Before proceeding to the next argument in support of our practice, we propose to submit two or three preliminary considerations which are pertinent just here. It is an unquestionable fact, that the church originally embraced the faithful and their seed. The covenant embraced both. The seal was applied to each. Now (a) if a change so important and radical as the exclusion of one-half the membership was made by our Savior and the apostles, it would at least be reasonable to suppose that some distinct mention of it would be made. Otherwise how would their intention be known? But no such intimation is given. On the other hand, as we shall see presently, intimations of a directly opposite nature are abundant, showing that the same order was to continue. Is this possible upon the theory that they intended to forbid infant membership? Again (b) if they had introduced such a change in the constitution of the church, it is in the highest degree improbable that it would have been unnoticed both by friends and foes. The Jews prized their covenant relation to Abraham very highly. They were, moreover, peculiarly sensitive as to every departure from their laws and customs. Would they not have noticed this, supposing it to have been made? Or, if they had been silent, would not the disciples of Christ themselves have asked for some explanation? The children of the faithful have heretofore belonged to the church; are they now to be excluded? They have hitherto stood in a peculiar relation to God; are they now to be put on an equality with the children of the heathen? That some allusion to the change, supposing it to have been made, should not be found, either from friend or foe, is utterly incredible. And yet not a word is on record from either, implying even that any change was made in this respect. On the other hand, much is found implying the continuance of the old order. How is it possible to reconcile this with the Baptist theory?

But farther, (c) if no change were contemplated in the constitution of the church — if the privileges of believers were to continue in this respect, just as they always had been, then all that we would reasonably expect in the way of authority would be, not an express injunction to incorporate their seed with themselves into the church (for this were unnecessary, the thing was already understood and practiced), but an occasional or incidental allusion to it as an existing usage. And this is precisely what we do find, as we shall now proceed to show. No notice of a change; no question or complaint from any quarter implying it, but various allusions and statements which clearly show its continuance.

II. Some of these are now to be presented as a second argument in favor of our practice. Take, in the first place, the declaration of the apostle Peter to his brethren the Jews. "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are afar off." As Jews, they had been accustomed to associate their offspring with themselves in all the privileges and blessings of the church. Now if they were to be deprived of this privilege when they became Christians, it is certainly very strange that the old covenant relation should be thus referred to. Repent and be baptized, . . . for the covenant is to you and to your children. Is it possible that such an inducement would have been mentioned, if their children were to be, by the faith of the parents in accepting Christ, cut off from the church? We think not. It may be, indeed, that the language we have quoted is not to be considered as enjoining infant baptism, but to our apprehension it is utterly at war with the idea, that the offspring of believers are in a less favored condition under the new than under the old dispensation. It goes on the presumption that the covenant of God with his people is unchanged in this respect. This intimation is given, too, almost at the very commencement of the Christian dispensation, when, if an entirely new order was to be instituted, a very different intimation would seem to have been called for. Instead of being left to infer the continued status of their children, they should have been told distinctly that henceforth they were not to wear the seal of the covenant.

Take, in the next place, the important passage in I Cor. 7:14. "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband: else were your children unclean, but now are they holy." In what sense are the children "holy" when there is one believing parent? Not inherently, certainly, for this is not true of them by nature when both parents are pious. It must refer to the covenant or church relation in which such children are placed, and was no doubt intended to solve a practical difficulty that arose very early in the church. They seem to have been at a loss what to do when only one parent was pious — a difficulty, by the way, which never could have arisen if the children were to be left out any how, even if both parents were believers. In this perplexity the apostle says, that the faith of one parent is sufficient to guaranty their covenant standing. They are not to be excluded. "On the maturest and most impartial consideration of this passage," says Doddridge, "I must judge it to refer to infant baptism. Nothing can be more apparent than that the word holy signifies persons who might be admitted to partake of the distinguishing rites of God's people." "I cannot but conclude, after long attention to the subject," says Scott, "that the baptism of the infant offspring of believers is here evidently referred to as at that time customary in the churches." No other interpretation of this passage with which we have met, is at all plausible. Olshausen, who denies its reference to infant baptism, finds the benefit arising to the unbelieving partner to lie "in the highly important idea, that a relative sanctification can be effected merely by contact with those who possess it. There is," he says, "in those who are closely united with believers, without fully yielding to their power, a certain resistance always to be conceived; the mighty power of Christ unites itself with the better part in them, and elevates it to a certain degree." And in the holiness or cleanness, represented as belonging to the children where one parent is pious, he finds only "a destination for conversion, and a means of facilitating this, unquestionably included. This is the blessing of pious ancestors." Shade of Abraham! And yet even he admits that "in the thought which the apostle here expresses, lies the full authorization of the church to institute this rite of infant baptism." "What pertains to the children of Christians in virtue of their birth, is affirmed to them in baptism, to be really and fully imparted to them at their confirmation or spiritual baptism."

Another allusion of a less definite nature, is found in the familiar words of our Savior. "Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God," or of heaven. The kingdom here referred to is the church. Children had been brought into it from the first. If they were henceforward to be excluded, this is certainly a strange declaration. Instead of an implied continuance of their right, we might have expected an explicit denial of it. We cannot but believe that this would have been given, if he had intended to cut them off from their covenant relation. An appropriate occasion certainly was here afforded for promulgating the new order. So far is he from issuing it, however, that he seems to sanction the old usage. In this manner the pious generally have understood his words; and have joyfully consecrated their offspring to him, in the fond hope that they will be watched as lambs of his fold, and received at last into the kingdom above. Have they been feeding on delusion?

These are some of the principal allusions, going to show that as under the old so under the new dispensation, the children of believers are embraced in the covenant, and have a right to its seal. The Savior says they belong to the kingdom. The apostle affirms that the promise includes them. And, in a case where they were at some loss what to think or to do, instructions are given which recognize their standing. We submit that these allusions, in the absence of everything of a contrary nature, and in connection with the former practice of the church, ought to have great weight in deciding the matter. It is to our mind inconceivable that these implied sanctions should have been given, if the seed of the righteous were to be no longer admitted to a standing in the visible kingdom. This conviction, too, is greatly strengthened by the remaining argument, which we now propose to state.

III. The practice of the early Christians seems clearly to have coincided with the interpretation we have given them, and with the ancient usage of God's people. The evidence of this is found in the family or household baptisms recorded in the New Testament. Of these, four are mentioned distinctly, i.e., the families of Cornelius, Lydia, Stephanas, and the jailer; and four others are referred to in a way which renders their baptism highly probably — the household of Crispus, Onesiphorus, Aristobulus, and Narcissus. In such a number of families it is highly improbable that all would be found without children. Take eight or even four families promiscuously in any community or age, and the probabilities are almost a thousand to one that children will be found in some of them. That there were none in any of these, it is next to impossible to believe. But if there were, they were baptized as well as the parents.

The way, too, in which one of these family baptisms is mentioned is worthy of remark, as tending to show a prevailing custom. "And when she was baptized and her household," as though the baptism of the family were as much a matter of course as of the parent or head. This is the more significant also, when we remember that under the old dispensation, whenever a parent professed the true religion, a proselyte, for example, the initiatory ordinance was applied to his family as well as to himself. He and his were circumcised, and thus publicly consecrated to God by the seal of his covenant. Allusion to this ceremony would have been very natural in just such language as is here employed in regard to Lydia. And when he was circumcised and his family — and when she was baptized and her household — the one as naturally following conversion as the other. Nothing could be more artless than this allusion. The evidence thus afforded is scarcely less strong and satisfactory than if it had been directly affirmed, that according to the tenor of the covenant, and the common practice of the apostles, she and her household were received into the church by the same ordinance, and upon her individual faith. This and the other cases mentioned, are to be regarded only as samples of what was common in that day. The mere passing allusion to them is unaccountable on any other theory.

It might be shown that the early history of the church confirms the conclusion to which we are brought by these arguments. But we prefer to lay before our readers at present only the scriptural view of the subject. This can be understood and appreciated by all who are capable of reasoning. If this be accepted, nothing more is needed. If in this we have failed, we should not wish to be sustained by uninspired history. The main positions that have been taken are, in the first place, that the children of believers were included in the covenant, belonged to the church, and received the initiatory ordinance in the original organization of God's house — that that constitution has not been abrogated — that it is the law of the church still. They are, therefore, yet included in the covenant, and of course the rite of initiation belongs to them still. If they are shut out, the authority for so doing must be brought by those who exclude them. This they can never do. But, in the next place, instead of waiting for them to prove their exclusion, we have shown that various declarations imply very clearly the continuance of this usage under the gospel. And then, in the third place, the practice of the church seems to have been founded upon it.

As observed at the beginning, each of these arguments has independent weight, but when combined, they strengthen each other immeasurably. Like circumstantial evidence, they confirm each other. God has placed the children of believers within his church at the first. They belong to it still, unless they have been excluded. This alone were enough. We might sit down here, and wait for our opponents to produce a "thus saith the Lord" for excluding them. But we go farther, and show that their continued covenant relation is taught by Christ and his apostles. This, in the absence of everything to the contrary, gives additional strength to the former conclusion. And then, to make the demonstration complete, we have shown that the practice of the apostles also, as well as their didactic teaching, is favorable to infant baptism. Believing parents in those days brought their children as naturally as themselves to receive this ordinance. What are we, then, that we should forbid it to be done at the present time? To our apprehension the privilege and duty are scarcely less clear than they were in regard to circumcision.

Several of the most common arguments against the views we hold have already been answered. There is no command to baptize children. But silence does not exclude them. An injunction was not necessary. The former practice of the church and the example of the apostles gave all requisite information and authority. A prohibition would have been requisite to exclude them, and would doubtless have been given if they were to be deprived of their former standing. Infant membership was a part of the Mosaic ritual, and terminated with its abrogation? We deny the assertion in toto. Infant membership was instituted in the family of Abraham, and, as to origin or continuance, had nothing to do with Moses. But the Jewish church was a secular organization, and membership in it cannot imply the same in the Christian church, which is a spiritual body. We reply, that the church of old existed before, and independent of, the national organization; and was then as truly a spiritual body as now. The Jewish economy was only a temporary device, for a specific purpose, enacted long after the church's existence, and terminated without affecting the covenant.

One or two other objections require to be noticed before we close. The conditions of baptism, it is said, are repentance and faith. Only those who can perform these conditions are proper subjects of the ordinance. Children cannot repent and believe, therefore they are not to be baptized. Our reply to this is three-fold. (a) The same process of reasoning will exclude them from heaven as well as from the church. Repentance and faith are the conditions of salvation as plainly as of baptism. "Testifying repentance towards God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ," was the sum of Paul's preaching. "Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." "He that believeth not, shall be damned." But children cannot repent and believe, therefore they cannot be saved. The argument proves too much, and is therefore good for nothing. (b) The terms prescribed have respect to adults. They prove nothing in either case as to children. This is the belief of all as to their salvation, should they die in infancy. Why is it not equally true as to their baptism? (c) Under the old dispensation, faith and submission to God were required of proselytes. Their infant offspring were not capable of performing these acts; yet they were received on the authority of the covenant, and the seal applied. Why should not the same course be pursued under the new?

But it is said, What good does baptism do them? No little merriment is sometimes made at the expense of paedobaptists under cover of this inquiry. The sprinkling of unconscious babes is sneered at as the height of folly. (a) The same might have been said, perhaps was said, by some, of circumcision. What sense or profit is there in subjecting them to a painful ceremony? Nay, but O man! who art thou that repliest against God? What are we, that we should accuse God of folly? To know that he requires it, should be enough for us. This is our first reply. (b) And another is, that our inability to discover the utility of the ordinance, does not prove it to be without value. The water may have no cleansing efficacy of itself — we have never dreamed that it has. But still, the religious use of it in the way prescribed, may be valuable. If it be done in obedient love to God, consecrating therewith our children to him, who can say, that through it, and through the training it implies, an unspeakable blessing may not descend upon all the parties concerned — parents, children, the church, and the world. It is a remarkable fact that the church of God has lived and descended from age to age very much through the families of the righteous. Who can say how much the consecration of their offspring to God may have contributed to their welfare, the comfort of their parents, the prosperity of Zion, and the good of the world? We are convinced that the observance of this ordinance has been an incalculable blessing, and that to banish the usage from the church would be injurious in the extreme. With all the solemn considerations and advantages by which it is enforced, we are yet too prone, alas, to neglect the proper training of our children, and they to neglect their high interests and obligations. What would be the result if it were banished from the church? But on this we cannot enlarge at present. The practical bearing and value of the ordinance may, perhaps, be discussed at another time. For the present, we rest with having established the continued privilege of regarding our children as with us in the ark, and of consecrating them to our covenant-keeping God. At every stage of the argument we have been more and more convinced that our usage is scriptural, and that in the conscientious observance of it we have every reason to expect the divine blessing.