<0^f^mcs}-^ 
 
 
 vS 
 
 BV 813 .M39 
 Mayes, R. B. 
 The Tecnobaptist 
 

 /^~ 
 
 MJN 3 1919 
 
 A DISCOURSE, 
 
 WHEREIN AN 
 
 HONEST BAPTIST, 
 
 BY A COUESE OF AEGUMENT TO WIUCH KO HOKEST BAPTIST CAJi OBJECT. 
 
 IS CONVINCED THAT 
 
 INFANT CHRISTIANS ARE PROPER SUBJECTS OF 
 CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 
 
 E. B. M A Y E S. 
 
 " Lord, that I might receive my sight." — Mark x. 51. 
 " Father, not as I will, but as thou wilt." — Matt. xxvi. 
 
 BOSTON: 
 
 PRINTED BY JOHN WILSON & SON, 
 
 22, School Street. 
 
 1857. 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by 
 
 K. B. MATE S, 
 
 In the Clerk's Office of the District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. 
 
THE HON. Z. WHEAT, 
 
 ®f Columbia, funtutlm. 
 
 My dea-r Sir, — Without having aslied your pennission, or inti- 
 mated my intention, I take the liberty of inscribing this little volume 
 to you ; prompted by feelings, which, to the public, would possess no 
 interest ; to you, will need no explanation ; to me, language is wanting 
 to express. 
 
 Happy in the assurance that no proof is necessary, it is yet with 
 pleasure that I thus testify the unmeasured regard with which I am 
 
 Affectionately yours, 
 
 THE AUTHOR. 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Certain authors, by bad advocacy (though, doubtless, 
 the best of which the cause is susceptible), converted the 
 writer of these pages from the opinion, in regard to infant- 
 baptism, which he had imbibed from early associations. 
 Afterward a friend forcibly presented one of their argu- 
 ments at a time when the writer had forgotten the grounds 
 on which he had previously rejected it. Not having suffi- 
 cient learning to decide upon the accuracy of the premises 
 assumed, he could not conscientiously deny them, and had 
 nearly yielded, or at least confessed his inabihty to make 
 immediate reply, when the view which is developed in the 
 following pages flashed upon his mind. As he has never 
 read any work in defence of the opinion which he now 
 holds, he does not know but that the argument here pre- 
 sented is old ; but another friend, to whom it was submit- 
 ted (and whose name, did the writer feel at liberty to 
 mention it,^ might recommend this essay to the respect of 
 
 1 The writer no longer feels any delicacy in stating that the gentle- 
 man here alluded to was the Hon. Caswell R. Clifton, late of Jackson, 
 Miss. ; whose modesty cannot now be o£Fended by the praises which his 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 many who may otherwise regard it unworthy of their 
 notice), thought the argument new and striking, if not 
 conchisive, and requested that it should be reduced to 
 writing. In the following pages, the effort is made to com- 
 ply with that request. 
 
 To the writer, who has pondered this argument a length 
 of time, it seems plain and obvious ; but some have deemed 
 it too abstruse to be readily grasped by persons unaccus- 
 tomed to logical investigation. To adapt the reasoning to 
 this class of persons, the synthetic method is pursued, and 
 the colloquial form is adopted, as more favorable to a 
 clear statement of the several conflicting opinions which 
 require examination, and fo a gradual unfolding and tho- 
 rough simplification of the leading argument intended to 
 be evolved. Some, who agree as to infant-baptism, are 
 divided on the subject of baptismal regeneration, which 
 is incidentally considered. It was therefore more con- 
 venient to introduce three colloquists; and it has been 
 attempted to make them, in character and temper, equally 
 representatives of the true and liberal Christian gentleman, 
 of whatever denomination. In doctrinal opinion, two of 
 them represent two classes of theologians ; while the third 
 is merely the vehicle of the opinions of the writer, who is 
 
 memory so well deserves. The manuscript of this discourse has been 
 lying in the writer's drawer for considerably more than a year, during 
 which time Judge Clifton was cut off in the midst of his usefulness. 
 He will long be remembered for the purity and elevation of his charac- 
 ter, in which zeal for his political and religious opinions was reconciled 
 with charity for their opponents, moderation, integrity, and rectitude of 
 judgment. 
 
PREFACE. Vll 
 
 not connected with any denomination. He has adopted 
 what he conceives to be the best method of making the 
 former two express accurately the doctrines which they 
 respectively represent. If, however, he have failed, the 
 misrepresentation was not designed ; and he will be grate- 
 ful to any one who will kindly point it out. 
 
 As nothing is more important, in considering the doc- 
 trines of religion, than to approach them with a candid 
 mind, these observations cannot be better closed than by 
 recommending a careful perusal of the following extract 
 from Locke's Essay on the " Conduct of the Understand- 
 ing" (§§ 10-12) :— 
 
 " He whose assent' goes beyond his evidence owes this excess of 
 his adherence only to prejudice, and does in effect own it when he 
 refuses to hear what is offered against it ; declaring thereby that 
 it is not evidence he seeks, but the quiet enjoyment of the opinion 
 he is fond of, with a forward condemnation of all that may stand 
 in opposition to it unheard and unexamined ; which, what is it 
 but prejudice ? He that would acquit himself in this case as a 
 lover of truth, not giving way to any pre-occupation or bias that 
 may mislead him, must do two things that are not very common 
 nor very easy. First, he must not be in love with any opinion, or 
 wish it to be true, till he knows it to be so. Nothing that is false 
 deserves our good wishes, nor a desire that it should have the place 
 and force of truth ; and yet nothing is more frequent than this. 
 Men are fond of certain tenets upon no other evidence but respect 
 and custom, and think they must maintain them, or all is gone ; 
 though they have never examined the ground they stand on, nor 
 have ever made them out to themselves, or can make them out to 
 others. We should contend earnestly for the truth : but we should 
 first be sure that it is truth, or else we fight against God, who is the 
 
Vlll PREFACE. 
 
 God of truth, and do the work of the Devil, who is the father and 
 propagator of lies ; and our zeal, though ever so warm, will not 
 excuse us : for this is plainly prejudice. Secondly, he must try 
 whether his principles be certainly true or not, and how fai' he may 
 safely rely upon them. This, whether fewer have the heart or 
 the skill to do, I shall not determine ; but this, I am sure, is that 
 which every one ought to do who professes to love truth, and would 
 not impose upon himself, which is a surer way to be made a fool of 
 than by being exposed to the sophistry of others." 
 
 Yazoo Citt, January, 1855. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 1. In the town of resided three gentle- 
 men, between whom existed a strong attachment, 
 greatly enhanced by the fact that they were devoted 
 Christians, though of different denominations. One 
 was an Antipedobaptist ; the others, Pedobaptists : 
 but, of the latter, one was of the Calvinistic, the 
 other of the Arminian school. That this diver- 
 sity may be the more easily borne in mind, they 
 are designated by names which will serve as an 
 index to their respective opinions. Thus the Armi- 
 nian is called Mr. A. ; he of Baptist views is Mr. 
 B. ; and the Calvinist is Mr. C. 
 
 § 2. Mr. A. and Mr. C. had often deplored 
 together the error which caused their friend to 
 withhold from baptism an interesting family of 
 children ; and after many consultations, and fre- 
 quent prayers for a better guidance than their own 
 judgments, they determined to call on Mr. B., and 
 spend a day in endeavoring to lead him into the right 
 
2 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 way. After a random discussion of some length, 
 the conversation proceeded as follows : — 
 
 § 3. Mr. A. I perceive, Mr. B., that you have 
 well fortified yourself in your opinion. But you 
 should not confine yourself to books that favor 
 your own views. 
 
 § 4. Mr. B. Nor have I ; for, while I have care- 
 fully perused every treatise I have been able to 
 find in favor of infant-baptism, I have studied but 
 one book against it. 
 
 Mr. A. And what book is that ? 
 
 § 5. Mr. B. The Bible. 
 
 § 6. Mr. A. Whether that book be for or against 
 infant-baptism is the very point in issue ; and it is 
 to convince you that the Bible favors the baptism 
 of infants that we are here this morning. 
 
 § 7. Mr. B. Then let the discussion proceed no 
 farther ; for it can lead to no desirable result. Be- 
 fore it commenced, you had begged the question, — 
 had assumed that you are right, and I wrong ; for 
 this is implied in your desire to convince me. If I 
 also lay claim to infallibility, what will it profit us 
 to talk farther on the subject? But, my friends, 
 if you wish to investigate this important point with 
 me, — desiring sincerely, not to force upon me your 
 own preconceived opinion, but that we may all 
 ascertain what is the truth, — I will cheerfully 
 enter into the investigation with you in the same 
 spirit. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 6 
 
 § 8. 3Ir. A. I stand reproved, my friend. To 
 enter upon an intelligent investigation of this ques- 
 tion, the examiner must free his mind from all 
 previous bias for or against infant-baptism, and place 
 before him the simple inquiry, '' Is infanlrbaptism a 
 divine institution, or is it not ? " Let us approach 
 this question with a love and desire of all profitable 
 truth; putting away idleness, prejudice, and worldly 
 affections, and so examine our opinions to the bot- 
 tom ; being prepared in mind to follow God, and 
 God only, which way soever he shall lead us. 
 
 § 9. Mr. C. In all our inquiries concerning 
 truth and duty, we are to be guided by the word 
 of God. This is the only rule of our faith and 
 practice ; and from this we are to learn all things 
 which the Lord requires us to believe and observe 
 and do. And, while we search the Scriptures with 
 an earnest desire to know the truth, we may not 
 trust to our own wisdom, but as we are directed by 
 the wise man : " Trust in the Lord with all thy heart, 
 and lean not unto thine own understanding. In 
 all thy ways acknowledge him, and he will direct 
 thy paths." The church suffers much from men 
 who interpret the -Scriptures according to the rea- 
 sonableness and fitness of things, or according to 
 their preconceived opinions. These come to the 
 word of God, not so much to learn what is true, as 
 to seek if they can find something in the Scrip- 
 tures to prove and establish what they have already 
 
4 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 judged to be true by a certain process of reasoning. 
 And many seek the truth, and find it not ; because 
 they trust to their own ability, lean to their own 
 understandings, and neglect to ask wisdom of God. 
 They ask not the Spirit of truth to guide them unto 
 all truth : hence they are led away into all manner 
 of errors and delusions ; and thus the church is 
 divided, troubled, distracted, rent, and torn as by 
 an evil spirit. Let us now, as humble disciples of 
 Christ, come to the word of God, that we may learn 
 what is his will ; casting off all prejudice, all self- 
 confidence, and seeking the teaching of the Holy 
 Spirit, that we may be guided to the truth, — that 
 we may understand to whom it is the will of the 
 Lord that we should administer the ordinance of 
 baptism. 
 
 § 10. Mr. B. That I will cheerfully do ; for I 
 can truly say, in the language of Chillingworth, 
 " I know no opinion I have, which I would not as 
 willingly forsake as keep, if I could see sufficient 
 reason to induce me to believe that it is the will of 
 God I should forsake it." Mr. C., will you present 
 our petition to the throne of grace ? 
 
 § 11. Mr. C. [All kneeling.] Lord God, the 
 only wise ! we would make our prayer before thee, 
 that we may understand thy truth. Thy wisdom is 
 infinite. Thou art light, and in thee is no dark- 
 ness at all. Thou by wisdom hast founded the earth, 
 by understanding hast established the heavens ; 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 5 
 
 and by thy knowledge the depths are broken up, and 
 the clouds drop down rain. We are but of yester- 
 day, and know nothing. We grope in noonday as 
 the blind gropeth in darkness. But the entrance of 
 thy word giveth light : it giveth understanding to 
 the simple. And we thank thee, and praise thy 
 glorious name, because, when we received thy word, 
 we received it not as the word of men, but (as 
 it is in truth) the word of God, which effectually 
 worketh in those who believe. Yet, Lord ! who 
 can know his errors ? Be it indeed that we have 
 erred concerning the truth, — that we have gone 
 astray like lost sheep. Father ! for his sake who 
 was made flesh, and dwelt among us full of grace 
 and truth ; who was called for a light of the Gen- 
 tiles, to open the eyes of the blind, — for his sake, 
 seek thy servants. Send thy light and thy truth, 
 and let them lead us. To thee, holy Word of God ! 
 to thee we cry, like blind Bartimeus, " Lord, that 
 we may receive our sight ! " Anoint our eyes with 
 eye-salve, that we may see, and not err in vision, or 
 stumble in judgment. Thou who wert meek and 
 lowly in heart, grant that we may put on humble- 
 ness of mind, and meekness ; that we walk not 
 after our own desires, but seek to know and do thy 
 will ; that we be not wise in our own eyes, nor lean 
 to our own understanding ; but receive the love of 
 the truth, and learn of thee, who only art a guide 
 of the blind, a light of them who are in darkness, 
 
 1* 
 
6 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes. 
 Give us understanding, and we shall keep thy law ; 
 yea, we shall observe it with our hearts. And now 
 to Him who is able to keep us from falling, and to 
 present us faultless before the presence of his glory 
 with exceeding joy, — to the only wise God our 
 Saviour, — be glory and majesty, dominion and 
 power, both now and ever. Amen. 
 
 § 12. Mr. B. Now, my friends and brothers in 
 Christ, we may hope, that, in what we are about to 
 undertake, nothing will be done through strife or 
 vainglory, but in lowliness of mind, in an humble, 
 childlike, teachable spirit, as becomes those who 
 profess to love the God of truth. In the course of 
 the investigation, it is natural that each one of us 
 should be most clear-sighted and quick in detecting 
 what will favor his own views. And it is better that 
 it should be thus ; for it will insure the proper con- 
 sideration of every thing which can weigh in either 
 scale. Then, while investigating " the law and the 
 testimony," let each one act as the advocate of his 
 own opinion ; but, in deliberating and deciding, we 
 must throw aside the advocate, form ourselves into 
 an impartial jury, " and a true verdict give accord- 
 ing to the law and the evidence." Since we have 
 not time to explore the whole field, I leave you to 
 select that one argument which you consider the 
 most conclusive in favor of infant-baptism, — that 
 one on which you are most willing to rest your 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 7 
 
 cause ; and I agree to let that settle the question 
 between us, if you also will abide by it. We may 
 all safely agree to this, since a truth established by 
 one incontestable argument is as impregnable as if 
 established by a thousand. 
 
 § 13. Mr. A. We approve your suggestion ; and 
 I propose the argument derived from the rite of cir- 
 cumcision. 
 
 § 14. Mr. C. That is also my choice ; for I 
 regard that argument as perfectly unanswerable. 
 But I am satisfied that one chief reason why discus- 
 sions so seldom lead to conviction on either side is, 
 that men begin to argue without having any facts 
 or principles agreed upon as true. This is like 
 making fast a boat to a floating log. Euclid com- 
 mences with axioms which cannot be denied, and 
 postulates which must be conceded ; and afterward 
 asserts nothing but what is thus agreed upon, or is 
 proved from these premises. Hence every proposi- 
 tion is established by a course of reasoning which 
 cannot fail to carry conviction to every mind. Let 
 us endeavor to imitate Euclid, setting forth first 
 those points on which we can all agree. If we 
 admit none but what are true, I agree, with Stewart 
 and Mill, that " we may obtain a series of conclu- 
 sions as certain as those of geometry, and as irre- 
 sistibly compelling assent." ^ 
 
 1 Stewart's "Philosophy of the Mind," part ii. chap. 2, § 3. Mill's 
 •' System of Logic," b. ii. chap. 5, ^ 1. 
 
8 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 15. Mr. A. Your suggestion is excellent ; and 
 I agree with you as to the probable result. Let us 
 adopt substantially the rule laid down for himself 
 by Dr. Jarvis, in his '' Chronological Introduction 
 to the History of the Church " (p. 5), thus : — 
 
 § 16. " The great object to be constantly kept in 
 view shall be the investigation of truth for its own 
 sake ; and to that end, testimony, and fair deduc- 
 tions therefrom, shall be followed whithersoever 
 they may lead." 
 
 § 17. Mr. C. I presume that we all agree that 
 an express command from God is not necessary to 
 establish what is his will on any point, but fair and 
 legitimate inference is equally obligatory upon us ; 
 and such inference may be drawn from the analogy 
 furnished by the history of the Old-Testament 
 .church. If this be not objected to, it will be taken 
 for granted. 
 
 § 18. Well : God commanded Moses at Mount 
 Sinai to submit to the people this proposal : "If 
 ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, 
 then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above 
 all people ; and ye shall be unto me a kingdom of 
 priests, and a holy nation." ^ It is plain, that, if 
 Israel became to God " a kingdom of priests," then 
 God was their king : if so, " the kingdom of God," 
 in its highest sense, was proposed to be established 
 at Mount Sinai. But was it actually there esta- 
 
 1 Exod. xix. 5, 6. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. » 
 
 blished ? I reply, that, when Moses laid God's pro- 
 posal before the people, " all the people answered 
 together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken 
 we will do."^ Here, by a unanimous vote, the 
 nation acceded to the proposal, and thus, by their 
 own voluntary act, became God's kingdom. 
 
 § 19. Mr. A. Again : it will not be questioned 
 that St. Stephen alluded to the posterity of Abra- 
 ham,, the Israelitish nation, when he said that Moses 
 " was in the church in the wilderness." 
 
 § 20. Mr. C. Thus the natural seed of Abra- 
 ham, in the line of Isaac and Jacob, constituted the 
 kingdom, or visible church, of God, until the com- 
 ing of Christ. Then we may agree, that, — 
 
 § 21. Before the coming of Christ, the visible 
 church, or kingdom of God, consisted of the Israel- 
 itish nation, who were the seed of Abraham, born of 
 the flesh. 
 
 § 22. It is equally clear, that every child born 
 of Israelitish parents was one of the natural seed of 
 Abraham by the very fact of its birth. It was born 
 into the Israelitish nation; and, that nation being 
 the church of God, it follows that it was a regular 
 church-member in virtue of its birth. We can 
 agree, therefore, that, — 
 
 § 23. In the Old-Testament church, the children 
 of Israelitish parents became members by the fact of 
 birth, and stood toward that church in the relation 
 of membership by the fact of birth. 
 
 1 Exod. xix. 8. 
 
10 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 24. Mr. A. There can be no controversy be- 
 tween ns as to the fact, that, in the Old-Testament 
 church, the token of God's covenant, and the out- 
 ward sign of membership, was circumcision ; nor 
 as to the following propositions : — 
 
 § 25. The infant child of Israelitish parents, if 
 a male, was circumcised on the eighth day after he 
 was born.^ 
 
 § 26. A stranger sojourning in Israel, and wish- 
 ing to keep the passover, was required to be circum- 
 cised, with all his males. ^ 
 
 § 27. M?'. B. It may be advisable to mention 
 here the only remaining subjects of circumcision. 
 
 §28. Mr. C. By all means. Any servant whom 
 an Israelite bought with money of any stranger 
 must needs be circumcised.^ 
 
 § 29. Mr. A. When John the Baptist and Jesus 
 said, " The kingdom of heaven is at hand," and "• is 
 nigh unto you," they evidently alluded to the spirit- 
 ual reign of the Messiah. " The kingdom of Christ," 
 " the kingdom of God," " the kingdom of heaven," 
 are phrases which all signify the gospel dispensation. 
 Thus, in the discourse with Nicodemus,* Jesus uses 
 the phrase " kingdom of God " to express the state 
 of the church on earth, which is the gate to the 
 celestial kingdom ; and generally, indeed, speaks of 
 his church on earth under this mode of expression, 
 rather than the heavenly state. 
 
 1 Lev. xii. 1-3. 8 Gen. xvii. 12, 13. 
 
 2 Exod. xii. 48. 4 John iii. 3, 5. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 11 
 
 § 30. Mr. C. All that our blessed Saviour said 
 to Nicodemus applies only to the visible church, 
 or kingdom of God in this world, and not to the 
 church in its triumphant state, or kingdom of God 
 in heaven. This is absolutely certain from his own 
 words : " If I have told you of earthly things, and 
 ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of 
 heavenly things ? " ^ Let any one impartially exar 
 mine the evangelists, and he will find this to be the 
 general import of the phrase in question. 
 
 § 31. Mr. A. Let it be agreed, then, that the 
 phrases " kingdom of heaven " and " kingdom of 
 God " — as used in Matt, xviii. 3, xix. 14, xxi. 43 ; 
 Mark x. 14, 15 ; Luke xviii. 16, 17 ; and John iii. 
 3, 5 — are to be understood as referring to the 
 Christian church on earth. 
 
 § 32. Well : Jesus said to the chief priests and 
 Pharisees, " The kingdom of heaven shall be taken 
 from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the 
 fruits thereof." ^ Does not such language indicate 
 the transfer of a kingdom already existing, rather 
 than the beginning of an entirely new one ? 
 
 § 33. Mr. C. The Apostle Paul speaks of the 
 church under the similitude of an olive-tree.^ We 
 understand the good olive-tree to represent the 
 church of the Jews, or, what is the same thing, 
 the church which was planted under the Old-Testa- 
 ment dispensation ; and the Gentiles were the wild 
 
 1 John iii. 12. 2 Matt. xxi. 43. 3 Rom. xi. 16, 24. 
 
12 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 olive-tree. Well : observe what the Lord has done 
 to this good olive-tree. It has not been destroyed, 
 and another tree planted ; but the unfruitful 
 branches were taken away. And the Gentiles were 
 not pruned and cultivated as a separate tree, but 
 were cut out of the tree which is wild by nature, 
 and were grafted, contrary to nature, into the good 
 olive-tree, — the same from which the others were 
 broken off. And, when the Jews shall be brought 
 in, they will not be grafted into another tree, but 
 into their own olive-tree, — the same from which 
 they were broken off. Can any thing be more point- 
 edly descriptive of identity ? 
 
 § 34. Mr. A. How could the apostle call the 
 church " their own olive-tree," and them " the na- 
 tural branches," if it were not the same tree from 
 which they were broken off? 
 
 § 35. Mr. C. The church is the same in sub- 
 stance now that it was under the old dispensation. 
 There is a difference, but not essential. The church 
 is enlarged, and rendered more spiritual ; and there 
 is a change of external rites. Under the old dis- 
 pensation, the privileges of the church were confined 
 to the Jews ; but now the middle wall of partition 
 is broken down, and these privileges are extended 
 to the Greeks, Scythians, Barbarians, and to all the 
 nations of the earth. The relation of the natural 
 seed of Abraham to God, signified by the name 
 " Israelite," prefigured the more honorable relation 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 13 
 
 which believers, tlie true Israel, stand in to God. 
 Hence we may agree upon this proposition : — 
 
 § 36. The New-Testament church, or Christian 
 church, is the same as the Old-Testament church, 
 only rendered more spiritual, and with a change of 
 external rites. It consists no longer of the seed 
 of Abraham born of the flesh, but of the spiritual 
 seed of Abraham. 
 
 § 37. Mr. B. I will not object to that proposi- 
 tion ; but will you explain how we can become the 
 seed of Abraham if we be not born so, and how we 
 can become his spiritual seed ? 
 
 § 38. Mr. C. Like Nicodemus, you would know 
 " how can these things be ? " I will endeavor to 
 explain by setting before you the discourse of Jesus 
 with Nicodemus. The Jews believed, that, by virtue 
 of being the natural descendants of Abraham, and of 
 those among whom the kingdom of God was at first 
 established, they would enjoy peculiar privileges 
 when the King should make his visible appearance 
 in the person of the Messiah. It was to correct this 
 error that John warned them : " Think not to say 
 within yourselves. We have Abraham to our father." 
 And Jesus, to remove this error, taught Nicodemus. 
 that the children of the flesh are not counted for the 
 seed of Abraham in the divine promise ; and, of 
 course, that his being a lineal descendant of this 
 great patriarch gave him no peculiar advantages in 
 the kingdom of God. He must have another birth 
 
 2 
 
14 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 before he could even see it. Nicodemus had no 
 conce}3tion of what Jesus meant by another birth. 
 Jesus in the most solemn manner re-affirmed what 
 he had said, and explained it : " Except a man be 
 born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter 
 into the kingdom of God." Few will doubt but to 
 be born of water is to be baptized ; that is, baptism 
 visibly initiates into the kingdom of God, as natural 
 birth makes one a subject of that government into 
 which he is born. Jesus explained the matter still 
 farther to Nicodemus by appealing to the known 
 fact, that every thing which propagates at all propa- 
 gates its own kind. Consequently, were it possible 
 for a man to be born again in the literal sense men- 
 tioned by Nicodemus, by entering " a second time 
 into his mother's womb," such second birth would 
 do no more to qualify him for the kingdom of God 
 than the first : "for that which is born of the flesh 
 is " only " flesh ; " and what proceeds, as we all do, 
 from parents who are sinful and corrupt, is sinful 
 and corrupt as they are. But God, being spiritual, 
 must reign in a spiritual kingdom ; and of course 
 his subjects must be born of the Spirit before they 
 can have such spiritual nature as qualifies one for 
 being a subject of his kingdom : for " that which is 
 born of the Spirit" is formed to a resemblance of 
 that blessed Spirit whose office it is to diffuse a divine 
 life into the soul. And as mankind have material, 
 fleshly bodies connected with their spirits, these 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 15 
 
 bodies must be born of water to enter into God's 
 kingdom. Thus Jesus demonstrates to Nicodemus 
 that they who are born of the flesh, as the Jews 
 were born of Abraham, cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God without another birth ; and that birth 
 must be of the Divine Spirit as to their spiritual 
 nature, and of purifying water as to their fleshly 
 nature. 
 
 § 39. 3^r, A. The descendants of Abraham, the 
 Jews, were chosen to be " the people of God," — to 
 be his visible church. But, in the days of Christ, a 
 great religious revolution occurred, — no other than 
 the abrogation of the church state of the Jews ; for 
 the great reason of their peculiarity and election, 
 as a nation, was terminated by the coming of the 
 Messiah. Almighty God determined no longer to 
 found his church upon natural descent from Abra- 
 ham, in the line of Isaac and Jacob, nor in any 
 other line according to the flesh ; but to make faith 
 in his Son Jesus Christ the gate of admission into 
 this privilege. There was a new election of a new 
 people of God, — to be composed of Jews, not by 
 virtue of their natural descent, but of their faith in 
 Christ ; and of Gentiles of all nations, also believ- 
 ing, and put, as believers, on an equal ground with 
 the believing Jews. Christians became, though in 
 a more special and exalted sense, the chosen people, 
 — the elect of God. The entrance into the Jewish 
 church was by natural birth; while the entrance 
 
16 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 into the Christian church, properly so called, is by 
 faith and a spiritual birth. In his interesting dis- 
 course witli Nicodemus, our Lord communicates to 
 him the fundamental doctrines of the Christian 
 faith, — firstly, the necessity of new birth, or re- 
 generation, by baptism and the Holy Spirit, to sal- 
 vation ; ^ secondly, the redemption of mankind by 
 the death of Christ, through faith, of which death the 
 brazen serpent was a type ;2 and, thirdly, the origi- 
 nal cause of this mode of redemption, — the love of 
 God.^ He declares the necessity of a new birth, in 
 contradistinction to our natural birth, in order to 
 our entrance into tlie kingdom of God ; and lays it 
 down, that the Spirit of God is the sole author of 
 this change, for that all births answer to the princi- 
 ple which causes them. As, therefore, the carnal 
 births proceed from the flesh, so a spiritual birth 
 proceeds from the Spirit as its vital principle ; that 
 what is born of the flesh cannot alter its nature ; 
 it is flesh still, and must always remain so, and in 
 that state is unfit for heaven. In like manner, 
 Jesus describes the state of " the flesh," this condi- 
 tion of entire unfitness for the kingdom of heaven, 
 as our natural state ; and, to make this the stronger, 
 he refers this unfitness, not to our acquired habits, 
 but to the state in which we are born : for the very 
 reason which he gives for tlie necessity of a new 
 birth is because " that which is born of the flesh is 
 
 1 John iii. 3-11. 2 John iii. 12-15. 3 John iii. 16-18. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 17 
 
 flesh," and therefore we " must be born again." 
 That we may be thus born of the Spirit, we must be 
 born also of water ; not as if there was any virtue 
 in water, whereby it could regenerate us, but be- 
 cause this is the rite or ordinance appointed by 
 Christ, wherein he regenerates us by his Holy Spirit; 
 so that our regeneration is wholly the act of the 
 Spirit of Christ. We learn, then, from the discourse 
 of Jesus with Nicodemus, and from various other 
 parts of the Scriptures, that every man must have 
 two births, — one from heaven, the other from earth ; 
 one of his body, the other of his soul. Without the 
 first, he cannot see nor enjoy this world : without 
 the last, he cannot see nor enjoy the kingdom of God. 
 As there is an absolute necessity that a child should 
 be born into the world that he may see its light, 
 contemplate its glories, and enjoy its good ; so there 
 is an absolute necessity that the soul should be 
 brought out of its state of darkness and sin through 
 the light and power of the grace of Christ, that it 
 may be able to see (idehi) or discern the glories 
 and excellences of the kingdom of Christ here, and 
 be prepared for the enjoyment of the kingdom of 
 glory hereafter. 
 
 § 40. Mr. B. Though I cannot concur in all 
 that has been said, yet my questions have been an- 
 swered well, and in the very words of our blessed 
 Saviour. First, how can we become the seed of 
 Abraham, if we be not born so ? "Ye must be boru 
 
 2* 
 
18 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 again." Secondly, how can we become his spiritual 
 seed ? " That which is born of the Spirit is spirit : " 
 hence we must be born of the Spirit to become the 
 spiritual seed of Abraham. 
 
 § 41. Mr. C. Then we are agreed thus far at 
 least, — that those who are born of the flesh, who- 
 ever may be their progenitors, are not the spiritual 
 seed of Abraham, and cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God, or church, without a regeneration and 
 another birth, which is a spiritual birth, or being 
 "born of the Spirit." 
 
 § 42. 3Tr. B. This proposition is very sweeping, 
 including the whole human family. Are there no 
 exceptions to it ? 
 
 § 43. Mr. A. None. The Lord will not alter 
 the rules of admission into his kingdom to humor 
 the prejudices of any set of men whatever. 
 
 § 44. Mr. C. The proposition is not more sweep- 
 ing than the declaration, " Except a man be born 
 again, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 
 Here our Saviour has taught us the necessity of 
 regeneration. All persons, without exception, are 
 born in sin, and are by nature tlie children of wrath. 
 In this natural state, man cannot see nor enter into 
 the kingdom of God ; for he is incapable of per- 
 ceiving, understanding, or receiving the things of 
 the Spirit of God. He must be born again, he 
 must become a new creature, or he will not, he can- 
 not, enter into the kingdom of God. In the natural 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 19 
 
 state, we are dead in trespasses and sins, children 
 of wrath, without Christ, aliens from the common- 
 wealth of Israel. Hence it is evident, that, in the 
 natural state, we are separate from Christ : it is 
 equally plain that Christ's people, whom he has 
 quickened, are united to him by the Spirit of Christ, 
 which he has given them. Thus there was a time 
 when Christ's people were separate from him ; and 
 afterwards there is a time when they are found in 
 union with him. Then it follows, of course, that 
 there was a time with every one of them when they 
 were brought into union with Christ. Adult be- 
 lievers are united to Christ, or ingrafted into Christ, 
 by his Spirit which is in tliem ; for they have faith by 
 his Spirit. Regeneration is inseparably connected 
 with this union of the believer with Christ : it is 
 the effect of our being ingrafted into Christ, or of 
 our union with him, by having his Spirit within us. 
 
 § 45. Mr. B. How are this spiritual regeneration 
 and birth effected ? By baptism ? 
 
 § 46. Mr. A. This needful and most blessed 
 change is wrought by means of the sacred word of 
 divine life, which is the seed of eternal life.^ 
 
 § 47. Mr. C. Regeneration is not effected by 
 baptism ; for it is the work of God : neither is bap- 
 tism to be accounted as a means of regeneration ; 
 for the believer to whom baptism is to be admini- 
 stered is regenerate already. Faith is a fruit of the 
 
 1 1 Pet. i. 23. 
 
20 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 Spirit, and an evidence of regeneration. Therefore 
 he is not baptized as a means by which he may be 
 regenerated ; but, because he is a regenerate person, 
 he receives the sign and token of God's covenant ; 
 by which is also signified the work which the Lord 
 lias wrought by means of his word. That it is by 
 means of the word appears from James i. 18 : '' Of 
 his own will begat he us with the word of truth ; " 
 and this by the instrumentality of his ministering 
 servants, by whom the gospel is preached ; as says 
 the Apostle Paul, " In Christ Jesus, I have begotten 
 you through the gospel." ^ 
 
 § 48. Mr. A. We all agree that regeneration 
 and the new birth are the work of the Spirit of God, 
 wrought by means of his word ; and this by the 
 instrumentality of his ministering servants, by whom 
 the gospel is preached. 
 
 § 49. We have seen, that, in the Old-Testament 
 church, the external rite denoting entrance into 
 the church was circumcision ; but, in the New- 
 Testament church, baptism took its place. 
 
 § 50. Mr. C. All who are born of the Spirit will 
 surely enter into God's kingdom above, even though 
 for want of opportunity, like the thief on the cross, 
 they may not be baptized. But baptism being the 
 introductory ordinance by which we are received 
 or recognized as members of the visible church, 
 which is God's kingdom on earth, none can be 
 
 1 1 Cor. iv. 15. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 21 
 
 admitted without baptism ; and as all unbaptized 
 persons are excluded from the church, or kingdom 
 on earth, so all unregenerate persons will be ex- 
 cluded from the kingdom of God in heaven. When 
 we say that baptism has taken tlie place of circum- 
 cision, we mean, not merely that circumcision is 
 laid aside in the church of Christ, and that baptism 
 has been brought in ; but that baptism occupies, in 
 the evangelical dispensation, the place of circumci- 
 sion under the Levitical, as the appointed initiatory 
 ordinance in the church ; and that, as a moral em- 
 blem, it means the same thing, — being the outward 
 and visible sign of the same inward and spiritual 
 grace : for circumcision was a seal, not merely of 
 temporal promises, but of the covenant of grace.^ 
 
 § 51. Mr. A. If no objection be interposed, we 
 will consider it settled, that, in the New-Testament 
 church, or Christian church, baptism is adopted in 
 the place of circumcision ; and is to the New-Testa- 
 ment church, and to the proper subjects of baptism, 
 what circumcision was to the Old-Testament church, 
 and to tlie proper subjects of circumcision. 
 
 § 52. Mr. C. Some Baptists know so little of 
 the sentiments of their brethren, that they suppose 
 adult-baptism to be entirely rejected by Pedobaptists. 
 I know you are not of this number ; yet, in matters 
 of controversy, it will greatly facilitate our searcli to 
 set aside all those things about which we are agreed, 
 
 1 Rom. iv. 11. 
 
22 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 and fix our attention only to that on which there is 
 a difference. Among the points of agreement, we 
 must therefore mention that — 
 
 § 53. All true believers in Christ, who have not 
 been previously baptized, are proper subjects of 
 baptism ; but no adult is a proper subject, without 
 faith. 
 
 § 54. Mr. B. Some of the propositions which 
 you state as agreed are moot-points ; and I do not 
 wish to be understood as giving my unqualified 
 assent to all of them, except for the purposes of 
 the present inquiry. With this explanation, I 
 consent that all these points be regarded as fixed 
 truths. 
 
 § 55. Mr. A. Let us, then, proceed to consider 
 the question. Is infant-baptism a divine institution, 
 or is it not ? That it is so, follows inevitably from 
 " the analogy furnished by the history of the Old- 
 Testament church " (§ 17). The Old and New Tes- 
 tament churches are in substance the same, though 
 under different dispensations (§ 36). While, there- 
 fore, the most perfect parallel can be drawn between 
 the two, among other particulars, baptism, by divine 
 authority, has taken the place of circumcision 
 (§ 51). We should expect, therefore, to find the 
 former in every respect answering to the latter ; 
 and so it does. 
 
 § 56. Mr. C. Just so. Whatever belonged to 
 circumcision, except the difference of visible cere- 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 23 
 
 mony, belongs also to baptism : they were initia- 
 tory rites of the same covenant at different periods. 
 But the change of the initiatory rite made no change 
 in the subjects of the covenant. Baptism is right- 
 fully and properly applied to the same subjects as 
 circumcision. 
 
 § 57. Mr. A. Faith in Christ was an indispen- 
 sable condition for circumcision of persons of mature 
 age ; and it is an indispensable condition for baptism 
 also in all persons of an age at which they are capa- 
 ble of exercising faith. But, by the express direction 
 of God, an exception was made to this requisition in 
 favor of the children of Israelitish parents ; and they 
 were commanded to be circumcised, as well as those 
 who had faith (§ 25). 
 
 § 58. Mr. C. If there were no absurdity in that 
 command, neither can there be in baptizing infants. 
 The children of Jews were circumcised, when they 
 certainly had as yet no idea of the intent and mean- 
 ing of this religious rite. According to this analo- 
 gy, children among Christians may be baptized even 
 during those years when they cannot as yet under- 
 stand any thing of the design of the rite, or make any 
 profession of their faith. Their right to the one ordi- 
 nance must be the same as it was to the other. If 
 they were formerly capable of receiving a seal of the 
 covenant of grace, which proves that they were then 
 within the verge of that covenant, how they came 
 to be now cast out of the covenant, and incapable 
 
24 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 of the seal, and by what severe sentence they were 
 thus rejected and incapacitated, those are concerned 
 to make out that not only reject, but nullify and 
 reproach, the baptism of the seed of believers. 
 
 § 59. Mr. A. If they are to be debarred now 
 because they have not faith in God, surely they 
 should have been debarred on the same ground 
 under the Mosaic economy. It follows as a neces- 
 sary consequence, that the children of believing 
 parents, under the gospel, have the same right to 
 baptism that the children of Jewish parents had 
 to circumcision under the law, unless their rights 
 have been repealed or abridged. 
 
 § 60. Mr. C. And unless there can be found 
 some positive divine enactment or declaration ex- 
 cluding them. 
 
 § 61. 3Ir. A. The absence of an explicit exclu- 
 sion is sufficient proof of their title to baptism. 
 
 § 62. Mr. B. Gentlemen, our agreed points were 
 all proposed by yourselves ; yet you seem to have 
 forgotten one of them already, and a very impor- 
 tant one. You now demand an explicit exclusion 
 of infants from baptism by a positive diviiie enact- 
 ment, though it was agreed that " an express com- 
 mand from God is not necessary to establish what is 
 his will upon any point, but fair and legitimate 
 inference is equally obligatory upon us" (§ 17). 
 If, then, it appear from such inference that it is now 
 God's will to exclude infants from baptism, you 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 25 
 
 cannot demand a positive enactment. It does not 
 seem fair to mount up to your conclusion by the lad- 
 der of inference and analogy, and then to destroy 
 that ladder, lest I should climb to some other con- 
 clusion. Stripped of these objectionable and erro- 
 neous expressions, the conclusion at which you 
 arrive seems almost, if not altogether, inevitable. 
 To be candid, I cannot see how it is possible to 
 resist the conclusion, that, if baptism under the 
 evangelical dispensation take the place of circum- 
 cision under the Levitical, the analogy must be 
 extended to the persons entitled to receive the rite 
 of circumcision under the one dispensation, and of 
 baptism under the other. But let us apply your 
 process of reasoning to another class of persons. 
 " Any servant whom an Israelite bought with money 
 of any stranger must needs be circumcised" (§ 28)» 
 If, in a land where involuntary servitude exists^ 
 a believer should buy an unbaptized servant from a 
 Mussulman, or other stranger to the covenant of 
 grace, must that servant needs be baptized ? 
 
 § 63. Mr. A. As, in the gospel-covenant which 
 was made with Abraham, all the children of whom 
 the Israelites had the care, not more he who was 
 born in their houses than he who was bought with 
 money of any stranger that was not of their seed, 
 was to be circumcised, so the church is bound to 
 extend her pastoral care to every child within her 
 reach. 
 
 3 
 
26 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 64. Mr. C. If the servant be an infant, he 
 should be admitted to baptism on the faith of the 
 master ; but not if an adult (§ 53). 
 
 § Qb. Mr. B. What, then, becomes of " the ana- 
 logy furnished by the history of the Old-Testament 
 church " ? (§ 17.) Why do you not require faith in 
 the infant ? Because, " by the express direction of 
 God, an exception was made in favor of infants ; 
 and they were admitted to baptism without personal 
 faith" (§ 57). Exactly the same exception was 
 made in favor of servants, without any reference to 
 their age. " He that is born in thy house, and he 
 that is bought with thy money of any stranger which 
 is not of thy seed, must needs be circumcised." ^ If 
 we take your argument for infants, and substitute 
 the words "masters" for "parents," and "servants" 
 for " children," the necessity of baptizing servants 
 is as firmly established by the argument as is the 
 necessity of baptizing infants. Nay, by assuming 
 that infant-baptism is scriptural, we can make that 
 a link in the chain of argument in favor of servant- 
 baptism, and thus give it the additional force of 
 another resemblance between the two dispensations. 
 The argument would stand thus : — 
 
 § QQ. Baptism has taken the place of circumci- 
 sion, and answers to it in every respect (§ bb). 
 The change of the initiatory rite made no change 
 in the subjects of the covenant. Baptism is right- 
 
 1 Gen. xvii. 12, 13. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 27 
 
 fully and properly applied to the same subjects as 
 circumcision (§ 56). Faith in Christ was an indis- 
 pensable condition, for either rite, in persons of 
 mature age (§ 57). An exception was made to this 
 requisition in favor of infants, and they were cir- 
 cumcised as well as believers ; and so now the like 
 exception is made, and they are baptized. But, by 
 the express direction of God, another exception was 
 made in favor of the servants of Jewish masters ; 
 and it was commanded that they should be circum- 
 cised, as well as those who had faith (§ 57). If there 
 were no absurdity in that command, neither can 
 there be in baptizing servants. Their right to the 
 one ordinance must be the same as it was to 
 the other (§ 58). As they were not debarred for 
 want of faith under the Mosaic economy, neither 
 can they be now. The servants of Christian mas- 
 ters have the same right to baptism under the 
 gospel which the servants of Jewish masters had 
 under the law, unless their rights have been repealed 
 or abridged (§ 59). 
 
 § 67. What is the result ? As faith was not 
 required of the servant as a prerequisite io circum- 
 cision, it cannot.be required as a prerequisite ta 
 baptism. As the servant might then have been an 
 adult, so may he be now ; as he might then have 
 been an idolater, so may he now be an idolater, fresh 
 from the wilds of Africa. Yet your argument, mii- 
 tatis mutandis^ proves that the Christian purchaser 
 
28 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 must needs have the adult idolater baptized, con- 
 trary to our agreed doctrine, which is universally 
 received in the Christian world, that no adult is a 
 proper subject of baptism, without faith (§ 53). 
 
 § 68. Mr. C. The church was formerly a sepa- 
 rate nation; and the servant brought within that 
 nation was thereby brought within the church. 
 Now, however, the church is not a nation, but is 
 distinct from secular kingdoms. A servant intro- 
 duced into the family of a Christian is not thereby 
 brought within the church ; and cannot be, except 
 by faith. It was the duty of the Jewish master to 
 have his servant circumcised ; but now the " bond- 
 servant is the Lord's freeman," and is to be baptized 
 upon the profession of his own faith and obedience. 
 
 § 69. Mr. B. Your reasons are sufficient to ex- 
 clude unbelieving servants from baptism ; but again, 
 mutatis mutandis, they apply with equal force against 
 infant-baptism. A child born in the house of a be- 
 liever is not now, as formerly, made thereby an 
 integral part of the church. The application of 
 your course of reasoning to servants proves that 
 there is ^a flaw somewhere, which we must now 
 search out. I repeat my firm conviction, that " the 
 analogy furnished by the history of the Old-Testa- 
 ment church " (§ 17) will guide us to the truth, if 
 we make no mistake in tracing that analogy ; and 
 the flaw in your reasoning, I am inclined to think, 
 will be found to consist in a departure from the path 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 29 
 
 of that analogy. Let us examine the principle in- 
 volved in the argument by which you attempt to 
 support infant-baptism. 
 
 § 70. Mr. C. The argument consists of resem- 
 blance of relations ; and the principle involved may 
 be expressed in the words of a mathematical propo- 
 sition which has been demonstrated by Legendre : ^ 
 " If there be four proportionals, and four other pro- 
 portionals having the same antecedents, the conse- 
 quents will be proportional." If we apply to the 
 consequents the third and fifth propositions of the 
 same book, we will find them still proportional when 
 taken first alternately, and then inversely .^ If this 
 be too abstract, take this illustration : — 
 
 B is to N as C is to O, and 
 B is to X as C is to S: therefore 
 X is to N as S is to O ; 
 that is, X stands in the same relation to N in which S 
 stands to O- 
 
 § 71. Mr. A. As this mode of exemplification 
 
 1 " Elements of Geometry," b. ii. prop. 4. 
 
 2 Things are proportional when the first has to the second the same 
 ratio or relation which the third has to the fourth, the fifth to the sixth, 
 &c. The first and third of four proportionals are called the antecedents ; 
 the second and fourth are called the consequents. Proportionals are 
 taken alternately when antecedent is compared with antecedent, and con- 
 sequent with consequent; they are taken inversely when the consequents 
 are made antecedents, and the antecedents are made consequents. Thus, 
 in the proportionals N : : : X : S, the antecedents are N and X; the 
 consequents, and S. Taken alternately, the proportionals stand thus, — 
 N : X : : : S. These, taken inversely, stand thus, — X : N : : S : 0. 
 
 3* 
 
30 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 may not be perfectly clear, let us apply this truth to 
 figures. Two examples will suffice : — 
 
 2:1: 
 
 : 6 : 3, and 
 
 3 
 
 12: 
 
 : 5 
 
 20, and 
 
 2:3 : 
 
 : 6 : 9 ; therefore 
 
 3 
 
 6: 
 
 : 5 
 
 10; therefore 
 
 3:1: 
 
 :9:3. 
 
 6 
 
 12 : 
 
 : 10 
 
 20. 
 
 Here the correctness of the proposition is exempli- 
 fied and experimentally demonstrated. 
 
 § 72. Mr. C. Now, to apply it to the question 
 before us, let B represent Baptism ; C, Circumci- 
 sion ; N, the New-Testament church ; O, the Old- 
 Testament church ; S, the Subjects proper for 
 circumcision in the Old-Testament church ; and 
 X, as in Algebra, must represent that unknown 
 result for which we seek ; that is, the proper subjects 
 of baptism in the New -Testament church. Then the 
 argument stands thus : — 
 
 Baptism stands to the New-Testament church in the 
 same relation in which Circumcision stood to the Old- 
 Testament church (§ 51) ; — 
 
 Baptism stands to (X) the proper subjects of baptism 
 in the same relation in which Circumcision stood to the 
 proper Subjects of circumcision (§ 51) ; therefore — 
 
 {X) The proper subjects of baptism stand toward the 
 New-Testament church in the same relation in which 
 the proper Subjects of circumcision stood toward the Old- 
 Testament church. 
 
 § 73. Mr. A. The result may be more conve- 
 niently expressed thus : Those persons are proper 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 31 
 
 subjects of baptism who stand toward tlie Christian 
 church in the same relation in which the proper 
 subjects of circumcision stood toward the Israelitish 
 church. 
 
 § 74. Mr. B. Here three questions are pre- 
 sented, which must be disposed of before we ascer- 
 tain who are proper subjects of Christian baptism. 
 
 § 75. Mr. C. Yery true. We must ascertain, 
 firstly. Who were proper subjects of circumcision ; 
 secondly, In what relation they stood toward the 
 Israelitish church ; thirdly, What persons stand in 
 the same relation toward the Christian church. 
 Whoever those persons may be, they are the proper 
 subjects of Christian baptism. Firstly, then. Who 
 were proper subjects of circumcision ? We need 
 notice only that " the infant child of Israelitish 
 parents, if a male, was circumcised " (§ 25). 
 
 § 76. Mr. B. I will not require you to keep up 
 the distinction as to sex, but admit that females will 
 come in under the same right as males ; for in Christ 
 there is neither male nor female. 
 
 § 77. Mr. A. The other questions are just as 
 easily disposed of; for it will not, it cannot, be 
 denied, that exactly the same relation exists between 
 Christian parents and their infant children which 
 existed between Israelitish parents and their infant 
 children. 
 
 § 78. Mr. C. No proposition can be more ob- 
 viously correct ; and the conclusion is inevitable, 
 
32 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 that the infant children of Christian parents are 
 proper subjects of baptism in the Christian church. 
 
 § 79. Mr. B. How is that ? Permit me to 
 review our ground. I cannot discover that the 
 relation in which the proper subjects of circumci- 
 sion stood toward their parents forms any part of 
 the process of reasoning by which we propose to 
 ascertain who are proper subjects of baptism. The 
 conclusion at which you just now arrived speaks of 
 their relation, not to their parents, but to the Israel- 
 itish church (§ 73). The second question, growing 
 out of that conclusion, is. In what relation they 
 stood, not toward their parents, but toward the 
 Israelitish church (§ 75). And the next question 
 is. What persons stand in the same relation, not 
 toward their parents, but toward the Christian 
 church (§ 75). You cannot substitute the parents 
 for the churches till you show that a child occupies 
 the same relation toward its parents as toward the 
 church of which the parents are members. Perhaps 
 we will find here that flaw which evidently exists in 
 your chain of reasoning, — that by-path which leads 
 us astray from the true road pointed out by " the 
 analogy furnished by the history of the Old-Testa- 
 ment church" (§ 17). 
 
 § 80. As the relation of parents so confuses itself 
 with our investigation, let us, at a proper time, con- 
 sider two other questions, — fourthly, In what rela- 
 tions Israelitish children stood toward their parents ; 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 33 
 
 fifthly, Toward what persons the proper subjects of 
 baptism stand m similar relations. 
 
 § 81. Mr, A, Very well : it will only be a longer 
 road to the same result. The answer to our first 
 question brings us at least one step farther ; and we 
 may now argue syllogistically thus : Those persons 
 are proper subjects of baptism who stand toward the 
 Christian church in the same relation in which 
 the proper subjects of circumcision stood toward the 
 Israelitish church (§ 73). The infant children of 
 Israelitish parents were proper subjects of circum- 
 cision (§§ 25, 75) ; therefore — 
 
 § 82. Those persons are proper subjects of bap- 
 tism who stand toward the Christian church in the 
 same relation in which the infant children of Israel- 
 itish parents stood toward the Israelitish church. 
 
 § 83. Mr. C. The next question is, " In what 
 relation did they" — the infant children of Israelit- 
 ish parents — " stand toward the Israelitish church ? " 
 (§ 75.) The answer is. They " stood toward that 
 church in the relation of membership by the fact of 
 birth " (§ 23). In like manner, the children of pro- 
 fessing Christians are church-members in virtue of 
 their birth. 
 
 § 84. Mr. B. Well, well : you seem to be lead- 
 ing me to your opinion rapidly enough, without 
 hurrying me through any near cuts. Let me reach 
 it, if at all, by the regular path marked out. I will 
 " follow the testimony, and fair deductions there- 
 
34 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 from, whithersoever they may lead" (§ 16). So 
 are you bound to follow, and not jump at conclu- 
 sions in advance. 
 
 § 85. Mr. C. Then, from the conclusion already 
 reached, we may reason thus : Those persons are 
 proper subjects of baptism who stand toward the 
 Christian church in the same relation in which 
 the infant children of Israelitish parents stood 
 toward the Israelitish church (§ 82). The infant 
 children of Israelitish parents stood toward the 
 Israelitish church in the relation of membership 
 by the fact of birth (§ 83) ; therefore — 
 
 § 86. Those persons are proper subjects of bap- 
 tism who stand toward the Christian church in the 
 relation of membership by the fact of birth. 
 
 § 87. Now, the children of professing Christians 
 are not to be reckoned as part of the world, but of 
 the church, — a holy, not a common and unclean 
 seed. They are born members of the church. So 
 this certainly closes the argument. 
 
 § 88. Mr. B. It does, indeed, if your assertion 
 be true ; but whether or not the children of profess- 
 ing Christians be born members of the church is 
 involved in our third question, which now naturally 
 presents itself for consideration : " What persons 
 stand in the same relation toward the Christian 
 church?" (§ 75) — that is. What persons stand 
 toward the Christian church in the relation of 
 membership by the fact of birth ? You reply, The 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 35 
 
 children of professing Christians. But this conflicts 
 with several of the propositions which we have 
 agreed upon as unquestionably true ; namely, that, 
 though the church is still the same as under the old 
 dispensation, it has undergone some changes ; and 
 that " it no longer consists of the seed of Abraham 
 according to the flesh, but of his spiritual seed " 
 (§ 36) ; — that, under the old dispensation, Israel- 
 itish children became members by the fact of carnal 
 birth ; but that, since the church has been given to 
 the spiritual seed, no one can enter tlie kingdom of 
 God, or church, without another birth, which is a 
 spiritual birth (§§ 36, 41). Remember also the 
 remarks which you both recently made on this point. 
 Mr. C. said that Jesus demonstrated to Nicodemus, 
 " that they who are born of the flesh, as the Jews 
 were born of Abraham, cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God without another birth ; " that they 
 " must have another birth before they could even 
 see it" (§ 38); that they "must be born again, 
 must become new creatures, or they will not, they 
 cannot, enter into the kingdom of God " (§ 44) ; 
 and much more to the same effect. Mr. A. was no 
 less strong. He said, among other things, that " the 
 entrance into the Jewish church was by natural 
 birth ; while the entrance into the Christian church, 
 properly so called, is by faith and a spiritual birth ;" 
 — that, in our Lord's discourse with Nicodemus, " he 
 declares the necessity of a new birth, in contra- 
 
36 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 distinction to our natural birth, in order to our 
 entrance into the kingdom of God ; and lays it 
 down, that the Spirit of God is the sole author of 
 this change" (§ 39). Does this mean something, 
 or nothing ? If any thing, it points out the new, the 
 spiritual birth as the only birth by which any one 
 can enter into the kingdom or church of God (§ 31) ; 
 and, of course, it designates those who are thus born 
 anew as the only persons who are born into the 
 church, and occupy toward it the relation of " mem- 
 bership by the fact of birth." No one can be a 
 member until ^.dmitted into the body of which he 
 becomes a member. If infants become members by 
 their birth, then being born of the flesh does admit 
 them into the kingdom of God, in contradiction of 
 our agreed doctrine (§ 41), — in contradiction of the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, who says expressly, " Except a 
 man be born again, he cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God."^ Therefore no carnal infant is a 
 member. Then who is ? In one of our agreed 
 points, as also in your remarks of which I have just 
 quoted a part, we find the reply, that those only 
 are the spiritual seed of Abraham who have been 
 born again, — born of the Spirit ; that, without such 
 spiritual birth, no one can enter the church (§ 41). 
 Then the answer ta our third question (§ 75) is as 
 follows : — 
 
 § 89. Those persons, and none other, who have 
 
 1 John iii. 3. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 37 
 
 been regenerated and born anew, stand toward the 
 Christian church in the relation of membership by 
 the fact of birth. 
 
 § 90. These are the only persons who occupy, in 
 the Christian church, a position analogous to that of 
 infants born into the Israelitish church : in other 
 words, they are the " new-born babes " of the gospel, 
 as carnal infants were the " little ones " of the law. 
 The analogy we have traced leads me irresistibly to 
 the conclusion that these spiritual "new-born babes" 
 have the same right to baptism that the carnal 
 " little ones " had to circumcision. You have thus 
 convinced me that infants are proper subjects of 
 baptism ; and I now declare myself a Pedobaptist ;^ 
 or, if that title have been too exclusively appro- 
 priated by the advocates of the baptism of carnal 
 infants, I must invent a new name, and call myself 
 a Tecnobaptist,^ — one who advocates the baptism 
 of "• new-born babes in Christ." 
 
 § 91. Mr. C. I understand you as urging that 
 that carnal infancy which was ingrafted into the 
 fellowship of the church by circumcision prefigured 
 those spiritual infants of the New Testament, who, 
 by the word of God, are regenerated to an immortal 
 life. In this language we discover, indeed, a small 
 spark of truth. We confess, indeed, that the natural 
 seed of Abraham did, for a time, hold the place of 
 
 1 From paidon bapiisma, the baptism of children. 
 
 2 From tecnon hapti&ma, the baptism of children. 
 
 4 
 
38 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 those spiritual children which are incorporated with 
 him by faith ; for we are called his children, not- 
 withstanding there is no relationship between him 
 and us. But if you understand, as you certainly 
 do, that no spiritual blessing was promised by God 
 to the carnal seed of Abraham, you are greatly 
 deceived. 
 
 § 92. Mr. B. You mistake me. What I asserted 
 does not involve, or even remotely touch upon, the 
 opinion which you attribute to me ; and I am will- 
 ing to concede to you all that you can demand 
 on that point, — that the carnal seed of Abraham, 
 before Christ, were saved by faith in Christ as being 
 to come, just as we are saved by faith in Christ as 
 having come already, — their faith being prospec- 
 tive, ours retrospective ; that every spiritual and 
 eternal blessing was promised to them which is 
 promised to the spiritual seed, and a thousand-fold 
 more, if you will. All this I wilHngly concede in 
 our present inquiry ; but I insist that it is wholly 
 irrelevant. All that I assert is, what you have 
 already laid down as unquestionably true (§§ 21, 
 23, 36, 41), that, under the old dispensation, car- 
 nal descent from Abraham made one a member of 
 the church, and carnal birth brought him into the 
 church ; but that now a carnal descent from Abra- 
 ham, or from any other person, cannot bring a child 
 into the church; — that " those who are born of the 
 flesh, whoever may be their progenitors, are not 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 39 
 
 the spiritual seed of Abraham, and cannot enter 
 into the kingdom of God, or church, without a 
 regeneration and another birth, which is a spiritual 
 birth, or being " born of the Spirit " (§ 41). From 
 this it follows, as a necessary consequence, that 
 " those persons, and none other, who have been 
 regenerated and born anew, stand toward the Chris- 
 tian church in the relation of membership by the 
 fact of birth" (§ 89). This does not conflict with 
 the doctrine, that in days of yore, when persons 
 occupied that relation by reason of mere carnal 
 birth, they had a promise of the same blessings 
 which are now offered to persons who attain to that 
 relation by a spiritual birth. This may be true or 
 false ; but it is aside from our present inquiry. 
 
 § 93. We may not find a more suitable time to 
 complete the parallel between the carnal seed of the 
 Levitical and the spiritual seed of the evangelical 
 dispensation, by disposing of our fourth and fifth 
 questions. The fourth is, " In what relations did 
 Israeli tish children stand toward their parents ? " 
 (§ 80.) Not in what relation^ but in what rela- 
 tions? For you will perceive that they occupied 
 two relations, — first, as having been brought into 
 the world by those parents, which we may call their 
 carnal relation to their parents : secondly, as having 
 been brought by those parents into the house of 
 Israel, the kingdom or church of God ; and this we 
 may call their ecclesiastical relation to their parents. 
 
40 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 They stood toward their parents, in the carnal rela- 
 tion, as members of the human family ; in the 
 ecclesiastical relation, as members of the Israeli tish 
 family, or church of God. The next question is 
 (§ 80), " Toward what persons do the proper sub- 
 jects of baptism stand in similar relations ? " And, 
 firstly, toward what persons do they stand in the 
 carnal relation of child to parent ? 
 
 § 94. Mr. C. Of course, toward the father and 
 mother by whom they came into the world, — by 
 whom they became human beings, — by whom they 
 became flesh. 
 
 § 95. Mr. B. Yery true. Then, secondly, toward 
 what persons do the proper subjects of baptism stand 
 in the ecclesiastic.al relation of child to parent ? 
 
 § 96. Mr. A. Yery obviously, toward those per- 
 sons by whom they were brought into the church, 
 the spiritual house of Israel, the kingdom of God. 
 These may be called their spiritual, and the former 
 their carnal or natural parents. And here I per- 
 ceive the original of the institution of sponsors. 
 The terms "godfather" and " godmother" are given 
 because they promise before God that they will be 
 as spiritual parents to the infant, being such at his 
 initiation into the church. They are parents to the 
 children in what concerns their duty to God, their 
 best interest, their spiritual life. As he that showed 
 mercy on the man who fell among thieves, though 
 a stranger, was truly his neighbor ; so in the eye of 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 41 
 
 faith, and in wliat concerns religion, tliey are fathers 
 and mothers, though of no worldly kindred, who 
 bring infants to Christ, bring them np in his nur- 
 ture, and are instrumental in making them the sons 
 of God, and joint-heirs with their Saviour of an 
 everlasting inheritance. 
 
 § 97. Mr. B. I agree with you as to the origin 
 of the institution of sponsors, but will presently 
 attempt to show that it is a most unworthy scion of 
 such a noble stock. The ecclesiastical or spiritual 
 parent, as you say, is the person by whom the spirit- 
 ual child of Abraham is brought into the spiritual 
 house of Israel ; in other words, by whose instru- 
 mentality he becomes one of the spiritual seed of 
 Abraham. In the Israelitish church, as we have 
 seen, the same individuals who brought the child 
 into the world brought him also into the church, 
 and hence were both his natural and ecclesiastical 
 parents. And, in the Christian church, a person 
 may unite the characters of natural and ecclesiasti- 
 cal parent ; and it is to be regretted that it is not 
 more frequently the case. The reason is, that two 
 separate births are necessary, — the first carnal, to 
 bring the person into the world ; the second spirit- 
 ual, to bring him into the kingdom of God, — to 
 make him one of the seed of Abraham, one of the 
 children of God ; and parents are too frequently 
 neglectful of that religious training and instruction 
 by which the latter result may be effected. 
 
 4* 
 
42 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 98. Mr. C. The distinction is very correct. 
 It is a necessary consequence of the fact, that, in 
 the covenant with Abraham, God promised him two 
 kinds of seed, — the one by natural descent, and 
 the other by faith ; and we find it constantly recog- 
 nized in the epistles of the apostles. Thus, by reck- 
 oning Caius in the number of his children (^ema 
 tecnci), St. John means to tell us that Caius was 
 converted by him.^ For the same reason, I suppose, 
 St. Peter calls Mark his son ; ^ so that he was his 
 son according to the spirit, and not according to the 
 flesh. And St. Paul calls Timothy his son, because 
 he had converted him, and thereby conveyed to him 
 a new nature.^ He applies the same phraseology to 
 Titus ; and to Onesimus, whom he had begotten in 
 his bonds. ^ Also, in his Epistle to the Galatians,^ 
 " my little children " (tecnia moii) is an expression 
 of the tenderest affection ; but, as coming from St. 
 Paul, it likewise insinuates that he had been instru- 
 mental in their conversion. He tells the Christians 
 at Corinth, that, though they had ten thousand in- 
 structors in the Christian doctrine, yet they had not 
 many fathers ; for he was their only spiritual father, 
 having begotten them through the gospel.^ In those 
 days, the unbelieving Jews (and some even among 
 the believing Jews) thought themselves the children 
 
 1 3 John 4. 2 1 Pet. v. 13. 
 
 3 1 Cor. iv. 11. 1 Tim. i. 2. 2 Tim. i. 2. 
 
 4 Tit. i. 4. Philem. 10. 6 Gal. iv. 19. 
 6 1 Cor. iv. 15 ; and see 2 Cor. xii. 14. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 43 
 
 of God, because tliej were descended from Abraham 
 by Isaac, and possessed the knowledge of the true 
 God ; but the Apostle John assured both, that, God 
 having attested Jesus to be the Christ, the only 
 thing under the gospel dispensation which made 
 men his children, was their believing on Jesus as 
 the Christ, or Son of God, and their loving the 
 children of God.^ 
 
 § 99. Mr. B. You have well remarked, that God 
 promised Abraham two kinds of seed, — the one by 
 natural descent, and the other by faith. The former 
 constituted the church under the old dispensation : 
 the latter constitute it under the new. It is impos- 
 sible for one to be of the seed which is by natural 
 descent, if he be not really of the lineage of Abra- 
 ham ; and it is equally impossible for one to be of 
 the seed which is by faith, if he be not actually a be- 
 liever. This, indeed, you distinctly assert when you 
 say, that, " under the gospel dispensation, the only 
 thing which makes men God's children is their be- 
 lieving on Jesus as the Son of God, and their loving 
 the children of God." Of these things no carnal 
 infant is capable. But I anticipate. 
 
 § 100. The apostles, or any other persons who 
 had effected the conversion of Christians, stood 
 toward those Christians " in the faith," or " in 
 Christ" (that is to say, in the church), in the same 
 relation in which the Israelites stood in the church 
 
 1 1 John V. 2. 
 
44 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 toward their infant children. This was a familiar 
 idea with the primitive Christians, as we see from 
 the writings of the apostles ; and I agree with Mr. A., 
 that this is the origin of god-parents in the churches 
 of Rome and England ; a usage which they derive, 
 not from Christ, but from Pope Hyginus, whose 
 pontificate commenced about A.D. 138. They have 
 here preserved something of consistency even in 
 their errors ; for they bear in mind that birth im- 
 plies, not only a person born, but parents also. The 
 apostles and evangelists were styled fathers of those 
 whom they had " begotten through the gospel," 
 — whom they had been instrumental in converting 
 to Christ ; and, in vain and feeble imitation of this 
 holy relation, we find persons assuming the name of 
 spiritual fathers and mothers of infants, not because 
 they have begotten them through the gospel, or 
 travailed in birth till Christ were formed in them ^ 
 (for the infants are unconverted, nay, incapable of 
 conversion), but because they were present at the 
 christening, and went through a form of words ! 
 When the infants attain an age at which they are 
 capable of being " begotten through the gospel," 
 their putative fathers and mothers in Christ may be 
 in some far-distant place, where they cannot conduce 
 to the religious education of the children, or they 
 may be in their graves ; and, spite of the appoint- 
 ment of godfathers and godmothers, the true spirit- 
 
 1 1 Cor. iv. 15. Gal. iv. 19. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 45 
 
 ual parents of a child are those who in after-life 
 become instrumental in effecting his conversion to 
 Christ. But let us return from this digression, and 
 form another argument from the conclusions already 
 reached. 
 
 § 101. Mr. A, This may be done syllogistically, 
 thus : Those persons are proper subjects of baptism 
 who stand toward the Christian church in the rela- 
 tion of membership by the fact of birth (§ 86). 
 Those persons who have been regenerated, and born 
 anew, stand toward the Christian church in that 
 relation (§ 89). Therefore, — 
 
 § 102. Those persons who have been regenerated, 
 and born anew, are proper subjects of baptism. 
 
 § 103. Mr. B. You very properly omitted the 
 words " and none other " from the minor and con- 
 clusion of the syllogism, since they are not in the 
 major proposition. 
 
 § 104. Mr. C. And the syllogism, after all, 
 proves nothing but what we knew before we com- 
 menced the investigation, — that those who are born 
 again through faith in the gospel are entitled to 
 baptism. Here we are all agreed. We hold to be- 
 lievers' baptism as much as you, and so expressly 
 stated at the outset (§ 53) ; but the question in 
 dispute is in regard to infants. Is infant-baptism 
 wrong because believers' baptism is right ? No 
 more, I insist, than believers' baptism must be 
 wrong if infant-baptism be right. 
 
46 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 105. Mr. B. All that I admit. I am not 
 attempting to strain our last conclusion beyond its 
 true import. It is nothing more than we all knew 
 before ; yet it has an important bearing in our pre- 
 sent inquiry. We started out with the design of 
 establishing, by the analogy derived from the rite 
 of circumcision, that infants are proper subjects of 
 baptism (§§ 12-14) ; yet a fair course of syllogistic 
 reasoning from that point has not, thus far, been 
 sufficient to evolve more than the proposition, that 
 regenerate persons are proper subjects of baptism. 
 Notwithstanding the truth of this proposition, it may 
 also be true that infants are proper subjects. All 
 that I insist on at present is that the argument has 
 entirely failed to establish the proposition, that in- 
 fants are proper subjects of baptism ; which propo- 
 sition it was designed to establish. 
 
 § 106. Mr. A. You say rightly, that the conclu- 
 sion we have reached, by no means settles that 
 infants are not proper subjects of baptism : for the 
 question is still open on the analogies to be drawn 
 from the other subjects of circumcision ; and, if nei- 
 ther of these will avail us, then the question remains, 
 whether infants may not be regenerate persons. 
 
 § 107. Mr. C. Well, then, let us test this argu- 
 ment as our first argument was tested (§§ 65-67), 
 and see if we cannot reduce it to the same absurdity. 
 " A servant whom an Israelite bought of a stranger 
 must needs be circumcised" (§ 28). Does not the 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 47 
 
 analogy which we are to follow require that a ser- 
 vant bought by a Christian shall be in like manner 
 baptized ? Does not our train of argument lead to 
 this ? 
 
 § 108. 3Ir. B. Very clearly so, if, firstly, there 
 be persons standing in the same relation, not to their 
 masters, but to the Christian church, in which those 
 servants stood, not toward their masters, but toward 
 the Israelitish church ; and if, secondly, there be no 
 prohibition, either direct or inferential. But, in the 
 first place, there are no persons occupying a similar 
 relation toward the Christian church. Here I might 
 quote the remarks of Mr. C, to the effect, that, 
 when the church of God was a distinct state of the 
 earth, bond-servants, as such, constituted a portion 
 of the subjects of that state, — a distinct class, yet 
 not the less subjects ; but that now " the bond-ser- 
 vant is the Lord's freeman," and is to be baptized 
 upon the profession of his own faith and obedience 
 (§ 53). The gospel does not interfere with the 
 relations of master and servant as they may chance 
 to exist in civil society ; for Paul says, " Art thou 
 called, being a servant ? care not for it." He sent 
 back Onesimus, a fugitive slave, to his master Phi- 
 lemon. He and other apostles enjoin diligence 
 and obedience upon servants in several epistles, and 
 treat as often of the duties of masters, without once 
 urging them to liberate their servants, or intimating 
 that it was sinful to keep them in bondage ; yet, in 
 
48 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 the church itself, the relation of master and servant 
 is abrogated. In the world, the servant is servant 
 still ; but in the church, if he be regenerate, he is 
 "above a servant, — a brother beloved:"^ for in 
 Christ " there is neither bond nor free." ^ Then our 
 argument, if applied to servants, must fail, because 
 we can find nothing in the Christian church analo- 
 gous to their position in the Israelitish church. 
 
 § 109. In the second place, there is an express 
 prohibition of their entering the church as servants, 
 or by reason of their being bought with money. 
 You hold that baptism is an ordinance of the church, 
 not existing out of the church. Then it can be pro- 
 perly applied only to those over whom the church 
 has acquired jurisdiction, — who have come within 
 the church itself by some means. That a servant 
 cannot enter into the church merely by being bought 
 into a Christian family is declared by one of your 
 preliminary truths : " Those who are born of the flesh 
 cannot enter into the church, without a regeneration 
 and another birth, which is being born of the Spirit" 
 (§ 41). It is declared by the Lord from heaven, 
 when he says, " Except a man be born again, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God."^ Not 
 being within the jurisdiction of the church without 
 regeneration, the servant cannot be baptized; but 
 if you hold that baptism is an initiatory rite, by 
 means of which the servant is brought into the 
 
 1 Philem. 16. 2 Qal. iii. 28. 3 John iii. 3, 5. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 49 
 
 church, then he enters without being " born of 
 water and the Spirit," by being born of water alone. 
 If he become regenerate, he is within the body and 
 jurisdiction of the church, because he is bought, 
 not with the master's money, but with the precious 
 blood of Jesus Christ. He comes to baptism in 
 right, not of pecuniary purchase, but of spiritual 
 birth; not as a servant, but "above a servant, — 
 even a brother beloved." Just so the infant of a 
 Christian cannot come into the church by his carnal 
 birth, but must be born again. I will here remark, 
 that, even if you should reduce our argument to an 
 absurdity, you will not thereby advance the cause 
 of infant-baptism, but only show that the process by 
 which we have reached the conclusion, that regene- 
 rate persons are proper subjects of baptism, is falla- 
 cious. But the effort at the reductio ad absurdum 
 is not successful. 
 
 § 110. Mr. C. The other analogy is not so easily 
 disposed of. The distinction of youth and age i& 
 not abolished in the church. While the apostle says- 
 that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, male* 
 nor female, bond nor free, he does not say there is 
 neither old nor young. Now, not only the infant 
 Israelites were circumcised, but also any sojourner 
 wishing to keep the passover was required to be- 
 circumcised, with all his males (§ 26). Will not 
 the course of argument we have followed prove, 
 that, when any stranger to the church of Christ 
 
 5 
 
50 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 wishes to partake of the Lord's supper, he must be 
 baptized, with all his males, — or, rather, with all 
 his children, since in Christ " there is neither male 
 nor female " ? 
 
 § 111. Mr. B. I reply, as in the other case, that 
 our argument leads inevitably to that conclusion, 
 if, firstly, there be persons standing in the same 
 relation, not to their parents, but to the Christian 
 church, which those children occupied, not toward 
 their parents, but toward the Israelitish church ; 
 and if, secondly, there be no prohibition, either 
 express or inferential. Let us first assume that 
 such relation does exist, and that there is no prohi- 
 bition. Then the children of converts, born previous 
 to the conversion of the parents, are entitled to bap- 
 tism ; but this is no warrant for the baptism of any 
 children whose parents are believers at the time of 
 their birth. This argument for baptizing the chil- 
 dren of Christian proselytes, to the exclusion of the 
 children of believers, might be plausibly strength- 
 ened by the exam^Dles of household-baptisms which 
 are usually adduced in support of infant-baptism. 
 Let it be admitted that infants were baptized with 
 Lydia, with the jailer, and with Stephanas ; yet it 
 might be insisted, that, as all these were new con- 
 verts, these examples confirm the right of the chil- 
 dren of new converts to be baptized ; while the 
 absence of a single recorded instance in which in- 
 fants, born subsequently to the conversion and bap- 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 51 
 
 tism of the parents, were baptized, is prima, facie 
 evidence that such infants were not entitled to bap- 
 tism ; and this prima facie evidence is corroborated 
 and confirmed by the positive evidence which we 
 have examined, that the infants of believers do not 
 occupy a position analogous to that of the infant 
 Israelites. Some actually hold this doctrine, or 
 something near akin to it. Certain it is, that the 
 children born to believing parents bear no analogy 
 to servants, none to the children of proselytes, nor to 
 any persons in the Old-Testament church, unless it 
 be the infants of the Israelites ; and here, as we have 
 seen, the analogy is not real (§§ 88-96). So the case 
 of the infants of proselytes proves nothing in favor of 
 the baptism of any infants, unless it be the infants 
 of Christian proselytes. 
 
 § 112. Secondly, then, let us see whether there 
 be indeed in the Christian church any persons oc- 
 cupying the same relation to that church in which 
 the children of proselytes stood toward the Israel- 
 itish church. Those children entered the church, 
 not by the fact of birth, but by the fact of the con- 
 version of their carnal parents to the Hebrew faith. 
 Then are there in the Christian church any persons 
 who have entered it, not by the fact of spiritual 
 birth, but by the fact of the conversion of their 
 carnal or of their spiritual parents ? There are not, 
 and cannot be, such persons ; because, — 
 
 § 113. Thirdly, they are expressly prohibited 
 
52 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 from entering the church by any means other than 
 spiritual birth (§ 41). A convert cannot bring his 
 children into the church because he is born again ; 
 for the regeneration must be their own. They 
 cannot be initiated into the church, without regene- 
 ration and new birth ; for that would be to annul 
 the express prohibition pronounced by the Saviour, 
 when he said, so positively and solemnly, " Verily, 
 verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born again, 
 he cannot see the kingdom of God ; " " Except a man 
 be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into 
 the kingdom of God." ^ Here he expressly prohibits 
 any one to enter his kingdom, expressly declares it 
 impossible for any one to enter therein, not only as 
 a servant, or as a child of a proselyte, or as a child 
 of professing Christians, but in any other right, or 
 by any other method, than that of being born anew. 
 All this is fully recognized and affirmed in the 
 remarks which you both made concerning the dis- 
 course with Nicodemus, and which led to the adop- 
 tion of some of our points of agreement (§§ 38, 39, 
 43, 44). One of those agreed points declares the 
 same thing : " Those who are born of the flesh, who- 
 ever may be their progenitors, cannot enter into the 
 kingdom of God, or church, without another birth, 
 which is a spiritual birth " (§ 41). As this spirit- 
 ual birth is the only means of entering the church, 
 and becoming subject to its jurisdiction, it is the 
 
 1 John iii. 3, 5. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. . 53 
 
 only means by which one can become entitled to 
 receive any ordinance within the church. Hence 
 none are entitled to baptism but those who have 
 been regenerated and born anew, and thus stand 
 toward the Christian church in the relation of mem- 
 bership by the fact of birth. Then we are author- 
 ized to insert the words " and none other " in the 
 major proposition of our last argument (§§ 101, 
 102), which will stand thus : — 
 
 § 114. Those persons, and none other, are proper 
 subjects of baptism, who stand toward the Chris- 
 tian church in the relation of membership by the 
 fact of birth. This addition must be also carried 
 into the conclusion of that argument. 
 
 § 115. Mr. A. The syllogism will stand thus : 
 Those persons, and none other, are proper subjects 
 of baptism, who stand toward the Christian church 
 in the relation of membership by the fact of birth 
 (§ 114). Those persons, and none other, who have 
 been regenerated and born again, stand toward the 
 Christian church in the relation of membership by 
 the fact of birth (§ 89) ; therefore, — 
 
 § 116. Those persons, and none other, who have 
 been regenerated and born again, are proper subjects 
 of baptism. 
 
 § 117. Thus our inquiry is reduced to the single 
 point of baptismal regeneration. If you be right 
 on that point, the argument is complete, and anti- 
 pedobaptism may march under it as a triumphal 
 
 5* 
 
64 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 arch ; but, if I be right, the strong arch of argument 
 must fall to the ground for want of its key-stone. 
 
 § 118. Mr. B. Before considering the subject 
 of baptismal regeneration, let us briefly review the 
 analogy which we have followed, and see how far 
 the position we have reached by syllogisms is sup- 
 ported by the teachings of Christ and his apostles. 
 Firstly, the church now consists of the spiritual 
 descendants of Abraham, and not, as formerly, of 
 his carnal descendants. John the Baptist hinted at 
 this change, when he said to the Pharisees and Sad- 
 ducees, "Think not to say within yourselves. We 
 have Abraham to our father ; for I say unto you, 
 that God is able of these stones to raise up children 
 unto Abraham." ^ It was more plainly alluded to 
 by our Saviour, when he said to the chief priests and 
 -elders, " The kingdom of God shall be taken from 
 you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
 thereof." 2 When the Jews said, "Abraham is our 
 father," Jesus replied, " If ye were Abraham's chil- 
 dren, ye would do the works of Abraham." ^ And 
 to Nicodemus he said, " That which is born of the 
 flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is 
 spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee. Ye must 
 be born again." * So also Paul says, " They are not 
 all Israel who are of Israel ; neither because they 
 are the seed of Abraham are they all children. 
 
 1 Matt. iii. 9. • 3 John viii. 39, 44. 
 
 2 Matt. xxi. 43. 4 John iii. 6, 7. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 55 
 
 They who are the children of the flesh, these are 
 not the children of God ; but the children of the 
 promise are counted for the seed."^ And to the 
 Christians of Galatia he says, " Now we, brethren, 
 as Isaac was, are the children of promise." ^ Again 
 he says, " He is not a Jew who is one outwardly ; 
 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly." ^ And 
 again, " There is neither Jew nor Greek ; for ye 
 are all one in Christ Jesus. And, if ye be Christ's, 
 then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to 
 the promise." * 
 
 § 119. Mr. A. Undoubtedly it is important to 
 keep this distinction always in view, when we con- 
 sider the Jews with reference to the Christian 
 church. In general, if the various terms used in 
 Scripture concerning Israel as a nation be in the 
 same or nearly the same sense applied to Christians 
 under the New Testament, where is the type, and 
 where the antitype ? Where is " the true Israel," 
 as distinguished from " Israel after the flesh " ? and 
 where are we to learn either the character, privi- 
 leges, or duties, of true believers ? But I interrupt 
 you. Proceed with your parallel. 
 
 § 120. Mr. B. Secondly, when the church con- 
 sisted of the carnal descendants of Abraham, they 
 became such, of course, by carnal birth ; but, since 
 it has been transferred to the spiritual seed of Abra- 
 
 1 Kom. ix. 6-8. 3 Rom. ii. 28, 29. 
 
 2 Gal. iv. 28. 4 Qal. iii. 28, 29. 
 
56 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 ham, all who come into existence by carnal birth 
 must be born again, — a spiritual birth, — or they 
 cannot become true descendants of Abraham, nor 
 enter into the true church. Thus Jesus says, " Ex- 
 cept a man be born again, he cannot enter into the 
 kingdom of God." ^ Consider to whom he addressed 
 this remark, — to Nicodemus, of the seed of Abraham 
 according to the flesh, a Pharisee, a ruler of the Jews, 
 a master or teacher of Israel, and believing himself 
 assuredly already in the church or kingdom of God ; 
 yea, that he was born into it. But Jesus announced 
 that the new dispensation was at hand ; under which, 
 being born of the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob — how much more being born of any other 
 lineage ! — will not bring one into the kingdom of 
 God ; that even " an Hebrew of the Hebrews " — 
 how much more a Gentile ! — "must be born again," 
 " born of water and the Spirit," or " he cannot enter 
 into the kingdom of God." So John tells us, that, 
 to as many as received the word, " he gave power 
 to become the sons of God ; who were born, not of 
 blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will 
 of man, but of God." ^ And Peter speaks to the 
 same effect.^ 
 
 § 121. Mr. C. The language of Peter may be 
 paraphrased thus : Having been regenerated, not 
 by " corruptible seed," not by virtue of descent from 
 human parents, " but by incorruptible ; " not laying 
 
 1 John iii. 3, 5. 2 John i. 12, 13. 3 i Pet. i. 23. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 57 
 
 the stress of your confidence on your pedigree from 
 Abraham, if you had the honor to descend from that 
 illustrious patriarch ; for that descent could not 
 entitle you to the important blessings of the gospel. 
 It is by means of the efficiency of the '' word of 
 God " upon your hearts, even that powerful word 
 " which lives and endures for ever," that you are be- 
 come entitled to these glorious evangelical privileges. 
 
 § 122. Mr, B. Thirdly, we have seen that the 
 spiritual children have their spiritual parents in 
 the spiritual church, as formerly the carnal chil- 
 dren had their carnal parents in the carnal church 
 (§§ 93-98). I will not repeat the texts quoted by 
 Mr. C. (§ 98). 
 
 § 123. Fourthly, the spiritual parents are sup- 
 plied with the means by which they may bring spi- 
 ritual children into the spiritual church. They may 
 beget them " through the gospel," as Paul begot 
 the Corinthians." ^ In the parable of the sower, 
 Jesus said, " The seed is the word of God ; " ^ and 
 though he then spoke of vegetable generation, yet 
 the analogy holds good. Again : James says of 
 Christians, that God begat them '' with the word 
 of truth ; " ^ and Peter speaks of them as " being 
 born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incor- 
 ruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and 
 abideth for ever." * 
 
 1 1 Cor. iv. 15. 3 James i. 18. 
 
 2 Luke viii. 11. 4 i Pet. i. 23. 
 
58 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 124. Mr. A. In the fifth place, I would remind 
 you of a practice, noticed in the Old Testament, at 
 the birth of an infant, which is common to the 
 humbling circumstances in which all human beings 
 are brought into the world, and which will farther 
 illustrate baptism. In Ezekiel, the commencement 
 of the Jewish nation is compared to the birth of an 
 infant ; and the Lord is represented as saying, 
 " Then washed I thee with water ; yea, I thorough- 
 ly washed away thy blood from thee." ^ We may 
 hence gather the designed analogy of Christian bap- 
 tism. From the absolute bodily wants of a new-born 
 babe, we are taught the spiritual wants of the soul ; 
 from that which the new-born babe requires to be 
 done for its preservation and health, we are led 
 onward by baptism to consider what blessings are 
 requisite for the soul at its spiritual birth, for its 
 preservation and health. Thus the Christian father, 
 Jerome, remarks, that " as the bodies of infants, as 
 soon as they are born, need to be washed, so our 
 spiritual birth needs this salutary washing." 
 
 § 125. Mr. B. Your remarks are very just ; and 
 I was about to remark, that, fifthly, the spiritual 
 infants thus born of spiritual parents bear a strong 
 analogy to carnal infants. As the latter have need 
 to be washed so soon as born ; so, not before, but 
 after, the second birth, the spiritual infant needs 
 " the washing of regeneration : " "therefore Ananias 
 
 1 Ezek. xvi. 5, 9. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 69 
 
 said to Saul, " Arise, and be baptized, and wash 
 away thy sins." ^ Thus it seems that the spiritual 
 infants are not freed from the defilement of their 
 sins till they have manifested an humble and obe- 
 dient spirit, and made open profession of their faith, 
 by submitting to the command of Christ. And they 
 do not come from the spiritual birth full grown and 
 matured in strength, as Pallas is fabled to have 
 sprung from the brain of Jove ; but as the carnal 
 babe is physically weak, so the spiritual babe is 
 spiritually weak. As the carnal babe cannot use 
 strong meat, but must be nourished by milk ; so the 
 spiritual babes " have need of milk, and not of 
 strong meat : for every one," says Paul, " that useth 
 milk, is unskilful in the word of righteousness ; for 
 he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them 
 that are of full age ; even to those who, by reason of 
 use, have their senses exercised to discern both 
 good and evil." ^ And so Peter, after reminding 
 the Christians whom he addressed that they were 
 born again, of incorruptible seed, exhorts them 
 thus : " Wherefore, as new-born babes, desire the 
 sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow there- 
 by." ^ As the carnal infants grow and strengthen, 
 so do the spiritual infants " grow in grace, and in 
 the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ." * Though at first " weak in faith," they 
 
 1 Acts xxii. 16. 3 1 Pet. ii. 1, 2. 
 
 2 Heb. V. 12-14. * 2 Pet. iii. 18. 
 
60 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 come at last " unto a perfect man, — unto the mea- 
 sure of the stature of the fuhiess of Christ."^ They 
 are "no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried 
 about with every wind of doctrine," ^ but "stead- 
 fast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of 
 the Lord." This early weakness and gradual growth 
 are not sufficiently borne in mind in judging the 
 conduct of professors. * When a Christian falls into 
 some of those sins to which all persons are more or 
 less liable, so long as they remain in this mortal 
 state, it is generally considered as an aggravation, 
 rather than a mitigation, of the fault, that " he has 
 but recently professed religion." He is expected to 
 be strongest during the period of his spiritual in- 
 fancy. 
 
 § 126. Sixthly, the analogy may be applied to 
 the results of the two births. Birth placed the 
 carnal seed of Abraham in a certain relation to 
 the church : second birth places his spiritual seed 
 in the same relation now. By being born, those 
 carnal infants became little children ; by being born 
 again, the spiritual infants " become as little chil- 
 dren." Here it is not I, but the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 the Word of God, who points out the analogy ; and 
 this he has done so often and so plainly, it is won- 
 derful that any one should go astray. He says, 
 " Ye must be born again ; " " Except a man be 
 born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God ; " 
 
 1 Eph. iv. 13. 2 Eph. iv. 14. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 61 
 
 and, in explanation, " Except a man be born of 
 water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God." ^ On another occasion, he says, what 
 seems to be a paraphrase of these words, intended 
 to make his meaning still more plain, " Except ye 
 be converted, and become as little children, ye shall 
 not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ^ Again : 
 " Whosoever shall humble himself as this little 
 child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of 
 heaven." ^ And yet again : " Suffer little children 
 to come unto me ; for of such (toioutoTi) is the 
 kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you. Whoso- 
 ever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little 
 child shall in no wise enter therein ; " or, as the 
 same passage is rendered in Prof. Murdock's trans- 
 lation of the Syriac Testament, '' Suffer little chil- 
 dren to come to me ; for of those that are like them, 
 of such is the kingdom of heaven. Yerily I say to 
 you, that he who shall not receive the kingdom of 
 God as a little child will not enter it." * 
 
 § 127. Seventhly, if baptism be substituted for 
 circumcision, it is not a mere out-of-doors matter, 
 but is a rite within the church, — a sign which 
 designates the seed of Abraham. On this assump- 
 tion, all the passages which I have quoted show that 
 no one should receive baptism till he has been born 
 again. We have seen that John and Peter speak of 
 
 1 John iii. 3, 5, 7. 2 Matt, xviii. 3. 8 Matt, xviii. 4. 
 
 * Luke xviii. 16, 17. See also Mark x. 14, 15. Matt. xix. 14. 
 
 6 
 
62 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 all Christians as being " born again ; " that Paul 
 speaks of all Christians as " Abraham's seed ; " that 
 Jesus declares, that except one be born again, of the 
 Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God, — 
 that he must receive it " as a little child," or he 
 " shall in no wise enter therein." This, in connec- 
 tion with the idea that baptism is now what circum- 
 cision was formerly, fully confirms our conclusion, 
 which we reached by a logical process from our 
 premises : " Those persons, and none other, who 
 have been regenerated and born again, are proper 
 subjects of baptism" (§ 116). They must first, by 
 a spiritual birth, become the " seed of Abraham," 
 as Jewish children did formerly by a carnal birth. 
 Having become Abraham's seed, they must be out- 
 wardly designated as such by baptism, as formerly 
 by circumcision ; for Abraham's spiritual seed are 
 not entered into the visible church without baptism. 
 They must " be born of water and the Spirit." 
 Thus, without baptism, the spiritual child of Abra- 
 ham will be " cut off from his people," deprived of 
 all church-privileges, as formerly the carnal seed 
 were cut off if they were not circumcised.^ 
 
 § 128. Mr. A. I agree with you here, and think 
 that Mr. C. erred in saying that the children of 
 believers are members of the church in virtue 
 of their birth (§§ 83, 87). It is certain that all 
 men are conceived and born in sin ; that what is 
 
 1 Gen. xvii. 14. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 63 
 
 born of the flesh is flesh ; that they who are in the 
 flesh cannot please God ; and that none can enter 
 into the kingdom of God, except he be regenerate 
 and born anew, of water and the Holy Ghost. 
 What then ? Shall the child be excluded from 
 baptism because he was not born in the church ? 
 By no means ; for baptism is the child's spiritual 
 birth into the church of Christ. 
 
 § 129. Mr. C. I do not suppose that the ordi- 
 nance, whenever legitimately administered, is neces- 
 sarily accompanied with any physical or moral 
 influence upon him who receives it. Yet a gra- 
 cious God may, even at the moment in which the 
 ordinance is administered, accompany the outward 
 emblem with the blessing which it represents, — even 
 " the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the 
 Holy Spirit." This indeed may not be, and most 
 commonly, so far as we can judge, is not, the case. 
 
 § 130. Mr. B. Whether, by saying that God 
 " may accompany the outward emblem with the 
 blessing which it represents," you mean to assert 
 his power, or our want of positive knowledge on 
 the subject, I agree with you. This may be ; for 
 all things are possible with God. He has power to 
 endow an infant, at the moment of birth, with all 
 the faculties of the most mature intellect, and all the 
 learning of the ripest scholar. Yet, should we hear 
 of some work of deep erudition purporting to have 
 been written by a little babe, we would not hesitate 
 
64 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 to pronounce it incredible, impossible ; meaning that 
 it is impossible, as God has been pleased to regulate 
 the intellect of man. On the other hand, our finite 
 reason may be in error as to the whole matter wliich 
 we are considering ; and things may be which to 
 us seem quite impossible. But, in regard to our 
 opinions and actions, we must be guided, not by 
 possibilities, but by certainties, so far as we can 
 attain them ; and by probabilities, when certainties 
 cannot be had. 
 
 § 131. Mr. C. No one should be satisfied with 
 a faith which rests on mere probability, no matter 
 how high its degree. If infant-baptism be not taught 
 in the Scriptures, there can be no reason for con- 
 tinuing the ordinance. 
 
 § 132. Mr. B. Certainly we must not assume, 
 that, because God may do a thing, therefore he does 
 that thing, and, on that bare assumption, found our 
 conduct in momentous things. We must not as- 
 sume, that, because he may, therefore he does, con- 
 fer " an inward and spiritual grace," and for this 
 only reason, without a spark of evidence, proceed 
 to confer an " outward and visible sign " of that 
 grace ; especially when it is acknowledged, that 
 " most commonly, so far as we can judge," God 
 does not " accompany the outward emblem with 
 the blessing which it represents," and more espe- 
 cially when we cannot assort so much as a proba- 
 bility that it is ever otherwise. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 65 
 
 § 133. Mr. A. It is very true, that we must look 
 at man as God has created him, in considering the 
 question now before us. But is not an infant as 
 capable of receiving spiritual blessing now as eigh- 
 teen and a half centuries ago ? John the Baptist 
 received the Holy Ghost at his birth, and was there- 
 fore born again, — was a child of God, a new crea- 
 ture, an heir of God, sanctified by the Spirit, and 
 prepared for the kingdom of God ; for it is said, 
 ^' He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from 
 his mother's womb." ^ 
 
 § 134. 3Ir. B. Which Watson, the great Metho- 
 dist theologian, explains as meaning, not that he 
 was born of the Spirit, but that " he was placed 
 under the spiritual influence and training of the 
 Holy Ghost, for his great office, from the earliest 
 period of life."^ It is very certain that being filled 
 with the Holy Ghost is far different from being born 
 of the Spirit. The former was a favor bestowed 
 upon comparatively few ; while all true Christians 
 enjoy the latter. The former conferred miraculous 
 powers ; ^ while the latter does not. The latter is a 
 means of entrance into the kingdom of God, as 
 reformed by the Messiah : therefore, if John was 
 born again " from his mother's womb," he was in 
 that spiritual church or kingdom. But he was not 
 in it ; for Jesus said, " Among them that are born 
 of women, there hath not risen a greater than John 
 
 1 Luke i. 15. 2 Watson's Exposition, Luke i. 15. s Acts ii. 4. 
 6* 
 
QQ THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 the Baptist : notwithstanding, he that is least in the 
 kingdom of heaven is greater than he." ^ Beside, 
 we know that John died before the new dispensation 
 commenced. Yet I am willing to concede that 
 John was born of the Spirit in his infancy. We 
 must bear in mind, however, that he was selected 
 and marked ont by the Lord for a special purpose. 
 
 § 135. Mr. C. It is true that John was an ex- 
 traordinary character. He was to be great in the 
 sight of the Lord : he was a prophet; yea, and more 
 than a prophet. But it is also true that he was no 
 more than a man, of the fallen race of Adam, and 
 by nature no better than others ; and in him- the fact 
 is established, that an infant may receive the Holy 
 Ghost. 
 
 § 136. Mr. B. It is certainly an instance in 
 which God was pleased to exercise the power of 
 filling an infant with the Holy Ghost, — a power 
 which I have already admitted that he possesses 
 (§ 130) ; but we cannot thence infer that all chil- 
 dren, or that any other children, are thus spiritually 
 blessed. I admit that children " are as capable of 
 receiving spiritual blessing " now as tlien (§ 133) ; 
 and so is water as capable of being converted into 
 wine, if the same almiglity Word should be pleased 
 thus again to manifest his power. Yet we must not 
 thence infer that such transubstantiation is of fre- 
 quent occurrence, nor even that it ever happens in 
 
 1 Matt. xi. 11. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 67 
 
 our days. If it were so, we would cease to regard 
 it as wonderful, or as an evidence of the divinity 
 of Jesus. And thus the case of John the Baptist 
 affords no argument for your cause, but rather 
 against it : for every thing connected with the con- 
 ception and birth of this great forerunner of Christ 
 was miraculous ; and this peculiarity of being filled 
 with the Holy Ghost at such an early period of life 
 would scarcely have been mentioned among the 
 wonders of his youth, if it had been a thing which 
 frequently happens to children. It was evidently 
 promised as something unusual, remarkable, marvel- 
 lous, miraculous, — the very crowning miracle of all. 
 § 137. Mr. A. It is nowhere determined at what 
 time of life, or under what circumstances, the gift 
 of the Spirit is imparted ; nay, the contrary is inti- 
 mated, by comparing it to the blowing of the wind, 
 which, in its mode of action, is out of the reach of 
 our rules and calculations : " The wind bloweth 
 where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound there- 
 of, but canst not tell whence it cometh, or whither it 
 goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit."^ 
 Who can pretend accurately to draw the line, or 
 assert the period it first becomes possible for the 
 Spirit of God to be stamped upon an immortal soul ? 
 Who can declare the manner in which the Father of 
 spirits acts upon our spirits, or the rules by which 
 he is guided ? 
 
 1 John iii. 8. 
 
68 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 138. Mr. B. Who can, indeed ? And there- 
 fore who shall dare pronounce that the Father of 
 spirits, in any given instance, has been pleased to 
 regenerate an unconscious infant, and, on that pre- 
 sumption, give it the water-birth, the sign of the 
 spiritual birth ? It is strange to plead our unavoid- 
 able ignorance as a reason for acting as though we 
 had that very knowledge which you say we cannot 
 possibly have ; to assume that the Spirit of God is 
 stamped upon the soul of an infant, for the sole 
 reason that we cannot pretend to know when, in the 
 usual economy of God, it first becomes possible for 
 it to be so stamped ! And your citation proves 
 nothing as to infancy, youth, or age ; but only that 
 the Spirit of God, like the kingdom of God, " cometh 
 not with observation."^ Indeed, I might urge that 
 your quotation is more in my favor than against 
 me ; for though we cannot tell of the wind " whence 
 it cometh, or whither it goeth," yet, as Jesus says, 
 " thou hearest the sound thereof." We have evi- 
 dence that it is blowing ; its effects are obvious to 
 the senses ; for we see the leaves shaken by the 
 zephyr, hear the gale rushing through the forest, 
 and feel it fan our cheeks. In commenting on this 
 passage, the great John Wesley, the learned Adam 
 Clark, Archbishop Tillotson, Dr. Whitby, Beausobre, 
 and, I believe, all other giossographers, concur in 
 explaining it to express, that, as the wind itself is 
 
 1 Luke xvii. 20. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 69 
 
 imperceptible to the sight, while its effects are ob- 
 vious ; so, though the Holy Spirit and his operations 
 cannot be perceived, yet the effects of his opera- 
 tions are clearly discernible. Then, when one is 
 born of the Spirit, we will have evidence of the 
 Spirit's operation. And we must have evidence 
 that God has been pleased to bestow the blessing of 
 regeneration, before we give baptism, which you call 
 the sign of regeneration. We must have some as- 
 surance that the spiritual infant is born, before we 
 proceed to circumcise him with " the circumcision 
 of Christ." I do not say that we must know: the 
 Searcher of hearts alone can know in any case that 
 a soul is regenerate. We have Scripture warrant for 
 baptizing such as confess that they believe with all 
 the heart that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. 
 We must receive the profession of faith, though it 
 may be false. Yet, if the subject be insincere, it is 
 his own want of faith, and not another's, which inva- 
 lidates his baptism; and this is strictly just. When- 
 ever the Spirit shall manifest his presence and 
 regenerating power with an infant, I insist that such 
 infant should be baptized ; but not before. If we 
 assume, that, because God may regenerate an infant, 
 therefore he does regenerate the infants of believers, 
 why not assume the same of all other infants, since 
 his power extends equally to all ? And, if we as- 
 sume it of such infants as we wish to baptize, will 
 we not baptize thousands of unregenerate persons ? 
 
70 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 Can you deny tliat such is the actual result of your 
 practice ? 
 
 § 139. Mr. C. That baptism is not more gene- 
 rally connected with, or followed by, that spiritual 
 benefit of which it is a striking emblem, is indeed to 
 be lamented. I do not ascribe to this sacrament that 
 kind of inherent virtue of which some who bear the 
 Christian name have spoken and inferred so much. 
 I do not believe that baptism is regeneration, but 
 consider this a doctrine having no foundation in the 
 word of God, and eminently fitted to deceive and 
 destroy the soul. It may, without impropriety, be 
 said to be indigenous in the Roman-Catholic system ; 
 but, in the midst of the general principles of Pro- 
 testants, it ought to be regarded as a poisonous 
 exotic. The most objectionable form of the doctrine 
 is, that the spiritual change which the Scriptures 
 designate by the term " regeneration " is always 
 attendant upon, and effected by, the rite of baptism, 
 when duly administered. 
 
 § 140. Mr. B. I think that the doctrine, in all 
 its aspects, may be easily disposed of by ajoplying to 
 it the truths we have already agreed upon, or esta- 
 blished by syllogistic deductions from your own pre- 
 mises. Under the old dispensation, the church 
 consisted of the carnal descendants of Abraham, 
 who were brought into the church by carnal birth 
 (§§ 21, 23). Under the new dispensation, the 
 church consists of his spiritual descendants, who 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 71 
 
 are brought into it by a spiritual birth (§§ 36, 41). 
 Thus regeneration and spiritual birth are to the spi- 
 ritual descendants of Abraham what natural genera- 
 tion and carnal birth were to the carnal descendants. 
 The spiritual descendant is " begotten through the 
 gospel," and " born of the Spirit," " not of corrupti- 
 ble seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God " 
 (§§ 46-48). Keeping these truths in view, let it 
 now be assumed that baptism is an infant's spiritual 
 birth into the church (§ 128) ; in other words, that 
 baptism is the same thing as regeneration and the 
 new birth ; the recipient of baptism being regene- 
 rated and born anew in and by the act of baptism. 
 The following are the results : — 
 
 § 141. Firstly, baptism being the child's spiritual 
 birth, it is not regenerate and born anew until it be 
 baptized. Then it is not regenerate and born anew 
 when first presented for baptism : if not, it is not 
 a proper subject of baptism (§ 116). Then it must 
 be actually baptized in order to make it a suitable 
 person to be baptized. But, if it be not a proper 
 subject when presented, the minister has no autho- 
 rity to baptize it, though it would be regenerated 
 and born again in and by the act of baptism, and 
 thus become a proper subject. 
 
 § 142. Secondly, if an infant be baptized (that 
 is, regenerated and born anew), and afterward, when 
 it becomes capable of receiving instruction, be in- 
 structed in " the word of God" (which is the "incor 
 
72 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 niptible seed" through which it is begotten), such 
 infant, as to its spiritual nature, is first quickened 
 and born, and afterward begotten ; wliich is absurd. 
 
 § 143. Thirdly, judging the Old-Testament church 
 by the analogy thus furnished by the New-Testament 
 church, we must conclude that circumcision was the 
 infant's carnal birth into the church ; in other 
 words, that birth and circumcision were the same 
 thing, — that the infant was quicked and born in 
 and by the act of circumcision. This is untrue ; 
 for common sense tells us it could not be. The 
 command of God, and the history of the church, 
 teach that it was not so, but that circumcision did 
 not take place till eight days after the birth. 
 
 § 144. Fourthly, therefore, the analogy furnished 
 by the history of the Old-Testament church teaches 
 us that baptism cannot take place till after regene- 
 ration and the new birth. But baptism is regenera- 
 tion and the new birth ; therefore regeneration and 
 the new birth cannot take place till after regenera- 
 tion and the new birth ; which is absurd. Or, what 
 is the same thing, and equally absurd, baptism can- 
 not take place till after baptism. Thus every one 
 who holds that a person is regenerated in and by 
 baptism must be an Anabaptist, in order to be con- 
 sistent. But, as before stated (§ 141), the minister 
 has no authority to give the first baptism, in order 
 to prepare the subject for the second. 
 
 § 145. To me this seems to dispose of the first 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 73 
 
 hypothesis. When it is acknowledged that the " in- 
 corruptible seed," " the word of God," is the means 
 which must be used in order to effect the regenera- 
 tion and spiritual birth of a soul, nothing can be so 
 absurd as to suppose that one is regenerate and 
 spiritually born who is incapable of receiving the 
 word of God. 
 
 § 146. 3Ir. A. Without question, the proper 
 means must be used, or the child will lose the spi- 
 ritual life which it gained at baptism. 
 
 § 147. Mr. B. What ! use the means after the 
 end is attained ? Must the spiritual seed of Abra- 
 ham be first born, and then begotten ? When the 
 child is baptized according to the Episcopal ritual, 
 the minister says, " Seeing now that this child is 
 regenerate," &c. ; and then follows the thanksgiving, 
 that it " hath pleased " God to regenerate tlie infant 
 with his Holy Spirit. The end, therefore, having 
 been attained, must we then begin to use the proper 
 means ? Did Asa set the battle in array after God 
 gave him the victory ? Not so ; and to what purpose 
 would it have been afterward ? Remember, we are 
 speaking of the means which must be used " in 
 order to effect the regeneration of a soul " (§ 145). 
 When the soul is once regenerated, there is no ne- 
 cessity to continue our efforts to effect regeneration, 
 which is already effected. The persons thus regene- 
 rated should use the spiritual food, the means of 
 sustaining the spiritual life gained by regeneration 
 
 7 
 
74 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 and spiritual birth ; and that food is "the sincere 
 milk of the word." But it is not then used as the 
 means of effecting regeneration and spiritual birth. 
 § 148. The absurdities into which we are led by 
 the hypothesis, that baptism is the child's spiritual 
 birth, proves the hypothesis false. How, indeed, is 
 it possible to regard baptism as a spiritual birth ? 
 Truly, if one be baptized "with the Holy Ghost," it 
 might seem consistent to call such baptism a spiritual 
 birth. But who administers such baptism ? John 
 the Baptist did not pretend to do more than " bap- 
 tize with water ; " but he told of One mightier than 
 he, who should "baptize with the Holy Ghost." ^ 
 Who is this mightier than John the Baptist ? Is it 
 the priest who now administers the rite of baptism ? 
 By no means. It is none other than " the Lamb of 
 God, who taketh away the sin of the world." The 
 priest, like John the Baptist, baptizes " with water." 
 But will you say that baptism is the instrumental 
 cause of the spiritual birth ? If so, the cause must 
 not be confounded with the effect ; and it is strange 
 that the effect should be a prerequisite to the cause 
 (§ 116). Again: if this position be correct, then, 
 in the Israelitish church, circumcision was the in- 
 strumental cause of carnal birth ; for what baptism 
 is, circumcision was (§ 51). But baptism is not the 
 cause; for "the word of God" is the "incorruptible 
 seed," and immediate cause of the birth (§ 48). 
 
 1 Mark i. 8. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 75 
 
 § 149. Mr. A. May it not be that baptism is not 
 actually the spiritual birth of the child, but that 
 the spiritual birth is coetaneous with the baptism ; 
 that, in the same instant, the Lord Jesus baptizes 
 " with the Holy Ghost," and so justifies the minister 
 in saying, immediately after the baptism, that the 
 child '' is regenerated, and grafted into the body of 
 Christ's church " ? 
 
 § 150. Mr. B. Suppose this to be true : still the 
 water-baptism is not the child's spiritual birth, and 
 should not be called so. It is merely a thing which 
 happens at the same time with the spiritual birth. 
 But how does the minister know that the spiritual 
 birth takes place at the same moment with the 
 water-baptism ? If he think so, what is his reason ? 
 If he have no reason, why does he not merely think 
 so, but assume that it is certainly true, and act and 
 speak on that assumption ? The infant gives no 
 indication of it at the time ; and there is no promise 
 in the Scriptures that it shall be so. Whence, then, 
 is the knowledge derived ? But we can prove that 
 this idea is erroneous, by testing it as we did the 
 first hypothesis (§ 140). Let it be assumed that 
 baptism is a distinct thing from regeneration and 
 the new birth, yet that the recipient of baptism is 
 regenerated and born anew at the same time that 
 he is baptized. The results are as follows : — 
 
 § 151. Firstly, the child, when presented for 
 baptism, is not regenerate and born anew. If not, 
 
76 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 he is not a proper subject of baptism (§ 116). 
 Then he must be actually baptized, in order that he 
 may, by reason of the regeneration which accom- 
 panies the rite, become a suitable person to be bap- 
 tized. After he becomes a proper subject, he may 
 be baptized ; but, as one baptism is required to 
 make him a proper subject, two baptisms would in 
 all cases be necessary, — thus making Anabaptists 
 of all Pedobaptists. But, the child not being a 
 proper subject when presented for the first baptism, 
 the priest has no authority to give the first, in order 
 to qualify him for the second baptism. It is ab- 
 surd to baptize children (and even adults) on the 
 strength of a doctrine which proA^es tliat they cannot 
 be proper subjects till after they are baptized. 
 
 § 152. Secondly, if an infant be baptized (being 
 at the same time spiritually regenerated and born), 
 and afterward, when it becomes capable of receiving 
 instruction, be instructed in the word of God (which 
 is the " incorruptible seed " through which it is 
 spiritually begotten), such infant, as to its spiritual 
 nature, is first quickened and born, and afterward 
 begotten ; which is absurd. 
 
 § 153. Thirdly, judging the Old-Testament 
 church by the analogy furnished by the New- 
 Testament church, we must conclude that circum- 
 cision was a distinct thing from carnal generation 
 and birth, yet that the recipient of circumcision was 
 carnally generated and born at the same time that 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 77 
 
 he was circumcised. But the express command of 
 God, and the history of the church, show that cir- 
 cumcision did not take place until the eighth day 
 after birth. 
 
 § 154. Therefore, judging the New-Testament 
 church by the analogy furnished by the Old-Testa- 
 ment church, we must conclude that baptism should 
 not take place till (eight days, or at least till some 
 time) after regeneration and the new birth. This 
 is the true doctrine, if it be true that '' baptism is to 
 the New-Testament church what circumcision was 
 to the Old-Testament church" (§ 51). Here we 
 may ask. Why were circumcision and the carnal 
 birth separated by the space of eight days ? It may 
 be that the All-wise designed, among other things, 
 to forestall the error, into which some have fallen, 
 of confounding the spiritual birth with the token of 
 it, — the Christian birth with the Christian circum- 
 cision. If the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which 
 the Saviour administers, be the spiritual birth, and 
 if water-baptism have taken the place of circum- 
 cision, and if both baptisms happen at once, then 
 the infant, as we have just seen, is spiritually born 
 and circumcised at the same moment, contrary to 
 " the analogy furnislied by the history of the Old- 
 Testament church" (§ 17). 
 
 § 155. 3Ir. A. Perhaps I went too far. I admit 
 that we have no authority for supposing the moral 
 nature of the child is changed, or that any peculiar 
 
78 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 deposit, or lodgment of grace, is made in the heart 
 at the time. But baptism translates the child from 
 the kingdom of darkness into the visible kingdom 
 of God on earth. Its relations to God and to the 
 world are changed by it. Thus the child is, in a 
 certain sense, born again ; that is, put into an entire 
 new state of spiritual relations, and made an heir 
 of a new inheritance. 
 
 § 156. Mr. B. But is the child born again in 
 that sense in which we say that none but those who 
 have been regenerated and born anew are proper 
 subjects of baptism ? If not, it has nothing to do 
 with our inquiry. The sense in which we use it, 
 taken from one of your own premises (§ 41), is that 
 of being '' born of the Spirit," and in no less exalted 
 sense. You say, also, that the child, by baptism, is 
 " put into an entire new state of spiritual relations." 
 So long as we agree that the premises are correct, 
 I must object to this expression, as savoring of the 
 doctrine, from which you have just receded, that 
 baptism is spiritual regeneration. Baptism " with 
 the Holy Ghost" (if being born of the Spirit may 
 be so called) changes one's spiritual relations ; 
 makes those, who are instrumental in his conver- 
 sion, his spiritual parents ; in a higher sense, makes 
 God his father, the church his mother, and all true 
 Christians his brothers and sisters. But such is not 
 the effect of water-baptism. As it can have no 
 effect upon the spirit, neither can it upon the spirit- 
 
THE TECXOBAPTIST. 79 
 
 ual relations. But suppose it does change them ; to 
 what extent ? Does the change amount to regene- 
 ration, — to being " born of the Spirit" ? If not, 
 the child is not regenerate and born anew ; and 
 hence he is not a proper subject of baptism. The 
 idea which you advance was expressed by Mr. C. 
 some time since. He said that "baptism visibly 
 initiates into the kingdom of God, as natural birth 
 makes one a subject of that government in which 
 he is born" (§ 38). If it were only intended that 
 baptism is a visible sign or token of the spiritual 
 birth by which we are brought into the kingdom of 
 God, this does not conflict with our premises, nor 
 the conclusions deduced from them. It is, no doubt, 
 the full extent to which Mr. 0. would go : but his 
 expression goes farther, making baptism into the 
 Christian church occupy the place of birth into 
 the Jewish church ; whereas, if our premises be 
 correct, it is not baptism, but the spiritual birth, 
 which occupies that place. This is plainly stated in 
 one of the propositions to which we have agreed 
 (§ 41). 
 
 § 157. Mr. C. The native tendency of the doc- 
 trine of baptismal regeneration is to beget a super- 
 stitious reliance on an external ordinance ; to lower 
 our estimate of that inward spiritual sanctification 
 which constitutes the essence of the Christian cha- 
 racter ; to supersede that change of heart of wliicli 
 the Scriptures speak so much. It makes a work, 
 
80 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 not faith, the instrument of justification. It is a 
 heresy, bearing the same relation to baptism which 
 tran substantiation bears to the Lord's Supper ; and 
 is, perhaps, the more perilous of the two. Transub- 
 stantiation puts the eucharistic bread and wine in 
 the room of Christ ; and baptismal regeneration, or 
 a change of heart necessarily associated with this 
 sacrament, places a material element — the water in 
 the font — in the room of the Holy Spirit. In prac- 
 tice, it fosters the most deadly delusions. How 
 many may have gone to the eternal state relying on 
 an outward rite as their only title, to discover their 
 fatal delusion at the judgment-seat ! Beyond all 
 question, there is no teaching more calculated in 
 the present day to welcome and encourage the 
 principles and the progress of Romanism than that 
 which places a sacrament, however precious in its 
 own place, in the room of the Holy Spirit of God. 
 In truth, the doctrine is, in substance, the opus 
 operatum of the Papists, which all evangelical Pro- 
 testants have opposed as a mischievous delusion. 
 Its Popish character and tendency have been ac- 
 knowledged by many bishops and pious divines of 
 the church of England, and of the same denomina- 
 tion in this country. 
 
 § 158. Mr. A. Inseparable baptismal regenera- 
 tion is the opus operatum of Popery ; but the only 
 limitation, in administering ordinances which seal 
 blessings to those who receive them, is moral unfit- 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 81 
 
 ness. There is no such unfitness in infants. True, 
 there are some operations of the Holy Spirit — as 
 working actual faith, repentance, <fec., in the heart 
 — of which an infant is not capable. But when 
 God applies the pardon of original guilt, transfers 
 a person out of the state of nature into the state of 
 grace, unites him as a member of the mystical body 
 of Christ, accepts him for his child, &c., these things 
 are spoken of in Scripture as done, sealed, and 
 applied to the person by the Spirit. Now, of these 
 latter an infant is capable ; and a person capable of 
 some of the great ends for which baptism is designed 
 may be baptized for them. 
 
 § 159. Mr. B. We are not discussing the capa- 
 bleness of infants ; but, if we were, the question 
 would be, whether they are capable, not of some of 
 the ends wrought by the Spirit, but of regeneration 
 and spiritual birth ; for we have settled that persons 
 regenerated and born anew, and none other, are 
 proper subjects of baptism (§ 116). You are fa- 
 miliar with the legal distinction between acts, or 
 instruments of writing, which are void, and those 
 which are voidable ; that is, capable of being made 
 void. A similar distinction exists between persons 
 regenerated and born anew, and persons capable of 
 being regenerated and born anew. The former are 
 already so : the latter may, or may not, become so. 
 It is only those who are already regenerated and born 
 again who are proper subjects of baptism (§ 116). 
 
82 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 160. Mr. C. I understand Mr. A. as now 
 asserting only that baptism is that rite which marks 
 and ratifies the introduction of its subject into the 
 visible kingdom of Christ ; that, in this ordinance, 
 the baptized person is brought into a new state or 
 relation to Christ and his sacred family ; and that 
 this is designated in the Scriptures by the term 
 " regeneration," being intended to express an eccle- 
 siastical birth, — that is, being born into the visible 
 kingdom of the Redeemer. The doctrine of bap- 
 tismal regeneration, when it goes only to this extent, 
 is less pernicious than in the views Avhich have been 
 examined ; but, even thus limited, it is calculated 
 to mislead, and, of course, do essential mischief. 
 The least objection to this theory is, that it makes 
 an unauthorized use of an important theological 
 term, such as would give a new aspect to those 
 passages of Scripture which mention either regene- 
 ration or baptism ; making some unmeaning, others 
 ridiculous. But there is a more serious objection. 
 If men be told that every one who is baptized is 
 " born of God," " born of the Spirit," is " regene- 
 rated by the Holy Ghost," will not the mass of man- 
 kind, in spite of every precaution and explanation 
 that can be employed, be likely to mistake on a 
 fundamental point ; to imagine that the disease oi 
 our nature is trivial, and that a trivial remedy for 
 it will answer ; to lay more stress than they ought 
 upon an external rite ; and to make a much lower 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 83 
 
 estimate than they ought of the nature and neces- 
 sity of that holiness without which no man shall see 
 the Lord ? 
 
 § 161. Mr. A. Regeneration, in its highest sense, 
 is a new inward principle of spiritual life, which our 
 Lord describes when he says, " That which is born of 
 the Spirit is spirit ; '* which St. Peter describes 
 when he says, that, by God's promises, we are " par- 
 takers of the divine nature," — that we are " born 
 again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible ; " 
 and which St. John describes as " being born, not 
 of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the 
 will of man, but of God." But there is also a state 
 of spiritual privilege in covenant-grace, with admis- 
 sion to church-privileges, and this as a sign and 
 pledge of the inward principle of spiritual life ; 
 " the washing of regeneration " before " the renew- 
 ing of the Holy Ghost," — the being "born of water" 
 before being " born of the Spirit." In this view, the 
 church of Christ admits and recognizes the regenera- 
 tion of the baptized. Regeneration, as an entrance 
 into church-privileges, always accompanies baptism, 
 whatever the future course of the baptized may be. 
 
 § 162. Mr. B. Regeneration, in that sense, is 
 baptism, — mere baptism. The Christian's descent 
 from Abraham is the result of his being " born of 
 the Spirit ; " and, if our premises be true, as a sign 
 and pledge of that descent, he is visibly " born of 
 water." In this sense, baptism is regeneration, 
 
84 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 according to the meaning which theologians give 
 to the word " regeneration ; " or, more properly, 
 baptism is a new birth. This I assert on the autho- 
 rity of the Lord Jesus, who says we " must be born 
 again ; " and explains his meaning by saying we 
 must be born, not only " of the Spirit," but also " of 
 water." A man is not required to " enter a second 
 time into his mother's womb, and be born ; " ^ but he 
 must enter into water, and " be born of water," as 
 a symbol that he has been " born of the Spirit," 
 and thus become a child of Abraham, an heir ac- 
 cording to the promise. If this spiritual child of 
 Abraham wilfully omit the sign of his regeneration, 
 he disobeys a positive command of God, as much as 
 the Jew who omitted circumcision. He is " cut off 
 from his people," from the house of Israel, from 
 church-privileges, just as " the uncircumcised man- 
 child " was " cut off from his people ; " for " he hath 
 broken God's covenant."^ Beyond this we cannot 
 say that there will, or that there will not, be other 
 punishment : nor will one, who has the spirit of obe- 
 dience, stop to inquire ; but he will implicitly obey 
 the command of Him who gave himself a ransom for 
 our sins. But to return. As Jesus has called bap- 
 tism being "born again," and being "born of water," 
 it may, in strictness of theological phrase, be called 
 a regeneration ; and regeneration, in this sense, is 
 accompanied by admission into church-privileges. 
 
 1 John iii. 4. 2 Gen. xvii. 14. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 85 
 
 § 163. Mr. A, As I before remarked, it is in this 
 sense that the church admits and recognizes the 
 regeneration of the baptized (§ 161). 
 
 § 164. Mr. B. If that be all, then the church 
 admits and recognizes only the very obvious truth, 
 that every baptized person is baptized. But is this- 
 the sense in which we say that none but persons- 
 regenerate and born anew are proper subjects of 
 baptism ? If so, we involve ourselves in the same 
 difficulty already noticed (§§ 141, 151) ; we esta- 
 blish that no person is a proper subject of baptism 
 who has not been already baptized. But it is not 
 lawful to baptize any but a proper subject ; then 
 none can be baptized the first time so as to be made 
 a proper subject. And, if this h}^ thesis be tested 
 like the others, it will be found to lead to even 
 greater absurdity. We must bear in mind, that 
 baptism has taken the place of circumcision, — 
 that the spiritual descendant of Abraham is " be^ 
 gotten through the gospel," and " boi'n of the 
 Spirit." 
 
 § 165. Then let it be assumed, that though 
 regeneration and the new birth, in the highest 
 sense, do not take place at the time of baptism, but 
 only after one is "begotten through the gospel," 
 yet in the sense of an ecclesiastical birth, an 
 admission into church-privileges, they accompany 
 baptism, and, on this account, baptism should be 
 administered to infants. It follows, as a necessary 
 
 8 
 
86 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 consequence, that the infant that is baptized, and 
 lives to be instructed in the word of God and be- 
 come a true Christian, is first baptized ; secondly, 
 begotten spiritually ; thirdly, quickened and born 
 spiritually. Therefore, judging from analogy, under 
 the old dispensation, the carnal descendants of 
 Abraham were, firstly, circumcised ; secondly, be- 
 gotten carnally ; thirdly, quickened and born car- 
 nally ; which is absurd. Common sense, agreeing 
 with God's command and church history, teaches 
 us that they could not be, and were not, circumcised, 
 not only before their birth, but even before they 
 were begotten ; but that, on the contrary, they were, 
 firstly, begotten carnally ; secondly, quickened and 
 born carnally ; and, thirdly, circumcised. There- 
 fore, by analogy, we infer that the spiritual descend- 
 ants of Abraham must be, firstly, begotten spiritually, 
 " through the gospel ; " secondly, quickened and 
 born spiritually ; and, thirdly, baptized. This is 
 consistent and reasonable ; and, if baptism be now 
 all that circumcision was under the old dispensa- 
 tion, this is the true doctrine. 
 
 § 166. Again : in this sense, a person is " born 
 of water " only. Then the minister, in giving 
 thanks, should say, " We yield thee hearty thanks, 
 most merciful God, that it has pleased thee to 
 regenerate this infant," not " with thy Holy Spirit," 
 but " with water." This water-regeneration is not 
 our means of descent from Abraham, but only the 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 87 
 
 mark of it. We must distinguish between this and 
 the spiritual regeneration. Which of the two is it 
 that brings us into spiritual life, makes us children 
 of God, the seed of Abraham ? Not the water- 
 regeneration ; else Jesus would have said, " That 
 which is born of the water is spirit." But it is the 
 spiritual regeneration ; for Jesus said, " That which 
 is born of the Spirit is spirit." It is supposed by 
 many that spiritual regeneration is sometimes spoken 
 of as a baptism of the Spirit. If this be so, it may 
 be called a baptism with the same degree of pro- 
 priety as baptism may be called a regeneration. 
 Yet it is more usual and more convenient to appro- 
 priate the name of ''baptism" to the water-birth, and 
 "regeneration" to the spiritual birth, or the quicken- 
 ing influence of the Spirit. When we use the word 
 " regenerate " or " regeneration," unless by express 
 terms or necessary implication we limit our meaning 
 to the water-birth, we must be understood to mean 
 spiritual regeneration, — not the sign, but the thing 
 signified. There is no utility in the other use of 
 the word ; and it creates confusion and obscurity. 
 Let us confine its meaning, therefore, to that spirit- 
 ual regeneration by which alone we can attain to 
 spiritual life. Persons who are not regenerate, in 
 this sense, are to the kingdom of God as the unborn 
 babe is to the civil state or kingdom in which its 
 parents reside. 
 
 § 16T. Mr. C. The child is not till it be gene- 
 
88 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 rate, and the man has no being in grace till he be 
 regenerate. 
 
 § 168. Mr. B. And the man mnst have a being, 
 an existence, in relation to the church, before the 
 church can properly administer to him the ordi- 
 nances usually called *' sacraments." As a child 
 was not permitted to be circumcised, under the old 
 dispensation, until there could be no doubt that he 
 was born and living ; so must we have reasonable 
 evidence that the Christian is regenerate, before we 
 give him " the washing of regeneration." That his 
 parents are believers does not entitle him to baptism, 
 unless the faith of the parent constitutes the regene- 
 ration of the child ; which no one will assert. 
 
 § 169. Mr. A. To carry out your analogy per- 
 fectly, one must be baptized on the eighth day after 
 the spiritual birth ; for the infant was circumcised 
 on the eighth day after the carnal birth. And how 
 is one to tell the exact date of his spiritual birth ? 
 
 § 170. Mr. B. A similar question seems to have 
 arisen in the middle of the third century : but the 
 analogy applied to baptism was not extended to 
 the spiritual birth ; in which respect, it was defec- 
 tive. The inquiry was made of the council held at 
 Carthage, A.D. 250, whether infants should be bap- 
 tized before the eighth day after birth. The decision 
 was, " that the mercy and grace of God are not to be 
 denied to any one so soon as born." The response 
 (to say nothing of the terms in which it is couched) 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 89 
 
 would have been very appropriate, had the inquiry 
 been concerning such " new-born babes " as the 
 Apostle Peter exhorts to " desire the sincere milk of 
 the word, that they may grow thereby." ^ That we 
 are not confined to the eighth day, or any other 
 specific time, is evident from the practice of the 
 apostles. The baptism of the eunuch by Philip ; 
 of Lydia and her household, and of the Philippiaii 
 jailer and all his, by Paul and Silas ; and of Corne- 
 lius, and his kinsmen and near friends, at the com- 
 mand of Peter, — all took place immediately after 
 they turned to Christ. Some of these were pre- 
 viously godly and righteous persons ; but there is a 
 remarkable example in which many wicked persons 
 were converted, and forthwith baptized. Soon after 
 the resurrection of the Redeemer, Peter preached, 
 not to godly and righteous men, but to the murder- 
 ers of the Lord, whom they had taken but a short 
 time before, " and by wicked hands had crucified 
 and slain." When their hearts were penetrated, 
 they asked, " What shall we do ? " Peter told them 
 to repent, and be baptized ; and there were added to 
 the church, the same day, about three thousand 
 souls. It is believed that all these were baptized 
 that day. Here, then, is sufficient warrant for bap- 
 tizing without delay those who are regenerate. 
 
 § 171. Mr. A. By chance, I have met with an- 
 other theory of regeneration, which is advocated by 
 
 11 Pet. ii. 2. 
 
 8* 
 
90 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 a certain heretical sect ; yet it may not be amiss to 
 consider it in this connection. They urge that the 
 words of Jesus, " Ye must be born again," mean 
 that we must be born, not again and again, not 
 twice or thrice, but once again ; yet this one new 
 birth must be " of water and the Spirit ; " — that 
 water-baptism is the act of the church, through her 
 agent the baptizer ; but this baptism alone is not 
 the new birth, neither is being " born of the Spirit " 
 alone ; but the Christian must be " born of water 
 and the Spirit," just as a child, by one carnal birth, 
 is born of its mother and its father. He must be 
 begotten by the Spirit " with the word of truth," 
 the incorruptible seed, and be born of the water. 
 The seed, God's word, which has been given by 
 inspiration of the Spirit, is deposited in the heart ; 
 -the Spirit quickeneth ; ^ and baptism is a symbolic 
 birth, by which the church becomes the Christian's 
 mother, and God his father. 
 
 § 172. Mr. B. All my early religious impres- 
 sions having been received from the Methodist, 
 Episcopalian, and Presbyterian denominations, I 
 .am strongly inclined to the opinion, that Christians 
 ;are spoken of as begotten by, and as born of, the 
 Spirit ; that baptism is a sign of the spiritual rege- 
 neration and rebirth, and that it has taken the 
 place of circumcision. But so many of my early 
 impressions have melted away like snow, when 
 
 1 John vi. 63. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 91 
 
 brought into the sunlight of the word of God, that 
 I do not feel very secure in any of my opinions to 
 which I have not applied the gospel test. I do not 
 feel at liberty to pronounce any denomination of 
 Christians heretical, till I have received accurate 
 information as to their doctrines, considered the 
 reasoning by which they attempt to support them, 
 and found them at variance with the word of truth. 
 The theory which you mention may possibly be 
 correct ; but an examination of its merits is foreign 
 to our present object, nor have I ability to discuss 
 a subject so abstruse. I must content myself with 
 considering its bearing on the question of infant- 
 baptism. It plainly involves the absurdities of the 
 first and second hypotheses, if we are to regard bap- 
 tism as taking the place of the carnal birth and also 
 of circumcision. 
 
 § 173. Mr. A. But those who hold this doctrine 
 discard the idea, that baptism takes the place of 
 circumcision. 
 
 § 174. Mr. B. And thus they escape, at least, 
 the absurdities which have been pointed out as fol- 
 lowing from the first and second hypotheses (§§ 141- 
 144, 151-153). Their doctrine conflicts but slightly, 
 and in no essential part, with the conclusion which 
 we have reached. Generation, in the most compre- 
 hensive sense given to it by medical science, in- 
 cludes not only birth, but lactation. We, however, 
 have used it, in a more limited sense, to signify the 
 
92 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 begetting, quickening, and complete formation, of an 
 infant previous to its birth ; and, of course, regene- 
 ration is employed in an analogous sense. The doc- 
 trine under consideration, therefore, establishes our 
 conclusion, if we omit the words " and born again," 
 thus : " Those persons, and none other, who have 
 been regenerated, . . . are proper subjects of bap- 
 tism" (§ 116). Our argument can lose none of its 
 force by such a change. Their doctrine makes bap- 
 tism the Christian's birth, while our conclusion 
 recognizes it as his circumcision. If baptism be 
 the new birth, regeneration must go before rebirth, 
 since generation goes before birth : if baptism be 
 Christian circumcision, both regeneration and re- 
 birth must go before this circumcision, since gene- 
 ration and birth went before Jewish circumcision. 
 Thus either view precludes the possibility of admit- 
 ting infants to baptism : for, before they are born of 
 water, they must be begotten with the incorruptible 
 seed, the word of God ; and carnal infants are inca- 
 pable of being thus begotten. But I anticipate. 
 Without discussing whether this last theory be right 
 or wrong, we may so modify our conclusion as to 
 suit every aspect of the subject. Thus : Regenerate 
 persons, and none other, are proper subjects of 
 baptism. 
 
 § 175. Here we may drop this theory of the new 
 birth, and return to our former positions. Then, 
 assuming once more that all our former positions 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 93 
 
 are true, we are now prepared to trace correctly the 
 analogy between the two churches, and see how 
 beautifully they harmonize. We agree that they 
 are the same church, but that a reformation has 
 taken place, by which carnality has been discarded, 
 and spirituality substituted. This change will be 
 found to run through the whole parallel. Thus : — 
 
 In the Old- Testament church. 
 
 1. The carnal descendants of 
 Abraham were the chosen peo- 
 ple of God. 
 
 2. The carnal descendants 
 were begotten with carnal and 
 corruptible seed. 
 
 3. The carnal descendants 
 were carnally generated, and 
 entered the kingdom of God, or 
 church, by a carnal birth. 
 
 4. The outward sign of mem- 
 bership was circumcision, — a 
 carnal ordinance, performed by 
 cutting the flesh of the subject. 
 
 5. The carnal descendants 
 were required to be circumcised, 
 not before nor at, but after, their 
 carnal birth. 
 
 In the New -Testament church. 
 
 1. The spiritual descendants 
 of Abraham are the chosen peo- 
 ple of God. 
 
 2. The spiritual descendants 
 are begotten with spiritual and 
 incorruptible seed. 
 
 3. Uhe spiritual descendants 
 are spiritually regenerated, and 
 enter the kingdom of God, or 
 church, by a spiritual birth. 
 
 4. The outward sign of mem- 
 bership is baptism, performed 
 with water, which you believe 
 to be an emblem of the Spirit. 
 
 5. The spiritual descendants 
 should be baptized, not before 
 nor at, but after, their spiritual 
 birth. 
 
 § 176. Here all is symmetry and consistency ; 
 but they are marred if we retain the idea that bap- 
 tism has taken the place of circumcision, yet insert 
 that baptism is to the infant now what carnal birth 
 was formerly in regard to the church, or that the 
 spiritual descendants of Abraham should be baptized 
 
94 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 before, or at the time of, their spiritual birth. We 
 have now seen the absurdities into which, from our 
 premises, we will be led, by either the doctrine 
 that infants should be baptized before regeneration 
 (§§ 66 J 67, 165), or the doctrine of baptismal re- 
 generation, however modified (§§ 140-168). Here 
 we might close the argument. Even the doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration could not change the 
 result, since it would involve the absurdity of mak- 
 ing baptism happen at the same time with its pre- 
 requisite. But let us go farther, and inquire. Are 
 infants, as God has been pleased to create them, 
 capable of being regenerated ; that is, can they be 
 regenerate persons ? We cannot doubt the power 
 of God so to change the constitution of things as to 
 regenerate any person, old or young, just as he has 
 power to enable any one to convert water into wine ; 
 but, as he has actually constituted infancy, and as 
 he has actually ordained regeneration, are infants 
 capable of regeneration ? To reach this point, let 
 us inquire what is regeneration. 
 
 § 177. Mr. C, It is described in the Sacred 
 Scripture as a new birth, a new creation, a resur- 
 rection from the dead. These are emphatic ex- 
 pressions, and convey the idea of a marvellous 
 transformation. Such, in truth, it is, evincing in 
 every feature the mighty power of God. Spiritual 
 things are discerned by a heart once blind and 
 averse to them. Love to God succeeds to enmity ; 
 
THE'TECNOBAPTIST. 95 
 
 holy habits are substituted for habits earthly, sen- 
 sual, devilish ; in a word, old things pass away, and 
 all things become new. 
 
 § 178. Mr. B. The Rev. Eichard Watson, the 
 great theologian of the Methodist Episcopal church, 
 says, " It will not bear disputing whether regenera- 
 tion begins with repentance." Again : " Conviction 
 of the evil and danger of an unregenerate state 
 must first be felt. From this arises an altered view 
 of things," &c. Such are some of the antecedents 
 of regeneration. The same theologian gives a de- 
 scription of regeneration itself, which shows that 
 infants are not capable of it. The passages are too 
 long to read at present.^ It is so described also in 
 Boston's '' Fourfold State," and several other works, 
 published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication. 
 But one of our agreed truths is decisive of this 
 point ; for it is, that " regeneration is the work of 
 the Spirit of God, wrought by means of his word " 
 (§ 48). And we know that God has so created 
 man, that in infancy the word of God can have no 
 effect upon him, because of the feebleness of his 
 intellect. 
 
 § 179. Mr. A. I have already admitted, that 
 infants are not capable of regeneration in that high 
 sense in which you now use the term (§§ 158, 161) ; 
 and that, indeed, is the only sense in which we can 
 
 1 Watson's " Institutes," vol. ii. part ii. chap. 18, 23, 24, pp. 71, 72, 
 253, 254, 267, 268. 
 
96 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 understand the term in our premises (§§ 41, 48), 
 and consequently the only true sense of it in our 
 conclusion (§§ 116, 174). 
 
 § 180. Mr. C. Then we must now conclude that 
 infants cannot be regenerate persons. 
 
 § 181. Mr. A. If so, we have reached the solu- 
 tion of our first problem (§ 55^ ; and it is very 
 different from what I expected. I acknowledge 
 myself unable, at present, to escape the conclusion 
 to which our inquiry leads us ; yet I would not be 
 understood as abandoning my former views. I must 
 have time to review our chain of argument, and to 
 ponder the subject in all its phases. With this 
 explanation, I will proceed to apply the truth, if 
 truth it be, which we last reached. The syllogism 
 will stand thus : Regenerate persons, and none 
 other, are proper subjects of baptism (§§ 116, 174). 
 Infants cannot be regenerate persons (§ 180) ; 
 therefore infants cannot be proper subjects of bap- 
 tism. In other words, infant-baptism is not a divine 
 institution. (See § 55.) 
 
 §182. Mr.C. My friends, the thought of sever- 
 ing parents from their offspring in regard to the 
 most interesting relations in which it has pleased 
 God, in his adorable providence, to place them, is 
 equally repugnant to Christian feeling and to natu- 
 ral law. The voice of nature is lifted up, and pleads 
 most powerfully in our cause. The close and en- 
 dearing connection between parents and their chil- 
 
THE TECxNOBAPTIST. 97 
 
 dren affords a strong argument in favor of the 
 church membership of tlie infant seed of believers. 
 § 183. Mr. B. The very strongest that can be 
 adduced ; indeed, I am satisfied, the main support 
 of infant-baptism. It is not so properly an argu- 
 ment as a strong persuasion for parents to believe 
 in the church membersliip of their children, and for 
 children to believe that their parents did right in 
 having them baptized in infancy, and therefore- 
 refuse to be baptized when they become proper 
 subjects. It belongs to the domain of rhetoric, not 
 of logic. It addresses itself, not to the reason, but 
 to the hearts, of parents and children, and thus 
 leads many astray. The Saviour tells us, that he 
 who loveth father or mother, son or daughter, more- 
 than him, is not worthy of him.^ Parental affection 
 amounts to impiety, to a degree of unbelief, when 
 it makes parents unwilling to trust their infants to 
 the loving-kindness of God. If our argument be 
 correct, it has not " pleased God, in his adorable 
 providence," to place parents and children in the 
 relation of church membership, till both be regene- 
 rate. It is He who severs them " in regard to this 
 interesting relation ; " and to what " natural law " 
 is it "repugnant"? What natural law is there to 
 which the God of nature and of nature's law shall 
 be subjected ? Shall we believe, with Spinoza, that 
 God himself is bound by certain immutable laws ? 
 
 1 Matt. X. 37, 38. 
 9 
 
98 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 and shall we decide that one of those immutable 
 laws is, that parents shall not be severed from their 
 offspring in regard to the relation of church mem- 
 bership ? There is, indeed, a " natural law " in 
 every heart, " warring against the law " by which 
 " Christian feeling " should be regulated ; ^ and 
 such is that parental affection which so far oversteps 
 the humility of Christian faith as to desire to do 
 more and better for children than He will do who 
 said, " Suffer little children to come unto me." 
 When God has been so good as to call the parent, 
 and make him nigh by the blood of Christ, and to 
 offer the like grace to his children when they shall 
 be able to accept it, is it yet repugnant to the feel- 
 ings of that parent that God will not depart from 
 his established course of procedure, and bring the 
 children now into the church, notwithstanding they 
 are not qualified ? It is very unchristian feeling 
 which will murmur against the will of God, instead 
 of saying, " Father, not as I will, but as thou wilt." 
 The " voice of nature " is often lifted up against the 
 voice of grace, — often against the will of God. In 
 the heart of faithful Abraham, it cried aloud for 
 Ishmael ; in the heart of Isaac, for Esau. But the 
 cry availed nothing ; for God would not accept 
 ^' the children of the flesh " to be " the children of 
 
 1 "I delight in the law of God, after the inward man; but I see 
 another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and 
 bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members." — 
 Rom. vii. 23. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 99 
 
 God." As little will the voice of nature now avail 
 against the will of nature's God. 
 
 § 184. Mr. C. Children, in virtue of their birth, 
 are plenary citizens of the State in which their pa- 
 rents reside at the time of their birth. Why should 
 this great principle be set aside in the church of 
 God ? Surely it is not more obvious or powerful in 
 nature than in grace. 
 
 § 185. Mr. B. Why should this great principle 
 be set aside in the Masonic fraternity ? Children 
 are not, in virtue of their birth, members of the 
 lodge of which their fathers are members at the time 
 of their birth. Why not ? Because, according to 
 the laws regulating the Masonic institution, they 
 must attain an age of legal responsibility, and 
 possess certain qualifications, before they can be 
 admitted to membership. And so, according to the 
 laws regulating the Christian institution, they must 
 attain an age of moral responsibility, and possess 
 certain qualifications, before they can be admitted 
 to membership. A State usually receives as citi- 
 zens those who are born within certain geographical 
 limits ; and, when the church was a State among the 
 nations of earth, your " great principle " operated 
 in the church. Yet this is a mere conventional rule, 
 and not a principle founded " in nature," as you 
 intimate ; and the true church has no geographical 
 limits. We cannot say of it, '■'- Lo here ! or, Lo there ! 
 for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." 
 
100 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 We all acknowledge tlie change in the church, dis- 
 carding the carnal, and substituting the spiritual, 
 seed of Abraham. According to your theory, it 
 is a change without a difference ; for the child of 
 the flesh is still born into the church. Again : in the 
 early part of our conversation, you remarked that 
 " there was a time when Christ's people were sepa- 
 rate from him, and afterwards there is a time when 
 they are found in union with him. Then it follows, 
 of course, that there was a time, with every one of 
 them, when they were brought into union with 
 Christ" (§ 44). If infants, "in virtue of their 
 birth," be members of the church, which is " the 
 body of Christ,"^ the moment they are born is the 
 time when first " they are found in union with him." 
 Then when were they " separate from him " ? You 
 say " the child is not till it be generate " (§ 167) ; 
 and that which is not, which does not exist, cannot 
 be either separate from Christ, or in union with 
 him. You say that " regeneration is inseparably 
 connected with the union of the believer with 
 Christ " (§ 44). Is it also connected with the union 
 of the infant with Clirist ? Is the infant at the 
 same moment both born, and " born again " ? That 
 cannot be ; for the word " again " implies that the 
 one birth happens after the other birth. Moreover, 
 we have seen that infants cannot be regenerate 
 (§ 180). If, however, the child be not born again, 
 
 1 1 Cor. xii. 27. Col. i. 18, &c. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 101 
 
 yet we say it is united to Christ, being a member of 
 liis body, the church, " we make him a liar ; " for 
 he tells us, except one be born again, he cannot 
 enter his kingdom, or church. Lastly, even in the 
 civil state, the child is not a citizen before it is born ; 
 and, according to your own statement (§ 167), those 
 who have only been born of the flesh, and not born 
 again of the Spirit, are to the church as one unborn 
 is to the State, — having no being, no existence, 
 and hence incapable of being citizens of the king- 
 dom, or church. 
 
 § 186. Mr. C. The unborn babe has certain 
 capacities in the State. Property may be given or 
 bequeathed to it on condition of its birth. 
 
 § 187. 31r. B. And here tlie analogy is striking. 
 Unregenerate persons have similar capacities. An 
 estate has been devised to all such persons " on con- 
 dition of their birth," — their spiritual birth, — an 
 inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, which they 
 are not capable of receiving in their unregenerate 
 state. Until their spiritual birth, though the parent 
 be in the church, the children are not. 
 
 § 188. Mr. C. It is not so in any other society 
 that the great moral Governor of the world ever 
 formed. The analogies which pervade all the works 
 and dispensations of God are too uniform and strik- 
 ing to be disregarded in an inquiry like the present. 
 Can it be, that, when the stem is in the church, the 
 branch is out of it ? 
 
102 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 189. Mr. B. I am not aware of " any other 
 society that the great moral Governor of the world 
 ever formed ; " unless you abandon your opinion, 
 that the church is now the same as under the old dis- 
 pensation. If by " other society " you refer to the 
 Jewish church, the analogy furnished by that church 
 has been found to favor my view. As " the analo- 
 gies which pervade the works and dispensations of 
 God are uniform," this one analogy ought to have 
 been sufficient. But you next attack me with an 
 analogy derived from the State iji which an infant 
 is born (§ 184). This analogy also favors my view ; 
 so you throw me at large upon " the analogies which 
 pervade all the works and dispensations of God.'* 
 Let us first notice a few of his dispensations which 
 have been already alluded to (§ 183). " The voice 
 of nature " cried aloud for Ishmael ; and it was 
 " very grievous in Abraham's sight " that his first- 
 born could not " be heir with Isaac." Whom has 
 God honored as he did Abraham ? Who else has 
 been recognized as " the friend of God " ? Yet God 
 preferred Isaac ; and Ishmael was never in the 
 kingdom of God on earth. Again : ''• the voice of 
 nature " pleaded in Isaac's heart for Esau, his first- 
 born and best-beloved ; yet Esau never entered the 
 .kingdom.^ The unregenerate child of the church 
 
 1 " Paul adduces illustrations of the principle of selection from the 
 history of the patriarchs themselves; from Abraham's children; and 
 even from Esau and Jacob, whose parentage, unlike that of Isaac 
 and Ishmael, was the same on both sides. The general principle is then 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 103 
 
 member is his first-born, his Ishmael, his Esau, but 
 is not the child of promise. He should strive to be- 
 come his spiritual parent, — to beget him " through 
 the gospel ; " and then the child, having become " a 
 new creature," will be his Isaac, his Jacob, the child 
 of promise. It is on all sides admitted, that Isaac is 
 a type of the spiritual seed ; Ishmael, of the carnal : 
 so also Esau is a type of the unregenerate ; and 
 Jacob, of the regenerate. Thus I have more minute- 
 ly traced these analogies of " the dispensations of 
 God," and find that they support my opinion. Next 
 as to '' the analogies which pervade all the works of 
 God." In considering these, I will confine myself 
 to the example which you suggest, — the tree. You 
 ask, " Can it be, that, when the stem is in the 
 church, the branch is out of it ? " This not only 
 can be, but such is exactly the model on which the 
 church itself is constructed, according to the de- 
 scription of it which you and Mr. A. a while ago bor- 
 rowed with much approbation from the Apostle Paul 
 (§§ 33, 34). He selected the same work of God to 
 illustrate, by analogy, how the stem is in the church, 
 while " the natural branches," the unbelieving Jews, 
 are out of it, — broken off, as he expresses it. 
 
 announced in all its latitude ; viz., that God chooses as objects of spiritual 
 mercy whomsoever he wills. Hence he is perfectly just in rejecting the 
 great mass of the Jewish people, and in selecting the body of the Gen- 
 tilea in their stead, especially as his promises were only intended for the 
 spiritual children of Abraham." — An Introduction to the New Testa- 
 ment, by fcjamuel Davidson, D.D. LL.D., vol. ii. p. 204; on Rom. ix. 
 6-13. 
 
104 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 190. Mr. C. Yes ; but he tells us they were 
 broken off " because of unbelief." They were, we 
 may say, excommunicated ; as the offspring of mem- 
 bers may now be, if they indulge in a course of 
 error, immorality, or negligence. 
 
 § 191. Mr. B. Yery true ; yet they were not the 
 less branches, out of the church, while the stem was 
 in it ; and so are the excommunicants of whom you 
 speak ; which shows that this can be. Moreover, 
 while Paul says of the Jews, that ^' because of un- 
 belief they were broken off," does he add that Chris- 
 tians stand by carnal descent from believing parents ? 
 Not so. He says, '' And thou standest by faith." ^ 
 How, then, do infants stand, who have not faith ? 
 
 § 192. Mr. a By faith also, — the faith of their 
 parents. 
 
 § 193. Mr. B. How can parental, instead of 
 personal, faith avail them more than it availed the 
 Jews, whose parents were true believers, enjoying 
 the like spiritual blessings as Christians, according 
 to your recent assertion ? (§ 91.) 
 
 § 194. Mr. A. The infants have not arrived at 
 the period when it is possible to believe ; therefore 
 faith is not required of them. 
 
 § 195. Mr. B. Yery true. Neither have they 
 arrived at the period when it is possible to obey ; 
 therefore obedience is not required of them, — qbe- 
 dience to the command, " Be baptized;" a command 
 
 1 Eom. xi. 20. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 105 
 
 which cannot be obeyed without some active agency 
 on the part of the subject. Well, we see that the 
 church itself is a perpetual monument and wit- 
 ness that the stem may be in the church, and the 
 branch out of it. The history of the Old-Testament 
 church shows the same. Abraham was in ; Ishmael, 
 the children of Keturah, and their descendants, 
 were out: for "the children of the flesh, — these 
 are not the children of God." Isaac was in the 
 church : Esau and the Edomites were out of it. 
 The history of the New-Testament church shows 
 the same. It sometimes happens, even in Christian 
 communities, that the parents of infidel or uncon- 
 verted adults are converted ; and in Pagan lands it 
 frequently occurs. Thus the stem is in, and the 
 branch out of, the church. The same model teaches 
 that the branch may be in, and the stem out ; for 
 the wild olive-branches are cut away from their 
 native stem, and grafted into the stem of the good 
 olive-tree. Experience accords with this also. The 
 children of Pagans, infidels, and unconverted per- 
 sons, are often brought into the church by regene- 
 ration, while the parents remain in outer darkness. 
 Thus the branch is in the church, and the stem out 
 of it ; which is no less strange than that the stem 
 should be in, and the branch out. 
 
 § 196. Mr. C. Can it be, that, when the parent 
 is within the visible kingdom of the Redeemer, his 
 offspring, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, 
 have no connection with it ? 
 
106 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 197. Mr. B. Your inquiry has been already 
 answered ; and it contains within itself the reason for 
 the answer. You say well, " bone of his bone, and 
 flesh of his flesh." They are indeed flesh, and of 
 his flesh ; and, for this very reason, have no connec- 
 tion with the kingdom of God. " That which is 
 born of the flesh is flesh," says the Redeemer.^ And 
 " they which are the children of the flesh, — these 
 are not the children of God," says the apostle of the 
 Gentiles.2 Then, however faithful the believer, " his 
 offspring, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh," 
 are not the children of God, but are flesh, and have 
 no place in the church until they be " born again," 
 and become "new creatures;" for Jesus tells us 
 that one cannot enter into the kingdom, except he 
 be born again. Who is it that is so much more 
 highly favored than " the father of the faithful," 
 "the friend of God," that the children of his flesh, 
 because they are " flesh of his flesh," are therefore 
 " the children of God " ? Who is this Christian 
 Abraham ? Does not every Pedobaptist claim to 
 be such a person, when he says, " Because I am a 
 believer, therefore my child, bone of my bone and 
 flesh of my flesh, is born a member of the church, 
 — enters the kingdom of God by his mere carnal 
 birth " ? This high distinction has been taken from 
 Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ; indeed, as we have 
 seen (§ 189), was never fully given to them. But, 
 
 1 John iii. 6. 2 Rom. ix. 8. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 107 
 
 if the offspring of church members be members in 
 virtue of their birth, the distinction is now fully 
 given to Christian patriarchs ; and the church is 
 once more, as it was of old, a church of carnal 
 descent. But the Lord of righteousness and truth 
 says otherwise ; and, if we assert this, " we make 
 him a liar." It was agreed between us, that the 
 church is no longer a church of carnal descent, but 
 is now spiritual (§ 41) ; and its divine Head has 
 declared the necessity of a new and spiritual birth, 
 in order to get admittance into it. 
 
 §198. Mr. C. True, — very true. We are once 
 born sinners : we must be born again, that we may 
 be saints. 
 
 . " Whate'er may be his birth or blood, 
 The sinner's boast is vain: 
 Thus saith the glorious Sou of God, 
 ' Ye must be born again.' " 
 
 And regeneration is a spiritual, real change of the 
 whole man, fitly compared to corporal generation, — 
 a change without which we cannot enter into the 
 kingdom of God. 
 
 § 199. Mr. A. If Christ were now on earth, and 
 we brought an infant to him, we cannot doubt that 
 he would receive and embrace it. Yet you would 
 have us suppose, that, if we bring the infant to be 
 admitted into his church, or mystical body, he will 
 reject it for incapacity ! 
 
 § 200. Mr. B. A child may well have a capacity 
 
108 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 for one tiling, yet not for some other thing, — a 
 capacity to be received into the arms, embraced, 
 prayed for, blessed ; yet not to be made a soldier, 
 or professor of mathematics, nor yet to be admitted 
 into a church which none can enter without regene- 
 ration. We may well believe, that, were Jesus on 
 earth, he would still love the innocence of child- 
 hood ; would give his benediction- to little children ; 
 would " lay his hands upon them, and pray," ac- 
 cording to the usual manner of the Jews. Yet this 
 would create no necessity, that, in order to avoid 
 inconsistency, he should also give them admittance 
 into his church by other means than he has ap- 
 pointed, — admit them without those qualifications 
 which he has made prerequisites to membership. 
 This would itself be gross inconsistency. As well 
 might we say, that, having said to the adulteress, 
 " Neither do I condemn thee : go, and sin no more ; " 
 having cleansed the ten lepers, of whom but one 
 returned to give glory to God ; having raised from 
 death the son of the widow of Nain, — for these 
 favors he was under obligation to admit the adul- 
 teress, the lepers, the widow and her son, " into his 
 church, or mystical body ; " nay, that, since we 
 cannot doubt he would do the like favors if he were 
 now on earth, therefore every adulteress, leper, 
 widow, and widow's son, ought to be baptized, and 
 received into the church. I have sometimes heard 
 this application of the old maxim, that " one good 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 109 
 
 turn deserves another," but never before with any 
 thing like seriousness. 
 
 § 201. Mr. A. But our Saviour bids us to suffer 
 little children to come unto him, and forbid them 
 not. And, since he is now present with us only 
 in his ordinances and sacraments, what way have 
 we to bring our children to him, as he orders, 
 but, by baptism, to offer and dedicate them to 
 him ? 
 
 § 202. Mr. B. An invalid might as reasonably 
 say, " My physician has restricted me to vegetable: 
 diet ; therefore I can eat nothing but cucumbers." 
 As there are other vegetables beside cucumbers, so 
 there are other ordinances beside baptism. We 
 should not only suffer children to go to Christ, but 
 use our utmost diligence to bring them to him.. 
 Let parents bring their children to God, in frequent, 
 fervent prayers ; if you will, let them present them 
 in the congregation for the prayers of the church ; 
 above all, let them lead the little ones to Christ by 
 instruction and example : but, by baptism, they can- 
 not be brought to him. God has been pleased to 
 constitute the church of such as, by a spiritual birth, 
 have become the spiritual seed of Abraham. He 
 has been pleased to create infants with such feeble 
 and unexercised faculties, that they are not capable 
 of that spiritual birth ; yet, in his great benevolence, 
 Jesus blesses them. Is he, therefore, guilty of in- 
 consistency, if he go not so far as to admit them 
 
 10 
 
110 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 into his church, though they are incapable of the 
 prerequisites ? 
 
 § 203. Mr. A. Surely you would not maintain 
 that a whole class of individuals would be proper 
 for one church, who ought to be discarded from 
 the other ? 
 
 § 204. Mr. B. If not, we must admit all ser- 
 vants bought with money, whether converted or not ; 
 for such received circumcision in the Old-Testament 
 church (§ 28). The "whole class" of carnal in- 
 fants, if they be regenerate, are not discarded from 
 the church : if not regenerate, they are discarded 
 from it by the Lord Jesus Christ himself, as part of 
 *' a whole class " which is still larger ; that is, the 
 whole class of unregenerate persons, whether bond 
 or free, male or female, infant or adult. 
 
 § 205. Mr. A. What, then, shall we conclude as 
 to infant-salvation ? 
 
 § 206. Mr. C. The most probable opinion is, that 
 infants are all saved, through the merits of the 
 Mediator, with an everlasting salvation. This has 
 nothing in it contrary to the perfections of God, or 
 to any declaration of the Holy Scriptures ; and it is 
 highly agreeable to all those passages which affirm, 
 that, where sin abounded, grace hath much more 
 abounded. On these principles, the death of Christ 
 saves more than the fall of Adam lost. 
 
 § 207. Mr. B. My supposition is, that only those 
 who might have believed, but did not believe the 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. Ill 
 
 Lord, will be refused admittance into the heavenly 
 Canaan ; while all adults, who, like Caleb, the son of 
 Jephunneh, have wholly followed the Lord, together 
 with the little ones, the children which had no 
 knowledge between good and evil, — they shall go 
 in thither ; unto them it shall be given, and they 
 shall possess it. ^ 
 
 § 208. Mr. A. But, if infants be unfit for the 
 purer order of things, must they not also be ex- 
 cluded from heaven ? Or may they possibly be 
 admitted into the society above, while it would 
 be proper to exclude them from that on earth ? 
 
 § 209. Mr. B. You cannot argue from infant- 
 salvation to infant-baptism. Before we condemn 
 the doctrine, that infants must not be baptized, or 
 admitted into the church, on account of the other 
 doctrine, that those who die in infancy cannot be 
 saved, we must establish, firstly, that the former 
 doctrine involves the latter ; secondly, that the 
 latter doctrine is false. If both points be admitted, 
 my doctrine must fall. But the force of the objec- 
 tion is not exhausted here. Like a demurrer in 
 law, it must be carried back to the first error. The 
 doctrine, that infants should not be baptized, is a 
 conclusion logically deduced from certain premises. 
 If the premises have led to a wrong conclusion, it 
 is necessarily because they are false. If false, away 
 goes the chief corner-stone of the doctrine, that 
 
 1 Deut. i. 39. 
 
112 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 infants may properly be baptized ; for our premises 
 consist of the very points for which Pedobaptist 
 writers contend, and from which they argue — illogi- 
 cally, it is true — that infants are proper subjects of 
 baptism. But are the premises true ? If so, we 
 must follow fair logical deductions from them, 
 "whithersoever they may lead " (§ 16), though it 
 be to the doctrine, that all infants, or all mankind, 
 are damned. If logical deductions from true pre- 
 mises lead to that conclusion, the doctrine is incon- 
 testably true ; and we cannot destroy its truth by 
 burying our heads, ostrich-like, beneath the sand of 
 error. We ought to believe God's truth, however 
 painful the belief may be. Nor should we reject 
 any doctrine as false because it involves another 
 doctrine which is true, and against which we can 
 urge no better objection than that it pains us to 
 believe it. But can we assert that the doctrine is 
 false, that persons dying in infancy cannot be 
 saved ? Is it certain that infants are admitted into 
 heaven ? I defy you to show any promise of salva- 
 tion to infants, whether baptized or not. 
 
 § 210. Mr. A, You have already declared your 
 belief that they are saved ; and, as for myself, I 
 gladly admit, in opposition to the Calvinistic Bap- 
 tists, that all children, dying before actual sin com- 
 mitted, are admitted into heaven through the merits 
 of Christ. 
 
 § 211. Mr. B. I stated only my own supposi- 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 113 
 
 tioii. I may even say, that I firmly believe infants 
 are saved, — not only the baptized, but all who die 
 in infancy. Yet this faith is not founded on such 
 evidence that I can assert infant-salvation as un- 
 questionably certain, and pronounce every doctrine 
 false which conflicts with it ; but I could find no 
 more difficulty in believing that all are damned, 
 than that one is damned. The condemnation of 
 innocence is contrary to my conception of divine 
 character ; and, where all are equally innocent, I can 
 see no reason for making a distinction, — condemn- 
 ing some, and not all. While I assert that you 
 cannot prove that all infants are not damned or 
 annihilated, I assert that there is no reason to 
 believe that one is damned or annihilated. The 
 all-wise and merciful God has revealed all that is 
 necessary, but nothing which will serve merely to 
 gratify curiosity. For those who are capable of faith 
 and obedience he has revealed a way of salvation, 
 because such revelation is necessary to guide their 
 actions, and enable them to follow the way. But, 
 as he has been pleased to create babes incapable of 
 faith and obedience, no revelation is necessary for 
 them; and he has not condescended to reveal to 
 adults what his loving-kindness has prepared for 
 those who die in infancy. Hence all that I might 
 say on that subject would be mere speculation. I 
 know nothing about it ; and it is my opinion that 
 both you and " the Calvinistic Baptists" know just as 
 
 10* 
 
114 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 little. But when I contemplate the ways of Provi- 
 dence, and consider the attributes of God as revealed 
 in his word, I cannot feel the slightest fear for in- 
 fants who die before the commission of sin. My 
 faith is such, that I am willing to trust the little 
 innocents to Him whose way is equal ; whose com- 
 passions fail not ; who hath no pleasure in the death 
 of even the wicked ; but so loved the world as to 
 give his own dear Son, the only-begotten, to suffer 
 agony and a felon's death, that, through him, even 
 the chief of sinners might be redeemed and saved. 
 I cannot fear that the just, the compassionate God, 
 who is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of 
 great kindness, will bless one child with the joys 
 of heaven, without any personal deserving, yet doom 
 another to the pains of hell, or Limbo, without any 
 personal undeserving, and all because of the fortui- 
 tous circumstance, that the one was born of believ- 
 ing parents, the other of unbelievers, though neither 
 was permitted to make choice of parentage ; or 
 because the one was baptized, and the other was not, 
 though neither understood, rejected, or desired, the 
 ordinance. " Behold, all souls are mine," saith 
 the Lord God ; " as the soul of the father, so also 
 the soul of the son, is mine : the soul that sinneth, 
 it shall die."^ I cannot believe that the just, the 
 merciful God will condemn any infant ; and, if one 
 shall be condemned, I can see no reason why all 
 
 1 Ezek. xviii. 4. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 115 
 
 should not be. This is merely an opinion, however, 
 and would yield to logical deductions from sound 
 premises. But let us now consider the other branch 
 of the subject ; conceding, for all the purposes of 
 the argument, that it is a known truth, that '' all 
 children, dying before actual sin committed, are ad- 
 mitted into heaven, through the merits of Christ." 
 
 § 212. Mr. A. If they be admitted into heaven, 
 for this very reason it follows that infants are proper 
 subjects to be introduced into the church on earth. 
 
 § 213. Mr. B. Does it follow for that very 
 reason ? Does the doctrine, that infants cannot 
 properly be baptized, or received into the church, 
 involve the doctrine, that they cannot be saved ? In 
 other words, is the admission of infants into heaven 
 inconsistent with their exclusion from baptism or 
 from the church ? If so, the admission of infants 
 into heaven was inconsistent with their exclusion 
 from circumcision under the old dispensation. If 
 the rejection of infant-baptism be equivalent to the 
 rejection of infant-salvation, it must be because 
 the salvation of infants depends upon their baptism. 
 If so, then, under the old dispensation, the salvation 
 of infants depended on their circumcision : for bap- 
 tism has taken the place of circumcision, — means the 
 same thing as a moral emblem ; and " whatever be- 
 longed to circumcision, except the difference of visi- 
 ble ceremony, belongs also to baptism" (§§ 49-51). 
 All females were excluded from circumcision : were 
 
116 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 they therefore damned ? God would not permit 
 infants to be circumcised before the eighth day ; yet, 
 no doubt, he permitted many to die before that 
 time. Shall we conclude that he thus caused them 
 to be damned, though he might have either pro- 
 longed their lives to the eighth day, or permitted 
 their circumcision before that time ? There is no 
 more reason to fear that those will be lost who die 
 without baptism, before they are capable of sin, than 
 to believe that infants were lost who died uncircum- 
 cised before the eighth day ; and there is no more 
 reason to suppose we can benefit infants now by bap- 
 tism, than to believe that an infant, dying before the 
 eighth day, would have been benefited by circum- 
 cision. Nay, more : we have no more reason to 
 believe that unbaptized infants are damned, than 
 to believe that all infants are damned ; and we 
 have as much reason to believe that all infants are 
 saved, as that baptized infants are saved. 
 
 § 214. Mr. A. God did not require infants to 
 be circumcised before they were proper subjects ; 
 which they were not, till the eighth day. 
 
 § 215. Mr. B. God does not require any one to be 
 baptized before he is a proper subject ; and, if our 
 argument be correct, no one is a proper subject till 
 he be regenerate (§§ 116, 174). But God himself 
 has so constituted infants, that they are incapable 
 of regeneration (§ 180). 
 
 § 216. Mr. A. By the same rule, adult infidels 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 117 
 
 ought to be received into heaven ; for they are not 
 proper subjects of baptism, and hence are not re- 
 quired to be baptized. 
 
 § 21T. Mr. B. If the " rule " be bad, you must 
 bear the blame ; for it is yours. I did but apply it 
 to baptism ; which you say is the same as circum- 
 cision, except in form. But the rule does not apply 
 to infidels as to infants. The rule which excuses 
 persons from obedience because of incapacity does 
 not by any means excuse disobedience in persons 
 who are capable of obeying. The adult is con- 
 demned, not for want of baptism, but for want of 
 faith. He is capable of believing, while the child 
 is not. He rejects the " great salvation," while the 
 child does .not. He falls within the rule, that " he 
 that believeth not shall be damned." A thousand 
 baptisms could not save him without faith. His 
 case differs widely from that of the infant. 
 
 § 218. Mr. A. The infant is necessarily excused 
 from faith and repentance, for want of capacity ; but 
 it is not so in regard to baptism. What promise is 
 there of life and salvation but to those who believe 
 and are baptized, and devote themselves to the ser- 
 vice of God ? 
 
 § 219. Mr. B. None ; none whatever. Must we 
 therefore conclude that the unbaptized infant cannot 
 have life and salvation ? By parity of reasoning, we 
 must deny life and salvation to all babes that do not 
 believe, and " devote themselves to the service of 
 
118 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 God." No infant can do either : shall we say that 
 all are therefore damned ? We may as reasonably 
 conclude thus, as that they will be damned for want 
 of baptism. What injustice do we attribute to the 
 just God, when we suppose he will condemn those 
 for want of faith who have not capacity to believe 
 or disbelieve ; that he will condemn those for want 
 of service who cannot serve either God or Mam- 
 mon ! Equal injustice would it be in him to eter- 
 nally damn the helpless innocents because others 
 neglect to sprinkle water on them. That the inno- 
 cent should be as the wicked, — that be far from God. 
 Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ? ^ 
 
 § 220. Mr. A. Although the phrase, " kingdom 
 of God," is most frequently used by our Lord to 
 denote the church on earth, some believe, that, in 
 the discourse with Nicodemus, that phrase is used, 
 in its highest sense, to express the future state of 
 felicity ; and hence that the doctrine, that infants 
 may be saved without baptism, conflicts with the 
 rule given by our Saviour : " Except one be born of 
 water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God." This includes children and all. 
 
 § 221. Mr. B. That rule, so interpreted, ex- 
 cludes infants from salvation, even if they be bap- 
 tized ; for it requires them to be " born of the 
 Spirit ; " which, as we have seen, is impossible 
 (§ 180). And, if your text prove that they will 
 
 1 Gen. xviii. 25. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 119 
 
 be lost without baptism, I can prove by a text, 
 which, in its terms, equally " includes infants and 
 all," that they will be lost with baptism. " He that 
 believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." This 
 shows that baptized infants are saved, provided they 
 believe. But the text goes farther, and says, " He 
 that believeth not shall be damned." ^ Then, though 
 the infant be baptized, yet, if he believe not,»he is 
 damned ; and all infants, being incapable of believ- 
 ing, are necessarily damned. In this view, they 
 cannot be benefited by baptism. Again : Jesus 
 said to the Jews, " Except ye eat the flesh of the 
 Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life 
 in you." ^ Here your mode of interpretation would 
 lead us to conclude, with Augustine, and other emi- 
 nent fathers of the church, as they are called, that 
 infants cannot be saved unless they partake of the 
 Lord's supper ; and to argue, with him, that since, 
 according to the general opinion, none may do so 
 but those who are baptized, therefore infants not 
 baptized cannot have life. You may easily show 
 that these texts do not touch the question of infant- 
 salvation ; and I can show, by the same argument, 
 that the other text touches it quite as little. And 
 I can add this farther argument, that, while my 
 texts relate unquestionably to the subject of salva- 
 tion, in some sense, the other relates only to entrance 
 into the church ; for you properly interpreted the 
 
 1 Mark xvi. 16. 2 John vi. 53. 
 
120 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 phrase " kingdom of God," in John iii. 3, 5, to 
 signify the church (§ 31). 
 
 § 222. Mr. A. The church on earth is but the 
 vestibule of the glorified church above. If the great 
 Head of the church regards infants worthy to enter 
 his church in its highest state of perfection, I can- 
 not divest myself of the impression, that it is incon- 
 sistent, absurd, to suppose that man may not admit 
 them into the church below, where even the best 
 adult cannot pretend to half their purity. 
 
 § 223. Mr. B. Man must submit to the exclu- 
 sion of infants from the church on earth, because 
 such is the will of " the great Head of the church." 
 If God reject infants from the church on earth, and 
 receive them into heaven, is this inconsistent or 
 absurd? I will not pronounce it so, until it be 
 proved, that, when infants' souls are released from 
 their clay tabernacles, they are under the like in- 
 capacity to enter heaven as infants are to enter the 
 chur-^h, and that they are received into heaven not- 
 withstanding that incapacity ; which would itself be 
 an inconsistency. It is not dealing fairly with the 
 Lord to assume that he does this, and, on that 
 ground, either to charge him with inconsistency, or 
 to make it a precedent for ourselves to run into 
 the same inconsistency, which, without proof, we 
 attribute to him, and charge all Christians with 
 inconsistency who will not follow our example. 
 Some Christians think they are justified by Paul 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 121 
 
 in believing, that " when the Gentiles, who have 
 not tlie law, do by nature the things contained in 
 the law," they will be saved. ^ Are such Christians 
 inconsistent in not admitting such Gentiles into the 
 church of Christ without that faith which Christ 
 himself requires of those who enter his church on 
 earth ? They are not more inconsistent who believe 
 infants are received into heaven, yet will not admit 
 them into the church. It is for God to receive into 
 heaven whom he sees fit, and for man to reject 
 from the church all who manifestly do not possess 
 those qualifications which God has taught us are 
 necessary to their membership. If it were posi- 
 tively certain that all who die in infancy are ad- 
 mitted into heaven, it would afford no reason why 
 living infants should be admitted into the church, 
 at least until we are also certain that living infants 
 are equally proper for the church militant as their 
 disembodied souls are for the church triumphant ; 
 that they are as well qualified to fight the good 
 fight of faith as their souls to enjoy the victory 
 which Jesus Christ has achieved for them. 
 
 § 224. The privileges and duties of the church 
 on earth are intended for our probationary state, 
 and are designed only for such persons as are 
 capable of participating in them. It has pleased 
 God so to create us, that, in our early days, we 
 are not capable of enjoying those privileges or per- 
 
 1 Rom. ii. 14. 
 11 
 
122 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 forming those duties. The physical organs imph*- 
 cated in the operations of mind are such, that 
 reason cannot be exercised upon the truths of 
 Christianity. The soul is, as it were, in a dark 
 prison-house, fettered and manacled ; but when 
 the death-angel comes to the imprisoned soul as the 
 angel of the Lord came to Peter in prison, and 
 the chains fall from his hands and feet, we cannot 
 know what is the condition of that soul. My own 
 conjecture is, that it becomes instantly capable of 
 participating in the delights of heaven. One thing, 
 at least, we see, — that, before that release, the in- 
 fant is not capable of performing any duty, enjoying 
 any privilege, or understanding any obligation, of 
 church membership. It is only during the period 
 before death that we have to do with the infant ; 
 and, for the rest, we may safely trust to God, that 
 whatever change is necessary for the soul after its 
 release from the clay tenement, in order to prepare 
 it for heaven, he is able to effect, and that he will 
 effect it if it please him to receive the soul into 
 heaven, and that he will so effect it as not to be 
 guilty of inconsistency.^ 
 
 1 Since writing the above, I have met with the following excellent 
 remarks by Chillingworth: " The rule of the law is also the dictate of 
 common reason and equity, — that no man can be obliged to do what is 
 imnossible. We can be obliged to do nothing, except by virtue of some 
 command. Now, it is impossible that God should command in earnest 
 any thing which he knows to be impossible: for to command in earnest is 
 to command with an intent to be obeyed ; which is not possible he should 
 do, when he knows the thing commanded to be impossible Whosoever 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 123 
 
 § 225. Mr. A. My reluctance to admit your 
 doctrine is caused by the evils to which it must 
 lead. Parents, not having dedicated their child to 
 God by baptism in infancy, want much of what they 
 otherwise would have to stimulate them in the re- 
 ligious training of the child. 
 
 § 226. Mr. C. Baptism furnishes pious parents 
 with a good argument for an early dedication of 
 their child to God. 
 
 § 227. Mr. B. Leaving you to determine be- 
 tween yourselves whether baptism is a dedication of 
 the child to God, or merely an argument for such 
 dedication, I will remind you, that, a few moments 
 ago, you thought " the voice of nature " was very 
 importunate for the baptism and church membership 
 of children (§ 182) ; yet now you seem to think its 
 pleadings are not sufficient to induce parents to 
 train their child for God, but that the additional 
 argument or stimulant of baptism is necessary to 
 urge them to the performance of this duty. Surely 
 " the voice of nature," which is so clamorously lifted 
 up in behalf of infant-baptism, and makes parents 
 so eager to secure church membership for their 
 child, — surely it must plead still more earnestly 
 
 is obliged to do a thing, and does it not, commits a fault: but infants 
 commit no fault in not procuring to have baptism; therefore no obliga- 
 tion lies upon them to procure it. We must believe that God will not 
 deal unjustly with them: but how in particular he will deal with them 
 concerns not us; and therefore we need not much regard it." — Religion 
 of Protestants. 
 
124 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 with them to secure for him all those things which 
 are great blessings without baptism or church mem- 
 bership, but without which these are nothing ; that 
 true faith and love for the Saviour which will lead 
 the child to seek baptism of his own accord, when 
 he is ready to receive it; which will, after death, 
 secure him eternal life. Is that pleading voice so 
 easily satisfied, that its clamors can be silenced by a 
 few drops of water ? 'Tis here, indeed, I think the 
 danger lies. Security does not excite solicitude. A 
 peril known creates anxiety ; a sense of safety lulls. 
 Parents are eager to have their infants baptized 
 into the church, as an ark of safety ; and, when 
 they delude themselves into the belief that the little 
 ones are in that ark, they are often too well satis- 
 fied with the security which they suppose they have 
 provided, to exert themselves properly to insure a 
 real security. Thus, instead of " stimulating them 
 in the religious training " of their child, it has the 
 contrary tendency. 
 
 § 228. Mr. C. By this rite, the assurance is 
 given them, in a solemn and impressive manner, 
 that the great privileges and promises bestowed 
 upon Christians will be imparted to their child 
 also ; and thus religious feelings, pious thoughts 
 and resolutions, are promoted in them. 
 
 § 229. Mr. B. If they be not satisfied from the 
 word of God that those privileges and promises 
 "• will be imparted to their child," and to all others. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST.* 125 
 
 provided tliey fulfil the conditions which God re- 
 quires, it is difficult to imagine how that assurance 
 can be given them by any mere rite performed by 
 man, however solemn and impressive. 
 
 § 230. Mr. C. But by this rite they are engaged 
 and encouraged to educate their child in a Chris- 
 tian manner, in order that he may receive those 
 privileges, and attain one day to the actual exer- 
 cise and enjoyment of them. 
 
 § 231. Mr. B. I cannot conceive how they can 
 be "engaged and encouraged" by' any rite to give 
 their child a Christian education, if the best in- 
 terests of the child have failed thus to engage, and 
 the promises of the word of truth to thus encourage 
 them. If the love which an all-good and all-wise 
 Creator has implanted in parental hearts be not 
 sufficient to secure for the child the best religious 
 training which the parents are able to give, the 
 deficiency can never be supplied by the argument 
 or stimulant of any momentary ceremony, however 
 solemn and imposing ; or the impression on hearts 
 so clay-cold and unnatural as to need such extra- 
 neous incitements would be so fleeting, as to require 
 the frequent repetition of the warming ceremony. 
 But there is no way to impart to water such proper- 
 ties, that, by applying it to an infant's body, it will 
 warm a parent's heart, and still less keep it warm 
 for years. Parents who deserve to be blessed with 
 11* 
 
126 '^H 
 
 E TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 children will need no such incitement, and others 
 will not be affected by it. 
 
 § 232. Mr. A. But those whose child has not 
 been baptized have not the same faith as those 
 parents who believe that God will certainly bless 
 the course of training they are pursuing. 
 
 § 233. Mr. B. I cannot perceive why they should 
 have less faith than others, or should not equally 
 believe that God will bless their efforts to train 
 their child religiously, or should want any thing 
 which others possess to stimulate their efforts 
 (§ 224). On the contrary, regarding it important 
 that all persons should have the benefits of baptism 
 so soon as it may properly be administered, they 
 will be the more strenuous in their efforts to pre- 
 pare their children for the enjoyment of those 
 benefits ; to beget them " through the gospel," so 
 that they may be " born of the Spirit," and receive 
 " the circumcision of Christ." 
 
 § 234. Mr. A. It is certain that baptizing a 
 child does him no harm ; it debars him from no 
 right; it subjects him to no manner of inconve- 
 nience. It confers upon him blessings only, and 
 binds him but to his own best good. This reason for 
 bringing children into covenant with God was given, 
 not only by ancient Jewish writers, but also by the 
 early Christians, who, as they ought, acknowledged 
 that great benefits were bestowed on baptized chil- 
 dren. If children were left, as too many are left. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 127 
 
 unbaptized, still they are bound, at the peril of 
 everlasting perdition, to believe and to do all those 
 things which in baptism they engage to do. Who, 
 that lives in a Christian land, is not bound to live 
 as a Christian ? Who, without hazard to his im- 
 mortal soul, can " neglect so great salvation " ? 
 There is no engagement in the baptismal cove- 
 nant in behalf of a child which he is not bound, 
 in duty to God and regard to his own eternal wel- 
 fare, as soon as he is capable of understanding his 
 duty, to perform. 
 
 § 235. Mr. B. Your zeal for a sinking cause 
 has outstripped your usual discretion, and makes 
 you fight " as one that beateth the air." Even if 
 it were true that infant-baptism does no harm, there 
 is no rational motive to apply it, if it will do no 
 good. You say it confers only blessings on the 
 child, yet have failed to prove that it confers one ; 
 while our argument proves that it is absolutely 
 void, and therefore confers no blessing. You urge 
 that baptism brings the child under no new obliga- 
 tion to pursue a Christian path in life ; which only 
 shows, that, in this regard, it does neither good nor 
 harm. If there be no engagement in the baptismal 
 covenant which the child is not bound to do, whether 
 baptized or not, with what propriety can it be said 
 that baptism " binds him but to his own best 
 good " ? It simply binds him to nothing ; while, 
 with or without baptism, he is bound, " so soon as 
 
128 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 he is capable of understanding his duty, to per- 
 form " all those things which are for " his own best 
 good." It is therefore much better that each per- 
 son should wait until his baptism may be regarded as 
 a rational act, — a voluntary acknowledgment of his 
 obligation to perform those engagements in the bap- 
 tismal covenant to which you allude. 
 
 § 236. Mr. A. None can deny that this is what 
 each one must do for himself. Does it follow that 
 there is nothing which we must do for each other ? 
 Is there no communion of saints ? 
 
 § 237. Mr. B. There are many things which 
 we must do for each other : " does it follow " that 
 baptizing infants is one of those things ? And what 
 if there be a communion of saints : " does it fol- 
 low " that infants must be baptized ? The corollary 
 is utterly inconsequent ; or, at least, I am unable to 
 perceive its logical sequence, or to imagine a third 
 proposition by which these two can be joined in a 
 syllogism. 
 
 § 238. Mr. A. Are we not bound to promote 
 the salvation of others by all possible means ? 
 
 § 239. Mr. B. Assuredly. But does that obliga- 
 tion require us to do what will not have the slightest 
 tendency to promote their salvation ? To make that 
 obligation an argument for infant-baptism is a petitio 
 principii, a begging the question ; for it assumes 
 that the baptism of infants will promote their salva- 
 tion, and is therefore a divine institution. Establish 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 129 
 
 this, and I presume all will urge the necessity of 
 infant-baptism as warmly as yourself. 
 
 § 240. Mr. A, The wisdom which is from above 
 teaches us to '' train up a child in the way that he 
 •should go," and declares, that, " when he is old, 
 he will not depart from it." 
 
 § 241. Mr. B. True. But does that wisdom 
 say that this training may be done or promoted by 
 baptizing the child ? 
 
 § 242. Mr. A. The most decided experience has 
 shown that no means of establishing men in the faith 
 and fear of God are more effectual than bringing 
 them up from childhood in his nurture and admo- 
 nition. And to say that this should be neglected, 
 with a view to leaving them free to seek God for 
 themselves, is to reject the wisdom of experience ; 
 it is pretending to be wiser than God ; and, on the 
 same principle, we may neglect to preach to men, 
 to pray for them, or to exhort one another. 
 
 § 243. Mr. B. You give us now a striking ex- 
 ample of what logicians call ignoratio elenchi, or 
 irrelevant conclusion. You most earnestly contend, 
 with diverse forcible arguments, that we should bring 
 children up " in the nurture and admonition of the 
 Lord." When was that subject put in issue be- 
 tween us? How is it involved in the question, 
 whether children are proper subjects of baptism ? 
 When it is shown that they cannot be brought up 
 " in the nurture and admonition of the Lord " with- 
 
130 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 out having been first baptized, I will cry aloud for 
 infant-baptism; but, for the present, I prefer that 
 they should be thus brought up, in order to qualify 
 them for the reception of the baptismal rite. 
 
 § 244. Mr. A. If it is our duty to use any- 
 means to save others, it is our duty to use all means 
 which God has put in our power, and which he is 
 pleased to bless to that happy effect. 
 
 § 245. Mr. B. Most indubitably. But that is 
 nothing to the point in question, until it be first 
 established that infant-baptism is one of the means 
 " which he is pleased to bless to that happy effect." 
 
 § 246. Mr. C. Baptism binds the parents to 
 teach their child, so soon as he becomes capable of 
 receiving instruction, the importance and necessity 
 of regeneration, and all other fundamental truths of 
 our holy religion. It causes the child to be re- 
 cognized as bearing a most important relation to 
 the church of God, and thus places him in a situa- 
 tion in which the parents are bound to train him up 
 for God. 
 
 § 247. Mr. B. Is not every parent so bound ? 
 They are no Christians whom God has blessed with 
 children, yet who do not, to the best of their ability, 
 " train them up for God." But your idea is, I sup- 
 pose, that those whose children are baptized are 
 responsible to the church for the performance of 
 this duty. And those church members, whose in- 
 fants are not baptized, are equally amenable to the 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 131 
 
 church for the neglect of this duty ; and those who 
 are not church members are not the less amenable 
 to God. Will not the church hold its members 
 responsible for the violation of any Christian duty ? 
 And is it not a Christian duty for parents to bring 
 their children up " in the nurture and admonition 
 of the Lord " ? The apostles solemnly urge the 
 duties of parents as among the chief of Christian 
 duties. Paul declares, that " if any provide not for 
 his own, and especially for those of his own house, 
 he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an 
 infidel." ^ If worse than an infidel for neglecting 
 to provide the necessaries and comforts of this life, 
 he is scarcely better than a devil if he strive not to 
 provide the heavenly manna, — the food for the soul.^ 
 § 248. Mr. C. But is it of no advantage to 
 parents, in educating their children, to be able 
 to remind them from time to time that they have 
 been symbolically sanctified or set apart by the seal 
 of Jehovah's covenant, and to plead with them by 
 the solemn vows which they have made on their 
 behalf ? Assuredly it is good that they should be 
 taught from their childhood that they are under a 
 covenant engagement to be the Lord's, and have the 
 promises of God ; that they have obtained by bap- 
 
 1 1 Tim. V. 8. 
 
 2 The Rev. E. M'Millan, a Presbyterian, and an ingenious advocate 
 of infant-baptisno, says, " Let it be set down, that neither baptism nor 
 circumcision creates or imposes any obligation, but merely declares and 
 confesses obligations already existing." — True Baptist^ vol. i. p. 325. 
 
132 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 tism a share in all the great and divine blessings 
 and promises which are given to Christians ; and 
 that they are solemnly obligated by baptism, through 
 God's assistance and guidance, to fulfil all the con- 
 ditions on which Christians receive these great pro- 
 mises ; that they are of the household of faith, the 
 children of the kingdom, fellow-citizens of the com- 
 monwealth of Israel, and are therefore bound to 
 honor and obey their Father in heaven, and be true 
 and faithful subjects to Christ, their King. 
 
 § 249. Mr. B. I hold it to be indisputable, that 
 truth is the best aliment for the mind. If, then, 
 these things be true which you propose to teach 
 children, there must be some advantage in such 
 instruction. But our argument has proved tlmt 
 they are not true ; that none but the regenerate 
 are " of the household of faith," " citizens of the 
 commonwealth of Israel ; " and the Lord Jesus 
 himself has told us, that, except one be born again, 
 he cannot enter into the kingdom. Then, if your 
 children be not born again, not of water only, but 
 of water and the Spirit, they are not " children of 
 the kingdom." If you teach them, that, in conse- 
 quence of their baptism, they " have the promises 
 of God," this implies that none but the baptized 
 have a promise ; whereas Peter says, the promise is 
 " to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord 
 our God shall call." ^ Nor does our obligation " to 
 
 1 Acts ii. 39. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 133 
 
 honor and obey the Father, and be true and faithful 
 subjects to Christ," depend upon any " covenant 
 engagement to be the Lord's." It is not by baptism 
 that we are obligated to fulfil these duties ; but all 
 of God's rational creatures, with or without baptism 
 or covenant, owe him honor, obedience, truth, and 
 fidelity, because he is our Creator and constant 
 Benefactor, and Christ gave his life for our redemp- 
 tion. It is but a moment since Mr. A. very truly 
 asserted, that children who are left unbaptized are 
 not the less bound to live as Christians (§ 234) : but 
 your instruction would imply that none but the 
 baptized owe these duties to God ; which is a full 
 justification of wickedness in all who are not bap- 
 tized. As the things which you propose to teach 
 are untrue, I conclude there is no advantage in 
 teaching them. Or if this be an exception to the 
 otherwise universal rule, and this teaching be calcu- 
 lated to lead children into the way of good living, 
 yet we cannot teach what is untrue, unless we adopt 
 that most antichristian principle so strongly repro- 
 bated by the Apostle Paul, — " Let us do evil, that 
 good may come." ^ 
 
 § 250. I think the want of truth in what you 
 suggest as suitable to be taught to children is suffi- 
 cient proof that there can be no advantage in teach- 
 ing thus. I believe, moreover, that the argument 
 may be introverted, and the teaching be proved false 
 
 1 Rom. iii. 8. 
 12 
 
134 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 by its tendency to evil, instead of that advantage 
 wliich you think would result from it. It is vain to 
 appeal to experience ; for here we would conflict. 
 We must therefore apply reason to acknowledged 
 truth, and thus deduce a conclusion. We know 
 that " the heart of the sons of men is full of evil ; " ^ 
 it is " deceitful above all things, and desperately 
 wicked;"^ and that, among the evil things which 
 proceed out of the heart and defile the man, one, 
 and not the least, is pride. ^ So strong is this evil 
 principle within the heart, that even the humble 
 Christian is not without danger of yielding to it, — 
 nay, of becoming proud of his very humility. There 
 is a strong tendency to Pharisaic exclusiveness and 
 self-exaltation. When we reflect how much more 
 likely this principle is to spring up in the heart of 
 one too young to be under the restraint of a well- 
 regulated judgment, it is not difficult to imagine 
 how these evil propensities would be affected by 
 such teachings. The child being told, " You are 
 a member of the church, which is the kingdom of 
 heaven ; you must therefore conduct yourself as a 
 child of God ; you have been symbolically sanctified, 
 and must strive to become spiritually sanctified," — 
 tlie old Adam would rise up within the child ; he 
 would remember only that he is in the kingdom of 
 heaven, that he is sanctified (without knowing what 
 it means), and that he is a child of God. Then, 
 
 1 Eccl. ix. 3. 2 Jer. xvii. 9. 3 Mark vii. 22. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 135 
 
 with Phariseaii pride, he would thank God that he 
 is not as others are : for, while he is in the kingdom 
 of God, they are in outer darkness ; while he is 
 sanctified, they are unholy ; while he is a child of 
 God, they are " children of wrath." 
 
 § 251. Mr. C. Parents must watch for, and care- 
 fully repress, such feelings. 
 
 § 252. Mr. B. Better keep the evil seed from 
 falling on the heart, than attempt to eradicate the 
 tares when they grow up from the seed. You think 
 it is good that children should be taught " that they 
 have been symbolically sanctified or set apart by 
 the seal of Jehovah's covenant ; that they are of the 
 household of faith, the children of the kingdom, 
 citizens of the commonwealth of Israel," <fec., &c. 
 (§ 248.) Would there be any material difference 
 between teaching these things, and teaching that 
 '•' every one who is baptized is born of God, — born 
 of the Spirit ; is regenerate by the Holy Ghost " ? 
 Your own words as to the latter teaching shall con- 
 demn the teaching which you propose ; for I will 
 only substitute the one teaching for the other. " If 
 children be told that all who are baptized are ' sym- 
 bolically sanctified or set apart by the seal of Jeho- 
 vah's covenant ; are of the household of faith, the 
 children of the kingdom, fellow-citizens of the com- 
 monwealth of Israel,' — will not the mass of man- 
 kind, in spite of every precaution and explanation 
 that can be employed, be likely to mistake on a 
 
136 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 fundamental point ; to imagine that the disease of 
 our nature is trivial, and that a trivial remedy will 
 answer ; to lay more stress than they ought upon an 
 external rite ; and to make a much lower estimate 
 than they ought of the nature and necessity of that 
 holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord" ? 
 (§ 160.) 
 
 § 253. A much better way, because it is the 
 appointed way, is that which my view of the subject 
 suggests. Tell the child the truth, — that he is, by 
 nature, a child of wrath, even as others are ;^ but 
 God has mercifully provided that he may become a 
 child of God through faith .^ Exhort him to pray 
 that he may be sanctified through the truth ,3 justi- 
 fied by the blood of Christ, and saved from wrath 
 through him.* Tell him, to borrow an expression 
 from Mr. A. (§ 29), that the true kingdom of God 
 on earth is but the " gate " of the kingdom above ; 
 tell him, not that he has already entered in at that 
 gate, but that he must " strive to enter in at the 
 strait gate ; for many will seek to enter in, and shall 
 not be able." ^ These are the words of Him who is 
 himself the vmy. Add to these his other words, — 
 that none can enter in at that gate, except he be 
 born again.^ None will be able to enter who " seek 
 to enter in " by baptism alone ; yet when one is 
 begotten through the gospel, and quickened by the 
 
 1 Eph. ii. 3. 3 John xvii. 17. 6 Lnke xiii. 24. 
 
 a John V. 1. ■* Rom. v. 9. 6 John iii. 3, 5. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 137 
 
 Spirit, he must obey the Lord, and be "born of 
 water" also, thus confessing Christ before the world. 
 By such instructions, you give the child great incen- 
 tives to exertion ; a strong inducement to seek that 
 narrow way which few shall find ; to strive to enter 
 in where few shall be able ; to seek regeneration 
 and sanctification, that he may be prepared in heart 
 to obey Christ in receiving the symbol, and in all 
 things else ; in a word, to " seek first the kingdom 
 of God and his righteousness,"^ instead of deluding 
 himself into the belief that he has already found 
 them. 
 
 § 254. Mr. C. I am inclined to think that we 
 have mixed some leaven of error in our premises, 
 which has leavened the whole lump, and brought us 
 to an erroneous conclusion. 
 
 § 255. Mr. B. That may be : but the premises 
 were fixed by yourselves ; and you should have 
 been careful to exclude errors which prove so fatal 
 to the doctrine which you were about to advocate. 
 But as truth, not triumph, is my object, I am will- 
 ing that you should revise the premises, and correct 
 any deviation from the truth. 
 
 § 256. Mr. C. I cannot discover that there was 
 any error in what we assumed ; but we ought to 
 have distinctly stated in our premises, that God 
 made two covenants with Abraham, — the one na- 
 tional, and the other spiritual. No greater error 
 
 1 Matt. vii. 33. 
 12* 
 
138 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 can be committed tliaii to confound the two, and 
 thus identify the commonwealth, founded on the 
 one, with the church, founded on the other. Under 
 the New Testament, the external theocracy was 
 abolished, and the church continued, to consist of 
 true believers, in which the only condition of mem- 
 bership is faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The rite 
 of circumcision was attached to both the covenants, 
 and answered the double purpose of securing the 
 benefits of the theocracy, and putting in a claim to 
 those higher benefits to be secured by that seed of 
 Abraham in whom all the nations of the earth were 
 to be blessed. 
 
 § 257. Mr, B. This addition to our premises 
 might have shortened our argument, but could not 
 have changed its result. If the distinction which 
 you draw existed before the advent of Christ, it is 
 obvious that we erred in speaking of the relations 
 in which servants and infants stood toward the Old- 
 Testament church, with which they could have had 
 no connection whatever. If the church was con- 
 tinued unchanged, it could have been entered by no 
 other means under the old dispensation than under 
 the new. Servants, then, unless regenerate, were 
 circumcised, not with reference to the church, with 
 which they had no connection, but because of the 
 relation in which they stood toward the external 
 theocracy. This view would have cut off all that 
 was said about the circumcision of servants (§§ 108, 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 139 
 
 109). Again : the children of proselytes, by the 
 act of their parents, — and even Israelitish children, 
 by their carnal birth, — were brought into connec- 
 tion, not with the church, which was spiritual, but 
 with the external theocracy, which was national. 
 Neither the children of Hebrews or proselytes could 
 enter into the church otherwise than by being born 
 again ; for, as we have seen, that is the only way 
 for them to enter it now ; and, if there were no 
 change, it must have been the only way then. 
 
 § 258. 31r. C. Yet, under the old dispensation, 
 it was not necessary to wait until the children were 
 regenerated and born anew, before they were cir- 
 cumcised. 
 
 § 259. Mr. B. Yery true. Upon being brought 
 into connection with the external theocracy, they 
 were legally circumcised, as a seal of the national 
 covenant ; for you say that the rite was attached to 
 both covenants ; and it was of such a nature that it 
 could not be repeated. I think, however, that your 
 hypothesis is contravened by the fact, that there 
 was not a separate and distinct seal for the spiritual 
 covenant, — a seal in the administration of which 
 the subject should exercise volition. But, taking 
 your hypothesis for true, if no change had been 
 effected by the coming of Christ, except the substitu- 
 tion of baptism for circumcision as the seal of both 
 covenants, then infants would properly be baptized 
 on entering the external theocracy, and the practice 
 
140 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 tinder the former dispensation might justify us in 
 deeming it unnecessary to repeat the ceremony upon 
 the entrance of the same individual into the church. 
 But you say the theocracy is abolished ; so that 
 baptism is attached only to the spiritual covenant, 
 upon which the church is founded. Hence there is 
 nothing to entitle one to baptism before he enters 
 into and becomes a member of the spiritual church, 
 which has been continued, " to consist of true be- 
 lievers," and " in which the only " — and I may 
 add, the indispensable — " condition of membership 
 is faith in our Lord Jesus Christ" (§ 256). 
 
 § 260. I cannot entirely indorse your theory ; 
 and it cannot be adopted without rejecting some of 
 the points which we agreed to take for truths (§§ 21, 
 23). There were, indeed, "two covenants with 
 Abraham, — the one national, and the other spirit- 
 ual." But I do not believe, that, under the old 
 dispensation, the church was separate from and 
 co-existing with the national theocracy ; but that 
 they were identical, and were founded upon the na- 
 tional covenant. Upon the abolition of the national 
 theocratic features, God " set up" his spiritual king- 
 dom, founding it upon the spiritual covenant. It 
 was grafted upon the old stock ; but the old branches 
 were broken off to make room for it. Nationality, 
 carnality, were cast out, and spirituality took their 
 place. But, even if we receive your hypothesis as 
 true, we have seen that it would argue nothing in 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 141 
 
 favor of infant-baptism (§ 259). Is there any thing 
 else in which you would amend our premises ? 
 
 § 261. Mr. C. It may be that the Rev. E. 
 M'Millan is right (tliough I cannot say I am 
 satisfied that he is right) in saying that the hypo- 
 thesis which takes circumcision for an initiatory 
 rite is false (§ 24). " If it were an initiatory ordi- 
 nance," says he, " no female was ever in the Jewish 
 church ; which is contrary to many recorded facts, 
 and plainly so contrary to the Scriptures generally, 
 that no one can believe it. It is an error to suppose 
 the rite is withheld from females because of imprac- 
 ticability ; for it has been, and is still, administered 
 to them by some nations, who do not understand 
 the design of the ordinance, — the Arabs, for ex- 
 ample.^ Then, if the prime intention of circumci- 
 sion was to be an initiatory ordinance into the 
 church, why was it performed upon the male, and 
 not upon the female ? and how could our Lord 
 declare that no man could enter the church, without 
 baptism ? This hypothesis gives no answer ; but 
 if we suppose that baptism initiated the recipient, 
 and then circumcision, like a type, illustrated the 
 generation of the great Messiah, in whom the bap- 
 tized professed to believe as the Son of God, the 
 hypothesis and the facts agree. God taught most 
 of the doctrines of religion in the old dispensation 
 
 1 The Abyssinians, and the Mohammedans of Egypt, are said to 
 circumcise both sexes. (See Encyc. Amer., art. " Circumcision.") 
 
142 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 by symbols ; and every symbol was chosen on the 
 principle of analogy, — that is, the prominent idea 
 in the symbol was itself significant of the idea in- 
 tended to be conveyed by it. If this principle be 
 applied to circumcision, we see it, by a very easy 
 analogy, pointing to the generation of the Messiah, 
 not by man, but by the power of the Holy Ghost 
 overshadowing the female. The Messiah had a 
 human mother, but no human father : hence the 
 male was circumcised by cutting off the foreskin ; 
 while the rite was not applied to the female, because 
 woman was not cut off from participation in giving 
 humanity to the Son of God. These reasons for 
 the rite are perfectly obvious, and commend them- 
 selves to the human understanding ; while no human 
 ingenuity can ever devise any other reason for it, 
 and especially for its peculiar application. This 
 explanation agrees also with the fact, that circum- 
 cision commenced when the promise of the Messiah 
 was made, and terminated at the jiilfilment of the 
 promise in the gift of the Messiah. If it had not 
 referred to him, it would not have ceased like all the 
 rites which terminated in him ; but, like baptism, 
 the sabbath, the religious assembly, &c., it would 
 still stand, to point to its future truth. It is diffi- 
 cult to conceive how it can refer to the Messiah 
 otherwise than as I have explained." 
 
 § 262. Mr. B. In what you quote, I perceive 
 nothing inconsistent with the belief that circumcision 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 143 
 
 was a rite of initiation. It seems reasonable that 
 a change of dispensations should be accompanied 
 with a change of initiatory rites ; and the declaration 
 of our Lord most probably refers to the kingdom 
 which he was about to " set up ; " that is, the new 
 dispensation : for if baptism had been the rite of 
 initiation under the old economy, and none could 
 enter the church without it, this would have been 
 known to Nicodemus, and he would not have asked, 
 " How can these things be ? " ^ It seems reasonable, 
 also, that, under both dispensations, the initiatory 
 rite should be made to symbolize those great facts, 
 the belief of which most prominently distinguished 
 the church from the uninitiated. Under the old 
 dispensation, those great facts were, that the Messiah 
 should come, and be born of a virgin. This was 
 believed by the Jews, but not by the surrounding 
 nations ; and circumcision was sufficiently signifi- 
 cant of the prominent fact ; but its significance 
 would have been destroyed by applying it to females. 
 As " woman was not cut off from participation in 
 giving humanity to the Son of God," a rite indi-. 
 eating such cutting-off could not properly be admi- 
 nistered to females. Under the new dispensation, 
 the great facts, the belief of which distinguished the 
 church from the Pagans and unbelieving Jews, were 
 that the same Messiah was already come ; that he 
 " died for our sins, according to the Scriptures ; 
 
 1 John iii. 9. 
 
144 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 and that he was buried ; and that he rose again the 
 third day, according to the Scriptures." ^ Baptism, 
 as administered by the apostles, was sufficiently 
 significant of these great facts ; and the facts do 
 not preclude the baptism of females. Mr. M'Millan's 
 theory as to the signification of circumcision is per- 
 fectly new to me, and so plausible, that, if not 
 correct, I am not now able to disprove it. It seems 
 more probable than any other theory which has been 
 brought to my notice ; and I will adopt it, unless 
 farther investigation should prove it to be erro- 
 neous. 
 
 § 263. Mr. a Mr. M'Millan says also, " Cir- 
 cumcision was administered to infants because they 
 were, by obstinate and natural necessity, to be pro- 
 genitors of the same Prince of whom their parents 
 were progenitors ; and it was the duty of all having 
 the precious promise to acknowledge its truth by 
 circumcision, which was the only scriptural acknow- 
 ledgment of it. But baptism has always been 
 administered to infants, both under the old and 
 new dispensations, because they belong by obstinate 
 and natural necessity, during their minority, to the 
 same government to which their parents belong ; 
 and really are, and must be, the subjects of the 
 same king to whom their parents are subject. And 
 it is the duty of all parents openly to acknowledge 
 this truth by baptism, which is the only scriptural 
 
 1 1 Cor. XV. 3, 4. 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 145 
 
 acknowledgment of it." Thus he maintains that the 
 infant of Christian parents is to be baptized, " not 
 because that of the Jewish parent was circumcised, 
 but because baptism has been administered to the 
 infants of believers from time immemorial, and that 
 under the sanction of divine authority and exam- 
 ple."^ Mr. M'Millan gives, also, very ingenious 
 arguments in support of his theory, that infants 
 were baptized under the old dispensation. 
 
 § 264. Mr. B. Though I have conditionally 
 adopted Mr. M'Millan's opinion as to the significa- 
 tion of circumcision, I cannot agree with him as to 
 the reasons for administering that rite, and the rite 
 of baptism ; that is, his theory of " obstinate and 
 natural necessity." Not all the Israelites were pro- 
 genitors of Jesus, even though their parents were. 
 Among the twelve sons of Jacob, only Judah was 
 a progenitor of the Messiah ; among the five sons 
 of Judah, only Pharez ; and so of others. Nor 
 does this theory furnish a reason for circumcising 
 proselytes and their infants, and slaves, who were 
 not among the progenitors of Christ ; nor does it 
 afford a reason for baptizing converts whose parents 
 were not believers. The true reason for them, and 
 
 1 In §§ 261 and 263, the language of the Eev. E. M'Millan has 
 been condensed, and his sentences slightly re-arranged. The original 
 may be found in the " Time Baptist," vol. i. pp. 322-328. His theory, 
 which was not met with until after the foregoing argument was written, 
 seemed, at the first blush, to confute the argument by destroying one of 
 the premises. It is deemed advisable, therefore, to consider its bearing, 
 on the supposition that it is true. 
 
 13 
 
146 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 all others, I conceive to be, that those rites were the 
 appointed methods of acknowledging the truths to 
 which they respectively pointed. But though I 
 should adopt Mr. M'Millan's opinion (which I am 
 far from doing), that baptism has been continued 
 from the old dispensation to the new, and should 
 even admit, that, under the old dispensation, infants 
 were proper subjects of baptism, yet I could not 
 thence deduce his conclusion, that infants must now 
 be baptized. His theory would destroy some of our 
 premises ; but, though these have been employed in 
 our argument, they are by no means necessary or 
 important ingredients. It was supposed, indeed, 
 when we entered upon the inquiry, that the substi- 
 tution of baptism for circumcision was an important 
 link in the argument for infant-baptism ; but, even 
 with that admission, the argument resulted unfavor- 
 ably to infant-baptism. Hence the argument, that 
 infants must be baptized now, because they were 
 circumcised under the old dispensation, must be 
 abandoned ; but, as we assumed in our argument 
 that circumcision was exactly the same thing in the 
 Israelitish church that baptism is in the Christian 
 church, except the difference of visible ceremony 
 (§ 56), it is evident that the result cannot be 
 changed by supposing that baptism itself was prac- 
 tised in the former church, and continued to the 
 latter. Though the transfer of the kingdom from 
 the carnal to the spiritual seed of Abraham, and the 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 147 
 
 change of the initiatory rite, were concomitant, nei- 
 ther was dependent upon the other, but both upon 
 the will of the King. I agree with you, that the 
 change of the initiatory rite could make no change 
 in the subjects (§ 56). If the change of the rite 
 could not have such effect, how much less could the 
 perpetuation of the rite, whether it were circum- 
 cision or baptism ! But it is not enough to deny the 
 change of the rite. We must go farther, and deny 
 that there has been a change in the constituents of 
 the church itself; we must deny your assertion, that, 
 '' in the covenant with Abraham, God promised him 
 two kinds of seed, — the one by natural descent, 
 and the other by faith " (§ 98) ; we must deny that 
 " the Christian church consists of the spiritual seed 
 of Abraham," — that is, his seed by faith, instead of 
 his seed by natural descent (§ 36) ; we must deny 
 that " those who are born of the flesh, whoever may 
 be their progenitors, are not the spiritual seed of 
 Abraham, and cannot enter into the kingdom of God, 
 or church, without another birth, which is a spiritual 
 birth " (§ 41). Let us now trace the argument with 
 a view to Mr. M'Millan's theory ; and this will serve 
 also as a recapitulation. We must discard all the 
 premises which relate to circumcision, and assume 
 in their stead, that, — 
 
 § 265. Baptism was the outward sign of mem- 
 bership in the Old -Testament church, or Jewish 
 church. 
 
148 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 § 266. The infant children of Israelitish parents 
 were proper subjects of baptism in the Old -Testa- 
 ment church. 
 
 § 267. In the New-Testament church, or Chris- 
 tian church, baptism is still retained as the outward 
 sign of membership, and is to the New-Testament 
 church and to the proper subjects of baptism now 
 what it was to the Old -Testament church and to the 
 proper subjects of baptism under the old dispensa- 
 tion. 
 
 § 268. Mr. C. To me it seems that these con- 
 cessions are fatal to your position. They positively 
 admit the propriety of infant-baptism ; for they show, 
 that, in this respect, there is no difference between 
 the two churches. 
 
 § 269. Mr. B. None as to the rite of initiation ; 
 and none as to the subjects of baptism, except such 
 as results from that important difference, just men- 
 tioned, as to the constituents of the two churches. 
 It is by forgetting this important difference that you 
 are a second time led into a fallacy of that kind 
 which Mill pronounces to be perhaps the most com- 
 mon, and certainly the most dangerous, of the falla- 
 cies of ratiocination, and which consists in changing 
 the premises. I have already shown that you were 
 guilty of this fallacy, when, having assumed in your 
 premises that it is one's relation to the church of 
 God which entitles him to the rite of initiation, you 
 afterward overlook this fact, and refer his title to 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 149 
 
 the rite of initiation to his relation to individual 
 members of the church ; that is, to his parents 
 (§ 79). The instance now under consideration is, 
 according to Mill, one of the obscurer forms of this 
 dangerous fallacy, which " is committed, when, in 
 the premises, a proposition is asserted with a quali- 
 fication, and the qualification lost sight of in the 
 conclusion." ^ Thus you assume the proposition, 
 that the Christian church is the same as the Jewish 
 church ; but with this qualification, that the Chris- 
 tian church is rendered more spiritual, consisting 
 no longer of the seed of Abraham born of the flesh, 
 but of his spiritual seed (§ 36 ; and see §§ 32-35). 
 But, when you come to employ that proposition, 
 you lose sight of the qualification ; setting it aside 
 on the ground that the difference " is not essen- 
 tial " (§ 35). To assume that it is not essential is 
 to beg the question. The difference is so essen- 
 tial, that it is the very pivot upon which the whole 
 matter turns. It is the very thing which excludes 
 carnal infants from baptism, whether we proceed 
 upon the hypothesis, that baptism takes the place of 
 circumcision, or that it has been continued from the 
 old dispensation. Let us now proceed to ascertain 
 what effect, if any, this important change in the 
 constitution of the church has upon the subjects of 
 baptism ; in doing which, we will pursue the same 
 logical process which you before marked out (§ 72). 
 
 1 Mill's " System of Logic," book v. cliap. 6, § 4. 
 13* 
 
150 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 Baptism now stands to the New-Testament churcli in 
 the same relation in which Baptism formerly stood to the 
 Old -Testament church (§ 267) ; also, — 
 
 Baptism stands toward (X) those who are now proper 
 subjects of baptism in the same relation in which Baptism 
 formerly stood toward those who were then proper Sub- 
 jects of baptism (§ 267). Therefore, — 
 
 (X) Those who are now proper subjects of baptism 
 stand toward the New-Testament church in the same 
 relation in which those who were formerly proper Subjects 
 of baptism stood toward the Old -Testament church. 
 
 Or, to adopt the more convenient form of expres- 
 sion before suggested by Mr. A., — 
 
 § 270. Those persons are proper subjects of bap- 
 tism in the Christian church who stand toward the 
 Christian church in the same relation in which 
 those persons who were proper subjects of baptism 
 in the Israelitish church stood toward the Israel- 
 itish church (§ 73). We have now to inquire, as 
 formerly, — 
 
 § 271. Firstly, Who were proper subjects of 
 baptism in the Israelitish church ? (§ 75.) To which 
 the answer is, " The infant children of Israelitish 
 parents were proper subjects of baptism in the 
 Israelitish church" (§ 266). 
 
 § 272. Secondly, In what relation did they stand 
 toward the Israelitish church ? (§ 75.) To which 
 the answer is, " In the relation of membership by the 
 fact of birth" (§ 23). 
 
 § 273. Thirdly, What persons stand in the same 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 151 
 
 relation toward the Christian church ? Whoever 
 they may be, they are the proper subjects of baptism 
 in the Christian church. We know that carnal 
 descent from Abraham, or from any other person, 
 cannot bring one into the church ; that no one 
 can enter it unless he be born again (§§ 36, 41). 
 Then the answer to the third question is, " Those 
 persons, and none other, who have been regenerated 
 and born again, stand toward the Christian church 
 in the relation of membership by the fact of birth " 
 (§ 89). 
 
 § 274. The argument may be thrown into a 
 sorites, thus : Those persons are proper subjects of 
 baptism in the Christian church who stand toward 
 the Christian church in the same relation in which 
 those persons who were proper subjects of baptism 
 in the Israelitish church stood toward the Israelitish 
 church (§ 270). The infant children of Israelit- 
 ish parents were proper subjects of baptism in the 
 Israelitish church (§§ 266, 271) ; therefore, — 
 
 § 275. Those persons are proper subjects of bap- 
 tism in the Christian church who stand toward the 
 Christian church in the same relation in which 
 the infant children of Israelitish parents stood to- 
 ward the Israelitish church (§ 82). 
 
 They stood toward that church in the relation of 
 membership by the fact of birth (§ 272) ; there- 
 fore, — 
 
 § 276. Those persons are proper subjects of bap- 
 
152 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 tism in the Christian church who stand toward the 
 Christian church in the relation of membership by 
 the fact of birth (§ 86). 
 
 Those persons, and none other, who have been 
 regenerated and born again stand in that relation 
 to the Christian church (§ 89) ; therefore, — 
 
 § 277. Those persons who have been regenerated 
 and born again are proper subjects of baptism in the 
 Christian church (§ 103). 
 
 § 278. This is the only legitimate deduction 
 wliich we can make from the fact that infants were 
 baptized in the Jewish church. It may also be true, 
 that infants are proper subjects ; but the argument 
 derived from the fact, that they were proper subjects 
 of baptism under the old dispensation, has, thus far, 
 entirely failed to establish the proposition which it 
 was designed to establish ; that is, that infants are 
 proper subjects of baptism under the new dispensa- 
 tion (§ 105). If this argument fail to establish 
 that proposition, it is difficult to conceive of any by 
 which it can be established. 
 
 § 279. But let us go farther, and inquire whether 
 any one who is not regenerate is a proper subject of 
 baptism. If our premises be true, baptism is an 
 ordinance of the church, not existing out of the 
 church (§ 109). 
 
 § 280. Mr. C. That is very true. Baptism is 
 not to be administered to any that are out of the 
 visible church, until they profess their faith in 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 153 
 
 Christ, and obedience to him. On such profession 
 of faith and obedience, they should be baptized, and 
 received into the visible church. 
 
 § 281. Mr. B. And none but the regenerate 
 have such faith as entitles them to baptism. " The 
 Saviour expressly prohibits any one to enter his 
 kingdom — expressly declares it impossible for any 
 one to enter therein — by any other right or by 
 any other method than that of being born anew. 
 As this new spiritual birth is the only means of 
 entering into the church, and becoming subject to 
 its jurisdiction, it is the only means by which one 
 can become entitled to receive that church ordi- 
 nance which is the outward sign of membership in 
 the church (§ 267). Our argument may proceed 
 thus : — 
 
 § 282. Those persons, and none other, are proper 
 subjects of Christian baptism, who stand toward the 
 Christian church in the relation of membership by 
 the fact of birth (§ 114). Those persons, and none 
 other, who have been regenerated and born again, 
 stand toward the Christian church in that relation 
 (§ 89). Therefore,— 
 
 § 283. Those persons, and none other, who have 
 been regenerated and born again, are proper subjects 
 of baptism in the Christian church (§ 116). 
 
 § 284. Here we are brought again to the sul]iject 
 of baptismal regeneration, which has been already 
 sufficiently considered. But, indeed, that doctrine 
 
154 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 cannot affect our argument ; since the recipient of 
 baptism must be regenerated — already regenerated 
 and born again — in order to be a proper subject. 
 The new birth being a prerequisite to the admission 
 of any person to baptism, being necessary previously 
 to such admission, it would be preposterous to say 
 that one is a proper subject of baptism who is not 
 already actually regenerated and born anew, whe- 
 ther on the assumption that regeneration is effected 
 ex opere operato, or merely that it is coetaneous 
 with baptism. If infants were baptized in the Old- 
 Testament church, it is certain they were not bap- 
 tized till they were born into the church. So, now, 
 no one should be baptized till he be born into the 
 Christian church ; which can only be done by the 
 second or spiritual birth (§ 273"). We know that 
 this birth results from the proper use of the means 
 supplied by divine grace ; that is, the incorruptible 
 seed, the word of God (§ 48). Hence one must 
 have sufficient understanding to receive the word 
 of God into the mind and heart before he can be 
 born again ; and hence, finally, infants cannot 
 be born again, since tliey have not that degree of 
 understanding. Then the final syllogism (as for- 
 merly) stands thus : — 
 
 § 285. Those persons, and none other, who have 
 been regenerated and born again, are proper subjects 
 of baptism in the Christian church (§ 283). Infants 
 cannot be regenerated and born again (§§ 180, 284) ; 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 155 
 
 therefore infants cannot be proper subjects of bap- 
 tism. In other words, infant-baptism is not a divine 
 institution (§ 181 ; see § 55). 
 
 § 286. We have now traced the " resemblance 
 of relations "1 in the old and new dispensations of the 
 church (§ 70). We assumed, that, under both, 
 the church is the same, yet with a change, by which, 
 under the new dispensation, it became more spirit- 
 ual (§ 36). In keeping with this, we assumed 
 originally that the sign and seal of membership, 
 the initiatory rite, is the same in all things, except 
 a change of outward form, or " visible ceremony " 
 (§§ 51, 56). Our investigation leads to the discovery 
 of exact proportion and consistency with respect to 
 the members of the church, the proper subjects 
 to receive the rite of initiation under both dispen- 
 sations. We have found the like sameness, with 
 the like change. Being equally the seed of Abra- 
 ham, they are the same, yet with this change, — 
 that they are no longer of the lineage of Abraham, 
 but are his seed by faith ; they are no longer Jews 
 " outwardly," but " inwardly ; " 2 they are, when 
 first they enter the church, infants, but no longer 
 carnal infants, being born into the church, not of 
 the flesh, but of the Spirit. Thus the legitimate 
 result of our argument is the belief that infants are 
 proper subjects of baptism in the New-Testament 
 church ; not, indeed, carnal infants, but only spirit- 
 
 1 See Appendix. 2 Rom. ii. 29. 
 
156 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 ual infants, — new-born babes in Christ, begotten 
 through the gospel, born of the Spirit, nurtured 
 with the sincere milk of the word ; such babes as 
 those to whom it pleased the Lord of heaven and 
 earth to reveal those things which he concealed from 
 the wise and prudent.^ Such is the doctrine which 
 I have named Tecnobaptism? 
 
 § 287. Mr. A. The course of argument which 
 we have pursued is new to me, and cannot be an- 
 swered without investigation and reflection, which 
 will require time. 
 
 § 288. Mr. C. I also must sue for an armistice, 
 and acknowledge that our inquiry has resulted very 
 differently from my anticipation. 
 
 § 289. Mr. B. Of course, it is but fair that all 
 of us, acting no longer as advocates, but as impar- 
 tial jurors (§ 12), should take all the time necessary 
 for mature deliberation. I would here recall your 
 very just remark, borrowed from Stewart and Mill, 
 that, provided our premises were true, we might 
 "■ obtain a series of conclusions as certain as those 
 of geometry, and as irresistibly compelling assent " ^ 
 
 1 Matt. xi. 25. Luke x. 21. 
 
 2 From TSKVuv jSanriafia {tecnon haptisma), "baptism of children." 
 
 3 " Hence it appears it might be possible, by devising a set of arbi- 
 trary definitions, to form a science, which, although conversant about 
 moral, political, or physical ideas, should yet be as certain as geometry." 
 " From these principles, a series of consequences may be deduced by 
 the most unexceptionable reasoning; and the results obtained will be 
 perfectly analogous to mathematical propositions." — StewarVs Philo- 
 sophy of the Mind,''' part ii. chap. 2, T] 4. " The opinion of Dugald 
 
THE TECNOBAPTIST. 157 
 
 (§ 14). If, then, the series of conclusions which 
 we have obtained do not possess that degree of cer- 
 tainty, it must be owing to inaccuracy in our process 
 of reasoning. - If the process of reasoning be cor- 
 rect, yet the conclusions be not true, it must be 
 owing to untruth in our premises. Hence there is 
 but one of three things for us to do, — firstly, to 
 detect some flaw in the statement of our syllogisms ; 
 or, if that cannot be done, then, secondly, to detect 
 untruth in those of our premises for which Pedo- 
 baptists most strenuously contend, and, abandoning 
 them as false, look for some other basis upon which 
 to rest the cause of infant-baptism. If either of 
 these things can be done, and you can then show 
 by any valid argument that carnal infants are enti- 
 tled to baptism, I will be much your debtor for 
 removing my error, since I desire to believe only 
 what is true. But if you cannot show that our 
 premises are false, or our argument illogically con- 
 ducted, nothing remains but, thirdly, to give our 
 full assent to the conclusion, that carnal infants are 
 not proper subjects of baptism in the Christian 
 church. If God have been pleased to exclude them 
 
 Stewart, respecting the foundations of geometry, is, I conceive, substan- 
 tially correct, — that it is built upon hypothesis ; that it owes to this 
 alone the peculiar certainty supposed to distinguish it ; and that in any 
 science whatevei-, by reasoning from a set of hypotheses, we may obtain 
 a body of conclusions as certain as those of geometry; that is, as strictly 
 in accordance with the hypotheses, and as irresistibly compelling assent 
 on condition that those hypotheses are true." — MiWs System of Logic, 
 book 11. chap. 5, § 1, Tf 4. 
 
 U 
 
158 THE TECNOBAPTIST. 
 
 from this rite, it becomes us to say, " Father, not as 
 I will, but as thou wilt." ^ I know too well your 
 candor, and love of truth, to doubt, that you will, 
 in the spirit of our primary rule (§ 16), keep con- 
 stantly in view " the investigation of truth for its 
 own sake ; and to that end " will follow " testimony, 
 and fair deductions therefrom, whithersoever they 
 may lead," though it should be to the doctrine of 
 Tecnobaptism. 
 
 1 Matt. xxvi. 39. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 We have now traced the " resemblance of relations " (^ 286). 
 
 § 290. "There is no word," says Mr. Mill, "which is used 
 more loosely, or in a greater variety of senses, than analogy." 
 To avoid vagueness, the foregoing argument is not said to be ana- 
 logical ; but it is designated by one of the definitions of analogy 
 (§ 70). " It sometimes stands," continues Mr. Mill, " for argu- 
 ments which may be examples of the most rigid induction. Arch- 
 bishop Whately, for instance, following Fergusson and other writers, 
 defines analogy conformably to its primitive acceptation, that which 
 was given to it by mathematicians, — resemblance of relations." ^ 
 He proceeds to show, that, when the circumstance in which the 
 two cases resemble is the material circumstance, — that on which 
 all the consequences, necessary to be taken into account in the 
 particuleir discussion, depend, — the argument has the force of a 
 rigid induction. In the foregoing argument, the writer concedes 
 the resemblances for which Pedobaptists contend, and also the 
 materiaHty of those resemblances, and attempts to trace the argu- 
 ment with accuracy. Its conclusiveness depends upon the success 
 of that effort. The observations quoted from Mill show that the 
 mathematical principles which have been adopted are the same as 
 those to which Ai'chbishop Whately and others give the name of 
 " analogy ; " and that they are appHcable, not only to the relations 
 of magnitude and number, about which mathematics are conver- 
 1 " System of Logic," book ii. chap. 20, § 1. 
 14* 
 
162 APPENDIX. 
 
 sant, but generally to any relations where comparison can be 
 definitely made, and proportion discovered. These principles will 
 now be more fully developed and exemplified. 
 
 § 291. Three mathematical propositions are adopted, and ap- 
 plied to the subject in dispute, — firstly, that proportionals, taken 
 alternately, are still proportional ; secondly, that, taken inversely, 
 they are still proportional ; and, thu'dly, that if there be four pro- 
 portionals, and four other proportionals having the same antece- 
 dents, the four consequents will be proportional (§§ 70-72). 
 
 § 292. It is obvious, that where the consequents in any four 
 proportionals are equal, with respect to the qualities of which the 
 relations are compared, the antecedents also must be equal with 
 respect to those qualities. This may be illustrated by comparing 
 numerical relations. If each consequent be equal to 20, and one 
 antecedent be equal to 5, so also must the other be ; for no other 
 number can bear the same relation to 20 which 5 does. Also, in 
 exact proportion as the first consequent difiers from the second, 
 the first antecedent must differ from the second. For example : 
 Suppose the first consequent is equal to 12, the second to 20, and 
 the second antecedent to 5. As 12 is three-fifths of 20, the first 
 antecedent must be three-fifths of 5 ; that is, it must be 3, which 
 is the only number equal to three-fifths of 5, and the only number 
 having the same relation to 12 as 5 to 20. 
 
 § 293. For the purposes of the argument, it was conceded to 
 the Pedobaptist colloquists, that baptism, the New-Testament 
 church, circumcision, and the Old-Testament church, are four pro- 
 portionals ; also that the subjects of baptism, the New-Testament 
 church, the subjects of circumcision, and the Old -Testament church, 
 are four proportionals. Therefore, if the consequents — namely, 
 the churches — be identically the same, or exactly equal, so must the 
 antecedents be : that is, baptism and circumcision must be identi- 
 cally the same, or exactly equal, in the one case ; the subjects of 
 baptism and of circumcision, in the other case. And, in exact pro- 
 portion as the New-Testament church resembles or differs from the 
 
APPENDIX. 163 
 
 Old -Testament church, baptism must resemble or differ from cir- 
 cumcision, and the subjects of baptism must resemble or differ from 
 the subjects of circumcision. The churches resemble in this, — 
 they both consist of " the seed of Abraham." In this also the sub- 
 jects of baptism resemble the subjects of circumcision, except such 
 of the latter as have been cut off from the New-Testament church, 
 who will be presently noticed. And the rites resemble in sealing 
 the covenant; in marking or distinguishing those who are the 
 elect, or church, of God. The churches differ in this, — that 
 the New-Testament church is enlarged, and rendered more spiritual. 
 We will notice now the change as to spirituality. The New- 
 Testament church is not a nation, as the Old was : hence slaves, 
 &c., are excluded as such, since none can enter it save by birth. 
 And the church no longer consists of " the seed of Abraham " by 
 carnal descent, but by faith ; and is therefore no longer entered 
 by carnal birth, but by spiritual birth. Accordingly, those persons 
 ■who are excluded, as such, from the church, — as slaves, &c., — 
 are to the same extent excluded from baptism. The other sub- 
 jects of circumcision were such as really descended from Abrahanr 
 according to the flesh ; while the subjects of baptism are such as 
 actually have faith, — that is, actually believe that the Son of God 
 came in the flesh, suffered, died, and rose from the dead. And, 
 if the theory of circumcision borrowed from the Kev. E. M'Millan 
 (§ 261) be correct, circumcision pointed to the then future incar- 
 nation of Messiah ; while baptism points to his past death, burial, 
 and resurrection. Baptism differs from circumcision in form, and 
 in this, — that it cannot properly be given to any, merely because 
 they are the slaves or the carnal offspring of certain individuals. 
 
 § 294. It may be advisable to illustrate these principles by 
 diagrams, in order to " assist the mind in keeping its ideas distinct, 
 and to help in comparing them together with readiness and correct- 
 ness."^ It will be interesting also to observe how mathematical 
 figures and principles may be made subservient to moral investiga- 
 tion. 
 
 1 Upham's " Elements of Mental Philosophy," § 285. 
 
164 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 § 295. For the first illustration, let two rectilineal figures 
 represent the two dispensations of the church. The lines will be 
 designated by letters placed at their middles ; the angles, by the 
 letters of the Hnes including them ; and the triangles, by the let- 
 ters of their three sides. Let the Old-Testament church be repre- 
 sented by the Hne O ; the rite of circumcision, by the line C ; the 
 proper subjects of circumcision, by the line S ; and the old dispen- 
 sation, by the triangle SOC. Let the New-Testament church be 
 represented by the line N ; the rite of baptism, by the Hne B ; 
 the proper subjects of baptism, by the line X ; and the new dis' 
 pensation, by the triangle XNB. When two lines meet, their 
 positional relation constitutes an angle; or, as Prof. Davies re- 
 marks, angles "arise from the relative positions" "of lines and 
 planes by which they are bounded."^ Therefore the reciprocal 
 relations of the church, the initiatory rite, and the proper subjects 
 to be initiated under each dispensation, will be represented by the 
 angles formed by their respective Hnes. 
 
 § 296. We have seen that the relations of circumcision and 
 baptism to the churches, and to their respective subjects, are the 
 same (§§ 51, 73). Hence NB is equal to OC; and XB, to SC. 
 But, when two angles of one triangle are equal to two angles of 
 another, the remaining angle of the one is equal to the remaining 
 angle of the other.'' Therefore NX is equal to OS ; that is, the 
 relation of X [the proper subjects of baptism] to N [the New- 
 
 1 " Logic of Mathematics," §§ 250, 273. 2 Euclid, book i. prop. 32. 
 
APPENDIX. 165 
 
 Testament church] is the same as the relation of S [the subjects 
 of ch-cumcision] to O [the Old-Testament church]. Thus the first 
 conclusion of the foregoing argument is illustrated by the positional 
 relations of the Hues of the two triangles (§ 73). 
 
 § 297. As the angles of the triangles are equal, if one side of 
 one triangle be equal to one side of the other, either opposite or 
 adjacent to the equal angles, the other sides of the one triangle 
 are equal to the other sides of the other, each to each ; the equal 
 sides being opposite to the equal angles.^ Then, if N [the New- 
 Testament church] be equal to O [the Old-Testament church], B 
 [baptism] is equal to C [circumcision], and X [the proper subjects 
 of baptism] to S [the proper subjects of circumcision]. (See 
 § 292.) 
 
 § 298. Let these principles be further illustrated by the rela- 
 tions of the lines with respect to length or quantity. The angles 
 of the one triangle being equal to those of the other, each to each, 
 the sides about the equal angles' are proportionals ; and those 
 which are opposite the equal angles are homologous sides ; that 
 is, are the antecedents and consequents of the ratios.^ Therefore 
 B [baptism] is to N [the New-Testament church] as C [circum- 
 cision] is to O [the Old -Testament church]; and B [baptism] is to 
 X [the proper subjects of baptism] as C [circumcision] is to S [the 
 proper subjects of circumcision] ; and X [the proper subjects of 
 baptism] is to N [the New-Testament church] as S [the proper 
 subjects of circumcision] to O [the Old -Testament church]. Thus 
 we again reach our first conclusion (§§ 73, 296). 
 
 § 299. Or if the line C be taken as representing carnal birth, 
 and the line B as representing spiritual birth, the same process 
 will show that X [the proper subjects of baptism] is to N [the 
 New-Testament church] as S [the proper subjects of circumcision] 
 is to O [the Old -Testament church]; and B [spiritual birth] is to 
 N [the New-Testament church] as C [carnal birth] is to O [the 
 Old -Testament church] ; and B [spiritual birth] is to X [the pro- 
 per subjects of baptism] as C [carnal birth] is to S [the proper 
 1 Euclid, book i. prop. 26. 2 Euclid, book vi. prop. 4. 
 
166 APPENDIX. 
 
 subjects of circumcision]. Here we find substantially three others 
 of our series of conclusions (§§ 86, 89, 102). 
 
 § 300. Here again it is obvious, that, if one side of the one 
 triangle be equal to the homologous side of the other, the other 
 sides of the one are equal to the homologous sides of the 
 other (§ 297). Since B : N : : C : O, and X : N : : S : O, if N 
 be equal to O, B must be equal to C, and X to S. For example : 
 If C be equal to one-half of O, B cannot bear the same relation to 
 N, unless it be equal to one-haK of N ; for that is the ratio or rela- 
 tion of C to 0. And, if N be equal to O, one-half of the one is 
 equal to one-half of the other. So also of X and S. Then, if N 
 [the New-Testament church] be equal to O [the Old -Testament 
 church], B [baptism] is equal to C [circumcision], and X [the 
 proper subjects of baptism] to S [the proper subjects of circum- 
 cision] (§§ 290, 291, 296). In like manner, it may be shown, 
 that, in exact proportion as N [the New-Testament chm-ch] resem- 
 bles or differs from O [the Old -Testament church], B [baptism] 
 resembles or differs from C [circumcision], and X [the proper sub- 
 jects of baptism] resembles or differs from S [the proper subjects 
 of circumcision] (§§ 292, 293). 
 
 § 301. Some of the resemblances and differences between the 
 church, under the old and new dispensations, have been pointed 
 out. Under the latter, it has been enlarged, and rendered more 
 spiritual (§§ 35, 36). The latter point of difference having been 
 noticed (§ 293), let us now confine our attention to the difference 
 which consists in the enlargement of the church. It will be found 
 that a con-esponding enlargement must follow in baptism and its 
 subjects. 
 
 § 302. Let the old dispensation be represented, as before, by 
 the triangle SOC; and let the lines and angles have the same 
 signification. The enlargement of the church may be represented 
 by enlarging the line O ; that is, producing it to a sufficient length 
 The whole line N, which includes the line O, wiU represent the 
 New-Testament church. The relation of baptism to that church 
 is the same as the relation of circumcision to the Old -Testament 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 167 
 
 church : therefore, baptism may be said to be parallel to circum- 
 cision (§ 55). Accordingly, by drawing B parallel to C, from the 
 end of the line N, we make NB equal to OC.^ Produce S till it 
 meet B ; and let the whole Hne, thus enlarged, be called X, and 
 represent the subjects of baptism. 
 
 § 303. In the triangles XNB and SOC, the angles XB and 
 SC are equal, because the parallels B and C are intersected by 
 X ; ^ also because NB is equal to OC, and OS is common to the 
 two triangles.^ Hence the triangles are similar ; the three angles 
 of the one being equal to the three angles of the other, each to 
 each. Therefore' N [the New-Testament church] is to O [the 
 Old -Testament church] as B [baptism] is to C [circumcision] ; 
 that is, baptism is enlarged beyond circumcision in the same pro- 
 portion as the New-Testament church is enlarged beyond the Old- 
 Testament church. Also, as O [the Old -Testament church] was 
 enlarged into N [the New-Testament church], it became necessary 
 
 1 Euclid, book i. prop. 29. 2 Euclid, book i. prop. 32, cor. 4. 
 3 Euclid, book vi. prop. 4. 
 
168 APPENDIX. 
 
 to enlarge also S [the subjects of circumcision] into X [the sub- 
 jects of baptism], in order to complete the triangle XNB [the new 
 dispensation]. And this enlargement is exactly proportional to 
 the enlargement of the church ; for, in the triangle XNB, C is 
 parallel to B : therefore ^ X [the subjects of baptism] is to S [the 
 subjects of circumcision] as N [the New-Testament church] is to 
 O [the Old -Testament church]. 
 
 § 304. This may be thought proving too much; for slaves, 
 and others who were admitted to circumcision, are excluded from 
 baptism. This is a curtailing, instead of an enlargement, of the 
 subjects. Very true : but, on the other hand, females are admitted 
 to baptism, but were excluded from circumcision; which makes 
 the subjects, thus far, at least equal. But equality is not enlarge- 
 ment. The enlargement is exactly the same which has taken 
 place in the chm-ch. Once the church embraced only Israelites, 
 but is so extended as to embrace all believers, whether Jew or 
 Gentile ; and baptism is properly administered to all believers, 
 whether Jew or Gentile, male or female, bond or free. 
 
 § 305. Our last diagram, however, is defective in two particu- 
 lars. Firstly, the triangle which represents the new dispensation 
 is intersected by the line C, which represents circumcision, — the 
 best emblem of " the middle wall of partition," which formerly 
 separated the Israehtes from the Gentiles ; that is, the ritual law 
 of Moses. As " the middle wall of partition " has been " broken 
 down ; " ^ that is, as the ritual law, including circumcision, has 
 been discarded from the new dispensation ; in order to represent 
 that dispensation more correctly, the dividing Hne C must be 
 removed; leawg the triangle XNB undivided, — "one body." 
 Secondly, N, representing the New-Testament church, embraces 
 the whole line O, which represents the Old-Testament chm'ch ; 
 whereas the greater part of the latter were " broken off," and 
 only "a remnant" saved in the church. The same remark 
 appHes to the lines X and S. Therefore, to represent the new 
 dispensation more correctly, X must embrace but a part of S, 
 1 Euclid, book vi. prop. 2. 2 Eph. ii. 14. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 169 
 
 excluding slaves, &c., as such ; and N must embrace but a part 
 of O ; that is, the remnant, which the line R may represent. The 
 part " broken off because of unbelief," consisting of the larger 
 portion of the Jewish nation, " who say they are Jews, and are 
 not," ^ together with circumcision, " the middle wall of partition," 
 which is overthrown and cast out of the scheme, must be removed 
 from our triangle. Accordingly, they are represented by the 
 
 New-Testament Church. 
 
 lines O and C, below the 
 triangle. R, the remnant 
 of the " good oHve-tree," 
 must be enlarged by the 
 branches of the "wild oUve." 
 Let this enlargement be 
 represented by producing 
 the line R to a sufficient 
 length ; and, from the end 
 of the line thus produced, 
 
 Unbelieving Jews. 
 
 1 Rev. ii. 9; iii. 
 15 
 
170 APPENDIX. 
 
 draw the line B, making the angle NB equal to the angle OC. 
 The lines B and S being produced, make the triangle complete. 
 B represents baptism ; X, the proper subjects of baptism ; N, the 
 New-Testament church, consisting of the remnant of Jews, and 
 all the Gentiles who have been brought into the church with them 
 by faith. Thus the triangle XNB represents the gospel dispensa- 
 tion, — the church, the initiatory rite, and the subjects of it. 
 
 § 306. This triangle is similar to the triangle SOC, which, in 
 the other diagrams, represents the old dispensation ; that is, all the 
 angles or relations are equal, though the sides are not. Conse- 
 quently, the sides about the equal angles are proportionals ; and 
 those which are opposite the equal angles are homologous sides.^ 
 In other words, B [baptism] is to N [the New-Testament church] 
 as C [circumcision] is to O [the Old -Testament church] ; and B 
 [baptism] is to X [the subjects of baptism] as C [cu'cumcision] to 
 S [the subjects of circumcision] ; and X [the subjects of baptism] 
 to N [the New-Testament church] as S [the subjects of circum- 
 cision] to O [the Old -Testament chm'ch]. Thus, once again, we 
 have reached the first of our series of consequences (§§ 73, 296, 
 298). 
 
 § 307. Our last diagram will illustrate the discarding of mem- 
 bership by carnal bkth from the Christian scheme, and the substi- 
 tution of membership by spmtual bu'th. Let the Hne C again 
 represent carnal birth ; and B, spiritual bu-th. Then B [spiritual 
 birth] is to N [the New-Testament church] as C [carnal birth] is 
 to O [the Old -Testament church] ; and B [spiritual birth] is to X 
 [the proper subjects of baptism] as C [carnal bu'th] is to S [the 
 proper subjects of circumcision]. And it is thus exemplified, that, 
 in exact proportion as N [the New-Testament church] difiers from 
 O [the Old -Testament chm-ch], B [spiritual birth] differs from C 
 [carnal birth], and X [the proper subjects of baptism] from S [the 
 proper subjects of circumcision]. We thus see, also, that the dis- 
 tinction between Jew and Gentile, arising out of carnal bu*th, is 
 1 Euclid, book vi. prop. 4. 
 
APPENDIX. 171 
 
 abolished in the church 5 that Christ Jesus, our peace, " hath made 
 both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition ; " ^ 
 that those " who say they are Jews, and are not," ^ together with 
 . the carnal birth in which they gloried, have been cast out of the 
 Christian scheme ; under which, " he is not a Jew who is one out- 
 wardly ; neither is that cu'cumcision which is outward in the flesh : 
 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly ; and circumcision is of the 
 heart, in the spirit, not in the letter ; whose praise is not of men, 
 but of God." ^ And so Jesus told the Jews, " If ye were Abra- 
 ham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." * This idea 
 shines forth in almost every page of the New Testament; and 
 this it was which gave such offence to the unbelieving Jews, such 
 joy to the beHe\dng Gentiles. 
 
 § 308. The above diagrams are designed, not for proof, but for 
 illustration ; yet it is believed that the principles which control 
 the mathematical truths employed in these illustrations will hold 
 equally in all cases where there is an equal resemblance of rela- 
 tions. These are evidently the principles which Pedobaptists 
 assume, and attempt to apply, when they contend that the church 
 is now the same as under the old dispensation, but is spirituahzed 
 and enlarged (§ 36), or " expanded to a nobler form ; " ^ and that 
 baptism is the same thing as circumcision, except in outward form 
 (§§ 49-51). If these premises be true, the Pedobaptists are right 
 in believing that the principles above illustrated are applicable. 
 But they commit a very natm-al error, a very sHght yet impor- 
 tant oversight, in attempting to apply those principles. They 
 overlook the truth, that it is one's relation to the church of God, 
 not to individual members of it, which entitles one to receive the 
 rite of initiation. They are also guilty of a fallacy of that kind 
 which Mill pronounces to be perhaps the commonest, and cer- 
 
 1 Eph. ii. 14. 3 Rom. ii. 28, 29. 
 
 2 Rev. ii. 9 ; iii. 9. 4 John viii. 39. 
 
 5 Rev. William Ingraham Kip, " Double Witness of the Church," 
 p. 241. 
 
172 APPENDIX. 
 
 tainly the most dangerous, of the fallacies of ratiocination, and 
 which consists in changing the premises. " Instances of this fal- 
 lacy," says he, "will be found in almost all the argumentative 
 discourses of unprecise thinkers j and we need only here advert 
 to one of the obscurer forms of it. . . . This is committed, when, 
 in the premises, a proposition is asserted with a quahfication, and 
 the qualification lost sight of in the conclusion ; or, oftener, when 
 a limitation or condition, though not asserted, is necessary to the 
 truth of the proposition, but is forgotten when that proposition 
 comes to be employed as a premise." ^ Thus the Pedobaptists, as 
 already remarked (§ 269), assume the proposition, that the Chris- 
 tian church is the same as the Israelitish church, but ydth this 
 qualification, — that the Christian church is rendered more spirit- 
 ual ; consisting no longer of the seed of Abraham bom of the 
 flesh, but of his spiritual seed (§§ 32-36). But, when they come 
 to employ that proposition as a premise, they lose sight of the 
 qualification; setting it aside on the ground that the difference 
 "is not essential" (§ 35). "To assume that it is not essential is 
 to beg the question. The difference is so essential that it is the 
 very pivot upon which the whole matter turns. It is the very thing 
 which excludes carnal infants fi.'om baptism," whether baptism is 
 the same as circumcision, or is continued, as an initiatory rite, 
 from the old dispensation (§ 269). In the foregoing pages, the 
 effort has been made to point out the error of the Pedobaptists, 
 and apply correctly the principles which they are believed to 
 misapply. 
 
 1 " System of Logic," book v. chap. 6, § 4. 
 
 THE END. 
 
^_ w