Of all the divisions existing among the real servants of Christ, there is none, I think, so remarkable, nor more injurious, than the separation of congregationalists into the two parties of Pædobaptists and Antipædobaptists. Perfectly agreed as they are respecting the character of the New Testament church, and occupying exactly the same position with regard to the ecclesiastical establishments of this country, it appears truly surprising that they should yet entirely disagree as to the qualifications entitling an individual to the sacred initiatory ordinance of the Christian dispensation; and that, after the lapse of centuries, during which the finest talents on each side have been employed in the discussion of the subject, that they should yet remain as decidedly opposed upon it as at the first. Perhaps both parties are equally culpable with regard to the spirit in which their respective positions may have been maintained; but it is evident that only one of them can be wrong with regard to the letter. Christians of all parties are now entertaining the hope, that the day is drawing nigh when the spiritual vision of the members of Christ shall be so improved as to enable them to avail themselves of the full light of the gospel to subdue their respective prejudices and antipathies; and when the love of Christ shall be so shed abroad in all hearts, as to lead them into that blessed state of union, into which it is predicted the church is to be brought. And here I beg to ask, considering how simple is the nature of the question which divides the congregationalists into two parties, if this blessed movement ought not to begin with them? And what an honour it would be, to be the first in this glorious movement! And surely it may well animate us earnestly to desire this goodly precedence, when we consider how powerfully and influentially the example would act on all other Christian parties, so as probably to lead all rapidly forward to the happy, long-desired consummation. In the meantime we may well bear with the errors of other parties, considering how many causes concur to keep them under the dominion of their prejudices, and that all of them are heightened by the spectacle of our own unnatural division, while we are calling upon them to submit themselves to the laws of the New Testament. O that all controversial argumentation might for the future be conducted only in the spirit of love! that all might be prepared to lay aside censoriousness, and all appearances of contempt, to avoid all unseemly confidence, and sedulously to watch against a spirit of self exaltation, desiring that the Lord alone may be exalted in the display and in the triumph of his truth! When the Spirit of the Lord shall be so poured upon his church, that the truth shall be sought in this way, errors will soon be detected, and the blessed union of saints be quickly accomplished. The church is not without the means. The cause of our differences is not the want of sufficient spiritual light.
I have remarked above, that one of the parties only on the subject of infant baptism can be wrong with regard to the letter; and here it is with real grief that I must appear in the character of a partisan; but I humbly submit to the candid consideration of my Pædobaptist brethren whether what follows be not a fair representation of the principal grounds on which the advocates of the practice of baptizing infants found their arguments in support of the practice: The covenant of grace, as it was revealed to Abraham, discovers it to be the will of God, that the infants of believers in Christ should be dedicated to God by baptism. That the practice was sanctioned by the apostles, and designed to be a blessing to children, and serviceable to the cause of the gospel.
The following queries are, with great Christian respect and affection, offered for the consideration of the Pædobaptist servants of Christ.
1. Does it not appear to be a fundamental principle in the New Testament, and designed to have been constantly kept in view, that the churches of Christ should, as far as human judgment and Christian charity would allow, be exclusively voluntary associations of persons brought to desire the salvation of Christ, and to be numbered as his servants?
2. Is there any part of the New Testament which will justify a church in recognizing any persons as the children of the promise, unless they appear to be partakers of the faith of Abraham? On the contrary, does it not plainly appear that the New Testament children of the father of the faithful should receive baptism as Abraham received circumcision, a seal of the grace which they had being yet unbaptized?
3. Were not circumcisions under the Abrahamic covenant more extensive and indiscriminate than the circumcisions under the Mosaic economy, and therefore more unlike New Testament baptisms than the latter? Wherefore, then, is the former covenant represented as affording the archetype of Christian baptism?
4. Under the Old Testament covenant the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were by natural birth—whether partakers of spiritual faith or not—equal members of the commonwealth of Israel. But is not the New Testament covenant, in this respect, essentially different, the principles of the gospel not recognizing unions of the holy and the unholy, and the New Testament containing no provisions for the government of such communities?
5. Is not the New Testament covenant peculiarly distinguished from the Jewish, whether considered as Abrahamic or Mosaic (was the latter any thing more than a development of the former?) by its unveiled spirituality, and by its respect for individual moral character?
6. Does the New Testament, in any part, appear to recognize the people of Christ in a corporate capacity, except as they appear to be united by the spiritual principles of the gospel?
7. Is not the remarkable fact, that Pædobaptism obliges its advocates to retire back to the book of Genesis in search of a covenant to justify them in their use of the New Testament ordinance of baptism, of itself nearly sufficient to evince that their practice is inconsistent with the covenant of grace, as it is revealed in the gospel? and does it not become a certainty, when it appears that circumcision under the Abrahamic covenant was, in some important respects, an institution of a perfectly contrary character to the ordinance of baptism; the former exhibiting a compulsory character, which rendered it imperative upon Abraham to circumcise Ishmael, and to enforce it upon his whole household, whether bond or free; and to enjoin it for all their posterity, under the awful threatening of utter exclusion from the covenant and family of God? Is there not here a most striking contrast with the inspired records of the institution and administration of the ordinance of baptism?