CHAPTER XXIV.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

We shall introduce one example more, illustrative of our position on infant membership in our last chapter. The State of Alabama has a law that provides for the protection of female property, so that it cannot be spent by the husband. This law, be it remembered, provides not only for the female child that now lives, but for every female child of the far off future. The child that is now sung to in the cradle has as good a right to the. protection of this law as the young lady just lately married. So it is with regard to the right of infants to membership in the church of Christ. The child on the lap of the mother has a claim to membership as well founded as the adult who sings his hymn by the altar of the church. It will require a full repeal of the law in the State of Alabama, and a record of this made, before the child of futurity can be looked on as unprotected in the right to property that it (the law) now affords. The infant, in the days of the apostles, had a right to membership in the Jewish state of the church; and nothing could obliterate this right but a full repeal of the law that gave it, clearly expressed in record. These considerations are only an amplification of the leading principle advocated in the previous chapter, and are so intended.

Before taking up the scriptural authority for infant membership, which will be found in perfect agreement with what we have said on it, we shall introduce the custom of the Jews when receiving Gentiles into their communion, as it allowed children to be received, a circumstance that will shed some light on the subject under investigation, as now being handled.

Watson says: "This baptism of proselytes, as Lightfoot has fully showed, was a baptism of families, and comprehended their infant children, and the rite was a symbol of their being washed from the pollutions of idolatry."

In Calmet's Dictionary, article Proselyte, we are informed thus: "The Jews require three things in a complete proselyte: baptism, circumcision, and sacrifice; but for woman only baptism and sacrifice."

Maimonides says, who himself was a Jewish interpreter: "In all ages, when a heathen was willing to enter into the covenant of Israel, and take upon himself the yoke of the law, he must first be circumcised, and secondly baptized, and thirdly bring a sacrifice."

We introduce these last two witnesses for the sake of establishing proselyte baptism among the Jews, and not for the sake of directly establishing an included idea of infant baptism then, a thing that cannot reasonably he doubted, nor will not, except by him who denies proselyte baptism totally, a practice common with some Anti-Pedobaptists; because it evidently favors the baptism of infants now, from the fact that it then embraced them. Dr. Wall says: "Whenever Gentiles were proselyted to the Jewish religion, they were initiated by circumcision, the offering of sacrifice, and baptism. They were all baptized, males and females, adults and infants. This was their constant practice from the time of Moses to that of our Savior, and from that period to the present day."

Dr. Clarke says: "The apostles knew well that the Jews not only circumcised the children of proselytes, but also baptized them. The children, and even infants, of proselytes, were baptized among the Jews. They were, in consequence, reputed clean, and partakers of the blessings of the covenant."

Dr. Lightfoot says: "They baptized young children, for the most part, with their parents." He gives us, however, this striking example on the baptism of an infant: “If an Israelite take a Gentile child, or find a Gentile infant, and baptize him in the name of a proselyte, behold he is a proselyte."

We think that the testimony before us, on proselyte baptism among the Jews, which embraced the baptism of infants, is quite sufficient to satisfy the demands of any reasonable mind; and, in consequence of this fact, we are not at all surprised when we find an Anti-Pedobaptist disposed to doubt the doctrine of proselyte baptism; but had it rejected infants, and only embraced adults-O! how he would have taken hold of it, as only being a shade less in force than this declaration: "Whosoever believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved." Circumstances, however, alter men's minds; and the fact of infants being included in the matter, and received with their parents, is a Mordecai before the eye of every Anti-Pedobaptist. But why try to hang truth? Infants were baptized as well as adults. This is the point we want to impress on the reader. Keep it in mind!

In this connection we shall mention the belief of the disciples of Mesopotamia. It will give us a fine illustration of the subjects of John's baptism; and accord finely with the views before us, and the doctrine we are advocating. "These disciples not only call themselves the followers of John the Baptist, who was a follower of Christ, but have their children baptized at thirty days old. They take the child to the bank of the river, where the priest sprinkles water on it; and when the celebrated Wolf asked them, after a visit to them, why they baptized in rivers, the answer was, 'Because St. John the Baptist baptized in the river Jordan.'' This is their faith, the above their action on it.

From the quotations now presented, we learn this pleasing truth-that infants were baptized in all ages by the Jews, and that John the Baptist baptized infants at the river Jordan, by sprinkling.

It is highly worthy of remark here, that the children that were received into the Jewish state of the church, by baptism and circumcision, whether we refer to proselytes, or their own natural ̧offspring, were allowed to commune at twelve years old. Hear Bishop Patrick on this matter: "When children were twelve years old, their parents were bound to bring them to the temple at the Passover." This will account for a statement in the New Testament, that Jesus was found disputing in the temple at this very age. Was not the Savior brought up to the temple to commune there, by virtue of his infant membership in the Jewish state of the church? Certainly. Thus have we infant membership in the Jewish state of the church manifestly proved in the case of the Savior, from the Scriptures, at twelve years old, this being the time he had to appear in public worship by virtue of his circumcision at eight days old, which made him a member of this church, and secured to him a right to fellowship and communion, exactly at the above age.

The reader will please consider the preceding facts and reflections as making our fourth reason for being a Pedobaptist, and vindicating the doctrine.

We shall now hear the Scriptures. Matt. xxi, 43: "Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." We know that the Jewish state of the church is what is spoken of in this passage; and we know and proved that this church had infant members. The meaning is, that the kingdom of God, as constituted in its mem

bers, should be set up among the Gentiles. We beg no question here, ask no implication. It had infant members in its Jewish attitude, and must have infant members in its Gentile attitude. Apart from this, the passage is made an unmeaning array of words, in our humble judgment.

The reader will please regard this text and these thoughts as forming our fifth reason for being a Pedobaptist, and advocating the doctrine.

Eph. ii, 14: “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us." Jews and Gentiles are here included. The meaning is, that the thing which had long separated the Gentiles from the Jews had been broken down by the death of Christ, which afforded an opportunity to the Gentile of being one with the Jew in all things. The Jewish state of the church was not dissolved at the calling in of the Gentiles. Does the taking down of a partition set forth the idea of the ruin of an organized society? No; but simply a oneness of the families, under the control and guidance of the hand that removed the difficulty. The fact of the Gentiles being made one with the Jews, evidently gives us to know that their children had the same right to membership that the Jewish children always had, though the form of the initiatory ceremony stood somewhat changed. They were now one. The children of the one stood as the children of the other. The opposer of this doctrine must prove that the law that granted infant membership to the Jews, while the partition was standing, was repealed, totally abrogated, before the partition was pulled down, or believe what we have said on this text.

The reader will please to look on this text and these considerations as constituting our sixth reason for being a Pedobaptist, and pleading for the doctrine.