be taken as a proof that such rite was not prescribed for its observance by the Apostles.

Let us pass on to the case of rites and ordinances observed by us.

The first is the doctrine of infant baptism.

It will not be denied that we have at least the doctrine of baptism clearly enough laid down in the Scriptures.

What we have to inquire, then, is, whether we can also clearly and plainly gather from the Scriptures that infants are proper subjects of that rite.

It must be observed, however, that the question does not respect all infants indiscriminately, but those only that are born of believing parents, and so in a state different to those of the heathen, (1 Cor. vii. 14,) and are also presented to the Church by sureties, who undertake that they shall be educated in her communion. The question, then, is, whether the Church is right in administering to an infant brought to her under such circumstances, and that cannot, like an adult, offer any obstacle to its reception of spiritual blessings by unbelief, that rite which is a necessary introduction to its admission into the Christian Church, and consequently to its being placed in a position to receive the blessings promised by God exclusively to the members of the Church, and looking to God for his blessing upon it, the Church on her part undertaking to God (on the promise of the child's sureties) that the child shall be taught the terms of his covenant, and be brought up in obedience to it, and be called upon at the age of discretion personally to accept and promise obedience to it.

(1) Then we observe, that the command to baptize, and the instances we have in Scripture of the practice, are given in the most general and comprehensive terms.

"Go and teach all nations," saith our Lord, "baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. xxviii. 19.) And we find Lydia and "her household," the Philippian gaoler and "all his," and "the household" of Stephanas, baptized by the Apostles. (Acts xvi. 15, 33; 1 Cor. i. 16.)

(2) The language of our Lord on one occasion seems clearly to show that baptism is, in an ordinary way, (as was the case with circumcision,) necessary to salvation, for he says, "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into

1 Cases may be supposed different from that mentioned above, where we might not be prepared to deny that baptism might be administered, as, for instance, the possible case of an infant losing its unbelieving parents, and coming thereby under the guardianship of Christian relations or friends; but such are extraordinary cases, upon which no argument can be built.

the kingdom of God." (John iii. 5.) I will not say, with some of the Romanists, (who, when the subject of tradition is out of sight, can clearly enough see the reference of this and other texts to infants as well as others,1) that this text shows that baptism is absolutely a sine qua non to the salvation of infants, because, as Archbishop Laud intimates, we are not to "bind God to the use and means of that sacrament to which he hath bound us ;"" yet surely it follows from it that it whould be unjustifiable to exclude all infants from that rite without which ordinarily men "cannot enter into the kingdom of God."

Nor can it be said that their tender age must at any rate prevent their suffering from the neglect of this rite, for the case of circumcision shows the contrary. "The uncircumcised manchild . . . shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." (Gen. xvii. 14.) If, then, it be the case that baptism has been made ordinarily necessary for an entrance into the kingdom of God, then age, however tender, does not remove that necessity.

(3) Has not Christ himself testified his willingness to receive such among the number of his people? for we read that he was "much displeased" with his disciples for rebuking those that brought infants to him for his blessing, and said to them, "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God . . and he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them." (Mark x. 14, 16. See, also, Matt. xix. 14; Luke xviii. 16.) With this example, then, before us, we ask with confidence, Would the Church be justifiable in refusing to receive into her communion as subjects for Christ's mercy, by the rite appointed for that purpose, infants brought to her under the circumstances supposed, or rather is she not bound to require of her members that their infants should be thus brought to her to be received by her into her communion, as those whom Christ's example when he was upon earth shows that he is ready to accept and bless!

(4) If infants are susceptible of the enjoyment of any Christian privileges, as of the remission of sins, spiritual grace, &c., and baptism is appointed by our Lord to be observed as a rite introductory to admission into the Christian Church, and the enjoyment of such privileges, then the Church is not only justified in admitting infant baptism, but bound to enjoin the practice upon her members.

Now, for the proof of the first of these points, I refer to the

Ballarmine himself, after giving three arguments for predobaptism from Scripture, adds, "satis aperte colligatur ex Scripturis." De bapt. c. 9.

* Conference with Fisher, p. 36,

following passages: Jer. i. 5.; Ezek. xvi. 20, 21; Luke i. 15.; and also to the admission of Jewish infants, by the rite of circumcision, to the privileges of the Old Testament Covenant, which clearly shows that the tender age of infants does not render them insusceptible of the enjoyment of such privileges. For the proof of the second of these points, viz. that baptism is a rite appointed to be observed as introductory to admission into the Christian Church, and the enjoyment of Christian privileges, I refer to the following passages: Acts ii. 41; Rom. vi. 3, 4; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Col. ii. 12; and especially to the text already quoted, that "except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." (John iii. 5.)

These two points, then, being clearly decided by Scripture in the affirmative, the consequence which follows from them is equally clearly established.i

Such, then, are the clear, and, as it appears to many, decisive arguments which Scripture affords us in favour of infant baptism. And I will only add, that Hooker considered this doctrine to be a necessary deduction out of Scripture, and that Bishop Taylor, in his last work, expressly rebukes his Romish antagonist for taking the ground which our opponents here maintain on this question.3

And when this doctrine is denied, we, in order to confirm the correctness of our deductions from Scripture, refer to the practice of the primitive Church, as showing how they understood the matter. We do not make our appeal here to any doctrinal statements of the Fathers, as conclusive evidence of what doctrinal statements were delivered orally by the Apostles on the subject. But we refer to their statements of what passed under their own eyes, the daily practice of the Church, and hence obtain an argument for the correctness of our interpretation of Scripture on this point.

And in all matters that concern the practice of the Church, we obtain from the statements of the early Fathers conclusive evidence as to the observance or non-observance of this or that rite or usage at that time, and therefore evidence sufficient in such a case to justify us when following them. And even a justification of the usage is sufficient in infant baptism; for, be it observed, that, as Bishop Stillingfleet says, "The main question between

1 We might, I think, add to these an argument derived from the rite of circumcision being administered to infants; but as our opponents deny almost any correspondence between the rites of circumcision and baptism, I content myself with noticing it here.

2 See his Eccl. Pol. bk. i. c. 14.

3 Diss. from Popery, Pt. ii. bk. i. § 3. Works, vol. x. pp. 430, &s., where the bishop has also vindicated the Protestant grounds of faith in various other points.

us and the Antipædobaptists, is not concerning an absolute and express command for baptizing infants; but whether our blessed Saviour hath not, by a positive precept, so determined the subject of baptism, viz., adult persons professing the faith, that the alteration of the subject, viz., in baptizing infants, be not a deviation from, and perversion of the institution of Christ, in a substantial part of it; or, in short, thus, Whether our Saviour hath so determined the subject of baptism, as to exclude infants. And although the question being thus stated, the proof ought to lie on those who affirm it, yet, taking in ONLY THE HELP OF SCRIPTURE AND REASON, it were no difficult matter to prove directly and evidently, that infants are so far from being excluded from baptism by the institution of Christ, that there are as many grounds as are necessary to a matter of that nature, to prove that the baptizing them is suitable to the institution of Christ, and agreeable to the state of the Church, under the Gospel. For, if there were any ground to exclude them, it must be either the incapacity of the subject, or some express precept and institution of our Saviour. But neither of these can be supposed to do it." This he proceeds to show at some length, and then adding some evidences to show how suitable the baptism of infants is to the administration of things under the gospel," he mentions, as one of them, "Had it been contrary to Christ's institution, we should not have had such evidence of its early practice in the Church, as we have. And here I acknowledge the use of Apostolical tradition to manifest this to us . . . We grant that the practice of the Church, from Apostolical times, is a great confirmation that it was never Christ's intention to have infants excluded from baptism." Where we may see that the view we have taken above of the use of patristical tradition in this matter, is precisely that of Bishop Stillingfleet.

The second case is the doctrine of the observance of the Lord's Day.

In this there are three distinct points for consideration. First, that which relates to our assembling on the Lord's Day for public worship; Secondly, that which relates to the necessity of such an appropriation of the day by all Churches, as a divine institution; and thirdly, that which relates to abstinence from our usual worldly occupations on that day.

In all these, Scripture will be found a sufficient guide. In the second, indeed, it alone can be an authoritative guide; and in the third, it will be found practically our only definite guide.

First, then, the custom of assembling on the first day of the week for public worship, is clearly mentioned in Scripture as one

1 Rational Account, &c. Part. 1. c. 4. pp. 106—8.

D*

followed by the Apostles and primitive Christians. Thus, on its first occurrence after our Lord's resurrection, we find the disciples assembled together with the doors shut, for fear of the Jews, (John xx. 19.) at which time our Lord first appeared to them, and gave the Apostles their commission (vv. 19—23); and "after eight days again his disciples were within," and Jesus again vouchsafed his presence to them (v. 26); that is, in other words, the next time of their assembling together, was on the recurrence of the first day of the week.

...

Of this custom mention is again clearly made in the Book of the Acts, where the sacred historian writes, we "came unto them to Troas. . . . where we abode seven days. And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, [literally, the disciples being met together to break bread,] Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the mor

row."

Here, then, we find that St. Paul stayed with these Christians seven days; and that during these seven days, there was one, "the first day of the week," on which "the disciples being met. together to break bread," Paul preached unto them. We hear nothing of any assembly on any other day; and on this the assembly was not, it appears, called together by St. Paul; but being met on that day, he took the opportunity of addressing them, and the object for which they were assembled was "to break bread;" that is, confessedly, to celebrate the eucharist, the reception of which was one great object for which the early Christians" came together in the Church;" (See 1 Cor. xi. 17— 20) whence the Apostle calls it "coming together to eat." (1 Cor. xi. 33.)

Again, the day is mentioned in Scripture as one on which the alms of the Christians were to be laid by for their poorer brethren. "Concerning the collection for the saints," says St. Paul, “as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia, even so do ye.Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him; that there be no gatherings when I come."

914

1 Ούσης ουν οψίας τη ημερα εκείνη τη μια των σαββάτων κ. τ. λ. (John xx. 19.) of the meaning of the phrase, т a Tv σablatav, there can be no doubt, as it is used by all the four Evangelists to represent the day on which our Saviour rose from the dead; sometimes with, and sometimes without, the article; as, for instance, iar alβατων, Matt. xxviii. 1. της μιας σαββατων, Mark xvi. 2. τη μια των σαββάτων, Luke χχίν. 1. τη μια των σαββάτων, John xx. 1.

2 Med' nμepas oxTw, "after eight days;" i. e. (according to the Jewish mode of reckoning, including the day from which the reckoning was made,) the same day in the fol lowing week.

3 Ηλθομεν προς αυτους εις την Τριάδα. . . . οὗ διατρίψαμεν ἡμέρας έπτα. Εν δε τη μια των σαββάτων, συνηγμένων των μαθητων του κλασαι αρτον, ο Παύλος διελέγετο αυτοίς, μελ των εξομαι τη επαύριον. Acts xx. 6, 7.

4 Κατα μιαν σαββατων έκαστος ύμων παρ' ἑαυτω τίθετω, θησαυρίζαν ὁ τι αν ουίδαται, ένα