it. And upon this grand fact of the religious economy, baptism was from the first, and properly, applied to the children of them that believe. Hence, too, it was that the children of believers were familiarly addressed by them as believers; as in the epistles of Paul to the Ephesians and Colossians. These epistles are formally inscribed to churches or Christian brotherhoods: To the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus'; To the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse.' are particularly addressed the Lord; for this is right;' all things; for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.' In this manner children are formally included among the 'faithful in Christ Jesus.""

And yet in both the children Children obey your parents in Children obey your parents in

We rejoice that there were believing children in those churches, and that they with others who might listen to Christian instruction were encouraged to obey their parents, and thus set a worthy example for all children. We rejoice to see children now loving and honoring the Saviour as his disciples. Let them come early, and learn of Him who is meek and lowly in heart; and let them have the comfort and the benefit of expressing, in the way that He has appointed for his disciples, their childlike trust and devotedness, and of remembering the cordial consecration all their days. No one needs to be informed that the children addressed by the apostle were not mere infants.

The charge of inconsistency, which Dr. Bushnell urges against those who reject infant baptism, is remarkable: "The objectors themselves are admitting and practising, without difficulty, observances that have comparatively no specific authority at all. At the sacrament of the Supper they use leavened bread without scruple, when they know that it was not used by Christ himself, and was solemnly forbidden at the festival he was there, in fact, re-appointing for the Christian uses of his disciples in all future ages. Where, then, is the authority given for a change even in the element of the Holy Supper itself? The Christian Lord's Day, too, accepted in the place of the Jewish Sabbath, and that even against a specific

command of the Decalogue-how readily, and with how little scruple, do they accept this Lord's Day and let the ancient Sabbath go, when it is only by the faintest, most equivocal, or evanescent indications they can make out a shadow of authority for the change? 'Direct proof! positive command! specific injunction!' they say; 'without these, infant baptism has no right.' Where, then, do they get their authority for these other observances; one of them never referred to in Scripture at all, and the others so doubtfully that infant baptism has, in comparison, the clear evidence of day?"

What is not referred to in Scripture at all, we may safely conclude, can make no part of the institution of the Lord's Supper; and we shall be ready to practise infant baptism, when we find as much evidence for it as we have for the observance of the Lord's Day.

Still another argument is brought forward by Dr. Bushnell, with much confidence. We present it in his own words (p. 153): "What is said in the New Testament of household baptism, or the baptizing of households, is positive proof that infants were baptized in the times of the apostles-baptized, that is, in and because of the supposed faith of the parents. The fact of such baptism is three times distinctly mentioned; in the case of the household of Stephanas,' of Lydia and her houshold,' and the jailor and all his.' In the first case, nothing is said of faith at all, though doubtless he was baptized as a believer. In the second, everything turns on the personal faith of Lydia—if ye have judged me to be faithful.' In the third, it seems to be said, according to an English translation, that all the house believed he rejoiced, believing in God, with all his house.' But the participle believing, is singular and not plural in the original, and the phrase 'with all his house-plainly belongs to the verb and not to the participle. Rigidly translated, the passage would read-'he rejoiced with all his house, himself believing.'

The argument is easily answered. In the first case, that of Stephanas, in I. Cor. i: 16 (I baptized also the household of Stephanas), we need only compare this with what is said near the close of the epistle (xvi: 15): Ye know the house of

Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints. Here the household is described as converts, who exerted themselves to supply the wants of their poor and afflicted fellow disciples.

66

In the second case, that of Lydia, in Acts xvi: 15 ("When she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there")-we have only to read on to the end of the chapter, where it is stated, respecting Paul and Silas, when about to leave the city, after being released from prison, that they entered into the house of Lydia; and when they had seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed." With Lydia, doubtless, were her household. She, a seller of purple, it seems, had a mercantile establishment at Philippi. Of course, she would need persons to assist her; and who can doubt that her household who had been baptized were, in part at least, the brethren who were seen and comforted?

In the third case, that of the jailor, in Acts xvi: 33 (He was baptized, he and all his, straightway)-we have only to read the preceding verse, They spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. "All his," who, as stated in the thirty-third verse, were baptized, are manifestly the same as "all that were in his house," to whom, as stated in the thirty-second, the word of the Lord was spoken. Besides, in the thirty-fourth verse, we are informed that he rejoiced, with all his house, having believed in God. He, with all his, or all that were in his house, having believed the word of the Lord spoken to them, rejoiced. They all rejoiced, having believed. What is said of the jailor, is here said also of his household. This is clearly indicated by the phrase with all his house. If the word of the Lord was spoken to all that were in his house, and if he rejoiced with all his house, that is, he and they rejoiced together (and this is the obvious and undeniable meaning), surely we must admit that not only he but they also could and did believe. The rejoicing was a consequence of believing; and how could they participate in the joy of believing, if they had not believed? The effort to make it supposed that they did not believe, by inserting the

word himself before the word believing "himself believing " -is a very grave error. We are sorry to see it; especially in so excellent a man as Dr. Bushnell. The correctness of our interpretation is further confirmed by the case of Crispus, mentioned in Acts xviii: 8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized.

In view of what has been stated respecting these and other passages, we hope that our readers will feel the duty of searching the Scriptures, and of letting the light of one portion shine upon another, till the whole subject is illuminated. This they can casily do. The Bible is at hand; and, in many cases, it is furnished with references, to facilitate comparison or examination, generally. Besides, there is an excellent little work prepared with special reference to the examination which we are now proposing. It is entitled "The Scripture Guide to Baptism; or a faithful Citation of all the passages of the New Testament which relate to this Ordinance; with the sacred Text, impartially examined, and the sense supported by numerous Extracts from the most eminent and learned Writers. To which is added a short examination of the Rise and Grounds of Infant Baptism. By R. Pengilly." It is written with care and with candor. It breathes the spirit of Christian love and fidelity. And the author, in his final address to the candid and pious inquirer, says: "Do not allow the observations contained in this pamphlet to influence you in the smallest degree, on a subject of so sacred a nature. I would advise you to peruse the passages of Scripture again, omitting all the rest; and then form your sentiments, and govern your practice, by the pure unerring word, and that alone."

There is also another help which ought to be mentioned in this connection. It is the Rev. Dr. Hackett's Brief Statement of the best established Results at which Biblical Interpreters have arrived respecting Infant Baptism. It may be found in a small volume entitled Baptismal Tracts for the Times.*

*

See also his Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (xvi: 15), second edition, pp. 259–261.

He introduces the statement by saying, "No decision in bib lical criticism, not absolutely unanimous, can be considered as better established at the present time, than that of the utter insufficiency of these passages to prove, or to justify the practice referred to, as an apostolic institution. The following testimonies of men who are admitted to possess the highest authority in regard to inquiries of this nature, may be taken as representing the attitude in which this subject now stands, as viewed in the light which the present state of biblical learning has shed upon it. It gives weight to these testimonies, that they proceed from men whose ecclesiastical position would naturally dispose them to adopt a different view; who belong to a church that practises infant baptism, and who, for the most part, contend that it is proper to adhere to it, notwithstanding their acknowledgment that the usage has no scriptural warrant."

After presenting the remarks of Meyer, Olshausen, De Wette, Neander and Rückert, Professor Hackett closes thus: "Numerous other names, hardly less distinguished, not only in this particular department of learning, but in other kindred branches, offer themselves as witnesses to the same effect. The object does not require us to extend the enumeration. The extracts presented above may be taken as exhibiting the prevalent view of the ablest authorities, at the present time, in regard to the question here discussed. We are authorized to say, that the opinion that Infant Baptism has any legitimate sanction from any passage in the New Testament is no longer a tenable opinion at the bar of Biblical criticism."

DR. BUSHNELL'S ARGUMENTS FOR INFANT BAPTISM.

V.

EARLY CHURCH HISTORY.

But Dr. Bushnell has recourse to another tribunal, and proceeds thus: "Lastly, it remains to glance at the evidences from church history, or the history of the times subsequent to