mankind are so organized, that it cannot be otherwise. And in the formation of character, the young especially, as we learn from observation, reason and Scripture, are likely to be, in the greatest measure, cither benefited or injured by those with whom they are connected.

Here, it seems to us, is a solid and sufficient basis for Christian education, and for the most earnest and impressive appeals that can be made to parents. Dr. Bushnell, however, it is probable, has in his mind the exaggerated part of his representation when he says (page 31): "This view of an organic connection subsisting between parent and child, lays a basis for notions of Christian education far different from those which now prevail, under the cover of a merely fictitious and mischievous individualisın." On the 29th page he says: "The tendency of all our modern speculations is to an extreme individualism, and we carry our doctrines of free will so far as to make little or nothing of organic laws; not observing that character may be, to a great extent, only the free development of exercises previously wrought in us, or extended to us, when other wills had us within their sphere. All the Baptist theories of religion are based on this error. They assume, as a first truth, that no such thing is possible as an organic connection of character." And (p. 39), “How can we ever attain to any right conception of organic duties, until we discover the reality of organic powers and relations? And how can we hope to set ourselves in harmony with the Scriptures in regard to family nurture, or household baptism, or any other kindred subject, while our theories exclude or overlook precisely that which is the base of their teachings and appointments? This brings me to my last argument, which is drawn from infant or household baptism ;—a rite which supposes the fact of an organic connection of character between the parent and the child; a seal of faith in the parent, applied over to the child, on the ground of a presumption that his faith is wrapped up in the parent's faith; so that he is accounted a believer from the beginning. We must distinguish here between a fact and a presumption of fact. If you look upon a seed of wheat, it contains, in itself, presumptively,

a thousand generations of wheat, though by reason of some fault in the cultivation, or some speck of diseased matter in itself, it may, in fact, never reproduce at all. So the Christian parent has, in his character, a germ, which has power, presumptively, to produce its like in his children, though by reason of some bad fault in itself, or possibly some outward hindrance in the Church, or some providence of death, it may fail to do so. Thus it is that infant baptism becomes an appropriate rite. It sees the child in the parent, counts him presumptively a believer and a Christian, and, with the parent, baptizes him also."

From this passage it is evident that Dr. Bushnell would have us understand, by an organic connection of character between the parent and the child, such a connection as authorizes us to presume that the child's faith is wrapped up in the parent's faith; so that the child is to be accounted a believer from his earliest infancy. An ingenious assumption indeed! but one that contradicts the common sense of all mankind. To account a child in his earliest infancy to be a believer is to account him to be what everybody knows that he is not; and to baptize him as a believer is to baptize him as being what everybody knows that he is not. This consideration alone is sufficient to show that the proceeding is unwarrantable, and that the assumption ought not to be made. We shall soon have occasion to show, also, that it cannot be reconciled with the teachings of our Lord and of his apostles, and with the practice of their earliest successors.

In regard to the statement that "All the Baptist theories of religion are based on the error" of "an extreme individualism," we think that the author is under an erroneous impression. There are two extremes, the one ascribing too much to the parent and too little to the child; and the other, too much to the child, and too little to the parent. We would avoid both of these extremes. We would have parents lay to heart their responsibilities; and we would have children remember that they, too, are responsible to God. We would have parents fulfil their duties according to their best light and ability; and we would have children fulfil theirs, in the loveliness of

filial obedience, with a due regard to the will of the Lord. And, as they come to evince a Christian spirit, and to have a competent knowledge of the simple truths of Christianity, so as to receive baptism and the Lord's Supper understandingly and with spiritual benefit, we would have them baptized, professing their faith in the Saviour, and their earnest purpose to live as becomes his sincere and devoted disciples. In their early childhood we would have them, according to their capacities, receive all good impressions and influences, from earth and from heaven. We would have them led by alluring example and timely instruction to Him who said, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not. We would have them brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; and we would look fervently and confidingly to Him for his blessing upon them. We would have them, like Timothy when he was a child, know and love "the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." And thus we would have them (to use the language of our author himself) "pass out, by degrees, through a course of mixed agency, to a proper independency and self-possession."

Dr. Bushnell represents his view of Christian nurture to be "radically one with the ancient doctrine of baptism and regeneration, advanced by Christ, and accepted by the first Fathers." He adds, "We have much to say of baptismal regeneration as a great error, which undoubtedly it is, in the form in which it is held; but it is only a less hurtful error than some of us hold in denying it.. . The regeneration is not actual, but only presumptive, and everything depends upon the organic law of character pertaining between the parent and the child, the Church and the child, thus upon duty and holy living and gracious example. The child is too young to choose the rite for himself; but the parent, having him, as it were, in his own life, is allowed the confidence that his own faith and character will be reproduced in the child, and grow up in his growth, and that thus the propriety of the rite as a seal of faith will not be violated. In giving us this rite, on the grounds stated, God promises, in fact, on his part,

to dispense that spiritual grace which is necessary to the fulfilment of its import." (pp. 46, 47.) "Now the true conception is, that baptism is applied to the child on the ground of its organic unity with the parents; imparting and pledging a grace to sanctify that unity, and make it good in the field of religion. By the supposition, however, the child still remains within the known laws of character in the house, to receive, under these, whatever good may reach him; not snatched away by an abrupt, fantastical, and therefore incredible grace. He is taken to be regenerate, not historically speaking, but presumptively, on the ground of his known connection with the parent character, and the divine or church life, which is the life of that character. Perhaps I shall be understood more easily, if I say, that the child is potentially regenerate, being regarded as existing in connection with powers and causes that contain the fact, before time and separate from time. For when the fact appears historically, under the law of time, it is not more truly real, in a certain sense, than it was before. And then the grace conferred, being conferred by no casual act, but resting in the established laws of character, in the church and the house, is not lost by unfaithfulness, but remains and lingers still, though abused and weakened, to encourage new struggles. Thus it will be seen that the doctrine of organic unity I have been asserting, proves its theologic value, as a ready solvent for the rather perplexing difficulties of this difficult subject. Only one difficulty remains, namely, that so few can believe the doctrine." (pp. 116, 117.)

This "one difficulty" is not easily removed. It arises from the utter unreasonableness of the demand made on our credulity. Respecting Dr. Bushnell's theory, a candid and intelligent writer, Professor Curtis, of the University at Lewisburg, Pa., has remarked as follows: "It assumes always a conjunction of three things, no one of which can be shown to occur at all. 1. That the parent shall perfectly discharge his duty; 2. That the Church shall also perfectly do the same; and 3, That if both of these do thus, God will in every case not only save that child at last, but effectually call it in earliest infancy;

so that it shall'open on the world spiritually renewed.' . It takes for granted that in the case of every child baptized, the two former, or human conditions, will be perfectly fulfilled; and then it further presumes that the third or divine result will not only eventually but immediately follow. This we think the very extreme of presuming."

How can any man wonder that so few can believe the doctrine? Besides, Dr. Bushnell's theory requires us to believe that the child is to be baptized as a believer on the ground of its organic unity with the parents; that baptism imparts and pledges a grace to sanctify that unity, and make it good in the field of religion; that God has given us the rite of infant baptism; and that He has promised to bestow the spiritual grace necessary to the fulfilment of its import.

DR. BUSHNELL'S ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT BAPTISM.

II.

JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM, AND THE CONVERSATION WITH NICODEMUS.

The true idea of infant baptism, it is asserted on the 43rd page, "is seen most evidently in the history of its establishment by Christ, in the third chapter of John." The argument is set forth thus: "The Jewish nation regarded other nations as unclean. Hence when a Gentile family wished to become Jewish citizens, they were baptized in token of cleansing. Then they were said to be re-born, or regenerated, so as to be accounted true descendants of Abraham. We use the term naturalize, that is, to make natural born, in the same sense. But Christ had come to set up a spiritual kingdom, the kingdom of heaven; and finding all men aliens, and spiritually unclean, he applies over the rite of baptism, which was familiar to the Jews ('art thou a master in Israel, and knowest not these things?') giving it a higher sense: Except a man be born of water and of the spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.' But the Gentile proselyte, according to the custom here described-here is the point of the argument

* See the Progress of Baptist Principles in the Last Hundred Years, p. 257.