66

ON BAPTISM:

equally demonstrate that they ought never to have been circumcised, because they could not perform the obligations they were thus brought under of keeping the whole law, by which the carnal wisdom of man would be exalted against the gracious appointment of God.

That infant baptism is the appointment of God, may be inferred from a collateral argument, which I will briefly notice. The displeasure manifested by our Lord, when his disciples endeavoured to prevent parents from bringing their infant children to him. 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." Some consider this fact to bear no relation to infant baptism; and certainly, if there were no other proof, it would not be safe to use the ordinance upon this single circumstance. But as a collateral argument, or a link in a chain of evidence, it is a strong presumptive proof, that our Lord himself countenanced their introduction into his church. What was the object of the parents in bringing these infants to the Saviour? Was it not that they might receive the blessing of the Messiah? Why did the disciples endeavour to keep them back? Was it not that they deemed infants too insignificant to attract the attention of their master? or that they could not receive any benefit from him? But what is implied in the language of our Lord? A direct contradiction

of the sentiment, that infants are improper subjects for constituting a part of the christian church; and he expressly adds, "of such is the kingdom of God." And what is this kingdom? It is that of grace here, and glory hereafter: the church militant on earth, and the church triumphant in heaven. But how can they become members of the church, without baptism? There is no other door of admission. If, therefore, they are excluded from baptism, they are at least excluded from the kingdom of God on earth. But would such an exclusion agree with the language and conduct of our Lord? Did he not, by the very act of taking these infants in his arms, putting his hands upon them and blessing them, indicate that children are the objects of his tenderest affection, capable of receiving his spiritual blessings, and that he intended they should constitute an important part of his flock? "He shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom," said the prophet: and in perfect consistency with this tenderness, was his solemn injunction to Peter, "Feed my lambs."

(2.) That infants are the proper subjects of baptism, may be argued from their capacity to receive the spiritual blessings exhibited by baptism, and from the necessity of their being made partakers of them before they can enter into heaven.

I shall just remark, under this particular, that infants are as capable of receiving the privileges exhibited by baptism as adults are, and that they equally need them. Are not infants capable of receiving forgiveness? For they are born in sin,

infant

and must not remission be conferred on them, before they can enter into heaven? Does not every also need salvation by Christ? And are children incapable of salvation? Again, is not regeneration necessary for admittance into the kingdom of God! And can an infant enter the kingdom of God on earth, without being supposed to possess regeneration? Can they enter the kingdom of glory in heaven, without actually possessing it? Ought they then to be deprived of its external part, the sign of the spiritual blessing? Similar questions might be asked respecting their capacity for being covered with the righteousness of Christ; as also to receive the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit, without which they cannot enter heaven. Since then infants are capable of partaking in these blessings, and stand in absolute need of them; since they are always connected with baptism and the baptized, after the institution of this ordinance by Christ, it must follow as a necessary consequence, that infants are proper subjects for this sacred institution.

(3.) That infants are proper subjects for baptism, appears from the circumstance of the apostles' baptizing households.

Thus Lydia, when she believed, was immediately baptized, and her household with her. So likewise the gaoler at Philippi, on his professing faith in Christ, was baptized, "he and all his straightway." We read of other households being baptized. Now, what is a house or household? Is it not a family? And in all languages these terms not only signify

the family, including the children, but they frequently refer especially to them. If you speak of a man's family or household, you can scarcely abstract your mind from the idea of there being children in it. There may be cases where families and households are without children; but surely they much more usually contain them. Now, we read of Lydia and her family being baptized, of Cornelius and his family, of the gaoler and his family, and of Stephanas and his family; but admitting that in the mention of a single family, the probabilities are considerably in favour of children composing a part of it, these probabilities would increase in an astonishing degree, when the same is affirmed of four families. If, then, there were any infants in these four families, which is highly probable, they were certainly baptized; and if not, which is highly improbable, they would have been baptized had there been any for the Jews would know, by the analogy of circumcision and the genius of their dispensation, that the children would have the same privilege, with reference to this ordinance, as the parent himself. When a Gentile householder was proselyted to the Jewish religion, all the males of his family, including infants, were circumcised with him. They were likewise baptized as well as circumcised; for baptism, as an ordinance, commenced neither with our blessed Lord, nor with John the Baptist. Our Lord instituted christian baptism, and thus applied an old rite to his new dispensation. John's baptism differed from that of Christ, as we learn from Acts xix., where those who

were baptized with John's baptism, were rebaptized - in the name of the Lord Jesus. When the multitudes flocked to John's baptism, they put varicus questions to him respecting the qualification for his baptism; but not respecting the meaning of the rite, for with this they were well acquainted. Baptism had been commonly practised among the Jews during many hundred years before the time of John; and it was always administered to the converts from heathenism. This fact is established on the authority of many of the most accredited Jewish writers, who assert that it was always customary, when any proselytes were made, that they should not only be circumcised, but also baptized. And we are expressly informed by the same writers, that the infants of these proselytes were likewise baptized. Such a practice, it is evident, would lead to the admission of infants into the church by baptism, under the new dispensation of the gospel, unless it had been for bidden by an actual prohibition. But it is universally admitted, that no intimation of any such repeal is to be found in the scriptures; and it follows, as a necessary consequence, that when households were bap tized, the infants, if such were in the family, were admitted to the ordinance.

(4.) That infants are proper subjects for baptism, is proved from the commission of our Lord to his apostles and disciples, contained in our text.

The commission which our Lord gave was, to baptize all nations: children form a great part of any nation, and are therefore virtually included in the