DR. BUSHNELL'S ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT BAPTISM.

THE

III.

SUPPOSITION THAT ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST, THE APOSTLE PETER PROCLAIMED AN INSTITUTE WHICH HE HIMSELF DID NOT THEN EVEN THINK OF, BUT WHICH, AT A LATER PERIOD, WAS PROPERLY

DEVELOPED.

Some who have been constrained to admit that in the New Testament there is no evidence for infant baptism, and yet have desired to retain the practice, suppose it to have been developed, sometime after the days of the Apostles, from a truly Christian principle. According to their view, the good seed was planted; but at least one or two ages were required for its germinating into light, and yielding blossoms and fruit. Or, it was wisely kept out of sight; for, had it appeared earlier, it would have been assailed by the Apostle Paul, as being inconsistent with his great and favorite doctrine of justification by faith. Dr. Bushnell has his own way of viewing the matter. Without relinquishing arguments from the New Testament, he provides a scheme of development for saving infant baptism. From the words in Acts ii: 39 (The promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call), he gives a discourse entitled, Infant Baptism; how developed.

The apostle Peter, in the preceding part of his address, it will be recollected, had mentioned the promise in the prophet Joel respecting the gift of the spirit, through whose efficacy the people, old and young, were to be moved and enabled to see visions and to prophesy.* And he had just said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." He adds immediately, "For the promise [respecting that gift] is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." In other words, The blessings promised are for all that obey the Gospel, whether old or young, at Jerusalem or elsewhere.

*Joel 2: 28, 39.

If any one

Such is the obvious meaning of the apostle. doubts it, let him read the words quoted from the prophet, in the part of the address (Acts ii: 17) to which we have referred.

But according to Dr. Bushnell's explanation of the text, it is "a declaration that can signify nothing but the engagement of Christ, in his new and more spiritual economy, to identify children with their parents, even as they had been identified in the coarser provisions of the old. To you and to your children,' says the apostle; and here, covertly as it were to himself, are hid infant baptism, infant church relations, potentially present but as yet undeveloped, even in what may be fitly called the seed sermon of the Christian Church. This was no time to be thinking of infants, or children, as related to church polity; probably there is not one prosent in the great assembly. It will be soon enough to settle the church position of children, when the question rises practically afterwards. These converted pilgrims, Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and strangers of all names, may not even so much as think of the question till they reach their homes again. But the language we can see is Jewish; language of promise, or covenant, only with a Christian addition-and to them that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call '-and Peter, as we know, did not really come into the meaning of this language himself till years after, when the great sheet let down from heaven three times, and the actual ministering to a Gentile convert, showed him whither, and how far, the call of the Lord might be going, in these times, to run. Let it not surprise us, then, that the facts of infant baptism, and of infant church relations, covered as they are by Peter's language in this first sermon, are still not yet developed, even to himself-any more than the fact of Christ's call to the Gentiles."

Christ had clearly commanded the apostles to go into all the world and preach to all; and the prophets had foretold the conversion of the Gentiles. Peter and the other apostles needed to have the command brought vividly to their remembrance, with some additional instructions in regard to the time and manner of carrying it into execution; but they must have known the fact that the gospel was designed for all.

Dr. Bushnell proceeds: "And when our Baptist brethren reiterate the formula, believe and be baptised,' 'believe and be baptized,' which they assume to be absolutely conclusive and final on the question of infant baptism, because infants can not believe, they have only to make due allowance for the fact that Christianity must needs make its chief address at the outset to adult persons, and their argument vanishes. Christianity will of course address itself to the subjects adressed; and, telling them what they must do to be saved, it will not of course tell them, at the same breath, everything else that is fit to be known. In this manner its language was naturally shaped, for a considerable time, so as to meet only the conditions of adult minds. When at length it shall begin to be inquired, what is the condition of immature, or infant minds? it will be soon enough to say something appropriate to them."

The language of Christianity, for a considerable time, it is here said, was shaped "so as to meet only the conditions of adult minds." If this means that the gospel addressed itself to those who were sufficiently mature to receive it, and taught them, first of all, what they must do to be saved, we make no objection. But we cannot forget that Paul and Silas, when they told the jailor what he must do to be saved, gave him instruction, without delay, respecting also his household, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house, and they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house."* When we recollect our Saviour's manifestation of his lively interest in children, and his commanding his apostles to baptize believers, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you;' when we think of the manner in which the apostle mentions Timothy's knowing the Holy Scriptures from early childhood, and of the command to parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, how can we believe that any considerable length of time elapsed before the first Christians were taught the elementary doctrine of Christian baptism, in harmony with a tender affection for their children, and a becoming interest in their spiritual welfare?

*Acts xvi: 31, 32.

In regard to the requiring of faith, Dr. Bushnell asks, “Does it therefore follow, because it is so continually given to adults as the fixed law of salvation-he that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned-that infants dying in infancy, and too young to believe, must therefore be inevitably damned? No, it will be answered, even by our Baptist brethren themselves; for the language referred to was evidently designed only for adult persons, and is of course to be qualified so as to meet the demands of reason, when we come to the case of children. And why not also the language 'believe and be baptized?' Say not that the child is not old enough to believe, and therefore cannot be baptized. If he is not old enough to believe, how can he better be saved? Is it a greater and higher, and more difficult thing to be admitted to baptism, than to be admitted to eternal glory?"

We reply: The words in the final commission (He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned) were, of course, never designed for any too young to believe, and as baptism is mentioned by our Lord and his apostles as a consequence of believing, there is no mention at all of one's being baptized who does not believe. Whoever does not become a believer, there is no occasion for his being baptized; and in such a case nothing in the commission is said of baptism. This is mentioned there only in connection with believing. It is omitted in the clause that speaks of not believing. They who, through their love of sin neglect the gospel, are condemned. Others too young to have faith or to make, understandingly and with spiritual benefit, a profession of their devotedness to the Saviour, we would lead to Him in ways adapted to the condition of immature and infant minds,' that they may early know, and love, and obey Him. In our view, to baptize them before they appear to be believers would be to disregard our Lord's arrangement, and deprive them of its benefit. Our unauthorized act, performed upon them in their unconscious infancy, would tend to prevent their doing what, at the proper time, they should do, as conscious and confiding disciples. If, in the mean time, they be removed from our embrace and from our parental care, we

would commit them, with cheerful confidence, to Him who took up little children in his arms, laid his hands upon them, and blessed them, without their being baptized, and without deeming it either requisite or suitable to extend to them the ordinance of baptism. In that spiritual world of which we all know so little, He can elevate, expand, and, in every respect, prepare the once infant mind for the enjoyment of the heavenly state. At present we see through a glass darkly, and do not know how the salvation is accomplished; but we trust in the wisdom, power, and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. "With God all things are possible." It is not for us to ask, which is "greater, and higher, and more difficult," baptism or salvation? and conclude that we are to baptize all that God can save. The proper question is, What did our Lord estab lish as the rule for his followers here on earth? This it is for us to ascertain and observe.

After expatiating on the Pentecostal scenes at Jerusalem, in connection with the Apostle Peter's sermon, and showing that much appearing there was transient, and that much pertaining to Christianity was introduced afterwards, Dr. Bushnell at length comes to his object. "But the particular point," he says, "for which I have drawn this sketch has been purposely left behind. Infant baptism, the relation of the seminal and undeveloped first period of human existence to Christ and his flock, that which appears only implicitly in the sermon of Peter, on the day of Pentecost-where is this, and what is to come, in the way of development, here? There was no reason, or even room, among the scenes of Pentecost, for so much as thinking on this subject of infants and their church relations, and scarcely more for a considerable time afterward. It could not become a subject of attention, until the church itself began to settle into forms of order and structural organization; and how soon that came to pass we do not definitely know. It should therefore be no subject of wonder that infant baptism figures somewhat indistinctly, for so long a time at least; and scarcely more, that it shows itself only by implication and a kind of tacit development, for a brief time afterwards.

"Furthermore, if it came to pass by a transference of Jewish