IN our preceding reviews, we have already attended to a portion of their plea drawn from the Jewish institution, or from the supposed identity of the Jewish and Christian institutions. But what remain are a few passages selected from the apostolic writings, almost universally alleged by Pedobaptist writers in favour of infants, and which have had more influence on the imperfectly instructed readers of the New Testament than any other arguments urged by the advocates of this ancient rite.

      The first of these is found in the discourses of our Lord as reported by some of the Evangelists. It is in the following words:--"Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." Matt. xix. 13, 14. This important incident is also reported by Mark, and in the words following, to wit:--"And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you; Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." Mark x. 13-16. So important is this incident, that it is also noticed by Luke in the words following, viz. "And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Verily, I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no wise enter therein." Luke xviii. 15-17.

      We have given the common version of this important incident, [378] because this is due to those who argue from it, and because it gives to them all the advantages they can claim.

      The first point made on this passage is, that it is thrice repeated in the New Testament.

      The second is, that the inspired writers did not use the word pais, but paidion; because, as they allege, the former word (pais) indicates a young man and a servant of mature age and reason; whereas the latter (paidion) denotes an infant, a very young child, a speechless babe. So also the word brephos is used once in Luke.

      The third point is, that the Lord declared the kingdom of God to be composed of such. Therefore, infants have a right to baptism and to consequent admission into the kingdom of God, or the New Testament church. That I have done justice to the Pedobaptists, I will quote Rev. Edwin Hall, A. M., of Connecticut--1810--one of the most recent and learned writers on the subject:--

      "Some parents once brought little children (infants, says Luke, xviii. 15) to Christ, that he should lay his hands on them and bless them. His disciples forbade them. They understood that Christ's kingdom was to rest upon faith in the soul, and upon the intelligent obedience of men to his precepts; but how could children have this faith or this knowledge? They appear to have come to the same conclusion concerning bringing little children to Christ that he might touch them, that many In these days arrive at concerning the baptism of little children:--'What good can it do to an unconscious babe?' At all events, they forbade these parents to bring their infants to Christ, for this purpose. But Christ rebuked them; he called the little children to him; he took them in his arms; he blessed them; he said, 'Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.' He meant, by the kingdom of heaven, either his earthly church or his heavenly; it matters not which, for the argument. If the heavenly church is, in part, made up, of such, then this was a sufficient reason for Christ why he should take them in his arms and bless them, and rebuke those who would forbid them to be brought to him. It is the very reason that he alleged: and he himself drew these conclusions from the reason. What an argument for bringing little children to Christ now--that he may seal them as his own; and that visibly, as he did when he took them in his arms! But if by 'kingdom of heaven' he meant his earthly church, then the argument is at an end: they are to be baptized on this express warrant.

      "Those who wish to prevent this passage from bearing on the question at issue, say, that by the words 'of such' our Lord [379] meant--not of such infants, but of such 'simple-hearted and humble persons' is the kingdom of heaven. This would be a good reason why 'simple-hearted and humble persons' should not be forbidden to come to Christ;--but the fact that 'simple-hearted and humble' adults belong to the kingdom of God, is no reason why Christ should take infants in his arms and bless them.

      "It is said, we forget that Jesus did not baptize them. No, we do not forget that 'Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.' It is not necessary for us to assert or to suppose that these infants were baptized at all. Christ's disciples were sent at first to preach, not a redemption completed, but to preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' Their final commission was after the resurrection of our Lord; and at that time he instituted his baptism; which appears to be essentially different from the baptism practised before. The disciples of Christ baptized newly made disciples before this, but it seems to have been John's 'baptism of repentance,' Acts xix. 4, and not the baptism instituted by Christ as the new seal of his covenant. Grant it, if our brethren please, that these infants were not baptized. This conduct of Christ, and this rebuke which he administered to those who would forbid infants, would at least teach his disciples no more to reject infants from the blessings of the Christian religion, under the notion that infants cannot believe. It would teach them no more to forbid parents to bring them to Christ for his blessing. It would teach them to be cautious how they forbade infants from the privileges which God had chartered to them in his covenant. It was designed to teach how Christ regarded infants; and the remembrance of this would necessarily bear upon the interpretation which they would give with regard to the application of the new seal, whether to apply it to infants or not."

      This is justly regarded an important incident reported by three of the four Evangelists. But as it was spoken before Christian baptism was instituted, it can have no logical nor rational bearing on that subject. 1st. And, indeed, the avowed object of those who brought these children to the Saviour is declared to be not to receive an ordinance, but to obtain a blessing. Jesus did lay his hands upon them and bless them, or pray for them; and, therefore, the intention of those who brought them was gained; which was not baptism, but a blessing.

      But, in the second place; as to the words used to indicate the age of those children, they are alleged to be terms indicative of perfect infancy, such as brephos and paidion. But while these terms do sometimes indicate very young children, they are also [380] used to represent those of some years--indeed, of years capable of learning the Scriptures. Timothy, while a brephos, or child, says Paul, knew the holy Scriptures. For this is the word selected by him when speaking of the early attainments of Timothy, 2d Epis. Tim. iii. 15:--"From a brephos, a child, thou hast known the holy Scriptures." Such a brephos is, with us, a proper subject of baptism. The same is true of paidion, often translated a "little child;" but John and the other Apostles call adult persons, as well as striplings and damsels, paidia. Jesus says, "Behold I and the children, paidia, whom God has given me." This term, with him, indicates all the family of God. Indeed, a girl, said by Mark to be twelve years old, is called a paidion. See chapter v. 39, 43, Many such instances could be given, but surely these will suffice to show what fallacious guides these are who would lead the people to imagine that these were speechless babes and senseless infants brought to Jesus to be blessed--when children from one to twelve years and more are so denominated!!

      But there are in these passages themselves evident indications that they were not babes--perfect infants. "Suffer little children to come to me." He does not say carry them to me, but let them come. Again, in Mark and Luke, he says, "Suffer the little children to come to me." They were, then, capable of hearing, learning, and coming to him.

      Yet he does not say that "of them is the kingdom of heaven;" but "of such!"--of those as humble, docile, and ingenuous as they--of such is the kingdom of God. Abraham, and Moses, and David, the Prophets and Apostles, are in character and spirit as teachable and subordinate as babes--and so are all the children of God.

      But more than enough has been said to show how entirely inapposite to the case before us are these quotations from the Evangelists, which have respect to the imposition of the Saviour's hands and his benedictions on children, before Christian baptism was at all instituted, as all agree that Christian baptism was instituted after the resurrection of Christ. We, therefore, proceed to another, yet a somewhat similar argument, deduced from a passage in Acts of Apostles, chap. ii. ver. 38, 39. "Repent and be baptized, every one of you"--"for the promise is to you and your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord your God shall call." [381]

      On this, Rev. Benjamin Kurtz, of Baltimore, says--

      "Observe here, that the children spoken of were 'little children;' according to Mark x. 16, they were so young that our Saviour 'took them up in his arms;' and in Luke xviii. 15, they are expressly called 'infants.' They must accordingly have been children, not only in temper, docility, &c., but also and emphatically in age and stature. Notice next, that our Lord positively affirms respecting them, that, 'of such is the kingdom of heaven;' that is, of such little children is the kingdom of heaven,--to them it belongs, or theirs this kingdom is. 'It is well known,' says Professor Smucker, 'to those acquainted with the phraseology of the New Testament, that the expressions "kingdom of God" and "kingdom of heaven" are familiarly used to designate the church of God under the New Testament economy. Thus, John the Baptist preached, saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. It will not be supposed that heaven was literally descending to the earth and had almost arrived among us; but the Saviour evidently meant, that the time for remodelling his church into its New Testament form was at hand.' Robert Hall, a distinguished and learned Baptist minister, explains this phrase in the same manner. His words are, 'The kingdom of God, a phrase which is constantly employed in Scripture to denote that state of things which is placed under the avowed administration of the Messiah.' If, then, the expression, 'kingdom of heaven,' signifies the visible church of God, as distinguished both from the heathen world and the old economy, and the church, as Christ declares, is composed in part of 'little children,' or embraces them as members, then, of course, they are entitled to baptism as the sign of their membership.

      "It is worthy of notice that the Apostle here uses the definite article the,--not a, but 'THE promise,' that is, the promise of God to Abraham, 'to be a God unto thee and unto thy seed after thee,' is equally 'unto you and to your children.' Now, in order to decide what Peter meant by the expression, 'your children,' it is only necessary to ascertain the import of the words 'thy seed' in the promise referred to. It is universally admitted, and has never been denied, that the latter comprises small children, 'eight days old,' and hence it follows, with all the clearness and certainty of a mathematical demonstration, that the former embraces the same description of individuals. Every one knows that the word seed means children; and that children means seed; and that they are precisely the same. The promise, then, in which God engages to be our God and to constitute us his people, extends equally to our children; and, of course, gives them, as well as us, a right to the privileges of his people. And if they have a right to those privileges, what further argument [382] need we to show that they are entitled to the outward token and seal of those privileges?

      "It will avail nothing here to inform us, that tekna, children, means posterity;--suppose it does,--sperma, seed, also means posterity; but both include our earliest as well as our latest posterity, our youngest children as well as our most distant successors. Admitting that the word children does not always signify infants, the question is, whether it can mean any thing else but infants in this passage? Peter speaks to all who are capable of understanding him. These he calls you. Now, whom can he possibly mean by the children of these hearers but the infant offspring which they either had or might have? And if the promise to the adults be a reason for submitting to be baptized, it must also be a reason for baptizing the children; since the promise is said to be equally to both; and this is made the foundation of their baptism."

      By what law or laws of interpretation Dr. Kurtz could make "the promise" here named "the covenant of circumcision," or the promise to be a God to Abraham and his seed after him, and to make it to children of eight days, I confess my entire inability to perceive. To my mind, no assumption in any system, Papal or Protestant, is more destitute of any form of even specious proof.

      This is the more arbitrary and illogical, inasmuch as "the promise" is expressly said by Peter to be "the promise of the Holy Spirit," which is extended to all that are near and "afar off, even to as many as the Lord our God shall call." It is Joel that Peter quotes, and not Moses, as Dr. Kurtz imagines. The gift of the Holy Spirit is the immediate antecedent to "the promise"--as any one may see from the slightest attention to the passage. Again, both the children named in the text and those afar off are restricted by Joel to "as many of both as the Lord our God shall call."

      It appears unnecessary to show how perfectly imaginative these expositors are in their comments. The term "children" here used applies no more to infants than to the present generation of the Jews; for these are all the children of Abraham, though from eight days to eighty years old!

      I need scarcely again, except for formality, allude to the household or family baptisms reported in Acts of Apostles. These have already been, we think, fully disposed of. We name them here in making a full exhibit of all that is alleged from the New Testament on this subject. Much reliance has been placed upon [383] them by the defenders of infant church membership, although the circumstances and details of their families forbid the presumption that there was an infant in one of them; and if there were even a plausible presumption, we have shown that to found a positive institution upon such a presumption would be alike without reason and authority from God's own Book.

      I have sometimes alluded to the fact that, were half the families in a given district baptized, there would not be an infant in one of them. This would have always been the case around my residence and in most of the neighborhoods of my acquaintance. It is, therefore, the most precarious basis on which any one could found an argument for infant baptism.

      The only remaining passage in the New Testament on, which the advocates of this rite rely, is 1st Corinthians vii. 14: "Else were your children unclean, but now they are holy;" a passage which, in our review of Dr. Miller of Princeton, we have shown to be against, rather than in favour of infant baptism. The sophism, we have unanswerably shown, in that case, is the Pedobaptist assumption that the children here named were the children of those married to an unbelieving party; whereas the letter of the passage is not their children, but "else were your children unclean," Corinthians, "but now they are holy!" Consequently they were unbaptized, else the Apostle's argument is a palpable sophism: for to prove that an unbelieving and unbaptized wife was sanctified to the other party by the fact that a baptized child was holy or sanctified, would be as glaring a sophism as the annals of criticism record. There is not, then, in all the passages adduced from the New Testament, the shadow of a reason or argument for infant baptism.

      But, before dismissing this subject from our pages for the present, there are two arguments against the position of our Pedobaptist friends, to which I specially invite their attention. The first of these respects their method of constructing an argument for a positive institution; and the other is an apostolic inhibition of their whole system of reasoning from the Old Testament or Covenant in favour of infant church membership. A word or two on these may yet be apposite on the present occasion.

      First, then, as to the method of constructing an argument for a positive rite. Be it, then, emphatically stated, that their method is not to produce either a precept or a precedent for infant [384] baptism; but to infer it from sundry passages of Scripture; never presuming to find, in any one passage, premises for the whole rite, but for a part of it. Then, by putting these parts together, supposed to be logically inferred from sundry sayings, they construct positive authority for a positive right. This is, most certainly, as unprecedented among men as it is inconclusive in point of logical propriety. Who ever heard, in any other case, of inferring a part of an ordinance from one sentence in one passage, and from another sentence in another passage, referring to something else; and then, by converting these two inferences into one, make it a positive and explicit authority for a Christian institution? Were lawyers and public debaters to act in this way, they would expose themselves to the derision rather than to the admiration of their opponents. One scripture saith, "Judas went and hanged himself;" another saith, "Go and do likewise." Put these together, and what an inference!

      These special pleaders for infant baptism, in one passage, find the Messiah "blessing little children;" in another, they find him commanding his Apostles to "convert the nations," and observing little children in nations, and the Saviour blessing them, they found an ordinance called infant baptism! They even go beyond one testament: for, finding Abraham circumcising his boys in one dispensation, and Peter, in Jerusalem, commanding thousands of men and women to be baptized, they infer that Christ intended infant baptism. The law of circumcision they find in one testament, and the law of baptism in another; and, because the cutting off of flesh is somewhat adumbrative of separation, and because water in baptism takes away the filth of the flesh, putting these together, they infer the latter came in room of the former, and immediately set about instituting a new divine ordinance for putting away the filth of the flesh!

      Can any one name a passage that either commands infant baptism or gives a precedent for it! Can any one give an instance of a divine ordinance founded on two passages of Scripture, and resting upon the relevancy of two inferences? Can any one adduce two passages, spoken or written a thousand years apart, as being on any occasion made the foundation of a divine institution? We fearlessly challenge Christendom for such a case. Until that is produced, we must regard infant baptism as we do "extreme unction," "clerical celibacy," [385] "prayers for the dead," or any other papal fancy sustained by cardinals, popes, and œcumenical councils.

      When I see learned bishops and hoary doctors carrying one limb of an institution from Ur of Chaldea; another, from a mountain in Galilee; and a third, from a Philippian jailer; and hear them, with a Westminster Assembly, call it "a New Testament ordinance, ordained by Jesus Christ," I am led to pray for another Luther to take the veil off the face of such blear-eyed Rabbies--to make a new scourge of very small cords, and drive them out of the temple! For it has never happened, from the days of Adam till now, that God gave a positive institution to man, whose scattered members were spread over a field of revelation fifteen hundred years from end to end, and then to be gathered, ploughed, and grooved by modern theologians, who never had the use of tools, or were taught by God on Sinai's summit, to rear a new tabernacle for pilgrims to worship at. I have neither time nor space to push this matter farther. Since it has occurred to me, I only wonder why it is that these new authors of divine institutions were not long since called to give some authority for this their new art and mystery of manufacturing them.

      But, when all argument fails, it is gravely said, "Infants were once members of the Jewish church, which was a church of God, and that by virtue of a Divine covenant. Now the question is, When were they cast out."

      Infants were never cast out of the Jewish church, as some call it; because it was a commonwealth, and the only excommunication from it was death. It was a church of this world, a great community, called out of Egypt; and, under Moses in the wilderness, God made a covenant with them, after they had all--men, women, and children--been "baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea;" yet with many of them God was not well pleased, for "there fell in one day three thousand souls." There was no regeneration preached by Moses in order to an adoption which was national and political as well as religious. They were all, in virtue of natural birth, without regeneration or a second birth, entitled to the rank and relation of members of the Jewish national church. Flesh, and not faith, was the only prerequisite. It was, therefore, a "worldly sanctuary,"--a kingdom of this world--a holy nation, or a people outwardly sanctified or set apart for a special purpose. They were as [386] political as the English nation. Their saints were kings, generals, and military captains. Their ministers, priests, and high-priest were men in the flesh, and they served in the "oldness of the letter," and not in newness of spirit. They were, however, a typical people, and their institutions, national existence, privileges, and honours were all shadows of good things to come. God has, however, provided some better things for us, that they, without us, Christians, "should not be perfect" He promised that he would one day, "make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like that at Sinai, made with their fathers." It is, then, very easy for us to answer the question, "If infants were once members of the Jewish church, when were they cast out?" First, then, they were cast out when the whole nation were divorced or separated from their covenant relation to God. When the nation ceased to be God's only nation and people; then were parents and children cast off or cast out. We shall, then, hear Paul discuss the question, in his masterly and divinely authorized way:--"Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free-woman. But he who was of the bond-woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free-woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai, in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But, as then, he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son: for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free." Here, in the person, relations, and history of Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Israel, are described with peculiar, circumstantial exactness the two covenants, the two churches, the [387] privileges, honours, and immunities of the subjects of these two divine institutions.

      Abraham, as a son of God and the father of all believers, is introduced as the founder of both churches. He had two wives--one free, and one a bond-woman. These two women, Paul says, represent two institutions or two covenants--constitutions of society--and are by him converted into an allegory. They are allegorized in the following manner:--The two women, both wives, one free, the other bond, have each a son to Abraham. One is supernaturally, the other naturally born. Sarah never would have been, by the course of nature, a mother. By grace, through faith, and not by nature, she brought forth Isaac, the son of promise. Hagar's son was born, like the Jews, according to the flesh. He was, by simple nature, without grace, a son of Abraham. But, according to immemorial usage, the son follows the mother, as respects freedom or bondage; therefore, Isaac was free-born--Ishmael a bond servant.

      Next were introduced two Jerusalems--one resembling Sarah and her son; the other, Hagar and her son: the latter, earthly; the former, heavenly. Like Hagar and her son, the Jerusalem on earth was in bondage when Paul wrote to the Galatians. Like Sarah and her son, the Jerusalem above was then free. She, the Lord be praised, is the mother of all Christians, as the former was the mother of all Jews.

      Isaiah lends his aid to Paul, just at thus point, when portraying in heavenly strains the great increase, the superior progeny of the barren Sarah, in contrast with that of the youthful fleshly Hagar; "Rejoice, thou barren woman, that bearest not; break forth and shout, thou that travailest not" in birth; for thou, the deserted woman, forsaken for a time by Abraham for the sake of Hagar, now "hast many more children than she who had (your) husband." "We then, brethren," says Paul, "as Isaac was, are the children of promise." We are children by believing the promise--they were children without faith--children of the flesh. Such was the Jewish church by virtue of the old Sinai church covenant, Paul being judge and expositor.

      It deserves to be emphatically noted here, as both illustrative and corroborative of one of the characteristics already noted, of a community that embraces, as members of the church, all born of woman. I allude to its persecuting character. We have Paul with us here; "for," says he, "as then," in the case [388] of Ishmael's insults to Isaac and Sarah, "he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now." The Jewish church, as such, with her elders, scribes, and priests, persecuted even to death the Lord of glory, some of his Apostles and Evangelists, and ultimately drove the whole church out of the Jerusalem that then was, scattering its members throughout Judea and Samaria, even to foreign cities.

      What a correspondence and in how many points! But, adds Paul, "What saith the Scripture?"--the old Scripture, coeval with Moses, and detailing the affairs of the Abrahamic family--"What saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond-woman and her son, for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman." Where now is the Jewish covenant, church and people! Is the Christian church but the Jewish church enlarged and improved?! "What saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond-woman"--one of the covenants--"and her son"--the people under it--from being, as such, the Christian church; "for the sons of the bond-woman"--the offspring of the old Jewish covenant, the fleshly seed--"shall not inherit" or be heir with the children of the new institution, or the "free-woman"--who is the mother of us all--Jews and Gentiles, not as such, but as born of the Spirit.

      What could be more conclusive? Abraham the root of the Jewish nation, was great in faith and great in flesh. He was the fleshly father of many nations, and of one nation great, and mighty, and prolific. But he is also the father of all that believe, circumcised or uncircumcised, because of his mighty faith. He was the root of the Jewish church by flesh. He is the root of the Christian church by faith. Jesus, the Messiah, both in flesh and spirit, was his son, and was the author and founder of a new church, whose members are not born after the flesh, but after the Spirit--not of blood, nor of flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the power or will of God.

      The same Apostle to the Romans, 11th chapter, reasons on this matter farther, and, in some points, more fully and satisfactorily. The nucleus or germ of the Christian church were Jews as respects flesh, but not as such, but, by faith in Jesus as the Christ, they became the germ of the Christian church. "Thou standest by faith." The other branches of the Abrahamic stock were broken off from any special relations to God. The nation, as such, was rejected. The believing members of it only were [389] made participants of the root and fatness of God's spiritual olive-tree. Gentiles, not as such, but such of them as "had obtained like precious faith," were grafted in among the believing Jews, and made participants with them of all spiritual privileges--of "the root and fatness," the benefits and blessings spiritual of "the good olive-tree." The Jews, then, not as such, were broken off, but because of unbelief,--and the Gentiles, not because of flesh, but of faith, were grafted is among them. So Paul reasons with the Romans, and, in another figure and with other illustrations than those presented to the Galatians, establishes the same great fact--that the Jewish church is not the Christian church, either in covenant on citizenship, either in immunities or honours. The members of the former were born of the flesh--the members of the latter, by faith. The privileges and honours of the one were worldly and temporal--of the other, spiritual and eternal. Let no one, then, count on parentage, natural birth, or worldly covenants guarantying lands and tenements, worldly riches, and honours, for introduction to the church of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the son of Abraham; for "without faith it is impossible to please God," and "unless a man be born of the Spirit and of water, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," now established and administered by Jesus Christ. Let all Pedobaptists remember "what saith the Scripture"--" not the children of the flesh, but of the Spirit, are now counted for the seed." "Cast out," then, "the bond-woman and her son; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free-woman. So then, brethren, we (Christians) are not sons of the bond-woman, but of the free." We are not baptized because of our fleshly descent from members of any church, but because "born from above--born of the Spirit." "Stand fast, then, in the liberty wherewith the Messiah has made us free, and be not again entangled with the bondage and tyranny of a law of outward rites and ceremonies. For we are the true circumcision, which worship God in spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh."

      We have, then, not only attempted to show that infant baptism has no authority in the New Testament, direct or indirect, in the form of precept or of precedent--in the form of allusion or reference, expressed or implied; but we have gone farther--we have attempted to show that it is impliedly contrary to some of the clearest developments, statements, and reasonings of [390] Apostles, Evangelists, and Prophets; and, still farther, we presume to say, that it is, in all its assumptions and pretences, not only void of authority, but expressly in conflict with many testimonies of the holy Scriptures, and with, the whole genius, spirit, and letter of Christianity, as revealed to us in that Holy Book by which we are all to be judged in the great and glorious day of the Lord. Of course it remains; then let it remain with every reader to say whether, on a careful and impartial examination of the whole premises before him, we have succeeded in all that we have attempted, and scripturally and logically formed our judgment, and expressed in justifiable terms our convictions, sustained by reasons and authorities on which we can safely rely. If so, then let him see to it that he consistently acts in conformity to his own convictions, and as he would wish to have done when he appears before the Searcher of all hearts, who will render to him according to his opportunity and his works.

      There yet remains another argument, with which we shall close this branch of the subject. It springs from the remarks just now made. It is founded on our personal responsibility. Every man must answer for himself; and, in doing this, his talents, opportunities, and dispositions will be taken into the account. If, then, the future and final judgment is to be according to every man's work, personal liberty and personal responsibility are established on such premises as make it absolutely indispensable that every one think and examine for himself, and act from his own convictions. Need I ask, how, then, can any one act by proxy in the things of salvation? or how can any one be finally justified or condemned for that which is not his own act?

      A grave question then must be, Are parents or their children to answer for neglect in the case of baptism? It must be the duty of parents to have their children baptized; or it is the duty of the children to be baptized on their own responsibility. It cannot be the duty of both. Pedobaptists contend it is the duty of parents, and not of their offspring. But where is the precept or the example so obliging parents? No one can show a word in the New Testament on the subject. It is, indeed, the duty of the subject of baptism himself to be baptized. If so, then he must be an intelligent, voluntary, or moral agent; and such an infant is not: therefore, he cannot be a subject of baptism in his own right. [391]

      But the doctrine of Christ constitutes the subject of baptism an intelligent, voluntary, and accountable agent, and, therefore, commands him to believe, repent, and be baptized on his own conviction of duty and interest. Personal liberty of choice is, on all hands, admitted to be essential to personal responsibility. Christ's people are all free men; therefore, no one, by parent, by sponsor, or by priest, can be carried or compelled into the kingdom of Jesus Christ. If so, they may be physically carried to the Lord's table and to heaven, and neither illumination nor volition, neither the conscience nor the heart, have any thing to do with our entrance into the church or our participations of its spiritual blessings. He that assumes this ground is not to be reasoned with by anyone that "trembles at the word of God."

[CBAC 378-392]