A CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.

No. V.

V. The baptism of families, by the apostles of Christ, confirms the conclusion, that infants were baptized. The Philippian jailor and his family were baptized. Lydia and her family were baptized. Stephanas and his family were baptized. No mention of the baptisms of families could be expected, except where particular cases were distinguished from the multitude. There are only nine such cases mentioned in the New Testament, that of Simon Magus, of the Ethiopian, of Paul, of the centurion, of Lydia, of the jailor, of Crispus, Gaius, and Stephanas. The existence of a family is possible in only seven of these cases, and is testified of only five. But of these five cases in which the baptism of individuals is recorded, in three it is declared that their families were baptized with them; and in the other cases there is nothing to render the baptism of the families improbable, though it is not stated. It is indeed probable that in these two other cases, that of Cornelius and of Crispus-the baptism of their families is not exhibited in connexion with their own, because their families consisted only of those who themselves embraced Christianity; for it is said that Cornelius feared God with all his family, and that Crispus trusted to the Lord with all his family. Now the fact that in the small number of references to the baptism of individuals, there should be three statements of the baptism of their families with them,—that in every instance in which we have reason to believe that the person had a family of young children, the baptism of the family is recorded in connexion with the baptism of its head,-that when the narrative declares that the head of the family believed, it does not declare that the family also believed, though it does declare that the family was baptized,—these things prove conclusively that the baptism of families was the general practice of the apostles of our Lord.

It is admitted, that everything stated of families does not apply to all the members of the family. If either the nature of what is attributed to the whole, be appropriate only to a part; or if it be restricted by custom to a part,-then of course only that part can be referred to. When it is said that a family believed, none can suppose that infants are referred to, because they are incapable of faith. And if it were said that a family went to Jerusalem at the Passover, there would be no reason to conclude that infants went; since, though capable of going, it was not the custom for them to go. If therefore infants were incapable of Christian baptism,—or it were in its nature unsuitable to them,-or if by general custom they had been excluded from the baptisms then

commonly observed,—it must be granted, that the statements concerning the baptism of families prove nothing in regard to the baptism of infants. But the reverse of these suppositions is true. Christian baptism is in its nature as suitable to infants as it is to adults; and by ordinary usage infants were baptized as well as adults; consequently the statement made by a Jew, that a family was baptized, would refer to infants as well as to adults; and by Jews it would necessarily be thus interpreted.

We conclude therefore that the baptism of families was the common practice of the apostles; and that the statement that a family was baptized, included infants, if there were any in these families. It must then be allowed, on the testimony of Scripture, that infants were baptized by the apostles, unless we assert that there were no infants in any of the families they are said to have baptized. This is in the highest degree improbable, and even then it remains to be explained, why, when the faith of the head of the family is mentioned, the faith of the family is not mentioned, though the baptism of the family is,— and why the absence of infants from their families is not noticed, if that only rendered possible the truth of the statement, that the family was baptized, and how the common practice of baptizing families is at all consistent with the supposition, that the proof of the conversion of every individual was the condition of administering Christian baptism, and how such proof could possibly be afforded by families the very day they for the first time heard the Gospel.

VI. The recognition of the children of every Christian parent as holy, confirms the conclusion that they were purified by baptism.

It appears that some of the Christians at Corinth doubted, whether they ought to continue to live with their wives and husbands who were heathens. They supposed that because it would be wrong for them to form such connexions with heathens, it was also wrong for them to continue in such connexions when already formed; and that because the heathens were impure both ceremonially and morally, Christians living in the most intimate association with them would necessarily be rendered impure also. St. Paul taught them that it was not the nature of Christian purity or holiness, to be destroyed by every connexion with that which was unholy. Though it must be injured by such connexions if chosen without a proper reason, it is not injured by them if such reason exist. To the Christian every object becomes holy, if used in a right spirit, and for right ends. Every creature of God is good, and to those who rightly receive it, it is purified (áyágera) by the word of God, and by prayer-that is, by the association with it of Christian truth and devotion.-1 Tim. iv. 5. This is the first reason assigned by the apostle, for the command he delivered. "If any brother have an unbelieving wife, and she consent to dwell with him, let him not dismiss her. And let not any wife who has an unbelieving hus

band who consents to dwell with her, dismiss him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy to his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy to her husband," nyíaorai,-1 Cor. vii. 12.* The next reason assigned by him is, that if the heathenism of one parent made separation from the other necessary, their children must be relinquished as unholy also. But these children were not impure either in fact or in supposition, and therefore the separation of the parents was not necessary. "Because then your children are impure; but now they are holy," ayıá éσri,-ver. 14. He does not say that they were made holy to the Christian parent, as he had said, that the unbelieving husband was made holy to the wife, and the unbelieving wife to the husband; but that they were themselves holy. There would be no reason for the reference to the holiness of their children, if the only holiness which these possessed, was the holiness which pertained to everything that a Christian rightly used. And if children were generally regarded by them as holy merely because they admitted of a holy use to a Christian parent, it would not have been necessary to teach that a heathen husband or wife might in this sense be holy. The children of a Christian parent are declared by the apostles to be themselves holy; and this is not stated as a new doctrine, but as one universally admitted, needing no proof or comment, by which another truth might be made evident.

What then is this holiness or purity which St. Paul declares is possessed by the children of a Christian parent? The word äytos, when applied to men, is used in only two different senses. It denotes those who are separated from the rest of the world by the providence of God, that they may learn his character and will, seek his favour, obey his commands, and enjoy all the privileges of his people. And it denotes, also, those who are separated from others, by that grace which purifies the soul, and produces the rectitude which God requires. The first class is said to be holy because separated by God from others, and in an especial manner called to his service and favour; and the second class because they are also devoted to his service, and in the possession of his favours. Thus as examples of the first usage, we read," Every first-born male shall be holy to the Lord," ayov r Kupię,—Luke ii. 23. "Thou art a holy people to the Lord thy God," ayos ei,-Deut. vii. 6. holy to the Lord," iμeîs ayını,-Ezra viii. 28. "If the first portion be holy, so also is the whole mass; and if the root be holy, so also are the branches,"-Rom. xi. 16. As examples of the second,-"That it might be holy and without fault,"-Eph. v. 27. "The holy women who trusted on God,"-1 Pet. iii. 5. "Happy and holy is he who

"Ye are

* Ἐν τῇ γυναικὶ and ἐν τῷ ἀνδρὶ here correspond to ἐν ἐμοὶ βάρβαρος, “ a barbarian to me,” xiv. 11; evápeσtov čotiv ev Kupiw, "well pleasing to the Lord," Col. iii. 20 ; θαυμαστὴ ἐν ὀφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν, " wonderful to our eyes,” Matt. xxi. 42 ; τὸ ἐν àrepérois inλdy, "that which to men is noble," Luke xvi. 15.

hath part in the first resurrection,"-Rev. xx. 6. Now because all the children of Christians are not holy in the latter sense, it must be in the former sense that they are declared to be holy. They are holy as those who are separated from the world, that they may not grow up as others in ignorance and idolatry, but that they may be the Lord's.

Now if all the children of a Christian parent are thus associated with the people of God, why should they not receive the sign of this association? There must have been some cause for the general and sure acknowledgment of the holiness of such children, on which the argument of the apostle rests. As Jewish parents learnt that their children were holy from the rite of circumcision, so would Christian parents learn that their children were holy from the rite of baptism. No other probable cause can be assigned. They knew that their children were holy (aya) because they had been purified (ßeßanтioμéva.)*

The supposition that the apostle merely declares that the children of a Christian parent are legitmate, is on every account inadmissible. There is nothing in the context even to suggest this notion. The term rendered "holy" never means legitimate. And it never was the opinion of Jews or Christians, or of any people, that children born in lawful marriage, were, on account of the subsequent separation of their parents, to be regarded as the children of fornication or adultery.

VII. The beneficial tendency of infant baptism agrees with the evidence of its Divine appointment, and shows that this ordinance of Christ is to be observed to the end of time. An emblematical purification is not intended to benefit the subject merely by the feeling of its performance. It is principally useful by the knowledge that it has been performed. Even the simplest rite, when a novelty to us, fixes our attention chiefly on what is sensible. When subsequently thought of, its import is more fully apprehended, than when first witnessed or received. If the good resulting to adults from the reception of baptism, were limited to the suggestions of what they saw and felt, in the administration of the ordinance, then it might be useless to children. But if to adults it is principally useful when afterwards reviewed, these advantages belong equally to the baptism of children. If it be beneficial for an adult to be reminded by his baptism, that though born among a people to whom the true God was unknown, he had, when grown up to maturity, been made

*If it be thought more probable that the verb and adjective bear the same sense, and that the unbelieving parent was made holy by connexion with a Christian, as the children were, then what has been exhibited as a second reason for the apostle's direction, becomes a confirmation of the first. They needed to be taught the holiness of the parent, but they did not need to be taught the holiness of the children. The latter is then used to establish the former. From this view of the passage the same general conclusions result.-That the sanctification is not conversion is evident. The former is stated as certainly and universally true; the latter is referred to in the 16th verse as merely possible.

acquainted with the Saviour's mission, and taught the duties he enjoined and the blessings he promised, surely it must be beneficial for children, to have the same memorial,-to bear the mark that their lot was cast among the people of God, and that, from the earliest dawn of life, the light of Christian truth, and the dew of Christian influence, have descended on their minds. As he who has once been baptized feels that he cannot destroy his baptism, so also must he feel that he cannot free himself from the responsibility connected with every religious privilege. A child has not to choose, whether it will receive Christian baptism; nor has it to choose, whether it will receive the privileges and responsibility of Christian education. It is not the remembrance of the act of baptism that can be beneficial to any, but only the remembrance of what has been more or less closely connected with it; and the consideration of what is expressed thereby. And the mere rite of baptism is in every case useful, chiefly because such remembrances and considerations are likely to be more frequent, distinct, and impressive, when there is some point around which they may cluster in natural association. It must be admitted that the influence of baptism, both on children and adults, from various causes, has been less beneficial than it might have been. But it is plainly fitted to be useful, by its adaptation to the natural principles of our minds, both as an emblem, and as a memorial of truth. And like similar Divine institutions of the former economy, it doubtless has been a means of good to many, who understood not the way in which it exerted a beneficial influence on their minds.

But this ordinance is not designed only for the good of its subjects; it is intended to profit spectators also. It teaches those who witness it, that for all men a purification of the soul is necessary; and that, by all who know the Gospel of Christ, this purification may be obtained. When the ordinance is performed on an adult, it may be regarded as having an exclusive reference to him. It may be supposed, that it is on account of his peculiar wickedness, this purification is needed; or that it is because of his peculiar goodness, it is conferred. When performed on children, there is nothing to obscure the general signification of the rite. The man is regarded by us as an individual. The infant is contemplated as a representative of our common nature.

If the acknowledgment of the Divine mission of Christ, made by an adult receiving baptism as his own initiation to Christianity, be solemn and impressive; not less so is the same acknowledgment made by parents when their children are baptized. The Christians who witness the baptism of an adult, are thereby admonished of their duty to him who thus expresses his desire for Christian discipline. Their benevolence is awakened by the consideration of the Saviour's kindness to him who is thus brought into the school of Christ, that he may obtain the spiritual purity which baptism denotes. But if strangers may