B O O K   S I X T H.

---

CHAPTER I.

REVIEW OF BISHOP KENRICK'S TREATISE.

      THE Roman Bishop of Philadelphia, in 1843, published "A Treatise on baptism, with an Exhortation to receive it, translated from the works of St. Basil the Great, to which is added a Treatise on Confirmation," with the following motto: "Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the ministers of the mysteries of Good." 1 Cor. iv. 1.--"Philadelphia: M. Fithian, 61; North Second Street: 1843."

      In reviewing the arguments and apologies for infant baptism which have fallen under our notice, we intended to place the most ancient and authoritative treatise on that subject first before our readers; that, in reviewing its strong points, we should be relieved from the labour of reviewing more modern treatises, as they are generally but a reiteration or new modification of those which have preceded them. We had then purposed to place the celebrated work of Dr. Wall, or that of Peter Edwards, as first on our table. But on glancing over the works in my library on that subject, I found the work now before me, from the pen of a Roman Prelate; and although of recent and contemporaneous origin, containing, as it does, the varied ecclesiastic learning of the mother and mistress of all Pedobaptist churches, so far as rite is derived from them, I concluded that popular judgment and popular taste would give precedence to the Mother and hear her first, with all the respect due to her great hoary antiquity.

      The Bishops of Rome have a higher reputation for ecclesiastic learning than even the Protestant Prelates of England; whether deserved or not, I am not appointed an arbiter to decide; but [313] think, at least, having been the foster parents of infant baptism, they are worthy of precedence.

      Now, although the work before us is of recent origin, we must regard it as better and even more learned than works of a higher antiquity; because, superadded to all that Roman Prelates formerly knew on that subject are the experience, reflections, and modern literature of our contemporary, Bishop Kenrick.

      We shall, therefore, hear him in his own language set forth the foundation on which he places the institution of infant baptism; and, for the sake of future reference, arrange numerically his arguments in proof of his position. First, then, we shall hear from him the doctrine of what he calls the Catholic Church--by which he does not mean the Greek Catholic nor the Protestant Catholic, but the Roman Catholic Church. "The Catholic Church holds that all infants are capable of baptism, independently of the piety or faith of their parents; although the children of unbelievers are not to be baptized against the will of their parents, or in circumstances that expose the sacrament to manifest profanation."¹ The Calvinistic or Presbyterian Church, or "Calvin and his followers, ground the practice of baptizing infants on the principle that the covenant of God is with the faithful and their posterity; whence they restrict it to the children of believers; who, being embraced in the covenant, have a right to receive the sign of association with the visible church."² See a discussion on Christian Baptism, by W. L. McCalla, Philadelphia., 1828.

      Concerning this Presbyterian foundation of infant baptism, founded on a covenant with the faithful and their posterity, the Bishop only says that it is "gratuitously supposed, and cannot be inferred from the ancient covenant with Abraham and his seed." To which I may add, that this hypothesis is suicidal to the Presbyterian doctrine of election, or, if not, to the church itself. She maintains that the Christian ordinances belong to the visible elect family or church of God, and to none else. Now, as she does not believe nor teach that the children of even believing parents are, as such, the elect children of God, or regenerated in fact, or in form, or in profession, how can she dispense to them the ordinance of Christ, they not belonging in [314] fact or profession to the elect of God? She never has been able, and, I predict, never will be able, to reconcile her doctrine of election and her doctrine of grace and the ordinances of grace with her assumption of the Abrahamic covenants; for all the children of Abraham were an elect nation for the same purpose--according to the flesh; and neither infants nor adults were required to believe in any doctrine of grace in order to circumcision. They were circumcised because of fleshly relation, and not because of any spiritual relation to God or Christ. But we have to do at present with Bishop Kenrick, of the Roman Church in Philadelphia; and now we shall consider his proof of his assumption that all infants, as such, whether the offspring of Turk, Jew, Infidel, or Christian, are alike the proper subjects of Christian baptism. His first is--

      Logical Argument, No. I.--"All of us are by nature children of wrath, being stained by sin. Baptism is the laver wherein sin is washed away. It must, then, be applicable to infants."

      Romantic logic! A syllogism of four or five terms, and yet without a middle term! Pope Pius IX., with all his infallibility and liberality, could not consecrate it into a logical or rational argument. It is as if one should argue--"All of us are by nature children of appetite, being impelled by hunger. The table is the place whereat hunger is driven away by those who can eat. The table, then, must be applicable to infants, whether they can eat or not." This is even a better argument than the bishop's syllogism: for that assumes that baptism is, without any qualification whatever on the part of the subject, the laver wherein sin is washed away! But no well-informed man does believe that. To make his argument stand out in all its logical grandeur, it would read thus:--"All of us are by nature children of wrath, being stained by sin. Baptism is the laver wherein the sin of living men is washed away. It must, then, be applicable to infants, living or dead." But we take more interest in his biblical than in his logical arguments. Of these the first is--

      Bible Argument, No. I.--"Who," says the bishop, "would venture to deny that they can be saved of whom Christ has said, 'Suffer the little children to come to me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God!"'

      To this argument I have four objections:-- [315]

      1. It changes the subject of discussion. It is baptism, and not salvation, for which the bishop pleads; and now he talks of salvation, and asks, "Who can deny that infants can be saved."

      2. These children were brought to the Messiah, neither for baptism nor for salvation, but for his blessing.

      3. They were brought to Jesus before Christian baptism was ordained; and, therefore, their case can have no logical nor scriptural connection with baptism.

      4. Jesus does not say that the kingdom of God is composed of little children; but of such as are, in some respects, like them. The English Hexapla, in all its versions, even including the Rheims, has "of such," and not of them. The late Polyglot, containing eight languages, which I have just examined, also favours this version. The French version expresses the full sense of them all. It reads in Matt. xix. 13; Mark x. 14; Luke xviii.15, Qui lour ressemblent. The kingdom of God is of those who resemble them. There is not, then, a single version of the New Testament, in either Bagster's Hexapla, or in Bagster's recent splendid Polyglot Bible, containing the Greek, Hebrew, Latin, English, French, German, Italian, and Spanish approved versions, that justifies the bishop's gloss.

      But, strange to tell, while the bishop makes original sin at one time a reason for infant baptism, he quotes with approbation the Abbot of Cluney, who wrote against Peter de Bruis of the twelfth century, pleading the innocence of children as a reason why they should certainly be baptized. The abbot asks, How will you any longer repel innocence from Christ? Will you snatch children from Christ who embraces children?" Thus the bishop, in his logical argument, will have original sin, and now will have their innocence a passport to Christian baptism! Surely, the legs of the lame are unequal!

      A Second Logical Argument.--The bishop draws his second logical argument from "all scriptural texts which speak of baptism as a washing, a renovation of the Holy Spirit." He says, "All such texts warrant the baptism of infants"--because, "they must be washed in the blood of the Lamb from the hereditary defilement." They, therefore, come forth from the font purified, justified, sanctified, having no spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. This is another new variety of the syllogism. If this be proof, I know not what could not be proved by putting a therefore after any three assertions. [316]

      Assertion 1. All scriptural teats that speak of the washing of regeneration, warrant the baptism of infants.

      Assertion 2. Because they must be washed in the blood of the Lamb from hereditary defilement.

      Assertion 3. Therefore, they come forth from the font purified, justified, sanctified, having no spot, wrinkle, or any such thing.

      This is another Romantic syllogism, and would be universally smiled at, were it not that it comes from a Roman bishop in Philadelphia. I have only to say, that it assumes that a few drops of water from the finger of priest or layman, (for Rome admits of lay baptism,) pronounced with, the name of "the Trinity," is equal to the blood of Christ--nay, more than equal to the blood of Christ: for that blood, in its justifying power, requires faith on the part of the subject; but water is so much more efficacious that it requires no faith whatever on the part of the subject of infant justification and purification.

      Bishop Kenrick is, in some respects, a candid man; and, therefore, he reasons rather awkwardly; for, at one time his candour must be sacrificed to his position; at another time, his position to his candour. I will give two very remarkable proofs of his candour:--1st. Contrary to all my antagonists, he admits that infant baptism is not commanded in the commission, and cannot be legitimately inferred from it--"Go, convert the nations, baptizing them," &c. Of both versions of the commission, by Matthew and Mark, he observes, "Whether infants should be baptized cannot be inferred with certainty from the words of the commission." He then proceeds to answer the question, "Why, then, baptize them, if the commission do not authorize it?" He also repudiates the argument from circumcision, and will not use it, as being unworthy of the Apostles to be left to guess at what they should do while acting under a commission from the Lord. We shall hear him on both these points:--

      "But, then, it may be asked, On what authority can they be baptized? If the commission do not regard them, they are necessarily beyond its reach, and the attempt to baptize is an unauthorized measure. I care not to answer with some that the term rendered 'teach' maybe understood of making disciples, and initiating into Christ. Neither shall I allege, as a matter of mere inference, the divine command that each male infant, [317] on the eighth day after his birth, should be circumcised,, and thus incorporated with the people of God: whence, it is said; the Apostles must have understood that infants should be admissible to the Christian rite which supersedes circumcision, especially inasmuch as the children of proselytes are said to have been washed with water, when their parents were admitted to Jewish privileges. I do not at all allow that the Apostles were left to guess their Master's will from any circumstance; but I maintain that they were instructed by Him in the sacred functions entrusted to them, and were enlightened by the Holy Spirit that they might not err. The divine ordinance, on this point, must be earned from their teaching and their acts, as recorded in Scripture, or, in the want of decisive evidence of this sort, from the teaching and practice of the church which they founded."

      This is a very liberal and valuable surrender. Half of our treatises in favour of infant baptism are made up of assumptions connected with the identity of covenants, seals, and churches. Presbyterians, of every school, lay great stress on infant circumcision as a warrant for infant baptism. But Bishop Kenrick, not sworn to Calvinism, is more enlarged in his views of this ancient institution. He, therefore, will not send the twelve Apostles, with Christ's commission in their hands, a-begging for instruction to Abraham, Moses, or the Jews, on the subject of preaching the gospel and baptizing. He intimates a very evident disagreement between his views and those of all the champions of the infant rite with whom I have wrestled on the subjects of both circumcision and the commission. He even inculpates either the learning or the fidelity of Rosenmuller, on the word matheteusate, found in Matt. xxviii., which means, says he, to make disciples. Rosenmuller contends that matheteusate may be understood of taking into the number of followers of Christ infants, who are afterwards to be instructed. This the Roman bishop repudiates, saying, "I do not, however, choose to rely on this verbal criticism, as the most obvious meaning of the term is to instruct effectually, so as to bring over to the number of disciples and believers those who were strangers to the truth. It is used of a scribe thoroughly instructed in heavenly truth, matheteutheis, Matt. viii. 52, and of Joseph of Arimathea, who was instructed by our Divine Master, and believed in him; Matt. xxviii. 57. Protestant writers have been led to forced explanations of words of Scripture to sustain the principle that all things necessary for salvation can be proved from it." [318]

      Upon this very just and necessary surrender of the commission, our learned prelate takes occasion to descant upon the value of tradition, and very candidly gives up the whole scriptural argument for infant baptism, as imperfect and unsatisfactory.

      When any one, on the Pedobaptist ground, tells me that the Sacred Scriptures, on this point, are not "thoroughly conclusive," I will concur with him in another point, which the bishop himself seems also to admit, viz. that the baptizing of infants cannot be "satisfactorily vindicated." Here, then, the door is opened for tradition. I am sorry to say that, in this respect, the bishop displays more honesty than some Protestant Pedobaptists: for he at once admits both the need and the importance of tradition, and openly quotes, applies, and confides in it; whereas, the Protestants, many of them at least, verbally denounce and abjure tradition; and yet, after all, really build on it. Of this we shall, perhaps, give some proofs hereafter; as we have, alas! too many of them. We shall only farther quote this passage, and allow it to speak for itself:--

      "Without the aid of tradition, the practice of baptizing infants cannot be satisfactorily vindicated, the scriptural proofs on this point not being thoroughly conclusive: yet we do not, on this account, neglect the arguments which it furnishes, and which have considerable force."

      But though unable to find any rational or scriptural authority in circumcision or in the commission for infant baptism, the bishop is resolved, if possible, to maintain it; and seems with fresh spirit to appeal to the households baptized by the Apostles. We shall, then, hear him on his second SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT:--

      "We are challenged to show that the Apostles baptized infants. Had we a detailed enumeration of their ministerial acts, the challenge would be reasonable; but the book styled their Acts contains only some of the chief facts which marked the origin and proved the divine authority of the Christian church. Yet even there it is said that Lydia 'was baptized and her household, and the jailer 'was baptized and presently all his family;' and St. Paul testifies that he 'baptized also the household of Stephanas.' It cannot indeed be proved that infants were in these families; but the presumption is that there were, and the general expressions naturally lead us to consider the baptism of all the children as following the conversion of the parent." [319]

      Our resolute champion for the infant rite, in his self-respect and candour, is, it appears, in the end of his enumeration of households baptized, constrained to give up his own argument deduced from them, and to acknowledge that an infant cannot be found in any one of them. So these, too, are abandoned, and his dernier resort is to tradition--ecclesiastic tradition. He, of course, desires to find in the first century or second century some case that would favour the idea. Beginning with Justin Martyr, who flourished about the middle of it, and then proceeding to Irenæus, who flourished at the end of it, he cannot find a clear allusion to it, much less a positive proof of it; for infant baptism is not so much as named in any fragment of ancient tradition during the first and second centuries. No living man can find any allusion to it, or account of it, till in the third century, and even then there is little certain and less indicative that it had obtained in the Christian church so called.

      Positive ordinances demand positive proof as certain as divine ordinances require the proof of divine authority. But neither he nor any other man can, from the oracles of God, or from ecclesiastical history, produce any direct, positive proof, human or divine, for infant baptism during the first two hundred years of the Christian age. We shall hear the Prelate on this subject, and then lay him on our shelf pro tempore:--

      "The ancient practice of baptizing infants, of which the origin at any period subsequent to the apostolic age cannot be pointed out, is the strongest presumptive evidence of their practice.

      "St. Justin the Martyr speaks of 'many persons of both sexes, sixty or seventy years old, who from childhood had been devoted to Christ, and persevered in virginity unto that age.' Although the terms employed do not express their baptism in infancy, they certainly afford ground for believing it, for their early instruction in the doctrines of Christ, and their enrolment among his disciples, are easily understood on this hypothesis."

      No positive or decisive evidence, but air-built, conjectural, and far-fetched speculations as yet appear; and doubtless if any man could find any thing better, a Roman bishop might rationally be expected to have it in his possession. Meantime, we are at present engaged with the Bible evidence and arguments deducible from the Christian Scriptures; and having found, in the judgment of the bishop, "no positive or satisfactory proof," nothing "thoroughly conclusive," either in circumcision, the [320] commission, or in household baptism--nothing in the form of precept, example, or precedent, in any portion of the canonical Scriptures, we shall next hear one of his neighbours,--

      Dr. MILLER of Princeton, "Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Church Government, in the Theological Seminary at Princeton. Philadelphia, 1835: published by J. Whetham."

      We prefer Miller to any other American, or even English writer, on this subject, because of his opportunities and position in society, and because his calling and profession make it his duty to be in possession of all that is written or of value upon the subject. It will, therefore, exempt me from the necessity of, reviewing the sources whence he has derived his arguments--such as Wall, Edwards, Walker, Williams, Parsons, Evans, Wardlaw, Moore, Dwight, &c., &c., and also his own reasonings and reflections on all the premises. The doctor, too, is as venerable for his years as for his learning; and after him we shall find little to interest us in other writers, though courtesy and popular opinion may require us to notice some of them.

      Dr. Miller had the subject long before his mind, and has greatly concentrated the arguments commonly used, besides adding his own profound speculations on the premises. We shall, therefore, hear him with attention, examine him with care, and object to his views with all becoming candour and respect. I have only farther to premise a single regret as to the doctor's style of treating the subject. It is not that his style is too obscure, diffuse, or inelegant; but because it is too dogmatical, positive, and somewhat ex-cathedral.

      I am sorry to have to except to the statement of the case in issue; on the very opening of his first discourse on the direct evidence in favour of infant baptism. He may, indeed, without any evil intention, have done this; but it is peculiarly unfortunate, for himself and his reader, who are likely to be deceived by the error and seduced into much false, or, at least, irrelevant reasoning. His statement is in the following words:--"It is well known that there is a large and respectable body of professing Christians among us, who believe and confidently assert that baptism ought to be confined to adults; who insist that when professing Christians bring their infant offspring and dedicate them to God, and receive for them the washing of sacramental water in the name of the Father, &c., &c., they entirely pervert [321] and misapply an important Christian ordinance."³ I have placed certain words in this quotation in italics, that the reader may pause and reflect upon them, and ask himself, Is this the true statement of the controversy? We are free to confess that it is not a true statement of the case. There is no denomination of Baptists in Christendom, known to me, that teaches that baptism ought to be confined to adults, or that minors, or even young children, should be debarred from it. It is not a question about adults and minors, adults or infants. I have baptized many infants in law and young children in years, and so I presume have many others technically called Immersionists or Baptists. Dr. Miller makes it a question of years--with us, it is a question of faith. It is not about nonage or adult age, but about intelligence and belief. He pleads for a baptism without faith in the subject, without the power to make a profession of it. We argue for a baptism preceded by a profession of faith on the part of the subject. This is the real issue--the one assumed by him is a false issue.

      The doctor's statement is also characterized by unscriptural terms--such as "washing of sacramental water," "dedicate our infant offspring." How can that be "sacramental water" to one ignorant of a sacrament? How is baptism a sacrament? Whence came these barbarous terms? And how can one be washed with a dewdrop on the face, or with a moistened finger? Does not the doctor wholly misconceive the ordinance of dedication? Neither circumcision among Jews, nor baptism among Christians, was, under any dispensation, regarded or called "dedication." Neither dedicate nor dedication, though often occurring in the Bible, is once found in the sacred Scriptures applied to persons, but always to things. Can parents dedicate their children to the Lord? In what way? By what authority?

      The dedication of children as soon as born, is of equal authority with the Roman custom of making saints of very great sinners so soon after their death as their faults are forgotten. Can the ceremony of giving a name to a child change its position to God, his church, or the human race? And if so, by what authority?

      "We are bound," says the doctor, "to bring our infant seed [322] in the arms of faith and love, and present them before the Lord, in that ordinance which is at once a seal of God's covenant with his people."⁴

      If infant baptism or affusion be a seal of a covenant, where is it so stated, and what is the covenant into which children enter, and what does baptism seal to them? These are questions which Dr. Miller, I am sure, never can answer with any rational or scriptural authority. God affixes no seal to blank covenants, nor to any covenant he does not make good. What do the infant seed of Pedobaptists show or possess of covenanted mercies not enjoyed by others?

      But the doctor says, "We have no doubt that the visible church" [who ever saw an invisible church?] "is made up not only of those who personally profess the true religion, but also of their children."⁵ His reasons for his faith are--1st. "Because in all Jehovah's covenants with his professing people, from the earliest ages and states of society, their infant seed have been included." Page 15.

      Query--Are they born into it, or circumcised into it, or baptized into it? If they are born into it, then natural birth is the door into both the church and the world. They enter both at once. But if circumcision was the door, or baptism the door, then Adam, Abel, Enoch, Noah, Melchisedec, nor any saint, for two thousand and eighty-three years, ever got into the church. The doctor's hypothesis is a lusus naturæ, or a lusus mentis, or a rank delusion. Circumcision was the door into the church, or it was not. If the door into the church, then no one entered it for two thousand and eighty-three years. If it was not, then baptism being, according to the doctor, its substitute, is not the door. The doctor's logic or theology must fail, or, perhaps, both, to extricate him out of this dilemma.

      The covenants made with Adam, Noah, and one of those made with Abraham, had respect to their whole seed, good and bad. But no such covenant could, by any possibility, be an ecclesiastic one, because an ecclesiastic covenant, as the term imports, respects those selected, or called out; and a covenant that takes all a man's seed, as did that with Adam, Noah, and the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham twenty-four years after the "covenant concerning Christ," never could be a church [323] covenant. Hence the facts of the Bible, and its technical terms, alike with common sense, excommunicate the doctor's reasonings beyond the pale of reason and philosophy.

      But there is another radical aberration in the Doctor's mind, as it appears to me, on the subject of "covenants made with professing people." If the covenant be made with professing people as such, then they can have no issue, no covenanted issue, I mean, but a professing issue. Hence the covenant with Abraham concerning his spiritual seed--a covenant made with him as a spiritual and not as a natural father, twenty-four years before the covenant in the flesh, recognises no children but those of faith: so Paul taught me to reason when he said--"If you be Christ's," you Jews or Gentiles, "THEN are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the covenant," alias, promise. This settles the matter, as it appears to me, till the day of judgment. Now, unless Dr. Miller can show that whether Christ's or not, Jews are the seed of Abraham according to the covenant before confirmed (eis Christon,) in reference to Christ, then he must acknowledge that this his fundamental hypothesis is but a brilliant fancy, a splendid sophism, playing round the galleries of the imagination, but entering not into the sanctuary of reason and sacred truth.

      The second reason assigned in proof that the visible church is made up of professors and their fleshly offspring, is--"The close and endearing connection between parents and children,"--"a strong argument in favour of the church membership of the infant seed of believers." "Can it be, my dear friends," says the doctor, in arguing this case, "that when the stem is in the church, the branch is out of it!" If this be not carnalizing the church of Christ, I ask what would constitute that offence against him who said--"unless a man be born again," "born of water and of Spirit," "born from above," he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "If any man be in Christ he is a new creature." If the stem be in the church, that is, the flesh of the parents, then the branch from the flesh must also be in it. But if the stem be the spirit or new man, then the branch cannot be the flesh of the child, but its spirit. Can any one imagine a greater confusion of ideas in the mind of a learned sage, than appears in such reasonings. It is the perversity of a fallacious and unscriptural system that compels a literary gentleman, a learned father in the Presbyterial Israel, to speak [324] such incongruous things. Again, if "the close and endearing connection" between parents and children be a strong argument that infants should be baptized and brought in through natural affection for them; would it not be quite as good logic to argue as follows?--"The close and endearing connection" between husband and wife, being one flesh, "is a strong argument in favour of the church membership of the wife of a Christian husband." And, in the same bold style of proof, we would ask--Can it be, my dear friends, that when the head is in the church, the body should be out of it? And is not "the husband the head over his wife as Christ is the head of the church?" If Mr. Miller's second argument be a sound one, it will behove that, owing to the "close and endearing connection between husbands and wives," when the husband or the wife is in the church, the other party ought to be a church member also. If Mr. Miller repudiates this view, he repudiates his own reasoning.

      In the present essay, we have not space to respond to the other reasons which Dr. Miller alleges in proof of his favourite dogma. We must reserve the remainder of them for another tract. The elaborate researches and efforts on the part of those learned advocates of this ancient tradition, furnish very strong arguments against their position. They affirm, in all their standards, that "baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament and ordained by Jesus Christ" himself. Why, then, in the face of this very just and correct annunciation of their faith, go to Moses and Abraham to find a foundation for an ordinance of Jesus Christ? Are solemn Christian ordinances to be established by remote abstract and philosophical reasonings, instead of positive precepts? Positive institutions require positive enactments, and cannot be established by mere inferential reasonings. This is an oracle as ancient as those of sacrifice, the altar, and the priest. Could any one have introduced circumcision by inferential reasoning, or change circumcision from blood to water, from cutting the flesh to wetting the face? He that believes this will not find it difficult to believe in transubstantiation or any other metamorphosis of Patriarchal, Jewish, or Christian institutions. [324]

[CBAC 313-325]