The nature and subjects of Christian baptism considered. In two discourses. Delivered at the Baptist Society, in North-Yarmouth: and published at the desire of the hearers. / By Abraham Cummings, A.B. ; [Four lines of quotations]

The nature and subjects of Christian baptism considered. In two discourses. Delivered at the Baptist Society, in North-Yarmouth: and published at the desire of the hearers. / By Abraham Cummings, A.B. ; [Four lines of quotations]

Table of contents

Title page

DISCOURSE I.

DISCOURSE II.

§

§

[Page]

[Page]

THE NATURE AND SUBJECTS OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM CONSIDERED. In two Discourses.

Delivered at the Baptist Society, in North-Yarmouth: and published at the desire of the Hearers.

BY ABRAHAM CUMMINGS, A. B.

"In your concord and agreeing in charity, Jesus Christ is sung, and every one of you all makes up the concert."

Ignatius.

"Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children.

Paul.

PRINTED AT PORTLAND, BY B. TITCOMB, JUN. MDCCXCV.

DISCOURSE I.

[Page]

Acts ii. 41.

Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized.

DOUBTLESS the design of this text now appears to the greater part of this assembly. It is easy work to oppose enemies, but to oppose friends—to oppose brethren and sisters, disciples of our glorious Lord, is one of the most difficult employments in the world: but every bible truth is precious, and plead for it we must, though opposed by a Calvin, a Flavel, an Edwards, or by all the saints on the earth. Let us then attend to the passage in view, and consider what baptism is, and who are the subjects of it.

The enquiry may be, 1. What is baptism? It is a sacrament wherein our immersion in water represents our being buried with Christ to the world, and rising to newness of life; and also the burial of our bodies, and their resurrection at the last day. Chambers' dictionary explains the word baptism, which the English reader may peruse at his leisure. When baptism was performed in the apostolic age, we read of their repairing to places where there was much water. Philip and the Eunuch first came unto a certain water, and then we read, not that they went back and came to it again; but, that they went down into the water, both Philip and the Eunuch, and he baptized him. Hence believers [Page]are said to be buried with Christ in baptism, and to be baptized for the dead. If the dead rise not, why are they then baptized for the dead? Why do they embrace an ordinance, the very design of which is to represent the resurrection when christians are buried in and rise out of the water. What a lively emblem it is of our being buried with Christ, and rising at the last day! This canons be said of sprinkling—and accordingly not sprinkling, but baptism was almost the universal practice of the christian church for many centuries, and has bee [...] continued in the Greek church, down to the pre [...]ent moment. Baptism is a Greek word and if the Greek [...]ation do'nt know the meaning of their own words we may well enquire who does? But after all, it may be said, it is a needless, burdensome, foolish practice: We answer, perhaps this was one great reason, why it was [...]sated. Every follower of Christ must become a fool for his sake, and deny himself. Are you my disciple, says Christ, if so, do you submit to this ordinance —this image of self-denial, which shall render you foolish in the view of the world.* Must not that ordinance be wisely contrived, which serves to keep out of the church the proud, and those who are loth to expose themselves for the cause of Christ.§ But,

2. Who are the subjects of baptism? The text is the answer—Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized— "and their infants too" faith the word of man; but what saith the word of the Lord? Where is the chapter, or verse, or sentence, or member of a sentence, which commands such a practice, or affords an [Page]example of it? To say it is not expressly forbidden will by no means excuse the practice. Beads, crosses, and a thousand other popish fooleries, are no where expressly forbidden in scripture; but the question is are they commanded? Ancient Israel was reproved no [...] only for doing what was forbidden, but for doing what was not commanded. They did that which I commanded them not, saith the Lord, neither came it into my mind. 'But though there be no express command for the practice, you say, yet we have consequential evidence in its savor.' Let us then inquire for it. If there be such consequential evidence, it must depend on the truth of three propositions. Infants are visibly in the new covenant— baptism is in the room of circumcision—there were three families in the apostolic age, one of which at least had an infant or some other person baptized on the ground of the faith of the head of the family. All the arguments which are esteemed conclusive by more than thirty authors who have written on the subject in Europe and America, depend on the truth of these three propositions: all that is said respecting the covenants, the olive-tree, the kingdom of heaven, the discipleship of infants and their interest in the promise, &c. rests on the truth of one or other of these three propositions§ so that if these fail, all fails and the point must be surrendered. More might be said to manifest this, but probably it will not be denied. All we have to do then is to enquire whether these three propositions are true.

1. Are infants visibly in the new covenant? No! for this plain reason—they cannot appear to be in it, and they are not visibly such as they cannot appear to be. I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, [Page](saith the Lord) not according to the covenant which I made with their fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt: for this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, faith the Lord, I will put my laws in their mind, and write them in their hearts: and— they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying know the Lord: for all shall know me, i. e. all with whom I make this new covenant shall know me, from the least to the greatest: for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. How plainly this shews that none can be really in the new covenant but really gracious persons. All shall know me, (spiritually) for I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. And as none can be really in the new covenant but really gracious persons, so none can appear to be in the new covenant, but those who appear to be gracious, and, as appearance and visibility are of the same import, whatever appears is visible, and whatever is visible can appear. There cannot be a visible object, which cannot appear; and no person can be visibly in any condition, while he cannot appear to be in that condition. Therefore if the infants of believers, as such, are visibly in the new covenant, then they appear to be really in it. If infants are really in the new covenant, they are really born again; and consequently if they are visibly in the new covenant, they are visibly born again; and if they are visibly born again, then they can appear to be born again, certainly. There may be visibility of that of which there is no existence, but there cannot be visibility of that which there can be no appearance.* 'There [Page]cannot be a more harsh catachresis, than to say that any creature is visibly such as he cannot appear to be. When the almanac predicts a visible eclipse, it does not mean an eclipse which cannot appear. Therefore if the infants [Page]of believers as such, are visibly in the new covenant, visibly in the kingdom of heaven, visibly holy in the new covenant sense, and visible disciples, then they can appear to be such really: And so we are come to this plain question; do infants appear to be really in the new covenant? or in other words do they appear to be really born again—do they appear to be born and new born at the same time? Does that which is born of the flesh appear to be spirit in the eye of christians, judging according to the rules of the gospel?—no; saith the scripture; "That which is born of the flesh, is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit, is spirit." That which is born of the flesh, even of believers, is flesh; for, "neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children, (says Paul) but in Isaac shall thy seed be called—that is, they which are the children of the flesh these are not the children of God. True, the child of a believer is in a sense holy to him, and so is the unbelieving consort. The unbelieving wife is sanctified to the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy. i. e. The believer has a lawful and sanctified injoyment of his wife and child. They are holy to him as all things are which he has occasion to enjoy: for to the pure, all things are pure; and nothing to be refused, if it be rereceived with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer. The gospel has removed the ceremonial uncleanness of Ezra's time. But neither the unbelieving wife, nor child of a believer is holy in the [Page]new covenant sense: if they were, their hearts would be holy; or if they were visibly holy in this sense, their hearts would be visibly holy in the sense already explained—and to confirm this sense, hear president Edwards: "Visibility is a relative thing, and has relation to an eye that beholds.' Real saints are those who are so in the eye of God, visible saints are those who are so in the eye of man—that is, in the eye of man's mind, which is his judgment or esteem; and nothing short of apparent probability or probable exhibition can amount to visibility in the eye of man's reason or judgment. God has given to man the eye of reason and the eye of a christian, which is reason sanctified and enlightened by a principle of love.—But it implies a contradiction to say that that is visible to the eye of reason, which does not appear probable to reason. And if there be a person who is in this sense a visible saint, he is in the eye of a rational judgment a real saint. Without dispute some infants are real saints; but it is visible saintship which the church is concerned with, and of this it is shewn no infant is capable. The sum of the reasoning is this:— The new covenant really contains none but gracious persons—therefore, none but those who appear to be gracious, appear to be in it. The infants of believers,‖ [Page]as such, cannot appear to be gracious in the eye of a church, judging by proper rules—and therefore cannot appear to be in the new covenant; that is, they are not visibly in it, which is the same thing.† Some inferences must close this part of the subject.

1. To what purpose then are all the mighty arguments from the covenant of Abraham and other scriptures, but eventually to cast a mist before the eyes of the mind, and keep the truth always out of view. Whatever the covenant of Abraham is, and whatever those other scriptures mean which are used in favor of infant membership, they cannot mean that infants or any other creatures are visibly such as they cannot appear to be; they cannot prove a proposition which is a contradiction in itself.—If they can, the bible is no more, and Hume and Voltaire may be our guides in future.¶ The covenant of Abraham promised a land to a particular [Page]family, as such, but in the new covenant we find no such promise. Therefore the covenant of Abraham, in this [Page]respect, is really different from the new,—and if it differs in one respect it may in another, it may differ with respect to the temporal seed, as well as the temporal land.

The Jewish infants seem to have been really in covenant in some sense or other; or else how could the uncircumcised man child be said to break it. And Deut. xxix. 11. the little ones are expressly mentioned as entering [Page]into covenant. But the new testament speaks [...] such matters of the new covenant. Infants being once in covenant, say some, when were they ever cut off? This question must be answered by another. Infants being once in the covenant of Sinai, when were they ever cut off? Infants were as really in the covenant of Sinai, as in that of Abraham, but no scripture has expressly cancelled that article of the Sinai covenant which admitted them. But 'the Sinai covenant was abolished' you may say,—so it was, as far as it respected the temporal seed, the temporal land, and temporal rights, and so was the covenant of Abraham, and neither of them was abolished or disannulled by the law or gospel, as far as they had reference to Christ and spiritual blessings. The spirituality of both these covenants, is everlasting. The Abrahamic covenant, was included in the covenant of Sinai; as the learned Grotius has justly observed. Every promise, every command, every blessing of the covenant of Abraham, is found in the covenant of Sinai. Circumcision in particular, was considered by Christ as appertaining to the law of Moses—'Ye on the sabbath-day circumcise a man that the law of Moses might not be broken.' And the covenant of Sinai was no more confined to the native Hebrews than the covenant of Abraham. Therefore the latter being included in the former, both waxed old and vanished away together; while the spiritual blessings which they both promised, were more clearly exhibited than ever by the new covenant. The atonement of Jewish priests typified and promised the atonement of Christ and spiritual blessings: and the covenant of Abraham typified and promised the new covenant and its spiritual blessings.—Yet the atonement of Jewish priests was one thing, and the atonement of Christ was another—and the covenant of Abraham was one thing, and the new covenant was another. The covenant of Abraham had a two-fold aspect; to the natural seed promising temporal blessings, and to the [Page]spiritual feed promising spiritual blessings. When the Lord says to Abraham, 'I will be a God to thee & to thy feed,' &c. the meaning is I will be a God to thee and to thy natural seed in a temporal sense, and a God to thee and thy spiritual seed in a spiritual sense—giving canaan to the former, and heaven to the latter. Of the same nature are the covenants of Levi and David. Therefore all these covenants are so many different covenants of promise, to which no doubt the apostle refers, when he tells the Ephesians that they had been aliens from this commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise. But the new covenant has no such double aspect—and here again is a wide difference between the latter and the former.

2. Hence it appears that an infant may belong to Christ's kingdom on the earth, and yet not belong to his visible kingdom. Christ in reality, has but one gospel kingdom, into which none enter but they who are born again; and this real kingdom is partly in heaven, and partly on the earth—'of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.' Christ's real church does not really consist of two sorts of persons, the one his friends and the other his enemies. His real church is really one bread and one body, and so his visible church is visibly one bread and one body:—consequently no one can be properly of his visible kingdom, who is not visibly of his real kingdom. But of this visibility infants are incapable, as already shewn, and therefore cannot properly belong to Christ's visible kingdom:—yet some of them doubtless belong to his real kingdom.— For 'of such is the kingdom of heaven' saith our Lord. q. d. There are some infants who belong to my real kingdom; they are born again, which shows that all infants are capable of receiving my blessing. Therefore suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them [Page]not.' The text is plain enough, if we do not make difficulties where there are none.

3. Hence learn the inconsistency occasioned by infant membership. If infants are members of the church, they should be treated as such. They must receive the Lord's supper, as once they really did, from the third to the twelfth century.‖ When they arrive to years of discretion they have a right to a suffrage in the church, in short, to all the privileges of church members. When they offend, they must suffer the discipline and censure of the church; all these things are necessary to render our practice conformable to infant membership. But, as the state of mankind is and has been, who cannot foresee the invincible difficulties which this consistency would introduce. Many excommunications must take place yearly, or else the church would be very soon corrupted; yea, the best of discipline would not prevent this corruption. Mere moralists are not christians, and the children of the flesh being more numerous, would naturally prevail and carry the suffrage against the children of the spirit. Ishmael and Isaac lived together in the same family, through all the ages of the Jewish dispensation, but not very peaceably. The child of the flesh mocked and persecuted the child of the spirit, 'till wrath came on him to the uttermost. But what saith the scripture 'cast out the bond-woman and her son;" and keep them out too; if not, if we re-admit them, a quarrel in the family or the corruption of it, will be the certain consequence. Therefore infant membership. Instead of being a great privilege, as many would have us believe, is a great disadvantage to the church—consequently [Page]to these infants themselves, when they come to years: and one great reason why this disadvantage don't now appear plainly, is because they who practice infant membership, proceed in a constant course of inconsistency. Infants are received into the church, and as they grow in years, they grow out of it again. One part of their practice contradicts the other, and so all goes on in peace and quietness.

4. Hence it appears that the Jewish church was not in all respects the same with the gospel church. There seems to have been a sort of persons in the Jewish church, which must not be received into the gospel church—Such are infants, who were in covenant and were an holy seed, but they must not be received into the gospel church, as already has been shewn. And there is a sort of persons admitted by the gospel church, which were not admitted by the Jewish church, such are eunuchs, who were never circumcised, nor allowed to enter into the congregation of the Lord. The olive tree (Rom. xi.) so often opposed to what is now advanced, is thus naturally explained by Mr. Glass—'seeing Israel after the flesh became a people by virtue of the promise of Christ to their fathers, as their seed, Christ that seed, as he stood in that promise, was the root from whence they grew; and so they became a holy people, according to their natural and fleshly connection with that root. This, the same root into which the Gentiles are grafted. The Jews could no more have place in the root, but by faith now the promised seed was come to bless the nation, through faith.' Therefore all, who now really stand in the root, stand there by real faith; and all who are visibly in it, are there by visible faith; of which, as now proved, infants are incapable. We have further confirmation of this inference from a passage in the genuine epistle of St. Barnabas, written in the apostolic age. 'But let us go yet further (says he) and inquire whether this people (the gospel church) be the heir, or the [...]rmer [Page](the Jews); and whether the covenant be made with us or with them:' and then he proceeds to shew how Esau and Jacob, Manasseh and Ephraim, typified two sorts of people, with respect to a covenant relation to God, and covenant blessings.

Notes

†

The Greek word EIS sometimes means to, but most naturally into; baptized often means washed, but most naturally immersed; and the most natural sense of a word, must always be preferred to one less natural, other things being equal.

*

Further information respecting baptism may be obtained from Mr. Foster's divine right of immersion, and Mr. Baldwin's answer to Mr. Worcester.

§

To some eyes this may appear like a censorious intimation: but the sentence need not be viewed in such a light. Our paedobaptist brethren fee not as we do; but it is not because they are more proud or selfish than we are.

§

If infants are not visibly in the new covenant, they are not visible disciples, not visible subjects of the kingdom of heaven, nor visibly grafted into the olive, nor visibly interested in the promise, Acts ii. 39. nor visibly holy in the new covenant sense. This will doubtless be granted.

*

The terms visibility and appearance, with their variations, are here used in a sense which Dr. Hemmenway's late ingenious Discourse concerning the church, calls improper and less proper, and which doubtless is so [...]ith relation to his proper sense, or the natural force of the words; but not with relation to this subject, as well as many others, unless it is Improper to use such terms in writing as men commonly use, learned or unlearned. 'Propriety or congruity of language (says Dr. Edwards) depends wholly on use.' The natural force of the above terms, was doubtless no more unknown to president Edwards, than to Dr. Hemmenway, and yet with an eye to the common use of them, the president says, 'visible and real are words which stand related to one another, as the words real and seeming, true and apparent.' Among the learned and unlearned it is certainly a common, intelligible, and consequently on the whole, a very proper way of speaking, to say that a person may appear to be what he is not—that a person may appear to be a sincere friend, and may appear to be a good man: That there may be such an appearance both of persons and things as admits of doubtful reality.—But though in this Discourse concerning the church, the doctor says that all visibility is certainty—that 'if we have not light enough to ascertain the reality of a supposed object, there is not enough to make it visible. Yet in his book on the nature and subjects of baptism, on which the late performance is prof-ssedly constructed, [...]e seamed to think that possibility would answer for visibility. That we may have light enough to render a supposed object visible without ascertaining the reality or even the probability of it. For in page 34 he says "if we suppose the character of believers is given to little ones themselves, it will make no difficulty: for as it cannot be denied that young children may have the seeds of grace and faith in them so being members of the church, they are in the account and acceptation of the church, believers according to their capacity, and may be so termed even as we term them rational creatures before the proper exercise of their rational fa [...]ulties plainly appears." Surely the doctor must mean that they are in some degree visible believers in the account of the chur [...], for how can infants be such in their account and acceptation as they do not appear to them to be in the least degree. Here then is visible grace and faith in those who only may have grace and faith; here is a visible object. without our having light enough to ascertain its reality, or even probability.—Accordingly (in page 51) he says expressly that believers' children are visibly heirs of salvation. If possibility of faith is the visibility of it, then the possibility of unbelief is the visibility of that also. If infants are visible believers, because they may have the seed of grace,— then they are visible unbelievers because they may have the contrary. So here is a visible believer, and a visible unbeliever in the same person at the same time—the possibility of which the doctor in his late answer to Mr. Emmon [...] (page 30) considers very absurd for any one to suppose. That there is not one to an hundred of the infants of believers sanctified from the womb, will doubtless be granted; allowing then a fifth part of them to die in infancy, there must be a probability of eighty to one that any particular infant of a believer is in a graceless state; but there is not one in five hundred of them born without rational faculties. Therefore when the doctor says that infants may be termed believers, even as we term them rational creatures;—he might as well say they may be termed believers, while we have a probability of eighty to one that they are not believers, even as we term them rational creatures, while we have a probability of five hundred to one that they are rational creatures. According to the doctor's representation here, infants are believers and heirs of salvation, not certainly, nor probably; but very improbably and visibly. But to mention all the opposites of these books in professed union, would be uncomfortable, and perhaps u [...]ess. They are easily perceived by any discerning and unprejudiced reader.

‖

From this text the doctor (page 39) professes to deduce a proof in his favor, unanswerable. If the reader examines his exposition of it with the closest attention, he must find that all the strength of this unanswerable proof lies in the great difference between the words sanctify and holy. The unbelieving consort, he says, is only said to be sanctified or made holy, and therefore does not belong to the church; but the child is HOLY—a title never given to any, he says, but those who are of the church. He himself allows that the child is holy in the sense of the holiness of the unbelieving consort—who is sanctified to the believer, he says, as every creature of God is which he has occasion to (enjoy) and consequently as the child is, but still the child has a higher kind of holiness, because it is HOLY: whereas the unbelieving consort is only made holy. This argument he says is unanswerable.—Cyrus king of Persia belonged to the church, he is called the Lord's anointed, a title never given to any but those who are of the church.

†

The ancient nation of Israel really attended that ceremonial [...] which gendered to bondage. They really received peculiar favors from God as children from a father. They in general made a profession of heart religion from time to time, and were really in covenant with God. And when viewed collectively, and in comparison of other nations, they appeared sometimes to be really a pious nation; that is, there was mo [...] appearance of real piety with them than with other nations. On these accounts they might properly be termed God's children, God's servants, a hypocritical nation, a holy nation, &c. without the absurd supposition that they had among them the visibility of that which had no appearance, or that their infants, singly taken, were visibly in the new covenant, or visibly such as they probably were not. The holy seed and the holy nation were doubtless really such in a ceremonial sense.

¶

Dr. Hopkins, in his system of Div. p. 334. and onward say [...], That when the parent properly offers the child, Christ does in this transaction receive the child into the same visible standing and character with the parent, as a visible saint [But if it had not the same visible standing and character before, why was it presented for baptism?] and orders the church to consider and look upon it in this light, as being one in their view, and so far as they are to judge, really holy and among the number of the saved —By the command of Christ, they are to be considered and received by the church as such: That is, to appearance, to their view, really holy: that is, Christ orders the church to look upon the children of the flesh to be the children of God. For two reasons—1. Because he has ordered that those who are made really holy and are saved, should be chiefly taken from and found among visible believers and their children. He has directed us to look there for really holy persons that shall be saved, and no where else.' But, premising proper deference, if any one appears to be peculiarly faithful as a master, or another as a minister, why are we not as much directed by scripture promises to look among the servants of the former, and the society of the latter, for persons who shall be saved as among the infants of visible believers in whom very peculiar, [...] has not yet appeared. 2. Another reason, and which is the foundation of the former, is this—"That real holiness and salvation are secured to children of believers, by the covenant into which the parents enter with God, as it respects their children if the parents faithfully keep covenant and fulfil what they profess and promise respecting their children, when they ofter them in baptism. The parent in this transaction professes to devote his child to Christ, and promises, that if be and his child shall live, to bring it up for Christ. And Christ as the other party in this covenant transaction, visibly receives the child, as belonging to him, and on the condition which the parent professes and promises to perform, he promises to bless the child, and bestow salvation upon it. Therefore such children are visibly saints, and numbered among the saved: for the profession and engagements of the parents are to be relied on by the church— and that they will fulfill their promises respecting their children. But in this transaction, if the parent makes any promise at all, what must be promise short of perfect faithfulness?—and if this must be the pro [...], how can it be relied upon by the church, so as to view the infant among 'the number of the saved.' But suppose some great degree of faithfulness to be the condition, for the fulfilment of which, the promise of the parent might be relied upon by the church; would not the promise of Christ annexed to this degree of faithfulness be compleatly fulfilled, if the children of such parents were converted at 20, 40, or 60 year. of age. Of several things the church are quite uncertain: they know not whether the parent will live; or if he does, whether he will be faithful to his child; or if he is, whether he will be faithful enough to secure the child's salvation; or if he should arrive to such a degree of faithfulness, they are still wholly in doubt of the time when the promise shall be fulfilled, whether next month, the next year, or the next age. Therefore, allowing there be such a connexion as the doctor supposes, what a poor reason it affords to the church to view the child as really holy, and among the number of the saved. Whenever a visible believer offers his child in baptism, the language of Christ to the church, according to the doctor's representation is this.—"To one of these two sorts of persons from whom those are chiefly taken, who are to be saved O my people, this child belongs. This parent is a believer in your view, you know not, by [...] will live to be faithful to the child, yea you know not but his faithfulness will equal that saving condition of the covenant which is unknown to you. If it should equal it, I promise to renew and sanctify this child in some future time. Therefore I command you to look upon this infant as really renewed and made [...] this moment, and to treat it & love it accordingly. Train up a child (whether it be a son or servant) in the way he should go, & when he is old he will not depart from it. Those who are made really holy, and are to be saved, are chief [...] [...]ken from among visible believers, their children and servants." Among [...] [...]ese three sorts we are to look for really holy persons that shall be [...]:— therefore when a servant boy is taken into a family, and thereupon baptized, (by Gen, xvii. 13.) the church by the command of Christ, are to view and receive him as one really holy in heart, and to love him accordingly. When a bishop is ordained over a people, he, as a party in the new covenant, professes and promises to be faithful to the people. 'Christ as the other party in this covenant on condition' that the minister continues faithful to a certain degree, 'promises to bless' the people (by 1 Tim. iv. 16.) and bestow salvation upon them. And now since president Edwards' idea of visibility is entirely rejected, and that is allowed to be visible which is utterly improbable, it is no matter if we descend one degree lower into the dark. There are [...] sorts of people from whom 'those who are [...] really holy and are to be saved' are chiesly taken; visible believers, their children, their servants, and a people not professing religion but statedly hearing a pious minister. Such a minister may find gracious promises of salvation in the new covenant for himself, his children, his servants, and his people. When a minister is ordained, his profession and engagements are to be relied on by the church, and therefore, though the people may be very wicked, and have none of that visibility of holi [...] which president speaks of, yet, the promises of the covenant being [...], the people are to be considered by the church as visible saints, or as appearing to be really holy and numbered among the saved; though in a very low degree—lower than that of the servant, as that of the servant is lower than that of the child, and that of the child lower than that of the parent. 'But the character or title of holy. (it will be objected) is not now given to a religious society which is not the church; but it is given to infants.' To which it may be answered, if every creature of God is made holy to the believing minister, then his society is; and if Christ has declared the infants of believers, as such, to be holy in heart, then they are so either in the eye of God, or in the eye of man judging by the rules of that word, which expresely assures us that 'the children of the flesh are not the children of God.' After all, it is matter of abundant thankfulness, that the promises of the bible annexed to faithfulness in parents, as well as ministers, are great and precious, tho' perhaps indefinite. And it must by no means be de [...]ed, that the duty of parents to educate their children and that of the church to watch over the parents for this purpose, must be attended to with great assiduity and circumspection.

‖

But it is supposed this passage, 'let a man examine himself,' &c. plainly excludes infants from this sacrament. But doctor Hemmen way tells us, that when Christ declares "no one can be his disciple, unless he deny himself and take up the cross," he speaks to adults, not to infants; and hence infers (page 37) that infants may be disciples without taking up the cross. So here! will make the same evasion. Paul speaks to adults, not to infants, and, 'do this in remembrance of me,' was spoken to adults, not to infants. Infants may thee partake without self-examination.

DISCOURSE II.

[Page]

Acts ii. 41.

Then they that gladly received his word, were baptized.

WE are now come to the second proposition. Baptism is in the room of circumcision. How does this appear? The text commonly made use of to prove it, is that in Col. ii. 11. "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ." The circumcision of Christ, some say, means here the water baptism of Christians; but why so? Is there no other way to explain it?—Yes, there is, and without tautology too. The circumcision of Christ rendered him a debtor to keep the whole law. By it he freely obligated himself to become the end of the law for righteousness to very one who believeth. Therefore it may be properly said that we receive the spiritual circumcision, by the circumcision of Christ. Paul here first tells us what the christian circumcision is, [Page]made without hands; then he describes it more fully, "in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh'; and then he tells us by whose means it is, "by the circumcision of Christ." Now we find no tautology in all this. The verse is plain enough, quite easy to understand. It speaks of circumcision, not of water-baptism; and we had better let it stand as it is, and speak for itself. The Bible don't so often speak one thing and mean another, as our errors naturally lead us to imagine. But it is said that christians are called 'the circumcision'. Go then and offer sacrifice or something in the room of it, for christians are called the priesthood too. If it could be only proved that baptism succeeds circumcision in all respects the inference would be undeniable that baptism should be applied to some infants. But how far is this from being the case. Circumcision rendered them debtors to keep the whole ceremonial law; it was not performed till the eigth day: it was not applied to female children, nor to eunuch children, if their parents were ever so pious. It was the token of a different covenant from that of baptism, as already has been shewn. Circumcision was the seal of Abraham's faith—a sure testimony from God that his faith was counted for righteousness; that he was a fit person to be a father of the faithful, circumcised or uncircumcised. But baptism is not thus the seal of Abraham's faith, nor of any other man's faith. Now what shall we think of circumcision and baptism—do they look alike? do they resemble one another very much? Suppose for a minute that baptism does succeed circumcision in some respects, what warrant have you to baptize infants till the eighth day? What warrant have you to baptize female children? What warrant have you to baptize eunuch children? If baptism be in the room of circumcision, why did the apostles never make use of it as an argument for the abolition of circumcision? [Page]At the council of Jerusalem, mentioned Acts xv. in [...]hich the question was so particularly examined, whe [...]r circumcision must not continue under the gospel, why did they not angue and say, there is no n [...]ed of circumcision now, for baptism has come in the room of it. But they don't appear even to have thought of this argument. S [...]rely our divines would have thought of it had the [...] been members of that council. The same argument is wholly omitted by Paul, in all his reasoning against circumcision. He don't say that circumcision is abolished because baptism is come in the room of it. No [...] he treats circumcision as he does other Jewish institutions, the continuance of which he opposed. In reasoning upon them, he don't lead us from one external ceremony to another—from Jewish ceremonies to christian ceremonies answering in their room, as so many teachers have done since, to give Judaism a new vamp to destroy its name and retain its nature (which has been one great source of superstition in the church of Rome)—but he leads us from the shadow to the substance—from the priesthood to Christ, from sacrifice to sincere prayer, and from the circumcision of the flesh to the circumcision of the heart: We are the circumcision who worship God in the spirit'; circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter whose p [...]ise is not of men, but of God. It may be proper [...] to examine the third proposition. There were three families in the apostolic age, one of which, at least, had an infant or some other person baptized on the ground of the faith of the head of the family. The frequent mention of these th [...] families, on that side of the question, proves nothing so much as the want of better arguments. Suppose it were demonstrated that there were [...]aned in all these families of Lydia, the jailo [...] and Stephanus, compleat, evidence that [Page]these infants were baptized would be still wanting; for by a common figure of speech, the prevailing part of a family is called the family, and what is done to them is said to be done to the family‖; but what is worse, there is not the least solid evidence that there was an infant in all these families. Lydia was [...]a [...]ried for any thing which appears to the contrary, and the brethren in her house were comforted. The house of the jailor believed, but infants cannot believe—for faith comes by hearing; and the house of Stephanus addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints, but infants cannot addict themselves to the ministry of the saints. In short their argument amounts to this;—there were three famities baptized, and there were infants among them:—Why? because infants are apt to be in-houses. Also the characters of these families now mentioned, admit that no person in them was baptized, but on the ground of his own faith. And after all, the argument from these families proves too much, and therefore not enough—It proves that, when the head of a family believes, the whole house must be baptized, old or young virtuous or profane.

Thus it is manifest, that neither of the three propositions appears to be true.—Infants are not visibly in the new covenant: baptism is not in room of circumcision: and there appears not to have been one family in the apostolic age, which had an infant or any other person baptized on the ground of the faith of the head of the family. Some inferences must now finish the subject.

1. Hence it appears that infant baptism must have been the invention of man, some time o [...] other, having no command, no example, nor the [...] conclusive implication, [Page]in its favor.¶ But I hear a question, "When was it the invention of man? who was the inventer; and who his opponents? Austin says that the baptism of infants is what the church has always had, has always held. Pelagius his opponent did not deny it; being very fond of this practice himself, and declares 'that he never heard of the most impious heretic who denied infant baptism.' Strange! did he never hear of Ternillian? did he never hear of the Manichees? And as for Austin, we hear he maintained it to be lawful to tell lies for the good of the church. But granting he meant the truth, he might take it only from Origen, who, nearly in the middle of the third century, says, 'the church received a tradition from the apostles to administer baptism to infants.' But exorcism, sufflation, trine, immersion, bowing to the east, and the observation of easter, all existed in that day, and some of them by tradition from the apostles, as evidently, if not more so, than infant baptism. It may be well known how exceedingly inclined superstition was in that day to shelter itself under the wing of apostolic tradition. Therefore, if that early account of tradition in favor of infant baptism will warrant the practice of it, the same will warrant other superstitions also. Easter stands in history [...]f a century higher than infant baptism, and [Page]supported by apostolic tradition, but what spoil'd all was this—The eastern churches said they were ordered by the apostle John to keep it on the 14th, of the moon of March—the western churches said they were ordered by Peter and Paul to keep it the Lord's day after. The contention was furious, and the effect was the excommunication of the eastern churches. Now if it was so difficult within twenty years from the apostles to determine what tradition was truly received from them, how are we to find out at this day what tradition was truly apostolical? Ireneus, in the second century says, 'Christ came to save all who by him a [...] regenerated unto God: infants, little children, and women,' &c. regenerated they say, means baptized; but why so? did Ireneus always use the word in this sense? No; not even in the passage produced by our opponents to prove that he so used it.* Did Ireneus believe that Christ came to save Simon Magus, the Nicolai [...], the Marcionites, and all those who baptized heretics, against whom he so earnestly cont [...]ded? No, saith his treatise on heresies. Justin Martyr about forty years after the apostles, says 'several persons among us sixty or seventy years of age, who were made disciples to Christ from children have continued uncorrupt.' Children, it is said means infants§; but every child is not an infant, and Timothy from a child knew the holy scriptures. Thus it appears that not a word of infant baptism is [...]und in these two last testimonies. And, as these two are the [Page] only testimonies which can even with the appearance of reason favor the cause of our opponents, in the two first centuries, the inference is, that we have no account of infant baptism till the third century, and then we own that this practice and godfathers both appeared together; and, as if they were bargaining with their maker they employed these sponsors and bondsmen, to be bound for them. It seems they knew that some previous profession was necessary in the person baptized,—infants could not speak for themselves, therefore godfathers were employed to speak for them. The very image of this now appears in the English and Romish church: for it is asked of the infant, 'wilt thou be baptized? for whom the godfathers answer, I will.‡ Now if infant baptism had all along been universally practiced before the third century, why all this continual, universal silence about the matter, for so many years both [Page]in history and scripture? Why was the scripture so silent? Why don't we find in all the epistles one exhortation, at least, to children to remember their baptismal vows, their covenant obligations.¶ Such excellent advice is common among us. Why did the apostles neglect it? why did Ignatins neglect it, in all his seven devout epistles? why was this useful exhortation, and every thing else which can even imply infant baptism, wholly omitted by Polycarp, Clement, Barnabas Hermas, Justin, and in all that large volume of Ireneus against heresies. In short, by every christian writer of the two first centuries. They mention the baptism of adults very frequently, but of the other there is not a word, not a whisper in any author of those times Jewish, christian, heathen, sacred or profane: all is silence profound, not only in the bible, but every where else (except now and then something which strongly intimates the contrary) till the third century; and then it was a long time before the practice can be proved to have been universal, if it ever became so at all. Constantine, son of Helena, a zealous christian, was not baptized till he was thirty years old; and Gregory Nazianzen, son of a christian minister and educated by him, was not baptized till he came to years. He himself once entirely opposed the practice, asserting expressly that children should not be baptized till they are three years old.' And, as both he and his father were influential characters in the church, it is utterly improbable that they should be alone in this affair; the presumption is violent that there were whole societies in that [Page]day of the same opinion. The council of Carthage however decreed the practice (it existed before, but was never decreed by a council till that time) as well as the time of it, as appears from the testimony of Strabo, confirmed by their own result.

Such was the state of this matter in the earliest times‖ and accordingly a number of learned and pious poedobaptists have ingenuously owned what is now advanced Dr. Taylor says, 'that there is a tradition to baptize infants, depends but on two witnesses, Origen and Austin, and the latter having received it from the former, it relies solely on a single testimony, which is but a pitiful [Page]argument to prove a tradition apostolieal.' Mr. Baxter, a warm advocate for the cause against M [...] Tombs, after the closest examination o [...] antiquity, was forced to this generous acknowledgment, 'I will confess (said he) that it was long before all were agreed, either as to the time or necessity of baptizing infants." Vives, one of the most learned men of his time, in his commentary on St. Austin's City of God, says 'None were baptized of old but those who not only knew what the mystical water meant, but desired the same.' Mr. Daille tells us, 'that in ancient times, they often deferred the baptism of infants, as appears (says he) from the history of Constantine, of Constantius, of Theodosius, and Valentinian, in Gratian, and also from the orations and homilies of Gregory Nazianzen and St. Basil on this subject, and some of the fathers too, have been of opinion that it is fit it should be deferred; whence it is that they (the papists) cannot endure the mention of it at this day, and would abhor the man who should attempt to lay aside the practice.' Walifrid Strabo, who flourished about the year 750, and made the history of the church his study, and who doubtless read ancient manuscripts, which are now lost, says 'In the first times the grace of baptism was wont to be given only to those who had arrived to that matority of mind and body, that they could know what were the benefits of baptism, but afterwards, christians understanding original sin, and least their children should perish without the means of grace, had them baptized by the decree of the council of Africa, for which purpose godfathers and godmothers were invented." The same is owned by Bohemeus, Ribera, Grotius, and several others. What could tempt all these le [...]rned and virtuous paedobaptists to till these falshoods, if they were such? And how plain is the inference, that history affords no such confirming evidence in favor of the practice now opposed, as so many have imagined.

[Page] 2. Hence learn the necessity of gratitude to God, and charity to our fellow christians. If what has been opposed be an error, it is certainly an error of the most learned and pious, if we may judge the tree by its fruit. Behold the infinite kindness of him who giveth to all liberally who are upright in heart, and upbraideth us not with our follies. Let us beware then that we upbraid not each other: bear one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ.¶ Labour to find out the very important distinction between sentimental difference, and personal enmity. Take care how you open your lips [...] the terms hireling, priestcraft, scribes and pharisees, &c to please the charitable deists, and reproach the true servants of Jesus Christ. Beware of ridiculing or speaking contemptuously of the practice, which has now been opposed, or of any thing else which any of our fellow christians esteem sacred. Considering our own frailty of mind, and how very common it is for men wandering in the wilderness of error to be full of vain confidence that the path of truth is before them. There is a wide difference between this vain confidence of the proud hypocrite, and that full, but humble persuasion of the truth, which disposes the true christian to contend [Page]earnestly for it. Therefore while we contend, let us study the things which make for peace, earnestly praying for that glorious day, when the bright beams of Immanuel's glory shall illuminate and harmonize the whole Israel of God, and there shall be no more a prickling brier or grieving [...]orn in his holy mountain forever.

AMEN.

Notes

‖

The same may be observed of nations 'which none can deny (say doctor Hemmenway) include persons of every age,' and every character too.

¶

There is one argument presumptive, and by some esteemed conclusive, which must be noticed. "Why did not the Jews find fault with the apostles for rejecting infant membership and baptism?" but the answer is, "why did they not find fault with them for rejecting the seventh day sabbath? Besides, in the apprehension of the Jews, Christ was an impostor, and baptism in his name a profane rite. Why then should the Jews be so very u [...]ensy, for its not being applied to infants? what [...] good purpose could be answered in their view for christians to dedicate their infants to an impostor, in such a profane manner? According to the represen [...]tion of our opponents, when the christians rejected the holy ordinance [...] circumcision, the Jews were about to make great disturbance; but when they perceived that the christians dedicated their infants to an impostor, by a profane rite, which he had invented for them, they were quite content and satisfied.

*

The passage is this, 'When Christ gave his disciples the command of regenerating unto God, he said 'go and teach all nations.' &c. But it do'nt appear that the word regenerating here means baptizing any more than turning from darkness to light means baptizing, when Paul was sent to the Gentiles 'to open their eyes,' &c.

§

The original is EK PAIDOON, from children—Dr. Hemmenway translates it in or from their infancy. Whether this be a just and most natura [...] translation, is left to the Greek reader to judge.

‡

Two friends once in company had the following dispute. Infant baptism, if erroneous, said The [...], must have been a great innovation when it was introduced—who began this practice, and who opposed it? Infant communion, answered Bruis, was a great innovation, who began it, who opposed it? Theo. It is more easy to conceive how infant communion should arise from infant baptism without disturbance in the church, that to conceive how infant baptism should [...]rise from nothing without disturbance. Bruis. When we arst hear of infant baptism in history, we hear also the opirion that water baptism is necessary to salvation. It is therefore no more difficult to conceive how infant baptism should arise from this erroneous opinion without disturbance, than how infant communion should arise from infant baptism, without disturbance; and after all, the latter [...] opposed by Tertullian, the very first person in history who spoke of it. And now sir, if you please, I would propose to you a question. If infant baptism before Tertullian had ever been the universal practice, his opposition to [...] must have been a great innovation, and ne [...] himself was an em [...]ent character, why was there no disturbance excited against him at that time? Theo. The answer is not at all difficult. Teriullian's innovation was only partial, he allowed the baptism of infants when they were in danger of death. Bru [...]s. And my answer is no more difficult—When the practice of baptising infa [...] flist began, it was only partial. Infants were then baptized only when they were in danger of death—and who could be so cruel as to oppose [...]e means used to prevent their damnation?

¶

Several years after the apostolic churches were erected, we find all their members addressed by the apostles, from time to time, as children of the light; children of God by faith in Jesus Christ; as beholding in a glass the glory of the Lord, &c. Surely these addresses, made without slatt [...]ry, are very difficult to be reconciled with the membership of a great number of young moralists admitted in the infantile state, though their discipline were over ever so strict and pure.

‖

And now approaches that long and dark night of popery. Few, very few of the baptist persuasion are any more heard of for several stupid ages, as our opponents have so frequently and very justly observed. All the world practiced infant baptism, and (in other respects not at all resembling our present poedobaptist brethren) wondered after the beast. A little before the middle of the twelfth century, our poedobaptist historians inform us, that some small degree of light appeared, but they say it was soon extinguished by the barbarous crusades, which destroyed or dispersed the bearers of it all over Europe. About the year 1130 Dr. Hemmenway says 'that a small sect of anabaptists appeared; but it soon dwindled to nothing." And then all the world baptized infants again, as our opponents have justly observed, and wondered till the 15th. century; and then again appeared the light and the Lollards, and knowledge and the brabe defenders of pure worship in Bohemia. But the reformation which should be remembered with gratitude forever, was enjoyed about a century after, and spread far and wide by the instrumentality of Felix Mans, Conrad Grebel, Mennon Simonis, Calvin, Luther and others. Yet some of those reformers, in opposition to the tyranny of that age, seem to have transgressed the limits of order in Munfter and Amsterdam—'Oppression will make a wife man mad.' Question: 'Was it not cruel in the poedobaptists of that time, to treat the leader of that unhappy people so uncomfortably, and grieve so many faints in the Netherlands?" Ans. What a c [...]el question this is! Innuendo how unbecoming our polite age! our poedobaptist brethren are not accountable for what was done in Munster or the Netherlands. There were poedobaptists in the world long before the cruel death of John of Leyden. And no deno nination of christians since the third century (if the appearance of adulation may be pardoned) have excelled them in the production of characters conspicuous for humanity, benevolence and piety.

¶

Close communion with [...], and the refusal of the desk with our opponents, may be accounted for without attributing either of them to the want of true charity. Charity is love; and the more love any christian has, the more precious in his view with be every apparent gospel truth. Hence he is grieved to see that which his charity has tendered so precious to him trampled in the dust, especially by a friend and brother— Consequently the more charity he has, the more he is grieved, and the expression of his grief, proper or improper, will naturally follow. Therefo [...]e we sometimes see that greatest christians oppo [...]ing each other, not because they have so little charity, but because they have so much. Hence appears the difference, great as that of heaven and earth, between the charity of God's people, and the catholicism of our age of reason, which discovers no spiritual truths in our glorious gospel, and looks down on every christian profession, on the Bible, and on the heavens with equal composure and contempt.

Information about this book

Title statement

The nature and subjects of Christian baptism considered. In two discourses. Delivered at the Baptist Society, in North-Yarmouth: and published at the desire of the hearers. / By Abraham Cummings, A.B. ; [Four lines of quotations]

Cummings, Abraham, 1755-1827.

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI :

Date

2011-05.

ID [DLPS]

N21675

ID [TCP]

N21675

ID [STC]

Evans 28518

ID [NOTIS]

APW7552

ID [IMAGE-SET]

28518

ID [EVANS-CITATION]

99013709

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early American Imprints, 1639-1800 ; no. 28518.

Notes

(Evans-TCP ; no. N21675)

Transcribed from: (Readex Archive of Americana ; Early American Imprints, series I ; image set 28518)

Images scanned from Readex microprint and microform: (Early American imprints. First series ; no. 28518)

Source

— The nature and subjects of Christian baptism considered. In two discourses. Delivered at the Baptist Society, in North-Yarmouth: and published at the desire of the hearers. / By Abraham Cummings, A.B. ; [Four lines of quotations], Cummings, Abraham, 1755-1827..

Extent

29, [3] p. ; 22 cm. (8vo)

by B. Titcomb, Jun.,. Printed at Portland [Me.], :: MDCCXCV. [1795]. (Signatures: [A-B]^8 ([B]3 verso, [B]4 blank).)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.