are required to believe―and of obedience, because they are required to observe all things. We are both agreed on another point also, which is as plainly taught by these texts as the one just now stated. That is, that those intelligent adults who are destitute of knowledge, faith and obedience, are deprived of Christ's gracious presence, by his Spirit, unto the end of the world, and of his salvation in eternity. We agree, in a third position, that the privilege of baptism, the enjoyment of Christ's Spirit, and eternal salvation are here secured to believing adults. There is a fourth point in which we can possibly meet. The Apostle Peter shews that the promise of the Spirit of sanctification and salvation is to believers and their children; "The promise is unto you and to your children." The fifth point is the one on which we differ. Do these passages exclude infants from baptism? They affirm; we deny. They say that Christ's command to teach and baptize all nations, excludes infants as incapable of instruction: then are they not excluded from his promise, "lo! I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world?" They say that our Saviour's declaration, he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," excludes infants as incapable of faith: but the next clause says, "he that believeth not shall be damned." If, then the former clause deprives them of baptism, because incapable of faith, this latter one excludes from salvation all infants who cannot believe. Mr. Robinson's "good Baptist," Michael Servetus, of the sixteenth century, saw the necessity of this conclusion, and admitted its correctness. He rejected infants from baptism and from salvation together, because they could not believe; and supported his doctrine by that text which says, "He that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him."(o) This mode of interpretation, if consistently maintained, would exclude infants from daily bread, as well as from baptismal water Paul says, "This we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."(p) Our Opponents should say, infants cannot work, therefore infants should not eat. Why do they not reason and act thus? Because they know that this command related to adults who ought to work, and will not; and not to infants who cannot work. Just so Pedobaptists interpret the above texts concerning baptism. They are intended to exclude adults who ought to believe, but will not: and not infants which are neither believers nor unbelievers. And to reason otherwise, is as absurd as to say that the sheep on the right hand of Christ, at the day of judgment, are intended to exclude not only the goats, but the lambs also. Such sentiments as the above texts contain, are found in Pedobaptist writers, and Pedobaptist creeds, in every age and country: and, what is remarkable, Baptist writers quote them, as they do the scriptures, in opposition to that system which their authors maintain. They cannot help confessing that after Cyprian's day, Pedobaptism prevailed in the church; and yet when Cyprian and other Fathers talk of the necessity of believing and repenting before baptism, they quote these expressions against infant baptism, although they know (0) Calvin's Institutes. Book 4. ch. xvi. sect. 31. that their authors were Pedobaptists, and never meant them to apply to infants. Speaking of baptism, Cyprian declares that all "will perish," "unless they do 66 come with repentance to that only salutary sacrament "of the church." On the same subject Gregory Nyssen says, "Prayer to God, and the imploring of the heavenly 66 grace, and the water, and faith, are the things that "make up the sacrament of regeneration." To the same amount, Cyril, Chrysostom, and Augustine. Basil says, "One must believe first, and then be "sealed with baptism." Jerom says of the Apostles, that they first taught the nations, and then baptized them; "for it cannot be that the body do receive "the sacrament of baptism, unless the soul have before "received the true faith." "(q) If the scriptures forbid infant baptism, so do these Fathers: but both sides know that these Fathers held infant baptism and required faith as a qualification in adults only; and so we believe the scriptures do. But the inconsistency of our Opponents does not stop with the scriptures and the Fathers. They have claimed the Pedobaptist Reformers and reformed churches and their successors to the present day. They even quote against Infant baptism, the standards of the Pedobaptist churches with which we are conversant and connected; and most certainly, they are as much against it as the scriptures are. Both alike require faith in the subject. The Catechism of the Church of England says, "There is required of persons to be baptized, faith (7) Wall's Defence. pp. 346. 347. "and repentance." Our Catechism says that in a sacrament, "Christ and the benefits of the new covenant "are represented, sealed and applied to believers." The same work says that their efficacy depends upon "the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit "in them that by faith receive them." (r) In the close of my Opponent's book against Mr. Walker, these and similar passages of our Creed are explained just as the scriptures are, in opposition to infant baptism. On the first of them the writer says, "Mark, only to "believers. Are infants capable of believing?" On the second passage he says, "Here mark again, "the blessing of Christ and the working of his Spirit "is wholly restricted to them that by faith receive "them. Is it possible to suppose that infants can so "receive? Then surely it would be wrong not to admit "them also to the Lord's table. But the thing being insupposable, they are therefore equally debarred "from both." On the whole, he observes," Are not "all the blessings and benefits specified in them exclusively confined to believers? Obviously so, as the words "unequivocally declare, in express concurrence with "the scriptures cited for proof, at the bottom of the 66 page, under the respective answers. According to "the manifest scope and tenor of all those documents "taken together, what comes of infant-sprinkling? It "stands excluded to all intents and purposes. No room "is left for it, if the forecited documents contain words "of truth." (s) 66 66 (r) Larger Cat, Questions, 92. 91, (s) 2nd Edition, p. 290, 291. Thus does this writer profess to prove that, by our Catechism, infants are "equally debarred from" baptism and the Lord's supper; and that from our own creed, Pedobaptism "stands excluded to all intents and purposes." It is no wonder, then, that he says this of the scriptures. But on this subject I can tell him what probably never before entered his mind. It is this; that, according to his rules of interpretation, it can be shewn that our Catechism, as well as the scriptures, exclude infants from salvation as well as from baptism, by requiring faith for the one as well as the other. It speaks as follows; viz. "To escape the wrath and curse of "God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in "Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent 66 use of all the outward means whereby Christ commu"nicateth to us the benefits of redemption."() On this article my Opponent might speak as follows; Mark!!! Only to believers, to penitents, to diligent seekers. Can children believe? can children repent? can children diligently use the means of grace? Is not salvation here "exclusively confined to believers? Obviously so, as the "words unequivocally declare, in express concurrence "with the scriptures cited for proof, at the bottom of "the page." "According to the manifest scope and "tenor" of the article, "what comes of infant" salvation?"It stands excluded to all intents and purposes." To all such reasoning, whether on the scriptures or the catechism, whether on infant salvation or infant (t) Shorter Cat. Quest. 85. See Larger Cat. Qu. 153. |