THE 
 
 THREE INFANT BAPTISMS 
 
 OXFORD, GLASGOW, AND MANCHESTER; 
 
 AXD 
 
 W)t Ttfzto Testament Baptism 
 
 OF 
 
 REPENTANCE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS ; 
 
 A LECTURE DELIVERED AT BRISTOL. 
 
 BY EDWARD WHITE. 
 
 Price One Shilling. 
 

 £5 
 
 Q_ 
 
 
 
 
 .5 
 
 
 J? 
 
 
 1c 
 
 3 
 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 *^, 
 
 
 IE 
 
 : I 
 
 £*+ 
 
 h3* 
 
 Q- 
 
 
 ^W 
 
 
 
 
 *Ss 
 
 fc 
 
 <*— 
 
 o 
 
 
 & 
 
 w 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 <u 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 
 w 
 
 O 
 
 bfl 
 
 c\ 
 
 »25 
 
 &H 
 
 <t 
 
 J> 
 
 l=> 
 
 o 
 
 ~a3 
 
 
 
 fe 
 
 E 
 
 .^5 
 
 <0 
 
 M 
 
 ('3 
 
 "£» 
 
 - ^j 
 
 « 
 
 CO 
 
 §1 
 
 
 P4 
 
 l! 
 ^ 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 sx 
 
 
 % 
 
 
 c 
 
 8 
 
 v* 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 CO 
 
 0> 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 CL 
 
 $ 
 
 ^ 
 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Ljbrary 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/threeinfantbaptiOOwhit 
 
THE 
 
 THREE INFANT BAPTISMS 
 
 of 
 
 OXFORD, GLASGOW, AND MANCHESTER; 
 
 AND 
 
 ۤt %m fetimrnit akpfcw 
 
 OK 
 
 REPENTANCE FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; 
 
 WITH CONSIDERATIONS ON 
 
 THEIR RESPECTIVE BEARINGS ON PERSONAL RELIGION AND THE 
 CONSTITUTION OP THE CHURCH. 
 
 £To toljtci) is prefixed, 
 
 A BRIEF DEFENCE BOTH OF IMMERSION 
 AND POURING. 
 
 A LECTURE DELIVERED AT THE GALLERY OF THE FINE ARTS ACADBH1 
 
 BRISTOL. 
 
 / 
 
 BY EDWARD* WHITE, 
 
 AITHOK OK FOUR DISCOURSES ON LIFE IN CHRIST. 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 B. L. GREEN, PATERNOSTER ROW; 
 
 EVANS AND ABBOTT, CLARE STREET, BRISTOL 
 
 AND JOSEPH JONES, HEREFORD. 
 
 1850. 
 
" It is in the highest degree probable that the practice 
 of infant baptism was unknown at this period." 
 
 Neander on the Apostolic Church. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Tiie question of Baptism has in the lapse of ages 
 become entangled -with manifold worldly and party 
 interests, in the shape of trust deeds, church and chapel 
 property, ministerial salaries, and the dignity of ecclesi- 
 astical corporations ; and so vast is the amount of gold 
 and silver that weighs in either scale of the argument, 
 that, from the frailty of human nature, it is difficult for 
 men to handle it in a serious and unprejudiced spirit, 
 notwithstanding the honesty of their general character 
 and intentions. The measure of angry bigotry which 
 prevails in relation to this subject, can be fully estimated 
 by those alone whose inquiries have been specially 
 turned in that direction. Among the defenders of infant 
 baptism this evil spirit of theological animosity exists, 
 not always, yet more frequently, in a latent form ; among 
 the Baptist communities, as is the wont of reformers, it 
 is more loudly expressed. Some few of the latter, par- 
 ticularly in the country districts, appear to exult over 
 the baptism of a proselyte more than over a conversion. 
 The occasions of the administration of the sacred rite are 
 b2 
 
IV 
 
 not seldom taken, with singular bad taste and judgment, 
 as opportunities for controversy, and for throwing 
 out bold, exciting challenges to the opponents. Now 
 and then, as recently in Wales, a spirit of baptism seems 
 to break out in a neighbourhood, which might strike an 
 observer as betraying a strong family likeness to the 
 spirit of a gross and vulgar Puseyism. The aim then 
 appears to be to conquer the Independents, rather than 
 to conquer sin : and many are urged to be baptized, who 
 have not perhaps been first sufficiently urged to repent- 
 ance. In matters of opinion it is well known that we 
 are more likely to be in bondage to ourselves than to 
 any other man. It is a sore trial to sacrifice the dignity 
 of our own judgments, by admitting that we did not 
 start in life in a state of omniscience. It costs most men 
 a severe struggle to abandon an opinion which has been 
 often and earnestly defended. This struggle is rendered 
 doubly severe by the anti-paedobaptist tactics referred 
 to. Ill feeling begets ill feeling. The voice of brotherly 
 correction in righteousness is superseded by the tone of 
 an unscrupulous partizanship, and since both parties are 
 composed of fallen men, a similar manifestation from 
 the adversary generally ensues. True zeal for God, 
 however, is love in action. The genuine love of truth is 
 inseparable from the love of God and man. The love of 
 our own opinions may exist in conjunction with a very 
 sincere dislike of those who oppose them. Until the 
 leaders in such unholy warfare are visited with the sharp 
 rebuke of the masses of moderate men of either opinion, 
 there is but little hope of the useful prosecution of this 
 or any other controversy. 
 
 Among persons who are animated by a sectarian spirit, 
 assent to every article of their creed is usually demanded 
 
as the pre-requisite to ministry and communion. Sec- 
 tarian theology runs upon its own railway. It knows no 
 change of gauge. The Jews have no dealings with the 
 Samaritans. Little, I fear, will it avail an inquirer in 
 the eyes of such to profess conviction of the sole aposto- 
 licity of the baptism of believers elder or younger, unless 
 he be also prepared to admit the sole apostolicity and 
 lawfulness of immersion as the mode. For all those 
 learned persons who conscientiously maintain the 
 latter opinion, it behoves us to entertain due sentiments 
 of respect : but it is perfectly unwarrantable to represent 
 the practice and prejudice of the masses of uninstructed 
 members of the Baptist denomination as founded on an 
 adequate and critical conviction. They hold that immer- 
 sion only is lawful, not because they understand Greek, 
 but because they have been taught that fianTify signifies 
 nothing but to dip. Men adopt opinions in bundles 
 without much examination. Believers in infant baptism 
 always maintain the mode of sprinkling or pouring ; 
 the opponents always and everywhere believe only in 
 immersion. 
 
 For my own part, (if a personal explanation in this 
 place may be pardoned,) notwithstanding that Baptism 
 is properly an initiatory sacrament, I have, after much 
 consideration, been baptized ; 1st, because it is a com- 
 mand of Him who is made Lord of the universe with 
 infinite authority, and who requires from his ministers 
 that they should " do and teach " His " least command- 
 ments;" — 2nd, because in all conscientious obedience 
 there is blessedness, and even after many years of reli- 
 gious thought, such an exercise may be rendered ex- 
 ceedingly instructive and consolatory, if it have been 
 previously neglected ; — and 3dly, because this was the 
 
strongest possible method of bearing a solemn and public 
 testimony against what I feel constrained to regard as 
 the error of infant baptism, the foundation-stone of the 
 Roman and Anglican theologies. Further, I have been 
 baptized by immersion, not only because I knew of none 
 who would baptize me in any other manner; but also, 
 because I desired to bear witness that this is a Scriptural 
 and the regular ante-nicene mode of " washing with 
 water," as may be seen in the writers of that early age ; 
 — because it is very ignorantly and profanely regarded 
 with ridicule by the modern world ; — and because, if 
 solemnly, slowly, and, as the Rubric of the Church of 
 England says, " warily " administered, in sufficiently 
 deep water, and without sudden plunging, the rite may 
 be rendered a strikingly impressive image of the extreme 
 defilement of human nature which requires so great a 
 purification, of the death unto sin, and of the resurrection 
 unto life eternal, through the justifying, cleansing mercy 
 of God. 
 
 But, at the painful risk of displeasing both denomina- 
 tions of dissenters, by agreeing with both of them, I 
 must here humbly venture to profess the belief, founded 
 upon an attentive perusal of the books of both parties, 
 that the word /3a<n-ri<?u signifies to cover with any fluid, 
 eitherfrom above or from beneath; and, consequently, tbat 
 while he who is immersed has, beyond all doubt, re- 
 ceived baptism, he also is sufficiently baptized on whom 
 water is copiously sprinkled or poured. In the case of 
 immersion, the image represents burial of the old nature 
 with Christ. In the case of pouring or copious asper- 
 sion, the image sets forth, not only the justifying power 
 of the name of Jesus, but also the descent and anointing 
 of the sanctifying and immortalizing Spirit of the living 
 
Vll 
 
 God. In this manner, as we learn from Cyprian's 
 seventy-fifth letter, the sick and bed-ridden were bap- 
 tized in the early church; and this martyr-bishop 
 earnestly contends for the completeness of that baptism, 
 and rebukes those who, like our modern Baptist friends, 
 then spoke slightingly of such initiation ; quoting such 
 passages also as this : " Behold I will sprinkle clean 
 water upon you, and ye shall be clean," &c* Those 
 who, with a competent knowledge of the facts concern- 
 ing the scarcity of water at Jerusalem, and the absence 
 of any considerable stream — for Kidron was a filthy 
 drain — are able, without hesitation, to suppose that the 
 thousands of Pentecostal converts were all immersed, 
 are welcome to their faith ; but it ought to be remem- 
 bered, that it is in the highest degree improbable, that 
 in that hot and oriental climate persons would have 
 submitted to baptism in the same standing water in 
 which many other men and women had been baptized. 
 The practice is sufficiently repulsive in a cold country ; 
 but it would be intolerable nearer the line. At least, 
 therefore, water for a thousand baths would have been 
 required ; and, I confess, it seems much more probable 
 that, since there was not " much water there," the Jeru- 
 salem baptisms were performed by pouring water on the 
 head. In this manner, as may be seen in ' Bingham's 
 Antiquities,' the early martyrs sometimes baptized their 
 keepers in the prison. Be this, however, as it may, it 
 
 * Nee quemquam movere debet quod aspergi vel perfundi viden- 
 tur aegri cum gratiam dominicara consequuntur, quando scriptura 
 sancta per Ezechielem prophetam loquatur et dicat; et aspergam 
 super vos aquam puram, ike. Unde apparet aspersionem quoque 
 aquae instar salutaris lavacri obtinere, et quando liaec in ecclesia 
 fiunt, ubi sit et accipientis, et dantis fides integra, stare omnia et 
 consunftnari ac perfici posse majestate Domini et veritate fidei. 
 
VU1 
 
 would appear that if sickness was of old time, in that 
 deeply mystic antiquity, a sufficient dispensation from 
 immersion, those numerous persons may also be ex- 
 empted from it in this more northern latitude, and in 
 these less ceremonial days, whom sex, health, age, 
 weak nerves, or timid disposition, might hinder from 
 receiving a spiritual benefit at the time, from so great an 
 excitement and physical shock as that which is undoubt- 
 edly occasioned by the submersion of the whole body. 
 Some relaxation in the strict Greek criticism which cha- 
 racterizes the Baptist churches on this word, fiairriZp, 
 would, I feel persuaded, be of infinite service ; since, 
 next to the dissenting peedo-baptisms, it would appear 
 that the unconquerable and unconditional demand for 
 immersion in all cases, is the principal buttress of the 
 system of infant-baptismal-regeneration. Baptists are 
 scarcely aware of the horror with which, rightly or 
 wrongly, most persons regard the practice of public im- 
 mersion, 
 
 "With respect to the scriptural argument as admitting 
 of both modes, I never yet encountered an advocate of 
 pouring or sprinkling exclusively, who seemed to do 
 justice to the evidence of apostolic immersion afforded 
 by such texts as " buried with him in baptism," &c. ; 
 and, on the other hand, I never yet met with a Baptist 
 who appeared to perceive that it is quite inadmissible to 
 regard the "baptism with fire" of the day of pentecost as 
 a dipping into that sacred element, or who seemed dis- 
 posed to treat with justice the exposition of that baptism 
 offered in the words, "He hath shed forth this which ye 
 now see and hear." Such is the wonderful obstinacy of 
 religious convictions ! 
 
 If, however, every passage in the Bible indicated that 
 
IK 
 
 immersion was the invariable mode of apostolic baptism, 
 I feel persuaded that the genius of Christianity warrants 
 an adaptation of its outward forms to the circumstances 
 of different climates, persons, and ages. Why do not 
 the defenders of one mode of baptism only " greet one 
 another with a holy kiss?" The apostolic command is 
 sufficiently clear; but it is held that in our country such 
 a mode of salutation would rot be accounted other than 
 undesirable, if adopted by all ages and both sexes. I 
 venture to apply something of the same kind of reason- 
 ing to the mode of baptism, and should be glad to see 
 an°attempt to draw a distinction between the two cases. 
 With those learned persons who contend that to baptize 
 signifies to dip, and nothing but to dip, we have here no 
 concern. They are referred to Dr. Halley's masterly 
 chapter on the subject, in his volume on the Sacraments. 
 The masses of the Baptist people, however, do not un- 
 derstand Greek; and with them the popular persuasion 
 cannot be a matter of enlightened conscience; since 
 they have just as much reason to believe those scholars 
 who tell them that to baptize signifies to cover with 
 water from above or from beneath, as they have to believe 
 those who tell them that it signifies to cover from be- 
 neath only, by immersion. A piece of delicate and 
 doubtful Greek criticism is scarcely a fitting basis for a 
 popular Christian denomination. 
 
 Some weighty words of Dr. Arnold shall close this 
 preface. " Be of one party to the death, and that is 
 Christ's ; but abhor every other ; abhor it, that is, as a 
 thing to which to join yourselves ;— for every party is 
 mixed up of good and evil, of truth and falsehood ; and 
 in joining it, therefore, you join with the one as well as 
 the otker. If circumstances should occur which oblige 
 b 5 
 
you practically to act with any one party as the least of 
 two evils, then watch yourselves the more lest the least 
 of two evils should hy any means commend itself at 
 last to your mind as a positive good. Join it with a sad 
 and reluctant heart, protesting against its evil, dreading 
 its victory, far more pleased to serve it by suffering than 
 by acting ; for it is in Christ's cause only that we can 
 act with heart and soul, as well as patiently and tri- 
 umphantly suffer. Do this amidst reproach, and suspi- 
 cion, and cold friendship, and zealous enmity ; for this 
 is the portion of those who seek to follow their Master, 
 and Him only. Do it, though your foes be they of your 
 own household ; those whom nature, or habit, or choice, 
 had once bound to you most closely. And then you 
 will understand how, even now, there is a daily cross to 
 be taken up by those who seek not to please men, but 
 God : yet you will learn no less, how that cross, meekly 
 and firmly borne, whether it be the cross of men's ill 
 opinion from without, or of our own evil nature struggled 
 against within, is now, as ever, peace, and wisdom, and 
 sanctification, and redemption, through Him who first 
 bore it." — Sermo?is iii. p. 263. 
 
 It may be proper to add, that nothing will be found 
 in these pages bearing specially on the theory of Mr. 
 Gorham and his party. So far as they agree with their 
 own church, by admitting an occasional baptismal rege- 
 neration of infants, they are answered by the arguments 
 against the doctrine of that church. So far as they 
 agree with the dissenters, the replies to the dissenters 
 will also serve. 
 
THE 
 
 THREE INFANT BAPTISES* 
 
 OP 
 
 OXFORD, GLASGOW, AND MANCHESTER, 
 
 ETC. 
 
 The controversy on the nature of the apostolic baptism 
 is one which most persons approach with excessive re- 
 pugnance. This repugnance arises in some minds from 
 an opinion of the secondary importance of the question 
 at issue ; in others from despair of ascertaining the truth 
 in a discussion carried on with voluminous arguments 
 on both sides by able men during many generations ,* 
 in others again from a deep horror of the practice of 
 immersion, and from a consequent prejudice against any 
 reasonings supposed to be necessarily connected with 
 that practice ; and lastly, in others from a dread lest thf 
 result of such an investigation should be to sunder the* 
 bonds of ancient and cherished ecclesiastical relationships. 
 
 None of these reasons however, are sufficient in the 
 judgment of a healthy conscience to excuse a perversion 
 through indifference, of one of the great sacraments of 
 the Christian religion. Baptism is at least as holy as 
 the communion of the Lord's supper ; and if a carelesfc 
 reception of the latter was punished in the Corinthian 
 church by the infliction of death, we may presume that, 
 bad as an unwilling error on baptism may be after ex- 
 amination, a total indifference as to the truth, evinced 
 
12 
 
 by a refusal to inquire, is far worse. If the precept, 
 " Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind," 
 was applicable to the distinction between meats and be- 
 tween days, it is surely far more applicable with respect 
 to the sacred ordinances of the church, which is the 
 house and the temple of the living God. " Happy is he 
 that condemneth not himself in that thing which he 
 alloweth . He that doubteth is damned if he eat, 
 (or baptize) because he eateth not of conviction : for 
 whatsoever is not of conviction is sin." Rom. xiv. 22, 23. 
 Whatever might have been the original place of 
 baptism in the system of Christianity, the controversy con- 
 cerning it has practically become one of the very highest 
 importance in subsequent ages. In a world full of cor- 
 rupt tendencies, an apparently trivial error may prove 
 the germ and element of a vast system of delusion. In 
 consequence of the living unity of truth, a single mistaken 
 opinion is nearly certain to spread the infection of error 
 over a wider surface than was at first occupied by the 
 disease. The more general the principle assumed in an 
 argument, the greater will be the number of special 
 truths or falsehoods to which it leads, according as it is 
 itself a truth or a falsehood. And the history of the 
 sacraments forms a signal illustration of these state- 
 ments. The miraculous, or rather magical, doctrines on 
 baptism and transubstantiation in the Lord's supper, 
 prevalent in the Roman church, form, as the great Roman 
 Catholic philosopher, Schlegel, asserts, — the foundation 
 of the whole power of the Roman hierarchy — a destroy- 
 ing power which has overshadowed, and still over- 
 shadows, the world. There is scarcely a portion or an 
 interest of Christianity unaffected in modern times by 
 the doctrine of the sacraments. The question of bap- 
 tism is inextricably woven into the web of the doctrine 
 of church membership, and that again into the doctrine 
 of church privileges and church discipline. If, therefore, 
 
13 
 
 there be any importance attaching to the controversy 
 with the Roman Catholic or Anglican hierarchies, the 
 same importance attaches to the true doctrine of baptism. 
 If there be any interest or weight in the question, Who 
 shall be regarded as a member of the church of Christ ? 
 an equal collateral interest belongs to the question, 
 Who shall be baptized ? And if there be any regard 
 due to the administration of the apostolic laws of church 
 government, the same regard is due to that extension or 
 limitation of baptism which regulates the quality and 
 character of the persons of whom the church is com- 
 posed. A mind suitably impressed with the obligatori- 
 ness of every precept rendered permanently binding by 
 Divine Authority, and with the offensiveness to heaven 
 of human commandments taught as the doctrines of 
 God, will readily admit that error in this department of 
 Christian duty is greatly to be deprecated, whether that 
 error lie with the churches who practise infant baptism, 
 or with those who reject it. 
 
 Four distinct systems of baptism are taught in the 
 churches in modern times, each claiming to represent 
 the ordinance instituted by the Son of God. I propose 
 to offer a brief examination of them in succession. 
 
 I. 
 
 The first is that which prevails in the Lutheran 
 chnrch and the church of England, which attributes 
 a spiritual, regenerating efficacy to the administration of 
 the rite, conditionally upon a worthy reception in the 
 case of adults, unconditionally and absolutely in the case 
 of infants. The gift of the Holy Spirit is conceived to 
 accompany the washing with water in the name of the 
 Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Original 
 sin is supposed to be removed by the ceremony, and its 
 awful ^consequences of everlasting misery prevented in 
 the future state, so that those who have been baptized, 
 
14 
 
 and die in infancy, are " undoubtedly saved," while a 
 dark cloud rests upon the prospects of those who have 
 not enjoyed the benefit of the saving ordinance. The 
 baptism of infants under this theory is made to rest upon 
 a threefold argument. 1 st. The commission to " teach 
 all nations, baptizing them," is alleged to comprehend 
 within its intention all classes, from the earliest infancy 
 to the hoariest age. 2nd. The nature of the benefit to 
 be bestowed, regenerating grace, points out infants as 
 among the most suitable recipients, since in them there 
 can be no obstacle through personal transgression to a 
 worthy reception. And, 3rdly, it is maintained that the 
 voices of antiquity are unanimous in support of the doc- 
 trine of the remission of sin and gift of the Spirit in 
 baptism, and in defence of the corresponding administra- 
 tion of the rite to infants as well as persons of adult age. 
 We at once admit that whatever evidence there is in 
 the writings of the early Christians in favour of infant 
 baptism, and there is not a little from the end of the 
 second century downwards, there is precisely the same 
 amount of evidence in favour of the doctrine of the 
 spiritual regeneration of infants thereby. It is a manifest 
 violence to deny this, which is one of the plainest facts 
 in ecclesiastical history. It is a fact, on the strength of 
 which all the great church writers of England, down to 
 the davs of Waterland and Bishop Bethell, have securely 
 depended against their puritan opponents. I do not 
 think a single passage can be adduced in defence of 
 infant baptism in which the reason alleged for the ad- 
 ministration is any other than a design to make them 
 partakers of the remission of sins and the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost. Thus in the Epistles of Cyprian, bishop 
 and martyr in the middle of the third century, a man 
 well qualified to represent the opinions of the previous 
 generation, and of his contemporaries, we find him re- 
 prehending a presbyter, who desired to postpone the 
 
15 
 
 baptism of infants to the eighth day, in conformity with 
 the law of circumcision, and at great length urging the 
 administration as soon after the birth as possible, on the 
 very ground that spiritual circumcision should not be 
 delayed, but that every human being should be admitted 
 as speedily as possible to the grace of Christ, the remis- 
 sion of original sin, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. 
 Epist. 58. Such is the uniform voice of the ancient 
 church writers who have descended to our times. There 
 is not one of them, apparently, who would not have 
 been shocked at the idea of a baptism by water unac- 
 companied by the gift of the Spirit, and this equally in 
 the case of infants and adults. In the council of eighty- 
 seven bishops, held at Carthage, under the presidency 
 of Cyprian, heretical baptism was decreed to be no 
 baptism, because it could not be accompanied by the 
 heavenly gift. Heretics, therefore, in coming over to 
 the orthodox church were to be re-baptized. 
 
 The nonconformist writers, therefore, who have gladly 
 availed themselves of the testimony of antiquity in 
 favour of infant baptism, have not behaved with perfect 
 candour and their usual truthfulness, when they have 
 suppressed the equally clear evidence of the fact, that this 
 baptism was always and everywhere, so far as appears 
 by the records, administered not as a sign of general 
 truths, not merely as a sign of admission into the church 
 of the covenant, much less as the simple mark of a 
 catechumen, or person to be instructed in Christianity, 
 but always, and without any reservation or hypothesis, 
 as an effectual sacrament for the remission of original 
 sin, and the communication of regenerating grace. The 
 dissenting writers in favour of infant baptism may 
 safely be challenged by their high church adversaries 
 to produce a tittle of evidence from the early church in 
 favour of any other description of infant baptism. 
 
 Strong, however, as the high church theory of bap- 
 
16 
 
 tism is in the defence of a most venerable antiquity and 
 catholic orthodoxy, from the second century downwards, 
 it is opposed in all its parts and proportions to the autho- 
 rity of Scripture, and must he regarded as the production 
 of that " mystery of iniquity," which already wrought 
 even in the days of the apostles, and Avas the almost 
 inevitable growth of an age signally ignorant of the 
 sacred writings, and rife with the spirit of priestcraft, 
 superstition, and apostacy. Men are deceived by the 
 glorv of the martyrs as to the true character of the 
 second century in its theological aspect ; and never will 
 the Bible regain its due supremacy until we have learned 
 that Justin, Tatian, Theophilus, Clement, Irenseus. 
 Tertullian, and Minutius Felix, were most unworthy 
 successors of Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, Luke, and 
 James. 
 
 For, in the first place, although it is said, that " Ex- 
 cept a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
 cannot enter into the kingdom of God," it is nowhere 
 said that he who is baptized is always at the same time 
 born of the Spirit. That which our Lord a terms is that 
 baptism by water is necessary, and that baptism by the 
 Spirit is necessary ; but he does not in any manner 
 connect the two together, so as to imply that the re- 
 generating baptism of the Spirit takes place at or in the 
 baptism by water. On the contrary, the whole-current 
 of the New Testament shows that spiritual baptism or 
 regeneration should precede the water baptism. It was 
 after Cornelius and his company believed through grace, 
 and even after they had received the miraculous effusion 
 of the wonder-working Spirit, that Peter said, " Can 
 any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized 
 which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we ? " 
 On Roman or Anglican principles the reply would have 
 been obvious and pertinent. Let all men forbid it ! for 
 why should they be made a second time regenerate in 
 
17 
 
 baptism who have already received regenerating grace, 
 as is evident by their faith and piety, and by the testi- 
 mony borne of God by the descent of the gifts of the 
 Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul again openly repudiates 
 the doctrine of sacramental efficacy in baptism, when he 
 says in his first epistle to the Corinthians, chap, i., " I 
 thank God I baptized none of you, save Crispus and 
 Gaius, lest any should say that I baptized in mine own 
 name." "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to 
 preach the gospel." If the grace of the regenerating 
 Spirit were to be conveyed in baptism, surely St. Paul 
 should rather have lamented that he had conferred the 
 heavenly gift upon so few of the Corinthians. Little 
 right had he to say, " I have begotten you through the 
 gospel." Neither is there any ground for the pretence 
 that our Lord in his conversation with Nicodemus, 
 John iii., intimated the necessity of baptism for infant 
 salvation, when he says, " Except a man be born of 
 water and the Spirit he cannot see the kingdom of 
 God; " for it might just as reasonably be argued, that 
 because elsewhere, Mark xvi. 16, he conjoins belief and 
 baptism as essential to salvation, he intimates thereby 
 that infants cannot be saved unless they believe and are 
 baptized ; which is impossible. There is as much men- 
 tion of, or reference to, infants in the one case as in the 
 other ; that is, there is no mention or reference at all ; 
 and therefore it is exactly as unjustifiable to refer our 
 Saviour's statement on birth by water and the Spirit to 
 infants, as it would be to refer to them his statement on 
 belief and baptism as necessary to salvation. 
 
 If, however, we are to believe that the hierarchies of 
 Rome and England possess the enviable power of effect- 
 ing spiritual regeneration in infant baptism, it seems to 
 be a reasonable and by no means presumptuous inquiry, 
 Are there any clear, indisputable signs that so mighty 
 and bussed a change has been wrought upon the natures 
 
18 
 
 of the baptized ? Have they " passed from death unto 
 life," and yet are there no external indications of the 
 fact afforded in the subsequent development of the cha- 
 racter ? If the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, 
 longsuffering, purity, integrity, devotion, assuredly the 
 bulk of the populations asserted to have been regenerated 
 in infancy give no evidence in their conduct of having 
 been the subjects of the transforming agency. Is this 
 change transient in its results, so that the grace of the 
 Spirit evaporates in early childhood, like the baptismal 
 water from the forehead of the babe? Is it credible 
 that the God of mercy would bestow the highest of all 
 gifts in the earliest infancy, and withdraw it, or permit 
 the heavenly grace to be totally expelled by victorious 
 corruption, just at that period of childhood and youth 
 when the presence of the Holy Spirit would have been 
 of the most signal advantage in furnishing ability for a 
 conquest over sin ? Or, if it be a permanent change of 
 nature abiding through following years, how is it that 
 there are not universally some external signs in the 
 character of that new birth and new creation ? Is it to 
 be believed that all our ploughmen and vine-dressers, 
 young men and maidens, are spiritually regenerate ; that 
 they have received, as the bishop tells them when they 
 flock to confirmation, " the Holy Ghost and forgiveness 
 of all their sins ;" and yet that it is not discoverable, 
 by their spirit and deportment, that they have been 
 " made partakers of a divine nature ?" Assuredly, we 
 repeat, there are no such signs following. Unbaptized 
 children and youth stand on the same level, as to their 
 morals and religion, with the baptized. No mortal eye 
 could distinguish the two classes. Infant baptism is not 
 followed by the evidences of divine grace ; and no re- 
 flecting Christian, blessed in after years with a spirit of 
 piety, would think of attributing its possession to 
 regenerating mercy received at the font. We seem to 
 
19 
 
 be warranted, therefore, in regarding the general absence 
 of sanctifying results as the consequence of baptism, as a 
 conclusive proof that no such spiritual change as is 
 imagined accompanies the administration of the rite. 
 
 The practical tendency, however, of the Roman and 
 Anglican doctrine is to accustom all the baptized to 
 consider themselves as Christians, as new creatures, as 
 requiring, indeed, subsequent additions of grace, yet not 
 as requiring that fundamental revolution of nature and 
 relation which is described in Scripture as the second 
 birth. If, then, spiritual regeneration was not effected 
 when supposed, the influence of this doctrine must needs 
 be immensely disastrous. It closes the ears of its vota- 
 ries to all those warnings of Scripture which represent a 
 new, inward creation as indispensable to salvation ; it 
 fosters in wicked men the destructive error that they are, 
 in some effectual sense, "the children of God and inhe- 
 ritors of the kingdom of heaven : ; ' and encourages the 
 fatal opinion that there may be some other valid founda- 
 tion for hope than a manifest production of the fruits of 
 a living faith and love. It confounds together all the 
 baptized inhabitants of a parish, from the saint to the 
 debauchee, as equally regenerate persons ; it altogether 
 prevents conformity to the ecclesiastical laws of the 
 apostles of Christ ; and it inevitably leads to a general 
 acknowledgment of worldly virtues as Christian graces : 
 thus lowering the entire supernatural system of spiritual 
 religion to a level which suits the carnality of a territo- 
 rial church. These are heavy charges, indeed ; but, if 
 they were preferred in language of rebuke and con- 
 demnation corresponding to the sins of soul-destruction 
 which they imply, the facts in evidence would abund- 
 antly warrant its employment. 
 
 It is sometimes said, in extenuation, by the advocates 
 of the baptismal regeneration of infants, that the church 
 doctrine of renewal is its proper supplement, and effee- 
 
20 
 
 tually precludes the danger of injury to souls. The 
 term renewal, in ecclesiastical language, does not signify 
 that which the dissenters intend by it, a radical and final 
 change of heart ; but it stands for the idea of a subse- 
 quent infusion of grace after baptism, such as may be 
 obtained by confirmation, by the sacrament of the sup- 
 per, by public preaching, or by private prayer ; a supply 
 of grace which renews the state of acceptance and holi- 
 ness into which baptism had introduced the soul. This 
 grace of renewal is sometimes called conversion by 
 church writers, and, consequently, Ave may hear from 
 the teachers of baptismal regeneration occasional dis- 
 courses in which their hearers are exhorted to be con- 
 verted, to repent, to turn to God, and the like. It 
 would, however, be a mistake to suppose that they 
 understood by such renewal a change so great as that 
 which is referred to in our Lord's discourse with Nico- 
 demus. They rather intend that which we should 
 designate a revival of religion after declension ; and this 
 revival may be realized in very various degrees, being in 
 the much larger proportion of cases no revival of spi- 
 ritual religion at all, for this reason, that the subjects of 
 the renewal never w r ere truly " made regenerate in bap- 
 tism/' or on any other occasion. 
 
 The argument, then, against the theory of the bap- 
 tismal regeneration of infants is brief, and easy to be 
 understood. 1. The theory rests upon the more general 
 doctrine of the communication of the grace of regenera- 
 tion by the Spirit in baptism, whether to infants or 
 adults; and this doctrine, however it may be sanctioned 
 by the corrupt and ignorant churchmen of the second 
 and third centuries, is explicitly disclaimed by the 
 apostles Peter and Paul ; by the first in his address at 
 the baptism of Cornelius ; by the second in his observa- 
 tion on the baptism of the Corinthians. And, secondly, 
 there is no evidence in the character of the children bap- 
 
21 
 
 tizcd in the churches of Rome and England, that any- 
 such change of nature as that pretended by the advo- 
 cates of baptismal regeneration has been effected by the 
 administration of the rite. The effects of the new birth 
 unto righteousness must be answerable to the greatness 
 of the change, and it is impossible to regard the corrupt 
 and degraded populations of Europe as having been, in 
 any sense, " made partakers of the Holy Ghost." 
 
 II. 
 
 In proceeding to examine the theories of the noncon- 
 formist churches on baptism, we are surprised to find, 
 on the one hand, a perfect unanimity in the rejection of 
 the doctrine of sacramental grace held by the Church of 
 England, and vainly mutilated by the Gorham party ; 
 and, on the other, differences among themselves on the 
 nature and results of baptism, which reach down to the 
 very foundation of the ordinance. The Congregational 
 or Independent body is generally distinguished from 
 other similar church polities by its maintenance of the 
 practice of infant baptism; but it is not sufficiently 
 known that two distinct opinions on this subject prevail 
 in those churches — opinions on the nature and grounds 
 of baptism so distinct and different as to offer a far more 
 reasonable cause for ecclesiastical separation than has 
 sometimes been furnished in the history of Christian 
 denominations. That no such division occurs, I can 
 attribute only to the faintness of zeal with which each 
 party holds its opinion, or else to that carelessness with 
 respect to theological truth which is always a character- 
 istic of old established religious communities in a luxu- 
 rious age. Those amongst us who are more anxious for 
 the unity and strength of the Independent party than for 
 the prosecution of secondary religious controversies, seem 
 conscientiously to endeavour, by silence, or by ingenious 
 palliations, to diminish the apparent breadth of the dif- 
 
22 
 
 ferences existing among the churches ; but it is not diffi- 
 cult to show, that although infant baptism is practised 
 universally by the Congregational body, it is practised by 
 two different parties, on two theories so opposite as to 
 constitute two distinct and different sacraments ; I refer 
 to the theories of which Dr. Wardlaw and Dr. Halley 
 are well-known as respectively the ablest defenders. 
 We shall now offer a statement, first, of the theory of 
 Dr. Wardlaw ; secondly, of the objections made thereto 
 by the party of Dr. Halley; and, thirdly, of the theory 
 maintained by the latter. 
 
 1. Dr. Wardlaw (with whom agree probably more 
 than half of the Congregational ministers of England and 
 Scotland, and all the Calvinistic Methodists of Wales,) 
 coincides with all Catholic antiquity, and with the Church 
 of England in regarding baptism as the sign of admission 
 into the church, or " general fellowship of the gospel." 
 He urges in defence of this view of the nature of bap- 
 tism, those numerous passages in the New Testament in 
 which it is said that " believers were baptized," and in 
 which baptism is spoken of as a " putting on, of Christ." 
 Gal. iii. 27. 
 
 No mark of admission into the church appears in 
 the New Testament except baptism. Those who were 
 baptized on the day of Pentecost, continued together in 
 the apostles' fellowship, and in breaking of bread and 
 in prayers, and this body is immediately after referred to 
 as " the church of Jerusalem." Acts viii. 1. If then 
 baptism be the sign of admission into the church in the 
 case of believers, it must be also the sign of admission 
 in the case of their households, including young children 
 and infants ; for we cannot conceive that apostolic 
 baptism conferred church membership in the first in- 
 stance, but did not confer it in the second. But it is 
 important to observe that Dr. Wardlaw contends that 
 baptism introduces only into the fellowship of the 
 
23 
 
 universal church, and does not qualify for communion 
 with any local assembly or church of Christians, unless 
 it be accompanied with other recommendations, — mem- 
 bership of the church catholic being regarded by this 
 party as something different from, and apparently less 
 honourable than, membership in any particular society. 
 This distinction effectually precludes the baptized child- 
 ren of believers from claiming admission to the com- 
 munion of the Lord's supper when they attain years of 
 understanding, on the ground of their baptism in infancy. 
 They require, in the dissenting phrase, to be again 
 admitted into the church, that is, into communion with 
 some local church, for, according to Dr. Wardlaw's 
 party, they were admitted by their baptism into the 
 communion of the church catholic. 
 
 Dr. Wardlaw bases his defence of the practice of 
 infant baptism upon a view of the family principle of 
 humanity, and on an interpretation of the covenant 
 which God made with Abraham and with his seed after 
 him. Abraham was commanded to circumcise his 
 household, who were thereby introduced into the visible 
 church. The children, and even infants, shared in this 
 blessing, and the eighth day was fixed as the time for 
 their reception of the holy sign. The abolition of the 
 Mosaic system leaves unrepealed the more ancient 
 covenant. Circumcision was not of Moses, but of the 
 fathers. Believing Gentiles are now grafted into the 
 stock of Abraham, are Jews in the sight of God, and 
 are Abraham's seed. Consequently they enjoy the 
 privilege of Jews, that of introducing their children in 
 infancy into the church. Baptism has taken the place 
 of circumcision. The sign is changed, but the thing sig- 
 nified remains. God has adopted the family principle 
 as the foundation of the communion of the Christian 
 church. It is evident that this system would speedily 
 absorb the whole of the population into the church, if 
 
24 
 
 the right of baptism were acknowledged to belong to a 
 third generation, so that the grandchild of a saint might 
 be received into the catholic church. Dr. Wardlaw 
 therefore restricts the right of baptism to the imme- 
 diate descendants, the sons and daughters, of a true, or 
 at least a professed Christian, a member of some local 
 community constituted on stricter principles than the 
 " general fellowship " of the saints. None but the seed 
 of believers are to be baptized, and those only of the 
 first generation. What scriptures are alleged for this 
 extraordinary piece of legislation, I have never under- 
 stood. It is certain that in Judaism, no child was cir- 
 cumcised on account of his parent, but on account of 
 descent from Abraham, and the privilege descended 
 through all generations. Dr. Wardlaw, however, and 
 the great party whose opinion we are describing, con- 
 sider it to be a most dangerous error to baptize indis- 
 criminately the children of believers and unbelievers, of 
 those who profess and call themselves Christians, and of 
 those who do not : since infant baptism is intended to 
 recognize an inheritance of membership with the church 
 of Christ, which belongs alone to the children of the 
 godly. It is somewhat difficult to say what profit there is 
 of infant baptism in the estimation of Dr. Wardlaw. 
 It is most strenuously denied to convey any spiritual 
 grace of regeneration to the child. It is denied that it 
 washes out the stain of original sin. It is denied that it 
 in any manner improves the eternal prospects of the 
 recipient in case of early death, since the dissenters do 
 not hold generally with the Church of England, that 
 infants are born, in consequence of original sin, liable to 
 endless misery, " God's wrath and damnation ; " but 
 that the atonement of Christ is available for all infants 
 dying in early years, baptized or unbaptized. It is 
 denied that the baptism of a believer's child entitles 
 him to an hereditary right of participation in the holy 
 
25 
 
 communion, or indeed to any right of membership, as 
 the election of church officers, in the local religious com- 
 munion to which one or both parents belong. Every 
 privilege which was the hereditary right of the Jewish 
 child circumcised in infancy, is denied to the baptized 
 infant of a believer, unless he afterward afford evidence 
 of personal conversion. The baptism of an adult, not 
 previously baptized, would be regarded by this section 
 of the dissenters as a sign of God's pardoning grace to 
 himself on the supposition of the sincerity of his re- 
 pentance and faith ; it would be regarded as a sign of 
 profession of such repentance and faith on his own part ; 
 it would be regarded as a sign of his admission into the 
 " general fellowship of Christians," and also as the sign 
 of his admission into some local community. But the 
 baptism of a believer's child is considered to be an act 
 rather for the benefit of the parent than of itself; as an 
 educational institute; as a dedication of the child to 
 God, setting it apart as a holy thing, to be brought up 
 in the circle of the catholic church, and on some future 
 day to be "admitted into the church" again for the 
 privilege of communion, but not until signs of true 
 piety appear. By some of the most intelligent of this 
 party it is held that the children of believers are to be 
 " sanctified from the womb," that they never ought to 
 need conversion, that proper religious education would 
 render all the baptized suitable communicants in early 
 life at the table of the Lord, and fitting participants in 
 the honours and privileges of membership with local 
 communities. One would imagine, however, that the 
 holders of this opinion were not acquainted with any 
 believers, destitute of the rare gift of training up 
 children religiously ; one would imagine that they had 
 never seen any, except piously disposed children in reli- 
 gious families ; one would imagine that they had closed 
 their eyls to the fact, that one of the most uncommon 
 c 
 
26 
 
 things in this world is the possession of real piety from 
 early childhood and upwards. It is happily true, that 
 vast multitudes of persons hopefully pious, are the 
 children of pious parents, and owe much of their reli- 
 gion to the sanctified influence of their education ; but 
 it is also notoriously true, that if there are any persons 
 in the world callous to spiritual impressions, and reso- 
 lutely opposed to spiritual religion, it is that immense 
 multitude who have enjoyed the advantages of early 
 Christian instruction, and resisted it. Yet all of these 
 are to be trained up from childhood in the idea that they 
 are Christians ; and this by dissenters, who exclaim 
 against a territorial establishment of Christianity ! 
 
 2. The objections made by the other party in the Con- 
 gregational body to the preceding views of holy bap- 
 tism are neither few nor small. In urgent opposition to 
 the theory of Dr. Wardlaw, it is contended by Dr. 
 Halley and many of the English Independents, in the 
 first place, that the church of Christ is intended to be 
 an association composed not of saints merely in name, 
 but in reality ; that the object of its institution was 
 obviously to afford those benefits which sympathy 
 amongst the like-minded is" calculated to bestow, and 
 that, therefore, the very object of the institution is de- 
 feated when the church is made the resort of a miscel- 
 laneous multitude, introduced into it by the right of a 
 carnal inheritance. A spiritual discipline with respect 
 to offenders is commanded in the pages of inspiration, 
 1 Cor. vi., and this discipline is impracticable except in 
 a spiritual community. The spirituality of the church 
 is certain to be destroyed in a short space of time, if 
 hereditary descent become the method of admission 
 within its boundaries. 
 
 Secondly. It is argued by Dr. Halley, and with unan- 
 swerable force in my judgment, that the distinction 
 between fitness for communion with the church catholic, 
 
27 
 
 and with a local church, set up by the opposite party of 
 the Congregationalists, is absurd, mischievous, and alto- 
 gether destructive of the foundations of nonconformity. 
 •• If baptism," says Dr. Halley, " does not constitute a . 
 person a member of a s< parate church, it cannot intro- 
 duce him into that great aggregate of all the visible 
 churches." And on the other hand, if the child of a 
 believer be fitted to become by inheritance a member of 
 the universal church, doubtless he is fit for local com- 
 munion. Else we shall be obliged to admit the state- 
 ment that, although he is qualified for the communion 
 of all Christians, he is not qualified for the communion 
 of any certain few. But if he be fitted for local church 
 fellowship or catholic communion through hereditary 
 right, because he is the seed of a son of Abraham by 
 faith ; then undoubtedly, by the same argument, he is 
 entitled to the enjoyment of all church privileges. The 
 circumcised Jew possessed a right to the communion of 
 the passover, and a baptized Gentile must possess an 
 equivalent right to the communion of the Lord's 
 Supper. Each may be excommunicated for sin, but the 
 antecedent right to the privileges of church member- 
 ship must be hereditary in both cases. The churches of 
 England and Rome, regarding infant baptism as an in- 
 troduction into the visible church, consistently follow up 
 hereditary baptism by hereditary communion. The 
 baptized child is heir to all church rights. This, how- 
 ever, is what Dr. Wardlaw and those who agree with 
 him, will by no means concede to the children of pious 
 parents. They are baptized and considered as members 
 of the church catholic, yet are practically treated as 
 they grow in years, as being without the pale of the 
 *' sacramental host." " Here/'say the opponents, " is not 
 only the grossest inconsistency, the most manifest vio- 
 lence done to the supposed argument from the Abra- 
 hamic* covenant, but a serious offence is offered to the 
 c 2 
 
28 
 
 universal communion of saints, as if membership with 
 that great company of the faithful were a far less 
 honourable privilege than membership with some puny- 
 band of local religionists." The reason of the prevailing 
 system is easily discernible. If all the baptized house- 
 holds of believers were to be regarded as members in 
 fall communion with the local churches, there would 
 be an immediate end to those principles of holy fellow- 
 ship on which Congregational societies are professedly 
 based, and which are enjoined by the New Testament. 
 
 Thirdly. It is urged by Dr. Halley, and by that great 
 body of dissenters who agree with him, that the children 
 of believers have no better title to church membership 
 than any other children or households. " Is there/ 
 asks Dr. Halley, " any difference in the privileges, the 
 state, or the character of those learners whom Dr. 
 Wardlaw baptizes, and those learners whom he does 
 not ? We know of none. They are taught the same 
 truths. They are to be received into the fellowship of 
 the QocaF] church on the same terms. They are equally 
 invited, warned, and encouraged. They are addressed 
 by the gospel as sustaining the same character, — accepted 
 in the same proposals of grace, and, if they do not be- 
 lieve, condemned without respect of persons. There 
 seems in their character and position, no ground for so 
 great a distinction, as is implied in baptizing some, and 
 not baptizing others, who are equally ' in training for the 
 full fellowship of the people of God.' Dr. Wardlaw no- 
 where notices a single blessing, which, being imparted 
 to the children of believers, is denied to other children 
 under religious instruction." * In a word, it is the 
 opinion of this party that God loves all children equally, 
 that Christ died for them all, that their safety in case of 
 early death does not, in any instance, depend upon 
 church membership, and that the ground of the admis- 
 
 * Halley on Baptism, p. 127. 
 
29 
 
 sion to church membership of any person being the 
 member of a believers household, should be not any 
 imagined hereditary relation to Abraham, Isaac, and 
 Jacob, but personal faith in Christ, and personal repent- 
 ance and piety. 
 
 It might be perhaps supposed, that Dr. Halley, clearly 
 perceiving the untenable nature of the old Puritan argu- 
 ment for infant baptism, which restricts its administra- 
 tion to the children of believers; which regards them 
 as thereby admitted into the catholic church, yet ex- 
 cludes them from all the privileges of that communion ; 
 would, in consequence, abandon the defence of infant 
 baptism altogether, and maintain the restriction of the 
 rite exclusively to those, whether of elder or younger 
 years, who can make for themselves a credible profession 
 of faith, and thus establish a claim to church member- 
 ship. Nothing of the kind, however, has occurred. 
 Those of the Congregational persuasion, who are con- 
 vinced that Dr. Owen's and Dr. Wardlaw's argument is 
 built on a quicksand, and not less pernicious in its 
 influence than fallacious in its reasoning, have fallen 
 back, in order to maintain the practice of infant baptism, 
 upon one of the most remarkable inventions recorded in 
 the annals of modern theology. They have started the 
 notion, not only in opposition to the party Dr. Ward- 
 law, but in opposition to the voice of all churches 
 and all ages — that baptism is " the designation of the 
 catechumens, not the symbol of the members of the Chris- 
 tian church." Baptism henceforth is no longer to be 
 regarded as a sign of church membership, as the work 
 of a Christian, or as a seal of righteousness, but simply as 
 a visible [indication that the person baptized is to be in- 
 structed in the knowledge of Christianity. Accordingly, 
 Dr. Halley advocates and practises the baptism of all per- 
 sons and of all infants and children indiscriminately, whose 
 connections render it in any way probable that they will 
 become learners of the truths of the gospel. By baptism 
 
30 
 
 they are not in any manner received into the communion 
 of the church catholic or local, but simply pointed out 
 as the objects of redeeming mercy, and the proper 
 subjects of religious instruction. Dr. H. takes his 
 stand upon the commission given, "to make disciples of 
 all nations, baptizing them," and since he understands 
 the term disciples to signify learners, excluding any idea 
 of practical obedience, he proceeds to maintain that 
 wherever there is a learner there is a person to be bap- 
 tized. Every person whose sentiment on holy baptism 
 has been in any measure formed from a knowledge of 
 the lofty conceptions of the sacredness of the ordinance 
 prevalent in the first ages of the church, and of the 
 unwavering uniformity with which baptism was then 
 and ever afterwards considered as the sign of admission 
 into the divine fellowship of the faithful, will not easily 
 resist the temptation to exclaim loudly against this dis- 
 senting novelty, as something approaching very nearly to 
 a profanation of the sacrament. The undoubted piety, 
 however, of many who defend it, requires that such 
 exclamations give Avay to argument derived from the 
 scripture. The rejoinders of Dr. Wardlaw furnish an 
 abundant reply to this part of his assailant's theory : 
 for it has been the fate of these honoured men and 
 eminent writers to destroy completely each other's bap- 
 tismal system. They seem to have been raised up as if 
 for the very purpose of demonstrating to the Congre- 
 gational body, who generally refuse to listen to the 
 writers of a rival sect, that neither of the schemes of 
 infant baptism which prevail in their churches will en- 
 dure examination. 
 
 The one fatal objection taken to the theory of Dr. 
 Halley on the nature of baptism is, that it is impossible 
 to reconcile it with the language of the New Testament. 
 The terms of the Commission, if truly ambiguous (which 
 many competent persons doubt) must be interpreted by 
 
31 
 
 the aid of the other scriptures of the New Testament. 
 We must learn from other testimonies whether the per- 
 sons whom Christ commanded the apostles to baptize 
 were the nations at large, or disciples only, in the sense 
 of professedly obedient believers, among the nations. 
 Dr. Halley is obliged by his theory to maintain that 
 every instance of baptism met with in the apostolic his- 
 tory is the case of a " learner" of the doctrine of Christ, 
 not the case of a professed believer, as such, and not the 
 case of a person introduced thereby into the fellowship 
 of the church universal or local. The very first example 
 of baptism occurring in the narrative of the Acts of the 
 Apostles, seems to offer evidence sufficient to explode 
 the new doctrine — that " baptism is not the symbol of 
 the members of the Christian church." At the close of 
 Peter's address on the day of Pentecost, the assembled 
 multitude exclaimed, M Men and brethren, what shall we 
 do ? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be bap- 
 tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for 
 the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost. For the promise [[of the Holy Ghost, just 
 before cited from the prophet Joel, ' Your sons and 
 your daughters shall prophesy,' &c.~} is nnto you and to 
 your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many 
 as the Lord our God shall call. And with many other 
 words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves 
 from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly 
 received his tcord were baptized ; and the same day there 
 were added unto them about three thousand souls. And 
 they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and 
 fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." 
 " And all that believed were together, and had all things 
 common; and sold their possessions and goods, and 
 parted them to all men as every man had need. And 
 they, continuing daily in the temple with one accord, 
 and creaking bread from house to house, did eat their 
 
32 
 
 meat with gladness and singleness of heart, praising 
 God, and having favour with all the people." Acts ii. 
 37 — 47. Every expression in this passage appears to 
 offer a decisive proof that the three thousand were bap- 
 tized, not in the character simply of learners of Chris- 
 tianity, but as believing disciples ; that they were not 
 baptized as catechumens, but as members of the church, 
 being thereby introduced into full communion with the 
 t; apostles and their company." 1. The exhortation to 
 be baptized was preceded, not by a recommendation to 
 become learners of the doctrine, but by a demand for 
 repentance. " Repent, and be baptized." On Dr. 
 Halley's theory it should rather have been, " Be baptized 
 as learners, and then repent." Peter exhorted no man 
 to be baptized who did not first profess repentance and 
 faith in the " name of Jesus Christ." 2. The baptism 
 proposed was " for the remission of sins." This cannot 
 now be well understood, and could not on the day of 
 Pentecost be well understood, in any other sense than 
 that baptism was to be administered to the v recipient as 
 a sign of pardon for the past, if he truly repented and 
 truly believed. A " baptism of repentance for the re- 
 mission of sins" was not exactly the rite to be adminis- 
 tered to half-careless auditors, much less to their uncon- 
 scious infant offspring. Language such as that used by 
 Peter concerning baptism, if addressed to a miscellaneous 
 crowd of impenitent persons, exhorted to be baptized in 
 that character, could have been productive of nothing 
 but the most dangerous self-delusion on the part of the 
 recipients. 3. The " promise of the Holy Ghost," 
 made to the " baptized," is another indication that the 
 baptized persons were supposed to be penitent and 
 believers. Assuredly the gift of the Holy Spirit was 
 restricted to the church. " On my servants and on my 
 handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my 
 Spirit," Acts ii. 18. No promise was made of conferriiiL 
 
33 
 
 the Holy Ghost on a mixed crowd of unconverted 
 catechumens, simply occupied in " learning" Christianity. 
 Those who received the promised gift received it as 
 believers. " These signs shall follow them that believe," 
 Mark xvi. 17. But here it is promised to the baptized. 
 Therefore the baptized were believers and professed 
 penitents. Baptism was the sign of their admission 
 into the family of God. 4. Every subsequent indica- 
 tion points to the same conclusion. "Then they that 
 gladly received his word were baptized." What was the 
 word which they received ? It was not some abstract 
 speculation, but the practical message of the gospel. 
 " Repent, and be baptized for the remission of sins, and 
 ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" Those 
 who gladly received this word must have been, in the 
 main, true penitents, and must all have been professed 
 believers, and professed servants of God, and, as such, 
 suitable members for the communion of the church. Of 
 whom can the church consist, if not of such ? 5. The 
 persons thus baptized were " added " to them. Added, 
 to whom ? Clearly to the company of the apostles, to 
 the one hundred and twenty who met in the upper 
 room, the nucleus of the catholic church. Are Dr. 
 Halley's baptized " catechumens" added to the Christians 
 in Manchester ? Assuredly not. But the three thousand 
 baptized on the feast of pentecost were added to the 
 apostolic church. 6. "When thus " baptized " and 
 " added," they gave every indication of being something 
 better than speculative " learners " of Christianity 
 " They continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and 
 fellotcship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." 
 And so potent was the influence of divine grace 
 upon their souls that, being freed from the burden of 
 guilt by " the remission of sins," they overflowed in love 
 one toward another, and " parted their possessions and 
 goods to all men, as every man had need. They con- 
 
34 
 
 tinued daily in the temple, and, breaking bread from 
 house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and 
 singleness of heart." If baptism were not intended to 
 be regarded as the sign of admission into the church, 
 and as the proper privilege only of those who profess 
 repentance and faith, it seems difficult to imagine a 
 narrative, placed in the forefront of the apostolic history, 
 better calculated to deceive all subsequent generations 
 of mankind. But, indeed, the statements of the apostles, 
 not less than every recorded example of baptism in the 
 Scripture, are in entire conformity with the narrative of 
 the day of pentecost. St. Paul says, Romans vi. 3, 
 " Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized 
 into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death ? There- 
 fore we are buried with him by baptism into death, that 
 like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory 
 of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness 
 of life." Here baptism is spoken of as the rite by 
 which Christians are ceremonially incorporated into 
 Christ. By baptism they become one with him in 
 death, in order that they may become one* with him in 
 the new, divine, and immortal life unto God. In no 
 sense could a mere learner of Christianity be spoken of 
 as having been " baptized into Christ." This is language 
 appropriate only to professed penitents and believers. 
 
 Again, the same apostle, addressing the Galatians, 
 ehap. iii. 26, " For ye are all the children of God by 
 faith in Jesus Christ. For as many of you as have been 
 baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is 
 neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free? 
 there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in 
 Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abra- 
 ham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Here 
 baptism is spoken of as the sign of union with Christ, to 
 " as many" as have received it. They have " put on 
 Christ.'' They are "Abraham's seed," "children of 
 
35 
 
 God by faith," and "heirs according to the promise." 
 Nothing, I venture to suppose, except the blinding in- 
 fluence of a false theory, could induce candid interpre- 
 ters to look upon the baptism referred to in this passage 
 as a baptism which, like a wide rain, should fall indis- 
 criminately upon all the "learners" of Christianity which 
 a country could supply, a race of catechumens so nu- 
 merous as to include multitudes of unbelievers, of 
 impenitent formalists, and all their households and 
 children. 
 
 Two examples of baptism in the Acts of the Apostles 
 are equally fatal to Dr. Halley's system. When Cor- 
 nelius and his household had believed the Gospel, and 
 received the gift of the Holy Ghost, Peter said, " Can 
 any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, 
 which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we. 
 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of 
 the Lord." Acts x. 44. If Peter had understood bap- 
 tism to be merely a sign that such and such a person is 
 to become a learner of Christianity, a catechumen, 
 whence could the idea have arisen in his mind that 
 possibly some might "forbid water, that these should 
 not be baptized ?" The supposition is proof that Peter 
 and every one else regarded the baptism of a Gentile as 
 equivalent to his reception into the Christian catholic 
 church, the true church of God's Israelites, and to such 
 reception there might be raised Jewish objections; which, 
 however, Peter overcame by the consideration that since 
 God had not forbidden the descent of the Spirit, in 
 evidence of the union of Cornelius with Christ, it did not 
 become any man to forbid the water of baptism, as the 
 public sign of the centurion's incorporation with Christ 
 in the visible church of his members. 
 
 The baptism of St. Paul himself is narrated in such 
 terms as to convey the impression that the rite was in- 
 tend^ only for the professors of a practical repentance 
 
36 
 
 and faith. Ananias of Damascus addressed him as fol- 
 lows : " And now why tarriest thou ? arise, and be bap- 
 tized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of 
 the Lord." Acts xxii. 16. According to Dr. Halley, 
 every baptism in the New Testament is administered as 
 to a catechumen, and by no means as to a believer and 
 professed penitent. Was not then the language used by 
 Ananias of a very dangerous tendency ? If baptism be in 
 any sense the washing away of sin, or the sign of it, 
 and yet is to be administered to promiscuous crowds of 
 learners and their children, does not Ananias lay a solid 
 foundation for something very much like the doctrines 
 of Rome and Oxford ? But the case is clear. Paul was 
 baptized as a believer, not as a catechumen. He was 
 baptized as a stricken penitent, not as a learner. He 
 was by baptism received into the church, and conse- 
 crated as an apostle of the living God. And the result 
 of the whole is, that our beloved brethren, in their zeal 
 for infant baptism, have done grievous violence to the 
 scripture, and to the sacredness of baptism, and to the 
 authority of all the churches of. God in old times, in 
 their attempt to remove the ancient landmarks, and to 
 convert that which was intended to be the holy sign of 
 the adopted child of God, into a vain ceremony, and, we 
 fear, a national sacrilege. 
 
 In concluding this brief review of the two theories of 
 baptism promulgated by Drs. Wardlaw and Halley, and 
 adopted by the Congregational churches, we have now- 
 further to repeat that these two theories constitute two 
 different sacraments. The rent goes down to the founda- 
 tions. Whatever reason there is for the separate exist- 
 ence of a " Baptist denomination," there is the same 
 reason for the separate existence of two denominations 
 holding the diverse views which have been described. 
 There is even a much greater difference between the 
 latter, than between the opinions of the Baptist body 
 
37 
 
 and Dr. "Wardlaw's; for there is a wider and more im- 
 portant discrepancy between those who assert that bap- 
 tism is not the sign of introduction to the church, and 
 those who assert that it is, even though both baptize 
 various classes of infants, than between those who agree 
 that baptism is the sign of admission to the church, 
 though differing with respect to the persons who are 
 to be thus baptized and admitted. In the one case there 
 is a difference as to the very nature of a sacrament ; in 
 the other only as to its application. 
 
 It is not the similarity of two ceremonial acts which 
 constitutes the identity of sacraments or ceremonies, but 
 the similarity of ideas associated with the performance 
 of them. In the cases of coronation-anointing and ex- 
 treme unction, the action is the same. Consecrated oil 
 is poured out upon the subject by a consecrated person ; 
 and in both cases some general idea of divine grace is 
 intended by the sign. But the sacraments, if we may so 
 term the two, are exceedingly different. In the one a 
 king is consecrated, in the other a dying Christian is 
 supposed to be prepared for his departure. Thus also in 
 the baptisms contended for by Dr. Wardlaw and by 
 Dr. Halley, water in each case may be sprinkled or 
 poured upon the person of an infant or adult ; but the 
 ideas associated with the performance of the actions are, 
 with the exception of some general reference to divine 
 mercy in the Gospel, as different as can be well sup- 
 posed. If Dr. Wardlaw can be imagined as occupied at 
 the font in the baptism of an infant on the one side, and 
 Dr. Halley on the other, as representatives of the two 
 parties in the Congregational body, we should see in 
 either case water sprinkled on the child, and we should 
 hear the same words pronounced. But the meaning of 
 the action on the one side of the font would be exactly 
 the opposite of its meaning on the other. In the one 
 case the child would be thereby received into the church, 
 
38 
 
 as a special object of God's favour, because it possesses 
 an hereditary title to church membership, and to a part 
 in the Abrahamic covenant, as the seed of a true be- 
 liever. In the other the child would be baptized as a 
 fallen descendant of Adam, it may be as the child of an 
 infidel, brought by relations to be trained up in a know- 
 ledge of Christian doctrine ; it would be baptized simply 
 with a view to point out that when it grew older it 
 would be proper to famish it with the knowledge of 
 salvation, but the baptism would signify that it was at 
 present excluded from the church of Christ, and that 
 when it grew to maturer years, repentance would be 
 necessary to secure admission within its precincts. The 
 difference in the baptisms is shown by the difference in 
 the classes baptized. The one restricts baptism to be- 
 lievers and their children of the first generation, the 
 other baptizes all nations, and denies that they have 
 received a sign of consecration to the service of God 
 thereby. Surely this is a serious diversity of opinion 
 and practice. It affects the great question of church 
 membership. It is clear that since Dr. Hailey regards 
 a personal profession of faith, and a credible profession of 
 repentance, as essential to form a title to fellowship in 
 a New Testament church, he cannot regard as a New 
 Testament church one which acknowledges an hereditary 
 title irrespective of character. It would seem to follow, 
 that half the Congregational churches of England and 
 Scotland would refuse to acknowledge the claim of the 
 other half to be considered as scriptural ly constituted 
 societies. On the one side we have laxity in baptism 
 conjoined with strictness in church-membership, on 
 the other, restriction in the administration of baptism, 
 conjoined with laxity in the definition of fellowship. In 
 point of fact, however, these opposite parties do not ex- 
 communicate each other. The difference of opinion, 
 though written about with occasional vehemence, is 
 
39 
 
 never carried so far as the adoption of any practical 
 measures for the preservation of order and consistency in 
 the government of the churches. 
 
 The prejudice against " the Baptists " secures the peace 
 of the Congregational churches under the prevalence of 
 their two confused systems of infant baptism. Most of 
 their trust deeds prescribe adhesion to the doctrine of the 
 Assembly's Catechism, or to that of the declaration of 
 faith of the Congregational Union — both of which favour 
 the ancient puritan theory of Dr. Ward law, which 
 regards baptism as a token of church fellowship, and 
 restricts it to believers and their households.* But the 
 churches are by no means particular in their preference 
 in the choice of pastors. And hence, strange to say, it 
 is quite usual for them to follow the accidental opinion 
 of their successive ministers. During one pastoral 
 dynasty it is held that baptism is " the designation of 
 catechumens." Children are baptized indiscriminately, 
 but none are considered as having been thereby intro- 
 duced into the catholic or visible church. At the end of 
 that period u another king arises," who happens to hold 
 with earnest faith the ancient puritan doctrine maintained 
 by Dr. Wardlaw, and during his ecclesiastical reign it is 
 taught, and apparently held, after more or less of disgust 
 on the part of the unconverted parents of the congrega- 
 tion, that baptism is the sign of admission to the church, 
 and that the children of believers alone are entitled to 
 the sign and the thing signified, in consequence of their 
 connection with Abraham. Indescribable confusion of 
 thought and practice ensues. In some cases the great 
 sacrament of baptism comes to be regarded with general 
 unconcern, perhaps with a contempt with which none 
 would dare to regard the sacrament of the holy com- 
 munion. In other cases, the parents of the rejected 
 
 • See an able article in proof of this by Dr. Campbell, in the 
 ('hrixtint: Witness for August, 1850. 
 
40 
 
 children are annoyed or indignant at the refusal »to their 
 offspring of what they had before been taught to regard 
 as their privileges, and some of them angrily move away 
 to a sanctuary where both they and their children will 
 be welcomed and recognized as very good Christians. 
 Meantime, in public, the honour of the " denomination" 
 is sustained. The churches may each undergo a change 
 in their belief on the question whether baptism is a sign 
 of admission to the church, several times in a century : 
 now practically acting on this pastor's opinion, now on 
 that, vibrating and oscillating, first holding the one 
 opinion and then the other, as if they should cast lots 
 what to maintain on the doctrine of the sacrament every 
 ten years in their history. The language practically 
 held to candidates for the pastoral chair is this, — " You 
 may be an angel in orthodoxy, a statesman in the power 
 of government, an example as a humble and loving 
 Christian, but unless you are ready to baptize our child- 
 ren, we must decline all relation with you, though you 
 were a Fuller, a Robert Hall, or a Foster, and relinquish 
 the benefits which we might derive from all your endow- 
 ments. It is indeed of no importance to us what theory 
 on the subject you hold : for what reasons you practise 
 the ceremony. You may hold and teach that baptism 
 is, or is not, the sign of admission to the church, just as 
 you please. You' may earnestly defend the puritan 
 doctrine, and baptize only believers and their house- 
 holds, considering them as thereby incorporated with 
 the body of Christ, or you may teach the exact opposite, 
 after the custom of Manchester, and baptize the whole 
 neighbourhood : these are questions in which we take 
 little interest. We have no opinion as a community on 
 the matter, but we demand that for some reason or 
 another you should baptize at least the children of the 
 church, and as many others as may appear good to your- 
 self, or a few. "We think it right to maintain the 
 
41 
 
 * denominational ' practice against i the Baptists ;' and 
 therefore, it is necessary for you to be committed to one 
 of the theories prevalent amongst us. If the thing can- 
 not be defended by the one set of arguments, perhaps it 
 may be defensible by the other." Now this I apprehend 
 is not a caricature, but a plain representation of fact. 
 Such is the condition of the congregational churches on 
 the question of baptism. If it be denied, I humbly 
 reply by asking, Where is the church that ever stipulated 
 with a new pastor for the maintenance of either of the 
 theories ? — Who at the present day can tell which of the 
 twain is the authorized belief of the Congregational 
 Union ? Now, for a church to be zealous for a practice 
 in religion, without being at the same time zealous for 
 the reasons of it, seems to be simply a piece of unworthy 
 sectarianism and superstition. Let each church adopt 
 one of the two theories of baptism, Dr. Wardlaw's or 
 Dr. Halley's : let it insist upon conformity to that 
 theory on the part of all who belong to the society : let 
 it demand a conformity to it on the part of each new 
 pastor in succession, for the reasons alleged by the con- 
 troversialists on either side, and then each church may 
 enjoy the credit of integrity, and whatever honour belongs 
 to the praise of denominational consistency. But for a 
 church to blazon on its flag, " Our pastor must be a bap- 
 tizer of infants, but little reck we of the particular reasons 
 of it," is to pursue a course that can only expose the 
 Independent churches to the wonder of all impartial 
 theologians in Christendom. If, on the other hand, 
 however, our churches are not prepared to adopt either 
 of the theories or systems of baptism as their own, then 
 let them cease to regard infant baptism as a denomina- 
 tional test. Since they at present hold two theories, let 
 them at least hold three. Let each man be left to follow 
 his convictions, and let the pulpit become as catholic as 
 the communion. 
 
42 
 
 I now conclude this brief survey of the three sys- 
 tems of infant baptism prevalent in Great Britain, by 
 venturing to state the results which have been urged on 
 me by the investigation. 
 
 1. The strange and wide discrepancy of opinion be- 
 tween the various schools, as to the application of the 
 argument of the Abrahamic covenant to the case of 
 infant baptism, naturally suggests strong misgivings as 
 to its validity. It is argued by one party, that as cir- 
 cumcision was the right of the Jewish child, and church 
 privileges were hereditary, so must baptism be the right 
 of the believer's child, because he is the seed of a son 
 of Abraham by faith, and of his only. By the other 
 party it is argued, that the blessing of Abraham has 
 come upon all the Gentiles, and that, therefore, baptism 
 may properly be administered to all nations. Now the 
 sole warrant for believing in the application of that 
 covenant to Gentile converts, is found in the writings of 
 Paul ; and from this source w r e seem to learn nothing 
 more than that believers themselves are reckoned through 
 union with Christ as Abraham's seed. " If ye be Christ's, 
 then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the 
 promise." Gal. iii. 29. This privilege, however, he 
 affirms to be dependent on their " faith," and from such 
 a statement it cannot assuredly be gathered that their 
 natural offspring are partakers with them through here- 
 ditary right in church blessings, here or hereafter ; if the 
 argument be not good for the world to come, neither 
 does it seem to be valid for the world that now is, and 
 the privileges of the church militant. None will go so 
 far as to say, that any child's salvation, if it die early or 
 if it live to maturity, depends upon the faith of the 
 parent ; and yet that would be a natural result of the 
 doctrine which derives a right to church fellowship on 
 earth, from a view of the covenant of promise to Abra- 
 ham, employed as Paul uses it in Gal. iii., with refer- 
 
43 
 
 ence not to temporal hut spiritual blessings. There 
 clearly is some point where the privilege of the Gentile 
 converted to Christ ceases, and where the " advantage 
 of the Jew " begins. The Christian believer becomes 
 spiritually a son of Abraham, and an heir of the promise 
 of salvation : but it will not surely be contended that a 
 converted Briton becomes by faith a Jew in this world, 
 and entitled to a portion in Palestine, supposing the 
 command to return to their country should be given to- 
 morrow to the Hebrew nation. Yet if infant baptism 
 have come in the place of infant circumcision, if the 
 believing Gentile have become in all senses a son of 
 Abraham, so that his seed are entitled to all Abrahamic 
 and church privileges, that consequence would inevitably 
 follow ; for circumcision was the sign of the covenant, 
 in virtue of which God gave Palestine to Abraham and to 
 his descendants. Faith in Christ, then, does not confer 
 all Jewish privileges upon the Gentile. It does not 
 entitle him to the honours of the natural seed of Abra- 
 ham. How then can it be maintained that the Gentile 
 introduces his physical descendants into the church in 
 virtue of the Abrahamic covenant ? The Abrahamic 
 covenant would confer all church rights if it conferred 
 any rights. It would operate through all generations of 
 a son of Abraham's descendants if it operated through 
 two generations, — consequences from which our infant 
 baptists heartily revolt. The difficulty arises from allow- 
 ing, in any degree, that the personal spiritual privileges 
 of the believing Gentile, as a son of Abraham, give him 
 a title to transmit those privileges on the totally different 
 principle of natural or carnal descent. It was carnal 
 descent from Abraham that gave a right to circumcision 
 and Jewish church membership ; but from this it can never 
 be argued that to be reckoned in the line of his spiritual 
 descendants, confers a similar privilege in the Christian 
 church.* Unless, then, a man be prepared to contend 
 
44 
 
 that baptism converts a believing Gentile into a carnal 
 descendant of Abraham, he would seem to be destitute 
 of all reason for contending for a descent of church 
 privileges to his children in the flesh. The " babes in 
 Christ," whom we should seek to introduce into" the 
 church, are those both of 3 T ounger and of elder years, 
 who have been " born again " and " created anew." 
 The Abrahamic covenant may well be regarded, as Dr. 
 Halley regards it, as having a world-wide bearing to- 
 wards, not believers only, but all the kindreds of the 
 nations, including their offspring, but the seal of righte- 
 ousness, the baptism of repentance for the remission of 
 sins is to be given exclusively to those of whatever age, 
 who voluntarily embrace the offer of salvation. If one 
 class of infants have a right to baptism under this 
 covenant, then have all infants and households the same 
 right, for they are all alike objects of the gospel redemp- 
 tion : but since baptism is, as Dr. Wardlaw truly asserts-* 
 the sign of admission to the church, the practice of bap- 
 tizing all infants would necessarily end in destroying the 
 distinction between the church and the world. The 
 safety, happiness, and instruction of children in infancy, 
 or very early childhood, do not depend upon communion 
 with the Christian church. Baptism can confer upon 
 them no regeneration : and before they know to refuse 
 the evil and choose the good, they are from infirmity of 
 understanding, incapable of comprehending Christian 
 ideas. If they die in infancy their salvation is secure 
 on other grounds than baptism and church fellowship. 
 If it be not, assuredly baptism and church fellowship 
 cannot save them. After they arrive at years of intel- 
 ligence and responsibility, they stand before God pre- 
 cisely on the same ground with all other human beings. 
 The piety of parents cannot profit them, and their claim 
 to church membership depends upon personal faith, obe- 
 dience, and love, 
 
45 
 
 2. The defence of infant baptism is very mainly made 
 to stand upon an argument derived from the fact, that 
 in the New Testament several " households " are asserted 
 to have been baptized. It is conceived that these house- 
 holds may have comprised some children under years of 
 responsibility. A mere conjecture is not solid ground 
 on which to erect so vast a fabric as that of infant bap- 
 tism — for if the system be allowed, all baptism will for 
 ever after be infant baptism, when once a generation has 
 accepted Christianity. Neander feels entirely satisfied 
 with the common replies to the argument derived from the 
 three household baptisms mentioned in scripture. In 
 each case there is sufficient evidence that the whole 
 party, whether composed of elder or younger persons, 
 were "believers." In the instance of the Philippian 
 jailor, we are told that the apostle spake the word " to all 
 that were in his house ;" that." he was baptized, he and 
 all his straightway," — that he " rejoiced, believing in 
 God with all his house." Acts xvi. 31. If there be no 
 warrant for thinking that infants or young children w r ere 
 here taken from their beds at dead of night, to hear the 
 gospel, and to " rejoice " with their father, neither is 
 there any evidence that any were baptized. The 
 second instance of household baptis.ni is that of Lydia. 
 There is no proof that she was a married woman, 
 much less that she had infant children. The trade 
 in purple was hers. The house was hers. It is 
 not usual to designate a house or trade as the pro- 
 perty of the wife. We learn from the narrative, 
 that the household of Lydia consisted of " brethren," 
 whom the apostle afterwards visited and "comforted" — 
 probably comprising her pious and devout attendants ; 
 for she was before a religious woman, and doubtless 
 preferred the services of craftsmen and [overseers who 
 were not pagans or ungodly. Thirdly, we read that 
 Paul baptized "the household of Stephanas." Again, 
 there is no evidence that infants or young children were 
 
46 
 
 included. In another place Paul mention this " house" 
 as the "first-fruits of Achaia, who had addicted them- 
 selves to the ministry of the saints ; " surely not a mark 
 that they were either unconverted, or irreligious young 
 people, or sucklings at the breast. It is wonderful that 
 some of us have not sooner become ashamed of these 
 weak foundations for the practice of infant baptism. 
 But the case is yet stronger. The fact that there are 
 but three households mentioned as having been baptized 
 by the apostle would seem fatal to the idea that they 
 practised, as a rule, family baptism. On Dr. Wardlaw's 
 theory not less than on Dr. Halley's, we might have 
 expected to find it recorded, that when thousands were 
 baptized, "multitudes both of men and women," their 
 households, their unconverted inmates and young child- 
 ren were baptized along with them. We find, however, 
 no such record. Nothing appears, except the baptism of 
 " believers." There is no precept for family baptism. 
 There is no example of it, except when it is indicated 
 that the whole family heard, believed, rejoiced. The 
 whole case, methinks, tells against the* doctrines of 
 Glasgow and Manchester. If it be alleged that perhaps 
 the baptisms of these tens of thousands of families 
 really occurred, although it is not recorded, it seems 
 sufficient to say, that perhaps also the apostolic church 
 practised infant communion, as did Cyprian's age, as does 
 the Greek church to the present day, though it is not 
 recorded. But this argument from the silence of the 
 scriptures, comes with but a poor grace from the non- 
 conformist opponents of Romanism. When Romanists 
 affirm that the whole of their vast system of super- 
 stition is truly of apostolic antiquity, though not very 
 clearly in the scripture, the absence of scriptural evidence 
 is thought to be a sufficient argument in reply. When 
 Congregational churches borrow the Roman device, is 
 the weapon conceived to be sanctified by its employment 
 or employers ? 
 
47 
 
 It is next' to be observed, that infant baptism is inca- 
 pable of any defence whatever, except on the much 
 wider principle of household baptism ; and this involves 
 certain consequences, when honestly and consistently 
 carried out, which, from their egregious character, serve 
 to evince the unsoundness of the rule and of the argu- 
 ment. If the practice under the covenant of Abraham 
 be the model which we are to follow, admission to the 
 church must be accorded to others besides new-born 
 babes ; to the unbelieving wife (since in Christ there is 
 neither male nor female) ; to the elder unconverted 
 children of a believer, who do not offer a violent refusal 
 to submit to baptism; and even, perhaps, to the servants 
 of the household. It is not, indeed, the custom to 
 introduce these persons into our religious societies when 
 the head of a family is converted ; but this is in direct 
 defiance of the pleaded example of the ancient covenant. 
 No principle is alleged in virtue of which infant children 
 are made partakers of the blessing, and elder ungodly 
 children and unbelieving wives and servants are ex- 
 cluded. There is one passage of Scripture commonly, 
 but very erroneously, quoted in defence of infant bap- 
 tism, which, if applicable, would oblige the baptism of 
 the unbelieving wife, and lay a foundation for her 
 admission to all church privileges : — " And the woman 
 which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be 
 pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For 
 the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife (is 
 made holy by the wife), and the unbelieving wife is 
 made holy by the husband : else were your children 
 unclean, but now are they holy." 1 Cor. vii. 13, 14. 
 The words translated "sanctified" and "holy" in these 
 verses are the same in the Greek, except that one is a 
 verbal form, the other an adjective. The "holiness" 
 attributed to the children is precisely the same with the 
 
 " holiness " attributed to the unbelieving husband or 
 
 6 
 
48 
 
 wife, through their connection in marriage witn a be- 
 liever. If, therefore, there be any argument derivable 
 from the " holiness" of the children in favour of their 
 admission into the church, irrespective of their ages and 
 characters, there is exactly the same argument from the 
 "holiness" of the unbelieving husband or wife in favour 
 of their admission, also, into the congregation of " the 
 saints." Those who are not prepared to admit the 
 latter, must abandon the argument in favour of the 
 former. But, in truth, Paul is not speaking here of 
 spiritual holiness in the high sense of the words, but of 
 that natural and ceremonial " holiness" which is op- 
 posed to "uncleanness" in the legal and civil use of the 
 term. The unconverted wife is " sanctified" by the be- 
 lieving husband for the purpose of conjugal society. 
 The difference in religion does not annul the marriage 
 in the sight of God ; else the past children of the mar- 
 riage would be branded with illegitimacy ; they would 
 be cast aside as " born of fornication ;" they would be 
 " unclean." But now, according to the Divine rule, all 
 such marriages, contracted in an unconverted state with 
 pagans, are good in the sight of God, both for the past 
 and for the future. Therefore, let not the converted 
 party depart on the score of Christianity. Here is 
 nothing bearing on the subject of church fellowship. 
 The question is marriage, and the children are asserted 
 to be holy only as the unbelieving pagan wife is asserted 
 to be holy, that is, they are in God's sight the legitimate 
 wife and children of a believer ; and the words apply to 
 children of all ages, good and bad, not to infants only. 
 
 It is sometimes alleged that, since the family principle 
 was recognized in Judaism as the basis of "church" 
 constitution, so must it have been recognized in Christi- 
 anity, else the privileges of the ancient dispensation 
 would have been greater than the privileges of the new. 
 This is precisely the argument of those who maintain 
 
the principle of national establishments of religion under 
 Christianity. The Hebrew theocracy embraced the 
 whole nation. The whole nation was the church. Un- 
 less the same rule be allowed now, the privileges of 
 Christianity will be less than the privileges of Judaism. 
 Exactly so. And they are less in this respect, that 
 Christianity makes no provision in the church for per- 
 sons not professedly godly. The law is absolute : " Put 
 
 AWAY FROM AMONG YOURSELVES THAT WICKED PERSON," 
 
 1 Cor. vi. 13. The New Testament is not designed to be the 
 religion of any except the " spiritual," and these are 
 always a small minority. If, therefore, the privileges of 
 Christianity are less than those of Judaism with respect 
 to the nation, they may be less with respect to. the 
 household or family. It is affirmed that Jewish con- 
 verts would naturally expect that all their households 
 would be received into communion. How so, if, as we 
 are assured on other occasions, baptism introduces us 
 into the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant ? These 
 Jewish households had been already introduced into 
 that covenant by circumcision; why should they be in- 
 troduced into it again ? No. The new covenant was 
 founded upon better promises, and established a com- 
 munion founded on a better principle. Relationship 
 was to be reckoned by spiritual, not by carnal ties. 
 Those who are " born of God " are " brethren ;" but 
 natural descent, " birth of blood," could not entitle to 
 the rights of the divine communion. Enlightened 
 Jewish converts (for of these alone we speak, since the 
 unenlightened ones were the fathers of nearly all the 
 corruptions of Christianity) could expect no such thing 
 as that the household principle would be adopted as the 
 basis of church fellowship by the apostles of Him who 
 every where proclaimed himself as the " divider of 
 households." Further, the new rite of baptism demon- 
 strates that the church was a new and different commu- 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 nion from the synagogue. It is impossible to read 
 Paul's epistles addressed to the churches, and to receive 
 the impression that those churches consisted of a mixed 
 multitude of families, of a vast assemblage of uncon- 
 verted husbands, wives, and children, with a small mi- 
 nority of believers scattered among them, in virtue of 
 whose faith they were reckoned as Christians. The 
 members of the apostolic churches were all obviously 
 persons who took up the profession of the gospel, know- 
 ing that it might cost them their lives. And this being 
 so, the " privilege " of baptism would inevitably become 
 a personal affair. 
 
 3. All the examples of baptisms in the New Testa- 
 ment are the baptisms of professed believers. The 
 commission was to baptize believers : " He that believeth 
 and is baptized shall be saved," Mark xvi. 16. Not, he 
 that is baptized as a learner, and then believes. The 
 defence of infant baptism rests only on an inference 
 drawn from the practice under the Abrahamic covenant 
 — an inference which, as we have seen, is full of uncer- 
 tainty and contradiction when in the hands of its own 
 ablest advocates. The very controversy in the days of 
 Cyprian whether baptism should not be administered on 
 the eighth day, shows that there was no well-authenti- 
 cated apostolic tradition on the subject; but that the 
 placing of baptism on the same footing as infant circum- 
 cision was a novel and a Jewish device. Fifty years 
 before, Tertullian had advised the postponement of it 
 until the children could understand its signification ; a 
 matter in which it is, perhaps, much to be wished that 
 Cyprian had followed his master. Tertullian's advice, 
 again, looks as though he knew very well that the 
 growing and general custom was founded on false sacra- 
 mental ideas, and, in spite of Origen's subsequent asser- 
 tion, was not apostolic. 
 
 Contending, however, as we do, that the family tie is 
 
nowhere exhibited in the New Testament as the bond 
 of ecclesiastical communion, apart from family religion, 
 we cannot avoid perceiving that the family institution is 
 abundantly recognized in Christianity, and that family 
 duties form the principal theatre for the exercise of 
 Christian graces. The instincts and obligations of the 
 parent are all provided for and directed by the religion 
 of Him who said, " Suffer the little children to come 
 unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the king- 
 dom of heaven." The practice of infant-baptism may 
 be founded upon either of two of the strongest impulses 
 in humanity — the tendency to magical superstition, or 
 the instinct of paternal love ; on a vague faith in the 
 efficacy of a sacrament, or on an earnest desire to com- 
 mend the beloved child to God. So long as the former 
 tendency lingers in the churches, infant-baptism will be 
 practised in order to ensure the safety of the child ; and 
 even those who partially doubt the theory of sacramental 
 efficacy, will, from the power which mystery exercises over 
 the imagination, generally go with the multitude to " do 
 this evil thing." With respect to such motives, we can 
 only wish that an increase of intelligence may dawn 
 upon the public mind, revealing the truth that the eter- 
 nal safety of children does not depend upon the sprink- 
 ling of a few drops of water, but upon the shedding of 
 the blood of Christ, who was once himself a babe, 
 " wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger." 
 
 The desire to " dedicate" a new-born child to God 
 Most High is a far more laudable motive in the practice 
 of infant baptism. Let it, however, be understood 
 what this dedication amounts to. The child is already 
 an object of God's love. Baptism cannot make a child 
 an object of redeeming mercy; for all children are 
 already such objects. Dedication cannot ensure its 
 safety in case of early death ; for we may hope that this 
 safety is provided for already. Dedication cannot re- 
 d 2 
 
52 
 
 move the taint of original sin ; for that is unremovable 
 except by death : and all mankind will die. Dedication 
 cannot ensure God's favour for the child if, when it 
 come to years of intelligence, it display a " hard and 
 impenitent heart." AVhat, then, may it signify? Dedi- 
 cation may signify solemn prayer to God, through 
 Christ, for the child's life, health, and sanctincation by 
 the Spirit, as its mind and faculties expand : prayer 
 which may or may not be answered. It may signify a 
 solemn promise before God to devote the best parental 
 energies to its Christian training. Or, it may signify a 
 solemn setting apart for God's service and ministry : a 
 most rash and dangerous proceeding under the present 
 economy. Hannah might devote Samuel to the service 
 of a ' ; worldly sanctuary ;" but no Christian parents can 
 ensure the piety of their offspring, or their fitness to 
 discharge the spiritual services of the Christian dispen- 
 sation. 
 
 But, whatever fitness there may be, and there seems 
 to be much fitness, in the " dedication" of infants to 
 God, in bringing them to Christ, " that he may put his 
 hands upon them, and pray for them" it seems that 
 such dedication does not at all answer to the idea of the 
 " baptism of repentance for the remission of sins." 
 Christ did not baptize the children thus brought to him. 
 He prayed for them, and blessed them. In the Church 
 of England, infant baptism is conjoined with an awful 
 delusion as to spiritual regeneration. Among dissenters 
 it answers no purpose which may not be answered 
 equally well without it. A dedicated child is the same 
 whether baptized or unbaptized. The parents' obliga- 
 tions are to be learned from conscience and the Bible : 
 and, if not learned thence, baptism will not teach them. 
 In case of early death, the baptism avails neither parent 
 nor child ; not the parent, for the age of education has 
 nor been reached; not the child, for it was unconscious 
 
53 
 
 under the ceremony, and its salvation is dependent 
 neither on dedication nor baptism. 
 
 We are conducted to the same conclusion if we com- 
 pare the value of the force of infant baptism as an 
 educational or spiritual motive, with that of baptism on 
 an intelligent profession. If a baptized child live to 
 maturity — its parents who witnessed the rite may have 
 died — the persons who were principally to be instructed 
 by the ceremony. If they live to conduct the education 
 of the child, they must be strangely constituted if they 
 will train their offspring for God, only, or chiefly, because 
 it was baptized. The educational influence of infant 
 baptism on the minds of parents is, after all, infinitessi- 
 mally small. Those who are pious, train up their 
 families as well as they are able in the knowledge and 
 practice of truth, whether they have been baptized or 
 not in infancy. And those who are destitute of religion 
 are never moved by the " christening " of their house- 
 holds, to teach them the good ways of the Lord. 
 
 The same thing is true with regard to the subjects 
 themselves. Notwithstanding the allegations of a few 
 enthusiastic defenders of paedo-baptism, as to the benefit 
 which they suppose themselves to have derived from it, 
 I apprehend, that of all the influences which act upon 
 us in forming the character, the fact that we were 
 baptized in infancy is the faintest. Circumcision left a 
 permanent mark upon the subject of it, which might 
 remind him of his privileges and obligations. Infant 
 baptism leaves no such mark, either on the body or on 
 the memory. It can be known to the baptized only as a 
 traditionary fact in the family history. If, however, it 
 exercise any influence at all, that influence is likely to 
 be of a pernicious tendency, encouraging the vague idea 
 that there is some other way of becoming a Christian 
 than by personal thought upon Christian truth, and per- 
 sonal obedience to it. Not to have been baptized in 
 
54 
 
 infancy on the other hand, must exercise a positively 
 good influence upon the opening intelligence of child- 
 hood and youth. It would present a far stronger motive 
 to piety to he made to feel that membership with 
 Christ's church is a high privilege vouchsafed alone to 
 those who design to serve and please God in Christ — 
 suggesting, as soon as responsible intelligence was fully 
 developed, and the manifestation of inherent corruption 
 clearly evidenced (as it is evidenced in nearly all cases, 
 notwithstanding a holy training), a feeling of danger 
 while abstaining from personal repentance, obedience, 
 and baptism. 
 
 But let the moral benefits of infant baptism both to 
 parents and children be made out to their fullest extent, 
 still we must think that the loss of baptism for young 
 persons desirous of professing religious decision, and for 
 those who present themselves for communion in maturer 
 years, in the character of penitent sinners after a life of 
 flagrant transgression, is an evil that far more than 
 counterbalances all those benefits. The instances of 
 those who have been sanctified from the birth, even 
 under the advantages of Christian education, are not 
 common. There are such cases, but they are far from 
 numerous. Even for these, however, a distinct and 
 personal profession of their adoption of the Christian 
 faith when they reach the age of reason, by a solemn act 
 like baptism, would be an admirable method of im- 
 pressing upon their minds their obligations, and their 
 relationship to the catholic church. But the immensely 
 larger proportion of the children educated in religious 
 families pass their childhood in vanity, and their youth in 
 sin. This also, is all but universally the case with those 
 whose misfortune it has been to be born in the unconse- 
 crated houses of the ungodly. Nearly all who become 
 seriously devout are conscious of some period of spiritual 
 decision, a time of longer or shorter duration, when their 
 
00 
 
 wills were first steadily devoted to God and the gospel. 
 With most persons that is a time of painful, and some- 
 times of awful struggle, terror, and doubt. And none of 
 those who know the power of the senses over the mind, 
 will undervalue the merciful provision of Christ, which 
 meets this early stage of spiritual anxiety, repentance, 
 and faith, with a visible image of pardoning and purify- 
 ing grace, a sign of God's boundless love to his lost 
 child. The sound of " Arise, and wash away thy sins,'' 
 is heavenly music to the penitent ; and the total loss of 
 such a sign through the practice of infant baptism seems 
 to he an incalculable evil. The most solemn hours in 
 mortal existence are those of baptism and resurrection. 
 In the one we die to the law with all its woes, to the 
 world with all its pomps and vanities, to sin with its 
 works and wages. In the other, we shall ascend to the 
 regions whither sin and death can never enter. The 
 influence which the solemn administration of baptism 
 (and it cannot he too solemn), to the young convert, or 
 trained disciple, or returning profligate, must exercise 
 upon their minds to the last hours of life, cannot fail to 
 prove of the most salutary character. At the time of 
 the celebration, it communicates (through an outward 
 pledge, in which the administrator is the representative, 
 or agent of God), and is intended to communicate, to the 
 humble and believing recipient, a perfect peace through 
 a sign of " the remission of sins." To him, coming up 
 out of the water, heaven opens. On him the spirit of 
 joy descends and dwells. And ever afterwards the 
 remembrance of that solemn hour may console him in 
 affliction, reclaim him in declension, and uphold him in 
 temptation. If there are many who may approach the 
 holy waters in the bond of iniquity like Simon Magus, 
 with a formal profession, or a magical credulity, — or if 
 there are many who may "forget" that they were 
 " purged from their old sins," let no practical conclusion 
 
56 
 
 be drawn to the prejudice of those whose Christian 
 peace is comfortably supported, not only by " the answer 
 of a good conscience" within, but externally by what 
 Peter aad Paul do not scruple to call in such cases, the 
 " saving" waters of baptism. The divine ordinances will 
 all be perverted by the superstitious and profane, but 
 they are not the less the portion of those " honest and 
 good hearts" who are the subjects of the Redeemer's 
 dominion. 
 
 Those who have accustomed themselves to the baptism 
 of young children, and in whose minds the rite is associ- 
 ated with all the purity and poetry of an enchanting age, 
 will, doubtless, find it no easy task to bring their time- 
 honoured habit to a period. It seems like tearing up 
 the foundations of popular Christianity, to tear up infant 
 baptism. The same feelings would arise in the mind of 
 a member of the Greek church, discontinuing for the 
 first time, his habit of presenting his child for the holy 
 communion of the mass. But these infantile sacraments 
 are at the foundation of corrupt Christianity, and there- 
 fore, the sooner they are discontinued, the * better for the 
 parent, for the child, and for the church of God. 
 
 4. It is not difficult to understand the origin of the 
 doctrine of baptismal regeneration by the Holy Spirit. 
 There is in the language of scripture, manifestly a cus- 
 tomary connexion of baptism and regeneration ; not that 
 baptism is ever asserted to convey regenerating grace, 
 but it is spoken of as the proper accompaniment of the 
 " new creation." " He that believeth is born of God," 
 or is regenerate. And " he that believeth is to be bap- 
 tized." If baptism produced regeneration, it would be, 
 ; ' he that is baptized shall believe," for faith is the sign 
 of regeneration : and baptism would convey the grace of 
 faith. This connexion of thought and language, how- 
 ever, is outraged when applied to infants, who are in- 
 capable of any mental affection. Its application to them 
 
OJ 
 
 
 was preceded by the adoption of an idea concerning the 
 nature of the ordinance, which not only rendered it not 
 irrational to baptize them, but made their baptism one 
 of the first duties of the church. This idea was the 
 notion that the sacrament conveyed grace as by a spiri- 
 tual machinery— as by a divine magic. As soon as this 
 notion got wind, the way was clear to infant regenera- 
 tion ; since, as Cyprian says, the child can oppose no 
 obstacle to the grace of God. But the idea of the 
 bestowment of the Holy Ghost at baptism was not 
 altogether without foundation, and this assisted the 
 delusion. It was usual in the apostolic age, for the 
 Holy Ghost to descend as the wonder-working power, 
 the author of tongues and miracles, upon the newly 
 baptized. "Signs shall follow them that believe." 
 Nothing was more natural than for an ignorant and 
 carnal generation— such as were the multitude of the 
 early Christians, to confound this descent of the Spirit 
 as the wonder-working power, with his previous operation 
 on the heart of the believer, as the revealer of Jesus 
 Christ the regenerating power. Language used by the 
 apostles exclusively with reference to the Holy Spirit 
 in his wonder-working character, was applied with 
 reference to the regenerating agency : and since it was 
 usual for baptism to be accompanied by " the gift of the 
 Holy Ghost," conferring tongues and curative powers, 
 they come to imagine that baptism could confer re- 
 generating grace. Whereas, the truth was, that the 
 Holy Spirit must first have secretly operated on the soul 
 to produce faith and regeneration, ere baptism would be 
 generally desired, or the recipient could become a proper 
 vessel for receiving the miraculous endowments of His 
 second and more public bestowment. This confusion of 
 the language of the apostles, respecting the sanctifying 
 and the wonder-working energies of the Holy Spirit* 
 has been the fruitful source of enthusiastic delusion and 
 d5 
 
58 
 
 priestly superstition in every age. In the second century 
 it bred Montanism in the heated fanatics of Asia Minor 
 — false pretences to inspiration, just when the holy gift 
 was beginning to be taken away ; and ever since it has 
 appeared in manifold forms, as in Romanism, and in the 
 Protestant sects which reject a settled ministry. The 
 ordination services of the Church of England, not less 
 than its baptismal and confirmatory rites, are redolent 
 of the same error. Words, which in the mouths of 
 apostles referred exclusively to the gift of the Spirit as 
 the author of inspiration and miracles, came to he 
 employed with reference to his sanctifying operations. 
 His descent at baptism in the days of the apostles, was 
 presumed to have been in his regenerating character. 
 The delusion was speedily established. Every corrupt 
 tendency in the churches fostered it. Baptism was very 
 soon regarded not merely as the sign of God's mercy to 
 the penitent believer, as the introduction into the visible 
 church, but as the effectual means of conferring and in- 
 fusing divine grace. What followed was logical and 
 natural. Some postponed their baptism like Constantine 
 to life's last hour, in order that the grace infused might 
 not be injured or lost. Others proceeded to infant 
 baptism, because, as the fathers of Carthage declared, 
 it would be inhuman to deny them regenerating grace 
 and to endanger their salvation in case of early decease. 
 Perhaps one delusion was the fitting counterpart of the 
 other. Had the infant baptism of the early ages been a 
 mere dedication to God, after the manner of our modern 
 nonconformist Protestants in England, the evil would 
 not have been so glaring ; but of such inefficacious 
 infant baptism, those ages were totally ignorant. It 
 was spiritual regeneration for all, or it was a nullity. 
 Whatever ground the dissenting poedo-baptism may 
 discover for itself in scripture, assuredly it has none in 
 antiquity. 
 
59 
 
 But although unable to perceive any scriptural or 
 historical argument for the baptism of infants, I conceive 
 that several expressions in the earlier Fathers may be 
 taken to indicate that the baptism of pious children was 
 practised in the apostolic age. And there seems no 
 reason wherefore baptism should be denied to a person, 
 however young, who requests it, when it is clear that 
 the request is an intelligent, a personal, and a voluntary 
 act. It is impossible to tell how early in some instances 
 divine grace moves the childish spirit to faith and holy 
 obedience. Each case must be considered by itself. 
 But if Josiah was thought worthy of a kingly record 
 and a divine approval at eight years of age, in conse- 
 quence of his pious behaviour, it would appear to be 
 warrantable, even at so early a period of life as this, in 
 similar examples of godliness, to permit a personal and 
 public adoption of the Christian name and character. 
 Such instances probably would be found by sober judges 
 not to be numerous, but when they occur baptism is to 
 be allowed. 
 
 5. This leads, by a natural transition, to the considera- 
 tion of the apostolic rule of baptism. It is manifest 
 in the New Testament that the apostles and evangelists 
 are represented as refusing baptism to none who pro- 
 fessed repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. To all such 
 it appears that they gave the sign of heavenly mercy 
 without delay, thereby admitting them into the company 
 of the saints, even to a Simon Magus, although he 
 proved immediately to be still in the gall of bitterness. 
 Peter's expression of surprise at the indication which he 
 afforded of his impenitence and superstition, shows that 
 it was the rule and the design to baptize sincere penitents 
 and believers only, if possible ; but, at the same time, 
 the fact that he was baptized on the profession of faith, 
 — "Simon believed also," — is sufficient evidence that it 
 
60 
 
 ■was not the custom to throw douhts upon the sincerity 
 of the application of any man. A few self-deluded en- 
 thusiasts, like Ananias and Sapphira, might be carried 
 into the church on the wings of excitement without con- 
 version ; hut in those days the danger that accompanied 
 the profession of the hated religion of Christ, acted 
 as an effectual safeguard against the admission of many 
 hypocrites or impostors. The terror of vindictive mira- 
 cles also guarded, as with a flaming sword, the gates of 
 the sanctuary against improper applicants for baptism. 
 " Of the rest durst no man join himself to them, though 
 the people magnified them. But believers in the Lord 
 were the more added, multitudes both of men and 
 women," Acts v. 14. The apostolic provision, however, 
 for the permanent purity of the churches was found in a 
 prescription for the exercise of an internal discipline. 
 They readily baptized and admitted all applicants, but 
 they speedily "put away from amongst them'' all 
 " wicked persons." This known rigour of internal juris- 
 diction must have operated quite as forcibly to repel the 
 approach of insincere persons, as the occasional dreadful 
 execution of divine vengeance upon baptized criminals. 
 Few would be found to solicit the society of a congrega- 
 tion where character would soon be ascertained, and, if 
 discovered to be evil, most severely exposed and rebuked, 
 except the honest converts to righteousness. Thus a 
 ready admission by baptism was counterbalanced by a 
 strict administration of ecclesiastical law. It may admit 
 of question, whether, under the different circumstances 
 of a national profession of Christianity, the apostles 
 would have adhered to their rule. But it is clear that 
 no danger can accrue to the purity of the church, so 
 long as the discipline is maintained. If that be discon- 
 tinued, and yet the ready baptism of all applicants be 
 still permitted, nothing but disorder can ensue. Chris- 
 
61 
 
 tianity is a living whole. We cannot remove one mem- 
 ber of it without injuring the entire system, and even 
 endangering its vitality. 
 
 In most of the dissenting churches a different method 
 of admission to communion is adopted. The baptized 
 child is informed by Dr. Wardlaw, that he was by bap- 
 tism admitted only into the catholic church, not into the 
 local church of which his parents were members ; by 
 Dr. Halley, that he was by baptism admitted into 
 neither. Accordingly, when he reaches years of discre- 
 tion, and turns to God, he is taught to seek for the 
 privilege of "joining the church," and participating in 
 the communion of the Lord's supper. But this cannot 
 generally be permitted until he have given evidence, 
 or what is to pass as evidence, of conversion. This is 
 accomplished in various ways. Sometimes a written 
 41 experience " is handed in for the consideration of the 
 church. Sometimes the pastor exercises his knowledge 
 of human nature in forming an opinion upon the cha- 
 racter of the applicant, and on his sole opinion the 
 church proceeds. Sometimes one or two "deacons" 
 receive a commission to visit the professed convert, ; nd 
 by conversation to elicit the evidence of true pietv 
 sought for on the occasion. The ordeal, of course, differs 
 much in different places and with different men. With 
 some deacons and visitors little enough passes as the 
 proof of a change of heart. With others, silence is 
 regarded as a deadly sign. Weak men are sometimes 
 imposed upon by a fluent tongue ; and stern formal offi- 
 cials are sometimes amazed, when the applicant from 
 age, or peculiar constitution, or perhaps uncommon 
 sense, is unwilling to disclose all the secrets of a troubled 
 history. The modest virgin spirit, particularly in the 
 upper ranks of society, is not seldom scared away from 
 an avowal of faith by the dread of this official inqui- 
 sition. The bold youth with good nerves, a ready 
 
62 
 
 vocabulary, and a deceived heart, sometimes obtains an 
 abundant entrance as the subject of a wonderful con- 
 version. 
 
 The whole of this machinery seems to be an inven- 
 tion of modern times. The New Testament contains 
 no laws for the visits of deacons, the judgment of 
 pastors, or the delay in admission. A profession of 
 repentance and faith was accepted by the apostles and 
 evangelists as a sufficient title to baptism and com- 
 munion. Had it indeed been known concerning any 
 particular person, that, at the time of making this pro- 
 fession, he was living in the indulgence of sins which 
 plainly indicated that he was in the " bond of iniquity ;'" 
 sins which would have demanded his immediate separa- 
 tion from the sacred community had he been admitted 
 within its precincts, we cannot doubt that baptism would 
 have been refused to him, since "false brethren," or 
 persecutors, such as Paul was thought to be by the 
 church at Jerusalem, after his return from Damascus, 
 were not knowingly to be "brought in." But where 
 there were no outward and manifest signs in the cha- 
 racter tending to reveal the insincerity of the applicant, 
 it appears to be clear from the New Testament, that he 
 was at once baptized, even although his "repentance" 
 was self-deceptive, or transitory enthusiasm, or the super- 
 ficial work of wonder or of terror. The burden of 
 responsibility with respect to his real state before God, 
 was left entirely upon his own shoulders. The apostles 
 offered no opinion upon the genuineness of the conver- 
 sion. That was to be tested by subsequent conduct, and 
 if the "gall of bitterness" afterward appeared, excom- 
 munication was the remed}-. The modern method of 
 proceeding, while it carries a semblance of expediency 
 in its bearing upon the preservation of the " purity of 
 the chureh," in reality offers no guarantee whatever that 
 such shall be the result. If the customary examinations 
 
63 
 
 previous to admission effect the exclusion of some im- 
 proper characters, they probably delude into a dangerous 
 self-confidence many of those who pass successfully 
 through the appointed trial. Trusting in the fact that 
 they have undergone the judgment of their spiritual 
 superiors, whose opinion of their safe state has been 
 openly expressed before the church, it is ever afterwards 
 exceedingly difficult to convince them that they must be 
 converted ere they can enter the kingdom of God. 
 Multitudes there are, the subjects of a brief excitement 
 in early or later life, who in this manner obtain admis- 
 sion into our societies, whose subsequent conduct, if 
 judged by the rule of scripture, evidently proves that 
 they are not the disciples of the Redeemer. Yet it 
 seems as though they considered that the original sanc- 
 tion of the church and of the ministry, given in favour 
 of their regeneration, entitled them to hope against 
 hope, and to press forward to the gates of death in con- 
 fident security. A return to the apostolic rule w r ould go 
 far to prevent this dangerous delusion. Under any con- 
 stitution, indeed, a margin must be left for self- deceivers 
 in the churches, but it is quite needless to assist them in 
 their mistaken courses. Let admission into the church 
 be rendered more easy. Let the inquiries of the church 
 be confined to external conduct. Let it be thoroughly 
 understood by the applicant for communion, that the 
 admission rests on his own profession of faith and re- 
 pentance ; that the church offers no opinion in favour of 
 his absolute conversion to God, but leaves that matter 
 to his own conscience before the Searcher of hearts. At 
 the same time, let him be informed that he is about to 
 enter into a sociefy where his character will be severely 
 tested, where insincerity will be speedily manifested, 
 where sin will be encountered with " sharp rebuke," and 
 where open vice will be punished with expulsion. A 
 man's life and spirit during the few years following his 
 
64 
 
 profession, is a far" better test of the reality of his piety 
 than all his conversation at the time of his reception into 
 communion. 
 
 It is evident that such a method of proceeding would 
 transfer the principal care in church government from 
 the business of the admission of candidates for com- 
 munion to the administration of internal discipline; 
 and it is the spiritual and moral difficulty of exercising 
 that discipline which has led to the contrivance of a 
 difficult admission in order to avoid or forestall the 
 dreaded necessity of a difficult expulsion. Under the 
 prevalent system it is felt to be somewhat approaching 
 to a reversal of a previous judgment of the church 
 when a member is expelled ; and this difficulty is more 
 than doubled when the form of government is mo- 
 archical, particularly when that monarch is no other 
 than a student of divinity fresh from his cell. Sec- 
 tarianism produces small churches with single pastors. 
 A spirit of unity would restore larger communities with 
 a plurality of bishops. Under the present distress, 
 perhaps, the evil might be partly remedied in such cases: 
 if the spiritual executive were to be strengthened; if 
 the officers should cease to be that which they often are, 
 simply the richest men and secular functionaries, and 
 were exchanged for the best men, the ablest, and the 
 eldest. Let them become what the New Testament 
 church officers were, ministers in the secular, and as- 
 sistants in the spiritual, departments [of God's temple. 
 Let all cases of discipline be entered upon not in the 
 name and authority of Llim alone that labours in the 
 word and doctrine, but in the name of the whole pres- 
 bytery as the organs of the church ; and if there be a 
 prevailing spirit of piety, such a body will be irresistible. 
 If there be not piety in a church sufficient to furnish 
 such a body, and to maintain such a discipline, the case 
 admits of no remedy. The New Testament furnishes 
 
65 
 
 no directions for an ungodly society, but abandons it to 
 its own corruptions and to its own damnation, in the 
 everlasting destruction of hell. 
 
 Under no circumstances, however, are we to anticipate 
 anything like perfection of purity in the churches mili- 
 tant. Allowances are to be made in the government of 
 a Christian society, for the state of national civilization 
 in relation to morals, and for individual knowledge and 
 opportunities. The law of the church is not only the 
 law of truth, but the law of love. It is the adminis- 
 tration of a Father's house, not of a tyrant's dominion. 
 Wisdom is ever gentle, hopeful, and patient, The 
 apostle's rod wrought fewer repentances at Corinth than 
 his arguments and his tears. An easier admission to the 
 churches than that which commonly prevails amongst us, 
 would make Pharisees indignant, and formalists miserable, 
 but it would encourage the timid, and render the church 
 what it ought to be in part, a school for babes in Christ ; 
 while it would oblige a return to that which is exceed- 
 ingly to be desired, the exercise of a potent internal 
 government.* 
 
 To this end it is, above all things, necessary to beseech 
 Heaven for a mighty baptism of the Spirit of God. In 
 the church and in the ministry of Jesus Christ "the flesh 
 profiteth nothing." The Spirit of God is all in all. The 
 prosperity of a church is to be reckoned not by its num- 
 bers, for numbers often betoken only the laxity of its 
 doctrine and the decay of its discipline; not by the 
 wealth or respectability of its members, for the rich are 
 quite as frequently the curses as the blessings of a re- 
 ligious communion, and unless uncommonly endowed 
 with grace, are at best but dangerous friends ; not by 
 the popularity of its public standing, for the bride of the 
 
 * On this subject, see Buyer's Letters on India, No. xvii. 
 
66 
 
 Lamb must be " despised and rejected of men" until her 
 Lord's return ; but it is to be estimated by the signs of a 
 divine presence in the midst, through which mighty 
 deeds do show themselves for in its members ; mighty 
 deeds of self-denial, of practical benevolence, of heroic 
 devotion to principle, of catholic Christian love. And 
 of all the melancholy spectacles in this world, the most 
 melancholy is that of a church and a ministry framed 
 externally on the New Testament plan, but destitute 
 inwardly of the Spirit of God. The raiment of camel's 
 hair and the leathern girdle served well enough for the 
 vestments of a body, of which the thunder-breathing 
 spirit of John the Baptist was the soul. The roughly 
 woven robe of the carpenter's Son was a sufficiently dig- 
 nified array, since at the Transfiguration it became white 
 as the light through the shining forth of the divinity 
 within. Even so our simple and unadorned church 
 polity, our unpretending and dependent ministry, will, if 
 penetrated by the Spirit of the Eternal, form a vesture 
 for truth as glorious as though it were a texture em- 
 broidered like the hangings of the tabernacle, with 
 purple, and crimson, and gold. But if, by any possibility, 
 our ministers were to become the mercenary flatterers of 
 an unprincipled throng, the trained and slavish fuglemen 
 of a theological party ; if they should cease to be the 
 men of God, seers and prophets raised up by Jehovah, 
 experienced guides over the enchanted mountains to the 
 heights of a blessed eternity; — if our societies should sink 
 down from occupying the lofty position of branches of 
 the catholic church, should come to think of themselves 
 evermore only as a Protestant sect, busy for its traditions 
 and superstitions, inflexible in its petty demands for 
 conformity to unscriptural tests of ministry and of mem- 
 bership ; — if the principal thing were to be noncon- 
 formity, and not Christianity, if our power were to be 
 
67 
 
 felt chiefly as destroyers and not as creators, if the 
 energy that streams forth from us were to manifest itself 
 not in the spirit of meekness and temperance, in the 
 humility of forgiven sinner3, and the magnanimous car- 
 riage of those who hope ere long to be companions of 
 the angels, — but in spite and jealousy, in taunts and 
 sneers, in the spirit of half-resigned martyrs, who gnash 
 their teeth at the degradation to which their faith has 
 consigned them ; — if, in a word, we were ever to have 
 nonconformist churches, and a nonconformist ministry 
 devoid of a manifest alliance with Deity, why then, in 
 the name of all grace and beauty, of all nobility and 
 grandeur, let our churches and our ministry be dissolved. 
 If we are to have the form without the power of godli- 
 ness and honesty, let the form be, not that of a pretended 
 infallible democracy, which is filled with ignorant and 
 obstinate prejudices, which blindly tramples out every 
 spark of theological inquiry unkindled at its own candle- 
 stick, which makes a clamorous profession of purity 
 which it does not possess, and glories in a nakedness 
 which has no beauty to recommend it to earth or 
 heaven ; but let it be the form of the grand old religion , 
 with its bishops and its palaces, its subordination and 
 its pay, its ancestral traditions and storied literature, its 
 stupendous cathedrals and long-drawn aisles of arched 
 masonry, and windows stained with all the colours of 
 the western sky, its ravishing music, its living sculpture, 
 its sacred processions, and its songs of white-robed 
 choirs : for these, if sometimes destitute of heavenly 
 grace, at least are always beautiful ; and the outward 
 form and comeliness of a corrupt religion are better than 
 the defunct carcass of a good one. 
 
 May the Holy One of Israel fill our bishops and 
 curates, and all congregations committed to their charge^ 
 with the spirit of counsel and might, with the spirit of 
 
strong understanding in the fear of the Lord, with more 
 of that spirit of love and moderation, which is the best 
 guide to truth, in order that every godly reformation 
 may be accomplished in the midst of us, and that our 
 churches may prove themselves to be still the lights of 
 the world. 
 
 J. HADDON, PRINTER, CASTLE STREET, KIN3KURY.