CHAPTER IV.

OF THE GROUND UPON WHICH THE INITIATORY RITE IS TO BE ADMINISTERED TO

INFANTS.

THE thing sealed in an ordinance, and the ground or warrant for applying the seal of that thing, are distinct subjects. In the case of adults, the right to the ordinance, and the administrator's warrant to dispense it, are also distinct. The right is in the faith of the subject. "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." But until the eunuch made confession of his faith, Philip had no warrant to baptize him. So also the warrant may exist for administering the ordinance, when the subject offering himself has no right to receive it. Peter undoubtedly acted upon a sufficient warrant when he baptized Simon, because the sorcerer professed to believe. Yet though the warrant was there, the right to the ordinance did not exist; Simon was not a believer.

In the case of infants, who are never baptized on account of the spiritual qualities which they are supposed to possess, no difference between their right and the administrator's warrant can exist, if the covenant relation of the parent be admitted to be the ground of the infant's title to be received into the church, or rather to have its membership acknowledged by its baptism. On this principle the right is knowable in itself, and not the subject of uncertain inference, like the faith of an adult from his profession.

That the church-membership, or baptism of the parent is essential, and contributes largely to the infant's right, will hardly be denied by a Pedo-Baptist. The important question is, whether the church-membership of the parent does not itself constitute the ground of the child's church membership, and consequent right to baptism? The affirmative side of this question presents the subject in its simplest form; and the adoption of it relieves from the endless embarrassments which must attend the practice of those who, while they are administering a

sacred ordinance, are in doubt whether the subject be entitled to it or not. This observation is particularly applicable to the practice of those who do not insist upon the full communion of the parent, as a test of the ecclesiastical rights of the child. The system which requires such a test, inconsistent as I believe it to be, and as I hope to show it to be, with the constitution of God's covenant, has at least some consistency with itself. It admits of a rule, and the decisions upon that rule are conformable to the professed belief of those who are concerned. But to make Christian character the ground of right, and then to be compelled to infer that character against the convictions of those to whom it is supposed to belong, and against their refusal to obey the dying command of the Master, either because they do not consider themselves entitled to the privileges of believers, or for any other reason, exhibits charity run mad, and so expounding the law from the place of judgment, as to make private opinion, entertained against both the confession and

4*

evidence, the rule for the public administration of the house of God.

According to the covenant to which all appeal for the confirmation of infant privileges in the church, RELATION, and not state, designated the individuals upon whom the seal was to be placed. Neither the spiritual state of the child, nor of the parent, was appealed to for the decision of the question, whether the right existed to a place within the inclosure, and to the advantages of the means of grace. It was a question of privilege, the law of which was settled by the highest authority, and as definitely as the law of descent. Was he of the seed of Abraham in the line of Isaac and Jacob, then the promise was directly to him. God was his God, and the seal of the covenant must be passed upon him. What has charity to do here? Not a whit more than censoriousness itself.

How far the relation of the children to Abraham operated as a reason in the Divine mind, for designating them, rather than others; or whether it operated as a reason at all, belongs not to us; nor is it of conse

quence to the present argument. The ground, or authority for applying the seal to any others, had others been designated, would have been the same that it is now, namely, the divine command. This is definite and imperative, in every case where the designated relation exists. "Every man child shall be circumcised."

In Mather's Magnalia (vol. II. p. 250,) the sentiments of the New England church, in her purest days for faith and practice, are thus expressed: "Interest in the covenant is the main ground of title to baptism; for as in the Old Testament, this was the ground of title to circumcision, Gen. xvii. 7. 9, 10, 11, to which baptism now answers, Col. ii. 11, 12; Acts ii. 38, 39, they are on this ground exhorted to be baptized, because the promise or covenant was to them and to their children. That a member, or one in covenant, as such, is the subject of baptism, was further cleared before, propos. 1. 2. That these children have interest in the covenant appears; because if the parent be in covenant, the child is also; for the covenant is to parents, and