m
M^'I
f
Stom f^e feifirari? of
(pxofcBBox ^amuef (ttliffer
in (Jtlemorg of
^ubge ^amuef (gtiffer (jSrecftinrtbse
(presenfeb fig
^amuef (Bttffer QSrecftinribge feong
to f^e feifiratj? of
(princefon ^^eofogicaf ^eminarp
BV 813 .W6 1829
Woods, Leonard, 1774-18t)4.
Lectures on infant baptism
^'^
LECTURES
ON
INFANT BAPTISM.
BY LEONARD WOODS, D. D.
Abbot Profeesor of Christiaa Theology in the Theol. Seminary, Andorer«
SECOND EDITION.
ANDOVER:
PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY MARK NEWMAN.
Flagg & Gould printers.
1829.
^>^\s^>
:\^->>>v^>'y.v-..<:^
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, to wit :
District ChrWs Office. Be it remembered, that on the 23d day of March A. D. 1828, and in the fifty gecond year of the Independence of the United States of America, Mark Newman, of the said district, has deposited in this Office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims as Proprietor, in the words following, to wit .- " Lectures on Infant Bap- tism. By L. Woods, D. D. Abbot Professor of Christian Theology in the Theolo- gical Seminary, Andover." In conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, entitled, " An Act forthe encouragement of Learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts, and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies, during;_the times therein mentioned :" and also to an act entitled, " An act supplementary to an act, entitled. An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and books, to the authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein mentioned; and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of design- ing, engraving and etching historical and other prints."
TOHN W DAVm \ Clerk of the District JUUiN w. i^AVia, j gj. jifassachusetts.
PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION.
The following Lectures on Infant Baptism make a part of a regular course of Lectures, which the Laws of this Institution require in the department of Chris- tian Theology. The publication of them was request- ed, about two years ago, by those theological students, to whom they were first dehvered ; and the same re- quest has been made by many ministers and students since. The reader will perceive, that the doctrine of Infant Baptism is a doctrine which I very seriously be- lieve, and which I feel it to be my duty earnestly to maintain. He will perceive too, that the doctrine is dear to my heart, and is associated in my contempla- tions with the most sacred truths of religion, and the most precious interests of Christ's kingdom.
My manner of treating this subject is not the result of haste, but of repeated and long-continued investiga- tion. It has been my object, as far as possible, to give simplicity and clearness to the discussion, and to avoid all approaches to the heat and asperity, with which the controversy respecting Baptism has often been con- ducted. I am persuaded that those whose opinions I here oppose, and who constitute a very large and res- pectable denomination of Christians, will never suspect me of being deficient in affection for them, or in read- iness to do what I can to promote their welfare. For many years in the earlier part of my life, I had a de- cided prepossession in favor of their peculiar sentiments on the subject of Baptism ; and they have a right to
VI PREFACE.
inquire for the reasons of my present belief. I here frankly give them my reasons. In the following Lec- tures they will find the principal considerations, which satisfy my own mind in favor of Infant Baptism. And they will see, that I have not contented myself with Irarely stating arguments, but have endeavoured, in dif- ferent ways, to illustrate the propriety and conclusive- ness of the mode of reasoning which I have adopted, and to show that it rests on principles generally admit- ted in other cases, and that it is liable to no just excep- tions. If I have, in different parts of these Lectures, touched repeatedly upon the same general arguments, and the same modes of illustration ; I hope the nature of the subject will suggest to the mind of the reader a satisfactory apology.
If any of those, who dissent from me, shall think proper to animadvert upon what I hav^e written ; I wish them to do it in the spirit of Christ, and without any expectation that I shall make a reply. Neither the duties of my office, nor my views of what the wel- fare of Christ's kingdom requires, would permit me to pursue this subject in a protracted controversy.
I have only to add, that in the discussion of this subject, it has been my serious endeavour to do what the God of love would approve. I have charged my- self to remember, that the blessed Saviour looks, with equal and unchanging love, upon all his true followers, of whatever name ; and that it must be far more pleas- ing to him, to see them united in affection, and labor- ing diligently to spread his gospel, and to prepare themselves and others for the kingdom of heaven, than to see them contending about an external rite.
LEONARD WOODS.
Theological Seminary, Andover, April, 23, 1828.
PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION.
The favorable reception wlilch the Christian Community have given to this publication, has made it necessary to print a second edition much sooner than I expected, and so has rendered it impossible for me, as my other duties are, to do all that I intended in re- vising and improving the Lectures. I have, however, added fifty pages in the whole.
It has been and is my fixed purpose, to avoid any direct, and especially a protracted controversy with my Baptist Brethren ; — not indeed because I am in doubt respecting the truth of the doctrine vvhich 1 have ad- vocated, or the strength of the arguments on vvhich it rests ; but because 1 fear the consequences of such controversy on the cause of practical piety, and on the general interests of Christ's kingdom, and because I have a full persuasion, that the short remainder of my life ought to be devoted to other purposes. I wish, however, to express my particular respect for those, who have made remarks on my Lectures ; particularly for those who wrote the Letters of David and John, and for the Author of the Numbers in the Christian Watchman, by Senex. Both these publications were kindly forwarded to me. The pamphlet containing the Letters abovementioned, which exhibits very res- pectable talents, as well as candid and fraternal feel- ings, was rendered still more valuable to me by a pri- vate and affectionate letter which accompanied it, from one of the iVuthors.
To the reasoning contained in the publications abovenamed, 1 decline any formal answer, in conforrai^
VI PREFACE.
ty with my previous and uniform resolution. But it will not be difficult for men accustomed to controver- sy, to see, that my silence in this case must be a mat- ter of some self denial.
I take pleasure in acknowledging, that the stric- tures of my Baptist Brethren have been of real use to me, and have led me to correct some mistakes, to give to some of my expressions and arguments a more un- exceptionable form, and to estabhsh my positions by some new considerations. Had I more lime to devote to the subject, 1 should be able to derive more benefit still from the remarks of my opponents.
As many things have been affirmed, and that very confidently, by Baptist writers, against the argument which Ecclesiastical History affords in favor of Infant Baptism ; I have thought that Christian propriety and duty required me to give the subject a new examina- tion. And in this examination, I have requested the aid of my beloved Colleague, the Rev. Professor Stuart, who, as the public well knovc. is very familiar with this kind of investigation, and wiio has been con- sidered, and very justly too, as entertaining feelings of great candor and kindness towards Christians of the Baptist denomination. In compliance with my re- quest, he has given particular attention to the subject, and has carefully examined those passages in the early Christian Fathers, on which the historical argument for Infant Baptism rests, together with the writings of Wall, Gale, Robinson, and others ; and has allowed me the privilege of making what use I please of his notes. The result of his examination is, an increased and full conviction, that Ecclesiastical History affords a con- clusive argument in favor of Infant Baptism. Tho§.e who read these Lectures will not need to be told, tliat my own examination has brought me to a similar re- sult.
L.. W.
Theological Seminary, Andover, Aug. 20, 1829.
COIVTENTS.
LECTURE I.
Pagt, Four directions to theological students respecting the manner of treating the subject of Infant Baptism. — Preparatory con- siderations as to the kind and degree of evidence necessary. — The want of an express divine precept or declaration no valid objection. — This shown in regard to the Christian Sab- bath, female communion, and the authority of some of the sacred writings 9 — 22
LECTURE IL
Reasoning of the former Lecture confirmed by particular con- siderations in favor of Infant Baptism. 1. Its suitableness to the relation of parents and children. 2. This relation had been marked by a religious rite through the Patriarchal and Mosaic dispensation. — That rite respected spiritual blessings. — Objection considered 23 — 36
LECTURE III.
The Christian religion founded on the Old Testament Scrip- tures. We cannot conclude that Christ did not give specific instructions on any subject fi*om the fact that such instruc- tions are not recorded. — The Scriptures of the New Testa- ment imply that the children of believers are to be baptized. Rule of interpretation; viz. we must put ourselves as far as may be, in the place of those who gave, and of those who re- ceived instruction. Circumstances of those to whom Christ gave the commission to proselyte and baptize all nations. How they must have understood this commission. Proselyte Baptism. — General representation of Scripture and course of providence 37 — 52
LECTURE IV.
The argument from the circumstances of the Apostles reviewed, and shown to be conclusive, — Mode of understanding a char- ter.— Did Christ give any previous instruction which could have shown the Apostles in what manner they were to under- stand their commission, or how they were to regard chil- dren .?— Matt. 19: 13, 14 particularly considered . 5»— 77
Till CONTENTS.
LECTURE V.
Whether there was any thing in the conduct of the Apostles, or any declaration in their writings, to aid us in determining how they understood their commission. — Household Bap- tism.—1 Cor. 7: 14 78—100
LECTURE VI.
The argument recapitulated. Three additional considerations ; — precepts requiring the education of children ; — silence of the New Testament respecting Infant Baptism ; — and the feelings of parents. — Proof from Ecclesiastical History that Infant Baptism was practised by the early Christians . 100 — 141
LECTURE VII.
Baptism a substitute for circumcision. — Circumcision not ap- plied to females ; — applied to servants. — Seal of ihe cove- nant.— Diihculty arising from the difference between the for- mer and the present economy, and from the requisition of faith. — Import of Infant Baptism. — Utility. — Standing of bap- tized children. — Duties of parents and the church . 141 — 176
LECTURE VIII.
MODE OF BAPTISM.
Introductory remarks. — Two propositions. 1. It cannot be cer- tainly determined from the New Testament that immersion is the only proper mode. 2. Christians should not consider the mode of Baptism of essential consequence . 17(>— 205
Appendix . . . . • • • 207 — 222
LECTURE I.
Four directions to theological students respecting the manner of treating the sub- ject of Infant Baptism. — Preparatory considerations as to the kind and degree of evidence necessary. — The want of an express divine precept or declaration no valid objection. — This shown in regard to the Christian Sabbath, female com- munion, and the authority of some of the sacred writings.
The doctrine of Infant Baptism has been the sub- ject of long-continued controversy in the Christian world, and has given rise to more contention and asperity among the followers of Christ, than almost any other subject. It has been the occasion of separating into different com- munions, those who have been united in their belief on all other subjects, and animated by the same spirit of love to Christ and his cause. It is in consequence of these circumstances, that the subject of Infant Baptism has pro- duced a warmth of feeling and discussion, so far beyond all just proportions. But I trust the time has arrived, when this subject can be treated in another manner, and when those w^ho differ in opinion respecting it, will cher- ish feelinors of candor and forbearance towards one anoth- er. My earnest desire is to promote such feelings ; being perfectly persuaded, that it is the will of Him whom all Christians love and adore, that those who practise Infant Baptism, and those who do not, should love one another with a pure heart fervently, and diligently cooperate for the advancement of their common cause.
As you, my young brethren, for whom these Lectures, are specially intended, will be called to act a part not only in 3
10
INFANT BAPTISM.
private, but in public, in regard to this subject ; I shall suggest a kw precautions and directions, for the purpose of rendering your influence more extensively useful to the cause of truth, and the cause of love.
First. Take care not to magnify the subject heyond its real importance.
The subject ought not indeed to be underrated, or treated as a trifle. It is no trifle. It obviously possesses a high degree of importance, and deserves to be main- tained with firmness and zeal. But after all we must remember, it is an outward rite, and does not belong to the essential articles of the Christian religion. If men are born of the Spirit ; if they love and obey the Saviour, and are prepared for the kingdom of heaven ; the great object for which Christ died, and for which we ought to labor, is obtained. It is clear, then, that the subject of Baptism cannot be regarded as bearing any comparison, in point of importance, with the conversion and salvation of sinners. And whatever discussion we may think it our duty to undertake, and with whatever earnestness we may labor to bring men to receive what we sincerely be- lieve to be a divine institution ; we ought still to consider their eternal salvation as infinitely more important, than their receiving any particular rite. And if they show by their conduct, that they are friends to Christ and heirs of his kingdom ; we should cordially thank God, and rejoice, how widely soever they may differ from us in regard to such a subject as this.
Second. Consider that men, whose Christian charac- ter entitles them to our affection and confidence, may he led to a different conclusion from us in regard to this 3'ite. -^
Whatever may have been the precepts of Christ, or
INFANT BAPTISM. 11
his apostles, to those who enjoyed their personal instruc- tions ; it is plain, that there is no express precept respect- ing Infant Baptism in our sacred writings. The proof, then, that Infant Baptism is a divine institution, must be made out in another way. And that other way, though perfectly satisfactory to us, may not be so to those who have been placed in different circumstances from us, and have formed different habits of thinking. The circum- stances of their birth and education may have led them, as a matter of course, to entertain different views on this subject ; and those views may have been closely associat- ed with the earliest and deepest impressions of divine truth on their minds, and with their most spiritual exerci- ses and their purest enjoyments. Thus, their diflering from us may really have been owing to the influence which circumstances have had upon the most amiable and pi- ous sensibilities of their hearts. Had any of us been plac- ed in the same circumstances, we should probably have adopted the same views.
Others, who come to the examination of this subject without the influence of such predisposing causes in ear- ly life, may unfortunately entertain such mistaken views of the kind or degree of evidence which is necessary to support a positive institution, that, with those mistaken views, the very uprightness of their hearts, and their de- sire to please God, may so operate as to prevent them from acceding to the rite of Infant Baptism.
Let us duly regard such considerations as these ; and, instead of stigmatizing those Christians who reject Infant Baptism, or charging them with wrong motives, let us cherish towards them the sincerest candor and kindness. It is no difficult thing to account for their peculiar views from their peculiar circumstances, and from that imper-
12 INFANT BAPTISM.
fection of the human mind which is common to them and to us, without any impeachment of their character. Why then should we not entertain the same sentiments of love and confidence towards them, and the same desire for their improvement and happiness, as if they belono^ed to the same denomination with ourselves ?
Third. Never introduce this subject in the way of con- troversy, except when a pure regard to the interests of Christ's kingdom requires it.
Undoubtedly a regard to the high and sacred inter- ests of religion will lead you, at proper times, to exhibit and defend what you honestly believe to be scriptural views on this subject, and to do it with seriousness and zeal. But when this is to be done, it will be important, generally, that you enter upon it with particular prepara- tion, and pursue it in a regular discourse, instead of re- marking upon it in a hasty or cursory manner. The prac- tice of introducing such a subject, or even of alluding to it, from day to day, and on all occasions, betrays an in?- proper excitement of feeling, and is likely to promote the same in others. Let this subject therefore be brought forward only on occasions, when there is an obvious and special reason for doing it ; and then let it be presented in connexion with the weighty truths of religion, and treat- ed with great moderation and seriousness. Thus you will show that it is a matter of conscience, not of passion. Fourth. Treat those who differ from you in regard to Infant Baptism, toith uniform kindness.
Study to do them good. Exercise towards them not only common candor and good-will, but ?i generous friend' ship ; and exhibit this friendship in substantial acts. In this way you may hope to produce candor and kindness in them, and to prepare them to join their efforts with
INFAxNT BAPTISM. 13
yours in promoting those common interests of Christ's kingdom, which are immeasurably more important, than the peculiar interests either of their denomination, or of yours. And should you find that the object of your wish- es is not at once obtained, and that any of those, whom you labor to conciliate, and whose welfare you aim to pro- mote, choose, after all, to stand aloof, and to exhibit the spirit of party zeal and animosity ; — and should they sometimes go farther, and speak of those arguments, which you consider to be strong and decisive, as flimsy and contemptible, and attempt, by various means, to lower your reputation and to hinder your success ; still persevere in the exercise of forbearance and kindness towards them, and even of Christian magnanimity, — remembering that, whatever you may suffer for the present, such conduct will have a most happy effect upon your own mind, — will promote the best interests of Christ's Church, and secure the gracious ap- probation of your Father in heaven : — remembering too, that the opposite course, that is, the exercise of unkind- ness and severity towards those Christians who differ from you, will injure their spiritual interests, and your own, and will tend to perpetuate all the evils of division and strife.
Having made these suggestions in regard to the spirit of mind with which the subject of Infant Baptism should be discussed, and the m.anner in which we should con- duct ourselves towards those who differ from us, I shall call your attention to considerations relating more direct- ly to the subject itself
As a preparation for a profitable discussion, it is of special consequence that you should free your minds from all mistaken apprehensions, as to the kind and de- gree of evidence which is to be considered necessary. I
14 INFANT BAPTISM.
introduce tliis subject here, because it relates to the mode of reasoning which is to be pursued, and it is obviously best, as far as may be, to settle our minds on this point at the outset.
Different conceptions respecting the proper mode of reasoning are evidently the principal causes of the differ- ence which exists among men in regard to the question at issue. Ifin regard to any position, we look for evi- dence of which the subject is not capable, or which is not accessible to us at the present time ; the most diligent and persevering inquiry must leave us unconvinced. The proposition laid down may be true ; but we shall not be satisfied of its truth. It may have suflicient evidence ; liut our mode of estimating evidence is such as to prevent conviction. Suppose a man is accused before a court of justice of a particular crime ; and suppose there is clear circumstantial evidence, and that only, of his guilt. If the court demand direct, poslilvr proof of the crime, the evidence v%'hich they have will go for nothing, and the man, though manifestly guilty, must be pronounced inno- cent. But such is not the principle vrhich governs our courts of justice, even in those proceedings which relate to life and death. They look fir positive evidence, if it can be had. If not, they admit satisfactory evidence of another kind.
The importance of just views respecting evidence is obvious in respect to moral subjects generally. Even when the evidence sought is of the right kind ; we must still take care not to mistake as to the degree of it which is necessary. In regard to any moral truth, it be- longs not to us to determine by what evidence it shall be supported. On this point, our expectations, in many in- stances, may be greatly disappointed ; and we may be
INFANT BAPTISM. 15
obliged either to reject some of the most important prin- ciples of natural and revealed religion, or to be satisfied with evidence very different from what we once supposed necessary and attainable. Our object then should be to discover the evidence, whatever may be its kind or de- gree, which is within our reach, and which shall be suf- ficient to satisfy a reasonable and candid man.
We are to remember also, that much depends on our prevailing disposition. Many a doctrine is of such a na- ture, that if our moral state is right, a small degree of ev- idence will be sufficient to produce entire conviction of its truth. There is something in the original constitu- tion, or in the acquired habit of the mind, or in other truths already admitted, v/hich predisposes us to receive it. This constitution or habit of the mind, and the ad- mission of other truths allied to the one under considera- tion, may have the ejfect of evidence ; and if it could be clearly perceived and defined, it might appear to have the nature of evidence. It may in fact be evidence of the best kind, — most suited to the nature of the subject, and most likely to produce a steady and permanent influence. Sometimes this state of the mind, and the evidence of other related truths, may be the only proof we can now have of a very important truth. And yet this truth may be as clearly apprehended and as firmly believed, and may exert as useful an influence on the mind, as though it vrere proved in any other way whatever. It will be very easy for those, who have been accustomed to think pro- foundly on moral subjects, to recall many instances of this.
The foregoing remarks account for a fact of frequent occurrence; namely; that a man unhesitatingly believes a particular truth, and yet finds it very difficult to exhib- it definitely the reasons of his belief The evidence in
16 INFANT BAPTISM.
such a case may be so concealed in its nature, or so gradual and insensible in its influence, that it will be very dif- ficult, even for a nice observer of the operations of his own mind, clearly to describe it ; and quite impossible, for those who have but little cultivation. So that it cannot by any means be considered as a conclusive argument against the soundness of a man's faith, that he is at pre- sent unable distinctly to assign the reasons of it. The manner in which he was brought to believe the truth may have been perfectly conformed to right reason, and per- fectly satisfactory ; and yet he may not have the skill re- quisite to trace it out, and describe it. To be prepared for this, he must have some acquaintance with the philo- sophy of the mind, and with the manner of developing its principles and operations in proper language. But for acquiring this, his situation may afford him no adequate advantages. And yet that same situation does not neces- sarily deprive him of the good effects of a rational and well established faith.
One more remark on this point. Although the evi- dence, by which vve are able to prove a particular truth, may be feeble, or obscure ; we are not hence to conclude that it has not, even now, clear and perfect evidence in the view of those who possess a higher degree of knowl- edge. To superior intelligences, and certainly to the di- vine mind, every truth is attended with perfect evidence. But this perfect evidence may be, in part, or altogether, beyond the reach of the intellectual power which we now possess. In our present condition, we may be as unable to discern it, as we are to discern the light which illumin- ates the most distant parts of creation. But the growth of our mental faculties may hereafter enable us to discov- er more and more clearly the evidence which now lies
Infant BAPTisfti. 17
concealed. Such is the consequence of the limited pow- ers of our understanding, and the gradual manner in which we acquire all our knowledge.
If you apply the remarks which have been made to the subject under consideration, you will soon be satisfi- ed of the truth of the following position ; namely ; that the leant of an express, positive command of Scripture that infants should be baptized, is not to be considered as a valid objection against Infant Baptism. As this posi- tion is of special importance, I shall take some pains to illustrate its truth.
Admitting, as we must, that all positive religious rites are origincdly founded on a divine command ; we cannot safely conclude that such a command will be repeated to all those who shall afterwards be under obligation to ob- serve such rites, or even that the original command will be preserved and communicated to them in the sacred writings. Neither of these can be considered as indis- pensable ; because sufficient evidence of a divine institu- tion may be afforded in some other way. It may be af- forded, particularly, by an unwritten tradition. It is un- questionable, that the knowledge of some extraordinary events of providence, or of some divine injunctions may be as truly and as certainly communicated in this way, as in others; and we should, in many cases, consider a man, who should refuse to admit the truth and authority of a tradition, to be as unreasonable, as if he should refuse to admit the truth and authority of written or printed re- cords.
If we should insist upon the repetition of a divine com- mand at different times, or upon a written record of it, as indispensable ; we should set aside one of the methods which God has manifestly adopted in regard to the posi-
is
INFANT BAPTISM.
tive institutions of religion. For example ; what clear and certain proof have we, that the divine command, en- joining the observance of the Sabbath, or the offering of sacrifices, was repeated to the successive generations of men from Adam to Moses : or that they had evidence of either of those divine institutions, from historical records ? And what certain proof is there of the repetition of the divine command, or the existence of any historical records, during the period from Abraham to Moses, respecting the rite of circumcision ? And to come down to later times ; what express command has God given to us, or to any Christians since the days of the apostles, requiring the first day of the week to be observed as a Sabbath ? And what express declaration have we in the sacred records, that such a command was ever given either by Christ or his Apostles 1 In regard to this, we who observe the Christian Sabbath, must either say, that a divine com- mand has been given directly to us ; or that a command originally given by Christ, has been preserved to us in the sacred records, — neither of which are we able to say ; — or we must justify ourselves in observing the Lord's day, because some other considerations show that such is the will of God. On what ground then shall we proceed in regard to this subject ? We must be sensible, that we have no express command from God to us, and no record of any former command, to authorize us to regard the Christian Sabbath as a divine institution. Shall we then admit, that it is proper for us to fall in with the prevail- ing practice in regard to a religious rite, merely because we judge it becoming and useful ? This we cannot ad- mit. We must then rest the Christian Sabbath on the ground of the original institution of the Sabbath, as en- joined in the fourth command of the Decalogue. And
INFANT BAPTISM. 19
we must at the same time admit, that the original institu- tion was particularly modified at the commencement of the Christian dispensation, although our sacred writings no where expressly require such a modification. It can- not but be evident therefore, that if we should insist upon the necessity of an express divine precept, either original- ly addressed to us, or transmitted to us by the sacred re- cords, in order to justify us in observing the rite of /«- fant Baptism ; we should contradict our own practice in regard to another subject very analogous to this.
And what shall we say in regard to female commun- ion 1 The Lord's Supper is allowed to be a divine insti- tution. But it was enjoined originally upon the Apostles. Christ did not give the command to females ; and there is no express mention in the New Testament of their hav- ing ever received the Lord's Supper. We all believe it to be the will of God that they should partake. But how do we prove this? Not by any express comjnand of Christ. Not by any definite account in the Scriptures, that they did actually partake. The argument on which we rest is derived from the reasonableness of the thing ; from the uniform practice of the early Christian churches, as set forth in Ecclesiastical History ; and from what appears to be implied in the Scripture account. That is, we be- lieve God has made known his will, that pious women should partake of the Lord's Supper, without the least appearance of any express command requiring it, and without any mention in the Scriptures of their ever hav- ing partaken in the first Christian churches. The single question is, by what evidence we are satisfied that they ought to partake ? And if we are satisfied in this case, without any express command ; why should we not be in the other case ?
20 INFANT BAPTISM.
My object in this place is to remove a mistake as to the kind and degree of evidence which should be deemed conclusive, and to show that demanding an express pre- cept in favor of Infant Baptism, that is, demanding a new and explicit command in favor of the dedication of chil- dren to God by the Christian rite of baptism, would be unreasonable and inconsistent. I wish every man to set- tle it in his mind perfectly and forever, that, in a multi- tude of cases, other evidence ought to be received, and is received, as satisfactory.
Consider a moment how we proceed in regard to so momentous a subject, as the authority of some of the sa- cred writings. Take, for example, the Epistle to the Hebrews, which we receive as having been written by inspiration of God. But why do we thus receive it ? What is the kind of evidence we have of its divine inspi- ration and divine authority ? Do the other Scriptures give testimony to this Epistle, and require us to receive it ? No. Does the author of the Epistle inform us that he wrote by divine inspiration ? Does he even give us his name ? He does neither. We receive this book as of divine authority, because Ecclesiastical History teach- es that it was thus received hy the generality of the early Christians ; whom we know to have been far better qual- ified than we are, to form a right judgement in regard to its claims. It is primarily on the ground of such evidence as this, that we admit the Epistle into the sacred canon. The intrinsic excellence of the Book, and its correspond- ence with other parts of Scripture, is indeed a consideration of great weight in favor of its divine authority. But this consideration is of a very different nature from what we understand by express, positive proof from the word of God. The same as to some other parts of the Christian
INFANT BAPTISM. 21
Scriptures. What is the kind of evidence which we have of their divine inspiration and authority? They are sanctioned by no voice from heaven ; by no miracle ; and by no declaration of inspired writers. But do we therefore reject them ? No. We receive them as a part of the sacred canon, on the ground of Historical exidence. That is, the testimony of antiquity is in their favor. We rely on that testimony, because it is the testimony of men competent to judge. And why should we not proceed on the same general principles in regard to Infant Baptism I We have at least as good evidence from history in favor of this, as we have that the Apocalypse, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and some )ther parts of the Bible, were written by inspired men. ±iOW then can we consistently reject it ?
Let i^be remembered, that we did not originate the human mind, nor the doctrines and institutions of religion, nor the evidence which obliores us to believe those doc- trines, and observe those institutions. The faculties of the mind, the doctrines and institutions of religion, and the evidence which supports them, are all of God. The manner in which he has made known his will, and the kind and degree of evidence which he has affijrded in favor of the truths and duties of religion, are unquestiona- bly conformed to our intellectual and moral constitution ; and they are specially suited to excite us to diligent ef- forts ; to give due exercise to candor and humility ; to make us feel the necessity of being guided by the divine Spirit ; and finally, to produce such a conviction in us, as will best subserve the purposes of moral discipline. It is not God's way to give us evidence of the highest kind and degree possible. As to many moral and religious truths, the evidence which supports them is far from being so 3
22 INFANT BAPTISM.
clear and certain as we should naturally expect. It comes indirectly. It comes in the way of inference from other truths more plain and obvious. It some- times consists in a kind of instinctive moral discern- ment,— a spontaneous operation of our faculties, which cannot be easily described. Sometimes it is the slow result of experience and observation. And if a pre- cept or institution is concerned, depending ultimately for its authority on a divine revelation ; that revelation is of- tentimes communicated to us through the channel of his- tory or tradition, and the history or tradition is frequent- ly attended with no small degree of obscurity. It is man- ifestly our duty, as intelligent beings, and in the diligent use of our rational powers, to hold ourselves ready to re- ceive just such evidence, as God is pleased to afford. And if any of us should undertake to prescribq^to him, or to determine beforehand what evidence we must have to satisfy our faith ; and if we should reject every thing, which is not attended with just such evidence as we might judge suitable ; we should give up some, if not all of the most important moral truths, and should fall into a state of skepticism, most fearful in its influence on our present and our eternal interests.
LECTURE II.
Reasoning of the former Lecture confirmed by particular considerations in favor of Infant Baptism. 1. Its suitableness to the relation of parents and chil- dren. 2. This relation had been marked by a religious rite through the Pa- triarchal and Mosaic dispensation.— That rite respected spiritual blessings. — Objection considered.
In the last Lecture, I endeavoured to support the following position ; namely ; that the toant of an express declaration of Scripture in favor of Infant Baptism is not a valid argument against it.
Thus far my remarks have respected Infant Baptism as a religious institution in a general view. But there is a special consideration in relation to this particular rite ; a consideration which will give additional force to the remarks I have made, and which will show still more clearly, that we should not demand an express precept of Scripture for baptizing children, and that other evidence should satisfy us, that Infant Baptism is a divine institu- tion.
The consideration is, that a religious rite of long standing, and intended for the satne general purposes loith Baptism , had, hy express appointment of God, been uni- formly applied to infant children. The existence of such a rite, and the high importance which was univer- sally attached to it by the people of God, would make it
24 INFANT BAPTISM.
easy to substitute in its place a rite of the same general import, but different in form. This last rite, indicating generally the same thing with the former, would require less formality of divine injunction — less appearance of in- terposition on the part of God to introduce it, than would be necessary to introduce an institution whose design and application are entirely new. Those Christians, who had been familiar with the previous rite of infant circumcis- ion, that is, the previous mode of consecrating children to God, must have been predisposed in favor of Infant Baptism, and must have been ready, at any intimation of Christ or his Apostles, at once to receive it. Yea, they must have been ready to fall in with it, as a matter of course. The public consecration of children to God by a religious rite had for many ages been a standing prac- tice in the church. It came not from Moses, but from Abraham, the father of those who believe in all nations. Now what is the consecration of children to God by Bap- tism, but a previous appointment of God, that is, the ap- pointment of infant consecration, so modified in regard to its form, as to agree with the Christian dispensation ? In such a case, especially if the original institution was held in high estimation, and attended with high endear- ments ; what more could be deemed necessary, than that the will of God should be made known, as to the neto form of carrying into effect his original design ? After such an expression of the divine will, that is, the appoint- ment of Baptism, we should think that the dedication of children to God under the new form would immediately go into practice. It is, I think, quite manifest, that, in the case now under consideration, there was less occa- sion for an express command from God, to give sanction and prevalence to the new rite, that is, to the neio form
INFANT BAPTISM. ^
of consecration, than if no rite of similar import had exist- ed before.
In several respects, you will perceive a striking anal- ogy between the institution of Infant Baptism, and that of the Christian Sabbath, The institution of a sabbath, one day in seven, had been established from the creation of the world. Under the reign of Christ, the original insti- tution was to undero-o a certain alteration. But how was this alteration effected 1 How was the Christian church brought to give up the seventh day, and to observe the first, as a Sabbath ? Was an express divine command formally announced, in regard to the Lord's day 1 Did God come forth in his majesty, as he did on Sinai, and say in the hearing of the apostles and early christians, tJie Jirst day is the Sabbath, — keep that day holy to the Lord 1 And was such a command as this put on record by the inspired writers, and transmitted from one genera- tion to another, as the fourth command in the Decalogue was ? Nothing like this has taken place ; nor have we thought it at all necessary. How then have we been brought to give up the seventh day as a Sabbath, and to kee|) the Jirst in its place 1 We find no command of Christ or his apostles. And we find no express declara- tion of Scripture, that the Apostles and first Christians uniformly kept the first day as a Sabbath. But we are satisfied, because there are several things in the Acts and Epistles, which plainly imply that they did so ; and be- cause, in addition to this, we have historical evidence that the Lord's day was generally observed by the early Christian churches, and that the seventh day Sabbath gradually fell into disuse. Thus, on the ground of what was practised by those who lived near the apostles, and who had the best advantages to form a correct judge- 3*
26 INFANT BAPTISM.
ment, and because too, though without any express decla- ration of Scripture, there is reason to think, that such was the practice of the Apostles ; we feel ourselves au- thorized and obliged to observe the first day of the week as a Sabbath. But would Christians have been so easi- ly satisfied of their obligations to keep the Christian Sab- bath, had there not been a weekly Sabbath enjoined by divine command, and uniformly observed by God's peo- ple through preceding ages? The more seriously I have reflected on this subject, the more fully have I become satisfied, that the previous existence of similar observan- ces must have produced such an effect on the minds of the first Jewish Christians, as perfectly to prepare them to receive the Christian Sabbath and Infant Baptism, with- out any new enactment, or any explicit declaration what- ever in their favor. But they could not have been pre- pared for this, had these institutions been altogether new.
Having considered so particularly the proper mode of reasoning, and suggested what seemed necessary to pre- pare the way for a fair discussion ; I shall proceed to the considerations which bear directly upon the subject of In- fant Baptism. In treating this controverted subject, I shall take the liberty to follow my own way of thinking, and, with little reference to the views of others, shall lay before you those considerations which have had the great- est influence on my own mind, and which, after much anxious inquiry, have conducted me to a satisfactory con- clusion.
The first consideration I shall suggest is, that the rite of Infant Baptism manifestly corresponds ivith the natu- ral relation between parents and children. It is not enough to say that there is no inconsistency between the two things, and that the relation of parents and children
INFANT BAPTISxM. 27
can afford no objection against Infant Baptism. For nothing is more evident than that this rite has a perfect suitableness to the relation of parents and children. This relation is of such a nature and attended with such cir- cumstances, that Infant Baptism becomes obviously, and in the highest degree, just and proper. I acknowledge that this argument does not, by itself, prove Infant Bap- tism to have been appointed by God, and to be obligato- ry upon Christians. But it shows at least, that, if God was pleased to appoint it, the appointment must be regard- ed as having a perfect fitness and propriety. It shows too, that we ought readily to fall in with the practice, if there is any plain indication of God's will in its favor ; that a lower degree of evidence is sufficient to bring us under obligation to adopt it as a divine institution, than if it had no such obvious fitness. •
This view of the subject cannot be considered as ob- jectionable by any one, who well considers how we form our opinions in regard to many other subjects. How, for instance, do we reason in regard to a subject referred to in the last Lecture, that is, female communion ? We say, it is manifestly suitable ; that pious women have the same reason to commemorate the death of Christ, as pi- ous men ; that its being enjoined in general terms is a sufficient indication of the divine \\'\\\ in regard to the or- dinance, and that pious women, having all the general reasons to partake of the ordinance with pious men, have a fair title to partake, on the ground of the general ap- pointment, without waiting for a command addressed specifically to them. But we could not think such a con- clusion correct, if there were no evident fitness in the thing itself, and if a positive divine precept were consid- ered to be essential.
28 INFANT BAPTISM.
The same as to the Lord's day. We perceive it to be 3\iogeiher just and proper, that so important an event as the resurrection of Christ should be commemorated, and that the day, on which it took place, should be con- secrated to the honor of the Saviour, by all his followers. In this way we are prepared to think favorably of chang- ing the Sabbath from the seventh day to the frst. And being thus impressed with the fitness of the thing, we are easily satisfied with the circumstances, which indi- cate that this is the will of God. When we find that the Apostles and first Christians observed that day, and that it became the practice of Christian churches universally to do so ; we feel at once that the practice was suitable ; that it corresponded with the nature and ends of the Christian religion, and that what the apostles and first Christians did^manifested the pleasure of God ; and so, without suspicion, we fall in with the prevailing practice. But had we no such perception of the fitness of the thing ; how could prevailing practice have such an effect upon us?
In forming our judgement on such a subject as this, we should keep in mind, that God has given us reason and moral sense, and thus rendered us capable of discern- ing the relations of things, and of determining, in most cases, what is suitable to those relations ; and that it is often in this way only, that we are able to discover the will of God.
The relation existing between parents and children is seldom taken into serious consideration ; and it is still more seldom the case, that its nature and importance are rightly apprehended. A little attention to the circum- stances of this relation, particularly to the affections which attend it, the obligations involved in it, and the
INFANT BAPTISM. 29
consequences resulting from it, will satisfy any one, that it is among the most interesting and momentous relations on earth.
Every human being, from the commencement of his existence, is the object of an affection indescribably ar-^ dent and tender. This affection, which lodges in the hearts of parents, and results necessarily from the consti- tution they have received from their Creator, is universal, except where that constitution is greatly perverted. Whenever a child is born, an affection springs up in the hearts of his parents, which will afford protection to his weakness and supply to his wants ; which will prompt them to constant, untiring labors, and make it even a pleasure for them to forego the common gratifications of life, and to endure self-denial, watching, and fatigue, for the sake of that helpless being who is entrusted to their care. For a time this affection operates without rational intercourse, without acquaintance, and without any return of service, or even of gratitude ; for of every thing like this the new-born infant is incapable. Parental affection is fixed and durable. Causes which extinguish other kinds of affection, generally leave this in all its strength, and often prove an occasion of increasing its warmth and activity. The affection of parents, instead of ceasing with the feebleness and the wants of their offspring, ex- tends its kind regards over his whole life, and when re- gulated by religious principle, aims at nothing less than to promote his happiness through an immortal existence.
Now the mere fact that the relation of parents to their offspring is attended with an affection of so unparalleled a nature, marks this relation as one of vast conseqaonce, and indicates that God intended to make it subservient to very important ends in his government.
30 INFANT BAPTISM.
This relation involves high obligations. The pre- cepts of God's word on this subject are such as sound reason must approve. Parents are required to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. The duties of parents are so various and constant, that, if rightly performed, they must occupy a considerable portion of human life ; and they are so arduous, as to re- quire a high effort of our rational and moral powers, and the aids of God's Holy Spirit. These duties are so im- portant, that they cannot be neglected, without consequen- ces the most fatal to the interests of the church and the world. The duties of parents, and the influence which they ought to possess over their children, must generally be considered as the chief means of forming the charac- ter of the rising generation, and preparing them for use- fulness; the chief means of saving the souls of men, and propagating the Christian religion from one generation to another.
These remarks are all confirmed by the word and providence of God. From the beginning of the world, the character and condition of children have generally re- sulted from the conduct of parents. The peculiar char- acter of a tribe or nation has commonly been derived from the character of its father or head. This extends to the religious, as well as to the social and secular character. The history of the Christian church shows that, after it has once been established in any place, it has depended, for its continuance and increase, chiefly upon the success of parents in promoting the piety of their children.
The foregoing remarks are not offered as proof that God has in fact commanded that children should be bap- tized ; but to show, that, according to our best views of the subject, Infant Baptism has an obvious fitness. If
INFANT BAPTISM, SI
the relation between parents and children is so vastly im- portant ; it is manifestly proper that it should have some mark set upon it, to show in what estimation it is held by the Creator of the world. And as this relation involves the most momentous duties, and the highest interests of religion ; it is manifestly proper that it should be marked by a religious rite. If a public religious rite may be pro- perly used for the purpose of impressing truth or duty on the minds of men in any case ; it may surely be in this. Thus the considerations above stated, though they do not directly prove Infant Baptism to be a divine institution, are sufficient to show that such a religious rite entirely corresponds with the nature and design of the relation be- tween parents and children, and that it is very fit and reasonable that such a relation and the duties involved in it should be marked by some expressive sign.
The second consideration which I shall offer is, that the relation between parents and children, and the consecration of both to God, was actually marked by a di- vinely appointed and significant rite, through the Patri- archal and Mosaic economy.
Here observe that the same rite was appointed for parents and children. Observe too, that this rite, intend- ed for children as well as parents, did not originate in the Mosaic ritual, but in the family of Abraham, the father of all believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, and was prac- tised among the Israelites from generation to generation, till the death of Christ.
Should a difficulty arise in your minds respecting the reasoning here, or in other places, from the circumstance, that this rite was not applied io female children ; I would say briefly, that nothing is more common in our modes of speech, and in the most important transactions of life,
32 INFANT BAPTISM.
than for males to represent or include females. Thus it is said, that " Joshua circumcised the children of Israel," — that " all the people were circumcised." That is, the males were circumcised in fact, and the rest virtually, or considered as included with them ; and so, " all the people were circumcised." The rite of circumcision was of the same general import, in "relation to daughters, as to sons. It involved the same parental obligations to- wards them, imposed on them the same filial duties, and secured to them the same blessings, as if it had been ac- tually applied to them. This, I think, must be evident to all. And if the fact, that female children were not cir- cumcised, made no difference as to the import of the rite, if they were as really consecrated to the Lord, and as really entitled to all the privileges and blessings of the holy seed, as if they had been circumcised ; then why should their not being circumcised make any difference in our reasoning ?
It is equally true that the import of the rite was not varied at all by the application of it to servants. For they stood in a real relation to their masters, and were circumcised on account of that relation, though the rela- tion was inferior to that of children to their parents. The rite surely could not denote any thing less in refer- ence to children, because it was applied, in a secondary way, to others.
This rite evidently had a primary relation to spiritual blessings. It was a confirmation of that most gracious and spiritual promise which God made to Abraham, I will he a God to thee and to thy seed. Circumcision, the Apostle tells us, Rom. 4: 11, icas a seal of the righteous- ness of faith which Abraham had while uncircumcised. God's covenant with Abraham and his posterity did in-
INFANT BAPTISM,
33
deed include a great variety of temporal blessings ; par- ticularly, their title to the land of Canaan, and all their institutions and laws relating to their worldly state. And it is equally true that all necessary temporal blessings are promised to believers under the new covenant. '^ Godli- ness is profitable unto all things, having the promise of the life .that now is, as well as of that which is to come." 1 Tim. 4: 8. But these temporal blessings in both cases are to be considered only as appendages of the spiritual good secured to the obedient by the divine promises. The prom- ises of the former economy were as high and spiritual, as any contained in the Christian Scriptures ; and the prin- cipal one, / icill he your God, is referred to in the New Testament, as involving the most precious Gospel bless- ings. Heb. 8: 10. 2 Cor. 6: 16. The Old Testament economy contained also the most spiritual and holy pre- cepts. It contained the decalogue, and various other commands, requiring holiness of heart and life. The character which God exhibited was the same under the former dispensation, as under the latter. The character, which he required of those who were under the former economy, was the same as he required of the followers of Christ. Thou sJialt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. Be ye holy, for I am holy. Deut. 6: 5. Lev. 20: 7. Matt. 22: 37. 1 Pet. 1: 15, 16.
It may indeed be alleged, that the Israelites, as a na- tion, were not holy ; that they did not render to God a sincere spiritual service, and that the economy, under which they were placed, did not in fact secure to them spiritual blessings. This is true. But this is not to be charged to that system of laws and rites and promises, which God gave for their benefit, but to themselves. Had they conformed to the nature and design of that 4
34 INFANT BAPTISM,
economy, circumcision would have been an actual confir- mation to them of spiritual blessings. Now surely we are not to judge of the former economy from the character of those who were placed under it. As a general fact^ their character was directly contrary to the nature and design of that economy ; — as really so, as the character of the bulk of nominal Christians in the most corrupt age of the church has been contrary to the design of the Christian economy. But who would think of urging the degraded, corrupt character exhibited at any time by nominal Christians, as a proof that the Christian dispen- sation was not intended to be of a spiritual nature, or that its rites were not intended to be signs of spiritual bless- ings ? No distinction can be more obvious, than that be- tween the real nature of a divine economy, and the man- ner in which it is used by those who are placed under it. As to the former economy, the question is not, what was the actual character of the Israelites ; but what was the character which they ought to have possessed, — the char- acter which the precepts and the spirit of the dispensa- tion required them to possess ? Now if, from generation to generation, they had been obedient and holy accord- ing to the laws of that economy ; who could ever have doubted that the economy was a spiritual one, and that circumcision was a seal of spiritual blessings 7 So far as they kept God's covenant, it was in fact a seal of spiritu- al blessings both to parents and children. It set forth God's design, that the true religion, with all its attendant benefits, should, by means of parental faithfulness and prayer, be transmitted from one generation to another. And if the Israelites universally from Abraham to Christ had truly conformed to that divine institution ; then cir- cumcision would have been in fact what it was designed
INFANT BAPTISM. 35
to be, a confirmation of God's promise, / will he a God to thee and thy seed. And let me repeat it, that the nature and design of a rite, instituted by God, cannot be altered by the disobedience and perversness of men.
I well know that there are some passages in the New Testament, especially in the Epistle to the Galatians, and to the Hebrews, which seem at first view to militate against what I have advanced in regard to the spiritual nature of the Mosaic economy. This is a subject which requires a longer and more minute investigation, than would be proper in this place. I must therefore refer you to what others have written, afi;er suggesting two things, which I think very obvious.
First. The Apostle in his whole argument in Gal. iii. makes a distinction between the Mosaic economy, or law, and God's covenant with Abraham; and he takes spe- cial pains to teach, that the covenant with Abraham was unalterable ; that believers in Christ come under that very covenant ; that they are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise, that is, the promise made to Abraham; and that it is the blessing of Abraham, — the blessing promised to Abraham and his seed, which all believers inherit. It must therefore be obvious, that whatever there was in the Mosaic economy which was earthly and changeable, God's covenant ivith Abraham was spiritual and immutable, securing all the blessino-s to which believers in Christ are entitled. And it must not be forgotten, that circumcision was first appointed to be the seal, not of the Mosaic economy, but of this spirit- ual and immutable covenant of God with Abraham.
Second. When in Heb. viii. the writer says, that the first covenant, (evidently meaning the Mosaic or Sinai covenant,) was faulty and ineffectual, that it had waxed
36 INFANT BAPTISM.
old and was ready to vanish away ; he evidently refers to the Levitical Priesthood, and the ancient ritual, which were both appointed only for temporary purposes, and were to cease after the death of Christ. How then does the passage prove that a spiritual and unchangeable cov- enant, the same as the one made with Abraham, was not contained in the Mosaic dispensation 1 The spiritual precepts and promises found there, prove that such a cov- enant was contained. Accordingly, circumcision, though it was connected with the Mosaic ritual and made a part of it, was still, through that whole dispensation, what it was originally designed to be, a confirmation to all true saints of the spiritual blessings secured by God's cove- nant with Abraham.
The general position then stands firm, that the cove- nant ^ of which circumcision was appointed to be the seal, was spiritual, gracious and immutable.
LECTURE III-
The Christian religion founded on the Old Testament Scriptures. We cannat conclude that Christ did not give specific instructions on any subject from the fact that such instructions are not recorded. — The Scriptures of the New Tes- tament imply that the children of believers are to be baptized. — Rule of inter- pretation; viz. we must put ourselves as far as may be, in the place of those who gave, and of those who received instruction. Circumstances of those to whom Christ gave the commission to proselyte and baptize all nations. How they must have understood this commission. Proselyte Baptism. — Gen- eral representation of Scripture and course of providence.
TV^E now come to the introduction of the Christian dispensation, and the appointment of Baptism as a sign of discipleship to Christ, or, which is the same thing, a seal of God's covenant with believers.
Here let me remark, first, that the Christian relig- ion was evidently founded upon the Old Testament So-ij)- tures, and teas, for substance^ a continuation of the re- ligion there taught. Christ frequently declares, that the Scriptures of the Old Testament make known his char- acter, and the principles of his gospel. He frequently appeals to the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms, for the confirmation of what he taught. The Apostles do the same, and clearly make it known to be their wish, that the soundness of their instructions should be tested by the Scriptures. And we well know that, whenever they speak of the Scriptures, they refer to the Old Tes- 4*
38 INFANT BAPTISM.
tament. Carefully peruse the Evangelists, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Epistles, and see in what manner Christ and the Apostles treat the Scriptures, and how they labor to show, that Christianity is not ^ncw religion, but, as to its principles, its whole substance, is the very religion which was taught in the Law and the Prophets ; — from which consideration they most justly conclude, that no man can reject Christianity without rejecting the Old Testament Scriptures, and that no one can truly be- lieve those Scriptures without believing Christianity.
I cannot think that any quotations in proof of the foregoing remarks will be thought necessary by those who are conversant with the Scriptures.
From such a view of the subject it seems very natural to conclude, that any general principle of religion, and any practice, established under the former economy, will be continued, though it may be in a different form, under the Christian economy, unless the reasons have ceased on which that principle or practice was founded, or unless God has expressly set it aside. For example ; it is just to conclude that public worship, which was es- tablished under the former dispensation, will be continu- ed under the latter, though doubtless with such changes in (he form, as the peculiarities of the Christian economy shall require. If Christ or his Apostles ever intimated to the Jews, that a change was called for in the spirit of their religion, they did it, unquestionably, with reference to the corruptions and abuses which had prevailed, not with reference to the religion which was actually taught in the Old Testament.
The institution of the Sabbath, which has already been referred to, furnishes another illustration of the pro- priety of our reasoning on the present subject. This in-
INFANT BAPTISM. 39
stitution rests on the essential principles of our intellec- tual and moral nature. There must be a sacred day^ — a day devoted to the worship of God. There is the same reason for it under both dispensations. The change then, if there be any, must relate to outward form and circum- stance. By the will of him who is the Lord of the Sab- bath, the particular day to be observed under the Chris- tian economy is different, and the observance attended with fewer and simpler ceremonies. Still there is a sa- cred day every week under the present dispensation, as really as there was under the Jewish or Patriarchal. In respect to the necessity and utility of such a day, and the command of God to observe it, there is no change.
The same appears to be true in regard to the subject under consideration. There must be a seal of God's gracious covenant, and of the relation which his people sustain to him. The importance of such a seal to pro- mote in the highest degree the ends of religion, must be obvious to all who are acquainted with the constitution of the human mind ; and it must be equally obvious in all ages. It is reasonable therefore to think, that, under both dispensations, God's covenant will have a seal, whatever difference there may be in the form of it. Why should not the unalterable relation of children to parents, and of both to God, be marked by a religious rite now, as well as formerly 1 According to the will of God, that rite, under the former economy, was circumcision ; under the present, it is baptism. The general import of both is the same.
I remark, secondly, that we cannot certainly conclude that our Saviour did not give his Apostles specific in- structions on this or any other subject, merely because such instructions are not preserved in the records of the
40 INFANT BAPTISM.
New Testament. The Evangelists have given us no more than a very summary account of what Christ taught during his pubHc ministry. They could do nothing more than this, as John plainly suggests at the end of his gos- pel ; where he tells us, that if all should be written, the loorld itself could not contain the books. We are not, however, to infer from this, that the instructions of Christ, which are not found in the sacred records, were unim- portant ; or that they had no effect, or were of no use ; or even that their effect does not reach to the present day, or that they are of no use to us. They were design- ed to have their primary and direct influence on the minds of the Apostles themselves, who were to be teach- ers of the Christian religion, and were, at the commence- ment of Christ's reign, to give a right direction to all the affairs of his kingdom. Accordingly, the effect of Christ's instructions to them must have appeared in the constitu- tion and form of the churches which they established. In various respects this is the only method in which it is possible for us to determine what Christ's instructions were. And under proper restrictions, it is a just and satisfactory method.
From the effects which the Apostles produced, we may learn what they did. And from what they did, we may learn what instructions they received from Christ. In this way we proceed in regard to the Passover, and the Seventh-day Sabbath. There is no record of any direction of Christ to set aside either of them. But we find that they were set aside among those Christians whom the Apostles taught. From this we may reasonably con- clude what instructions the Apostles gave ; and then, what they received from Christ. And we form this con- clusion respecting the last, without the mention of any
INFANT BAPTISM. 41
command or counsel from Christ to his Apostles, or from the Apostles to Christian converts. We find, farther, that Christians did, in some special sense, observe the first day of the week. This the sacred records clearly show. We learn fi-om other sources, that while the Sev- enth-day Sabbath gradually ceased to be observed in the primitive churches, the Lord's day was observed in its place. From these circumstances we infer what the Apostles taught the first Christians, and what they them- selves were taught by Christ. And I venture to say, if the New Testament were altogether silent respecting the first day of the week being made a sacred day, and if we only found that the Christian church does now uniformly observe the Lord's day, as a Sabbath, and that this has been the case from the time of the first Christian church- es ; we should be satisfied that such was the will of Christ ; that he had so instructed the Apostles, and that they had so instructed the first Christians.
The same general remarks apply to the present sub- ject. There is no mention made in the New Testament of any definite instructions of Christ to the Apostles, or of the Apostles to Christians, in regard to the baptism of little children. But can we infer from this, that no defi- nite instructions were given ? Such instructions miorht have produced the effect designed, first, upon the Apos- tles themselves, and then, through them, upon the minds of Christian converts. And it may remain for us to learn what those instructions of Christ and the Apostles were, fi-om what we discover to have been the practice of the first churches. We should unquestionably reason just so now, in a similar case. Suppose, without any previous knowledge of the subject, we should visit a place in Af- rica, where a Christian missionary had successfully
42 INFANT BAPTISM.
preached, and founded a church, he having been the on- ly minister of the gospel who had labored in that place. And suppose our visit to take place some time after his death. Would not the prevailing usages of that church show, to our perfect satisfaction, what instructions he gave ? If we should find it the practice of that church to baptize only adult believers, and to do it by immersion ; should we not conclude at once, that the minister who taught them was a Baptist ? But if we should find that the church, thus founded by his faithful labors, and gui- ded by his wisdom, was in the practice of baptizing their infant children, and that this had been their uniform practice from the beginning ; should we not conclude that he taught them to baptize their children ? Most certainly men in general, of whatever denomination, would judge in this manner, and would be satisfied what the instructions of any distinguished missionary were, from the prevailing usages of a church founded by his in- fluence. And such would be the conclusion we should form, for a long time after his decease, unless the influ- ence of subsequent teachers of different views, or some other visible causes, had operated to produce a change. Indeed it is clear, that the form and usages of a church in any place must be derived from the principal teacher, and conformed to his views. And if those Christians who deny Infant Baptism, could, among the treasures of antiquity, discover a history bearing every mark of au- thenticity, and containing a particular account of the churches in Asia Minor immediately after the days of the Apostles, and if that history should plainly affirm that those churches never baptized children, and that the children of believers, on coming to adult years and pro- fessing their faith in Christ, were then baptized ; I say.
INFANT BAPTISM. 43
if those who deny Infant Baptism, could find from au- thentic records, that such was the usage of those church- es ; they would think this to be a very valuable discove- ry, and the uniform practice of those churches to baptize adult believers, and those only, to be a valid proof that they were so taught by the Apostles.
But I shall now proceed to argue the point from the inspired records, just as they are. My position is, that the Scriptures of the New Testament, understood accord- ing to just rules of interpretation, imply that the children of believers are to he baptized.
The rule of interpretation, which is of the highest consequence, and which will aid us most in discovering the true .meaning of the Scriptures in relation to the sub- ject now before us, is, that we put ourselves, as far as may 6e, in the place of those tvho gave instruction, and of those who received it.
You will easily perceive the importance and necessity of this rule. For in numberless instances, a declaration or direction derives its peculiar meaning from the con- sideration of the person who speaks, or of those to whom he speaks. Who does not know that the same combi- nation of words has a very different meaning in one place fi-om what it has in another ? Even when the general sense of the words is the same, the circumstances of the case must determine the extent of meaning which they bear, or what is implied in the application of them to the subject in hand. Some fact, some prevalent cus- tom, or habit of thinking, may give them a specific signi- fication ; and without taking such fact or custom into view we shall be likely to miss the exact sense and import of the words. In how many instances should we be at a loss respecting the meaning of historians, poets, and or-
44 INFANT BAPTISM.
ators, without taking into account the age and place in which they lived, and the character, laws, and usages of the people with whom they were conversant, and for whom they wrote.
As a single illustration of the importance of this prin- ciple ; look at a text in the Old Testament, in which God requires that the Sabbath should be sanctified. How do you ascertain which day is meant 1 Simply by considering what previous instructions and commands were given to the Israelites on the subject, and what their usage was. In this way we are satisfied that the seventh day was meant. Look now at a law, in an English or American statute book, requiring the people to abstain from secular business on the Sabbath. How do you as- certain which day is meant here ? In the same manner as before, — by considering what has been the usage of Christians generally, and particularly of that people for whom the law was made. In this way we are satisfied that i\ie first day of the week must be meant.
Let us now come directly to the subject. Christ ap- pointed Baptism to be administered to all who should be- come proselytes to his religion, that is, to all Christians; and when he was about leaving his Apostles, who were to be employed as the instruments of converting the world, he gave them this commission ; "Go ye, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The word fia^V'^d'oaze, rendered teach^ properly signifies, ?)iake dis- ciples ; proselyte ; convert to the Christian religion. The commission then is this ; " Go yc, proselyte, or make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'' This command was given by one who was born a Jew, and ed-
INFANT BAPTISM. 45
licated among the Jews, and was perfectly acquainted with all their institutions and laws, with their customs and usages, and with the dispensations of divine provi- dence towards them. And the command was addressed to Jews. Now whatever there was in this general cir- cumstance, which could have an influence upon the mean- ing of the command, or whieh would naturally cause it to be understood in one way or another, is worthy of special attention.
Let it be considered then, that the Jews had long been accustomed to make proselytes from paganism to their religion. The obligation to do this had been brought to view in the divine law, and rules had been given for the proper treatment of proselytes. To make proselytes was regarded as a great object ; and the efforts of the Jews to bring others to embrace their religion were crowned with extensive success. Proselytes were numerous both in Greece and in Rome ; and it seems that, after the persecuting reign of Antiochus Epiphanes, some whole nations, as the Idumeans, Itureans, and Mo- abites professed the Jewish faith. And whenever gen- tiles embraced the Jewish religion, they were treated in regrard to circumcision, according to the Jewish law : that is, they were circumcised, — parents and children. This was the law of the Jews ; and this was the uniform practice. Hence it must be easy to determine how Christian Jews would be likely to understand the duty of proselyting idolaters and unbelievers to the true reli- gion. Suppose that God, previously to the Christian dis- pensation, had selected twelve Jews, and sent them forth to convert Greeks and Romans to their religion, and without any mention of children, had merely given them this commission : Go ye, proselyte and circumcise them.
46 INFANT BAPTISM.
Would they not have understood such a commission as requiring them to circumcise the children of converted Greeks and Romans ? Unquestionably they would. And why ? Because they were Jews, and had always been ac- customed to the circumcision of children, as well as parents. In obedience to this divine command, they would have gone to the people specified, and in all the instances in which men were made proselytes, would have circumcised them and their children.
Again. Suppose, in such a case, a command had been given, which included baptism with circumcision ; thus : Go ye, and proselyte those nations, circumcising and baptizing them. Still not a word about children ; but simply, Go and proselyte those nations to Judaism, circumcising and baptizing them. Most certainly they would have understood that baptism, as well as circumci- sion, was to be applied to proselytes and their children.
But suppose that baptism had been put in the place of circumcision, as the sign to be put upon proselytes to Judaism ; and so the command to those Jewish teachers had been ; Go ye, proselyte and baptize the people of Greece and Rome. Must they not have understood the command in the same way? Surely those who were acquainted with the commands and institutions which God gave to Abraham and to Moses, and who had always been accustomed to observe them, could have had no doubt, that the rite which marked the relation of prose- lytes to God, was to be applied to their children also.
Thus far all must have the same opinion. Such a divine command to Jews before the time of Christ, whether it appointed circumcision only, or circumci- sion, together with Baptism, or Baptism instead of cir- cumcision, as a mark to be applied to those who were proselyted to the Jewish religion, must have been under-
INFANT BAPTISM. 47
Stood as intended to be applied also to the children of proselytes, though no mention was made of children in the command.
I am now only availing myself of one of the most im- portant principles of interpretation, and attempting to show, what influence must have been produced upon the meaning of Christ's direction by the circumstance, that he was a Jew, and that he gave the direction to Jews, whose laws and usages had been what the Scriptures rep- resent.
But to illustrate this principle still farther ; suppose it to have been the appointment of our Saviour, after his public ministry began, that circumcision should be ap- plied to converts to Christianity, as it had been to con- verts to Judaism ; and suppose him to have said to his Apostles ; *' Go ye, proselyte all nations, and rircumcise them," — making no mention of children. Could the Apostles have doubted a moment, in such a case, wheth- er circumcision was meant to be applied to the children of proselytes 1 But why should we suppose they would put a different construction upon the commission they r^ ceived from Christ, because Baptism was made the sign of proselytes, instead of circumcision ? There is evident- ly nothing in the import of the sign, which would require any difference in its application. For Baptism is ap- pointed simply as a sign, to be put upon those who are proselyted to Christianity. If circumcision had been con- tinued, and Christ had commanded it to be put upon Chris- tian proselytes, as it had been upon proselytes to the re- ligion of Moses ; the meaning and use of it would have been perfectly the same, as the meaning and use of Baptism.
But there is another consideration which may help to satisfy us still farther, how the Apostles must have un- derstood their commission to baptize converts to Chris-
48 INFANT BAPTISM.
tianity ; namely ; the previous practice of the Jews to baptize proselytes and their children.
The evidence of such a practice among the Jews, though some think it not decisive, has been very satis- factory to most men of distinguished learning and judge- ment. Knapp, in his Theology, gives the following brief view of the arguments in proof of Proselyte Baptism ; namely ; *' The unanimous testimony of all the Rabbins ; the universality of this practice among the Jews of the second century ; the striking similarity of the Jewish ex- pressions concerning the baptism of proselytes, to those which occur in the New Testament respecting the Christian rite ; and the circumstance that Josephus, in his account of John the Baptist, does not express the least surprise at the practice of baptism, as a new and unwont- ed ceremony." Knapp suggests also, what I think to be deserving of special consideration, that if the baptism of proselytes was customary among the Jews at or before the time of Christ, many things could be explained more clearly from this circumstance, than in any other w^ay.
Some have doubted whether the Baptism of Proselytes was in use before the Christian era, because the earliest of the Jewish writers who mention the practice, lived some time after Christ.
In regard to this subject, let the following things be well considered.
First. The Rabbins unanimously assert that the Bap- tism of Proselytes had been practised by the Jews in all ages, from Moses down to the time when they wrote. Now these writers must have been sensible that their con- temporaries, both Jews and Christians, knew whether such a practice had been prevalent, or not. And had it been known that no such practice had existed ;
INFANT BAPTISM, 49
would not some Jews have been found, bold enough to contradict such a groundless assertion of the Rabbins ? At least, would there not have been some Christians, fired with the love of truth, and jealous for the honor of a sa- cred rite first instituted by Christ, who would have ex- posed to shame those who falsely asserted that a similar rite had existed for more than a thousand years ? But neitlier of these things was done.
Second. Had not the Jews been accustomed to bap- tize Proselytes previously to the Christian era ; it is ex- tremely improbable that they would have adopted the practice afterwards. For their contempt and hatred of Christianity exceeded all bounds, and must have kept them at the greatest possible distance from copying a rite peculiar to Christians.
Third. It seems to have been perfectly consistent and proper for the Jews to baptize proselytes. For their di- vine ritual enjoined various purifications by washing, or baptism. And as they considered all Gentiles to be un- clean, how could they do otherwise than understand the divine law to require, that when any of them were pros- elyted to the Jewish religion, they should receive the same sign of purification, as was, in so many cases, applied to themselves 1
But the subject is too extensive to be particularly dis- cussed here. I beg leave to refer those who wish to ex- amine it for themselves, to Lightfoot's Hor. Heb. on Matt. III. and John iii. Wall's Hist, of Infant Baptism, Introduction. Gale's Reflections on Wall's History : Michaelis Dogm. § 180. Ernesti Vindicige arbit. div. § 49. Jahn's Archaeology. Wetstein on Matt. 3: 6. Gill's Body of Divinity. R. Robinson's History of Baptism, and other works on the same subject. 5*
50 INFANT BAPTISM.
I will only add, that a farther consideration of the ar- guments which prove Proselyte Baptism, and of the ob- jections urged by Gill, Robinson and others against it, has produced in my mind a stronger conviction of its truth, than I had when I published the first edition of these Lectures.
If then it had been the uniform custom of the Jews to baptize proselytes to their religion, as we certainly have much reason to think ; it is clear that the Baptism of Proselytes by John and by Christ was no new thing. It is at any rate clear that Baptism, as a religious rite, had been familiarly known among the Jews from the time of Moses. So that the rite which John the Baptist instituted was not by any means a new rite. The ques- tion put to him (John 1: 25) plainly implies, that Bap- tism was not regarded by the Jews at that time as a new rite. — It was this rite, long used for ceremonial purifica- tion, and also in the case of Proselytes to the Jewish re- ligion, which John applied to those Jews who listened to his instructions, and gave signs of repentance. After- wards Christ ordained, that this same rite, which had thus been used among the Israelites for purification, and thus applied to converted Gentiles, and to Jews who re- pented under the preaching of John, should from that time be applied to all in every part of the world, who embraced Christianity. The work of proselyting men to the true religion had before been carried on within narrow limits. It was now to be carried on extensively ; and Baptism, in the Christian form, was now to be ad- ministered to all proselytes. " Go ye, and proselyte all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In judging of the true meaning and intent of this commission, the Apostles would naturally consider in what manner Baptism had
INFANT BAPTISM, 51
been administered ; and particularly, its having been ap- plied to proselytes and their children. This last circum- stance, in addition to the other with which they were so familiar, that of having children as well as parents con- secrated to God by circumcision, must have had a direct and decisive influence upon the construction which the Apostles put upon their commission, and must have led them to conclude, that, under the Christian dispensation, children, as well as parents, were to be devoted to God by Baptism, unless some contrary instruction was given to prevent such a conclusion. Knapp says ; '' If Christ in his command to baptize all. Matt, xxviii, had wished children to be excepted ; he must have expressly said this. For since the first disciples of Christ, as native Jews, knew no other way than for children to be intro- duced into the Israelitish church by circumcision ; it was natural that they should extend this to Baptism, if Christ did not expressly forbid it. Had he therefore wished that it should not be done, he would surely have said so in definite terms."
Another consideration which shows, that it must have been perfectly consistent for the Apostles to understand their commission in the manner above stated, is, that the Scriptures so often represent parents and children as re- ceiving the same treatment from divine providence, and as being closely connected together in respect to their most important interests. '* I will be your God, and the God of your seed." — *' Visiting the iniquities of the fa- thers upon the children, unto the third and fourth gene- ration of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands," — that is, thousands of generations, " of them that love me and keep my commandments." *' That he may prolong his days, he and his children." " Keep my
52 INFANT BAPTISM.
commandments, that it may be well witli thee, and v/ith thy children after thee." " They are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them." With such representations as these the course of divine providence had a striking correspondence. It was a general fact that, whether mercies or judgements came upon men, their children were partakers of the same. And this principle of the divine administration had a special reference to the interests of religion. Now the Apostles were perfectly acquainted with this principle. They had the highest reverence for those sacred writings, which exhibited such views of the connexion between parents and children ; and they had been brought up un- der a divine economy, which afforded continual confirma- tion of what their Scriptures taught in regard to this con- nexion. What violence then must tl^ey have done to all those habits of thinking and feeling, which they had de- rived from the word and providence of God, had they supposed, that parents and children were no longer to be connected together in the concerns of religion, or in pub- lic and sacred transactions, or that the consecration of parents and children to God was no longer to be mark- ed, as it always had been, with the sign of the dispensa- tion under which they were placed !
It is no objection to this train of thought, that the promises, above recited, were conditional. For they were no more conditional in regard to children, than in regard to parents. And the fact that a promise, or covenant has proper conditions, is, surely^ no reason why it should not have a token or seal.
LECTURE IV.
The argument from the circumstances of the Apostles reviewed, and shown to be conclusive. — Mode of understanding a charter. — Did Christ give any previous instruction which could have shown the Apostles in what manner they were to understand their commission, or how they were to regard children l — Matt. 19: 13, 14 particularly considered.
The general position, which I endeavoured to sup- port in the last Lecture, was this ; that the Apostles, be- ing native Jews, and having the impressions and habits of thinking, which pious Jews would necessarily derive from a familiar acquaintance with the usages of the na^- tion, with the rites inculcated in their Sacred writings, and with the representations there made respecting the divine conduct towards parents and children, must have understood their commission to baptize proselytes, as in- tended to include children with their parents.
The mode of reasoning, which has been pursued, must, I think, be satisfactory. Its conclusiveness rests on a principle of interpretation, which is acknowl- edged to be of the first importance ; namely ; that we should place ourselves, as far as possible, in the circum- stances of those who wrote the Scriptures, and of those to whom they were addressed, and in this way endeav-* our to ascertain the meaning of what was written. From Ecclesiastical History we can derive a very conclusive argument, that the Apostles did ia fact understand the
54 INFANT BAPTISM.
institution of Baptism, as intended for believers and theif children. But why did they understand it in this man- ner? I answer, that without the supposition of any di- rect and explicit instruction on the subject from Christ, or from the Holy Spirit, there were reasons, in the cir- cumstances in which the Apostles were placed, sufficient to satisfy them, that such was the design of the institu- tion. Take the New Testament just as it is, and con- sider what instructions Christ gave his Apostles in re- gard to Baptism, particularly his final commission to them, to go and proselyte all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy •Ghost. The proper inquiry is not how Greeks and Ro- mans would have understood such a commission ; for the Apostles were neither Greeks nor Romans, and their Lord who commissioned them, was neither a Greek nor a Roman. Our inquiry is, how such a commission would naturally be understood by those who were, both by birth and education, Jews ; how it would be understood, by those, who had derived their opinions from the Jewish Scriptures and Jewish usages, and who were the willing ser- vants of one who was himself a Jew, and the King of the Jews ? To me it appears evident, that the circumstan- ces of the case, taken together, must have had a decisive influence in favor of the Baptism of infants. For it was a well known fact, that the seal of God's gracious cove- nant had, from Abraham to that time, been applied to children. And this application of it was manifestly grounded on a permanent, unchangeable principle, that is, the natural relation between parents and children, and the propriety and duty of both being consecrated to God. The seal which was appointed to be put upon God's peo- ple under the reign of Christ, was of the same general
INFANT BAPTISM. 55
import with the one previously used. In this view, there- fore, there was the same apparent reason for applying it to the children of God's people then, as before. As to its form, the seal was changed ; but as to its import, it was the same. The relation of good men to God, which was marked by this sign, was the same ; and the relation of their children to them was the same. How then could the Apostles doubt that children were still to receive the sign of the covenant, as they had formerly ? With their impressions, and their usages ; with their sacred regard to the principles established by the Scriptures, and by the divine administration ; particularly, with their habit of looking upon children as being, by God's appointment, closely united to their parents in respect to character, and privileges, and prospect of happiness ; they must, as it seems to me, have understood the command of Christ to baptize Christian proselytes, as extending to their child- ren also. Had the promise of God, " I will be a God to thee, and to thy seed," or had the circumcision of the children of God's people in connexion with that promise, rested on any principle, which appertained to the Patriarchal or Jewish dispensation in distinction from the Christian ; the Apostles, placed at the commence- ment of the Christian dispensation, and instructed as they were in regard to its nature, would have been satisfied of course, that children were no longer to be marked with the seal of God's covenant, or to be consecrated to him by any religious rite. But children's being comprehend- ed with their parents in God's covenant, and their re- ceiving the same mark of his covenant mercy and of con- secration to him with their parents, all rested upon prin- ciples, which were universal and immutable, and which
56 INFANT BAPTISM.
were to have as much prominence and influence under the reign of Christ, as before.
We have seen too, that the reasoning in this case is analogous to the reasoning commonly relied upon, in re- lation to the Sabbath. The reason of a Sabbath day lies in the nature of man, and in his relation to God, and so is immutahle. Consequently, the fourth command, how- ever changed as to form, or circumstances, must continue as to substance. There must be a sacred day. Its be- coming a Christian institution, and its being observed on the first day of the v^^eek, instead of the seventh, alters not the substance of the fourth command, nor the obliga- tion of Christians to obey it. In the same manner, the reason for Infant-consecration lies in the nature and im- portance of the relation existing between children and their parents, and the relation of both to God, and so must be the same in all aores. This relation is as obvious and important, and as worthy of being marked by a re- ligious rite noio, diS formerly. The sign of consecration now is Baptism ; and all the reasons in the case conspire to favor the application of it to children. Thus we ap- prehend the subject must have presented itself to the minds of the Apostles and first Christians.
The view which we have adopted on this subject, agrees best with the common method of understanding a charter^ securing to any society of men the enjoyment of privileges. Such a charter is, by common consent, to be understood in the largest sense it will bear. Suppose the grant of privileges to a society is made in general terms ; that is, neither the individuals nor classes of men belonging to the society are specified. Now he, who is entrusted with the execution of the charter, is bound to bestow the privileges granted, on all who can fairly be
INFANT BAPTISM. 57
considered as belonging to the society. And if any one should object to bestowing the chartered privileges on any individuals fairly comprehended within the society, it would be incumbent on him to show that those indi- viduals were expressly excepted in the terms of the grant. Especially would it be proper to give this wide construc- tion to the grant, if it were well known, that a previous grant, of the same nature, had expressly required this ex- tensive application of its privileges. And it would be a stronger reason still for understanding; the charter in such a sense, if the charter itself were evidently nothing more, than the modification, as to outward form, of a previous charter, which was more particular, and which, in the most explicit terms, secured its privileges to those, whose title is now called in question. In such a case, it would aid us much in determining the extent of meaning to be put upon the more general terms of the charter in its present form, to inquire how it was with the charter when first giv- en. And if, on examination, it should be found that it was the will of the prince, that the privileges, originally grant- ed, should be thus extensively applied ; we should be sat- isfied at once that the privileges of the charter in its present form, were meant to be applied to an equal ex- tent,— unless there teas an express limitation. And we should feel this satisfaction in the highest possible degree, if it appeared that the prince made the alteration in the form of the original charter, with the declared design of carrying its privileges to a larger extent.
To make the principle I have laid down perfectly in- telligible and satisfactory, suppose the following case. In a time of sudden invasion, a king publishes a decree, that those who serve faithfully in the present war, shall during life be entitled, they and their children, to the in-
6
58 INFANT BAPTISM.
structions of the public teachers of learning and religion, and to the attention of authorized physicians, at the pub- lic expense. Children are specified ; and so no doubt can exist as to the extent of privileges secured by the de- cree. Some years after, another war takes place. The king, gratified with the results of the former measure, again publishes his decree, and sends it forth to the more distant parts of his empire, securing the same privi- leges to those who serve faithfully in this war. But the decree in its present form, contains no distinct mention of children. Durincr the war the king dies. Afterwards the question arises, whether the decree, which he last pub- lished, is to be understood as extending the privileges specified to the children of those who served in the war. On the negative, it is said, the children are not expressly named in the decree ; and very young children are not capable of enjoying all the privileges specified. On the other side it is said, that in the original decree, publish- ed for the same general purpose on a former occasion, chil- dren were expressly named, and that their enjoying these privileges was never a subject of complaint with any por- tion of the community ; that there is the same reason for extending the privileges to children now, as there was before ; and that they are as capable of being bene- fitted by them. And it is urged finally, that it was the well-known intention of the king in this case, to offer greater privileges, and to hold up higher inducements to public service, than on the former occasion. The ques- tion is, how the decree, published in the last case, ought to be construed. And I am persuaded, the united sen- tence of the community would be, that it was the will of the king in the last case, as well as in the former, to
4
INFANT BAPTISM.
59
extend the privileges specified in the decree, to the chil- dren of those, who were the objects of the royal favor.
This construction of a decree or charter, securing privileges to a particular description of men, and this method of arriving at the knowledge of what was the in- tention of the king, cannot be deemed otherwise than just and satisfactory. And who, let me ask, would so dishonor a king of a generous heart, as to attempt to take away from the children of his faithful servants, any of those privileges, which had, by his express direction, been before conferred upon them in the same circumstan- ces ?
Now all the considerations, which would lead us to give such a construction to the decree or charter here supposed, exist in relation to the subject of Infant Bap- tism. Our inquiry is, whether the language, employed in Christ's commission to baptize, would naturally be un- derstood by his Apostles, as extending to the children of believers? In answer to this inquiry, I have endeavour- ed to make it appear, that all the circumstances of the case, which can be supposed to have had any influence upon the minds of the Apostles, were in favor of extend- ing baptism to children ; and that, before they could un- derstand their commission in any other manner, they must have ceased to be children of Abraham, and must have erased from their minds all the impressions which had been made upon them by the word and providence of God.
The want of qualifications in children is a subject v/hich deserves particular consideration. It is suf- ficient, however, for our present purpose, to say, that a grant of privileges is often made to children prospective- ly and conditionally. In such cases, some mark or seal
60 INFANT BAPTISM.
of those privileges, such as may be applied to children, is always deemed proper ; and as to the privileges them- selves, it is the common understanding, that they belong to the children intended, as soon as they become capable of enjoying them, and have complied with the conditions on which they are granted.
Thus far we have considered merely those circum- stances, which would be likely to influence the Apostles in their understanding of the meaning of their commis- sion. The reasoning has proceeded independently of the consideration of any other means which they might have had of knowinor wiiat was the will of their Lord.
But we shall not stop here, but shall proceed to in- quire, ivhether there was any thing in the previous in- structions of Christ, which could have contributed to sat- isfy the Apostles in what light he regarded the children of his people, and in what manntr he woidd have them treated ; or which could have had any influence on their minds in regard to the subject before us.
Here it is not to be concealed, that all the evidence we can have is circumstantial, or by way of inference. But such evidence, it will be remembered, is often as sat- isfactory as any other.
The first passage I shall introduce in regard to this subject is Matt. 19: 13, 14. " Then were brought to Jesus little children, that he should put his hands on them and pray ; and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said. Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me ; for of such is the kingdom of heaven. And he laid his hands on them." The same thing is related in nearly the same manner by Mark, 10: 13, 14, and by Luke, 18: 15, 16. In Luke ^Qicf.r] is used, which denotes young children, infants. The phrase Icing-
INFANT BAPTISM. 61
dom of heaven, or Icingdom of God, as Mark and Luke have it, unquestionably signifies here, as it generally does in the Evano-elists, the Christian church, or the kingdom which Christ set up in the world, in distinction from the society of God's people, as it existed under the former dispensation.
That part of this passage which relates more directly to our subject, is the declaration at the close ; tojv yaij TOiQVTbiv IgtXv t^ ^(xoikilu TOJP ouQCii'Wv ; for to such the kingdom of heaven belongs. They have a right to its blessings.
The common rendering of the phrase is, " for of such is the kingdom of heaven ;" — which is understood to mean, that the kingdom of heaven consists, or is made up of such, But the rendering which I have given and which I think more exactly agreeable to the sense of the original, is the same as is given to a similar phrase in Matt. 5: 3, 10. '* Blessed are the poor in spirit, on u.vt6)v ioTiv 7} ffaaUeia xoiv ovgavojv, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven," the kingdom of heaven belo)igs to them ; they have a right to it. The same v. 10. *' Bless- ed are they who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, OTt u.VTO)v ioTiv ri ^(xQiXiia tail/ ovgavojv ; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven ;" it belongs to them.
The whole verse then will stand thus ; " Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me ; for to such the kingdom of heaven belongs." They are, in an important sense, entitled to its privileges.*
There are two ways of interpreting this declaration. According to one of them, the declaration relates to those
* The particular sense in wliich the privileges of the Chris- tian Church belong to children will be considered in the course of these Lectures.
6*
68 INFANT BAPTISM.
who resc?nhle little childrai ; that is, to those who are do- cile, and free from ambition and malice. Those who adopt this sense of the passage, consider the declaration, " of such is the kingdom of heaven," as signifying, that the kingdom of heaven belongs, not to little children them- selves, but to those who are like them ; — to real Christians.
The principal arguments in favor of this interpreta- tion are the following.
1. It may be said, this interpretation is suggested by the passages in which Christ professedly undertakes to show what character his disciples must possess, from the obvious qualities of a little child ; as in Matt. 18: 1 — 6, The disciples, influenced by feelings of ambition, inquir- ed, who was the greatest in Christ's kingdom. Christ called a little child unto him, and set him in the midsty and said : " Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the midst of the sea." Here the phrase, nuidiov tocovtov, such a child, is used to signify one who resembles a child ; that is, a disciple of Christ ; one who believes in Christ ; as appears from the next verse. When therefore Christ says, in the pas- sage under consideration, " of such is the kingdom of heaven," or to such, that is, to such little children, the kingdom of heaven belongs ; he must evidently mean the same, as in the place where he speaks expressly of those little ones who believe.
INFANT BAPTISM. 63
2. This interpretation of the passage, it is thought, may be defended by what directly follows in the context, as Mark and Luke have it. According to these Evan- gelists, after Christ says, ** Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not," he immediately adds : *' Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God, as a little child, shall not enter therein." This is evidently intended to point out the character of his disciples ; and why should not the declaration, '* of such is the kingdom of heaven," be understood as referring to the same ? So Kuinoel understands it. And he argues in favor of this sense of the passage, by what Christ says immediately af- ter ; " whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall not enter therein."
3. There is a general reason for giving the passage this sense, which, though I have not seen it distinctly mentioned by any author, seems to me deserving of par- ticular consideration. I refer to the fact, that Christ so often took pains to instruct the people as to the nature of his kingdom, and the necessary qualifications of those who should be admitted to enjoy its blessings, and insist- ed upon the preeminent importance of their being like a little child, or their being free from pride and malice, and possessing a humble, teachable disposition. Now it would seem that a declaration of Christ, showing to whom his kingdom belongs, would most naturally be intended to refer to the character of true disciples.
These, so far as I know, are the chief reasons which have been or can be urged in favor of this sense of the passage.
But there are several considerations of no small weight against this interpretation, and in favor of that which makes the phrase, " of such is the kingdom of
64 INFANT BAPTISM.
heaven,^^ or, to such the hingdom of heaven belongs, relate to children, such as those that were brought to Christ.
The first reason I shall mention is, that loiomog pro- perly denotes the nature or quality of the thing to which it is applied. " Innuit qualitatem rei." Schleusner. *' Such, of this kind or so?'t." Robinson's Wahl. Ac- cordingly, Tcov yuQ Tocovrciov iozlv i] (^uoileia, iiov ovgu- TJCJV, signifies to such children, (nuidio'jv being under- stood,) to such children as these the privileges of Christ's kingdom, or of the gospel dispensation belong. The chil- dren who were brought to Christ must have been includ- ed. For if those privileges belonged to such children as they were, why not to them 1 This sense of the word may be illustrated from its current use in similar circum- stances in the New Testament. Matt. 9: 8. " The mul- titude glorified God, who had given such poioer to men ;" i^ovoiav to lavTtjv^ power of such a kind, or so glorious, — the very power, which had just been displayed being in- tended. Mark 4: 33. " With many such parables spake he unto them ;" TOiavTaig nuga^o^ulg, with many par- ables such as these. Mark 6: 2, — " that such mighty works are wrought by his hands ;" divuf^iei? toiuvtui. Luke 9: 9. " Who is this of whom I hear such things ;" lOiavTCt^ things of such a nature as these. Luke 13: 2. " Suppose ye that these Galileans were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things ;" toiuv- za, things of so dreadful a nature as those mentioned. John 9: 16. *' How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles ?" lOiavTCt ar]fA.i:loc, miracles of so remarkable a nature as those referred to. So in several passages in Romans, toiuvtu signifies such things as those before mentioned. This appears to be the sense of rowvTog, ex- cept when it is employed in a peculiar, unusual manner.
INFANT BAPTISM. 65
Accordingly, the phrase, '' of such is the kingdom of heaven," must mean, of such children as these, the very children that were brought to Christ being included. The other sense of TWi^ toiovtmv, namely, — of those who are like these children, that is, of those who are not real children, hut docile, humble men, Avould be altogether an exception from the prevailing sense, and ought not to be adopted, without very imperious reasons.
To satisfy ourselves as to the correctness of the mean- ing above given to the passage, let us suppose a variation in the predicate, while the subject, which is signified by ToiovTMv, remains the same. Thus : Suffer little chil- dren to come unto me, — for to such God has given im- mortal souls ; or, I came to save such ; or, such are the objects of my kindness, and are to be trained up for me. Here it would be evident to all, that what was said was to be understood, not of those who had a temper resem- bling that of children, but of children themselves. And it must be so in the case under consideration, unless we are to assume, that what is denoted by the kin^doju of heaven, cannot in any sense, belong to children. But who will venture on such an assumption ?
I allow that naidiov toiovzov, in Matt. 18: 5, may at first view appear to favor the other interpretation. But a careful attention to all the circumstances will lead, I think, to a different conclusion. " Jesus set a child in the midst of his disciples, and said, except ye be convert- ed, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Thus he directed the atten- tion of those around him to the character of a true dis- ciple. He represented a disciple, a member of his king- dom, to be like a little child, or to he a child in disposi- tion. So that when, in the next verse, he says, " whoso-
O© INFANT BAPTISM.
ever shall receive one such child" the way was prepared for understanding him to mean a person of a loioly dispo- sition, a true disciple. A person of this character had been made the subject of discourse, — the subject on which the thoughts of all were fixed. In these circum- stances, iraiSt'op TOiovTOv must of course have been ta- ken to mean a person of a childlike disposition. And we find in verse 6, i'vu tmv |U*>cocoj/, OJie of these little ones, is expressly made to signify one who believes in Christ. He was speaking of such a one under the im- age of a child. And so he calls him a child.
There is then un obvious difference between the two passages. In one, the attention is fixed upon the char- acter of a Christian, as the principal Subject. In conse- quence of the method which was taken to illustrate his character, it became perfectly natural to call him a child, a little child. T[o.i(^lov toioviov, thus introduced, must have been understood to signify a disciple of Christ. But, in the other passage, the subject presented before the mind was, the little children themselves. They were brought to Christ for his blessing. Upon them the atten- tion of all was fixed. To them the objection of the dis- ciples related. And surely what Christ said in the way of reply to that objection, must also have related to them. We rest then on a general principle ; namely ; that words are to be taken in their literal sense, unless there is a plain and satisfactory reason for taking them in a metaphorical sense. In Matt. 18: 5, there is such a rea- son. In Matt. 19: 14, there is not.
My second reason in favor of the interpretation we are now considering is, that the declaration, *' of such is the kingdom of heaven," is expressly made the rrasow for suf- fering little children themselves to come to him. " Suffer
INFANT BAPTISM. 67
little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, rtov 'yag toiovtwv, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Both in the New Testament and in classic authors, yuQ is commonly used to denote the reason of what has been asserted or implied. The declaration, ^^for of such is the kingdom of heaven," according to the common ac- ceptation of the words, must then be understood to be the reason for suffering the little children themselves to come to him. But how could this be a reason for suf- fering the little children to come to Christ, if they did not belong to his kingdom, but only certain others who resembled them ? When, however, I say that their belonging to the kingdom of heaven is given as the rea- son why they should be suffered to come to Christ, I do not rely merely on the causative conjunction, yug ; which, though it is commonly used in this sense, is sometimes used in a different sense. For even if this conjunction were omitted, the very collocation of the words, and the obvious relation of the ideas contained in the former and in the latter part of the sentence, would clearly suggest, that the fact last mentioned was meant to be given as the reason of what was before said. The disciples forbid little children to come to Christ. He rebukes them, and says, — Suffer the little children to come unto me ; of such is the kingdom of heaven. Now who could tell why this last should be said, if not meant to be a reason for suf- fering the little children to come 1 And it is to be remem- bered, that the little children did come, and that they came too in consequence of that very direction which Christ gave respecting them, and which was accompa- nied with such a reason.
These two considerations ; namely ; the prevailing use of the word toiovtojVj and the assigning of the last
68 INFANT BAPTISM.
circumstance mentioned in the sentence, as the reason of the direction just before given, are of great weight, being the prominent considerations both of a philological and logical nature, which relate to the interpretation of the text. And if the last interpretation given is not the right one ; then the word tolovtwv is not here used in its common sense, and the reason assigned by Christ for sufferincr the little children to come to him, seems to have no weight or pertinence.
Now considering that this interpretation of the text is supported by such considerations, we certainly ought not to reject it, and to adopt another, without very strong and conclusive reasons. But do such reasons exist ?
Let us first inquire, whether there is any thing in the nature of the case, which is conclusive against this inter- pretation. Is the kingdom of heaven, or the Christian Church such, as would make it inconsistent to suppose that it belongs, in any sense, to children ? I answer in the negative ; and the propriety of this answer may be made to appear in two ways. First ; Christ's kingdom may belong to little children, or they may be members of it, in the highest sense. They may have been designat- ed as heirs of salvation, and the grace of God may have sealed them for heaven. No one can show that the ac- tual salvation of little children is impossible, or improba- ble.
But secondly ; without supposing that all children, or even all the children of believers, are actually mem- bers of Christ's kingdom in the highest sense ; we may consider them as being related to it, and entitled to its privileges, in a lower, though a very important sense. We may consider them as sustaining a very near relation to their own parents, and through them to the church.
_ INFANT BAPTISM. 69>
They may have a right to the privileges of the church, somewhat as children may have a right to the privileges of a particular civil community, of which their parents are members. The children of pious parents may have such a connexion wuth the church, as w^ill secure to them special advantages for moral improvement, and a pros- pect specially favorable to their final salvation. It may be the design of God, that the Christian religion should be transmitted from one generation to another, and per- petuated in the world, generally, by the pious education of those who are the children of the church, rendered successful by the divine blessing.
Now this relation of children to the church, which I consider to be a matter of fact, is of vast importance to the interests of religion ; and resulting, as it evidently does, from the constitution of human beings, and the ap- pointment of God respecting his kingdom, it is deserving of special notice. Such notice Christ seems to have giv- en it in the passage under consideration. According to the views which have now been suggested, this passage
may be paraphrased thus : These little children, whom
you would hinder fro/n being brought to me for my bless- ing, are objects of my kindest regard. They, and such as they, stand in a near relation to my church. The kingdom, which I am setting up, is not to overlook them^ but to embrace and cherish them. Peculiar favor was shown to children under the former dispensation ; think not that less is to be shown them under my reign. Look not upon them, therefore, with feelings of indifference. Strive not to deprive them of my blessing. Suffer them to come unto me ; for to such children the pr-ivileges of the gospel dispensation belong.
My conclusion is, that as there is nothing in the na- 7
70 INFANT BAPTISM.
ture of the case, which makes it impossible or inconsis- tent that little children should, in some important sense, Iiold a relation to the church, or that the privileges of the Christian dispensation should belong to them ; there is nothing in the nature of the case, which can furnish any valid objection against that interpretation of the text, which I have undertaken to support.
Secondly. Is there any conclusive objection against this interpretation from the other passage referred to, that is, Matt. 18: 1 — 6, in which Christ professedly makes use of a little child to inculcate upon his disci- ples the importance of humility ? There can, I think, be no such objection, because the words of Christ recorded here, were spoken on an occasion, and for a purpose, entire- ly different from those of the passage we have been examin- ing. There, little children were brought to Christ. His disciples wished to exclude them. But Christ disapprov- ed of their conduct, and gave them a reason why the children should be permitted to come ; and the reason was, that to such as they his kingdom belonged. But in Matt. 18; 1 — 6, the disciples manifested the workings of ambition ; and Christ, to teach them humility, took a tittle child, and set him before them, and told them that they must become unambitious, humble, like that child, or they could not be admitted into his kingdom. In this place, the character required of his disciples was the ob- ject and the only object Christ had in view. He brought forward a little child merely to illustrate that character. In the other place, the children themselves were the objects of attention, and the evident design of Christ was to show how he regarded them, and, consequently, how he would have them regarded and treated by his disciples. Now because on one occasion, it was the object of Christ
INFANT BAPTISM.
71
in all that he said to inculcate humility upon his follow- ers ; we cannot surely infer, that this and this only was his object on another occasion, which was in itself, and in all its circumstances, different.
But, thirdly ; it is said, — and this is the last and the greatest difficulty I shall attempt to remove, — that on the ■very occasion, on which Christ declared respecting little children, " Of such is the kingdom of heaven," and immediately after he had declared this, he inculcated the same lesson of humility, and in nearly the same way, as on the other occasion. See Mark 10: 15. " Whosoev- er shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, ojg ncctdlov, shall not enter therein."
My answer is, that Christ was accustomed to make use of all the means which were at hand, to inculcate duty upon his disciples, especially the duty of being humble ; and that, after he had shown his affection for the little children who were brought to him, and had declared that the privileges of his kingdom belonged to them, it was perfectly according to his usual manner, to introduce an- other subject, and by means of the lovely children, who were then before him, and who were entitled to such con- sideration, to teach his disciples, what disposition they must possess. It was clearly another subject, though in- troduced on the occasion of the children beinor brouorht to him. Jesus chose that such an occasion should not pass without profit to his disciples, whom he doubtless saw to be in special need of the instruction then given them.
"There is also a general consideration which was mentioned in the former Lecture, and which should not be overlooked in the interpretation of the text now before us, and which is of special use in the interpreta- tion of many a doubtful passage in the Evangelists, and
72 INFANT BAPTISM.
in the Epistles ; namely ; that it was addressed to Jews. We have already considered what influence this circum- stance must have had on the manner, in which the Apos- tles would understand the commission they received to proselyte and baptize. Why should we suppose it had less influence here ? The Jews were accustomed to a dispensation, under which the children of God's people were considered and treated, as belonging to their sacred community, and as entitled to inherit its blessing^. Their Scriptures plainly required that they should be treated in this manner. But on the particular occasion now re- ferred to, the disciples seem to have forgotten this prin- ciple. They treated the little children who were brought to Christ, as though it had escaped their recollection, that children were the objects of God's favor, and that they sustained so high a relation to the society of his people. Had there not been something faulty in the feelings of the disciples, they would not have done such a thing, as to forbid the children to be brought to Christ for his blessing; and, most certainly, they would not have incurred his rebuke. The answer of Christ was perfectly suited to correct their mistake, and to teach them what, as the posterity of Abraham, they would easi- ly understand ; namely ; that children were to have the same relation to God and his people under the Christian dispensation^ as before. For I cannot but insist upon it, that, as the disciples in that case were chargeable with overlooking the importance of little children, and treating them with a culpable indifference ; at least, with not manifesting a suitable regard for them; it is perfectly natural to understand what Christ said in reply, as hav- ing been intended to correct their mistake, and to show in what light children were to be regarded under his reign.
INFANT BAPTISM. 73
There is still one more consideration I wish to ex- hibit, which is, that the sense I have given to the pas- sage in Matt, may receive support from what St. Paul says respecting children, 1 Cor. 7: 14. " Else were your children unclean, but now they are liolyT This text will be considered more particularly in the next Lecture. At present my object is simply to show, that, being understood according to the most respectable and judicious commentators, it has an exact correspondence with my interpretation of the text Matt. 19: 14.
" Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy ;" v\)v di uytu iaziv. According to Schleusner, this means, but noio are they held as members of the Chris- tian Church ; " Jam vero habentur membra ecclesise Christianae." At the head of the article under which this text is quoted, he says. He is called holy, ivho is to be numbered ivith the society of Christians. Wahl, re- ferring to this place, says, it is spoken of one taho is in any way connected with Christians, and therefore to be reckoned among them. According to these and other distinguished authors, the apostle Paul, who so perfectly understood the nature and circumstances of the Chris- tian dispensation, represented children, as those who were to be numbered 7vith the society of Christians, and to be regarded as holding an important relation to the Chris- tian Church, even when only one of their parents was a believer. This must have involved the general principle, that the children of believers were considered as belono-- ing to the Messiah's kingdom, or the Christian church. And this is the same thing as that which I have under- stood to be taught by the words of Christ ; ** Of such is the kingdom of heaven." The declaration of Christ, and that of the apostle, had relation to the same sub- ■7*
74 INFANT BAPTISM.
ject. They were both intended to show in what light the children of believers were to be regarded. This compar- ison of the two texts affords additional satisfaction as to the true meaning of each.
I have thus gone through with an examination of the remarkable passage in Matt. 19: 14, and, without relying on the opinions of others, have carefully attended to those considerations on both sides, which appeared to be of particular consequence to a right interpretation. I would not suffer myself to feel any undue confidence in my own opinion on such a subject as this ; and I would certain- ly treat with great respect those who adopt a different opinion. Having endeavoured impartially to exhibit whatever appertains to a fair discussion of the subject, I very cheerfully refer the whole to the judgement of en- lightened and candid men.
The most respectable authors are divided. Accord- ing to Rosenmiiller and Kuinoel, Christ taught merely that his disciples must resemble little children in humili- ty and gentleness, and not that children themselves be- longed to his kingdom. But many English writers de- fend with various arguments the sense which I have giv- en. And I find Storr and Flatt on the same side. And they do not merely give their opinion, although that would be entitled to great respect ; but what is better, they give a reason for their opinion ; and that reason is the very one, to which I have attached the highest im- portance in the preceding discussion. The passage re- lating to this text is the f(:>llowing.* *' Tmv ydo toiov- T(ov tOTiv T^ ^aniXela t(ov ovgavoiv ; for of such is the kingdom of heaven. Children must have been included
* See Storr's Bib. Tiieol. Book 3. § OS.
INFANT BAPTISM. 75
in the ivord^ such ; because the proposition, the kingdom of heaven belongs to hianhle adults, — to those who have as little pride as children, would be no reason why children should not be prevented from coming to Jesus."
Now for the application of this passage, thus inter- preted, to the subject in hand. No one pretends that the children spoken of in this passage, were brought to Christ for Baptism, or that the passage affords direct proof of Infant Baptism. Still it may have an important bearing on the subject. Our inquiry is, in what way the Apostles must have understood the commission Vvhich Christ gave them, to proselyte and baptize all nations ; particularly, whether they would understand the children of proselytes to be included. After attending to various circumstan- ces directly pertaining to the subject, and finding what reason we have to think, that the Apostles must have un- derstood the commission to baptize as extending to the children of believers ; we proceeded to inquire, whether Christ, the author of the new dispensation, had previous- ly given any instructions, which could have an influence on their minds in regard to this subject ; particularly, whether he had said any thing to show in what light he regarded little children. We fixed on the passage in Matt. 19: 14, as answering this inquiry ; that is, as show- ing, that the children of God's people were considered as belonging to their community, just as they had belonged to the community of his people under the former dispen- sation. Formerly, they were considered a holy seed, con- secrated to God, and blessed with special privileges, in consequence of being the children of his people. Christ here seems to teach, that they were to be considered in the same light and treated in the same manner under his reign. When therefore the Apostles received a commis-
76 INFANT BAPTISM.
sion to proselyte and baptize all nations, they had this special reason for understanding it as extending to chil- dren, that Christ himself had taught them before, that children were to belong to his kingdom, just as they had belonged to the society of God's people under the former economy. And if, wherever the Christian religion should be propagated, and the kingdom of Christ established, the children of believers were, according to his instructions, to enjoy, in an important sense, the privileges of that kingdom, and to be connected with the society of the dis- ciples ; there could be no doubt that they were to receive the mark of discipleship. If they were to be regarded as holi/, that is, consecrated to God ; they v/ere undoubtedly to receive the sign of consecration.
I cannot deny myself the pleasure of closing this Lec- ture with a passage from Knapp's Theology, under the head of Infant Baptism ; where he shews that he gave the same sense to the text in Matt. 19: 14, and reasoned from it in the same manner, as I have done.
*' That Infant Baptism, considered as a solemn rite of consecration, cannot be opposed to the design and will of Christ, may be concluded from his own declara- tion. Matt. 19: 14. Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not ; itZv yag tolovtwv ioiii/ ril^ccat- Xala lov {^iov ,• for of such is the kingdom of God* This is indeed no command for Infant Baptism. But if children can and should have a share in the Chris- tian church, and in all Christian privileges, {^aotXeiu too {^eov,) it cannot be improper to introduce them into the Christian church by this solemn rite of initiation. And
* In another place Knapp says ; *• From the words of Christ, Matt. 19: 14, ' Of such is the kingdom of heatcn," it is clear that he adjudges it lo children.''
INFANT BAPTISM. 77
if according to the design of Christ, children, from their earliest youth up, are to have a share in the rites and privileges of Christians ; it must also be agreeable to his will, solemnly to introduce them, by this rite of conse- cration, into the nursery of his disciples. Compare 1 Cor. 7: 14."
LECTURE V.
Whether there was any thing in the conduct of the Apostles, or any declaration in their writings, to aid us in determining how they understood their commis- sion.— Household Baptism. — ICor. 7: 14.
We have already inquired, whether there was any thing in the particular instructions of Christ to his Apos- tles, previous to the final commission he gave them, which would naturally lead them to understand that com- mission, as intended to include infant children. We shall now inquire, whether we can be assisted in deter- mining how they understood that commission, by any thing in the conduct of the Apostles while executing their commission, or any declaration made in their writings.
The mode of reasoning which I have adopted, does not require, and does not lead us to expect any thing like a positive declaration, that they baptized infants, or con- sidered them proper subjects of baptism. For if it was so, that the Apostles and first Christians had a united and perfect persuasion, that children were to hold a place in the community of God's people under the new dispen- sation, similar to what they had held before, and that they were to receive the new mark of special relation to God, as they had received the old ; then there was no more occasion for the Apostles to mention the fact that chil- dren were baptized, than there was for Joshua, and Sam-
INFANT BAPTISM. 79
uel, and all the writers of the history contained in the Old Testament, to mention at every period, that children eight days old were circumcised. And the case might be exactly so at the present time. Pedobaptist ministers or missionaries might write a history of their ministry, and the success attending it, for many years, without any mention of the baptism of children. But we should con- sider such an omission as this, to be no proof that chil- dren were not baptized. For it would be obvious, that such ministers might be in circumstances, which would render it quite unnecessary for them to make any ex- press mention of Infant Baptism. It might be that no one acquainted with them could have the least doubt respecting their practice. At the present day, indeed, when Christians every where are divided on this subject, such silence might not be what we should look for. But were all Christians united in the practice of Infant Baptism, as we apprehend the primitive Christians were, there might be no occasion whatever to make particular mention of it. In all such cases, we should understand the practice of ministers to be according to what we knew of their opinions. If they were Pedobaptists, we should have no doubt of their being in the practice of baptizing children, although in some brief account of their ministry, they should say nothing about such a prac- tice.
Although the evidence, to which I now invite your at- tention, is incidental, or circumstantial ; it is not on that account the less worthy of consideration. Indeed it can- not be denied, that an undesigned reference or allusion to the practice of Infant Baptism, or the declaration of some principle or fact implying it, may afford evidence as satisfactory, as a direct assertion of the Apostles.
80 INFANT BAPTISM.
After these introductory remarks, let us proceed to the subject above stated. My position is, that, although there is no passage in the Acts of the Apostles, or in the Epistles, which expressly declares that the Apostles bap- tized children, or which directly affirms that they un- derstood their commission to baptize, as extending to children ; there are passages which would seem to im- ply this, and which have a more natural and consistent sense on the supposition that Infant Baptism was the Apostolic practice, than on the contrary supposition. I shall first refer to the passages which speak of the bap- tism of houseJwlds, or families. It is said of Lydia, Acts 16: 14, 15, that the Lord opened her heart to attend to the instructions of Paul, and that she was baptized, and her household. And in the same chapter, v. 33, we are told that the jailer was baptized, he and all his, that is, all who belonged to him, straightway , or immediately. And Paul says, 1 Cor. 1: 16, " I baptized the household of Stephanas."
The reasoning from such passages is this. The word oixlci, rendered house, or household, had been commonly used to comprise children with their parents, much in the same manner as the word family or household is used now. And it is well known, that it had been the manner of the people of God, to consider and treat their families, as consecrated to God, and intimately associated with them in the concerns of religion. As, therefore, we find that the Apostles, who were accus- tomed to the language of the Old Testament, and to the practice there enjoined, speak familiarly of their baptizing households, or families ; it seems no more than reason-able to suppose, that those families, generally, con- tained children, and that those children were baptized.
INFANT BAPTISM. 81
And if this was the case, the Apostles must have under- stood their commission, as including children. It will be observed, that whenever the Apostles speak of baptizing households, they speak of it without any restriction. Now is this a circumstance ever to be met with in histories, written by those ministers who do not baptize infants 1 For them to speak familiarly, and without qualification, of baptizing families^ would be inconsistent with their views, and their practice. As to the instances mention- ed in the New Testament of the baptism of families, — who has any right to say, that none of those families con- tained any but adults, — and adult believers ? Who can think this in any degree probable ?
To show more clearly what is the natural import of the account given in the New Testament of family bap- tisms, suppose the following case. Two missionaries have for a number of years been successfully laboring for the conversion of a particular tribe of savages in the wilderness of America. We have heard of their labors, and of their success, and have rejoiced in it , but have never learned, and have never to this day inquired, whether they practised Infant Baptism, or not. For special reasons, this now becomes a subject of inquiry ; and the only means of information which we have at hand, is a brief history which those missionaries have published of their labors. In that history, which is now subjected to a careful examination, we find that they speak of several instances in which individuals embraced Christianity and received baptism. And they inform us, that at such a time they baptized one of the chiefs, and his famili/ ; and that, at another time, they baptized such a man, and all Ms; and again, another man and his household. This is all the information they give. 8
82 INFANT BAPTISM.
They mention, without explanation, the baptism of sever- al persons, and their households, and so m^Ve family -ha p- tisms a noticeable circumstance in the history of their mission. Would not such a circumstance lead us to think it probable that they practised Infant Baptism ? Be sure, it might be said, that they do not expressly mention the baptism of little children, and that all who belonged to those families may have been adults, and adult believers. This, I admit, would be possible. But would it be pro- bable ? Would those, who do not baptize children, be likely to speak in this manner ? Should we not think it very singular, to find accounts of family-baptisms in a history of Baptist Missions ?
The circumstance under consideration, it is readily conceded, cannot be made a decisive argument. I do not offer it as such. But does not the account, which the Apostles give of the baptism of Iwifselwlds, perfectly agree with the supposition, that they were in the prac- tice of baptizing children ? If we admit that they under- stood children to be proper subjects of baptism, as they had before been of circumcision ; would not such an ac- count be just what we should expect ? But would it be so, if we should not admit this ?
If any one should ask whether the families referred to might not contain servants, as well as children ; and whether we are to suppose that such servants were bap- tized, as the servants of Abraham were circumcised ; — my answer would be, that, for ought we know, there might be servants, and that if the servants stood in as near a relation to their Christian masters, and were to be as much under their pious instruction and guidance, as the servants of Abraham were under his, I see no reason why thev should not have been consecrated to God by
INFANT BAPTISM. -83
baptism. But if servants stand in a widely different re- lation to Christian masters from that of Abraham's ser- vants to him ; that different relation surely cannot entitle them to the same treatment.
I have already referred to the text, 1 Cor. 7: 14, as affording collateral support to the construction which was given to Matt. 19: 14. I propose now to give this text a more particular examination. After suggesting with perfect freedom the thoughts which have occurred to me respecting the sense of this passage, I shall most cheer- fully leave you to adopt such a conclusion, as shall appear to you most consistent and just.
There are two interpretations of the text, which de- serve special notice. The first I shall mention is that of Dr Gill, a very distinguished Antipedobaptist writer ; who expresses what he understands to be the meaning of the text, in the following paraphrase. The unbelieving Jmsband is sanctijied by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctifed by the husband : else ivere your children unclean ; but now are they holy. The parties- spoken of '* are duly, rightly, and legally espoused to each other ; — otherwise, that is, if they are not truly married to each other, the children must be spurious, and not legitimate Else were your children unclean, but now are they holy ; that is, if the marriage contracted between them was not valid, and if, since the conversion of one of them, it can never be thought to be good ; then the children begotten and born, either when both were infidels, or since one of them was converted, must be unlawfully begotten, base- born, and not a genuine, legitimate offspring ; but as the parents are lawfully married, the children born of them are in a civil and legal sense holy, that is, legitimate."
The most powerful argument which has been urged
84 INFANT BAPTISM.
in favor of this interpretation, and one attended witFi much plausibility is, that it seems, at first view, to agree with the object of the Apostle, who directs that a believer should not put away an unbelieving partner ; and to make this direction appear just, asserts, as Dr Gill understands him, that the believing and unbelieving partners are law- fully joined in marriage ; and that, were it not so, their children would be illegitimate ; but that, in consequence of the lawfulness of the connexion between the parents, their children are legitimate.
In reply to this, it may be said, that a different sense ^'ill agree, to say the least, equally well with the mani- fest object of the Apostle. The very direction, that an unbelieving husband or wife should not be put away by the other party, implies, that there is a matrimonial con- nexion between them, and that the connexion is lawful. But the Apostle not only gives this direction, but enfor- ces it by a proper reason ; and the reason he suggests, as I understand it, is this ; that the unbelieving husband or wife is sanctified by the believing partner in such a sense, that, in consequence of it, their children are separated from heathenism, consecrated to God, and brought into the society of Christians. This was then, and would be now, a consideration of great weight, — much greater, I should think, than the mere legitimacij of the children. This consideration did indeed presuppose their legitima- cy ; but it had this important point in addition, namely, that the children were a holy seed, consecrated to God, and entitled to the special privileges of the Christian digpensa- tion. Now this consideration, as it includes the other, and has so much in addition, must be a more powerful reason to enforce the observance of the direction, than the other taken by itself So that, in respect to the de-
INFANT BAPTISM.
85
sign of the Apostle, and the reasoning employed, Dr Gill's interpretation has certainly no advantage over the other.
But there are considerations of great weight against Dr Gill's construction.
The first is, that it is contrary to the usus loquendi. It puts a sense upon the worcls riylaaxui and oLyia, which is widely different from the prevailing sense ; yea, differ- ent from the sense which they have in any other passages of Scripture. And Dr Gill himself does not pretend that either of the words is used in the sense he contends for, in any other text. He does indeed attempt to sup- port his rendering by referring to the use of the Hebrew '•^"^Ti in the Talmudic books, where it has the sense of espousing merely. But Schleusner objects to the argu- ment, and says, " that the notion of espousing, which certain interpreters have attributed to the word to uyta- Celv from the use of the word ^^"^p in the Talmudic books, is, as any one must see, manifestly foreign to this place." There is not one of the senses of dip, given by Gesenius, and not one of the many senses of dyiaCco^ given by Schleusner and Wahl, which favors the render- ing cf Dr Gill. The same is true of the adjective ayia. Schleusner and Wahl give a great variety of senses, but none of them relate to the Itgitimacy of children. Nor is d'Ao.&OL^TO';, nor the corresponding Hebrew NT-U, ever used to designate a spurious, or illegitimate offspring. Good use, then, is entirely against the rendering of Dr Gill.
Second. Although the advocates of Dr Gill's in- terpretation of the text say much of its perfect corres- pondence with the object and the reasoning of the Apos- tle ; I think the reasoning, or the train of thought, in 8*
86 INFANT BAPTISM.
one important respect, though not mentioned by any writer whom I have consuhed, is clearly inconsistent with that interpretation. The Apostle says, " Other- wise,'^ that is, were it not as I have said, that the un- believing husband is sanctified by the wife, and the un- believing wife by the husband ; *' your children would be unclean, but now are they holi/." The children are ho- ly, in the sense intended, in consequence of the injiuence which the believing ivifc has upon the unbelieving hus- band, or the believing husband upon the unbelieving wife. He is sanctified by her, and she by him ; and in conse- quence of this sanctif cation, whatever it is, the children are holt/. Without this sanctification of the unbelieving party by the believing, the children would be unclean. Suppose now husband and wife are both unbelievers. The sanctification spoken of, whatever it is, does not ex- ist ; of course, the reason or cause of the holiness of the children does not exist. And if the cause of their holi- ness does not exist, they cannot be holy ; they are un- clean. But are they illegitimate 1 May there not be lawful marriage between a husband and wife who are both unbelievers ? Is it necessary to the lawfulness of marriage and to the legitimacy cf children, that the hus- band or the wife should have Christian faith ? How was it with those who were married and had children while they were heathen ? Were their children bastards 7 Were they ever considered and treated so by the Apos- tles ? They certainly would have been considered so, had not their parents been lawfully married. But if law- ful marriage may exist, where neither husband nor wife is a Christian ; they may surely have legitimate children. But they cannot have children who are holy, in the sense of the Apostle ; because being holy in that sense is evi-
INFANT BAPTISM. 87
dently the consequence of an unbelieving father being sanctified by a believing mother, or an unbelieving mo- ther by a believing father. — Or the argument may be stated thus. If both parents are unbelievers, — if they are both pagans ; most surely their children cannot be considered a Iwly seed, in the sense of the Old Testa- ment, or the New. They are aaud-ugiu, unclean, pagan. But are they illegitimate 1 If not, — if those who are joined in marriage, though both of them are unbelievers and pagans, may, by the acknowledgement of all, have legitimate children ; then clearly the faith of one of the parents, and the sanctification of the other by means of that faith, cannot be necessary in order to the legitimacy of the children. But it is necessary in order to their be- ing holy in the sense of the Apostle ; for he says express- ly, that were it not for such a sanctification of one parent by the other, the children would be unclean, which is the opposite of being holy. Thus it becomes manifest that ixyia. and dynxBaQza cannot be rendered legitimate and illegitimate, without involving us in inextricable diffi- culty as to the Apostle's reasoning. But this difficulty is avoided by another interpretation, as we shall see in the sequel.
There is no occasion to dwell upon the opinion of those, who consider the Apostle as speaking of the real conversion of an unbelieving by a believing partner, or of the prospect of such conversion. For although this opinion may seem to derive some support from v. 16, it does not, on the whole, appear to agree with the statement of the case.
The other sense of the text, which I shall now par- ticularly consider, is this : The unbelieving husband, by his voluntary connexion with a believing wife, is, in a
88 INFANT BAPTISJf.
manner, separated from the heathen, and brought into an alliance with Christians. His being '^^ pleased to dwell with'' such a wife shows, that he is not an outrageous in- fidel, but that he has some sober reflection, and is will- ing to be in Christian society. He stands in that relation to his wife in which, as Scripture teaches, he becomes one with her. On account of this near relation, he is to be regarded and treated very differently from what he would be, if no such relation existed. He has been and is so sanctified, ^]yianicit, — his condition relatively, is so affected by his marriage with her, that her living with him will be attended with no guilt, a.nd will deprive her of no privileges. She has therefore no occasion to put him away, but may as lawfully and properly continue to dwell with him, as if he were a Christian. Were it not for this ; that is ; were it not that his state relatively is thus affected by his connexion with her ; in other words, were he, in all respects, to be reckoned among the un- sanctified heathen ; were he openly and entirely united to their society ; were his wife's piety and her relation to him a matter of no consideration, and were he to be regarded just as he would be, if he had no connexion at all with God's people ; then indeed his children would be unclean. Their relation to such a father, if his state were in no way made better by his connexion with a pi- ous wife, would render them heathen children, and would exclude them from the peculiar privileges of the children of God's people. But now, as his condition is so altered by his matrimonial connexion with a believing wife ; as he is by that connexion so sanctified, that he and his wife stand well in respect to their domestic state ; his children are not to be regarded as heathen children, but as a holi/ seed, a Christian offspring, entitled to the particular af-
INFANT BAPTISM. 89
fection of the Christian Church, and to the privileges of a Christian education. In other words ; The people of God are not to treat them as unclean, — are not to sepa- rate them from their society ; but are to receive them, to adhere to them, and to train them up for the service of Christ.
But there is another argument in favor of this inter- pretation ; namely, the nsus loquendi ; the sense general- ly attached in other parts of Scripture to the principal words, on which the interpretation must depend : and especially the sense which these words have, when appli- ed to the same subjects. It should never be forgotten, that the Apostle Paul, who wrote the book containing the text under consideration, was by birth and education a Hebrew ; that he was perfectly familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures, and that in a very remarkable degree he trans- fused the peculiarities of those Scriptures into his own writings. He adopted the phraseology of the Hebrew Scriptures. He wrote in their idiom. Accordingly it will be of the first importance to notice the peculiar He- brew sense of the principal words found in the passage before us.
'./^y.ax^agrog, according to Schleusner, signifies, tJictt which is prohibited by the Mosaic law, or that from ichich the people of God were required to separate themselves. Referring to Acts 14: 28, he says : '^ A man is here called (x'/Md^aOTog, unclean, w^ith whom the Jews thought it unlawful to have any familiar intercourse." He repre- sents it as often used to denote a pagan, an alien from the uwrship of the true God, or one who does not belong to the people of God, or to the societi/ cf Christians. The t-ext under consideration he renders thus : '' Alioquin et liberi vestri remoti essent a societate Christianorum ;''
90 INFANT BAPTISM.
Otherioise your children also would he removed from the society of Christians. He quotes the passage in 2 Cor. 6: 17, as exhibiting the same sense of the word : ' A'au- yjUQTOv f-iij cimea&e ; touch not tlie unclean thing ; i. e. as the connexion shows, have no intercourse with pagans. Wahl agrees with Schleusner : ^^ If it were otherwise, it woidd follow that your children also were not to he considered as belonging to the Christian community.'^ Lightfoot is of the same opinion. He says ; " That the words oiHcid^uoia and ayia refer not to legitimacy or illegitimacy, but to the Gentile or Christian state ; that the children of Gentiles, or pagans, were by the Jews considered as ccxd&ugta, unclean, and the children of the Jews, ayfa, holy, and that in the passage under conside- ration, the Apostle refers to this well known sense of the word ; that his treatment of the subject does not turn on this hinge, whether a child, born of parents, one of whom was a Christian and the other a heathen, was a legitimate offspring, but whether he was a Christian off- spring." Whitby presents the argument stdl more fully. ** The Apostle does not say, else were your children bas- tards, but now are they legitmate ; but else were they un- clean, i. e. heathen children, not to be owned as a holy seed, and therefore not to be admitted into covenant with God as belonging to his people. That this is the true import of the words u/.ud^aQia and ilyiu, will be apparent from the Scriptures, in which the heathen are styled the nndean, in opposition to the Jews in covenant
with God, and therefore styled an holy people. The
Jews looked upon all heathens and their offspring, as un- clean, by reason of their want of circumcision, the sign of the covenant. Hence, whereas it is said that Joshua circumcised the people, the Septuagint say, 7ifoi6y.c<{)^cc-
INFANT BAPTISM. 91
Qev^ he cleansed them. To this sense of the words
unclean and holy, the Apostle may here most rationally be supposed to allude, declaring that the seed of holy persons, as Christians are called, are also holy. And though one of the parents be still a heathen, yet is the denomination to be taken from the better, and so their offspring are to be esteemed not as heathens, i. e. un- clean, but holy, as all Christians by denomination are. So Clemens Alexandrinus infers, saying ; * I suppose the seed of those that are holy, is holy, according to that saying of the Apostle Paul, the wife is sanctified by the husband &c.' — referring to the passage under considera- tion."— Whitby confutes the other rendering, ' Else were your children bastards,' by saying ; '' The word used for bastard by the Apostle being vo&og, Heb. 12: 8, and the word yi'rjocog being the proper word for a legitimate offspring ; had the Apostle intended such a sense, he would have used the words, which in the Greek writers are generally used in that sense, and not such words as in the Septuagint and in the Jewish writers always have a relation to federal holiness, or the want of it."
The authors to whom I have referred, and other wri- ters of the highest character as philologists and commen- tators, are all of one mind as to the sense of the phrase, " now are they holy." Now are they to be considered as belonging to the Christian community. God's people are not to separate from them as heathen children, but to treat them as christian children. Wahl says, " it is spoken of one who is in any way connected with Christians, and therefore to be reckoned among them." So also Calvin. '^ The children of the Jews, because they were made heirs of the covenant, and distinguished from the chil- dren of the impious, were called a holy seed. And for
92 INFANT BAPTISM.
the same reason, the children of Christians, even when only one of the parents is pious, are accounted holy, and according to the testimony of the Apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters.'^ He evidently means to give this sense to the text we are considering.* Doe- derlein and Knapp allude to this text as having the same sense. Against supposing that the Apostle meant to as- sert the legitimacy of children, Doddridge urges, that " this is an unscriptural sense of the word, and that the argument will by no means bear it."
The interpretation I have given of the text agrees very nearly with what is expressed in the following quota- tion from Flatt's commentary. He says ; " iiylaozut may be rendered thus : he is made liytog in a certain respect. — Inasmuch as he lives in society with a Christian wife, he is, in a measure, separated from Jews and heathen, and stands in connexion w'ith the Christian community." In consequence of which, his children, who would other- wise be considered as having no connexion with the peo- ple of God, will be Christian children. (See Flatt's Comm. on 1 Cor. 7: 14.)
It may perhaps be said by way of objection to this rendering, that ^J/marat must have the same general sense with ixyia ; and that if uyia, holy, implies that the children, to whom it was applied, were consecrated to God, and were entitled to special privileges ; then riyiaa- Tui, is sanctified, must imply, that the unbelieving hus- band or wife was in like manner consecrated to God, and was entitled to the same special privileges.
But to this it may be replied, that it is nothing un- common for the same word to have a variety of signifi- cations, not only in different sentences, but in the same
* See his Institutes, Book IV. Chap. 16.
INFANT BAPTISM.
93
sentence. Instances of this might easily be pointed out in the Scriptures, and in other writings. In all such ca- ses, the obvious nature and circumstances of the subject to which the word is applied, must help us to deter- mine in what particular sense it is used. Any one who will consult Johnson's English or Ainsworth's La- tin Dictionary, or Schleusner's Greek Lexicon, may see how different subjects, and the diffefent circumstances of the same subject, constantly vary the signification of the same word, sometimes in small and almost impercep- tible degrees, and sometimes in higher degrees. And if the sense of the same tvord thus varies ; surely it can be nothing strange that these two words, one a verb, and the other an adjective, should vary a little in their signi- fication, when applied to subjects so different, as those now referred to. So that our giving somewhat of a dif- ferent sense to fjylaGTat from what we give to ixyia, is no valid objection to our interpretation of the text.
After all, it will be seen that, according to the inter- pretation I have given, the two words, though the one is a verb and the other an adjective, have really the same general s^nse, i. e. the sense of being separated, set apart ^ or made Jit for a particular use ; and that the difference, so far as there is any, arises from the obvious difference of the subjects. The general notion of being sanctijied is first applied to an unconverted heathen, connected in marriage with a Christian ; and it is applied in reference to a particular question, that is, whether it is proper and advisable, that a Christian should continue to live with an unbelieving partner. Now when the Apostle says, in re- ference to this question, " the unbelieving husband is sanctijied by the wife," it is natural to understand him to speak of a sanctiji cation adapted to the subject under 9
94 INFANT BAPTISM.
consideration. And a sanctification adapted to that sub- ject would seem to be this ; that by his connexion in marriage with a believing wife, he is, in some sort, sepa- rated from the society of the heathen, certainly from the familiar intercourse with them which he once had ; that, on account of the pious woman with whom he is so close- ly connected, he is to be regarded in a light different from that, in which he would be regarded, if he were al- together a pagan, and had no such relation to a Christian partner ; and that, by the effect which her faith produces upon him, he is brought into such a state, that she may with propriety continue to live with him. Their inter- course comes under a sanctifying influence, hy means of her piety. This interpretation, it is evident, gives the same general sense to TJyIumac as to ocyiu, the last be- ing applied to children, and denoting that they, by their very birth, are separated from paganism, and brought into the nursery of the Christian church, where they are to be consecrated to God, and trained up for his service.
It will cast a still clearer light on the meaning of the text, to inquire what was the occasion of the doubt which arose in the minds of the Corinthian converts, and ren- dered the advice of the Apostle necessary. This doubt unquestionably arose, not in consequence of any thing in the original institution of marriage, but in consequence of the special law which God gave to the Israelites, forbid- ding them to contract marriages with any of the idola- trous people around them ; a law which was intended, like many others, to preserve them a holy nation, separate from the rest of the world, till the coming of Christ. The doubt might be occasioned more directly by the instances, in which such prohibited marriages had been dissolved by divine direction, particularly in the time of Ezra. In
INFANT BAPTISM. 95
opposition to the command of God, the people had form- ed marriages with the daughters of the surrounding na- tions ; so that, as it was said, the holy seed, i. e. the Jews, had mingled themselves with those idolatrous people. Af- ter a time, those who had thus offended, were broucrht to consider the evil of what they had done ; and they made a covenant with God to put aicay all the wives, and such as were born of them, according to the divine command. See Ezra, chap. ix. and x. Now the Apostle virtually told the Corinthian Christians, that that ancient, national law was not binding upon them, any more than the law of circumcision ; that those believers who were lawfully married to unbelievers had no occasion to dissolve the marriage bond. And he suggested to them one consider- ation of great weight ; namely ; that if according to the Mosaic law, and the example of the people in the time of Ezra, they were to put away their unbelieving partners, and so treat them as pagans, dyad-agTU, unclean ; they must consider their children also as unclean, i. e. heathen children, and put them away likewise, as the people did in the case referred to. In opposition to this, the Apos- tle appeals to a fact which, as all Pedobaptists believe, was well known ; namely ; that the offspring of such marriages were considered, as they are now, to be a holy seed, ayiUy just as if both parents were believers, and so were fit to be devoted to God, and to enjoy special privi- leges in the society of his people.
It will be seen that, in this extended examination of the passage before us, my chief reliance is upon well known usage as to the word aywg ; that is, the prevailing sense of the word and its corresponding Hebrew •*2:'np among the Jews, especially when applied to Israelites, whether men or children, by way of distinction from oth- er nations.
96 INFANT BAPTISM.
I have only one more remark. All Pedobaptists be- lieve, that the children of Christians, even those children who had only one believing parent, were, in the Apostle's time, and in the Corinthian church, actually devoted to God in Baptism, and so brought into a peculiar relation to the Christian church. Now on this supposition, what can be more natural, than to suppose that the Apostle referred to this fact, when he said, the children spoken of were ayia, holy, i. e. set apart, consecrated to God ?
The text, thus interpreted, presents a very satisfacto- ry view of the subject under consideration, and shows how the Apostles understood their commission. For we see, that wherever the Christian religion took effect, and men became believers, and formed themselves into a so- ciety, their children were considered as appertaining to the same society, and as set apart, and devoted to God ; just as they were under the former economy. And as they were thus considered to be uyiu, a holy seed, sepa- rated from paganism, and consecrated to God; how can we reasonably doubt that they had the sign of consecra- tion put upon them ? Whitby states the argument from this text thus. " If the holy seed among the Jews were to be circumcised, and be made federally holy by receiv- ing the sign of the covenant and being admitted into the number of God's people, because they were born in sanc- tity, or were seminally holy ; for the root being holy, so are the branches ; then, by like reason, the holy seed of Christians ought to be admitted to Baptism, the sign of the Christian covenant, and so to be entered into the so^ ciety of the Christian church." Whitby refers to Tertul- lian, de Anin)a, cap. 39, as having the substance of this argument.
On the whole, mv conclusion is, that although the
INFANT BAPTISM. 97
word a'/tci floes not properly mean baptized, it denotes that the children referred to were in such a condition, or were regarded as standing in such a relation to God and his people, that the appointed sign of consecration to God was of course to be applied to them. Or to express it dif- ferently : The word ciyia does not by itself mean, and is not to he rendered, subjects of baptism. But it signifies that the children, to whom it was applied, were to be re- garded as Christian children, a holy seed, separated from the heathen, consecrated to God, and to be received and treated as such by the Christian community. The word (iyca, by itself, can signify no more than this. But if the children were thus regarded as a holy, consecrated seed, it is natural to conclude that they received the sign of ' this. And the supposition of their being devoted to God by Baptism most satisfactorily accounts for the Apostle's calling them ixytu, holy, or consecrated children.*
* Pengilly in lus Scripture Guide gives tiie same interpretation of the text, 1 Cor. 7: 14, with Dr Gill. But I learn from the Let- ters of David and John, that a note, affixed to Pengilly 's Guide by the Baptist General Tract Society, contains a different interpreta- tion, which one of the writers of the Letters considers to be tlie true sense of the text. According to the note referred to. the rea- soning and decision of the Apostle stand thus : " The unbelieving husband is not unclean, so that his wife may not lawfully dwell with him ; the unbelieving wife is not unclean, so that lier hus- band may not lawfully dwell with her. If they are unclean, then your children are unclean, and not one parent in the Vvholc churcJi must dwell with or touch his children, until God shall convert them ; and thus Christianity will be made to sever the ties which bind parents to their children, and to throw out the offspring of Christian parents into the ungodly world from their very birtli, without any provision for their protection, support, or religious ed- ucation." ♦
This interpretation, on which I shall offer a few remarks, makes the declaration of the apostle, '• eJse were your children unclean,''' refer to the whole church, and to all the children of the church; whereas it is perfectly clear from the passage, that the apostle re- fers to only one particular case, namely, that of a believing hus- band connected with an unbelieving wife, and a believing wife
9*
98 INFANT BAPTISM.
With an unbelieving husband. This was the subject before the iBind ol' the Apostle. And the judgement whicli he expresses, his reasoning, his con2iusioii, — all that lie says, relates to this case. Nor is there any reason for considering it as addressed to the church at large, except that you. and ijoar, the pronoun of the second per- son, is used instead of the tiiird person, they, which is applied to the particular case referred to. But this circumstance can prove nothing, as there are instances \\ hich cannot be numbered in every part of the Bible, of a similar change iu the pronoun, when the »anie persons are addressed.
Besides : If we admit the above mentioned interpretation, what sense would there be in the Apostle's argument .' Speaking of a believing wife who is connected with an unbelieving husband, he says, such a husband is sanctihed by his wife, so that she is under no nccesci'ty to leave him ; — and the same as to a believing hus- band and unbelieving wife ; and then he adds, addressing himself, unquestionably, to the same persons, '^ other ivise,'' that is, were it not tor this intiuence which the believing partner has upon the un- believing, *• 3'our children would be unclean; but now," (incon- sequence of this favorable influence.) " they are holy;" — are to be rei^arded and treated as a honj, consecrated seed. The whole re- lates to tlie particular case dt- scribed. Wliat sense can the passage Jiave, if we understand it as addressed to Christian husbands and wives 'Jeneraliy, both parties being believers .'* *' Else were your children unclean !" How .^ Why .^ The Apostle says, it would be so, were it not that the unbelieving partner is sanctified by the believincr. But here, according to the supposition, there is no un- believinor partner. — And then, what sort of relation has the conclu- sion to the premises ? The reasoning supposed consists of two parts. First; if the unbelieving partner were not sanctified by the believ- ing partner, the children of all other Christians icould he unclean. Second ; but now. as the unbelieving" partr.er is sanctified by the believing, the children of all other christians are holy. The first could not be true. If the unbelieving partner were not sanctified by the believing, it would indeed follow, that their children would be unclean ; but it would not follow that other children would be unclean, wirere both parents were beMevers. The conclusion in the second part is trtte ; but it does not follow at all from the premises. The cliildren of the church generally, where both parent^ are believers, nre indeed holy, in the sens-e of the Apostle ; but not because a believing p.".rtner sanctifies an unbelieving.
If we would give a just interpretation to tliis passage, we must remember the follf tr'Ug things ;
1 Tii't it related to a particular case, and to that only. 2. That the uncleanness spoken of in the chi'dren, was an uncleanness which would be the coosequpnce of their having an unbelieving parent, supposing that the faiih v^f the nther parent had no influ- ence to nrr'vent ft. 3. T'nit the hnl'ness which the Ap-stle attri- buted to'ch'ldren, was 9 holiness v/hieh they had in consequence of beiMi 'ho children of a hel'evinL'" parent Had both parents been heathen, the children would certainly have been unclean, iu the
INFANT BAPTISM. 99
sense intended. And even one of the parents being a heathen, or an unbeliever, would have rendered the children unclean, had it not been for the influence of the other parent's faith. They were to be regarded as holy, purely because one of their parents was a believer, and because the faith of that parent prevented the un^ cleanness which would otherwise have belonged to them in conse- quence of their having an unbelieving parent. It was the faith of the believing parent which put the children upon a level with the other children of the church. Those were holy in consequence of the faith of both their parents. These were holy in consequence of the faith o^ one of their parents.
Novv" I think no interpretation of the passage, which does not accord with these principles, can be admitted as correct.
LECTURE VI.
The argument .recapitulated. Three additional considerations; — precepts re- quiring the education of children; — silence of the New Testament respecting Infant Baptism; — and the feelings of parents. — Proof from Ecclesiastical His- tory that Infant Baptism was practised by the early Christians.
In order to give simplicity and unity to my reason- ing on the subject of Infant Baptism, I have made it rest on the single inquiry, how the Apostles must have un- derstood the commission they received from Christ, to proselyte and baptize all nations. I have considered the point at issue as relating altogether to the just interpre- tation of Scripture. And as the passage which records the commission, does not explicitly inform us whether infant children were meant to be included or not ; I have thought it indispensable to consider what there was in the circumstances of the Apostles, as native Jews^ espe- cially in their usages respecting children, which would be likely to influence them in their understanding of such a commission from one, who was born and educated in the same community with them. I have thought it im- portant also to inquire, whether there was any thing in the previous instructions of Christ, or in the writings of the Apostles afterwards, which could help to show in what light they regarded little children. And here we have found, that Christ, exactly in accordance with the
INFANT BAPTISM. 101
principle which was established by the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, represented little children, as entitled in a peculiar sense, to the privileges of the gospel dispen- sation, and that the Apostle Paul represented it as a fact, generally known and acknowledged, that the children of believers were a holy seed, consecrated to God, and ad- mitted to special privileges in the Christian community. And if this was the case, we have supposed it would fol- low of course, that Baptism, the sign of such consecra- tion to God, and of such a relation to the Christian com- munity, was administered to them. Every consideration of this kind will be strengthened, and every such probable conclusion confirmed, by the historical proof which will by and by be produced, that Infant Baptism was actually practised in the early Christian churches. This proof might indeed have been exhibited before any other consid- eration ; and this method might have been attended with some important advantages. But it must be remembered, that, according to the belief of all Pedobaptists, there were, in fact, considerations, which influenced the Apos- tles and early Christians to practise Infant Baptism. Now what can be more natural than for us first of all to inquire, and, as far as we are able, to ascertain, what those considerations were ; and afterwards to present the evidence of the fact, that Infant Baptism was prac- tised in the early Christian church 1 In this way we be- come satisfied, that the considerations, which operated upon the minds of the Apostles, actually produced the effect which we have supposed. According to our views, they were the men who began Infant Baptism ; of course they could not have been influenced in their judgement as we are, by the consideration, that Infant Baptism was a. practice already existing. They must have been influen-
102 INFANT BAPTISM.
ced altogether in another way. The method which I have chosen is, first, to inquire into the circumstances and usages of the Apostles, as members of the Jewish community, and to satisfy ourselves, as far as may be, what were the considerations, which would naturally lead them to understand their commission to proselyte and baptize, as including children ; next, to attend to any thing recorded in the New Testament, which has an obvious correspondence with the supposition, that In- fant Baptism was practised by the Apostles ; and finally to exhibit the proof, that Baptism was in fact applied to children in the early Christian churches. This order ap- pears best suited to present the whole subject in a clear light, and to make a just impression on the minds of Christians.
Before proceeding to the argument from Ecclesiastical History, I shall advert to three additional considerations.
First. The manner in which the Apostle requires children to he educated. In Ephesians 6: 4, Christian parents are required to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. This is the gener- al precept. Others more particular, but of the same? import, might be cited. According to Apostolic direc- tion, the children of believers were, from their earliest years, to be instructed in the principles of the Christian religion. They were to have the doctrines and pre- cepts, the invitations and promises, the warnings and threats of God's word clearly set before them, and ear- nestly inculcated upon them. They were to be consider- ed and treated, as scholars, placed in the school of Christ, and there to be brought under the influence of faithful instruction ; so that, through the divine blessing, their minds might be enlightened, and their affections and ac-
INFANT BAPTISM. 103
tions conformed to the principles of Christianity. In a word, their education was to be conducted with a single view to their being made followers of Christ, and active members of his spiritual kingdom. Now the precepts of the New Testament, requiring all this instruction and discipline of children, perfectly agree with the view we have taken of their state. If God is pleased to place our children in such a near relation to us, and if he re- quires us to consecrate them to him, and to put upon them the sign of consecration, the mark of discipleship, that is, the mark of their being placed, as young disciples, in the school of Christ ; it becomes perfectly suitable, that he should require us to treat them with all this af^ fection and care, and so to endeavour to bring them up for God. And it is true not only that these precepts of the New Testament, pointing out the duty of parents, are perfectly consistent with the doctrine we maintain, but that they derive additional importance from this doc- trine. If, according to divine appointment, we public- ly dedicate our children to God by a solemn religious rite, and thus bring them into a special relation to the church of Christ, and secure to them a prospect of spe- cial blessings ; we must surely feel, that we are under very strong obligations to cherish a tender affection for them, and to labor, by all the methods of a wise Chris- tian discipline, to make them, what the privileges of their birth and the commands of God require them to be. So the divine precept given by Moses, that parents should teach their children diligently the things of re- ligion, laboring to inculcate them morning and evening, and all hours of the day, became specially suitable, and acquired a special force, on account of their children having been publicly devoted to God, and marked as his, by circumcisicm.
104 INFANT BAPTISM.
These observations are not meant to imply, that those who do not devote their children to God by Baptism, may not feel their obligation to bring them up in the nur- ture and admonition of the Lord ; but that those, who practise Infant Baptism, will find themselves drawn to this duty by a special obligation, and will be likely to perceive, with additional clearness, and to feel with ad- ditional force, the propriety and importance of giving them a religious education. Now the circumstance, that Infant Baptism, considered as a divine institution, has such an obvious and striking correspondence with those precepts which point out the duty of parents, and invests those precepts with new force, is a circumstance in favor of Infant Baptism. Whereas, if the contrary were fact ; that is ; if the doctrine of Infant Baptism were calculated to diminish in our view the importance of a religious education, or to render us less attentive to the duty ; if, while holding to Infant Baptism, we felt a less powerful motive, than we otherwise should, to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord ; this certainly would be a consideration of no small weight against it. Because it is the manifest de- sign of all the positive institutions of religion, to have an effect upon our minds in favor of its moral precepts, and to excite us, by stronger motives, to the performance of our duty.
The second consideration referred to, is, the silence of the Neio Testament respecting the subject of Infant Bap- tism. This circumstance has already been noticed in another connexion. But I wish to dwell upon it more particularly here, as I think it must appear on the whole to be a circumstance in favor of our doctrine.
I can by no means admit, as I intimated in a previous
INFANT BAPTISM. 105
Lecture, that the New Testament does not contain any thing which fairly implies Infant Baptism. Still it is evi- dent that Infant Baptism is not introduced as a subject o^ particular discussion in the New Testament ; that it is neither explicitly enjoined nor prohibited ; and that neither the practice of baptizing children, nor the absence of such a practice is expressly mentioned.
But the fact, that Infant Baptism is not expressly en- joined as a duty, that the principle involved in it is not particularly discussed, and that the practice is not ex- pressly mentioned, is no argument against Infant Bap- tism.
This general fact cannot be urged as an argument against Infant Baptism, because, as circumstances were, there was no occasion to enjoin it, and no occasion to dis- cuss the subject, or even to mention it. These circum- stances have already been brought into view. The Jews had always been accustomed to have their children con- secrated to God by the same rite, as was appointed orig- inally for Abraham and his seed, and afterwards, for all men from among the Gentiles, who should become prose- lytes to the true religion. They had always been accus- tomed to see children treated as a holy seed, and mem- bers of the society of God's people. They had never heard the propriety of this questioned, and had never been acquainted with a contrary practice. In these circum- stances, it was, I apprehend, a mattir of course, that they should understand the divine appointment of Baptism for Christian Proselytes, as including their cliildren. And it being a matter of course that they should so under- stand the subject, there was not the least necessity that the Baptism of children should be expressly required, or even mentioned.
10
106 INFANT BAPTISM.
To be perfectly satisfied on this subject, just look at the manner in which circumcision is spoken of, Acts 15: 1. Certain Judaizingr Christians came from Judea to Antioch, and said to the brethren there, " Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be sav- ed." Why did they not express all that they meant, and say, " Except ye and your children be circumcised, ye cannot be saved ?" And afterwards, v, 10, when Peter spoke in opposition to the Judaizing Christians in regard to the same subject, and said, *' Why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples ^^ — that is, Why do ye require the disciples to he circumcised ? — Why did he not in so many words object to laying this burdensome rite upon the disciples and their children ? The answer to both questions is the same. There was no occasion for the mention of children, because it was perfectly un- derstood by all, that children were to he included ivith their parents. It had always been so. And who could need to be informed, that it was to be so still ? The same I think must have been the case, when Baptism was ap- pointed, instead of circumcision, as the mark to be put upon the people of God. The Apostles and Jewish Christians had always been accustomed to consider chil- dren, as united with their parents, as belonging to the same religious community, and as entitled to the same mark of consecration to God. They would understand, that this practice of applying the sign of consecration to children, as well as parents, would be continued under the Christian dispensation, because tiie reasons for it con- tinued, and because nothing was said or done hy the Au- thor of the ncio dispensation to shoio that there was to he any cdteration in this respect. So that it cannot be re- garded as any thing strange, that children are not ex-
INFANT BAPTISM. 107
pressly mentioned in the command to baptize, or in the accounts of Baptisms contained in the New Testament. Nor is it strange that no express declaration on this sub- ject is found in the writings of the early Christian Fa- thers ; as there is no evidence that the practice had ever been objected to, or had ever occasioned any controversy. This silence of the Scriptures and of the early Fathers respecting the Bctptism of children, is analogous to the fact, that the circumcision of children on the eighth day is scarcely mentioned for a thousand years before Christ. Now as we can satisfactorily account for the fact, that the New Testament contains no express mention of Infant Baptism, on the supposition that Infant Baptism was ad- mitted and practised by all Christians without any con- troversy ; this fact cannot surely be considered as afford- ing an argument against Infant Baptism.
But this is not all. The silence which we find in the New Testament in the other respects mentioned ; that is ; the fact that there is no command prohibiting the prac- tice of Infant Baptism, and that there are no such re- marks as would naturally arise from the absence of the practice, is an important argument in favor of Infant Baptism. As it had always been the custom of God's people from the time of Abraham, to consecrate their chil- dren to God, to put upon them the seal of the covenant, and to admit them as belonging to their holy communi- ty ; if Christ had intended to make any alteration as to the manner in which they v»^ere to be regarded and treat- ed ; we should suppose that he would have mentioned such alteration ; and that when he commanded his Apos- tles to proselyte and baptize all nations, he would have expressly informed them, that under the new dispensa- tion children were not meant to be included.
108 INFANT BAPTISM.
But there is another view of greater consequence still. All the Jews, those who embraced Christianity, and those who rejected it, had always been accustomed to consider their children as a holy seed, consecrated to God, and to see them receive the seal of God's covenant. Now if Christianity had cut them off from this relation to God, and had deprived them of the sign of being con- secrated to him, and had treated them as having no part or lot with God's people ; can we think that such a change as this could have been made without occasion- ing some animadversion ? Can it be that neither the friends nor the enemies of Christ would have made any complaint ? The unbelieving Jews, and even some who professed to believe, were ready enough, on all occasions, to complain of innovation, and of every thing in Christi- anit}'', which implied the giving up of what belonged to the Jewish religion. How earnestly, for instance, did they object to giving up circumcision, although Baptism Avas introduced in its place, as a mark of discipleship ? But in consequence of the ardent affection which, as men, especially as Israelites, they cherished for their offspring, they must have felt a much stronger objection to depriv- ing them wholly of the privilege of being consecrated to God by any religious rite, and to excluding them wholly from that sacred relation which they had always sustain- ed to the church of God, than to a change merely in the outward rite. But, with all their disposition to com- plain, what complaints did they ever make of Christ, or the Apostles, for treating children with less regard, than had been exercised towards them before ? There is not the least appearance of there having ever been any com- plaint or any controversy on this subject in the time of Christ, or his Apostles, or in the period succeeding.
INFANT BAPTISM. 109
Now I cannot but regard this as utterly unaccountable, on the supposition that Baptism, the initiatory sign ap- pointed by Christ for his disciples, had been withheld from their children. Of all the subjects of complaint, this must have been first among those Jews who rejected Christianity, and even among those who embraced it. And as there is no trace of any such complaint, and no command or intimation respecting children, which could have occasioned such a complaint ; in a word, as there is perfect silence among the writers of the New Testament, and of the early Fathers, respecting any change in the standing or privileges of children ; we must conclude that no change took place, and that they were regarded and treated by the teachers of Christianity, as they had been by the people of God before.
We come no\y to the third consideration referred to ; namely ; the feelings of pious parents.
My position is, that Infant Baptism^ ivhcn apprehend- ed correctly, must be agreeahle to the best feelings of pi-- ous parents respecting their infant offspring. This is not produced as an independent argument. But after havi.ig attended to the principal reasons which support the doctrine of Infant Baptism, it surely must be a grati- fication to find, that the doctrine corresponds with our purest and best affections. It would, on the contrary, be a serious difficulty in our way, and would lead us, af- ter all, to question the soundness of our arguments, if the most tender and pious dispositions of our hearts were found in array against the practice for v.'hich we plead. The laws and institutions of religion are all intended to exercise and improve our benevolent and pious affections. And when we perceive in them an obvious fitness to do this, we cannot but consider it an argument in their 10*
110 INFANT BAPTISM.
favor. How common is it, for example, to illustrate and enforce the obligation of men to pray, and to attend on the Lord's Supper, from the consideration, that these duties perfectly agree with our most devout feelings, and are suited to improve them ? Indeed how often do we satisfy ourselves that it is our duty to perform certain things, not expressly enjoined by the word of God, be- cause we are drawn to them by those aftections which we consider to be right ? But if we find that any prac- tice stands in opposition not only to our natural affections, but to the feelings of benevolence ; we are wholly disin- clined to believe that it could ever have been appointed by God. With these things in view, we come to the sub- ject now before us. And let me ask, what pious parent, rightly apprehending the nature and design of Infant Baptism, would not acknowledge it to be a benevolent appointment of God 1 Who would not be gratified to find such a doctrine, as tlist of Infant Baptism, true ? Who would not deem it a privilege to be permitted to perform such a duty ? And who would not regard it as a subject of heartfelt grief, to be deprived of such a privi- lege ? It must surely be the wish of pious parents to give up their children to God ; and to do this in the tem- ple of God, where the prayers of many will ascend with their own to the Lord of heaven and earth, in behalf of their children. Publicly to apply to them a sacred rite which marks them lor God ; which sionifies that they are placed in the school of Christ, and in the nursery of the church ; that they are to enjoy t.iithfiU parental in- struction, the preaching of the aospel, and the affections and prayers of Christians ; which signifies too, that they are to coine under V\ influence of a divine economy, fraught with the most gracious promises, and the most
INFANT BAPTISM. Ill
precious blessings ; — to apply to children a sacred rite of such import, must be inexpressibly delightful to godly parents. If then such parents give up Infant Baptism, they give up a privilege, which I should think they would regard as of more value to their children, than all the riches of the world. Now I cannot but deplore a mistake, which leads parents to act against those sin- cere and devout affections, which God requires them to cherish, and which religion, with all its observances, is designed to improve. Pious parents, I repeat it, who rightly apprehend the doctrine of Infant Baptism, cannot but wish it true. And it would seem to me that their first inquiry must be, whether they may be permitted thus to devote their dear offspring to God, and to apply to them the seal of his gracious covenant. If nothing is found to forbid their doing this ; especially, if they have reason, from the word and providence of God, to believe that he would approve it ; I should suppose they would embrace such a privilege with the sincerest gratitude and joy, and hasten to confer such a blessing, upon their children. — That it is a privilege and a blessing will be made still more evident, by the remarks I shall offer in another place on the utility of Infant Baptism.
I now proceed to the argument in favor of Infant Bap- tism from Ecclesiastical History.
The testimony of Ecclesiastical History on this sub- ject is just such as we should expect, on the supposition that Infant Baptism was, from the beginning, universally regarded as a Christian institution. In this respect, the same remarks, as have been made on the manner in w hich the subject is treated in the New Testament, will apply generally to the earliest Christian Fathers. They had little or no occasion to enter on a particular discus-
112 INFANT BAPTISM.
sion of the subject, or even to make any express mention of it. Accordingly we find in the writers, who next suc- ceeded the Apostles, only allusions to Infant Baptism. These allusions, however, are of such a nature, that they cannot well be accounted for without supposing that In- fant Baptism was the uniform practice. But the Fathers, who wrote in the following ages, were more and more particular and explicit in their testimony.
My intention is only to make citations sufficient to show the nature of the argument ; referring you to Wall's History of Infant Baptism, and other works, where the subject is treated at full length.
A citation has commonly been made from the apology of Justin Martyr, written about the middle of the second century. Among those who were members of the church, he says, there icrre many of both sfxrs, some sixty, and some seventy years oM, loho were made disciples to Christ, iy. n at d 0) V, frojn their infancy, or childhood. The word he uses is 'i^ia{^f]T(v{h'i(jav^ they were proselyted, or made disciples. Though I have no doubt of the pro- priety of applying this word to infant children, who are publicly consecrated to God, and whom their parents and the church engage to instruct and train up for Christ ; yet as the phrase, Ik nuldcnv, may relate to children who have come to years of understanding, as well as to in- fants, I am satisfied, on a review of the testimony of Justin, that it cannot well be urged as conclusive in fa- vor of pedobaptism. Still I think it altogether probable, and beyond any reasonable doubt, that Justin meant in this place to speak of those who were made disciples, or introduced into the school of Christ by baptism, when they were infants.
Irengeus, a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple
INFANT BAPTISM. 113
of John, was born near the close of the first century. He says ; " Christ came to save all persons, who by him are born again unto God, (renascuntur in Deum,) infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and elder per- sons." Wall and Schroeckh, and other writers of the first ability, with good reason no doubt, consider the word, rcnasci^ in the writings of IrenaBus and Justin, as signi- fying Baptism. ** Any man," says Wall, " who has been at all conversant in the Fathers, — will be satisfied that they as constantly meant baptized, by the word regenerat- ed, or born again, as we mean the same by the word christened^ In this argument we are not concerned at all with the opinions entertained by Irenasus as to the ef- ficacy of Baptism. Our only inquiry is, whether it ap- pears from his writings, that Infant Baptism was the pre- vailing practice. The passage above cited is supposed to contain proof of this. But though it is quite evident that the word renasci was used by Ireneeus, as well as by the Christian Fathers generally, to denote baptism ; I shall not count this passage among those which are to be regarded as of chief importance, and sts most deci- sive in favor of Infant Baptism.
The testimony of Tertullian must be considered with special care. He wrote about a hundred years after the Apostles. The strange opinions which he enter- tained, as a Montanist, have nothing to do with his testimony as to facts ; especially as to facts, to which he makes no appeal in support of his peculiar opin- ions ; and most of all as to those facts, against which he objects, and which he attacks with severity. In regard to such facts, his testimony is entitled to full credit. For what motive could he possibly have to as- sert things, which stood in the way of his own sectarian
114 INFANT BAPTISM.
views, unless those things actually existed ? Would any author, especially one who wished to set himself up as the head of a sect, speak of the existence of a practice which he disapproved, and which was directly opposed to his favorite object, when at the same time he was aware that no such practice existed ? It is futile to say, that Ter- tullian was an enthusiast. Was he an enthusiast in re- gard to Baptism ? And were the facts to which he al- ludes, of such a nature, that speaking of them as he did could in any way tend to justify him in his enthusiastic notions ? Could he have had any motive whatever to treat Infant Baptism as he did, unless he, and those for whom he wrote, knew that it was a common practice ? This has never been shown ; and I am greatly mistaken if it ever can be.
The passage in Tertullian's treatise De Baptismo, chap. 18, is very important, though it is attended with difficulties, and has been a subject of no small controver- sy. The following is a translation. The original will be seen in the note.*
* Cajterum baptismuin non temere credendum esse sciant quo- rum officiuai est. Uinni peteuti te dato, suum habet titulum, pro- inde ad eleemosynani pertinentem. Imo illud potius per&picien- dum ; Nolite dare sanctum Ciinibus, et porcis projicere marg-arita vestra : et, manus ne facile imposueris, ne participes aliena delicta — Itaq; pro cujueq ; personoe conditione ac dispositione, etiam SBtate, cunctatio baptism! utilior est: preecique tamen circa parvu- los. Quid enim necesse est [ ] sponsores etiam periculo
ingeri ? quia et ipsi per mortalitatem destituere proinissioues suas possunt, et prrventu malse indolis falli. Ait quidem Dominus, jYoIite illos proh/bere ad me venire. Veniant ergo dum adoles- cunt, veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant docentur : fiant Chris- tiani quum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum ? Cautius agetur in secularibus; ut cui substantia terrena non creditur, Divinacrcdatur. Norint pete- re salutem, ut petenti dedisso videaris. Non niinori de causa in- nupti quoq ; procrastinandi, in quibus tentatio prfeparata est; tarn virginibus per maturitatem, quam viduis per vacationem, donee aut nubant aut continentiae corroborentur. Si qui pondus intelli- gaiit baptismi, magis timebunt consecutionem quam dilationeiri Fides inteirra secura est de salute.
INFANT BAPTISM. 115
" But they whose duty it is to administer Baptism, should know, that it is not to be given rashly, " Give to every one that asJceth thee,'' has its proper subject, and re- lates to almsgiving. But that command is rather to be regarded ; Give not that which is holy to dogs, neither cast you?' pearls before swine; and, Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither he partaker of other men's sins. There- fore according to every person's condition and disposi- tion, and age also, the delay of Baptism is more profita- ble, especially as to little children. For why is it ne- cessary that the sponsors should incur danger 1 For they may either fail of their promises by death, or may be disappointed by a child's proving to be of a wicked dis- position. Our Lord says indeed, forhid them not to come to me. Let them come then, when they are grown up ; let them come when they understand ; let them come, when they are taught whither they are to come ; let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why should their innocent age make haste to the forgive- ness of sin 1 Men act more cautiously in temporal con- cerns. Worldly substance is not committed to those, to whom divine things are entrusted. Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem to give to him that asketh."
" It is for a reason of no less importance, that unmar- ried persons, both those who were never married, and those who have been deprived of their partners, should, on account of their exposure to temptation, be kept wait- ing, till they are either married, or confirmed in a habit of chaste single life. They who understand the impor- tance of Baptism, will be more afraid of hastening to re- ceive it, than of delay : an entire faith secures salvation."
An attentive and impartial examination of this passage will I think make the following things evident.
IIG INFANT BAPTISM.
1. The object of Tertullian is, to caution the Chris- tian church against a hasty, premature, rash administra- tion of the rite of baptism : — non temere credendum esse, — it is not to he rashly administered. He meets the ob- jections which some might make to delaying the ordi- nance, or to declining to administer it, by appealing to the Scriptures ; Give not that which is holy to the dogs ; lay hands suddenly on no man^ &/C.
2. He urges the delay of baptism in regard to several sorts of persons, especially in regard to infants. " A de- lay of baptism," he says, ** is more profitable according to every one's condition, disposition, or age, but especially in regard to little ones, parvnlos, [ncadia, §(jt<feu.'\ For what necessity is there that the sponsors should incur danger 1 For they may fail of their promises by reason of mortality, or be disappointed by the springing up of a bad disposition."
The argument is plainly this, '' The little ones" espe- cially (prcBcipue) " ought to have their baptism delayed." Why ? Because a bad disposition may spring up, and the sponsors, (those who offered them up in baptism, and became responsible for their religious education, and their good behaviour,) be thus disappointed and fail of performing their engagements. The whole argument clearly shows, from its very nature, that infants must be intended by parvulos. If not, why did they need spon- sors ? They could engage for themselves. Moreover, if adults were intended, then their disjw^ition would have already sprung up, and developed itself; and what danger would there have been of the disappointment which Tertullian fears ?
The whole passage, by the most certain implication, shows that the ** little ones" (parvulos) were such as had
INFANT BAPTISM. 117
not developed their disposition, and such as did not and could not stand sponsors for themselves. Now Tertul- lian cautioned the sponsors not to take such engagements on themselves, as all their efforts to fulfil them might be frustrated.
3. This passage clearly shows, that Infant Baptism was commonly practised at the time when Tertullian liv- ed, that is, a hundred years after the apostles.
This appears from the reasoning. He notices a text which was doubtless appealed to by those who were ac- customed to baptize their children. Our Lord says in- deed, do not forbid them (parvulos) to come unto me. The force of this he feels it necessary to parry. " Let them come, then," he says, " when they are grown up : let them come when they learn : [let them come] when they are taught whither they are coming." All this shows beyond any reasonable doubt, that Tertullian was attacking the custom of bringing children to be baptized before they were grown up, or had learn- ed, or had been taught whither they were to come in bap- tism ; that is, that he was attacking the custom of having them baptized in an infantile state. This must be ad- mitted, or there is no sense in the passage. And what follows makes it, if possible, still more clear that he was opposing such a custom.
" Let them become Christians^'' he says, ''when they are able to know Christ." Their being devoted to Christ in baptism he represents as their becoming Christians ; and he objects to their becoming Christians at an age, when they were incapable of knowing Christ. Again he says : " Why should those who are of an age that is in- nocent, be eager for remission of sins ?" That is, why 11
118 INFANT BAPTISM.
should those who are so young as to be incapable of sin- ning, be eager to obtain forgiveness ?
With the correctness or incorrectness of Tertullian's religious opinions we have no concern here. Our only inquiry is, whether it is implied in the passage above quoted from his writings, that it was in his day the pre- vailing custom to baptize little children. That there was such a custom is evident from the fact, that he made op- position against it as actually existing.
He goes on with his objection against the practice of Infant Baptism. " Men act with more caution," he says, *' in temporal matters. Worldly substance is not com- mitted to those, to whom divine things are entrusted." That is, little children, as all agree, are not to be entrust- ed with the care of worldly substance ; and yet you en- trust them with divine things, which are so much more important- Still, not content with all this, he repeats an idea which he had before suggested. " Let them know how to seek for salvation, that you may appear to give to them who ask." That is ; you have been accustomed to give baptism to those who could not ask for it. Discontinue this practice ; and give baptism to those only who are capable of requesting it for themselves.
He finally urges delay in administering baptism to unmarried persons, on account of their being peculiarly exposed to temptation. He does not forbid baptism in their case, but urges the postponement of it, until they are either married, or established in habits of conti- nence. He says ; " If any understand the weight of bap- tismal obligations, they will be mord fearful about taking them, than about putting them off."
From this famous, singular, and controverted passage
INFANT BAPTISM. 119
in Tertullian, it is, then, as we have seen, perfectly clear, that there was in his day a practice of baptizing infants, that is, those who had, and could have, no knowledge of Christ ; that he was himself strongly opposed to the prac- tice ; and that he was opposed for reasons which were pe- culiar to him as a Montanist.
The reasoning of Tertullian against the baptism of unmarried persons, is the same as against the baptism of infants ; namely, that they are exposed to temptation, and in danorer of fallinor into sin." But if Christian rites are to be deferred until men are free from temptation, and the danger of sin ; when are they to be performed ?
It should be specially noted, that Tertullian does not appeal to any usage of the church, or of any part of the church, from the apostle's day to his, in support of his opinions against Infant Baptism. Now if it had not been the uniform practice of the Christian church, from the be- ginning, to baptize infants, how easy would it have been for him to say so, and to represent Infant Baptism as a hurtful innovation, and thus to put it down at once. He showed great zeal against the practice , and if he could have opposed it by asserting that it was a practice un- known in the early Christian churches ; could he have failed of using such an argument ? It is utterly improba- ble.
Suppose that Tertullian had set himself to argue on the other side in the same manner as on this ; suppose he had taken great pams to point out the evils of neglect- ing or delaying Infant Baptism, and had earnestly expos- tulated with those who exposed themselves and others to those evils ; would it not be implied, that Infant Bap- tism was neglected or delayed in his day ? And suppose he had shown great zeal to support Infant Baptism, and had labored to persuade the churches not to nep^lect it
120 INFANT BAPTISM.
and yet had made no mention of its having been handed down from the apostles, or of its having ever been the common usage of the Christian church ; would not every one say, this is a presumptive proof that he was endea- vouring to support an innovation, and that there had been no established usage of the church in favor of Infant Bap- tism, to which he was able to appeal in support of his opinion ? Could it be supposed that a learned Christian bishop, within a hundred years of the apostles, would be ignorant of what the custom was which they handed down to the churches, or would neglect to refer to the usage of the churches, as far as he was able, for the support of his own views?
Perhaps some one may say, that, if Infant Baptism had been the general practice of the Christian church, it must have been expressly mentioned by some writer pre- vious to Tertullian. But it is to be remembered, that Tertullian is the first considerable writer, whose remains are extant, except Justin Martyr. Irenaeus and Clemens Alexandrinus were his contemporaries. Now are there not many questions of great moment respecting the ca- nonical credit of the books of the New Testament, and respecting various important doctrines and usages in the Christian church, which are not mentioned in any of the scanty remains of the first ages after the apostles ? But it is worthy of being specially remembered, that the first express mention we find of Infant Baptism clearly implies, that it was the common practice.
As to the construction which R. Robinson, and oth- ers who agree with him, put upon the testimony of Ter- tullian— how can any man think that it has the least shadow of reason to support it, or that it can stand a mo- ment before an impartial examination ?*
See Appendix A.
INFANT BAPTISM.
121
The testimony of Origen.
" Since Origen was born, a. d. 185, that is 85 years after the apostles, his Grandfather, or at least his Great- Grandfather must have lived in the apostle's time. And as he could not be ignorant whether he was himself bap- tized in infancy, so he had no farther than his own fam- ily to go for inquiry, how it was practised in the times of the apostles. Besides, Origen was a very learned man, and could not be ignorant of the usages of the churches ; in most of which he had also travelled ; for as he was born and bred at Alexandria, so it appears from Eusebius, that he had lived in Greece, and at Rome, and in Cap- padocia, and Arabia, and spent the main part of his life in Syria and Palestine."*
The principal passages in the writings of Origen, in which the Baptism of Infants is mentioned, are the fol- lowing.
Homily 8th, on Levit. c. 13.
" According to the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants ; when if there were nothing in in- fants which needed forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous.!
This testimony needs no comment in regard to the fact, that infants were baptized.
Homily on Luke 14. " Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins ? Or when have they sinned ? Or can there
* Wail's History of Infant Baptism, vol. 1. p. 73.
t Secundum ecclesiae obseivantiara etiam parvulis baptismum dari : cum utiq ; si nihil esset in parvulis quod ad remissionem de- beret et indulgentiam pertinere, gratia baptismi superflaa videre- tur.
11*
122 INFANT BAPTISM.
be any reason for the laver in their case, unless it be ac- cording to the sense we have mentioned above ; viz. no one is free from pollution, though he has lived but one day upon earth. And because by baptism native pollution is taken away, therefore infants are baptized."*
But the testimony of Origen which is the most impor-» tant of all, is in his
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, lib. 5.
" For this cause it was that the church received an order from the apostles, to give baptism even to infants."t
These testimonies need no explanation. They not only imply that Infant Baptism was generally known and practised, but also mention it as an order received from the apostles. And although some may doubt the correct- ness of Origen's reasoning as to the ground of the prac- tice ; no one can reasonably doubt that he is a good wit- ness of the fact, that such was the practice, and that such was understood to be the source from which it was de- rived.
To any objections which have been made to the gen- uineness of these quotations from Origen, I refer to Wall's History, Chap. 5, as containing a satisfactory answer. I shall cite only the following.
'' In these translations of Origen, (translations from the original Greek, which is lost, into Latin,) — " if there were found but one or two places, and those in Rufinus
* Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum. Quorum peccatorum vel quo tempore peccaverunt ? aut quomodo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere, nisi juxta ilium sonsum de quo paulo ante diximus ; Nullus mundus a sorde, nee si uniusdiei qui- dem fuerit vita ejus super terram ? Et quia per baptismi sacra- mentum nativitatis sordea deponuntur, propterea baptizantur et parvuli.
t " Pro hoc et ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem suscepit, etiam parvulis baptismum dare."
INFANT BAPTISM. 123
alone, which speak of Infant Baptism ; there might have been suspicion of their being interpolations. But when there are so many of them, brought in on several occa- sions, in translations made by several men, who were of several parties, and enemies to one another, (as Hierom and Rufinus were,) and upon no temptation, (for it is cer- tain that in their time there was no dispute about Infant Baptism,) — that they should all be forged without any reason, is absurd to think. Especially if we consider that these translators lived not much more than a hun- dred years after Origen's time ; the Christians then must have known whether infants had been used to be baptiz- ed in Origen's time, or not ; — the very tradition from fa- ther to son must have carried a memory of it for so short a time. And then, for them to make Origen speak of a thing which all the world knew was not in use in his time, must have made them ridiculous."
Testimony of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, 1.50 years after the
Apostles.
In the year 253, sixty six Bishops met in Council at Carthage. Fidus, a country Bishop, had sent a letter with two cases, on which he desired their opinion. The one, which related to our present subject, was, whether an infant might be baptized before it was eight days old. It will be sufficient for my purpose to cite the following passages from the Letter of the Bishops.
" Cyprian and the rest of the Bishops who were pre- sent in the council, sixty six in number, to Fidus our Brother, Greeting."
— " As to the case of Infants ; — whereas you judge that they must not he baptized unthin two or three days after they art horn, and that the rule of circumcision is
124 INFANT BAPTISM.
to he observed, that no one should he haptizcd and sancti' Jied hiforc the eighth day after he is horn ; We were all in the Council of a very different opinion. As for what you thought proper to be done, not one was of your mind ; but we all rather judged that the mercy and grace of God
is to be denied to no human being that is born."
*' This therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the Council ; that we ought »ot to hinder any person from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind to all. And this rule, as it holds for all, is, we think, more especially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those newly born."*
Respecting these quotations, I would suggest the fol- lowinop remarks.
First. However fanciful or incorrect the opinions of Cyprian and the Bishops connected with him were, re- specting the grounds of Infant Baptism ; their testimony to the fact, which is all we now inquire after, holds good.
Second. The quotations above made from the letter of the Bishops prove incontrovertibly, that Infant Baptism was w^ell known and commonly practised at that time. It is plain that Fidus who put the question, and the Bish-
* Cyprianus et cseteri Collegae, qui in Concilio affuerunt, nume- ro 60. Fido fratri salutem
Qu;mtum vero ad causam infantium pertinet, quos dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem, quo nati sunt, conslitutos baptizari non oportere : et considerandam esse legem circumcisionis antiques ; ut intra octavum diem, eum qui natus est baptizandum et sancti- ficandum non putares, longe aliud in Concilio nostro omnibus vi- sum est. In hoc enim quod tu putabas esse faciendum nemo con- sensit: sed universi potius judicavimxis nulli hominum nato mis- ericordiam Dei et gratiam deney-anda;n.
Et idcirco, frater carissiine, haec fuit in Concilio nostra senten- tia, a baptismo atq ; a g.atia Bei, qui omnibus et misericors et be- nifjnus et pius est, neminem per nos debere prohiberi. Quod cum circa universos observandum sit atc] ; retinendum; magis circa infantes ipsos et recens natos observandum putanius.
IiVFANT BAPTISM. 125
ops who resolved it, both took it for granted that infants were to be baptized ; only Fidus thought it should be omitted till the eighth day.
Third. The contempt which some men have cast upon this testimony, must have been, I should think, al- together affected ?Lnd forced. In sober truth, the testimo- ny has great weight ; as it is impossible to suppose that sixty six- Bishops, living 150 years after the apostles, and so near the time of Origen and Tertullian, and headed by the most distinguished man then in the Christian church, should not have doubted, no, not one of them, the propriety of applying baptism to infants, even those newly born, if the catholic church hitherto had not made it their common practice.
The arguments of Wall prove, beyond all question, the genuineness of this Epistle of Cyprian and his fellow Bishops. (See History of Inf Bap. vol. I. chap. 6.) The Epistle contains incontrovertible, overpowering evi- dence of the usual practice of the churches in Cyprian's time, and, of course, in times previous to his. If the practice had been a novelty, or if there had been any con- siderable division or controversy in the churches respect- ing it ; how could such a circumstance have been forgot- ten, or passed over in silence ?
There is another passage in Cyprian, in which he speaks of children who were carried in the arms of their apostate parents to heathen sacrifices, and says of such children, that " they lost what they obtained immediately after they were born ;" — referring without any doubt, to their baptism ; which was regarded as a gift or favor committed to them.
Optatus. This father lived 260 years after the apostles. In the
1*26 INFANT BAPTISM.
passage to which I shall refer, he had been comparing a Christian's putting on Christ in Baptism, to putting on a garment. He then says; "But lest any one say, I speak irreverently in calling Christ a garment, let him read what the Apostle says, as many of you as have been haptized in the name of Christ, have put on Christ. Oh \ what a garment is this, which is always one, and which fits all ages and all shapes. It is neither too large for infants, nor too small for young men, nor does it need any altera- tion for women."*
The meaning of this passage in regard to the subject before us, is perfectly plain.
Gregory Nazianzen, 260 years after the Apostles.
The passage I shall cite is from his Oration on Basil. Orat. 20. After comparing Basil to Abraham, Moses etc., he compares him to Samuel, and undertakes to show the points of similitude between them.
" Samuel among them that call upon his name was given before he was born, and immediately after his birth was consecrated, and he became an anointer of kings and priests out of a horn. And was not this man, (Basil,) consecrated to God in his infancy from the womb, and carried to the steps," (doubtless the baptismal font,) *' in a coat]"t He plainly referred to the coat which was us- ed in Baptism, and compared it to the coat which was
*Sed ne quis dicat, temere a me Filium Dei vestem esse dictum : legat Apostolum dicentem ; Quotquot in nomine Christi baptizati estis, Christum induistis. O tunica semper una, et innumerabilis, quae decenter vestiat et omnes aetates et formas : ncc in infanti- bus rugatur, ncc in juvenibus tenditur, nee in fjcminis matatur.
\ Sauovii?. IV Toic f7iiy.a7.oiuivoic to ovoua airov, y.ai foToc ttoo ytrr/^'fTtoic, y.a'i inTU T>^r ytH?;(Tiv iv^cc it{>oc, xai jfoivr ^unO.iag xai itQfuc di'u Tov yAouTOQ. "Oinoc 6f ovy. iy. (ioHfoig xud^itQwutroc ano fiilcQug, y.iil utru t/,$ din:/.oidog i/tidtSu^utrog tw (iilitari.
INFANT BAPTISM. 127
made for Samuel by his mother. This is a clear testimo- ny to what was usual in regard to baptism at that time.
Wall has given an abstract of Gregory's oration on Baptism, to which I must refer the reader. Gregory first gives his opinion in favor of delaying the baptism of chil- dren tiij they are three years old. Still he expresses it in such a manner as to imply, that the usual practice was against him. But on reconsidering the danger to which infants are exposed, and all the circumstances of the case, he advises that infants should be baptized. He and Ter- tullian are the only men in the early churches, who speak of delaying baptism at all.
From Ambrose, w^ho flourished 274 years after the apostles, I shall make two quotations.
The first is fi-om his commentary on Luke c. 1. Af- ter showing how John in several parts of his office resem- bled Elias, and havingr mentioned the miracle of that Pro- phet in dividing the river Jordan, he adds these words :
" But perhaps this may seem to be fulfilled in our time and in the Apostle's time. For that return of the waters backward towards the head of the river, which was caused by Elias when the river was divided, (as the Scripture says, Jordan "was driven back,) signified the mystery of the laver of salvation, which was afl;erwards to be instituted, by which those who are baptized in infancy are reformed from a wicked state to the primitive state of their nature."*
In this place Ambrose plainly signifies that infants
* Sed fortasse hoc supra nos et supra Apostolos videatur exple- tum. Nam ille sub Elia diviso amne fluvialium recursus undarum in originem fluminis (sicut dicit Scriptura ; Jordanes convursus est retrorsum) significavit salutaris lavacri futura mysteria ; per quae in primordia naturae suae, qui baptizati fuerint parvuli, amalitid re- formantur.
1*28 INFANT BAPTISM.
were baptized in the time of the apostles , as well as in his own time.
The other passage is from the book of Ambrose res- pecting Abraham. He is speaking of circumcision as be- longing to all, whether older or younger. He says, nei- ther a proselyte that is old, nor an infant born in the house is excepted, because every age is obnoxious to sin, and therefore every age is proper for the sacrament. He ap- plies this to spiritual circumcision and to baptism, and says, that all must be circumcised — so as not to practice sin any more ; — -for no person cotnes to the kingdom of heave?} but by the sacrament of baptism. Then after quoting the words of Christ, '' unless any one is born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- dom of God;" he says ; "You see he excepts no one, not even an infant, non infantem, — nor one that is hinder- ed by any unavoidable necessity."
There could be no more direct and unequivocal evi- dence that baptism was, in the time of Ambrose, consid- ered proper and necessary for infants.
Chrysostom, who lived 280 years after the apostles, plainly shows what was the practice of the churches in regard to Infant Baptism in his day, and how he regard- ed it himself
Homily 40, on Genesis. He first speaks of circumcision, and then observes that God is much more favorable to Christians in the baptism which he has appointed instead of it. In remark- ing upon this he says, *' But our circumcision, that is, the grace of baptism, ?] d'i fj{.i6it'Qa uegizo^y], y] tov ^amia- fiuTog Xf'yo) ;fa(;t?, gives cure without pain. — And it has no determinate time, as circumcision had ; but it is
INFANT BAPTISM. 129
proper that this circumcision without hands should be re- ceived by one in the beginning of life, or in the middle of it, or in old age."
There is another passage in a Homily of Chrysostom respecting those who are baptized, which is cited by Ju- lian and by Austin, and which contains a very explicit recognition of Infant Baptism. He says, " Some think that the heavenly grace (of baptism) consists only in for- giveness of sins ; but I have reckoned up ten advantages of it. For this cause we baptize infants also, though they are not defied with sin ;" or as Austin has quoted it from the Greek of Chrysostom, — " though they have not any transgressions," — meaning, doubtless, actual sins.
Augustine, (or Austin) a Christian father highly dis- tinguished both for his learning and piety, flourished 288 years after the apostles. The testimonies which he gave to the fact, that infants were baptized, and that this usage was universally understood and acknowledged to have been handed down from the Apostles, are very plain and explicit.
Remarking on the passage 1 Cor. 7: 14, Austin says ; " There were then Christian infants, (parvu- li Christiani,) who were sanctified," that is, baptized, *' by the authority of one or both of their parents." In another place, he speaks of the good which Christian baptism does to infants, and says, that the faith of those by whom the child is brought to be consecrated, is profta-^ ble to the child (prodesse parvulo eorum fidem a quibus consecrandus offertur). In his book against the Donatists, he speaks of those who were baptized in infancy or in childhood (qui infantes vel pueri baptizati sunt).
In the same book, he says, w^here baptism is had, if
faith is by necessity wanting, salvation is secured. He 12
130
INFANT BAPTISM.
then adds : " Which the whole body of the church holds, as delivered to them, in the case of little infants who are baptized; (cum parvuli infantes baptizantur ;) who cer- tainly cannot believe with the heart unto righteousness, etc. And yet no Christian will say, they are baptized in vain."
Although Austin here mentioned Infant Baptism in- cidentally, his words show that it was universally practis- ed, and had been so from time immemorial, and that no Christian of any sect was of a different opinion. "And they had only 300 years to look back to the apostles ; whereas we now have near 1800. And the writings and records which are now lost, were then extant, and easi- ly known."
Austin's Letter to Boniface, which treats mainly of the subject of Infant Baptism, shows beyond the possibil- ity of doubt, that it was universally practised by the church, and was understood to be a divine appointment.
In his book on Genesis, he says : *' The custom of our mother the Church in baptizing infants must not be disregarded, nor accounted useless ; and it must by all means be believed to be a tradition, (or order) of the apostles ; apostolica traditio." And in accordance with this, he says, in another place : " It is most justly believ- ed to be no other than a thing delivered," (ordered, or taught,) " by apostolic authority ; that is, that it came not by any general council, or by any authority later or less than that of the apostles." And again he speaks of bap- tizing infants " by the authority of the whole church, which was undoubtedly delivered by our Lord and hi» apostles."
In his book against the Donatists, while maintaining the validity of baptism, though administered to those who are
INFANT BAPTISM. 131
destitute of faith, he refers especially to those who were baptized when they were infants or youths; " raaxime qui infantes vel pueri baptizati sunt."
The universal acknowledgement of Infant Baptism as a practice derived from the apostles, is brought out fre- quently and very clearly in the controversy between Aus- tin and the Pelagians. The Pelagians, who denied orig- inal sin, were pressed with the argument from Infant Baptism. It would have been very much to their pur- pose to assert, had it been in their power, that the bap- tism of infants was not enjoined by Christ or his apostles. If they had known any society of Christians existing in their day or before, wlio disowned Infant Baptism ; their interest would have led them to plead such an example in their own behalf. But they were far from any thing like this. Celestius owns that infants are to be baptized according to the rule of the universal church ; and Pela- gius complained that some men slandered him as if he de- nied baptism to in flints ; but declared that he never had heard of any one, no not even of any impious heretic or sectary, who denied Infant Baptism.
Now, according to Wall, (to whom I am chiefly in- debted for these testimonies and results,) if there had been any Antipedobaptist church in the world, these two men must have had an opportunity to hear of them, be- ing so great travellers as they were. For they were born and bred, the one in Britain, the other in Ireland. They lived a long time at Rome, to which all the people of the known world had resort. They were both for some time 'at Carthage in Africa. Then the one settled in Jerusa- lem, and the other travelled through all the noted church- es in Europe and Asia. It is impossible there should have been any church, which had a singular practice as
133 INFANT BAPTISM.
to Infant Baptism, but they must have heard of it. So that we may fairly cone hide tliat there was not at that time, nor within the memory of the men of that time, any Christian society which denied baptism to infants.
I shall here subjoin an argmnent of great weight, and nearly in the words of Wall, Vol. I. chap. 21 ; namely ; that Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Austin, and Theo- doret, who wrote catalogues of all the sects and sorts of Christians that they knew or had ever heard of, make no mention of any who denied Infant Baptism, except those who denied all Baptism. Each of them, he says, men- tion some sects that used no baptism at all ; and these sects Austin represents as disowning the Scripture, or a great part of it. But of all the sects that acknowledged water baptism in any case, no one is mentioned that de- nied it to infants.
Now since all these authors make it their business to rehearse the opinions and usages which the various sects held different from the church at large, and yet mention no difference in this respect ; we may well conclude that all of them practised in this particular as the catholic church did. If the catholic church had not baptized in- fants, and the sectaries had, it would have been noted. And if the catholic church had baptized infants, and the sectaries had not, that also would have been noted. For these writers tell us that each sect had its peculiarities. And they mention differences of much less moment than this would have been.
I shall only add the remark of Wall, that the first body of men we read of, that denied haptism to infants, were the Pctrobrusians, A. D. 1150.
Thus it appears that we have evidence as abundant, and specific, and certain, as history affords of almost any crther fact, that Infant Baptisn;i universally prevailed from
INFANT BAPTISM. 13*3
the days of the Apostles through four centuries. Bap- tists and Pedobaptists are satisfied, on the ground of Ec- clesiastical History, that the churches immediately suc- ceeding the Apostles, observed tlie first day of the week as a sacred day ; that the books, of which our New Tes- tament is composed, were generally acknowledged as of divine authority ; that the Lord's Supper was frequently celebrated, and that women partook of it as well as men. But which of these facts is better supported by historical evidence, than the baptism of infants I*
On the value of this argument from early Ecclesiasti- cal History, I shall offer a few remarks.
It cannot with any good reason be denied or doubted that those Christian writers, who have, in different ways, given testimony to the prevalence of Infant Baptism in the early ages of Christianity, are credible witnesses. Nor can it be denied, that they were under the best ad- vantages to know, whether the practice of Infant Baptism commenced in the time of the Apostles. On this subject, as they were not liable to mistake, so their testimony is entitled to full credit.
Infant Baptism was a subject, in which early Chris- tians must have felt a very livtly interest. It was a thing of the most public nature, and a mistake concerning it must have been altogether improbable, — I miglit say, im- possible. It was certainly impossible that Christians should be mistaken as to the question, whether Infant Baptism was generally practised in their own age. And it must have been almost as impossible for them to be mistaken, as to the practice of the preceding age. For they had memoriei--, as well as we; and they had oral traditions ; and f!ioy had written records also. And why
^ See Appendix B.
12*
134 INFANT BAPTISM.
should not they have known what took place in the time of their fathers, as well as we know what took place in the time of our fathers ? But surely we have no doubt whether we were baptized in infancy ; or whether our parents were baptized in infancy ; or whether in the days of our fathers it was the uniform practice of the churches, with which we are connected, to give baptism to chil- dren. Who can imagine that we are in any danger of mistake, as to the practice of the first churches of New England relative to their infant offspring ? If any one should take upon him to deny that those churches bap- tized their children ; should we not think him extremely ignorant, or in sport ? We deem it sufficient, that our fathers have told us it was so, and that we never heard any one question it. But besides this, there are many circumstances which plainly imply it ; and we have books, written at the time, which contain indubitable evidence of the fact. And we say too, that the very existence of the practice at the present time, considering how public and how important a thing it is, must be regarded as con- clusive evidence that it was the practice before ; unless it can be made to appear, that a change has taken place, and that our churches have been induced to renounce their former views, and to become Pedobaptists. If such a clfange has taken place, let it be made to appear. Let those who assert such a change, produce the evidence of it. If no evidence of this can be produced, it is just to conclude, that no change has taken place, and that the present practice is only a continuation of that which for- merly prevailed.
These remarks are applicable to the subject under consideration. My position is, that the Fathers, from whom I have made citations relative to the practice of
INFANT BAPTISM. 135
Infent Baptism, are credible witnesses ; that they were under the best advantages to know whether the practice had prevailed from the days of the Apostles, and accord- ingly, that their testimony on the subject is entitled to en- tire confidence. In different circumstances, and in dif- ferent countries, they stand forth as witnesses, that In- fant Baptism had been the uniform practice of the Chris- tian church from the beginning. Although they lived at different periods, they were all near enough to the time of the Apostles to obtain correct information respecting a practice like this. In their own time the practice was universal. They tell us it had been so from the begin- ning. Some of them would have been quite ready to deny this, if they could have found any reasons for do- ing so. But they unite in declaring, that the practice had been universal in the Christian church from the time of the apostles.
Should any one say, there might have been a change, and the baptism of infants might have been introduced afterward, either gradually or suddenly ; I would ask, where is the evidence of this ? Even if all, who lived at the time, had been united in such a change, it could not have taken place without leaving some clear proof of the fact ; some traces, which would have been visible to those who succeeded. But it is in the highest degree impro- bable, that all who lived at the time of such a chancre, would be united in it. And if they were not united, there must be some evidence of the disunion ; some traces of the controversy of disagreeing parties ; some account of the remonstrances of the more conscientious and faithful against those who were unstable, and who wished to make unwarrantable changes, and of the arguments of such innovators to justify themselves against the charge
186 INFANT liAPTISM.
of corrupting the simplicity of a Christian institutionr But where is the evidence of the change supposed ? Where do we find any traces of it ? What declaration, or suggestion, or allusion is there, in any written history, or in any tradition, making it certain, or in any deorree probable, tliat such a change ever took place ? Who ev- er heard of the contention of parties on this subject ; of the remonstrances of the faithful, or the apologies of in- novators? Now if the early Christians had among them any of the vigilance and zeal of those who, in modern times, have denied Infant Baptism ; how could the bap- tism of infants have been introduced without exciting dis- satisfaction, complaint and opposition ? Take the Bap- tist churches now existing, and distinguished for their piety and zeal, in Great Britain, in America or in India. Should any of these churches attempt to introduce Infant Baptism, would not a loud voice be quickly raised against them ? Would they not be obliged to encounter arguments too many, and opposition too decided, to be either despised, or forgotten ? Now turn to the primitive churches. If they did not consider Infant Baptism a di- vine institution, why did they not lift up their voice and ar- ray their arguments against it, when it was first brought in- to use ? We have very ancient and particular accounts of controversies and heresies on a great variety of subjects, both doctrinal and practical. How happens it, that we have no account of the hrenj of the Pcdobnptists, and no account of any controversy with them ? If we may judge from what has appeared in modern times, we should think that there are few subjects more likely to excite at- tention, than this, and few subjects on which the disa- greements of Christians would ])e more likely to be at- tended with warmth, or more likely to be remembered.
INFANT BAPTISM. 1S7
These remarks are sufficient to shew the value of the argument from Ecclesiastical History. The testimony of the early Christian writers in favor of Infant Baptism, as the uniform practice of the church, is worthy of full credit, and, as the circumstances were, affords a conclu- sive argument that it was a divine institution. And I well know, that an argument like this on the opposite side, would be quite as much relied upon by those who deny Infant Baptism, as this is relied upon by us. If they could but make it appear by citations from Ecclesi- astical Histories, that the churches, immediately after the time of the Apostles, were united in rejecting Infant Bap- tism, and that this continued to be the case for more than a thousand years, without the exception of a single church or individual Christian who pleaded for the practice ; would they not earnestly seize this fact, and confidently rely upon it, as an unanswerable argument against In- fant Baptism ? I would seriously propose this view of the subject to the serious and impartial consideration of those who differ from us on the question at issue. Let them remember how much writers on their side have labored to show, that Infant Baptism was not the universal prac- tice of the early Christian churches ; and how much stress they have laid on the least shadow of evidence, that primitive Christians, in any instances, did not baptize their children. Now if they could produce clear evi- dence that there were many such instances ; especially, if they could make it appear, that Christians in general were not accustomed to baptize children ; if they could produce one plain declaration, or even the slightest hint, fi'om Origen, from Augustine, or from Pelagius, showing that Infant Baptism was not practised by the first Chris- tian churches, and that no order or tradition in favor of
138 INFANT BAPTISM.
f
it was ever received from the Apostles, — or even expres- sing a doubt on the subject ; would they not hold this to be an unquestionable proof against Infant Baptism ? And would not their confidence in such a conclusion rise to the highest pitch, if they could make it appear that, when Infant Baptism was first introduced, earnest and repeated remonstrances were made against it, as a dan- gerous innovation ? But as the proof from Ecclesiastical History is wholly on the other side, and shows clearly, that Infant Baptism was the uniform practice of the church in the ages succeeding the Apostles ; and as no want of genuineness in the works referred to, and no want of clearness or fulness in the testimonies which they contain can be pretended ; with what candor or fair- ness can my Baptist brethren deny the force of this ar- gument in favor of Infant Baptism ?
If there should be any remaining doubt in your minds, as to the propriety of relying on tlie testimony of unin- spired men on such a subject as this, and if you should think, that nothing but an express declaration from the word of God ought to satisfy us ; I would turn your at- tention for a few moments to the consequences of adher- ing to this principle. In the first place, what evidence have you, except the testimony of uninspired men, that the several books which constitute the Old Testament, as we now have it, are the very books to which Christ and the apostles referred as the word of God ? Neither of them has given us any specific instruction on this point ; and we go to Josephus, who was neither an inspired man, nor a Christian ; to the Talmud, and to Jerome, Origen, Aquila, and other uninspired men, to find a list of the books, which we are to receive as given by inspir- atiouofGod; and having proved from their testimony,
INFANT BAPTISM. 139
%
that these were the books which Christ and the Apostles regarded as sacred writings, we prove in other ways, that those writings have come down to us without any mate- rial alteration. And we must use the same kind of rea- soning in regard to the New Testament. We have no voice from heaven, and no express testimony of any in- spired writer, that the several books, which compose the entire Canon of the New Testament, were given by in- spiration of God, or that they were all written by Apos- tles, or even by Christians. But we go to Eusebius, and to other uninspired writers, and we find, that thei/ regard- ed these books, as the genuine productions of those to whom they are commonly ascribed, and as having divine authority. It is on such evidence as this, that we rely for the support of those sacred books, which are the basis of our faith, and which teach us what are the doctrines and precepts and rites of our religion. And why should we not rely on their testimony, in regard to the manner in which a religions rite was understood and applied by the churches, in the first ages of Christianity? Why should we not confide in them as credible witnesses of a fact, which they had the best opportunity to be acquaint- ed with, and no temptation to misrepresent ?*
* I am reluctant to say what truth and justice seem to require me to say, respecting the manner in which several Baptist writers have treated the historical argument in favor of Infant Baptism. I make the appeal to men of any denomination, who have the re- quisite qualifications, and can find opportunity to give the subject an impartial and thorough examination, whether an instance can easily be found, of greater unfairness in reasoning, or of a more determined effort to d'scolor all facts, and evade all arguments on the opposite side, than is exhibited in the writers referred to.
But I would be far from indulging the thought, that I am not •xposed to the same faults as those upon which I animadvert in others. I would therefore propose to those who differ from me, that, in the midst of our investigations, we should now and then make a solemn pause, and humbly and earnestly pray, that our
140 INFANT BAPTISM.
hearts maij he rirrht with God. Whether we are engaged in con- futiiKT error, or in defending the truth, it is our bounden duty to use the faculties which God has given us, with Christian candor, and with the most exact integritj' and impartiality. Any devia- tion from these in our inquiries after truth, or in the manner of conducting controversy, must be as offensive to God, to say the least, as unfairness, dishonesty, or artful evasion, in the common transactions of life. The God of truth neither requires nor per- mits us to use carnal weapons in defence of his cause. Nay, I am persuaded, that God would rather see us contend for error ■with a right spirit, than for truth, with a icrong.
In reference to one of the writers to whom I have alluded, namely, R. Robinson, whose History of Baptism is ofton referred to as good authority by the Baptists in America, — being unwilling to trust my own judgement merely, I have requested my respected Colleague, the Rev. Moses Stuart, to favor me with his views. In compliance with my request he has sent me the following letter, with liberty to insert it in a note.
My dear Brother,
I thank you for the loan of R. Robinson's History of Bap- tism. Having so often heard the book spoken highly of, and know- ing something of Mr. Robinson's talents and character, I had a great curiosity to see it. I have examined it on various topics, and confess myself to be greatly disappointed, and not a little disgust- ed. There is every where in it, an air of almost profane levity ; which at times breaks out into tlie most gross and palpable inde- cency. See for specimens, pp. 3G7 and 409 and 410 of the Ameri- can edition, to which a multitude of examples might easily be ad- ded. There is every^ where such an effort to appear smart, and to say witty things, and to hold up his opponents to ridicule, if not to contempt, that a serious and candid inquirer is ready to ask, — How is it possible, that serious and sensible men of the Baptist com- munity could have ever recommended such a book as this to the public ^ Withal, there is such a gross and palpable unfairness in Robinson's examination of the testimony of the Christian Fathers, and such shallow criticism both on them and on the New Testa- ment, that one may well wonder, that his book should meet with encouragement among men of sobriety and good sense. There is indeed, an appearance of a kind of learning in the author ; but it is merely that of a literary gourmand, who has read every thing cu- riou.s and entertaininar, and but very little that is solid, and has rea- soned and reflected still less on what he has read. How very dif- ferent from this book, that of Dr Gale is, every critical reader must at once perceive. I only regret, the spirit and temper exhib- ited by Dr Gale; and candour obliges me to say. by Dr Wall al- so, in his Defence. But it was the fault of the day ; from which may heaven defend the present generation, and all ages to come.
Yours sincerely,
M. Stuart. 29 June, 1829.
LECTURE VII.
Baptism a substitute for circumcision. — Circumcision not applied to females; — applied to servants. — Seal of the covenant. — Difficulty arising from the dif- ference between the former and the present economy, and from the requisition of faith. — Import of Infant Baptism. — Utility. — Standing of baptized children. — Duties of parents and the church.
1 have now exhibited, as far as my present object re- quires, the arguments which I regard as most weighty and conclusive in favor of the position, that the Apostles understood their commission to proselyte and baptize, as including children. There are, however, several remain- ing topics, more or less related to the subject, which must be carefully considered. And when thus considered, they will afford important collateral evidence in support of Infant Baptism, and will have a very satisfactory influ- ence upon the minds of candid inquirers after the truth.
The first of these remaining topics is, Baptism con- sidered as a substitute Jor circumcision.
It is common to speak of one thing as coming in the place of another, when there is a general agreement be- tween them, as to the object sought, or the end to be answered, how diiferent soever they may be in other res- pects. Thus our meeting-houses, or churches, are some- times spoken of as coming in the place of the Jewish temple and synagogues, because they agree in this, that they are designed for public icorship, and public re- 13
142 INFANT BAPTISM.
ligious instruction. As to the form of the buildings, and the particular mode of worship and instruction, they dif- fer greatly. So also in regard to the general end sought, we consider ministers of the gospel as substituted for the Levitical Priesthood ; the more spiritual services of Chris- tians, for the daily sacrifices of the Jews ; and the Lord's Supper, for the Passover. In each of these cases, there is an obvious agreement, in regard to the general object in view, between tiie former institution, and that which comes in its stead. So in civil matters. A law former- ly existed, requiring a thief to be punished by scourging; but that law has been set aside, and another enacted, re- quiring a thief to labor in prison, with solitary confine- ment at night. This law, or this mode of punishment, we speak of as a substitute for the other, because it relates to the same subject, and is intended to answer the same general purpose. In the same manner, we speak of the punishment of death, as commuted for exile, or of exile, as substituted for death.
From these and other like examples, we learn how such language is commonly used. And it must be con- sidered proper to use it in the same sense, in relation to the subject before us. The position which has been maintained by the ablest writers, and which I shall en- deavour to defend, is, that Baptism comes in the place of circumcision. This position is not founded so much on any particular text, as on the general representations of Scripture, and the nature of the cuse. When God adopt- ed Abraham and his posterity to be his peculiar people, he commanded them to be circumcised ; and it appears from the representations of Moses and Paul, that those who received this rite, were under special obligations to be holy. Circumcision was, then, a sign put upon Abra-
INFANT BAPTISM.
143
ham and his seed, showing them to be a peculiar people, under peculiar obligations to God, and entitled to pecu- liar blessings. Just so Baptism is a sign, put upon the people of God under the new dispensation, signify inof sifbstantiaUi/ the same obligations and blessings, as those which were signified by circumcision ; — the same, I say, suhstantially , though in some circumstances different. If then circumcision was a rite, by which persons were admitted into the society of God's people, and set apart for his service, under the former dispensation ; and if circumcision is set aside, and Baptism is the appointed rite, by which persons are admitted into the society of God's people and consecrated to his service, under the new dispensation ; it is evident that Baptism has succeed- ed in the place of circumcision. We cannot but be sat- isfied with this conclusion, if the sign of one of these rites was, in all important respects, the same as of the oth- er ; and particularly, if they were both appointed, as a seal of the same general promise of God to his people, and of the same general relation of his people to him.
Now if Baptism comes in the place of circumcision, and is, in the most important respects, designed for the same purpose ; we should think there must be some sim- ilarity between them in regard to their application. Un- der the former dispensation, if any, who had been aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, were made proselytes to the Jewish religion, they were circumcised. Accord- ingly, if, under the present dispensation, any who have been enemies to the spirit of Christianity, are converted, and made disciples of Christ, they are to be baptized. This conclusion, which we should naturally adopt from the circumstance that Baptism was substituted in the place of circumcision, perfectly agrees with the particu-
144 INFANT BAPT1S5T.
lar instruction given in the New Testament. The com- mand as to baptism related primarily to those, who be- came proselytes to Christ, whether they were Jews or Gentiles. It related to believers. These were to be bap- tized, just as adult prost^lytes to Judaism had before been circumcised. And what is the natural conclusion re- specting the children of believers ? Plainly this ; that as the children of Abraham, the father of believers, and the children of all proselytes to the true religion, were for- merly circumcised ; so the children of all believers are now to be baptized. This must be our conclusion, unless the word of God expressly forbids Infant Baptism, or un- less there is something in the nature and design of Bap- tism, which makes it manifestly unsuitable to apply it to infant children.
The fact that circumcision was applied only to men, is of no consequence as to the argument ; because wo- men in that case, as in many others, were evidently con- sidered as represented by men, and virtually included with them. Consequently, the meaning of infant cir- cumcision must have been the same, as though it had been applied to persons of both sexes. But the distinc- tion, formerly made between male and female, in regard to the application of the seal of the covenant, is done away under the Christian dispensation. The seal is now to be applied to believers of both sexes ; and of course to all their children, whether «;ons or daughters.
The chief objection to this view of the su])ject arises from the fact, that Abraham's servnnts were all circum- cised, whereas there is nothing like this in regard to the application of Christian baptism.
In reply to this objection, I remark first ; that the great promise of the covenant expressly related to parents
INFANT BAPTISM. 145
and children. " I will be a God to thee and to thy seed." This was the natural, primary relation. The relation of servants to their master was not natural, but accidental, and altogether subordinate and inferior. So that it would be nothing strange, if under the Christian dispen- sation, less respect should be shown to this relation, than to the relation of children to parents. It was so even un- der the former dispensation. The circumcision of chil- dren was the prominent thing. This was to be observed in all generations, so long as that economy continued. Whether there was any occasion to circumcise servants, or not, the circumcision of children was never to fail. Now it would seem perfectly reasonable to suppose, that in respect to this natural primary relation, the seal of the covenant under the new dispensation should be applied in the same manner as under the old, though it might not be in respect to the other relation, which is acciden- tal and inferior. But I remark, secondly, that I do not consider baptism as by any means intended to be con- fined io parents and children. If a Christian takes the children of his children, or the children of any relative into a near relation to himself, and enffaores to be as a father to them ; it is, in my view, perfectly suitable that he should consecrate them to God by baptism. And I think the same also in regard to orphans, or any other children, whom a Christian guardian or master receives into his family, and undertakes, as sponsor, to bring up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. So that as the parallel between circumcision and baptism need not be supposed entirely to fail, even in regard to those who stand in other relations besides that of children ; the ob- jection we are considering seems, after all, to have but little force.
13*
i46 INFANT BAPTISM.
The connexion above mentioned, between Infant Ua/v tism and Infant circumcision, I once thought doubtful. But the fact, that it is rehed upon by all the ablest and most candid defenders of Infant Baptism, induced me carefully to reexamine it. This reexamination has brought me to the conclusion, that the appointment and uniform practice of Infant circumcision, in connexion with the reasons on which it rested, and the circum- stances attending it, would naturally lead the Apostles, and must lead us, to understand the rite of Baptism, as coming generally in the place of circumcision, and as meant to be applied to infant children. The reasoning which appertains to this subject will be brought into view more fully in another place. I might make citations from a multitude of the most respectable authors, con- taining statements of this argument in different forms. But I shall content myself with referring to Calvin's In- stitutes, Book 4. ch, 16. Dwight's Discourses on Infant Baptism; Storr's Bib. Theol. Book 4. § 112. together with 111. 4th of the same Section ; and Knapp's Theolo-
gy ; § 142, 2.
Second. Seal of the covenant.
If we would ever arrive at clear and satisfactory views on this subject we must dismiss all indistinct and obscure conceptions, and learn directly from the Scriptures, in what sense the word covenant is there used.
The Greek diu^tjxr], like the corresponding Hebrew n'^na , signifies, in general, ani/ arrangement, constitu- tion, establishment, economy, or plan of proceeding. Schleusner says, notat dispositionem, qualisnmqueea sit; and generally, omne, quod cum summa certitudinc et fide factum est. The use of the word in the Septuagint he
INFANT BAPTISM. 147
represents to be the same : Omne, quod cerium et consti- tutiim est : whatever is appointed and made sure ; an es- tablished constitution, or plan. It is from this general sense, that all the particular senses are evidently derived. Thus dtad^rjxj], appointment , plan, establishment, is some- times a lFz7/, or T'c5#«»jcn^ ; sometimes a prowise ; some- \ times a precept ; sometimes a compact ; and sometimes an economy, or method of acting. The word signifies one or another of these, just as circumstances require. Thus in Heb. 9: 16, 17, dta&i^y.r] must evidently mean a TeS' lament, or Will, as the passage could have no consistent meaning without giving this sense to the word. The writer says, a Testament , dia&^nf], is of force after men are dead, and is of no force, while the testator liv- eth. Here the word signifies, the arrangement, or dis- position, which a man directs to be made of his affairs after his decease. In Luke 1: 72, the word denotes the divine promise. Zacharias celebrates the faithfulness of God in " remembering his holy covenant, the oath that he sware to Abraham," referring to the promise of a Sa- viour. Here diad^r^ny] signifies that divine arrangement, plan, or appointment respecting a Saviour, which was made known in the way of a promise to Abraham. In Gen. 9: 9 — 18, God speaks of making a covenant with man, and with the whole animal creation, and with the earth too, and represents this covenant, as between him and them. Many persons understand such a phrase to denote a proper agreement, or contract, in which two par- ties unite, and in the execution of which both parties have an agency. But this cannot be the meaning of the phrase in the present case ; for the irrational part of the creation were incapable of having any agency either in forming or executing such an agreement. The thing
148 INFANT BAPTISM.
promised was, that the earth should not again he destroy- ed by a deluge. This was God's covenant ; and it was said to be between God and all the inliabitants of the earth, rational and irrational, because the thinor which God determined and promised, related to them. They were all to be preserved from being destroyed by anoth- er deluge. So that what is here called God's covenant, was in reality, his determination and promise as to the manner in which he would treat man, and beast, and the earth. The earth and its inhabitants were in no sense a party to this divine covenant or arrangement, except as they were to be benefited by it ; that is, wet^e to be preserved from another deluge. This establishment, or declared purpose of God, had a seal. " God said, I will set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and the earth." The rainbow was appointed to be a sign of the truth of God's promise ; a pledge of the certain execution of the purpose he had de- clared, that he would not again destroy the earth by a flood.
From this case we learn, that a covenant of God may have respect to those, who are incapable of having any agency either in agreeing to it, or in carrying it into ex- ecution. It may respect the animal creation, day and night, and the earth itself And if so, it may surely have respect to infant children. And this is no more than saying, that God may have a determination, or settled purpose, as to the manner in which he will treat infant children ; and that he may make known such a deter- mination by his word. To such a determination, or set- tled plan of conduct, the Scriptures give the nameof rot'- enant.
In some passages, dcuOrjy.j] signifies a command. It
INFANT BAPTISM. 149
certainly has this sense when applied to the decalogue ; as Heb. 9: 4. It has this sense, Acts 7: 8 : " God gave him the covenant of circumcision ;" that is, as Schleusner understands it, gave him a command to circumcise. I apprehend, however, that the word has a broader mean- ing here, and denotes the whole economy, which God es- tablished in reorard to Abraham and his seed, includinor precepts, promises, and privileges ; of which economy circumcision was the sign. And if so, the word in this place has nearly the same sense as it appears to have in Gal. 4: 24, where the phrase two covenants, dvo dia{^tj- aat, clearly means, the Mosaic and the Christian economy. So in Heb. 9: 15, the first covenant doubtless means the Mosaic dispensation, and in v. 20, the blood of the cove- nant is the blood, by which that divine economy was con- firmed. In the same way we must understand the words of Christ when he instituted the Supper : "This cup is the New Testament in my blood." This cup of wine re- presents my blood, by which the neio dispensation, or the Christian covenant is confirmed.
There is hardly any passage in the Bible, where cov- enant directly and properly means a compact, or agree- ment between two parties. But in various instances, it may imply this, or something like this, by necessary con- sequence. For when the word diaOr,v.}^, signifying a divine appointment, precept, or promise, has respect to moral agents, there must be an obligation on their part to accede to such appointment, precept, or promise, and to act according to it. But when the divine covenant, that is, the divine appointment, or constitution, has re- spect to things not possessed of moral agency ; it cannot imply, that they are under any obligation to conform to it, or that they are in any way parties jn the covenant,
150 INFANT BAPTISM.
except merely that it has a relation to them. The word covenant, therefore, considered as the translation of i)ia- •&7]Kr], and of the corresponding Hebrew n'^";3, no more signifies an actual agreement between two parties, than the word economy, laio, or appointment.
We see then, that the Scripture sense of the word diccdri'Ai], covenant, is materially different from the mean- ing of covenant in common discourse, where it denotes a mutual agreement. It is of special importance to note this, because the supposition that the Avord, as used in the Common Version of the Bible, has its common sig- nification, must encumber the subject before us with needless difficulties. For if dtu&i]H7], covenant, is un- derstood to mean an agreement between two parties in relation to the interests of religion ; then there must be two parties capable of "' "h agreement, — capable of en- gaging in a mutual reli^^ous transaction. God must be one of the parties ; and the other must be, intelligent, moral agents, capable of acting in religious concerns. Infant children must of course be excluded. Whereas if we duly consider the nature of a covenant in the Scrip- ture sense, we shall see, that it may just as well relate to infant children, as to adults. For surely God may have a determination, may make a promise, may settle an econ" amy, or plan of proceeding , in regard to children, as well as in regard to men. And such a determination, prom- ise, or economy, being a matter of great consequence, may with the utmost propriety, be marked by a religious rite. And a religious rite, thus introduced, may very justly be considered a seal, or confirmation of God's gracious economy. The obvious use of such a seal is, to keep in lively remembrance the divine determination and promise ; to impress the minds of parents with the
INFANT BAPTISM. 151
obligations it imposes on them ; and in due time to be a remembrancer to the children of the privileges, which the God of their fathers has granted them, and of the gracious economy, under which they are placed ; and in this way,*to produce in their minds a becoming sense of their peculiar obligations, as the children of pious par- ents. These remarks are sufficient to show, generally, the suitableness of applying the appointed seal of the di- vine covenant to children, as well as to parents. Both parents and children have a deep interest in the covenant, and its seal has an obvious and important significancy, whether applied to the former, or to the latter.
The Scriptures teach us, that God made a covenant with Abraham and his seed ; that is, that he made known what was his purpose respecting them ; that he declared hoio he icould treat them. But what was this purpose of God 1 What was to be his economy, or the course of his administration, towards Abraham and his seed ? The Scriptures furnish the answer. God said : '' Thou shalt be a father of many nations. And I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to he a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give to thee and to thy seed after thee — all the land of Canaan for an everlasting possession ; and I will he their God." Such was the determination which God made known ; the economy which he had established. This economy involved essential conditions on the part of Abraham and his seed. And these conditions, de- clared in one way and another, were, briefly, that they shoidd walk hefore God, and be upright and obedient. But the circumstance, that a divine promise or plan of pro- ceeding is conditional, need liot be supposed to diminish
152 INFANT BAPTISM.
its importance, nor to render it any the less proper that it should be marked by a religious rite.
Still more specific views of the nature and extent of God's covenant with Abraham and his seed, may be de- rived from other declarations of Scripture, and from that conduct of God's providence, which is, in this case, and in others, the best interpreter of his word. I shall refer only to one text. Rom. 9: 4. Here, in a very summa- ry way, the Apostle mentions the peculiar privileges of the Israelites, and says, that to them belonged " the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giv- ing of the law, and the service of God." This agrees with the representations, elsewhere made, of the pecu- liar favors which God bestowed upon that people. He adopted them as his children. He gave them a holy law, written on tables of stone, and a great variety of other precepts, moral and ceremonial, suited to their con- dition. He raised up prophets to teach and warn them. He displayed his glory in the midst of them ; made great and precious promises to them, and from time to time, wrought wonders of power and mercy in their behalf. Thus the children of Israel were a highly favored people-^ and the place, where they dwelt, was a highly favored place. Those who were born there from generation to generation, were born in propitious circumstances. They inherited special privileges. It was the pleasure of God, that they should all be placed under the operation of a gracious economy ; should be taught by pious parents, and by consecrated men ; should, from their earliest years, hear what God had done for their fathers, and what a holy law he hud given them : and should come under those divine influences, which, if cherished, would im- part to the various privileges they enjoyed, a saving effica-
INFANT BAPTISM. 153
cy. This was God's establishment respecting Abraham and his seed. This was his chosen method of transmit- ting the true rehgion from one generation to another , of continuing a church in the world, and of training up his people for heaven. It was a system of religious educa- tion. The children of God's people were to be consider- ed from their birth, as consecrated to him ; and, as soon as they were capable, were to have the doctrines and precepts of his word inculcated upon them, accompanied with the pious example and the prayers of parents, and all encouraged and followed by the promised blessing of God. Children, born under that gracious economy, were thus, by their very birth, brought into a state highly au- spicious to their present and eternal welfare. The token of God's covenant, that is, circumcision, was a token of all this kindness on his part, and of all these privileges, prospects, and obligations on the part of parents and children.
Now the divine economy under the reign of Christ is, in all important respects, the same as it was former- ly. Children have the same relation to their pious pa- rents, and that relation is of equal importance in the concerns of religion. It is as much the constitution of God, as it was formerly, that religion shall be preserved in the world, and transmitted from one generation to another, through the influence of a pious education. The children of Christian parents are born into a state as favorable, at least, as the children of Israelitish par- ents were : I might say, much more favorable. It is as much the will of God, as it was formerly, that they should be piously consecrated to him, and that they should enjoy a religious education, including all the proper forms of instruction and discipline^ ajad all the ac- 14
154 INFANT BAPTISM.
companying influence of a good example, and of prayer. And it is as much the appointment of God now, as it ever was, that his blessing shall attend this mode of ed- ucating children, and that in this way generally, persons shall be brought into the kingdom of Christ. This is the plan of the divine conduct now, as much as it ever was. So that in regard to the great interests of man, the ' children of believers are now brought, by their birth, in- to a state similar to that of the children of God's people in former times. The only important difference is, that God's establishment, dicc&rjytt], is more merciful now, — is fraught with higher blessings, than formerly. So that there are all the reasons, which formerly existed, and some in addition, for applying to the children of pious pa- rents a religious rite, which is the appointed token of that gracious economy, under which they are placed.
Thus, when we consider what God's covenant or plan of conduct respecting children was formerly, and what it is under the reign of Christ ; we cannot but conclude that it is as reasonable and proper to apply to them the present seal of the covenant, as it was the for- mer. And this view of the subject is, at least, sufficient to expose the futility of any conceivable presumption against Infant Baptism, and to show that the presumptive arguments are decidedly in its favor.
The common difficulty which meets us in regard to this reasoning, is, that the transition from the former economy to the latter implied a great change ; and that, as the Christian economy is so widely different from that which preceded, we cannot reason from the one to the oth- er.
I readily admit, that a very great change took place, when the people of God passed from the Mosaic to the
INFANT BAPTISM. 155
Christian economy ; — a change from obscurity to noon- day light ; from a state, in which the Saviour was set forth in promises and symbols, to a state, in which he was presented in all his glory, as actually come, and ful- ly invested with the office of the Prophet, Priest, and King of the church; — a change too respecting the place and mode of worship, the power of the motives which enforce the obligations of religion, and the extent to which the blessings of salvation were to be diffused. But whatever was the nature of the change, and to whatev- er objects it related ; it certainly did not imply any diminution of privileges to children, and, of course, it could have no influence to prevent the application to them of the seal of the new economy. So far as the change which took place affected any particular subject, we can- not indeed infer what is proper respecting that subject since the change took place, from what was proper be- fore. The change, for example, affected the subject of sacrifices, and the line of separation between Jews and Gentiles. Accordingly, it would be absurd for us to ar- gue, that, whereas sacrifices were offered, and a separa- tion between Jews and Gentiles was made under the former economy, the same must be continued now. But in ma- ny respects, it is perfectly proper to reason from ope economy to the other. Christ, and the Apostles did rea- son from one to the other ; and it would be easy to pro- duce various instances in which this must be acknowl- edged by all to be perfectly proper. If, for example, it was the duty of men under the former dispensation, to worship God, and if the worship required com.prehended confession, thanksgiving and supplication ; and if it was their duty to love their neighbours as themselves ; the same must be the case now. But why ? Because the
159
INFANT BAPTISM.
change which took place had no respect to these sub- jects. These duties rested on principles common to both dispensations. Just so it is with the duty of consecrating children to God by a religious rite. This duty rests on the natural and immutable relation between parents and children, and on the general purpose and promise of God to propagate religion and perpetuate the church, by sanctifying the seed of believers. This was the divine- economy formerly ; and it is so now. It has as much influence now, as it formerly had. Its importance is above all conception, involving as it does, the religious character and the eternal destinies of men. Now the same token of this gracious economy, and of consecra- tion to God, was formerly applied to parents and to chil- dren, and was thus applied for reasons, which are com- mon to all ages. It is plain, therefore, that the differ- ence existing between the two dispensations cannot in any way affect the subject before us, and that it is as suitable to apply the token of the Christian economy to children, as it formerly was to apply to them the token of the Ahrahamic economy.
This course of reasoning, which is only auxiliary to the main argument, was introduced for the particular pur- pose of removing the difficulties which have frequently been felt in regard to Infant Baptism, on account of the change from one dispensation to another. This change, which is admitted to have been great and extensive, could not affect the propriety of consecrating children to God by a religious rite, for the plain reason, that it did not affect the principle on which such consecration rests. Though it affected the form of consecration, it did not affect the propriety of consecrating children ; because the Christian economy, of which Baptism is the seal, as
INFANT BAPTISM.
157
properly relates to children, as that economy, of which circumcision was the seal. Consequently no reason against Infant Baptism can arise from the difference be- tween the Christian and the Abrahamic economy.
The requisition of faith in order to Baptism, may be thought to be a proof, that the application of Baptism was meant to be more limited, than that of circumcision. But before admittnig this, we ought carefully to examine the subject.
Of whom, then, was faith required in order to Bap- tism 1 Of those, evidently, who were capable of under- standing the nature of the requisition. The command to believe could relate to no other. This was so perfect- ly obvious, that no teacher of Christianity could have any occasion to mention it. This command, or any other command, coming from a just God, must be un- derstood as relating to those only, who were capable of complying with it. So that the fact, stated exactly, was this ; those loho loere capable of believing, that is, adult persons, were required to believe, in order to be baptiz- ed. A requisition, not unlike this, was made under the foi;ner dispensation. Adult persons, in order to be admitted by circumcision into the society of God's peo- ple, were required to renounce idolatry, to believe in the God of Abraham, and to submit to the institutions and laws which he gave by Moses. Such faith as this, under the Mosaic economy, answered to the faith which is re- quired under the Christian economy. The requisition of faith, then, in order to Baptism, has nothing new in it, but this, that the faith required is to be adapted to the circumstances of the Christian dispensation ; wPiereas the fiiith required before, was to be adapted to the Mo- saic dispensation. Thus, in regard to adult persons, tlie 14*
158 INFANT BAPTISM.
case is very similar under both dispensations. How then can the fact, that Christ required adult persons to believe in order to be baptized, prove that Baptism was to be more limited in its application, than circumcision ?
But it is said, that the circumcision of children was expressly commanded, and that, without this command, no one could have inferred from the institution of cir- cumcision for adults, that children were to be circumcis- ed. I grant, that an express command may have been necessary at first, to authorize the application of the seal of the covenant to children. And if Baptism had been the first seal, such a command might have been necessary in relation to this. But the principle having been once established, that the seed of the covenant is to he applied to children, there can be no occasion for the repetition of a divine command to justify an adherence to that princi- ple. In respect to circumcision, an express command was given ; because circumcision was tho^ first rite which was appointed to be the seal of God's covenant. Had Baptism been the first seal, and had Infant Baptism been settled by divine command, as inflmt circumcision was ; and had the practice of God's people been for ages con- formed to it ; and had circumcision been then introduced in the place of Baptism, as the seal of the Christian cov- enant ; who will say that a new command would have been necessary to authorize the circumcision of infants ? But, on the other hand, if so great a change was to be made, as the withholding of the seal of the covenant from the seed of believers ; such a change would surely require to be authorized by a new divine command.
If any one still thinks, that Christ's requiring men to believe and be baptized, implies that infants are not to be baptized, because they cannot believe ; I would ask him,
INFANT BAPTISM. 159
whether the same mode of interpreting scripture would not debar infants from salvation ? " He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be con- demned," is the grand principle of the New Testament. Faith is required in order to salvation as much, certain- ly, as in order to Baptism. And this requisition fur- nishes as much reason for excluding infants from salva- tion, as for excluding them from Baptism. But all Chris- tians are united in holding, that the requisition of faith in order to salvation, cannot be applied to children. And to be consistent, they must hold, that the requisi- tion of faith in order to Baptism cannot be applied to children. The requisition most evidently has as much to do with salvation, as with Baptism. The two cases then are alike. Christ requires men to believe, in order to be saved. But when he requires this, he does not say, tliat infants are excluded from solvation, because they cannot believe. So he requires faith in order to Baptism. But he does not say, that infants are excluded from Bap- tism, because they cannot believe. Thus, so far as the requisition of faith is concerned, there is no more pro- priety in excluding infants from Baptism, than in ex- cluding them from salvation. Now if we admit that, notwithstanding this requisition of faith, infants may be saved; we must admit, also, that they may be baptized. The requisition of faith, which is intended only for adults, proves nothing one way or the other, as to children. The question of their being baptized, or saved, must be determined on other grounds. We ask not whether they believe ; for this they cannot do ; but, whether there are other reasons for baptizing them, and other reasons for thinking they may be saved.
The same principle may be satisfactorily illustrated
160 INFANT BAPTISM.
by 2 Thess. 3: 10. The Apostle says ; " This we com- manded, that if any one would not work, neither should he eat." But who ever understood this command as re- lating to children, and as implying, that they were to be kept from eating because they did not work ?
The command to believe and he baptized, which has now been considered, is the most plausible argument ev- er advanced against Infant Baptism. And, if I mistake not, our opponents rely upon it more, than upon any other. But they ought well to consider, that the mode of reasoning which they adopt, would exclude all infants from salvation. And they certainly have good reason to pause, before they admit the conclusiveness of an argu- ment, which would lead to such fearful consequences.
Having thus endeavoured to show that there is no valid proof, that the application of Baptism was meant to be more limited, than that of circumcision ; I must take the liberty to say, there is in one respect, clear and incon- trovertible proof, that it was meant to be applied more ex- tensively. By common consent. Baptism is to be ap- plied to females, though circumcision was not. This fact suggests the following inquiries. Who can see any reason, why the seal of the covenant should be applied to females now, more than formerly, except this, that the Christian economy has a spirit of more expansive benevo- lence, and was intended to diffuse its privileges to a great- er extent than the former economy ? And if the Chris- tian economy really possesses this character, as it un- doubtedly does ; and if from this expansiveness of its spirit, and this enlargement of its privileges, it does, in one important case, apply its seal more extensively than the former economy did ; who can suppose that, in another case, without any apparent reason whatever, it would aj>-
INFANT BAPTISM. 161
ply the same seal less extensively 1 What but an express divine command, or the well known example of inspired men, could satisfy us of this ?
Third. Import of Infant Baptism.
This may be understood from the preceding diecus- sion. Circumcision was the seal of God's covenant with Abraham and his offspring ; that is, of his gracious de- sign and promise respecting them. This design and promise was, in brief, that he would be their God. Cir- cumcision signified, that such was the promise of God, — such the plan of administration he had fixed upon to- wards Abraham and his seed. And it manifestly impli- ed, that there were obligations on their part, to love, wor- ship and obey him, who promised to be their God. Thus it was a seal of God's promise to them, and of their obligations to him. But it was never intended to signi- fy, that all, to whom it was applied, were actually, at the time, intelligent worshippers and servants of God. In rega.rd to infant children, this was impossible. But the rite did signify, that, in process of time, they would be under high obligations to worship and serve God, and that he would pursue a course of conduct towards them, which would be suited to influence them to this. As to those, who had attained to mature understanding, and were voluntary in receiving the rite of circumcision, it signified their readiness to accept the good promised, and to perform the duties required. In them, it was an indi- cation of right feeling ; a profssion of piety. But it be- came so, not as the direct and necessary import of the rite, but from their voluntary agency in its application. So far as circumcision was concerned, this view of the subject must be admitted by all to be correct. And why
163 INFANT BAPTISM.
not in regard to Baptism ? The divine economy, though circumstantially different, is the same in substance now, as before the coming of Christ, — the same, most evident- ly, so far as relates to the connexion between parents and children, and the high interests which that connexion involyes. When this Christian rite is applied to believ- ers, it is a seal of the new dispensation towards them. And it signifies their consent to this economy ; their be- lief of its truths, and their rea.diness to receive its bless- ings, and comply with its obligations. But it comes to signify this, and so to be B,profession of piety, not as the direct and necessary import of Baptism, but from the fact, that it is applied to those, who have a voluntary agency in receiving it. Its general import, as a token of God's gracious economy, is as consistent with its be- ing applied to children, as to men. Its particular import varies with the state and circumstances of those to whom it is applied.
Baptism by loater may always be considered as signi- fying, that those, to whom it is applied, ate the subjects of moral pollution, and need that spiritual cleansing, or purification from sin, which is effected by the Holy Spir- it through the blood of Christ. When adult believers receive Baptism themselves, they hereby express their belief, that they are by nature polluted with sm, and must be sanctified by the Spirit of God in order to be ad- mitted into heaven ; and they express their desire for such sanctification, and their determination to seek after it, in the diligent use of all appointed means. When we present out infant children for Baptism, we express our belief, that thy are the subjects of moral pollution, and must be born of the Spirit in order to be admitted into the kingdom of heaven ; and we express our earnest de-
INFANT BAPTISM. 163
sire that they may experience this spiritual renovation, and our solemn determination to labor to promote it by fervent prayer to God, and by faithful attention to all the duties of Christian parents. This seems to me a perfectly na- tural and satisfactory view of what is signified by the Bap- tism of children. The use of water in this Christian rite is indeed a token o^ spiritual cleansing ; not however as a thing actually accomplished, but as a thing which is absolutely necessary. Whether we are concerned in the Baptism of children as ministers of the Gospel, or as members of the church, we do, by this public token, ex- press our belief, that spiritual purification is indispensa- bly necessary for the children who are baptized, and our determination and engagement to do whatever belongs to us, severally, for the accomplishment of that important end. And it is of great consequence to the interests of religion, that this obvious import of Infant Baptism should be often set forth, and that the obligations of parents and churches should be often explained and inculcated, espe- cially at the time of the Baptism.
Offering up our children in Baptism, according to the Christian formula, implies an open and solemn profession that we ourselves receive, with cordial faith, what the Scriptures reveal respecting God, and that we dedicate our children to him, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with earnest desires that he would be their God, their Redeemer, and their Sanctifier.
Fourth. The utility of Infant Baptism.
The utility of positive institutions consists, generally, in the moral influence they exert upon us ; in their adapt- edness to promote good affections, and to excite us to the diligent performance of duty. Now there is no in-
164 INFANT BAPTISM.
stitution of religion, which is more evidently suited to have a salutary influence, than this. When we conse- crate our children to God in Baptism, we have our eyes turned directly to that glorious Being, to whom we and our offspring belong, and we are made to feel the perfect reasonableness of such a consecration. AVe look to God's holy and merciful economy, of which Baptism is the ap- pointed token, and are impressed with the divine conde- scension and goodness manifested in it, and the invalua- ble blessings resulting from it. The transaction is pub- lic, and on this account is likely to excite in us a more constant recollection of the sacred obligations which bind us as parents, and greater diligence in performing the duties we owe to our children.
For the truth of these remarks, I make my appeal to thousands of pious parents. They well know how their hearts have been affected with the love of God, and the interests of the soul, while they have been engaged in consecrating their children to God in Baptism ; how earnestly they have longed and prayed for their salvation ; what resolutions they have made to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord , and how sensible the effect of this transaction has been upon them after- wards. The view they have taken of God's gracious promises and administration proves a mighty encourage- jnent to earnest endeavours and prayers for the good of their children. If, for a time, their endeavours and prayers seem to have little or no effect ; still they are not disheartened. They look upon their children, as having been placed under that gracious economy, in which God says to them, / toill he your God, and the God of your seed. They remember with what glorious success he lias crowned the persevering endeavours of pious parents.
INFANT BAPTISM. 165
and how frequently he has done this, after many years have passed away in sorrowful disappointment. Their confidence in the merciful covenant of God, which has been sealed to them and their children by the sacred rite of Baptism, bears them above discouragement, and in- spires a hope of the salvation of their oiTspring, which nothing is able to destroy. Now it is evident, that all the effect which this public and sacred rite produces upon pious parents ; this deep impression of their obli- gations ; this excitement of their good affections ; their faithful endeavours, and their fervent, persevering prayers, turn directly to the benefit of their children. We are not to look at the mere Baptism of a little child, and to confine our thoughts to the act itself, or to the present eflTect of it upon the child. We must view this transac- tion in all its relations and consequences. We must consider, that the child is a rational, immortal being, just entered on his probationary state ; that his eternal liappiness depends on the formation of a virtuous and ho- ly character ; and that his character depends, in a great measure, on the circumstances in which he is placed, and the moral causes which act upon him, in the first periods of his existence. We must then consider that the child, who is baptized in a manner correspondent with the spirit of the institution, is, at the very com- mencement of his beinor, brought into circumstances highly auspicious ; that he is placed under a divine econ- omy, which secures to him the affections and prayers of parents and other Christians, and which distils upon childhood and youth the dews of divine grace. He is placed in a school, where he is to receive faithful instruc- tion and discipline, and to be trained up for the service of Clnist. The child, who is offered up in Baptism by 15
166 INFANT UAPTISM.
devout parents and a devout church, is placed in these circumstances, and is entitled to these privileges; the substance of which is, a faithful, Christian education, ac- companied with the divine blessing. All this is signifi- ed by Baptism. The design of the transaction evidently is, to produce a moral effect upon parents and children ; upon parents directly, and upon children, as a conse- quence.
It would avail little to say, in the way of objection, that parents would be under all these obligations, and would have sufficient motives to faithfulness, without such an ordinance as Baptism. The obvious design of Baptism is, to cause these obligations to be felt more deep- ly and constantly , than they would otherwise be, and to give greater efficacy to these motives, than they would otherwise have. The influence of public rites and obser- vances has been acknowledged in all ages, both in civil and religious concerns. In our own country, and in other countries, they are kept up, in order to perpetuate the principles of civil government. Among the Israelites, they were established for the purpose of giving to one generation after another, a knowledge, and a lively im- pression, of the principles and laws of their religion. The human mind is so constituted, that it is very doubt- ful, whether the truths of religion could be inculcated and impressed with the necessary efficacy, without the help of public rites and observances. The utility of the Lord's Supper, which is generally acknowledged to be great, rests on the very same principle, as that which gives importance to Infant Baptism. Thus it was also with the utility of the Passover and Circumcision. And we may as well say, that the principles of religion might have been effectually taught, and impressed, and trans-
INFANT BAPTISM. 167
mitted from one generation to another among the pos- terity of Abraham, without the Passover, or Circumcis- ion, or any of their sacred rites ; and that the principles of the Christian religion might be effectually taught and impressed, and its motives rendered sufficiently power- ful, without the Lord's Supper, as to say that the influ- ence of such a rite, as Infant Baptism, is unnecessary, and that parents will be as likely to feel their obligations and attend to their duties without it, as with it. The ex- perience of the whole world is in favor of visible signs and tokens, of public rites and observances. The hu- man mind requires them, as means of inculcating moral and religious truth. To undervalue them would be a discredit to our understanding ; and to neglect them, an injury to our moral feelings.
But suffer me here to say, that the utility of Infant Baptism cannot be measured, by the influence which it has actually exerted upon the generality of Christians. For what sacred institution, and what divine truth, has not fallen short of the influence which it ought to have upon the conduct of men ? The question is, what effect is Infant Baptism designed and adapted to produce 1 What has been its influence upon those parents, whose minds have been in the best state ; whose parental affec- tion has been most highly sanctified, and whose piety, most active ? And what will be its influence, when the great body of Christians shall come to be fully awake to the interests of religion, and shall make it the constant object of their solicitude, and labors, and prayers, that their offspring, from one generation to another, may be- come children of God, and heirs of the kingdom of heav- en 1 The value of this sacred rite, taken in connexion with the divine economy of which it is the sign, and
168 INFANT BAPTISM.
with the obligations of parents and churches which it is intended to enforce, cannot be perfectly known, before the present low state of religious feeling among Chris- tians shall give place to a more elevated piety, and to more constant and more faithful exertion to promote the welfare of the rising generation. In my apprehension, it is chiefly to be attributed to the unfaithfulness of pa- rents and churches, and their failing to act according to the spirit of this divine ordinance, that it has so far fall- en into disrepute, and that any can feel themselves justi- fied in saying, it is of no use.
There is still another way, in which children may experience the salutary effect of Baptism. When they come to adult years tb.ey may be induced to attend to the duties of religion, by means of the Baptism which they received in infancy. When a child of ours becomes capable of being influenced by rational considerations ; we may address him in such a manner as this : In your infancy, we devoted you to the service of your Creator and Redeemer ; ami we 'put upon you the mark of that gra- cious economy, under which you leere placed by your birth. In that transaction, we bound ourselves to bring you up for God, and to seek diligently your eternal happiness. As you are now come to years of understanding, you are bound to devote yourself to God, and^ by your own act, to confirm what your parents did for you in your infan- cy. The child may be taught, that there is nothing so conducive to his highest interest, as for him to choose the God of his parents for his God. It may be inculcated up- on him, that, by neglecting his soul, and living in sin, he will be guilty of casting contempt on the pious solicitude, the exertions and prayers of his parents ; on the sacred or- dinance, by which he was consecrated to the service of
INFANT BAPTISM. 169
Christ, and on all the obligations laid upon him, and all the privileges secured to him, by such an early conse- cration. If a youth, who was devoted to God by Baptism in infancy, possesses even an ordinary degree of moral sensibility ; considerations like these must produce a powerful effect upon him, and, through the divine bless- ing, may prove the means of his salvation.
The view which I have taken of this subject is, you perceive, very different from that which was entertained by most of the early Christian Fathers. They attribut- ed to Baptism itself a mysterious inherent efficacy. They supposed that it directly conveyed grace and salvation to the soul, and that, without it, no one could be saved. But I have represented the utility and efficacy of Infant Baptism, as consisting primarily, in the influence it has upon the feelings and conduct of parents; and then, secondarily, in the effect which parental instruction, ex- ample, and prayer produce upon children. This effect I have considered as resulting from God's gracious econo- my ; that is, his appointment and promise. And I have referred and always would refer to facts which occur in the course of divine providence, as proof of the correct- ness of these representations. These facts are strikincr and momentous, and deserve to be contemplated again and again with the liveliest interest. Behold the mighty influence of parental character and instruction ! How is it that pagan idolatry, Jewish infidelity, and the vio- lent superstition of Mohammed are continued in the world, and transmitted from one generation to another ? What is it which leads us to expect, that accordin*?- to the common course of events, the children of pagans will be pagans, and that the children of Mahometans will be Mahometans, and the children of Jews, Jews ? It is the 15*
170 INFANT BAPTISM.
general principle, established by God himself, that the character of children is formed by parental influence. And is not this as true in regard to Christians, as in regard to any other class of men ? In ordinary cases, the children of faithful Christian parents will be Chris- tians ; and they will become so, by means of the influence which their parents exert upon them, in their early edu- cation. Such is the divine economy. That children are placed under it is signified by Baptism. And the ap- plication of Baptism to children is a suitable expression of the piety of parents, and of their love to the souls of their offspring, and is a powerful means of exciting them to recollect and feel their obligations, and to be active and persevering in the performance of parental duties. And let me add, that when the piety and diligence of pa- rents shall rise to a proper height, and they shall address themselves to the duties, which they owe to their children, with united zeal and prayer ; the true import of Infant Bapti'^m will be more fully understood, and its utility ac- knowledged with more fervent gratitude to God.*
Fifth. Relation of hcqjtizcd children to the church.
This relation of children to the church is generally re- presented by the most respectable authors as infant mem- bership. Against this I can see no valid objections, if the language is understood with suitable qualifications. In a very important, though in a very qualified sense, baptiz- ed children may be considered as inf; nt members of the Christian church ; just as formerly, the infant children of the Priests were infant members of the Priesthood ; and as now, all children that are born here, are consider- ed as infant members of our civil community, entitled to enjoy, as they may be capable, the benefits of society,
* See Appendix C.
INFANT BAPTISM. 171
and in due time to become conqjleie and active members. But whatever may be the language which we choose to employ, it can never be consistent to regard infant chil- dren as members of the church in the peculiar sense in which adult believers are members ; for of this relation they are manifestly incapable. Nor can it be implied, that baptized children can ever become members of the church in this peculiar sense, on any lower terms, than those which are prescribed for others. They can be ad- mitted to sustain this high relation only on the condition of their exhibiting the character of Christian piety. Still it is clear that baptized children bear a real and very en- dearing relation to the church. And although they are not at present capable of being members, in the full sense in which believers are : they are, even now, capable of enjoying some of the benefits resulting from their condi- tion,' as children of the church ; and they will be more and more capable of enjoying these benefits as they ad- vance in age ; and at length, unless their own wicked- ness prevent, they will become active, faithful Christians. Such is the design of the economy under which they are placed ; such the end of their being consecrated to God, and placed in the school of the church. And we may hope that, through divine mercy, this will ordinarily be the happy result.
. To avoid as far as may be the difficulties which at- tend this subject, we must consider the relation of bap- tized children to the church to be such, and only such, as they are capable of sustaining. At first, they are merely children of the church; that is, children of those who are members of the church. The privileges which belong to them at this period are chiefly prospective. After they become capable of receiving instruction, they stand in the
172 INFANT BAPTISM.
relation of catechumens, — young persons who are in a course of discipline and training for the service of Christ. Here the advantages of their condition begin to appear. As children consecrated to God, they are brought under a system of means suited in the highest degree to pro- mote their salvation. If through the divine blessing, these means prove effectual, they become devoted servants of Christ, and members in due form of his spiritual king- dom ; that is ; they come to be just what it was intend- ed in their baptism that they should be. Thus the rela- tion of baptized children to the church is not an imaginary or unintelligible relation, but one which is real and ob- vious, and which secures to them the privileges of that gra- cious dispensation, under which they are placed, and gives them a special prospect of obtaining its spiritual and eternal blessings.
Sixth. Duties of parents and the church towards baptized children.
On this subject, which is of the highest practical im- portance, my remarks must be very summary.
When we dedicate our iox'^.int children to God in Bap- tism, we should consider them as rational and moral be- ings just commencing an endless existence. Instead of confining our thoughts to their bodily wants and their earthly interests, we should direct our attention chiefly, to the worth of their immortal souls, to the state of moral de- generacy and ruin into which they are brought by their natural l^irth, and to the grace of God which has provi- ded deliverance and salvation for them ; and then we should draw near to the God of mercy with strong desire and fervent prayer, beseeching him that these dear chd- dren, who are destined to live forever in heaven, or in
INFANT BAPTISM. 173
hell, may inherit the blessings of the everlasting cove- nant ; and that in the morning of their existence, they may be sanctified by the Holy Spirit. In this solemn trans- action we should consecrate ourselves anew to the ser- vice of God, and resolve, humbly, but firmly, to be faith- ful to our children.
The general duty of parents, and of the church, is the same ; namely ; such a course of pious instruction and discipline, such an example of holiness, and such fervent prayer both in public and private, as are suited to promote the salvation of the rising age, and to trans- mit the Christian religion, with all its institutions and blessings, to future generations. This duty belongs pri- marily to parents. In every thing which is important to their children, they are to take the lead. But their pi- ous efforts are to be encouraged and sustained by the whole body of Christians, with wliom they are associat- ed. These are all under obligation to cherish a lively interest in the children of the church, and with unwea- ried diligence to labor for their good ; always looking to God for those spiritual blessings which result from his crracious covenant.
It is impossible for me, in this place, to give a par- ticular enumeration of the methods, which ought to be pursued by parents and by the church, for the welfare of children. I shall only say, that our benevolent efforts are to be made in various ways, and to be continued so long as there is any hope of success ; and I know not why we should abandon such a hope, while the life of our children continues.
On the question, whether the church ever ought, by a public act, to cut off those, who give evidence of obsti- nate impiety, there have been various opinions. That
174 INFANT BAPTISM.
view of the subject, which I have found the most satis- factory, is briefly as follows. The church is to join with parents in administering instruction, admonition and warning to children and youth in the most discreet, af- fectionate, and faithful manner ; and to do this persever- ingly. In judging of the reasons, which ought to en- courage us to exertion, we are not to attend chiefly to present appearances ; but are to consi;f r the forbear- ance and long suffering of God, and tlie muliiplied in- stances in which his grace has visited tbo^e who had long lived in sin, and who, in human apprehension, had been fitted for destruction. And when those who have been devoted to God in Baptism, wandvir far and long from the path of duty, and show fearful symptoms of obdura- cy ; we are not quickly to despair of their salvation, but are to follow them with every effort which the sincerest love can dictate. And when no other effort seems to promise any good, we are to abound in prayer, relying on the infinite grace of God, and earnestly hoping that our prayers will prevail, and that our children will at length be persuaded to consider their ways, and turn to the Lord.*
It is, in my view, utterly inexpedient to attempt to fix upon any particular age, at which those who were baptized in infancy, and who exhibit no evidence of pi- ety, are to be abandoned by the church, as those for whom no farther efforts ought to be made. For sup[)ose you fix upon the age of eighteen, or twenty, or twenty one : who can be sure that a youth at that age, though without any evidence of regeneration, may not be in a state of mind, which is more susceptible of good impres- sions, and which affords more hope of salvation, than at
* See Appendix D.
INFANT BAPTISM. 175
any period of his life before ? Now if any person should be in this state, and the church should adopt a princi- ple like what I have referred to ; they must forthwith exclude such a person from all the advantages of their Christian friendship ; and they must do this at the very time, when those advantages would be most highly prized. How directly would such a principle oppose all the feel- ings of Christian benevolence and compassion! And what havock would it make of the interests of the soul ! To conclude. The day of Zion's glory draws near. And when that happy day arrives, a clearer light will shine upon the minds of God's people, as to the princi- ples and rites of Christianity. The duties of parents to their children will be more correctly understood, and more diligently and successfully performed. Division and strife will cease ; and those who love the Lord Jesus Christ, will be of one mind. The shortest and best way, therefore, to solve our doubts, and settle our differences, is, to labor unitedly and earnestly to hasten the arrival of that blessed day, when a brighter sun will arise upon the church, and quickly chase away all the shades of night. Then Christians, having a more perfect illumination, and being united in judgement and feeling, will more justly prize the blessings of the Chris- tian economy, and will combine their prayers and efforts to transmit those blessings from one generation to anoth- er, and to promote the increasing and perpetual prosper- ity of the Redeemer's kingdom.
LECTURE VIII.
MODE or BAPTISM.
Introductory remarks. — Two propositions. 1. It cannot be certainly determined from the New Testament that immersion is the only proper modo. 2. Chris- tians should not consider the mode of Baptism of essential consequence.
The subject of Infant Baptism has no necessary connexion with the mode of Baptism. Christians who baptize by immersion, as well as those who baptize in other ways, may apply Baptism to infants, and in instan- ces not to be numbered, have in fact done this. While, on the other hand, those, who administer Baptism by sprinkling, as well as those who use immersion, may con- fine it to believers. If Pedobaptists were now convinc- ed, that immersion is the only proper mode, it would make no difference in their belief, as to the duty of In- fant Baptism. This being the case, I was, for a time, re- solved to treat the subject of Infant Baptism by itself, and wholly to decline the controversy respecting the mode of Baptism.
But on farther consideration, I have become satisfied, that my intended silence on the mode of Baptism would be liable to misconstruction. I have therefore concluded to make a few remarks on this point, though with all pos- sible brevity.
INFANT BAPTISM. 177
It is not to be forgotten, that the particular mode of Baptism is regarded by Pedobaptists generally, as a sub- ject of no essential consequence. For myself, I could, without any scruple of conscience, adopt immersion as the usual mode. And it would afford me real pleasure to conform in this respect to the views of my Baptist brethren, and thus to do all in my power to put an end to a controversy, which so unhappily divides the friends of Christ, and so far hinders the influence of the Gospel. With Pedobaptists, the question as to the mode of Bap- tism, is a question of expediency.
In this concluding Lecture, T propose to suggest, un- der two distinct propositions, the principal thoughts which have occurred to me on the manner of performing this rite.
First. It cannot he certainly determined from the New Testament, that Baptism was administered by im- mersion.
What declaration is there in the New Testament, that every one who was baptized was completely immersed in water 1 What command is there of Christ, or of his Apostles, expressly requiring that Christians should be baptized by total immersion 1 The manner of various purifications and other rites, under the Mosaic economy, loas exactly described; and thus it was made evident, that God would have those rites executed in one precise form. But the particular manner of administering Bap- tism is no where described.
It cannot be certainly determined, that total immer- sion was the only mode of Baptism from the signification of ^ am 1^0), and the nouns derived from it.
Though it might be supposed that ^cltiti^o), being a derivative from /5an:rw, would have a, less definite and 16
178 INFANT BAPTISM.
forcible meaning than the original ; they seem to be of- ten used in the same sense. But a total immersion is not necessarily signified by either. This is perfectly evi- dent from the New Testament. First, as to (SdciTcOy Matt. 2G: 23. " He that dippcth his hand with me in the dish;" Ifx^ax^'aQ — xviv X^^9^- Mark has it, o i^i^ctU' TOjuevog, '* he that dippeth with me in the dish." Now whatever liquid the dish contained, it cannot be suppos- ed, that Judas plunged his hand all over in that liquid. Nothing more can be meant, than that he took the bitter herbs which were eaten at the Passover, or other articles of food, and with his fingers dipped them in the sauce prepared. And yet it is said by Matthew, that Judas dipped his hand, and by Mark, that he himself dipped in the dish. And as to ^anri^io, baptize ; — the word does indeed signify to immerse or dip in water ; but it also signifies to wash, and to wash in different ways. " Di- vers washings" are mentioned Heb. 9: 10. The original is Scccffogoig ^antiGfAolg, divers baptisms. These were not all performed in one way ; and certainly not by im- mersion. The adjective diacpogog signifies different, of various kinds, dissimilar ; as in Rom. 12: 6. The divers baptisms, or ablutions, mentioned Heb. 9: 10, doubtless included all the different ablutions, or ceremonial cleans- ings, prescribed in the Mosaic law. These were perform- ed in different ways, but chiefly by sprinkling consecrat- ed water. The word /?«7Tr/(7,MO?, baptism, is used with great latitude of signification in Mark 7; 4. The Evan- gelist says, the Pharisees hold many other usages, "as baptisms of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and beds, or couches*' The common version has tables. But the word Y,UvYi uniformly signifies a couch to sleep on, or to recline upon at meals. Now the baptism, or ceremonial
INFANT BAPTISM. 179
purification of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches, were doubtless performed in different ways. Cups and pots and brazen vessels might possibly be im- mersed all over in ivater ; though this is not probable. But to suppose that heels, or couches, were immersed in the same way would be unreasonable, especially since one of the prescribed modes of ceremonial purification, and indeed the most common mode, was, the sprinkling of consecrated ivater.
Since then it appears, that paTtriGftog, baptism, when used to denote ceremonial purification, did not by any means signify immersion exclusively, and generally signi- fied other modes of purification ; why should we suppose that the word, ^anxi^oi, always signifies to immerse when used to denote a Christian rite 1 If baptism was per- formed in different ways under the former dispensation ; how can we determine, merely from the use of the word, that it is not to be performed in different ways under the present dispensation ? What is there in the Christian re- ligion which would prevent a word from being used with as much latitude of signification, as it was under the Mo- saic economy 1
If it were the case, that §a7iTi^oi always signifies to dip or immerse all over in ivater, when applied to other subjects ; it would by no means certainly follow that it has this signification, when applied to the Christian rite of Baptism. There may be sufficient reasons, why a religious rite, though denoted by a word in common use, should not be performed in a manner exactly in confor- mity with the common signification of that word. This we well know is the case with the word, by which the other Christian ordinance is denoted. The word Supper in English, and diinvov in Greek, have a very different
180 INFANT BAPTISM.
sense when applied to that institution, from what they have in ordinary cases. Eating a morsel of bread does not constitute a sKppcr, a principal meal ; ahhouirh this last is the common signification of dainvov. But in this religious rite, eating a small morsel of bread is called a Supper. 1 Cor. 11: 20. And the Apostle charged the Corinthians with abusing the ordinance, because they made use of more food, than the design of the ordinance required. Now if the word which denotes one Christian rite, has a sense so widely different from its usual sense ; why may it not be so with th© word, which denotes the other Christian rite ? As Suttvov, in reference to one rite, signifies, not a usual meal, but only a very small quantity of bread ; why may not ^amlCo), in reference to the other rite, signify, not a complete dipping or wash- ing, but the application of water in a small degree ? This would present the two institutions in the same light. In the first ; as bread and wine are used, not to nourish and invigorate the body, but, as mere symbols, for spirit- ual purposes, or, as signs of spiritual blessings ; a very small quantity is sufficient. Indeed the Apostle decides, that a small quantity is better suited to the ends of the institution, than a larger quantity. So in the other ; as water is used, not to cleanse the body, but merely as a sign of spiritual purification ; a small quantity of water must be sufllicient ; — as sufficient for the purposes of this ordinance, as a small quantity of bread and wine is for the purposes of the other. The nourishment of the body in the one case, and the cleansing of it in the other, be- ing no part of the end to be answered ; a large quantity either of bread or of water can be of no essential conse- quence.
I shall now endeavour to show, i\ia.i the circumstances ^
tNFANT BAPTISM. 181
whicli attended the several instances of Baptism record- ed in the New Testament, do not prove that immersion is the only proper mode.
The circumstance mentioned John 3: 23, does not prove this. " John was baptizing in .^non, because there was much water there." In such a country as Palestine, John found it of special importance, (as any Christian missionary would at the present day,) to collect the mul- titude of people who resorted to him for instruction and Baptism, in a place, where there was an abundant supply of water. This he knew to be necessary for their ac- commodation, and even their subsistence. So that there is not the least need of supposing, that the mention of much water, or many springs or streams of water, vdaru TTolXd, had any reference to the particular mode of Bap- tism. For whatever the mode mi^ht have been, a larae supply of water was indispensable to such a concourse of people ; and such a supply could be obtained in only a few places in that country. And who can suppose the waters of .-Enon were resorted to for the simple purpose of hrptizing, when three thousand were, in one day, baptized by the Apostles even at Jerusalem, in the dry- est season of the year ?
That total immersion was the mode of Baptism can- not be proved from the circumstance mentioned Matt. 3: 16, that Jesus, when he was baptized of John in the river Jordan, went up straightway/ out of the water. The preposition ano generally signifies //'om. '' He went up/rom the water ;" — an expression perfectly natural and proper, on supposition that he had only gone into the river where the water was a few inches deep, or that he had gone merely fo the edge of the river, without stepping in- to the water at all. It will be kept in mind, that the riv- 16*
182 INFANT BAPTISM.
er Jordan had banks of considerable height above the water, except when it was so swollen by the melted snows of Antilibanus, as to fill its upper channel. Of course, Jesus must have ascended^ or gone up an ascent, when he left the water, whether he had been in the water so as to be immersed, or had been only to the margin of the water.
The same remarks may be made respecting the Bap- tism of the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts 8: 38. '' They went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, etc." Every one acquainted with the Greek language knows, that the passage may be just as well rendered, " they descended to the water, and as- cended y)'o;7i it." Besides, it has often been remarked, and not without reason, that, as it is said of both Philip and the Eunuch, " they went down into the water ;" the mere circumstance of going into the water no more proves that the Eunuch was immersed, than it proves that Philip was.
It is evident then that the argument above mentioned in favor of immersion from the Baptism of Jesus, and of the Ethiopian eunuch, is founded on the mere sound of the words used in the common Version. On the slight- est examination, the argument vanishes.
The circumstances attending the Baptism of the jail- er equally fail of proving that he was baptized by immer- sion. Acts 16: 19—39.
In the first place, he was baptized in the night. Se- condly ; he was evidently baptized in the outer prison. Paul and Silas were thrust into the inner prison, or dun- geon. After the earthquake, the jailer brought them out ; that is, out of the dungeon, but clearly, not out of
INFANT BAPTISM. 183
the limits of the prison. There Paul taught him and his household; and there, in all probability, he baptized them. Thirdly ; after the jailer professed to believe, he was baptized hnmcdiately . These three circumstances, namely, his being baptized at such a time, in such a flace, and immediately after professing to believe, are very far from proving that immersion was the mode of Bap- tism. They rather seem to prove the contrary. — If any one should say, there was probably a stream or fountain of water in the prison, or a bath filled with water, suffi- cient for baptizing by immersion ; I would merely ask, what evidence he finds of this in the New Testament ?
Nor can it be proved that immersion was the prevail- ing mode of Baptism from the account given. Acts 10, of the Baptism of those who were converted at the house of Cornelius.
After Peter had preached, and the Gentiles believed, and received the Holy Ghost ; Peter said : " can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized ?" It is most natural to understand this to mean, can any man forbid water to be brought ? It is far less natural to un- derstand it to mean, can any man forbid us to go out to a river or fount can of water? It seems impossible that this account should be thought by any one to favor the mode of baptizing by immersion.
And what evidence of this mode of baptizing can be derived from the Baptism of the three thousand converts, as related in Acts 2 ? The place of those numerous Bap- tisms was not by the river Jordan, nor at ^non where there was much water ; but at Jerusalem. It was too on the day of Pentecost, which was about the twentieth of May. At that season, which was summer at Jerusalem, there was no rain. The brook Kidron was doubtless dry.
IB4
INFANT BAPTISM.
And there was no natural fountain of water in Jerusalem, or near it, except the pool of Siloam, or Siloah, (also call- ed Gilion, 2 Chron. 32: 30,) which is not fir from the Southeast corner of the city, at the foot of Mount Zion and Moriah. This is " the only fountain, whose waters gladdened the city."* Such having been the circum- stances of the case, is there no difficulty in supposinor, that the Apostles found places where they could baptize three thousand in one day by immersion ? All the Apos- tles were undoubtedly cn5:aged in baptizing at the same time. And if they baptized by immersion, they probably made use of separate tanks, cisterns, or bathing places in private houses. But is there no difficulty in supposing that they divided tliemselves into so many ditferent com- panies for the purpose of administering the rite of baptism ? And is there no difficulty in supposing that they had access to so many bathing places ? These doubtless were confined to the houses of the more wealthy ; among whom few could at that time be found in Jerusalem, who were disposed in any way to befriend the cause of Christ. And what intimation is there, that the apostles made use of such bathing places for the purpose of baptizing the three thousand converts? And whf:t reason have we to suppose, that such a multitude, who were suddenly collected from various regions, and who, we must presume, were generally poor, had such changes of raiment, as would have been necessary for baptizing by immersion 1
But there is still another difficulty wh!r>; fneots ns. After much consideration, I think it exceedingly impro- bable, that the Apostles could have baptized such a num- ber by immersion in so short a time. Before they began
* See Jahn's Archaeol. Sect. 335.
INFANT BAPTISM. 185
to baptize, all the other business mentioned in the narra- tive had been accomplished. The Apostles had met to- gether in one place. The Holy Spirit had been poured out upon them ; so that they declared the wonderful works of God to people of many different countries, in their own languages. The powerful effects produced by their preaching had been noticed. Heavy accusa- tions had been brought against them. Peter had un- dertaken their defence, and had reasoned with them largely from the Holy Scriptures. Multitudes had been pricked in their hearts, and inquired, what they should do to be saved. Peter had taught them the way of sal- vation. What is related, Acts 2, must be considered as a very brief outline of the instruction he gave them ; as appears from verse 40. Now all those miraculous opera- tions of the Holy Ghost ; all those discourses of the Apos- tles to people of many different countries ; all the agita- tions and differences of opinion which took place among such a multitude ; the discourse of Peter ; the convictions and anxious inquiries of three thousand souls, with the particular instructions given them in regard to the way of salvation and the duties of a holy life, — all these must have occupied a considerable portion of the day. It was the third hour, that is, nine o'clock in the morning, when some of the people, after having seen the effects produc- ed by the effusion of the Spirit, accused the Apostles of being unduly excited by new wine. What has been mentioned could not have taken place in less than half the day ; and they certainly could not have had more than half the day left for baptizing. Indeed I can hard- ly bring myself to believe that they devoted half the day to this ritual service. But let it be supposed that they baptized three thousand in five hours. This would make
186 INFANT BAPTISM.
six hundred an hour ; and for each apostle, fifty an hour, or two hundred and fifty in five hours ; that is, but httle short of one a minute for each Apostle, through the whole of that time. According to this calculation, who can suppose they were baptized by immersion, without supposing at the same time, that God worked wonders in this, as in other occurrences of that memorable day, and that he miraculously multiplied the hours and minutes, as he had on another occasion multiplied the loaves and Jishes 7
In reply to all this, it may be said, that others might help the apostles in baptizing. I allow this to be possi- ble. But what proof is there of the fact ?
There are two places in the Epistles, which contain allusions to the rite of Baptism, and which have been thought by some to prove that immersion was the mode. Rom. 6: 3, 4. Col. 2: 12. In these texts, believers are said to be hurled icith Christ in, or by Baptism. I re- mark, first, that the language is figurative. In this all are agreed. Secondly : The word, ovvnucfri^iv^ we were buried, does not appertain to living men, but to dead men ; not to ivater, but to earth. It does not mean, we were immersed, or plunged in ivater, but, as dead bodies, we were interred or covered up in a grave, or laid in a tomb, " The Greek word, avvsiacpijinev, we were buried ivith him, cannot mean ivater baptism ; for in what part of the Bible is being washed or bathed in water, an emblem of death or interment 1 In the Jewish ceremonies, it is always an emblem o{ purification, not of death. The Baptists great- ly mistake the force of this text."* The figure of speech is the same, as in the expressions used in connexion with this, in which Christians are said to be crucijied d.nd dead.
* A Manuscript Note of Professor Stuart.
INFANT BAPTISM. 187
It designates their character. They are crucified to the world ; dead to sin ; yea, dead and buried. Now this mortified temper of Christians, and their conformity with Christ, is signified by Baptism ; and equally so, what- ever may be the mode of Baptism. According to the representation of the Apostle in the context, it is as true that believers are crucijied with Christ and dead with Christ in Baptism, as that they are buried with him in Baptism. And how does it appear from the language employed in these passages, that Baptism has any more resemblance to Christ's burial^ than to his crucifixion and death 1
In Gal. 3: 27, the Apostle says ; " As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ." Here the metaphor is taken from the putting on of clothes. Believers have put on Christ ; have assumed his charac- ter ; have invested, or clothed themselves with his moral excellence, as one covers himself with a garment. And this is signified by their being baptized into Christ. But who would ever think of inferring from this, that the ftiode of Baptism must have a resemblance to putting on clothes ? And yet this would be just as proper as to argue from the other passages, that, the mode of Baptism must have a resemblance to Christ's burial. ,
After all, what resemblance is there between a man's being dipped or plunged in water, and Christ's being laid in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock ?
The common manner of burial among us is very dif- ferent from that in which Christ was buried, and may have been the occasion of misleading the judgement of common readers. There are still remaining in the neigh- bourhood of Jerusalem many ancient tombs, which clear- ly show the manner of interment formerly practised. A
188 INFANT BAPTISM.
chamber or excavation was made in a rock, and at the sides niches were formed for the reception of dead bodies. The body of Jesus was wrapped in Hnen and laid in one of these niches. Now what resemblance is there between a body's being carried, — not let doton as into a grave, but carried into such a chamber or excavation in a rock and lying there three days in one of the niches at the side, and the pkmging of a living person for a moment in wa- ter ? If there is any resemblance, is it not too remote and fanciful to be regarded by an Apostle 1
Let me just remark in addition, that if circumcision had been continued, as the seal of the covenant, under the Christian dispensation ; it would have been just as proper, as it is now, for the Apostle to make use of the metaphors found in the passages above quoted, and to say, that Christians are crucified with Christ, dead with Christ, and huried with Christ in or by circumcision ; as this, according to the supposition, would have been the appointed sign of their being thus crucified, dead and bu- ried in a spiritual sense.
The obvious design of the Apostle is to illustrate the character and obligations of believers from the circum- stance, that they are, in a certain respect, conformed to Christ's death ; that as he died /br sin ; so they are dead, or are under obligation to be dead to sin ; that is, they are holy, or are by their profession obliged to be holy. " So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death.'"' And this is explained by what follows. " In that Christ died, he died unto sin (or on account of sin,) once ; but in that he liveth, he liveth un- to God. Liknoise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, (or in respect to sin,) but alive unto God through Jesus Christ.'' This is what was signified by
Infant baptism. 189
baptism. And so believers were baptized into Chrisfs death ; not that baptism was a symbol of death, or the state of the dead; for water or washing in water never was a symbol of this. But water, used in ceremonial ab- lutions, whether by washing or sprinkling, and after- wards in Christian baptism, always signified the fact, or the acknowledged necessity, o^ purification. Now being dead, or in a state of death as to sin, is the same thing as to be spii^itually purijied, or made holy. And this is the very thing that Baptism, coming in the place of ab- lutions under the former economy, is exactly adapted to signify. Or to say all in a word : water used in Bap- tism is a sign of that moral purijication of believers, which the Apostle means to express by their being *' cru- cified," and " dead," and conformed to Christ's " death." Their being dead in conformity with Christ, is the ex- pression which contains the metaphor. And Baptism, as an appointed token, or symbol, denotes what is signified by the metaphor, not the metaphor itself
The argument which has been derived from this pas- sage in favor of immersion is founded on the supposition of a real resemblance between Baptism and death. But this supposition is very unnatural, and I think far differ- ent from what the Apostle had in view.
What has been said above as to the obligation impli- ed in Baptism, may be confirmed by 1 Cor. 10: 2. The Apostle says, the Israelites " were all baptized unto Mo- ses in the cloud and in the sea." Baptism, as a relig- ious rite, was not then instituted. But the Apostle, know- ing the special obligation implied in Baptism, makes use of the word, to set forth the obligation of the children of Israel. '' They were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and iu the sea." That is, in consequence of God's mer- ]7
190 INFANT BAPTISM.
cy towards them, especially at the Red Sea, they came under special obligations to obey Moses, the servant of God, or, which is the same thing, to obey the commands of God by Moses. Their being baptized does not surely imply that they were immersed or plunged in the cloud and in the sea; (which was not the fact; for they went through on dry ground ;) but it implies, that they were there brought under special obligations to worship and obey their gracious Deliverer. Baptism is here spoken of, in regard to its spiritual import, just as I understand it to be in the passages above quoted from Rom. and Col.
As to 1 Pet. 3: 21, I shall stop to make only two concise remarks. First. The Apostle here expressly tells us, that the thing he had in his mind, when he spoke of Baptism, was not an oiitioard, but an imcardy spiritual washing. Second. The condition of Noah and his family in the ark was by no means the condition of persons buried or imrnersed in loater. This was the condition of the ungodly world. It was from this condi- tion, as the Apostle tells us, that those in the ark were saved. And this preservation from the ruin of the ungod- ly world he refers to, as illustrating the salvation of Chris- tians, who have that imoard purijication, that " answer of a good conscience towards God," which he tells us is what he meant by Baptism.
The mistake into which some Pedobaptist as well as Baptist writers have been betrayed, in regard to several of the passages which speak of Baptism, particularly those in Rom. vi, and Col. ii, has, in my apprehension, been owincr to their not attendino- with sufficient care, to the nature and design of the metaphorical language there used.*
" See Appendix E.
INFANT BAPTISM. 191
I have now given you the result of my inquiries on the mode of Baptism, so far as it can be determined from the Christian Scriptures. My conclusion is, that the manner in which the inspired writers have treated the subject, tends to show, that the particular mode is not to be deemed of any material consequence ; that God would have it conform to circumstances ; and that he will be well pleased with Baptism, in every decent mode, if it be performed with a cordial desire to do his will.
But there is one additional remark which I must beg leave to introduce in this place.
In the foregoing discussion of the mode of Baptism, I have not thought it proper to suggest any particular rea- son for preferring sprinkling to immersion. But if we look at the ancient manner of purification established by the authority of God, we may perhaps find such a reason. It is evident that lustrations, or purifications, under the Levitical law, were commonly performed by sprinkling ^ not by immersion. See Num. 19: 18 — 21. Heb. 9: 13, 19. And there are both in the Old Testament and the New various allusions to sprinkling as the prevailing mode of ceremonial purification, as Ezek. 36: 25 : " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." Is. 53: 15. " So shall he sprinkle many nations."
Now how can a mode of Baptism, which has such a resemblance to the ancient mode of purification, be other- wise than very significant ? The early Christian Jews associated the idea of the Passover with the I+ord's Sup- per. The sacramental bread and wine were symbols of the body and blood of Christ, whom they considered as the Paschal Lamb. 1 Cor. 5: 7, In like manner, the mode of Baptism which we commonly use, may have a happy effect by being associated in our reflections with
192 INFANT BAPTISM.
the prevailing mode of purification under the former econ- omy, and especially by impressing our minds with that inward purification, that cleansing from sin, which is ef- fected by the influence of the Holy Spirit. I do not pre- sent this view of the subject in the way of controversy with our Baptist brethren ; but merely to show, that the mode of Baptism which we adopt has a striking signifi- cancy, and that in regard to moral effect, which really constitutes the whole value of the rite, this mode will bear comparison with any other.
Our Baptist brethren undertake to prove from Eccle- siastical History, that immersion was the prevailing mode of Baptism in the ages following the Apostles. I ac- knowledge that Ecclesiastical History clearly proves this. And I am very willing to acknowledge also, that immer- sion might be one of the modes of Baptism, and perhaps the prevailing one, used in the time of Christ and the Apostles, and that the Christians in the following ages probably derived it from them. This is acknowledging quite as much as can be fairly proved.
In rearard to this arorument from Ecclesiastical His- tory, I remark, first, that it is the only clear and certain proof in favor of immersion, as the mode of Christian Bap- tism. It must be apparent, that no such proof can be found in the Scriptures. For the Scriptures no where declare, as the Ecclesiastical writers do, that Baptism was performed by immersion. They no where describe the mode.
Secondly. Those who regard the testimony of Ec- clesiastical History, as an argument in favor of baptizing by immersion, must, to be consistent, allow the same tes- timony to be an argument in favor of Infant Baptism. If they reject this last argument ; they ought also to reject
INFANT BAPTISM. 193
the former ; as this is quite as clear and conclusive, as that.
I proceed now to my second general proposition ; which is, that Christians ought not to consider the mode of Baptism of any essential importance.
We are all in danger of attaching more importance to external rites and forms, than really belongs to them. The people of God were exposed to this danger under tlie former dispensation ; and the prophets frequently warned them against it, and told them plainly, that out- ward rites, though enjoined by divine authority, were of little consequence, compared with spiritual duties. Christ often found it necessary to guard his disciples against the same danger, and to teach them that obedience to the moral precepts of the law was the great thing required, and that outward observances were comparatively of but little consequence. In the time of the Apostles, Chris- tians had a zeal about the externals of religion, which proved a great hindrance to the peace and prosperity of the church ; and some of them needed to be told by St. Paul, that the kingdom of God consisted not in meats and drinhSj that is, in external observances, but in righteous- ness, and peace, and joj/ in the Holy Ghost. I am well satisfied, that Christians are exposed to a mistake of this kind at the present day ; and exposed in a high degree, where any external rite or form is made the subject of controversy and strife. In such a case the disputed rite is likely to occupy their thoughts too frequently ; to make a deeper impression on their minds than other subjects which are inconceivably more important ; and in conse- quence of this, to pervert their judgement, to misguide their conscience, and to excite them to a warmth of feeling and effort, which exceeds the importance of the subject, and 17*
194 INFANT BAPTISM.
wiiich can be justified only when directed to the high and spiritual interests of Christ's kingdom. Against such a mibtaiie, and such excess, especially in regard to the mode cf Baptiim, I would earnestly and affectionately warn ibe foliowers of Christ.
From the foregoing examination, I think it must have become evident, that no particular mode of Baptism is exactly described in the New Testament, and repre- sented as the one which believers are required to use, exclusively of all others. I would not allow myself to speak with unbecoming confidence on such a subject. But I confess I am unable to find a single text, which, according to just rules of interpretation, clearly proves, that Baptism is to be administered by immersion, or in any one particular way, exclusively of every other way. And the conclusion which I draw from this fact is, that if we contend for any one mode, exclusively of every oth- er, we go beyond our rule : we attempt to do what Christ ami the Apostlep left undone ; and what they left undone, for the very purpose of showing, that they did not regard the particular form of the rite as of any material conse- quence, and so would have Christians at liberty to vary the form, as circumstances might require.
I am confirmed in this view of the subject by other considerations. Christ intended that his people should be free from inconvenient and burdensome rites, and should have no yoke put upon them, which was not easy to be borne. But scarcely any thing in the Mosaic rit- ual was so inconvenient and burdensome, as Baptism would, in some circumstances, be, if it could be adminis- tered in no way but by immersion. The coldness of some climates, and of some seasons of the year in more temperate climates, renders it almost impracticable to
INFANT BAPTISM. 195
baptize in this way. Those wlio practise immersion find if, in some cases, exceedingly inconvenient and difficult, and submit to it merely because they think God requires it. Now I have serious doubts whether all this is con- sistent with the simplicity and spirituality of the Chris- tian religion, and whether the unqualified declaration of Christ, that his yoke is easy, and his burden light, would lead us to expect, that an outward rite would be enjoined upon all Christians in such a form, as would render it in many cases so extremely difficult to be complied with. And I have still stronger doubts, whether it is consistent with the genius of Christianity that Baptism by immersion should be required of all believers, when I consider that the thing required must, in some places, be rendered not only difficult but impossible, for want of water, and, in various instances, must necessarily be given up, on ac- count of long continued bodily infirmity.
The Christian religion was designed to be a universal religion, and its external rites, as well as its spiritual pre- cepts, were unquestionably adapted to this design. But the rites of Christianity, in order to be adapted to the de- sign of making it a universal religion, must be such as to be capable of being varied in outward form, as cir- cumstances in different parts of the world may require, while the substance of them shall, under all external va- riations, be preserved, and the ends of them secured. An absolute, unvarying uniformity in the mode of ad- ministering either Baptism, or the Lord's Supper, or in the mode of performing public worship, would operate as a great hindrance to the spread of the Gospel. As to public worship, we never think of such uniformity, but vary, in regard to external forms, just as the ends of pub- lic worship seem to retjuire. And we feel that we have
196 INFANT BAPTISAfc
the same liberty in regard to the Lord's Supper. As to the exterior of this solemn rite, we depart indefinitely from the original pattern.
I have often thought it strange that Christians of the Baptist denomination should feel themselves authorized to take such liberties as they do, respecting the manner of observing the ordinance of the Supper, while they plead for so strict a conformity to what they conceive to have been the original mode o{ Baptism. Why are they not as much bound to a strict conformity in regard to one ordinance, as in regard to the other ? But do they practise such con- formity as to the eucharist ? Do they practise it in respect to the time ? They do indeed observe this ordinance near the close of the day, so that it may seem to be a supper. But after all, there is no real con- formity, because Christ kept the Sacramental Supper with his disciples in the night ; that is, after it was dark. The Baptists say, they conform in this respect as far as they can consistently with convenience. And what they say is well. But do they not perceive that the plea of con- venience is as good in regard to one ordinance, as in re- gard to the other ? They fail of this conformity in regard to the place. Christ and his apostles kept the Sacramen- tal Supper in an upper chamber. But who at the pre- sent day thinks it necessary to conform in this respect ? Neither do the Baptists conform in regard to their pos- ture, while attending the ordinance. Christ and his apos- tles reclined at the table on a couch, or sofa. And why do not the Baptists imitate them in this respect ? Be- cause, at the present day, it would not be agreeable to common usage, and so it would not be suitable or decent. And doubtless this plea of suitableness and decency may be very justly made. And why not as justly in regard to Baptism, as in regard to the Lord's Supper ? Neither do
INFANT BAPTISM. 197
the Baptists conform as to the kind of bread which is used in the ordinance. The bread which Christ brake and gave to his disciples, was unleavened . And why do not the Baptists use unleavened bread ? Because they do not think an exact conformity in this respect is either necessary or important. Neither do they conform as to the kind of wine which is used. What Christ and his disciples used was the pure juice of the grape. And why do not the Baptists conform to Christ's example in this respect 1 Because it is difficult to procure such wine (though it is not impossible). Now the Baptists take the liberty, and I doubt not very properly, to vary from the mode of the original institution and from the example of Christ, in all these respects. And yet, it would seem, he did more to enjoin an exact conformity in regard to this ordinance, than in regard to Baptism. For he said expressly : " This do ye in remembrance of me ;" that is, eat this bread, (unleavened bread.) and drinh this wine, (the pure juice of the grape,) in remembrance of me. Moreover, it is not only true that Baptist Christians vary from the mode of the original institution in regard to the kind of bread and wine which is used ; but that they would vary still more, if circumstances should require. For if any of them should live in a place where neither bread nor wine of any kind could be had ; they would undoubtedly consider it proper, and perfectly according to the design of the institution, to make use of other ar- ticles of food and drink in their stead. All this our Bap- tist brethren believe, as we do, to be according to the will of our condescending and merciful Saviour, and to the spirit of his religion. And why should they not judge and act on the same principles in regard to the other Christian rite ? What reason can they have for consid-
198 INFANT BAPTISM.
ering an exact adherence to one invariable form, (even if they could prove that to have been the original form,) more necessary in Baptism, than in the Lord's Supper ? What reason for this, especially, when there is less evi- dence in the New Testament of the particular mode in which Baptism was administered, than of the particular mode in which the Lord's Supper was administered ?
I shall just refer to another subject, on which our Baptist brethren agree with us, and which, in my view, they treat according to the will of Christ. After he had, with the most condescending, amiable kindness, washed the feet of his disciples, he commanded them to loash one another's fat. This command of Christ was as express, and for aught that appears in the form of the command itself, as much intended for all his followers, as the com- mand to baptize, or to eat the Sacramental Supper. And yet the Baptists, as well as we, dispense with a literal ob- servance of it, and content themselves with obeying it virtually ; that is, with performing acts of condescension and brotherly kindness. And to justify themselves in this, they plead that present usages are different from what they were when the command was given ; that what was then an act of kindness would not be so now ; that it cannot be supposed that our Lord and Master would have us violate the common customs and civilities of social in- tercourse, for the sake of conforming to the letter of such a precept ; and that a conformity to the spirit of it, in do- ing acts of condescension and love, must be more accept- able to him, and more beneficial to our brethren.
Of the propriety of treating the command of Christ referred to, as the Baptists do, and as Christians general- ly do, I am fully satisfied. Their taking into consider- ation, as they do, the changes which have taken place m
INFANT BAPTISM. 199
the circumstances and usages of society, and their exercis- ino- judgement and discretion in putting a reasonable con- struction on the command, and in complying with the spirit instead of the letter of it, I believe to be entirely agreeable to the mind of Christ. The principles on which they proceed in all this are evidently right. And why should they not proceed on the same general princi- ples as to Baptism 1 Even if it could be certainly deter- mined that Baptism was at first administered by immer- sion ; might not a regard to common usage, to decency, or to convenience be a sufficient reason for varying the mode 1 Might not compassion for those believers, who are in a state of infirmity, be a sufficient reason for ex- empting them from an exposure, which they cannot bear, and baptizing them in a manner suited to their circum- stances 1 And why should not the Baptists content them- selves in this case as well as in the other, with conform- ing to the original institution virtually, though not literal- ly and exactly ? I say this, even on the supposition, that immersion was evidently the form of Baptism in the time of Christ and his Apostles. But this supposition wants proof And accordingly the reason in favor of conform- ing the mode of Baptism to circumstances is, to my mind, strong and conclusive. And it is very clear, that when the Baptists fix upon immersion as the only proper mode, and utterly refuse to vary from this in any circumstances ; they abandon the just and reasonable principles which they adopt in regard to the Lord's Supper, and in regard to his command to wash one another's feet ; and they debar from Baptism many Christians who are qualified for the ordinance, and desirous of receiving it.
There is another consideration relative to the subject before us, which I think calculated to have a very saluta-
200 INFANT BAPTISM.
ry influence on our minds. The consideration is, that God equally approves of sincere Christians, whether they are baptized by immersion, or by sprinkling. My mean- ing is, that the judgement of God respecting Christians depends altogether upon their real internal character ; and that, if they are equally holy, they are equally the ob- jects of his approbation, although they are baptized in different ways. Their not observing an external rite in the same manner can be of no account with God. — In the midst of the discussions and controversies, in which we may at any time be engaged respecting outward rites and forms, let us charge ourselves to remember this.
That God does in fact regard Christians, who are baptized in different ways, with equal approbation, might be made evident from the representations of his word, and from his actual administration. But formal proof cannot be necessary. Those who are familiar with the Scriptures have learnt, that God judges of men in the manner I have described. And we cannot fail to receive the same impression from what is manifest in his admin- istration. I am happy to acknowledge those, who prefer immersion as the mode of Baptism, to be sincere friends to Christ ; and I would not cease to rejoice in all the to- kens of the divine favor which they receive. But do not those Christians, who use sprinkling or affusion, receive as many tokens of divine favor ? Does not God give them as high a degree of the influence of the Holy Spir- it ? And in consequence of this, do they not exhibit as high a degree of sanctification 1 Have they not as ar- dent love to the Saviour, and as much zeal for the pro- motion of his cause 1 Do they not labor as diligently and pray as fervently for the salvation of the world ? Are not their labors as successful ? And do not their
INFANT BAPTIS1VI. 201
prayers meet with as much acceptance, and obtain as many gracious answers ? Do they not as sensibly enjoy the presence of God in the special ordinances of the Gos- pel, in seasons of affliction, and in the hour of death? Will not as welcome and joyful an entrance be minister- ed to them into the everlasting kingdom of their Saviour ? And will they not enjoy as high a degree of blessedness in heaven ? Now if it is indeed so, that God grants to those, who believe sprinkling or affusion to be a proper mode of Baptism, as many tokens of his approbation and love, as to those who prefer immersion ; is not the con- clusion perfectly obvious, that God does not consider the particular form of Baptism to be of any essential conse- quence as to the great interests of religion ? It clearly follows then, that ice ought to love the followers of Christ who baptize in one way, as much as those, who baptize in another way ; and that if we consider the form of this rite as of any essential consequence, or suffer it to have any great influence upon our feelings, we commit a la- mentable mistake, and, in regard to this point, place our- selves in opposition to the mind of God. And how deep- ly is it to be deplored, that any Christians should, through weakness or imperfection, cherish views and feelings, w'hich are at variance with the divine will, and the divine administration !
And here, as I am about to take my leave of this sul> ject, I must solicit the candid indulgence of those who differ from me, and also those who aorree with me in re- gard to'the mode of Baptism, while I allow myself in great plainness of speech, and utter my thoughts serious- ly and unreservedly, as in the presence of him who is the Saviour and Judge of the world.
We must all, I think, be satisfied, that our relation 18
^IQrZ INFANT BAPTISM.
to Christians generally, I mean to those who are real friends to Christ, is unspeakably more important, than our relation to any particular religious denomination, or par- ty. Our relation to Christians generally respects them as Christians, as those who belong to Christ's spiritual fami- ly and bear his image. But the particular relation we sustain to those of our own denomination or party re- spects them in a very inferior point of light. For their belonging to our party is clearly a matter of infinitely less importance, than their belonging to the holy kingdom of Christ. But do we always regard the subject in this light ? Are we not liable to make more of the particular relation which men sustain to us and to our party, than of that high, that paramount relation, which all real Chris- tians sustain to God and his kingdom ?
Again. We must all be satisfied, that the salvation of sinners, and the spiritual prosperity of Christ's king- dom, together with our own sanctification and eternal life, should be .to us the great objects of desire and pur- suit ; that no other objects should be suffered to come in- to competition with these ; and that we should do noth- ing, and countenance nothing, which can in any way in- terfere with them. But have these great, spiritual inter- ests been always kept uppermost in our minds ? Have they not sometimes been almost forgotten ? And have they not too frequently been made subordinate to local Qr sectarian interests ] I have heard of Christians, and of Gospel ministers, who have made the 7node of Baptism their grand, engrossing subject. I have heard of those, who have been actuated by such an intense zeal in favor of one particular form of this external rite, that they have seemed almost inclined to make it the sum of all religion. Even in those auspicious seasons, when God is pleased in
INFANT BAPTISM. 203
mercy to pour out his Spirit, and produce in the minds of multitudes a deep and overwhehning impression of the evil of sin, and the value of eternal salvation ; there are some Christians, and some teachers of religion, (I hope the number will be found small,) who show an unaccoun- table forwardness to introduce discussions respecting the mode of Baptism ; and, instead of striving with all their hearts, to brina: sinners into the kingdom of heaven, and to promote the holiness of believers, make it a favorite ob- ject to convince them, that Baptism should not be admin- istered by sprinkling, but by immersion. I must say too that I have known those who, in similar circumstances, have shown an unbecoming forwardness and warmth in opposing and decrying the peculiar tenets of the Baptists, and in estab- lishing those of their own party. Now it is well known, that discussions of this kind, whether on one side or the other, have a oirect tendency to grieve the Holy Spirit, and to divert the attention of saints and sinners from the one thing needful. The introduction of such a subject, in the way of controversy, especially in a revival of relig- ion, I am sure is lorong. It is offensive to God, and will be followed, as it often has been, by the withdrawment of his gracious influence. And I would earnestly beseech any ministers or Christians, who are inclined to such a course as that to which I have now referred, to pause a few moments, and seriously to inquire, whether they are pursuing the great object, for which Jesus died on the cross, and for which he has given us the Gospel, and the day of salvation ; whether they are not in danger of sub- stituting an excessive zeal for an outward rite, or rather, the form of such a rite, in the place of pure love to Christ, and to the immortal souls of men ; and whether they have any reason to think, that a subject of this kind
~04 INFANT BAPTISM.
^^•iIl appear as important to them at the Judgement day, as it docs now. My Christian brethren, with whom I am expostulating, expect to dwell eternally in heaven with an innumerable multitude of God's people, w'ho dif- fer from them as to the mode of administering Baptism. And I am very sure, that *' the general assembly and church of the first born, who are written in heaven," and the spirits of just men made perfect," will not be divided into different and contending parties, on account of their having received Baptism in different ways. The pre- sence of their Saviour, and their glowing, perfect love to him, will make them all one. And any strife, or preju- dice, or coldness, existing among them in this world, will either be buried in a happy oblivion, or will be remem- bered with grief, (if grief can be found in that happy world,) and with emotions of gratitude for that infinite grace, which has delivered them from the weakness and imperfection of their earthly state, and prepared them for the holy employments and pleasures of heaven.
With these few suggestions I dismiss a subject, which it was no pleasure to me to introduce. But there are oth- er subjects, relating to the present and future happiness of all the children of God, on which I should love to en- large. If we are real Christians, we are entitled to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadcth not away. Christ is even now the portion of our souls ; and we shall shortly be with him where he is. Having this hope in us, let us purify ourselves, as Christ is pure. Let us walk by faith, not by sight. As to the general in- terests of Christ's kingdom, and as to the particular inter- ests of our own denomination ; as to the substance of re- ligion, and as to its outward forms, let us endeavour to judge and feel as Christ does, — and aF we ourselves shall,
INFANT BAPTISM. 205
when the shadows of time shall vanish, and we shall ar- rive at a world of perfect light. There all the redeemed, — delightful thought ! — all the redeemed, forgetting every distinction of name or sect, will unite their joyful hearts and voices in praise to him who loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood. Let us do all in our power to prepare ourselves and others for that bless- ed world, and to render the society of the redeemed on earth like what it will be in heaven. Henceforth we will have no strife, but to copy the love and meekness and forbearance of the blessed Jesus, and to advance his cause. We will heartily rejoice in the work of the Holy Spirit among Christians of every description, and guard with the most sacred care against every thing which would hinder its progress. We will suffer no zeal for any personal object, or for the interest of any one sect, to take place of that holier zeal which we ought to cher- ish, for the glory of our common Lord, and the prosperity of his universal empire. If we may but have the joy to see him inherit all nations, our souls shall be satisfied. We will not cease to love thee, and to pray for thy peace, O kingdom of Christ. If we forget thee, let our right hand forget her cunning. If we do not remember thee, let our toncrue cleave to the roof of our mouth.
18^=
APPEJVDIX.
A.
I am happy in being able to give some extracts from a Disser- tation on Infant Baptism by R. Wardlaw, d. d. of Glasgow ; a very valuable work, which I have just received from the Author.
The following remarks on the testimony of Tertullian are from the second edition of the Dissertation, p. 138 — 140.
"The circumstances of the early history of the church, after the apostolic age, are unaccountable on antipaedobaptist principles.
"The advocates of these principles allege, that the first writer by whom infant-baptism is expressly mentioned, is Tertullian, who lived in the beginning of the third centurj', a hundred years and more after the apostolic age : — and he, says Mr. Cox,* * in fact CONDEMNS it !' Emphasis is thus laid on the peculiar opinion of this father. But the question before us is not one of opinion, but of fact. Tertullian was remarkable for singular and extravagant opinions. ' He was endowed,' says Mosheim, ' with a great o-e- nius, but seemed deficient in point of judgement. His piety was warm and vigorous, but, at the same time, melancholy and austere. His learning was extensive and profound ; and yet his credulity and superstition were such as might have been expected from the darkest ignorance. And with respect to his reasonings, they had more of that subtlety that dazzles the imagination, than of that solidity that brings light and conviction to the mind.' — On the particular subject before us, he not only advised the delay of bap- tism in the case of infants, but also of unmarried persons. Will our baptist brethren admit the inference as to the latter, which they draw so complacently as to the former .'' The truth is, that, as to both the legitimate inference is the very contrary. The very advice to delay, or, if you will, the condemnation of baptism in in- fancy (though these two are far from being the same, and the for- mer alone properly belongs to Tertullian) is a conclusive evidence
*A Baptist writer.
20^ APPENDIX A.
of the previous existence of the practice. This is the point. The opinion is nothing to the purpose. It has no authority. If our baptist friends think it has, let them do the good old father justice, and follow it fully. — His condemning \,\\& practice of baptizing in- fants, so far from being in their favour, militates against them. It not only proves its previous existence ; it proves more. It proves that it was no innovation. When a man condemns a practice, he is naturally desirous to support his peculiar views by the strongest arguments. Could Tertullian, therefore, have shown, that the practice was of recent origin ; that it had been introduced in hia own day, or even at any time subsequent to the lives of the apos- tles ; we have every reason to believe, he would have availed him- self of a ground so obvious, and so conclusive. It proves still fur- ther, that the baptism of infants was the general practice of the church in Tertullian's time. His opinion is his own. It is that of a dissentient from the universal bod}^ of professing Christians. He never pretends to say, that any part of the church had held or act- ed upon it. Of his opinion and advice, then, we may say, VaJeant quantum vaJere possunt. But the total absence of any attempt to support and recommend them, by appeal to the practice of the church in apostolic times, or of any part of the church at any in- tervening period between those times and his own, certainly goes far to prove the matter of fact, with which alone we have to do, — that Infant Baptism was the original and universal practice."
I pray my Baptist brethren to give this particular point a fair examination.
It has been usual for their ablest writers, to consider the opin- ion and advice of Tertullian against the baptism of infants, as a proof that it had not been the general practice of the Christian church. But did not Tertullian give his opinion equally, and for similar reasons, against the baptism of unmarried persons .' And was this a proof that it had not been the practice of the church to orive baptism to such.'* All intelligent Baptists will say, that Ter- tullian's opposition to the baptism of unmarried persons presup- poses that their baptism had been common. And does not his op- position to the baptism of infants equally presuppose that their bap- tism had been conmion ? How can we believe the former, and yet deny the latter ? Or if we should do this, would it not betray a bias of mind, which would lead us entirely to overlook or evade any arguments opposed to our belief.? — I would endeavour to treat
APPENDIX B. 209
those who differ from me with the same candor and kindness which I should wish them to exercise towards me. — But really, if men will evade the force of Tertullian's testimony, as some have done, what reason is there to suppose that theiropinion would have been at all different, whatever his testimony might have been, — even if he had expressly acknowledged tliat Infant Baptism was univer- sally practised in his day, and had been so from the days of tlie apostles, and if he had asserted too that it had been handed down as a thing ordered by the apostles ? Could they not yet get rid of such a testimony from Tertullian, as easily as from Origen and Augustine ?
B.
*• Does the reader marvel that infant baptism should not be spoken of more frequently, and in more direct and explicit terms, during the first century after the apostles ? Let him only suppose the uncontroverted universality of the practice from the beginning, and his wonder will cease. That which goes on as the under- stood and established usage, it is quite natural to expect, should be but seldom spoken of, and, when it is, only in the way of indirect and incidental allusion. Circumcision is never alluded to for more than a century and a half after its institution, when an occurrence in the history, the violation of Jacob's daughter, the proposal of marriage with lier by the prince of Shechem, and the artful re- venge of the patriarch's sons, leads to the incidental mention of it ; — and from that time, it is never noticed again for nearly two cen- turies and a half, till the circumcision of the younger son of Moses by his mother Zipporah. — The case is similar, during the first cen- tury after the apostles, with regard to Infant Baptism. It is occa- sionally alluded to, in terms, on which, we are not disposed to de- ny, an adversary, now that it has come to be controverted, may plausibly put another construction ; and the first that speaks of it in plain language, and by its proper name, is the first that ques- tions and objects to it. And on what grounds does he object.' Not that the practice was withou-t apostolic authority ; — not that it was a recent and unscriptural innovation ; — not even that it wa§ only partially observed in the church : — no } he never hints aiiv
210 APPENDIX C.
such things as these. His objections proceed, chiefly, on a super- stitious notion he had come to attach to the rite, on which he founds a proposal for the delay of its administration ; — a proposal, including not merely infants, but unmarried persons, and having precisely the same authority as to both. — the authority, that is, of Tertullian's fanciful singularity." — IVardlaic's Diss. pp. 145, 146.
C.
" Infant Baptism contains a constant memorial of original sin. — Of the corruption of our nature being not merely contracted but inherent. And this doctrine of original corruption, of which Infant Baptism is a standing practical recognition, is one of fundamental importance ; one, I am satisfied, to inadequate conceptions and impressions of which may be traced all the principal perversions of the gospel. In proportion to its relative importance in the sys- tem of Divine truth, is it of consequence that it should not be al- lowed to slip out of mind. The baptism of every child brings it to view, and impresses it. If in any case it should be otherwise, the fault is not in the ordinance, but in the power of custom, and in the stupidity and carelessness of spectators, of parents, of ministers. It teaches, very simply, but very significantly, that, even firom the womb, children are the subjects of pollution ; that they stand in need of purification from the inherent depravity of their na- ture, in order to their entering heaven."
*' Whilst infant baptism reminds us of the humbling doctrine of original depravity, it brings before our minds a truth of a different kind, — eminently cheering and encouraging, — namely, that little children are not incapable of being subjects of the spiritual king- dom of Jesus Christ, and participating in its blessings. — I need not set about proving this ; because their capability is granted by bap- tists themselves."
" I am strongly inclined to agree with those, who regard the children of believers in the light of disciples. If their parents do their duty, they surely are such. It is quite impossible for us to say, how soon the Holy Spirit may begin his secret operations in the soul of a child, under spiritual training, and the subject of be- lieving prayer. And imtil the principles which are instilled int?»
APPENDIX D. 211
the child's mind by early tuition, recommended by a godly exam- ple, and impressed by affectionate and faithful admonition, are ei- ther avowedly rejected, or are shown to be professed without influ- ence on the heart and life, — how can we be entitled to say, that they
are not disciples ? They are learners.'' Wardlaw's Diss. pp. 179^
160, 181, 182, 184.
».
" The ordinance is inseparably connected, and all Christian pa- rents ought so to regard it, with the incumbent duty of < bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.' If this connexion is lost sight of, — if it is not contemplated at the time, and is practically disregarded afterwards, the ordinance be- comes nothing better than a useless ceremony, and aji idle and profane mockery of its Divine author. — Much has been said, and said sometimes very loosely, by psedobaptists, of the rio-hts and privileges of infants, and of the impropriety of abridging their priv- ileges, and abstracting their rights, in refusing them baptism. But I would have it seriously considered, that the right and the privilege are not worth the contending for, unless the ordinance be connected with parental instruction, discipline, and prayer. It is evident, that the pouring of a little water on an infant's face, can, in itself, do it no good ; and as little would the immersion of its whole body. The mere external recognition of its connexion with the Christian community, can be of no benefit, except as associat- ed with subsequent training, for the performance of the duties, and the enjoyment of the blessings, of that community. The profit to the child must be through the medium of the parent : and it has long appeared to me, that it is to the parent, rather than to the child, that infant baptism is, in the first instance, to be reckoned a privilege. It is an ordinance, in which there is brought before the minds of pious parents, a pleasing and animating recognition of the covenant promises of God to them and their offspring, which form so great an encouragement to them in the discharge of duty and in looking, by prayer, for the divine blessing upon the objects of their tender love. That multitudes who have their children baptized never think of the ordinance in any such light, and are
2r2 APPEiNDIX D.
quite regardless of the obligations which,! will not say, it imposes, but which it implies, and brings to mind, — is a melancholy truth. And I would earnestly admonish those parents, of the guilt they are contracting, by their solemn mockery of heavon, in tlie care- less profanation of a Divine institution. The abuse is awfully ex- tensive."
'j Let it not be said, that parents may have a sufficiently strong feeling of their duty to their children, and may fulfil that duty equally well with others, although they do not see the scripture authority for their baptism. I do not deny, that a baptist may be exemplary in the christian tuition of his family, and that many a psedobaptist may be very much the contrary. But this is not the question. I can conceive of a Christian, from certain conscientious but unscriptural and groundless scruples, living for successive years in the neglect of the ordinance of the Lord's supper, and yet, to all appearance, influenced as much as others, in his general character, by the habitual remembrance of his Redeemer. We should never infer from such a case, that the ordinance was use- less. Neither ought we in the other. If God has given promises to his people and their seed, promises fitted to stimulate believing parents to the fulfilment of their sacred trust, and has instituted an ordinance in which these promises are recognized and pledged to them, it does not become us to neglect the gracious and pleasing rite, on the ground that we can keep the promises sufficiently well in mind without it. It is kind in that God who ' knoweth our frame,' not only to give us his word, but to embody, as it were, that word to our senses, to confirm it to our faith, and to impress it upon our memories and hearts, by significant outward institu- tions. ' Quam enim suave piis animis,' says Calvin very beauti- fully, ' non verbo tantum, sed oculari etiam spectaculo, certiores fieri, tantum se gratiae apud patrera ccelestem obtinerc, ut posteri- tas sua illi curag sit.' ' How pleasing to the minds of the godly, not merely to have a verbal assurance, but to have it certified tfl them, by visible signs, that the grace of their heavenly Father is so great, as to extend, not to themselves only, but to their off- spring !' "
The following is addresised to Parents. — " Christian parents, — the charge intrusted to you is one, the most momentous and interesting tliat can be imagined by the hmnan mind. It is the charge of immortal souls. Every child, when born in-
APPENDIX D. 213
to the world, enters upon an existence that is never to ter- minate, upon a short and precarious life on earth, which must be succeeded by eternal blessedness, or eternal woe. How solemn the consideration ! — And with regard to your own chil- dren, to you is committed the sacred trust, of imparting to them that knowledge, which, through the blessing of God, shall make them * wise unto salvation.' These lights, lighted for eternity, it is yours to feed with holy oil from the sanctuary of God, that they may burn, with pure and lovely radiance, before the throne above. These never-dying plants, it is yours to rear and to cherish, bring- ing down upon them, by your prayers, the dews and rains of heaven, that so they may flourish and bear fruit for ever, in the paradise of God." — '• O forget not the sacred obligation. Let it be engraven on your hearts, ' as with a pen of iron and the point of a diamond.' You love your children. They are dear to you as the apple of your eye, — precious as your own souls. What is there that you would not part with, to secure their well-being ? And are not their eternal interests first in your thoughts, and first in your de- sires for them .' If you feel as christians, they are, — they must be. Let them, then, be first in your prayers, and first in your exertions. Seek to impress early on their hearts a sense of the unspeakable importance of eternal things. Teach them the knowledge and fear of the Lord, when you sit in the house, and when you walk by the way ; never with the repulsive austerity of a master, but with all the engaging tenderness of parental love. Let no pros- pect of temporal advantage induce you, to expose their souls to un- necessary hazards, from the snares and temptations of a deceitful world. Let no corporeal attractions, and no mental accomplish- ments, however gratifying they may lawfully be, appropriate that peculiar joy, which, in the hearts of godly parents, must ever be reserved for ^ seeing their children walking in truth.' — Set your hearts, with intense and unquenchable desire, on the salvation of your oflTspring. Ask it of God with the fervour and importunity of faith. Show the sincerity of your prayers, by unwearied atten- tion to the use of necessary means : — and I doubt not, you will have the blessedness of seeing, amongst your offspring, a seed arise to gerve the Lord,
" If in any case there should be an apparent failure of the blessing, there is a call to much searching of heart, and close in- 19
214 APPENDIX E.
vestigation of the whole process of training. It is surely safer, lo question our own fidelity to duty, than God's fidelity to promise. — Are you sure, that tlie salvation of your children has engaged your desires, with a fervour and a constancy proportioned to its infinite importance ? — Have you pursued tliis object with sufficient seriousness, as ' the one thing needful' to your parental happi- ness ? — While you have been teaching the truths of God, have you been careful to ' walk before your house in a perfect way,' exem- plifying, in your whole deportment, their holy, heavenly influ- ence ? — Have you, in no measure, been guilty of sacrificing the souls of your children to their temporal interests ? — Have your ef- forts, and your prayers been engaged about this object, with any thing like a proportion to its unutterable magnitude ? — Have your exertions been believing exertions, — your prayers, the prayers of faith ? — or has there not been, in both, a lamentable deficiency of firm, and simple-hearted, and practical confidence in God ?
" May the ' God of the families of Israel' impress, more deep- ly than ever, upon your minds, the duty enjoined upon you ! Let the baptism of your own children, and every baptism you are call- ed to witness, remind you of your obligations, and bring you to your knees, with tears of conscious short-coming, and of earnest entreaty for grace to fulfil them !"
E.
Since I revised the last Lecture and completed the preparation of it for the press in its present form, Professor Stuart has favored me with his notes on Rom. vi, just written in his course of Exe- getical Lectures, and has given me liberty to make the following extracts.
" Rom. 6: 3. ifianria&riiiitv tig tot- Xqioxov ^Itjoovv, we were baptized into Christ Jesus. The sense of this depends on the meaning of the formula, fiaTiTitnv stc nva, or (iaTZTiLtiv tig to ovo- fia rivoq, to baptize into any one, or into the name of any one. In regard to (iarcrittiv tig to (5ro«a, the noun oroua is, no doubt, to be regarded as expletive ; as C •» in Hebrew often is. So Matt. 28: 19, baptized tig to ovojua tov TiarQog, xai rov viov, y.ai rov nrtifiarog ayiov, is the same as baptized tig rov tiutqIx, y.ai rov viov, xai
APPENDIX E. 215
TO nviViiia ayiov. Accordingly we find oioua omitted in our text (Rom. 6: 3), as also in 1 Cor. 10: 2. 1: 13.
But the sense of the whole formula, it is more difficult to as- certain. Most Commentators, (after Vitringa, Obs. Sac. III. 22), explain tig as meaning, into the acknowledo-ement of ; with an im- plication of affiance, subjection, discipleship. But the formula, 1 Cor. 12: 13, TCtxvrsg elg jv aoiua i^a7rTin&t;utv, seems to disagree with such an explanation. Here tig plainly means participation ; i. e. by baptism we come to belong to one body, to participate in one body, to be members of one body. In like manner, we may Bay, by baptism we come to belong, (in a special and peculiar sense, no doubt), to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; to Moses, 1 Cor. 10: 12; to Paul, 1 Cor. 1: 13. In this way all the passages may be construed alike, and the sense in all will be good. The idea is, for substance, that by baptism we become consecrated to any person or thing, appropriated (as it were) to any person or thing, so as to belong to him, or to it, in a manner peculiar, and involving special duties and obligations.
This sense is just such an one as fits the passage under ex- amination. As many of us as have become devoted to Christ by baptism, or, as have been consecrated to Christ, and laid under pe- culiar obligations, or have taken upon us a peculiar relation to him.
Eig Tov -S^uraTov avrov l^anriad^i]uiv, ice have become partakers by baptism of his death, i. e. we have come under a special relation to his death; we have engaged to die unto sin, as he died for it. Being baptized into his death is therefore an internal, moral, spirit- ual transaction in itself ; of which the external rite of baptism is only a symbol. The relation, symbolized by baptism, is in its own nature spiritual. Participation in the death of Christ is, and must be, of a moral or spiritual nature only.
" (v. 4) Svvixaifriusr ovv x.t. X. We have been buried with him by baptism into his death ; i. e. by being baptized into his death, toe are buried, as he teas, avysracpr^^nv. Here ovv means the same as oJoTE, like him, in like manner loith him ; compare v. 6. 8: 17. Col. 3: 1. where any other sense of ov v is out of the question ; 2 Tim. 2: 11, to which the same remark will apply.
Most commentators have assumed here, that auvixuifviuiv has a necessary reference to the mode of literal baptism, which, they say, was by immersion, and this, they think, affords ground for the employment of the image used by the Apostle, because immersion
216 APPENDIX E.
(under water) may be compared to burial (under the earth.) It may be difficult, perhaps, to procure a patient re-hearing of this subject, so long regarded by some as being out of fair dispute. Nevertheless, as my own conviction, after protracted and repeat- ed examinations, has not been consentaneous with that of com- mentators in general, I will briefly state my reasons for it.
The first, and (as it seems to me.) the conclusive one, is, that in the verse before us, there is a. p\a,\n antithesis ; one so plain, that it is impossible to overlook it. Now then, if ot j«r«^>,,ufv is to be literally interpreted, where is the corresponding literal idea in the opposite part of the antithesis ? Most plainly there is none. The resurrection there spoken of, is a moral, spiritual one ; moral and spiritual only. For it is one which Christians, in the present life, have a.\Tea.dj actually expericyiced ; as maybe fully seen by comparing v. 5 below. It is evident from the nature of the com- parison, and from v. 5, that after i,fiiig in v. 4, iys{>dirr(g is im- plied.
If we turn now to the passage in Col. 2: 11, (which is altogeth- er parallel with the verse under examination, and has very often been referred to by polemic writers on the subject of baptism) we shall there find more conclusive reason still, to argue as above re- specting the nature of the antithesis presented. ' We have been buried with him (Christ) by baptism.' What now is the opposite of this ? What is the kind of resurrection from this grave in which Christians have been buried ? The Apostle tells us ; 'we have risen with him (Christ) by faith wrought by the power of God, (t/;c hsQyfiug rov ^iov), who raised him (Christ) from the dead.' Here is a resurrection by faith, i. e. a spiritual, moral one. Now if one part of the antithesis is to be construed in a manner entirely moral, or spiritual, I am obliged, by the laws of interpretation, to construe the other part in the same manner. To understand ow- tTutpTjiisv, then, as of a literal burial under water, is to understand it in a manner which the laws of exegesis absolutely forbid. But,
Secondly. Nothing can be plainer than that the word avtuuifij- jitJi here, is entirely equivalent to ans&uvo^nr. It is adopted for the sake of rendoring more strikins; the image of a resurrection, which the Apostle employs in the other part of the antithesis. A resurrection from thegrave, is a common phrase, when speaking of a resurrection ; see John 5: 28. 20. Dan. 12: 2. In accordance
APPENDIX E. 217
with this statement, the context does most plainly speak, in both the places referred to. In respect to Rom. 6: 4, the Apostle goes on, in the very next verse, ("as is very usual with him), to present the same idea, contained in v. 4, in a different costume. V. 5, (which is evidently a mere explanation of v. 4), says, ' if we have been like Christ, (ot'^tfpvToi, of the same kind with him), in his death, then shall we be in his resurrection.' The same is repeat- ed V. 8, a7r£-&aroi,iei — ovLriao/,isr ; and the whole is admirably ex- plained in V. 11, * So likewise reckon ye yourselves to be dead in- deed unto sin, but alive unto God.'
Exactly in the same manner, has the Apostle gone on to ex- p\a,in avvraifiivrsg in Col. 2: 12. In v. 13 he adds; 'You vsxQorg in your offences .... owBLwoTToiriasr, has he (God) made alive with him (ChristJ, having forgiven you all your offences.' There can be no real ground, therefore, to question that avrxaifioi, in both cases, means neither more nor less than anod^uvoutv, rtxijoc, etc. The epexegesis, added in both cases, makes this quite plain.
The only reason, then, which I can find, why ouvT«(/)a) is pre- ferred in Rom. C: 4, and Col. 2: 12, is, as has been suggested above, that the language may be a fuller antithesis to the word resurrec- tion, which is employed in the other part of the comparison.
Thirdly. I have another difficulty in respect to the exegesis which has been generally given to avrtraifriutv ; namely ; that the image oi immersion, baptism, is nowhere else in Scripture em- ployed as the symbol of burial in the grave. Nor can I think it is a very natural symbol of burial. The obvious import of icashing loith voater is, that it is symbolical of purity, cleansing, purification. But how will this compare with burying in the grave, the place of eorniption, and loathsomeness and destruction? Can two things be more unlike .''
For these reasons, I feel compelled to dissent from the opinion of many able and excellent Commentators respecting the passage before us, and to believe that the Apostle had only a moral or spiv- itvAil burying in view, as he had a moral or spiritual (not a physical) resurrection in view, in the corresponding part of the antithesis. Indeed, what else but a moral burying can be meant, when the Apostle says, ' We are buried with him by baptism into his death f Is this physical baptism, or moral ? And although the words, into his death, are not inserted in Col, 2: 12; yet, as the
19*
218 APPENDIX E.
following verse there shows, they are evidently implied. In fact, it is plain tlmt reference is here made to baptism, only because, when the rite was perfonncd, the Christian promised to renounce sin and to mortify all his evil desires, and thus ' to die unto sin, that he might live unto God.' I must believe, therefore, that there is no more reference to the 7?iorfc of baptism here, than to the viode of the resurrection. The one may just as well be supposed as the other."
To show the striking coincidence of different writers, who have given particular attention to this subject, I am happy to add the following extracts from Wardlaw's Dissertation.
" It appears to me very evident, that the emblematic signifi- cance of baptism is to be found in the purifying nature of the ele- ment employed in it, — in the cleansing virtue of boater. Almost ev- ery instance in which the ordinance is spoken of, or alluded to, with any intimation of its meaning, might be adduced in proof of this. The following passages are but a specimen of many : Acts 22: 16. Ephes.5: 25, 26. Tit. 3: 5."
*' From these and other passages it appears, that baptism, by the emblem of the cleansing virtue of water, denotes the removal of sin, in its guilt, and in its pollution. Of such allusions, indeed, the scriptures are full. And surely, that view which is most fre- quently exhibited to our attention, and which both on the subject of justification and of sanctification, imparts, if I may so speak, a peculiar figurative complexion to the current language of Scrip- ture, I am warranted to consider as at least the principal, if not even the exclusive import of the institution.
" But according to the views of our baptist brethren, washing, or cleansing, so far from being the exclusive, is not even the prin- cipal, but only a secondary meaning of the rite. — Whilst the gen- eral tenor of the language of scripture, as well as a number of par- ticular passages, seems to place its symbolical meaning in the na- ture of the element employed, it is by them placed principally, and by some of them indeed, as would appear from their manner of ex- pressing themselves, almost solely, in the mode in which that ele- ment is used.
" The passages referred to by them, in support of this notion, are the two following : Rom. 6: 3, 4. * Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ Avere baptized into his
APPENDIX E. 219
death ? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death • that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.' Col. 2: 12. ' Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God who hath raised him from the dead.' — In these passages, our brethren conceive, there is an obvious reference to the mode of baptism by immersion. The apostle represents this ordinance, to use the language of Mr. Maclean, in his Commission, page 137, as ' exhibiting the death^ burial, and resurrection of Christ, together with the Christian's co-mmunion with, and conformity to him therein.' The baptized person's communion with Christ in his death and burial, is repre- sented by his being laid under the water ; and his communion with him in his resurrection, by his being raised out of it.
'•' Two things may just be noticed here, before proceeding to the explanation of the passages. The first is, that it is obviously incorrect, to speak of the ordinance as ' exhibiting the death of Christ,' as well as his burial and resurrection ; for whatever re- semblance fancy may imagine to the two latter, there is surely no representation of the former. The death can only be consider- ed as implied in the burial. — The second is, (what has been laro-ely shown by others,*) that even to the burial and resurrection of Christ, the immersion of a body under water, and its emersion from it, bear but a very indistinct and remote resemblance. The mind may easily indeed habituate itself to the idea of likeness, between being let down under earth and raised out of it, and being let down under icatcr and raised out of it. But where is the likeness, be- tween the latter of these and the carrying of a body, by a lateral door into a cavern hewn out of a rock, and that body reviving, and coming forth by the same door .= — which were the real circumstan- ces of the burial and resurrection of the Saviour. I confess this resemblance, on which so much stress is laid by our baptist breth- ren, has alwaj^s appeared to me but a far-fetched fancy
Of one thing I must express my firm conviction, namely, that any allusion at all to the mode of baptism, is in no respect necessary to the right and easy understanding of the passages in question. And if this can be shown, it will follow of course that they form but a flimsy foundation for the superstructure, of sentiment and prac-
* See particularly Mr. Ewing's late Essay.
220 APPENDIX B.
tice, that has been reared upon them. Let it not be said, that oth- er pjBdobaptists have tliought ditFerently, have admitted an allu- sion, and endeavoured to explain it in other ways. I cannot help that. I state my own views, and wish them to be tried, not by comparison with those of others, but by tlie test of tiie Bible. It is a puny and pitiful way of carrying on a controversy, to prowl about amongst different writers on the same side of a question, for the purpose of detecting, and setting forth in contrasted columns, every little discrepancy between them ; \vith the view, covert or avowed, of drawing the reader to the conclusion, that they cannot be right who so differ from one another."
" To be ' baptized into ChrisV is to be baptized into the faith of him as the Messiah ; — into the faith of his divine mission, chara,c- ter, and work. To be * baptized into his deutJt is to be baptized in- to the faith of his death, in the view which the gospel gives of it, as the death of a surety or substitute, making atonement for the sins of those for whom he died. — Now, by being thus ' baptized into his death,' says the apostle, we are ' buried with him.'' The simple meaning of this expression evidently is, that by being bap- tized into the faith of his death, as the death of our surety and sub- stitute, we become /)arfrt A- er^ icith him in it. When the apostle, pursuing his beautiful illustration of the spiritual connection of be- lievers with Christ, and the practical obligations thence arising, says in the eighth verse, ' Now if we be dead with Christ, we be- lieve that we shall also live with him,' he uses a phrase of equiva- lent import with the one before us. To be dead ipith Christ, and to be buried with Christ, are the same thing. The latter of tJie two phrases appears to be used in the fourth verse, chiefly for the sake o^ completing the .Apostle's fifrure. As it was necessary, in order to Christ's rising, that he should be laid in the grave ; so, in the figure, it is necessary that we should be viewed as buried tcith him, in or- der to our rising icith him to newness of life.
" The simple meaning is this : — Since, in our being baptized into Jesus Christ, we were baptized into his death, — into the faith of his death as the death of a surety ; we may be considered as, by faith, partaking with him in his death, — as buried with him; and that, with the special end of our rising with him, in a spiritual re- semblance to his resurrection, and ' walking in newness of life.' Now it is quite obvious, that the argument of the apostle has not
APPENDIX E. 221
the remotest connection with the mode of baptism. There is not the most distant occasion for the supposition of any such allusion, in order to render the passage intelligible; nor does the allusion, when supposed, impart to it any addition of force or propriety. The meaning does not, in the least degree, depend on the manner of performing tho ceremony : it turns entirely on its being baptism into Christ's death. Provided it was this, it makes not the smallest difference to the Apostle's statement, or argument, or conclusion, whether we suppose it to have been by immersion, by pouring, or by sprinkling.
" The same observations apply, with at least equal, if not greater force, to the parallel passage — Col. 2: 12. Believers are there said to be ' risen as well as buried with Christ in baptism.' — They were not baptized into the faith of Clirist's death alone, as the death of their surety ; they were baptized also into the faith of his resurrection, as the resurrection of their surety. And as, by the former, they became, in virtue of their connection with him as a surety, partakers with him in his death ; so, by the latter, they became, in the same way, partakers with him also in his resurrec- tion. Being baptized into the faith of both, they had, by faith, fellowship or union with him in both. H020 is it, accordingly, that they are said to be ' risen with him ?' It is * through the faith of the operation of God zcho raised him from the dead ;' that is, through the faith of his resurrection, effected by the operation, or mighty power, of God. — Their being * risen with him in baptism' does not, therefore, refer to any emblematic representation of a resurrection in the mode of the ordinance ; but to their being one with him in his resurrection, through faith in him as the surety of sinners. And in this view they might, with perfect propriety, be said to be risen with him in baptism, whatever was the mode of its admin- istration, provided only it was baptism into the faith of his resurrec- tion.
" It has, indeed, been alleged, that, in whatever sense believ- ers are said to be buried and risen with Christ, they could not be represented as so buried and risen in baptism, unless there were, in that ordinance, some representation of that burial and resurrec- tion.— I observe in reply : 1. Although the expression in Col. 2: 12, is ' buried with him in baptism' (Ev rco ^unTio^iun ;) yet in Bom. 6: 4, it is different — ' buried with him by baptism into his
223 APPENDIX E.
' death,' (Jia rod (ianrio^iaroq tic tov -^uvutov aihov ;) which does not at all imply any such similitude in the ordinance, but directs the attention to that into which they were baptized ; which, indeed, as I have noticed, is the point on which the whole reasoning turns. — 2. Although it was, strictly speaking, in believing, that these con- Terts became partakers with Christ in his death and resurrection ; yet it is not unusual to speak of things as taking place in baptism, which properly took place bij faith, because baptism was the first public declaration of the faith of the converts, and of their belong- ing to the body of Christ. It is on the same principle, that they are spoken of as in ifl^f /sm ' washing away their sins,' and 'put- ting on Christ.' — 3. In Rom. vi., the language of the whole pas- sage is figurative. The same principle of interpretation, accord- ing to which the expression ' buried icith Christ' is explained as referring to the representation of interment by the immersion of the body under water, should lead us also to understand the phrase which immediately follows, '^ planted together in the likeness of his death' as referring to an emblematic representation of planting — which accordingly some have stretched their fancy to make out ; or the phrase ' crucified with him,' to some similar exhibition of crucifixion.
" Being myself thoroughly convinced, that the significance and appropriateness of the rite arose from the cleansing nature of the element employed, and not from the mode of its application, I am disposed to consider the mode as of comparatively inferior im- portance. It is in the application of water, as the emblem of the purifying influence of the Spirit of truth^ that the ordinance pro- perly consists."
Pnnteton Theological Seminary-Spfer Lbr
1 1012 01021 3413