BAXTER says, "By infants we mean children not yet come to the age of reason, so that as they are not sui juris, but at another's dispose, so they are uncapable naturally in any contract to dispose of themselves, being unfit to give consent through a natural defect of that understanding which is pre-requisite." In law homo primæ ætatis is an infant, even after he can speak; though as to the etymology he be called an infant because he knows not to speak, i.e., is not able to speak."-Dispu., p. 248.

Dr. DODDRIDGE.-" Nor is it certain how far the fathers extended the period of infancy."-Mis. Works, p. 493.

Dr. JORTIN.-"Nepion is a word which may be extended beyond infancy, to thirteen or fifteen years."-Rem. on Ec. His., vol. i, p. 161.

I believe that not only the Greek words pais and teknon, but also paidion and teknion, and even nepios, as also the Latin words infans and infantulus, as well as puer, puericulus, and parvulus, are sometimes used in reference to children capable of distinguishing between good and evil.

SECTION XXXI.

ON THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

Dr. CARSON.-"In every question the burden of proof lies on the side of the affirmative. An affirmation is of no authority without proof." "The burden of proof must necessarily lie on the side that needs the proof."-On Bap., p. 3.

Dr. B. GODWIN." Contempt is not argument, and unkindness is not likely to produce conviction."-Phil. of Athe., p. 320.

Dr. H. BONAR." It is truth we seek, and it is truth that men would fling away.”—Hymns, &c., p. 243.

Dr. DOEDES." The interpreter of the books of the New Testament may not favour any party." -Herme., p. 58.

A section on the burden of proof I had contemplated; but a reference to this has so frequently been made, that little more seems necessary. The demand of negative proof from the Baptists when positive proof from the Pædobaptists is really requisite, has already been noticed, especially in their demands from New Testament and ecclesiastical history. Many of our opponents are confident that our Saviour needed not to say anything about the subjects of baptism, because Jewish proselyte baptism would teach the apostles. This Jewish proselyte baptism embraced the immersion of parents and children, and while they change the immersion to sprinkling, they bring forwards no proof that Jewish proselyte baptism had then an existence? It is surely unreasonable to maintain as a settled point, which must have guided the apostles, that of which neither Divine revelation nor any human record furnishes a fragment of evidence that it then existed. As long as it is uncertain whether this practice, which is acknowledged to be traceable only to human tradition, was adopted by Jesus Christ, or had a subsequent origin, this chief foundation, as it is with many, for the baptizing of infants, is a foundation of sand.

Others, admitting that the baptism of believers is enjoined in the commission, plead on behalf of little reference, or no distinct reference, or perfect silence in the New Testament in reference to the baptizing of infants, that such reference was unnecessary because infant baptism occupied the place of circumcision. This is confidently believed, notwithstanding the

LL

acknowledged difference in subjects, in required day of administration, and in blessings promised, and although no part of Divine revelation proves that baptism is in the place of circumcision. An hypothesis destitute of proof, and, as I think, of all probability, is assumed, an inference, necessarily worthless from such a premise, is drawn, and then the Baptists can be invoked to prove that infant baptism is not thus obligatory!

Dr. E. Williams on John's baptizing those that confessed their sins, teaches that "to serve the antipedobaptist cause, the narrative should support a proof widely different, viz., that John baptized no others but those who made a personal confession of their sins" (Antip. Ex., vol. i, p. 285). It belongs to Baptists who baptize only these to prove that he baptized no others;" and not to Pædobaptists who baptize others, to prove that he baptized others!

66

So in regard to Ecclesiastical History, while the most eminent Pædobaptist ecclesiastical historians admit and maintain that infant baptism did not exist in the earliest period, the heads of Pædobaptist Colleges in Great Britain and Ireland, instead of proving the existence of infant baptism at this period, are desiring and demanding evidence from their Pædobaptist and Baptist opponents, that it did not then exist; and are demanding evidence from their Baptist opponents that one of the baptized had a parent that was converted at the time of his birth; and are glorying in the belief that Baptists cannot, and that by this their own cause is thoroughly upheld! Such cobweb supports, such flimsy reasoning, such foolish vainglorying, and such inconsistency with logic and learning, characterize nothing but what lacks better support or able reasoners. That our opponents are capable of able reasoning, is beyond a doubt.

Dr. W. HANNA, whom in his intelligence and candour to a great extent I admire, whom I pity in his perplexities, and blame for his assumptions, says, "We cannot by any clear and certain instance prove that infant baptism was an apostolic institute, was the general or universal practice of the apostolic age, but neither is there any proof on the other side, any evidence that infants were not then baptized; and we are disposed to think that the burden of the proof lies not with those who follow the practice of infant baptism, but with those who repudiate it" (The Forty, &c., p. 268). A Christian and learned gentleman who frankly admits that the Scriptures supply no precept or precedent but of believers' baptism, can yet believe that those who baptize infants are not the persons on whom it devolves to adduce proof from Scripture to authorize their practice, but that it devolves on those who believing that Holy Writ sanctions only believers' baptism, and who baptize only those who credibly profess their faith in Christ, to prove that the baptism of infants is erroneous and ought to be abandoned!

R. BAXTER more commendably says, "Herein the justest order, it belongeth to the affirmer to prove such a right. He that brings his claim must shew his title."Dispu., p. 254.

The North British Review, having mentioned that not a single trace of infant baptism is to be found in the New Testament, subsequently says: The burden of proof is entirely on those who affirm its applicability to those whose minds are incapable of any conscious act of faith."-Aug., 1852.

Dr. WARDLAW, having recorded certain suppositions on the baptism of the twelve men at Ephesus, says, "It may be, that I cannot prove all these particulars; but their probability, even their possibility, is sufficient for my purpose" (Appen., p. 235). So say we in connexion with all that we advance in reply to opponents on the baptism of households, that of believers having been proved to have Divine ordination and apostolic practice, and that of infants in no instance being proved to have either. And so say we on immersion in reply to the frivolous objections of our opponents to the immersion of any whose baptism is recorded in the New Testament. Dr. W.

adds: "On controverted points, there is one case, and if I mistake not, only one, in which supposition is fairly admissible as a foundation of argument. When a thing has been satisfactorily proved otherwise, and a supposition is required to establish consistency in one particular, such supposition may be legitimately made. In other words, when two states of a fact are supposable, that one not only may fairly be preferred, but ought to have the preference, which best harmonises with what has been previously established."

Some of our opponents seem to think that because there existed-I should say, is presumed to have existed-a Jewish, a Mosaic, a patriarchal, and an Abrahamic church, yea, a post-diluvian and an ante-diluvian church, all of which embraced children, and into which from Abraham to Christ the entrance was by circumcision of the male children, it devolves on the Baptists to prove, and to prove by adducing express prohibition of the baptism of infants, that their own sentiments are correct! We maintain, and all our opponents admit, that baptism is a positive institution. Positive institutions demand positive directions. These there are in reference to believers; these there are not in reference to infants. How then can it devolve on Baptists who reject the baptizing of infants to prove more than the accordance of their own practice-the baptism of believers-with the word of God? This proved, the other in the circumstance of lacking proof falls to the ground.

SECTION XXXII.

ADVANTAGES OR EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM.

Dr. J. MORISON.-"Let no one imagine from these strictures upon a most corrupt system of theology, that baptism is looked upon by the preacher as an unmeaning or insignificant ceremony. On the contrary, he would seek to rescue this ordinance of Christ from all counterfeit glosses and interpretations, that it may occupy its own dignified position among the institutions of the New Testament."-Homi., &c., pp. 346, 347.

J. A. HALDANE.-"On considering all circumstances, we have abundant cause to be thankful that the Reformers escaped so far as they did from the prejudices of their education; but, instead of pressing forward, their descendants have been contented to walk by their light. The veneration in which their names have been held, has prejudiced the great bulk of the people against any deviation from their sentiments."--So. Wor., pp. 110, 111.

E. PARSONS." He who does everything right in His equity," "does all things well in His wisdom."-Ser. on Acts xx, 88, p. 11.

Dr. OWEN.-"All the ordinances and institutions of the gospel do give light into and exhibit the things themselves unto the minds and faith of believers. Herein they discern the reasons and grounds of their use and benefit; whence our whole worship is called our reasonable service."Ön Heb vii, 11.

On the importance, the advantages, and evils of infant baptism, I purpose to give the recorded opinions of certain Pædobaptist and certain Baptist writers, my own sentiments agreeing with the latter in every matter of moment in this controversy, unless dissent is expressed. On the importance of baptism itself-it being a Divine and New Testament. ordinance, clearly enjoined, evidently regarded by the apostles of Christ as binding on every proselyte to Christianity, without the observance of which, except in cases of ignorance or mistake, there is a contempt of the

Divine law, and of the Divine favour, a contempt or abuse of all God's perfections, and of all His exhortations and promises to obedience-I should now write more had I not, through separately and previously issuing a work on the Action of Baptism, already written something on its Utility and Importance which was intended for this part had the whole been issued in one volume, or at one time. I will take as granted the reader's conviction of the importance of "walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless," and that "God's way" "alone can be truly, entirely, and permanently productive of good" (Wardlaw's Let. to M'Neile, p. 6). Also, while admitting on behalf of myself the lack of infallibility, and crediting all others with the same want, I would maintain the importance of charity and love to all who sincerely and supremely love the Lord Jesus, of a constant openness to conviction, and with no coveting of change from the simple and foolish love of change, of an earnest desire to increase in the knowledge and likeness of the Divine Saviour on the part of every one of His disciples.

The opinions of Pædobaptist writers on the importance of baptism and of infant baptism are, according to their acknowledgments, greatly at variance with much Pædobaptist practice. The advantages of Pædobaptism assumed by some, prove the estimation in which by them it is necessarily held. Either Baptist writers do not perceive in their denomination the same amount of dereliction from theory and principle, or they have not, so far as I know, recorded them to the same extent. Whatever is a departure from Scripture, all ought to deplore; whatever is accordant with the Oracles of God, all ought to approve in theory and practice. I am, however, far from condemning every Pædobaptist, to the extent of his deviation from Pædobaptist writers, even those of his own denomination. One uninspired teacher or pastor in the same denomination, has the right to think for himself, and if need be to differ from his brethren and his former self, although on points through a belief in which he was inducted to his office, and which by mutual understanding, clear compact, or solemn subscription, are understood to belong to the official position held, it demand a withdrawal, and a subsequent conduct in accordance with existing sentiments. And over the taught no human being has the rightful lordship. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

Baptists believe Christian baptism to be immersion on a credible profession of faith in Christ. This baptism they believe to be symbolic of cleansing from sin, of regeneration by the Divine Spirit. The subject is supposed to have died, to be in baptism buried, and to rise again to newness of life; this death, burial, and resurrection can be said to be with Him who died, was buried, and rose again, that we might have "eternal life." Pædobaptists regard infants (as well as believers) as proper subjects of baptism; and many believe that sprinkling, pouring, or immersion, may constitute the action. To the subjects of baptism, and to the benefits or evils of its administration to infants, our thoughts are now being directed. Some Pædobaptist denominations having written creeds to which every public teacher in such a body must express assent previous to

his occupying this position, and some of these creeds being particular and express on the advantages of baptism, of infant baptism, it is easy to understand their high if not their precise estimate of this symbolical ceremony.

The Roman Catholics believe that through the (opus operatum) performed deed, the priest regenerates and saves the child that, dying unbaptized, would perish. Hence the Council of Trent says: "If any one shall say that baptism is-not necessary to salvation, let him be accursed. Sin, whether contracted by birth from our first parents, or committed by ourselves-by the admirable virtue of this sacrament, is remitted and pardoned."

The Greek Church attributes to baptism an efficacy, similar to that which the Romanist believes it to possess. Hence the Greek father, Chrysostom, says: "Baptism is a ransom to the captive, remission of every debt, the death of sin, the regeneration of the soul, a robe of light, a seal not to be violated, a chariot to heaven."

The Lutheran belief on the benefit of baptism has a resemblance to that of the Papists. Hence Luther: "There is in the baptism of infants the beginning of faith and of a Divine operation, peculiar to themselves." Gerhard: "The sacrament of baptism does not profit without faith; nevertheless it is the efficacious means by which God of His grace works faith, regeneration, and salvation in the hearts of infants." Buddeus: "Seeing infants cannot be brought to faith by the preaching of God's word, it follows that it must be effected in another way, namely, by baptism; by which men are born again, and so receive faith."-See these and others in Booth's Pad. Ex., vol. i, pp. 422, 423.

The Reformed Continental Churches hold views on baptism similar to those of Luther. Hence Calvin says: "Grace cometh with the sacraments, not from the sacraments, but from God." "They avail or profit nothing, except when received by faith."-Tre. on the Sac., p. 21.

The Anglican Church believes baptism to be "generally necessary to salvation;" and speaks of baptism wherein the child is "made a member of Christ, a child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven." This church believes that two sacraments are ordained by Christ-baptism and the Supper of the Lord; and that "Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good-will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in Him." "And in such only as worthily receive the same, they have a wholesome effect or operation; but they that receive them unworthily purchase to themselves damnation" (Art. xxv); also that "Baptism is not only a sign of pro