CHAPTER XII.

THE AUTHORITY FOR INFANT BAPTISM. Objection considered. Authority for Infant Baptism illustrated. I. By family prayer. II. Females at the Lord's Table. III. The change of the Sabbath. Inferences.

Remarks

PROOF FROM THE EARLY CHRISTIAN FATHERS. I. Augustine. II. Cyprian and others. III. Pelagius. IV. Origen. on this kind of evidence.

It is frequently said, "There is no command in the New Testament to baptize children.'

There are many things for which we have no specific command, whose propriety and duty are as plain from the nature of things, as any mention of them by name, in a particular precept, could make them.

An illustration of this we have in the duty of family prayer.

The neglect of family prayer, by the father of a family, a member of the church, would be considered censurable; and the observance of this duty is expected of a man who has a family, when he makes a profession of his faith. It is probable that most evangelical ministers and churches would

hesitate to receive a man into the church, even if they were satisfied with the general evidences of his piety, if he should refuse to practice family prayer.

But such a man might say to the minister and to the church, Show me one command in the Bible to observe family prayer, and I will do it.

We should search the Bible in vain for a specific mention of family prayer. Ministers, who would preach upon this subject, can never find a text that comes nearer to it than this: 'And David returned to bless his household.' A caviller could easily suggest a want of connection between the text and the duty derived from it.

But it may be said, The duty of family prayer is very plain from the apostolic injunction, 'I will that men pray everywhere,' and the family is included by the term 'everywhere.' We might accede to this remark, and add, The Saviour's last command, Go teach all nations, baptizing them,' warrants the Baptism of Infants, who are included by the expression, 'all nations.'

It will be seen, from what has been said, that the duty of family prayer, so important and proper, and a prerequisite, under ordinary circumstances, in the way of evidence of a right state of feeling, to admission to the church, is, after all, only a matter of inference from the nature and fitness of things.

On the principle of rejecting Infant Baptism for

AUTHORITY FOR INFANT BAPTISM.

125

want of a specific mention of infants as subjects of Baptism, we could not admonish, nor even blame a man, who should reject family prayer, saying, The Bible contains no command to pray in the family!

We see, then, that a duty may, in some cases, be a matter of inference, and that the absence of a specific mention of a thing, which may be included in a general direction or principle, is no argument against that which is not thus specified. The New Testament contains several striking instances of this principle.

There were no females present when the Lord's Supper was first instituted, and we find no command to admit them to this ordinance. Yet, the nature of the Lord's Supper is such, that we infer their right to it; and in this case, inference is as good authority as a positive command.

We nowhere find a command to observe the first day of the week instead of the seventh, as the Christian Sabbath. It is a matter of inference, from the repeated mention of the assembling of the apostles on that day, that it was the intention of Christ that the first, instead of the seventh day, should be observed in the Christian church as the Sabbath. When the Christian Sabbath took the place of the Jewish, some, without doubt, complained, We have no express precept for this change, and will therefore observe the seventh day, as

before, instead of the first. And so we read that they did. But the apostles, while they were kind and gentle towards those who required positive precepts, were themselves able to discern the propriety of the proposed change, and to conform to it, though, as far as we can learn from their writings, it was wholly a matter of inference with them, and not of precept. The day of the Saviour's resurrection took precedence in their feelings of that day, which had before been observed as holy time, through which, however, the tomb retained their Lord and Master. They perceived, in this, his intention of uniting the influence of the Sabbath with his cause, by making the day of his resurrection the Sabbath day. They readily fell in with so wise and suitable an expedient; but it must be observed that they record no command of Christ upon the subject; and our authority for hallowing the first day of the week is only example and tradition. Yet, what Christian mind does not feel the propriety of making that the Sabbath, on which the Lord of life and glory confirmed our faith by his resurrection? The mere mention of the assembling of the apostles on the first day of the week, is, however, as good authority for our observance of the Lord's day, as the mention of the Baptism of households is for the practice of Infant Baptism.

Female communion, the observance of the Lord's day as the Sabbath, and Infant Baptism are, to our

apprehension, equally and most plainly inferible from the nature of things. The very absence of a specific command upon these points is fitted to heighten our respect for Christianity, as a system that can trust its followers to exercise their own sense of propriety, if guarded by the Christian spirit, and in so doing, purposely exemplifies its variance from that dispensation in which everything was marked off to the apprehension of the people by the square and compass of a particular precept.

The Baptism of infants is, to our minds, plainly deducible from the nature of Baptism, and from the suitableness of the thing itself. We regard Baptism as a sign of separation to the Christian faith. While those who believe, are, of course, entitled to it, we think that a pious parent who is resolved to bring up his child on the principles of the Christian religion practically enforced, may present it for the seal of Baptism.

From the full testimony in the HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, that the Baptism of infants was practised by the apostles and early Christians, I select the following, from Wall's History of Infant Baptism.

AUGUSTINE, a celebrated father of the early church, wrote within 280 years of the apostles. In Milner's Church History, he is called the great luminary of his age. I mention this, not to get any