OF

COLLEGE

REPLY

&i% of Infant baptism,

BY ROBERT BOYTE C. HOWELL, D.D., PASTOR OF THE SECOND BAPTIST CHURCH, RICHMOND, VA.

BY

Rev. l/ ioSSER, A. M.

OP THE VIRGINIA ANNUAL CONFERENCE.

" We must abhor the arrogancy of them that frame new engines to rack and tear the church of Christ, under the pretence of obviating errors and maintaining the truth. We must avoid the common con- fusion of speaking of those who make no difference between verbal aad real errors, and hate the spirit of those who tear their brethren as heretics before they understand them." — Baxter.

RICHMOND, VA.:

PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR.

1855.

^

«•.;

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1855, by L. ROSSER,

in the Gerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Virginia.

8TEBE0TTPED BY L. JOHNSON h CO. PHILADELPHIA,

In Exchange Dufca University

m 'i - 1^3^

PREFACE

After the work on Christian Baptism was pre- pared for the press, the treatise of Dr. Howell on the "Evils of Infant Baptism/' whose very title strikes every pious and candid mind with astonish- ment, fell into the author's hand^ and at first he resolved to take no special notice of it, as he be- lieved he had written all that was material or required to support the scriptural and rational doc- trine of Infant Baptism, and that, therefore, the refutation of the above treatise was already antici- pated ; but upon mature reflection, and some obser- vation, and from the apprehension that the Doc- tor's book, if unanswered, might produce real evil in various quarters, he resolved to give it a fair and impartial analysis, in the form of a Eeply.

We are most sincere in the opinion, that the 1* 5

6 PREFACE.

treatise before us contains some of the most erro- neous views of Infant Baptism, some of the most illogical arguments in support of those views, some of the most glaring inconsistencies and contradic- tions in argument, some of the most dogmatic and arrogant assumptions of truth, some of the most palpable evidences of ignorance of ecclesiastical history, some of the most painful perversions of the views of Paedo-baptist authors, some of the most uncharitable reflections on the piety and learning of the Paedo-baptist churches, some of the most insidious assaults upon the common cause of Christianity and the unity of the church, and (if its principles be legitimately applied) some of the most powerful arguments against the salvation of infants, we remember to have seen from the pen of any writer. Christian or infidel. The Doctor seems to have collected and concentrated in one '' bold '' and headlong enterprise against Infant Baptism, all that enthusiasm, exclusiveness and infatuation could furnish him, and, in the expres- sion of his opposition to Infant Baptism, to have used the stronsrest terms his knowled£!:e of the

PREFACE.

English language could suggest; unconscious or careless, in the use of such terms, of the suspicions which he casts upon the sincerity and piety of those he is pleased to call " friends ^^ and ^^ brethren/' I The manner in which he questions the sincerity and piety of his ^^ friends'^ and ^^ brethren^' fur- nishes them with ample ground on which to ques- tion his own — the doubts he expresses of their having found the '^ way of salvation'^ might justify them in doubting whether he has found it — though he has written something about it — the earnest solicitude which he proclaims in their behalf they can but ascribe to a morbid piety, or the effusion of sectarian zeal — and the rules by which he attempts to disprove the soundness of their opinions, are the very criteria by which they demonstrate the falseness and sophistry of his own.

In many works written by the Baptists against Infant Baptism, an approximation of error has often been made so near to the truth, that strong plausibility at first sight captivated the mind of the incautious reader, and so was confounded with

8 PREFACE.

sonnd argument — just as opposite colors in a painting, fading slowly and gradually from the highest intensity in either extreme, shade insensi- bly into each other, till it is impossible for the unskilful eye to designate the nice point or line where they meet and mingle. But a conspicuous and general characteristic of the treatise before us is, that the author introduces his arguments with a statement of general principles or truths, univer- sally admitted by evangelical churches, and then boldly strikes out his course from those truths, to which he never returns, and continues his progress step by step endlessly in the same line of diver- gence, just as a tangent, struck off from the curve, of which it is no part, to which it can never return, and from which it departs interminably.

To be more particular. He confounds (some- times with a skilful hand, but always in desperate confusion) the corruptions of heretical, with the orthodoxy of evangelical, churches — arguing illo- gically from the abuses of Infant Baptism in the former, to the evils of it in the latter — consider- ing it only as it has been involved in fanciful

PREFACE. 9

appendages and absurd ceremonies^ and made the occasion of numberless abuses since the days of the apostles — and omitting altogether to notice it in its original apostolic purity and simplicity, which is the only proper light in which to view it. This sophistical and unfair mode of treating the subject runs through his book from beginning to end, which the reader, with a little reflection, may detect in the very first pages, and so expect to find repeated on almost every succeeding page. Dr. Howell, as a Christian minister, may do good, but his book, in our judgment, can produce nothing but evil in his own church, and in other evangelical churches. With him as a Christian minister we have nothing to do — except in cer- tain inconsistencies which are so palpable that, for the sake of reason, they should be noticed, and in certain instances, his motives are so obvious that, in justice to our common Christianity, they should be exposed. But his book, published for the guidance and instruction of ^^the million,'^ and widely circulated by the indefatigable Bap- tistS; we shall arraign before that jurisdiction

10 PREFACE.

where a candid public alone must judge and decide.

It had been well for the general Church of God, and vastly promotive of the great interests of Christianity, in this exciting and sectarian age, in which so much of the strength of the evangeli- cal churches is wasted in family broils and contro- versies, had the Doctor imitated the example of Robert Hall, a liberal and learned Baptist of England, and expended his energy in noble efforts to instruct his brethren in the true terms of Chris- tian communion. But alas, the elegance and force with which Robert Hall attempted to effect this noble object, instead of producing in him the exercise of indulgent love towards his Protestant brethren, seems to have excited a painful appre- hension for the permanence of the Baptists as a separate Christian sect, and probably roused him to write, on the one hand, his '' Terms of Sacra- mental Communion^' against Robert Hall, and on the other, his ^^ Evils of Infant Baptism'' against the Paedo-Baptists. In the former case, his design obviously is, to establish the dogma of ^^ close

PREFACE. ll

communion ;^^ in the latter, the dogma of ^^ exclu- sive immersion /' in both, to vindicate the Baptist church as the only true church on earth — not perceiving, doubtless, that the want of charity, in each instance, is ominous of failure in both adven- tures. With the first leisure we shall write an extensive treatise on Open Communion, which we have been requested to do by an intelligent friend, and which the times require. On the subject of Christian Baptism, we have already written, and leave that subject to ablel' hands. It remains for us to repel the charges, and correct the misrepre- sentations, in the ^^ Evils of Infant Baptism,^' to which we now invite the consideration of the reader.

L. K.

Norfolk Citt, Va., December 28, 1854.

*?

REPLY.

We Bhall not proceed with a formal statement chapter by chapter, but merely state and consider the arguments in the order in which the Doctor has arranged them successively in his treatise.

The title or proposition of the whole treatise, '' The Evils of Infant Baptism/^ under which the Doctor arranges twenty-one evils, is false in prin- ciple. He makes no distinction between that which is in itself good and that which is in itself evil, but confounds the one with the other, and this is the ground of all the false conclusions con- tained in his book. That which is good in itself may be abused, and the abuse only is an evil, while the subject of abuse continues good in itself as though it had not been abused in a single in- stance, and had been a blessing only and always to mankind. Life is a good in itself, and yet it is abused lamentably and fatally in a thousand ways. Liberty is a good in itself, and yet it is abused ; 2 (13)

0-

14 INFANT BAPTISM.

influence is a good in itself, and yet it is often abused ; knowledge is a good in itself, and yet it is oftener abused tban improved; the grace of God is a great good in itself; and yet many receive it in vain ; the Bible is a great good in itself, and yet many neglect it, and others ^^ wrest it to their own destruction /^ Christianity is a great good, and yet many pervert it to sectarian, political and worldly purposes; the sacraments of Christianity, the Lord's Supper and Baptism, are great bless- ings when properly observed, and yet many dese- crate them to the objects of selfishness and hypo- crisy; in a word, every thing in the world, good itself, in one form or other, has been abused by man. And so upon the mode of reasoning applied by Dr. Howell, we must conclude, that life, liberty, knowledge, influence, the grace of God, the Bible, Christianity, the sacraments, and all other things in the world, good in themselves, are evils, because they have been abused, or are liable to abuse. Indeed, God himself is the supreme, necessarily existing, and infinite good, and the source of all good in the universe and in eternity, and yet miserable angels and miserable men exist; so that^ if we adopt the Doctor's reasoning here, we " de- monstrate'^ that the infinite God is an infinite -evil ; a conclusion sufficiently absurd to demlh-

i

INFANT BAPTISM. 15

strate the supreme folly of his reasoning. It would be proper for the Doctor to prove that in- fant baptism is an evil in itself, and not an evil because of the abuses of which it has been made tjae occasion by corrupt men : by the latter process he can never prove it to be an evil in itself; the former he has not done. With this remark we introduce the subject of his book.

I. "Infant baptism is an evil. I hold myself bound to offer in this, and subsequent chapters, such proofs of its truth as shall be irrefutable. At present I shall show that infant baptism is an evil because it is unsupported by the Word of God'' (p. 1). This is his first argument, and if he has established this, his work is done, and well done, he need proceed no farther. But this he has not done, as we shall now see. As an "important preliminary to the argument,'^ he adverts to "the great Protestant principle : The Word of God is a perfect rule of faith ancj- practice'^ (p. 2). This great principle we most cordially adopt. If infant

^ baptism cannot bear the test of this principle, then we shall be compelled to renounce the doctrine. Here is the Doctor's method : "If infant baptism ■ instituted by God, it must be plainly taught in nis Word. The passages therefore which contain tl^ instructions can be produced. But no such

16 INFANT BAPTISM.

passages have ever yet been found. They never can be found. They do not exist'' (p. 6). He then concludes : " Then it is certain beyond que>^- tion, that infant baptism, since it is not enjoined, nor taught, nor authorized in any way, is unsup- ported by the Word of God'' (p. 7). But it has been proved, again and again, by Paedo-Baptists, that it is positively enjoined, and authorized, in many ways, in the Word of God ; and if it had not been so proved, a positive denial would be equivalent to the Doctor's affirmation. And as the Doctor says, ^^here, since this conclusion is irrefutable, we might safely close the argument" (p. 7), we reply, as our denial of the truth of the conclusion is a sufficient answer, we might here fairly close the review. But mere affirmations or denials are not arguments, and they always leave the question in discussion unsettled.

In the second argument, he calls attention to ^^ another fact," which" regards as ^^ equally sig- nificant with the preceding, namely: ^^that no two of the prevailing Paedo-Baptist sects can agree as to their reasons for infant baptism, the class of infants to whom baptism is to be given, or ^ testimony upon which rests their authority for ai ministering the ordinance to infants" (p. 7). And what of that ? some of them may be right, a^d

Id ^

INFANT BAPTISM. 17

others may be wrong, and he has not proved that all are wrong. Others may be right as far as they go, and yet may not go far enough ; and he has not proved that these are wrong as far as they go. Others may have contributed something in support of infant baptism, and he has not proved that what these have contributed is exceptionable, either in a rational or scriptural sense. Apply his rule of logic, and he overturns his own Church, for it is divided into a multitude of conflicting sects : apply his rule, and the dogma of '^ close communion^^ is proved to be ^^unsupported by the Word of God,^' for he and his followers differ from the accom- plished Robert Hall and his followers, in '^ the terms of communion,^^ as may be plainly seen in bis own treatise which he has written on this sub- ject. But this is not all. The Doctor, as is usual with men of his school, shamefully misrepresents the Psedo-Baptist authors whom he arrays against each other in support of his argument. '^ For illustration,^^ says he, ^^Wall and others of that i school, claim that Jewish proselyte baptism is the [ broad and ample foundation upon which it [infant l^jlpptism] rests'' (p. 7). They claim no such thing. Wall says, ^^Now this [proselyte baptism] gives f great light for the better understanding of the meaning of our Saviour, when he bids his apostles 2*

18 INFANT BAPTISM,

^ Go and disciple all nations^ and baptize them' '* (Hist. Inf. Bap., vol. 1, p. 21). Again: ^^The baptism, indeed, of the nations by the apostles ought to be regulated by the practice of John and of Christ himself (who by the hands of his disci- ples baptized many Jews), rather than by an}' preceding custom of the Jewish nation, if we had any good ground to believe that they did in the case of infants differ or alter anything from the usual way'' (Ibid. p. 27). Wall, then, presents the great commission, and the practice of the apostles, as the true ground of infant baptism. Indeed, he positively affirms that the New Testament fur- nishes authority for infant baptism. In his replj^ to Gale, he says : '' Of his untruths, I would be- forehand instance in one flagrant and manifest one (which, as I shall show, he has affirmed above twenty times over), his saying, I have in my book yielded and owned, that there is no Scripture proof for infant baptism; though near half his book is spent in refuting (as well as he can) those proofs which I brought from Scripture'' (Ibid., vol. 4, p. 66). And he observes: "I did bring many proofs from God's Word, which stand as m^ many evidences of the fiilsehood of this foul charge^ against me. I will refer to the places." And he f i mentions Matt. 28 : 19; John 3 : 3, 5; Col. 2

1

INFANT BAPTISM. 19

11, 12 ; Mark 10 : 13, &c. ; 1 Cor. 7 : 14. And he continues : ^^I had also, long before Mr. Gale wrote, published a little treatise on the question of infant baptism, wherein I insist chiefly and almost only on Scripture proof'' (Ibid., vol. 4, pp. 177, 178, 179. It is questionable whether Doctor Howell has ever read WalFs great work, ^^The History of Infant Baptism,'' and if he has, it is unquestionable, that he did not do it with candor. In like manner, he misrepresents ^^ Wesley and his disciples." ^^ Wesley and his disciples insist that children are unholy, and must be baptized to cleanse them from their defilements" (p. 7). And do not Doctor Howell and his brethren believe that children are unholy ? So far they agree with "Wesley and his disciples." But Mr. Wesley and his disciples insist that baptism, in the case of children, is typical of cleansing from their defile- ments, and positively deny that baptism is regene- ration, either in the case of infants or adults ; and so far the Baptists agree with them. Now, if these opinions of Mr. " Wesley and his disciples" are not "supported by the Word of God," then fthe opinions of the Baptists, including Doctor Howell himself, are not supported by the Word of God. But this is not all. Mr. Wesley has written an able treatise on baptism, in which he

20 INFANT BAPTISM.

mentions many passages of Scripture in support of infant baptism. JSfor is this all, even granting — whicli we do not — that Mr. Wesley did believe in infant baptismal regeneration, ^' his disciples/' as the Doctor is pleased to call the Methodists, do not, in England or America, believe in that bap- tismal dogma, as the Doctor himself must know, and so he is reprehensible for the groundless charge above; or being ignorant of their true opinions of infant baptism, he is guilty of that de- gree of presumprion which ignorance and dogma- tism alone can originate and foster. And so he misrepresents other evangelical divines. For in- stance, says he, " Burder, D wight, and their class, permit no other infants to be baptized, but those of Christian parents'' (p. 7). Granted; but then they permitted these to be baptized because they believed infant baptism to be scriptural, as their works abundantly show. He continues : '^ Baxter, Henry, and those of similar faith, baptize infants to bring them into the Covenant and Church of the Redeemer" (p. 7). Granted — but then in a sacramental sense; and so the Doctor baptizes adult believers ; and both have scriptural groundf for this, to say nothing of mode. Besides, the Doctor, on the 27th page of his book, presents Mr. Henry as saying, that Acts 2 : 39, "the promi.e

INFANT BAPTISM. 21

is unto you and your children/' is ^^the chief Scripture ground for infant baptism." What in- fatuation, then, is it to attempt to prove that in- fant baptism is "unsupported by the Word of Grod/' by adducing Paedo-Baptists who argue in support of infant baptism from the Word of God I The issue is between the Doctor and his Pgedo- Baptist authors, and hence before he can prove that infant baptism is an evil, he must refute the arguments of his opponents. But he continues : ^^ Many, however, ingenuously confess that they find no express authority for it, but believe the practice in consonance with ^the general spirit of religion,' and therefore adopt it. Thus contra- dictory and suicidal are the reasonings of Pgedo- Baptists on this subject'' (p. 8). Yery well, then, some believe the practice to be in consonance with the Bible, and so it is not in opposition to the Bible. But others affirm that there is express authority for the practice in the Bible ; and the others inferentially from the Bible ; and so both support it from the Bible. The " reasonings of Paedo-Baptists," therefore, are not "contradictory and suicidal on the subject^' of infant baptism, any more than positive and circumstantial testi- mony can be " contradictory and suicidal^' on any subject.

22 INFANT BAPTISM.

But the Doctor has another argument, ^' if pos- sible, still more conclusive/' namely, ^^ very many of the most learned and pious biblical critics, them- selves Paedo-Baptists, candidly confess that the practice of infant baptism is not directly enjoined in the Word of God'' (p. 9). And he adduces Luther, Calvin, Burnett, Hahn, Schleirmacher, Lange, Woods, Stuart, '^all distinguished di- vines," as having made the admission. Granted, and what then? Why these very authors, in a most elaborate and convincing manner, present aro-uments of an inferential and circumstantial nature, equivalent, indeed, to a positive scriptural injunction; and the Doctor, himself, will not deny, that often an inferential and circumstantial argument is equivalent to a positive demonstra- tion. And when the circumstantial arguments are added to the positive scriptural injunctions, adduced by other Paedo-Baptist authors, the prac- tice of infant baptism is supported and established by the mixed and harmonious evidence beyond all refutation. Indeed, any circumstance or fact of ecclesiastical history, in harmony with the circum- stantial and positive arguments drawn from Scrip- ture in favor of infant baptism, must contribute some force to the general evidence. Consequently, the conclusion of the Doctor — ^Hhe New Testa-

INFANT BAPTISM. 23

ment is therefore given up'^ (p. 9) — does not follow, because one class of supporters of infant baptism argue from the New Testament inferen- tially, and another class positively, and so the New Testament is made the ground of argumen- tation by both classes of Paedo-Baptists.

His reference to those authors who support in- fant baptism from the Old Testament is likewise unfortunate. He adduces certain ^^ profound^' writers as conceding that infant baptism cannot be supported from the Old Testament, and he men- tions Charnock, Starck, Augusti and Jeremy Tay- lor, and says, that ^^a hundred similar'^ witnesses " could, if it were necessary, be produced'^ (p. 10). Granted; but these very authors, all of them, defend . infant baptism upon New Testament ground and from ecclesiastical history, and so the universal conclusion of the Doctor, "the whole Bible is relinquished,^^ does not follow, because a universal conclusion, affirmative or negative, in the nature of things, cannot follow from a particu- lar premise. For instance, the Doctor cannot prove baptism, or immersion, if you choose, from the Old Testament; therefore baptism cannot be proved from the Bible, and so "the whole Bible is relinquished^' by the Baptists in defending their opinions of baptism. This is a fair application of

24 INFANT BAPTISM.

the use the Doctor makes of the concessions of certain P^o-Baptists, and to his mind at least must prove the absurdity of his conclusion against infant baptism. But this is not all. While cer- tain PaeJo-Baptists may concede that infant bap- tism cannot be supported in any manner from the Old Testament, they maintain that it can be sup- ported and established directly and indirectly from the Xew Testament, and directly from history; and others maintain that it can be supported ana- logically from the Old Testament, and directly and indirectly from the New Testament, and di- rectly from history; and so both classes maintain the doctrine of infant baptism from the Bible and from history. What, is not the New Testament a part, yea, the chief part of the Bible ? And thus a doctrine sustained from the New Testament is as well established as if it were supported likewise by every chapter in the Old Testament. But this is not all. The Doctor, in the first case, attempts to prove from the concessions of one class of Paedo- Baptists that infant baptism is not expressly en- joined in the New Testament, and so concludes that the New Testament is to be abandoned. But in this case he omits the analodcal aro^uments which this class draw from the Old Testament, as well as the positive and inferential arguments

IXF ANT BAPTISM. 26

which others deduce from the Xew Testament, in support of infant baptism. And ia the second case he attempts to prove, from the concessions of another class of Pa&do-Baptists, that infant bap- tism cannot be supported from the Old Testament, and so concludes that the Old Testament is to be abandoned. But in this case he omits the posi- tive and inferential arguments which this class deduce from the New Testament, as well as the analogical arguments which others draw from the Old Testament. That is, he makes the analogy of the Old Testament invalidate the substance of the New, and the positive and inferential argu- ments drawn from the 2sew Testament invalidate the analogical arguments drawn from the Old, while it is evident that analogy can never offset a positive truth, and that the positive and inferen- tial arguments of the New Testament, and the analogical arguments from the Old Testament, mutually support and strengthen each other, and so establish the general argument in favor of in- fant baptism. Analogy, inference, afcmation, all being in harmony, no matter by whom maintained, are enough to establish the truth of any doctrine. The fair and logical method the Doctor should have pursued is this. One class of his opponents abandoning the Old Testament in the argument, 3 "^

26 INFANT BAPTISM.

but maintaining their views upon inference from the New Testament, he should have thrown the Old Testament out of the discussion with them, and then have fairly met the issue of inference from the New Testament ; but while he has done the former, he has not attempted the latter, but placed the silence of the Old Testament against the inference from the New, which indeed leaves the inference from the New in full force. Again, another class conceding that infant baptism is not expressly enjoined in the New Testament, but maintaining that it is supported by inference from the New Testament, he should have thrown the concession out of the discussion with them, and then have fairly met the argument from inference ; but he has perverted the concession to an entire abandonment of the New Testament, which indeed still leaves the argument from inference in full force. Again, one class of his opponents conceding that infant baptism is not, and another affirming that it is, expressly enjoined in the New Testa- ment; he might have fairly placed these two classes, on the particular issue of positive injunc- tion, against each other, which in the general argu- ment is immaterial ; and this he has indeed done, which is immaterial ; but he has boldly gone far- ther, and placed the argument from inference

INFANT BAPTISM. 27

against tlie argument from positive injunction, when he should have proved that both are false, since if either be true, infant baptism must be cordially admitted, and if both be true, infant bap- tism is firmly established ; and so indeed he leaves both the argument from inference, and from posi- tive injunction, in full force. The Doctor's method is a novel and summary one, perfectly consistent with '^the task he has attempted to execute,^' but it is as illogical as it is novel, and inconclusive as it is summary, and must appear so to any candid and intelligent mind of ^' the million'' for whom he ^^ writes/'

But the Doctor has another argument, namely, '^ infant baptism is in truth actually prohibited by the Word of God" (p. 12). His argument is : '^ Is not infant baptism directly enjoined in the Word of God ? It confessedly is not. Then it is plainly prohibited." And this he attempts to support from Scripture. ^^ It is God who has said : ^ What thing soever I command you observe to do it. Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it.' " Stop my candid reasoner; is this a specific prohibition of infant baptism ? This command is from the Old Testament, and referred to the regu- lation of the Jewish government, moral and cere- monial. But will the Doctor maintain that this

28 INFANT BAPTISM.

command enjoins observance of the old Jewish ceremonial law now ? Certainly not ; then the supreme Law-giver himself has annulled this in- junction so far as it once referred to ceremonial obedience. And it remains for the Doctor to prove that God has not enjoined infant baptism in the New Testament; which, we affirm, he has done. And just here it is worthy of observation, that as God associated infants with the Jewish church, and in the above ^^ command'^ enjoined that their right be ^^ observed,^^ in circumcision, the formal seal of association with his church, under the Jewish dispensation 3 and as he has not excluded infants from his church, the above '' command'^ still enjoins that this right be observed in baptism, the formal seal of association with his church, under the Christian dispensation. And so in fact, the very Scripture the Doctor adduces against in- fant baptism, is a strong vindication of the doc- trine. So much for the first consideration of the Doctor. And he has a second.

" Infant baptism is prohibited by a second con- sideration, the apostolic commission — ^ Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved. ^ This law is plain and definite. Every positive has its negative. A law to baptize

INFANT BAPTISM. 29

believers necessarily prohibits the baptism of all others than believers. Infants are not believers. Therefore the law prohibits the baptism of infants^^ (pp. 12, 13). This argument of the Doctor is fal- lacious for three reasons. First, it is a particular proposition, referring only to the believer. But infants cannot believe, therefore it does not refer to them, and so cannot prohibit baptism in their case. Secondly, his argument proves too much, and so falls to the ground. Thus : " every posi- tive has its negative.'^ Yery well. Infants can- not believe, therefore should not be baptized — this is one " negative.'' Infants cannot believe, therefore should not be saved — this is another ^^ negative.'' One negative is as legitimate as the other, and to admit the one is to establish the other, and so the Doctor's prohibition involves the damnation of infants ! But it may be replied, '' infants are saved without faith " — granted, and for that very reason they should be baptized with- out faith. Thus, the ^^ apostolic commission' ' re- fers neither positively nor negatively to infants, and so is not a prohibition of infant baptism. Thirdly, the Doctor gives an improper analysis of the commission. Faith and baptism are made the condition of salvation, not faith the condition of baptism ; and thus, as faith, one part of the con-

3 '^

30 INFANT BAPTISM.

dition is dispensed with in the case of infants, so baptism, the other part of the condition, is dis- pensed with, in order to their salvation. Faith alone secures present salvation in the adult, and baptism then is required of him as expressive of his faith, renunciation of the \^orld, and consecra- tion to God forever. But infants are already in a state of justification, which baptism signifies, im- plying their consecration to God, and, in due time, their obligation to serve him. Xow, unless the Doctor can prove that infants are not in a state of justification, he cannot bring the ** com- mission" against infant baptism.

The Doctor continues : '^ The baptism of in- fants is prohibited, thirdly, by the nature and de- sign of baptism itself. In this ordinance you pub- licly profess your faith in Christ, and devote yourself to bim in his visible church. This must be an intelligent and voluntary act on the part of every one who is baptized. To those who cannot so act baptism is prohibited. Infants cannot so act. Therefore the baptism of infants is pro- hibited" (pp. 13, 14). The Doctor will not deny that the infant in circumcision was " devoted" to God ^^in his visible church" — yet he professed no faith in God, and was unable to perform any ** intelligent and voluntary act" in the premises.

INFANT BAPTISM. 31

But apply the premises of the Doctor in another respect. Faith is '^an intelligent and voluntary act on the part of every one who is'^ saved. ^' To those who cannot so act'^ salvation ^- is prohibited.^' Infants cannot so act. Therefore the ^^salvation^' of infants is prohibited. Premises so fatal to the salvation of infants cannot be logical or scriptural when employed against their baptism. But the salvation of infants cannot be forfeited by any blunders of the Doctor's logic, and their right to baptism cannot be disproved by his strongest argu- ments. It is surprising with what coolness and boldness he exclaims, '- it is now proved indubita- bly that infant baptism is prohibited. '^ And we reply, upon his principle of reasoning, ^' it is'' also "proved indubitably that infant" salvation "is prohibited." And so all his conclusions to the end of the chapter may be retorted upon him. As "infant baptism is in truth no baptism at all" (p. 14) — infant salvation is in truth no salvation at all : "' infant baptism is a bold attempt to per- fect that which it is vainly imagined God has left deficient'^ (p. 16) — infant salvation is a bold attempt to perfect that which it is vainly imagined God has left deficient: "infant baptism is a sin against God" (p. 16) — infant salvation is a sin against God: "'thus is infant baptism incontro-

32 INFANT BAPTISM.

vertibly proved to be an eviF' (p. 16) — thus is infant salvation incontrovertibly proved to be an evil. And so his earnest deprecation of infant baptism — ^' from my heart I deprecate it in all its bearings'' — might just as rationally have been uttered against infant salvation, for his reasons are just as strong against the one as the other, and so it seems at last that the Doctor's logic originated in his heart and not in his head — and thus with a warm heart no doubt the Doctor " writes for the million/' for in right good earnest he exhorts, entreats, interrogates, and warns them to the last words in the chapter.

II. The second general argument of the Doctor is — ^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because its de- fence LEADS TO THE MOST INJURIOUS PERVER- SIONS OF THE Word of God" (p. 18). He knows ^^ no better plan" to prove this proposition than by " examples," and " these are so numerous that he knows not where to begin." His first "example" is the perversion of the true meaning of the apos- tolic commission ; but the very ground on which he proves the teachings of Paedo-Baptists a perver- sion, if admitted, would prove the salvation of in- fants absolutely impossible. But even admitting (which we do not) that some Paedo-Baptists per- vert the meaning of the great commission "to

INFANT BAPTISM. 33

defend infant baptism/^ it does not follow that infant baptism is an evil, or may not be defended by other Scriptures, or be proved by other Paedo- Baptists, from the great commission itself. Be- sides, many of " the million'^ may not regard the Doctor's judgment of the Pgedo-Baptist interpre- tations as sound, and so these interpretations may not turn out, in their minds, to be '' perversions/' But that interpretation of the commission, which involves the denial of the right of infants to sal- vation, is, beyond all doubt, a perversion the most repulsive; and such is the Doctor's interpretation: opposition to infant baptism, then, is an evil. But the Doctor adopts a singular way to make out his case of perversions. ^^ When great and good men, such as these, and the thousands of others who agree with them, thus interpret the commis- sion, can we believe that they are really in ear- nest? Do they not know better ?'' (p. 21.) That is, the Doctor supposes that the Paedo-Baptists do not conscientiously believe what they write and avow, and so they knowingly and willingly per- vert the Word of Grod. This is a grave insinua- tion, and one cannot believe that the Doctor him- self is "in earnest'^ when he makes it, without believing that he has more confidence in his own judgment, than charity in his heart. But the

34 INFANT BAPTISM.

Faedo-Baptists are in good earnest 3 therefore they do not pervert the Word of God — and so infant baptism is not an evil — the Doctor, himself;, being judge.

The second example the Doctor cites, is the "striking instance, ^The promise is to you and to your children/ ^' The argument of the Doctor is, that Peter referred to the prophecy of Joel, and that Joel referred to " sons and daughters,'' or, in general terms, " posterity'' (p. 24). If the Doctor can prove that children are not " sons and daughters" or "posterity," then I grant infant baptism cannot be supported from this text. But he perverts both the meaning of Peter and Joel, as any one acquainted with what they say on the subject must know.

Besides, the fearful canon of the Doctor, "every positive has a negative," is here again levelled with fatal precision against the salvation of infants. If infants are not included in " the promise," then they are lost. But they are included in the pro- mise; therefore, they have as good a right to bap- tism, the sacramental seal of "the promise," under the Christian dispensation, as the adult believing Jews had on the day of Pentecost. The only plausible argument the Doctor uses is, " babes could not fulfil the conditions upon which

INFANT BAPTISM. 35

the promise was made^' (p. 26). But this is the old stereotyped sophism of the Baptists^ and its refutation is stamped a thousand times upon the pages of the baptismal controversy, and may be here repeated. If ^^ babes'^ cannot ^^ fulfil the conditions'^ of the promise, and for that reason should not be baptized, then they have no right to the blessings of "the promise'^ or covenant of salvation, and so all dying in infancy must be lost. But, if they are included in " the promise'' unconditionally, then, they have as good a right to baptism unconditionally, as adults have condi- tionally. The Doctor denies that " the promise'' here means the covenant of salvation, formally made with Abraham (p. 28), and we have only to reply, then all children, dying in infancy, are lost — such is his perversion of Peter's meaning. The Doctor's theology is as defective as his logic in another respect. It never has been assumed by Paedo-Baptists, that *Hhe Grospel is a new dis- pensation of the covenant of circumcision" (p. 28). The Gospel is not a new dispensation of the cove- nant of circumcision, but a new dispensation of the same great covenant of salvation, of which cir- cumcision was the sensible, formal seal under the eJewish dispensation. The Doctor does not dis- criminate between the covenant of salvation, which

86 INFANT BAPTISM.

is one and the same in all ages of time, and the dispensations of the covenant, which are many, and follow in succession at various periods of time. And failing to make this discrimination, it is not surprising that he should not only misrepresent his Paedo-Baptist authorities, but pervert also the language of prophets and apostles. The same method of misrepresentation and perversion the Doctor pursues to the end of the chapter. And this is the more surprising, as he had said, page 9, that " very many of the most learned and pious biblical critics, themselves Paedo-Baptists, candidly confess that the practice of infant baptism is not directly enjoined in the Word of God;'^ whereas, in this chapter, he joins issue with many others who claim several Scriptures, as ^^ chief Scripture ground,^' and " best supports,'^ of infant baptism. Nor is this all. He has omitted some of the strongest and clearest expositions of the very Scriptures examined by him, and these may not be perversions — what then ? Nor is this all. He has perverted the meaning of the authors ad- duced. And so infant baptism cannot be proved to be an evil from the Doctor's perversions, both of his authors and the Scriptures. One can scarcely help smiling at the Doctor's expression of pious regret. '' Thus to expose the errors of

INFANT BAPTISM. 37

our Pasdo-Baptist brethren gives me no pleasure — but afflicts me profoundly. The task falls upon me. It shall be faithfully performed'^ (p. 29). The great Head of the Church, then, has been late in raising up and qualifying the proper man to perform this impo tant task, especially since so many ^^ pious,'' and "learned,^' and ^^ profound biblical critics and scholars,'' have preceded this champion for the truth, and still surround him, and smile on his presumption, egotism and vanity. We will give the candid reader one example of the Doctor's perversions of his Paedo-Baptist au- thorities. '' You mean that holiness is spiritual, that it is ^ ecclesiastical,' and more, you mean that this holiness is produced by hereditary transmis- sion," &c. (pp. 37, 38.) Now we challenge the Doctor to produce any authority in the Protestant or Romish church by whom this charge can be sustained. It never has been assumed, by Protes- tant or Eoman Catholic, that children are born spiritual or holy. So far from it, the Boman Catholic church, and the High Church party in the Church of England, baptize children to make them spiritual or holy, which is absurd in itself, and would be still more absurd, if they baptized children to make them holy, believing at the time that they are already holy. Heretics themselves

38 INFANT BAPTISM.

then deny the charge of the Doctor, and this should cover him with confusion. The Doctor writes for "the million/' but what, after this, can we fairly suppose are his motives, but that he may deceive the ignorant, impose upon the credulous, and make proselytes? And surely, ignorance, credulity, and proselytism, are no proofs of the evils of infant baptism, unless, to argue as the Doctor does, infant baptism suggested in him these motives.

III. The third general argument of the Doctor is, "Infant baptism is an evil, because it en- grafts JUDAISM UPON THE GOSPEL OF ChRIST" (p. 40). Under this proposition the Doctor dis- plays more ignorance of his authorities, of the Scriptures, of common sense, and of the plainest rules of reasoning, than we have been able to ex- pose in the preceding pages ; and " if the blind be a leader of the blind, they will both fall into the ditch.'' God save "the million." His argu- ment is this : the Paedo-Baptists assume that cir- cumcision and baptism " are substantially the same ordinance," and therefore infant baptism is " the sum and essence of Judaism" (p. 41). And he says, this is what " our brethren are pleased to call" the argument from " analogy" (p. 40). It never has been assumed that baptism is " substan-

INFANT BAPTISM. 39

tially," or circumstantially, the same, in all re- spects, with circumcision, and therefore it cannot be " the sum and essence of Judaism/' Baptism has the same spiritual meaning with circumcision, as a sign and seal, and is due to infants, and in these respects only is it substantially the same with circumcision, and of the -' same essence with Judaism'' — and the Doctor himself will not deny that Judaism vitally, in many respects, was spi- ritual — unless he deny that God was its author, or that he instituted a system of rites and ceremo- nies, commands and precepts, that had no spiritual meaning in them. Circumcision had both a secu- lar and spiritual meaning, which distinction the iPoctor fails to make, and so unavoidably must impose upon the ignorance of his readers. Thus: '' What is Judaism ? It is the intermingling, or the amalgamation, of the doctrines, rites, and wor- ship of the Jews, with the doctrines, rites, and worship of Christianity. Infant baptism is amal- gamated Judaism and Christianity" (pp. 41, 42). But has this been done by the evangelical churches, in the case of infant baptism ? It has not been done. Has anything but what was truly evangelical in Judaism been incorporated in the evangelical churches ? It has not been done. The Doctor might just as well have accused Christ and

40 INFANT BAPTISM.

his apostles of amalgamatiDg what they separated from Judaism, and abolished, with what they added and enjoined as evangelical under the Christian dispensation. The spiritual meaning of the passover is the same as that of the Lord's Supper. Is it therefore the ^^ sum and essence of Judaism?" or "amalgamated Judaism and Chris- tianity T' The spiritual meaning of the lamb that bled on the Jewish altar, and of the intercession of the high priest in the holy of holies, is the same as that of the sacrifice of the " Lamb of Grod," a^d of the intercession of the Son of God. Is the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, or the intercession of the Son of God, therefore the " sum and essence of Judaism ?" In a word, the spiritual meaning of "the doctrines, rites, and worship df tbe Jews," is the same with that of the doctrines, rites, and worship of Christianity. Are the doctrines, rites, and worship of Christianity the " sum and essence of Judaism?" So the spiritual meaning of cir- cumcision is the same as that of infant baptism. Is infant baptism therefore the "amalgamation of Judaism and Christianity ?'' The Doctor must assume that circumcision had no spiritual meaning — and then Paul was wrong when he said, "cir- cumcision verily profiteth if thou keep the law — and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit,

INFANT BAPTISM. 41

and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God ;'' or he must admit that the spiritual meaning of circumcision is the same with that of infant baptism, since the spiritual meaning of cir- cumcision is seen in the " profit'^ of keeping the law in subsequent life, and felt in the ^^ heart'' and ^^ spirit^' of the Jew who subsequently believed, according to the light of the Jewish dispensation. The Doctor must admit that " the doctrines, rites, and worship^' of Judaism had a spiritual meaning, or the Jews believed and practised ^^the doc- trines,'' observed the '' rites,'' and conformed to the ^^ worship" of Judaism in vain, and so were all lost. ^^ And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying. In thee shall all nations be blessed'' (Gal. 3 : 8). This destroys the Doctor's whole argument, in the ^^ aggregate,'' and in its " details."

We shall now examine some of the conclusions of the Doctor, and they will be found as absurd as his premises. The Episcopalian perceives ^' in the Jewish church three orders of the ministry — there are therefore three orders in the ministry in the Christian church" (pp. 43, 44). But the Methodists, Presbyterians, and the Baptists them- selves reject the dogma. Besides some Episcopa- 4*

42 INFANT BAPTISM.

Hans maintain that three orders in the ministry are proved from the New Testament. Again, other Episcopalians maintain, and truly, that but two orders in the ministry can be proved from the New Testament, and so the Doctor^s conclusion is his own, and does not touch the question of infant baptism.

Aorain, the Doctor aro;ues that the Roman Catholic deduces the office of " pope'^ from that of '^ the great high priest'^ in the Jewish church (p. 45). What of that? We all reject the dogma. Besides, the Roman Catholic maintains that the office of pope is derived by *^ regular succession from St. Peter,'' and hence originated in St. Peter, and not in the office of the Jewish high priest, and this also we reject.

In a word, the Doctor employs the most per- nicious perversions in certain cases to make out a specific case of perversion in infant baptism, while there is not the remotest connection or analogy in the cases. The absurdity of this method may be shown by the examination of some of the perver- sions he adduces. " The Jewish church was a national church, and the Christian church is the same church. Therefore the Christian church must be a national church'' (p. 45). But Christ abolished the nationality of the Jewish church;

INFANT BAPTISM. 43

since the Christian church is to embrace [' all na- tions/' And so '' the sacrifice of the mass will probably be agreeable. You have it in the Jewish sacrifices'' (p. 45). But Christ consummated the '^ Jewish sacrifices'' in his own sacrifice, and so abolished Jewish sacrifices forever. '^ You want seventy cardinals ? The seventy elders who com- posed the Jewish council will supply you" (p. 45). But the ecclesiastical economy of the Jewish church was abolished by the death of Christ, since its work was now accomplished, and the ecclesias- tical government of the Christian church is to be framed according to the principles and spirit of the New Testament. And so of all the rest of the Doctor's ridiculous irony. And for once we agree with the Doctor, that such arguments are ^^ really available for papists, and for papists only" (p. 43). To make out an analogous case, the Doctor must prove that the Paedo-Baptist churches now prac- tise circumcision. This they do not. The Doctor says, " Essays to engraft Judaism upon the gospel of Christ commenced immediately after the ascen- sion of our Redeemer. The Judaism then preached was precisely such as our Paedo-Baptist brethren claim a« legitimate in religion. It did not indeed include infant baptism, but advocated instead literal circumcision" (p. 47). This was Judaism

/

/

44 INFANT BAPTISM.

engrafted upon Christianity. But this was repu- diated by the apostles themselves, and has been by the Christian church in all ages, as the Doctor himself knows, and himself proves on pages 48, 49, 50, 51 and 52, of his own book. In the name of common sense, reason and Scripture, how then can infant baptism be '' amalgamated Judaism and Christianity V

But this is not all. The Doctor himself, unac- countable as it may appear, admits that there is an analogy between the Jewish and Christian church. ^^ There is a beautiful analogy. The Jewish church was a figure, a shadow, a type, of the Christian churcV (pp. 53, 54). And he quotes from the epistle to the Hebrews : '^ The holy places made with hands were figures of the true holy places" — and adds : " All the parts of the Jewish church and worship were figures of the Christian church and worship. What is true of all the parts is true of the whole. The whole Jewish church there- fore was a figure or type of the Christian church" (p. 54). That is fair for once. This is all we maintain. And so Webster, his authority, gives our view of the analogy we maintain : ^^ an agree- ment or likeness between things in some circum- stances and efi*ects, when the things are otherwise entirely difierent'' (p. 53). That is, circumcision

INFANT BAPTISM. 45

and infant baptism agree and resemble each other in " some circumstances and effects/^ while they are " otherwise entirely different/^ As follows : they both are formal, sensible signs and seals of the same covenant of grace, though practised under different dispensations. They both haye a spiritual meaning, though one had also a secular meaning, which the other has not under the Chris- tian dispensation. They both imposed obligation to keep the moral and evangelical law of God, in all subsequent life, though the former imposed also obligation to keep the ceremonial law, under the Jewish dispensation, which is abolished under the Christian dispensation. They both formally and sensibly recognise those who are entitled to association with the church of God, though the former also recognised those who were the subjects of God in a civil sense, which civil sense is not contained in baptism, since the civil polity of the Jewish church is abolished under the Christian dispensation. They both have a sacramental mean- ing, though they both are ^^ entirely different things'' in essential nature, and form, and mode, and natural effects. So much for Mr. Webster. And so the Doctor's ^' Hermeneutics" are against him. ^^No external institution or fact in the Old Testament is a type of an external institution or

46 INFANT BAPTISM.

fact in the New Testament. External institutions and facts in the Old Testament are invariable types of internal and spiritual institutions and facts in the New Testament' ' (p. 55). Granted, most cordially. Then baptism and the Lord's Supper now set forth " internally and spiritually'' what circumcision and the passover set forth '^ externally" in the Old Testament. But this is not all. The Doctor himself specifies certain analogies between circumcision and baptism. *^A correspondence exists in several respects between circumcision and baptism. By circumcision the natural seed were recognised as the children of Abraham, and received as members of the Jewish church ; by baptism the spiritual seed are recog- nised as believers in Christ, and received as mem- bers of the Christian church. Circumcision was instituted expressly for literal infants, and it was commanded to be administered to them as soon as they were born ; baptism was instituted expressly for spiritual infants — believers in Christ — and it was commanded to be administered to them as soon as they were born again. Circumcision was an essential preliminary to the Passover; baptism is an essential preliminary to the Lord's Supper" (p. 59). This contains in substance, as far as it goes, all we maintain. Circumcision was adminis-

INFANT BAPTISM. 47

tered to infants, 'literal infants/' the "natural seed'' of Abraham — granted — but it had a spi- ritual meaning at the same time, recognising the infant as being already a member of the spiritual church; so that if he in subsequent life committed a sin or " trespass/' unless he repented, that is, conformed with the proper spirit to the specific requisitions of the law, he was to be " cut off from the congregation," or church of God, under the Jewish dispensation, which was the mournful case in many individual and collective instances. "Baptism was instituted expressly for spiritual infants:" that is, "believers in Christ" — granted — but then it is more: it is due to those who have a right to spiritual regeneration, and such, are all infants — first, those dying in infancy, and secondly, those living and conforming to the spe- cific requisitions of the gospel ; as in the case of all infants under the Jewish dispensation — first, all dying in infancy, and secondly, those living and conforming to the specific requisitions of the moral and ceremonial law. The Doctor cannot deny this conclusion, without disproving that circumcision imposed spiritual and moral obligations as well as civil. " Circumcision was an essential preliminary to the passover" — granted — but it was adminis- tered to infants ; and infants, when they grew up,

48 INFANT BAPTISM.

if they committed sin or trespass, forfeited right to the passover till they repented as above; so infants, unless they repent in the gospel sense, have no right to the Lord's Supper.

Let us return for a moment to the Doctor's ^^ Hermeneutics/' We give his own quotation from Turretine, ^^ the distinguished successor of Calvin/' ^^ A sacrament is an external thing, and whatever is a type of any internal or spiritual thing has no need of any other type by which it may be represented. Two types may indeed be given, similar and corresponding to each other, of one and the same truth, and so far the ancient sa- craments were antitypes of ours ; ' but one type cannot be shadowed forth by another type,^ since both are brought forward to represent one truth. So circumstances shadowed forth not baptism, but the grace of regeneration ; and the passover repre- sented not the Lord's Supper, but Christ set forth in the Supper" (p. 55). Very well; then cir- cumcision and the passover had a spiritual mean- ing, which is all we maintain; and the analogy between the Jewish and Christian sacraments is established so far as their spiritual meaning is concerned; and so of all the "doctrines, rites and worship" of the Jewish church. And in the language of the Doctor, we observe, " the whole

INFANT BAPTISM. 49

subject of analogy is therefore perfectly plain*' (p. 58)

But this is not all. The Doctor admits ^^ there is a beautiful analogy/' but affirms that " the identity assumed is nothing more or less than naked Judaism'' (p. 53). All we maintain is, that the Jewish and Christian churches are spi- ritual as well as external parts of the same church of God, and therefore in a spiritual nature they are identically the same, however they may differ in external form or organization; and this cannot be denied without proving that that which is true of the whole is not true of the parts, and therefore that the whole Jewish church is lost. Such would however be the calamity if we give a logical mean- ing to the Doctor's propositions. *^ The figure and the thing signified by it cannot be one. The type and the reality are not identical. The shadow and the substance are never the same thing. The Jewish church and the Christian church are not therefore the same church" (p. 58). It never has been assumed that they are the same in external nature, but the same in spiritual nature ; and all attempts of the Doctor, however desperate and reckless, to involve the Paedo-Baptists in the ab- surdity of assuming that external Judaism is ^^amalgamated" with Christianity, are perfectly 5

50 INFANT BAPTISM.

gratuitous. From the external typical nature of the Jewish church, it is demonstrable that the Jewish church in spirituality is identical with the Christian church, since as the Christian church is a spiritual church, the Jewish churcli could not have been a type of the Christian church, unless as a type it contained in it a spiritual meaning. And so^ as the Jewish church had a spiritual mean- ing in its types, and precepts, and doctrines, and worship, this spiritual meaning was applicable to the Jewish church. But if the Doctor's conclu- sion, ^^ the Jewish church and the Christian church are not therefore the same,^' be true, then the Jews were all lost, which being absurd, it fol- lows that his premises are false.

In farther proof that '' infant baptism leads to Judaism,^' the Doctor asserts that " it is at war irreconcilably with the fundamental principles of the gospel of Christ'^ (p. 60). What are these principles ? ^^ The gospel of Christ teaches as fundamental, that no one is a child of God by carnal descent'^ — granted, but infant baptism is not founded upon carnal descent. ^' That all, whatever may be their ancestry, or their relations, are by nature the children of wrath'' — granted, but all infants are by grace the ^^ children of the kingdom of God.'' ^^Nor is their disposition, or

INFANT BAPTISM. 51

their character as such, changed in any manner by their baptism in infancy^' — granted, for we do not believe in infant baptismal regeneration. ^^ That faith in our Lord Jesus Christ alone can give a title to be regarded on earth, or in heaven, as the children of Qod'^ — granted, so far as adults are concerned; but then if there be no other ground of salvation for infants than this, thea they are all lost : but there is some other ground for their salvation, and therefore there is some other ground for their baptism. " All true religion is personal^' — granted, but infants are not responsible for personal religion. Thus, ^^ the fundamental principles of the gospel of Christ, '' specified by the Doctor, do not touch the case of infant baptism. There are other ^^fundamental principles of the gospel,^' which support the doc- trine of infant baptism, and these the Doctor has not mentioned, and so the argument from analogy remains good.

The Doctor says, lastly, ^Hhis Paedo-Baptist argument [from analogy] is palpably antiscrip- turaP^ (p. 61). And here is his argument. The " Paedo-Baptists declare that the Jewish and the Christian are the same church, and subsist under the same covenant ! Never was there a conclusion more palpably antiscripturaF^ (p. 63). Then the

52 INFANT BAPTISM.

Jews are all lost ! But the gospel covenant was preached to the Jews, according to Paul, as has been already proved; and therefore the Paedo- Baptist argument is strictly scriptural. The types, shadows, symbols and sacrifices of the Jewish dis- pensation were founded upon the atonement of Christ, to be made in due time, and so were all confirmed and consummated by his vicarious death; and thus the rights of children, sacramentally sealed in circumcision, under the Jewish dispensa- tion, were confirmed by Christ's death, for he " came not to destroy, but to fulfil ;'' and so the atonement being the foundation of both " the Jewish and the Christian church,'' they must be parts of the same " spiritual building'' or church. We never doubted that circumcision was a part of the Jewish ceremonial law, but then it was more; a seal of the gracious covenant also, "a seal of the righteousness of faith," according to Paul; and according to the Doctor himself, "a type of regeneration by the spirit" (p. 64) ; and thus it does not follow that ^' the gospel church is in fact built upon the law of Moses" — the Doctor himself being judge.

IV. The fourth general argument of the Do ■ tor is : "The doctrines upon which infant baptism

rests CONTRADICT THE GREAT PUNDAMENTAL

INFANT BAPTISM. 53

PRINCIPLE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH^' (p. 66).

He says, ^^justification is the act of God by which he declares a man just and righteous^' (p. 67). Very well; then all infants are in a state of justi fication, for Christ himself says, '^of such is tha kingdom of God/' Again : " The justified are accepted, and approved, as if they had nevei sinned'^ (Ibid). Very well; then all infants are justified, for they never sinned, and so are uncon- ditionally justified by the vicarious death of Christ. The Doctor continues, '^ The doctrines of infant baptism, on the other hand, are not made known in the Bible/' That is not the question now. The doctrine of infant justification is the issue ; is that found in the Bible ? Yes. Very well ; being then justified without faith, they have a right to baptism without faith, just as the adult, -justified by faith, has a right to baptism because he is jus- tified.

When he says that ^^ infant baptism finds a place there [in the confessions] sustained by all the doctrines with which popery had surrounded it,'' this we deny. We have nothing to do with those confessions in which infant baptismal justi- tification and regeneration are maintained. The Doctor knows, or ought to know, that the dogmas of Rome on this subject are utterly rejected by 5*

54 INFANT BAPTISM.

the evangelical churches. The Doctor knows also, or ought to know, that the clergy of the Church of Eng- land enjoy a latitude in interpreting the baptismal forms of that church, some being strictly high church, and others as strictly Calviuist, and others still Ar- minian. The Doctor knowe^also, or ought to know, that the truly evangelical patty in the Protestant Episcopal Church in our country do not agree with the high church party on this subject. The Doctor knows also, or ought to know, that the Methodists, in interpreting their Articles and Baptismal Forms, unqualifiedly reject the dogma that the infant ^^is pardoned, regenerated, adopted, &c., in baptism/' His language is, '' Methodists affirm that by bap- tism the new birth, the forgiveness of sins, and adoption, are all to the child, visibly signed and sealed. The child therefore in baptism is pardoned of sin, is regenerated, is adopted, is received into the church, received into the favor of God, and saved in heaven" (p. 76). This is popery in its worst form, and the Doctor could not have written this language without the profoundest ignorance, or the most unblushing assumption. The Doctor knows, and he avows again and again his knowledge of the fact, that the truly evangelical churches and the evangelical portions of the Lutheran church, of the Church of England, and of the Protestant

INFANT BAPTISHl. 55

Episcopal Church in this country, do not maintain this view of infant baptism ; and yet, in reckless opposition to his own knowledge, and in bold de- fiance of the truth in the case, he deliberately attempts to deceive ^Hhe million/' Nor is this all. He gives the particular opinions of some churches, which are heretical, and next of other churches, which axe orthodox, and then deduces the general conclusion that all are heretical ; which is absurd. For example, some churches adopt affusion as a proper mode of baptism ; but one very respectable church — his own — adopts immersion as the only proper mode ; therefore all the Christian churches adopt sprinkling and pouring as the only proper modes of baptism — and yet the Doctor knows that but one of the churches — his own — prac- tises immersion as the only proper mode of bap- tism. Again, some of the churches practise open communion ; but one very respectable church — his own — practises ^^ close communion ;'' there- fore all the churches practise open communion — > and yet the Doctor knows that but one of the churches — his own — practises "close commu- nion.'' Again, some of the churches practise in- fant baptism ; but one very respectable church — his own — repudiates the practice; therefore all the churches practise infant baptism — and yet

56 INFANT BAPTISM.

the Doctor knows that one of the churches — his own — many in it at least — ^^ abominate'' the prac- tice, and that he has written a '' little volume'' on the '^ evils" of the practice.

The Doctor continues to pursue this mode of false reasoning. After quoting from the '^ Con- fessions" and "Articles of Religion" of various Protestant sects^ he inquires, with apparent ho- nesty, "Do I deal unjustly with these several sects when I thus represent them as in conflict with themselves?" (p. 77.) And to prove his premises good, he introduces Moehler, a Catholic jjriest, a false witness, to prove a false charge. Stop, my fair reasoner — hear our own ivitnesseSy which you yourself have adduced, on this particu- lar point. " Still Protestants of all classes, as everywhere else so among us, in their sermons j and their conversations^ from the pulpit and the press^ continue to protest that tJiei/ do not attribute to baptism any justifying or saving poioer^^ (pp. 78, 79). Yery well ] and here the Doctor " deals justly" with us, and he must abandon his pre- mises.

But no; he says, "the Confessions" contain the heresy, and here he applies his logic again to prove it ; and we must follow him farther. He introduces, next, certain Paedo-Baptists who main-

INFANT BAPTISM. 57

tain the heresy, and then concludes : ^^ These are the expositions of standard writeis among Pa&do- Baptists themselves of all classes, explanatory of the efficacy of baptism as taught in their Confes- sions'' (p. 80). But unfortunately for the Doctor, the Paedo-Baptists he adduces, are not " the stan- dard writers'' among all Paedo-Baptists — and the Doctor knew they are not, and then his argument is founded in presumption, or he supposed they are, and then his argument is founded in igno- rance. And yet the Doctor does make some ex- ceptions, though in doing so he adds '' insult to injury." ^^But Presbyterians, Congregationalists, and Methodists, do not surely helieve these bap- tismal doctrines I They all, I admit, roundly deny it ! Gladly would we credit their disavowals" (pp, 80, 81). If the Doctor understood the whole sub- ject, he would probably credit the '^ disavowals," and withdraw the odious charges of inconsistency and heresy. He has read '' Goode on Infant Bap- tism," and might have obtained from that work information sufficient to enable him to understand the nature and truth of the disavowals. He ought to know, that while phrases in the Confessions, Catechisms, Articles of Religion, and Baptismal Forms, of Protestant churches, are interpreted by one party of Paedo-Baptists in favor of baptismal

58 INFANT BAPTISM.

regeneration, they are interpreted by another party, the truly evangelical^ directly in opposition to the heresy; and that this is done by the Pres- byterian, Methodist, and the evangelical portion of the Episcopal churches, in this country, and in England : and this he doesj in part, himself acknowledge. " The Presbyterian and Methodist churches, however, in this country, and in Eng- land, I am reminded, are in their numerous divi- sions, highli/ evangelical. In all these, justifica- tion li/ faith and infant haptism exist together ^^ (p. 82). A more fatal concession to the Doctor's argument under consideration, and to his whole book, is not possible. If this be so — and it is so — and the Doctor admits it to be so — then infant baptism does not contradict the great doctrine of justification by faith.

The Doctor must have felt very sensibly the force of this concession, for, in the next breath, he endeavors to explain why they '^ exist toge- ther,'' and to prove, that the '^destruction of the one by the other is inevitable/' We give his ex- planation : '^ The Methodist churches have not existed long enough, to feel the evil effects of infant baptism'' (same page). This is a mere as- sumption, totally groundless, while it is a conces- sion, most conclusive, that the Methodist church

INFANT BAPTISM. 59

is pure and sound at present. Time enough ! what length of time, will the Doctor please define, is required to confirm or disprove the truth of his declaration ? Time ! why though organized after the Baptist church in this country by a hundred years, the Methodist church already outnumbers, and overtops her in intelligence, in wealth, in zeal, in success, in pious labors, and in influence. Time ! why infant baptism has been retained in the Methodist church from the beginning, and in all the course of her astonishing progress, she has not yet felt or exhibited '' the evil effects of infant baptism;'^ and the presumption is, she never will, so long as she maintains that institution in its original and apostolic purity and simplicity. Time enough ! — this is a singular mode of reasoning — it is in fact begging the question.

Now follow the Doctor's proofs — that the de- struction of the Methodist church is inevitable, so long as it retains infant baptism. First : '' how large the number of their ministers and laymen who annually pass over to episcopacy — to pusey- ism, and to Eome^' (same page) I This is a mis- take. The number is small, very small, and even this small number go from worldly motives, or under the impulses of ambition, or to be free from| the pious restraints of the doctrines we teach, or

60 INFANT BAPTISM.

from groundless objections to our ecclesiastical government, and not from opposition to infant baptism in our cburcb, for they find that institu- tion degraded from its dignity, and corrupted from its purity, in Puseyite and Romish churches — which is a singular proof that they regarded in- fant baptism as an evil, or that they regarded the Methodist church as corrupt because it main- tained the doctrine of infant baptism ! Put the Doctor's proof in another form. Because a few Methodists go to Puseyism and Rome — therefore infant baptism in the Methodist church will in- evitably destroy the doctrine of justification as maintained by the Methodists. Let us see the result of this logic applied fairly in other in- stances. Many Methodists annually backslide and return to the world — therefore infant baptism will inevitably destroy the doctrine of justification as maintained by the Methodists ! Again : a large number of persons converted in the Baptist Church annually backslide and return to the world — therefore the Baptist church, though it repu- diates and ^^ abominates'' the doctrine of infant baptism, must inevitably perish ! Again : a large number of persons converted in Methodist revi- vals annually go to the Baptist church — therefore the Methodist church must inevitably be de-

INFANT BAPTISM. 61

stroyed by infant baptism! — though a sufficient number of young converts remain to repair an- nually the loss, and still she outnumbers the Bap- tist church ! In a word, if because a few leave the Methodist church, and go to ^^ Puseyism and Kome/^ the Methodist church must in time in- evitably perish, then because a large number of persons converted in Methodist revivals annually go to the Baptist church — therefore the Baptist church must be classed with Puseyism and Rome — a conclusion from which the Doctor recoils, but to which his logic drives his church — however un- congenial and disagreeable may be the association. For if the departure of a few Methodists to Pu- seyism and Rome be a sign portentous of the in- evitable corruption and downfall of the Methodist church, then the departure of a few dissatisfied old Methodists and many Methodist young con- verts to the Baptist church, must accelerate the corruption and downfall of the Methodist church —that is, with Puseyism and Rome on one hand, and the Baptist church on the other — the destruc- tion of the Methodist church is inevitable ! This cannot be; for we have not only long survived the double shock, but felt no sensible diminution in strength or numbers, piety or purity, zeal or success, by the attacks or the loss on either hand. 6

62 INFANT BAPTISM.

No; the acquisitions of Puseyism and Rome from us we never deplore as an evidence of our weak- ness or corruption, but as convenient occasions to increase our strength, and preserve our purity, while the large supplies with which we annually furnish the Baptist church afford us the satisfac- tion of believing, that we are promoting the cause of God by strengthening a sister church, however reluctant she may be to own the fact, or acknow- ledge the debt.

The second proof the Doctor adduces, that the destruction of the Methodist church is inevitable, so long as it maintains the doctrine of infant bap- tism, is : ^' other causes have been still more in- fluential,'' which he enumerates as follows. " The people have the Bible in their hands, and they read it.'' That is the very reason why the Metho- dists embrace the doctrine of infant baptism, and oppose the exclusiveness of the Baptists in immer- sion and " close communion ;" for surely they would do neither the one nor the other, unless they be- lieved they were supported by the Bible ; and so long as they continue to read it properly, and in- terpret it fairly, they will support the doctrine of ^^justification by faith," and practise infant bap- tism. ^' The people have the Bible in their hands, and they read it" — thank God for it — we want no

INFANT BAPTISM. 63

better safeguard to the institutions and doctrines of Methodism than the Bible. To it we appeal — we appeal to it as it is — we are satisfied with it as it is — we want no '^newtranslatiou'^ — on the Bible, as it is, we stand or fall. The Bible is a plain book, easily understood, and the Methodists have not been indifi'erent to its teachings. They are able to judge for themselves in so plain a case as that which refers to themselves and the rights of their children. They are honest, too, in their reading the Holy Scriptures; and so well con- vinced are they of the truth of their opinions, on all material points, that probably no people can be found who are more charitable, or less inclined to controversy, than they are. And of this one thing are they most confident, that their religious views are so conformable to the Bible, that as a church, both in its membership and its ministry, by their preaching, worship, writings, labors, and example, they have been made a very great blessing to other evangelical churches — the Baptist church in particular. Let the Doctor himself then rejoice in this — that the Methodists '^ have the Bible in their hands, and that they read it.^'

The Doctor continues : '' revivals have been pre- valent.'' On this a volume might be written. The conversion of a soul is a great event — a revival

64 INFANT BAPTISM.

is a mighty work. The apostolic church was a revival church. The Methodist church is a revival church — it is proverbial for its many and mighty revivals. In this^ is its great proof that it is the church of God. In this, it gives a convincing evidence that it is founded upon the Bible. In no church, since the days of the Apostles, have revi- vals been so prevalent and extensive as in the Methodist church — this is now admitted on all hands — and it is admitted also on all hands, that no church, since the days of the Apostles, has arisen to such a magnitude, in so short a time, as the Methodist church. To God, the great Builder, be all the glory. Let revivals cease, and the church will cease — nothing will remain but a lifeless formality. But if infant baptism be the all-comprehending evil to a church the Doctor would make it, how will he explain the pre va- lency and magnitude of the revivals with which God has favored and honored the Methodist church ? The seal of God is conspicuously affixed to the Methodist church. That is enough. What does this prove ? Several things. That infant baptism, as maintained by the Methodists, is not an evil. That it is an evil, for Doctor Howell to write against the Methodist church as he has done. That it is an evil, for any among the Bap-

INFANT BAPTISM. 65

tists, who have read his book, to cherish the opinions of the Methodist church which he does. , That it is an evil, to exclude those whom God lias sealed as entitled to sacramental communion. Revivals ! what evangelical church in England or America has not enjoyed the blessed effects of Methodist revivals? And the last church in Christendom, to raise a warning voice against the Methodist church, is the Baptist church — Doctor HowelVs own church — for she, of the sister churches, has reaped the largest share of our heaven-sealed and arduous labors.

The Doctor continues : " the truth has been left free to combat error.'' That is true : and well has the Methodist church wielded the weapons of truth. Not by systematic and violent controver- sies has she done this, but through millions of converts who have embraced the truth she taught — by the exemplary lives of her members, " epis- tles known and read of all men'' — by her in- vigorating and reforming influence upon civil and social society — by her influence upon every department of professional life — by her influence to the extremities of the church and state — and by her influence upon the Baptist church itself. Why then is the Doctor desirous to array his brethren against the Methodist church ? Is it, 6*

66 INFANT BAPTISM.

indeed, because she nurses in her bosom the sum of evil — infant baptism — the producing cause of "inevitable destruction?'' Nay- that it can- not be ; for if it was, then she could not have wielded the truth as she has. But this it may be — for such is man — beholding enrolled among the leading laymen and ministers in the Baptist church, and by the thousand among her private members, those who were taught "justification by faith'' under the preaching of the mighty men of Methodism, the Doctor attempts to trace the pre- sent strength of the Baptist church to her own powers alone in wielding the truth — we ascribe it, chiefly, to the use she has made of the in- sidious dogma of exclusive immersion, her sophis- tical opposition to the doctrine of infant baptism, the contact she has had with other churches, and her laro^e contributions from Methodist revivals. She forgets, that she has been gradually com- pelled, by the resistless tide of Methodistic in- fluence, to moderate her violence in maintaining her favorite doctrines of the decrees and final per- severance— that the frenzy on these subjects is now almost wholly confined to diminutive Baptist societies in the obscurity of forest life — and that these characteristics of her faith must be alluded to with extreme caution, with many salvos, and

INFANT BAPTISM. 67

with pious courtesy, in refined and intelligent communities. She forgets, that in England, paedo- baptism and open communion are extending rapidly in her own churches, and practised at her own altars. She forgets, what repulsive and pernicious '^errors" of her founders she has abandoned, what disgusting rites and ceremonies of her infancy she has discontinued, what forms and observances, and what truths and institutions, in her progress towards purity and order, she has borrowed from other evangelical churches. She forgets, that since the auspicious time " truth was left free to control error,^' it combatted her errors — and not in vain for her — and yet not with entire success — for the error of exclusive immersion, and its concomi- tant "close communion,^' still remain — and it is likely, in this country, she will not easily surren- der these — for on these depend chiefly her sepa- rateness as a Christian community. She forgets, that so strong has been the vindication of " the truth'' from the Bible, by the Paedo-Baptist churches, against these, her peculiar tenets, that she has assembled her strong men (who are now employed), to remodel the Bible, and conform it to her errors — a work in which the Romish church has preceded her. Fortunate was the day for her, when truth unfettered, broke her bonds,

68 INFANT BAPTISM.

and offered Aer entire freedom; and happier had she been, had she thrown away all her chains. Fortunate, too, was that day for the evangelical churches, for they welcomed its increasing light, and extricated Infant Baptism from the abuses to which it had been perverted for centuries by spi- ritual despotism, and restored it to its original apostolic simplicity and purity — from which, so long as " truth is left free to combat error,'' it can never be removed, either by the opposition of the Baptists, or the sophistries of Pusey and Rome.

The Doctor continues : " All these churches have been in contact with the Baptists.'' This is begging — wrenching the question — in the face of positive and opposing facts. It is begging the question, for it is assuming, that the Baptists are right, and that the other evangelical churches are wrong, on the subject of infant baptism — while this has been a subject of controversy ever since the modern Baptist church began. It is begging the question, for it is assuming, that the Baptist church is exerting a reforming influence on the other evangelical churches on the subject of infant baptism, whicb is denied ; for where, in town or country, has this influence made any sensible im- pression upon Paedo-Baptist communities ? It is begging the question, for the Doctor cannot ad-

INFANT BAPTISM. 69

duce a single fact to prove that contact with the Baptist church has improved the other evangelical churclies on the subject of infant baptism. It is begging the question, for it is a vain conceit to assume, that contact with his church will ever effect any modification in other churches on the subject of infant baptism. It is begging the ques- tion, for how does the Doctor know, that the con- tact into which the Baptist church has been brought by the providence of God with other evangelical churches, will produce material changes in their doctrinal views, and none in his own ? and how can he determine that they will not ulti- mately convince his church of the evils of exclu- sive immersion and ^^ close communion ?^^ and so cause the Baptists to abandon these dogmas? — as the Baptists are now doing in England. But it is begging the question in the face of positive and opposing facts. 1st. Contact of the Baptist church with the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches has been the cause of vast improvement to the Bap- tist church ; and if she will break down the iron wall of "close communion,'' and so come into closer union with them, she will derive a still greater improvement — at least in brotherly love and Christian charities. 2d. Some of the evan- gelical Psedo-Baptist churches existed hefore the

70 INFANT BAPTISM.

modern Baptist church had a being, and they maintain unchanged their Psedo-Baptist views. 8d. Since the evangelical churches have been brought into contact with the Baptist church, they have encountered nothing but opposition from the Baptists, on the subject of infant bap- tism, and the mode of baptism; and yet they have steadily increased and flourished — retaining the doctrine of *^ justification by faith'' in its original scriptural purity — maintaining the doc- trine of infant baptism with unabated devotion — and, with a boundless prospect of success before them, proceed to the discharge of their appro- priate work almost careless of the pertinaceous opposition of the Baptists. 4th. What the Doctor calls ^^ contact,'' is in fact conflict — and we re- peat, the Baptists have been taught many im- portant and useful lessons by the conflict. 5th. But we deny that there has ever been any con- tact in the case, in the full sense of the word — for the Baptists have reared a wall — ^^ close com- munion"— which efi'ectually excludes all other evangelical churches from sacramental communion with her, the most intimate communion the church of God can enjoy, and which unites all Christians in the holiest fellowship possible on earth. 6th. It is admitted, that contact with the Baptists, such '

INFANT BAPTISM. 71

as it is, has been the occasion of a/ei^? erring, for the most part, disaffected members withdrawing from the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches to unite with the Baptists; but then the methods adopted to gain over these few have not always been manly and honorable, and not in a single in- , stance, in our judgment, has an accession been made by the force of unsophisticated truth, or fair argumentation. This much is unquestionably true : the sum total of withdrawal, whether it be few or many, from the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches — and we can answer for them all — has produced no change whatever in their views of the doctrines of infant baptism and justification by faith. 7th. The contact, in a word, has produced (if it has produced anything), irritation and wrang- ling, hurtful to weak consciences, causing unhappy divisions in families and neighborhoods, and re- pelling the churches to a greater distance from each other. And unless the Baptists moderate the zeal with which they maintain their peculiar tenets, or if other writers among them, like Dr. Howell, shall wage a relentless warfare against the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, the evils of division will be aggravated inconceivably, and the last fibre of the bond that now binds them to the Baptists will be severed forever. Inconclusive is

INFANT BAPTISM.

the reasoning of the Doctor, that contact with the Baptists perpetuates the doctrine of ^^justification bjfaith^' in the evangelical Pasdo-Baptist churches ; and vain is the fond hope, should he indulge such a hope, that this ^^contacf' will ever cause them to abrogate the impressive and scriptural institu- tion of ^' infant baptism/'

The examples which the Doctor gives are alike inconclusive, because inappropriate. " The Befor- mation had its Luthers — Melancthons — Calvins — Zwingles — Bidleys — Latimers? Whence now has infant baptism carried all their evangelical principles ? The same causes will ultimately, in the Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, and all other Pgedo-Baptist churches, produce the same results'' (p. 83). We answer — though these great Beformers are dead, and the churches they founded are mouldered to dust, yet the ^' evangelical prin- ciples'' which they published to the world, and for which Bidley and Latimer sufi^red martyrdom, still live, because they are imperishable; and to this day they constitute the foundation of all that is truly evangelical in the theological creeds and religious institutions on the continent of Europe and in the kingdom of Great Britain. "Justifi- cation by faith" was the great cardinal "evangeli- cal" truth with which Luther shook the papal

INFANT BAPTISM. 73

church to the very foundation, and inflicted a blow upon the supremacy of the Pope, from which he can never recover. " Justification by faith'' was the central truth of the Reformation. Does the Doctor affirm, that the ^'evangelical principles'' of the Reformation have all passed away ? Yes ; this he roundly asserts in the quotation above ; and this the history of the evangelical Paedo-Bap- tist churches since the Reformation palpably con- tradicts. To this day, the Lutheran church main- tains the doctrine of "justification by faith/' and many other important " evangelical principles" — and Lutheran churches are numerous and flourish- ing on the continent of Europe, in England, and America. And "Presbyterian'' churches, who claim " Calvin" as their founder, also, at this day, exist and flourish in the same countries. And let it be observed, that " infant baptism" still exists in all these churches. So it is not true, that "infant baptism has carried away all the evan- gelical principles" of the churches of the Refor- mation — indeed, no cause has done it. And so the conclusion of the Doctor — "the same causes will ultimately, in the Presbyterian, Methodist, Congregational, and all other Pasdo-Baptist churches, produce the same results" — falls to the ground. But this is not all. The apostolic 7

74 INFANT BAPTISM.

churches had their Pauls, and Peters, and Johns, and Timothies — and the Doctor assures himself that they never preached, or practised, or allowed infant baptism — and what soon became of the churches they planted, and the " evangelical prin- ciples'' they preached ? The churches at Corinth, Ephesus, Philippi, Thessalonica, Sardis, Rome — i^hich the Doctor believes were all Baptist ^churches — where are they ? They, he assumes, •were not Paedo-Baptist churches — what, then, ^^ carried away all their evangelical principles?'' What causes '^ ultimately" corrupted the apostolic churches, and produced Popery ? Not infant bap- tism as one of them, for the Doctor maintains it did not then exist. If it did exist in them, they became corrupt; if it did not exist in them, they nevertheless became corrupt. That they did be- come corrupt is a ftict of history. But the Doc- tor maintains, it did not exist in them, and yet they became corrupt; and therefore "causes," in which infant baptism is not to be numbered, de- stroyed them, and "carried away their evangelical principles." Yery well; if any of the churches of the Reformation, that maintained infant bap- tism, subsequently degenerated and became hereti- cal, it does not follow, that degeneration and heresy were produced by infant baptism. The

INFANT BAPTISM. 75

same causes, which corrupted the apostolic churches, may have produced the ^^same legiti- mate results'' in any of the evangelical churches of the Reformation that have become corrupt — and so may corrupt any evangelical Pdedo-Baptist church, in all time — and even the Baptist church itself^ — for we have proceeded in this argument upon the Doctor's own ground — that the apostolic churches were all the purest sort of Baptist churches.

The true "causes'' which corrupted the apos- tolic churches, or to any extent any evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches of the Reformation, or any evangelical church since the times of the Apostles and the Reformation, we shall state definitely at the proper place. What we have just now stated will suffice to show the fallacy of the Doctor's reasoning.

However, before we leave the general argument of the Doctor under consideration, we offer the reader two additional remarks. The first is : the Doctor, as most Baptist writers, and all other in- ventors of novel opinions of religious ceremonies and doctrines have done, in his opposition to in- fant baptism, has invented new principles of duty, new axioms of philosophy, and new rulers of logic, alike repulsive to reason, to common sense, to his-

76 INFANT BAPTISM.

tory, and to scripture, as the present section of this reply must have evinced to the candid reader. The second remark is: so far from ^Hhe princi- ples on which infant baptism is founded (th Doctor uses the term ^' predicated ^^^ a misappli- cation of the term) contradicting the doctrine of *^ justification by faith/' they are in harmony with it. The principles on which ^^justification by faith'' is founded, are the principles of grace. The principles on which infant baptism is founded, are the principles oi grace. ^^Justification,'' in the adult, is ^^by faith," ^^ through grace^^ and so justification by faith, through grace, gives him a title to baptism. But ^^justification" in the in- fant is by grace, without faith, and so justification by grace, without faith, gives the infant a title to baptism. Grace, in the case of infants, dispenses with faith in order to both justification and bap- tism, and, investing them with justification, con- sequently justification in the infant as much enti- tles him to baptism without faith, as justification entitles the adult to baptism by faith. This con- clusion cannot be denied, without denying the right of infants to salvation, for none can be saved who are not justified. The '^ principles,'^ therefore, which the Doctor assumes "contradict the doctrine of justification by faith," are the

INFANT BAPTISM.

principles of grace, and we leave him to review his ground.

y. The fifth general argument of the Doctor is : ^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because it is in di- rect CONFLICT with THE DOCTRINE OF REGENE- RATION BY THE Spirit'' (p. 85).

Before the Doctor proceeds to adduce any proof of this "evil,'' he gives us a strange mixture of candor and misrepresentation. " Our brethren of all the Protestant denominations, teach that we are regenerated hy the Spirit of God ; and they also teach that we are regenerated by baptisnl" (pp. 85, 86). Again : "I am gratified to say, however, that all these denominations have gra- dually acquired, as they became better instructed in the Word of Grod, more distinct and full con- ceptions of the work of the Spirit in regeneration; and especially is this true of the various classes of Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, in our country and in Europe" (p. 91). And again : " More than this ; they give, in their life and character, most gratifying evidence that they are themselves the subjects of this heavenly reno- vation" (p. 91). We will give these honest con- cessions a moment's consideration. 1st. The churches that teach the doctrine of regeneration by the Spirit, teach sound doctrine, and the Doc- 7*

78 INFANT BAPTISM.

tor concedes the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churclies teach this; therefore infant baptism in those churches is not in ^' conflict with the doctrine of regeneration by the Spirit' ' — the Doctor himself being the witness. 2d. The Doctor concedes that certain Psedo-Baptist churches have been gra- dually improving in the knowledge of the Word of God and work of the Spirit in regeneration, and that this specially is true of the Methodists, &c. Therefore, infant baptism has not caused these churches to degenerate, as the Doctor asserted in the preceding section. Where, then, is the evil of 'infant baptism — the Doctor himself being judge. 3d. He concedes, that the evan- gelical Pasdo-Baptist churches, in their li/e and character J give the most gratifying evidence that they have been regenerated hy the Spirit. Well done, my dear Doctor — where then is the evil of infant baptism? Have you more gratifying evi- dence that the Baptists have been regenerated by the Spirit ? Would the Apostles themselves have demanded more as a proof of regeneration, and as pre-requisite to sacramental communion? If in "Z?/e and character^^ — and more cannot be re- quired— the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches ^^give the most satisfactory evidence'' of regene- ration by the Spirit, then incontestably they do

INFANT BAPTISM. 79

not teach regeneration by haptism, because belief in regeneration by the Spirit implies^ that they do not believe that they were regenerated by hoptism in infancy — the Doctor himself being judge. These are the fatal concessions which the Doctor makes with regard to the evangelical Paedo-Bap- . tist churches, especially the various classes of Methodists, Congregationalists, and Presbyterians in our country and in Europe. ^^ All this is can- did : but he is not content to rest here long : he must find " eviF' in infant baptism somewhere, in some churches, and in some form, and we follow him in the pursuit.

"Yet when infant baptism is to be adminis- tered, or defended, all their evangelical princi- ples are apparently forgotten. Baptism and rege- neration are not now esteemed by them as separate and distinct things, but they declare them essen- tially identified.^^ And this, he says, he "shall sustain by the amplest testimony^^ (pp. 91, 92). He adduces quotations from the "Augsburg,'' " the earlier Helvetic and another Lutheran Con- fession," " the Westminster Confession," " the Belgic Confession," " the Heidelburg Catechism, or Confession/' "the Galilean Confession," "the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England," and "the Articles of Relioiion of the Methodist

80 INFANT BAPTISM.

church/' and adds, " the same doctrine is main- tained in the Bohemian, the Saxon, and all the oihers,^^ and concludes, " the Catechisms and stan- dard writers (p. 96) maintain the same doctrine'' (pp. 92, 93). This is a startling array of *^ testimony" surely, if it be testimony. But, in the first place, it will be hard to enable many of " the million' ' to understand to what Paedo-Baptist churches all these ^^Catechisms'' and ^^Confessions" belong — to what extent many of them are evangelical — and so much of this '' testimony" must be of no weight to them. In the second place, the Doctor misrepresents the Arminian and evangelical por- tion in the above churches, especially in the Church of England, who maintain sound and scriptural views of infant baptism. In the third place, '^ the various classes of Methodists, Congre- gationalists, and Presbyterians in this country and in Europe," as distinct and entire evangelical churches, maintain sound and scriptural views of infant baptism. To refer particularly to the Methodists alone in this country and in England : they interpret their Articles of Beligion in har- mony with regeneration by the Spirit, and their interpretation is what they '^ teach," when they ^^ administer or defend infant baptism." The ^' Catechisms" of the Methodists in this country

i

INFANT BAPTISM. 81

and in England flatly contradict the ctarge of the Doctor. In the Catechism (written by Richard Watson, ^' a standard writer'^ of the Methodists) adopted by the entire Wesleyan Connection ia England, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, North and South, in this country, the children are taught :

^' What is the outward and visible sign or form of baptism ?

" The application of water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost/' (Mat. 28 :19.)

^' What is the inward and spiritual grace signi- fied by this ?

'^ Our being cleansed from sin, and becoming new creatures in Christ Jesus (Acts 22 : 16). Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

^^What are the actual privileges of baptized persons ?

" They are made members of the visible church of Christ : their gracious relation to him as the second Adam, as the Mediator of the new cove- nant, is solemnly ratified by divine appointment ; and they are thereby recognised as having a claim to all those spiritual blessings of which they are the proper subjects.

82 INFANT BAPTISM.

'' What doth jour baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost oblige you to do?

^'My baptism obliges me, first, to renounce the devil and all his works, the pomps and vani- ties of this wicked world, and all the sinful lusts of the flesh; secondly, that I should believe all the articles of the Christian faith; and thirdly, that I should keep God^s holy will and command- ments, and walk in the same all the days of my life/'

Now, what is the interpretation all the Metho- dists in the world give to these statements ? That baptism is a sign, and not an efficient cause of grace. That cleansing from sin, and becoming new creatures, follow in cases dying in infancy, which is the work of the Holy Spirit, in view of the free grace of God in the vicarious death of Christ, " the second Adam, the Mediator of the new covenant,'' which baptism solemnly, sensibly, and formally ratifies. That all infants, living and subsequently performing all the conditions of the covenant, have a '' claim to all the spiritual bless- ings'' of the covenant, and this prospective claim is formally and solemnly ^^ recognised" in infant baptism. And that all infants, living, are- *' obliged" to renounce the vanities of the world,

INFANT BAPTISM. 83

believe all the doctrines of the Bible, and obey God all the days of their life ; which obligations are set forth prospectively in infant baptism. Not one word in all this, that infants in baptism are i;egenerated and ^^ cleansed from the defilements of original sin/'

And in the Catechism composed by Bishop Capers, and published by the Methodist Church, for the use of Methodist Missions, and taught even to thousands of black children on the plantar tions in the Southern country, the children are instructed as follows :

^^ What is baptism ?

^^ Baptism is a sign of the grace of God that makes us Christians.

" Does baptism make us Christians ?

^^ No : water cannot make us Christians : grace makes us Christians.

^^Who works that grace in us to make us Christians ?

"The Holy Ghost."

Here, then, is a flat denial of the charge, that the Methodists teach in their Catechisms, that in- fants are regenerated in baptism, or hi/ baptism. Thus, the premises of the Doctor, such as, " with the Methodists baptism is the means by ichich their infants are regenerated and born again'' —

84 INFANT BAPTISM.

^^ baptism and regeneration are not esteemed by them as separate and distinct things, but essen- tially identical'^ — being false, his conclusion — ^^the doctrine of infant baptism is consequently in direct conflict with the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration^^ — is also false — and so is exhibited the insufficiency of his ^^ ample testimony^' to make out an ^^eviF^ in infant baptism in the Methodist church. When we '' administer or de- fend infant baptism'^ we neither " apparently'' nor really ^^ forget our evangelical principles." In our Catechisms, in our Articles of Religion, and in our Baptismal forms, we always " esteem baptism and regeneration as separate and distinct things,' ' and never ^* declare them essentially identified.'' Indeed, we forbear to inquire into the spirit or the motives with which the Doctor made the accusa- tion which we have just now denied and dis- proved. Whatever may have been his spirit or his motives — if good, they have been perverted — if bad, they have been exposed. That he cannot sincerely believe his accusation to be true, he has ^^ the most gratifying evidence'' in his concessions already before the reader ; and that he sincerely believes we teach regeneration hy the Spirit J is demonstrated by his own conduct, for he cheerfully embraces every proper opportunity

INFANT BAPTISM. 85

to immerse every person regenerated by the Spirit under the "teaching'' and labors of the Methodist church, and so initiates all such into his church, authenticated and esteemed as good and true /^disciples" as any in his own communion. And if he will nurse them well, no matter — only remind them occasionally of their " true mother,^' lest they forget her — reproach her — despise her — as many old Baptist laymen, and Baptist writers do. Take care of these " habes in Christ," Doctor: they are our arguments that you sin- cerely believe we maintain " regeneration by the Spirit J' Take care of these ^'lamhs,^^ Doctor: they are our proofs that infant baptism is not an " evir' among the Methodists. Bead these " living epistles,'' Doctor : they are our " testimony'' with which to refute your book.

VI. The sixth general argument of the Doctor is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because, arro- gating HEREDITARY CLAIMS TO THE COVENANT OF GRACE, IT FALSIFIES THE DOCTRINE OF UNI- VERSAL depravity" (p. 98).

Worse and worse — if we understand the* Doc- tor. Let us proceed a few steps farther, that we may clearly understand him. '' All the blessings of the gospel of Christ are claimed by our Paedo- Baptist brethren for all their infant children. 8

86 INFANT BAPTISM.

Such is the doctrine on this subject which uni- versally prevails among Presbyterians, Congrega- tionalists, and all other Calvinists. By them it is distinctly avowed; and it is held with more or less ambiguity, by every class of Pasdo-Baptists" (Ibid). He says, ^^this is the doctrine of the Methodist church in the United States'' (p. 100). After making sundry quotations from Paedo-Bap- tist authors to prove that this doctrine is taught in the Church of England, the Episcopal church in the United States, and by the Presbyterians in England and America, he concludes, ^^ from these expositions we learn, that all children of believers are by hereditary descent entitled to the privileges of membership in the house of God, and to the promises of salvation. These are prerogatives arising exclusively from their hereditary relations. Their parents are holy; therefore their children are holy'' (pp. 101, 102). In the first place, every author he quotes, places the right of infants to the blessings of the covenant upon the free grace of God, though some of them limit the right to haptism to descent from believing parents ; and this the Doctor knew, as he had read at least one authority, Goode, whom he quoted as au- thority. Consequently none are horn holy. Some Paedo-Baptists, such as Papists and PuseyiteS;

INFANT BAPTISM. 87

maintain, that all infants, loTien hoptizedj are regenerated or made holy, but even these corrupt churches never maintained, that any infants are horn holy. Some Psedo-Baptists in the Church ' of England maintain, that elect infants, and the infants of elect parents, are regenerated or made holy in baptism ; but none of them maintain, that any infants are born holy. The Doctor certainly can see, that right to baptism^ and right to rege- neration, from hereditary descent, are very dif- ferent things. We believe both rights are ground- less.

The Doctor has also erred egregiously in stating the question. Universal depravity is maintained by all the churches from which he quotes — some of them maintaining that the children of believing parents are entitled to baptism, and that such are regenerated or made holy by the Spirit in baptism — of course they were unholy before they were baptized. They maintain, that all infants are depraved; but some, namely, those of believing parents, are entitled to baptism, and in baptism obtain regeneration; but that others, not of be- lieving parents, are not entitled to baptism, and so continue unholy : and hence that all, by na- ture, are unholy, which is the doctrine of univer- sal depravity. Secondly, the Doctor positively

INFANT BAPTISM.

contradicts himself. In the two preceding chap- ters of his '^ evils/^ he quotes from these very churches to prove that they maintain that infants are regenerated or made holy in haptism, and consequently that they are not holy in conse- quence of Tiered itary descent. Hear him. To prove that " infant baptism contradicts the great fundamental principle of justification by faith/' he quotes Wall as saying, " Most Psedo-Baptists hold that God by his Spirit does, at the time of bap- tism, seal and apply to the infant that i^ there dedicated to him the promises of the covenant of which he is capable, viz. : adoption, pardon of sins, translation from the state of nature to that of GRACE.'' Again : ^^ The justification, regenera- tion, and adoption of little children haptized, confers upon them a state of salvation." Again: " Archbishop Usher writes thus : ^ The branches of this reconciliation [received by infants in their baptism'] are justification and adoption.' " And •the Doctor adds : '^ So teach all the other divines, and all the Protestant Confessions of Faith and Catechisms'' (pp. 67, 68). And after quoting from the ^^ Augsburg," and "Westminster Confes sion," ^^The Thirty-Nine Articles," and th«. " Methodist Articles of Religion," he adds, "And Episcopalians and Methodists affirm that h^ bap-

INFANT BAPTISM. 89

tism the new birth, the forgiveness of sins, and adoption, are all to the child visibly signed and sealed. The child therefore in baptism is par- doned of sin, is regenerated, is adopted, is re- ceived into the church, received into the favor of God, and saved in heaven'^ (p. 76). And con- cludes : " These are the expositions of standard writers among Pasdo-Baptists, of all classes, ex- planatory of the efficacy of baptism as taught in their Confessions^^ (p. 80). Again : to prove that infant baptism "is in conflict with the doctrine of regeneration by the Holy Spirit,'^ he says, "our brethren of the Protestant denominations teach, that we are regenerated BY baptism" (p. 86). He quotes one Confession as stating, '^Baptism is, by the institution of the Lord, the law of regeneration.^^ Another , " born again by baptism and the Holy Spirit.'' Another : " rege- neration is offered in baptism.^' And so on. And continues : " with the Methodists baptism is the means by which their infants are regenerated and born again,' and so of " elect infants'' among the Presbyterians. And he concludes : " They all teach, therefore, that we are regene- rated in baptism.^' Here, then, we have a flat contradiction. If the Doctor proves by his Psedo- Baptist authorities, that infant baptism contradicts

90 INFANT BAPTISM.

the doctrines of justification by faith, and regene- ration by the Holy Spirit, then he cannot prove that infant baptism contradicts the doctrine of universal depravity, as is evident from the use the Doctor makes of authorities. Thirdly, the Psedo-Baptist authorities, adduced by the Doctor, prove the doctrine of universal depravity, and so the Doctor's argument is refuted by his own wit- nesses. Fourthly, indeed the Doctor concedes all this himself ^^But our [Paedo-Baptist] brethren themselves hold, and emphatically teach xiniversal de^raviti/^ (p. 103). And he quotes from the Articles of Religion of the Protestant Episcopal, and Methodist Episcopal Churches, in proof of this. And adds, " Calvinism, in all its sects, speaks" the same doctrine ; and concludes, " All other evangelical denominations hold the same principles'' (p. 101). These concessions the Doc- tor was compelled to make, and . they are fatal to his argument, because it is evident that infant baptism does not " falsify the doctrine of univer- sal depravity.' '

When by numerous concessions, and palpable contradictions, the Doctor refutes his own argu- ment, it would be needless to detain the reader in considering additional proof. That is, when, by his own concessions, he proves the inaccuracy of

INFANT BAPTISM. 91

his premises, and by Paedo-Baptist authorities refutes his accusations against them, nothing re- mains but to reject the premises as false, and the accusations as untrue.

I The truth is, infant baptism recognises the entire moral depravity of infants, all infants, without exception ; and imports, in all cases, dying in infancy, th^ necessity of regeneration by the Spirit, in order to their qualification for heaven; and living till responsible age, the ne- cessity still of regeneration by the Spirit, which is to be obtained by repentance and faith : all the way, it implies universal depravity/' Infant bap- tism, then, is not an '^ eyiV^ upon the ground which the Doctor assumes — and we pass to the consideration of his seventh general argument. VII. "Infant baptism is an evil, because IT

NECESSARILY ENTAILS CORRUPTIONS UPON THE

church'' (p. 109).

In endeavoring to sustain this position, the Doctor expends his best energies — but in vain. His first proof is : " Infant baptism corrupts the church in her doctrines.'^ He says, this has been proved " in the preceding chapters" of his book. Not at all; for we have seen, in the preceding sections of this reply, that his " chapters" contain a mass of fals-e issues, misrepresentations, perver-

92 INFANT BAPTISM.

sions, concessionSj contradictions, and illogic^ conclusions, which it is surprising he ever should have published to the world, and which, having reviewed, he did not correct. He refers to the doctrines of ^^justification by faith,'' ^^regenera- tion by the Spirit,'' and ^^ universal depravity" — all of which are maintained uncorrupted by the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches — and this the Doctor, again and again, as we have seen, con- cedes.

His next proof is : ^^ Infant baptism also cor- rupts the church in her membership.^' "We reply: in whatever country, and in whatever church, baptized infants are regarded in subsequent life as members of the church of Christ — there infant baptism is a subject of abuse, and is perverted from its original, apostolic design. In truly evan- gelical churches, infants who subsequently to their baptism, at the proper time, fail to repent and believe, are not regarded as members of the church (nor do they regard themselves as such), any more than adults are in the Baptist church, who, after their baptism, commit sin, and back- slide from the faith. The very quotation which the Doctor makes from Dr. Miller proves this. ^' The only question they can ask themselves is not. Shall we enter the church? but, Shall we

INFANT BAPTISM. 93

continue in it'^ — by repentance and faith and obedience, according to the prospective requisi- tions of our baptism in infancy ? What the Doc- tor says about the practice of churches ^' on the other side of the Atlantic/^ and of high-churchism in this country, has no more to do with the practice of the truly evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, than Popery there, and high-churchism here, have to do with the pure doctrines of the evangelical churches there and here, since infant baptism, and other institutions of pure Chris- tianity, are there abused and interwoven with many gross and fatal corruptions.

His next proof is: ^^ infant baptism corrupts the church in the spirit hy whicJi she is ani- mated.'' This he attempts to support as follows : First, ^Hhe spirit with which infant baptism inspires the church is corrupt and unholy/^ This is but a reiteration of the proposition to be proved. Secondly, " it is fully justified by the history of Popery in all ages/' Evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches have nothing to do with that, since Popery has corrupted the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, justification by faith, and many other evangelical doctrines of Christianity — and there- fore, upon the Doctor's own showing, because Popery has done all this, evangelical churches.

94 INFANT BAPTISM.

including the Baptist churcli, will do it — a con- clusion from which we recoil, as well as he. Thirdly, ^Hhe progressive developments of Pro- testantism increase its force/' This we deny — and the denial is equivalent to the affirmation. But we go farther, and prove the affirmation to be false. The progressive developments of sound Protestantism are opposed to all corruption., both in church and state. This has now become an axiom of history. Sound Protestantism, ^'the re- ligion of the Bible,'' * is the life of the church, and the foundation of our republic. Churches that call themselves Protestant may, it is- true, abuse and pervert the doctrine of infant baptism — but evangelical Pasdo-Baptist churches are not to be classed with them, any more than the evan- gelical Baptists are to be classed with Camp- bellites. Nor are they to be held any more responsible for the heresies and corruptions of certain so-called Protestant communities, than Dr. Howell is for the heresies and corruptions of Alexander Campbell — and therefore the tendency of evangelical Pa3do-Baptist churches is no more to be determined by the tendency of connipt Predo-Baptist churches, than the tendency of the Doctor's church is to be determined by the ten-

* Chilling worth.

INFANT BAPTISM. 95

dency of the sect of Alexander Campbell. That is to say, both the Baptists and the Campbellites practise immersion, but they each give a different meaning to it. And so evangelical and corrupt churches practise infant baptism — the one pre- serving it in its purity and simplicity, and the other subjecting it to abuse and corruption. This is but another example of the Doctor's mode of reasoning — a particular conclusion from uni- versal premises. The question should be stated in this form : Do the '' progressive developments'^ of evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches 'increase the force'' of the ^^ corruption" to which the Doc- tor refers ? We answer — no — not an iota. Place the evangelical P^do-Baptist churches upon their oivn merits, and their whole history, from the beginning to the present, is a refutation of the Doctor's allegation. In them there are no signs of corruption : in evangelical doctrines and insti- tutions they remain unchanged; and in these there are no sources of corruption. Consequently, so long as they continue evangelical, their ^^ pro- gressive developments" can never originate, much less *^ increase the force of corruption" on the subject of infant baptism. Not a single develop- ment of these churches has, in any degree, or in * any respect, impaired the force, or despoiled the

96 INFANT BAPTISM.

beauty and purity of infant baptism ; and it is mere assumption to say^ that tbeir progressive developments have done either^ or will do either in future. Fourthly, "They — the Neology of Lutheranism, the Puseyism of Episcopacy, and the Universalism and Unitarianism of Presbyte- rianism and Congregationalism — are all the legi- timate fruits of infant baptism, but for which they never could have existed^' (p. 112). A superficial acquaintance with the history of the origin of these corruptions, if he possessed it, ought to have taught the Doctor better than this^ and prevented him from adopting this miserable view of infant baptism. Persons acquainted with the origin of these corruptions know better, and we will not detain the reader with any historical quotations, or specific statements on the subject. But we shall offer other evidence equally satisfac- tory with what an historical statement would be. It is denied that Neology is a corruption of Lu- theranism, and Puseyism of Episcopacy, and Uni- versalism and Unitarianism of Presbyterianism ; but for argument's sake, we admit it all. And yet we want the proof that they are " the legiti- mate fruits of infant haptism^^ — that, " but for infant baptism, they never could have existed/' Let us apply this mode of reasoning to a few

INFANT BAPTISM. 97

examples or facts of history. Many heresies arose in the Apostolic church; therefore they were " the legitimate fruits of infant baptism'' in the Apostolic churchy and ^^but for infant baptism'' in the Apostolic church, '^ they never could have existed." The Doctor's logic demonstrates that infant baptism existed in the Apostolic church, though at the same time it proves that Christ and his Apostles sanctioned a corruption, and the cause of heresies ! However, the Doctor gives us a new method to determine the Apostolic origin, authority, and prevalence of infant baptism, though we decline the method, and accept the fact. Again : Campbellism arose in the Baptist church — for Alexander Campbell was a Baptist when he con- ceived his heresy, and did immense harm to the Baptist church before he left it — therefore Camp- bellism is ^^the legitimate fruit" of immersion, and ^^ but for" immersion it " never could have existed." The Doctor will not admit that this is a ^^egitimate" conclusion — yet in one sense it is true, because without immersion Campbellism could not exist, for Campbellites practise immer- sion as indispensable to salvation. Once more : the celebrated Elnathan Winchester was a Baptist minister, and then became a Universalist preacher, and was the founder of Universalism in this coun- 9

98 INFANT BAPTISM.

try — therefore Universalism is ^^ the legitimate fruit^' of immersion and close communion, and but for these Uniyersalism ^^ never could have existed/' These are all ^^ legitimate'' conclusions from premises similar to those employed by the Doctor against infant baptism. But their ab- surdity is so palpable that they must be rejected at once — and so also we must reject the Doctor's. But we have another proof of the fallacy of the Doctor's reasoning. The strongest opposers of German '^Neology, Puseyism, Universalism, and Unitarianism/' are found in the evangelical Psedo- Baptist churches — and some of them in the very churches in which, he says, these corruptions arose — which is positive evidence that they have not become comipted by infant baptism. Finally : a reaction has taken place in Germany, and the evan- gelical Psedo-Baptist party in the controversy, among whom Tholnck is prominent, have triumphed, and Neology there is waning down to fruitless efforts — Puseyism, in our country at least, is losing ground every day — and Universalism and Unita- rianism are annually diminishing in strength at the North, and are scarcely known at the South, except in some of our populous towns and cities, where they are few and feeble, and vanishing away — while all over the land, from the Canadas

INFANT BAPTISM. 99

to Texas, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific, the evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches, with no mark of decay, decline, or decrepitude, are ex- tending in every direction, with increasing vigor annually, and with increasing numhers, opposing all forms of religious heresies and corruptions, and proclaiming the " glorious gospel of the blessed God,'' in ^^ the demonstration of the Spirit and in power'' — all the time maintaining uncorrupted the Apostolic doctrine of infant baptism. These are facts, and ^^ the million'' go for facts in settling the truth or force of an argument.

Before we close this section, we will notice one of the most extraordinary assumptions upon re- cord. It is incidentally thrown in at a time when the author thinks it will have the most decisive effect upon the ^^ million." Having represented the ^^ alarming and disastrous evils" — these are his words — of infant baptism, and having proved, as he thinks, that the tendency of evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches is to "inevitable destruc- tion," he exclaims, " But the Baptist church cannot thus be corrupted and destroyed" (p. 112). All other churches upon earth have in them the elements of progressive corruption, and are fore- doomed to destruction — but the Baptist church is pure in nature, and proof against destruction —

100 INFANT BAPTISM.

yea, she cannot be corrupted — she cannot be destroyed : this is the assumption.

Admitting that the Baptist church is now entirely pure — which we do not — this is as- suming far too much; it is far too much for any church to assume; it is assuming what Christ and his Apostles never assumed for the Christian church which they founded. Angels fell. Adam fell. The patriarchal church became corrupt, and but eight souls of all the ante-delu- vian church remained un corrupted. The Jewish church, again and again, became corrupt, and at the coming of Christ was- in a state of very great corruption. The churches at Jerusalem, Corinth, Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, Philippi, Laodicea, Co- losse, Philadelphia, Sardis, Pergamos, Thyatira, Thessalonica, and all other churches planted by the Apostles, became corrupt, and have long sinc« vanished from the world.

There are certain causes which, if they exist in any church, will certainly corrupt it, whatever may be the purity of its doctrines and ordinances. We shall mention a few.

1. An unholy ministry. Such a ministry will be governed by worldly motives, and preach for worldly advantage or popular applause. They will shrink from any duties likely to injure their

INFANT BAPTISM. 101

worldly reputation or worldly interests. They will neglect the business of the church for their own private business. They will not exercise the proper discipline of the church lest the people refuse to pay them their dues. They will sell the cause of Christ, and his honor, and their own souls, and the souls of men, for money. They are barren in the works of charity, and destitute of zeal, and the church of God will languish and die on their hands. 2. An unholy membership will corrupt and destroy the church, especially where an unholy laity have a share in consti- tuting rules and regulations for the government of the church. 3. The spirit of worldly compro- mise, whether in the preachers or the members, will do it. 4. Unauthorized and unscriptural in- novations upon the doctrines and ordinances of pure Christianity, will do it. 5. A general ne- glect of proper church discipline will do it. 6. The want of "brotherly love" will do it — and the church become enslaved under the cor- ruptions of bigotry and exclusiveness. In a word, may not temptation corrupt the members, and ambition destroy the rulers of the church ? Is the church proof against the seductions of wealth and power in a popular age ? May it not depend more upon its wealth, intelligence, and growing

102 INFANT BAPTISM.

influence, than spirituality in doctrine, experience, and practice ? May it not exult more in its in- creasing numbers, and worldly power, than in the character of its converts, and the favor of God ? May it not soften, as we have said, the rigor of its wise and healthful discipline, observe with in- difference and mere formality its solemn and holy sacraments, compromit the truth of its divine and evangelical precepts and requisitions, and allow the spirit of the world gradually to diffuse itself throughout its membership, till watchfulness, prayer, self-denial, and zeal, are discontinued, and not a vestige of its former simplicity and purity remains ? Is the Baptist church — is any church of Christ — inaccessible to intemperance, fashion, love of money, love of pleasure, love of ease, and the love of the world in a thousand forms ? Does the Doctor look down from his pulpit upon a pure and holy church throughout ? Does he not be- moan the presence of many tares — rank tares, from time to time, and here and there? Does he not often lift his warning voice to arrest the startling progress of corruption in many forms, and rouse from their lethargy those that are " at ease in Zion^' around him ? Does he not some- times, though not as often as he should, exercise discipline in excluding improper and corrupt

INFANT BAPTISM. 103

members from his church, who were not baptized in infancy, and who, with him, believe infant baptism to be a great and intolerable evil ? If infant baptism were the only cause of corruption to the church, then, it is true, the Baptist church can never become corrupt — so long as it opposes its adoption and practice. But this is not the fact, as we have just seen ; and hence the Doctor assumes too much in defence of the integrity, purity, and perpetuity of the Baptist church — he assumes what is not true.

Further : as the Baptist church may be cor- rupted and destroyed by causes, among which in- fant baptism cannot be numbered, so evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches may be corrupted and destroyed by the same causes, and then what advantage has the Baptist church over the evan- gelical Paedo-Baptist churches ? Time alone can determine, and time enough has already elapsed since the origin of the modern Baptist church, and the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, to demonstrate that the Methodist church at least, in numbers, wealth, intelligence, influence, and pious labors, has surpassed the Baptist church, though it was not founded by John Wesley in England till 1739, nor in America till 1766, under the preaching of Philip Embury, in the

104 INFANT BAPTISM.

city of New York, while tlie Baptist church, the Baptists themselves asserting,* was founded in England in 1602, and in America, at Providence, by Roger Williams, in 1639. One hundred years, or, if the Doctor chooses, 1800 years (as he claims for his church descent from the Apostles), in ad- vance of the Methodist church as to time, and yet confessedly surpassed by the Methodist church I When the Baptist church shall excel, or even overtake the Methodist church, in these respects, it will be time to examine into the true causes of the astonishing achievement. However, in the consideration of the causes that have operated, and still operate, in the promotion of the pros- perity of the Baptist church, the fruits of Metho- dist revivals, and Methodist preacMngj are to be taken. We hesitate not to say, that if a deduc- tion of Methodist converts, now in the Baptist churches, in city, town, country, and island, were fairly made, a very material difference would be seen in the present result ) and if it were possible to estimate the extent of Methodist influence upon the Baptist church, a more^ material difference would be seen exisiting between the two churches, standing upon their individual and intrinsic merits.

* Backus's Church Hist. c. 1, p. 19. Benedict's Hist, of Baptists, Tol. 1, 475.

INFANT BAPTISM. 105

But we are willing to waive the consideration of all the fruits of Baptist proselytism (and this is immense), and all the results of Methodist influ- ence (and this is immense also), upon the Baptist church, and with these helps yielded to the Bap- tist church, submit the question, whether the Methodist church is more liable to corruption than the Baptist ? Does not, therefore, the Bap- tist church, as it now is, owe much of its purity and prosperity to the Methodist church ? Ought not the Baptist church, then, for its own sake, to cultivate a practical spirit of Christian friendship and intercourse with the Methodist church ? Is it good policy, is it reasonable, is it right, for Bap- tist ministers, and Baptist newspapers, and the Baptist Board of Publication, to send forth to the world treatises and pamphlets and articles, in un- compromising hostility to that very church which has contributed, and is still contributing, so much to the preservation and advancement of the Bap- tist church ? Is it wise ? is it grateful ? is it chari- table? is it Christian? What was the motive that originated the conception of the Doctor^s book of " Evils ?'' It could not have been to build up, but, at a single stroke, to pull down, the Psedo- Baptist churches, heretical and evangelical, and so enlarge the dimensions of the Baptist church : —

106 INFANT BAPTISM.

to have ready a small treatise to place in the hands of youDg converts in times of revival in other churches, that a strong and certain direction might be given to the Baptist church : — to ex- cite discontent in the minds of many already asso- ciated with other churches, and incline all such to withdraw, and commit themselves to the '' liquid grave/^ and the wide open arms of the Baptist church : — to set up a defence for that which is indelicate in some, and doubtful in all cases — immersion — the foundation of the Baptist church ; — to oppose most strenuously that as a source of many "evils,'' namely, infant baptism, which is a most powerful argument against immersion : — to destroy utterly, if possible, that which, so long as it exists, and to the extent it exists, must consti- tute the strongest opposition to the assumptions of the Baptists on the subject of baptism — to de- stro2/j we repeat, at a single blow, the whole family of evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches. It was a bold manoeuvre, but badly managed ; and however pure and honest may have been the motive, if such was his motive, frenzy alone must have in- spired him with courage. Infant baptism and the Baptist church can never be reconciled: one or the other must go down in the Doctor's plan ; and he sets himself to work; day and night, torturing

INFANT BAPTISM. 107

his brain with schemes, collecting and inventing materials, and obtaining help from conversation , and books, and it may be, from correspondence, not very profound in any case, till he is ready, with the formidable array of ^^ twenty-one'^ argu- ments, to prepare the people, by ^^ the million,^' to combine for the utter extinction of the whole family of evangelical Pgedo-Baptist churches. Such a motive is itself corrupt in the highest degree — though " the Baptist church can never become corrupted/' The very conception of the Doctor's book originated in corruption, or in ignorance, and we need go no farther to prove, that the Bap- tist church, in its ministry at least, is not pro- tected against corruption by its opposition to in- fant baptism.

But we shall go farther. Admitting the claim of the Baptists — which we do not — that infant baptism did not exist in the Apostolic churches, nor in the early churches, as the Doctor affirms, "till the middle of the third century," up to which time the Baptist church alone existed, how did it happen, that the church became corrupt at all? In his work on " Terms of Communion," p. 181, the Doctor affirms, ^^In the third century and onwards, the Christian fathers believed and taught that sins were only forgiven in baptism,

108 INFANT BAPTISM.

tliat infants, by this ordinance, were purged from original pollution, and that all persons dying with- out it were lost/' How came these Fathers so to believe and teach, while they were Baptises, and "the Baptist church can never be corrupted?" Besides, if for the first three hundred years the church was Baptist^ it would be easy for the Doc- tor to run a line of immersion is ts back to the days of the Apostles, for it is presumable, as the Doctor has fixed the time of the origin of infant baptism, he can also certainly tell us up to what time, and to what minister or preacher the Baptist church continued in its Apostolic purity, "faith and order/' If this can be done, it is surprising it has never been done, since this would have set- tled the baptismal controversy, and established the claims of the Baptist church forever. If the Bap- tist church did exist in the Apostolic age, and continued uncorrupted for two hundred years after the death of St. John (the last of the Apostles), which happened about 100 A. D., the first fact is evident, that the Baptist church, though it was Apostolic, did become corrupt, which refutes the above arrogant assertion of the Doctor; and the second fact is equally evident, the succession of the Baptist church has been lost in the promis- cuous ruins of ages, which refutes the popular and

INFANT BAPTISM. 109

favorite dogma of some of the Baptists, that " im- mersion at the hands of an immersed administra- tor is indispensable to the validity of the ordi- nance f ' in the former case, the Baptist church was ^^ corrupted and destroyed;'' in the latter case, it does not exist : in either case, the arro- gance of the Baptist church, on the subjects of immersion and infant baptism, is severely rebuked. Thus : if the modern Baptist church is a revival and restoration of Apostolic purity, as is assumed by the Baptists, '^ corruption'' may again ensue in the Baptist church, and the " destruction" of the Baptist church again occur — though it never maintain the doctrine of infant baptism.

For example: upon the supposition — which we do not admit — that the Apostolic churches were Baptist churches, whence originated the Ebion- ites ? — the Gnostics ? — the Phant!istics or Doce- t8e? — the Marcionites? — the Encratites? — the Carpocratians ? — the Patripassians ? — the Yalen- tinans? — the Montanists? — the Manicheans? For example again : modern Unitarianism was re- vived in a Baptist church in Scotland, and Uni versalism originated in this country, and perhaps in the world, in a " Baptist church" in Philadel- phia, under the heretical teaching of the celebrated Elnathan Winchester, a Baptist clergyman, who 10

110 INFANT BAPTISM.

afterwards visited England to disseminate the new heresy there. And Walter Balfour, the great leader of Universalism in New England, was a Baptist, and then became a Universalist, and was one of the most dangerous sophists and heretics of our times. And Alexander Campbell, the founder of Campbellism, was a Baptist, and is the most dangerous religious sophist of the present age. Once more : the Baptist church may be distinguished into two denominations, the Par- ticular and General Baptists, and these have but little communication with one another. The Par- ticular Baptists are Calvinistic, whose leading arti- cle is the doctrine of particular redemption. The G-eneral Baptists maintain the doctrine of general redemption, and other doctrines of the Arminian system, while they agree with the Particular Bap- tists only on the subject of baptism, worship and church discipline. The General Baptists have recently been distinguished into the Old and New connections. The Old General Baptists have been gradually declining, and under the corrupting in- fluecice of Socinianism they are likely to become extinct. And then there are the Scottish Bap- tists, of more recent date still, who differ in various respects from the English Baptists. And then more recently still, there has sprung up in Scot-

INFANT BAPTISM. Ill

land another sect, called the Tabernacle connec- tion, gathered together by Messrs. James and Haldane, who set out upon the principle of Psedo- Baptism, and formed churches independent of the parent stock, which '' eviF' has been greatly aggra- vated by another ^^eviV namely, that "ifAe Lord/s Supper is not pecidiarly a church ordi- nance.^^ And then in the United States there are the "Regular or Associated^' Baptists, "mode- rately Calvinistic in sentiment/^ And then there are many smaller bodies of Baptists, such as the " Seventh-day '' Baptists, mostly Calvinistic — the " Free-WilF' Baptists, inclined to Arminianism — the " Christians,'^ who, with few exceptions, deny the Trinity — the " Tunkers or Dunkards/^ found in several parts of our country, and avowed Uni- versalists in sentiment — " Campbellism,^^ that most miserable heresy, or rather jumble of most miserable heresies, so prevalent specially in the West, and which has derived most of its adherents from Baptist churches — the "Anti-Missionary'' Baptists, prominent only for their " ignorance and immorality"— the "Hard-Shell" or ^' Black-rocJc^* Baptists, whose title is sufficiently significant with- out comment — the " Two-Seed" Baptists, a stinted and waning reproduction of ancient Manicheism — the " Close-Communion Calvinistic" Baptists, an

112 INFANT BAPTISM.

amalgamation of Baptist worship and Calvinistic doctrine — the ^^ Free Christian^^ Baptists, whose doctrines are in general the same as the Free-Will Baptists — the " Six-Principle'^ Baptists — and the ^^ Emancipators'^ — and so on, and so on — and how did ^^ corruption'^ originate in any of these ? or what has broken and scattered these fragments of the Baptist church in Christendom ? But one example more. In England, at this very hour, Paedo- Baptism is extending in the Baptist church. The Baptists in this country may stu- diously conceal it from " the million,'^ but such is the fact. And lo 1 here we have, upon the Doc- tor's own showing, in/ant haptisriij the sum of ecclesiastical '' evils,^^ corrupting the Baptist church itself! How soon, and how far, the exam- ple of the English Baptists may extend its influ- ence to this country, it is impossible to say ] but we see no difference between the two countries, and none between the Baptist church here and there, that can much longer prevent the same re- sult in America ] and added to the growing influ- ence of the evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches upon '^ the million," we hesitate not to express it as our deliberate conviction, that the forthcoming '^ new translation" of the Bible will greatly pro- mote this result.

INFANT BAPTISM. 113

But we go still farther. "We adduce the Doc- tor's concessions. The sagacious Doctor, con- fronted on every hand by the evangelical charac- ter of certain Paedo-Baptist churches, with appa- rent candor inquires, "But is not this an over- statement of the case ? In our country, at least, do the corruptions alleged exist, if at all, to the extent indicated? Is infant baptism there- fore productive of the evils here charged against it ? / am happy to concede that in this favored land, and with some classes of our Paedo-Baptist brethren, its evils are greatly mitigated" (pp. 113, 114). Fatal concession — then why so much pompous swelling, ridiculous dogmatism, and pious cant, about imaginary evils, existing, we are tempted to believe, only in the excessive vanity of a mind whose judgment is contracted by preju- dice and perverted by sophistry ? That we do not '^overstate the case,'' we invite the reader's atten- tion to the singular manner in which, in the next paragraph, he attempts to destroy the whole force of this concession. " I shall now prove, however, that this is the result of peculiar causes" — and he mentions four — modestly placing his own church in front, and conferring the greatest honor upon his own denomination. "These sects," says he, " are still evangelical in consequence of four 10*

114 INFANT BAPTISM.

causes wtich are perpetually acting upon them." We shall give these ^' causes'' a brief examination, in the order in which the Doctor arranges them. " In the first place, the Baptist churches of this country contain a million of communicants. Five millions more are of their opinion, and under their influence. One-fourth, therefore, of all the population of the United States are strongly Bap- tistical. With them Paedo-Baptists are ever asso- ciated. They thus in a great measure destroy the influence of infant baptism" (p. 114). The evan- gelical purity of the Pagdo-Baptist churches ascribed mainly to the influence of the Baptist church! — to the influence of Tunkers, Univer- salists, Unitarians^ Camj)belliteSj Anti-Mhdonary ^ Hard- Shelly Blach-Roch, Two-Seed^ Six-Princi- l^le^ Close- Communion Calvinistic, Open-Com,mu- 7iion, No- Communion y Antinomian^ Free-Will^ Arian, and Trinitarian Baptists, who make up a large proportion of the round ^^ million" aforesaid ! Doctor, it is demonstrable that these sects corrupt YOUR ov^N CHURCH, and difiuse the corrupting leaven to such an extent throughout the whole ^^ Baptistical" mass, that the influence of the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches is required, to a great extent, to preserve what is pure in your own church. It is demonstrable, that the Baptist

INFANT BAPTISM. 115

church has acquired, as a basement, what of evan- gelical purity and activity it at present possesses, from its daily contact with the pure evangelical Fsedo-Baptist churches. TJiis is the true state- ment of the case, and the Doctor should have made the candid acknowledgment, and rendered "• honor to whom honor is due/^ '' Secondly, the universal diffusion of the Bible is a potent and ever-acting energy.^' That is the very reason why the evangelical Peedo-Baptist churches are flourish- ing in an unprecedented manner in our ^^highly-fa- vored country," in the present age. And this the Doctor himself admits. '^ All are now in the church'^ (p. 126), though he asserts (p. 115), in- fant baptism is a subject of wide-spread neglect everywhere'^ — two statements positively contra- dictory— and no wonder, because made to prove two positively false and contradictory premises. Indeed, this is the specific character of the Doc- tor's book— ^a combination of false premises and positive contradictions. "Thirdly, many Paedo- Baptist ministers are themselves converted nien. They preach the great fundamental doctrines of the gospel^ and thus falsify infant baptism, and keep it entirely out of sight.'' It is admitted then that "many Psedo. Baptist ministers'' are evan- gelical in experience and in doctrine — so far

116 INFANT BAPTISM.

good : but this is admitting that one of the ^^ causes'' of the evangelical purity of the Psedo- Baptist churches is in themselves, and the cause continuing, the effect must continue; and so ortho- doxy, in the Paedo-Baptist churches, is likely to perpetuate them. But it is a mistake, that Paedo- Baptist ministers "falsify infant baptism, and keep it entirely out of sight'' — as is proved, not only by the many able treatises written on the subject of infant baptism, and opened in sight of Christendom, and the sermons of Psedo-Baptists preached in all parts of the land, and the Cate- chisms used in all the Pacdo-Baptist churches, but also, as is usual, by the Doctor himself, in the vast multitude of quotations which he makes from Psedo-Baptist authorities, of which his "little volume'' is principally composed, and to which it is indebted mainly for its size. We never read an author more dogmatic, or so perfectly self-contra- dictory and so self-refuting as Dr. Howell. And yet this is not surprising. For a mind, either voluntarily disregarding the truth, or naturally unable to construct a logical argument, must, iu its progress, clash somewhere with truth and rea- son. "The fourth, and last clause, is found in the revivals which have so long, and so happily prevailed in our country." Granted : and this is

INFANT BAPTISM. 117

anotlier cause of evangelical purity existing in the Psedo-Baptist churches themselves, and God grant that it may exist, and acquire accumulated vigor, with the progress of time. But the Doctor him- self knows, that the Baptist church has shared, and still shares largely, in the fruits of these evan- gelical Paedo-Baptist revivals, and he should have frankly made this concession also. But the con- clusion of the Doctor is one of the most ludicrous instances of ^* begging the question'' in his book. ^^ But take away these influences and infant bap- tism will lead here to the same results that it has attained in Germany, Spain and Italy'' — that is — the evangelical Psedo-Baptist churches be "over- whelmed with hopeless corruption." Take away "these influences," that is, excepting the "first," and any church on earth would be overwhelmed with corruption, even though it were admitted on all hands that infant baptism is not an evil. "Take away these influences," and the Baptist church could not long exist, though it is not " corrupted" by the great " evil" of infant bap- tism. What are " these influences ?" Why, ^/^e BihJe, a holy ministry^ and evangelical revivals. Eemove these from any church, and at once it becomes "overwhelmed with corruption." In these respects, the Baptist church occupies the

118 INFANT BAPTISM.

same ground with the Paedo-Baptist churches, and the Doctor's argument is as good against the con- tinued purity of his own church, as against that of the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches. To say, that "these influences'' being withdrawn, then in- fant baptism will " overwhelm the church with cor- ruption," is also reasoning in a circle," since these influences having been withdrawn, the church is already " overwhelmed with corruption." And to say, that then infant baptism will efiect all this corruption, is to leave infant baptism nothing to accomplish as a corrupting cause, but itself to be perverted and abused, as in the history of Popery and Puseyism.

The Doctor concludes his argument with the assumption, that "it is most evident that no church practising infant baptism can long remain a true church of Christ," and that, " without it, the Boman church, the Greek church, the Lu- theran church, the English church, never would, never could have fallen into their present heresies and corruptions," and that "every other Paedo- Baptist church is following in the same path." Worse and worse. Does not the Doctor know — and we must here repeat — that a thousand cor- ruptions in churches, formerly evangelical, origi- nated in causes entirely different from^ and inde-

INFANT BAPTISM. 119

pendent of, infant baptism ? That then infant baptism was perverted and abused in common with almost every other evangelical institution? That ambition, bigotry, and cupidity were foun- tains of numberless evils ? That false philosophy was the parent of endless heresies and supersti- tions? That intrigue and worldly policy insidi- ously engrafted upon the church countless innova- tions ? And that in the incipiency and progress of these invasions of the simplicity and purity of the church, she neglected to conform to the Bible, failed to apply rigidly the proper tests of church- membership, and finally wholly neglected the proper exercise of church discipline ? Had she done all these faithfully, corruption would have been impossible. And this the Doctor, as usual, admits: — ^^ How can it [the purity of the church] be secured and perpetuated ? It can be done only by a strict conformity to the Divine Word gene- rally, and especially to the laws of membership there revealed and established. Let also a careful discipline be maintained, and every member be promptly separated from the body who is found to be unworthy and cannot be reclaimed Such a church corruption can never approach^' (p. 116). Now it does seem evident, notwithstanding the Doctor's repeated and egregious blunders in logic,

120 INFANT BAPTISM.

philosophy, and history, that he has often sagacity enough to discover the true causes of the church's corruption, and the adequate remedies — though this does not require the exercise of a wonderful or extraordinary faculty, since they lie on the sur- face of things. And yet he does evince sadly a want of candor, in not giving these causes and remedies the proper location, attributes and rela- tions. And hence we are inclined to the opinion, that the Doctor discovering, as he progressed in his argument, the true causes of corruption, he could not state them fairly without utterly destroy- ing his argument, and he could not omit them altogether, without exposing himself to the charge of unfairness; for it is inconceivable, how he could so clearly suggest the remedies^ without as clearly perceiving the causes of the corruptions to b^ removed. Indeed, it may be affirmed as an axiom generally applicable to the Doctor's book, that his own admissions are either directly or in- directly sufficient refutations of his assumptions. His assumptions are so extravagant, that they require some modifying concessions to render them palatable to ^^ the million 3" but unfortu- nately the concessions, founded in truth, are so plainly in conflict with the assumptions, that so far from supporting them, they destroy their force altogether.

INFANT BAPTISM. 121

VIII. His next general argument is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because it gives false VIEWS OF the kingdom OF Christ'^ (p. 117). The reply to this assumption is brief. After a useless effort to prove what every evangelical Psedo-Baptist admits, namely, that the kingdom of Christ ^^ is purely spiritual,^^ the Doctor con- cludes, ^Hhat only those who are spiritual are capable of citizenship in the kingdom.^' Granted, and Christ says of '' little children'^ — ^^ of such is the kingdom of heaven.^' What the Doctor says of adults, baptized in infancy, as being still '^ mem- hers of the several Psedo-Baptist churches," though they ^^ crowd the haunts of gaiety, dissipation, folly, and even of crime," has no application to the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, for bj these churches all such baptized persons are not regarded as members of the Christian church, they having forfeited their right to church-mem- bership by actual and repeated transgressions, which they can recover only by evangelical re- pentance and faith. And hence it is not true, as the Doctor states, that '^ three-fourths of all the children in the United States are members of the churches." We have nothing to do with ^' Eu- ropean countries where the whole population is, by law, baptized — though this is an abuse, not 11

122 INFANT BAPTISM.

an "evil/' of infant baptism. Thus, the general proposition is not sustained by the facts and prin- ciples in the case, and so falls to the ground.

IX. The next argument in the Doctor^s book is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because it

DESTROYS the VISIBILITY OF THE CHURCH'^

(p. 123). The reply to this assumption is also brief, because it is made without qualification and without discrimination. All children are entitled unconditionally to association with the visible church, because they are already unconditionally associated with the spiritual church, and in re- sponsible age, they may continue their connection with the spiritual and visible church by faith and obedience, and so they may dissolve their connec- tion with the spiritual and visible church, by the neglect of these evangelical obligations. The Doc- tor is right when he says, " The doctrine taught by our Psedo-Baptist brethren would hring every child upon earth, as soon as it is born, into the church'^ (p. 126). And they teach likewise, that every baptized child may voluntarily go out of the visible church as soon as it arrives at responsible age. Baptism recognizes in the child an obligation to discharge, at the proper time, all the conditions of the covenant of grace, and seals unto him, dis- charging those conditions, all the rights, privi-

INFANT BAPTISM. 123

legeS; and blessings of the covenant, and one of these is continued association with the visible church. The acknowledgment of the right of an infant, in responsible age discharging these con- ditions, to continued association with the visible church, no more destroys the visibility of the church, than the acknowledgment of the right of an adult, discharging the same conditions, to asso- ciation with the visible church, destroys the visi- bility of the church. In both cases, regeneration accompanies the discharge of the conditions, and therefore the right to association with the visible church in both cases is the same. Adults, bap- tized in infancy, who subsequently fail to discharge the conditions prospectively implied in their bap- tism, are no more regarded as members of the visible church, than are impenitent adults who were not baptized in infancy. How then is the visibility of the church destroyed by infant bap- tism? Had the Doctor understood the doctrine of infant baptism better, or treated the views of Psedo-Baptists with more candor, he never would have ventured to make the assumption under con- sideration. Hence, the following assertion of the Doctor, '^ The church is the world ^ and the world is the church,^^ is the conclusion of his own fancy, and the fruit of his own ignorance. What he

124 INFANT BAPTISM.

says of the custom in '^ Germany/' has no more to do with the sound theology of infant baptism in this country, than the neology of Germany has, and has none of the ingenuity and plausibility of the neology of Germany, though he says, ^^ such is the testimony of one of their [Psedo-Baptists'] own witnesses to the destructive influence of in- fant baptism,'^ which we deny, and boldly retort, it is no more the testimony of one of our wit- nesses, than Alexander Campbell, on the efficaci/ of immersion, is one of the Doctor^ s witnesses.

The Doctor next assumes the defensive. ^' Bap- tism and membership in the church must be strictly confined to those who give credible evi- dence of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptists alone now maintain these principles." No doubt, these are the principles of the Baptists alone. And yet the Baptists do not go far enough. Baptism should be given to all who have a right to ^^ mem- bership in the chureh :" thus, children have a right to it loithout ^^ faith,'' and adults hi/ "faith." "We therefore," the Doctor continues, "wield the only conservative influence at present existing in the universe." So thought the Millerites most confidently at one time, and some of them are de- luded and vain enough to think so still. The arrogance of the assumption is its own refutation.

INFANT BAPTISM. 125

"How exalted, therefore, how sublime our mis- sion ! Every hierarchy and sect, Papal and Pro- testant, has been united for our destruction, and eterj government upon earth has pursued us in- cessantly, with fire and sword, but we have lived on through every persecution, and have never failed, however deep our suffering, to bear our testimony as witnesses for God/' Every other sect of evangelical Christianity can say the same thing. And so can the Quakers and the Jews. " Our bonds are at last being loosed ; the links of our chain are, one by one, breaking and falling ; prosperity has come; and our rapid spread over the earth intimates that God is about to vindicate his gospel, to sweep away from among men the clouds of ignorance and error, and to restore to the world a pure and glorious Christianity/' Amen — but not quite all the credit to the Bap- tist church, my enraptured Doctor. The evangeli- cal Paedo-Baptist churches also have a right to participate in the general joy, and indulge also the same glorious hope. The prosperity of the Baptist church is not to be ascribed to her oppo- sition to infant baptism, but to her gradual and manifest improvement in doctrine, in intelligence, in piety, in zeal, in means to enlarge her enter- prises, notwithstanding her restrictions and exclu- 11*

126 INFANT BAPTISM.

siveness. How much good she accomplishes by her necessary and general co-operation with evan- gelical Psedo-Baptist churches, it is impossible precisely to estimate, though the Doctor makes no account of this. And how much good she pre- vents, by her opposition to infant baptism, her restrictions, her exclusiveness, her limited views of the atonement, her want of entire fellowship and co-operation with other branches of pure Christianity, it is also impossible to estimate. However, we are not willing to concede, that the Baptist church alone could ^^ sweep away from among men the clouds of ignorance and error, and restore to the world a jpure and glorious Chris- tianity,'^ though the Doctor is enchanted by the vision, and believes that his church has already entered upon this " sublime mission. '^ The ^^ mis- sion'' of his book is, to destroy all the Psedo-Bap- tist churches in the world, and over their mourn- ful ruins, publish among all nations Baptistical views of a pure and glorious Christianity. How much the progress of the gospel would be retarded by this catastrophe, no language can describe.

X. The tenth general argument of the Doctor is : ^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because its prac- tice PERPETUATES THE SUPERSTITIONS BY WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY PRODUCED" (p. 131). If

INFANT BAPTISM. 127

superstition originally produced infant baptism, or as the Doctor says (p. 130), ^^ superstition is the parent of infant baptism/^ then infant baptism did not produce all the evil in Christendom. The church then was corrupted by "superstitions" before infant baptism was produced. But before infant baptism was known, if ever there was such a time since the days of the Apostles, the church was wholly Baptist — how then did the Baptist church become superstitious? The Doctor him- self affirms, that during the Apostolic age, and until two hundred years of the church had been told, infant baptism was wholly unknown. The history of that period, whether sacred or profane, makes not the remotest allusion to such a prac- tice'^ (p. 130). Granted, and then infant baptism was the result of antecedent "evils/' and these evils must have originated in the Baptist church at this time ; and if all the subsequent " evils'' ascribed by the Doctor to infant baptism, did originate in infant baptism, how great must have been the " evils" in the Baptist church that originated infant baptism ! And so it turns out at last, that infant baptism originated in the Bap- tist church, and originally destroyed the Baptist church ! and infant baptism, or something worse, may do it again ! But we deny altogether the

128 INFANT BAPTISM.

assumption of the Doctor, and affirm that "the ^ history of that period makes allusions/' both posi- tive and inferential^ to infant baptism, as we have shown (in another work), from the Scriptures, and also from the ecclesiastical history of that period. Says the Doctor, " Origen, who lived in the mid- dle of the third century, was the first who defended it'' (p. 132). Very well; and why? Because Tertullian, his contemporary^ was the first who op-posed it — in a certain manner — and no sooner do we hear of opposition from Tertullian, than we witness a prompt defence from Origen, who was baptized in infancy^ and was descended from Christian parents — his father, grandfather, grand- mother, and great-grandfather, being Christians. Besides, it is true, that Origen " lived in the middle of the tMrd century ;" but it is also true, that he was horn in the year 185, when he was haptized. Why did not the Doctor tell "the million" that? And he proceeds to give what he calls the true causes of the origin of infant baptism at this early age, all of which are in fact the true causes of the abuse or perversion of infant baptism. Against these corruptions he says, " murmur- in gs were doubtless uttered occasionally by those who knew anything of religion as taught in the Word of God. But — they were all silenced —

INFANT BAPTISM. 129

I

by decrees'' — of the corrupt churcli (p. 137). Granted — but the evangelical Peed o- Baptists uttered the '^ murmurings'^ — denying ^Hhat the sacraments are necessary to salvation/' or ^^ that they contain the grace they signify.'' In the one case, the abuse of infant baptism originated in the ^* superstitions" and '' corruptions" of the church — in the other case, the restoration of infant bap- tism to its Apostolic purity originated in the opposition of its evangelical defenders in the Paedo-Baptist churches. And so when the Doctor says, ^^ that all the sects of Protestant Psedo- Baptists are under the influence at this moment, to a greater or less extent, of [certain] forms of superstition, is a fact that no man can successfully deny" (p. 142), we boldly reply, that this is an allegation which no man can successfully prove. That superstition exists in certain churches, such as the Bomish, and Puseyite, we admit; but it no more therefore follows, that any of the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches are under its '' influence,'^ than because Campbellites are immersionists, there- fore all immersionists are under the '' influence'^ of the Campbellite "superstition" of baptismal regeneration.

XI. The eleventh general argument of the Doctor is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because it

130 INFANT BAPTISM.

BRINGS ITS ADVOCATES INTO COLLISION WITH

THE AUTHORITY OF Christ'' (p. 154). And thus he proceeds. ^*1. Infant baptism renounces the authority of Christ in regard to the persons to be baptized'^ (pp. 154, 155). When the Doctor can prove, that Christ has no authority over infants, it will be time enough to consider this strange notion. What he says about the baptism of infants in '^ Spain and Italy,^' we admit, is true ; but this has nothing to do with us — no more, in fact, than Alexander CampbelFs views of immersion have to do with the Doctor's. The Doctor's assertion, "It [infant baptism] baptizes exclusively wibe- lieversj and believers never,'' is a sophism, awk- wardly expressed. Unbelievers are voluntary agents : infants are not voluntary agents, and therefore can- not be unbelievers. Besides, if infants ai'e unbe- lievers, then all dying in infancy are lost ! "2. Infant baptism offers an indignity to the authority of Christ by dispensing with the appointed pro- fession of faith as a condition of baptism" (p. 157). Here is another sophism, as fatal to infants as the preceding. The authority of Christ over infants is formally and solemnly achnowledyed in baptism. And to require of infants " profession of faith as a condition of baptism/^ is to require of them faith as a condition of salvation ^ which they cannot

INFANT BAPTISM. 131

exercise, and so, from the Doctor's premises, all dying in infancy, must be lost. ^^3. It also changes the form, and thus wholly abolishes bap- tism itself ^^ (p. 158). Here is a begging of the question; for the assumption, that immersion is the 07ily proper mode of baptism, is begging the question respecting mere mode. ^^4. Infant bap- tism prevents the obedience to Christ of believers" (p. 159). This is a misconception of the true import of infant baptism. Infant baptism respects obedience at the proper age, as adult baptism im- poses obedience upon believers now ; and so bap- tism imposes and enforces ohedience in both cases. These are the Doctor's proofs — and now he be- comes intensely animated. " In our country, there are large numbers who become enlightened, and consequently unhappy on this subject. They feel as if they must obey Christ, but how can they ? May not every one do what he shall think to be his duty? He reject infant baptism ! If he dare essay so bold an act, he is taunted and ridiculed as presuming to be wiser than the thousands of the great and good who have gone before him. Re- proached I Insulted ! Scoffed ! Upbraided with a want of respect for his parents and friends, who believed in it, and who had him baptized in his * infancy. — He leave his own church I — he think

132 INFANT BAPTISM.

of uniting with another churcli ! If he dare he will be at once denounced as weak-minded, vacil- lating and unstable. It will be rung in his ears that not much confidence is to be placed in the religion or intelligence of those ^renegades' who are going from one church to another. He join the Baptist church ! For that church, above all others, he has been taught to cherish disrespect ! He believes its members to be mostly ignorant fanatics, with whom intercourse must always be painful. All this, and only to be baptized ! Had he not better give it up at once ? These are some of the barriers that infant baptism throws in the way of obedience^^ (pp. 160, 161). Are you in earnest, Doctor? Alas, you have proved too much. You say, these ^Harge numbers'' have become '^ enlightened y^ and therefore '^unhappy'' — how then can they believe the ^^ members of the Bap- tist church to be mostly ignorant fanatics V^ or ^Hhink'^ of joining "the Baptist church, with whom intercourse must always be painful V^ Now the truth is, such persons (and there are not " many") are not " enlightened,'' and hence they are rendered "unhappy'' by the obtrusive zeal, the shameless spirit of proselytism, and the cap- tious sophisms of your own hrethren. If these unhappy persons had been better " enlightened,"

INFANT BAPTISM. 133

they would have been proof against the sophisms, the false opinions, and the miserable acquisition of a morbid conscience, which inclined them to your way of ^^ obedience/^ It is emphatically true, that '' large numbers'' reared and educated in the Baptist church, when converted in revivals in Psedo-Baptist churches, desire to join these churches — and now what? Are they not ^^re- proached ? — insulted ? — scoffed ? They join the Pdedo- Baptist churches ? — the churches, above all others, for which they have been taught to cherish disrespect ?^^ — and so on. The lament of the Doctor is nothing more than the whine and the cant of bigotry, the grumbling of discontent, and the mortification of proselytism. It is the ground- less assumption, that the Baptist church only *^ obeys Christ,'' and that the whole family of evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches must be lost, for they all disobey Christ ! The Doctor delibe- rately declares, " I have known many, and from my heart have pitied them, who lamented in secret their inability to act. They were always unhappy. Their consciences were perpetually up- braiding them. But they^ remained in disobe- dience" (p. 162). Any man who could entertain such opinions of infant baptism as are expressed in the Doctor's book; if he be honest in his 12 ♦

134 INFANT BAPTISM.

opinions, and sincere in his sympathy, should rather "pity^^ the great multitude of Pasdo-Bap- tists, who are guilty of voluntary disobedience, than the "many^^ among them, who, he says, ^' lament in secret their inability to act/' The special, heart-felt " pity/' therefore, seems to be rather the grief of a blind and fruitless zeal, than the sympathizing sorrow of genuine piety. And also the enthusiastic ^^ thanks to God,'' that ^^ there are persons, who rise superior to every restraint, and obey at whatever hazard — and can, and do, burst the bonds of infant baptism," is rather the shout of sectarian fervor, and the grati- fication of partizan anxiety, than the exultation of Christian charity, and the ^^joy in the Holy Ghost." He says, such persons ^^are character- ized by strong and independent minds, firmness of purpose, deep piety, and a readiness to sacrifice all for Christ" (p. 162). It is surprising, to what an <3xtent bigotry perverts the judgment, and cor- rupts the heart. As far as our observation ex- tends, we never knew one person, educated pro- perly in the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, who, possessing the noble attributes of character specified by the Doctor, withdrew and united with the Baptist church — not one — but we have known several, not many, who, either weak in

INFANT BAPTISM. 135

judgment, or fickle in will, or superficial in piety, or ready to sacrifice all for self, or governed by worldly whims and motives, or disaffected with their brethren, have withdrawn from our churches, and sought a congenial home in the Doctor's church ^ — just as several have had "independence, firmness, piety, and self-deniaF' enough to leave our churches, and very many the Doctor's church, and united themselves with the Camphellites. At one time, the Doctor tells us, there is a constant " drain'' made upon the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches by removals to Komanism and Puseyism, and of course this proves the "independence, firmness, piety, and self-denial" of these seceders I At another time, he tells us, " the numbers" of this noble class in the evangelical churches " are rapidly multiplying," and that " they know, and dare do their duty" — by joining the Baptist church. But the argument is just as good for the Campbellites, Eomanists, and Puseyites, as for the Baptists. And the Doctor may be reminded, that many leave the Baptist church, and unite with the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches. Some leave the Baptist church, because they cannot ap- prove the doctrine of restricted communion — and some, because they cannot believe the dogma of exclusive immersion — and some, because they

136 INFANT BAPTISM.

think they can innocently unite with their friends in the Psedo-Baptist churches — while others, for these reasons, though brought up in the Baptist church, never join the Baptist church — and yet we lay but little stress on these facts in the argu- ment against the Baptists, and we place no confi- dence in a similar mode of reasoning against infant baptism.

XII. The next general argument of the Doctor is: '^Infant baptism is an evil, because of the

CONNECTION IT ASSUMES WITH THE MORAL ANL> RELIGIOUS TRAINING OF CHILDREN^' (p. 164).

The first step of the Doctor is, to defend the moral and religious training of Baptist children, and all he says of them, we say of evangelical Psedo-Bap- tists^ children, and so at once flatly disprove the argument of this whole chapter. The Doctor ridicules the idea of parental vows made at the time the children are baptized. What, is there no sin or ^^evir^ in this? He who deliberately asserts it, is guilty of the aggravated crime against parental and divine love, and, we fear, this crime the Doctor does commit. " And what do thej/ vow ? Why, that they really will do what God A'lmighty has commanded, and discharge an obli- gation which no vows of any kind can either ab- solve, or render more binding !'' (p. 169.) What

INFANT BAPTISM. 137

else the Doctor saj^s under this argument is but a repetition of what he had assumed again and again in support of the preceding arguments of his book, and which we have ah^eady considered. We will add, that the assumption is positively proved to be false, by the exemplary, prominent, and excellent moral and religious training of Paedo-Baptist children throughout the land ; and the " evils" of such a training, personal or rela- tive, public or private, intellectual, social, moral, religious, official, civil, or national, exist only iu the fruitful imagination of the Doctor.

XIII. The next general argument of the Doc- tor is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because it is

THE GRAND FOUNDATION UPON WHICH RESTS THE UNION OF CHURCH AND STATE'' (p. 176).

This is a '^ grand'' mistake, as shall be proved from the Doctor's premises. The church and state are not united in our country, and the Doc- tor himself admits, that " three-fourths of all the children in the United States are baptized, and members of the churches" (p. 121). The Doctor himself concedes, that the union of the church and state existed hefore infant baptism prevailed. *' It [the union of church and state] was fashioned upon the principles oi paganism'^ (p. 181). After mentioning many '' most disastrous results which 12*

138 INFANT BAPTISM.

immediately arose' ^ from this union, lie adds, "another result was to give prevalence to infant baptism^* (p. 182). And Mr. Hinton, a Baptist, an author quoted by the Doctor as follows, con- cedes the same thing : " We find it indelibly re- corded on the pages of history, that the practice of baptizing infants did not spread extensively till after Christianity became the state religion of the Roman empire^' (p. 182). Very well; then infant baptism was the effect^ and not the "foundation" of the "union of church and state.'' But the Doctor is wrong both in his concessions and in his conclusions. Infant baptism existed before the union of church and state occurred, and then, after the union, infant baptism, like the gospel, was abused, and perverted from its original sim- plicity and purity. The gospel itself was so far perverted as to be made the foundation of the union. And therefore when the Doctor says, " Destroy infant baptism and you destroy the union of church and state'' (p. 184), we reply, Destroy the gospel, and you destroy the same union. One conclusion is as sound as the other. And therefore the gospel is an "6i;i7." Or destroy the civil constitution, and you destroy the union of church and state. And therefore the civil constitution is an " evil." The Doctor's pre-

I

INFANT BAPTISM. 139

mises prove too much, and therefore his argument falls to the ground. This is but an example of his mode of reasoning, repeated throughout his book, and in the same manner his whole book may be refuted.

XIV. We proceed to his fourteenth general proposition, which is: ^'Infant baptism is an evil, because it leads to religious persecu- tions'^ (p. 185). His first argument " is found in the nature of Psedo-Baptism itself. It brings into the church the whole population of the country where it prevails. And such a church will inevitably be a persecuting church'^ (pp. 185, 186). What, did not the Jews persecute the Christians, crucify Christ the founder of the Christian church, and kill all the apostles but John ? and the Doctor assumes, that infant bap- tism was unknown at this time. Besides, after the time of Constantino, when the churches perse- cuted each other, it was not upon the ground of opposition to infant baptism, for the Psedo-Bap- tist churches persecuted each other. Nor did the church commence the work of persecution till it became corrupt ] and the Doctor himself concedes, as we have seen, that the church became corrupt hefove infant baptism generally prevailed. More- over, the woTld also persecuted the Christian

140 INFANT BAPTISM.

church in its infancy, as the early history of the church proves, and when the church becomes un- holy, it will also become persecuting, and hence corruption, and not infant baptism, ^^ leads to per- secution/^ And hence, should the Baptist ehurcli become coriiipt, and the restraints of civil au- thority be removed, ^^ it will inevitably be a per- secuting church/' Because infant baptism is found associated with a persecuting church, is no proof at all that infant baptism is the foundation or source of the spirit of persecution; especially when infant baptism exists in such a church in a perverted and corrupted form ] for infant baptism, like everything originally pure and evangelical, has, in such a case, been modified, abused, and perverted. But this is arguing from the abuse of that which in itself is good; and so the Doctor might as fairly argue that the Bible itself " leads to persecution/'

The Doctor's '^ second proof is found in the po- litical connection which, when practicable, infant baptism always assumes" (p. 186). " And/' he adds, " the fact is well known that everi/ state church in all ages, and in all countries, has been a persecuting church" (p. 187). We have already considered this, but will add, the Church of Eng- land, and the Church of Scotland, are Fdedc-

INFANT BAPTISM. 141

Baptist, and these churches are not persecuting churches^ for it is one of the glories of these countries, that they now exercise a liberal and tolerant spirit to all dissenting sects under the government of Great Britain. Besides, in our country, Paedo-Baptism almost universally prevails, and there is no country on earth so fre^ from per- secution as ours; in which infant baptism does not even ^' assume'^ to establish a '' political con- nection ;'^ but in which the strongest supporters of infant baptism are the strongest opposers of such a connection. Indeed, the union of church and state can never occur in our country till infant baptism itself is corrupted and abused ; and con- sequently, infant baptism, as it exists in evangeli- cal purity in our land, is one of the strongest bar- riers in Christendom to the union of church and state, and so is one of the firmest safe-guards against '^ persecution." And the same we say of every other evangelical institution, and every evangelical doctrine, of Christianity. Till these are perverted and corrupted, the union of church and state is impossible in our country; and pre- served in their purity, they are infallible preserva- tives against the spirit of religious persecution ; for that which preserves and perpetuates the purity of the church, will secure the universal exercise

L

142 INFANT BAPTISM.

of the spirit of tolerance and forbearance. It is a question of much more fearful import, whether the very essence of exclusweness, found in the baptistical dogmas of restricted communion and immersion^ may be made the foundation of the union of church and state, and so, upon the Doc- tor's premises, whether the exclusiveness of the Baptist church " leads to persecution/' Upon the supposition, that the Baptist church shall possess the majority of the suffrages in our republic, who can say, that the Baptist church would not then proceed to adopt some civil regulations upon the principle of its present religious exclusiveness, with all the cruel and bloody sanctions of ^^persecu- tion?'' But we will not pursue this inquiry, since we desire not to assail, but to meet the assaults of the Doctor.

The Doctor proceeds : "A third proof is derived from the source [Judaism] of the main argument upon which infant baptism relies for support" (p. 188). We have already proved, that this is a false assumption of the Doctor. But granted; and then pure Judaism itself was a persecuting church, and so God himself was the founder of a persecuting church ! This is but another in- stance of the Doctor's refutation upon his own premises.

INFANT BAPTISM. 148

"In the last place, I appeal to the testimony presented by facts'' (p. 188). We will notice the Doctor's facts. " Popery, before the Reformation, poured out upon our Baptist Fathers all the fury of its malignant heart'' (p. 188). And so it did after the Reformation, upon the evangelical Psedo- Baptist churches. And what is most surprising, the Doctor himself concedes, that the Baptist church originated in the midst of persecution, "in the centre of the general community, or church 'Within the church. A new baptism (im- mersion)," says he, "was to be the instrument for gathering congregations, which were to consist exclusively of true believers" (p. 191). Very well; then the Baptist church was not founded till the Reformation. And what is as surprising, the testimony of his " Baptist Fathers" is fatal to the assumption of the Doctor. " The baptism of infants," said they, "is a horrible abomination [which the Doctor says, in a note, is " most true"], a flagrant impiety, invented by the evil spirit, and by Pope Nicholas II." (p. 191.) Granted; and then Popery existed before infant baptism was " invented," and so infant baptism did not " lead to the religious persecutions" of the Romish church. And what is equally surprising, D'Au- bigne, the witness of the Doctor, and quoted as

144 INFANT BAPTISM.

follows by him, gives the true cause of the perse- cution of the Doctor's ^^ Baptist Fathers.^' "Un- doubtedly the spirit of rebellion existed among these Ana-Baptists,'* &c. (p. 192.) Yes, rehellion against civil law. The Doctor adduces, as another fact, the persecutions in England. But unfortu- nately for this argument, the Baptists were not the only subjects of persecution, nor were they perse- cuted merely because of their opposition to infant baptism, as the Doctor himself ought to know (if he does not know), from the history of the times. Besides, '' Cranmer, Ridley, Rogers, and others,"*' Psedo- Baptists J as the Doctor himself mentions them, were also persecuted, and perished at the stake. The Doctor, again and again, affirms, that the " principal crime'' of his " Baptist Fathers'* was "the denial of Infant baptism.'' And this is refuted by the fact, that Faedo-Baptists them- selves, thousands of them, fell in the horrible per- secutions of those times. But the Doctor surren- ders the whole question in the following candid or extorted concession. " The persecutions we have so long suffered are now, in the more enlightened Christian nations, happily beginning to be re- laxed" (p. 198). We might have adduced proofs from history to show, that the Ana-Baptists, the Doctor's '^Baptist Fathers,* did not suffer mainly

INFANT BAPTISM. 145

^^for their denial of infant baptism/' but we are saved this trouble by the Doctor himself in his quotation from D'Aubigne. ^^^The Ana-Baptists/ says D^Aubigne, ' did not confine themselves to questions jpiirely religious. They demanded the abolition of tithes/ ^' &c. To the concluding sen- tence of the Doctor, '^ And as political liberty ex- tends itself, Baptist principles, and Baptist people, will cover the earth'' (p. 200), we reply, that if the Baptists of this country were to adopt and practice the principles of their ''Baptist FatherSj^ they would now and henceforth be opposed and put down as rebels^ traitors^ heretics^ in proportion as ^^ political liberty extended itself,'' and so perish from " the whole earth." Indeed, the Baptist church now, in this country, and in every other country, would go as far in persecuting other churches as ^^ political liberty" and public opinion would allow — if the Doctor's book is to be made the standard of opinion of infant baptism, as shall be shown in the following section.

XV. The fifteenth general proposition of the Doctor is: ^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because

IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" (p. 203). His first

argument is drawn from ^^ Popish countries." We reply again, we have nothing to do with that, and 13

146 INFANT BAPTISM.

SO the argument goes for nothing; since infant baptism, in Popish countries, is ahused ; while evangelical Pasdo-Baptist churches, in this coun- try, oppose the ^^ Popish'^ abuse with all their strength. It is preposterous, therefore, to argue from the abuse of infant baptism, against its evangelical purity and important benefits. And the Doctor concludes, '^ No Popish nation, there- fore, ever has been, or ever can be free'' (p. 205). Granted, and nothing is gained for his argument ; for no ^' Popisli^ nation can ever be free till infant baptism is restored to its evangelical purity, and all corruptions, ceremonial and doctrinal, are removed from the Romish church.

But what is more absurd still, is the universal conclusion which the Doctor draws from particular premises. Having stated, that Popish nations, such as '^ the states of South America,'' arc not free, he concludes, '^ Infant baptism is at the foundation of the slavery of the nations" (p. 205). In the first place, infant baptism is not at the foundation of the slavery of Popish nations, though we grant it for the sake of argument. No doubt infant baptism, in its ahused and corrupt form, contributed something to confirming the slavery of those nations; but the foundation of slavery was laid before infant baptism was cor-

INFANT BAPTISM. 147

ruptedj and the Doctor himself being judge, hefore infant baptism generally prevailed. Secondly, the nations of Africa generally, and other nations of the earth, among whom infant baptism is not known, are in the most miserable servitude con- ceivable. And thirdly, our nation enjoys the highest civil freedom of the nations of earth. Our nation, by the blessing of God, achieved this freedom when it was Pdedo-Baptist ; and Wash- ington, the leader of our Psedo-Baptist armies, and the father of our Pdedo-Baptist nation, was himself baptized in infancy. And ever since our freedom has been obtained, the nation has been advancing in civil liberty, and the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches in prosperity. The Doctor may reply, this is ascribable to the advancement of the Baptist church; but we retort, the pros- perity of the Baptist church is attributable mainly to the progressive influence of the evangelical Pdedo-Baptist churches in the United States.

To the assertion, that '' infant baptism is con- trary to the principles of religious freedom,^' we reply farther : there is no country on earth so free in this respect as ours. And it is worthy of ob- servation, that all the fine rules the Doctor gives, by which civil and religious freedom may be pre- served, are the very rules which evangelical Psedo-

148 INFANT BAPTISM.

Baptists found upon tlie sound principles con- tained in the institution of infant baptism; and which they apply in the education of their chil- dren, for the establish naent and promotion of civil and religious freedom. The Doctor soon saw this frowning rock against which he was driving, and forthwith attempts to steer clear of it, lest he be dashed in pieces — but in vain — the very effort is destruction. '^ But these facts and arguments, I am reminded, are predicated of infant baptism as it exists in connection with Popery, and that it does not necessarily follow that they are true of it when practised in connection with Protestantism. In America the very atmosphere we breathe is essentially anti-Paedo-Baptistic. Here infant bap- tism is comparatively a dwarfish and contemptible thing"' (pp. 207, 208). Again, the Doctor must refute himself: '' Three-fourths of the population of this country are Poedo-Baptistic.^^ He hoists all sail, and with the shriek of despair rolls upon the rock. And yields — '^It can never flourish here. It is out of its element, and does not pro- duce its mature fruits'' (p. 209). Well done; then it does not destroy civil and religious freedom here, though three-fourths of the population are FoedO'Baptistic ! In conclusion, if ^^it is true, that infant bap-

INFANT BAPTISM. 149

tism is contrary to the principles of civil and reli- gious freedom'' (p. 209), then should the Baptist church ever be able to do it, it should put down Faedo Baptism as treason, a civil "evil and a curse*' (p. 209), and therefore the Paedo-Baptist churches may anticipate persecution from the Bap- tist church, should it ever acquire power enough to revive Ana-Baptism^ or repeat Romanism. How- ever, we feel no apprehension ; for Peedo-Baptism has already overturned Ana-Baptism, and routed Romanism ; and it will keep the Baptist church within proper bounds, wherever it attempts to act upon the Doctor's principles.

XYI. The sixteenth general argument of the • Doctor is : " Infant baptism is an evil, because it

ARRESTED THE BeEORMATION MIDWAY IN ITS

course" (p. 210). The Beformation rescued infant baptism from much of its Bomish corrup- tions, and restored it to comparative simplicity and purity, which the evangelical Paedo-Baptists have since effectually done. Luther rejected tran- suhstanfiation, but believed in consubstantiation, both of which the evangelical churches utterly reject. The Beformers, with Luther at their head, were Paedo-Baptists, and the Doctor says of the Reformation, '^This was the character of early Protestantism, a7id it was the character of 13 *

150 INFANT BAPTISM.

the religion of the Apostles. No other can he true^' (p. 213). Then we need go no farther — the Re- formers were Psedo- Baptists, This is enough. The Doctor's arguments are diminishing in length and not increasing in strength, and out replies are accordingly brief, and less tedious.

XVII. His seventeenth general argument is : ^' Infant baptism is an evil, because it injures

THE CREDIT OF RELIGION WITH INTELLIGENT MEN OF THE WORLD'' (p. 218). How doeS it

happen, then, that so many intelligent men art; pious and useful members of the evangelical Paedo- Baptist churches? and that so many intelligent men of the world advocate infant baptism, and attend divine service in Paedo-Baptist churches? If they believed it was treason^ as the Doctor does, would they do this ? If they believed it was foll^, would they do this? If they believed it was heresi/, would they do this ? It is enough to say, this proposition is flatly disproved hy facts. And we only add, the Doctor has not only the courage to reflect upon the intelligence of " three-fourths^^ of our enlightened republic, but the efi'rontei^ to admonish the intelligent Paedo-Baptist churches in the language of Scripture : ^^ Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare ye the way, take up the stumbling block out of the way of my people" (p. 222).

INFANT BAPTISM. 151

Stumbling hhck! one is at once reminded of "• close communion^ ^ — and we respectfully suggest to the Doctor the propriety of shouting this Scrip- ture at the very altar of his own church, as Hall and Noel have done before him. If the Doctor were as zealous in opposing the errors, we will not gay ^^ evils'^ in his own church, as he is in op- posing tlie truth in the evangelical Paedo-Baptist churches, he might accomplish real good for ^^ the million/'

XVIII. His eighteenth general argument is : ^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because it enfee- bles THE POWER OF THE CHURCH TO COMBAT

error'' (p. 221). And here the Doctor refers to» '^ Popish^ ^ errors again; against which the evan- gelical Paedo-Baptist churches are contending with all their might ; and they have done nearly all that has been done to convert the world ; to emancipate the human race ; they have put down the Ana- Baptists ; and, we repeat, they have con- tributed for centuries to make the Baptist church what it is, and are still combatting the errors in the Baptist church, that they may make it still better. This is specially a weak chapter, and we might have omitted it altogether.

XIX. His nineteenth general proposition is : ^^ Infant baptism is an evil, because it is the

152 INFANT BAPTISM.

(^IlEAT BARRIER TO CHRISTIAN UNION" (p. 229).

You forget, Doctor, ^' close communion'^ is that barrier. And you forget likewise, that you said infant baptism brings the ichole world into the (Cburcli — and that is the design of the gospel ; .and so all being in the church, and in subsequent ilife becoming Christians, all can enjoy Christian union, and so infant baptism lies at the foundation of Christian union — the Doctor himself being judge ! We pass on.

XX. His twentieth general proposition is: '' Infant baptism is an evil, because it prevents

THE SALUTARY IMPRESSION WHICH BAPTISM WAS DESIGNED TO MAKE UPON THE MINDS BOTH OF THOSE WHO RECEIVE IT AND THOSE WHO WIT- NESS ITS administration'' (p. 233). Our reply is briefer than the proposition. If infant baptism universally prevailed, the indelicacies, inconve- niences, and unhappy influences of immersion would be banished from the world.

XXI. The twenty-first and last proposition of the Doctor is : '' Infant baptism is an evil, be- cause IT RETARDS THE DESIGNS OF ChRIST IN THE CONVERSION OF THE WORLD'"' (p. 238).

This proposition is so insignificant, that we shall despatch it with a single remark. The Reforma- tion of Luther commenced with evangelical Psedo-

INFANT BAPTISM. 153

Baptists. The Wesleyan Reformation commenced with evangelical Peed o- Baptist'^. And it is re- markable that no Eeformation has ever com- menced with Baptists. And the world is in a fair way to be converted now, through the instrumen- tality of evangelical Psedo-Baptists, while the Baptist church is gradually improved by, and borne along on the tide with, the evangelical Pdedo-Baptist churches. Such is the Jiistori/ of the past and present, and the prospect of the boundless future.

We have but a single observation to add, and shall then close this reply with some references to the general character of the book and its author.

The sophism that runs through the Doctor's whole book, and which is the foundation of his whole book, is this : the Doctor confounds JieretL cal Psedo-Baptist churches with evangelical Pasdo- Baptist churches, and holds the latter responsible for all the ^^ evils'' and ^^corruptions'' of the former — a mode of argument that is manifestly unfair and inconclusive. This unfairness is the more remarkable in him, since he pursues a fair method of reasoning, in opposing the views of some of his own denomination who wrote in favor of open communion: "they deal," says he, "in

154 INFANT BAPTISM.

generals^ discuss arguments, and controvert doc- trines, that do not obtain among us^^ ^ — which is the very discrimination he should have made, be- tween corrupt and evangelical churches, and which is the very argument on which they defend them- selves against the conclusions drawn by him.against infant baptism. Again : " Were there Baptists among the men of Munster, and is our church therefore responsible for all the excesses of the mass in that scene ? But no sensible man will brand a whole denomination with shame, for the follies, or the crimes, of a few individuals who may chance to be ecclesiastically connected with it/' f Very well; why then associate the evan- gelical Psedo-Baptist churches indiscriminately with corrupt Pa3do-Bapti^t churches, and then ^^ brand with shame'' the former for all the " fol- lies,^^ and ^'crimes," and ^^ evils" of the latter? It is evident, at least, that the Doctor could make the proper discrimination when upon the de/ensivej and justice and candor required the same of him when upon the offensive.

* Howell on CJommunioii, p. 13. t Ibid. p. 18.

CONCLUSION,

The "concluding addresses" are the exhorta- tions of prejudice, the ebullitions of uncharitable- ness, the jugglery of proselytism, the scheme of schism, and the crowning " evils'' of the volume. From beginning to end the book is evil, and the only consolation of the pious heart is, that " the million'' will detect, on every page in it, the elements of its own conclusive refutation The author displays a mind, whose character is hatred to infant baptism, and whose ultimate object is its extermination. And yet, in the attempt, he min- gles neither the subtlety of sophistry, nor the solidity of reasoning. Instead of obtaining enrol- ment among the defenders of truth as the reward of courage and victory, he is to be associated with the opposers of Protestantism as the recompense uf temerity and defeat, and the price of the

(155)

156 INFANT BAPTISM.

calumnies which he has thrown upon illustrious men and evangelical churches. He has written in a spirit inconsistent with the dignity of the Chris- tian ministry, and indulged in a tone of severity unsurpassed by the most malignant champions of infidelity and heresy in any age, and hence his work can contribute nothing to the advancement of " baptistical^' dogmas, much less of true piety. He seems to be ignorant of the most obvious truth, that violence only strengthens opposition and confirms prejudices; and is equally incapable of overturning the truth and suppressing error. Of an ardent spirit, without penetration, the Doctor fails to discriminate between true courage and rashness, modesty and boldness, courtesy and rudeness, zeal and vehemence, meekness and dogmatism, charity and asperity. And of an exclusive bias, he confounds abuses with evils, truth with error, the sanctities of Christianity with the profanations of Popery, the institutions of God with the inventions of men, and the purity of the church with the corruptions of the world. His book is a libel on Christendom, ascribing to infant baptism, one of its institu- tions, every thing horrible, abominable, scanda- lous, seditious, infectious, treasonable, schismati- cal, heretical, detestable and destructive; a libel

INFANT BAPTISM. 157

to which Christian charity can never affix her seal, and Christian forbearance can hardly be extended. It is the sound of the tocsin of religious battle against Christendom, calling "the million'^ to arms, and the dismal note is given with a pecu- liar, undefinable joy, which is at once the luxury and reproach of a bigoted and ungenerous spirit, originating in the combined force of the elements of human nature, ill-regulated religious zeal, and misconceptions of the genius and vital doctrines and institutions of Christianity. If we are to believe the Doctor, he has entered, as he states in his preface, upon a great reformation. But he displays neither the abilities nor the qualifica- tions requisite for such a work. There is not, in his whole book, one argument of the persuasive, sober majesty of truth. In his attack upon what he calls "evils,'^ he displays neither vivacity nor energy, but presumption and dogmatism. His reasonings being little more than pompous flourishes, or ludicrous conceits, are without evi- dence or solidity. His style is simple, without force, beauty, or elegance. He is endued with neither the acuteness, nor the force of genius, nor the learning, nor the piety, nor the candor, to place him among reformers, much less at the head of them. He is neither a theologian, nor 14

158 INFANT BAPTISM.

logician, nor philosopher, nor scholar ; for he pos- sesses neither the grasp of intellect, nor the extent of attainments, nor the purity of spirit, that constitute those elevated characters. With- out liberality, his expositions seem to have origi- nated in considerations of a party nature, and possess nothing of that comprehensiveness of design resembling the amplitude of the sacred Scriptures. It is true, he indulges in a spirit of free inquiry and independence, but not that which is essential to the character and work of a great reformer, but characteristic of an enthu- siast, pursuing a chimera, as if it were the greatest achievement of the age, and the greatest blessing to be transmitted to the future ; while his labor is virtually anti-Christian, and, in fact, contro- versial suicide, since in every step of his argu- ment he betrays a criminal ignorance of that which, in infant baptism, belongs essentially to our common Christianity, and that which properly belongs to the general mass of the corruptions and profanations of systematic heresy. Had he accurately and with delight surveyed the heavenly land, and the whole field of polemic theology, he never would have returned with such a teiTific report^ his book would never have appeared. A Reformer! On him can never be fixed the

INFANT BAPTISM. 159

admiring gaze of posterity; to him can never be awarded the wages of laborious piety; and from him can never be transmitted that brilliant and useful light which imparts heat and life to distant ages. But in the presence of the in- tense and intensely increasing light now in the heavens, his book, not as a splendid orb that gilds the clouds and mountain tops as it rises, but as an inferior star that wanes upon its first appearing, is to be blotted out from the moral firmament. And a reformer, if required, would be a martyr, and by his martyrdom accelerate the march of mind from superstition, and error, and slavery, to the pure worship, and truth, and freedom of primitive Christianity, and, so, by his blood, strengthen the cement that unites the church of God indissolubly, and establishes it immovably upon the liock of Ages; and not, by amassing imagined ^^eviF' upon ^^evil,'^ at- tempt to overturn the church, in order to pro- mote the prosperity of interested coumiunitie;' and aggrandize and immortalize hives'''' T iV men of an inferior spirit, advocatir' :i he is warm and vigorous in the t^ fainter and weaker to the cl- where his spirits wholly ev^ - cient Gauls, who, in the I .

160 INEANT BAPTISM.

were more than men, but in the end were less than women. > Nothing can be more ludicrous than self-sufficiency in men of inferior abilities, and nothing can be fairer than modesty, which, in men of superior abilities^ like the flame, trem- bles as it aspires.

THE END.

Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide Treatment Date: Sept. 2005

PreservationTechnologies

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive Cranberry Township, PA 16066 (724)779-2111