Images de page
PDF
ePub

"God was no respecter of persons, until, while in a trance, a sheet was let down from heaven, and a voice said to him three times, Kill and eat;" and the Spirit said, "Go with the men (of Cornelius) doubting nothing, for I have sent them." Men's prejudices become very inveterate, especially when they grow up under a system of exclusiveness. Hear Mr. B., page 27, for the proof of the above: "This species of tyranny over men's consciences (i. e., baptizing infants) would better suit the avowed doctrines of the Church of Rome, than the professed liberality of Protestants. It would be difficult for me to perceive any thing more arbitrary in baptizing adults at the point of the sword, than in taking unconscious infants, and imposing upon them submission to a religious rite, with respect to which they have no volition or choice."

The reader can perceive from this quotation the views and feelings of Mr. B. with regard to infant baptism. I hesitate not to declare, that the doctrine contained in the above is calculated to subvert that order and subordination which is necessary to the well-being of society. For if it is tyranny in the parent to dedicate the child to God in baptism, without the child's choice; then is the child's liberty taken away, if the parent requires it to observe the Christian sabbath, or to go to the house of God, instead of to the temple of an idol. The apostle considered it not warring with the liberty of the gospel, or of the child, to say, "Children, obey your parents in all things," Col. iii, 20; and to require

the parent "to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord," Eph. vi, 4. If the judgment of the parent is to govern the child in its minority, surely it cannot be a sore evil to the child to be dedicated to God in baptism, before it is instructed and admonished in the Lord. Such "tyrannical parents" have the example of Abraham, the father of the faithful, to encourage them; and the example of all the faithful, from Abraham down to Joseph and Mary, the reputed father and real mother of Jesus; for at eight days old, Jesus was solemnly recognized as a member of the church, by the rite of circumcision. Yet this, according to Mr. B., was about as arbitrary as if John, at the age of thirty, had baptized him "at the point of the sword."

From the above it will appear how inveterate are the prejudices of this gentleman against infant baptism. Hence I say, if he, and those who think and feel as he does on this subject, had received the commission which Peter and his fellow apostles received, the directions to admit infants would, of necessity, have been very definite. But as it was, the commission was put into the hands of Jews, who had never known a church that did not admit, and maintain, the right of infant church membership. They, of course, would so understand the commission, as to admit the children with their parents, as was always the case when Gentiles were proselyted to the Jewish religion.

Being well acquainted with this practice, they would admit the children, unless forbidden to do so.

Peter and his brethren had never learned to think of a church that excluded children from membership, and of course would not attempt to form a church upon a new model, unless specifically directed so to do. Jewish children were called the "disciples of Moses ;" and when the commission said, "Go and disciple all nations, baptizing them and teaching them," &c., they would make disciples of adults and their children, as the Jewish missionaries had been accustomed to do from the beginning. They who valued themselves upon being the children of Abraham would not reject the infant children of the followers of Abraham's faith. "If ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." St. Paul.

It is objected further, if they are admitted to baptism, on the same ground they ought to be admitted to the sacrament of the Lord's supper. This objection is more specious than valid. It is evident to all who reflect, that there is a manifest difference existing in the two ordinances, baptism and the Lord's supper,—as is obvious from the Scriptures, and from the practice of the Baptists themselves. I suppose they do not admit all to the communion (however unworthy) who have been once baptized. Now, infants have no capacity to "discern the Lord's body," or to examine themselves before ap

proaching the supper.

Nor is it ever said of baptism, "He that receives it unworthily, receives it to his own damnation."

The children of Jewish parents, though regular church members, did not eat of the passover until a given age. So says Calvin, Institutes, b. iv, ch. 16: "The passover, which has now been succeeded by the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions promiscuously; but was rightly eaten only by those who were of sufficient age to be able to inquire into its signification."

Josephus says, Antiq., lib. xii, ch. 4, “The law forbids the son to eat of the sacrifice before he has come to the temple, and there presented an offering to God."

66

"Children at the age of twelve years," says Poole, were brought by their parents to the temple; and from that time they began to eat of the passover, and other sacrifices."

I shall quote but three more authorities on this point.

"Till a child was twelve years old, he was not obliged to go to Jerusalem at the time of the passover."-Stackhouse, Hist. Bib., b. viii, ch. 1.

"The males were not brought to the temple till they were twelve years old, and the sacrifices they ate were chiefly peace offerings, which became the common food to all that were clean in the family."--Dr. Doddridge, Lec., p. 9, prop. 155.

Hence we find, in Luke ii, 21, 41, 42, that although Jesus was circumcised at eight days

66

old, and his parents went up every year to the passover feast, yet there is no intimation that Jesus ever kept the feast, until he was twelve years old: "And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem, after the custom of the feast." The learned Dr. Gill, a Baptist writer, has spoken to the same effect: "According to the maxims of the Jews," says he, persons were not obliged to the duties of the law, or subject to its penalties in case of nonperformance, until they were, a female, at the age of twelve years and one day, and a male at the age of thirteen years and one day. But then they used to train up their children, and inure them to religious exercises before. They were not properly under the law until they had arrived at the age above mentioned; nor were they reckoned adult church members until then, nor then neither, unless worthy persons: for so it is said, 'He that is worthy, at thirteen years of age, is called a son of the congregation of Israel.'"-Gill's Com. on Luke ii, 42.

From the examination of this objection to infant baptism, our views are strengthened; for it appears that although infants were formerly circumcised, they were not required to eat the passover. And although infants are to be baptized, "as they may be the subjects of the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and sprinkling of the blood of Christ," signified by baptism, and can thus be distinguished visibly as the special property of Christ, yet they cannot, in the supper, "discern the Lord's body," and partake of

« PrécédentContinuer »