08. Lecture VI; Estimate of the Value of Inferential Reasoning
LECTURE VI.
ESTIMATE OF THE VALUE OF INFERENTIAL REASONING ON THE SUBJECT OF BAPTISM. The opponents of infant-sprinkling have generally objected to inferential reasoning on this topic. They distinguish between positive institutions and moral duties: the latter may, in their judgment; the former cannot, be admitted on inference. The abettors of the practice reply, “If the will of God be intimated, we are bound by the intimation, however made. Our duty is the same, whether intimated in express doctrine, or implied inference." The examination of these statements belongs to the head of evidence, and must now be attempted. At present, I confine my observations to the inquiry, Whether infant-sprinkling be rightly inferred from the topics usually adduced?
These topics may be reduced to three classes: — 1st, The procedure of professing Christians; 2d, Certain texts in the Scripture; 3d, Certain institutions once observed, but now discontinued by Divine appointment.
1st, The procedure of Pedo-baptists furnishes what has the appearance of evidence in their favour. Multitudes have practised sprinkling; many have avowed their conviction that it is founded on argument; and not a few have defended the practice. These things, taken separately or together, assume, as I said, the appearance of evidence. If numbers so great have examined the question with capacity and integrity, it is probable that their practice is right, and their verdict true; and on this inference, there is no doubt, that many have sprinkled their children. Let us try this inference. Many are incapable, from ignorance and inattention, of examining or investigating the controversies on the subject; more, through indolence, have never examined it. Many are prejudiced, interested, and faithless. It is, therefore, no breach of charity to say, that the testimony of such characters as these is not to be depended on. Notwithstanding their numbers, the Heathen, Mahommedan, and Papal worlds are wrong; and from any thing that can be learned from their procedure, the infant-sprinkling world may be wrong also. The presumption is against them. Look at the generality of Pedo-baptist churches, Papal, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian; whoever has studied ecclesiastical polity will soon observe, that in other institutes (and that not a few), the laws of Christ are not observed. The unreserved obedience of the Bible is a thing unknown to many of these societies. This ought to put the inquirer on his guard. The prevarication of a witness in one point, vitiates the whole of his evidence. If, in other parts of ecclesiastical polity, the Scriptures be disregarded, perhaps they are disregarded in the sprinkling of infants also. In all the defenses of infant sprinkling, with few (if any) exceptions, violence is offered to the Scriptures. The simple rule for learning the mind of the Spirit is this: — “Collect whatever He has said on the subject in question, and by the collection regulate your faith." Instead, however, of collecting whatever the Spirit has revealed on baptism, the most explicit revelations are carefully avoided, and the reader is decoyed into another direction. The obvious meaning and design of particular texts are concealed, and inferences sometimes deduced from them, directly the reverse of both. These things may leave us in doubt whether the authors are designing or mistaken; but they can leave us in none respecting the character of their evidence. "When a scholar tells us that sprinkling is baptism, and proves it from the eighth of the Acts; when a logician infers baptism from circumcision, and proves Ins inference from the seventeenth of Genesis; when a critic proves the sprinkling of infants from Luke’s history of the baptism of such as gladly heard Peter’s sermon, or from the seventh of First Corinthians; and the inquirer allows himself to be misled by such testimony, he has himself, and not those whom he has taken for his guides, to blame.
These remarks cannot be misunderstood. They are necessary for the sake of a part of the community peculiarly valuable. Christians, humble and teachable, have been, and will be, in danger of resigning their own better judgment to the prejudices and presumption of mistaken or designing men. Papists, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and Independents, are generally Pedobaptists. If, however, their procedure and defenses be compared with the Scriptures, the contrariety will soon strike the studious inquirer, and by the Divine blessing preserve him from the influence of this fallacious inference. Should an humble and modest Christian, unassisted by a liberal education, begin to search the ground of infant baptism, he is commonly assailed with this observation: — “Many worthies, renowned for piety, talent . and learning, have practiced and defended the popular worship. You are unlearned, weak, and inexperienced; it is presumptuous in you to question their evidence, or oppose your judgment to theirs." The facts just stated make this conclusion doubtful; but the Scriptures entirely reject such a principle. The individual is commanded to judge and act for himself; the Scriptures exclusively are prescribed as his rule; our duty is there stated and enforced, in terms negative and positive, often and plainly, and in great variety of language. John 5:39, “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." 2Ti 3:16, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God (every believer) may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works;" and consequently to the right observance of baptism. 1Th 5:21, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." The matter in question is infant baptism; the agent is every believer; the rule is the Scriptures; the result — hold or reject it according to this rule. And, to emote but one Scripture more, Rev 3:22, “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches." Thus it appears, that this popular inference is nothing more than a vulgar error. In no way can it justify infant sprinkling. The Scriptures themselves must be examined. If our faculties be impaired through inaction, more prayer and energy will be requisite. In the mean time, the practice, in as far as it is founded on this inference, must be discontinued. It is from God, and not from men, that we must take our instructions; it is from the Scriptures, and not from the works of men, that we must learn the will of God. Faith comes not by the reasonings of men, but by the word of God; and whatever is not of faith is sin. The second ground of inference comprehends the texts from which inferences are deduced. I shall now name them together, and it will appear, from a few remarks on them, that the doctrine of infant baptism can be inferred from none of them. Mat 19:18, “Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them." Acts 2:39, “For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Acts 16:15, "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us." Acts 16:33, ’’ And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." Rom 4:11, “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also." Rom 11:16, “For if the first-fruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches." 1Co 1:16, “And I baptized the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." 1Co 7:14, "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." Eph 6:1, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right." Col 2:11, "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without I in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ." And some have added J dm 3:5, “Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
These are all the texts quoted by Pedo-baptists in support of their practice. Not one is omitted that 1 recollect. They were briefly commented on in a preceding lecture. They are now brought together, that the impression of their united force may be felt.
Whatever in the contexts has a tendency to weaken the effect, has been intentionally suppressed. And now every individual must judge of the impression made on himself. I am greatly mistaken if any considerable number feel convinced by these texts that infant sprinkling is the doctrine of the Bible. To judge, however, without bias, a supposition or two must be made.
Suppose, first, that a stranger to our controversies were to state what, in his judgment, is implied in these texts. We can anticipate his exposition. He would give us their first and obvious meaning; of infant baptism or sprinkling he would say nothing; the very idea, it is more than probable, would never occur to him. Make the experiment another way: Suppose adult baptism universally practiced, infant sprinkling unknown, and these texts, for the first time, urged to prove it our duty to alter our worship, and adopt infant sprinkling.
It is easy to conceive what would happen; instantly and unanimously it would be said — ’* These texts speak nothing of infant sprinkling; all of them treat of other subjects: the practice proposed might be inferred from Ezra’s genealogies, or the chambers in -Ezekiel’s temple, as soon as from these texts." The whole evidence would be treated with scorn and contempt, and the proposal universally rejected.
If it be your judgment that such would be the result in the case supposed, it is of course your judgment that infant sprinkling cannot naturally be inferred from any text in the New Testament. But let us suppose that the inquirer imagines, that from these texts inferences may be drawn favorable to the cause of pedo-baptism. What is to be done? The apostolical practice, I answer, will effectually determine the correctness or incorrectness of the alleged or imagined inferences. The practice of the Apostles in this matter shall be minutely examined; and if it shall be found, as it certainly will, that there is no evidence that they either baptized infants, or instructed men to baptize them, we must yield to the determination of fact. Inferences to the contrary must be fallacious, whether I shall be able to expose the fallacy or not. A third kind of inference in support of pedo-baptism is drawn from institutions already appointed, but now discontinued by Divine authority. Inferences of this kind are altogether illogical. Positive evangelical institutions cannot be inferred from legal institutions now abrogated. The truth of this assertion may be evinced in many ways.
1st, It has been shown that Christ alone is Lord of Gospel institutions. Be pleased to observe that it is in the exercise of sovereignty that He appoints these institutions. Now, the effects of the exercise of infinite sovereignty we cannot possibly anticipate. Sovereignty, it is true, is always exercised according to the attributes of Divinity. As to us, however, since we do not possess these attributes, it is impossible to discover the determining causes. For example, amongst the tribes of Israel, could we possibly anticipate the tribe to be elected for the priesthood? Facts speak the same language. There were four distinct branches of the Old Dispensation. On comparison, we shall find that no two of these branches have the same positive institutions. For instance, in the two first branches, neither parents nor children were circumcised. It was otherwise in the third and fourth. These things are sufficient proof, that positive evangelical institutions cannot be inferred from legal institutions now abrogated. Were I to judge of the subjects of baptism from inference, I would infer that they were not the same as the subjects of circumcision. My reason for so inferring, is the manifold differences by which the different branches of the Old Dispensation had been distinguished one from another. My inference is justified by the fact. The subjects of circumcision and baptism are not the same. But had I not been previously acquainted with this fact, I could with certainty have inferred nothing either on the one side or the other.
2ndly, Positive evangelical institutions cannot be inferred from legal institutions now abrogated, without violating the simplicity of the Gospel. We are commanded to keep the ordinances as the Apostles delivered them to us. We are commanded to stand fast, and hold the traditions which they have taught us. Were we to infer positive institutions from other positive institutions, such institutions might be multiplied without end. On the same principle that the Pedobaptist infers infant-sprinkling from circumcision, he might infer the pontiff, the popish jubilee, and the mass, from the high-priest, jubilee, and sacrifices of the Israelites. The inclination to Judaize has infected different societies in different degrees. Its effects on Papists, Episcopalians, and others, are sufficiently known. But it is evident that if the principle on which baptism is inferred from circumcision be acted on at all, no limits can be set to the procedure. There is an end of the simplicity of the Gospel Dispensation.
3rdly, I cannot observe institutes, inferred from other institutes, with full satisfaction of mind. I am perplexed with a number of unanswerable questions. Take the following as a specimen. From which of the abrogated institutions am I to draw inferences? From all, from some, or from one only? How many institutes am I to infer from each? How am I to modify my inferred institutions? Is every man to infer institutions for himself; or is one man, as in the Papacy, or many, as in Prelacy, to draw the inferences? No answer can be given to these questions, and yet answers are essential to satisfaction in duty. For anything I know, I may have too many inferences, or too few, or such I should not have. Such a doubtful state of mind is expressly excluded from worship, Rom 14:5-23. In inquiring whether New Testament institutes may be inferred from those of the Old Testament, it must never be forgotten, that the positive institutions of the Old Dispensation are abrogated. Abrogated institutions have no existence; every inference deduced from them is illusory. Of nothing, I repeat the logical aphorism, men can make nothing; from nothing, nothing can be inferred. This is especially the case in the matter before us. The repeal of the law of circumcision is specially recorded. Were I to reason on inference, it is from the repeal, and not from the institute, that I would reason; and my inference would be this, that, excepting with the antitype, that is, personal holiness, I am no way concerned with the law of circumcision. From it I can learn nothing of the character of the institutions of the New Dispensation.
4thly, The observance of institutions founded on inference is, in effect, prohibited. We do not expect that every error in doctrine, government, discipline, and worship, is in the Scriptures to be particularly marked and refuted. Whatever is inconsistent with revelation is wrong. As to positive ordinances, and particularly Baptism, we have all our instructions in the Scriptures. There is no room for additions. The Apostles have taught us to observe all tilings whatsoever Christ has commanded us. There is no room for reduction or alteration. The same authority requires us to observe all the ordinances as they were delivered, 1Co 11:2. The consequence of disobedience is separation, 2Th 3:6. As these things are true of positive institutions in general, so they are true of Baptism in particular. Respecting this institution our instructions are complete. Thus we have seen that institutions cannot be observed on inference, either from the procedure of professing Christians, from the Scriptures usually alleged, or from the abrogated rites of the Old Dispensation.
I shall now conclude this lecture with a few general remarks. 1st, We have no instructions, either by precept or example, to found positive ordinances on inference. My second remark respects the unhappy consequences of tampering with revelation.
Inferential reasoning on the point in question, like every other tradition of man, makes void the commandments of God. I assume two facts, known already, it is probable, to the inquirer, and which shall afterwards be proved by incontestable evidence. The first is, that every man after believing is, by the Scriptures, obliged to be baptized. The second is, that infant sprinkling is nowhere enjoined in the Scriptures. Mark, now, the effect of inference. We do what is virtually forbidden, and neglect what is positively required. Except such as have not been sprinkled, none of the adult are baptized. Infant sprinkling, on the contrary, engrosses the attention of the churches. The work enjoined by our heavenly Master has, in a great measure, been omitted, whilst His professed servants have been wasting their time in operations which He never required. Take another example of the unhappy consequences of founding institutions on inference, viz. The lamentable divisions and sub-divisions of professing Christians. One man thinks he sees the inference, and acts on the imagination; another cannot see it, and rejects the corresponding practice. Suppose that both these men seriously believe and practice their principles — division is inevitable. There is one way, and but one, of uniting Christians, and that is, acting on revelation as we find it. The fact accords with these statements. Men have never agreed (at least since inquiry has been excited) either in the practice of infant sprinkling, or in the inferences on which it is founded. The less learned inquirer may need to be informed, that although they agree in the practice, the abettors of infant sprinkling are at variance amongst themselves, respecting the inferences on which they found it. In the end of the last century, a work was published on infant sprinkling. The author collects all the inferences in its favor, and proves by quotations, that every one of these inferences has been rejected as illegitimate, by men of distinction, who adhered to the practice. Suppose, now, what has often happened, that all these inferences should appear to the inquirer as groundless, as each of them has appeared to one or other of the abettors of sprinkling. What is the consequence? Division follows, of course. Expedients may conceal, —they cannot cure the evil; and the more extensively this pernicious principle is acted on, divisions are multiplied, extended, and embittered. What was said before, we must repeat, — There is one way, and but one, of uniting Christians, and that is by receiving the Christian institutes, not from inference, but from the doctrine or examples of Scripture.
LECTURE VII.
PRESUMPTIONS AGAINST INFANT BAPTISM. The abettors of Infant Baptism have endeavored to vindicate their practice by a kind of cumulative or presumptive evidence. They introduce their reasoning as follows. “Suppose, for the sake of argument, that not one of our proofs, taken by itself, should appear satisfactory, yet all of them taken together, warrant our practice. Recollect the extent and antiquity of the practice, — the circumcision of infants, — the prophecies respecting children in the Old Testament, and all the texts in the New respecting households, the holiness and blessings of infants and the rest. Take these things together, and the lawfulness, if not the necessity, of our practice is sufficiently vindicated." To this mode of reasoning it were sufficient to reply, that cumulative evidence is of force, then, and then only, when all the particulars in the assemblage contribute to strengthen the cause; but where each particular is inefficient, the whole is inefficient. The presumption is not greater from the whole, than it is from any of the parts. An accumulation of ciphers amounts to nothing. The object, however, of a conscientious inquirer is, not the refutation of others, but the satisfaction of his own mind. We must, therefore, examine the presumptions against infant baptism, that the presumptions for and against it may be thrown into opposite scales, and the judgment of the inquirer determined by that which preponderates. To some of the presumptions against infant baptism, it has been objected, "that the Scriptures on which they are founded concern adults only, — that they do not concern infants, — and that although qualifications are required in adults, it does not follow, that like qualifications are required to the baptism of infants: it will not be said that infants are interdicted from eating by the apostolic injunction, 2Th 3:10.
It is answered, 1st, In the text quoted, infants are obviously excepted; it is those who are able, but unwilling to work, that are mentioned. But although the words had run thus, as they do not, “If any work not, neither should he eat," still the nourishment of infants would not be prohibited. The reason is plain; the support of infants is elsewhere required; and this explicit requisition exempts them from the general rule. 2dly, As to the matter of the objection, — Recollect that infants are in no part of Scripture excepted from the usual requisites for baptism, and that infant baptism is nowhere enjoined. Were it otherwise, infants must be baptized, notwithstanding their want of qualifications, &c, but as the fact stands, the want of the requisite qualifications bars their baptism.
Take a parallel case for illustration: — The qualifications for the Lord’s Supper refer to adults only; yet in this country, professing Christians, Pedo-baptists not excepted, hold that they are such as must exclude infants from communion. All say that the worthy communicant must be able to discern the Lord’s body; and, on the same grounds, we say that the baptized must possess the scriptural qualifications. Infants are excluded from both ordinances on the same ground. The example carries the matter farther; it bars the argument from inference. It is known that the pleas for infant communion are the same with the pleas for infant baptism. All of them, however, are repelled by the consideration of the requisites for partaking of the supper. A conscientious regard to truth requires similar procedure in similar circumstances. The qualifications necessary to the baptized, prevent us from observing infant baptism on inference. I shall only add, that some of the presumptions are founded on facts essential to baptism. No remembrance of Christ; no partaking of the supper. No reception of the truth; no baptism. Add to this consideration the want of exception in favor of infants, and the want of command respecting the baptism of infants, and the objection is still farther removed; the presumptions being strengthened that infants are not the scriptural subjects of that ordinance. The first presumption against infant sprinkling arises from the silence of the Scriptures on the subject. The silence of the Scriptures on the sprinkling or baptism of infants, is known to all who have read the Bible. We speak not at present of inferences, but of expressions. On this topic, not a single word occurs either in the Old Testament or in the New. This fact is universally acknowledged; it cannot be denied. From this fact, arise various presumptions unfavorable to the popular practice. Infant baptism is never mentioned in Scripture. None of the parties interested have received any instructions concerning it. The parties concerned are infants, parents, children, teachers, and the churches. Let us consider them in their order.
1st, The infants to be sprinkled are not specified. We are nowhere told what infants are, and what infants are not, to be sprinkled. Instructions are necessary to all appointed worship; but, in the present case, they are peculiarly necessary. Many questions arise on the right to sprinkling, whether the right be supposed to be lodged in the infants or in the parents. If the right be lodged in the infants, the question will be, Ought all infants to be sprinkled? or some only? If all ought to be sprinkled, why are not missionaries employed to gain the consent of parents, and sprinkle infants every where, at home and abroad? If some only are to be sprinkled; if grace be required, how is it to be ascertained in infants? How are we to distinguish the gracious from the graceless? Suppose the right invested in the parents; the question, then, will be, who are to be sponsors? The parents exclusively? or others? If others, what others? From what parents is the right derived? The immediate or the remote? The father, or the mother, or both? The abettors of infant baptism are divided on these questions. The practice differs in different communions. But be the practice what it may, a warrant is required, and cannot be produced. On all these questions, the silence of the Scriptures is profound. Had God required the sprinkling of infants, the infants to be sprinkled would certainly have been specified.
2dly, Parents are deeply interested, but never directed in this imaginary duty. They are nowhere instructed to teach their children to improve their baptism; and, what ought to be particularly noticed, parents are nowhere required to have their children baptized. The instructions to parents are many and minute; they are repeatedly commanded to train up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and repeatedly instructed in the import of this nurture and admonition. But is it not unaccountably strange, that one of the chief parental duties should never once be hinted at? If infant sprinkling be a duty, it is a most momentous duty; it would be amongst the first and greatest duties which parents owe to their children. Although nothing had been revealed of other parental duties, we should have expected, from its importance, that this would have been fully explained, and repeatedly inculcated; it is evident, however, that the fact accords not with this expectation. Infant baptism is no parental duty; it is one of the corruptions of Christianity, and its foundation, like the foundation of Popery, is sapped by the silence of Scripture.
3dly, Children and youth are interested, but they are never directed to improve their infant baptism or sprinkling. The instructions given to believers in general may easily be applied to the young; and, no doubt, the general instructions respecting baptism are as applicable to them as to others. In other things, however, the Holy Spirit has not left them to general admonitions, He has favoured them with special instructions. He has taught them to know the Scriptures, to obey their parents, to be sober-minded, to be humble, to be submissive. He has enforced these duties by various motives; such as, a regard to rectitude, to their own best interests, and the like. But of their baptism in infancy, He speaks not a word; they are neither taught to improve it for duty, motive, or comfort; and they are never, directly or indirectly, so much as reminded of the fact. For this significant silence there must be a cause: and the most natural cause is, that infant baptism was unknown to the apostles.
There are two other parties concerned. The evangelists, I mean, and the churches; but I need not enlarge on these. The remarks already made are so certainly and so easily applicable, that to mention them should be sufficient. The apostles, particularly Paul, had occasion, repeatedly, to address both the evangelists and the churches. The former are fully instructed in all that they had to teach; the latter, as to every part of their faith and practice; but neither the one nor the other receive a single hint on the sprinkling or baptizing of infants. Luke entitles his second work, The Acts, or the actings, of the Apostles. If the apostles baptized infants, and their historian has not recorded the fact, how are we to reconcile the omission with his character as a faithful historian? H e professes to record the practice of the apostles; but if they sprinkled or baptized infants, he has not verified his profession; a part of their practice, most common and interesting, is not once either exemplified or mentioned. His silence on this head becomes the more remarkable, as he is particular in recording the concerns of children, when they occurred. Take an example, Acts 21:5. Relating the events at Tyre, in Paul’s journey towards Jerusalem, he tells us that the apostle was conducted to the shore by the disciples, both men and women, and takes particular notice of their children. Compare with this . account of the children the history of Philip’s baptizing at Samaria, Acts 8:12. He tells us that men were baptized, and that women were baptized, but there is no mention of children. Permit me to ask, why children are so carefully noticed in the one case, and omitted in the other? The answer is obvious: the parents with their children accompanied Paul; but Philip baptized no infants. On the supposition that it was the usual practice of the apostles to baptize infants, it is impossible to reconcile the silence of Luke either with accuracy or fidelity. To judge here as we ought, however, two things should be observed —1st, That Luke is writing under the direction of the Holy Ghost; 2dly, That the design of his history is, by the practice of the apostles, to direct the worship of all the churches to the end of the world. The history accords with the fact, and by both, the churches are taught, in imitation of the apostles, to restrict baptism to professing believers. A second presumption against infant sprinkling arises from what the Scriptures do teach of Baptism. They treat of it frequently, fully, and in a great variety of forms. It is taught in doctrines, in precepts, in examples, and in inferences. But wherever, or in what form soever, the subject occurs, it is restricted exclusively to adults. This is known to all who are acquainted with the Bible. What do we learn from this? If adult baptism be inculcated frequently, — if infant baptism be never hinted at, the presumption is plain. In adult baptism we must be very deeply interested; but with infant baptism we have nothing to do. Judge from a similar case. Respecting the qualifications and duties of elders, we have full information: but the Scriptures speak nothing of popes or of prelates. Accordingly, we reject popery and prelacy, and receive the elders of the Scriptures. In reason and consistency we are bound, in the matter of Baptism, to form a similar judgment, and to pursue a similar practice. Infant sprinkling, like popery, is nowhere enjoined in the Scriptures; and like it, must of course be rejected. Adult baptism is frequently and strongly pressed on our consciences, and must, like the scriptural eldership, be received and obeyed. The presumption is strengthened by comparing the Scripture doctrine of baptism with the actual state of the Church.
Suppose Pedo-baptism to be the truth, the number of adults will bear no proportion to the number of infants to be baptized. The total amount of the adults could not exceed the number of converts from the superstitions of Jews, Mahonimedans, and Heathens. The number of infants would be incalculably greater, particularly in the Millennium. During this period, the Jews, and the fullness of the Gentiles, being converted, almost none, excepting infants, remain to be baptized. Observe, then, the Church, through the extent of her history, and the infants are by far the most numerous class; the adults to be baptized are comparatively few. From the wisdom and care of their Ruler, I expect revelation to be adapted to the exigencies of His people. I expect instructions on adult baptism, because adults are to be baptized; but I expect more full, more particular instructions on pedo-baptism, because, on the supposition of its being a Christian ordinance, infants will be the majority of those to whom it is administered. Compare these reasonable expectations with the fact, and it at once appears that the Scripture doctrine of baptism is not adapted to the baptism of infants. On adult baptism ] have the most ample information; but if pedo-baptism be our duty, the Scriptures afford me no information on the subject. In no part of them can I find any provision made for the supply of this want. The inference is clear. This want or defect is merely imaginary; revelation is not adapted to pedo-baptism. Infant baptism is a corruption of Christianity; it is not regulated by the Scriptures, and must therefore be rejected by the disciples of Christ. The baptism of believers ought exclusively to be practiced, and so it undoubtedly will be in the Millennium. All the pleas for infant baptism are cut off. The more obscure passages must be explained by the passages that are more clear. Casual references must be explained by the passages which treat more fully of the subject. Whatever is said of circumcision, households, the blessings and holiness of children, and the like, must be explained by the commission and the Acts of the Apostles. The practice of infant baptism is not sanctioned by the commission and Acts of the Apostles; and, consequently, by nothing in the Scriptures. What is the consequence? It cannot be practiced in faith, for faith cometh by the word of God. It cannot be administered or received in the name of Christ; for to baptize in the name of Christ is, amongst other things, to baptize by his commission.
Infant sprinkling, like every other unscriptural practice, must be rejected as will-worship, Col 2:20. “Why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances — after the commandments and doctrines of men?"