perceive, that the "sanctification of the unbelieving by the believing parent, and the external or ecclesiastical "holiness" of the children, conferred by the same cause, are two distinct things, and that, to understand them as implying the same, would involve a contravention of the stipulations of the covenant?

"The passage thus explained," says an able writer, "establishes the church-membership of infants in another form. For it assumes the principle that when both parents are reputed believers; their children belong to the church of God as a matter of course. The whole difficulty proposed by the Corinthians to Paul, grows out of this principle. Had he taught, or they understood, that no children, be their parents believers or unbelievers, are to be accounted members of the church, the difficulty could not have existed. For if the faith of both parents could not confer upon a child the privilege of membership, the faith of only one of them certainly could not. The point was decided. It would have been mere impertinence to teaze the apostle with queries which carried their own answer along with them. But on the supposition that when both parents were members, their children, also, were members; the difficulty is very natural and serious. I see,' would a Corinthian convert exclaim, 'I see the children of my Christian neighbors, owned as members of the church of God; and I see the children of others, who are unbelievers, rejected with themselves. I believe in Christ myself; but my husband, my wife, believes not. What is to become of my children? Are they to be admitted with myself? or are they to be cast off with my partner?'

"Let not your heart be troubled,' replies the apostle: 'God reckons them to the believing, not to the unbelieving, parent. It is enough that they are yours. The

infidelity of your partner shall never frustrate their interest in the covenant of your God. They are holy' because you are so.

"This decision put the subject at rest. And it lets us know that one of the reasons, if not the chief reason of the doubt, whether a married person should continue, after conversion, in the conjugal society of an infidel partner, arose from a fear lest such continuance should exclude the children from the church of God. Otherwise it is hard to comprehend why the apostle should dissuade them from separating, by such an argument as he has employed in the text. And it is utterly inconceivable how such a doubt could have entered their minds, had not the membership of infants, born of believing parents, been undisputed, and esteemed a high privilege; so high a privilege, as that the apprehension of losing it made conscientious parents at a stand whether they ought not rather to break the ties of wedlock, by withdrawing from an unbelieving husband or wife. Thus, the origin of this difficulty on the one hand, and the solution of it, on the other, concur in establishing our doctrine, that, by the appointment of God himself, the infants of believing parents are BORN members of his church.'

991

1Essays on the Church of God, by Dr. J. M. Mason. Christian's Magazine, ii. 49, 50.

8

CHAPTER VIII.

FOURTH ARGUMENT.

The ancient practice of family baptism, which was continued in the apostolic age affords very strong presumptive evidence on this subject.

That this practice prevailed under the Old Testament economy, that is, that gentile parents when they renounced idolatry and professed the true religion, were with all the members of their families, including the youngest children, baptized and circumcised in token of their ablution from heathenism and their title to the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant, is a historical fact already sufficiently proved.' The children were uniformly embraced in this solemn transaction, on the profession of faith made by their parents. This interesting practice (with the exception of circumcision) was not set aside, but continued in the apostolic age. We have no doubt that hundreds of families, the heads of which were converted by the preaching of the gospel, were baptized, embracing thousands of infants. The very language in which the baptism of families is mentioned in the New Testament, affords proof that such instances were of frequent occurrence, and constituted a standing practice. Witness, for example, the case of Lydia: "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us," &c. It is obvious to the plainest reader, that the baptism of "her household," is recorded not as an uncommon event, but as

1See p. 20 sqq.

a natural and very ordinary one, following her own profession of faith as a matter of course. The language of Clemens Alexandrinus, A. D. 190, is in perfect accordance with this fact: "The doctrine of the Master of Christianity did not remain confined to Judea, only, as the philosophy of the Greeks was confined to Greece; but it spread itself over the whole world converting equally Greek and barbarian, in every nation and village, and in all cities ENTIRE FAMILIES (literally whole households) and SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS.

991

Most writers on this subject, refer only to three cases of family baptism, recorded in the New Testament; viz. those of Lydia, the jailor and Stephanas. But an attentive examination will justify the assertion, that there were many more. The church at Philippi, though evidently small, certainly furnishes two cases, that of Lydia and that of the jailor; how many others were baptized as families, we cannot say. The church at Corinth also affords two baptized families, that of Crispus and that of Stephanas; besides a number of others, plainly glanced at but not expressly mentioned. The family of Crispus is not positively declared to have been baptized, but its baptism will no doubt be readily conceded, being recorded as a believing family; and to have left this believing family unbaptized, would, on the one hand, have been a strange and unaccountable neglect on the part of the apostles to fulfil their divine commission, (which involved the duty of baptizing all who should believe,) while on the other hand, it would cut up by the very roots the baptism of believing adults no less than that of infants. We wil

10mous 0x85, nas dia exasтov.-Clem. Alex. Strom. lib. vi. p. 827. Acts. xvi. 15, and xvi. 33.

3 Acts. xviii. 8, and 1 Cor. i. 16.

lingly leave our Baptist brethren to decide according to their own judgment; if they maintain that "Crispus with all his house," though said to be a "believing family," were not baptized, they virtually impute to the apostles a most flagrant disregard of the plainest duty, and uproot their own favorite scheme; but if they say they were baptized, then they admit inferentially what is not expressly on record, and vastly strengthen the presumption in favor of infant baptism, as will presently be shown. They can choose whichever horn of the dilemma they please.

2*

But if they grant the baptism of the family of Crispus, because we find it reported as believing, then ensues another inference no less certain and still more fatal to the Baptist cause, namely, we must admit the same of all other families which we find marked as Christian, but not described as baptized. Such were the families of Onesiphorus,' Aristobulus, Narcissus, Aquila and Priscilla, Nymphas, and Philemon." It is true that in the case of Aristobulus and that of Narcissus, the word omos, family, does not occur, yet the phrase evidently implies family, and all translators have so rendered it." In order to present this subject more satisfactorily to our readers, we shall lay before them a tabular view of it.

3

12 Tim. i. 16-18, and iv. 19. 3Rom. xvi. 3-5.

4Col. iv. 15.

2Rom. xvi. 10-11. 5Phil. i. 2.

"It is worthy of remark, that the apostle does not greet Aristobulus and Narcissus, but only those of their households or familiesfrom which Clarke infers, that either they were dead or were not converted to Christianity, and hence he limits his salutations to their families.