:0 ■I > I i.! QIHWj Microfiche Sieries j- r ) f. ."■■'' ■m&- W- ICMH Collectioh d^^ microfiche?^ (monograpfiies) .:.,■■ t -■■ I ■. Canadian Inatituia f«tr Historical IMicroraprodiictiofM / Institut Canadian da microraproductiona Historiquas ■'''■■■■■■.,-■.■■■■■■■.'.:■■ •',-:■■•'■■■." .■■ : v^"" . -/- '' .\'^'J''./^' - '.. .: ■■:"■■: '".■■'' -.-: *. " ' :./• • A ^ ■; :''.,^ -'■■-:•■ _ . ' . " ' ■ \ TMlintetl and WMiofriplite MoMi / MetM MdtniqiMi at Wbliom'Vttivm TIM Imtituta hai ammpttd to obtain ttMbatt ori«inal copy avaittbla for f ilmint. Faatura* of thi» cofiy wtMch may ba bibUbfraphteaMy uniqua, wrtiMi may ahar any of tha imafat in tha raproduction, or wrttich may lignificantiy chanfa tba usMal mathod of filminf , ara dtacliad balow. □ Colourad eovart/ Couvartura da eoulaur □ Covars damafid/ Couvartura andommifia □ Cbvd^r raitorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raataurte at/eu palliculte| □ Covar titia mitiinaA La titra da couvartura nianqua L'Inttitut a mierof ilm4 1# mailiaur ajiainplaira ciu'il lui a M poniMa da m procorar. La« dAtaiii da «ft aMamplaira qui font paut-Atra.uniquas du point da vii« bibtiofrapbiqua, qui pauvant Modifiar una imafa raproduita. ou qui pauvant axifar una modification damia mitlioda noiHnala da fibnafa aont irtdiquis 'ci-daMoui. 'K U Colourad pagat/ R a m da eoulaur yt Pagas damagad/ □ ESn ?i0t% rastorad and/or laminatad/ Pacaa rattauria* at/ou palficulAat ditcolourad. ttainad or foxad/ Pagas dicolortot. tacbatiat ou piquias □ ColouMd mapi/ '■■■"''''" ■\.'-^') ".;--W^ '' Cartas gtograpbiquat an couiaur □ Colourad ink (if. otbar tbdhMua or Mack)/ £ncra da eoulaur (i.a.autra qua Maua ou noira) □ Colourad platM'and/or il|uttratilat prig jpirar d'Ini lad< «ihp Unc darn cos: ayml Laa( film! torsi riipn da I'l at'di d'imi jilust V. . .: •. .''-1 t ■» ^ t ' ._ ' ' 1 ■«-. ..■ *•• ' ■' — J.II .■ i t«d thanks .Ibrary quality iglbillty tha m filmad. 10 on I imprat' I. All I on tha prat- printad L'axamplairalilm* fu^fa^lMult »hok i ia' 04n4roait« da: ha CON- at > to ba ■d iftto ••■. ;' I tha I 'l'. ! >■ f. t , Na t ropo 1 1 tan to ron to Raf a ranca L I bra ry Baldwin Room ■ ' Laa imagas auh^antaa ont 4t* raproduitaa avaa la plus grand apln. oompta tanu da la oonditlon at da la nattat* da I'axamplaira film*, at mn Gonformltt avao laa oonditiona du oontrat da '.:ffilmaga,' ".;■ :■'■ ^ '" .' ./■ : :,' ; ■■ ' - ■'■' , ■■''■■:■■'"■ taa axamplairaa origifjaux dont la eouvartura ah papiar aatlmprimia sont filmto an edmmanoant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant aoit par la darniira paga qui comporta una amprainta d'imprassion ou d'illustration. aoit par la aaoond ^lat. aalon la cat. Tous las autraa axamplairaa .driginaux sont filmto an commandant par la prahfiMra paga qui eoroporta una ampralnta d'imprassion ou d'illustration at an tarminant par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una taNa «mpralnta. '. Un das symbolas suivants apparaltra fiir ia darni*ra Imaga da ehaqua jnieroficha, saldn im cas: la syfnbola '-^^ aignlfia "A 8UIVRE", la ' ayml}ola ▼ stgnifia "FIN". Las cartas, planchas, tablaaux, ate, pauvant ttra f ilmte A das taux da riductlon diff«ranta. Lorsqua la document aat trap grand pour Atra raproduit m un saul clich«, 11 ast film* A partir da I'angia supAriaur gaucha. da gaucha A droita. at da haut an bas, an pranant la nombra d'i'magas nAcassaira. Laa diagrammaa auivante jllustrant la mAthoda. > - ' . <^ %« 6 * ■^x- MICROCe^RISOlUTION TEST CHART (ANS^ and ISO TEST CHART No. 2) -. /■ Lb 2JB I li^ |2.0 wuii 1.8 / 16 J,. ^ ^IPPLIED IIVMGE 1653 East Main Street (716) i88- 5989 Kfox Jl nc ^""^ z:":»^:m^'--^* W POPOLAR V> If REVIEWED. \- / . ^\ 'i^f \^ -llr/' BY <^K THE REY. JAS. TRAVER8 tllWIS, B. A. f"- X J ■>« '^ m TORONTO: . .PKINTIBP rO& THE AtkrHOB^ BT A. r. PLSjIS. 18{^. ^ 64 ^.=^-'-. 'V»' MAi; ^^ .»y Via •♦«** i:«« ©si .r^. feiAJik^ !>*.■>' :|'%1> I* It r * / ^;'*'' ■. ».% ':%, _ ^^^'' \ ■\ / '/I '.m^ h r 1. . I ■ ! . >:1 BAPTIST ABGUMENTS REVIEWED. tp the foUowiog pages some of the most popular arguments against infant baptism ara combated. The operations or effect of bap- tism aye not treated of, the controversy being confined to the question whether tlntire be such evidence eiistiiig as to warrant W^tists in asserting that persons baptized in Wancy are not biptized at all. And, without doubt, air Baptists should caiefully consider this evidence, Veca use they decidedly lack any SMpport.whi^h men may derive from the learn- ing, morality, or piety, of the first propsgaiors of their teiiets. A Baptist may be certain that, if he 18 a person of ordinary capacity, he may venture on deciding the question of baptism, without much ado. He may be sure that there are no such absturc arguments in favour of his system, though Ae cannot attbin to them, yet the founders of his sect probably did, as they were much more addict- ed to fanaticism than reasoning; this will appear from the following extract, detailing the first rise of the Baptists, taken from a hia- Ki- * fOWLAB, BAPTIST' torian whom all aecit delight to hooour Th« differeot denominations in Montreal ba?e lately combined to procure 4i new editioQ of ma work. •• It is difficulty to determine, with certaio- ty, the particular spot that gave birth to that •editions and pestilentini sect of Anabaptists, whose tumultuous and desperate attempts Were equally pernicious to the cause of reli- gion and the civil interests of mankind. Whether they ^rst rose in Switzerland, Ger- many, or the Netherlands is. as yet, a matter of debate, whose decision is of no great im- portance. It is most probable that several persons of this most odious class made their ^ ' appearance at the same time in difl^rent countries, and We may fix this period soon after the dawn of the Reformation, when Luther arose to set bounds to the ambition of Rome. This appears from k variety of circumstances, and especially this striking one— .that the first Anabaptrst doctors, of any eminence, werealmost all heads and lead- ers of particular and separate sects: For it must be carefully observed, that though all these projectors of a new and unspotted Church were comprehended under the general deDomination of Anabaptists, on Account of their opposing the baptism of infants and rebaptizing such as had received the sacra- naent in their childhood, yet they were, from tbeir origin, sub-divided into yarious aects, J&i,Asiiltifi(t^ '.f'-i-' ^. from which differed fron^ each other in points of no small moment. The most pernicious of tiU I those that composed this motley multitudej was that which pretended that the founders of this new and perfect Church were under the direction of a divine impulse, and\arnied against all opposition by the power of working miracles. — It was this detestable faction that, in 1521, began their fanatical work under the guidance of Munzer, Stubner and Storcl They employed at first the various nets o^ ■persuasion, in order to propagate their dec- line.; but when they saw that these methods , making prottelytes were not attended with |uch a rapid success, and that the min* ijstry of LutHmand other eminent Reformers rere detrimental to' their cause, they had recourse to more expeditious meaHures, and ^mpted to propagate their fanatical doctrine force of arms : but this sedious crowd was refuted and dispersed without much difficulty by the Elector of Sai^ony and other princes. IMlunzer, their ringleader, was ignonimously put to death, . and his factious counsellors disperseGl abroad in different places. A great pkrt pf this rabble seemed delirious, aid notningmore extravagant or incredible can be iniagined than the dreams and visions that were Wnstahtly arising in their disorder* e(|l minds. \ Such of them as had some spark reason left, and had reflection enough to reduce their DOtioDs into a certain form, 4f J>*^ ' ^uJf*""' ■ ^ • > : WFULA* BAPHfT .u«lnt.iQ«d, .mong o«h.f^ ih. Vollowro. point, of doowln.:_"Tb.t tb. Church of Chn.t ought to be exempt from all .io i thai •II thing, ought to be io common .moog the fciehful; th.t the b.p,l.m of infint. WM ,„ lo,enf»n of tlie devil," &c.. &c._Mo.heim. cen. xf I., sec. iii. . The foregoing extract,; taken from a hia* torianofauch eminence and candoor, abowt that Baptists have no such learned argumentt* 10 reserve, that they need deliberate about examining for themselves. This treatise it therefore, commended to their attention, as it ha« been, taken in hand for the purpose of refuting " A concise view of GhriMtiai, Bap. tiem, put forti, by the Baptist College in Montreal, and designated by the publishers «a an able treatiV on the question. It is more especial ly". •ha. no men. San. h •'"''• '"•'^'■«t>t'« !«■ caused, or «th.an, be occa„o„ed. when the stram-e snec- iae e of a baptized infant waa ,f Jfe^ . that sects innun,er»ble, differing i„ S *0.nu sou d have their bis.o:^^„„.:S orthe aud coua transi, ion from adult ^! •nfan. baptism sho„,d ^e found ilthe e„o; «o„, mass or.«cient writings id „„\:^°- tfci. does seem extraordinarv >— ind^^H ' ARGUMENTS REVIEWED. 9 ■m ID favour of infant baptism* And if to this* be added the fact* that previoas to the six- teenth century there was no Church in exist- . ence, of which we have any knowledge, which did not baptize infants^ the proof that the rite originated widi the Apontles is demostra- f, : tion itself. LetlBaptists tell us ii;A«n infants baptism Commenced ? They cannot. There- fore, from the reason of the thingy we are convinced that it arose in the Apostolic age,'' with Apost-olic sanction. We can give them the date of the origin of adultf as opposed to infant baptism : and we know that the, attempted change in the world*s praetiee made a great stir. Had the change been from adult to infant baptism, can we suppose that the stir would have been less, and yet^not a word about it in history ? So conclusive is this argument, that it is qhite ^efficient for the advocate for infant baptism to show that Scripture does not forbid the practice. The proof is then complete. But if, besides ahowing that the Scripture does not forbid infant baptism, we prove that the internal / evidence of Scripture is in favour of it ; then what moie can a sofoer-minded man require ? These preliminary remarks\ are essential to to I understanding how the case stands between us and the Baptists before we commence our ^investigation, into the Scriptural objectiona adduced by them in a pamphlet entitled ** A concise view of Christiaii baptiam.^* It will Ki 10 POPULAR BAPTIST r\ \^ •■ . ■ • ■^ . • be our olyect to show that those objectfooi, ^ though plausible, prove nothing .gainst iofant baptism. This would be soffi^ient for our purpose, but we will prove further that these olyections are not only invalid, but do, in ^ point of fact. Bupport infant baptism. T«8 first objecrion is as follows :—"JoH,f PBBACHBD IN TUB WIU)B8NB88 OF JoDBA, AMD BAPTiZBD SUCH AS CONMSSED THBIB BINS— Matt III. Hb BAPTizBD with tub ^ 1^*^ ?■ »«^*«''*''c«» BATING unto the people that they should believe on Him who ^QuU come after him, thai h, on C^^^^^ he baphzed to confess theirhi^ believed ihe coming Messiah, U is emdentl^im(s could nothe the subject of hu baptism r wT^uId 10 the first place observe, ihat^ this ohjeciion from St. John's baptismMis unfairly stated by our opponents. It iandvhc^ said that iSt. John baptized such as cor.fe8g».d their sins : this way of putting the objection might lead eome JO suppose that he baptized none else. But St. Matthew's words are. •* Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea. &e(!tion is utteVly futile unless it can be shown that St. Johi» haptised none hut those who audibly con- fessed their sins. True it is that he did baptize such, but did he baptize none others ? All that can be urged is,, that St. Matthew aays nothing a^outinfantsy and it would have , been more extraordinary if he had. St* Matthew wrote his gospel for his own country- tnen, the Jews, who were well acquainted with infant baptism, as it ia well known that the Jews when they made proselytes from the Gentile!^, circumcized and baptized the males, and bapti^d thie female infants a^ well as adults. The custom of making pro- selytes (as St. John was doing) by the bap- tism of infants as well as adults, was familiar to fhe Jews, how absurd then to expect that .St J Matthew, when writing to suuh persons w0uld have 8pe(;ified infants. A Church* mkn or Methodist writing to Churchmen or Methodists, when narrating his success in baptizing, would not take card tO par- ticularize and inform his brethren that he included infants. Neither would a Jew writing to a Jew. May we not on the other hand irffer from St. Matthew*s silence, that infant? were baptized, as the Jews to whom- he wrote would have concluded that St* 12 .^^■"x- ..X WPULAR BAPTIST » » • ' John did baptize inf.n,,, „„!«, ,hey were informed to the contrary. Ind-.d .!: v .ha. S'fj-hn baptized L„e,t;„o'^r c.«,e there were r«u„a at Ephesnsf A ]>' tffi" ^'year (and «bey (L. h.v, W .1." '''I very young „,,en b.Jizfd t ^ ^T'' Again St. John's bapnli, 1 ^'-"^"''n./^ ;-;aie„.. fo^^:^'--^^ samer St. John eirifuHv jj,.-- . .^ between his owa and^S 1 '^«''''''*'' being.but a „ereiSSri^ ■'■'''''"•' '''^ toa baptisraby the HoJ °?h t P'^P"«<«y the supposition that S, ■ T i T ' "' """ "n «ill it does not follow [hatr>^°?'~'«=*''i''8) ■the same. The bZi !" S"'"' f''°"« <'» widely different • "tT'-"'* tf'fniselves were "'"" " y ' ^'P' - ov eg that we gfaould I i r^ .^' I I ■i*» V ■ AROUHKVTS WtTUtWBD. 18 ihejr were we knoir oung, be- A.D. 56, i l>y him, 8 (farowti »ng these >hn in his haptized tized ^7 » are not ore there (Ive were f' Joha\/ Mher ir^ infants, do the (guished ism, jus Jaratory that on ' sd none ceding) oul^ do 8 were jJpieuts If. was S^an to 111.23. >unded Bbould '■*"■".■ ¥ hot be baptked in Infiiricy, It itto protet that we should not be bapiUed till the «g6 of thirty years; but, in fact, it proves neither. Though our Lord submitted to the rite, it was merely, as he himself said, '* to fulfill righteousness,*' to set an example as he ever did, of scrupulous attention to outward acU of duty^ and lo exhibit in his own person that descent of the Holy Ghost which was to^be the characteristic of bis own baptism. He could n(it be said to be baptized into John « bapii^m, nor yet into christian baptism; he could not have been baptized on a profession of repentance, for he had nothing to tepen^ of He could not be baptized on a profes- sion of faith in himself, for that would be unmeaning; in /short, the argument drawn from the exaiiMe of Christ is aingulatly absurd. "'Tif sard our Xfbrd was not bap- tized in infanc^." How i«f as it possible that he could? Christian Wptism was not as yet introduced, and St^ John was an infant like himself^ / , . ., V f " J^m baptized hy/his disciples m the laud of Judm, and he madk and baptized more dis- ciples than JbAn/Nt-John iv. He made -disciples, then bapt^ed them. We do not r^ad of his baptizing ky htA disciples, and these ccM mt be infers, far he says, *» Whosoever doth not bear my cross and come after me cannot be my (/i5Ci/ife.'WLuke xiv. 27. Ihe ^-distin ction h^ r e d r a^n b e tween making and ■ ■ » - , *v t4 ^fs^W^ lOPVLAa MAWmt . ■ ■ ■ ■ • ■ ■ • • . ^ ■ ^ •■,■ . , ■ I' ' ■ b«ptWng difciptot ii M fanciful •■ If .» oficer •lioulddl.tif,gui«h between making and enl Utiiig a toWier, the fact being that din- •ipje. were iMde such «^ bapifcm, and «oldier« 6i^ enli«menr. This df.rinctlon of •he Baptists inay have arisen from misunder. •miding those words of our Saviaur, "Go •od teach aU nations, bapiiang then.'' &c., \,fW>m which thejr argue that teaching must - a/iooj^, precede baft i«m, and thus infanta become neccssaiily excluded ;. but a alight knowledge of Greek will show any one that Ihe true meaning of the word ieaeh ia literally make dwciplesoCV which translation, cj course, overthrowa the dminciidn between making and baptiaing disciples. The force however.of the Baptist'a objection turns on this, whethei infanta can be termed diaciplea? ^o, aay they, because Christ defined a dis- €iple to be, ^ one who took up his crosa and WIpwed him /• Inlanfa cannt da this, tberefiire they cannot be diseiplea. To show the absurdity of this reasoning we wilHake another exactly paraM. Christ defined » diaciple to be one who hated his father and mother In comparison with him ^ orphans cjnpotdo tWs, therefore they afe incapable of becoming disciples. The fallacy arisea l*om ijot considering that Christ defined a di8cipretiiirfei*cer/am cnrcumsiances. He who had a cross to bear and refused to bear L ^ be ^o had a pareiit and loved hha mor^ ■^ -#'- »5 i ^ ! i. ^ ABOVMSMTf lUBVlVWSl). Itf than Cbritt, theie could not be ditctplei. But then there were other cUisewof diiciplee. loftnti hm«e no croM lo bear therefore the objection i« fuiiltt, because Chritit'8 wordaare inapplicable to them. Our Saviour cleariy meant by this deaiiiiion to deecribe a genuine diiciple, who, when called ^ waa ready to auffer ahame for hia name, but there were other di8ciplea4>f a far different kind. Christ himaclf drew a distifiction between a disciple in word and a disciple indeed. "If jfe con- tinue in my word fhen are ye my dinciplea indeed."— John viii. 31. Nay, nior«, oiir Lord satisfactorily refuted this idea t»f the Baptists, that no man can be a disciple who does not daily bear his cross, by the choice of Judas as a disciple; he had been, no doubt, baptised, '♦. For he was nun»bered with »» U8," aaya St. Peter, (Acts i. 17), **artd had obtained ^?ar£ of this ministry.** Simon Magus too was made a disciple by baplism, yet our Lord'a definition of a disciple waa most inapplicable to^him, and so it ever will be. " The kingdom of heaven (the visible church) is like unto a net cait into the aea which gathera of «Mry *€«talk.**^- "■■■ ■■^■v:.-^. ^.■.- '^^:-.^.;-..•-^^r^■■ Tr^f^ Th0 goijfel comm(it^ ir, ♦ Oaye <*««• #1 16 POPULAR. BAPTIST ■*.•• /■ fort and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoet.* -^UhiU xxviii. 27. ' Oo ye into alHhe world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believe'h and is hap^ tizedthaU he saved, but he that helieveth not shall he damned: — ^Matt. xvi. i^. The Saviour made and baptized disciples in Judea, but the apostles were to gO into all /he world to make and baptize disciples. The first duty enjoined in this commissiot is totnake disciples, by preaching the g'speL Thj/ second duty is to baptize such disciples, or believers, as they are called t» Mark. This commission is no authority for infant baptism, but it positively commands the baptism of all believers:* True, this was part of the Apostolic Mis- sion, and it is for us to consider in which sense it was likely to have been understood by the Apostles; bearing in mind that there was not the l^ast necessity for our Lord to have particularized infants, speaking as he was to men who were acquainted with the practice of baptizing them ; men to whom the cus- tom was petrfectly familiar, the laws (as we before said) invariably baptising as well as circumcising the children of Gentil|a convert- ed to Judaism. Now tlie important point is this : our Lord must have known that His command " to baptize all nations,** would convey to His Apostles thie idea that they ■I » ■^:1l ■t ■'•j'li |- I were to baptise ali without excepting infants; AMVMnm umwo. IT 1 / T if then He knew that he would be lo under- itood, end yet did not diicleim thie meaning of Hii words, in ihort, ae he hai not excepted infanta, the inevitable conclusion is that he intended His Apostles to include them. So far then from this oomniission being no authority for infant babtism, it is a strong presumption in favor of the practice. To have specified ii^fants would have been super* fluous ; that he did not except them is suf- ncientk • 1 , ♦* When thote wfio were pricked in their heart, enquired whai shall ive do f Peter an- swered. Repent and ^baptized every one you; an^they that gladly receit>ed his word pere baptised, Acts ii., 37 41 . Here Peter ^de disciples by preaching the gospel, and pich disciples were baptized. On this occasion about three thousand were baptized^ But there is not the Jeast indmation that one of these was an infant-" Nor need we feel surprised at this; the great point to be gained^waa to reason the Jewsintoa belief in ehrist'sMes- siahship, we ought not therefore to expect that express mention would bfe made of the infants of these three thousand ; but after all there does seem to be some ihtimatioti that infants ^eincluded/Uhere is some in- timation iri the words »>ive^ one of you V^ in the next verse too there ia some intimation to the s ame effe c t; ** For the promise ia M you and to ywir children:* Truly the in- . / 1^ ^ ' : foruui WAmn timation that inftoti we^ ioolndad laeiiii quite ai great (if not greater) thao that they were excluded. True it it Mid, ** Thej who gladly rf<$eived hit word were baptised ;** but itisnoltaid that none others were. How- •fer« aa the Bapiiitt 'are |o hasty in arriving at coQclutipus from omissions, it may be al- lowed us to arrive at (not conclusions) but intimations gathered likewise from omissions. Now is it not\et^raordinary that there is no mention madeJn scriptur# of the apostles deferring the baptism of any believer's child on account of/youth, till he came to years of discretions^ ^and yet many such cases must DO doubt have oc^iirred I we do not read, scripture is snent ib^oncerning any instances whe^e the convert ^as too you for baptism. Again, is it not strange, supposing the apos- tles to have limited their baptism to adults, that we do not read of the Jews finding fault with them op that score? Yet had the tpostles rejected infants from the,Church, the JTe wa who were so strict iq admitting their own children into covenipt with God by circumcitiion, would certainly have upbraided the Christians laith this ynilatural conduct ; but in all the disputes between Jews and Ghiistians, detailed in the Acta or referred loin the Epistles, this tauni is never thrown out against Christianity. Here then are two omisaiona p r egnant w ith in timaium which we ■7 .•1 _. > ■ J It ■ fWiT ■.r ed Chri.t unto them, .nd whan the, b.li.wd Philip preachiDj the thing, concerning th« kingdom of God wd the n.me of J..». Chfiet. the, wer/b.pti..d both men .nd women: Acl.. t/ Th- »"'r ''n T„Tin*. in. about 5nf.nt.. H.d Pbll.p B.pti.ed lO- f,ot.nodoub^ the, would have been men- On the contrar, we .hould h.»e ..teemed it much more .urpri.ing h.d inf.nt» b«eii| enumer.ted here, the .postle.. no doub^ were engaged mo.t parlicularl, mpenmd^ng adOtt., to them alone the, could preach, the, ,looe could belie»e, Ihertfore the, alone are mentioned *i hating received b.pti.m. How .tr.nge it would appear bafl the text run thu.. «WhenY»« Mieved, the, were baptiwd, ,Mn. women. nd ini.nt.^' ^"^^'?.'^ doe. not run thu^ B.pti.t. «»»":"'*. '^VJ.»: fant. were excluded. The truth i». The ■Mrraihe $ay* nothing oiwrf iff^ ^ .equentl, nothing can be. inferred, ^- cauM the .llu.ion to them would haw been unmeaning, a. St. Luke^wa. wntnig of believer.. We m., add that thi. remark ed the Bapttat*-" that when men and wpmeo Me medtioned, it was ■ giwd time fof the ynim t<> have included inftnt^ — m^ f ■^**i,... k '^. %/ 90 fOrVLAM, BAntit retorffd. W« may •• well mj that wbei Apottlet are repreiented as baptiiioff Sri for (h« writer Co ba«e excepted the Apomlri not baptized themf " ThtEwiek euqmred. What doth hinder m» to he baptized r Philip anewered, r/ thou M,eveth with aU ,h,j heart, thok mat,e,(. I hen he was baptised.*' ^^2^'^ .''""^ "^ * '^'" *« ^"'^'^ to what purpcp tniH instance is adduced. It ob- vioulTy |ia8 nothing to do with infant baptlstn, VUiat would be thought of an attempt to prove that Herod did not put infants to cleatb, *.c«tt*e another Ilerod put James, an adult, to death ; or to convince us that infants were not circumcised, became Abra- . ham was ninety-and-ii^e vears old when he wasxir^umcised. ^mm^n, weWtoW,4 in the^lamphlet ungMBP; u tiPfhese instances are referrecnoTto show tha^ in the Scriptures there is not /the slightest Lima- - tion. that infants were /baptised. Surtlr, it' /WW strange to expect ft, in this instancV. / • ^j_ 4/ Cesarea the Holt/ Ghost fell tih ali mm that heard the jvord; theh anst^ered ^eter, can an^ man Jbrbtd water that these should not be baptizedlwho have receded, the aoly Ghost as well as he f and he commanded them to be baptized in ihe name oftheLord.^ Acta 10. These heahl t he wor d , an d r e ceiv ^ . .. TT , >,. 7-"-r^ ""^ ww w , ufiu r e veiv ea the Holy Ghost, bk fore they were baptised, ■•■i JT m ^'i»- ^ t' fA hinder y If thou ^ mayea^. iil:vxKWi:9» aiiii, rt^ri/ore. ihetf ' were not hfanhj hii Such a circuitout method of prov lug tUtt these pcrsone were not iofaute ia q"iir« "«- becfMBry, as we know from Acts 10, fi4 and Acts 11, 12, exactly who were pree*-*it, vix: Cornelius, his kinsiiren, and near / tVieods' together with St. Peter and his sik flfiendii. Surely no argument can be drawi^/f»oi^ the fact that these persons who were baptized were not infants, unless we had tei|bn to suppose that there were infants pr^s^nt ; but it is almost certain that a// present tpere adults, and that they were baptized, proves nothing against the propriety of i^aot baptism. In. other woris, unless it >ere probable that infants were present, whilt, at [ the same time, we are infbruied that ihey only who heard the word were baptized^ na argument can be raised against inlanl baptism. But it is not only probable but absolutely certain that infants were not pr«s- , ent ; therefore, nothing can be infefied regarding them. ';,.: j.- ■'_-'■ j. Vtj \ €• The Lord opened the heart of Lydia tmt she attended unto the things which were spohen of Paul i and she was baptized and her house- AoW— Acta 16. There is npo8e ap historian of the Church Mitaionaiy Society, in giving an account of the first ill* stance of the succesb of some of its missioo* aries in India, were to say, " several families \, or households were baptized," how #ould the ^ issertion be understood by the; Englfsh public? Certainly, that infants, if such there were in these families, participated in the sacrament. The same rule of interpreta- ^ tion holds here. St.. Luke, the historian of the Church*8 earliest success, speaks of fami* lies being baptized, and unless he had speci* ally excepted them, the mass of the Jewish people would have supposed that infants were included. Now,* there is quite as much pro- bability of there being infants in Lydia'a household as the reverse, but still we build DO argument on a single instance ; our argu- ment (in addition to the probability that the inspired writer would not have allowed tiim- self to be misunderstood) is briefly this :^- - from the frequent mention of whole families being baptized, and from the casual way in whicif the mention is made, we conclude that it was quite a tistia/ lAtii^ with the Apostles to baptize households, and therefore to bap- tize infants, because though the probability that. Mie jiousehpid contained infimts, la 4 AMQVUM»t9 EEVIKWID. S3 faihowuhotd I* :*^Su|>po8e •■ Mittionarjr the firet in-' its miaiioo* eral families NT #ould the > le; EngUttll t8, if such ticipated ia ' interpreta- historian of iks of fami* I had^apeci* the Jewish nfants were i iDuch pro- in Lydia's I we build otir argu- ity that the owed tiim* fly this :-*— -^ »le fatniliea }ual way in tclude that e Apostles >re to bap* probability qfantt, U • <»• ^ight, yet the probability thai among many households there were some infants, is very grrftf, indeed amounts to certaiotyt ^ > Aiirf wmI SUai tpake unto the jailer the word of the Lord, and to (M that were in the honee'r andhe war baptized, he and all hie^ 9ttaightway ;** and '' he rejpiced, believing in God^withallhiahowfer-'Aet^l^r^l' The Apoitte* would not speqk the- word of the Lord iomfunU, Nur coiild it be said of infants that they rtjoicedy beiieving iu Ood. But this is said of the jailer amdofaK his hou$e:\ If thefe were infants in this famiWi they were ?iuiii4uc8tionably baptiJted. The words •* he and all his" are decisive on this point.. The reasons aasigned above to show that they were not present are exceedi-ngly frivolous^ vis: Paul and Silas spake the word to all that were to the house. They would not speak the word to infants, therefore they were not in the house; A spccinien of rea- soning exactly sinular is the folio wing: St. Paul spake the word to aU that were in the house. He would not speak to the jailer's sword, tbereifbre it Was not in the house. Any one but a person resolved to prove his position at all hazards would at once see that the historian when he wrote that St, Paul spake to all that were in the hous^) meant to all that could tinderstand him. He never calculated on having readers so obtuse as to . suppose that the words "be spake to fttt that . ' ''*"'-« ■APrttri'-:-:.' A»i^ III' •»«"'••• "er, .qulwlent to MviiJ • •^r'b.Tftn^ '""...nd.co„..que„.l^, c„„M prove their «b,enct had tbeSlK ' •"pplied tbu8:_"he r^o.W l^*"*" weshoLw h. ^"J'T"' """"P^ 'he infants," we Mould iiave had s niBce r.? l.,r • quite unworthy of an inSiS^Fr'"" .hese co„,idera,io„,. ^^ a!^ wa'ranteH ' -y,„g ,,at .here i, no proof whaeve/J^ ^ the words of the hisrorv, that ,h " •rary, beside, the probab lifv „f T . ?"* lamii^ a this short account of the iail^r'a conversion, ** Thou shalr Ko ^ "^ ^ ** «on,..the*i'^.:jtrfS^''''- Wned with the fact tha, there 800^ IT"" of oroof thaiull »(,.«• 1 * a shadow " f *"« ««""'; was adolt, iii8tifi*« us. na»k,ng would St. Luke have misedll • bapazed. unless infori-/:!;^^^!::;?"' ^ m to tiying It who heard lentlj, could ordB of the implv that ^^ does the riMfli|fiem, been ^e ibfaots,** informarion er. From rranted in tever from re were no n the con - lere being er observe the w^ole le jailer's K and thy r all that ^Aheartd b all his 'tied allu- ben coin- a shadow » justifies a^isledbis ' y, would' nts were trary? . AROUMifci^S &SVISW»pi. 25 ^^ Crisp*u believed oh the Lord wUh aU hi» house f* and ^^many of the Corinthians hear* ing believed^ and were baptized **'—Act9 1 8, $• ^* All the house of Crispus believed on th0 jjord^ ikerefore none of them could he infants. The many Corinthians heard^ believed^ and then wer£ haptizedy It is xurious to observe the anxiety with which Baptists endeavour to prove that there were no jofants in dhy of these families. Perhaps there were none in that of Crispus, and perhaps there were. The words of the text certainly do not prove anythita^on the subject, St. Luke evidently meaning that Crispus, and those of his family who were capable of believing, believed. Indeed, this method of disproving infant baptism is most absurd. The Baptists quote all the instances of baptism they can find; and from each they argue that positively there were no infants present on any of these occasion ; then, summing up the argument,, th^y tell us that they have enumerated all these instances to shoic that in them there is not the dightest intimation of infants being baptized. Surely it would be very odd if there were any Intima- tion of the baptism of persons not present. That baptism should not be administered to infants, ^£caz/«e there happened to be none ^ut adults present on a few occasions wheo th^ Apostles bf^ized, is extraordihaiy reasdfiiog. . m^- 9 ^V-': 26 POPULAR BAPTIST f» P^ul baptized the household of Slepjtanati •—I Cor. 14v "ye know the Aouee of ^Stephmae, that Uie the firstfruits of Aekaia, and that (hey have addicted them^vee to the mmiHtrif of the saint^r^l Cop.' 16, 15. These ministers to the sninU coiddmt'bein^ femUi V Certairiljr not. But that does nor prove that there were no infants in the family. Suppa^e lie said : " We knew a r^niily whicl W both amiable and Ijberal,"^ who would imagine tha|, we meant that there were no infarija in thkr family f Ever^ one would see that w^int^ded to say tliat those of the family who co^ld exhibit amiability and liberality, did sc^ Let us, then, apply the same test to St. Paul' a words as we should to each others. Such are the objections, from th^ Scripture instances, to infant baptisih, which, say the Baptists, '^ prove that nothing can be gathered from Scriptnre in favour of irfanihaptism. Let the candid reader decide whether the objections contain a particle of proof fl^aw^f infant baptism; and let hita remember that A^e should be content had we (as we have) established this point. ' ^But, say they, there aj-e still stronger evidencesagainstlnfant baptism— •*Me Scrips tures contair^ presumptive evidence against itr L The Evangelists three times record the fact that infants were brought to Christ Had Christ baptized infant s , we may suppose t h-t^ r ARGUMENTS RSTIEWEO, /27 would have been brought to him/or bitpfum; but they were not brought for buptium, but that he might ** touch them,^^ (Luke 18| IS) ai ^'put nis hands on them awa prai/."— Mat. !/*?> 13. Jesus did not baptize tliese infants; but « took them up in his nrmsyput his hands upon them, and j>ray«d."— -Mark 10, W, M not one of these three accounts is there ike slightest . alkision to infant baptism. Let /the reader judge whet her, if it had been the wiU of Christ that infants should be baplized,m£ would not have given some intimai ion M it on this favourable oocasion? Is not the absence of any reference to baptism on sum an occasion a presumptive evidence that it is not the will of Christ that infants should behaptized ?'* " This object ion afforcl!! aiiyxct;lieiit ioHtance of the way in which Scripture may be toriuf-. ed to prove anything. It/says, *\ had Christ baptize^d infantH, we niay/iRuppoae that these infants would have been brought to him for baptism.** Grante^. But we know that Christ bapti^d neither infants lior aduttn; (John 4; 2) a^ this 14 a most satisfautory reason why tfiey were not bfovight for bap- tism. The. objec/ii6n is mf^rely a piece of sophistry. Why should we suppose that these infants ishould have been brought for baptism, when we know that Christ never baptized any one? 1)0 people generally make requests which they have no reason ur encouragement for making, and which they Aaoe reasoti to know will be refused? That # 38 \ POPULAR BAPTIST they were not brought for baptism/ therefore, proves nothing; nor, indeed, could it, unless we knew from Scripture that Christ was in ,the habit of baptizing. Then, perhaps, his omitting to allude to infant baptism might af- ford,a presumption against it. We never rc^d of adults being brought to Christ for baptism/ (though they were brought for many other purposes.) Are we, then, to conclude that . he disapproved of adult baptism? There is,) then, no point whatever in the objection so pompously urged, ♦Jesus diifl not baptize the^e infants.' Let us remembefltoo, that at, this time Christian baptism was unsown. The baptism in the name of /the Trinity was not yet authorized ; not until aftej^Christ's resurrection. Is there, then^^anyThing extra- ordinary or significant in the fact that these Jews did not bring their children to partake of an -ordinance which they knew nothing about r Moreover, there is not the slightest ground for supposing that these infants had not been before baptized by St, John, as we have already shown that there is nothing in Scripture^ make us, believe t hat *St., John Baptist confined his baptism to adults -but rather the contrary. Jesus, then, did not baptize these irifants ; bu| not for the reasons the Baptists give, viz.: to show his disappro- bation of the practice, but for the reasoris •ssign^ above. Again, so .'ar from this ■v. be i ng a ^^ cwcasion fo r o ur Lo r d ' s AMUMENTS UTIBWXD. 39 . I' - . ■ - , -..-■■ making any allusion to baptism, there does not seem to have been any room whatever for referring to it ; the probability being, thai some persons who had witnessed the Wonder* t'ul result? which followed the iinposition of, the Saviour's hands, or even touching the hem of his garment, brought their children in the superstitious hope that the touch of our Lord's hands would impart to them some supernatiirar grace8.*'^-0ur Saviour accord* ingly improved the opportunity, not indeed " to put his hands upon them and prap<,'* as the Baptists misquote the paH8age,>ut 'Vto put his hands upon them, and i^/^M them.**-^Mark 10^ 16. This misquotation may seem but a trifling inaccuracy; but it is unfair, because we make no doubt, that they wouldNinuch prefer to revid prayed Instead of blessed. The infants niust have received some benefit from Christ's blessing ; the Baptists (though asking ** what profit can baptism be to ao unconscious infiint,'*) admitting "that God instituteano useless ceremonies.** Let the reader then judge whether in this objection there be any presumption against infant baptism ? Nay ; it seems to us that we find.iu it a clear presumption in yaoour of infant baptism. The Baptists do not tell us what Christ said on this occasion— "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them'not, for of such is the kingdom of God,** Now, whatsoever these words mean, this, at ■f ► '.■ )■ - if A ■- ■ 30 POFtTLAR BAFnST ./ y . iMit, may be gathered from them— that infants are capable of becoming members of the kingdom of God (the visible Church); and if so, they may be baptized. The pas- aage plainljT intimates, first, that infants may be partakers of grace, for Christ's blessing'' and imposition of hands mudt hate been effectual ; and, secondly, that infants, being capable of enrollment in Christ's visible church, may be formally admitted thereto by baptism. » 2. le, becuee w« .ee no .ptitud* >d It !• highly pre«uiiiptuoMfc To affirm. becauaJ ,v we .ei,..uitalMlityin the-bipiiam of adulta , and Done .0 that of infanta, that, there- fore bap,H„, should not be applied to the Utter I. absurd. The fact heiuf,, that we catr.of ouraelvea diacern no utility io either c«e. except .0 far aa reeulta are concerned, top we greatly quention whether those reiulta testify altogether in favour of adulta. Thia preauming ,« define the recipients qf baptism froib Its supposed Applicability, probably aris<^s from the erroneous idea that baptism is appl^d merely in a uiilifariao sense. th«t is wilh^ view to obtain certain benefits. Now^ ' Ml we do hold tiiai some blessing invaria-> bly abends baptism when duly administered. yet w^cerrainiy should err in idministerinir it with that iPiem; nor. indeed, can ^ doubt that blessmg would, in the case of adulra. be witWield were the ordinance thus selfishly "^ employed in total f\,rget fulness of obedienc^ rhe effusion of the Holy Ghost attended baptism by the Apostles; hut y».t it was not used merely for that end : this is evident from that femark of St. SPeter. (Acta 10. 47.) Can ahy man forbid water t hat khese should ^t be ba pti zed, w bu have recei/ed the Holy Ghost aa well aa me ^ one of Ue enda for^ •^'f-'t ' ■;^;;.: •■■:,•;•,, AiouiiwiTi MMftmwmp. , •,".'!■ ■■l|- which the rite wm given, here wai thready ob« tained ; but then there weri( others ; one, per- haps, being to test obedlenee. Let it be, moreover, observed that from these words of St. Peter we can deduce a fair argument in favo equally compulsory. The question of its being voluntary or compulsory is quite as mifch out of place as its utility or non-utility : the. real question being, the Scriptural auth* • ority for it. In short, all these arguments against Jpfant baptism drawn from the * voluntary, spiritual or personal nature of the Gospel* can only be of use as corroborativeevi* dence, when it is first admitted that Scripture does not decide the rival* claims of adult and ■infant baptism, as no one who eouM establish the theory of the Baptists from Scripture woy^^e foolish enough ta'^make assurance doubly sure by the addition of a doubtful argument. We may remark, however, that it is by no means true to say that infant baptism is a compulsory rite. The Gospel require- ments are indeed, so far volnntary, that no credit attaches to any one who does not perform them from^^c^zce: idults only can do this; but still no person can be said to be compelled whose choice is not thwarted; infants, thereforei are not the subjects of compulsion. A man Aa a swoon cannot intelligibly be said CO be compelled to revive by the application of water, though his recovery could not be voluntary. Thus have we replied seriatim to the objec* ^ns from Scripture which the Baptists adduce against th^ practice of infant baptism. Let -JUS, ifaep,-gecpttolate^ o«r a rgumeDt in favour o f ■*^-_- ■^- ARGUMENTS REVIEWED. 37 th« custom — ^^It is admitted, on all haDds, that infant baptism prevailed over the whole Christian world not long after the Apostolic age. Let Baptists, then, solve this difficulty : supposing the Apostles, by precept and example, to have authorized, exclusively, the practice of adult baptism, how c^ine it to pass that such a wonderful transition took, place in such a short time ? We ask again and again how infant baptism came to gain such an und^'spiited Bvi&y? If adult baptism was the exclusive practice of the Apostolic age, how came all the churches in the world, ff>unded as they were by different Apostles, with one accord, to deviate from their example ? We njust demand some rational account (the common principles of human conduct* demand it) of this marvellous in- stance of agreeing to differ. It would not jiave been extraordinary had some churches, or even many, departed from the truth ; but liow came rtZ^ to do so, seoerated from each other other by insuparable barriers, and many, from their remoteness, • ignoiant even of the exist- ence of each other ? : ' Dr. Buchanan, A. D. 1806, found 200,000 Christians in Central India ; Churches whose existence was unknown till discovered by the , Portugese in the 16th century. These Churches of Syrian Christians had preserved a succession of Bishops for thirteen centuries, and, (says Dr. B.^^^^nrofeas doctripes few, ft# 38. POPULAR BAPTIST ii iDdeed, ia number, but pure,' aod agreeiu^ ia essential points with the Church of Bog- land. In a conversation of one of th^be Bishops with Dr. Buchanan, he asked about the other Christians^ besides the English, who had separated themselves from the Church of Rome. *V Those which interested hittJ roost were the Quakers and Baptists." Heisaid "it was an imposing idea to wash the body and begin a new life.* V He asked '/whether they were baptized again every time they relapsed into sin or known apostacy.** Here, then, wdte one hundred Churches with no conimumcation whatever with Europe ; Churches which had preserved the Bible, and were utterly unknown till the arrival of the Portugese, who, to overthrow a^uch a atahding witness against Romanism, establ^hed the Inquisition, which accused the, Syriftn Clergy of the following practices and opinions:-^" that they married ;. that they owned but two sacraments ; that they neither invoked saints, worshipped images, nor believed in purgatory ; and that they had ^' no other dignitaries than Bishops, Priests and Deacons.** The amusement j}f the Syrian BisUlp shows us that not even a tradition of the Baptist theory had come down in these Churches. We quote the above from "Dr. BachanaQ*8 Researches** to show the univer- sality of the practice of iiifant baptism ; and l e t th e Bapt i ste d e Vis g som e rati o naV account ,■4- N* ARGUMENTS REVltWKD. 39 -^r ■iT tf this nngtdar unammity bf\the Christian -: world. ". '"■■■■''■', V --■■■■'/'-:'■: /V..' '■■.■.-■■ ,: ■-^ ,• i But let 08 call the attcntioti if the Baptists to A fact still more strange than ihis wondrous, this universal change which tliey must be- lieve took place, viz : that not anlintimation of \^ It occurs in any writing e^itpnt — not a particle bf notice is taken of it by any writer— not a JChristian disputed the daring change ip the ^acrament. Now, is this possible ? On the iuppositiou that infant baptism w'as a forgery Ion the worldT was it possible that no one , Ithough he had the roeans of exposure in^his hands, ever took the trouble to do so? Heresies, sects, and schisms have arisen, in every age ; but, then, there is testimony for and against them. A great part of the world, was once Arian j J)ut we have the his- tory of it: it was too important not to 1)e noticed. In the earliest ages there arose 'heresies of the most extravagant nature ; so numerous were they, (Augustine enumerates over eighty) that the three tirst« centuries seem one record of false doctrine; but, then,* the true was preserved, and the false branded in history.- And is it natljral, crediblej or possible, that no one of all thescThwtica should have upbraided hif^ opponent ^ith having transferred Christ's sacrament from adults to infants ? . So irresistible is this • argument, that if there existed in Scripture one— plain -co mmand- Jimiting- baptiim _to^ \ •,fr > -. VOWhAtL BAPTIffT 40 aduiti, it wouia sbake our belief in the inepiratioi^ of the Aptostles. So fbrci- biy do the arguments adduced prove the CU8-' tom Of inPftot baptism to have originated in the Apostofic age, that did there exist a text ^Scripture, prohibiting the practice, we ^should have been led to conclude that the Apogtles must either have set the example of .disobedience to their o\vn commands, or silently acquiesced it it^ But no such text exists, as will appear to anyone who examine* the ftitility of all the inttrences drawn from • Scripture by the opponents of infant baptism. We have seen that tiot one of th^e jexts militates against the practice; this is all we .require to make our proof incontestible : but more ciorroboralion we possess;— Some of the arguments brought forward by our adversaries making clea:rly. for infant baptism or giving a considerable degree of. probability to it. StiJl further^ we have a separate and 'powerful evidence from the^nology of cir- cumdsion, which must have great weight, Unless we are;prepared to reject or depreciate ^ topical prophecy. As theVLord's Supper supplanted the Passover,; so ba j)ti£ra super- seded pircuincision. The Jewwh religion was based on this principle-r^a coweJion/, 'hetwee7i God and (he Jew. The Christian religion is based on the aatne—a covenant hetivee\Godand;^an'yChm% being called the mediator b( a new a(nd bet ter — --— .4 .coveftant. ■■ AROUMENTS R^ITIEWED. 41 a'-- i t. i ^ . •-■ / / '4 > -■;*- M ^PtJLAit BAWisl^* ■ ■'■ ^■' •-■ ■.■■■"■■■ . ' *■/"'■■■ Fiord himself sets |hia matter at rest, by plainly declaring that he cam« " to preach the - acceptable year of the Lord ; this day is thiH Scripture fultilled in your.ears." Now, if thef: t^ry laws which regulated jnh^tance ■hd di^bt, contracts and servitude, though national or civil arraogements,^ were still ; rpplresen^ative of Gospel liberty, why should v circumcisi'on be an exception to the rule, on . the groun^ of its being a national badge or characterisic, especially when we are distinctly told in Scripture that circumcision involved a - deep spiiltoal meaning? " Abraham," says j the^ Apostle, ^« received the sign of circumci-* > sion, k seal ot the righteousness ot the Jaith which he had."— Rom, 4, 11/ llerHi clear ; evidence thajt'circumcision ratified a covenant: the terms of the coveiiant being, ori the aide of ^ .the Jew, faith or faiihful obedience ; and on the side of God, temporal blessings. To , thia corresponds most accurately , Christian baptism, which is, the seal ()f GodVGospel coveuant i and if the first covenant, which -was undoubtedly spiritual/ included infants, J why should not that covenant " established upon bett^ proniises** (Ueb. 8, <}) embrace thf oflf&pring^ of Christian. parents, at least, if not, mig^ty^ not have expected to have been told so ? Vlt Will not, therefore, answer any purpose bujt that of showing the Istrength of prgudice, ib f ay that circumcision was merely a nationit^ Jewish observance.— ..;sP ■y .■• ■'^■ /. ..:iP i : Tv ARGUMJENTS REVIEWED. 43 T CircumciseWne foreskia of yoar heart,** cays Moses.^-Daut, 10, 16 ; so also jer. 4, 4. Baptism, say the Baptials, is •* the out- ward sign of a renewed heart." And was ^ tiot circumcision aUoP St. I^^iil evidently Ci)nsidered circunicision not only as emhleni- atical of baptiam, mit as an ordinance with a deep spiritual reference. He telU the Colos- tiians that they had put off the sins of the flesh " by the circunicisioti of Christ," arid explains thia to mean, being ^Vburied with him in baptism.' *-^Col. 2, 12. Again, he tells the Romans *Vthatqircumcision Is that of the heart, jn the 6pirit, no means found our arguments on tradition. Tradition means the handing* o do '^n from generation to generation a usage or an opinion. Now, it is not mereli/ because infant baptism is handed down to us, that we v practice it, for then' We should' practice image worship ;' but because there is no weU- autheniicated account, no historical testimony ■ of infant baptism having fiupplanted adult. As, fronithe want of any rational explanation _, -Concerning the or%-i/i of ihe creation, we trace it to God; so, from the absence of any satis- factory ace origin of infant bap-^ ' tisra, we are forctjd to aVcrib it to Christ. So far, therefore, are we from founding our, " belierba tradition, that it is the abaence, the (if the Baptisjts be correct in their vifews) unnatyral «Z>A'e«ce, 6f any ti^dition, oral or historical, which confiriria" our belief, in the propriety of a custom, not forbidden in the Bible. It is the vHint ofany tradition against infant baptism which makes us practice it, v because common sense tells i»s,^. that had a • change taken p]ace in the Christian world, ' '^\thete would have keen a tradition, naV; many traditions abotu it. In short, it is the Baptists, not us, th.it tradition jvould serve ; for could titey produce an authentic , traditloii of a change having come over the world, at^ a fixed time, in the matter of ^fr !y \. . •■•, \ ^ •■•, ^/ ;^RatrMi;NTS RKVIEWEP. ■ ■ »V\ . ■■,■■■- /*r 45 baptiatn ; coiild they produce a genuine writer wtio remarked the change, and was 'surprised at the novelty ; could they point out a pas- sage in any cccl^siartical writer which men- tioned ihe fact|irbade the custom, "lad they disapproved of it ; if we can detect lb trace of the pra^ice of infant baptism ha^ng supplanted adult, and if it is impossi- hie that such an event could have occurred without being remarked arid criticized ; if we caoiiot believe that, had adult baptism been - the exclusive practice of the Apostolic ago, infant baptism could have overspread the whale Ghriatian world, without ezceptioo, aD4 % /. ARGUMENTS REiriBWCD. 49 :♦ •Huh baptism have died away without leaving behind it even a faint echo in history ; if cir- cumcision, under the Jewish dispensation, was applied to infants to bring them into covenant with God, and the Apostles were never taunted by the Jews with refusing ad- mission to infants under the Gonpel covenant ? if we ncverread of bnpiisni having been defer- red on accouut of youth : if all these things be true, then Is the Church of Kn^land warranted in affirming that **iht» baptinm of young children is in fit^y wl- - t > he retained, a« most agreeable with the in^ti?ution of Christ." .We ;ire not so ruuch conccrrtfd in refuting the Baptist theory of iInml^^s^)rl, because our Church prescribe^ it, not, lunvevcr, forbidding pouring and tsfirniklin^ : tlio^queation being important only so far as this^— whether per- sons who have been baptized by pouring ot water, can bo f aid to b,e baptized at all ? Baptists affirm that pourlr^g or sprinkling is not baptism; Now, how is this proved ? U Would be but natural to expect lb!^t men who upbraid us for baptizing inruita without express com- mand, would produce sojijc express eommand for immersion, particularly as they go so far as to say that witliou|^it fhere is no baptism. Yet they adduce no such command— for none such exista— they are, therefore, contented to establish their favourite subject of immer- Hioh by gathering t>t//ina^io»s/rom the meaning of words and from theprohahUUiea contained in // /'■'' 50 9QtVhAK BAPTIST iicirrA/iW«-^a mode of proof denied to ua. Now is not this a j^rievous inconsistency ? The admission of eminent English Churchmen that the Scriptures eontain no express command to baptize infants, is triumphantly recorded by Baptists. Now, we are not more positive about retaining' infant baptism than they are iu prescribing immersion. We are, therefore, naturally led to apply to thfm their own principles, and to ask for a plain, express command for immersion, or against pouring or sprinkling. And really we might have ex- pected such a command, if Chrift intended to .^ restrict baptism to immersion. The essential elements in a sacrament would i^turally have been such as could be evefy where easily procured, prescribed as they "were by one whose motto was—** I will have naenjy, and not sacrifice.** Now, a large portion ef the world is so arid, that in many coantriea' it would he a matter of serious difficulty, if not altogether impossible, to procure water enough to immerse an adult. Again, a large portion of the world is so cold, that immersion would be dangerous! But, though we might reasonably have looked for an express precept ; yet we do not require the Baptists to produce one. We are willing to take their arguments on their ^nerits, because we think that thecav- ' liiig abont express commands is^uofair. If we can plainly ^o^Aer from Scripture an argu- meoi which prpvea that a practice wa» coun- A.. ARGUMENTS REVIEWfiO. 51 •■*■ tenanced by the iiispired writers, it is suffi* cient. We^ have no express commands to 'worship the Holy Ghost, to admit females to the Lord's Sapper, to change tba original Sabbath, or forbidding paly gamy. All these are not the subjects of positive precepts; but because they may be gathered by inference from Scripture, are binding 0:1 Criristians. No. one will affirm that immersion is com- manded so authoritatively, so particularly, as the rigid observance of the Sabbath ; ^et, on the occasion of our Lord's disciples infringing the precepts relative to that day by plucking the ears of corn, Christ not only said, in regard to that particular case, that his disci- plea were justiii«d, but he made a general rule for unmersal guid(f>nce^--'** 1 will have mercy, and not sacrifice.** So^hat evep on the suppoaioQ of there being a plain direction in the Bible to immerse, yet even then the circumstance of the case should guide us. To immerse a sick ntau in the colds of Siberia is not in accordance with the spirit, but the Jetter. of the' Scripture/, nor would if se^to more rational^ though pei^aps less wicked^ than to justify a. slanderous attack on t^ stranger, because the ninth comqaandment speaks of ones neighbour. That immersion was practised by. the Apostles and earliest ages, W6 willingly admit ; but the questipn is, did they practice it exclusively to the-absolute prohibUion pf pouring or aprinkling ? Most » f^. :-s,'-« ^ JH>WhA» BAPTIST cei tainly the' earli^dt ages did not ; as we know that in cases of plinicql baptism, that is, * when the sick or dying wished to be baptized, poaring was thotfght sufficient.- That there are analogies drawn in.^ripture from the im* inei^siqn of baptized persons, viz : — ^burial ' with Chri^t^ &c., we Readily acknowledge; but there are .also analo^ladtrdim (Sprinkling -: — "blood sprinkling ^hp unclean, sanctifieth/' — Heb; 10, 22 ; also 1 Peter 1, 2. Let us, then,, examine the Scriptural' instances of baptidm adduced hyith^ likptists, with a view to ascer'tairv whether, there be ground for ,condudiiig from the narratives that sprinkling or pouring is profnfuted{ and if we find that there is no such groghd, we nfust convict the Baptists of attachinj^ a;j much iniporiance to' iraere jritualisin as Romini-t^i themselves. . As a gene^fal answer. to tho.^e instances, we cannot reply better than j*n the words of " Qishop l^agot's ^caution acrainst Anabap- tists:'*— "It is true thivt CJirist was baptized ,by John- in the river, aad so was the Eunuch bJyPhilip; but titc 'ttxt- doth not say that eithej Christ or- tfy* Kunuch or any one baptized eithcf by John or by Christ's disci- plfes were plunged over W'ad and ears. But aliowiog that it were so, the bare example in such a case could not hind without a precept. Provided the essentials of a sacrament are preserved,^ the mere mode of appfication, un- less limited by a- positive restriction, must be >AR0UMB1VTS RBVICWXD. 5S free. In matters of this kind; wbfttiiiay>e proper at one place and at one time, may in ' others become highly improper, and even iroppssible. At the beginning, Ghristiana had no Churches with fonts in them ; besides the gjultjlirdes of people tb be baptized, made It expedient to go down to rivers and places ^here^^^ju^many waters, as St. John did at Anon, jMHfciqh place, by the account of eredibl^wmers, there are indeed many waters, that is^l a great number of small titulets, but so shallow as hardly to reach the ancles, and, therefore, could not well answer the purpose of dipping." "In Acts. 2, 41, we read of 3000 baptized in one da^ and that in the city of Jerusalem, where water could not have been easily procured for the dipping of So many ; besides which, it must have taken up a much larger time in the performance than one day : hardly less than a week would have sufficed. Read, likewise,, the baptism of Paul by Ananias, where, from the whole passage, it is next to certain that he -was baptized in his lodgiiig ; likewise, in the house of 'Cornelius, St. Peter's words *'can any man /wrM water," iffi ply i certainly, that the water was, to be brbught for the bap* lism of the new converts, and not that they were, to go out to the water. The situation of St. Paul (Acts 16, 37) renders it extreme- ly improbable (hat he should carry the jailer and all his family out at the dead of night to . •- 'Ml ■ tt\}^i . f i ♦ - 54 PQPl/tAR BAPTIST a pond or riVjpr to be^ baptized. tliesi- kstanceB are auffici^t to 'show tliajt no^on* < clusivis argument can bcldrawn Aom the caaA recorded in Scripture that a tolfal InvnersJon is of absolute necefssitj^ to baptisrn/* * Buteven^liough the instance* were alto- gether pijecjde and definite 6n the subject of imniersiopv fio that it was ^uite olear that all the earliest dkverts were imm^iedf yet still we hold that-3prqii$ded that na altej^ations were inade iti'the essentials x)f the sacramenti viz'iv.by^water and in the ,naftie bf tl»e Holy-- Trinity-^the Ghnjrch ^puld have been justi* ' fled in changbg immersion into pouring, al- -ways provided the change was not forbidden. The Jewish Fassovefi in matiy lof its parti- ' cular pbservances,' wa^ greatlj^tered to salt changes ; in tioi^s and tmanners, yet our Saviour partook of it, -without objection : he celebrated the festival a$^ it .was usually ob- selrved *by his^ countrymen, without finding fault ; and by his example gave' a decided saiictiQn to the cUims of the . Jewish and Christian OhurcKfes^cvJdetermine mere rites* and cereLOEionies*^ according to the diversity of the times and mens manners/* The Passover was originally required to be observ- ed with the lions girded, the shoes on the - feet, and staff in the hand, and in hastjpi' la process of tim^, to 8^it their altered cir&um- ataoces, it was celebrated in a reiilining pos- ture, Dot in baste, to mark the repose of the > ,% ^■f / AAOVMCKTa KEYIEWCP. M ^■f ■ : ■ ■ . * • • Jewish imtion. . Tlie drinking of wini^, and . ^ the aingtng cjf f salms^ were introduced ; t and yet aU tbese innovations were Banctioned 'by . the cottiitenance our 'Lord gave thetDi by re*- tlimng bimself, by drinking wine, and by ^singing a hydiix or pialm. Now, had the Jews interfered with the < essentials of the sacrament^^had they made .any alterat ioi^ in » the slajing of the lamb, or tbe use' of . unleavened bread— we cannotdoubt that our ', Lord'would not onlyjiave-wtithheld iHc saiic- ; ' tiort ofiiis example, but would have pointed- ^ ly condemned the' innovaition : l^d.so, even " ^^houf^h immersioti w^re cleariy es^bU^hed {^a " ,• ^ It js n9(t|^*by the jipostles,^^^^ sboi^td^lll, in' ihe absence of a pre cepf|, cotisic^er oursel yea ' ^ Wt boundto ttkitpariiiciilarVi^^of bapt^^ ^ for in; e bold that ** th6 ^ehur ch hai]i po w^ to *. decree rites and cere monies;, pro vided^othing ;. be decreed contrary io"God?8 word ^tiritten.'* In comduding'thi|s review of Bapt ist arguments, we Dday obsetyif, 'thai in the imporianee:of baptism, we coincide V with tUem,^ perhaps, for dl^ttrent reasons. We shalU therefore; omit, all considerfit tun of this point, / and only- draw their sittention to the cpjise- quences which necessarily, which from their 'owii admission, must follow vfrom their tenets. ' They, truly enough, say, *V/Afi permanent '" durcUton of thewdihame is plainly implied in the pftmise, '^ Lo/ J cm with you^wtf^s, evmunt&tlUendofpiewoT^dJr TnWimpor^ tant promise was given di the time the ordin- * .s. V « ,v ■«w-'-'' •V ;;JI-^/ .., m P0FUI4R BAFTIST '5'.: once was inBtftuted, an^ it jtUMy supposes • th€ continuance ofBaptmi, even ia the end of ike worW* Now, if tiSifiists ^re correct in their creed» Christ tfas not fjilfilled *i« promise. For a long period, for mapv centuries, there was no Church 6f Christ's on -earth, for the Church was cumji^osed of men- hapt i zed in in fa n cy. The who|| world, wi t h the exception of heathen converts, (and they cannot be said to have been baptized, as they v who admistcred the rite were linbaptized themselves, being baptized in infancy) having ' practiced infant baptisfl^ Yet, with this oonsequence before them. Baptists do not hesitate to say that *\ihose who kat^ been baptized tn infancy havie hot, in the sense qf Scripture^ heenhaptizei^dtall: tk^ are yet ^ uhbaptizedf andf without diyuht, they ought to consider themselves as unhaptized,^^ We * stand aghast that men are to be i^nd who tbii8''s(rive to persuade the world that Chritt falsified^ his promise : for falsify it he ^id, with regard to xhe continuance of baptism, i| | the7rue admission into, his Church was tost ^ for many an age. To nrens common under« sknding we -appeal? aa did St. Paul— ••» I apeak as to wise men : judge ye what I say/' -^ ■*: ■i : *^>^^ ^r w « J ' ' ' ' ■ , * • * * * ' * « I ' * •*<■ *■ C-J:i{i>.: .■:.'-..V'-ivi