Chapter VII: Introduction: Doubts Suggested (7)

“DEAREST:—I must leave town to-morrow, and shall be gone a week.
I have been so pressed by business, that I have not been able to
call in again, as I intended when I saw you last. I cannot come
to-night, but I cannot leave without expressing to you once more
my earnest love. You know, dearest Theodosia, that the happiness
of my life is bound up in yours. I have no wish or hope in the
future but those of which you form a part; and, if what I am
about to say should be unpleasant to you, I beg you will
remember that it is dictated by the tenderest and most ardent
affection. It is because I value your happiness even more than
my own, that I venture to say what I am about to utter. I have
learned from rumor that you have already determined to abandon
our church, and unite with that contemptible sect of Baptists. I
do not know if this be true or not. I hope and pray the rumor
may prove false. I will not say these Baptists are not right
about the mode of baptism. It may be they are. But whether one
mode or another be correct, baptism is not essential to
salvation. It is a mere outward form, and I cannot, for the sake
of a mere external and non-essential ceremony, abjure the church
of my fathers. I fondly hope that she, whom I love more than all
else in life, will agree with me in this. I cannot bear the
thought that one so beautiful, so lovely, so accomplished, so
fitted to shine and _lead_ in the highest circle of our
society—one, too, who has the unbounded confidence and affection
of her brothers and sisters in the church—should bring such
dishonor upon her father’s name, such sorrow to her mother’s
heart, and such regret to his, who rejoices in the hope that he
will be the companion of her life, and the husband of her love,
as to prove recreant to her Christian faith—forsake the church
of the mother who offered her to God in infancy—of the teachers
who instructed her childhood—of the pastor who prayed with her
in the time of her conviction, and rejoiced over her at the time
of her conversion; and may I not add of him who, trusting in the
solemn promise of our betrothal, expects to spend his life in
promoting her happiness? How can you, my dearest love—how can
you disregard such considerations as these? I know that you are
conscientious in every step you take, and I beg you to reflect
whether these things should not have some influence with you. I
know that you mean to do right, and I entreat that you will
consider if such a course will not be wrong. I know I have no
right to dictate, but, oh! I do beseech you, if you have any
love for me, that you will not so mortify and distress, not me
alone, but all who love you, as to unite your fate with those
boorish, uneducated, and bigoted people, called Baptists.
“Your distressed, but still most affectionate,
“G. W. PERCY.”

This note he hardly trusted himself to read, so he sealed it up, and despatched a messenger to carry it to Mrs. Ernest’s. Its immediate effect on Theodosia we have already seen. When she had reached her own room, she threw her head upon her mother’s bosom, and, sighing as if a heart-string broke with every deep-fetched sob that came, gave free expression to her uncontrollable distress.

It was long before the mother became sufficiently composed to read the letter, and learn what it was that had occasioned such a terrible heart-sorrow to her loving and sensitive child. Terrible she knew it must be, for never in her life had she seen Theodosia exhibit such unutterable distress. The young lady herself did not know precisely what the letter contained. She had loved Mr. Percy with all the fervor of a first and only love. The day was fixed only a few weeks in the future for their wedding. The preparations for it were even then begun. To be what Mr. Percy would approve, was to her the highest point of earthly ambition. She prized her peerless beauty, not for its own sake, but because Mr. Percy praised it. She valued her accomplishments, chiefly because Mr. Percy thought them desirable. With all her independence of thought and originality of mind, she had learned to think that she was wrong, if Mr. Percy did not think her right.

In this investigation he had gone with her step by step, so long as he had taken any part in it. She had, till now, not the very slightest suspicion that he would not _act out his convictions_, as well as herself—much less did she imagine that he would so fearfully disapprove of her obedience to what she now was fully satisfied was the plain and unmistakable command of her Redeemer.

The first influence of this communication was like that of a heavy blow upon the head. It staggered, and then stunned the mind. She only felt that some great and terrible calamity had fallen on her heart and crushed it. She could not recall the language of the letter, but only a general impression of its contents. But there was, here and there, a word which was burnt into her very brain. With all its protestations of affection, she felt (for love is jealous in such things) that if she became a Baptist, she forfeited his love.

To her mother she could speak words no other’s ear might hear—and when her sobs had somewhat ceased, and she had been persuaded to lie down, and try to be composed, she drew her mother’s face to hers, and while. their tears mingled together upon her cheek, she whispered, “I did not think he could have cast me off for seeking to know and do my duty.”

“My precious child, he has not cast you off—he says again and again, that he loves you dearly, and hopes to spend his life in rendering you happy.”

“But, mother, does he not say he cannot bear _to think of my becoming a Baptist_? Does he not call them, whom now I do believe are the true church of Jesus Christ—does he not call them _that contemptible sect_? Does he not say that because he _has no right to dictate_, he _entreats_ me not to _mortify_ him, not to _distress_ him, by becoming one of that little company of boorish, uneducated, and bigoted people? No, no, mother, I see it all. If I become a Baptist, I must resign his love—I must give up all the most cherished hopes of my life. After such an expression of his dislike to these poor and humble disciples of Jesus, I would not dare, if I were one of them, to become his wife. I must choose between him and my Saviour—I see it all—but I can’t choose now. Oh! my mother, pray for me—pray for me! _You_ will not cast me off, my mother: _you_ will love me still. Will you not, my mother? You can love, even though I do mortify and distress you, can’t you mother?”

“Yes, yes, darling—don’t look at me so wildly. I will love you always—I will love you dearly. And so will Mr. Percy, even though you do mortify and distress him. He can’t help loving you, my sweet child. No one, who knows you, can do any thing but love you.”

“No, mother, _he can’t love as I must be loved_, were I the wife of his bosom. But I dare not think of that now. I must pray—I must ask wisdom—I must get strength from heaven. Leave me now, mother, but don’t forget to pray for me.”

The mother went away—and, kneeling down, poured out her heart in a sincere and fervent prayer, that God would indeed give comfort to her poor child’s loving and smitten spirit. While she, the dear, sweet child, lay still upon her bed, and only prayed with those groanings that cannot be uttered, for _strength to bear_, as well as _energy to do_—her mind grew calmer and clearer, and when her mother came, an half hour after, to bid her good-night, she was in a deep sleep, with something almost like a smile upon her face. This may seem strange to one who does not know that one effect of sudden, deep, and terrible sorrow is quickly to exhaust the nervous energies and predispose to heavy slumber. There is, therefore, a most affecting beauty in the language of the Evangelist, when he says of the disciples, whom Jesus had left only a little time, while he went to pray, that he returned to them, and found them _sleeping for sorrow_. No other language could so perfectly express the deep, intense, and soul-exhausting _agony of mind_ which they had felt on learning that their beloved Lord was soon to perish by the hands of his enemies, and that one of their number should be the wretch who would betray him into their hands.

So Theodosia might now be said to be sleeping for sorrow. She did not wake till after her ordinary time of rising in the morning. When she first became conscious, there was a feeling of weight upon her eyelids which prevented her from opening them; and as she lay there, motionless, the events of the past evening began to come back, like the dimly-remembered imagery of some fearful dream. At first, she was only conscious that something terrible had befallen her, and it required some little effort to remember what it was. Then came to view the letter, just as it looked when her mother handed it to her as she sat in the parlor. She could see every mark of every letter of the superscription. Then the open letter was before her; and she read some of the lines as they had marked themselves with terrible distinctness on her brain; others she could not _em_, but only a dim impression of their sense came up in her remembrance. When, as she ran thus in her mind over the letter, she came to where it read, “I know I have no right to dictate—but oh! I do beseech you, if you have any love for me, that you will not so mortify and distress, not me alone,” etc., the tears flowed freely, and she was able to open her eyes.

Her mother had, at that moment, come in, and was bending over her.

“My poor child,” said she, as she saw the tears start even before she seemed to be awake—“how do you feel this morning?”

“Is it morning, mother? I have been asleep—I have had a terrible dream—or was it all reality? Do, mother, tell me, did you bring me a letter last night from Mr. Percy?”

“Yes, my child, you are not quite awake. It was no dream; but the reality is not so terrible as you imagine. Let me give you this cup of coffee, and you will feel refreshed.”

“Theodosia sat up in bed and sipped the coffee—and shortly afterward got up, and went and sat beside her mother and engaged in some worsted work which she had begun the day before. When her mother went out, she followed her, and stood beside her till she returned; so she continued all through the day, accompanying her as constantly and almost as noiselessly as her shadow. She did not speak—she did not weep—she sometimes _tried_ to smile, but it was pitiful to see the effort made to divert her mother’s mind and make her think she was not _so very bad_. In this condition we must leave her for the present, and go to the dwelling of Professor Jones, where Mr. Courtney and the Rev. Mr. Johnson are waiting to engage in the discussion of the subject of infant baptism—which discussion, if it should prove to be less entertaining than this little narrative of what transpired at Mrs. Ernest’s, will, we trust, be more instructive.

“If I understood you correctly, Mr. Courtney,” said Professor Jones (when they were all assembled), “you asserted that there was in the Scriptures not the slightest authority for the baptism of infants, and that baptism received in infancy is not valid baptism.”

“You are _nearly_ correct,” said Mr. Courtney, smiling. “I did not _assert_ that there was no such authority, for it is not my habit to deal in _mere assertions_. I said that I would _prove_ that this was so.”

“But how will you set about proving such a negative?”

“By offering the only testimony which the nature of the case admits. Our authority to baptize any one, infant or adult, is derived only from the _commandments_ or _example_ of Christ or his apostles. All they said and all they did which is of any authority to us, is recorded in the Word of God. Now if I can’t find, and you can’t show me, _any single place_ where an infant was commanded to be baptized, or _any single place_ where one is said to have been baptized, then I think I may venture to say that _there is no authority there for infant baptism_.”

“I think so too; but I am certain we can show you a number of such places. Can we not, Mr. Johnson?”

“Certainly we can. It has always been my understanding that the baptism of the infant children of believers is explicitly commanded by both Christ and the apostles; and what was required by their precepts, they enforced by their example. They both commanded and they practiced it.”

“Very good. Here then is the point on which we are at issue. _If the places are in the Book, you can show them._ I will not be unreasonable. I do not ask even for two witnesses—I only require _one_. Show me _one solitary instance_ of either precept or example, and I will give up the case.”

“I have been accustomed to think,” said the Professor, “that the commission itself, as recorded in Matt. xxviii. 19, and in Mark xvi. 15, 16, contained all the authority which was given to the Christian Church to administer the ordinance of baptism; and I had supposed that the authority to baptize infants was to be found in what Christ said on that occasion—‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.’”

“That,” said Mr. Johnson, “is what Mark says. Get a Testament and see how it reads in Matthew. I think it is somewhat different. Here it is—‘Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo! I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.’”

“Very good,” said Mr. Courtney. “You have the law all now before you. Is there in it a single allusion, even the faintest, to infants? Did Christ say, as you Presbyterians do, Go baptize believers and their infant children—or believers only? Matthew says, _teach_ them and _then_ baptize them. So they must be such as can be taught. But can a little babe, ‘mewling and puking in its mother’s arms,’ be taught the doctrines of salvation by Jesus Christ? Mark says—‘He that _believeth_ and is baptized;’ so that he speaks of none baptized but those who had first _believed_. Can little infants, who do not yet so much as know their right hand from their left, exercise faith in the Saviour of souls? _You_ will not, I am sure, venture to say they can, though there have been some _Doctors of Divinity_ who were silly enough to make such assertions. And Matthew, in fact, says just the same that Mark does; for ‘the word rendered _teach_ here, is not the one that is usually so translated in the New Testament. This word properly means _disciple_, or _make disciples_ of all nations.’—(_Barnes’ Notes, In. loc_.) So also says that eminent and good man, Dr. Doddridge, author of the ‘Rise and Progress of Religion’: ‘Here it is to be observed, _first_, certain things are enjoined, viz.: to _disciple_—to baptize—to teach. Secondly, these things are enjoined, in a _certain order_, viz.: the order in which they stand in the divine commission.’—(_Dod. Lec._) So says also that other great and good man, the pious Baxter, author of ‘The Saints’ Rest’:

“‘Go _disciple_ me all nations—and as for those,’ he continues, ‘who say they are discipled _by_ baptizing and not _before_ baptizing, they speak not the sense of the text, nor that which is true or rational, if they mean it absolutely as so spoken, else why should one be baptized more than another?’ ‘This text is not like some occasional historical mention of baptism, but it is _the very commission_ of Christ to his apostles for preaching and baptizing, and purposely expresseth their several works in their several orders. Their _first_ task is by teaching to make disciples, who are by Mark called _believers_. The _second_ work is to _baptize_ them—whereunto is annexed the promise of salvation. The _third_ is to teach them all other things which are afterward to be learned in the school of Christ. To contemn _this order_ is to renounce _all rules of order_, for where can we expect to find it, if not here?’ ‘I profess,’ he goes on to say, ‘my conscience is fully satisfied from this text that it is one sort of faith, even _saving_ faith, that must go before baptism; and the profession whereof the minister must expect.’—_Dis. on the Right to Sacrament_, pp. 91–150.

“Dr. Hibbard, a Methodist, in his Commentary on Matt. xxviii. 19–20, says—‘It is well known that our English version does not give a satisfactory view of this passage. The word rendered teach in the 19th verse is altogether a different word in the original from that rendered teach in the 20th. It should read, Go _disciple_, that is make _converts_ to Christianity of all nations,’ etc.

“Neither of you, gentlemen, nor any other Greek scholar, will dispute that _matheteusate_, in the first part of this commission, means make disciples, as certainly as _didaskontes_ means teaching in the last part of it. Nor can you, or any man of common sense, pretend that any are commanded to be baptized, but those who have first been made disciples. Now what is the New Testament meaning of a disciple? Jesus Christ himself shall answer: Luke xiv. 26, 27, 33. ‘If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he _cannot be my disciple_. And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come after me _cannot be my disciple_. So likewise, whosoever he be of you, that forsaketh not all that he hath, he _cannot be my disciple_.’ Do little infants, who do not even know the name of Christ, and scarcely know their own, so love Christ that the love they have to all others is like hatred compared to that they feel for him? Can little infants forsake all for Christ, and do they daily take their cross and follow him? Then they are his disciples, and are commanded to be baptized. But no sensible man who is not a _Doctor of Divinity_ would ever think of such absurdity. _You do not pretend to baptize infants on any such grounds._ You do not ask in them for any evidence of penitence, or piety, or faith, or love, or any thing else that goes to make a disciples of Christ.”

“No,” replied Mr. Johnson, “we baptize them on the _faith of their parents_.”

“But this commission says nothing about baptizing the _children of believing parents_. By it the ministers of Christ are commanded to baptize _disciples_ (according to Matthew) and _believers_ (according to Mark); but in regard to the _children_ of these disciples and believers, they are both as silent as the grave.”

“It was not necessary,” said Mr. Johnson, “to put the authority for the baptism of infants _in the commission_, since the matter is fully provided for elsewhere. I grant that it is not in _this_ passage, but it does not follow that it is not in the Bible.”

“Oh! no—certainly not,” said Mr. Courtney. “I am easy to be satisfied; show it to me _in any other place_, and it will do quite as well.”

“But, I do not feel disposed,” said Professor Jones “to give up this passage so easily. Does not the term ‘_all nations_’ include infants as well as adults?”

“Certainly, but they were not to _baptize all nations_, for this would include _all unbelievers_ and _their_ children, as well as _believers_ and _their_ children. They were to Go to all nations (not to the Jews alone, as they had been used to think); and among all nations they were to make disciples, as many as they could—and those disciples who believed they were to baptize.”

“But, Mr. Courtney, let me put in another plea for the infants. I am very anxious to get them into this commission, for I have always thought they were surely there. It is evident they are not included in the expression ‘all nations,’ since it is true, as you say, it will include all infidels, idolators, profligates, and murderers, as well as the infant children of unbelievers—but are they not included in the word disciples? May they not, in view of their innocence, and purity, and evident fitness for heaven, be properly called the disciples of Jesus? Did not Jesus himself compare his disciples to them, and say that none could enter heaven who did not become like one of them? I will therefore, put it on this ground: None but disciples are to be baptized, but infants are already by nature disciples—and therefore infants are to be baptized.”

“But,” said Mr. Courtney, “the disciples who were to be baptized were _not_ disciples by _nature_. They were to be _made_ disciples. They were to be _believing_ disciples, and capable of learning, for they were to be taught. Now as infants are not _made disciples_ by hearing the Word—as they are incapable _of faith_ or of instruction in the things that Christ commanded, they cannot be included in the term disciples.”

“Yes, but infants have the natural _capacity to believe and to be taught_, which will in time be fully developed.”

“Very true; and so when these capacities are fully developed, and they _actually have believed_, they will have become disciples. You know very well that children do not ordinarily grow up the disciples of Jesus, but the servants of sin, and all of them need conversion after they come to the development of their faculties, before they can be disciples. They are in infancy in _some respects like to disciples_, but they are _not_ disciples, but ‘are by _nature_ the children of wrath even as others’—and as soon as they are old enough, they show it very plainly.”

“Well, I fear we must give up the commission. But tell me this, if infants are not fit subjects for baptism, how can they be fit for heaven?”

“Those only are fit subjects for baptism, whom _Christ commanded to be baptized_. The Gospel has nothing to do with infants. There is in it no command addressed to them, nor is any act, either of mind or body, required of them in order to their salvation. They are no more required to believe than they are to be baptized. They are saved without either. You are required to do both. To _you_, God says _believe_ and be baptized. You profess to have _believed_, but you have never made the slightest effort to be baptized. What was done to you in infancy, without your knowledge or assent, was no _act of yours_. You are still living in open disobedience to this law. Jesus Christ did not command _your parents_ to _have you_ baptized—putting the responsibility on them, but he commanded _you_ to be baptized for yourself; and that not _before_ you believed, but _afterward_: ‘He that believeth, and [then] is baptized, shall be saved.’”

“It seems to me, Mr. Courtney,” said the pastor, “that you are rather early in your application of the subject. We have granted, indeed, that the authority for infant baptism is not in the commission by which we are directed to baptize adult believers, but it may be found elsewhere. A recent writer on this subject, the Rev. Dr. Summers, has very expressively said: ‘That the New Testament ABOUNDS with the proofs of infant baptism.’”

“Then, sir, it will be very easy to find at least _one text_ which teaches it.”

“Certainly it will, not only one, but many.”

“But I only ask for _one_; and if you have several, give me that first which you most rely upon.”

“Well, sir, you have the Testament in your hand, please turn to Matthew xix. 13, 14: ‘Then were brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands upon them, and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said, suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven.’ Do you not see some authority for infant baptism in that?”

“Indeed, sir, I cannot—can you?”

“Yes, truly. It is to my mind perfectly satisfactory. And I do not see how it can fail to convince any candid man who reads it.”

“Your mind, Mr. Johnson, must be easily satisfied then, for I can’t see _one word_ about baptism in it.”

“Oh! I do not say that baptism is _expressly named_ in it; but, sir, the _inference_ is irresistible, that these children were brought _to be baptized_, and that the people were accustomed to bring their children for that purpose, and that Jesus commanded his disciples _never to forbid it_, as you, Baptists, have done, but to suffer the little children to come to him, and make a part of his visible church.”

“Is it possible! Pardon me, Mr. Johnson, if I say, that to my mind there can be no inference about the object or purpose for which these children were brought, because _it is expressly and very definitely stated in the text_. They brought them, that he should _lay his hands on them, and pray_. This was all they came for, and this was all he did. He did not baptize them. He did not command them to be baptized. He merely (verse 15th) ‘laid his hands on them, and departed.’ But there is an irresistible inference that I draw from this text, and that is, that _the disciples had never been accustomed to infant baptism_. If they had been in the habit of _baptizing_ children, they could never have objected to their coming to _be blessed_ by Jesus. They would have regarded it as a thing of course. But if they had, like the Baptist Churches, received _only adults_, and them only on repentance and profession of faith, it was not at all strange that they should reprove those who brought the little children, who could not believe And there was a beautiful propriety in the lesson which Jesus taught them, viz.: that though children were _not to be baptized_, and were not members of his church, yet they were to be objects of _intense interest_ and deep solicitude to his people. Though they were not to be baptized, _they were to be prayed for_. Parents, therefore, ought to bring their little children to Christ by _faith and prayer_, for that he has commanded, but _not_ by baptism, for that he has forbidden, by requiring those who are baptized first to believe.”

“But you cannot deny, Mr. Courtney, that by the kingdom of heaven, in this passage, is meant the _visible church_, and that Jesus expressly mentions children as members of it?”

“Indeed, Mr. Johnson, he mentions no such thing. It does not matter at all whether the kingdom of heaven means the church visible or invisible. He does _not_ say that children are members of it, but that _its members are like children_. He does _not_ say his church is composed of children, but of _such_ as are _like_ children. For in the corresponding passage in Luke and Mark, he goes right on, and explains by saying, ‘Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, shall in no case enter therein.’ Mr. Barnes, in his Notes on this text, says: ‘Of such as these—that is, of persons with such tempers as these—is the church to be composed. He does not say _of those infants_, but of such as resembled them, or were like them in temper, was the kingdom of heaven made up. It was proper, therefore, that he should pray for them.’—_Notes, in loc._ Olshausen, of whose Commentary, Kitto, a brother Pedobaptist of his and yours, declares that it is, on the New Testament, the best now in existence—Olshausen says on this text: ‘For entering into the kingdom of God, there is enjoined that child-like feeling which enables us most easily to discern the gifts which have been bestowed upon each, and, consequently, puts us in circumstances to fulfill our calling.’ He goes on to say: ‘Of that reference to infant baptism, which it is so common to seek for in this passage, there is clearly _not the slightest trace to be found_.’ And Bishop Taylor, another eminent Pedobaptist, says, in substance, that ‘to rely upon this text as proof of infant baptism, proves nothing so much as the want of a better argument.’”

“I think, Mr. Johnson,” said Professor Jones, “that we had better, for the present at least, let this passage stand aside. It certainly gives no _direct_ testimony in our favor, and even the inferential is somewhat doubtful. We can afford to let it go, as you know we have many others, about the meaning of which there can be no question. Let us take this, for instance, Acts xi. 38, 39: ‘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 Ghost, for 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.’ Here, most undoubtedly, the parents and children are both included, and that so expressly and plainly, as to leave no room for even the shadow of a doubt.”

“That is, indeed,” replied Mr. Johnson, “one of the strongest passages, if it be not the very strongest that we have.”

“And yet,” said Mr. Courtney, “it has not, in fact, the very _slightest value_ in favor of your faith or practice, but, on the contrary, furnishes at least a very strong _inference_ against them; for if infant baptism was either recognized or practiced, it is incredible that Peter should not have said, ‘Be baptized,’ not only ‘every one of you,’ but you and your children. All that is said of baptism, is only to those who are commanded to repent. Those who are commanded to be baptized, are _first_ commanded to _repent_; and none are to be baptized but those who _have repented_—not the penitents _and their children_.”

“True, Mr. Courtney; but you forget the last part of the text: ‘the promise is to you and your children.’”

“The promise of what? Mr. Johnson. What promise is Peter speaking of? Evidently that in the Prophet Joel: ‘It shall come to pass in the last days I will pour out my Spirit,’ etc. On the faith of this promise, Peter says: ‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, and you shall receive the Holy Ghost. For this promise (that is, of the Holy Ghost,) is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off’ etc. It was no promise of baptism, but the promise of something that should _follow_ their repentance and baptism. But even if the promise _did_ refer to baptism, the subjects of it were not _infants_, for its application is expressly limited to those who can be _called_ into the repentance and faith of the Gospel: ‘Even as many as the Lord our God _shall call_,’ (and no more). Does God call little unconscious infants? If not, then they are not the persons spoken of.”

“What, then, do you think is the meaning of the word children?”

“Simply their descendants. In the next chapter, Peter says to these same people, who were all grown men and women: ‘_Ye_ are the _children_ of the prophets.’ And nothing is more common in the Scriptures than to speak of the Jewish nation as children of Israel. They were not a nation of babies, nevertheless.

“But even granting, for the sake of argument, that it was _little_ children—infants—that were spoken of, then if they were to be _baptized_ without repentance and faith in Christ, so also are all the aliens and idolators among the Gentiles, for they are included in the term ‘all that are afar off.’ And there is the same authority to baptize these as the children. They are equally included in the ‘promise:’ ‘You and your children, _and all that are afar off_’ Unless you will admit the promise thus to embrace ‘all the world, and the rest of mankind,’ you must limit it, as Peter did, by confining it to those ‘of you,’ and of ‘your children,’ and of the Gentiles _whom the Lord our God shall call_. If, therefore, this is the strongest, or one of the strongest passages you have, your case is a desperate one indeed. The text contains a command and a promise. It commands men _first_ to _repent_, and then to be baptized—just as Jesus commands them _first_ to _believe_, and then to be baptized. And, of course, unless unconscious infants can repent and believe, they cannot be baptized. Then it promises the ‘gift of the Holy Ghost’ to those who _have_ thus _repented_ and _been baptized_: for Peter makes this the condition of their receiving it: ‘Repent and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift.’ And as _they_ might receive the _gift_ of the Spirit on these terms, viz.: baptism and repentance, so might their _descendants_, and so might even the idolatrous _Gentiles_, who were now afar off—even as many of them as the Lord our God should call.”

“That is indeed entirely satisfactory,” said Professor Jones, “and I am only surprised that I did not see it in that light before. But the truth is, because I saw _baptized_ in one part of the passage, and children in another part, I took it for granted (since it was one of the proof-texts quoted in our confession of faith) that it was the _children_ who were to be baptized. I see now that it was only those who repented; and I am ready candidly to acknowledge that there is no authority for infant baptism in _this_ text, but there are surely many others.”

“Oh, yes,” said Mr. Courtney, “you know ‘the New Testament _abounds_ with proof of infant baptism.’ And if you will turn to 1st Cor. vii. 14, you will find one which has been relied upon even more confidently than the one we have just disposed of: ‘For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.’”

“Well, I should like to see how you will set aside a passage so plain and appropriate as that is,” said Mr. Johnson.

“I simply say,” rejoined Mr. Courtney, “that there is not _one word_ in it about baptism, either of infants or adults. It has not only no mention of baptism, but not even the most distant _allusion_ to it, direct or indirect.”

“Why, sir, does it not say that the children of but one believing parent are _holy_? and if they are _holy_, are they not fit subjects for baptism?”

“You know,” replied Mr. Courtney, “that the words _holy_ and _sanctified_, among the Jews, were used in a physical or ceremonial sense, as well as in a moral sense. If the Apostle used them here in a _moral_ sense, he stated what _was not true_, for in this sense the infidel husband or the infidel wife _was not made holy_ by the other’s faith. The faith of the husband did not make a _saint_ of his wife, nor did the faith of the wife make a _saint_ of her idolatrous husband. They might have been, and doubtless often were more sinful afterward than before the other party was converted. Nor does the faith of _both parents combined render their children holy_, in this sense of the word: for you know and every other man knows, that the children of believers _grow up in sin, and need to be converted_, just as much as the children of unbelievers; and without such conversion, will just as surely be lost as the children of the vilest. Did David’s faith take the incestuous Ammon and murderous Absalom to heaven? You and your wives are both believers: are _your_ children, in this sense, holier than other children? Do you not daily pray for God’s converting grace to _make_ them holy? It is evident, therefore, that the words sanctified and holy (which are equivalent terms) must here be understood in their other sense. The expression is indeed one of those _Hebraisms_ in which Paul abounds. Its real meaning is very clearly stated by one of your best Presbyterian Commentators, Dr. McKnight—for more than twenty years the Moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly of Scotland:

“‘I think, therefore,’ says he, ‘with Elsner, that the words in this verse have neither a federal nor a moral meaning, but are used in the idiom of the Hebrews, who by _sanctified_ understood what was fitted for a particular use, and by _unclean_ what was unfit for use, and therefore was to be cast away. In that sense the Apostle, speaking of _meat_, says, 1 Tim. iv. 5, _It is sanctified_ (that is, fitted for your use) _by the Word of God and prayer_. Ver. iv. _Every creature of God_ (fit for food) is _good, and nothing_ fit for food is _to be cast away_ as unclean. The terms of the verses, thus understood, have a _rational_ meaning, namely, that when infidels are married to Christians, if they have a strong affection for their Christian spouses, they are thereby _sanctified_ to them—they are fitted to continue married to them; because their affection to the Christian party will insure to that party the faithful performance of every duty; and that if the marriages of Christians and infidels were dissolved, they would cast away their children as _unclean_—that is, by losing their affection for them, they would expose them, after the barbarous custom of the Greeks, or at least neglect their education; but by continuing their marriages, their children are _holy_; they are preserved as sacred pledges of their mutual love and educated with care.’

“Hence he thus paraphrases the text:—‘For the infidel husband is sanctified—is fitted to remain married to the believing wife by his affection for her; and the infidel wife is sanctified to the believing husband by her affection for him; otherwise certainly your children would be by you neglected as unclean, whereas indeed they are clean; they are the objects of your affection and care.’”

“I do not know,” said Mr. Johnson, “that we are bound to admit Dr. McKnight’s exposition of this passage merely because he was a Presbyterian.”

“Certainly not; but one would naturally suppose that if there were any infant baptism in the passage, a learned and eminent Presbyterian Doctor of Divinity would be the man to find it. Perhaps _you_ can show it to be there, though _he_ could not.”

“I do not say, Mr. Courtney, that infant baptism is _commanded_ in this passage, but only that it is _recognized_. These children were not _morally_ holy—that is self-evident. Yet they are called (‘_agia_’) holy, by the same term which is sometimes used to designate the _saints_; that is, the members of the church. Therefore, they must have been church members; and as none were church members but those who had been _baptized_, it follows that they must have been baptized. That is what I call a demonstration.”

“And if it be so,” replied Mr. Courtney, “then the infidel wife and the infidel husband had also been baptized, and were members of the church, for they are called (_hagiarai_) ‘sanctified,’ the same term which in this epistle (1st chapter and 2d verse) is applied to the members of the church: ‘To them that are _sanctified_ in Jesus Christ, called to be saints,’ etc. And again, in the 6th chapter and 11th verse, ‘But ye are washed, ye are _sanctified_; but ye are justified in Christ,’ etc. These _sanctified_ ones called to be saints, and these _sanctified_ ones who were washed and justified in Christ, were, most undoubtedly, members of the Corinthian Church. It was as such that Paul addressed them; and as the same term (_sanctified_) is applied to the infidel and idolatrous husband and wife who had a believing companion, it follows, of course, that, infidel and idolatrous as they were, they _must_ have been members of the church; and as none are church members but those who have been baptized, they must certainly have been baptized. That is what _I call_, not a demonstration, but a palpable absurdity; yet it stands _precisely_ upon the same ground with your demonstration.”

“We must give it up, Mr. Johnson,” said the Professor, “at least so far as this text is concerned, for if it proves any thing, it proves _too much_. It will be better for us to give up the children than to take the unbelieving and idolatrous adults. If we ground our practice of baptizing infants on _this passage_, we must baptize the unbelieving _wife_ on the faith of her husband, and the unbelieving husband on the faith of his wife, as well as their children on the faith of either. This we have never done, and would not dare to do, so we must look for some other passage to sustain our views.”

“Not quite yet,” said Mr. Courtney, smiling; “I have wrested this weapon out of your hands, and I will now turn it against you.

“I will prove, _by this very passage_, that there was no such thing as infant baptism known in the Corinthian Church, or in the mind of Paul, when he was writing to them; but that, on the contrary, the Corinthian, and, of course, all the other churches of that day, were _Baptist Churches_, in which neither the _children_, nor the unbelieving companions of believers, were baptized, or in any sense regarded as church members. If the unbelieving husband or wife had been baptized and made a member of the church, the question to which the Apostle is evidently replying could never have been asked. The Jews, as we learn from Ezra x. 3, were not permitted to continue in the marriage relation with their Gentile wives. Now the question had come up in the Corinthian Church whether a _Christian_ should not, under a similar regulation, separate from an unbelieving and idolatrous companion. But if such unbelieving consorts were by _the other’s faith entitled to church membership_, and had, consequently, been baptized, such a thing as separation on this ground would never have been thought of. It is evident, therefore, that the infidel husband or the infidel wife were not baptized or made church members. There is in the Scriptures not the slightest allusion to any such church _members_ made by the faith of _others_, and not by their own. These persons were, therefore, in every sense, outsiders. They had no more connection with the church than any other heathens had. But the Apostle says to their Christian companions, You have no more reason to discard them on this account than church members have to discard _their children_, for they are also unbelievers, and without the pale of the church. The unbelieving husband and the unbelieving wife, and your children, not their children, stand in the same category. They are all without the church—all unbaptized—and thus far, all equally unfit associates. But as your children, though not in the church, are _holy to you_—that is, fit to associate with, so is the unbelieving husband or the unbelieving wife, although they are also out of the church.

“That this is the sense in which the Apostle uses the terms sanctified, and holy, and unclean, is evident from the fact, that this is the _only_ sense in which what he says of the parties can be _true_, and this sense corresponds perfectly with the common Scripture usage of the words. Those things and persons among the Jews were called _unclean_ which a holy person might not lawfully touch, use, or associate with. It seems, from Gal. ii. 12, that they considered it very criminal to associate or eat with Gentiles. Peter, it seems, had the opinion that only certain _food_ was fit to eat, and that all other was unclean. And he said: ‘Lord, nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.’ And Paul, 2 Cor. vi. 17, says, quoting from Isaiah: ‘Come out from among them, and be ye separate, and touch not the unclean thing,’ or, more properly, ‘touch no _unclean_ person,’ ‘and I will receive you,’ etc. Things unfit for holy persons to use were, Therefore, to them said to be _unclean_. Food which such persons might not eat, was called unclean food. And persons which they might not associate with, were called unclean persons. In this sense, therefore, neither the unbelieving children, nor the unbelieving husband, nor the unbelieving wife, were to be regarded as unclean. They were all equally sanctified—fit for the companionship and affection of their believing parents and consorts.”

“That is all plain enough, Mr. Courtney; but I do not see what it has to do with infant baptism.”

“Simply this. The infidel consorts of believers were not church members—they had not been baptized. When Paul was asked by the church, if the believing husbands and wives must separate from such, he says no; it is as lawful for them to live together as it is for _you_ to live with _your children_. But your children are _holy_ [fit associates] to you, and so their companions are _sanctified_ [fit associates] to _them_. Now there was no force or propriety in the comparison, unless the children were in circumstances similar to the unbelieving consorts—that is, they must _all_ have been alike out of the church, and _all unbaptized_; and if the children of believing parents were unbaptized, it was a Baptist Church; and if the church at Corinth was a Baptist Church, then all the churches planted by the apostles were Baptist Churches.”

“I do not feel inclined to grant all that,” said Mr. Johnson, “but we have wasted too much time on this text already; let us proceed. But I see it is of no use to argue with you, for you are disposed to construe every passage so differently from what we have been accustomed to consider their true meaning, that the most conclusive texts have no weight with you whatever.”

“But pardon me, Mr. Johnson; do I not construe them according to the natural and necessary meaning of the language? I appeal to Professor Jones to say if I have shown any disposition to present any other than the straightforward and obvious sense of the passages which we have examined.”

“I begin to think,” rejoined the pastor, “that my brother Jones is himself more than half a Baptist, which accounts for his being so easily convinced.”

“Not at all, Mr. Johnson. I was very desirous to find infant baptism in the Scriptures; I confidently believed it was there; I expected we could have pointed to it without the slightest difficulty; but I acknowledge that I can’t see the slightest trace of it in these proof texts which our church has been so accustomed to rely upon. But though we have no _command_ to practice it, we have authority which is quite equivalent, and that is the _practice_ of the Apostles.”

“Certainly,” said Mr. Johnson, “I did not expect to find any such absolute command as could not be explained away. It is chiefly on the examples that we rely.”

“I hope, Mr. Johnson, you will do me the justice to acknowledge that I have not explained away any command to baptize infants. I am sure I would not willingly even attempt to explain away any command of Jesus Christ, or his Apostles, on this or any other subject. I asked you to show me a command to _baptize infants_, and you pointed to the commission as a command to baptize those who are the _believing_ disciples of Jesus. You pointed, then, to an incidental command, to let the children come to Christ, that he might lay his hands on them and bless them. But as the children were not in the other command, so the baptism was not in this. It was not for baptism, but for quite another purpose that he bade them to come. You pointed then to a command and promise given through Peter, but the command was _Repent_, and _then_ be baptized, which, of course, excluded infants. And the promise was not a promise of _baptism_, but of the gift of the Holy Ghost to those whom _God should call_ to repentance, faith, and baptism, which excluded infants from the promise as well as the command. You then pointed to the place which we have last examined, which certainly contains not even the shadow of a command to baptize infants; and so far as it teaches any thing upon the subject, teaches that they were no more to be baptized on the faith of their parents than unbelieving husbands are upon the faith of their wives. You have not found the commandment, because it is not there; I do not like to discourage you, but I assure you, you cannot find the _example_ for the very same reason. This has been conceded, over and over again, by the most learned and most zealous advocates of infant baptism. They rest it on different grounds.

“Dr. Wall, the most eminent of them all, distinctly declares: ‘Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the Apostles, there is no express mention of any infants.’

“Bishop Burnet says: ‘There is no express precept or rule given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants.’

“Richard Baxter says: ‘I conclude that all the examples of baptism in the Scripture do mention only the administration of it to the professors of saving faith; and the precepts give no other direction.’

“Martin Luther, the great reformer, says: ‘It cannot be proved that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or by the first Christians after the Apostles.’

“Erasmus, another of the Reformers, says in his Notes on Rom. vi. 14: ‘The Apostle does not seem to treat of infants. It was not the custom for infants to be baptized.’

“Olshansen, the famous Pedobaptist commentator, says: ‘There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof passage for the baptism of children in the age of the Apostles, nor can the necessity of it be deduced from the nature of baptism.’

“Limbroch, another distinguished Pedobaptist professor of theology, and the author of a ‘System of Divinity,’ says: ‘There is no express command for it in the Scriptures. Nay, all those passages wherein baptism is commanded, do immediately relate to _adult_ persons, since they are ordered to be instructed, and faith is a prerequisite as a necessary qualification.’ And again: ‘The necessity of infant baptism was never asserted on any council before that of Carthage, held A. D. 418. We own that there is no precept, nor undoubted instance in Scripture of infant baptism.’

“Dr. Hanna, editor of the North British Review, says: ‘The baptismal service [of the English church] is founded upon Scripture, but its application to unconscious infants is destitute of any express Scriptural warrant. Scripture knows nothing of the baptism of infants.’

“Dr. Knapp says: ‘There is no decisive example of infant baptism in the Scriptures.’

“Neander, the great Pedobaptist historian, says: ‘It is certain that Christ did not ordain infant baptism.’

“Even your Presbyterian Doctor Miller, of Princeton Theological Seminary, says: ‘The fact is, that during the whole threescore years after the ascension of Christ, which is embraced in the New Testament history, we have no hint of the baptism of infants born of Christian parents.’

“So says your able defender, Professor Moses Stuart: ‘Commands, or plain and certain examples relative to it in the New Testament, I do not find.’

“So says also your other celebrated writer on this subject, Dr. Leonard Woods: ‘The New Testament is silent respecting the subject of infant baptism.’ ‘It is evident that infant baptism is not introduced as a subject of particular discussion. It is neither explicitly enjoined or prohibited, and neither is the practice of baptizing children, nor the absence of it, expressly mentioned.”’