^ 
 
 nj 
 
 i 
 
 ;^ 
 
 CL 
 
 
 *^2? 
 
 TS 
 
 
 # 
 
 IS 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -a 
 
 _5 
 
 
 
 a. 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 . , 
 
 
 
 *S:> 1^ 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 *2 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 
 ^ )i 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 3 
 
 E 
 
 \ 
 
 j^ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 t 
 
 o 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 -a 
 
 ^ 
 
 % 
 
 c 
 <u 
 
 8' 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 d: 
 
 S i 
 
 1 
 i 
 
 S^i:^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 
 ^iii^ ' 
 
 
THE 
 
 BAPTIZED FAMILY 
 
 OE, AN INQTTIEY INTO 
 
 THE CONDITION OP CHILMBN 
 
 IN 
 
 THE OHEISTIAN CHUECH. 
 BY CiESAR'MALAN, D.D., 
 
 OP GENEVA. 
 
 S^ranslateb: from t)^t ^xmt^ 
 
 BY M. J. MULLIGAN. 
 
 Hitlj a %tcammm)intax^ '^xtiwct 
 
 BY THE EEY. E. J. BEYCE, LL.D, 
 
 BELFAST: 
 GEORGE PHILLIPS & SONS 
 
 1860. 
 
PBINTED BY THE ULSTEK FEINTING C03IPANY (lIMITEd), 
 AETHTJE STREET, BELFAST. 
 
AUTHOE'S PEEPACE. 
 
 There has lately appeared a work against tlie baptism 
 of the infant children of Christians. It is in the form 
 of a dialogue; and the interlocutors are Samuel and 
 James. The former, who disapproves of such baptism, 
 sustains his objections to it by the following argu- 
 ments : — 
 
 1st. The danger of infant ha]ptism, inasmuch as it 
 becomes, in many instances, a hindrance to conversion. 
 
 2nd. The baptism of water does not confer any grace 
 on the children of Christians, since they stand in the 
 same relation to God as the children of the heathen. 
 
 3rd. Baptism has not replaced the Jewish ordinance 
 of circumcision. 
 
 4th. The baptism of water, which is the external sign 
 of the baptism of fire, or the Holy Spirit, belongs only 
 to the spiritual church — viz., only to believers. 
 
 These arguments, which are stated with calmness and 
 devout feeling, receive but feeble replies from James. 
 The reader may consequently be led to infer that 
 Samuel is in the right, since his opponent has so little 
 to say in opposition to his views. 
 
IV AUTHOE S PREFACE. 
 
 The object of tlie folio wing dialogue is to supply wliat 
 James either could not or would not say to his friend. 
 It will, therefore, contain an examination of SmnueVs 
 arguments ; and this will require considerably more 
 time than is occupied by him in bringing them forward. 
 For it is with certain opinions, as with those subtle and 
 powerful odoars which cannot be removed from a gar- 
 ment without great trouble. Thus the Apostle Paul 
 was obliged to write a long epistle, to check merely a 
 few errors of certain Christians among the Hebrews. 
 
 However, this subject is important, for it is connected 
 with the fundamental principles of our faith, and, there- 
 fore, demands the attention and study of every disciple 
 of the truth. But, as it is one of those questions that 
 cause so much unhappy disunion amongst those who are 
 redeemed by the same Saviour, it ought to be treated 
 with prudence, and in the spirit of love, lest controversy, 
 should assume the place of discussion, and become more 
 injurious to peace than useful to the faith. 
 
PKEFACE TO THE TRANSLATION 
 
 BY THE REV. R. J. BRYCE, LL.D. 
 
 Some years ago, an amiable and Mglily gifted youth, 
 whose parents, both Baptists, were among my dearest 
 friends, left home, in delicate health, in the Autumn, 
 with the intention of passing the Winter in Italy. He 
 was accompanied by another invalid, an old school- 
 fellow, to whom he was much attached ; but, on reaching 
 Geneva, the latter, I forget why, gave up the idea of 
 Italy, and set off in another direction; so my young 
 friend, shrinking from the alternative of four or five 
 solitary months in a land of strangers, lingered at the 
 foot of the Alps for a few weeks, and then returned 
 home. His bodily health was not improved, but his 
 soul had "passed from death unto life." 
 
 He had been religiously brought up — diligently in- 
 structed in Christian doctrine, and carefully trained in 
 the practice of Christian virtue. This education had 
 produced its natural results ; and nothing was wanting 
 but that which is beyond the sphere of natural causes. 
 
VI PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION. 
 
 His nnderstaiidiiig, originally fine and now liiglily culti- 
 vated, liad cordially assented to all tlie truths of revela- 
 tion ; wliile Ms moral sentiments were sound, and his 
 conduct irreproachable. He was haunted by no scepti- 
 cism, and had fallen into no vice ; but he had not been 
 bom again : that great change awaited him at Geneva. 
 
 He had a letter of introduction to Caesar Malan ; and, 
 as soon as he could after his arrival, he went to present 
 it. He was most kindly received, and most cordially 
 invited to return. One or two visits more placed him 
 on a footing of intimacy with his new friend, to enjoy 
 whose society and attend on whose ministry it was that 
 he prolonged his stay in Geneva. In short, it pleased 
 God, by the conversation and preaching of Dr. Malan, 
 to carry home to the heart and conscience of this young 
 man, the truths which, till then, had penetrated no 
 deeper than the understanding, and to teach him the 
 great secret of laying hold on Christ as his oicn 8aviowr. 
 It is thus that He who worketh all things after the coun- 
 sel of His own will, manifests His sovereignty in the 
 choice of the means by which He brings His elect to 
 Himself, and vindicates His own claim to all the glory of 
 the work. It was not for lack of Christian conversation 
 and evangelical preaching at home, that this youth was 
 sent all the way to Geneva, to be converted to God. 
 
 ^or did the mother of my young friend (now his only 
 surviving parent), gTudge or envy the Swiss pastor the 
 honour of having been the instrument of her son's 
 
PEEFxiCE TO THE TEANSLATION. VU 
 
 saving change. On tlie contrary, Iter heart overflowed 
 witb. joy and thankfulness, not only for the happy event 
 itself, but also for having been shown so strikingly that 
 it was Grod's doing, and guarded so effectually from 
 giving any part of the glory to any other. 
 
 When the young man was preparing to return home, 
 Dr. Malan presented him with the original of the 
 following tract; and, when his sufferings came to an 
 end, his mother gave it to me. I read it with great 
 interest, especially the earlier portion of it, in which an 
 important part of the argument is presented in almost 
 the same shape it had taken, some years before, in 
 my own mind, when reflection and study of the Scrip- 
 tures solved some doubts I had been led to feel about 
 the lawfulness of Infant Baptism. I naturally wished 
 to have it published in English, and prevailed on a 
 lady, belonging to my congregation, to undertake the 
 translation of it. She had proceeded a good way, 
 when circumstances occurred which rendered it ne- 
 cessary to suspend the work, and it lay by for several 
 years, principally from want of leizure, on my part, to 
 read the original a second time, and with a more critical 
 eye. But a conversation which I had with a friend in 
 Scotland, in the end of 1857, or the beginning of 1858, 
 recalled my attention to the matter so strongly, that I 
 put aside other occupations for a little, re-examined 
 certain passages, in which the correctness of the author's 
 views had been questioned, and came to the conclusion 
 
viii PREFACE TO THE TRANSLATION. 
 
 that there was notliing substantially amiss in them, 
 though the mode of expression might be objectionable ; 
 and that it would be wrong, on so slight grounds, to 
 \\dthhold so valuable a production from the English 
 public. So I requested Miss Mulligan to proceed with 
 her work, believing that misconceptions would be easily 
 guarded against by two or three short notes, and by 
 omitting here and there an equivocal expression, or in- 
 serting a parenthetical explanation. At the same time, 
 when I did not think an inaccuracy likely to mislead 
 the reader seriously, I took no notice of it. The book is 
 Dr. Malan's, not mine, and I did not feel at liberty to 
 make any material alterations, nor to trouble the reader 
 with minute criticism on what was not material. 
 
 The gi'eat merit of Malan's tract lies in the fulness 
 and graphic power with which it brings out the Scrip- 
 tural truth, that the children of believers belong by 
 covenant to Grod. On this principle the whole doctrine 
 of Infant Baptism rests ; and all attempts to find for it 
 any other foundation, or to regulate the practice of it 
 by any other view, leads either to a delusive superstition 
 on the one hand, or a deadening formalism or mis- 
 chievious latitudinarianism, on the other. In handling 
 the other points of the argument. Dr. Malan may be 
 equalled or surpassed by other writers ; but in this, so 
 far as my reading extends, he is unrivalled. This is, 
 perhaps, in some measure due to his having adopted the 
 form of a dialogue : that species of composition is much 
 
PEEFACE TO THE TEANSLATION. IX 
 
 better fitted for exhibiting tbe ebaracters and feelings 
 of human beings, and the nature of the relations wbicli 
 they occupy toward one another, than for handling 
 abstract truths. 
 
 The great objection to dialogue, as a vehicle of con- 
 troversy, is, that it is scarcely possible for the writer 
 to give fall force to the arguments of those to whose 
 views he is opposed. Dr. Malan complains of this, as a 
 fault in the dialogue to which his is a reply ; and the 
 same complaint has been made against himself, by some 
 friends of mine, inclined to Baptist views, who have 
 read either the original itself, or the manuscript of this 
 translation. This, however, is almost inseparable from 
 this form of composition. When a man honestly and 
 sincerely holds an erroneous opinion, he will naturally 
 present the arguments in its favour with their gar- 
 niture of fallacies, arranged in the manner which is 
 best fitted to conceal their inconclusiveness, and which 
 actually does conceal it from his own mind. But when 
 the same arguments are stated by one who sees their 
 unsoundness, it is not easy for him to express himself 
 as if he did not see it : he has torn to pieces the drapery 
 of error, and it is not easy for him to replace it, so that 
 the rents shall not appear. Dr. Malan, however, tells 
 us, in his preface, that this dialogue is not a fiction. 
 By this he probably means that a discussion, substan- 
 tially the same as that given in the following pages, and 
 issuing in a similar result, actually took place between 
 
X PREFACE TO THE TEA]!TSLATION. 
 
 himself and a Baptist Mend. Of this the tract contains 
 internal evidence ; and I know that when my young 
 friend went to Dr. Malan's house, with his letter of 
 introduction, he read, over the door, the inscription* from 
 Joshua, xxiv. 15, which is represented as having so 
 forcibly struck Samuel, and was affected by it in the 
 very same manner. He felt deeply the vividness with 
 which it brought forward religion among the substantial 
 realities of life, and wondered at the confidence -with 
 which the head of the family answered for his household. 
 These impressions were the germ of his conversion. 
 
 Of the translation I will only say, that having care- 
 fully compared it with the original, I can answer for its 
 fidelity, and for the felicity with which it brings out in 
 English many subtleties of French idiom. How far it 
 has attained the other requisites of a translation, every 
 reader can judge for himself. 
 
 * It is a usual practice among the upper and middle classes in Switzerland 
 to have inscriptions on the walls of their houses, and in their grounds, 
 expressing sentiments which they admire, or commemorating persons and 
 events that interest them. These inscriptions, of course, indicate the pre- 
 vailing feeling in the mind of the person by whom they are set up ; on and 
 about the dweUings of religious people, they have a religious character. 
 There was, therefore, no singularity or affectation in such a motto. 
 
%.:^ 
 
 RECOMMENDATORY NOTICE. 
 BY THE REY. DR. HOUSTON, KNOCKBRACKEN 
 
 Some years ago, I read a work of Dr. Malan, of Greneva, 
 on Baptism, arranged in tlie form of a dialogue between 
 a Pedo-Baptist and one wlio denies the doctrine of Infant 
 Baptism. At the time I was mncli pleased with the 
 simple, striking, and conclusive manner in which the 
 argument was presented in favour of the infant seed of 
 believers being included in the covenant of redemption, 
 and so entitled to its visible seal, — with the originality 
 and clearness of various Scripture criticisms and expo- 
 sitions contained in the work, — and with the concise and 
 very satisfactory statement of the benefits resulting from 
 Infant Baptism. 
 
 The following translation of Dr. Malan' s work, by an 
 esteemed Lady in Belfast, I have perused in manuscript 
 with much pleasure. It is at once exact, and free, pre- 
 senting the sense of the original in a perspicuous and 
 fluent English style, and doing ample justice to the 
 argument of the author. I regard the publication of this 
 little work as eminently seasonable at present, it being 
 specially adapted for general readers by its lively and 
 popular style, and by the powerful manner in which, 
 while the argument is strictly logical, it appeals to the 
 best and highest feelings of Christian parents. 
 
 I therefore freely give it my warmest recommendation. 
 
 THOMAS HOUSTOK 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER I. j,^^^ 
 
 The Child Devoted to God, 13 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Absolute Soveeeignty is the Chaeactee of the whole 
 
 Covenant oe God, 18 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 The Fundamental Eeeoe of the Baptist system is the 
 
 INTRODUCTION OF AN ACT OF Man's WILL INTO THAT 
 
 which ought only to be eegaeded as the sove- 
 eeign Appointment of God, 24 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Baptism of Watee is not a Seal set on Faith, - 33 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Gospel has not Deper'ed the Childeen of Be- 
 
 llevees of theer Pei^ileges, . . . - - 46 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 The Gospel does not Sepaeate Child feom Paeent, - 52 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 What has once been Established by the Loed, exists 
 
 AS LONG AS He Himself does not eevoke it, - - 66 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 The Apostles eegaeded the Childeen of Believees as 
 
 MEilBEES OF THE ChUECH, 73 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The Apostolic Chuech always Baptized the Childeen 
 
 OF Believees, 83 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 The Childeen of Unbelieving Paeents have no Eight 
 
 TO the Oedinance of Baptism, 99 
 
 CHAPTER XI, 
 The Child of a Baptist cannot be beought up undee 
 
 THE Peomise of Geace, HI 
 

 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE CHILD DEYOTED TO GOD. 
 
 Samuel had just parted witli liis friend James, after 
 having, as lie thought, demonstrated to him that the 
 children of Christians do not possess any advantage over 
 those of the heathen, and that, consequently, they ought 
 not to be sealed with the name of the Almighty. 
 
 James, a simple-hearted and pious man, but himself 
 as yet a "babe in Christ," had met the dida of Samuel 
 with only a few feeble observations ; and the latter, all 
 the more firmly convinced of the correctness of his own 
 views, in taking leave, had prayed that God would reveal 
 to his friend the whole truth of His Word. 
 
 But might we not suppose that, in this case, we have a 
 verification of the text which says — " He that is first in 
 his own cause seemeth just, but his neighbour cometh and 
 searcheth him." (Prov. xviii. 17.) Am I going too far, 
 when I ask permission to apply to Samuel, the friend of 
 James, what follows ? — which, moreover, is not a fiction. 
 
 Well : Samuel was obliged to take a journey ; and, 
 amongst the pious people whom he visited, there was one 
 of his friends, a man of some information, and the father 
 of a numerous family. This friend resided in the 
 
 i 
 
14 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 coimtry, and Samuel, desirous of liaving a long conver- 
 sation witli this brother, called on Tiim in the morning. 
 
 " This, then," said he, as he approached the Christian's 
 dwelling, " is one of the houses in which the Saviour is 
 loved ! May the Prince of Peace multiply peace on it, 
 and on all the children of peace that live in it!" Full 
 of this pleasing sentiment, he advanced towards the 
 house, on the doors and walls of which he could read 
 the same wish that his own heart had formed; for 
 different passages of Scripture were inscribed upon them 
 in several places, and above the principal entrance 
 might be read the following words — "As foe me and 
 
 MY house, we will SERVE THE LOED." (Joshua Xxiv. 15.) 
 
 Samuel stopped before this inscription, which he read 
 more than once, dwelling on the words and my house ; 
 then he knocked, that the door of his brother might be 
 opened to him. 
 
 He was received by a young girl. " Papa and mamma," 
 said she to him, " are out walking ; but they will soon 
 return." " I will wait for them," said Samuel ; " and, 
 in the meantime, if you please, I will again read those 
 beautiful passages of God's Word that I see written 
 on your house." 
 
 " It was our good papa," said the girl, while accom- 
 panying him, "who wrote them himself: and as my 
 brothers, sisters, and I were all around him when he did 
 it, he prayed our God to write them on our hearts by 
 His Holy Spirit. 
 
 " And do you believe that God has already done so ?" 
 said Samuel, stopping to converse with the girl. 
 
 Oirl — ^We at least hope that He will do so ; for our 
 God is also our good Father, and He has already greatly 
 blessed the elder members of our family. 
 
CHAPTER I. 15 
 
 Samuel — Do you then believe, my dear girl, that He 
 is your God ? 
 
 Girl (tvitJi surprise) — Oh, surely, Sir! Is He not papa 
 and mamma's Grod? Of course He is our Grod, also ! 
 
 This reply touched Samuel, for the child had made it 
 with all her heart, and the tone of her voice had indi- 
 cated the profoundest conviction. Accordingly, although 
 the declaration was not in accordance with his own 
 opinions, he did not venture to oppose it. She had in- 
 spired him with respect, and he felt that any attempt 
 on his part to deprive her of this belief would be a very 
 culpable act — to a certain extent a seduction. 
 
 It would, therefore, have been impossible for him to 
 repeat to her what he had affirmed with so much con- 
 fidence to his friend James — viz., " That the children of 
 believers stood on no other footing before God than 
 those of heathens." His conscience seemed to tell him 
 that this was not absolutely true, at least in the family 
 he was now visiting, and the child's other replies only 
 tended to make him feel this more and more. 
 
 Samuel — How old are you, my dear? 
 
 Girl — A little more than ten years. I have two 
 brothers and three sisters older than myself, and two 
 brothers and two sisters younger. My dear Kttle sister 
 is not yet one year old. 
 
 Samuel — And do you think that God is also the God 
 of that little sister ? 
 
 Girl — Oh ! yes, yes, Sir ; for our family is not like the 
 poor heathens that the missionaries visit. They are 
 only idolaters, and their children are dedicated to their 
 false gods; but papa and mamma are Christians, and 
 we have been dedicated to the Lord Jesus. T'or you 
 know, do you not, that the Lord Jesus loves little 
 
16 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 children, and that He blesses them ? Mamma says we 
 are His lambs, and that one day, when we grow larger, 
 and so know Him better, we shall be His sheep. 
 
 Samuel was now becoming more and more thoughtful. 
 The simple and sweet confidence of the young girl in- 
 terested him deeply ; and, as he felt unwilling to make 
 any reply to this so very simple and touching expression 
 of her piety, his questions were henceforth prompted 
 merely by his desire to know the extent of this young 
 disciple's faith. 
 
 Samuel — IS'evertheless, my dear child, your little sister 
 does not yet know that there is a God, and that He has 
 condescended to visit us. 
 
 Oirl (ivith an expression of pity) — But, Sir, do you 
 not know that " Every good gift, and every perfect gift, 
 is from above, and cometh down from th^ Father of 
 Lights." (James i. 17.) This is quite true, Sir, because 
 it is St. James who says it. You see, then, that it is 
 Grod who, in His great goodness, has made Himself our 
 God. We did not create ourselves in a country where 
 His Holy Bible is known, nor did we seek Him first ; 
 but it was He that gave us a papa and mamma, who are 
 His children. You now see. Sir, that God has made 
 Himself our God. My little sister also, when she becomes 
 larger, will understand this quite as well as I do. 
 
 Samuel — ^You think, then, that God knows you, 
 and that He takes care of you as of one of His own 
 children ? 
 
 Girl — Oh, Sir, I am quite sure of it. Papa has shown 
 me in the Holy Bible, that God called the sons and 
 daughters of the Israelites " His children" (Ezek. xvi. 
 20, 21) ; and you know that we are not in a worse 
 condition than the children of the Jews. 
 
CHAPTER I. 17 
 
 Samuel — But, dear cHld, you know that the Jews 
 were a peculiar people — holy to the Lord. 
 
 Oirl — And we also are holy to the Lord ; for we have 
 all, as you know, His great name upon us. We have all 
 been baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy 
 Spirit, and papa very often reminds us of this at morn- 
 ing prayer ; mamma, too, during the day, often exhorts 
 us to think of it, that we may be good children. 
 
 Samuel — How so, dear child ? 
 
 Girl — Oh, it is that, since we are consecrated to God, 
 by His great name, which is put upon us, we ought to 
 be mindful of it, and so respect it. For instance, the 
 other day I was so unfortunate as to get out of temper 
 with my little brother. Well, mamma called me to her 
 and asked me if the gardener used papa's silver gilt 
 cup, to draw water from the sewer, when he was water- 
 ing the vegetables. I said to mamma that he did not, 
 because that cup was too precious for such a use ; and 
 besides, it had papa's name and a text from the Bible 
 engraven on it. Mamma then asked me if I, who had 
 been marked with God's name, and who was for that 
 reason as a holy vessel in His sight, ought to be filled 
 with the foul and loathsome waters of pride and passion ; 
 and I assure you. Sir, that I understood mamma's 
 meaning very well, and shall not, please God, ever get 
 out of temper again. 
 
 Samuel became still more thoughtful. The child's 
 last words had penetrated to his very heart, in which 
 there arose, as it were, a voice in favour of what he had 
 just seen and heard, and he desired the return of her 
 parents, that he might put questions to them, and give 
 replies which he felt reluctant to bring before the mind 
 of a child. 
 
18 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 ABSOLUTE SOVEEEIGNTT IS THE CHAEACTER OF THE WHOLE 
 COVENANT OF GOD. 
 
 " We have heard, witli very great pleasure, as we ^vrote 
 you, of tlie liappy birtli of your first-born," said the father 
 of the family to Samuel, when they were alone too*ether, 
 " and have rendered thanks for it to the Lord, whose holy 
 name is named upon him." 
 
 Samuel blushed ; and it was not without some em- 
 barrassment that he was obliged to confess that his 
 child was not yet baptized. 
 
 Father — Is it possible, my friend ? It is, however, 
 more than three months since he was bom. Is it pos- 
 sible that you have the misfortune of being a Baptist ? 
 ^ Samuel — The misfortune, do you say ! 
 
 Father — Certainly ; and the great misfortune, too, 
 which it undoubtedly is, to remove oneself, though it 
 were but by ignorance, from the Word and grace of God. 
 
 Samuel — Well, I assure you that I don't think that on 
 this point I am ignorant of God's will. I believe that I 
 act in conformity to it, when I withhold from my child 
 a baptism to which he has not got any right. 
 
 Father — Dear Samuel, I was not aware of this change 
 in your opinions, and I am gTieved by it. But, tell me, 
 are you as sure of what you advance as I am of its con- 
 trary ? For in short, brother, one of us must be in 
 formal opposition to the will of God, which does not, in 
 any case, admit of a double interpretation ; and which. 
 
CHAPTER II. 19 
 
 assuredly, does not leave one of the ordinances of tlie 
 Clinrcli at the mercy of man's opinion. Now, as regards 
 myself, I am as certain of having obeyed the holy will 
 of my Grod, in naming, with the sign of baptism, His 
 great name upon my children, as I am of having Him 
 for my own Grod. 
 
 Samuel — I understand how, with such views, you must 
 be scandalized with my conduct. 
 
 Father — Scandalized ! By no means, dear friend ; but 
 I am afflicted on your account, and lament that you have 
 fallen into this error. 
 
 Samuel — But, beloved brother, am I in error when I 
 do what I believe to be the truth — the very Word of Grod ? 
 Is not my conscience in this sincere ? 
 
 Father — Sincere ! I have no doubt it is. But is it en- 
 lightened ? and are you not mistaken as to the meaning 
 of that Word, when you exclude your own child from the 
 promise to which you his father have attained ; and, by 
 so doing exclude him likewise from the Church of Christ, 
 to which you belong ? In what part of God's Word are 
 you commanded thus to deprive your offspring of the pri- 
 vileges and blessings which He assigns to them ? 
 
 Samuel — G-od preserve me from doing such a thing ! 
 I have not, however, done anything like that in withhold - 
 ing from my child a ceremony, of whose signification or 
 even existence he cannot possibly know anything. 
 
 Father — Call not that a ceremony, dear Samuel, which 
 is an ordinance of God. 
 
 Samuel — Be assured, dear friend, that I do not apply 
 this term to the baptism of water, except with regard to 
 little children. To them it is in reality but a ceremony, 
 since they are not in any way capable of deriving benefit 
 from it. 
 
20 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Father — Capable ! did yon say ? All, brotlier ! when 
 it is Sovereign Majesty tliat acts, who, I pray yon, is 
 capable of His grace, bnt any being whatever who is the 
 object of it ? 
 
 Samuel — Bnt still it is necessary, is it not, that this 
 being sbonld be aware of the operation of this grace 
 towards himself ? Now, how can this happen ia the 
 case of a little child ? 
 
 Father— 'WoW., when the sovereignty of power or of 
 grace acts, it neither demands of the creatnre who is the 
 object of it, that he shonld will nor that he should feel. 
 The supreme authority is sufficient of itself ; and what 
 it has done is effectual, from the very fact that it has 
 done it. 
 
 Samuel — Is this principle well founded, my friend ? 
 
 Father — Judge of it yourself by the following anecdote. 
 In one of the West Indian Islands, a planter, a God- 
 fearing man, resolved to bestow liberty on all the chil- 
 dren of a family of slaves that lived on one of his estates, 
 at a distance from his residence. For this purpose, he 
 sent a messenger with orders to inform the family that 
 they were free, and to place on the neck of each of the 
 children a blue collar, which should be at once a sign of 
 liberty to them, and an appeal to the humanity of the 
 other planters. The messenger could not reach the 
 village until a late hour of the night. He presented 
 himself, and laid before the parents his auspicious 
 mission. They showed him four children (one of 
 whom was still unweaned and feeble), who had 
 gone to rest for the night. " Let us not awake 
 these dear little creatures," said the messenger, 
 who was a tender-hearted, pious man. "The liberty 
 which I bring them is theirs, although they are yet 
 
CHAPTER II. 21 
 
 ignorant of it, and the collars wHch. thej are liencefortli 
 to wear, will recall it to their minds every day, althougli 
 they do not even know that my master is sending it to 
 them." So saying, he passed on, and adroitly attached 
 a collar to the neck of each, even to that of the little 
 suckling ; and after having, for some moments, and 
 with the kindest feelings, looked npon those four little 
 ones, who had gone to sleep slaves, but were to awake 
 for ever free, he invoked on them the blessing of the 
 Lord Jesus, and immediately departed, that he might 
 carry to his master an account of the gratitude of the 
 parents, and, at the same time, express to him his own 
 delight. 
 
 Samuel — How touching this story, dear friend ! How 
 solemn and at the same time how 8.ffecting this scene ! 
 
 Father — ^You perceive, however, Samuel, that these 
 infants felt not, willed not, nay, did not even know what 
 their master and benefactor was doing for them ; and 
 yet their total ignorance did not render his gift less 
 efficacious, or prevent the collars, which they so unwit- 
 tingly received, from being the sure sign of their Kberty 
 — the visible and significant mark, which separated them 
 from other children still in slavery. 
 
 Sarmtel — I understand your meaning ; you wish me 
 to observe, don't you, that these children were capable 
 of receiving this favour, seeing that the bestowing of it 
 depended entirely on the good pleasure of their master ? 
 
 Father — And was it not so in reality ? Now, if the 
 good pleasure and authority of a man were sufficient to 
 impart a benefit, even to those who were incapable of 
 knowing or comprehending it, how much more must the 
 sovereign pleasure and infinite power of the Almighty 
 be sufficient to communicate to His creatures, grace, 
 
22 THE BAPTIZED FA]VIILY. 
 
 or any dispensation whatever, that He may design for 
 them? 
 
 Samuel — I understand yonr idea, and have perhaps 
 really deceived myself in my estimation of the power 
 which belongs to the ordinance of God. 
 
 Father — You have certainly done so, brother ; for see 
 what one of these ordinances of the Lord was amongst 
 the Israelites. Circumcision, without doubt, signified 
 something, and was assuredly the seal appointed, not 
 by man but by God, of a covenant entered into by Him 
 with certain families in this world. But this seal was 
 placed upon children newly born, and, by that very cir- 
 cumstance, incapable of knowing even of its existence. 
 
 Samuel — I understand; circumcision, you say, was 
 not the less valid on that account. 
 
 Father — Certainly; for it was the appointment of 
 God's supreme authority that gave it vahdity. 
 
 Samuel — And you think that the child entered thus 
 into covenant with God ? 
 
 Father — He was in covenant with God even before he 
 received this sign, and circumcision was merely an in- 
 dication of this — an outward mark of it impressed upon 
 the child. Recollect the terms in which Moses spoke 
 of this covenant to the Israelites (Deut. xxix. 10-15 — 
 " Ye stand this day all of you, before the Lord your 
 God ; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your 
 officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your 
 wives, &c. : that thou shouldest enter into covenant 
 with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the 
 Lord thy God maketh with thee this day : that he may 
 establish thee to-day for a people unto himself, and that 
 he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, 
 and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to 
 
CHAPTER II. 23 
 
 Isaac and to Jacob. Neitlier with you only do I make 
 this covenant and tMs oath; but with him that standeth 
 here with us this day before the Lord our God, and 
 also with him that is not here with us this day." It 
 was, therefore, with regard to children yet unborn, as 
 well as to the then present generation, that not only was 
 the covenant entered into, but even the sanction of the 
 oath enjoined. Where in this case was their capahility, 
 if I may use that word ? 
 
 Samuel — I acknowledge that the capability was only 
 in the sovereignty of the divine appointment, and I 
 perceive that I have after all, spoken too Hghtly of 
 baptism, since the question is not to demand of what 
 utility it may be to the infant, but carefully to inquire 
 whether the Lord appoints it for him or not. 
 
 Father — That is the correct statement of the question; 
 for it depends on the principle that under the kingdom 
 of grace the creature does not choose nor accept,^ but 
 receives everything, because everything is ordained by 
 an exercise of sovereignty on the part of Him that 
 worketh all things after the counsel of His own will. 
 
 * See note A at tlie end of the volume. 
 
24 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE FUNDAMENTAL EEEOR OF THE BAPTIST SYSTEM IS THE 
 INTEODUCTION OF AN ACT OF MAN's WILL INTO THAT WHICH 
 OUGHT ONLY TO BE EEGAEDED AS THE SOVEEEIGN APPOINT- 
 MENT OF GOD. 
 
 Samuel — Do you really mean to say tliat tlie ordinance 
 of baptism is entirely independent of the ctoice and 
 consent of tlie person who receives it ? 
 
 Father — I repeat to you that I believe every ordinance 
 of God to be supremely independent, wbetber of the 
 approbation or the contempt of man ; therefore in the 
 matter which now occupies us, and which unfortunately 
 adds to the divisions that distract the Church of God, 
 it seems to me that the question at issue is much less 
 that of infant baptism, than of the place which the 
 child, under the Gospel, occupies amongst God's people, 
 and of the character which God assigns to it. 
 
 My meaning is this : — Baptism with water is the sign 
 of a purpose of God towards man ; and man, in order to 
 receive this sign, ought to stand in a certain position 
 which God has specified ; therefore, if even an infant 
 be found in this position, it is evident that the sign 
 ought to be put on him, 
 
 Sarmiel — That is to say, is it not, that you consider 
 baptism as a seal which God, by His sovereign authority, 
 puts on a human being, and not as a mark to which the 
 human being first approaches, and which He accepts ? 
 
 Father — Once more, brother, in the kingdom of grace 
 
CHAPTER III. 25 
 
 man accepts * notliing, and I think tliat wliat you have 
 just said is tlie root of the error in which I believe you 
 to be. You act on the supposition that there is inde- 
 pendence on the part of man ; that he conies, as it were, 
 to meet this ordinance, with which he complies, and which 
 he accepts. And here lies, I think, that which discovers 
 to the eye of faith the faultiness of this way of acting, 
 
 Samuel— In what, pray? 
 
 Father — In this, that man, in doing so, changes into 
 an act of his own will that which is entirely an appoint- 
 ment of God's authority; and, by this wrong step, 
 withdraws from the kingdom of grace to enter upon the 
 labour of works ; acts, where he ought only to receive; does 
 instead of letting God do for him — viz., appropriates, in 
 some respects, under the name of obedience, a work 
 which is exclusively that of God toward him, and not at 
 all that of consent and agreement on his part. 
 
 /Saw^teZ— Pardon me, dear brother, if I say that I find 
 it very dif&cult to understand your observation. 
 
 Father — My meaning is this. If God had said to man 
 thou shalt get thyself hajptized, baptism would have been 
 an active duty ; such as, for example, the sanctification 
 of the Sabbath ; but as God has said le thou hajptized, 
 the duty which he imposes is a passive one. 
 
 Samuel — I understand your idea. Tou consider 
 baptism, in some degree, like the anointing oil that was 
 put on the vessels of the sanctuary, but which the 
 vessels did not accept. 
 
 Father — Precisely. For though the utensils that God 
 had caused to be sealed by the anointing oil were only 
 of a metal similar to that of any other vessel, yet what 
 
 * See note A, at the end of the volume, 
 c 
 
26 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 a character did not tMs divine a^pjpointment impress on 
 them! Why could not the Levites approach them? 
 and why must they have died had they dared to touch 
 them ? Why those lamentations over the profane use 
 which impious kings made of them ? (Num. xviii. 3) ; 
 and why, also, the complaint of David over the shield of 
 Saul, abandoned on Gilboah, as if it had not been 
 anointed with the holy oil ? It was, you see, because God, 
 by His sovereign will, had set them apart, and they were 
 holy, how unconscious soever they may have been of 
 that dedication. It was the same of circumcision ; and, 
 in the present day, it is the same with regard to 
 baptism; moreover, as circumcision, a passive sacrament, 
 was distinct from the passover, an active duty ; so, under 
 the Grospel, one of God's ordinances is a passive seal, 
 the other an active duty. 
 
 Samuel — This distinction, which is quite new to me, 
 appears worthy of attention. Have the goodness to state 
 it more fully. 
 
 Father — Well, then, pay attention, first, to the terms 
 employed in these ordinances. The first is instituted 
 by this command, cjo and ha]jtize; and is fulfilled in these 
 words, he baptized, or I haptize thee ; as I have baptized 
 Crispus. (Acts ii. 38 ; 1 Cor. i. 14.) Or else, when the 
 disciple sees the necessity of it for himself, he says 
 — " What doth hinder me to he haptized ? " and the 
 reply is not, "do so," but "thoumayest (be baptized) ;" 
 expressions which all indicate that the question here 
 is of a mark received, and not of a work in which man's 
 will and acquiescence perform anything. But the ordi- 
 nance of the Lord's Supper bears a totally difierent 
 character. Its institution is in these words — " Take, 
 eat : do this im, rememhrance of me; " and its celebration 
 
CHAPTER III. 27 
 
 is preceded by an examination, by personal and very 
 searching trial of tbe disciple, wlio will celebrate it 
 unwortbily if lie does not act according to knowledge, 
 conforming, at the same time, the whole of his will to 
 that of the Lord. 
 
 Samuel — Permit me to state something that strikes 
 me, dear brother. This examination, this trial of his 
 faith, is what the Christian ought to make before par- 
 taking of the Lord's Supper ; but to this he is certainly 
 not called in any part of the written Word when baptism 
 is in question. Yes ; this certainly does make a 
 difference. 
 
 Father — This difference is positive. In the Lord's 
 Supper, faith examines itself ; then it acts with reflection, 
 with choice, and with preference. In the case of bap- 
 tism, nothing like this is either commanded or indicated 
 in Grod's Word, and therefore to the question, why those 
 who baptize their children do not also administer to 
 them the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, the reply 
 is quite simple, and Scripture furnishes it by saying 
 that baptism is a seal imposed by Grod, whilst the Lord's 
 Supper pre-supposes self-examination on the part of the 
 communicant. !N^ow, an infant is susceptible of receiving 
 a seal placed upon him by God, but is not yet capable 
 of self-examination; therefore he can be baptized, though 
 he cannot partake of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Samuel — This explanation is very clear, and satisfies 
 me entirely. 
 
 Father — It may also show you the impropriety of that 
 examination and preparation that Baptists are in the 
 habit of requiring from the disciples whom they baptize. 
 It is certain that Scripture not only neither commands 
 nor sets the example of such examination and prepara- 
 
28 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 tion, bnt, moreover, tliat it does not even suggest them. 
 N'ay, it rather opposes them; for if, with regard to the 
 Lord's Supper, it requires faith, and consequently an 
 act of the will, it speaks of baptism as of an ordinance 
 having all its power in sovereign authority. It is, there- 
 fore, like a seal — ^like the fiscal stamp which an officer 
 puts on gold or silver, to mark it, on behalf of him who 
 possesses the right to do sOc 
 
 Samuel — Do you mean by this that the converted 
 adult, who is baptized, is not to give any attention to 
 this ordinance — that he is only to submit to it, so to 
 speak, like a stone ? 
 
 Father — Certainly not ; for the adult heathen or Jew, 
 who has received from God faith in the name of the 
 Lord Jesus, receives also by the Word the command to 
 be baptized. It is therefore his duty, in compliance 
 with this command, which he believes, gratefully to 
 receive on himself the seal mth which God deigns to 
 mark him. But reverently to thank God, because He 
 consecrates me by the seal of His name, which He 
 Himself puts upon me, is very different from imagining 
 that my own inclinations and preparations render me 
 more fit for it, and give more of reality and efficacy to 
 its impress. 
 
 Scormiel — Now I understand you. You would have 
 the adult disciple, though he knows what God does for 
 him, to be as passive in this ordinance as the little 
 child. 
 
 Father — That is my idea, and I consider those pre- 
 parations and inclinations of the Baptists, what those of 
 a gold object would be, which believed itself better 
 stamped, because it was persuaded that the die had 
 marked it. It is certain that this persuasion would 
 
CHAPTEE III. 29 
 
 neither be tlie impress of tlie die, nor tlie blow of the 
 hammer that fixed it. 
 
 Samuel — Do you, then, still return to the sovereign 
 authority of God, and attibute to it entirely the ordi- 
 nance of baptism ? 
 
 Father — ^Yes, dear brother, entirely ; and if I dwell so 
 much upon it, it is because I am persuaded that in this 
 lies the fundamental and principal error of the Baptist. 
 He changes the passive duty to which Grod's authority 
 subjects the man who receives the ordinance into an 
 active duty of faith. Think of the blue collars of the 
 little negroes. 
 
 Samuel — I confess to you that I never before imagined 
 that the ordinance of baptism was so serious and im- 
 portant as you now show me that it is. 
 
 Father — It is connected with the fundamental doc- 
 trines of our faith. According to these doctrines, the 
 man that mingles, in any way whatever, his own works 
 and inclinations with the grace of Grod, disowns it, 
 dishonours it, and keeps himself apart from it. In like 
 manner, I think that to change, even in some respects 
 only, a divine ordinance into an active duty, on the part 
 of man, is to disown the majesty of the former, and to 
 thrust away the benefit to be derived from it. Such a 
 proceeding is, in my opinion, a species of insolence 
 towards the Most High in this, that it, at the least, 
 mixes up the choice and acquiescence of the creature 
 with the sovereign authority and sublime independence 
 of the divine ordinance. 
 
 Samuel — Are you not going too far, my friend ? are 
 you not unjust towards this work of obedience, and 
 could it cause so much joy, and so many happy effects 
 in the soul, were it thus faulty ? 
 
30 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Father — My dear brotlier, it is easy to believe our- 
 selves Messed wben we are only self-satisfied. Tlie ordi- 
 nary language of God's people is to say, how I have been 
 blessed ! wben they ougKt simply to say, how much satis- 
 faction hojve I derived from ivhat I have done! The su- 
 perstitious man says that he is blessed in bis austerities 
 and vain observances, for bis imagination occupies the 
 place of faith, and his o^vn self-approbation seems to 
 him to be the Spirit of Grod. It is but too much the 
 same amongst the disciples of the truth, as those 
 Christians who, after having been Baptists, have re- 
 turned from that persuasion, will tell you. They be- 
 lieved themselves blessed, and that abundantly, when 
 they got themselves baptized ; spoke of the happiness of 
 their minds, and of all the benefits that they had de- 
 rived from the ordinance. Afterwards, when their 
 illusion was dispelled, and when they returned to the 
 simplicity of the faith, they concluded, and with jus- 
 tice, that these emotions proceeded neither from God 
 nor from His Spirit, but simply from their own im- 
 pressions, or the influence of those by whom they 
 were surrounded. 
 
 Samuel — I feel assured, however, that such is not my 
 case, and that, on the contrary, I can render a Scrip- 
 tural reason for what I have done, whether in getting 
 myself re-baptized, or in mthholding the ordinance of 
 baptism from my child. 
 
 Father — Well, then, will you tell me why you got 
 yourself re-baptized ? 
 
 Samuel — For two reasons : one is, because I have 
 found out that the baptism which I received in infancy 
 was not valid ; the other, because I have plainly seen, 
 from God's Word, that none have a right to the baptism 
 
CHAPTER III. 31 
 
 of water, save those wlio liave believed, and made a pro- 
 fession of their faith. 
 
 Father — Tell me, then, in the first place, what led you 
 to believe that your first baptism was not valid ? 
 
 Samuel — It was at first, as I have already told you, 
 my inability to comprehend the nature of God's ordi- 
 nance at the time when it was administered to me. 
 
 Father — Does this reason still appear sufficient ? 
 
 Samuel — No, and I give it up ; for I have seen that 
 the ordinance of God has its authority in itself. But 
 other reasons besides have caased, and do still cause, 
 me to doubt the validity of my first baptism ; and one 
 of them is, my very strong conviction that the minister 
 by whom I was baptized in infancy was far from being 
 a converted man. 
 
 Father — Alas, alas ! dear brother ; this is a new blow 
 to the authority of God's ordinance. The first related 
 to the subject of baptism ; it was the little child, whose 
 weakness rendered him incapable of it. ISTow it is the 
 instrument of the ordinance that annuls it ! Your 
 baptism, you say, is not valid, because he who adminis- 
 tered it was not a true believer ! Ah, dear friend ; the 
 more you speak, the more clearly I perceive that your 
 zeal, however sincere it may have been, was without 
 knowledge. 
 
 Samuel — In what, pray ? 
 
 Father — Oh, in supposing that the ordinance of God 
 receives any power or efficacy from the instrument that 
 administers it. No, no, brother, no such thing. AYhat 
 the Lord has instituted is good and perfect in itself, 
 because it is His work. The coin which a prince issues 
 is good on account of his arms or effigy impressed on it, 
 but not on account of the person who makes use of it. 
 
32 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 In like manner, the ordinance of tlie Lord is valid, be- 
 cause it bears the seal of the Almighty, and not on 
 account of the man who transmits it. In like manner, 
 brother, the Lord's Snpper is good, not on account of 
 the servant of Grod who serves the table, but because it 
 was the Lord of that table who said — " TaJce, eat : do this 
 in rememhrance of me." There the servant does not 
 season the dishes ; it is the Word and Spirit of God 
 that do so, and it is faith that enjoys them. It is the 
 same with the baptism of water. It is rendered valid 
 neither by Paul, nor ApoUos, nor Cephas, but by the 
 Lord's commandment — " Go and haj)tize.'^ Here the 
 Word of Grod and the invocation of His holy name are 
 everything. Let the institution, therefore, be observed 
 and repeated as He enjoins, and it will take care of itself. 
 As to the instruments, let them know, and let us be 
 aware, "that they are nothing" (1 Cor. iii. 7); and 
 if Balaam was reproved by the Almighty, although the 
 voice issued from a beast, the Almighty can also bless, 
 though His word be communicated by an impure mouth. 
 If it were otherwise, what would become of God's ordi- 
 nances in His Church? What disciple would receive 
 them in peace, if it were necessary first to assure himself 
 of the faith and absolute holiness of the minister who 
 dispensed them. Thus would my conscience be in sub- 
 jection to the conscience of another, and my God would 
 only bless me, in so far as a sinner like myself would be 
 faithful ! No, dear Samuel, it is not thus ; and I do not 
 hesitate to say that, on this second point, as on the first, 
 you have only acted from prejudice ; and, if for these 
 two reasons alone you have renewed your baptism, it is 
 in the dark that you have done it. 
 
33 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE BAPTISM OF WATER IS NOT A SEAL SET OTT FAITH. 
 
 Samuel — I confess that I liad not made all tlie obser- 
 vations whicli you liave presented to me, a.nd which, per- 
 haps, are well founded ; so I will not insist on this first 
 point. But as to the second, I do not think it can be 
 denied ; for it is clear enough that the Word of God says 
 faith ought to precede baptism. 
 
 Father — For my part, dear Samuel, I am so far from 
 understanding it so, that I, on the contrary, believe that 
 the baptism of water can never, in any case, be more 
 an act of faith than is the baptism of the Holy Spirit. 
 Both are from Grod towards man, and faith [on the part 
 of the recipient] is not necessarily presupposed in either. 
 
 Samuel — Accordingly, I have not said that the baptism 
 of water is an act of faith ; but I have said, and I do 
 think, that it is a seal which God puts on man, and that 
 it is, therefore, a sign of the baptism of fire, or of the 
 Holy Spirit, which the believer has received. 
 
 Father — If that were so, and if faith were indeed abso- 
 lutely required of the person who is baptised, John the 
 Baptist would have been in the wrong when he baptized 
 the Lord Jesus with water, and the Lord Himself would 
 not have received the true baptism ; for, assuredly, it 
 was not by faith* that the Saviour lived, nor was it after 
 a profession of faith that John baptized Him ; and, there- 
 
 * See note J3. 
 
34 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 fore, tins baptism was neither the sign nor the confirma- 
 tion of that of the Holy Spirit, since the Lord did not 
 receive the latter until after the former. 
 
 Samuel — Ah! I know not if any inference can be 
 drawn from this fact, for is it certain that the baptism, 
 of John was the same as that which is administered in 
 the Church? 
 
 Father — Oh ! What, pray, causes you to doubt it ? 
 Do you think that the Head of the Church, who received 
 the baptism of John, did not take on Himself that which 
 his body was to receive ? Did the apostles receive any 
 other ? And was it not the same baptism that they ad- 
 ministered under the orders of their Master, who com- 
 menced His ministry precisely by the same preaching as 
 John the Baptist, saying, like him — " Be^ent ye, for the 
 hmgdom of heaven is at hand.''^ 
 
 Samuel — We see, however, in Acts xix., that some 
 disciples, already baptized by John, were baptized a 
 second time in the name of the Lord Jesus. 
 
 Father — No, dear brother, that was not the case, and 
 indeed, could not be. For, first, you will perceive, that 
 if the baptism of John had not been the good and true 
 baptism, neither the Lord nor His Apostles would have 
 received it ; and, certainly, they were never re-baptized 
 any more than the other disciples of John, spoken of in 
 the Gospel. And as to those whom you mention, your 
 error, with regard to them, proceeds from that of the 
 translation, which, according to the original text (verse 
 4th), ought to have been — "Then Paul said, as to 
 John, he baptized with the baptism of repentance, 
 telling the people to believe on Him who was to come 
 after him — viz., on Jesus Christ ; (verse 5th), and as to 
 those who heard him, they were baptized in the name 
 
CHAPTER IV. 35 
 
 of the Lord Jesus." These two verses are botli tlie 
 discourse of St. Paul, vrMst in our versions, the fifth 
 verse is represented as being the narrative of the sacred 
 historian. 
 
 Samuel — I cannot judge of the original ; but if it is 
 as you say, the meaning is quite plain, for it is nothing 
 more than a remark made by the Apostle on the baptism 
 of John, which he declares to be the same as that of the 
 Saviour. 
 
 Father — That is evident to me, and this is the way in 
 which I understand the whole narrative. The Apostle 
 asks certain disciples, if they have received the Holy 
 Spirit, seeing they have believed. They ask if the Holy 
 Spirit has already been given to the Church. And with 
 what baptism, then, were you baptized returns the 
 Apostle, with surprise ? They answer with that of John. 
 But, says the Apostle, John's baptism was performed in 
 the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for those who heard 
 the preaching of John heard the Saviour announced. 
 
 Samuel — Well, then, I admit your explanation re- 
 garding John's baptism ; but, as to that which the Sa- 
 viour received, can it be taken for an example ? — is it not 
 an extraordinary event — as it were, an exception ? 
 
 Father — Predjudice again, Samuel ! for, I ask you, 
 where is the model, where is the example in every- 
 thing, if not in Him who is the Head of the Church, 
 and in whom "all righteousness has been fulfilled?" 
 Does not the baptism of water belong to the dispensa- 
 tion of God's righteousness towards the Church ? and 
 this righteousness has been fulfilled by the Saviour, 
 Where, then, should I look to know how the thing ought 
 to be done, and well done, if not to the example of Him 
 who has perfectly accomplished it ? 
 
36 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Samuel — What, do yon mean, dear friend ? Do yon 
 tliink that the baptism of water onght only to be re- 
 ceived at the age at which the Savionr received it, and 
 in the same manner in which he received it ? 
 
 Father — I mean, brother, that the baptism of the 
 Savionr, which took place tuWiin the Chnrch, and not 
 tvitJiout it, shows ns in what manner this ordinance of Grod 
 onght to be dispensed in the Church. I say, then, that 
 this baptism of the Savionr is the model for ns to follow 
 in His Chnrch ; that it is it which constitutes the rule, 
 and the exception is found in the baptism administered 
 without the Chnrch. 
 
 Samuel — I am quite astonished at this remark, that 
 the baptism of the Saviour took place luithiJiihe Church. 
 I had not before perceived that ; and yet nothing is more 
 certain, seeing that the Church is only the body of which 
 the Lord Jesus is the Head. But what do you conclude 
 from it as to baptism ? 
 
 Father — I conclude from it, that in the Church, bap- 
 tism ought to follow the same order, if I may say so. 
 Thus, first, as it was at His first visible entrance into the 
 new economy, that the Lord Jesus received the baptism 
 of water ; it is also at man's first visible entrance into 
 this economy, that, as a general rule, the baptism of 
 water ought to be administered. Then, as the Lord had 
 not faith [in the same sense in which a sinner must have 
 it in order to be saved*], since he was the object of [such] 
 faith, and did not therefore make any profession of it, 
 neither onght this condition (of faith) to be made es- 
 sential to baptism when it takes place in the Church. 
 
 Samuel — What you say may contain some truth ; but 
 
 * See note B. 
 
CHAPTER IV. 37 
 
 yet, in wliat a multitude of cases was baptism adminis- 
 tered by John, by tbe Apostles, and by tbe Lord Himself, 
 in a way quite different from what you mention. 
 
 Father — Witliin tbe Cburcli! 'No, never — not in a 
 single instance. Witliout tbe Cburcli it undoubtedly 
 was ; and it is bere tbat tbe exceptions exist. Thus the 
 Jew, tbe Ethiopian, tbe Grreek, or even tbe Grerman and 
 tbe Briton, wbo were outside tbe Cburcb, could not sbare 
 in tbat wbicb was practised witliin it. God first brings 
 tbem near to it by His Word ; tben, by tbe confession 
 tbat tbey make of having received (not accepted), they 
 enter visibly into tbe Cburcb ; and, at this first en- 
 trance, receive on themselves (but do not accept) tbe seal 
 of this vocation of grace. This was what took place 
 when the Ethiopian Eunuch, Lydia, and the Jailer of 
 Philippi made their entrance into the Church. This is 
 also what is practised in our own days, when those from 
 without approach it and are admitted. Then, without 
 doubt, a confession of faith is required, for it is necessary 
 to know that they have attained unto the promise before 
 placing the seal of it upon them. It is even possible 
 that the Holy Spirit may have been given to them, as He 
 was to Cornelius and his house ; but take particular 
 notice that all this takes place outside the Church, and 
 that, therefore, no conclusion can be drawn from it, as 
 to what is done within it. 
 
 Samuel — Within it, do you say ! Ought baptism to 
 be repeated witliin the Church ? 
 
 Father — No, no, dear brother ; but as the children of 
 Church members are certainly born in the Church, I say 
 that, in their case, the rule furnished by the Lord in His 
 own baptism ought to be followed, and that, therefore, 
 they ought to receive it at their visible entrance into the 
 
38 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Cliiirch, altliougli the Holy Spirit, wliicli is promised to 
 tliem, and wMcli, perhaps, like John the Baptist, they 
 have received from their mother's womb, does not yet 
 manifest Himself. 
 
 Samuel — So that, good friend, yon believe the children 
 of Christians to be members of the Church of Christ ? 
 
 Father — Of the Gliurch ohedient they are certainly not 
 members ; but of the Church called and consecfated by 
 the name of the Lord Jesus they undoubtedly are ; and, 
 as it is to the latter that the baptism of water belongs, 
 whilst to the former only is given that of the Holy Spirit, 
 with the Lord's Supper, I believe that children, born in 
 the Chui'ch, ought to receive in it the sign of the pro- 
 mise under which they are called, until, having hij faith 
 become members of the Church ohedient, they receive the 
 seal of the Holy Spirit (Eph. i. 13, 14), and testify that 
 this is the case, by partaking of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Samuel — I understand you now, and admit that your 
 remark on the baptism of the Lord Jesus would have 
 force with regard to infants, if they really were in the 
 Church. But it is, I think, on this last point that we 
 differ most in opinion. ; for, as to myself, I see the very 
 contrary in the Scriptures. 
 
 Father — In what statements, pray ? 
 
 Samuel — For instance, when the Saviour, at the end 
 of Mark's Gospel, says — "-He that helieveth, and is 
 ha^tized, shall he saved.^^ How admit, on the one side, that 
 an infant, that has not believed, can be baptized, and, on 
 the other, that, not having believed, he belongs to the 
 Church? 
 
 Father — Let us proceed calmly and soberly, dear 
 Samuel ; for perhaps there is much more contained in 
 your words than you mean to convey. And, first, do 
 
CHAPTER IV. 39 
 
 you actually believe tliat all the cMldren of Christian 
 parents that die in infancy are lost ? 
 
 Samuel — I know that this is a difficult question; I, 
 however, fearlessly reply to it, by saying that they are 
 not ; for if they belong to the elect they are saved. 
 
 Father — You acknowledge, then, that it is possible 
 for a child to be in heaven a member of the Church, 
 though he should not have evidenced faith on earth. 
 
 Samuel — I perceive that that is implied in what I say, 
 though I should not have suspected it. 
 
 Father — And you, without doubt, also perceive, that 
 the same child who would be a member of the Church 
 in heaven, may likewise be a member of the Church on 
 earth ? 
 
 Samuel — Of the Church elect he may, but not of the 
 Church believing. 
 
 Father — ^You mean, I suppose, that a child, so long as 
 he does not believe, cannot show his faith ; that is a 
 matter of course, and requires no explanation. 
 
 Samuel — Well, then, not having believed, can he, ac- 
 cording to God's own words, be baptized ? 
 
 Father — If the Lord had said, he luho believes, and he 
 only, shall be baptized, he could not ; for the prohibition 
 as to the child would have been positive. But He has 
 been very far, indeed, from saying so. For, first, remark 
 that the text says, word for word — he that helieves (or 
 shall helieve), and is baptized (orheing tajjtized), shall he 
 saved; which does not mean, positively, that he was 
 baptized after having believed. 
 
 Samuel— li is true, if this is the text, that it may be 
 understood as if baptism had preceded. 
 
 Father — But above all, I am of opinion that it must 
 be understood of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, inas- 
 
40 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 mncli as, not only is salvation, never in Scripture, made; 
 to depend on the baptism of water, but, on the contrary, 
 St. Peter positively declares that it is not such baptism 
 which saves, but exclusively that of the Holy Spirit by 
 which the conscience is purified. (1 Peter iii. 21.) I 
 think, therefore, that the Saviour, in making mention 
 of this baj^tism, distinguishes true belief from mere out- 
 ward profession — ^that is to say, from the light or 
 hypocritical profession of a great number of disciples. 
 
 Samuel — But, brother, are there two manners of be- 
 lieving ? Is it not written that " There is but one faith, 
 one baptism ?" (Eph. iv, 5.) 
 
 Father — It is also written that Simon the Magician be- 
 lieved, but that, nevertheless, he had not any part in the 
 things of God. (Acts viii.) It is likewise said of many 
 who had believed that " they went back and walked not 
 more with the Lord Jesus ;" and again, that " they went 
 out from the midst of" Christians, " because they were 
 not of them." (John vi. QQ ; 1 John ii. 19.) 
 
 Samuel — Yet faith is a gift, without repentance, and 
 he who has once believed hath eternal life ; how, then, 
 can he cease to believe ? 
 
 Father — He who believes from the heart, believes by 
 the power of God, and, being baptized by the Holy 
 Spirit (Eph. i. 13, 14), shall be confirmed unto the end 
 (1 Cor. i. 8) by the faithfulness of God. But many pro- 
 fess to believe, who, not having been baptized by the 
 Holy Spirit, will make shipwreck of their faith. (1 Tim. 
 i. 19.) Now, the Lord makes His apostles aware of 
 this, when He sends them to found His Church amongst 
 the nations. 
 
 Samuel — You do not, then, believe that these words of 
 the Saviour can refer to the baptism of water ? 
 
CHAPTER IV. 41 
 
 Father — I do not think tliat tliey can ; for you see 
 that the Lord, when He adds that he who does not 
 believe shall be condemned, makes no more mention of 
 baptism ; becaiise He knew that, to unbelievers, there 
 was not any occasion to speak of that of the Holy 
 Spirit ; whilst, on the contrary. He was not ignorant 
 that many who believed in appearance only had been 
 baptized with water. If, then. He had wished to speak 
 of the baptism of water, it seems to me that He would 
 have said, he who does not believe shall be condemned, 
 although he has been 'ba])tized. 
 
 Samuel — I must say that I am not far from receiving 
 your explanation, seeing that it is according to the 
 analogy of faith. I shall not, therefore, insist on this 
 passage. But there is another which, in my opinion, 
 contains the distinctive characteristic of the Church 
 under the Gospel, and which, certainly, in that view can 
 only be understood in one sense. It is the Prophecy of 
 Jeremiah, quoted by St. Paul, in the eighth chapter of 
 his Epistle to the Hebrews, in which it is expressly 
 said that, in the '^qw Covenant, God shall put His 
 laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts, 
 and they shall not teach every man his brother, nor have 
 need that one teach them, for all shall know the Lord, 
 from the least unto the greatest, l^ow, since that is 
 absolutely inapplicable to a little child, how is it possible 
 to regard it as a member of the Cliurch, and for that 
 reason to baptize it with water ? 
 
 Father — Dear Samuel, how can your judgment, or, 
 rather, your peculiar manner of thinking, cause you to 
 interpret the Scriptures in such a manner ! What ! my 
 good friend! because God declares that the power of 
 the Gospel Covenant shall be spiritual, that a new heart 
 D 2 
 
42 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 shall be tlie cliaracteristic of His elect people, do you 
 thence infer tliat tMs promise does not reacli or apply 
 to infants, and that it is made only to adults — to those 
 capable of testifying that they have received it, and that 
 they enjoy it. But, brother, if your reasoning is correct, 
 what must we think of the position of children under 
 the old economy, with regard to the spiritual privileges 
 that it contained, which were great in every respect, 
 " because that unto them were committed the oracles of 
 G-od ?" (Rom. iii. 2.) Were not these children members 
 of the Church, when she, submitting herself unto the 
 Lord and walking in His statutes, as, for instance, in the 
 days of Asa, Jehoshaphat, and Hezekiah, of Ezra and 
 liTehemiah, was already receiving in part the fulfilment 
 of the promise, and was prospering under the teaching 
 of the Word ? Were the children of faithful and blessed 
 families then cut off from the Church ? 
 
 Samuel ~1 do not think so. Since they bore the seal 
 of the covenant, they surely made part of it. 
 
 Father — They were in covenant, then, that is to say, 
 they were members of the Church of God, when He said 
 of His people, " Oh, that they had always the same heart, 
 to obey me and to keep my commandments !" and yet, 
 even at that time, they did not know God individually, 
 and had need that one should teach them in His ways. 
 
 Samuel — I cannot but acknowledge it. 
 
 Father — Since, therefore, during a time of spiritual 
 blessings, the ignorance of children could not deprive 
 them of a privilege which God had caused to reach them, 
 and in the bosom of which they were born ; since, when 
 God circumcised the hearts of His people, infants could 
 be partakers of that grace, though as yet incapable 
 of showing that they were so ; since then, just as Jere- 
 
CHAPTER IV. 43 
 
 miah had been set apart from Ms motlier's womb, many 
 otlier cliildren, even all tbe cliildren in a given period, 
 could, in like manner, be blessed, and bave in tlieir souls 
 the germ of a spiritual life, though yet themselves en- 
 tirely ignorant of it ; why would you say, when the Lord 
 shall shed this grace abundantly on a people, or only on 
 some families, that children, because incapable of feeling 
 or manifesting it, shall be excluded from that Church ? 
 Certainly, brother, they will not be less capable at that 
 time of being in the kingdom and under the influence 
 of the blessing, than they were formerly ; and if they 
 know the Almighty according to their capability of 
 knowing Him, shall it be said that they did not enter 
 into the covenant until they were able to make a pro- 
 fession of their faith ? If it were thus, Samuel, then 
 there would be no reality in Grod, and in the council of 
 His grace, before the fulfilment of the blessing in man ! 
 And if man is only really in covenant when he is aware 
 of it, when he knows and calls upon the Lord, he was 
 not then in it until he became conscious of it, and, con- 
 sequently, before his conversion he was out of the 
 covenant. Where, in this case, is the eternal election 
 of Grod ? and how could the Church be redeemed before 
 it could return thanks for its redemption ? 
 
 Samuel — However, brother, the terms of the prophecy 
 are explicit, and they declare that, under the covenant 
 of the Grospel, all shall know the Lord. Thus, as every- 
 thing in this new covenant is different from the old, in 
 which all was visible, temporal, carnal, and earthly, whilst 
 all in the new is spiritual and heavenly, so the Church of 
 the latter cannot contain any person who is not yet 
 spiritual. 
 
 Father — No, brother ; the spiritual Church, the elect 
 
44 TSE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Cliurcli, cannot contain any but elect and spiritual per- 
 sons, and, certainly, in God's sight tlie body of Christ 
 is only composed of such members. But what prevents, 
 and who has told us, that the child even from his mo- 
 ther's womb has not already a share in this spiritual 
 dispensation? Certainly, if he is one of the elect, he 
 has an interest, whether in the decree of G-od, or in the 
 work consummated by the Saviour ; and it may even be, 
 that he has already partaken of it, by the regeneration 
 of the Holy Spirit. Yet he does not know anything of 
 it, nor do we, but the thing is not the less real on that 
 account, and God assuredly considers the child in that 
 perfect covenant of which He has said, that it would be 
 different from that of the law. 
 
 Samuel — Is it then still to the sovereignty of Grod that 
 you bring back the whole question ? 
 
 Father — Entirely : and you may see that I am right ; 
 for, finally, suppose that God had created this elect child 
 under the first economy, he would neither have been 
 more nor less blessed on that account at his birth. Only 
 he would have been bound to pass under shadows, types, 
 and figures, and through a course of instruction in the 
 law, which he would have borne as a yoke, but whose 
 meaning and beauty he would have comprehended when 
 at an age to discern them. He would then have belonged 
 not only to God's visible people, but also, and especially, 
 to His hidden people, who, having been taught of God, 
 really knew Him. Well, then, if God creates the child 
 at another time, under an economy free from shadows 
 and emblems, is he on that account less one of the elect — 
 less the object of God's love — less called to the posses- 
 sion of privileges— less one of the people that know God 
 and are taught of Him ? 
 
45 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 THE GOSPEL HAS NOT DEPRIVED THE CHILDEEN OF BELIEVERS 
 OP THEIR PRIVILEGES. 
 
 Samuel — I kaow not wliy it is, but I cannot see clearly 
 that it should be so. It always seems to me that chil- 
 dren are differently situated under the Gospel from 
 what they were under the economy of the law. 
 
 Father — Suppose, however, that, at the coming of the 
 Saviour, the Jewish people, during (if I may call it so) 
 an interval of reason, had, as a nation, in place of re- 
 jecting the Messiah, submitted to Him, and that they 
 had thus, as a nation, invoked Him, as much as they 
 had, in their united capacity, invoked and served Jehovah 
 in the Temple, would not the Jewish people in that case 
 have entered into the ISTew Covenant, and would there 
 not have taken place, with regard to them, an accom- 
 pKshment of the promise which you have quoted, and 
 which, in fact, is to be one day realized towards them ? 
 The nation, thus in submission to Christ, would, there- 
 fore, have been a spiritual people, disengaged and set 
 free from the earthly shadows of the law, and in posses- 
 sion of all the benefits of the l^ew Covenant. Now, 
 what is to become of the Jewish children who, before 
 that people had submitted themselves to Christ, belonged 
 to the Church which was under the shadows, but which 
 had "great advantages in every way," when their 
 fathers, believing the prophecies, receive and adore the 
 
46 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Son of God, and tlins enter into tlie sMning light of tlie 
 ISTew Covenant ? What is to be done under the gracious 
 rays of "the snn of righteousness," with those children 
 who were already blessed when the feeble star of the 
 law alone shone ? You say that they will be excluded 
 from the Church, for, as yet, they can neither know nor 
 call upon the Lord. But we reply to you — since they 
 were blessed under the shadows of the law, though they 
 were in the same ignorance, why are they not still more 
 richly blessed when the day of salvation shineth ? Is 
 the Gospel to diminish the benefits of election ? and is 
 the Old Covenant, in its earthly elements, to show itself 
 more comprehensive, and more loving, towards children 
 than is the perfect law of love ? What, then, must I, 
 who (let me suppose a case), as the father of a family 
 under the Levitical economy, was, with all my dear 
 children, in covenant with the Lord, have the bitter 
 grief of seeing them separated from me, and of no longer 
 having my God for their God, because I have received 
 grace to know the Messiah ? My children have then, 
 by my conversion, lost their most precious possession — 
 viz., no less than the covenant of God ! When I was a 
 believing Jew, they, with me, belonged to the blessed 
 people —to the Church of God ; but now that I am a 
 Christian, they are no longer partakers of this benefit, 
 but are, like the children of heathens, " without God and 
 without hope in the world ! " It would have been much 
 better for them if their father had not known the Gospel : 
 for Moses was at least a friend and protector for their 
 youth, and for their weakness, vfhilst this Jesus, whom 
 their father adores, rejects them, and even despoils them 
 of that which He had given them under the law ! This 
 is your doctrine, Samuel; do you believe it true ? 
 
CHAPTER V. 47 
 
 Samuel —'Reallj, you render me very serious, and I 
 dare scarcely reply to you ; for, after all, tlie Gospel is 
 not narrower than the law. 
 
 Father — I^o, brother : and you might have heard this 
 even from the mouth of an Israelite, who received Chris- 
 tian baptism a few days ago ; for as soon as he had been 
 baptized, he presented his little child for the same ordi- 
 nance, saying that, as the promise had been made to 
 him and his child, the latter ought also to receive the 
 seal of it. A Baptist minister had told him before, that 
 he ought to defer the baptism of his son till the latter 
 should know and confess the Lord Jesus ; but the believer 
 had replied thus:— "What, brother, my child, whom I 
 have circumcised, has already on him the seal of the 
 covenant, and now, that he enters with me into the 
 Christian Church, shall I refuse him the benefit of it ? " 
 
 Samuel— 1 understand this father. It was, in reality, 
 the Gospel promise that he claimed. 
 
 Father — Certainly; and it was of the same Gospel 
 that Isaiah prophesied in the days of the law, when God 
 said by him (Isaiah Ixv. 19-23) — that, after the old things 
 of the ancient covenant should have passed away. He 
 would rejoice in Jerusalem and joy in His people ; that 
 His blessing would be upon the child of a few days old, 
 and that the children of the faithful should be with them, 
 because they should be the posterity of the blessed of 
 the Lord. Certainly, brother, if infants cannot be under 
 the New Covenant, because they are not yet capable of 
 knowing the Lord, what is the meaning of this promise, 
 and to what period can this prophecy refer ? 
 
 Samuel — There is, I confess, something in this that I 
 had not before perceived; for I cannot but see that 
 infants are here the objects of a promise. 
 
48 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Father — Well, carry yonr researclies Mglier still. 
 Trace up tlie word to its very source. Listen to tlie 
 Messiali Himself, when He contemplates beforeliand His 
 sacrifice, and when He describes the result. (Psalm xxii.) 
 " I will declare thy name unto my brethren (He says to 
 His Father); and in the midst of the congregation will I 
 praise thee. Te that fear the Lord, praise Him ; all ye 
 the seed of Jacob, glorify Him ; and fear Him, all ye 
 the seed of Israel." Then he adds, " All the ends of 
 the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord, and 
 all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee. 
 For the kingdom is the Lord's, and He is the governor 
 among the nations. A seed shall serve Him; it shall be 
 accounted to the Lord for a generation. They shall 
 come, and shall declare His righteousness unto a people 
 that shall be born, that He hath done this." This, 
 Samuel, is what the Lord says. You see that, passing 
 from the Jews to the Gentiles, " whom He sees from 
 afar," He extends to both the same blessing, which is 
 addressed to their families — to their race — to their 
 posterity, from age to age. Now, take away the children 
 from these families, withdraw the race, the posterity, 
 from amidst these people, and see what is the meaning 
 of the prophecy, what the value of this promise. 
 
 Samuel — I see very well, I assure you, that my opinion 
 contains some weakness ; but I do not yet see where the 
 weak point lies. 
 
 Father — I think it is in this : that you wish only to 
 see the thing accomplished, and not God's dispensation 
 in its progress. Tour mind is pre-occupied by what 
 God says of the man who believes, and makes a profes- 
 sion of his faith ; and you reject the man whom God 
 calls to believe, and whom He rears up and instructs for 
 
CHAPTER T. 49 
 
 the faith. God says, my name is on my people, and my 
 people know me ; and yo.u conclude, from this, that the 
 infant has not the name of Grod on him, and that he does 
 not yet know Him. 
 
 Samuel — And is that not correct ? 
 
 Father — No ; because, if God had said, for instance, 
 that His people ate the passover, and then passed over 
 the sea dry-shod, it would not have been just thence to 
 conclude that little children did not form a part of His 
 people, because they could neither eat of the pascal 
 lamb, nor walk at the bottom of the sea. This reasoning 
 would resemble that of a man who should say, that, 
 under the Gospel, little children ought not to eat, 
 because it is written, that " if any will not work, neither 
 shall he eat." (2 Thess. iii. 10.) 
 
 Samuel — But, does my reasoning on the Covenant 
 with regard to children, amount to that ? 
 
 Father— li seems to me that it does. For God says, 
 the peculiarity of the l*^ew Covenant vdll be, that " all 
 shall know me, because I shall put my laws into their 
 hearts." From this, you say, that infants are not in this 
 covenant, because they do not know the Lord, whilst you 
 ought to infer from it, that if children are in the cove- 
 nant they will know the Lord when they have been taught 
 of Him. In like manner, you should say, in reference to 
 the examples cited above, that children would partake of 
 the passover, and would walk across the sea if they had 
 strength; as, under the Gospel, children work, when they 
 are capable of doing so, and thus gain their livelihood. 
 
 Samuel — I think I understand you, Tou wish, do 
 you not, that I should consider the children of Christian 
 parents rather with regard to what God proposes to do 
 for them, than to their actual state ? 
 
^0 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Fatliev — Yes, brotlier ; otlierwise we may be unjust 
 both with regard to them and towards God. 
 
 Samuel —How so, if you please ? 
 
 Father— YoT instance, if — setting out on the unexcep- 
 tionable principle, that an unbeliever does not belong to 
 the people of God — you say that neither does a child 
 belong to the people of God, because he does not believe, 
 you confound voluntary unbelief with the absence of 
 faith, and charge the child, who is not yet ahle to be- 
 lieve, with the same fault which he who will not believe 
 has committed. In acting thus, you are unjust towards 
 God, who is perhaps the God of this child, whom His 
 love has chosen ; again, you are also unjust to the child, 
 who, all incapable as he is of knowing and believing, is, 
 nevertheless, in a very different position from the sinner, 
 who is in rebellion against God. 
 
 Somiuel — I admit your distinction. I would, however, 
 again ask if the child, so long as he has not faith, can 
 possess the privileges of faith? 
 
 Father — The Word of God says, dear Samuel, that the 
 child is heir and lord of all, though he is still under 
 tutors and governors. It is the same with an elect per- 
 son, infant as he is, the promises belong to him, though 
 as yet, he is neither able to understand them, nor to 
 bless God for them. I shall take good care not to con- 
 found the child under age, with respect to faith, with 
 the child who has grown up, and turned out a rebel, and 
 who is disinherited. 
 
 Samuel — This distinction is certainly just ; I cannot, 
 however, see how a child, who does not actually possess 
 faith, can be considered as belonging to the body of 
 Christ. 
 
 Father — Say then, dear Samuel, that he does not belong 
 
CHAPTER Y. 51 
 
 to the body acting, that he is not a member of the 
 Church that knows and serves Grod ; but you have no 
 better right to say that he does not belong to the body of 
 Christ, than, witnessing a battle, you would have to say 
 that the conscripts, who are not in the meZee, do not 
 belong to the army. They certainly do belong to the 
 army, but have not yet been engaged in actual combat. 
 
52 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 CHAPTER yi. 
 
 THE GOSPEL DOES NOT SEPAEATE CHILD FROM PARENT. 
 
 Samuel — Does tlie suin of your reasoning, then, 
 amount to this, tliat tlie cMldren of those who have 
 entered into covenant, are, with their parents, in that 
 covenant ? 
 
 Father — This, as you have seen, is what the Messiah 
 says, (Psalm xxii.) — This is that "seed accounted to 
 the Lord for a generation." I, for my part, do not 
 feel any doubt on the subject. In the children of 
 believers, I see recruits of the Church militant, and, as 
 long as they do not desert their colours, I certainly 
 consider them as belonging to that army. 
 
 Samiuel — And do you think that the ordinances of the 
 Church belong to the children of believers ? 
 
 Father — The ordinance of the Lord's Supper does not 
 yet belong to them, because it is an active duty of faith. 
 But that of the enrolment, if I may express it so, that 
 is to say, of the baptism of water, undoubtedly does ; 
 because it is not an active duty, but a mark — a seal of 
 their calling and admission by sovereign grace on the 
 part of Grod, who af&xes it Himself, and on a passive 
 subject. 
 
 Samuel — But is this distinction which you make 
 between the two ordinances scriptural ? 
 
 Father — Undoubtedly; for, as we have already seen 
 with regard to the Lord's Supper, it is said to him who 
 is to partake of it examine thyself, then do this. (1 Cor. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 53 
 
 xi, 28.) But as regards baptism, it is not said examine 
 thyself, but he hajptized ; that is to say, receive tbe seal, 
 be marked vdth. tlie name of tlie Lord. Moreover (and 
 I repeat it), it is always in tbis sense tbat baptism is 
 administered. The Lord's words are go and hcuptize. 
 Peter says "be baptized every one of yon; " and Philip 
 says not, do it, but, "thou mayest be baptized." 
 
 Samuel — You thence conclude, I see, that, if a child 
 is called of God he is quite as suitable a recipient of the 
 seal of baptism as the man who believes and makes a 
 profession. 
 
 Father — ^Assuredly ; for, again, it is not from what is 
 marked by a seal that the seal receives either its im- 
 press or its authority. 
 
 Samuel — So that, according to you, the little child 
 ought to receive the initiative sign under the N'ew Cove- 
 nant, as he received it under the old ? 
 
 Father — And you also say the same, Samuel ; for, 
 observe that your doubt is not if the seal of the covenant 
 ought to be put on him who is in that covenant, but you 
 ask if it can concern a child. Therefore, if it is demon- 
 strated to you, from God's Word, that such a child is in 
 the covenant, it will also be demonstrated that he ought 
 to receive the seal of it. 
 
 Samuel — So your principle is, that baptism — the sign 
 or seal of the N^ew Covenant — may, and often ought to 
 be administered to those who have not faith. 
 
 Father — To the ^mbeliever never; but to a nwt- 
 believer it certainly ought. 
 
 Sammel — Do you see proofs of this in Scripture ? 
 
 Father -—A great number. Por, without speaking of 
 Simon the magician, who was baptized, and who, al- 
 though he professed to believe, never had faith, we see, 
 
 E 2 
 
54 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 from the Gospels, that several of the Lord's disciples 
 went back and walked no more with Him. (John vi. 66 ; 
 1 John ii. 19.) Now, these disciples had been surely 
 baptized, and by the Lord Himself (John iv. 2) ; and 
 He, who knew from the beginning who those were 
 whom the Father had given Him, knew also those who 
 had faith. It was not, then to faith in them that Jesus 
 appended the seal of baptism; for if they had been 
 believers they never would have turned aside from Him. 
 Therefore, to say that the baptism of water is the sign or 
 confirmation of faith, seems to me to accuse the Lord 
 Himself, and to say that His baptism was wrong ; that 
 He was deceived when He made His disciples. 
 
 Samuel — I see it : this conclusion is strictly correct ; 
 for, to suppose that no one of those who abandoned the 
 Lord, had been baptized by Him, would be the wildest 
 fancy, seeing that they were called His disciples ; and, 
 moreover, we do not find that the Twelve had made 
 even one disciple whilst they were present with their 
 Master. Accordingly, from this hour, I will never say 
 again, that the baptism of water was given by the Lord 
 in confirmation of faith, or as a seal put upon it. But, 
 has it not always followed a profession of that faith ? 
 Is mention made in Scripture of a single person having 
 been baptized who had not made a profession before 
 being thus sealed by that ordinance ? 
 
 Father — Referring here to what I said on the baptism 
 of the Lord Jesus, before which no confession of faith 
 was made, I will repeat, that if such confession must be 
 made by those who, not being already in the Church, 
 are called to it, it is not the same with those who already 
 belong to it. The baptism of water proclaims the pro- 
 mise of grace, which is in the name of the Father, Son, 
 
CHAPTER VI. 55 
 
 and Holy Grliost, It is, therefore, joined to tliat promise, 
 whicli it accompanies and seals, and it applies to every 
 being to wliom the promise extends — that is to say, 
 whom the Lord has caused to attain unto it. If, there- 
 fore, I am the person v^^hom Grod has caused to attain 
 unto it, I am the person to whom the ordinance of 
 baptism ought to be administered, because this baptism 
 amounts to saying — " TJiou luJio art thus sealed with water 
 art under the promise.''^ I, therefore, am marked by this 
 baptism, because, according to Grod's will, I am the sub- 
 ject of this promise, the spiritual benefit of which I shall 
 enjoy, if I receive it in my heart by faith. 
 
 Samuel — This view, dear friend, is new to me. It is the 
 same principle of the sovereignty of Grod, to which you 
 always recur. It is Grod, according to His own will, in- 
 cluding under His promise of grace whom He pleases, 
 and putting upon them the seal of that dispensation, of 
 that calling. 
 
 Father — ^Yes, brother ; it is the subject of this sove- 
 reign promise, whom God thus marks, and at the same 
 time that He, by this mark, commands him to believe 
 the promise, by this preaching — symbolical and addressed 
 to the senses — He publishes and recalls it to memory in 
 the midst of a people to whom it extends, and who hear 
 and see it at every baptism of which they are witnesses. 
 ISTow you understand, surely, that, as I have received 
 baptism, because the promise extends to me, if the pro- 
 mise applies also to my child, he ought to be marked by 
 the same seal, because he is also one of the subjects of 
 this covenant. 
 
 Samuel — Yes ; but just there lies the question. Under 
 
 the Grospel is the child in covenant because his father is ? 
 
 Father — He is, and undoubtedly was ever since the 
 
56 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 commencenieiit of tlie Cliiircli on earth, or ever since 
 the promise of grace, whicli is the covenant of God 
 towards man, was made to the human race. 
 
 Samuel — Be good enough to show me that ; for this 
 subject possesses the deepest interest for me. 
 
 Father — In the first place, here, at the very opening 
 of the Bible, is a fact which strikes me. It is said (Gen. 
 iv. 26) of Seth, that " to him also there was born a son ; 
 and he called his name Enos : then began men to call 
 upon the name of the Lord." That is to say, that from the 
 very earliest period of the world, on the occasion of the 
 birth of a child, we see that the Lord's name was invoked, 
 and that this invocation, from thenceforth, constitutes the 
 Church — the people of God, distinct and separate from 
 the impious race of Cain ; and that this Church, thus 
 commenced at the birth of the eldest child of Seth, the 
 believer, is constituted in the familij of that faithful man, 
 and is composed of his children, of his race, which re- 
 mains distinguished from the family of Cain, by the 
 name of the Almighty invoked upon it, and by that of 
 the sons or children of God which it bears. Certainly 
 here, I mean in this primitive Church, and for nearly 
 seven centuiies afterwards, the family is reputed the 
 Church, and the children, who are members of it, are 
 precisely the " seed that shall serve Him," and in which 
 the Church is continued. You see, therefore, in those 
 first ages of the Gospel (for it was the promise without 
 the law that was then announced), that children were 
 born m the Church, and that, even at that early period, 
 God's name had already been named upon them. 
 
 Samuel — I thank you for having shown me this fact, 
 which I had not before perceived, and which seems to 
 me as indisputable as interesting. I cannot but acknow- 
 
CHAPTER VI. 67 
 
 ledge that then, the name of the Lord wsls certainly 
 invoked over the child, as well as over the father. 
 
 Father — You will also grant that it was by God's 
 authority this was done, and according to the covenant 
 of His promise ; for we are aware that, then also, God 
 taught His people among whom was offered that sacri- 
 fice which was the worship of the Almighty, and at which 
 their families were present. Therefore, to suppose that 
 children were shut out from the solenm worship, would 
 be inconsistent with the very constitution of the Church 
 in those days. 
 
 Samuel — No, I do not think that that supposition is 
 allowable. 
 
 Father — But it was the case until the time when 
 the Church, having become corrupted, was confounded 
 with the descendants of Cain. Then ISToah, the only 
 head of a family who remained faithful, was likewise the 
 only one, with his children, to whom the promise ex- 
 tended. The Church no longer existed except in the 
 ark ; and, a short time after the deluge, it was only in 
 the family of Shem that God's people were to be found, 
 until Abraham, one of his descendants, became, in his 
 family, the special repository of the promise of the 
 covenant. And you observe, do you not, that from the 
 origin of the Church until that time, it was not of in- 
 dividuals picked out, so to speak, from different places 
 and various families, that it was composed, but that it 
 was propagated, or rather increased, by families, races, 
 and generations, until the day when the Lord, specify- 
 ing the particular family in which His promise was to 
 be accomplished, willed that that family should add to 
 the name of God invoked upon it, a sign or seal of the 
 covenant, which hereafter was to belong to it alone. 
 
58 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY/ 
 
 Now, dear brotlier, will you observe two things — one, 
 tliat this dispensation, which lasted more than two 
 thousand five hundred years, was always that of the 
 promise of grace ; the other, that when the visible seal 
 was to be added to the invocation of God's name, it 
 was a spiritual mark. 
 
 Samuel — Spiritual ! Dou you call the outward ordi- 
 nance of circumcision a spiiitual mark ? 
 
 Father — You know that St. Paul calls it "a seal of 
 the righteousness of the faith " (Rom. iv. 11) ; and 
 further, if, like baptism, it was material in its form, it 
 had reference in reality to the spiritual circumcision of 
 the heart, of which it was intended constantly to re- 
 mind the Jews. 
 
 Samuel — Was not this ordinance, however, enjoined 
 on Abraham, to set his race apart, with a special view 
 to temporal blessings ? 
 
 Father — That circumcision had also this object, I 
 grant; but its spiritual meaning cannot be forgotten, 
 since it is the latter which Scripture gives to it, and 
 which also the prophets and apostles refer to again and 
 again. 
 
 Samuel — -That is very true, and 1 see it clearly. 
 
 Father — You see, then, that although circumcision 
 had a spiritual meaning, the infant who could not com- 
 prehend it received it, nevertheless ; and that then, as 
 in the time of Seth, and afterwards in that of Shem, 
 the name of the Almighty was invoked over the child 
 of the believer. Now, this constitution of the Church 
 on earth, under the covenant of promise, did not change 
 from its commencement till the time of Moses — that is 
 to say, during more than two thousand five hundred 
 years. And observe, moreover, that this Church was 
 
CHAPTER YI, 59 
 
 propagated in a single family, which was that of Seth, 
 of whom Noah, then Shem, and afterwards Terah and 
 Abraham were the descendants. 
 
 Samuel — I had not made this observation, which is 
 certainly worthy of consideration, since it in fact shows 
 us the Church perpetuated from race to race [in the 
 same family.] 
 
 Fatlier — That certainly does not mean that every 
 child of these families was one of God's elect, which 
 was not the case; but it means that Grod, in the dis- 
 pensation of His promise, willed that the calling and 
 gathering together of the Church should take place in 
 this manner, and that children, set apart wdth their 
 fathers, by the name of the Lord, should form the 
 people to whom His promises, revelations, and oracles 
 would be committed. His election of grace was above 
 this dispensation, out of which, and by faith. He brought 
 the Church of the first born. 
 
 Samuel — I understand you. It was, do you say, the 
 Church called that was thus constituted from the be- 
 ginning, and it was from among these consecrated 
 families that the Lord gathered His elect ? 
 
 Father — 1 cannot see anything else in the history of 
 the promise of grace, until the time of Moses : from 
 that time, under the law, during the fifteen centuries of 
 its existence, I see the same constitution — viz., children 
 with their fathers called and sealed with the name of 
 God, as they had been from the beginning of the world 
 in the families of the patriarchs. 
 
 Samuel — Really the condition of the children of be- 
 lievers is beginning to appear different from what I had 
 hitherto believed it ; and what strikes me most is this 
 principle of the sovereignty of God, who, according to 
 
60 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY, 
 
 His will, sets apart and consecrates the subjects of His 
 promise. 
 
 Father — Be assured, Samuel, as I have already said 
 to you, that it is this heavenly principle of which the 
 Baptist loses sight in his system ; and that, in doing so, 
 he cuts off something from the glory of the promise. 
 
 Samuel — I cannot say that I have this feeling ; quite' 
 the contrary : I certainly gave all glory to Grod, when, 
 in obedience to His command, I received His ordinance 
 of baptism after having believed. In like manner, it 
 was in good conscience, and in complete humiliation of 
 myself before the Lord, that I brought my child to Him 
 in Spirit, and consecrated him to the Lord, imploring a 
 blessing upon him. 
 
 Father — And thus, I would add, in your ignorance of 
 God's claims, you have in good conscience forgotten His 
 Word, and done a deed which was not permitted to you. 
 
 Samuel — I, brother ? oh ! what deed, I pray you ? 
 
 Father — You ! to pretend of yourself to consecrate a 
 creature of God ! As if man, sinful and impure as he 
 is, could ever by his own authority, and by his own 
 feelings, ceremonies, or vows, render holy that which God 
 has not sanctified ! 
 
 Samuel — You astonish me, my friend ! do you speak 
 seriously ? 
 
 Father — What I say is very serious, for it relates to 
 the right and majesty of Al m ighty God, " who will not 
 give His glory to another." Now, brother, it is the 
 Lord who sanctifies ; it is He who consecrates for His own 
 service, as it is He who foreknows, calls, and justifies. 
 What God declares to be defiled, remains so, whatever 
 opinion man may have of it, or whatever ceremony of 
 consecration he may employ to cleanse it. In like man- 
 
CHAPTEE VI. 61 
 
 ner, what God declares to be holy, is holy, and contimies 
 to be so, no matter bow little value man may set upon it: 
 There is an infinite distance between God and man, and 
 this distance can only be passed over by the grace which 
 descends from God to us, but which never ascends from 
 man to heaven. 
 
 And therefore I say that neither your presentation, as 
 you call it, of your child to God, nor your tender and 
 fervent prayers, nor any ceremony whatever that you 
 can have employed, has succeeded in rendering holy to 
 God what He Himself has not made holy ; and that if 
 you have conceived the idea of thus setting your child 
 apart to the Lord, you have usurped the right of God, 
 who never gives this power to any parent, 
 
 Samuel — Yet Hannah consecrated her son to the 
 Lord ? 
 
 Father — Yes, but had not God said that all the first- 
 born belonged to Him? And did Samuel not also belong- 
 to that holy race which was (chosen) to bear the name 
 of God ? And again, was it otherwise than by the name 
 of the Almighty that he was set apart ? 
 
 Samuel — But parents brought (presentedjiheir children 
 to the Lord Jesus : have not I done the same thing ? 
 
 Father — The same thing! yes; and for that very reason 
 you ought to have looked upon your child, as the parents 
 of whom you speak looked upon theirs — that is to say, 
 as holy to the Lord, as belonging to His people, to His 
 Church. 
 
 Samuel — And so I do, dear brother : I consider my 
 child as holy ; for I have prayed for him with all my 
 soul : now, it is written that " every creatm^e of God is 
 sanctified by prayer." 
 
 Father — No, dear Samuel, but it is written, " by the 
 
62 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Word of God and prayer," and not by prayer alone; and 
 in this consists tlie extreme difference wliicli tlie Bible 
 puts between /caY/z- and superstition. The latter persuades 
 itself of a thing, then it prays and makes vows. Faith, 
 on the contrary, believes what God has written in His 
 own Word, then prays in conformity to His will, but 
 never according to its own imaginings. What a diffe- 
 rence in these two courses ! 
 
 Samuel — Do you believe, then, that a Baptist Church 
 which assembles with the children belonging to its fsi- 
 milies to present them to tlie Lord, performs an act of 
 superstition ? 
 
 Father — Certainly ; for either these children are holy 
 through the name of God, or else they are not ; and if 
 they are not, it is a sin even to suppose that they are, 
 and it is a still greater sin to pretend to make them holy. 
 Now, in the opinion of Baptists, the children of Chris- 
 tians are not consecrated by God : these children ought 
 not therefore to be among His people, and this presen- 
 tation is quite as vain as, under the Law, that of an 
 unclean beast would have been on the altar of the Lord. 
 Neither the intention, nor the prayers, nor the cere- 
 monies of all Israel would have rendered holy to the 
 Lord that victim which He had not Himself conse- 
 crated. 
 
 Samuel — But, dear friend, my child was certainly holy, 
 for God says to St. Peter that he must not call any man 
 unclean, inasmuch as God had cleansed them all (Acts 
 X. 15). 
 
 Father — What reasoning, Samuel ! what a way of in- 
 terpreting Scripture ! What, my friend ! because God 
 says that the Gospel is to be preached to every nation 
 without distinction, and thus indicates that the wall of 
 
CHAFTEE YI. 63 
 
 separation of the law lias been taken away, do yon 
 thence conclnde that yonr child is consecrated to God, 
 and that consequently he may be, as yon say, presented 
 to Him in the Chnrch ? Well, if snch is the pnrity, or 
 the consecration of yonr child, that of every other child 
 in the world is the same ; and therefore, yon have quite 
 as much reason to bring forward the children of Turks 
 and heathens into the midst of your Church, and to pre- 
 sent them with yourselves to the Lord. 
 
 Samuel — And yet, • ' * I feel that I could not present 
 the child of a Mussulman to God, in the same way that 
 I have presented my own. N^or do I see how a Christian 
 Church could have in its assembly infants of Turks or 
 hea;thens, and present them to the Lord. There must, 
 therefore, be in this, something that I do not yet perceive, 
 or else, something that I do not understand according 
 to Scripture. 
 
 Father — That something, dear Samuel, is the authority 
 of God; it is His Word; you have forgotten both, with 
 regard to your child, and have substituted your own 
 feeling for the divine declaration. 
 
 Samuel — That is to say, according to your view, I 
 have been superstitiotLs rather than believing ? 
 
 Father — So it appears to me, my good friend. 
 
 Samuel — What then ought I to have done ? 
 
 Father — Ton ought, first, to have assured yourself, 
 from the Word of God rightly understood, that your 
 child was consecrated by His will ; then, after having 
 ascertained that he was, you ought to have invoked over 
 him the Word of that consecration, and to have prayed 
 the Lord to realize the promise that it contains. To 
 have acted in this manner, would have been a manifes- 
 tation of faith. 
 
64 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Samuel — But I pray you, by wliat Word of tlie Lord 
 was my cMld consecrated ? 
 
 Father — ^By tliat of tlie covenant of promise, brother ; 
 that is to say, by tbe same "Word wbicli, at tbe very 
 commencement of tbe Cburcli on eartli, consecrated 
 tbe cbildren of Setb, and afterwards tliose of Sliem and 
 Abrabam. That Word bas never cbanged, nor bas it 
 ever been revoked. 
 
 Samuel — But, brotber, bas not tbe Grospel abolished 
 tbese old tbings? "Are not all tbings now become 
 new ?" 
 
 Father — IS'ay, ratber, I would ask you was it not tbe 
 Gospel, that is to say, tbe promise of grace, tbat Setb, 
 Sbem, and Abrabam knew and believed ? Was it not 
 to tbis Gospel tbat tbe law rendered testimony ? Was 
 it not tbis covenant, of wbicb Melcbisedec was priest, 
 and in wbicb tbe fathers were ? (Heb. vii.) Was it not 
 of tbis covenant tbat Jesus, tbe true Melcbisedec, is tbe 
 eternal mediator ? Was it tbe old tbings of tbe law 
 tbat were in view, wben Abrabam, as St. Paul observes, 
 was blessed by tbis priest of tbe order of free grace ? 
 Wbat a mistake, my good friend; wbat confusion of 
 times and dispensations is it not, tbus to cast upon tbe 
 Cburcb of tbe patriarchs, which existed more than 
 twenty-five centuries, the legal coloring of the Levitical 
 dispensation ! It was the promise, it was the covenant 
 of grace, it was Christ and His fulness, which, in those 
 remote times constituted tbe object of faith, as they do 
 in the present day. The law, with its shadows and or- 
 dinances, was superadded to the promise in the king- 
 dom and Church of the promise ; and if the Gospel, by 
 its splendour, bas " brought Hfe into foil light," it has 
 not for that reason changed the nature of the covenant, 
 
CHAPTEE VI. 65 
 
 wliich, from the time of the promise made in the garden 
 of Eden until the incarnation of God's Son in the "seed 
 of the woman," has had but one and the same constitu- 
 tion. 
 
 Samuel — ^Tour opinion, then, is, that the relation in 
 which children stand to their parents, in the Church, 
 is the same now as it was in the patriarchal times and 
 under the law. 
 
 Father — Unquestionably. Election, certainly, is not 
 more hereditary at the present time than it was then. 
 ISTow, therefore, as ever, the elect family of the Lord is 
 bom neither of blood, nor of the will of man, nor of the 
 will of the flesh ; but at this day, as ever, what God has 
 consecrated is holy to Him, and what His Word has 
 instituted remains. Therefore, Samuel, as under the 
 Gospel God has not revoked His first Word, with re- 
 gard to the children of believers, neither shall man do 
 it, whatever his ignorance or errors concerning it may 
 be. 
 
66 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 WHAT HAS ONCE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE LORD, EXISTS 
 AS LONG AS HE HIMSELF DOES NOT EEYOKE IT. 
 
 Samuel — It is true tliat God did not formally abolisli 
 what He had declared concerning the children of His 
 ancient people, but then He has neither repeated nor 
 confirmed it ; which He would have done, I think, if it 
 had been His will to continue it in force. 
 
 Father — Again, Samuel, how you reason ! What ! 
 good friend, do you regard the ordinance of the Lord as 
 revoked, because He has not published it anew ? Ac- 
 cording to this reasoning, the commandments, the pre- 
 cepts, the instructions, the promises, and the consolations 
 in which the prophetical writings abound, are null to us, 
 because they have not been repeated and reproduced in 
 the Grospel ? We may just as well fear a second deluge, 
 because the promise that God made to Noah has not, in 
 formal terms, been repeated ! What doctrine, brother ! 
 
 Samuel — In fact, my reasoning is not just. Yes, I 
 perceive that the things which God has established re- 
 main, unless He revokes them by a command as express 
 as was that of their institution. It was in this manner, 
 I see, that He put an end to the Levitical ordinances : 
 He formally revoked them. 
 
 Father — Then, dear brother, if the relation of parent 
 and child, as it existed in the primitive Church, was not 
 an essential part of the Levitical law (which is the only 
 
CHAPTEE VII, Q7 
 
 thing that has been revoked), why would yon say that this 
 relation has terminated, if Grod Himself has not said so? 
 Samuel — I confess that I cannot. It does, however, 
 appear to me, that if the Lord Jesus had willed that the 
 children of believers, under the Grospel, should be mem- 
 bers of His Church, and that they should bear the seal 
 of it. He would have said so^: for the matter was im- 
 portant. 
 
 Father — ^Well, let us see if this reasoning will stand. 
 Tell me, Samuel, do you believe that the fourth com- 
 mandment is still in force under the Grospel ? 
 
 Samuel — Certainly ; and for two substantial reasons : 
 one, that the reason assigned for the commandment — 
 that is to say, " God rested" — is the same at this 
 day as it was at the commencement of the world; 
 the other, that the commandment did not belong to 
 the Levitical law, and, consequently, was not revoked 
 with it. 
 
 Father — And do you also think that the substitution 
 of the first day of the week for the seventh was accord- 
 ing to the Divine vd.ll ? 
 
 SoMiuel — Certainly ; since, whilst the commandment 
 to sanctify every seventh day is observed, the analogy 
 of faith as to the resurrection of the Saviour is likewise 
 preserved. Furthermore, I cannot believe that the 
 Apostolic Church would have made this substitution, 
 unless it had been according to the direction of the 
 Holy Spirit by which it was guided. 
 
 Father — Yet, my brother, although this matter also 
 was im^portant, the Lord has given no directions concern- 
 ing it ; for He has not only avoided a formal repetition 
 of the fourth commandment, but He has, moreover, made 
 no mention of the substitution of one day for another. 
 
68 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Why, then, according to your own reasoning, do you 
 keep the Sabbath, and transfer it to the first day of the 
 week ? 
 
 Samuel — I confess that my reasoning is not consis- 
 tent ; since, if I am satisfied with my own inductions 
 relative to the fourth commandment, I ought also to 
 admit their application to the question which now occu- 
 pies us. 
 
 Father — That is what I think : and, for that reason, I 
 fearlessly affirm that now, under the Gospel (as in all 
 ages under the same Gospel), the children of believers 
 belong to the Church, whether because the appointment 
 that related to them has not been revoked, or because the 
 object of the appointment is always the same, or because 
 their consecration is according to the analogy of faith ; 
 or, in short, because the Apostolic Church looked upon 
 them as holy, which it would not have done if it had not 
 been led to do it by the Spirit of God. 
 
 First, where is it said in Scripture that God has with- 
 drawn or aboKshed the blessing extended to children 
 from the beginning — and in a more marked manner in 
 the family of Abraham, before and during the law ? The 
 Scriptures contain no such statement, and, therefore, I 
 have no right, for any reason whatever, to suppose it. 
 
 I conclude, then, with regard to this first point, that 
 the blessing, not being revoked, is still in force, and 
 that therefore now, as then, it is in accordance with 
 Divine institution that the name of the Almighty 
 should be called upon the child of a believing parent, to 
 whom God says now, as He said then — " I am thy God, 
 and the God of thy posterity, and my promise is made 
 to thee and to thy children." Let a Seth, then, or an 
 Abraham re-appear now, and his family, sealed with the 
 
CHAPTER VII. 69 
 
 name of the Almiglity, will be called the " sons " or 
 children "of God," and will, by that name, be separated 
 from the ungodly, who disown and reject this sacred 
 seal. 
 
 Moreover, I see, even under the legal dispensation, 
 that the consecration of children is not based on a 
 Levitical ordinance, but on a spiritual reason, which 
 is the name and glory of the Almighty placed upon 
 them with a seal equally spiritual (Rom. iv. 11). I 
 likewise find two commandments of the moral law 
 which relate tp them ; of these one (the second in the 
 decalogue) blesses or curses them fi^om generation to 
 generation ; and the other (which is the fifth) enjoins a 
 duty on them, by attaching a promise to it. 
 
 I conclude, then, in the second place, that children are 
 in the Church of God, to which His name, His glory, His 
 commandments, and His promises belong ; and that they 
 are in it not in virtue of an ordinance which has come 
 to an end, but of a spiiitual reason, which is the same 
 to-day as it ever was. 
 
 I go further. Fifteen centuries having passed away 
 after the time of Moses, I see Him who was " to turn 
 the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart 
 of the children to their fathers," first make His ap- 
 pearance (Malachi iv. 6) ; then the Lord Himself, who, 
 having in the Church received the baptism of water 
 before that of the Holy Spirit, makes several declara- 
 tions which, far from abolishing the primitive consecra- 
 tion of the children of believers, confirm it, and give to 
 it a new lustre. Thus, according to the prophecy that " 
 foretold of Jesus (Isaiah xl. 11) that " He would gather 
 the lambs with His arm, and carry them in His bosom," 
 I hear Him bless the little children whom He took in 
 
^0 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 His arms, and on whom He laid His hands (Matt. xix. 
 13 ; Mark x. 13) ; and, according to analogy of faith, I 
 conclude that those children whom He received and 
 hlessed do certainly form part of the "sheep of His 
 pasture." 
 
 I likewise hear Him saying of these little children 
 (who, because they were Jewish, were already conse- 
 crated) that the kingdom of heaven "belonged to them ; 
 and from this, 1, according to the analogy of faith, con- 
 clude that the Grospel, which is the kingdom of heaven, 
 does not reject them from its bosom. 
 
 The Saviour also says of these little ones, that they can 
 be received in His name, because they are His disciples, 
 because they belong to Him (Matt, xviii. 5 ; Mark ix. 
 41) ; and from this I conclude, again reasoning from the 
 analogy of faith, that these children, far from being sepa- 
 rated from their believing parents, do, with them, form 
 part of the people on whom the name of Christ is 
 named, and that they are therefore His disciples. 
 
 Samuel — His disciples, do you say ! How can a little 
 child be a disciple ? 
 
 Father — And why not, if that disciple ship be of divine 
 authority, and if it be entered into, not by choice or 
 acquiescence, but by divine authority and grace ? Did 
 not the children of the slave family become discvples of 
 liberty, that they might be instructed by her, though 
 they did not so much as know her ? And we ourselves, 
 Samuel, are we not disciples of the fulness of knowledge 
 which is in Christ, though, in many respects, we are still 
 strangers, both in knowledge and feeling, to the mysteries 
 which, nevertheless, retain us under their sway ? 
 
 Samuel — It is still, then, Grod's sovereignty and the 
 majesty of His dispensation that you look to in this ? 
 
CHAPTEE VII. 71 
 
 Father — Yes, always ; for lie wlio thinks he cannot be 
 a disciple of God without his own consent, does not 
 understand what is meant by being a disciple. When 
 the Lord determines that His promise shall extend to a 
 tribe of men, and that the families of such a tribe shall 
 know Him — it is this decree of God that constitutes 
 these persons His disciples, and they are as much dis- 
 ciples at the present time, as they will be when the 
 promise is proclaimed to them, or when they profess to 
 believe ; then, indeed, they will be helieving, obeying, true 
 and enfranchised disciples, as their master says (John viii. 
 30-33) ; but they will not, for that reason, be more 
 " accounted to the Lord for the generation" on whom 
 His name is named, for they already belong to it by God's 
 own appointment. 
 
 Samuel — This view is new to me. I always understood 
 that a disciple was a believer, or at least one who had 
 actually been taught. 
 
 Father — That opinion was faulty in this, that in it the 
 supremacy of the divine institution was forgotten. Thus, 
 for instance, during the legal dispensation, the infant 
 was with his parents under the teaching of the Levitical 
 ordinances, of which he was the disciple from his very 
 entrance into life. And it was not by choice, but by 
 divine appointment that he was placed under these doc- 
 trines, ordinances, and promises ; and in this he differs 
 essentially from the children of Moab or Javan, who 
 were only the disciples of error. 
 
 Samuel — That is very clear to me, as to the law ; but 
 is it the same of the spiritual doctrine of the Gospel ? 
 
 Father — Let us avoid all groundless distinctions, dear 
 Samuel, and not forget that the law also was spiritual 
 in the truth which it contains, both doctrine and promises. 
 
72 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Samuel — I tliaiik you, good friend; you did well to 
 reprove me. 
 
 Father — Understand, then, this, tliat wlien tlie Lord 
 Jesus pronounced tlie severe parable of the husbandmen, 
 He declared to the chief men amongst the Jews that the 
 kingdom of God would be taken from them, and given 
 to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. By that 
 nation you are aware He meant the Gentiles, and that 
 kingdom of God was the dispensation of the covenant 
 of promise, as possessed by the Jewish people at that 
 time, with the single exception of the Levitical ordi- 
 nances, which were only an accident, a transitory cir- 
 cumstance in the constitution of that kingdom. But 
 in that kingdom, and according to its fundamental 
 constitution, children were not separated from their 
 fathers, and were to bear upon their persons the name 
 of the Almighty ; according to the analogy of faith, I 
 may therefore safely conclude that now, as then, chil- 
 dren are included with their fathers in this kingdom, 
 and that the name of God ought to be invoked upon 
 them. 
 
 Samuel — ^What shall I reply to you ? This inference 
 is only simple and natural ; shall I then refuse to admit 
 it? 
 
73 
 
 CHAPTER Vin. 
 
 THE APOSTLES REaAEDED THE CHILDREN OF BELIEVEES AS 
 MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. 
 
 Father — ^Tou will still less refuse the evidence con- 
 tained in the constitution of the Apostolic Church, 
 whether during the life of the Apostles or in the time 
 which immediately followed. And, in the first place, 
 observe that, when the Holy Spirit makes mention, for 
 the first time, of this sending of the kingdom of God to 
 the nations, the children of the Gentiles are .specified as 
 having the same interest in it that Jewish children 
 under the covenant had. Here is the fact. (Acts ii. 38.) 
 The Apostle Peter had just forcibly expounded to the 
 multitude of assembled Jews the doctrine of salvation 
 by faith in the name of the Lord Jesus. Reproved in 
 their consciences, they anxiously demanded what they 
 must do to obtain this great salvation : " Then Peter 
 said unto them, 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 of the Holy Ghost. 
 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and 
 to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our 
 God shall call." Now, brother, why is mention thus 
 made of children, since the Jews only put the question 
 for themselves ? Ah ! it is, that in saying we they did 
 not separate themselves from their little ones. It was 
 thus that the Apostle understood this "we," and he replied 
 
74 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 to it by tlie assarance tliat tteir cliildren were also 
 under tlie call of tlie Gospel promise, and tliat their 
 calling on tlie name of the Lord Jesus would not break 
 the tie that united them to their families, and that it 
 would not abolish either the blessings or the privileges 
 that the children of Jewish parents had enjoyed. At 
 the same time, the Apostle, contemplating the Church 
 in the midst of the nations, declared that it would be 
 the same for the people that were yet afar off, and that, 
 as the Lord would call them into His Church, they also 
 should possess the promise for their children as well as 
 for themselves. Therefore, Samuel, the kingdom of God 
 in passing from the Jews to the Gentiles, was so far from 
 changing its spiritual constitution, that it, on the con- 
 trary, preserved for the child what he already possessed 
 with his father, by addressing the promise to both. Do 
 you see this, good friend ? 
 
 Samuel — How not see a declaration so positive ! for, 
 in short, these words, " even as many as the Lord our God 
 shall call,''^ do not relate to the children of Jews (as I 
 have sometimes heard those who quoted this passage 
 say), but they denote the Gentiles, who at that time were 
 still afar off, and whom God calls from time to time. 
 That is equally clear to me. 
 
 Father — To us, then, who are these Gentiles called into 
 the Church, and to our children with us, the promise 
 belongs, and on the same terms on which it belonged 
 to the Jews and their children. For, in short, there are 
 neither two Churches, two faiths, two baptisms, nor two 
 kingdoms of God, What was on that day promised and 
 secured to the Jewish families, is promised and secured 
 in the present day to ours. In the present day, therefore, 
 as regards us Gentiles who are called, children are in- 
 
CHAPTEE VIII. 75 
 
 separable from their parents — botii are equally included 
 in tlie promise ; Grod is tlie God of both, in the same 
 manner ; and His great name, wMcb is tbe sign and seal 
 of this promise, is named upon both, that, if they believe 
 it, the child may, with the father, be a sharer in the 
 benefits which it announces and contains. Is it not so, 
 Samuel ? 
 
 Samuel — I know not if it be ignorance on my part, or 
 rather conviction of the truth, but it seems to me that 
 it would only be by subtilties that I could reject this 
 evidence. And yet, though I see in this declaration the 
 federal relation of children with their fathers, I do not 
 see that therefore the baptism of water belongs to them. 
 
 Father — I think I perceive, by your expression belongs 
 to them, that you still entertain the idea that children 
 ought to show a sort of inclination or preparation for 
 this ordinance, and that you do not sufficiently consider 
 that as circumcision was a sign of consecration, the 
 baptism of water is also a sign of it. 
 
 Samuel — It is however as a sign of consecration that 
 I now consider the baptism of water. 
 
 Father — Well, if this is a sign of consecration attached 
 to the promise of grace, ought it not to be placed on 
 him to whom this promise and consecration extend ? 
 
 Samuel — But, dear brother, is there not a marked 
 difference between the sign of circumcision and that of 
 baptism ? Did not the Lord say, concerning the latter, 
 " teach all nations before baptizing them? " Is not that 
 written at the end of St. Matthew's Gospel ? 
 
 Father — ISTot at all, good friend. For if some versions 
 present this false meaning, all do not (see Piscator's 
 German version, Matthew xxviii. 19) ; neither does the 
 original text say so. 
 
7Q THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Samuel— Wh^bi does it then say, if you please ? 
 
 Father — The Lord Jesus, who is a Saviour to any nation 
 whatever, and not to the Jewish nation only, at the 
 moment of parting from those whom He sent forth, gave 
 them a charge to preach to all the world without dis- 
 tinction. " Go," said He to them, " and make disciples 
 of ail nations." Then indicating the manner in which 
 this work was to be accomplished, He added, "baptizing 
 them in the name of the Lord, and teaching them to 
 observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you." 
 The first command is then a mission of the Apostles over 
 the surface of the earth ; the second is the declaration 
 that the disciples of this mission shall be baptized first, 
 and taught afterwards. Baptism, therefore, is here the 
 sign of consecration in the name of God ; and the indi- 
 vidual who is thus set apart, ought afterwards to be 
 instructed in everything connected with the promise 
 that this great name contains. 
 
 Samuel — But do we see that the Apostles understood 
 it thus ? 
 
 Father — Certainly, how otherwise could they have 
 baptized entire families ? 
 
 Samuel — Ah! the fact of having baptized entire families 
 does not seem to me to prove it, whether because it was 
 a very uncommon occurrence, and, as it were, an excep- 
 tion, or rather, because the account given of these 
 baptisms seems to establish clearly enough that the 
 members of those families were all adults and believers. 
 
 Father — Are you sure, my good friend, that your reasons 
 arc well founded ? And first, suppose that in reality, 
 only some families were spoken of as having been thus 
 baptized, would the smallness of their numbers weaken 
 the argument ? And would the Apostles have baptized 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 11 
 
 an entire family, even once, had tlie practice been con- 
 trary to their commission ? 
 
 Samuel — Certainly not ; I have therefore done wrong 
 in quoting the infreqnency of the fact as an argument 
 against it. 
 
 'Fatlier — Besides, the occurrence was far from being 
 rare ; for several families are specified by name, and 
 many are presented to us in a similar situation : for 
 instance, those who composed the Church of Tyre (Acts 
 xxi. 5), whom we see (fathers, mothers, and children,) 
 united and prostrated before Q-od in prayer. As to 
 what you say, that probably the baptized families 
 contained adults only, why suppose it, since it is not 
 written. 
 
 Samuel — But it seems quite evident to me that they 
 were adults. For instance, it is said of the jailer of 
 Philippi, that he "rejoiced, believing in God witli all his 
 Jiouse.^^ His family, therefore, also believed before being 
 baptized. 
 
 Father — I do not think so ; for, observe first, that the 
 jailer, having said to Paul and Silas : " Sirs, what must I 
 do to be saved?" they replied to him, "believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and thy 
 house;'' thus indicating that the submission of the head 
 of the house to the Lord would also bring out his family 
 from the darkness of idolatry. Believe me, furthermore, 
 when I aflB.rm to you, that the Greek text does not say? 
 and cannot mean, " that the jailer rejoiced at having 
 believed with all his house ;" but it says that he rejoiced 
 in (or with) all his house, that (or because) he had 
 believed. It is therefore evident that the head of the 
 house is here the only believing disciple specified. A 
 circumstance which occurs again, in what relates to 
 
 g2 
 
78 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Lydia, wlio, having believed, was baptized, witb her 
 housebold. (Acts, xvi. 14.) 
 
 Samuel —Is it not, however, said that some brethren 
 were in Lydia's house ? Did not these brethren belong 
 to her family ? And was it not, consequently, composed 
 of adults ? 
 
 Father — Once again, Samuel, why suppose what is 
 not stated ; and thus add to the Scriptures ? And 
 besides, had this family really been composed of believ- 
 ing adults, would not Lydia have said, " if ye judge us 
 faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide 
 there." Whereas, speaking of herself only, she said, 
 "if ye judge me faithful." As to those brethren whom 
 the Apostles saluted in her house, is it not quite natural 
 to infer that the jailer and other disciples had met 
 there ? Had it been Lydia's children that were referred 
 to here, is it to be supposed that the Apostle would not 
 have specified them by this term ? 
 
 Samuel — Your remarks may be well founded ; and 
 yet I cannot get rid of the objection, which seems to 
 me very strong, that if infants had been baptized by the 
 Apostles, they would certainly have made mention of it, 
 at least once ; but they have not done so. 
 
 Father — My dear friend, how different the same fact 
 appears, according to the way in which it is viewed : 
 from the Apostles not having said, ive have haptized such 
 and such a child, you conclude that they never did bap- 
 tize ; and I, from the same silence, draw a positive proof 
 that they certainly did. 
 
 Samuel — But how ? for may not I now say to you, 
 why suppose what is not written ? 
 
 Father — ^I do not wish to suppose anything : I only 
 wish to reason justly and according to what is written. 
 
CHAPTER YIII. 79 
 
 And, first, you acknowledge, I suppose, tliat a tiling 
 may take place in tlie Cliurcli, and habitually, too, tliougli 
 mention is not made of it in the sacred writings. You 
 admit, for instance, that among the Jews, children were 
 taught to read, though God did not give a formal com- 
 mand to that effect, and although we are nowhere told 
 that such was the case. 
 
 Samuel — Undoubtedly; and I know also what that 
 example points to. 
 
 Father — Here is another. Though neither the Lord 
 nor any of His Apostles had said, either that women 
 were to partake of the Lord's Supper, or that they did 
 even once partake of it, do you not admit that custom 
 to be good, and entirely Scriptural ? 
 
 Samuel — Certainly ; and I see that I really cannot, 
 from the silence of the Apostles regarding this practice, 
 infer that it was not followed by the Apostolic Church. 
 
 Father — Their silence on infant baptism cannot, then, 
 be a proof that it was not practised in their time ; and 
 not only that, but I think that this silence proves the 
 contrary. 
 
 Samuel — ^Tou mean, perhaps, that, as baptism was a 
 customary affair, the thing was done as a matter of 
 course, and that, consequently, there was no occasion to 
 speak of it. 
 
 Father — Precisely ; for, in short, you would not say 
 that neither Samuel, the son of Elkanah, nor Israelitish 
 children in general, were circumcised during the time 
 of the Judges and Eangs, because the fact of their cir- 
 cumcision is not related in history. 
 
 Samuel— (^xjiiie the contrary, I should say; for since 
 the sacred historian makes mention of the omission of 
 this ordinance during the sojourn of the Israelites in 
 
80 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 tlie desert, liad such, an omission occurred again, at 
 any otlier period, lie would liave spoken of it also. 
 (Joshua V.) 
 
 Father — ^Well, brother, it would be in this manner 
 that I would interpret the silence of the Apostles, if they 
 really were silent on this subject. I would say that, as 
 the thing was a matter of course, they had no occasion 
 to mention it in express terms. Moreover, I am so sure 
 of the faithfulness of the Holy Spirit, that I feel quite 
 certain, if Grod's will with regard to baptism had been 
 other than this. He would have revealed it. Yes, brother, 
 it seems to me that the faithfulness of the Saviour is 
 quite as much concerned in this matter as it was when 
 He said to His disciples, with, regard to the heavenly 
 mansions — " If it were not so I would have told you." 
 (John xiv. 2.) I do not doubt, therefore, that if it had 
 been otherwise, as regarded infants, than it had been up 
 to that period with regard to them, the Lord would have 
 said so expressly, for He is faithful. 
 
 Samuel — Yet, my brother, it seems to me that if the 
 Lord Jesus had baptized infants, the Apostles, who must 
 have seen and known that He did so, would not have 
 repelled them from His person. 
 
 Father — Your conclusion proves too much, dear friend ; 
 for the fact, taken in the sense in which you understand 
 it, would only demonstrate that the Lord, until that time, 
 had not baptized families. Besides, insisting on His 
 faithfulness on a subject of so much importance, I draw 
 from this fact a conclusion quite contrary to yours, 
 namely, that if the Lord had excluded children from His 
 sheepfold, and, consequently, from the seal of the cove- 
 nant of promise. He would have announced it at the 
 very commencement of His ministry ; and, every one 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 81 
 
 being aware of it, no parent would have liad even a 
 thouglit of bringing a child to be blessed by Him. 
 
 Samuel — So, therefore, the silence of the Apostles, 
 and even of the Lord Himself, is, you tell me, in every 
 respect, a demonstration of the fact that I am doubting. 
 
 Father — Yes, brother ; especially if you compare this 
 silence with another silence of which you no not say 
 anything, but which, nevertheless, also contains a power- 
 ful conclusion. 
 
 Samuel — Of what would you speak ? 
 
 Father — Of the absolute silence observed by the 
 Apostles on the baptism of adult disciples within the 
 Church. 
 
 Somiuel — How, my brother ! Was it not, on the con- 
 trary, the constant practice of John, of the Saviour, 
 and of the Apostles to baptize adults ? 
 
 Father— Outside the Church, yes ; and it is ours also. 
 But I speak of the interior of the Church — of those who 
 were born in it — of the children of believers — children 
 who, according to you, had not been baptized at their 
 birth, but who, nevertheless, were without doubt bap- 
 tized some time or other. TTow, I ask how it happened 
 that during nearly sixty-seven years, that is to say, from 
 the ministry of John the Baptist until the writings of the 
 Apostles were completed, mention is not made of any 
 baptism having been administered within the Church, 
 though she had already found her way into thousands of 
 families. 
 
 Samuel— I had not thought of that fact, which I ad- 
 mit seems remarkable to me. 
 
 Father — Now, how is it to be explained? It must 
 either be assumed that there had not been any conver- 
 sions in all these families during three generations, and 
 
82 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 that tlie Churcli was therefore recruited by strangers 
 only (an idea wliicli is inadmissible), or we must sup- 
 pose that neither the conversion nor the baptism of the 
 adult sons and daughters of Christians awakened the 
 slightest interest, or made the least impression within 
 the Church or in families ; which is contrary to charity 
 as much as to the natural affections ; — or else, finally, 
 we must admit that mention is not made of any bap- 
 tism of adults witliin the Church, because within the 
 Church infants were baptized. I cannot see any other 
 possible explanation. 
 
 Samuel — I grant that this argument is worthy of se- 
 rious consideration, and I am far from rejecting it, for 
 it is positive. 
 
 Father— The more so (mark this well) that as the ques- 
 tion at issue refers to a practice generally diffused through 
 many countries, and amongst disciples jealous for the 
 safe-keeping of the precious truths committed to their 
 care, this universal silence can only be explained by a 
 universal agreement of opinion, which leads us to the 
 conclusion that if the baptism of infant children within 
 the Church had not been practised from the very days 
 of the Apostles, that is to say, in conformity to the com- 
 mission which they had received from the Lord, this 
 custom could never have commenced; it could not have 
 been introduced, nor could it have obtained a footing in 
 the Church without causing disturbances in it, and meet- 
 ing on all sides the most marked opposition. 
 
 Samuel — I have been told, brother, that this practice 
 was unknown in Apostolic times, and that it crept into 
 the Church at a much later period and by insensible 
 degrees. Is this true ? 
 
83 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE APOSTOLIC CHUECH ALWAYS BAPTIZED THE CHILDEEN OF 
 BELIEYEES. 
 
 Father — "What sliall I say to you, Samuel ! except 
 that to advance sucli an assertion seems to me either 
 to deny what history affirms, or to be wilfully ignorant 
 of what it relates. For what is more evident than this 
 fact, namely, that the Apostolic Church baptized the 
 children of believers ? Therefore, I assure you, that 
 when I hear it said that this proof is doubtful, or that 
 it has no force, I ask, where is the simplicity of those 
 who thus speak. 
 
 Samuel — However, dear brother, this proof, whatever 
 it may be, is not in the Word of Grod. 
 
 Father — Undoubtedly it is not ; but it is the impress 
 of His "Word in the Church. The footmarks that I find 
 imprinted on the dust are not, it is true, the man him- 
 self who left them there, but they bear unmistakable 
 testimony of his having passed ; and I am sure, dear 
 Samuel, that if we had lost our way in the midst of a 
 desert, you would not refuse to trust yourself to be 
 guided by the traces of a caravan, should you meet with 
 them on the sand. "Would you say, in that case, that 
 these traces were of no value in your estimation, inas- 
 much as you saw neither the camels nor the merchants ? 
 I think not. It is the same with regard to the history 
 of the Church, when the matter under consideration is a 
 
84 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 custom or a practice. If a doctrine is in question, the 
 law and tlie testimony are tlie only voices that ought to 
 be listened to. But if the tangible fact that a doctrine 
 ought to produce be the subject of inquiry, the tangible 
 reply that history gives cannot be objected to, and to 
 reject it is to declare that we will retain the opinion 
 which this argument overturns. 
 
 Samuel — "What you say, my friend, seems to me to 
 admit of no reply. Therefore, although I have until 
 now thought that I ought to disregard the proof which 
 the history of the Church could furnish me with regard 
 to infant baptism, and though I have even blamed those 
 who attached importance to it, I desire now to listen to 
 it. Yes, there are footmarks here, imprinted by truth, 
 and I ought at least to examine them with care. 
 
 Father — Well, my friend, view these footmarks from 
 the days of the Apostles downward, in the Church of 
 Antioch, in Syria (Acts, xv). This Church, planted in 
 the midst of the Gentiles, was quite unacquainted with 
 the forms and observances of the law. Now, certain 
 Jews, converted to the Gosjoel, but still zealous for the 
 customs of the Mosaic law, come to Antioch, where Paul 
 and Barnabas were at the time, and teach the brethren 
 that " except they be circumcised after the manner of 
 Moses they cannot be saved." The Apostles oppose 
 them, and, at a later period, the synod of Jerusalem 
 decides that they are in error. But even this error 
 involves a positive declaration, viz., that the converted 
 Jews knew that the Gentile Church was, as regarded 
 children, constituted like their own. The custom of the 
 law was that the infant should be circumcised — the Jews 
 retained this custom themselves, and wished, under the 
 Gospel, to impose it on the Gentiles. They believed, 
 
CHAPTEE IX. 85 
 
 then, since they insisted on the keeping up of an ordi- 
 nance, which specially related to children, that amongst 
 the converted Gentiles, as amongst themselves, the con- 
 verted Jews, children belonged to the Church. Had 
 children, in the Christian Church, been excluded from 
 the sign of the covenant, would those Jews have had 
 even a thought of preserving a seal which was always 
 placed on the child ? 
 
 Samuel — Certainly not; and I acknowledge all the 
 simplicity and force of this argument, which the history 
 of the Acts of the Apostles itself furnishes. 
 
 Father — Well, all other historical testimony ought, if 
 it is worthy of belief, to be received in the same manner. 
 Therefore, to these first foot-marks join the following — 
 the clearness and depth of which will not leave you any 
 doubt. I shall point them out to you from the days of 
 the Apostles themselves, till the time that everybody 
 acknowledged that infant baptism was the universal 
 custom of the Church.* 
 
 Hermas, who was perhaps the person spoken of by St. 
 Paul (Rom. xvi. 14), and who was contemporary with 
 Clement of Rome, of whom mention is made by the same 
 Apostle (Phil. iv. 3), repeating, in some manner, the 
 words of our Lord, that the kingdom of heaven belongs 
 to little children, expresses himself in the following 
 terms : — " Those shall be more honourable [than the 
 martyrs and confessors themselves] who, like little chil- 
 dren, have lived without malice. Por children were al- 
 ways honoured by the Lord, and have also the highest 
 place in EQs sight." Would Hermas have spoken in 
 this manner if he had thought that the children of be- 
 
 * For the fall development of this argument, see "Wall's " History of Infant 
 Baptism." 
 
 H 
 
86 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 lievers were profane, — excluded from the Churcli, and 
 so deprived of tlie invocation of tlie Almiglity's name 
 upon them ? 
 
 Justin Martyr, a learned and pious man, who lived 
 forty years after the Apostles, and who first pleaded the 
 cause of the Church before the Emperors by whom it was 
 persecuted, expressed himself thus, in a conversation that 
 he had at Ephesus with the Jew Tryphon, a man of learn- 
 ing and noble birth : — " We also, who by Christ have ac- 
 cess to G-od, have received not carnal circumcision, but 
 that which is spiritual, which Henoc and those who re- 
 sembled him have likewise observed. And as we were 
 born sinners, we have, according to the mercy of God, 
 received it by baptism, as it is permitted to any person 
 whatever to receive it in the same manner." And, in 
 another place, to the question, Why, if circumcision was 
 a good thing, he did not practise it as well as the Jews, 
 he replied — "We Christians are circumcised, in bap- 
 tism, with the circumcision of Christ." (Col. ii. 11, 12.) 
 (Dial. Gum. Typh., p. 69.) ISTow, Samuel, will you 
 admit that Justin, a grave and pious man, and profoundly 
 versed in sacred learning, would liave compared Chris- 
 tian baptism to circumcision, and replied in these words 
 to a Jew, especially in making mention of original sin, 
 if he liad hiown that children were neither baptized nor 
 even admitted as members into the Chiistian Church ? 
 For my own part I cannot even suppose it. 
 
 Samuel — ISTor indeed can I ; and I confess that I did 
 not think that so much weight could attach to this 
 historical truth. 
 
 i^a-^/z-er— This is yet bat a small matter: listen to what 
 follows. This same servant of the Lord Jesus, in one 
 of his Apologies for Christians, expresses himself in 
 
CHAPTER IX. 87 
 
 these words : — "Even among us, several men and women 
 of sixty and seventy years of age, lulio were made disciples 
 of Christ from their infancy, continue to live in purity." 
 Now, with regard to this, observe two things ; one, that 
 he employs the same v/ord that the Lord Jesus made 
 use of, when he laid his command on the Apostles to 
 preach the Grospel over the whole world (Mat. xxvii. 19). 
 It is, therefore, incorrect to say, that the expression 
 "make disciples," uttered by the Saviour, is applicable 
 to adults only, since Justin Martyr employs it here in 
 speaking of children. The other circumstance that 
 must be observed is, that those persons who, in Justin 
 Martyr's day, were sixty or seventy years of age, had 
 been born in apostolic times, and had, consequently, 
 during those times, been taken into the Church in 
 infancy. Is not this footmark as distinct as deep ? 
 does it not clearly indicate, that in the Church, organized 
 during the time and under the direction of the Apostles, 
 children were looked upon as disciples, that is to say, as 
 members of the Church ? But let us pursue our inquiries. 
 About sixty-seven years after the Apostles, Irenaeus and 
 Clement of Alexandria leave us still more evident foot- 
 marks. 
 
 Irenaeus, who was likewise a martyr of the faith, and 
 who had been taught by Polycarp the disciple of St. 
 John, in speaking of the Lord Jesus expresses himself 
 thus (Adv. Seres. Lib. ii. cap. 39.) : — " Therefore, as He 
 was a Master, He had also the age of a Master, not dis- 
 owning nor disdaining human nature, nor breaking in His 
 own person the law which He had set for mankind ; but 
 sanctifying every several age by the likeness that it has 
 to him. For He came to save all persons by Himself: all, 
 I mean, who by Him are regenerated (or baptized) unto 
 
88 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Grod ; infants and little ones, and children and youtHs, and 
 elder persons. Therefore He went tlirongli tlie several 
 ages : for infants being made an infant, sanctifying in- 
 fants : to little ones He was made a little one, sanctify- 
 ing those of that age."* Tims speaks a doctor of the 
 Church, a witness of the apostolic times, and of the purest 
 discipline in the Church. He declares that even children 
 at the hreast are in the Church, — that they are made holy 
 or consecrated by the Savioui' who had been made a little 
 child for them also ; and he likewise declares that these 
 children have been born again to God in the Church, that 
 is to say, according to the form of expression then in use, 
 that they have been haiMzed vntli ivater. 
 
 Samuel — Is this certain? Did the word regenerated 
 then signify hajjtized luith luater ? 
 
 Father — ^Yes, nearly always. For instance, this same 
 Irenaeus says (Llh. iii., cap. 19) — "When giving the 
 power of regeneration in God to the disciples, the Holy 
 Spirit said 'Go,' " &c. ; which, you perceive, can only be 
 understood of the power to baptize, since no Apostle ever 
 possessed that of regenerating a soul, which belongs ex- 
 clusively to the omnipotence of God. And, elsewhere, 
 he again says — " When the Lord gave His disciples the 
 commission to regenerate in God, He said to them, ' Go, 
 make disciples of all nations,' " &c. Now, it was the 
 commission to baptize with water that the disciples had 
 received. 
 
 * Magister ergo existens Magistri qnoque habebat aetatem, non reprobans 
 nee supergrediens hominera, neque solvens (suam) legem iu se humani generis: 
 sed omnem aetatem sanetiiicans per illara quae ad ipsnm erat similtudinem, 
 Omnes enim venit per semet ipsum salvare : omnes, inquam, qui per eum 
 renascuntur in Deum ; infantes et parMilos, et pueros, et juveness, et seniores. 
 Ideo per omnem venit aetatem; et infantibus infans factus, sanctificans in- 
 fantes ; et parvulis parvulus, sanctificans banc ipsam babentes aetatem. 
 
CHAPTEE IX. 89 
 
 Samuel — If this is so, my brother, it is evident that, 
 in the time of Irenaeus, little children Avere baptized 
 with water. To deny it ^ronld be to reject the fact 
 itself, or else to suppose that this testimony is but 
 nonsense. 
 
 Father — Other witnesses still will tell yon the same 
 thing. Thus, Clement of Alexandria, who was contempo- 
 rary with Irenaens, and who, like him, nsed indifferently 
 the words baptism and regeneration, giving directions to 
 the Chnrch on the prudence and modesty that Chris- 
 tians ought to show in the choice of their ornaments, 
 tells them how little becoming it is in them to have 
 idolatrous emblems on their rings and seals, and adds — 
 " Let the impression on your seal be a dove, or a fish, or 
 a vessel under sail, or a harp, or an anchor, and if any 
 of you is a fisherman, let him think of an apostle, and of 
 the infants that he draws from the water."* Thus indi- 
 cating that, in his time, the fact of the Apostles having 
 baptized infants was not unknown ; and advising the 
 choice of this emblem to a Christian, whose calling led 
 him to spend most of his time on the water. 
 
 8amuel — This fact is interesting : there is something 
 very pleasing in its simplicity. 
 
 Father — I think so, too. But I come farther down, 
 and I find, about a century after the Apostles, the tes- 
 timony of TertulKan, which I produce with so much 
 
 * Some of the expressions in these quotations from the fathers betray had 
 taste, and, some of them, indifferent theology ; hut they are not on that account 
 of less weight as arguments /o>- the antiquity of the practice of infant baptism. 
 And it is for that pui-pose only that they are quoted here. Were they even 
 more ohjectionahle than they are, their testimony on this point would not be 
 in the least impaired. It is plain from what immediately follows, that Dr. 
 Malan is not to be held responsible for any of the sentiments contained in any 
 of the quotations ; much less is the translator or editor. — K. J. B. 
 
 H 2 
 
90 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 the more satisfaction, as it is made use of to combat 
 tlie very trutL. it establishes. The following are the 
 facts: — In his work on "Baptism and the Soul," after 
 having spoken of the natural sinfulness of man, and the 
 necessity for regeneration, he advances the opinion, that 
 the baptism of water takes away all the sins that have 
 preceded it, from which he concludes that it would be 
 much better, in place of baptizing in infancy, to defer 
 that ordinance to a more advanced period of life. " For 
 instance," he says, " until after marriage, that, the age 
 of passion being passed, the baptized person may no 
 longer run any risk of losing the benefits to be derived 
 from baptism." Such was his opinion ; but what do we 
 learn from it with regard to infant baptism ? Does it 
 imply the non-exisence of this usage in his time ? On 
 the contrary, it establishes the fact that infant baptism 
 was the ordinary practice of the Church at that period. 
 Again : does his opinion prove that this practice was con- 
 trary to Scripture, and that baptism ought only to follow 
 faith ? Not at all : it is a totally different reason that 
 he assigns for his notion of exclusive adult baptism. 
 Tertullian then unites with Hermas, Justin Martyr, 
 Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria in testifying that 
 the practice of the Apostolic Church was to put the seal 
 of the covenant on children born within the Church. 
 Do you doubt this, Samuel ? 
 
 Samuel — It does not seem to me that such testimony 
 could reasonably be rejected. 
 
 Father — Other servants of God, besides those already 
 mentioned, will also assure you of it. About one hun- 
 dred and ten years after the Apostles, Origen, one of the 
 most learned Fathers of the Church, expresses himself 
 in this manner (Horn. viii. in Levit. carp. 12) — "No man 
 
CHAFTEE IX. 91 
 
 is exempt from natural pollution, even tliougli the dura- 
 tion of Ms life lias been but a single day. Let it there- 
 fore be noticed particularly, that the baptism of the 
 Church is given for the remission of sins. Infants also 
 are, according to the custom of the Church, baptized — a 
 grace which would be useless to them if there was 
 nothing in them which had need of pardon and mercy." 
 Elsewhere he says (Horn, in Jjiicam, cap. 14) — " Since 
 I have the opportunity of doing so, I shall again speak on 
 a question which is often agitated amongst the brethren. 
 It is said that little children are baptized for the remis- 
 sion of sins. Of what sins ? When did they sin ? But 
 what other fitting reason would there be for the baptism 
 of infants except that which I have produced — namely, 
 that man, at the age even of but one day, is not without 
 pollution." And, in another place, he again says {Com- 
 ment, in JEpist. ad Rom, Lib. v.) — " Under the law a 
 sacrifice of turtle doves and young pigeons was to 
 be offered for the sins of every child that was born. 
 And it is for this reason that the Church has received 
 from the Apostles the custom of baptizing even infants. 
 For those to whom the secrets of the mysteries of God 
 were intrusted, knew that all men have in them the 
 original pollution of sin, which is to be taken away by 
 water and by the Spirit." So spoke this Christian, born 
 of a father who was a Christian and a martyr, and 
 descended from ancestors equally faithful. He had then 
 been baptized in infancy himself, for if he had not, he 
 would not have insisted on this fact ; and if this practice 
 had not been that of the Church from its very origin, 
 would a man so enlightened as he was, have affirmed 
 what history, as well as the experience of his own family, 
 would have contradicted? 
 
92 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Samuel — It would be foolisli to suppose it. Tlie 
 evidence seems to me niore tlian complete. 
 
 Father — Wliat do we also see in a very large and 
 very faitliful CliuTch, about fifty years after Origen ? 
 Wbat took place in the Cburcli of Africa on the subject 
 of infant baptism ? About tbe year of our Lord, 250, 
 there was a council held, consisting of sixty-six bishops. 
 At this council, Fudus, another bishop of the same 
 Church, inquired, by letter, " if an infant could be bap- 
 tized before he was eight days old, in a case that appeared 
 urgent." Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, and also a 
 martyr, replied, in the name of the whole council, by a 
 long letter, going fully into details ; in which, after having 
 said that in the Church the grace of Cod belongs to 
 every person and to every age, he remarked that, " if 
 under the Jewish law, the child ought not to be circum- 
 cised until the eighth day, this (eighth) day, which 
 was the first after the Sabbath, was, for the Christian, 
 the first day of the week — the day on which the Lord 
 arose from the dead ; that, therefore, the infant, even but 
 one day old, ought to be a sharer in the benefit of that 
 resurrection. For which reason, spiritual circumcision 
 (that is to say, haptism,) could not be delayed by the fact 
 of carnal circumcision, which was the shadow to which 
 the light has succeeded ; so much the more, added he, 
 that Peter declares, in the Acts, that the Lord had for- 
 bidden him to regard any human being as unclean. 
 Why, then, should we regard little children as unclean ? 
 For all these reasons, my dear brother, the opinion of 
 our council is, that we should not exclude any one from 
 the ordinance of baptism. And, since it ought to be 
 observed towards all men, we consider that it ought still 
 more to be observed as regards children newly born, 
 
CHAPTEE IS. 93 
 
 who have so much the more need of oiir assistance and of 
 Grod's, because, at the time of their birth, they can only 
 implore it by their tears and groanings."* 
 
 Samuel — Ah ! brother, allow me to tell yoti what a 
 difference, what a contrast I see, between the sentiments 
 
 of the council of Carthage and those of our Baptist 
 
 brethren, and of my own heart, with regard to baptism. 
 How different the manner of considering it ! What a 
 contemplation of the sovereig-nty and benefit of the di- 
 vine ordinance amongst these first bishops of the Church! 
 Truly, dear friend, I ask myself if my faith be indeed 
 the faith that they possessed, since I have so little un- 
 derstood the ordinance of God as they understood it. 
 
 Father — Really, Samuel, the views of Baptists are 
 very different from those of this council. And yet, of 
 what men was it composed ! What a servant of Jesus ! 
 what a learned man ! what a confessor to the truth was 
 this Cyprian who presided in it ! 
 
 Samuel — It is that which now strikes me. For, in 
 short, we must either admit that our Baptist brethren 
 have more knowledge, more faith, more integrity and 
 true piety than the leaders of the Church had in those 
 early times, or else confess that an opinion, which is 
 so distinctly opposed to that of these ancient bishops and 
 doctors, is certainly new in the Church, and very pro- 
 bably erroneous. 
 
 Father — So much the more, you perceive, that they 
 put forward, not an opinion peculiar to any sect, but 
 
 * See note in page 89. Here, however, Dr. Malan seems to sympathise 
 too much with some questionable notions involved in the passage he quotes. 
 StiU, the force of the evidence here produced for the antiquity of infant bap- 
 tism (which is the single point we are at present concerned with), is not 
 affected by this. 
 
94 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 that wMcli was certainly tlie universal sentiment of the 
 CtLurcli at that time. And see how different their view 
 of the snbject was from that which yon have to-day 
 expressed! See what they thought of circumcision, 
 which they likened so much to the baptism of water 
 that they called the latter spiritual circumcision. See, 
 also, what they understood by the purity of the child of 
 which St. Peter had spoken. This purity, as you have 
 understood it, has induced you to confound your child 
 with a heathen child, and to refuse him the ordinance 
 of baptism; and it was this same purity that rather 
 pleaded in the spirit of faith with these sixty-six bishops 
 in favour of the baptism of a child, though born but a 
 single day! Finally, see how much compassion they 
 felt for the little child; a compassion founded on the 
 belief that the di\dne ordinance is a boon from God to 
 him. You, on the contrary, regarding the ordinance as 
 of no value in itself, and thus depriving it of its charac- 
 ter of sovereign grace, withhold it from the infant, 
 whom you thus leave in a condition which was regarded 
 by the council as the privation of a great benefit, and, 
 at the same time, as a slighting of the divine com- 
 passion. 
 
 Samuel — I see it and I feel it, dear friend. Certainly 
 the opinion of the Baptists of our day is in direct op- 
 position to that of Cyprian and his colleagues ; and I 
 feel that I dare neither prefer my o^vn nor that of any 
 person whatever to theirs. 
 
 Father — You would not, then, any longer maintain, or 
 even suppose, that the Apostolic Church knew nothing 
 of the practice of infant baptism. 
 
 Samuel — Should not I be void of sense if I still 
 thought so ? Is there cause here for any uncertainty ? 
 
CHAPTER IX. 95 
 
 The Scripture says that "in the mouth of two or three 
 witnesses every word shall be established." How, then, 
 could I regard it as doubtful ? 
 
 Father — Yet listen to some more of these witnesses, 
 if not to establish the fact still better, at least to be edi- 
 fied by their veneration for the ordinance of God. 
 
 Samuel — Yes, I shall be glad to hear anything with 
 such a tendency. I feel that my faith has need of it ; 
 for indeed I feel that I have treated too lightly a sub- 
 ject of so much importance, 
 
 Father — Well, then, two hundred and sixty years after 
 the Apostles, Gregory of ISTazianzus, in speaking of 
 Basil, a faithful and courageous confessor of the truth, 
 compares him to Samuel, and says that, " Like the son 
 of Hannah, he had been consecrated to God from his 
 infancy — from his mother's womb, and like him had 
 been brought to the temple to be anointed of the Lord." 
 Then addressing himself to a Christian mother, he says 
 to her: — "Hast thou a little child? let not corruption 
 take occasion from the circumstance of his weakness, 
 but let him be consecrated from his very cradle. Yes ! 
 let him be henceforth set apart as a subject for the 
 operation of the Holy Spirit ! Thou, as a weak mother, 
 art fearful and of little faith, and dreadest giving him 
 this seal on account of his tender age. Hannah devoted 
 Samuel to God before he was born, and as soon as he was 
 born, not frightened by the weakness of humanity, but 
 trusting in God, she brought him to the temple in the 
 priestly vestments. And thou, hast thou need of amulets 
 and charms to g-uard the child ! Give him the Trinity, 
 that great and excellent preservative." 
 
 Samuel — Oh! my brother, how delightful these words, 
 " Give him the Trinity'^ for guardian ! How much beauty 
 
yo THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 is contained in them ! What faith ! what an out-going 
 of his soul towards the Almighty, whose great name 
 will serve as a safeguard to the child on whom it is 
 invoked. 
 
 Father — Tes, dear Samuel, these are noble, fine senti- 
 ments. They were those of the martyrs of the Gospel. 
 What a contrast (as you have said) with the dryness of 
 our modern sentiments ! 
 
 - Samuel— 1 now also perceive that these were not the 
 opinions of one or two doctors in the Church. 
 
 Father — They were, ivithout exception, those of the 
 entire Church. You have seen this in the first three 
 centuries ; you shall see it in the fourth and fifth like- 
 wise. 
 
 In the middle of the fourth century, Ambrose, Bishop 
 of Milan, expresses himself thus, {Comment, lib. i. in Lucam 
 cap. 1): — "Perhaps the miracle of Elijah separating 
 the waters of Jordan, represented the future mysteries 
 of this salutary baptism, by which, even at their first 
 entrance into the human nature, children are cleansed 
 from their pollution." 
 
 Three hundred and eighty years after the Apostles, 
 Chrysostom, the eloquent and courageous Bishop of 
 Constantinople, comparing circumcision with baptism, 
 expresses himself thus : — " But our circumcision, I mean 
 the grace of baptism, brings the remedy without any 
 pain, becomes for us the source of an infinity of benefits, 
 and fills us with the grace of the Holy Spirit. It does 
 not relate to any assigned period, as circumcision did, 
 but suits equally the commencement and the middle of 
 life — the aged man also, may receive this circumcision 
 made without hands." And in another place (JEom. xii 
 mi. epist. ad Cor?), censuring those mothers who thought 
 
CHAPTER IX. 9/ 
 
 to preserve their newly born cliildren from tlie power of 
 tlie demon by anointing their heads with a certain plaster, 
 he says to them : — "How does she, who puts this vile 
 dirt on her infant, dare to place him in the hands of 
 the pastor ? Tell me, do yon think it fitting that the 
 pastor's hands should place this seal on the forehead 
 of the child, when yon have first covered it with this 
 dirt?" 
 
 Samuel — Enough, my brother. Do not fatigue your- 
 self producing a greater number of proofs. 
 
 Failier—Zu^t one more, if you please, which will 
 appear to you the more pointed, as it is given, not by a 
 faithful servant of Jesus, but by an enemy of the truth 
 — the heretic Pelagius. This man, a monk of Great 
 Britain, of which he was a native, after having visited 
 the churches of different countries, went to Rome, and 
 thence to Africa, where he taught the doctrine that has 
 since received his name : that is to say, that man at his 
 birth is pure, and that he is afterwards capable in himself 
 of attaining unto perfection. The Church opposed this 
 doctrine, and the universal Council of Carthage in par- 
 ticular rejected it as heretical. At this Council the 
 pious Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, was present. Augus- 
 tine then wrote against Pelagius, to whose testimony he 
 appealed as to the fact of infant baptism, on which he 
 (Augustine) thus speaks :—" Now, therefore, since our 
 opponents acknowledge that children ought to be bap- 
 tized, seeing that, on that subject, it is impossible for 
 them to combat the authority of the universal Church, 
 which evidently received that institution from the Lord 
 and His Apostles, they must also acknowledge that 
 children have need of a Mediator, and that, in this sa- 
 crament, they are presented to the love of the faithful, 
 
98 TRE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 tliat they may be received into tlie body of Christ." 
 And as to the practice of infant baptism, lie says — " We 
 migbt ask tliis learned man bow many Latin and Greek 
 authors, versed in the interpretation of the Scriptures, 
 there are, who have, since the foundation of the Chris- 
 tian Church held other views on this subject, or received 
 other views from those who lived before them. For 
 myself (I, however, admit that I have not read so much 
 as Pelagius), I cannot remember of having heard a diffe- 
 rent view expressed by any Christian (who received the 
 books of both the Old and New Testaments) either in 
 the universal Church, or in any heretical or schismati- 
 cal Church, that ever existed." 
 
 Samuel — What a declaration ! made by such a doctor 
 as Augustine, and publicly before the Church ! Indeed, 
 my friend, how can it be that men of learning and in- 
 tegrity still say that children were not baptized in the 
 Apostolic Church? 
 
 Father — I, too, am unable to comprehend it ; certainly 
 Pelagius, who had a great interest in denying that chil- 
 dren had always been baptized, far from doing so, de- 
 clares that " he had never heard that even any impious 
 heretic had ever advanced the opinion that children 
 ought not to be baptized," and he adds, "who could be 
 impious enough to refuse baptism to children !" 
 
 Samuel — Impious enough ! The Church of that period, 
 that is to say, the Apostolic Church, would then have 
 taxed me, who have withheld this ordinance from my 
 child, with ungodliness ? Ah ! my friend, this is serious. 
 
99 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE CHILDREN OP UNBELIEVING PARENTS HAYE NO EIGHT 
 TO THE ORDINANCE OF BAPTISM.=^ 
 
 FoMier — Tou then acknowledge, Samuel, tli8.t in tlw 
 Church the cMldren of believing parents onglit to be 
 baptized? 
 
 Samuel — How not do so, without overlooking the 
 sovereignty of God in this ordinance, and, at the same 
 time, the condition of the children of believers from the 
 commencement of the world, in the families of the pa- 
 triarchs, afterwards nnder the shadows of the law, and, 
 finally, nnder the economy of the Gospel? And yet, 
 notwithstanding the evidence that I now possess, my 
 mind is not satisfied. I see the abuse of this practice, 
 the snare that it lays for the multitude, who call them- 
 selves Christians and whom it perhaps keeps back from 
 thorough conversion, and from the desire of being bap- 
 tized by the Spirit. I will even go so far as to say, 
 that it is possible that my refusal to have my child bap- 
 tized may become a salutary warning both to himself 
 and many other souls. 
 
 * la order to understand some portions of this chapter it is necessary to 
 remember that Malan and those who were associated with him in the great 
 revival of religion which tooji place in Geneva somewhere about fifty years 
 ago, experienced much persecution from the civil authorities of the Republic 
 at the instigation of the clergy of the National Churches. 
 
100 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Father — How you reason, dear Samuel ! What con- 
 fasion of views and doctrines in tliose few words ! 
 Wliat forgetfalness of tlie first principles of tlie Gospel ! 
 Truly, my friend, " I marvel " (Gal. i. 6) tliat you are 
 still in darkness. 
 
 Samuel — I, at least, do not perceive it, dear brother, 
 and if you can, liave tlie goodness to teacli me ; for I 
 assure you I liave no otlier wish, than to know what God 
 says and commands. 
 
 Father — First, how can you, a disciple of the Bible, 
 advance this principle, that the abuse of an ordinance 
 ought to cause its suppression? According to this, 
 circumcision amongst the Jews ought also to have been 
 put ofi" to a more advanced age, or even abolished, on 
 account of its abuse by the multitude ; or believers, at 
 the very least, ought to have wished that their children 
 would not be circumcised in infancy, in order that they 
 might receive a salutary warning from this ordinance ! 
 
 Samuel— 1 see it. I have spoken according to the 
 carnal judgTaent and circumscribed view of man. No ; 
 man's abuse of any of God's ordinances can never throw 
 blame on the divine institution itself. 
 
 Father — Certainly not ; for, apply the principle that 
 you have advanced to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper. 
 Is not this ordinance a blessing, a great consolation, a 
 renewal of life for the faithful Church of Jesus ? And 
 yet, how much it is abused in the world called Christian ! 
 What a number of ignorant, carnal, superstitious people 
 who only see in it a ceremony, who change it into a 
 work of righteousness, and who imagine that they 
 belong to Christ because they partake of it ! And how 
 many abuses also of this sacrament amongst those who 
 administer it, and who, comprehending neither its nature 
 
CHAPTEE X. 101 
 
 nor its object, prostitute it to tlie world — to tlie profane 
 and ungodly ; and wlio, even by tMs ordinance, lay a 
 snare in tbe path of a deceived multitude ! Will you, 
 on account of all these abuses, say tbat it ouglit to be 
 abolisbed? Will you not say ratber, tbat believers 
 ougbt to observe it in tbe way appointed by Grod ? 
 
 Samuel — ^Ab, well ! tbat is all I ask — namely, tbat 
 believers make tbe use of baptism tbat tbe Lord bas 
 commanded. 
 
 Father — Well, brother ; but I must ask you to grant 
 me, tbat, to bring an ordinance back to its primitive 
 institution, is quite a different matter from saying tbat 
 it ougbt to be abolished, on account of tbe way in wbicb 
 it bas been abused. 
 
 Samuel — ^Tes, certainly, I grant you tbat ; but tben, 
 wbat is to be done tbat baptism may be brought back 
 to its primitive institution ? 
 
 Father — Ah ! my friend, there is much to be done. 
 Baptisan and the Lord's Supper are two pearls that 
 the unbelief of our evil days, without scruple, throws 
 to the unclean, who despise and trample them under- 
 foot, and furiously attack even the Church, that has 
 abandoned these precious things to them. How desi- 
 rable, then, is it that these two jewels of the spouse 
 of Christ should be recovered from the hands of her 
 enemies, and that they should only be employed, ac- 
 cording to the will of God, in adorning the Church 
 for her husband. 
 
 Samuel — But, how is that to be done, how prevent 
 this confasion, this adultery of the Church of Jesus with 
 His enemies, so long as the baptism of water is adminis- 
 tered to every child born in a country called Christian ? 
 Where here is the middle course (between baptizing 
 
 i2 
 
102 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 all born in a Ckristian country, and those only wlio 
 make a profession of faith.) ? 
 
 Father — The middle course is just the ordinance, as 
 God Himself instituted it at the first. Undoubtedly, 
 so early as the time of Seth, every infant that was born 
 had not the Almighty's name formally named upon him; 
 for the irreligious Cainite, who despised it, took good 
 care not to invoke it on his offspring. jSTeither was it 
 marked upon the posterity of Ham, on whom the curse 
 of the Lord was laid ; and at a later period, under the 
 discipline of the law, the family, whose father had, in 
 consequence of his impiety, been cut off from the people 
 of Israel and from the covenant of the Lord, did not 
 possess this privilege. 
 
 Why, then, does not that take place under the light 
 of the Gospel, which was practised when the truth 
 was yet but as "a lamp that shine th in a dark place?" 
 Why are not unbelievers, in our days also, kept back 
 from the privileges and rights of the covenant, as 
 was the case in ancient times vdth those who where 
 ungodly, profane, and despisers of the word of the 
 Most High. 
 
 Samuel — ^You do not think, then, that every child, 
 born in a nation called Christian, has a right to the or- 
 dinance of baptism ? 
 
 Father — I believe that the seal of the covenant of 
 promise belongs to the children of parents who are un- 
 der the promise ; but I cannot see, in any part of God's 
 Book, or in any example drawn from the pure Church of 
 the Lord, that this seal ought to be put, as hy the autho- 
 rity of the Almighty, on the children of those who are 
 in rebellion against Him. And so far am I from think- 
 ing that the birth of a child in a country, or under a 
 
CHAPTER X. 103 
 
 government, nominally Christian, is a Scriptural reason 
 for baptizing bim in tlie name of the Lord, that, on tlie 
 contrary, I consider tliis practice as tlie work of the ad- 
 versary, who, by this confusion, retains the world in a 
 fatal illusion, and unites "the sons of God with the 
 daughters of men ;'.' marriages from which spring men 
 noted for pride and impiety. (Gren. vi. 1-5.) 
 
 Samuel — But is not that what I have myself said ; for 
 which, however, you have blamed me ? 
 
 Father — Ah ! no, my dear friend : you say that we 
 should only baptize believing adults, seeing that if we 
 baptize children, then everybody will be baptized, and 
 the Church and the world will consequently be con- 
 founded together. But I say, let us baptize children, 
 for, since they are holy, God has commanded it; but let 
 us baptize them according to His appointment. My 
 opinion is therefore different from yours. 
 
 Samuel — I see it now ; but it still remains for me to 
 ask what you mean by ^^ha^ptizing children according to 
 the ordinance of God .?" 
 
 Father — It is to put the name of the Almighty on the 
 children of those who themselves call upon and invoke 
 Him — to baptize the families of believers, and them 
 only. 
 
 Samuel — Ah! my friend, what light is thrown into 
 my mind by that word ! How entirely new the idea 
 that it suggests, and of which I had not even thought ! 
 Have the goodness to explain to me your sentiments on 
 this point. 
 
 Father — It was the mingling of God's children with 
 the wicked that caused the corruption of the antedelu- 
 vian world. It is this mixture which prevails in the 
 present day, and which constitutes what are commonly 
 
104 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 called tlie National CliurcJies,* tliat is to say, tliose cos- 
 mo-Cliristiaii associations (wHcli means composed of 
 the world in part, and in part of Christians) in which 
 the Bible, its precepts and ordinances, are indeed to be 
 found, bnt in which the ordinances of worship, placed 
 under the guardianship, or even under the control, of 
 worldly powers, are forcibly turned away from their pri- 
 mitive institution, and become, in the hands of an un- 
 believing power, either a sign of agreement between 
 different peoples, or else a useful means of restraining 
 and governing a nation. This may certainly be modi- 
 fied, if the government itself be in subjection to the 
 Lord Jesus ; but there is no doubt that when this, 
 which is very unusual, does not happen to be the case, 
 and when the heads of a nation are mere children of 
 this world, the ordinances of the Lord are prostituted 
 to the world, and the spouse of Christ, placed in cap- 
 tivity, appears no more, save in soiled vestments and 
 bereft of her crown. The Lord's Supper, that holy in- 
 stitution of the Saviour for His beloved Church, is then 
 thrown, like vile provender, to the very dogs and swine 
 of the most perverse generation ; and Baptism is, by a 
 necessaiy consequence, admiuistered in the families of 
 those who mock Jesus, His cross, and His blood, and 
 who go so far as to say that when the body dies all dies. 
 Samuel — What a picture ! and how true ! But, once 
 again, what remedy is to be applied to this, if infants 
 are to be baptized ? 
 
 * It is to be deeply deplored that tlie same unholy mixture obtains to a 
 large extent in some of the non-established Churches. The late venerable 
 Dr. "Wardlaw spoke of the indiscriminate admission of all sorts of persons to 
 the sealing ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper as, at present, the 
 great sin and danger of the British Churches. 
 
CHAPTER X, 105 
 
 Father — The remedy lies in tlie faithfulness, earnest- 
 ness, and courage of the ministers of God. If they are 
 themselves worldly people, "men who have not the 
 spirit," servants whom the Lord calls "hirelings ;" — or 
 again, if, being Christians, they are weak and timid, and 
 limit themselves to sighing and lamenting over abuses 
 without daring to struggle against them and leave them 
 off; — if, I say, the leaders of the Church are such, all its 
 members are likely to continue in the same state in which 
 the hearts of these pastors are, that is to say, in cor- 
 ruption or slavery. For assuredly, it will not be the 
 government of the world that will demand reform in 
 the Church, that will cry out when the ordinances of 
 God are degraded, that will make known to the sons of 
 Seth that their duty is to separate themselves from the 
 Cainites. Its own interest is involved in the continua- 
 tion and complication of this confusion, and it will take 
 good care not to put an end to it. 
 
 Samuel— Well, then, what ought faithful ministers to 
 do? 
 
 Father — What their Lord desires them ; that is to say, 
 let them administer the ordinances of God in the Church 
 and for the Church, not in the world and for the world. 
 Let them, accordingly, baptize in the name of the Lord 
 none but the children of those who declare that they be- 
 long to Him. Afterwards, let these same ministers who, 
 on the part of the Lord Jesus, are appointed bishops, that 
 is to say, overseers of the Church of God, which He 
 purchased with His own blood (Acts xx. 28), not give 
 the repast of the Lord's Supper to those whom they 
 have thus baptized, until, being first capable of examin- 
 ing themselves (1 Cor. xi. 28 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 5), they make 
 a full confession of their submission to the Word of the 
 
106 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Lord and tlieir love for tlie Saviour. Sucli is certainly 
 the divine law, both with regard to children and with 
 regard to the ordinances of the Church. 
 
 Samuel — I understand yon. According to your 
 opinion, the Christian Church is composed of families, 
 and not of individuals picked out, if I may use the expres- 
 sion ; and this Church is separated from the world and 
 purified by the right administration, first, of baptism, 
 and afterwards of the Lord's Supper. 
 
 Father — This appears to me clearly taught in Scrip- 
 ture ; and any other mode of constituting a Church 
 seems to be the invention of man, but in nowise the in- 
 stitution of God. It is in this manner, I think, that 
 the Church named by the name of the Almighty is truly 
 separated from the world and its darkness. This is the 
 salutary warning which you wanted to be at ;^ and it con- 
 sists, not in refusing to the child of a believer the seal 
 of consecration that belongs to him, but in withholding 
 that seal from the children of unbelievers. This the 
 opposite of what Baptists believe, and it is at the same 
 time what is practised by Churches in connexion with 
 the world. 
 
 Samuel — I perceive, if you are not a Baptist, you are 
 not more favourable to the cosmo-Christian confusion, 
 as you call it, which Baptists wish to avoid. 
 
 Father — No ; this confusion cannot be approved, at 
 least by those who know Jesus and His Spirit. But how 
 shall it be exposed and reproved, and order established 
 in its place, if not by the faithfulness of the " stewards 
 of the mysteries of God ?" (1 Cor. iv. 1.) and how shall 
 they do this more efficaciously than by declaring that 
 
 * See the beginning of the chapter, end of Samuel's first speech. 
 
CHAPTER X, 
 
 107 
 
 they will not invoke tlie name of tlie Almiglity except 
 on the children of those who have submitted themselves 
 to Him; and in fearlessly refusing to do so, when an 
 irreligious man, whatever his rank or power may be, 
 presents his child for an ordinance which he himself 
 tramples under foot. 
 
 For, I would ask you, Samuel, when the minister of 
 the Lord Jesus, showing himself thus faithful, and, if I 
 may say so, unconquerable, in the administration of his 
 charge, shall be as that Ambrose of whom I have spoken 
 to you was, when he refused the Emperor Theodosious 
 admission into the Church, and subjected him to a public 
 penance ; when, I say, the minister of God shall have 
 made this declaration (that he will not baptize the chil- 
 dren of the ungodly) even to the most considerable men 
 of the place, and perhaps to the very chiefs of the na- 
 tion, — and when he shall have kept the good charge in 
 spite of the murmurs of the unbelieving, the profane, 
 or the impious — will not the spouse of Christ be then 
 more honourable and more happy, and occupy the only 
 place that is meet for her — that which keeps her sepa- 
 rate from the world and from its defilement ? 
 
 Samuel — It is, then, I see, to the faithful administra- 
 tion of baptism, that you look, in the first place, for the 
 separation of God's people from unbelievers. 
 
 Father — The Church of Christ, says an Apostle (Phil, 
 ii. 15), ought to be seen in the midst of the darkness of 
 this world, like a torch in a dark night. There is no 
 need to ask where this torch is to be found ; its bright- 
 ness indicates that sufficiently. The opinion, that the 
 separation of the Church from the world ought only to 
 be internal and spiritual, and that there ought not, 
 therefore, to be any visible contrast between it and the 
 
108 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 multitude, is without doubt very accommodating to tlie 
 lusts of tlie flesli, but it is as false as fatal, and all tbe 
 arguments wMcIl can be lieaped together to legitimize 
 tMs union of tlie spouse of Christ with the world, seem 
 to me but the excuses of timidity or weakness. 
 
 Samuel — You will, however, be told that the Jewish 
 nation was so constituted. 
 
 Father — ^Very well ! it will be replied, Restore to us 
 what the people of Israel possessed. Place around us 
 the wall of the Levitical ordinances, and commit to us 
 only the oracles of God ; then, after having sealed each 
 subject of this covenant with the name of the Almighty, 
 cut off the ungodly man with his race from amongst us. 
 But let us not compare the political institutions of our 
 days with those of the Hebrews ; and, above all, let us 
 not say that the Church of Christ ought to unite her- 
 self to a civil power that hates her ; let us not say that 
 she ought to do this, because under the law the Church 
 and State were but one and the same institution, hav- 
 ing but one and the same code, which was the Word of 
 God. 
 
 Samuel — That is to say, as I have said, you no more 
 approve of a National than of a Baptist Church. 
 
 Father — They seem to me to be the two extremes of 
 opposition to what existed in the Christian Church at 
 its commencement, and to what is written in God's 
 Word. 
 
 I certainly believe that the Church of Christ is na- 
 tional in this sense, that it receives and brings together 
 famiKes, and extends over all classes of society. So that 
 there is nothing in its nature to prevent it, in any coun- 
 try or at any epoch, from collecting an entire population, 
 governors and governed, and from being in this way a 
 
CHAPTER X. 109 
 
 people, a nation. But as to tlie converse opinion, namely, 
 that a nation of tlie world, because tlie Book of God and 
 His worship are found in the midst of it, is, by virtue of 
 that very fact, the Church of God — that, consequently, 
 its government that of the Church also — that, by order 
 of this government, every child, born a citizen of this na- 
 tion, is by right of birth a member of the Church, — this 
 opinion I believe to be as false as it is perilous, and doubt 
 not that it proceeds;from the dominion that things visible 
 have gained over those that are invisible, and very pro- 
 bably from this, " that the daughters of men are fair in 
 the eyes of the children of God." 
 
 On the other hand, the Baptist Church, terrified by 
 this national confusion, has withdrawn to the farthest 
 possible distance from it, and, in order not to put the 
 seal of the divine covenant on the child of the mere 
 citizen, has resolved to put it only on the believer al- 
 ready separated from the world by his own conscious 
 act. It seems to me that, in having acted thus, the 
 Baptist Church has completely mistaken the means she 
 ought to have used to guard from abuse the ordinances 
 of God, and to separate His children from the children 
 of men. No : it was not by depriving the ofispring of 
 the believer of the benefit that belongs to them, that 
 this holy separation ought to have been effected ; but it 
 was by not granting it to any save the children whose 
 right it was (in right of their godly parents). 
 
 Samuel — So, therefore, as you have said, everything 
 depends on the faithfulness of the ministers of God's 
 Word. 
 
 Father — That is what I think. The world will never 
 be the Church, nor " the little flock the multitude." Let 
 a faithful pastor be deeply impressed with this truth, 
 
110 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 and let limi act accordingly, and his example will very 
 soon be followed by a,notlier faithful minister, and by 
 degrees the good will be done. Let this pastor, then, 
 before baptizing an infant, have one or several conver- 
 sations with the parents, and let Mm assure himself that 
 it is really to a Saviour whom they know that they are 
 going to present their son or daughter. After having 
 himself instructed the children of his flock, let him not 
 admit any to the ordinance of the Lord's Supper except 
 those who give evidence of faith. Let this be done, 
 dear Samuel, and soon the Church, separated from the 
 world by the right use of its ordinances, shall no longer 
 be confounded with the unbelieving multitude, though 
 Baptist Churches should have come to an end. For 
 there were none of them in the days of the Apostles, 
 nor was there during that period any connexion between 
 the Church and the government of that age. 
 
 Samuel — The summary of your belief, then, is, that 
 the children of believers ought to be baptized, but no 
 others ; and that if they are not baptized the divine in- 
 stitution is not fully attended to. 
 
 Father — I would add, that children are, at the same 
 time, deprived of the Gospel education that they ought 
 to receive. 
 
Ill 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 THE CHILD OP A BAPTIST CANNOT BE BEOUGHT UP TINDER 
 THE PROMISE OP GRACE. 
 
 Samuel — ^What do you mean, my dear brother ? In 
 wliat respect, pray, should I be prevented from rearing 
 my son under th.e Grospel of Grrace ? 
 
 Father — Ah ! dear brother, I would, in my turn, ask 
 you how you would rear, as consecrated to God, the child 
 whom you do not look upon as consecrated ? 
 
 Samuel — But, . . I have already told you . . . 
 
 Father — That you have consecrated him : — is not that 
 it? that you have dedicated or presented him to the 
 Lord ? But I have replied to you, and, I think, accord- 
 ing to Scripture, that if God Himself does not conse- 
 crate, man will certainly not do what He has not done. 
 As to your son, he is either included with you in the 
 Grospel promise, or else he is not; and if he is not, how 
 rear him in the kingdom of the promise ? 
 
 Samuel — Ah ! how much I should wish to understand 
 this clearly ! For certainly I feel that on this subject 
 I do not see things . . Shall I say it ? . . perhaps 
 in so solemn a Kght as you see them. 
 
 Father — Very well ! Suppose (that I may make my- 
 self better understood) that the elect angels in heaven 
 had children as we have, and that, in the sight of Grod, 
 a pure race had thus sprung from sinless parents. What 
 would these children appear to you to be at their birth ? 
 
112 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Samuel — Holy, and without spot. 
 
 Father — And are they also consecrated to God ? 
 
 Samuel — Uudoiibtedly, for they are created by Him, 
 in His light, and nnder His eye, which is on them as on 
 their parents. 
 
 FaiJier-- 'Now, suppose, also, that these children are 
 to be reared for God, and tell me what motive their 
 parents will employ to teach them. 
 
 Samuel — I conceive that they will say to their chil- 
 dren, you are children blessed of God, live, therefore, for 
 Him. 
 
 Father — And do you think that this motive could also 
 be employed if those children were not blessed of God ? 
 
 Samuel — Certainly not ; thus Satan, for instance, if 
 he had a family, could not make use of the same motive 
 with his children. 
 
 Father — What motive, then, could he employ ? 
 
 Samuel — None, I think, but the dread of God and His 
 judgments ; and his language to them would be, " Obey 
 lest ye be punished." 
 
 Father — Well, my dear brother, apply what you have 
 just said to your own child, and you will first grant that, 
 if it would be a blessing and a joy to the angels in 
 heaven to have but one and the same God with their 
 children, and to be thus united to their families by the 
 same bond of grace, it ought to be on earth a cause of 
 grief, at least to Christian parents, not to have this bond 
 of union with their children. 
 
 Samuel — But have I not this bond of union with my 
 son ? 
 
 Father — Not if you are a Baptist. For according to 
 Baptist views, your infant is but as the infant of a 
 heathen — he is pure in the same sense in wliich a 
 
CHAPTEE XI. 118 
 
 heathen child is pure, and does not, in God's sight, 
 possess any advantage over the child of an idolater. 
 Now, as you cannot say that you have the same God as 
 the child of an idolater, neither can you say that you 
 have the same Grod as your own child ; you are therefore 
 in this very differently situated from what, according to 
 my supposition, an angel would be ; . . . and also, 
 dear brother, very differently from a pious father under 
 the shadows of the law; and in this, I assure you, I pity 
 you very much. 
 
 Samuel — But, again, brother, what a view you take of 
 things ! how can you compare the child of an idolater 
 with a Christian's child, for whom so many prayers are 
 daily offered, and who, from his cradle, is to hear nothing 
 but the name and Word of the Saviour ? 
 
 Father — I am speaking only of a fact ; and I say that if 
 you, brother, only regard your child as a heathen child, 
 you cannot say that you are united to him by any spiri- 
 tual tie, seeing that your God is not his God. 
 
 Samuel — l!^ot his God ! How positive you are in youi- 
 conclusion ! 
 
 Father — I judge not of these things, my dear friend, 
 according to my own imagination, but by ranging my- 
 self on "the side of God, and trembling at His Word." 
 No, Samuel, I do not wish to destroy what the Almighty 
 has instituted, nor, by an earthly meaning and a carnal 
 wisdom, to efface the virtue of the divine consecration 
 by saying, what will be the result to my child, whether 
 the Lord's name be invoked over him or not ; — whether 
 he be a member of the flock that follows Jesus or not. 
 Such language is that of the flesh and its ignorance ; 
 but the Holy Spirit does not thus speak, for it declares 
 that he on whom the Almighty has placed the seal of 
 
 K 2 
 
114 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 His name, is lioly to Him ; and for my part, Samuel, I 
 desire to liear " wliat tlie Spirit saith niito tlie cliurclies." 
 
 Samuel — You are grave, my dear brother, and I feel 
 I ouglit likewise to be so. I wisb, tben, like you, to judge 
 of tkese tHngs, " by placing myself on God's side," and 
 I perceive tbat, in this respect, it is possible tbat tbe un- 
 belief of the age in wbicli we live, perhaps, also, my own 
 want of reflection on the majesty of tbe ordinance of 
 God, bave bad some influence on my faitb ; and tbat I 
 bave neitber seen all tbe glory of tbe seal.of tbe covenant 
 nor all tbe benefits wbicb tbat seal implies. 
 
 FatJier — Ab ! brotber, I tbink tbat in reality we are 
 very far from believing tbe divine ordinances to be all 
 tbat tbey are ; and I doubt not tbat if an Irenaeus or 
 Cyprian were to re-appear in our days, be would be as- 
 tonisbed at tbe want of feeling in our Oburcbes, in wbicb 
 all is weighed in tbe balance of tbe buman understand- 
 ing, and in wbicb people are more ready to ask of wbat 
 use tbe name of God will be to a cbild tban tbey are to 
 rejoice in placing it upon Him. 
 
 Samuel — So, tben, you believe tbat, in withholding 
 baptism from my child, I have acted as if I declared 
 that the Almighty is not his God. 
 
 Father — I certainly believe so ; persuaded as I am, 
 that neither the family of Seth, nor that of Shem, nor 
 that of Abraham, nor that of any of the faithful Jews, 
 was more blessed of God than is the family of the Chris- 
 tian. Now, in these families, if an infant had been de- 
 prived of the invocation of the name of God upon him, 
 it would have been regarded as a great misfortune for 
 that infant. I therefore likewise believe that it would 
 be a great misfortune for my family if my children were 
 cast out from this solemn invocation. I desire, if God 
 
CHAPTER XI. 115 
 
 honours me thus, tliat my cMldren should already 
 possess on earth the blessing that the children of angels 
 would have in heaven, if angels had children. 
 
 Samuel — To that I will answer, Amen ! Such is also 
 my dearest wish with regard to my son, though I did 
 not think I ought to get him baptized. 
 
 Father — But, dear Samuel, on what foundation do you 
 think to raise this edifice ? What will be the principle 
 of this bringing u.p, and what motive will you present 
 to your son to engage him to submit to God ? Will it 
 be the law, or grace ? 
 
 Samuel — I do not clearly comprehend the meaning of 
 your question. 
 
 Father — 1 will explain myself, then. There are, it 
 seems to me, two principles of religious education (for 
 I put entirely from us the principle of honour or emu- 
 lation which is acted upon in worldly education), and 
 these principles are the law and grace. 
 
 The first says to the child, " Don't do this, for fear of 
 punishment from God;" or, "Do this, that you may be 
 rewarded." The second, on the contrary, says, "Do not 
 that, because you are consecrated ;" or, " Do this, that 
 you may please God, who loves you." 
 
 ISTow, if a child is considered as being " out of Christ," 
 he is by that very circumstance regarded as being under 
 the law, outside the fold of the Good Shepherd, and far 
 from His words of love. The father must therefore say 
 to this child (who is not holy to God, and on whom the 
 Saviour's name is not named). Sin not least you be 
 accursed. And so the whole course of this education 
 will be determined by the " commandment that is unto 
 death." 
 
 Such was, without doubt, the education of the children 
 
116 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 of tte Jews, in those families tliat did not understand 
 God's grace ; and sncL. is also tliat wMcli Christian pa- 
 rents (so called), wlio are not taught by the Spirit, give 
 in the present day to their children. 
 
 But if, on the contrary, my child is, according to the 
 favour and appointment of God, consecrated to Him, and 
 if the holy name of the Lord is thus called upon him, 
 this child, who is "in Christ," and in His sheepfold as 
 one of the lambs of the Good Shepherd, will be in- 
 structed and guided as one entitled to this great privi- 
 lege, and as one included in this great blessing. You 
 have seen the liberated infants of the slave family, and 
 they bear the visible sign of their liberty. It will there- 
 fore be as free, and no longer as slaves, that they will 
 be brought up, and on this principle all their education 
 will be founded. " Do that no more," they will be told, 
 " for that would be to act as slaves." " Do this," it will 
 be again said to them, " for you are free, and it is your 
 privilege." 
 
 In like manner, I say to my child, who has my God 
 for his God also and who bears the sacred seal of the 
 Lord's name upon him, "Do not that, for yoa are under 
 the eyes of our gracious God, whose great name is called 
 upon you. Respect yom-self, my child, and flee from 
 everything wicked, for you are holy to the Lord. Listen 
 to the voice of the Saviour, for He has taken you in His 
 arms, and it is in His sheepfold that you are kept and 
 fed." And my child, who is also consecrated, and to 
 whose memory this character, which comes to him 
 through the mercy of God, is each day recalled, in this 
 manner hears every day the voice of the promise of 
 grace in Christ, and, far from taking advantage of this 
 holy privilege to turn aside from wisdom, he experiences 
 
CHAPTER XI. 117 
 
 the blessed influence of tlie name of Ms God ; is accus- 
 tomed to consider Mmself as consecrated to tlie Al- 
 mighty, and at the same time forms the habit of believ- 
 ing and holding fast the doctrine of love that has been 
 taught him. 
 
 This, dear Samuel, is what Christian education ought 
 to be. Now, how, I pray you, will it be possible to bring 
 up in this manner a child who, degraded to the spiritual 
 condition of a heathen's child, will not know what it is 
 to be consecrated to God, since he will never be told 
 that he is consecrated. 
 
 Samuel — What you have just said interests me very 
 much, I assure you ; but yet, I know a Baptist family, 
 the children of which have all been reared precisely ac- 
 cording to the principles of grace that you have just ex- 
 pounded. 
 
 Father — -If the parents had been Baptists in tlieir coti- 
 sciences, that, you will perceive, would not have been 
 possible, seeing that, according to their belief, not re- 
 garding their children as consecrated hy the Almighty, 
 and thus putting them in the same position as the chil- 
 dren of unbelievers and heathens, they could not have 
 engaged them to reverence and love Him, by this mo- 
 tive, that they bear the seal of the covenant. But I 
 thank God, whose pity for children extends far beyond 
 the opinion and errors of their parents, there are many 
 and happy inconsistencies amongst the generality of 
 Baptist parents, whose hearts and practice belie, in the 
 education of their children, the system which, in words, 
 they sometimes resolutely defend. 
 
 And yet, even then, never -will the infant who has not 
 been sealed with the name of the Almighty, on the part 
 of the Almighty, and who does not consequently con- 
 
118 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 sider Mmself as consecrated to Him, — no, never will 
 tMs child be guided in Lis heart by tlie same principle 
 as tlie cMld wlio says in bis soul tbat be ougbt to avoid 
 tbe evil and cleave to tbe good, because tbe Almigbty — 
 tbe Fatber, Son, and Holy Spirit — is bis Grod, because 
 be is sealed, on tbe part of God, and according to His 
 promise of gTace, to belong to and obey Him. 
 
 8amuel — Wbat you say, brotber, appears to me to be 
 tbe trutb, and renders me very serious. For in sbort? 
 eitber it is necessary, . . . if I be a Baptist, tbat, 
 being consistent witb myself, and in my conscience re- 
 garding my cbild as notbing more tban tbe cbild of a 
 beatben, I rear bim as sucb, and under tbe law, by pro- 
 claiming tbe Saviour to bim as I would to tbe son of a 
 Turk ; or else it is necessary tbat, in bringing bim up 
 in tbe Cburcb, according to tbe Grospel, and, if I may 
 say so, on tbe knees of tbe Saviour, I do in practice 
 wbat I deny by words, wbicb is an untrutb. Now, I 
 confess tbat if it would be impossible for me to speak of 
 tbe Almigbty to my cbild otherwise tban by callrug 
 Him our God, our Fatber, our Saviour, wbicb I, however, 
 cannot do if I do not in my soul, and according to Scrip- 
 ture, believe that my God is also his God. . . . My 
 system must, therefore, in this, as you, my dear brother, 
 have said, be contradicted by my Christian feeling ; and 
 . . . I sincerely confess to you that my feelings ap- 
 pear to be much more in accordance with the will and 
 grace of God than my belief, or rather prejudice, has 
 until now been. 
 
 Father — Take care, however, Samuel, lest a feeling, a 
 bias of the mind should prevail over the teuth. There- 
 fore, in this let the father silence his affections, and let 
 the Christian listen to that alone which his God com- 
 
CKAPTEE XI. 119 
 
 mands ; for wliat profit would accrue to man from being 
 tauglit merely by man, or by tlie emotions of tlie flesli ? 
 Keep a watcb, therefore, upon tlie inclinations of your 
 heart, and, on tMs point, be tauglit only by tlie Word of 
 God. 
 
 Samuel — Amen! May the Lord, wbom I desire to 
 honour in all my ways, put His lamp before my steps, 
 and Himself show me His paths ! But, good friend 
 has He not this day done so ? Was it not He Himself 
 who, in His goodness, caused me to understand all that 
 you have been so kind as to explain to me on the sove- 
 reign majesty of the ordinance of baptism, — on the 
 position of the children of believers in the primeval 
 Church, and afterwards under the Levitical law, — on the 
 character, always the same, of the promise, which does 
 not, under the Grospel, abolish what it had done before 
 it, — on the true meaning of the mission of the Apostles 
 as to baptism, — on the families that were baptized, — on 
 the uniform and constant practice of the Apostolic 
 Church, — on the administration of baptism to the child- 
 ren of behevers only, — and, finally, on the consequences 
 of baptism in the bringing up of children ? Is not this 
 instruction that you have given me, with so many details, 
 the answer of the Lord to this prayer, which I have 
 more than once presented to Him : " Oh my God ! if I 
 am in error, show it to me, and bring me out of it by 
 Thy Word." 
 
 Father — ^Wisdom, my brother, will be justified of her 
 children. If what I have at this time said to you is of 
 God, may He bless it to your soul ! and if in anything 
 I have been mistaken, may it please Him to prevent my 
 error from being hurtful to your faith ! • ' ' But 
 what have you still on your mind ? you appear uneasy. 
 
120 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 Samuel — Tes : wliat you have said on tlie education 
 of tlie cMld consecrated by God, lias laid strong liold of 
 my mind. • • • I ask myself, if, in reality, tMs prin- 
 ciple can have mucli influence on the cliild ? 
 
 Father — Very well ! I would ask of you, according to 
 wliat principle tlie infant Jesus was brougM up, if not 
 tliat of love, seeing Grod was His Fatter ? I know tkat 
 tliere was no place in Him eitker for ig-norance or sin ; 
 and tkat He was alwa^^s guided in His heart by tMs 
 priuciple, tkat He belonged to God " and ought to do 
 the will of His Father." This is what He felt, and you 
 perceive, not for the first time, at twelve years of age 
 (Luke ii. 49). 
 
 Samuel — The child Jesus, you have said, was brought 
 up and conducted Himself according to this principle 
 of love and consecration to God ! Tes, that is certain. 
 • • • Why, then, should I, a Christian father, refuse to 
 my child, that which the infant Jesus Himself has done 
 — and for my infant, as Irenaeus says. Or again, why 
 should I question the efficacy of a means, which God 
 Himself appointed, when He commanded parents to 
 "bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of 
 the Lord," viz., in the grace which is in Jesus (Eph. vi. 4). 
 
 Father — I am the father of a large family, dear Samuel, 
 and could give you many touching proofs of the truth 
 and blessed efficacy of this principle; but, imposing 
 silence on myself as regards my own children, I shall 
 end by citing an anecdote, to the authenticity of which 
 I certify, and which, I am sure, will interest you. 
 
 One of the masters of a public school, having under- 
 stood by the Word of God, to which his heart was in 
 subjection, that such ought to be the principle of a 
 Christian education, had explained it to his pupils, into 
 
CHAPTER XI. 121 
 
 whose minds lie inculcated it by all the instructions and 
 examples that were suitable to their ages. This method, 
 which was unknown to most of the families of his pupils, 
 had to encounter obstacles and opposition, but the master 
 was not discouraged, persuaded as he was, that God 
 would bless that which was according to His Word; and 
 his expectations were not in vain. Several happy results 
 appeared in the conduct of the children, and amongst 
 others the following, which was very different from what 
 it would have been according to an ordinary education. 
 One of the pupils committed a theft in the school, and 
 the fact, positively proved, was known to the entire class. 
 The culprit had to expect a severe chastisement, and it 
 may be, that he was inclined to be proud and hardened. 
 But the Christian master, giving glory in his heart to 
 the Word of God, called the guilty pupil before him, and, 
 in the presence of his school-fellows, who remained 
 standing, and in silence, read to him what God, in the 
 Bible, says of theft and those who commit it; then, after 
 having pointed out to him its guilt and dis gracefulness, 
 he said: What, my child, is your Christian name? Francis, 
 replied the pupil. When was that name given to you ? 
 demanded the master. At my baptism, said the pupil. 
 And what other name was then invoked upon you ? 
 replied the master. That of the eternal God, of the 
 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, answered the boy, blush- 
 ing and bowing his head. That is to say, my child, 
 continued the master, that according to the mercy and 
 commandment of God, you were, in your infancy, thus 
 consecrated by His great name ? Yes, sir, said the cul- 
 prit, mth much embarrassment. And do you think, 
 pursued the master, with solemnity, that you were thus 
 sealed with the holy name of God that you might now 
 
122 THE BAPTIZED FAMILY. 
 
 walk in iniquity, or was it yonr intention, in committing 
 tHs theft, to deny your God and to efface His name 
 from upon you ? 
 
 After this question, tlie master, that he might leave 
 to Divine truth all its power and authority, kept silence. 
 The school was motionless, and each pupil reflected on 
 what he had just heard, and in which he himself was 
 also more or less described. But as to the culprit, he 
 testified to the power of the truth, for, raising his head, 
 he burst into tears, and ran and threw himself on the 
 neck of his pious teacher, saying to him, in the midst 
 of his sobs, that he was distressed at having done this 
 wickedness, that he was grieved for it in the sight of 
 God, that he expected pardon from the goodness of the 
 Lord, and sincerely hoped that, during his life, he Avould 
 never more be permitted to committ such an act. 
 
 Samuel — How I thank you, my dear brother, for hav- 
 ing related to me this touching story ! What a contrast 
 between such a scene and that which would have taken 
 place, on a like occasion, in a school conducted according 
 to the principle of worldly honour, or of the fear of 
 punishment. 
 
 Father — Not, however, that chastisement is to be ex- 
 cluded from an education conducted on the principle of 
 grace ; but then, even when it is inflicted, it is in behalf 
 of a holy and just God, who thus visits His child (Ezek. 
 xvi., 20, 21), that this consecrated child may be rendered 
 better. The child then says, "'It is my Lord, it is my 
 God, that reproves me ;" and rebellion flies far away 
 from his heart. 
 
 Samuel — I comprehend it entirely, and I thank God 
 for it. Yes, I see that the child of believing parents, 
 having thus upon him the seal of the covenant of promise. 
 
CHAPTEK XI. 123 
 
 the great name of tlie AlmigMy, wlio is liis Grod, as He 
 is tlie God of Ms father and mother, accustoms himself 
 to reverence the Lord with whom he maintains this 
 relation of grace, and that whilst he respects himself as 
 a consecrated vessel, he willingly receives the paternal 
 law that the Lord lays upon him. This, my good 
 friend; is what that daughter of yoni's, who received me 
 this morning, has shown me. " Mamma," said she, " has 
 made me understand that in the sight of God I am as 
 a golden cup, marked with His name, and that it is not 
 with a precious vase that we should think of drawing 
 dirty water." 
 
 Father — Ah ! that God would honour more and more 
 His "Word and ordinances in the midst of my dear ones ! 
 Yes, let me and m^ liouse serve Him, since by His grace 
 He is our God! that so, all my children, growing ac- 
 cording to His promise (Psalm cxxviii.) "like olive 
 plants round about my table," may remember that they 
 ought to flee from the evil and adhere to the good, be- 
 cause they are a Baptized Family. 
 
NOTES 
 
 Note A, Pages 23, 24. 
 "In the kingdom of grace man accepts nothing." 
 The idea which Dr. Malan intends to express by these words, is 
 quite correct and Scriptural ; hut the terms in which he expresses 
 it are liable to be misunderstood. An intelligent reader would be 
 apt to object — " Surely a sinner, in believing on Christ, does accept 
 God's terms of salvation, — does accept or '■embrace Christ as freely 
 offered to him in the Gospel.' "* Dr. Malan would probably an- 
 swer — "Trae; but what I say is, thatiw the kingdom of grace man 
 accepts nothing : — now, a man is not in the kingdom of grace till he 
 has accepted Christ as his Saviour : — that acceptance is the act that 
 brings him into the kingdom of grace. Once in, he has nothing to 
 do with choosing or accepting ; he simply receives what God, in the 
 exercise of His Sovereignty, freely bestows. It is plain from this 
 that Dr. Malan intends a veiy marked distinction between " accept- 
 ing" and "receiving." He regards "accept" as implying the pos- 
 sibility of rejecting or negociating, and thinks, very properly, that, 
 in the case of benefits bestowed on those who are in the kingdom 
 of grace, such a thing is not conceivable. But though this general 
 position is correct enough, it was not necessary to Dr. Malan's 
 argument; and as it is a little abstruse and subtle, it would have 
 been as well he had omitted it. For even if the position "in the 
 kingdom of gi'ace man accepts nothing" — were proved not to be 
 universally true, all that the argument here requires would still 
 be true, — viz., that Baptism is a seal impressed by God on those 
 who are in covenant with Him, whether born in that relationshii?, 
 as the children of believers, or newly received into it, as converted 
 pagans or infidels on their believing the Gospel. 
 
 Note B, Pages 33, 36. 
 " It was not by faith that the Saviour Hved." 
 Here again Dr. Malan's mode of expressing himself exposes 
 him to misconstruction. His meaning obx-iously is that " faith" in 
 the sense of reliance on the merits of another for the pardon of sin, 
 cannot be ascribed to Christ, inasmuch as He had no sin, and had 
 infinite merit of His own ; and this is quite true. But why thus 
 limit the meaning of the term "faith" to one of its applications? 
 Faith, in the more general sense of confidence in the truth of all 
 God's promises and in His power to fulfil them (Rom. iv. 18 — 25), 
 is uniformly ascribed to Christ by both Old and New Testament 
 writers; and of this, as of every other spiritual grace, He presents 
 to us a glorious and perfect example. 
 
 * Shorter Catechism, Q. 5)1. 
 
 JIE ITLRTER PIIIXTING COMPANT (f-IMITED), BELFAST. 
 
/-