THE occasion on which these words of our Lord were spoken was this. He had given offence to the Pharisees, by refusing to honor a custom which they regarded as sacred. In his view, it was important to make a sharp distinction between what was of Divine authority, and what was of human devising. And so, instead of making any apology for not conforming to their traditionary religious rites, he plainly declares that these rites must be abolished, because they have no divine sanction. He does more. Taking occasion from this one example, he pronounces a general sentence of condemnation and decree of extirpation upon all customs and ceremonies which falsely claim a divine origin. We are fully persuaded that the baptism of infant children, who are incapable of professing faith in Christ, belongs to this class, and comes under this decisive reprobation of the Lord. While we honor the characters and respect the feelings of our fellow Christians who believe this custom to be of divine appointment, the custom itself we can neither honor nor respect. Nor can we admit that any custom is harmless, which challenges for itself a sacredness to which it has no just claim proof that Infant Baptism has no warrant of Scripture: but assuming that, as one of the things that are surely believed among us, to call your attention to some of the evils which result from the practice. In one aspect, indeed, this may be regarded as a part of the proof that the custom is not of God: for every tree is known by its fruits; and if it clearly appear that the natural and constant effects of Infant Baptism are evil rather than good, it may safely be concluded that it is not of God’s planting.

I. We charge Infant Baptism, in the first place, with a tendency to ritualize Christianity. Two opposite views of the nature of Christianity have been, from the earliest times, struggling for the ascendency in the Christian Church. The question which divides the two parties may be stated thus: — by what means and in what way does the Christian religion principally exert its beneficent power over the souls of men? To what part of our complex nature does it make its most direct appeal? Does it address the heart and conscience through the understanding, by the presentation of truth? or does it address the imagination and the sensibilities, by means of rites, symbols, and an imposing ceremonial? Does it appeal to us chiefly as rational, or chiefly as sensuous beings? Those who take the former view attribute great efficacy to the Bible and to preaching; those who take the latter view attribute great efficacy to sacraments and priestly offices. Now what we claim is, that the former of these views is the true one. The imagination and the sensibilities are not indeed to be altogether ignored: no, Christianity is adapted to our entire nature: but in religion, as in the conduct of life generally, these should have a subordinate place and power, in comparison with the intellect, that apprehends truth, and the conscience, that recognizes the obligations of duty. Men should be mainly influenced and governed, in religion as in everything else, by intelligent convictions, and not by undefined sentiments. And what we allege against Infant Baptism is, that it tends to encourage the latter and false view of Christianity — to make it a religion of rites and forms, to affect men through their senses, rather than a “manifestation of the truth, commending” itself “to every man’s conscience.”

What are the facts in regard to this matter? In all the unreformed churches — the Papal, the Greek, and the minor oriental sects — Christianity has become completely a ritual religion. Its sanctifying and saving efficacy is believed to be connected, not with the clear presentation and intelligent acceptance of its truths, but with the administration of its sacraments. And even in the reformed churches, the ritual tendency has had, and still has, a powerful and pernicious influence. In a large part of the Lutheran and the Anglican churches, a regenerating virtue is attributed to baptism, and a sanctifying efficacy to the Eucharist, not dependent, in either case, upon the intelligent faith of those who receive these ordinances. Is this extensive and long-continued corruption of Christianity traceable in any important degree to the practice of Infant Baptism? We maintain that it is, and that the proof of this is seen, whether we take a practical, a logical, or a historical view of the matter.

Practically, the baptism of infant children is found to exist wherever this perverted form of Christianity exists. And if this perverted form of Christianity is not found wherever Infant Baptism prevails, the exceptions are confined to those communities where the latter is not universally practiced; and these exceptions are most marked in those communions in which it is more and more falling into disuse. In great Britain and the United States, the legitimate influence of the practice is not fully manifest; because it exists in the presence of an influential counter acting element, and is defended, among evangelical sects, on grounds which could never have caused its world-wide prevalence, and which are in fact expressly repudiated by nine tenths of all those who favor the practice. And yet even among those who hold the practice so loosely, and who formally deny its regenerating virtue, or sacramental efficacy, its ritualistic tendency discloses itself in the uneasiness which many parents feel at the prospect of their infant children dying without baptism. And no wonder: for,

Logically, there is an intimate connection between the practice which we are deprecating and the ritual or sacramental system as a whole. A religious rite, administered to those in respect to whom it can express no religious truth to the understanding, and excite no religious affections in the heart, if it have any virtue or efficacy at all, must of necessity have such virtue or efficacy “ex opere operate*,” or in accordance with the ritualistic theory of religion. Something more must be attributed to it than is consistent with purely evangelical views, or else it will soon cease to be regarded with reverence as a divine rite. Wherever it long prevails, one or both of these accompaniments will surely be found. The annals of the church afford abundant confirmation of these statements. Historically, it is true that such has been the influence and effect of the practice against which we protest. Not that the whole sacramental system of religion can be traced to Infant Baptism as its primary cause. No; it has a far deeper origin, in our very nature — in the tendency of our sensuous humanity to magnify unduly the outward and visible form, and to make it first the indispensable means, and finally the wretched substitute, of the inward and spiritual reality. But it is historically certain, that exaggerated and unscriptural views of the efficacy of baptism first gave rise to the custom of administering it to infants,¹ and that this custom drew along with it, wherever it prevailed, other features of the sacramental system. Infant Communion appears to have followed closely upon Infant Baptism in the early ages, or rather to have been its inseparable accompaniment, defended on precisely the same unscriptural ground of its necessity to salvation; and to have proceeded hand in hand with Infant Baptism, till it overspread the whole Western church, where it continued to be practiced till the twelfth century,² and the whole Eastern church, where it continues to be practiced to the present day.

It is a truth, which cannot be gainsaid, that the strong support of Infant Baptism, as it exists in the Christian world at large, is the dogma of baptismal regeneration. Wherever this dogma is rejected, Infant Baptism is theoretically weakened, and practically, in a greater or lesser degree, neglected and abandoned. If this belief should die out of the world, the practice that rests mainly upon it could not long survive.

And it is equally true, that the tendency of introducing into the church of Christ this one element of the ritual type of Christianity, is to draw along with it other usages of the same class, even the whole group of related rites and forms and carnal ordinances and so, to pervert the religion of Christ as a system of saving truth. And what gives special force to this tendency is, that it falls in with the besetting infirmity of our nature, to attach itself to outward signs to the neglect of the inner truth which they represent. An examination of the creeds and confessions of even the most evangelical of the Protestant denominations that practice Infant Baptism, reveals this ritual tendency. It lurks, for instance, in one of the articles of the Westminster Assembly’s Confession of Faith. “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time when it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.” (Chap. 28, section 6) That is to say, when an elect infant is baptized, the grace of God is really communicated to that infant at the time of its baptism, though it may not manifest itself in actual conversion until twenty, thirty, or fifty years after. It lies dormant, in some wonderful way, through all those years of worldliness and unbelief; but still it is there; and when at last the person is regenerated, this regeneration is not altogether a new gift of God to the soul, but rather the development of what was given long before — nothing else, in fact, but the delayed efficacy of Infant Baptism.

II. Turning our thoughts now from Christianity as a system of revealed truth to the church as the embodiment of Christianity, the visible form of the kingdom of God in this world, we charge Infant Baptism, in the second place, with a tendency to secularize the church. When baptism is made the “sign and seal” not of personal but of ancestral faith and piety, it does indeed “come in the place of circumcision.” It loses its Christian significance, and takes on instead a Jewish meaning. It not only ceases to mark any distinction between the godly and the ungodly; it tends to obliterate and abolish, as far as possible, the line of separation between the church and the world. When the whole community is a baptized community, what is this in effect but the taking the world into the church bodily?

This tendency of the extension of baptism to infant children to blot out all distinction between the church and the world has been acknowledged and deplored by those who have still defended the practice. Hear the testimony of that profound Christian philosopher, Blaise Pascal. “In the infancy of the Christian church, we see no Christians, but those who were thoroughly instructed in all matters necessary to salvation. Then, no one was admitted into the church, but after a most rigid examination; now, everyone is admitted before he is capable of being examined. Formerly, it was necessary to come out from the world, in order to be received into the church; whilst in these days, we enter the church almost at the same time that we enter the world. So that dawning reason no longer perceives the broad line of distinction between these two opposing worlds, but matures and strengthens, at the same time, under the combined influence of both. The distinction is almost entirely lost; the church of the saints is all denied with the intermingling of the wicked, and her children are they who carry into her very heart her deadliest foes.”

Hear now the best apology which this great and good man could find for the evil which he so well describes, and so sincerely laments. “But we must not impute to the church the evils that have followed so fatal a change; for when she saw that the delay of baptism left a large proportion of infants still under the curse of original sin, she wished to deliver them from this perdition, by hastening the succor which she can give; and this good mother sees, with bitter regret, that the benefit which she thus holds out to infants becomes the occasion of the ruin of adults.”³

It may be that some will object to this representation, and deny that Infant Baptism is responsible for these lamentable results, on the ground that such results do not always attend it; that some evangelical denominations who practice it make no less broad a distinction between the church and the world, and are no less strict in requiring evidence of saving faith as a qualification for full church membership, than Baptists are in requiring the same as a qualification for baptism. To the substantial truth of this last statement, we give our willing and joyful assent. There are thousands of pedobaptist churches, which bear a faithful testimony to the broad moral distinction between the church and the world, and are careful to confine their highest church privileges to those who give evidence that they have been born of God. Gladly admitting this, and gratefully praising God for it, we feel constrained, nevertheless, to renew the charge, that Infant Baptism tends to secularize the church. The question really comes to this issue: — where are the legitimate fruits of this practice most fully and fairly seen, in the evangelical pedobaptist churches of England and the United States, or in the unreformed communions, and the national Protestant churches of Europe? And this question again resolves itself into such inquiries as these:— where are the legitimate fruits of any particular practice, most likely to be found, most wisely to be sought — in the narrow enclosure of some specific manifestation of it, or in the wide field of its general prevalence? where it has existed but for a few generations, under peculiar and exceptional conditions, or where it has flourished, under every variety of conditions for many centuries? where it has been in contact with opposing and counteracting influences, or where it has had free course and unchecked development? where it has only succeeded in maintaining a precarious existence, and already begins to be marked with the signs of decay, or where it has held for ages its uninterrupted and triumphant sway? where it is practiced and defended on grounds entirely different from those which first led to its adoption, or where it still stands firmly on its ancient and original ground?

To ask these questions is to answer them; and to answer them is to justify the charge which we bring against Infant Baptism. Its existence among evangelical Protestants is under exceptional conditions, and its effects under these conditions are no less exceptional. But even under these conditions of restraint and modification, the essential opposition between the evangelical truth and the traditional error is manifest in various ways. Of the Protestant sects that practice Infant Baptism, who does not know that it is maintained with most difficulty among those which are most decidedly evangelical in doctrine, and most distinguished for earnest, active piety?

This antagonism must go on, until it results in the victory of one of these opposing elements over the other — until the evangelical doctrine abolishes the anti-evangelical practice, or the anti-evangelical practice corrupts the evangelical doctrine. Very likely the victory will be a divided one, some going forward to consistency by abandoning the unauthorized custom, and others going backward to consistency by renouncing the sound doctrine that clashes with the traditionary custom. Indeed just this two-fold movement is already taking place. A remarkable illustration of these warring tendencies is found in the history of Jonathan Edwards’ ministry at Northampton, in Massachusetts. He saw clearly the evil of breaking down the distinction between the church and the world; but instead of applying the true cure, by receiving none express himself, to baptism, he undertook to remedy the evil by receiving none but “visible saints” to the communion of the Lord’s Supper. How signally he failed, and how sorely he was tried in consequence of this failure, all who will may read, in Mr. Dwight’s account of his life. All the churches in the country except two, and all the ministers except three, were in decided opposition to him. In his own church he could not even get a fair hearing, or an impartial council; and at last, after the Lord’s Supper had been wholly omitted for many months, he was dismissed from the pastoral office over them by a vote of more than ten to one — above two hundred voting in favor of his dismission, and less than twenty voting against it. — The tendency of this practice to confound the church with the world is seen in the difficulty which evangelical pedobaptists experience in defining the relation of baptized children to the church. They are far from being agreed among themselves whether these “children of the covenant” are full members of the church, or no members at all, or something between the two — members in their minority, or quasi members, or candidates outwardly qualified for membership. They are, however, I believe, coming to take the position, more and more generally, that baptized children are in the church; and herein they are coming to agree with all the ancient, and most of the modern defenders of Infant Baptism.

The two radical and comprehensive evils above mentioned comprise the heaviest part of our charge against Infant Baptism. It tends to corrupt Christianity, as a system of doctrine, by making it sacramental. It tends to corrupt the church, as a living embodiment of Christianity, by making it secular. But the practice brings with it, or draws after it, other evils, of more limited extent, but of no trifling importance.

III. It tends — this is our third charge against it — to prevent or darken the teachings of Scripture on the subject of baptism. The practice probably had its origin, certainly found its earliest and most efficient support, in a mistaken interpretation of our Lord’s words — “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”⁴ This is the standard text appealed to by all the ancients, and by the vast majority of the modern defenders of the practice. But this text is only one of a group of texts relating to baptism, all having this in common, that they connect it intimately with forgiveness of sin, regeneration, sanctification, and salvation. The following are the principal passages of this class: “According to his mercy He saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost,”⁵ “Christ gave himself for the church, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.”⁶ “He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved.”⁷ “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”⁸ In the ark, “eight souls were saved by water; the like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”⁹

The right interpretation of these places of Scripture becomes plain, when we restore to baptism its true meaning and place, of both which it has been deprived by the practice of administering it to infants. Restore to it its true meaning, as a veritable profession of saving faith in Christ, and of conformity to his death and resurrection; restore to it its true place, at the threshold of the Christian life, not of the natural, following close upon the second birth, not upon the first; and then the attributing to it of the efficacy which belongs to the truth represented by it, is but in accordance with the well known rule, by which properties and effects are commonly attributed to the sign, which belong in strict speech to the thing signified.

And yet it is remarkable, that every one of these passages contains, in itself or in the immediate context, something to guard us against the danger of attributing saving efficacy to the sign alone. “The washing of regeneration,” by which we are saved, is coupled with the “renewing of the Holy Ghost.” The church is not sanctified and cleansed “with the washing of water” merely, but “by the word.” Not everyone who “is baptized shall be saved,” but “he that believeth and is baptized.” The injunction, “be baptized, and wash away thy sins,” must not be divorced from its accompaniment of “calling upon the name of the Lord.” Baptism does not save us, apart from “the answer of a good conscience.” It is not “except a man be born of water,” only, “he cannot see the kingdom of God,” but “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit;” so wisely and carefully are the Scriptures guarded against abuse.

There is not, in fact, in the whole New Testament, a single text which sustains that clause of the Nicene Creed which acknowledges “one baptism for the remission of sins.” I pray you to mark the difference between those guarded words of God, and this unguarded word of man. “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins.”¹⁰ That is Apostolic doctrine. “I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.” That is Nicene doctrine. The omission of the most important part of the Apostle’s language leaves a bridgeless chasm between his doctrine and that of three centuries later. The passages above referred to, guarded, as we have seen, have really no more difficulty than those others in which our Lord makes an outward confession of him indispensable to salvation.¹¹ It is undeniable that he requires the confession of his name as a condition of salvation; and it is equally undeniable that the Scriptures represent baptism as being such a confession. “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”¹²

It would be easy to show that many other passages are either perverted or obscured from the like cause. I will specify only two. The expression, “else were your children unclean, but now are they holy,” in ICor. 7:14, has been made to do much service in the interest of infant baptism. The less it is examined, the better it will serve such a purpose. The use of the passage in support of Infant Baptism rests entirely upon the assumption that the children of parents, only one of whom is a believer, are to be ranked with the believing parent, — an assumption which is exactly contrary to the plain sense of the passage. The Apostle says, “the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband, else were your children unclean, but now are they holy.” Whatever holiness he attributes to the children, he derives from the holiness which he has previously attributed to the unconverted parent, with whom he distinctly ranks them. If this passage contains any warrant for baptizing them, it certainly contains an equal warrant for baptizing their unconverted parent, on whose sanctification their holiness depends.

A second passage, which has been commonly and strangely perverted to favor Infant Baptism, is that which records the bringing of little children to Christ for his blessing.¹³ Put what construction we may upon our Lord’s words, “of such is the kingdom of heaven,” this affecting and precious incident in his life stands forth as a distinct and unanswerable witness against the claim of Infant Baptism to be a part of primitive Christianity. The things said and done on that occasion could never have been said and done, if the Apostles had ever practiced the baptism of infant children. Pedobaptist Apostles would not have been likely to reprove parents for bringing their children to Christ. The Apostles were indeed in the wrong. They did not understand the tender condescension of their Master’s loving heart; but they never could have made that mistake, if they had before that time administered baptism to children. We know that they had been accustomed to administer baptism to those who professed repentance and faith; but this narrative proves that the baptism of infant children was neither known nor thought of by them. And yet this was just at the close of our Lord’s earthly ministry; only a few weeks, at most, before his crucifixion. And if they had not yet begun to baptize infants, they would not be likely to begin afterwards, especially when they had seen the Lord dismiss these children unbaptized, but not unblessed. If the Lord had ever designed to sanction such a practice, he could not have found or made a fitter occasion than this. It is not pretended that he did sanction it, then or afterwards; and, as he certainly had not before, the only tenable theory is, that he never did it at all. This Scripture does indeed show the propriety of dedicating our children to Christ, with prayer for his blessing upon them; but it equally shows the impropriety of using the rite of baptism for that purpose.

IV. We bring a fourth charge against Infant Baptism, that it leads to perplexity of mind and confusion of ideas, not only on the subject of baptism, but in relation to Christian truth and practice in general. This is not so fully seen in the old, unreformed churches. There it forms part of a self-consistent whole. Infants are baptized, because baptism is necessary to salvation. It washes out the stain of original sin, makes them regenerate, members of the church, entitled to its privileges, and subject to its discipline. Here all is consistent, because all is but the legitimate development of one false idea. But among reformed and evangelical Christians, Infant Baptism becomes a source of perpetual embarrassment. It does not know, and cannot find, its proper and permanent place. It is continually tossed to and fro, seeking rest and finding none. Ask what is the reason that justifies it, and the answer seems to come from Babel. It is because children are depraved; it is because they are innocent; it is because they are declared to be holy; it is because Jesus said “of such is the kingdom of heaven;” it is because of the promises to the seed of the godly; it is because it is to be presumed that they will grow up Christians, without any sudden and violent conversion; it is because of the covenant of circumcision; it is because Christian parents are bound to dedicate their children to God; it is because infants were baptized from the beginning; it is because, though they were not baptized from the beginning, yet their baptism afterwards was but the legitimate enlargement and development of primitive Christianity; it is because the church has sanctioned the practice; it is because, though destitute of any scriptural sanction, the practice has proved itself useful, and therefore ought to be retained. These are only a part of the diverse and conflicting reasons urged in support of the practice.

Ask what is the actual benefit of baptism to infants, and the reply is, that it signs and seals to them the covenant of grace; which means just this, that it is God’s sure pledge to these baptized children to give them, on certain conditions, the same spiritual blessings which he will just as surely give, on precisely the same conditions, to those who are not baptized.

Confusion of moral ideas also results from the attempt to impress upon the minds of these baptized children, when they have grown up, the obligation of vows which they never had any part in making. An unsophisticated conscience refuses to recognize such an obligation. Confusion of principles results from the necessity of borrowing from traditionary usage, or church authority, to make up for the deficiency of scriptural evidence in favor of the practice; and so the usage presents a weak point in the defences of Protestantism, inviting the attack, which it cannot successfully repel.

Confusion as to the relation between the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper results from the establishment of an unscriptural distinction between them, as to the extent of their application, and the qualifications for receiving them. The confusion begins in defining them both as “signs and seals,” thus deriving the whole doctrine of the so-called sacraments from a text which does not contain the remotest allusion to either of them.¹⁴ And then the confusion is worse confounded, by extending the one to all the posterity of believers, and limiting the other to believers themselves. For what word of Scripture intimates that there is any difference between the proper moral qualifications for the two? It is true that infant children cannot examine themselves, nor discern the meaning of the Lord’s Supper; and it is equally true that they cannot confess their faith in Christ, nor discern the meaning of baptism.

Thus the whole subject groans under its burden, and cries out, with Job, “I am full of confusion.” A multitude of different ideas and arguments are associated with it, many of them inconsistent with each other, and most of them inconsistent with Scripture. And so a divine ordinance, which in Scripture is presented in a definite, clear, and consistent light, is, by its perversion, enveloped in obscurity, perplexity, and contradiction.

V. I dare not withhold a fifth indictment against Infant Baptism, that it tends to encourage false hopes of salvation. How should it not, when, in all the unreformed churches, its efficacy is so fully believed as to have given currency to a common saying that “a baptized person does not go to hell”? How should it not, when, among many who are called Protestants, baptism is believed to be accompanied by regenerating grace? How should it not, when, among those who belong to evangelical denominations, the prospect of a child dying without baptism so commonly excites alarm, or produces uneasiness? How should the older children of a family where the parents show such uneasiness or alarm, fail to infer that their baptism has rescued them from the danger of perdition, or done something, at least, to give them the advantage over others, as to the prospect of salvation? Indeed this idea seems to be involved in the very practice.

Why is it practiced, it is natural to ask, if it has no favorable influence on their prospects of final salvation? It tends obviously to relieve them, in some degree, from the sense of personal responsibility, from the feeling that everything depends upon their own repentance and faith. The matter has already, in a manner, been taken out of their own hands. Parents, or sponsors, or the church, have assumed responsibility for them. And if this can be done at the beginning of life, why not also at the end? Why not, in fine, all the way through life? In fact the unreformed churches practically do this. Consistent with their promise at the beginning, they stand ready with their appliances of sanctifying rites for every stage of life, and dismiss the departing soul at last to Paradise, with absolution and extreme unction.

VI. I must bring one more serious charge against Infant Baptism — the sixth and last. It tends to hinder individual Christians from discerning and discharging their duty. Thousands upon whom this unauthorized rite was performed in infancy, when they come to believe in Christ, and devote their lives to him, feel a strong desire to confess their faith by being baptized. Perhaps they see others doing so, who have been their companions in the sorrows of conviction of sin, and in the joys of a hope in Christ; and the ordinance received under such circumstances commends itself, as it is wont to do, alike to their judgments and their feelings, and is commended, moreover, by the serene joy which is wont to gladden the breasts of those who have received it. They cannot help asking themselves, “Is not this the right way?” And the more they inquire and search the Scriptures, the greater is their desire; the more it seems to them to be their duty, to be baptized as believers in Christ. But there is a great, immovable obstacle to their receiving believers’ baptism. They have been told that they have already been baptized. Baptism ought not to be repeated. In this we are all agreed. What, then, shall they do? Shall they set at naught the rite which their revered parents, with so much piety and prayer, it may be, caused to be performed upon them? Undoubtedly this is what they ought to do, if they are convinced, in their own consciences, that Christ requires believers, and none others, to be baptized. But oh! how hard it is to do this duty! How hard it is to admit the full conviction that it is a duty!

How the heart shrinks from the thought of treating with disrespect what is regarded as a divine rite by their dearest Christian friends — what was regarded with so tender and sacred a reverence by a mother, a father, now, perhaps, in heaven! It seems as though it could not be a duty, because it appears to be reflecting dishonor on those whom they know they are sacredly bound to honor. There is a fearful conflict between seeming duty to their parents, and seeming duty to Christ. How dare they disobey his command? How dare they take a step which will be virtually accusing their parents of having passed off upon them a counterfeit in place of the genuine Christian ordinance? And it will not be without precedent, if some of their Christian friends press this last consideration, and enforce it with the most moving appeals.

Strange, indeed, is it not? that any Christian should dare to appeal to their reverence for their parents, in order to hinder them from complying with what they believe to be a command of Christ. It is assuming a fearful responsibility, and the Christian who assumes it must have forgotten what the Lord says of those who love father or mother more than him. But they do sometimes so forget. May God forgive them! I pretend not to know how many, or what proportion, of those whose minds are troubled with difficulties of this kind are ultimately hindered from doing what they believe to be their duty, and so carry for the rest of their days a sad and burdened, or, which is much worse, though not so painful, a seared and blinded conscience. But I do know that the inward struggle here described is an actual, and not an imaginary one. I do know that many, who are not ultimately hindered from doing their duty, suffer intensely in their tenderest affections before they come to the full decision; and, from the manifest strength of the temptation; and the known weakness of human nature, I think it is neither unreasonable nor uncharitable to believe that the number of those who are hindered, in this way, from doing their duty, is much greater than the number of those who are successful in overcoming the hindrance. Not that all such come to a clear conviction of their duty, but rather that the larger part are prevented from having such a clear conviction. They see their duty but dimly, and uncertainly, at a distance, because they dare not approach near enough to see it plainly and surely.

Here, then, is a real, great, practical evil of Infant Baptism, which not only amply justifies, but imperatively demands, our most earnest protest. We believe such cases are numerous, and rapidly multiplying; and we dare not withhold our testimony against a practice which ensnares so many Christian souls in a painful and perilous temptation.

If I had reason to suppose that there was one here who was experiencing this temptation, I would try to strengthen that struggling soul with such thoughts as these. It is your plain duty, and your only safety, to do what you believe to be, on the whole, most agreeable to the word and will of Christ, at whatever sacrifice of your tenderest earthly feelings. In following this rule, you can do no dishonor to your parents. On the contrary, if they were Christians, and acted in reference to your baptism, according to what they believed to be the will of the Lord, you will dishonor them, and show yourself unworthy of their example and instructions, if you refuse to do now what you believe to be the will of the Lord in reference to the same matter. You will best honor them, whether living or dead, by acting, with your light, on the same principles on which they acted with theirs. If that sainted father or mother could speak to you now from the blessed abodes, the revered and familiar voice would not say to you, “honor everything which I honored, and believe everything which I believed, if you wish to show respect to my memory.” Oh no! that voice would rather say, “honor and obey Christ, the Lord, before all others, even before me: if you act otherwise, you will act contrary to my example and instructions; you will indeed dishonor me, and make me ashamed of my child.” Make this dutiful resolve then at once, that the will of Christ, according to your own best understanding of it, shall be your supreme and controlling rule of action, whatever may be opposed to it. And if in your deliberate judgment you have never received any thing that ought to be regarded as Christian baptism, this is the Lord’s message to you to-night — “why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized.” The closing year reminds us all, that we must make haste to discharge our unfulfilled duties, lest we lose forever the opportunity of fulfilling them. ¹⁵

And one of the duties which we ought not to leave unperformed is, to endeavor to correct the errors of our brethren. We are to do this, indeed, in a spirit of humility and charity, not as if we were infallible, any more than they; nor as if we had any dominion or superiority over them; but as if we had sincere and earnest convictions; as if we loved the truth, and felt bound to bear witness to it; as if we loved our differing brethren, and longed to see them partakers of every good which we enjoy. We have, as Baptists, had the privilege and honor of helping our brethren of other names, to gain some valuable acquisitions of Christian liberty and Christian truth. Our testimony in times past, against all persecution for religious belief, all restraint upon Christian worship, and all unhallowed alliances of church and state, has not been in vain. It is mainly through the fearless testimony and the patient sufferings of Baptists, that these evils have come to be so generally seen, and so extensively abolished; and that they are now so sure to be ere long abolished universally. Nor has our persistent testimony against Infant Baptism been without effect. It has resulted in the very extensive, and continually extending renunciation or neglect of the practice, to the great advantage, as we honestly believe, of those who have so renounced or omitted it. ¹⁶

We are encouraged, therefore, to continue this testimony. We are not afraid nor ashamed to persist in bearing witness against what we firmly believe to be perversions of the Lord’s ordinances. We know that for this we are regarded by some as disturbers of the peace of Zion, and hindrances to the union of Israel. But we have no hope of any union of Christians, and no desire for any, which requires the suppression of individual convictions, or any restraint upon their suitable utterance. The only union which we hope for and pray for is such as can be attained by “speaking the truth in love.” We look for the time, and if our wishes do not deceive us, we see it approaching, when religious controversy, or, if that term is objectionable, religious discussion, shall be an acknowledged means of grace and help to union. Nothing more is necessary to make it so, than the observance of this simple apostolic rule, “speaking the truth in love.” If you will take the trouble to examine the passage 17 where Paul uses this expression, you will see that he uses it in just this connection. He recommends it to us, as a means of removing the errors that divide us, and attaining to unity of faith and knowledge, so as to become one compact body, under Christ the common head.

To this glorious consummation, so long desired and waited for, the swift years are hastening the church of God; and whoever persuades one disciple of Christ to exchange one error which he held for one truth which he lacked, contributes his mite toward the perfect union of all disciples in the truth. “Every plant which my Heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.” God is continually fulfilling this word — now tearing up these plants in the mass, by the rude violence of revolutions, to the great disfigurement of the ground for a time; and now loosening and eradicating them, one by one, with the gentle hand of Christian patience and faithfulness. Both processes are needed, and he will suffer both to go on, until everything that poisons the air, or offends the sight, or encumbers the ground, is removed from his garden, and nothing remains but what his hand has planted there.

 --------------------------------------------------
1- See the evidence in proof of this statement in an article in the Christian Review for January, 1861.
2- See Bingham’s Antiq. of the Chr. Ch. Bk. xii. ch. 1. sect. 1, 2, Bk. xv. ch. iv. sect. 1, Bk. xv. ch. vii. sect. 4.
3- See Pascal’s “Thoughts on Religion,” chapter entitled, “a Comparison of Ancient and Modern Christians.”
4- John 3:5
5- Tit. 3:5
6- Eph. 5:26
7- Mark 16:16
8- Acts 22:16
9- I Pet 3:21
10- Acts 2:38
11-See Matt. 10:16-22; Luke 12:8-9 and especially Rom. 10:9-10
12- Gal. 3:27. Rom. 6:3-4. Col. 2:11-12 and Heb. 10:22-23
13- Matt. 19:13-15. Mark 10:13-16. Luke 18:15-17
14- Rom. 4:11
15- This discourse was preached on Sunday evening, December 31st, 1865.
16- The following facts, taken from official reports, are cited in proof of the growing decline of Infant Baptism, especially among the more decidedly evangelical Pedobaptists. In the Old School Presbyterian Church for the year ending May, 1863, there were 2165 adults baptized to 10,194 infants, a little more than 1 to 5. In the New School Presbyterian Church, during the same year, there were 1556 adults baptized, to 3,191 infants, about 1 to 2. In the Methodist Church North, in the year 1865, the number of adults baptized was 29,150; of infants 32,891, or 14.5 to 16. In the Congregational Churches of the United States, the number of infants baptized in the year 1864 was only a very small fraction above 1.5 to each church. In the following year, the number was less by 149, and the adults baptized exceeded the infants by 841. The former were only in the proportion of 7 to every 5 churches, while the latter were in the proportion of 7 to every 4 churches. In more than half the New England States, the number of adults baptized in the Congregational Churches has been for many years greater than the number of infants. In Vermont, there was, in 1859, 1 infant baptized to every 52 members; in 1860, 1 to every 80 members. Where Infant Baptism is universally practiced, the annual proportion is about 1 to every 20 members. In Connecticut, the proportion of infants baptized in 1852 was about 3 to every church; in 1862, about 2 to every church; and in 1864 there was a falling off of more than 100 from the previous year. In 82 churches, including 7421 members, there were no infants baptized during the year.
17- Ephesians 4:15
 --------------------------------------------------
The Madison Avenue Lectures
January 1, 1867
American Baptist publication society

A Sunday Sermon given at Armenian Memorial Church, Watertown, MA.
Posted with minor edits.

RESOURCES
https://bible.org/seriespage/lesson-35-why-we-do-not-baptize-infants-genesis-17-and-other-scriptures