Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

conveniences. This the author himself concedes, that from the Apostles times for 1300 years, sprinkling was permitted on extraordinary occasions." Cyprian (who wrote within about 150 years of the Apostles) speaking of sprinkling, says, 'In the sacrament of salvation (i. e. baptism) when necessity compels, the shortest ways of transacting divine matters, do, by God's grace, confer the whole benefit.' And it may not be impertinent to observe, that the ancients, who practised immersion, did usually, after the body had been plunged, apply water to the face. So far therefore as the practice of the ancients is of weight, it proves' all that we contend for. We do not say, immersion is unlawful, or a meer nullity: We say, it is not necessary, but affusion is sufficient and agreeable to the divine word. And so said the ancient church.

I hope what has been offered is sufficient to justify the mode of baptism admitted in our churches, and to satisfy all, who have received baptism in this mode, that they have no need to seek immersion. The question concerning the mode is really of

small importance in itself, and nothing but the controversy about it has made it otherwise. If our baptism is treated as a nullity, it is of importance to satisfy our minds: And if any have been thrown into doubts, I hope the consideration of what has been said, will give them satisfaction.

ᏢᎪᎡᎢ II.

DISCOURSE II.

my

I COME now to the second part of design, which is to vindicate the right of Infants to baptism.

The method in which I shall proceed is as follows. I shall first consider the usual objections against infant baptism.-Next produce our arguments in vindication of it.--Then briefly touch upon the reasonableness and usefulness of it.-After which I shall give a short view of the practice of the church soon after the Apostles.-And then by way of conclusion shall shew the absur

dity of separations in churches on account of differences respecting baptism. The unwarrantableness of rebaptization, &c.

I. I will distinctly consider all the material objections of our brethren against infant baptism, as I collect them from their writers, and particularly from the author of the letters before mentioned.

1. It is said, Christ has fully and plainly declared his mind about baptism; and because he has not commanded the baptism of infants, he has virtually forbidden it.'

Now though it should be allowed, that there is no express command, yet if we can find a virtual, consequential command for it, that, I trust, will be a sufficient warrant : Otherwise what warrant shall we have to admit females to the Lord's supper? To observe the first day of the week as holy? To maintain public worship? These and many other things, are no where enjoined, in so many words, but yet can clearly he shewn to be agreeable to the will of God. What command have our brethren to justify their practice? Where is the passage which tells us, that baptism must be confined to the

[ocr errors]

adults; and infants, though formerly admitted to the seal of the covenant, must now be admitted no more? They can find nothing of this sort. But, I trust it will appear, that there is what may properly be called a command for our practice. If that passage in Isaiah, Lo, I have set thee for a light to the Gentiles, was a command to the Apostles, to go and preach to the Gentiles, as it is said to be ;* then the direction given to Abraham our Father, to affix the token of the covenant to his infant seed; the commission given to the Apostles to disciple all nations baptizing them; and the exhortation of Peter, Be baptized-for the promise is to you and your children, are commands to admit infants to baptism; as we shall endeavour to shew hereafter.

2. It is objected, that in all the history of the New Testament there is no example of infant baptism; but the baptisms we have an account of, are the baptisms of professed believers.'

But if there is no express mention of infant baptism, yet we cannot hence conclude,

* Act. xiii. 46.

it was never practised; any more than we can conclude, that some whole churches were formed without any baptism at all, because it is no where said, they were baptized. If a plain direct example be insisted upon, our brethren must certainly give up their notion of baptism; for they can find no example in their favour, whatever we can; as will be evident, if we only consider what is the question between us. It is not, whether adult proselytes should be baptized? But whether the infants of professed believers should be baptized? There are, it is true, instances enough of the baptism of adults, who had been converted from Judaism or Paganism: But these are nothing to the point; for we allow baptism to all adult believers, who have not been baptized in infancy. And the Apostles' baptizing such is no argument, that they did not baptize infants, any more than our missionaries' baptizing adults among the natives, is an argument, that they do not baptize infants. The question is merely this; are the infants of baptized believers to be admitted to baptism? Or to be rejected? If you say they must be

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »