OF BELIEVERS. Matt. xxvii. 19. "teach all nations, baptizing them-.' Mark xvi. 15, 16. "preach the gospel.... he that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved." Acts viii. 36, 37. what doth hinder me to be baptized?.. if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Eph. v. 26. "that he might cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." 1 Pet. iii. 21. "the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Hence it follows that infants are not to be baptized, inasmuch as they are incompetent to receive instruction, or to believe, or to enter into a covenant, or to promise or answer for themselves, or even to hear the word. For how can infants, who understand not the word, be purified thereby; any more than adults can receive edification by hearing an unknown language? For it is not that outward baptism, which purifies only the filth of the flesh, that saves us, but " the answer of a good conscience," as Peter testifies, of which infants are incapable. Besides, baptism is not merely a covenant, containing a certain stipulation on one side, with a corresponding engagement on the other, which in the case of an infant is impossible; but it is also a vow, and as such can neither be pronounced by infants, nor required of them. See Book II. Chap. iv. under the head of vows.

It is remarkable to what futile arguments those divines have recourse, who maintain the contrary opinion. They allege was peculiarly typical of the thing signified. Hence it appears that the same epithet employed in Paradise Lost, in a passage very similar to the present, is not merely a poetical ornament.

Them who shall believe

Baptizing in the profluent stream, the sign
Of washing them from guilt of sin to life
Pure, and in mind prepar'd, if so befall,

For death, like that which the Redeemer died. XII. 441. Tertullian concludes differently, arguing that any water which can be conveniently procured, is sufficient for the spirit of the ordinance. Nulla distinctio est mari quis an stagno, flumine an fonte, lacu an alveo diluatur; nec quidquam refert inter eos quos Johannes in Jordane, et quos Petrus in Tiberi tinxit; nisi et ille spado quem Philippus inter vias fortuita aqua tinxit, plus salutis aut minus retulit.' De Baptismo, IV.

9 For an answer to this, see Wall's Defence of his History of Infant Baptism, p. 243. and Whitby on Matt. iii. 16.

Matt. xix. 14. "suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”1 It appears however that they were not brought to him for the purpose of being baptized; v. 13. "then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them and pray;" neither did Christ baptize them, but only put his hands on them, v. 15. Mark x. 16. "he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." Seeing then that they were neither brought to Christ to be baptized, nor, when received, were actually baptized by him, it is impossible to admit the sophistical inference, that they were properly qualified for baptism; or, which is still more difficult to conceive, that not little children merely, but infants, are so qualified. For if competent to be baptized, they are competent on the same grounds to be partakers of the Lord's Supper. Let the church therefore receive infants which come unto her, after the example of Christ, with imposition of hands and benediction, but not with baptism. Again, they remind us, that of such is the kingdom of heaven. Is this to be understood of all without distinction, or only of such as shall subsequently believe? How perfectly soever God may know them that are his, the church does not know them; what they are in the sight of God is one thing, and what they are by church privilege is another. It must mean, therefore, of such in respect of simplicity and innocence; whereas neither simplicity nor innocence, although they may be predicated of little children, can properly be attributed to infants, who have not as yet the faculty of reason; neither does it follow, that because any one is an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, he is therefore admissible to every religious sacrament; or that, because he is included in the covenant, he has therefore the right of participating in such signs and seals of that covenant as demand the exercise of mature faith and reason. For the thing signified in the Supper of the Lord appertains no less to infants than the thing signified in baptism; and yet infants are not admitted to the former rite, although they were admitted to the passover, which held the same place in the former dispensation as the Lord's Supper in the present. Hence, by the way, we may perceive how weak

1 See Beveridge on the Twenty-seventh Articlo.

it is to reason as follows: baptism has succeeded to circumcision; but infants were circumcised, therefore infants are to be baptized: seeing that it is equally certain that the Lord's Supper has succeeded to the passover, notwithstanding which, infants, who were admitted to the latter rite, are not admitted to the former.

They argue, again, that as it is said, "we were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea," 1 Cor. x. 2. infants must be included in the general expression. I answer, that "all did eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink," iii. 4. yet that infants are not on this ground admitted to partake of the Lord's Supper.

They lay much stress likewise on Gen. xvii. 7. “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee.... in their generations." No one, however, will seriously affirm that this is to be understood of infants, and not of the adult posterity of Abraham in their generations, that is, successively. Ötherwise, we must suppose that God intended to give the land also to infants, v. 8. and that infants are commanded to keep the covenant, v. 9. Again, Acts ii. 39. "the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. Your children, that is, as they understand it, your infants: in other words, God calls those who cannot understand, and addresses those who cannot hear; an interpretation which can only have proceeded from the infancy of reasoning. Had these commentators but read two verses farther, they would have found it expressly stated, they that gladly received his word were baptized; whence it appears that understanding and will were necessary qualifications for baptism, neither of which are possessed by infants. So also Acts viii. 37. "if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest be baptized;" whereas infants, so far from believing with all their heart, are incapable of even the slightest degree of faith. With regard, however, to the text on which they insist so much, the promise is unto you and to your children, if they had attended sufficiently to Paul's interpretation of this passage, Rom. ix. 7, 8. they would have understood that the promise was not to all seed indiscriminately, seeing that it was not even to the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, but only to the children of God, that is, to believers, who

alone under the gospel are the children of the promise and are counted for the seed. But none can be considered believers by the church, till they have professed their belief. To those therefore to whom it does not appear that the promise was ever made, the church cannot with propriety give the seal of the promise in baptism.

2

Again, they allege the analogy between baptism and circumcision, which latter was performed on infants. Coloss. ii. 11. "in whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism-". In the first place, there is no other analogy between being circumcised and being buried with him in baptism, than that which exists among all sacraments by which the same thing is signified, the mode of signification being different. But, secondly, why is it necessary that things which are analogous should coincide in all points? Of circumcision, for instance, women were not partakers; in baptism they are equally included with men, whether as being a more perfect sign, or a symbol of more perfect things. For circumcision, although "a scal of the righteousness of faith," Rom. iv. 11, 12. was such only to Abraham, who being uncircumcised had already believed, and to others who should believe in like manner; not to his posterity, who in after-times were circumcised before they were of an age to exercise faith, and who, consequently, could not believe in the uncircumcision. To them it was a seal in the flesh, indistinctly and obscurely given, of that grace which was at some distant period to be revealed; whereas baptism is a seal of grace already revealed, of the remission of sins, of sanctification; finally, a sign of our death and resurrection with Christ. Circumcision was given nnder the law and the sacrifices, and bound the individual to the observance of the whole law, (Gal. v. 3.) which was a service of bondage, and a schoolmaster to bring its followers to Christ; through baptism, on the other hand, we are initiated into the gospel, which is a reasonable, manly, and in the highest sense free service. For under the law men were not merely born, but grew up

2 See Wall on Infant Baptism, Part II. Chap. x. Sect. 1. Burnet, Beveridge, and Tomline on the Twenty-seventh Article.

Bps.

infants in a spiritual sense; under the gospel, in baptism, we are born men. Hence baptism requires, as from adults, the previous conditions of knowledge and faith; whereas in circumcision all conditions are omitted, as unnecessary in the case of servants, and impracticable in that of infants. Lastly, circumcision was performed not by the priests and Levites, but by the master of a family, Gen. xvii. by the mother, Exod. iv. 26. or by any other person, a surgical operator for instance; whereas baptism, according to our opponents themselves, can only be administered by a teacher of the gospel; and even those who hold a wider opinion on the subject, allow that it can only be performed by a believer, and by one who is neither a new convert, nor unlearned in the faith. To what purpose is this, unless that the person to be baptized may be previously instructed in the doctrines of the gospel? which in the case of an infant is impossible. There is therefore no necessary analogy between circumcision and baptism; and it is our duty not to build our belief on vague parallels, but to attend exclusively to the institution of the sacrament itself, and regard its authority as paramount, according to the frequent admonition of our opponents themselves. They contend, however, that circumcision was "the seal of the righteousness of faith," Rom. iv. 11, 12. notwithstanding which infants were circumcised, who were incapable of belief.* I answer, as above, that it was indeed the seal of the righteousness of faith, but only to Abraham, and to such as after his example believed being yet uncircumcised; in the case of infants it was a thing of entirely different import, namely, an outward and merely national consecration to the external service of God, and, by implication, to the Mosaic form of worship which was in due time to be ordained.

Lastly it is urged that the apostles baptized whole families, and consequently infants among the rest. The weakness of

3 The best of them, as St. Paul saith, 'was shut up unto the faith under the law their schoolmaster, who was found to entice them as children with childish enticements. But the gospel is our manhood.' Apology for Smectymnuus, Prose Works, III. 166. They will be always learning and never knowing; always infants.' The likeliest means to remove Hirelings, &c. Ibid. 41.

4 See Bps. Beveridge and Burnet on the Twenty-seventh Article. 5 See Bp. Tomline on the Twenty-seventh Article.