> -^ e^^?e»< g ! * '* e^^^ <^ iTllEOLCGlCALSEMiKAKY.i I Princeton, N. X h i BV 811 .C55 I Clark, Daniel. ! A candid discussion of ( Christian baptism "'i.xfSf^^X '^^- ELEGANT JUVENILE BOOKS. By Caroline Chebebro'. 16mo. muslin. Price 75 cents. THE STRING OF PEARLS, For Boys and Girls. By T. S. Arthur. 16mo. muslin. Price 75 conts. )T©[gD[E© /^©©[IDT ^RDDEaZ^y With Pictures to MatcK By F. C. WooDWORTH. 16mo. muslin. Price 75 cents. With Pictures to ^fatch. By F. C. "WooDwoRTii. IGmo. muslin. Price 75 cents. Published by Derby i( fail to exert a salutary inliuence." — N. Y. Tribv/ne. "A powerful appeal in behalf of the Maine Law. The story is terribly true to life." — N. Y. Independent. "It is a temperance tale, containing some striking scenes, and aiming, oy sturdy blows, to overthrow a great existing evil, by exposing it in its defor- mity, and suggesting the remedy." — Temperance Journal. "Written in a passionate, glowing style, as if the author were in earnest, and had seen the thing he describes. The friends of the Maine Law will find this book a strong pleader." — if. Y. Observer. "The author of this Avork has done good service to the cause by a series of spirit-stirring sketches, founded on fact."— iV; Y. Evangelist. "The story is well conceived, and finely narrated. While it will enter- tain those who like to peruse the description of stirring scenes, it will at tlio same time, if they liave any hearts, fill them with utter enmity against the ' fire-water,' which steals away men's property, character and happiness. The work is very popular." — Christian Ambassador. "The author of this work has done good service to the cause, by a series of .spirit-stirring sketches, founded on fact" — Xortli^rn Christian Advocate-. Published by Derby &. Miller, Auburn, N. Y. Derby, Ortox & Mullfgan, Buffalo. FANNY FERN'S NEW BOOK. FROM [F/araEOV© [?^®[S'iriF©[LO(o),. One elegant 12ino volume. With JEigrht IllustratioHs, 400 JPag-ea, Price $1,25. She has a mine of fun, tenderness, and truth somewhere, and though tha jewels she polishes for the world are not large, they are of the purest water and \)r\g\\t.—Elisa Cook's Journal, {England.) Sweet, womanly, and surcharged with a tender pathos, we predict that her "Leaves" will become favorites.— jV". Y. Tribune. There is not a hearth that will not commune with her — there is not a heart that will not echo back tlie breathings of her nature. — Buffalo Repuhlie. They relate to almost everything of feeling, duty, foible, and things of beauty, and leave a moral impress.— iV. Y. Evangelist. So true to life, they can hardly be called Nations.— Literary Ad/vertiser. Winning upon the alTections as a tender, thoughtful, and pathetic mor- alist.— J.r^7t(/^;''s Ilame Gazette. The product of an inventive and beautiful mind, and a pure, gentle and loving spirit. — Albany Argus. There are pictures of love, of beauty, and of suffering here, equal to the best sketches of Dickens. — J^. Y. Mirror. We do not believe the author exists, who can equal her sketches.— Ca^iO- da Christian Advocate. As her " Leaves " wear a healthy hue, it matters not how widely they float upon the breeze of popularity. — ITew- York Recorder. They are the genuine oflFspring. of an original mind, the characteristic product of New EnglancL — Home Jotornal. SECOND SERIES. SECOND SERIES— uniform with the Fir-st— (in January, 1854) Publislied by Dkrhv urifiGations. In some cases, the washing of the whole body was required ; and in others, only a sprinkling of the " water of purifying." But in no case w^as the purification imperatively required to be by immersion. When a general ablution of the body was called for, immersion, in some circumstances, might be the most con- venient or agreeable method ; and in many other circumstances, a more gradual process of wash- ing from a small vessel would be most convenient. Either method met the requirement of the law. In either case it was accounted purification. Purification was both external and internal. External purification was sometimes a physical cleansing, and sometimes merely a ceremonial act. Ceremonial purification was designed to be symbolical, either of internal moral purification, which consists in repentance, or a turning of the heart from sin to righteousness ; or of spiritual purification by the Holy Ghost, which consists in sanctification, or deliverance from the defile- ment of sin ;* or of legal purification, which' * I suppose that moral and spiritual purification are dis- tinguished chiefly by regarding the. same effect as produced by mPORT OF TITE WORI>. 17 consists ill justification, or deliverance from lia- bility to punishment for sin, and wliieli always presupposes an atonement. To enable the unprejudiced reader to see that the Greek word which we render hcqytize, as used by the writers of the New Testament, has the general sense oi' jju/'ijf/, wash or cleanse — and that, too, witliout regard to the mode of doing it — I think it will be only necessary that he examine with car^ and candor some passages of Scripture to which I will now invite his at- tention. Let him look Jirst, if he will, to Mark 7 : 1-5. "Tlien came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Je- rusalem. And when they saw some of his dis- ciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with nnwashen) hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they ivas/i, (Greek, haj^tize,) they human or divine agency. When the internal pxirifioation is considered in its relation to human agency, it is termed re- pentance, or moral purification ; and when considered in ita relation to divine agency, it is called sanctification, or apir- ifunl purification. 18 BAPTISM ; eat not. And many otlier tilings there be wliicli tliey have received to liold, as the washini^ (Gr. hajdizinfj) of caps, pots, brazen vessels, aud of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands ? " Xow, what is the general idea running through this passage ? Is it not 2:>lainly the following? — The Jews,at this time, Avere very particular in observing the custom, according to the tradition of the elders, oi puri- fying themselves before taking their meals. And these Pharisees and scribes from Jerusa- lem were displeased, and complained to Christ, when they saw this custom departed from l)y some of his disciples. It was their standing practice to wash their hands before eating ; and ^ when they returned from the market, except they washed they ate not.' When the washing of their hands is spoken of, the Greek word here employed for. " wash " is v«cr7o, nipto — a word that never defines the manner of washing, but permits it to be done in any way. This no one will dispute. And wlien they are said to wash on returning from market, and to wash their " cups, pots, brazen vessels, aud tables," the ori- IMPOKT OF THE WORD. 1'9 ginal word for " wash " is [Satli^o^ ha^ptizo. Here the two words seem to be used as meaning tiie same thing, and are accordingly both trans- lated by the English word wash. Bat if nijyto and haptizo do here mean the same thing, then haptizo in this place means simply to wash or purify, because nipto never means any thing else. But if it is contended that the two words do not here mean the same thing, but that there is an extension of the idea, in passing from the washing on ordinary occasions to the haptizing after returning from market, — I answer, If it were proved that there is this extension of the idea, it would not follow that the baptism here spoken of was necessarily by immersion. The most that it would imply is that, after returning from market, a "inore general and t?torough ablu- tion of the body was had than was required on ordinary occasions. But this more general washing was simply for the purpose of thorough pxirijication ; and consequently this laptism w^as simply a pwrification — as truly so as the washing of the hands. But this supposed cliange, or extension of the idea, in passing from the one word to the other, is mere conjecture — it is 20 EA?Ti?:-.r: not proved, and cannot be. The evangelist, in recording this comphiint of the Fiiarisees and scribes, takes occasion to speak of the general custom of the Jews on the subject oi 2>^.in/yhtg themselves before taking their meals ; and states what that custom is on common occasions, and what it is when they have been to market. But the idea of purif^^ing is the only one intro- duced, with perhaps the different degrees of tlioroughness recpiired on the different occa- sions. This is evident from the public declara- tion which the Saviour made on this very occa- sion. Yerse 15, " There is nothing from with- out a man that, entering into him, can defile him ; but the things that come out of him, these are they that defile the man," Their custom of washing or baptizing before eating was founded on the supposition that they might possibly have touched something which, by the ceremonial law, was accounted unclean ; and by handling their food in that state they might pollute it, and so defile themselves, by eating that which was unclean. Hence they purified themselves be- fore eating. This is evidently the meaning, and the only meaning of their washing or baptizing at such times. A similar complaint against the nirOIlT OF THE WORD. 21 Saviour himself was made by a Pharisee who had invited Christ to eat in his house, as men- tioned in Luke 11 : 38. The passage, witli the coimeetion, is as follows : " And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him : and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not first washed (Gr. baptized) before dinner." l^ow, suppose the Saviour, before eat- ing, had taken a small vessel of water, and, with a towel, had proceeded to wash himself tKor- oiiglily — all over, if you please — it would not have been immersion at all ; and yet, does any candid mind think that the Pharisee, in that case, would have marvelled that Jesus did not get into a bathing-tub and immerse himself? "Was it immersion or purification that the Phar- isee required? Manifestly the latter, although it is called by the evangelist lajptism. The Pharisee " marvelled that he had not first hap- tized before dinner." But, that purifying or cleansing was the idea involved is evident from what the Saviour says in reply. " And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter ; but your inward part is full of ravening and wickedness." 22 BAPTISM ; '* Jt was the fact that he had not first made clean or PURIFIED himself that the Pharisee complained of. But " baptized " is the original word which Luke employs to express this idea. This shows in what sense he uses the term. Immersion would indeed have answered the purpose of the Pharisee ; and so would anything else by which purification should have been eflfected. The word '' baptized " in this place has clearlj no reference to the mode^ but only to the effect ^ and is synonymous with cleansed or purified. The same is true in the case above mentioned, where the disciples were complained of in a similar way. And when the Jews, as above, are said to hold the custom of washing (baptizing) " cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and tables,'^ or dining couches, (for all agree that this is what is meant by xXivwv, the word rendered *' tables '* — couches on which they reclined at meals,) it is preposterous to suppose that immersion is here the essential idea of baptism ; or that the word conveys any other idea than purification. Who can believe, from the mere use of this word in such a connectiou — and is there other evi- dence? — tliattlie Jews were accustomed, before every meal, to im'm4r»e their couchesy as- w«U m IMTORT OF THE WORD. 23 their cooking utensils and table furniture ; and that, too, for the sake of the ^manner of doing it rather tlian the effect f It was plainly a cere- monial purification, and might be performed by washing in any way, or by sprinkling, which was a common mode of purifying under the law. The baptism of their couches was most proba- bly performed by sprinkling. Ko one, it seems to me, who has not a theory to support, can be- lieve it w^as done by immersion. And these cases illustrate the meaning of the word baptize as used by these inspired writers. It is purify or eleo/nse — denoting simply the procuring of an effect / and that without regard to the mode of doing it. That this is the true meaning of the word, as used by the evangelists, is further evident from the question put to John the Baptist, (John 1 : 25,) when the Jews sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He having denied that he was the Christ, or the literal Elias, or any one of the old propliets returned, they ask him, " Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neitlier that prophet^ " This shows that there was an expectation among them that Christy when he should coniej would hap- 24: BAPTISM ; tize. But was there anything in the prophecies concerning Christ to awaken the expectation that he would immerse^ or be an imra^rseri Not one word. Why, then, should it have been expected that he would hajptizef And why should it have been suspected that John must be the Christ from the fact that he baptized ? The reason, is plain. It was distinctly declared (Mai. 3 :* 23,) that Christ or Messiah should pu- rify ; and this was therefore expected of him. As to what would be the nature of his purify- ing, their ideas were vague and confused. But as soon as John appeared, officially baptizing, and administering the rite to many of the priests and Levites, as well as others, they at once thought they perceived in him the predicted " purifier." Baptism was understood to mean purification. A great purifier had appeared, who, according to prophecy, was ' purifying the sons of Levi ;' and they readily imagined that this must be the Christ. On no other principle can it be accounted for, that John's baptizing should have been taken as an indication of his being the Christ, than that baptism was under- stood to be purification, and they knew Christ was to come as a purifier. This shows the IMPORT OF THE WOKI). 25 meaning of the word haptize., as it was religlons- ] V nsed among tlie Jews in the time of John. It was not immerrie, or sprinkle, or pour, or any- thing else which described a particular mode of doing a tiling ; but purify^ having no regard whatever to the mode. And the term haptism was used to denote any and every sort of re- ligious purification, whether ceremonial, moral, spiritual, or legal — that is, sacrificial. In speak- ing of the baptism of John, the word is used to denot-e the ceremonial purification with water, and also the moral purification of rej^entance. In repentance, the sinner withdraws his mind from the pollution of sin, and turns it to righteous- ness and purity. Hence it is moral purifica- tion. John preached the baptism of repentance — in other words, the purification of repentance. He preached that men should repent, and thus purify themselves in their moral affjcti ns. And as a sign of this moral purification which they professed, he administered the ceremonial purification with water. Water baptism, con- sidered as ceremonial pii/rification, is strikingly emblematical of repentance, which is moral pu- rification. But baptism, considered as immer- swtiy or anything else which denotes iTwdeycan- 26 BAPTISM ; not, T^itli any degree of fivness, represent re- pentance ; because there is nothing about re- pentance wliich resembles tlie ?/it>t76' of immersion, or of sprinkling, or of i^ouring. It is not, tlien, the maiuie?' or mode of doing the thing which constitutes religions baptism ; but the procuring of a certain effect^ \\z. ])\mfioation. Any pro- cess by which purification is effected is haptisin, in the religious sense of the term. In Ileb. 9 : 10, the apostle calls the various purifications under the law " divers baptisms." *' Divers washings" it is in our translation ; but in the original Greek, the word for " washings" is,literally rendered," 5(2^^«W<9." In this chap- ter he labors to show liis Jewish bretliren that the Mosaic ritual could not take away sin, or produce real purity of heart and conscience, but afforded onl^' an outward purification of the flesh; while the application of Christ's blood, of which these " divers baptisms" were emblematical, was able to effect a true cleansing — a purifying of the conscience and heart — a deliverance from sin and condemnation. In the 10th verse he states, in general terms, in what tlie tabei'nacle service consisted. It "stood only in meats and drinks, and divers baptisms, and carnal ordinances." HVrPOKT OF THE WORD. 27 Then, in the 13th verse, he adverts again to this service more in detail, and shows what he meant by the '* divers baptisms." " For," says he, " if the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the j9w/vy^?';^// of the flesh," &c. Tlie ^'di- vers hcqytisins^^^ then, were divers ptirifyings^ performed by "sprinkling the unclean" with " the blood of bulls, and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer." The reader will permit me to offer one more passage in proof of the fact that the sacred wri- ters use the term baptize in the sense oi purify. It is in John 3 : 22-26. While John Avas bap- tizing in Enon, Jesus with his disciples came into Judea and baptized. This was by some re- garded as indicating a sort of rivalry between John and Jesus. Some of John's disciples ap- pear to have felt a little jealously of Jesus, as if he were trespassing on the prerogatives of their master ; and they fell into a dispute with certain Jews on the subject, which they referred to John to settle. The account of the matter is in these words. " After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them and ba^ptized. And 28 BAPTISM ; John also was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was much water there ; aiul they came and were baptized : for John was not vet cast into prison. Then there arose a question between some of John's disci^jles and the Jews aboict purifying. And the}' came unto John and said unto him. Rabbi, he that was with thee be- yond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him." John immediately acknowledges the superiority of Christ, and thus settles the question. JS'ow, it is perfectly inanifest, on the face of the narra- tive, that this was a dispute growing out of the rival claims set up for John and Jesus, by their respective adherents, touching the right to bap- tize. It was in fact a question about baptizing ; and yet the evangelist calls it " a question about purifying." This, I think, makes it abundantly evident that he uses the terms haptizing Siwd pu- rifying interchangably, as meaning the same thing. Any process of purifying, therefore, ia baptizing; .because the Greek word xa^a^i^/xs, here translated *^ purifying," is never restricted to any particular iiwde. The 7nod& of purifying is always to be determined by some accompany- ing "term or .terms,' and not by the word pur^y JMI'OP.T OF THE WORD. 29 (/c ^^'<;i^''^) itself. And since Ijaptize is used as a pynoiiyin oi j^icrffy^ it is manifestly improper to siscribe to it the specific and modal sense of im- merse, oi- pour, or sprinkle. Its meaning is more general, and regards sim})ly an effect wliicli either of these modes may procure. Purify is its most exact definition. CHAPTER II. DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 'What is the true object or design o/ Christian baptism f It is doubtless owing, in a great de- gree, to a want of accurate understanding on this point, that so much difference exists among evangelical Christians in regard to this ordinance. If I could be sure of fixing in the reader's mind correct ideas of the design of baptism, I should feel little concern in respect to his views of the mode, or the proper subjects of the rite. But let me do what I can to this end. The belief is extensively entertained that one main design of baptism is to symholize and com- memorate the hurial and resurrection of Christ, This, in my opinion, is a radical error, and ought to be corrected. The Bible nowhere teaches that such is the main design, or any design at all of baptism. There are, however, two passages of Scripture which, by many, are thought to sus- tain this view, and which it is proper here to DAPTISM ; ITS DPJSIGK. 31 examine. Tlie first is in Rom. 6 : 3-5. *' Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were l)aptized into his death ? Tliere- fore we are Luried with him, by baptism, into death; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by tlie i^^lor}' of the Father, even so we also sliouhl walk in newness of life. For if we have b^en jdanted togetlier in tlie likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of liis res- urrection." Xow, I tliiidv that a careful and impartial examination of tliis passage will con- vince us that, by the baptism liere spoken of is not meant tlie baptism of ivater^ but that .yrlrit- ual baptism, or purification, by wliich the heart is renewed, and tlie believer becomes dead to sin and alive to rigliteousness. The connection of thi* passage sliows that tlie object of the apostle is to declare what must be the moral effect of justification ])y grace through fnitli in Christ. In the preceding chapters of this epistle, he had clearly taught this doctrine of justification by grace, in (u^)])0;>iti'.ni to the Jewish idea of justification by the wru'ks of the lavr ; and had sustained his position Ijy the most cogent argu- mentation. But now he anticipates an obje'ction that would naturally arise in many minds, espe- 32 BAFTISM ; cially in sncli as were exposed to tlie influence of Judaizing teachers. The objection is, that this doctrine would lead to laxity of morals — that, if it be true that " where sin abonnded grace did much more abound,'' then men may feel at liberty to live in sin, since they tliereby furnish opportunity for the exercise of the more grace. " What shall we say then ? " he asks. " Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound ? " And here he proceeds to reply to this objection, in the passage before us, by urg- ing our Ixqytism into Christ as a guaranty against such perversion of grace. " Clod forbid ! How shall we that are dead to sin live any lono^er therein ? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ? Therefore we are buried with him, by baptism, into death ; '■ — plainly nxcan- ing death to sin. By our spiritual purification, or baptism into Christ, we so sympathize with him as to die unto sin as he died for sin. Thus we are said to be " baptized [purified] into his death.'' The baptism or purification of which the apostle here speaks is one that produces death to sin ; so as to furnish a perfect answer to the above objection raised against salvation rrs DESIGN. 33 by grace. But baptism with water produces no sucii deatli to sin. And the objection against salvation by grace througli faith, that it must tend to licentiousness of manners, receives no refutation from the fact of our baptism, ii water baptism be meant. And yet, the apostle here offers our haptism as the security against this otherwise dangerous tendenc}^ But if spiritual baptism, or purification of heart be meant, then the argument of the apostle is perfectly conclu- sive, and the ol^jection is thoroughly answered. Our baptism produces death to sin, and " how shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein ?" We are " buried into death " to sin by our spiritual baptism ; and of course it is fair to conclude that ' sin shall not henceforth have dominion over us.' " That like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." In this expression the apostle shows wliat bap- tism he is speaking of. It is a baptism which produces death to sin, and a subsequent " walk in newness of life." But every one knows that \\\Q outward ordinance of water baptism produ- ces no such change in the lives of men, and that sj^iritual baptism does; because it is a puri- 84 BAPTISM ; fication of the fountain of moral action — the heart. " For if we have been planted togetlier in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection." The word here translated " planted together " ((Tu/j-^bToj) is one that is nsed to express the situation of young trees or plants which have been so phint- ed or set as to sprout and grow together ; and therefore it involves the idea of intimaU union. It is here nsed figuratively, to signify our union with Christ, or conformitv to the likeness of Christ, in respect to his death — being ourselves dead to sin ; so tliat, as he arose from death, like the planted seed which sprouts and grows again, we also in like manner shall arise to a new and holy life. Thus we are associated with Christ both in death and resurrection, like seeds plant- ed toorether, and sproutinsrand o-rowino^ toi^ether. And the argument is that, [f we are thus asso- ciated with him in death, by virtue of our bap- tism — our spiritual purification — tlien we shall also be similarly associated witli him in a resur- rection to a new life ; and lience cannot " con- tinue in sin." The succeeding context carries out tliis same idea, showing plainly as language can, that what the apostle endeavors to establish ITS DESTGX. 35 is the fact that, in our haptism,, whatever its mode, we become, in coinparieon with our for- mer state, dead to sin and alive to righteousness. But tliis is not true at all of the outvv'ard ordi- nance of water baptism, as all experience proves ; and yet it is eminently true of spiritual baptism, or purification by the Holy Ghost. To my own mind, therefore, it is clear that this passage has nothing to do with teaching the design of v/ater baptism ; and much less does it teach anything in relation to the mode of administering it. It says indeed that "we are buried with him, by baptism, into death ; " but it is by spiritual bap- tism — purification of the heart by tlie Holy Spirit — that we are buried into death to sin. And hence, as Christ was raised from the dead and lives again, so we also who have received this spiritual baptism shall " walk in newness of life." This is evidently wliat the passage teaches ; and this is the whole of it. It gives not the remotest intimation that our baptism with water is designed to commemorate the bu- rial and resurrection of Christ, or to symbolize that event, or even to express our faith in it. It is true that the fact of our baptism with water (Joes declare our faith in the death, burial, and 36 BAPTij^M ; resurrection of Cln'ist, as also in all that lie lias done to save men, — not especially in one thing more tlian another ; — but the manner or mode of onr bai)tism does not ; nor is that mode at all indicated in this passage. The apostle does not, in this place, indicate either the mode or the design of water baptism ; and for the plain reason that he says nothing about it. Now let us look at the passage again, substi- tuting the vrord purify for baptize, and we shall see its fitness and force. " Know ye not that so many of us as were purified into Jesus Christ,'^ were puritied into his death ? [If we are thus spiritually joined to Christ, we are spiritually joined to his death.] Therefore we are buried with him by [our spiritual] purification, into death [to sin] ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old * This form of expression, " purified into Christ," seems to be used because, in spiritual puritieation, we are brought into spiritual union witli Christ, as branches engrafted iuto a liv- ing vine ; beuce, "purified into Christ." IT3 DESIGN. 37 man is crucified witli liiin [by our spiritual bap- tism or purification,] that the body of sin iiiiglit be destroyed, that heiicefurth we should not serve sin." Here we see that the whole drift of tliis passage is, not 'to teacli what water bap- tism is intended to signify, nor how it should be administered ; but to sliow how our spiritual baptism operates to produce death to sin, and a new life of holiness ; and thus obviate the objec- tion to salvation by grace through faith, viz. tluit it must give license to sin. If it be said, as it often is, that. in our baptism with water, wq prof ess deatli to sin, ii\\(\ promise a new life of holiness, I admit it ; Imt that tliis is what Paul means in the passage whicli we have been considering cannot be admitted. Such an interpretation would destroy the entire force of the apostle's argument. How does it answer the objection that the doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ must give license to sin, by saying that, when we are baptized with water, ^xe j^^i^ifess to be dead to sin, nm\ pro?7iise to live lives of holy obedience ? Wliodoes not know that professions are often false, and promises often broken ? And is it to be supposed that the great apostle, after having sliown ^uch masterly power of argument 38 BAPTISM ; in all his epistle up to this very point, would here broach an apparently formidable objection to his doctrine, and then otter to it snch a flimsy reply — merely saying tliat when we are bap- tized, we p7\)fess to die unto sin and live unto righteousness ? Or again, does he speak of this objection only for the sake of founding upon it an exhortation to Christians, to Met not sin reign in their mortal bodies ' ? If so, then he does not pretend to answer it at all ; but merely states the objection, and there leaves it unanswered, to perplex and worry his readers — simply tell- ing Christians that they have iwofessed^ in bap- tism, to shun the evil which he mentions as seeming to result so naturally from his doctrine, and exhortiiKj them to be true to their profes- sion ! Is this like Paul ? Does he usually meet difficulties in doctrine with such evasion ? And why ascribe it to him now ? Not certainly be- cause there is any necessity for it, only for the sake of maintaining what, at best, must be re^garded as a doubtful exegesis. Let it be understood that the apostle s})eaks here, not of water bap- tism, but of spii'itnal baptism, or the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and then he speaks like him- self, under divine inspiration ; and his argument ITS DE&IGls. 31) is full, and clear, and conclusive. I do not, tlierefore, hesitate to say tliat, in my opinion, this is the haptisin of which he speaks, and this is the sense of the passage under consideration. Tlie otiier ])assage referred to is in CoL 2 : 12, and is evidently intended to be parallel to tlie one just exaniined, only less full. The expres- sion, " buried with him in baptism," must receive the same interpretation. By being " buried with him " is meant, not buried in water, but buried to sin. The true believer is, in relation to sin, in a comparative sense, like one dead and buried. I say, in a comparative sense / because it is not true absolutely, but only in comparison with the state in wdiich he was before his spiritual bap- tism. Sin docs not any longer control him. lie has renounced it, put it away, and is, in a meas- nre, dead to its charms. And by being " risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God," is meant, not risen from nnder the water, but risen to a " newness of life " in Christ. That the burial and resurrection of the believer here spoken of, mean a burial to sin and resurrec- tion to a new and holy life, rather than a burial in water and resurrection from under water, is plain from the connection. Let me give the 40 BAPTISM ; passage, with the verse before and after it. " la whom also ye are circnmcised witli tlie circum- cision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh b}^ the circumcis- ion of Clirist ; buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with liim, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses." By " the circum- cision made without hands, in putting oft' the body of the sins of the flesh," is evidently meant regeneration by the Spirit of God. This is spir- itual purification. Circumcision was clearly re- garded as a kind of purifying ordinance ; and hence spiritual puriflcation or .regeneration is figuratively called " circumcision made without hands." With this circumcision, believers are here said to be circumcised in Christ ; and this idea the apostle presses by saying that, " in bap- tism," or spiritual puritication, previously called " circumcision made without hands," they are so far crucified to sin and delivered from its power, that they may properly be said to be '' buried with him," and with him " risen " to a new life^ ITS DESIGN. 41 tlirongli faltli in tlie operation of God wlio raised Christ from the dead. The general idea is pre- cisely the same as that in Romans ; and in nei- ther place do I think the apostle gives any in- struction on thesul>ject of water baptism, either as to its design or mode of admhnst ration • but refers entirely to spiritual baptism, or purifica- tion by the Holy Ghost, and whicli he also calls " the circumcision made without hands," and " the circumcision of Christ." This exposition is fortilied by the tact that the same apostle repeatedly uses the word hap- tize in the sense which I have here supposed. For example; in 1 Cor. 12: 13, he says, "For by one Spirit are we all baj^tized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." To be " baptized into one body" is evidently to be, by baptism, joined into one body. But it is. not true that all who receive water baptism are joined into one body — certainly not into one spiritual body, which is doubtless the thing in- tended. Or, if it be alleged that by " one body" is meant one visible body, as the visible church, then I reply, This interpretatiou would make another clause of the passage a falsehood ; be- 4:2 EAl'TISM ; cause, not all the visible clinrcli "have been made to drink into one Spirit," as their wide and antagonistic diversities of conduct and charac- ter too sadly testify. Ko, he refers to a ba}>tisni by whicli all who receive it are joined "into one bod}", and all made to diink into one Spirit." He cannot therefore mean water baptism, fur sncli is not the effect of water baptism ; but he must mean spiritual baptism, of whicli such is the natural and necessary effect. And indeed he says he means spiritual baptism. " For by one Spirit are we all baptized," &c. The word Spirit here plainly denotes the agent by whom the baptism is effected, and can only refer to the Holy Spirit. AVhat the apostle therefore affirms of all true Cln-istians is, tliat they are all baptized by one and the same Holy Spirit ; and of course he refers to spiritual baptism, and not baptism v/ith water. Tliere is another passage iuaGal. 3 : 27, where this apostle uses tlie very same expi'cssion as in the disputed passage in Rom. 6 : 3-5, " ba])tized into Chrisf," antless answers that design. But the melan- choly fact is apparent to all, that not a few bap- tized infants grow up to maturity without evin- cing any of the distinguishing traits of Christian character ; but, on the contrary, maintaining the worst propensities of their nature unchecked, and practically showing, to the last of life, an unyielding av^ersion to Christ and his cause. Their being baptized, therefore, does not make them ChristianSjin any proper sense of the term. It does not make them partakers of spiritual life in Christ, or in any degree change the moral state of their souls. Baptized children, as I hope hereafter to show, may derive great spirit- ual benefit from the fact of their baptism ; and hence it is immensely important to them. But, whatever its eiFect may be, it is not to renew their moral nature, and constitute them spirit* ually the children of God. The idea of effect- ing spiritual regeneration, whether in adults or infants, through the outward ordinance of bap- tism, so as to induce in them the exercise of ITS Dr.SIGN. 49 Christian graces, and bring them into saving relation to Christ, is so fiir^frora finding any le- gitimate so|)port in the Bible, and so glaringly opposed to experience and observation, that it seems mysterious how men of sense and candor can believe or teach it. And yet they do, or something very like it. But I will only add, I am sorry for them. I will now state, in brief, what I suppose to be the true object or design of this ordinance. And first ^ the ordinance of baptism is, as I suppose, designed to be a visihle sign or token upon Jthn who receives it^ showing that he is hi covenant relation to God. The covenant in which he stands with God pledges him to walk before the Lord in a holy life, and also pledges the Lord to be his God. And baptism is the token of this covenant. It is also the ratifying seal of the covenant — closing the engagement between the parties, and standing as a perpet- ual witness to the obligation confessed. This view of the design of baptism is derived mainly from its analogy to circumcision, and from the perpetuity of the covenant with Abraham — topics which I intend to discuss in a subsequent chapter. c « 60 BAPTISM ; A second design of water baptism is to repre- sent stjmholiGalli/ that internal 'purification of the soul which takes plcc^e in Tejjpnereition^ or true conversion to Christ j wliether considered in its a,spect of moral purification by repentance, or spiritual purification by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, or sacrificial, that is, legal purifica- tion by the application of Christ's atoning blood. Viewed in either of these aspects, this internal purification is meant to be represented to the eye of sense by the outward ordinance of water purification, or baptism. Tliat baptism is thus designed to be significant of internal purifica- tion is, I think, admitted by nearly or quite all classes of evangelical Christians, wliateTcr other designs they may believe it to have. I need not therefore argue this point. In the third place, baptism is designed as the rite of initiation into the visible Church of Christ/ so that wlioever properly receives the ordinance of baptism becomes thereby, in some sense at least, a member of the visible Church on earth. Tliis also is but seldom disputed, and may pass witliout further remark in tliis place, although it will be appropriately discussed in the closing chapter of this work. ITS DESIGN. 51 These are my views, suraniarily expressed, as to T\-liat is the true intent of Cliristian baptism. I do not attempt now to argne tliem at all, be- cause, as 1 have said, \\\q third will be adverted to again in the chasing chapter, while the aecond is generally admitted, and the first will natu- rally be considered in the chapter on the x\bra- hamic covenant. CHAPTER III. MODE OF BAPTISM. In the preceding chapters, I have endeavored to make plain to my readers the two points respecting the import of the word hajptize^ and the design of baptism. In the first chapter it was shown that,although the earlier use of the word haptize^ or rather of the Greek haptizo^ was to signify the mode of an action, as immerse, plmige, or overwhelm, and it is generally em- ployed in this sense by the profane classic wri- ters ; yet it gradually acquired, by a natural law of association, another sense, denoting not the mode of the action, but the effect procured by tlie action. As the natural effect of immer- sion in clean water was to purify, the word hap* tize came at length to signify cleanse or purify. And at the time when the New Testament was written, as also wlien the Old Testament was translated into Greek, this word was used in both the original sensio of immerse^ and the derived BAI'TISM: 1'16 MODE. 53 and secoiuiary sense oi' puryff/. I endeavored to sliow IVoni tiic Scriptures, and I think siicess- fiilly, tli.'i.t the sacred wi'iters adopted the latter signilication, and used the term in the sense-of piirlfi/^ without any regard to the mode of doing it. In the second chapter, it was shown that the design of ])aptism is not, as nian)^ suppose, to Rvmboh'ze or commemorate the hunal and res- tirrection of Christ — tliat this is no 2">art of its design ; nor was there any occasion for a sepa- rate ordinance to commemorate tliose events, since they were so closely connected with his deaths which is commemorated in the sacred Sup- per. Nor, again, is it the design of baptism, as was shown, to introduce the suhjecls of it into the spiritual family of God^ and make them parta- kers of those spiritual graces luhich helong pecid- iarly to God^s adopted children. But it was claimed that baptism witli water is designed as a sign or tohni of the covenant entered into between God and the baptized per- son, and to be tlie seal of that covenant — rati- fying the engagement, and standing as a perpet- ual witness to the obligation therein acknowl- edged ; also that it is designed to represent 54 BAPTISM ; internal purification from sin by the action of divine igjrace, and to be the rite of initiation into the visible Church. ATe are now prepared to examine the question in the present chapter, What is the jp?'oper 'siodk of' haj}ti.sm,as a rife of the Christ koi Charchf And here I take the position that,«7?y foryn of ceremonial purification with loater^ wlien ad- oninistered by an authorized p)erson to a proper svhject^ in the name of the Father^ and of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghost ^ is valid Christian haptism. This position woukl be readily ad- mitted by the great body of professed Christians throughout the world. But there is, as every one knows, a not inconsiderable and very re- spectable class of Christians, who contend that immersion is the only allowable or valid mode of administering Christian l)aptism. I have no occasion or desire to dispute the validity of that mode ; but only to repel and disprove the assertion tliat the ordinance cannot be valid un- less administered in tliat way. If this assertion shall be sliown to be erraneous, tlien it will fol- low that other modes, as spriid^ling or pouring, may be lawfully adopted. My main attempt, therefore, in the present chapter, will be to ITS MODE. 00 show that there is no scriptural authority for affirming that Christian baptism can be per- formed only by iiniiiersion. They who insist on immersion as the only trne mode of bai)tism, usually do so under the belief that immerse^ and on/f/ immerse, is what tlie word hajjtize means — that this \<^ {\\q esscrHlal idea of Ixijjtize — that the Greek word from which tliis is formed has no other signification ; — certainly not in relation to this ordinance of the Church. But we have seen that this is a total mistake. I feel assured that the unj^rejudiced reader, who has perused the first chapter of this book with care, so as fully to comprehend the argument, must pei'ceive that the true scHptural idea oihaptlze hpicrifij^ by whatever mode. The meaning of the icord^ therefore, does not restrict us to any particular mode ; but leaves entirely open the question oi rtiode^ to be determined by other considerations. The next main reliance of our brethren who contend for immersi')n exclusively, so far at least as I am acquainted, is on what, they su])po;^e to be iJte examjde of Chrid. And the sensitive conscience of the young convert is ])ressed with the imposing a})peal to ^'follow the example of 56 BAPTis?ii ; the Saviour,-' and be "buried with Christ in baptism." IS^ow, there are three things which trutli, as I think, requires to be said in regard to this mat- ter, and which give it a very different complex- ion from what it wears with the advocates of immersion. 1. The Bible nowhere teaches that Christ was " buried in baptism." The nearest thing to it is where it says nothing about it ; viz. in those passages (Kom. 6 : 4, and Col. 2 : 12,) which were discussed in Chapter II. The apostle, it is true, teaches us, in these passages, that Chris- tians are, in their spiritual baptism, become dead and buried unto si?i, as Christ died and was buried on account of sin : and that, as Je- sus was raised from the dead, even so we also are risen w^th him to a new life of holiness. "For how shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein?" Hence we are said to be, in our baptism — meaning our spiritual purifica- tion -^ " buried with him," and "buried with him, by baptism, into death" — death to sin. But all this has noting to do with tlie water baptism of Christ, or of believers in him. 2. The baptism of Christ was not intended as ITS MODE. 57 an example for our baptism, nor does it at all in- dicate the true mode of baptism in the Christian Church. AYe know it was not administered ac- cording to tlie instruction wliicli he has given to the Church, because it was not administered "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Christ was baptized by John the baptist, who did not -administer the ordinance in the name of the Trinity, as appears in Acts 19 : 2, where we are told of certain believers who had received John's baptism, but yet had never heard of the Iloh^ Ghost ; — a fact which could not have been, had they been baptized in his name. It is certain, then, that Christ did not intend the fori,i and manner of his baptism as an example for ns ; because it materially dif- fered in form from what he has commanded us — not being administered in the name of the Trinity. Xor, again, did he intend the fact of his bap- tism as an example for us ; and we are to be baptized, not because Christ was baptized, but because he has commanded us to be. The bap- tism of Christ was doubtless intended as a part of his external consecration to the priestly office, which he was then about to commence excrci- 68 BAPTISM ; sing for men. He liad now readied tlie age of thirty years, as was required by the divine hxw before one shor.kl enter npon the sacerdotal du- ties. He therefore came to John, who was himself a priest, the son of Zacharias the priest, and demanded baptism, or the ceremonial puri- fication which the law required in the consecra- tion of priests. John was surprised, and hesir tated to comply ; saying, " I have need to bo baptized of thee ; and comest tliou to me ? " Jesus replied, " Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him." But what demand of right- eousness required Jesus to be baptized ? It was not required to symbolize any professed repent- ance on his part, as in the case of others whom John baptized ; for he had no sin, and needed no repentance, nor did he profess any. It could not, as in us, be intended to represent his spirit- ual purification by the Holy Ghost, for he was always spiritually pure. AViiat righteousness, then, did it become him to fulfil by baptism? Plainly, obedience to God's righteous law. He was now about to commence his services as a priest to instruct and atone for the people of God. And the law required that, on entering ri3 MODE, 59 upon his office, tlie priest sliould be ceremoni- ally purified. And Christ woukl honor the hnv by submitting to the ceremony , and tluis fore- stall the opposition of jealous and envious nien. The advantage which this compliance with" the law gave him was afterwards seen, (Matt. 21: 2o-27,) when the chief priests and elders came to him,and demanded of him by what authority he instructed the people and performed his works of mercy. The reader will remember how thor- oughly he silenced them by referring them to the baptism of John, and asking them whether they acknowledged the divine authority of that. He knew tliey dared not deny it ; and yet, if they admitted it, they would thus be compelled to acknowledge the divine authority of his own sacerdotal acts ; because he could at once turn upon them and say, 'John, acting by divine authority, as jou acknowledge, consecrated me to the priesthood of the Messiah ; so,there is my authority, at least sufficiently to answer you.' This, then, was the design of Christ's baptism — not to be an example ior us, but to introduce liim regularly to the pi'Iestly office. Whatever, therefore, was the form or "tnode of his baptissn, it is not to be urged as obliging us to be baptized 60 BAPTISM ; in the same vvaj. The baptism of the Christian chiircli was instituted after that, and for an en- tirely different purpose. 3. There is no evidence that Clirist was bap- tized by immersion ; but rather that it was by sprinkling, or possibly by pouring. What, let me ask, is the argument by which men attempt to prove the immersion of Christ ? Apart from the meaning of the word ha^tize^ which, as to viode^ we have seen to be no evidence at all; and those passages in Romans and Colossians, which, as we have seen, do not touch the ques- tion ; I do not remember to have met with any other argument for Christ's immersion than such as I will now consider. (1.) In the language of our English transla- tion, after Christ was baptized in Jordan, he is ^aid to have come '' up out of the water." The supposed proof here is in the words " out ofT ' Why sliould he be said to have come np out of the water, unless he had been immersed in the water?' And, really, is there no other way of getting into the water, but to be immersed in it? and no other way by which one may come *' up out of tlie water," but by ascending from a total submersion in it ? What if the Bible had distinct- ITS MODE. Ci ly said that Jolui baptized by spriukb'ng'or pour- ing ; and that, for convenience and comfort in that ]iot cbmate, John stood at tlie margin of the "svater, with liis face towards the stream ; and the mnkitndes passed around in front of him in single file — thus stepping into the edge of the water — while he sprinkled, or poured from a cup, the water upon them ; and then, having been tlius baptized, they passed on " up out of the water" to the top of the bank : I ask, What if the Bible had described the, mode of John's baptizing just in this manner? "Would the ac- count of Christ's baptism, in that case, have re- quired the employment of dilierent phraseology from what is actually em])loyed ? Might it not have been said then, just as now, that " Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water?" The reader may here see how much soundness of argument there is in suppo- sing that, because Christ came " up out of the water," he must certainly have been immersed! It may not be amiss to add, that many remains of ancient sculpture represent John as baptizing in the very way which 1 have here described. I do not say that this was the precise form, for we are not told how it was done; but I do say 63 BAPTISM ; that tlie language of tlie sacred narrative is quite as favorable to sucli a form of baptism bj John as to immersion ; and it is much more probably true, fur reasons which I will presently give. But it should not be omitted, that this argu- ment for Christ's immersion, drawn from the phrase " up out of the water," is peculiar to readers of the English Bible onlv. It is seldom, if ever, urged by one who reads the original Greek. Every such person knows there is nothing in it. The Greek word which is here translated "out of" {ajpo) more properly signi- fies from than out of^ and is more commonly so translated. If, in this place, the translation had been made to read, " Jesus, when he was bap- tized, went up straightway from the water," no one would ever have thought of calling it an in- correct rendering ; nor would any one, in that case, have thought of finding here an argument for Christ's immersion. The use of the words out of instead oi from proves nothing at-all. (2.) But Christ, it is said, was doubtless bap- tized in the same form as others in John's bap- tism; and if John did not baptize by immersion, why did he go to the river Jordan, and to " Enon, near to Salim, because ther*^ was much water ITS MODE. 63 tliere " ? I am very ready to admit that Christ Avas probably baptized in the same form as oth- ers in John's baptism ; and yet I see no necessi- ty for suj^posing he was immersed, or that John immersed any one. Tlie ministry of John was attended by vast multitudes, many of whom came from a great distance, and doubtless with their beasts of burden. And on the supposition that he baptized by sprinkling or })Ouring, it must have been very convenient, to say the least, to select a location where the immense throng, with all their beasts might be comfort- ably supplied with an article so necessary in a hot climate as water. This is certainly reason enough why he should have selected such loca- tions, w^ithout supposing he baptized by immer- sion. Xo argument, therefore, can be drawn, from the fact that John selected such places for his baptizing, in favor of the idea that he im- mersed his disciples. The most that it would prove in that direction is, that he coidd have im- mersed if he had seen lit ; — at least, lie had water enough. But it also proves as well, that he could have -sprinlied or poured ; and although, in that case, he might not have needed so much wa- ter for the administration of baptism, yet he 64 would liave needed it for the convenient accom- modation of tlic immense crowds of people, with their thirsty animals. We have, then, no real evidence that John ever immersed any one. There is none in the meaning of the word hajytize j there is none in the proper design of Cln-istian ])aptism ; there is none in the Ian2:ua2:e of our translation, statins: that Jesus, when he was baptized, " went up straightway out of the water ; " and there is none in the selection of Jordan and Enon as the places for administering his baptism. Not one of these things, as the reader must plainly per- ceive, affords the slightest evidence that he im- mersed, any more than that he sprinkled or poured. Xot one of them makes it even ^yroha- Me that he employed immersion rather than sprinkling or pouring. Where, then, I ask, is the j)roof that Christ was baptized by immer- sion ? There is plainly none at all. And it is amazing, that good and sensible men can be so blind or so rash as to assume boldly that he teas immersed ; and then add to the assumption the monstrous untruth, that tlie young convert is required,in baptism, to "follow the example of the Saviour, and be buried in a watery grave ! " ITS MODE. bJ But if I be asked whether there is anything hi the Scriptures to indicate tlie probable mode of Christ's ]>aptisin, I ans\Yer, To my own mind, there certainly is. I will present it, and the reader can allow it whatever weight he may think it entitled to. If the baptism of Christ was, as there seems no good reason to doubt, designed to be a part of his external consecra- tion to the priesthood of the Messiah, in honor of the divinely enacted statute, and 'thus it be- came him to fulhl all righteousness,' then we have instruction touching both the reason why he was baptized, and the mode of his baptism. By a reference to Exod.is '2d : 4, the reader will see that the law re(iuireil the priests to be washed or purified with water before entering on their priesthood. ''Ajid Aaron anl his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of tiie tabernacle, and shalt wash them with water." Accordingh^, "vvlien the Saviour was abo it to comuience his public ministry, he wislied to honr)r tliis recpiire- ment of tlie law, and l)e washed, or purified. John was fully co!ii[)etent to do it, being him- self a Levire, the son of Zacharias. And there was a special fitness in the Saviour's going to liim; because he was the divinely appointed 6 forerunner of Christ, a prophet, and not excelled in greatness bj any of woman born. Hence the Saviour went to him and demanded this cere- mony of the law. Xow, if we can ascertain in what manner this wasliing under the law was performed, it will be fair to infer that Clirist was washed or purified in the same manner. As the Lord would have it, we are not left' wholly in the dark on tliis point. A little fur- ther along — in Numbers S: T, the needed in- formation is found. In giving charge concern- ing the ceremony, of wasliing or cleansing the Levites, the Lord says to Moses, "And thus shall tliou do unto them to cleanse them ; SPRINKLE water of ])urifying upon them.'' Xow, tell me if there is nothing here to indicate the mode of Christ's baptism. Baptism, be it re-" membered, is ceremonial purification. Christ would "fulfil all righteousness " by complying with this requirement of the law, when about to commence liis pu])lic ministry. The hiw de- manded tliat the priests, in their consecration, should l>e waslied, cleansed, or pui'ified with water. Accordingly Chi-ist went to Jolm to bo thus ceremonially cleansed; — in other words, to be baptized. But in what manner should it II'S MODK. 67 be peril n'liiod ? The law declares it shall be done by spnnldbifj. I will leave the reader now to judge whether it is probable that Christ ol)e3'ed this instruction and was sprinkled, or whether he departed from it and was immersed. I am, however, free to declare it as my own solemn conviction, that Christ was baptized b}^ sprink- ling. And yet I do not believe it aftects the main qnestion - now before us in the least, Avhether he was baptized in tlie one way or the other. It is worth nothino- at all in settlino^ the question about the proper mode of baptism in the Christian Church. As I have before shown, the baptism of Christ was not intended to be an example for our baptism — it being performed for a purpose totally different from ours, and be- fore the baptism of the Christian Church was ijistituted. And I am accustomed to adminis- ter the ordinance by sprinkling, not because I believe Christ was sprinkled; but because, in tlie absence of specific instruction on the sub- ject, I believe Christ has given his ministers the general command to baptize ; while baptism is purification, and sprinklijig is a mode of ]>uriti- cation abundantly recognized in the Scriptures, and therefore valid. It is also convenient and 68 UAI'TJSM ; safe in all countries, in all weatlier, and in all conditions of 1)odi] v liealth ; — which can hardly be said of baptism hy any other mode. ^Vc will now pass, and consider the case of the Ethiopian eunuch's baptism by Philip. It is by many cojifidently afhi-nied that here was an instance of immersion, beyond any reasona- ble doubt. But much as I respect and esteem many of the men who hold this opinion, I must confess tliat I am not able to awaken in my own mind any yery particular respect for the opin- ion itself. And yet, because so many embrace and teach it, it requires attention. The scene is described in Acts 8: 38, 39. '^ind he com- manded the chariot to stand still. And they went down both into the water, both Phib'p and the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, tlie Spirit of the Lord cauglit away Philip, that the eunuch saw^ him no more." ]S"ow, the entire eyidence . of this man\s haying been bapti;ied by immer- sion, and all that is urged by its strongest advo- cates, apart from the meaning of the word Ixfjj- iize, is found in the fiict of their leaying the chariot and stepping to the water, and. in the use of the English prepositions into and out of. TTS MODE. 69 First, it is said that "a small quantity of water iniglit easily liave been handed them, and the ordinance administered withont tlie inconveni- ence of descer.ding from the chariot, if a small quantity wonld Iiave sufficed." So it miglit, undoubtedly, if that had been deemed desirable ; for very probably there may have been, in the baggage of the eunuch, some vessel in which a servant could have dipped up and handed to the chariot as much water as would have suf- ficed for sprinkling or pouring. But would that have been the most natural way of proceeding? Surely the eunuch was not then in a state of mind to stand upon his dignity, and refuse to leave his carriage to receive the sacrament of baptism. And besides, after a long ride over a desert road, on arriving wliere was water, it would seem to be a not unpleasant relief to get upon the feet and step to the fountain or stream. If 1 had been in the place of Philip, with my present views and feelings, and he had desired me to baptize him, instead of having a servant get out a cup and hand up the water for me to baptize him sitting in his carriage, I would have had him get out, and, stepping with me down to the water, there reverently stand or kneel be- 70 fore God, with liead vmcovored, wliile I baptized Liiii '' in tlie name of tlie Fatlier, and of the Son, and of tlie Holy Ghost." xYnd jnst so, I doubt not, any Pj'esbytcrian minister would have done. Hence it is not so "unnatural" as some afiirm, to suppose that, for the purpose of baptism by sprinkling or pouring, he got out of his carriage, and received the ordinance in a reverential man- ner, rather than that lie maintained his seat in the chariot, bolstered np by liis dignity. How far, therefore, the circumstance of getting out of his carriage and stepping to the water goes to prove that he inust hive heen immersed^ is a question that I will not further pursue. But the main reliance, in this passage, by the advocates of exclusive immersion, is on the prep- ositions "'/;?/^>" and ^' out of^^ It is said in tho text tliat they both went down into the water; and after the baptism, thej^ came up out <>f\\\Q wa- ter. This is precisely parallel to what is said in connection Avith Christ's baptism, and affords tho same sort of argument. "And Jesus, when he was })aptized, went \v^ straightway out of the water." And need I say again, that going into the water, and coming out rv/* the water, do not necessarily imply a total immersion ? Nothing ITS MODE. 71 is proved by such expressions. There is reason enongli why they may have stepped into tlie vatei", in tluit parched and sultry reuion, witli only sandals on their feet, for the pnrpfossihility of there having been a bath at hand, and of the jailer and his family liaving been immersed. But since nothing about it is said in the narrative, does it look probable ? And even if there had been every possible con- venience for immersion ; and if these servants of God, whipped as they were only the day be- fore almost to death, had been in a bodily con- dition to admit of their immersing this family, it would still remain to be proved that they ac- tually did administer the ordinance by immer- sion, rather than by sprinkling or pouring. Such proof is nowhere to be found ; while all the circumstances just adverted to, favor the idea of sprinkling or pouring rather than of im- jnersion. I will next observe. It is a fact of no trifling importance in this dicussion, that tlie baptism of the lioly Ghost, of which water baptism is meant to be symbolical, is represented, never by ITS .^EODE. 81 immersion, but by pouring. Tlie Spirit is said to be poured upon men. His divine influence is represented as coining dmon on the subject whom he baptizes. Again, it is important to observe that* the sac- rificial purification of the soul b j the eflicacy of Christ's blood, which is also represented by water baptism, is expressed by sprinkling. In 1 Pet. 1 : 2, believers are said to be " elect . . unto obedience, and spkin^kling of the blood of Jesus Christ." In Heb. 12 : 24, it is said, " We are come ... to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel." Heb. 10 : 22. " Having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water:" — thus expressing both the internal purification with the blood of Christ, and the external purification with water. And since the internal purification is figuratively said to be by sprinkling^ it is fair to infer that the external washingj or symbolical purifying, is by sprinkling also. IS'ow, let me ask again. Where is the proof that immersion is the only valid mode of bap- tism ? It certainly is not in the meaning of the word haptize. In Chapter I, I have, as I think, D* 6 82 BAPrisii ; fully proved that to be, frequently^ at least, when used by the inspired writers, not immerse — not sprinkle — not pour; but ])urify^ having no regard to the mode. ISTor is the proof of immersion, as the only valid mode of baptism, to be found in any de- sign of the ordinance to represent the Jnivial and Tesiirrection of Christ ; for I have, in Chapter II, shown that it has no such design ; and that all which is said by our brethren about being " buried with Christ in baptism,'' and " being buried with him, by baptism, into death ; " or being " planted in the likeness of his death ; " and about being '' also in the likeness of his re- surrection," when urged in support of this al- leged design of the ordinance, or of immersion as its only mode, is a mere begging of the ques- tion, but proving nothing. I have shown, as I believe unanswerably, that the passages of Scripture here alluded to, make no reference whatever to water baptism — either the baptism of Christ or of his Church ; — that it is entirely * See Dr. Edward Beeclier's book, entitled " Baptism, its Import and Modes," wherein the author demonstrates that the sacred writers use the word baptize, not only frequently, but alwai/.% in the sense of 'purify. ITS MODE. 83 of spiritual baj)tism tliat tliey treat — a baptism which produces death to sin and life to right- eousness. JSTor, again, is there any proof of immersion in the terms employed to describe the baptism of Christ or the eunuch ; as going down hito tlie water, and coming up out of the water. And besides, as it resj^ects the baptism of Christ, I have shown, in the early part of this chapter, that, in whatever way it was administered, it was not meant to be an example for us ; but was intended for a totally different purpose, and oc- curred hefore the Saviour instituted the form of baptism for his Church. Hence believers are no more properly called upon to " follow Christ in baptism " than to follow him in eating, drink- ing, and sleeping. Christ ate, drank, and slept ; and we too are to eat, drink, and sleep ; but not particularly because he did, or in imitation of his example. So Clirist was baptized ; and we also ought to be baptized ; but not particularly because he was, or to imitate liis example ; but because he has commanded it. The Saviour never meant his baptism to be any example for ours ; although it was probably performed by sprinkling, and not by immersion. 8i BAPTISM ; ^NTor yet again, is the proof of immersion, as the only true mode, to be found in the cirmim- stanccs connected with any of the recorded ex- amples of baptism. Tliere are no cases of bap- tism recorded in the ^New Testament where cir- cumstances are mentioned which point more decidedly to immersion as the mode than those w^hich I have considered ; — none on which the advocates of immersion so mnch rely. And the reader can now jndge whether, in either of these cases, the circumstances are such as to show that immersion, and nothing else, must have been the mode ; or whether they are such as give preference to some simpler mode, as sprinkling or pouring. And where, I once more ask, in all the word of God, is the proof that Christian baptism can be lawfully administered only by immersion ? There is none. I confidently declare to the en- quiring reader, there is none. And if the word of God furnishes no proof to this effect, who is authorized to set up this particular mode of bap- tism before the Church, and say, " This or nothing " f Although I do not call in question the ability or honesty of the men who do it, yet I must question their prudence and accuracy ; and I covet not their responsibility. V ITS MODE. 85 I am calling to acknowledge immersion to be a valid mode of baptism ; yet not because it is 'hnmersion^ but because it is a mode of ceremo- nial purifiGation. And just so I regard sprink- ling 2iVL^ lyou ring as valid modes of baptism ; »ot because they are sprinkling or pouring, but because tbey are authorized modes of ceremo- nial purification. And since the great Head of the Church has not definitely taught us which of these modes we shall adopt — having only commanded us to purify or baptize, — every branch of the Church is clearly at liberty to elect its own mode ; though bound to respect the modes elected by others. And every be- liever may unite himself to the Church where he can receive the ordinance in that mode which best satisfies his own conscience ; and having done so, no one has any scriptural authority to deny the validity of his baptism. CHAPTER IV. mrANT BAPTISM OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. The Cliurcli was infested with many false prophets before the apostles were in their graves. To fortify her against their errors of doctrine and practice, was a prominent object contem- plated in the apostolic epistles. Their inspired authors enjoin the strictest carefulness against the reception of error. Paul especially charges the Church to " prove all things." He would have Christians bring every religious doc- trine to the test of reason and the word of God ; and not feel themselves at lil)erty, on the one hand, to receive every thing which might be taught ; nor, on the other, to reject every thing that might be condemned. They were required to examine every religious topic with care, and whatever should abide the ordeal of sober rea- son and divine revelation, they were instructed to " hold fast," as " that which is good." OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 87 The same principle should govern the Church now. There is much diversity of doctrinal sen- timent abroad, whose abettors claim to be di- vinely taught. And no man is at liberty to take without examination vvdiatever may be declared to be the word or the will of God. We cannot throw off the obligation to employ our own pow- ers in the investigation of truth and duty — to " prove all things," under the guidance of the Bible, and with such other helps as we can ob- tain. And when, upon any point, we have once ascertained the truth, we must " hold it fast ; " and not suffer it to be Vv-rested from us, or our- selves to be drifted away from it, "by every wind of doctrine " that blows. The doctrines of the Bible ought to be firmly rooted in our hearts and minds ; as they can be only by the labor of careful and prayerful research. These remarks are intended as preliminary to an application of their spirit to the doctrine of Infant Baptism; tlie discussion of which I de- sign to open in the present chapter, by inquiring vjhether the Scriptures contain anything adverse to imfant haptism. That there is any express ptrohibition of this practice in the Bible, is not pretended, even by 88 INFANT BAPTISM ; those who most strenuously oppose it. The Scriptures nowhere contain such a prohibition. The argument against infant baptism, so far as it professes to be founded on the Scriptures, is obtained wholly by implication and inference. And yet I would by no means object to it on this ground. If a doctrine, duty, or prohibition is fairly imjjliecl in any passage of Scripture, or derived by legitimate inference^ it is taught no less certainly and authoritatively than if it were directly affirmed. This must be so, if all the parts and forms of truth are consistent with each other. And, surely, no sound mind will deny that truth is liarmonious throughout all its ramifications. If then, it can be shown, by any legitimate inference or implication, that the Scriptures discountenance infant baptism, we must accept it as divine authority against the practice. I am not aware of more than three forms in which the opposers of infent baptism have ever supposed it to be forbidden in the word of God. These forms are the following. 1. It is alleged that the Scriptures require faith and repentance as prerequisites to hap- tism; hut infants cannot repent and helieve ; OBJECTIONS OONSIDEEED. 89 and hence, it is said^ tliej ought not to be bap- tized. 2. It is affirmed that there is no direrecept or warrant is to be looked for, or expected, in the Xew Testament. It was not at all needed. The warrant had long before been given in the command to fix the seal of the covenant on the children of the Church. Inasmuch as that command has never been re- voked, there was no occasion to repeat it in the New Testament ; and it still remains in full force. The argument, therefore, against infant baptism, which is founded on the absence of any- express precept or command, is sheer sophism, entitled to no weight whatever in the decision of this question. 3. It is said that there is no clear and indis- pitahle examjjle of infant haptism recorded in the Scriptures I and that, consequently, we are not to believe it was practiced in the apostolic churches, especially since it is not expressly commanded. This argument is as lame as the one last considered, and much in the same way. What if there are no clear and indisputable ex- amples of infjint baptism recorded in the Scrip- tures? Does it thence follow that no such ex- 302 INFANT BAJ'TISM ; amples occurred ? Apply this rule to the subject of female communion. There are no clear and indisputable examples of women coming to the Lord's table recorded in the New Testament. Will our brethren thence infer that no such ex- amples occurred? Certainly not. And why not ? Because they can prove, by inference, by analogy, and by implication, that pious females have a right to the Communion Supper, and therefore doubtless enjoyed that right. But in the same way, by inference, by analogy, and by implication, we can prove, as I intend to do, that the infants of believers have a right to bap- tism, and therefore doubtless enjoyed that right. And if the want of a clear and explicit example of women's coming to the Lord's table consti- tutes no argument against the propriety of fe- male communion, then neither does the want of a clear and explicit example of infant bap- tism constitute any argument against the pro- priety of that practice. Female communion is not forMdden^ and neither is infant baptism ; and the evidence which supports the one is of precisely the same nature as that which supports the other ; viz, inferential, analogical, and ini- ' plied. But evidence afforded in this way, if it OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 103 be fairly inferred, fairly analogous, or fairly im- plied, is just as good as evidence aiforded by direct precept, or explicit example. It is deemed sufficient to establish the authority of female communion ; and with the same propriety it should be deemed sufficient to establish the au- thority of infant baptism. But it should be remembered that it is not, and cannot be, proved that there are no exam- ples of infant baptism recorded in the New Tes- tament. There are several examples of house- hold haptism recorded ; and it can never be proved that infants were not included in more or less of those households. We admit, it is not certain that they were included ; but neither is it certain that they were not. The cases are recorded precisely as we might have expected them to be, on the supposition that infants loere among them, and received the seal of the cove- nant along with other members of the house- hold ; just as was the case when a family of heathen, including infants and adults, became converted and joined the Church under the for- mer dispensation. There is another important fact to be consid- ered in regard to this matter of IS'ew Testament 104 INFANT baptism; example. The ministers of Christ, whose labors are recorded in the New Testament, were called to preach mostly among those who had not be- fore received the gospel, or Christian baptism ; and their first and main business was, of course, to preach to adults ; and when thej believed, to baptize them, and organize them into churches. Thejwerenecessarili/'baY>tized on the prof esm,07i of their faith., rather than in infancy ; because they had not had Christian parents to offer them in baptism while in infancy. It was with the apos- tles just as it is with our foreign missionaries on this subject. The first converts under their labors have been born, not of Christian, but of heathen parents, and of course were not bap- tized in infancy, but require the ordinance on the profession of their faith. So with the apos- tles. Their first converts were not born of Christian parents, but of heathen, or of Jews under the law ; and* of course could not have been baptized in infancy. Hence it became necessary to baptize theni on the profession of their faith; just as would have been done, if tliey had believed under the preaching of a mod- ern Presbyterian. And the fact of their baptism being thus recorded in connection with their OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED. 105 profession of faith does not in any way militate against the propriety of baptizing the chikh-en of believing parents. It does not tonch the sub- ject, ^or is it at all strange that no more shonld have been said, in such. circumstances, on the subject of infant baptism ; or that, in their addresses to peo23le so situated, they should have said, " llepent and be baptized ;" or " Be- lieve and be baptized." In preaching to unbap- tized adults, they could hardly have spoken in any other way. And the examples of baptism to be recorded in such circumstances woukl most naturally be those of adults rather than of infants, except as they baptized households ; since the nations were then for the first time receiving the gospeL But there is another phase to this argument respecting Scripture example which we have not yet considered. The labors of the aj^jostles ex- tended through a period of hetioeen thirty and forty years^ during which time many thousands believed, and were gathered into the Church. IN^ow, it cannot be doubted that, during this peri- od, especially the latter part of it, many were con- verted and received into the Church who were born of Christian parents — parents wdio had 106 INFANT BAPTISM ; been among the earlier fruits of the apostles' ministry. But among all the examples of adult baptism mentioned in the Kew Testament, there is not one of a person who was born of Cli*is-tian parents, ^ow, observe in wliat direction this fact testifies. Of all the descendant^ of Chris- tian parents, who were converted and receivc^d into communion during that period of thirty odd years in which the apostles labored, not one case is mentioned where the subject was baptized on profession of his faith. Yet we dare not pre- sume that no such persons were converted in all that time. AVe know there were some ; and, considering the remarkable success which at- tended the ministry of the apostles, we must be- lieve that many were converted who were the children of believing parents. And why have we not an account of the baptism of some one or more of them ? If tlie ap(^stles had been from the first in the habit of baptizing believers' households^ including the infant children, this will explain it. Those persons, having been baptized in infancy with the households to which they belonged, tliere was no occasion for fur- ther notice of their baptism. And certainly the fact that there is no specific OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED, 107 record of the baptism of such a person does not argue that these persons were not baptized at all. Neither does the fact that there is no spe- cific record of infant baptism argue that infants were not baptized at all. And from all that has been said on this point, I think the reader can- not fail to see that, before we can be justified in rejecting the baptism of infants on the ground of there being no record of such a case in the Bi- ble, we must be prepared, on the same ground, to reject female communion, and believe that all the children of Christian parents who grew up and were converted during the ministry of the apostles, were received into the Church with- out ever being baptized at all. I have now done with the main arguments which are urged against infant baptism. So far as I know, thej are all comprised in the three which have been considered, viz . 1. The Scriptures require faith and repent- ance in order to baptism ; but infants cannot re- pent and believe, and therefore ought not to be baptized. 2. There is no direct precept or command au- thorizing infant baptism. 3. There is no clear and explicit example 108 of infant baptism recorded in the !N"ew Testa- ment. Here, I believe, is tlie whole strength of the opposition, except what consists in objecting to our direct evidence in fctvar of the practice. In respect to the first of these arguments, I have shown that it rests on a misapprehension of Scripture, in applying to all classes what is in- tended only for adults \ and that, on the suppo- sition that infants are included, it will prove that they must all be damned ; since, if only they who believe are to be baptized, then only they who believe and are baptized are to be saved, and they who do not believe shall be damned. In respect to the second of these arguments, that which is drawn from the absence of any express command or precept in favor of infant baptism, I have shown that there was no occa- sion for such a precept in the New Testament to autliorize the practice, since it is only using a privilege wliich God had long before granted to the Church, and had never recalled, viz. the privilege of bringing lier infant offspring into covenant with God by fixing the seal of the cov- enant upon them. I have also shown that, if infants are to be refused baptism for want of an OBJECTIONS CONSIDEKED. 109 express Bible precept, then females are to be refused the sacramental supper for the same reason ; and I might have added that, for the same reason, we should refuse to observe the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath, since there is no direct precept to justify it ; and we defend the practice only by inferential rea- soning, such as is employed to defend infant baptism and female connn union. "With respect to the third and last of these ar- guments, — that which is drawn from the want of any explicit scriptural example of infant bap- tism, I have shown that, in the circumstances of the apostles, laboring, as they did, chiefly among people Avho had not before received the gospel, such examples are scarcely to be ex- pected, except as they baptized households. Further, I have shown that if infant baptism is to be rejected for want of explicit examples in the Kew Testament, then for the same reason we must reject female communion, and believe that all the children of the Church, who grew up and were converted under the ministry of the apostles during a period of thirty odd years, were received into the Church without any bap- tism at all. 110 LS^FANT BAPTISM. !N'oWjI clo not think my readers are quite pre- pared to believe that all who die in infancy are damned ; or that a privilege which God had once granted to the Church, and never recalled, became null on the introduction of the gospel, merely because it was not exj^licitly renewed ; or that pious females should be refused admis- sion to the sacramental suj)per ; or that the first day of the week should not be observed as the Christian Sabbath ; or that the converted chil- dren of Christian parents were received into the Church under the apostles unbaptized. But if we are not prepared to believe all this, then we must believe these arguments against infant bap- tism are good for nothing — mere sophisms, en- titled to no weight or confidence whatever ; and that consequently the Scriptures contain nothing adverse to this practice. In the next chapter I will call attention to some of the direct arguments in defence of in- fant baptism, — especially such as are drawn from the Abraham ic covenant. CHAPTER V. INFANT BAI'TISM ABEAHAMIC COVENANT. In opening the discussion of infant ljaj)tism in the last chapter, I called attention to the ques- tion, whether the Scriptures contain or teach any thing adverse to the practice of baptizing the in- fants of believers. The evidence and arguments urged against this practice by its opponents were shown to be inappropriate and unsound ; and the conclusion was reached, (how satisfacto- rily, I leave the reader to judge,) that the Scrip- tures do not teach any thing adverse to this practice. I come now to the next thing contemplated, viz . to ascertain and exhibit what the Scriptures teach IN FAVOR of infant hajdism^ especially in connection with the Abraiiamic Covenant. And, as the basis of the discussion, I offer the follow- ing propositions. I. The Church of God was originally organ- ized under the Qovenant made with Abraham, 112 I^'FA^•T BAPTISM ; II. In that covenant^ children tcere included with their ^arents^ and lieliyed to compose the Church. III. The Christian Church is that same Church continued^ ordy tinder another form of adrainis- tration. lY. Believers in the Christian Church have the same interest in the main provision of the Abrahamic covenant as helievers in the Jewish Church had. That covenant is still in force. Y. The Christian Chjiirch has the same privi- lege of including her infant offspring in the cov- enant as the Jeioish Church had', unless^hy sqme neio arrangement, God has forhidden it. YI. The privilege of helieving parents bring- ing their children with them into covenant with God, and thus into the visible Church — and that, too, by the same ordinance lohich is ap- pointed for themselves, has never been with- drawn / and therefore still remains. YII. The Jewish converts to Christianity never understood the Christian Church to exclude the children of believers. YIII. The unbelieving Jews never raised the objection against the Christian Church that they excluded their iifant offspring. ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 113 IX. Baptisin is the only ordinance of initia' tioii into the Church under the gospel, and the only seal or tohen of the covenant ^ and hence hc- longs to all who are the ijroper snhjects of church- membershij). It belongs, therefore, to helieving parents and their infant seed. To the establisliment of these propositions 1 will now direct my endeavors. I. The Church of God ivas originally organ- icied under the covenant which the Lord made with Ahraham. That covenant I will here tran- scribe. Gen. 17 : 1-14. " And when Abram was ninety 3^ears old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said nnto him, 1 am the Almighty God ; walk before me and be thou perfect. And 1 will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abrara fell on his face : and God talked with him, say- ing. As for me, behold, my covenant is with tlice, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Xeither shall thy name any more be called Abram ; 1)nt thy name shall be Abraham ; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding frnitful, and I will make nations of thee ; and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant be- 8 114- INFANT baptism; tween 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 unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, — all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting posses- sion ; and I w^ill be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee, in their generations. This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you, and thy seed after thee ; Every man-child among you shall be circumcised. "^ And*ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin ; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man-child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised : and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlast- inor covenant. And the uncircumcised man- child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circum- * In this arrangement, females were reckoned in the males, and therefore needed no personal seal. ABKAHAMIC COVENANT. 115 cised, that soul shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my covenant." Previously to the date of this covenant, as ev- ery attentive reader of the Bible knows, the worship of God was maintained only by isolated persons, here and there, scattered amid the pre- vailing irreligion or idolatry ; and having no organization or concert, and no systematic means of perpetuating a pure faith. The consequence was, that, for the second time, true religion had become well-nigh obliterated from the earth. But God had determined now to establish a sys- tematic plan for maintaining religion among men; — a plan by which his own worshipers should combine their influence, and secure to successive generations a pious training from in- fancy. He therefore proceeded to organize in the family of Abraham a regular Church, with covenant and ordinance. The Scripture account of this transaction, the reader has just seen. It may be paraphased and amplified as follows : — ' Behold, Abram, I liave called tliee out from tliy native Ur of the Chaldees, and separated thee from thy father's house, and promised to make thee the father of a very numerous pos- terity ; and I have appropriated to thy posterity 116 INFANT BAPTISM ; this land of Canaan wherein thou now dwellest ; and I have also promised that in thy seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed. I will now reveal to thee more fully what is my pur- pose in all this. And first, I v/ill repeat what I have heretofore promised, that thou shalt be the father of many nations, and of kings ; on which account thy name shall now be changed from Abram to Abraham, which signifies, father of a great multitude. This multiplication of thy seed shall be true literally ', and it shall also be true in a more important and sjnritual sense, which will be better understood hereafter. 'But my object in these arrangements is to provide for the maintenance of true religion among men. I will theref(3re organize a Church in thy family, to be perpetuated in thy seed — • literal and spiritual; — a Church which shall worship me, the only true God. Am\ I will now establish my covenant with thee, and with thy seed after thee, for an everlasting covenant. And these shall be the terms of this covenant. On your part, it shall be required that ye wor- ship me alone as God, and maintain a holy life. Go not after other gods, and beware of every wickedness. Walk before me, and be thou per- ABKAHAMIC COVENANT. 117 feet. And, on my part J promise that I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. The nations around thee are vainly trusting to idol gods, which cannot profit them ; but I will be tity God, and the God of tlmj seed. Thus, there- fore, do I now establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, to be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee. And this is the token and seal of the covenant between me and you, which ye shall keep and use, viz . Thou shalt be circumcised; and every man-child among you shall be circumcised. And the un- circumcised man-child shall be cut off from his people. He shall be rejected from the privi- leges of the Church, and have no interest in the covenant j^romise.' After the estabiishment of this covenant, Abraham was forthwith circumcised, and every male person in his household. Thus w^as the Church organized, having the covenant of God for its constitution, and the ordinance of circum- cision for its seal. ^Nothing, I think, can be more manifest, than that the grand design in all this was to provide an agency for resisting the tide of wickedness, and establishing righteousness on the earth, by lis INFANT baptism; raising np a multitude of pious worshipers of the true God. For tiiis purpose tlie land of Canaan was given them, that they might be kept separate from the idolatrous nations about them, and not be contaminated by their per- nicious example or influence. And in accord- ance with this grand design, it was promised to Abraham that his seed should be amazingly nu- merous. But the gist of the whole, and that for which all the rest was given, consisted in the promise, " I will be a God to thee, and to thy SEED AFTER THEE." It was tliis whicli sccurcd true religion among them, and distinguished them from the idolatrous world. This promise conveyed to Abraham and his seed all the spirit- ual blessings of the Church. It is this promise which God calls, by way of eminence, his " cove- nants^'' and which he establishes in the line of Isaac, in distinction from tlie other children of Abraham, as mentioned a little further on, in the 21st verse. He engages tliat Ishmael shall be made a great nation ; " but," says he, " my covenant will I establish with Isaac." It is this which the apostle Paul refers to as *' the vrom- ise,''^ when he says that believers in the Gentile Church, being Christ's, are " Abraham's seed, ABRAHAMIC COVEN AJTT. 119 and heirs according to the jyromisey Gal. 3 : 29. This spiritual promise — "I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee," is, tlierefore, the constitution of the Church — the covenant of God under which she is organized. From the date of this covenant, the people of God have had a visible distinction from the men of the world, being an organized community by themselves. To this community, as it existed in the time of Moses, the martyr Stephen refers, and calls it '^ the Church in the wilderness." Acts 7 : 38. This was the Church of God — the community of true worshipers, which has been perpetuated to the present day, and will exist to the end of time. From these considerations, I think it must be sufficiently plain that the Church of God was originally organized imder the covenant made with Abraham. II. In that covenant^ children were included with their parents, and helped to compose the Church. Circumcision being appointed as the token or seal of the covenant, all were necessa- rily included in the covenant to whom the seal was orderly applied. Not only did A-braham receive the seal, but also the cliiklren of his household. And ever afterwards, when one 120 INFANT baptism; from among the other nations became a prose- lyte to the Jewish faith,^' he received circum- cision himself, and also the male children of his family. In tliis way, he and his house- hold became members of the visible Church. They thereby came under covenant obligation, along with the natural seed of Abraham, to * walk before God and be perfect ; ' and were entitled to the benefits of the promise, " I w^ill be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee." The introduction of the children of be- lievers into the covenant by the application of the seal to them was by special divine injunc- tion ; and the man-child who was not circum- cised was treated as an offender, and rejected from the Church and all the spiritual privileges of the covenant promise. " He shall be cut off from his people," says God ; " he hath broken my covenant." It cannot, therefore, be denied, and it is not disputed, that the children of be- lievers were originally embraced in the covenant of* God, as being included in the Church, and having the initiatory seal or token placed upon them. *That is, a "proselyte of righteousness;'* and not merely a " proselyte of the gate." ABRAIIAMIC COVENANT. 121 III. My next position is that, the Christian Church is this same Church continued^ only un- der another form of administration. Tliis is demonstrated by tlie apostle Paul, in tlie elev- enth chapter of Romans ; where, in allusion to what is said in Jer. 11 : 16, he represents the Jewish nation, which was constituted the visi- ble Church of God by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham, under the figure of an olive tree, of which Abraham was the root, and his descendants by Isaac the branches. The passage in Jeremiah is prophetic, and is as fol- lows : — "The Lord called thy name, A green OLIVE TREE, fair and of goodly fruit. With the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken. For the Lord of hosts that planted thee hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel, and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves, to provoke me to anger." Kow, in direct allusion to this prophecy of Jeremiah, and as if to show its ful- filment, the apostle, wlien speaking of the unbe- lieving Jews being thrust out of the visible Church, represents them as the natural branches of the olive tree broken off for their unbelief ; F /122 INFANT UAl'TIteM ; while the believing Gentiles, taken from a v.'ild stock, are grafted into the good olive tree ; that is to say, are incorporated into the visible Chnrch, and permitted to partake of the bles- sings of the Abrahamic covenant. " And if," says he, addressing the Gentile believers in a strain of admonition and warning, — '' And if some of the. branches be broken off, and thou, being a wikl olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree," [partakest, with tlie believing Jews, of all the privileges of God's covenant and Cliurch,] " boast not against the branches ;" — meaning the hrohen—off hninches. *' But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee." [If you do boast, remember that you have not conveyed Church privileges to Abraham and his posterity ; but the covenant was made with Abraham and his seed ; and they have been the means of opening the priv- ileges of the Church to you.] " Thou wilt say, then. The branches were broken off that I might be grafted in." ['The natural branches, the Jews, were broken off — cast out of the Cliurch — that we Christian Gentiles might be admit- ted in.'] " Well," says Paul, " because of un- ABRAIIAMIC COVENANT. 123 belief tliej were broken off; and tlion standest by faitli. Be not high-minded, but fear. For if God spared not tlie natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behokl, there- fore, the goodness and severity of God; — on them which fell, severity ; but towards tliee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness ; oth- erwise thou- also shalt be cut off" — [cut off from this same good olive tree, the Church of God, from which the Jews for unbelief were broken off; and into which you Gentiles have been grafted.] '^And they also, [the Jews,] if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in : for God is able to graft them in again : " — • [into the same olive tree, or Church from which they were broken olf.] " For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, [they had been brought out of heathenism,] and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive ti-ee, — [the Church of God,] — how much more shall these [Jews] whichbe the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree : " — [their own Church.] ]S'ow,what can be ])lainer than all this? Here the apostle, in imitation of Jeremiah, speaks of the Jewish Church under the figure of a good 124: INFANT BAPTISM ; olive tree, of which Abraham is called "the root," because the Church, as an organized com- munity, began with him ; and the covenant, as tlie constitution of the Church, was made with him. Of this Church, founded by God in the family of Abraham, the Jews were the natural mem- bers. They were "the natural branches" of the " olive tree." But when they refused to re- ceive Christ as the promised Messiah and Head of the Church ; or to believe in him as the Son of God and Saviour of men ; they were, for their unbelief, rejected from the visible Church, and the blessings of God's covenant; — they were "broken off " from the olive tree. This was true of the mass of the nation. There were, however, many exceptions. Many of the Jews believed in Christ, and were permitted to retain their place in the true Church, and still enjoy the privilege of that sacred covenant, "I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee." They remained in their own "good olive tree," as green and fruitful branches ; while the unbeliev- ms: Jews were broken off. Into this same olive tree the Gentile converts to Christianity were grafted. The old tree was not broken down and destroyed, and a new one planted in its stead. APAIXIIAVAC COVENANT. 125 The old Church, witli herj^recious spiritual cov- enant, was not Ijruken down and abolished. She still remained, a good olive tree ; and the Gentile ct)!iverts to the Christian faith wer^grafted into her ; and, along with believing Jews, were per- mitted to "partake oMie root aiwlfatness of the ''olive" — were allowea to share in the blessings of the covenant made with Abraham, and enjoy all the spiritual privileges of the Church. The idea, therefore, that the Jewish Church was abolished, and that the Christian Church is a new institution, is altogether a mistake. The Christian Church is but a continuation of the Jewish Church — the same good olive tree ; ex- cept that most of the original branches have been removed, and others have been grafted in. But still, some of the natural branches remain ; and as fast as the Jews are converted to Christ, they are grafted back " into their own olive tree." The Church is one / as Christ, speaking of the Church in the Song of Soloition, says, " My dove, my undefiled, is but one." The tree is the same ; its root and its trunk continue the same ; and it is nourished and supported by the same gracious covenant, " I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee." 126 INFANT E-VrTISM; It is true, the Church is under a different forfn of administrrition from what she was before the deatli of Chri^it. Iler sacraments have, by ex- press divine authority, been changed, agreeably to her changed condition and circumstances. And many o^ her ceremonies have been abol-- islied by tiie same express authority; because the purposes for wdiich they were instituted luive been accomplished, and the occasion for them does not now exist. But this change in the ex- ternal polity of the Church is a very different thing from the annihilation of one Church, and the institution of another. Nor does a change in the outward ce^monies of the Church involve any change in the rights and privileges of mem- bership. The same persons who were entitled to membership, and the benefits of the covenant, before the ceremonial law was abrogated, are entitled to these privileges now, unless excluded by express divine authority. ' If any thiu2^ more were wantinor to sliow the identity of th.e Jewish Church, organized under the Abrahamic covenant, and the Christian Church that now is, it might be found in tliat remark of Christ to the Jews in Matt. 21 : 43. " Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God ABRAHAMIC COTEXA^-f. 127 shall be taken from 3*011 , and given to a nation bringing foilh tlie fruits thereof." By '' tlie kingdom of God," here, is evidently intended, the visible Church, in which God reigns the ac- knowledged King. Agreeably to this declara- tion, the privileges of the Church were, in fact ^ taken from the Jews, and given to the believing Gentiles. The Jews, for many ages, had been in almost exclusive possession of the Church, with the ordinances of religion. But, as a nation, they did not yield to God the appropriate fruits of religion, and were rejected for their stubborn unbelief. The visible Church — God's kingdom on earth — with covenant and ordinance, which had so long been confined almost entirely to them, was taken from them, and is now in the possession of Gentiles, who bring forth more ap- propriate fruits. But the Christian Church among the Gentiles is the same Church — the same spiritual kingdom of God — whicli was ta- ken from the Jews, and which, in an organized form, began with Abraham, It would probaldy be supei'fluous to argue this point fiiriher. I am sure it must be evident to every attentive and unprejudiced reader, that the Jewish Church was not abolished on the in- 128 ' INFANT baptism; troduction of the gospel ; nor was tbe Christian Church then founded as a new and separate in- stitution ; but that the Christian Church of the present day is, in tlie mind of God, a continua- tion, under a changed exterior, of that same Church which had its commencement in the household of Abraham. lY. I propose next, to show that helievers m the Christian Church have the same interest in the 7nain j)^ovision of tJie Ahrahainic covenant m believers in the Jewish Church had. By the main .provision I mean the spiritual promise, "I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee ; " with the obligation on their part to main- tain holiness of life, as expressed by the com- mand, " Walk before me, and be thou perfect." The promise of Canaan was merely an appendage to the covenant, — an incidental thing, to provide a resting place for the Church, and save her from contamination, by keeping her separate from the idolatrous world around. As the main object of God in organizing the Church appears to have been, to raise uj) a people for his own ^vorship and service, in whom the purity and power of true religion might be exemplilied ; so the main thino^ in the covenant was that spiritual prom- ABRAIIAillC COYEXANT. 129 ise, "I will be a God to tliee, and to thy seed after thee." And in this covenant promise, I say, believers in the Christian Church have the same interest as believers under the former dis- pensation had. The covenant is still in full force; — as much so as at anytime after the days of Abraham. This indeed follows necessa- rily, if the Church is the same. But we are not .^eft to gather it by such an inference. We have apostolic testimony to the fact. In the third chapter of Galatians, the apostle Paul has the following reasoning on the subject. '' Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, be- ing made a curse for us ; . . . that the bles- sing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through fJesus Christ." If w^e had not been re- deemed from the curse of the law, we must all have perished in our sins. But Christ hath re- deemed us, in order that " the blessing of Abra- ham" — that is to say, the blessing promised in the covenant w^itli Abraham — might come on the Gentiles as well as the Jews, by virtue of our union to Christ through faith. For the promises were made, not so much to the natural descendants of Abraham, as to Christ in behalf of believers wdio exercise the faith of Abraham. F* 9 130 INFANT BAPTISM ; '' IS'ow," says Paul, in the cliapter above referred to, — "Now, to Abi'aliam and liis seed were the 23romises made. lie saith not, And to seeds, as of MANY," viz. Abraliani's natural descendants ; " biiir as of ONE, And to tliy seed, whicli is Christ." To Christ, as the representative of his people, wlio possess the faith of Abraham, were the promises made. " And tliis I say, that the COVENANT, whicdi was confirmed before of God in Christ, [confirmed to believers, in the person of Christ,] the lavv' wliich was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." The ceremo- nial law, which was abrogated at the death of Christ, was not given until centuries alter this covenant was made with Abraham. How then, the apostle's reasoning asks, could the ab- rogation of the law disannul tlie covenant, or impair the efficacy of tlie promise, since the covenant was in no way dependent on tlie cere- monial law, but existed hundreds of years be- fore the law was given ? Here is an arguuient constructed by the apostle on purpose to prove that the Abrahamic covenant is not done away, but is yet in full force in the Christian Church. And he concludes the argument by saying, ABP.AnAillC COVENANT. 131 " And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and lieirs, according to the promise." As if he had said, If you are Christians, then you are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and heirs of the blessing prondsed in the covenant, '* I will be a God to thee, and to tliy seed after thee." You are members of the same Churcl), and en- titled to the same covenant privileges, as were the direct descendants of Abraham, who be- lieved. This argument of tlie apostle, I think, ought to be sr.tricient to satisfy us, not only that the visible Church now is the same as that which was organized in the family of Abraham, but that the covenant made with Abraham is still in full force, as the basis or constitution of the Church. And hence, of course, the Christian Church has now the same kind of interest in the spiritual promise of the Abrahamic covenant as the Jewish Church had. There is a passage in the eighth chapter of Hebrews which, at first sight, may seem to con- flict with this view ; but, when more particularly examined, is found to confirm it. The passage is as follows : " But now^ hath he [Christ] ob- tained a more excellent ministry [tlian the Aaronic priesthood,] by how much also he is the 132 INFANT BAPl'ISM ; mediator of a better covenant, which was estab- lished upon better promises. For if that first covenant had been faidtless, then should noplace have been sought for the second. For, finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I w^ill make a new cov- enant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah : not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them bj the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt ; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For tliis is tlie covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts : and I will be to them a God, and tliej^ shall be to me a people ; and they shall not teach every man his neigh- bor, and every man his brotlier, saying. Know the Lord ; for all shall know me, from the least to the grea es'. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins, and their iniqui- ties will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Isow that which decayeth and waxeth old is readv to vanish away." ABIiAHAMIC COVKNxVXT. 133 A hasty reading of this passage may lead some to suppose that the Abrahamic covenant cannot now be in force ; because that wliich is here called " the iirst covenant " is represented as '' old," and " vanishing away ; " and ex- changed for '' a new and better covenant, estab lislied on better promises," and having Christ for its minister. Bat a little attention will clear up this matter, and show with which of these two covenants, if either, the Abrahamic cove- nant is identified. It is certain that by " the first covenant," here called " old," is not meant the Abrahamic covenant, bnt that of the Mosaic ritual, or covenant given on Mount Sinai. God calls it, "The covenant wliich I made with their fathers in the day wlicn I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt." And in the next chapter, tliis same "Iirst " or " old " covenant is described with the tabernacle, the ' candlestick, the shew-hread, the holy of holies, the golden censer, the arh of the covenant, the pot of manna, Aaroris rod, tlie tables of the law, the cherubim of glory, and the mercy-seat; all of which identity it as the Mosaic covenant, and not the Abrahamic. But that which is here in- lew covenant" is plainly a neio 134 INFANT I5APTISM ; edition of tlie Abrahamic covenant. It is called " new," because it was such to tlie minds of the Hebrews at tiiat time. Eor ages, tliey liad been accustomed to regard cliici'v tlie Mosaic cove- nant — the law of ceremonial observances. This was to their minds " the old covenant." And when tlie spiritual and gospel-like provisions of the Abraliamic covenant were renewedly pre- sented before them as objects of promise, the covenant containing them, though actually da- ting back some hundreds of years earlier than the other, was to them appropriately styled " a new covenant." That the new covenant here spoken of is really intended as a renewed ex- pression of the covenant with Abraham, espe- cially the spiritual part of it, is evident from tlie fact that their provisions are the same, and their language is the same, except that the former is more amplified. Look at it again. " For this is the covenant that I wdll make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord ; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts ; and I will be to them a God, and TIIEY SHALL BE TO ME A PEOPLE. And thc)^ shall not teach every man his jieighbor, and every man Ids brother, saying, Know ye tlie Lord ; AJ3EAHAMIC COYEXAXT. 135 for all shall know me, from the least to the great- est. For I will be merciful to their iniright- eonsness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no moi'e." In tliis covenant, God, by the propliet Jeremiali, (ol : 31-o-l,) plainly l>romises to renew, ])ardon, and sanctify his cho- sen people ; all of which is virtually included in the one grand idea of his being to them a God, and their being to him a people. And this was exactly the spiritual blessing promised in the covenant with Abraham. The fulfilment of this prouiise to the Cliurch nnder the gospel is the fair and legitimate carrying out of the covenant made with Abraham, and confirms the doctrine that that covenant is still the blessed inheritance of the Christian Church. Y. The next point to be established is this : — Members in the Cliristian Church have now the same jyrivilege ofincludhifj tJicir infant off spri7\g in the covenant as memhers in the Jeioish Chicrch hacl^ unless^ hy some new arrangement^ God has forhidden it. ludeed, this f )llows as a neces- sary consecpience of their having the same inter- est in the covenant. In the Jewish economy, parents \\\\o were themselves interested in the eovenaut of God were, by divine authority, per- 136 INFANT baptism; mitted, and even reqidred^ to extend its benefits to their infant offspring, by having the covenant seal placed npon them. This seal was the visi- ble badge or token of their relation to the Church ; and its administration was the initia- ting ordinance. That the provisions of the cov- enant embraced the infant seed of believers in the Jewisli Church, I believe has never been dispnted b}^ Jew or Gentile. And accordingly, it was the nniform custom, in that Church, for parents to bring the children of their households into covenant with God, by sealing them with the same visible ordinance which themselves had received. And if members in the Christian Church have now the same interest in the spir- itual provisions of that covenant which members in the Jewish Church had, then it follows irre- sisitibly,that they also liave the privilege, and it is their duty, to include their infant children in the covenant, by j^lacing on them the same visible token or seal which they themselves have received ; unless^ by a special revelation from God, they have Ijeen forbidden. This privilege, be it remembered, was always conceded to pros- elytes from other nations who embraced the Jewish religion. Although they nen^er shared ABKAFIAMIC COVENANT. 137 any inheritance in the land of Canaan^ yet they were allowed to be circumcised, as a public pro- fession of their faith, and as the means of be- coming interested in the covenant and Churcli of God. And wlien circumcised, and thus re- ceived into the Church, they had the same hi- terest in the sjnritual j^^'oniise of the covenant as the Jeios had ; and consequently, the same privilege of including their cliildren with them- selves ; — a privilege "vvliicli they improved by applying to such children the ordinance and seal of circumcision. And in the same manner, since the spiritual provisions of that covenant are perpetuated in tlie Christian Church, and believers enjoy the same intei'est in those pro- visions as did the believing Jews, while they themselves receive the visible token or seal of the covenant which is appointed to be used un- der the Christian dispensation, it becomes both their privileire and duty to ai ply this same seal to tlieir Ciiildren, and thus initiate them into the visible Church, on the same principle as did the believing Jews. I say, this is the privilege and duty of believing parents in tlie Christian Church as truly as it was in the Jewish Q\\\\v{-\\^vnless^ by some special prohibition, God has forbidden 138 it. If, on the introduction of the Christian dis- pensation, ijofthing was said on tliis subject, or not Iiing adverse to the then existing practice, it wouhi foUow, of course, that the Cimrch was still authorized to inchide her infant children as she had always done. In such a case, emphatically, " silence gives consent." VI. I pass now to the next position, which is tliat, tlic j^r^V^'Z^^^ of helleving parents hring- ing tJieir children loith them into covenant rela- tion to God^ and hy the same ordinance which is appointed for themselves^ has never heen icith- drawn. I scarcely need to argue this point. It plainly belongs to those who, while they ad- mit that believing parents might formerly bring their children into this relation, deny it to be their privilege now, to show the abrogation of this privilege by divine authority. But this they have not done, and cannot do ; and for the best of all reasons, viz. it is not a. f.act. God has never abrogated it. The Bible contains not the remotest intimation of such a thing. But; is it said that, in abolishing the rite of circumcision, that privilege was withdrawn ? How was it thus withdrawn ? The covenant was not withdrawn. I have proved that this AUIiAlIAMIC OOVENAXT. loO continues in full force in tlie Christian Clinrcli — tliat the promise is as ijcood to tlie believer now as it was to Abraham, "I will be a God to thee, and to thj seed after thee." This cove- nant promise, Abraham and all the Jewish Chnrch,by God's special instruction, understood as appl3'iiig to believers and their infant off- spring ; and accordingly, circumcision, as the initiating rite into the Chnrch, and that which sealed to her mend^ers an interest in the prom- ise, was applied to the infants of church-mem- bers, as it was also to adult converts and their children from among the heathen. But under our dispensation, circumcision is abolished, and baptism is now the rite of initia- tion into the Chnrch, and seals to her members an interest in the covenant promise. Yet, since the Church is still the same, and the covenant the same, how can a mere change of the initia- tor}' rite and covenant seal from circumcision to baptism, affect the title of infants ? Is not the promise still, "I will be a God^to thee, and to t/ii/ seed after thee '' ? And if tlds jx-irticular form of the covenant made it the privilege and duty of believing parents to extend it to their children while circumcision was the seal and 140 INFANT baptism; rite of initiation, does not the same form of the covenant equally make it the privilege and duty of believing parents now to extend it to their children, when the initiating Tite and seal is baptism? J^Iost certainly it, does. A mere change of the initiating ordinance of the Chnrcli and seal of the covenant, froi^^circumcision to baptism cannot vitiate the title of infants, while the Church remains the same, and the covenant the same. I leave it, therefore, as settled, — and I think it \^ fairly, and I hope satisfactorily settl-ed, that the privilege, formerly granted to believing pa- rents, of ap])lying to their infant offspring the initiating ordinance of the Church, and of thus sealing to them an interest in God's covenant promise^ has never been withdrawn, and conse- quently still remains in full force. Yll. The Jewish converts^ in. the first age of Christianity , never understood the Christian ChurcJi to exclude the infant children of heliev- ers. And yetjthey were doubtless made to un- derstand the fact as it was. But, that they never .understood that their children were to be ex- cluded, is certain from the fact that they never raised the least remonstrance on the subject. ABKAIIAMIC COVKXAXT. 141 The Jews were proverbially tenacious of their Church privileges ; and perhaps uiore distin- guished for jealousy of their rights in this re- spect, than for any other characteristic. 'Now, is it to be believed, that suck' a people, after having, by special Divine appointment, enjojTed the right and privilege of bringing their infant children with them into the Church and into covenant with God, by having the visible token placed upon them, — I ask. Is it to be believed that such a people, after having, by God's au- thority, enjoyed such a privilege for almost two thousand years, would, all of a sudden, and ivitk- out any express command of God, silently relin- quish this privilege, and consent to have their infant offspring thenceforth excluded from the pale of the Church, and from the benefit of God's covenant, notwithstanding that covenant still remains good to all who wear its seal ? Who can believe such a thing ? No ; instead of silently acquiescing in such a change, they would have raised a remonstrance loud enough to have been heard over the Christian world, and down to the end of time. Some of them made a mighty ado about Gentile converts not 142 INFANT BAPTISM ; being circnmciscd ; and a convention of apos- ties and distingnislied brethren was called at Jeriisaleui to settle tlie question. How nuicli more would tliej have been oiiended, and have disturbed the peace of the Cliurch, if an attempt had been made to exclude their own children from her pale, and from the covenant of God ! But in all the records of that age, there is not the slightest intimation that they ever uttered a word of complaint on this point. The only rational way to account for this fact is by ad- mitting that they never were taught that any such change was to take place. For if the apos- tles had been in the habit of excluding the in- fant seed of believers from the Churcli by deny- ing to them the initiating ordinance and seal of the covenant, their prejudices would have been instantly roused to tumultuous excitement. The conclusion is then certain, that, from the practice of the apostles, the Jewish converts were put at perfect rest on tliis subject ; and were never led to suspect that tiie privilege they had so long enjoyed under the former dispensa- tion v>'as now withdrawn. AVhile their children were admitted along with themselves, they could ABRAHAMIC COVENANT. 143 be brought by degrees, as tliey were, quietly to reliuqnisli the bloody ch*cumcisioii, and to adopt baj>ti6iii ill its stead. YIII. The iinlelieving Jews never raised the objection against the Okrisiian CViurch^that they excluded their infant offspring. Tiiis they would certainly have done, if such had been the fact. The apostles maintained that tlie legal dispen- sation of the Church had passed away — that it ended with the offering up of the great atoning sacrifice — that the Church was now under the special administration of Christ ; and conse- quently, they claimed that the true Church and the covenant were, now with the Christians. This claim their enemies, the unbelieving Jews, resisted by ever}^ means in their power. They persecuted the apostles and other Christians with murderous fury ; and charged them with the attempt to abolish circumcision, and the ceremonies of the Levitical law ; but they never accused them of trying to shut out the infant offspring of believers from the Church and cov- enant of God. The plain reason was — the apos- tles tried to do no sucli thing. On tlie contrary, by their habits in adminisicring the initiatory ordinance in the households of believers, they showed, in their practice as well as bj their words, that they considered the covenant prom- ise as benig good to them and their children. Hence their bitterest enemies among the Jews bronghtno complaint against them on tliis point. They evidently had no thought of there being here any ground of complaint ; as they snrely \vonld have had, if the apostles had rejected the children of believers from that ordinance by which persons were initiated into the Christian Church, and by which their title to the covenant promise was believed to be sealed. IX. Bajytis'in is noio the only ordinance of initiation into the Churchy and the only seal or tohen of the comnant / and hence it he- longs to all who are the jrroper suhjects of chicrch- menibershijy. It belongs, therefore, to believing parents and their infant seed. If it is true, as I have shown, that the title of infants to a place in the Church has never been repealed, but still continues ; and tliat they are still entitled to the benefits of the covenant, then it follows irresist- ibly that the infant seed of believers are now entitled to the ordinance of baptism. Further argument here is needless. They cannot be de- nied the privilege of membership in the Church AEKAHAMIC COVENANT. 145 and the seal of tlie covenant witliout being rob- bed of a precions and a sacred right wliich Heaven has granted them, and never recalled. They are just as much entitled to a covenant re- lation to God, and to wear the token and seal of the covenant, as their believing parents are. And since baptism is now the only way of ac- cess to the visible Church, and is the only visi- ble seal of the covenant, when believing parents refuse or neglect to offer their little ones to God in baptism, and thus neglect to bring them into covenant with him by placing upon them the covenant seal, they cruelly trespass on the rights of their children. They do them a grievous wrong, by shutting them out from the benefit of that gracious promise, " I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee." Since the Church is the same, and the covenant the same, and the rights of infants the same, now as under the former dispensation, it is just as mucli the duty of parents in the Christian Church to liave their children baptized, as it ^vas of parents in the Jewisli Church to have their children cir- cumcised. Does any one ask of what icse it can be to an unconscious babe to have him baptized? 14:6 INFANT baptism; He might with the same propriety ask of what use it could have been to an unconscious babe to have him circumcised. The one is of pre- cisely the same use, in respect to spiritual things, as the other ; and the proper answer in both cases is, It brings him within the fold of God's visible Church, and gives him a title to the ben- efit of God's everlasting covenant — "I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed." It is of the same use to the cliild as it is to the parent ; and if one values baptism as a privilege to himself, let him remember, it as an equal privilege to his child. God declared of the uncircumcised man-child among his ancient people, "That soul shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my covenant." The import of it was. He should be rejected from the privileges of the Church, and all the benefits of the covenant. He should sustain no nearer relation to God than the child of an unconverted heathen. He might, indeed, by sovereign grace, be afterwards led to offer himself to God, and be circumcised ; but the parent could plead no covenant promise in his behalf. x\nd if he should be left to perish, it would be no more than the parent might expect ABKAIIAMIC COVENANT. 147 from liaviiis: neglected his clutj, and slighted the covenant of God in regard to his seed. The same thing is true in respect to the un- baptized children of Christian parents. They are kept out of the Church and out of the cove- nant ; — as much so as the children of the wicked heathen. It is true that they may, perhaps, be af- terwards converted and received into the Church. But whatever faithfulness in other respects the parent may employ, having neglected his child's baptism, he can plead no covenant promise of the Lord to be 'the God of his seed ;' and can- not, therefore, pray for his child with that assu- rance which he might, if he had the promise of God's covenant to encourage and support his faith. And if that child continues to live an alien from God to the end of his days, it is no more than the parent practically consented to by neglecting to offer him in baptism, and thus bring him within the scope of the covenant promise. For us to neglect the baptism of our children is to despise the covenant which God has made with us in their behalf; precisely as if a member of tlie Jewish Church had neglect- ed to circumcise his son. The Lord is displeased with it ; and we need not be surprised if he 148 leaves tliein in alienation and unbelief to j^ierish. But the j^ioiis parent who solemnly dedicates his children to God, and treats the covenant as if it were as valuable to liis seed as to himself; and thus honors it bj causing its seal to be placed upon them, has a firm ground of confi- dence w^hen he bows before God in behalf of his children. His iaith can grasp the gracious promise, "I will be a God to thee, and to thj seed after thee ; " and he is j ust as certain of being heard and favorably answered,as when he pleads in faith for the fulfilment of any other divine promise. God's promises to believers are all conditioned upon our faith ; and the chief reason why our own prayers are not more uni- formly answered in favor of our children, is be- cause we exercise so little faith in the promise of God's covenant. But if we dedicate our chil- dren to God in baptism in honor of the covenant, we have thenceforth special encouragement to instruct them and pray for them. The promise of God in regard to them is the life and strength of our faith. Let not the baptism of infants, then, be ridi- culed or despised. Let it not be lightly es- teemed. To despise it is to despise the cove- AliliAIIAMIC COVEN^LNT. 149 naiit of Gtnl. Xay, it is to despise God himself, as 'tlie God of our seed after us.- Eatlier, let us revere lice it as appointed of tlie Lord ; and tiiankfully improve it for the benefit of our chil- dren, and the support of our faith. CHAPTER VI. INFANT BAPTISM HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. An important question to be decided in the discussion of infant baptism, relates to the great Commission given by Christ to the ministers of his Church, " Go ye therefore and teach [Gr. discljjle] all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. 28 : 19.) What did the Saviour mean by this command to disciple and baptize all nations ? In what sense did he use the ex- pression, " all nations " ? Did he intend by it only adult persons, and such as were capable of repenting and believing the gospel ? Or did he -also mean to "include their infant offspring? There can be no reasonable doubt that the apostles correctly understood his meaning, what- ever it was. And it may essentially aid us in the investigation of this question to enquire, What loould the a/postles most naturally under- HISTORICAL akgvmk:nt. 151 stand the Saviour to meaiif To ascertain this point correctly, Ave need to consider tlie estab- lished usages of the Church witli whicli they had been familiar from their childhood. Tliey were all Jews by birth and education. And being Jews, the rite of baptism could not have been a new thing to them. It is well known that the Jews had long, if not always, practiced it, whenever they received into the Church a convert, or proselyte as he was called, from an- othei* nation. Besides being circumcised with his male children, such convert was hajytizedv^^itYi the children of his household, male and female. This was intended as a rite of purification. The fact that baptism was so administered is indubi- tably established- by several English and Latin writers of unquestionable credit, as Hammond, Lightfoot, Selden, Ainsworth, and others; who cite abundance of passages from Jewish wri- tings, both in the Hebrew and Chaldee langua- ges, which place tlie fixct beyond a doubt. It has been disputed whether the children of natu- ral Jews were baj^tized nnder the former dispen- sation. Probably they were not. Yet all agree that the infant children of proselytes from other nations were baptized, both male and female. 152 INFANT baptism; And it was common among the Jews to call such baptized chWdven proseh/tes, as well as tlieir pa- rents. Sncli passages as the following abound in their writings : — '•'If, with a irroselyte, his sons and his daugh- ters he made jproselijtes, that vjhich is done hy the father redounds to their goodP Again, " A proselyte that is iinder age is hap- tized upon the li'nowledge of the house of judg- ment, [the synagogue, or church of the place,] and they hecorne to him a father P And again, " An Israelite that talces a little heathen infant, and baptizes him for a proselyte ^ hehold, he is a pfroselyteP '^- Let it be remembered, then, tliat it had been a long established custom in tlie Jewish Church, in which tlie apostles were brought up, to bap- tize the infant children of other nations^ when their parents were converted and baptized ; and to call such baptized qXxWXyqw jyi'^-^f-lyt^s ; which means, in this connection, much tlie same thing as disciples. Tlie act of circumcising and bap- tizing them was called p)roselyting^ or disci'pling them. Let these facts be borne in mind, and then we can easily undei'stand that our Saviour's com- * See Wall's " Conference." HISTORICAL AJJGUMENT. 153 raand, " Go, disciple all nations, baptizing tliem," &c., must be intended to incbide infants as well as adults. It is an obvious rule of inter- pretation, that words should be taken in that sense in which they were current at the time and place in which they were spoken. And, accustomed as the apostles had always been to seeing baptism administered to converts from the heathen nations, and to their infant children ; and used as they were to hearing it spoken of as maMng them proselytes^ whether adults or in- fants ; now, when they heard the Saviour using substantially the same form of expression, " Go, disciple, [or make disciples,] all nations, bap- tizing them " etc., they could hardly fail to un- derstand him as intending that they should bap- tize infants as well as adults. Such being the custom of the Jews, and such the use of lan- guage, it would seem obviously necessary, if he meant that in baptizing the nations they should not baptize infants, as had usually been done, that he should have said so. But he said noth- ing on the subject ; and of course left them to understand his language in the common accep- tation, which would require the baptismboth of believing adults and their infant offspring. Sup- &* 154 INFANT baptism; pose the commission had been, " Go ye, there- fore, raid teach all nations, circumcising them," (fee, would they not, in that case, haye under- stood that they yere to circumcise the infants of believers, as ^yell as their parents? Undoubt- edly thej would, unless they were specitically instructed otherwise. But why ? Plainly, be- cause they knew that circumcision was usually administered to infants. And so, too, they knew that baptism was usually administered to the in- fants of those who were baptized into the Church from othe7' nations. And now, when they were commanded to go and " disciple all nations, baptizing them," with no exception being ex- pressed in regard to infants, they must have un- derstood it as requiring them to baptize the in- fants of belieying parents, as had always been done. And the Saviour evidently intended that they should understand it so. Tlis personal treatment of little children in their presence had been such as coincided with this view. They had heard him say, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of such is the kingdom of heaven : " — a form of ex- pression totally ii-reconcilable, by any fair in- terpretation, with the idea that thereafter they niSTOElCAL ARGUMENT. 155 were not to be allowed any nearer visible rela- tionship to liim and his Cliurch than tlie unbap- tized heathen; but })erfectly natural, on the sup- position that they are still to be embraced with- in the pale of the visible Church. Indeed, tliere is nothing in all tlie recorded instructions of Christ which could lead the apostles to suspect that, in discipling and baptizing the nations, they were not to continue the practice of baptizing the infant seed of converted and baptized pa- rents, as had always been the custom in the Church to which they belonged. I see not how the force of this argument can be evaded, but by denying the custom in the Jewish Church of baptizing Gentile proselytes, and the children of their households. And no person acquainted with the historic testimony on the subject will attempt to deny a fact so well attested. It cannot be disputed without reject- ing the testimony of Maimonides, the most eni- inent of all the Jewish Rabbins since the Chris- tian era, as well as several of the early Talmudic writers, whose works, amongJ:he Jews, were re- garded as second in sacredness only to the in- spired canon. Indeed the fact is conceded on all hands, amone: the learned. And when the 156 iNFAXT baptism; commission to disciple and baptize the nations is interpreted in the liglit of this fact, I see not how unprejudiced minds can p.void tlie conclusion that its natural import requires the baptism both of believing parents and tlieir infant oifspring, agreeably to the familiar and long-continued usage of the Church in the case of converted Gentiles. Tlie only thing new in the adminis- tration of the ordinance, so far as appears from the instructions of Christ, was, that they were to baptize in the name of the Trinity. There is not the remotest intimation that tlie door was now to be shut against infants ; but every thing recorded warrants the belief that no ciiange in this res])ect was intended, and they were still to be admitted just as tliey liad always been. If tliis view of the subject is correct, as 1 think must be evident, then we have, in tliis commis- sion of Christ to the apostles, a distinctly im- plied command to baptize the infant children of baptized believers. This representation is corroborated by the a/posiol'(C jyractice of haptizing hoKseholds ; and, in turn, it throws light on that practice. Sev- eral examples of household baptism, as the rea- der knows, are recorded in the Xew Testament : JIISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 157 particularly those of the Philippian jailor, Ste- phaniis, and Lydia. It is true tliat these exam- ples wmild not be siifficient to establish the au- thority of infant baptism, if there were nothing more ; because we do not certainly know whetlier there were or were not infants in those families. The sacred writers have not told us ; and the most that we can have on the subject is conjecture. It would, however, be a little singular if there were not infants in at least soujc one or irrore of them. But I think we cannot prove that there were, or that there were not.'-^' And the only certain ev- idence afforded by these examples is, that it was a common practice of the apostles to baj^tize househokh. But when we consider tliat the apostles, situated as they were, must have under- stood tlie commission to baptize the nations as intended to include, not only the adults who be- lieved, but also their infant children, if now we find them ixoinii; amonliiiologitally and very ingenious- ly to prove that tliese linusehokls did coiitaiu infants; but I doubt whether liis argument will satisfy the popular mind. 158 INFANT BAPTISM ; showing tliat the infant seed of baptized belie- vers are, by the aiitlioritj of Christ, entitled to baptism. If the commission had been, " Go, disciple all nations, circumcising them," and'theu we had found the apostles in the habit of circum- cising households, who would have hesitated to regard it as an evidence of their circumcising infants as well as adults ? Ko one, certainly ; because, since infants had always been circum- cised, and the commission made no exception in the case of infants, to speak of circumcising a man and his household woulitl be the natural way of stating the circumcision of infants along with their believing parents. And if infants were not allowed to be circumcised under this commission, to speak in such a general manner of circumcising households, with no qualifying word to restrict the sense, would seem highly improper, because very likely to mislead. In such a case, when households are mentioned, in- fants ought to be especially excepted ; otherwise it would be fair to suppose them included. And just so, since it had always been the custom to 'baptize the households of men converted from the ivi;>latr(>us nations, including their infant chil- dren of both sexes, now when the commission HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 159 is given, " Go, disciple all nations, baptizing them," and no exception of infants is expressed ; and thereupon we iind tlie apostles going among the heatlien nations preaching tlie gospel and baptizing Jtouseholds, how can we do otherwise than regard tliis as a striking evidence of their baptizing infants? To speak of their baptizing households wonld be th& natural way^ in such circumstances, of stating the baptism of infants along with their believing parents. And if in- fants were not alloived to be baptized, to speak in this general manner of baptizing households, with no word to restrict tlie sense, would seem to be exceedingly improj^er, Ijecause eminently adapted to mislead. But I cannot believe the sacred writers have stated facts in a way so di- rectly adapted to mislead their readers. I much prefer to tliink tliey have expressed themselves in such a way that the natural impression from their words will l)e the accurate one. That im- pression, considering all the circumstances, I hesitate not to say, is plaiidy this; that, in their habit of baptizing households, they did not ex- clude infants. A2:J'eeal)lv to tliis is the testimonv of Justin Martyr, who lived and wrote about forty years 160 INFANT BAPTISM ; after the apostles. In one of liis apologies for the Christians, he speaks of ''several jier^sons among them, sldif or seventy years old^ wlioioere disci'pled to Christ in infancy^ which must liave occnrrecl in the time of the apostles. Bj their being-' discipledbi infancy ^\\q means that they were haptized in infancy ; and thns entered the school of Christ as learners, or disciples, which means the same thing. They were probably among the snbjects of honsehold baptism, as it was practiced by the apostles. 1 will now call the reader's attention to an- other important fact, sustaining the view already taken ; viz. Infant Ijaptism 'ivas generally p)rac- ticed in the earlier ages succeeding the apostles. In proof of this fact I refer, First, to the testimony of Ireneus^ Bishop of Lyons, who wrote about seventy years after the apostles. In common with many of the early Christian f\ithers, he fell into the mistake of regarding l>aptism as regeneration, and of supposing it to be essential to salvation. Of Christ he says, "i7^ came to save cdl persons hy himself ; cdl, T say^ v^ho are i^egener cited hy him to God — infants^ and little ones^ and children^ and young men, and old. meii.^'' That by " re- in'^TORICAL ARGUMEXT. 16*1 generatiid''^ lie means Ijajptized^ or born of water, as the word was commonly used in his day, is evident from what he says in another place. '-''When Christ gave the commandnient of regen- KRATiNG unto God, he said, ' Go and teach all nations, BAPTIZING them^^'' &c. This testimony is very explicit in designating the various stages of life, so that one cannot mistake it. He says, ''iNFAxNTs, and lATi-LE ONES, and children, and young ine7i, and old menP All these classes were, in his time, regarded as proper suljects of baptism. Now, it is worthy to be remem- bered that this same Trenpus was born befoi'e the death of the apostle John, and was an intimate acquaintance and disciple of the venerable Pol- ycarp, who was John's own disciple. And from his intimacy with Polycarp, he had every op- portunity to know, and doubtless did know, what was the practice of the apostles on this subject. Again, TertuJlian, the lirst Latin author in the Church, who flourished about one hundred years after the apostles, is a valuable witness on this question. lie, too, liad adopted the prevailing error of his time, \iz. that ba})tisni was an oi-di- nance in whicli sin was washed away ; and he II 162 INFANT BAPTISM ; supposed tliat sins committed after baptism were 2}eGuliarly dangerous^ and could not be forgiven. He therefore advised that the baptism of infants should be delaj^ed until they should grow up and become confirmed in habits of virtue, unless, from some cause, there was imminent danger of their dying. Xow, the fact that Tertullian ad- vised the delay of baptism in the case of infants ordinarily, shows that it was then a customary practice in the Church to baptize them ; else there could have been no occasion for his giving such advice. And again, the fact that he per- mitted it in cases where their life appeared to be in danger shows that he ad\'ised the delay only from considerations of expediency^ and not because he considered it imlawftd to baptize them. It is a striking fact that, anxious as Ter- tullian was to dissuade the Church from the practice of baptizing infants, he never once in- timates that it is cm unautliorizcd' innovation^ and therefore unlawful. This, if it had been true, would have been the strongest as well as the most obvious and natural argument which he could have urged against it. And the fact that he does not use it — tliat he says nothing ahout the unlawfulness of the custom, but rests HISTOKICAL AltGLME>sT. I(j3 his argument entirely on the ground of expedi- ency, shows that he considers the authonty and laiufiilness of infant baptism as not to be ques- tioned. Tertullian is sometimes referred to as a witness agabist the fact of infant baptism in the early Christian Churcli. But, in truth, his ob- jection demonstrates that the Church was then in the practice of it. He admits its existence by advising its delay ; and he admits its lawful- ness and authority by the nature of his objec- tion to it. Again, Origen^ a presbyter and lecturer of Alexandria, and a cotemporary with Tertullian, has various passages which illustrate and con- firm the antiquity of infant bai^tism. lie la- bored to prove the doctrine of original sin, or infant depravity, from the general practice of infant haptism. " TFAa/," says he, " is the rea- son loJiy the haijima of the Clmrch^ conferred for the remission of shis^ is also adviinistered to infants ? since^ were there nothing in infa^its that required forgiveness and mercy ^ the grace ofhajMsm might seem super fluo^is.''^ Again he argues, ''^Infants are baptized for the remission of sins. Of icJuit sins? or tchen have they sinned? or how^ i?i the case of little children^ 164 J:s^'A^'T haptism: can any reason of the hirer [or baptism] hold good^ excejyt according to the sense ahave wen- tionedf j^o one is free from pollution^ tliough his life upon earth loere hut the length (fa day. And heeaiise, hy the sacrament of haptisin^ our pollutions are washed away^ therefore it is that iifants are haptized. For except a man he horn of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.''^ Yet again he says, " The Church hath received the tkadition from the arostles, that baptism ought to be admin- ISTERED TO INFANTS. For they to ichom the di- vine mysteries were committed kneic that there were, in cdl, those naturcd. defilements lohich must he washed away hy water and the Spirit.'' Isow, whatever may be thonglit of Origen's tlieciogy, or the doctrine of original sin as he held it, this much must be certain, tliat infant bap- tism was at that time a common practice in the Church. This writer founds an argument in favor of his doctrine on the baptism of infimts ; and attempts to show that their baptism would be an unmeaning ceremony, if it Avere riot true that they needed to be cleansed from sin. But such an argument could have had no force at all, or have ever occurred to that author's mind, HISTORICAL ARGUMENT. 1G5 if it liad not been a well-known fact tliat the Church had been in the constant practice of baj^tizing ini'ants. Let it be remembered that this was only about one hundred years after the apostles. We are often told that infant baptism is a Popish cor- ruption, and many are made to believe it ; but here is this eminent Christian writer, discoursing in this manner on the subject, within ahout one hundred years of the ajpostlei time^ axi^four h un- dred years hefore Popery had existence; and affirming in so many words, "The Church hath RECEIVED THE TRADITION FROM THE APOSTLES, THAT BAPTISM OUGHT TO BE ADMINISTERED TO INFANTS." Origen was born within eighty-five years of the apostolic age, of Christian parents, (his father having been a martyr,) and was himself, as he says, baptized in infancy. In the days of his parents, therefore, infant baptism was believed and practiced as an institution of apostolic au- thority. Once more. Cyprian., Bishop of Carthage, who wrote about one hundred and fifty years after the- apostles, gives an account of an eccle- siastical council which was held in his own church, and composed of sixty-six bishops, or 16G INFANT BAPTISM ; pastors. The occasion of the council was this :' A certain country bishop, by the name of Fidus, entertained serious doubts wliethei* infants sliould not be baptized at the age of eight days, and no earlier ; in order that the Christian ordinance might more perfectly correspond witli circum- cision which it replaced. Tlie subject was likely to make some difficulty ; and, to settle the ques- tion, Cyprian called this council at Carthage. Sixty -six bishops assembled, and the question came before them, " Ought not haptisin to he administered to infants on the eighth day, ac- cording to the law of ciTcumcisionV The question was discussed at length, and finally de- cided unanimously, that the day was not mate- rial — that they were proper subjects of baptism from the day of their birth. This decision was communicated to the country bishop in a letter signed by Cyprian himself, by order and in be- half of the council. Here is a remarkable his- torical fact. In that large body of Christian pastors, assembled from different and distant parts of the Church, to discuss such a subject, the question was not even ra^wZ whether infants should be baptized at all, but only whether it should be on the eighth day. Kow, is it to be IIISTOEIGAL AEGUirENT. 167 believed that, in one hundred and fifty years . after the apostles, so great an innovation as the baptism of infants, if it be called an innovation, could have been introduced, and have become so widely disseminated and perfectly established, that not a voice should have been raised against it in all that body of Christian ministers, many of whom might in all probability have been per- sonally acquainted with the immediate succes- sors of the apostles, and through them have known what the apostolic practice was ? It is utterly incredible. If the baptism of infants had not been known to be authorized by apostolic usage, before the question of Fidus could have been decided, the council must have had to set- tle the prior question, ivhether infants should he haptized at all. And the fact that this question was not even raised by any one, and that the council unanimously decided that the precise time of their baptism was not material, not only demonstrates that the baptism of infants was, at that early day, the general and undisputed cus- tom of the Church, but also affords convincinti^ evidence that it had come down from the apos- tles. But if the reader thinks otherwise, then let 168 INFA^'T BAPTISM ; me ask, )V/t<')i did thiH custom commence? Who has ever read an account of its origin f Al- tliongli the history of the Church immediately after the apostles abounds in records of innova- tions, heresies, and schisms ; and every little de- viation from established doctriue or usage was made the subject of violent and long-continued controversy, yet not one word appears in regard to the introduction of infant haptism^ and not a sylable of controvei'sy was had on the subject.* Tiiink of this. Infant baptism an unauthorized innovation ! a mere human invention ! and yet, within one hundred and fifty years after the apostles, the whole Christian Church in the prac- tice of it! and, what is more incredible still, even in that most contentious period, not one word of controversy ever lieard on the subject of its divine authority ! Let them believe it who can. But we must all believe it, or else believe that the Church received the practice, as Origen affirms, from the aj)Ostles themselves, and therefore had no occasion to dispute about it. We know also that, in the fourth century of * No controversy was had before Tertiillian's time ; and then, none in regard to its authority, but only in regard to its expediency. niSTOlClCAL ARGUMENT. 1C9 the Christian era, inlaiit baptism was universally practiced, on the ground of the xVbrahamic cov- enant : and was regarded as sanctioned by apos- tolic authority. To this fact there is any amount of testimony by eminent men of that age. Ati- gusthie is very explicit. " TFA/cA," says he, " the whole hody of the Church holds in the case of little infants who are baptized^ who certainly cannot helieve with their heart unto salvation ; and yet no Christian loill say that they are bap- tized in vainP Again he says, " The custom of the Church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded^ nor accounted useless / and it must by all means be believed to be an order from tJie ajpostles^'' He had. a long controversy with Pe- lagius on the doctrine of infant depravity, which doctrine Pelagius denied. Augustine urged that the baptism of infants implied and proved their depravity, since they were baptized, as was be- lived, for the remission of sin. And he charges it upon Pelagius that, in denying the depravity of infants, he virtually denies their right to bap- tism, and accounts the practice of it a useless ceremony. Pelagius repels the charge with indignation ; and says, " Men calumniate me^ hy cJiarging ine with a denial of infant baptism, H 170 INFANT baptism; I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF ANY IMPIOUS HERETIC OR SECTARY WHO DENIED INFANT BAPTISM." lie laborS to prove that his sentiments on the subject of original sin do not involve any thing inconsistent with the divinely authorized practice of infant baptism. ]S[ow, the fact that both parties thus appeal to infant baptism as a test of their doctri- nal sentiments, shows how firmly and universally the practice was rooted in the Church. Pela- gius was strongly tempted, by his position in the controversy, to deny the validity of infant bap- tism ; — a thing which he certainly would have done, if tliere had been anything in all the dis- cussions and controversies of the time to show that it had not the sanction^of the aj^ostles, but had been introduced since their day. lie must have been thoroughly informed of the doctrine and practice of the Church in different parts of the world ; for he had traveled extensively — in Britain, Gaul, Ital}^, Africa, Egypt, and Pales- tine. And yet, instead of questioning the au- thority of this practice, he makes tlie affirmation above : " / ho/ve never heard of any impious heretic or sectary loJio denied infant haptismP This was in the fourtli century, and within less than three hundred years of the apostles. HISTOKICAL ARGUMEiXT. 171 Much otlier testimony to the same purpose might be offered, but I need not detain the reader with it. The fact is established, as well as any fact in history can be, that all through that period, and for nearly a thousand years after the promulgation of Christianity by the apostles, infant baptism was universally prac- ticed in the Church ; and not a single sect or body of Christians in all the world could then be found who denied its validity. I say no sect^ or hody of Christians denied its validity. Ter- tullian, indeed, and perhaps some other individ- nals, objected to it on the ground before stated, viz. that sins committed after baptism were deemed peculiarly dangerous ; and hence, as a matter of expediency, he would have it delayed. But TertuUian urged his objection against un- married adults as strongly as against infants, and for the same reason. Neither himself, nor any who adopted his views, ever called in question the validity of infant baptism. And the fact that jie thus objected to it proves the prevalence of the custom in his time, which was only about one hundred years after the apostles. I will only add, If infant baptism is unauthorized in the Chris*- 172 INFANT baptism; tiaii Clnircli, it must have begun to be practiced in tlie very first, or at latest, in the second gen- eration succeeding the apostles — a time when there were ample means for knowing with" en- tire certainty what the apostolic practice Avas. Wliy, then, I ask again, have we no account of its commencement ? Why no record, or frag- ment of record, of that stern- and powerful re- sistance which it must have encountered when first introduced ? There must have been many faithful and conscientious men in the Church at that time — as their frequent martyrdoms prove there were — many who would have earnestly spoken and written against it. On every other subject, the slightest novelty of doctrine, or in- novation of practice, w^as strongly disputed, not only in private discussions and ecclesiastical councils, but in books and epistles, which have come dow^n to us, in whole or in part, so as abun- dantly to acquaint us with their nature and ori- gin. But in regard to the introduction of infant baptism, there is nothing of the kind. Instead of it, almost immediately after the apostles are in their graves, we find the custom generally practiced in the Church, with no more dispute about it, as to its divine authority, than about the i;i>TOKKAL AKGUMEXT. 173 baptism of adult converts. Xow, wliile tins fact is nnacconntably strange and unnatural, on the assuui])tii»n tliat infant baptism was brought into the Cliurcli without antlioritv, it is perfectly natural and consistent, if we admit that this practice had the sanction of Qhrist and his apos- tles ; and, taken along with the preceding ar- guments, affords, as I think, unanswerable proof that the Saviour and his apostles did give to it their sanction. I have now done with the discussion of infant baptism, so far as relates to its vindication, or defence, as a divinely instituted practice. I have endeavored to disclose to the reader what I believe to be the mind of God on this subject ; and I leave him to give such weight to the ar- guments, and to make such use of them, as his own judgment and conscience shall approve. CHAPTER VII. INFANT BAPTISM DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. I ENDEAVORED ill tliG last chapter, to show that, in the great Commission, the Saviour gives a distinctly implied command to baptize infants as well as adults. This was done by showing that it had been a long-established custom in the Jewish Church,' whenever men of other nations were converted, to baptize them and their house- holds, including their infant children. It was shown that the apostles, being Jews, must have been familiar with this custom ; and that when the Saviour commanded them to 'go, dis- ciple and baptize all nations,' stating no excep- tion in tlie case of infants, they must have un- derstood, agreeably to the established usage of the Church, that they were to- baptize, not only believing adults, but also their households, in- cluding the infant members ; and that the Saviour must have intended them to understand him so. DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 175 This view was shown to be sustained bj the corresponding practice of the apostles in bap- tizing households, without their deeming it im- portant to tell us whether those households were comi^osed entirely of adult believers, or partly of infants and children. Consistently with this, it was shown that, du- ring several of the first ages succeeding tlie apos- tles, the Church was in the constant practice of baptizing the infant children of baptized be- lievers ; while no one disputed the authority of the practice, and no one attempted to show when, or by whom, it was introduced, except to say that it was derived from the apostles. AH this was believed to form a complete argument on the subject ; and, taken along with the argu- ment from the Abrahamic covenant, as exhib- ited in the previous chapter, it placas the divine authority of infant baptism, as I conceive, be- yond a reasonable doubt. But even after the argument is settled, and shown to be conclusive in favor of the practice, there are some questions on the subject fre- quently coming u]) in the minds of sincere Christians, and greatly perplexing them ; — questions which need to be solved in order 170' IN FA N' r B A PTT S^f ; that the benefits of this ordinance, in its appli- cation to infants, may be properly realized by the Churcli without embaiTassment. I design, therefore, in the present chapter, to discuss and answer some of the most perplexing of these questions ; and I do it the more willingly, be- cause several of them are often urged upon us by those who deny the propriety of infant bap- tism. 1. The question has been asked by some who doubt not the lawfulness of infant church-mem- bership, "j^ it true that hajytism initiates the children of believers into the Churchy and into covenant with God? Are they not within the Church, and embraced in the arms of the cov- enant, hefore their baptism ? Are they not brought into these relations by their very birth ? '^ I think not. " But," it is asked ao^ain, " was not tlie Jewish child a member of the Church be- fore his circumcision ? Was he not born such? " In my opinion, lie was not. I know it is said of the uncircumcised man-child, " That soul shall be CUT OFF from his people ; he hath bkoken my covenant." And this form of expression, in the translation, has led some to think that children of the Jews were born into the Church, under DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 177 the privileges of the covenant. And by anal- ogy, they suppose that tlie children of clmrch- members nnder the gospel are.at their birth, em- braced within the arms of. the covenant, and members of the visible Church. Bnt I believe this i> a mistake. The expression, " shall be cut OFF from his people," does not, in the original, necessarily imply that he had previously been in covenant as a member of the Church, and was now to be excommunicated ; but, that he should be destroyed, or severed from his kin- dred and countrymen as an offender, for having virtually refused^ and therefore despised God's covenant. The blame of this offence was not, of course, imputed to the child, but to his pa- rents, until he grew up and refused or neglected to offer lihnself to God in the ordinance of cir- cumcision. And when it is said, " He hath broken my covenant,'" it does not mean that he had pre- viously been in covenant, and had now vio]ate4l an enc^ao-ement whicli that covenant bound him to fulfil. The idea of the original Avould be more correctly expressed by saying, " He hath frustrated my covenant." That is, he has baf- fled its gracious design^ so far as relates to him- II* 12 ITS INFANT baptism; self, by refusing to accept and ratify it. Con- sequently, such an one was to be denied the privileges of church-fellowship, and all the ben- efits of the covenant prouiise. But it may be asked again, Does not God say to Abram Ijefore his circumcisio7i, " As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations ? " He does ; and in respect to a numerous posterity, and the possession of Canaan, he had indeed already, on a former occasion, given Abrara his pledge. But the grand covenant promise — that which is still valid and constitutes the basis of the Church — that which is, by way of eminence, called " THE COVENANT," had uot bccu given before, and is expressed in these words, " I avill establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." The command to circumcise was given in this same interview, and as a part of the same transaction. This ordinance was one of the essential constit- uents of the covenant — its visible " token,'^ and, as Paul tells us, its ''seal.''' Without it the cov- enant was not valid, or of any force. It becomes of force when its terms are accepted and its seal DIFFICULTIES EXI'LAINED. 179 is set. Previously to this, it is rather to be viewed as a covenant jjroposed — not a covenant ratified. And when he sajs, " I will establish my covenant between me and thee," the mean- ing evidently is, ' I do this with the proviso, that you consent to, and accept, the terms of my cov- enant ; which are, on 3'our part, " Walk before me and be thou perfect " — [maintain a life of faith and obedience] ; together v/ith the promise on my part, " I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." But, as a token or witness of this engagement, and as the seal of its author- ity, I appoint the ordinance of circumcision. "When you consent to the terms and affix the seal, the covenant takes effect. Ton are then in covenant with God, and in that visible Church which this transaction is intended to establisli.' Tlius, I suppose, the gi'eat covenant with Abra- ham did not become valid to him — was not a covenant in force^ until he was circumcised. The same was true in respect to his posterity, and also in respect to proselytes from other na- tions, who became Abraham's seed by faith, and their children witli them. Tlie covenant, in its relation to them, required the same ratification as in the case of Abraham. They, indeed, were 180 entitled^ by God's special grant therein ex- pressed, to have tlie covenant ratified and con- firmed to tlienij as truly so as Abraham himself was. But it was not infact?>o ratified and con- firmed to them, until the seal was set and the token given. They differed from the children of unbelievers in this respect, viz. they had a right, by divine grant, to he circumcised, and thus to have the covenant made good to them ; whereas others had not. But to have aright to possess a privilege is a different thing from ac- tually possessing it. The seed of Abraham had a right to possess the privilege of church-mem- bership in covenant v^'itli God ; but they did not ill fact possess this privilege until they were circumcised. Circumcision sealed and confirmed the covenant to them, and tlius initiated them into the visible Church. Before his circum- cision, I suppose the Jevrisli child held a rela- tion to the Church and covenant similar to that which Abraham held after this interview with God, and before he was circumcised. Analogous to this, I regard the unbaptized children of church-members as holding a rela- tion to the Church and covenant similar to that of an unbaptized adult convert, now become the DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 181 friend of God, as Abraham was. Tliat is to say, they liaye a divinely granted right to be ad- mitted into covenant and church-membersliip through the ordinance of baptism, wliereas the chiklren of unbelievers have not this right. But, as the adult convert is not embraced in this cov- enant, or in the visible Church, previously to his baptism, so neither are the children of church-members. In both cases, baptism is the initiating ordinance — as circumcision was to the children of the Jews, and to the proselyte from the Gentiles. 2. The question is often asked, " What is the relation which haptized infants hear to the Church f Or, is there anything j^eciiUar in re- gard to their church-connection f " I answer, As I view the matter, their relation to the Church is somewhat peculiar. I consider them as realhj mcmhers of the Church general; but not especially members of any one distinct hranch of it rather than another. By baptism, they are introduced Into the visible family of God, and into covenant with him. They are baptized into the name or family of the Holy Trinity ; and, by covenant between God and their parents acting in their behalf, they are 1S2 INFANT B\p-nsM ; thus constituted members of tlie Lord's visible household. The terms of the covenant are, in substance, " Ye shall be my people, and I will be your God." By baptism, the parent consents to and ratifies this covenant, in behalf of him- self and his children. When he submits to the ordinance personally, he promises to serve God himself; and when he offers up his children in baptism, he engages that they too shall serve the Lord ; or at least, that he will do all in his power to influence them to it. Tlie parent, so to speak, transfers his child from his own to the family and authority of Christ by indentures ; and the child is, to all intents and purposes, hound to God. Tlie parent thus comes under peculiar responsibilities in regard to the spiritual training of the child, and the child is placed under peculiar obliga- tions to love and obey the Lord. He now be- longs to that class of persons whom God has promised to regard with special favor ; and un- less he willingly forfeits his claim, by abandon- ing his duty and despising his obligations, he is graciously entitled to all the benefits of the cov- enant by which the Lord binds himself to be a Father and a God to liis people. He is, in- deed, visibly a member of the general Church of DrTFTCULTIES EXPLAINFID. 183 Christ : and his baptism is a permanent seal at- testing his interest in the everlasting covenant. But it may perhaps be objected, ' If baptized infants are members of the Church general, and not especially of any j^articular branch of it more than another, then that particular branch of the 'Church within which they are baptized and educated, owes them no special duties in regard to their spiritual training, anj^ more than another, or than all other branches of the Church/ ITo, this does not follow. The branch of the Church Aivithin which they are baptized and ed- ucated does owe them special duties; not, how- ever, on account of any nearer ecclesiastical re- lations, but on account of closer jproximity and nearer social relations ; — just as we owe special duties to the souls of all classes in our immedi- ate vicinity, and to those bound to us by special social ties, which are not owed to them by Chris- tians in France or India. And if it be insisted on, that ba})tism brings its subject into s[)eciai connection with some particular bj'anch of the Church, then I would ask, To what particular branch of the Cliurch is that infant united whose father is converted by the lal)ors of a traveling missionarv in the wilds of Oregon, where no 184 INFANT BAPTISM ; local Clinrch organization exists ; and who, be- ing baptized bj the missionary, immediately offers in baptism his infant son ? In tliis case, both the father and the child are, by baptism, introduced into the visible Chnrch general^ but not especially into any one particular branch of it. The same is true any where else. Baptism introduces one into the Church general, wdiile the act oi 2?ersonally assenting to its particular covenant^ according to the prescribed form, unites one especially with a local branch of the Church. All baptized infants are members of the Church general ; but not until' they are old enough to gi\;e, and actually do give, their consent person- ally to the covenant of a particular Chnrch, do they become members especially of such partic- ular Church. 3. It is often asked, ' If haptized infants are niemhcrs of the Ckicrch^ lohy are they not admit- ted to the sacrament of the Lord's Sujpperf I answer, God has not authorized it. Why he has not, we are not told. One reason may probably be. They are incapable of profiting by this ordi- nance. It does not follow, because baptized in- fants are members of the Church, that they are therefore entitled to all the privileges of the DIFFICULTIES EXPI-AINED. 185 Church. They are also members of the civil community ; but this does not entitle them to civil privileges which they are incapable of en- joying — the privilege, for instance, of voting, or of being chosen to office. The peculiar na- ture of the Lord's Supper is such that, in order to be benefited by it, he who receives it must, by faith, " discern the Lord's body." And since infants are incapable of this, it can of course be no privilege to them to participate in tlie ordi- nance. The same also may be said of tliem after attaining to adult years, if they do not be- come renewed by the Spirit of God. Wliile un- renewed they exercise no true faith ; and are, therefore, incapable of being benefited by this sacrament ; and hence, until they give evidence of being spiritually renewed, they are not to'be received to the Lord's Sujjper. 4. If^ after haptism^ they give evidence of he- coming real Christians^ lut have not yet them- selves assumed the responsihiUty of the covenant in a 2^'^d)l'ic proftssion of their faith ^ have they then a right to tJie sacramental Supper f I an- swer, My own o])inion is that they liave not ; because, what they now do, they do as intelli- gent moral agents. This must be assumed, if 186 INFANT BAPTISM ; we suppose them to exercise faith. And, as in- telligent moral agents, they act on their oivn. re- sponsibility, and not on the responsibility of their parents. And if we regard them as acting on their own responsibility, we must require them, of their own free will, to assume the re- sponsibilities of the covenant. The covenant into which their parents entered on their behalf is not of such a nature as to exclude the neces- sity of an expression of their own will in rela- tion to it, whenever they are capable of doing it understandingly. And it is not reasonable that they should, in the exercise of their own moral agency, and on their own responsibility, ^ partake of the children's bread, until they have voluntarily acknowledged their connection with the family. Unless we admit that the reception of the Lord's Supper is itself a declaration, and a suiiicient declaration of faith, they cannot rea- sonably be admitted to this ordinance until they have, in a public and more explicit manner, avowed their faith and their allegiance to Christ. 5. Suppose, as is sometimes the case, the hap- tized person, after adult years, does not enter into sp>cckd connection with any particular hranch of the Church in aprofession of faith ^ hut, on the DIFFICULTIES EXI'LAINED. 187 contrary^ casts aioay his cavenant ■privileges^ and hecomes a notorious sinner / why is he not made a subject of disciplil^ef and ichy shoidd he not he formally cast oat of the Churchy if he cannot he reclaimed f I answer, Because, in this case, the thing is impossible. Such a person, it is true, has broken covenant with God, but not with men. His baptism brought him into no covenant directly with men ; nor did it, as has been shown, unite him with any particular branch of the Church rather than another ; al- though it did unite him with the Church gen- eral. And God, by the constitution of the Church, has not put it in the power of men to exercise church discipline for a breach of cove- nant which is not made specifically with men composing some local church organization. To pass sentence on one who belongs to the Church general, but not particularly to any one branch of it, would require that the whole Church of Christ on earth should be called, together, be- cause no one part alone has jurisdiction over him. But this is plainly impossible, and of course a formal excommunication is impossible. And besides, all the essential purposes of excom- munication are accomplished by the voluntary 188 abstinence of such baptized pciv>on from any communion witli the Church. 6. Does not tlie lyractice of infant 'baptism tend to corrupt religion^ hy impairing the spiritnality of the Church ? I know this is often affirmed by those who oppose the practice ; but I am not aware that any proof was ever given tliat such is the fact. How should it impair the spiritual- ity of the Church and corrupt religion ? Are parents less likely to be spiritual and devoted Christians, when all the love tliey bear to their children is added to every other motive to bind them to a holy life ? Having brought their chil- dren into covenant with God, and thus obtained for them the divine promise, will they not be the more zealous, on this account, to maintain a high standard of piety? since the fulfihiient of that promise depends very much on the influ- ence which the parent exerts in forming the habits of the child. Yes, when Cliristian pa- rents honor the Abrahamic covenant by dedica- ting their children to God in baptism, all tlieir parental affection, is enlisted, along with their o^'^n covenant vows, to make tliem ftiithful, in order that the conditions of the covenant niay be met, and the fulfilment of the promise be so- DIFFICULTIES EXPLAtXED. 189 cured to their cliildren. Tliis. certainly, does not tend to ini])nir, l)iit to increase, the spiritu- ality of believing ^'x^/'ey^^.s-. Again, are such cluldren^ when they come to maturity and assume the responsibilities of the covenant themselves, and enter into communion with a particular Church, any the less likely to prove Sj)iritual and devoted Christians for hav- ing enjoyed the privileges of the covenant, with the pious training Avhich it is adapted to secure ? Nay, such a training, securing the fulfilment of that gracious promise, "I will be thy God," must be adapted to make tlie most thoroughly principled, steadfast, and spiritual Christians in the Church. If, then, the practice of infant baptism tends neither to make the parents nor the cliildren less spiritual and devoted Chris- tians, but decidedly the reverse, how can it op- erate to ' impair the spirituality of the Church and corrupt religion?' Again, there are no facts to justify the asser- tion that this practice tends to religious corrup- tion. I am aware that the papal apostacy is often ascribed to this cause ; but without the shad- ow of proof to sustain it. It was State jMtron- age^ and not infant baptism,that chiefly corrupted 190 INFx^NT BAPTISM ; the Church of Eome. Where on earth is the Church of Christ to be found in a more spir- itual state than among the Waldenses, and in some of the Scottish communions ; especially the Free Church of Scotland ; where infant baptism, on the ground of the Abrahamic covenant, is held as a fundamental principle of Church or- der? How is it in our own country, where the Church Qxiioj^ protectio?!^ hut not ])atronage^ from the State? Are the denominations that practice infant baptism, as a general thing, less s])iritual and active and evangelical than those who do not? Do they less frequently enjoy the out-pourings of the Holy Spirit? Do they ex- hibit less zeal and energy in scattering the Scrip- tures over the world, and in disseminating the gospel in all the forms of Christian benevolence? Have they less the spirit of prayer, and of watchfulness against the inroads of sin? Are they less thorough in resisting vice and main- taining discipline in their Cliurches ? IN^o, there are no moi-e spiritual and evangelical denomi- nations of Christians in the whole Cliurch than are several of those which maintain the practice of dedicating their infant seed to God in the sacred ordinance of baptism. DIFFICULTIES EXPLALS' ED. 19 i Again, the fact that God has apijoiniecl the hajjtism of infants^ which I think lias been abundantly demonstrated in the preceding chap- ters, is conclusive evidence against its having any tendency to deteriorate the Chnrch. When he organized the Church in the family of Abra- ham, he opened its door for the reception of infants, and required them to receive the ordi- nance of initiation, for the express purpose of increasing her stability, and adding to the ele- ments of her spiritual prosperity. And so well pleased was he with its practical workings, that, after an experiment of almost two thousand years, when he came to change the external or- der of the Church, and abolish such ordinances as had ceased to be useful, he left the principle of infant membership untouched — merely chang- ing the initiating rite from circumcision to bap- tism. The experiment of two thousand years had not disappointed him in regard to the utility of extending the privileges of the 'covenant to the infant seed of believers. The measure had fully answered its design, and therefore was not abrogated, but confirmed, on the introduction of the Christian economy. Accordingly, baptism was conferred ou the children of believers, as 192 circiiincision had formerly been. And there Is certainly no excess of modesty in onr atiecting to discover dangerous tendencies where the wis- dom of God has detected none ; but on tlue con- trary, lias found important advantages. Let pious parents dedicate their children to God in the baptismal covenant, and earnestly endeavor to fultil their vows by training them up " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," and there need be no feai*s entertained of its practical ten- dency in respect to the purity and spirituality of the Church. So far from being a source of dan- ger, it is one of the most powerful defences against doctrinal corruption and practical apos- tacy. 7. But does there not^ after all, seem to he a manifest impropriety in administering so sacred an ordinance to an unconscious habe f In reply I would say, (1.) However the thing may seem to us, it does not become us to call in question a divinely appointed institution. AVhen we have once set- tled the point, that the infant seed of believers are, by divine authority, made appropriate sub- jects of baptism, the same as their parents, this should be the end of all scruple or doubt in regard DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 193 to it. We are not at liberty tcf arraign the pro- priety of what God appoints. Our duty is to believe and obey. (2.) But why should there "seem to be an impropriety " in administering haptism to "an unconscious babe," any more than in adminis- tering circumcision to such an one ? An infant is as incapable of appreciating the import and design of circumcision as of baptism. And yet God did not judge the incapacity of an infant to be any obstacle to his circumcision ; and neither is it to his baptism. The one ordinance is just as sacred as the other ; and infants are made subjects of the one by the same authority , as they were of the other. Baptism is indeed a most sacred ordinance, because it is given by Heaven's authority, and confers important privileges. But these privi- leges are as valuable to infants as to adults. Suppose you lived in a country governed by an absolute monarch, as Kussia or China ; and the sovereign graciously condescends to enter into a contract or covenant with you, in which he con- veys to you the title to a valuable estate, with distinguished honors, on eminently favorable terms. And as the ratifying seal and visible I 13 19i INFANT BAPTISM *, token of your interest in this covenant, he gives you a beautiful gem, so set as to be worn on your forehead. Wherever you go, and as long as you live, that gem upon your brow is the to- ken and seal of your title to the high privileges and possessions granted in the covenant promise of your sovereign. But in this arr^gement,the sovereign promises to you the same advantages in behalf of each of your children, and on the same fav(5rable terms as are granted to yourself. And to ratify the engagement, he also offers you a similar gem to be placed on each of their fore- heads, to be worn as a perpetual witness of their interest in this promise of their sovereign. Your placing that gem on the forehead of your child shall be understood as ratifying and seal- ing the contract or covenant between the sover- eign and yourself on behalf of the child. In this contract you engage that the child, when he conies to act for himself, shall fulfil certain conditions — the same as are required of your- self; and at the same time, you promise that you will^o all you can to secure his compliance with them. If he does comply with the condi- tions, he has a title to the fulfihnent of his sovereign's promise, of which that gem on his DIFFICULTIES KXPLAINFl). 195 forehead is a witness. If he does not, he then forfeits the high advantages procured for him through the agency of his parent. Now, woukl it not be a privilege to your child, even though an infant, to have you close the contract in his behalf, and seal it, by placing the precious gem on his forehead ? What pa- rent would hesitate in such a case, or question the propriety of the thing, merely because the child is incapable of understanding and acting for himself? What affectionate parent would demur, and delay, and excuse himself by say- ing, "I do not believe in infants wearing jew- elry ; " or " I cannot see it to be my duty to bind so precious a gem on the forehead of my uncon- scious babe " ? Would it not rather be enough, in his mind, that the sovereign offers it as a privilege ? and would he not thankfully improve the privilege, not only for himself, but also in behalf of all his little ones ? Or would any kind parent bind the badge to his own forehead, but refuse it to his child, on the ground that possibly the sovereign mi^ht confer the same favors on the child without his wearing the of- fered gem ? Who would refuse to secure for his child the pledge of the contract, in tlie uncer- 196 INFANT llAF'ilSM ; tain hope of liis iiltimatelj realizing an un- pledged possibility ? Surely, no one that loved his child. Well, Christian parent, that sovereign is God^ and that contract is the Ahrahcwiic covenant, and that precious gem is hajjtisrn. Bind it on your children as a seal of the covenant, attest- ing their interest in the sacred promise of Je- hovah — "I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed after thee ; " and thus ratify in their be- half, the most advantageous contract ever en- tered into by fallen man. No, there is not even a seeming impropriety in the application of this ordinance to infants, when its import and bearings are rightly under- stood. And I marvel that any intelligent Chris- tian can fail to see its proj^riety. I marvel that Christian parents can be blind to a divinely given privilege, so richly fraught with Heaven's peculiar blessings to the children whom they love. And how can pious parents, who are properly instructed on this subject, justify them- selves in neglecting so important ^dutyf — a duty which they oioe to their little ones by the gracious appointment of God ; while, by neg- lecting it, they expose those precious objects of DIFFICrLTIES EXPLAINED. 197 their affection to that fearful denouncement of God against such as receive not the covenant seal, ''That soul shall be cut off from his peo- ple ; he hath broken my covenant." I entreat Christian parents who have little chiklren unbaptized, to consider this subject anew. Let not former prejudices stand in your way. If, like some, you are surrounded with those who make light of " baby sprinkling," as they are pleased to term it, or who look with mistaken horror on what they suppose to be a profanation of a holy ordinance, fasten yourself on GofVs unrevoked covenant^ and let not your faith be driven from its moorings by any waves of prejudice, ridicule, or unbelief. If you are the father, God holds you responsible in this matter, and will by no means excuse you in despising his covenant in respect to your chil- dren. I counsel you to avail yourself of the earliest opportunity to consecrate your unbap- tized children to God, and ratify the covenant in their behalf by causing its seal to be placed upon them. Then do all you can to redeem the baptismal vow, by training them up in the way of God's commands. If you are the mother, similar duties and responsibilities rest upon you, 198 INFANT BAPTISM ; nless your power to obey is baffled by tlie su- perior authority of a husband. If it is thus baf- fled, that husband may expect a solemn reckon- ing at the last. But in that case, you can only pray, and persuade, and maintain the duty i7i pri?iciple, and humbly wait for God to open your way. Yet, let me charge you not to be de- ceived by any sophistry, however plausible it may appear ; and never give up your claim to the right of enjoying the full benefits of God's covenant, as well in behalf of your children as of yourself. Christian parents can never on earth adequately appreciate these covenant mer- cies. Eternity alone will wholly reveal their worth. But though we cannot here fully esti- mate their value, we can comprehend the fact that, if Jehovah be our God, and the God of our children, we have in this, both for us and them, the entire sum of all good. Let us then do our duty to our children — bring them into covenant with God along with ourselves ; cause them to wear the same sacred badge — the token of his promise ; and train them up to love and obey the Lord Jehovah as their God. And then, when we sit down with them in the palace of heaven, enjoying together DIFFICULTIES EXPLAINED. 199 the smile of the Saviour ; wlieu we walk with them the streets of the New Jerusalem, chant- ing the praises of redeeming grace ; when we kneel among those children at the foot of the eternal Throne, and cast our crowns before the Majesty of Heaven, crying '' Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God Almighty, which liveth forever and ever ; " and there learn how much our mu- tual joys ara ins to that precious covenant of God ; then, if not before, we shall rightly un- derstand and gratefully acknowledge the un- speakable PEIVILEGE OF INFANT BAPTISM. THB END. Date Due r , .. nPa% '- i~m&...^. 1 ^1