ness of spectators, of parents, of ministers. It teaches, very simply, but very significantly, that, even from the womb, children are the subjects of pollution; that they stand in need of a participation in the pardon of the original apostasy, and of purification from the inherent depravity of their nature, in order to their entering heaven, and seeing God.-The impression of such truths is of the very highest importance, especially to parents, in fixing the principles on which their children are to be trained and instructed, and in directing their practical application. Let not an institution, then, which serves to sustain the remembrance and impression of such truths, be represented as destitute of use.

That infant baptism contains a practical testimony, from the Divine author of the institution, to the necessity of regeneration, is a very different thing from its being regeneration itself, or invariably accompanied by it in its infant subject. The doctrine of baptismal regeneration is, in many respects, as pernicious in its tendencies, as it is absurd on principles of reason, and destitute of foundation in scripture. It is an abuse, for which, as for many others, the ordinance itself is not responsible. The only wonder is, that any man of common sense should ever have maintained it.

It is a doctrine of the church of Rome, and it harmonizes well with the innumerable absurdities of that antichristian communion. It is contained also in the articles and baptismal service of the church of England, constituting one of the remnants of popery, of which there are too many in the constitution and ceremonies of our Episcopalean Establishment. I am aware, indeed, that, on the present subject, the sense in which the terms employed are to be understood has been the ground of very vehement controversy; but their simple and prima facie meaning is, without question, favorable to this foolish and mischievous tenet.-But when Mr. Birt represents "the majority of pædobaptists in general as believing in baptismal regeneration," he writes, to say the least of it unguardedly. He ought to have explained, that, in making this statement he included papists; of whom, I am well

persuaded, not one in a hundred of his readers would ever think, in a discussion of the pædobaptist controversy.

*

2. Whilst infant baptism reminds us of the humbling doctrine of original depravity, it brings before our minds a truth of a different kind,-eminently cheering and encouraging, namely, that little children are not incapable of being subjects of the spiritual kingdom of Jesus Christ, and participating in its blessings. I need not set about proving this; because their capability is granted by baptists themselves:-they are admitted to have even been pronounced by Christ visible subjects of his kingdom. On that beautiful passage, Mark x. 13–16. Mr. Maclean says, "Here are children brought to Christ, declared of his kingdom, and blessed, and thus becoming visible subjects; yet we read nothing of their baptism." With the latter clause we have at present no concern. Far be it from us to deny, that infants may be acknowledged to be of the kingdom of God, without baptizing them." Far be it from us to pass any such sentence of exclusion against the children of our baptist brethren, however much we may think their parents mistaken. We do not consider the outward rite as thus essential to salvation. But this we say, that if infants are capable subjects of the kingdom, and are pronounced such by the Lord himself, there is surely no contradiction or incongruity in infant baptism; that is, in the application of the sign to those who are admitted to be capable of the thing signified. There is certainly nothing in this that can warrant the scorn and ridicule with which it has been assailed. To admit an infant to be a " visible subject" of the spiritual kingdom, and to laugh at the application to such an infant of the rite which signifies the peculiar blessings of that kingdom, and talk of it as a "solemn farce," does not seem to indicate great consistency of thought or feeling.

Let it not be said, the ground of ridicule is, that infants are incapable of that faith, which the New Testament affirms to be necessary to baptism, and of which baptism is the profession. It has often been remarked, and it has

On this point, the reader is again referred to my Reply to the Letter of Mr. Birt of Manchester-pages 14-17.

never been satisfactorily answered, that this mode of reasoning, if valid for the exclusion of infants from baptism, must be equally valid for their exclusion from salvation. If it be a correct syllogism-Believing is necessary to baptism; infants are incapable of believing therefore, no infants ought to be baptized ;-then the following must be correct too-Believing is necessary to salvation: infants are incapable of believing; therefore infants cannot be saved. Mr. Cox and our baptist friends may be angry at the twentieth repetition of this too. But it is simply impossible to get rid of the second conclusion, if the first be sound. When it is said, "He that believeth and is bap tized shall be saved: he that believeth not shall be condemned;" it is very manifest, from the nature of the thing, and from the charge in the preceding verse, “Go, preach the gospel to every creature,"—that the language refers to all of mankind in general to whom the gospel could be preached; that is, to adults, who were capable of hearing and understanding what was said.-It is one of those cases, in which baptists themselves are constrained to have recourse to the ground of general language. They apply this principle to that part of the verse that connects salvation with faith, because, if they took this strictly and universally, it would inevitably exclude infants from being saved. Have we not reason, then, to complain of want of candor, when they will not allow the application of the same principle of interpretation to that clause which connects baptism with faith? The connec

tion of both with faith is stated in the same sentence, in the same unqualified terms; and the same principle of explanation which warrants or condemns the one inference, must equally warrant or condemn the other.

I am strongly inclined to agree with those, who regard the children of believers in the light of disciples. If their parents do their duty, they surely are such. It is quite impossible for us to say, how soon the Holy Spirit may begin his secret operations in the soul of a child, under spiritual training, and the subject of believing prayer. And until the principles which are instilled into the child's mind by early tuition, recommended by a godly example, and impressed by affectionate and faithful ad

monition, are either avowedly rejected, or are shown to be professed without influence on the heart and life,how can we be entitled to say, that they are not disciples? They are learners; and, as far as we can judge, lambs of the flock of the "good shepherd." Indications of the contrary may present themselves, sometimes earlier, and sometimes later but in forming our estimate, we must make allowances for the peculiarities of childhood; and not foolishly look for the same manifestation of the power of the truth, in a babe, which we expect in a full-grown

man.

On the question, Are the baptized children of believers church members?—various opinions have been entertained. I shall state, with diffidence, my own.

In the first place :-Baptism, it seems evident from the New Testament, is not to be regarded as a social or church ordinance. It did not, when administered to adults, introduce the persons baptized to connection with any particular church, or society of Christians. They were simply baptized into the faith of Christ, and the general fellowship of the gospel. We have one clear and decisive exemplification of this, in the case of the eunuch of Ethiopia. He was baptized by Philip in the desert, when on a journey, where there was, of course, no church; nor was there any, where the eunuch was going. His bap tism, therefore, merely recognized him as a professed disciple of Jesus, without constituting him a member of any particular Christian church. And so it was with others. The converts, when baptized, "joined themselves," wherever they had an opportunity, "to the disciples;" but their baptism was administered to them, simply on a profession of their faith; it was previous to such union, and formed no part of the services of the church, with which they might subsequently unite.

Secondly This being the case, I am disposed to regard the children of believers as disciples, in a situation somewhat analogous to the one described. They have been baptized; they have become the subjects of spiritual instruction,-of "the nurture and admonition of the Lord;" and they are in training for the full fellowship of the people of God, in all the ordinances of his house. If,

on growing up, they do not hold the truth, in the knowledge of which they have been instructed, and on the principles of which they have been "nurtured and admonished;"-they must be treated accordingly ;—they cannot be admitted to the communion of the church. If, on the contrary, they "abide in the truth," "holding fast the faithful word as they have been taught," then they are at liberty to unite in fellowship, wherever their judgment and conscience, on examination of the word of God, may direct them. I do not go so far as to speak of their being separated from the church at any particular age, by a formal sentence of exclusion, when they do not give evidence of the reception and influence of the gospel; for the reason just assigned, that their baptism has not constituted them properly members of a particular society, but only disciples of Christ, under training for the duties and enjoyments of his kingdom.-I feel confirmed in this view of the case, by the consideration, that, when the apostle Paul, in any of his epistles, addresses himself to the children of the believers,-whilst by so doing he recognizes them as sustaining a relation to the Christian community, he yet does not commit the instruction and training of them to the church, or to the pastors of the church, but enjoins it upon the parents, as a matter as yet of private and domestic concern.* Eph. vi. 1—4.

3. Before proceeding to the duties which this ordinance brings to mind, and enforces, I must notice one other highly important doctrine,-which it is beautifully calculated to impress.-When our blessed Redeemer took the little children in his arms and said, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," he added solemnly to his disciples, " Verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."-When an infant receives the blessings of the kingdom, it is gratuitously; not as the reward of works of righteousness; not in the exercise of high-minded self

*I was not aware, when I was led, by my own reflection, to adopt the view which I have given in the text of the church-membership of the children of believers, that it was in perfect coincidence with that given by the late Dr. Dwight, in the 157th Sermon of his THEOLOGY. I leave the reader to consult it for himself. I had not looked into the work, on this subject, till after my own manuscript was ready for the press.