« PreviousContinue »
port of such a rite. Hence it is, that the different sects that agree in the practice, have each their own views of the meaning of it-thus the Church of Rome places it the first of the seven Sacraments, and believes that it absolves all previous guilt, and leaves the infant innocent as Adam in paradise. The church of England says, that, it makes the subject of it, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of Glory." The Church of Scotland, or Presbyterian Chureh, says, “ that it doth signify and seal our in. grafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the Covenant of Grace, and our engagement to be the Lords.'* Different sects of Dissenters have different views of it, and express them in their respective formulas, which, in part, correspond with the substance of the above. The Seceders say, that in baptisın “ we do (i. e. the infant) swear, to be only and wholly the Lords. The baptists differ from thein all, and think, with scripture and reason on their side, that it seals nothing to the infant, that it sig. nifies or imports nothing to it, but that its father was a member of a pedo-baptist Church, and at the time of its baptism, under the influence of the doctrines and commandments of men; and that it secures nothing to the infant but the name its parents pleased to impose on it.
There is another peculiarity in those texts which are usually cited to prove infant sprinkling, that I do not recollect to have seen noticed, it is this, that there is not one text cited to prove the whole of the custom or rite. One class of texts is brought forward to prove one part of the practice; and another class, to prove another part of it. Just as if I should attempt to prove that the sprinkling of bells, was a divine appointment, as the Romanists believe; I should begin to prove that bells were once apo pointed to be used under the law, which I can soon do, and then proceed to shew, that sprinkling blood was the usual way of consecrating any thing not before dedicated to the Lord; and that water now was the antitype or emblem answering thereunto. The covenants being still the same, the holiness of times and things yet remaining as of old-I join together both ends of my argument, and thus usher in the baptism of bells, with as good a grace as infant baptism makes its appearance. My design under this article is to examine one or two texts, often quoted by the pedo-baptists; but which Mr. Walker either forgot, or was ashamed to bring forward in the preceding
debate. The first of these is Math. 28, 1946 Go yé therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," " teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.' The argument raised on these words is, that as all pations are commanded to be baptized, and infants are a part of all nations ; therefore infants are commanded to be baptized. This is the most playsible syllogism that a pedo-baptist can adduce; and yet when it is examined, it not only makes nothing for, but a strong argument against, the practice of infant sprink. ling. The verse reads teach all nations, baptizing them.”. Teaching precedes baptizing in the order of this commission, and is, in the original, different from the word rendered teaching in the next verse-Matheleusati in the 19th verse, and didasłcontes in the 20th. The first signifies disciple, or make disciples in all nations the latter signifies instructing those when made disciples. The former denotes teaching the first principles, to make disciples ; and the latter, teaching those disciples the sublimer doctrines, principles, and practices, of Christianity: But, that this criticism may not rest upon my authority, I will quote some pedo-baptist critics-Parkhurst and Wakefield render it - make disciples," Pyle and Campbell 56 convert.' Guise and Scott - disciple all nations." Wynne, make disciples in all nations.” That the latter meaning, which is the same in substance with the preceding, fully expresses the meaning intended to be convey. ed in the words of the commission, is incontrovertibly ey. ident from the following criticism. The object of " discipling" is expressed « panta ta ethne"--all nations ; but the subject of baptizing is another gender than ta ethne; it is autous, them. The word “autous” them, in the origa inal is masculine, and does not agree with “panta ta ethne," all nations, which is neuter; but refers to 6 mathetas" disciples, which is included in the verb matheteusati * make disciples"-the verse then reads-teach, or make disciples out of all nations, baptizing them that are taught, or made disciples; and this is clear from the parallel passage in Mark ;-Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature ; he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved." None then are commanded to be baptized, but such as are first taught, or made disciples.To aecommodate this verse to the pede-baptists, it should
real this-Go, baptize all nations, and then teach them. For this is their practice first to sprinkle, and then instruct but the commission of Christ says, first teach, and then baptize-so that this passage authorises baptists in their practice, and condemns the practice of the pedo-baptists.
Certain writers on infant baptism have admitted the substance of the preceding criticism on Math. 28, 19, 20, and endeavor to come off in this way-6 Tbat infants are disciples, and consequently should be baptised.” Yea, and they quote scripture to prove it too !--The following extract is froin Dr. Lathrop, a very popular writer amongst Pedo-baptists-than whom, a greater sophist on this subject has not appeared, for the twenty-five years last past~ Now," says he, “ if we can show that infants are ever considered as disciples, as belonging to Christ, then it will appear that they come within the commission, Disciple all nations. To prove this, he quotes Matb. 18, 5, 6 Whosoever shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.” Then he attempts to prove, that receiving them in Christ's name, is to receive them as his disciples. To prove this, he quotes Mark 9, 41, and then Math. 10, 42-but unfortunately for the doctor, the little child with which he set out, Math. 18, 5, was not an infant in the modern sense, but an infant believer : see the following verse, “ One of these little ones that believe in me.” This, then, overthrows the fabric the Doctor was building; for in quoting the 6th verse of Math. 18, we pull the foundation from his superstructure, and down it comes. The Doctor next ingeniously attempts to prove that infants are called disciples, from Acts 15, 10, 6 Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples, which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear. Infants' were to be circumcised after the manner of Moses, and therefore are comprehended among the disciples, on whom the yoke would be laid." Now bad not a Doctor said so, I would have considered it out of all cha. racter to reply to a figment so puerile, so diminutive but as Doctors are great men, we must bear with them. Pray Doctor, did you read the first verse of this fifteenth chapter, before you quoted the tenth? I presume pot-it reads thus : 66 And certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren, and said, except ye be cir. cumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."" These were the Gentile brethren. that had
Believed the Gospel, whom those ancient Judaizers wished to have conformed to Judaism-yea, io the 5th verse, 6. Some of the Pharisees told them, that it was needful to circumcise (those of the Gentiles that had believed) and to command them to keep the law of Moses." These were Dr. Lathrop's infant disciples, on whom they were about to put the yoke of observing the whole law of Moses. Shall I further expose the Doctor ? No: the verses need but to be read, aud the Doctor's scheme is no where to be found.
To talk of an infant disciple, or to say that an infant of eight or ten days old can be a disciple or scholar of Christ, not only contradicts all scripture, but shocks all common sense. The Doctor's work on Christian baptism, exhibits many rare specimens of logic, of a piece with the above.
Mr. John P. Campbell, of Kentucky, who has gone to bis long home, and who has passed the scrutiny of that judgment seat, from which there is no appeal, was a wri: ter of much superior talent to the Doctor, though he was pever dubbed Doctor: for there are great men that are not dubbed Doctors, and there are Doctors that are not great men. Mr. Campbell's work is still with us, and is the most dignified performance on the subject of infant sprinkling that I have seen. A considerable part of his book has been already reviewed, under the argument from ecclesiastical history, and while discussing the im: port of bapto and baptizo, with some prepositions. Whatever diversity of talents may distinguish pedo-baptist *writers on this subject, there must always be so much similarity amongst them, that when one of them is refu. ted, they are all
refuted. The arguments of Mr. Campo bell of Kentucky, are just the same as those of Peter Edwards, or Dr. Lathrop, or even Mr. Walker, with an exception of some of the excentricities of the latter on the Covenants; only with this difference that they are exhib. ited in a better style=Farmer John is the same man, whether dressed in his plain homespun, or whether he has got on his Sunday broad cloth, that was ferried over the vast Atlantic.
I shall briefly exhibit a species of sophistry which rans through this work of Mr. Campbell's. It is very conspicuous in his disquisition on prepositions-it is called in the schools, 56 A dicto secundum quid, ad dictum simpli
citer," Or in English, when we argue from that which is true in particular circumstances, to prove the same thing true simply, abstract from all circumstances. Under this species of sophistry, and another which is called “ Fal. lacia accidentis” or when we say, a thing must be, be. cause it may be, which together are the same with draw. ing a general conclusion from particular premises, are the greater part of all his arguments to be ranked in support of this tradition. To exemplify this, I will briefly notice bis disquisition on the prepositions eis en ex'and apo-pages 50-53-Mr. C. has found some passage where the prepo. sition eis may be translated at, and therefore in all pla. ces where baptism is spoken of, it must be translated at
thus he translates Mark 1-9. “ Apd was baptised of John at Jordan"-Now I affirm, without fear of refutation, that the preposition eis is, in all books where it occurs, translated, to say the least, one hundred times by into, for once it is translated at ; and that into is acknowled. ged by all Lexicographers and Greek critics, yea, bg Mr. Č. himself, to be the common meaning of eis : yet, notwithstanding, when placed before a river, or any water used for baptism, there it must never signify into but always, at, or towards!!! Bring the subjects of bapa tism towards, near to, or even place them at the edge of the river, but never into it. Ah! that is the killing word. But these critics, in their zeal, should remember that while they are thus striving to keep people from going down into the water, they are shutting the gates of heaven and hell against all mankind-for if the preposition eis, will not take us into the water, it will not take one of Adam's race * eis ouranono' into beaven por seis geennan" into hell; for there is no other word ever used before these places, when admission into them is spoken of, but the preposie' tion eis.
We shall next attend to his criticism on en. This preposition is rendered in one hundred times for once by any other word. It occurs nearly two hundred times in the evangelist Mathew. Mr. C. finds one or two places where it may be translated at, and therefore must always be translated at where baptismal waters are spoken of. Thus Edwards and he render the phraze, (en to Jordane,) at Jordan, and 6 en to Jordane potamo" at the river Jordan. Excellent critics! Thus they have got two prepositions, the one signifying motion, and the other