THE

CHRISTIAN REVIEW.

No. CXIV.-OCTOBER, 1863.

ART. I.—DR. BUSHNELL'S ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT

BAPTISM.

[BY REV. IRAH CHASE, D. D., NEWTON CENTRE, MASS.]

I.

ORGANIC CONNECTION.

DR. BUSHNELL, in his work on Christian Nurture, lays down the following proposition, namely: That the child is to grow up a Christian, and never know himself as being other wise. This he immediately modifies by adding: "In other words, the aim, effort and expectation should be, not, as is commonly assumed, that the child is to grow up in sin, to be converted after he comes to a mature age; but that he is to open on the world as one that is spiritually renewed, not remembering the time when he went through a technical experience, but seeming rather to have loved what is good from his earliest years." Exceptions he admits; and he proposes to speak of these in another connection, when they can be stated intelligibly.

After presenting several weighty considerations in support of his proposition, he proceeds thus: "If we narrowly examine the relation of parent and child, we shall not fail to discover something like a law of organic connection, as regards character, subsisting between them;-such a connection as makes it easy to believe, and natural to expect, that VOL. Xxviii.-33.

the faith of the one will be propagated in the other. Perhaps I should rather say, such a connection as induces the conviction that the character of one is actually included in that of the other, as seed is formed in the capsule; and being there matured, by the nutriment derived from the stem, is gradually separated from it. It is a singular fact, that many believe substantially the same thing, in regard to evil character, but have no thought of any such possibility in regard to good. There has been much speculation, of late, as to whether a child is born in depravity, or whether the depraved character is superinduced afterwards. But, like many other great questions, it determines much less than is commonly supposed; for, according to the most proper view of the subject, a child is really not born till he emerges from the infantile state, and never before that time can he be said to receive a separate and properly individual nature.

"The declarations of Scripture and the laws of physiology, I have already intimated, compel the belief that a child's nature is somehow depravated by descent from parents who are under the corrupting effects of sin. But this, taken as a question relating to the mere punctum temporis, or precise point of birth, is not a question of any so grave import as is generally supposed; for the child, after birth, is still within the matrix of the parental life, and will be, more or less, for many years. And the parental life will be flowing into him all that time, just as naturally, and by a law as truly organic, as when the sap of the trunk flows into a limb. We must not govern our thoughts, in such matters, by our eyes; and because the physical separation has taken place, conclude that no organic relation remains. Even the physical being of the child is dependent still for many months, in the matter of nutrition, on organic processes not in itself. Meantime, the mental being and character have scarcely begun to have a proper individual life. Will, in connection with conscience, is the basis of personality, or individuality; and these exist as yet only in their rudimental type, as when the form of a seed is beginning to be unfolded at the root of a flower.

"At first, the child is held as a mere passive lump in the arms, and he opens into conscious life under the soul of the

parent, streaming into his eyes and ears, through the manners and tones of the nursery. The kind and degree of passivity are gradually changed as life advances. A little farther on it is observed that a smile awakens a smile; any kind of sentiment or passion, playing in the face of the parent, wakens a responsive sentiment or passion. Irritation irritates, a frown. withers, love expands a look congenial to itself, and why not holy love? Next the ear is opened to the understanding of words; but what words the child shall hear, he cannot choose, and has as little capacity to select the sentiments that are poured into his soul. Farther on, the parents begin to govern him by appeals to will, expressed in commands; and whatever their requirement may be, he can as little withstand it, as the violet can cool the scorching sun, or the tattered leaf can tame the hurricane. Next they appoint his school, choose his books, regulate his company, decide what form of religion, and what religious opinions he shall be taught, by taking him to a church of their own selection. In all this they infringe upon no right of the child; they only fulfil an office which belongs to them. Their will and character are designed to be the matrix of the child's will and character. Meantime he approaches more and more closely, and by a gradual process, to the proper rank and responsibility of an individual creature, during all which process of separation, he is having their exercises and ways translated into him. Then at last he comes forth to act his part in such color of evil, and why not of good, as he has derived from them."

In these passages, it will be perceived, the author begins by representing the relation of parent and child to be "something like a law of organic connection, as regards character, subsisting between them." And this he further defines by adding, "Such a connection as makes it easy to believe, and natural to expect, that the faith of the one will be propagated in the other." Thus far, as the word "propagated" is most frequently used in a figurative sense, the statement seems entitled to a ready admission. But in the very next sentence there is an important modification: "Perhaps I should rather say, such a connection as induces the conviction that the

character of one is actually included in that of the other, as a seed is formed in the capsule; and being there matured, by a nutriment derived from the stem, is gradually separated from it."

Here we are taught, not merely that there is something like an organic connection, and that the faith of the parent comes easily to be the faith of the child, but also that the character of the child is actually included in that of the parent, as a seed is formed in the capsule, or seed vessel, of a plant. "According to the most proper view of the subject," it is soon added, "a child is really not born till he emerges from the infantile state." He is still within the matrix [or formative womb] of the parental life, and will be, more or less, for many years. And the parental life will be flowing into him all that time, just as naturally, and by a law as truly organic, as when the sap of the trunk flows into a limb. . . Whatever the requirement of parents may be, he can as little withstand it as the violet can cool the scorching sun, or the tattered leaf can tame the hurricane. Their will and

character are designed to be the matrix [or mould] of the child's will and character." On the 30th page it is stated that "The parent exercises himself in the child, playing his emotions and sentiments, and working a character in him by virtue of an organic power."

These representations remind us of what we heard, forty years ago, at New Lanark, in Scotland. The distinguished free thinking philanthropist, Robert Owen, had invited several strangers, who were from America and from various parts of Europe, to breakfast with him and his family. At the table he took occasion to advocate some of his favorite theories. We are all, he said, creatures of circumstances. And, holding up his coffee cup, he added, We are no more responsible for our characters than this cup is for its shape.

Here was truth, but not the whole truth; and the true was so exaggerated, and so connected with error, as to mislead. Dr. Bushnell, certainly, would be as far as any man from adopting Mr. Owen's conclusion. But too often his statement is an exaggeration; and it tends to mystify what it was intended to illustrate, It can hardly fail to mislead

many an honest inquirer; and it may have confused, in some measure, the ideas of the ingenious and acute author himself. If he means to say that, through the arrangements of Divine Providence there subsists between the parent and the child such a connection as enables the parent to contribute much towards forming the religious character of the child, we have nothing to object. Such a connection is involved in the organization of the family; and it was kindly intended to be pre-eminently an instrument of benefit, inasmuch as parents are pre-eminently the natural guides and guardians of their children. But what in this matter is emphatically the case with parents is the case also with others, in proportion to their opportunities of exerting on the young a good influence in the formation of character. This Dr. Bushnell does not and cannot deny. He seems to admit it fully on the 31st page, where he says: "Certain it is that we are never, at any age, so independent as to be wholly out of the reach of organic laws which affect our character. All society is organic-the church, the state, the school, the family; and there is a spirit in each of these organisms, peculiar to itself, and more or less hostile, more or less favorable to religious character, and, to some extent at least, sovereign over the individual man. A very great share of the power in what is called a revival of religion, is organic power; nor is it any the less divine on that account. The child is only more within the power of organic laws than we all are. We possess only a mixed individuality all our life long. A pure, separate, individual man, living wholly within, and from himself, is a mere fiction. No such person ever existed, or ever can."

After a statement so explicit, it may seem captious to make any objection. But it is not to this statement that we object, except that what was intended to be expressed by the word organic would have been more readily perceived, if it had been expressed by some other word, or by a circumlocution.

Presented in plain language, the fact is very manifest that every person is influenced more or less by others, whether the influence be exerted designedly or undesignedly, and whether it be received consciously or unconsciously. The great human family are so constituted, or, in other words,