CHRISTIAN BAPTISM A SERMON, PREACHED IN THE LAL BAZAR CHAPEL, CALCUTTA, ON LORD’s-DAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1812, PREVIOUS TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCE or BAPTISM. With many Quotations from Poedobaptist Authors. BY ADONIRAM JUDSON, A. M. boston: re-printed and published by LINCOLN & EDMANDS, No. 53 Cornhill. 1817. The Author of the following discourse was, by education and profession, a Pcedobaptist. During his passage from America to India, in the spring of 1812 , he began to doubt the truth of his former sentiments. After his arrival in this country, and before he communicated the exercises of his mind to any of the Baptist denomination, he became convinced, that the immersion of a pro- fessing believer, into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is the only Christian baptism. This discourse exhibits the reasons of his present belief. It is committed to the press, in compliance with the request of some who heard it, and through the desire of furnishing his distant friends in America, with a more full and satisfactory statement of the reasons of his change, than could be made in private communications. N. B. For many of the testimonies, inserted in this discourse, the Author acknowledges himself indebted to Mr. Booth's Pcedobaptism Examiued. Calcutta, Nov. 1812 . SERMON. Matthew xxviii, 19. Baptizing than in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. WHEN our Lord commissioned his disciples to pro- selyte all nations, he instituted the sacred ordinance of baptism. The words of the institution suggest two inquiries ; JFhat is baptism ? and, To whom is baptism to be admin- istered? I. JFhat is baptism ? Had tlie Greek word nhich denotes the principal action in this ordinance, been translated, in the English version of the New Testament, there would pro- bably have been, among English readers, no dispute concerning its import. Had either of the English words, wash, or sprinkle, or immerse, been substituted for the Greek word, an English reader would instantly con- ceive an appropriate meaning. But, unhappily, our translators have retained the original word, and con- tented themselves with merely changing its termination. By this means, an English reader is deprived of his usual guide. There are no otha' applications of the v/ord, in his own language, from which he can learn its import. The only expedient, therefore, of which he can avail himself, is to ascertain the import of the original tvord : and to tills end, the following considerations may conduce. I. The primitive word fi-om which the word denothig baptism, is derived, signifies immersion. This is as much the appropriate meaning of the Greek word, as of the English word, dip or immerse.^ This * Dr. Worcester. “ Had it been the intention of the Saviour, to confine his followers to dipping or immersion, the proper word to ex- press this ordinance, would have been, not /Sx^rli(ef, but Letters to Dr. Baldwin, Let. xxii. p. 125. 4 word is used, in the New Testament, when the rich man entreats, that Lazarus may be sent to dip the tip of his finger in water when Christ says, “ He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it ;”t and when, in the Revelation, Christ is represented, as clothed with a vesture dipped in blood4 The inspired penmen have used no other word, beside this and its derivatives, to convey the idea of immersion ; nor have they ever used this ^vord, in any other sense. The word denoting baptism, is derived from the ver- bal of this primitive word, by a change in the termina- tion, which, according to an established principle of the Greek language, never affects the primary idea ; but ^vhen made on words, expressing a quality or attribute, merely conveys the additional idea of causing or making. Thus the Greek word, which signifies pure, with this change of termination, signifies to make pure. The Greek word, which signifies sprinkled, w'ith this change of termination, signifies to make sprinkled, or to sprinkle. And the Greek \vord, which signifies immersed, witli this change of termination, signifies to make immersed, or to immerse.^ * Luke xvi. 24. f John xiii. 26. J Rev. xix. 13. II The termination in Greek derivatives, is precisely of the same import, as the termination fj, in English deri%’atives, from the Latin fio* to make ; as, sanctify, to make holy, from sanctus, holy ; mollify, to soften, from mollis, soft, See. On the same principle, in Greek ; to purify, from «y*o«, pure ; to make and are not to be interpreted of aspersion, but always of im- mersion.”^ Alstedius. “ to baptize, signifies only to immerse, not to wash, except by consequence.”! J. J. Wetstenius. “To baptize is to plunge, to dip. The body, or part of the body, being under water, is said to be baptized.”f J. Altingius. “ For baptism is immersion, when the whole body is immcrged ; but the term baptism is nev- er used concerning aspersion. ”|| Beza. “ Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word, it is certain, immersion is signified. — Nor does fix-xUt^uD signify to wash, except by consequence ; for it properly signifies to immerse for the sake of dye- ing. — To be bajitized in water, signifies wo other, tlian * Tbeolog. Dogmat. L. v. C. i. § 5. f Lexicon Tbeolog. C. xii. p. 221. ! Comment, ad M.Wt. Hi. fi. || Comment, ad Hcb- ix. 10. 7 % to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremo- ny of biqjtism.”* * * § Luther. “ The term baptism is a Greek word. It may be rendered immersion, as when we plunge some- thing in water, that it may be entirely covered w ith wa- ter. And though that custom is now abolished among the generality (for even children are not entirely im- mersed, but only liave a little water poured on them ;) nevertheless, tliey ought to be completely immersed, and immediately drawn out. For tJie etymology of the ivord evidently requires tV.”f Casaubon. “This was the rite of baptizing, that persons were plunged into the water ; which the very word to baptize^ sufficiently declares'' \ Cattenburgh. “In baptism the whole body is or- dered to be immersed.”i| Keckerm ANNUS. “We cannot deny, that the first institution of baptism, consisted in immersion, and not \ sprinkling. Salmasius.it “Thus Novatus, when sick, receiv- ed baptism, being besprinkled^ not /3x7r\i(rSui, bap- tized. Euseb. vi. Hist. C. xliii.”** Dr. Campbell. “The word both in sa- cred authors, and in classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse ; and w'as rendered by TertuUian, the oldest of the Latin fatliers, tingere, tlie term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always constru- ed suitably to this meaning. Thus it is g» itfixtn. But I should not lay much stress on the pre- position n, which, answering to the Hebrew a, may * Epiit. ii. ad Thom. T'llium. Annot. in Marc. vii. 4, and Act. xix. 3. f Opera, Tom. i. p. 72. Wit. 1582. J Annot.inMsSX. iii. 6. || Spicileg. Theolog. L. iv. C. Ixiv. Sect. ii. § 22. § System. Theolog. L. iii. C. viii. p. 369. 5T For the character of Salmasius, “ a man of very extraordinary abil- ities, and profound erudition," see the Panoplist for Sept. 1808, Art. Sal- masius. Vol. i. New Series, p 148. ** Apud Witsii. (Ecoq. Feed. L. iv. C. xvi. $ 13. denote v)ith^ as well as did not the whole phraseol- ogy, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. — Had been here employed in the sense of 1 sprinkle ('which, as far as I know, it never is, in any use, sacred or classical,) the expression would doubtless have been,” &c.* — “ When, therefore, the Greek w’ord is adopted, I may say, rather tlian translated into modern languages, the mode of con- struction ought to be preserved, so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted, that we have so much evidence, that even good and leari icd men allo^v their judgments to be warped, by the sentiments and customs of the sect which they prefer. The true partizan, of whatever denomination, alw'ays in- clines to correct the diction of the Spirit, by that of the party. ”t 3. There are no instances, in the New Testament, which require us to depart from the etymological and es- tablished interpretation of the w'ord. We must believe, that the writers of the New Testa- ment, used words, according to tlieir usual acceptation, in the Greek language, unless tlie connexion requires some other interpretation. If w'e suppose, tliat they used words in a manner different from common, estab- lished use, w'ithout giving sufficient intimation, cither expressly, or by the obvious scope of tlie passage, we must give up our only guide to the meaning of any word, or charge them with a design of misleading. They eertainly knew that their readers ^vould natural- ly and necessarily interpret every word in tlie usual way, imless taught differently by tlie connexion. * The two verbs, rendered miash, in the English translation, are differ- ent in the original. The first is ri-^vrJcn, properly translated twasb; the second is nuhich limits us to a particular mode of wash- ing ; for denotes to plunge, to dip — says that excellent critic (Wetstein) “ cst manus aquoc immergerc, nyelurixi iranibus affundcre.” Note on Mark vii. 3, 4. f Four Gospels, Note on Matt. iii. 11. 9 Let us examine those instances, in which it has l^ecn supposed, that the connexion renders tlni idea of im- mersion inadmissible. It is said, that we cannot suppose, that tlie washings (according to the Greek baptisms) of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables, or those ablutions which the Jews practised before eating, were all done l)y immer- sion.* With regard to the former, it must be remembered, that the Jews were commanded, in their law, to cleanse unclean vessels by immersing them : “ whether it be any vessel of wood, or nuinent, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel it be, wherein any work is done, it must be put into waterJ*^\ What is more probable, than that they abused the first institution of this ceremony, by super- stitiously immersing a variety of articles, not included in the divine command ? That the Jews, on returning from market, immersed tliemselves before eating, may appear improbable to an inhabitant of the north of Europe or America ; but not to you, my brethren, who are acquainted with the cus- toms of these eastern countries, and witness the fre- quent ceremonial immersion of the natives. But that these baptisms were really immersions, and, therefore, that the use of the word, in these instances, instead of weakening, must confirm the belief, that it always means immersion, appears from the testimonies of the learned Scaliger, and an eminent Jewish Rabbi. Sc ALICE R. “The more superstitious part of them” (the Jews,) “ every day, before they sat down to meat, dipped the whole body. Hence the Pharisees’ admira- tion at Christ, Luke xi. 38.”f; Maimonides. “ Wherever in the law, washing of the flesh, or of the clothes, is mentioned, it means nothing else, than the dipping of the whole body in a la- ♦ Mark vii. 3, 4. f Lev. xi. 32. $ De Emend. Tempi. L. vi. p. 771. B 10 ver ; for if any man dips himself all over, except the tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness.”* “ A bed that is wholly defiled, if a man dips it part by part, it is pure.”t It is said, that the three thousand, converted on the day of pcntecost, could not have been baptized by im- mersion the same day. Nor is it recorded, that they were baptized the same day, but that they were added to the disciples. 1: On the supposition, however, that they were all baptized the same day, was it impossible for the twelve, assisted by the seventy, and perhaps others, to administer the or- dinance by immersion In the preceding chapter, we are informed, that the number of disciples together, was one hundred and twenty. Another objection is thus stated : “ At dead of night, in the city of Philippi, the jailer and all his, w'ere bap- tized by Paul and Silas. II Is it to be believed, that, in a city guarded by Roman centinels, the prisoners, Paul and Silas, when their jailer had received a strict charge, at his peril, to keep them safely, would, nevertheless, take him and his family abroad, in the night, just after the whole city had been roused by an earthquake, and go to a pond, or a river, to baptize them by immersion ?”1T This case can present no difficulty to the minds of any of you, my brethren, who may have been within the yard of the prison in this city, or are acquainted with the fact, that prison-yards, in the east, as well as the yards and gardens of private houses, are usually fur- nished with tanks of water. * Hilchot. Mikvaol, C. i. Sect. ii. t Hilchot. Celtm. C. xxvi. Sect. xiv. See also, to the same purpose, Ikenius, Antiq. Hehraicx, Pars i. C. xviii. $ 9; and Mr. Stackhouse, Hist, of the Bible, B. viii. C. i. p. 1234. J Acts ii. 41. J Sec Venemce, Hist. Eccles. Sccul. i. § 138 ; and Buodcei Theolog. Dogmat. L. v. C. i. § 5. II Acts xvi. 23 — 34. ^ Dr. Worcester’s Lett, t* Dr. BalJivin, Let. xxii. p. 127. 11 It is sjud again, with reference to the rites of cleansing, under the Jewish dispensation, thar, “ by the apostle to the Hebrews,* these various purifications, or sprink- lings, are expressly called diverse bap- tisnisy\ This might be urged with some plausibility, had no immersions been prescribed in the Jewish ritual. Bu^ since these were numerous, as will appear, on examin- ing the Lcvitical law,l: the application of the word, by tlie apostle Paul, affords no reason for ascribing to it any other, beside its usual import.^ Another instance supposed to be objectionable, may be thus stated. Christ promised to baptize his disci- ples with the Holy Spirit ;|| and on the day of pentecost, fulfilled his promise by pouring out the Spirit upon them.** Here, it is said, the pouring out of the Spirit is compatible, with the supposition, that sprinkling or pouring is baptism, but not witli the supposition, that immersion only is baptism. It must be remembered, that the literal meaning of a word is not to be ascertained from a figurative appli- cation. If the pouring out of the Spirit proves that sprinkling or pouring is baptism, their being filled with tlie Spirit proves that filling is baptism. The pouring out of the Spirit upon them is, howet^er, perfectly consistent with the promise of Christ, that he would immerse them in the Spirit. This was the means by which he performed his promise. He poured out the Spirit upon them to such a degree, that they were immersed, according to his promise, and even filled with the Spirit. This is confirmed by the symbol of the rush- * Heb ix. 10. f Dr. WoRC ester’s Letters to Dr. Bald xxxix. Articles, p. 374. § In Joan. iii. 23. Comment, in Act viii. 38. 17 and when applied to the Christian institution, so called, it was used by the primitive Christians, in no other sense, than that of dipping, as the learned Grotius and Casau- bon well observe.”* Dr. Wall.! “We should not know by these ac- counts” (John iii. 23 ; Mark i. 5 ; Acts viii. 38,) “ wheth- er the \vhole body of the baptized was put under water, head and all, were it not for two later proofs, which seem to me to put it out of question. One, that St. Paul does twice, in an allusive way of speaking, call baptism a burial, which allusion is not so proper, if we conceive them to have gone into the water, only up to the arm- pits, &c. as it is, if their uhole body was immersed. The other, the custom of the near succeeding times. — As for sprinkling, I say, as Mr. Blake, at its first coming up in England, “ Let them defend it, that use it."X Mr. Bingham. “There are a great many passages, in the epistles of St. Paul, which plainly refer to this custom” (immersion.) “ As this was the original apostolic- al practice ; so it continued to be the universal practice of the church, for many ages, upon the same symboliciJ reasons, as it was first used by the apostles. — It ap- pears from Epiphanius and others, that almost all her- etics, who retained any baptism, retained immersion also. — The only heretics, against whom this charge” (of not baptizing by a total immersion) “ is brought, were the Eunomians, a branch of the Arians.” § Dr. Towerson. “ But, therefore, as there is so much the more reason, to represent the rite of immersion, as the only legitimate rite of baptism, because the only one, * Dictionary, Dr. Scott’s Edit. 1772. •f In a general convocation of the English clergy, Feb. 9, 1706, it was ordered, “ that the thanks of this h use be given to Mr. Wall, vicar of Shoreham in Kent, for the learned and excellent book he hath lately written, concerning infant baptism.” In Dr. Baldwin’s Bap, of Believers only. Part. ii. Sect, iv, p. 91. X Def. of Hist, of Inf. Bap. p. 131, 140. § Origines Eccles. B. xi. C. xi. c 18 that can answer the ends of its institution, and those things which were to be signified by it ; so especially, if f as is well know7i, and undoubtedly of great force) the general practice of the primitive church was agreeable thereto, and the practice of the Greek church, to this very day. For who can think, either the one, or the other, would have been so tenacious of so troublesome a rite, were it not, that they were well assured, as they of the primiti\ e church might very well be, of its being the only instituted and legitimate one V’* Venema. “It is without controversy, that baptism in the primitive church, was administered by immer- sion into water, and not by sprinkling. — The essential act of baptizing, in the second century, consisted, not in sprinkling, but in immersion into w'ater, in the name of each person in the Trinity. Concerning immer- sion, the words and phrases that are used, sufficiently testify ; and that it was performed in a river, a pool, gc a fountain. — To the essential rites of baptism, in the third centiiiy", pertained immersion, and not aspersion, except in cases of necessity, and it ivas accounted a half- perfect baptism. — Immersion, in the fourth centurj', was one of those acts, that w’ere considered as essential to baptism ; — nevertheless, aspersion w’as used in the last moments of life, on such as were called clinics, — and also, where there was not a sufficient quantity of water.”! Salmasius. “The ancients did not baptize, odicr- ise than by immersion, either once or thrice ; except clinics, or persons confined to their Ix^ds, who were baptized in a manner of which they were capable ; not in the entire laver, as those who plunge the head under water ; but the whole body had water poured upon it. (Cypr. iv. Epist. vii.) Thus Novatus, when sick, re- ceived baptism, being besprinkled^ not fixxlKrtuf^ baptized. Euseb. vi. Hist. C. xliii.”t * Of the Sacram. of Bap. Part. iii. p. 58. f Hist. Ecclcs. Secul. i. § 138 ; Secul. ii. § 100 ; Secul. iii, § 51 ; Scctil. iv. 1 JO. X Apiid VVitsii CEcon. Feed. L. iv. C. xvi. § 13. 19 Bp. Taylor. “ I'lic custom of the ancient churches u’as not sprinkling, but immersion ; in pursuance of the sense of the word (baptize) in the commandment, and the example of our blessed Saviour. Now this was of so sacred account in their esteem, that they did not account it lawful to receive him into the clcrgj% who had been only sprinkled in his baptism, as we learn from the epistle of Cornelius to Fabius of Antioch, apud Euseb. L. vi. C. xliii. — It was a formal and solemn question, made by Magnus to Cyprian, whether they are to be esteemed right Christians, who were only sprinkled with water, and not washed or dipped.”* Cypria n. f In reply to the question of Magnus) “ In the saving sacraments, when necessity obliges, and God grants his indulgence, abridgments of divine things will confer the whole on believers.”! Dr. Wall. “ Anno Dom. 251, Novatian was, by one party of the ckrgy and people of Rome, chosen bishop of that church, in a schismatical way, and in opposition to Cornelius, ^vho had been before chosen by the ma- jor part, and was already ordained. Cornelius does, in a letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, vindicate his right, and shews that Novatian came not canonical!}" to his orders of priesthood, much less was he capable of being chosen bishop ; for that all the clergy, and a great many of the laity were against his being ordained presbyter, because it was not lanful, they said, for any one that had been baptized in his bed, in time of sick- ness (■'■ 01 ' !'««■»>' 7rip4KveiHec), as he had been, to be admitted to any office of the clergy.”! Cornelius. “He” (Novatian) “fell into a griev- ous distemper, and it being supposed, that he would die immediately, he received baptism, being sprinkled * Ductor Dubitaniium, B. iii C. iv. Rule 15. ! “ In sacraraentis salutaribus, necessitate cogente, et Deo indulgeniiam suam larwiente, totuno credentihus conferunt diving compendia.” Epistola ad Magnum. Edit. Paris, l643. X Hist, ofjnf. Bap, Part ii. C. ix. p. 463, 20 with water on the bed whereon he Iaj% if that can be termed baptism.'"* Vale SI us. “People which were sick, and baptized in their beds, could not be dipped in water, by the priest, but were sprinkled with water by him. This baptism rc^as thought imperfect., and not solemn for several reasons. Also, they, who were thus baptized, were called, ever afterwards, clinici ; and by ^he twelfth canon of the coun- cil of Neocoesarea, these clinici were prohibited priest- hood." Venema. “Beveridge, on the fiftieth apostolical canon, asserts, that the ceremony of sprinkling began to be used instead of immersion, about the time of Pope Gregory, in the sixth century ; but without pro- ducing any testimony in favour of his assertion ; and it is undoubtedly a mistake. Martene declares, in his Antiq. Eccles. Bit. L. i. p. i. C. i. that, in all the ritual books, or pontifical manuscripts, ancient or modem, that he had seen, immersion is required ; except by the Cenomanensian, and that of a more modern date, in which pouring on the head is mentioned. In the coun- cil of Ravenna, also, held in the year thirteen hun- ck'ed and eleven, both immersion and pouring are left to tiie determination of the administrator ; and the coun- cil jof Nismes, in the year one thousand two hundred and eighty-four, permitted pouring, if a vessel could not be had ; tliereforc, only in case of necessity.’’^ Dr. Whitby. “It being so expressly declared here” (Rom. vi. 4.) “and Col. ii. 12, that wt iwt buried with Christ in baptism, by being buried under water, and the argument to oblige us to a conformity to his death, by dying to sin, being taken hence ; and this immersion be- inj^ religiously observed by all Christians, for thirteen cen- turies, and approved by our church ; and the change of it into sprinkling, even without any allowance from the * Epist. ad Fahium, apu J Enscl). Hist. Eccles. L. vi. C. xliii. + .Vo/. 403. ! According to the Greek, 23 become disciples.* This is confirmed by the terms of the commission, as recorded by Mark : “ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized^ shall be saved.”t Notwithstanding the obvious import of tlie law of baptism, the greater part of the Christian world baptize the children of believers, on the faith of their parents, or the profession of their sponsors, and refuse baptism to believers, if they have been baptized in infancy. Does their practice appear consistent with the command of Christ ? Christ commands those who believe, to be bap- tized. Poedobaptists adopt a system, which tends to preclude the baptism of believers. They baptize the involuntary infant, and deprive him of the privilege of ever professing his faith in the appointed way. If this system were universally adopted, it would banish be- lievers’ baptism out of the world. But leaving the evident discordance, betw-een the system of the Pcedo- baptists, and the command of Christ, let us inquire, whether infant baptism has any just support, either di- rect or inferential. When any practiee is proposed and enforced as bind- ing duty, we have a right to examine the grounds of the alleged obligation. It is not sufficient for the proposer to show, that the practice is innocent, or even compatible with every other duty : it is necessary, that * Dr. Campbell. “ Go, therefore, convert all the nations, bap- tizing them," ^c. “ There are manifestly three things, which ou Lord here distinctly enjoins his ai>nsfles to ex»"rnte, with re- gard to the nations; to wit /uxtnkvuy, ^tSxirxeiy, that is, to convert them to the faith, to iini laie me touveris imo the church by baptism, and to instruct the baptized in all the duties of the Christian life.” four Gospels, and Note on the place. Mr. Baxter. Go, disciple me all nations, baptizing them. As for those that say, they are discipled by baptizing, and not before baptizing, they speak not the sense of that text. — When Christ layeth down, in the apostolical commission, the nature and order of his apostles’ work, it is first to make disciples, and then to baptize them into the name of the Father,” &c. Disputat. of Right to Sacram. p. 91> t Mark xvi. 15, l6. 24 ]ic prove it binding. If one should enforce the ancient custom of wearing white garments, for several days after baptism, as the duty of e\^ery Christian, it would not be necessary for us to urge one argument against it ; nor would it be sufficient for him to prove it inno- cent, or even compatible with every other duty. We might reasonably refuse compliance, until he should prove, that we are bound to comply. So, in the case of infant baptism, it is not necessary for us to urge one argument against it ; nor is it sufficient for the pro- poser to prove, that every objection is groundless. The thing requisite is clear evidence, that it is a bind- ing duty. The question with every parent ought to be, Am I under obligation to have my children baptized ? Now, on what grounds is this obligation predicated ? We should naturally expect that the baptism of in- fants, if enjoined at all, would have been enjoined in the law, which instituted the ordinance of Christian baptism. But this law is silent on the subject of in- fants. Has not Christ, however, left some other com- mand, enjoining infant baptism ? Not one. Have not the apostles, who were entrusted witli farther com- munications of the will of Christ, left some command on this subject? Not one. Have they not left us some example of infant baptism ? Not one. Have they not spoken of baptized infants, and thus given undeniable intimation of this practice ? No, in no instance. On the contrary, whenever they have spoken of baptism, or of those to whom it was administered, their language imi)lies, that baptism was a voluntary act of worship, and the baptized, professing believers. “ As many of you,” said Paul to the Galatians, “ as have Ixen bap- tized into Christ, have put on Christ.^' Gal. iii. 27. But docs not the baptism of the households of Lydia, the jailer and Stephanas, afford some evidence in favour ol‘ this practice ? As the term, househokh does not necessarily imply infants, these instances, though admitted without exam- 25 ination, cannot be considered, as furnishing any certain precedent, in favour of the baptism of infants. Do they afford any presumptive evidence? It appears, that Lydia was a woman of Thyatira, re- siding in Philippi, for tlie purpose of trade.* It d(X?s not appear, that she had a husband or children. It is more probable, that her household was composed of as- sistants in her business, who, following her example, believed and were baptized. For we are informed, that when Paul and Silas left the city, they entered into the house of Lydia, and saw and comforted the brethren.^ In the Case of the jailer, f Paul and Silas “ spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were m his Iwuse'"’ And he “ rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house. Concerning the household of Stephanas, Paul writes, at the close of the epistle,^ “ that it is the first-fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.^'^ Thus, in each of these instances, especially in the two latter, some circumstances appear, which lead us to conclude, that the members of tliese households were professing believers. It may, therefore, be repeated, that there is no precept nor precedent in scripture^ for in- fant baptism. * Acts xvi. 14, 15. t Acts xvi. 40. if ^3 — 34. 11 Dr. Macknight. “ Having believed in God with all his house ; who, it seems, were equally impressed uitli Paul's sermon, as the jailer himself was.” Life of the jlpostle Pauly Chap. v. Calvin. — “ in which also the grace of God illustriously appear- ed, because it suddenly brought the whole family to a pious con- sent.” Comment, in loc. § 1 Cor. xvi. 15. HDr .Macknight. “ The family of Stephanas seem all to have been adults, when they were baptized. For they are said, chap, xvi. 15, to have devoted themselves to the ministry to the saints.^’ Translation of the Apost. Epist. Note 1st. on I Cor i. lb. Dr. Guyse. “ It therefore seems — that the family of Stepha- nas were all adult believers, and so were baf)tized upon their own personal profession of faith in Christ.” ISote, on 1 Cor. i. l6. D 26 Let us next examine the inferential evidence, ad- duced in favour of this practice. Children^ it is said, have been connected with their par- ents, in covenant with God, and in consequence of this con- nexion, have received, by divine appointment, the initiating seal ; their covenant connexion has never been dissolved, nor their right to the iniatiating seal disanmdled.* It does not follow, that children are connected with their parents in every covenant, because they were con- nected with their parents in one covenant. The \vhole strength of the argument, now presented, rests in the supposition, that the covenant of grace, in ^^■hich Chris- tians now stand, is the same with the covenant of cir- cumcision, in which children were connected with their parents. The latter covenant is recorded in the seven- teenth chapter of Genesis. “ And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, 1 am the Almighty God ; tvalk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. And Abram fell on his face ; and God talked with him, saying. As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be called Abraham ; for a father of many nations have I made thee. And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I ^v ill give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land n hcrcin thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession ; and I will be their God. And God said unto Abraham, Tliou shalt keep my covenant, therefore, thou, and thy seed after tlicc, in their generations. * See Dr. Worcester’s Letters to Dr. Baldwin, Let. xxi. p. 3. 27 riiis 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 circum- cise 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, n hich is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circum- cised ; and my covenant shall be in your flesh, for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumciscd man child, whose flesh of his foreskin, is not circumcised, that sotil sliall be cut off from liis people ; he hath broken my covenant.” The covenant proceeds, tvith regard to Sarah and Ishmael, and closes in the twenty-second verse. I now ask the Christian parent. Is this the covenant, which God has made with you ? Has God covenanted to gi^^e you t/iese blessings ? Though he may have covenant- ed to give you some of these blessings, together with many others, the question must be repeated, Is this the very covenant xvhich God has made with you ? If, on examining the several parts of the covenant, you feel authorized to answer in the affirmative, I reply, You are under sacred obligations to perform your part. You are under sacred obligation to circumcise, or (if you are satisfied, that baptism is substituted) to baptize “ every man child” “ that is eight days old him “tliat is born in tlie house, or bought with money of any stran- ger, which is not of thy seed.” It is in direct disobe- dience of the command of God, to baptize before the eighth day, or to defer baptism beyond the eighth day. It is an entire departure from the command of God, to baptize a female child, or to withhold baptism from one “ that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.” God has, in no part of his word, released you from your obligation to bap- tize on the eighth day. Nor has he required you to bap- tize a female child. “ Who hath required this at your 28 hand?” Nor has he released you from your obligation to baptize the servant, born in the house, or bought with money.* But I ask again. Do you really believe, that God has promised to you the very blesshigs, which he promised to Abraham and his seed ? Do you really believe, that God has promised to give you the land of Canaan, even that land, in winch your father Abraham was a stranger ? If not, whatever blessings God has promised to you, whatever covenant he has made with you, it is not the covenant, which he made with Abraham, and in wliich children were connected with parents. * Gal. iii. 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. This passage has been produced botlias a decla- ration of the right of female infants to baptism, and as a repeal of the right of servants. It is important, in construing scripture, to adopt the verj' mean- ing, which the inspired writer obviously intended to convey ; and not to suffer the mind to lay hold on some distant meaning, which is contrary to the whole scope of the context, and probably, would never have occurred, had not an hypothesis needed its support. If the latter licentious tnode of interpretation be tolerated, any doc- trine, however trifling or contradictory, any practice, however pu- erile or pernicious, may be proved to be scriptural. In the passage before us, let us ascertain, what characters are described, and in w hat respect, they are one in Christ Jesus. A’er . 26. For ye are all the children oj God, by faith in Christ Je- sus. 27. For as many of you, as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. 28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. Is it not too evident to require any remark, that the apostle is speaking of believers only, such ns are the children of God by faith in Clirist, and have put on Christ by being baptized } 2 The Galatians, through the influence of Judaizing teachers, bad imbibed the error, that in order to be justified, it was necessa- ry to bo circumcised, and to keep the Mosaic law. The chief object of the apostle, in this epistle, and particularly in this chap- ter, is to show, that w e must be justified by faith alone ; that it is not necessary to become a Jew, in order to be Justified ; for in Christ Jesus, no distinction of nation, outward condition, or sex, is of any avail. In Christ Jesus, there is neither Jew. nor Greek, boml nor fr<’e, male nor female. Ij' ye have faith in Christ, what- ever he your descent or condition, ye are all on an equality, in point of acceptance with God. 29 That the promise of the land of Canaan, was, at least, one principal promise, in the covenant of circum- cision, appears from the numerous passages, in which it is distiuguislicd and presented, as the substanee of the eovenant. God said to Moses, “ I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaae, and unto Jaeob — and I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan^ the land of their pilgrimage, -wherein they ivere strangers.'”* David exhorted Israel ; “ O ye seed of Israel his ser- vant, ye ehildren of Jacob, his chosen ones. — Be ye mindful always of his covenant ; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations ; even of the covenant, which he made w ith Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac ; and hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saj'ing. Unto thee will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance. The same sentiment prevailed in the time of Nehemiah ; for on a day of fasting, the whole congregation of Israel addressed God in praj^er ; “ Tliou art the Lord the God, who didst choose Abram — and madest a covenant w'ith him, to give the land of the Ca- naanites — to his seed.”\ 'rhe covenant of grace does not contain this promise. When we contemplate two covenants, and see that one principal article, contained in the one, is not contained in the other, by what singular process, can the mind be brought to the conclusion, that these two covenants, so palpably different and distinct, are one and the same ? But it is urged, that “ the covenant made with Abra- ham, is expressly declared to be an everlasting, or per- petual covenant ; a covenant to continue to the latest generations. And tvas not the land of Canaan given to Abraham and his seed, for an everlasting possession?” Even when the covenant is represented as “ the word, which * Exod. vi. 3, 4. t 1 Cliron. xvi. 13 — 18. J Neh. ix. -7> 8. § Dr. Worcester’s Tvdo Discourses, Disc. 1. p. 27« 30 God commanded to a thousand generatioJts,'' the promise of the land of Canaan is brought forward, as the chief thing, yea, as the t^ery sum and substance of this ever- lasting covenant. So also the i^riesthood was confirmed to Phinehas and his seedy in an everlasting covenant.* So also the feast of expiation, on die tenth day of the seventh month, ivas established by a statute, which was declar- ed to be an everlasting statute, f It is urged, that the coi cnant “ comprised all the blessings and privileges ever promised to believers and the church.” \Vhcther this be true or not, since it comprised one blessing, ivhich is not comprised in the covenant of grace, it cannot be the same covenant. But is it true ? The two principal promises made to die seed of Abra- ham, are, that God would give them the land of Canaan, and that he woidd be their God. What is the import of the latter promise ? Is there any absurdity in saying, diat God w'as the God, not onl3' of the few pious descendants of Abraham, but of the nation of Israel at large? Was he not the God of the Jews, in a sense, in which he was not the God of the Gentiles? Did he not select the posterity of Abraham, in the line of Isaac and Jacob, and distin- guish them above all other nations? Did he not pro- tect them from their enemies, and grant them a rich abundance of temporal blessings ? Did he not give them his law, and establish among them his worship, and the oi'dinances of his house ? Did he not, by these spirit- ual advtmtages, furnish them nith opportunities, which no other nation enjoyed, of obtaining him, as their spiritual portion ? Is there any absurdity in saying, that, in these respects, he was the God of the nation at large? If not, is there any absurdity in supposing, that his promise imported, that he would be their God, in these respects ? * Num. XXV. 13. t Lev. xvi. 34. 31 God is represented, in the scriptures, as the God of his people, in dift'erent senses. AMien, in the new covenant, he promises to put his laws in their mind, luid to write them in their hciirts, and to be to them a God,* the promised renewal of heart shows, that the latter promise imports that he w’ill be the spiritual portion of his people. \\'hen in the Revelation, it is promised, that God will be with men, and be their God,t the connexion shows, that the promise imports, that he will be their eternal portion. When, in the cotenant of circumcision, he promised to be the God of the seed of Abraham, the connexion of this promise with other promises, and the manner of fulfilment, show, that the promise imported, that he would multi- ply and protect them ; that he w'ould grant them an abundance of temporal blessings ; and that he would distinguish them above all other nations, by spiritual advantages. The seed, to W'hich the land of Canaan w’as promis- ed, w-as, most evidently, the lineal descendants of Abra- ham. To the same seed, the Lord promised to be a God. Mark the terms of the promises : “ I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land w'herein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an ever- lasting possession ; and I will be their God.” But he was not their God, in a spiritual sense. It appears from their history, tliat, in every age, a remnant onlj* were truly pious. Those who maintain, that he promised to be the spiritual portion of the seed of Abraham, ai'e obliged to explain the promise to mean, that God w'ould be the God of some of the seed of Abraham. Is this a fair explanation ? Is it not using undue freedom w ith the word of God ? Is it not indeed a frittering away of the plain import of scripture? Suppose that a king should promise peculiar privi- leges, to a faithful subject and his posterity ; not all or * Heb. viii. 10, t Rev. xxi. 3. 32 some, but simply his posterity. Would not the sub- ject be authorized to expect, that all his posterity Avould enjoy these privileges? Suppose that it should appear, that the king actually conferred certain pecu- liar privileges, on all the posterity, excepting those who refused his kindness. Suppose, farther, that it should appear, that the king had selected, from among his subjects, a number, in which were some of the pos- terity of the faithful subject, and raised them to nobility. Would there be any doubt, concerning the import of the king’s promise to his faithful subjeet ? Could it be urged, with any appearance of probability, that, when he promised peculiar privileges, to the posterity of this subject, he did not intend those which he actu- ally conferred on them, but that nobility, which he con- ferred on a very few of them ? God covenanted to give the land of Canaan and his favour, to the posterity of Abraham, in the line of Isaac. That his posterity were not to come into imme- diate possession of the land, had been previously stipu- lated.* God faithfully performed his promises. He conferred the blessings promised, on the posterity of Abraham, in the line of Isaac, excepting those only, who rejected his kindness. A refusal to accept a promised favour, always releases the promiscr from his obliga- tion. Esau and his posterity, as well as many of the posterit}’’ of Jacob, refused to accept the Lord as their God ; not merely refused to accept him, as their spirit- ual portion, but refused to accept him, as their God in the sense promised. They acknowledged and wor- shipped other gods. 'I'he Israelites frequently forsook God ; and he as frequently forsook them. But when they repented and returned to him, he remembered his covenant, and delivered them from their distresses. At length, they rejected him, in the most decided manner, by rejecting his Son. They would not have him to reign over them. Since that lime, God has forsaken * Gen. XV. 13 — iC. 33 tliem. But when they shall repent and return, Gotl will again remember his covenant. The manner, how- ever, in u hich he will restore his favour, though intimat- ed in the prophecies, can be learned from the event only. What is the ground taken by the advocates of the covenant of circumcision ? Do they say, that God prom- isal to be the God of Abraham’s seed, in a spiritual sense, if they accepted the promise ? “ This would be a complete abandonment of their argument. For it would place such, as claim interest in the co^•enant of circum- cision, exactly upon a level with all others. God has engaged to save all who reverence, ^^’orship and obey him, though Abraham be ignorant of them, and Israel acknowledge them not.” Do they say, that the promise imported, “ that, on condition of faith and fidelity on Abraham’’ s part, in re- spect to his children, they sliould become subjects of grace, and heirs of the blessings of the covenant I But have we a right to make conditions, which God has not made? Have we a right to take his covenant, and fashion it to suit our preconcei^’ed, favourite sen- timents? God did not promise, I will be a God to thy seed, on condition of faith and fidelity on thy part, in respect to thy seed. Neither in this covenant, nor in any of his communications with Abraham, did God inform him, that the grand condition, on which he would be a God to his seed, was fidelity on his part, in respect to his seed.\ * Dr. Worcester’s Tivo Discourses, Disc. 1, p. 36. i" Gen. xviii. 19« For I know him, that he will command his children, and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment ; that the Lord may bring 7tpon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. Much stress has been laid on the auxiliary shall, as implying an engagement to the family of Abraham, in consequence of his fidelity in instruct- ing them. In the original, the grammatical construction of the verb iiDBf*, rendered they shall keep, is precisely of the same im- port, as the grammatical construction of the preceding verb ms*, rendered he tcill command. No reason, therefore, can be given, 34 But it is said, that, in this covenant, God required Abraham to walk before him, and to he perfect. Is this a condition of the covenant ? Did God sus- pend the performance of liis promises, on the perfection of Abraham ? Surely, then, this was not the covenant of grace. Under the new dispensation, we are indeed commanded to love God with all the heart, and to be perfect in holiness. God requires this of all mankind under eveiy dispensation. It would be derogatory’ to his che.racter to require less. But this is not a condi- tion of the covenant of grace. The blessings of tlie cov- enant are not suspended on such a condition. If we are interested in Christ by faith, notwithstanding our imperfections and sins, God will be our God through grace. Yet the author above-cited says, “To become entitled to the blessings of the covenant, Abraham must w^alk before God, and be perfect.”* If so, this cov- enant was certainly not the covenant of grace. It might be expected, therefore, that the advocates of this cov- enant would, for the sake of their own cause, readily ad- mit, and strenuously maintain, what appears to be the fact, that this requirement was not a condition of the cov- enant, or even a part of the covenant, but merely a preamble or introduction to the covenant. God intro- duces the solemn transaction, by saying, JFalk before me, and he thou perfect. Then follows, / rw// waA'6' ;ny covenant with thee. Then are presented the terms of the covenant ; first, the part which God W’ould perform, consisting in the bestowment of several blessings on Abra- ham, and his seed ; and secondly, the part which why the verbs shoiihl not be constructed similarly in the transla- tion. For the same reason, that the preceding verb is rendered icill command, ought the tollowing to he rendered will keep. This passage appears to contain a prediction, rather than an engage- ment. (Jod foresaw that Abraham would be faithful in instruct- ing his family ; that they would observe the requirements taught them ; and that, with a view to this obedience, both on the j)artof Abraham, and his family, he might bestow on them the promised blessings. * Ibid, p. 34. S5 Abraham and his seed were to perform; consisting in the observance of the rite of circumcision ; and lastly, sev- eral explanatory and restricting articles, with regain! to Sarah and Ishmacl and Isaac. That the observance of the rite of circumcision, was, emphatically, the con- dition of this covenant, appears from the manner in which it is presented, the conspicuous place wliich it holds in the covenant, and the penalty attached to its neglect. “ And the uncircumcised man child — shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my covenant. It is a popular and prevailing sentiment, lliat this promise imports, that so many of the seed shall be sub- jects of grace, that the church shall be peqjetuated “ in the line of natural descent.'' Is this hypothesis consistent with facts ? Has not God transfeiTcd the church from the posterity of Abraham to the Gentiles ? Is it said that the Jen s were rejected be- cause of unbelief ? But has not God the hearts of all in his hand ? and bad he not, on this hji^otliesis, promised, that the church should be penjetuated in the posterity of Abraham? Why, then, did he not perform? But this is not the only transfer. If the Christian church is the same with the Jewish, ard if the same promises are made to the former, as nere made to the latter, may it not be asked, W'here are the descendants of the once flourishing churches, in the north of Africa ? W'here arc the descendants of iill the Asiatic churches, planted by tlie apostles themselves ? They are now covered with the darkness of Mahomedan superstition. Sureh% we are not there to look for the church of Christ. This church is now transfeixed to the west of Europe, and em- braces the descendants of those, who were bowing down to idols of wood and stone, during the prosperity of the eastern churches. It is true, that God regards tlie prayers of pious par- ents, for their offspring, and frequently grants his bless- ing on their religious instructions. We may, there- fore, expect, that, in places where the truth has pre- vailed, a pious seed will be preserved for some genera- 36 tions. But that this is God’s uniform mode of operation, or that he has covenanted to perpetuate the church, in the line of ?iatural descent, a slight glance at ecclesias- tical history must effectually disprove. Let us next consider several passages in the New Tes- tament, in which it has been supposed, that the covenant of circumcision is recognized, as the covenant of grace. On the day of Pentecost, Peter addressed the Jews ; “ The promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”* The expression, unto you and to your children, resembling the expression, unto thee and to thy seed, used in the covenant of circumcision, has occasion- ed the supposition, that this is a repetition of one of the promises, contained in that covenant. There Mere several promises made to Abraham and his seed. Does the context lead us to suppose, that Peter intended one, rather than another ? Or was one of the promises call- ed, by May of eminence, the promise ? Is it probable, that Peter alluded to one of the promises in this covenant, calling it the promise, M’hen, through his M’hole dis- course, he had not spoken of Abraham, or of any cov- enant made with him ? Is it not probable — is it not cer- tain, that he alluded to the promise, concerning M’hich he had been discoursing from the first? The Jews M ere astonished at the pouring out of the Spirit on the disciples. Peter states the event, as a ful- filment of the promise, spoken by the prophet Joel : “ And it shall come to pass, in the last days, saith God, 1 will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,” Scc.f In tlie progress of the discourse, he says, that Jesus, having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this ; and finally, he exhorts them, “ Repent and be baptized cverj’ one of you, in the name of Jc'sus Christ, for the remission of sins, and yc shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the prom- * Acts ii. 39. t Ver. J 7 . 37 ise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that art afar off', even as many as the Lord our God shall call.” More summarily, thus ; God said, I nill pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, even on your sons and daughters ; Jesus hath rcceivt'd this promise, and begun to per- form it, by shedding forth this on us, his disciples ; re- pent ye, therefore, and ye shall receive the siime gift ; the Spirit shall be poured out on you ; for the same prom- ise is made to you and to your children, &c.* In the epistle to the Galatians, it is written, “ If ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs accord- ing to the promise.”! Let us inquire, what is implied in believers’ being the seed of Abraham ; and what promise is here intended. In the context (vcr. 6, 7,) it is written, “ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness : Know j*e, therefore, that they which arc of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.” Abra- ham believed ; therefore, they w ho believe, are his chil- dren. This is perfectly in the style of scripture. The unbelieving Jews are called children of the devil, because they were like the devil, in their character and conduct. On the same principle, the profligate are called children of Belial ; and men are called children of light, and chil- dren of disobedience, according to their respective char- acters. It is on this principle, tliat believers are called the children of Abraham. They are like Abraham, in their character and conduct. They have the faith of A- braham. “ And if children, then heirs.” Accordingly, the apostle continues, “ And the scripture, foreseeing, that God w’ould justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying. In * In this explanation of the promise, I am happy to agree with WiTsius, Exercitat. in Symb. Exercit. xi. § 19 ; Limborch, Comment, in loc. Venema, Dissertat. Sue. L. iii. C. iv. § 7, b ; Dr. OwETS , Doct.o/Saints Perseverance, p. Il6; Dr. Hammond, tForks, Vol. i. p. 490; Dr. Whitby, Annot, on the place; and Dr. Doddridge, Aote, on the place. t Gal. ii’, 29. 38 thee shall all nations he blessed. So then, they which be of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham.” And again, (ver. 14,) “That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ.” And in the last verse, “ And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” There can be no doubt, that the blessing, of which believers are heirs, is justification by faith ; and that the promise, according to which they are heirs of this blessing, is the gospel promise made to Abraham. If, says the apostle, ye have the faith of Abraham, ye are, therefore., his children ; and as Abraham was justified, by having his faith accounted for righteousness ; and as the blessing of Abraham is come on the Gentiles, through Jesus Christ, so that they who are of faith, are blessed with faithful Abraham, being heirs of the blessing con- tained in the promise. In thee shall all nations be bless- ed ; ye, believing Gentiles, according to this promise, are justified by having your faith accomited for right- eotisness.* * Dr. Macknight. on Gal. iii. l6. Translation. "Now, to Ahrahaui were the promises spoken, and to his setd. (See ver. 19 ) He doth not sav, And in seeds, as concerning many, l)ut as con- cerning one person. Ami in thy seed, who is Christ.” Note. " He does not say. And in seeds. So raig should be translated, the preposition's» being understood here, as is plain from the promise itself, (len. xxii. 18. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed f The apostle having affirmed, ver. 15, that, according to the customs of men, none but the par- ties themselves, can set aside or alter a covenant that is ratified, he observes, in this verse, that the promises in the covenant with A- bruhain, were made to him and to his seed. The promise to Abra- ham is that recorded, Gen. xii. 3. In thee shall all the families, Lxx. 5TJt(r*< ui (pvXxt, all the tribes, oj the earth be blessed. 'I'he promise to liis seeh is that recorded, Gen. xxii. 18. And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed. See ver. 19 . Now since by the oath which God sware to Abraham, after he liad laid Isaac on the altar, bvith [>roinises were ratified, the a|iostle reasons jnst'v, when he affi' ins, that both [tromises must be fulfilletl. And itavii g shown, ver, }), that the promise to Abraham to bless all the fiiinilies of the earth in him, means tiieir being blessed, as Abra- ham had been, not with justification through the law ol Moses, I See Acts iii. 25 ; also Luther's Comment, on Galatiant, p. 307. 39 The same sentiments arc contained in the epistle to the Romans : “For vve say, that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned ? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircun^.cision ? not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And lie received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet being uncircumciscd : that he might lie the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised : that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.”'^ He received the sign of circumcision^ a seal of the righteousness of the faith, which he had yet be- ing uncircumcised. The meaning of the apostle cannot be, that Abraham performed circumcision on himself and family, and thus sealed his faith, or attested his faith, as believers seal or attest their faith by solemn acts of wor- ship. Not his faith, but the righteousness of his faith, was sealed. Man may seal or attest his faith, by acts of worship and obedience ; none but God, can seal the right- eousness of faith. None but God, can declare faith im- putable for righteousness. Abraham received the sign of circumcision, as a divine attestation of the righteous- ness of his faith ; or, in the words of Stephen, “ God gave him the covenant of circumcision,”f and thus sealed as the Jews affirmed, but with justification by faith, he proceeds, in this passage, to consider the promise made to Abraham’s seed, that in it likewise, all the nations of the earth should be blessed. And from the words oft he promise, wh'ch are not, andin thy seeds, but in thy seed, he argues that the seed, in which the nations of the earth should be blessed, is not Abraham’s seed in general, but one ofhisseedin particular, namely, Christ ; who, by dying for all nations, hath delivered them from the curse of the law, that the blessing of Justification by' faith might come on believers of all nations, through Christ, as was promised to Abraham and to Christ.” Dr. Guyse. “ The covenant that I have given a hint of, (ver. 8, 9, 14,) relating to the way of our being accepted of God as right- eous, consisted of a free promise, which, because of its vast com- prehension of blessings, and of its being first made to Abraham, and afterwards repeated to him, and to Isaac, (Gen. xii. 3 and xxii. 18, and xxvi. 4,) may be called . 11, 12, 13; Camerarius, Vatabeus and Cam- ERO, in loc. Velthuysios, Opera-, Tom. i. p. 801 ; Suares and Vasques, apud Chamieri Panstrat. Tom. iv. L. v. C. x. § 50 ; Dietericus, apud Wolfii Cura, in loc. See also Dr. Mack- night, who says, “ I, therefore, think with Eisner, that the words, in this verse, have neither a federal nor a moral meaning, but are used in the idiom of the Hebrews,” &c. Translation of the Apost. Epist, Note on 1 Cor. vii, 14. 54 ble of discerning the Lord’s body ? and the consequent obligation of the church, to require their attendance, and to discipline them, if they neglect to attend ? To consider and treat them, as members of the church, un- til formally excluded ; and to consider and treat them, as not members, until formally admitted, are very dif- ferent things. The latter is the uniform practice of pro- testant dissenters; the former only is consistent with the principle, that the children of believers are church members. But it most evidently tends to confound the church with the world, and, it is to be feared, is the most pernicious practice that ever infested and laid waste the vineyard of the Lord. An attempt has been sometimes made, to support the practice of infant baptism, on tlie ground of the Jew- ish proselyte baptism. The argument is this — The Jews were hi the habit of receiving proselytes, both adults and infants, by baptism, as well as by circumcision, Christ and his apostles being acquainted witli this practice, when he commanded tliem, in general terms^ to teach all nations, baptizing them, he must have in- tended, and they must have understood him to intend, tliat baptism to which they had been accustomed, the baptism of infants as well as adults. This argument would have some force, were there any sufficient evidence, that the Jew's, in the time of Christ, or in any preceding age, admitted proselytes by bap- tism. But of this, no evidence has been produced. I'liere is no intimation of proselyte baptism, in the Old Testament, or in the apochrjqjhal books, or in tlic New Testament, or in any writings soon after the time of Christ (as the w'orks of Philo, the Jew, and of Josephus, who both wrote concerning tlie laws and customs of tlie Jews,) or in the Chaldee Paraphrases, or in the works of the Christian fathers, for the first three or four cen- turies. The first mention of proselyte baptism is in the Jewish Talmuds, which were composed between the second and fifth centuries ; and the manner, in which 55 it is mentioned in the Talmuds, shows, that it was then a novel and questionable practice. Dr. J ENNiNGS. “ But after all, it remains to be prov- ed, not only that Christian baptism was instituted in the room of proselyte baptism ; but that the Jews had any such baptism, in oiw Saviour’s time. The eiuliest ac- counts we have of it, arc in the Mishna and Gcmara ; the former compiled, as the Jews assert, by Rabbi Juda, in the second century ; though learned men, in gencnil, bring it several centuries lower; tlic latter, not till the seventh century. There is not a word of it in Philo, nor yet in Josephus, though he gives an account of the proselyting of the Idumeans, by H^Tcanus.”* Dr. Owen. “ The institution of the rite of baptism is no where mentioned, in the Old Testament. There is no example of it, in those ancient records ; nor was it ever used, in the admission of proselytes, while the Jew- ish church continued. No mention of it occurs, in Plii- lo, in Josephus, in Jesus, the son of Sirach, nor in the Evangelical History. This Rabbinical opinion, there- fore, owes its rise to the Tanneroe, or Ante-Mishnical doctors, after tlie destruction of their city. — The opin- ion of some learned men, tlierefore, about the transfer- ring of a Jewish baptismal rite (which, in reality, did not then exist,) by the Lord Jesus, for tlie use of his disciples, is destitute of all probability. Dr. Lardner. “As for the baptism of Jewish pros- elytes, I take it to be a mere fiction of the Rabbins, by whom we have suffered ourselves to be imposed upon.”j; On the supposition, that tlie command of Christ to teach, did not limit his subsequent command, to such as were taught, it is, doubtless, fair reasoning, that, when Christ, in general terms, commanded his apostles to bap- tize, he must have intended, and they must have under- * Jewish Antiq. Vol. 1. p. 136. t Theologoumena, L. v. Digress, iv. J Letters to and from Dr. Doddridge, Let. Ixxxix. p. 275. But fora full examination of the subject, see Dr. Gill’s Disser^ tation concerning tixe Baptism of Jewish Proselytes. 56 stood him to intend, that kind of baptism to \vhich they had been accustomed. So far the argument is good. But there is no evidence, that the baptism, to which they had been accustomed, was proselyte baptism of adults and infants. To what kind of baptism, then, had they been accustomed ? We know of none, but the baptism of John. But John did not baptize infants. His baptism was a baptism of repentance, and acknowledgment of Him that was to come, and, therefore, a baptism of adults only. This was the baptism, which the disciples of Jesus ad- ministered, in the beginning of his ministry, as it is writ- ten, “ that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John ; though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disci- ples.”^ The baptism of adults was that, to which alone they had been accustomed ; and therefore, if Christ, in general terms, commanded his apostles to baptize, he must have intended, and they must have understood him to intend, the baptism of adults only. The following quotations present to our view the last ground to which Poedobaptists resort. Bos SUET, Bishop of Meaux. “ Experience has shomi that all the attempts of the Reformed to confound the Anabaptists, by the scripture, have l^een tveak ; and, therefore, they are, at last, obliged to allege to them the practice of the church.'*'’^ Mr. Chambers. “ As none, but adults, are capable of believing, they” (the German Baptists) “argued, tliat no others are capable of baptism ; especially, as there is no passage, in all the New Testament, where the bap- tism of infants is clearly enjoined. Calvin, and other writers against them, are pretty much embarrassed, to answer this argument ; and are obliged to have recourse to tradition, and the practice of the primitive church ''* \ Also, the Oxford Divines, in a convocation, held one thousand, six hundred and forty seven, acknowledged, “that, without the consentaneous judgment of the uni- * John iv. 1,2. t In Steimett's Answer to Russen,p. 184. * Cyclopedia, Art. Anabaptists. / 57 versal church, they should be at a loss, when they are called upon for proof, in the point of infant baptism.”* What, then, is the evidence from antiquity, in favour of infant baptism ? It has been already stated, that the writers of the New Testament are silent on this subject, whether recording the formation of the primitive churches, or addressing epistles to those churches. They frequently mention the baptism of believers ; but preserve a profound silence on tlie baptism of infants. The Christian writers of the first century, w'ho imme- diately sueceeded the apostles, Barnabas, Hennas, Cle- mens Romanus, Ignatius and Polycarp, usually called, by way of distinction, apostolical fathers^ frequently men- tion the ba.ptism of believers; but, like the inspired penmen, are entirely silent on the subject of infant bap- tism. The Christian ^vriters of the second century’, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch, Tatian, Irenoeus and Clemens Alexandrinus, frequently men- tion the baptism of believers ; but, like the inspired pen- men, and the apostolical fathers, never mention infant baptism. There is, indeed, in the writings of Irenoeus, one pas- sage, which has been adduced in proof of this practice : “Christ passed through all the ages of man, that he might save all by himself, that is, all who, by him, are regenerated to God, infants, and little ones, and chil- dren, and youths, and persons advanced in age.”f As the w’ord translated regenerated^ sometimes, in the writings of the Christian fathers, denotes baptism^ some have supposed, that, in this passage, it may be proper- ly translated baptized. The passage tvould then sUmd, Christ came to save all by himself, that is, all viho., by him^ are baptized to God^ H * In Lawson’s Bnptismalogia, p. Il6. t Contra Haeres. L, ii. C, xxii. 58 There are two considerations, which forbid this translation. First : It makes the passage unintelligible. It is intelligible, that all, who are saved, are regenerated by Christ ; but what possible meaning can be attached to the assertion, that all, who are saved, are baptized by Christ to God? On what principle of interj^retation is it justifiable, to reject the natural, common meaning of a word, when, at the same time, it perfectly accords with the scope of the passage, and to adopt a figurative meaning, which renders the passage unintelligible ’? Secondly : This interpretation will not accord with the strain of the writer’s discourse ; or, in the words of Le Clerc, “ we see nothing here concerning baptism ; nor is there any thing relating to it, in the immediately preceding or following words. ' Now this testimony, uncertain as it must be consider- ed, at the best, and given at the close of the second cen- tury, is the first testimony that is insisted on by learned Poedobaptists. Dr. Wall admits, “ This is the first ex- press mention we have met with of infants baptized.”! But though Dr. Wall calls it express mention, it is gen- erally given up, as very uncertain. f Monthly Review. “ The authorities produced, are Justin Martyr and IrencEUS, in the second century. — With respect to the testimony of Justin, it requires very considerable ingenuity, to make it, in any view, an ar- gument in favour of infant baptism. There is a pas- sage in Irenoeus more to the purpose ; but the passage is e(iuivocaV'\ The first Christian writer, in the beginning of the third century, Tertullian of Carthage, opposed the bap- tism of infants, which, in the words of Professor Vene- ma, “ he certainly would not have done, if it had been a tradition, and a public custom of the church, seeing he was very tenacious of traditions ; nor had it been a * Hist. Eccles. Secul. ii. Ann. 180. § 33. p. 778. f Hist, of Inf. Bap. Part. i. C. iii. p. lt>. :J; See particular! v, Ven emw Hist. Eccles. Tom. iii. Secul. ii. § lOf). § I’or May, 1791. p. 394. 59 tradition, would he ha^'e fliilcd to mention it.”*- Ills treatment of this subject leads us to conclude, that in- fant baptism was then a novel practice, just beginning, and apiirovcd by very few'. His words, as ti'anslatcd by that learned Poedobaptist, Du Pin, are as follow s : — “ Jesus Christ says indeed, ‘ Hinder not little children from coming to me but that they should come to him, as soon as they are ad^'anced in years, as soon as they have learnt their religion, nhen they may be taught whither diey are going, Avhen they are become Chris- tians, when they begin to be able to know Jesus Christ. A\diat is there, that Khould compel this innocent age to receive baptism ? And since they are not yet allow- ed the disposal of temporal goods, is it reasonable, that they should be intrusted with the concerns of heaven ?”f Se\eral quotations concerning infant baptism have been made from the writings of Origen, who flourished, in the former part of this century. But his original tvorks are not now extant. These quotations are tak- en from a verj' corrupt Latin version, made by Ruffi- nus ; who, as Quenstedius observes, “ has used so great a liberty (as he himself acknowledges in his prefaces, and for which Jerome reproves him,) that he retrenched, add- ed, and altered, whatever he considered as deserving to be cashiered, added or changed ; so that the reader is frequently uncertain, whether he read Origen or Ruf- finus.”f And Grotius also, concerning the sentiments of Origen, says, “ Some things ascribed to him, were pen- ned by an uncertain author, and some things are inter- polated. — What Origen thought about the final punish- ment of the wicked, is difficult from his writings to be asserted, all things are so inteq^olated by Ruffinus.”|| The only passage from the Greek of Origen, which is produced in proof of this practice, contains a clause, ♦ Hist. Eccles. Secul. ii. § 108. t Lib. de Baptismo, C. xviii ; in Du Pin’s i/wf. Eccles. Writ- ers, Cent. iii. p. 80. J Dialog, de Patriis Ulust. Doct. Script. Virorum, p. 032» II Apud Poli Spnops, ad Matt. six. 14 and xxv. 46. 60 which represents the infants, as desiring the mncere milk of the word. Therefore, Dr. Wall acknowledges, that ihis does “ very much puzzle the cause, and make it doubtful, whether Origen be to be there understood, of infants in age, or of such Christian men, as are endued with the innocence and simplicity of infants.”* This practice, however, no doubt, commenced in the latter part of the second century, and gradually gained ground in the third. As the sentiment prevailed, that baptism was necessary to salvation, parents became more anxious to have their children baptized, especially when sick and in danger of death. ViTRiNGA. “The ancient Christian church, from the highest antiquity, after the apostolic times, appears gen- erally to have thought, that baptism is absolutely nec- essary for all that would be saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. It was, therefore, customary in the ancient church, if infants were greatly afflicted, and in danger of death ; or if parents were affected with a singular concern about the salvation of their children, to present their infants, or children, in their minority, to the bish- op, to be baptized. But if these reasons did not urge them, they thought it better, and more for the interest of minors, that their baptism should be deferred, till they arrived at a more advanced age ; which custom was not yet abolished, in the time of Austin, though he vehemently urged the necessity of baptism, while, with all his might, he defended the doctrines of grace against Pelagius.”t Salmasius. “ An opinion prevailed, that no one could be saved, without being baptized ; and for that rea- son., the custom arose of baptizing infants'''\. So unsettled, however, v^as the practice in Africa, in the middle of the third ccnturj% that Cyprian, bishop of Cartilage, was unable to determine the question, * Hist, of Inf. Bap. Part 1. p. 32. ■j* Observat. Sac. Tom. i. I.. ii. C. vi. g g. Epist, ad Justum Pactum, 61 whether infants might be baptized before the eighth day, without convening a council of African bishops. In this council, it was determined, that baptism need not be deferred. And finallj', in the year four hundred and eighteen, the Milevitan council, at the instigation of Austin, decreed the necessity of infant baptism, in these terms : “ It is our pleasure, that whoe\ er denies, that new bom infants are to be baptized, — let him be ai\a- diema.”* The correctness of these statements, concerning the practice of the primitive church, is confirmed by the following testimonies; tlic first, furnished by an apos- tle, and the rest, as usual, by Poedobaptist authors. St. Paul. “As many of you, as have been baptized into Clirist, have put on Christ. ”f * F rom this period, every century has presented a succession of witnesses to the truth of the Baptist sentiments, as well as num- berless decrees of popes, and kings, and councils, denouncing the severest penalties on this “ pernicious sect.” Cardinal Hosivs, President of the Council of Trent. “ If the truth of religion were to be judged of, by the readiness and cheer- fulness, which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opin- ion and persuasion of no sect can be truer or surer, than that of the Anabaptists ; since there have been none, for these twelve hundred years past, that have been more grievously punished, or that have more cheerfully and steadfastly undergone, and even offered them- selves to, the most cruel sorts of punishment, than these people.” The Anabaptists are a pernicious sect, of which kind the Wal- densian brethren seem also to have been. — Nor is this heresy a modern thing; for it existed in the time of Austin.” In Rees’ Reply to Walker f p. 220 ; and apud Schyn Hist. Mennonit. p. 135. Dr. Mosheim. “ The true origin of that sect, which acquired the denomination of Anabaptists, by their administering anew the rite of baptism, to those who came over to their communion, and derived that of Mennonites, from the famous man, to whom they owe the greatest part of their present felicity, is hid in the remotest depths of antiqtiity, and is, of consequence, extremely difficult to be ascertained.” Eccles. Hist. Vol. iv. p. 439. See also Danvers on Baptism, Rees’ Reply to Walker, and Robinson’s History and Researches. Concerning Dr. Gill’s supposed concession, that he was not able to find any instance of an opposer of infant baptism, from the fourth to the eleventh century. See Dr. Baldwin’s Series of Letters to Dr. Worcester, Let. xxiv. p. 232. t Epistle to the churches of Galatia, Chap. iii. ver. 27* 62 Erasmus. “Paul does not seem” (in Rom. v. 14.) “ to treat about * infants. — It was not yet the custom Jor infants to be baptized.''^* Luther. “It cannot be proved by the sacred scrip- ture, that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles. ’’f M. Xa RoquE. “The primitive church did not l3aptize infants ; and the learned Grotius proves it, in his annotations on the gospel. Lunovicus VivEs. “ No one, in former times, was admitted to the sacred baptistery, except he was of age, understood what the mystical water meant, desired to be washed in it, and expressed tliat desire more than once. ”11 Mr. Chambers. “It appears that in the primitive times, none were baptized but adults.”^ Bp. Barlow. “I do believe and know, that there is neither precept nor example in scripture, for Pcedo- baptism, nor any just evidence for it, for about two hun- dred years after Christ.”lf Salmasius and Suicerus. “In the tw'o first cen- turies, no one was baptized, except, being instnicted in the faith, and acquainted with the doctrine of Christ, he tvas able to profess himself a believer ; because of those words. He that believeth^ and is baptized.'*'*^* M. Forme y. “They baptized, from this time” (the latter end of the second century,) “ infants, as well as adults.”tt CuRCELLoeus. “ The baptism of infants, in the two first centuries after Christ, xvas altogether unknown ; but in the third and fourth, was allotvcd by some few'. In the * Annotat. ad Rom. v. 14. f In A. R’s. Vanity of Infant Baptism, Part. ii. p. 8. X In Stennett’s Answer to Russen, p. 188. II Annotat. in Aug. de Civ. Dei, L. i. C. xxxvii. § Cyc/operdia, Art. Baptism. ^ Letter to Mr. J. Tombs, ** Epist.adJustiim Pacium.Tliesaur. Eccles. sub. voce Xvr»^(f, Tom. ii. p. 1 13G. tt Abridg. Eccles, Hist, Vol. i. p. 33-. 63 fifth and following ages, it was generally received. — The custom of baptizing infants did not begin before the third age after Christ was born. In the former a^es^ no trace of it appears, — and it was introduced without the command of Christ.”* Rigaltius. “ In the Acts of the Apostles, w’e read, that both men and women were baptized, when they be- lieved the gospel preached by Philip; without any men- tion being made of infants. From the apostolic a^e, there- fore, to the time of Tertullian, the matter is doubtful.'''' \ Venema. “ Tertullian has no where mentioned Pce- dobaptism among the traditions of the church, nor even among the customs of the church, that were publicly received, and usually observed ; nay, he plainly inti- mates that, in his time, it was yet a doubtful affair. — Nothing can be affirmed with certainty, concerning the custom of the church before Tertullian ; seeing there is not any where, in more ancient writers, that I know of, undoubted mention of infant baptism. Justin Martyr, in his second apology, when describing baptism, mentions only that of adults. — I conclude, therefore, that Poedo- baptism, cannot be certainly proved to have been prac- tised before the times of Tertullian ; and that there were persons in his age, who desired their infants might be baptized, especially, when they were afraid of their dying without baptism ; which opinion Tertullian oppos- ed, and by so doing, he intimates, that Pcedobaptism began to prevail. These are the things that may be af- firmed, with apparent certainty, concerning the antiq- uity of infant baptism, after the times of the apostles ; for more are maintained without solid foundation.'''' \ Grotius. “ It seems to me that the baptism of infants was, of old, much more frequently practised in Africa, than in Asia, or other parts of the world ; and * Institut. Relig. Christ. L. i. C. xii. Dissert. Secund. de Pecc, Orig. § 56. t In Stennet’s Answer to Russen, p. 74. X Hist. Eedes. Tom. iii. Seoul, ii. § 108, 109 . 64 with a certain opinion of the greater necessity of it. F or you will not find, in any of the councils, a more ancient mention of this custom, than in the council of Car- thage.”* Episcopius. “ Pcedobaptism was not accounted a necessary rite, till it was determined so to be, in the Milevitan council, held in the year four hundred and eighteen.”f Dr. Doddridge. “It is indeed surprising, that nothing more express is to be met with in antiquity upon this subject. Several well authenticated instances of Christians, em- inent in the ehurch, who, though born of Christian par- ents, were not baptized, but on their own profession, prove, that, even in the third and fourth centuries, infant baptism was not the universal practice of the church. Bp. Taylor. “There is no pretence of tradition, that the church, in all ages, did baptize all the infants of Christian parents. It is more certain, that they did not do it always, than that they did it, in the first age. St. Ambrose, St. Hierom and St. Austin, \vere born of Christian ptirents, and yet not baptized, until the full age of a man and more.”|| Daille. “In ancient times, they often deferred the baptizing both of infants and of other people, as appears b5' the history of the emixrors, Constantine the Great, of Constiintius, of Theodosius, of Valentinian, and of Gratian, in St. Ambrose ; and also by die orations and homilies of Gregory Nazianzen, and of St. Basil, upon this subject.’’^ Gregory Nazianzen was born of Christian parents, in the year three hundred and eighteen, and was not bap- tized, till between twenty and thirty years of age.lf • Annotat. in Matt. xix. 14.* f Tn.stitut.Theolog. L. iv. C. xiv. Lectures, p. 5i-2. || Lihertij of Prophecying, S«M:t. v. p. 84. § Right Use of the Fathers, B. ii. C. vi. p. 14y. ^ SeeGROTii Annotat. in Matt, xiv, 14 ; Du Pin’s Eccles, Cent. iv. p. 159 \ Gen. Biog. Diet, A.rt, Greg, ^az. 65 Chrj'sostom was born of Christian parents, in the year three hundred and fifty-four, and was not baptized, till about twenty-one years of age.* Augustine, bishop of Hippo, commonly called Austin, was bom the same year with Chrysostom. His mother Monica was a Christian, at tlie time of his birth, and or- dered those ceremonies, which it was then customary to perform on the children of Christians, f At one time, in youth, he was seized with a dangerous illness, and earnestly desired to be baptized. His mother was hastening to comply, when he recovered, and his baptism was deferred. Nor, according to his own account, did he receive baptism, until he professed the Christian re- ligion, at the age of thirty years, t Believing that he had suffered from this delay, he became “ afterwards a strenuous asserter of the expediency of more early bap- tism.”§ It has been strongly urged, in support of the antiquity of infant baptism, that, in the Pelagian controversy, Aus- tin adduces this practice, in proof of the doctrine of orig- inal sin : “ Infant baptism the whole church practises ; it was not instituted by councils, but was ever in use.”[j Did Austin mean, that infant baptism was the univer- sal practice of the church ? The indisputable facts, that he himself, though born of a Christian parent, was not bap- tized in iidancy, and that he found it necessary, through the whole of his life, strongly to oppose the prevailing, and, as he deemed it, criminal delay of this ordinance, render this interpretation entirely inadmissible. * See Grotii Annotat. in Matt. xix. 14 ; Du Pin’s Eccks. Hist. Cent. 5 . p. 6 , 7 . •f “ 1 was then signed with the sign of his” (Christ’s) “ cross, and was seasoned with his salt, so soon as I can 3 e out of mv moth- er’s womb, who greatly trusted in thee.” L'ov/essuyns, Book i. C. xi p. 17 . X See “ Augustine's Confessions Abridged *' in Milner’s Hist, of the Church, Vol. ii. Cent. v. C. ii. ' .§ Milner’s Hist, of the Church, Vol. ii. p. 302. Note. (1 In Dr. Worcester’s Letters, Let. xxi. I % 66 We must conclude, that infant baptism, though not yet considered a necessary duty, was, in the time of Aus- tin, generally tolerated, nor ever refused to those par- ents, who desired it for their children. Further than this, it is not possible to stretch the meaning of Austin, without making him contradict his own confessions and his own conduct. That Austin should suppose this practice to have l^een “ever in use,” is not strange, when we consider, that, in the words of Hospinianus, “ in the time of Aus- tin, it was commonly believed, that whatever was re- ceived by the church, as a devotional custom, proceeded from apostolical tradition, and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.”* It may still be urged, that, though there be no evidence of infant baptism, in the t^vo first centuries, yet the prev- alence of this practice in Africa, during the third cen- turj’’, as appears from the proceedings of the council of Carthage, in the year two hundred and fifty-six, and its general prevalence through the whole of the Christian world, during the fourth and fifth centuries, as appears from the testimonies, furnished by the Pelagian contro- -eersy, afford sufficient proof, that it must have been of apostolic origin ; and that this proof is greatly strength- ened, by the consideration, that, if not apostolic, it could not have been introduced, without violent opposition. To this, the case of infant communion furnishes a full reply. The same evidence can be adduced, in fa- vour of the antiquity of infant communion, as of infant baptism. And in the article of opposition, infant com- munion has the advantage of its sister practice. For while there appears to liave been some opposition to the introduction of infant baptism, by Tcrtullian, Greg- ory Nazianzen and others, nothing of tlie kind apix;ars, in tlie case of infant commuiuon. As these points, if esUiblished, must, in the minds of those who reject infant communion, completely invali- ♦ lUst. Sacram, L. ii. p. 41. 67 date the argument from antiquity, in favour of infant baptism, and as these points must be established by tes- timony, indeiiendently of argumentation, permit me to introduce the following quotations. Salmasius and Suicerus. “ Because tlie eucharist was given to adult catechumens, when they were wash- ed with holy baptism, without any space of time inter- vening, this also was done to infants, after Pcedobaptism %vas introduced^* BtfDDoeus. “It is manifest, that, in the ancient church, it was usual to give the eucharist to infants, which custom arose about the third century, and con- tinued in the western church, to the beginning of the twelfth century, as Quenstedius shows. This custom seems to have prevailed, first in the African church, and to have been propagated thence to other churches of the west. Certainly, we no where find it more fre- quently mentioned, than in tlie writings of Cyprian, of Austin, and of Paulinus. The error seems to have arisen, from a false opinion concerning the absolute ne- cessity of the eucharist ; and it has been observed by learned men, that this arose from the words of Christ, John vi. 53, not well understood. Hospinianus. “ The Lord’s supper was given to the infants of believers, in the time of Pope Innocent the First, of Cyprian, and of Austin ; as well in Eu- rope, as in Asia and Africa, and that as necessary to salvation. — Jerom, Austin and other fathers testify, that they who were baptized, not only adults, but also infants, without any delay, received the Lord’s supper in both kinds.”t Chillingworth. “ St. Augustine, I am sure, held the communicating of infants, as much apostolic tradi- tion, as the baptizing of them. — The eucharist’s neces- sity for infants — was taught by the consent of the em- * Thesaur. Eccles, sub voce •f Tlieolog. Dogmat. L. v. C. i. § 19. t Hist. Sacrum. L. ii. C* ii< p. 51. 68 inent fathers of some ages, without any opposition, from any of their contemporaries ; and was delivered by them, not as doctors, but as witnesses ; not as their opinion, but as apostolic tradition.”* Dr. Priestley. “It is remarkable, that, in all Christian antiquity, we always find, that communion in the Lord’s supper immediately followed baptism. And no such thing occurs, as that of any person having a right to one of these ordinances, and not to the other.”f Venema. “In the ancient church, those two sacra- ments” (baptism and the Lord’s supper) “ in respect of the subjects, were never separated, the one from the other. — In the thirteenth century, baptized infants ceas- ed to be admitted to the eucharist, because it began to be administered under one kind.”f Dr. Wall. “ — That the Roman church, about the year one ihousand, entertaining the doctrine of transub- stantiation, let fall the custom of giving the holy elements to infants ; and the other western churches, mostly fol- lowing their example, did the like, upon the same ac» count; but that the Greeks, not having the same doc- trine, continued, and do still continue, the custom of communicating infants.” II Let me conclude this part of the discourse, by inquir- ing, Why do not the advocates of infant baptism, be- come advocates of infant communion? Is the scripture silent concerning the latter ordinance ? It is equally silent concerning the former. Are infants incapable of remembering Christ, of examining tlicm- bclves, and of discerning the Lord’s body, which arc re- quired of those who receive the supper? They are equally incapable of repenting and believing, which are required of those who receive baptism. Every argument Relig, of Protest. Answer to Pref. § 10 , and Chap. iii. § 44 , f Address on giving the Lord's supper to Children, p. 10 . J Hist. Eccles. Secul. ii. § 100 ; Secul. xiii. § l64. 11 Hist, of Inf. Bap. p. 517» 60 which is brought to prove, that the requirement to re- pent and believe does not exclude infants from the one ordinance, will equally prove, that the requirement to examine one’s self and discern the Lord’s body does not exclude them from the otlier ordinance. Every argument also, which is urged in support of the one ordinance, may be urged, with equal plausibil- ity, in support of the other. Ought infants to be baptized, because, under a for- mer dispensation, they were circumcised ? So also, be- cause, under a former dispensation, they partook of the passover, they ought now to be admitted to communion. Ought they to be baptized, because they are connected with their parents, in covenant with God ? For the same reason, they ought, wdth their parents, to be admitted to communion. Ought they to be baptized, because they are members of the visible church ? For the same rea- son, they ought to be admitted to communion. Ought they to be baptized, because Christ commanded little children to be brought to him, and declared, that of such is the kingdom of heaven ? For the same reason, they ought to be admitted to communion. Ought they to be baptized, because they are not unclean, but holy? For the same reason, they ought to be admitted to commu- nion. Does it lessen the privileges, uhich the church anciently enjoyed, to withhold baptism from infants? And does it not equally lessen those privileges, to de- bar infants from communion ? Is it harsh and injurious to exclude infants from baptism ? And is it not equally harsh and injurious to exclude them from communion ? Accordingly, Dr. Williams, the opponent of Mr. Booth, inquires, “ Are not the same reasons, which are brought for infant baptism, in like manner, applicable to infant communion? And will not the objections against the latter, admit of the same answer, as those against the former?”* *Notes on Mr, Morrice’s Social Relig. p. 78. 70 The reasons stated in both parts of this discourse, lead us to the conclusion, that the immersion of a profess- ing believer y into the name of the Father^ and of the Son^ and of the Holy Ghost, is the only Christian baptism. “ He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned.”* To be- lieve in Christ is necessary to salvation ; and to be bap- tized is the instituted method of professing our belief. It is, therefore, not only an infinitely important ques- tion to all men, whether they believe in Christ ; but it is also a very important question to all Christians, whether they have been baptized. If you love Christ, you cannot consider this question unimportant. You will be desirous of discovering tlie will of him whom you love, and of testifying your love, be joyfully obeying. “ If ye love mef said Jesus, “ keep my co7n7nandments.^^\ “ Ye are my friends, if ye do wlTat- soever I command you.’‘^\ If, when your mind adverts to tliis question, you fear the consequences of an examination, and dread tliose sacrifices, which a discovery that you have been mis- taken, may enforce on your conscience ; or if you feel the influence of long established sentiments, or imagine, that tlK; subject is too dark and intricate for your inves- tigation ; look to tlie Son of God, who hesitated not to make the greatest sacrifices, and to endure the most painful sufferings for you ; and look up to the Father of lights, to send the Holy Spirit, according to the promise of his Son, to guide you into all tlie trutli. Especially, my brethren, diligently use the means of discovering the truth. Put yourselves in the way of evi- dence. Indulge free examination. Though the sun shines with perfect clearness, you will never see that light wliich otlKrs enjoy, if you confine yourselves in a cavern, w'hich the beams of the sun cannot jienetrate. Be assur- cd, that there is sufficient evidence on this subject, if you * Mark xvi. 16, f John xiv. 15 . $ John xv. 14. 71 seek to discover it. But if your love for truth i^ not sufficiently strong to make you willing to seek and strive for the discovery of evidence, God will probably leave you to be contented with error. In order, therefore, to stimulate your minds to candid and energetic research, prize truth above all other things. Be impressed with the conviction, that nothing can com- pensate you, for the loss of truth. “ She is more precious than rubies, and all the things thou canst desire, are not to be compared unto her.”* She will keep you in the right way, the way of duty, of usefulness, of happiness. She will lead you to heaven. Seek her, therefore, as silver, and search for her, as for liid treasures. Finally, If any man desire to do the will of God^ “ he shall know of the doctrine ^ whether it he of ^ ProT. iii. 15. f John vii. 17. FINIS. 4,1 « ». •■ . V5^\VV^^y ' > cA' ’S‘..i‘^> r.’p.'flf 'Jw . ' . - ■ ’ « - . ■.•ili'’! « . _ j»».. -, V- -- ...I-Ti/M'l* -*#• ,»'»•* T ; T!^ , . 1^.;}! - ■ • ■- " '.V ' ■ ' • 'O' •' "t/ r, T «T^ ''■ ailii/?-- ' a'.’ '-jk ' •. 11-''. / >-J»>riij 2 i A \ '4- nv •• I .' ^ ^ ‘«®;- V ' ' ... i; ■ <» Mu: ■ I S«‘. . *‘^*' 4*!^:, , ■■'t; ri,*’^.* n;}. ^ 4 M)(U. * Vv^ '••?•* ■ ty . -'T^ «’’• ■•-§-. ~ * •• •'■■■:^'r« 'n'rWv.. - ,- 11, '■ I .... ■ '^y ^y^-. t .T--3 • .y 'I'A’ ... '. J * I ■ u '