the
Southern Review
and
Infant Baptism;
\
OR, METHODIST., LITERATURE VINDICATED
AGAINST THE ATTACKS OF
DR. A. T. BLEDSOE.
BY THE REV. C. W. MILLER, A.M.
Nashville, Tenn. :
SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING! HOUSE.
1874.
} \ / i
Library of
Emory University
THE
Southern Review
AND
Infant Baptism-,
OR, METHODIST LITERATURE VINDICATED
AGAINST THE ATTACKS OF
DR. A. T. BLEDSOE.
BY THE REV. C. W. MILLER, A.M.
Nashville, Tenn.:
SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING! HOUSE.
1874.
THE
SOUTHERN REVIEW
AND
Infant Baptism.
IF the opponents of infant "baptism had dealt
righteously with the literature involved in the
controversy on that subject, there would not now
be an inch of ground for Anti-pedobaptists to stand
upon. But, on the contrary, the history of the
controversy on infant baptism is the history of mu¬
tilation, suppression, false presentation, and un¬
warrantable inference, on the part of its opponents.
Conscious of the hopelessness of an appeal to the
Bible in their opposition, Anti-pedobaptists have
sought eagerly for an unguarded statement of some
writer known to be friendly to this question; and
whether such statement be an incidental one, or
depending upon what went before, or what comes
after, for its full sense, it is seized and pressed into
service as " a concession of a learned Pedohaptist!"
Large volumes have thus been made up. Multitudes
who never have access to the authors thus abused,
4
The Southern Eeview
and would not have the time to investigate them
and detect the outrage even if they had the access,
are thus misled, and, in turn, mislead others. A
somewhat careful examination of the literature in
the infant baptism controversy has satisfied us that
out of this state of things the opponents of God's
appointment have reaped their richest harvest. Ob¬
literate to-day every such mutilation and garbled
extract, and let the facts just as they are be seen
and read, and the result would be overwhelmingly
calamitous to Anti-pedobaptism.
It cannot, therefore, but be a matter of earnest
solicitude to every lover of the truth when those
who are supposed, from their status, to be friendly
to infant baptism are found indulging in a style of
writing, or speaking, upon this subject which only
confirms the adversary in his convictions of the
historic correctness of what are only shameful per¬
versions.
For these reasons we have felt called upon, by an
imperious sense of duty, to examine certain utter¬
ances which have lately appeared in a periodical
which goes to the world with the statement on its
cover, "Published under the auspices of the M. E.
Church, South."
That the reader may follow us intelligibly in this
examination, we briefly rehearse the matter from
the beginning.
In The Southern Review, for April, 1874, an article
on " History of Infant Baptism" appeared, being
written by the editor, Br. Bledsoe. One unac¬
quainted with the ecclesiastical whereabouts of Dr.
And Infant Baptism.
5
Bledsoe would readily have concluded, upon reading
that article, that he is a genuine Anti-pedobaptist
of the modern type, and that he had just completed
a delightful examination of Booth's " Concessions
of Pedobaptists."
He sets out by informing the world that the
"aberrations of the human mind" on the subject he
is treating of " demand a more profound analysis
and explanation than usual." (P. 332.) He under¬
takes the stupendous task of making this "more
profound analysis and explanation than usual," and
thus excites the highest possible expectation in his
reader. He proceeds but a short distance in this
generous undertaking when he stops short, surveys
the field, returns laden with the grand results, and
lays them at our feet. With the eye of a master, he
sweeps the whole Hew Testament field, and an¬
nounces, "But yet, with all our searching, we have
been unable to find in the Hew Testament a single
express declaration, or word, in favor of infant bap¬
tism." (P. 334.) This is, truly, a " profound anal¬
ysis and explanation."
Again he lifts up his eyes, and they sweep the
whole field of apostolic practice, and the result an¬
nounced is, " There is no decisive example of this
practice in the Hew Testament." (Ibid.)
Again he looks out from his sublime elevation,
and his eyes sweep the great field of "learned Pedo¬
baptists"—the field that has yielded so rich a har¬
vest to Anti-pedobaptist reapers—and the result is
announced as follows: " Hundreds of learned Pedo¬
baptists have come to the same conclusion, espe-
6
The Southern Eeview
cially since the New Testament has been subjected
to a closer, more conscientious, and more candid
exegesis than was formerly practiced by controver¬
sialists." {Ibid.) This is an important result of the
" more profound analysis and explanation." When
Wesley, and Watson, and Clarke, and many others
that we have been inclined to regard as "candid"
and " conscientious " in the " exegesis" they made
of the New Testament, lived, they unfortunately
knew nothing of that " more profound analysis and
explanation" which the editor of The Southern Re¬
view has made. Hence they did find infant baptism
in the New Testament.
But, again, the all-surveying eyes of the editor
sweep the patristic field, and the result is announced
thus: " Before the time of Tertullian (A.D. 200), the
practice of infant baptism is nowhere distinctly
mentioned by any writer of the Church." (P. 336.)
" Tertullian is the first writer in the Church who
makes any express mention of the custom of infant
baptism." (P. 338.)
We read these announcements with amazement.
We asked ourself, Is not the author of them a min¬
ister in a Church that believes and teaches that
infant baptism is taught in the New Testament?
Is he not presiding over a Review whose cover bears
the title, "Published under the auspices of the JI. JEJ.
Church, South?" Did he not solemnly engage with
the General Conference of 1870 to defend Methodist
doctrine and polity? Yes; these are all true. We
had scarcely recovered from our first amazement
before our Baptist and Campbellite papers came,
And Infant Baptism.
7
loaded to the guards with "Dr. Bledsoe's repudia¬
tion of infant baptism," etc.
Under these circumstances, we reviewed his "His¬
tory of Infant Baptism" in The Central Methodist,
and showed some of its many anti-Methodistic ele¬
ments. Hot long thereafter the General Conference
met in Louisville, and we were appointed upon the
Committee on Books and Periodicals. Dr. B. came
before that committee, in a highly-excited state, and
asked the privilege of replying to our review in The
Central Methodist. It was granted. Long and la¬
bored was the attempt; but, like all things mortal,
it ended at last. It is not too much to say that the
attempt was an utter failure. At the request of the
committee, we replied, and showed that Dr. Bledsoe
was utterly at war with Methodism on this subject.
This is, in brief, the true history of the case.
How, when The Southern Review for July makes
its appearance, fifty-nine of its pages are filled with
an attack upon us, and a perversion of the lit¬
erature of the Church on the subject of infant
baptism.
To correct the mistakes made with reference to
the utterances of the standard writers in our Com¬
munion on this question, and to set forth the truth
as it is, we write these pages.
"We deeply regret the spirit manifested by the
editor of The Southern Review. If he deemed a
response necessary, it was due all the interests in¬
volved that .he make that response with that calm¬
ness, patience, and good temper which his age, his
character as a minister of Jesus Christ, and his con-
8
The Southern Review
spicuous place as editor of a Review, demand. Mr.
Wesley, whom he claims to follow, gave the follow¬
ing advice to a fierce and vituperative polemic, who
mistook harsh epithets for energy of style. "We
commend it to the serious attention of all those who,
upon the slightest occasion, are wont to deluge their
pages with abuse. Said the great leader of Meth¬
odism: "Be calm. Do not venture into the field
again till you are master of your temper. You
know 'the wrath of man worketh not the righteous¬
ness,' neither promotes the truth, 'of God.' Be
good-natured. Passion is not commendable; but
ill-nature still less. Even irrational anger is more
excusable than bitterness, less offensive to God and
man. Be courteous. Show good manners, as well
as good nature, to your opponent of whatever
kind."
That breathes the spirit of the Great Master, who
said, "Love your enemies; do good to them that
hate you; bless them that curse you; pray for them
that despitefully use you."
We regret that the editor of The Southern Review
could not illustrate this spirit in his pages. He has
seen proper, on the contrary, to revile and denounce
us. We cannot follow him in this; the claims of
our holy religion forbid it.
We propose to subject the assertions of Dr. Bled¬
soe to the faithful test of history. We believe that
his positions are unscriptural, anti-Methodistic, and
contrary to all reliable history. At any rate, we
will lay the facts as they are before the reader, and
let him draw his own conclusion.
And Infant Baptism.
9
At this point in onr progress, we propose to
inquire into
THE STATUS OF THE SOUTHERN REVIEW.
We notify all those who have exultantly added
The Southern Review to the list of "concessions"
from among the Pedobaptists (as Campbellites and
Baptists are doing) that it sustains no such relation,
and is in no such sense an organ for Methodism as
to make the Methodist Church responsible for any
of its utterances. The declarations of Br. B., in
The Review for July, are well calculated to mislead
the public at this point.
At page 143 he says: " The design to start another
Review failed utterly. A member of the General
Conference wrote to The Holston Methodist as follows:
i There will be an attempt to inaugurate a Southern:
Methodist Quarterly, and to ignore Bledsoe's. I
hope the attempt will not succeed. The Southern
Methodists will stand by Bledsoe in any event.' All
this (continues Br. B.) proved true. The attempt
did. not succeed, and the Southern Methodists did
stand by us nobly in the hour of trial. More than
a hundred members of the General Conference, in¬
cluding its brightest minds and noblest hearts, gave
us the warmest and most affecting assurances that
they would, in any event, stand by The Southern
Review."
To those not acquainted with the facts this would
place The Southern Review upon the highest official
sanction that the General Conference could give.
But the animus of the statement is totally incorrect.
1*
10
The Southern Review
In the first place, there never was any such issue
raised between The Southern Review and a " South¬
ern Methodist Quarterly" as is intimated by Dr. B.'s
language. A resolution was introduced by certain
brethren inquiring into the propriety of starting a
Quarterly Review at the Publishing House. This
resolution was referred to the Committee on Books
and Periodicals, who carefully looked into the mat¬
ter, and decided " that there is no present necessity
for the establishment of a Methodist Quarterly Re¬
view, to be published by the Book Agent, at Nash¬
ville." Nearly the same action was taken by a
former General Conference, when The Southern Re¬
view was not known in the Methodist Church. The
decision not to establish a Methodist Quarterly was
made without any reference whatever to the exist¬
ence of Dr. B.'s Review. Some one, it is true, asked
in the committee what would become of The South¬
ern Review if the Conference established one, to
which Dr. Green replied: "Let The Southern Review
take care of itself. "We are under no obligation to
it." To this the committee acceded. It is not
proper, therefore, to represent the calm conclusion
not to start a Quarterly as an "utter failure;" par¬
ticularly is it incorrect to make the impression, as
is done, that there was a contest between these Re¬
views, and that the "utter failure" of the one came
out of the pledge of the "more than one hundred
members" to "stand by the The Southern Review in
any event."
"We know not what private assurances Dr. B. had
from members of the General Conference; but of
And Infant Baptism.
11
one thing we are certain—to wit: when the Com¬
mittee on Books and Periodicals made their third
report, they said: "The committee state farther
that, in their judgment, The Southern Review, hy the
action of the last General Conference p. e., of 1870],
sustains a formal relation to the M. E. Church,
South, but no such legal relation as makes the
Church responsible either for its financial support or
for its utterances." This was adopted by a unan¬
imous vote. Where, now, were the " more than one
hundred members" who had given "the warmest
and most affecting assurances that they would, in
any event, stand by The Southern Review ?" If they
would not stand by it when the question of indorse¬
ment—a most vital question, indeed—was to be
decided, when would the " event" come in which
they might be relied upon? The truth is, the Gen¬
eral, Conference decided that it would " commend it
[ The Review] to the liberal patronage of our people,
provided Dr. Bledsoe accept an editorial committee,
who shall prescribe the general policy of The South¬
ern Review, and have special oversight of its theo¬
logical department." The reader can judge of the
unbounded confidence had by the Conference in Dr.
B.'s Review. They withdrew all indorsement of
its "utterances," and "commended" it to the pat¬
ronage of "our people" only upon terms which, if
complied with, would virtually remove it out of
Dr. B.'s hands. So far as we know, the proviso
upon which it was to be "commended" to the pat¬
ronage of " our people" has not been complied with.
Accordingly, The Southern Review is in no sense
12
The Southekn Keview
" Published under the auspices of the M. E. Church,
South," nor is she responsible for any of "its utter¬
ances."
The committee also ascertained that the statement
on the cover of The Review—"Published under the
auspices of the M. E. Church, South"—was placed
there without the consent, or authority, of anyone
authorized to act for the Church. It was a gratuit¬
ous thing to place it there, and an exhibition of
very bad taste to continue it there after the deliv¬
erance of the General Conference on the subject.
We thus dispose of the exultant declaration that
" Southern Methodists will stand by The Review in
any event." The Review having proved recreant to
the trusts committed to it, Southern Methodists will
do in the future what they did by their highest rep¬
resentative body—repudiate " its utterances."
"We deem it proper, for the protection of the
Church, to show, as we now have shown, what is the
status of The Southern Review. It is in no sense the
organ of our Church.
THAT DISCOVERY.
When we reviewed Dr. B.'s "History of Infant
Baptism," in The Central Methodist, we stated that
" It has not been long since he (Dr. B.) triumph¬
antly announced himself as the discoverer of the
great truth that God cannot coerce the conversion
of a sinner, when the fact is known to every tyro
in theology that all Arminian writers and teachers
have taught this doctrine from the beginning." We
alluded to this simply to show that while Dr. B.
And Infant Baptism.
13
was proposing to make a " more profound analysis
and explanation than usual" of great theological
questions, he was exhibiting a singular unacquaint-
ance with the history of the most commonplace
dogmas. This fact suggested the propriety of taking
his sweeping declarations as to what "hundreds
of learned Pedobaptists," and the "entire New;
Testament," and the history of seventeen centu¬
ries, affirm on the subject of infant baptism, with
caution.
Dr. B. saw that this showing was very damaging
to his high claims as an authority, and accordingly,
in The Southern Review for July, p. 157, he says:
"Mr.Miller says, 'he triumphantly announced him¬
self as the discoverer of the great truth,' etc. There
is not one particle of truth in this. The truth here
referred to is a hundred years old at least, if not a
thousand. We defy Mr. Miller, or any other man,
to produce the passage in which we claim to be the
discoverer of any such truth; and if he does not
produce the passage, we pronounce him a false ac¬
cuser."
How, we do not want to be pronounced "a false
accuser," for that is a very ugly character; hence
we turi? aside from the design of this investigation
long enough to "produce the passage." Before we
do so, however, we ask the reader's attention to
the declaration of Dr. B., "that the truth here re¬
ferred to"—namely, that "God cannot coerce the
conversion of a sinner"—"is a hundred years old at
least, if not a thousand." Well, the margin be¬
tween "a hundred years" and "a thousand" is tol-
14
The Southern Review
erably ample—only nine hundred years! That is
only a trifle in a question of history!
But " a thousand years" are not sufficient to cover
the history of the great truth that " God cannot
coerce the conversion of a sinner." The truth is,
when you inquire into its history, it will he found
that every utterance that God ever made on the
subject of conversion proclaimed this truth. It is
one of those truths which arise out of the constitu¬
tion of man and the divine government, and is as
old as humanity. It is simply puerile to talk about
its being a "hundred," or "a thousand, years" old!
But to "the passage" in which Dr. B. claims to
be the discoverer of this great truth. Did he claim
so to be? If not, we are "a false accuser." If he
did, he must account for his denial.
We turn to The Southern Review for October, 1871,
p. 975, and read: "The truth is, if we admit that
God can easily force the will to become holy, and
thus save all men, whether they will or no [not], we
can never escape the logical toils of the Calvinist.
We may wrangle to all eternity, and yet we shall
forever remain entangled by him ' in a labyrinth of
contradictions,' until we deny the position that any
power, however great, can convert the sinrfer, and
save his soul alive. "We have long seen this, and
hence we have, in a preceding article of The Review
(see Art. IV.), endeavored to explode this position.
There is, we believe, no other escape from the dark
'labyrinth of contradictions' in which the scheme
of the Arminian is involved by the logic of his ad¬
versary."
And Infant Baptism. 15
Here, it will readily be seen, the matter treated
of is whether God can "force the will to become
holy," or "convert a sinner" by coercion. That he
cannot is declared to be the only " escape " of the
Arminian from " the logical toils of the Calvinist."
The editor then refers ns to Article IY. of The Re¬
view, where he has discussed this question more
elaborately. We turn to "Article IY.," and find it to
be on " The Problem of Evil." Sure enough, the
question treated of is the power of God to coerce
holiness, or compel the wicked to forsake evil.
Speaking of his own achievements in this field, the
editor says: "It was, in fact, while engaged in med¬
itation on the powers and susceptibilities of the
human mind, as well as on the relations they sus¬
tain to each other, and to other things, that the first
clear light appeared to dawn on this great dijficulty (the
origin and existence of evil)." (P. 746.) Here the
discovery is made that such are "the powers and
susceptibilities of the hum£fh mind" as to render
the presence, or absence, of evil not a question of
divine power, but of volition on the part of man.
This "clear light," it is claimed, "first appeared to
dawn" while the editor of The Southern Review
" was engaged in meditation!"
Turning, now, to page 769, we shall see how this
discovery affected the great explorer upon these
hitherto untraveled seas. He says: "In like man¬
ner, we believe that we have found the true inter¬
pretation of the world, because it shows all the
parts thereof in one grand, connected, and har¬
monious scheme. How different from our once
16
The Southern Review
distracted thoughts! The great and glorious world
itself was then hut as a troubled dream, in which
the various forms of good and evil, of fair and foul,
seemed mingled in one wild, dark, confused scene.
"We longed to escape from that frightful chaos, and,
if possible, see the order and beauty which must
need exist in the world of an infinitely perfect mind;
but we did so almost unconsciously, scarce compre¬
hending the want which had so mightily moved us.
W ith intense yearning did we watch, that the visions
of the night might pass away, and the truth itself
appear. We scarce dared, however, to dream of
truth as any other than a broken thing, whose
shining fragments lay scattered up and down amid
the darkness of the world. Here and there we
could, after much severe toil, lay hold on truth, and
say, 'Whatever else may be mutable, dark, and
fluctuating, in the world around us, this, at least, is
clear and fixed.' If despair, like a dark torrent,
drove us back at times,*yet would gleams of truth,
as from the innermost glory of the world, draw us
on. Long did we thus toil and struggle amid the
enigmas of the world, until, at last, the secret clew
was found, the central fact was seized, the great or¬
ganizing truth began to dawn like a sun. The
many beautiful fragments of truth, which we had
so long and so lovingly clung to, then shot together,
and all that perplexing darkness rolled away. The
blue-eyed world looked out and smiled, and we be¬
held the beautiful vision as in a trance."
There, now! Christopher Columbus never had a
harder time while beating through the surf toward
And Infant Baptism.
17
the long-sought shores of the Kew World! In fact,
the great discoverer of America and the great editor
of The Southern Review are exactly alike, with one
exception—Columbus did discover a continent; Dr.
Bledsoe dreamed a dream ! The great " organizing
truth," to discover which he waded through con¬
tinents of despair, and sailed through seas of dark¬
ness, had been shining, like a full-orbed sun, upon
the mind of every Methodist preacher from Mr.
"Wesley to the humblest circuit-rider! We hand
this passage over as our vindication from the charge
of being "a false accuser."
It will readily be seen, in looking over this long
extract, that having referred us, while discussing
the question of coercive conversion, to this article,
he there claims to have found "the first clear light"
on the subject (p. 746); that he "found the true in¬
terpretation of the world" in this great discovery
(p. 769); and, after having described the slow and
painful methods by which he found this "great or¬
ganizing truth," he readily compares himself with
"Copernicus, Kepler, and Kewton," in the lines im¬
mediately following the above quotation.
Dr. B.'s denial, in The Review for July, of ever
having claimed to be the discoverer of this truth is
very remarkable; but it will appear, before the end
of our investigation is reached, that it is, with him,
idiosyncratic.
NO COMMAND.
The editor of The Southern Review claims to have
" read up " the literature of the infant baptism con¬
troversy, and as a part of his " more profound anal-
18
The Southern Review
ysis and explanation than usual," he informs us as
to its declarations.
In The Review for July, for example, he says : "In
our speech before the committee, we declared it as
our opinion that there was not a Pedohaptist writer
of any note in the world who does not concede the
same thing—namely, that infant baptism is not en¬
joined by an express command of the blew Testa¬
ment." (P. 151.)
How, here is a fair opportunity to test the value
of that "more profound analysis and explanation"
which only results, with Dr. B., in a total abandon¬
ment of all Methodist ground on this subject. Of
course one who undertakes to speak for every "Pe¬
dohaptist " in the world, " of any note," is supposed
to have examined all these writers, and therefore
know whereof he affirms.
How, that this part of the "more profound anal¬
ysis and explanation" is utterly at variance with the
facts in the case, we undertake to show.
The first writer we introduce to disprove this as¬
sertion is taken from that Church in which Dr. B.
spent the greater part of his life. If, now, it is
found that he is not prepared to represent the
writers in the Church in which his life has been
spent, may we not with propriety question the cor¬
rectness of the representation he makes of the
writers of a Church with which he has been con¬
nected less than four years?
The writer we select from the Episcopal Church
is Dr. Chapin. His language is, "If, then, it be
affirmed that infants are not included in this general
And Infant Baptism.
19
language [the commission], it is the duty of those
who make the affirmation to prove its truth. And
if they cannot prove its truth, then infant baptism
is not only lawful, but is commanded." (Prim. Church,
p. 66.)
"We know not whether Dr. B. will regard Dr.
Chapin as a writer " of any note." It is very cer¬
tain, however, that Dr. Chapin occupies a very
distinguished position as an authority.
"We shall now abundantly show that the assertion
of Dr. Bledsoe, "that there is not a Pedobaptist
writer of any note in the world who does not con¬
cede the same thing—namely, that infant baptism
is not enjoined by any express command of the New
Testament," is made not only in the absence of
any reliable authority, but in the face of the explicit
declarations of the most eminent writers on this
subject. When the facts are examined, it will be
found that there is not a " Pedobaptist of any note
in the world" who agrees with Dr. B. We shall
first take the standard writings of our own Church,
with which Dr. B. ought, of course, to be fa¬
miliar.
Dr. Summers, in his "Treatise on Baptism"—a
work placed in the course of study for young min¬
isters—recognizes the commission, Matt, xxviii. 19,
20, as obvious a command for infant baptism as it
would have been for infant "circumcision," had that
rite been enjoined instead of baptism. (P. 33.) He
then adds: "Besides, if all nations are to be disci-
pled, are not infants included ?" Included in what?
In the command, "Disciple all nations, baptizing
20
The Southern Review
them," etc. Of course, if infants are "included"
in a command to "baptize," then infant baptism is
commanded.
Richard "Watson shows that baptism takes the
place of circumcision "by the appointment of Christ"
(Institutes, 628); this he proves by the commission
(Matt, xxviii. 19, 20) which institutes baptism. Of
course he maintains, therefore, that infant baptism
is enjoined by explicit law, and declares that it has
"continued to us from the earliest ages, upon the
strongest basis of scriptural authority." (P. 683.)
Instead of the " strongest basis of scriptural au¬
thority" for infant baptism^ Dr. Bledsoe says there
is not "in the Hew Testament a single express
declaration, or word, in eavor of infant baptism."
(Review, April, p. 834.) He claims to " tread in the
footsteps of Richard Watson!"
Adam Clarke says of the apostles: "And as they
now received a commission to teach and proselyte
all the nations, and baptize them in the name of the
Holy Trinity, they must necessarily understand that
infants were included"." (Com. Matt, xxviii. 19.)
Are we to understand that the apostles received a
commission which so manifestly " included " infants
as that they (the apostles) would "necessarily" so
understand, and yet no command to baptize infants?
Can Dr. B. make sensible people believe that Adam
Clarke was so puerile as not to believe there is a
command for infant baptism ? Surely not.
Mr. Wesley says: " If the apostles baptized in¬
fants, then are they proper subjects of baptism. But
the apostles baptized infants, as is plain from the
And Infant Baptism.
21
following considerations: The Jews constantly bap¬
tized, as well as circumcised, all infant proselytes.
Our Lord, therefore, commanding his apostles to pros¬
elyte, or disciple, all nations by baptizing them, and
not forbidding them to receive infants, as well as
others, they must needs baptize children also."
(Treatise on Baptism, p. 18.)
Thus Mr. "Wesley shows that "the command" to
baptize so manifestly embraces infants that the
"apostles must needs baptize" them. And yet Dr.
Bledsoe would have us believe that Mr. Wesley
agrees with him that there is no command for in¬
fant baptism!
In the same "Treatise," Mr. Wesley declares that
Peter "expressly mentioned" infants in the com¬
mand, " Be baptized." He also finds infant baptism
in the commission, Matt, xxviii. 19. (See his 1STotes
there.)
We might extend this list almost indefinitely, but
we study brevity. The foregoing citations make it
plain that Dr. B. has made his utterances on this
subject either in ignotance of Methodist literature
or in defiance of it. He can explain which is the
true state.
We shall add to these witnesses taken from the
Methodist Church a few selected from other
Churches, in disproof of the absurd assertion that
prominent Pedobaptists do not claim " any express
word of Christ and his apostles" for infant baptism.
We shall abundantly see that Dr. B. has the gratifi¬
cation of standing not with Pedobaptists "of any
note," but only with those whose utterances on this
22
The Southern Review
subject are characterized by Pedobaptists of note as
" loose and unreliable."
BISHOP JEWEL.
No man ever occupied a more conspicuous place
in Church history than Bishop Jewel. In the reign
of Elizabeth his great works were placed by royal
authority in every Church in the kingdom. In his
"Treatise of the Sacraments" (Cambridge edition,
1847, p. 1,104), having shown that infants "are the
heirs of promise," that " the covenant of God's fa¬
vor is made unto them," and having shown that
"the reign of the covenant also changed, and bap¬
tism is instead of circumcision, as St. Paul de-
clareth, and calleth them circumcised which are
baptized," he asks, " May we think that the promise
of God hath an end, so that it reacheth not to our
children? Or, might the children of the Jews re¬
ceive the sign of the covenant, and may not the
children of Christians?" Here, and through sev¬
eral pages following, this great light of the English
Reformation maintains that the same command by
which the former sign of the covenant, circumcision,
was given to infants now demands the giving of
baptism to them.
It is impossible to imagine how anyone could
read Bishop Jewel's pages without seeing that he
claims the most explicit legislation in the New
Testament for infant baptism. Has Dr. B. read his
works? or, will he class him with "Pedobaptists
who are" not "of any note?"
Let it not be overlooked that Bishop Jewel ut-
And Infant Baptism.
23
tered the sentiments, on this subject, of all the great
and good men who cooperated in the English Ref¬
ormation.
DR. WALL.
The author of the exhaustive "History of Infant
Baptism " shows, by the most incontestable evidence,
that the Jews practiced infant baptism before, and
during, our Saviour's appearance on the earth; and
then he says: "How, this gives great light for the bet¬
ter understanding of our Saviour, when he bids his
apostles, 1 Go, and disciple all the nations, and bap¬
tize them.' For when a commission is given in
such short words, and there is no express direction
what they shall do with the infants of those who
become proselytes, the natural and obvious interpre¬
tation is that they must do in that matter as they
and the Church in which they lived always used to
do." (Introduction, vol. i., p. 13.)
Here it is affirmed that the Jewish Church " used "
to baptize infants, and that the command, "Bap¬
tize," contained in "the commission," must be un¬
derstood, as it regards infants, in the light of this
practice; that is, the command must he under¬
stood to refer to infants.
Hot only, therefore, does Br. Wall teach that in¬
fant baptism is commanded in the commission, but
he shows such to have been the faith of all the early
writers "of any note."
He tells us that "Origen, Ambrose, and Austin
do each of them expressly affirm that baptizing in¬
fants was ordered by the apostles, and practiced
in their time. And Clemens Alexandrinus plainly
24
The Southern Review
intimates the same." (Vol. i., p. 640.) Here were
writers, whose works were more voluminous, more
erudite, and exercised a profounder influence upon
the world, than those of any other period of the
Christian era, declaring that infant baptism was
ordered, or commanded, by the apostles. Were
they Pedohaptists "of any note? "
Dr. Wall shows that the same sentiments are set
forth in the writings of Clement, Justin Martyr,
Irenseus, Cyprian, and a host of others.
Many of these venerable writings are in our pos¬
session, and we could, by extracts, abundantly verify
Dr. Wall's statement; but, as we said, we court
brevity.
Instead, therefore, of there being no "Pedobap-
tist of any note" who admits the existence of any
command for infant baptism in the Hew Testament,
the fact is that it never entered into the head of any
writer "of any note" to deny such a thing, except
those blinded by Anti-pedobaptist sophistry. The
great writers on this subject, from the apostles to
the present time, all claim that the commission
as emphatically enjoins infant baptism as it does
adult.
Dr. Bledsoe, who has already distinguished him¬
self as a discoverer in theology, is quite as fortunate
in his historical adventures. We only wonder that,
in his navigation of the sea of history, he never
"discovered" the following explanation of the fact
that some Pedohaptists have denied any scriptural
command, or authority, for infant baptism. Dr.
Wall plainly shows how it is that some writers, sup-
And Infant Baptism.
25
posed to be friendly to this practice, have made such
absurd statements. Hear him: " There is one tenet
of the Anti-pedobaptists in which the Jesuits con¬
cur with them, not only when they are in this dis¬
guise, but also in their late books to which they set
their names—that is, ' that infant baptism' cannot
be proved from Scripture.' The old books of the
papists, and even of some Jesuits, do, as well as the
books of Protestants, prove it by arguments from
Scripture, as Archbishop Laud and Yossius have
largely shown. But the late Jesuits have given a
politic turn to that point of the Romish doctrine,
and say that it can be proved only by the custom
and tradition of the Church. They serve two de¬
signs by this device: one is to puzzle the Protest¬
ants in general, who maintain that the Scripture is
a sufficient rule; the other is to encourage the
Anti-pedobaptists that are among the Protestants
in their opinion and separation. To which purpose
they do, in their books, furnish them with answers
to all the arguments brought from Scripture." (Vol.
i., p. 566.)
Behold where Dr. Bledsoe gets his " concessions "
from " learned Pedobaptists!"
According to Dr. Wall, whose statements are
strictly correct, these admissions are only the cun¬
ning devices of the J esuits in their attempts " to
puzzle Protestants," and to "encourage the Anti-
pedobaptists" to keep up a war among Protest¬
ants.
Alas for that cause which must shelter itself un¬
der the raven-wing of Jesuitical practices!
2
26
The Southebn Review
ursinus,
A distinguished biblical critic, and an eminent
authority, commenting on Matt, xxviii. 19, 20—the
commission—says: " He commanded that all who are
included in the covenant and Church of God should
he baptized, of whatever age, sex, or rank, they may be.
Hor is there any necessity that there should be an
express reference to every age and rank in general
laws and commands: because what is thus enjoined
is binding upon a whole class, and so includes all the
separate parts which are comprehended in it. The
Anabaptists themselves do not exclude women from
the Lord's Supper, and yet they have no express
command, nor example, for this practice in the
Scriptures. We have a general command in rela¬
tion to baptism: for it is said,' Go ye, therefore, and
teach all nations, baptizing them,' etc. This com¬
mands that all who are disciples should he baptized.
But infants are disciples, because they are horn in
the Church, and are taught after their manner.
Peter likewise commands the same thing when he
says, 'The promise is unto you and to your chil¬
dren; therefore he baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ.'" (On Holy Baptism, p. 368.)
Here it is declared, once and again, that infant
baptism was commanded by Christ and his apostles.
"Was TJrsinus a writer " of any note?"
matthew pool
Has few rivals as a great and laborious biblical
scholar. His two great productions—" Synopsis
Criticorum" and "Annotations" — command the
And Infant Baptism.
27
highest respect among scholars. From the latter
work, published in 1683, we quote as follows: "But
it doth not therefore follow that children of such
professors are not to be baptized, for the apostles
were commanded to baptize all nations; children are
a great part of any nation, if not the greatest part,
and although, amongst the Jews, those that were
converted to the Jewish religion were first instructed
in the law of God before they were circumcised, yet
'the fathers being once admitted, the children were
circumcised at eight days old; nor were they under
any covenant different from us, though we be under
a more clear manifestation of the same covenant of
grace, of which circumcision was a sign and seal to
them, as baptism is to us. Infants are capable of
the obligations of baptism, for the obligation ariseth
from the equity of the thing, not from the under¬
standing and capacity of the person; they are also
capable of the same privileges, 'for of such is the
kingdom of God,' as our Saviour hath taught us."
(Anno. Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.)
Here it is expressly taught that infant baptism
was commanded in the commission to baptize all
nations.
BURKITT;
In his excellent "Hotes/'thus comments on Matt,
xxviii. 19, 20: "They [the apostles] are sent to
baptize, in the name of the Holy Trinity, all nations,
of which children are a chief, if not the chiefest,
part."
He claims the commission as a command for in¬
fant baptism. Dr. B., who assumes to represent the
28
The Southern Review
sentiments of learned Pedobaptists " of any note,"
says "it relates exclusively to adults, and to no
others." How strikingly he represents them!
The great and good
MATTHEW HENRY,\
A Non-conformist divine, born Oct. 18, 1662, says
of the commission: "First, they must admit disciples
by the sacred rite of baptism: 'Go into all nations,
preach the gospel to them, work miracles among
them, and persuade them to come in themselves,
and bring their children with them, into the Church
of Christ, and then admit them and theirs into the1
Church, by washing them with water,'" etc. Sup¬
pose he had been of Dr. B.'s opinion that this com¬
mission cannot be extended to infants any more
than to "stocks, and stones, and dumb brutes,"
would he have said that " their instructions for exe¬
cuting this commission" compelled them to receive
"the children" along with their parents "by wash¬
ing them with water?" Verily not.
In his explanation of Matt. xix. 14, Henry says:
"The children of believing parents belong to the
kingdom of heaven, and are members of the visible
Church. Of such, not only of such in disposition
and affection (that might have served for a reason
why doves, or lambs, should be brought to him), but
of such in age, is the kingdom of heaven; to them
pertain the privileges of visible Church-member¬
ship, as among the Jews of old. The promise is to
you, and to your children."
He thus places "little children" where saved
And Infant Baptism.
29
adults stand—in the kingdom of God, and entitled,
by the legislation of the great King, to all "the
privileges" thereof.
DR. WILLIAM L. ALEXANDER,
Professor of Theology to the Congregational
Churches of Scotland, and Examiner in Philosophy
to the University of St. Andrews, in the article
"Baptism," in Kitto's Cyclopedia, says: "There is
abundant evidence to show that the apostles admin¬
istered to the children of converts to Christianity
the same rite, that of baptism, which they admin¬
istered to the converts themselves."
Dr. Bledsoe thinks there is no evidence that the
apostles baptized infants. How rigorously he repre¬
sents Pedobaptists "of any note!"
LANGE
Says of Matt. xix. 14: " Of such is the kingdom
of heaven The Church commonly
applies it to the institution of infant baptism, explain¬
ing it as meaning children which are offered to the
Lord, and come to him."
He finds infant baptism in the commission—the
great command for baptism—and says: " To make
disciples of, involves in general, it is true, the
preaching of the gospel; but it marks preeminently
the moment when the non-Christian is brought to
a full willingness to become a Christian—that is,
has become, through repentance and faith, a cate¬
chumen. This willingness, in the case of the chil¬
dren of Christian parents, is presupposed and implied
in the willingness of the parents," etc.
30
The Southern Review
DEAN ALFORD,
"Whose name is a tower of strength in matters of
biblical criticism, says of the commission, Matt,
xxviii. 19, 20: " It is much to be regretted that the
inadequate rendering, teach, has, in our Bibles,
clouded the meaning of these important words p. e.,
mathateusate and didaskontes]. It will be observed
that in our Lord's words, as in the Church, the proc¬
ess of ordinary discipleship is from baptism to in¬
struction—i. e., is admission in infancy to the covenant,
and growing up into observing all things commanded
by Christ—the exception being, what circumstances
rendered so frequent in the early Church, instruc¬
tion before baptism in the case of adults. On this
we may also remark that baptism, as known to the
Jews, included, just as it does in The Acts (ch. xvi.
15-33), whole households—wives and children."
According to this profound scholar, infant bap¬
tism is found "in our Lord's words," who deter¬
mined "the process of ordinary discipleship" to
be "from baptism to instruction," or, as he explains,
" admission in infancy to the covenant, and grow¬
ing up into observing all things commanded by
Christ."
Dr. Bledsoe perfectly agrees with Alford, with the
slight exception that he does not think that" in our
Lord's words " there is " a single word in favor of
infant baptism."
DR. WHEDON,
Of the M. E. Church, in his excellent "Com¬
mentary on Matt, xxviii. 19," says: "As infants are a
large part of all nations, they are to be discipled by
And Infant Baptism.
31
baptism, and subsequent teaching as soon as sus¬
ceptible of it."
Dr. Bledsoe set out to give us " a more profound
analysis and explanation than usual" of this subject,
and here it is made manifest that, in the historical
part of it, he arrays himself against the standard
writers of every age, while, at the same time, he
claims them for his support.
We could add a score, or more, of good witnesses
to those now adduced, but this would only be to en¬
cumber our pages. Enough have been given to
show that there is not an inch of ground for the
distinguished editor of The Southern Review to stand
upon in his unscriptural positions. Instead, there¬
fore, of citing more authors on this subject, we shall
content ourselves with an exposure of
THE SELF-CONTRADICTIONS
Into which Dr. Bledsoe has fallen, in his vain
attempts to state his dogmas.
When a writer palpably contradicts himself in
fundamental statements, it is folly for him to try to
vindicate himself by an appeal to others. The same
mental aberrations which render it impossible for
him to put forth two writings within three months
of each other that are harmonious, one with the
other, make his representations of the views of
other men wholly unreliable. That Dr. B. has de¬
stroyed his credibility by the most glaring and pal¬
pable contradictions, in the matter of which he was
specifically treating, is placed beyond all doubt by
the following comparison of his statements in
32
The Southern Review
The Southern Review for April, 1874, and that for
July, 1874:
DR. B. AGAINST AUTHORITY IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT FOR INFANT
BAPTISM.
" But yet, with all our search¬
ing, we have been unable to
find, in the New Testament, a
single express declaration, or word,
in favor of infant baptism." (Re¬
view, April, p. 334.)
DR. B. FOR AUTHORITY IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT FOR INFANT
BAPTISM.
" He seems determined to
represent us as finding no sup¬
port in the New Testament for
infant baptism, and that, too,
directly in the face of our most
positive and explicit declarations
to the contrary." (Review, July,
p. 159.)
How can one declare, in one breath, that there is
not " a single express declaration, or word, in the New
Testament in favor of infant baptism," and in the
next say he has made the "most positive and ex¬
plicit declarations" that there is something in favor
of infant baptism in the Hew Testament?
DR. B. DENIES A COMMAND FOR IT. DR. B. ADMITS A COMMAND FOR IT.
" Now, here it is expressly
affirmed that Christ knew his
disciples would understand
him to include infant baptism in
his command to ' baptize alV, and
that he so allowed them to
understand him." (Review,
July, p. 163.)
" There is, therefore, no
express command for infant
baptism found in the New
Testament, as Morus justly
concedes" (quoted, with ap¬
probation, from Knapp, Re¬
view, April, p. 334). "Neither
Watson nor Wesley could find
an express command in support
of infant baptism." (July, 161.)
"We only assert that we
can find no express command
for infant baptism in the New
Testament." (Ibid., p. 167.)
And Infant Baptism.
33
Thus lie wlio again and again declared there is no
"command" in the Hew Testament to baptize in¬
fants finds "infant baptism" so obviously "in¬
cluded " in the " command to baptize all" as to
make it impossible for the disciples not to see it.
It is sheer folly to talk about a party being " in¬
cluded" in a "command," and yet the "command"
not be made with reference to that party.
DR. B. DOES NOT FIND INFANT BAP¬
TISM IN THE COMMISSION.
"Now, no one can, at first
sight, see any command for
infant baptism in these words
[Matt, xxviii. 19, 20]; for they
contain no mention whatever of
infants, or of infant baptism
(Review, July, p. 226.)
"The words (Matt, xxviii.
19, 20) relate exclusively to
adults, and to no others(Ibid.,
227.)
DR. B. DOES FIND INFANT BAPTISM
IN THE COMMISSION.
"Now, here it is expressly
affirmed that Christ knew his
disciples would understand
him to include infant baptism
in his command to 'baptize
all' [the commission], and that
he so allowed them to understand
him." (Review, July, p. 163.)
"But if, in the command to
baptize all, he had wished
children to be excepted, he
must have expressly said this."
(Ibid., 162.)
Here, in one instance, it is explicitly declared that
the commission makes "no mention whatever of
infants," and that it " relates exclusively to adults,
and to no othersand then it is as explicitly declared
that " Christ knew his disciples would understand
him to include infant baptism in his command to
baptize all," though he intended that command " to
relate exclusively to adults, and to no others." It was,
therefore, from every consideration of truth, bind¬
ing on Christ to correct this misapprehension in the
2*
34
The Southern Review
minds of his disciples. But, instead of doing this,
Dr. Bledsoe declares that Christ " so allowed them
to understand him;" that is, he allowed them to
"understand" what he "knew" was not the truth—
namely, that the command to baptize all included
infants, when in truth it "related exclusively to
adults, and to no others."
We have often followed desperate adventurers
through their reckless sophistries, but we never
found an instance before in which sophistry was so
daring as to fix the stigma of duplicity upon the
Son of God.
On page 164, Dr. B. says, "most assuredly, that
he [Christ] meant them to practice infant baptism,
as they did, in consequence of his command to baptize
all, without any express exclusion of infants;" and
yet, 011 page 227, declares that that command did
exclude infants. His words are, as already cited,
"the words of Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, relate exclusively
\i. e., to the exclusion of all others] to adults, and to
no others."
How, how infant baptism would follow as a " con¬
sequence" from a command from which infant bap¬
tism had been excluded may be understood by a
man who undertakes to give "a more profound
analysis and explanation than usual," but we can¬
didly acknowledge it to be beyond our ken.
These are but a few of the self-destroying contra¬
dictions of him who undertakes to say infallibly
what every Pedobaptist writer "of any note" has
said on this subject.
It might be suggested that one who does not
And Infant Baptism.
35
remember his own statements on one page with
sufficient clearness to keep from contradicting them
on the next should be cautiously accepted when
proposing to give what " learned Pedobaptists " of
every age have said. And, again, it might be sug¬
gested that a theory which is so inherently wrong
as to lead necessarily to an allegation of duplicity
against the Saviour of the world cannot be " Meth¬
odist truth."
We are called upon, at this late date in the his¬
tory of Christian enlightenment, to refute, for the
thousandth time, an inveterately vicious
MUNSTERITE LOGIC.
The truth is, a man's logic cannot rise above his
supposed facts any more than a stream can rise above
its source. Let the supposed facts be mutilations
of history and perversions of truth, and the logical
forms which they take on will be equally vicious.
In such a case, all that is necessary to a complete
demolition of the theory built upon such facts is to
apply the principles of logic: under their test,
Munsterite sophistries vanish like mists before the
rising sun.
We have just had an exposure of Dr. B.'s unac-
quaintance with the Pedobaptist writers " of any
note," and how he was accordingly misled in his
attempt to represent their views. We then saw the
terrible contradictions of himself, which he made
upon his own pages, in a deliberate attempt to state
his own opinions on the subject of infant baptism.
"We shall now see that, in his attempts to reason
36
The Southern Review
on this subject, he has verified our statement above
—that as is a man's history, so is his logic.
We take the following instance: In our book on
"Infant Baptism," we say: "We propose to show a
command for infant baptism. Row, to determine to
whom a command extends, it is not necessary to fix,
or determine, the age, or sex, or name, of the party
contemplated. The only thing necessary to be de¬
termined, in order to ascertain whether the com¬
mand extends to this, that, or the other one, is to
determine whether they belong to the class contem¬
plated in the command. For example, in the Lord's
Supper, the command is, ' Do this in remembrance
of me.' Here neither age, sex, nor name, is con¬
templated, but all who ' remember' Christ are in¬
cluded in the command, ' Do this.' Row, it is only
by the recognition of this rule that we can justify
the giving of the Lord's Supper to women. We
shall have occasion to examine this matter more at
length hereafter; let it, therefore, suffice, at this
point, to say that, at the institution of the Lord's
Supper, none but men were present. Ro instance is
on record in which it is stated that a woman par¬
took of the Lord's Supper; and in all statements
with reference to that institution—such as Acts xx.
7; 1 Cor. xi. 28—words are used which definitely
distinguish the male from the female. Upon wThat
authority, then, do we give the Supper to women?
Where is the command? We can only answer, They
are included in the class—namely, of those who ' re¬
member ' Christ, to which class the command, 1 Do
this,' is given. Therefore, they are entitled to the
And Infant Baptism.
37
Lord's Supper, for it is an axiom that' whatsoever
is commanded of a class, may he commanded of
each individual in that class.' We shall apply this
method of proof to infant baptism, thus: In Matt,
xxviii. 19, 20, we are commanded, ' Go ye therefore
and teach (or disciple) all nations, baptizing them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost,' etc. How, the only thing to be
determined is, Do infants belong to the class here
contemplated in the command? The class is, i all
nations.' Are infants any part of that class? If
so, then the command to baptize them is as impera¬
tive as it is to baptize any others that belong to that
class." (Pp. 13, 14.)
We have given the whole of this statement as it
stands in our book, first, because the whole state¬
ment is necessary to a correct representation of
what we had said; second, because Dr. Bledsoe, in
The Review for July (pp. 174,175), pretends to quote
our book, but having given eight lines of the state¬
ment beginning, "We propose to show," etc., he
then skips twenty-three lines, and those lines are, as
we have said, positively necessary to a correct repre¬
sentation of our position. This is invariably the
first step in Anti-pedobaptist logic. Its primordial
law demands that something be left out.
How, to demolish this demonstration that the
commission commands infant baptism, Dr. B. goes
to work; and we have seen the implements of his
craft so often that we know exactly just what Tubal-
Cain forged them. Here it is: "Take this com¬
mand, for example (says Dr. B.), 'Go ye into all the
38
The Southern Review
world, and preach the gospel to every creature
(Mark xvi. 15.) How, here the class is every creat¬
ure; hut stocks, and stones, and dumb brutes are 'a
part of this class.' Shall we, then, in obedience to
Mr. Miller's logic, preach the gospel to stocks, and
stones, and dumb brutes?" Reason and common-
sense forbid. " These compel us, in spite of his
logic, to limit the preaching of the gospel, first, to
human beings, and then to that portion of the class,
thus limited, who are capable of hearing and un¬
derstanding the gospel." (Review, July, p. 176.)
There is the logical progeny, whose face always
hears the parental lineaments. It was not born in
the Monumental City—Baltimore; it first saw the
light in the far-famed city of Munster. It was an
"ill-favored and lean" child from the beginning,
and has never grown an inch since its birth. All
the doctors who have made a diagnosis of its case
have declared that it has the rickets; and we are dis¬
posed to believe that the very feebleness and distress
of the child insured it the welcome it received into
the sanctum of the generous editor of The Southern
Review.
Dr. B. gives this as a serious reply to our argu¬
ment upon the commission. It is sufficient, in
reply, to note, first, that what he thus gravely ad¬
vances against the claim that the commission com¬
mands infant baptism, is explicitly ignored by him
only twelve pages before4 he wrote this. We turn
back to page 163, and hear Dr. B. say of the com¬
mission: "How, here it is expressly affirmed that
Christ knew his disciples would understand him to
And Infant Baptism.
39
include infant baptism in his command to ' baptize
allf and that he so allowed them to understand
him."
Thus in a command in which, according to Br.
B., on page 176, there was no more reference to in¬
fants than to " stocks, and stones, and dumb brutes,"
the disciples, according to Dr. B., on page 163, " un¬
derstood Christ to include infant baptism," and
Christ so far connived at this absurdity as to " allow
them so to understand him." We have all heard
of the unfortunate husbandman who, while deeply
absorbed in trimming his tree, cut off the limb on
which he stood. It was the inevitable result of a
"more profound analysis and explanation than
usual."
In the second place, Dr. B.'s logic in the above
reply to our argument is a palpable violation of the
plainest rules of that science. An authority says of
the "middle term" of a syllogism: "If it be ambig¬
uous,, or possess one meaning in the major premise,
and a different one in the minor, we violate the first
principle in the construction of the syllogism."
This is just what Dr. B. did; he seized upon the
ambiguity of his middle term, "every creature,"
and presented that as an infallible test of truth.
The next instance of his reasoning (?) is like that
just disposed of. He says: "Again, it is written,
' The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the
nations that forget G-od.' (Ps. ix. 17.) ' The class
is,' all nations. Are infants ' any part of that class ?'
Most assuredly they are. Shall we, then, conclude
that all the infants of those nations shall be turned
40
The Southern Review
into hell? How does Mr. Miller like this applica¬
tion of his logic?" [Ibid,.)
"Like" it? Of course we do not "like" it at all.
If we know ourself, we "like" nothing that is self-
evidently wrong; and such is the character of this
" application."
What is the fact ? Simply this: In the text here
presented there is an explicit, definite, and unmis¬
takable limitation which, of necessity, excludes in¬
fants.
Who shall he turned into hell? We answer, Two
classes. 1. "The wicked." Infants are not in
class. 2. Those " that forget God." Infants are not
in that class. Here, therefore, is a limitation, which
necessarily excludes them. Could Dr. B. fail to
see it?
How, does he find any such limitation in the com¬
mission, by which infants are excluded? He him¬
self emphatically declares (p. 163) that they are
"included" in the commission.
Consequently, from the limitation of this text
(Ps. ix. 17), and from Dr. B.'s own declaration, as
above cited, his second example is seen to he wholly
irrelevant.
We need not pursue this line further. The entire
discussion of this subject by Dr. Bledsoe is charac¬
terized by just such fallacious processes as those we
have examined—processes which he has gravely
stated on one page and indignantly rejected on
another.
It is needless for us to say that truth never ap¬
pears in such guise. We might as reasonably expect
And Infant Baptism.
41
to find the chaste and modest maid attired in all the
meretricious trappings of Delilah as to look for
"Methodist truth" in such sophistries.
It remains for ns to show that Dr. Bledsoe is
hopelessly
ANTAGONIZED TO METHODIST LITERATURE,
In all his utterances upon this subject. He has
published to the world that he stands side by side
with "Wesley, Watson, Clarke, and other authorities
in Methodism. It is easy to determine the correct¬
ness of this claim. These men have written their
faith upon the matter under consideration in no
uncertain lines. Dr. B. has written his. Let us
lay them together, and then judge.
W e will not encumber our pages with a verbatim
copy of Dr. B.'s statement of his position here—we
have given that above. We will correctly state
his conclusions, referring to number and page of
The Review, and then place Mr. Wesley's statements
on the same subject beside Dr. B.'s. This will show
whether he can claim Mr. Wesley in support of his
opinions.
In The Review for April (p. 334), Dr. B. says that,
"in the Hew Testament, there is not a single ex¬
press declaration, or word, in favor of infant baptism."
He then quotes, with approbation, Knapp, who de¬
nies that there is any "decisive example of the
practice in the Hew Testament;" and after having
thus announced that there is neither precept nor ex¬
ample for it, he throws himself upon Knapp's supreme
folly, which, strange enough, is called "the most
42
The Southern Review
decisive reason"—namely, the silentium altum, the
deep silence, of Jesus and his apostles on this subject.
The "most decisive reason" that Dr. Bledsoe,
guided by Dr. Knapp, can find for infant baptism is
the fact that the New Testament says not one
"word in favor" of it. This he calls "Methodist
truth."
He says the commission "relates exclusively to
adults, and to no others." (Review, July, p. 227.)
Let us now hear Mr. Wesley on these topics? On
Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, he says: "That infants are
capable of being made proselytes, or disciples, has
been proved; therefore this text, rightly trans¬
lated, is no valid objection against infant baptism."
(" Treatise on Baptism," p. 20.)
Dr. B. says this text is a valid objection against
infant baptism, and rails at us for using it to prove
a command for the practice. He says it "relates
exclusively to adults, and to no others," and labors
to show that it would justify the baptism of " stocks,
and stones, and dumb brutes," as well as infants.
In the same "Treatise," Mr. Wesley says: "Our
Lord, therefore, commanding his apostles to prose¬
lyte, or disciple, all nations by baptizing them, and
not forbidding them to receive infants, as well as
others, they must needs baptize children also."
Why " needs baptize children also ? " Because of
the command to "baptize all nations." Mr. Wesley
saw that a command given with reference to a class
was given with reference to each individual of that
class. Accordingly, he found in the commission a
command for infant baptism.
And Infant Baptism.
43
Dr. B. thinks the commission is " so far from ex¬
pressly commanding infant baptism " that it forms
" one of the chief proof-texts of those jjy whom the
baptism of infants is opposed." (P. 226.)
In his "Notes upon the New Testament," Mr.
"Wesley says: "Disciple all nations—make them my
disciples. This includes the whole design of Christ's
commission. Baptizing and teaching are the two
great branches of that general design. And these
were to he determined by the circumstances of
things; which made it necessary, in baptizing adnlt
Jews or heathens, to teach them before they were
baptized; in discipling their children, to baptize them
before they were taught; as the Jewish children in all
ages were first circumcised, and after taught to do
all God has commanded them."
Thus Mr. Wesley cuts up by the roots the Anti-
pedobaptist objection that the commission requires
teaching always before baptism.
Dr. B., on the contrary, assures the opponent of
infant baptism of his entire correctness in this ab¬
surd claim, telling him that the commission is limited
to those "who are capable of hearing and under¬
standing the gospel." (P. 176.)
In this way he "walks in the footsteps" of Wes¬
ley, teaches " Methodist truth," and makes "a more
profound analysis and explanation than usual."
It may not be unprofitable to lift the curtain just
here, and take a glance at Dr. B.'s method of getting
MR. WESLEY ON HIS SIDE.
Dr. B. says (p. 152): "John-Wesley admits the
44
The Southern Review
same thing—namely, that there is no command in
Scripture for infant baptism. He says: 'It is ob¬
jected, thirdly, " There is no command for it [infant
baptism] in Scripture." How, God was angry with
his people because they did that which he said, I
commanded them not. (Jer. vii. 31.) One plain
text would end 'all the dispute.'•"
Just there Dr. Bledsoe stops on Mr. Wesley's
language. Having set out with the declaration,
"John Wesley admits the same thing—namely, that
there is no command in Scripture for infant bap¬
tism," he confirms the declaration by the extract
just given from Mr. W.'s works. How, to the
novice, this seems conclusive that Mr. Wesley stood
with Dr. Bledsoe in this matter; and to all the op¬
ponents of infant baptism, who may chance to see
Dr. B.'s Review, his language will seem to he unan¬
swerable. In this way the unwary are misled, and
the enemies of truth are rejoiced.
How, reader, prepare yourself for a shock that
will well-nigh stagger your faith. Truth demands
that we make the disclosure. Dr. B., in the quota¬
tion he made from Mr. Wesley's works above, sim¬
ply gave the language which Mr. Wesley puts in the
mouth of the opponent of infant baptism as an objection,
which objection Mr. Wesley proceeds to refute.
Dr. B. thus takes the Anti-pedobaptist's objection,
as given by Mr. Wesley, omits entirely Mr. Wesley's
reply to it, and then exultantly exclaims: "Mr.
Wesley does not pretend that there is any command
for infant baptism in Scripture!" In this way he
gets Mr. Wesley on his side.
And Infant Baptism.
45
How, let us turn to Mr. Wesley's "Treatise on
Baptism," from which Dr. B. quotes, and see how
the case stands.
"Within less than one dozen lines from the sentence
from which Dr. B. copied the above, and, conse¬
quently, lying immediately under his eye, is this
clear and masterly statement by " John Wesley" L
am, in the last place, to answer those objections
which are commonly brought against infant bap¬
tism. 1. The chief of these is [mark what Mr. W.
regarded the chief of these objections], 'Our Lord
said to his apostles, " Go and teach all nations, bap¬
tizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost." (Matt, xxviii. 19.) Here Christ
himself put teaching before baptism; therefore, in¬
fants, being incapable of being taught, are incapable
of being baptized.' I answer (1) [says Mr. W.],
The order of words in Scripture is no certain rule
for the order of things. We read in St. Mark i. 4,
'John baptized in the wilderness, and preached the
baptism of repentanceand, verse 5, ' They were
baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.'
How, either the order of words in Scripture does
not always imply the same order of things, or it
follows that John baptized before his hearers either
confessed or repented. But (2) the words [Matt,
xxviii. 19] are manifestly mistranslated; for if we
read, 'Go and teach all nations, baptizing them—
teaching them to observe all things,' it makes plain
tautology, vain and senseless repetition. It ought
to be translated (which is the literal meaning of the
words), 'Go and make disciples of all nations, by
46
The Southern Review
baptizing them.' That infants are capable of being
made proselytes, or disciples, has been already
proved; therefore, this text, rightly translated, is
no valid objection against infant baptism."
Here is an unanswerable refutation of the process
by which the Anti-pedobaptist tries to turn the
commission against infant baptism. In it Mr.Wes¬
ley shows that the baptism of infants was as much,
and as necessarily, contemplated as the baptism of
adults. Consequently, if the commission commanded
the baptism of anyone, it commanded the baptism
of infants.
All this Dr. B. skipped; took up what Mr.Wesley
himself did not regard as the Anti-pedobaptist's
"chief" objection; gave only Mr. Wesley's state¬
ment of his opponent's objection; left out Mr.
Wesley's reply, and exultantly shouted, "John
Wesley admits the same thing—namely, that there
is no command in Scripture for infant baptism!"
We submit whether the man who can do such a
thing should spend his life in reviewing and criticis¬
ing his neighbors.
Again, only a few lines back of those we have
just quoted, and which lay under Dr. B.'s eye, Mr.
Wesley, commenting on Acts ii. 38, 39—"For the
promise is to you, and to your children"—says:
"Indeed, the answer is made directly to fhose who
asked, 'What shall we do?' But it reaches further
than to those who asked the question; and though
children could not actually repent, yet they might
be baptized. And that they are included appears,
(1) Because the apostle addresses to 'every one' of
And Infant Baptism.
47
them, and in ' every one' children must he contained.
(2) They are expressly mentioned : ' The promise is
to you, and to your children.'"
Here, in the command to baptize penitent adults,
Mr. Wesley sees an equal command to baptize their
children; and he declares that they are expressly
mentioned.
I)r. B., however, leaves all this out of sight, and
simply announces that "John Wesley" expressly
admits that there is no command, or injunction, to
baptize infants. Just what the mental process, or
the moral condition, involved in such a transaction
is, we will not undertake to say. We do think,
however, that there is a slight discrepancy between
Mr. Wesley and Br. Bledsoe.
Let us, however, proceed with the business of
determining how far
DR. B. DOES NOT AGREE WITH MR. WESLEY.
In The Southern Review for April, he had said, p.
334: " But yet, with all our searching, we have been
unable to find, in the Hew Testament, a single ex¬
press declaration, or word, in favor of infant baptism.
We justify the rite, therefore, solely on the ground
of logical inference, and not on any express word
of Christ or his apostles."
Then, when we assailed this as contrary to the
teaching of the Methodist Church, Br. B. set to
work to show that "John Wesley" taught the same
thing; and, in the only work of Mr. Wesley that he
appealed to, Mr. Wesley told him in the plainest
language possible that the "Apostle" Peter "ex-
48
The Southern Review
pressly"—(using the very word, expressly, which Dr.
B. used)—" expressly mentioned" children in the com¬
mand, " Be baptized," on the day of Pentecost. All
this is nothing to Dr. Bledsoe. " He leaps over this
wall," "runs through this troop," and then, looking
hack upon the wonderful feat, complacently says,
"John "Wesley expressly admits," etc.
Once more. In The Southern Review for April, p.
3-36, Dr. B. said: "Before the time of Tertullian
(A.D. 200), the practice of infant hapti'sm is nowhere
distinctly mentioned by any writer of the Church."
But a little before that he had, approvingly, quoted
from Wiggers: " Having been developed and formed,
it was, for all Christendom, established by the Third
General Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431." Then fol¬
lows his declaration that, " with all our searching,
we have been unable to find, in the Hew Testament,
a single express declaration, or word, in favor of
infant baptism." Of course, then, the first " word
in favor" of it which he finds is after "the time of
Tertullian, A.D. 200."
We do not wish to pause long on the absurd state¬
ment that infant baptism was " established by the
Third General Council of Ephesus," for " all Chris¬
tendom," in A.D. 431. We only glance at it as an
additional evidence of Dr. B.'s utter unreliability in
matters of this kind.
The Abbe Lenglet Dufresnoy, one of the highest
authorities extant, in his account of the "Third
General Council of Ephesus," does not mention in¬
fant baptism in connection with it. The great
Mosheim is as silent as the grave, in his account of
And Infant Baptism.
49
that council, about its having " established " infant
baptism. The same is true of all the Church-his¬
torians that we have examined. For example:
Theodoret, who took part in the Kestorian con¬
troversy, which was the immediate cause of the
calling of that council, and who gave a history of
his own times, makes no mention of such a thing.
Socrates, whose history extends from the year
A.D. 309 to 445, and Sozomen, whose history ex¬
tends from A.D. 323 to 439, make no mention whaD
ever of infant baptism being established by the
" Third General Council of Ephesus," notwithstand¬
ing their histories embrace the period of that coun¬
cil. Socrates gives a pretty full account of the
council, in Book VII., chap, xxxiv., which shows
that the council was mainly occupied with the
heresy of Nestorius. When it pronounced sentence
against hfestorius, Socrates says: "Such was the
conclusion of this synod, which was dissolved on
the 28th of June, under the consulate of Bassus
and Antiochus." Surely he would not have pre¬
sented the heresy of Hestorius as the all-absorbing
theme of the council, and informed us that it ad¬
journed as soon as that business was disposed of, if
so important a matter as " establishing infant bap¬
tism for all Christendom" had been before it.
Thus the men who were, almost all of them, con¬
temporary with the " Third General Council of
Ephesus," and who wrote the history of the Church
in that period, make no mention of Dr. B.'s discov¬
ery that that council "established" infant baptism
" for all Christendom."
3
50
The Southern Review
Bingham, than whom the Church has never pro¬
duced a more learned and accurate historian, so far
from supposing that the " Third General Council of
Ephesus, A.D. 431," established infant baptism,says:
"It is sufficient to my design, against Salmasius and
Suicerus [and he might have added, Dr. Bledsoe], to
have proved that infant baptism was not owing to
any new doctrine begun in the third century, but
was derived from more ancient principles, and
handed down through the two first ages from apos¬
tolical practice." ("Antiquities," Book XI., chap,
iv., sec. 12.)
We have made this digression only to show the
reader that Dr. B., who holds himself forth as an
expounder of Pedobaptist views, suffers himself to
he led away by the statement of an obscure and
irresponsible author, to take positions which are at
war with all reliable Church-history. "We shall
show enough of this after awhile to create a little sus¬
picion of his infallibility.
Let us now recur to the quotation from The Re¬
view for April. When we denied the truth of this
statement, and said it was a surrender of Method¬
ism, Dr. B. fled to the sheltering wing of "John
Wesley." He took Mr. Wesley's " Treatise on Bap¬
tism" for his vindication, and right along where he
read, and from the immediate vicinity from which
he quoted, lay these words: " Lastly. If to baptize
infants has been the general practice of the Christian
Church in all places, and in all ages, then this must
have been the practice of the apostles, and, conse¬
quently, the mind of Christ. But to baptize infants
And Infant Baptism.
51
lias been the general practice of the Christian
Church in all places and in all ages. Of this we
have unexceptionable witnesses: St. Austin for the
Latin Church, who flourished before the year 400
[and, consequently, before the ' Third General Coun¬
cil of Ephesus, A.D. 431,' which Dr. B. says estab¬
lished infant baptism], and Origen for the Greek
Church, born in the second century; both declaring
not only that the whole Church of Christ did then
baptize infants, but likewise that they received this
practice from the apostles themselves."
How does that harmonize with Dr. B.'s assertion
that "before the time of Tertullian, A.D. 200, the
practice of infant baptism is nowhere distinctly
mentioned by any writer of the Church;" and that
the " Third General Council of Ephesus established"
it "A.D. 431;" and that there is not "a single ex¬
press declaration, or word, in favor of infant bap¬
tism in the Hew Testament?" How he could take
such opinions as these to Mr. Wesley for support is
very difficult to see; but after he had gone to Mr.
Wesley, and read from him what we have just cited,
how he could then tell his readers that " John Wes-
ley and his followers" (p. 154) sustain him is more
than we can conceive. It may be that we are such
"a pig-headed Pedobaptist" as to be unable to com¬
prehend those higher methods by which the distin¬
guished editor of The Southern Review forms his
demonstrations; but as he started out with the gen¬
erous purpose of teaching us " more Methodist truth
on the subject of infant baptism than ever before
entered his [our] imagination," we claim that his
52
The Southern Review
process should have been accommodated to our
swinish condition.
We could occupy many pages in citing proofs
from Mr. Wesley's writings, showing that Dr. B. is
hopelessly antagonized to him in every statement,
sentiment, and criticism on the subject of infant
baptism. We deem the foregoing, however, suf¬
ficient. We will now show that
HE IS OPPOSED BY RICHARD WATSON
As directly as by Mr. Wesley. Dr. Bledsoe says,
with an air of confidence that is eminently char¬
acteristic : "We are happy to find that we have only
trod in the footsteps of Richard Watson. The only
authority adduced by Mr. Miller to crush, really con¬
firms, our position." (P. 153.)
We are perfectly satisfied that greater injustice
was never done to the works of a great and good
man than when Dr. B. proclaimed that the "In¬
stitutes" of Richard Watson "confirms our [his]
position."
What is Dr. B.'s "position?" Let us reexamine
that, and then compare the "Institutes" with it.
Here it is: "But yet, with all our searching, we
have been unable to find, in the Hew Testament, a
single express declaration, or word, in favor of infant
baptism." {Review for April, p. 334.) Again: "There
is no decisive example of this practice in the Hew
Testament; for it may be objected against those
passages where the baptism of whole families is
mentioned—viz., Acts x. 42-48; xvi. 15-33; 1 Cor.
i. 16—that it is doubtful whether there were any
And Infant Baptism.
53
children in those families, and if there were, whether
they were then-baptized." (Ibid.)
Here, then, is Dr. B.'s position. Like any other
Anti-pedobaptist, he finds nothing " in favor of in¬
fant baptism" in the Hew Testament, either in any
"word" of Christ or any practice of the apostles.
His must be a singular logic, indeed, which satisfies
his conscience when he baptizes an infant " in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost," in the absence of " one word in favor
of it" from the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost, or an
example in apostolical practice.
"Was this Richard Watson's "position?" We
turn to his great work, "Theological Institutes,"
and, opening at page 628, read: "If, then, baptism
be not the initiatory sign and seal of the same cov¬
enant in its new and perfect form, as circumcision
was of the old, this new covenant has no such in¬
itiatory rite, or sacrament, at all; since the Lord's
Supper is not initiatory, but, like the sacrifices of
old, is of regular and habitual observance. Several
passages of Scripture, and the very nature of the
ordinance of baptism, will, however, show that bap¬
tism is to the new covenant what circumcision was
to the old, and took its place by the appointment of
Christ." Then follow the passages which show
this.
This is the key to Mr. Watson's "position," which
we will give a summary of, as we could not be ex¬
pected to transcribe his elaborate statement. He
maintains that the covenant made with Abraham
is the universal covenant of grace; that it was never
54
The Southern Review
altered or abolished; that its sign and seal, nnder
the Mosaic economy,was circumcision; that, at the
end of that economy, circumcision was displaced by
baptism "by the appointment of Christ." Hence
so far is infant baptism from being without either
"a word in its favor," or "a command" to adminis¬
ter it, the command which had been given for the
admission of infants into the Church by circum¬
cision stands unrepealed and unmodified. This
grand truth he elaborates, until there is not an inch
of ground left for the opponent of infant baptism
to stand upon.
On page 630, he says: " From what has been said,
it will then follow that the Abrahamic covenant and
the Christian covenant is the same gracious engage¬
ment on the part of God to show mercy to man,
and to bestow upon him eternal life, through faith
in Christ as the true sacrifice for sin, differing only
in circumstances; and that as the sign and seal of
this covenant under the old dispensation was cir¬
cumcision, under the new it is baptism, which has
the same federal character, performs the same initiatory
office, and is instituted by the same authority."
Let Dr. Bledsoe ask himself this question: Did
Mr. Watson believe that the circumcision of infants
was commanded? Of course he will say, "He did."
"Well, then, do you think he believed that to be
without "one express declaration, or word, in" its
"favor" which, "by the appointment of Christ," took
the place of circumcision, and now performs "the
same initiatory office " that circumcision performed?
In a word, Dr. Bledsoe would put Mr. "Watson in
And Infant Baptism.
55
the absurd attitude of acknowledging that the cir¬
cumcision of infants was expressly commanded, but
baptism, which has, " by the appointment of Christ,"
taken its place, and performs the same initiatory
office that circumcision performed, has not one word
in favor of it in the Hew Testament.
But we turn again to the " Institutes." On page
628, Mr. Watson appeals to the commission, Matt,
xxviii. J9, 20, to show that baptism takes the place
of circumcision, and that it should accordingly be
administered to infants. He sees infant baptism,
therefore, in the commission, because the commis¬
sion puts baptism in the room of circumcision. But,
Br. Bledsoe says, the commission "relates exclu¬
sively to adults, and to no others." (P. 227.) How
" happy " he must be to find how admirably he " trod
in the footsteps of Hi chard "Watson!"
After Mr. Watson has completed his elaborate
development of the subject of infant baptism as
authorized by the covenant of life, and its appointed
"sign and seal," he turns directly to its Hew Testa¬
ment supports, and says: "In favor of infant bap¬
tism the following arguments may be adduced.
Some of them are more direct than others; but the
reader will judge whether, taken all together, they
do not establish this practice of the Church, con¬
tinued to us from the earliest ages, upon the strongest
basis of scriptural authority."
How, it appears to us that if Mr. Watson had
had Br. B.'s "History of Infant Baptism" before
him, and had taken it up, item by item, to refute it,
he could not have traversed its positions more per-
56
The Southern Review
fectly than he did when he wrote this sentence.
Take a few of its items: Dr. B. says there is not a
word " in favor" of infant baptism in the New Testa¬
ment. (P. 334, April No.) Mr. Watson says: "In
favor of infant baptism" the following facts are
presented in the New Testament, and arrays text
after text, and instance after instance. Dr. B. can¬
not trace ihfant baptism in any literature of the
Church "before the time of Tertullian, A.D. 200."
Mr. Watson brings it "from the earliest ages." Dr.
B. says: " With all our searching, we have been
unable to find, in the New Testament, a single ex¬
press declaration, or word, in favor of infant bap¬
tism." Accordingly, " the most decisive reason " he
can find for it is the fact that Christ said nothing
about it. Mr. Watson says it is "established," not
inferred, "upon the strongest basis of scriptural
authority." Dr. B. denies that the "apostles" ut¬
tered a "word in favor" of infant baptism. (P.
334.) Mr. Watson says, page 634: " How could the
Jews have understood the words of Peter at the
Pentecost but as calling both upon them and their
children to be baptized—' Repent and be baptized, for
the promise is unto you and to your children.' For
that both are included," etc. Dr. Bledsoe says:
"There is no decisive example of this practice in
the New Testament; for it may be objected against
those passages where the baptism of whole families
is mentioned—viz., Acts x.; xvi.; 1 Cor. i.—that it
is doubtful whether there were any children in those
families, and, if there were, whether they were then
baptized." (P. 334.) Mr. Watson says, page 638,
And Infant Baptism.
57
"That the majority of these houses must have
included infant children is therefore certain, and
it follows that the apostles practiced infant bap¬
tism."
Behold how "happy" Br. Bledsoe is in "tread¬
ing in the footsteps of Richard Watson!"
Dr. B. says: "Before the time of Tertullian, A.D.
200, the practice of infant baptism is nowhere dis¬
tinctly mentioned by any writer of the Church."
He denies that Justin Martyr said any thing about
infant baptism, declaring that "Justin Martyr of¬
fered no such ridiculous plea" as that in which it is
claimed he speaks of this thing. He denies that
Ireneeus says any thing about infant baptism, and
asserts that the interpretation of his words by those
who believe he did is an "assumption purely gratu¬
itous ; it is not proved, and, besides, it is false." (P. 338.)
Mr. Watson says: "On the contrary, Justin Martyr
and Irenseus, in the second century, and Origen, in
the beginning of the third, expressly mention infant
baptism as the practice of their times, and by the
latter this is assigned to apostolical injunction."
(P. 641.) Mr. Watson says the "practice can be
traced up to the very first periods of the Church."
Yet Dr. Bledsoe, who treads "in the footsteps of
Richard W atson," finds no writer who makes men¬
tion of it "before the time of Tertullian, A.D.
200."
These are but a few of the fundamental points
in this subject upon which Mr. Watson denies
and annihilates every "position" that Dr. Bledsoe
takes; and yet the great editor of The Southern
58
The Southern Review
Review treads "in the footsteps of Richard "Wat¬
son."
We will also show that
HE IS OPPOSED BY ADAM CLARKE,
The great scholar and commentator. Dr. Bledsoe
asserts that "Adam Clarke uses precisely the same
argument as Knapp and The Southern Review." (July
Ho., p. 165.)
We desire the reader to hear in mind, all the way
through this investigation, that we are showing that
Dr. B. has arrayed himself against all the authorities
of the Methodist Church—the very works which
have been put in the " course of study " for our young
men in the ministry are thus traversed by him, and
the attempt is thus made, through the columns of
a periodical which the Methodist Church warmed
into life, to pervert her faith at her very altars.
Dr. B. says: "Adam Clarke .... uses pre¬
cisely the same argument as Knapp and The South¬
ern Review." Again: "Hence if every one is to he
discredited and denounced because he does not agree
with Methodist teachings, then, in the name of
truth and justice, let Mr. Miller he discredited and
denounced; for, in regard to such teachings, he is
at war with Wesley, and Watson, and Clarke, and
McClintock, and Hast, and others, while we do'most
perfectly agree with them." (P. 166.)
We leave the reader to judge, from what he has
already seen, how "perfectly" Dr. B. "agrees" with
"Wesley" and "Watson." We now examine his
" perfect" agreement with "Adam Clarke."
And Infant Baptism.
59
Dr. Bledsoe says of Matt, xxviii. 19 (the commis¬
sion), in attempting to show that it does not au¬
thorize infant baptism: "For if so, then [he says]
we have no authority whatever for administering
baptism to infants, since Matt, xxviii. 19 does not say
one word about infants, and cannot be extended to in¬
fants, unless we look beyond the words themselves
for our authority to do so." (P. 176.) Here he
emphatically denies that the commission has any
thing whatever to do with infants. Again, on page
226, he says: "How, no one can, at first sight, see
any command for infant baptism in these words;
for they contain no mention whatever of infants, or
of infant baptism. These words are [he continues],
in fact, so far from expressly commanding infant
baptism that they form one of the chief proof-texts
of those by whom the baptism of infants is op¬
posed."
Thus he incontinently hands over to the Anti-pe-
dobaptists the scripture to which every Methodist
authority in existence appeals in proof of the
Church's practice; and then he coolly informs us
that "Adam Clarke perfectly agrees" with him.
We now take up "Clarke's Commentary," and
turning directly to Matt, xxviii. 19, read as follows:
"The apostles knew well that the Jews not only
circumcised the children of proselytes, but also bap¬
tized them; and as they now received a commission
to teach and proselyte all the nations, and baptize
them in the name of the Holy Trinity, they must
necessarily understand that infants were included."
Mark the fact that Dr. Clarke says " infants were
60
The Southern Review
included." "Included" in what? Why, in the
commission which commanded the apostles to "bap¬
tize." Did ever any other man conceive of a party
being included in a command, and yet the command
not be given with reference to that party? Dr.
Bledsoe has added to his other laurels this addi¬
tional discovery. He says the commission "does
not say one word about infants, and cannot be ex¬
tended to infants," in proof of which he refers us
to "Adam Clarke." "Adam Clarke" says "infants
were included" in the commission, and that the
apostles "must necessarily understand" that such is
the case, and, accordingly, baptize them. Upon
such ground as this Dr. B. boldly declares that he
" perfectly agrees with " Adam Clarke.
Dr. Bledsoe has repeatedly declared that there is
not one Pedobaptist writer of any note who believes
there is any command in the Hew Testament for
infant baptism. It occurs to us at this moment to
call his attention to the words of that great man
whom we have just quoted—Dr. Clarke. In com¬
menting upon the commission which commanded
the apostles to " baptize in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," he says it
" included" infants. So say all Methodist writers
"of any note."
Let us now, by a simple illustration, show the
absurdity of Dr. B.'s assertion that these writers do
not pretend to find any command for infant baptism.
A shepherd says to his servant, "John, go and
gather into the fold all the flock." John, following
the leadings of Dr. Bledsoe's logic, goes and puts
And Infant Baptism.
61
into the fold the old sheep, and leaves the lambs
outside. The shepherd says, " John, why did you
not put the lambs into the fold also?" "Ah," re¬
plies John, " your command does not say one word
about lambs, and cannot be extended to them, unless
we look beyond the words themselves for authority
to do so." The shepherd replies, " But, John, lambs
are included in the command to gather into the
fold all the flock." Think you that John would
fail after that to see a command for the lambs?
Verily not. Well, this is the well-defined position
of all the standard writers in Methodism upon this
subject. They all say, "Infant baptism is included
in the commission," and is necessarily enjoined by
the same command that enjoins the baptism of any¬
body else.
Dr. Summers, in his admirable " Treatise on Bap¬
tism," speaking of the household baptisms of the
Hew Testament, says: " This was the apostolic rule,
as it is that of modern missionaries among the
heathen. The apostles would very naturally so con¬
strue the Saviour's command, ' Go ye therefore and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'
(Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.) Suppose a similar command
had been given in reference to the Jewish religion,
how would it have been understood? Teach all
nations—or, rather, matheteusate, proselyte, make
disciples of all nations, circumcising them and in¬
structing them in the Hebrew faith. Would the
rite have been restricted to adults, on the ground
that children are not specified?" (P. 33.)
4
62
The Southern Review
That is in perfect harmony with "Wesley, "Watson,
Clarke, and all other reliable expounders of the
Bible, as Methodists understand it. Dr. Summers
here shows that the command to baptize infants is
as manifestly in the commission as circumcision
would have been under the circumstances he sup¬
poses. Of course, under such circumstances, the
command to circumcise would have applied explic¬
itly to infants.
But let us see a little further how "perfectly" Dr.
Bledsoe " agrees with Adam Clarke." Dr. B., in¬
dorsing Knapp, with whom, he asserts, Clarke
agrees, says: "There is no decisive example of this
practice in the Kew Testament; for it may be ob¬
jected against those passages where the baptism of
whole families is mentioned—viz., Acts x.; xvi.; 1
Cor. i.—that it is doubtful whether there were any
children in those families, and, if there were, whether
they were then baptized." (P. 334.)
Dr. Clarke, commenting on Acts x. 32—one of
the texts cited by Dr. B. and Knapp—says, " That
children were also received into the Church in this
way p. e., by baptism]; for we can scarcely suppose
that the whole families of Lydia and the jailer had
no children in them; and, if they had, it is not
likely that they should be omitted, for the Jewish
practice was invariably to receive the heathen chil¬
dren with their proselyted parents." Behold how
"perfectly" Dr. B. "agrees" with "Adam Clarke!"
The truth is, there is not one fundamental point of
exegesis, or history, in the question of infant bap¬
tism in which Dr. B. and his friend Knapp agree
And Infant Baptism.
63
with "Adam Clarke." How he could, therefore,
unqualifiedly assert that he does "most perfectly
agree with" Clarke we are utterly at a loss to con¬
ceive.
HE OPPOSES ALL THE CRITICISMS OF METHODIST
LITERATURE.
Hot only is Dr. B. hopelessly antagonized to
"Wesley, Watson, Clarke, and other authorities in
Methodism, in reference to elaborate statements of
his opinion, but he is equally so in all the points of
criticism by which the Church has been wont to
defend her faith and practice. We will give a
few samples. The passage, Matt. xix. 14, " Suffer
little children to come unto me, and forbid them
not: for of such is the kingdom of heaven," has al¬
ways been held by Methodist writers " of any note "
to be an important evidence in our favor. The ex¬
pression " of such," they claim, means not such as
are like children simply, but children themselves;
and that, consequently, when Jesus said, "Of such
is the kingdom of heaven," he proclaimed infants
to be "citizens of the commonwealth of Israel."
Dr. Bledsoe says the phrase, "of such," means "as
children" (p. 234) ; and that the expression does not
mean " children at all." A glance will show how
beautifully he harmonizes with Methodist literature
in this—e. g., Mr. Wesley: " Of such is the kingdom
of heaven—little children, either in a natural or
spiritual sense," etc. ("Hotes.") Watson: "Of
such is the kingdom of God. The first evasive
criticism of the Baptist writers is that the phrase,
64
The Southern Review
'of such,' means of such like—that is, of adults—
being of a child-like disposition: a criticism which
takes away all meaning from the words of our Lord."
(Ins., p. 636.) Dr. Clarke : " Of such is the kingdom
of heaven, or, the kingdom is composed of such."
Dr. Summers : " ' For of such.' . . It must here
have its usual meaning. Our Lord thus ratifies the
claims of children to membership in the Church."
Thus it is seen that Dr. B. arrays himself against
the very works which our Bishops place in the
" Course of Study " for young men in the ministry.
We have seen frequently, in the course of these
investigations, that Dr. B. ignores the " household
baptisms " in the practice of the apostles as furnish¬
ing any evidence of infant baptism. Let us take
the voice of the writers in the Methodist Church on
that point, and see if they sustain him.
Mr. Wesley, on Acts xvi. 15 : "Who can believe
that in so many families there was no infant?" Mr.
Watson (on the same text): " From this house no
one has the least authority to exclude children, even
young children, since there is nothing in the history
to warrant the above-mentioned conjectures, and the
word is in Scripture used expressly to include them."
(Ins., p. 639.) Dr. Summers, commenting on the
baptism of Lydia and her family, says: '■'■And her
household—Hot oikia, 'household,' including depend¬
ents ; hut oikos, ' house,' ' family.' So Wesley, who
says,' Who can believe that in so many families there
was no infant? or that the Jews, who were so long
accustomed to circumcise their children, would not
devote them to God by baptism ?' Family baptisms
And Infant Baptism.
65
are mentioned in Acts x. 44-68; xvi. 15, 30-83;
xviii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 14; cf xvi. 15. Families mean
children, and it is very bold to say that none of them
were young children* baptized on the faith of their
parents. It is more probable that nearly all of them
were snch, because, if they were old enough to act
for themselves, it is likely that some of them would
have refused thus to profess faith in Jesus. In this
case Lydia is said to believe, hut nothing is said of
the faith of her family; hut they are spoken of as
baptized because she was. It was so with prose¬
lytes to Judaism—it is so with converts to Chris¬
tianity from heathenism at the present day: they
naturally offer their families to the Lord in this or¬
dinance, unless they are taught not to do so."
Here, again, he makes war upon every criticism
upon which our Church relies for the support of her
faith and practice.
Once more. Dr. B. emphatically denies that Jus¬
tin Martyr and Irenseus speak of infant baptism,
(jReview for April, p. 337.) He says that to say
Irenseus speaks of it is an " assumption, purely
gratuitous; it is not proved; and, besides, it is false."
(How like the Doctor that last phrase is!) He con¬
tinues : " Tertullian is the first writer in the Church
who makes any express mention of the custom of in¬
fant baptism. Before his time, A.D. 200, there is
not an allusion to the custom from which its exist¬
ence may be fairly inferred." (P. 339.)
How, behold, how perfectly he treads in " the foot¬
steps " of our standards.
Mr. Wesley: " But to baptize infants has been the
4*
66
The Southern Review
general practice of the Christian Church, in all places
and in all ages. Of this we have unexceptionable wit¬
nesses." (" Treatise.") Was that " before " the time of
Tertullian ?—" in all ages!" And to this fact Mr.
"Wesley says there are " unexceptionable witnesses."
Mr. Watson: " On the contrary, Justin Martyr and
Irenseus, in the second century, . . . expressly
mention infant baptism as the practice of their
times." (Ins., p. 640.)
Dr. Summers: "The Fathers claimed apostolical
authority for the baptism of infants, and baptized
them accordingly." He then gives, as evidence,
"Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after
the death of St. John," and "Irenseus, Bishop of
Lyons, and disciple of Polycarp, who was intimately
acquainted with St. John." (Bap., p. 34.)
But why should we pursue the matter further ?
We have already shown that in his " History of In¬
fant Baptism " Dr. Bledsoe abandoned to the enemy
every stronghold of our Church on the subject of
baptizing children; and when we called his atten¬
tion to it, he flew into a passion, called us ugly
names, and declared that all the great authorities
in the Church " perfectly agree with" him. We
have now shown, by a faithful comparison, how far
below the facts in the case he falls in this ground¬
less claim. Hay, we have abundantly proved that
Dr. Bledsoe has suppressed, in his effort to extort a
little sympathy from Wesley, Watson, etc., their di¬
rect contradiction of his opinions in more instances
than one. As we look hack along the line we have
thus led Dr. B., and contemplate his sad wwacquaint-
And Infant Baptism.
67
ance with Methodist literature, we smile at the fol¬
lowing tremendous explosion: " For it is high time,"
exclaims the Doctor, " in the good providence of God,
that the sophistical trash of Mr. Miller should he
swept away, and the unanswerable arguments of
Wesley and Watson restored to their rightful place
in the theological literature of Methodism." Ah!
how grandly the editor of The Southern Review rises
before the gaze of the Methodist world as that great
Restorer!
From this comparison of Methodist literature
with the utterances of Dr. Bledsoe we turn to a
more unpleasant duty. Sad, indeed, is the expose
now made. It remains, however, to be seen that
when he cannot find support in the authors to
whom he appeals,
HE MUTILATES THEIR WRITINGS.
We will substantiate that allegation. There are
those who, unless informed to the contrary, will ac¬
cept his representations of the sentiments of great
writers on this subject as truth, and thereby be mis¬
led. Now, as we have nearly all the books that Dr.
B. has adduced on his side, and have ascertained, by
a careful examination of them, that he has said for
them what their authors never said in them, we rec¬
ognize it as a simple duty to make that'fact known.
We feel this duty to be the more imperative because
of the common practice of Anti-pedobaptists in mis¬
representing authors on this subject. It seems to
be a sort of disease with them. Booth, the volu¬
minous Baptist writer, is charged by Edwards with
68
The Southern Review
having " abused eighty " authors in the attempt to
get great names on his side. And so, from the
greatest to the least of them, this outrageous prac¬
tice prevails. Dr. Bledsoe has given a new zest and
impulse to this business. Already his splendid efforts
are bearing fruit. Baptist and Campbellite papers
are fattening upon the " concessions " of Pedobap-
tists as shown up by the editor of The Southern Re¬
view. It is to counteract this pernicious work that
we assume the unpleasant task of showing how
hurtfully he has handled books.
And, in the first place, we complain of Dr. B.
that he exalted into great importance, as one of his
" learned Pedobaptists " who cannot find " a word "
in the New Testament " in favor of infant baptism,"
a writer whom some of the best authorities in Meth¬
odist literature condemn. The reader has only to
turn to page 335 of The Review for April, and page
167 for July, to see the effort of Dr. B. to make Ne-
ander a great authority on the subject of infant bap¬
tism. He pours all his vials upon our head for dar¬
ing to suggest thatNeander is not as accurate on this
subject as Wesley and Watson. Now, while we ap¬
preciate Neander's erudition in many departments
of learning, still we do not hesitate to say that he is
puerile, silly, and false, in his entire treatment of
infant baptism. " McClintock and Strong's Cyclo¬
pedia," a work of acknowledged merit, in the article
" Baptism," characterize Neander's statements on this
subject as " loose admissions." Dr. B. takes, in pref¬
erence to "Wesley, Watson, Clarke, Summers, etc.,
as a " learned Pedobaptist" and expounder of Meth-
And Infant Baptism.
69
odist theology, a man whose utterances upon the very
matter whereof he is quoted as an authority are de¬
nounced by a high Methodist tribunal as " loose ad¬
missions." Was that fidelity to the cause in the de¬
fense of which he had pledged his Review f
In the second place, we complain of Br. B. that he
suppresses all those sentences in the authors he
quotes which contradict his opinions, and which are
absolutely necessary to a correct understanding of
their position on this subject. In so doing, he has
totally misrepresented them. In proof of this, we
begin with
M' CLIN TO CK.
Br. B. quotes, and triumphantly announces, him
as on his side. Here is the quotation from McClin-
tock, just as it stands at page 165 of The Southern
Review for July: " But although there are no express
examples of Christ and his apostles baptizing infants,
there is no proof that they were excluded
Besides, if children were not to be baptized, it is rea¬
sonable to expect that they would have been ex¬
pressly forbidden."
This is quoted from McClintock in vindication of
his (Br. B.'s) assertion that there is not " a single ex¬
press declaration, or word, in favor of infant bap¬
tism " in the Hew Testament. Reader, do you see
those little dots (....) up there in the quotation ?
They indicate that something has been left out.
What do you think Br. B. there left out ? Only
this: "Jesus Christ actually blessed little children;
and it is difficult to believe that such received his
blessing, and yet were not to be members of the
70
The Southern Review
gospel Church. If Christ received them, and
would have us 'receive' them, how can we keep
them out of the visible Church ?"
There, now! Dr. B. makes four little dots substi¬
tute just forty-eight words; and those forty-eight
words a comment upon a text which all Methodist
authorities understand to have been spoken directly
with reference to infant Church-membership and its
sign—baptism. The very author, whose language
Dr. B. mutilates, so understood it.
Nor is this all. Dr. B. once and again proclaims
that Prof. " McClintock " stands with him on infant
baptism; and yet, in the article from which he quotes,
every position that he took in his " History of Infant
Baptism "is annihilated! Thus, McClintock takes
Justin Martyr and Irenseus as witnesses for the prac¬
tice before Tertullian's time; Dr. B. ignores them.
McClintock says eh jpaidoon means " from infancy;"
Dr. B. denies that it means an " infant." And so,
on almost every question of fact or criticism,
McClintock annihilates his "position;" still he has
McClintock on his side!
Equally unfortunate is his method of handling
DR. NAST.
On page 153, Review for July, Dr. B. says: " Our
old friend William Hast, D.D., is another authority
to the same effect. In his learned and valuable
' Commentary on Matthew' he has an essay on in¬
fant baptism, in which he says," etc. Here follows
a quotation from Hast, which it is not necessary for
us to copy. It is enough to say that Dr. B. quoted
And Infant Baptism. 71
Hast just far enough to have the great German
say: "Impartial men on both sides will concede
that there are no passages in the Hew Testament
from which we can draw any direct and positive
proof either for or against the practice of infant
baptism by the apostles." Dr. B. italicized, these
last words, showing that for this admission alone he
had opened Hast's " Commentaryand, after parad¬
ing it upon his pages, he informs us that "Dr.
Hast" concedes "that there are no express passages
in the Hew Testament to decide the question either
way." Taken in this dislocated manner, Dr. Hast's
words seem to sustain Dr. B.'s anti-Methodistic no¬
tions. But this is a gross misrepresentation of what
Dr. Hast says on the subject. The next line after
that at which Dr. B. stops in his quotation, Hast
says: "The question itself p. e., infant baptism]
turns upon what the Hew Testament teaches as to
the nature of baptism itself." Strange, indeed, that
Dr. Hast appeals to what uthe New Testament
teaches " on this question, if he is " another au¬
thority to the same effect"—namely, holding with
Dr. B. that there is not " a wTord in favor of infant
baptism in the Hew Testament!"
How, in the article from which Dr. B. made his
quotation, Hast says: "That the command of the
Lord to make disciples of all nations, by baptizing
them, means more than ' make in all nations disci¬
ples of those that repent and believe, by baptizing
'them,' will scarcely be called in question by an un¬
biased interpreter. (See note on Matt, xxviii. 19.)
The right, yea, the solemn duty, of incorporating
72
The Southern Review
children by baptism into tbe membership of the
visible Church rests, moreover, as we have seen in
Matt. xix. 14, on our Lord's declaration: ' Of such is
the kingdom of heaven.' "
Turning, as referred, to his note on Matt, xxviii.
19—the commission—we find that he emphatically
asserts that " Christ, in commanding his apostles to
make disciples of all nations, and to baptize them
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost," had reference to receiving chil¬
dren, as well as adults, by baptism. He says, of this
commission: "But, as in Matt. x. 12, 13 the Lord
had already multitudes and families in his eye, and
not merely individuals, so now, in a great prophetic
contemplation of the history of the world and of
the Church, he looks upon and embraces the nations
of the earth as extended families. Household and
family bonds should not continue to be rent as at
the beginning, but the people should be won and
brought into the state of discipleship as an ex¬
tended family. Christianity was not designed to
be a thing limited to individuals: the consecration
of a nation proceeds from the families, as the conse¬
cration of families does from individuals. In the
family rests the root of the natural life, which the
Church must reach and work upon; and as certainly
as Christ's object was not to pluck up these roots of
human development, so certainly he must have designed
infant baptism."
Is it conceivable how Dr. B. could claim that
Hast "is another authority" agreeing with him,
when Hast writes thus of the commission ? He
And Infant Baptism.
73
plainly says Christ contemplated infants when
he gave this commission. Dr. Bledsoe says it
refers " exclusively to adults, and to no others."
Yet Hast sustains him!
Only want of space prevents our giving much
more to the same effect from Dr. East. We
can, however, only copy this statement in ad¬
dition. He says: "Lutheran divines have said,
very correctly, that the object of baptism is more
fully realized in the baptism of an infant than in that
of an adult"—a sentiment with which he cordially
agrees when, in his Commentary on Matt. xix. 13,
he declares that " infant baptism, and not that of
adults, represents the full idea of baptism."
Thus, Dr. Bledsoe has attempted to drag into the
most ridiculous positions an eminent Biblical critic,
whose declarations are so full and explicit in favor
of thb strongest possible scriptural authority for in¬
fant t^ptism.
We come next to the great
LIGHTFOOT.
On page 178, Dr. B. quotes a passage from Light-
foot, in which that distinguished Hebraist is made
to say: " The Anabaptists object that it is not com¬
manded to baptize infants, therefore they are not to
be baptized. To whom I answer: It is not forbid¬
den to baptize infants, therefore they are to be bap¬
tized," etc. We give only a part of the quotation
in The Review, for the sake of space; but we have
given the point that Dr. B. makes—namely, that
Lightfoot so far admits that there is no " command
5
74
The Southern Review
to baptize infants " as to fall back on a feeble " it is
not forbidden." That suits Dr. B. and the "Ana¬
baptists" exactly.
Before us is Ligbtfoot's great work—viz.: " Horce
Hebraicce et Talmudicce," in four volumes. We have
hunted with considerable care for this quotation,
and cannot find one word of it. It may be that
Lightfoot wrote it, and that we have overlooked it;
but as Dr. B. gave no reference to volume or page,
by which to verif}T the quotation, and as we have
failed to find any thing like it, we place it under
ban until he gives us volume and page. While he is
doing that, we ask his special attention to this: Vol¬
ume ii., page 379, comment on Matt, xxviii. 19 (the
commission), Lightfoot says: uMatheteusate, that is,
Make disciples. Bring them in by baptism, that they
may be taught. They are very much out, who from
these words cry down infant baptism, and assert that
it is necessary for those that are to be baptizec^to be
taught before they are baptized. 1. Observe the
words here, matheteusate, make disciples; and then
after, didaskontes, teaching, in the twentieth verse.
2. Among the Jews, and also with us, and in all
nations, those are made disciples that they may be
taught." Thus, Lightfoot shows that infant bap¬
tism is enjoined in the great commission—the,
scripture which Dr. B. asserts " contains no men¬
tion whatever of infants, or of infant baptism."
On page 382, Lightfoot, continuing his exegesis
of the commission, says: " Tell me, then, why an
infant is not capable of being brought into the vis¬
ible Church, and of receiving the distinguishing
And Infant Baptism.
75
sign between a Christian and a heathen, as well as
a grown person." This capability on,the part of the
infant, he shows, arises out of the commission.
And yet, Br. B., without giving any reference
whatever to his works, quotes him as conceding
the Anabaptist's objection! 0 temporal 0 mores!
SCHAFF.
On page 168, Dr. B. quotes from Schaff's " His¬
tory of the Apostolic Church,'"to show that "in
substance, if not in form," Schaff* makes " precisely
the same statement made by ourselves [Dr. B.], and
which has kindled the wrath [?!] of Mr. Miller."
Thus it stands in The Review: "This question we
must answer in the affirmative, though we have en¬
countered not only the Baptists, but also the author¬
ity of many celebrated Pedobaptist divines, and among
them the venerable Dr. Neander, who denies the exist¬
ence of infant baptism in the apostolic Church."
All these emphasized words are put in italics by Dr.
B.; they are not so in Schaffi Add to this the fact
that Dr. B. drops out of the quotation the word
" decidedly," the most emphatic word in the sen¬
tence, and you readily perceive the effort to sup¬
press emphasis where the author placed it, and to
exalt it where the author did not put it. It stands
thus in Scliaff: " This question we must answer
decidedly in the affirmative," etc. Look at that
word " decidedly !" But to what " question " is
this " decidedly affirmative " answer given ? It is
this: "But here arises the question," says Schaff,
"Was there not at that day [the apostolic period], in
76
The Southekn Review
Churches already established, along with the baptism
of adults, which in the nature of the case was most
frequent, a Christian infant baptism, corresponding
to its type, circumcision, which, administered first
to the patriarch Abraham, as the seal of his right¬
eousness of faith (compare Rom. iv. 11), was imme¬
diately afterward performed on his son Isaac on the
eighth day after his birth (Gen. xxi. 4), and made the
sign of the covenant for all his male posterity?"
Look, now, at this question. It is whether " a
Christian infant baptism" existed in the apostolic
period. To this Schaff answers " decidedly in the
affirmative !" Dr. B. knocks out the " decidedly,"
omits the whole question, and leaves the author,
thus mutilated, to testify for the Anabaptists! And
yet Dr. B. proposes to read us " a lesson of modera¬
tion, candor, and good manners," out of "this very
book!" To see with what " moderation and can¬
dor" he has treated Schaff, we turn to page 124,
vol. i., " History of the Christian Church," and
read: " On the contrary, we have positive argu¬
ments for the apostolic origin and character of
infant baptism .... in his [Christ's] ex¬
press invitation to children, whom he assures
of a title to the kingdom of heaven, and whom,
therefore, he certainly would not leave without
the way and means of entering it; in the words
of institution, which plainly look to the Chris¬
tianizing not merely of individuals, but of whole
nations, including, of course, the children; in
the express declaration of Peter, at the first ad¬
ministration of the ordinance, that this promise
And Infant Baptism.
77
of forgiveness of sins and of the Holy Ghost
was to the Jews and to their children; in the
five instances in the Hew Testament of the
baptism of whole families, where the presence
of children in most of the cases is far more
probable than the absence of children in all,"
etc. That is one of the "learned Pedobaptists"
who makes " precisely the same statement" that
Br. B. makes!
1IERMAS.
Br. B., reviewing onr "little book" on "Infant
Baptism," says: "Hay, worse still, he falsifies the
testimony of Hermas so glaringly that the mean¬
est eye may easily detect the cheat. He makes
him testify, for example, that there are infants
in the Church who had received the seal of
baptism, whereas his own extract from Hermas
shows that such was not his testimony." (P. 234.)
We venture to suggest that Br. B. is the
last man in the world who should charge any¬
one with " falsifying" an author. Let us ex¬
amine this a little. We say in our book that
of the " twelve mountains" in the vision of
Hermas, from which the "tower," or Church, is
built, one, the twelfth, represents infants; that
the stones, or infants, taken from this mount¬
ain, to be put into the tower, or Church, re¬
ceived the " seal," or baptism, as the others.
How, Br. B., to get rid of Hermas as a wit¬
ness for infant baptism " before the time of
Tertullian," asserts that "those from the twelfth
mountain, of whom Hermas speaks, are, most
5*
78
The Southern Review
obviously, not children at all, but tbose adults
who remained as children," etc. In this he
misrepresents both ourself and Hermas. If he
had only quoted enough of our "little book,"
he would have found that only three lines be¬
low where he stopped, Hermas drops the " as
children," and boldly says, "For all infants are
honorable before God, and are the first persons
with him." Thus he shows he is not speaking
of " those adults who remained as children,"
but of " infants " themselves. Chapin says, " The
twelfth mountain is descriptive only of children,
and can denote nothing but children and in¬
fants," etc. Chapin's eye did not seem to be
" mean" enough to " detect the cheat!"
CALVIN.
Dr. B. tries to refute our argument on the
commission in Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. On page
227 he quotes Calvin to prove that there is no
reference to infants in Matt, xxviii. 19, 20; and
he devotes a whole page to this, in which he
refers to Matt, xxviii. 19, 20 six times. lie
gives us this quotation from Calvin: " It will
be impossible for them* [the Baptists], with all
their ingenuity, to prove any thing from this
passage [Matt, xxviii. 19], except that the gos¬
pel is first to be preached to those who are
capable of hearing it, before they are baptized;
for it relates to no others. Let them raise an ob¬
stacle from this, if they can, to exclude infants
from baptism." (.Review for July.) This is the
And Infant Baptism.
79
quotation just as it stands in The Review, and,
as above stated, is given to disprove our argu¬
ment on the commission in Matt, xxviii. 19, 20.
We open Calvin's "Institutes" at book iv., chap,
xvi., the place Br. B. refers us to, and, behold,
Calvin has not a single reference to Matt, xxviii.
19, 20 ! Dr. B. took particular pains to put Matt,
xxviii. 19 in [ ], right in the middle of the
sentence from Calvin, so as to make the words
"this passage" refer to that text; still, Calvin
not only does not refer to that text, but he
quotes and is commenting upon an entirely dif¬
ferent one! He is explaining Mark xvi. 16:
" He that believetli and is baptized shall be
saved." There it was, right under Dr. B.'s eyes
when he copied the passage, and bracketed, in the
middle of the sentence [Matt, xxviii. 19]! He
uses this against our argument from Matt, xxviii.
19, 20 again and again, always telling the reader it
is Calvin's language!
The truth is, Calvin is exposing the unfairness
of the Baptists in objecting against the infant that
which is required of the adult—"teaching." His
language is: "What kind of argumentation, then,
is that with which they assail us? Persons of adult
age are to be instructed [this is the Baptists' objec¬
tion], in order that they may believe before they are
to be baptized; therefore, it is unlawful to administer
baptism to infants." Then immediately follow the
lines quoted by Dr. B. as a reply to this objection,
in which the phrase, " for it relates to no others,"
which Dr. B. so often uses to exclude children from
80
The Southern Review
Matt, xxviii. 19, refers only to the adults who " are
capable of hearing." This is Calvin's meaning, as
his own words show. But Br. B. declared he was
speaking of Matt, xxviii. 19, 20, when he is speak¬
ing of Mark xvi. 16; Br. B. leaves out all that part
of the sentence which we have given above, and
which is absolutely necessary to the author's mean¬
ing ; and he tries to make* Calvin exclude infants
from the commission, when, in the very opening of
this chapter (xvi.), he characterizes the Baptists' as¬
sertions that they were not provided for in institu¬
ting baptism as a " false and groundless calumny."
This is a sad exhibition, and we would willingly
lay a garment upon our shoulders and go backward
to cover it, but the interests of outraged truth for¬
bid us.
ED WARDS.
Only once more, and we will drop the curtain on
this humiliating scene.
On page 178, Br. B. says: "E~or is this all; for
almost all writers in favor of infant baptism have
made precisely the same admission. Thus Mr. Ed¬
wards, in his admirably reasoned book in favor of
Pedobaptism, admits the assertion of the Baptists,
' that there is no express command or example for in¬
fant baptism.'"
We turn to Mr. Edwards's "admirably reasoned
book," and find that there is not only no such sen¬
timent as that here attributed to him, but that lying
right under the eye of Br. B., when he had the book
open, are these emphatic words: "This being pre¬
mised, I say of the argument, It is assuming, con-
And Infant Baptism.
81
tracted, FALSE!" (Page 18.) This is Edwards's
reply to the Baptists' assertion that there is no " ex¬
press command for infant baptism." Edwards says
that objection is " assuming, contracted, false."
We have thus shown that all these pretended ad¬
missions are miserable mutilations and perversions
of the authors named. It is by such shameful pro¬
cesses as these that anti-Pedobaptists have cram¬
med their senseless volumes with " concessions " of
" learned Pedobaptists." When we saw a Review
that claims to be published under the "auspices of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South," aping this out¬
rageous conduct, we felt called upon by our sense of
duty to expose " the cheat." We have done so. For
this we have incurred the displeasure of the editor
of The Southern Review, and he measures it out to
us in an unsparing manner. We can stand it.
We simply say to all concerned that every state¬
ment which Dr. Bledsoe makes about our "little
books," "Infant Baptism," and "Apostolical Suc¬
cession," is on a par with his candor in the use of
authors as above shown.
Praying the God and Father of all to cause all
these things to work for the promotion of truth,
we drop the curtain and retire.