IV.

INFANT BAPTISM.

SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY.

MATTHEW XXVIII. 19.

Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

THERE are two questions with regard to Baptism, on which evangelical Christians are divided; one respecting the mode, and the other respecting the subjects. These two questions are entirely distinct, and there is no reason why those who differ concerning one might not agree concerning the other.

Between us and our Baptist brethren there is no difference of opinion concerning the subjects of baptism, except concerning Infants. We agree that adults are not to be baptized, save on a credible profession of evangelical faith and repentance. The questions concerning the subjects are therefore limited to this single inquiry: Are the infant children of believing parents to be baptized? The law of the institution makes no express mention of infants. It is therefore contended that this is conclusive against Infant Baptism; as in a positive institution

we are to go by the letter of the law; and all beyond this, as well as everything short of this, is wrong.

I humbly conceive, however, that Christ has a right to make known his will, in this or in any other matter, in just such a way as he pleases;-that the incidental recognition, by the apostles, of infants as properly embraced in the intent of that law, or their actual practice of baptizing infants, would be an authoritative interpretation of the law, as extending its provisions to infants. And we deceive ourselves; we undertake to correct the wisdom of our Lord Jesus Christ; we are guilty of disobedience to his authority; if, in such a case, we allow any notions or arguments about a "positive institution" to lead us to act in opposition to the will of Christ, no less truly made known than if the warrant had expressed infants by name. The question is not, Are infants expressly named? but, Has Christ anywhere, and in any way, instructed us whether they are to be embraced or excluded?

On this principle our Baptist brethren themselves argue and practise in other matters; and that, too, in matters pertaining to "positive institutions." Indeed, any other principle than this would shut out the Lord Jesus Christ from being master and lawgiver over his own house. Who are we, to prescribe to him how he is to make known his will; and that under penalty of having his will rejected, if he does not make it known in just the manner that we think he ought to employ ?

The Sabbath is a positive institution; and God has expressly designated the seventh day; yet all Christians in the world, who keep a Sabbath, save a very diminutive fraction of one sect, keep the first day. Where is the express warrant for this change? There is none. Our

Baptist brethren, like ourselves, make out a warrant by inference. We find the will of Christ made known in the Scriptures, not expressly, but circumstantially. The practice of the Apostles teaches the will of Christ, even though it be but incidentally mentioned. We admit the validity of this warrant by inference.

If truly made out, it is as clearly the will of Christ as though we had found an express warrant in so many words, "Let the Sabbath be changed from the seventh day to the first.”

The "Seventh Day Baptists" are the only consistent ones here. They do with the Sabbath as they do by Infant Baptism; they admit nothing but an express warrant, in so many words, to bear upon either question; "and," said one of their ministers to me, 66 we feel that with our Baptist brethren our arguments are unanswerable. They must either keep the seventh day as the Sabbath, or else reject the very principles on which they reject Infant Baptism; they must give up their argument, or keep the seventh day, or else determine to act inconsistently and absurdly."

His conclusion was manifestly sound. And I could not help adding, both they and you must give up female communion too: for when Christ instituted his Supper there were no female disciples present, though he had such at the time, and he said not one word about them in the law of the ordinance; nor are they anywhere expressly mentioned as partaking in the celebration of the ordinance and yet the Lord's Supper is purely a "positive institution," and, say our brethren, you must go by the letter; you must not go beyond; you must not make out a warrant by inference; you must have it express.

:

I know they prove the propriety of female commu

nion; but they prove it by INFERENCE, and not by any EXPRESS command or precept. I admit the proof to be valid: but neither our Baptist brethren nor anybody else can make it out, without at the same time sweeping away the very foundation of their argument against Infant Baptism.

I only insist that the same sort of proof be considered equally valid to prove the authority for Infant Baptism. I am willing to have it required that that proof be ample. I have no fear for the issue, if the condition of receiving Infant Baptism be ten times the amount of proof required to substantiate the change of the Sabbath, or to make out the Scriptural warrant for female communion.

You perceive that I have here made a “concession ;" if it be proper to call that a concession, which concerns a thing that we never attempted to hold; and which is a simple statement of a truth that every Pædo-baptist in the world was always free to acknowledge. The " concession" is, that the law of baptism makes no EXPRESS mention of infants.

But having made this concession, I must be allowed to enter my protest against being understood or reported to have conceded that the Scriptures furnish no warrant for Infant Baptism. I concede no such thing. I maintain the contrary. Nor will it be deemed a matter of wonder to those who know what use is sometimes made of concessions, that I should deem it necessary to enter this protest.

Thus, a concession of Dr. Woods is sometimes quoted in such a way as to leave those who hear it, under the impression, that Dr. Woods admits that the Scriptures

furnish no warrant for Infant Baptism.*

So far as his

words are quoted, they are quoted correctly from p. 11 of his work on Infant Baptism : Whatever may have been the precepts of Christ or his apostles to those who enjoyed their personal instructions, it is a plain case that there is no express precept respecting Infant Baptism in our sacred writings."

Here the matter is left. The quotation is truth as far as it goes but what is essential to THE truth is omitted; and the omission causes Dr. Woods to be understood as giving up all claim of a Scriptural warrant for Infant Baptism; whereas, in truth, Dr. Woods gives his testimony directly to the contrary. His "concession" refers only to an EXPRESS precept." His work was written for the very purpose of proving the SCRIPTURAL WARRANT for Infant Baptism. He is very explicit (p. 42), to take his position in the most formal words; and he prints them in italics that this position may be well noted and understood; and these are his words:

"But I shall now proceed to argue the point from the INSPIRED RECORDS just as they are. My position is, that the Scriptures of the New Testament, understood according to the just rules of interpretation, IMPLY THAT THE CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS ARE TO BE BAPTIZED."

In the same manner, in a tract published by the " General Baptist Tract Society," entitled "THE SCRIPTURE GUIDE TO BAPTISM, by Pengilly," and widely circulated both here and elsewhere, MR. BAXTER is introduced as speaking in the strongest terms against Infant Baptism. One long quotation from his writings introduced for this.

* The writer has himself heard Dr. Woods quoted in this manner before a full congregation.