WkmM WM £5 03 Q_ j^5r .•5T re j? IE * . ■a 03 ^* IE £S Ha a. # W *S> & o *S $ "S g CD C w O bfl C\ •s ^ <£ :> l^ g M <rdinances of God administered but in the house of God. When Jeroboam abandoned, and caused the people to abandon the temple, he made calves, and ordained of the lowest of the people to be priests. And when ordinances are superseded, the place of God's feet will not long seem glorious, and be vis- ited with the frequency of true devotion. We ex- pect to hear of a total desertion. The conduct of Antipedobaptists exemplifies these statements. Thev have forsaken the ordinance, and substituted an ordinance after the vanity of self-wisdom ; and we shall see presently that they have forsaken the House of God, and erected a tabernacle according to their own ideas of spirituality and purity, but wanting the evidence of that of which the Spirit of Christ is the author. 1ST O T E S. I.— BAPTIZE OR BAPTISM. ■ It is well known that this is a Greek word, introduced into the English language through the Latin medium, modified by an English termination. The derivative has been adopted by the authors of the English version, in preference to any sup- posed equivalent of Saxon original. Before the authorized translation was executed, the question whether the initiatory ordinance of God's house should be administered by immer- sion of the subject in water, or by the application of water to the subject, by pouring or sprinkling, had been long agitated: and the translators had too humbling a sense of their own liability to err, and too correct an apprehension of their re- ponsibility, to aim at deciding for Christendom a disputed point, in which sincere followers of the Lamb were deeply in- terested. A translation of the word Baptize, might cast a sinking weight into the scale of either party in the argument. It would have been well, if translators of the Scriptures into other tongues had followed their example, and with the intro- duction of Christianity, had ingrafted into the languages of the nations for whom translations were made, a word or words, used to denote divine ordinances. However, the Antipedo- baptist translators into the languages of the East, have been true to the assumption of their own perfection of knowledge, and, in the spirit of infallibility worthy of the Papacy, have put the British and Foreign Bible Society upon the painful necessity of denying to those for whom such translations have 96 been executed, any assistance from its funds, in consequence of translating Baptize and its derivatives, by terms in the native languages, equivalent to immerse or dip. A ' ' Bible Translation Society" has been organized to support their arro- gant and obstinate exclusiveness, the uselessness and injurious tendency of which, even with respect to the Antipedobaptists, have been ably and lucidly pointed out by one of their own number, in "Letters" addressed to W. B. Gurney, Esq. And, at its annual meeting in 1840, the Antipedobaptist Association of Nova Scotia passed the following resolution, equally extra- ordinary in itself and its tenns, designed, as it evidently was, to come before and to persuade men, many of whom, in under- standing and conscience, fully satisfied of the propriety of Baptism by effusion or sprinkling, have never entertained the idea of pressing or suggesting the translation of the word bap- tize in an exacter accordance with their own views and prac- tice: — "Whereas it appears that for some years past, the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society have re- fused to aid in the circulation of those versions of the Scriptures in foreign languages, which have been made by Baptist Mis- sionaries, solely because our brethren have faithfully translated the word baptize by words which signify to immerse. Res. — That this Association do respectfully memorialize the Parent Society, through its agent, the Rev. J. Thompson, requesting that such restriction be removed, &c. " There never was a more feeble objection raised against the use of the word baptize than its Greek origin. The reason that exists for its exclusion would invalidate the standing of a thousand words that are familiarly used by the English nation, and the propriety of which is never challenged, — words that have been introduced with as little variation as the one in question. Nor can Antipedobaptists themselves find another word to express baptism, without having recourse to foreign aid. I quote with pleasure the shrewd remarks of the late Rev. D. Ross, a Presbyterian Minister of Nova Scotia, upon this subject. Having quoted the words of the writer to whom he is replying; — "Our translators have not translated it into the English — it is a Greek word; it means immersion ;" — he 97 subjoins; — "I would remark here, that the terms baptism, baptize, Christian, were admitted into the language of England, when the Christian religion was introduced into the nation, and notwithstanding all the changes which the language has undergone, have kept their station; so that it would be very hard, if not impossible, to produce other three terms in the present English language, of so old a standing. Those terms may, therefore, be reckoned English terms, though, like many others, derived from the Greek. If you were to translate the New Testament, and render baptism Immersion, it might be objected, ' Immersion is a Latin term, and, compared with the term baptism, but lately adopted into the English language;' and were you to translate the word baptize, dip, it might be said, ' This is but the Greek word dypto, in an English dress.'" The objection to the retention of the word, must, I appre- hend, be traced to another source than its parentage. It is for the sake of a translation which would forestall discussion, and endorse the correctness of Antipedobaptist interpretation and application, that the word baptize, in the English version or other versions, would be repudiated. Upon the meaning of the word the whole controversy, respecting the mode of bap- tism, is made to turn by Antipedobaptists generally, and by Dr. Carson in particular. Every allusion must be explained in accommodation to this. By this must every difficulty be solved, or if it admit not of a solution, except by a deviation from Dr. C.'s mode of interpretation, this is a fixed point at which he rests. Let the difficulty remain undiscussed, or the Spirit of God speak nonsense, rather than that the word should signify anything but immersion — total immersion. ' ' He (Mr. Ewing) may call on me to find a place sufficient to im- merse a couch. But I will go on no such errand. If I have proved the meaning of the word, I will believe the Spirit of God, who tells me that the Pharisees baptized (immersed) their beds." p. 111. "It is strange to find the Pharisees, the superstitious Pharisees, immersing their couches for purifica- tion, or themselves, after market ? For myself, it is perfectly sufficient that the Holy Spirit testifies that the Pharisees bap- tized themselves before eating after market; and that they 98 baptized their couches." p. 116. "The Jailer and his house- hold were baptized, therefore they were immersed." p. 274. " I care not where the water is to be found, if they were bap- tized they were immersed. " p. 272. Upon the faith of the premise that the meaning of the word precludes all inquiry upon different principles, he presents the following awful appeal in his preface: — "It behoves those who change the mode and subjects of baptism, to consider this awful example, (of the prophet who went from Judah to Bethel. ) If Christ has commanded his disciples to be baptized, on their belief of the truth, who can change it into the baptism of infants ? If he has commanded them to be immersed, who can change it into pouring or sprinkling?" And lest he should be compelled to admit a secondary and modified acceptation of the term, by the necessary bearing of the passage in which it is found, he forewarns us that he is prepared to sacrifice the meaning of the passage upon the altar of his critical accuracy, in the fol- lowing sweeping sentence: — "Now, although I could make no sense of the passage at all, I would resolutely refuse to admit any meaning but one that the word confessedly has in some other place." p. 26. From the preceding quotations it is apparent that with Dr. C. the meaning of the word baptize is the all-important point in the controversy. Mr. Crawley, an Antipedobaptist minister of Nova ! Scotia, who, before Mr. Tupper's work appeared, was considered by the Churches here to have set the question at rest in a "Treatise" put forth against another minister of that denomination, who had apostatized from the faith, and published his reasons, proceeds upon the same principle, that the meaning of the word must determine the mode in which the ordinance denoted by it ought to be administered, the most cogent objections derived from other sources notwithstanding. "We are now to turn our attention to the meaning of the ivord baptizo: if this can be ascertained, and it be found to possess a single specific meaning, every one of course perceives that this must set the question forever at rest." p. 126. According to the spirit of benevolence usually displayed by Mr. Crawley, he not only discloses his identity of views with Carson, but his disposition 99 to save others the trouble of thinking for themselves, and ex- pressing their own impressions: — '■'■Every one of course per- ■■' '"■< *." As the subject of this note is simply to exhibit the single spot upon which the Antipedobaptist intrenches himself, and a general view of the strength of which has been disclosed in the text, I shall only here remark, that if it be found suffi- cient to support him, it becomes absolutely necessary that nine hundred and ninety -nine out of a thousand be precluded from forming a judgment in the case, and leave the remain- ing individual to judge for them, suspending their faith upon his integrity and accuracy. II.— JEWISH ANTICIPATION. That the Jews, when John appeared, were familiar with the subject of Baptism, is evident from the interview between him ancbthe priests and Levites, sent to ask him who he was. The rite which he came to administer does not strike them as a novelty, nor have they any question to put respecting its nature and design. All their anxiety was to know whether he was the Christ, or Ellas, or that Prophet who should come into the world. And when he had answered undeviatingly in the negative, the final question is not, — "What means this new rite, — this baptism ? but, " Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that Prophet ?" This question not only discovers an acquaintance with the rite, but an expectation that when Christ, or Elias, or that Prophet should appear, he would come baptizing. Whence could such an expectation have its origin ? Is there any prediction to that effect in the Old Testament disclosures of the future appear- ance and work of those messengers of the Father ? What are the predictions that might lead to the belief, that when appearing, they would baptize ? Or was the question put, de- rived from a merely conjectural anticipation. The investiga- tion of these matters would conduce more to the benefit of our opponents than the study of all that Elian, or Dio, or Hypo- crites, or even the Seventy ever wrote. Even the Rev. Alex- ander Carson of Tobermore, and the learned champion of 100 Antipedobaptist principles, might have profited by it. We submit, for the consideration of Antipedobaptists, the follow- ing passages, as well adapted to lead the readers of the Old Testament to expect that the Messiah would, upon his mani- festation, baptize. That the expectation existed cannot be doubted, and that the citations have reference to the times of the appearance of the great Deliverer, can as little be doubted. Under the leadership of Moses, the typical mediator of Israel, the people were all baptized on their separation from the land of Egypt. When he presided over their entrance into cove- nant with God at Horeb, after he had ' ' read in the audience of the people, the book of the Covenant," and received their ex- plicit assent to its terms, — "all that the Lord hath said will we do and be obedient," — Moses took the blood of the sacri- fice and sprinkled it upon the people and said, ' ' Behold the blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words," (Ex. xxiv. 7, 8.) Also, when the Levites are taken for the first-born, to represent the people of Israel before the Lord, and are set apart to their solemn ser- vice, Moses is instructed to "sprinkle water of purifying upon them, (Num. viii. 7. ) Now as God had promised by Moses to raise up a Prophet from among their brethren, who, like him, should stand as a Mediator between God and them, (Deut. xviii. 18,) and as God had promised that he would make a New Covenant with them in the days of that Prophet, it would have been passing strange if they had not anticipated an induction into that Covenant by some such ceremonial as that by which their fathers had been brought into a federal relation to God, and separated, in the persons of the Levites, to his service. This anticipation would take a more definite form when they read the animating promise respecting the blessings of Messi- anic times: — "I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean," &c, (Ezek. xxxvi. 25.) Hitherto the Israelite had only known Abraham as the father of one nation, but he well knew that the promise had been, that he should be made of God the father of many na- tions; (Gen. xvii, 5), and he might confidently expect that as 101 the one nation had been separated to the special privileges of God's people, so should the many nations be, who would call Abraham, Father, which would have its realization in the ful- filment of the promise concerning the Hope of Israel, "So shall he sprinkle many nations," (Isa. Hi. 15). But it will be said that all this assumes that baptism is ad- ministered by sprinkling. Very true. And when the Anti- pedobaptist furnishes any passage from the Old Testament, that would originate an expectation, that when Messiah had come, he would cluck the people, I will accept it, and retrace my steps. Pardon me, reader, if I speak disrespectfully of the act of dragging a heathen ceremonial into the temple of God, and making Him responsible for its introduction. It is quite consistent to make the appeal to heathen writers in support of a heathen rite. Let the Scriptures speak to Christians, and the advocates of the shameless ceremony of immersion shew us when God has ever commanded it, or his people practised it, or where they were taught to expect that Elias, or that Prophet, would either introduce or sustain it. If I were to say less or demand less, I should only be minis- tering to self-sufficiency and spiritual pride. The existence of the expectation of Messiah baptizing, the Antipedobaptist cannot deny. The demand of any statement in the Old Test- ament, that is adapted to excite or foster it, he cannot, in con- formity with his own notions of baptism, meet and satisfy. DISSERTATION ON THE NATURE AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE OEDINANCE OF BAPTISM. PART II. BY WM. SOMMERVILLE, A.M. -;: — PAISLEY— PUBLISHED BY ALEX. GARDNER. 1866. PREFATORY. It is now nearly twenty years since the author published the first part of this work, — on the Scriptural mode of baptism, — intending, at an early day, to publish his views of the scriptural evidence of Infant Baptism. The perusal of Wil- son's reply to Carson, in which he was entirely anticipated in his contemplated method of stating the argument, led him to abandon, for a time, the idea of writing anything more on Baptism. Sub- sequent reflection on the learned and elaborate character of Wilson's work ; the pertinacious repeti- tion of the hundredth-time refuted arguments of Antipedobaptists, and the hundredth-time's exposed mis-statements of Pedobaptist views, and the general oversight of the extent to which the doctrine of baptism is incorporated with correct principles of biblical interpretation, and with leading doctrines of Christianity, led to the conclusion, that a less learned, and really less valuable defence of our principles, would not, even yet, be useless to the generality of readers. Had the " Remains " of the late Dr. McGregor of Pictou, Nova Scotia, been published before the H 106 writer's argument on the Mode of Baptism, — there is so exact an identity in the form of the discussion, — he would hardly have been able to clear himself of the charge of plagiarism; and it is possible he may have here introduced, not only the same argu- ments, but the same method of putting them, which has been adopted by previous authors, dead or liv- ing. When arguments are drawn from the same source, when a great many works on the same sub- ject have been read, some with so much interest and delight as to leave a very lively impression on the mind, it is almost a necessity that there should arise a great similarity in the mode of conducting the discussion of baptism, or any other given topic. Had the author of this Dissertation been conscious of simply reproducing the ideas of others, who were before him, it would have been acknowledged. As it is, he claims to have done what he could in fav- our of a cause intimately bound up with a consist- ent interpretation of the divine Word, and the privileges and prospects of the church of Christ in the world. The author is not aware of having used terms more severe than what justice to the cause de- manded. Antipedobaptists are the very last men who should be heard complaining of hard words ; and it is not worth while for others to plead for Baal ; if he be a God he can plead for himself, when one pulls down his altar. The deceased Dr. 107 Carson is nothing in the discussion. He is here treated as he lives in thousands who are prepared to indorse his gravest misrepresentations, his worst sophistries, and his fiercest denunciations, yet are strangers to his talents, his learning, and his moral worth. The edition of Carson quoted in this work is of New York, 1832. INTRODUCTION. AVhen the single object a man sets before him is the investigation or exposition of truth, it is of no importance to himself or others, to discover into how many devious paths " the unlearned and the unstable" may have wandered, or what may be the precise nature or extent of the errors in which they are involved. It is not obligatory upon him to acquire a knowledge of all the substitutes for truth which interest, corruption, or self -righteous- ness, has introduced, or of any one of them. The case is very different if truth is contemplated, as it stands opposed to its unnumbered contraries, and if it is professedly illustrated by its contrast with the evil nature and tendency of one or more of them. He who undertakes not only to vindicate and disseminate the truth which he has learned, and learned to prize, but to demonstrate the character of error, or of systems founded in error, is no less bound to know and to furnish a faithful exposition of the error he would refute, than to acquire and exhibit definite ideas of the truth itself. There can he no end of an argument so long as one, who pro- fesses to point out the errors of another, puts forth 109 his strength in the refutation of what is as strenu- ously denied by his opponent as by himself, or in the confirmation of what is fully admitted, detailing reasons that have no bearing upon questions at issue between the contending parties. These remarks are suggested by an examination of the argument introduced and urged by Anti- pedobaptists, in opposition to the principle of infant baptism. I say the 'princi'ple and not the practice of infant baptism, for two reasons : — 1. When a man's practice is inconsistent with the principle upon which he professes to act, his practice can never lead an argument against the principle ; it does not infer the justice of a sentence of condem- nation against his creed, but against his character ; — 2. I have no more disposition to justify the practice of Pedobaptists, than of Antipedobaptists, in opposition to the principle of infant baptism. I have, for instance, no more sympathy with the in- discriminate administration of baptism to infants, than with their universal exclusion from the fellow- ship of the Church. The indiscriminate admission of infants to baptism seems as much at variance with scripture, and is certainly as much opposed to the recognized symbols of, at least, the Presbyte- rian Churches, as exclusive adult baptism. One leading reason of the prevalence of Antipedobap- tist principles, may, very probably, be traced to the very extensive practical disregard of their own 110 principles by Pedobaptists, who say, "The infants of such as are members of the visible church, are to be baptized,"* who defend this position, and yet bap- tize the infants not only of members of the church, but of those who are without a name to live; often of those who are "abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate." Of this circum- stance, controversialists on the opposite side, — per- haps more frequently in the pulpit, or in colloquial conversation, — take advantage, and press the shame- ful and unblessed inconsistency into an argument, against the principle which it contradicts. It is very doubtful whether unscriptural views, and the practice founded on them, have been ever sucess- f ully advocated, in the conflict with truth combined with righteousness; and if we would withstand in the evil day, and stand, it is no less necessary to have " the feet shod with .the preparation of the gospel of peace," than to have " the loins girt about with truth." The Head of the Church, to punish the unfaithfulness and profanity of Israel in the days of Eli, " forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which he had placed among men : and delivered his strength into captivity, and bis glory into the enemy's hand." f The Lord was not less displeased with the Philistines for placing the ark in Dagon's temple, because the Israelites bad used it for superstitious purposes, and had put * Shorter Catm. Qu. 95. t Ps. lxxviii. 60, 6 L Ill it in God's place ; and Antipedobaptists may yet be convinced that they provoke the anger of a jeal- ous God, while they improve the advantage, derived from unfaithfulness in the administration of a divine ordinance, for the purpose of placing it among the rites of an antichristian service. It may be, and I hope to be able to shew, in the sequel, through the word of the Spirit, that Antipedobaptist success is not, in any case, to be ascribed to their righteous- ness, but to our sin. But it is not only in confounding the position, maintained by Pedobaptists, with practices incon- sistent at once with their own symbols and the word of God, that their opponents have lost sight of the question at issue. The question does not stand, as their mode of dealing with it would lead the hearer or reader to suppose, between adult and infant baptism. Pedobaptists are not opposed to adult baptism. In principle, they hold the doctrine of adult baptism. In practice, they exemplify it. Notwithstanding the knowledge of this fact, — knowledge derived from the reiterated statements, and from the known practice of Pedobaptists, their opponents go on, as coolly and persistently, to reason in favour of adult baptism, as if it were impugned ; and, if they do not formally state the conclusions, leave inquirers to draw them, that Pedobaptists do not believe in adult baptism, and that because adults are to be baptized, infants are not. It is 112 difficult to believe that there are not many of them aware of the irrelevancy and disingenuousness of the argument, and the delusiveness of the inf erence, yet the known character of many constrains us to resolve the sophistry into that obliquity of intellec- tual vision, arising from education, passion, or pre- judice, which frequently characterizes men distin- guished, when free from such influences, by the clearest and most correct perceptions. /. — Question Stated. Although the question has been often and lucidly stated, it may not be useless to draw the attention of readers to it once more. So long as Antipedo- baptists pursue the same line of argument, it is necessary to keep up, before the minds of those who are exposed to their influence, the means of detecting their sophistry ; and of those, who have been taken in their snare, the means by which they may be extricated from their unhappy situation. How far, and on what points, the difference of opinion exists, shall appear more clearly by ascer- taining how far, and on what points there is an agreement. The whole matter in dispute will be manifest in the answers to three questions, affecting three distinct classes, presenting claims to admission to the privileges of the church. 113 (1.) — Are Jews, professing faith in the Lord Jesus, to be baptized ? Antipedobaptists answer, Yes. Pedobaptists answer, Yes. The Scriptures answer, Yes, Actsii. 37-41. (2.) Are Gentiles, professing faith in the Lord Jesus, to be baptized ? Antipedobaptists answer, Yes. . Pedobaptists answer, Yes. The Scriptures answer, Yes. Actsviii. 13, x. 47, 48, xvi. 14, 15. In answering these two questions, Antipedobap- tists and Pedobaptists are perfectly agreed. In the practical elucidation of the answers, they are per- fectly agreed. In justification of their faith and practice, they appeal to the same passages of holy writ with the same freedom, confidence, and satis- faction. The verses which have been cited above, prove the correctness of the practice of Antipedo- baptists, so far as it agrees with the practice of Pedobaptists, and no farther. The introduction, therefore, of these and other such statements, by the enemies of infant baptism, creates in us no un- easiness whatever. We say to them, "Between us and you there is no controversy upon the point which those passages determine. We baptize con- verted Jews. We baptize converted Gentiles. We hold that, upon their profession of faith in the 114 Lord Jesus Christ, they are to be admitted to the fellowship of the church by baptism, and not with- out, and not otherwise. We give to them the right hand of fellowship, being baptized, and not with- out, and not before." But it ought not to be for- gotten that all the proofs derived from Scripture precedents, in favour of adult baptism, are exhausted in support of the harmonious answers of the friends and enemies of infant baptism, to the two ques- tions which have been already put. The whole controversy turns upon the claims advanced in fav- our of a third class, entirely distinct from either adult Jews or Gentiles. This consideration intro- duces us to the third question. (3.) Are children, whose father or mother was a member of the chinch when they were infants, upon making a profession, to be baptized, — to be treated as converted Jews or Gentiles, who had no previous connection with the church? Antipedobaptists answer, Yes. Pedobaptists answer, No. The Scriptures answer, — '? Pedobaptism assumes that such have been bap- tized in their infancy. Antipedobaptism assumes that in infancy they were not proper subjects of the ordinance of baptism, and therefore, had never been baptized. 115 II. JVo decisive example. What says the scripture in answer to the third question? How is the blank to be filled up? Of course the Antipedobaptist would insert, yes. To what book, chapter, verse, does he refer in justifi- cation of his act? To that which records the gracious and glorious result of Peter's pentecostal address? Those baptized were not born of parents, who had accepted Jesus as the Son of God, hut Jews. To the narrative of the reception of Cornelius into the Church? — of Lydia? — of the Eunuch of Ethiopia? These were not the children of believers under this dispensation, but Gentiles, who had been proselytes to the service of the God of Abraham, according to the rites and spirit of the legal economy. We ask, we have a right to ask, in reasoning with an Antipedobaptist, an example, an explicit example (we ask but one) of the baptism of an adult, whose parents were members of the church, under the New Testament, when he or she was in a state of nonage, — the baptism administered by an Apostle, a Prophet, an Evangelist, an Elder or Bishop, whose act is recorded by the pen of inspiration. Our opponents are constantly ringing changes, in the ears of their flocks, in the ears of Pedobaptists, upon the absence of an explicit example in Scripture of the baptism of an infant. They reiterate the challenge, — "Produce an example of infant bap- 116 tism." To what purpose the demand? Are they not aware that their mode of reasoning bears as forcibly against their own cause, as against the cause of Pedobaptists ? They are able to produce ex- amples of adult baptism. True. And if Pedo- baptists were opposed to adult baptism, if they asserted the propriety of infants, in opposition to adult baptism, their cause could not be sustained. But this is not the case. We are the advocates of adult baptism to the full extent of every example in its support, which our opponents are able to pro- duce from the New Testament. Do they ask, de- mand, insist upon, an explicit example of the baptism of an infant ? Let them produce an ex- ample in support of their own practice, in that one case, the only case, in which their practice differs from that which is in accordance with our principles; — let them produce an example of the baptism of an adult, whose father or mother was a member of the church under the present economy, when he was an infant, and I will pledge myself, in the name of every Pedobaptist in existence, that we will at once abandon our principles and our practice; and deliver over our little ones to the uncovenanted mercies of God. Let them show an example of their distinctive practice. They cannot. There is not one. Pedobaptists do not profess to be able to furnish a definitive example of the baptism, in infancy, of the child of a church member; and their 117 opponents cannot furnish an example of the bap- tism, in adult years, of the child of a church mem- ber. "We ask for precept or example in support of their distinctive faith and distinctive practice ; and with unblushing assurance they parade before us the proofs of our common faith and common practice. Nothing could be more disingenuous, yet this is the rule ; and confidence and pertinacity supply the want of sound ratiocination with more than the illiterate.* From the preceding statements, determining the main question between Pedobaptists and their op- ponents, it must be manifest that, as far as example in justification of the distinctive practice of either party is concerned, they occupy equal ground. Neither enjoys an advantage over the other. In thorough parallelism with this, the command, " Repent and be baptized, every one of you,"f is addressed to the Jews ; — "Arise and be baptized," % to a Hebrew of the Hebrews ; — " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest" be baptized, § is the declaration of Philip to the proselyte of Ethiopia; — and the challenge of Peter, " Can any man for- bid water that these should not be baptized," || has reference to converts to the doctrine of Christ, among the Gentiles. But, we find no command to be baptized, no declaration respecting baptism, hav- ing reference to persons bom of church members. * Note A. + Acts ii. 38. t Acts xxii. 16. § Acts viii. 37. || Acts x. 47. 118 III. Appeal to the Old Testament. The absence, therefore, of a precept, or of an example, sufficiently precise to determine whether infants should, or should not be baptized, suggests the probability that the instruction imparted to a former age may have anticipated and superseded the necessity of more particular direction in this, and throws us back upon the Constitution of the Church for a resolution of the important question. When men are predisposed to think that the New Testament ought to supply the necessary informa- tion, they often hastily conclude that it does, for- getting that, in all cases, when a law has been definitely settled, if no particular allusion is sub- sequently made to its infraction, conformity to it is assumed; if no repeal or modification has proceeded from the source of legislation, it must be understood to continue in full force.* When treating of the mode in which baptism ought to be administered, I proved, by evidence which cannot be refused, without contradicting the precise language of inspiration, that information respecting the ordinance must be sought in the old Testament, where it treats of the institutes of the legal economy. This justifies an appeal to the laws of the former dispensation when treating of infant baptism. This appeal sounds strange to some, * Note B. 119 when they arc told that the word baptism is not once named in the Old Testament. As the word baptize is derived from Greek, is in fact a Greek word, imported into our vocabulary, and the Old Testament is written in Hebrew, we have no more right to expect to meet the word baptize there, than to find the word man, house, or horse, in the works of Xenophon, who wrote in Greek, or of Cicero, who wrote in Latin. But it would be supremely ridiculous to assert that those authors never spake of the objects to which we give the names man, house, and horse ; but not more ridiculous than to assert that baptism is not spoken of in the Old Testament, because the ivord is not found in the original or in our translation. The appeal is not a choice but a necessity, unless the whole subject of baptism be left unexplained ; as it is impossible to discover an unequivocal rule to determine mode or subjects, in connection with the exposition of that ecclesiastical revolution, which the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost inaugurated,* 'Note C. A DISSERTATION, &c. CHAP. I. New Testament Ajllusions to Baptism. Section I. Value of these Allusions, Before we enter upon an examination of the constitution of the church, in its bearing upon the propriety of admitting infants, by baptism, into the fellowship of the saints, it may be proper to advert to certain allusions to the administration of the ordinance which occur in the New Testament. From our introductory view of the subject, nothing more than allusions is to be expected. Upon Pedo- baptist principles, which assume infant baptism to be founded on the constitution of the church, — a constitution established anterior to the New Testa- ment dispensation, — the indirect and incidental method of introducing the doctrine of baptism, is precisely what is anticipated. We do not expect to find an exposition of the nature, form, and de- sign of sacrifices, in the prophecies of Jeremiah, nor of the number, time, and ceremonies of Jewish festivals, in the writings of Amos or Zechariah, I 122 although we are not surprised to find references to them, which suppose the reader's previous know- ledge of those institutions. On the other hand, the incidental introduction of the ordinance of baptism, whilst no one passage supplies distinct information of its origin, form, application, would seem to be entirely at variance with the supposition that it is connected with a new society, by which a corporation, existing from ancient times, is super- seded. If these allusions to baptism, in the New Testa- ment, bear an unfavourable aspect to the reception of children with their parents, it becomes necessary to exercise double vigilance at every step leading to a conclusion at variance with Antipedobaptist prin- ciples ; if they necessarily imply exclusive adult baptism, it is useless to pursue the subject further, as any conclusion, however plausibly drawn, which contradicts a necessary consequence of admitted premises cannot be entertained. But if they may very well consist with infant baptism; if they can hardly, or not at all, be explained upon any other supposition than that infants were baptized by the Apostles ; and should it appear that the constitution of the church requires the re- ception of children of church members into fellow- ship ; there remains no drawback to the confidence with which they are to be admitted. Arguments from allusions to the ordinance of baptism, and 123 from the constitution of the churchy mutually check each other. An error, in reasoning from the con- stitution of the church, is detected in analysing the allusions. Should we take too much liberty with the allusions, the constitution of the church detects the inconsiderate or presumptuous tamper- ing with the word of God. We shall treat, more particularly, of those re- ferences which are often considered by Antipedo- baptists themselves more favourable, decisively favourable, to their views. Section II. The Commission, Matthew xxviii. 18-20 : — " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefor e, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you? Such is the commission given by the Lord to the apostles, when about to ascend to the Father ; and it claims our attention in the outset, because it might be expected to involve the principles by which their official practice ought to be regulated. Unusual importance has been attached to it by the most distinguished and the boldest of Anti- pedobaptist writers. " The strongest argument of 124 all in favour of their opinion, they boast," says Calvin,* "is contained in the original institution of baptism, which they quote from the last chapter of Matthew." It has been represented as bearing so decidedly in favour of exclusive adult baptism, as to constitute a rule for the interpretation of every other scriptural statement having reference to the administration of the ordinance, and, in particular, of statements which might, if not shut up by the commission, be pressed into the service of infant 1 mptism. The late Dr. A. Carson expresses himself thus: — " I am willing to hang the whole controversy on this passage. If I had not another passage in the word of God, I will engage to refute my opponents from this commission alone, I will risk the credit of my understanding, on my success in showing that, according to the commission, believers only are to be baptized"^ It is strange that, after engaging to refute his opponents from this passage, he admits that it is not inconsistent with the possibility of another commission to baptize infants. It appears to me that what would furnish a refutation of the doctrine of infant baptism, must also disprove the divine original of any alleged commission to baptize infants ; and that the doctor would have expressed himself more consistently by taking the * Inst. P>. 4, Chap. 1G, 8ec. 27. + Carson, p. 275. 125 position, that infant baptism cannot be established from the apostolic commission. In that case we should have acquiesced in his judgment. Probably this is all he intended. TVe would never think of placing the commission in opposition to a definitive exclusion of infants from the church ; but in the absence of such sentence of exclusion, we say, with all confidence, that the terms in which it is ex- pressed are not at all unfavourable to the claims put in on behalf of children. Let us look at them. Much of the perplexity which the English reader feels, in consulting the commission, arises from the introduction of the word teach, in the nineteenth verse, which appears to him to convey the idea that actual and apprehended instruction must precede baptism in all cases. Accordingly, this is often and very vehemently pressed, and the whole statement is applied as if the command ran thus, — "Teach all nations, and baptize them.*' "It is well known that the original word translated teach, in the first instance in which it occurs in the passage, signifies to disciple, or to make scholars,"* And it may serve to facilitate the application of this, as well as many other state- ments in the New Testament, to keep in mind that, in every case in which the word cilsciple occurs, it means neither more nor less than scholar: To Christ belongs the office of Master or Teacher, * Carson, p. 274. 126 and to Him, therefore, is given the title. His followers are called disciples or scholars. u The disciple (scholar) is not above his master (teacher)."* The laiv, the instrument of the terrors of the Lord, by which men are persuaded, through which they become dead to itself, and which brings us to Christ, is our schoolmaster. f The original word,f however, does not at all convey the same idea with the English word by which it is rendered, and which more properly expresses the office of Christ to whom we are brought. It denotes the servant, who is charged with the business of conducting the children to school and placing them under the teacher's care.§ Paul instructs parents to bring up their children " in the nurture (discipline) and admonition (in- struction) of the Lord." To the " order and restraints and chastisements," which the Lord prescribes, the children must be trained to submit, and the education he prescribes parents must impart. Fathers are to Christ, in their own houses, what elders, who rule and teach, are in the churches, which compose the household of faith. They are Christ's ushers. Here, then, we have all the parts of a complete picture. The church of Christ is a school. Christ is the Master. Church members are scholars. * Matt. x. 24. t Gal. iii. 24. t ircc^aywyocT, pedajios> 129 rather, all the nations. What follows is explanatory of the command, — "Baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things what- soever I have commanded you." They are not known among the disciples before baptism. By it they are introduced into the fellowship of the church, and of all its privileges, as they are capable of appreciating and enjoying them. The scriptures never recognize the unbaptized as scholars. Among Antipedobaptists none are baptized, I mean im- mersed (they never baptize), who are not previously accepted as scholars. The commission gives the first place to baptism. The teaching follows. Nobody thinks it an in justice or an absurdity to put children to school without their own consent, and before they are able to appreciate the advan- tages of an education. Their names may stand upon the teacher's roll before they have begun to learn. The church is a school. The baptism precedes the teaching. So says the commission. It admits infants with the utmost facility. Section III. The Promise to Parents and Children. Acts ii. 38, 39 : — ■" Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 130 of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, as many as the Lord our God shall call. As the promise here introduced is obviously intended to stimulate the hearers to " repent and be baptized," it cannot admit of a doubt, that all who are comprehended in the promise are proper subjects of baptism. Indeed, the labour expended to exclude infants from the promise proceeds upon the tacit admission of this, even when it is not explicitly acknowledged. The exposition of Dr. Carson represents the limiting clause, — " as many as the Lord our God shall call," — to have equal reference to the persons addressed, their children, and " all that are afar off." To this exegesis there are serious objections. Unless there were some foregone conclusion to be sustained, the reader would, without hesitation, refer the limiting clause to the general term "all" which occurs only in the last branch of the promise. Besides, it is assumed, without a particle of proof, that the call spoken of in the text, is the effectual call, or the word, accompanied by the operation of the Spirit leading to the acceptance of it, and to the apprehension of the Lord Jesus by faith. That in our translation the term is sometimes used to denote the general or ministerial call, and some- times the effectual call, is certain: and it is equally certain that, in the original language of the New 131 Testament, the simple verb * is generally, though not always, employed to express the effectual call, and that a compound verb f — the verb used in the present case — is seldom if ever so used, but is used to express the general call, which may or may not be accepted. The persons addressed are, therefore, to be viewed as already without exception in the enjoy- ment of the Lord's call. Indeed, it would have afforded Peter's auditors very little encouragement or consolation, to be informed that the promise was to as many of them as the Lord might call, leaving them in utter uncertainty of his meaning, or of the Lord's gracious purpose to save. We ought not to confound a promise, and the application of that promise, followed by the appro- priation of faith, as the doctor's exposition assuredly does. The preceding remarks are fully confirmed by the address of Peter on another occasion. "Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, say- ing unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities."} As the children of the covenant, t Acts iii. 2o, 2G. 132 if there be any meaning in language, to them the promise of that covenant is given. To them God is said to have raised up his Son Jesus, and sent Him to bless them. And yet these are persons who are addressed in terms very similar to those upon which Ave are commenting : — ; " Repent and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out ;" and, in point of fact, not all, but only " many of them which heard the word believed." Two things are manifest, that the call is ministerial, and that the promise is represented as theirs, with the same fulness as to them who heard Peter on the day of Pentecost. If, then, the limiting clause, u as many as the Lord our God shall Ccill," is not applicable to the persons to whom Peter speaks, neither can it, with any show of reason, be applied to the children ; they are just the children of the hearers upon that occasion. We are now prepared to specify particularly, the several classes covered by the promise. They are three: — 1st, The persons addressed, "you;" 2d, Their children ; 3d, As many of them who are " afar off " as the Lord shall call. To begin with the third class. Those who are " afar off " are not to be confounded with the " remnant spoken of by Joel."* They are an entirely different class of persons. The incidental * Joel ii. 32. 133 structural coincidence of the supplementary phrases, used by the apostle and the prophet respectively, u all that are afar off, — as many as the Lord, our God shall call " — " the remnant whom the Lord shall call" — seems to have led many inconsiderately to view them as identical, and to confound the promise referred to in the text, with that recorded by Joel, and to overlook the ancient promise made to Abraham, and confirmed of God in Christ. " Remnant," when mentioned in connection with the objects of God's special care, is applied either to the dispersed of Israel, to be gathered from the lands in which they had been scattered,* or to the residue, who escape when the desolating judgments of God fall upon the body of the people,! and, thence, to the elect of God, who are safe when His wrath is poured out upon the impenitent workers of iniquity. % The Apostle Paul removes all difficulty in the exclusive application of the phrase, — " all that are afar off," — to the Gentiles, who have no present interest in God's covenant of promise. § Those " afar off," to whom Christ preached peace, or whom He called, out of whom the Ephesians and other converts from among the Gentiles, " were made nigh by His blood," were the uncircumcised, " aliens from the common- wealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants * Isaiah xi. 11. + Jeremiah, xlii. 2. % Romans xi. 5. § Eph. ii. 11-17. 134 of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." The " remnant " belonging to Zion, and " all afar off " are heathen to whom the word of God has not come. But who are the children ? The Antipedo- baptist answers, "Those children who, having come to years, hear, believe, and confess Christ." Let us suppose the answer scriptural and correct. It follows that, instead of belonging to the second class, they take then* places in the first, among those who are addressed. An apostle saith to them, " The promise is to your They are no more known as children than are their fathers, than is a Turk, a Hindu, a Hottentot, converted to the faith ; nor has their acceptance any respect to the character and position of their parents. u There is not the smallest difference between the ground of receiving the child of a heathen, and the child of the most devoted saint."* In a state of nonage, according to the principles of Antipedo- baptists, children are classed with them that are " afar off," whom the Lord may call. Our opponents have no place for children in the promise, no place, therefore, for them in the church. If the words, " and to your children," were blotted out, the promise would be as full, as valuable to them, as when it stands in all its divine integrity. The promise to "all that are * Carson, p. 301. 135 afar off " covers their infants ; the promise to the hearer covers their adult children ; and what broader promise could they desire. I defy the most discriminating and ingenious Antipedo- baptist to demonstrate, on his own principles, the value of these words to any professor of religion. But they would not dare to erase them, neither would the Spirit have them erased. Children, in a dependent and subordinate state, in a father's house, alone, are contemplated in the promise, and such are to be baptized. The same promise made to the parent, hearing and believing, extends to his children, as children. Upon this promise is based his assurance of hope for himself and his infant offspring ; upon this promise, his confidence of the blessing from the Lord, in train- ing his little ones in subordination to the covenant. •But it must ever be remembered that " to your children " is as direct an object of faith as " to you." The union of parents and children in the same promise and the same privilege, sheds a full light on certain impressive declarations of the Old Testa- ment, pointing to this dispensation. " They shall not labour in vain, nor bring forth for trouble ; for they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them."* There is little difficulty in determining who are * Isaiah lxv. 23. 136 " the blessed of the Lord." The language is used to designate the covenant people of God, and, eminently, Abraham whom God called alone, and blessed and increased,* and Isaac, and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. The people that should arise, after God had created a new tiling in the earth, should still be the seed of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring, not merely after them, according to a necessary law, but ivith them. In this is recognized the permanent interest of the children in the covenant privileges and blessings of their fathers. " With them" The offspring of the seed of the blessed of the Lord, under this dispensation, are themselves the seed of the blessed of the Lord, — are Christ's.f To the same effect is the promise to the people, when the captivity of Jacob's tents shall be re- stored, and when David, their king, shall be raised up to the recalled remnant. "Their children also shall be as aforetime, and their con^reo'ation shall be established before me."J It would be ridiculous to refer this to children, few or many, delicate or robust, male and female. The only rational and consistent application of which the promise admits, is to the possession, upon the part of children, of their former privileges in union to the church. If any thing were wanting to confirm this exposition, * Isaiah li. 2. + Galatians iii. 29. ± Jeremiah xxx. 20. 137 it is found in the latter part of the promise, which indicates the connection between the position of the children and the perpetuity of the church : — "then congregation shall be established before me."" As the promise is to us and to our children for ever, the blessing, — subject to whatever limita- tions the sovereign Lord is pleased to fix, — flows in the line of descendants ; and when others from abroad are added to the society of the saints, the law operates as " aforetime," and the church is established. The children, and congregation established in them, are before the Lord. The same blessed hope, founded on the promise, is held out to the heads of families, when indi- viduals, sustaining that relation, are particularly brought before us. The Philippian jailer asks, " What shall I do to be saved ?" and he obtains an answer beyond his hope or his apprehension : " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"* The Jew, who had the living oracles, and to whom pertained the covenants, is simply reminded of a familiar pro- mise; but to the Gentile, ignorant of that covenant, or limiting its provisions to the stock of Israel, the fulness of the blessing is exhibited in the important and gratifying addition to the answer of his ques- tion. His question, " What shall I do to be saved ?" is answered by these words, " Believe in * Acts xvi. 30, 31. 138 the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." The gracious addition, in the full spirit of the promise made to Abraham, is, " and thy house." In like manner, when Cornelius, another Gentile, is instructed to send for Peter, it is to hear words whereby he and all. his house should be saved.* The Antipedobaptist can, on his own theory, attach no definite idea to the expressions, — " thy house," " all thy house," — which would not be as correct in relation to the house of a man living and dying in heathenism or atheism. Into the promise to which Peter refers, and the gracious intimation to the jailer and Cornelius, family baptisms naturally dovetail. And these are, in no case, introduced as extraordinary occur- rences. After all that has been said, to invalidate the evidence which they supply, in favour of infant baptism, the expressive fact stands boldly out, that the Spirit, in every case of household baptism, declares the faith of the head of the family alone. When the jailer and " all his " were baptized, when Lydia and "her house" were admitted to the same privilege, we have very distinct intima- tion of the faith of the jailer and of Lydia, and of none else.f All that Antipedobaptists have done, to bring the families of the jailer and Lydia into conformity to their rule, is simply adding to the inspired narrative. The record of these two cases, * Acts xi. 13, 14. + Acts xvi. 14, 15, 31. 139 as presented by inspiration, without mutilation or addition, is the record of the faith of a Pedobaptist householder and of its fruits; but assuredly it does not supply a graphic representation of the baptism, so called, of an Antipedobaptist family. Bnt why should there be so much solicitude, upon the part of our opponents to extort, from reluctant or silent witnesses, proof that all the members of those f amilies were grown up and were believers ? The most succinct explanation, and I verily believe the time one, is this : — Antipedobaptists are infallibly correct, and, therefore, the members of the families of Lydia, of the jailer, of Stephanas, must have been grown to the age of intelligence, and must have been believers.* " The promise is to you and to your children.'" In this we have an explanation of the relation which the children of professors, according to Christ's ordinance, sustain to the church. They are members. I have already adverted to the term saints, as a distinguishing title of the members of the church. The members of the churches of Rome, of Colosse, of Philippi, of Ephesus, are addressed as saints. The Thessalonians, in both epistles, are addressed simply as a church. In the first epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle writes " to the church of God," whose members he sets forth as saints ; and the second epistle is inscribed * Xote D, 140 to " the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia." The addresses prefixed to both epistles identifies saints and members of the churches of God. In no case are any recognized as saints who are not members of the church, and, of course, baptized. But children of a member of the church, without re- ference to age at all, have the title saints given to them. The Spirit calls them saints. u The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband ; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy " (saints).* There is no other word in the original, represented in the English translation by saints, than the one which is here rendered holy. Had the word been uniformly translated saints instead of holy, or uniformly holy, and had saints been discontinued, the English reader would have been able, at once, to apprehend the relation to the church indicated by it. It ought to be particularly marked, that the holiness (saintship) of the children is the fact from which the apostle deduces the sanctification of the unbelieving partner, and their holiness is not inferred from the sanctification of the parent. If the question were one of legitimacy, either in the sieht of God or man, the legitimacy of the marriage or the reality of it, determines the legitimacy of the children. W hat is remarkable * 1 Corinthians vii. 14. 141 in this matter is that "there is something peculiar in the case of the children which rendered their holiness more known and obvious than the holiness of the parents."* What that was appears from a consideration of the use of the term applied to them. If they are known as members of the church, then does God own the sanctification of the unbeliever, in the relation he or she sustains to the believing partner, and separation is not de- manded of the Christian from an unbelievino; husband or wife. Paul treats, as church members, all the children of church members. Not only does he address them in common with their parents and others, who are called saints in the epistles, and press obedience to their parents by a motive which has no force, except upon the supposition of their being under the bond of the covenant, but he represents them as in the Lord. As the phrase, in the Lord, is of frequent occurrence, its import and force are more easily grasped. It supposes union to Christ in all to whom it is applied. Apostles had not learned, in contradiction to the fact that Christ and his people constitute one person, to distinguish between Christians in and out of the church. It is the same baptism by which we are baptized into Christ and into his body, the church. " As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put * Dr. J. W. D. Gray, p. 153. 142 on Christ. There is neither Jew, nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free."* " By one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." f To be in CJirist is to be a Christian and a member of the church. To salute in the Lord, is to address as a fellow confessor. To receive in Christ, or in the Lord, is to welcome as a confessor and as a brother or sister. And when children are required to obey their parents in the Lord,% they are called upon at once to acknowledge the union of their parents to the Lord, and their own union to him, and their obligation, in the family, to walk worthy of their 1 holy calling, in dutiful subordination to their fathers and mothers. When parents are required to bring up their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," they are called upon not only to exhibit their own subjection to Christ, but to recognize the union of their children to the Lord. Husbands, who may have unbelieving wives, are not commanded to love them in the Lord, but " as Christ loved the church." § Christ's object was to save the church, and according as those for whom he gave himself are still in sin, or renewed in the spirit of their minds, so is his dealing with them. So with a husband. He cohabits with an * Galatians iii. 27, 28. + 1 Corinthians xii. 13. £ Ephesians vi. 4. § Ephesians v. 25. 143 unbelieving wife, and hopes to save her. The believing wif e is beloved " both in the flesh and in the Lord." Wives, as they may have unbeliev- ing husbands, are not commanded to submit them- selves unto their husbands in the Lord, but " as unto the Lord." * Christ assigns the place of authority to the husband, and submission to the husband is submission to Christ. And as marriage is an ordinance for man, the submission is irre- spective of the husband's character. " Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands ; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives." f But submission to Christ refuses that he can delegate a power to be exercised against himself. When the unbelieving husband is pleased to dwell with his Christian wife, he will be pleased that she should walk after the law of Christ ; if otherwise, she is not bomid to remain and submit to an unrighteous law. The wife's subjection is not servile.! If the wife cannot recognize in a husband a character which he does not sustam, her sub- mission ought to develope her own : " As it is jit in the Lord? § Masters are not commanded to rule their servants in the Lord, as some or all of them might be unbelievers, but to do them all justice, being themselves servants of a heavenly * Ephesians v. 22. + 1 Peter iii. 1. X 1 Corinthians vii. 15. § Colossians iii. 18 {An,y.iv). 144 Master. * Servants are not commanded to be obedient to their masters in the Lord, but as wives, to their husbands, in obedience to the Lord, | — & rule equally binding, whether their masters are saints or sinners. If, in walking according to the law of the Lord, they incur the displeasure of their masters, as they may not be at liberty to depart, they must hold themselves prepared to take the consequences, for the Lord's sake, with all patience. J Whether the Spirit points out the duties of husband or wife, master or servant, they are severally addressed in terms that imply that their co-relatives may or may not be members of Christ ; but when parents (and all who are addressed are members of the church), are instructed concerning their children, they are taught to treat them as church members ; and the children are taught to treat their parents as church members. Bring up " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." "Obey in the Lord." § But I may be asked, "Are there not often children in the church whose parents are walking without?" O yes. Every boy and girl, every man and woman, are children of somebody. All the members of the church are children. When, however, a young person, or any person, makes a profession, he is not accepted as a child, addressed * Epliesians vi 9. + Ephesians vi 5-8. J 1 Peter ii. 18-24. § Note E. 145 as a child, treated as a child. In fact, the church does not know him as a child at all. Antipedo- baptists have no children in their churches, have no parents in their churches, to be addressed in terms, used by an apostle under the direction of the Spirit. The argument, by which both parents and children are urged to the discharge of their relative duties, is borrowed from their common relationship to the Head of the church. But to adduce argu- ments from a consideration of union to Christ, implying an acknowledgment of his authority, in dealing with those who are not of his kingdom, would be profoundly absurd. When Paul re- monstrated with the idolaters of Lystra, who, supposing him and Barnabas to be gods, would have sacrificed to them, he appeals not to scripture, nor to the authority of Christ, but reasons with them upon principles recognized by themselves ; — the claims of the Creator, and the evidence of those claims supplied by his providential super- intendence, in that he gave them rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling their hearts with food and gladness.* In like manner, at Athens, he at once, without the remotest reference to a special revelation, takes hold of the circumstance that they were confessedly worshippers of a God un- known, and introduces the claims of Him who * Acts xiv. 15-17. 146 made all things ; and as one of their own poets had said, " We are all his offspring," — he goes on to urge that, as gold and silver and the creations of human ingenuity, could not give existence to man, such things could not be gods and objects of worship.* We can no more press on parents not under the bond of God's covenant, nor upon children not under its bond, the duties devolving upon them severally, by appealing to the authority of the Mediator of that covenant, than derive an argument from scripture in dealing with Lystrians and Athenians. The baptized are to be taught to observe all the commandments of Christ. " Bap- tizing them ; teaching them ." " The promise is to you and to your children." This is a blessing indissolubly bound up in the ordinance of marriage. Godliness has promise of the life that now is, no less than of that which is to come. | In the life that now is there are many blessings secured by God's covenant; but of all these blessings, there is not one to which the believer will attach so much importance as to his children, — " the heritage of the Lord," — " his re- ward." } Lands, money, social position, honours, all will be cheerfully sacrificed for the safety and welfare of his children. If God has secured to me food, raiment, and personal safety in the hour * Acts xvii. 22-29. t 1 Timothy iv. 8. J Psalm cxxvii. 3. 147 of temptation, and lias left a cloud resting on tlie eternal prospects of my children, affording me no promise, no ground of hope and confidence, that does not as fully belong to ungodliness, I can hardly apprehend a promise blessing the present life. Just in that department of life, in which my superlative temporal blessedness centres, I am delivered over to the most distressing uncertainty. " Come into my house," saith God to the anxious inquirer after the way of life, " and you shall have all your wants supplied, food and raiment, protec- tion and societv, cleansing and comfort :" and, at the same time, he sets a flaming sword to guard the door against my little ones, equally in need, and safe and happy only in sharing a father's abun- dance. This presents such a picture of the admin- istration of the covenant as cannot be reconciled with a " promise of the life that now is." The family is as much a divine institution as the church is. God has ordained the relations of its members, and prescribed the duties severally belonging to them. If marriage, the basis of the family, contemplated no higher objects than are comprehended in temporal advantages, the matri- monial state is hardly to be sought by one whose highest aim is the glory of God ; and the hermit and the priest, the monk and the nun, have chosen wisdom's ways. But this is not the case. The highest aims of the sanctified mind are contem- 148 plated in it. " Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled."* It was instituted of God. It belonged to a state of perfect sinlessness. It had special honour given to it by our Lord, when lie attended a marriage, and wrought his first miracle in subserviency to the happiness of the bridal. The design of marriage, in its institution, was the increase of the human race, — a pure and happy race. To Adam and his wife, unfallen, is the command given, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." f The command is addressed to Noah and his sons in the same, and repeated in nearly the same terms, " Be fruitful and multiply : bring forth abundantly in the earth." J In each case the command is preceded by a blessing. " God blessed them (Adam and Eve) ; and God said — ." " God blessed Noah and his sons, and said — ." It would be inexplicable certainly that a holy God should have no reference, in blessing them, to the character of the offspring. In the institution of marriage, the parties are limited to a single companion. The law, in the beginning and ever after, — however contrary may have been the practice even of some good men, — was that every man should have his own wife, and every wife her own husband. § "Did he not make one V 9 though the residue of the Spirit was with * Hebrews xiii. 4. + Genesis i. 28. X Genesis ix. 1, 7. § Mark x. 2-9. 149 God. He might have formed for Adam many wives. " Wherefore one ?" To this question we have a very precise answer : — " That lie might seek a godly seed," or as the Septuagint reads, " To what other purpose than that God seeks a seed."* The children of marriage, according to God's law, are the children of God, and are so treated, till they cast off the God of their fathers. This in the initiation of the ordinance and onward. The faith of Noah alone is recognized, yet all the children are taken into the ark with him ; though one of them afterwards, because of his personal profanity, incurred a horrible curse. And as Noah and his house were saved by water, so are we and ours saved by baptism, f Abraham, and with him his male children, receive the seal of God's covenant, and the children occupy a place in the family, till they develope a character incon- sistent with the privilege, i Esau and Jacob, in common, are numbered with the blessed of the Lord, till the former sold his birthright. Slow was Isaac to disinherit him, but, shut up by the Spirit, he must do it. § David has no tears to shed over the dead body of his infant son. || He * Malachi ii. 15. "HlK one, mas., with reference to the creation of one man, of whom woman was formed. (Genesis i, 27; ii 22.) t 1 Peter iii. 20, 21. % Genesis xxi. 9, 10. Com. Galatians iv. 29, 30. § Genesis xxvii. 37. || 2 Samuel xii. 23. 150 knows he is saved. He is inconsolable for Absalom,* who had rebelliously forsaken his father's house and died in Ins rebellion. He had no ground of hope concerning his future state. The house of a faithful man is a part of the household of faith, and is an ark of safety to them, who, being in it, are pleased to remain. The Israelite, in Egypt, sprinkles the blood of the paschal lamb, not upon himself nor on his house- hold individually, but on the lintels and doorposts of his house, and all are safe who abide there, when the angel of destruction passes through the land. Wo to him who leaves the blood-fortified covert. f Inside the house of Rahab, the scarlet cord, which her faith bound in the window, is of as much value to her father and mother, her brothers and sisters, as to herself. $ And in the house of a believer, baptism is of the same signifi- cance and value to all who are of the family as to the head of the family himself. Upon his professed principles, the Antipedo baptist sees, and can see, no blessing in marriage, that he should look more hopefully upon his children than on " the seed of the adulterer and the whore." Marriage neither is nor can be to him more than a legalised union for convenience, for social gratification, for the propagation of * 2 Samuel xviii. 33. + Exodus xii. 22. X Joshua ii. 18, 19. 151 depravity; and the holiness, ascribed by the Spirit to the children of a believing parent, he stoutly, pertinaciously refuses to own as having any higher character than legitimacy. Between marriage and the kingdom of God he knows no fellowship ; and, when all else is under Christ as Head, for the church's sake, marriage is the exception, as its fruit has no more relation to the church than the children of fornication, and there is no promise to the children in common with the believing parent, living under God's ordinance, that elevates them to a more hopeful position than that which is occupied by the children of heathen, or of those that are living without God and in contempt of his ordinance. Family piety, family worship, family recognition of Christ the Lord, must be a rare accident. In fact, the family cannot exist. It is a conglomeration of individuals accidentally thrown together, in which there is neither father nor mother, son nor daughter.* With the promise of the Abrahamic covenant before us, we can understand the force of the words of Peter, "to your children ;" light is thrown upon certain cheering statements of the Old Testament respecting this dispensation ; the answer of Paul to the Philippian jailer and the intimation of the angel to Cornelius, connecting their own hopes with the hopes of then households, have real and * Note F. 152 cheering significance ; the baptism of families is natural and easy of application ; children, either spoken of or addressed, will be treated as members of the church; marriage, as an institution of infinite wisdom and benignity, shines forth as a glory in the hand of the Mediator, and is made directly subservient to the interests of his kingdom, in raising up a seed to serve the Lord. Take the promise away and all these things become unin- telligible. We must take the Antipedobaptist with us to explain or pervert. He becomes as necessary to us as the priest to the Romanist. The Bible does not help vis to shut children out of the church. We must be strengthened by the infallible and authoritative utterance of the Antipedobaptist ex- positor. Section IV. Faith and Baptism. Mark xvi. 16 : — u He that believeth and is bap- tized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." While Dr. Carson views the commission, recorded by the evangelist Matthew, as the impregnable citadel of his system, and all arguments derived from any other source as so many detached forts rising up around it, I am persuaded that an over- whelming majority of those who fill the Antipedo- 153 baptist churches, are proselyted to their doctrines by these words reported by Mark. The argument is short, easily apprehended, easily recollected, plausible, and well adapted to minds little disposed to reflect, and not accustomed to analyse a logical statement. u He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved. Infants cannot believe. There- fore infants should not be baptized." This is the whole argument. It would be hard to count how many changes have been rung, how many sneers have been uttered, how many reproaches have been bandied, how many exclamations of devout amazement have elevated hands and eyes, with reference to the absurdity and impiety of unbeliever baptism, — baby -sprinkling. Antipedobaptists dare not say that no man of sense, or education, or the fear of God, has ever sprinkled an unconscious babe, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost ; yet, in the fulness of their reliance upon their own judgment and simplicity, they find it hard to re- concile the practice of baby- sprinkling with intellect, and information, and honesty ; and their language makes their perplexing difficulty mani- fest. Unbeliever sprinkling ! Who is ashamed of sprinkling that is not ashamed of the blood of Christ, ashamed of the Spirit of grace ! — The blood of Christ is the blood of sprinkling,* and the pro- * Hebrews xii. 24. L 154 mise of the Spirit is the promise of the sprinkling of clean water.* Who ever advocated unbeliever baptism? Certainly, according to their own symbols, not Presbyterians. Unbelief has some- thing positive about it ; whereas the state of in- fants, in respect to the exercise of faith, simply implies a negation. That persons have not their senses exercised does not imply that they are destitute of senses. The child has all the bodily members of the full grown man, yet may be un- able to use any one of them; hands, without being able to handle ; feet, without being able to walk ; eyes, without being able to see. A child possesses all the intellectual and moral powers of the perfect man, unless the soul is acquired by piecemeal, yet is not able to exercise one of them. And, if we allow the doctrine of original sin, and that children, dying in infancy, go to heaven at all, they must have been made partakers of the divine nature and of the principle of all heavenly graces, though it is impossible they should be unfolded. Mere infants, therefore, are capable of regeneration, and faith, and all that enters into the character of the adult who is made meet for glory. Antipedo- baptists treat them all as children of the devil. Because they do not know the fact of their re- generation, they conclude the thing unknown does not exist, and act accordingly. Their practice * Ezekiel xxxvi. 25, 155 assumes that whatever exists, in connection with the communication of the divine life, is within the sphere of their intelligence: but we cannot concede this. The child is excluded from the church, not because it is unregenerate, but because they do not know that it is born from above. Now, do they know that those whom they im- merse are believers 1 They do not. They cannot. We are taunted with unbeliever baptism, because we baptize those of whose renovation we have no assured evidence, and they of necessity do the same thing. It is the merest subterfuge to say, they use all diligence to ascertain the regeneration of the applicants for immersion. They are still obliged to say they do not know it ; and, after all, the immersion of a believer is, with them, an accident. But do Antipedobaptists believe their own doctrine that the faith of the subject is necessary to the scriptural administration of baptism? They do not. The boldest among them will not assert that where apostles failed they always succeed, and that they have never been deceived in the character of those whom they have immersed. If faith is necessary in those who are baptized, to give validity to the ordinance, then those who have been baptized, under a mistaken idea of their regeneration, have not been scripturally baptized at all. When they have discovered that they had 156 immersed one, who was in the bond of iniquity at the time, would they immerse him again on a renewal of his profession ? They would not, Their defence is an evasion, — a credible profes- sion. Their doctrine is, faith a pre-requisite to baptism; and their practice is, a credible profession a pre-requisite. But a profession of faith is not faith. The issue, after all their boastful parade, is this : — We baptize infants, not knowing them to be renovated and not assuming that knowledge ; they immerse adults, not knowing them to be renovated, and yet assuming that knowledge. The ignorant and offensive charge of unbeliever baptism is self-condemnatory. We turn to the parents. We, without entering into God's province of searching the heart, accept from them, what alone Antipedobaptists can have, a credible profession of faith in Christ, and of reliance on a promise to themselves and to their children, and we administer baptism to those children ; which the parents have as good a warrant to ask for their children, as, being un- baptized, to claim for themselves. Faith in the promise, " to you," is the ground of the baptism of the adult. Faith in the promise, " to your children," is the ground of the baptism of the infants. The baptism of the infant proceeds as fully upon a profession as the baptism of the adult. 157 The charge of unbeliever baptism, often preferred, more frequently insinuated, against the advocates of infant baptism, is a libel upon the principles of Pedobaptists and the practice founded on them, and constitutes a wretched, display of ignorance imposing upon ignorance, and issuing in impen- etrable self-righteousness. " We are the men and wisdom will die with us." Upon the ground of the promise, we as con- fidently anticipate the salvation of our infants as our own ; and know that if the baptized infant is not of God's elect, it shall live to deny his covenant, and go forth or be cast out, from the covenant society, the church. Shocking ! The infant saved by faith ! — the faith of the parent ! ! — one saved by the faith of another ! ! ! Is this shocking ? Then it would have shocked the common sense of the Antipedo- baptist to see our Lord healing the servant of the Roman Centurion, in response to the transcendent faith of his master ;* — granting to the faith of the Syrophenician woman, the deliverance of her daughter from the power of the devil ;f — accept- ing the faith of Jairus to the restoration of his dead daughter to life ; J — and, stultifying all his self-righteous thoughts and theory, forgiving the sins of the paralytic, when he saw the faith, not of * Luke vii. 2-10. t Matthew xv. 21-28. t Mark v. 22 42. 158 the invalid, but of the four men who brought him into the Saviour's presence. * The scriptures exhibit an inseparable connection between faith and baptism, and this connection is not ignored in infant baptism, as I have just shown. But the argument founded on the declaration of our Lord, recorded by Mark, while it fails to prove that the subject of baptism must be the subject of faith, betrays its inconclusiveness by proving more than those who use it mean or desire. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved/' Who shall be saved % The declaration supplies the answer. " He that believeth and is baptized." The argument derived from this text for the ex- elusion of infants from baptism would make this answer exclusive. Infants cannot believe and be baptized, they cannot, therefore, be saved. The last clause also supplies the means of detecting the defectiveness of the argument against the baptism of infants, which the former clause is supposed to furnish. "He that believeth not shall be damned." Infants cannot believe, therefore, infants shall be damned. The structure and force of the argu- ment against the salvation of infants are precisely the same with the structure and force of that against their baptism. This has often been urged and its point and power have been painfully felt by the enemies of infant baptism ; and they have • Luke v. 18-25. 159 been driven to the most extravagant positions to reconcile the exclusion of infants from the church with their admission into heaven. Dr. Carson seems to take for granted, without an attempt at proof of any kind, that infants are saved ; while he asserts that " the gospel has nothing to do with infants." His statements are, — " Infants are saved by the death of Christ, but not by the gospel, not by faith. — Infants who enter heaven must be regenerated, but not by the gospel. Infants must be sanctified for heaven, but not through the truth as revealed to man. We know nothing of the means by which God receives sanctified infants ; nor have we any business with it."* In reading such a deliverance as this, it naturally occurs to ask, Can we know any thing about the death of Christ, its design, its applica- tion, or its effects, but by the scriptures ? As he tells us, " We know nothing of the means by which he receives sanctified infants," it would be desirable to learn something of the fact, that they are received. I am disposed to think that if, upon his own principles, he could have furnished satis- factory evidence of the important fact of their salvation, he would have set it forth. It might have excited strong feelings of indignation, and furnished a striking development of the tendency of his principles, to have expressed a doubt of the * Carson, p. 279. 160 salvation of infants ; and yet the case of Gentiles, which he introduces as analogous, leaves it exceed- ingly doubtful whether he was prepared to assert and defend the doctrine that any infants are saved. With respect to the gospel, he represents infants and heathen as occupying the same ground. "The nations that have not heard the gospel cannot be saved by the gospel. — They are not condemned by the gospel; for it is condemnation only to those who do not believe it. To them it is neither a benefit nor an injury. They will be judged, as we are assured in the scriptures, according to the law written on the heart." He leaves this analogous case abruptly. Does he believe that infants will absolutely perish I or does he believe that heathen will be saved ? He has, so far as argument or evidence is concerned, left his views entirely un- defined, with room for strong suspicion that the scriptures supplied him with no precise evidence that any infant would be saved. The claim of Dr. Carson's work to special con- sideration is that, among his professional brethren, it has been received and is appealed to, as a standard exposition and defence of their principles. And as the idea has been often propounded, since its appearance (I never heard it expressed before), that " the gospel has nothing to do with infants," in dealing with the doctor, we are dealing with a living, and acting class. His reasonings on the 161 passage from the evangelist, of which we are treating, are open to several grave objections. 1. He confounds the medium, by which God usually communicates with the creature, with the word itself. Whatever instrumentality or means, — scripture, or the living voice, or , God may interpose, whatever method he may adopt for bringing men into communication with himself, by his word alone is any effect of a saving kind wrought in man. The utterance of man, setting forth the truth of God, when God is not appre- hended as speaking by him, must be the savour of death unto death. The apostle very briefly but very lucidly presents the distinction adverted to. u When ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of man, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh in you that believe."* The word of God always works effectually. "The word of God is quick and powerful,"! and " shall not return unto " him " void, but it shall accom- plish that which " he " pleases, and shall prosper in the thing whereto " he " sent it." f a By the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth, consisting of land and water." § " Through faith, we understand that the worlds were made by the word of God" | But " if any man be in * 1 Thessalonians ii. 13. + Hebrews iv. 12. t Isaiah lv. 11. § 2 Peter iii. 5. || Hebrews xi. 3. 162 Christ, there is a new creation."* If we inquire into the source of spiritual illumination, we are taught that " God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness" is the same who shines into the hearts of men, " to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." f Regeneration, under whatever aspect it is presented unto us, — a new creation, a vivification, a resurrection, — is according to the will of God and by the living word of God, in every one, adult or infant, who enjoys the blessing. God gives testimony to the word of his grace, exhibited in the scriptures, in the ministry of reconciliation, in the covenant relation subsisting between parent and child, in the various significant ordinances which Christ has instituted. The infant hears. " Christ loved the church " (comprehending all who are redeemed by him, for it is added), "and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it" (redeemed infants as well as others), " with the washing of water by the word ; that he might present it unto himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing ; but that it should be holy and without blemish." % If, then, children are to be saved at all, they must have been redeemed; if Christ gave himself for them, they must belong to the church ; * 2 Corinthians v. 17. + 2 Corinthians iv. 6. X Ephesians v. 25-27. 163 if they belong to the church, they must be sanctified and cleansed by the word; and if cleansed by the wordy with the washing of water. Dr. Carson would seem to have got bewildered, and has written page after page well calculated to bewilder others, while he confounds the word with reading or hearing; and always carrying with him the idea, which implies the whole system of which he is the advocate, that children are outside the covenant and outside the church, he never admits a thought of any other means of communication than that by which God comes in contact with the world, with them who are without. Naaman was cured of his leprosy by the word of God with the washing of water, and all who are sanctified, and cleansed of their spiritual leprosy, are made whole by the icord with the washing of water. The word gives effect to the washing of water, and the waters of Abana and Pharpar would avail nothing without it. Infants must be excluded from heaven or they are sanctified by the word, and the denial of their right to the washing of water is the denial of their interest in Christ, and hope in his salvation, who gave him- self for his church, that he might cleanse it "with the washing of water by the word." There are here placed before us, Christ, the Saviour, whose power to bring into union with himself, to quicken, to purify, is to be traced to 164 his obedience unto death ; — the persons to be saved, adults and infants, parents and children, males and females, all who constitute the church ; — the means of sanctification and cleansing, the word, with the washing of water. Parents and their children are one, united in the covenant, united in the promise. The revelation is to the parent. He hears, believes, appropriates the promise, and receives the washing of water; not as an idle ceremony, but as a medium of blessing not less real than the revelation. Who will say that by the washing of water, the Lord is not brought into communication with the soul of the child ? The blessing is not necessarily connected with the external form, in point of fact or in point of time. Although " faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," all who hear are not necessarily saved ; and the good seed sown in the heart may He dormant for an indefinite period, to spring up in due season, and produce an abundant harvest. The mere ritual, in any ordinance, is nothing. The mere application of water, in any form, is not baptism. When the Spirit is present to heal, then are we baptized with that baptism which is followed by a putting on of Christ. The character of baptism, as a medium of divine communication, and of spiritual blessings, may be illustrated by another ordinance, of which, as it implies activity on the part of the recipient, adults 165 only are capable of participating, — the Lord's supper. This serves to show that the gospel message is not the only means of addressing men, and prepares the mind for the easy admission that, if one ordinance of a material form, of which adults alone are participators, is the medium of a blessing to them, so an ordinance, of which infants are capable of partaking, as that in which all the subjects are passive, may be a blessing to them. God utters his voice in that ordinance. Christ presents a direct address. The table is the Lord's. Those, who recognize the presence of Christ, who hear his voice, who accept his invitation, who who receive at his hand what he alone can give, who eat his body broken, and drink his blood shed for the remission of sins, are indeed partakers of the Lord's supper. All others, in the feast, are receivers only, of what man can give, of bread and wine. In the ministry of reconciliation also, nothing is apprehended but the word of man, except the Lord give testimony to the word of his grace. Then is that voice heard which awakes the dead ; which penetrates to the inner man, to the illumina- tion of the understanding and the renovation of the heart ; and without which, there are the sanctincation and cleansing neither of the infant nor adult. " It is the Spirit that quickeneth ; the flesh profiteth nothing ; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."* * John vi 63. Note G. 166 Imagine the Lord Jesus, standing by the grave of Lazarus, or Peter by the bed on which lies the corpse of Tabitha. There is Dr. Carson, attended by his very deferential disciples, his face expressive of utter amazement, anticipating an attempt to hold converse with the dead. With characteristic impatience of any one judging differently of possibilities from himself, he exclaims, — " What ! the gospel of life has to do with those that hear it. It is good news ; but to the dead it is no news at all. They know nothing of it. None ever can be saved by the good news of life who do not believe them. Consequently by these good news no dead person can be saved. It is expressly with respect to those that hear that the gospel is said to be salvation by faith ; and the dead hear, believe, know nothing. He will brino; the dead to life surely before he attempt to address him or her." The Master and the servant alike disregard the impassioned remonstrance. The one calls, — " Lazarus, come forth." The other says, — " Tabitha, arise." Lazarus comes forth. Tabitha sits up. The confounded doctor turns to his followers and whispers, — " Who could have thought it V If the dead hear the voice of the Son of God, and hearing, live, is it incredible that infants should hear that voice and live also ? I can hold communication neither with the dead nor the infant, therefore the Son of God cannot? 167 This is involved in the reasonings of Antipedo- baptists. It is too much to assume that infants are not saved by the word of God. I can as little under- stand how the adult hears to the salvation of the soul, as how the infant hears. Lazarus heard the voice of Christ, by the utterance of the lips of the incarnate God. Tabitha heard the voice of Christ, by the utterance of his servant. It is too much to assume that baptism cannot be the channel of a saving benefit. It is an ordinance of Christ. We might as well doubt whether clay was ever a medium of restoration to sight, or spittle the medium of the recovery 01 speech. One applica- tion for restoration to sight is answered by the application .of clay, and not without.* A dumb person recovers speech by the application of saliva to his tongue, and not without.! The Antipedobaptist, who repudiates any rela- tion that baptism has to the salvation of the infant, and makes the words recorded by Mark his authority, shows what reverence he has for the words of Christ, hi treating adult baptism as a fruitless form. The passage is very valuable to exclude infants from the church, but valueless to enforce the ordinance on the adult. " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," says Christ. " If you believe you will be saved whether you are baptized or not," * John ix. 6, 7. t Mark vii. 33-35. 168 says the Antipedobaptist ; and the rejection of infant baptism leads men lightly to esteem the ordinance in any case. There are two things set forth as antecedents of salvation, Faith SLndBaptis?n. If the Antipedobaptist holds that one of these, Baptism, can be dispensed with, especially when it would be difficult, or dangerous, or impossible, how can he with justice blame the Pedobaptist, if he should hold that the other, faith, can be dispensed with, especially in infancy, when it is impossible. We may be told that baptism, being an external ordinance, and not a saving ordinance, is not of so much importance. But preaching is an external and not a saving ordinance. May we dispense with it ? Prayer is an external, and not a saving ordinance. The Lord's supper is an external, and not a saving ordinance. All ordinances are external and not saving. Perhaps we might at once throw them all overboard. The tendency of the system we oppose is first to depreciate all ordinances, and then to cast them off. Baptism is as much a saving ordinance as any other. Every ordinance is valueless if unaccompanied by the Spirit. Every ordinance is saving when accom- panied or followed by the Spirit. We do not, however, wish to dispense with either faith or baptism. The sinner hears, believes, and is baptized ; but if he is a parent, it is only in that his children are baptized with him, that he is 1G9 baptized. God knows nothing of parents without children. Ostriches were to be had in abomina- tion among the children of Israel. " The ostrich is hardened against her young ones, as though they were not hers." 2. That infants cannot understand, or hear the record God has given of his Son, is a pointless truism, which is iterated and reiterated as if it were an important discovery. " It is good news ; but to infants it is no news at all." But when it is said that " the gospel has to do with those who hear it," and the reader or hearer is left to draw the inference that it has to do with none else, we are constrained to object. The gospel is addressed, and can be addressed, to those only who are capable of hearing it ; yet it supplies much information respecting those who do not hear it. It informs us, for instance, that " as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law ; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law." * Of those who sin in the enjoyment of revelation, some may be saved, some condemned; therefore the apostle tells us simply that they are judged. But among those without law, there is no distinction of classes. They all perish. This is according to the gospel which Paul preached. There could not be a more silly and transparent sophism than that which Dr. Carson has per- * Eo.nang ii. 12. M 170 petrated, in giving a prominence to the incapacity of infants to hear the gospel, and helping or leav- ing us to infer that the gospel says nothing about them. This, however, is just the main question. If the scripture says any thing respecting infants, with reference to salvation, what is it % If the subject of infant salvation is not introduced, then are we unable to say whether all or any who die in infancy are saved or lost, " nor have we any business with it." It is among the secret things which belong to God, into which it would be at once vain and impertinent to inquire. There is no doctrine more plainly taught of God than that, under a divine constitution, all are born guilty. " By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. — Death reigned over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression." * We all " were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." f " All in Adam die." % This proves that all, individually, are obnoxious to a final separation from God ; and justly , otherwise the constitution under which they are born is unjust, and God its author, knowing what must be the consequences of it under all conditions, is linjust. To allege that justice demands, in behalf of those who die * Romans v. 12, 14. + Ephesians ii. 3. + 1 Corinthians xv. 22. 171 free of actual sin, the interposition of redeeming love, is to represent redemption by the blood of Christ, not as a gracious arrangement flowing from the spontaneous love of God, but an ingenious contrivance to save the justice of God from reasonable question, the government of God from a well-grounded charge of imperfection, and God himself from doing iniquity. "They that be whole need not a physician." * If infants are guilty, in their death there is no injustice. If they are not guilty, they have no need of a crucified redeemer. These considerations, — if the salvation of infants is asserted, particularly, their salvation by the blood and Spirit of Christ, — demand that some reason, founded on revelation, should be assigned for the assertion. But the attempt to show cause for believing in the salvation of infants would at once expose the unscriptural character of the system maintained by our opponents. The scripture does not furnish a fulcrum upon which faith in the salvation of infants can rest and act, that does not stand within the limits of the church of Christ. 3. Dr. Carson's rule for the interpretation of the passage under consideration is utterly sub- versive of the argument derived from it in opposi- tion to infant baptism. In the discussion of the latter member of the sentence, — "He that believeth * Matthew ix. 12. 172 not shall be damned," — lie proceeds upon the hypothesis that there is no reference to infants, and that, of course, the statement excludes from salvation only those who hear and refuse to submit to the Lord Jesus. This meets the argument derived from it, according to Antipedobaptist exegesis, against infant salvation; but involves the sacrifice of their argument from the former member of the sentence, — " He that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved," — against infant baptism. If there is no reference to infants in the latter member of the sentence, neither is there in the former ; and whilst, as is very generally admitted among Pedobaptists, an adult to be baptized must have made a profession of faith, the baptism of infants, as far as the whole passage is concerned, is still an open question. But so long as infants are debarred from baptism because they cannot believe, on the ground of our Lord's solemn intima- tion that " he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," so certainly the want of faith, upon the same authority, excludes from the kingdom of glory : and the assumption that they shall be saved, on any principle or by any means, is con- tradicted by their whole argument, who deny an infant's right to a place in the church, from this passage. If infants are to be saved by Christ, their exclusion from baptism and exclusion from glory stand or fall together ; and our opponents 173 may as well brace themselves soon as late for the only alternative that the scripture sets before them, — infant bajitism or infant damnation. If they shrink from such an alternative, let them show us the scripture evidence, consistently with their principles, of infant salvation. It will be a curiosity in dialectics. chap. n. The Constitution of the Church. Section I. The Abrahamic Covenant. Having shown that those passages of the New Testament, upon which Antipedobaptists lay much stress, are inconclusive against infant baptism, entirely consistent with it in all cases, and, in some cases, cannot be explained except upon principles that involve the doctrine, the argument derived from the constitution of the church, as a covenant society, remains to be investigated. Upon this point, in fact, the main question of infant baptism turns. In the very outset, the fixed fact stands prom- inently out that, under the former dispensation, according to the terms of the Abrahamic covenant, 174 children were admitted into the fellowship of the church with their fathers, and received the initiatory seal of that covenant ; and not children only, but all the permanent members of the believer's house- hold, with the head of the family. Now if it can be shown that the church, a divine institution, on the basis of the covenant made with Abraham, is an indestructible society, still exists, and is perpetuated under this dispensation ; under a different regimen and enjoying greater privileges, but still the same, the question of the church membership, and con- sequently the right of infants to baptism, is settled. Baptism is the initiatory ordinance of the present economy, for " as many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."* The attempt to neutralize the force of the argu- ment, derived from the divinely-regulated practice of the former age, by appealing to the exclusive application of the seal of the covenant then to males, overlooks the fact that extension of privilege does not affect identity of person. Under this dispensation, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither male nor female, there is neither bond nor free." f If it had been added, " There is neither parent nor child," there would have been real reason for asserting that, now, children must enter the church independently of filial relation- ship. Gentiles now enjoy as full privilege in the * Galcatians iii. 27. + Galatians iii. 28. 175 church as the descendants of Abraham. Servants do not claim or enjoy a place there in virtue of their relation to believing masters. Wives or maidens do not enter under the shadow of their husbands or fathers. But, so far as the apostle's declaration of the extension of privilege goes, children are brought under the bond of the cove- nant according to the original law. The unity of the church under the former and present dispensations is exhibited by the pen of inspiration in a manner so lucid, that it might seem to allow no room for doubt, and to supersede all argumentation, while the form in which the fact is put forward implies an enlargement of privilege in these last days. The church mider the former economy is repre- sented as a minor , and under the present dispensa- tion, as of full age. The idea of supposing a person to have lost his identity, by passing the line ordained to separate the periods of minority and majority, would not be more absurd than to hold the church, before and after the advent of Christ, two distinct covenant societies. Hear the apostle of the Gentiles. " The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father; even so we, ivhen ive were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world ; but when the fulness 176 of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."* It is not uncommon to represent the Old Testa- ment church as a typical society or people. So long/as this idea has possession of the mind, it is no wonder that there should be perplexing diffi- culties in realizing the identity of Jew and Christian, or, to escape those difficulties, the adop- tion of unscriptural views of their relation to each other. There is no foundation for the assumption (it is nothing more) that the Israelites or Jews were a typical people. Their institutes, tabernacle and temple, sacrifices and offerings, inheritance and festivals, priests and prophets, were typical ; but the people were not. They were the people of God. Let us attend to the terms in which God speaks of Israel, as a people in covenant with himself. " Thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God : the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." f "If ye will obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people : and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." % No stronger or * Galatians iv. 1-5. + Deuteronomy vii. 6. % Exodus xix. 5, 6. 177 more definite language could be employed. In fact, the terms used to describe tlie children of God under the present dispensation are nearly identical, if not borrowed from the passages already cited. "Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priest- hood, an holy nation, a peculiar people." * This idea shall be more fully developed in the progress of the discussion. If the epithet everlasting f had never been applied to the covenant of circumcision, the object contemplated in it would establish its perpetuity. a Behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations. — I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." % Who will question the fidelity and accuracy of an apostolic and inspired interpretation of the promise, " A father of many nations have I made thee ?" Paul represents this as Abraham's security for the inheritance of the world, and recognizes its fulfilment in the introduction of the Gentiles into the possession of the blessings of the covenant. " The promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteous- ness of faith. — It is of faith, that it might be by * 1 Peter ii. 9. + Genesis xvii. 7, 13, 19. % Genesis xvii. 4, 7. 178 grace ; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed ; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham ; who is the father of us all, as it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations," &c* The argument for the community of blessings of Jew and Gentile, and their common interest in the covenant is, therefore, appropriately introduced by the assertion of their fellowship in the God of the covenant. " Is he the God of the Jews only ? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes; of the Gentiles also." f Again ; the covenant made with Abraham was renewed unto Isaac, in nearly the original terms, with a recognition of the oath by which it was ratified. "I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father; and I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries ; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." J On Jacob the same blessing was conferred, in the words following : — " I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply ; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; and the land which I * Romans iv. 13, 16, 17. t Romans iii. 29. J Genesis xxvi. 3, 4. 179 gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land." * At the same time that the promise is made, the name of Israel is given to Jacob, a name by which his seed should ever after be known. Under this dispensation, the heirs of promise are called, by the Spirit, the " Israel of God." f After this, the covenant was not renewed with any one individual. With relation to the covenant, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are the fathers. No others. Our God is the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob. Of no other in particular. The covenant, from the time of Jacob, by a divine disposition, takes the character of a laiv which was neither to be abrogated nor modified. That covenant, according to which the children are introduced into the church with faithful parents, is placed hi the hands of every believer, that he may rest upon its provisions and plead its promises. " He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand genera- tions : which covenant he made with Abraham, and his oath unto Isaac ; and confirmed the same unto Jacob for a laiv, to Israel for an everlasting covenant."! The oath is as good to us who believe, and shall be to all believers to the end of time, as it was to Abraham, or to Isaac. "When God * Genesis xxxv. 11, 12. + Galatians vi. 16. $ Psalm cv. 8-10. 180 made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself; — Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of -promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath ; that by two immutable tilings, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us." * And when, in language borrowed from the existing economy, the more glorious privileges of this dispensation, arising out of the greater light shed on the provisions of the "everlasting covenant," and the fuller development of its blessings, are exhibited by the pen of inspiration, and, in par- ticular, the extension of those privileges to the Gentile nations, we are not allowed to forget that we are still to enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant. The stranger shall inherit, in common with ancient Israel, the land of promise. u So shall ye divide this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that ye shall divide it by lot for an inheritance unto you, and to the strangers that sojourn among you, which shall beget children among you : and they shall be unto you as born in the country among the children of Israel ; they shall have inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall come to pass, that in what tribe the stranger * Hebrews vi. 13, 17, 18. 181 sojoumeth, there shall ye give him his inheritance, saith the Lord God."* This is a very remarkable passage, and deserves a passing exposition. It shows that (1), under the present dispensation, the stranger enjoys the same inheritance secured by covenant to ancient Israel ; that (2), no distinction is to be recognized between the stranger and the native Israelite ; that (3), the children of the stranger occupy the same position with the children of the covenant people of God. The introduction of a reference to the children of the stranger would be very unintelligible ', except upon the supposition that they come under the bond of the covenant, which secures the inheritance, with their parents ; — and very unnecessary, except to anticipate an objection to the perpetuity of the connection, ordained of God, under the patriarchal and Mosaic regimen, between the fathers and their seed. The prophet may have known nothing about it, but the Spirit, by whom he was directed, knew that there should arise a class of men, who would very boldly and very pertinaciously claim the authority of God and the interests of godliness for delivering up their children to uncovenanted mercy. Section II. The Church is One Family. In conformity at once with the spirit and letter of the covenant, the scripture represents the church, * Ezekiel xlvii. 21-23. 182 after the day of Pentecost, as one family with the church of the Old Testament. Believers are still the seed of Abraham. " If ye be Christ's, then #re ye Abraham's seed."* This is put in very definite and forcible language by the apostle when he says, — " Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." f So our personal interest in the pro- mises depends upon our union to Him to whom primarily and principally the promises were made. " They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." And again, " Christ hath redeemed us — that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." % The blessing of Abraham is the Spi?it. The scripture recognizes no covenant seed in the former dispensation, that is not identical with the seed in the present dispensation. The error of the Antipedobaptists, and that which introduces end- less confusion into all their reasonings on this subject, arises out of their virtual rejection of the inspired interpretation of the objects of the pro- mise, and their assumption of a two-fold seed, contemplated in the covenant, a literal and a spiritual, or that there are two covenants, and * Galatians iii. 29. t Galatians iii. 16. £ Galatians iii. 9, 13, 14. 183 consequently two seeds. For the temporal cov- enant, or the temporal aspect of the covenant, and the literal or natural children of the covenant, they are wholly responsible. Of these the scripture knows nothing. The natural seed of Abraham, as such, are not the seed to whom the promises were made. No one descendant of Abraham is, by virtue of his natural relationship to him, entitled to claim upon the ground of the covenant. He must be circumcised. u The uncircumcised manchild, whose flesh of his foreskin is not cir- cumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people ; he hath broken my covenant.' '* The Jew was taught not to regard his distinguishing designation as expressive of descent, but of federal relationship. When the decree of Ahasuerus for the extermination of the Jew T s was checkmated, and the light of an unclouded sun broke forth on an afflicted people, we read that " many of the people of the land became Jews ; for the fear of the Jews fell upon them."t This statement would be grossly absurd, if by Jew T is meant a descendant of Abraham. In that sense, a man must be bom a Jew, but cannot become one. But, if the term Jew is understood to be expressive of professional position, then a man may become a Jew as one may become a Christian. With this coincides the following testimony; " He is not a Jew which * Genesis xvii. 14. + Esther viii. 17. 184 is one outwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter."* And when God intimated to Abraham that his seed should be reckoned in the line of Isaac, | he taught him, and his descendants, and all others who read, that " they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." J There is one passage which sets in the clearest light the fact, that the natural seed of Abraham were not a covenant seed at all; that believers, under this dispensation, sustain precisely the same relation to Abraham that the covenant seed of old did; and that the sign of the covenant secured nothing to the unbeliever, but is the seal of spiritual blessings. Antipedobaptists know well that if it can be shown, that the natural descend- ants of Abraham, by the mere circumstance of birth, were not heirs in any sense; that circumcision sealed no blessing to them as descendants ; that they were, by it, introduced into that federal relation to God, and into the possession of those privileges through which God is pleased to impart saving benefits to the elect, according to his purpose; and that we, as Isaac was, are the children of promise ; the argument for infant incorporation with the church is irresistible, and opposition to it * Pvoracins ii. 28, 29. + Geuesis xxi. 12. i Romans ix. 8. 185 involves the 'condemnation of the circumcision of infants. For this reason, they labour to teach, contrary to all scripture testimony, that there were two covenant seeds, one carnal and another spiritual — possessing, by covenant, different bless- ings, carnal and spiritual; and that circumcision not only sealed temporal blessings, but secured them. Of whom was Abraham constituted the father ? Of what was circumcision the seal I An apostle, — the Spirit shall answer. " He (Abraham) re- ceived the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised ; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be imputed to them also ; and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised." * From this we learn the following particulars. 1. Under the former dispensation, circumcision was imper- ative. " Not of the circumcision only." 2. Cir- cumcision does not constitute the descendants of Abraham sons, except they are partakers of his faith. 3. He is the father of believers, under this dispensation, who neither are nor ought to be circumcised. There is no difference. Circum- cision does not make them children of Abraham * Romans iv. 11, 12. N 186 who are not subjects of his faith; and uncircuni- cision does not exclude them from his family who are of his faith. " In Christ Jesus, neither cir- cumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation ;* — but faith which worketh by love ; | — but keeping of the commandments of God." J 4. Circumcision was a seal, not of Abraham' s righteousness, but of the righteousness of faith. 5. The righteousness of which it was a seal was not the righteousness of Abraham's personal faith, but of the faith which was in him in his un circumcision. The form of expression, — ■ " the faith which he had being uncircumcised," — is not accidental. The same construction is used in both of the verses cited. The righteousness here brought before us is not the righteousness of Abraham, or of Paul, or of any one individual. This righteousness is common to all justified persons. As it was unto and upon Abraham through faith, so it is unto and upon all them that believe. It is "the righteousness of God." § The faith also, here introduced, is a principle common to Abraham and all who are accepted before God, producing in all like effects in heart and life. " It (faith) was imputed unto him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him ; but * Gralatians vi. 15. *r Galatians v. 6. + 1 Corinthians vii. 19. § Romans iii. 22. 187 for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus, our Lord, from the dead." * Circumcision is a seal, then, in testimony of the faith and righteousness neither of Abraham nor of any one else, but for the confirmation of the promise that, as Abraham believed God and his faith was imputed to him for righteousness, so it shall be with any other. He that believeth shall be justified, whether Jew or Gentile, whether bond or free. The seal derived none of its sigmficancy from Abraham's faith, nor does it lose its sigmfi- cancy from the unbelief of the subject of it. Indeed the significancy of any divine ordinance is independent of the character of the receiver or observer. It is Anti-chxistian to bind together the ordinance of God, as to its import, and the mental state of those who are parties to its observance. As the church, under both dispensations, con- stitutes one family, so that family has one in- heritance. Palestine, the inheritance secured by covenant to Abraham and his seed ! Palestine, the hope and rest of the ancient saint ! ! If Joshua gave them rest, why does David, a long time after, speak of another day ? f Palestine is no more the inheritance, secured to the ancient Israel, than was the sacrifice of a slain beast, offered on the altar, — of which it was said, that it * Romans iv. 22-24. t Hebrews iv. 8. 188 would be accepted for the transgressor, to make atonement for him, and that his sin should be for- given* — the object of the believer's reliance for acceptance before God. The latter was the type of a better sacrifice ; the former was the type of a better inheritance. As the atonement made by Christ is set forth in language borrowed from the ritual sacrifice, so the ultimate blessedness of God's people is described in terms borrowed from the temporal possession of Canaan. The faith of the Old Testament saint contemplated, through the legal sacrifice, an atonement of substantial value which God would provide. His faith saw, in the land of Canaan, the shadow of a spiritual inherit- ance which God would bestow. With the means of far less clear and definite views than we have, the true servants of God of old relied upon the same sacrifice, and anticipated the same inherit- ance that we do. " If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." f What promise ? The same made to Abraham, and to Isaac, and to Jacob. There is no other. The letter of that promise never lifts the aspirations of hope above the land reaching from the river of Egypt to the river Euphrates. Did Abraham inherit the land of Canaan ! God had said, " I will give it unto thee." % u He gave him none * Leviticus i. 4 ; iv. 20, 26, 31. + Galatiaus iii. 29. X Genesis xiii. 17. 189 inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on." * Yet the promise, ratified by the oath of him who cannot lie, must stand. If Abraham had iiad no more enlarged and accurate views of the covenant and its promises than Antipedobaptist?, lie must have been grievously disappointed, after having left his country, his kindred, and his father's house, to find himself a houseless wanderer in the very land that God had promised to him, without inheriting as much as to set his foot on, and under a necessity of purchasing a place of sepulture for the wife of his youth, and mother of his son Isaac. He must have concluded, either that he had been under some ruinous delusion in supposing that God had spoken to him, or that he had entirely mis- apprehended the import of the promises, or that God's faithfulness had failed. But he was satisfied; and eventually, with Abel, and Enoch, and Noah, and Sarah, died, his faith unwavering. "These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth." f Abraham, then, dying in faith, expected still to have the promise fulfilled, " I will give it unto thee" Of course he expected " a better country, that is an heavenly," — the only object of his desire, — and a city prepared of God. His faith, * Acts vii. 5. t Hebrews xi. 13. 190 like the faith of those of the last days, grasped " an inheritance, incorruptible, un defiled, and that f adeth not away, reserved in heaven " * for him, — a city which was " to come," having "foundations, whose builder and maker is God, — the heavenly Jerusalem." f David also, a king reigning in Jerusalem, the capital of the land of promise, was taught by the Spirit to say, — " I am a stranger with thee, a sojourner, as all my fathers were." J Such is the seed contemplated, such is the in- heritance promised, in the covenant, in which we, as of the same family, have the same interest as the descendants of Abraham had in former days ; and under the bond of which, by the express com- mand of God, children are brought with their fathers. The seal of the covenant was impressed on fathers and sons with them, in faith and hope rising above things seen and temporal, as faith and hope ever must do, to things unseen and eternal. Section III. The Church is one Commonicealih. The church is presented to us in scripture under another emblem, accordino; to which we are taught its identity in both dispensations. Israel is described as a state or commonwealth. This * 1 Peter 14. t Hebrews xi. 10, 16. ± Psalm xxxix. 12. 191 designation is sufficiently perspicuous. A com- monwealth is a corporate body existing from age to age. The individuals who compose it, at any particular time, may all pass away, and their immediate descendants, and very remote posterity, yet the commonwealth remains. In Britain, since the reio'ii of Kine willing to go with him ; and his phraseology tempts one to think he would rather have been spared the necessity of making the declaration. But he had encountered a hard squall, and he must put his craft before the wind. It perplexes Antipedobaptists to know what to do with children excluded from the church ; and what place to assign them. They are not all willing, with Dr. Carson, to deliver them over to the tender mercies of the devil. Some have, some would have, some kind of dedication, by which the little ones would be brought before the church. Sanc- tified affection is too strong for the cold logic of the theorist. John Bunyan was an Antipedobaptist, and has given us a wonderful, and wonderfully instructive narrative of a pilgrim- age from the city of Destruction to Zion. He intended to set before us an Antipedobaptist pilgrimage ; but his sound common sense and piety made him happily inconsistent. Christian is an Antipedobaptist, and, setting out, leaves not only wife but children behind him. But, subsecpiently to her husband's death, Christiana also sets out on pilgrimage with a young girl, named Mercy. Happy for her that her husband was dead, or he might have compelled her to leave the children in the city of Destruction. Dr. Carson would certainly. True : the children were capable of walking, and very naturally are disposed to go with the mother. Their remarks and conduct show that they could not be very big. All come to the wicket-gate. They are agreed that Christiana, being oldest, should knock for all. ' ' She knocked and knocked again," but there is no present response. " They" (whether all or only Christiana, as their representative, we are not told), "thought of knocking again, and knocked more vehemently than they did at first." Now the keeper of the gate opens. Christiana is the only speaker and intercedes generally for all and in particular for her sweet babes. Her the keeper "took by the hand and led her in," and with her (for the children made no personal application), her little ones, making the instructive remark, — " Suffer little children T 282 to come unto me," — omitting, however, the very significant addition furnished by authority, — " and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven ;" but Mercy is shut out. Christiana had spoken for her before, and after her own admission interceded for her. There is, however, no admis- sion for Mercy, as for the children under the hand of Christiana. Mercy must knock for herself, and on her own knocking is admitted. All this does not look Antipedo- baptist-like at all. Any Pedobaptist would accept the narrative as that of a friend. But Antipedobaptists are so good at supplementing scripture history, to make it consist with their views, that I have no doubt they will be able to eke out honest John's story, and give it a thorough Antipedo- baptist face. However, I hope they will allow the children to pass the gate on the footing of our Lord's words respecting those that are brought to him. Antipedobaptists are often far better than their principles. Once I heard one of their ministers, and a very excellent man, affectionate and loveable, at the bedside of a dying infant, pray, ' ' Lord, give the parents of this child faith to lay " (or take) "hold of thy holy covenant for the salvation of its soul." A private member of one of their churches, intelligent and a scholar, wrote me, on the death of one of his children to this effect, if not in these words, "I early dedicated my child to God. May I not hope that its early removal is a sign that that dedication has been accepted?" Put these two things together, and the Pedobaptist has nothing more to ask, than the instituted rite, the pledge of God's faithfulness, and the expression of faith in the applicant for a place among the saints. They make up the whole of the Pedobaptist creed. Note B.— Page 118. Permanence of Law. Dr. Carson makes merry, commenting on the words of Luke,— "When they believed Philip, preaching the things 283 concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women." (Acts viii. 12.) He saj T s, "It is remarkable that the account specifies women. Is it not remarkable that the Holy Spirit should be so precise as to women, yet not say a word of infants ? This is un- accountable, if they were baptized. How many volumes of controversy would the addition of a word have prevented ? How liberal was the Spirit of inspiration as to the informa- tion about the baptism of women ! But, on the supposition that infants were baptized, how parsimonious with respect to the baptism of infants !" (Pages 2S9, 290.) Not one page of controversy would have been prevented : for the doctor would have appealed to the commission, upon the authority of which he would have baptized women, if there had been no specifica- tion, which he gives us to understand he did not need, and proceeded to prove that infants did not mean unconscious babes, but children of age and intelligence. We should have had a triumphant appeal to 2 Timothy iii. 15, to prove (a very trifling perversion of the text would have served) that an infant (pf*