It is argued, that if it be the duty of godly parents to baptize their children, it must be the duty of ungodly parents to do the same, for their impiety cannot discharge them from their duty to their Creator. But this is to confound two things perfectly distinct, viz. duty and privilege; or rather the obligation to duty with the performance of it. Thus it is the duty of all men to believe the Gospel, but no one will say that they all comply with this command; it is the duty of all to love God, but the carnal mind is enmity against God. Again, when any privilege is conferred as the result of obedience, it is necessarily sup posed that the obedience be rendered, in order to prove our right to the privilege; and that baptism is such a privilege we have endeavoured to show. It is the duty of all men to obey the dying command of Christ, but only those who have faith to discern the Lord's body have a scriptural warrant to observe the Lord's Supper. And so of all other duties. It is further argued, that, by resting the right of baptism on the visible profession of the parents, we build on a very precarious foundation; for it is possible that the parent may, in a short time, apostatise from the faith, and then the baptism of the child becomes null and void. But we are not accountable for events which we cannot foresee; all that we require is, satisfactory evidence of faith at the time, and if proper care were taken to ascertain the sincerity of such profession, before admitting the individual to church privileges, such instances would be comparatively rare. The child, indeed, loses the benefits of domestic instruction, by the apostacy of his parent, but we do not see why the ordinance itself should prove a mere nullity; for, although the parent be excluded from the communion of the church, that society may still exercise a watchful care over the children, and supply, by other means, the want of family inspection; and the children themselves may be reminded of the obligation resting on them to devote themselves to the Lord, and may be very properly warned not to imitate the conduct of their parents, lest they also fall through the same example of unbelief. The same thing may happen, when the ordinance of baptism is administered to adults, on a personal profession of faith. They, too, may apostatise from the truth, but this does not render their baptism invalid; for, on their giving evidence of repentance, they are again restored to the communion of the church, without being required to submit to the ordinance a second time. In either case, if the individuals baptized have the thing signified, their baptism is not invalidated by the incidental irregularity in the administration of the outward sign. The same remark applies to the case of persons who have been refused baptism in their infancy, on the ground of the ignorance or immorality of their parents, being afterwards admitted into pædobaptist churches with out any inquiry whether their parents were believers or not at the time of their baptism. The reason is, that these churches recognise the rite of baptism as valid when administered in any Protestant church, although they may disapprove of the indiscriminate manner in which it is observed. They see no warrant for repeating the ordinance when once administered according to the words of the original institution; this would virtually be to unchurch all other communions but their own; but this is no reason for their voluntarily admitting the same irregularities into their own practice. There are other serious objections to the principle of indiscriminate baptism. In the first place, in almost all Christian communities, British and foreign, where pædobaptism is observed, it is administered on the assumption that one or both parents are members of the church. This fundamental principle is recognised by all, however much particular churches, from laxity of discipline, may deviate from it in practice. But, 2ndly, By the practice alluded to, a distinction is recognised between the ordinance of baptism and the ordinance of the Supper, which the Scriptures do not authorise. When a parent brings his child for baptism to a minister, he is either a member of the church or he is not. If he be in fellowship with any other denomination, why does he not seek his religious privileges in the church to which he belongs? If he be in connexion with no visible society, why should he seek baptism for his child while he himself is living in the neglect of the Lord's Supper? Is the one ordinance more binding than the other, or do they require a different standard of Christianity? Is not such a practice calcu lated to make them attach a superstitious reverence to the ordinance of the Supper, some children, and not all; that there is the same security for the religious character of the children of the ungodly as for that of the children of believers; i. e. none at all; and they would ask nothing more than the admission of this fact to prove the unscriptural nature of the practice. And we can only meet them successfully, by denying the alleged fact vileges and promises belonging to the children of believers as such; and that, in the ordinary course of things, if we "train up a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not depart from it." On this ground we admit the children of believers to baptism, because there is a moral certainty that they shall be instructed to " keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment." With regard to others, we have no such security, and, therefore, we consistently withhold from them the privilege in question. which they think they honour by abstaining from altogether? Does it not countenance a glaring inconsistency in their profession, and help to foster that popular prejudice respecting baptism, as if it were merely a ceremony to be observed in giving a child a name? I can conceive of only one or two cases where such a practice can be at all sanctioned, A parent may be situated in a part of by showing that there are special prithe country where he has no opportunity of holding fellowship with any church whose principles he can approve. In that case he may apply to a minister at a distance to baptize his child, who, if satisfied of his Christian character, might lawfully comply with his request; or a Christian parent may be unjustly expelled from the communion of a church by the influence of a faction raised against him, without any fault of his own. In this case his children might still be baptized by a neighbouring minister; for his excommunication, under such circumstances, is a mere nullity. There is only another case which I can suppose likely to happen. A parent may be conscientiously attached to the Established Church, but he may disapprove of the character or doctrine of his own clergyman, or he may object to some ceremony practised in administering the ordinance in his own church-as, for instance, to the sign of the cross in the Church of England; and he may prefer, on these accounts, having his child baptized by a dissenting minister; but even in that case the minister enjoys a favourable opportunity of setting before him the inconsistency of remaining in a church where such abuses are tolerated, and of pressing upon him the duty of consistent separation from the world. Should he fail to convince him, he might then administer the ordinance, if satisfied with regard to the personal piety of the individual. To all others I would say, "How long halt ye between two opinions? If Christ be Lord, follow him." 3dly. By baptizing the children of those who give no evidence of sincere faith, we countenance the indiscriminate admission of all characters to communion, and lay ourselves open to the charge of temporizing with the world for the sake of secular advantage. 4thly. By the practice alluded to, the pædobaptists furnish the opponents of infant-baptism with their most plausible and effective arguments. They tell us, we are inconsistent in baptizing only It may be thought that, by acting on this principle of discrimination, we should drive many from our places of worship, and greatly thin the number of our hearers; and the persons thus dealt with might be induced to abandon the means of grace altogether, or to join unscriptural communions. Even allowing that these consequences would follow, the question we have to consider is,-Are we acting agreeably to the will of God? Does the Scripture authorise this distinction? Then, whatever injury it may cause to our temporal interest, it is our duty and our privilege, as conscientious Dissenters, patiently and cheerfully to submit to it. But there is no fear that any such evils would ensue. We may indeed offend some individuals, by withholding a privilege to which they have been formerly admitted; but, if they be candid persons, they will learn to respect our conscientious scruples; they may be led to examine the defects in their own character and profession, and to act more decidedly; they will be induced to investigate the grounds of dissent more thoroughly, and if satisfied that they are agreeable to the word of God, as we believe them to be, they will be led at once to give them their support; and thus the cause of dissent, instead of being a loser, will be materially strengthened by the adherence of those, who, on the present system, occupy a sort of border territory. Churches would become more efficient and independent by the withdrawment of those who, without any settled principles, interfere with the management of their affairs, and act as a moral incubus upon them; and the reasons of separation would be rendered more palpable to the world, by the increased purity which the churches would exhibit, when freed from all foreign admixtures. Nor would the attendance at our places of worship be ultimately lessened; the people will continue to attend where the Gospel is most faithfully preached; if they can no longer act as a component part of the body, they will be satisfied to seek religious privileges in their own church, and, among the Dissenters, be content to rank simply as hearers; and they will see that, in confining these privileges to those who are strictly in our own communion, we only act on a principle which is recognised throughout all the depart ments of the Christian church. Nor is there much danger that such persons will be driven from the means of grace; having acquired the habit of attending a place of worship, they will feel the necessity of attending somewhere: and if they cannot hear the Gospel in their own church, they will soon find their way back to the meeting-house, where they know they will at least enjoy that privilege, if they should be denied every other.-Evangelical Magazine. PÆDOBAPTISTS, those who baptize children; from #ais, a child, and BaTiCw, to baptize. Under the word Baptist, will be found a general statement of the argument, in support of the exclusive baptism of adults. Under this article we shall state the leading arguments in support of infant-baptism. The controversy is almost boundless in the range which it has taken, and would seem to be interminable. On both the subject and the mode, pædobaptists differ totally with those of the opposite persuasion. As to the subject, they believe that qualified adults, who have not been baptized before, are certainly proper subjects; but, then, they think also that the infants of such are not to be excluded. They believe that, as the Abrahamic and the Christian covenants are the same, Gen. xvii. 7; Gal. iii. 17; that as children were admitted under the former; and that as baptism is now a seal, sign, or confirmation of this covenant, infants have as great a right to it as the children had a right to the seal of circumcision under the law, Acts ii. 39; Rom. iv. 11. That if children are not to be baptized because there is no positive command for it, for the same reason women should not come to the Lord's Supper; we should not keep the first day of the week, nor attend public worship, for none of these are expressly commanded; that if infant-baptism had been a human invention, how would it have been so universal in the first 300 years, and yet no record left when it was introduced, nor any dispute or controversy about it? Some bring it to these two ideas: 1. That God did constitute in his church the membership of the infants of professed believers, and admitted them to it by a religious ordinance, Gen. xvii.; Gal. iii. 14. 17.2. That this right of infants to church membership was never taken away. This being the case, infants must be received, because God has instituted it; and, since infants must be received, it must be either without baptism or with it; but none must be received without baptism, therefore, infants must of necessity be baptized. Hence it is clear that, under the Gospel, infants are still continued exactly in the same relation to God and his church, in which they were originally placed under the former dispensation. That the infants of such as profess the faith are to be received into the church, and as such baptized, is also inferred from the following passages of Scripture: Gen. xvii.; Is. xliv. 3; Matt. xix. 13; Luke ix. 47, 48; Mark ix. 14; Acts ii. 38, 39; Rom. xi. 17. 21; 1 Cor. vii. 14. Though there are no express examples in the New Testament of Christ and his apostles baptizing infants, yet this is no proof that they were excluded. Jesus Christ actually blessed little children; and it would be hard to believe that such received his blessing, and yet were not to be members of the Gospel church. If Christ received them, and would have us receive them in his name, how can it be reconciled to keep them out of the visible church? Besides, if children were not to be baptized, it would have been expressly forbidden. None of the Jews had any apprehension of the rejection of infants, which they must have had, if infants had been rejected. As whole households were baptized, it is probable there were children among them. From the year 400 to 1150, no society of men, in all that period of 750 years, ever pretended to say it was unlawful to baptize infants: and still nearer the time of our Saviour there appears to have been scarcely any one that so much as advised the delay of infant baptism. Irenæus, who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with Polycarp, who was John's disciple, declares expressly that the church learned from the apostles to baptize children. Origen, in the third century, affirmed that the custom of baptizing infants was received from Christ and his apostles. Cyprian, and a council of ministers (held about the year 254), no less than sixty-six in number, unanimously agreed that children might be baptized as soon as they were born. Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years from the apostles, declares that the baptism of infants had been the practice of the apostles themselves, and of the church, till that time. The Catholic church everywhere declared, says Chrysostom, in the fifth century, that infants should be baptized; and Augustin affirmed that he never heard nor read of any Christian, Catholic, or sectarian, but who always held that infants were to be baptized. They further believe, that there needed no mention in the New Testament of receiving infants into the church, as it had been once appointed, and never repealed. The dictates of nature, also, in parental feelings; the verdict of reason in favour of privileges; the evidence in favour of children being sharers of the seals of grace, in common with their parents, for the space of 4000 years; and especially the language of prophecy, in reference to the children of the Gospel church, make it very probable that they were not to be rejected.. So far from confining it to adults, it must be remembered that there is not a single instance recorded in the New Testament, or in any ancient document, in which the descendants of Christian parents were baptized in adult years. That infants are not proper subjects for baptism, because they cannot profess faith and repentance, they deny. This objection falls with as much weight upon the institution of circumcision as infantbaptism; since they are as capable, or are as fit subjects for the one as the other. It is generally acknowledged, that, if infants die (and a great part of the human race do die in infancy), they are saved: if this be the case, then, why refuse them the sign in infancy, if they are capable of enjoying the thing signified?" Why," says Dr. Owen, "is it the will of God that unbelievers should not be baptized? It is because, not granting them the grace, he will not grant them the sign. If God, therefore, denies the sign to the infant seed of believers, it must be because he denies them the grace of it; and then all the children of believing parents (upon these principles) dying in their infancy, must, without hope, be eternally damned. I do not say that all must be so who are not baptized; but all must be so whom God would not have baptized." Something is said of baptism, it is observed, that cannot agree to infants: faith goes before baptism; and, as none but adults are capable of believing, so no others are capable of baptism; but it is replied, if infants must not be baptized because something is said of baptism that does not agree to infants, Mark xvi. 16, then infants must not be saved, because something is said of salvation that does not agree to infants, Mark xvi. 16. As none but adults are capable of believing, so, by the argument of the Baptists, none but adults are capable of salvation: for he that believeth not shall be damned. But Christ, it is said, set an example of adult baptism. True; but he was baptized in honour to John's ministry, and to conform himself to what he appointed to his followers; for which last reason he drank of the sacramental cup: but this is rather an argument for the pædobaptists than against them; since it plainly shows, as Doddridge observes, that baptism may be administered to those who are not capable of all the purposes for which it was designed; since Jesus Christ, not being a sinner, could not be capable of that faith and repentance which are said to be necessary to this ordinance. As to the mode. They believe that the word ВаTT signifies to dip or to plunge; but that the term BaTiCw, which is only a derivative of Barw, and consequently must be somewhat less in its signification, should be invariably used in the New Testament to express plunging, is not so clear. It is therefore doubted whether dipping be the only meaning, and whether Christ absolutely enjoined immersion, and that it is his positive will that no other should be used. As the word BaTiCw is used for the various ablutions among the Jews, such as sprinkling, pouring, &c. Heb. ix. 10; for the custom of washing before meals, and the washing of household furniture, pots, &c.; from this it is evident that it does not express the manner of doing, whether by immersion or affusion, but only the thing done; that is, washing, or the application of water in one form or other. Dr. Owen observes, that it no where signifies to dip, but as denoting a mode of, and in order to washing or cleansing; and, according to others, the mode of use is only the ceremonial part of a positive institute; just as in the supper of the Lord, the time of the day, the number and posture of communicants, the quality and quantity of bread and wine, are circumstances not accounted essential by any party of Christians. As to the Hebrew word Tabal, it is considered as a generic term; that its radical, primary, and proper meaning is, to tinge, to dye, to wet, wash, or the like; which primary design is effected by different modes of application. If in baptism also there is an expressive emblem of the descending influence of the Spirit, pouring must be the mode of administration; for that is the Scriptural term most commonly and properly used for the communication of divine influences. There is no object whatever in all the New Testament so frequently and so explicitly signified by baptism as these divine influences. Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8. 10; Luke iii. 16 to 22; John i. 33; Acts i. 5; ii. 38, 39; viii. 12. 17; xi. 15, 16. The term sprinkling, also, is made use of in reference to the act of purifying, Is. lii. 15; Heb. ix. 13, 14; Ezek. xxxvi. 25, and therefore cannot be inapplicable to baptismal purification. But it is observed that John baptized in Jordan: to this it is replied, to infer always a plunging of the whole body in water from this word, would, in many instances, be false and absurd: the same Greek preposition ev is used when it is said they should be baptized with fire; while few will assert that they should be plunged into it. The apostle, speaking of Christ, says, he came not (ev) by water only, but (ev) by water and blood. There the same word ev is translated by, and with justice and propriety, for we know no good sense in which we could say he came in water. And certainly, if any weight were to be attached to this passage, as indicating that our Lord was introduced to his ministry by immersion in water, it would equally follow, that it was terminated by an immersion in blood; which is con trary to fact. It has been remarked, that ev is more than a hundred times, in the New Testament, rendered at, and in a hundred and fifty others it is translated with. If it be rendered so here, "John baptized at Jordan,'' or with the water of Jordan, there is no proof from thence that he plunged his disciples in it. It is urged that John's choosing a place where there was much water is a certain proof of immersion. To which it is answered, that as there went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, that by choosing a place where there were many streams or rivulets, it would be much more expeditiously performed by pouring; and that it seems in the nature of things highly improbable that John should have baptized this vast multitude by immersion, to say nothing of the indecency of both sexes being baptized together. It is a striking fact, that though the Sabians or disciples of John the Baptist, who exist to this day in the East, go down into the river to receive the rite, it is not administered by immersion, but by sprinkling; and they affirm that the mode in which they baptize is precisely that which was used by John. See the article SABIANS. Jesus, it is said, came up out of the water; but this is said to be no proof of his being immersed, as the Greek term aro often signifies from; for instance, Who hath warned you to flee from, not out of, the wrath to come;" with many others which might be mentioned. So Again: it is said that Philip and the eunuch went down both into the water. To this it is answered, that here is no proof of immersion; for if the expression of their going down into the water necessarily includes dipping, then Philip was dipped as well as the eunuch. The preposition (eus), translated into, often signifies no more than to or unto. See Matt. xv. 24; Rom. x. 10; Acts xxviii. 14; Matthew xvii. 27; iii. 11. that, from all these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that there was a single person of all the baptized who went into the water ancle deep. As to the apostle's expression, buried with him in baptism," they think it has no force; and that it does not allude to any custom of dipping, any more than our baptismal crucifixion and death has any such reference.. It is not the sign |