C nap m ck K T«xc4s for tkc -tiftics ovvlh?o.ht ^ '■? TRACTS FOE THE Tlllfe. ^ ^ ^ INFANT BAPTISM; ,^. rO WHICH IS ADDBD QUESTIONS ON THE MODE OF BAPTISM. BY REV. JAMES L. CHAPMAN, A MINISTER OF TUB METHODIST EPISCOPAI. CHURCH, SOUTH, M£MFai8 CONPBRENCS. Their ehildreu, also, shall be as aforetime.'' — Jeremiah. LOUISVILLE, KY. SOLD BY THE SOUTHERN METHODIST BOOK CONCERN. E. STEVKNSON, ASS'T AGENT. Entered according to Act of Congress, in tlie year 18";2, hy JAMES L. CHAPMAN, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the "Western District of Tennessee. Stereotyped and Printed by MORTON Sc GlUSWor.Il, Lottiiville, Kij. 01 CONTENTS TRACT I. The right to initiate Infants into the Church, by Baptism, nnder the grand provisions of the Abrahamic Covenant, is clearly expressed by various forms of speech, in the Scripture, - 9 TRACT II. Neither woman nor child is expressly mentioned in the commis- sion given to the Apostles by the Saviour. The words he and nations, as therein used, must be generically expounded. The right of infants to discipleship in the Church, by Baptism, ampli- fied by sundry passages of Scripture, 37 TRACT III. The right to baptize Infants is as self-evident as the provision of an unrepealed law, - - 50 TRACT IV. Infant Baptism proved by circumcision. The views and practice of the Fathers being respected, 62 TRACT V. The history of the Christian state of the Church proves that IV CONTENTS. Infant Baptism has been practiced from the days of the Apostles until now, ----... -72 TRACT VI. Infant Baptism proved by the faith and practice of the Wal- denses, 112 TRACT VII. Questions on the Mode of Baptism, .... 127 PREFACE. In presenting to the public this work, styled " TuACTS FOR THE TiMES," we deem it proper to make known the circumstances under which it appears, and the design it is intended to accomplish. This will constitute the whole of the preface. Our friends, knowing that we have carefully examined the subject of Infant Baptism, not only in the light of inspiration but that ot history, have again and again solicited us to publish the result of our labors in a cheap form, exactly suited to the majority in style and arrangement. With this we should have long since complied, provided we could have obtained the consent of our own mind to publish any thing on the Scriptural candidate for, apart from the mode of, baptism. The VI PREFACE. circumstance, it is said, " may alter the case" — hence tlie cause of yielding to the solicitations of those whose judgments we highly respect.* They desire to have the evidence we have collected and arranged on infant baptism, that they may carry it to the homes of truth- seekers, and place it before the onward march of error. These considerations, without another word, will account for the circum- stances under which this work appears. And now we come to consider the design it is intended to accomplish. The Anti-Pedo- baptist, of course, honestly opposes infant baptism ; hence we wish to show him that his opposition is hadly founded, and that our creed, in this particular, meets with the approval of the Scripture, and the true history of the Church — that it has been known to successive * Since we completed the preface we wrote a tract on the mode of baptism, which the reader will find at the close of oitr labors on iiifiint baptism. It will be found, doubtless, in a fit place, embodying very needful and comprehensive information on the force and application of the word baptize. PREFACE. VU ages, beginning with the days of Moses, and ending with our time, without a breach in any link of this long chain of evidence. This, without circumlocution, is the design it is intended to accomplish. But here it may be asked, "will it accomplish this ?" We reply, relying on the accumulated force of the evidence, and the general tendency to submit, so far as faith is concerned, to truth, it ouglit ; and so saying we close the preface. The Author. Memjyhis, June 24, 1852. TRACTS FOR THE Tl fen ^^ O r±. ^\, ME TKACT I. INFANT BAPTISM. THE RIGHT TO INITIATE INFANTS INTO THE CHURCH BV BAPTISM, UNDER THE GRAND PROVISIONS OF THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT, IS CLEARLY EXPRESSED BY VARIOUS FORMS OF SPEECH, IN THE SCRIPTURE. Some Anti-Pedobaptists, in order to break the force of an argument that looks to the Abrahamic covenant for authority to baptize infants, tell us " that God made two covenants with Abraham," and strangely argue from the doctrine of repeal to the doctrine of " a new covenant ;" but the following passages will place the subject in its true light, and clearly and fully show that the language of the heading is the language of truth. In Genesis xvii, 4, we read : "Behold, my covenant is with thee." In the 7th verse we read : " And I will establish my covenant between me and thee." In the 9th verse we read : 12 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. advocacy, in connection with the perpetuity of the Church under it. We shall here name, however, for the advantage of the ordinary mind, the points that the preceding passages and considerations make undeniable. The first is, that the Anti-Pedobaptist does greatly err in stating that God made "two covenants" with Abra- ham, for every feature of the proof before us forbids the idea. The second is, that both states of the Church are identified under the Abrahamic cove- nant ; for St. Paul, as may be seen by referring to the text quoted from him above, informs us that Christians are heirs according to the promise made in covenant with Abraham. And the third is, that Paul could not say, speaking of disciples under Christ, ye are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise, if the Abrahamic covenant was repealed or abrogated on the introduction of Christianity. How plain our position becomes ! Fuller, a distinguished Baptist, vol, 5, p. 115, speaks thus of the promise made in covenant with Abraham : " This promise has been fulfilling ever since. All the true blessedness which the world is now, or shall hereafter be possessed of, is owing to Abraham and his posterity. Through them we have INFANT BAPTISM. 13 a Bible, a Saviour, and a gospel. They are the stock on which the Christian Church is grafted." He con- tinues thus, in p. 153 : " By the exposition given of this promise in the New Testament, Romans, iv, 16, 17, we are directed to understand it, not only of those who sprang from Abraham's body, though these were many nations ; but also of all that should be of the faith of Abraham. It went to make him the father of the Church of God in all future ages, or, as the apostle calls him, "the heir of the world." If words have a definite meaning, Fuller, though a decided Anti-Pedobaptist, is not only with us respecting one covenant with Abraham, but with us, in the highest sense, respecting its perpetuity — a thing denied by all the Anti-Pedobaptists with whom we have had any controversy. In this connection we invite the attention of the reader to a few considerations on circumcision, the sign and seal of the covenant made with Abraham, and its true relation, as we understand it, to baptism. It was the visible evidence of membership in the Jewish state of the church. It was the door by which individuals were introduced into the fellowship of this state of the chui'ch. It distinguished them from those who were not in covenant with God. It 14 TRACTS FOR THZ TIMES. was a significant ordinance, which looked to the cir- cumcision of the heart ; hence the wicked are called the uneii'cumcised in heart. Baptism was, according to our judgment, evidently substituted for circumcision on the general introduction of Christianity by the apostles, and made the established sign and seal of the covenant for all time. In other words, to keep the minds of all from controversy over the word substituted, we remark that baptism answers the same purpose to the Christian state of the church, that circumcision did to the Jewish state of the church. Baptism, therefore, is the visible e\idence of member- ship in the Christian state of the church. It is the door by which all now enter into the fellowship pre- scribed. It distinguishes those who are in covenant relation to God from those who are not. It is most unquestionably a significant ordinance, pointing to the purification of the heart by the Spirit, and not a com- memorative one, looking to tlie burial and resun-ection of Christ ; and on this account believers are repre- sented as being " circumcised with the circumcision made without hands." The circumcision of the heart was the main tiling signified in the ordinance of circumcision to a child, and the purification or cir- cumcision of the heart by the Spirit is the main thing INFANT BAPTISM. 15 signified in baptism to the infant. In short there was an outward circumcision, and there was an inward circumcision — just as we now have in the gradual development of things, an outward baptism, and an inward baptism. Lightfoot represents the Jews as looking on circum- cision in the light of a sign and seal — that when the administrator was ready to act, he was instructed to saj : " Blessed be he who hath sanctified you, beloved from the womb, and hath placed the sign in your flesh, and hath sealed our sons with the seal of his holy covenant." See Lightfoot on Matt, xxviii, 19. " The Christian Fathers," says Dr. Pond, " were accustomed to represent baptism as a seal. Hermas, speaking of the ' seal of the Son of God,' says, ' but that seal is water.' " Page 117. Now, as the perpetuity of the covenant made with Abraham — the character and main design of circum- cision and its true relation to baptism — the office and the main design of baptism, are now before us, clearly defined, and based on Inspiration, we tliink we may confidently say, that infants have as high claims on the initiatory rite of the church as adults. In plain terms, if infants had a right to discipleship or membership in the Jewish state of the church, and 16 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. were made disciples or members by circumcision, under the Abrahamic covenant — are not infants now, under the same covenant, its perpetuity being estab- lished, entitled to discipleship or membership in the Christian state of the church by baptism ? Most assuredly. There are Anti-Pedobaptists, however, that not' only honestly chng to the doctrine of " two covenants " made with Abraham, but regard infant baptism as being beyond the slightest sanction of either. Genesis is read and re-read, in order to find " two covenants " — Whence the necessity of a mighty showing on these points, confirmatory of one covenant, recog- nizing the right of infant membership. In reading the Book of Genesis we find covenant language addressed to Abraham in all the following places : xii, 1, 2 — also xiii, 14, 15 — also xv, 1, 2, 3, 4 — and also xvii, 18, 19. Now, if covenant language be followed out into divisions in these instances, many covenants will appear instead of one. To the end of showing the force and propriety of this remark, we shall here give some particular or definite facts illustrative of its truthfulness. God made a promise to Abraham of a numerous posterity, at least seven different times. See Genesis xii. 1^ ; INFANT BAPTISM. 17 also xiii, 16 ; also xv, 6 ; also xvii, 2 ; also xviii, 18 ; also xxi, 12, and also xxii, 17. Nor is this all, since we find that God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham, at least four different times. See Genesis xii, 7 ; also xiii, 15 ; also xv, 18 ; also xvii, 8. And in addition to all this we find that God promised to Abraham, at least three different times, to bless the nations and families of the earth through him. See Genesis xii, 3 ; also xviii, 18, and also xxii, 18. What a number of covenants we would have without a discriminating mode of interpretation ! In short, the grand panorama of promises made to Abraham, at various periods and places, must be viewed as looking to, and deriving all their force from one covC' nant, leaving us to feel the startling proclamation of Peter, "Ye are the children of the covenant [not covenants] which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Well does Dr. Rice say ; " The Bible speaks of but one covenant with Abra- ham/' This is the language of the Pedobaptist world. We shall now notice the principal passages on wliicli the Anti-Pedobaptist relies to oppose what is above written on the one covenant with Abraham. In the first place, he brings forth the testimony of 18 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. Jeremiah, xxxi, 31, 32 : '• Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah ; not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt." " Now, does not this," says he, " show that the covenant made with Abraham was to be repealed ?" We simply answer, that there is not one word about the covenant made with Abraham in the whole quotation. The covenant here misapplied was made in the day that God brought Israel up out of Egypt, and has no application to the birth of the Abrahamic covenant, which had taken place long, long before Jeremiah recorded his prophecy, and long before Israel departed from Egypt. We hope the Anti-Pedobaptists will remember this, and ever keep from confounding things that do not even agree as to time. The Abrahamic covenant was made with himself, but the covenant of which Jeremiah spoke was made with Israel when going forth from the land of Egypt. The latter, of course, was abolished, but the former, the Abrahamic, abideth, and must abide for ever. The covenant abolished was only a temporary amphfication of the one made with Abraham, but the new covenant INFANT BAPTISM. 19 is with us — standing as an abiding amplification of the provisions of the Abrahamic. In the second place the Anti-Pedobaptist calls our attention to the testimony of Paul in Romans ix, 4, -which reads : " Who are Israehtes ; to whom pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the cove- nants ?" Well, what of this ? Does the apostle say that both these covenants were made with Abra- ham ? By no means ! He here speaks of the house of Israel, not of Abraham in the abstract. Now, let us take the covenant made with Abraham, and add to it the one Jeremiah says was made with Israel when going forth from Egypt, and then we shall have two — enough to explain the meaning of the apostle in refer- ring them to Israel, and to satisfy our own minds on the subject. In a general sense both belonged to Israel, but in a special sense one of them was made with Abraham and the other with liis posterity in their departure from Egypt. An appeal, therefore, to this quarter cannot help the cause of the Anti- Pedobaptist — nor disturb, in the most remote way, any thing before us on the one covenant with Abraham. In the third and last place, the Anti-Pedobaptist appeals to Paul, who says, Gal. iv, 23 — 26 " But w 20 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. he -^ho was the bond-woman, was born after the flesh ; but he of the free-Avoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory ; for these are the two cove- nants ; the one from the mount Sinai which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Here we ask the Anti-Pedobaptist, does Paul say that both these covenants were made with Abraham ? He does not, but plainly declares that one of them is from Sinai, and that the other is the Abrahamic. But in order to understand the apostle, and the particular application of his thoughts, we must keep in view the following facts — that the Sinaic covenant, which was made with the Jews through Moses, was only intended to be a temporary addition to the Abrahamic — that the new covenant of which Jeremiah spoke, which was made with the believing Jews through Christ, who placed it in con- tradistinction to the Sinaic, was intended to be a lasting addition to the one made with Abraham — that the Sinaic covenant was made 430 years after the Abrahamic, which was made 1811 years before its promised Messiah came ; and that the law in the INFANT BAPTISM. 21 Sinaic covenant did not, could not, to use the language of Paul, " disannul, that it should make the promise of none efiect ;" that is, the promise in covenant with Abraham. We are now ready to explain the meaning of the apostle. He makes Agar and her child repre- sent, in the allegory, the Sinaic covenant and the Jews who sought for justification through it. Agar, par- ticularly speaking, stands out in the allegory as the representative of the Sinaic covenant, and her child as the representative of the Christ-rejecting Jews under it. This portion of our subject being fairly stated, we shall now draw our inference, which is, that as Agar and Ishmael were cut oflf from the family of Abraham, so were the Christ-rejecting Jews and the Sinaic covenant cut oflf from the household of God. This is how the covenant from Sinai gendered to bondage, and answered to the bondage in which Jerusalem was found with her children when the apostle wrote. In plain terms, as Agar and Ishmael were separated from the family of Abraham, not being according to promise, and sent forth as wanderers into the world ; so were the unbelieving Jews separated from the household of faith, not being heirs according to the promise in covenant with Abraham, and sent forth to roam in strange lands. Is not every wander- 22 TllACTS FOR THE TIMES. iug Jew a self-evident proof of this ? The next point in order is, that the apostle makes Sarah and her child represent, in the allegory, the Abrahamic covenant and the believing Jews who found justification through its promised Messiah. Sarah, definitely speaking, is represented in the allegory as the representative of the Abrahamic covenant, and her child as the repre- sentative of the Christ-receiving Jews under it. Now, as this portion of the subject is also fairly stated, we shall here draw the inference, which is, that as Sarah and Isaac were retained in the family of Abraham, so were the believing Jews and the Abrahamic cove- nant retained in the household of God. This is how the believing ones were of Jerusalem above, (the spirituality of Christ's Kingdom,) which was free, the mother of them all. In short, as Sarah and Isaac were retained in the family of Abraham to enjoy its blessings, being according to promise, so were the beheving Jews retained in the household of God, being heirs according to the promise made in covenant with Abraham. Is not every Christian, who is of the seed of Abraham by faith, a heaven-standing proof of the correctness of this exposition ! The reader must per ceive, from what is here stated, that in the rejection of the unbeheving Jews their infant ofTiipring were INFANT BAPTISM. 23 subjected to bondage, and now so stand under the Sinaic covenant ; and moreover, that the infant off- spring of the believing Jews were then retained to represent the right of Gentile children to church fellowship, and now so stand under the Abrahamic covenant. Infant discipleship, and the identity of both states of the church, at this point become truly impressive. In further illustration of this we remark, that the covenant made with Abraham, is still with us, which covenant found a representative in Sarah, and a subject in the child Isaac — how then reject infant membership under such circumstances, and call it an " uncovenanted thing?" Now, in view of all the foregoing considerations, may we not here truly say, applying the thought to households, " We, brethren, as Isaac was, [in the covenant allegorized,] are the children of promise ?" Having disposed of the principal passages on which the Anti-Pedobaptist relies to oppose our views respecting the Abrahamic covenant, we shall now attend to what he will have to say against our views and conclusions respecting the perpetuity of the church in two states. Daniel, without doubt, will be quoted, who said, (ii,44,) " And in the days of thfte Kings shall the God of heaven set up a Kingdom." 24 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. From this he will preach that the God of heaven promised to set up, and did set up, by John and the apostles, a new kingdom — a kingdom having new laws and subjects different " from those of the Jewish commonwealth." To this we reply, by way of anti- cipation, that Daniel did not say that the God of heaven was to introduce a new kingdom, having new laws, and subjects different to the Jewish state of the church, but only prophesied that a kingdom would be set up, that is, a kingdom in being was to be raised up out of weakness, strengthened and confirmed. In the work of raising, strengthening and confirming, without equivocation, we read the perpetuity of the church, showing the same membership, adults and infants. To illustrate this thought we observe, let a promise be made to raise a woman and her children from poverty to wealth, and carry into effect the promise, and the following will be the result — their, condition or state wUl be found altered, but the law of their existence the same. In like manner we must look on the promise by Daniel. It gives us to know that when the God of heaven raised up his church with her children from the poverty of intellectual weakness, and made them rich by the power of his grace, the change was in their condition or state, and INFANT BAPTISM. 25 lot in the character of their being. The perpetuity, therefore, of the church is plainly sustained by Daniel. The Anti-Pedobaptist, in the next place, in opposi- tion to our position respecting the perpetuity of the church, will quote John the Baptist, Matt, iii, 2, who says : " Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." He will present this to the world as proving that God did on the day of Pentecost, to which John principally refers, set up a kingdom or church " entirely distinct from the Jewish commonwealth." To this we reply in advance, that John is to be understood as teaching the doctrine of the Christian church state, which was to be ushered into being on the day of Pentecost, and to assume a glorious form, standing as intimately connected with the Jewish church state as a flower to its stem, or a branch to the vine. This is the true sense of John. The Anti-Pedobaptist will next bring forward the statement of the Saviour, Matt, xi, 12, which reads thus: " And from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven sufFereth violence, and the violent take it by force." This he will explain in a preparatory sense, that is, the materials for the organization on the day of Pentecost began to be prepared with the ministry of John, and that a " church was set up on that day 26 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. in contradistinction to the Jewish or legal," solely composed of adults, and opposed to the reception of infants. To this also we reply in advance, stating, that, whether the Saviour speaks in a preparatory sense, or of a particular feature in the Jewish church state, the doctrine of perpetuity not only remains undis- turbed by either, but finds an approving response in his language in another place, speaking of children : '• For of such is the kingdom of God." The kingdom of God, according to the teaching of the Saviour, that suffered violence from the days of John, was then partly composed of children : and on this account there must be a cutting off law named and presented, which was introduced between the day of Pentecost and the time the Saviour said, " For of such [children] is the kingdom of God," or the perpetuity of the church will ever stand, before the eye of reason, without a doubt on its character. But as no such law can be named, children, of course, were in favor with the church on the day of Pentecost, and so have remained since. This gives us a correct understanding of the texts just considered, and a proper exposition of the principle they sanction. We shall now present what the Saviour said at an advanced period of his ministry on this subject. In INFANT BAPTISM. 27 reference to the Jewish church state he observed : " The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Matthew xxi, 43. The idea of a new church or kingdom in contradistinction to the Jewish, alone composed of adults, is at variance with the doctrine here set forth bj the Saviour. This is made self- evident from the fact, that the Saviour declared the kingdom of God, of which children made a part, was to be taken from the Jews, and given or transferred to the Gentiles, but did not, in the most indirect manner, intimate that a kingdom or church was to be Bet up in contradistinction to the Jewish, solely com- posed of adults. This is but an Anti-Pedobaptist fancy. But with respect to the kingdom of God we remark, that the state of the church, whether Jewish or Christian, is generally signified. In one passage the sense is preparatory ; that is, setting forth a people preparing to pass out of the Jewish church state into that of the Christian. In another we find the sense looking to the future ; that is, to the devel- opment of Christianity on the day of Pentecost. And in another we find the sense directly present and future ; that is, expressing the Jewish church state, and the transfer of all its good to the Gentiles. All 28 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. these considerations finely accord with the perpetuity of the church, and compel us to feel that the Jewish state of the church became the good olive-tree, giving living vitality to every branch of the Christian church state. In this connection we shall present some confir- matory passages of Scripture, which will not only embrace the grounds occupied in this chapter, but place its contents beyond the reach of contradiction. Jeremiah, xxx, 20, speaks thus : " Their children also shall be as aforetime." Now, if this apply to the Christian church state, comment is needless ; for the prophet tells us that they must be as aforetime ; that is, as children were made disciples or members of the Jewish church state by circumcision, so must they be made disciples or members of the Christian church state by baptism. Oppose this, and you oppose the prophet, who says — " children shall be as aforetime." Amos, ix, 11, says : " In that day will I raise the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in days of old." Noav, if this apply to the Christian state of the church, then are infants a portion of its members ; for if they were of the tabernacle in days of old, they now arc of it — seeing IXFANT BAPTISM. 29 according to the proclamation of Amos, that it was to be built as in ancient times ; that is, composed of materials similar to what it embraced in days of old. Oppose this, and you are at issue with this statement: " I will build it [the tabernacle or house of God] as in the days of old." James (Acts xv, 14, 15, 16) speaks as follows ; " Simeon had declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to thie agree the words of the prophets ; as it is written : After this I will return, and I will build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down ; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and will set it up." James, without doubt, applies the words of Amos to the Christian church state, and gives us to understand, by a just inference, that if infants belonged to the tabernacle of David, and had a right to be there, infants belonged to it as it now stands, and have a right to be there. Let him that can, legislate infants out of the church in the face of this testimony ! Paul, Ephesians ii, 20, speaks thus ; " And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." The idea of a contradis- tinguishing church, as spoken of by Anti-Pedobaptist?, finds no countenance here. No, no ! Here we have 30 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. identity and perpetuity preached by the Spirit ! Here we have the leading object of the promise in covenant with Abraham presented as the foundation of prophets and apostles ! And here we have a strong presenta- tion of infant discipleship by baptism ; for if the foundation of the prophets was the foundation of infant discipleship by circumcision, of course the foundation of the apostles must be the foundation of infant dis- cipleship by baptism — the initiatory ordinance of the people of God now, answering to the ordinance of circumcision in ancient times. How inexpressively evident our position becomes. We shall now hear the testimony of Matthew, which runs thus : "At the same time came the dis- ciples to Jesus, saying, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them," &c. Chapter xviii, 1, 2. Now, if we would ask, who is the greatest man in Tennessee, would any person be at liberty to answer, the Hon. H. Clay is ? We do not ask, who is the greatest man out of Tennessee, but who is the greatest in it. The person selected, the question being respect- ed, must belong to the commonwealth of Tennessee. The reader, of course, anticipates us — that the child INFANT BAPTISM. 31 selected must have belonged to the Church ; for the kingdom of heaven, as introduced in the interrogatory, signifies the Church. The matter, in plain words, stands as if the disciples said : " Who is the greatest in the Church." The only point of interest to the reader is, how did the Saviour meet the question ? He called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst, thereby showing that children were in the church in his day. This is undeniable ; for the disciples did not ask for an example out of the king- dom or church, but for one in it. A plainer case could not have arisen — could not have been recorded. The Jewish state of the church, however, is, according to our opinion, the thing expressed. John the Baptist and the Saviour were made mem- bers of the Church, in her Jewish state, when eight days old, in which they lived and died. Luke speaks thus respecting their initiation : " And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child ; [John] and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. And his mother answered and said. Not so; but he shall be called John." Chap, i, 59, 60. " And when eight days were accomphshed for the circumcision of the child, his name was called Jesus," kc. Chapter ii, 21. The apostle Paul, 32 TRACTS FOK THE TIMES. speaking on this subject, says : " Now I saj that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers," &c. Romans xv, 8. From this we learn that Christ was made a minister of the circum- cision, and from the previous passage we see that the first ceremony took place on the eighth day after his birth. Thus by practice and teaching we find that infants were taken into the Church in the days of John and the Saviour. Here we shall notice a point of more than ordinary interest — the fact of the Saviour being at the temple when twelve years old. Luke says : " And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast." Cap. ii, 42, This was as early as the Jewish children were permitted to be present on such occasions. Hyrcanus in Josephus : " The law forbids the son to eat of the sacrifice, before he has come to the temple, and there presented an ofiering to God." Antiq. Lib. 4. Cap. 16. Sec. 30. Calvin : " The Passover, which has been succeeded by the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions promiscuously, but was rightly eaten only by those who were of sufiicient age to be INFANT BAPTISM. 33 able to inquire into its meaning." Institutes, Lib. 4. Cap. 16. Sec. 30. Poole : " Children, at the age of twelve years, were brought by their parents to the temple ; and from that time, they began to eat of the Passover and other sacrifices." Synopsis on Ex. 12. 26. Bishop Patrick : " When children were twelve years old, their parents were bound to bring them to the temple at the Passover, where, seeing what was done, they would be led to inquire — ' What mean ye by these things V " Com. on Ex. 12. Rosenmuller : " The Jews were accustomed to bring their sons, who had attained to their twelfth year, to the festivals at Jerusalem." Com. on Luke 2, 42. Kuinoel : "It was the custom of the Jews in those times [the time of Christ] that youths who had attained to the age of twelve years, should be brought to the festivals of Jerusalem. Com. on Luke 2, 42. Bloomfield : " The custom was, not to take them [the Jewish children] to the Passover, until they should have attained the years of puberty, a period which the Rabbins tell us was fixed at the twelfth year, when they were held amenable to the law, and were called sons of precept. Then were they also introduced into the church, initiated into its doctrines 4 34 TRACTS FOK TlIK TIMES. and ceremonies, and consequently were taken with their relations to Jerusalem at the festivals." Critieal Digest on Luke 2, 42. Dr. Gill, an eminent Baptist, says : " According to the maxims of the Jews, persons were not obliged to the duties of the law, or subject to the penalties of it in case of non-performance, until they were, a female, at the age of twelve years and one day, and a male, at the age of thirteen years and one day. They were not reckoned adult church members till then ; nor then either, unless worthy persons ; for so it is said, ' He that is worthy is called, at thirteen years of age, a son of the congregation of Israel,' that is, A member of the Church." Com. on Luke 2, 42. See also Dr. Pond's Treatise on Baptism, to which we are indebted for these quotations. From what is now before us, in reference to the Saviour being at the temple when twelve years old, we may safely state, that he was there by virtue of his introduction into the church by circumcision when eight days old. Let us here remark, that the preceding considera- tions may account for the conduct of the disciples, on a certain occasion, when children were brought to the Saviour. They opposed the act, doubtless, being INFANT BAPTISM. 35 influenced by the general custom, which was to keep children from the public assemblies until they were twelve years old. The Saviour, however, met the matter thus : ••' Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not : for of such is the kingdom of God" — the Church in her Jewish state. Mark X, 14. The Anti-Pedobaptist, as usual, will meet all this by asking : '* What good can arise out of the baptism of infants, seeing they are incapable of entering into covenant relations Avith God ?" This could be justly answered by a reference to circumcision, but we pre- fer to let Inspiration directly respond. We read in Deuteronomy, xxix, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 : " Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God ; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood, unto the drawer of thy water : that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and unto his oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day ; that he may establish thee to-day for a people unto himself, and that he may be unto thee a God, as he hath said unto thee, and as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, to 36 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath ; but with him that standeth here -with us this day before the Lord our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day." This is the account Inspiration gives of the capability of little ones, infants or children, to enter into covenant relations with their Maker. But comment is out of place here ! God speaks. We shall conclude this chapter with the language of Wetstein : " For since they [Apostles] could not be ignorant that the boys and infants of Jews were to be circumcised, so as to become Jews, and be brought into covenant, and that the boys and infants of Gentile proselytes were not only themselves called proselytes, and circumcised, but were also baptized, as I have before fully proved ; I do not see how it could enter into their thoughts to expunge boys and infants from the list of disciples, or from baptism, unless they had been excluded by the express injunc- tions of Christ, which we nowhere find." Com. on Matthew xxviii, 19. TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. TRACT II. INFANT BAPTISM. NEITHER WOMAN NOR CHILD IS EXPRESSLY MENTIONED IN THE COMMISSION GIA'EN TO THE APOSTLES BY THE SAVIOUR. THE WORDS HE AND NATIONS, AS THEREIN USED, MUST BE GENERI- CALLY EXPOUNDED. — THE RIGHT OF INFANTS TO DISCIPLESHIP IN THE CHURCH BY BAPTISM AMPLIFIED BY SUNDRY PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE. We open this chapter with the commission of the Saviour, as recorded by Matthew and Mark. Matthew : " Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," &c. Chap, xxviii, 19. Mark: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be damned." Chap, xvi, 15, 16. The Anti-Pedobaptist entrenches himself here, saying : "A person who has a right to a positive institute must be expressly mentioned as having this 88 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. right ; but infants are not so mentioned in the com- mission ; hence it excludes them." Those who are not mentioned are excluded. Is this to be the test ? Well, let us try it. Is woman named either by Mark or Matthew ? She is not. Does not Mark state : " He that believeth," &c ? Is he a woman ? Make the rule of the Anti-Pedo- baptist a test of practice, and you dare not baptize a woman. She is not " expressly mentioned " in tho commission. Neither woman nor child is " expressly mentioned." This is the true state of the case. What then ? Simply this, he is generically used in the commission, and must be so presented in every just exposition. " He that eateth and drinketh unworthily," &c. Is woman expressly mentioned here ? No. This view of things ought to convince the Anti-Pedobaptist of the fact, that the rule he applies to the commission not only excludes women and infants from baptism, but women from the Lord's supper. Bloomfield, Stuart, Woods, and many other learned Pedobaptists, allege," says an Anti-Pedobaptist, " that there is no positive precept respecting the admission of females to the Lord's supper." When the Anti-Pedobaptist comes to baptize a INFANT BAPTI»:.I. SB woman, he must seek for his authority in the word Zsc, because it is genericallj used in the commission. Now, while he advocates the principle, that woman is implied in the word 7ie, we shall, on the same principle, place infants in the premises, and, as a natural conse- quence, maintain their right to baptism. Natiojis is a generic term also ; hence infants are included, and thereby held up as fit subjects for dis- cipleship by baptism. These comments unfold the true character of the commission, unless our judgment is incapable of dis- criminating between truth and error. The reader, from what has been said, will at once perceive that much depends on the proper under- standing of terms. For instance, hoy^ girl, or ivoman, are particular terms which definitely express our thoughts in reference to distinct individuals ; and believer is a concrete term, which embodies certain attributes of the person mentioned : but he and nations are generic terms, which include, in certain connec- tions, all — from the helpless infant up to the man of many years. The Anti-Pedobaptist, feeling that he cannot find woman expressly mentioned in the commission, savs. by way of covering up the fiital consequenoo,? nf ]ii,s 40 TKACTS FOR THE TIMES. rule : " Infants arc not commanded to be baptized ; therefore they should not be baptized." To tliis -vvc reply, in the language of Lightfoot : " It is not pro- hibited that infants should be baptized ; therefore they should be baptized." This is how we meet the objec- tion, making all things even. " Did not women commune with the men from the day of Pentecost onward ?" asks the Anti-Pedobaptist. He refers us to Acts ii , 42. The reference may be to their feasts of love ; but let this be as it may, the case does not amount to a command, nor to any thing like it. We admit that they communed with men from the day of Pentecost onward ; but deny that they are expressly mentioned where the sacraments are directly spoken of in reference to the time they were instituted. The Anti-Pedobaptist being thus driven from his position, rephes : " If I cannot find women expressly mentioned in connection with the institution of the sacraments, I can prove by the testimony of Inspira- tion that they were baptized with men, which reads : ' They were baptized, both men and women.' See Acts viii, 12. If infants had then been baptized, would they not have been mentioned ? This," says he, " I consider unanswerable." INFANT BAPTISM. 41 He is, AYithout doubt, carried away with the sound of words. It can be answered — even to satisfaction. We are informed in Acts ii, 37, 38, 39, thus : " Men and brethren, what shall we do ? Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Here we have men, brethren and children, named in connection with baptism, but not a word respecting woman in the paragraph. All, how- ever we particularly care to make out of this is, that the omission of women does not furnish a legitimate argument against their right to the ordinance of baptism — hence, on the other hand, the omission of children must not be taken as an evidence of their exclusion. We can more clearly illustrate this by a quotation from the Old Testament : " And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. For Joshua drew not his hand back wherewith he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai." Joshua viii, 25 26. 42 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. JNIen and women are only spoken of as in the case of Samaria ; but who would, because of this, argue against the idea of infants being in Ai ? See also Judges ix, 49, 61. The Anti-Pedobaptist, seeing all these points Scrip- turallj met, opens his Greek lexicon, and tells us that tehia, of which cliildren is a translation, means posterity — adding this much of his own, " adult posterity," which he follows up by asserting that the true meaning of the passage quoted from Peter's ser- mon is : " For the promise, whether of baptism or the spirit, is to you and to your adult posterity." Tekna, as used by Peter, simply means infant posterity in a direct sense, for, when we speak of our posterity, do we not mean children or infants ? Certainly. The word tekna comes from the verb tikto, which signifies to bring forth. Sperma, of which seed is a transla- tion in the promise made to Abraham, concerning future blessings, which is recorded in Genesis, is synonymous with tehia — hence seed and cliildren are expressive, in a direct sense, of infant posterity. The words and the passages must alike be abandoned by every Anti-Pedobaptist. They cannot even remotely assist the doctrine. Our position, of a truth, has their entire support. INFANT BAPTISM. 43 We shall now present a very striking proof of the doctrine we are pleading for under the application of commission. It is recorded in loth of Acts. Dr. John P. Campbell gives it thus : " Except ye be cir- cumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." The manner of Moses required the circum- cision of infants, as well as of adults, and of course these troublesome Jews, who disturbed the church in Antioch, contended for the circumcision of infants in that place. Infants then were as much the objects in this controversy as adults. Now what says Peter ? " Why tempt ye God to put a yoke [circumcision] upon the neck of the disciples " — that is, upon infants, as well as upon adults — therefore infants were dis- ciples in the Church of Antioch ; and those infant disciples must have been baptized ; for the apostles were commanded to baptize disciples of every descrip- tion." See his work on Baptism, p. 36. When we consider that the sense of the commission runs thus — Disciple all nations, we have in the previous proof from Acts a clear case of infant dis- cipleship by baptism. Eph. ii, 14 : " For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and broken down the middle wall of partition between us." Jews and Gentiles arc here included. 44 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. The meaning is, that the partition which had long separated the Gentiles from the Jews was broken down by the death of Christ, which opened up an opportunity to the Gentiles of being one with the Jews in all things. The Jewish state of the church was not totally dissolved at the calling of the Gentiles, the quotation under examination being allowed to decide. In plain terms, the opposers of this view of the case must prove that the covenant which secured infant membership to the Jews was, while the partition stood, repealed, totally abrogated, or be at once persuaded that we have but given the exact sense of the passage before us. Romans xi, 17 : " And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive-tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive-tree ; boast not thy- self against the branches." We learn from this pas- sage that the ancient church state was continued, having some of its members broken off, and the Gentiles grafted in. The very idea of the wild olive- tree, including a variety of branches, great and small, is sufficient of itself to convince the thinking mind that infants were intended in the figure as well as adults. The branches that were broken off had their INFANT BAPTISM. 45 children broken off with them, and the branches that were grafted in with the wild olive-tree had theii* children grafted in with them. The former, of course, refers to the unbelieving Jews, and the latter to the believing Gentiles. Jeremiah, speaking to the church, says : " The Lord called thy name a green olive-tree.''^ Chap, xi, 16. Hosea sajs : " His branches shall spread, and his beauty shall be as the olive-tree." Chap, xiv, 6. The opinion of Professor Stuart is highly worthy of a place here. It runs thus : " The wild olive was often grafted into the fruitful one, when it began to decay, and thus not only brought forth fruit, but caused the decaying olive-tree to revive and flourish. The image which the apostle here employs is, there- fore, a very vivid one. The Gentiles had been grafted in upon the Jewish church, and had caused this decayed tree to revive and flourish. But still the apostle means to hold in check any exultation of the Gentiles on account of this. He reminds them, that after all they are not the stock, but only grafts ; that the root and fatness of the good olive have been transferred to them, only because they have been grafted into it. All this shows that, in the apostle's view, there has been, in reality, but one church ; the 46 TRACTS FOR THE TLMES. ancient Jewish one being the foundation, the Christian one the superstructure and completion of the build- ing." Com. on Eom. 11, 17. This gives the very soul of the passage. The baptism of households now claims our attention. The Peshito-Syriac version says : " When she [Lydia] Tvas baptized with her children." See Rev. J. T. Hendrick's Letters on Baptism, p. 19. The old Coptic version speaks the same. See Kurtz, p. 99. We do not deem it essential to our subject to number all the baptized households mentioned in the New Testament, nor to inquire into the possibility and probability of children being in them ; inasmuch as we are perfectly satisfied, if they were all without children, they, without doubt, ought to be regarded as the most remarkable list of households on record — whether we refer to sacred or common history. Dr. Light- foot justly observes : " The stress of the business lies not so much in this, whether it can be proved there were children in the households, as that, if there were, they certainly were baptized." Quoted from Dr. Pond's Treatise on Baptism, p. 95. 1 Cormthians x, 2 : " And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Now, take this passage and connect it with the narrative to which it INFANT BAPTISM. 47 belongs — then give the Avhole a careful examination, and the obvious signification will run thus — that the deliverance of the Israelites from the yoke of Pharaoh may justly be viewed as a type of our redemption from sin now ; that their journey through the wilder- ness to the promised land may justly be viewed as a type of our march to heaven now ; that their baptism by affusion from the cloud, and by the sprinkling of the spray from the ocean, may justly be viewed as a type of baptism now ; that the subjects then may justly be viewed as types of the subjects for baptism now ; that the adults then may justly be viewed as types of adults now ; and that the children then may justly be viewed as types of children now. To exclude one of these types, or representations, would be equal to making this text imperfect in meaning ; but to retain these types, or representations, as above pre- sented, is, we humbly think, equal to having, and keeping to, a proper view of the matter. Was not the child baptized as well as the adult? Certainly. If the adult was a type, was not the child a type also ? Most assuredly. A clearer proof of infant baptism, all things considered, could not reasonably be desired. jNIr. A. Campbell, however, informs us thus : " The 48 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. Jews were members of the politico-ecclesiastico church by natural birth. Circumcision was no initiatory rite or door to them." See Debate with Rice, p. 296. Gentle reader, please contrast this with the evidence of this chapter and the one that precedes it, and you will fully be convinced of this truth, that an unsup- portable cause needs desperate premises, and dreadful conclusions. Well, let us hear how blessed Stephen, of precious memory, spoke of this matter when about to die for the cause of his God : " This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and ivith our fathers, who received the lively oracles to give unto us." Acts vii, 38. Stephen had not learned, under the guidance of Inspiration, to call God's people in the wilderness " a politico-ecclestiastico church." No, no — but a church, in which Christ and Moses dwelt. " The church in the wilderness." Did baptized children make a portion of it ? Certainly ; for Paul says — " all were baptized." This is an irresistable point, and of course it will continue to be so, until mind ceases to respect the teaching of a type, which was not restricted at its origin, nor abrogated since ; INFANT BAPTISM. 49 and so we close this chapter, hoping that our Anti- Pedobaptist friends will abandon the language of Mr. Campbell, Booth, and others, and adopt the language of Stephen — though the baptized children may con- stitute a modern Mordecai at the King of Zion's gate. 5 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. TRACT III. INFANT BAPTISM. TUB RIGUT TO BAPTIZE INFANTS IS AS SELF-EVIDENT AS THE PKOVISIONS OF AN UNREPEALED LAW. In the outset of this Tract, which is intended to illustrate and confirm the doctrine set forth in the two that precede it, we beg leave to show that infant baptism made a portion of the ceremonies in the Jewish state of the church. Mr. B. W. Noel, Baptist, says, quoting from Goodwin : " We do not assume that Christian baptism was in all respects the same as Jewish baptism." See his work on Baptism, p. 51, New York ed. 1850. Watson says : " This baptism of Proselytes, as Lightfoot has fully showed, was a baptism of families, and comprehended their infant children ; and the rite was a symbol of their being washed from the pollutions of idolatry." See his Institutes, vol. 2, p. 632. TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 51 Dr. "Wall says : " The whole body of the Jews, men, •women, and children, were in Moses' time bap- tized. After which the male children of Proselytes, that were entered with their parents, were, (as w^ell as their parents) admitted by circumcision, baptism, and sacrifice ; the female children by baptism and sacrifice." Wall, vol. 1, p. 26, London ed. 1844. Dr. Lightfoot says : " I do not believe that the people that flocked to John's baptism were so forget- ful of the manner and custom of the nation, as not to bring their little children along with them to be bap- tized." Sbrce Hebraicce on 3Iatthew, 3, 6. We do not deem it necessary to quote a vast array of authority on this subject. What is before us is to point and purpose. We shall mention, however, for the sake of showing the reader that he may not fear to found his faith here, a number of authors that so believe, and speak. Epictetus, Calmet, Hammond, Jahn, RosenmuUer, Clarke, Dr. John P. Campbell, George Smith, Selden, Maimonides, Rabbi Joseph, Rabbi Hezekiah, and St. Cyprian, are of the class named. But let us here insert the opinion of Maimonides, the celebrated Jewish writer, in order to meet the objection of the Anti-Pedobaptist as to the origin of 62 INFANT BAPTISM. Jewish baptism. He says : " Baptism was in the desert before the giving of the law, according as it is said, thou shalt sanctify them." Quoted by Dv John P. Campbell, p. 32. How appropriately we may here say, that Dr. Lightfoot but unfolds the whole truth in stating : " The baptizing of infants was a thing as well known in the church of the Jews, as ever it has been in the Christian Church." See him on Matt.iii, 6. From what precedes we learn that the Jews made disciples of the children of the Gentiles, in the days of the Saviour, by baptism. In addition we remark, that they made disciples of their own children by circumcision, so far as males were concerned. Inspiration being allowed to speak. This gives us a just view of the established custom of the Church then respecting infants. Here we may well ask, was this custom so changed, or repealed, as to preclude the continuance of cliildren, by any rite, in the Church of God ? No. Let the Anti-Pedobaptist but show that in this particular we are mistaken, and our cause must sink into ruin. But this cannot be done — Therefore our cause is that of truth made immutable. Just think of it — that, at a time when children were as much entitled to discipleship or membersliip INFANT BAPTISM. 53 as adults, the Saviour said to the apostles — Go, bap- tize the nations, instead of — Go circumcise the nations, without excluding a human soul, and you will at once perceive that they could not have, apart from an intervening Inspiration, thought of any thing to the contrary of the baptism of children with their parents, or without them. It is said, by way of objection, " that baptism could not have come in the place of circumcison, since the latter was applied to none but males." This is con- sidered by some a formidable objection. Is not woman included in the word he, as it is found in the commission ? On the same principle she was included in the woi'd he, as contemplated in the covenant with Abraham. " No uncircumcised person," says Dr. Pond, p. 83, " was allowed to partake of the Passover, yet females partook of it as well as males ; (See Luke ii, 41;) which shows that though they bore not the external mark, they were regarded as of the circum cision." This unfolds the whole matter. In a word, we may directly risk every thing, so far as a basis for infant baptism is concerned, on the unconderaned and unsubverted custom of the Church in the days of the Saviour. Then were infants made discij>les or members — the children of the Jews one 64 TRACTS FOll THE TIMES. way, and the cliildren of the Gentiles another; still, the whole procedure was regarded as being covered by the provisions of the Abrahamic covenant. This is our Sinai. We shall now proceed to amplify and confirm all that precedes on infant baptism, or the right to dis- cipleship in the Church by baptism, by showing, in the light of incontrovertible rules, the tranfer of the principle from one dispensation to another. 1. It is a well known principle in law, which can not reasonably be doubted, that when a right is once granted, named and specified, it (the right) must so remain until the law be repealed by the proper authority, and the record made. Now, according to this rule the matter will run thus — that, as infants were once placed in the Jewish state of the church by divine appointment, and as the law that granted them the right to discipleship or membership never has been repealed, the right, as a thing of consequence, has continued unimpaired, and ever must do so, until the Head of the Church will subvert the law, by abrogating the right, causing a record of the whole to be made, so that all may read and understand. To evade this, the Auti-Pedobaptist demands "a INFANT BAPTISM. OO law or command in the New Testament for infant membership." To this we reply, that the demand is equal to asking for the origination of a law to prove a right, when a law is in force sustaining the right. Had there been no previous right for infant disciple- ship, running before the days of the Savdour and }iis apostles, it certainly would devolve on us to produce a law, bearing on the subject, from the New Testament ; but as the case stands, it would be as foolish in us to look for such a law in the New Testa- ment, as it would be for a lawyer to look for the incorporation of a city in the written acts of a Legislative assembly dated 1850, which had been incorporated in 1840. Of a truth, these considerations must address them- selves to men that reflect, and deeply convince them that God gave a law on infant membership to the household of Abraham, by which the seed of this man of faith, at eight days old, were to be introduced into the Jewish state of the church — not excepting John the Baptist and the Saviour ; and that this law is in force now, not in its original form, but in principle, commending itself to every branch of the church, that is properly instructed in the will of God, and duly organized according to the form of doctrine 66 TUACTS FOR THE TIMES. delivered to the world by the apostles. We ask for the repeal of this law, or for an honest submission to it. How Scriptural ! Will reason refuse. 2. When laws are repealed in part, a right sanc- tioned by the unrepealed portion of them not only continues as before, but receives an additional sanction by the act. Having judged by our first rule, and found it invin- cible in its application to the doctrine of infant baptism, we shall now proceed to a similar consideration and use of the second — knowing that it will also clearly vindicate the same subject, and place it, if possible, in a stronger attitude, leaving it as if addressing itself, and commending itself, to the minds of all. The sense of the second rule must be thus understood — that when laws were repealed in part, or in part abolished, the law of infant membership remained untouched — was not changed nor altered by the prophets, the Saviour, or the apostles — thereby giving us not only to understand that it was designed for continuance, but that it did, from this fact, receive additional con- firmation. This principle, we think, must be embraced by every observing and reflecting mind. For instance, when a Legislative assembly changes features of a law, and leaves other features of the same law INFANT BAPTISM. 57 unchanged, does it not, by such an act, give additional approval to the unrepealed portions of the law, while it leaves the rights allowed thereby the same, or in as full force, as ever ? Most assuredly. In hke man- ner are we to look on infant membership. Many things were changed in the days of the apostles, and many thing numbered with the past, and accounted for as serving the purpose for which they were designed ; but infant membership was allowed to remain as it was found divinely sanctioned, and so to remain for all ages. It was not even mooted by one of them. We admit, as clearly stated above, that during the lives of the apostles, laws and customs that had been long time-honored, were either wholly abolished, or set forth to be continued in part ; but insist that the law of infant membership was neither abrogated in principle, nor changed in any essential feature, but turned over to the church with additional approval ; being accounted by the apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, worthy of an abiding place in the Book of life ; and consequently in the faith and prac- tice of the churcli . A question of the highest interest arises here — did the apostles repeal or change other laws, leaving the 58 TRACTS FOB THE TIMES. law on infant membership unrepealed, thereby giving it additional confirmation ? We answer yes. If this' should be doubted, let the chapter and verse be named in which a contrary doctrine can be found, and we shall abandon this view of the subject. Knowing, however, that our position is based on truth, made immutable, we here remark, that our second rule is fully met by facts in the case, namely, that the law of infant membership was not abrogated by the apostles, though other laws were, which left it under an additional sanction. This, we think, cannot be gainsayed nor confuted by any of the sons of men, while justice, the nature of things, and sound reasoning, will remain respected. Honesty exclaims — the conclusion ought to be gain- sayed or received ! 3. When a law is silently passed over that has been long in force, while other laws and portions of laws are repealed, this very silence is the strongest possible proof of its approval. According to this rule the very silence of the apostles on the law of infant membership, when they spoke and acted freely in reference to other laws, is the strongest proof possible of its approval. To illus- trate this, if an article of a constitution, when a con- INFANT BAPTISM. 59 vention meets to form a new constitution, be allowed to remain without discussion or objection, the very silence, of course, of the assembly, must be regarded as the most decided sanction of it. In this light exactly we are to look on the law of infant member- ship. This gives us a proper idea of its true situation. But lest we should be misunderstood we remark, though we maintain that the apostles did not alter — the idea of subverting being out of question — the principle involved in infant membership, nor even agitate, in any form, the custom, but gave it their undisturbed, silent, sanction, when other customs were changed; yet we are convinced, that their writings abound with the idea, and that they developed the doctrine by their practice — if language has an implied meaning, or custom can confirm any thing. But to hunt for a law on infant membership in the New Testament is magnificently preposterous. Would you thing of seeking in a civil code for a new law to prove a right, the whole nation knowing the right to be secured by a law long in force ? If you would — then go to the New Testament to find original author- ity for infant membership. Reader, pause, and reflect. The silence, therefore, of the New Testament, as above advocated, on the subject of infant membership, 60 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. is the strongest proof we can urge in reference to its sanction. This is much more conclusive than stransre. And now let us illustrate, in a concentrated way, all we have said on the right of infants to mem- bership or discipleship in the church. The State of Alabama has a law that provides for the protection of female property, so that it cannot be spent by the husband. This law, be it remembered, provides not only for the female child that now lives, but for every female child of the far oflf future. The child that is now sung to in the cradle has as good a right to the protection of this law as the young lady just lately married. So it is with regard to the right of infants to membership in the church of Christ. The child on the lap of the mother has a claim to membership as well founded as the adult who sings his hymn by the altar of the church. It will require a full repeal of the law in the State of Alabama, and a record of this made, before the child of futurity can be looked on as unprotected in the right to property that it (the law) now aifords. The infant, in the days of the apostles, had a right to membership in the Jewish state of the church ; and nothing could obliterate this right but a full repeal of the law that gave it, clearly expressed in record. The repeal not having been made, the INFANT BAPTISM. 61 right was transferred to the Christian state of the church, and has so continued until now. May we not, in view of the considerations before us, justly state, that the right to baptize infants is as self-evident as the provision of an unrepealed law. TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. TRACT IV. INFANT BAPTISM. INFANT BAPTISM PROVED BY CIRCUMCISION. — THE YIEWS AND PRACTICE OF THE FATHERS BEING RESPECTED. Justin Martyr, 140. A. D., says :" We have not received that carnal circumcision, but the spiritual circumcision, which Enoch, and those hke him, ob- served. And we have received it bj baptism, through the mercy of God, because we were sinners ; and it is incumbent on all persons to receive it in the same way." See Buigham's Christian Ant. vol. 3, p. 161, London ed. 1834. The question that now arises is, what does Justin mean ? He means that it is incumbent on all to receive spiritual circumcision by baptism — Whence infants must be baptized, for the undeniable reason that they make a portion of all. This was the doctrine of Justin about forty years after the death of John — INFANT BAPTISM. 63 tlic apostle of love. Words cannot make infant bap- tism plainer than the quotation before us. Justin tells Trjpho, a Jew, that spiritual circumcision is received by baptism, and that all must receive it in the same way, whether young in years or advanced in age. Here we insist on our conclusion, most confidently saying to the Anti-Pedobaptist, when it can be made appear that infants or children do not make a portion of all — then, not till then, will the testimony of Justin be found without application to our cause. But, while bowing to his authority on a question of fact, we wish it to be remembered, that we do not ask him for an opinion on any point of doctrine, but simply to tell us what the church did and said within his day. We know, and want the reader to know it too, that he borrows the idea of regeneration at bap- tism from our Lord's declarations to Nicodemus, John iii, and enforces, in the dialogue from which the quotation is taken, the doctrine with zeal and ability. This by the way, but augments his testimony on the abstract point of infant baptism ; for it shows, accord- ing to his judgment, the necessity of the practice. Bingham, same page, says : " If baptism be answer- able to circumcision, and succeeded in its room, and 61 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. be necessary [as Justin states] to be received as the means to obtain the true circumcision of the Spirit ; then as infants were admitted to circumcision, so they were to be admitted to baptism." Wall, after quoting and translating the language of Justin in reference to circumcision, remarks : " It is plain that this most ancient father does here speak of baptism being to Christians in the stead of circum- cision ; and the analogy between these two is one of the arguments used by the Pedobaptists to prove that one ought to be given to infants, as well as the other was." Wall, vol. 1, p. 65. Dr. Pond says : " The Scriptures clearly coun- tenance the idea, that baptism is substituted in the place of circumcision." Again: "The primitive Christian fathers considered baptism as having come in the place of circumcision." All this will be made evident immediately. See Pond on Baptism, pp. 80, 81, Boston ed. 1833. Bishop Kenrick says ; "It would be easy to exhibit a series of ancient witnesses, who, following the apostolic teaching, speak of the Christian rite as a spiritual circumcision, freed from the limitations which circumscribed the carnal observance. St. Justin, St. Cyprian, with the Fathers of the council of Carthage, INFANT BAPTISM. 65 St. Gregory of Nazianzen, St. Epiphanus, St. Chry- sostom, St. Augustine, in a word all the Fathers point to baptism as to Christian circumcision." See his Treatise on Baptism, pp. 130, 131, Phil. ed. 1843. George S. Faber says : " Circumcision and baptism are two sacramental signs of exactly the same import. They must, therefore, to all effective purposes, be mutually the same with each other. For a sign being altogether arbitrary, if it had pleased God to shadow out regeneration by a hundred different signs, all these hundred signs would still continue but a single sacrament." See Sermons, vol. 1, sermon 9. Dr. Wardlow, after supposing that circumcision may be regarded, as a sign which shows the promised " seed " must be of Abraham, as well as the sign of " putting off the body of the sins of the flesh," &c., says : "If U^is be well founded, we at once perceive a good reason why circumcision should be abolished when this seed came ; and why another rite should be substituted in its place, which continued to signify as expressly, or more so, the ' putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,' while it was not all significant of that part of the meaning of the former symbol, wliich had now received its fulfillment." See Dissertations oa lufant Baptism, p, 28. 66 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. Let US now see whether Inspiration affords any foundation for the language of Justin, and the opinions and deductions of these authors. It speaks thus, Col. ii, 11, 12: "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ : Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the opera- tion of God, who hath raised him from the dead." The circumcision or baptism of Christ by the Spirit, in cutting off the body of the sins of the flesh, is actually here placed in contrast with the knife in cutting off the foreskin ; and in addition, the sub- jects are said to be raised " through the faith of the operation of God" — not by the action of a man's arms, which would have been the case, if water baptism by immersion had been the point wliich the apostle intended to express. The paraphrase given of this testimony of St. Paul, in questions ascribed to Justin Martyr, runs thus : " Why, if circumcision were a good thing, we do not use it as well as the Jews did ?" The answer is: "We are circumcised by baptism with Christ's circumcision." Wall, vol. 1, p. QQ. Wall, same page, says : " Only he [Paul] as well INPxVNT BAPTISM. 07 as Justin, refers both to the inward and outward part of baptism ; whereof the inward part is done without hands": and accordingly the ancients were wont to call baptism, ' the circumcision done without hands.' " The only difference that we perceive between Paul and Justin is, that the former speaks of adults, exhort- ing them to duties, while the latter speaks of all, declaring that it is necessary they should, not even excepting an infant, receive spiritual circumcision by baptism. We know, and warn the reader against, an absurd advantage that may be taken of this construc- tion ; that is, " Paul does not speak of infants, nor directly apply the passage to them, therefore they are excluded." We midit as well argue that adults are excluded, because the Saviour says, suffer the children to come unto me, without coupling adults with them in the invitation. The Scriptures, and the writings of the fathers, abound with special applications of truths, without intending the idea of exclusion — heiico the necessity of care on these points. Chapter V. of this examination, will open with a striking example of this, in the testimony of Justin Martyr, on disciple- ship, and regeneration by baptism. Having made it evident that Justin based his vie\\s on inspiration, and maintained the necessity of infant 68 TRACTS FOB. TRE TIMES. baptism under the idea of spiritual cii'cumcision, we shall novr proceed to show the general sense of the primitive state of the Christian Church on baptism and circumcision. Dr. Pond says, speaking of the decision of the Council of Carthage, 253, A. D : " The question of Fidus to Cyprian and the Council of Carthage, whether it be lawful to baptize an infant sooner than the eighth day, necessarily supposes it to have been an established opinion that baptism had come in the place of circumcision. See his work on baptism, p. 81. Ilere we learn that nearly seventy bishops regarded baptism as taking the place of circumcision. See also Wali; vol. 1, p. 131. Gregory of Nazianzen, 370 A. D. speaking of the baptism of infants, says : "And for this practice cir- cumcision, which was performed on the eighth day, affords us a reason, inasmuch as it was a typical seal, and was applied to those destitute of the use of rea- son." See Orat. 28. Basil, 370, A. D. says : " A Jew does not delay circumcision, because of the threatening that every soul that is not circumcised the eighth day shall be cut off from his people : and dost thou put off the circumcision made without hands in the putting off IXFAM BAPTISM. 69 the flesh, which is performed in baptism." Wall, vol. 1, p. 211. Ambrose, o85, A. D., sajs: "Both the home- born and the foreigner, the just and the sinful, must be circumcised by the forgiveness of sins, so as not to practice sin any more : for no person comes to the kingdom of heaven but by the sacrament of baptism." Ibid., 223. Chrysostom, 387, A. D., says: "But our circum- cision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives cure with- out pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us with the grace of the Spirit : and it has no determinate time, as that had ; but one that is in the very beginning of his age, or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in old age, may receive this circumcision made without hands." Ibid., p. 228. Augustin, 400, A. D., says : " Yet we may besides take a true estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which God's former people received." Ibid., p. 255. May we not now confidently say that the early Fathers regarded baptism as answering the same pur- pose to the Christian state of the church, relying on the evidence before us, that circumcision did to the church in her Jewish state ? Truly, we not only 70 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. can afford to say this, but can adopt the appropriate language of Flavel : " Cannot baptism stand in tlie place of circumcision, because it answers all its ends, with an advantage ?" Dr. Pond very justly says : "It will be observed that several of the Fathers speak of baptism (in the language of the apostle, Col. ii, 11, 12,) as the circumcision made without hands. It is evident from this, that they understood the apostle, in the passage referred to, as teaching the substitution of baptism in place of circumcision." Pond, p. 82. We shall close these remarks and facts with a few necessary reflections. It is said that baptism cannot be substituted for circumcision, for the simple reason, that the latter only applies to males. Dr. Pond fairly meets this, p. 83, saying : " But why was circum- cison applied to none but males ? Not because of any thing in its internal import, which rendered it improper that it should be administered to females ; for these were included in the covenant with Abra- ham, and were really of the circumcision, as much as the males. No uncircumcised person was allowed to partake of the Passover ; yet females partook of it as well as males ; (See Luke ii, 41) which shows that though they bore not the external mark, they were regarded as of the circumcision.'" I.NFANT BAPTISM. 71 In reference to the objection respecting the apostles " tolerating the Jewish converts in the circumcision of their children," and the conclusion from it, " that they could not have acted so, and at the same time looked on baptism as a substitute for circumcision," we reply in the language of Dr. Pond, p. 83 : " As the import of the two ordinances was the same, and the relation of children to the Church was intended to be con- tinued, they saw no inconsistency in yielding, for a time, to this feeling of the Jewish converts. But this same feehng of regard, which led the apostles to toler- ate circumcision, would prompt them not to say a word on the substitution of baptism in its place." In short, we are fully satisfied that the immediate successors of the apostles looked on Baptism as taking the place of circumcision, having for its object similar subjects. Dr. Grant says, speaking of the Nestorians in this particular: " On the eighth day the child may be baptized, as the Nestorians are of the opinion that baptism comes in the place of circumcision." See Bih. Rep., :i Sin. 1842, p. 77. So much for infant baptism through this line of proof. Conscience, we thing, if partly free from bias, will find it an easier task to believe, than to reject — the proof being so clear and unequivocal. TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. TRACT V. INFANT BAPTISM. THE HISTORY OP THE CHRISTIAN STATE OF THE CHURCH PROVES THAT INFANT BAPTISM HAS BEEN PRACTICED FROM THE DATS OF THE APOSTLES UNTIL NOW. We are now ready, having prepared the minds of our readers to appreciate and feel its force, to hear the plain unbroken testimony of the history of the Christian state of the Church on infant baptism. Clemens Romanus, 68, A. D., is thus presented by Bingham : He does not directly mention infant bap- tism, yet he says a thing that by consequence proves it. For he makes infants liable to original sin, which in effect is to say, that they have need of baptism to purge them fi-om it; for speaking of Job he says, " though he was a just man, yet he condemns himself saying ' there is none free from pollution though his life be but the length of one day.' " — Sec Bingham's Antiquities Vol. 3, p. 158. INFANT BAPTISM. 73 Hermas, 70, A. D., is thus spoken of by Bingham: " He makes water baptism so necessary to all, that in a vision he represents the apostles as going after death to baptize the holj spirits, who lived under the old Testament. The plain design," savs Bing- ham, " is to represent the necessity of baptism, with- out which none can ordinarily enter into the kingdom of God." Ibid., pp. 158, 159. Hinton, a distinguished Baptist writer, presents Hermas as stating : " Baptism is necessary to all." See his Hist, of Bap., p. 232, Phil. ed. 1840. Dr. Pond, as quoted by Rev. J. T. Hendrick, rep- resents Hermas as testifying thus: "For all infanta are in honor with the Lord, and are esteemed first of all," and " the baptism of water is necessary to all." See Hendrick on Baptism, p. 41, ed. 1843. Dr. Wall gives the testimony of Hermas thus : "For all infants are valued by the Lord, and esteemed the first of all." Wall is so confident on this point, that he declares: "Now I say, that in that larger apphcation infants are particularly mentioned." See Wall, vol. 4, p. 272. Surely we may safely say, if infants are esteemed the first of all, and baptism is necessary to all, this undeniable truth must follow, that Hermas sets forth 7 74 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. the doctrine of infant baptism, and advocates its necessity. But it may be said that Hermas, a brother of Pius, Bishop of Rome, 141, A. D., was the author of the doctrine presented, and not the Hermas named above. We shall here give, because of this, and for the sake of truth, the sum of all that can be brought forward on this subject. Irenaeus, 178, A. D., quotes from the writings of Hermas; TertulUan, 200, A. I)., praises them when orthodox or Catholic, and condemns them when a Montanist ; Origen, 216, A. D., in his Homily on Romans xvi, 14, speaks of the Hermas there named, as the author of the work in dispute ; and Eusebius, 325, A. D., testifies thus : " But as the same apostle [Paul] in the addresses at the close of the epistle to the Romans, has among others made men- tion also of Hermas, of whom they say we have the book call the Pastor ; it should be observed that this too is disputed by some, on account of whom it is not placed among those of acknowledged authority. By others, however, it is judged most necessary, especially to those who need an elementary introduc- tion. Hence we know that it has already been in public use in our churches, and I have also under- stood by tradition, that some of the most ancient INFANT BAPTISM. 75 writers have made use of it." See Emeb. Eocles. Hist.^ book 3, chap. 3. p. 84, New York ed., 1842. Jerome, 390, A. D., applauds it at one time, and at another pronounces it foolish and apocryphal. Atha- nasius, 399, A. D., cites it, and looks on it as a most useful work. Mosheim and Archbishop Wake, modern writers, think that the Hermas in question was a brother of Pius, who was bishop of Rome, 141, A. D. See chap. 6, and 10, of Mr. Baker's Review of our work on Baptism, Ten. Baptist, 1851 — also Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Art. Hermas. Hinton, the Baptist writer above quoted, takes Mosheim's view of the matter. See his Hist, of Bap., p. 231. Neander, however, in his Church History, pp. 409, 410, expresses a doubt as to whether the work under consideration was written by either Hermas. NoAV, in view of the evidence before us, we may venture to affirm, that the work of Hermas was in existence about the middle of the second century, if not sooner. If written by the Hermas first mentioned, then the date is 70 ; but if written by the brother of Pius, then the date is 141. But the testimony, either way, is the same, and of equal force. It is, that " baptism is necessary to all " — consequently to infants, — they making a portion of all. 76 TllACIS FOR THE TIMES. Justin Martjr, 140, A. D., sajs : " Several per- sons among us of sixty and seventy years old, of both sexes, who were discipled to Christ in, or from childhood, do continue uncorrupted." See Wall, vol. 1, p. 70. Wall, speaking of this evidence on behalf of infant baptism, says : " And they that were seventy years old at this time must have been made disciples to Christ in their childhood, (as he says they were,) about thirty-six years after the ascension ; that is, in the midst of the apostles' times, and within twenty years after St. Matthew's writing." Vol. 1, p. 71. Bingham says : " Another ancient writer, who lived within the compass of the second century, was Justin Martyr, who very plainly speaks of infant baptism as used from the time of the apostles." Again : " Those whom he speaks of as baptized sixty or seventy years before in their infancy must be persons baptized in the first age, while some of the apostles were Hving." Vol. 3, p. 161. Justin Martyr, the reader will please keep distinctly in mind, says : " Several persons among us of sixty and seventy years old were discipled to Christ in childhood." Now, let us hear what Mr. A. Campbell, one of the guiding stars of Anti-Pedobaptists, has to INFANT BAPTISM. 7T say on the word discipled : " No man could be said to be discipled until he was immersed" — baptized. See Debate between Campbell and Rice, p. 373. Here we prove, by Mr. Campbell, that the children of whom Justin speaks were made disciples by baptism; for he plainly declares that no one could be said to be discipled until he was baptized. Nor is this all. Mr. Campbell, please inform us as to the time Justin Mar- tyr said that certain children were made disciples to Chiist ; that is, in your sense, by baptism ? " Justin Martyr wrote about forty years after John the apostle died, and stands conspicuous among the primitive Fathers." See his Christian System^ p. 231, ed. 1839. Now, by taking 40 from 70 just 30 remain — hence, according to the showing of Mr. Campbell, some of the children, of whom Justin speaks, were made disciples by baptism thirty years before the death of the apostle John. This is an undeniable conclusion. Its force only can be broken by denying that they Avere infants or children in our sense ; but we are perfectly willing to submit the whole to the most rigid scrutiny. Justin says : " Several persons among us of sixty and seventy years old, of both sexes, who were discipled to Christ in childhood, do continue uncorrupted." Mr. Campbell says : " No man could 78 Tii.\CTS For. THE tijies. be said to be discipled until he was immersed" — bap- tized, — and, that Justin wrote about forty years after the death of John. This, however viewed, establishes the doctrine for which we contend — the discipleship of children or infants by baptism in the days of the apostles. In this connection we remark, by way of confirming what precedes, that the word used by Justin, to express the relation of children or infants to Christ, is used in our Lord's commission. Justin, emathe- teuthesan — Matthew, matheteusate. Rev. J. T. Hendrick, p. 20. speaks thus in reference to this: " That the word matJietiw, here rendered to teach, does strictly and literally mean, as the margin of our English Bibles renders it, to make disciples or Christians, is admitted by all learned men. Dicken- son's New Testament renders it 'Christianize' — Camp- bell, ' make disciples ' — Wakefield, ' disciple, or make disciples ' — Dwight, ' make disciples ' — Seabury, ' make disciples,' and Dr. Wall, in his reply to Dr. Gale, has abundantly established this fact." Rosenmuller not only agrees with these authors, but contends that the word " may be understood of taking into the number of followers of Christ infants, who are after- wards to be instructed." See Bishop Kenrick on Baptism, p. 129, Phil. ed. 1833. INFANT LAPTISM. 79 We now feel authorized to say, leaning on the evidence adduced, that infants or children were made disciples by bajatism in the days of the apostles, under the sanction of the commission itself. In opposition to all this, doubtless, it will be urged that those discipled to Christ, or made disciples to Christ, by baptism, " were not cliildren or infants in our sense, but such as were capable of instruction." Well, Matthew informs us, i, 11 : "And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother," In the 16th verse we learn, that Hei'od slew all the children that were in Bethle- hem, &c., " from two years old and under." And in the 18th verse we read, that Rachel wept " for her children." If Justin used the term as did Matthew, then, indeed were children, in our sense, made disciples by baptism in his day ; and so we proceed to hear Irenaeus. Irenaeus, 178, A. D., says : " For he [Christ] came to save all persons by himself: all^ I mean, who by him are regenerated [or baptized] unto God ; infants and little ones, and children and youths, and elder j)erson3." Wall, vol. 1, p. 72. In the language of ^Vull we say here : " This testimony, which reckons 80 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. infants among those that are regenerated, is plain and full ; provided the reader be one that is satisfied that the word regeneration does, in the usual phrase of those times, signify baptism : and this cannot be doubted by any that are at all acquainted with the books of those ages." Ibid., p. 73. In plain terms, we must prove that the phrase — regenerated unto God, either signifies baptized unto God, or regenerated by baptism unto God, or abandon Irenseus . Justin Martyr, after speaking of some acts on the part of adult candidates for baptism, says ; " Then we bring them to some place where there is water ; and they are regenerated by the same way of regeneration by which we were regenerated : for they are washed AN ith water in the name of God, the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." See his first Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius,- as quoted by Wall, vol. 1, page 67. We shall here remark, knowing that the Anti- Pedobaptist will try to confound the sense of the Apologies of Justin, that we are convinced the words are regenerated, refer to adults, persuaded of the truth; and the words tve?-e regenerated, refer to , INFANT BAPTISM. 81 those that were discipled to Christ by baptism in childhood or infancy. This is self-evident. The grammar of language requires the distinction. Dr. Carson, a prince among Anti-Pedobaptists, says: " Justin Martyr tells us, that after a certain process, the candidates were led by the Christians to a place where there was water, and were regenerated as they themselves had been regenerated. The persons baptized were regenerated by baptism." Carson con- tinues thus : " Justin then tells us the reason why he says they were regenerated by baptism." See Car- son on Baptism, p. 469, Phil, ed., 1844. Hinton, Anti-Pedobaptist, speaking of the passage under consideration from Justin, says : " This passage indeed appears to indicate that the identification of baptism and regeneration was gaining ground in the time of Justin." See his History of Baptism, p. 239. In a work, ascribed to Bardesanes, and spoken of by Origen in his Philocalia, — date about 150, A. D., we are thus informed: " The man that is regenerated by water," &c. See Bingham's Antiquities, vol. 3, p. 162. The word, of course, is used in this passage in reference to baptism. We shall now hear Irenseus himself on the word at issue. He speaks thus : " Again, Christ confiding to 82 TRACTS FOR TliE TIMES. his disciples the authority of regeneration to God, said, to them — ' Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,' " &c. See Dr. John P. Campbell on Baptism, p. 39, second ed. 1811. Again he says : " The baptism of regeneration ;" that is, as Carson would express it, the regeneration by baptism. See Mr. Baker's Review of our first work on Baptism, chap. 8. Mr. A. Campbell says : " Suppose I admit that all the Fathers, from Justin Martyr down to Theodoret, 423, used baptism and regeneration as synonymous, and Irenseus generally with the others, Avhat does it prove in the case before us ? That infant baptism is a divine institution, because it is probable, even certain, that Irenaeus referred to it, under another name." See his Debate with Rice, p. 430. He not only states that it is probably Irenseu^ refers to baptism, but even certain — yes, yes — even certain. In the Encyclopedia of Religious Knowlege, Art. Baptism, we are thus informed : " Irena^s, who wrote a few years later than Justin, says : ' Christ came to save all persons who by him (renascimtur in Deimi) are baptized unto God, infants and little ones, and children, and youths, and elder persons.' That he really intended to express baptism by this word is INFANT EAPTISM. 83 BO evident from his use of it in other instances, and from the general usage of the Fathers, that Dr. Wall does not hesitate to speak of the above passage as an express mention of baptized infants." Dr. Wall says of Winston, a learned Baptist, that he grants it to be undeniable, " that the word regeneration is generally, if not constantly, used with relation to baptismal regeneration." Wall adds : " And it is indeed, as he says, a thing undeniable by any modest arguer. He grants the place to speak of the baptism of infants." Wall, vol. 4, p. 50. Bingham says : " No art can elude this passage, so long as it is owned that regeneration means baptism. And for this we have the application of Irenseus him- self, who calls baptism by the name of regeneration ; and so all the ancients commonly do.' " See Bing- ham's Antiquities, vol. 3, p. 164. Having proved by Justin, Bardesenes, and Irenaeus himself, that the word regeneration was then used to express baptism, or, if any should prefer a different form of speech, the effect of baptism, we shall now bring forward a few of the Fathers that followed — knowing that their testimony will place this point beyond the reach of contradiction." 84 TRACTS FUR THE TIMES. Theophilus, 182, A. D., says : " Are regenerated." Again : " The laver of regeneration." See Faith of Catholics, vol. 2, p. 116, London ed., 1846. Clement of Alexandria, 190, A. D., says : " Being baptized, we are enlightened," &c. " Thus, only to have believed, and to have been regenerated is per- fection in life." Ibid., pp. 116, 117. Wall presents him as speaking thus : " Was Christ as soon as he was regenerated perfect ?" Again : " He that is once regenerated." Vol. 1, p. 83. Wall justly observes, after citing these, and other examples : " Here the words baptized and regenerated, are all along used promiscuously. Clement says expressly, the word regeneration is the name for baptism." Ibid., p. 83. Hipholytus, 222, A. D,, speaking of trine immer- sion, three dips of the head — the single dip not then being in use, says : " And if after the regeneration of the baptismal pool." See Faith of Catholics, vol. 2, page 119. Basil, 370, A. D. says : " But as I am about to treat of spiritual regeneration ;" that is, to use the language of Carson, spiritual regeneration by bap- tism. Bishop Kenrick says, giving the sense of regeneration here — " baptism ;" still, we prefer Car- INFANT BAPTISM. 85 son's form of speech. See the Bishop's Treatise on Baptism, p. 225. Basil speaks thus in the same dis- course : " Baptism is the ransom of captives, the death of sin, the regeneration of the soul." Ibid., page 233. St. Ambrose, 385, A. D., says " There is no regeneration without water." This needs no com- ment, it speaks for itself. Wall, vol. 1, p. 78. Here we make a full pause, seeing we have the united testimony of the Fathers to show that the word regenerated, as used by Irenaeus, is expressive of Baptism. Mr. A. Campbell is of the same opinion ; for he thus sets forth his persuasion addressing Wall : " Did all the Christians, public and private, and all the Christian writers from Barnabas to the time of Pelagius, 419, as far as you know, continue to use the term regenerate as only applicable to immersion," — baptism ? " Wall, ' The Christians did in all ancient times, continue the use of this name regeneration for baptism.' " See his Christian System, p. 230. Now, in view of all the convincing facts and opin- ions that are before us on the word regeneration, we may safely say that the exact sense of Irengeus nius thus : " For he [Christ] came to save all persons by himself; all, I mean, who by him are baptized unto 86 TRACTS FOR THE TJMES. God ; infants and little ones, and children and 3'-outh3, and elder persons ;" or, " For ho came to save all persons bj himself: all, I mean, who by him are regenerated by baptism unto God ; infants," &c. In disposing of IrenjEus, we deem it of more than ordinary interest to state that his instructor, Poly car]), was a disciple of John ; and that he was, according to Dodwell, born a few years before the death of John ; hence, he was well prepared to give to the world the great truth, that infants in his day were regenerated, baptized, or regenerated by baptism unto God. This is the true sense of this distinguished father ; and he that resists it, resists truth. See Dr. John P. Camp- bell on Baptism, p. 39, also Wall, vol. 1, p. 79. Clement of Alexandria, 190, A. D., says, " x\nd if any one be by trade a fisherman, he will do well to think of an apostle and the children taken out of the water." See Hinton's Hist, of Baptism, p. 244. To meet this Hinton says, " The term [children] used may as well apply to youths from twelve to twenty years as to babes." Ibid., p. 245. Truly if he had said that they were baptized infants ; then, indeed, he would have hit the mark of truth ; but, on account of the hberal indulgence of his Anti-Pedobaptist fancy, we are compelled to state that he most signally missed INFANT BAPTISM. 87 it. For the sake of illustration, we remark here that Anti-Pedobaptists ask us to show one passage in the scripture that speaks of baptism of children. Now, when we turn their attention to the fact, that the apostoHc fathers so speak, they at once magnify children into "youth from twelve to twenty." Here then Ave see that, if every chapter in scripture could be named as so speaking, we would be gravely told, " These baptized children are not infants in our sense, but youths from twelve to twenty." What a subter- fuge, to avoid the testimony of the early fathers on infant baptism ! Holland, rector of Sutton, Wiltshire, and Dr. Jen- kins, master of St. John's College, Cambridge, regard the testimony of Clement as proving infant baptism by the apostle. See Wall, vol. 1, p. 84. Wall, after examining the full testimony of Clement, says, " Clement's advising the emblem of an apostle baptizing an infant, to be used by the Christians in his time, (about ninety years after the apostles) for the sculpture of their seals, does suppose it commonly known by them that the apostles did perform that office." Ibid., p. 85. Tertullian, 200, A. D., says, " Therefore, according to the condition and disposition, and even age of each 88 TRACTS FOR TUE TIMES. one, the delay of baptism is more useful, particularly ■with regard to children. For what necessity is there unless it be altogether necessary^ that their sponsors should be even involved in danger, who themselves dying, may leave their promises unaccomplished, and may be deceived by the event of a perverse disposition. The Lord indeed says, ' Forbid theyn not to come to me.'' " After some remarks on the caution to be used he observes, " For no less reason the unmarried should also be delayed, in whom temptation is ready '■> for virgins, on account of their maturity ; for widows, on account of their wandering until they are married, or fortified in continence. Those who understand the importance of baptism, will fear rather its reception than its delay." Bishop Kenrick, from whom this quotation is taken, justly states, " Tertullian avowed the practice, [infant baptism,] whilst following the natural severity of his disposition, he endeavored to modify it by suggesting that the children of unbe- lievers should not be admitted to baptism until they were instructed in the Christian mysteries, lest they might prove recreant to the engagements made in their names by their sponsors." See his Treatise on Baptism, pp. 140, 141. Stephen Marshall, 1646, says, "But before we part with Tertullian, give mc INFANT BAPTISM. 89 leave to ask the question, whether the dissuasion may not reasonably be interpreted of the infants of infidels, because in that chapter, TertuUian speaks of the baptism of such as were not born of Christian parents." Quoted bj Bishop Kenrick, p. 141. Hinton, Baptist, says, " What TertuUian with great propriety urges is, that while these children, who were probably taken from benevolence from parents who were pagans, should receive Christian instruction." See his Hist. of Baptism, p. 249. But all this will fail to convince some of the Anti- Pedobaptists of our age that infants were the subjects of his reflections. Their idea is, " That it was the baptism of very young children, and not of babes, that TertuUian alluded to." So speaks Hinton, p. 250. tliis is somewhat amusing. The children spoken of by Clement of Alexandria are magnified into " youths from twelve to twenty years," while those mentioned by TertuUian are reduced down, to use the adopted language of Hinton, to a period " when just able to ask " for baptism. What maneuvering to ward off the force of truth ! The understanding of TertuUian, however, will appear exactly thus to every impartial mind : that infants, whether of heathen or Christian descent, and 8 90 TRACTS FOR THE TIxMES. unmarried persons, by reason of future temptation, might violate their baptismal engagements ; hence, he recommends a delay of baptism to all such, deeming the administration of it, beyond the greatest danger, the most advantageous time ; but in case of approach- ing death he commends baptism to all, irrespective of age, saying, in reference to him that should omit to baptize at a time so critical, " He must be held guilty of the loss of a human soul, who omits to do what ho might have freely performed." See De Bapt. c. 17. Such is the testimony of Tertullian, and such his view of the neglect of baptism. Now who, in his sober sense, would argue that children were not baptized in the days of the apostles, because Tertullian advises a delay in cases where they are specified with some adults to whom he objects ?" Add to this, that it is probable heathen children, not the ^'■lioly seed,^^ are the only ones intended, and the wonder, at such an enterprise, will be much increased. Verily, we might as well argue that all unmarried persons, of the classes he names, were not then bap- tized, because he advises such to delay their baptism. Tertullian, without doubt, was a Pedobaptist — must be placed above the strictest one of this age in case of death ; for, as Bishop Kenrick truly states, p. 142 : INFANT BAPTISM. 91 " He expressly directs that laymen should baptize in case of extreme necessity, lest the infant be deprived of life eternal." In Hinton's Hist, of Baptism, p. 224, we read: " Winer, in his Lectur , says : ' Tertullian is the first that mentions it [infant baptism.]'" Of a truth, it was then practiced ; for he could not have mentioned that which was unknown to fact. This is how things work when fairly viewed. This is the conclusion that an Anti-Pedobaptist affords. The following considerations, however, will give a legitimate edge to TertuUian's testimony on the sub- ject. He was born at Carthage about IGO, A. D., and flourished as a writer 200. The apostle John died about the year 100. Now, from this aspect of matters, we see that he was born sixty years after the death of John, and wrote at the age of forty. In view of this we remark, that men of seventy could have told him, when he was a youth, what John said con- cerning infant baptism ; and thus informed, he could have presented what men that talked to an apostle said : but as he did not appeal to this quarter, nor give any previous evidence of the Church against it, we are forced to come to this conclusion, that he knew it had been practiced back to the apostles ; for. 92 TRACT3 FOR THE TIMES. circumstanced as we now see he was, one thing is self-evident, that he could have at once detected an innovation by it, on the usage of the Church, at any period between himself and the apostles. But when we add to these considerations the thought, that he wrote twenty-two years after Irenseus, and sixty after Justin, the lover of truth may well ask, " who is so blind as he that will not perceive, and so unreasonable as he that will not yield to fact and reason ?" We have particularly examined the testimony of Tertullian, because much depends on it. This is our apology to the reader. Origen, 216, A. D., says; "For this also it was, that the Church had from the apostles a tradition [or order] to give baptism even to infants." Wall, vol. 1, p. 106. The word tradition gives point and force to this testimony ; for, when we turn to second Thessalonians, second chap., fifteenth verse, we read: " Stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." May we not, in view of this passage, conclude that the tradition of which Origen speaks, was one of these ? In addition to this thought we remark, that as he had preached the gospel in Rome, Greece, Palestine, and Syria, no person, in his day, was better qualified to IXFAXT BAPTISM. 93 give to the world the general usage of the church back to the apostles, and this he most unequivocally gave, by stating, that the church had a tradition or order from the apostles to give baptism to infants. This settles the matter, unless Anti Pedobaptists can magnify " infants " into " youths from twelve to twenty" — following up Hinton. We presume, how- ever, that every honest mmd will come to this conclusion, that Origen spoke of infants, as now understood, and also of their baptism as having apos- tolic sanctions ; and, that it was impossible for him to have been deceived on this point. Dr. John P. Campbell says : " What gives immense weight to Origen's testimony is, that he was, as Euse- bius reports, descended from a family that had been Christians for several generations. His father, Leon- tine, suffered martyrdom in the year 102 after the apostles, at which time Origen was about seventeen years old. This circumstance places the birth of Origen in the eighty-fifth year after the apostles, and makes it manifest that he could have learned from his father, or at most, from his grandfather, who lived in the age of the apostles, what their practice, as well as the intermediate practice of the church, had really been." — See his work on Baptism, p. 42. 94 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. Origen wrote tliirtj-eight years after Irenceus. This consideration will lead us at once to see that it is tho cream of folly to deny infant baptism in the time of Irenseus, in any sense or form : inasmuch as Origen's knowledge directly carried him there, and tradition to the apostles. See Chronological Table, Faith of Catholics, London ed., vol. 3, p. 451. Cyprian and the Council of Carthage, 253, next claim our attention. Fidus, an African Bishop, applied to Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, to know whether the baptism of infants ought to take place before the eighth day after their birth, believing that baptism took the place of circumcision. This question was duly considered by a venerable Synod composed of sixty-six Bishops, Cyprian presiding, and the following verdict returned ; " But with respect to the case of infants, which as you stated should not be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and as to what you would also suggest, that the rule of the ancient circumcision is to be observed, requiring that none is to be baptized and sanctified earlier than the eighth day after nativity, it has appeared far otherwise to us all in our council.* * * * * Therefore, very dear brother, this has been our decision in council, that from baptism and the grace INFAJS'T LAl'TISM. 95 of God who is merciful, beaign and affectionate to all, no person is to be excluded bj us. Which rule, as it ought to be regarded and attended to with respect to men, universally should, as we apprehend, be more especially observed in reference to mere infants, and to those too who are just born." See Dr. John P. Campbell on Baptism, p 45. Lord King speaks thus of this decision: "Here is as formal a synodical decree for the baptism of infants as possibly can be effected ; which, being the judgment of a synod, is more authentic and cogent than that of a private father, it being supposable that a private father might write his own particular judgment and opinion, but the determinations of a synod or council denote the common practice and usage of the whole Church." See his Primitive Church, chap. 3, pp. 202, 203, New York, 1841. Milner says : " Here is an assembly of sixty-six pastors, men of approved fidelity and gravity, who had stood the fiery trial of some of the severest persecutions ever known ; who had testified their love to the Lord Jesus in a more strikmg manner than any Anti- Pedobaptists have had an opportunity of doing in our days ; and who seem not to be wanting in any fun- damental of godliness. Before this assembly a ques- 96 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. tion is brought, not whether infants should be baptized — none contradicted this — but whether they should be baptized immediately, or on the eighth day. To a man they determine to baptize them immediately. Let the reader consider." Ecc. Hist.., vol. 1, p. 402) as quoted by Dr. Pond, p. 104. Pray, if infant baptism had not always been the universal practice of the church, how came so many bishops, so near the apostles, to think it had, and to act accordingly ? They could not have been deceived in this subject. We shall now give, on account of its appropriate force, the opinion of Gale on the point at issue, who, though an Anti-Pedobaptist , says: "I will grant it probable that what all or most of the churches practiced immediately after the apostles' times, had been ap- pointed a practice by the apostles themselves, — for it is hardly to be imagined that any considerable body of these ancient Christians, and much less that the whole, should so soon deviate from the customs and injunctions of their venerable founders, whose authority they held so sacred." Quoted from Hendrick on ba])tism, p. 51 This is a just conclusion, and we recommend it to the faith and practice of all Baptists. Optatus, 3G8, A. D., says, quoting from the New INFANT BAPTISM. 97 Testament: "As many of you as have been baptized in the name of Christ, have put on Christ." " what a garment," he says, " is this, that is always one, and never renewed ; that decently fits all ages and all forms : it is neither plaited for infants, nor stretched for men, and without alteration is suitable to women." See Hibbard on Baptism, p. 202, New York ed., 1843. Wall, vol. 1, p. 162, says : " This needs no note." So say we, adding, that Optatus turns our thoughts to infant baptism in the days of the apostles. Tliis is a portion of the obvious meaning of the quotation. But in order to show the reader the errors into which Anti-Pedobaptists run on the subject of the age of the baptized children mentioned by the Fathers, and to keep the testimony of Optatus from being blunted by raising doubts on this point, we shall here insert a few inscriptions from the tombs of the dead, which cannot be perverted or misconstrued. This, the first, is as afiecting as striking : " To Nina Florentina, a most sweet and innocent infant, MADE A FAITHFUL by her parent, placed with her in a country seclusion. She Vt^as born the first of the nones of INIarch, before day-light, daughter of Zoilua the Corrector: having completed eighteen months and twenty-two days, she was again made a faithful 98 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. at the eighth hour of the night, at the last extremity of life ; she lived afterwards but four hours ; the rite having been performed according to custom, she died at Hybla, the first hour of the day, the seventh of the calends of October ; on which decease her parents wept with each other every moment of the night : open lamentations for the Christian dead being pro- hibited as treason. Her corpse, with its coffin, by the presbyters, was interred in the burying-place of the Christian martyrs ; the fourth of the nones of October." See Taylor's Apostolic Baptism, New York ed., 1844, p. 145. Taylor, same page, says, " Correctors are mentioned as early as A. D., 117," and looks to this inscription for proof. The sense runs thus : the mother has the child imperfectly baptized in a country seclusion, but when the trying hour of death appears, it is properly baptized under the approval of the father as well as the mother, and recorded a Faithful. The word Faithful was then commonly used to designate a baptized child ; hence, it is to be so understood in the case before us. The following inscriptions will illustrate, and justify, this exposition. INFANT BAPTISM. 99 " Cyriacus a Faithful^ died aged eight days less than three years." " Eustafia the mother, places this in commemoration of her son Polichronis, a Faithful -who lived three years." " Urcia Florentina a Faithful^ rests here in peace. She lived five years, eight months, and eight days." " Ruffillo, neivly baptized, who lived two years and forty days. Quintillian the father places this to the memory of his son who sleeps in the peace of Christ." " To Domitius, an innocent, newly baptized, who lived three years and thirty days." " Valerius Decentius the father places this to his son, 7ieivly baptized, who lived three years, ten months, and fifteen days." " To Pisentus, an innocent soul, who lived one year, eight months, and thirteen days, newly baptized, buried on the ides of September in peace." Ibid., pp. 106, 108. To use the language of Taylor, " Hundreds of thousands of Christian children died in infancy, whose graves were not marked by a single inscription, and of those that were so marked, not one in a thousand has come down to us." Ibid., p. 111. Anti-Pedobaptists cannot magnify these children into youths from twelve to twenty ?" 100 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. A few appropriate reflections, however, will not be out of place here. There is one thing certain, that the term faithful, as found in the first verse of the first chapter of Ephesians, is expressive of church member- ship ; yet we would not venture to say that it is put in contrast with the term saints, as found in the same verse ; the latter signifying adults, and the former children, such as are spoken of in the sixth chapter. But this much we can safely say, that the apostle makes a difference, whatever it may be, and that the Fathers applied the vford faithful to baptized children. Taylor, p. 107, gives us this proof of what we have just asserted, stating, " One inscription will prove that the term faithful was continued and applied to children during several centuries : ' Here Ues Maria, daughter of John, who was of the town of Nicerata ; she Hved three years, three months and a half, a Faithful. She died the fourth day of the Canticus ; under the consulate of the Princes Honorius II, and Constantine II.' " " The Church in the family of Priscilla and Aquilla, Rom. xvi. 3, 5, is spoken of," says Taylor, p. 105, "by Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophylact, who say literally, ' Their family was all 7nade Faithfuls; and such whole families the apostle calls a church." INFANT BAPTISM. 101 The word holy we find thus in 1 Cor., vii, 14; *' Now are thej [children] holj." Members of the church are called holy. See Ephesians i, 4. The following examples will show that the fathers applied the word holy to designate baptized children. " Mau- rentius, son of Maurentia, a most pleasing child, who lived five years, eleven months, and two days ; worthy to repose in peace among the holy persons." " Sacred to the great God. Leopardus rests here in peace with Iwly spirits. Having received baptism he went to the blessed innocents. This was placed by his parents, with whom he lived seven years and seven months." Fabretti refers this expressly to baptism. See Taylor's Apostolic Baptism, pp. 101, 102. Such is the evidence in favor of infant baptism in this department of history. It reaches the very age and applies terms in a manner that cannot be mistaken. Gregory Nazianzen, 370, A. D., says, "And was not this man [Basil] consecrated to God in his infancy from the womb, and carried to the steps [or font] in a coat?" Wall speaks respecting this testimony thus : " But the coat in which he says Basil was offered to God, cannot well be supposed to have been any thing but the albs used at bajitism." Wall, vol. 102 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. 1, p. 167. Again, Gregory says, " What say you to those that are yet infants, and are not in capacity to be sensible either of the grace or the miss of it ? Shall we baptize them too ? Yes, by all means," &c. Ibid., p. 177. Ambrose, 385, A. D., says, referring to Christ's statement to Nicodemus : " You see he excepts no person, not an infant." Again, " Those infants that are baptized are reformed back again from wicked- ness." Ibid., pp. 221, 225. Chrysostom, 387, A. D., says, "For this cause we baptize infants also." Ibid., p. 232. Jerome, 390, A. D., says, " To correct certain persons who alleged that an infant should not be baptized before the eighth day, blessed Cyprian with a number of associate bishops, decreed that an infant could, with propriety, be baptized immediately after the birth, not thereby forming a new canon, but observing the most firmly established usage of the Church." See Oper, Tom. 9, p. 164, quoted by Dr. John P. Campbell, p. 44. Jerome, the reader will per- ceive, declares that the decree of the council of Car- thage was not a new thing, but a reiteration of the general usage of the Church. Moreover, if we want to be satisfied that Jerome tauirht the sin of omittinu; INFANT BAPTISil. 103 baptism In case of Infants was placed to the account of parents, see Campbell's Debate with Rice, p. 403. Paulinas, 395, A. D. says : " The priest from the holy font does infants brin^, In body, in soul, in garments white and clean." Wall, vol. 1, jD. 337. Council of Carthage, 397, says, " In reference to the Donatists, it is resolved that we do ask the advice of our brethren and fellow bishops, Siricius and Sim- plicianus, concerning those only who are in infancy baptized among them," &c. Wall, vol. 1, p. 309. The Donatists were x\nabaptists and Pedobaptists ; that is, they " baptized " those " anew " that joined them from the Catholics, though baptized in infancv, and at the same time baptized their own children, as the above quotation shows. Ibid., p. 308. The sound of the term Anabaptists has led Baptists of our age to suppose that the Donatists were opposed to infant baptism. A great mistake. Wall, after reciting much evidence in reference to the custom of this people, says, " This shows plainly that the Donatists as well as CathoUcs baptized in infancy." Ibid., p. 311. Augustine, 400, A. D., says, " And if any one do ask for divine authority in this matter, thoudi that 104 TRACTS FOR TUE TIMES. ■v^•hich the Avhole church practices, and which has not been instituted by councils, but was ever in use, is very reasonably believed to be no other than a thing delivered [or ordered] by authority of the apostles ; yet we may besides take a true estimate how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which God's former people received." De Baptismo cont. Donatistas. Again he says, " I do not remember that I ever heard any other thing from any Christians that received the Old and New Testa- ment ; neither from such as were of the Catholic church, nor from such as belonged to any sect or schism. I do not remember that I ever read other- wise in any writer that I could ever find treating on these matters, that followed the canonical scripture, or did mean, or did pretend to do so." See Camp- bell's Debate with Rice, pp. 403, 404. There are t^vo things made certain from this testimony : the first is, that infant baptism was not instituted by councils, it ever having been the practice of the church ; and the second is, that Baptists were not then in the world, for if they had, he would have either read or heard of them. Pelagius, 417, A. D., is thus presented by Wall: " Men sLmdcr me as if I denied the sacrament of INFANT BAPTISM. 105 baptism to infants, or did promise the kingdom of heaven to some persons without the redemption of Christ ; which is a thing that I never heard, no not even any wicked heretic say." See Wall, vol. 1, p. 450. Baptists, if in the world, were also beyond the knowledge of Pelagius ; for he tells us he never heard of any who denied infant baptism ; still. Dr. Howell says, p. 285 of his work on communion, that the British Christians were Baptists, that they " embraced the Gospel in apostolic times, and until the year 596, remained undisturbed in its exercise ;" but as Pela- gius stands in history a native of North Wales, and declares he never heard of a people holding such views, not even wicked heretics, we are forced to regard Dr. Howell's assumption as the figment of an unfounded fancy, unworthy of being recorded by even a common reader of church history ; and so we com- mend the Doctor to his friends. Here we deem it to purpose to state, that Pelagius was well qualified to oflfer an opinion on the practice of infant baptism, being educated at the college of Bangor-iscoed, located on the river Dee, and styled " the mother of all learning," where he became a monk, and afterwards an abbot. His name, when at home, was Morgan, " because of being born on the 106 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. sea-shore ;" but after going to Italy, he changed his name into Pelagius — " a word of the same significa- tion in Latin as Morgan in Welsh." Morgan is a compound word, the latter syllable meaning oieM-, and the former the sea. See Evans's Primitive Ages, 171, ed. 1834. Evans, speaking of the proof in favor of the ancient British Church baptizing infants, says, " This is suffi- cient to show that mfant baptism was practised among the ancient Britons, as among all other Christians throughout the world. Ibid., p. 181. The council of Carthage, 418, A. D., says, "Also we do determine, that whosoever does deny that infants may be baptized, &c., let him be anathema." Wall, vol. 1, p. 470. Some Anti-Pedobaptists, without the most slender foundation, try to bring this up as a contradiction of Austin's or Agustine's testimony, that he never heard the doctrine of infant baptism denied ; but Wall very justly meets the point thus : "It appears with plainness more than enough, that as well as the makers of this canon, as they against whom it was made, did both of them look on the thing itself as undoubted ; they differed about some of the reasons or effects of it only." Ibid., p. 471. INFANT BAPTISM. 107 The pri.iciple involved in the Pelagian controversy was the thing aimed at bj the council — nothing else. Having made it remarkably evident that infant baptism was the universal practice of the church from the days of the apostles up into the fifth century, we shall here introduce, deeming an array of evidence from the succeeding centuries unnecessary, the opin- ions of a few modern writers, which will be found highly interesting, being based on facts. The classic Brown says, " None can, without the most aflfronted imposition, allege that infant baptism was not commonly allowed in the primitive age of Christianity." Diet, of Bible. Calvin says, "What they [Anti-Pedobaptists] cir- culate among the uninformed multitude, that after the resurrection of Christ a long series of years passed, in wliich infant baptism was unknown, is shamefully contrary to truth ; for there is no ancient writer who does not refer its origin, as a matter of certainty, to the age of the apostles." See Inst, of the Christ. Relig., Book 4, chap. 16, p. 500, Phil edition. Dr. John P. Campbell says, " Dr. Gill [Baptist] admits that infant baptism was the universal practice of the church from the third to the eleventh century." See his work on Baptism, p. 80. 108 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. The learned Milner speaks thus : " We have never had such a custom as that of confining baptism to adults, nor the churches of God." Ecc. Hist., vol. 1, p. 401. Perrin, speaking of the practice of the Waldenses, says, " They kept their Sabbaths duly, causing their children to be baptized according to the usage of the primitive church." See Debate between Campbell and Rice, p. 405. From this we learn that the Wal- denses beheved that the primitive church practised infant baptism. Their faith, judging from what we have presented, was well founded. Let us now hear Dr. Miller on this point, who says, " I can assure you, my friends, with the utmost candor and confidence, after much careful inquiry on the subject, that, for more than fifteen hundred years after the birth of Christ, there was not a single society of professing Christians on earth, who opposed infant baptism on anything like the grounds which distinguish our modern Baptist brethren. It is an undoubted fact, that the people known in ecclesi- astical history under the name of Anabaptists, who rose in Germany, in the year 1522, were the first body of people, in the whole Christian world, who rejected the baptism of infants, on the principles now INFANT BAPTISM. 109 adopted by the Anti-Pedobaptist body." See his •work on Infant Baptism, p. 21, quoted by Ilinton, p. 294. Dr. Rice says : " I have proved by the history of the church, that for fifteen hundred years after the death of Christ, not a writer can be found maintaining that the baptism of infants was unscriptural, excepting, perhaps, a small sect called Petrobusians." He could have added, " because they did not believe infants capable of salvation," and thus accounted for their opposition, leaving the matter as Dr. Miller presents it, which most unquestionably is sanctioned by the facts of history. See his Debate with Campbell, p. 420. Taylor, p. 112, says, " The Christian churches in the North, in the South, in the East, and in the West, never did refuse baptism to infants. Are the Baptists then wiser than all the world, than all the faithful men of apostolic ages, and than all their con- temporaries ? Is it likely that they alone, of all the millions of Christians of every period and nation, should be the only persons who have elicited scrip- tural truth?" Dr. John P. Campbell, pp. 47, 48, says, " It is a wcU known fact, that, before the close of the first century, Christianity had diffused itself, and churches had been 110 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. formed throughout the then known "world. From the sources of the Nile to the bosom of barbarous Scythia, and from the Indus to Caledonia, this religion was embraced, and Christian societies were organized. Now, is it possible that all those numerous and widely extended churches were estabhshed upon the plan of adult baptism, and that in less than one hundred years from the time of the apostles, such an establishment should have been broken do^ra, abolished, and so radically destroyed that, like the city of Babylon, not one shattered column, not one trace of its former splendor should be visible ?" Impossible ! We shall now hear the much distinguished Wall on the general history of infant baptism, knowing that his judgment must command the respect of our Baptist friends — he being endorsed, so far as facts are con- cerned, by some of their leading men, of which the following is an example : " I mean," says Whiston, " the very honest, learned, and pious Dr. Wall, whose History of Infant Baptism (not as to the contro- versial part, but as to the facts therein contained) seems to me most accurately done ; and may, I think, be depended on, by Baptists themselves." See Friendly Advice to Baptists, 1784. " Lastly," says Wall, " as these evidences are for INFANT BAPTISM. Ill the first four hundred years, in which there appears only one man, Tertullian, that advised the delay of infant baptism in some cases ; and one, Gregory, that did perhaps, practice such delay in the case of his children, but no society of men so thinking, or so practising ; nor no one man saying it was unlawful to baptize infants ; so in the next seven hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be found that either spoke for, or practised any such delay. But all the con- trary, &c. And when about the year 1130, one sect among the Albigenses declared against the baptizing of infants, as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that people rejected that opinion ; and they of them that held that opinion quickly dwindled away and disappeared ; there being no more heard of hold- ing that tenet, till the rising of the German Anti- Pedobaptists, anno, 1522." See vol. 2, p. 501. TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. TRACT VI. INFANT BAPTISM. INFANT BAPTISM PROVED BY THE FAITH AND PRACTICE OF THE WALDENSES. In this tract we shall give the true position of the Albigenses, or Waldenses on the subject of infant baptism. In our last we saw that Wall referred to them as Pedobaptists, excepting a sect among them that did not believe infants capable of salvation, hence its opposition to their baptism. That the testimony of Wall is entitled to much confidence, all will admit ; for even Wilson of England, a professed Baptist, said in an address to the people of his own denomination : " Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, as to facts, appeared to him most accurately done, and might be relied on by Baptists themselves." See Mem. of his Life, part 2, p. 461. But as Baptists try to trace a line of succession through the Anabaptists and Waldenses back into INFANT LAPTI.SAI. 113 remote antiquity, we must here notice this, so far as it bears on infant baptism. In short, the Anabaptists of Germany must be regarded as the first in the character of a society, that ever opposed the baptism of infants ; for, correctly speaking, the hostiUty to infant baptism in 1130 did not arise out of doctrine akin to the doctrine preached by the Anabaptists, and their successors since, but out of the faith of Peter de Bruys, which amounted to this, that infants were not fit subjects of salvation. But in order to make this evident, and to place it beyond all doubt, we shall here give his opinion, which runs thus: "Christ sending his disciples to preach, says, ' He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.' From these words of our Saviour, it is plain that none can be saved unless he believe and be baptized, that is have both Christian faith and baptism, for not one of these but both together does save, so that infants, though they be by you baptized, yet, since by reason of their age, they cannot believe, are not saved. It is, therefore, an idle and vain thing for you to wash persons with water at such a time, when you may indeed cleanse the skin from dirt in a human manner, but not purge their suuls from sin." See Wall, vol. 2, p. 257. The 10 114 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. reader can now see why we said a moment ago that the Anabaptists, of 1522, were the first direct opposers of infant baptism — the followers of Peter de Brays acting on a different principle. In short, if we except two men who only advised a delay in the case of infant baptism, and a few opinions of a kindred nature, and the Petrobusians, who did not believe infants capable of salvation, the Anabaptists, 1522, and their followers since, stand duly entitled, as a society, to all the opposition on Baptist principles, that infant baptism has ever encountered, so far as we know, or our church history informs us. To this effect Wall, Rice, and Miller testify. See their testimony in the previous tract. If Baptists should dissent from this, then they must fall in with, and claim affinity to men who did not believe infants capable of salvation — therefore their opposition. Here we pause, and here we wish to know the decision of the Baptist ! To Peter de Bruys he must go, 1130, and subscribe to the horrible doctrine above set forth, or to the Anabaptists, 1522, and there begin, the true line of opposition to the baptism of infants. .Either choice is not very pleasing, for neither is to be envied. Peter de Bruys, we frankly admit, reasons much INFANT BArXIS.M. 115 more correctly from the premises than Baptists ; for, when the text on which both found their views is applied to infants, all must see that he is right in his conclusion, and that Baptists either ought to yield to his opinion, or abandon their theory. To illustrate these remarks, we shall here introduce a quotation from Isaiah, i, 19, which reads thus : " If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land." Now, apply this to infants, and what then ? Can they be willing and obedient ? No ! Conse- quently they cannot eat the good of the land, and must die. Let us now introduce the passage on which Peter de Bruys founded his opinion, and we shall at once have a plain comment upon the point here at issue. The passage is, " he that believeth and is bap- tized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Well, apply this to infants, and what then ? Can they beUeve and be baptized ? No ! Consequently they cannot be saved ; and thus it is, that Bruys reasons correctly from his premises, leaving us under the lasting impression, that a Baptist is but a sophist beside him. But do not children eat the fruit of the land, though they cannot be classified with the willing and obedient ? In like manner infants partake of the blessings of holy 116 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. baptism, though they cannot believe. In plain Eng- lish, ho^Yever, neither passage, in a direct sense, applies to infants, and all reasonable men ought to see this. But let us, in this connection, particularly invite attention to the sect among the "Waldenses that opposed the baptism of infants. More than a few of the Baptist writers and speakers get behind this sect, and, by reason of not stating all the facts in the case, leave the impression on the minds of many that the whole were Anti-Pedobaptists, when, in reality, not one of them was, in our sense of the term. If Bap- tists should make known the true character of this sect, the following facts would appear: that its members did not believe infants capable of salvation, and that, on this account, and this alone, their baptism was opposed : and moreover, that the Waldenses always, as a body, opposed the opinion of this sect, and that it soon dwindled away. Ought not a con- scientious Baptist, in view of these undeniable facts, blush when he hears it said that the "Waldenses were Anti-Pedobaptists ? If a people, believing what is above placed to their account, who were not very numerous, constituted the Waldenses Anti-Pedobap- tists. because they lived among them, then they were INFANT BAPTISiM. 117 such, but in no other sense such. IIow monstroag the idea! In the third chapter of Mr. Baker's review of our work on baptism, including the mode and subject, we find the following statement : " It is said, that at Ivoi in the diocese of Treves, there were some who denied that the sacrament of baptism was available to the salvation of infimts." This Mr. Baker takes from a writer on the Waldenses — hence we give it, believing that Baptists, because of this, will gladly embrace its teachings. Here we have a striking proof of what we have said on the sect at issue, and its connection with the Waldenses. Look at the quotation again, but especially at this part of it : " some who denied that baptism was available to the salvation of infants." Some. Ah ! this reveals the secret. The some were the followers of Bruys. In proof that we are correct in this, we shall again quote from the same writer in Mr. Baker's review, just eight Hnes below the previous extract, who speaks thus : " The truth is, they did not reject this sacrament, or say it was useless ; but only counted it unnecessary to infants, because they are not of age to believe, or capable of giving evidence of their faith. That which induced them as I suppose to entertain this opinion, is what our Lord says : ' He 118 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. that believeth, and is baptized, sha,!! be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.' " This is a truthful conjecture. See the opinion of their founder, Bruys, as given above. Mr. Baker makes all we contend for in this par- ticular, perfectly plain, by presenting, same chapter, Saccho* as speaking thus of the Waldenses, 1258, — Jones says 1250, — " Some of them hold that baptism is of no advantage to infants, because they cannot actually believe." This quotation is the more remark- able from the fact, that it is found in Jones' Hist., vol. 2, p. 20, the very history that misrepresents Perrin and the Waldenses. But we ask the reader to look at the face of this quotation, and then think a little. " Some of them," yes, " some of them hold that baptism is of no advantage to infants." Here we have the word some again. In short, we learn from this passage that there were some who held the opposite doctrine ; for he plainly tells us that only ^' some of them " so believed. We are surprised at * The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, article Waldenses, says, " Saccho, the Inquisitor, admits that the Waldenses flour- ished five hundred years before Peter Waldo. This carries us back to the year 660." Again it says, " They had existed under various names as a distinct class of dissenters from the established churches of Greece and Rome in the earliest ages." INFANT BAPTISM. 119 the thouglit, that any Baptist would place this in evidence to prove that the Waldenses were Anti- Pedobaptists. It simply proves what we have again and again stated, that there were some among the Waldenses who did not believe in the salvation of infants, and on this account rejected their baptism — that these were the followers of Bruys ; and all the quotations presented illustrate and confirm this leading historical truth. A little before the year 1140, Evervinus wrote a letter to St. Bernard, respecting the followers of Bruys, in which he stated, " They do not believe infant baptism." Peter, Abbot of Cluny, 1146, wrote against Bruys, charging him and his associates, with the " denial of infant baptism." See Wall, vol. 2, p. 256. This gives us the true line of distinction between the Petrobusians and the Waldenses. Let us, however, here remark, that no sect, correctly speaking, ever received the sanction of the Waldenses while opposed to infant baptism. Writers err, greatly err, when they confound a sect, which ought, properly speaking, to be called Petrobusians or Henricians, with the Waldensians ; for, at most, the former only lived among the latter to be opposed by doctrine and practice. 120 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. But having said enough, we presume, to show that the sojne were the followers of Bruys, we shall here remind the reader of the declaration of Wall, by giving this pointed extract from it, by way of con- firming what we have said : " And when about the year 1130, one sect among the Albigenses declared against the baptizing of infants, as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that people rejected that their opinion ; and they of them that held that opinion quickly dwindled away." This is a just account of the whole matter. Mr. Baker says : " "We admit that the modern Waldenses practice infant baptism. The preceding declaration of Wall fully explains all this." The followers of Bruys called the some in Mr. Baker's review, who preached and practiced what we have placed to their account, soon passed away, leaving the Waldenses proper to do what Perrin, their own historian, recorded of them when he wrote : " They kept their Sabbathes duely, causing their children to be baptized according to the order of the primitive church." See Book 1, chap. 6, pp. 30, 31. But why do we call Perrin their own historian ? Because he descended from them, and wrote their history. See Debate between Campbell and Rice, also INFANT BAPTISM. 121 see Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, article Waldenses. NoNY, let us turn to Perrin, Book 2, p. 64, where we read : " Among others there appeared a poor, simple, laboring man, [Waldensian] whom the president com- manded to cause his child to be re-baptized." Again, in Book 1, ch. 6, p. 43, we read, " And for this cause it is, that we present our children in baptism," &c. And again, in Book 3, ch. 4, p. 99, we read : " The things that are necessary in the administration of baptisme, are the exorcismes, breathings, the signe of the crosse on the forehead and breast of the infant," &c. Wall, vol. 2, 243, presents them as speaking thus : " And we bring our children to baptism." Dr. John P. Campbell quotes from Perrin, book 2, ch. 4, thus : " According to the promise we made in our baptism, in our infancy." The Rev. Mr. Bert, a distinguished Waldensian minister, w^ho had hundreds of volumes in his library, informed Dwight, 1825, that the " Waldenses had always baptized their infants, and had always done it by affusion." See Hendrick on Baptism, p. 63. We take the following from Jones' History, vol. 2, p. 47, first American ed., which is marked the seventh article of the Waldensian confession of faith, and reads 11 122 TKACTS FOR THB TIMES. thus : " We believe that in the ordinance of baptism the water is a visible and external sign -which repre- sents to us that which by virtue of God's invisible operation, is within us, namely, the renovation of our minds," &c. How came a Baptist writer to place this in print in favor of his views ? Surely this evidently shows that the Waldenses spoke of baptism as we do, and not of it as a figure of the burial and resurrection of Christ, the doctrine of Baptists. Every step we make in our examination of the true connection of the Waldenses with our views, but the more confirms us on this point. In his, Jones' Church History, vol. 2, p. 145, we are thus informed ; " The Calabrian Waldenses formed a union with the church of Geneva, of which Calvin was the pastor." Now, if the Waldenses were Anti-Pedobaptists, how came it to pass that a branch of them so harmo- niously united with Calvin, a decided Pedobaptist? This fact of itself, ought to be sufficient to convince Baptists that they do greatly err in stating that the Christians of the valley were Anti-Pedobaptists. Dr. Miller remarks, "But there is one notorious unquestionable fact, which is sufficient of itself, to refute the allegation both of Prelatists and Anti-Pedo- INFANT BAPTISM. 123 baptists, in regard to the Waldenses, and that is, that after the reformation on the continent of Europe, and the organization of the reformed churches, on the Presbyterian plan, in France, Switzerland, Germany, &c., the Waldenses acknowledged them as true churches, held communion with them, received minis- ters from them, and in every variety of way manifested that they recognized their regular Christian character, and the validity of their ministry." Upon this most important fact. Dr. Miller remarks, " This, surely, could never have been done, if the Waldenses had maintained the divine right of Prelacy, or the obliga- tion of the Anti-Pedobaptist system." Quoted from the Presbyterian Herald, 1852. In a public declaration made by the Waldenses in 1G03, we have their language as follows : " Whereas time out of mind, and from generation to generation our predecessors have been instructed and brought up in that same doctrine and religion which we, from our infancy have openly and publicly professed, and in which we Ukewise have instructed our families as we have been taught by our ancestors; whereas, also, when the Marquisate of Saluces was under the juris- diction of the king of France, we were permitted to make profession without trouble and molestation, as 124 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. our brethren of the valleys of Lucerne, La Perouse, and others do, who bj express treaty made with our sovereign lord and prince, have enjoyed to this day the free exercise of the reformed religion, yet his highness, instigated and pushed on by evil counsel and by persons biased by prejudice and passion, rather than of his own free will, resolved to disturb and molest us, having published an edict for that purpose. To the end, therefore, that all men may know that it is not for any crime or misdemeanor perpetrated either against the person of the Prince, or for murder or theft, that we are thus persecuted and spoiled of our goods and houses, we protest and declare, that being very well assured that the doctrine and religion taught and practised by the reformed churches of France, Switzerland, Germany, Geneva, England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, and other King- doms, countries, and Lordships, is the only true Christian doctrine and religion approved of and estab- lished by God, who alone can make us acceptable to himself, and bring us to salvation, we are resolved to follow it at the expense of our lives and fortunes, and to continue therein to the end of our lives." And, again, say they in the same document : "In the meantime we desire tJie reformed churches, in the INFANT BAPTISM. 125 midst ot our exile and calamity, to receive and looJs upon lis as true members thereof, being ready, if it should please God so to order it to seal the confession of faith by them made and published, with our blood, which we acknowledge to be every way conformable to the doctrine taught and written by the holy Apostles, and consequently, therefore, truly apostoli. caV See Perrin, pp. 92, 93. This tract, we may now safely say, makes good the following points ; that a sect among the iVlbigenses opposed the baptism of infants, not believing them capable of salvation ; that the Waldenses or Albi- genses proper always opposed this idea, both by faith and practice, " causing their children," to use the lan- guage of their own historian, " to be baptized according to the order of the primitive church." This is enough. They were Pedobaptists. But we shall now bring this tract to a close by a few short extracts, deemed highly appropriate and forcible here. Hinton [Baptist] speaking of the Waldenses, says, " I do not mean to affirm respecting them that none of them admitted infants to baptism." See his History of Baptism, p. 291. Dr. John P. Campbell says, " Dr. Gill [Baptist] admits that infant baptism was the universal practice of the church from the 126 TRACTS FOR TUE TIMES. third to the eleventh century, and Robinson [Baptist] has been wise enough to abandon the fiction of the Waldenses being Baptists." See his work on Baptism, pp. 32, 80—32, Proofs and Illustrations— 80, Sermon on Christian Baptism. This is how Baptist writers cut " the line of succession through Anabaptists and Waldenses, back into remote antiquity," and leave infant baptism the unbroken practice of the church. Respected reader, have not the Waldenses, judging from the evidence of this Tract, been a remarkable class of Baptists ? Verilv, we are so pleased with them, that we commend them to the faith and practice of all. But in bringing this tract to a close, and with it our labor on the subject of infant baptism, we would most kindly say to parents, have your children dedicated to God by holy baptism, then baptize them with heavenly care and affection, teaching them to lift their little hands upward, saying, " Our Father who art in heaven," and many of them through coming years, will delight to call you blessed. Without this all else will serve but little purpose. May the benedictions of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, rest on all that so believe and practice, and on all that live the truth to find — hence- forth — even for ever — Amen. TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. TRACT VII. QUESTIONS ON THE MODE OF BAPTISM. This tract is principally designed for the plain, truth-seeking portion of all reading communities. We prefer and adopt the method of question and answer, persuaded that it will be found much more convincing than the regular plan of writing. Query 1. What was the first act of which we read that was called a baptism ? A. The flood of Noah. Q. 2. Was the world then immersed ? A. It was not, because we read in Genesis, 7, 12, that the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. Q. 3. But was not the earth covered with water, and thereby immersed ? A. The earth, of course, was covered with water. 128 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. but it was not immeresd, from the fact that the rain fell on it, a thing contrary to the action of immersion, ■which requires the thing to be dipped into the water. Q. 4. Who called the act of affusion, by which the world was covered with water, a baptism ? A. Tertullian, A. D., 200. Q. 5. What evidence have we of this ? A. Booth, a learned Baptist, says that Tertullian calls " Noah's flood the baptism of the world." See Baptist Library, three volumes in one, p. 377. Q. 6. What was the first act of which we read in the Scripture that was called a baptism. A. The wetting which the children of Israel receiv- ed while on their way to the land of promise. Q. 7. What proof have we of this ? A. Paul says, 1 Corinthians, x, 2, " And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Q. 8. Can you describe the mode of the act ? A. The celebrated Locke says : " The apostle calls it [the act of affusion] baptism, which is the initiating ceremony into both the Jewish and Christian church : and the cloud and the sea, both being nothing but water, are well suited to that typical representation ; and that the children of Israel were washed with rain from the cloud, may be collected from Psalm Ixviii, QUESTIONS. 129 9." See his note on 1 Corinthians, x, 2, Cambridge edition, 1832. Q. 9. Do you know of any other great man that so speaks ? A. Many, but I shall only mention one — John Wesley, who says : " They could therefore be only sprinkled by drops of the sea water, and refreshing dews from the cloud ; probably intimated in that, * Thou sentest a gracious rain upon thine inheritance, and refreshedst it when it was weary.' Psalm Ixviii, 9." See Wesley's Works, p. 13, vol. 6. New York ed., 1839. Q. 10. What does Justin Martyr say respecting the word baptize ? A. Justin Martyr wrote 140, A. D., and is thus presented by Charles Taylor in his "Apostohc Bap- tism," p. 143 : " The same Justin also says, that sprinkling with Holy water ' was invented by Daemons, in imitation of the true baptism, signified by the prophets, that their votaries, those of the Daemons, might also have their pretended purification by water.' " Q. 11. Is this statement objected to by Baptists ? A. No ; for we find that a writer in the Tennessee Baptist. 1852, quotes and adopts the following 130 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. language : " As "with the Greeks and Romans, and among all Pagans, the father was free either to expose or bring up a new-born child ; in the latter case he raised it from the earth in his arms, and had it sprinkled with water, and named it in the presence of his chief kinsmen." Q. 12. "What do we prove by this Baptist writer ? A. That an act of sprinkling was called a baptism ; for he quotes thus in another paragraph : "A kind of infant baptism was practiced in the North, long before the first dawning of Christianity had reached those parts." Q. 12. When a Baptist denies that the word bap- tize was originally used to express an act of sprinkling, what ought to be done ? A. Turn his attention to the above approved quota- tions of his brother, and pause for his answer ; for we cannot even now venture to guess what it may be. Q. 13. What does Irenaeus say in reference to the sense of the word baptize ? A. Irengeus wrote 180, A. D., saying of a certain sect : " Some of them say that it is needless to brinc' the person to the water at all : but making a mixture of oil and water, they pour it on his head." See Wall, vol. 2, p. 137. QUESTIONS. 131 Q. 14. What does Mr. Baker, a Baptist, say respecting this matter ? A. Mr. Baker sajs : " Irenseus testifies in regard to this sect that thej baptized by affusion." See Ten. Bap. 1851. Q. 15. What do -we prove by Mr. Baker ? A. That Irenaeus called it an act of pouring bap- tism. Q. 16. What does Origen say respecting the word baptize ? A. Origen wrote 216, A. D., stating : " How came you to think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize ; who did not in Ahab's time baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt by the Lord's appearing in fire ? But he ordered the priests to do that ; not once only, but says, Do it the second time ; and they did it the second time : and, Do it the third time ; and they did it the third time. He therefore that did not himself baptize then, but assigned that work to others, how was he likely to baptize, when he, according to Malachi's prophecy, should come." Wall, vol. 2, p. 332. Q. 17. But how was this baptism performed ? A. The water was poured on the sacrifice and the 132 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. wood, and this is what Origen called a baptism. See 1 Kings, xviii, 33. Q. 18. Is there any evidence that the Church bap- tized by affusion in early times ? A. Bishop Kenrick says : " Five martyrs of Lama- sota, in the year 297, when in prison for the faith of Christ, sent for the priest James, entreating him to come, and bring with him a vessel of water to baptize them." Treatise on Baptism, p. 166. Q. 19. What does Lactantius, who wrote 320, A. D., say on this subject ? A. Lactantius says : " Christ received baptism that he might save the Gentiles by baptism, i. e. by the distilhng of the purifying dew." See Lib. 4. Cap. 5. Q. 20. What does Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, who wrote 395, A. D., say on the question of baptism ? A. Paulinus says : " He — John — washes away the sins of believers by the pouring of water." See De- bate between Campbell and Rice, p. 135. Q. 21. But do not Baptists argue that John im- mersed the people in the water of Jordan ? A. Yes, because they misapprehend the meaning of the words in and tvith. Q. 22. Can we understand how John baptized, QUESTIONS. 133 when we read that he performed the act in Jordan, also in Bethabara, in the wilderness, and in Enon ? A. No, because in is a word of place, which cannot express mode, when connected with a term of denomi- nation, of which class baptize is. Q. 23. When we say that a man was murdered in Orleans, do we express the mode of the act ? A. We do not, but simply the place, leaving another form of speech to do this. Q. 24. What form of speech would express the mode of the murder ? A. He was murdered with the stroke of a stick. Q. 25. In view of this, do we not at once see where John baptized, and how he baptized ? A. Most clearly, because the Scripture states that he baptized in Jordan, in Bethabara, in the wilder- ness, and in Enon, thus giving us the where or place ; and also states that he baptized at every point with water, thus giving us the mode of the act. Q. 26. When we state that a man was murdered in Orleans with the stroke of a stick, do we mean that he was murdered in the stick ? A. Of course not, but that the stick was the instru- ment applied to the person. Q. 27. On the other hand, when we state that 134 TRACTS FOR THE TIMES. John baptized in Jordan with water, or in the wilder- ness with water, do we convey the idea that he immersed or dipped the people in water ? A. Of course not, but that the water was the instrument apphed to the candidates. Q. 28. To illustrate this, we ask, how are we to understand this statement — " the father struck the child with a rod m the garden ?" A. Not that he immersed or dipped the child in the rod, but that he appUed the rod to the person of the child. Q. 29. Is it not a matter of indescribable surprise that any should contend that John dipped the people in water, seeing that the Scripture testifies, at every point, when speaking of the mode, that he baptized with water ? A. The truth of this must be obvious to all, inas- much as the evidence before us clearly shows that a baptism with water is the very opposite to an immer- sion in water. Q. 30. How then are we to understand the account the Scripture gives us of John's baptism ? A. That the word in only refers to place, and signifies limits ; that is, in Jordan, within the limits of the channel — in Bethabara, within its limits — m QUESTIONS. 135 tlie wilderness, within its limits — in Enon, within its limits ; and that the word with signifies instrument- ality ; that is, the application of the water to the candidates by John, the administrator of the rite. Q. 31. All things considered, what ought we to do? To baptize by affusion, remembering that John baptized with water, not in water. REVISED AND ENLARGED EDITION OF GOODRICH'S {'lIio following are supposed to ho S this Series, 1. Completeness, embracing all that is required bj' the pupil from the Alphabet lo the highest dcgTee of ac- complishment iu the art of reading. 2. Comprehensiveness, — includ- ing all the approved helps and facilities both for teacher and learner. 3. Progression, step by step iu an easy path, without confusion, breaks, or other ini[icdiments. 4. Simplicity and manliness of sentinioiit, which constitute the charm of Mr. Goodrich's style, acknowledged wherever the English language is read. 5. Orig"inality, not a line having been biiniwed from any other series ; while every other reader of late date lias taken mui'e or less, and generally without acknowledgment, from them or other ciiiiipe.sitions by the same autlior. 6. The Illustrations, of the most beautiful character, introduced with some of the peculiar excellencies of j , as a whole: profusion, in order to interest and excite ^ the young mind, and develop its per- , cei)tive faculties. 7. Mechanical Esecution— the paper being white and thick, the type large and clear, and the binding neat and substantial. 8. Cheapness — being sold at lower i prices than works of inferior authors, and less merit. 9. Hhetorical Bzercises— afford- ing most copious practical lessons in enunciation, articulation, inflection, em- phasis, and accent. 10. Moral Tendency — inculcating by familiar precepts and pleasing illus- trations, a sense of justice, a feeling of kindly charity, a reverence for religion, a regard for the rights, feelings, inter- ests and characters of others, a love of the works of nature, and a reverent , atibctiou for their beneficent Author. Goodrich's First Scliool Reader. 72 page.s, 18mo. 1. It has sixty-nine bcaniiful cngrav ivigg of simple bul very iuteresliug subjects 2. It begins with very short words, in ver\ short sentences, nccompanying an appropriate engraving. In this respect the author has pursued the plain oiiginally used by him many years since in " Poler Parley's Primer," and sybseiiuently limited and copied by other books. :! It coutaius eighteen lessons in iirticuhition. comprising all the vowel soundri, hu^od on the principle of teach- itig one thing' only at a time, and ui'.kini; the jivipil perfect in that one ihi.ig, by frequent repetition 4. Preceding each > cading lesson is K iipel'ing exercise, containing the more iillii-ult w onls. 5. In the lessons, Polysj'llables are neither accented w^;- divided, for several reasons. 1. Words cannot be divided without often misleading. 2. The pupil ' should learn to read words as he will afterwards meet with them in othc books. This last reason applies to ' the marks sometimes used to dis- tinguish the various sounds of the vowels. 6. It is entirely original, being writ- ten with the racy, gonial and maiily simplicity peculiar to the author. | 7. A knowledge of points and stops is given in the course of the book in familiar language. ' 8. The type is beautifully clear and ili>tiuct. GOODSICHS SSSOND SCHDOL R2AD23, 144 pages, 18mo. 1. This work, formerly published as > the First Reader, haviui; been revised, ) enlarged and improved, and being novF preceded by a new introductory volume, ' is called tlie Second Reader. i 2. It contains about fifty beautiful engravings. 3. The lessons are progressive, rather harder than in the First Reader, less so than in the Third. 4. It contains 28 lessons on articula- tion, comprising all the consonant sounds of the language — with a view to produce by repetition of one thing at a time, tlie attainments of a full, clear, distinct cnojociation. 5. Preceding each lesson is a Spell- ing Exercise, containiiig the most dith cult words. 6. duestions follow each lesson, de- signed to ensure a thorough understand- ing of the subject. These may be ' multiplied by the judicious teacher. 7. A familiar explanation is given of j punclwdion^arlicnlalxju, CJiij>liii\iti. Sj-c. ; 8 Its lessons cannot be surpassed by any in the language, in point of adaptation to the wants of young , learners. 9. The tj'pe is large and very clear, vi'hile by a compact an-angenient, many i new lessons have been inserteil. GOODRICH'S THIRD SCHOOL READER, 218 pages, l%mo. 1. This work, originally published as the .Second Reader, having been revised and enlarged, is now called the "Third Reader." 2. It contains a great variety of beautiful engravings. 3. The lessons are progi-essive, carry- ing the loaruer onward, step by step. 4. It contains lessons on articulation, arranged upon the principle of teaching otte ihnig at a time, and of continual repetition. 5. Preceding each lesson is a spelling exercise, with the words properly divided. 6. Following each lesson are (jaes- tions to excite and interest the jiupil. 1. Much useful information is given i respecting the diS'erent kiucis of type i used in printing, with lessons in italic ( letters, script, 4'C. 8. To ensure greater interest in the < lessons, there is a contmuity of narra- ' tive between many of the lossous, ' while they are also com))lete in them- ' selves, so as to be read sepniatcly. 9. Prefixed to each lesson is a list] of the most common and vulvar errors , of pronunciation. GOODRICHS T0VR1U SCHOOL READER. 240 pages, 12mo. 1. This work, ongmally published as the Third, having been revised, im- proved and enlarged to nearly (iouble its former contents, is now the Fourth lieader. 2. In this, as in all the others, while many facilities are offered to the pro- gress of the pupil, it is not by taking away the necessity of exertion, but by bringing his faculties into play, and inducing him cheerfully and efficiently to help himself. y. An exercise in definitions precedes each lesson, explaining the meaning of ihe words as used in the contest. 4. Rules for Reading are prefixed to the book. These rules are simple, in- toUigiWe. and practical, and tht-ir effi- ciency ensured by a peculiar system of questions attached to the lessons. 5. It is abundantly illu.straled with beautiful engravings. 6. Errors of proiiunciiiliiii an' pointed out, and questions asked in coiinGj>.ioii with each lesson. 7 Appended to many of the lessons are remarks of an explanatory or critical character. 8. It contains exercises in Elocution of a most useful and practical kind. 9. For simplicity, interest, animation. pure moral tendency, and beautv ol stjle and sentiment, a more dclightlul body of reading lessons was nevei before brought together. Goodrich's Fifth School Reader. 384 payees, 12mo. 1. Tliis work, formerly tlie Fourth Reader, havinu' boon revised, improved, and enlarged to neai-ly double its Ibrnier contents, is now the Fifth Reader. 2. By means of a larije page, as large, in fact, as an ordinary octavo page, with clear, compact type, and a neat arrangement, nearly twice the matter is given of ordinary works, at same price. 3. An exercise in Spelling and Defi- ning precedes each lesson. This Gxcr- ' cise contains the words that the learner is least likely to know. The definitions of upwards of three thousand words, in the sense in which they are used in the context, are found in this and the pre- < ceding book. 4. The lessons afford a selection of| the very best extracts in the English ' language, and comprise more than usual ' of the highest efforts of. modern and, living masters. 0. It contains an ample number of ( pages devoted to rales and exercises in Elocution. 6. By a new arrangement, the se- quence of the lessons has been made more uniformly progressive. 7. The interests of religion, morality, aad good manners, have always been [ carefully considered in the selection. S. 6. Goodrich's Primary Historical Series. FIVE VOLS., EACH 216 pp., 18mo. Parley's Primary History of North America, comprising the United' States, with notices of Mexico, Canada, &c. Parley's Primary History of South America. Parley's Primary History of Ei\rope Parley's Primary History of Afi'ica, in preparation. Parleys Primary History of Asia, including BIBLE HISTORY, in prep. • These handsome little books form a series of primary histories. The mcchan- , ical execution is very creditable to the publishers. The following peculiarities < render them especially sititiiblefor hef;inners, for whose use they are intended. The remarkable abundance and beauty of the pictorial illustrations. The use of maps in the text, thus uniting geography with history. The striking simplicity and force of the style, which is also chaste aad finished. The freshness with which all the topics are invested. The introduction of new material, wanting not only in ordinary sehool books, but even in elaborate historical works. NEW AND ENLARGED EDITION A COLLECTION OF TUNES AND HYMNS ^: For the use of V/crchipping /assemblies and; Sunday Schools. NUMEHAL EDITION.— Compiled from many Authors, by SILAS \V LEONARD and A. D. FILLMORE. Revised by Kcv. VVM. GUNN, of Kv., iRev. THOS. HARRISON, of Ohio, and by tho AUTHORS. It is therefore both a Hymn Book and Tune Book in one. ) Bound in Sheep, or Extra Cloth, 7.-> cts. I Bound in Super Gilt Cloth $1 2 . Mor^'co, gilt. Si 00 I ■• Tarfccy Gilt Cloth 2 ou l: SCHOOL GRAMMARS. The Series consists of Two Parts, I. BUTLER'S INTRODUCTORY LESSONS INI ENGLISH GRAMMAR.— For Beginners. n. BUTLER'S PRACTICAL GRAMMAR. Instead of offerino: to the pablic their own commendations of these books, the , publishers liave the pleasure of ins'itiug attention to tlie following communications : 1. Fi-om Rev. J. M'Ci.iNxorK, D.D., who is well known throughout the United Slates as one of the most accomplished scholars and skilfal educators. As a ' professor in the hii,'host institutions of learninir, as tlie author of a most successful series of classical text books, and as editor of the Q.uarterly Review, published ^ by the Northern Methodist Episcopal Church, in the city of New York, bis reputation is as wide as the country. " BtiTLER's 'Practical Grammvr of the EvfiLisH Languaqe,' is an exceedingly well- conceivfcd and well-executeJ boolc. It U scieutitic, not only in its groundwork (which every elementary book ought to be), but also in its practical methods and devices, where empiricism i.s too ofccii substituted fir science. As every lesson can be put to use at once, the learner makes real progress with every page. I have seen no Elementary English i Grammar that pleases me better — or so well. JOUN M'CLINTOCK. New York, Alarch 28, 1849. a. From Georgk B. K.merson, of Boston, whose commendation of any text book is conclusive evidence of its great merits. He stands foremost among the men to whom New En^tland looks up, as tiie highest authority in all matters connected with education. Dear Sir— I have h.ardly had an hour siuce 1 received your note accompanying this Gramnmr, which was not ab.solutely bespoken for some other purpose. Ou looking over I the book rapidly, I see many things in it which are exoelleut. The definitions are remark- ably simple imd ciear ; the rules are short and comprehensive ; and the arrangement is so ' good; and the exercises so well selected, that a tolerable teacher might be very successful in teaching the principles of English (irammar by the aid of it. It forms, moreover, in the way it is intended to be used, what every Griimmar for beginners ought to f»rm — an < introduction to the art and practice of composition. The names of the tenses are far more sensible and pliilosophical than those found in most Grammar.s, which indeed are often qui'e wrong and absurd; and the principles of j Syntax and of I'rosody are singularly well coudeused, without boi-omiug too abstract and , obscure. In a future edition, 1 hope he will give the game condensation to the rules fcr ^ Punctuation. I am, dear sir, very truly yours, Oct. 27. 1845. GEO. B. EMERSON To J. G. Palfrey, IX.D., D.D., Secretary of State. 3, The following are extracts from the opinions of distinguished scholars:— From E D. North, Prof, of IVuluric ta Yrile Cot/tL'i: " It is the most scholarly and philosophic Grammar that I know."' A. D. Lord, of Ohio. " I consider ii one of the best works we have on the subject." Rev. B. P. Aydelote, of Cincinnati. " An improvement, in every respect, upon preceding works." Rich. n. Lee, Prof. Woskine^fon Coll. " I heartily recommend it as the best now to be got.'" John Lewis, of Llangollen. " It is really what its title indicates — A I'ractical Grammar." Jno. B. L. Soiile, Tcrre Haute. " Far in advance of any now in use." E. A. Smith, Siip't of Cor.imon Schools, ' Statetown, N. Y. "I prefer it before Brown's an.1 Bill- , lions'." Moscx Soule, North Bridslon. " My beau ideal of an English Grain- mar." ore, JJTental and Vocal PhUosopliy, for the Developmeufc of the Mind and Body. COMPRliliVG 1. Tiro or Thire Hundred of the CJioirest Anecdotes in our T^ir^fjuaqe. 2. Three Thoiixuud Oratorical and Poetical lieadinffs and liecitutions. i 3. Fire 'Tlwusnud Prorerbs, Mu.rimfi, ,Suijiii;/s, Themes, and Laconics. 4. And iSereral Hundred Ehjant Enffrauingti, to Illustrate the Wor/c. IT CON I. All llic Principles of Elocution, in rtccordance with Phvsiological and Men- tal Science: II. SIX FULL LENGTH VIEWS of the Nerves of Organic Life, of Respiration, of the Nerves of Sense and Motion, and of all the Muscles and Bones of tlie whole Hod}', clothed and unclothed: III. Natural and Deformed Chests. Positions of Ladies and Gentle- men, of their Bodies, Hands, Anns, and Feet, and ONE HUNDRED Full Length Oratorical and Poetical Por- traits: IV. FORTY-FOUR MOUTHS, showing every position to produce the FORTY-FOUR sounds of our Lan- guage : V. The Common, and New Mode of Learning the Letters, of Spell- ing, and of Teaching Children to Read, involving the Science of Phonology : VI. Several Hundred Jaw or Muscle- Breakers, for Training the Voice, while Laughter holds both of his sides." VII. FIFTY ENGRAVINGS, exhib- iting all the Phases of Passion, with appropriate examples to illustrate them: VIII An immense number of GLnes- tions and Subjects suggested for Ly- ceums, Debating Societies, and Social Parties: IX. The largest and best col- lection of READINGS, RECITA- TIONS, and DECLAMATIONS, in- cluding those int-erspersed with his Popular Lectures, involving every va- riety of Thoucrht and Feelin?, and ranging from the deepest Tragedy to the blithest Comedy ; with something on every page, calculated to make one serious and gay : X. By being printed in double columns, and certain kinds of type, it is designed, on philosophical principle.s, tn facilitate the arts of Head- iiiu', Memorizing, and the Preservation of the Eyesight — tiiree important points of attainment : XI. It is expressly pre- pared for use in all SCHOOLS, ACAD- EMIES, and COLLEGES. Male and Female; and also with particular ref- erence to Private Headers and Learn- ers: XII. In a word, it is just such a book, as every one, having heard of it, TAINS: will Feel and Think he must have, and ' cannot do without it. ITS COMPARATIVE MERITS. I. An examination of its C ntents and their Arrangement, will enable one ' to institute a comparison between thi- work, and all others on the same subject. ] II. It is in perfect harrao'iv wiiii what is knownof all that is NATURAL, HU.MAN, and DIVINE. III. Its foundations are deeply laid i in the Philosophy of Mind and Voice Spirit and Matter; and the principles' are of a far-reaching and comprehensive ' nature, tending to produce a great rev- olution in the Art of Reading and Speaking with Science a d Effect, and the development of the WHOLE MAN, Soul, Mind, and Body. IV. Its method is that of ANALYSIS . and SYNTHESIS, and is altogether i Progressive and Practical in its charac- teristics. V. Although but ONE Elocutionary Principle is presented, speeilically, on ' any page, yet each Elementary page ' contains, incidentally, ALL the Princi- ples of Elocution. VI. These Principles have nei'erj been known to fail, when fairhfully ap- plied, to enable one to Read. Speak, and Blow on Wind Instruments, for hours in succession, without Hoarse- ness, or injujious Exhau-stion ; and they ten Ismo., half lioiiiiil to 1 Butler's Practical GrHminar IM' . \ of lite ICiiglish I , l2ino., half Loinid Stronaily rfciiiMiin-iiiti-il li) tlie Imsi T>-;u-litr.s, as possessing iiuim-riHis pecu liar advaiuages, m pomi of ail.iptalioii, practical character, progressiveness, treaimeni of Adjectives. Pronouns, (and especially the "Compound Relative t Pronoun"), Tcii: