Harbinger, April 1, '65.

INFANT BAPTISM.

to circumstances. Let us hope that no inexperienced preacher would hesitate for one moment to unite himself with the elders in this business. And on the other hand, we are willing to suppose that with a well-tried and deeply experienced evangelist the elder ship would not seek to trouble themselves with what might with all propriety be left in his hands.

There is one other point worthy of remark. An evangelist, young or old, experienced or inexperienced, has no power to make church members. Be it understood that baptism does not give membership in any church. The baptized is subsequently presented to the church for membership, and it is the duty of the church, and especially of the elders, to be satisfied as to the fitness of the applicant. Here the evangelist can give his testimony and the elders can institute such examination as they think proper, and herein is the safety of the church secured.

If the writer of these remarks were at any time to account himself a welltried and experienced evangelist, and if at the same time he were laboring with a church whose elders sought to interfere in regard to baptism, and if then

139

his present opinions were retained, it is quite likely that his private convictions concerning said elders would be that they were indulging in unnecessary interference and somewhat casting a reflection upon himself, but, as their course would be pleasing to themselves and not hurtful to him, he would no doubt allow them to take their own way and bring them into contact with enquirers as much as possible. But one point he would be compelled to reserve. Were it to happen (a case not very likely) that he deemed the confession genuine and unshaken, while yet they objected to the baptism, then he would, without their consent, administer the ordinance. With him rests the responsibility of translating the confessor into the kingdom of God's dear Son. Here he must perform his duty, as to his own master, leaving the elders to do their's in regard to reception into the particular church in which they are overseers. they and the church see ground to refuse that would not, by his consent, terminate his coöperation with themhe fulfils his duty in the department to which he is called and they theirs in the sphere assigned to them.

If

INFANT BAPTISM SURELY ESTABLISHED. "But Samuel ministered before the Lord, being a child, girded with a linen ephod.' Being a child! God's interest in human life begins at the earliest possible period. This is an argument for infant baptism which I have never known to be touched, much less shaken. The critics who have attempted to settle the baptismal controversy have been fighting one another with Greek derivatives and grammatical inflections. The question should be made one of life, not of grammar only; and this urgent enquiry should be pressed-When does Christ's interest in human beings begin? Is it when they are five years old, or ten, or does Christ repress his love until they are twenty-one? When? I contend that Christ's interest relates to life, not to age; to birth, not to birth-days. Soon as a child is born, the great Redeeming Heart thrills with pitying love.

twenty), but who will presume to reduce Christ to an insurance agent, who deals with men according to their ages?

But it is urged that children do not understand the baptismal deed. True. Did the child understand the deed of circumcision? What is understanding? Do the wisest of us really understand anything in God's kingdom? All our blessings do not come along the narrow highway of our understanding; where we understand least we may in reality receive most."

What has Christ to do with what we call age? What is age? It may be useful for us to keep a record of anniversaries -to tabulate ages for statistical purposes --to call one man twenty and another forty (though forty may in reality be less than

The Cavendish Doctors are famous defenders of infant baptism. Dr. Halley defended it in such manner as to put his friends out of court. Dr. Parker, his sucessor, by the above argument, which he has "never known to be touched, much less shaken," has supplied its complete refutation. "The question" says the Dr. "should be one of life.-When does Christ's interest in human beings begin?—I contend that Christ's interest relates to birth, not to age. Soon as a child is born, the great

140

HOLY AND UNHOLY INFANTS.

Harbinger, April 1, '65

tification unto life has passed upon them by the obedience of the second Adam. That justification to life will bring each of them from the grave, and not having committed sins they will not be condemned to the second death, which will be rendered not on account of Adam's transgression, but only in view of the sinner's own sins. Christ's love, then, for infant humanity required their salvation to be provided for without faith or baptism, for had faith been re

Redeeming Heart thrills with pitying love." Very true, and hence baptism is not for babes! One thing is certain, and will be admitted by Dr. Parkerwhich is, that if an infant live to understand the gospel and sin against God, that then faith and repentance are requisite in order to its salvation. So, after all, age and understanding do come into view in the scriptural plan. But, then, just as faith and repentance are imposed, not upon infants but upon sinners who hear the gospel, so bap-quired every departed infant must tism is associated with faith and repentance in order to the remission of sins and with them imposed upon the same class. Just as1. "He that believeth not shall be dam-ker should know that Christ will ned,"

2. "Unless ye repent ye shall all likewise perish,"

is not said of infants, so

3. "Be baptized every one of you,"

was also not addressed to them, for as they have not sinned they cannot be commanded to be baptized for “remission of sins."

But again. The Redeemer has pitying love for the infant. Yes, good Doctor, too much to associate the salvation of the dying babe with faith, repentance, and baptism. Departed infants go into the grave through the disobedience of one man, but a jus

perish, and had baptism been demanded the greater portion would be lost, as the infants who die unbaptized are more numerous than the baptized. Dr. Par

eternally save many who have not entered, and who never can enter, his kingdom and church on earth. Infants are of this class, and they can no more enter the earthly kingdom of God's dear Son than they can be made bishops in his church. Baptism is the act of translation by which a sinner who is begotten again by the truth enters that kingdom, and it is God's pledge that his sins are all forgiven, and this the infant does not need, and Dr. Parker, in seeking to bring non-age and non-understanding under law framed for age and accountability, sets himself against the truth and acts contrary to that love of Christ which has exempted helpless infancy from responsibility and obedience.

HOLY AND UNHOLY INFANTS.

In my argument to prove that baptism is to the Christian convert what circumcision was to the Jewish convert, it would have been very "strange" indeed if I had mentioned infants. Gal. iii. 28, and John iii. 5, give my reasons for baptizing my female children.

To prove that circumcision did not introduce infants into the covenant relation, you tell me that the soul that was not circumcised was to be cut off from the people. But as the soul that was cut off from the people through not being circumcised would have been in the covenant if he had been circumcised, I can come to no other conclusion than that circumcision would have admitted him into the covenant. The cutting off was to be from that connection with the people which the circumcised enjoyed. There are numerous popular phrases in which some people are said to be cut off by circumstances or events from privileges,

&c. which others enjoy, and which they themselves never have.

Do, please, insert this and I will almost promise that nothing shall tempt me to write again.-Yours very respectfully, E. T.

REMARKS.

There is nothing in the above which comes near the argument given in reply to E. T. and, but for his entreaty to have it inserted it might have been put aside. No doubt Gal. iii. 28, and John iii. 5, shew that females who have faith are to be baptized, but that only proves that baptism did not come in the room of circumcision, which had nothing to do with either faith or females.

Harbinger, April 1, 65.

THE CAUSE IN AUSTRALIA.

THE following is from a letter to the American Christian Review, by Henry S. Earl

"For the information of the brethren in America, I will give you the statistical acccunt of our cause in this country, that I have gleaned since I have been here. Our present number is about 650 in Australia. In this colony, (Victoria,) we have a membership of about 400. In South Australia and New South Wales, about 250. We also have three or four small congregations in New Zealand, numbering altogether about 100 members. The first congregation organized, upon the principles laid down by Christ and his apostles, in this colony, held their first meeting to 'break bread,' in August, 1853,in the suburbs of this city, (Melbourne,) and at that time only numbered 10. It has met regularly every Lord's day from that day to this, and now numbers nearly 100, and has been the means of

planting several other churches in the suburbs of the city. I am the first and only evangelist whose time has been wholly devoted to the work in this country; so that we need not wonder that the cause has not made much progress. The greatest wonder is that it stands so well as it now does. Indeed, had it not been for the untiring zeal and indomitable perseverance of a few noble, self-sacrificing souls, the divine principles of a pure Christianity would have been now 'without a local habitation or a name' in this beautiful and extensive country.

It is a great pity that a few evangelists had not occupied this inviting field of labor years since; but even now, it is a splendid missionary field. Indeed, one or two efficient evangelists would not only find this an interesting and inviting field to labor in with almost certain success, but would also be cordially seconded and liberally supported by the brethren."

OPEN COUNCIL.
TERMS OF COMMUNION.

Ir has sometimes been rashly affirmed that nothing ought to be made a term of communion which God has not made a term of salvation-that nothing ought to keep a man out of the church below which will not keep him out of the church above. This, however, depends solely on the will of God. He has a right to make anything a term of communion which he pleases. And, in point of fact, we see that, during the former dispensation, he did make that a term of communion, which was not a term of salvation, except in so far as any act of obedience may be considered so. Circumcision was no more a form of salvavation under the old covenant, than bap. tism is under the new; yet it is made a term of communion by the authority of the God of Israel-" No uncircumcised person shall eat thereof," namely the Passover (Ex. xii, 48.) Should it be said, that "circumcision was a plain command of God," and that "no true Israelite would neglect it," we have equal authority to reply on the same principle that " baptism is a plain command of God, and no true Christian will neglect it." Or, should it be said that a true Christian may not understand what the will of the Lord is on the subject of baptism, and that, consequently, he cannot conscientiously submit to be baptized until his mind be enlightened, and that therefore the church is bound to admit him to the Lord's Supper without baptism—should

this be said, we admit the premises but
deny the conclusion. The admission of
an Israelite to the feast of the Passover
did not depend on his perceiving or not
perceiving the will of God in the matter
of circumcision, but on the fact of his hav
ing been circumcised. It is not said, that
"no person who understands circumcision,
and yet remains uncircumcised, shall eat
the passover;" but that "no uncircumcised
person shall eat thereof." Or should it be
said that it is the baptism of the Spirit
and not of water that introduces men into
fellowship with God under the gospel, and,
therefore, ought to introduce them into the
visible church, we again grant the pie-
mises but deny the conclusion. For it
was the circumcision of the heart, and not
of the flesh, that introduced men into fel.
lowship with God under the law, as truly
as the baptism of the Spirit and not of
water does under the gospel:-"For he is
not a Jew," says the Apostle, "who is one
outwardly: neither is that circumcision
which is outward in the flesh: but he
is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circum
cision is that of the heart, in the spirit,
and not in the letter; whose praise is
not of men but of God."
These words are
equally applicable to both dispensations,
and might be applied to baptism with
as much propriety as to circumcision.
They teach us that it is the "inward
and spiritual grace," and not the "outward

CHRIST hath a government of his own, sufficient of itself to all his ends and purposes in governing his church.-Milton.

THE THRONE OF DAVID & THE RESTORATION OF THE HEBREWS.