{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_20428/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_20428","id":"gutenberg_20428","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/20428","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Religion/Spirituality","Infant baptism"],"text":"Produced by Graeme Mackreth, Curtis Weyant and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images produced by the Wright\nAmerican Fiction Project.)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nBERTHA\nAND HER BAPTISM.\n\nBy the Author of\n\nAGNES AND THE LITTLE KEY;\n_or_,\nBEREAVED PARENTS INSTRUCTED AND COMFORTED.\n\nBOSTON:\nS.K. WHIPPLE AND COMPANY,\n161 WASHINGTON STREET.\n1857.\n\n\n\n\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1857, by\nS.K. WHIPPLE & CO.,\nIn the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of\nMassachusetts.\n\n\nSTEREOTYPED BY\nHOBART & ROBBINS,\nNew England Type and Stereotype Foundry,\nBOSTON.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThis book, and that which is also named in the title-page, were written\nat the same time, and as one book; but they were afterward separated, as\nmore properly constituting two volumes, the part which was the original\nof the present volume now being greatly enlarged. Thus the two books\ngrew in the author's mind together, from one and the same root,--the\ndeath of a little child.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\n\n                                                                Page\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPROBABILITIES OF AN ORDINANCE FOR CHILDREN,                       9\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE GRANDFATHER'S LETTER.--THE NATURE, GROUNDS AND INFLUENCE,\nOF INFANT BAPTISM,                                               16\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nPUBLIC AND PRIVATE BAPTISMS.--THE SUBJECTS AND MODE OF\nBAPTISM,                                                         76\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nIS THERE ONLY ONE MODE OF BAPTISM?                              121\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nSCENES OF BAPTISM.--REASONABLENESS, BEAUTY AND POWER, OF\nINFANT BAPTISM.--USE OF SPECIAL VOWS.--HUSBANDS AT\nBAPTISMS.--NEGLECT OF BAPTISM,                                  130\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS.--APOSTOLIC PRACTICE OF\nINFANT BAPTISM.--MINISTERIAL USAGES IN BAPTISMS,                143\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTERMS OF COMMUNION.--NON-INTRUSION.--DENOMINATIONAL COURTESY\nAND KINDNESS,                                                   184\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE ROAD-SIDE BAPTISM,                                          198\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE CHILDREN OF THE CHURCH.--ARE THEY MEMBERS OF THE\nCHURCH?                                                         216\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nMATERNAL ASSOCIATIONS.--CONSTITUTION AND RULES FOR THEM.--A\nCHRISTIAN MOTHER'S QUESTIONS TO HERSELF,                        255\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nBAPTISM OF THE SICK WIFE AND HER CHILDREN,                      272\n\n\n\n\nBERTHA\nAND HER BAPTISM.\n\n\n\n\nChapter First.\n\nPROBABILITIES OF AN ORDINANCE FOR CHILDREN.\n\n     'Tis aye a solemn thing to me\n   To look upon a babe that sleeps,\n   Wearing in its spirit-deeps\n     The unrevealed mystery\n     Of its Adam's taint and woe.--MISS BARRETT.\n\n   Heaven lies about us in our infancy.--WORDSWORTH.\n\n\nIt is generally believed that, of those who have gone to heaven from\nthis world, by far the larger part have been infants and young children.\nBorn here, they were by one man's disobedience made sinners; born of the\nSpirit, at their early translation to heaven, they hold an important\nplace in the plan of salvation by Christ. Very beautiful, as well as\nsublime, is the thought of so large a contribution, to the heavenly\nworld, of human beings in the dawn of their existence, enhancing, as we\nmay suppose, the happiness of heaven by such large admixture of exotic,\nyouthful nature, and illustrating, by their redemption from a helpless\nstate of sin and misery, the unsearchable riches of wisdom and grace.\n\nHas God done anything, in this world, to mark his regard for that class\nof the human race constituting, thus far, the greater part of the\nredeemed? We naturally look for something reminding the world of his\ninterest in these subsidiaries of his kingdom. Has he confined his\nnotice to those that are full-grown, and who have, thus far, the larger\npart of them, withheld from him the fruit of his vineyard? God has a\nchurch on earth, with ordinances, symbols, covenant signs: among them is\nthere not some sign, symbol, or ordinance, recognizing those who, more\nthan any other of the race, have, till now, been swelling the numbers of\nthat church in heaven?\n\nLike those elements of astronomical calculation which require and lead\nmen to expect undiscovered planets in a certain quarter of the\nfirmament, analogy, and the known intercourse of God with mankind, and\nour moral sense, incline us to look for some symbolic recognition of\nthis earthly constituency of heaven by him who ordained and is\nredeeming to himself a church from among men. Words of interest and love\ntoward them on the part of God, we all know, are not wanting in the\nBible. Acts of loving-kindness, also, proving the sincerity of those\nwords, and reaching even to a thousand generations of them that love\nGod, are everywhere seen in sacred history.\n\nBut is there no great, conspicuous symbol of these things,--no type, no\nrite? Symbols appear to be inseparable attendants of God's manifested\nfavor to men. He cannot enter into covenant with an individual, much\nless a people, but there is at least a stone set up, or a\nthreshing-floor is bought for him, an altar is built, or they pour out a\nhorn of oil. He invites Ahaz to ask of him a sign of his promise: \"Ask\nit,\" he says, \"either in the depths, or in the height above;\" and, when\nthat man refuses, God gives him a sign. Emblems, seals and types, in the\nearly dispensation, burst forth like images in the waters of everything\nalong the banks, and even of things far off. Everything has its\nmemorial, its rite; are the children, is the parental relation,\nforgotten?\n\nHere let us consider that God began with the first parents and the\nfirst children of the human race to set forth that great law of his\nadministration, the connection of children with parents for good or\nevil. Every descendant of Adam is an example under that law. Thus it was\nfor nineteen generations,--from Adam to Abraham.\n\nWhen, therefore, God reestablished his church at the call of Abraham, it\nwas no new thing to connect parents and their children in covenant\npromises and blessings. It had its origin in the very nature of man.\nAbraham, and the covenant made with him for all believers and their\nchildren, are, indeed, a striking illustration of a principle recognized\nand applied by the Most High; but the principle itself is older than\nAbraham,--it is coeval with the moral constitution of man. In making a\ncovenant with Noah, God included his children; so with David, making\nmention of his house, \"for a great while to come.\"\n\nAs soon, therefore, as religion was established in the earth, by\nsecuring its perpetuity through the conservative influences of one\nselected line of descent, the child was taken, as being the object of\nthe covenant, and the means of its perpetuation, and received its seal.\nGod designed to perpetuate religion in the earth, thenceforward,\nchiefly by means of the parental relation; for the parent represents God\nto the child more than any other fellow-creature, or thing, can\ndo,--more than any instituted influence, whether of prophet, priest,\nchurch, or ritual. Setting up his church for all future time, with\nAbraham for its founder, God included children with parents who\ncovenanted with him, as the objects of special regard and promise, and\nhe appointed a rite to mark and seal that covenant. Thus it was from\nAbraham to Christ, during three times fourteen generations.\n\nBut the day of types and symbols was succeeded by another era, in which\nthe church of God comes forth with the glory of God risen upon her, and\nall the nebulous matter of types and ceremonies is gathered together\ninto two permanent sacraments; for human nature was not beyond the need\nand help of outward signs. Now, in the earlier of the two ages of the\nchurch, the child was recognized by a rite of the church; the child,\nwith that rite inscribed on him, was the sign-bearer of the church's\nperpetuity. Yet, in the age following, the child was as dear to the\nparent as ever; the Christian parent was as much concerned to have\nreligion flow through his seed, as were his predecessors; the salvation\nof the child was regarded with the same solicitude, and the principle of\nperpetuating religion by the family constitution was still the same.\n\nBut did God withdraw from the children of his servants, from the most\nhopeful of all the sources of his church's increase on earth and in\nheaven, all token of his regard in any sacramental act? Is parental\naffection, under the reign of Immanuel, debarred the enjoyment of one of\nits most valuable privileges, the sealing of the child to be the Lord's\nby the use of a divinely-appointed symbol? Had no ordinances and symbols\nbeen allowed after the institution of Christianity, this question would\nnot arise; the inference would have been that human nature, under the\nGospel, will no more need the aid of rites in religion. But there are\nChristian rites, expressly and solemnly instituted. Is not that most\nimportant relation of a believer's child to God perpetuated; and is it\nnot still to be sealed by the use of one of the Christian ordinances?\n\nIn considering this question, and the many interesting topics connected\nwith it, the writer will be allowed to take his own way, following an\nhistorical order in the occurrences which may be supposed to have made\nthe subject interesting and clear to the minds of two parents.\n\n\n\n\nChapter Second.\n\nTHE GRANDFATHER'S LETTER.\n\nTHE NATURE, GROUNDS, AND INFLUENCE, OF INFANT BAPTISM.\n\n   If temporal estates may be conveyed\n     By cov'nants, on condition,\n   To men, and to their heirs; be not affraid,\n     My soule, to rest upon\n   The covenant of grace by mercy made.\n             GEORGE HERBERT,--\"_The Font._\"\n\n   --No finite mind can fully comprehend the mysteries into which his\n     baptism is the initiation.--COLERIDGE,--\"_Aids_,\" &c.\n\n   Christian faith is the perfection of human reason.--IBID.\n\n\nMY DEAR DAUGHTER BERTHA:--I am glad that you think of taking your little\nnamesake to the house of God for baptism. You wish to know my views\nabout it in full. My new colleague having relieved me of many cares and\nlabors, I shall hope to write more frequently; but not often so long a\nletter as I fear this will be; for I wish to tell you of some\nconversations which I have had on the subject in question. This will\nshow you the common difficulties, in which, perhaps, you share, and my\nway of removing them; and also set before you the privileges and\nblessings connected with the baptism of your child.\n\nA man and his wife--sensible, plain people--came to our house one\nevening last July, when the \"vines with the tender grape gave a goodly\nsmell,\" through that trellis which you and Percival have such pleasant\nreason to remember. We were all sitting there in the moonlight, when\nthis Mr. Benson and his wife came up the door-way, and were welcomed\ninto our little group. After a few words of mutual inquiry and answer,\nhe said:\n\n\"Wife and I, sir, thought that we would make bold to come and trouble\nyou a little to tell us about baptizing our boy. He is getting to be\nfour months old, and we are not willing to put it off much longer.\nStill, we would like to know the grounds of it a little better. People,\nyou know, do not think much about it till it comes to be a case in hand.\n\n\"But I do not know,\" said he, looking round on your mother and the\nchildren, \"but that we do wrong to take this time for it. It will be\nrather a dry subject for these young friends to hear.\"\n\n_Pastor._ Not at all. They owe too much to what was done for them when\nthey were little children, to dislike it. Besides, there is nothing dry\nabout it, as I view the subject. It is one of the most beautiful things\nin religion.\n\n_Mrs. Benson._ It is next to the Lord's Supper, I always thought, if\npeople take the right view of it.\n\n_Pastor._ It makes you love God the Father in some such way as the\nLord's Supper makes you love the Saviour. I think, sometimes, that the\nbaptism of children is our heavenly Father's Sacrament.\n\n_Mr. B._ I like that; but there is so much to study and learn about the\n\"Abrahamic covenant,\" that I feel a little discouraged. I have had books\nlent me on the Abrahamic covenant, and I began to read them; but they\nlooked hard; so I told my wife that perhaps you would make the thing\nmore clear, and bring it home to our feelings, and that we would come\nand get your ideas about it.\n\n_Pastor._ How glad I am that you came! But tell me what you take the\nAbrahamic covenant to mean.\n\n_Mr. B._ I suppose it means that God told Abraham to circumcise his\nchildren, and infant baptism comes in the place of it, and we must do it\nif we are Abraham's spiritual children. But I wish to see the use of it.\nI am willing to do it, but I should like to feel it more; and I want to\nknow how baptism comes in the place of circumcision, and a great many\nother things.\n\n_Pastor._ I think that you may possibly have what may be called some\nJewish notions about the Abrahamic covenant, though I trust you are\nright in the main. That phrase sounds foreign and mysterious, and I\nnever use it except in talking with people who I know have the thing\nitself already in their hearts.\n\nI called Helen to me, and told her to say the hymn which she had\nrepeated to me the last Sabbath evening.\n\nShe cleared her voice, leaned against me, and twisted her fingers in my\nhair behind, and, with her eyes fixed there, she said this hymn:\n\n      \"Begin, my tongue, some heavenly theme,\n        And speak some boundless thing;\n      The mightier works or mightier name\n        Of our eternal King.\n\n      \"Tell of his wondrous faithfulness,\n        And sound his power abroad;\n      Sing the sweet promise of his grace,\n        And the performing God.\n\n      \"Proclaim salvation from the Lord\n        For wretched, dying men;\n      His hand has writ the sacred word\n        With an immortal pen.\n\n      \"Engraved as in eternal brass\n        The mighty promise shines;\n      Nor can the powers of darkness rase\n        Those everlasting lines.\n\n      \"He who can dash whole worlds to death,\n        And make them when he please,\n      He speaks, and that Almighty breath\n        Fulfils his promises.\n\n      \"His very word of grace is strong\n        As that which built the skies:\n      The voice that rolls the stars along\n        Speaks all the promises.\n\n      \"He said, 'Let the wide heavens be spread;'\n        And heaven was stretched abroad.\n      'Abra'am, I'll be thy God,' he said;\n        And he was Abra'am's God.\n\n      \"O, might I hear thy heavenly tongue\n        But whisper, 'Thou art mine!'\n      Those gentle words should raise my song\n        To notes almost divine.\n\n      \"How would my leaping heart rejoice,\n        And think my heaven secure!\n      I trust the all-creating voice,\n        And faith desires no more.\"\n\n_Pastor._ What a happy man Abraham must have been when the Almighty made\nthis engagement and promise: \"I will be a God to thee!\" That was the\n\"Abrahamic covenant,\" in part.\n\n\"Does covenant mean that?\" said Mrs. B.\n\n\"What?\" I inquired.\n\n\"Why, sir, what you have just said,--engagement, promise?\"\n\n\"Nothing more,\" said I. \"But what a happy man, I say, Abraham must have\nbeen! 'A God to thee!' To have the Almighty say to one, 'I will be a God\nto thee!' You know that this is everything.\"\n\n\"That is a fact,\" said Mr. B., wiping his eyes; \"for, when I went to my\nstore, the morning after I became a Christian, I went along the street,\nsaying to myself, 'Now I have a God. God is God to me. Thou art my\nGod.'\n\n\"Yes,\" said his wife; \"Deacon B., the post-master, heard you, as you\nwent by his side-window, and he made an excuse to bring me up a paper,\nthat forenoon, and asked whether you had not met with a change in your\nfeelings on the subject of religion.\"\n\n\"Did he?\" said Mr. B. \"Well, I did not mean to be heard, and yet I was\nwilling that everybody should know how happy I was in having one whom I\ncould call my God. How I had lived so long without God for my God,\namazed me.\"\n\n_Pastor._ You make me think of a man who, one night, on reaching his\nhouse, after having attended a lecture in a school-room, was filled with\nsuch surprising views and feelings, with respect to the greatness and\ngoodness of God, that he saddled his horse, rode three miles, waked up\nthe minister, and, as he came to the door, took hold of each arm, and\nsaid, \"O, my dear sir, what a God we've got!\" He would not go in, but\nsoon hastened back. It was the substance of all that he wished to say;\nhe desired to pour out his soul to some one who would understand him. He\nwas like a thirsty land when at last the great rain is descending.\n\n_Mr. B._ I suppose many people would have thought him crazy.\n\n\"I suspect the minister did, at first,\" said Mrs. B.\n\n\"And yet I suppose,\" said I, \"he was never more rational. Just think\nwhat it is for a poor sinner all at once to feel that the eternal God is\nhis; that He will be a God to him! We hear of some people dying at the\nreceipt of good news; and I have seen some so happy at this experience,\nof having a God to love and to love them, that, if the thing itself did\nnot, as it always does, bring peace and inward strength with it, nature\ncould not have sustained it.\"\n\n\"Joy unspeakable,\" said Mr. B. \"And full of glory,\" said his wife,\nwaiting a moment for him to finish the quotation.\n\n\"Now, my dear friends,\" said I, \"that man on horseback, at his\nminister's door at midnight, had, at that moment, the first part of what\nis meant by the 'Abrahamic covenant.' How little way do these words go\ntoward expressing the thing itself, and a man's feelings under it! There\nwas a time when God made Abraham far more happy even than he did you on\nyour way to the post-office that morning.\"\n\nHelen came along, just then, with a fruit-basket of apples, and I said\nto her, as she was going round with them, \"Say again that verse in your\nhymn, which has these words in it, 'Thou art mine.'\"\n\nSo, while Mr. B. was paring his apple, Helen stood before him, and said:\n\n   \"O, might I hear thy heavenly tongue\n     But whisper, 'Thou art mine!'\n   Those gentle words should raise my song\n     To notes almost divine.\"\n\nMr. B. put his apple and knife down, and took his red bandanna\nhandkerchief from under his plate, and, wiping his eyes, said:\n\n\"Hymns always make me feel a good deal, especially Watts's. I've read\nthat hymn in meeting before the exercises began.\"\n\n_Pastor._ You know, by happy experience, what it is when that heavenly\ntongue whispers, \"Thou art mine.\"\n\n_Mr. B._ I do, sir, if I know anything.\n\n_Pastor._ Now, my dear friends, there is something awaiting you, which\nyou seem not to have experienced, but which is as good as that.\n\n\"We would like to hear about it,\" they both replied.\n\n\"How should you like, Mrs. B.,\" said I, \"to have your little boy become\na sailor?\"\n\n\"O dear!\" said she, \"I should have no peace from this time, if I thought\nhe was to be a sailor.\"\n\n\"But that,\" said I, \"may be God's chosen occupation for him,--the way in\nwhich he will employ him to bring him to himself, and then use him to be\na preacher to seamen, for example, and so to scatter the truth in many\nparts of the earth. We are not our own, Mrs. B., and this dear boy was\nnot given you, as we say, to keep. 'For thou hast created all things,\nand for thy pleasure they are and were created.'\"\n\n\"I want him brought up at college,\" said Mrs. B., looking at your\nmother, who, she probably thought, would understand her motherly\nanticipations about her boy so far ahead.\n\n\"Well,\" said I, \"let us send him to college. I suspect that you would\nfeel a good deal the morning he left you, would you not?\"\n\n\"O,\" said she, \"I should so want him to be good first! If he should not\nbe a good man, I would not have him get learning to do harm with it, and\nmake himself more miserable hereafter.\"\n\nThe little gate, with its chain and ball, swung to at this moment, and\na woman and girl came up the walk. It was Mrs. Ford, who used to be your\ndress-maker, and her daughter Janette, now about thirteen. It was a\nfarewell call from Janette, who was going to the neighborhood of\nPhiladelphia, into a coach-lace manufactory.\n\n\"So Janette is going to leave us, to-morrow, Mrs. Ford?\" said your\nmother.\n\n\"Yes, madam, and I feel sorely about it; so young, and such a way off,\nand all strangers except the foreman, who spoke to me about her coming!\nO, sir,\" said she, changing her undertone, and turning to me, \"what\nshould we do without that promise, 'I will be a God to thee and to thy\nseed after thee'?\"\n\nI looked at Mr. and Mrs. B., and we all smiled, while I said:\n\n\"Now we have got the second part of the 'Abrahamic covenant.' So now we\nhave the whole of it. Mrs. Ford, when you came in, we were talking about\nbaptizing children, and about the 'Abrahamic covenant.' What do you\nunderstand by that covenant?\"\n\n\"I understand by it, sir,\" said she, slowly gathering her words into\nproper order; \"why, I think I understand by it, that God promises to be\na God to a believer's child, as he was in such a wonderful way to\nAbraham's people.\"\n\n_Pastor._ Well, that is the substance of one part of it, at least. Did\nyou know, Mrs. Ford, that when you came in we were just entering Mrs.\nBenson's son at college?\n\n_Mrs. Ford._ Not this Mrs. Benson, of course. Whom do you mean, sir?\n\n_Pastor._ This Mrs. Benson;--her little son.\n\n_Mrs. Ford._ O, I understand! Well, you will send him to P., I suppose,\nit is so near.\n\n\"We had not fixed on the college,\" said Mrs. Benson, with a laugh.\n\n\"Janette,\" said I, \"how do you like the thought of going off so far from\nus all?\"\n\nJanette pulled the ends of her plain cotton gloves, and her heart was\nfull, so that she could not speak for a moment. I was sorry that I had\nasked the question, and therefore added:\n\n\"You will not go where God cannot take care of you and bless you the\nsame as at home, will you, dear?\"\n\nShe lifted her white apron to her eyes, while Mrs. Ford said for her:\n\n\"I tell Janette that I gave her up to God in baptism; and when her\nfather lay sick, he said, 'That child was given to God in his house; I\nleave her destitute, and with nothing but her hands, but I leave her to\na covenant-keeping God.'\"\n\n\"Now,\" said I, \"here is a dear daughter going to a strange place to\nlearn a trade. She knows not a soul in the place but the foreman who has\nhired her. A boy is going to college, another to sea, another to a\ndistant city. Here is a daughter, who receives particular attentions\nfrom certain young friends, and the probability is that she will be\nasked in marriage; and here is a son, who with his parents are in doubt\nwith regard to his future occupation and course of life. God only knows\nthe feelings of parents at such times. What prayers are made in\nsecret,--what vows! One wrong step may embitter life. A right step may\nlead to prosperity and great happiness. I sometimes wish that we could\ngather our children together, in some of these emergencies and critical\nperiods of their lives, and offer up prayers and vows, as parents and\nfriends, in their behalf. There would not be many meetings more\ninteresting than these, Mr. Benson. How the parents of such children\nwould love everybody that came at such times to pray for their children;\nand what prayers would go up to God!\"\n\n\"Can we not have some such meetings?\" said Mr. Benson. \"Every parent\nwould like it, I am sure.\"\n\n_Pastor._ Well, we do have some such meetings occasionally, I remember.\n\n\"Our minister loves to use parables,\" said Mrs. Benson, looking at your\nmother, \"so as to make us understand the meaning better, and remember\nit.\"\n\n\"I must ask you to explain,\" said Mr. Benson.\n\n_Pastor._ As often as we bring a child to the house of God for baptism,\nMr. Benson, we have such a meeting, if Christians will but understand it\nso. We come with the parents, and say, \"Lord God, here is this dear\nchild, with a momentous history pending upon thy favor and blessing. In\nall future time, in the critical moments and eventful steps of its life,\nor in its early death, or in its orphanage, be thou a God to this\nchild.\" If God should to-night, Mrs. Ford, say to you, \"I will be\nJanette's God,\" would you not send her away with a light heart?\n\n\"He should have her for life, dear child!\" said she; \"and I do feel that\nhe is a God to her.\"\n\n\"He is,\" said I, \"if you have really made a covenant with him about your\ndaughter.\"\n\n\"I have, sir,\" said Mrs. Ford.\n\n_Pastor._ Did the covenant have any seal? Some good people, you know,\nthink it enough to covenant with God about their children, without using\nany special act to mark and seal it. Now it is only in consecrating\nchildren to God that they omit the seal from the covenant. We practise\nadult baptism, joining the church, confirmation, and we partake of the\nLord's Supper, feeling the propriety and the use of acts and testimonies\nin the form of an ordinance. What seal had your covenanting with God\nabout your child?\n\n_Mrs. Ford._ I see it now clearer than ever. As we stood with this child\nin our arms, we both said, afterwards, we made a public profession of\nreligion anew; and, when the minister said those sacred names over her,\nI felt more than before that I was having transactions with God about\nthe child. But people used to say to me, \"Why not wait and let Janette\nbe baptized when she is old enough to understand it?\" How little they\nknew about it! Just as though, I told them, if I had money to put into\nthe savings-bank for Janette, I would wait and let her put it in herself\n(it is so pleasant to put it in when you know all about it!), instead of\nlaying it up for her in the funds, and let it count up while she is\ngrowing.\n\n_Pastor._ Those friends who advised you so, think, perhaps, too much of\nthe ceremony itself, and not so much of what it signifies. Now the\npleasure of being baptized is nothing compared with having God enter\ninto a covenant in your behalf when you knew nothing about it.\n\n_Mrs. Ford._ They said to me, also, \"What right have you to do it,\ninstead of letting her have the choice and privilege of doing it herself\nhereafter?\" I told them that, if we acted on that principle, in the\ntreatment of our children, there would be a long list of useful things,\nwhich we do for them, to be postponed.\n\n_Pastor._ We can benefit another without his consent. The question is,\nwhether it is a benefit to a child for God and its natural guardians to\nmake a covenant together in its behalf.\n\n_Mr. Benson._ It surely is so, if God truly is a party to such a\ncovenant. But where is the proof that he is? That is my trouble. They\ntell me that this covenanting with God for a child, and sealing it with\nan ordinance, ceased with Abraham, who was a Jew; that it was a Jewish\ncustom, which died out.\n\n_Pastor._ Abraham a mere Jew! God's covenant with a believer and his\nchildren a Jewish covenant! Never was there a greater mistake. Paul\ntells us expressly it was not so. Get me a Bible, Helen, and bring me a\nlamp. I read these words: \"And the promise that he should be heir of the\nworld was not to Abraham and his seed through the law, but through the\nrighteousness of faith.\" His relation to the world was independent of\ndispensations; it grew out of that faith which he had in common with all\nbelievers to the end of time. \"And he received the sign of circumcision,\na seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being\nuncircumcised, that he might be the father of all them that believe,\nthough they be not circumcised.\" Christ also says: \"Moses, therefore,\ngave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the\nfathers.)\" Abraham was not a Jew when God covenanted with him, any more\nthan you, madam, were Mrs. Ford, when, at the age of sixteen, as you\nhave told me, you entered into covenant with God. That covenant had\nchief respect to your immortal soul, and yet it reached in its\ninfluences to all the conditions of that soul while here in the flesh.\nSo God covenanted with Abraham as a believer, not as a mere national\nancestor; yet temporal and spiritual blessings came in rich measures\nupon his immediate descendants. But we read, \"So then as many as be of\nfaith are blessed with faithful,\" that is, believing, \"Abraham.\" \"And if\nye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the\npromise.\" Can anything be plainer than this?\n\n_Mrs. Ford._ My father was a minister, you know, sir, and he used to\npreach a great deal on this subject.\n\n_Pastor._ Let us hear your understanding of these passages, Mrs. Ford.\n\n\"I am afraid,\" said she, \"I cannot tell you just what he used to say.\nBut my idea of it is this: Though Abraham was the founder of the Hebrew\npeople, he was no more a Jew than a Gentile in his covenant with God,\nfor it was as believer the great believer, that God made a covenant\nwith him. So that he was not circumcised as a Jew, but, as the Bible\nsays, to have a seal of the righteousness which he had by faith. God\nmade a covenant with him as a believer, to be his God and the God of his\nchildren, as the children of a believer, not a Jew; so that all\nbelievers are blessed with believing Abraham, by having the same\ncovenant extended to them. Then, I take it, God gave him a sign and seal\nas a pledge, and to remind him of it, and to keep his children in\nremembrance.\" She paused, and I said:\n\n\"Please to go on.\" You remember, Bertha, how you used to make this Mrs.\nFord discuss doctrinal matters when she was sewing for you.\n\n_Mrs. Ford._ I remember that father said that God took the rainbow as a\nsign and seal of his promise, to Noah and all future generations, that\nthere should never be another universal deluge. So he appointed a\nchildren's ordinance to mark his covenant with believers to the end of\ntime. Only there was this difference; the way of signing and sealing the\ncovenant not being coupled with the laws of nature, but conforming to\nthe kind of symbols successively in use, it was changed, at the time\nthat the Sabbath was changed, and the whole of the old dispensation; but\nfather used to say, Is the commonwealth and citizenship broken up\nbecause the legislature adopts a new state seal? Does that destroy all\nthe old public documents?\n\n_Pastor._ Good! So the United States' mint is from time to time changing\nits dies; lately it has abolished copper, and substituted equivalent\ncoins of different composition. But money does not perish. A cent is a\ncent still, red or white. So, whether the seal be blood or water, the\ngreat ordinance which it seals remains the same.\n\n\"And now I will tell you,\" said I, \"how it seems to me God's covenanting\nwith parents for their children came to pass. He wished to give Abraham\na token and seal of his love to him. So he took his child, the thing\nwhich he loved best, and would see oftenest, and thought of most, and\nmade the child, as it were, the tablet on which to write his covenant\nwith the father. That was one reason. 'Because he loved the fathers,\ntherefore he chose their seed.' But this is the least of the reasons in\nthe case.\n\n\"Here is one of vastly greater importance. God wished to perpetuate\nreligion in the earth. He knew that the family constitution would be\nthe principal means of doing this, parents teaching and commanding their\nchildren, and so transmitting religion. Because he knew that Abraham\nwould do this, he gave it as a reason for his love and confidence in\nhim, in not concealing from him his purpose to destroy Sodom. 'Shall I\nhide from Abraham that thing which I do? For I know him that he will\ncommand his children and his household after him, and they shall keep\nthe ways of the Lord.' So, in order to remind Abraham of what was\nexpected by the Most High in making his children the presumptive heirs\nof grace, and to remind the children of it when they came to years of\nunderstanding, God gave him and them this mark and seal.\"\n\n\"Well, then,\" said Mr. Benson, \"it seems to me Abraham was better off\nthan we, if he had God in covenant with him for his children, and we\nhave not. I sometimes wish that I could have God covenant with me about\nmy boy, as Abraham had about Isaac.\"\n\n\"I should like,\" said Mrs. B., \"to hear him say, 'I will be a God to\nhim,' and then tell us to do something of his own appointment that\nshould be like our signing and sealing a covenant together, as the\nLord's Supper enables us to do with Christ.\"\n\n\"If we have no such blessed privilege,\" said I, \"then, as Abraham\ndesired to see our day, I should, in this respect, rejoice to see\nAbraham's day. I cannot forego the privilege of having God in covenant\nwith me for my children as he was with Abraham for his; and I crave some\ndivine seal affixed to it.\n\n\"You said, Mrs. Benson, that you would like to have God promise to be\nthe God of your child, and then command you to do something which would\nbe like God and you signing and sealing it together. But do you think,\nMrs. B., that this is necessary? Why is it not enough for God to make a\npromise, and you make one, and let it be without any sign or seal?\"\n\n\"People don't do things in that way,\" said Mr. Benson, with a decided\nmotion, two or three times, with his head. \"They call a wedding a\nceremony, it is true, and some say, 'So long as people are engaged to be\nman and wife, the ceremony makes little difference.' But it does make\nall the difference in the world,--this mere ceremony, as they call it.\nThey never like to dispense with it themselves, at least; because, you\nsee, it makes all the difference between unlawful, sinful union, and\nmarriage. It makes married life; which could not exist, without the\nceremony, among decent people. It gives a title and ground to a thing\nwhich could not be without it. So, I begin to see and feel, it is with\nregard to what some call the ceremony of baptism. But excuse me, wife, I\ntook the answer out of your mouth.\"\n\n\"Well,\" said Mrs. Benson to me, \"I must wait upon you, sir, to answer\nthe question further.\"\n\n\"Mr. Benson has the right view of the subject,\" I replied. \"We make too\nlittle of signs and seals, from a morbid fear and jealousy of those\nwhich are invented by man and added to religion. But God's own seals are\nsafe and good. We cannot make too much of them.\n\n\"God never did anything with men, from the beginning, without signs and\nseals. The tree of life was one, and so was the tree of the knowledge of\ngood and evil. Adam and Eve knew better, at first, than to say, 'So long\nas we love and obey God, of what use are these symbols?' By not\nregarding symbols afterward, they brought death into our world and all\nour woe. Even before that, God had appointed a symbol of his authority,\nand a seal of a covenant between him and man forever, in the appointment\nof the Sabbath. The mark on Cain's forehead, the rainbow, the lamp\npassing between the severed parts of Abraham's sacrifice, Jacob's\nladder, the burning bush, the passover, and things too numerous to\nmention, show how God loves signs and seals.\n\n\"There are many good people, at the present day, who say to me, I am\nwilling to consecrate my child to God in prayer, and bring him up for\nGod; but I do not see the necessity of an ordinance. Why bring the child\nto baptism? I can do all which is required and signified, without the\nsign.\"\n\n\"What do you say to them?\" said Mrs. Ford.\n\n_Pastor._ I tell them they are on dangerous ground. Will they be wiser\nthan God? He knows our natures, and what to prescribe to us in our\nintercourse with him. I would as soon meddle with a law of nature, as\nwith God's ordinances. I might as well neglect a law of nature, and\nthink to be safe and well, as to neglect one of God's ordinances, and\nexpect his blessing.\n\nPeople, moreover, may as well object to family prayer, and say that\nthey try to live in a spirit of prayer all day. Why do they have special\nseasons for retirement, if they walk with God? Why do they hardly feel\nthat they have prayed if company, or a bedfellow, on a journey, keeps\nthem from using oral prayer? It is a bitter grief, also, when no funeral\nsolemnities lead the way to the grave with a beloved object; yet, where\nin the word of God are they commanded? As Mr. Benson said, \"Who is\nwilling to dispense with the wedding ceremony, except in cases where\nsadness and trouble seek concealment?\"\n\nPeople cannot give full evidence that they are Christians unless they\nmake a public profession of religion. They cannot properly remember\nJesus without partaking of his body and blood. Depend upon it, my dear\nfriends, God sets great value on ordinances, and our observance of them.\nGod has given us two sacraments, and he who dispenses with them because\nhe undervalues them, or undertakes to say that they are not necessary to\nhim, or to any in this age of the world, is in peril. The only danger\nfrom forms and ordinances is when they are of human origin. We must take\ncare and not let our revulsion from Romanism carry us to the extreme of\nneglecting or setting aside the ordinances of God's appointment. \"There\nare three that bear record on earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the\nblood; and these three agree in one.\" A man may, with equal propriety,\ndispense with the blood, and its symbol the wine, or with the Spirit, as\nwith the water, if God has appointed it with the other two as a witness\nbetween him and us. You notice that the Spirit is named with the two\ninanimate things, the blood and the water. Take care, I say to my\nfriends, lest, in setting aside the water, you shut out that divine\nSpirit, who, knowing how to deal with our nature, chooses the blood and\nthe water to be used by us in connection with our most spiritual\nreligious exercises of the mind and heart. We have no more right to\ninterfere with God's ordinances than with the number of the persons in\nthe Trinity.\n\n\"All this affects me so,\" said Mr. Benson, \"that I shall not fail to\noffer my child to be baptized, if I am allowed to do so. Now, there is\nmy difficulty. Why do you think, and how do you show, that baptism must\nnow be used as God's sign and seal of his covenant with believers for\ntheir children? When circumcision was dropped, some insist that the\ncovenant was dropped with it, and, therefore, that there is no warrant\nin Scripture for baptizing children.\"\n\n\"Why,\" said Mrs. Ford, \"if the coming in of Moses' dispensation did not\nabolish the arrangement with Abraham, why should its going out? I am\ninclined to think that Abraham and his seed are, to Moses and his\ndispensation, something like that vine to the trellis, running over it\nto the top of the piazza, bending itself in, you see, to accommodate\nitself, but having a root and a top, the one below, the other above, the\nshort frame, which only guides it up to the roof. In the eleventh of\nRomans does not Paul say that Jews and Gentiles have one and the same\n'root'? I always supposed that root to be Abraham and his covenant.\"\n\nI did not quote Latin to my friends, but I thought of the old law-maxim,\n_Manente ratione, manet ipsa lex_--which, if your scholarship is not at\nhand to translate it, Percival will tell you, means, \"The reason for a\nlaw remaining, the law itself also remains.\" It is used in such cases as\nthe following: When one would insist that a law was intended to be\nrepealed by the operation of another law, not directly or expressly\naimed to repeal it, it is a good reply. If the original reason for\nenacting the old law can be shown still to exist, it is strong\npresumptive evidence that there was no intention to repeal that law. I\nexplained this, in as simple language as I could, to my excellent\nfriends, and told them, \"If God's covenant, which circumcision sealed,\nwere Mosaic, and therefore national, Jewish, we should presume that it\nceased with the Jewish nation; or, if it continued, that it was\nrestricted to their posterity. But why should God bestow his inestimable\nblessing on the father of the faithful, and take it away from the\nfaithful themselves? We love our children, as Abraham did his. It is as\nimportant to us that God should be the God of our seed, as it was to\nAbraham. My heart yearns after that covenanting God in behalf of my\nchildren.\"\n\n\"I will give up thinking of Abraham as a Jew,\" said Mrs. Benson.\n\n\"What was he, then?\" said I, \"or what will he be to you, from this\ntime?\"\n\n\"He was the head of believers,\" said she, \"just as Adam was the head of\nmen. As Mrs. Ford said, he was the great believer; and I am persuaded\nthat all who are of faith have his privileges, and more too; but\ncertainly all that he had.\"\n\n\"But, my dear,\" said your mother, \"you have forgotten the question.\nSupposing that the covenant still remains, why do you take baptism for\nthe seal of it? The old way of sealing it is given up. What authority do\nyou show for using baptism in its place?\"\n\n\"I take the initiating ordinance of religion for the time being,\" said\nI, \"whatever it may be. Is not baptism the initiating ordinance, as\ncircumcision was? When they built our long bridge, and the ferry-boats\nceased running, did the town put up a great sign over the gate, saying,\n'It is enacted that this river shall continue to be crossed'? Did they\nadd, 'This bridge is hereby appointed as the way of getting over the\nriver'? Or, did not people take it for granted, when the bridge was\nopened and the ferry-boats were withdrawn, that the bridge was designed\nto be the way by which they were to pass over the river?\n\n\"Now, suppose so impossible a thing as this, that hereafter baptism\nshould, by divine revelation, be changed for anointing with oil, and\nnothing were said about children. I would anoint the child with oil,\ninstead of baptizing it with water. We are to use the initiatory rite of\nthe church for the time being.\"\n\n\"But,\" said Mrs. Benson, \"is there any resemblance between circumcision\nand baptism?\"\n\n\"There need be none,\" said I. \"Resemblance does not give it efficacy,\nbut God's appointment of it. If marking the flesh in some way should be\nappointed to succeed baptism, we need not look for a likeness between it\nand baptism before we complied with the divine requirement.\"\n\n\"I do wish,\" said Mrs. Benson, \"that the authority to baptize children\nwere more expressly stated in the Bible, to satisfy all who were not\nbrought up as we have been.\"\n\n_Pastor._ The overwhelming majority of those who now receive the Bible\nas the word of God find it there.\n\n_Mrs. Benson._ But why did not Paul receive a revelation about it, as he\ndid about the Lord's Supper?\n\n_Pastor._ Did that make the thing any more authoritative with us than\nthe original appointment? We will not prescribe to God how to teach us.\nWe will not make up our minds how he ought to have made a revelation,\nbut we will take that revelation and try to understand it.\n\n\"I agree to that,\" said they all.\n\n_Pastor._ It appears to me that God prefers, on certain subjects, that\nthe world shall reason by inferences. It is a wise way of educating\nchildren and youth, to leave some things to be learned in this way, and\nnot by setting everything before them, like too many examples in the\narithmetic wrought out.\n\nWe have changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day in the\nweek. It gives me a sublime idea of our Sabbath, that by some great,\nsilent alteration, it has come to pass that all the world keep the day\nof Christ's resurrection, instead of the day which commemorated the work\nof creation. I feel toward it as I do with regard to the noiseless\nchanges of the seasons, and the conformity of our habits and practices\nto them. I left New York late in winter for the Azores, and, before I\nexpected it, the warm southern airs came one morning into my cabin\nwindow. So the Christian Sabbath, with its beautiful associations,\nflowed in upon the world without a formal proclamation. I feel thankful\nto God for so regarding our intelligent natures, as to leave some\nthings, relating to ordinances, modes, and forms, to be inferred,\nbringing great changes over the moral and spiritual world, and leaving\nus to adjust ourselves and the administration of the appointed\nordinances to them. We can add nothing, we take nothing away from an\nexpress, divine command; but, as the first disciples were left to infer\nthat a Sabbath was as necessary after Christ brought in the new creation\nas before, and adjusted it to the celebration of the Saviour's rising\nfrom the dead, so we infer that God's covenant with believing parents\nfor their children is as desirable now as ever; that all the original\nreasons for it now exist; and, therefore, we take the initiating\nordinance of religion now, as the church in former ages did, and apply\nit to the children. All church-members did it before Christ; all\nchurch-members may do it now. God saw fit to make every adult member, at\nleast, of the Jewish family, a church-member; if he has changed and\nrestricted the terms of church-membership now, that is a sufficient\nreason for not making the sealing of children as universal now as it was\nbefore. That is to say, in both cases, it is a church-member's\nprivilege.\n\nWithout detailing the conversation at this point, let me say, I take it\nfor granted that Abraham, as my great spiritual ancestor, my\nrepresentative before God, my commissioner to receive for me and\ntransmit my privileges and blessings, continues in that relation unless\nexpressly set aside. Christ did not set him aside. How wonderfully he is\nbrought forward under the new dispensation, when it is said to us, \"And\nif ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to\nthe promise.\" But, pray, why should Abraham be intruded in connection\nwith Christ, if he with his covenant is like a lapsed legacy, or a\nsuperseded act of Congress? Why comes he here, in connection with the\nSaviour, and tells me that if I am Christ's, then am I his, Abraham's,\nseed? Hear this: \"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,\nbeing made a curse for us, that the blessing of Abraham might come on\nthe Gentiles through Jesus Christ.\" Wonderful elevation of Abraham and\nhis blessing, as the great type of all that Christ was to procure for\nus! If Abraham and his covenant ceased with the Jewish people, how does\nthe blessing of Abraham fully come upon us, the Gentiles? But give me\nhis covenant for my children; then I see that Christ is executor of the\ntestament made with Abraham for his children; and I am one of the heirs;\nas indeed I am, even if I have no children, but if I have, all of\nAbraham's privileges and his covenanting God are mine and theirs.\n\nSo that, I said to my friends, I go to the Bible not to say, \"Must I\nbaptize my children?\" but, \"Am I forbidden to baptize them?\"\n\nAll my predecessors in the church of God, before Christ, had the\nprivilege of bringing their children into the bonds of the covenant with\nthemselves. If they felt as we do about it (and strict usage, and the\nrich experience which they had had of its benefits, must have made it\ninestimably precious to them), it is incredible that a sudden and total\ndiscontinuance of it, at the beginning of Christianity, should not have\noccasioned great clamor. The formalists, at least, would have\nremonstrated at the seeming violation, by this new order of things, of\nnatural affection. For, as Doddridge well observes, \"What would have\nbeen done with the infants, or male children, of Christians?\"--that is,\nof converted Jews, as well as others. They could not circumcise them;\nbut their teachers, being spiritually-minded men, knew that circumcision\nwas a seal of faith, not merely of nationality, and must not the\nconverts have required some sign and symbol still for their children?\nNow they had long been used to the baptism of proselytes and their\nchildren; so that baptizing their own children, as a substitute for\ncircumcising them, could not have been a violent change with those whom\nPeter's vision of the sheet had taught that the Gentiles should be\nfellow-heirs. And when he, in one of his first sermons, said to the\nwhole house of Israel, \"Ye are the children of the covenant,\" and \"The\npromise is unto you and to your children,\" we can account for their\nutter silence as to any revocation by Christianity of the right and\nprivilege of applying the initiatory ordinance of religion, for the time\nbeing, to a believer's child.\n\n\"But,\" said Mr. Benson, \"the Saviour said, 'He that believeth, and is\nbaptized, shall be saved.' The apostles said, 'Repent and be baptized,\nevery one of you.' Show us, now, why this does not prove that repentance\nand faith were not thus made essential to baptism. According to these\npassages, none could be baptized who had not repented and believed.\nThis would exclude infants. 'Believe, and be baptized;' how do you\ndispose of that, sir?\"\n\n\"Very easily,\" said I.\n\nMrs. Benson exclaimed, \"O, sir, if you can, all my difficulty is at an\nend!\"\n\n\"Well, then,\" said I, \"in the first place, there is no such requirement\nin the Bible. You see the expression very often, but it is not found in\nScripture. But tell me exactly what your difficulty is.\"\n\n\"Why,\" said she, \"my husband has just stated it. People tell us the\nBible says, 'He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.' So\nthey insist that no one should be baptized who is not old enough to\nbelieve.\"\n\nI told her that I could remove her difficulty in very few words.\n\n\"Suppose,\" said I, \"that Abraham is preaching to full-grown men in\nCanaan, and is trying to proselyte them from their idolatry to the\nworship of God. He would say to them, 'Believe and be circumcised,'\nwould he not? for God ordained that certain proselytes should be\ncircumcised.\"\n\n\"Yes, sir,\" said two or three voices at once.\n\n\"Well, then,\" said I, \"must it follow that children could not be\ncircumcised because Abraham said to men, 'Believe and be circumcised'?\nHow will that reasoning answer? Is it true? No. Little Isaac refuted it,\nfor he was circumcised even when his father was saying to his pagan\nneighbors, 'Believe and be circumcised.'\"\n\n\"True enough, all who believed, in Christ's day and the apostles',\nneeded to be baptized, because they were not children, but were grown\nup, when Christian baptism began. Had an apostle, however, lived to see\nthe jailer's family, and that of Lydia, and of Stephanas, grown up, and\nany in those families had remained unconverted, and then he had said to\nthem, 'Believe and be baptized,' there would be some force in saying\nthat believing and baptism must always go together.\"\n\n\"One other thing always troubled me,\" said Mr. Benson, \"and that is,\nthat there was no seal of the covenant for any but male children. Now,\nif the initiatory rite of Christianity be used for the same purpose as\nthat given to Abraham, why not confine it, as formerly, to males?\"\n\n\"How interesting it is,\" said I, \"and it is full of instruction, to see\nGod paying regard to the world's knowledge and progress, in all his\nmeasures, and doing nothing prematurely. There is a very striking\nillustration of this in the account of the fall.\n\n\"God knew the history of the tempter during his agency in Paradise; for\nangels had sinned and fallen from heaven. But the existence and agency\nof fallen spirits had not been disclosed in the Bible,--the time for the\ndisclosure had not come,--and therefore it is said, with beautiful\nsimplicity, 'Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field\nwhich the Lord God had made;' and the narrative has respect only to the\nexternal appearance of the tempter, the serpent, because it would have\nbeen premature as yet to bring in the story of fallen angels, or make\nallusion to them.\n\n\"So, for reasons belonging to the early ages of the world, woman was\nincluded in man, who acted for her.[1]\n\n\"But, however the arrangement began, God regarded that organic law of\nsociety, and, in giving Abraham a seal of a covenant for his children,\nhe restricted it to the sons, they in all things standing and acting as\nthe representatives of the house, according to the existing custom. God\ndid not go far beyond the world's advancement, in his ordinances, but,\nwith condescension and in wisdom, suited the one to the other. But, as\nthings were then generally represented by types, so the male child was a\ntype and representative of the more full and complete form, which was\nreserved till the fulness of time, and till the world should know the\nfulness of Him that filleth all in all. For 'in Christ Jesus there is\nneither Jew nor Greek, male nor female.'\"\n\n[Footnote 1: A curious reason for this, in the minds of some, appears to\nbe that, when man was created, woman was included in him. For, they say,\nin the first chapter of Genesis, and in the account of the sixth day,\nbefore woman was made, the plural word _them_ is used: \"male and female\ncreated he them.\" They say that the blessing was pronounced on the man\nand woman in Adam. For they think it improbable that Moses would\nanticipate his history so much as to bring in woman, and, withal, her\nblessing, too, at the sixth day, when the narrative teaches that she was\nmade some time afterwards. Hence, they say, it was that woman was for\nages treated as included in man. There is something pleasing in this\nfancy, but it seems like one of Origen's allegories, he being the father\nof allegorical interpretation. It had its origin in an ancient\nRabbinical sentiment.]\n\nSo I discoursed with my visitors till between ten and eleven o'clock,\nand when they rose to go, we all stood up together and joined in\nprayer. We commended Janette to her covenant-keeping God, whose name\nhad been inscribed upon her. We remembered the little boy who had been\nthe occasion of all this pleasant conversation, and prayed that his\nconsecration might be accepted, and the sign and seal of it be owned and\nblessed to him and his parents. As I walked down to the gate with my\nfriends, I said to them, that, when God was covenanting with Abraham, he\nbade him look up into the heavens, and count the stars, and told him\nthat his seed, like them, should be innumerable. So I told them\nfrequently to look up to those old heavens, and remember that the\ncovenant-keeping God is there, the same who, in blessing Abraham,\nincluded his seed; and that, because Abraham was so good a man, God\ncalls his posterity \"the seed of Abraham my friend.\" And so we said\ngood-night.\n\nIn reading over what I have written, there are a few things more which I\nfeel disposed to add, because I know that Percival will make good use of\nthem in talking with others in your congregation.\n\nI feel, more than I can express, that the state of mind in parents which\nwill make them prize and use the ordinance of baptism for their children\nis the great want of our day. Bringing children to church, and\nbaptizing them, unless the parents are themselves in covenant with God,\nis as wrong as it was for those earthly-minded Corinthians, whom Paul\nrebukes, to eat the Lord's Supper. They made a feast, or a meal, of the\nsupper; and some use baptism just to give a child a name,--to \"christen\"\nit, as they say,--in mere compliance with a custom. But the abuse of a\nthing is no valid argument against it. The last supper is the subject of\nfar more perversion; it gives occasion to a vast amount of superstition\nand folly. The procession of the host, the elevation of the host, the\nlaying of the wafer on the tongue, the solemn injunctions against\nspitting for a certain time after receiving it, are no valid arguments\nagainst the Lord's Supper, and no Christian is led by them to disregard\nthe words of the Lord Jesus, \"This do in remembrance of me.\" Much of the\npractical benefit of the Supper comes through the feelings which it\nawakens, the conduct which it promotes. So with infant baptism. The\nchild must be truly consecrated to God, beforehand, and afterwards; and\nthe ordinance must be used as a sign and seal on our part, as it is on\nthe part of God,--an act and testimony, a memorial, a vow. Hannah lent\nher child to the Lord from the beginning, and then brought him to the\ntemple, with her offerings. We must take the child from baptism as\nthough God had placed it a second time in our hands, to be trained up\nfor him.\n\nBut, still, the ordinance is God's, and not man's. He has a work to do\nin us by means of it, while it also helps our feelings, fixes them,\nmakes them vivid, and imposes solemn obligations upon us by its\nsignified vow. So it is with the Lord's Supper. In each case it is God's\nmemorial, and not ours; and its benefit does not consist so much in\nshowing forth the state of our hearts at the time of administration, as\nin sealing to us the promises of God.\n\nTrue, our feelings are awakened and strengthened, ordinarily, by the\nordinances; but that neither explains nor limits the meaning of them. We\nare wrong if we suppose that the Lord's Supper has done no good unless\nour feelings are vivid at the time of partaking. If we were sincere, our\nact had the effect to engage and seal blessings from God of which we\nwere not aware, and may never be able to trace them back to that\ntransaction. So with regard to baptism.\n\nSome call this sacerdotalism, and are afraid to allow that the\nsacraments have any influence or use, except as a testimony from us to\nGod. Romanism has driven us to the opposite extreme in our ideas of\nsacraments. We do not vibrate back again too far toward Romanism, if now\nwe conclude that God employs his sacraments, properly received by us, as\nseals from him of love and promises. Many Christians derive less comfort\nand help from the Lord's Supper than they may, because they regard it as\nprofitable only so far as they can offer it to God with vivid feelings\non their part; and, when their frames are not as they desire, they\nconclude that the ordinance is unprofitable. But let us also consider\nwho appointed this ordinance. It is the appointment of Christ, not ours;\nand at his table we are his guests, not he ours. The Saviour is well\nrepresented as saying to us,\n\n   \"Thou canst not entertain a king!\n     Unworthy thou of such a guest;\n   But I my own provision bring,\n     To make thy soul a heavenly feast.\"\n\nThere is a divine side to sacraments, as there is a divine side in\nconversion. While we are active in regeneration, there is a work of God\nwrought in us, distinct from our faith and repentance, yet inseparable\nfrom it. So, while sacraments are vows on our part to God, they are,\nprimarily, gifts, pledges, seals, on his part to us. Therefore, when one\nsays, \"I can bring up my children, I can be a Christian, without the use\nof sacraments,\" it is a proper reply, \"But can God do his part toward\nyour children, and toward you, without them?\" For, not only is prayer\n\"the offering up of our desires to God for things agreeable to his\nwill,\" but there is the additional truth, which is well expressed in\nthose lines of a hymn:\n\n   \"Prayer is appointed to convey\n   The blessings God designs to give.\"\n\nSo with sacraments; they convey gifts from God, not primarily gifts from\nus to God.\n\nHe, then, who declines to have his children baptized, on the ground that\nit is useless, may, in so doing, interrupt the communication of a\ndivinely-appointed medium between God and his child. For he need not be\ntold that the faith of parents brought blessings from the Saviour, when\non earth, to their children, nor be reminded that the benefits of\ncircumcision were bestowed on the ground of the parental relation to\nGod.\n\nOne further illustration occurs to me of the power which resides in the\nsacraments themselves, in distinction from their being a testimony from\nus to God. Let me call to your remembrance notices which you sometimes\nsee, of young people going, in a frolic, before a clergyman or justice\nof the peace, to be married, when they intended nothing but sport, and\nfound, afterward, that they had brought themselves into difficulty, and\nwere legally held to be married.\n\nYou see by this that covenants do not, by any means, derive all their\nefficacy from the feelings of a contracting party. Covenants and their\nseals are the most sacred of all human transactions, and cannot be\nlightly regarded, or trifled with. God reveals himself often under the\nname of the God that keepeth covenant. So that we may not set aside the\nsacraments, nor undervalue them. This leads me to say, furthermore, that\nchildren, who doubt whether their parents sincerely and truly offered\nthem to God in baptism, the parents being in an unregenerate state, as\nit afterward appeared, when they came with their children to the\nordinance, may be greatly comforted and encouraged by taking this view\nof the divine sacrament of baptism as having a force and application in\ntheir behalf, by the goodness of God, irrespective of their parents'\ncharacter. God will not let his sacraments depend, for their efficacy,\non the character either of the administrator or of the parents. For, if\nthe character of an administrator affected the baptism, it might so\nhappen that one could never really be baptized, since every successive\nhand which applied it might prove, in turn, to be that of an unworthy\nperson. If a child is baptized on the profession of parents who\nafterward show that they were not sincere, the child shall not suffer\nthereby, if he recognizes the transaction, and makes it his own act. In\nthe case of a converted husband or wife, while one companion remained a\nheathen, the children were, nevertheless, counted \"holy,\" because the\nGospel leaned to the side of mercy, and gave the children the benefit of\nthe believing parent's faith, instead of attainting them through the\nheathen parent. So, when a child is baptized in error, he shall not\nsuffer, nor even lose anything, if he will accept the covenant with its\nseal. No one can justly reply to all this, that, therefore, every one\neven though not of the church, may offer his child for baptism. No; for\nthese are exceptional cases, in which it is true that a covenant, even\nif it be not fulfilled, has force, and things may enure under it which\none who does not make the required profession cannot receive. The\ncovenant, if but the outward conditions be complied with, places all,\nwho are in any way related to it, under various contingencies, which\nsometimes, to some of the parties, may be productive of good. We see\nillustrations of this in the great tenderness and love which we feel\ntoward a child whose parent has brought a stain upon himself and his\nfamily. We find an echo, in our hearts, of those kind words of the Most\nHigh, \"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father;\" and, if that\nson behaves himself worthily, every good man is doubly careful to\nprotect and help him. In this way the broken, or unfulfilled, covenant\noperates, with God and with man, to the good of some related to it. But\nshall we, therefore, break our covenant? Shall the unworthy be\npromiscuously admitted to its privileges? \"Shall we continue in sin that\ngrace may abound?\"\n\nIn speaking of the influence of sacraments, I am aware that we approach\nenchanted ground. The human heart loves a religion of forms and\nceremonies, which professes to renew and save without self-denial,\nbreathing around us the quietism of ordinances, and lulling us to drowsy\nforgetfulness of duty in the luxurious enjoyment of an irresponsible\nreligion. While, therefore, we cannot too carefully guard against the\nabuse of ordinances, we must not forget that God, who made man, body and\nsoul, chooses to convey some of his gracious operations to us by the\nhelp of the two simple sacraments, and that they are intended to act\nupon us, in the hands of his Spirit, in the first instance; not merely\nserving as offerings to God.\n\nIt is not that there are fewer children baptized now than formerly (if\nsuch indeed be the case), that awakens sorrow and apprehension; but that\nparents are deficient in the feelings which make us prize and use\nbaptism. This is the evil sign, and it is greatly to be deplored. One\nmust have intelligent views of the Scriptures as a whole,--of both\nTestaments,--most fully to understand and value infant baptism; for its\nroots were planted in the Old Testament. I always feel deep respect for\na church-member who comprehends this subject in its wide relations, and\nis not swayed by the popular demand for an express sign at every step,\nbut can reason inferentially as well as when proofs are demonstrative\nand palpable; and who has in his mind the whole system of redemption,\nwith its various economies, interdependent, and none made perfect\nwithout the rest. When all our church-members come to understand and\nfeel the power of this subject in this manner, what times of enlightened\nreligious prosperity, and a high state of religious culture, it will\nindicate. I pray and wait for the time when all our Paedobaptist\nchurches, of every name, will conspire to promote spiritual views of\nchildren's baptism, holding it forth as the expression of spiritual\nfeelings, and discountenancing formalism in connection with it. Though I\nwas never an Episcopalian in my preferences, and though the appointment\nof godfathers and godmothers may, like every good thing, relapse into\nmere form, I honor it for its excellent and pious design of surrounding\nthe parents and the children with admonition and help. For there are\nsponsors, I am happy to know, who are not mere formalists, but who make\nit a rule to have an interview with their godchildren on or near their\nbirthdays, or the anniversaries of their baptisms, and, in an\naffectionate, faithful manner, they endeavor to fulfil the vows which\nthey took upon themselves at the baptism. Blessings on such faithful\nChristian friends! Happy the children who have them for helpers of their\nfaith and piety. Let us all, as church-members, be sponsors, at least by\nprayers and a kind interest for it, to every child of a Christian\nbrother or sister, when we witness its baptism. Suppose a church-member,\nafter witnessing the baptism of an infant, its parents, perhaps, entire\nstrangers, goes to his place of private prayer, and, moved with\ndisinterested love toward those parents and the child, supplicates the\nblessing of God upon them. Could Christian love be more pure than this,\nor prayer more pleasing to God? In the revelations of eternity such\nprayers will not only be rewarded openly by Him who saw those doors shut\nwith that secret love and piety, but blessings upon parents and child\nwithout measure may be traced to such petitions as their procuring\ncause. How good it is to perform such acts, knowing that they can never\ncome abroad in this world! Should every Christian who witnesses the\nbaptism of a child, afterward pray for that immortal soul in secret,\nwith special petitions, what an increased privilege and blessing it\nwould be esteemed to offer a child in baptism, and in God's house,\nbefore a witnessing church, rather than at home! I hope, my dear\ndaughter, that you and Percival, as private Christians, will do good to\nyour own souls, and to the souls of baptized children, and to their\nparents, by making it one of your private rules to pray in secret, on\nthe Sabbath, for every child whose baptism you witness.\n\nThe effort to promote and enforce infant baptism, by ecclesiastical\nenactments merely, is absurd. We must fertilize the soil, not spread\nglass sashes over the plants. Give Christians right views and feelings\nabout their covenant privileges and duties; disabuse them of their\nmistakes about the severance of the Old Testament from the New; teach\nthem to look at Abraham, not as a decayed peer, or an old Jew, but as\nthe founder of the church of all ages, to whom Almighty God virtually\nsaid, 'On this rock I will build my church,'--Abraham being the first\nfoundation stone, waiting for apostles to be added with him, and, as our\ngreat representative, bearing in his hand the covenant made with him for\nus, as well, as for the other great branch of the family of God; show\nthem that baptism is now the initiating ordinance, and that the old\ncovenant was never repealed, though the seal be changed; let them see\nwhat it is to have God in covenant with them to be the God of their\nseed; and, withal, let us correct, or modify, the intense anti-papal\njealousy of the Christian rites, which makes us all, unconsciously,\nverge to the opposite extreme, thus missing the divinely-appointed\nintention and use which there is in our two simple ordinances; and then,\nwith the revival of such spiritual views and feelings, and, as a\nconsequence, with greater reference in the prayers of Christians, public\nand private, to the subject, the practice of children's baptism will\nincrease, as surely as accessions to the Lord's table increase when\npeople come to have Christ in them the hope of glory.\n\nWe, ministers, can do very much to promote a love for the ordinance in\nmany ways. We ought to make it convenient and pleasant by all the\nexpedients within our power. I like the practice which you speak of, in\nyour church, of the mother remaining with the child in the anteroom till\nthe introductory services and the loud organ-playing are over. Does\nyour pastor pour water into the child's face and eyes, and then begin\nthe words of baptism? I presume not; but I have seen it done. We should\nnot touch the child's head till near the close of the baptismal formula;\nand then so that the child will not see the arm move toward it.\n\nMuch can be done by these simple expedients to promote a quiet and\npleasant attendance upon the delightful rite. I like the practice, in\nyour church, of chanting low some appropriate words of Scripture before\nand after the baptism.\n\nI am constrained to say, though with diffidence, that I fear some of my\ngood brethren give erroneous impressions by what they say of the\nchurch-membership of children. They push it to extremes. They discuss\nthe question, What shall be done with baptized children, who, on\narriving at years of understanding, refuse to enter into covenant with\nGod? Church censures are asserted by some to be proper in such cases,\neven to excommunication, or interference in some judicial way by the\nchurch. So long as I believe in regeneration by the Holy Spirit, I\ncannot feel that baptized children, as such, are, in any sense\nwhatever, in which the term is generally received among men, _members_\nof the church of Christ; while, in another and most important sense,\nthey do belong to the church, hold a relation to it, and are a part of\nit. Strictly speaking, and in the highest spiritual sense, they are not\neven \"the lambs of Christ's flock;\" for lambs have the nature of sheep;\nbut the children of believers are, by nature, children of wrath, even as\nothers. And yet, in another sense, they hold a most important relation\nto the flock of Christ, as no other children do. In its most important\nsense, they are not to the church even what they are to the state; they\nhave no place whatever in the invisible church,--the church which is\nsaved,--till they are born again. If children are regenerated by the act\nof baptism, of course it is otherwise; but, not believing this, I am\nclear that the baptized child of a believer differs from any other\nunregenerate child, who is not baptized, only in this: that God looks\nupon it with peculiar interest and love, and that it is surrounded with\nspecial and peculiar privileges, opportunities, promises, and hopes,\nwith regard to its being brought to repentance and saving faith in\nChrist; and by baptism it is initiated into special relationship to the\npeople of God. The church also has special duties with regard to it.\nSome of my brethren give great occasion to those who resist children's\nbaptism, to argue against it as Romish in its nature and effect, by not\ndiscriminating clearly in using the words members and membership in\nconnection with children. Read almost any modern book against infant\nbaptism, and you will find that its main force is directed against the\npractice as a \"church and state\" institution, and as making persons\nmembers of the church by means of sacraments. Let us who are really free\nfrom such imputation, assert the truly spiritual nature and object of\nthis ordinance. I wish to see it divested of all that does not belong to\nit, made eminently spiritual, expressed in terms which cannot easily be\nmisunderstood, and appealing to the natural affections, the\nunderstandings, the consciences, of spiritual men and women, as, in its\nsober and legitimate use, God's great appointment, from the call of\nAbraham to the millennium, for the increase and perpetuity of his\nchurch.[2]\n\n[Footnote 2: This subject is discussed by itself, and more at large, in\nanother part of this book.]\n\nYou are aware that the great question, which has made most of the\ntrouble in the Christian church from the beginning, relates to the\nmeaning and use of sacraments and ordinances, or what we call Symbolism.\nThe tendency of the human mind, even in Paul's day, as indicated by him,\nwith other things belonging to it, under the name of \"the mystery of\niniquity, which doth even now work,\" was, to increase the number of\nsacraments and ordinances, and make them bear an essential part in the\nwork of regeneration. The right to multiply or extend them, and the\nclaim that they possess a saving efficacy, characterizes one great\ndivision of the professed Christian church, while those who are called\nProtestants and the Reformed, regard them chiefly as signs; though of\nthese, some seem to have much of that appetency after undue reliance on\nforms which Paul seeks to correct in the Epistle to the Galatians, while\nothers go to an opposite extreme, and undervalue the two\ndivinely-appointed sacraments, which they think have no efficiency as\nused by the Spirit of God, but only as signs used by us to represent\nsomething.\n\nBetween these divisions of the Christian church lies the battle-ground\nof great ecclesiastical controversies from the beginning, as the\nNetherlands were, for a long time, the battle-field of Europe.\nArchbishop Leighton seems to strike the balance between formalism and\nsacramental grace in ordinances, as well as any writer, in commenting on\nthese words of Peter, \"The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth\nalso now save us.\" He says:\n\n\"Thus, then, we have a true account of the power of this, and so of\nother, sacraments, and a discovery of the error of two extremes. (1.) Of\nthose who ascribe too much to them, as if they wrought by a natural,\ninherent virtue, and carried grace in them inseparably. (2.) Of those\nwho ascribe too little to them, making them only signs and badges of our\nprofession. Signs they are, but more than signs merely representing;\nthey are means exhibiting, and seals confirming, grace to the faithful.\nBut the working of faith and the conveying Christ into the soul, to be\nreceived by faith, is not a thing put into them to do of themselves, but\nstill in the supreme hand that appointed them; and he indeed both causes\nthe souls of his own to receive these his seals with faith, and makes\nthem effectual to confirm that faith which receives them so. They are\nthen, in a word, neither empty signs to them who believe, nor effectual\ncauses of grace to them that believe not.\"\n\nLet me make the distinction very clear to your mind, for it is of great\npractical importance. The \"mystery of iniquity\" in Paul's time, and\nsince his day, did not, and does not, consist in making too much of\nGod's ordinances in their purity and proper use. That cannot be done,\nany more than you can intelligently love the Bible too much, or the\nSabbath. But, to pervert them, or to make additions to them, or to rely\nupon them wholly, is Romanism. But can men make too much of having a\nseal on a deed? Is the deed good for anything without the seal? Can they\nmake too much of having three witnesses to their wills? Those three\nwitnesses, instead of two, make an otherwise worthless writing, a man's\nlast will and testament. Thus, a true sign, ordinance, or seal, among\nmen, has inherent efficacy of some sort. Shall we deny it to the\nordinances and seals of Heaven? He who lays claim to the covenant, but\nrejects the seal, deceives himself. They must go together.\n\nBut will you not think me older even than I claim to be, because I am so\ngarrulous? I have many things to say, but will not say them with pen and\nink, hoping to see you shortly. Farewell, my dear daughter, to you and\nyour beloved husband, with abundant kisses for your little namesake,\nwho, I pray, may be spared to you, if God has any work for her to do on\nearth. Dedicate her sincerely and entirely, beforehand, to God, and then\nin his house, with baptism, before the assembled brethren in Christ; and\nlet your subsequent treatment of her be a repetition of the whole.\nBaptizing a child, with right views and feelings, leads to much prayer\nfor it. Renew the consecration of your child daily, in little, sudden\nacts of prayer, as well as in more deliberate offices of devotion. Thus\nsurround it with an atmosphere of faith and consecration, not forgetting\nthe public transaction in which you covenanted with God, before many\nwitnesses, for the child, and He, my dear daughter, with you, in its\nbehalf. For, a covenant implies two parties; and God is one, and you are\nthe other; and Jesus is the mediator, who said of children, \"Of such is\nthe kingdom of God.\" \"He that came down from heaven,\" had seen, in\nheaven, how largely that world is peopled with them. \"Of such is the\nkingdom of heaven.\" Peace be with you. All send love.\n\n   Your affectionate Father.\n\n\n\n\nChapter Third.\n\nBERTHA'S BAPTISM.--CHANTING AT BAPTISMS.--PUBLIC AND PRIVATE\nBAPTISMS.--WEEK-DAY BAPTISMS.--A DAUGHTER'S LOVE.--BAPTISM OF A\nDEAF-MUTE INFANT.--FIDELITY OF A BAPTIZED CHILD.--SUBJECTS OF\nBAPTISM.--THE MODE.--IMPROBABILITY OF IMMERSION, IN THE NEW\nTESTAMENT.--ON BEING BURIED IN BAPTISM.--NEW VERSION OF THE\nSCRIPTURES.--OUR DIVISION INTO SECTS.--A MOTHER'S PLEA FOR INFANT\nBAPTISM.\n\n   Where is it mothers learn their love?\n     In every church a fountain springs,\n   O'er which th' eternal Dove\n     Hovers on softest wings.\n\n   O, happy arms, where cradled lies,\n     And ready for the Lord's embrace,\n   That precious sacrifice,\n     The darling of his grace!\n\n           KEBLE.\n\n\nWe took Bertha to church when she was two months old. The minister,\nbeing fond of music, had, for some time, requested the choir to chant\nselect passages of Scripture at baptisms.\n\nSo, as we came up the aisle with the child, the choir breathed out those\nwords, \"And I will establish my covenant between thee and me, and thy\nseed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant; to\nbe a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.\" \"Suffer the little\nchildren to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of such is the\nkingdom of God.\" \"And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon\nthem, and blessed them.\" And, as we turned away from the font, they\nadded, \"So shall he sprinkle many nations.\" \"The Lord shall increase you\nmore and more, you and your children.\" \"But the mercy of the Lord is\nfrom everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his\nrighteousness unto children's children; to such as keep his covenant,\nand to those that remember his commandments, to do them.\"\n\nHow I loved that choir, and the congregation! for, many a face did I see\nbathed in tears, and others beaming with smiles and love, as, with\nrespectful, half-turned looks, they seemed to give us their blessing.\n\n\"Do you not think, more than ever,\" I said, to the beloved grandmother\nof my child, after church, as we watched the little sleeper in her\ncradle, \"that people lose very much in having their children baptized at\nhome?\"\n\n\"It makes a different thing of it,\" she replied. \"I felt that all the\ncongregation loved Bertha and you. How many prayers you obtained for her\nand for yourselves, which you would have missed by a private baptism!\"\n\n\"Besides,\" I remarked, \"'God loveth the gates of Zion more than all the\ndwellings of Jacob.' I think that for that reason, and on the same\nprinciple, namely, that he is more honored, he regards our public\ndedication of children with more favor than a private baptism, except,\nof course, where sickness makes the public service impossible. But it is\nsome trouble to mothers, and no doubt many shrink from it.\"\n\n\"The trouble is more in anticipation than reality,\" she replied. \"That\npastor's room, where they stay till the introductory services are over,\nmakes it more convenient and agreeable. But all the trouble, even if it\nwere far greater, is nothing compared with the satisfaction of having\ntaken your offering and come into His courts. You have paid your vows\nunto the Lord, in the presence of all his people. You will remember\nthose prayers, those words of Scripture which were chanted, and your\nfeelings as you took the child into your arms to be presented to God,\nand as you heard those adorable names pronounced upon her and then\nreceived her back into your arms, as it were, from the hands of God.\"\n\n\"What do you think,\" said I, \"of the practice of having children\nbaptized in the church on a week-day? It enables the parents to attend\nmeeting on the Sabbath with more composure than when they bring their\nchildren on the Sabbath.\"\n\n\"But O,\" said she, \"what is that, compared with the privilege of\nbringing the child before the whole church of God, in his house, on the\nLord's day, and so identifying its baptism with the most solemn acts of\npublic worship? I do not like those week-day baptisms. Where they have\nthe communion lecture in the afternoon of a week-day, there may be\nreasons of convenience for bringing the children for baptism then,\nrather than on the Sabbath; but there is a great loss of enjoyment, and\nalso of impressiveness, in the ordinance, in doing so, I think. I was at\na place, several years ago, when fourteen children were baptized on a\nWednesday afternoon, in the church. I went to see it, but it was not\nsolemn at all. I could not help thinking what an impressive and useful\nsight that would have been on the Sabbath, before all the people, and\nhow much more good, probably, it would have done the parents, even if\nthey had given up half the Sabbath in going and returning with the\nchildren.\"\n\n\"If people,\" said I, \"thought more of the spiritual meaning and\nprivileges of baptism, and viewed it as they do in times of sickness and\ndeath, they would think less of inconveniences and discomforts, and see\nthat the ordinance is something more than giving a child a name.\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nSome time after this, I called upon a cousin of ours, a young married\nlady of our congregation, who, within a year, had come to us from\nanother place, she having been married to an educated, intelligent\nmember of another congregation, and who, from his great love for her,\nhad come with her to our place of worship from another denomination,\nthis having been made a condition of their marriage. For she felt that\nshe could not be debarred the privilege of sitting at the Lord's table\nwith her mother, three sisters, and brother, as she would be if she\nunited herself with her friend's church. The idea of going to any table\nof Christ on earth where they could not come, thus seeming to\ndisfranchise her whole family whom Christ had gathered into his fold,\nand some of them into heaven, did violence to her feelings. At one time,\nit seemed likely that the engagement of marriage would be terminated, on\nthis ground alone. Some one of the gentleman's persuasion, who thought\nthat she \"ought to follow Christ in ordinances,\" and \"take up her cross\"\nin this instance, whispered to her that she was, perhaps, in danger of\ndenying Christ, from love to her kindred, and he said to her, \"He that\nloveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me.\" This had the\nopposite effect from that which was intended, for it showed her, in the\nstrongest light, the error of supposing that love to Christ could ever\nrequire her to separate from herself, at the table of Christ, such\nfriends of Jesus as the members of her dear Christian home,--a home\nwhich had been like that of Bethany to many of the Saviour's friends.\nShe felt more sure of being actuated by right motives in giving up her\nmarriage, and not withdrawing fellowship from her mother and the family,\nthan she would be in sacrificing that fellowship to gratify a new\naffection. Her next younger sister was baptized after the father's\ndeath. She was a deaf-mute. The mother was a very beautiful woman. She\nhad borne severe trials for her religion with a spirit of patience and\nChristian propriety which won the love and esteem of the community. She\nwent to the altar of God, a widow, with the little deaf and dumb child,\nand presented it for baptism. It was as though the impending calamity of\nits father's death had shut up some of the senses of the child, and God\nhad placed it in the mother's hand as a silent memorial to her, for\nlife, of his chastising love. She left her fatherless flock in the\nfamily pew, and went with her nursling, not merely to give it to God,\nbut to receive for it the seal of his covenant, bowing submissively to\nhis inscrutable appointment, and imploring the God of Abraham to be\nstill her God, and the God of this her seed. That scene had not failed\nto make deep impressions upon the other children; and now it was\nproposed to one of them that she should, by connecting herself in\nmarriage, disavow her mother's right to cling, in those hours of\nanguish, to that asylum of the fatherless, infant baptism,--that very\npresent help in trouble, the covenant of God with believers and their\noffspring. The little child, moreover, had become a Christian, and had\nsat with her sister, side by side, at the communion-table, for several\nyears. \"Forbid it,\" she prayed with herself, \"that I should go where I\ncannot be allowed to follow Christ till I have separated this dear one\nfrom my side.\"\n\nShe once wrote a letter on the subject to the gentleman, which he\nshowed, after their marriage, to some of his friends. There will be no\nimpropriety in its appearing here. It ran thus:\n\n     \"MY DEAR MR. E.: Though I am not willing to deny that Roger\n     Williams was, as you say, raised up to illustrate some important\n     principles, and to help on the general cause of truth, I must say\n     that he strikes me as a very unreasonable man in much of his\n     behavior. Our puritan fathers did not come to this wilderness with\n     French, atheistic, idolatrous love for a goddess of liberty. They\n     came here, it is true, for liberty of conscience and freedom to\n     worship God. With a great sum they purchased this freedom. But\n     infidels could as well claim to be absolved by the laws from all\n     recognition of God, under the plea of liberty, as Mr. Williams and\n     his friends could make his demands for toleration. To insist that\n     our fathers, in their circumstances, should have opened their doors\n     wide to every doctrine, and to the denial of everything professed\n     by them, is unreasonable. They came here with an intense love for\n     certain truths and practices, which persecution had only served to\n     make exceedingly precious to them. To have proclaimed at once\n     universal toleration of every wind of doctrine, would have proved\n     them libertines in religion. Because they did not so, reproach is\n     cast upon them by some, who seem to me to be free-thinkers on the\n     subject of religious liberty. If other men wished to found a\n     community with doctrines and practices adverse to those of the New\n     England fathers, the land was wide, and it would have been the part\n     of good manners in Mr. Williams to have gone into the wilderness at\n     once, to subdue it and to fight the savages, all for love and zeal\n     for his own tenets, instead of poaching upon the hard-earned soil\n     of those who had laid down their all for what they deemed to be the\n     truth. It seems to me unphilosophical in some of our historians to\n     reflect, as they do, upon our forefathers for not being so totally\n     indifferent to what they deemed error, as to allow it free course.\n     Their strict, and, if you please, rigid ways, were the necessary\n     defences of their principles, which were just taking root here.\n     They did right in passing stringent laws to protect them; and\n     religious liberty was no more violated in doing so than is the\n     liberty of our town's people here, who, by the law of the State\n     protecting game, cannot take fish, or kill birds, during certain\n     seasons.\n\n     \"Besides, I never saw any proof that Mr. Williams was himself the\n     great apostle of toleration. I remember reading to father, during\n     his sickness, some remarks of the late John Quincy Adams, in which\n     he vindicates the New England fathers for banishing Roger Williams\n     as a 'nuisance.'[3] Mr. Adams surely cannot be accused of bigotry,\n     nor of being an enemy to the cause of freedom; and his remarks\n     seemed to me more just than the eulogies, by historians and\n     orators, of Mr. Williams. Father once showed me an old book of Mr.\n     Williams's, which we have now, called 'George Fox digg'd out of his\n     Burrowes,' in which Mr. W. inveighs against the Quakers for their\n     want of 'civil respect,' and for using 'thee' and 'thou,' in\n     addressing magistrates and others. He says, on the two hundredth\n     page, 'I have therefore publickly declared myself, that a due and\n     moderate restraint and punishing of these incivilities (though\n     pretending conscience) is as far from persecution, properly so\n     called, as that it is a duty and command of God unto all mankinde,\n     first in families, and thence unto all mankinde societies.'--It is\n     also a matter of history that the colony settled by Mr. Williams\n     refused their franchise to Roman Catholics, though even then the\n     Roman Catholics of Maryland were tolerating people of his own\n     faith, and Quakers also. Mr. Williams always seemed to me like one\n     of our pious, zealous 'come-outers.' He even forsook his own\n     denomination in three months after he had been baptized, and for\n     forty years denied the validity of their sacraments, and the\n     scripturalness of their churches and ministry. Such a man would\n     even at this day be excommunicated by every society, unless it\n     were some association for the encouragement of radical notions of\n     liberty. I no more see in him the impersonation of religious\n     freedom, than in some other good people who go or stay where they\n     are not wanted. I am not disposed to deny that you and your\n     friends, with their principles, of which you, erroneously, I think,\n     claim Mr. Williams as the great exponent, 'have a mission,' as you\n     say, to perform; but I do not feel called upon to join in it. Some\n     of your writers seem to me--shall I say it?--a little too sure of\n     having just the right pattern and patent-right in ordinances, and\n     somewhat too complacent in not being liked by other denominations,\n     and perhaps a little disposed to look for persecution. Now I was\n     pleased with a remark of Matthew Henry's, on Mark 10:28, that 'It\n     is not the suffering, but the cause, that makes the martyr.' But we\n     were brought up under different associations, and cannot see just\n     alike in all things. I cannot, however, contradict, by any step\n     which my feelings would incline me to take, the Christian\n     citizenship of those who are dear to Christ, and are so precious to\n     me. As much as I love you, I think you should feel perfectly free\n     to leave me in my happy home, if you cannot allow me to retain my\n     fidelity to my own conscientious convictions of truth, and to the\n     sacred rights of those whom nature and grace have conspired to make\n     inseparable from my own Christian hopes and joys.\"\n\n[Footnote 3: \"Can we blame the founders of the Massachusetts Colony for\nbanishing him from their jurisdiction? In the annals of religious\npersecution is there to be found a martyr more gently dealt with by\nthose against whom he began the war of intolerance; whose authority he\npersisted, even after professions of penitence and submission, in\ndefying, till deserted even by the wife of his bosom; and whose utmost\nseverity of punishment upon him was only an order for his removal as a\nnuisance from among them?\"--_Discourse before Mass. Hist. Soc._, 1843,\npp. 25-30.--[ED.]]\n\nThe gentleman agreed to allow her the largest liberty, and they were\nmarried. He knew that she had a mind and heart that were more precious\nthan rubies, and that the heart of a husband could safely trust in her.\nThe sequel will show, however, how good it is to be matched as well as\nmated, and, in the conjugal relation, to be \"perfectly joined together\nin the same judgment.\"\n\nThe object of my call, that evening, was to rejoice with her, and to be\nthe bearer of some congratulations at the recovery of their infant,\nwhose death had been expected for some time. The child was now perfectly\nrestored.\n\nAs I stood in the entry, not having rung the door-bell, and was hanging\nup my hat and coat, some one in the parlor said:\n\n\"What good can it do the child or us to sprinkle a little water on its\nhead?\"\n\n\"Good-evening, Mr. M.,\" said the husband, as I went in. I was\ninterrupted in my expression of a fear that I had intruded upon their\nconversation, by their assurances to the contrary. \"I am glad you came\nin,\" said Mr. Kelly, \"for perhaps you can help us. You heard, I suppose,\nwhat I was saying as you came in. If I am not mistaken, Mr. M., you\nyourself are not very strenuous about infant baptism, for I have heard\nof your making inquiries on the subject.\"\n\n\"Not only have all my doubts been removed,\" said I, \"but the baptism of\nmy child has been the source of the richest instruction and comfort.\"\n\n\"I am glad to hear you say so,\" said Mrs. K.\n\n\"But,\" said Mr. K., \"you do not, of course, derive your warrant for it\nfrom the word of God. That is our only guide, you know. There is no more\nauthority in the Bible for baptizing children than there is for praying\nto saints. You are probably aware that the practice originated in the\nthird century of the Christian era.\"\n\n_Mr. M._ It originated with a man by the name of Abraham, I believe,\nsir, two or three thousand years before Christ.\n\n_Mr. K._ O, then, you go to Judaism for it!\n\n_Mr. M._ Judaism comes to me with it, and hands it over to me. There was\nsomething good in Judaism, we all think. Judaism was not a Mormonism, as\ncertain ways of speaking of it not unfrequently would make us think it\nto have been; it was not an exploded folly, but the form which the\nchurch of God bore for two thousand years. But it began before Judaism;\nit is older than Moses. Judaism received it from Abraham. It is like a\ngreat river rising in a desert place, and seeming to lose itself in a\nlake, but flowing out again into another lake, and thence to the sea. So\nJudaism was only a great lake, which took and seemingly held this river\nof baptism for a time, but its current went on and flowed into another\nlake, the Christian dispensation. But you cannot say that a river which\nmakes a chain of lakes, rises, for that reason, in the first lake. No,\nits head spring, in this case, was antecedent to the lake.\n\n_Mr. K._ Did Abraham or the Jews baptize children, Mr. M.?\n\nI answered, \"Every male child of Abraham's descendants, who should not\nreceive the sign of consecration to God, was to be cut off from among\nthe people. Proselytes of the covenant and their children were baptized,\nvery early.\"\n\n_Mr. K._ But where is the command to apply baptism to children?\n\n_Mr. M._ Where, my dear sir, is the command to discontinue that which\nwas enjoined upon the founder of the race of believers for all time? I\nbelieve in the perpetuity of Abraham's relation to us as the father of\nthe faithful, as I believe in Adam's relation to us as the\nrepresentative of the race, and in the Saviour's relation to us as our\nrepresentative. God seems to love these federal headships, as we call\nthem. Abraham did not receive circumcision being a Jew, but, as the\napostle says, \"as a seal of the righteousness which is by faith, which\nhe had while he was yet uncircumcised.\" We have Scripture for that, Mr.\nKelly. And \"the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after,\" did\nnot disannul that covenant \"that was confirmed before of God in Christ.\"\nHow can you call circumcision a Jewish ordinance, when the Bible so\nexplicitly denies it to be of Jewish origin?\n\n_Mr. K._ O, I do not understand this Abrahamic covenant. I take the New\nTestament for my guide.\n\n_Mr. M._ You think well of the book of Psalms, I presume, as a help to\nprayer and pious feelings?\n\n_Mr. K._ Yes; but in all matters of faith and practice, the New\nTestament, like the doings of the latest session of the legislature, is\nthe rule for New Testament believers. You might as well have tried to\ngovern the ancient Jews with the New Testament, as enforce the laws of\nthe Old Testament on us.\n\n_Mr. M._ Is the privilege of having God stand in a special relation to\nmy child an Old Testament ordinance, in the same sense with ceremonial\nobservances?\n\n_Mr. K._ Not exactly that, but it is a superstition to baptize children,\nnow that circumcision is done away, and believers' baptism is enjoined.\n\n_Mr. M._ Believers' baptism is enjoined, but children's baptism is not\ntherefore prohibited.\n\n_Mr. K._ But where is it enacted?\n\n_Mr. M._ If the original form of dedicating children is essential, why\nis not the original form of the Sabbath essential, the very day which\nwas first appointed? How dare we change a day which God himself ordained\nfrom the beginning, until he makes the change as peremptory as the\ninstitution itself? Have we any right to infer, in such an important\nmatter? Where is the express, divine command,--not precedent, example,\nusage, but where is the enactment,--making the first day of the week the\nChristian Sabbath?\n\n_Mr. K._ So long as we may keep the thing, observing one day in seven,\nit makes no difference which day we keep, if we can all agree on one and\nthe same day. We do not all agree to retain circumcision in any way.\n\n_Mr. M._ So long as we may retain the thing signified by circumcision,\nit makes but little difference what form is used to express it.\n\n_Mr. K._ The apostles, who changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the\nfirst day, knew the mind of Christ.\n\n_Mr. M._ And so the men, who first practised infant baptism, knew the\nminds of the inspired apostles, and they knew the mind of Christ. But to\ngo a step further back, the only ground for inferring that the Sabbath\nis rightly changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, is the\nincidental mention of Christ's meeting his assembled disciples a few\ntimes after his resurrection on the first day. On that slight ground we\nare all content to rest our present observance of the Sabbath. Now, I\nsay that the mention of the baptism of households eight times, in one\nform and another, is as good a warrant for infant baptism, as those two\nor three Sabbath-evening meetings were for the institution of the\nLord's-day Sabbath.\n\n_Mr. K._ I cannot agree with you, Mr. M., in putting circumcision on the\nsame level with the Sabbath.\n\n_Mr. M._ I myself see a resemblance in the changes made in the two\ncases. I have no wish to proselyte you to my views. I have only answered\nyour polite inquiries.\n\n_Mr. K._ O, I know that; we shall be good friends still; but I see no\ngrounds for baptizing children on the faith of their parents.\n\n_Mr. M._ We look at the thing from different points of view. I see it as\nclearly as I see that the church of God is essentially the same in all\nages, with its variety of forms. This matter of children's baptism is\nwith me a spiritual thing, and is independent of dispensations. You know\nthat a river may have, in one district of the earth through which it\nflows, one name, and in another district another name, while it is the\nsame river. Now, the divine recognition of believers' children, as\nstanding in a special covenanted relation with God, is the headspring of\ninfant dedication by the use of a rite. The object of this recognition\nis, that He may have a godly seed. God does not perpetuate religion\ndirectly by natural descent, it is true, but he seeks to promote it by\ndescent from a pious parentage, and he therefore endows that parentage\nwith special privileges and promises. The inclusion of children with\ntheir believing parents has been the great means of perpetuating\nreligion in the earth. It is a stream which washed the shores of Judaism\nunder the name of circumcision; now it washes the shores of the Gentiles\nunder the name of baptism. For the Saviour or the apostles to have\nreaeppointed infant dedication, with the use of the cotemporary\ninitiating ordinance, would, to my mind, be as superfluous as for the\nallied powers to have agreed that the Danube should still run through\nAustria.\n\n_Mr. K._ Your principle of interpretation, Mr. M., has brought in all\nthe darkness which has covered the earth in the Romish apostacy. There\nwill be no end to human inventions in religion, if this principle\nprevails.\n\n_Mr. M._ But, my dear sir, there certainly has been an end at the very\nbeginning; for what inventions in Protestant worship have non-prelatical\nPaedobaptists made? Surely that practice has not been prolific of\nsuperstitions. I often hear this alleged, Mr. K., and we are called\nRomish and Popish because we baptize infants. But will it not be best\nfor Christian sects to allow each other entire liberty of conscience,\nand not accuse each other of tendencies to Romanism, when all are\nzealously Protestant? Here is a piece, which I cut from a newspaper\nlately, which describes the baptism by immersion of some females and\nothers, one Sabbath in January, the thermometer below zero, a place\nbeing cut through the ice for the purpose, and a boy watching with a\npole to keep the floating ice from the opening. Shall I call this\nRomish, superstitious, fanatical? Shall I say, How can we, consistently\nwith such practices among Protestants, say anything about the doctrine\nof penances? No. I prefer to think that those who do these things are as\ngood Protestants as myself, and I will not impeach their rigid adherence\nto their belief, by imputing Romish tendencies to their modes of\nworship and their ordinances; for no people are further from Romanism in\ntheir principles than they (unless it be some of us Paedobaptists, Mrs.\nKelly).\n\n_Mr. K._ Well, there is no quarrelling with you; but let me say that\nwhen another sect sees you employing an ordinance which has no warrant\nin the Bible,--sprinkling water upon people, on proper subjects and\nimproper subjects for baptism, when we know that the word _baptize_\nmeans to _immerse_, and that believers only are properly baptized,--how\ncan we be silent? Would you be silent if Episcopalians should set up\nLatin prayers, or the confessional; or the Methodists turn their\nlove-feasts into the old Passover?\n\n_Mr. M._ We must tolerate the mistakes and errors of those who, in the\nmain, are confessedly good, and are conscientious in what we deem their\nerrors. When the noble array of great and good men in the Episcopal Low\nChurch, and among the Methodists, fall into such mistakes as you have\nspecified, there will be opportunity for other Christians to express\nthemselves. But you are rather rhetorical in your reasoning, to compare\nthe practice of infant baptism by Owen, and Watts, and Doddridge, and\nLeighton, and Baxter, and all like them, with Latin prayers and a return\nto the Passover.\n\n_Mr. K._ There is not a case of sprinkling in the New Testament. You are\ntoo well-informed to deny this.\n\n_Mr. M._ Mr. K., there is not one instance of baptism, in the New\nTestament, where there does not appear to me to be an improbability of\nits having been administered by immersion.\n\nBy this time Mrs. K., who had been called away to attend to her child,\nreturned, and hearing my last remark, said, with a significant look at\nher husband:\n\n\"We shall require you to prove that, Mr. M.\"\n\n\"Most willingly,\" said I. \"Do you think, cousin Eunice, that the\nmultitudes who came to John and the apostles to be baptized, brought\nchanges of raiment with them?\"\n\n\"No,\" said she; \"and there were no conveniences for making a change of\ndress in those places, I presume.\"\n\n_Mr. M._ Were they immersed in the clothes which they had on?\n\n_Mrs. K._ That does not seem probable. Some of them, at least, had\nvaluable garments, we may suppose, and few, if any, would wish to have\ntheir apparel wet through, or to keep it on them, if wet.\n\n_Mr. M._ They were not immersed without clothing, of course,\npromiscuously, and, therefore, I believe that they were all baptized by\nsprinkling or pouring, their loose upper garments allowing them to step\ninto the water, or very near it; and John, standing there (and the\napostles, also, when they administered baptism), and laying on the water\nwith his hand, or, which is not impossible, with the long-accustomed\nbunches of hyssop. The Episcopal mode of administering the Lord's\nSupper, enables me to conceive how baptism by sprinkling could be\nadministered rapidly. As six or more people are kneeling, the Episcopal\nminister gives each his portion of the bread, and repeats the formula,\nnot to each one, but once only while his hand is passing over the six.\nSo, I imagine, John repeated whatever form he had (and the apostles\ntheirs) to companies, while, in rapid succession, he applied the water\nto them. It is impossible to account for the performance of such\nincredible labor as John must have undergone, unless we adopt some such\nsupposition as this, or confess that John's baptism was, throughout, a\nmiracle. But \"the people said, John did no miracle.\" If the apostles\nsprinkled three thousand in this way, by companies, in one day, as they\ncould easily have done, we can see how the same day there could be\n\"added unto them about three thousand souls,\" even if \"added\" meant\nbeing baptized. That the apostles had assistance in administering\nbaptism at this early period, is not probable. They had not yet proposed\nto have helpers in taking care of the poor, much less to share with them\nthe first administration of Christian baptism. If any church were to\nrequire me to believe, before admitting me to the Lord's table, that the\napostles immersed three thousand people at the day of Pentecost, after\nnine o'clock in the morning, in the midst of necessary labors, and at\nthat driest season of the year, or in tanks, I could no more believe it\nthan I could confess that the earth is flat.\n\n_Mrs. K._ But \"John was baptizing in Enon, near to Salim, because there\nwas much water there.\"\n\n_Mr. M._ \"Much water,\" in those countries, was on a smaller scale than\nin North America. They would have needed all the lake-shore or river\nbanks that could be found, to witness the baptisms, and to pass in and\nout of, or to and from, the water, conveniently, while John stood to\nreceive them in or near the water. A fountain or small body of water\nwould not have accommodated those multitudes; not because the water\nwould not suffice, for a small running stream would be enough, and would\nhave afforded \"much water;\" but think what inconvenience there would\nhave been in baptizing a crowd around a small stream. Baptism by\nimmersion, among us, though a few gallons of water only are needed, is\nmore conveniently done where there is \"much water;\" because the\nspectators can spread themselves along the banks, and then there is no\nconfusion. The most convenient and rapid way of baptizing multitudes by\nsprinkling would be, for the administrator to stand in the water, and\nlet the people pass by him. Besides, those multitudes who came to John's\nbaptism needed \"much water\" for themselves and their beasts.\n\n_Mrs. K._ But the Saviour went down into the water, and came up out of\nthe water.\n\n_Mr. M._ So did John, in the same sense; and so did \"both Philip and the\nEunuch;\" but John and Philip did not, therefore, go under the water. But\nMr. Kelly will tell you that _down in_ to, and _up out_ of, might as\nwell have been translated to and from, in the case of the Eunuch. If you\ninsist that going down into the water involves immersion, it follows\nthat Philip went under the water with the Eunuch, and there baptized\nhim.\n\n_Mr. K._ We shall set those matters right in that new version of the\nBible which you were complaining of the last time I saw you. Down into,\nand up out of, are required by the word baptize, which means immerse.\n\n_Mr. M._ No, my dear sir, not always, even in the New Testament. The\nword had come, even in the Saviour's time, to signify purification, or\nconsecration, irrespective of the mode. The Pharisees, in coming from\nthe market-places, except they wash, eat not. The word is baptize. But\nthey did not bathe at such times; they \"baptized\" themselves by washing\ntheir bodies. We read of the baptism of beds, which was merely washing\nthem. The Israelites were baptized unto Moses. There the word means,\nsimply, inaugurated, or set apart, with no reference to the mode; for,\nthey were not immersed, but bedewed, if wet at all; they were not buried\nin that cloud, for the other cloud that led them was in sight; they were\nnot buried in the sea, which was a wall to them on either hand.\n\nThere is a good illustration, it seems to me, of the change in words\nfrom their literal meaning, in the passage where Christ is called the\n\"first-born of every creature.\" He was not _born first_, before all men,\nbut he has the \"preeminence\" over all creatures, as the first-born had\namong the children. Here is an illustration, from the New Testament, of\nthe way in which _baptism_ may cease to denote any mode, and refer only\nto an act of consecration.\n\nAs to that new version of the Bible, Coleridge says, that the state\nought to be, to all religious denominations, like a good portrait, which\nlooks benignantly on all in the room. So the Bible now seems to look\nkindly upon all Christian sects; and, for one, I love to have it so.\nBut, some of you, good brethren, who are in favor of this new version to\nsuit your particular views, are trying to alter the eyes of the portrait\nso that they shall look only on you, and to your part of the room. We\nthink that you ought to be satisfied with the present kind look which\nyou get from them. There is one comfort--you will make a new picture to\nplease yourselves, and we shall keep the old portrait.\n\n\"Please do not be too severe on my husband for that mistake of his,\"\nsaid Mrs. K.; \"I think that he is getting better of it, in a measure.\"\n\n_Mr. K._ I will make you a present of the book when it arrives, and,\nperhaps, you will agree with me. But I am surprised to hear you say that\nyou do not believe the Saviour to have been immersed by John.\n\n_Mr. M._ It was not Christian baptism, at any rate, if he were; for the\nnames of the Trinity are essential to Christian baptism, and those names\nhad not been thus applied.\n\nBesides, John could not have plunged and lifted those thousands without\nsuperhuman strength and endurance, which we know he did not possess. The\nsame reasoning applies, in the baptism of the three thousand at the day\nof Pentecost, both as respects what I have said of raiment, and the time\nand strength of the apostles.\n\nThe baptism of the Eunuch was, to my mind, most probably by sprinkling,\nmaking no change of raiment necessary. \"See, here is water,\"--a spring,\nor stream, by the road-side, quite as likely (and, travellers now say,\nmore probably) as a pond. Yes, sir, Philip went down into the water just\nas much as the Eunuch did, if we follow the Greek literally. I think\nthat _down_ refers to the chariot, the act of leaving it to go to the\nwater. But the English version, as it now stands, makes strongly for\nyour view of the case in the mind of the common reader.\n\nSaul of Tarsus was baptized after having been struck blind, and while he\nwas in a state of extreme exhaustion from excitement, without food; for,\nduring three days, \"he did neither eat nor drink.\" He was baptized\nbefore he ate; for, we read, \"And he arose and was baptized; and, when\nhe had received meat, he was strengthened.\" It does not seem to me\nprobable that they would have put him into a river, or tank, before\ngiving him food. But it seems to me natural and suitable for Ananias to\ndraw nigh, and impress the trembling man with the mild and gentle sign\nof Christianity, the rite giving a soothing and cheering efficacy to the\nwords of adoption, and in no way disturbing him in body or mind. I have\nalways regarded the baptism of Saul as a strong presumptive proof with\nregard to baptism by affusion.\n\nSo with the midnight scene of baptism in the prison at Philippi. The\npreparation of one or more large vessels, to immerse the household, is\nnot congruous with the circumstances narrated, as I read them. But the\nquiet and convenient act of baptism by sprinkling, falls in harmoniously\nwith the other parts of the transaction. For my part, I have always\nwondered how any one can fail to see that there are so many\nimprobabilities of immersion in every case of baptism, in the New\nTestament, as to counteract any weight which the word baptize carries\nwith it, more especially since the word and its derivatives are\nemployed, in the New Testament, in cases where the mode of using the\nwater is evidently not intended.\n\n_Mr. K._ \"Buried with him in baptism.\" Mr. M., you will confess that\nthis is an impregnable proof-text. You have never been \"buried with him\nin baptism.\"\n\n_Mr. M._ But I am \"risen with him,\" Mr. K. With all humility and tears,\nI must say to you, \"If any man trusteth to himself that he is Christ's,\nlet him also think this with himself, that as he is Christ's even so\nalso we are Christ's.\" Your application of the passage, just quoted by\nyou, disproves your interpretation of it. If we must be buried in water,\nwhen we are baptized, then no one is risen with Christ who has not been\nimmersed. You thus disfranchise four fifths, to say the least, of God's\nelect. No, my dear sir, being buried with Christ in baptism does not\nmean immersion. People in the frozen ocean, the sick and dying, who are\nsprinkled with water in the name of the Christian's God, are \"buried\nwith Christ in baptism into death;\" that is, profess to be dead and\nburied to sin, as Christ was dead and buried for it. Besides, follow out\nthe passage, and there is no allusion to the form of baptism, as I can\nperceive, but to something else. \"Buried with him by baptism into death;\nthat like as Christ was raised,\"--from the water?--yes, if water baptism\nbe now in the writer's mind; but no,--\"like as Christ was raised from\nthe dead, by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in\nnewness of life.\" The word buried, therefore, in this passage, refers to\nthe completeness of the Saviour's death for sin (as we say intensively\nof a deceased person, he is dead and buried), and of the completeness\nof our renunciation of it. We are dead and buried to sin, as Christ was\nfor it; and we rise to newness of life, when we profess to be\nChristians, as Christ rose from the dead, not from the water.\n\n_Mr. K._ How is it with infants? Are they dead and buried to sin when\nthey are baptized? If being buried, in this passage, means being dead\nand buried to sin, then infants are regenerated by baptism.\n\nMr. K. gave his wife a pleased look, as though he had placed me in a\ndilemma.\n\n\"Mrs. Kelly,\" said I, \"how do you suppose that nursing children ate the\nfirst passover?\"\n\n\"I suppose that they ate it through the faith of their parents,\" said\nMrs. K., looking narrowly into the stitches of her crochet-work, to\ncontrol a smile.\n\n\"That passover, however,\" said I, \"was the means of saving those\nchildren, who, many of them, were the first-born in their respective\nfamilies. Yet they were saved by the passover through the faith of their\nparents. Do not understand me as urging the comparison to an extreme; I\nonly say that there we have an example of parents acting for the child\nin a matter of faith. The infant child was incapable of believing, and\neven where the first-born was grown up, the parent acted for him in the\nordinance, by sprinkling the door with blood. I do not prove infant\nbaptism by this, but I use it to show that parents may use an ordinance\nfor their infants. Mr. K. asks if baptized infants are buried with\nChrist in baptism into death,--that is, die unto sin and rise to newness\nof life. The parents profess by the baptism that they will use means to\neffect this in their children, through the grace of the Holy Spirit. I\nshould like to ask Mr. Kelly if he believes that every person who is\nimmersed, is buried into death, spiritually, with Christ, or is actually\ndead to sin forever; or, whether it is only a profession of one's hope\nand intention. For we have all known some, who had been buried in water,\nthat did not prove to have died unto sin.\"\n\n_Mr. K._ Of course it is a symbol; and all we insist on is, that Paul\nmust have had immersion in mind, as the form of baptism, when he spoke\nof being buried by baptism.\n\n_Mr. M._ When Paul says, \"I am crucified with Christ,\" do you suppose\nthat the idea of a cross was in his mind? Did he intimate that\nsanctification is effected by a piece of wood, with a transverse beam,\nused as a gibbet? Or did he simply mean, I am dead to the world, and the\nworld is dead to me, yea, and put to death (not merely dying in a\nnatural way), through the power of the Saviour's sufferings and death on\nmy behalf? The burial of Christ, following his death for sin, and so\ncompleting the idea of dying, is enough to have suggested the figure, I\nthink, of our being not only dead with Christ, but buried with him, by a\nChristian profession; that is, we utterly cease from the world and sin,\nprofessedly, as Christ not only died, but went into the tomb. But what\ndoes \"risen\" refer to in that passage,--the water or death?--\"from\nwhence also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of\nGod.\"\n\n_Mr. M._ Why, how do you understand it?\n\n_Mr. K._ I prefer, if you please, that you should answer. Many\nunderstand it thus: \"You are buried in water, to denote death to sin;\nyou are lifted up out of the water (as Christ was lifted up by the\nBaptist), to live a new life.\" If this be so, what is \"the operation of\nGod,\" which is spoken of there? Does it need any such \"operation\" for\nan immersed person to rise out of the water? No, my dear sir, our\ninterpretation makes plain and thorough work of the whole passage. Our\nidea of that controverted passage (your great proof-text) is this: You,\nChristian professors, were, all of you, baptized, on profession of your\nfaith;--when you made a Christian profession, you signified by it your\ndying unto sin, as Christ died for it, so that, I may say, you were dead\nand buried to sin. But, as Christ came to life again, so you rose with\nhim, not to sin, but to live a new life. Hear Dr. Watts on the passage:\n\n   \"Do we not know that solemn word,\n     That we are buried with the Lord,\n   Baptized into his death, and then\n     Put off the body of our sin?\n\n   \"Our souls receive diviner breath,\n     Raised from corruption, guilt and death;\n   So from the grave did Christ arise,\n     And lives to God above the skies.\"\n\nI do not believe that the mode of baptism is alluded to at all in this\ntext.\n\n_Mr. K._ I cannot agree with you, sir. The contrary is perfectly clear\nto my own mind.\n\n\"Mr. M.,\" said Mrs. Kelly, \"do you think that you and Mr. K. would ever\nthink alike on this subject?\"\n\n\"Never,\" said I. \"People almost always end where they began, when they\ndiscuss this topic; only they do not always leave off in such\ngood-nature as Mr. K. and I intend to do. I never knew a person to\nchange his views to either side, unless he began as an inquirer, and not\nas an advocate.\"\n\n\"What is the reason,\" said Mrs. K., \"that good people are left to differ\nso about unessential things in religion, when they all hold to the same\nway of being saved?\"\n\n\"I suppose,\" said I, \"that, as poor human nature is, for the present,\nmore is effected, on the whole, by letting us divide into sects, and\ngiving us each some external or speculative discrepancies to excite our\nzeal. It is a sad reflection upon us, if this be so, and our sectarian\nbehavior illustrates that hardness of our hearts, in view of which,\nperhaps, God suffers us to divide as we do. But, still, you see how\nwisely God has ordained that good people shall not differ about\nessential things--that might be fatal to the success of his truth; but\nthey are left to divide about forms, and ordinances, and some doctrinal\nmatters which do not involve the question of the way to be saved. In\nthat they all agree.\"\n\n_Mrs. K._ How pleasant it would be if they would all think alike!\n\n_Mr. M._ Perhaps it might not be best at present. They should tolerate\neach other's views, meet and act together where they may; but I do like\nto see a man heartily attached to his own denomination, without bigotry.\nI have not much partiality for those schemes of union which require and\nexpect each sect to give up its peculiarities, and which seek to\namalgamate us. It is unnatural. Let each be thoroughly persuaded of his\nown faith;--different temperaments and habits of thought are suited by\ndifferent modes and forms;--but let us treat each other as Christians,\nand with urbanity and kindness. That is the most sublime spectacle of\nunion. It comes nearer to fulfilling the prayer of Christ, \"that they\nall may be one,\" when we differ strongly, and yet keep the unity of the\nspirit. I am doubtful whether, even in heaven, there will not be such\ninnocent diversity of views about things successively beyond our\nknowledge or comprehension, as to stimulate inquiry and discussion; but\nthat we shall ever be capable, as we are here, of alienation, in\nconsequence of these varying opinions, is impossible.\n\n_Mr. K._ Do you not think, Mr. M., that we shall all think alike about\nbaptism in the millennium?\n\n_Mr. M._ I suppose that you expect that we shall all give up infant\nbaptism. But my expectation is that, as we approach that day, the last\nprophecy of the Old Testament will be as truly fulfilled as it was at\nthe coming of Christ, and that the hearts of the fathers will be turned\nto the children, and the hearts of the children to the fathers. Parental\npiety and discipline will be greatly promoted, and an attendant of it\nwill be, I suppose, a greater use of the ordinance of infant baptism,\ndemanded by the pious feelings of parents, as pious feeling in the\nregenerate craves the ordinance which commemorates the love and\nsufferings of the Redeemer. The feelings of pious parents will require\nthe ordinance of infant baptism, as an expression of their earnest\ndesire to have fellowship with God as the God of the believer and his\noffspring, the covenant-keeping God. It is to the increase and\nprevalence of this feeling that I look now for an increasing observance\nof infant baptism; for, without such feeling, the ordinance is an empty\nname. Where that feeling exists, it soon modifies the speculative views\nof a parent. As our conscious need of an atoning Saviour soon dispels\nthe former difficulties about the doctrine of the Trinity, so a longing\ndesire to have special covenanting with God for a dear child, makes the\nsubject of God's everlasting covenant with Abraham, as the great\nbeliever, and the father of believers, plain.\n\nNow, before I forget it, please let me tell you of an objection to\ninfant baptism, which I lately met with, drawn from the effect of the\nprevalent practice of it in a community.\n\nThe objection is, it prevents us, in a measure, from fulfilling Christ's\ncommand, \"Go, teach all nations, baptizing them.\" For, going into the\nRoman Catholic or Greek churches, or an Armenian country, and making\nconverts, the missionaries cannot baptize them, for, alas! they were\nbaptized in infancy, and to re-baptize is against the law of the\ncountries.\n\nNow, this seems to me no great calamity; for if the converts themselves\nrecognize their baptism, and adopt it as profession of their faith, it\nis like a man's acknowledging the hand and seal on an instrument, made\nirregularly at first, but now, under competent circumstances, declared\nto be equivalent to his own act and deed at the date of this\ndeclaration. He would not need to re-write the document, nor to use wax\nor wafers again, except in witness of his acknowledging the original\nact. \"Though it be but a man's covenant, yet, if it be confirmed, no man\ndisannulleth or addeth thereto.\"\n\nBut, however it may be in such countries and communions as I have named,\ncertainly it cannot be a calamity if the practice of infant baptism\nbecomes such a spiritual and practical thing, that young persons are\ngenerally converted, so that adult baptisms disappear. I love to notice,\nwhen several persons join our church, how few of them receive baptism,\nshowing that their baptism in childhood has been followed by conversion.\nThe fewness of adult baptisms, with us, compared with cases of infant\nbaptism, is a good sign. They will be fewer and fewer, in proportion as\nour parents make and keep covenant with God for their children.\n\nMr. Kelly was at this moment called out, but requested me to remain and\nfinish the conversation with Mrs. K. She resumed it, saying:\n\n\"Had I better read any more on the subject? My feelings lead me\nstrongly to take our little one to church. I feel that I should be\nstrengthened by the solemn act of doing what the covenant of your church\nsays, 'avouching the Lord Jehovah to be your God and the God of your\nchildren forever.' I do wish to feel that I have done something like\nbearing testimony before God, in a special way, that I give my child to\nhim, and engage God to be his God.\"\n\n_Mr. M._ I should candidly examine whatever Mr. K. wishes you to read or\nhear on the subject, and not be afraid of the truth, let it lead where\nit may. But what first made you think of baptizing your little boy?\n\n_Mrs. K._ I always loved the ordinance. But, when I thought that Henry\nwas going to die, I was watching him all night, and, as I was praying,\nit occurred to me that I wished I could see the church praying for him;\nand that led me to think of the church praying for a child when it is\nbrought into the house of God. I felt that night that, if I could speak\nto the pastor, I would ask him to request the prayers of the church for\nhim as for one who, if he got well, should be brought into the house of\nGod, and be publicly consecrated, and I with him, again, as his mother,\nto the Lord. I had given him and myself to God; but I felt the need of\nsome more special act, on which I could fall back in my thoughts, and of\nwhich God would graciously say to me, \"I am the God of Bethel, where\nthou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me.\"\n\n_Mr. M._ How kind it was in God to remind Jacob of that pile of stones,\nand to call himself the God of Bethel! O, how he loves marked exercises\nof consecration and love!\n\n_Mrs. K._ My husband always said, \"Let him offer himself for baptism\nwhen he grows up, and understands the meaning of it.\" I told him that\nwhen I was admitted to the church I was not baptized, but I had this\npleasant feeling, that I had a baptism in infancy by my dear good mother\nto think of now, and to seal by my own acknowledgment. If Henry had died\nwithout being baptized, or should now be hindered from it, I should\nnever cease to grieve.\n\n_Mr. M._ You think, however, that he would be saved, nevertheless.\n\n_Mrs. K._ O, saved! that is not all. I do not think merely of his\ngetting into heaven. Though we are saved wholly by grace, is there not\nsomething implied in \"washing our robes, and making them white, in the\nblood of the Lamb?\" I do not believe in justification by works nor by\nsacraments, yet I do believe in their wonderful effect, through grace\nalone, upon our character and future condition. I do believe, Mr. M.,\nthat there is a difference between children whose parents, impelled by\nlove to God, make public offering of their children to him, with solemn\nvows, and daily perform their vows, treating their children as baptized\nin the name of the Trinity, and children whose parents either carelessly\nbaptize them, or feel no such spiritual desires for them as to seek the\nuse of any public ordinance, nor any special private consecration. I\nbelieve that God regards them differently. He has placed his mark on the\nbaptized. I must go with my son to God's house, as Hannah did, and with\nher feelings. How strange! She prayed for that son, and then, as soon as\nhe was weaned, she gave him away to God; for it is beautifully said, you\nknow, \"And the child was young.\" Well, I think I understand that. I\ncould leave Henry in the temple, if the service of God's house required\nhim; for, when he was sick, I gave him up to God, and as long as he\nliveth he shall be the Lord's. How did cousin Bertha feel about the\nbaptism after your little boy died?\n\n_Mr. M._ It was often the chief topic of her conversation. Her father\nwrote a full statement of his views, which helped her greatly. We have\nread it over since we lost our child. I will send it to you, if you\nwish. You can read it, with Mr. K.'s books, and I wish you to show it to\nhim if he cares to see it.\n\nAll this was done. Kind feelings prevailed; there was not much\ndiscussion, and, one Sabbath morning, little Henry Kelly was brought to\nchurch. But the mother was without the father. He was called to a\ndistant place on business; but he allowed his wife to act her pleasure\nin the case during his long absence. More of this in its place.\n\n\n\n\nChapter Fourth.\n\nIS THERE ONLY ONE MODE OF BAPTISM?\n\n   Were love, in these the world's last doting years,\n   As frequent as the want of it appears,\n   The churches warmed, they would no longer hold\n   Such frozen figures, stiff as they are cold;\n   Relenting forms would lose their power, or cease,\n   And e'en the dipped and sprinkled live in peace;\n   Each heart would quit its prison in the breast,\n   And flow in free communion with the rest.\n\n   COWPER.\n\n\nOpening my entry door, on my return, several faces looked out to welcome\nme, all in the house having waited till a late hour, with surmises as to\nthe cause of my long absence, and then all dispersed, except the\nvenerable, and not yet aged, grandmother of little Bertha. With her it\nwas always pleasant to talk.\n\n_Mr. M._ Have you had no company this evening? I was in hopes that the\nMoores would come in, as they promised to do.\n\n_Mother._ They have been gone nearly an hour. Mr. Moore wished to read\nhusband's letter, so Bertha lent it to him.\n\n_Mr. M._ Father will be glad to know how much good his letter is doing.\nCousin Eunice would be glad to see it, and I wish to read it again, for\nI find that I am likely to need more instruction, if I am to discuss the\nsubject as I did this evening with Mr. Kelly.\n\n_Mother._ Was he at home? I hope you did not get into a controversy\nabout baptism; for, of all things, nothing dries up religious feelings\nlike that.\n\n_Mr. M._ The subject has taken too practical a hold upon my feelings to\nhave that effect. I find myself more and more led to believe that God\ngave his church an appointed form of baptism, and that that form was\nsprinkling; for I search the New Testament in vain for a single case\nwhere immersion seems to have been practised. I believe that, under the\noperation of early tendencies, of which Paul writes to the\nThessalonians, the church began to prefer immersion as more sensuous,\nmaking a stronger appeal to the passions. But I believe, with the New\nTestament for my guide, that immersion was not practised by the apostles\nthemselves. The word baptize had, even in the Saviour's time, to go no\nfurther back, come to mean a thing done irrespective of the mode. How\nwould it sound, \"I have an immersion to be immersed with, and how am I\nstraitened?\" &c. \"Are ye able to be immersed with the immersion that I\nam immersed with?\" I believe that sprinkling was the original mode of\nChristian baptism. And it seems to me unlikely that God would appoint an\nordinance, and not appoint, by precept or example, the mode of it. I\nbelieve that the mode of baptism was appointed, as well as the rite\nitself, and I see no instance of baptism in the New Testament by\nimmersion. Pouring, whether more or less copiously, has this probability\nin its favor, in addition to the impression which the narratives make,\nviz., The Lord's Supper typifies the death of Christ. Burying in\nbaptism, then, would be superfluous; it is more likely that the form of\nthis other sacrament would represent something else, and that is, the\nHoly Spirit's cleansing influence, because Christ speaks of being \"born\nof water and of the Spirit,\" thus associating water with the Spirit. We\nmoreover read of \"the water and the blood,\" water thus being\ndistinguished from blood. Now, the Holy Spirit is always named in\nconnection with being poured out. We are baptized with, not in, the Holy\nGhost. It would do violence to our feelings to hear one speak of our\nbeing immersed in the Holy Spirit. So that I fully believe in sprinkling\nas the original New Testament mode of baptism. And, still, I am inclined\nto agree with your friend, the professor, who spent New-year's evening\nwith us, and has just published a book on baptism.\n\n_Mother._ What ground does he take?\n\n_Mr. M._ He writes somewhat in this way: As to the mode, I believe it to\nbe unessential; for it seems to me contrary to the genius of\nChristianity to make a particular form of doing a thing essential to the\nthing. What else is there in Christianity, if we are to except baptism,\nin which modes are regarded or made essential? It is not so, he says,\nwith the Lord's Supper, surely; the upper room, night, sitting or\nreclining, unleavened bread, a particular kind of wine, and all such\nthings, are not regarded by any as necessary to the ordinance. It is\nvery interesting, he says, to notice, that, whereas the old dispensation\nprescribed the mode of every religious act, minutely, and a departure\nfrom it vitiated the act itself, Christianity threw off everything like\nprescriptive modes altogether. Considering the attachment of the human\nmind to forms and ceremonies, he knows of nothing in which Christianity\nshows its divine origin and supernatural power more, than in its sublime\ntriumph, so immediately, in the minds of great numbers, over forms and\nceremonies. We can hardly conceive, he says, what a revolution a Jew\nmust have experienced in giving up Aaron, and altars, and times, and\nseasons, and all the minute regard for his religious ceremonies, at\nonce. Even if it were the original practice to baptize only by\nimmersion, he cannot think that Christianity could have enjoined it as\nthe only proper mode of applying water, in signifying religious\nconsecration. Bread and wine, eaten and drunk decently and in order, in\nany way whatever, constitutes the Lord's Supper; water, applied to the\nperson, by a proper administrator, in the name of the Trinity,\nconstitutes Christian baptism; but, had the New Testament required us to\nrecline, and lean on one arm, and take the Lord's Supper with the other\narm, insisting that this posture is essential to that sacrament, or had\nit specified the quantity of bread and wine, he thinks it would have\nbeen parallel to the uninspired requirement of a particular mode in\napplying the water in baptism.\n\n\"Baptize,\" he further remarks, it is said, means immerse. Suppose that\nit does. Supper means a meal; therefore, one does not \"eat the Lord's\nSupper,\" unless he eats a full meal; for, if baptize refers to the\nquantity of water, supper refers to the quantity of food and drink in\nthe other sacrament. He then seems to exult, and says, \"I am glad that I\nam not in conscientious subjection to any mode of doing anything in\nreligion, as being essential to the thing itself.\"\n\n_Mother._ What answer can be made to this?\n\n_Mr. M._ It is a very common ground, and a convenient one, to answer the\nargument from _baptizo_, and the early practice of immersion in the\nChristian church after the apostles. No doubt the early Christians\nsatisfied themselves with this reasoning, in departing from the\napostolic practice of sprinkling. But I prefer to adhere strictly to the\nNew Testament model. There is no immersion there. Now, is it allowable\nto depart from the original mode? This could not be done in the first\ninitiating ordinance of the church,--circumcision. A departure from the\nprescribed rule would have vitiated the ordinance. But, does not\nChristianity differ essentially from the former dispensation in this\nvery particular, that it does not make the mode of doing a thing,\nessential? Yet, it may be said, Human ordinances are all strictly\nbinding in the very forms prescribed. For example: \"Hold up your right\nhand,\" says the clerk, or judge, to a witness; \"you solemnly swear--.\"\nLet the witness, instead of holding up his right hand, if he has one,\nand can move it, capriciously say, \"I prefer to hold up the left, or to\nhold up both. I wish to show that modes and forms are unimportant.\" He\nwould be in danger of contempt of court. If so small a departure from\nthe mode of swearing would not be allowed, much less would he be\npermitted to kneel, or to lie on his face, unless he were some devotee.\nNo; there is a prescribed form, and he must yield to it. It is also\nsaid, that, if there were cases in the New Testament in which it were\ndoubtful, at least, whether immersion were not practised, we might argue\nin favor of mixed modes. But immersion is baptism, in my view, because a\nperson who is immersed is sure to get affused; and, affusion with water\nis all of the baptism which seems to me essential. Leaving those who\nfirst departed from the apostolic mode of baptism by sprinkling, to\nanswer for themselves, no one, of course, will deny that those who\nconscientiously think that they ought to be baptized by immersion, are\nacceptable with God, as well as others who are of a contrary persuasion.\nPaul speaks of \"divers baptisms.\" There began to be such in his day. He\nspeaks also of the \"doctrine of baptisms\" (plural), showing the same\nthing.\n\nBut I came near forgetting one thing, which I wished to say, which is,\nthat, in reading the Bible last evening, I found a new encouragement in\ntaking infants to the house of God.\n\n_Mother._ I should like to hear anything new on that point. I thought\nthat everything had been exhausted which referred to that subject.\n\n_Mr. M._ I mean that it was new to me. Luke says that the parents of\nJesus brought him to Jerusalem \"to present him to the Lord,\" and that,\narriving there, they brought him into the temple to do for him after the\ncustom of the law. Now, I always carelessly thought that this meant\ncircumcision.\n\n_Mother._ Of course it does; I always thought so.\n\n_Mr. M._ No; for he had already been circumcised, when he was eight days\nold. \"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the\nchild, they called his name Jesus.\" Then the next verse speaks of a\nsubsequent act: \"When the days of her purification were accomplished\nthey brought him to Jerusalem.\" Mary could not have come to Jerusalem on\nthe eighth day; but, on the second occasion, she was present; for Simeon\naddressed her. So that we have the example of the infant Saviour, in\nbringing our infants into the temple; and, if we are scrupulous as to\nfollowing the Saviour in ordinances, we may as well begin by following\nhim into the temple, with our infants.\n\n_Mother._ It is beautiful to think of Jesus, even in his infancy, as an\nexample, and that he was forerunner to the infants of his people, while\nyet in his mother's arms.\n\n\n\n\nChapter Fifth.\n\nSCENES OF BAPTISM--HENRY KELLY.--THE YOUNG PARENTS AND THEIR BABE.--THE\nLOST MARINER'S FAMILY.--THE FEEBLE-MINDED YOUTH.--THE REASONABLENESS,\nPOWER, AND BEAUTY, OF CHILDREN'S BAPTISMS.--HUSBANDS SHOULD COME WITH\nTHEIR WIVES AND CHILDREN.--MOSES IN THE INN.\n\n       Since, Lord, to thee\n   A narrow way and little gate\n   Is all the passage; on my infancy\n   Thou didst lay hold, and antedate\n       My faith in me.\n\n   GEORGE HERBERT.\n\n   The parent pair their secret homage pay,\n   And proffer up to Heaven the warm request,\n   That He, who stills the raven's clamorous nest,\n   And decks the lily fair in flowery pride,\n   Would, in the way his wisdom sees the best,\n   For them and for their little ones provide,\n   But chiefly in their hearts, with grace divine, preside.\n\n   BURNS.\n\n   In all men sinful is it to be slow\n   To hope: in parents, sinful above all.\n\n   WORDSWORTH.\n\n\nIn a few Sabbaths from this time we had a most interesting scene at our\nchurch.\n\nLittle Henry Ferguson Kelly was brought, and offered up in baptism by\nhis mother. We all felt deep respect for her as a woman of decided\ncharacter, and a devoted Christian. We saw that she wept much during the\nservice. The father was not there. She held the little boy upright on\nher arm, and he turned his face over her shoulder, looking all about the\nchurch, above and below. He then undertook to apply his little palm to\nhis mother's cheek, with several decided strokes, to rouse her usual\nattention, which he seemed to miss. She took his hand in hers, and held\nit, and he then rested his cheek, and his chin, alternately, upon her\nshoulder.\n\nA sweet little girl, two months old, was also brought by a young couple\nto be baptized. Few things are more interesting than the sight of a\nyoung couple, with their first-born child, standing before God. A world\nof thought and feeling passes through their minds in those hallowed\nmoments. Not much more than a year had gone since they stood before God\nto take the vows of marriage from those same lips, perhaps, which now\nlead their devotions, and bless them out of the house of the Lord. The\nlittle child is an offering which gathers about itself more of rich joy\nand gratitude, recollection, present bliss, and anticipation, than any\ngift of God; it is itself an ordinance, a little rite, a sign and seal\nof covenants and love to which earth has no parallel. The light of\nnature almost teaches us the propriety of infant dedication, in the use\nof the prevailing religious rite. The only wise God manifested his\ngoodness and wisdom, in establishing his covenant with the children of\nthose who love him, as really as in creating a companion for Adam.\n\nThere were other sights, on this baptismal occasion, besides Henry\nFerguson and his mother, and the young couple with their child.\n\nA woman, in the habiliments of the deepest mourning, went up the aisle,\nleading with her finger a little boy between two and three years old,\nfollowed by a noble son of fifteen, and his sister of twelve. Our\npastor's rule, as to the limit of age within which children may be\nadmitted to baptism, is this: So long as a parent, or guardian, or next\nfriend, has the immediate tutelage of a child, so as to direct its\ninstruction and government, and thus continues to exercise parental\nauthority, he may properly offer the child for baptism; and therefore,\nas children differ as to degrees of maturity within the same ages, no\nexpress boundary of time can be prescribed to limit those baptisms which\nare by the faith of another.\n\nThe father of these three children had been lost at sea on a whaling\nvoyage. The seaman's chest had come home, and so the last star of hope\nas to his return had set. The mother had become a Christian; she felt\nthe need of a covenant-keeping God for her children. There she stood, a\nsorrow-stricken woman, and her household with her, to receive for them\nthe sign of the covenant from the God of Abraham.\n\nThere was another sight in that group: A man and woman, honest, good\npeople, in humble circumstances, had had bequeathed to them, by a\nwidowed sister of his, who was not a professor of religion, a\nfeeble-minded youth of about ten years; and this uncle and aunt had\nadopted him as their child. They also came, the husband leading the boy\nalong, with his arm over the boy's shoulder to encourage his hesitating\nsteps, and the wife behind them. He was a member of a Sabbath-school\nclass; by no means an idiot, yet deficient in some respects. He was\nentrusted with affairs about a farm which did not require much\nresponsibility.\n\nLittle Henry Ferguson began to coo and crow, as they came successively\nand stood, in a half-circle, round the table with the silver basin upon\nit. The feeble-minded youth was mostly occupied with the actions of\nHenry, who, on seeing his face covered with uncontrollable expressions\nof interest in him, began to reach after him, and respond to his pleased\nlooks; nor did he cease his efforts to go to him, till he felt the\nminister's hand upon his forehead from behind, when he turned his large,\nbeautiful eyes into the face of the minister, with silent wonder at\nbeing apparently spoken to with so unusual a manner and tone. A hush\nwent through the congregation.\n\nThe young couple next presented their little Alice, and gave place to\nthe widow's household. Was there a dry eye in the house? Signs of\nweeping came from all sides. Mortimer was led by his arm in his mother's\nhand, and was baptized. Sarah loosened her straw bonnet, and let it fall\nback from her head, to receive the simple rite; when the widow lifted\nthe little boy, who had never known a father's love, and the pastor,\nafter waiting a moment to control his emotions sealed him in the name of\nour redeeming God.\n\nAfter an involuntary pause for a few moments, owing to the deep emotion\nin the congregation, poor Josey was led forward. Minister and\ncongregation seemed to make but slight impression upon him; Henry\nFerguson was the charm throughout; he even turned his head, while the\nminister's hand was on it, to smile at the child. The promise was not\nonly to those believing parents, all of them, and to their own children,\nbut to him that was afar off; his new parents having availed themselves\nof the large covenant of grace, to invoke its promised blessings upon\nhim, on the ground of their faith. \"May these parents,\" said the pastor\nin his prayer, \"remember, in all times of solicitude and trouble with\nthis dear dependent child, that the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, in whose\nname he is baptized, can have access to his mind, 'making wise the\nsimple;' and may that blessed Spirit make him his care.\"\n\nPart of the time, while the hymn following the baptism was read and\nsung, I found myself pursuing some thoughts which the interesting scene\njust witnessed had suggested.\n\nWhy, I asked myself, could not these parents have been satisfied with\ndedicating these children at home, without this public and special act\nof consecration?\n\nI was at no loss for an answer. The same reason applies as when one\nseeks admission to the church of Christ, by a public profession of\nreligion, either by appearing before a congregation and assenting to a\ncovenant, or to be confirmed, or to be immersed in water. Offering a\nchild in baptism is making a public profession of religion with regard\nto it. Some say to us, What need is there of joining a church? Why may I\nnot be a Christian by myself? We know what we say, in reply to such\nquestions. We are aware how much the public act helps the private\nfeelings and conduct, besides being required by our feelings when they\nare deep and strong. I thought of this illustration: In the wakeful\nmoments of the night, upon a lonely bed, one feels a special nearness to\nGod. He can think of God, as he lies upon his pillow, both with prayer\nand meditation; but suppose that he rises from his bed and kneels at the\nbedside, and, with oral prayer, prevents the night-watches, and cries?\nHis voice at that midnight hour affects his mind; the darkness and\nstillness impress him with a sense of the presence of God, and though\nhis ejaculations on his pillow were acceptable, has he not probably done\nthat which, through Christ, is peculiarly acceptable to God, and is\nprofitable to himself as his child? He who was always in communion with\nthe Father, the man Christ Jesus, nevertheless, sometimes withdrew into\na mountain, and continued all night in prayer, and, rising up a great\nwhile before day, he went into a solitary place, and there prayed. These\nspecial acts of worship, no true Christian needs to be told, are good\nand acceptable to God, and profitable for men. We do not refrain from\nthem, pleading that they are nowhere commanded in the New Testament, or,\nthat, so long as we pray at stated times, or strive to live in a praying\nframe, these special devotions are superfluous. So, while it is our duty\nand privilege to dedicate our children to God in private, it is\nacceptable to him, and profitable to us, if we take them, and bring an\noffering, and come into his courts.\n\nThe baptism of the feeble-minded youth furnished me with an illustration\nof the suitableness of parents and guardians doing for children, in\nreligion, that which they are constantly doing for them in common\nthings, that is, conferring privileges and blessings upon them without\ntheir consent. There seemed to be such an illustration of the riches of\nfree grace, in the baptism of this poor child, such a comment on that\npassage, \"I am found of them that sought me not,\" it corresponded so\nmuch with the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man, that we\nall felt instructed and softened by it, and, at the same time, we all\nhad feelings toward that helpless boy, such as we, perhaps, never could\nhave had but for his baptism. Never will a member of that witnessing\ncongregation see him, without a feeling of tenderness and something\nbordering on respect; he will not be merely \"Silly Joe\" to them; that\nelement of truth in the heathen superstition, which leads heathens and\npagans to regard an idiot as something sacred, will have its\nverification with regard to him; the children of that assembly will be\nrestrained from rudeness and cruelty, in their sports with him, by that\ntransaction, while the prayers offered for him at the time, and the many\nejaculations which the sight of him will occasion in the hearts of good\npeople, will make his baptism one of his richest blessings. O, what a\nloss it is to have a child baptized at home, or anywhere and at any\ntime except among the public services of the Sabbath in the sanctuary of\nGod! Necessity, indeed, controls our choice, many times, in this thing;\nand we are accepted of God irrespective of time and place, in yielding\nto his providence.\n\nSince my mind has been deeply interested in this subject, leading me to\nconverse with parents and with ministers, and to make observation with\nregard to it, I have seen and heard many things relating to the\nprovidences of God, in connection with the baptism of children, which,\nwhile we ought to be slow in confidently interpreting providences, make\nus do as Mary is said to have done, in regard to things relating to her\nchild,--she \"kept these things and pondered them in her heart.\" We\ncannot say, for example, that the death of that little girl, whose\nfather refused to let his wife enjoy the privilege of going, alone, with\nthe child, to the house of God for baptism, or to invite the pastor to\nhis house for the purpose, was a judicial consequence of his conduct;\nbut we know that his own thoughts trouble him, and that he has a sorrow\nbound upon his heart, which he will carry with him to his grave.\n\nNeither is it certain that the little one, who was raised to life from\na sickness which baffled the physicians, was spared to her pious mother\nfor her Christian behavior, in taking it, a few months before, to the\nhouse of God, and offering it in baptism, with no help from her husband,\nbut with many sad thoughts that the father of the child--he on whose arm\nshe and the child needed to rest--refused her gentle and affectionate\npleadings with him, to support and cherish her at an hour so precious to\nher heart. Nor will we say that the kind and obliging husband, not a\nprofessor of religion, who served his wife so manfully, and with such a\ncheerful spirit, on such an occasion, would not have acquired, in other\nways, the respect and love of the people, or that he could trace to it,\nabsolutely, great prosperity in business, through the assistance of\nprominent members in that church. Sure we are that no such motive\ninfluenced him; but it is equally true that we cannot link ourselves to\nGod's service, nor to his friends, in any way, without receiving his\nblessing. \"Come thou with us, and we will do thee good.\" \"Blessed is he\nthat blesseth thee.\" In the eyes of estimable people, and of all whose\ngood opinion and best wishes are most desirable, the man who overcomes\nany little pride, or sensitiveness, or fear of man, and goes with his\npious wife and child to the house of God, and offers the child, for her,\nto be baptized, is more of a man than before, gains reputation for some\ndesirable qualities, excites respect for self-reliance, the quiet\nperformance of a duty from which certain feelings might lead him to\nshrink, and in the increased love and esteem of others, to say no more,\nhe has his reward.\n\nGod was angry with Moses for delaying, if not neglecting, to circumcise\nhis child. His wife was a Midianite; her associations with the ordinance\nwere not like those of Moses, and perhaps he had yielded too much to her\nknown feelings. At least, the child had not been circumcised, and we are\ntold, \"The Lord met him in the inn, and sought to slay him.\" Some\naccident there, or a sudden and alarming illness, made him feel that God\nhad a controversy with him. Zipporah was not slow to interpret the\nprovidence. If Moses had said with himself, So long as I consecrate my\nchild to God by prayer, the seal of the covenant cannot be essential,\nGod taught him his mistake. As soon as the rite had been performed, we\nread, \"So he let him go.\" It may be noticed, here, that the unworthy\nmanner in which Zipporah performed the rite, did not make it invalid.\nThey who fear that their baptism was not solemnized, in all respects, as\nit should have been, may draw instruction and comfort from this\nnarrative.\n\nThere have been instances, within my knowledge, in which one or both of\nthe parents of a child have yielded to some untoward influences, and\nhave withheld the child from being baptized. While I cannot, and would\nnot, interpret certain events connected with this omission, on the part\nof some from whom better things might have been expected, nothing has\never impressed me more than the dealings of God with such parents. I\nhave been made to think by such coincidences, more than once or twice,\nof Moses in the inn. It will not be amiss to say, that those who are\nneglecting to bring their children for baptism, within a suitable time,\nunless providentially hindered, will do well to examine their feelings\nand motives, with that quickened conscience, which the solemn\nprovidences of God toward them may be intended to excite. He is \"a\njealous God;\" and he keepeth covenant \"to a thousand generations.\"\n\n\n\n\nChapter Sixth.\n\nTESTIMONY OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS\n\nHOUSEHOLD BAPTISMS.--\"PAEDOBAPTIST CONCESSIONS.\"--THOMAS SHEPARD'S VIEWS.\nBAPTISM OF HIS CHILD. THE FATHER'S RECORD.--GREAT INFLUENCE OF THE\nFAMILY RELATION IN HEATHENISM AND PAGANISM.--THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF\nAMERICA.--DISSUASIVE FROM ALTERCATION.--QUESTIONS TO A MINISTER ON HIS\nPRACTICE IN BAPTISMS.--LIBERALITY.--PAUL AN EXAMPLE.\n\n   Lord, thou hast been our dwelling-place in all generations.--Ps. 90.\n\n   The Lamb hath but one bride, the one church of all times.--ANON.\n\n   That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power\n   of God.--THE APOSTLE PAUL.\n\n   Schoolmen must war with schoolmen, text with text.\n   The first's the Chaldee paraphrase; the next\n   The Septuagint; opinion thwarts opinion;\n   The Papist holds the first, the last the Arminian;\n   And then the Councils must be called to advise,\n   What this of Lateran says, and that of Nice;\n   The slightly-studied fathers must be prayed,\n   Although in small acquaintance, into aid;\n   When, daring venture, oft, too far into 't,\n   They, Pharaoh like, are drowned, both horse and foot.\n\n   FRANCIS QUARLES.\n\n\nBeing determined to possess myself of suitable information on the\nsubject of baptism as practised by the early Christian fathers, I\ncalled the next evening to see my pastor, when the following\nconversation took place:\n\n_Mr. M._ I wish, sir, to know the plain and simple truth about the\nevidence from ecclesiastical history with regard to infant baptism. The\ninternal evidence, confirming the scriptural argument, fully satisfies\nme, yet, as a matter of interesting information, I should like to know\nhow it was regarded in the age next to that of the apostles. You know we\noften read, and hear it said, that infant baptism is an error which\ncrept into the Christian church about the third century. Now, did it\ncreep in; or did the apostles practise it?\n\n_Dr. D._ If infant baptism crept into the church, and if it be an\nunauthorized innovation, one thing seems very strange, that, in this\nProtestant age, when we are all so jealous of Romish and all human\ninventions in matters of religion, the ablest and soundest men of all\nChristian denominations but one, are firmly persuaded of its scriptural\nauthority, and are increasingly attached to it. In the great\nreformations which have arisen from time to time, this practice would\nhave been swept away, had it been an error. It is more than we can\nbelieve that Protestant denominations should all, with one exception,\nadhere to an unscriptural practice, at the present day especially.\n\n_Mr. M._ Well, sir, leaving the scripturalness of the ordinance out of\nquestion, what support does the practice get from church history? How\nfar back to the times of the apostles can we trace it? Did any practise\nit who could have received it from the apostles, or have known those who\ndid?\n\n_Dr. D._ You must come with me into my study, and we will examine the\nauthorities.\n\nI will not burden your attention and memory with many citations. Two or\nthree indisputable witnesses are better than a host. I rely chiefly on\nthe testimony of ORIGEN for proof that the practice of infant baptism\nwas derived from the apostles, though I will show you that his testimony\nis confirmed by other witnesses.\n\nORIGEN was born in Alexandria, Egypt, A.D. 185, that is, about\neighty-five years after the death of the apostle John. To make his\nnearness to the apostles clear to your mind, consider, that Roger\nWilliams, for example, established himself at Providence in 1636, say\ntwo hundred and twenty years ago; yet how perfectly informed we are of\nhis opinions and history. But Origen, born eighty-five years only after\nthe death of John, knew, of course, the established practices of the\napostles, which had come down through so short a space of time. \"His\ngrandfather, if not his father, must have lived in the apostles' day. It\nwas not, therefore, necessary for him to go out of his own family, to\nlearn what was the practice of the apostles. He knew whether he had\nhimself been baptized, if we may judge from his writings, and he must\nhave known the views of his father and grandfather on the subject. He\nhad the reputation of great learning, had travelled extensively, had\nlived in Greece, Rome, Cappadocia, and Arabia, though he spent the\nprincipal part of his life in Syria and Palestine.\"\n\nI would place implicit reliance on the testimony of such a man, under\nsuch circumstances, to any question of history with which he professed\nto be familiar, even if I differed from him in matters of opinion. But\nsuch a man would not state, for veritable history, that which the world\nknew to be false.\n\nNow, what is Origen's testimony as to the fact, simply, of the\napostolic usage with regard to infant baptism?\n\nIn his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Book v., he says:\n\n\"For this cause it was that the church received an order from the\napostles to give baptism even to infants.\"\n\nIn his homily on Lev. 12, he says:\n\n\"According to the usage of the church, baptism is given even to infants,\nwhen, if there were nothing in infants that needed forgiveness and\nmercy, the grace of baptism would seem to be superfluous.\"\n\nIn his homily on Luke 14, he says:\n\n\"Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins.\"\n\nIt was the practice, then, in Origen's day, to baptize infants. He tells\nthe people of his day, to whom he preaches and writes, why it was that\nthe church had received a command from the apostles to baptize them, not\nproving to them the fact of history, but, taking that as well known,\nexplaining the theological reason for it, as he understood it.\n\nIt is now 1857. Eighty-five years ago, the length of time after the\napostles to the birth of this man, brings us back to 1772. There is good\nDr. Sales, who was born in 1770. Suppose that he should say that\nsteamboats came from England at the time that the Hudson river was\ndiscovered, and that they had plied there ever since?\n\nNo man in his right mind (not to say a scholar like Origen), however\nsingular his opinions, would assert, for veritable history, that which\nwas as palpably false as such a fiction respecting steamboat navigation\nupon the Hudson would be. Yet Origen asserts that the practice of infant\nbaptism was received directly from the apostles. Everybody could\ncontradict him if he were in error.\n\n_Mr. M._ But we know that he was in error in saying that forgiveness of\nsins was a consequence of baptism.\n\n_Dr. D._ Very well. The erroneous opinions, or practices, of men, with\nregard to the shape of the earth, did not prove that there was no earth\nin their day. On the contrary, their theories and speculations are\nproof, if any were needed, that the earth then existed, surely. A man\nwho boldly advocates a theory, fears to assert for fact that which all\nthe world knows to be false.\n\n_Mr. M._ If infant baptism were then practised, and had been received\nfrom the apostles, why should Origen assert it in his books, and in\npreaching, since everybody must have known it sufficiently. Does not\nthis prove that it was not generally believed?\n\n_Dr. D._ Why, my dear sir, am I not every Sabbath telling how that\nChrist died for our sins according to the Scriptures? People do not need\nto be informed of it as a truth of history, but they need to be reminded\nof it, and to be exhorted in view of it. So of every doctrine, and\neverything connected with religion. We tell the plainest, the most\nfamiliar, truths to our church-members, continually; and the common\nrepetition of those truths is, rather, a proof of their general\nacceptation than otherwise.\n\n_Mr. M._ In a court of justice, such testimony as that of Origen would\ncertainly be conclusive, in the case of a patent-right, or maritime\ndiscovery. But you said that there were other testimonies of equal\nweight.\n\n_Dr. D._ TERTULLIAN was born at Carthage, not far from A.D. 150, that\nis, about fifty years after the apostles. He wrote, therefore, within a\nhundred years of the apostle John. But he was a man of peculiar views,\nextravagant in his opinions, an enthusiast in everything. He proves that\nthe practice of infant baptism was established, by arguing against the\nexpediency of baptizing children, and unmarried persons, lest they\nshould sin after baptism. His argument, with respect to both these\nclasses of persons, is the same. His language is, \"If any understand the\nweight of baptismal obligations, they will be more fearful about taking\nthem than of delay.\" He argued that baptism should be deferred till\npeople were in a condition to resist temptation. These are his words:\n\n\"Therefore, according to every person's condition, and disposition, and\nage, also, the delay of baptism is more profitable, especially as to\nlittle children. For why is it necessary that the sponsors should incur\ndanger? For they may either fail of their promises by death, or may be\ndisappointed by a child's proving to be of a wicked disposition. Our\nLord says, indeed, 'Forbid them not to come to me.' Let them come, then,\nwhen they are grown up; let them come when they understand; let them\ncome when they are taught whither they come; let them become Christians\nwhen they are able to know Christ. Why should their innocent age make\nhaste to the forgiveness of sins? Men act more cautiously in temporal\nconcerns. Worldly substance is not committed to those to whom divine\nthings are entrusted. Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you\nmay seem to give to him that asketh.\n\n\"It is for a reason no less important that unmarried persons, both those\nwho were never married, and those who have been deprived of their\npartners, should, on account of their exposure to temptation, be kept\nwaiting,\" &c.\n\nAs these extracts prove that the institution of marriage existed in\nTertullian's day, so they prove the existence then of infant baptism.\nNothing can be more conclusive. How pertinent and useful to his object\nwould it have been, could he have assailed the practice of infant\nbaptism as a human invention! He would not have failed to use that line\nof attack, had it been possible. Now, as certain articles in the\nnewspapers, in a distant part of the country, remonstrating against the\nstreet-railroads, for example, prove that street-railroads exist there,\nso does Tertullian's argument against infant baptism prove that it was\npractised within one hundred years after the apostles.\n\n_Mr. M._ Is not this stronger, if anything, than Origen's testimony,\nbeing so much nearer the apostolic age?\n\n_Dr. D._ For that reason it may have more weight; but Origen's\ntestimony, being direct and positive, is most easily quoted. He was near\nenough to the apostolic age for all the purposes of credible testimony.\n\nThere is another historical testimony, if you wish to hear of more,\nwhich has great weight.\n\nTHE COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE, one hundred and fifty years after the apostles,\nand composed of sixty-six pastors, has given us full testimony on the\nsubject. A country presbyter, by the name of Fidus, had sent two cases\nfor their adjudication. One was, \"Whether an infant might be baptized\nbefore it was eight days old?\" Here is the answer:\n\nCYPRIAN, and the rest of the presbyters who were present in the council,\nsixty-six in number, to Fidus our brother, Greeting:\n\n\"---- As to the case of Infants: whereas you judge that they must not be\nbaptized within two or three days after they were born, and that the\nrule of circumcision is to be observed,--we are all in the Council of a\nvery different opinion.\" \"This, therefore, was our opinion in the\nCouncil, that we ought not to hinder any person from baptism, and the\ngrace of God. And this rule, as it holds for all, is, we think, more\nespecially to be observed in reference to infants, even to those who are\nnewly born.\"\n\nThis was written, within a hundred and fifty years from the time of the\napostles, by sixty-six ministers of Christ, some of whom, we may\nsuppose, must have had grace enough to show a martyr-spirit in resisting\nso gross an invention as the baptizing of infants would have been, if\napostolic example had restricted baptism to those who were capable of\nfaith. Did Paul reprove an abuse of the Lord's Supper, among the\nCorinthians, and would he not have given an injunction against so Jewish\na superstition as the baptizing of children in place of the antiquated\ncircumcision would have been, if it were not commanded, had the churches\nin his day seemed inclined to practise it?\n\n_Mr. M._ All these things amount to a demonstration, in my view.\n\n_Dr. D._ You would like to hear something from AUGUSTINE, whose\n\"Confessions\" you have read with so much interest.\n\nIn his writings, on Genesis, Augustine says, about two hundred and\neighty-eight years after the apostles, \"The custom of our mother, the\nchurch, in baptizing infants, must not be disregarded nor accounted\nuseless, and it must by all means be believed to be (apostolica\ntraditio) a thing handed down to us by the apostles.\" \"It is most justly\nbelieved to be no other than a thing delivered by apostolic authority;\nthat it came not by a general council, or by any authority later or less\nthan that of the apostles.\" He also speaks of baptizing infants by the\nauthority of the whole church, which, he says, was undoubtedly delivered\nto it by our Lord and his apostles.\n\nAugustine was a man of distinguished piety and learning, whose testimony\nis every way worthy of implicit confidence. But, connected with his\nhistory, we have another substantial evidence with regard to the\nsubject. He conducted a famous controversy against the Pelagians, who\ndenied original sin. They were confronted with the argument from infant\nbaptism. \"Why,\" it was said, \"are infants baptized, if they need no\nchange of nature?\" It would have been a triumphant answer could they\nhave shown that it was an unscriptural practice, not countenanced by\nChrist or the apostles. But Pelagius said, \"Men slander me as though I\ndenied baptism to infants, whereas I never heard of any one, Catholic or\nheretic, who denied baptism to infants.\" Pelagius and his friend\nCelestius, who was with him in the controversy, were born, the one in\nBritain, the other in Ireland. They lived for some years in Rome, where\nthey knew people from all parts of the world. They had also lived in\nCarthage, Africa. One finally settled in Jerusalem, and the other\ntravelled among all the churches in the principal places of Europe and\nAsia. But they had never heard of the man, not even a heretic, who had\ndenied infant baptism.\n\nHere is another interesting proof. Irenaeus, Philastrius, Augustine,\nEpiphanius, Theodoret, wrote catalogues of all the sects of Christians\nwhich they had ever heard of; but, while they make mention of some who\ndenied baptism altogether, and with it, according to Augustine, a great\npart of scripture, they mention no denial of infant baptism by any sect\nwhatever.\n\n_Mr. M._ I suppose, then, that the only way of disposing of this\nargument is by rejecting all testimony except that of the New Testament.\nSome say they can prove anything from the fathers; so they insist that\nthe Bible alone must be our guide.\n\n_Dr. D._ They are right in making that the only and sufficient rule of\nfaith and practice. But how do these good people and the rest of us know\nthat the books of the Old Testament, as we have them, were the very\nbooks to which Christ and the apostles referred as the word of God? If\ninfidels refuse to receive the Bible, saying, 'There is no proof that\nthese are the identical books known to Christ, and quoted by him and the\napostles,' What shall we say? The Bible itself gives us no specific\ndirection how to prove its genuineness. It is interesting to observe\nthat we go to uninspired men to prove that we really have the Bible as\nChrist and the apostles sanctioned it. We go to Josephus, neither\ninspired nor even a Christian; to the Talmud, to Jerome, Origen, Aquila,\nand other uninspired men, to find a list of the books which we are to\nreceive as given by the inspiration of God. And, as to the New\nTestament, we go to Eusebius and other uninspired writers, and find that\nthe Christians of their days regarded these books as of divine\nauthority. It is on such evidence as this that we rely for the authority\nof those sacred writings, which tell us what are the doctrines,\nprecepts, and rites, of religion. Now, we see from this that uninspired\ntestimony to divine things has its use. It is neither wise, nor any\nproof of intelligence, to refuse a proper place to such testimony. We do\nnot ask Josephus nor Eusebius how to interpret these books for us, nor\ndoes their erroneous opinion with regard to matters of faith disparage\ntheir testimony as to the existence and authenticity of the sacred\ncanon. Neither can we properly say, \"The early Christian fathers had\nwrong notions, some of them, about infant baptism; therefore they cannot\nbe allowed to testify whether infant baptism was practised.\" However\nheretical they may have been, they could not alter the well-known facts\nof history, in the face of enemies and friends.\n\n_Mr. M._ Are you not accustomed to rely much, in your scriptural\nargument for infant baptism, on the baptisms of households by the\napostles?\n\n_Dr. D._ I am; and that reminds me of an interesting passage, which I\nwill read to you from this book:[4]\n\n[Footnote 4: Taylor on Baptism.]\n\n\"Have we eight instances of the administration of the Lord's Supper? Not\nhalf the number. Have we eight cases of the change of the Christian\nSabbath from the Jewish? Not, perhaps, one fourth of the number. Yet\nthose services are vindicated by the practice of the apostles, as\nrecorded in the New Testament. How, then, can we deny their practice on\nthe subject of infant baptism, when it is established by a series of\nmore numerous instances than can possibly be found in support of any\ndoctrine, principle, or practice, derived from the practice of the\napostles?\"\n\nBut you will ask him (said Dr. D.), how he proves that there were\ninfants or young children in the households baptized by the apostles.\n\nThis is his answer:\n\n\"Is there any other case besides that of baptism, where we would take\nfamilies at hazard, and deny the existence of young children in them?\n\n\"Take eight families in a street, or eight pews containing families in\na place of worship; they will afford more than one young child.\"\n\n_Mr. M._ How does he make out eight cases of household baptism by the\napostles?\n\n_Dr. D._ Let us examine his list:\n\n1. Cornelius.\n\n2. Lydia.\n\n3. The jailer at Philippi. \"Thus the church at Philippi, just organized\nby the apostles, and consisting of but few members, offers two instances\nof household baptism.\"\n\n4. Crispus. \"Compare Acts 18: 8, and 1 Cor. 1:14--16, by which it\nappears that this Crispus was baptized by Paul separately from his\nfamily, which was not baptized by Paul. Yet Crispus 'believed on the\nLord with all his house.' If his house believed, it was baptized. It\nwas, then, a baptized household. But if we believe that the family of\nCrispus was baptized because we find it registered as believing, then we\nmust admit the same of all other families which we find marked as\nChristians, though they be not expressly marked as baptized.\" He is not\nproving, here, you notice, that there were children in any of these\nhouseholds; he thinks he proves that elsewhere, by the doctrine of\nchances. He is now showing the grounds for supposing that certain\n\"households\" were baptized. He applies his argument respecting Crispus\nto\n\n5. Aristobulus's household.\n\n6. Onesiphorus's household.\n\n7. Narcissus's household.\n\n8. Stephanas's household. This household was baptized by Paul separately\nfrom its head, who was not baptized by Paul; this case being just the\nreverse of that of Crispus.\n\n\"Eight Christian families, and therefore baptized.\" Now comes the\nquestion of probability as to there being children in those households\nnot capable of faith.\n\nBegin anywhere, in any congregation, on the Sabbath, and count eight\npews, the proprietors and occupants of which are the heads of families;\nand the chance of there being no minor children in them is almost too\nsmall to be appreciated. Should we read, in a secular paper, that a\nforeign missionary had baptized eight households in a pagan village, the\ngeneral belief would be that it was a missionary of some Paedobaptist\ndenomination, and that children were baptized in those families.\n\nI must read to you (said Dr. D.) something on the other side of this\nargument. I found the following, not long since, in a deservedly popular\nand useful Dictionary and Repository, written and signed by a gentleman\nof excellent character and standing. He says:\n\n\"Infant baptism was probably introduced about the commencement of the\nthird century, in connection with other corruptions, which even then\nbegan to prepare the way for Popery. A superstitious idea, respecting\nthe necessity of baptism to salvation, led to the baptism of sick\npersons, and, finally, to the baptism of infants. Sponsors, holy water,\nanointing with oil, the sign of the cross, and a multitude of similar\nceremonies, equally unauthorized by the Scriptures, were soon\nintroduced. The church lost her simplicity and purity, her ministers\nbecame ambitious, and the darkness gradually deepened to the long and\ndismal night of papal despotism.\"\n\n\"Probably introduced about the commencement of the third century, in\nconnection with other corruptions.\" Recall what I read to you from\nOrigen, born A.D. 185; from Tertullian, who flourished within one\nhundred years after the apostles; from Cyprian and the Council of\nCarthage; from Augustine and his antagonist, Pelagius, who expressly\nsaid that he had never heard of any one, not even the most impious\nheretic, denying baptism to infants.\n\nIn contrast with such a passage as the one just read to you, I am\nreminded of the host of writers, on our side of the question, who,\nalmost all of them, make such candid and full concessions, that they\nfurnish their brethren of the opposite side with many of their arguments\nagainst us. I remember reading a book of \"Paedobaptist Concessions,\"\ncontaining a formidable array of points yielded by our writers, so that\na common reader might ask, What have you left as the ground of your\nbelief and practice? But the thought which arose in my mind was,\nNotwithstanding all these concessions, they who make them are among the\nfirmest believers in baptism by sprinkling, and in infant baptism. That\ncause must be affluent in proofs, and deeply rooted in the scriptural\nconvictions of men, which can afford to make such concessions to its\nantagonists. These refuse facts, which we afford to others for so large\na part of their foundation, show how broad and sufficient ours must be.\n\nThe quotation which I read to you, speaks of Popish tendencies as having\nalready begun. This is true; and more may be added. In the second\nepistle to the Thessalonians, Paul tells us that the mystery of iniquity\nwas already at work. On the subject of religious days and festivals, the\nfirst Christians very soon began to be superstitious, incorporating\nheathen festival days into Christian observances, under the plea of\nredeeming and sanctifying them, with some such feelings and reasoning as\nthat with which people, now, would transfer secular music to\nsanctuaries, saying that the enemy ought not to have all the best music.\nIt is true that this sensuous, and, afterward called, Romish, tendency,\ncorrupted everything. The pure stream of apostolic doctrine and practice\nwas like the Moselle, which you saw from the fortress of\nEhrenbreitstein, pursuing its unmingled course distinctly for some\ndistance in the turbid Rhine, till at last it yields to the general\ncurrent. Infant baptism, as we learn from ecclesiastical authorities\nwith one consent, proceeded from the apostles; yet soon it began to be\npractised with many superstitious absurdities; and, moreover,\nimmersion, making such powerful appeals to the senses, suited the taste\nof the age far better than sprinkling, so that not only did it become\nthe common mode, but the subjects were completely undressed, without any\ndistinction, to denote the putting off the old man and the putting on of\nthe new, and the putting away of the filth of the flesh.[5] Public\nsentiment finally abolished this practice. After a considerable time\naffusion, or sprinkling, returned, and became the prevailing mode,\nwithout any special enactment, or any formal renunciation of the late\nmode. The Eastern church, however, retained immersion, while the Greek\nand Armenian branches use both immersion and sprinkling for the adult\nand child. But the sick and dying were always baptized by sprinkling,\nwhich is sufficient to prove that sprinkling was regarded as equally\nvalid with immersion. It is natural to say that it was superstitious to\nbaptize the sick and dying, by sprinkling, if we hold that only\nimmersion is valid baptism. The sick and dying cannot be immersed; now,\nis it superstition for a sick person, giving credible evidence of piety,\nto be admitted into the Christian church, and receive the Lord's Supper?\nIn order to do this properly, the subject must be baptized; hence, we\nderive one powerful argument that sprinkling is valid baptism. Our Lord\nwould never have made the modes of his sacraments so austerely rigid,\nthat the thousands of sick and feeble persons, ministers in poor health,\nclimate, seasons of the year, times of persecution and imprisonment, and\nall the stress of circumstances to which Christians may be subjected,\nshould be utterly disregarded, and one inconvenient, and sometimes\ndangerous, form, of applying water, be insisted on, inflexibly, as\nessential to the introductory Christian rite. If the early Christians\nbaptized the sick by sprinkling, they of course supposed that it was\nvalid baptism. If it was valid at all, and in any case, of course it was\nChristian baptism, even if other modes were most commonly used.\n\n[Footnote 5: See \"Coleman's Ancient Christianity,\" chap, xix., sec. 12.\nHe refers to Ambrose, Ser. 20. Chrysostom, Hom. 6. Epistle to Col., &c.,\n&c.]\n\n_Mr. M._ I suppose, then, that you would not object to administer\nbaptism in any other mode of applying water than sprinkling, or pouring.\n\n_Dr. D._ One mode was, I believe, practised at first; and the New\nTestament teaches me that this was affusion. The application of water in\nany way, by an authorized administrator, to a proper subject, in the\nname of the Trinity, may be valid baptism; but I prefer the New\nTestament mode, as I understand it, and am happy to allow others the\nsame liberty of judgment which I enjoy. It would be an extreme case\nwhich would lead me to administer the ordinance in any other way than by\naffusion.\n\nBut, said Mr. D., you began by inquiring respecting the practice of\ninfant baptism in the early ages. I presume that your mind is settled\nwith regard to the connection of the practice with God's everlasting\ncovenant with believers and their offspring. I lately read a statement\nof this point, which pleased me much, in the writings of the famous Rev.\nThomas Shepard, the early pastor of the church in Cambridge,\nMassachusetts. He says:\n\n\"There is the same inward cause moving God to take in the children of\nbelieving parents into the church and covenant, now, to be of the number\nof his people, as there was for taking the Jews and their children. For\nthe only reason why the Lord took in the children of the Jews with\nthemselves evidently was his love to the parents. 'Because he loved thy\nfathers, therefore he chose their seed.' So that I do from hence\nbelieve, that either God's love is, in these days of his Gospel, less\nunto his people and servants than in the days of the Old Testament,--or,\nif it be as great, that then the same love respects the seed of his\npeople now as then it did. And, therefore, if then because he loved them\nhe chose their seed to be of his church, so in these days because he\nloveth us he chooseth our seed to be of his church also.\"\n\nThough the title of the treatise from which I read is called the\nChurch-Membership of Children, to which expression I have very great\nobjections, and feel that it has done harm, yet this good man held the\ndoctrine of infant church-membership in a sense which is free from all\nreproach of making people members of the church otherwise than by\nregeneration. His belief on this point comes out under the following\nillustration:\n\n\"These children may not be the sons of God and his people really and\nsavingly, but God will honor them outwardly with his name and\nprivileges, just as one that adopts a youngster tells the father that\nif the child carry himself well toward him, when he is grown up to years\nhe shall possess the inheritance itself; but yet in the meanwhile he\nshall have this favor, to be called his son, and be of the family and\nhousehold, and so be reckoned among the number of his sons.\"\n\nOne of the chief reasons which brought this excellent man to New\nEngland, was that he could not in Old England enjoy the ordinance of\ninfant baptism in its purity. Let me read the following, addressed by\nhim to his little son, who afterward became pastor of the church in\nLynn, Massachusetts, and was a burning and shining light. His words will\nshow you that he had no superstitious notion about the church-membership\nof children, though he represented the common belief at that day, and\nthat he did not count baptism in infancy a saving ordinance; yet you\nwill see how he uses it to plead with his son to be reconciled to God.\nHe writes:\n\n\"And thus, after about eleven weekes sayle from Old England, we came to\nNew England shore, where the mother fell sick of consumption, and you my\nchild was put to nurse to one goodwife Hopkins, who was very tender of\nthee; and after we had been here diverse weekes, on the seventh of\nFebruary, or thereabout, God gave thee the ordinance of baptism, whereby\nGod is become thy God, and is beforehand with thee, that whenever you\nshall return to God he will undoubtedly receive thee; and this is a most\nhigh and happy privilege; and therefore blesse God for it. And now,\nafter this had been done, thy deare mother dyed in the Lord, departing\nout of this world into another, who did lose her life by being careful\nto preserve thine; for in the ship thou wert so feeble and froward, both\nin the day and night, that hereby shee lost her strength, and at last\nher life. Shee hath made also many a prayer and shed many a tear in\nsecret for thee; and this hath bin oft her request, that if the Lord did\nnot intend to glorify himselfe by thee, that he would cut thee off by\ndeath rather than to live to dishonor him by sin; and therefore know it\nthat if you shalt turn rebell agaynst God, and forsake God and care not\nfor the knowledge of him, nor to beleeve in his Son, the Lord will make\nall these mercys woes, and all thy mother's prayers, teares, and death,\nto be a swift witness agaynst thee at the great day.\"\n\nThe practice of infant baptism, and a belief in what is called the\nchurch-membership of children, surely had no injurious effect upon a\nparent who could speak thus to his child. Yet Shepard took as high\nground as any with regard to this subject. He derived appeals from\nbaptism to his child, which were both encouraging and admonitory in the\nhighest degree.\n\nO, said Dr. D., what a people the descendants of Abraham might have been\nforever, had they kept that covenant of which circumcision was the seal.\nHad they remembered only this, and had they adhered to it, \"I will be a\nGod to thee and to thy seed after thee,\" and had they been a\ncovenant-keeping people, their peace, as God says to them, would have\nbeen as a river; an endless, inexhaustible tide of prosperity and\nblessedness.\n\nAnd now, if Christian parents will but lay hold on that covenant as they\nmay, that Abrahamic covenant, still in force for them who are Christ's,\nand so Abraham's, seed, and heirs according to the promise, we should\nsoon see, in family religion, in the early conversion of children, and\nin their large Christian culture, those promises of God fulfilled which\nhave respect to the great increase, chiefly by this means, of his\nchurch in the latter days. This is one thing which makes me love and\nprize infant baptism so much; its being an expression and exponent of\nparental love, faithfulness, and zeal, in those with whom it is preceded\nand followed by the entire consecration of their children to God, their\nfeelings and conduct toward them agreeing with the covenant made for\nthem with God.\n\nBut, in saying this, let me guard you against the erroneous notion that\ninfant baptism is primarily a parent's covenant, an expression of his\nfeelings toward God. No, it is God's covenant, an expression of his\nfeelings toward the children of believers. That is the chief thing which\ngives it value. For, it is not because parents love their children, that\nGod commands that they be offered in baptism; but because God loves\nthem, and has promised to be a God to them, as he is to their parents.\nPeople, however, sometimes treat the ordinance as though it were their\nact toward God, and not primarily his act toward them. They, therefore,\nare liable to use it with far less effect than if they were receiving in\nit, and by it, God's own transaction with them and the little child.\n\n_Mr. M._ In thinking of Pagan and Mohammedan nations, lately, at the\nConcert of Prayer for Foreign Missions, I was struck with this thought,\nhow error has been transmitted from father to child, and what an awful\npower for evil lies in transmitted family influence, when it is\ncorrupted. This led me to think whether God did not have this in mind\nwhen, in establishing his church in Abraham, he connected children with\nparents in his covenant, and gave a sign and seal to be affixed to their\nchildren as a constant admonition to parental faithfulness. All his\nformer dealings with the world seem to have failed, because of its great\nwickedness,--fire, plagues, good examples, great riches, and power\nconferred upon the good; and then he added, as a special means, the\nfamily constitution, and by it he secured a seed to serve him to an\nextent sufficient to keep the world from extinction, and to be the\nrepository and source of divine knowledge. I began to think that, if we\nwould keep religion from dying out, we must fall in with God's great\nplan; for Satan makes use of it, and holds generation after generation\nin bondage by means of the family constitution. So I set myself at work\nto find out ways by which we might promote family religion; and I could\nfind no better plan than the old one, of promoting scriptural and\nspiritual views of the dedication of children. Then I thought how much\ndiscredit has been cast upon that ordinance, which is intended to be the\ngreat sign and declaration of parental piety and faithfulness; and that\nfamily religion had, proportionably, declined, with the indifference of\nChristians to this powerful means of promoting the eminent zeal and\nefforts of parents in behalf of their children's spiritual good. Youths\nof fifteen to twenty-one years of age are, in a large proportion, the\ncauses of prevailing wickedness,--Sabbath-breaking, profaneness, and\nother things. They need just what the ordinance of baptism, properly\nobserved and fully carried out by covenanting parents, would do for\nthem. But, in being present at the formation of new churches, I have\nmourned to see that, instead of declaring infant baptism to be the duty\nof believers, as was formerly done in our older churches, a compromise\nwith modern lax views is made, by merely permitting infant baptism,\nsaying, in the confession of faith, that, \"Baptism is the privilege only\nof believers and their children.\"\n\nBut the idea of getting up a zeal in favor of infant baptism, or a\npublic sentiment in the churches which should enforce it as a duty,\nseemed to me unprofitable; but it occurred to me, whether something\ncould not be done to interest Christian parents in the subject, by\nshowing them the infinite privilege of having God for their God, and the\nGod of their seed, and then the naturalness and propriety of using an\nordinance to express and to assist it. People need instruction on the\nsubject; instruction which will commend itself to their Christian\nfeelings. We cannot legislate them into a spiritual observance of the\nLord's Supper, much less of baptism.\n\n_Dr. D._ No; and I trust that our denominations who practise infant\nbaptism, will never urge it otherwise than in connection with parental\npiety, and as a helper of parental obligations.\n\n_Mr. M._ But ought we not to stir ourselves up with regard to parental\nduties? and, if so, must we not necessarily insist on the dedication of\nchildren to God, and upon baptism as the acceptable way of signifying\nit, and the powerful means of helping us to perform our duties?\n\n_Dr. D._ Surely we ought; and in doing it we have the satisfaction to\nknow that we are laboring for something more than to establish a mode\nof applying an ordinance. In urging the baptism of children, if we do it\nnot for the sake of the ordinance, but for the things which it signifies\nand promotes, we advance the cause of piety in the parents.\n\n_Mr. M._ Would that some one would blow a trumpet in the churches on\nthis subject. I do feel that if parents would appreciate the influence\nof such a state of heart as would lead them to offer their children to\nGod in baptism, as an expression of their previous and subsequent views\nand feelings toward their children, we should see a new state of things\nin the rising generation. How striking it is that the Old Testament\ncloses with such a passage as that last verse of Malachi. It is the\npromontory of the Old Testament, looking across the coming ages,\nyearning toward the new dispensation, and, as it were, making signals,\nconcerning the forerunner of that new era, with those words: \"And he\nshall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of\nthe children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a\ncurse.\" May we not conclude that this is God's most acceptable way of\neffecting the revival of religion from one period to another?\n\n_Dr. D._ I have no doubt of it.\n\n_Mr. M._ I spoke to our good Deacon Goodenow about it, lately; but he\nsaid he had a great horror of a controversy about baptism, and he was\nafraid that, to say much upon this subject, would involve us in one. I\ntold him that I would not be for reflecting upon other denominations;\nthat my motto, with regard to them and us, is, \"Live, and let live.\" I\nwould only appeal to our own people, and encourage them to take up the\nsubject afresh, in a spiritual manner; that is, to dwell upon the\nprivilege and duty of being in covenant relations, with our children, to\nGod, baptism being the ordinance of ratification, and its memorial.\n\n_Dr. D._ Your reference to controversy about baptism makes me think of\none which I listened to in a rail-road station, last winter, while\nwaiting in a snow-storm, several hours, for the cars. Two students of\ndivinity, as I took them to be, were discussing their respective tenets\nwith regard to baptism. I was reading a book, but could not help hearing\nwhat they said. One was decrying infant baptism as a \"rag of Popery,\"\n\"the last relic of Rome in Protestantism,\" \"a device of Satan to fill\nup the church with unconverted members,\" and much more to that effect.\n\nHis friend, in reply, undertook to give his impressions of immersion. He\nspoke of India-rubber bathing-dresses;--a tank in which he saw two or\nthree men and as many women, one of them a young lady, immersed, to his\napparent disgust;--of Elder some one breaking the ice at some cape on\nNew Year's Sabbath, and immersing several carriages full of females, who\nwent back dripping wet, to the carriages, and rode an eighth of a mile\nto the vestry;--of several females immersed, in a southern State, going\ninto a creek with white garments, and with white fillets about their\nheads, and coming out yellow; and he asked his fellow whether infant\nbaptism could be any worse than such things.\n\n_Mr. M._ What did his friend say?\n\n_Dr. D._ O, it was the common talk on both sides, painful and revolting.\nI could not help saying to them, as the cars were coming up, and we were\nparting, \"But, if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be\nnot consumed one of another.\"\n\n_Mr. M._ They probably left each other as little convinced of the\nopposite opinions, respectively, as when they began.\n\n_Dr. D._ More confirmed and set against each other's views, I have no\nquestion. There has been far too much of this. Ridicule and sarcasm are\nSatan's favorite weapons. Good people ought not to use them against each\nother, whatever be the temptation. Perhaps, as human nature chooses\nvariety, and we are differently affected by different presentations of\ntruth, men must be divided into sects; but intolerance, bigotry,\nexclusiveness, in us or in others, cannot stand before the spirit of the\nage. We may work better, divided into denominations, forbearing with one\nanother, and loving one another in Christ, and for his sake.\n\n_Mr. M._ Are you often called upon by persons who are troubled on the\nsubject of baptism?\n\n_Dr. D._ I do not spend much time in discussing the mode. When a young\nperson is troubled on the subject, I am always careful, first of all, to\nfind out whether there is any secret bias, for any reason, toward\nanother denomination; in which case, I pause at once; for you might\nargue forever in vain. There is iron on board the ship, which controls\nthe needle in the compass. I always make it easy and pleasant for such\nto follow their evident inclination and wishes.\n\n_Mr. M._ Are they generally ready to go?\n\n_Dr. D._ No, they say they do not like strict communion; but I cannot\nhelp them. I will not be a sectarian, even for infant baptism.\n\n_Mr. M._ Are you in favor of admitting people to our church who do not\nbelieve in infant baptism?\n\n_Dr. D._ Young people, who say that their minds are not made up on the\nsubject, or those who have not had their attention directed to it,\ncannot be required to signify their cordial assent to it; but it is\nenough if they are not opposed. In the case of parents who steadfastly\ndecline to practise infant baptism, after waiting a proper time to\ninstruct them, I advise them to join another denomination more in\naccordance with their views. We do better to be apart, and it is no\nreflection upon either side to say this. A Paedobaptist church ought to\nmaintain its principles by requiring assent to its standard of faith;\nyet, where there is no church of a different denomination, within\nconvenient distance, I surely would not exclude a child of God from the\nLord's Supper for differences of opinion and practice about baptism. I\nwould admit, by special vote, to occasional, or even to stated\ncommunion, in such a case.\n\n_Mr. M._ Do you ever re-baptize?\n\n_Dr. D._ Where a person was baptized with water, in the name of the\nTrinity, by an authorized person, of any denomination, I would not\nre-baptize. The alleged heterodox or immoral character of the\nadministrator, at the time of baptism, does not invalidate it;\notherwise, one might be baptized many times, and, the administrators\nproving unworthy, the subject could never get baptized. Christ would\nnever let his ordinances depend thus upon uncertainties. Let a person\nbut recognize his baptism, if performed in infancy, by entering publicly\ninto covenant with God, and that will be sufficient. I endeavor to show\npeople how wrong it is to lay undue stress on the ordinance, forgetting\nwhether they have that which is signified by it, and which alone gives\nit value.\n\n_Mr. M._ True, sir, but it has its importance, and stress is to be laid\nupon the due observance of it.\n\n_Dr. D._ I mean that where I find the conditions of valid baptism\ncomplied with, I try to turn away the thoughts from any superstitious or\nceremonial dependence upon the sacramental act. You remember the answer\nin the catechism to the question, \"How do the sacraments become\neffectual means of salvation?\"\n\n_Mr. M._ How I used to say that, at my mother's knee, with my hands\nfolded behind me, to keep them still: \"The sacraments become effectual\nmeans of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth\nadminister them, but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of\nhis spirit in them that by faith receive them.\"\n\n_Dr. D._ I was thinking, the other day, and not for the first time, by\nany means, what a noble man was Paul. He was unwilling that people\nshould call themselves after him, as their leader, and therefore he was\nglad to leave the act of baptizing to his associates. Some, however,\ninfer from this that he disparages baptism. \"Christ sent me not to\nbaptize, but to preach the gospel.\" Baptism, in its place, has its\nimportance, and so has preaching; but whether he should be the baptizer,\nor delegate the administration to Silas, or Mark, was not of so much\nconsequence as that he should preach. How he put things in their right\nplaces, according to their proportions, exalting the great, vital\nthings, sinking others to their subordinate, though useful, spheres, and\nbecoming all things to all men to save them. With his contempt of\nformalism, I hardly know of a greater trial of patience than he must\nhave had in consenting to circumcise Timothy. He there shut the\nwindow-shutters, and lighted an exhausted lamp, for a time, though he\nknew the sun was up, to gratify some who had not opened their eyes to\nthe morning. How far from a contentious, ambitious spirit, was he, even\nwith his intense convictions. There are many good people, in all\ncommunions, who are longing for the time when all the old walls of\nseparation between true Christians will have as many gates in them, at\nleast, as heaven has,--on the east three gates, on the north three\ngates, on the south three gates, and on the west three gates. But I\nrejoice even in our liberty, if we choose to exercise it, of separation,\nwithout molestation, though we lose much good to ourselves, and much\ninfluence, and, in times of general religious interest, it leads to\nearly discussions about modes and forms. How many times have I seen a\ngrowing attention to religion in a community checked by debates and\ndiscussions as to ordinances.\n\n_Mr. M._ If more pains were taken to instruct our own people as to the\noneness of the ancient and the Christian church, and to show them how\nthe consecration of children is a part of religion, as reestablished by\nthe Most High, it seems to me great good would follow.\n\n_Dr. D._ If you will draw out your thoughts on the subject, and let me\nsee them, we may prepare something which may be useful. You view the\nsubject on the popular, practical side. Let us see what the results are\nto which you have come.\n\nHaving agreed to make the effort at my leisure, I may report hereafter\nas to my success. And now I will ask my reader's attention to an\ninteresting letter, which, on my return home, I found awaiting me.\n\n\n\n\nChapter Seventh.\n\nTERMS OF COMMUNION.\n\n   Him first to love, great right and reason is,\n     Who first to us our life and being gave;\n   And after, when we fared had amisse,\n     Us wretches from the second death did save;\n     And last, the food of life, which now we have,\n   Even He himselfe, in his dear sacrament,\n   To feede our hungry soules, unto us lent.\n\n   Then next to love our brethren, that were made\n     Of that selfe mould, and that self maker's hand,\n   That we;[6] and to the same againe shall fade\n     Where they shall have like heritage of land,[7]\n     However here on higher steps we stand;\n   Which also were with selfe-same price redeemed\n   That we;--however of us light esteemed.\n\n   SPENSER.--\"_An Hymne of Heavenly Love._\"\n\n   ----PRAIRIE,----, 185-.\n\n\nMY DEAR BROTHER: Here we are, at our journey's end. We have had a most\nromantic journey, arriving in health, though wayworn, much of our ride\nhaving been in wagons. My wife says, Give my love to brother, and tell\nhim of the scene at \"the hill Mizar.\" Your letter, which we found\nawaiting us, made her think that you would be deeply interested in the\nstory. This, by and by.\n\n[Footnote 6: As we.]\n\n[Footnote 7: The grave.]\n\nAs we were leaving C., one morning, in the great mail-wagon, a man and\nhis wife, with an infant in her arms, took seats with us, bound far\nbeyond our own home. The parents had been delayed by the birth of the\nchild during the journey from New York. They proved to be truly\nexcellent people, and they made our journey with them very agreeable.\n\nThe father, Mr. Blair, had been greatly tried during his stay at the\nhotel where his wife was sick. There was only one church in the village.\nThe administration of the Lord's Supper occurring while he was there, he\nwent to avail himself of a stranger's privilege at the table of Christ.\nHe found, however, that the ordinance was not to be administered till\nthe afternoon, and, moreover, the hymn-book, and some things in the\nsermon, disclosed to him that the church was one which closed its doors\nagainst communicants who had not been baptized by immersion, on\nprofession of their faith.\n\nHe was strongly inclined to partake of the ordinance, without saying\nanything respecting his baptism. But, on the whole, he concluded that it\nwould be respectful to intimate his situation to one of the church,\nperadventure they had a rule favorable to such a case as his, or, at\nleast, had agreed to shut their eyes, and ask no questions, in such\ncircumstances.\n\nHe, therefore, introduced himself to a venerable man, who, he inferred,\nwas a deacon. He frankly told him who he was, and that he wished to\npartake of the Lord's Supper.\n\nThe good man said to him, \"I am sorry that you said anything about it;\nbut, so long as you have, I don't see how I can consistently encourage\nyour partaking of the ordinance.\"\n\n_Stranger._ On what ground, sir?\n\n_Deacon._ Why, we do not hold you to have been baptized.\n\n_Stranger._ I was baptized in infancy, by believing parents, and have\nbeen a professing Christian fifteen years.\n\n_Deacon._ That is not believers' baptism, as we view it. The Lord's\nSupper, in our communion, is for baptized persons only. We hold to no\nbaptism but by immersion.\n\n_Stranger._ I certainly would not intrude, and I will not ask you to act\ninconsistently with your principles. But I am a wayfaring man. I have\nnot had the opportunity to partake of the Lord's Supper for several\nmonths. The life and health of my wife have been remarkably preserved in\nthis village. Here is the birthplace of my first-born, a place never to\nbe forgotten by us. I wish to make a Bethel of it. I wish to come to my\nSaviour's table with my thanksgivings, and pay him my vows, which my\nlips have uttered, and my mouth hath spoken, when I was in trouble. I\nrejoiced when I heard that this was your sacramental Sabbath.\n\n_Deacon._ Your church would not admit an unbaptized person to the Lord's\ntable, however much he might plead for admission.\n\n_Stranger._ O, my dear sir, how unfair that reasoning is. This is\nplacing me on a level with one who rejects baptism. I profess to have\nbeen baptized to the best of my knowledge, and to have fulfilled the\nrequirements of Christ. Should a man come to our church, and say, I have\nreason to believe that I have been baptized, though I cannot bring\nevidence to satisfy you, except so far as you have confidence in me, his\ncase would be parallel with mine. Such a man we would not exclude.\n\n_Deacon._ Perhaps we shall not agree, if we continue to discuss the\npoint. I am sorry that our rules operate to your inconvenience. We wish\nto see everybody on New Testament ground, and we think that the surest\nway to bring them there is to stand there ourselves. By departing from\nthe literal command to immerse, and by baptizing infants, the church of\nChrist became corrupted with traditions and human inventions. We are at\nthe antipodes to all this; we refuse everything which is not in black\nand white on the surface of the Bible, and so we are the more consistent\nProtestants.\n\n\"Considering the day and the occasion,\" said my friend to us, \"I forbore\nto argue, or to press the good man by asking him if the 'seventh-day\nSabbath' people had not the advantage of him as to greater consistency\nin their Protestantism; or, whether the church-membership of females was\nanywhere in black and white on the surface of the Bible. As to his\ngoing to the antipodes, to get clear of Romish principles and practices,\nI was strongly tempted to say that, to avoid being one of the acids, it\nsurely was not necessary, nor best, to become an alkali. But having\noften reflected how God uses one and another sect, and its set of\nprinciples and practices, to correct evils, by their sharp antagonism,\nand to restore a balance to ecclesiastical disorders by allowing some to\ngo, for a while, to an opposite extreme, I did not find it in my heart\nto inveigh, nor to upbraid. It also seemed good to be in a land of\nliberty, where even Christians could, from a sense of duty to Christ, if\nthey chose, fence out their acknowledged brethren and sisters from their\ntable. There are great inconveniences, and, now and then, hardships,\nresulting from it; but our friends, of course, suppose that greater\ngood, on the whole, than evil, is the consequence, apart from\nconsiderations of duty. But I know of a congregation, in a small place,\nwho have had public worship for several years, but have not had the\nLord's Supper administered, because they cannot agree as to terms of\ncommunion.\"\n\n\"Well,\" said I, \"tell us what you did in the afternoon.\"\n\n\"In the afternoon,\" he continued, \"I went to meeting, and, when the\nordinance was to be administered, I took a seat in a pew alone. I\nwatched to see which aisle the good deacon would serve, and concluded to\nsit there, so as not to seem clandestinely seeking from another deacon,\nwho would not know me, my inhibited bread; for I wished to be honorable\nin the transaction, and, besides, I desired that my friend should see\nme, and, if he had changed his mind, give me the symbols. So I sat where\nhe would pass, in a pew by myself, but he did not look at me.\"\n\n\"How did it make you feel?\" said I.\n\n\"In some respects,\" said he, \"I never enjoyed my thoughts more at the\nadministration of the Supper. I had no feeling of resentment or\nill-will. The exclusion of four fifths of the Christian family from the\nLord's table by one portion of it, for such a reason, seemed to leave me\nin such good company, that I said to myself, 'They that be with us are\nmore than they that be with them.' I rejoiced in Robert Hall, John\nBunyan, and others like them. I thought of that interesting piece in\nBunyan's works, 'Water Baptism no Bar to Communion.' I questioned\nwhether this church and its sister churches would not hear a mild\nreproof from the lips of Christ,--'I was a stranger, and ye took me not\nin.' Certainly they could not say with Job, 'If I have eaten my morsel\nalone.' Using the table of Christ for a wall or bars against\nacknowledged Christians,--that table, that Supper, which, of all places\nand scenes, is most suggestive of communion and fellowship,--seemed to\nme so great a mistake, that I could not in charity regard it as a sin,\nbecause, as such, it would be so criminal. I always believed, before,\nthat the mode of baptism was not essential to Christian fellowship; but\nthat afternoon I saw it, I felt it; I worked out the sum myself, and saw\nthe demonstration, I felt very happy in belonging to the great host of\nGod's people who can commune together, however much they differ.\"\n\n\"While I was sitting there alone, put aside, one might say, by my\nbrothers and sisters, whom I had, as it were, run in so cordially to\nmeet, one thought came over me, as they were feasting with Christ, which\nmade me weep. I thought of the possibility of being set aside in the\ngreat day. I said, to myself:\n\n   'I love to meet thy people now,\n    Before thy face with them to bow,\n      Though vilest of them all;\n    But, can I bear the dreadful thought,\n    What if my name should be left out\n      When thou for them dost call?'\"\n\n\"This did me good. Yet, while I was sitting there, I seemed to see the\nSaviour approach me, with a smile. His look seemed very significant, as\nthough he would say, 'I understand it.' Those words came to my mind:\n'Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and, when he had found him, he\nsaid unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and\nsaid, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto\nhim, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And\nhe said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.' I surely said and did\nthis.\"\n\n\"Never before,\" said he, \"had I such views of the condescension and\ngentleness of Christ toward us, erring creatures. Here was a church\nerring, it seemed to me, in a point which must peculiarly wound the\nheart of the Redeemer, whose last discourse with his disciples had this\nfor its burden, that ye love one another. And yet there were, in that\nchurch, many with whom Christ was communing with a love that seemed to\nthem unqualified. So he treats us all. I never had a greater flow of\ncharity toward all my fellow-Christians than on that occasion. I\nresolved that I never would be a sectarian in anything, while I also\nfelt more strongly than ever attached to my own views, and confident of\ntheir truthfulness, and in love with their beauty.\"\n\nWhen he had finished his narration, his wife asked me what I thought\nwith regard to her husband's proceedings. I asked her to state\nparticularly what she had in mind. She then expressed a doubt whether it\nwere proper for us to intrude upon fellow-Christians, when we know that\ntheir principles forbid their communing with us. She said that she\nremonstrated with her husband, as soon as he told her that the ordinance\nwas not free to all evangelical Christians, and that she tried to\ndissuade him from appearing to obtrude himself. She did not view it as\nuncharitableness, but only as a denominational rule.\n\nI asked her what her husband said in self-defence;--for we loved to hear\nher conversation.\n\nShe said that he turned it off by saying, \"Men do not despise a thief,\nif he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry.\"\n\nShe said that soon they experienced the utmost kindness from the members\nof that church, who, learning the occasion of their sojourn in the\nvillage, poured upon them their hospitality. Several wished to remove\nher to their dwellings. They had a \"Busy Bee,\" and made up everything in\nan infant's wardrobe for her. She opened her travelling-bag, and took\nout a white enamelled paper semi-circular box, containing a pin-cushion,\nmade of straw-colored satin, in the shape of a young moon, with these\nwords tastefully printed in pins: \"Welcome, little stranger!\" She held\nit up to us in one hand, while with the other she wiped her eyes. Never,\nshe said, had kindness affected her so much;--she believed that it\nhindered her in gaining strength, her feelings were so continually\nwrought upon by ingenious devices of loving-kindness. It became known\nthat the husband had proposed to commune, and what the issue had been.\nThis only served to make them all the more generous. They felt it\ndeeply, and bore it as a necessity which they evidently regretted; but,\nwith much self-respect, they refrained to make any apology, or\nexplanation; \"and, for this,\" said the wife, \"I respected them.\" There\nwas one elderly maiden-lady, however, who once was so far excited when\nthe subject was alluded to, while several of them were sewing in the\nwife's room, that, after moving about in her chair, evidently struggling\nwith her emotions, she ventured at last to say, \"O, if I could get hold\nof that old fence, how I should love to shake it!\" They all smiled; and\none sensible and well-educated woman immediately gave a pleasant turn to\nthe conversation.\n\nI fully agreed with the wife in her very dignified and proper view of\nthe whole subject. Is there not something extremely charming in the\nhighly lady-like sentiments and expressions of a Christian woman, as\ncontradistinguished from those of a gentleman? He, with all his\nurbanity, is apt to show the smallest possible vein of testiness, or, at\nleast, the clouded look of high-bred sense of honor. It seems to me\nthere is no power which woman exerts over us, in softening and\nhumanizing our feelings, more beautiful and effectual, than in her\ndelicate forbearance and charity in taking the kind view of an\nirritating subject, without compromise of principle, but just the view\nwhich reflection, and gentler moods, and the softening hand of time,\ninvariably present. She arrives at it at once, by intuition; our slow\nand phlegmatic sense goes through a process of mistake and\nrectification, to reach it.\n\nIt occurred to me to test this good lady's feelings a little further, by\nreading to her an item from a newspaper, which I had met with in the\ncars a few days before, and which I had transferred to my pocket. It had\ndisturbed my equanimity a little. It was an extract from the annual\ncircular letter of a conference of ministers to their churches, in one\nof the New England States, in 1855, in which mention was made of \"the\nmonstrous and soul-damning heresy of infant baptism.\"\n\nI asked the lady how we ought to feel at such a demonstration. She said,\n\"I presume I know how you gentlemen would be likely to feel and act\nunder the impulse of the moment; but the true way to regard and treat\nit, as it seems to me, is, with pertinacious forgetfulness.\" She would\nnot let it disturb her feelings; and she quoted George Herbert:\n\n   \"Why should I feel another man's mistakes\n   More than his sicknesses, or poverty?\n   In love I should; but,\" &c.\n\nSusan said that she was reminded of visits made to her mother's house,\nby some who would persuade her mother that she belonged to an\n\"unbaptized church;\" thus seeking to put in fear the children who were\nabout to make a profession of religion. Her mother replied to these\nvisitors, that there was far more apprehension in her own mind whether\nthey themselves were properly baptized, if but one mode is valid.--As to\nMr. Blair's effort to commune at that table, she said that she would\nnever seek nor receive as a boon from men, that which her Saviour had\npurchased for her, and for them, with his own blood.\n\nOur conversation was here interrupted by the exclamation of my wife, \"Do\nlook at that beautiful sight, that cascade, on the hill.\"\n\n\n\n\nChapter Eighth.\n\nTHE ROAD-SIDE BAPTISM.\n\n   How beautiful the water is!\n     To me 'tis wondrous fair;\n   No spot can ever lonely be,\n     If water sparkle there.\n   It hath a thousand tongues of mirth,\n     Of grandeur, or delight,\n   And every heart is gladder made\n     When water greets the sight.\n\n   MRS. E.O. SMITH.\n\n   Sweet one! make haste, and know Him too;\n     Thine own adopting Father love;\n   That, like thine earliest dew,\n     Thy dying sweets may prove.\n\n   KEBLE.\n\n\nWe were about to turn a corner in a defile of the mountains, and a large\nperpendicular buttress of the ridge stood out, so as nearly to close up\nthe road. It presented a surface of about twenty feet directly in front,\nas we drove up, and, from the top, which was nearly a hundred and twenty\nfeet from the ground, a cascade fell into the air for about forty feet,\nand, without touching anything, became dishevelled, and disappeared in\nmist.\n\nIt was one of the most beautiful objects which I ever saw. It was pure\nwhite, relieved against the wet and very black rock. It waved to and fro\nin the air like a streamer; it had a slow pulse, lifting it and letting\nit drop, like the appearance of a waterfall seen from the window of a\ncar in motion, only this was irregular and quite slow; it was soft and\nfleecy; it made no audible noise; it looked dangerous to see it fall\nfrom so great a height; but it was caught in the air, to your relief, as\none who falls in his dream lights upon his soft bed. The lines of Gray,\nin his Bard, were suggested by the sight of this mountain, though not by\nany close resemblance:\n\n   \"Loose his beard; his hoary hair\n   Streamed like a meteor to the troubled air.\"\n\nThe ladies had other images suggested by it. One said, \"It is a\nbeautiful hand, waving Godspeed to us on our journey.\" That brought\ntears into the eyes of some of us, reminding us so of meetings and\npartings at home, and chording well with our pilgrim condition. We\nconcluded to make response; and we tarried there.\n\nThe rock seemed to be full of water, oozing out from the seams, dripping\nover rich mosses, with jets, here and there, leaping into the light with\na bound of a few inches, and quietly expiring among the thick\nweather-stains and lichens, as if satisfied with their brief existence.\nThe little things made me think of the sweet souls of infants passing\ninto time, and then immediately out of it. As we listened, we heard what\nAddison describes in his version of the twenty-third Psalm:\n\n   \"And streams shall murmur all around.\"\n\nThe ladies took off their bonnets, and we our hats, and we stood under\nthe cascade, looking up, and feeling, or fancying that we felt, the cool\nspray on our heads and faces. We drank of the rock, and we thought of\nthat Rock which followed Israel. It seemed good to have such an image of\nJesus as such a rock, with the strength of the hills in it, and with its\ninexhaustible springs, its beautiful entablature, its cool shadow,\nfollowing a company through a desert. What thoughts and feelings did it\ngive us respecting our adorable Immanuel, God with us. Dear Susan,\nlooking up, said, \"Lead me to the Rock that is higher than I.\"\n\nAfter invoking the blessing of God, and refreshing ourselves from our\nlittle store, our friends wandered away by themselves, and left us to\nenjoy the opportunity for prayer, which we supposed they also sought in\nwithdrawing from us.\n\nAs they returned, the father had the little boy on his two hands, and,\napproaching me, he looked up to the cascade, and said, \"'See, here is\nwater; what doth hinder me to be baptized?'\"\n\nI was at no loss to understand the quotation and the request.\n\n\"Would you like to have the little one baptized here?\" said I.\n\n\"We should,\" they both exclaimed. \"We are going into a destitute place\nat the West, and there is no church, you tell us, within several miles\nof where we expect to live. It is very uncertain about our being able to\nprocure baptism for the child there; and where could we enjoy the\nordinance more, or make it more impressive upon our hearts, than here,\nso long as we have no house of God, which we remember, however, from\n'the hill Mizar'?\"\n\nI told them that the experience of Philip and the eunuch, in the desert,\nwas, just as likely as not, the same as ours. \"See, here is water.\" The\nprobability of its being a road-side spring, in a rock, or out of the\nearth, was greater than of its being a pool in the desert, large enough\nto immerse a man in it, leaving out of view the inconveniences of being\nbathed along the way. We have both gone \"down out of the chariot,\" said\nI--(you would have smiled to see our great, strong, muddied wain)--and\nwe have done what the literal Greek says they did, \"went down _to_ the\nwater;\" and when we start, we shall \"come up _from_ the water.\" But let\nus read 'the place of the Scripture' which the eunuch was reading when\nPhilip joined him.\n\nSusan took from her bag the blue velvet-covered Bible, which you gave\nher, unclasped it, and turned to the fifty-second chapter of Isaiah, at\nmy request, and began to read. O, how soft and sweet was the sound of a\nfemale voice, repeating words of inspiration in that beautiful, solitary\nspot! The Scriptures had not been divided into chapters and verses for\nthe eunuch, as for us, but we noticed that the last verse of the chapter\npreceding \"the place of the Scripture which he read,\" not divided from\nit in his copy of Isaiah, was, \"So shall he sprinkle many nations;\"\nwhich, we thought, proved that the eunuch had had the idea of baptism\nsuggested to him by those words; and quite as conclusively proving it,\nas \"buried with him in baptism\" proves immersion.\n\nHowever, being agreed on all these points, we made no long discourse\nabout them, but dwelt upon the Son of God as the Redeemer of Abraham's\nseed, and in whom all the promises of God, including those made to\nAbraham, are yea, and in him amen.\n\nI said to my friends, \"The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, are about to\nwrite their several and joint names on this child's forehead.\n\n\"As a lamb has the owner's mark upon his side, this child is to be\nclaimed by them, to be brought up for the service and glory of its\nredeeming God.\n\n\"You are to give him away, to be disposed of by the Most High. You are\nto be, for Him, what the mother of Moses was for Pharaoh's\ndaughter--nurses to your own child. This dear child lay helpless and\nexposed, with all of us, to destruction; the Redeemer passed that way;\nhe heard its cries: he had compassion upon it; he saved it from the\ncondemning sentence of divine justice; and now he calls you, and says,\n'Take this child, and bring it up for me, and I will give thee thy\nwages.' He does not commit the child to church, nor pastor, nor\nSabbath-school, but to its own father and mother, who may and will avail\nthemselves of all the appointed and the useful helps for its nurture and\nadmonition in the Lord; but he looks to you, as having the chief and\nprincipal responsibility, to bring up this child for God.\n\n\"You covenant to lay your plans for this child, so that he may, by the\nsurest means, live for God. To this end you will pray with him and for\nhim; teach him what was done for him in baptism, and before, and\nafterwards; how God was beforehand with him, and was found of him who\nsought him not. He is to be trained up as a Christian child, with a view\nto his early conversion, and your great concern is not to be, how he may\npromote his private happiness, or yours, but how he may best serve God.\n\n\"To this end, you will, from the first, watch over all his moral\nfaculties, and instil into him the principles of truth and uprightness;\nnot letting him run loose among the vanities of the world, and feed\nupon its miserable, corrupted sentiments, and choose worldly and godless\npersons for his intimate associates, his manners and his habits being\nlike a garden which runs to weeds, and his whole nature left to the\nperils of sin, trusting to some sudden act of conversion to bring him\nright; but you will rather be diligent to 'fill the water-pots with\nwater,' and wait for Christ to turn it into wine. You intend, and you\npromise, that you will educate this child from the beginning with all\nthat strictness of Christian principle which you would expect of him\nwere he, in his infancy, to be a professing Christian, his duty being\nthe same, and, consequently, yours toward him, whether he is regenerate\nor not,--one and the same law of God being our rule, irrespective of\nconditions.\n\n\"In all times of sickness and peril, you are to feel that this child is\nthe Lord's, to be disposed of by him, without consulting you. If called\nto die and leave him, you will remember that you received him from God,\nthat he belonged to God at first, and when he was placed in your care;\nand that God, who thus has the most perfect claim to him, will perfect\nthat which concerns him, even if his parents are in the grave.\n\n\"And while you thus covenant with God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,\ncovenant with you, and with the child through you, to be the God of your\nseed, affording you special help in training the child, bestowing\nspecial blessings upon it tending to its spiritual good, having a\nparticular regard for it as something lent to him, and belonging to you;\nwhile, in another sense, it is lent to you, and belongs to him; and he\nand you are to regard the child agreeably to this beautiful\ntransmutation of ownership and loan. The baptism itself cannot save the\nchild, any more than the Lord's Supper can save you; but it is among the\nfirst of means to promote the salvation of the child, not merely through\nits effect on you, or its remembered grace and goodness when the child\ncan be made to appreciate it; but above all, and through all, and in\nall, it seals that covenant of a covenant-keeping God, assisting your\nefforts and those of the child,--that promise, I say, 'I will be his\nGod, and he shall be my son.'\"\n\nWe named the little boy, PHILIP, as a memorial of the road-side baptism.\nWe stood under the shadow of that great rock, and worshipped Abraham's\nGod. \"Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us,\nand Israel acknowledge us not.\" The voice of prayer was joined by chimes\nand symphonies from trickling rills, and the freshening breeze in a\nsilver-leaved maple, leaning at an angle of thirty-five degrees, just\nabove us in the rock, all as quiet as the dear infant's breathing;\nwhile, now and then, the sudden flapping and rushing of birds' wings\nmade the monotone around us more soothing.\n\nFrom a little jet of water, that formed an arc of about an inch, as it\nburst into life and then disappeared in a great moss-bed, I caught my\npalm full, and laid it upon the unconscious head.\n\nThe little hands were suddenly lifted and dropped, as though a slight\nshock had been experienced, then a smile played round the mouth, and the\nsleep seemed deeper.\n\nAnd will God in very deed dwell on earth? Will the adorable Trinity be\npresent at such a scene as this? Present! \"All power is given unto me in\nheaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing\nthem in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.\"\nHe will not appoint this ordinance, and fail to be present; the God of\nredemption is a party to that transaction by which an immortal soul,\nwith an existence commensurate with his own, is consecrated to him by\nits natural guardians, acting in the place of God, and for the child,\nand joining them in covenant.\n\n\"Shall we ever forget this?\" said the husband to his wife, as we were\nriding along that beautiful afternoon.\n\n\"Never,\" said she; but she added, sensible woman as she was, \"the beauty\nand sentiment of the place seemed to me nothing, compared with the\nprivilege of covenanting with God, and having him covenant with us for\nthe child. After all,\" said she, \"I would have been glad to have had the\nbaptism in our little church at home, and to have secured good Mrs.\nMaberry's prayers, and those of our church, for the child, at its\nbaptism. I must write to her, and get her to tell the Maternal\nAssociation about it, and ask them not to forget little Philip.\"\n\n\"What would you have named it,\" said my wife, \"had it been a girl?\"\n\n\"O,\" said she, smiling, \"I was thinking on the hill, that, if it had\nbeen a girl, I should have called it Candace, for the Ethiopian queen.\"\n\n\"And Canda, for shortness and sweetness, I suppose,\" said her husband,\nhis eyes twinkling and sparkling with love, as he looked at her, and\nfrom her upon us.\n\n\"He's a sweet little thing, you know he is,\" said the mother, burying\nher face in the child's bosom, and giving it something between a good\nlong smell and a good long kiss, or both; a thing which mothers alone\nknow exactly how to do.\n\n\"Suppose,\" said I, \"that, instead of little Philip, it had been you,\nsir, and Mrs. Blair, who had needed to be baptized.\n\n\"Here you are, on a journey. You do not know that you will be able to\navail yourselves of religious ordinances, in your new home, for a long\ntime to come; and, besides, regarding baptism not merely as a profession\nof religion, but as an act of Almighty God, sealing you with his\nappointed sign of the covenant, you have strong desires to receive it,\nhere in this 'way unto Gaza, which is desert,' from my hands.\n\n\"'See, here is water,' in rich abundance. But, alas! there is no pond,\nnor pool, no lake, nor river!\"\n\n\"Even if there were,\" said my wife to Mrs. Blair, \"I should shudder to\nhave you venture into untried waters, in this lonely place. Fear, at\nleast, would prevent any peace of mind, or satisfying enjoyment.\"\n\n\"'What doth hinder me to be baptized?' you would properly say to me,\" I\ncontinued. \"'O,' my reply could be, 'the water is not in an available\nshape. Had we time to scoop out a tank in the earth, or make a stone\nbaptistery in the rock, then you might be 'buried with him by baptism\ninto death.' But it is impossible. This living fountain of waters in the\nmountain, full and overflowing though it be, does not allow of Christian\nbaptism. Besides, as to suitable apparel, and all the necessary\narrangements for comfort, not to say propriety,--you see that baptism,\nhere is out of the question.'\"\n\n\"Do you think,\" said Mrs. Blair, \"that the Head of the church has\nappointed any such invariable mode of administering baptism,--one that\ncannot be applied in numerous cases?\"\n\nI said to her, \"I cannot believe it. The genius of Christianity seems\nopposed to it. Let all who will, use immersion; we love them still, and\nrejoice in their liberty, but I cannot agree that it was the New\nTestament method. Even had it been, I should expect that the rule would\nbe flexible enough to meet cases of necessity.\"\n\n\"I was thinking,\" said Mr. Blair, \"that, at least, four fifths of all\nthe people of God have gone to heaven unbaptized, if immersion is the\nonly valid mode of baptism. This is rather a serious thing, if the\nsolemn words, 'He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved,' look\nonly to baptism by immersion. It seems to me,\" he added, \"that the\nprovidence of God would have brought in some great reformation from so\ncalamitous an error in the church, if it were an error. Some Luther, or\nCalvin, or Knox, or some John Baptist, would have been raised up, as in\nother emergencies, to bring the church back to her duty.\"\n\n\"How clearly,\" said I, \"does that seem to prove that all the people of\nGod have, as Paul says, 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism,' however\nvariant their modes of worship and administration may be.\"\n\n\"How many baptized children, from Christian families,\" said my wife,\n\"are gathered together in heaven! I cannot think of them as the\nunfortunate subjects of a superstitious or corrupt observance, at the\nhands of the ministers of Jesus, in all ages of the world. There must\nseem to them, as they increase in knowledge, a beautiful fitness in\ntheir having had those adorable names inscribed upon them, with God's\nown initiatory seal of his covenant. What loving-kindness it must appear\nto them, that God gave them the ordinance of baptism, and became their\nGod! How it will stand out before their minds as a principal\nillustration of being saved by grace!\"\n\n\"And then, again,\" said Mr. Blair, \"think of the millions of children in\nheaven who were not baptized,--saved, the most of them, from heathen and\npagan lands. How 'the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ,\nhath abounded unto many.' Baptism is not an austere law. There is\nnothing austere or rigid, in any sense, connected with it; but it makes\nme think of the water itself, scattered in so many beautiful and pliable\nforms all over the earth, in fountains, water-falls, dew, rain-drops;\nand, when it cannot 'stand before His cold,' it comes down softly upon\nus, in crystal asteroids and all the geometrical forms of snow. I love\nto think that God has associated that beautiful element, the water, with\nreligion. And now it does not seem accordant with the works and ways of\nHim, of whom we say, 'How great is his goodness, how great is his\nbeauty,' to make one obdurate mode of bringing the water in connection\nwith us essential to an ordinance, whose element seems everywhere to\nshun preciseness.\"\n\n\"Water is certainly a beautiful emblem of open communion,\" said one of\nthe ladies. \"It must be conscious, one would think, of violence done to\nits ubiquitous nature, to be made the occasion of separating beloved\nfriends, at the Table whose symbolized Blood has made them one in\nChrist.\"\n\nBut we had to part. I told them that my wife and I would certainly be\nsponsors for little Philip, in the best sense; we would make a record of\nits history, thus far, among our family memorials; tell our children\nabout him, and charge them in after life to inquire for him, and lose no\nopportunity of doing him good. Though, as to that, I could not help\nsaying, no one knows in this world who will be benefactor or\nbeneficiary.\n\n\"Our children will always be interested in each other,\" said his wife,\n\"for their parents' sake.\"\n\n\"Can we not sing a hymn?\" said the husband.\n\nWe found that our voices made a quartet. Susan was ready with her\nbeautiful contralto, Mrs. Blair sung the soprano, Mr. Blair the tenor,\nand I the base.\n\nTHE BAPTISMAL HYMN.\n\n      \"Lord, what our ears have heard,\n        Our eyes delighted trace--\n      Thy love, in long succession shown,\n        To Zion's chosen race.\n\n      \"Our children thou dost claim,\n        And mark them out for thine;\n      Ten thousand blessings to thy name\n        For goodness so divine.\n\n      \"Thee, let the fathers own,\n        And thee, the sons adore,\n      Joined to the Lord in solemn vows,\n        To be forgot no more.\n\n      \"Thy covenant may they keep,\n        And bless the happy bands\n      Which closer still engage their hearts,\n        To honor thy commands.\n\n      \"How great thy mercies, Lord!\n        How plenteous is thy grace!\n      Which, in the promise of thy love,\n        Includes our rising race.\n\n      \"Our offspring, still thy care,\n        Shall own their fathers' God;\n      To latest times thy blessings share,\n        And sound thy praise abroad.\"\n\nWe saw them and their baggage on board the wagon that was to take them\nover to the river; we waved our farewell, and sent our kisses; and, just\nas they were turning a corner which hid them from our view, the father\nstood up in the wagon, and held little Philip as high as he could (the\nmother, of course, reaching up her arms to hold them both fast), as\nthough to catch the last benediction. The long, flowing white dress of\nthe child gave the picture a waving, vanishing effect, reminding us of\nour first sight of the cascade, which, with the whole transaction to\nwhich it gave occasion, has taken a permanent place in our sleeping and\nwaking dreams.\n\n\n\n\nChapter Ninth.\n\nTHE CHILDREN OF THE CHURCH.\n\n   Go, now, ye that are men, and serve the Lord.--PHARAOH.\n\n   We will go with our young, and with our old, with our sons, and with our\n   daughters.--MOSES.\n\n   Hosanna to the Son of David.--THE CHILDREN IN THE TEMPLE.\n\n   The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall be\n   established before thee.--PSALM 102:28.\n\n\nThe reader will now be introduced, in imagination, to a seat in the\nwindow of a country parsonage, with honeysuckle-vines trained over an\narched lattice-work that spans the window. There are several large\nmaples in the yard, which is a grass-plot, where six gentlemen are\nenjoying pleasant conversation, and are seated at their ease, some in\nchairs, and the rest on a sofa, which, at the suggestion of a kind lady,\nthey had lifted from its place in the parlor to the yard.\n\nThey are all of them pastors of churches, met, for social intercourse\nand friendly counsel, at the house of one of their number, with their\nwives, who are also together by themselves, in a pleasant room on the\nnorth side of the house, and into whose sayings and doings these\nhusbands will, no doubt, be disposed to make, in due time, suitable\ninquiry.\n\nThose wonderful little elves, the humming-birds, are frequent visitors\nto those honeysuckles, under which I have placed my reader to be a\nlistener. How many vibrations those little wings make in a minute, how\nso long a bill can have subtractive force sufficient to get anything\nfrom the flower, how, when obtained, that product is conveyed to the\nthroat, and where these creatures build their nests, and whither they\nmigrate, are questions which will, perhaps, divert attention from\neverything else for a time, especially if the reader has escaped for a\nseason from a large city, and is one of those who there \"dwell in\ncourts.\" Perhaps, therefore, he will choose to refresh himself, in\nsilent contemplation, in this arbor; and I will make true report of all\nthat transpires in the yard.\n\nOne of these pastors, Mr. A., has been reading to his brethren, for\ntheir judgment as to the soundness of his views, a sermon, not yet\npreached, on the relation of baptized children to the church. We will\ncall him, and two of the ministers who agreed with his views, by their\ninitials, respectively, which consisted of the first three letters of\nthe alphabet; while the three who dissented from them had, as initials\nto their names, letters remote from these. Neither Messrs. A., B., and\nC., nor Messrs. R., S., and T., had had any previous concert or\ncomparison of views on this interesting subject; but they found\nthemselves thus arrayed on different sides of the question.\n\nOmitting the sermon that gave occasion to the discussion which follows,\na few lines only will put us in possession of the whole subject. I give\nthe opening paragraph:\n\n\"It is held by all who practise infant baptism, that the children of\nbelievers have a peculiar relation to the church. That relation is very\ngenerally expressed by the word membership. We have treatises, by the\nmost orthodox divines, on the church-membership of the children of\nbelievers; which children they freely call members of the Christian\nchurch; and, in catechisms and confessions of faith, the church of\nChrist is declared to consist of such as are in covenant relations with\nGod, and their offspring.\"\n\nThe sermon being finished, Mr. R. was first called upon by the chairman,\nMr. C., for his remarks. The question, as stated by the chairman, was,\nAre the children of believers, in any sense, members of the church? If\nso, what is it? and, if not, what relation to the church do they\nsustain?\n\n_Mr. R._ I presume that brother A. does not wish us to take up time with\ncriticisms upon his style. He seeks to know our views with regard to the\nsubject of the sermon. I am compelled to say, at once, that I differ\nfrom the views expressed by the reader, if he means by the terms,\n_members_ and _membership_, which he employs, all which they would\nconvey to the majority of hearers. But I noticed that when he, and those\nexcellent men whom he quotes, come to define what they mean by members,\nand membership, in this connection, they make explanations, and\nqualifications, and also protestations, showing that no one can be, in\ntheir view, a member of the spiritual, or, what is called the invisible,\nchurch of Christ, without repentance and faith. Rightly understood,\ntherefore, they are free from any just imputation of making unscriptural\nterms of membership in the kingdom of Christ. And, perhaps, when those\nof us who dissent from some of their propositions, fully understand the\nlimitations which the writers themselves affix to their use of terms, no\ngreat discrepancy will be found to exist.\n\nIt admits of a question, therefore, in my view, whether the terms\n_members_ and _membership_, as applied to children, really mean that\nwhich these writers themselves intend to convey by them; for certainly\nthey do not mean all which their readers at first suppose. The terms in\nquestion require a great deal of explanation, which a term, if possible,\nought never to need. And, after all has been said, a wrong impression is\nconveyed to the minds of many, while opponents gain undue advantage in\narguing against that which, for substance, all the friends of infant\nbaptism cordially maintain.\n\nIf Br. A. is asked, \"In what sense are children members of the church,\"\nhe resorts, for illustration, to citizenship, and to the sisterhood in\nthe church itself, to show how children and females may be members of\nthe community, and, in the case of females, may belong to the church,\nwhile yet their privileges and functions are limited. So, he says, the\nchildren of believers are a component part of God's church, not entitled\nto the use of all its privileges till they are renewed by the Spirit of\nGod, yet so related by the sovereign appointment of God to those who are\nmembers, as to be, in a subordinate sense, a part of the church.\n\nCould the friends of infant baptism agree on some term, which would\nexpress their common belief with regard to the relation of believers'\nchildren to the church, better than _member_, I think it must have a\nhappy effect in promoting harmony of views and feelings, and take away\nfrom others the grounds of several present objections.\n\nIt was here agreed that, instead of the question going round to each in\nturn, the conversation should be free, subject to the rule of the\nchairman.\n\nMr. A., the reader, then said that he should be glad to learn from his\nBr. R. precisely what his views were of the relation of baptized\nchildren to the church. \"Let us see,\" he said, \"how far we are agreed as\nto the actual nature of this relation.\"\n\n\"Well, then,\" said Mr. R., \"I will begin with this:\n\n\"_They are the children of God's friends_. We all know how God reminds\nIsrael of their relation to Abraham, his friend, tells them they are\nbeloved for the fathers' sakes, and he remembers his covenant with those\nfriends of his, their fathers, when provoked by the children's sins.\nToward the child of one who loves God (not merely a church-member, but a\nfriend of God), I suppose there are affections on the part of God, of\nwhich our own feelings toward the child of a dear Christian friend are a\nrepresentation. This love to the child of his friend, I always thought,\nis the great element in that arrangement of the Most High which we call\nthe Abrahamic covenant; for he who made us, knew how much a love for our\nchildren, on the part of others, draws us together, and what bonds are\nconstituted and strengthened between men through their children; and\nthat one great means of promoting love to Him would be, his manifesting\nspecial love and care for the offspring of those who love him. God has a\npeople, friends; and the children of such are the children of his\ndearly-beloved friends. In this we are all agreed.\"\n\n\"Certainly,\" said Mr. A., \"but you will go further than this, I\npresume.\"\n\n_Mr. R._ Yes, Mr. Chairman. One thing more is true of them:\n\n_They are the principal source of the church's increase_. The selection\nof Abraham, with a view to make of his lineage, the banks, within whose\ndefensive influences grace should find helps in making its way in this\nungodly world, had reference, I believe, to that power of hereditary\nfamily influence, which has not ceased, and will not cease, to the end\nof time. It is beautiful and affecting to see that recognition of our\nfree agency, and that unwillingness ever to interfere with it, which\nleads the Most High to fall in with the principles of our nature\nestablished by himself, in placing his chief reliance on the natural\nlove of parents for their offspring to contribute, by far, the larger\npart of those who shall be converted. In this arrangement and\nexpectation do we not find the deep roots of infant baptism? which thus\nappears to be neither Jewish nor Gentile, but grows out of our nature\nitself, which also requires, which demands, some rite, a symbolic sign\nand seal. God made the children of Adam partakers with him of his curse;\nso that the parental and filial relation was, from the beginning made a\nstream to bear along the consequences of the first transgression. No\nnew thing, therefore, was instituted when God, in calling Abraham,\nappointed the parental and filial relation to bear, on its deep and\nmighty stream, the most powerful means of godliness in all coming\ngenerations. How little do we think of this, Mr. Chairman, and brethren;\nhow apt we are to neglect this great arrangement of divine providence\nand grace,--the perpetuation of the church, chiefly by means of the\nparental and filial relation. But, if such be the divine appointment,\nand the children of believers are therefore the most hopeful sources of\nthe church's increase, of course they may be said to belong to the\nchurch, in a peculiar sense, but without being \"_members_.\"\n\n_Mr. A._ I think you are coming on very well toward my ground. I\ncertainly agree with you thus far.\n\n_Mr. R._ If I am not taking up too much time, Mr. Chairman, I should\nlike to proceed a little further, in order to do full justice to my\nviews. If I am found to agree with Br. A., it will be just as pleasant\nas though he agreed with me.\n\n_Chairman._ Please to proceed. Two things which are equal to the same\nthing, are equal to each other.\n\n_Mr. R._ I will, then, say, once more:\n\n_The children of believers are the subjects of preeminent privileges and\nblessings._ Special promises are made to them from love to their\nparents; great advantages are theirs, directly and indirectly, from\ntheir relation to those who are the true worshippers of God;\nforbearance, long suffering, the remembrance of consecrations and vows,\nprevail with God, oftentimes, in their behalf when they have broken\ntheir father's commandment and forsaken the law of their mother. No\nwords of tenderness, in any relation of life,--said Mr. R., turning to\nthe Psalms,--surpass those, in which are described the feelings of God\ntoward the rebellious sons of Abraham: \"But he, being full of\ncompassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not; yea, many a\ntime turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath.\" \"For\nhe remembered his holy promise, and Abraham his servant.\" God still\nremembers Abraham, his servant, in the person of every father and mother\nwho loves him, and is steadfast in his covenant; and \"the generation of\nthe upright shall be blessed.\" Mistakes in family government, growing\nout of wrong principles, too great reliance upon future conversion, and\nthe neglect of that moral training which is essential to the best\ndevelopment of religious character, and, indeed, without which religious\ncharacter is often a melancholy distortion, or sadly defective, may be\nfollowed by their natural consequences; and we cannot complain,--for God\nworks no miracle, nor turns aside any great law, in favor of our\nmisconduct; yet it remains true that all who love and serve him, and\ncommand their children and households to fear the Lord, enforcing it in\nall the proper ways of government, discipline, example, and the right\nobservance of religious ordinances, public and private, may expect\npeculiar blessings upon their offspring.\n\nOne of the youngest of the company, the father of one young child, here\ninquired, if the speaker would have us infer that the conversion of such\nchildren is to be looked for as a matter of course.\n\n_Mr. R._ Ordinarily, they will grow up in the nurture and admonition of\nthe Lord, to be followers of Christ; the proportion of persons baptized\non admission to the church, will become small; a healthful tone of\nreligious feeling will pervade our churches; less and less reliance will\nbe placed on startling measures, on splendid talents, on novelties, to\npromote the cause of religion; but Christian families will extend like\nthe cultivated fields of different proprietors, whose green and\nflowering hedges, instead of stone walls, mingle all into one landscape.\n\"And the work of righteousness shall be peace, and the effect of\nrighteousness, quietness and assurance forever.\" \"And my people shall\ndwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet\nresting-places.\" \"And all thy children shall be taught of the Lord, and\ngreat shall be the peace of thy children.\" Such, I believe, is sure to\nbe the manner of the church's prosperity, and therefore the children who\nare to be the subjects of these inestimable blessings must be said, in\nsome sense, to _belong_ to the church, they being the objects of special\nregard with the church and with God. Br. A. agrees with me in all this,\nI presume.\n\n_Mr. A._ Entirely; or, rather, you agree with me.\n\n\"Now, Br. A.,\" said an earnest man of the company,--who, however,\nimmediately checked himself, and bowed to Mr. R., and said, \"I dare say,\nMr. Chairman, that Br. R. was going to put the very question which I\nintended to ask.\"\n\n_Mr. R._ Proceed, Br. S. I owe an apology for speaking so much.\n\n_Mr. S._ Will Br. A., Mr. Chairman, please to tell us why he feels\nobliged to call these children \"_members_ of the church?\"\n\nFor, we all know, that, notwithstanding all these glorious things, which\nare spoken of them, to which Br. A. has also referred, not one baptized\nchild of a true believer can be, really, a member of the church, in\nregular standing, till he, like the unbaptized heathen convert, has\nrepented of his sins and believed on the Lord Jesus. All the promises\nand privileges appertaining to his relationship as a child of a\nbeliever, promote, and make more certain, his repentance and faith; and\ntherefore, if asked, \"What profit, then, hath circumcision, and its\nsubstitute, infant baptism?\" we can reply, \"Much every way;\" but it\nnever stood, and never can stand, in the place of justification by free\ngrace through the personal exercise of faith in the Redeemer.\n\n_Mr. C._ But I wish to ask, in the name of Br. A., and for my own sake,\nwhat objection there is to retaining the name, _member_, in this\nconnection?\n\n_Mr S._ My answer is, it is the occasion of great stumbling to those who\nreject infant baptism, and are confirmed in rejecting it, by\nmisapprehending the views and feelings of many who use the term in an\nobjectionable sense.\n\nThe discussion now became animated. Mr. S. said that he had a further\nobjection. It leads many, who use it erroneously, into perplexing and\nfruitless positions. Assuming that the children are members of the\nchurch, they discuss the question, as the sermon has stated, Of what\nchurch are they members? Some reply, Of the church to which their\nparents belong. Others say nay, but of the church universal. Then they\nfeel it incumbent upon them to provide some means of discipline for\nthese so-called members. In case they grow up, and neglect to come with\ntheir parents to the Lord's Supper, must they not be disciplined? Some\ninsist that discipline, in some of its forms, must be administered, and,\nin certain cases, excommunication must take place.\n\n_Mr. T._ I know it, and I wonder at it. I should like to ask, who has\ndeputed to any church the power to say when the divine forbearance with\na child of the covenant has come to an end? Does it terminate at the age\nof twenty-one in the case of male children, and at eighteen in the case\nof females? David, when a full-grown man, plead the covenant of God with\nhis mother: \"O Lord, truly I am thy servant; I am thy servant, and the\nson of thine handmaid.\" Or, does it cease on the child's leaving the\nparental roof for another place of residence? Or, on entering upon the\nmarried state? Or, upon the commission of some great act of outward\ntransgression, shall we pronounce the covenant to be dissolved? Do we\nnot see that we are meddling with a divine prerogative, if we assume to\nact in such cases? Expostulations, warnings, entreaties, from parents,\npastor, brethren of the church, may always be in place; but further than\nthese we cannot proceed.\n\n\"Perhaps, too,\" said Mr. R., \"if discipline were to fall anywhere, it\nmight more justly descend on the parents of such a child.\"\n\n_Mr. T._ The seeming mockery of a church punishing a youth for the\nneglect of that which he himself never promised to do, would most\nlikely have the effect to drive him to a returnless distance from the\nchurch, extinguishing the last ray of hope as to his conversion. A fit\nparallel to such proposed church-discipline of children, is found in the\npractice, which was not uncommon, twenty-five years ago, in a region of\nour country where great religious excitements prevailed for some time,\nwhen it was publicly recommended, in preaching and from the press, that\nparents who had labored in vain for the conversion of children, should,\nin certain cases, punish them, to make them submit to God.\n\n_Mr. D._ Is it possible?\n\n_Mr. T._ Yes, sir; and the records of those times furnish instances in\nwhich this was done. Of such means of grace, I am happy to say, we have\nno such custom, neither the churches of God.\n\n_Mr. S._ Nor shall we probably ever see young people disciplined by the\nchurches, for not repenting and believing the Gospel. It is insisted on\nas theoretically proper, but they have never ventured to carry it out in\npractice.\n\nMr. C., the chairman, said, \"Brethren, there is strong authority in\nfavor of the sermon. Since you have been talking, I have been looking\nover Dr. Hopkins's works, to find this passage, which, if you please, I\nwill read. Dr. Hopkins says:\n\n\"Though under the milder dispensation of the Gospel, no one is to be put\nto death for rejecting Christ and the Gospel, even though he were before\nthis a member of the visible church, yet he is to be cut off, and cast\nout of the visible kingdom of Christ. And every child in the church, who\ngrows up in disobedience to Christ, and, in this most important concern,\nwill not obey his parents, is thus to be rejected and cut off, after all\nproper means are used by his parents, and the church, to reclaim him,\nand bring him to his duty. Such an event will be viewed by Christian\nparents as worse than death, and is suited to be a constant, strong\nmotive to concern, prayer, and fidelity, respecting their children, and\ntheir education; and it tends to have an equally desirable effect upon\nchildren, and must greatly impress the hearts of those who are in any\ndegree considerate and serious.\"\n\nAgain: \"When the children arrive at an age in which they are capable of\nacting for themselves in matters of religion, and making a profession of\ntheir adherence to the Christian faith, and practice, and coming to the\nLord's Supper, if they neglect and refuse to do this, and act contrary\nto the commands of Christ in any other respect, all proper means are to\nbe used, and methods taken, to bring them to repentance, and to do their\nduty as Christians, and, if they cannot be reclaimed, but continue\nimpenitent and unreformed, they are to be rejected and cast out of the\nchurch, as other adult members are who persist in disobedience to\nChrist.\"[8]\n\n[Footnote 8: Hopkins's Works (1852), vol. ii., pp. 158, 176.]\n\n\"Such words, from such a source,\" said Mr. C., \"are entitled to great\nconsideration.\"\n\n\"But,\" said Mr. S., \"here is a passage from his own theological\ninstructor, President Edwards:\n\n\"It is asked,' he says, 'why these children, that were born in the\ncovenant, are not cast out when, in adult age, they make no profession.'\nHe replies, 'They are not cast out, because it is a matter held in\nsuspense whether they do cordially consent to the covenant or not; or\nwhether their making no profession does not arise from some other cause;\nand none are to be excommunicated without some positive evidence against\nthem.'\"\n\n\"My dear sir,\" said Mr. A., \"Mr. Edwards is there speaking of those who\nmerely refuse to own the covenant, without being guilty of scandalous\nsin.\"\n\n_Mr. S._ It is evident, nevertheless, that Hopkins goes further than he,\nand requires that those who, at years of full responsibility, refuse to\nown the covenant, shall be cut off. Modern writers on this subject,\nwhile insisting on the church-membership of children, draw back from\nthis position, and are more in harmony with what, it seems to me, may be\nsaid to be the general sense of the churches on this subject. I feel\nglad, when reading such passages as those from Hopkins, that we have\nliberty of opinion, and are not compelled to swear by the words of any\nmaster. I bow to such a divine as Dr. Hopkins, but he fails to satisfy\nme that he is right in these views of church-discipline for children.\n\nMr. R., who was the oldest man of the company, now returned to the\ndiscussion, and said: \"It is clear that one cannot be dispossessed of\nthat which he never possessed, except as in the case of a minor, who may\nhave his claim to a future possession wrested from him. Of what is a\nchild of the covenant, allowing him to be, while a child, a member of\nthe church,--of what is he in possession? Not of full communion, not of\naccess to the Lord's table, not of the right to a voice in the call and\nsettlement of a pastor, nor in any other church act. From what, then, is\nhe turned out by being cut off? He has never arrived at anything from\nwhich he can be separated, except the covenant of God with him through\nhis parents, and its attendant privileges of watch and care. If, then,\nwe excommunicate an unconverted child, we can only declare the covenant\nof God with him, henceforth, to be null and void,--an assumption from\nwhich, probably, Christian parents and ministers would shrink. The same\nlong-suffering God, who bears and forbears with ourselves, we shall be\ndisposed to feel, is the God of this recreant child, and no good man\nwould dare to pronounce the child to be separated from the mercies of\n'the God of patience and hope.' One who, being in a church, breaks a\ncovenant to which he assented, may be a just subject for discipline,\neven to excommunication; but, all the promises of God to the child being\nwholly free, conditioned, at first, upon his parents' relation to God,\nall the disability which the child seems capable of receiving, is, that\nthe promises made to him he must fail, by his own fault, to receive.\nWho will declare even his prospect of their fulfilment to be terminated\nat any given time? Much more, who will undertake to divest him of things\nwhich he never had? The church-membership, from which you profess to\nexpel him, does not yet exist in his case; he has not reached it. All\nthe church-membership of which, if any, he has been possessed, is, his\nhopeful relation to God and his people through a parent. To\nexcommunicate a child from this would be a strange procedure.\"\n\n_Mr. A._ That is the strongest thing which I have heard on that side. I\nmust confess (said he, rising and leaning against one of the maples)\nthat I am a little staggered.\n\nBut Mr. B. came to reinforce his faltering brother.\n\n\"Here,\" said he, \"is the Cambridge Platform. You will all be willing to\nhear from that source.\"\n\n\"Let us hear,\" said two or three voices.\n\nMr. B. read as follows:\n\n\"The like trial (examination) is to be required from such members of the\nchurch as were born in the same, or received their membership, and were\nbaptized in their infancy or minority, by virtue of the covenant of\ntheir parents, when, being grown up unto years of discretion, they shall\ndesire to be made partakers of the Lord's Supper; unto which, because\nholy things must not be given to the unworthy, therefore it is requisite\nthat these, as well as others, should come to their trial and\nexamination, and manifest their faith and repentance by an open\nprofession thereof before they are received to the Lord's Supper, and\notherwise not to be admitted thereunto. Yet those church-members that\nwere so born, or received in their childhood, before they are capable of\nbeing made partakers of full communion, have many privileges which\nothers, not church-members, have not; they are in covenant with God,\nhave the seal thereof upon them, namely, baptism; and so, if not\nregenerated, yet are in a more hopeful way of attaining regenerating\ngrace, and all the spiritual blessings both of the covenant and seal;\nthey are also under church-watch, and consequently subject to the\nreprehensions, admonitions, and censures thereof, for their healing and\namendment, as need shall require.\"[9]\n\n[Footnote 9: Cambridge Platform, chap. iii. 7.]\n\n_Mr. R._ Now, please, Br. B., what does all that prove?\n\n_Mr. B._ Why, it proves that, in the judgment of the Cambridge Platform,\nthe children of church-members are members of the churches.\n\n_Mr. R._ It shows that the Cambridge Platform calls them members; but it\ngives us no proof that they are properly called members. A great deal in\nthat extract, I undertake to say, will command the cordial assent of all\nwho practise infant baptism, if we except the use of the term members.\nIt shows that, as to coming into the company of true believers, and\nbeing one of them, the only way is through repentance and faith,--a way\ncommon to the unbaptized. The only advantage, but one which is\nexceedingly great and precious on the part of the believer's children,\nbeing, that they \"have many privileges,\" and \"are in a more hopeful way\nof attaining regenerating grace.\" But the term membership does not\nexpress their relation to the church before they are converted.\n\n_Mr. B._ (After a pause.) I do not know but you are right.\n\nMr. C., the remaining advocate of the sermon, said, \"Let me refresh\nyour memories with the famous case quoted in Morton's New England\nMemorial. He says:\n\n\"'The two ministers there (Salem, 1629), being seriously studious of\nreformation, they considered the state of their children, together with\ntheir parents, concerning which letters did pass between Mr. Higginson\n(of Salem) and Mr. Brewster, the reverend elder of the church of\nPlymouth; and they did agree in their judgments, namely, concerning the\nchurch-membership of the children with their parents, and that baptism\nwas a seal of their membership; only, when they were adult, they being\nnot scandalous, they were to be examined by the church officers, and\nupon their approbation of their fitness, and upon the children's public\nand personally owning of the covenant, they were to be received unto the\nLord's Supper. Accordingly, Mr. Higginson's eldest son, being about\nfifteen years of age, was owned to have been received a member together\nwith his parents, and being privately examined by the pastor, Mr.\nSkelton (the other minister of Salem), about his knowledge in the\nprinciples of religion, he did present him before the church when the\nLord's Supper was to be administered, and, the child then publicly and\npersonally owning the covenant of the God of his father, he was admitted\nunto the Lord's Supper, it being there professedly owned, according to 1\nCor. 7:14, that the children of the church are holy unto the Lord, as\nwell as their parents.'\"\n\nMr. R. stood up, and, with an animated look and manner, but with a very\npleasant voice, said:\n\n\"What, now, my good brother, did these good ministers do, with this\nyouth, more or less than we all do for the children of our pastoral\ncharge?\n\n\"Of what practical use was his so-called infant 'church-membership,' in\naddition to his being, as we all hold, a child of the covenant?\"\n\nThey made no reply for a little while, till at last Mr. A. said:\n\n\"Well, Br. R., what names would you substitute for _members_ and\n_membership_?\"\n\n_Mr. R._ \"THE CHILDREN OF THE CHURCH;\" for you have it in the last\nsentence of the extract which you read from Morton;--the true, the most\nappropriate, and, in every respect, the best name for those who are so\nambiguously called _members_.\n\n_Mr. B._ There is great beauty and sweetness in that name, I\nconfess,--\"the children of the church,\" \"the church's children.\"\n\n_Mr. R._ A father never, except for concealment, says, \"a member of my\nfamily,\" when \"a child\" is meant. The term _members_, besides being\nequivocal, and requiring explanation, is not so good as \"children of the\nchurch,\" an expression which includes and covers all that any would\nclaim for \"infant church-members.\"\n\n_Mr. C._ I confess, I like Br. R.'s views and proposition. If, by\ncalling the offspring of believers, \"the children of the church,\" we, by\nimplication, abridged any of their privileges, or if, by calling them\nchurch-members, we believed that they acquired rights and privileges not\notherwise appertaining to them, we ought to prefer the words member and\nmembership; but it is not so. No one of the writers cited,--and the\nproofs we all know could be extended by quoting from other\nauthors,--claims the right of a child to full communion, except upon\nevidence, in his \"trial and examination,\" that he is regenerate. Indeed,\nthe only use to which the terms member and membership seem to be\napplied, is, in furnishing some ground for urging the discipline and\nexcommunication of the child. This, though urged by some, is urged in\nvain.\n\n_Mr. R._ Other terms, in connection with members and membership, have\nbeen proposed, such as members in minority, members in suspension,\nfuture members; but all in vain. The children of believers are certainly\nthe children of the church, and such I devoutly hope and pray they may\ncome to be called.\n\n_Mr. A._ Seeing that the use of the term _member_ keeps before our minds\na theoretical, hard necessity, from which every one shrinks, I think I\nwill alter my sermon so far as to dismiss the term, and, with it, all\nsense of inconsistency in neglected obligations as to disciplining these\nyoung \"members.\"\n\n\"Well, Br. A.,\" said Mr. B., \"I will join you in submission.\"\n\n\"So will I,\" said Mr. C. \"How good it is to be convinced, and to give up\none's own will; is it not?\"\n\n\"It ought to be,\" said Mr. A., \"to those whose great business it is to\npreach submission. But I think we did not differ at first, except as to\nthe use of terms.\"\n\n_Mr. T._ I wish to make a confession. Though I have always been of Br.\nR.'s opinion, I have felt it to be invidious, and, for several reasons,\ndisagreeable, to call a meeting of \"the children of the church,\"--making\na distinction between them and the other children of my pastoral charge.\nAm I correct in such views and feelings?\n\n\"Come, Mr. Chairman,\" said Mr. A., \"we have not paid you sufficient\ndeference, I fear; for we have hardly kept order, in addressing one\nanother, and not through you. Now, please to speak for us, and tell us\nwhat you think of Br. T.'s difficulty.\"\n\n_Mr. C._ I have sinned with you, as to keeping order, if there has been\nany transgression; but I have been so much interested and instructed,\nthat I forgot my preeminence over you. But to Br. T., I would say, There\nis a church; and it means something, and something of infinite\nimportance. All our labors have this for their end, to make men\nqualified for worthy church-membership, on earth, and in heaven,--the\nconditions of admission here and there, as we hold, being essentially\nthe same. This church, which we thus build up, has children, call them\nwhat we may, the objects of God's peculiar love. On that topic I need\nnot dwell. We ought to pay some marks of special regard to these\nchildren, for God has done so. As to its being invidious, it is not more\ninvidious than to address our congregations as partly Christians, and\npartly unconverted; or to invite the unconverted to meetings especially\ndesigned for them. Meetings of the children of my church, called by me,\nand addressed by me, never fail to make very deep impressions upon the\nyoung, upon their parents, upon other children, and upon the parents of\nthose children. Another form of effecting the same desirable ends, is,\nto call meetings of parents in the church, and their children, and to\naddress the parents and the children in sight and hearing of each other.\nIn doing so, if there are any parents in the church who are withholding\ntheir children from baptism, we have the best of opportunities to\nconciliate their feelings to the ordinance of baptism. We all know how\nlittle is effected in our minds by abstract reasoning upon any subject,\nwhere the feelings are deeply concerned; close argument, invincible\nlogic, absolute demonstrations, and all measures seemingly intended to\ncoerce the will, excite resistance, and confirm us in our prejudices.\nBut open to a parent, who has doubts on the subject, its inestimable\nbenefits to all concerned, and he will be more disposed to see the\ngrounds for it, and the abundant proofs of its divine authority, which\nthe atmosphere of pure reason had not sufficient power of refraction to\nmake him apprehend.\n\n_Mr. S._ I thank the chairman heartily for those remarks. May I add a\nleaf from my observation? I have noticed that in such meetings of\nparents, in the church, and their children, good influences sometimes\nreach those who are pursuing the mistaken course of withholding their\nchildren from baptism, under the plea that they can consecrate their\nchildren to God as well without baptism, as with it. They need to learn\nthe spiritual power which God has vested in the sacraments of his own\nappointment, and to be disabused of the notion that the baptism of a\nchild is, from beginning to end, merely a human act, of which God is\nonly a spectator;--they need to feel that baptism is something conferred\nupon a child by God; and not merely a sign, but a seal.\n\n\"Yes,\" said Mr. R., \"it is an ordinance of God, and the neglect of it is\nnot merely a failure to obtain blessings, but a disregard of a divine\nordinance; not merely the withholding a sign of allegiance, but the loss\nof a seal,--the government seal, not ours, which God would affix to the\nintercourse between himself and our souls. If we, pastors, feel this\ndeeply, and so perceive the design of God in bestowing baptism upon the\nchildren of his people, we shall convey to the hearts and minds of\ndoubting Christian parents, persuasive influences, which will succeed\nwhere arguments and appeals, based on mere proofs and obligations, have\nfailed.\"\n\n_Mr. A._ It is gratifying, now, to think that these things, and others\nlike them, may be done without calling the children \"members of the\nchurch.\" Except discipline, it is obvious that everything in the way of\nwatchfulness may be done for them as children of the church, which it\nwould be proper, or even possible to do, if they were counted as\nmembers.\n\n_Mr. R._ I am aware of the analogy which many, who plead for the term\nmembers, seek to carry out between the Old and the New Testament church,\nmaking children members of the Christian church, because the church in\nancient days included the children. But it seems to me that there is\nthe same difference, now and formerly, between the relation of children\nto the church, that there is between the relation of the whole religious\ncommunity, now and formerly, to the church of God. Formerly, all the\nmembers of the religious community were, by their association under the\nsame belief and worship, members of the church. To make the case with us\nparallel, our whole Christian community ought to be members of the\nchurch. No examination or discrimination should be used; to belong to\nthe Christian community should constitute church-membership.\n\nBut this, we know, is not the case. God chooses now to make up his\nvisible church not as formerly, but of those who give credible evidence\nof regeneration. They who worship with us, but do not profess to be\nChristians, are hopeful subjects of effort and prayer, whom we expect to\nreceive hereafter to the visible church, on profession of their faith.\n\nAs the Christian church is constituted differently from the Jewish\nchurch, in this respect, discrimination and separation taking place\nbetween the members of a Christian congregation, have we not analogical\nreason to infer that it may also be thus with regard to children?--who\nonce, indeed, were members of the church of God, but, under the\ndispensation of the Spirit, they fall, with other unconverted members of\nthe congregation, out of membership in the church.\n\n_Mr. C._ And yet, Br. R., the fall is not far, nor hurtful. They are\nentitled to all the privileges, and they enjoy, or should enjoy, all the\ncare and effort, which they would have under a different name. Only they\ndo not come to the Lord's Supper, as a matter of course, as they did to\nthe Passover.\n\n_Mr. S._ Suppose that the legislature should incorporate a fish-market,\nand cede to the proprietors fifteen square miles of the sea, within\nwhich they should have the privilege of taking fish. All the fish,\nwithin those fifteen miles of salt water, might be said to _belong_ to\nthe market; yet every one of them must be taken by hook and line ere his\nbelonging to the market is of any practicable value. So the children of\nthe church may be said to belong to the church, and are to constitute\nher chief resource. Rivers, and other distant or neighboring waters,\nwould also send fish to that market, even if they were \"far off;\" but it\nis from the bay at her doors that the market would derive her principal\nsupplies. I do not see that children are members of the church, any\nfurther than those fishes belong to that market. Go there when you will,\nyou see the stalls filled from those adjacent waters; supplies are\ncontinually coming in; they are, in a sense, secured to the market by a\ncovenant; yet every fish is caught and handled, before he has anything\nlike membership in that market, as really as though he swam and were\ncaught in Baffin's Bay;--only he is now far more likely to be caught,\nand, in a sense, he already belongs to the market by the seal of the\nstate.\n\nMr. A., the reader of the sermon, not having much ideality, but much\nplain good sense, yet taking everything literally at first, and from his\nown honesty supposing that all figures of speech are to be cashed, as it\nwere, for what they purport on their face, immediately challenged his\nbrother to carry out the illustration. He asked him whether the constant\npassage, in and out, of fishes from and beyond the ceded fifteen miles,\nallowed of any resemblance, in the migratory creatures, to the children\nof the church, who are born and remain in the limits of the church, and\nare designated, individually, by virtue of their parentage.\n\nMr. S. replied, that he did not mean to make a comparison to satisfy all\nthe points of the case, and he hoped that the brethren would take it\nwith due allowance.\n\nMr. T. said that he had thought of this illustration: \"All the young\nmale children of the Levites might be said to be members of the\npriesthood. They certainly 'belonged' to the priesthood. But no one of\nthem could officiate till he had complied with certain conditions, nor\nif he was the subject of certain disabilities. He believed that the\nchildren of God's people have, by the grace of God, as really a\npresumptive relation, by future membership, to the church of Christ, as\nan infant Levite boy had to sacred offices; prayer, with the child, as\nwell as for it, and faithful training, with a spiritual use of God's\nappointed ordinances, constitute, he was persuaded, as good reason to\nhope that the child of a true believer will become a Christian, and\nthat, too, early in life, as that the young son of Levi would minister\nin the levitical office.\"\n\n\"O,\" said Mr. B., \"how many cases there are which seem to disprove\nthat. You will be obliged to reflect severely on some good people as\nparents, if you take so strong ground.\"\n\n_Mr. T._ I do not despair of a child whose parents, or parent, has\nreally covenanted with God for him, even though the child be long a\nwanderer from the fold.\n\nBut it is the same now with Abraham's spiritual seed as it was with his\nnatural posterity,--neglect on the part of parents may work a forfeiture\nof the covenant promises; failure in family government, above all\nthings, may frustrate every good influence which would otherwise have\nhad a powerful effect in the conversion of the child. The sons of Eli\nwere not well governed; Esau was evidently of an undisciplined spirit.\nWith regard to the children of several good men, in the Bible, it may be\ninferred, that the public engagements of the fathers hindered them from\nbestowing needful attention upon their sons. The only thing derogatory\nto the prophet Samuel, of which we are informed, is, that his sons were\nvile. With regard to certain cases of mournful wickedness, on the part\nof the children of eminently good men, it will be found that some of\nthese men, occupying, perhaps, important stations of a public nature,\nsuch as the Christian ministry, were so engrossed in their public duties\nas not to give sufficient time and attention to their own families;\nwhich is a great shame and folly in any father of a family. In vain do\nwe plead the covenant promises, if we neglect covenant duties. Grace is\nnot hereditary in any sense that compromises our free agency; its\nsubjects are born \"not of blood;\" there are many of the children of the\nkingdom who will be cast out into outer darkness, but among them, we may\nventure to say, will not be found those whose parents diligently sought\ntheir moral and religious culture in the exercise of a strict,\njudicious, affectionate, prayerful, watch and care, praying with them in\nsecret, which, it seems to me, is, perhaps, the most powerful of all the\nmeans which a parent can use to influence the moral and religious\ncharacter of a child.\n\n\"Is it not a mournful inconsistency,\" said Mr. R., \"for us to be\nlaboring and spending our strength and lives for the conversion and\nsalvation of others, and not be equally zealous for the souls of the\nchildren whom God has given us?\"\n\n_Mr. C._ Our habits of seclusion and study may operate to make us\nreserved, moody, and so repulsive, to our own children. We ought to be\ninterested in their every-day affairs, and watch for opportunities to\nform their opinions, on moral as well as religious subjects, and be as\nkind and assiduous to them, certainly, as we endeavor to be to other\nchildren.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWhat more could these good men have said, with regard to the subject,\nhad they concluded to adopt the terms \"member\" and \"membership,\" to\nexpress the relation of children to the church? They were not conscious\nof omitting or diminishing one privilege or blessing to which the\nchildren of the church are entitled; everything which the most strenuous\nadvocates of \"infant church-membership,\" so called, mention as accruing\nto them, they claimed in their behalf. Did infant church-membership\nadmit to the Lord's Supper, as it did to the passover, the children\nwould now, with propriety, be said to be \"members of the church.\" But,\ninasmuch as, under the Christian dispensation, they cannot come to the\nsacrament which distinguishes between the regenerate and the\nunregenerate, without a change of heart, they, and all those who are\nassociated with the church in general acts of worship, and in Christian\nprivileges, but are not converted persons, are, alike, under the\nChristian system, removed from outward membership--only, that the\nchildren of the church have privileges and promises which go far to\nincrease the probability of their future church-membership, and directly\nto prepare them for that sacred relation.\n\n\"THE CHILDREN OF THE CHURCH,\" then, is the sufficient name by which it\nseems desirable that the children of believers should be designated.\nAnd, instead of using the term \"church-membership,\" applied to them, we\nshall include everything which is properly theirs, we shall lose\nnothing, we shall prevent great misunderstanding, and liability to\nperversion, by substituting the \"Relation of Baptized Children to the\nChurch,\" whenever we wish to express the peculiar and most precious\nconnection which they hold, in the arrangements of divine grace, with\nthe covenant people of God.\n\n\n\n\nChapter Tenth.\n\nMATERNAL ASSOCIATIONS.\n\n   The mother, in her office, holds the key\n   Of the soul; and she it is who stamps the coin\n   Of character, and makes the being, who would be a savage\n   But for her gentle cares, a Christian man.\n   --Then, crown her Queen o' the world.\n\n   OLD PLAY.\n\n\nThe pastors now adjourned their session under the maples, and repaired\nto the room where their wives were sitting. The ladies had finished\ntheir deliberations, and had been strolling in the woods. But they, too,\nhad been engaged, like their husbands, in conversation about their\nchildren, and the children of the church. \"Maternal Associations\" had\nbeen the chief topic. They had discussed their advantages, and had\nconsidered objections to them. The result was, that they had unanimously\nagreed to promote such associations in their respective churches. Their\ninfluence on young mothers, in helping them to train their children,\naffording them the results of experience gained by others; the privilege\nof stating difficult and trying cases for advice, of praying together\nfor their children, of having those mothers, during the intervals of\ntheir monthly meetings, pray for the children of their sisters, and\nsometimes, specially, for a child in peculiar need of prayer, commended\nthese associations to their judgment and affections. One lady referred\nto the possible disclosure of family secrets, at such meetings, which it\nwas unpleasant to hear, and to the undesirableness of revealing the\nfaults of a child. They agreed that these things should never be done,\nand that it was easy to avoid them by employing a friend, if necessary,\nto state the case, hypothetically, so as to conceal its connection with\nany member of the circle. The ladies had gone so far as to adopt a\nlittle manual, for their respective circles, which they submitted to\ntheir husbands for criticism. One of the gentlemen read it, as follows:\n\n\"MATERNAL ASSOCIATIONS.\n\n\"Maternal Associations are designed for mutual instruction and\nconsultation, in connection with united prayer. Subjects for reading and\ndiscussion relate chiefly to the physical, mental, moral, and religious\ntraining of children. Some individual is usually prepared at each\nmeeting to give method and tone to the conversation, which might\notherwise become desultory. The faults of children who are known to the\nmembers are _not_ made the subject of remark; but cases of difficulty\nare so presented as to avoid individual exposure. Associations conducted\non these principles are found to be greatly beneficial.\n\n\"CONSTITUTION OF----CHURCH MATERNAL ASSOCIATION.\n\n\"Impressed with a sense of our entire dependence upon the Holy Spirit to\naid us in training up our children in the way they should go, and hoping\nto obtain the blessing of such as fear the Lord and speak often to one\nanother, we, the subscribers, do unitedly pledge ourselves to meet at\nstated seasons for prayer and mutual counsel in reference to our\nmaternal duties and responsibilities. With a view to this object, we\nadopt the following constitution:\n\n\"ARTICLE I. This circle shall be called the 'Maternal Association\nof----Church;' any member of which, sustaining the maternal relation,\nmay become a member by subscribing this constitution. Other individuals,\nsustaining the same relation, may be admitted to membership by a vote of\ntwo thirds of the members present.\n\n\"ART. II. The monthly meetings of this Association shall be held on\nthe----of the month.\n\n\"ART. III. The quarterly meetings in January, April, July, and October,\nshall be held on the last Wednesday of the month, when the members shall\nbe allowed to bring to the place of meeting such of their children as\nmay be under the age of twelve years, and they shall be considered\nmembers of the Association. The exercises at these meetings shall be\nsuch as shall seem best calculated to instruct the minds and interest\nthe feelings of the children who may be present.\n\n\"ART. IV. At each quarterly meeting there shall be a small contribution\nby the children for benevolent purposes.\n\n\"ART. V. The time appropriated for each meeting shall not exceed one\nhour and a half, and shall be exclusively devoted to the object of the\nAssociation. Every monthly meeting shall be opened by prayer and reading\na portion of Scripture, which may be followed by reading such other\nmatter as relates to the interests of the Association, or by\nconversation tending to promote maternal faithfulness and piety. These\nexercises may be interspersed with singing the songs of Zion, and with\nhumble and importunate prayer, that God would glorify himself in the\nearly conversion of the children of the Association, that they may\nbecome eminently useful in the church of Christ. It is desirable that\nthe last meeting in the year be spent in reading the Scriptures and in\nprayer.\n\n\"ART. VI. Every member of the Association shall be considered as\nsacredly bound to pray _for_ her children daily, and _with_ them as\noften as circumstances will permit; and to give them from time to time\nthe best religious instruction of which she is capable.\n\n\"ART. VII. It shall be the duty of every member to qualify herself, by\ndaily reading, prayer, and self-discipline, to discharge faithfully the\narduous duties of a Christian mother; and she shall be requested to give\nwith freedom such hints upon the various subjects brought before the\nAssociation as her own observation and experience may suggest.\n\n\"ART. VIII. When any mother is removed by death, it shall be the\nspecial duty of the Association to regard with peculiar interest the\nspiritual welfare of her children, and to evince this interest by a\ncontinued remembrance of them in their prayers, by inviting them to\nattend quarterly meetings, and by such tokens of sympathy and kindness\nas their circumstances may render proper.\n\n\"ART. IX. Every child, upon leaving the Association, at the prescribed\nage, shall receive a book from the mothers, as a token of their\naffection, to be accompanied by a letter, expressive of the deep\ninterest felt in their temporal and spiritual welfare.\n\n\"ART. X. The officers of the Association shall be a 'First Directress,'\na 'Second Directress,' a 'Secretary,' and a 'Corresponding Secretary,'\nwho shall be appointed annually in September.\n\n\"ART. XI. The duty of the First Directress shall be to preside at all\nmeetings, call upon the members for devotional exercises, and regulate\nthe reading. In the absence of the First Directress, these duties shall\ndevolve upon the Second Directress.\n\n\"ART. XII. It shall be the duty of the Secretary to register the names\nof the members, and of their children, and to supply each of the mothers\nwith a list of the same, together with a copy of the constitution. She\nshall also keep a record of the proceedings of each meeting, and, as far\nas may be convenient, of the topic discussed, and of the remarks\nelicited by it. This record shall be read at the commencement of the\nnext subsequent meeting. She shall likewise receive the contributions of\nthe children, keep an account of the same, and pay it according to the\nvote of the Association.\n\n\"ART. XIII. It shall be the duty of the Corresponding Secretary to write\nthe letters addressed to the children upon leaving the Association, to\nconduct the general correspondence, receive the contributions from the\nmothers, and purchase the books to be given to the children.\n\n\"ART. XIV. Any article of this constitution may be amended by a majority\nof the members present at any annual meeting.\n\n\"It is recommended to the members of the Association to observe the\nanniversary of the birth of each child in special prayer, with\nparticular reference to that child. May He who giveth liberally, and\nupbraideth not, ever preside in our meetings, and grant unto each of us\na teachable, affectionate, and humble temper, that no root of bitterness\nmay spring up to prevent our improvement, or interrupt our devotions.\nThe promise is to us and to our children; we have publicly given them up\nto God; his holy name has been pronounced over them; let us see to it\nthat we do not cause this sacred name to be treated with contempt. May\nChrist put his own spirit within us, that our children may never have\noccasion to say,\n\n   '_What do ye more than others?_'\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNo criticism was made upon this production, but the pastors commended\nit, and rejoiced in the good which an increased attention to the subject\nwould be sure to accomplish. They promised to preach on the subject,\nand, in their pastoral visits, to encourage mothers in the churches to\njoin the Associations.\n\nOne of the ladies said that she had a paper, which she had thought best\nto read, if the company pleased, when they were all together, and she\nhad therefore reserved it until the gentlemen came in.\n\nIt was a paper in the handwriting of a Christian friend, which was found\nin her copy of the \"Articles and Covenant\" of her church, after her\ndecease. This lady had been in the habit, as it seemed, of reading over\nthose articles and the covenant, on the Sabbath when the Lord's Supper\nwas to be administered; and the religious education of her children,\nbeing identified with her most sacred thoughts and moments, she read\nthese questions at the same time.\n\nThe lady who read them said that it was proposed by some to append them\nto the little manual already presented for Maternal Associations.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\"QUESTIONS TO BE THOUGHT UPON.\n\n\"1. Have I so prayed for my children as that my prayer produced an\neffect upon myself?\n\n\"2. Have I realized that to train my children for usefulness and heaven\nis probably the chief duty God requires of me?\n\n\"3. Have I realized that, if I cannot eradicate an evil habit, probably\nno one else can or will?\n\n\"4. Have I granted to-day, from indulgence, what I denied yesterday from\nprinciple?\n\n\"5. Have I yielded to importunity in altering a decision deliberately\nmade?\n\n\"6. Have I punished the beginning of an evil habit?\n\n\"7. Have I suffered the indulgence of an evil habit through sloth or\ndiscouragement?\n\n\"8. Have calmness and seriousness marked my looks, tones, and voice,\nwhen inflicting punishment?\n\n\"9. Was my convenience, or the guilt of the child, the measure of its\npunishment?\n\n\"10. Has punishment been sufficiently private, and have I tried to\naffect the mind more than the body?\n\n\"11. Do my children see in me a self-command which is the effect of\nprinciple?\n\n\"12. Have I, in my plans, my heart, and conduct, sought first for my\nchildren the kingdom of God?\n\n\"13. Have I commended God to my children, and my children to God?\n\n\"14. Have I aimed to govern my children on the same principle and in the\nsame spirit which God adopts in the government of his creatures?\n\n\"15. Have I, in pursuance of the above resolution, acted in the spirit\nof that prayer in God's word, 'Them that honor me, I will honor, and\nthey that despise me shall be lightly esteemed'?\n\n\"16. Have I aimed to secure the love and obedience of my children?\n\n\"17. Have I remembered that it is full time to make a child obey when it\nknows enough to disobey?\n\n\"18. Do I realize that the fulfilment of covenant promises is dependent\non my fidelity? Gen. 18: 19.\n\n\"19. Have these resolutions been undertaken in the strength of Christ,\nremembering 'I can do all things through Christ which strengthened me'?\n\n\"20. Have I labored to convince my child that its true character is\nformed by its thoughts and affections?\n\n\"21. Do I daily realize that each of my children is a shapeless piece of\nmarble, capable, through my instrumentality, of being moulded into an\nornament for the palace of the King of kings?\n\n\"22. Do I, by my conversation and actions, teach my children that\ncharacter, and not wealth or connexions, constitutes respectability?\n\n\"23. Do I realize what circumstances are educating my children;--my\nconversation, my pursuits, my likings, and dislikings?\n\n\"24. Do I realize that the most important book a child can and does\nread, is its parents' daily deportment and example?\n\n\"25. Do my children feel they can do what they like, or that they must\ndo what they are commanded?\n\n\"26. Have I felt that a timid child is in great danger of being\ninsincere?\n\n\"27. Do I, as an antidote to timidity, cultivate the fear of God and\nself-respect?\n\n\"28. Do I realize that I must meet each child at the judgment-seat, and\nhear from it what my influence over it has been as a mother?\n\n\"29. Do I realize that it is in my power to exert such an influence that\nChrist shall see in each the travail of his soul, and shall be\nsatisfied?\n\n\"30. Do I realize that my children will obey God much as they do me?\n\n\"31. Do I impress on my children that little faults in Christian\nfamilies may be as dangerous to the soul, and as evil in their\ntendencies, as larger faults where there is no Christian education?\n\n\"32. Do I realize the danger of retarding or hindering the work of the\nHoly Spirit, by evil habits, worldly pursuits, or companions?\n\n\"33. Do I make each child feel that it has a work to do, and that it is\nits duty and happiness to do that work well?\"\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe paper having been read, one of the pastors stated that he knew the\nlady who had been referred to; that she died leaving a large family of\nchildren, all of whom, he had learned, were now members of the church of\nChrist except the youngest, of tender age. He hoped that the Questions\nwould be printed in the Manual for the Maternal Associations.\n\n\"I was struck with the remark in some old writer,\" said Mr. R., \"that\n'God had clothed the prayers of parents with special authority.' It made\nme think that, as the Saviour promised the apostles, for their necessary\nassurance and comfort, that they should always be heard in their\nrequests, while engaged in establishing the new religion, so parents are\nencouraged to think, since family religion, the transmission of piety by\nparental influence, is so important, in the view of God, that they will\nhave special regard paid to all their petitions for aid, as God's\nvicegerents in their families.\"\n\nBut the repast was now ready. It was a goodly sight, when that company\nof ministerial friends and their wives were sitting round that table.\n\"Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together\nin unity.\" There is a mysterious charm in eating together. It is well\nknown that associations designed for social acquaintance and\nconversation, have, very generally, fallen to pieces soon after the\nrelinquishment of the repast. Our great ordinance, for the communion of\nsaints, is appointed to be at a table, where it originated. The flow of\nkind feeling, which had prevailed during the afternoon among these\nfriends, seemed now to be in full tide, and many were the entertaining\nand gratifying things which were there said and done. All possible ways\nin which the products of an acre or two of well-cultivated land could be\nprepared to tempt the appetite, were there. Br. S. was informed that\nthose fried fishes swam in Acushnit brook no longer ago than when he was\nrehearsing his parable of the fishes. The strawberries had been kept on\nthe vines a day or two, for the occasion, and were in perfection. Eggs\nfigured on the table in every shape into which those most convertible\nthings could turn themselves; and, being praised, the lady of the house\nsaid that she must tell them of Ralph, a boy of fourteen, whom her\nhusband had taken to look after his horse and garden, giving him his\ntuition in Latin and other branches, for his services. Ralph was a great\namateur in fowls and eggs. No sooner did a hen cackle, but he resorted\nto the nest, and, with his lead-pencil, wrote the day of the month upon\nthe egg. The lady rung her table-bell, and called him to her, telling\nhim to bring his egg-basket. He brought in an openwork, red osier\nbasket, with a dozen and a half of eggs in it, laid on cotton batting,\neach egg as duly inscribed as the specimens of a mineralogist. Ralph was\nhighly praised.\n\n\"I suppose you think, my son,\" said Mr. R., \"that an egg, like\nreputation, should be above suspicion.\"\n\n\"It is best to be safe, sir,\" said he.\n\n\"Ralph,\" said Mr. S., \"do you know who baptized you?\"\n\n\"You baptized me yourself, sir.\"\n\n\"Do you remember, Ralph, how you reached out your hands, at that time,\nand took my hand, and put my finger into your mouth, and tried to bite\nit with your little, new, sharp teeth?\"\n\nRalph blushed, and smiled.\n\n\"You do not remember it, Ralph. Well, I do; and now, Ralph, you must\ncome and preach your first sermon in my pulpit.\"\n\n\"It will be a long time first, sir,\" said Ralph.\n\n\"Your dear mother told me, when she was sick, that she thought she left\nyou in the temple, like Samuel, when she offered you up in baptism.\"\n\n\"Be a good boy, Ralph,\" said another of the pastors; \"we will all be\nyour friends.\" He retreated slowly, feeling not so much alone in the\nworld.\n\nThe company did not separate till two of their number had led in prayer,\nseeking, especially, the blessing of God upon their own children, and\nthat they, as parents and ministers, might be warned by the awful fate\nof the sons of Aaron and of Eli, and not feel that the ministerial\noffice gave them a prescriptive right to the blessings of grace for\ntheir children, but rather made them liable to prominent exposure and\ncalamity, if they suffered public duties to interfere with that first,\ngreat ordinance of God, family religion.\n\nThe horses were now coming to the door. Farewells and good wishes were\nintermingled, the joyous laugh at some pleasantry or sally of wit made\nthe house and yard alive for some time, the pastors had arranged their\nexchanges for several months to come, visits and excursions were planned\nand agreed upon, till one by one the vehicles departed, leaving the\nparsonage silent, while its occupants sat down to rest a while, and talk\nover the events of the day, in their pleasant window under the\nhoneysuckle.\n\n\n\n\nChapter Eleventh.\n\nBAPTISM OF THE SICK WIFE AND HER CHILDREN.\n\n   In having all things, and not Thee, what have I?\n   Not having Thee, what have my labors got?\n   Let me enjoy but Thee, what further crave I?\n   And having Thee alone, what have I not?\n   I wish nor sea, nor land; nor would I be\n   Possessed of heaven, heaven unpossessed of Thee.\n\n   QUARLES.--\"_Emblems._\"\n\n   He whom God chooseth, out of doubt doth well.\n   What they that choose their God do, who can tell?\n\n   LORD BROOKE (London, 1633).--\"_Mustapha._\"\n\n\nA lady with whom we spent a summer at a watering-place, and who was then\nan invalid, and with whom we had formed an intimate acquaintance, was\nnow very sick, with cancerous affections, which threatened to end her\nlife at no distant period.\n\nShe had become established in the Christian faith, during her illness,\nand, being a woman of great intelligence and cultivation, it was\ninstructive to be in her company. Many a lesson had I learned from her,\nin the freshness and ardor of her new discoveries as a Christian, the\nold themes of religious experience being translated by her renewed\nheart, and discriminating mind, into forms that made them almost new,\nbecause they were so vivid. She was fast ripening for heaven; she had\nlooked in, and her face shone as she turned to speak with us.\n\nA lady, a friend of hers from a distance, was visiting us, and, knowing\nthat she was sick, requested me to call with her upon the invalid.\nHearing that I was in the parlor, she sent for me to come up and sit\nwith her and my friend, after they had seen each other a little while.\nShe was in her easy-chair, able to converse, and was calm and happy.\n\nThe door opened suddenly, as we were talking, and in rushed a little boy\nof about six years, his cap in his hand, a pretty green cloth sack\nbuttoned close about him, his boots pulled over his pants to his knees,\nand his face glowing with health and from the cold air.\n\n\"O, mother!\" said he, before he quite saw us,--and then he checked\nhimself; but, being encouraged to proceed, after making his\nsalutations, he said, in a more subdued tone, holding up a great red\napple, \"See what the man, where we buy our things, sent you, mother. He\ncalled me to him, and said, 'Give that to your mother, and tell her it\nwill be first-rate roasted.'\"\n\nAs the mother smelt of it, and praised it, with her thanks, the boy hung\nround her chair, and wished to say something.\n\n\"Well, what is it, my son?\"\n\nHe spoke loud enough for us to hear, with his eyes glancing occasionally\nat us, to be sure that we were not too intently looking at him, and,\nwith his arm resting in his mother's lap, he said:\n\n\"Do, please, let me go with my sled on the pond. It is real thick,\nmother. Gustavus says that last evening it was as thick as his big\ndictionary, and you know how cold it was last night, mother. Please let\nme go; I won't get in; besides, if I do, it isn't deep--not more than up\nto there; see here, mother!\" putting his little mittened hand, with the\npalm down, as high as his waist.\n\nHis mother looked troubled, and knew not what to say to him, but\nremarked to us, \"O, if I were well, and about the house, I could divert\nhim from his wish; but,\" said she to him, \"if you will ask Gustavus to\ntake care of you, and bring you home when he comes, you may go.\"\n\nOff he went, making fewer steps than there were stairs, and we heard his\nmerry voice without announcing his liberty.\n\n\"Here I am,\" said she to us, \"with those three children, who come home\nfrom school twice a day, and there is no mother below to receive them.\nWith the best of help, things sometimes go wrong, and the young woman\nwho sews for me cannot, of course, do for them what a mother could.\nNothing has tried my patience, in suffering, more than to hear the door\nopen, and my children come in from school, and to feel that I am\nseparated from them, within hearing, while I cannot reach them.\"\n\nShe controlled her feelings, and helped herself to conceal them by\nturning to rock a cradle which stood behind her, though we perceived no\nneed of her doing so; yet we must all distrust our own ears in\ncomparison with a mother's. The child was a boy seven months old.\n\n\"Do you know,\" said she to me, \"that I am thinking of joining your\nchurch? I have had a very trying visit from my own pastor, and he says\nthat I am too sick to be baptized by immersion, and that it is,\ntherefore, too late for me to receive Christian baptism. It is not\nnecessary, he says, in order to being accepted of God. I was born and\nbrought up in that Communion, and never thought much of the subject of\nbaptism till I hoped that I began to love God, here in my sick-room. If\nbaptism is so important as our ministers tell us it is, in their\npreaching and by their practice,--for you know how important they deem\nit, in times of religious attention, to have people baptized in our\nway,--I cannot see why it is not important to me. If it is man's\nordinance, and merely for an effect on others, very well; but if God has\nanything to do in it, I feel that I need it as much as though I were in\nhealth. So my husband asked your minister to come and see me, and he\ndid; and he is to baptize me and my children on Saturday afternoon, and\nadminister the Lord's Supper to me after church the next day.\"\n\nI asked her what ground of objection her pastor had in her case.\n\n_Mrs. P._ My minister tells me it is superstition to be baptized on a\nsick-bed, and that they are careful not to encourage such Romish\npractices.\n\n\"But, O,\" I said to him, \"Mr. Dow, I am afraid it is because your form\nof baptism will not allow you to baptize the sick and dying, so you make\na virtue of necessity.\" He colored a little, but said, pleasantly,\nthough solemnly, \"We see how important it is, Mrs. Peirce, to attend to\nthe subject of religion in health, when we can confess Christ before\nmen, and follow the Saviour, and be buried in baptism with him.\"\n\nThat made me weep, though perhaps it was because I was weak; but I said,\n\"God is more merciful than that, Mr. Dow. I know that I have neglected\nreligion too long, but God has brought me to him, by affliction, and now\nI do not believe that the seals of his grace are of such a nature that\nthey cannot be applied to people in my condition. I feel the need of\nthose seals, not as my profession to God, but as his professions of love\nto me. I believe you are wrong, Mr. Dow. You seem to make baptism our\nact toward God, chiefly; now I take a different view of it. My sick and\nweak condition makes me feel that in being baptized, and in receiving\nthe Lord's Supper, I submit myself to God's hand of love, and take from\nhim infinitely more than I give him.\"--\"O, that is rather a Romish view\nof ordinances,\" said he, smiling.--\"No,\" said I, \"Mr. Dow, I am not\npassive in the ordinances, any more than in regeneration; my whole soul\nis active in receiving their influences. But there is something done for\nus in the ordinances, as there is something done for us in regeneration,\nwhile we actively repent and believe. Are you not so afraid of Romanism,\nand of 'sacramental grace,' that you go to an opposite extreme? for it\nseems to me a morbid state of feeling. I wish for no extreme unction,\nbut I do believe that, in being baptized, and in receiving the Lord's\nSupper, something more is done for us than helping us to take up and\noffer to God something on the little needle-points of our poor feelings.\nI should feel, in being baptized, that God has adopted me, and not\nmerely I him; and, in the Lord's Supper, that it is more for Christ to\ngive me his body and blood, than for me to give him my poor affections.\"\nHe asked me if I had not been reading the Oxford Tracts. I told him that\nI read the Oxford Tracts, and other Puseyite publications, in their day,\nand that I saw through their errors, and had no sympathy with their\nviews.\n\nBut I told him I was satisfied that the human mind, in that\ndevelopment, was craving something more supernatural in religious\nordinances, to make the impression that the hand of God is in them, and\nnot that we are the principal party. So, instead of taking enlightened,\nspiritual views of ordinances, the Tractarians sought to improve the\nquality, by multiplying the quantity, of forms; and others are following\nthem into the Roman Catholic church in the same way.\n\n\"There always seemed to me,\" she said, \"to be a grain of truth in every\ngreat error. Is it not so? Even among the Brahmins of the East, and\namong savages, each superstition, and every lie, retains the fossils of\nsome dead truth. When a new error breaks out among us, I feel that the\nhuman mind is tossing itself, and reaching after something beyond its\nexperience. It seems to me,\" she continued, \"that, at such times, it is\ngood for ministers and Christians to reexamine their mode of stating the\ntruths of the Bible, to see how far they can properly go to meet the new\ndevelopment, and, by preaching the truth better, intercept it. The cold,\nbarren view, which many take of ordinances, makes some people hanker\nafter forms and ceremonies; whereas, if we would present baptism and\nthe Lord's Supper as divine acts toward us, we might meet the\ninstinctive wants of many, and hold them to the side of truth.\n\n\"But I told Mr. Dow that I was no formalist, nor did I believe in\ncompromising the truth to win errorists. Clear, faithful, strict\ndoctrinal views commend themselves to men's consciences.\"\n\nI came near saying to the good lady, that, if she were able to talk in\nsuch a strain, and to say so much to her minister, he, surely, could not\nhave deemed her so enfeebled in mind as to be incapacitated for\nadmission to the Christian church.\n\n\"I told him, also,\" she added, \"I was satisfied that his unvarying mode\nof baptism was not ordained by Him who sent the Gospel to every\ncreature.--Why, said I, Mr. Dow, what do you make of the apostles'\nbaptizing the jailer, 'at the same hour of the night,' and 'before it\nwas day?' It could not have been for any public effect. What need to\nhave it done just then? Was it superstitious and Romish? No; it was to\ncomfort the soul of the poor, trembling convert, with a sense of God's\nlove to him. How it must have soothed and cheered him to receive God's\nhand of love in that ordinance, before he himself fully knew what the\nmaking of a Christian profession implied! I want that same hand of love\nhere, in my prison of a sick-chamber,--And, I never thought of it much\nbefore, but, I said then, it seemed so clear to me that they would not\nhave gone to all the trouble, that night, and in the prison-house, and\nafter the terrors of the earthquake, to put a whole family into\nbathing-vessels. To take people from sleep, ordinarily, and immerse them\nin water, would be a singular act; much more when they are weak and\nfaint, as the jailer's family must have been, from fear and excitement.\nIn my own case, I could not be immersed, even at home; it would probably\ncost me my life. Sprinkling came to me as so sweetly harmonious, in that\nscene of the jailer's baptism, that I believed it to be the apostolic\nmode of baptizing, and I told Mr. D. that I should imitate the jailer;\nand that I should send for a minister who could imitate Paul and Silas.\"\n\n\"But,\" said I, \"what brought you to believe in the propriety of\nbaptizing your children?\"\n\n_Mrs. P._ Your minister enlightened me on that subject. I told him my\nheart yearned to have it done; for I took the same view of it which I\nhave mentioned with regard to my own baptism--that it is something which\nGod does, to and for the children, primarily, and it is not merely a\nhuman act. He said that it was like laying \"a penal bond\" on children,\nto baptize them, and oblige them to do or be anything without their\nconsent. O, how many such \"penal bonds\" I have laid on my children,\nalready!--the more the better, I told him. \"A penal bond\" to love and\nserve God!--I mean to add my dying charge to it, and make it as binding\nas I can. How imperfect such a view of baptism is! It is God coming to\nus with his seal, not we coming with our own invention to him. I wished\nto have God enter into a covenant with me, who hope I love him, to be a\nGod to my children forever. I felt that I could die in peace, if I might\nfeel some assurance of this; and, it seemed to me that, to have a sign\nand seal of it from God himself would make me perfectly happy.\n\nShe handed me a book, which her pastor had lent her, and she asked me to\nread a passage, to which she pointed. It was an argument against baptism\nin sickness. Speaking of the penitent thief, the writer says:\n\n\"The Saviour did not, as a Papist would have done, command some of the\nwomen, that stood by bewailing, to fetch a little water; nor the\nbeloved disciple to asperse the quivering penitent.\"\n\nRemembering the view which the mother of little Philip took of such\nthings, I merely said, that the writer seemed to me to asperse a large\npart of the Protestant world, under the name, Papist. Christian baptism,\nI remarked, had not been instituted when the Saviour and the thief were\non the cross.\n\nI received an invitation from the husband, a day or two after, to be\npresent at the baptism of his wife and children. The husband was not\nprofessedly, nor in his own view, a regenerate man, but one of the best\nof husbands and fathers, destitute, however, of the one thing needful.\n\nThe wife had on a loose cashmere dressing-gown, but was sitting in bed\nfor greater support and comfort.\n\nThe pastor read to her the articles and covenant of the church. She\nassented to them; whereupon, at his request, I laid the church-book of\nsignatures before her, gave her a pen full of ink, and she wrote her\nname among the professed followers of the Lamb.\n\nThe pastor then declared her to be admitted, by vote of the church, into\nfull communion and fellowship, after she should have received the\nordinance of baptism.\n\nHe rose, and read, \"And Jesus came unto them, and spake, saying, All\npower is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and\nteach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the\nSon, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe all things\nwhatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even unto\nthe end of the world. Amen.\"\n\nHe continued: \"My dear Mrs. Peirce, God is your God. He will have his\nname written upon you, by its being called over you, with the use of his\nown appointed sign and seal of baptism. The name in which he has chosen\nthus to appear to you, is not God Almighty, nor his name Jehovah; but\nthose names which redemption has brought to view, and which impress upon\nus the acts of redeeming grace and love. Do not feel, chiefly, that you\ngive yourself up to God in this transaction, though this, of course, you\ndo, and it is essential that you do so; but feel that the Father, Son,\nand Spirit, come to you, and own you in the covenant of redemption, in\nconsequence of your accepting Christ, by faith, which itself, also, is\nthe gift of God. Professing repentance of your sins, and faith in the\nLord Jesus, you are now to receive, from the Sacred Three, a sign and\nseal, confirming to you all the promises of grace, adopting you as a\nmember of the whole family in heaven and earth, and engaging God to be\nyour God.\n\n\"And now, as you are, yourself, a child of God, your children God adopts\nto be, in a peculiar sense, his. This is the method of his love from the\nbeginning. Had Adam remained upright, doubtless his children would have\nbeen confirmed in their uprightness; but, inasmuch as he fell, and, by\nhis disobedience, they were made sinners, God reestablished his covenant\nwith Abraham as the father of all believers, under a new\nchurch-organization, to the end of time, promising to be the God of a\nbeliever's child.\"\n\nHe then read this hymn; and certain expressions in it never struck me\nwith such force and sweetness as in that baptismal scene:\n\n      \"How large the promise, how divine,\n         To Abraham and his seed;\n       I'll be a God to thee and thine,\n         Supplying all their need.\n\n      \"The words of his extensive love\n         From age to age endure;\n       The angel of the covenant proves,\n         And seals, the blessing sure.\n\n      \"Jesus the ancient faith confirms\n         To our great fathers given;\n       He takes young children to his arms,\n         And calls them heirs of heaven.\n\n      \"Our God, how faithful are his ways!\n         His love endures the same;\n       Nor from the promise of his grace\n         Blots out the children's name.\"\n\n\"And now,\" said he, \"as you belong to the church of Christ, so your\nchildren, in a certain sense, and that a very important and precious\nsense, _belong_ to the church. Your little, unconscious babe belongs, in\nthat sense, to the church. You will not, you cannot, misunderstand me.\nThese are the children of a child of God. All your brethren and sisters\nin Christ count them in their great family circle. They covenant with\nyou to pray for them, to watch for their good, and to rejoice in it, to\nprovide means for their spiritual prosperity, and to seek their\nsalvation. But, above all, God will ever have special regard to them as\nthe children of his dear child.\n\n\"Receive now,\" said he, \"the divine ordinance of baptism, whereby God\nsignifies to you, and seals, all that is implied in being your God.\"\n\nHe drew near the bed, with a silver bowl, from which he sprinkled water\nupon the head and forehead of the dear believer, whose countenance\nexpressed the peace of receiving, rather than the effort of giving,\nwhile her lips moved now and then during the quiet scene.\n\nThey brought Edward, the first-born, and he stood, with his hand in his\nmother's hand, and was baptized. There were almost tears enough shed by\nus for his baptism, had tears been needed. Lucy came next, and then the\nrosy-cheeked Roger, who had been persuaded to leave his new sled, a\nlittle while, that Saturday afternoon.\n\nBut now the little boy was coming in from his cradle. His mother raised\nherself in the bed, and received him in her arms. He had been weaned,\nbut, on coming to his mother, he began to make some solicitations,\nwhich, beautiful and affecting though they were, some of us endeavored\nnot to see, but turned to smell of some violets, and to open a book of\nengravings. The mother smiled, and held him off, but immediately put two\nfingers, one on each eye, and wept;--the marriage-ring on one of those\nfingers,--ah, me! how had the finger shrunk away from it. The nurse took\nthe child and diverted its attention. The husband sat far on the bed,\nput one arm under the pillow that supported his wife, and held her hand\nin his. Recollections and anticipations, we knew, were thronging,\nunbidden, into that mother's soul. She had been reminded of fountains of\nlove sealed up, and yet there were opening within her living fountains\nof water. She grew calm, beckoned for a little book on the table, opened\nit, and pointed her husband to a stanza, which she had marked, and he\nread it for her:--\n\n   \"When I can trust my all with God,\n      In trial's painful hour,\n    Bow all resigned beneath his rod,\n      And bless his sparing power;\n    A joy springs up amid distress,\n    A fountain in the wilderness.\"\n\nThat was her profession of religion, and her signal to the pastor to\nproceed. The father took the little boy in his arms, held him over the\nbed, before his wife; the pastor reached from the other side, and\nbaptized Walter, in the name of the covenant-keeping God. The father\nheld the child for the mother's kiss, and then took him away, fearing a\nrepetition of the previous scene. But the wife drew her husband back to\nher, and left a kiss on his own cheek, amidst his tears.\n\n\"And now,\" said the pastor, after prayer, \"God has been in this place,\nand has himself applied to you and your children the seal of his\neverlasting covenant. Do not make your faith in it to depend on the\ndegree of equanimity or vividness in your feelings; but remember what\nElizabeth said to Mary: 'And blessed is she that believeth, for there\nshall be a performance of those things which were told her from the\nLord.'\"\n\n\"O,\" said Mrs. P., \"is it possible that I live to see this day? I almost\nforget my sickness, my separation from my husband and children, in the\nthought that God is my covenant God, and the God of my children. My\nbaptism is to me a visible writing and seal from God; and my children's\nbaptism is the same. I always used to think of baptism merely as a\nprofession on our part. O, how much more there is in it, besides that!\nIt is God's covenant and testimony toward me. Blessed names!\" said she,\nsoliloquizing,--\"Father, Son, and Holy Ghost! sweet society of the\nGodhead! They come together; they are like the three that came to\nAbraham's tent. Each has his precious gift and influence for my soul.\nWhy was I allowed to see this day, and enjoy this?\"\n\nThe pastor said, \"This is just one of those things which make us say,\n'His goodness is unsearchable.' There seems to be no way of accounting\nfor this rich, free, sovereign love.\"\n\n\"Can I fear,\" said she, \"to leave my children in such hands? No. God of\nAbraham! 'thou hast been our dwelling-place in all generations.'\nFaithful God! 'a God to thee and thy seed after thee;' what power the\nseal of the covenant has to make you believe it; yes, and seemingly to\nhear it read to you. Do speak to all our dear mothers, and tell them in\nhealth to make far more, than many do, of baptism for their children.\"\n\n\"And have you no blessing for me?\" said the husband, as the pastor rose\nto go.\n\n\"Dear sir,\" said the pastor, \"they seem to have left you alone.\"\n\nHe had been sitting, somewhat out of sight, at the foot of the bedstead;\nbut, it was evident, from several signs, that his feelings were deeply\nmoved.\n\nThe pastor took his arm, and, bidding the wife an affectionate but hasty\nadieu, he went with him to the sitting-room below.\n\n\"I need no arguments,\" said the husband, \"to satisfy me, further, that\nyou are right. You have a system of religion which, I see, is good for\neverything, and for everybody, and for all times, and places, and\ncircumstances. Sir, I have been sceptical; but I must confess that a\nreligion which can come into a family, like mine, and do what it has\ndone, through you, sir, to mine, and to me, must be from God. Sir, I\nshall always respect our pastor for his consistency with his principles,\nand for many other reasons; but I prefer principles like yours, which\ncan go to the sick and dying, and to little children whose mother----\"\n\nHere he began to weep. The pastor said, \"To take a mother from a young\nfamily of children, like yours, Mr. Peirce, is just the thing which we\nshould prevent, could we have the ordering of affairs.\"\n\n\"I feel,\" said Mr. P., \"that God's hand is upon me. Passages from the\nBible, which I learned at sea, from love to my mother, come to me now.\nShe put a Bible in a box, and covered it up with a dozen pairs of\nwoollen hose, knit with her own hands. I have been saying to myself, in\nthe chamber, 'Behold, he cometh with clouds.' It is growing dark over my\ndwelling; God is descending upon us in a cloud. 'Behold, he taketh away,\nwho can hinder him? Who will say unto him, what doest thou.' O, you\nnever lost a wife, my dear sir, nor looked on a motherless family, as I\nbegin to do. God help me, for I shall lose my reason.\"\n\n\"No, my dear sir,\" said the pastor; \"think what has just taken place up\nstairs. You now seem to say, as Manoah did, 'We shall surely die;' but\nhis wife said, 'If the Lord were pleased to kill us,--he would not have\nshowed us all these things.' God has bestowed on your children, through\ntheir believing mother, his covenant, to be their God.--You are a Notary\nPublic, I believe, sir.\"\n\n\"I am,\" said Mr. Peirce.\n\n\"Then,\" said the pastor, \"you know the importance of seals.\"\n\n\"O, yes,\" said Mr. P. \"A gentleman, last week, came near losing the sale\nof a large property, situate in one of the Middle States, because he had\nhad some papers executed, here, before a court not having a seal. I told\nhim, beforehand, that he was wrong; but he wished to know of what\npossible use a seal could be, when the judge and the clerk used printed\nforms, and the blanks were filled under their own hands. The papers came\nback, and he had to do his business over again, and before a court\nhaving a seal.\"\n\n\"But he was perfectly honest, at first, I presume,\" said the pastor,\n\"only the form was defective.\"\n\n_Mr. P._ Yes, sir; but the form, in such a case, is the warranty. You\nknow that the power to have and use a seal is one of the things\nspecially conveyed by a legislature.\n\n\"God has seals,\" said the pastor. \"One is baptism. It used to be\ncircumcision. But, as the old royal seal is broken at the coronation of\na new king, God appointed a new seal, baptism, to mark the new\ndispensation; as he also changed the Sabbath of creation in honor of\nhis Son's reign, and removed the memorial of his deeds of greatest\nrenown, the Passover, for one that signifies still greater deeds, the\nLord's Supper. Thus God has his seals. He attaches great importance to\nthem. He binds himself by them. Your wife, being a child of God, it is\nhis arrangement, from the beginning, to enter into covenant with her in\nbehalf of her children. He stands, now, in a special relation to them,\nand has placed the beautiful seal of Heaven upon his promise to that\ndear sick mother, 'I will be a God to thee and to thy seed after thee.'\"\n\n\"Is it necessary that the father should be left out?\" said Mr. P.,\ncovering his face with his handkerchief. \"They are mine, and God holds\nme responsible for them. I am to be left alone with them in the world.\nIs there not mercy for me, too? O, I had such a gleam of hope in the\nchamber! As I saw the water descending from your hand upon those dear\nheads, I thought, How much like a divine act such baptism is,--something\nfrom God. I always thought of baptism as a cross, to which I must\nsubmit; now I see that it is a token of love, bestowed upon me. So I\nthought of those words: 'I am found of them that sought me not.' God\nseems to have come to me in that baptism. I was expecting that, if I\never became a Christian, I must, in token of my submission, be buried in\nthe waters of baptism. I would be willing to be, still, if necessary;\nbut that gentle baptism, coming to me and mine, seems like God being\nbeforehand with me, doing something with me and for me. It made me think\nof Christ inviting himself into the house of Zaccheus, to save his soul.\nI always felt that I must obtain religion wholly of myself; now I feel\nthat God has begun the work in me. I am sustained and borne on. That\nbaptism was the most powerful appeal that ever reached my heart. It\nseems to me, in its connection with the gospel, like a beautiful\nsymphony of instrumental music in an anthem, which strives to interpret\nthe words. It proved an overture to me, indeed, in the best sense. But,\nmy dear sir, how near we came to losing all this which my wife has\nenjoyed.\"\n\nThe door opened, and little Lucy came in with two plates and two silver\nknives, and that great red apple which her mother had received a few\ndays before. \"Mother sends her love to you, sir, and begs that you and\nfather will eat this.\"\n\nThey looked at the apple for a few moments, when the husband said, \"I do\nnot feel like eating it. Do oblige me by taking it home with you.\"\n\nThe pastor took it home with him, placed it on his mantel-piece in his\nstudy, where, for several days, it gave such an odor as to attract the\nnotice of every one that came in. The hand that sent it to him, in less\nthan a week had finished its work on earth. The apple then became a\nhallowed thing. There it remained till it wilted, grew soft, and finally\nturned nearly black.\n\nA little, unceremonious visitant to his father's study would often climb\ninto the chair near the shelf, and express his wonder, and repeat his\nquestions, at the seeming mystery,--first, of not eating the apple, and\nsuffering it to be wasted; and then, of letting it remain when it ought\nto be thrown away. It was not long, however, before the apple was buried\nin a pot of earth. In due time green shoots appeared. And when the\npastor saw them, he said with himself, \"The children of thy servants\nshall continue, and their seed shall be established before thee.\"\n\nHow it grew in the pastor's study, a little sacramental emblem of\nhallowed scenes, and of infinitely precious truths,--how a place was\nselected, and afterwards prepared, for it, near a garden-wall which\nseparates the wife's little garden from her grave,--and how the husband\ncame alone, one Sabbath, and joined the church, receiving the seal of\nbaptism from the same hand that sprinkled the water upon the heads of\nhis wife and children,--I cannot tell you now, nor, after so long\ndetention, would you be willing at present to hear.\n\n\n\n\nTHE END.","title":"Bertha and Her Baptism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":58198}