|
( 16 )
DEFENCE
OF
P E D O B A P T I S M.
___________
Friends, Fellow-citizens, and Fellow-Christians,
The possession of a rational, responsible and immortal nature, should ever make us view religion as of paramount
importance. Among innumerable dangers of fatal error, the enjoyment of a full revelation, an infallible rule of
faith and practice, is a blessing for which we can never be sufficiently thankful. This blessed volume contains the
instruction of the Divine Father, sealed by the blood of the Divine Son, and applied to the heart by the Divine
Spirit. Depending upon the grace of the only true God, we should endeavour to give to all his doctrines, precepts,
and ordinances, that inherent and relative weight which they claim in the inspired volume. Our views of the Christian
sacraments, as to their nature, relations, and consequences, are thought defective and erroneous, by some who are
Eminent for piety and intelligence. Yet while they condemn us, they accuse each other also. Mr. Booth, an advocate
for strict communion, says concerning his Baptist brethren "who plead for free communion," that they "treat the
ordinance [of baptism] as if it were a mere circumstance in divine worship; an indifferent thing; and dispense with
it just as occasion requires." "The Lord's
( 18 )
supper, however, is considered and treated by them in a different manner; for they speak of it as a delightful,
an edifying, an important institution. But what authority have they for thus distinguishing between two appointments
of the same Lord, intended for the same persons, of equal continuance in the Christian church, and alike required
of proper subjects? They have indeed the example of some Socinians, and the venerable sanction of the whole Council
of Trent: for the title of one chapter in the records of that council, is, 'Concerning the excellence of the most
holy Eucharist, above the rest of the sacraments.'" (a) Concerning this preference of one sacrament to another,
Mr. Booth asks, "Can such a conduct be pious, humble, or rational?" Yet impious, proud, and irrational as this conduct
may be, it is feared that my Opponent has been guilty of it. It is true that he does not, like the free-communion
Baptists, prefer the eucharist to baptism, but he does what is equally condemnable in Mr. Booth's esteem, he gives
baptism a decided preeminence over the eucharist, if not over faith and obedience. "Baptism," says he "is an ordinance
of the greatest importance and of momentous significance. Never was there an ordinance of so great import or design."
"He [Christ] does not say, he that believeth and keeps my commands shall be saved: but he saith ' he that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved.' He placeth baptism on the right hand of faith." "To every believer therefore, baptism
is a formal and personal remission, or purgation
__________
(a) Booth's Apology, pp. 177, 178. London Edition o
( 19 )
of sins. The believer never has his sins formally washed away or remitted until he is baptized. The water has no
efficacy but what God's appointment gives it, and he has made it sufficient for this purpose." (b) He said that
baptism is inseparably connected with a formal pardon of sin: and spoke very boastingly of having never, for an
hour, felt guilt of conscience, "since his baptism," (c) Those who hold such a religion as this, will always
harbour animosity against pious Pedobaptists, as naturally as the Western Indians opposed the venerable Zeisberger,
the Moravian Missionary, "in consequence chiefly of the insinuations of some Pagan teachers, who had strenuously
recommended the use of emetics, as a speedy and infallible method of cleansing from sin? '(^J No doubt, there was
many a deluded mortal among them, who "spoke very boastingly of having never, for an hour, felt guilt of conscience,
since his [[" vomiting. How different is this Pagan stuff from the scriptural account of Baptism! Paul says "Christ
sent me not to baptize, but to preach the Gospel," (c) If he had viewed it as my Opponent does, he would have
considered the work of baptizing to be the most important object of his mission. But he here uses a negative as the
strongest contrast, to show its great inferiority to the essentials of Christianity.
When I speak of the relative diminutiveness of the tangible sacraments, I would not be understood as insinuating
__________
(b) Campbell's Spurious Debate in Kentucky, pp. 117. 135.
(c) Lowry's Notes, given to me.
(d) Brodlk History of Missions, Vol. l. p. 435. Philadelphia Edition of 1816.
(e) l Cor, i, 17,
( 20 )
that they are unimportant. Far be it from me to despise such valuable privileges! May my soul ever rejoice in
that heavenly condescension which has bestowed them! Our Fathers did well in reproving the Man of sin for robbing
the laity .of the eucharistic cup; and they did as well in reproving certain Pseudo-reformers for robbing infants
of the baptismal seal. Since the Pedobaptist world is arraigned before the public, under the heaviest charges, and
since I am providentially called to confront our bold Accuser, the task is undertaken, with a trembling cheerfulness,
and in humble reliance upon the Spirit of Christ, without whose help I can do nothing.
The contested proposition, for the discussion of which we have met on this occasion, is contained in a general
printed challenge, first uttered by my Opponent, several years ago, at the close of a debate which he had with a
Pedobaptist Minister in another state, and afterward printed for general circulation, in his professed report of
that debate, which I have in my hand. In that challenge he undertakes to prove that "Infant-sprinkling is a human
tradition, and injurious to the well being of society, religious and political." As I plead, not guilty, we join
issue upon the very words of the accusation which you have just heard.
To the language of the proposition I at first objected, in part, because the term in font-sprinkling was in tended
as a sneer. If we were to call them Dippers, and call their baptism Ditching, they would probably think that a sneer
was intended: yet they could not have more reason for such a suspicion, than we have
( 21 )
in the present case. They call themselves Baptists, and not Divers, Plungers, or Dippers. As convenience requires
that they should have a name, we allow them the one which they assume; but we do it from courtesy, and not because
we believe that they are Baptizers more than ourselves. If the peculiarities of their system were necesary to make
a man a Baptizer, (which is the original meaning of the word Baptist,) then the precursor of our Lord should not be
called John the Baptist, or John the Baptizer [[^ since there is satisfactory evidence that he baptized infants, and
that by sprinkling or pouring. But as the Author of the accusation now under discussion was not willing to remove or
change the offensive expression, infant-sprinkling, all that we wish is, to have its meaning clearly settled. This
is done effectually by the context, in which he says, "It is my time to give an invitation or challenge to any
Pedo-baptist minister;" and again, "I feel disposed to meet any Pedo-baptist minister, of any denomination," &c. As
the challenge, therefore, is directed to Pedo-baptists, it is evident that Pedo-baptism is to be the subject of
discussion, and that this is what is meant by infant-sprinkling. The position, then, which he has engaged to maintain
is, that infant-baptism, as practised by us, in the mode of sprinkling, pouring, or washing, is a factitious and
pernicious institution. In his publications he has endeavoured to establish this general charge, by many particulars
of a very odious character. If they be correct, we must be the enemies of God and man: if they be incorrect, he must
[[ll false Accuser and a bitter Adversary of
( 22 )
Christ and his Church. If he has published more than he then meant, or more than he is willing now to prosecute,
he is present to declare it. If no such declaration is made, you will, of course, demand good evidence in support
of such formidable charges.
Against such allegations, by whomsoever brought, I willingly stand on the defensive: against such affirmations,
by whomsoever made, I willingly espouse the negative. In so doing, I would endeavour, conscientiously and
scripturally, to defend a command of God, and not those adventitious errors which Papists or Protestants have
engrafted on it. If will worship, self-righteousness and superstition, schism and heresy, anarchy, oppression, and
persecution are ever found connected with our system, I can only reply that this is an unnatural connexion, since
these evils are from hell, and infant-baptism is from heaven. If my Opponent mean to prove that the use of the
cross, and of oil and wine, and milk and honey in baptism, is a human tradition, I have no objection: but while
this is made out undeniably, it will also appear that infant -baptism belongs to what he calls "the traditions of
the Apostles," and that this Apostolical tradition or injunction is no more answerable for its illegitimate
connexions, than the scriptures are answerable for destroying souls, when, through human depravity, they become a
savour of death unto death; or than adult-baptism is answerable for the innumerable evi!s with which it is
accompanied. And let it be remembered that this is practised by all Pedobaptists; for our system is to baptize
believers and their seed. Christian baptism, thus administered, has sometimes
( 23 )
been accompanied with much evil, as is the bible in which it is commanded; and infidels charge all this evil upon
God's word and ordinances; whether righteously or not, judge ye.
Whether infant-baptism he right or wrong, useful or hurtful, may be decided without any other evidence than the
simple word of God. This proof is the best, because it is certain and infallible. That evidence which is derived
from uninspired writings, whether doctrinal or historical, though strong, is nevertheless inferior. It would save
much time and strength to omit it altogether. I mention this because my Opponent has already asserted, more than
once, that the true church, from the Apostles' days to the present time, were Baptists. Although the challenge will
certainly allow him this latitude, he would do me a favour by confining himself to the scriptures, at least in
relation to the subject and mode of baptism. Its injurious effects he may prove in any way that he pleases: Let him
produce scripture only, to show that infant-baptism is forbidden, and that immersion only is baptism, and then he
shall have proved that "infant-sprinkling is a human tradition." But reasonable as this wish is, he intimates that
it cannot be gratified. In addition, then, to infallible scriptural evidence in favour of our subject and mode of
baptism, I shall be required to produce what might be called uninspired presumptive or probable evidence to the same
points. I shall have to show that the Christian Church has always baptized infants, and that it has never considered
submersion essential to this ordinance. This will have to be followed by evidence that the Baptists
( 24 )
of England and America, instead of being born in the first century (as my Opponent has repeatedly asserted,) had
their origin in the sixteenth. The topics of discussion, then, which my Opponent has cut out for me, are the
following; viz.
1. The scriptural subject of baptism.
2. The scriptural mode.
3. The history of the subject.
4. The history of the mode.
5. The, history of Anabaptism.
6. The effects of the subject.
7. The effects of the mode.
In discussing these topics, while I would avoid shrinking from the duty of defending the truth, I would respect
the feelings of pious Baptists, and avoid unnecessary recriminations against those mistaken Christians of that
denomination, who, uncharitably, unrighteously, and untruly, make common cause with our Accuser, in slandering
their brethren for obeying a divine command. To the true church, God has said, "No weapon that is formed against
thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the
heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord." This we believe. In the
exercise of a conscience void of offence towards God and man, we are willing to take shelter under this promise,
for protection against the accusations of our present Adversary, and of all those who support him.
When a man brings such serious charges as those
( 25 )
which are now under consideration, he should have some plan of attack. In opening the cause, which my Accuser
has professed to do, he should, as far as time allowed, give us some general view of the law and the testimony;
something to which a reply may be made. But, in what he calls the opening of the debate, he has not laid before
you as much as can be felt between the thumb and finger. His whole speech was occupied in a laboured effort to
make his audience benevolent, attentive, and docile, according to Cicero's instructions. As I did not come here
to set myself off by rhetorical arts, but to recommend religion, by defending its sacred institutions, and its
pious professors, I have been compelled, though in the negative, virtually to open the cause myself. I shall
therefore proceed immediately to the discussion of those topics which my Opponent's challenge and present
determination force upon our attention, and which have been already enumerated in my division.
TOPIC I.
THE SCRIPTURAL SUBJECT OF BAPTISM.
On this subject, my opinion is accurately expressed in the following words:
The Scriptures consider infants as suitable, though not exclusive
subjects of Christian Baptism.
The challenge asserts that "Infant-sprinkling is a human tradition." My reply is, that the Scriptures consider
( 26 )
infants as suitable, though not exclusive subjects of Christian baptism. Instead of this proposition, some would
state that Pedobaptism is a divine institution. To avoid repeated and unnecessary distinctions and circumlocutions,
I often use this declaration myself. But as a proposition for discussion, it is thought to be deficient in accuracy.
We believe that adult baptism is a divine institution, and that female baptism is a divine institution, as well as
male baptism: and so we might appear to multiply institutions according to the ages, sexes, colours, and conditions
of mankind. Each of these has the appearance of excluding the rest. Of this appearance, Baptist controversialists
take an unfair advantage. When we advocate infant-baptism as a divine institution, they try to make the world believe
that we thereby reject adult baptism, whereas we hold and practice both: when the Bible teaches adult baptism, they
conclude that it rejects infant baptism, whereas the Bible teaches, and the Apostles practised both. To shut the door
against such quibbles, my proposition formally admits that infants are not the exclusive subjects of Christian
baptism, while it asserts that they are suitable subjects of this divine institution, according to the testimony of
God's word.
But now that we are approaching the lively oracles, my Opponent begins to dread an appeal to this irrefragable
testimony. He insists upon my passing this over, and engaging in a priori reasonings, which he knows would be much
more inefficient in our defence than inspired authority. For me to quote scripture, he insinuates, would be only a
fatiguing loss of breath and
( 27 )
waste of time. His words are these, viz: "Before we spend our breath, waste our time, or fatigue our bodies in this
discussion, let us know, cui bono, for what good, or what benefit to infants we contend." "We know of no benefit,"
says he, "that could be conferred on them by sprinkling a few drops of water upon their faces." (/) Perhaps my
Opponent knows that these questions are often asked concerning his baptism as well as ours, and with as much force.
And Booth complains that some eminent Baptists themselves seem to doubt the utility of adult immersion, and thereby
to approach that sect which denies the utility and obligation of either baptism or the Lord's supper, (g) It is true
fhat my Opponent professes to have discovered great utility in adult immersion; it purges from sin. In this he excels
the Hemerobaptists, who cleanse themselves from all sin by a daily immersion. But Bishop Hobart is up with him even
here; for he believes that infant baptism is regeneration; and both are about as wise as those Western Indians who
believed that their sins were purged by emetics.
In demanding evidence of utility in the threshold of this discussion, my Accuser opposes Jews and Christians,
inspired and uninspired, heretical and orthodox, Baptist and Pedobaptist. Matt. v. 19. shews that the least of God's
commandments is binding, whether we think it useful or not. In admirable consistency with this, Booth quotes from
Stapfer the following sentiments of Orobius, a learned Jew, viz. "The ritual law depends
__________
(/) Debate, p. 4.
(, ) Booth's Apology, p. 18 J,
( 28 )
upon the will of the Legislator only; sometimes, or generally, no foundation for it being discovered in natural
reason. But it does not obtain on that account an inferior degree of perfection, (supposing the wisdom and goodness
of the Legislator to be infinite,) but ought rather to be esteemed of a higher and sublimer order: it being indeed
supposed that an infinitely good and wise God can never prescribe to man laws which are vain and unsuitable. In
proportion as the reason of them is more hidden to us, so should we the more believe that it belongs to the secret
of divine wisdom: so that we should not either curiously or philosophically scrutinize, but be in obedient subjection
to his command, by which we may shew our love, and a becoming reverence to the Supreme Creator: believing, with the
whole heart, all things which his wisdom, infinitely worthy, exceedingly good, and most perfect, proposes to be
observed by us, whether [or not] that wisdom can or will dispense or intermit for some occasion. And it belongs to
a more signal obedience to observe those things, than such commandments of God as we discover to be founded in our
reason: for such as these, even if God had not enjoined, men may know and observe, as many of the Gentiles have done,
without any view to the "authority of God." But merely from their opinion of their cui bono.
( 29 )
On this subject, even Dr. Priestly is more correct than my Opponent. As quoted by Booth, he declares that "Every
divine command ought certainly to be "implicitly complied with [* even though we should not be able to discern the
reason of it." That is, the cui bono of it. "In things of external appointment," (says Dr. Samuel Clarke, quoted by
Booth,) "and mere positive institution, where we cannot, as in matters of natural and moral duty, argue concerning
the natural reason and ground of the obligation, and the original necessity of the thing itself; we have nothing to
do but to obey the positive command. God is infinitely better able than we to judge of the propriety and usefulness
[the cui boni] of the things, he institutes; and it becomes us to obey with humility and reverence." The same author
quotes Bishop Hall as saying, "It hath been ever God's wont, by small precepts to prove men's dispositions. Obedience
is as well tried in a trifle as in the most important charge: yea, so much more, as the thing required is less: for
oftentimes those who would be careful in main affairs, think they may neglect the smallest. What command so ever we
receive from God, or our superiors, we must not scan the weight, [the cui bond] of the thing, but the authority of
the commander.'' The same Baptist writer quotes Witsius as saying that, One who resolves to obey God in some things
only, but excepts others, which he does [or not] according to his own judgment [of their cui bono,~] he does not
serve God, but pleases himself. The true ground of "obedience is the authority of him who commands: which, as it is
the same in all precepts, all then, it is concluded, must be of equal obligation."
These are all Baptist authorites, because adopted
( 30 )
by Booth (h) in support of his sentiments, which he expresses in his own words as follows, viz. "As in the great
concerns of religious worship, nothing should be done that is not required by Jehovah; and as the lawfulness of all
positive rites depends entirely on their divine Author and his institution; so he who complies with some, and
neglects others that are equally commanded and equally known, may please himself, but he does not obey the Lord."
"For it is not the manifest excellence, or the great utility [the cui bond] of any divine appointment, that is the
true reason of our submission to it; but the authority of him that commands."
You have already perhaps observed that my Opponent himself advocates this same doctrine at some times, though he
contradicts it at other times. He has quoted a passage from Bishop Hoadly, in which he says, "All positive duties
depend [not upon the question of [[f( cui bono f but] entirely upon the will and declaration "of the person who
institutes or ordains them, with respect to the real design and end of them, and consequently to the due manner of
performing them." To the same purpose he has quoted largely from Bishop Taylor, who says that "The will of the
law-giver, [and not the question of cui bono~] is all the reason for obedience." (i) But in the debate with Mr. Walker
we have my Opponent's own words to this effect as follows; viz. "Having now distinguished
__________
(h) They may be found in the following pages of his Apology. 71. 100. 179. 180.
(i) Debate pp. 69. 70.
( 31 )
positive and moral institutions, I proceed to shew that on no account whatsoever in positive requirements, are we
to attempt to reason upon the expediency [the cui bono'] of the things enjoined, but implicitly to obey on all
occasions. When Eve, the mother of us all, began to reason on the expediency fthe cui bono"] of eating the forbidden
fruit, she began to sin. [[6 ' She reasoned that as the fruit of that tree was pleasant to the sight, and to be
desired to make one wise, there could be no harm in eating of it; consequently she concluded to taste it. Of the
incorrectness of her [[\_cui bono~\ reasoning, and of her incapacity, even when in Eden, to draw a correct inference,
when reasoning on a positive institution, [[w T e have, alas! a melancholy proof" as we have in her [[cui bono
descendant in this debate. (k)
Often as my Opponent contradicts himself, he hardly ever does it without what he considers good policy. He published
a challenge, to shew his courage; and afterward denied it, to throw the odium upon his Opponent. Why did he say so
much in his letters, about his holding the negative of our question? Because it afforded what he thought a plausible
pretext for demanding the closing speech. Why does he now urge as strongly that he holds the affirmative of the very
same question? The Moderators, to whom he has appealed can answer, that this is made a pretext for demanding, that,
as he has professedly opened the debate, I should not be permitted to choose my own plan of defence, but
__________
(j) Debate with Mr. W. p. 46. On the same page in his 2nd debate we find his cui bono contradiction,
( 32 )
be compelled to leave the solid evidence upon which my cause rests, and follow the ignis fatuus of his declamation.
Again; why is it that he insists so strongly upon the good old doctrine, that we must unreservedly obey every command
of God, without waiting to discuss its expediency, or its cui bono? Because he hopes to pervert this truth to the
sophistical conclusion that nothing short of [what he means by] an express divine command can authorize" infant
baptism: as if an implicit command were not binding at all! But when I approach the subject too closely, and seem in
danger of producing a divine command, he complains that by such a course we should only "spend our breath, waste our
time, and fatigue our bodies." Why does he then insist, in opposition to his former principles, concerning positive
institutions, that we must first examine the question of expediency," cui BONO, for tvhat goody or [,/br] what benefit
to infants" is this institution intended? These questions you can answer.
I wish you to keep in mind the proposition with which I have set out, on the scriptural subject of baptism. It is,
that "the scriptures consider infants as suitable, though not exclusive subjects of Christian baptism." Baptist
polemics generally take it for granted that this is impossible in the nature of things; and think that infant baptism
necessarily rejects adult baptism, and that adult baptism necessarily excludes the other, as if these were two
distinct and irreconcileable baptisms. Booth says, "If infant sprinkling be a human invention, disown it but if it be
from heaven, embrace it and lay the other absolutely aside, as destitute
( 33 )
'of a divine warrant; for as there is but one God and one faith, so there is but one baptism." (1) This writer is
much in the habit of illustrating the sacraments of baptism and the eucharist by a reference to circumcision and
the Passover. (m) We all know that there was only one circumcision as well as one baptism. How then would it look
to reason on the former, as he has done on the latter? If infant circumcision be a human tradition, disown it but if
it be from heaven, embrace it and lay adult circumcision absolutely aside for as there is but one God and one faith,
so there is but one circumcision!!! Yes, there was but one circumcision; yet it was administered to adults and
infants: so there is but one baptism, which, like circumcision, is the seal of the righteousness of one faith; yet
this also is scripturally administered to believers and their seed.
Scriptural statements of the qualifications of adult subjects are always quoted on this point, "He that believeth and
is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned." "Go ye therefore and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (n) We are both
agreed that these passages exclude from baptism, those adults who are destitute of knowledge, because they must first
be taught of faith, because they
__________
(/) Close of his Apology. (m) See his Apology, pp. 145.149.
(72) Mark xvi, 16. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.
( 34 )
are required to believe and of obedience, because they are required to observe all things. We are both agreed on
another point also, which is as plainly taught by these texts as the one just now stated. That is, that those
intelligent adults who are destitute of knowledge, faith and obedience, are deprived of Christ's gracious presence,
by his Spirit, unto the end of the ivorld, and of his salvation in eternity. We agree, in a third position, that
the privilege of baptism, the enjoyment of Christ's Spirit, and eternal salvation are here secured to believing
adults. There is a fourth point in which we can possibly meet. The Apostle Peter shews that the promise of the Spirit
of sanctification and salvation is to believers and their children; "The promise is unto you and to your children."
The fifth point is the one on which we differ. Do these passages exclude infants from baptism? They affirm; we deny.
They say that Christ's command to teach and baptize all nations, excludes infants as incapable of instruction: then
are they not excluded from his promise, "lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world?" They say that our
Saviour's declaration, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," excludes infants as incapable of faith:
but the next clause says, "he that believeth not shall be damned/' If, then the former clause deprives them of baptism,
because incapable of faith, this latter one excludes from salvation all infants who cannot believe. Mr. Robinson's
"good Baptist," Michael Servetus, of the sixteenth century, saw the necessity of this conclusion, and admitted its
correctness. He rejected infants from baptism and from salvation
( 35 )
together, because they could not believe; and supported his doctrine by that text which says, "He that believeth not
the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him." (0) This mode of interpretation, if consistently
maintained, would exclude infants from daily bread, as well as from baptismal water Paul says, "This we commanded
you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat." (/>) Our Opponents should say, infants cannot work,
therefore infants should not eat. Why do they not reason and act thus? Because they know that this command related
to adults who ought to work, and will not; and not to infants who cannot work. Just so Pedobaptists interpret the
above texts concerning baptism. They are intended to exclude adults who ought to believe, but will not: and not
infants which are neither believers nor unbelievers. And to reason otherwise, is as absurd as to say that the sheep
on the right hand of Christ, at the day of judgment, are intended to exclude not only the goats, but the lambs also.
Such sentiments as the above texts contain, are found in Pedobaptist writers, and Pedobaptist creeds, in every age
and country: and, what is remarkable? Baptist writers quote them, as they do the scriptures, in opposition to that
system which their authors maintain. They cannot help confessing that after Cyprian's day, Pedobaptism prevailed
in the church; and yet when Cyprian and other Fathers talk of the necessity of believing and repenting before baptism,
they quote these expressions against infant baptism, although they know
__________
(o^ (ji
Calvin's Institutes. Book 4. ch. xvi. sect. 31, ) 2 Thess. iii. 10. in Calv, Inst. B, 4. oh, xvi. s. 29,
( 36 )
that their authors were Pedobaptists, and never meant them to apply to infants. Speaking of baptism, Cyprian declares
that all u will perish," "unless they do ff come with repentance to that only salutary sacrament of the church."
On the same subject Gregory Nyssen says, i( Prayer to God, and the imploring of the heavenly grace, and the water,
and faith, are the things that "make up the sacrament of regeneration." To the same amount, Cyril, Chrysostom, and
Augustine. Basil says, "One must believe first, and then be "sealed with baptism." Jerome says of the Apostles, '
that they first taught the nations, and then baptized 6 them; "for it cannot be that the body do receive (f the
sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have before received the true faith." (q) If the scriptures forbid infant
baptism, so do these Fathers: but both sides know that these Fathers held infant baptism and required faith as a
qualification in adults only; and so we believe the scriptures do.
But the inconsistency of our Opponents does not stop with the scriptures and the Fathers. They have claimed the
Pedobaptist Reformers and reformed churches and their successors to the present day. They even quote against Infant
baptism, the standards of the Pedo-baptist churches with which we are conversant and connected; and most certainly,
they are as much against it as the scriptures are. Both alike require faith in the subject. The Catechism of the
Church of England says, "There is required of persons to be baptized, faith
__________
(7) Wall's Defence, pp. 346. 347.
( 37 )
and repentance." Our Catechism says that in a sacrament, "Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are represented,
sealed and applied to believers." The same work says that their efficacy depends upon the blessing of Christ, and the
working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them." (r) In the close of my Opponent's book against Mr. Walker,
these and similar passages of our Creed are explained just as the scriptures are, in opposition to infant baptism.
On the first of them the writer says, "Mark, only to believers. Are infants capable of believing?" On the second
passage he says, "Here mark again, if the blessing of Christ and the working of his Spirit is wholly restricted to
them that by faith receive them. Is it possible to suppose that infants can so receive? Then surely it would be
wrong not to admit them also to the Lord's table. But the thing being insupposable, they are therefore equally
debarred from both." On the whole, he observes, "Are not all the blessings and benefits specified in them exclusively
confined to believers? Obviously so, as the words unequivocally declare, in express concurrence with the scriptures
cited for proof, at the bottom of the page, under the respective answers. According to the manifest scope and tenor
of all those documents taken together, what comes of infant-sprinkling? It stands excluded to all intents and
purposes. No room is left for it, if the forecited documents contain words of truth." (0)
__________
(r) Larger Cat. Questions, 92. 91. (*) 2nd Edition, p. 290, 291.
( 38 )
Thus does this writer profess to prove that, by our Catechism, infants are "equally debarred from" baptism and the
Lord's supper; and that from our own creed, Pedobaptism "stands excluded to all intents and purposes." It is no
wonder, then, that he says this of the scriptures. But on this subject I can tell him what probably never before
entered his mind. It is this; that, according to his rules of interpretation, it can be shewn that our Catechism,
as well as the scriptures, exclude infants from salvation as well as from baptism, by requiring faith for the one
as well as the other. It speaks as follows; viz. "To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God
requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby
Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption. v (0 On this article my Opponent might speak as follows;
Mark!!! Only to believers, to penitents, to diligent seekers. Can children believe? can children repent? can children
diligently use the means of grace? Is not salvation here exclusively confined to believers? Obviously so, as the
words unequivocally declare, in express concurrence with the scriptures cited for proof, at the bottom of the page."
"According to the manifest scope and tenor" of the article, "what comes of infant salvation?" It stands excluded to
all intents and purposes." To all such reasoning, whether on the scriptures or the catechism, whether on infant
salvation or infant
__________
(0 Shorter Cat. Quest. 85. See Larger Cat. Qu. 153.
( 39 )
baptism, I can make no better answer than Goldsmith has furnished me with: and that is, Fudge.
But the work from which I have quoted, professes to admit that our standards advocate Pedobaptism, and therefore
accuses them of the inconsistency of approving it in one place, and condemning it in another. The same, however,
might as correctly be said of their declarations on infant salvation. According to Baptist rules of interpretation
the above passage excludes them all from heaven, for the want of faith: but another passage says, "Elect infants,
dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he
pleaseth." (w) They must believe these to be contradictions. Before our ecclesiastical constitution is condemned for
inconsistency among the many alledged faults of that transcendant production, let us try it by such sober rules as
practical wisdom has established for the interpretation of our civil laws. Blackstone says, "One part of a statute
must be so construed by another, that the whole may, (if possible) stand: [[ut res magis vahat, i( quam pertat]]"
According to this rule we can admit that the church is sincere in professing to believe that elect infants dying in
infancy, are saved without faith: and, in perfect consistency with this, they believe that faith, repentance, and
the diligent use of the means of grace; are necessary to the salvation of adults. In this way we reconcile the
declarations of our Saviour and one of his Apostles. Peter says, concerning the
__________
(M) Conf. of Faith, ch. x. sect. 3.
( 40 )
promise of salvation by the blood and Spirit of Christ, The promise is unto you and to your children." Doubtless
many of these children who died in infancy, were saved without faith. Yet our Savour says, "he that believeth not
shall be damned." This, then, must be understood of adults: ut res magis valeat quam pereat. So when our church or
other churches, or when Christian Fathers and Reformers, and ministers approve of baptizing infants without faith,
they are sincere: and they are no less so, when they affirm that faith is necessary to baptism; because they mean
this of adults; so that it is quite possible "that the whole may stand," Thus we explain the scriptures. When they
speak of the ecclesiastical or ceremonial holiness of children, and of circumcising and baptizing whole households
on the faith of the parent, when the infants cannot believe, we receive it as true: and it is no less true that they
often require personal piety as a qualification for baptism; because they often speak of adult subjects. This
interpretation is of such a character, that the whole may stand without contradiction; that the thing may have some
meaning, rather than perish, by inconsistency.
But my Opponent may tell me, ' this is the point 6 to be tried. Prove that the scriptures do consider ' infants as
suitable subjects of Christian baptism, and [[* we can easily prove that adults, are proper subjects; 6 and we may
possibly admit that the two may go together without inconsistency.' To prove that the scriptures do admit infants
to this ordinance, is the very thing which I hope soon to do: but before coming to this
( 41 )
point, it is necessary to declare what is meant by the scriptures, and what weight is to be given to them in this
controversy. With the Westminster Assembly, I can truly say that "Under the name of holy scripture, or the word of
God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testament," "all [[i( which are given by inspiration
of God, to be the rule of faith and life." (#) With them, I can conscientiously quote from the Old and New Testaments
to prove that "the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized." Yet would you believe that these very
words, for the proof of which they have referred to Genesis and Galatians, are in that same Chapter on Baptism,
which my Opponent quotes as denying the authority of the Old Testament in this controversy; merely because it is
there stated that Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ." ^) This my Opponent takes
as his text, and professes to build upon it as follows, viz: "I. We shall go to the New Testament, and not to the
Old, to ascertain the nature, design, and subject of this ordinance. 2. We shall appeal to the words of Jesus Christ,
for the institution of baptism, as our text says, it is an ordinance of Jesus Christ; we shall have nothing to do
with Moses in this matter, however useful he may be in others. No doubt our Opponent will feel his creed honored,
and will acquiesce in our method as correct." "In establishing the first point, that a believer is the only subject
of baptism."
__________
(i>) Chap. i. sect. 2,
(w) Ch, xxviii, sect. 1. 4.
( 42 )
I will, according to my text, appeal exclusively to the New Testament; and reason itself will justify me in this
particular; for who would go to the Old Testament to find an ordinance which is not in it, and which belongs
exclusively to the New?" (x}.
Whether this ordinance belongs exclusively to the New Testament, is a point which we are about to try. We are about
to see whether the words immediately preceding those which my Opponent has quoted are not also true. They are as
follows, viz. "The sacraments 66 of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things 66 thereby signified and
exhibited, were, for substance the same with those of the New." I agree with the authors of my Opponents text, that
this initiatory rite, is, in its present form, an ordinance of the New Testament; but I agree with them in believing
moreover, that in its substance, it is found in the Old Testament: and because it is there undeniably administered
to infants, therefore the opposers of infant baptism are too apt to reject the authority of the Old Testament.
Consider well the following words of my Opponent, in the prospectus of one of his publications. "The Editor
acknowledging no standard of religious faitli or works, other than the Old and New Testaments, and the latter as the
only standard of the religion of Jesus Christ, will, intentionally at least, oppose nothing which it contains, and
recommend nothing which it does not enjoin/' As it is the new Testament only, which he will not intentionally oppose,
we are left to infer that he will
__________
(-r) See Campbell's Spurious Debate, pp. 57,58.
( 43 )
intentionally oppose the Old Testament, as he most assuredly does. But this he thinks justifiable, since it is not
the standard, in whole nor in part, of the Christian religion, but of some other religion; what this other religion
is, he may yet tell us.
In rejecting the authority of the Old Testament, my Opponent only follows ,his instructor, the celebrated disciple
of Dr. Priestley. Robinson quotes with approbation, the error of the Massalians, who "thought the Old Testament a
true history, but not a rule of Christian action." The same thing he observes concerning the Manicheans; and then
asks, "Who doth not see the justness of this sentiment?'' He then observes that 6< the Fathers, particularly the
Africans derived all the errors that founded and supported their hierarchy [that is, they derived Pedobaptism] from
the Old Testament." These observations belong to nine quarto pages, which the American Editor has left out in one
place; because, in them, Robinson comes out as the advocate of Manicheism, Socinianism, and every filthy thing which
he can lay his hands on. (y) If he be really sincere, in saying that the African Fathers derived all their errors,
as he calls them, from the Old Testament, then he must consider the Old Testament the worst book that was ever
written, not even the Westminster Confession excepted: for he evidently considers the African Fathers the worst men,
and their system the worst religion, that can be found on earth, or (I might say) in hell; but this great Baptist
champion did not believe that there was a hell.
__________
(y~) London Kdition, pp 204 213.
( 44 )
After rejecting one half of God's word, Robinson and his Soeinians came very naturally to despise th other half,
and to throw contempt upon the external means of grace in general. Pious Baptists of the present day are not,
perhaps, aware that this has been very much the character of their sect from the beginning. This arose in some
measure, from their opposition to original sin, and having too good an opinion of themselves. Stapfer says, concerning
them, "Because they who had attained the highest grade of perfection and sanctity, no longer needed the external
means of grace; hence they set no great value upon the use of the sacred scriptures, and they deny that the reading
of the Old Testament especially is useful to men of their society, either that the doctrine of truth may be known,
or the study of piety promoted." (2)
Such sentiments as these, whether in Baptists or Pedo-baptists, are essentially wrong. An inspired Apostle of the
New Testament says concerning the scriptures of the Old Testament, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness." (?) If we were
discussing the question of infidelity instead of Christian baptism, I would, of course, endeavour to prove the
divine authority of the Scriptures. At present we shall have to take this for granted. Whatever can be proved from
the inspired volume, I shall consider as well proved; and none but an infidel will say otherwise. Indeed the latitude
which
__________
(z) Institutions of Polemic Theology, ch. xviii. sect. 10. (c)2 Tim. iii. if.
( 45 )
I take is embraced in that very rule which my Opponent has quoted with so much applause, concerning the interpretation
of one part of scripture by another. It is also contemplated in another passage quoted from the same excellent work,
which declares the scriptures, in regard to all essentials, sufficiently plain even to the unlearned, "in a due use
of the ordinary means." (6) It is to the unlearned, chiefly, that the argument of an unlearned man is now addressed.
To their satisfaction I hope to shew, that the scriptures consider infants as suitable, though not exclusive subjects
of Christian baptism. This proposition is based upon divine command and Apostolical practice.
ARGUMENT I.
DIVINE COMMAND.
On the authority of God, in relation to baptism, Booth quotes a very precious sentiment of the great Cartwright, the
Father of the Puritans. "As the salvation of men ought to be dear unto us; so the glory of God, which consisteth in
that his orders be kept, ought to be much more dear." A holy zeal for observing and enforcing all God's commandments,
out of regard to their Author, is a lovely Christian grace: but as my Opponent has just now observed that "all things
in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all," (c) our zeal must be accompanied with
knowledge, or it
__________
(d) See our Confession of Faith, ch. i. sect. 7. 9. quoted in the Spurious Report, pp. 56. 57. (c) Spurious Report, p. 56,
( 46 )
will degenerate into bigotry, or be converted into rebellion. My Opponent seems to think that nothing but what he
calls an express command can authorize the baptism of infants; as if God had no right to claim obedience to any law
which was not framed according to my Opponent's directions. Even if the scriptures were to use the very words,
baptize infants, or baptize children, it would not answer the purpose; because, according to the criticisms with
which his Master, Robinson, has furnished him, infants and children, and all such words, signify men and not babes.
As such an express command would be unavailing, we do not think it disparaging to the solid evidence which the
scriptures contain, to say, that this evidence does not satisfy his demands. In my opinion, that person shews a
divine command for our system, who proves that God once gave to the church a command, yet unrepealed, to administer
to infants that initiatory seal of which baptism is the New Testament form; who proves that this is included in the
command to disciple all nations, baptizing them; and in the declaration that children are holy; and should be
suffered to come to Christ the Head of the Church, because they are of the kingdom of heaven, which is the church.
He who shall prove these, shews a. divine command, although it is not what my Opponent calls an express command.
Neither is this necessary. in matters of doctrine or practice, government or worship. It is well known that Socinians
deny that there is an express revelation of the doctrine of a Trinity in Un ty, because these words are not in the
bible in this connexion: yet if it
( 47 )
can be proved from the bible that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God, and that
these are not three Gods but one God, the doctrine is more firmly established than it would be by the express words,
Trinity in Unity. They also deny the vicarious satisfaction of Christ for the same reason: yet if it can be shewn
that he was cut off for sins not his own, and this to magnify God's law and make it honorable, the doctrine is as
fully proved as if the atonement had been expressly defined by the words vicarious satisfaction. There is not in the
scriptures, an express prohibition of duelling nor of lotteries, nor of gaming of any sort; nor is there an express
license for eating swine's flesh; neither is there any need of such express statutes, for the scriptures are plain
enough without them. Where do the Baptists get an express command for their independent form of Church government?
When they will shew us a text saying, Ye shall be Independents, and not Presbyterians, then 1 will shew one which
says expressly, Ye shall be Pedobaptists, and not Anabaptists. Where do pious Baptists find an express command for
the observance of family prayer and the Christian sabbath, which they love, and my Opponent despises? They would as
soon look for an express command for drawing their breath: and rather than relinquish their domestic and sabbatical
privileges, they would, like Daniel, give up their breath.
On this subject my Opponent was completely posed by Mr. Walker, his former Antagonist. My Opponent asked him, "Was
there ever a positive ordinance or institution founded solely upon inference or reason?"
( 48 )
In reply, Mr. Walker, on his part asked, "Have we a positive command for all the acknowledged institutions of the
church?"' This was a true Socratic refutation. It was so puzzling to my Opponent, that he chose not to record it in
his report of the Debate; but, in its place, he recorded (according to a custom of his another question which he
manufactured for Mr. Walker, and which he thought he could more easily answer. The question which he made, is this;
"I ask him for a positive command for the institution of a church.'' One would suppose that, as he had the forming of
the question and the answer too, he would make the latter come up, at least, to the level of his own demands. But
this he was very far from doing. You know that he will not allow any passage of scripture to be a divine command for
infant baptism unless it has the word infant in it. It is also a sine qua non with him that it should have the word
baptism in it. When Mr. Walker quoted authorities which were destitute of these words, my Antagonist indignantly
answered as follows, viz. "Is it possible that my Opponent has no better support for his system? Is he obliged to
prove a New Testament positive institution from the 17th Chapter of Genesis? from portions of scripture in which
baptism is never mentioned? In all the scriptures he has yet adduced, baptism is not so much as once mentioned." (d)
Now let us see whether he has come up to his own demands in answering his own question, which he intended to make
very easy. If a divine command for the
__________
(d) Spurious Debate with Mr. Walker, p. 23.
( 49 )
baptism of infants require the express mention of baptism and infants [[^ then an express command for the institution
of a church must at least mention the words institution and church. He sets about his answer with the bravery of
Napoleon, when entering Moscow. He refers us to the passage where our Saviour commands his disciples to teach or
disciple all nations, baptizing them, and teaching them to observe all things, (e) This is, like Mr. Walker's
authority for infant baptism, very good proof, but, like that, it is utterly destitute of those words which his
Opponent considered necessary to constitute it an express command. Mr. Walker might, therefore, have answered, "Is
it possible that my Opponent has no better support for his system? Is he obliged to prove the institution of a church
from the 28th chapter of Matthew? from portions of scripture in which neither institution nor church is ever
mentioned?"
But he quotes another passage which has the word church, though it does not speak of its original institution, nor
propound a command, but states a historical fact, that "The Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."
(f) This he triumphantly closes with declaring, "Here there is a positive institution of a church, with the authority
for it." We are not so much disposed to quarrel with this declaration as he is himself. Let us now compare his
question with his answer, and with the rules which he has dictated in relation to such subjects. His question
requires "a positive
__________
(e) Matt xxviii. 19, 20. in the Spurious Debate with Mr. W. p. 51 ,
(f) Acts ii. 47. in the Spurious Debate with Mr. W. p. 51,
( 50 )
command for the institution of a church." His answer states a historical fact, in which members were added to a
church, without any express mention either of its charter or of its original institution. It seems peculiarly
inconsistent for him to call this historical fact, (without a precept,) "a positive institution of a church/' in the
close of a paragraph, which commences by defining a positive institution to be a particular precept. His own words
are these, viz. "In positive institutions, all that we have to inquire after, is the meaning of the words of one
particular precept, which, to an iota, we 66 are bound to perform, in the manner in which it is commanded." Now,
I would ask, has Mr. Walker's Opponent ever yet given us his "one particular precept, which, to an iota," expressly
gives "a positive command for the institution of a church," in so many words, according to his own requisitions, and
according to his own promise? If, then, he has not answered his own question, which he intended to make as easy as
possible, it is no wonder that he has never answered Mr. Walker's question, "Have we a positive command for all the
acknowledged institutions of the church?"
Let it be remembered that this question of Mr. Walker's was connected with one or two of his Opponent's, which asked,
"Was there ever a positive ordinance or institution founded solely upon inference or reason? Or can there be a
positive institution, with out a positive precept or precedent authorizing it." (g) These questions are framed
with an unfairness, which
__________
(g) Spurious Debate with Mr. W. p, 68.
( 51 )
says little in favour of their author's candour or of his cause. Have we ever professed that infant-baptism was '
founded solely upon inference or reason?" Have we not always appealed to positive precepts and precedents of
revelation for our authority? Neither do I see the danger of admitting, in the established meaning of the words,
his favourite principle that u a limited commission implies a prohibition of such things as are not contained in
it." (h) We say that infant-baptism is contained in the commission, and therefore not prohibited by it: and we prove
this in the same reasonable and scriptural way in which our Opponents prove the duty of female-communion. They do
not find a passage of scripture which says expressly, "Females must commune;" yet they find evidence that Christ's
believing disciples should commune? they therefore admit to that privilege such females as answer that description.
This is a legitimate inference from authority which contains no express mention of females. Suppose a person
inquiring whether the scriptures forbid him to demand from his brother a hundred per centum, per annum, interest on
lent money. He is referred to Nehemiah v. 11, which forbids him to receive the centesima, which is one per cent, a
month, or twelve per cent, a year. This does not expressly mention the ratio in question: yet it as really forbids
that exorbitant usury, as it could do by mentioning the identical words. This is according to my Opponent's
declaration, "that a man is not to reason whether he is to be just or honest; but he may reason
__________
(h) Spurious Debate with Walker, p. 209. with M'Calla, p. 1H.
( 52 )
to know in what justice and honesty consist." Thus he does not consider himself at liberty to reason whether
believing disciples should commune or not, for this is settled by revelation; but he may reason to know in what
faith and discipleship consist. This course my Opponent pursues, but he knows the consequences of it, as is evident
from the declamatory vituperation with which his argument is bloated. In his spurious debate with Mr. Walker, (i) he
uses the following words, viz. As to his second query concerning female communion, I have to observe that although
sundry Pedobaptists have made a salvo to soothe their minds, of this apparent difficulty, it is a poor and a pitiful
come off; it is the most puerile and childish retort that I ever heard used by adults that had any knowledge of
words and et things. Was the Lord's supper instituted to men or women as such? Was it not appointed to the disciples
of Christ? * He gave it to his disciples, saying, partake ye all of it.' Here then is an express warrant for all
disciples to participate of the Lord's supper. Now it puts Mr. Walker, and all Pedobaptists that humble themselves
to such means to support their cause, to prove or to show, that a woman is not a disciple of Christ. But should they
attempt this, I have express authority to shew that they oppose the oracles of heaven, for a woman is expressly
called a disciple, Acts ix. 36. ' For there was a certain disciple there named Tabitha;' so that these obstacles
thrown in my [[^ way, are but means to afford a clearer and fuller illustration
__________
(i) Spurious Debate with Mr, Walker, p. 50, (y) p, 69,
( 53 )
and confirmation of the truth of my reasoning on positive institutions."
My reasoning on positive institutions"!!! So it seems that Pedobaptists are not the only ones who reason on positive
institutions. You have just now heard a specimen of my Opponent's reasoning on these subjects. It would be well if
all his reasonings were as correct as that which supports female communion, for which he is not able to find what he
calls an express command. His pretending that Mr. Walker is opposed to this argument is pretence only. He knows that
we admit his inference as legitimate; but he knows also, that the same argument about discipleship will establish
infantbaptism. In our Saviour's commission, "teach all nations, baptizing them," critics generally interpret the
word rendered teach, as meaning disciple, or make disciples of. My Opponent says, "This is unquestionably the proper
rendering of the term." (j) Pedobaptists have often proved, and, in due time, I hope to prove, in this debate, that
the scriptures recognize the discipleship not only of Tabitha, or of Lydia, but of their households, and of the
infants of all believers. And here it will not do to object that if infants are disciples, they must partake of the
supper also, on account of a supposed universality in our Saviour's command to his disciples, "Partake ye all of it."
So far is this command from requiring us to administer the supper to disciples of all ages, that it does not bind
us to administer it to adult believing disciples universally, since the discipline of Christ's
__________
(l) Spurious Debate with me, p 113.
( 54 )
own appointment sometimes cuts them off from this privilege.
But while my Opponent may be marshalling objections, I would remind him that his own argument, which is admitted to
be good, is liable to as serious objections as any which he urges against ours. When we give divine authority for
the administration of the seal of the righteousness of faith to infant disciples as well as adult believers, he
objects that circumcision never was the seal of the righteousness of faith in any case except that of Abraham only,
because the only instance in which this expression is used is in connexion with his name. If this mode of expounding
the scriptures be admitted, how will my Opponent's argument for female communion fare in the hands of a bold objector?
Recollect that it rests upon female discipleship, and female discipleship, according to my Opponent, rests upon the
discipleship ofTabitha. The objector, therefore, would take my Opponent on his own ground, and say> As circumcision
was a seal of the righteousness of faith to Abraham only, and to no other male, so discipleship was attached to
Tabitha only, and to no other female!!
Again; when we say, T/* disciples should be baptized, and?/ the infants of believers are disciples, then these
infants should be baptized, my logical Opponent laughs at our ifs, and would make you believe that sound logic
does not recognize hypothetical syllogisms at all! Yet, strange to tell! his boasted argument for female communion
is virtually a hypothetical syllogism. It is as follows:
( 55 )
If disciples should commune; and
if females be disciples, then
Females should commune: but
Disciples should commune; and
Females are disciples; therefore
Females should commune.
Now in all this, where is my Opponent's express command for female communion? His vapouring argument does not even
assert it: but only says that he has an express warrant for all disciples to participate of the Lord's supper;"
after which he has to shew that females are disciples. So we have an express warrant for baptizing disciples; and
we prove from scripture that believers and their infants are subjects of this discipleing and baptizing. When my
Opponent pursues this method of reasoning to establish the duty and privilege of fetfiale communion, he would think
it a breach of the ninth commandment, for any one to tell him that he held "a positive ordinance or institution,
founded solely upon inference or reason," "without a positive precept." His argument proves that there is a divine
precept, though not what he calls an express command. He proves that the duty in question is not founded solely
upon reason, but upon revelation. That there is the same authority for infant-baptism, must be fairly concluded from
the establishment of the following propositions.
1. Abraham and his seed were divinely constituted a visible church of God.
2. The Christian Church is a branch of the Abrahamic Church: or, in other words, the Jewish Society before
( 56 )
Christ, and the Christian Society after Christ, are one and the same Church, in different dispensations.
3. Jewish Circumcision before Christ, and Christian Baptism, after Christ, are one and the same seal in substance,
though in different forms.
4. The administration of this seal to infants was once enjoined by divine authority; that is, God once commanded it.
5. The administration of this seal to infants has never since been prohibited by divine authority; that is, this
command of God, originally given in the Old Testament, is not repealed in the New Testament, but rather confirmed.
Therefore, this command is still in force. And as it is a command to administer to infants the initiatory seal of
the church, which, under the Christian dispensation, is baptism, there is now a divine command for baptizing the
infants of believers. Admit the premises, and the conclusion is inevitable. Whether these propositions be loved or
feared, hated or revered, derided or respected, they necessarily involve the conclusion. Logic may exhibit its
sophistry, rhetoric its rage, satire its wit, and vulgarity its scurrility, but if these premises be true,
infant-baptism is a duty. My Opponent knows that if he were to admit the truth of these propositions, he would lose
his cause at once. He therefore disputes them; and I therefore, with a good conscience, and depending on divine help,
proceed to prove them.
|
