 small quantity is sufficient. Indeed the Apostle decides, 
 that a small quantity is better suited to the ends of the 
 institution, than a larger quantity. So in the other ; as 
 water is used, not to cleanse the body, but merely as a 
 sign of spiritual purification ; a small quantity of water 
 must be sufficient ; — as sufficient for the purposes of this 
 ordinance, as a small quantity of bread and wine is for 
 the purposes of the other. The nourishment of the body 
 in the one case, and the cleansing of it in the other, be- 
 14 
 
154 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ing no part of the end to be answered ; a large quantity 
 either of bread or of water can be of no use. 
 
 I shall now endeavour to show, that the circumstances, 
 which attended the several instances of Baptism record- 
 ed in the New Testament, do not prove that immersion 
 is the only proper mode. 
 
 The circumstance mentioned John 3: 23, does not 
 prove this. " John was baptizing in ^Enon, because there 
 was much water there." In such a country as Palestine, 
 John found it of special importance, as any Christian 
 missionary would at the present day, — to collect the mul- 
 titude of people who resorted to him for instruction and 
 Baptism, in a place, where there was an abundant supply 
 of water. This he knew to be necessary for their ac- 
 commodation, and even their subsistence. So that there 
 is not the least need of supposing, that the mention of 
 much water, or many springs or streams of water, vdaia 
 tioVm, had any reference to the particular mode of Bap- 
 tism. For whatever the mode might have been, a large 
 supply of water was indispensable to such a concourse orV 
 people ; and such a supply could be obtained in only a few 
 places in that country. But who can suppose the waters 
 of iEnon were resorted to for the simple purpose of bap- 
 tizing, when three thousand were, in one day, baptized 
 by the Apostles even at Jerusalem, in the dryest season 
 of the year? 
 
 That total immersion was the mode of Baptism can- 
 not be proved from the circumstance, mentioned Matt. 
 3: 16, that Jesus, wheji he was baptized of John in the 
 river Jordan, went ujj straightway out of the water. The 
 preposition orno generally signifies from. " He went up 
 from the water ;" — an expression perfectly natural and 
 proper, on supposition that he had only gone into the river 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 155 
 
 where the water was a few inches deep, or that he had 
 gone merely to the edge of the river, without stepping in- 
 to the water at all. It will be kept in mind, that the riv- 
 er Jordan had banks of considerable height above the 
 water, except when it was so swollen by the melted 
 snows of Antilibanus, as to fill its upper channel. Of 
 course, Jesus must have ascended, or gone up an ascent, 
 when he left the water, whether he had been in the wa- 
 ter so as to be immersed, or had been only to the margin 
 of the water. 
 
 The same remarks may be made respecting the Bap- 
 tism of the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8: 38. " They went 
 down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; 
 and he baptized him. And when they were come up 
 out of the water, &c." Every one acquainted with the 
 Greek language knows, that the passage may be just as 
 well rendered, " they descended to the water, and as- 
 cended from it." Besides, it has often been remarked, 
 and not without reason, that if going down into the wa- 
 ter proves that the eunuch was wholly immersed in the 
 water, it proves the same of Philip ; which no one sup- 
 poses to have been the case. 
 
 It is evident then that the argument which has been 
 urged in favor of immersion from the Baptism of Jesus, 
 and of the Ethiopian eunuch, is founded on the mere 
 sound of the words used in the common Version. On 
 the slightest examination, the argument vanishes. 
 
 The circumstances attending the Baptism of the jail- 
 er equally fail of proving, that he was baptized by im- 
 mersion. Acts 16: 19—39. 
 
 In the first place, he was baptized in the night. Se- 
 condly ; he was evidently baptized in the outer prison- 
 Paul and Silas were thrust into the inner prison, or dun- 
 
156 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 geon. After the earthquake, the jailer brought them 
 out ; that is, out of the dungeon, but clearly not out of 
 the limits of the prison. There Paul taught him and his 
 household ; and there, in all probability, he baptized 
 them. Thirdly ; after the jailer professed to believe, he 
 was baptized immediately. These three circumstances, 
 namely, his being baptized at such a time, in such a place, 
 and immediately after professing to believe, are very far 
 from proving that immersion was the mode of Bap- 
 tism. They seem evidently to prove the contrary. — If 
 any one should say, there was probably a stream or foun- 
 tain of water in the prison, or a bath filled with water, 
 sufficient for baptizing by immersion ; I would merely ask, 
 what evidence he finds of this in the New Testament? 
 
 Nor can it be proved that immersion was the prevail- 
 ing mode of Baptism from the account given, Acts 10, of 
 the Baptism of those who were converted at the house of 
 Cornelius. 
 
 After Peter had preached, and the Gentiles believed, 
 and received the Holy Ghost ; Peter said : " can any man 
 forbid water, that these should not be baptized V 1 It is 
 most natural to understand this to mean, can any man 
 forbid water to be brought ? It is far less natural to un- 
 derstand it to mean, can any man forbid us to go out to 
 a river ox fountain of icater ? Is it possible for any one 
 to think, that this account favors the mode of baptizing 
 by immersion ? 
 
 And what evidence of this can be derived from the 
 Baptism of the three thousand converts, as related in 
 Acts 2 ? The place of those numerous Baptisms was 
 not by the river Jordan, nor at ^Enon where there was 
 much water ; but at Jerusalem. It was too on the day 
 of Pentecost, which was about the twentieth of March. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 157 
 
 At that season, which was summer at Jerusalem, there 
 was no rain. The brook Kidron was dry. And there 
 was no stream or fountain of water in Jerusalem, or near 
 it, except the pool of Siloam, or Siloah, (also called Gi- 
 hon, 2 Chron. 32: 30,) which is a fountain of water not 
 far from the Southeast corner of the city, at the foot of 
 Mount Zion and Moriah. " This is the only fountain, 
 whose waters gladdened the city."* Such having been 
 the circumstances of the case, is there no difficulty in 
 supposing, that the Apostles found places where they 
 could baptize three thousand in one day by immersion 1 
 All the Apostles were undoubtedly engaged in baptizing 
 at the same time. And if they baptized by immersion, 
 they probably made use of separate tanks, cisterns, or 
 bathing places in private houses. But is there no diffi- 
 culty in supposing that they had access to so many bath- 
 ing places ? These doubtless were confined to the houses 
 of the more wealthy; among whom few could at that 
 time be found in Jerusalem, who were disposed in any 
 way to befriend the cause of Christ. There is not the 
 least intimation, that they made use of such bathing 
 places for the purpose of baptizing the three thousand 
 converts. And there is not a shadow of reason for sup- 
 posing, that such a multitude, who were suddenly col- 
 lected from various regions, and who, we must presume, 
 were generally poor, had such changes of raiment, as 
 would have been necessary for baptizing by immersion. 
 
 But there is still another difficulty which meets us. 
 After much consideration, I think it exceedingly impro- 
 bable, that the Apostles could have baptized such a num- 
 
 * See Jahn^s Archaenl. and Journal of Fisk and others at Je- 
 rusalem in Miss. Herald. 
 
 14* 
 
158 
 
 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ber by immersion in so short a time. Before they began 
 to baptize, all the other business mentioned in the narra- 
 tive had been accomplished. The Apostles had met to- 
 gether in one place. The Holy Spirit had been poured 
 out upon them ; so that they declared the wonderful 
 works of God to people of many different countries, in 
 their own languages. The powerful effects produced 
 by their preaching had been noticed. Heavy accu- 
 sations had been brought against them. Peter had un- 
 dertaken their defence, and had reasoned with them 
 largely from the Holy Scriptures. Multitudes had been 
 pricked in their hearts, and inquired, what they should 
 do to be saved. Peter had taught them the way of sal- 
 vation. What is related, Acts 2, must be considered a 
 very brief outline of the instruction he gave them ; as ap- 
 pears from verse 40. Now all those miraculous opera- 
 tions of the Holy Ghost ; all those discourses of the Apos- 
 tles to people of many different countries; all the ag- 
 itations and differences of opinion which took place 
 among such a vast multitude ; the discourse of Peter ; 
 the convictions and anxious inquiries of three thousand 
 souls, with the particular instructions given them in re- 
 gard to the way of salvation and the duties of a holy life, 
 — all these must have occupied a considerable portion of 
 the day. It was the third hour, that is, nine o'clock in 
 the morning, when some of the people, after having seen 
 the effects produced by the effusion of the Spirit, accus- 
 ed the Apostles of being unduly excited by new wine. 
 What has been mentioned could not have taken place in 
 less than half the day ; and they certainly could not 
 have had more than half the day left for baptizing. In- 
 deed I can hardly bring myself to believe that they devot- 
 ed half the day to this ritual service. But let it be sup- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 159 
 
 posed that they baptized three thousand in five hours. 
 This would make six hundred an hour ; and for each 
 apostle, fifty an hour, or two hundred and fifty in five 
 hours ; that is, but little short of one a minute for each 
 Apostle, through the whole of that time. According to 
 this calculation, who can suppose they were baptized by 
 immersion, without supposing at the same time, that God 
 worked wonders in this, as in other occurrences of that 
 memorable day, and that he miraculously multiplied the 
 hours and minutes, as he had on another occasion multi- 
 plied the loaves and Jishes ? 
 
 There are two places in the Epistles, which contain 
 allusions to the rite of Baptism, and which have been 
 thought by some to prove that immersion was the mode. 
 Rom. 6: 3, 4. Col. 2: 12. In these texts, believers are 
 said to be buried ivith Christ in, or by Baptism. I re- 
 mark, first, that the language is figurative. In this all 
 are agreed. Secondly. The word, avveraqri^ev, we were 
 buried, does not relate to living men, but to dead men ; 
 not to water, but to earth. It does not mean, we were 
 immersed, or plunged in water, but, as dead bodies, we 
 were interred or covered up in a grave, or laid in a tomb. 
 The figure of speech is the same, as in the expressions 
 used in connexion with this, in which Christians are 
 said to be crucified and dead. It designates the charac- 
 ter which they sustain in consequence of their union to 
 Christ. They are crucified to the world ; dead to sin; 
 and, to make it more forcible still, — dead and buried. 
 And this mortified temper of Christians, and their confor- 
 mity with Christ, is signified by Baptism ; and equally 
 so, whatever may be the mode of Baptism. According 
 to the representation of the Apostle in the context, it is 
 as true that believers are crucified with Christ, and dead 
 
160 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 with Christ in Baptism, as that they are buried with him 
 in Baptism. And so far as I can judge, there is nothing 
 in the language employed in these passages, which im- 
 plies, that Baptism has any more resemblance to Christ's 
 burial, than to his crucifixion and death. 
 
 In Gal. 3: 27, the character of Christians is set forth, 
 in a similar way, by another metaphor. lt As many of 
 you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on 
 Christ." The metaphor is taken from the putting on of 
 clothes. Believers have put on Christ; have assumed 
 his character ; have invested, or clothed themselves with 
 his moral excellence, as one covers himself with a gar- 
 ment. And this is signified by their being baptized in- 
 to Christ. But who would ever think of inferring from 
 this, that the mode of Baptism must have a resemblance 
 to putting on clothes ? And yet this would seem to be 
 as reasonable, as to argue from the other passages, that, 
 because it is said, those who are baptized into Christ, 
 are buried with him, therefore the mode of Baptism must 
 have a resemblance to Christ's burial. 
 
 After all, it will be seen, that there is no small diffi- 
 culty in finding any great resemblance between a man's 
 being dipped or plunged in ivater, and Christ's being 
 laid in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock. 
 
 Let me just remark in addition, that if circumcision 
 had been continued, as the sea! of the covenant, under 
 the Christian dispensation ; it would evidently have been 
 just as proper, as it is now, for the Apostle to make use 
 of the metaphors found in the passages above quoted, and 
 to say, that those who are circumcised with Christian 
 circumcision, are crucified, with Christ, dead with Christ, 
 and buried with Christ ; i. e. in consequence of their un- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 161 
 
 ion to Christ they are crucified, dead, and buried, as to 
 sinful and worldly objects ; but alive as to God. 
 
 But there is something farther to be noted here. The 
 Apostle says, Rom. 6: 3 ; "so many of us as were baptized 
 into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death" But 
 what is it for believers to be baptized into Christ's death 1 
 The answer is to be found in the general train of thought 
 exhibited in this passage, and particularly in vs. 11, 12. 
 " In that Christ died, he died unto sin, (or on account of 
 sin,) once ; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. 
 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed un- 
 to sin, (or in respect to sin,) but alive unto God through 
 Jesus Christ." The design of the Apostle is, to illus- 
 trate the character and obligations of believers from the 
 circumstance, that they are, or should be, in a certain 
 respect, conformed to Christ's death ; that is ; as he died 
 for sin ; so they are dead, or are under obligation to be 
 dead to sin : an expression of the same import, as that 
 they are not under the dominion of sin, — that they are ho- 
 ly, or are by their profession obliged to be holy. Thus 
 it appears, that for believers to be baptized into Christ's 
 death, is to become obligated by their profession, to die 
 unto sin, or to be holy. This character and obligation 
 of Christians is signified by Baptism. But how does 
 Baptism signify this ? Not surely by being a sign or 
 symbol of death, or the state of the dead; for ivater, or 
 washing in water never was a sign of this. But water, 
 used in ceremonial ablutions, whether by washing or 
 sprinkling, always signified the fact, or the acknowl- 
 edged necessity of purification. Now being dead, or in 
 a state of death as to sin, is the same thing as to be spir- 
 itually purified, or made holy. And this is the very 
 thing that Christian Baptism, coming in the place of 
 
162 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 ablutions under the former economy, is exactly adapted 
 to signify. Or to say all in a word : water used in Bap- 
 tism is a sign of that moral purification of believers, 
 which the Apostle means to express by their being " cru- 
 cified," and " dead," and conformed to Christ's " death." 
 Their being dead, or in a state of death, in conformity 
 with Christ, is the expression which contains the meta- 
 phor. Now is Baptism meant to be the sign of a meta- 
 phor, or of the thing intended by the metaphor? 
 
 The argument in favor of immersion, which some de- 
 rive from this passage, is founded on the supposition of 
 a real resemblance between Baptism and death. This 
 supposition, we think, is very unnatural, and far differ- 
 ent from what the Apostle had in view. 
 
 What has been said above as to the obligation impli- 
 ed in Baptism, may be confirmed by 1 Cor. 10: 2. The 
 Apostle says, the Israelites " were all baptized unto Mo- 
 ses in the cloud and in the sea." Baptism, as a relig- 
 ious rite, was not then instituted. But the Apostle, know- 
 ing the special obligation implied in Baptism, makes use 
 of the word, to set forth the obligation of the children of 
 Israel. " They were baptized unto Moses in the cloud 
 and in the sea." That is, in consequence of God's mer- 
 cy towards them, especially at the Red Sea, they came 
 under special obligations to obey Moses, the servant of 
 God, or, which is the same thing, to obey the commands 
 of God by Moses. Their being baptized does not surely 
 imply that they were immersed or plunged in the cloud 
 and in the sea ; — (which was not the fact; for they went 
 through on dry ground ;) but it implies, that they were 
 there brought under special obligations to worship and 
 obey their gracious Deliverer. 
 
 As to 1 Pet. 3: 21, I shall stop to make only two 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 163 
 
 concise remarks. First. The Apostle here expressly 
 tells us, that the thing he had in his mind, when he 
 spoke of Baptism, was not an outward, but an inward, 
 spiritual washing. Secondly. The condition of Noah 
 and his family in the ark was not like the condition of 
 persons buried or immersed in water. This was the con- 
 dition of the ungodly world. It was from this condition, 
 as the Apostle tells us, that those in the ark were saved. 
 And this preservation from the ruin of the ungodly world 
 he refers to, as illustrating the salvation of Christians, 
 who have that inicard purification, that " answer of a 
 good conscience towards God," which he tells us is what 
 he meant by Baptism. 
 
 The mistake into which some Pedobaptist as well as 
 Baptist writers have been betrayed, in regard to several 
 of the passages which relate to Baptism, particularly 
 Rom. 6, and Gal. 3, has, in my apprehension, been ow- 
 ing to their not attending, with sufficient care, to the na- 
 ture and design of the metaphorical language there used. 
 
 I have now given you the result of my serious and 
 long continued inquiries on the mode of Baptism, so far 
 as it can be determined from the Christian Scriptures. 
 This result is, that Christ and the Apostles have left it 
 undecided. And then the question which naturally ari- 
 ses in my mind is, why have they left it undecided, un- 
 less it be to show us, that they did not deem the particu- 
 lar mode of any material consequence, and that God 
 would have it conform to circumstances, and would be 
 well pleased with Baptism, in every decent mode, provid- 
 ed that it be performed with a cordial desire to do his 
 will. 
 
 Our Baptist brethren undertake to prove from Eccle- 
 siastical History, that immersion was the prevailing mode 
 
164 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of Baptism in the ages following the Apostles. I ac- 
 knowledge the validity of the argument. And I am very 
 willing to acknowledge also, that immersion was one of 
 the modes of Baptism used in the time of Christ and the 
 Apostles, and that the Christians in the following ages 
 probably derived it from them. This is acknowledging 
 all that can be proved, or even made probable. 
 
 In regard to this argument from Ecclesiastical His- 
 tory ; I remark, first, that it is the only conclusive argu- 
 ment in favor of immersion, as the mode of Christian Bap- 
 tism. It must, I think, be apparent, that no clear and 
 incontrovertible proof can be found in the Scriptures. 
 
 Secondly. Those who rely upon the testimony of Ec- 
 clesiastical History, as a conclusive argument in favor of 
 baptizing by immersion, must, to be consistent, allow the 
 same testimony to be conclusive in favor of Infant Bap. 
 tism. If they reject this last argument ; they ought also 
 to reject the former. 
 
 I proceed now to my second general proposition ; 
 which is ; that Christians ought not to make the mode of 
 Baptism of any essential consequence. 
 
 We are all in danger of attaching more importance 
 to external rites and forms, than really belongs to them. 
 The people of God were exposed to this danger under 
 the former dispensation ; and the prophets frequently 
 warned them against it, and told them plainly, that out- 
 ward rites, though enjoined by divine authority, were of 
 little consequence, compared with spiritual duties. Christ 
 often found it necessary to guard his disciples against 
 the same danger, and to teach them that obedience to the 
 moral precepts of the law was the great thing required, 
 and that outward observances were comparatively of but 
 little consequence. In the time of the Apostles, Chris- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 165 
 
 tians had a zeal about the externals of religion, which 
 proved a great hindrance to the peace and prosperity of 
 the church ; and some of them needed to be told by St. 
 Paul, that the kingdom of God consisted not in meats and 
 drinks, that is, in external observances, but in righteous- 
 ness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. I am well 
 satisfied, that Christians are exposed to mistake on this 
 subject at the present day ; and exposed in a high de- 
 gree, where any external rite or form is made the sub- 
 ject of controversy and strife. Against this mistake, 
 especially in regard to the mode of Baptism, I would 
 earnestly and affectionately warn the followers of Christ. 
 
 From the foregoing examination, I think it must 
 have become evident, that no particular mode of Baptism 
 is exactly described in the New Testament, and repre- 
 sented as the one which believers are required to use, 
 exclusively of all others. I would not allow myself to 
 speak with unbecoming confidence on such a subject. 
 But I confess I am unable to find a single text, which, 
 according to just rules of interpretation, clearly proves, 
 that Baptism was administered by immersion, or which 
 requires it to be administered, exclusively, in that, or in 
 any other particular way. And the conclusion which I 
 draw from this fact is, that if we contend for any one 
 mode as proper for Christians, exclusively of every other 
 mode, we go beyond our rule : we attempt to do what 
 Christ and the Apostles left undone ; and which they 
 left undone, as appears to me, for the very purpose of 
 showing, that they did not regard the particular form of 
 the rite as of any material consequence, and so would have 
 Christians at liberty to vary the form, as circumstances 
 might require. 
 
 I am confirmed in this view of the subject by other 
 15 
 
166 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 considerations. Christ intended that his people should 
 be free from inconvenient and burdensome rites, and 
 should have no yoke put upon them, which was not easy 
 to be borne. But scarcely any thing in the Mosaic rit- 
 ual was so inconvenient and burdensome, as Baptism 
 would, in some circumstances, be, if it could be adminis- 
 tered in no way but by immersion. The coldness of 
 some climates, and of some seasons of the year in more 
 temperate climates, renders it almost impracticable to 
 baptize in this way. Those who practise immersion find 
 it, in some cases, exceedingly inconvenient and difficult, 
 and submit to it merely because they think God requires 
 it. Now I have serious doubts whether all this is con- 
 sistent with the simplicity and spirituality of the Chris- 
 tian religion, and whether the unqualified declaration of 
 Christ, that his yoke is easy, and his burden light, would 
 lead us to expect, that an outward rite, in some circum- 
 stances so difficult to be performed, would be enjoined 
 upon all Christians without exception. And I have still 
 stronger doubts, whether it is consistent with the genius 
 of Christianity that Baptism by immersion should be re- 
 quired of all believers, when I consider that the thing re- 
 quired is, in some places, rendered impossible for want of 
 sufficient water, and, in various instances, must necessari- 
 ly be given up, on account of long-continued bodily in- 
 firmity. 
 
 The Christian religion was designed to be a universal 
 religion, and its external rites, as well as its spiritual pre- 
 cepts, were unquestionably adapted to this design. But 
 the rites of Christianity, in order to be adapted to the de- 
 sign of making it a universal religion, must be such as 
 to be capable of being varied in outward form, as cir- 
 cumstances in different parts of the world may require. 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 167 
 
 while the substance of them shall, under all external va- 
 riations, be preserved, and the ends of them secured. 
 An absolute, unvarying uniformity in the mode of ad- 
 ministering either Baptism, or the Lord's Supper, or in 
 the mode of performing public worship, would operate as 
 a hindrance to the spread of the Gospel. As to public 
 worship, we never think of such uniformity, but vary, in 
 regard to external forms, just as the ends of public wor- 
 ship seem to require. And we feel that we have the 
 same liberty in regard to the Lord's Supper. As to the 
 exterior of this solemn rite, we depart almost indefinitely 
 from the original pattern. We do not observe the insti- 
 tution, as Christ observed it with his Apostles, in the 
 night, or in an upper room. They reclined at the Sacra- 
 mental Table. This posture we should feel to be unsuita- 
 ble for us. They used unleavened bread, and the pure 
 juice of the grape. We do not imitate them in either of 
 these. And if we should be in places, where neither 
 bread nor wine of any kind could be had ; we should 
 consider it admissible to make use of other articles of 
 food and drink in their stead. All this we believe to be 
 according to the will of our condescending and merciful 
 Saviour, and to the spirit of his religion. And why 
 should we not judge and act on the same principles in 
 regard to the other Christian rite ? What reason can 
 we have for considering an exact adherence to one inva- 
 riable form more necessary in Baptism, than in the Lord's 
 Supper 1 We should rather think it less necessary, in- 
 asmuch as we find less evidence in the New Testament 
 of the particular mode in which Baptism was administer- 
 ed, than of the mode in which the Lord's Supper was ad- 
 ministered. 
 
 I shall just refer to another subject, on which Chris- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 tians are generally agreed, and which, in my view, they 
 treat according to the will of Christ. After he had, with 
 the most condescending, amiable kindness, washed the feet 
 of his disciples, he commanded them to wash one anoth- 
 er's feet. This command of Christ was as express, and 
 for aught that appears in the command, as much intend- 
 ed for all his followers, as the command to baptize, or to 
 eat the Sacramental Supper. And yet we dispense with 
 a literal observance of it, and content ourselves with 
 obeying it virtually ; that is, with performing acts of con- 
 descension and brotherly kindness. And to justify our- 
 selves in this, we plead that present usages are different 
 from what they were when the command was given ; 
 that what was then an act of kindness would not be so 
 now ; that it cannot be supposed that our Lord and Mas- 
 ter would have us violate the common customs and civili- 
 ties of social intercourse, for the sake of conforming to 
 the letter of such a precept ; and that a conformity to 
 the spirit of it, in doing acts of condescension and love, 
 must be more acceptable to him, and more beneficial to 
 our brethren. 
 
 Of the correctness of treating the command of Christ 
 referred to, in this manner, I am fully satisfied. And 
 why should we not proceed on the same general princi- 
 ple as to the form of Baptism ? Even if it could be cer- 
 tainly determined that Baptism was at first administered 
 by immersion ; might not a regard to common usage, to 
 decency, or to convenience be a sufficient reason for vary- 
 ing the mode 1 Might not compassion for those believ- 
 ers, who are in a state of infirmity, be a sufficient rea- 
 son for exempting them from an exposure, which they 
 cannot bear, and baptizing them in a manner suited 
 to their circumstances 1 And why should we not con- 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 169 
 
 tent ourselves, in such cases, with conforming to this 
 Christian rite virtually, though not literally and exactly 1 
 I say this, even on the supposition, that immersion was 
 evidently the form of Baptism in the time of Christ and 
 his Apostles. But this supposition wants proof. And 
 accordingly the reason in favor of conforming the mode 
 of Baptism to circumstances is, to my mind, strong and 
 conclusive. And it is very clear, that, if we fix upon im- 
 mersion as the proper mode, and utterly refuse to vary 
 from this in any circumstances ; some Christians, who 
 are allowed to be qualified for Baptism, and are desirous 
 of receiving it, must be debarred. 
 
 There is another consideration relative to the subject 
 before us, which I think calculated to have a very saluta- 
 ry influence on our minds. The consideration is, that 
 God equally approves of sincere Christians, whether they 
 are baptized by immersion, or by sprinkling. My mean- 
 ing is, that the judgment of God respecting Christians 
 depends altogether upon their real internal character ; 
 and that, if they are equally holy, they are equally the ob- 
 jects of his approbation, although they are baptized in 
 different ways. Their not observing an external rite in 
 the same manner can be of no account with God. — In 
 the midst of the discussions and controversies, in which 
 we may at any time be engaged respecting outward rites 
 and forms, let us charge ourselves to remember this. 
 
 That God does in fact regard Christians, who are 
 baptized in different ways, with equal approbation, might 
 be made evident from the representations of his word, 
 and from his actual administration. But formal proof 
 cannot be necessary. Those who are familiar with the 
 Scriptures, have learnt, that God judges of men in the 
 manner I have described. And we cannot fail to receive 
 15* 
 
170 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 the same impression from what is manifest in his admin- 
 istration. I am happy to acknowledge those, who prefer 
 immersion as the mode of Baptism, to be sincere friends 
 to Christ; and I would not cease to rejoice in all the to- 
 kens of the divine favor which they receive. But do not 
 those Christians, who use sprinkling or affusion, receive 
 as many tokens of divine favor ? Does not God give 
 them as high a degree of the influence of the Holy Spir- 
 it? And in consequence of this, do they not exhibit as 
 high a degree of sanctification ? Have they not as ar- 
 dent love to the Saviour, and as much zeal for the pro- 
 motion of his cause ? Do they not labor as diligently 
 and pray as fervently for the salvation of the world? 
 Are not their labors as successful ? And do not their 
 prayers meet with as much acceptance, and obtain as 
 many gracious answers? Do they not as sensibly enjoy 
 the presence of God in the special ordinances of the Gos- 
 pel, in seasons of affliction, and in the hour of death ? 
 Will not as welcome and joyful an entrance be minister- 
 ed to them into the everlasting kingdom of their Saviour? 
 And will they not enjoy as high a degree of blessedness 
 in heaven ? Now if it is indeed so, that God grants to 
 those, who believe sprinkling or affusion to be a proper 
 mode of Baptism, as many tokens of his approbation and 
 love, as to those who prefer immersion ; is not the con- 
 clusion perfectly obvious, that God does not consider the 
 particular form of Baptism to be of any essential conse- 
 quence, as to the great interests of religion? And does 
 it not follow that we ought to love the followers of 
 Christ who baptize in one way, as much as those, who 
 baptize in another way ; and that if we consider the 
 form of this rite as of any essential consequence, or suf- 
 fer it to have any great influence upon our feelings, we 
 
MODE OF BAPTISM. 171 
 
 commit a lamentable mistake, and, in regard to this point, 
 place ourselves in opposition to the mind of God 1 And 
 how deeply is it to be deplored, that any Christians 
 should, through weakness or imperfection, cherish views 
 and feelings, which are at variance with the divine will, 
 and the divine administration 1 
 
 And here, as I am about to take my leave of this sub- 
 ject, I must solicit the candid indulgence of those who 
 differ from me in regard to the mode of Baptism, while 
 I allow myself in great plainness of speech, and utter my 
 thoughts seriously and unreservedly, as in the presence 
 of him who is the Saviour and Judge of the world. 
 
 We must all, I think, be satisfied, that the salvation 
 of sinners, and the spiritual prosperity of Christ's king- 
 dom, together with our own sanctification and eternal 
 life, ought to be the great objects of desire and pursuit 
 to all Christians; that no other objects should be suffer- 
 ed to come into competition with these ; and that we 
 should do nothing, and countenance nothing, which can 
 in any way interfere with them. But have these great, 
 spiritual interests been always kept uppermost in the 
 mind ? Have they not sometimes been almost forgotten ? 
 And have they not too frequently been made subordi- 
 nate to local or sectarian interests 1 I have heard of 
 Christians, and of Gospel ministers, who have made the 
 mode of Baptism their grand, engrossing subject. I 
 have heard of those, who have been actuated by such an 
 intense zeal in favor of one particular form of this exter- 
 nal rite, that they have seemed almost inclined to make 
 it the sum of all religion. Even in those auspicious sea- 
 sons, when God is pleased in mercy to pour out his Spir- 
 it, and produce in the minds of multitudes a deep and 
 overwhelming impression of the evil of sin, and the value 
 
172 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 of eternal salvation ; there are some Christians, and some 
 teachers of religion, (I hope the number will be found 
 small,) who show an unaccountable forwardness to intro- 
 duce discussions respecting the mode of Baptism; and, 
 instead of striving with all their hearts, to bring sinners 
 into the kingdom of heaven, and to promote the holiness 
 of believers, make it a favorite object to convince them, 
 that Baptism should not be administered by sprinkling, 
 but by immersion. Now it is well known, that discus- 
 sions of this kind have a direct tendency to grieve the 
 Holy Spirit, and to divert the attention of saints and sin- 
 ners from the one thing needful. I am fully persuaded, 
 that the introduction of such a subject, especially in a 
 revival of religion, is offensive to God, and will be follow- 
 ed, as it often has been, by the withdrawment of his gra- 
 cious influence. And I would earnestly beseech any 
 ministers or Christians, who are inclined to such a course 
 as that to which I have now referred, to pause a few mo- 
 ments, and seriously to inquire, whether they are pursu- 
 ing the great object, for which Jesus died on the cross, 
 and for which he has given us the Gospel, and the day 
 of salvation ; whether they are not in danger of substi- 
 tuting an excessive zeal for an outward rite, or rather, 
 the form of an outward rite, in the place of pure love to 
 Christ, and to the immortal souls of men ; and whether 
 they have any reason to think, that such a form as this, 
 will appear as important to them at the Judgment day, as 
 it does now. Those Christian brethren, with whom I 
 am expostulating, expect to dwell eternally in heaven 
 with an innumerable multitude of God's people, who dif- 
 fer from them as to the mode of administering Baptism. 
 And I am very sure, that " the general assembly and 
 church of the first born, who are written in heaven," 
 
MODE OP BAPTISM. 173 
 
 and *' the spirits of just men made perfect," will not be 
 divided into different and contending parties, on account 
 of their having received Baptism in different ways. 
 The presence of their Saviour, and their glowing, perfect 
 love to him, will make them all one. And any strife, or 
 prejudice, or coldness, existing among them in this 
 world, will either be buried in a happy oblivion, or will 
 be remembered with grief, (if grief can be found in that 
 happy world,) and with high emotions of gratitude for 
 that infinite grace, which has delivered them from the 
 weakness and imperfection of their earthly state, and 
 prepared them for the holy employments and pleasures of 
 heaven. 
 
 With these few suggestions I dismiss a subject, which 
 was no pleasure to me to introduce. But there are oth- 
 er subjects, relating to the present and future happiness 
 of all the children of God, on which I should love to en- 
 large. If we are real Christians, we are entitled to an 
 inheritance incorruptible, undenled, and that fadeth not 
 away. Christ is even now the portion of our souls ; and 
 we shall shortly be with him where he is. Having this 
 hope in us, let us purify ourselves, as Christ is pure. Let 
 us walk by faith, not by sight. As to the general inter- 
 ests of Christ's kingdom, and as to the particular inter- 
 ests of our own denomination ; as to the substance of re- 
 ligion, and as to its outward forms, let us endeavour to 
 judge and feel as Christ does^and as we ourselves 
 shall, when the shadows of time shall vanish, and we 
 shall arrive at a world of perfect light. There all the 
 redeemed, — delightful thought ! — all the redeemed, for- 
 getting every distinction of name or sect, will unite their 
 joyful hearts and voices in praise to him who loved thern, 
 and washed them from their sins in his own blood. Let 
 
174 MODE OF BAPTISM. 
 
 us do all in our power to prepare ourselves and others for 
 that blessed world, and to render the society of the re- 
 deemed on earth like what it will be in heaven. Hence- 
 forth we will have no strife, but to copy the love and 
 meekness and forbearance of the blessed Jesus, and to 
 advance his cause. We will heartily rejoice in the work 
 of the Holy Spirit among Christians of every description, 
 and guard with the most sacred care against every thing 
 which would hinder its progress. We will suffer no zeal 
 for any personal object, or for the interest of any one 
 sect, to take place of that holier zeal which we ought to 
 cherish, for the glory of our common Lord, and the pros- 
 perity of his universal empire. If we may but have the 
 joy to see him inherit all nations, our souls shall be satis- 
 fied. We will not cease to love thee, and to pray for 
 thy peace, O kingdom of Christ. If we forget thee, let 
 our right hand forget her cunning. If we do not remem- 
 ber thee, let our tongue cleave to the roof of our mouth.