^. v'> %^. V..^. > IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I ISO "^ m m ■ 2.2 ^ li£ 12.0 li i 1.8 1.25 Iju 1.6 M 6" ► ^^% ^ ^ 7 /A Hiotograiiiic Sciences Corporation aa WEST MAIN STRUT WnSTIR.N.Y. MStO (716) •72-4503 \ iV V SJ \\ ^S'"^^ '^ '%*■ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Instituta for Historical IMicroreproductions institut Canadian da microraproductions historiquas 1980 Technical and Bibliographic Notot/Notos technique* et bibliographiquee The Inatitute ha* attempted to obtain the beet original copy available for filming. Feature* of thi* copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the image* in the reproduction, or which may eignificantly change the ueual method of filming, are checlted below. L'Inetitut a microfilm6 le meilleur exempleire qu'il lui a AtA po**ible de *e procurer. Le* ditail* de cet exempleire ^ui *ont peut-Atre unique* du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dan* la method* normale de f ilmage *ont indiquA* ci-de**ou*. Coloured cover*/ Couverture de couleur ^~~^ Cover* damaged/ D D D D Couverture endommag6e Cover* reetored and/or laminated/ Couverture re*taur6e et/ou pelliculAe I I Cover title mi**ing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured map*/ Cartes giographique* en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) Coloured plate* and/or illu*tration*/ Planche* et/ou llluetration* en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d 'autre* document* □ Coloured page*/ Page* de couleur n D D □ Page* damaged/ Page* endommagte* Page* reetored and/or laminated/ Page* reetaurte* et/ou peilicul6e* Page* di*coloured, stained or foxed/ Page* dicolorAe*. tachetie* ou piquie* Page* detached/ Page* ditachie* Showthrough/ Tranaparence Quality of print varie*/ Qualit^ in^gale de I'impreasion □ Include* *upplementary material/ Comprend du materiel aupplimentaire D D Tight binding may cauae shadow* or di*tortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge intiriuure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever poasible, the*e have been omitted from filming/ II *e peut que certaine* page* blanche* ajout6e* lor* d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela itait possible, ces pages n'ont pas M film^es. D D Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmies A nouveau de fapon i obtenir la meilleure image po8*ible. D Additional comments:/ Commentaires suppl^mentaires; This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est fiimi au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X ails du >difi0r une nage The copy filmed here hat been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: National Library of Canada The imeges appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition end legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. L'exemplaire fiimi fut reproduit grAce A la g6nArosit4 de: BibliothAque nationale du Canada Les imeges suivantes ont itt reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire fiimi. et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de fiimage. Original copies in printed paper covers ere filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and endit q on the last page with a printed or illustrated impression. Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont filmAs en commen^ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la derniire page qui comnorte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exempiaires originaux sont filmis en commen^ant par la premiere page qui comports une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par la derniAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shell contain the symbol ^^- (meaning "CON- TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Un des symboles suivants apparaftra sur la dernidre image de chaque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols ^^' signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN ". Meps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre fiimis A des taux de reduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seui clich6, il est film6 d partir de Tangle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche d droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images nicessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. rrata o aelure, id □ 32X 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^M.■,^^}.^^i_kMm liiii^iii liiiiiriii lilt I iifri t rj- ti wA #» THE SCRIPTURAL AND HISTORICAL CHARACTER ■ < ' 4 OF ^ INFANT BAPTISM ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. A Lecture delivered before the Theological Union of the London Conference^ met in Chatham^ June^ iSqo. BY THE REV. WILLIAM McDONAGH ATSD PUBLISHSD BY RBQUS8T. TORONTO: VS/'ILLIAIVI BRIOOS, WBSLBT BUILDINGS. MONnUBAL: O. W. GOATBS. Haufaz : S. F. HUX8TIB. > \ > «? •.•npTf^*^ ■ ') V'/; A'' 3agianaaiBMiHK«?;»Ka ri-r;;ii*rf; • SSSBSS^f WW t^ ') .1 INFANT BAPTISM. K wmm r THE SCRIFi URAL AND HISTORICAL CHARACTER OP INFANT BAPTISM ASSERTED AND DEFENDED. ^ Lecture delivered Itefore the Theological Union of the London Conference ^ met in Chatham ^ J tine , iSgo. BY THE REV. WILLIAM McDONAGH AND PUBLISHED BY REQUEST. TORONTO: WIIvLIAM BRiaOS, WBSLBY BUILDINGS. Montrral: C. W. COATES. Halifax: S. F. HUESTIS. ■ ■♦r*T*r»TlJj»t'*T*T*T*T*T*r' tHHH<;>(^)_n.'arttitniti*t* < -ii \ > \ > i > i >\t i i, i r,ti> m .ii. B circumcision and baptism by water. That objections to infant baptism brought by its opponents are unfounded and irivolous. This method of treatment involves three heads of discourse, viz. : — First. — Infants are, by divine authority, members of the Christian Church. Second. — By divine command infants have, from the organization of the Church, received the same out- ward sign of membership a^ adults. Third. — The objections brought against infant baptism are unfounded and frivolous. I. • Infants are, by divine authority, members of the Christian Church. The word church has in the Scrip- tures both a general and specific meaning. The word, as a great author shows, points out sometimes a particular congregation or assembly of Christians in a certain country or place, as in 1 Cor. xiv. 23 : " If, therefore, the whole Church come together in one place." So also we read of seven Churches in Asia, known each by the name of the place where they were located. It has also, as we have indicated, a general meaning, and in this sense applies to all God's people or Church on earth. As in Ephesians i. 22, read, " And gave Him to be head over all things to the Church ; " also, Col. i. 24, " For His body's sake, which is the Church." And in Matt. xvi. 18, " On this rock I will build My U M H I uumm titi •t*r*T*-f ;♦ :'-tf+<** t objectiond onents are ie heads of !y, Tnemhers have, from e same out- nst infant bars of the the Scrip- The word, etimes a stians in a 23: "If, ne place." ia, known re located. meaning, )r Church id gave ' also, Church." Ibuild My Church." In this sense, the Church embraces all on earth who belong to Christ. " The foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are His." Now, when we speak of infants belonging to the Church of God, we do not mean that they belong to the Church in A or in B, or in any one city, or denomination of the Church known by any particular name, but to God's universal Church, which is His body, and of which He is in all things the Head. To Christ's Church then infants belong, and should be acknowledged as such, as they were by the Lord of that Church, Himself, when He declared them tc belong to the kingdom of heaven. When we say that infants belong to the Church, we do not say by that, that they are responsible or active members of the Church ; but we do mean that God has made them to compose a part of His Church on earth, and has given them the external sign of such belonging by His own direction and command. A family may be composed of adults and infants, but the infants are not responsible or active members of the household. They are not laborers or counsellors in the family, and yet they belong to it, and are members of the family while they lie helpless in the cradle as much as when they become able to labor as adults in the household. The infant in the family has the same claim to a common home, name, food and raiment, and share of the inheritance, as the adult members of the family ; and is God's family on earth (His Church) iiiiiiiiia 'ttUtUtlUHit.t.'iut.tt-r' B 8 the only place where they are to be excluded, until they become adults ? To contend so is anti-scriptural, and outside of all analogy and right reason. A state is composed of adults and infants, but infants bear none of its burdens, they perform no state duties, yet they receive all advantages of government, they are numbered in its census as citizens, are pro- tected fully by the state in life and property as are the adults. But is the Church of the living God, the kingdom of Jesus Christ, the only place where they are not to be numbered and have a name as belonging to Him until they choose to be so as adults, while our l^rd, as the King of His Kingdom, claims Himself that they belong to it ? Surely the contention, that they do not belong to His Church, is not from God, but must be accounted for by some other method than by Scripture or the teaching of Christ. II. We are now to inquire if infants have, from the origin of the Christian Church, received by divine authority the same outward sign of membership as adults. Our work, in order to making this division of the subject clear to your minds, is to find out when and where God's Church was organized, and by whom. That God has a Church none can deny. But when and under what circumstrtnces was it originated is a question to he answered by God in the pages of the .'..-I 'i»itf*rfr*t^m»HHW»^ f t»*»r*^W«-»t-*^ ftf • uded, until -scriptural, it'ants, but >rm no state ovemment, IS, are pro- )erty as are ig God, the ivhere they s belonging s, while our ns Hiinselt' ention, that from God, lethod than ie, from the by divine ibership as sion of the when and by whom. But when Tinated is a ages of the Bible, and only there is it to be found. It took a visible form sometime, all will, no doubt, agree ; but when was that time, and who composed its first membership are questions of the greatest importance in teaching the Scriptural doctrine of infant baptism. I need rot say that the general Church of God agrees that the Bible teaches that the Church of Christ was organized in the house of Abraham. The opponents of infant baptism, feeling themselves bound to reject this doctrine, find great difficulty in fixing on, and agreeing together, as to the time and place of the organization of the Church of God. One class of writers says, that it was organized on the day of Pente- cost. To this statement we answer, it is easy to make an unsupported declaration, but where is the evidence of such an organization of the Church of God ? There is not one iota of proof for any such statement. There was a great revival it is true, and many joined the Church on that day. There is as much evidence that the Church existed before that day as that it existed after. We read that three thousand were (idded that day to the Church ; but how could they have been added to that which had no previous existence, if that was when the Church of God was originated ? And then again, the Lord's Supper was instituted fifty days before that date ; then, according to the doctrine, that Christ's Church was organized on the day of Pentecost, how is it that our Lord instituted this sacrament of His Church fifty days before there was a Church to which it could belong ? ■rtWHWrn^ -■ l»t li> W1'M *' l-fH-i'liW.I. i,:.!,,.,Utu.t.t. 10 Another class of writers tells us it came into exis- tence with John the Baptist. Now, if this view be correct the other must be wrong, so we have a contest among these brethren themselves over their own errors, but anything is better than to allow it to be pushed any further back in time, lest we might come all the way back to Abraham. But how could the Christian Church have been originated by a man who was before the days of Christ ? And if He did not originate the Church, who did in His day ? There is no record of such an important movement by any one. The whole thing is as baseless as the fabric of an idiot's dream. But, unfortunately for these bewildered brethren, we find a Church in existence before John's day, for St. Stephen, in Acts vii. 38, speaks of a Church in exis- tence in the days of Moses, and of Christ being in that Church in that early day. " This is He that was in the Church in the wilderness, with the angel which spake to him (Moses) in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto us." Here was a Church before the days of John the Baptist, even before the days of Moses. But, say these people, the word Church here in the original Scripture is from a verb which means to call out, and may have been a carnal assembly, and not necessarily a religious body. We answer, that the word was used in both senses, for a carnal assembly and a religious assembly or congregation ; and it is used in Scripture 11 le into exis- his view be ve a contest : own errors, o be pushed come all the tie Christian n who was lot originate is no record J one. The of an idiot's brethren, we day, for St. irch in exis- st being in le that was angel which ai, and with les to give ays of John s. But, say the original \(jll out, and necessarily rd was used a religious in Scripture but a very few times for other than a religious assembly or organization, but here, in this place, there can be no doubt as to the character of the assembly ; for the angel who was with Moses was the Lord Him- self, who could forgive sins, and whom Moses and the children of Israel worshipped. Moses and Aaron were in this Church, and Joshua and Caleb were in it ; for there they had religious assemblies and worshipped God, consecrating themselves to His service, promising to obey Him, and receiving from Him the lively oracles. Does St. Stephen, then, by the Spirit, make a mistake in calling their organization a Church ? A later opponent of infant baptism, in writing of the origin of the Church, has ventured to move it back to the days of Moses. We inquire for the proof of this statement, and we are informed that Moses gave them circumcision, and consequently an organization. We answer, " Not that circumcision was of Moses but of the Fathers." So says the Lord Jesus Christ — see Gospel of John vii. 22. If it be said, the law was given by Moses, we reply, yes, the ceremonial law was given by Moses, not the law of the Ten Commandments. But we are informed (Gal. iii. 15-19) that the law given by Moses could not disannul the covenant made by promise four hundred and thirty years before, so as to make the promise of no effect. The ceremonial law was something added to the covenant by promise, and wherefore added, we are informed, as typical until the seed (Christ) should come, who was to be the end of the )jl,l i mi.JIJ)Blll»ll)II I H I IHIII !l! | I i 12 law of Moses, or the ceremonial law, for righteousness' sake. There is as much evidence of a Church in exis- tence before Moses as after him. If there was a people separated unto God after Moses, so there was before the days of Moses, and God calls them " My people," " My son," the children of Israel, Isaac and Abraham. It may here be inquired, had God no people until the days of Abraham ? No believers before him and his family ? We answer, yes. Men who had made covenant with God by sacrifice ; but until Abraham's day no organized people separated to Him from the world. No Church with membership sign and seal, without which sign and seal no one could be recog- nized as belonging to the covenanted people. St. Paul calls Abraham the father of believers. In what sense was he the father of the faithful ? He was not the first believer, but the term faithful was used in the primitive Church to signify in Paul's day a member of the Church. So St. Paul terms Abraham the father of such, because the first member of an organized Church of God on earth. But further reference to this word faithful will be found bsfore we have con- cluded this paper. Now, the history of the origination of God's Church is easily stated, as it is plainly and forcibly put by Moses in Genesis, and by St. Paul in the New Testa- ment (see Rom. iv. and Gen. iii.), for they both teach its organization in the household of Abraham. We read that yvhen Abrahaoi was seventy-five years 13 righteousness' )hurch in exis- 'e was a people re was before " My people," and Abraham. people until efore him and irho had made itil Abraham's Qim from the sign and seal, ould be recog- 3ple. St. Paul In what sense i was not the bS used in the y a member of am the father an organized r reference to 5 we have con- God's Church •rcibly put by le New Testa- ey both teach aham. jnty-five yeiprs old the Lord said to him, " Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, and go into a land that I will tell thee of." Abraham obeyed God, and years after God appeared to him again, and said, " Fear not, Abraham, I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward." God then showed him the boundaries of the land of promise. (See Gen. XV.) Again, when Abraham was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to him, and commanded him to walk before Him and be perfect, and changed his name from Abram to Abraham, and promised him that in his seed all nations should be blessed. Abraham believed God's promise, and his faith in God's word to him, as St. Paul puts it, was counted to him for righteousness. And God said. This is the sign of your faith, in My word of promise : every man child among you shall be circumcised, and he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you ; and the uncircumcised man-child shall be cut off from among his people. Then Abraham arose and was circumcised, and Ishmael and Isaac his sons, according to the terms of the covenant. The work was done, and God had an organization in the world separated from it, and infants were members of that organization. Here was the origination of God's Church on earth, and never was repeated by God among jnen. But the opponents of infant baptism tell us that God made two covenants with Abraham. The one in the twelfth of Genesis, a spiritual covenant, and thd l't> lU * IMW '^l4?.»'«'i^>' *l»fft^tiUf. & 14 other in the seventeenth chapterof the same book,a tem- poral covenant in relation to the possession of the land of promise. We inquire, why separate the two parts of the covenant when the Bible makes no such distinc- tion, but, on the contrary, unites them in one in the singular, and terms them My covenant ? It is manifest that the separation is for the purpose of evading infant baptism as taught in the covenant. That the covenant in both passages is a covenant of grace none would or could deny, but those that had some sinister purpose to serve. How is it that the covenant of grace, as our opponents term it, in the twelfth chapter, has neither sign nor seal, but the covenant of a few acres of land, as they represent it in the seventeenth, has both a sign ai d seal. Their whole interpretation is an eva- sion, for the twelfth chapter speaks of a possession of land " that I will show thee," says God, and Abraham's seed was to possess it. The covenant is one, step by step revealed, now in the twelfth, then in the fifteenth, then fully in the seventeenth, revealing the purpose for which God had called him years before from his kin- dred and father's house, that he might raise up to God a separate people in the earth. Leaving the question of the plurality of covenants for the present, let us inquire of St. Paul whether the covenant of circumcision was a spiritual agreement. Let us hear the Scripture statement. (See Rom. iv. 11.) " And he (Abraham) received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, \ ime book,a tem- sion of the land t the two parts no such distinc- i in one in the ? It is manifest ose of evading nant. That the it of grace none id some sinister venant of grace, fth chapter, has of a few acres of ^eenth, has both nation is an eva- a possession of and Abraham's is one, step by in the fifteenth, the purpose for e from his kin- raise up to God by of covenants lul whether the fiual agreement. Jee Rom. iv. 11.) )f circumcision, which he had, 15 yet being uncircumcised, a seal." Perhaps in no Scrip- ture is the ordinance of baptism shown so clearly to be a spiritual ordinance as circumcision is shown to be in this passage. Abraham believed GoD, and He counted it to him for righteousness, and circumcisipn was the outward seal of that righteousness. Surely an ordinance divinely appointed to seal the righteous- ness of faith must be a spiritual ordinance. And then the covenant thus signed and sealed must be a spiri- tual covenant. But the covenant of circumcision was thus signed and sealed, says St. Paul ; therefore the covenant in Genesis xvii. must have been a spiritual covenant. The organization under such a spiritual covenant, as witnessed to by St. Paul, must be a spiri- tual organization. Its sign was spiritual, and the compact established under it, included infants as a part of the organization, receiving the same sign and seal as adults. To say, then, as the opponents of infant baptism say, that circumcision was a carnal ordinance — a mere business transaction — is to make the apostle Paul, in the above-quoted texts from the epistle to the Romans, talk the most egregious nonsense ever attri- buted to mortal man. But the religious character of circumcision is clearly pointed out by St. Piiul in another passage from Rom. ii. 25 : " For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law ; but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy cir- cumcision is made uncircurnciHion." In this passage it 2 I ■ 1 4^ > t ) i WfiJ ux,m^i^'^An^i*t*tH-ut4mm'W 16 18 clearly pointed out that tliose thus sealed in tl ordinance were bound to keep the law of God, and him who broke the law his circurucision availed n^ Why was this ? Because circumcision was a sign faith in God, and a seal of faith ; but the violator God's law had not the faith, therefore his having tl sign availed not. In reading over such a stateniei as the above from the pen of the apostle Paul, it marvellous how any one dare say that circumcisio was a carnal ordinance. It. can only be accounted f( on the ground of bitterness and prejudice makin effort to support a theory which nnds no fouridatio in reason or Scripture rightly interpreted. Again, what does St. Paul say was the advantage c circumcision, and what its profit ? Was it a sign ani seal of temporal possessions to be given to the seed o Abraham in Canaan ? Let St. Paul again declare See Rom. iii. 1, 2: "What advantage, then, hath th Jew ? Or what profit is there of circumcision ? Mucl every way : chiefly, because that unto them were com mitted the oracles of God." This passage clearly show it to be a spiritual ordinance. Whatever tempore advantage might flow from it, that was not its chie use or design, but the separation of a people froc others around, to make them the depositaries of th revealed will of God, for the blessing of the Gentile and world at large. This was the Church throug] which the world was to be blessed. Infants formed part of this circumcised organization and received it outward seal. 17 lus sealed in that law of God, and to 3ision availed not. ion was a si»n of •ut the violator of are his having the such a statement apostle Paul, it is that circumcision Y be accounted for prejudice making ads no foundation ireted. J the advantage of Was it a sign and ven to the seed of ul again declare. fe, then, hath the umcision ? Much them were com- lage clearly shows latever temporal svas not its chief a people from positaries of the of the Gentiles Church through Infants formed a and received its >f But, again, our opponents tell us that we have noth- ing to do with the Jewish organization, that the Jew- ish Church passed away. That circumcision had noth- ing whtt iever to do with the Gospel of Christ, and if it had, they inquire why the change ? All these state- ments are as unscriptural and baseless as the other objection which we have noticed, and are used merely to baffle inquiry. Let us look at these statements for a little. Let us read Gal. iii. 8 : " The Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed." That this was the true Gospel none can doubt. As St. Paul states it to be such, and offers Abraham's seed, even Christ, for the blessing of the world. And Jesus Himself declared, " Abraham saw My day {Christ's day), and was glad." (John viii. 56.) Believing in this coming Christ, Abraham was justified by faith and by the same Gospel method that we are justified, and the Church to which Abraham belonged was the same Gospel Church which we now have. It never was set aside in any of its constitutional principles, but we have come to it. See Isa. Ix. 3 : " The Gentiles shall come to Thy light, and kings to the brightness of Thy rising." See also Rom. xi. 13-24 : " But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch, then, as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I glorify my ministry ; if by any cleans I may provoke to jealousy them that are my flesh, and •..^ttfttitK. 18 may save some of them. For if the casting away them is the reconciling of the world, what shall receiving of them be, but life from the dead ? Andj the first-fruit is holy, so is the lump ; and if the n is holy, so are the branches. But if some of t| branches were broken off, and thou being a wild oVv wast grafted in among them, and didst become pf taker with them of the root and fatness of the olil tree ; glory not over the branches, but if thou gloriei it is not thou that bearest the root, but the root th( Thou wilt say then, the branches were broken ofi th I might be grafted in. Well, by their unbelief th( were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be n high-minded but fear: for if Qod spared not tl: natural branches, neither will He spare thee. . . . For if thou was cut out of that which is by nature wild olive tree, and wast grafted contrary to natui into a good olive tree, how much more shall thes which are the natural branches be grafted into thei own olive tree." It is not a new Church of God, but the old Abraham! Church, and faith revived ; so we that are of faith ai the children still of faithful Abraham to-day and nc a new organization. Let us see if the Christia Church, as it is termed, is a new organization by Jesu Christ or His apostles, or if it is so represented in th Scriptures. First, what does our Lord say on thi subject ? See John's Gospel, x. 16 : " Other sheep have which are not of this fold, them also I mm iii < . ft»> w f i r*r >» B i^ fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the hiisban men, that they might receive the fruits of it. And t husband inen took his servants and beat one, and kille another, and stoned another. Again he sent oth( servants, more than the first : and they did unto the: likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his so: saying, They will reverence my son. But when th husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselve This is the heir ; come, let us kill him, and let us seis on his inheritance. And they caught him and caj him out of the vineyard, and slew him. When th lord, therefore, of the vineyard cometh, what will h do unto those husbandmen ? They say unto him, H will miserably destroy those wicked men, and wi let out the vineyard to other husbandmen, whic shall render to him the fruits in their seasons. Jesu saith unto them, Therefore, say I unto you, the king dom of God shall be taken from you and given to nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." No one cai mistake the teachings of this passage unless he wilf uU; shuts his eyes to its meaning. The vineyard, th Lord terms the kingdom of God, to which He say infants belong, and He Himself planted it and hedges it about. " I will bless him that blesseth thee, an( curse him that curseth thee." He built a tower in i for the watchmen, and let it out to the Jewish peoph But they abused their privileges, and destroyed Hi messengers. But He did not do away with or destro; the vineyard, or change or alter it for another enclosure 4 *ti^t*4 lArf-fi^ iftmvntinttttn '. w . • ttittrttititatutttt uti t utu t tu 21 J to the husband- its of it. And the ►eat one, and killed in he sent other ley did unto them into them his son, n. But when the imong themselves, m, and let us seize ffht him and cast him. When the neth, what will he say unto him, He ied men, and will sbandmen, which ir seasons. Jesus ito you, the king- >u and given to a eof." No one can unless he wilfully he vineyard, the which He says ted it and hedged )lesseth thee, and lilt a tower in it he Jewish people, id destroyed His y with or destroy mother enclosure, but He took it from them, and gave the same vineyard to others (Gentiles), bringing forth his fruit in his season. Oh, no ! Not a stake of it was broken and not a stone of the tower loosened. But the Jews had their children in this vineyard, and when the Gentiles came into the possession of it, was it part of the agreement that their infants should be shut out ? St. Peter settles the point, for he declares the promise is for us and for our children; and St. Paul declared in regard to the privileges of this Church, "There is no difference between Jew or Greek." What can the opponent of infant church membership and infant baptism do in contradicting the plain testimony of Scripture and history in relation to the rights of chil- dren to church membership ? Anff?imtw-4»mNi' m B HI •)"> our Lord's time and that of His apostles, a practice] Lord and His apostles r}iu8t have hi own, and wl He and they manifestly adopted as the outward f| of church membership, still in His Church, witl change of subject anywhere in Scripture. As there never was change of Church, abrogation of church privilege or terms of m( bership as respects the age of the membership] Christ's Church, we now come to prove in a words that as infants were members from the first, rea'^ons of the chanjje of outward sisfn of that me bership. As at the first, circumcision before coming of our Lord, but after His coming solely baptism by water, as known among the Jews and our Lord in His day. The first thing here is to remi you, a*^ the risk of some repetition of thought, of t spiritual character of the covenant of God wi Abraham, and of the fact that circumcision was ins tnted as the sign of the faith which Abraham had the covenant promise of God. Jn order to be bri here, out of many quotations from Scripture whi we have presented above, and others we might sele we shall choose one, whicli you will perceive cann be gainsaid. The passage we have selected is frc the prophecy of Zacharias, father of John the Bapti at the circumcision of his infant son, in which he stat the Scriptural character of the covenant and promi made by God with Abraham of a ^v^ming sec through whom all the world should be b]osspd,circui . litmntmftvu^-tMirtnatmatttmtitttviHttutii DstlcM, a piactice our 'i kvotvn, and which ,s the outward sijTn [is Church, without •ipture. e of Church, or )r terms of inem- the membership of to prove in a few rs from the first, the sign of that mem- iHcision before the [is cominjT solely to ig the Jews and by ng here is to remind of thought, of the ant of God with umcision was insti- Abraham had in order to be brief Scripture which s we might select, ill perceive cannot e selected is from John the Baptist, in which he states nant and promise a ^v^ming seed, Ibe bjossodjcircum- 23 - lision being the sign of the faith which Abraham had n the truthfulness of the promise, yet being uncircum- jised. And what did Zacharias say ? Did he say God lath visited His people and withdrew the promise and ts terms of covenant engagement in or«ler to set up mother organization or fold out of which infants shall )e excluded ? Not so! But he prophesied, saying, ' Blessed be the Lord God of Israel ; for He hath visited His people, and raised up an horn of salvation or us in the house of His servant David ; to perform ;he mercy promised to our fath.ers, and to remember is holy covenant ; the oath which He sware to our ather Abraham, that He would grant that we being elivered out of the hand of our enemies, might serve im in righteousness and holiness all the days of our ife." Here was the estimate this good man formed of he covenant made with Abraham, the outward sign of »rhich was circumcision, and which sign he had given o his infant son. St. Paul was circumcised, as also was !Jhrist in infancy, as the outward sign of belonging to hat spiritual Church of Abraham. That circumcision was administered to infants under he Abrahamic covenant, the opponents of infant laptism will admit, but they say it was done away Christ. This at once we admit, but we ask, Why ? ' Did the fold pass away to which it was the ntering sign ? Oh, no ! Well then, why did circum- ision pass away, and was anything instituted in its lace ? . - mmf, . itm t itH^ iH nnwrnnm 6 1 I 24 The change in this ordinance arose from the ch( ter and terms of the covenant of which it was! sign. Abraham and the infants of the Church inl day received circumcision as a sign of faith in' promise of a coming Christ. To receive circumcid then, after Christ, the promised seed, had come, w( be to reject Him and look forward for another, so s| St. Paul, Gal. v. 2 : " Behold I, Paul, say unto you, if you be circumcised Christ shall profit you nothii Why ? Because you thereby reject Him and look one to come. Here these two ordinances, circumcia and baptism by water differ. Let us trace out in w they agree as well as differ. 1. They are, or were, the initiatory rite of entra to the Church. 2. Each is a sign of a clean heart. " For he is i a Jew, which is one outwardly — in the flesh — but h( a Jew, which is one inwardly ; circumcision is that of 1 heart,in the spirit,and not in the flesh, whose praise not of men but of God." (Rom. ii. 28, 29.) Here civcu cision represents the work of the Spirit in the hea So baptism is also a sign of purity. "Arise and baptized, and wash away thy sins." 3. Circumcision was a sign of faith — see Rom. 11. Abraham received the sign of circumcision seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, ; being uncircumcised. Baptism is a sign of faith the adult, but, like circumcision, faith is not requi for the child. ifmmtn(ltm^t4r baptism, as by the thing itself. There is no account )f any surprise manifested by the people when John the Baptist used water baptism as the initiatory rite into repentance and faith in the immediate appearance )f the Messiah. This fact shows plainly that the Jew- ish people were acquainted with such baptisms long )efore. It is an unquestionable fact that the Jews IJUI.iirM L'!!!"!!!!ii"»«!!i>}«!!*Mf? mmmi' 26 baptized proselytes from heathen nations as an initia- tory rite into the Jewish Church long before our Lord's day. The only question is as to when the practice began. That the Jews ever borrowed the practice from Christians cannot for a moment be maintained. Jewish tradition itself declares that baptism, as a rite, was handed down among them from the time of the Babylonian captivity, but more likely it was known in the days of Solomon, for he employed, we are told, about one hundred and fifty thousand prose- lytes in the building of the Temple. If proselytes to Judaism were made at that early date, have we not good reason to believe that baptism of these proselytes was practised, and may be placed as early in the history of Jewish ritual. There is a tradition among the Jews that the origin of baptism was previous to the time of Moses, and that he adopted it into the Jewish ritual. Though we find no absolute proof of this as a fact, yet there is no good reason to be found to the contrary. It is not improbable that baptism may be as old as sacrifice, and as such may have been instituted by God, as afterward it was incorporated by Christ, into Christianity. That it was the custom of the Jews to baptize all converts to their religion from heathen people is beyond all doubt, as they themselves declare. This baptizing of them was, as St. Paul puts it, "the baptizing them into Moses." This custom of the Jews is fully shown by Wall, in his history of " Infant 27 bions as an initia- f before our Lord's hen the practice ved the practice nt be maintained, baptism, as a rite, n the time of the ly it was known mployed, we are thousand prose- If proselytes to ate, have we not f these proselytes as early in the tradition amonfr as previous to the •ted it into the absolute proof good reason to improbable that ad as such may fterward it was lity. ws to baptize all jathen people is 5S declare. This il puts it, "the stom of the Jews bory of " Infant ptisra." (See Vol. I.) He quotes from Maimonides, his work entitled " Isuri Bia," chaps, xiii. and IV : "While an ethnic is willing to enter into the V3nant, and gather himself under the wings of the ajesty of God, and take upon him the yoke of the w, he must be baptized and bring a sacrifice. This as termed baptism for proselytes, and never repeated the same person, differing in this respect from bap- sm for uncleanness. But such proselyte when he came over to the Jewish hurch, if he had children then born unto him, they so were admitted as proselytes at the father's desire, d were also baptized. The child's inability to romise for himself was not looked upon as any bar his reception and baptism ; and if a female, was aptizcd as the male child. The " Gemara " makes this statement, and the Misna self, older than John the Baptist, and long before the ays of our Lord, tells of the child becoming a prose- lyte by baptism. The " Jerusalem Misna " says that a girl becomes a proselyte from heathen parents fter she is three years old and a day, she shall not ave certain privileges mentioned, but if she be a aptized proselyte before that age she shall have those rivileges. Concerning the age of the child they had is rule : " Any child of such a proselyte, that was nder the age of thirteen years and a day, and females at were under twelve years and a day, they were ptized as infants at the request, or by the assent, of JIitmtAziii. immm t m i ftpm - 28 the father, or the authority of the court. If t) found a child forsaken by father and mother, the cl was baptized in the name of a freeman or servant] the case mif;ht be, and the position of the persoi whose name he was baptized became his posit| through life. So then from the most certain st£ ments and facts of history, the baptism of infants a ceremony practised amonf^ the Jews, as well knoj by our Lord, in the Jewish Church as in the Christi Church. If our Lord disapproved of it, why did '. not prohibit the usage, or why did not His apost do so ? On the contrary, they established it practice and precept. Now, no one can deny that tl great historical fact of the baptism of children ai adults as proselytes throws great light on the questii of infant baptism, and helps the candid reader understand more perfectly the commission of oi Saviour to His apostles, being Jews, contained in Mai xxviii. 19, 20. And now, at this hour, if any islar or country of heathens be discovered, and a missionai be sent according to the terms of our Lord's commi sion from any Psedo- Baptist Church, he would be jusi fied, without prohibition, to baptize both adults ai infants in the name of the Father, Son and Ho Ghost. And he, the missionary, would understai from the history of the time of Christ what w meant for him to do, without asking a question as who were the rightful subjects of baptism mention* in the commission of our Lord. It is most evident tl »«W*»»mif/K.M''if»wfu;iimuumt*i»u«* the court. If the}- ad mother, the child] ieman or servant, asj 3n of the person in^ ecame his position most certain state- tism of infants was ews, as well known as in the Christian! 1 of it, why did He] 1 not His apostles' established it bj can deny that this m of children and, ]fht on the question candid reader to ommission of our , contained in Matt, lour, if any island , and a missionary >ur Lord's commis-3 he would be justi- both adults and Son and Holy vvould understand Christ what was g a question as to ►aptism mentioned! most evident the 29 [postles understood and practised it accordingly. Since le nations were to be proselyted to the faith of Jhrist, how could those apostles, brought up in a /hurch in which infant baptism of proselytes was the Custom, without express teaching from the Lord Him- jlf, alter anything of the meaning from the custom- Lry usage and phrase in receiving proselytes from the lations ? To disciple the nations to Christ is the very ^ame thing in name as to proselyte them to Him ; and Fustin Martyr calls the infants by the name of ** young proselytes or discijdea." If our Saviour, again we iay, intended that the apostles should have departed [rom the Jewish custom and not baptize infants, He rould surely have so directed. And if He intended the change, why did He not say so ? Our brethren, who have so far departed from the teachings of Christ in this matter, depend greatly on this as an unerring rule, viz., that since Our Lord did lot in this commission (recorded in Matt, xxviii. 19, 50), mention children as subjects of baptism, the silence teaches they are not to be baptized. The direct con- trary is its teaching. His silence, guided as we are )y the facts of the procedure of the Jewish Church, >roclaims aloud that children and infants are to be )aptized most certainly. Now, suppose our Saviour had said, " Go and dis- jiple all nations, circumcising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, do you think our theorizing brethren would not at once have taken it ;^-rt;.;.n[4mmtmiWmvrr(m4»uilHmi^m*i iii no for granted that infants were included from the alone that it was the cuHtom, althout^h the commi.s^ was silent on the subject ? But the apostles knev was the custom among them in the case of baptism in that of circumcision, and therefore practised w their orders demanded. Our Saviour most evider took baptism as He found it in the Jewish Chui which was His own Church, and iai.->cd it to a hig use, but made no alteration as to the age of the subj of the rite. In the unanswerable word > of St. Ambn we say, " If baptism and the baptizing of infants h been a new thing and unheard of till John the Bapt came, as circumcision was till God appointed it Abraham, there would have been, no doubt, an expr command for baptizing infants, as there was for circu cising then. But when the infants were baptiz commonly among the people, as appears by inconti vertible evidence from Jewish writers and historia there needed not any express assertions that such a such persons alone were to be baptized as to their a and understanding, when it was well known befc the Gospel began that men, women and children w( baptized as it was well known that the sun shone the heavens." So the case stood as to baptism wh Christ came, and Christ ordered it, says Dr. Lightfo to be a sacrament in His Church by which all shoi be admitted into the profession of the Gospel as th were found proselyted to Christ as in the proselyti of the Jewish Church. .! ,infmH^Wi:-t-f''Wtfutt jded from the factj iirh the commission I ie apostles knew it^ case of baptism, as? ore practised what' our most evidently' ihe Jewish Church,* laiftcd it to a hij;her< le a<:;e of the subject! ord > of St. Ambrose,! izins: of infants had! i ill John the Baptist^ od appointed it to! 10 doubt, an express! ere was for circum-l ,nts were baptized^ pears by incontro-* ters and historians,! tions that such and! ized as to their age well known before! and children werej t the sun shone in^ ,s to baptism wheni says Dr. Lightfoot,' y which all should] the Gospel as theyj in the proselytisuij .SI IE Woui) " Faithful " .\s an Appellation for Church Memhek Applied to Children. We promised again to refer to the word " Faithful " an application of Church members as applied to lildren. Taylor, the learned editor of Calmet's [ictionary, declares that the word '* FAITHFUL" as an ►pellativo was extensively and permanently used for |any centuries in the Primitive Ciiristian Church for lurch membership. The word was used in Scripture [r the same purpose. It is applied to Timothy, to ^chiciis, to Onesimus, to Silvanus, and others. (1 Cor. 17; Eph. iv. 21; Col. iv. 9 ; 1 Peter v. 12.) The >ther of Timothy is termed a " FAITHFUL " (Acts ^i. 1) Pistes. " What concord hath Christ with dial ? What part hath a faithful with a non- iiTHFUL?" (2 Cor. vi. 15.) " If any faithful man or ithful woman have widows, let them relieve them |at the Church be not charged :" (1 Tim. v. 16.) It applied also in the plural to those who came with jter. (Acts x. 45 ; also in 1 Tim. iv. 12 ; and 2 im. ii. 12.) In Kev. xvii. 14: "They that are with im are called, and chosen, and faithful." In Col. i. A notable instance is tha-t of Lydia calling herself FAITHFUL. To call a man a faithful was equivalent Christian brother, or member of the Church, or dis- )le of Christ, and was applied to baptized children. the Apostle Paul, writing to Titus (i. 6), says a jhop must be the husband ot* one wife, having chil- !n who are faithfuls. The sense given to Rom. 3 ,t^tt fi t M iiti 32 xvi. 3, 5, by Chryaostoui, Theodoret and Theophy is that literally their children were all faithf The following inscriptions will illustrate the opin] of the first Christians on this matter : Posthumius a believer who lived six years, that is, one who recognized by baptism as a Church member ; Cyria| a FAITHFUL, died eight days less than three yei Eustafia, the mother, places this in commemoratioi her son, Polichronia, a faithful, who lived tli years; Urcia Florentina, a faithful, she lived years eight months and eight days. One inscription will prove that the term faithi was continued and applied to children for many cen ries. " Here lies Maria, daughter of John, who wa^ the town of Nicerata, she lived three years th months and a half a faithful. She died the foui day of the month Xanthicus, under the consulate of I Princess Honorius II. and Constantius II." Eusebius says there are three descriptions of memb in the Church : " One who guides and two who j guided." " The people of the Church are divided ii faithfuls who are baptized, and those who are s unbaptized." Here we have the plainest testimony the church membership of baptized children in i Primitive Christian Church. Nothing but ignorai of history of Christian usages or, worse still, a det mined perversion, for a purpose, of church hist< and Scripture teaching, can account for the statem< made by theorizing brethren that baby sprinkling, they term it, is an invention of Popery. •mmwtMiVUi'U': et and TheophylactJ ;vere all faithfuls.) lustrate the opinion.sj er : Posthuniius was! at is, one who was member; Cyriacus | I than three years n commemoration of] L, who lived three j ,1, IFUL, she lived fivoj I. I the term faithful Iren for many centu of John, who was of i three years three 3he died the fourth the consulate of the lUS II" riptions of members^ and two who are| ch are divided into! i those who are stilll ainest testimony of^ ed children in the ling but ignorance worse still, a deter-i of church history t for the statemen baby sprinkling, a? 3ery. 33 Testimony of Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr, forty yeai's after the apostles' times, in his apology for the Christians addressed to the Roman emperor, says, " There are several persons among us of sixty and seventy years old, of both sexes, who were discipled or made disciples to Christ in or from childhood which do continue uncorrupted." We all may see here that Justin understands the words of our Lord in Matt, xviii. 19, 20, as applicable to infants. But more of this again in another place. Ireneus, born A.D. 97, writing about sixty years after the apostles (see Book 2nd, chap. 39), says : " Therefore as He (Christ) was Master, He had also the age of a master — sanctifying every several age by tJhe likeness of what it was to Him, for He came to save the persons by Himself. All, I mean, who by Him are baptized into God — infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and elder persons. For infants being made and thus sanctified are made holy." This testimony is full and plain on this subject of infant baptism. Now, Ireneus, according to Mr. Dodwell, was born four years before the death of St. John, so his testimony as to the practice of infant baptism reaches back to the apostles' day. ' • Clement of Alexandria, living about ninety years after the apostles, advises Christians what emblems are to be used in infant baptism, as did the apostles of our Lord. (See Wall s " Hist, of Infant Baptism," Vol. I., chap. 3, fourth ed.) it::ii^:ii4tf mfif tt i!imi>iiim ^inmitm-t B I ) I 34 Tertullian, who lived one hundred yeaifs after th apostles of our Lord, leaves his testimony that infant were baptized in his day and before his time. Origen, who lived and wrote in the first part of tb second century, declares that, because of original ain infants were baptized in his time, thus proving tha infant baptism had come down from the days of th apostles. In a commentary of his on theeighteenth chap ter of Matthew and tenth verse, he inquires whether th( angels may be supposed to take charge of infants a their baptism or before ? thus showing that infan baptism was commonly practfsed in the Church o: Christ, in his day, St. Cyprian lived one hundred and fifty years aftei the apostles of our Lord. At the time cf the Counci of Carthage, in the year 253, there were sixty-six bishops present, and one Fidus, a country bishop, sent a question to be decided by the assembly, viz., whethei an infant might be baptized before being eight days old ? He was answered by the Council, it was not for them to hinder it to be baptized, inasmuch as this rule was to be observed to infants and persons newly bom. (See Wall's Hist., London ed.) " If we look back from this time to the space that had passed from the apostles' day, which was 16C years, we must conclude that it was easy then to know the practice of the apostles and first Christians in theii days, for some of those sixty-six bishops must be at this time seventy years of age, or perhaps eighty years ,.:.immmvni*u*i !!>|!«!!!!!I!J!!!!W! 35 to the space that which was 160 asy then to know hristians in their hops must be at laps eighty years )ld, which would reach back over more than half the jpace of time since the apostles' day, and at the time [when they were infants there must have been several (men who were born within the apostles' age who were then alive and able to transmit the knowledj^e of the [usages of the Christian Church down to the age of /yprian." We need not pursue this inquiry further in this lirection, as fathers, councils and members of the iPrimitive Chnrch nearly all unite their testimon}' as [to the practice of infant baptism in the apostolic and iubsequent ages of the Christian Church. We shall now examine some of the principal objec- tions raised by our theorizing brethren. Unfounded and Frivolous Objections. Objection First. — " It is urged against infant bap- tism that the Bible requires faith in order to baptism, )ut as infants are unable to believe or exercise faith, they are therefore not to be baptized." (See Thorn on I" Infant Baptism.") This objection, at first look, seems to be fair and un- iswerable. The authority for making faith the con- lition of baptism is taken from our Lord's commission the apostles, in Mark xvi. 15, 16, and runs thus: r Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to jvery creature : He that belie veth and is baptized shall saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned." lut the baptism here is the Christian baptism proper, i^K tfi' imm^mi s 36 not the symbolic baptism by water. In this passt the baptism is one that saves, and is conferred believing and conveys salvation. It cannot be wa baptism. See Eph. iv. 5 : " One Lord, one faith, o baptism." The baptism of the Holy Ghost which sav on believing, and which water never does. This, the opponents of infant baptism say, plac faith before baptism, and hence excludes infants, this is not a lawfiil inference, for first, the commissi( is in general terms, merely authorizing the preachir of the Gospel to all creatures, and there is no spec fication of individuals. Secondly, the preaching the Gospel is to adults or grown-up persons, and I faith they are saved ; and it is evident to any though ful mind that the discharge of such specific duty b the preacher has no bearing whatever on the privilege or condition of infants, nor is there here a command t baptize adults in any form. But, again, the argumer proves too much, for as St. Paul declares that Abrahar received circumcision as a seal of his faith in preached Gospel when he was ninety years old an nine, by this argument the child of Abraham as a infant was no more capable than the child of the Ger tile of exercising faith in the promised seed, and woul by the above argument be excluded from circumcisioi What a pity the objector had not been present whe God commanded Abraham to circumcise at eight day old, that he might have put in his objection an instructed the Lord that, as infants were incapable ( rTttrTTMT r'r " "r'"""^***^**^*^ ;i7 r. In this passage id is conferred on [t cannot be water lOrd, one faith, one Ghost which saves >r does. >aptism say, places I iludes infants. But rst, the commission | izing the preaching there is no speci- the preaching of ap persons, and by Bnt to any thought- ph specific duty by er on the privileges lere a command to jain, the argument ares that Abraham f his faith in a 3ty years old and f Abraham as an J child of the Gen- ed seed, and would from circumcision. een present when icise at eight days lis objection and were incapable of; >elieving, by the terms of the covenant, infants were xchuled from receiving the sign of faith. The objec- ,ion is frivolous and impertinent, because it assumes ,0 teach the God of Israel what was the proper course io pursue in the case of infants. Objection Second. — "It is objected that infant »aptism is opposed to the spiritual nature of Christ's inizdom." Then it must have been so with circum- :ision, for it was administered under the Abrahamic !ovenant, and if St. Paul declares, as he does, that it as symbolic of spiritual blessings in the heart," cir- ;umcisi(m is of the heart and not of the letter," but nfan^s were circumcised in the letter, was it then, by ihe authority of God opposed to His spiritual reign land kingdom ? Again we assert that such a cavilling objection is not only absurd and frivolous, but also jUnscriptuial. Objection Third. — " In infant baptism the free [agency of the child is taken away, and he is left no ichoice in the matter of baptism or religion." We have only to put one or two inquiries to prove the baselessness of such an oVjjection. When the Israelites were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud jand in the sea, was their freedom of choice consulted ; land Vjy circumcising an infant of eight days old, was its freedom interfered with ? Is man entitled to the choice of what religion he shall profess, if any, and whether he shall be baptized or not ? We submit that no man, whether child or adult, h.is the right to 'fni i iiMi »mtoW' ^ 1 38 say wliat religion he shall profess, or whether he s| choose to be baptized. God alone has that ri^hl siiy, and Ho has said it, and in such an objection claim of the objector is nothing short of re bell againt the authority of God. Objection Fourth. — " Infants have not the km ledge essential to baptism and, therefore, are not] subjects for baptism." The import of this objection is that children shoi not be baptized unless they can comprehend the nati and purport of the religious act. Now we shall see the absurdity of such an objectl from what is of daily occurrence among men, and which reasonable men do not object. Young infaii are placed under obligations personally and are hour by covenants and are blest by promises of which the; at the time, were entirely ignorant, and with whic they at the time never expressed their concurrenc Though ever so young, they are members of the con monwealth of which they have no knowledge, and y( while the opponents of infant baptism acknowledg all this to be right and proper, and act on it every da in property regulations, yet in religious matters wi dare to declare that to place children under obligatior until they are capable of understanding, is absurd an foolish. But let us see how this objection will appl in the matter of circumcision. How did the Hebre^ infant arrive at the knowledge of what circumcisic implie«l in order to become iSt for that ordinance ? ] i,i,!.itBatnst9W' or whether hu shulll 3 ha.s that right to^ ;h an objection the^ : short of rebellions have not the know- lerefore, are not fit hat children should iprehend the nature )f such an objection tmong men, and to j 3t. Young infants ally and are bound ises of which they, t, and with which their concurrence. nbers of the com- nowledge, and yet tism acknowledsre ct on it every day ous matters will under obligations ng, is absurd and ction will apply did the Hebrew hat circumcision It ordinance ? It ipiied faith in a coming Christ, says St. Paul. Did ley attain this knowledge before they were circum- (sed, or was such knowledge essential, and where is ich doctrine taught ? Nowhere. But as in Matt. [xviii. 19, 20, baptism was to come first and teaching ■terwards : " Go ye and make disciples of all nations, iptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the \on, and of the Holy Ghost ; teaching them to observe II thini's whatsoever I have commanded vou." And in le case of the Jewish child, first came circunicision nd then the teaching. See Deut. iv. 9 : " But teach lem to thy sons and to thy sons' sons." Thus you lay .see this objection, as all the other objections to if ant Imptism, insults God, as finding His adminis- ration faulty, and is both frivolous and without )undation in reason. Objection Fifth. — "Infant baptism is a childish jremony." Not any more childish than for an adult walk up to his or her neck in water and then some ;rson bend over and dip the rest of them, and then retend that is immersing them. Not any more than [rcumcising a babe. Why do not our friends find lult with God, and term such conduct cruel ? But re not infants equally important with men and more inocent, and their consecration to God as momentous aftair as that of prince or sage ? What childish ^ork it was for God, as He did, to baptize by sprinkling II the children of the Israelites in the cloud and in le sea. Opponents of infant baptism are always 40 insulting both God and men by .such an objection as the above ; both the Lord of circumciHion, and their fellow Christians, to say the least, have as earnest a desire to do the right and follow Christ as they have. Objection Siy-^ i.- -" But children may have all the advantages oi religious instruction without baptism as well as with it." So also might this have been the case with the young proselytes and "'^^' - < ir.'^s in the wilderness and in Canaan. But God :;'> ^^'^m infinite wisdom and love circumcised them tiist an 1 *)G,ptized them, too, in the cloud and in the sea b, fore ^, " .l^ them the advantages of religious instruction, li^isi lu '^o baptism of a real Christian adult confers not a single benefit or privilege which millions do not as fully enjoy without being immersed. And in the Scripture it is nowhere to be found that the apostles of our Lord were ever baptized before or after partaking of the Lord's Supper at or in the upper room with their Lord and Master. So much for the great force of the above objection ; like all the others, it has no solid ground on which it can be urged. Objection Seventh. — ' Christian baptism is a New Testament rite, but you argue as though it was an Old Testament institution." We inquire, who gave those separating names to the Scriptures, and what right have you to talk of Christian baptism ? Is such a term found in the Bible ? Preaching, praise and prayer are duties performed by all devout disciples of Christ, are they, therefore, what 41 you take upon yourself to term New Testament duties ? Who imagines such a distinction taught in the Bible as a New Testament Church, with New Testament baptisms, and New Testament Church membership ? The Scriptures are one with ever-increasing doctrinal clearness of revelation, and what God Himself person- ally instituted of rite or ordinance never has been abrogated ; it may have been substituted or changed but never abolished. Infants were circumcised under the authority of God at first as members of His Church and in His kingdom, and when He came among men as the Christ He declared them members still ; and for the sufficient reasons given above. He Himself changed the rite from circumcision to baptism by water, still retaining the teachings of Scripture as to the subjects of baptism. So much for the objection that Christian baptism is a New Testament rite, and not an old Testament institution. Like all the other objections, it has no foundation in fact or authority to rest upon, and is both frivolous and perverting. Objection Eighth. — There is no explicit command in Scripture, or clearly recorded instance of infant bap- tism in the New Testament." This is the last objection from the opponents of infant baptism we shall notice in this paper, as it is already too leiigthy. It is not clearly or expressly stated in the Word of God that a single infant was baptized in the Red Sea, or ate manna in the wilder- ness ; nor is there any statement that a child .t.nrtfintrrrffrH^th'^*^''-' m 42 i ■'Ml ^ii i passed through the Ked Sea, or a mother either. But unquestionably women passed over, and children, too, for all that, and were all baptized in the cloud and in the sea. They are included in the phrase used by the apostle, " Our fathers." We never read that the " apostles baptized young men or young women, or women at all. Are we then to affirm that such persons were never baptized, because they are not specifically mentioned ? Where is there any account of the Virgin Mary, Mary Magdalene, Lazarus, or his sisters, the twelve apostles, and numbers more of note on the sacred page, ever being baptized, and yet we dare not say they never were baptized because they were not specifically mentioned ? There is not one text of Scrip- ture to be found in the Bible to teach that none but the children of believing parents are only to be bap- tized. Neither is there one text of Scripture to be found, and we challenge the opponents of infant bap- tism to find one text, to say that children of believing parents are not to be baptized, until they become adults and choose for themselves. There is not in Scripture one single instance of the baptism for which they plead in the cases mentioned. As to the cases of adult converts to Christianity being baptized we all agree, but that there is any authority in Scripture for saying that the children of such must remain unbaptized until they grow up to be men and women there is no Scripture authority, but the contrary. Let us examine this point. At the risk of having it sai^ •"t»T«1»ttftj • i:f,'ttfttintM 43 we have repeated ourselves, we answer the above objection by fairly and tiatly stating, without fear of successful contradiction, that Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, is an explicit command to baptize children, and all the per- verting logic used by our opponents cannot do away with its positive teaching. The command is to " dis- ciple all nations ; " yes, say our opponents, by preach- ing the Gospel to them. Are none others of these nations then to be disci pled but those who are capable of understandingly hearing the Gospel, repenting and believing ? This doctrine cannot be true, for the larger part of the nations are children and infants, and such an exposition destroys the command it pretends to expound. " All nations " is equivalent to the human race. Now, there never was a nation the vastest numbers of which were not incapable of being thus discipled. That preaching and teaching are not all the methods for discipling is most clearly put b)' the text, as it states baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Any other sentiment or exposition eliminates the infant children of the human race from a discipleship in Christianity, which is a monstrous heresy, dissolving all claims to a common redemption, and from the divine unity between parents and children, under which the human race exists, and is, on its face, absurd. The command, then, to disciple all nations embraces the children of the race in a common baptism, and does not subvert, as the doctrine of our opponents does, the economy » n tr>t*ttyti¥k~4*M*mimii 44 I i V' •4i 1 1 II under which all nations exist, beside falsely stating there is no explicit command to baptize all nations, then teaching them to observe what the Gospel com- mands ; so much for the absurd statement and objec- tion, " there is no explicit command in Scripture to baptize infants." It is equally baseless with all the other statements made in order to support a theory alike contrary to Scripture and reason. We have done for the present, and invite your care- ful attention to the teachings of the Word of God on the subject here discussed, and be not influenced or led away by theories of men into heresy and untruth from the principles and privileges of the Gospel. But as Methodists hold fast the form of sound words delivered you from the Scriptures of truth. Such theories as those of the opponents of infant baptism are Popish in their influence, so far as being a new invention fastened on the Church of Christ, and beget a Popish spirit of exclusiveness among the membership of Christ's Church. 5l m "'•t*fnnt*i'i:f,'UtrtnutittS "Tt . t t - iH I unmHUiMl i i i i i ii ^