t6/~~~ 72Y2 T'7   -~   I.(I
"~~ —pf"Y~' A ~ S~'IO,.S~~~-1   ma"~ I, 4
"6'St7 W>W'<X~~~~~~~4
















BAPTISM
TESTED BY
SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY
OR
THE TEACHING OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, AND THE PRACTICE AND
TEACHING OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH IN EVERY AGE SUCCEEDING THE APOSTOLIC, COMPARED IN RELATION
TO THE SUBJECTS AND MODES OF BAPTISM
BY
WILLIAM HODGES, D. D.
RBOTOR OF CHRIST CHURCH, WEST RIVER,
MARYLAND
Third Edition, Revised and Improved
" Prove all things: hold fast that which is good." - ST. PAXI
NEW YORK
E. P. DUTTON AND COMPANY
713 BROADWAY
1875




Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1878, by
WIIIAM HODGES,
In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.
RIVERSIDE, CAMBRIDGE:
MTEREOTYPED AND PRINTED BY
K. O. HOUGHTON AND COMPANY.




PREFA CE.
THIS third edition of BAPTISM TESTED BY HOLY
SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY, comes before the public
revised with much care; its authorities all reexamined; portions re-written; some parts condensed,
and others amplified. It may be presumed, therefore,
that it is relieved of defects in former editions, and advanced to more perfect knowledge on points at issue.
The general plan of the book is the same; the witness of the Church on the subjects and modes of Baptism traced through the Fathers up to the fountain
head of Holy Writ; and the proof-texts of Scripture
carefully and minutely analyzed. In connection with
which, is examined the relation of Circumcision to
Baptism; the rites and usages of the Jewish Church;
also the use and acceptation of terms applied to little
children in the NEW TESTAMENT, compared with
their use and application in the next age after it
was written. Thus uniting evidence positive, historical, and circumstantial to elicit the true interpretation
of God's word.
In tracing the mode or modes of Baptism, and the
meaning of the terms f3arrmio and /arTm~/&,, about




iv                 PREFACE.
which so much has been written, the following pages
will show, that since words so often depart from their
primary meaning, and are used in a different sense in
one age from what they are in another, that it is more
important to ascertain what was the meaning or usage
of these terms in the times of Christ and his Apostles,
than to know their root or origin; for all critical
scholars will admit that, " A word may come to enlarge its meaning so as to lose sight of its origin," —
and that, "USE IS THE SOLE ARBITER OF LANGUAGE."
Therefore, instead of confining our inquiries to the
primary meaning of fa7rrotw, and its use in former
ages, the author of this work proceeds to show what
was its USAGE in the age and country in which the
NEW TESTAMENT was written - and especially in
the pages of that book itself. And instead of a SPECIFIC term embracing " only one mode of action," the
attentive reader will find that it is GENERIC, and applicable to various modes. And further, that during
the whole history of the Church, whatever was the
prevailing mode at any particular period, other modes
were allowed also, and practised when circumstances
rendered it expedient.
Having devoted much time to these subjects, and
sought instruction from every source within his reach,
of which he supposed light could be obtained, without
regard to names or shades of faith, the author has
used the information thus acquired in the way which
he supposed would develop most fully, and enforce




PREFACE.                  V
most successfully the truth. And in his citations from
authors, ancient and modern, he has not hesitated, irrespective of Shibboleths, to give in full and without
partiality the name and testimony as far as the evidence is pertinent to the question in point - and always credited the proper authority when conscious
of using his words, or of expressing himself in similar
language.
The Effects of Baptism, he has not regarded as
coming necessarily within the range of his present
work; and being desirous to free as much as possible
the legitimate inquiries of the "Subjects and Modes "
of Baptism from whatever might complicate and incumber his undertaking, he has endeavored to avoid
all mooted points among the members of his own
Church, and between them and others who practise
Infant Baptism as well.
And he now submits the following pages to his
brethren in Christ, and to all earnest seekers for the
truth; humbly trusting that the Giver of all Grace
will make them instrumental in leading inquirers to
the knowledge and obedience of his will, and to the
building up of the Redeemer's Kingdom!
At the suggestion of friends, an abridgment of the
present work for the use of Bible classes and Sundayschools is contemplated.
RECTORY OF CHRIST CHURCH,
WEST RIVER, MD.








CONTENTS.
-4
CHAPTER I.
ARE LITTLE CHILDREN EMBRACED IN THE TERMS OF TH
COVENANT?
Preliminary Remarks. - Nature of the Testimony. - Removal of
Extraneous Matter. - State of the Question. - Point at Issue. —
Principles of Interpretation. - Practice of all Ancient Churches. -
Origin of Antipmedbaptists. - Infant Baptism traced. - Constantly
referred to in the Pelagian Controversy. - Admitted to be the Rule
of the Universal Church by Pelagius and Celestius. - Council of
Carthage, Two Hundred and Fouiteen Bishops present. - Council
of Milevium. - Synodical Letter from Africa....   1
CHAPTER II.
HISTORICAL TESTIMONY, CONTINUED.
Testimony of Council of Carthage. - Aurelius. - Donatists. - Chrysostom. - Baptism and Christian Circumcision. - Original Sin. -
Benefits of Baptism. - Jerome. - Augustine. - Ambrose. - Optatus. - Gregory Nazianzen. - Basil. - Council of Eliberis. - Council of Carthage, Sixty-six Bishops present, Cyprian presiding. -
Tertullian...                                          21
CHAPTER III.
HISTORICAL TESTIMONY, CONTINUED.
Origen born of Christian Parents. - His Piety, Learning, and Travels.
- His Declaration that Infant Baptism is the Usage of the whole
Church handed down by the Apostles. - Care of Early Christians
to preserve the True Faith.- Irenoeus, Hearer of Polycarp, the
Pupil of St. John. - His Zeal for Apostolic Usage. - Use of the
Term Regeneration, and Testimony to the Baptism of all Ages. -
Agreement of Various Sects on this Point. — Interpretation of St.
John iii. 5, and Titus iii. 5.                             55
CHAPTER IV.
TESTIMONY HISTORICAL AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL.
Testimony of Justin Martyr, born at the Close of the Apostolic Age,




Viii                       CONTENTS.
in the Midst of Christians.- Many baptized in Childhood. — Gentile Christians received Circumcision in Baptism. - Interpretation
of Col. ii. 11, 12.- Clemens Romanus. —All Ages corrupt, and
Remedy provided before born, or Necessity of putting all into a
New State. - Hermas. - Necessity of Baptism  to all. - Infants,
and those who continue Infants without Malice most honorable of
all. - Interpretation of John iii. 5. - Christian Church organized
before New Testament written; -Infant Baptism before New Testament Canon settled. - Universal in the next Age after the Apostles. -Improbability of so notable an Innovation without Opposition in that Period. - The Adherence to "the One Only Faith "
by Polycarp, Irenaeus, and Christians immediately succeeding
the Apostles. - Summary of Historical and Circumstantial Evidence...8
CHAPTER V.
RELATION OF BAPTISM TO CIRCUMCISION.
A Church on Earth when Christ came.- The Temple and Synagogue
Services. —Preceded by the Tabernacle, with its Altar, Mercy
Seat, and consecrated Ministers. - Preceded by the Abrahamic and
Patriarchal Dispensations. - Circumcision the Outward Token of
the Abrahamic Covenant, sealing spiritual and temporal Promises.
-Abraham made the Father of a Spiritual Seed, in virtue of being
at the Head of a Covenant bearing the Seal of the Righteousness of
Faith. - This Covenant perpetual. - Mosaic Dispensation added to
it. - Circumcision continued to the Coming of Christ, " the Promised Seed." - The Change of the Seal from Circumcision to Baptism
did not affect the Right of Infants. - The Law for their Membership not having been repealed, they have the same claim to Baptism
that they had to Circumcision. — Baptism called by St. Paul, " the
Circumcision of Christ," and by Primitive Christians, ", Christian
Circumcision." - Holds the same Place in the same Church while
Circumcision has passed away.121
CHAPTER VI.
RELATION OF CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM)  CONCLUDED.
St. Paul's Definition of Circumcision. - Exposition of the Moral Law
under Moses. —Old Testament appealed to by Christ and his
Apostles. - Transfer of the Kingdom. - Branches of the Wild
Olive grafted into the Good Olive Tree. - Strangers and Foreigners
made Fellow-citizens with the Saints. - New and Better Covenant.
— New and Old, Comparative Terms. -Basis of the Christian
Church. - Gentiles brought in with Jews. -Faith of Parents avails
for their Children. - Hannah. -Nobleman. - Woman of Canaan.
-Religion always a Family Thinag. - Baptlm on the Faith of thb
Parent.- Practice of all the Ancient Churches....   146




CONTENTS.                           it
CHAPTER VII.
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
The Grand Commission to the Apostles to baptize all Nations. -
True Principles of Interpretation. - Infants had been always Members of the Church, and no Restriction now made in Regard to Them.
— Jewish Practice with Proselytes. —Talmud and Mishna. —
Objection to Baptizing before Teaching, answered. - The Church a
School. - Objection to the Want of Faith in Little Children, answered. —Christ's Treatment of Little Children shows they were
not to be regarded as " Aliens and Strangers " to his Kingdom. -
True Rendering of the Text, " Of such is the Kingdom of God." —
The Promise to Children repeated in the First Sermon under the
Gospel Commission - Family Baptisms. - Lydia and her Children,
the Jailer and all his, and the Family of Stephanus. — Meaning of
OKo, "II House." - In the Absence of Demonstration, the GREATER
PROBABILITY the Law of Action. - Claims of Duty between an
Old Established Rite and Supposed Error...         164
CHAPTER VIII.
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES, CONCLUDED.
Laws of Marriage among the Jews. - The Holy Seed not allowed to
mingle with Heathen Nations. - Such Marriages dissolved in Times
of Reformation. - Heathen Wives and Children put away. -Difficulties suggested in regard to "believing and unbelieving " Husbands and Wives under the New Dispensation. - Ceremonial Law
not applicable. - Sanctifying Influence of Believers on Unbelievers
justifies their Continuance in Wedlock lawfully formed, hence their
Children are Holy and not Unclean. - Holy and Unclean always
used in a Ceremonial or Religious Sense. —Children numbered
among the Holy and Saints by St. Paul. - Their Parents instructed
how to train them. - St. John divides the Members of the Church
into Three Classes, Fathers, Young Men, and Little Children. -
Summary of Testimony.- Earnest Exhortation to the Faithful
Training of our Little Ones for Christ's Spiritual Kingdom.   213
CHAPTER IX.
MODE OR MODES OF BAPTISM.
Meaning of Words. - Language of the New Testament - Septuagint
and Jewish Customs. - Divers Baptisms. - Water of Separation. -
Ritual Purifications. - Oriental Washing. - Baptism a Generic
Term. - John's Baptism. - Prophecies of Isaiah. - Ezekiel. -
Malachi. - Baptism of the Holy Ghost, poured out, shed forth,
fell upon, descended. - Baptism applied to the various Ablutions
of the Ritual Law. -No English Word will supply its Place. -




fx                        CONTENTS.
Immersion not its True Meaning. -No particular Mode implied in
the Term.- No specific Directions in regard to it.- Circumstances
of each Case must be examined..                           261
CHAPTER X.
EXAMINATION OF THE MEANING AND MODES OF BAPTISM, CONTINUED
John's Baptism. - Prepositions " in," " into," and c" out of," determine nothing. - Enon or Springs. - Apostles baptized without
Regard to Circumstances. - Baptism of Three Thousand. - Of the
Samaritans. - Of the Eunuch. - Of Saul. - Of Cornelius. - Of the
Jailer. -Of the Disciples at Ephesus. -Mode indicated only by
the Spirit. - End or Object of Baptism. - Christ the Second Adam.
- Circumcision of Christ. - Figurative Allusions. - Explanations.
- Summary of Scriptural Testimony. - Concluded with Historical
Proof of Baptism by Different Modes in every Age of the Church
since the Death of the Apostles. - No Prevailing Mode without
Exception..                                                301
CHAPTER XI.
BAPTISM BY DIFFERENT MODES VALID IN EVERY AGE OF THE CHURCH.
At the Time of the Reformation. - Church of Geneva. - at Mentz.
- Council of Cologne. - English Church. - Lynwood's Constitution. - Wickliffe. - Langres. - Synod of Angiers. - Thomas
Aquinas. - Bonaventur. - Strabo. - Gennadius. - Augustine. -
Chrysostom. - Jerome. - Athanasius. - Gregory  Nazianzen. -
Basil. — Baptism of Constantine. - Washing before' Pouring. -
Cyprian. - Lawrence and Romanus. - Novatian. - Basilides. -
Origen. - Tertullian. - Clemens Alexandrinus. - Justin Martyr.
- Baptism of Christ. - Catacomb of Pontianus. -Reasons for no
prescribed Mode. — Essence and Incidents. - Supper and Baptism.
- Greek Church. - Mar Yohannan. - Examination of Principles.
- Summary..                                                336
CHAPTER XII.
TIHE ORIGIN OF ANTIP2EDOBAPTISM, AND THE CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS
EXAMINED.
Modern Organization. - Waldenses and their Faith. - Albigenses. -
Pierre De Bruys. - Cathari. - Paterini. - Paulicians. - Bulgari. -
Donatists. - Novatians. - Bede. - Pelagius. - Ancient Church of
Britain. - Rome. - Greece. - Alexandria. -Palestine. - Coast of
Malabar. -Rise of Antipsedobaptists in Twelfth Century. - Collected together in 1521. -Munster taken in 1533. - Retaken next
Year. - Anabaptists Scattered. - Rallied under Menno, 1536. -
Confession of Faith published, 1636. -First Church in England,
1638. - In America, 1639.- Present Position. - High Standard
of Famnilh' Religion needed. - Concluding Remarks...   378




BAPTISM
TESTED BY SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY.
CHAPTER I.
ARE LITTLE CHILDREN EMBRACED IN THE TERMS OF THE
CHRISTIAN COVENANT?
Preliminary Remarks. - Nature of the Testimony. - Removal of Extraneous Matter. - State of the Question. - Point at Issue. - Principles of
Interpretation.- Practice of all Ancient Churches. - Origin of Antipwedobaptists. - Infant Baptism traced. - Constantly referred to in the
Pelagian Controversy. -Admitted to be the Rule of the Universal
Church by Pelagius and Celestius. - Council of Carthage, Two Hundred
and Fourteen Bishops present. —Council of Milevium. - Synodical
Letter from Africa.
~ 1. THE ruling desire of every heart should be, to
embrace the truth, only the truth, and the whole truth
contained in the system of Religion taught by our
Lord Jesus Christ. No man has the right to erect for
himself a standard lower than this; nor to reject any
means, within his reach, that will aid him in the
attainment of Gospel truth.   The Holy  Scriptures
being our RULE OF FAITH, our first duty is to endeavor to understand them.
When two opposing doctrines are drawn from their
holy pages, it is certain that one is wrong. Both
cannot be right. Truth calls for an investigation of
the claims of each. The principles of interpretation
on which they depend should be examined, and their
true meaning earnestly sought out.
I




2                PRELIMINA1RIES.
How do men proceed in such cases with other Ancient writings? All readers of the ancient classics
know, that in order to ascertain the entire meaning of
passages found on almost every page of such writings,
we must make ourselves acquainted with the customs,
laws, and various institutions of the country and age
of the writer. And when called on to decide between
the opposing interpretations of Annotators, we bring
to our aid all the light that can be obtained from
every source. Shall we observe less care and diligence
in the interpretation of the ancient records of the
Holy Scriptures? Is it more important to ascertain
the full meaning of the ancient classics, than the true
intent of the teaching of the Bible? Surely this will
not be admitted. What then?  Shall we take for
granted there is nothing in the Scriptures "hard to
be understood " —nothing but what is plain to the
most illiterate reader, and about which all men may
easily agree? The Divine record itself, as well as
facts numerous, testify to the contrary.
Many take up the New Testament, read over the
English translation in a cursory manner, interpret it
without any regard to the circumstances under which
the events and teaching therein recorded took place,
and not finding, for instance, Infant Baptism, the
Divinity of Christ, or any other doctrine, taught in
the way which they had marked out in their own imagination, they discard them as unworthy of belief,
and refuse to hear anything more about them.
In this way half of the doctrines of our holy religion
may be rejected - ay, the whole Scriptures of both the
Old and New Testaments -hence, the whole of our
religious faith! Some even go so far as to prescribe
" a plain, positive precept or example," as necessary




PRELIMINARY.               3
to their reception of any doctrine! Such presumption
need not be noticed here, however, further than to
ask — " Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or
who hath been his counsellor? " Is it not His to command, and ours to obey?
2. A clearly implied duty is as binding, as one made
known in any other way. Our business in such cases,
is to examine testimony, not to prescribe what kind it
shall be. Be it express or implied, direct or circumstantial, we must hear it, and give it the authority to
which it is entitled. God, our Supreme Lawgiver,
has the right to teach us in any way that he pleases;
and if any truth or duty be clearly implied in his holy
word, it is at our peril, that we reject or neglect it.
We are not permitted to dictate the mode, in which
He shall teach us. But must thankfully receive his
instructions in whatever way he may choose to give
them. Thousands split on this rock. They prescribe
the way beforehand in which Infant Baptism must be
made known; not remembering that the Church was
planted before the New Testament Scriptures were
written; that it was only necessary to allude to many
things because well known to all at the time; and that
the Evangelical record is a very concise statement of
the sayings and doings of Christ and his Apostles,
preserving merely the seeds, for the future use of the
Church, - we say, not bearing in mind these things,
they do not govern their expectations accordingly, and
hence not finding Infant Baptism set forth in that
bold relief which they anticipated, they reject it without examining the question properly. In the same way
the Jews rejected the Saviour! They had pictured
in imagination, a royal personage in pomp and splendor, to which the meek and lowly Jesus did not cor



4                 PRELIMINARIES.
respond when he came; and before examining sufficiently to discover that He was thepromisedl Messiah,
they rejected him! as others now do many of his doctrines!
3. Another obstacle that stands in the way of an impartial examination of this question is, the want of
clear and definite ideas of what is embraced in the inquiry. Many associate with Infant Baptism the mode
of baptizing; supposing the mode to be included in
the question at issue; as if young children could
not be baptized in any way, that you may baptize an
adult. Again, certain abuses, that have been witnessed in the baptizing of children are often associated
with the ordinance as a necessary part of the question
itself; but what institution may not be abused?
In order to enter upon an impartial examination
of this question, all these obstacles must be removed.
The examiner should endeavor to free his mind from
all previous bias for or against Infant Baptism; lay
aside all preconceived notions as to the kind and degree
of evidence; remove from the question itself all extraneous matter, and place before him the simple inquiry - " Is Infant Baptism a Divine Institution, or
is it not?
4. Bearing in mind these preliminaries, and thus relieving the question of much unnecessary incumbrance,
we may next inquire into the state of the controversy; for Infant Baptism is not a question which has
just begun to be controverted, - it has been in the
field of theological polemics more than three centuries;
and the subject of occasional debate more than six!
During the last century Antipaedobaptists  have
labored with great zeal and energy to spread their
1 Now generally called Baptists.




PRELIMINARIES.              5
principles in newly settled countries; but they are
yet few in number, compared with those who baptize
children. All the ANCIENT CHURCHES now in existence, without an exception, still baptize Infants,
and contend that the Apostles and their successors
did the same. And more than seven-eighths of those
bearing more modern names adhere to the same rite;
for which they claim the authority of Scripture and
History; and we challenge the proof of a single sect
(which baptized at all), that did not baptize little
children during the first thousand years of Christianity.
To all which, Antipedobaptists reply, - that although it was the general custom  of Christians to
baptize Infants for a long series of years, it had its
beginning after the death of the Apostles, - yet they
admit that they do not know in what way or at what
particular time it was introduced.
5. Such being the state of the case, we ask how
shall this controversy be settled? It will perhaps be
replied,-" Let both parties go to the Holy Scriptures." This they have done, but differ in their interpretations on this point. Various passages are pointed
out, one party saying, -" Here it is commanded " --
"there it is again implied" - "that passage takes
for granted the church-membership of little children"
" this alludes to the same thing," — and so on.
But the other denying, construes them all differently.
Must they always continue in this state of opposition to each other? Shall the Church of Christ be
thus rent in twain, and a schism perpetuated to the
end of time, notwithstanding the Saviour himself
prayed the Father, that his followers might "all be
one, as he and his Father were one? " And when




6                PRELIMINARIES.
the Apostle Paul also, with so much earnestness enjoins it on Christians that there should be no divisons among them? saying, "Now  I beseech you,
brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." I
Surely, if we desire to obey the injunctions of Divine
writ, we must desire to see this controversy brought
to a close. And if we love truth, if we love peace,
if we love our Lord Jesus Christ, we will avail ourselves of all lawful means to find truth, preserve
peace, and honor our blessed Redeemer.
6. Now there are principles of interpretation received and applied to other ANCIENT WRITINGS, and
likewise to other portions of THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
which, if applied to these disputed passages, may
show on which side the truth lies. There are also the
writings of early Christian authors, who wrote in the
next and following age after the Apostles, that may
aid us in this matter, - writers who were members of
the Church, and who devoted their lives to the cause
of Christ; suffering some of them, even unto death
in defence of the Gospel. Shall we hesitate to consult them on this point, -whether so notable a thing
as Infant Baptism was practised in their day? whether
a public ordinance of the Church, about which they
could not be deceived, was then observed? surely
not. They had eyes as well as we; they had memories too. And if pious, conscientious men, why refuse their testimony to that which is the object of the
senses and of public notoriety? If they speak of the
baptizing of young children in their writings, why
1 1 Cor. i. 10.




IPRELIMINARIES.                     7
not believe they speak the truth in this, as in other
things? Is it to be presumed, they would refer to a
thing that had no existence? And if we cannot trust
their testimony on a point of this kind, how can we
trust it in regard to the different books of the New
Testament? To whose writings do we now appeal
in support of the genuineness of each book?l  The
same which we now  propose as witnesses to Infant
Baptism. And what inducement could they have had
to deceive us in regard to an ordinance of our religion, that did not operate in regard to the books of the
same? They were as well qualified - even better,
we may suppose - to testify to a public practice like
Infant Baptism, than to the authenticity of the different manuscripts sent to the various churches. And
therefore, consistency, as well as love for the truth
require, that if we receive their testimony to the one,
we should to the other also. We cannot reject it as
to the Holy Scriptures: how then can we reject it as
to Infant Baptism?
And here we remark for such as have not for themselves drawn the distinction - that there is a wide
difference between the testimony of early Christians
to facts, and their mere opinion as to doctrines.  We
may receive the former and give it all the credit of a
qualified witness, whilst the latter should be received
as we receive the opinion of other Christians, making due allowance for the advantages of time, place,
and other circumstances.2 Respect is due the opin1 To this question the attention of the reader will be more particularly
called in another place.
2 On this point a living author remarks as follows: " Another remark
which I would here offer is, that we draw a wide distinction between the
value of the testimony of the Fathers as to doctrines and the oral teaching of the Apostles, and their testimony as to those matters of fact, that
tame under their immediate cognizance. It is important to keep this in




8                     PRELIMINARIES
ions and commentaries of early Christians, because
their nearness to the Apostles gave them many faciliP
ties of ascertaining their teachings which we have
not. But the testimony of the Fathers as to facts
must be regarded as something more than the mere
opinions of good men; must be received as valid testimony to the truth to which they depose; just as we
regard the testimony of Christians in this day concerning the practices of their respective Churches.
Will any one say, that some hundreds of years
hence, the writings of the Bishops and other ministers of Christian Churches must not be  consulted,
when trying to find out the rites and religious services of the respective Churches to which they belonged? If, for instance, there should be found at
that time, in the writings of the ministers of the Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist, and other Christian
bodies, accounts of the baptizing of young children,
shall it be objected: " Such testimony cannot be received concerning the practice of those Christians? "
No one will say this. Why then object to testimony
of the same kind, on the same subject in the earlier
days of Christianity? When such writings have
been examined and believed to be genuine,l and are
received as testimony on other points, we must receive them on this likewise. And when all men
shall be brought to take an enlightened and correct
view, because the value of human testimony is very different in one of
those cases to what it is in the other. The value of a man's testimony to
a fact that takes place under his own eye, or to a matter that is the object
of the senses, is very different to that of his report of an oral statement,
especially with respect to matters of doctrine." - Goode's Divine Rule of
Faith and Practice.
1 Only those writings, and portions of writings, the authenticity of
which has borne the test of sound criticism, and received the approval of
scholars generally, will be introduced as authority in this work.




PRELIMINARIES.               9
view of this question, and shall search after truth
from a love of it, they will doubtless avail themselves
of all the aid that such testimony affords. They will
rightly examine also. the principles of interpretation
which they adopt, and omit nothing that will throw
light on the subject of their inquiry.
7. The state of the controversy, the point at issue,
and nature of the evidence being now considered; let
us proceed to the examination of the question, -" Is
Infant Baptism of Divine authority, or is it an innovation brought into the Church since the death of the
Apostles? " In conducting this investigation it must
be remembered, we are not to bring this question and
place it in the midst of the customs and institutions
of our own age, and examine it under their colorings
and shadows; but transfer ourselves in imagination
to the Apostolic age, and there in the midst of the
institutions and customs that surrounded the Apostles,
conduct this examination. Thus we shall correct an
error into which many fall, who seem not to remember that we are many centuries after the time of the
Apostles; that the USAGES, LAWS, and HABITS of
this age, differ widely from those of that age; and
hence in looking at this question through the medium
of any other than its own age and institutions, we
may view it in very different colors from its true one.
To comprehend fully the meaning of any writer,
it is necessary to know the circumstances that affected
his mind at the time he wrote. Therefore, in order
to understand as correctly as possible the meaning of
the writings of the Apostles, we should endeavor to
place ourselves in the same age, amidst the same customs, surrounded by the same circumstances, and read
as if a contemporary with them.




10   PRACTICE OF ALL THE ANCIENT CHURCHES.
8. Guided by these preliminaries, we will take up
the practice of baptizing young children, as we find
it now among us, and trace it back through the different ages of the Church, to ascertain when it commenced-or whether there be any period between
this and the Apostolic age, when it was not known in
the Church? And if we find it in all the intervening
ages, we will then take up THE HOLY SCRIPTURES,
and having made ourselves acquainted (so far as we
shall be able) with the laws, customs, and influences
likely to have affected the Apostles, examine their
writings on this point - bearing in mind those influences under which they wrote.
~ 2. Beginning then at the present time (a little
beyond the middle of the nineteenth century), we
find that all the Ancient Churches known to us, The
Greek Church, Syrian  Church, Latin or Roman
Church, Nestorians, Armenians, Copts, Abyssinians,
and all the sects of Monophysites, baptize Infants.
And so, likewise, nine-tenths of those bearing more
modern names, - Protestant Episcopalians, Moravians, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists,
Methodists, and numerous others, all baptize Infants.
1. On the other hand, the Antipaedobaptists i form
a large and respectable body of Christians, and are
found in various parts of the religious world. They
are known in history by several different names," Anabaptists - Mennonites or Minnists, - Baptists," and some others.  But they prefer now, with
few exceptions, the name of Baptists. And though
1 Antipsedobaptists - this term embraces all those who are opposed
particularly to the baptism of children (&vTi, against; KrauZ, rat~U6, child;
aar7tg(, to baptize.




INFANT BAPTISM THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH. 11
differing among themselves on many other points, are
united in their opposition to the baptism of young
children, - that is, are all Antipaxdobaptists.
But however respectable in numbers, at the present
time, before we travel back more than three centuries,
they dwindle into a few scattered sects, confined
chiefly to Holland, Upper Germany, and countries
contiguous to the Alps.
About A. D. 1536, their system was first reduced
into consistency and moderation.1
2. Continuing our march some four centuries farther, we come to the period when their principles as
Antipedobaptists, are first brought to light in the
history of the Church.  It seems that Pierre de
Bruys, a native of Toulouse, about A. D. 1110, began
first to preach publicly against the baptism of young
children, — denying that they could be saved! He
continued his career some twenty years, and collected
a considerable number of followers, but was arrested
in A. D. 1130, by the Papal authority, burnt to death,
and his followers dispersed! 2
On this point we shall dwell more at large in another place, in connection with the history of the
Waldenses. It is only necessary to glance at these
centuries in our march, for history has made them familiar to every reader. No one doubts the fact that
Infant Baptism was the prevailing practice of Christians during this period, and it would be a work of
supererogation to swell this volume with citations of
the proof.
3. Passing on through the  eleventh, tenth, and
1 See Mosheim, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (a Baptist work),
and others.
2 See Mosheim - Waddington and Wall.




12               INFANT BAPTISM          [A. D. 800-670.
ninth centuries, we find it universal -practised everywhere, and by all.  No one called it in question who
baptized at all. There were some who rejected water
baptism altogether - but no record (so far as we can
learn) tells of any baptizing sect that rejected Infants.  Indeed, nearly the whole Church, in those
countries where Christianity had been introduced at
an early period, was composed of members baptized
in their infancy. Adult baptism was comparatively
a rare thing except in places more recently converted
to the Christian faith, and in those regions where missionaries were at work. In all the National Churches
Infant Baptism was not only universally practised,
but almost the only baptism, because family baptism
had been handed down from past generations.'
4. And so with the eight, seventh, sixth, and fifth
centuries; Infant Baptism had no one to oppose it
except those who opposed all baptism. Its universality is virtually admitted by the concession even of
Mr. Tombs, a celebrated Antipmdobaptist writer, who
says, " It was carried almost without controul," during
this period. Wall objects to his use of the word
" almost " - and says, Tombs puts in the word" almost " as if some, though few, did oppose it: there is
on the contrary, not one saying, quotation, or example
that makes against it, produced or pretended, but
that has been clearly shown to be a mistake. As in
the first four hundred years (of Christianity) there is
none but one Tertullian, who advised it to be delayed
till the age of reason; and one Nazianzen until three
years of age, in case of no danger of death: So in the
following six hundred years there is no account or report of any one man that opposed it at all." 2
1 See W. Wall's History of Infant Baptism.
2 Wall's History of Infant Baptism, Third London Edition, vol. ii. c. vii.




A. D. 670-420.]   THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    13
This question called forth much research and great
labor about the close of the seventeenth, and beginning of the eighteenth centuries. And among others,
as Wall informs us, a Mr. Danvers, an Antipaedobaptist writer of those times, found as he supposed various passages in the writings of authors of the first
thousand years of Christianity that did imply opposition to Infant Baptism, but Wills and Baxter, who
followed him on the other side, discovered and exposed his many mistakes and errors. " There wants
nothing but looking into the books themselves (continues Wall) to see they are nothing to the purpose.
Mr. Danvers created to Mr. Wills and Mr. Baxter a
great deal of trouble in sending them from one book
to another, to discover his mistakes and misrepresentations of several authors within this space; but withal
a great deal of discredit to himself, for there is not
one of his quotations that seemed material enough
to need searching, but proved to be such" 1 (i. e. mistakes or nothing to the purpose).
5. Since the time of these writers historical evidence
is much less appealed to by the opponents of Infant
Baptism, they confining themselves chiefly to certain
controverted passages, and to their own interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
In some of their publications, however, the errors
just referred to are to be found; to which we shall
recur in the progress of our investigation, and particularly to a passage taken from a defective copy of the
works of the venerated Bede.
The universality of the baptism of little children at
that period being so well known to all students of
ecclesiastical history, and conceded by so high au1 Third edition, London, vol. ii. c. 7, P. 213.




14              INFANT BAPTISM       [A. D. 420-410.
thority on the other side, we might pass on to the
next century nearer to the apostolic age; but before
doing so let us glance at the high authority yielded
to Infant Baptism, and with what confidence its claims
were appealed to, during the " Pelagian Controversy,"
which arose in the beginning of the fifth century, and
agitated East and West the Christian world.
It was the doctrine of the Church then as now, that
by the fall of Adam, the original state of man was
lost; and that all his posterity partake of the infirmities and depravity of his fallen condition; that
his descendants are born with a corrupt, sin-stained
nature, which inclines them to evil. Some were of
opinion that the guilt, as well as stain and pollution
of Adam's sin, passed to his posterity; and the effect
upon his race, whatever it be, they called " Original
Sin."
Pelagius, a monk, born in Britain, and now living
at Rome; and Celestius, another monk, of Irish birth,
his friend, denied Original Sin, and taught that the
posterity of Adam are born in the same state that he
was before his fall —-free from sin. This new doctrine, in connection with some others, spread rapidly and was embraced by men of notoriety holding
prominent places in the Church in various portions of
Christendom, by whom were aroused bishops and
men of learning on the other side. Among them
was Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, a man of great
ability and energy, who acted a very prominent part
in this controversy. Holding very decided, perhaps
extreme views of the effects of Original Sin, he took
up the doctrines of Pelagius and Celestius, and discussed them in every phase in which they were presented, and charged upon them, —especially upon




A. D. 420-410.]   THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    15
Pelagius, -that he made void the Baptism of Infants.
If they have no Original Sin, and have committed no
actual sins of their own; for the remission of what
sins, he asked, are they baptized?
Pelagius would not admit that his doctrines came
in conflict with the authority of Infant Baptism; but
enumerated other benefits conferred by it, other reasons for its administration than that of Original Sin.
Augustine contended that he thus changed the chief
object for which Baptism was given, and made two
baptisms; that his theory subverted all true Baptism.
Both admitted the authority of Infant Baptism, -
that was placed beyond all doubt. Hence Augustine
used it to disprove Pelagius' theory of the moral
state of man at his birth.
~ 3. Instead of rejecting Infant Baptism, Pelagius
declared that, " He never heard of even an impious,heretic who would avow such a thing." And to correct the many misrepresentations in circulation, both
Pelagius and Celestius drew up articles of their belief
and sent them to the Bishop of Rome. In which Pelagius, when he comes to Baptism, says: -
LIBELLUS FIDEI.
" We hold one baptism which we affirm must be administered
with the same sacramental words to infants with which it is to
elder persons." I
He thus acknowledges his faith in Infant Baptism,
but evades the doctrine of original sin, and also cuts
off the charge of two baptisms, by saying, the " same
sacramental words " are to be used in all cases.
He sent likewise with his " confession of faith " an
accompanying letter, parts of which are quoted by
1," Baptisma unum tenemus, quod iisdem sacramenti verbis in infanti.
bus quibus etiam in majoribus asserimus esse celebrandum."




16                   INFANT BAPTISM            [A. D. 417410.
Augustine, in order to make his animadversions upon
them. In one place Augustine quotes him, saying:" He is slandered by men, as if he denied the sacrament of
baptism to young children, and did promise the Kingdom of
Heaven to any, without the redemption of Christ." 1
After some remarks on this, Augustine quotes him
as next saying:
"He never heard even of any impious heretic who would
avow such a thing in regard to little children: for who is there
so ignorant of Gospel reading (Evangelicce lectionis) that he
would - not to say, venture to affirm this - but even in a heedless way say, or indeed think such a thing? In a word, who
can be so impious as to wish little children not to be sharers in
the Kingdom of Heaven, and so forbid them to be baptized and
regenerated in Christ?" 2
Again, -
" Who is there so impious as to interdict the common redemption of mankind to any age whatever? " 3
Augustine, commenting on these passages and others of like import, charges Pelagius with evasions and
ambiguity. That he keeps away from the main point
at issue. That the question was not whether Infants
ought to be baptized, but if they have no original sin,
why are they baptized?  And when did they sin?
Or, if they have no sin at all, what is their condition
before Baptism?
1 " Se ab hominibus infamari qubd neget parvulis baptismi sacramentum,
et absque redemptione Christi aliquibus regna ccelorum promittat." - Augustin. de Peccato Originali, c. 17, 18.
2," Nunquam se vel impium aliquem Hereticum audisse, qui hoc quod
proposuit de parvulis, diceret: Quis enim ita Evangelice lectionis ignarus
est, qui hoe non modo affirmare conetur, sed qui vel leviter dicere aut
etiam sentire possit? Denique quis tam impius, qui parvulos exortes
regni coelorum esse velit, dum eos baptizari et in Christo renasci vetat." -
Ibid.
8 " Quis ille tam impius est, qui cujuslibet netatis parv1o interdicat comr
munem humani generis redemptionem."- Ibid.




A. D. i17.]    THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCIL             17
Here we would remark that we have nothing to do
with the subjects of controversy that may be brought
up in connection with the question before us. Our
only business is to find out, at each successive step,
whether Infant Baptism is still the practice of Christians?
Whatever doctrines may be advocated or opposed,
it forms no part of our present plan to defend one side
or the other, or to stop to show that Infant Baptism is
not answerable for men's fancies. The simple fact,
" Is Infant Baptism the practice of the Church, or is
it not? " is all with which we have to do at the present time.
~ 4. Celestius, in his confession of faith (Libellus
fidei) is more open and explicit on original sin. As
recited by Augustine, he says:AUGUSTIN. DF PECCATO ORIGIALI, C. 5.
" We acknowledge that Infants ought to be baptized for the
remission of sins, according to the rule of the Universal Church,
and according to the meaning of the Gospel. For the Lord has
ordained that the kingdom of Heaven is not to be conferred on
persons unless they are baptized [referring to St. John, iii. 5],
which, because the power of nature cannot give, it is necessary
to confer through the liberty of grace. But we do not therefore
say that Infants are to be baptized for the remission of sins, that
we may seem to confirm the opinion of the propagation of sin,
which is a thing far from the Catholic sense. For sin is not born
with a man which is afterwards committed by him. Because it
is not the fault of NATURE, but of the WILL, as may be demonstrated. It is, therefore, proper to confess the former, lest we
seem to make divers kinds of baptism; and also necessary to
guard against the latter, lest by means of this mystery, it be to
the reproach of the Creator said, that sin was conveyed through
nature to man before it was acted out by man." 1
1 " Infantes autem debere baptizari remissionem peccatorum secundum
regulam universalis Ecclesixe, et secundum Evangelii sententiam confite2




18                   INFANT BAPTISM                [A. D. 417.
In this passage Celestius not only shows that he
did not oppose Infant Baptism, but tells us that it is
the " rule of the universal Church," and doctrine of
the Gospel (Evangelii sententiam).  Pelagius said he
had never heard even of any impious heretic who denied it (meaning among those who baptized at all),
and asks, who is so ignorant of gospel reading (Evangeliece lectionis) as even to think such a thing much
less affirm it.
The testimony of these two men is the more important on this point, because of the great advantages
they had enjoyed for knowing the custom of the
Church in different parts of the world. They were
born and bred, the one in England and the other in
Ireland, came to Rome early in the fifth century, and
resided there till the invasion of the Goths, A. D.
410. They both went thence to Carthage, in Africa,
at which place Celestius remained some time, and attempted to gain admittance as a Presbyter into the
Church; but being disappointed, afterwards travelled
over Greece and various portions of Asia, visiting all
the most noted Eastern Churches of Europe and
Asia.  Pelagius settled in Jerusalem.
Both of them, who had enjoyed such opportunities
of knowing by personal observation the practice of
all the most noted churches in Christendom, sent in
mur; quia Dominus statuit regnum Coelorum non nisi baptizatis posse
conferri: quod quia vires naturxe non habent, conferre necesse est per gratie libertatem. In remissionem autem peccatorum baptizandos infantes
non idcirco diximus, ut peccatum ex traduce firmare videamur; quod
long6 h Catholico sensu alienum est. Quia peccatum non cum homine
nascitur, quod postmodiim exercitur ab homine; Quia non naturae delictum, sed voluntatis esse demonstratur. Et illud ergo confiteri congruum,
ne diversa baptismatis genera facere videamur: et hoc prmmunire necessarium est, ne per mysterii occasionem, ad Creatoris injuriam, malum
antequam fiat ab homine tradi dicatur homini per naturam."
See Wall's History, vol. i. c. xix.




A. D. 418.]   THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.                19
written  declarations of their faith in A. D. 417, one
saying, "Infant Baptism  is the rule of the Universal
Church," - the other, he had " never heard of even
an impious heretic that denied Baptism to Infants."
~ 5. The following year a council was held at
Carthage, in which all the provinces of Africa were
represented, —two  hundred  and  fourteen  Bishops
were present, and eight canons passed against the Pelagian tenets.  In the second canon Infant Baptism  is
referred to, and two errors condemned, - one against
the doctrine of Pelagius and Celestius in regard to
original sin, - the other against the opinion of some
who thought Baptism  ought to be delayed until the
eighth day after birth - the time of circumcision.
That which regards Infant Baptism, is as follows: -
CONCILII CARTHAG. ANNO 418, CANON SECUNDUS.
"Resolved also, that whosoever denies that Infants may be
baptized fresh from their mothers' womb, or says that they are
indeed baptized for the remission of sins, but yet they derive no
original sin from Adam, which is expiated by the laver of regeneration (whence it follows that in them, not the true form of
baptism for the remission of sins is understood, but a false one),
let him be Anathema.  For what the Apostle says -' by one
man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned,' can in no otherwise be understood but in the way the Catholic 1 Church extended everywhere has always understood it. For by this rule
of faith also the LITTLE ONES, who cannot as yet have committed
any sin in themselves are truly baptized for the remission of
sins, that what they derive by generation may be cleansed by
regeneration." 2
1 "d Universal," not " Roman" Catholic.
2," Item placuit ut quicumque parvulos recentes ab uteris matrum baptizandos negat; ant dicit in remissionem quidem peccatorum eos baptizari,
sed nihil ex Adam trahere originalis peccati quod lavacro regenerationis
expietur (unde sit consequens ut in eis forma baptismatis in remissionem
peccatorum non vera sed falsa intelligatur) Anathema sit.  Quoniam non
aliter intelligendum est, quod ait Apostolus, Per uuniu hominem peccatum




20                       INFANT  BAPTISM                   [A. D. 417.
Further testimony  could  add  nothing  to  the  certainty  of  the fact that Infant Baptism   was the  doctrine and practice of the Church in this century. If
a council of two hundred and fourteen Bishops pronounced an Anathema on any one " who shall deny
original sin, and that Infants are baptized that what
they derive by generation may be cleansed by regeneration;"  and  Pelagius, a Briton, who  had lived  in
Rome, then in Carthage, and settled finally in Jerusalem, tells us he had " never heard of even an impious heretic that denied Baptism to Infants," -and
Celestius, who had travelled far and near, and visited
the most noted churches in Europe and Asia, proclaims it to be " the  rule of the Universal Church;"
nothing more can be needed to satisfy the most skeptical inquirer. We pass on, therefore, to a period before the rise of Pelagianism.
NOTE. Much has been written concerning the effect of Adam's sin on his
posterity; and exclamations of horror often expressed at the idea of little
children suffering for the sin of another.  But it should be borne in
mind that whatever be the effect of Adam's sin on his descendants, whether
they only lost the primeval state of man, or whether born with a sinful
corrupt nature, or whether involved in his guilt; provision was made for
their loss before it came. Where sin abounded grace superabounded.
Before the foundation of the world Christ devised the plan of their redemption. And though God cannot look upon any shade of sin, we may charitably hope that no child is actually damned eternally for original sin.
Christ has redeemed all from the curse of original sin, Infants, Idiots, and
every one not responsible for actual sin, and will save them with every penitent for his actual sins. Only those who commit actual sins qf their own,
continue impenitent, and reject the terms of redemption, are excepted.
And if actual transgressors on repentance receive the seal of the remission
of all sin, much more the little ones who have committed no actual sin, the
seal of the remission of original sin.
intravit in mundum et per peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines pertransit, in quo omnes peccaverunt: Nisi quemadmodum Ecclesia Catholica
ubique diffusa semper intellexit. Propter han~ enim regulam fidei, etiam
parvuli, qui nihil peccatorum in seipsis adhuc committere potuerunt, ideo
in peccatorum remissionem veraciter baptizantur, ut in eis regeneratione
mundetur quod generatione traxerant." - Cited by Wall.




A. D. 400 or     THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.               21
A. APOS. 300. I
CHAPTER II.
HISTORICAL TESTIMONY CONTINUED.
Testimony of Council of Carthage. - Aurelius. - Donatists. - Chrysostom.
— Baptism and Christian Circumcision. — Original Sin. - Benefits of
Baptism. - Jerome. - Augustine. - Ambrose. - Optatus. - Gregory
Nazianzen. -Basil. - Council of Eliberis.- Council of Carthage, Sixtysix Bishops present, Cyprian presiding. - Tertullian.
~ 1. ABOUT A. D. 400, or 300 from the Apostolic
Age,' a question was proposed in a Council at Carthage, which shows the prevalence of Infant Baptism
at that time. It was the case of certain persons carried away captives, in their infancy, into barbarian
countries, who after a lapse of years had been found
and ransomed by their friends. But when brought
back none of their relatives, then alive, could testify
whether or not they had been baptized before they
were carried off. They being little children when
their parents were captured, were of course too young
to remember anything about it, and their friends were
in doubt what to do. They would by no means have
so important a thing neglected, and yet they were
afraid of desecrating the sacrament by re-baptism.
The case was laid before the Fifth  Council at Carthage, and the following is its decision: —
1 The last book of the Holy Scriptures was written about A. D. 96 and
St. John died A. D. 102. Therefore inspired men were continued in the
Church to supervise and preserve it from serious error until the end of the
first century. This period constitutes what is called the " Apostolic Age."
In reckoning from the close of this age, will be used in this volume " A.
Apos." for "'After the Apostles " - Apostolic Age.




22              INFANT BAPTISM          [A. D. 400, A. APOM. o,
CONCILII CARTHAGINIENSIS QUINTI, CANON 6.
"It is resolved CONCERNING INFANTS, when positive witnesses
cannot be found, who will testify that they have been baptized
without doubt, and they, by reason of their age, are not able to
answer as to the administration -of the sacrament to them; that
they be baptized without any scruple; lest that scruple do cause
them to go without the benefit of the sacrament. For our brethren sent from the Mauritanians, have asked our advice on this
point." I
This not only proves that they practised Infant Baptism, but that it was so rigidly observed, they hesitated
to baptize.a person who had been carried away in early
infancy, fearing they would be guilty of re-baptism,
so great was the probability that such, however young
when carried off, were previously baptized,
~ 2. In a preceding council held three years before
at the same place, in regard to the promotion of persons to ofices in the Church who had once belonged to
schismatic bodies, a canon was issued which incidentally testifies to the prevailing custom of Infant Baptism. Aurelius, the Bishop, remarks: -
CANONUJM CODEX ECCLESItE AFRICAN;E, CAN. 57.
" In a former council it was resolved, you remember, that they
who were baptized in their INFANCY among the Donatists before they were able to understand the mischief of that error, and
when afterward they had come to the age of understanding,the truth being acknowledged by them....  they wer6
received by us....   such, without doubt, ought to be po-.
moted to Church offices, especially in times of so great need, as
all must concede.
"Some of the teachers of the same sect, would come over with
i W Placuit de infantibus qu&ties not iV e-nihntut ceftissimi testes qui eos
bhaptizatos esse sine dubitatiotre testentur, neque ipsi sunt per tetatem idonei
dte traditis sibi sacramentis respondere; absque ullo scrapulo'eos esse
baptizandos. Ne ista trepidatio eos faciat sacramentorum purgatione privari. Hine enim legati Maurorum fratres nostri consuluerunt," ete.Cited by Wall.




A. APOS. 297.]   THE PRACTICE  OF THE CHURCH.                   22
their congregations, if they might continue in their offices with
their honors among us; but this I leave to the further consideration of the brethren, only that they consent to our determination,... that those baptized in Infancy be admitted to orders." 1
Infant Baptism is here mentioned as a thing common and well known, and the points at issue, are,
whether those baptized among the Donatists in infancy
are not less to be blamed than those received  among
them at adult age? And whether such ought to be
debarred from holding offices in the Church, if they
return to it, as soon as they come to years of discretion?
~ 3. The following resolution had been passed in
council on this subject:CONCILII CARTHAG. TERTII, CAN. 48.
"In reference to the Donatists, resolved that we consult our
brethren and fellow Bishops, Siricius and Simplicianus, concerning only those who are baptized in INFANCY, among them - that
when they have been converted to the Church by the wholesome
purpose of God, whether that which they have not done by their
own judgment, but was the error of their parents, shall hinder
them, that they shall not be promoted to Ministers of the holy
altar? " 2
1 " Superiori consilio statutum esse mecum recognoscit unanimitas vestra
ut hi qui apud Donatistas parvuli baptizati sunt nondum scire valentes
erroris eorum interitum, et posteaquam ad aetatem rationis capacem pervenerunt, agnita veritate,.... recepti sunt.... sine dubio ad officium
clericatus tales esse applicandos, et maxime in tanta rerum necessitate nullus est qui non concedat.
" Quanquam nonnulli ejusdem sectne clerici cum plebibus atque honoribus
suis ad nos transire desiderent,... Sed hoc majori fratrum supradictorum
considerationi dimittendum censeo. Tantum de his qui Infantes baptizati
sunt satagimus, ut nostrae, si placet, in iisdem ordinandis consentiat voluntati." - Can. 57, Ibid.
2," De Donatistis, placuit ut consulamus fratres et consacerdotes nostros
Siricium et Simplicianum, de solis infantibus qui baptizantur penes eosdem, ne quod suo non fecerant judicio, cum ad Ecclesiam Dei salubri proposito fuerint conversi, parentun  illos error impediat, ne provehantur
sacri altaris ministri."




24                    INFANT BAPTISM               [A. APOS. 280.
From this resolution and the words of Aurelius, we
see that the Donatists, a schismatical body, baptized
young children, as well as the great body of the
Church; and yet some opponents of Infant Baptism
tell us that they themselves are descendants of the
Donatists!
We need nothing plainer or more conclusive, - as
it regards the Church of Carthage at this time. Let
us pass on some twenty years nearer the Apostles and
see what was the practice in other places?
~ 4. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM was a native of Antioch,
called the "golden mouthed " on account of his eloquence,- was a voluminous writer,1 and finally made
patriarch of Constantinople. In one of his homilies
on Genesis, he speaks of the pain and suffering of
circumncision, and the advantages of Baptism over it,
in the following manner:HOM. 40 IN GENESIN.
" But our Circumcision, I mean the grace of baptism, gives
cure without pain, and procures for us a thousand benefits, and
fills us with the grace of the Spirit. And it has no determinate
time as that had; but it is lawful to any one in the very BEGINNING OF HIS AGE, or in the middle of it, or in old age, to receive this circumcision made without hands. In which there is
no trouble to be undergone, but to throw off the load of sins
and receive pardon for all foregoing offences." 2
1 We quote only from those books that are generally acknowledged to
be authentic, or such portions as are received by Protestants and Romanists.
2'H Se hleT'4pa 7repToprlX, h TOD /larrTga'raITO, Xeyo, X6pt', dvWIUVov EXEL
r'iv IaTpelav Kac Iuvptov ayaOwv 7rpoeVTOeo yive'TaL l7fV, KIcaL Tjj' TOo lvevjxaToS
qu il7rVX77r)crl X6PLTOV. KaY oie' Lptorlvov 9xeL xaLpov IcoOarep eKeL a&XX'
etecT& KaL ev dpcq h7AlKta Ka ly EV uLa'l, Cal bV abiT'o T' yijpa yevo6levov Ttva
TaVT71v UfaoOa&, Tv dXeLpovroqT'ov 7reC'Tofg.v V    KI ObKc eoa7,I'vov 7v.LetvatL, ah
i&tjapnjp6dToTv oopTra   T  7roOiTa K:a7 6v T Vy    T ravYT Xpovo,, IrA7 lAXflqaZTWY'v oryyX(pqal'V
ivpOea. - Savil. Edit., vol. i.




A. APOS. 280.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.        25
Chrysostom here calls Baptism the Christian's Circumcision, and says, it is confined to no particular
age as was Jewish Circumcision. Instead of the
eighth day after birth, we may receive it in the very
beginning of age (ev alpr 4Xt'Kla) or in the middle of
it, or in old age. Meaning at any time when in the
providence of God the sacrament can be administered.
That he means by "the beginning of age" the
first stages of infancy, is obvious both from the sense,
and from his use of the same phrase in another place
concerning Circumcision; where he says, "Circumcision was appointed on the eighth day, because the
cutting off the flesh is more easily borne' in the beginning of age'" (('v awpr) ijXtita), i. e., when very
young, the infant is not so sensible of the pain.
~ 5. In another of his homilies, he condemns a
heathenish and superstitious practice of some mothers
in rubbing a certain kind of mud on the forehead of
a newly born child, to keep it from being bewitched;
and asks them how they can bring such children to
the priest to be baptized.  His words are: -
HOM. 12, IN 1 EPIST. AD CORINTHIOS.
" He that anoints an infant so with mud, how can he think
but that he makes it abominable? How can he bring it to the
priest? Tell me, how can you think it is fitting for the minister to make the sign on his forehead, when you have besmeared
it with that mud."'
By the " sign," he refers to the sign of the cross
then made on the forehead in Baptism, and seems to
think that the  child is rendered  unfit to receive
Baptism, and have that sign made on the same
I'O  Bopcipq  xpiwv 7rC s oLxl Kal /l3eXvKTbv  rTOLeZ soi 7al&0v;,r(s yip aur4
rpoo'aye~'aZ: Xepo' To0;epcoD; i ep e buoy, woi,  ar.o  er 70rt /zernotrov o'rpaya
E'LTLTEe0OvaL 7rap. Tor 7To rrpeCOVTrdpa XeLpbg evOa TObv B6popov r'exe&ras;




26                  INFANT BAPTISM           (A. APOS.'20.
place, which had been defiled by such a superstitious
rite.
~ 6. There is still another passage taken from a
Homily of Chrysostom, not extant in the Greek, but
cited by both Julian and Augustine on opposite sides,
in their controversy on Original Sin, the one in Latin
and the other in Greek. Julian's citation in Latin is
as follows I:
" Blessed be God, who only does wonders; who has created
and ordered all things. Lo I they do enjoy the serenity of freedom who but even now were held in captivity; they are become
Citizens of the Church, who were in the vagabond state of
Aliens; and they are entered into the lot of the righteous, who
were under the confusion of sin. For they are not only free, but
saints; nor saints only, but justified; and not only justified, but
sons; and not only sons, but heirs; not only heirs, but brothers
in Christ; not only His brethren, but co-heirs; not only coheirs, but members of Him; not members only, but His temple;
and not His temple only, but organs of His spirit. You see how
many are the benefits of Baptism. And yet some think that the
heavenly grace consists only in the forgiveness of sins; but I
have reckoned up ten advantages of it. For this cause we baptize Infants also, though they are not defiled with sin, that there
may be superadded to them saintship, righteousness, adoption,
inheritance, a brotherhood with Christ, and to be made members
of Him."
Augustine admits the correctness of this translation, except the last clause of the sentence, "For
this cause, we baptize Infants also, although they are
not defiled by sin." He objects to the rendering,
" not defiled by sin," and cites the Greek; rendering
it, "although they have no sins." In the first case,
"not defiled by sin," would seem  to teach freedom
from any infection of Adam's or Original Sin. And
in the other, "have no sins," may be understood,
1 Wall's History, vol. i., chap. 14.




t. APOS. 278.)  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.         27
"sins of their own;" not referring to original or sin
derived from Adam, but of their own personal acts.
Whatever views he entertained in regard to Adam's
sin, the  passage shows beyond  doubt that Infant
Baptism was the rule of the Church in Antioch in
Syria, as well as in Carthage in Africa.
We pass next to Rome, a place of resort at that
time from  every part of the world, to see whether
this practice prevailed there also.
~ 7. JEROME, who was educated at Rome, and
now residing there again  after having spent some
years in Syria, was highly esteemed and much courted
for his literary attainments. In writing to a lady of
great distinction, and endeavoring to impress on her
mind her responsibility in training up her young
daughter, he tells her that the sins of children are
laid to the charge of the parents till they arrive at the
age of discretion; and specifies among others the neglect of their Baptism as a sin of the parent, and not
of the child. Supposing her to object in the language
of Ezekiel, -- The sins of the father are not imputed
to the children, nor those of the children to the father, but the soul that sinneth, it shall die," he answers: -
HIERON. AD LETAM DE INSTITU. FILIXE.
"This is said of those that are able to understand; of such
as he was, of whom it is written in the Gospel,' He is of age,
let him speak for himself.' But he that is a child, and thinks as
a child (until he come to years of discretion, and the letter Y
of Pythagoras brings him to the place where the road parts into
two), his good deeds as well as his evil deeds are imputed to
his parents.'Unless you suppose the children of Christians, if they do
not receive baptism, are themselves accountable for the sin, and
the wickedness not imputed to those who would not give it to




28                   INFANT BAPTISM             [A. APOS. 288.
them, particularly at the time they ought to receive it, and could
not have made any opposition to receiving it." 1
Here again we see Infant Baptism spoken of as
the practice of Christians, and in a way that declares
it to be a sin in parents to neglect it. But that which
is most important to our purpose is, that it is incidentally referred to, not brought up as a question of
doubt. And we wish the reader to observe that in
all the places in which it has yet been introduced, it
was brought in for the purpose of sustaining, or illustrating in some way, other questions at issue. And it
will be further seen, if we mistake not, that Infant
Baptism  itself never was called in question during the
earlier ages of Christianity. Whenever referred to,
its Divine authority is always taken for granted.
We have now seen that before the rise of the Pelagian controversy as well as after it, Infant Baptism
was the practice of the Church in each of the then.known quarters of the globe. But as it has been
alleged that Augustine never alluded to Infant Baptism till after the rise of the Pelagian controversy,
we will cite one more passage from him, written in
the earlier part of his life, and not far from the time
we are now considering. And we do so for the twofold object of showing, both the universality of the
practice, and his opinion as to its Divine authority.
~ 8. The DONATISTS were. a body of Christians
1 " Hoc de his dicitur qui possunt sapere, de quibus in Evangelio scriptum est; retatem habet, loquatur pro se. Qui autem parvulus est et sapit
ut parvulus, donec ad anios sapientiae veniat, et Pythagore litera Y eum
perducat ad bivium; tam bona ejus quam mala parentibus imputantur.
Nisi forte existimas Christianorum filios, si baptisma non receperint, ipsos
tantum reos esse peccati; et non etiam scelus referri ad eos qui dare, noluerint; maxim6 eo tempore quo contradicere non poterant qui accepturi
erant." - Epistle vii.




A. APOS. 288.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.       29
that had separated from the Church Catholic, or universal, in consequence of certain objections to Cecilianus, who was made Bishop of Carthage in A. D.
311, or 211 after the Apostles. They objected to
Cecilianus both on account of his own previous conduct, and on account of the life of one of his Consecrators. They called themselves the " true Church,"
and required all that had been baptized in the Church
under Cecilianus, when they came over to them, to
be re-baptized, on the ground that a Church that permitted such an officer to perform its functions was
corrupt and in error, and its ordinances therefore invalid.
Augustine made issue with them on this point, and
took the position, that error in the head or heart of an
officer, did not annul the authority of his office; that
the validity of Baptism was not destroyed by error of
the life, or of the judgment of the administrator
while acting under proper authority. Nor even in
the case of a person receiving Baptism, would error in
judgment, or the want of the right faith, necessarily
make void his Baptism. In defence of this position,
he adduced the practice of the Church in giving Baptism to young children, who could not as yet exercise faith. The following are his words: -
AUGUST. DE BAPTISMO CONTRA DONATISTIS.
" Which sentiment the whole body of the Church holds as
handed down to them, when little Infants are baptized. Who
certainly cannot yet believe with the heart unto righteousness or
confess with the mouth unto salvation, as the thief could: [who
by NECESSITY was saved without baptism,] nay, by their crying
and noise while the sacrament is administered to them, they
hinder from being heard the mystical words. And yet no Christian will say they are baptized to no purpose.
"And if any one should seek Divine authority in this thing:




80                    INFANT BAPTISM                  [A. D. 288
although that which the UNIVERSAL Church holds, and not instituted by councils, but was ever in use and most rightly believed to be handed down by none other than Apostolic authority; nevertheless, we can make a probable estimate of what the
sacrament of baptism avails to young children, by the circumcision of the flesh, which God's former people received." 1
After this he goes on to show the similarity between  circumcision  and  baptism, -  but we  have
enough for our present purpose. The most learned
man  of ancient times here  informs us that Infant
Baptism is a doctrine held by the whole body of the
Church, and not instituted  by councils, but ordained
by nothing less, as all believed, than the authority of
the Apostles.
~ 9. We next visit the Church of Milan, and find
the Bishop, Ambrose, in commenting on the history
of Abraham, led to speak of the Circumcision of Infants; and he gives as a reason for it, that " as the
disease isfrom  Infancy, so is the remedy."   And in
applying the same principle to Baptism, cites St. John,
iii. 5, to enforce its necessity: —
AMBROSIUS DE ABRAHAM  PATRIARCHA.
"For unless any person be born again of the water, and of the
Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God." 2 You
see (he adds) he excepts no person; not an Infant, not one that
1 ", Quod traditum tenet universitas ecclesis cim parvuli infantes baptizantur; qui cert6 nondum possunt corde credere ad justitiam et ore confiteri ad salutem, quod latro potuit: Quinetian flendo et vagiendo cim in
eis Mysterium celebratur, ipsis mysticis vocibus obstrepunt. Et tamen
nullus Christianorum dixerit eos inaniter baptizari.
" Et si quisquam in hac re Divinam auctoritatem queerat; Quanquam
quod universa tenet Ecclesia, nec Conciliis institutum sed semper retentum
est, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum rectissime creditur; Tamen
veraciter conjicere possumus quid valeat in parvulis baptismi Sacramentum ex circumcisione carnis quam prior populus accepit." —Lib. 4, chap.
15. Cited by Wall.
2 i. e., There is no other prescribed mode but that.




A. Aros. 260.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.             31
is hindered by any unavoidable accident. And even if such
have freedom from punishment, I know not that they shall have
the honor of the Kingdom." 1
He regarded Baptism not only as generally necessary to every one, young or old, or as a law which all
are bound to obey; but would not take on himself
the responsibility of saying, that even those who
missed of Baptism by accident or by no fault of their
own, would certainly have the honor of ]Heaven, although they might escape any positive punishment.
We cannot here discuss the extreme nature of his
views, but more unequivocal testimony to the doctrine
of Infant Baptism in the Church of Milan at that
time could not be given.
~ 10. Passing on thirty years nearer to the Apostles, we come to the time when Optatus, Bishop of
Milevis, wrote. In comparing the Christian's putting
on Christ in Baptism, to the putting on of a garment,
he says: -
LiB. 5. DE SCHISMATE DONATISTARUM.
"' But lest any one should say I speak irreverently in calling
the Son of God a garment; let him read what the Apostle says:'As many of you as have been baptized in the name of Christ,
have put on Christ.' 0! what a garment is this, - always one,
and innumerable; that decently fits all ages and all shapes;
neither too big for INFANTS nor too little for men, and without
any alteration fits women," 2
This is too plain to need comment, The garment
1 " Nisi enim quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu Sancto, non potest
introire in regnum Dei. Utique nullum excipit: Non infantem, non aliqua
preventum necessitate. Habeant tamen illam opertam penarum immunitatem, nescio an habeant regni honorem." - Lib. 2, ch. 11.
2 " Sed ne quis dicat, temer ai me Filium Dei vestem esse dictum; legat
Apostolum dicentem: Quotquot in nomine Christi baptizati estis, Christum




32                  INFANT BAPTISM            [A. APOS. 260.
of Baptism " fits all ages and all shapes, not too big
for Infants, nor too little for men."
~ 11. Let us turn next to Gregory Nazianzen, who
wrote about the same time with Optatus, but in a different part of the world; was born in Cappadocia
and educated in Athens. In reference to Baptism, he
often uses the terms, "Laver of regeneration," "the
seal," the "grace," the " anointing," to be "sanctified," and some others. Finding that there were
those among his hearers who were almost persuaded
to be Christians, but who then, as is too often the
case now, could not make up their minds fully to
unite themselves with the Church-some of them
having been catechumens for a long time, (i. e., receiving a course of instruction to prepare them for baptism) yet delayed to come forward, he admonishes
them, that Satan "' Sets on all ages and must be resisted by all. Art thou a youth? fight against pleasures and passions with this auxiliary strength; enlist
thyself in  arod's army.... Art thou old? let thy
gray hairs strengthen thee: strengthen thy old age
with baptism."
ORATIO DE BAPTISMO, 40.
" Have you an Infant? Let not wickedness have the advantage of time: from his INFANCY let him be sanctified; from the
cradle let him be consecrated by the Spirit. You fear the seal
on account of the weakness of nature: how faint-hearted a
mother and of little faith I Hannah, even before Samuel was
born, promised him to God, and consecrated him immediately
after his birth, and brought him up in the priestly dress, not
fearing any human infirmity, but trusting to God." I
induistis. 0 tunica semper una, et innumerabilis; qum decenter vestiat
et omnes aetates et formas: nec infantibus rugatur nec in juvenibus tenditur, nec in foeminis mutatur." - Cited by Wall.
1 Njvrt6v arn owL; jUiA XapWo Kapoyv i KcaKlca, c Bpekovs AytaOr7o, iF betonr




A. APOS. 260.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.              33
Gregory here urges that no time be lost, -  that Infants be "sanctified" and receive the "seal" (baptism) from the cradle; and rebukes faint-hearted
mothers who sometimes delay the Baptism of their
children on account of their weakness, - pointing
them to Hannah's faith.
But afterwards, in a different part of his address,
he recommends three years as a suitable age, where
weakness or disease did not endanger the life of the
child. When that was the case, however, he would
allow no time to elapse before Baptism. But either
case admits the principle involved in the question of
Infant Baptism, and shows that this was then the
usage of the Church. In the latter case he was reproving certain candidates for baptism, who seemed
more concerned in making outward preparation than
inward, - telling them that a preparation of heart,
and an earnest desire for it, was the acceptable thing
to God,' - but lest some might suppose that what he
had said conflicted with an established doctrine of the
Church, he adds: —
" Some may say,'suppose this to hold in the case of those
who can desire baptism; what say you as concerning those who
are as yet Infants, and are not sensible of its loss or of its grace,
shall we baptize them too?' By all means, if any danger make
it requisite. For it is better that they be SANCTIFIED [baptized]
without their own sense of it, than that they should die UNSEALED and UNINITIATED. And a ground of this to us is Circumcision, which was given on the eighth day, and was a TYPIva9cepo!m0 rT T6 Uve4Lanc. EV 8oeOlKaa T1V aopayLtk a orb av'reo  aO&evee of
pULKp64iVXO: ~/ sirqp Kai 6cy6rfraTo6.'H Avva 8e KOaL rptv / yevvwlO)vaL TOb,Zaguovi7X Kaev7repKeTro T; sew, KCai yevvOv7eVa V epov eLC OvIs I7roLeL, Ka T) lepaTIKiC
o'ro)X avvav4OpeVtev, o0 tb a.vOpwrTLVov 4oP)taoELqa, xx. Se 8e( rrOtSore v'aaaa.
1 The error that Grotius fell into in this passage has been so often exposed that it is unnecessary to examine it here.
a




84                      INFANT  BAPTISM                 [A. APOS. 260.
CAL SEAL, and was practised on those who had no reason; as also,
the anointing of the door posts, which preserved the first-born
by things which had no sense. As for others, I give MiY OPINION, that they should stay three years or thereabouts, when
they are capable to hear and answer some of the holy words:
and though they do not perfectly understand them, yet they
form them; and that you then seem to sanctify them in soul and
body with the great sacrament of initiation." 1
It seems rather strange that this passage was ever
referred to in behalf of Antipaedobaptism. Nothing
can be more manifest than its recognition  of the doctrine of Infant Baptism. Every one who thinks at
all, must know that three years of age is not the
"age  of discretion," which  is  the  lowest limit that
Antipaxdobaptism will allow. Gregory gives it merely
as his " own opinion," (not the doctrine of the
Church), that in such cases it will be well to delay it
until about that age. But his longest limit admits
Infant Baptism, much more his answer in regard to
the weak and sickly. Baptism at any age before the
stage of moral responsibility, is virtually Infant Baptism.
2. It would be difficult, perhaps, to reconcile the
teaching of this Father, when at one time he exhorts
persons procrastinating duty to avail themselves of
this  "auxiliary strength," and not to  permit "' wickedness to have the advantage of time with their chilI1 r' rEaTOvTa, 4ont, 7rp&T rEV e&rrITovowv Tob  awr7topLai rt S' Tv elxtOtl ireps
V6 v E  mvr)iOVw  KaL f.ATe rq  Tltiav 3ra &aOavofe'vowv, iasrte Irs XaPLTO:; X Kai
rav7a  arra7ta.-o.ev; rd6vvye,  eirep rt. EWrei'1, K;vvos. XpeZov ya&p dcvata'OTrw,
6y7aijvoat, j &aCAOeLv &o4payyraTa, KaI aTrAeOira. KaL TOVTOV X&yoV 4LaV j
bKT7cllaepOS iRepL7O.7, TrV7,rtK J7  oara T qoXpaYyL;, Ka' dAoyittrow; rT Tpo'ayo/ f,;
c Ka' rij T7v 04ov, Xptacre s& raTv dvatoOrjrwov QvXdrrTovaa a?irpor6roKa. H-egep! 
rTov aAAhv W&ol&L yvol+A7qv, rv rpt.erkav  avaAevovoTaes 71 p.LKcpV eVTro' rovrov, rep
rfCoouV,;vtKa Kca aicoaaat?& rVto'cbv Icat droKpiveOeaL Uvav'at, el cai Atz o'vvtevra
reiAelwr  &XX o? v mrvrdvereva, OVi4wo dyLVerv  calet 4Vex' Kai. LoAaTa T -xe p  ayaEXy
AIvrQptc rjt reA7ctaewo,.- Oratio de Baptismo, 40.




A. APOS. 260.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    38
dren, but consecrate and seal them from the cradle;"
and at another, advises delay until "three years of
age, unless danger make it requisite." — It is, however, not unusual for men in the warmth of feeling to
push a favorite theory too far, and then stretch other
principles beyond their lawful bounds to harmonize
with it.
He was very justly reproving those who were more
anxious to have one high in office to baptize them,
and to avoid the poor and have the rich their fellowrecipients, than they were about their own fitness for
the sacrament; and hence in admonishing them that
a due preparation of heart - a right spirit - a: "heart
inflamed with the desire for it," were things more imnportant than all external prerequisites and appendages. But to apply, what was true of all capable of
desiring it and needing such preparation, to little children who were incapable of the " inflamed desire,"
and deferring Baptism in their case to a time when
they might at least seem to desire it by pronouncing
the words expressive of the feeling, is stretching his
principle beyond its powers of application. His reply, however, to the simple question -" Shall Infants
be baptized, too?" " Yes, by all means, if danger
make it requisite; for it is better that they be sanctified without their own sense of it, than that they should
die unsealed and uninitiated" - settles the question
as to his views of the lawfulness and importance of
Infant Baptism.
In connection with this we will notice another writer of this age, whose testimony has been brought
forward to produce the impression that Infant Baptism was not the universal practice of the Church at




36               INFANT BAPTISM         [A. Aros. 260.
this time; and then pass on to that which is more
explicit on the subject.
~ 12. BASIL, a contemporary of Gregory Nazianzen, and Bishop of Coesarea, in an exhortation to catechumens, uses language which seems to imply, as
some think, that young children were not baptized by
him. He reminds some of his auditors that "they
had been catechised from  childhood, and still put off
their baptism." This is brought forward, as if proof
positive that Infant Baptism was not then universal.
But every one at all familiar with Church history
knows, that as early as the close of the second century, so great was the influx of uninformed persons
into the Church, that it was found necessary to adopt
measures by which applicants for Baptism should be
instructed. Pouring into it, from every class, and of
different nations, and bringing with them, as we may
suppose, every variety of opinion; many of them
knowing but little more of the doctrines of Christianity than the great truths of Christ's death and
resurrection; it was expedient that all such should
be more thoroughly instructed before they were admitted to Baptism.
And for this purpose, they were first formed into
classes and taught by questions and answers; afterwards schools and teachers in different places were
provided for them. They who chose, brought also
their children with them to these schools. At that
time, only the children of baptized persons were baptized, except such as were adopted by Christians, or
for whom Christians stood as sureties for their thorough religious training; and this system soon suggested the idea to pious parents of availing them



A. APOS. 260.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.         37
selves of a similar method for the instruction also
of their baptized children; and by and by, classes of
these were likewise formed.
2. As it appears, some of those who had entered the
catechetical school under Basil became careless and
lukewarm in regard to their baptism, and put it off
till they had now grown old, and some of their children had grown up to manhood, who were brought
with them when very young. These were not baptized during their minority, because their parents
themselves were not, and now they were old enough
to receive the sacrament on their own responsibility,
they were following the example of their parents in
putting it off. Basil, in a public address, thus speaks
to this latter class of persons: —
ORATIO EXHORTATORIA AD BAPTISMUM.
" Do you procrastinate, and deliberate, and put it off? Havinog been catechised from a little child in the word, have you not
yet learned the truth? Always hearing it, and not yet come to
the knowledge of it. A trier all your life long; a considerer till
you are old. When will you become a Christian? When shall
we see you become one of us?"  1
This passage has been cited by the opponents of
Infant Baptism to prove that it was not universal in
the time of Basil. Had it been, they urge, there
would not have been among his catechumens persons
unbaptized, who had been "catechised from  early
childhood." It should be remembered, however, that
in these schools heathen candidates for Baptism took
their children to be instructed at the same time with
themselves, even as young as seven years of age, and
1'OKC;Ze Ka& /lov6evq) Ka &otaehAAets;,K: v',drov'bv A6yov KanrXotevo; oun)
nvei'ov or, &A)7Oela; rLVTOTre p IavOvov ovovrw KCOes irpi); Av e7rvyVlwootv; 7reypaaTr; && ailov, naHrcarKooos; 7tXp ypopws; 7T6Te yevjo'7a XpTLa'avbS; 7r'Te yvwpLo0QWLv
ac  a;  p7fe'jTepov.'




38                     INFANT BAPTISM             LA. ArOS. 260-205.
sometimes  younger;l  and  in  imminent  danger  of
death, such were allowed clinic baptism.2 The children of Christian parents were baptized in their infancy.  Basil tells us himself that Baptism  was not
confined to any age.  Referring  to  the words of Solomon, that there  is  a  "time  for everything,"  he
adds:1. " There is, therefore, the proper season for several things
-a time peculiar for sleep, and one peculiar for watching; a
time for war, and a time for peace. But the whole life of men,
(or any time of one's life) is proper for Baptism." 3
~ 13. Passing on to a Council of Eliberis, held a
little more than 200 years from the age of the AposNOTE.- There is another passage of Basil's - also one from Jerome -
that are sometimes introduced into this controversy. But they are not
deemed of sufficient importance to be given a place in the body of this
evidence. A mere glance at their import will show that they have no
bearing on the question before us. The passage of Basil referred to was
introduced in an argument with the Eunomians, who denied the Divinity
of the Son and Holy Ghost. He argued that in thus acting they renounced
their baptism —for that was in the name of all three persons in the Trinity, hence into the faith of the Divinity of each. And as the faith into
which they were baptized is prior to the act of baptism, a renunciation of
that faith was a renunciation of their baptism. This is the substance of
the passage and argument. But what pnedobaptist, if he should choose to
adopt the same kind of reasoning, might not say the same thing? That
all rightly baptized are baptized into the faith of the Trinity - that an
adult must believe and be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost- Infants are baptized likewise in the same faith, and taught
to believe, and are brought up in the same doctrine. In Baptism, as it was
in circumcision, faith is prior in the purport of the design, but not in the
execution of the artist -not necessarily prior in point of time in its application to its subjects. Nor does Basil mean anything more than this,
as is evident both from the passage and nature of the argument which he
used.
In the case of Jerome, he was commenting on the commission " to teach
and baptize all nations," in which he shows the necessity of instructing
1 Bingham's Antiquities, book x., sec. 4.      2 Ibid., sec. 5.
8 Kati poe IEv oGv Wos;, cXA o; E.rSetol; StOs Vorvovu -IKcaL Lo; ypnlyopao'ewc,
Lrosq ToXcOV Kai  to 18tosipji. Kalpibe & flPXr  Aa;Las O r &v  Tavpir ov Piot.
- F.crt. 1ad B-jtisw)-ai, ~ 2.




A. APos. 205-155.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.                39
ties, we find a canon passed, containing regulations in
regard to schism, and the conditions on which those
who had been guilty of that sin should be received
back into the church when application was made by
them.
CONCIL. ELIBERITANUM. CAN. 22.
"If any one go over from the Church Catholic to any heresy
(or sect) and again return to the Church: Resolved, that repentance be not denied to such an one, inasmuch as he has acknowledged his fault.  Let him  be in a state of repentance for ten
years, and after ten years be admitted to the communion.
" But if they were Infants when they were carried over, inasmuch as it was not their own fault that they erred; they ought
to be admitted without delay." 1
From this we learn again that infants were made
members of schismatical sects, as well as of the Church
Catholic, or great body of Christians. This canon
was passed on account of schism, and the conditions
made in regard to such as had gone over from the
Church, or were carried over (transducti), which implies that all such were members of the Church before
they were carried over. And the manner in which
infants are referred to very clearly shows what was
the common practice of the age.
nations before we baptize them. To which every paedobaptist will agree,
and according to which every one acts. Whenever sent to a heathen land,
no one ever dreams of baptizing before he has convinced the people of the
truth of his message, and instructed them to some extent in the great principles of Christianity. But as soon as this is done, and parents who have
children believe, and are baptized, he also baptizes their young children.
Just as we believe the Apostles acted under the same commission. Jerome, as has been already seen, expressly declares it to be a sin in parents
to neglect the Baptism of their children. It is, therefore, loss of time to
dwell on this passage.
1 " Si quis de Catholica Ecclesia ad heresim transitum fecerit, rursusque
ad ecclesiam recurrerit: placuit huic penitentiam non esse denegandam,
to quod cognoverit peccatum suum: qui etiam decem annis-agat penitentiam; cui post decem annos proestari communio debet. Si vero infantes
fuerint transducti; quod non suo vitio peccaverint, incunctanter recipi
debent." - Wall, vol. i. ch. vii.




40                 INFANT BAPTISM            [A. APOS. 153.
~ 14. Fifty years still nearer to the Apostles, a
Council was held at Carthage, in which, among the
questions brought before that body for their deliberation, was one which brings out very clearly the practice of the Church, and the opinion of the Council in
regard to Infant Baptism. The question proposed
was, whether it would not be better to delay the Baptism of Infants till the eighth day after their birth,
than to continue baptizing them  so young as two and
three days old, as was at that time the custom? It
was then likewise usual to give the " holy kiss " to
all who were baptized. Fidus, who sent up this question to the Council, gives among other reasons for its
delay till the eighth day, that this was the time when
circumcision was administered, and that it would be
more pleasant to give them the holy kiss at that age,
than when only two or three days' old.  His proposed change and reasons being considered in a Council of sixty-six bishops, a synodical letter was written
in reply to him, of which the following are extracts: —
CYPRIANI EPIST. 64 AD. FIDUM.
"We read your letter, most dear brother.... So much as
pertains to the case of Infants, who you think ought not to be
baptized within the second or third day from their birth; and
that the ancient law of circumcision should be observed, so that
none should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after
birth; it seemed to all in our Council far otherwise. For as for
what' you proposed to be done, there was not one of your opinion.
But on the contrary, it was our unanimous judgment that the
grace and mercy of God should not be denied to any one born of
men.... And whereas, you say that an infant in the first days
after its birth is unclean, so that one dislikes to kiss it; we do
not think that it ought to be any impediment to giving it the
heavenly grace." 1
1 "Legimus literas tuas, frater carissime.... Quantum vero ad causam




A. APOS. 150.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.               41
There are several things for the reader to observe
in this place.
First, That this testimony is like all the other heretofore given, incidental. The right of infants to Baptism is taken for granted, and a secondary question
implying its previous existence discussed; i. e., the
nere appendage of a few days' delay.
Secondly, That the reasons assigned for its delay
till the eighth day, instead of affecting its divine authority, were offered, because, in the first place, circumcision was given formerly on the eighth day; and
in the second, when children were so young it was
unpleasant to give them the holy kiss, which was the
common practice of that age.
And thirdly, That we have now arrived within
about one hundred and fifty years of the Apostolic age,
and may presume that most of these bishops living so
near that time had abundant means of ascertaining
whether this thing was of divine authority, or not.
And further, that of so large a number as sixty-six, it
is not unreasonable to suppose that some of them were
old men, whose memories would carry them back half
the intervening time, and only leave them some sixty
or seventy years to trace it to the Apostles. For
which, family tradition coming through only the father and grandfather, would be sufficient: and which
infantium pertinet, quos dixisti intra secundum vel tertium diem, quo nati
sunt, constitutes baptizari non oportere et considerandum esse legem circumcisionis antiqune: ut intra octavum diem, eum qui natus est baptizandum et sanctificandum non putares, longe aliud in Concilio nostro omnibus
visum est. In hoc enim quod tu putabos esse faciendum nemo consensit.
sed universi potius judicavimus nulli hominum nato misericordiam Dei et
gratiam denegandam.... Nam et quod vestigium infantis in primis partus
sui diebus constituti mundum non esse dixisti, quod unusquisque nostrum
horreat exosculari: nec hoc putamus ad ccelestem gratiam dandam impedimento esse oportere. - Oxford Edition Epist. 64. See also Ante-Nicene
Christian Library, vol. viii.; Cyprian, vol. i., Epist. 58.




42               INFANT BAPTISM      [A. APOS. 120-85.
is a kind of tradition few will hesitate to receive,
when in the line of their own ancestors. Further be
it observed that the whole number without a dissenting voice decided against even the secondary question
of a few days' delay.
Thus far the way is open and clear before us.
Other testimony could have been introduced, but was
deemed unnecessary, and therefore omitted. As we
draw nearer to the apostolic age the number of writers
must be less, because the nearer to the beginning, the
smaller the number of members. And the few writers
among them were chiefly occupied in opposing heresies
and combating new doctrines. Infant Baptism not being one of these, is introduced in connection with other
subjects, with which it is more or less intimately
connected.
Tertullian, to whom allusion has been several times
made in these pages, was the first and only man during
the first thousand years of Christianity that did oppose
Infant Baptism, so far as we can learn, unless we
regard Nazianzen's advice to " delay it until three
years of age in case of no danger," opposition to it.
Even Tertullian's advice to delay it is limited by immediate danger of death, as we shall presently see.
Tertullian was born, according to the estimates now
generally received, about A. D. 150; embraced Christianity 185; adopted the opinions of Montanus about
199, and died 220.
1. He laid muchstress on the authority and effects
of Baptism. Introduces his Treatise on that subject
in the following strain: " Happy is the sacrament of
our water, in that, by washing away the sins of our
early blindness, we are set free into eternal life."
1 Intro. c. i.




A. APOS. 120-85.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    43
2. In his work against Marcion he ascribes to
Baptism the spiritual blessings of remission of sins,
deliverance from death, regeneration, and participation
in the Holy Spirit.1
3. In regard to Adam's transgression, and its effects on his race, he teaches that the effect of his transgression has been to make his offspring the heirs of
his condemnation: to entail upon them a corruption
of nature, from which no man born into the world is
exempt, and for which there is no other remedy than
to be born again by water and the Holy Spirit.2
4. Again, " every soul is reckoned in Adam, until it
is enrolled anew in Christ; and so long unclean till it
be so enrolled, and sinful, because unclean." 3
5. And yet again, " the prescript is laid down that
without Baptism  salvation is attainable by none"
(grounded chiefly on that declaration of the Lord,
who says, " unless one be born of the water he hath not
life ") John iii. 5.4
Now, one may well ask, if this man taught that all
of Adam's descendants inherit a corrupt condemned
state in consequence of his trangression, for which
there is no other remedy than to be born again of the
water and the spirit; that every soul is reckoned in
Adam until enrolled anew in Christ; that through
Baptism is obtained remission of sins, deliverance from
death, regeneration, and participation in the Holy
Spirit; and that the prescript is laid down, that without Baptism  salvation is attained by none, for unless
one be born of water he hath not life ( John iii. 5) -
i Lib. i. c. 28.
2 De Anima, c. 3; De Baptismo, c. 5; De Jejuniis, c. 3, cited in Bishop of
Bristol's ~Eccl. Hist., pp. 325-328.
8 De Anima, c. 40,
4 De Baptismo, c. 12.




44                   INFANT BAPTISM            [A. APOS. 120-85.
if these be his doctrines, whether they be true or false,
how could he advise the delay of Infant Baptism?
Let these preliminaries aid us in interpreting  the
passage, so often referred to in his writings, to prove
that "he  opposed Infant Baptism" (?) which is as
follows: -
TERTULLIANUS DE BAPTISMO, C. XVIII.
6. " Therefore according to the circumstances and disposition,
and even age, of every one, the delay of Baptism  is the more
profitable: especially in the case of little children. For what
need is there (unless absolutely necessary) [imminent danger of
death] that sponsors also be thrust into danger; since they both
by reason of mortality, may themselves fail to fulfil their promises; and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition [in the children for whom they become sureties]. The
Lord does indeed say,'Forbid them not to come unto me.' Let
them' come' then when they are growing up, let them'come'
while they are learning, while they are taught whither they are
to'come;' let them  become Christians when they are able to
know Christ.
" Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? Men will act more cautiously in worldly matters;
so that to one to whom no earthly substance is committed, that
which is Divine is committed I Let them know how to' ask' for
salvation, that you may seem [at least]' to have given to him that
asketh.' For no less cause must the unmarried also be deferred
in whom is the preparation for temptation; alike in virgins by
reason of maturity; as in the widowed, by their vacation [of
married life] - until they either marry or else be confirmed in
continency. If any understand the weight of Baptism, they will
fear its reception more than its delay. Faith unimpaired is
secure of salvation.''l
1t " Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione, etiam Oetate
cunctatio baptismi utilior est; proecipu6 tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim
necesse est (si non tam necesse) sponsores etiam periculo ingeri? quia et
ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possunt et provent malei
indolis falli. Sit quidem Dominus Nolite illos prohibere ad me venire.
Veniant ergo dum adolescunt, veniant dum discunt, dum quo veniant
docentur; fiant Christiani qum Christum nosse potuerint; Quid festinat
innocens netas ad remissionem peccatorum? Cautius agitur in secularibus:
ut cui substantia terrena non creditur Divina credatur. Norint petere




&. Aros. 120-85.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.         45
This passage clearly advises the delay bf Baptism
to all persons who are likely to be subjected to strong
temptation after it; young men, maidens, widows,
and especially little children: the young of all classes.
7. The reader very naturally asks, Why? Is not
the grace of God  sufficient for all classes?    No
doubt Tertullian's peculiar views of " sin after Baptism," and the rigid rule of the Church at that time;
which did not allow members who had fallen into sin
after their Baptism, to be received back into its fold
till after long and the most thorough repentance,l and
then but once, was the ground work of this advice.
And perhaps he then held privately the doctrine to
which he gave utterance and adopted soon after embracing Montanism: namely, that only sins of a
venial character, committed after Baptism, could be
forgiven at all. For those of deeper dye, such as
homicide, adultery, fornication, blasphemy, denial of
Christ, idolatry, and fraud committed after Baptism,
he says "There  is no  remission;  and that even
Christ will not intercede for those who commit
thell." 2
But before his open avowal of Montanism, and it
the same treatise on Baptism, from which the extracts
under consideration is taken, he wrote: " There is to
us one, and but one, Baptism; as well according to
the Lord's gospel, as according to the Apostle's letter."
(Eph. iv. 4, 5, 6.).... " We enter the font once; once
our sins are washed away, because they ought never
to be repeated " 3
salutem, ut petenti dedisse videaris. Non minori de causa innupti quoque
procrastinandi, in quibus tentatio proeparata est: tam virginibus per
inaturitatern, quam riduis per vacationem donec aut nubant aut continentia
corroborentur. Fides integra secura est de salute."
1 De Pcenitentia, c. vii. Also Bingham, Antiquities, book xix. c. 12.
2 De Pudicitia, c. xix. Also Eccl. Hist., Bishop of Bristol.
8 De Baptismo, c. xv.




46               INFANT BAPTISM       [A. APOS. 120-85
8. Again, in his tract on Repentance written before
or soon after his treatise on Baptism, he warns such
as had lapsed after their Baptism, against trampling
on God's mercy; as if the "redundance of celestial
clemency constituted a license for human temerity."
Repeated sin " will find an end of escaping, when it
shall not find one of sinning." I
He expresses much admiration of the reverence of
those who " are unwilling a second time to be a burden
to the Divine mercy " —who" fear even to seem
to trample on the benefits which they had attained;"
for such having been received and overcome once
by the machinations of Satan, " God foreseeing his
poisons, although the gate of forgiveness has been
shut and fastened up with the bar of Baptism, has
permitted it still to stand somewhat ajar. In the vestibule He has stationed  repentance the second, to
open to such as knock; but now once for all, because
nowfor the second time, but nevermore; because the
last time it had been [open] in vain. Is not even
this once enough, You Jhave what you deserved not,
for you had lost what you had received. If the Lord's
indulgence grants you the means of restoring what
you had lost, be thankful for the benefit renewed,
not to say amplified; for restoring is a greater thing
than giving, inasmuch as having lost is more miserable than never having received at all." 2
These extracts, though not remarkable for perspi.
cuity, explain clearly enough why Tertullian advised
the delay of Baptism to such as would probably be
exposed to temptation above others after it. According
to his views there was much less hope of forgiveness
of sins after, than before it.  Baptism washed away
all past sins, but "shut andfastened up the gate of
I De Pcenitentia, c. vii.      2 Ibid.




A. APOS. 120-85.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    47
forgiveness as with a bar," in such a *ay that mercy
could extend forgiveness only in exceptional cases;
such as sins of ignorance and those of less vicious
nature when not too frequently indulged; "but only
once for all, because, now for the second time; but
never more, because the last time it had been in vain."
9. He could not have meant at the close of the passage, that " faith unimpaired is secure of salvation"
to the neglect of Baptism; because he had more than
once repeated directly the opposite doctrine. In the
thirteenth chapter of his "Treatise on Baptism," in
reply to the objection, "Baptism is not necessary
for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of
faith; " he said, [" True;] but in all cases it is the
later things which have a conclusive force, and the
subsequent that prevail over the antecedent. Grant
that in days gone by, there was salvation by means of
bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the
Lord; but now that faith has been enlarged, and is become a faith which believes in his nativity, passion, and
resurrection; there has been an amplification added to
the sacrament, [namely] the sealing act of baptism;
the clothing, in a certain sense, of the faith which was
before bare, and which cannot exist now without its
proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed:' Go,' (saith He,)
"teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the
Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."  This
law in unison with that limitation -" unless, a man
have been reborn of water and the spirit, he cannot
enter into the kingdom of Heaven," hath bound down
faith to the necessity of Baptism.1
Tertullian, therefore, could not have meant that
1 De Baptismo, c. xiii.




48                  INFANT BAPTISM         [A. APOS. 125-85.
faith without Baptism, where it could be had, was sufficient for salvation; but that a faith unimpaired by neglect or by unjustifiable motives sufficed for delay in
Baptism, wherein one's best interest (as he supposed)
might require delay.
10. And so when he advised the delay of Baptism
to little children, he could not have meant that Baptism  to them  was of no avail, conferred no benefit,
and hence no need for their sponsors to assume responsibilites which they might not be able to fulfil;
he meant as he said "more profitable" (utilior est)
to delay it unless in great danger. His views of sins
after Baptism, to which we have just adverted, no doubt
led him to advise the delay of it to all most likely to
be drawn into such sins, except in cases threatened with
immediate death. For in cases of " necessity " [danger of death] he had urged in the preceding chapter I
that even a layman must baptize sooner than let one die
unbaptized; or he would be guilty of a great loss to
such an one by refraining from doing what he had
power to do.
He was at the time treating of the " authority
to administer Baptism," and wrote as follows:DE BAPTISMO, CHAP. XVII.
11. " Of giving it [Baptism] the Chief Priest (who is the bishop) has the right; in the next place, the Presbyters and Deacons, yet not without the Bishop's authority on account of the
honor of the Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved.
Besides these, even laymen have the right; for what is equally
received can be equally given. And unless bishops or presbyters or deacons be on the spot, laymen are called." [After some
remarks on submission to superiors, he continues:] "The most
holy apostle has said:'all things are lawful, but not all things
expedient;' let it suffice assuredly, in cases of necessity, to avail
yourself of that power, [to baptize] if at any time circumstance
1 De Baptismo, c. xvii.




A. APOS. 120-85.]   THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.                 49
either of place or time or person compels you; for then the
steadfast courage of the succorer, where the case of the endangered one is urgent, is admissible: inasmuch as he will be guilty
of a human creature's great loss, if he shall refrain from bestowing what he is able to bestow." 1
This explains what Tertullian means by delaying the Baptism of little children - " si non tam
necesse "  -  " if no great necessity," or, " if not absolutely necessary " - meaning no immediate danger of
dissolution.   In such cases we see, as just cited in the
chapter before us (written before that containing this
passage) the rule laid down that none must be permitted to die without Baptism.  Even a layman, in the absence of those higher in authority, must baptize in the
hour of extreme necessity, or he will be guilty of great
injury to the dying, by refraining from doing for him
what he had the power to do. Some would construe
" Si non tam  necesse, " as if referring to Baptism  and
not to the subjects of Baptism. " For why is it necessary — if Baptism  be not so indispensably necessary 2
1 See Library of the Fathers by members of the English Church, Oxford,
vol. i., p. 275. Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xi.; Tertullian, vol. i. chap. xvii.
2 We were surprised to find that the translator in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library has adopted this construction, and that he gives us a reason
for it, that " Tertullian allows (in chap. xvi. De Baptismo) that Baptism
is not indispensably necessary to salvation." From which it is obvious
that he has misapprehended the purport of that chapter and meaning of
Tertullian's words, whose object was not to lessen, by any means, the great
importance of Christian Baptism, but to give a still higher importance to
Baptism in one's own blood. As the Saviour after his Baptism referred to
Ilis sufferings on the cross as anotherBaptism (Luke xii. 50) that he must receive, which of course was of much greater importance than that already
received, because upon that the other was dependent for its power; so Tertullian regarded martyrdom or Baptism in one's own blood (which he calls
a " second Baptism ") as bearing a similar relation to Christian Baptism,
and therefore sufficient to " supply the place of the fontal washing when
it has not been received, and to restore it when lost." -c. xvii.
Tertullian and his contemporaries generally held the necessity of Baptism
to salvation (when it could he had) chiefly, on the words of the Saviour -' He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved " and " Except a man
4




50                  INFANT BAPTISM          [A. APos. 120-85.
— that sponsors be thrust into the danger" of not
fulfilling their promises, etc.?
But such a construction would involve Tertullian in
self contradiction, and inexcusable inconsistency. For
in divers places he lays great stress on the importance and  necessity of Baptism, as we have already
shown. He ascribes to it the power of washing away
sin and setting us free into eternal life; 1 says it is
the prescribed remedy -for the corruption of Adam's sin,
from which none are exempt;" 2 the only rule laid down
by which salvation is attainable by any one (John iii.
5);3 that nothing can supply its place except the
Baptism of martyrdom, which is Baptism  in one's own
blood, and which he calls a second Baptism; 4- and
that even a layman must give it, if the danger to life
be great, or great loss may be the consequence.6
Having thus expressed his views of the necessity
of Baptism in these and various other places, how could
he consistently teach in this that Baptism is not of sufficient importance to endanger the risk of sponsors' not
fulfilling their promises made at the Baptism of a little
child? Such a construction is in direct contradiction
to his teaching, wheresoever he has expressed himself
on the subject of Baptism. And but for his peculiar
views of sin after Baptism, and the rigor exercised in
receiving  back lapsed members into the Church, he
be born of the water and of the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God." But for extraordinary cases they made exceptions such as martyrdom; and where no fault could be attached to the subjects, supposing the
invisible Baptism of the spirit in such cases supplied the want of the external
element of water. See Bingham's Antiquities, book 10, p. 442.
1 De Baptismo, Intro. c. 1.
2 De Anima, c.iii.
8 De Baptismo, c. xii.
4 C. xvi.
6 C. xvii.




A. APOS. 120-85.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    51
would never have suggested the delay of Baptism to
little children, however free from danger they might
have been.
A consistent interpretation, therefore, of the writings of Tertullian, and justice to his religious character, show him to be not the opposer of Infant
Baptism, but its earnest advocate in time of danger
and a decided witness to its practice in his day.
12. The practice of the Church is what we wish to
know; and the manner in which he alludes to it, and
the mode of reasoning pursued by him in regard to it,
prove the existence of Infant Baptism at the time.
For he refers to the Baptism of young children in no
otherwise than he refers to other classes of persons
usually baptized, and argues the point in a way that
proves beyond all doubt that Infant Baptism was then
the usage of the Church. " What need is there," he
asks, " that their sponsors (god-fathers) be brought
Mnto danger?"  This shows not only that young chilP
dren were at the time baptized, but that sPONsORS
also were then used at their Baptism. Why should
he refer to such things if they did not exist?
He also attempts to reconcile with his new theory
a passage of Scripture which was regarded by himself
as authority for bringing young children into Christ's
kingdom. "Our Saviour (he admits) does indeed
say,' do not forbid them to come to me,' but let them
come when they are growing up —let them come
when they learn, when they are taught whither they
are to come." By introducing this passage, he shows
what was the age of the children (parvulos) to whom
he referred; and also how the passage was generally
understood in that early age of the Church. He was




52              INFANT BAPTISM.    [A. APOS. 120-85.
evidently speaking of the same class of little children
that were brought to our Saviour, and which He took
up in his arms and blessed, saying: " Of such is the
kingdom of God" (Mark x. 14). Their infantile
state is further manifest by his speaking of them as
so young that their "disposition was not yet unfolded" -that they did not "know whither they
were coming " - were unable to ask for themselves,
and being of an innocent " guiltless age."
But be it observed that he does not appeal to the
usage of the Church at that time, nor to any previous
period between that and the days of the Apostles to
sustain his opinion. He does not say that it is not the
uniform practice of the Church, or a new thing brought
into the Church, nor intimate anything of the kind.
How easily might he have put down this practice,
and established his own theory by an appeal of this
kind, had there been any ground for it. And how
natural is it for men to appeal to the strongest known
authority when anxious to establish any point. The
absence of all such reasoning is of itself strong presumptive proof that Tertullian had no example to
sustain his theory. For we cannot suppose a man of
his acquirements could not trace back a public usage
of the Church a little over one hundred years, which
would bring him to the Apostolic age. The whole of
his reasoning shows that he was trying to introduce a
new custom in the Church, which he placed entirely
on grounds of expediency. Nor does it appear that
the Church or the Montanists with whom he afterwards united, followed his advice on this point.
13. "He was endowed (says Mosheim) with a
great genius, but seemed deficient in point of judgment. His piety was warm and vigorous, but at the




A. APOS. 120-85.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    53
same time, melancholy and austere. His learning
was extensive and profound; and yet his credulity
and superstition were such as might have been expected from the darkest ignorance. And with respect
to his reasoning, it had more of that subtlety that
dazzles the imagination, than of that solidity that
brings light and conviction to the mind."
14. " The very advice to delay (says another), or
if you will, the condemnation of Baptism in infancy
(though these two are far from being the same, and
the former alone properly belongs to Tertullian), is
conclusive evidence of the previous existence of the
practice. This is the point. The opinion is nothing
to the purpose. It has no authority. His simple
proposition to delay it when there is no danger, not
only proves its previous existence, it proves more.
It proves that it was no innovation. When a man
condemns a practice, he is naturally desirous to support
his peculiar views by the strongest arguments. Could
Tertullian therefore have shown that the practice
was of recent origin; that it had been introduced in
his own day, or even at any time subsequent to the
lives of the Apostles, we have every reason to believe
he would have availed himself of a ground so obvious
and so conclusive. It proves further, that the Baptism
of Infants was the general practice of the Church in
Tertullian's time. His opinion is his own. It is that
of a dissentient from the universal body of professing
Christians. He never pretends to say that any part
of the Church had held or acted upon it. Of his
opinion and advice then, we may say, Valeant quantum valere possunt. But the total absence of any attempt to support and recommend them by appeal to
the practice of the Church in Apostolic times, or of




54               INFANT BAPTISM       [A. APOS. 120-85.
any part of the Church at any intervening period between those times and his own, certainly goes far to
prove the matter of fact with which alone we have
to do -that " Infant Baptism was the original and,universal practice." 1
Such is the authority of Tertullian; his testimony
proves, that it was then the usage of the Church to
baptize Infants; his advice shows that he reasoned
from false premises.
HIad he embraced correct views of Baptism in the
first place, and instead of applying it only to past
sins, regarded it as the seal of a covenant co-extensive with the existence of the parties, we should
never have heard of Tertullian as an opposer —or
rather as the advocate for the postponement of all
Baptism till late in life, or just before death!
We have dwelt the longer on the testimony of this
Father, because his name is so often quoted by persons who never take the trouble to examine his writings. As to the usage of the Church in his time,
that is placed beyond all doubt by contemporaneous
authority. It does not admit of controversy. The
evidence on this point will be adduced in the next
chapter, with other proof that Infant Baptism was
the doctrine and practice of the Church in the first
century after the Apostles, and before Tertullian was
born.
1 Wardlaw On Inf. Bapt., edit. 2, p. 138.




a. APOS. 120-85.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.         55
CHAPTER III.
HISTORICAL TESTIMONY CONTINUED.
Origen born of Christian Parents. —His Piety, Learning, and Travels. -
His Declaration that Infant Baptismn is the Usage of the whole Church,
handed down by the Apostles.- Care of Early Christians to preserve
the True Faith. - Irenxus, Hearer of Polycarp, the Pupil of St. John. -
His Zeal for Apostolic Usage.- Use of the Term Regeneration, and
Testimony to the Baptism of all Ages. -Agreement of Various Sects on
this Point. - Interpretation of St. John iii. 5, and Titus iii. 5.
~ 12. ORIGEN was a cotemporary of Tertullian —
born about eighty-five years after the death of St.
John, of Christian parents, baptized in infancy - and
the most learned man of his day. " His works," says
Waddington, "exhibit the operation of a bold and
comprehensive mind, burning with religious warmth,
unrestrained by any low prejudices or interests, and
sincerely bent on the attainment of truth."
In his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,
he is led to speak of the inherent corruption of every
one born into the world, and refers to David as teaching the same doctrine in the fifty-first Psalm: " In
sin did my mother conceive me." Concerning which
he says, " there is in the history no account of any
particular sin that his mother had committed," and
adds:COMMENT. IN EPIST. AD ROMANOS, LIB. 5.
"For this also it was, that the Church had from the Apostles
the tradition (or injunction) to give Baptism to young children.
For they, to whom the Divine mysteries were committed, knew




56                     INFANT BAPTISM              [A. APOS. 150-85.
that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin, which
must be done away by water and the Spirit, on account of which
the body itself is also called the body of sin.1
In this passage, we see that Origen appeals to Infant Baptism as the usage of the Church, not only at
that time, but as handed down from the Apostles.
Nor does he seem to add the latter clause of the sentence to give authority for the usage, but merely refers to it as an  acknowledged  and  undisputed  truth,
believed by all; adduced, as he would adduce any
other acknowledged truth, to bear on the point before
him - namely, the corrupt nature of every one that
is born  into  the world.  " Tradition " was a term   at
that early period used for what was written as well
as delivered orally,2 and was regarded as includilng
the written words of the Apostles, as well as those
unwritten. The Apostle Paul uses the term in the
same way - " Hold the traditions which you have
been taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2
Thess. ii. 15). Although this term has been variously
1 " Pro hoc et Ecclesia ab apostolis traditionem suscepit etiam parvulis
baptismum dare. Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa
sunt Divinorum, quia essent in omnibus genuinoe sordes pleccati, quoe per
aquam et spiritum ablui deberent; propter quas etiam corpus ipsum, corpus
peccati, nominatur." - Epist. ad Romanus, lib. 5.
2 The term  traditio - -apaSoarv, "tradition," as used by the ancient
Fathers, signifies good and credible evidence delivered by one person to
another, either written or by speaking; and is applied even to the Gospels,
which were called (Suicer, Thesaur., tom. ii.)  EbayyeCKal 7rap6dooreCT.
" traditionary gospels. " - C. Taylor.
Gregory Nazianzen calls the books of the New Testament - "The
Evangelical and Apostolical traditions " (EVayyte;Ka4' re Ka anoroAoXKai).
Tertullian, referring to portions of the New Testament, exhorts their
opposers to I" believe what is delivered " (Crede quod traditum est).
Hippolytus, the Martyr, quoting certain passages of the New Testament, calls on his brethren, saying, "Let us believe, dear brethren,
according to the tradition of the Apostles " (KaT&a Tv 7rapa80aLo iJv nov rrToXov. - Goode's Divine Rule of Faith and Practice, vol. i. p. 18, and
following.




A. APOS. 150-85.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.           57
used since that time, and made the cloak of many
errors, it was at that early period of binding authority, and doubtless referred to by Origen as such.
Which shows the antiquity and authority of Infant
Baptism at that time.
ORIGEN was a warm advocate of innate corruption;
his mind is said to have been tinctured with the Platonic philosophy, but that does not affect his testimony as a witness to what was the daily practice of
the Church. He could not be deceived in regard to
a fact that was constantly occurring before his eyes.
And his theory of natural corruption led him to refer
oftener to the Baptism of Infants than he would otherwise have done, because this he regarded as acknowledged authority for the depravity of every one born
into the world. In a Homily on a part of Leviticus,
he refers also to the same words of David just noticed,
saying: -
HOMILIA 8 IN LEVIT., C. 12.
" Hear David speaking:' In iniquities I was conceived,' says
he,' and in sins did my mother bring me forth:' showing that
every soul born in the flesh is polluted with the filth of sin and
iniquity; and that on this account that was said, which we mentioned before:' No one is clean from pollution, though his life is
but the length of one day.'
"Besides all this, let it be considered, since the Baptism of the
Church is given for the remission of sins; why, according to the
usage of the Church it is likewise given to little children: whereas, if there was nothing in little children that needed remission
and mercy, the grace of Baptism would be superfluous to them."'
Here he introduces again the usage and authority of
1 "Audi David dicentem; In iniquitatibus inquit, conceptus sum et in
peccatis peperit me mater mea: ostendens quod quaecunque anima in
carne nascatur, iniquitatis et peccati sorde polluitur, et propterea dictum
esse illud quod jam superius memoravimus; quia nemo mundus a sorde,
nec si unius diei fuerit vita ejus. Addi his etiam illud potest, ut requiratur quid causue sit, cum Baptisma ecclesive in remissionem peccatorum de



58                   INFANT BAPTISM            [A. APOS. 150-85.
Infant Baptism to confirm the doctrine of original sin,
or natural corruption, and argues that if Infants were
free from  a sinful nature, the rite of the washing away
sin would be superfluous to them.
Such was the acknowledged authority of Infant Baptism in that early period of the Church, that it was
frequently introduced by this writer to elucidate and
enforce his view of such passages of Holy Scripture
or doctrines as seemed to him  to imply the infection
of Adam's sin.
In his commentary on St. Luke's gospel, he again
uses the same kind of argument, and testifies as unequivocally to the practice of Infant Baptism.
HOMIL. IN LUCAM 14.
"Little children are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of
what sins? Or when did they commit them? Or how can any
reason be given for baptizing them, but only according to that
sense which we mentioned a little before:' None is free from pollution, though this life be but the length of one day upon the
earth.' And for that reason infants are baptized, because by the
sacrament of Baptism, the pollution of our birth is taken away." 1
To these might be added yet other passages from the
writings of ORIGEN to the same effect, were it necessary.   Let it now  be remarked, first -  that Infant
Baptism was not of itself a matter of dispute, but introduced in connection with other questions; second -
that it is appealed to in this place, as if a thing, the
tur, secundum ecclesise observantiam etiam parvulis baptismum dari: cum
relique si nihil esset in parvulis quod ad remissionem deberet et indulgentiam pertinere gratia Baptismi superflua videretur." - Homil. 8 in L evit. c.
12.
1 " Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum. Quorum peccatorum?
Vel quo tempore peccaverunt? Aut quomodo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere, nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulo ante diximus:
Nullus mundus a sorde, nec si unius diei quidem fuerit vita ejus super terram? Et quia per baptismi sacranlentuni nativitatis sordes deponuntur,
propterea baptizantur et parvuli. " - Homil. in Lucam 14.




A. AOS. 150-85.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    59
authority of which no one doubted. So certain was
Origen that all would admit the authority of this
sacrament, that he based his reasoning on the foundation that a denial of natural corruption would come in
conflict with the apostolic rite of Infant Baptism. For
(says he) it was for this reason that the " Church had
from the Apostles the tradition to give Baptism to
young children."  Infant Baptism is therefore brought
in incidentally, and in such a way as to prove that it
was the established, honored, and universally acknowledged doctrine of the Church at that time.
As to the authority of these passages - it so happened that two different writers made translations of
the writings of Origen in the next century after he
wrote, and they belonging to opposite parties on
many points of which he treats, but in both of which
the doctrine of Infant Baptism is fully set forth,
which makes his testimony even more certain than if
found only in the original works purporting to be his
own. The passages already adduced are from both
translators- two from RUFINIUS and one from JEROME.
~ 13. Before we proceed, however, to the next witness, we will consider the many advantages possessed
by ORIGEN, to know whether this " USAGE of the
Church was handed down from  the Apostles" and
universal.  In regard to his learning and piety, as
has been already remarked, the Church in that age
did not possess his equal.  "He was a man (says
MIosheim) of vast and uncommon abilities, and the
greatest luminary of the Christian world that his age
exhibited to view. Had the soundness of his judgment been equal to the immensity of his genius, the
fervor of his piety, his indefatigable patience, his ex



60              INFANT BAPTISM      [A. APOs. 150-85.
tensive erudition, and his other eminent and superior
talents, all encomiums must have fallen short of his
merit. Yet, such as lie was, his virtues and his labors deserve the admiration of all ages: and his name
will be transmitted with honor through the annals of
time as long as learning and genius shall be esteemed
among men."
Added to which he had enjoyed peculiar advantages to qualify him to speak on this subject. EuSEBIUS informs us, that he was born and bred in Alexandria; lived some time in Greece and in Rome;
visited Cappadocia and Arabia in his travels, spending some time in each; and passed the greater part
of his life in Syria and Palestine, the seat of the first
Churches. 1
Thus, in addition to the other means which men of
learning possess for knowing the doctrines of their
Church, ORIGEN could speak from personal observation
in regard to Infant Baptism, in all these portions of
the world - Alexandria, Greece, Rome, Cappadocia,
Arabia, Syria, and Palestine. We must bear in mind
also that a man born only eighty-five years from the
Apostles' times, of Christian parents, baptized and
taught the Scriptures from infancy, remarkable for
his piety in boyhood, in mature manhood the "brightest luminary of his day," having visited all these
portions of the world - appeals in his written works
to Infant Baptism, as a PUBLIC RITE of the Church,
handed down by the Apostles, and as such received
and observed by all-and merely referred to in elucidating other doctrines.
Now can we suppose that such a writer as this
would appeal in argument to a rite and that.frequently
1 Eusebius, liber 6.




A. ArOS. 120-85.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    61
concerning which, there was any doubt? Would a
man whose fame had spread over Christendom, risk
his reputation and his cause by making such appeals,
without giving reasons in support of that to which he
appealed, had there been any question about its Divine authority? On the contrary ORIGEN by referring
to Infant Baptism in support of other doctrines, and
taking for granted its Divine authority, and Tertullian,
by referring to it because in some measure conflicting
with a favorite theory, and yet not calling in question
its Divine authority, establish beyond all doubt both
the prevalence and antiquity of the rite.
These two writers lived in different parts of the
world. Tertullian wrote the earlier of the two, but
being born of heathen parents was converted to Christianity in adult age, while Origen enjoyed the privilege
of descending from Christian parents, and of being
taught the Christian doctrine from childhood.
To doubt whether these two men could trace back
a public rite in the Church, the short time intervening between them and the Apostolic age, is to deny
all that the learned have said in regard to their mental
endowments. Tertullian, at the time he wrote, need
go no farther than to ask the old men then living,
whether their own fathers practised it. Origen's ancestors being Christians from the middle of the Apostolic age, he need not have gone out of his family to
inquire; for his biographer informs us that " the Christian doctrine was conveyed to him by his forefathers." 1
RUFINUS translates it, " grandfathers and great-grandfathers," which would reach back into the middle of the
Apostolic age. Origen's own father practised it; and
if his father before him did the same (and no one
1 Eusebius.




62              INFANT BAPTISM      A. APOS. 120ATO
APOSTOLIC AGE.
called it in question), this was as far as he need go.
For this would reach the days of the Apostles, and if
administered under, and sanctioned by them, we need
no higher authority.
They were the authorized agents of Christ, " endued with power from on High," and set apart for
the express work of building up his Kingdom on
earth. The Saviour did not himself baptize, nor did
the Gospel Church assume any definite form or structure while He was on earth. But He prepared the
way and made ready all that was necessary, and
then committed to his Apostles the duty of executing
and consummating what He had taught them concerning his Kingdom.
They were commissioned " to disciple all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever (He) had commanded them:"
with the promise, " Lo I am with you alway, even
unto the end of the world." (Matt. xxviii. 19-20.)
And after his resurrection, he continued with them
forty days longer, instructing them,l - "speaking of
the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." 2.He also commanded them to tarry at Jerusalem
after his ascension, until they were baptized by the
Holy Ghost, which would complete their qualification
for the great work to which He had assigned them,
And on the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost was accordingly poured out upon them, and miraculous gifts
conferred —and then it was, the New Dispensation
proper began.
The thousands soon converted,3 called forth the
application of principles that gave the visible form,
1 St. Luke xxiv. 1-51.  2 Acts i. 3.  8 Acts ii. 41-47.




A. APOS. 120 TO    THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    63
APOSTOLIC AGE.
and resulted in the organization, peculiar to the
Christian Church.
The inspired Apostles being appointed agents of
Christ, and qualified by the Holy Ghost for this work,
whatever they sanctioned and practised as essential
elements in the Christian Church has an authority to
which we must all submit. In a matter so fundamental as the subjects of Baptism, there can be no appeal
from their teaching and practice. If they sanctioned
Infant Baptism, the question as to its authority is settled. We need nothing more on that point.
The Apostle John lived, according to our best chronologists, beyond the close of the first century, and
wrote his " General Epistle" as late as A. D. 91 or 92.
The object of which was to refute the prevailing errors of that period. And had Infant Baptism been
one of them, he would have referred to it as such, beyond all doubt. But it is not included among those
errors, and therefore, if in use at that time it was
with his approbation and has all the authority we
should ask.
Nor ought the teaching and influence of the Apostles
to be confined to the age in which they lived. " To
commit to faithful men, able to teach others also," the
charge of the Churches, was their anxious concern.1
And of these "faithful men," there were some we
know, who did not fail to fulfil all that was expected
of them - all that their responsible position demanded.
Polycarp, for instance, who lived through the
greater portion of time between the death of St. John
and birth of Origen, has the attestation of the Holy
Spirit to his faithfulness to his charge. He is commended by Him who is the" First and the Last," as the
1 2 Tim. ii. 2.




64               INFANT BAPTISM       { APOSs 120TO
" Angel (Bishop) of the Church of Smyrna." (Rev. ii,
8-10.) -" He always taught the thing which he had
learned from the Apostles, and which the Church had
handed down, and which only are true," writes a contemporary.1 "H e was remarkable for his vigilance and
strict adherence to the one only true faith which had
been taught him by the Apostles,"-  adds Eusebius.2
Under such a man as this, it should require some
evidence of the fact to induce one to believe that an
innovation on the most public and well known usage
of the Church was introduced, and neither he nor any
other taught by the Apostles, raised his voice against
it.  Yet we have never read or heard of even an allusion to such an innovation or complaint in his day.
And as to the means and ability of Origen to ascertain whether this rite was in use among the Apostles,
there can be no controversy. He it was that made
the first catalogue of the different books that compose
the New Testament canon. For as yet the whole of
the writings of the New Testament had not been collected together and put into the possession of all the
churches. Nor had it been determined how many of
those claiming inspired authority should be received
into our present canon. And to no one member of
the primitive Church are we more indebted for his
labors, nor to whom did the Church pay greater deference in settling this question, than to this Father:
who not only tells us that Infant Baptism is the
usage of the Church, handed down by the Apostles, 3
but from this usage argues the infection of original
sin.
Shall we then admit the authority of his testimony
1 Irenseus, lib. 3, chap. viii.  2 Lib. 4, chap. xiv. 15.
8 Comment. in Epist. ad Romanos, lib. 5.




A. APOS. 120 }TO   THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    65
APOSTOLIC AGE.
in regard to the books of the New Testament, but
reject it in regard to Infant Baptism? Admit the
greater, but deny the less?
Can we reject the authority of such a man as this,
and believe without one word of evidence, that this
" great innovation, the source of so many evils," according to some Baptist writers and declaimers, was
palmed on the Christian Church with the connivance
of the most vigilant and faithful guardians through
whose hands it has ever passed, and who for its preservation and the defence of the truth, suffered martyrdom at the stake and in the amphitheatre?
We are to decide, not between two new doctrines,
which of them to adopt? but whether we will denounce and cast out of the Church that which we
find to be its doctrine and practice in every age since
the Apostles; and always believed to be practised by
them, and no evidence to the contrary. Shall we then
adopt the "surmise " (for that is all), and exclude
little children from God's covenanted blessings, a
privilege which they have enjoyed ever since God
has had a visible people on earth, because forsooth,
Infant Baptism is not taught in the New Testament
in the way which some men choose to prescribe to the
HOLY SPIRIT?  Remember, whether you have children of your own, or not, by uniting with those who
proscribe the Baptism of children, you thereby unite
in excluding from the covenanted blessings of the
Gospel all the little ones of present and coming generations!
First, let the inquiry be well pondered: If the rejecters of Infant Baptism cannot show when or how
it began, and it has been the practice of Christians
in every age since the Apostles, and received by
5




66                INFANT BAPTISM        [A. APOS. 88-20.
them as the doctrine and practice of the Apostles -
on what ground is it now resisted? Is there anything in. the Bible that excludes them from the New
Covenant? To which we answer unhesitatingly, not
one word, that does not apply with equal force to the
Old Covenant into which they were always received.
The commission under the New, makes no exception to little children, but on the contrary St. Peter
declares, that the promises are " to the children," as
well as to their parents I- the Saviour took the little
children up into his arms and blessed them - saying,
" Of such is the kingdom of God.2  Family Baptisms
are recorded as a common thing.3 And among the
saints in the Epistles addressed to the Churches, children are numbered, and instructions given to them,
and concerning them.4
But lest we anticipate too much, we return to the
Historical branch of evidence, and examine further —
first, the testimony of Irenceus.
~ 14. IRENAEUS was a native of Asia Minor, and in
his youth enjoyed the instructions of Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John. Through this link passed
to him the spirit of St. John, and apostolic doctrine.
"What I heard from him," he says, " that wrote I
not on paper, but in my heart, and by the grace of
God, I constantly bring it fresh to mind." In the
true spirit of St. John, commenting on the multiform
theories of the Gnostics, he writes, " The way to God
is love. It is better to be willing to know nothing
but Jesus Christ, the crucified, than to fall into ungodliness through over-curious questions and paltry
subtilties."
i Acts ii. 38, 39.  2 Matt. xix. 14, 15; Mark x. 13-16.
8 Acts xvi. 13-15, 33.
4 Ephes. v. 1-4; Col. iii. 20.




A. APOS. 90-20.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.   67
He was an enemy to all schism, and an uncompromising defender of Apostolic usage. In A. D. 178, or
seventy-eight years after the Apostolic age, he was
made Bishop of Lyons, and labored by tongue and
pen for the spread of Christianity; and with great
success in confuting heretical doctrines, and establishing " the one only true faith."
His great work, " Against Heresies," in five books,
is doubtless one of the most remarkable productions
of the second century, and generally admitted " one of
the most precious remains of early Christian Antiquity." i
In the writings of IREINIus, " Baptism" is frequently referred to, or implied under the term " regeneration: " such phrases as " regeneration to God;
regenerated through water; the washing; laver of regeneration; " are generally applied by him to Christian Baptism.  Indeed, this was the common usage of
his times. The continuation, with variations, perhaps,
of St. Paul's phraseology —" The washing (laver)
of regeneration."  (Titus iii. 5.)
2. JUSTIN MARTYR, for instance, describing the
mode of receiving members from heathenism into the
Church, says, -" Then they are brought by us
where there is water, and are regenerated in the same
way of regeneration by which we were ourselves regenerated.2 For in the name of God, the Father and
Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ,
and of the Holy Spirit, they are washed with water
(or, receive the washing with water). For Christ also
said, " Except ye be born again [regenerated] ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven." S (St. John
iii. 5.)
1 Ante-Nicene C. Library, Intro.    2 Italics our own.
8 Apol., i. ch. 61; Ante-licene C. Library, vol. ii. p. 59.




68               INFANT BAPTISM      [A. APOS. 67-10.
In this passage it must be plain to every reader
that Justin alludes to and implies Baptism under the
terms - "regeneration" and "regenerated." "They
are brought by us where there is water, and they are
regenerated in the same way of regeneration, by which
we were ourselves regenerated..... They are washed
with water:" [baptized].
3. In the " DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO," Noah
having saved his family by means of the Ark from
the Deluge, is pointed out as a type of Christ saving
his people by water, faith, and the cross. JUSTIN
writes: " For Christ being the first of every creature,
became the chief of another race regenerated by himself through water [Baptism] and faith, and wood,
containing the mystery of the cross: even as Noah
was saved by wood [ark] when he rode over the
waters with his household.'
" Regeneration through water," in the connection in
which it here stands, of course, refers to Baptism. After his resurrection Christ became the head of a people saved by him through Baptism with water, and
faith in the mystery of the cross: even as Noah after
the flood, having saved his family in the ark by
water, became the head of the race who repeopled
the earth afterwards.
4. CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, head of the Catechetical school at that place in the latter part of the
second century, exposing the pretentions of a sect of
Valentinians, in his work called " Padagogus," uses
baptism and regeneration interchangeably through several successive pages. The Valentinians claimed for
their Baptism greater perfection than that of the
great body of Christians, because, as they said, they
1 Dialogue, ch. cxxxviii.




A. APOS. 102-40.]  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.        69
baptized into a power higher than that of Jesus —
into Him that descended on Jesus at his Baptism,
and who is first of all. Besides which they had added ceremonies which (as they believed) made more
complete their redemption.
CLEMENT argues, "None can be superior to the
WORD, or teacher of the only Teacher." His Baptism
is perfect, because it is in the name of Him who is
perfect, and needs nothing beyond what He commanded, to put one into a complete state of redemption." Straitway on our regeneration [Baptism] we
attained that perfection after which we aspired... For
the moment of the Lord's Baptism there sounded a
voice from heaven as a testimony to the beloved" Thou art my beloved son," etc.
" Let us then ask of these wise men, is the Christ,'begotten to-day,' already perfect, or — what were
most monstrous - imperfect? " 1
After explaining that the perfect one was baptized
-not because He needed anything as to his Divine
nature, but to fulfill the profession that pertained to
humanity - he says, " He was perfected by the washing -of Baptism —alone, and  sanctified  by  the
descent of the Holy Ghost..... The same also
takes place in our case, whose exemplar Christ became.....  He who is only regenerated, as the name
is or means, and enlightened, is delivered forthwith
from darkness, and instantly receives the light." 2
i " It is not clear from the text whether this passage refers to the prophetic declaration in Psalm ii. 7, of Christ's sonship and perfections; or to
his Baptism by John. Wall refers it to the latter, and renders it " Let us
ask of these wise men, was Christ as soon as he was regenerated, [baptized]
perfect? or will they be so absurd as to say, H9 still wanted anything? "
1iy*,epov aVayevvdOel9, admits the construction - " as soon as regenerated,"
as well as " the begotten to-day."
2 Lib. 1, ch. vi.; also Ante-Nicene C. Library, vol. iv. p. 151.




70               INFANT BAPTISM       [A. APOS. 102-20.
Towards the end of the book he makes the following summary: " The view I take is, that He (Christ)
himself formed man of the dust, and regenerated him
by water; and made him grow by his spirit; and
trained him by his word to adoption and salvation,
directing him by his sacred precepts; in order that
transforming earth-born man into a holy and heavenly being by his advent, He might fulfill to the utmost that Divine utterance,' Let us make man in our
own image and likeness.' "1
CLEMENT uses washing, regeneration, baptism, and
illumination, in the same or similar sense.
5. IN perfect accordance with the usage of his contemporaries, and concerning this same sect of Valentinians, IRENAEUS writes: " When we come to refute
them, we shall show in its proper place that these
men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that
Baptism which is regeneration to God; and thus the
renunciation of the whole faith." 2
" Baptism, which is regeneration to God," implies
at least, that " regeneration to God " and "' baptism "
are, to a certain extent, one and the same thing. According to such language the one may be given as a
popular definition of the other. And that IREN.EUS
means Christian Baptism in this passage is obvious,
because the Valentinians had set up a Baptism, which
in his opinion was the work of Satan to supersede or
overthrow Christian Baptism,- which he was proceeding to defend.  Therefore, " it is Christian Baptism," which he says " is regeneration to God." And
such the sense in which "regeneration to God" is
used by him in the following passages.
1 Lib. 1, ch. xii; Gen. i. 26.
2 Irenmus, Adv. Hcercs., lib. 1, ch. xxi. Ante-Nicene C. Library, vol. v
p. 81.




A. APOS. 90TO T   THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.          71
APOSTOLIC TIMES.
6. Commending the compassion of Christ in submitting to all the inconveniences of humanity - that
IHe evaded no age or condition of life, nor set aside
any law which he had appointed for the human race;
but passed himself through the different stages of life
to sanctify them all - he says: -
IhEN~EUS ADV. HMERES., LIB. II. CH. XXII.
"He came to save all through means of Himself-all, I say,
who through Him are regenerated to God — infants, and little
children, and boyvs, and youths, and elder persons.  Therefore
He passed through every age; for infants made an infant, sanctifying infants; a child for little children, sanctifying them of
that age, at the same time being to them an example of piety,
righteousness and dutifulness: a youth to youths; becoming an
example to youths, and thus sanctifying them for the Lord." I
So likewise of adult age, etc.
IRENAJUS entertained views peculiar to himself in
regard to the number of years Christ remained on
the earth; but they do not pertain to our present
inquiry. We see in the passage just cited, that every
age, from  the earliest stage of infancy to perfect manhood, is enumerated among the " regenerated to CGod "
- infants or babes, little children, boys, youths and
older persons - all of every age. And the following
passage explains what is the meaning of the "power
of regeneration to God " —
LIB. III. CH. XVII.
" OGiving to His disciples the power of regeneration
to God, He said to them:' Go and teach all nations,
1 " Omnes enim venit per semel ipsum salvare: Omnes, inquam, qui
per eum renascuntur in Deum; infantes, et parvulos, et pueros et juvenes
et seniores. Ideo per omnem venit 2etatem; et infantibus infans factus,
sanctificans infantes: in parvulis parvulus, sanctificans hanc ipsam
habentes setatem; simul et exemplum illis pietatis effectus, et justitim, et
subjectionis: in juvenibus juvenis," etc. — Lib. ii. ch. 39, Oxford edit. Lib.
ii. ch. 22, Ante-Nicene C. L., vol. iv. p. 200.




72               INFANT BAPTISM       A. APOS. 90 TO
APOSTOLIC TIMES.
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' "1
His translator, in the "Ante-Nicene Christian
Library," comparing these words, "regeneration to
God" (renascuntur in Deum), in their application to
infants in the preceding passage, with their exposition
in this, says, " The reference in these words is doubtless
to Baptism, as clearly appears from book iii. 17, 1."
Wall remarks on the same passage (lib. 2, ch. xxii.):
"We have here the statement of a valuable fact as
to the Baptism of Infants in the primitive Church."
Whitby, Neander, and most others familiar with the
writings of the primitive Christian fathers, agree in
the same construction. And we may here ask: In
what other way could the Apostles regenerate infants
and little children to God, under their commission,
but by Baptism?
7. We have now seen that Justin Martyr and
Clement of Alexandria - one writing a few years
sooner, and the other a few years later than Irenaeusboth use " regeneration " to denote or imply " Baptism;" which may be shown to be also a common
usage of the second and several succeeding centuries.
Tertullian, Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, Ambrose,
Augustine and others, used it in like manner, which
has been continued from time to time to the present
day.
And not only " regeneration," but other term; were
adopted for like purpose. Baptism was sometimes
called " illumination, spiritual circumcision, grace, the
washing, seal, symbol of redemption, and perfection."
But to these terms were not always attached the
same shade of meaning. It was generally believed
1 Compare lib. 3, ch. xvii. with lib. 2 ch. xxii.




A. APOS. 90 TO  THE PRACTICE  OF THE CHURCH.                    73
APOSTOLIC TIMES.)
that Baptism   secured the forgiveness of sin and communication  of the Holy  Spirit.    Some held  that it
washed away sin only that was past, and then followed the descent of the Holy Ghost after the order
of Christ's Baptism.l Others, that it washed away
all sin, original and actual, and the subject became
instantaneously illuminated by the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit.2 Others, again, arguing from St. John
iii. 5, held that Baptism  was essential to salvation; to
which the exceptions of the "bloody Baptism of
martyrdom," and " unavoidable omission," gradually
obtained.3   That Baptism   rightly received, delivered
from past condemnation, and put one in a state of
salvation, with the grace and means, or gift of a new
regenerating power to holiness, was perhaps the prevailing doctrine of Ante-Nicene Christians. Hence the
use  of  the  terms  "regeneration,"  "illumination,"
" spiritual circumcision," and such like, to express its
name and objects.4
1 Tertullian.                       2 Clement of Alex.
8 Clement Romanus and Justin Martyr.
4 The phraseology of the Apostle Paul (often varied), #' The washing
(laver) of regeneration " (Titus iii. 5), was much in vogue m the primitive
age of the Church, and its exposition very similar to that of some of the
best commentators of our own times.  For instance, Dr. Whitby paraphrases the passage just referred to: "Not by works of righteousness
which we have done, but according to his mercy He saved us by the
washing of regeneration (in Baptism), and (by the) renewing of the Holy
Ghost (given then to the baptized)."  To which Dr. Bloomfield consents,
and adds: " The best expositors are agreed that the sense is -'hath put
into a state of salvation.'... It must, however, likewise import deliverance
from the consequences of former sins, negligences, and ignorances, by
having the means of true knowledge and virtue communicated..... The
ancient expositors almost universally, and all the most eminent modern
commentators are agreed that by the'washing,' or'laver of regeneration' (ALa AovTpov 7raXtyyeverias) is meant baptismal regeneration. And that
this is the doctrine of our Church is certain from its 27th Article.  (See
Bishop Marsh and Dr. Whitby)."- In regard to the renewing of the Holy
Ghost ( avawKa(vXo.eo  Hvev-ajrov a&yov), he says:  "Must, of course, be




74                 INFANT BAPTISM      {A. APOS. 90 TO
APOSTOLIC TIMES,
It does not, however, as before remarked, come
within the range of our present task to defend the
opinions or peculiar doctrines of the Ancient Fathers
of the church, nor do we give them any higher
authority than we would to any other class of uninspired men who had enjoyed the same advantages of
character, time, and place, to learn the doctrines of
Christ and his Apostles; and even then, we must
take into consideration the genuineness of the text,
and faithfulness of the translations where the texts
have perished.
8. To a public fact - the existence of a notable
public custom, or sacrament of the Church in their
own day, they are competent witnesses; but their
private opinions and teaching as to the meaning and
effects of such a custom, of course have not always
the same weight of authority. The one is a fact
witnessed by their own eyes, oftentimes the subject
of frequent remark among friends, and questions connected with it frequently discussed. The other an
inference or opinion formed, it may be, according to
the peculiar mental perception or idiosyncrasy of each
mind.
Having settled the authority of the writings of any
Father of the Church, the next thing is to look to his
usage of language; and any peculiarity of meaning,
or the sense of words or phrases used by him, may be
ascertained by comparing them in the different places
in which they occur.
Such is the course that we have pursued with the
primarily understood of the renovation proceeding from the regenerating
grace of Baptism; though it must not be confined to that; but understood of that moral renovation begun in Baptism, but requiring the aid of
the Holy Spirit throughout the whole life." - See Greek Testament, Titus
iii. 5.




APOSTOLIC TOIMES. }  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.   75
writings of Irenaeus, and found, by comparing the
different passages in which the words " regeneration
to God" occur, that he means thereby Christian Baptism; and these words being applied by him to little
children and persons of all ages,1 he bears testimony
to Infant Baptism in the first age after the Apostles.
But this is not his only testimony to Infant Baptism in his own times.  By another and different line
of argument we gather from his writings that Infant
Baptism was the practice of the Church from its
earliest missionary condition.
In his work " Against Heresies," he begins with
the first sect that sprung up in the timles of the
Apostles, and takes them up one by one in the order
of time at which they arose, giving their tenets and
history down to the time at which his work closes.
That is, he collected their peculiar doctrines, usages,
and whatever did not conform to the teaching and
usage of the Apostles, from the time of Simon, the
Magician, down to nearly the end of the next century
after the Apostles.
These are his own words:" Since then there is manifold evidence against all
the sects, and that my purpose is to confute each of
them according to their several tenets, I think it
proper to recount from  what fountain and original
they sprung." 2
He therefore made it his business to expose their
errors and trace them to their sources. And began
with the first sect that arose in the days of the
Apostles, and continued his catalogue several years
beyond the time of Origen's birth. Who, as eve have
seen, records it as the practice in his day to baptize
1 Lib. ii. ch. 22.  2 See Wall, vol. i. c. xxi. ~ 2.




76              INFANT BAPTISM       A. APOS. 90 TO
{ APOSTOLIC TIMES.
Infants, and that the " usage was handed down by
the Apostles."
Now if there was any difference in opinion or in
practice on the point of Infant Baptism, between these
sects and the Church (or great body of Christians),
he would of course have mentioned it. But what is
the fact?  He begins with Simon, the Magician, and
Menander as the first, - points out their designs and
errors. Next takes up Saturninus and Basilides, and
specifies their error. Then Carpocrates and Cerinthus, and enters into their peculiar doctrines. And
so on with the Ebionites, Nicolaitans, Encratites,
Caians, Marcionites, Valentinians, and others, down
to between eighty and ninety years after the Apostles,
at which time we have already seen that the great
body of the Church everywhere baptized young
children. He enumerates their different tenets, —shows in what particulars they differed from the
Church, and so far as Baptism is concerned, speaks
of some who used no Baptism at all; of others who
mixed oil and water together to pour on the head; of
others, who baptized persons lately deasd; and of the
addition of various ceremonies in connection with
Baptism; but says not one word of the rejection or
adoption of Infant Baptism as the peculiarity of a
single sect.
Although he enters into the minutiae of their practices and doctrines, Infant Baptism, as a point of difference, is not mentioned in a single case. What is
the inevitable inference? Unquestionably that they
did not differ from the Church on this point. If any
of them had differed in this particular, would Irenmus
have noticed such things as the above and passed over
this? Who, that knows anything of the controversy




A. APOS. 90 TOES   THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.   77
APOSTOLIC TIMES.
that has continued to agitate the Church ever since
the Divine authority of Infant Baptism was first
called in question in the twelfth century, can believe
its introduction would have been passed over unnoticed in an age, when the least deviation of opinion
or of practice from the Church was called heresy?
The legitimate conclusion is, that the Church and all
the sects that baptized at all, were agreed in the Baptism of their young children, or else none baptized
them. But that it was the usage of the Church, at
the time Irenmeus wrote, to baptize Infants, there can
be no doubt. Apart from his own declaration, the
testimony of Origen settles that point, for he was
born and baptized in infancy during the same period.
Seventeen years after, his father, Leonides, suffered
martyrdom, and the following year (A. Apos. 103),
and next after the death of Irenmeus, Origen was appointed the President of the Catechetical School of
Alexandria. Thus he was contemporary with Ireneus in the latter part of his life, who, in early life,
was the contemporary and friend of Polycarp, the
pupil of St. John. And hence of the old men of his
times who had heard and known those who had been
taught and trained by Apostles, and particularly
through his father and family, could be obtained all
necessary information in regard to the usages of the
Church under the Apostles.
For this end Irenaeus enjoyed still greater advantages, for he was personally acquainted with those
who had been taught by Apostles. His friend, Polycarp, was the contemporary of St. John some twenty
years, and was not only instructed by Apostles and
had conversed with many who had seen Christ, but
was also by Apostles in Asia appointed Bishop of




78              INFANT BAPTISM         A. APOS. 90 TO
APOSTOLIC TIMES
Smyrna.'  "The things which  he  learned  from
Apostles, and which the Church has handed down,
and which alone are true "- are the tests, as Irenoeus
informs us, to which he brought the tenets and practices of the heretical sects, and pointed out what had
been added to or taken from Apostolic usage.
And, whereas, there was no difference on this question between them and this STANDARD, down to the
period when Irenams was writing, at which time, we
know, the Baptism  of Infants was the usage of the
Church, it follows that the Apostles, the baptizing
sects, and the primitive Church, all baptized little
children.
Four other writers, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine and Theodoret, continued this parallel, each in
his turn, till it comes down long beyond the time
when the universality of Infant Baptism is as well
known as the existence of the Church itself. Thus
indorsing the faithfulness of Irenmeus as a witness,
and by a negative train of concurrent testimony, corroborating what has been proved by evidence both
positive and circumstantial - i. e., That Infant Baptism
was the usage of the primitive Church, practised and
" handed down from  the Apostles."
Wherefore the venerated Irenoeus, who was taught
by the disciple and personal friend of St. John, and
who, in his latter days, said he remembered what his
teacher, Polycarp, said and did better than the occurrences of the then present period,2 and who was as
anxious to adhere to "the only true faith" as his
teacher, testifies to the Divine authority of Infant Baptism in two ways- first, by the Baptism of all ages
1 Irenseus, vol. i., book iii., c. 3, Ante-Nicene C. L.
2 Ireneus, vol. ii. p. 158, Ante-Nicene C. L., vol. ix.




A. APOS. 330 TO   THI  PRACTICE OF TIE CHURCH.   79
APOSTOLIC TIMES.    E PRCTICE OF THE CHURC
-" Infants, and little ones, and children, and youths,
and elder persons."  Second, by the perfect unanimity
of the baptizing sects with the primitive Church on
this point, in the first and second centuries.
As some minds are slow in comprehending how it
is that the absence of controversy can ever prove the
existence and unity of practice, let them suppose three
parallel columns; and in the first the Church, under
the Apostles; in the second the Church, after the
Apostles; and in the third, the doctrines and practices of the various sects during both periods. Then
select one who was born and had grown up to manhood among those who had been eye-witnesses of the
doings of Apostles, and had been taught and trained
by a disciple of one of their number, and let him
mark all things in each column that differ from either
of the other two; and then suppose the eye to pass
over the things in which they differed; and then to
see that Infant Baptism, though only implied in two of
them, is written in distinct characters in the third, yet
not noted as a point of difference from them, and
what does he infer from it?  Obviously, that it was
approved and in harmony with all, as no mark of disapproval or objection was made against it. It was
embraced in general terms in the others, but brought
out in specific language in the latter.
Things are often taken as granted, and referred to
in general terms in one place, but specified by name
in another. Harmony in sentiment and action but
seldom calls forth an expression of opinion in regard
to the thing in hand.
Further, let four others in the next and succeeding
generations review the same, and continue the par



80              INFANT BAPTISM          A. APOS. TOLIC TOIMES.
allel to successive periods, and still this perfect agreement is manifest, while the practice of Infant Baptism is as common and well known as the public
worship of Christians, and a new doctrine seeming to
conflict with Infant Baptism subjected its advocate to
trial, and the declaration that he " never heard of
even an impious heretic that denied Baptism to little
children."
We pass on to another witness, born about the
close of the Apostolic age.




A. APOs. 48.]    THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.                 81
CHAPTER IV.
TESTIMONY HISTORICAL AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL.
Testimony of Justin Martyr, born at the Close of the Apostolic Age, in the
Midst of Christians. - Many baptized in Childhood. - Gentile Christians
received Circumcision in Baptism. - Interpretation of Col. ii. 11, 12. -
Clemens Romanus.- All Ages corrupt, and Remedy provided before
born, or Necessity of putting all into a New State. - Hermas. - Necessity of Baptism to al. - Infants, and those who continue Infants without
Malice most honorable of all. - Interpretation of John iii..5. - Christian Church organized before New Testament written. - Infant Baptism
before New Testament Canon settled. - Universal in the next Age after
the Apostles. - Improbability of so notable an Innovation without Opposition in that Period. - The Adherence to " the One Only Faith " by
Polycarp, Irenseus, and Christians immediately succeeding the Apostles.
- Summary of Historical and Circumstantial Evidence.
~ 15. JUSTIN  MARTYR, whose name is held sacred
by those familiar with his history, was born near the
end of the first century in Flavia Neapolis, a city of
Samaria, where he passed the earlier part of his life,
and consequently was acquainted with the common or
spoken Greek of Palestine. He was also well versed
in the literature and philosophic systems of that age;
and suffered martyrdom  in the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
1. In an Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius and
the Roman Senate, in defence of Christians who were
falsely accused by their enemies of teaching pernicious doctrines and indulging in gross immoralities, he
cites largely from the written teaching of Christ Himself, to show the purity of morals inculcated by Him,
and the superiority of his doctrines over those of their
6




82                  INFANT BAPTISM            A. APOS. 48 TO
APOSTOLIC TIMES,
accusers -  in that He forbids not only the overt acts
of lust, but also  the  hidden  thought and  desire.
And then appeals to examples -  to living witnesses
of the influence and fruits of such teaching - and especially to the purity of those whose whole life, from
childhood to old age, had been under Christian training: of whom, he writes, "there are many."   His
words are as follows:JUSTIN MARTYR AD ANTONINUM PIUM.
" And many, both men and women, sixty and seventy years
of age, who have been made disciples to Christ from childhood,
continue pure." 1
From this passage it appears that many then among
them were baptized in their childhood in the apostolic
age. Justin was writing some forty-seven or eight
years after the death of St. John; some think earlier; 2
and seventy years from that time would carry us
twenty years and more into the Apostolic age, when
Divine Inspiration guided and controlled the rulers
of the Church, and whilst St. John, St. Philip, St.
Jude, also Timothy and Titus were still alive.
2. Objection has been made that the term (7ra8&ov)
" children" is not confined to little children, but embraces all the stages of childhood up to full grown
youth; which is true, but it extends to little infants
also, and is the same word applied by St. Matthew
(chap. ii. 16) to the little children  "two years old
and under," slain " in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts
1  Ka Ka 7oXhog?veS Kal 7roAXac ZtqKovToiTatL Ka eflB3op71corovTrat Oi:K raiTLav
euaOqTev-8oav To? XpWaTI., k0OpOL &aSateoVaoL.o   Apol., i. chap. xv. See also
Ante-Nicene C. L., vol. ii. page 18.
2 Chronologists differ in regard to the date of this Apology. Wall dates
it A. D. 140, or forty years after the Apostolic age. Schaff, thirty-nine.
Burton, forty-eight. Palmer, fifty. In former editions the author followed Wall, but in this, he adopts Burton.




AAPOSTOLIC. 48 TIMES   THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.    83
thereof," by the order of Herod. And Justin is here
speaking of a large class of persons, roXXo'i Tce Kal
7roXXat, "many of both sexes," and we may suppose
that children of all the ages of childhood would be
found with the many parents converted to Christianity in those times; and to embrace them all, it was
necessary to use a term that would include all the
ages of childhood, just as Justin has done. Had he
referred to a few isolated cases of a particular stage
in childhood, then we may suppose he would have
used a more specific term expressive of that stage; but
he tells us there were " many," and adds in the next
sentence to the passage cited, "and I boast that I
could produce such of every race of men." i Hence
the inference that children of different ages and of
different countries were taken into the Church in the
Apostolic age, as they were afterwards, and are at
the present day.
3. This interpretation is in agreement with the
closing part of the passage, which tells us that these
persons who were made disciples to Christ ((K) " out
of " their childhood " continued pure," or uncorrupt
to old age. They were a class taken into the Church,
as it seems, before they had become defiled by evil
thoughts and lustful desires; and under Christian
training the innocence and purity of their childhood
had been " continued."  And Justin having added
that he could " produce such of every race of men;"
turns immediately to another class, and adds, as if
asking a question -" What shall I say too of the
countless multitude of those who have reformed intemperate habits and learned these things?" 2 This was
a much larger body, an "immense multitude."  He
I Apol., i. ch. xviii.  2 Ibidem.




84             INFANT BAPTISM     { A APOS. 48 INTO
APOSTOLIC TIMES.
did not refer therefore to a few outlaws, but to the
great body of the Church who were converted from
the error of their ways.
The first class had "continued pure;" the other
had " reformed " their evil habits and "learned " to
do well.
Now the natural inference from all which is, that
those so young as not to have indulged evil thoughts
and unlawful desires, had not reached the age of
moral accountability, and therefore could not have
been baptized on their own responsibility; and any
Baptism under that age is Infant Baptism in its ordinary and true acceptation.
4. But some have gone so far as to doubt whether
these " disciples" had been baptized. Such a doubt
is scarcely deserving serious consideration. JUSTIN
would hardly appeal to the lives of men out of the
Christian Church, in defence of those within its pale.
Would he write to the Emperor and Roman Senate,
commending the characters of men " ever learning and
never able to come to the knowledge of the truth," in
defence of that truth?
The members of the Christian Church were called
"' disciples " till after the spread of the Gospel in Antioch, when they began to be called "Christians"
(Acts xi. 26). After which " disciples" and " Christians" became synonymous terms, in reference to
church-membership. And JUSTIN, no doubt, used
words in their ordinary acceptation when he appealed
to the characters of those made " disciples to Christ "
in childhood, in vindication of Christian teaching and
morals. And as President Dwight justly remarks,
" There never was any other mode of making disciples
from childhood except by Baptism."




A. APOS. 48.]   THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.            85
Therefore the natural and no doubt correct construction of the passage is, that there were, at the
time JUSTIN was writing, many old members of the
Church baptized in the Apostolic Age, in different
stages of childhood, as in our own and other ages.
It is of little importance, however, how this passage is construed, so far as the practice of Infant
Baptism is concerned during the time of the writer.
The testimony of IRENIEUS, who lived through the
whole period in which JUSTIN wrote, and who had
better opportunities of knowing what had been the
usage of the Church from  the beginning, has established that fact beyond doubt.  We may lay aside
JUSTIN altogether, and the truth on that point remains unshaken. Yet it is important for the confirmation of any truth to have the corroborative testimony
of such a man, which we obtain also from  his teaching on the relation of Baptism  to Circumcision; likewise the hereditary or consequent effect of Adam's sin
on his posterity.
Having informed Trypho that circumcision and
offering of sacrifices ended in HIM who was born of a
virgin of the family of Abraham, and of the tribe of
Judah, he then adds:DIALOG. CUM TRYPHO.
" And we who have approached God through HIM have received not carnal, but spiritual circumcision, which Enoch and
those like him had. And we have received it by Baptism,
through God's mercy, for we were indeed sinners; and all men
may receive it in like manner." 1
1 Kat )ThFets ot 6B&a TOV'OV  rpoxwpor'aTe reT' Oee, ob TaiV7nV "TV KaTa a0o0pKa
crapeXhaol7qv irepoml71v,~ &hA 7'rvevUtart7v, Iv'EY EVX Ka'l orl i otmO, e40Xaav.'HpeCZ
i 8t,& 3arrt'ia-o'o acTrnv, fm'teSv auapTroAoi 4yey6vec6.ev, &8 TOb eAos T.b rap&
roi Oeo0!AcSo.ev ca 7rao'oTv o'V olwogo AXal1aqvev. Ed. Steph., page 59.
See also Ante-Nicene C. L., vol. ii. p. 140.




86                INFANT BAPTISM            [A. APOS. 48.
The teaching of this passage is, that the spiritual
Circumcision which Enoch and those like him  had
(which was symbolized by the circumcision of the
flesh until the new dispensation under Christ began),
is now by his mercy obtained by Baptism. Not absolutely, but ritually (as we may suppose), in the
same sense in which Circumcision was the sign, seal,
and instrument of spiritual blessings; so Baptism obtains the same or like blessings, through the mercy of
Christ, without the painful rite of the circumcision
of the flesh.
5. The same doctrine is taught in the " Replies to
the Orthodox," ascribed to Justin, but written by a
later hand-:
" QUESTION. Why if Circumcision be a good thing, do not
we (Gentiles) use it as well as the Jews?
" ANSWER. Wle are circumcised by Baptism; by Christ's
Circumcision (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 by Baptism.'" 1
The words of the Apostle Paul we see, are here appealed to as teaching the same doctrine; which is in
perfect accordance with the dialogue with Trypho,
to wit: that under the new or Christian dispensation,
we receive Spiritual Circumcision, not by carnal Circumcision as formerly, but by Baptism. This doctrine was generally held by the fathers of the primitive Church.
Now as Circumcision was given to little children,
Baptism having superseded it and taken its place, it
follows that Baptism should also be given to little
children; no exception being made by the law-giver
in their case.
1 Cited by Wall, vol. i. ch. 2.




APOSTOLIC AGE.]  THE PRACTICR OF THE CHURCH.         87
6. Again, the infection of Adam's sin on his posterity, and their consequent bondage and sin-stained
nature, were subjects of frequent comment before and
after the close of the Apostolic age. Whence it was
inferred by many that Baptism was given to infants
to wash away the pollution of original sin: although
other blessings were likewise conferred by it. And
sometimes its necessity implied and enforced, when
not mentioned by name, by dwelling on original sin
and the corrupt nature of little children, apart from
personal transgression. For instance, JUSTIN tells us
that Christ suffered for all mankind as fallen from
Adam, as well as for the personal transgression of all
who sin. He says —
" Now, we know that He did not go to the river because He
stood in need of Baptism, or of the descent of the Spirit like a
dove; even as He submitted to be born and to be crucified; not
because He needed such things, but because of the human race,
which by Adam was fallen under the power of death and the
guile of the serpent; and also each one of them who had committed personal transgression." 1
This passage teaches that the whole human race is
in a fallen state and under the guile of the serpent
through Adam, for which hereditary infection and loss,
Christ suffered; as well as for the personal sins of
each transgressor. And we have introduced it to
show that JUSTIN'S views on the infection of Adam's
sin accord with the views of those, who infer from it
the necessity of Infant Baptism; also as a set off to
the inference, which some would draw from the fact
that infants are not mentioned in Justin's description
of the manner in which converts from heathenism were
received into the Church, who of course were adults;
1 Dialog. cum Trypho, Ante-Nicene C. L., vol. ii. ch. lxxxviii.




88                 INFANT BAPTISM           TIMES OF THE
I APOSTLES.
for the Church being yet in a missionary state, the
parents must be converted before their children are
reached.
But as he teaches the fallen state of all mankind in
consequence of Adam's fall, which his contemporaries
believed made necessary the Baptism of Infants; and
as he held the opinion that Baptism superseded Circumcision, which carried with it the right of Infants
to Baptism, we may presume that he did not depart
from his doctrines in reducing them to practice.
~ 16. We pass on to two more writers who lived
and wrote in the time of the Apostles. Contentions
and divisions having again sprung up in the Church
in Corinth, similar to those that called for the first
Epistle of St. Paul to that Church,' CLEMENT  OF
ROME addressed to them an epistle, in an earnest,
pious strain, containing many excellent sentiments,
in which he recommends more humility, and the
imitation of the lives of holy men of old; citing,
among others, the teaching and example of Job and
David.  He writes:
CLEMENS ROMANUS, EPIST. AD CORINTHIOS.
1. "No one is free from pollution; no, not though his life
be but of one day."
This is taken from the Septuagint Greek, but not
stronger than our own translation for his purpose:
" Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
Not one."  Job xiv. 4.2
In the following chapter he quotes from David: —
" Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother
conceive me." Ps. li.8
11 Cor. ch. i.
2 Archbishop Wake, chap. xvii., p. 50. See also Ante-Nicene C. L.,
ch. xvii.
8 Archbishop Wake, chap. xviii. Ante-Nicene C. L., ch. 18.




TIMES OF THE.    THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.         89
APOSTLES.
Thus teaching humility through these men, and the
low estimation every man ought to set upon himself on account of the corrupt nature with which he
was born. He then goes on to speak of various doctrines and duties, and urges upon them peace and
union of effort, that all of them may be saved in
Jesus Christ. " Let none grow proud of any spiritual
attainment over his corrupt nature, knowing that
he received it from  another."  And in the latter
part of the Epistle, he continues: —
" Let us consider, therefore, brethren, whereof we are made;
who and what kind of persons we came into this world, as it
were out of a sepulchre and from utter darkness. He that made
us, and formed us, brought us into his own world, having prepared for us his benefits, even before we were born. Wherefore,
having received all these things from Him, we ought, in everything, to give thanks unto Him, to whom be glory for ever and
ever, Amen." 1
The true meaning of which is: Notwithstanding
our mysterious formation and entrance into this
world, in a dependent state, and with a corrupt
nature, He who made and formed us provided for us
all that we need before we were born. For which we
ought, in everything, to give Him thanks. That is,
though we have all come into this world under the
sentence of condemnation, in consequence of the fall
of the one man, Adam, by the grace of God redemption and greater benefits have been obtained for us,
through the one man, Jesus Christ. " Therefore, as
by the offence of One judgment came upon all men
to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of One
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of
1 Archbishop Wake, chap. xxxviii., p. 59. Ante-Nicene C. L., chap. 38,
p. 31. The "Apostolic Fathers" are so familiar to Christian students,
and easy of access, the original text need not here be added.




90                 INFANT BAPTISM          TIMES OF THL E
APOSTLEb.
life. For as by one man's disobedience many were
made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many
be made righteous."  (Rom. v. 18, 19.)  "And not
as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the
judgment was by one (offence) to condemnation, but
the free gift is of many offences to justification.
(Rom. v. 16.) Where sin abounded, grace did
much more abound." 1 (Verse 20.) Through Christ,
as " the lamb slain from the foundation of the world,"
provision is made for all the ills of Adam's sin.
" In HImr the tribes of Adam boast
More blessings than their father lost."
2. As to the extent of Adam's sin upon his race,
there is difference of opinion among theologians; but
all, who are not Pelagians, admit that its consequences
are such that all his descendants have become involved
in it; they come into this world with a nature so
corrupt that it will, left to itself, certainly lead to sin
every one that reaches the age of moral development.2
And as all shades of sin are offensive to God, whether
we hold to the " imputation of guilt," or only to the
" loss of the moral image of our Maker, and a defiled
nature through Adam," — either theory would exclude from the kingdom of holiness all his race, had no
remedy been provided.  But propitiation for sin having been made, only those who reject their redemption
and refuse to repent of their own transgressions, and
to conform to the conditions of forgiving mercy, shall
be excluded from the Kingdom of the Saints in glory.
Infants, Idiots, and all others not personally responsible for sin, have been redeemed by the shedding
1 The transposition of these verses is to bring their meaning more
tlearly before the mind, while it does not affect the sense.
2 Stuart On Romans.




IMES OF THE}  THE PRACTICE OF THE CHURCH.      91
APOSTLES..
of Christ's blood on the cross, as well as penitent
believers.
3. The course prescribed for all who have committed wilful sin is, to repent and be baptized in the
name of their Redeemer, and follow Him. Acts ii.
38: "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," saith
St. Peter. Acts xxii. 16: "Arise and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the
Lord," saith Ananias to the penitent Saul of Tarsus.
Titus iii. 5: "Not by righteousness which we have
done; but according to his mercy He saved us, by
the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the
Holy Ghost," writes St. Paul to Titus.
Such is the course marked out for penitent believers to secure a covenant right and title to the
redemption wrought out by Christ Jesus unto eternal
life. Infants and others not guilty of sins of their
own to repent of, have the same claim to the seal of
their Redemption; i. e., Baptism and its benefits; but
are dependent on the faithfulness of others to secure
to them their rights in this as in other things. And
as the penitent believer is not lost, if from no fault of
his own he fails of Baptism, as in the case of the
thief on the cross; so Infants, whatever may be the
nature of the sin inherited, or consequent on the fall
of Adam, if they fail of Baptism to "' wash away its
pollution," we may charitably hope they shall not be
deprived of their purchased Redemption by Christ;
because it was no fault of their own, and the sin of
omission of duty on the part of others must rest
where it belongs.
But though they lose not their inheritance in the




92                INFANT BAPTISM           TIMES OP THE
APOSTLES.
Kingdom of Glory, if they die in Infancy, we know
not how great may be their loss in other respects,
particularly if they grow up to man and womanhood;
and therefore no efforts should be spared to secure to
them all the benefits of this sacrament. Its loss, however, does not necessarily involve the loss of salvation beyond the grave (so far as we can learn), and
we hope and believe that the eternal " damnation of
Infants" has no existence outside the brain of theorists.'
Among the redeemed, Infants being included, they
have all the rights of the redeemed, so far as they
can be appropriated; consequently, the blessings and
privileges conferred by Baptism.   How  many and
great these may be, we are not informed; but our
Saviour commanded his people to be baptized, and
obedience to his command is our duty. Why should
the blessings of this sacrament be withheld from
little children until they superadd sins of their own
transgression to original sin, "to repent of," before
they shall receive the seal of their Redemption? In
the mean time, many die and never receive it!
~ 17. We turn to HERMAS, surnamed the PASTOR,
who lived and wrote about the same time that did
CLEMENT OF ROME. In several of his similitudes he
alludes to Baptism, and considers it of very great importance -even necessary to enter the kingdom of
God, and calls it - " seal."
SIMILITUDE IX., CHAP. XVI.
"For before any one receives the name of the Son of God,
he is ordained unto death; but when he receives that seal, he is
1 For a critical examination of the effects of Adam's fall upon his race,
see, among modern writers, the works of the late Moses Stuart, of
Andover, and Charles Hodge, of Princeton.




TIMES OF THE } BEFORE NEW TESTAMENT CANON SETTLED. 93
APOSTLES.
delivered from death and assigned unto life. Now that seal is
the water of Baptisnz, into which persons go down liable to death,
but come up assigned to life." 1
He regards Baptism as a seal, certifying and securing to baptized persons their deliverance from
condemnation, and title to eternal life, through the
redemption of  Christ.   And what he says of the
necessity of this seal to that end is in accordance with
the general interpretation, more or less modified, of
the ancient Fathers of these words of our Lord to
Nicodemus:2," Except one (E'v ur   r),' any  one'
be born of the water and of the spirit, he can not
enter into the kingdom of God." John iii. 5.
Therefore, the teaching of these men of Apostolic
times, and the Interpretation of the words of our
Saviour by primitive  Christians, show   that  they
understood Baptism to be necessary to all -to every
one —(EaV v Br tsL)  any  one: not necessary in  that
absolute sense that knows no exception, but as
a law that binds all, and cannot be laid aside by men.
Both of these writers lived and wrote whilst
inspired Apostles were still on the earth, and their
writings were reckoned by many as books of the Holy
Scriptures, and read in many of the churches as such;
according to Eusebius.3
Thus, before the canon of the New Testament had
been settled, Practice, Doctrine, and the received Interpretation of the words of Christ, and of his Apostles,
1 Archbishop Wake. Ante-Nicene C. Library.
2 WALL says: " Our Saviour's said words to Nicodemus do so stand
in the original, and are so understood by all the ANCIENTS, as to include
all persons, men, women, and children.. And that by the Kingdom
of God there is meant the Kinydom of Glory, is proved from the plain
words of the context, and from the sense of all Ancient Interpreters." -
[lifant Baptism, vol. ii., p. 451.
8 Eccl. Hist., lib. 3, c. 3.




94            INFANT BAPTISM BEFORE       AGE NEXT
ALL unite in corroborating the.Divine authority of the
Baptism of Infants.
And had any doctrine been advocated in the first
ages of the Church, militating directly or indirectly
against it, much more, doubtless, would have been
written concerning it, as in the case of original sin.
But questions of other kinds arose in those days to
occupy the attention of the Church, such as the
Divinity and humanity of Christ, the paschal feast,
and various forms of Gnosticism.  When, however,
any question did arise affecting or calling forth any
allusion to Infant Baptism, we find it mentioned or
alluded to as often as any other well-known and
established rite should be, in similar circumstances;
and its authority never questioned.1
1. Again, it is a fact not known, perhaps, to some
who oppose Infant Baptism, that the same authority
which settled and handed down the New Testament
canon, did, at the same time, practise and hand down
the Baptism of little children. In other words, the
Primitive Church at the time it was determining
what books should be received as its rule of faith, or
the men who acted a conspicuous part in the settlement of that question, recognized Infant Baptism as
the authoritative teaching of those Scriptures which
they received. For that the Baptism of little children
was the settled practice of the Church, before the
New Testament canon was a settled question, is
beyond all controversy. This no student of Ecclesiastical Literature will doubt.
Let us enter a little into detail. We know that the
1 It is unnecessary to repeat here the proof that Tertullian did not deny
the authority of Infant Baptism, but only advised its delay, except iu
certain cases.




AGE NEXT ] SETTLEMENT OF NEW TESTAMENT CANON. 95
AFTER APOS.I
Christian Church was founded before the books of the
New Testament were written, and that it had been
planted in places wide and far apart, before important
portions of that canon had been committed to paper.1
We know also that these writings were sent, some of
them to the Church in one place, and some of them
to it in another. They were not deposited in the
same congregation, or in the same city, but written at
different times by different men, in different places,
and sent to different portions of the world.  During
the same time, and soon after, epistles and writings
were circulated from pens that were not inspired.
Some of these bore the genuine names of their
authors, others were spurious and ascribed to Apostles
and writers who never saw them.
Of course the good must be selected from the bad,
and the manuscripts or copies from all these points,
collected together and decided upon by competent authority, before the canon of the New Testament could
be closed. This was a work of time and great care.
Many Christians have fallen into the mistake of
supposing that the New Testament was given to us as
a constitution, prescribing the organization and order
of the Christian Church. But not so. The Church
was organized, or had passed into the Christian Dispensation before any part of the New Testament was
written. And instead of minute directions and specifications on every point, many things are taken for
granted, and only so much committed to writing and
deposited among the faithful, as was deemed necessary
by the Head of all, to preserve and perfect what was already begun. All the essential doctrines of salvation,
1 See dates of the Epistles, and the opinions of Horne and othei
learned men on the subject.




96              SETTLEMENT OF THE         AGE NEXT
AFTER APOS.
and whatever was requisite for the defence of the
Church against the " Gates of Hell," and to secure its
success in the earth, were committed to its care and
keeping, in a way that should be handed down to the
latest posterity. Much, therefore, is implied, that
would require express precept in a formal constitution.
The Holy Scriptures contain the words of eternal
life, and make up the standard of our faith and practice. They are the touchstone to which everything
new must be brought, and to which everything must
conform. But before the different writings that compose the New Testament had been collected together,
and the present canon adopted, we find by reference
to the early Christian writers, that Infant Baptism
was beyond doubt the established usage of the Church,
and received as the doctrine and practice of the Apostles.
2. Origen, who acted a very important part in sifting out and testing the authority of the various manuscripts, who gives us the first regular Catalogue of all
the books of the New Testament, and who by reading, travel, and a long residence in Palestine, enjoyed
many advantages to be well informed in regard to the
received doctrines and public rites of the various portions of the Christian Church, refers to the usage of
Infant Baptism, as we have seen in his Homilies both
on Leviticus and the Gospel of St. Luke, also in his
Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, and in the
latter tells us: It is handed down from the Apostles.
And if he is high authority in regard to the canon of
the Holy Scriptures, why not in regard to a received
1 Even he omitted St. James and St. Jude, but quotes them in other
places.




AGE SUCCEEDING  NEW TESTAMENT CANON.             97
THE APOSTLES.
doctrine and public rite of the Church at the same
time?  If he was competent to judge and aid in the
decision of the external and internal evidences of the
different books of the New Testament, should we not
conclude that he ought to know whether Infant Baptism was inconsistent with their teaching?
Among those before him who are cited as authority,
and who were instrumental in establishing the claims
of no small portion of the Inspired Writings - the
most prominent of them have referred in their writings
to the usage of Infant Baptism. We have seen that
Justin, who wrote between forty and fifty years after
the death of St. John, and Irenmeus, who was taught
by Polycarp, the friend and disciple of St. John, and
likewise Tertullian, confirm the same usage.
And of those who came after him (among whom
full catalogues became numerous), the brightest lights
of their day have also left their undoubted testimony
to the authority and universality of Infant Baptism.
See Jerome and Augustine among others. But in
the time of Origen, the canon of the New Testament
may be regarded as virtually settled, although doubts
and differences of opinion at times prevailed in portions of the Church, respecting some of the books received, and others rejected, which were not finally put
to rest till the Council of Laodicea.1
3. There are undoubtedly internal as well as external evidences of the Divine authority of the New Testament. But these are not all evident to the Christian
reader of the present day, and hence our indebtedness
to the primitive Church for settling the authenticity
of these books; and we now receive them as the gen1 For a full exposition of the question of the genuineness and authen.
ticity of the New Testament, the reader is referred to Horne and Lardner.
7




98      PRINCIPLES OF SETTLING THE  /AGE SUCCEEDING
THE APOSTLES.
uine works of their authors, chiefly because they have
been handed down to us by the Church from its purest
days, and when it enjoyed advantages which we do not
for so important a decision. We have still means and
tests, however, by which we can verify much that was
then done for us, but in the rejection of some books,
and the reception of others, we should find ourselves
quite unable, at the present time, to make a satisfactory
decision without the aid of primitive Christians. For
instance, what is there in the character and style of
the Epistles of Clement and Barnabas, which were
read as authoritative writings in some of the churches
for a time, by which we could determine they are of
less authority than the Epistles of St. John or that of
St. James? Yet we reject the former and receive
the latter. Why? not upon.the authority of our own
independent investigation alone, but by the aid and
decision of the primitive Church, or competent authority in that Church.
And shall we admit that the authority which was
able to decide between the genuine and spurious
books first read in the churches, was incompetent to
decide at the same time whether Infant Baptism was
of Apostolic origin? Will we as Christians consent
that before the New Testament Canon was settled as
the law and rule of faith in the Christian Church, one
of its most public and important rites was perverted
and applied to a class of people never intended? and
that there was not wisdom enough in the Church to
detect this error, and hence it was practised and handed
down by the very authority that handed down the
Scriptures? and this too the Church established by
inspired Apostles, to be " committed to faithful men
who shall be able to teach others " also? concerning




A'iE SUCCEEDING}  NEW TESTAMENT CANON.        99
THE APOSTLES.
which the Saviour said, the "Gates of Hell shall
not prevail against it "- and to its founders made
the promise, " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto
the end of the world?" And yet before the next generation had passed away - aye, whilst the persons and
teaching of several of its founders were fresh in the
memories of many, its most public and well known ordinance was by universal consent perverted, and the
foundation of the whole structure sapped? " Tell it
not iin Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon "-lest the enemy of our holy religion triumph
over us!
If before one generation after the Apostles had
passed away, our religion became fundamentally corrupt, and there was neither the ability to detect nor
the spirit to oppose the error, what confidence can we
have in it now? What new power has been communicated to the present age, that was not then
given? If we admit the Church to have been so
corrupt and ignorant in the beginning, how shall we
defend it against the attacks of Infidelity? Or if
we admit that the writings of the Fathers have been
so much interpolated, and so much fraud practised
in the name of the primitive Church, that, after all
efforts to separate the genuine from the spurious, no
reliance can be placed on their testimony, how shall
we defend the authenticity and purity of the Holy
Scriptures?  Can we lay aside all antiquity and
prove that a single book in the New Testament
was written by its reputed author, or that every
book has not been corrupted since, and its teachings
altered?  No -we must receive the aid of such
testimony, or the key of the arch remains loose, and
the whole structure will fall.  Not that we are




100        NEW TESTAMENT CANON.     AGE SUCCEEDING
THE APOSTLES.
dependent upon it exclusively, but as important
testimony to be cautiously received in confirmation of
the high claims of the Gospel of Christ. It is not by
one train of proof, or a single argument, that the
Divine authority of Christianity can be sustained at
the present time; there are opposing reasons and
difficulties that are sufficient to annul the force, or hold
in abeyance any one kind of proof, unless corroborated and supported by others. Neither the internal
evidence alone, nor the historical, nor the fulfillment of
prophecy, nor miracles, nor any other independent
proof of itself, would overcome all the objections of
the natural heart. But these all united and corroborating each other — interwoven by a thousand circumstances, and all pointing to the same centre - intrench
our common Christianity within a bulwark that all
the battering rams of an infidel world can never
shake to the end of time. And in this magnificent
structure, the aid of the primitive Church and the
testimony of the early Christian Fathers form a part
-the whole would not be complete without them.
If primitive Christians could testify to the genuineness of a manuscript read in the churches, they
could testify to the practice of a public rite in the
same churches.  And if we receive their testimony
in regard to some of the churches, we must receive
it in regard to all; they having by travel and reading enjoyed the advantages necessary to such knowledge.  And since we have their testimony to the
fact that Infant Baptism was the usage of the whole
Church, handed down from the Apostles, we have
legitimate proof of the universal practice of Infant
Baptism in the primitive Church.  For "what has
been received everywhere, always, by all" (quod




AGE SUTCCEEDING INNOVATION HIGHLY IMPROBABLE.  101
THE APOSTLES.
ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est),
is authority which every one should respect in the
history of the Christian Church.
Reject this, and admit that whilst Apostles were
yet fresh in the memories of many, the initiatory
sacrament of the Church had been perverted to a use
never intended, and one fraught with the direst of
evils, according to Baptist writers, and that this evil
had spread throughout the Christian world, before
even the code of laws left for the preservation and
guidance of the Church could be collected together,
and that no man was found to protest against it as
unauthorized - no one discovered its invalidity for a
thousand years afterwards - in consequence of which
the Church was, during all that time, filled with
invalid baptisms, or with persons not baptized at all!
Admit all this, and how ridiculous do we appear
in the eyes of an infidel world!  In what endless
absurdities do we involve ourselves!
4. Consider further the improbabilities, that such
an innovation in a public rite, could have gained foothold among the next generation after the Apostles,
without opposition.
It must be remembered that it was the care of
the Apostles, "to commit to faithful men who shall
be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. ii. 3), the
charge of the churches. And we may suppose that
these " faithful men," selected and instructed by the
Apostles themselves, would very probably continue
the doctrine of their instructors during their own
lives. Now St. Jude, St. Philip, St. Thomas, also
St. Luke, all lived, according to our best authorities, beyond A. D. 70, some of them beyond A. D.
80, and St. John died, as has been before remarked,




102  INNOVATION WITHOUT OPPOSITION.    THGE APOSTLUCcE
about the close of the first century; Timothy and
Titus a few years before. Polycarp, the friend and
disciple of St. John, and who also, if "the angel
(bishop) of the Church of Smyrna," is highly commended by the Head of us all (Rev. ii.), lived
till about sixty-five years beyond the death of St.
John.  And Irenseus, the friend and disciple of Polycarp, lived beyond the end of the second century,at which time few who have accompanied us thus far
in the examination of the question will doubt whether
it was then the custom  of the Christian Church to
baptize Infants.
If Infant Baptism is an innovation, it was brought
into the Church during the lives of Polycarp and
Irenaeus.1  And although we have seen, from  the
testimony, both direct and indirect, of Irenaeus and
Justin Martyr, that Infant Baptism was the practice
of the Church during that period and before it, we
will, nevertheless, consider the probabilities of the
introduction of a thing of the kind under them without open opposition on their part to such an innovation.
5. St. John spent the last years of his life at Ephesus,
and was instrumental in making his friend Polycarp
bishop of the Church of Smyrna.  Between these
places and Alexandria, the intercourse by sea was
direct, and from Alexandria to Crete almost daily.
With the customs of the churches of Alexandria,
Crete, and others along the Mediterranean, he therefore could not have been ignorant.  His General
Epistle to the churches, the main object of which
was to confute the prevailing errors of that time, and
1 Polycarp was instructed by Apostles, and Irenaus by Polycarp. One
suffered martyrdom A. D. 167; the other A. D. 202.




APOST. AND } HIGHLY IMPROBABLE IN THAT AGE.  103
POST-AP. AGZ. I
guard Christians against false teachers, was written
about A. D. 91 or 92, according to Mill and Le Clerc,
and as late as the close of that century, according to
Du Pin, L'Enfant, Beausobre, and Townsend. But
among those errors Infant Baptism is not alluded
to as one; hence if then practised, it was not an
error. He wrote the Apocalypse, or book of " Revelation," as is generally believed, after his General
Epistle, and very shortly before his death: in which
he specifies particularly the errors and "things wanting" in the churches of Asia Minor (Rev. ii. and
iii.), and as the Baptism of young children is not
alluded to among these errors and " things wanting,"
it was, of course, not one of them; because under
the influence of the Spirit by which he was directed
to write, he specifies the different things which were
disapproved: " Unto the Angel of the Church of
Smyrna write..... I know thy works, and tribulations, and poverty (but thou art rich), and I know
the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and
are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan. Fear
none of these things which thou shalt suffer: behold,
the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye
may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days.
Be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a
crown of life" (Rev. ii. 8, 10).
In the Church of Smyrna, therefore, over which
Polycarp was the bishop, or angel thus addressed, and
who continued a zealous defender of the faith and
of Apostolic doctrine through a long life, we must
infer no error of this kind prevailed; for this and
the Church of Philadelphia, are the only two out of
the seven against which charges are not brought, and
received the unqualified commendation of the Spirit.




104   INNOVATION WITHOUT OPPOSITION    A pPOST. AND
POST-AP. AGE.
For these, then, we have the testimony of the Spirit,
to their freedom as yet from innovation.
The errors of the others being particularly specified,
is equally conclusive against the existence of all other
errors not specified. Infant Baptism, therefore, if practised in these churches at this time, has the seal of the
Spirit's approval. If not in practice, it was introduced
under Polycarp; the probabilities of which we will
now examine with reference to his known character
and viyilance, as a steward of the heavenly mysteries.
5. He sealed his conviction of the truth of what he
taught and practised, by his own life's blood A. D.
167, or sixty-five years after the death of St. John -
during the persecution of Marcus Antoninus. When
the persecution began to rage with great violence,
Polycarp, through the persuasion of his friends, retired
to a farm, not far distant from the city, and there continued in constant prayer in behalf of the churches.
But on hearing that some of his friends were put to
the torture, to make them betray him, he could remain
no longer concealed. " The will of the Lord be done,"
was his pious ejaculation, and he then came forward
and  surrendered  himself to his enemies.  When
brought to the place of execution, the pro-consul,
beholding his extreme age and venerable person, used
many efforts to induce him to renounce Christ, that
he might release him.  To which he replied, " Eighty
and six years have I served Him, during all of which
time He never did me an injury; how then can I blaspheme my king and Saviour? " When still further
urged, his answer was, " I am a Christian." He was
then fastened to the stake, and expired amidst surrounding flames.1
i See Eusebius, lib. iv. cap. xv. See also Ante-Nicene Christian Library - Martyrdom of Polycarp, cap. ix.




APOST. AND } HIGHLY IMPROBABLE IN THAT AGE.  105
POST-AP. AGE.)
This man, says Irenaeus also, "had been instructed
by Apostles, and had familiar intercourse with many
that had seen Christ; he had also been appointed
bishop by Apostles in Asia, in the Church of Smyrna,
whom we have also seen in our younger days, for he
lived a long time, and to a very advanced age, when,
after a glorious and most distinguished martyrdom, he
departed this life. He always taught the things which
he had learned from the Apostles, which the Church
has handed down, and which alone are true..
The same Polycarp, coming to Rome under the Episcopate of Anicetus, turned many of the aforesaid
heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming the one
and only true faith which he had received from the
Apostles- to wit: that which was delivered by the
Church." 1
Now how much probability is there that a man,
who had been the intimate friend of the Apostle
John, who " always taught the things which he had
received from the Apostles, and which alone are
true," would permit an entirely unauthorized error,
utterly opposed to what had always been the doctrine
and practice of the Apostles (as Infant Baptism
would have been, if a new thing), and not have raised
his voice against it, as he did against all other errors?
Who can for a moment entertain the surmise, when
he sees how conscientious, firm, and vigilant was this
man for Apostolic doctrine — sealing with his own
life's blood his faith in the same - that he would encourage or permit so radical a change to be made in
the doctrine which he had been taught? 2
1 Eusebius, lib. iv. cap. xiv.; Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. v. -
Irenseus, vol. i. lib. iii. c. 3.
2 If the Christian life of Polycarp, which at the time of his martyrdom,
he said was " eighty and six years " included his whole life from infancy,
as is generally supposed, he must have been baptized in infancy more
than twenty vears before the end of the Apostolic age, while the Church




106      INNOVATION CONTRARY TO THE   { PAOST. AND
6. To this consideration now add also the character
and influence of IRENIUS, who was a friend and
hearer of Polycarp more than twenty years; whom
all historians unite in praising for the elevation of his
character, loftiness of his feelings, and value of his
writings. His name was the praise of martyrs in his
own day, and has been handed down with veneration
ever since. He lived nearly through the whole of the
second century, was a strenuous advocate of Apostolic
Usage, and the most successful of all the opposers of
heresies during his time.  He wrote and preached
against all the errors and new doctrines advocated in
his day. An extract from his own writings will show
what his character was in this respect, and what
probability there is that he would receive an error of
this kind.
Writing to Florimus, who had lapsed into Valentinianism, he says: "These doctrines were never
delivered to thee by the Presbyters before us, those
who were the immediate disciples of the Apostles.
For, when I was yet a boy, I saw thee in Lower Asia,
with Polycarp, moving in great splendor at court, and
endeavoring by all means to gain his esteem. I
remember the events of those times much better than
those of more recent occurrence (inasmuch as the
studies of our youth growing with the mind unite
with it the more firmly). I can describe the very
place where the blessed Polycarp was accustomed to
sit and discourse — his going out and coming in —
his general mode of life, and the form of his body,
and his conversations with the people, and his familiar
was under the rule of inspired men. This fact alone would establish the
Authority of Infant Baptism. So our opponents may lay hold of either
horn of the altar- the great improbability of so great an innovation
under Polycarp and Irenmus: or admit that the religious and natural life
of Polycarp were nearly of equal length of time.




APST AND }  CHARACTER OF APOSTOLIC MEN.      107
POST-AP. AGE.
intercourse with John, as he was accustomed to narrate; as also his familiarity with the rest of those
that had seen the LORD. How also he used to repeat
their discourses, and what things he had heard from
them concerning the LORD. Also concerning his
miracles, and his doctrines - all were recounted by
Polyearp in consistency with the Holy Scriptures, as
he had received them from the eye-witnesses of the
Word of Life. These things, by the mercy of God,
and the opportunity then afforded me, I attentively
heard, noting them down, not on paper, but in my
heart; and these same facts I am continually in the
habit, by the grace of God, of revolving faithfully
in my mind. And I can bear witness in the sight of
God, that if that blessed and Apostolic Presbyter
had heard any such thing as this, he would have
exclaimed, and stopped his ears, and according to his
custom, would have said:' O good God, unto what
times hast thou reserved me, that I should tolerate
these things!' He would have fled from the place
in -which he sat or stood, hearing doctrines like these.
From his epistles, also, which he wrote to the neighboring churches, in order to confirm them, or to some
of the brethren, to encourage or admonish them, the
same thing may be clearly shown." 1
This shows how anxious Irenveus was to adhere to
the doctrines of the Apostles, with his father in the
Lord, Polycarp, and also what advantages he had for
knowing their doctrines. He remembered what was
said and done by Polycarp better than the things that
were then occurring in more advanced life, which is
the experience of all old men in regard to what has
occurred in youth and early manhood.
1 Eusebius, lib. v. cap. xx. See also Ante-Nicene Library, vol. is, -'
Irenoeus, vol. ii. pp. 158, 159,




108     INNOVATION CONTRARY TO THE  fpAPOST. AND
POST-AP. AGE
7. Now, how much probability is there that an
entire new practice, diametrically opposed to what
Baptists contend is the only true faith, could have
been introduced -under this man and Polycarp? - the
one, teaching the " things which alone are true," which
he had received from Apostles and men who had seen
Christ; the other, what he had heard from the
former, and old men who were his contemporaries.
The piety of Irenseus is acknowledged to be of the
highest character -whose love and zeal for truth led
him to oppose with great earnestness the least departure from Apostolic Usage - even writing out in
order, one by one, everything which he regarded as
opposed to, or wanting Apostolic authority.
The character of these two men alone, ought to be
sufficient refutation of a groundless suspicion like that
alleged against Infant Baptism. For it has not a
vestige of testimony to sustain it, save a contracted
method of interpreting the Scriptures, which is utterly at variance with the spirit and design of their
Author.
If this controversy were concerning the introduction and establishing of a new thing in the Church,
there might be some apology for hesitating to adopt
it. But it is about a sacrament, found in the Church
in its earliest and purest days, practised in every
place where the Church was planted, and regarded as
of Divine authority, from the first time that it is
alluded to. Hence the question to be settled is, shall
the application to Infants of this ancient, universal
rite, so highly prized by primitive Christians, handed
down with and sustained by the Holy Scriptures (as
the majority of Christians in every age have interpreted them), be cast out of the Church as an innovation? or shall it be continued?




APOST. AND  CHARACTER OF APOSTOLIC MEN.    109
POST-AP. AGE.
8. To Polycarp and Irenmeus may be added Justin
Martyr, who, though not born of Christian parents,
was born in Palestine, in the midst of Christians,
about the close of the Apostolic age; studied in the
schools of philosophy in Alexandria; wrote his
celebrated apology for Christians between forty and
fifty years after the death of St. John; preached
the Gospel in Italy, Asia Minor, and Egypt; passed
the latter part of his life at Rome, and finally suffered
martyrdom for his religion, about the year after the
Apostles, 65.
Is it probable that this man, who boldly taught
the superiority of Christian doctrine over all the
philosophy of his age, advocated Christianity in the
face of persecuting emperors, and gave his own life
in defence of the truth, would countenance a public
innovation of this character?
We may here appeal to the candor of every reader
who can comprehend the very plainest kind of reasoning, to say whether there is the least ground for supposing that a new public rite, like that of Infant Baptism, could have been introduced into the Church during the lives of these men — or that it could have
spread over Christendom and become the established
practice of churches extending thousands of miles (as
the testimony of Origen shows it had), and not one
word be uttered against it? not one man found to
rise up and oppose such an innovation on the sacred
usages of his fathers and the Apostles?  Is the mere
surmise that because Infant Baptism is not commanded
in the Holy Scriptures in such terms as some have
unwarrantably prescribed for it, sufficient of itself to
establish the point that it was introduced under these
men, in the face of all this to the contrary?
Does not the manner in which Infant Baptism is




110     SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL TESTIMONY.
first mentioned, after the Apostolic age, indicate its
antiquity as well as prevalence? It is never referred
to as something new, or as that about which there
was any doubt, but incidentally mentioned as occasion
required, and as a thing well known to all; and its
authority questioned by none. Just as any other rite
would be referred to, concerning which there was no
dispute, when other questions called it forth. How
can we account for this but on the principle that it
was the practice of the Apostles?
Thus evidence positive and negative, from different
sources, and in various ways accumulates, and with
united strength scatters as chaff before the wind the
objections urged against the validity of Infant Baptism.
~ 18. We have now seen, by tracing its history, that
Infant Baptism has been the practice of the Church
in every age since the Apostles. We have followed it
in a continuous line from the present time — first, to
the time of the great Pelagian controversy which
agitated the Church throughout the Christian world;
when
A. D. 417    AUGUSTINE, the most learned man of
or
a.a. 317. that age, then declared, " The Baptism of
little infants is held by the Universal Church,
and not instituted by Councils, but ever in
use, handed down by none other than Apostolical authority." When —
A. A. 317.   CELESTIUS admitted, "Infants ought to
be baptized according to the Rule of the
Universal Church and meaning of the Cospel." And,




SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL TESTIMONY.    111
PELAGIUS said, " He never heard even A. A. 817.
Of an impious heretic that would deny Baptism to little children." And when,
In a Council held in Carthage, about the A. A. 818.
same time, it was "Resolved, Whosoever
says Infants are baptized for the remission
of sins, but yet they derive no original sin
from Adam, which is expiated by the laver
of regeneration, let him be anathema."
Advancing onward we come to another
Council, in which, in cases of doubt in regard to the Baptism of little children who
had been captured and taken off by the enemy before they were old enough to remember, and afterwards recovered, it was "Re- A.. A. 800.
solved, That such be baptized without any
scruple; lest that scruple do cause them to
go without the cleansing of the sacraments."
A few years nearer to the Apostles, a
Canon was passed at Carthage concerning
such as had come into the Church from
some of the schismatical sects, which gave
to little children an advantage in regard
to Church offices over those who acted on
their own responsibility when they united
with the Donatists;
It was " Resolved, That they who were A. A. 27.
baptized in their Infancy among the Donatists, before they were old enough to understand the mischief of that error, ought to
be promoted to Church offices, especially in
times of so great need. " The case of the
others was deferred to another time.




112     SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL TESTIMONY.
A. A. 280.  CHRYSOSTOM writes, " Our Circumcision
- I mean the Grace of Baptism — gives
cure without pain, and has -no determinate
time as that had (the eighth day), but it is
lawful to one at the beginning of life (first
day of his birth), or in the middle of it, or
in old age, to receive this circumcision, made
without hands." He also enumerates the
benefits of Baptism, and adds, " For this
cause we baptize infants also, though they
be not defiled by sin " - of their own.
A. A.278.  JEROME, the author of the Latin translation of the Holy Scriptures, called the
Vulgate, writing to a lady of distinction
says: " The good and evil deeds of the child
are imputed to his parent; unless you suppose the children of Christians, if they do
not receive Baptism, are themselves accountable for the sin; and the wickedness not
imputed to those who would not give it to
them, particularly at the time they ought
to receive it, and could make no opposition
to receiving it."
A. A. 274.   AMBROSE, bishop of Milan, writes: " No
man comes to the kingdom of Heaven but
by the sacrament of Baptism." 1 For which
he quotes our Saviour's words to Nicodemus,
"Unless any one be born again of water
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven "-and then makes this
comment: " You see (He Christ) excepts no
1 i. e., no other prescribed mode for any.




SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL TESTIMONY.    118
person - not an Infant, not one that is hindered by any unavoidable accident." 1
OPTATUS, bishop of Milevis, calls Bap- A. A. 260.
tism "the putting on a garment that fits
all ages —not too big for Infants nor too
small for men."
GREGORY NAZIANZEN was of opinion A. A. 260.
that " Baptism to Intants might be delayed
till three years of age, or thereabouts, unless danger made it necessary sooner. And
in such cases it must not be postponed."
BASIL, bishop of Coesarea, specifying the A. A. 205.
proper time for various things, remarked,
" The whole of one's life is proper for Baptism." That is, from infancy up to old age,
or until received.
A Council in Eliberis decided that those A.A..ao.
baptized in infancy by schismatical sects,
might be received into the Church without
the same delay that was imposed on such as
were grown up when baptized by them."
A Council in Carthage, to whom was re- A. A. Ma6
ferred the question whether it woivl not be
better to delay Baptism tc'nthe eighth day
after birth than to give it to children so
young as two or three days old, decided in
the negative, "lest by such delay some
might die without it," and added, "As far as
in us lies, no soul, if possible, is to be lost."
ORIGEN, who was himself baptized in in1 Such, he thought, would not suffer positive punishment,
but he could not say would certainly enter the kingdom of
heavwn.




114            SUIMMARY OF TESTIMONY,
Wrote  fancy, and whose father and grandfather
A. A. 110.
Born   were Christians before him, concerning " the
A. A. sinful nature of every one born into the
world," remarks: " It is for this reason the
Church had from the Apostles the injunction to give Baptism to little children."
Again, "No one is free from  pollution,
though his life is but the length of one day.
Therefore, according to the usage of
the Church, Baptism is given to little children."
Wrote    TERTULLIAN, confining Baptism  to the
A. A. 100.
washing away of past sins, advised its delay
to all young persons, virgins, and those in
Born   widowhood, and all such as were likely to
fall into sin after Baptism; and, of course
included young children. He asks, " What
need is there that their sponsors be brought
into danger, for they may fail in their promises by their own death, or by the child's
proving of a wicked disposition." 1 Which
shows that Infant Baptism was the usage of
the Church at that time, or he could not
have referred to it and its connection with
sponsors.
Born soon   IRENMEUS, who was born about twenty
after the end
of the Apos- years after the Apostolic age, and lived betolic Age.
Lived beyond yond the end of the second century, writes:
the end of the 
2d century.  "Christ came to save all who are through
Him regenerated (baptized) unto God —
Infants, and little ones,.and children, and
1 Which proves that sponsors were then used by Christians as they were among the Jews.




HISTORICAL AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL.            115
youths, and elder persons;" 1 hence, all
ages.
JUSTIN MARTYR was born in the times Born in Apos.
of the Apostles, and wrote  between forty AA.g. 4wO.
and fifty years after St. John's death. In
his Apology for Christians, he says: " I
know  many of both sexes, sixty and seventy
years old, who were made disciples to Christ
from childhood." Hence they were baptized
in childhood, in the middle of the Apostolic
age proper, as there can be no other way to  Born in the
days of the
make children disciples of Christ but by  Apostles.
Baptism.2  He also tells us that  "Christians receive their Circumcision in Baptism"
-and calls Baptism  "Christ's Circumcision." By which he teaches that Baptism
has superseded Circumcision as the initiatory
rite of the New Covenant under the Christian dispensation; and he is supported by
Origen, Chrysostom, Basil, Augustine, and
others of the most noted of the Christian
Fathers.   Thus testifying- first, to the
Baptism of many in childhood in Apostolic
times, - and second, to the right of little
children to Baptism by virtue of their right
to Circumcision.
POLYCARP, the disciple of St. John, who Born in the
time of the
"always taught the one only true faith," Apostles and
taught by St.
lived more than twenty years beyond the John.
1 Neander admits, " this passage, without doubt, points
to Infant Baptism." Ante-Nicene C. Library says: "The
reference of these words is doubtless to Baptism, as clearly
appears from comparing Book iii. 17, 1, with Book ii. 22, 4."
2 Baptism at any age before one is capable of acting as a
moral agent, is virtually Infant Baptism.




116              CORRECT MODE OF
time when Justin wrote this Apology, whose
character is a guarantee that he would have
sanctioned no innovation in his day.
Born and   CLEMENT and HERMAS wrote, both of
wrote while
the Apostles them, during the lives of the Apostles, and
were yet
living.    their writings were read in some of the
churches for a time as of Divine authority.
And like all others who had received and
submitted to the teaching of St. Paul, they
held that the pollution of original sin needed
cleansing as well as that of actual sin.
Clement writes, " Infants as well as others
are corrupt..... None is free from pollution, though his life be but one day on the
earth."  Afterwards, "He that brought us
into this world hath prepared for us his
benefits."
HERMAS says: " Baptism is necessary to
all -and whosoever shall continue as Infants is more honorable than all, for Infants
are esteemed by our Lord as first of all."
Cotempora- Now after tracing Infant Baptism up to
ries of the
Apostles.  the days of the Apostles, add what these
cotemporaries of the Apostles say about
original sin - the necessity of Baptism to all
- the estimation in which Infants are held,
and how could circumstantial and positive
proof more perfectly unite and sustain each
other? And remember that about the same
time, the Baptism of whole families by the
Apostles, is recorded in the Holy Scriptures
as a common thing; children are called
"Saints" in the letters of the Apostles,




EXPOSING ERROR.            117
and directions given to their parents for
their " training and nurture in the Lord."
Again, that Baptism has superseded Circumcision (as we shall further prove), holds
the same place in the same Church, while
the law for Infant memibership has never
been repealed.
And yet again, that Infant Baptism was
the doctrine and practice of the UNIVERSAIL
CHURCH before the New Testament Canon
was even settled - was always referred to,
as a thing well known and acknowledged by
all — and has the consentient testimony of
antiquity to its authority.  Quod ubique,
quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum
est.
~ 19. Whenever history and the testimony of the
ancient Fathers are appealed to in controverted questions of the present day, it is the custom of many to
reply, " O! this is the way by which the claims of
Romanism are established."  Not so, but exactly the
reverse. This is the way to divest Rome of all her
groundless claims. Whatever was the doctrine and
practice of Christians " always, everywhere, by all,"
in the primitive Church, if an essential doctrine,
should be continued. And whatever Rome can gain
by that rule let her have- nor should we abandon it,
because she has it. But bring her to the test of the
Holy Scriptures interpreted by the universal practice
and teaching of the primitive Church, and you strip
her of all claims and pretensions beyond what belonged
to the other churches established by the Apostles.
And this can be done without making our Holy




118         DUTY OF ALL CHRISTIANS.
religion the sport of infidels,' or admitting any writing that will not bear the test of sound criticism.
Trace back the unauthorized dogmas of the Romish
Church as we have traced the history of Infant Baptism, and how many of them will you find in the
primitive Church, immediately after the death of the
Apostles? How far do you trace back the " Infallibility of the Pope?"  "Immaculate Conception?"
How far Transubstantiation? The Worship of the
Host? Can Rome trace back the doctrine of Indulgences - or the worship of the Virgin Mary, or
the practice of praying to departed Saints, or Purgatory, or any authority in the bishop of Rome over his
fellow bishops, to the next century after the Apostles?
No. Such doctrines and such authority were unknown
to the Christian Church in that age. And what
ignorance to call Infant Baptism a " Relic of Popery!"
What tyro does not know that Infant Baptism was
long in the Church before Popery began?
If you would expose the fallacies of the Roman
Church, trace them back to their origin, and show
when and how they began, and their inconsistency
with the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, and early
practice of the Church.  This was the way the
English Reformation was conducted, and this is the
only way to take our stand on a basis that the combined powers of Infidelity and Romanism can never
shake.
Thus, we can show that Infant communion, which is
so often lugged in to detract from the authority of
Infant Baptism, is never spoken of before the time of
Cyprian, and never became universal in the Church.
As to customs unimportant in their nature, such as
1 As does the rejection of all antiquity.




DUTY OF ALL CHRISTIANS.        119
chrism, the holy kiss, the washing of feet — partly
social and partly religious, which may be continued or
omitted without affecting the essential character of
the Church, let those continue them who may choose
to do so. But a rite fundamental in the organization
of the visible Church, like that of Infant Baptism,
which involves the validity of the Baptism of generations, and places our little children in a relation to
God, and to ourselves, with claims to the care and
sacred training of parents and Christian friends, that
few appreciate, and fewer still discharge - such a rite
is of vital import to the nature of the Church, and to
the character of its membership. It is one of those
things that cannot be left to our own choice, and laid
aside. It has an authority that knows no distinction
between "DIVInE" and "APOSTOLIC."  Whatever
was ordered by the Apostles, of like nature, is as
binding as that instituted by the Saviour in person.
They were his appointed agents, divinely inspired;
and what they established as an essential element in
the visible Church of Christ cannot be discarded and
laid aside by Christians. Those who have been so
much influenced by the ridicule of " baby sprinkling "
that they cannot rest contented with pouring the
water on the infant, ought to have it baptized by
dipping it into the water. For they cannot omit the
Baptism of their children altogether, without injury
to the child, and the sin of violating the order of the
Church of God. Nor can those who have no children
of their own unite with those who exclude little
children without incurring like condemnation.




20O                       HISTORICAL TABLE.
THIS  TABLE  REPRESENTS  INFANT  MEMBERSHIP  EXISTING  IN  THB
CHURCH  OF GOD  AT THE  BIRTH  OF CHRIST, AND AS TRACED BY A
CHANNEL THROUGH THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES OF CHRISTIANITY.
Birth of Christ.
Wt            A. D.  33......       Christian Dispensation begun.
49...... 3 "......  Circumcision discussed.
50                   Household Baptisms recorded.
Wi   Q      o -- 67..........Children called Saints.: >,', "72..... M           Jude died.
0          ~           76......  Luke died.
O      X              _:.94   Titus died.
0'     97:                Timothy died.
-  -"-  102                  St. John died.
-  A. D. 100..... Close of Apostolic age.
-z _            bs 103.......  Justin Martyr born.
3 -c      "   120..... Irenseus born.
-    cg   150                    Tertullian born.
Sw                     k  Z" 166.....        Justin Martyr died
- c  -_.-    -  167.          P........ Polycarp died.
3.c _186.....                        Origen born.
~_____           202.              Irenseus died.
$,t 4          A. D. 200                     100 After Apostolic age.
Pjr...A. D. 200-220..   Tertullian wrote.
210-254.....                Origen wrote.
A. D. 246.                 Cyprian converted..  250.                  Council of Carthage.
"    251         t          Novatian schism.
4"   254.                Origen died.
2I4......
A. D. 300.....,..... 200 After Apostolic age.
"    305...              Council of Eliberis.
" 311......  Donatists arose.
3828.                  Gregory Nazianzen born.
"    329                   Basil born.
"   331          M         Jerome born.
844....    Chrysostom born.
"    354.......... Augustine born.
"'   360......           Council of Milevis.
"   8374......  Ambrose wrote.
"   397......            Third Council of Carthage.
A. D. 400......  o......  Fifth Council of Carthage.
"   410......  Pelagian controversy arose.
i   429               Various Councils.
"    431...........   General Council of East and
West.




RELATION OF BAPTISM  TO CIRCUMCISION.              121
CHAPTER V.
RELATION OF BAPTISM  TO CIRCUMCISION.
A Church on Earth when Christ came. - The Temple and Synagogue Services.-Preceded by the Tabernacle, with its Altar, Mercy Seat, and
consecrated Ministers. - Preceded by the Abrahamic and Patriarchal
Dispensations. -Circumcision the Outward Token of the Abrahamic
Covenant, sealing spiritual and temporal Promises. —Abraham made
the Father of a Spiritual Seed, in virtue of being at the Head of a Covenant bearing the Seal of the Righteousness of Faith. - This Covenant
perpetual. - Mosaic Dispensation added to it. - Circumcision continued
to the Coming of Christ, " the Promised Seed." - The Change of the
Seal from Circumcision to Baptism did not affect the Right of Infants. -
The Law for their Membership not having been repealed, they have the
same spiritual claims to Baptism that they had to Circumcision. - Bap
tism called by St. Paul, " the Circumcision of Christ," and by Primitive
Christians, "Christian Circumcision." — Holds the same Place in the
same Church while Circumcision has passed away.
~ 19. WE shall now proceed to examine more
closely the connection between Baptism and Circumcision. For if Justin Martyr and the Ancient Fathers
of the Church are right in calling Baptism " Christian
Circumcision," and in teaching that Baptism has
taken the place of Circumcision under the Christian
Covenant, then  we have  another separate and  distinct line of proof, full and independent of all others,
leading to the same result.
1. In the first place, we must admit that the early
Fathers of the Church had as good, and even better
opportunities to learn what was a doctrine of the
Apostles than we have; for Justin had the instruction of those who had seen and heard the Apostles,




122       THE REDEEMER COME TO ZION.
to aid him in the interpretation of their writings.
And if Circumcision under the Old has been succeeded
by Baptism under the New Covenant, it follows
that infant children must be baptized; for we all
know they were circumcised by express law. And
unless that law has been repealed, it of course covers
the substitute as it did the rite in the place of which
it stands, and therefore binds Christians to the duty
of continuing infant membership and family religion
under the New Administration. Changing merely
the " seal" of a covenant, contract, or deed of gift,
does not affect or change the covenant itself. The
new seal covers what the old one did at the time the
change was made. So little children have the same
religious privileges under the seal of Baptism which
they had under Circumcision.
But has the seal of Circumcision been changed into
that of Baptism? or does Baptism occupy the same
place as a religious rite under the Gospel Dispensation that Circumcision did under the Jewish? And
is the Church of Christ a continuation, in its essentials,
of the Ancient Church or Covenant into which God's
former people were received and trained? When the
"Redeemer came to Zion," 1 did He find no church,
no temple, no synagogue, no religious organization, in
the public worship of which He and his Apostles
could unite on the Sabbath day?  (Luke iv. 16,
Acts xiii. 14.)  Or did He destroy that "kingdom "
which He compared to a "vineyard," and forewarned the Jews that it would "be taken from
them and given to a people bringing forth the fruits
thereof?"  (Matth. xxi. 43.)  Or was it merely
transferred into the hands of other husbandmen, as
1 Isaiah lix.




WORSHIP OF THE JE WS.          123
He said it would be? and under its new administration improved and enlarged by more efficient culture
and better regulations?
Now we know that our Saviour did find such a
Church, and that He and his Apostles did recognize
the Divine authority of its ordinances and worship -
and that it was " their custom " to attend and unite
in the services of the temple and synagogues.l And
we know, also, that in this Church were trained the
prophets and holy men of old, who spake as they
were moved by the Holy Ghost; and that to
"Israel" were " committed the oracles of God "
(Rom. iii. 2); and that to them as the Church of
God, "pertained the adoption, and the glory, and the
covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of
God, and the promises" (Rom. ix. 4, 5); and that
this temple succeeded to the tabernacle, with its altar
and mercy seat, its consecrated ministers, and pre
scribed services, all fashioned and modelled according
to God's own appointment (Exod. xxv. 40), called
the " Church in the Wilderness " (Acts vii. 38),not a promiscuous assembly, as'EKKXAJtia sometimes
denotes, but a regular ecclesiastical organization,
denominated by St. Paul " a house," in which Moses
acted as a "servant," and afterward Christ as a
"son," and adds, " Whose house are we."  (Heb. iii.
5, 6.)
2. And further we know, that in this Church in
which Moses was faithful as a "' servant," and which
is called by the various names of " House," " Israel,"
" Zion," " Vineyard of the Lord," 2 were taught and
practised the worship of the true God, and the duties
1 Luke iv. 16; Acts xiii. 14; xv. 21; xvi. 13.
2 Isaiah v. 1-7.




124       PRINCIPLES OF GOD'S GOVERNMENT
of the true religion.' And for the preservation and
continuance of this religion and worship, Moses was
raised up, and commanded to conduct this people
into a land to themselves." 2 They having become
seriously affected with idolatry and the sins of the
Egyptians, during their sojourn among, and their
oppression by that nation; in order to deliver them
from this oppression, and reform their religion, Moses
was appointed to remove them to a land favorable to
this work, and to give them a system of laws, rites,
and ceremonies adapted to this end; and for the
transmission of this religion to the dawning forth of
a brighter day, whose rising sun would reveal with
perfect clearness its glorious beauties now so dimly
seen under a darker dispensation.3
Hence the Apostle Paul tells us, " The law (Mosaic
Dispensation) was added because of transgression till
the seed (Christ) should come." (Gal. iii. 19.) The
corrupt state of the world, and the sins and idolatry with which Israel had become infected, made it
necessary to add, to the Covenant of Grace under
which they lived, the Dispensation of Moses, as subservient to the preservation and continuance of the
doctrines and truths of their religion to the coming
of Christ with his brighter light and perfect dispensation.
The Jews had long been in covenant relations with
God, chosen by Him for his select people, to whom
He promised the special doctrines and duties of religion, and whom He had brought into a Church state
for the purpose of preserving and handing down the
1 Exod. iii., xviii., xix.; Leviticus; Deut.; Acts vii. 34-38.
2 Exod. iii. 12; ix. 1; xx.; Joshua xxiv. 2-14.
8 Gal. iii. 19; Heb. x. 1.




THE SAME IN EVERY AGE.         125
worship of the true God, and the promises connected
with a coming Saviour.
This solemn covenant had been ratified by an outward and visible sign and symbol of a new heart,'
and had been in existence from the time of Abraham,
bearing the sign of Circumcision —"a seal of the
righteousness of faith," that its blessings " might be
of grace." 2 And it was declared by God to be an
"everlasting covenant." 3
Afterwards when sin and idolatry had multiplied,
"the law," or Dispensation of Moses was added to
it, to subserve in promoting the great ends for which
it had been established among men.  Hence the
Saviour teaches, " Circumcision is not of Moses but
of the Fathers" (John vii. 22), - and it was continued by Him for the perpetuation of the original
covenant to which it belonged, and to which the
Mosaic Dispensation was added for special reasons.
3. Thus we trace back the visible Church of God
on earth to Abraham's day. Before that period, God
had not given to his people a peculiar badge or
visible sign, by which they were to be distinguished
from others. He had included all under a course of
discipline, by which a people who were infants in
knowledge would perhaps be sooner taught his dislike
to sin, from its public punishment. Instead of collecting the better portion of mankind into one body,
by calling them out from among the wicked, - his
plan was to drive out the wicked from among them,
and thus preserve them from the contagion of evil,
while at the same time his displeasure at sin would
be manifest to all. Cain, in his wickedness, was
1 Rom. iv. 11 Rom. ii. 29.   2 Rom. iv. 16.
s Gen. xvii. 7.




126     ABRAHAMIC COVENANT CONFIRMED.
driven away, and he and his descendants not permitted to dwell with the righteous branch of Abel in,he presence of the shekinah.l And when the two
races came together afterwards and the "sons of
God" intermarried with the wicked, and sin, as a
consequence, greatly multiplied, a deluge swept off
the ungodly, leaving only righteous Noah and his
family on the earth.2 And when his descendants fell
into idolatry and various other sins, then Abram was
called out into a different land from them, to form a
separate and distinct people for the Lord. And now
God changes his mode of administration, but not the
principles upon which it is founded.  Up to this
time He had manifested his displeasure against sin
by driving out and punishing the wicked. Now and
hereafter He will exhibit rather his love of virtue
by calling out the righteous from among the wicked,
and forming them into a separate people under covenanted privileges, thereby granting high and peculiar
favors to those who shall love Him and keep his
commandments. The great principles of his government, and the end to be secured, are the same under
both methods, and ever must be the same. For God
is ever the same, and cannot change. But He applies those principles in the way best adapted to
the age and condition of the people who are to be
affected  by them.  Therefore his outward  and
visible "Covenant of Grace," embracing present
and future blessings to the faithful, begins with
Abraham.
4. It was instituted under the following circumstances.
The descendants of Noah, although they worshipped
1 Gen. iv.   2 Gen. vi.




A PROMISED SAVIOUR INCLUDED.     127
the true God, had now converted created objects into
deities, and the sun and moon, stars and winds, rocks
and rivers had become objects of worship; and these
demanding no morality in conduct, the practice of virtue and the knowledge and worship of the true God
were fast disappearing from among them. And for
the purpose of preserving and transmitting the religion and worship of the One only true God, with kindred subjects,' Abram, a man of faith and of the right
spirit, was selected and commanded by the Lord to
leave his country and kindred and go into a land which
He would show unto him; adding - "And I will
make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and
make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing;
and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them
that curse thee, and in thee shall all the families of
the earth be blessed." (Gen. xii. 1-3.)
Abram  obeyed and "went out, not knowing
whither he went." (Heb. xi. 8.) And when he came
to the land of Canaan, "the Lord appeared unto him
and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land; and
there builded he an altar unto the Lord who appeared
unto him." (Gen. xii. 7.) And when his faith and
obedience had been more fully tested, and Abram was
was now ninety and nine years old, God ratified under
the form of a visible seal, all that He had promised
unto him, under the solemn injunction —" I am the
Almighty God: walk before me, and be thou perfect.
And I will make my covenant between me and thee."
(Gen. xvii. 1, 2.) Abram fell upon his face, and
God in a summary manner reiterated his former
promises. All of which may be considered as briefly
comprehended in the 7th verse: "I will establish my
1 Gen. xii; Joshua xxiv. 2-14.




128       THE COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM.
coveuant between me and thee, and' thy seed after thee,
in their generations, for an everlasting covenant; to be
a God unto thee and thy seed after thee."  To be a
God unto us and our descendants, is all that we need
and all we should desire in any covenant with Him.
Such a covenant embraces all that is good for all ages
and all countries.
And to this Abram gladly gave his consent, by submitting to a religious rite affixed as the seal of this covenant, in which his name was changed to Abraham,
because to him was sealed the promise of an innumerable seed, and he was thus made the father of all that
believe- The First and Head of the Visible Covenant of Grace embracing a promised Saviour." 1
As to the nature and character of this covenant,
none, we presume, can explain it better than an inspired Apostle. And no interpretation will be received of higher authority than that of the Apostle
Paul. He tells us, first, that a promised Saviour was
thereby covenanted.  "Now, to Abraham  and his
seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to
seeds, as of many; but as of One, And to thy seed,
which is Christ." (Gal. iii. 16.) This he further explains in the next verse (17,) and calls it " the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ."
The promised Saviour, was therefore the grand feature
in this compact, or Deed of Gift. The Apostle next
informs us that it is a Covenant of Grace in which men
are justified by faith. " Abraham believed God, and
it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Rom. iv.
3.) And in the 16th verse, he adds, " Therefore it
is of faith that it might be by grace; to the end that
the promise might be sure to all the seed: not to that
1 Rom. iv. 11-13.




THE COVENANT OF GRACE.         129
only which is of the law, but to that also which is of
the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all."
So justification by faith is another feature in that covenant.
Further, the same Apostle informs us that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, regarded the land of Canaan
as merely a type of the Heavenly Canaan, and that
they " sojourned in the land of promise as in a strange
country, looking forward to a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God;" and that
they and multitudes of their descendants, " all died in
faith, not having received the promises, but having
seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and
embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say
such things, declare plainly that they seek a country.
And truly if they had been mindful of that country
from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a
better country, that is, an heavenly. Wherefore God
is not ashamed to be called their God; for He hath
prepared for them a city." (Heb. xi. 9-16.)
Thus we see the great end and efforts of the members of the Abrahamic covenant, were to reach the
heavenly city. They lived by faith, looking forward
to that spiritual Jerusalem, whose builder and maker
is God; which He has prepared for all " Abraham's
seed and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. iii.
29.) Nor were they disappointed; for God is not
ashamed of those who thus fulfil his covenant.
Hence the Abrahamic covenant vouchsafed to its
faithful members a promised Saviour, justification by
faith, and the final possession of heaven.
And is not this the same which the Gospel covenant
9




130    ABRAHAMIC COVENANT NOT ANNULLED.
now proposes - the promised Saviour (having come)
and fulfilled for those who look back - precisely what
He did for those who looked forward to his coming?
And does not the Apostle Paul expressly teach that
the Christian covenant is the continuation of this same
covenant formed with Abraham? —that Christ redeemed us from  the curse of the law, that the
blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles
through Jesus Christ? (Gal. iii. 13, 14), -and that,
if we are Christ's, then are we Abraham's seed and
heirs according to the promise. For neither the law,
nor any other power could annul the covenant made
with Abraham. (Gal. iii. 15-17.) Read the third
chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians.
5. See first, the declaration that'the Gospel was
preached unto Abraham: "And the Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through
faith, preached before the Gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then,
they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham." (Gal. iii. 8, 9.)
See next, that Christ has redeemed us, that the
blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles
through Jesus Christ. "Christ hath redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us:
for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on
a tree: that the blessing of Abraham might come on
the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might
receive the promise of the Spirit through faith."
(Gal. iii. 14, 15.)
Now mark, that this covenant, by which " they
who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham,"' the Apostle affirms has not been annulled,
1 Gal. iii. 7.




CONTINUED UNDER THE GOSPEL.       131
and cannot be annulled. " Brethren, I speak after
the manner of men; though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or
addeth thereto. Now, to Abraham and his seed were
the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as
of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is
Christ. And this I say, that the covenant that was
confirmed before of @od in Christ, the law, which was
four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul,
that it should make the promise of none effect."
(Gal. iii. 15, 16, 17.) More explicit evidence of the
perpetuation of the Abrahamic covenant could not
be given.  Apostolic declaration is supported by
Apostolic argument to show that that covenant is still
in force.
Four hundred and thirty years after the calling of
Abrahaim, the "Law" was given at Mount Sinai,
and the Mosaic Dispensation then commenced. Some
might suppose the Abrahamic Covenant was then
annulled, and superseded by the Mosaic. Not so,
says the Apostle. The Law was added in subserviency to the ends for which the covenant with Abraham was instituted.  It was grafted on the Abrahamic Covenant for a specific object.  " Added (to
it), because of transgressions till the seed (Christ)
should come, to whom (or concerning whom) the
promise was made." (Gal. iii. 19.) That is, the
Dispensation of Moses was added to the Covenant of
Abraham, to serve in counteracting the influence of
sin, and in preserving the knowledge and worship of
the true God until the coming of Christ. It shadowed
forth and prepared the way for the coming Saviour
and his more spiritual administration. But when the
promised Seed came, its work was done. Its term of




132  ABRAHAMIC AND CHRISTIAN ONE COVENANT.
office expired; having "waxed old" it "vanished
away," leaving the Abrahamic Covenant as it found
it - in full force.
The Saviour came like the rising sun, lighting up
into perfect day the dim twilight spread over this
Covenant, and revealed to view the beauty and glory
of much that had remained unperceived and hence
unappreciated. He himself was the grand object in
the foreground of the picture; in Him was fulfilled,
and through and by Him are being fulfilled all that it
promised, and all that will be needed to its perfect
fulfilment to the end of time.
The fuller development of its principles was followed by some change in externals, and the mode of
its application to a more enlightened age; but no
change in the principles themselves. Circumcision
has been superseded by the more comprehensive rite
of Baptism; and the seventh day Sabbath by the
Lord's day, which embraces the completion of the
Redemption also with the Creation of the world.
The Gospel Covenant being therefore a continuation
of the Abrahamic Covenant, more enlarged in its mode
of application to our fallen race, and little children
circumcised and made its members by law, it follows
that they must by authority of the same law be now
baptized; their right to membership having never
been repealed, the change of the Seal cannot deprive
them of it. This will be admitted by those who
admit that the Abrahamic and the Christian is one
and the same Covenant. And that must be admitted
by all who will apply themselves to the question until
they properly understand it.
6. As to the objection sometimes urged, that Circumcision only embraced temporal blessings and the lin



CIRCUMCISION SEAL OF A SPIRITUAL COVENANT. 133
eage of Abraham - one must have read his Bible to
little profit, who can seriously entertain it.  Are
there no spiritual blessings embraced in the following
language?  "And he (Abraham) received the sign
of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the
faith which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he
might be the father of all them that believe, though
they be not circumcised, that righteousness might be
imputed to them also; and the father of circumcision
to them who are not of the circumcision only, but
who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father
Abraham, which he had, being yet uncircumcised."
(Rom. iv. 11, 12.)
Are not the things here specially pointed out
spiritual? Did Abraham receive the seal of merely
temporal promises for a temporary end? Or did he
receive "the seal of the righteousness of faith," that
he might be the spiritual father also of true believers,
whether they were circumcised or uncircumcised?
Did not the Apostle introduce these passages for the
special object of showing that Circumcision was the
seal of a covenant of grace, by which all true believers should be regarded as the spiritual  seed of
Abraham?  And what does "the righteousness of
faith"  mean, but justification by faith?  And if
Abraham received the seal of justification by faith,
could he have received the seal of a higher and
greater spiritual blessing?   Again, "The promise
was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law,
but through the righteousness of faith." (Rom. iv.
13.)
The thing is too plain to dwell upon, and the more
intelligent, in order to escape the legitimate sequences,
resort to the alternative of making Circumcision mean




134       THE FATHER OF THE FAITHFUL
one thing to Abraham, and another and different thing
to his posterity. To Abraham, say they, "it was a
seal of the righteousness of his faith; but to his
posterity, not of faith but of a certain covenant."
Wonderful discovery! A sign of one thing to
Abraham, and of another to every one else! Was it
ever heard that, when a grant was made to certain
persons, and the authoritative seal of the State affixed
to the instrument, it did not confirm to all alike according to the specifications?  God said, "I will
establish my covenant between me and thee and thy
seed after thee. And with Abraham, his seed stands
connected in every specification made in the grant; 1
and the same seal or token is applied to every one of
the party. If it was a seal of justification by faith,
when applied to Abraham, it was therefore the same
when applied to Infants.
Abraham and his seed are made members of the
same covenant, signed with the same seal, confirming
to each the same things. Who has the power to distribute to each contrary to the terms of the grant?
But here refuge is again sought in the attempt to
draw a distinction between the "seal " and "token "
of a covenant. "Circumcision," say they, "was the'token' or' mark' of the covenant with Abraham's
seed —not a' seal' to them, but only to him."
Let us analyze this distinction. Suppose you call it
a "token," or a "mark," or whatever you please.
Was it not the sign of God's covenant with them?
And if a sign, was it not an authoritative sign — appointed by GCod? And if an authoritative sign of the
covenant, what is that but a seal?   What is the
seal of a promise or contract but the mark of an ap1)oi:nted sign?
1 Genesis xvii. 7, 14.




BECAUSE HEAD OF A VISIBLE COVENANT.    135
And now if God appointed, as the "token" or
"sign " of this covenant, the " seal of the righteousness of faith," and ordered it to be applied to Abraham and his posterity alike, did not the sign of itself
indicate the nature of the covenant, and include all
the parties under it, and remind young and old that
they must " walk in the steps of that faith of their
father Abraham which he had being yet uncircumcised? " (Rom. iv. 12.) And does it not still proclaim
to Jew and Gentile the power of faith and the way of
becoming the true spiritual children of Abraham?
But here a third effort to escape is made under the
shelter of "faith."  "Abraham's faith only (say
they), made him the father of all believers." Not so
- writes the Apostle Paul —" Abraham  believed
God and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.... And he received the sign of Circumcision, a seal
of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet
being uncircumcised, that he might be the father of
all them that believe." (Rom. iv. 3, 11.)
Mark, he " received the sign of circumcision that he
might be the father of all them that believe." The
Apostle is specific in giving the reason why Circumcision was added. Faith alone, did not make Abraham
the " father of the faithful," but the sign of Circumcision was ordered, " that he might be the father of all
them that believe." His faith publicly attested by
God, with the sign and seal of the righteousness of
faith, made him the father of future believers.
Abraham's faith before his Circumcision brought
to him justification, but the power of that faith was
made known through Circumcision. His faith was the
groundwork, but the Divine attestation of a visible
sign and seal placed him at the head of a Covenant,




136       GRAND OBJECT OF CIRCUMCISION.
by means of which the righteousness of faith is proclaimed to men, and he made the father of all who
believe. That is, Circumcision pointed him out as an
example and made him the first in the visible line of
God's people on earth. He thus became the head and
father of a visible Covenant of Grace; by virtue of
which he is called by the Apostle " The father of us
all."
Were it not for Circumcision, Enoch and Noah, and
others, would each more properly be called the prototype and father of the faithful. For they lived before
Abraham, and " had the testimony that they pleased
God." (Heb. xi. 5, 6, 7.)
But Circumcision was a notable and significant sign
- the seal of a Covenant embracing things temporal
and spiritual, promising to Abraham an innumerable
seed — in which the Apostle informs us a spiritual as
well as a natural seed is included,l and thus he is made
the father of all true Christians.
7. Hence by virtue of this Covenant Abraham is
called the " father of the faithful," although Enoch,
and Noah, and Abel lived before him. To their faith
the Holy Ghost hath testified, as well as unto Abraham's, but with them that visible Covenant of Grace
had not been formed, of which Abraham is made the
head, and through which all true Christians are called
"his children," and into which fathers, and mothers,
and their little children have been received some four
thousand years.
It is true that Circumcision did include temporal
with spiritual blessings, but it was administered to all
who united themselves with the people of God. Ishmael and his descendants, who never inherited any
1 Rom. iv. 9, 12.




THE NATURE OF A SEAL.          137
portion of the land of Canaan, and those purchased for
servants, and the thousands of other nations who from
time to time became Jews, were all alike circumcised.
The land of Canaan, as a type and pledge of the
Heavenly Canaan, was included; and for the purpose
of preserving and transmitting the worship of the true
God, it was important that they should have a separate and distinct country to themselves at that period.
But this and all things of a temporary character, with
the Legal Dispensation of Moses added, were subsidiary to the higher and spiritual ends of a promised
Saviour, and justification by faith, of which Circumcision was the sign and seal.
And when that which is temporary and limited in a
covenant expires by its own nature or limitation, that
does not affect the validity of the remaining portion.
All that is permanent and unlimited in its character,
continues as firmly secured, and the covenant as binding, as if no part had run out. In the words of another, "A covenant, considered as a contract, or deed
of gift, or a promise showing the purpose and plan of
the author, may be made to-day, the items increased
to-morrow, and the seal not applied until the third
day, or some subsequent period; and yet whenever it
is affixed, it covers all the items embraced in the
covenant.
" Some of these items may be temporary in their
nature, and expire by their own limitation, while the
covenant remains in force; others may be permanent,
and have no end; still, the seal covers with its sanction
all the various provisions, just so long as by their nature or the original appointment they continue in force.
" Again, the seal may be changed, without touching
the covenant itself. Lawful authority may decide




138      INFANTS' CLAIMS NOT AFFECTED.
that the old seal shall no longer be used, and ordain
that another shall take its place, transferring all its legal force to the substitute. And when this appointment goes into effect, the new seal ratifies the covenant precisely as the old one did, at the time of the
transfer. If any part of the covenant had from any
cause expired, if any part terminated at the very moment the transfer was made, then the new seal covers
and continues just what the old one would have done
had it been continued afterwards."
Thus Circumcision covered all that was contemplated and promised from the calling of Abraham to the
time the covenant was closed and the seal affixed.
And when the temporary items terminated, as in the
case of the land of Canaan; the spiritual Canaan
typified, and other blessings embraced, still remained
as secure as before.
So when Christ, the promised seed, came in the flesh,
he went on to fulfil the duties implied and necessary
to the perfection of a covenant of grace, securing to
men salvation through faith. And every fulfilment
that thus takes place, should inspire us with greater
confidence in that which is yet to come - confidence
in the promise that " He will be our God," and make
us all the spiritual " children of Abraham," who
"walk in the steps of the faith of Abraham," and
bless us with the realization of all that was expected
from a promised Saviour and an inheritance of the
Heavenly Canaan.
And when the seal of Circumcision was changed for
that of Baptism, then Baptism sanctioned all that Circumcision would have secured had it been continued.
Therefore, the membership of Infants under the
New is asvalid and binding as it was under the Old.




RECOGNITION OF INFANT MEMBERSHIP.    139
No change was made in their case at the time of the
abrogation of the old seal; there is nothing in the nature of the new, or in the terms of the covenant, by
which it could be terminated; and who will dare assume the responsibility to take from them a right
which they have so long possessed?
8. It has been objected that Baptism did not take
the place of Circumcision because they were both practised together for some time after the Gospel Dispensation had begun.  We might as well contend that
the Lord's Day did not take the place of the Jewish
Sabbath, because both days were kept by Jewish believers for some years after the Gospel was preached
and embraced among them. Jewish Christians for a
long period continued Circumcision and the Jewish
Sabbath and other rites of their old religion, after they
embraced Christianity.1 They supposed that the Christian religion was something to be superadded to what
they already possessed, to perfect their own system of
religion. And therefore they added the Lord's day to
their own Sabbath, and Baptism as an additional rite
to their other ceremonies. And the continuance of Circumcision itself proves that they regarded their little
children as embraced in the Gospel Church. For they
could not have added a system which excluded little
children to one that embraced them, supposing the two
to harmonize and make one whole, had they been informed that little children could no longer be continued in God's Church with their believing parents. And
that Circumcision was generally regarded as a religious,
not merely a national rite, is placed beyond all question by the fact that it was urged by Jewish Christians
upon Gentile converts as necessary to their salvation:
Acts xv., xxi.; Irenamus, i. 26; Euseb., iii. 32.




140     HEBREW CHRISTIANS ADHERE TO MOSES.
" Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses,
ye cannot be saved." (Acts xv. 1.)
This happened some sixteen years 1 after the Gospel Dispensation had been in successful operation,
which proves that they still circumcised their children,
and supposed it to be a rite necessary to salvation.
But had infants been refused Baptism, the nature of
Circumcision must have been discussed and defined
long before this, instead of which a Council of, the
Church was held at this time in Jerusalem to decide
on the authority of Circumcision in the Christian
Church, and whether it should be imposed on Gentile
converts.2 Now if they had been taught that little
children could not be received into the new Covenant,
and that the Circumcision which they had continued
among them so long in the Christian Church, was only
a national badge, how could such a difficulty have then
arisen? We call upon the opposers of Infant Baptism
to reply. The thing is obvious. Infant membership
had been continued; the Jews were permitted to circumcise and to baptize; and as long as Jewish ceremonies were made subordinate to those more strictly
Christian, they were not proscribed, because they were
not in their spirit opposed to the Christian system.
But now that undue importance is given to them, and
Circumcision supposed to be an essential part of the religion of Christ, it is time for the Church in Council
to declare that it is not necessary to the Gospel Dispensation. These Gentile converts had been baptized,
and as baptism was a public profession of Christ and
the initiatory rite into his Church, this was sufficient.
So Jewish Christians long kept both the Lord's day
I See best chronologe,'s - Hales, Townsend, and others.
2 This question will be more fully discussed under the Scriptural texts
for Infant Membership. Acts xv. and xxi.




CIRCUMCISION SUPERSEDED BY BAPTISM.   141
and the Jewish Sabbath; but Gentile believers, and
those who accepted the Gospel of Christ in its simplicity, kept only the " Lord's day," and observed only
Baptism as the seal of the Christian Dispensation.
Baptism and the Lord's day could not be said in point
of fact to take the place of Circumcision and of the
Jewish Sabbath for those who united the two Dispensations; but to all, then and now, who receive the Gospel, and practise only its own ordinances, the Lord's
day is instead of the Jewish Sabbath, and Baptism
the initiatory rite of religion instead of Circumcision.
And whether we choose to call one the substitute of
the other or not, Baptism has succeeded Circumcision,
as the Lord's day has succeeded the Jewish Sabbath, and answers all the spiritual purposes, holds the
same place in the same Church, while Circumcision has
passed away.
Circumcision was the door of admission into the
Church of God under the Patriarchal and Mosaic Dis*
pensations. (Gen. xvii. 10; Ex. xii. 48.)
Baptism is the door of admission under the Christian Dispensation.  (Matt. xxviii. 19.)
Circumcision was the token of God's covenant with
his ancient people. (Gen. xvii. 11.)
Baptism is the same with his people of the present day. (Mark xvi. 16.)
Circumcision of the flesh was symbolical of the circumcision of the heart in the spirit.  (Rom. ii. 29.)
So Baptism is symbolical of the cleansing and renewing of the heart by the same spirit. (Acts. xxii.
16.)
Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of
faith. (Rom. iv. 11.)
And " as many as have been baptized into Christ




142      BAPTISM, CHRISTIAN CIRCUMCISION.
have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek,
there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male
nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus, And
if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and
heirs according to the promise." (Gal. iii. 27, 29.)
And accordingly St. Paul calls Baptism  "the Circumcision of Christ " —"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:"
(Col. ii. 11, 12.)
Hence the ancient Fathers, adopting the same language, were in the habit of calling Baptism the " Circumcision made without hands," and " the circumcision
of Christ."'  Justin Martyr, who lived when many
were yet upon the earth, who, as before remarked, had
seen and heard the Apostles with their own eyes and
ears tells us that Christians put off the body of the
sins of the flesh by Christian Circumcision, i. e., Baptismr. " We have not received that Circumcision which
is according to the flesh, but that which is spiritual...... And we have received it in Baptism." 2 Again,
"lWe are circumcised by Baptism, by Christ's Circumcision." 3
Origen says, " Christ gives us Circumcision by Baptism." 4 Fidus hesitated to baptize children before
the eighth day after their birth, the time at which Circumcision was always administered. And Cyprian, to
whom the question was referred, and sixty-six bishops
in council, gave as their judgment that it might be administered before; especially in time of danger to the
child's life.5 Such a question would never have arisen
1 Justin, Basil, Chrysostom, Augustine, and others.
2 Dialog. caum TGyph., page 59.  8 Quest. ad Orthodox.
4 Horn. v.                     5 Cypriani Epis. 64.




AUGUSTINE AND INFANT BAPTISM.        143
had it not been that Baptism was regarded as having
superseded Circumcision. Chrysostom says, " There
was pain and trouble in the practice of Circumcision,
but our Circumcision, I mean the Grace of Baptism,
gives cure without pain.... and has no determinate
time as that had, but in the very beginning of age, or
the middle of it, or any other time one may receive this
Circumcision made without hands." 1
Basil writes, " And dost thou put off the Circumcision made without hands in the putting off the flesh
which is performed in Baptism, when thou hearest our
Lord himself say:'Verily, verily I say unto you,
except one be born of the water and the Spirit, he
shall not enter into the kingdom of God?' " 2
10. We need hardly add others, to satisfy any
reasonable mind that the early fathers in the Church
believed, and so understood St. Paul to teach, that
Baptism in spiritual things, had taken the place of
Circumcision.  We will, however, cite one more witness to show not only the relation of the two rites to
each other, but what was the teaching of the brightest luminary of the ancient Church in regard to this
whole subject. The celebrated Augustine, Bishop of
Hippo, after stating that "Infant Baptism  was the
practice of the whole Church, not instituted by councils, but ever in use by Apostolic authority," 3 speaks
of its importance in the following terms: " We may
make a true estimate how much the sacrament of
Baptism does avail Infants, by the Circumcision which
God's former people received. For Abraham was
justified before he received that; as Cornelius was
1 Hornm. xl.
2 Oratio exhortatoria ad Baptismum.
8 Augustine De Baptismo contra Donatistas, lib. iv. chap. 15.




144          AUGUSTINE'S PARALLEL OF
indued with the Holy Spirit before he received Baptism. And yet the Apostle says of Abraham that
he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith, by which he had in heart
believed, and it had been counted to him for righteousness. Why then was he commanded to circumcise all his male infants on the eighth day, when they
could not yet believe with the heart, that it might be
counted to them for righteousness, but for this reason,
because the sacrament itself is of itself of great import?  Therefore, as in Abraham the righteousness
of faith went before; and Circumcision, the seal of the
righteousness of faith, came after; so in Cornelius
the spiritual sanctification by the gift of the Holy
Spirit went before; and the sacrament of regeneration by the laver of Baptism came after. And as in
Isaac, who was circumcised the eighth day, the seal of
the righteousness of faith went before, and (as he was
a follower of his father's faith) the righteousness
itself, the seal whereof had gone before in his infancy,
came after; so in infants baptized, the sacrament of
regeneration goes before, and (if they put in practice
the Christian religion) conversion of the heart, the
mystery whereof went before in their body, comes
after." I
Such is a summary of the whole matter as received
in Augustine's day.
First, That Infant Baptism was the practice of
the universal Church, and admitted by all to be of
Apostolical authority.
Second, That it conveyed all the spiritual blessings of Circumcision, and was therefore of great import.
1 Augustine Contra Donatistas, lib. iv. c. 15.




THE CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART.       145
And third, That it is the seal of the sanctification
of the spirit, or of justification by faith, as was Circumcision. And as Circumcision was given to children
before they could believe, so Baptism is given to children before they can believe. Where then is the
force of the objection, Little children must not be
baptized because they cannot believe? Could the
children of Abraham believe? and yet did they not
receive the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith and symbol of the circumcision of
the heart? How then can the reader of the preceding pages exclude little children from Baptism on
such a plea as this? And need we prolong this
chapter to prove that Baptism has superseded Circumcision and secures to Christians and to their little
children all the spiritual blessings of the first seal?
We can do so, but surely no intelligent reader will
deem it necessary. But we write for all.
10




146              ST. PAUL'S DEFINI'rION,
CHAPTER VI.
RELATION OF CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM, CONCLUDED.
St. Paul's Definition of Circumcision. -Exposition of the Moral Law
under Moses. - Old Testament appealed to by Christ and his Apostles.
- Transfer of the Kingdom. - Branches of the Wild Olive grafted into
the Good Olive Tree. -Strangers and Foreigners made Fellow-citizens
with the Saints. - New and Better Covenant. - New and Old, Comparative Terms. - Basis of the Christian Church. - Gentiles brought
in with Jews. - Faith of Parents avails for their Children. - Hannah.
- Nobleman. — Woman of Canaan. - Religion always a Family Thing.
- Baptism on the Faith of the Parent. - Practice of all the Ancient
Churches.
~ 20. IT is truly painful to witness the reckless
manner in which partisan writers often treat and
speak of Circumcision and the Patriarchal and Mosaic
Dispensations.   "Circumcision  (say  they)  was a
mere national badge by which Abraham's descendants were to be-distinguished from the rest of the
world, and to remind them of the promise of the
land of Canaan. And the Mosaic Dispensation was
a religio-political commonwealth instituted for a
specific end, and temporary in its nature."
1. Will such permit inspired Apostles and God's
own Son to explain the character and objects of these
institutions? Does St. Paul say that Circumcision
was a mere national badge implying only temporary
blessings? Hear him: " For he is not a Jew, which
is one outwardly; neither is that Circumcision which
is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew which is one
inwardly: and  Circumcision is that of the heart, in




THE CIRCUMCISION OF THE HEART.     147
the Spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not
of men but of aod."  (Rom. ii. 28, 29.)
Can language teach more plainly that Circumcision pointed to things spiritual as well as temporal?
Does not the Apostle in these words, beyond all
controversy, teach that Circumcision is an outward
visible sign of an inward spiritual grace, -to wit,
the circumcision of the heart, which is necessary to
make us the true children of Abraham?
And did our Saviour regard that as a mere
national institution, to the members of which he
said — " Many shall come from the east and from
the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out?" (Matt. viii.
11, 12.)
"Children of what kingdom? " and what connection had it with " Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the
kingdom of heaven," but as the visible part of a
kingdom begun here on earth to prepare men for its
perfect state in heaven, into which Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob had already entered? The Jews
were members of this kingdom on earth, and the
Saviour thus warns them of the danger of being
excluded, for the want of fitness, from its perfect
state and blessings in heaven.
Is it more reasonable to conclude, that God called
out Abraham into the land of Canaan to bestow on
him and his descendants merely temporal blessings,
and to point out the lineage of our Saviour through
the flesh some two thousand vears before he came,
than for the higher purpose of preserving the true
religion,1 and establishing a visible covenant that
1 Joshua xxiv.; Exodus; Romans; Galatians.




148        CHARACTER OF ABRAHAM.
should be a witness to the grace of God, and of the
fulfilment of his promises to faith and obedience, as
well as in regard to the lineage of Christ? thus encouraging works of piety and fitting men for the kingdom of heaven; while at the same time proofs of the
fulfilment of his promises, and of the claims of the
Saviour would be accumulating?
2. Strange that a covenant which testifies to justification by faith, and points out Abraham as the
father of a spiritual as well as of a natural seed,
and the members of which are held up as patterns
to Christians of the present Jay, should ever have
been supposed by any one, to be a mere national institution.
And the more so from the fact, that to avoid the
idolatry and sin of his people and to fulfil the great
duties of religion, constituted the grand object for
which Abram  was called out from  among  his
people.' And even as a preliminary to the confirmation of that covenant the command was issued,
" Walk before me, and be thou perfect; "2 and he was
commended afterwards for his faithfulness in training
his children in the way of the Lord. "For I know
him that he will command his children and his household after him, that they shall keep the way of the
Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord
may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken
of him." 3 And his faith and devotion were yet more
highly approved in the offering up of his son Isaac,
in obedience to Divine command.4
Further, for the purpose of carrying out the spirit
and end for which this covenant was established,
Moses was also raised up, and additional laws and
I Joshua xxiv.  2 Gen. xvii. 1.  3 Gen. xviii. 19.  4 Gen. xxii




SPIRITUAL DUTIES UNDER MOSES.     149
ceremonies appointed,l by which to develop more
clearly its character and to combat more successfully
the influences of wickedness from within and without. The moral law which had been written in the
hearts of men from the beginning, and which lies
at the bottom of true religion and all duty, becoming
less intelligible and perhaps almost erased from the
minds of some, God commanded to be written on
stone, and kept among them: a more imposing ritual
and outward form of public worship was adopted,
and such rules and regulations, civil and religious, as
circumstances called for, were introduced by Divine
authority. And not only did he give them the law,
the spiritual nature of which we presume no one will
call in question, but God also called them  "A holy
people unto himself."  " For thou art an holy people
unto the Lord thy God, and the Lord hath chosen
thee to be a peculiar people unto Himself above all the
nations that are upon the earth."  And he enjoined
duties accordingly. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our
God is one Lord. And thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy might. And these words which I command thee this day shall be in thine heart; and thou
shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and thou
shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and
when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest
down, and when thou risest up."  (Deut. vi. 4, 5, 6.)
Are these duties of merely a national character, or
are they strictly spiritual?  "Ye shall be holy, for
I the Lord your God am holy."  (Levit. xix. 1.)
Yet again, " Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye
holy; for I am the Lord your God."  (Levit. xx. 7.)
1 Gal. iii. 19.




150      EXPOSITION OF THE JEWISH POLITY.
Such are specimens of the doctrines and duties inculcated under this so-called "Religio-political commonwealth." God its founder and the only object to
be worshipped - they, his peculiar people, who must
love him with all the heart, soul, and strength; and
diligently teach their children his statutes, and seek
to be holy, for their God is holy.
Now if the moral law, or ten commandments, with
such expositions as these, do not inculcate a spiritual
religion, will some one tell us what a spiritual religion
is? If the religion of Christ be more spiritual, please
point out the difference, and show in what that difference consists? In a word, did not Moses and the
prophets teach the very law which Christ came to
fulfil? and in rendering to it the duty due from
sinful men, open up to them the way of justification by faith, by which Abraham and all his spiritual
seed become the heirs of righteousness?
3. The addition of a civil polity to regulate the
civil and social relations of the Jews, did not destroy
the spiritual character of their Church. The Apostle
tells us in specific terms, as before referred to, that
the law which was four hundred and thirty years
after, could not annul the covenant made with Abraham; and therefore neither the addition nor removal
of the Mosaic Economy - its civil nor religious institutions - destroyed the spiritual principles and life
which underlay the superstructure, and from which
the Mosaic Economy derived all its strength and
efficacy.
And notwithstanding the mixed character of civil
and religious regulations in the polity of the Patriarchal and Mosaic Dispensations of the Church, it
must be remembered that under that polity were




APPEAL TO THE OLD TESTAMENT.     151
trained the prophets and holy men of old, who spake
and wrote " as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; "
that to it as the keeper of the truth were committed
the sacred oracles of God; and that from it we receive
the canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament as the
inspired word of God.
And to these writings did Christ and his Apostles
constantly appeal in support of their own teaching.
In the worship of that Church did they regularly
unite. And to the members of that Church who
would not accept the Saviour as their Messiah, he
said, " The kingdom of God shall be taken from you,
and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." What fruits did He mean, but those " of righteousness and peace?" and what kingdom but the
Church of which "He is the Head? " 1
Again, to the members of the Jewish Church he
said, "Other sheep I have, which are not of this
fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear my
voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd." 2
What "fold " was this to which he referred but the
Jewish Church, and what "other sheep" but converts among the Gentiles? And did He not teach
the sufficiency of that dispensation for the salvation
of men, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus,
when He informed the rich man in hell that Moses
and the Prophets were sufficient to save his brethren
in this world from coming to the same place? The
rich man, when informed that Lazarus could not
come to him  to mitigate his sufferings, besought
Abraham, "I pray thee, father, that thou wouldst
send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren,
that he may testify unto them, lest they also come
1 Col. i. 18.                i John x. 16.




152         MOSES AND THE PROPHETS.
into this place of torment.  Abraham  saith unto
him, They have 1MIoses and the Prophets; let them
hear them. And he said, Nay father Abraham, but
if one rose from the dead they will repent. And
he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the
Prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one
rose from the dead." 1
Now did Christ, in this parable, overrate the value
of Moses and the Prophets? and if not, did he not
teach the sufficiency of the Mosaic Dispensation for
the salvation of the people for whom it was provided?
And does he not speak of this same Dispensation
(including with it of course the stock into which it is
grafted) under the figure of a " vineyard," and point
to the Jewish nation as the husbandmen, who, because of their unfaithfulness and wickedness in killing the son of the Lord of the vineyard (Christ),
should therefore be driven out, and the vineyard let
out to other husbandmen? (Matt. xxi. 33-41.) And
does He not call this same vineyard, " the kingdom
of God," and say unto the Jews, "Therefore the
kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given
to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof? "2
Was then this " vineyard " and " kingdom of God"
destroyed in passing into other hands, or was it continued and improved under the management of more
faithful rulers?
Hear St. Paul describe the cause and manner of
the transfer. Some of the Jews were continued in it,
but the great majority excluded. In describing the
process, he uses the figure of an "olive tree and its
branches."   The  Jews, he calls the  " natural
branches;" the Gentile believers, the "branches of
1 Luke xvi. 27-31.          2 Matt. xxi. 43.




TRANSFER OF THE KINGDOM.       153
a wild olive tree." And he cautions the Gentile believers against boasting, and the danger of being
broken off also, saying, " 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 against
the branches: but if thou boast, thou bearest not
the root, but the root thee.... And they also (the
Jews), if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be
grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.
For if thou (Gentile) wert cut out of the olive tree
which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to
nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall
these which be the natural branches be grafted into
their own olive tree? " (Rom. xi. 17, 18-23, 24.)
Now how can the Jews be called the "natural
branches," and the Christian Church "their own
olive tree," from which they had been " broken off
because of unbelief," if it be not a continuation of
their Church which was under Moses and Abraham?
Remember, St. Paul is addressing the members of
the Christian Church at Rome - Gentile believers
into whose hands chiefly the "kingdom" had now
passed. And he calls the children of Abraham its
"' natural branches "- the Christian Church "their
own olive tree," from which they had been " broken
off," and Gentile believers, the "branches of a wild
olive tree " grafted into it.
If the covenant with Abraham had now ended, and
the Christian Church were an entire new Church, how
could Jewish believers be "grafted again" (7rwAtv
yevT-pL'aL) into that to which they had never belonged? and on what ground could it be called " their
own olive tree " from which they had been " broken
3ff," either as a nation or individuals?




154       OLIVE TREE AND ITS BRANCHES.
If the Abrahamic tree was dead and rooted up,
how would you graft its " natural branches" into it
again, or what " fatness" would Gentiles grafted
into it, derive from its dead " roots? " Do men graft
living scions into dead stocks, or can the branches live
if the stock be dead?
4. What does the Apostle mean, then, when he calls
the Christian Church the "olive tree" from which
unbelieving Jews were " broken off," and believing
Christians are "grafted" into it, and tells us that
the Jews, its " natural branches," if they abide not
in unbelief, shall be " grafted into it again? " What
but the tree planted in the days of Abraham, rooted
in the promise of Christ Jesus, nourished by patriarchs and prophets, and continuing to live and to
grow; and which is now waving its branches over
every part of Christendom, ready to receive returning
Israel and every other people desiring to partake of
its inexhaustible fatness in a Covenanted Saviour?
And were not little children grafted into this tree
from the beginning?
We could hardly frame testimony more full and
clear to certify that the Christian Church is a continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant; and hence, the
continuation of infant membership.
It is unnecessary to attempt to prove more clearly
to the intelligent reader, that the Christian scheme is
the continuation of the religion of the Old Testament
more fully developed and clearly understood. But,
for those who need line upon line, additional proof of
the same will be found in the fact, that the Gentiles
were called by the Apostles " aliens and strangers;"
and the Jews " saints," and  " Israel," and the'household of God." St. Paul writes to the Ephes



SAINTS AND HOUSEHOLD OF GOD.      155
ian converts, " Therefore ye are no more strangers
and foreigners; but fellow-citizens with the saints,
and of the household of God."
Now, why were the terms " aliens " and "strangers " applied to the Gentiles, and the Jews called
"saints," and the " household of God," with whomn
the Gentile strangers were made "fellow-citizens," 
but because of the fact, that Gentile Christians were
brought into the kingdom of the Jews, which was continued under the Christian dispensation, and under
the increased purifying light of which unbelieving
Israel was excluded and " broken off," and believing
Gentiles brought in and grafted into their places-?
And for this end, the Apostle tells us, the c" middle
wall of partition" between Jews and Gentiles was
broken down, that they who were without, might be
brought in, by the blood of Christ. For " in time
past," he writes to Gentile Christians, " Ye were
without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth
of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world; but
now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometime were far off, are
made nigh by the blood of Christ.. For He is our
peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken
down the middle wall of partition between us; having
abolished in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in Himself
of twain one new man, so making peace." (Ephes. ii.
11-15.) That is, the law and ordinances, by which
were secured to the Jews superior privileges over
other nations, are now deprived of their exclusive
power, and set at naught, and the way opened to all
to come in and enjoy equal favors with them. So
1 Read the whole chapter, Ephes. ii.




156      BASIS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
that the faithful of other nations, uniting with the
faithful of the Jews, might make "' one new man " in
Christ Jesus. Not by the Jews going out to the Gentiles, but by the Gentiles coming in to the Jews, and
taking their stand with them on the basis of the covenant of grace formed with their father Abraham.
Therefore the "new man " formed in Christ, does not
mean a new and independent Church in an absolute
sense then begun, but a union of the faithful of other
nations with the faithful of Israel in their covenant
privileges, to be trained under the teachings of apostles and prophets.
5. And that such was the basis of union, and order
of process in the organization of the Christian Church,
is a historical fact as well as a divine doctrine. Not
only to the Jews "pertained the adoption, and the
glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and
the services of God, and the promises "1  but among
them, and of them, was formed the first Christian
Church - and while they still regarded themselves
members of the Jewish Church, they received Christ as
their promised Messiah, who had come to fulfil and
perfect what was begun under their fathers.2  And
when Gentile converts were brought in among them
and it became generally known that they were to enjoy equal privileges with them under Christ, it was
an unsettled point whether they should observe the
peculiar rites of the Jewish, as well as of the Christian Church.3  This of itself proves, that these
" aliens" were carried into the "household" of the
Jews; and the branches of the wild olive tree hence
grafted among the branches of " the good olive tree." 4
For as yet they did not understand that the "new
1 Rom. ix. 4. 2 Acts ii. and iii. 8 Acts xiii., xv., xxi. 4 Acts xv.




MOSES SUPERSEDED BY CHRIST.           157
and better covenant " of the Gospel was to supersede
that of Moses which had now served its purpose, and
having "waxed old was ready to vanish away " I
leaving only the Abrahamic covenant upon which tL
graft the "new."  And in this there shall be neither
Jew nor Greek, and instead of circumcision Baptism
shall certify outwardly  " Abraham's spiritual seed
and heirs, according to the promise." 2 For, writes
the Apostle Paul, "as many of you as have been
baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. There is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free,
there is neither male nor female,3 for ye are all one
in Christ Jesus.  And if ye be Christ's, then are
ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. iii. 27, 28, 29.)
After reading this it could hardly have been a matter of doubt among the Galatians, whether the Christian dispensation was to supersede that of Moses, and
was designed to carry out and perfect the promise
made to Abraham; and that by Baptism, instead of
Circumcision, we put on Christ, through whom all are
made the children of Abraham, without regard to nation or condition of race.
Thus history and doctrine explain each other, and
unite their strength in testifying to the perpetuation
of the Abrahamic covenant, and infant membership
under the Gospel.
As to the objection made on the ground that the
Gospel covenant is called a "new  and better cove1 Heb. viii. 13.                    2 Gal. iii. 27-29.
3 To females were secured the blessings and promises of nation and
race, by obedience to the laws of matrimony, and living in harmony with
the regulations of the covenant of circumcision. And further following
the faith of Abraham, they secured the blessings and title of his spiritual
seed.




158      A NEW AND BETTER COVENANT.
nant," and therefore different from the "old," the
reader need only refer to the passages in both the Old
and New Testaments, to convince him that the comparison is made between the Mosaic and Christian
covenants -not between the Christian and Abrahamic. " Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when
I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah; not according to that
I made with their fathers in the day when I took them
by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt."
(Heb. viii. 8, 9.)1 The time, when they were " led
out of the land of Egypt " was the period at which
Moses was called to act, some four hundred and thirty
years after the calling of Abraham. And hence the
Gospel is called a " new and better covenant " in comparison with that made with Moses.  The terms
";new " and " old" are often used in a comparative
sense. For instance, the Corinthian Church is exhorted
to " purge out the old leaven " that it may be a " new
lump " 2 -not to go to work and found a new Church,
but to cleanse and purify the old one.  Purge it
of offending members and erroneous doctrines, and
then it would be reformed into a "new body" or
" lump"- as an altered or amended constitution of a
state is called a " new constitution;" or a kingdom to
which new domains have been added, and in which
new laws are introduced and other changes made, is
by liberty of speech called a "' new kingdom." So the
Gospel Dispensation is called a " new " and a " better covenant, which was established on better promises " than Moses, " who served unto the example and
shadow of heavenly things."
The same principle applies to the use of the term
1 Jeremiah xxxi. 32.         2 1 Cor. v. 7.




THE REDEEMER HAS COME TO ZION.    159
"build," and other forms of speech. As when the
Apostle Paul tells the Ephlesian elders the word of
God's grace is able to " build " them up. (Acts. xx.
32.) By which he does not necessarily imply the
beginning, but rather the continuing, of that which
had been already begun. So when our Saviour said
to Peter, " Upon this rock I will build my church," L
— found the Christian Dispensation, -He did not
necessarily imply the beginning of everything pertaining to church organization - that He would originate an entirely new thing, never before known —
but build up a new dispensation under which the
Church, which had been in existence many centuries,
must now be guided and ruled. He will now set up
a kingdom (or government) that shall never be destroyed. " The gates of hell shall not prevail against
it." 2  " It shall stand forever." S  The day has
dawned in which "the Gentiles shall come to her
light, and kings to the brightness of her rising "
and " The forces of the Gentiles shall come as a cloud,
and as doves to her windows, and shall know the Lord,
her Saviour and Redeemer, the mighty one of Jacob." 4
Thus through the shadow of good things to come,
the voice of Prophecy unites with that of Christ and
his Apostles in proclaiming, instead of the destruction of Zion and a new and distinct Church in her
place, that her Redeemer would come to her assistance and revive her; that he would enlarge her
borders, and exalt her grandeur beyond that of her
first glory.
And in accordance with her enlarged sphere and
more fully developed character, means of grace and
1 Matt. xvi. 18.         2 Matt. xvi. 18.
8 Daniel ii. 44.         4 Isaiah ch. lx.




160       ZION IMPROVED AND ENLARGED.
aids to faith are adopted. The services of Moses
have been changed into a more simple and spiritual
worship, and the bloody rite of Circumcision into
Christian Baptism, which can be applied without distinction to male and female, to Jew and Gentile, to
all classes - even to infants in the beginning of life.
And the sooner they are brought into the nursery of
-the Church, and the more diligently they are trained
in its duties and doctrines, as the foster children of
Christ, and thus truly "brought up in the nurture
and admonition of the Lord," the better for them,
and for the cause of our common Christianity.
Religion always has been and always should be, a
family matter; and to deny to little children Baptism
because they cannot believe, is to object to the wisdom
of God's government of his people in all past ages.
For they ever have been included with their parents in
covenanted blessings with Him, and need as much the
nurture of the Church under the Gospel as they did
under the Law. And the very same reasons assigned
for excluding them from the one would have excluded
them from the other. Infants could not of themselves
have entered into covenant relations under Abraham,
nor were they capable of exercising the faith and
inward graces of Circumcision as a covenant, any
more than they are those of Baptism.
6. Both rites were based alike on faith. Circumcision was not only the mark of nation and race, but
the symbol of the circumcision of the heart — the
badge of God's people —the sign and seal of the
righteousness of faith. And yet it was given to little
children only eight days old. Baptism can mean no
more, and yet it is denied to little children by some
because they cannot believe! And the oft-repeated




INFANTS UNDER BOTH DISPENSATIONS.    161
quotation - as oft abused as quoted in such a connection -is made, " They which are of faith, the same
are the children of Abraham," 1 as if any one now
doubted that by faith, Gentiles as well as Jews are
"blessed with faithful Abraham."  But does this
exclude their children from being blessed likewise
with Abraham's, and annul the doctrine so frequently
taught in the Holy Scriptures, that God will show
mercy upon the children of those who love Him,
"even upon children's children of such as keep his
commandments? " 2
We would ask of those who suppose the father's
faith imparts no benefit to his child - if they have
never read what the faith of Hannah did for Samuel?
and the faith of the nobleman in the Gospel for his
son at the point of death? and the faith of the
woman of Canaan for her daughter vexed with the
devil, and other like examples? If so, why try to
deprive little children of all the advantages thus
secured to them under Gospel grace?
From Circumcision alone, are derived the following
arguments in favor of Infant Baptism: —
1. The analogy of the office of Baptism and Circumcision. Baptism, as an initiatory rite, holds the
same place under the new, which Circumcision did
under the old.
2. The perpetuity of the Abrahamic covenant,
proves that Baptism holds the same place, in the same
Church, and fulfils the same spiritual ends, while Circumcision has passed away.
3. The writings of the most celebrated of the
ancient fathers teach, that in things spiritual, Baptism
1 Gal. iii. 7-9.
2 Exod. xx., Deut. x., xxx.; Ps. ciii., cxii.; Rom. xi.
11




162       FAITH OF PARENTS AVAILS MUCH.
was regarded by primitive Christians as having taken
the place of Circumcision.1
4. In point of fact, Baptism did supersede Circumcision in the progress of the Christian Church. For
both being practised together for some time by Jewish
Christians, it was decided by a council of Apostles,
elders, and brethren in Jerusalem'(Acts xv.), that
Circumcision was not necessary under the Christian
Dispensation, and it gradually ceased, and only Baptism was continued.
Now, in addition to this independent line of proof,
remember that we have traced through history the
practice of baptizing infants up to the Apostolic age
- and then to the middle of that age; when family
baptisms are recorded as if as much a matter of course
as individual baptisms; when during a missionary visit
of the Apostle Paul with some brethren to Philippi,
we read that two families were baptized - and these
only; Lydia and her household, the Jailer and all his;
no names are given, nor the faith of any specified,
except of the head of each family.  If all the members of these families were baptized ion their own
profession of faith, it would be very remarkable, in
the first place, that every member of them should be
suddenly converted and baptized, and no others in
the town; and in the second place, if each one was
baptized on his own individual faith, that the names
of none should be recorded but those of the bead of
each family. But admit that these family baptisms
were composed of minors and little children with
their parents, then all is plain, and just what we
might anticipate.2   And another fact is also ex1 See Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, and othlers.
2 These cases will be more fully examined under the head of "' Scriptural Testimony."




ALL ANCIENT CHURCHES BAPTIZE LITTLE CHILDREN.  163
plained, why in all places where the Apostles and
their successors planted churches - in every country
of whatever language, all the Ancient Churches,
however widely separated, by whatever name called,
Greek, Syrian, Roman, Armenian, Coptic, Yestorian,
Eutychian, and others, EVER HAVE, AND DO STILL
BAPTIZE LITTLE CHILDREN.




164       TESTIMONY  OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
CHAPTER VII.
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.
The Grand Commission to the Apostles to Baptize all Nations.- True
Principles of Interpretation. —Infants had been always Members of
the Church, and no Restriction now made in Regard to Them. - Jewish
Practice with Proselytes. - Talmud and Mishna. - Objection to Baptizing before Teaching, answered. - The Church a School. - Objection
to the Want of Faith in Little Children, answered - Christ's Treatment of Little Children shows they were not to be regarded as " Aliens
and Strangers " to his Kingdom. - True Rendering of the Text, " Of
such is the Kingdom of God." - The Promise to Children repeated in the
First Sermon under the Gospel Commission. - Family Baptisms - Lydia
and her Children, the Jaller and all his, and the Family of Stephanus. -
Meaning of OiKo,, " House." - In the Absence of Demonstration, the
GREATER PROBABILITY, the Law of Action. - Claims of Duty between
an Old Established Rite, and Supposed Error.
~ 21. HAVING traced the practice of baptizing the
infant children of believers up into the Apostolic age,
and shown from the history and teaching of the
Primitive Church, that in the first generation after
the Apostles, Christians baptized infant children; and
having shown that Baptism has taken the place of
Circumcision, hence Infant Baptismn the place of Infant Circumcision; let us now see whether the Holy
Scriptures confirm our conclusions by more direct
teaching? And we will begin with the first recorded
authority for baptizing in the name of Christ, in the
sacred record.
1. On a mountain in Galiloe were met together the
eleven disciples of our Lord, by his own appointment,
made after his resurrection.   " \~l.d Jesus came and




THE GRAND COMMISSION.          165
spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me
in heaven and in earth."
MATT. xxviii. 19, 20. — " Go ye therefore and
teach (disciple) all nations, baptizing them  in the
name of the _Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever
I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world."
This is the Grand Commission under which the
Apostles were to act in planting the Christian Church.
They were to tarry in- Jerusalem until baptized by
the Holy Ghost, and then commence in that same city
the momentous work herein assigned them. But
how did they understand their commission? This is
the point for us to settle. The language in which it
is couched seems to this age rather general; but to
them, no doubt, was sufficiently definite. Why more
definite to them than to us? Because of previous
instruction, and their acquaintance with circumstances
of which we are ignorant. We say ignorant, unless
we will examine and learn the usages, manners, and
laws of the Jews at that time, together with the peculiar circumstances under which this commission was
issued.
This brings us to that most important of all laws
in the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures, or of
any other ancient writing, and to which we have
before alluded: that is, to make ourselves acquainted,
as far as possible, with all the circumstances and influences under which everything was said and done -
to study the manners, customs, and peculiarities of
the people, and endeavor to place ourselves in the
midst of the same age, and collect around us all the
"circumstances and influences" bys which the writer
or speaker was at the time affected.




166      OBVIOUS RULE OF INTERPRETATION.
In this commission no exception is made to nation,
person, age, or sex. " Go ye, therefore, and disciple
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But
inasmuch as no age is specified, the question has been
raised whether he intended to include the young children or not. The command to "disciple all nations"
(uaOqTerEv'oaT7E 7ravra -5 TOvr'), translated in our version,
"teach all nations," seems not to be sufficiently
definite to satisfy the minds of many that young children are included. Before entering on a philological
inquiry, however, let us first try this passage by the
principle of interpretation to which we have just
alluded, and see how, according to that plain and
obvious rule, the Apostles must have understood their
commission.
In giving directions or issuing a command, certain
things are always taken for granted as being well
known, and we only aim to be explicit enough to be
clearly understood. For instance, a messenger is sent
to the post-office; the order issued is, " Go and bring
my papers," or simply " Go to the post-office."  The
messenger goes and brings letters, newspapers, and
pamphlets; and he acts in accordance with the intention of him who sent him; although, perhaps, he
simply told him "to bring his papers," or merely to
"go to the post-office."  Again, the merchant tells
his clerk to collect certain debts, but does not tell
him to carry with him the accounts or give receipts:
these are taken for granted as known to be embraced,
and necessary to the execution of his orders. And
thus we might cite numerous examples, in which
much is generally taken for granted in all kinds of
commissions and orders.




KNOWLEDGE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES.    167
Now put a novice, unaccustomed to either of the
above duties, in the place of one or both of these
individuals, and he would not execute the orders thus
given. Why not? Because things are taken for
granted in which he has never been instructed. And
so, many things are often implied in one age, that
are not known to following ages; and orders and
instructions then given, or allusions made, are not
understood, or are misapprehended in following years,
because things then taken for granted, or the circumstances under which they were spoken, are unknown.
And hence it is, we find many things in Latin and
Greek authors, and in the Holy Scriptures likewise,
which are perfectly unintelligible to us, till we learn
that certain usages and laws prevailed in those
countries during that age.  For instance, it is recorded by the Evangelists (Matt. ix. 17, Mark ii. 22,
and Luke v. 37, 38), " that if we put new wine into
old bottles, the bottles will break and the wine run
out, but if we put it into new bottles both will be
preserved." How shall we interpret this passage
without some knowledge of the nature of the bottles
used in the Apostolic age? So far as the bottles of
this age are concerned, those that have been proved
by use are more to be depended on than new ones.
But so soon as we learn that'the bottles used in those
days were made of the skins of animals, and that
when those skins became dry and old they lost their
elasticity, and would not distend sufficiently to allow
for the fermentation of their new wines, we see at
once the force and beauty of the illustration.
Again, it is recorded that when (Matt. v. 13)
" salt has lost his savor, it is thenceforth good for




168  NECESSARY FOR CORRECT INTERPRETATION.
nothing, but to be cast out and trodden under foot of
men." Now we know that the muriate of soda,
which is the common salt used in this country, must
entirely evaporate before it can lose its saltness; so
obscurity hangs over this passage till it is known that
the rock salt of Judea, used in the time of the
Saviour, was dug from the earth, and found mixed
with a white earthy substance, which, when the salt
had evaporated by exposure to the weather, was good
for nothing but to be scattered along walks and such
like places. Now, the darkness is dissipated, and the
beauty of the illustration appreciated.
Various other passages might be adduced, and some
of a much stronger character, but these are selected
because simple and plain, and sufficiently illustrate
the principle, that some knowledge of the age and
its usages in which the Apostles wrote, is indispensably
necessary to a clear understanding of the Holy Scriptures.
Let us then take a case that shows the application
of this principle to the passage under consideration.
Suppose some one of the Christian denominations in
our land were about to send eleven missionaries to
one of the Pacific Isles, and should say to them in
nearly the words of the Saviour: " Go ye, therefore,
and disciple all the people, baptizing them in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost." Would they not construe these words according to the former practice of the Church to which
they belonged, and act in regard to the young children as they and their people with whom they were
associated had always acted? Most assuredly. If
sent out by the. Methodists, or Presbyterians, or
Lutherans, or any other denomination among whom




INFLUENCE OF PREVIOUS USAGE.    169
young children are baptized, they would understand
their commission to include young children with their
parents, and would baptize them.  Wherefore?
Because they had always been accustomed to receive
young children, and knew that those who sent them
did the same, and therefore it was not necessary to
specify more minutely in the charge given them.
But suppose this same number of men had been sent
out by the Baptist denomination, how would they
understand the charge? Why, that children are not
included.  And for the same reasons given in the
case of the others, - they were not accustomed to the
Baptism of little children, and knew that those who
sent them were opposed to it; and therefore there
was no necessity for them to be more specific in regard
to young children. Both equally sincere -both acting in accordance with the intention of the charge
given them, and yet acting in direct opposition on
this point.
In both cases there was no necessity for being more
explicit, and yet so much is taken for granted, that a
third party in a different country would not be able to
understand such a commission, until they had made
themselves acquainted with the rites and practices of
those by whom the commission was given. Here,
then, we see the absolute necessity of going back to
the days of the Apostles, and endeavoring to make
ourselves acquainted with the usages of the Jews, and
the peculiar circumstances under which this comnmission was issued. We have seen how those who immediately succeeded the Apostles understood it; let
us, then, in the next place, examine the rites and
usages to which the Apostles had been accustomed,
and the circumstances under which they received it,
and see if we can learn how they acted under it.




170    ON INTERPRETATION OF COMMISSIONS.
2. Now these very men unto whom this " commission " was given, had been themselves made members
of the Jewish Church in their infancy. They had
been accustomed all their lives to regard young and old
of the same family as members together of the same
Church - all alike included in the same covenant —
entitled to the same religious privileges, heirs together
of the same Divine promises. With such training and
ideas of Church organization, how would they probably interpret a commission that made no exception to
young children? As Infants had always been received into the Church up to that time, is it at all
probable that they would now exclude them without
specific instructions so to do?
No one doubts whether it was the custom of the
Jews to confer the initiatory rite of their religion on
their children in early infancy, and that their children
were regarded as capable of covenanted privileges,
and recognized throughout the Old Testament Dispensation as members of the Church with their parents.
And when to men, who had been thus associated all
their lives, is given a" commission " broad enough to
include little children- ay, expressed in the very terms
commonly applied to Jewish members (uaOrLTat, taOVEvrcaT1E) "disciples and make disciples" (St. John
ix. 28), 1 how must they have construed it in regard
to infants, no exception being made to them? When
commanded to disciple all nations, would they not
suppose all were included, little ones as well as their
parents?
Suppose Circumcision to be put in the place of Baptism, and their commission had run " Go ye and disciple all nations, circumcising them in the name of the
1 See Talmud.




COMPREHENSIVENESS OF COMMISSION.    171
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;"
doubt ye that they would have hesitated a moment
about circumcising the children of their converts?
You cannot, since you know that this was continued
for a long time, together with Baptism.1 And if children were no longer considered capable of covenanted
blessings, we ask again, why was it not made known,
instead of permitting them to be circumcised by members of the Christian Church? If the Messiah intended to curtail the religious privileges which little
children had enjoyed with their fathers ever since God
had established a visible Church for his people, is it not
reasonable to suppose some specification would be
made in this commission, or in his teaching, otherwise? But instead of any intimation of that kind,
He had on the contrary declared that " of such is the
kingdom of God:" had commanded little children to
be brought to Him to receive his blessing, and had
shown by word and gesture they were not to be treated
as "aliens" in his Church.
Further, these men had been already ordained to
preach" (Mark iii. 13, 14; Matt. x. 5, 7), and had
preached to and worshipped with Jews, recognizing
them and their little children as fellow-menibers of
the same Church; but now the "middle wall of partition is broken down "- Christ has tasted death
for every man, and risen from the dead; all power
is given unto him, and he commissions them to " go
into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every
creature"; their commission is enlarged, not dimininished; Gentiles are included with Israel.  Restrictions are removed instead of being imposed - parents
1 Acts xv., xxi.




172        BAPTISM OF JEWISH PROSELYTES.
and children of other nations are to be baptized in the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
3. Again, at the time our Saviour delivered this
commission, it was, and had been for many centuries,
as we shall show, the custom of the Jews to baptize
all their proselytes from other nations, both parents
and children.  Their rule was first to circumcise,
then baptize, and then offer for them a sacrifice. Circumcision brought them  under the Abrahamic Covenant, Baptism brought them under the Mosaic. The
offering of the sacrifice was in obedience to the ritual
law. And they referred to Numbers xv. 15, for thus
acting with proselytes, which reads: " One ordinance
shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for
the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance
forever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the
stranger be before the Lord." By stranger, all of
other nations were included, whether young children
found in an exposed state and taken home, or parents
with their children who joined their religion, or even
those who became servants to them.'
Maimonides, the great interpreter of the Jewish law,
says: -
" And so in all ages, when an Ethnic is willing to enter into
covenant and gather himself under the wings of the Majesty of
God, and take upon him the yoke of the law; he must be circumcised and baptized, and bring a sacrifice. As it is written,'As you are, so shall the stranger be.' How are you? By circumcision, and Baptism, and bringing of a sacrifice. So likewise
the stranger (or proselyte) through all generations; by circumcision, and Baptism, and bringing of a sacrifice."'2
Baptism was administered to all the children who
were born before the parents' Baptism, but not to
1 See Lightfoot and Wootten.    2 Isuri Bia. c. 13, cited by Wall.




CIRCUMCISION, BAPTISM, AND SACRIFICE.    173
those born after it, because these were by birth inheritors of the ceremonial privileges obtained by it.
This was in conformity also to the above rule: for
their forefathers were all of them Jews, baptized unto
Moses in the cloud and in the sea - men, women, and
children; but those born afterwards were by birth inheritors of the privileges of Baptism, and only circumcision and sacrifice were necessary for them.  " The
sons of proselytes (says Lightfoot) in the following
generations were circumcised, but not baptized, as
being  already  Israelites."   Maimonides  says, "A
proselyte under age, they are wont to baptize on the
knowledge of the house of judgment [the court], because this is for his good." 1 That is, when orphans
were baptized the court or consistory acted as parents
for them.
Concerning the age of the child to be baptized they
had this rule. " Any male child, a proselyte, that is
under the age of thirteen years and a day, and females
that are under twelve years and a day, must be baptized as infants, at the request and by the assent of the
father, or the authority of the Court, because such an
one is not yet the son of assent "- that is, not old
enough to be baptized on his own responsibility.
The Jerusalem Mishna says that if a girl, born of
heathen parents, be made a proselyte after she be three
years and a day old, she is not to have such and such
privileges. And the Babylonian edition reads, if she
be made a proselyte before that age, she shall enjoy
such privileges.2 From which it must be obvious to
1 See Wall, vol. i., Intro. sec. 3.
lbideim.
This shows that the objection raised against Maimonides as not ancient enough, is of no force, since the Mishna [the text] of both the Jerusalell and Babylonish Talmuds, contains regulations for children made
proselytes under and beyond three years of age. The Mishna was com



174           EARLY DATE OF THE MISHNA.
every reader, that children, however young, were made
proselytes.
Thus we see that Infant Baptism  itself was practised from time to time before John the Baptist came
preaching the Baptism of Repentance. Hence it was
the people manifested no surprise at Baptism itself, but
that John should baptize, as sanctifying the people
for some great personage, and new dispensation, when
he acknowledged himself not to be the Christ nor
Elias, nor that prophet which was to come.  " Why
baptizest thou then," I was their inquiry, " if thou be
none of these "? 9Why this extra ablution and preparation of Jews, if not for their promised Messiah,
and his dispensation, or for some prophet that is to
come? Which corroborates the Talmud, that Baptism, or purification by water, was a thing in use and
well known before the coming of John.
Now what can be more obvious than that men,
who were Jews, acquainted with the usages of their
nation, who possessed the feelings of Jews - who had
always been accustomed to have their children in the
Church with them, and familiar with the practice of
both circumcising and baptizing children, would construe this commission precisely as the missionaries who
were accustomed to the Baptism of children, unless expiled at so early a date, that no one will accuse the Jews of borrowing this
practice from Christians, or if they do, they admit the point at issue, which is
that the Apostles practised it. According to Dr. Prideaux, the Jerusalem
M:j3na was compiled in the Apostolic age, just after the destruction of the
Temple, and by the almost unanimous consent of critics, admitted to be
completed in the second century. And if Jehuda the Holy, who was engaged forty years in digesting these laws, did not collect this concerning
" young proselytes " from among the old customs of his nation in use before the coming of Christ, then it was borrowed from or suggested by the
practice of Christians at a period so early, that it is as fatal to the cause of
Antiptedobaptism as would be the admission of its previous existence.
1 St. John i. 25.




BAPTISM BEFORE JOHN BAPTIST.      175
pressly instructed to the contrary? How cculd they
restrict it to certain ages, when they had never known
any age excepted before? and when their commission
was as broad as language could make it — "Go ye,
therefore, and disciple or proselyte all nations "?
"The Anabaptists object," says Lightfoot, "that
it is not commanded to baptize infants, therefore they
are not to be baptized. To whom I answer: It is not
forbidden to baptize infants, therefore they are to be
baptized. And the reason is plain. For when Paedobaptism, in the Jewish Church, was so known, usual,
and frequent in the admission of proselytes, that
scarcely anything was more known, usual, and frequent, there was no need to strengthen it with any
precept when Baptism was now passed into an evangelical sacrament. For Christ took Baptism into his
hands, and into an evangelical use as he found it -
this only added, that he might promote it to a
worthier end and a more extensive use.
" The whole nation knew well enough that little
children used to be baptized.  There was no need of
a precept for that which had ever by common use prevailed.
"On the other hand, there was need of a plain and
open prohibition, that infants and little children should
not be baptized, if our Saviour would not have them
baptizcd. For since it was most common in all foregoing ages that little children should be baptized,
if Christ had wished to have that custom abolished, he
would openly have forbidden it. Therefore, his silence
and the silence of Scripture in this matter, confirms
Infant Baptism, and continueth it unto all ages." I
When the Saviour came, all male proselytes were
I Hor. Hehr. on Matt. iii.




176             LITTLE CHILDREN PURIFIED.
admitted into the Jewish Church by Circumcision,
Baptism, and sacrifice - the female by Baptism and
sacrifice. He abolished, in his death, circumcision and
sacrifice, and only Baptism was left as a sign of the
covenant, or profession of religion, and this He directed
to be given to all, in the name of the Holy Trinity, as
indicative of the new dispensation.' Or if any one
prefers it, for the sake of illustration say, He abolished
all former ordinances, and selected Baptism, because
common to both sexes, less burdensome, and more expressive of the new dispensation, and hence made it the
initiatory rite of the Church under this dispensation.
In either case, how would men accustomed to see this
rite applied to children, understand the commission " to
disciple," and apply it to " all nations? " Would they
not suppose that young children were included also?
If the boy sent to the  post-office must infer letters
and pamphlets were included with the " newspapers,"
and the missionaries of the Lutheran and other Paedobaptist Christians, that young children were included in
this commission, so must the Apostles have understood
children included in theirs. We ask the opposers of
Infant Baptism to pause and consider this case, and
candidly to say if in these circumstances this commission can be rightly construed in any other way?  We
1 Some have concluded from Jewish Baptism that it is unnecessary to
continue Baptism among a people whose forefathers have all been baptized.
But they should remember that God's people have always had some badge
or mark of profession -that although among the Jews, and the proselytes
to their religion, Baptism was not given to succeeding generations, yet
circumcision was, and sacrifice offered. But these are abolished under the
Christian dispensation, and Baptism only remains, which must be given
to every one, as a mark or seal of the new covenant, as circumcision waQ
under the former dispensation.  This is plainly taught in Colossians
ii. 11, 12. But as the opposers of Infant Baptism, as well as its advocates, admit Baptism is to be givel to v irly (lisciple, there is no need for
(liscussing that questiolln ilii. i,ja:c.




APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES.      1 77
may even lay aside all the influence the sacrament
itself would exert, and adopt any other ceremony of
admitting members into the Christian Church, and the
construction would be the same. For these men were
all Jews, educated Jews possessing the feelings of Jews,
loved their children, and had always seen such received
into the Church, and whatever religious rite had been
instituted as the door into the visible Church, they
would have admitted the children with their proselyted parents - unless instructed expressly to the contrary - and have justified themselves for it on principles of duty and reason, as well as of education and
usage. For God was the same God He ever had been.
He had not changed, and could not change. The great
principles of his religion and the foundation of his
Church were the same now as in the days of Abraham. The relation between parent and child were
still the same. He was about to change his dispensation in the government of his people, but not the essentials of his Church. Rituals and ordinances were to
be changed, means of grace and helps to faith instituted better adapted to the state of the world, while the
inward righteousness and essence of the Church must
ever remain the same, because founded on the immutable principles of the nature of the great Jehovah Himself. These being the same before these rituals were
first ordained, and while they were in force, and after
their abolition; were, and are, and ever must be still
the same. And if children were fit to be members at
one time, why not fit at any other time? If God commanded that they should be received with their fathers,
and the seal or mark of his covenant be given them
from the first moment He began to mark out for Himself a select visible people, and has never since, by
12




178         LITTLE CHILDREN INCLUDED.
word or deed, forbidden them this privilege; who
will dare to prohibit them simply because that badge
is changed for another?
Again, in the language of another, -" Not only do
circumstances at the time, and usages before a command is given, enable others at a later period the
more clearly to understand it, but the state of things
that follow afterwards often throw much light on it." 
Suppose, for instance, in the case of the missionaries
referred to, some fifty or a hundred years after their
death, we were to visit those isles, and find their successors practising Infant Baptism, and were to ask them
by what authority they did this, and they were to inform us that the " first missionaries, their apostles,
practised and ordered it;" should we not infer that one
of those Christian bodies that practised Infant Baptism
sent those missionaries? And should we not give
credit to their answers, when we found that they were
conscientious, pious men? ay, intelligent as well as
pious, and surrounded by those who had known and
conversed with intimate acquaintances and friends of
their first missionaries?
Now this is precisely the state of the question before
us. The churches of Greece, Rome, Alexandria, Cappadocia, Syria, Arabia, and Palestine, spread over
thousands of miles, separated, some of them so far
from others that there had been probably little or no
communication between them, are all found in the
practice of Infant Baptism, as we have seen, in the
next century after the Apostles, and no one ever calling in question its lawfulness.
Considering the whole evidence in the case, the
custom of the Jews at the time this commission was
1 Knapp's Theology.




OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.         179
given, the language itself, and the state of things
found in the Churches soon afterwards, the fact is as
fully established, according to fixed laws of interpretation, that the commission given to the Apostles for
organizing the Christian Church embraces Infant Baptism, as that water should be used in the administration of the ordinance.
~ 22. Let us now consider some of the objections
that have been urged against this interpretation. First,
it is said the Apostles were commanded to " teach,"
and then baptize: therefore, the persons to be baptized, were only such as could first be taught. In reply to which, we remark, the word in the first part of
the commission (/uar0/TEva'-aE), translated in our version
"' teach," is an entirely different word from that in
the latter part [&t&a'0KovrEs,] translated "teaching."
The former means to " disciple " or'" proselyte "while the latter means imparting instruction as by a
master to his pupil. The better rendering of the
whole passage (as every reader of the original well
knows) is, "Go ye, therefore, and disciple [make
learners of] all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you:" which means, "Go and bring
into my kingdom every nation, initiating them by Baptism, and teaching or training them up in all the doctrines and precepts which I have commanded you."
Now, as kingdoms of the world are confined to no
age or sex, so the kingdom of Christ on earth, which
He chose to represent under the same name, is confined
to none, but designed to embrace all ages and nations.
To convert nations to any faith, we must of course in




180               DISCIPLE ALL NATIONS.
the beginning work chiefly among the responsible portion of the nation, we must first convert the parents before we can expect them to permit us to bring their
children under the influences of our principles. So
in the kingdom of Christ, his ambassadors were sent
forth to address and convince the parents - the responsible portions of the community, who must be
converted before they could reach their children. But
when these were converted they would bring their
children with them of their own accord. Or as St.
Peter did on the day of Pentecost, when multitudes
were made to cry out-  "  Men and brethren, what
shall we do? " tell them the "' promise is to you and
to your children." (Acts ii. 37, 39.) And as in the
case of the jailer and others, whose children were
present when the parents believed, baptize them all.
(Acts xvi. 15-33.)
Instead of the term  /a(?TEV~tr    1 E " to disciple or proselyte," militating against young children, it is of itself
when rightly construed, proof positive that they are
included. For it is as applicable to children as to
adults, and we have not the slightest intimation  that
it is used here in a limited sense. On the contrary,
it seems to be given in  its widest possible application
-" disciple all nations "-  hence all that compose nations of every age and sex. Ma0WqTEv'(aTE is from  LaO-7riT
1 The O0aerTeveav, says Alford, consists of two parts -the initiatory
admissory rite, and the subsequent teaching. It must be regretted that the
rendering of 1a0(7qTeaaTef' teach, " has in our Bibles clouded the meaning
of these important words. It will be observed that in our Lord's words, as
in the Church, the process of ordinary discipleship is front Baptism to instruction, i. e., admission in infancy to the covenant, and growing up into
rqpezv 7rTvTa, K. T. A. —the exceptions being, what circumstances rendered
so frequent in the early Church, instruction before Baptism, in the case of
adults On this we may also remark that Baptism, as known to the Jews,
included just as it does in Acts xvi. 15-33, whole households - wives and
children." — Alford on St. Matt. xxviii. 19.




MEANING OF DISCIPLE.        181
a "disciple," which is from Cavavo, to "learn."
Therefore " a disciple " is a learner, and to " make disciples " is to make learners. The Church in all ages
has been a school for teaching the things of God and
training its members in the way of holiness.  Of
the father of Circumcision, God said, " Seeing that
Abraham.... will command his children and his
household after him, and they shall keep the way of
the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord
may bring upon Abraham that which He hath
spoken of him." (Gen. xviii. 18, 19.) Moses was instructed to teach Israel, "And these words which I
command thee this day, shall be in thy heart: And
thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children, and
shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and
when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest
down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind
them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be as
frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write
them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates."
(Deut. vi. 6, 9.)
Such was the character of the Church for teaching
and training its members from earliest childhood
under the Old Testament Dispensation. Under the
New, precisely the same is to be retained. " Go ye,
therefore, and teach (make disciples — learners) of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you; and lo, I am with you alway, even
unto the end of the world " (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20),
was the commission of the Saviour himself.
1. Now a school must have different grades of
learners, or else there must be many schools. Christ




182            CHURCH A SOHOL.
has but one school for all  and this school wonderfully adapted to every age. It has instructions for
the first impression the youngest mind can receive.
And the first impression made on the infant mind
ought to be of Christ's teaching. "As the twig is
bent, the tree's inclined." And as a learner, whose
name is simply enrolled, is called a pupil or scholar
before he commences to learn, so in the case of a disciple; whoever is received into the Christian covenant
to be trained in the school of Christ, is called a disciple from his Baptism; just as all the males of the
Kohathites, from a month old and upwards, are called
4' keepers of the charge of the sanctuary " - infants as
well as adults; because belonging to the body and
designed for that office: or as the little ones recorded
in the book of Deuteronomy (xxix. 11, 12), are said to
"enter into covenant with the Lord," although too
young to know what the term covenant meant. " Little proselytes," a phrase of the same import with
"disciples," was in familiar use among the Jews in
the days of our Saviour. Children, however young,
whether received with their proselyted parents, or
brought under the Jewish faith in any other way,
were called "young proselytes."  The Mishna of
the Jewish Talmud, both of Babylon and Jerusalem,
speaks of such proselytes, and as already cited, defines
the privileges which may be enjoyed by those born
of heathen parents, and made "proselytes" after
three years and a day old, and of such as shall be
made proselytes before that age.
Justin Martyr, as has been already remarked, applies the very same word which is used in this commission to children in general, saying that he knew
many of both sexes made disciples ( 4taOvrEVl'Orav) to
Christ from childhood.




APPLICATION TO LITTLE CHILDREN.       183'2. It is also objected that this commission, as recorded by another Evangelist, requires faith before
Baptism.  Mark xvi. 15, 16: "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."  The commission is here embraced in the first verse, " Go ye into
all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature." The next merely affirms what will be the
consequence of receiving or rejecting their mission -
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved,
but he that believeth not shall be damned." Now if
this passage is to be arrayed against children to keep
them from Baptism, it must also keep them from salvation, for it expressly says, " he that believeth not
shall be damned." But who will apply it to children, and dare affirm that all who cannot believe
shall be damned? No one. By what authority then
can we apply one clause of a sentence to children to
keep them from Baptism, and then exclude them from
the next part of the sentence, when there is evidently
no change of subject matter in the mind of the
author? I The true state of the case is, the Evangelist simply records the broad and -universal character of the commission, and then states what will
be the result to those who receive or reject the offer
of salvation under it. Those who will hear shall
live, but those who will not hear shall die.
The spread of the Gospel, of course, depended on
the reception it met with among the acting, thinking
portion of the community. If this class of persons
1 The reason given by the first sect who rejected Infant Baptism, as we
have seen, was that infants could not believe, therefore they could not be
saved. But that was in the Dark Ages, and their followers have since
changed their ground.




184     FAITH AS AN OBJECTION, ANSWERED.
received it, its blessings would by their consent be
given to minors and children. But if they rejected
it, much that might be conveyed to others would be
lost to such as were in part dependent on them. To
this class of persons alone then, so far as faith is concerned, do those words of St. Mark apply.
3. Repentance, as well as faith, are generally made
prerequisites for Baptism, but not in the case of infants.  It is said (Acts ii. 38), "Repent and be
baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus
Christ, for the remission of sins." Again, Philip
said unto the Eunuch (Acts viii. 37), " If thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest" [be baptized]. But these are replies made to those who had
proposed particular questions. The very same would
in this day be said by any orthodox missionary under
similar circumstances, whether an advocate for the
Baptism of children or not. For every sound divine
requires repentance and faith on the part of adults.
But it does not follow that the same must be required
of little children. The covenant made with Abraham
was based on faith; nevertheless children were embraced in it who could not believe. " Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.".... "And he received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith
which he had, yet being uncircumcised;" 1 but to
Ishmael, thirteen years old, and to Isaac, eight days
old, and to all infant male descendants afterwards,
as we have already seen, was this sign and seal
given, which brought them into the same covenant,
although they were incapable of faith.  Abraham
was " justified by faith," and commanded to " walk
1 Rom. iv. 3, 11.




REPENTANCE FROM ACTUAL SINNERS.    185
before the Lord and be perfect." (Gen. xvii.) The
covenant therefore made with him was based as much
on faith in God, and obedience to his commands, as
is the covenant now under Christ.  Indeed, the
Christian covenant, as we have already seen, is the
continuation of the Abrahamic covenant more fully
developed, and under a more advanced dispensation,
into which children were received from the first, and
continued up to the time of Christ. Why should
their incapacity to "believe and obey," exclude them
after the coming of Christ, if it did not before?
And though the Christian were one entire new
covenant, it would be no more a covenant of faith
than that of Abraham. And if the inability of little
children to exercise faith did not exclude them from
the latter, why should it from the former? If none
can be baptized but those who can believe according
to such an interpretation of that passage, then consistency requires it to be interpreted that none can
be saved who cannot believe; for the only alternative
then allowed, is damnation to those who do not believe I Shall we accept such a construction, or rather
suppose that the passage does not refer to little
children except through their parents and representatives, and that as they were involved in the sin of
the first Adam, without their own personal acts, so
they can be made participants of the blessings of the
covenant of the second Adam, in like manner?
For if Christ, the second Adam, has come to redeem
us from the curse, and bring an antidote to the evils
entailed by the first Adam on his posterity, and unconscious infants are made partakers of those evils,
why may they not, in the same unconscious state, be
made partakers of the antidote procured by the




186         FIRST AND SECOND ADAM.
second Adam? and for this end be engrafted by Baptism into that " one body " (1 Cor. xii. 13), of which
He is the head, and those who have been baptized
are the members, and are "all made to drink into
one spirit?" As Baptism is the initiatory rite into
this kingdom of Grace, and Christ took up little children into his arms and blessed them, and said "' of
such is the kingdom," why refuse them entrance
into it?
3. It is, sometimes brought forward as an objection
to Infant Baptism, that Christ was not baptized until
adult age. But we should remember He was circumcised when eight days old, brought to- the temple and
dedicated at forty days — was a strict observer of
the ritual law of the Jews - and attended the synagogue worship until his death. He was baptized
with John's Baptism  soon after it commenced, to
"fulfil all righteousness," in recognition of the authority of his mission. And if we are to follow his
example in all outward acts, we must either submit
to all these just as He did, or else so far as they are
types of ordinances in the Gospel Church. And if
the latter, then we have another argument in behalf
of Infant Baptism, rather than against it; for as He
was brought into covenant, made a member of the
Church, and dedicated to God in infancy, so ought
we to be. And as He submitted to the ordinance of
Baptism at the earliest opportunity, so ought we to
submit. John's Baptism was not instituted in the
time of his infancy, but He submitted to it the first
opportunity after it was instituted, and hence has
given no room to plead delay from his example.
John's Baptism was not the Christian Baptism, because Christ did not manifest Himself as the Son of




INFANT MEMBERSHIP OF CHRIST.     187
God until after his Baptism, neither did John baptize
in the name of the " Holy Ghost."  His Baptism
was " unto repentance," saying to the people, " they
should believe on Him who should come after him."
Christ's Baptism was in the name of the Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost. And we read of those who had
been baptized unto John's Baptism, that afterwards
received Christian Baptism (Acts xix.), acknowledging that they had " not so much as heard whether
there be any Holy Ghost."
So far, then, as Christ's early life is concerned, his
example is altogether on the side of the Church membership of infants; and so far as his acts and words are
concerned in regard to " little children," they all tend
to the same point. We nowhere read that He himself baptized any infant or adult. "Jesus Himself
baptized not, but his disciples."' But we read of
his being displeased at those who attempted to prevent children from being brought to Him to receive
his blessing; and of " his putting his hands on them
and praying," or " taking them up in his arms and
blessing them," exhorting others to become like unto
them, and saying that "of such is the kingdom of
heaven." Observing all the different circumstances
which have been noticed by the Evangelists, we have
it as follows: -
~ 23. MATT. XIX. 13; LUKE XVIII. 15; MARK X.
13, 16. - "And they brought young children, infants,
to Him, that He should touch them, put his hands on
them, and pray; and his disciples rebuked those that
brought them. But when Jesus saw it, he was much
displeased, and called them unto Him and said, Suffer
little children to come unto me and forbid them not,
1 St. John iv. 2.




188 LITTLE CHILDREN BLESSED - NOT "ALIENS."
for of such is the kingdom of God.  Verily I say
unto you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of
God, as a little child, shall not enter therein. And
He took them up in his arms, put his hands upon
them, and blessed them." 1
Does anything here indicate that Christ intended
to exclude young children from his kingdom? Does
He not, on the contrary, say, " of such is the kingdom of God?" - every action and word of his own
going to show that He recognized little children, not
as strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with
the saints and of the household of God.2 He was
"much displeased" at those who would keep them
from being brought to Him to receive his blessing;
rebuked them, and called for the children to be
brought, giving as a reason why they should be permitted to come, that "of such was the kingdom of
God," and adding that ALL must become as little
children to enter into his kingdom. He then took
them up, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.
And not only did He exhort others to become like
unto them — not only did He take them up in his
arms, thus manifesting his friendship towards them,
but He performed the significant act of laying his
hands upon them, to impart a religious or spiritual
blessing, thereby recognizing them as belonging to
the kingdom of God, and not as "foreigners and
strangers."
1. It has been objected that the phrase, "kingdom
of God, or of Heaven," does not necessarily refer to
God's visible kingdom on earth, but often refers to
his kingdom in glory. Whichever construction you
give, the result is the same, so far as little children
1 See Hay's Treatise on Baptism.  2 Eph. ii. 19.




PHRASE, KINGDOM OF GOD.        189
are concerned. If fit for the Church in glory, they
are certainly fit for it on earth.
" Kingdom of God " is used in both of these senses
in the New Testament, but generally refers more
directly to the reign of Christ and the visible portion
of the Church on earth, and frequently includes both
its preparatory state here and its perfect state hereafter. "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand, "1 refers more directly to'the reign of Christ
and the ushering in of the New Dispensation. " The
kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast
into the sea, and gathered of every kind," 2_- evidently refers to the visible Church on earth. " Now
this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God."3 This of course looks
to the kingdom in glory. "But seek ye first the
kingdom of God and his righteousness," 4 includes
the reign of Christ within and without, on earth and
in heaven.
In short, every one who will examine the question
thoroughly, will find that the phrase "kingdom of
God and of heaven," is used sometimes for the
visible state of things on earth, sometimes for them
in heaven, and sometimes for the inward work of the
Spirit on the hearts of individuals, as, "the kingdom
of God is within you; " but it generally includes the
perfect as well as imperfect state of Christ's kingdom,
even when applied more directly to the Church militant. And in this sense no doubt our Saviour used it
with reference to the little children when he said,
" Of such is the kingdom of God."
He was preparing the Church, or people of God, for
a more spiritual dispensation on earth. They had
1 Matt. iii. 2.   2 Matt. xiii. 47.   8 1 Cor. xv. 50.   4 Matt. vi. 83.




190         PHRASE, KINGDOM OF GOD.
been for a long period under a dispensation that was
adapted to an age then passed away; and many
abuses and corruptions that had sprung up must now
be reformed, and a more spiritual reign commence.
To be members of this reformed Church, they must
forsake and repent of those sins which they had
allowed, and seek after righteousness and purity of
life, which would prepare them for that perfect state
of his kingdom in glory, of which this on earth is the
beginning. Hence the penitent, seeking after purity
of heart, and governed by his teaching, He regarded
as worthy of true membership in that kingdom.
And therefore little children, who had no actual
sins of their own, and whose tender minds could be
taught and trained in the right way, by faithful
leaders, were, par excellence, members of it.
2. That such was the meaning of Christ when He
said, " Of such is the kingdom of God," is the more
obvious from the fact that He held them up as models
for the imitation of those who, in their unfeeling selfconfidence, ordered them to be taken away, He was
offended at the manifestation of such temper. And
hence He added, "Whosoever shall not receive the
kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter
therein." 1  That is, whosoever shall not humble
himself to be taught of Christ, and follow his instruction as a little child, can never be a true member of
his kingdom or enter into its perfect state in glory.
Men may enter into it on earth, and become members,
as those had done who would now send the little children away; but unless they imitate these models,
which they were so ready to reject, and follow after
their innocency and teachable tempers, they will
1 Mark x. 15.




LITTLE CHILDREN MODEL MEMBERS.    191
never enter into the Church triumphant. As yet
they were all in the Old Testament Church — the
little children as well as those to whom the Saviour
addressed Himself. The day of Pentecost had not
come. But Christ was preparing them for it. He
was reforming abuses and pointing out duties; and
when He said of the little children, " Of such is the
kingdom of God," He was pointing out who were
the true worthy members that were fitted for it under
the more spiritual dispensation on earth about to
take place, and its final state in glory.
And who, we ask now, is better fitted for such a
kingdom than the little children for whom Christ
died? And what could be a more suitable model for
men of an overweening self-confidence, whose need
of humility and tenderness would drive the lambs
away from their shepherd, than the gentleness and
innocency of the lambs themselves? But there are
those in the present day who reject the little children from the kingdom, even though Christ rebuked
others for driving them from Him, and informed them
that such were models for imitation to, all who would
become truly the members of that kingdom! They
reject the pattern, but accept the imitation! Is not
this strange, when the pattern is part and parcel of
the same material? Little children are human beings,
have souls, and are susceptible of pleasure and pain.
They need and can receive religious blessings, or why
did our Saviour pray for and bless them? And why
should He afterwards reject them from his kingdom,
and receive only those who copied their innocency,
humility, and teachable temper?
Could a man utter sophistry more untenable than
that of Dr. Carson, when he says, "'Of such is the




192      LITTLE CHILDREN LIVING MODELS.
kingdom,' cannot mean the persons themselves spoken
of, but others like them? For the term' such' does
not signify identity, cannot signify identity, but likeness." 1 And therefore it cannot include the little
children, but those like them!
Where did he learn this construction of language?
from Scripture usage? When St. Paul described certain persons as " corrupt and destitute of the truth,
supposing that gain is godliness," and warned Timothy "from such withdraw thyself,"2 did he mean
that he should withdraw from these persons themselves, or only from others who were like them?
Again, when the same Apostle tells us that (Gal.
v. 21) " they which do such things shall not inherit
the kingdom of God," does he not mean the very
things themselves, as well as other things of like
character?
And yet again, when St. John commends the
charity of Gaius, and says of certain persons (iii.
John 8) "' We ought therefore to receive such, that
we might be fellow helpers to the truth," does he
intend that the persons themselves spoken of must
be rejected, and others like them be received? How
strange that one of such high pretensions should
manifest such ignorance of the use of language.
Our Saviour did not select models of wood, or patterns
of paper, to be used and then laid aside; He selected
living souls, for whose redemption He had suffered
and died, and for whose benefit, as well as the benefit
of all his people, He was about to establish a kingdom
on earth in which to train and fit them for his kingdom in glory; To those who would keep little chil1 Carson On Baptism, p. 200.     2 1 Tim. vi. 5.




THE LITTLE CHILDREN INCLUDED.     193
dren from him, He said, "Suffer little children to
come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the
kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, whosoever
shall not receive the kingdom of God, as a little child,
shall not enter therein." Thus declaring their fitness
for his kingdom, and the necessity for others to follow
their teachable, submissive spirit to enter in. "He
also took them up in his arms, put his hands upon
them, and blessed them." Thereby exhibiting his
great love for them, and showing that HERMAS,
a cotemporary of the Apostles, did not say without
authority, "All infants are valued by the Lord and
esteemed FIRST OF ALL." 1
The objection that the Saviour did not baptize little
children, is scarcely worthy of notice in this place, as
all know " Jesus Himself did not baptize, but his disciples." He nevertheless taught and prepared the way
for the new Dispensation of Grace in its fulness - and
by words and signs testified that little children were
included with their parents in his atonement for sin,
and the covenant of their Redemption.
~ 24. In the opening sermon of the new organization
of the Christian Dispensation, on the day of Pentecost,
St. Peter informed the multitude astonished at the
wonderful manifestations of the Holy Ghost -" This
is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel2 —' And it shall come to pass in the last days (saith God)
I will pour out of my spirit upon all flesh: and your
sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your
young men shall see visions, and your old men shall
dream dreams: and on (my) servants and on (my)
1 Simil. 9, c. 29.
2 Acts ii. 17, 18; Joel ii. 28, 29. See also Is. xliv. 3.
13




194    INCREASED GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST.
handmaidens I will pour out, in those days, of my
Spirit (and they shall prophesy).' "1
He then went on to explain that this same Jesus
whom ye have taken by wicked hands and have crucified and slain, God hath raised up and exalted on his
own right hand; being made both LORD and CHRIST,
and having received of the Father the promise of the
Holy Ghost, hath shed forth this which ye now see
and hear.
And to his conscience-stricken hearers, inquiring
"Men and brethren, what shall we do? " he said: --
"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."
(Acts ii. 38, 39.)
In the same prophecy which he had cited, it is added
that of those on whom God's displeasure rested on
account of their sins, " Whosoever shall call on the
name of the Lord shall be delivered, for in Mount Zion
and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance," etc.,2 which the
Apostle Paul explains to mean -all uwho shall give
themselves up to the Lord Jesus Christ, and that
Gentiles as well as Jews are included.s  The whole
prophecy is referred to the times of the Messias and
lis reign by the best Jewish commentators.4  Hence
St. Peter's reply: "Repent and be baptized ~every
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ [the Messias]
for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the
gift of the Holy Ghost, for the promise is to you and
1 St. Peter quotes from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text which
omits all in ( ).
2 Joel ii. 32; Is. ii. 3.  8 Rom. x. 9-13.
4 See Lowth, Arnold, and their authorities.




OUTPOURTNG OF THE HOLY GHOST.     195
to your children and to all that are afar off; " it is
made to your whole nation- to all who repent of sin
and accept the Messias — no age, sex, or condition
excepted, but on every rank, class, and degree among
men shall it be poured out, and its wonderful gifts made
manifest to all.
But some suppose little children are excepted because
they cannot exhibit the miraculous gifts of the Holy
Ghost,- they cannot " speak with tongues and prophesy."  We cannot suppose that every individual
among the classes enumerated spake with tongues and
prophesied, but only such a representation of each
class as to convince all that no grade or condition of
the people had been passed over. Of the thousands
baptized on the day of Pentecost and soon after, to
whom Peter recited the promise, we do not suppose a
hundredth portion spake with tongues and prophesied.
But they received of the abundant blessing of the
Holy Ghost. The little children needed its blessed
influences as well as others, and why should they be
slighted'
The promise is, " I will pour out of my Spirit upon
all flesh: " which would be known and witnessed by
its miraculous powers in every class and grade of men
-but'not in every individual. If so, it is not verified
by the facts that followed. This was a very suitable
time to make known any radical change to be made
by change of dispensation. It was the introduction
of the opening in full of the New Organization of
Grace, and if little children were not to be received
into its membership as under the Old, now, it would
seem, was the time to proclaim such change. But no
such proclamation was made. On the contrary he
tells them that the promises made under the Old,




196        INFLUENCE OF EARLY EDUCATION.
apply to them  and to their children under the New,
without specification as to age, or to any other qualification, leading one to suppose that any such change was
to take place. The natural and legitimate inferences,
therefore, from the manner in which " you and your
children are used by St. Peter, is that he meant the
Jews and their children without regard to age. That
he included the Jewish nation and their posterity from
the oldest to the youngest - according to Jewish
usage.l
1. It is not at all wonderful that persons who have
been brought up under Antipmedobaptist influence,
should at first be disposed to refer the words of St. Peter
in this passage, to only posterity grown up; because
they read it with entirely different feelings and different
views from a Jew. They are disposed to construe
everything according to the principles already instilled
into their minds. They look through a different medium
from that through which a Jew from education must
look. And so it is in all cases where children are
referred to in the New Testament. Such persons
require some specification for any departure from the
order under which they themselves have been brought
up, or which from other causes they have adopted;
whereas the true state of the case is, as every unprejudiced mind can see, that some specification is required
wherever there is a departure from the established prinples and known feelings of those to whom the words
were at the time addressed. It is well known to every
1 " The promise to you and to your children and to all that are afar
off "- is supposed by many to refer to the promise which God included
in his Covenant with Abraham (Gen. xvii. 7). "And I will establish
my Covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their
generations, for an everlasting Covenant; to be a God unto thee, and to
thy seed after thee." This, all will agree, embraced little children eight
lays old, and onward of all ages.




INFLUENCE OF EARLY EDUCATION.            197
Biblical scholar that the Jews, and all connected with
them, considered their young children entitled to the
same covenant privileges to which they themselves
were entitled: and hence must, as a thing of course,
construe everything said in relation to children according to such views, unless some specification be made
to the contrary. What then could they suppose St.
Peter meant, other than to include their young children at that present time? Or how could he, who was
himself a Jew, expect them to understand him otherwise, without some specification to the contrary? 1
The fact is, Infant church-membership is taken for
granted throughout the New Testament, just as the
being of a God is taken for granted in the Old Testament Scriptures; and any attentive student who will
read the New Testament, with this truth before his
mind, will see how exactly every part corresponds
with it. But as soon as one begins to read it with
the opposite opinion in his mind, he will find himself
constantly reduced to the necessity of giving up broad,
plain principles of interpretation, and looking for some
hole to escape. And so it is with the passage before
us. Such readers take for granted that Infant Baptism is not taught in the Scriptures. -Wherefore,
when the Apostle declares to the penitent multitude,
" the promise is to you and to your children "- they
cannot receive it in its full, natural sense, but give the
passage a limited application, which excludes a portion
of their children. So likewise, in the passage just
1 Verses 41 and 42 are sometimes referred to as explanatory of St.
Peter's meaning. But they only refer to the acts of responsible agents.
Possibly very few children were present on the day of Pentecost, but if
many, St. Luke's custom was to speak only of the acts of responsible persons and heads of families, as in the case of Lydia and the Jailer, for
neither the names nor deeds of any of their children at their Baptism
are recorded by him.




198    DEFECTIVE RULES OF INTERPRETATION.
disposed of, where the Saviour says in regard to the
little children whom he took up in his arms, "Of
such is the kingdom of God "-they set to work and
exclude the children themselves (the very subjects of
the conversation), and limit the passage to such only
as resemble them in certain particulars. Again, the
commission given the Apostles " to disciple all nations,
baptizing them,"- they, instead of receiving it in its
broad, general sense, limit it to believers only. And
from the same cause are unconsciously influenced in
construing every passage bearing on the church-membership of infants.
Now this is precisely the reverse of the order that
ought to be observed in regard to those passages referring to children. We must remember that the writers
of the New Testament were all Jews, and of course to
a great extent under the influence of previous education, and that all departures from established principles, rather than the continuation of them, would be
marked by specifications.
2. It has also been argued that the Apostle limits
Baptism in this place by repentance, saying, "Repent
and be baptized, every one of you."
The irrelevancy of this objection will be seen by
simply calling to remembrance the fact that the
Apostle replied to persons who had committed actual
sins of their own, and who had asked what they must
do? and said to them, " Repent and be baptized, every
one of you." Just as any Psedobaptist would in the
same circumstances, at the present day. Not one
word is said as to the repentance of their children,
who had not committed actual sin, but who were
afected by original sin; yet he tells them the promise
is:to their children, as well as to themselves.




CHILDREN SUSCEPTIBLE  OF GRACE.     199
And why not include the little children as well as
those of older growth?  Cannot children receive
grace as well as others? Do they not need it to counteract fallen nature as well as others? If they are
capable of moral defilement through Adam, why not
of counteracting grace through Christ.? Or why pray
for their spiritual benefit, if they be not susceptible of
such a thing? If children cannot receive the Holy
Ghost, how is it St. John is said to have been filled
with " the Holy Ghost even from his mother's womb?"
(Luke i. 15; Is. xlix.) Herein lies the error of such
- they assume that no benefit can be conferred on
children at their Baptism, which they ought first to
prove. It is not our object at present to say to what
extent, or in what way, spiritual benefit is conferred,
whether by the Holy Spirit through the act of
Baptism itself, or through the prayers of God's people
offered up for the child, or in consequence of covenanted associations, helps, and privileges, or through
all these separately and conjointly.   Certain it is,
from Scripture testimony, that young children may
receive the influence of the Holy Ghost,1 and spiritual
graces, as well as blessings of an external nature.
3. Lastly, it has been objected that this promise is
limited by the latter clause to "as many as the Lord
our God shall call."  That is, "to such as can believe,
and  are effectually called unto salvation."   This
objection needs only a passing notice, since it is now
generally conceded by the most eminent commentators of all shades of doctrine that the call here
referred to, means the call made through the Gospel.
Namely, that the "promise" extends to all who shall
be invited to embrace it -that salvation is offered to as
many as by that Gospel are called to repentance -
1 Luke i. 15; Is. xlix.; Ps. xxii. 9.




200            THE GOSPEL INVITATION.
"that the promise is to the Jews, and to their descendants, however widely separated by land - and
now extends to Gentiles as well as Jews." 1
Let us see next how some of the other Apostles appeared to have construed the commission under which
they acted. We read that Paul, Silas, and others, in
travelling and preaching the Gospel, visited a certain
town called Philippi, in Macedonia, and that during
their stay there they baptized two families; and
these are the only Baptisms mentioned whilst there -
both of them whole families. The first was the family
of a certain woman named Lydia.
~ 25.  ACTS xvI. 13, 19.  " And on the Sabbath
day we went out of the city by a river side, where
prayer was wont to be made, and we sat down and
spake to the women which resorted thither.  And a
certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the
city of Thyatira, which worshipped  C'od, heard us,
whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto
the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she
was baptized, and her HOUSEHOLD, she besought us,
saying, If ye have judged me faithful to the Lord,
come into my house and abide there, and she constrained us."
In this account nothing is said of the faith, names,
or acts of any other member of the household, but of
the head of it. The Baptism of the other members of
the family is referred to, as if a thing of course, when
the head of it believed. The whole affair is recorded,
1 Ephesians ii. 13, 17. That this promise extends to the Gentiles under
the Gospel Dispensation we know, whether embraced at the time in the
mind of Peter or not.
NOTE. - The reader will observe that these arguments, though corroborative of each other, are yet distinct and separate, and that he may reject any
one of them if unsatisfactory to himself, without affecting the authority
of the others.




BAPTISM OF LYDIA AND FAMILY.      201
just as if the privileges enjoyed by the head of the
family, in matters of this kind, were the same under
the Christian Dispensation that they had been under
the Jewish. All of which is in perfect harmony with
the views we have already advanced.
Shortly afterwards, Paul and Silas are apprehended
and cast into prison. The jailer is charged to keep
them safely, who thrusts them into the inner prison,
and makes their feet fast in the stocks. At midnight
an earthquake throws open the prison doors, looses
the prisoners from the stocks, and awakes the jailer;
who seeing the prison doors open, supposes the prisoners have fled, and is about to kill himself. But Paul
calls to him to do himself no harm, for the prisoners
were all there -none had escaped. The jailer called
for a light, sprang in and fell down at the Apostles'
feet; and having " brought them out, said, Sirs, what
must I do to be saved? "1
~ 26. ACTS xvI. 31-33.  "And they said, Believe
on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, and
thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the
Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took
them the same hour of the night, and washed their
stripes; and was baptized, he and all his straightway."
Here is another case, in which no name or act of
any member of the family is recorded but that of the
head of it. And yet every member of it was baptized
the same hour of the night, the jailer and all his
straightway. No surprise or unusual joy is manifested
at the Baptism of the whole family, but all is related
as if a thing to be expected, that when the jailer
believed and was baptized, "all of his" would be
baptized likewise. Precisely such an account as we
1 Acts xvi. 23, 30.




202      BAPTISM OF JAILER AND ALL HIS.
should expect a Jew to give, when, like pious Joshua,
he could say for himself and all his, " As for me and
my house we will serve the Lord." Hence, he would
take all belonging to him, and bring them with himself
into the Christian covenant, as soon as he believed.
So was the reply of the Apostles to the inquiry
What shall I do to be saved? of the same character.
The answer was, " Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
and thou shalt be saved, and thy house;" that is, thou
and thy house [family] shall be placed in a state of
salvation. Faith in Christ is the way to attain safety,
and by it you may bring yourself and family into a
state of covenanted grace.
These Apostles, like St. Peter, remembered the
blessings that would redound to their children with
their parents.  Believe, and thou and thy house shall
be saved; brought into a state of salvation covenanted
in Christ Jesus.
The Apostle Paul introduces the Baptism of the
household of Stephanas in exactly the same manner.
He mentions it in connection with the Baptism of two
other individuals, without any restriction as to age or
sex.
1. 1 Coy. I. 14-16. "I thank God that I baptized
none of you but Crispus and Gaius, lest any should
say that I baptized in my own name. And I baptized
also the household of Stephanas; besides I know not
that I baptized any other."
Having heard that there were contentions in the
Church of Corinth, and that the disciples were calling
themselves by the names of the different ministers
who had baptized them, he congratulates himself that
there were but few there, who could call themselves
by his name. He only remembered two, Crispus and
Gaius, besides the family of Stephanas.




BAPTISM OF STEPHANAS AND FMIILY.    203
The manner in which family Baptisms are alluded
to in the Scriptures, must ever strike the mind of the
attentive reader, as opposed to those who advocate
only believers' Baptism.  If only believers were
baptized, why (one is led to ask) is no restriction
made in regard to young children in these cases? Or
if no young children belonged to them, why are we not
informed that all believed, or that all repented, as well
as that all were baptized? Why are they recorded
as if everything depended on the heads of these
families? Do not these things go far to show, that
no radical change had been made in regard to the
principle of receiving young children with their
parents into covenanted privileges?  For if a change
had been made on this point, we might certainly expect to see something corresponding in the record -
instead of which, every case is recorded in precisely
the manner they would have been under the old
dispensation, in the event Baptism had been merely
added to it.,
Suppose we were to meet in the records of some
missionary station of the present day, such cases as
these to which we have justreferred — say, for instance, one records a visit to some town where he
baptized two families, and these the only Baptisms
performed by him whilst there; he says nothing
of the faith or acts of any one, but the head of
each family, and speaks of their family Baptisms in
a manner that indicates no more surprise than individual Baptism? And suppose we find a few pages further on, in a letter to a church in another city, mention
made of another family and two individuals, and that
these were all that he baptized there also, and as you
continue your research you find as many as five other




204        FAITH AND ACTS OF HEADS
cases of family Baptisms alluded to or implied, with
no special remark, as if more unusual than individual
Baptism; would you not conclude that these missionaries belong to a Church that ordered the Baptism of
the young children with their parents? Can we
come to any other conclusion, unless it can be made
to appear that there were no children in those families?
But where is the evidence to that effect? It has
been said that the 40th verse of the chapter recording
the Baptism of Lydia and her family, shows that there
were no children in it. Let us examine it. Acts
xvi. 40. " And they went out of the prison and entered into the house of Lydia; and when they had
seen the brethren, they comforted them and departed."
Now what does this verse mean, but simply that
when Paul and Silas were let out of prison, they went
to the house of Lydia, at which they met the brethren,
and when they had comforted them, both by their
presence and words, they departed. Some have endeavored to make this verse support the opinion, that
the " brethren comforted," were only the members of
Lydia's family, and hence they must all have reached
the years of discretion, to be able to receive comfort.
Such objectors must have paid very little attention to
the whole narrative, or else they would have seen that
Timotheus and Luke were fellow-travellers with Paul
and Silas, and were at the time lodging at Lydia's
house. Acts xvi. 3: " Him (Timotheus) Paul would
have to go forth with him." (11, 12 verses.) Loosing from Troas, we (Luke the writer, with the others)
came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the
next day to Neapolis, and from thence to Philippi,
which is the chief city of that part of Macedonia, and
a colony, and we were in that city abiding certain




OF FAMILIES ONLY RECORDED.     205
days."  Verse 15, "And when she (Lydia) was
baptized and her household, she besought us, saying, if ye have judged me to be faithful to the
Lord, come into my house, and abide there: and she
constrained us." Who were these (we and us) constrained to abide at her house?  Evidently Paul,
Silas, Timothy, and Luke. The whole company
lodged at Lydia's.  "And it came to pass as we
went to prayer, a certain damsel, possessed with the
spirit of divination, met us, which brought her
master much gain by soothsaying: the same followed
Paul and us. And when her master saw that the
hope of their gain was gone, they caught Paul and
Silas and drew them into the market-place," verse 19.
They were afterwards thrown into prison and remained there one night, but Luke and Timothy were
not with them.
The next day Paul and Silas were released, and
name to the house of Lydia, and met there Timothy,
Luke, Lydia, and perhaps the " damsel" out of
whom was cast the Pythonic spirit. To which number may have been added also the jailer and others.
So that these, beyond a doubt, were the brethren
whom Paul and Silas' comforted."  For so far as
Lydia is concerned, there is not a word going to show
that one of her family was able to believe. On the
contrary, everything connected with the Baptism of
her family is put in the singular number, as if all depended on her alone.1 "' Her heart was open to attend to the things spoken. She besought us, if ye
have judged me faithful, come into my house."
Nothing is said of any one of her family in conjunction with herself. It does not read our house, or if you
1 See Apostolic Baptism, by C. Taylor.




206        BRETHREN AT LYDIA'S HOUSE.
have judged us faithful, or that the members of her
family attended. Nor should we have known that she
had a family, had they not been mentioned as baptized
at the same time with her, —" when she was baptized and her family." Instead of circumstances showing that her children were grown up, everything in
the narrative goes to prove they were minors. Lydia
was a native of Thyatira, residing at this time in
Philippi; she could afford accommodations to Paul
and his three companions, and constrained them to
abide at her house. The Baptism of her (oWKOs)
"' house," is, strictly speaking, an example of family
Baptism without restriction of age or sex. And we
are bound to receive it as a case of promiscuous family
Baptism. Just as if informed at the present time
that a " certain lady and her family were baptized on
a particular day, and no specification made as to age
or numbers."
2. In the case of the jailer, it has been argued that
there were no young children in his family, because
we are informed the Apostles "spake unto him
the word of the Lord and to all that were in his
house." (Acts xvi. 32.) Why, says the objector, did
they speak the word of the Lord to all, if all were
not able to understand it? We might as well ask,
Why does a minister of the present day speak the
word of the Lord to all his congregation when a part
of them are children?   The earthquake and the
alarm of the jailer, we may well suppose, awoke all
in the house, and that they assembled in the same room,
guards and assistants probably assembled with his
family. And the Apostles preached or explained the
Christian religion to all present, to the (, K/o.)
"household " — and "the jailer and all his were




LYDIA'S FAITH GOVERNED ALL.        207
baptized straightway;" i. e., all his own immediate
fariiily (otKOS), his house-seed - but not (oZK&a), "the
household." We will show the difference presently.
Nothing is said or done but what might have occurred,
had all his own been young children.
Again it is sometimes affirmed that all the jailer's
family were believers, because, after their Baptism, it
is written in the 34th verse, " He set meat before
them (Apostles) and rejoiced, believing in God with
all his house."  The word "believing" is made to
apply to all his house, as if all believed in God, and
rejoiced with him.   But the error of this interpretation becomes manifest by merely referring to the
original Greek, which shows that " rejoiced and believing are both in the singular number, only apply
properly to the jailer himself." Kac 7/yaLrt(raTo X ravotK&
E2tWrTEVKU;  TW ~  " and he rejoiced with all his house
(at the head of his family), he having believed in
God."  The jailer having believed, rejoiced with,
among, or in the midst of his family,  Compare
Acts xviii. 8.
This is the literal rendering of the sentence, " He
rejoiced," "he having believed in God."  Not they
rejoiced, or they believed.  The whole is recorded as
if everything depended on the father's agency, And
had it been otherwise, no doubt it would have been
written, He and his house, or they all rejoiced, and
they believed; or some allusion would have been made
to the faith and acts of others.
Of the same character is the answer to the inquiry
of the jailer. " Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
" Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be
saved, and thy house "- his faith only pointed to, as
the medium of the blessings to be received by himself
and his children —his acts only recorded when the
blessing was given to them all.




208           THE JAILER REJOICED.
3. The Apostles always make a distinction between
(otKos) "house," and  (OKL'a) "household."l  By
"house" they  mean family — children. And by
" household " they include the domestics, or servants,
and all connected with the establishment. The term
OtKoS means literally "house," or "dwelling," but,
metaphorically, the seed, descendants, immediate family- as when we speak of the "house of David," or
" house of Israel." But o0L'a, " household," is a different word, of different gender, and embraces those
received into the family - servants, attendants, and
appendages, making up all in any way identified with
the house. And the Apostles always observed this
distinction, but our translators seem to have overlooked it in some places. The address, or sermon,
was delivered before the o0KLa, " household,"- all who
belonged to the establishment, -but only the jailer
and family, or children, were baptized.
And so it was only Lydia and her otKos, ", house,"
not " household," as it is translated, but " Lydia and
her children, the jailer and all his [children], and the
children of Stephanas were baptized."  The jailer
could not have been a very old man, for his acts are
such as we should ascribe to the rashness and vigor of
early manhood. His first thought was to kill himself!
Age is more deliberate. Next he " sprang in " with
the vigor and activity, as indicated in the original, of
one in the prime of life - not of old age, and the
father of a grown up family. Wherefore everything
connected with these cases harmonizes with the doctrine of family Baptism, including young children;
and as soon as you adopt the opposite opinion, every
incident needs explanation.
1 See Taylor's Apos. Bap., p. 88, 89.




HOUSE AND HOUSEHOLD.          209
So the Apostle Paul tells us he baptized the
(olKov) family of Stephanas, but afterwards refers to
the (oKt'a) " household " of Stephanas as having " addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints;" that
is, the care of attending to the wants of poor saints,
and the duties of hospitality. In the first place, he
speaks of the Baptism of his children -for o'Kos applies
to one's own children, while oLKta includes servants and
all others living in the family. And because, some
eight or ten years after the Baptism of the family, he
tells us the "household" were active in a certain
duty, some have inferred that there were no little
children in that family when they were all baptized.
But there is no proof that there were none among
them when the Baptism took place, or even at this laslt
point of time. The "household," or several of its
members, may have done much for the poor saints,
and yet some of the children still be too young to act
as responsible moral agents. It is the manner in
which these and all family Baptisms are expressed or
implied in the Holy Scriptures, that demands our particular attention.
The Baptism of several families in the New Testament is to be learned also merely by implication -
no special notice being taken of the event. We have
sufficient reason for the belief that the families of
Crispus and of Onesiphorus, of Aristobulus and Narcissus, and also of Cornelius, were baptized; but so
usual were family Baptisms that the Holy Spirit
deemed it sufficient merely to imply the fact, as in
numerous cases of individual Baptisms. And had the
usual course of admitting their little children into
covenant with God been departed from, and only
heads of families, and those capable of self-responsi14




210         HOUSEHOLD OF STEPHANAS.
bility admitted to Baptism, doubtless the character of
these records would have been different, and family
Baptisms less common?
" Being myself convinced," writes the remarkable
author of "Apostolic Baptism," after a learned and
laborious examination of the subject," that the Apostles practised Infant Baptism, and that the Evangelists meant to tell us so, I affirm that the natural import
of the term olKOs,," family," includes children of all
ages. In proof, I offer fifty examples; and if fifty
are not sufficient, I offer a hundred; and if a hundred
are not sufficient, I offer two hundred; and if two
hundred are not sufficient, four hundred." I
Now in questions that do not allow of absolute
demonstration, we are bound to follow the stronger
probability. Neither party can be required to prove
the presence or absence of little children in these
families; but which is the more probable under all the
circumstances noted, that there were no little children
in any of them, or that there were, at least in some,
if not in all?
When called upon to answer this question, can
there be a doubt as to the stronger probability.? Visit
eight families promiscuously in this city, and is it
probable that you will find no young children belonging to even one of them all, or to half of them? Visit
three families - representing the jailer's, Lydia's, and
that of Stephanas — and take them  promiscuously,
and which is the more probable, that you will find no
children in one out of the three, or that you will find
them in two of the three, or in all three? Yes, we
may take the families or houses on any street, or
through any district of country, and we shall find
1 C. Taylor's Apos. Bap., p. 89.




FAMILY BAPTISM COMMON.        2 11
little children in a large majority of them all, instead
of not in one out of three. Therefore, as a question
of probabilities, the answer admits of no doubt. No
man can hesitate for a moment to determine on which
side lies the stronger probability; and when he takes
in the number of families, the manner in which they
are recorded, the universal custom of the Jewish
nation, and all the circumstances connected with these
cases of family Baptisms, recorded in the Holy Scriptures, the probabilities nmultiply to an infinite extent.
Then to which shall we give allegiance - to a doctrine
which started up in the Dark Ages, or to the practice of
Christians from the beginning? If, in duties where
demonstration cannot be given, we are morally bound to
follow the greater probability, how must we act in this
case? Shall we, can we, lay aside the ancient universal custom of the Church, the strongest visible tie
between Christ and our children, the faithful constant
monitor of our duty to our little ones, and substitute
a conjecture! brooded and hatched when gloom and
ignorance had spread over the earth? What law in
morals or in religion will authorize such a course?
4. We have seen that the first generation after the
Apostles did beyond all doubt baptize their little
children. We have seen that it has been continued
by the great body of Christians ever since. We have
seen that family religion, including the young children
as well as the older ones, was the universal privilege
of the people of God up to the corming of Christ; and
that his commission to open the Gospel dispensation,
instead of curtailing the privileges enjoyed under the
Old, is clothed in language that extends the limits and
makes more comprehensive the New — embracing all




212           GREATER PROBABILITY.
nations, without regard to age or sex. And, with
this construction, his words and deeds concerning little
children accord, the preaching of the Apostles correspond, and the frequent Baptisms of whole families, and
their mode of record all unite - thus combining doctrine, practice, and incidental circumstances, into one
harmonious whole.
And yet we have been told that we ought to give
up this time-honored, blessed privilege, and adopt the
cold, calculating, unfeeling alternative of leaving our
little ones to the uncovenanted mercies of God, till
they can work for themselves I Although they have
never sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, yet they must remain under its bondage (visibly
at least), till they can of themselves apply for the Seal
of the Covenant of their Redemption I




CHAPTER VIII.
TESTIMONY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES CONCLUDED.
Laws of Marriage among the Jews. - The Holy Seed not allowed to mingle
with Heathen Nations. - Such Marriages dissolved in Times of Reformation. - Heathen Wives and Children put away. - Difficulties suggested
in regard to "believing and unbelieving " Husbands and Wives under
the New Dispensation. - Ceremonial Law not applicable. - Sanctifying
Influence of Believers on Unbelievers justifies their Continuance in Wedlock lawfully formed, hence their Children are Holy and not Unclean. -
Holy and Unclean always used in a Ceremonial or Religious Sense. -
Children numbered among the Holy and Saints by St. Paul. — Their
Parents instructed how to train them. - St. John divides the Members
of the Church into Three Classes, Fathers, Young Men, and Little Children. - Summary of Testimony. - Earnest Exhortation to the Faithful
Training of our Little Ones for Christ's Spiritual Kingdom.
~ 27. WE come next to a passage in the first
Epistle to the Corinthians, which shows how much
the Jewish Christians were under the influence of
early education, while it also proves, that the young
children of Christians are qualified for church membership.
The Jews, as the people of God, were called " holy,"
a " holy people " unto the Lord, "a special people,"
" a holy seed " (Deut. vii., xxvi.; Ezra ix.); just as
Christians are called " Saints," a holy nation, "peculiar
people,"." chosen generation"  (Acts ix.; Titus ii.);
and pagan nations were called' unclean," " uncircumcised."
The Jews as a " holy people" were forbidden to
intermarry with Pagan nations: "Neither shalt thou
make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt




214            LAW OF MARRIAGE.
not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou
take unto thy son." (Deut. vii. 3.) And further,
when such marriages had been contracted, it was
deemed essential to a thorough reformation that they
be dissolved.
In the time of Ezra, many had broken through
this law and taken to themselves Pagan wives. The
princes came to Ezra and complained that the "holy
seed" had mingled themselves with surrounding
nations, having taken their daughters for themselves,
and for their sons. (Ezra ix. 3.) This was the cause
of much lamentation, and the people were assembled
and " wept very sore."  "And Shechaniah the son
of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said
unto Ezra, we have transgressed against our God, and
have taken strange wives of the people of the land;
yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this thing.
Now therefore let us make a covenant with our God,
to put away all the wives and such as are born of
them, according to the counsel of my lord, and of
those that tremble at the commandment of our God;
and let it be done according to the law." (x. 2, 3.)
Ezra arose and made all the people swear that they
would do according to this word. " And they sware."
(5th verse.) And accordingly all such marriages
were then dissolved.'
Certain Jewish believers at Corinth, as it appears,
thought the same law, or principle, ought to be observed under the new dispensation. For when it was
found that there were some among them, whose husbands or wives were unbelievers, and yet both continued to dwell together in wedlock, the question was
raised, whether the believer in such cases ought not to
separate from the unbelieving partner? They referred
1 Se-.Azra x., passim.




BELIEVERS UITED TO UNBELIEVERS.    215
the matter to the Apostle Paul, who replied as fol.
lows:1. 1 Con. vii. 12-14. " If any brother hath a wife
that believeth not, and if she be pleased to dwell with
him, let him not put her away - and the woman which
hath a husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased
to dwell with her, let her not leave him.  For the
unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the
unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else
were your children unclean, but now are they holy."
This reply of the Apostle shows that the believer
is not required, under the Gospel, which leans to
mercy, to separate from an unbelieving partner; and
that instead of the believer being polluted by the unbeliever, the latter is in a certain sense sanctified
by the former, in virtue of which their children are
" holy " - to be treated as the "holy seed," not as
unclean " Pagan children.  Now, as the "holy
seed," and all persons called "holy" (Oytot) were received into covenant with God, and numbered with
his people — and "unclean" and "uncircumcised,"
were terms used to distinguish those not received into
covenant among God's people; this passage teaches,
that though only one parent be a believer, their
children are numbered among the holy seed, and
hence are qualified for the Christian covenant, therefore for Baptism; because they must be baptized to
enter into that covenant.
" Holy" (aytoL) is used everywhere in the Septuagint for a Hebrew  word which means -"pure,"
" clean," and is used in the New Testament for saints,
(ayUwt) "holy ones." (Acts ix. 13, 32, 41.) St.




216            APPLICATION OF HOLY.
Paul confessed that he had " shut up many of the
saints (Trv aylwv)' holy ones' in prison." (Acts xxvi.
10.)  "I go to Jerusalem to minister to the saints "
(Tots aylo), " holy ones." (Romans xv. 25.) He frequently addressed the churches under the same title
— o  ay'ot  o —-" saints or holy ones." "To the saints
(Tots ayotsL,'holy ones') which are at Ephesus." 1
" To all the saints (rTO  aytOL,' holy ones') in Christ
Jesus which are at Philippi."2 "To the saints
(rots ayolts,' holy ones') and faithful brethren in
Christ which are at Colosse." 3 This title is given in
a multitude of places to the members of the Church,
and the "fact is indisputable (says Taylor) that the
appellative' holy,' is not bestowed in the New Testament on any person not a member of the Church of
Christ." 4
But in the passage under consideration, it is expressly applied to young children. Shall we then
receive it in the same sense in this as in other passages,
or shall we give it a different meaning from all the
other places in which the sacred writers use it?
" This appellation being never given in the Scriptures
(says Hay) to any but to those who are of the Church
and in covenant with God, we must understand it
here in the same sense; and therefore, the children of
one believing parent, and more conclusively, if both
be believers, are of the Church, and entitled to be admitted therein by Baptism, for the children of one
believer are called'holy' in the same sense as
the Israelites are called a'holy people,' and the
members of Gospel churches are called' saints' or
holy persons,'a holy nation,' a'peculiar people:'
not because they are all truly pious and sanctified,
1 Eph. i. 1.  2 Phil. i.   8 Col. i. 2.   4 Apostolic Baptism, page 97.




UNBELIEVER NOMINALLY SANCTIFIED.              217
but because they are visibly the people of God, and
have been received into his covenant." 1
Now as the question proposed to the Apostle must
have originated in Jewish scruples, so the reasoning
in his answer is exactly adapted to the nature of such
an origin. If the believer must put away an unbelieving partner, he must, according to the same law
and practice, put away the children of such a marriage
likewise: for those "born of them" are unclean by
the same authority, and must be excluded from the
community of God's people and covenanted privileges.
But the unbelieving partner, in consequence of his
union  by  marriage  before  the  other believed, is
sanctified by her faith for the relationship of husband, and hence their children must not be treated ass
4" unclean " Pagan children, but as " the holy seed."
The whole argument seems to be this: To the
question  asked (by Jewish believers), "ought not a
believer to separate from an unbelieving partner, and
their marriage be dissolved? " The Apostle replies
- No. If the unbeliever be pleased to continue with
the believer, let them continue together,'"for the
unbeliever is sanctified by the believer," i. e., both
being  "one flesh" 2 by  lawful marriage before the
conversion of the believer, the unbeliever in virtue of
this union, is raised to a holier relationship, which so
1 Hay On Baptism.
2 There is a difference between the marriages here alluded to,- and those
formed by the Jews with Pagan nations. The marriage of a Jew with a
Pagan, was contrary to law in the first instance, but a marriage between
two heathens was according to law, and both consequently regarded as
one flesh. The conversion of one afterwards may be supposed to pass an
influence on the other, or at least entitle him to such privileges as the
connection would justify. These privileges or benefits, so far affect his
heathen state of uncleanness, that he must not be regarded in the same
light with a heathen, but as one in a certain sense sanctified in consequence of the union preiexisting between the pair.




218      UNCLEANNESS NOT ILLEGITIMACY.
far entitles one to the privileges of the sanctified,
that he must not be treated as unclean, but as fitted
by this union for his marriage state - else were the
children unclean and must be put away also; but
now are they holy, for "the root being holy so are
the branches also."
"If," says Dr. MWhitby, "the holy seed among the
Jews were circumcised and made federally holy, by
receiving the sign of the covenant, and being admitted
into the number of God's people, because they were
born seminally holy - then by like reason the holy
seed of Christians ought to be admitted to Baptism,
and receive the sign of the Christian covenant, and so
be entered into the society of the Christian Church." 1
1. Seeing that this interpretation must admit Infant
Baptism, some of its opposers have given the passage
a different rendering; in doing which, they are compelled to change the meaning of the words "holy"
(ay-a) and " unclean " (aQKccOapra) from that generally
received to one nowhere else given to them in the
Holy Scriptures! They render the passage in substance as follows: s" For the unbelieving partner is
sanctified by the believer, else were your children illegitimate, but now are they legitimate."  Neither
logic nor philology will admit of this interpretation.
For if the question be one of a legal character only,
in what sense can the believer add to or take from the
lawfulness of the marriage, so as to make the children
illegitimate? The children of heathen parents are certainly as legitimate in the eye of the law as they
would be though one were a believer. And yet,
according to the passage, were it not for some favorable influence of the believer, the children would be
"unclean."  This uncleanness cannot, therefore, be
1 Comment. 1 Cor. vii. 14.




HOLY AND UNCLEAN NOT LEGAL TERMS.   219
illegitimacy, because it depends on that which cannot
affect the legality of the marriage.
But if the reasoning of the Apostle could be reconciled to this interpretation, the meaning of the words
&Kd0apTa (unclean) and I' (holy) cannot. For notwithstanding the very frequent use of these terms in
the Sacred Scriptures, there is not one single place in
which they are used in such a sense. Besides there
are specific words in the Greek language for " legitimate and illegitimate," which rendered it necessary
for the Apostle to use them in such a sense. Had he
meant " illegitimate," he would, beyond a doubt, have
used the same word voo's (bastard) which he uses in
his Epistle to the Hebrews (chap. xii. 8); and had
he meant " legitimate," there was also its proper word
yvartos. But referring to the Gentile and Christian
state, as the whole argument goes to show, he used
in their natural sense the proper words to convey
what he meant —&KadapTa (unclean) and ylea (holy.)
Instead of requiring these terms to be changed from
their natural and proper usage, both the nature of the
question and the character of the argument require
them to be received in the same sense here, in which
they are received in all other places in the Sacred
Scriptures, and hence we should receive into the fold
of Christ all to whom  the appellation "holy" is
therein applied, though but one of the parents of such
children be a believer.
Others, who are opposed to Infant Baptism, but
not willing to adopt an interpretation that changes
words so entirely from their usual meaning as to render " holy and unclean " by "' legitimate and illegitimate," would refer the reasoning of the Apostle to the
relation existing between all Christian parents and




220    CHILDREN OF CHRISTIANS HOLY SEED.
their children - i. e., the unbeliever is sanctified by
the believer, else were the children of all Christian
parents unclean to them and must be put away from
them.
This interpretation is inconsistent with itself, for it
opposes the idea that " holy and unclean " are used in
a legal sense, and adopts that of a religious one, yet
changes the religious sense of the terms employed,
and issue in hand, by a general application of them to
the children of all Christians. While the question is
evidently confined to the case of an unbeliever living
in wedlock with a believer, and the disadvantages that
would accrue to the children, by a separation of such
parents from each other. The argument being Jewish,
the terms used must of course be of the same character,
i. e., according to their general acceptation among that
people on such questions; and how could the Apostle
expect to be understood, unless he used language as it
was generally understood by those to whom he addressed himself? And if he does thus use it, what was
understood by the term " holy " when applied to children or to persons among the Jews? What did they
mean when the complaint was made, that the "holy
seed have mingled themselves with the people of other
lands? " And what law was that which was violated
thereby, and which some of the judaizing Christians
in Corinth thought ought to be applied to the case
now brought before the Apostle? And in that law,
how are the terms "unclean " and "holy," used?
There is but one answer — all persons, of whatever
age, called "holy," belonged to the community of
God's people — were members of his Church. How
then, could they imagine the Apostle to mean anything else, than that these children were to be re



USUAL ACCEPTATION OF TERMS.       221
garded as all others to whom this appellation had been
applied? His reasoning is just such as we might expect one Christian Jew to use with another, under
such circumstances - employing language familiar to
both. And we are, therefore, bound to give these
terms their usual acceptation, and to regard the children to whom they are applied, as numbered with the
people of God, and hence entitled to Baptism.
It is a common thing to change the address from the
third to the second person; several instances of the
kind are to be found in the same chapter to which
these words belong - but the use of " holy " in any
other than a religious sense, is unknown in the Holy
Scriptures. Neither do they allow such a perversion
of the first principles of reasoning, as that because
religious parents are permitted to live with their little
children, therefore it follows, believing and unbelieving husbands and wives may live together if they
choose; nor that if you dissolve such marriages then
you must dissolve the connection between all parents
and children. By thus reversing the propositions you
see there is no necessary connection between the premises and conclusions, the analogy fails, and such logic
could satisfy no inquiring mind. It comes in direct
conflict with the very principle that gave rise to the
scruple; which, in order to protect the families and
rising generation of the people of God from the corrupting influences of surrounding nations, forbade
marriages with them, and made it a condition where
such marriages had been contracted, that the partner
and children must be abandoned before such an one
could be received back among the holy seed.
But if Christian parents must all be separated from
their children, according to Dr. Dagg's new theory,




222       INFLUENCE FROM THE BELIEVER.
then the special object of separating the clean from
the unclean, in the beginning, in order to preserve the
holy seed from the corrupting influence of the unholy,
is perverted, and all children cast out as alike unclean,
and deprived of the training of pious parents, and the
benefits of Christian association. Whereas the inference drawn by the Apostle evidently is - if you put
away unbelieving husbands or wives, according to the
law referred to, you must put away their children also
- for on the same principle would they also be' "unclean." But under the Gospel it is different. Those
marriages being lawful in the first place, and the man
and wife being one in a certain sense, the act of the
believer after their marriage redounds in part to the
benefit of the other, and entitles him and his children
to the privilege of remaining among the people of
God if he chooses. "s For the unbelieving husband is
sanctiJied by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children unclean,
but now are they holy."
It is strange that such a man as the Rev. Dr.
Barnes could not see that it was by or through the
believing partner that a supposed religious disability
was removed, and not the infidel state of the parent or
separation that would make the children civilly illegitimate, which would be a non sequitur in theory as
it is in fact. His own references show that the term
"unclean" is used in a religious and not in a mere
civil sense. And the only rendering of the passage
that harmonizes the scope of the argument and the
natural use of the terms with a logical conclusion is,
that which shows that the law against certain marriages in a former dispensation, did not apply in this
case, and that the believing and unbelieving partner




LITTLE CHILDREN CALLED SAINTS.    223
may continue together, and their children be treated
as "'holy " — baptized and numbered among God's
people.
And this rendering is confirmed by the fact that the
same Apostle addresses children as " saints" and
" holy," in other places, and recognizes them as belonging to the Church with their parents. In his
Epistles to the Church at Ephesus and at Colosse he
enumerates under the title of " saints" (aytot) and
"faithful" (raTroZ), husbands, wives, masters, parents,
and children - evidently intending to include the
whole of Christian families.
To the Church of Ephesus he writes: —
2. EPHmSxANS i. 1. "Paul an Apostle of Jesus
Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at
Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus."
Now mark, that this Epistle is written to the
Church - to the " saints and faithful," or members
of a Christian body at Ephesus. It reads in chapter vi. 1, 2, 3, 4,' Children, obey your parents in the
Lord, for this is right. Honor thy father and mother
(which is the first commandment with promise), that
it may be well with thee, and that thou mayest live
long on the earth. And ye fathers provoke not your
children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture
and admonition of the Lord."
Here are children addressed among the members of
a Church, who are so young that they require the
pious training and guidance of their parents in the
duties of religion. Their parents are instructed how
to bring them up - not to be so rigid and severe as
to provoke and develop feelings of anger and crossness in their offspring, but to pursue a kind and gentle
course of discipline; to exercise the authority and




224     SUITED TO VERY YOUNG CHILDREN.
temper of Christian principles towards them; "to
bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord." And thus they would enable them to fulfil
the expectations of the Church, and prove themselves
worthy of their high calling and name. That such is
the meaning of the Apostle is clear from the general
scope of the Epistle. After explaining certain doctrines, he then gives some advice and admonition of a
practical character. And for this end he specifies the
duties that are peculiar to every branch of a Christian
family. He points out the corresponding duties of
husbands and wives, of masters and servants, and of
parents and children; all of whom are classed among
the SAINTS, and the motives held forth to influence
their conduct, such only as were of authority among
Christians.
That the Apostle did not intend to confine himself
to those children only who were verging into manhood
and womanhood, and were capable of making a profession for themselves, is obvious from the fact that
his words apply more especially to young children,
who yet needed to be trained " in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord." This was not so necessary
to one capable of a profession on his own responsibility, as for younger members of a family.
Besides, who can suppose that one guided by the
principles of Him who so loved little children that He
was offended with others for attempting to keep them
away from Him - would write for the benefit of every
other member of a household, and pass over the little
children in silence? not say a single word —or intimate that the parent was bound in Christian love to
his dependent little ones, who had souls that needed




ALL THE FAMILY FAITHFULS.       225
training, and parental supervision, and heavenly instruction as much as the older children, who had grown
up and were able to choose for themselves! What -
think it important that the corresponding duties of
husband and wife, master and servant, parent and
older children should be attended to; but the younger
children, whose tender minds are so susceptible of good
impressions, and on whose early training so much depends, not worthy of mention, and passed over as
forming no portion of that race for whom the Saviour
died! believe it who can. No- the Apostle had
more of his Master's spirit, than to go into a Christian
family and give directions for the benefit of every one
in it, and not think of the " little ones "-not even
give them a kind look, for that would have called forth
some remark concerning them. He acted far otherwise - he included all the children, and especially the
younger ones that still needed the watchful care and
kind instruction of their parents, and he instructed
their parents to train them in the discipline and doctrine of Christ and his religion; as all little children
should be trained.
And he calls them all " faithfuls " (tC-T-O3) - members of the Christian Church, and commands that
they be instructed as Christians- that they be governed and guided with kindness and tenderness in the
doctrines of the Gospel of Christ - not treated with
harshness, or ruled with a tyranny that would provoke
and discourage them. To the same effect he wrote
also to the Church at Colosse.
3. COLOSSIANS i. 1, 2. "Paul, an Apostle of
Jesus Christ by the will of God and Timotheus our
brother, to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ
which are at Colosse."  iii. 20, 21. " Children, obey
15




226    INSTRUCTION OF THE SIMPLEST KIND.
your parents in all things; for this is well-pledaing
usnto the Lord. Fathers, provoke not your ehildren to
anger, lest they be discouraged."
The same principles are inculcated in regard to
children in this Epistle, that were inculcated in that
sent to the Church at Ephesus. Children are addressed
and recognized as members of the Church, and duties are laid down for their observance, and that of
their parents. They must be trained with the same
care and faithfulness as the children of the Ephesian
Christians. And the admonition is addressed to them,
and penned for all, as soon as capable of understanding it, that the highest Authority requires them to
obey and honor their father and mother. Such instruction gave more importance and authority to the
teaching of their parents, and hence aided them in
their work of training. But only the simplest form
of truth is written to the children - not things difficult to understand - not such doctrines as require
children to be grown up nearly to manhood to comprehend. On the contrary, they are among the most
simple and easy duties that can be taught the infant
mind; because they express the natural feelings of an
innocent age. The duty to obey its mother is among
the first things that a child learns. To love and honor father and mother is a lesson soon felt and understood. So that the children addressed, are called
upon to attend to the first, or what ought to be the
first duties, that are taught them.
The object the Apostle had in view, was doubtless
the due observance of the duties arising from the corresponding relations of the different members of a
Christian family — and the great end of making all
the children, young and old, Christians in heart as well




SEPULCHRAL INSCRIPTIONS           227
as in name.  All of them should be trained in the
way that will promote that end, and therefore much
care and caution ought to be exercised, lest they be
discouraged by a want of prudence on the part of
those to whom this great work is committed.
And as these Epistles were written to members of
the Church, enforcing duties on only Christian principles, and little children included, the membership
of little children is therefore recognized by St. Paul.
In conformity to the custom of the sacred writers in
applying the terms " saints" and "faithful" to children without regard to age, and as confirmation of the
above interpretation, we find from the sepulchral inscriptions of the early Christians that they applied
the same terms to those who belonged to the Christian
Church, whatever might be their age. We select a
few of the many that are still preserved. I
4. "A'FAITtFUL,) descended from ancestors who were' FAITHFULS,' here lies Zosimus: he lived two years, one month,
and twenty-five days."
The symbol of a fish and anchor accompanies this
inscription, which marks the age to which it belonged.
The fish and anchor as symbols, were in general use
among Christians in the second century, and early
part of the third, and is approved by Tertullian and
Clemens Alexandrinus.
This child was a " faithful," i. e., a church-member
at two years of age. Descended from parents who
were " faithfuls," and who caused him to be baptized
in infancy, which shows how they understood the Apostolic injunction. Again
" Posthumius Euthenion, a faithful Christian brother, accompanied with the Holy Grace. On the day before his sixth birth1 Taken from Taylor's Facts aod Elimcs.




228      INSCRIPTIONS OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS.
day, early, he gave back that which he had received - his life.
He lived six years, and was buried the fifth of the ides of July
on a Thursday, on which day he was born: whose soul is with the
Holy One in peace. Erected to a well-deserving son, Posthumius, by order of his grandmother Euthenia Fytista."
This has the word IX~Y2, a " fish, " at the top,
and forming an acrostic down the side, which was a
private mark of Christian sepulchres, to preserve
them from violation by the rude hands of the heathen
in primitive times. He is called a "faithful Christian
brother," yet died before he was six years old.
"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."
"To Pisentus. an innocent soul, who lived one year, eight
months, and thirteen days. NEWLY BAPTIZED, buried on the
ides of September, in peace."
" Achillia, NEWLY BAPTIZED, iS buried here; she died at the
age of one year and five months."
The figure of a dove accompanies this last inscription, which was also a symbol of the second century,
and derived, says Taylor, from an earlier period. She,
though only one year and five months old, was baptized.
We might adduce many others of the same kind,
all preserved as belonging to the primitive and persecuting days of Christianity, illustrating and testifying to the truth, that the Apostles and their first
successors baptized the young children of Christians,
and that the terms "holy and faithful," which are applied in the Holy Scriptures to children without regard to age, were continued to be used in the same
way for several centuries, and that church-membership
and family Baptisms were never limited by age in the
primitf;iv  Cbhroh.




QUALIFICATIONS NEEDFUL TO BISHOPS.    229
The same use of the term " faithful " applied to the
directions of St. Paul to Titus respecting the qualifications of a bishop, would give them an easy, natural
interpretation that would harmonize also with similar
directions to Timothy, and with what has been the
practice of Christians in every age of the Church.
5. TITUS i. 6, 7. "If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused
of riot, not unruly. For a bishop must be blameless
as the steward of God."
Now the phrase "faithful children," in the language of the Holy Scriptures, literally means " believing children." And if it be a necessary qualification
for the office of stewards and bishops of the Church
that their children be believers, in what sense must
they be so? The parent cannot be held directly responsible for the conversion of his children, nor even
for the morality of those who are grown up. And if
such be the condition on which offices in the Church
are to be filled, how many now would have to lay
aside their authority and enter into a more humble
sphere!  And what branch of the Church has ever
acted on that principle?
But if the Apostle meant that the children of such
had been numbered among the " faithful " by Baptism
and Christian nurture, and kept in proper subjection
and not allowed to run riot and grow up as heathen
children, then there would be a propriety in selecting
such an one as fitted to rule the Church. The term
" faithful" would be applied in its usual Scriptural
sense, and the fitness of the individual inferred from his
own acts, not from that which was beyond his control.
And this accords perfectly with what was written
to Timothy on the same subject:



230            A FAITHFUL FATHER.
6. 1 TIMOTHY iii. 4, 5. " One that ruleth well his
own house, having his children in subjection with all
gravity: (For if a man know not how to rule his own
house, how shall he take care of the Church of God.)"
" To rule well one's own house having his children
in subjection with all gravity," is just what every
Christian should do, and especially those who undertake to rule or take care of the Church.  And to do
this they must "' bring up their children in the nurture
and admonition of the Lord," which is indeed only
another form of words to convey the same ideas.
Where polygamy had been indulged in before their
conversion to Christianity, and the children of such
marriages were in part or in whole in the hands of
heathen mothers, or on account of other reasons the
children were neglected and their religious training
not attended to by the parent, such an one was unfit
to be a ruler of the Church, both as an exemplar
and guide to the flock. Not so with him who had
one wife and a Christian family all living in harmony
together, governed by Christian doctrine.  He was
worthy of his position as a husband and father, showed
good fidelity as a Christian, did what he could for
the salvation of his children, ruled well his own house,
and hence so far, his faithfulness was a guarantee and
pledge that he would rule well the Church. And
although some of his children when grown up might
not prove to be "faithful," worthy of such a father;
yet in that family one might look for some of each
class of such persons as St. John addresses in his
General Epistle.
7. 1 JoHN ii. 12, 13. "I write unto you little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's
sake. I write unto you fathers, because ye have known




NATURAL DIVISION OF CHURCH MEMBERS.   231
Him that is from the beginning.  I write unto you
young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one."
This is a general epistle written for all Christians,
and although "little children," is a phrase sometimes
used in a metaphorical sense by this Apostle, and in
different senses in this same epistle, yet when he
divides Christians into such natural divisions, as
fathers, young men, and little children, we can see no
reason for supposing they are metaphorical divisions.
"I write unto you little children, because your sins
areforgiven you for his name's sake." " If it be asked,
when were their sins forgiven them?" the Ancient
Church replies, " I acknowledge ONE Baptism for the
remission of sins:" and the Ancient Church was right,
says Taylor. "These little children were admitted into
the Church by Baptism, administered for the remission of sins." 1 (Mark i. 4; Luke iii. 3; Acts ii.
38.)
And if the attentive reader will interpret the Holy
Scriptures in a natural way, according to the scope of
the writer, in those passages that refer to little children, to families, and to the subjects of Baptism generally, he will find infant membership and family religion
particularly pointed to, or more indistinctly implied,
and taken for granted throughout. But if he chooses
to make exceptions of such passages, and seeks to
evade such meaning, and closes his ears against every
other kind of evidence, then nothing but an absolute
specific command or example will be received as authority - and he thereby sets himself up as a teacher to
the Holy Spirit, and prescribes to Him the manner in
which He should communicate the will of Heaven,
and the only conditions on which he will receive and
1 See Taylor On Apostolic Baptism.




232      CIRCUMCISION IN THE GOSPEL CHURCH.
obey his instructions! On the same principle he may
reject the Trinity and other important doctrines and
duties, because not made known in the specific manner which he demands.'
But such as are willing to be taught in God's way,
who are ready to receive the truth in any mode that
He may choose to convey it, and are ready to use all
necessary means to know the truth, we invite to a
liberal and impartial examination of the passages to
which we have referred. Why should we desire anything beyond the will of God in this matter? If we
wish to exclude little children, after they have been
received for two thousand years by express law into
covenant with God, why not seek for some positive precept or enactment by which that law has been repealed.,
and their former privileges not allowed under the New
Dispensation?  And if this you cannot find, why attempt to limit the application of passages, to prove in
a negative way that they do not necessarily imply
their former privileges, and therefore they shall not
be continued?
The first Christians did not understand the Apostles
to teach that their young children must no longer be
included in covenanted privileges with the chosen of
God; for as already noticed, they continued to circumcise them as they had done before they embraced the
Gospel, and under the belief too (at least many, if not
all), that it was absolutely necessary in the new Church
state. For when the Gospel was embraced by the
Gentiles, " certain Jewish teachers" insisted that cir1 Dr. Carson excludes Infants in the commission to " disciple all nations "
because they cannot believe, -then applies this RULE to all passages
referring to or implying Infants, and thus easily disposes of them. But
would it not be more in accordance with the Christian spirit to learn God's
will in whatever way He may choose to make it known, and examine
every passage on its own merits and thereby test the correctness of the
RRULE to be of such general application.




PRACTICE OF FIRST CHRISTIANS,    233
cumcision must be observed by them also as the indispensable duty of Christians. " Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved."
(Acts xv. 1.)
Now how could these men continue a religious rite
among their little children,l which rite they supposed
was a necessary part of the Christian system, and
binding on every member, if Baptism had ever been
denied to their children, and they taught that young
children were no longer entitled to church-membership? And if they believed that they were still entitled to membership, can any one suppose that they
would continue to circumcise them under the reign of
the Messias and not complete their membership by the
appointed mode of Baptism into the name of the King
of the new and more perfect organization of grace?
8. Let us place this properly before us.  The
Gospel was first preached to the Jews, and confined
to them exclusively (Acts x., xi., xiv.), until after it
had been proclaimed and spread throughout the Jews'
territory. Canaan, Judaea, Samaria, and Galilee had
all heard its joyful sound, and thousands hearkened
and believed.  The churches for some years, therefore, were composed exclusively of Jewish believers.
They believed Jesus to be the true Messiah, and
received Him as the promised Saviour of the world.
And they entered into the Christian covenant by
Baptism; but what became of their young children
who were with them under the old covenant? Did
they leave them behind? Or did they bring them
with themselves into the Christian covenant? Is
anything written, as said or done, that would lead
them to suppose that their young children were no
longer to be regarded as having any connection with
1 Acts xxi. 21, 22.




234       FIRST COUNCIL OF THE CHURCH.
the Church?  Nothing is recorded to that effect; on
the contrary, they continue to circumcise them as
they had always done, which shows they still regarded
them as entitled to church-membership; for they
regarded the Christian Church as- a continuation or
enlargement of their former Church, and Christian
rites as additional ceremonies in this more enlarged
and perfect state. Under this belief must they not
have baptized all who were circumcised, unless prohibited by the Apostles.? And if prohibited from
Baptism, why is nothing said about it, and yet so
much contention about circumcision? Would it not
be- marvellous for a Jew, with all his love for the
customs and principles of his fathers, to keep perfect
silence, if informed that his'little children must be
excluded from the Gospel covenant? And yet we
hear not of a single complaint on this subject from
the beginning to the end of the New Testament.
Could this have been so had their children been refused Baptism?
Such was the zeal with' which certain believers
among them contended for the necessity of circumcision to Gentile Christians, that it was made a matter
of much disputation, and a Council called to settle it:
which decided in the negative, and letters were then
sent by messengers to different places informing Gentile Christians that Mosaic ceremonies were not binding upon them; but recommending that they should
follow that which will. promote the peace of the
Church — i. e., "to abstain from meats offered to
idols, from blood, and from things strangled, and
from fornication." 1 Nothing is said in regard to' any
rite or duty peculiarly Christian, because there was
no disagreement about anything peculiar to-the Chris1 Acts xv. 1, 29.




LIBERTY UNDER THE GOSPEL.          235
tian system. To this the Gentiles had strictly conformed.  Baptism is not mentioned, because this they
had received, and there was no disputation about it;
nor should we have heard anything about circumcision
had they been so unanimous on that point as they were
in regard to Baptism. Had the Gentiles hesitated to
baptize their children, or the Apostles refused it previously to the children of Jewish Christians, there
would have been room or cause for as much controversy about Baptism as about circumcision. But
there is not one word on record to show that the
Apostles or any one else ever taught them to regard
their children as excluded from  the Christian covenant. I On the contrary, Gospel liberty permitted
the Jewish believers to observe the whole law  of
Moses as long as it was not substituted for Christ,
nor made obligatory on the Gentile Christians. When,
however, they began to substitute works for grace,
and place Moses before Christ, a warning voice was
quickly raised, and the evils pointed out.
If any one doubts the adherence of Jewish believers
to circumcision, even after the decision of the Council
(Acts xv.) that forbade them  to impose it on the
Gentiles, let him turn to the 21st chapter of the Acts
and read what St. James and the Elders say to the
Apostle Paul touching this point (verses 21, 22).
"' Thou seest, brother, how many thousands 2 [tens of
thousands] of the Jews there are which believe, and
they are all zealous of the law; and they are informed
of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are
1 The fact that they urged circumcision on the Gentile converts, proves
they regarded circumcision as necessary to all Christians and young
children as members, because circumcision was as binding on children as
on adults.
2.LvpaLes, "myriads."




236         LIBERTY UNDER THE GOSPEL.
among the Gentiles to forsake Moses -saying that
they ought not to circumcise their children, neither
walk after the customs. What is it, therefore? the
multitude must needs come together, for they will
hear that thou art come." See how soon an excitement is produced by the rumor that the Apostle
taught, their children need not be circumcised.
This visit to Jerusalem was made by St. Paul,
according to the best chronologers, i about twentyfive years after the first preaching of St. Peter, and
the conversion of the three thousand. The Jewish
converts had now, as we learn, increased to many
thousands, and were "all zealous of the law" of
Moses. A report that the Apostle Paul had been
teaching their brethren scattered among the Gentiles,
that "they ought not to circumcise their children,
nor observe their customs," had caused much excitement; to allay which, the Apostle, by advice, conforms publicly to a certain Jewish rite (verses 23,
27), to satisfy the Jews that he was not an enemy to
Moses rightly understood. For if he could observe
the ritual law himself, it ought to convince them that
he would not forbid others to do the same under
proper instructions, and that he himself lived according to the real requirements of Moses - according to
the very thing shadowed forth by him.
By this act, we learn there is nothing in the ritual
of Moses that a conscientious Christian might not
observe, provided he in no way substituted it for the
Gospel. It was of course unnecessary to the Christian, because the ritual law was merely the shadow of
the more substantial things to come under Christ.
And this he did not hesitate to declare (Col. ii.,
1 Horne, Whitby, Townsend, and others.




GOSPEL MADE MORE EXPLICIT.       237
Heb. x.) and to show that justification was by faith,
and not by the deeds of the law. " By the deeds of
the law shall no flesh be justified" (Rom. iii. 20),
was the tenor of his language. " A man is justified
by faith without the deeds of the law." (28th verse.)
He proved to them also from the case of Abraham
that " Christ is the end of the law for righteousness,
to every one that believeth." (Rom. x. 4.) A.2d in
all suitable ways did he labor to show the use of the
law, moral and ceremonial, and to discourage too
strong an attachment for the law of ceremonies, forbidding even its observance, if looked to for justification. (Gal. v. 4.) " Christ is become of no effect
unto you whosoever of you are justified by the law;
ye are fallen from grace.".... "For in Christ
Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love."
Can any one suppose that an Apostle who was so
constant and unwearied in his efforts to teach, and to
keep the minds of Christians rightly informed as to
the nature and uses of the law, would permit the
Jewish Christians to circumcise their children under
a belief that infants still stood in the same relation
to the Church they always had done, and never correct their delusion, if this had been one? Can we
suppose that such a man as the Apostle Paul, and all
the Apostles would so dissemble with the first Christians as to indulge them in an erroneous belief of
this kind, and never correct it? It is impossible.
Common honesty —their course in regard to every
other error, to say nothing of piety, forbids the supposition. Yet where do we find a single sentence, in
all the disputes about circumcision, or in all the
instructions given in regard to the law, its uses, and




238            GENERAL SUMMARY.
the reasons for its discontinuance, or in Christ's commission to his Apostles, or his remarks about little
children, that even intimates that there is to be any
change in their case under the Gospel dispensation?
Nowhere. Such an intimation is not to be found in
the sacred record. Therefore Christians are bound
by testimony, positive and negative in its, character —
historical, circumstantial, and inspired — to continue
infant membership and family religion in the Church
of God.
I. IT IS A FACT, that Infant Baptism  was the
acknowledged doctrine and common practice of the
Christian Church in the next age after the Apostles.
2. IT IS A FACT, that Infant Baptism was the received doctrine and usage of Christians before the
books of the New Testament had all been received
among the various Churches, and the question of their
inspiration settled.
3. IT IS A FACT, that Christian contemporaries of
the Apostles, and the Primitive Fathers generally,
taught that " all ages, young and old, were corrupt
through the infection of original sin, and therefore
Baptism was (in a ritual sense) necessary to all."
4. IT IS A FACT, that Infant Baptism had the consentient testimony of all antiquity to its validity; that
this was believed "everywhere, always, by all," in
the Primitive Church, so far as anything to the contrary has been found on record.
5. IT IS A FACT, that the most noted of the early
Christian Fathers taught that Baptism had superseded
circumcision - that it held the same place under the
New Dispensation which circumcision held under the
Old, and hence they called Baptism " Christian circumcision."




GENERAL SUMMARY.            239
6. IT IS A FACT, that the first Christians (Jews)
did for some time keep both the old Sabbath and the
Lord's day, and practised both Baptism and circumcision; and that circumcision and the Jewish Sabbath
gradually ceased to be observed in the Church, leaving
only Baptism and the Lord's day remaining. Therefore, as an initiatory rite, Baptism has superseded circumcision; and as a day of rest, the Lord's day has
superseded the old Sabbath. And, —
7. IT HAS BEEN SHOWN, that the Christian Church
is the continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant of
Grace in things, spiritual (Gal. iii. 15, 17; Matt. xxi.
43; Rom. xi. 17, 18, and others), enlarged in its
application- to subjects, but more exclusively spiritual
in its discipline. Hence, Baptism holds the same
place in the same Church, and; fulfils the same spiritual
ends of circumcision, and by virtue of the right of
little children to circumcision, they have an unquestionable legal right to Baptism.
8. IT HAS BEEN SHOWN, that the first Christians
received the Gospel as the fulfilment of the promises
made to their fathers, and the continuation, and development of that which was already begun, and hence
they continued the circumcision of their little children
and other rites of the Jewish Church,; which proves
that they still regarded little children/ as members,
which they would not have done if Baptism had been
denied them. And,
9. IT HAS BEEN SHOWN, that the mistake of Hebrew Christians in supposing that with the continuation of the Abrahamic Covenant of Grace, its types
and the Mosaic economy were also to be continued
under the Gospel Dispensation; would have been corrected in the beginning, if when they passed into the
Gospel Dispensation by Baptism, their little children




240            GENERAL SUMMARY.
were not allowed to pass with them - refused entrance
with simply the remark, 1" They cannot be baptized."
A thing so contrary to the feelings, education, and
practice of a Jew, must have called up discussion in
regard to circumcision and the Baptism of little children
in the very commencement of the New Dispensation.
Instead of which, the circumcision of little children by
Jewish members was quietly continued for some years,
and when Gentile converts were brought into the
Church, the same was urged upon them also, as a
necessary Christian duty.1 Had Baptism been denied
to all the little children circumcised up to that time,
how could the strict adherent to Moses suppose that
the two rights, so long separated, must now be united?
Admit, however, that their little ones had also been
baptized, then silence on the subject to that time,
and the union of the two rites on Gentile converts,
would be natural. And, —
10. WE HAVE SEEN, that instead of closing the
door of his kingdom against little children, the Saviour
Himself rebuked those who attempted to keep the little
ones from Him when on earth, and took them up in
his arms and blessed them, saying, " Of such is the
kingdom of God." (St. Mark x. 13-16; also Sts.
Matt. and Luke.)
11. WE HAVE SEEN, that instead of limiting their
privileges, and excluding them from his covenant
under the Gospel Dispensation, the Saviour issued his
commission to the Apostles in terms of the widest possible comprehension, embracing all nations; and when
construed according to the established laws of interpreting ancient writings, apply to little children as
strictly as to adults. (Matt. xxviii. 19, 20), etc.
12. WE HAVE SEEN, that in the first sermon
1 Acts xv. 5-29.




GENERAL SUMMARY.            241
preached under the Gospel Dispensation, the promis.
made to children with their parents, was referred to
by St. Peter. To the inquiring multitude, he said,
" The promise is to you and to your children." (Acts.
ii. 38, 39.)
13. WE HAVE   SEEN, that the Apostles baptized
whole families, without respect to age, so far as the
record shows; for family Baptisms are recorded as if
a usual thing, and only the names of the heads of them
mentioned, as if they alone were the responsible
agents. (Acts xvi. 13-19, 31-33; 1 Cor. i. 14-16,
etc.)
14. WE HAVE SEEN, that children are included in
the Epistles written to the Churches, and instructions
given them, and to their parents concerning them;
and that the same appellations of "faithfuls" and
" holy " are applied to them that are applied to other
members of the Church. (1 Cor. vii. 12-14; Eph.
i. 1; Col. i. 2; Phil. i. 1.)
FINALLY, the faithfulness of the parent in "bringing up his children in the nurture and admonition of
the Lord," was regarded by St. Paul as a necessary
qualification for the appointment to the office of a
ruler in the Church. (1 Timothy iii. 4, 5; Titus i.
6, 7; 1 John ii. 12, 13.)
Who, therefore, can be surprised at finding the Baptism of little children continuing to be the common
practice of the next generation after the Apostles?
~ 28. Whether we go up the stream from the
present to the Apostolic age, we shall find young children received into the Church during every stage of
our ascent,- or whether we start from the days of
Abraham and come down it, we shall find them made
16




242            GENERAL SUMMARY.
members of the Church at;every succeeding step.
And on reaching the days of the'Saviour, instead of
the slightest intimation that a change is then to take
place, everything is of the opposite character. His
own words and acts, and the words and acts of the
Apostles, rightly construed, show that young children
are still to be received and doubtless were received.
And in passing into the next age, we find their Baptism common - and not one calling in question the
authority for it.
Now were we to admit that the Holy Scriptures are
silent on the subject (which they certainly are not, when
rightly construed), how shall we account for the fact
that in following the stream of time, we find little
children in the Church until we reach the Apostolic
age, and then again as soon as we leave it? Suppose,
in ascending a river, we were to find in its waters certain peculiar qualities till we reach a certain place
through which we could not pass, and were compelled
to travel by land some miles before we came to the
river again, but at the point at which we entered, find
its waters possessing the same peculiar qualities that
we marked in them at the time we left it, should we
not conclude that they possessed the same peculiar
qualities between these two points?  Could we
doubt it?
Now apply this to the case in hand. The opposers
of Infant Baptism must admit that from the time of
Abraham to that of Christ, young children were received into covenant with God - and again, that from
the first age after the Apostles down to the present
time, they have been received into the Church. What
then may we infer was probably the case during the
time the Apostles lived? Were the qualities of the




ORIGINAL AND ACTUAL SINS.        243
waters the same while passing over that short space,:that they were just before, and just afterwards;
or were they different between these points and precisely the same again at them? Were little children
made members of the Church just before, and again,
just after the Apostolic age, but excluded during that
century, and not one word left on record to inform us
of the fact? Nay, the language of the record rightly
construed, informs us in various places, that little children were received into the Church during that century as well as every other, that they have always
been precious in the sight of God, and ever permitted
to form a part of his peculiar people. " That of such
is the kingdom of God." (Mark x. 14.)
1. And why not? If he who adds sins of his own
to his original sin, shall on repentance have all his sins
washed away, both actual and original, may not he
who has committed no sin of his own have his original
sin washed away? Is it necessary to add to original
sin actual sins, to repent of, before one can have the
remission of any sin? Think for a moment - we are
all born in sin, inheritors of Adam's fallen nature,
"shapen in iniquity," and "' by nature the children of
wrath; "- every child, therefore, born into the world
has original or birth sin, and this, which is the root
and foundation of actual sin, needs a remedy and the
appliances of Gospel grace, as much as do the effects
flowing from it; and Baptism having been ordained
by Christ as the means or visible sign of the washing
away of all sin, why withhold it from those involved
in original sin, because they have not superadded actual sins?
If to every unconscious babe of Adam's descendants
a sin stained nature has been transmitted, and Baptism




244          THE CHURCH A NURSERY.
is the ordained means of washing away only actual
sins, what becomes of all who die before they commit
actual sins? Do they die in a polluted, unforgiven
state? and are all infants lost? If not, and Christ
has atoned for their original sin, why withhold the
cleansing ordinance of Gospel grace and the blessings
vouchsafed to his redeemed ones? If repentance and
faith after actual sin, entitle one to the seal of the forgiveness of all sin actual and original, certainly they
who have been redeemed and committed no actual sin
of their own of which to repent, ought to be entitled
to the seal of the forgiveness of original sin, and to
all the blessings conveyed thereby.
2. Christ died to redeem little children as well as
adults. The sin of the first Adam passed upon all,
and the provision made in the second Adam is commensurate with the evils of the first. " As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free
gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For
as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners,
so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous..... Where sin abounded grace did much more
abound." (Rom. v. 18, 19, 20.) Hence the remedy
provided is coextensive with the evil entailed, and
offered as a free gift to all. And little children being
involved in the sin of the first Adam, are therefore included in the provision made by the second. And, -
For the more effectual application of the remedy,
God instituted his church as a nursery or school, and
ordained means whereby the graces and gifts of the
Holy Spirit are nurtured and made more effective in
enlivening and invigorating the spiritual powers of the
soul, to fit it for his spiritual kingdom.  Into this




THE CHURCH A iNURSERY.        245
nursery all are brought by Baptism, and none can need
its protecting care and aid more than little children,
and the sooner they are taken into it, and the more
faithfully they are nurtured and instructed in the ways
of godliness, the more certainly will they become
fitted for that spiritual Church for which this on earth
was founded. Had half the time and labor consumed
in discussions and theorizing about the effects of
Baptism, been devoted to the duties implied and the
faithful discharge of the obligations imposed, a thousand-fold greater would have been the benefits conferred on the Church.
8. The great end, doubtless, of all the institutions
of our blessed Redeemer, is to save the souls of fallen
men. For this He came to earth and died; for this He
founded a church and ordained means of grace; and
the more faithfully we adhere to the order that He has
authorized, and use the means that He has appointed,
the more successful will every one be in fitting himself
and his children for the kingdom of heaven. The
more diligently we instruct our children, and the
more tenderly we lead them on in the duties of religion; the more cautiously we preserve them from
evil, and the more thoroughly we imbue them with
the principles and practices of his Church; the more
certain will be our success in making them truly
Christians, not by trusting to the letter and opus operatum of ordinances, but looking to and invoking the
accompanying influence of the Holy Spirit on our,efforts.
To affirm that children can be trained in the ways'of religion as well out of the Church as in it, is the
same as to affirm that men can be saved as well with~out a church -as with one. It is virtually:impeachimg




246   THE SAVIOUR'S ESTIMATION OF BAPTISM.
the wisdom of God in organizing a Church at all.
And to ask, as some ignorantly do, " What good can
Baptism do little children?" is to ask, what good can
it do an adult? For there is no reason why it may
not do as much for one age as another. Hence the
implied objection would make it unnecessary to any
one. And yet our Saviour says, " Except a man," any
one (cav /1 7-s) "be born of water and of the Spirit,
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."
4. Now which shall rule us, the words of Christ, or
of heedless objectors? He certainly regarded Baptism
as of great importance, or He would not have made it
necessary " to enter into his kingdom." And whether
He meant his kingdom on earth or in heaven, or included both, does not affect the authority of his words,
nor the obligations which they impose upon every one.
Neither can difference of opinion on the effects of Baptism, affect its necessity and importance where it can
be had. Whether it regenerates men in a lower or
higher sense — in a moral, or spiritual sense only:
whether it is both the outward visible sign and means
of inward spiritual grace, as well as a pledge to assure
us thereof -whether it washes away original sin in
infants and applies to them the redemption of Christ,
thus transferring them from under the condemnation
of the first Adam into the liberty and blessings of the
second - or whether it is only the sign and outward
recognition of the washing away of sin, and of the
application of Christ's atonement, certifying to them
their redemption, and placing them in new relations
to God; the authority is the same, and being Divine,
no man may lay it aside. Even upon the lowest theory in regard to its office, it may possess an importance
in the economy of grace far beyond our highest con-..,A.*Cns.




REGENERATION AND CONVERSION.      247
Because one " believes the child baptized is washed
from the guilt of original sin, and grafted into the
mystical body of Christ and made partaker of the
Spirit," - and he calls this " regeneration and the new
birth," - and when a penitent soul turns with all his
heart from sin and Satan to God and holiness, this he
calls "conversion," which, he says, " may take place
before or after regeneration;" and another believes
regeneration includes conversion; it does not follow
that there is no regeneration or conversion. Nor does
it follow, because there are differences of opinion in
regard to the effects of Baptism on adult age, that
there is no authority for the Baptism of that age. On
the same principle, differences of opinion in regard to
the effects of Infant Baptism, constitute no valid objection to the authority of the practice itself. All
agree that Baptism puts the child into a new state -
removes it from its birth-state of bondage, into the
liberty of the children of grace - makes it a member
of Christ's church- surrounds it with all the means
of grace - secures to it the covenant seal and pledge
of forgiveness of all sinl; and that if the conditions of
this covenant or engagement be fulfilled, it will finally be admitted into the upper kingdom of God.
Here is enough to fill every heart with the deepest
solicitude for the Baptism of little ones; and if
greater blessings still, as some suppose, accompany
the ordinance, then greater, if possible, ought to be
that solicitude. And if so much interest be justly
felt, in regard to bringing them into covenant relations with God, deeper and greater still should be our
anxiety for the fulfilment of every condition expressed
or implied in that covenant. An estate may be made
over to a minor on conditions and promises made for




248   FULFILMENT OF CONDITIONS INECESSARY.
him by his guardian, and the covenant be signed and
sealed, and the estate called by his name, and spoken
of as his, yet if he violates the conditions, he forfeits
the possession! which may be owinhg chiefly to the neglect of the guardian in instructing him, and impress,
ing his mind with the importance of what was involved, and the nature of the conditions to be fulfilled.
So, when parents bring their little'children to
Baptism, they should remember that it is to make
themi members of Christ's Church and heirs of the
kingdom of heaven; that for them and in their names
they promise to fulfil all the duties of a member of
his Church: to wit, " bring them up in the nurture
and admonition of the Lord."  So train and instruct
them in the doctrines and practices of his religion,
that by the blessings of the Holy Spirit, they shall
never depart from them, but fulfil all the conditions of their heirship. For this end, let the first im.
pressions made upon their tender minds be heavenly
in their nature. Preserve them from evil influences
without, and bring the appliances of gospel grace
with its quickening and sanctifying power through
the spirit to bear upon their impressible hearts from
infancy to manhood. Lead them on from one degree
of knowledge to another. Instruct them in first principles and then in higher branches. Show them the
privileges and advantages of being a member of
Christ's Church. Appeal to them as members, and
gradually prepare them to understand and rightly
appreciate the responsibility of their membership.
It does not follow that because one is a member of
Christ's Church, he is therefore qualified for all its
duties, or can enjoy all the privileges of membership,
any more than because one is a citizen of our country,




GRADES OF MEMBERSHIP.           249
therefore he enjoys all the privileges of citizenship.
A child enjoys all the essential rights of a citizen;
has a claim to the protection and all the privileges
common to the citizens of his country, but he has not
the right to vote in the election of the rulers of his
(Qpuntry before he is twenty-one years of age, nor to
exercise other functions dependent on conditions which
he cannot or has not fulfilled. So infant members of
the Church enjoy all the essential rights of its covenanted blessings - its seal and promises, the right
of instruction, means of grace, and fostering care.
But they are not qualified for the higher privileges of
adult members, to vote in the councils of the Church,
and to partake of the Lord's supper profitably — not
being able to " discern the Lord's body " by faith (1
Cor. xi. 29); which is an important privilege, and
for which all diligence should be used to prepare them
as soon as possible.
It has been supposed by some, that because infants
partook of the Passover at its first institution, which
was to be a commemorative rite, therefore the sacrament of the Supper might be given to them. But it
does not appear that the children of the Jews partook
of the Passover after they were settled in Canaan till
after twelve years of age. Such was the custom in
our Saviour's time. 1 The Passover, however, was a
part of the Mosaic covenant, not of the Abrahamic,
and therefore does not stand on the same ground with
circumcision.
From the nature of things, the Church on earth
must be composed of various classes of members, consisting not only of different degrees of growth in
grace, but of some absolutely bad as well as good.
1 St. Luke ii. 41, 42.




250    IMPORTANCE OF FAITHFUL TRAINING.
This our Saviour told us would be the case, and compared his Church to a "net that was cast into the sea
and gathered of every kind, which when it was full
they drew to shore, and sat down and gathered the
good into vessels, but cast the bad away." (St. Matt.
xiii. 47, 48.) And the proportion of the good to the
bad of every family gathered into this net, will depend,
doubtless, more upon the faithfulness of the parents
in training up their children than upon any other
earthly means. Nothing human has so much influence on the formation of character in after life as
faithful training in childhood and early youth. The
future man is generally formed and fashioned in the
nursery. The moral and religious sentiments there
instilled into the minds of our children accompany
them through life. If shaken off at any time, they
will return, unless thrown under contrary influence
and teaching before their characters are formed. It
sometimes happens that they are sent from under the
parental roof, and exposed to infidel and immoral
influences so young, that all that had been done for
them in earlier years is lost.
But this is like leaving any other important work
unfinished. If we would establish them in the doctrines and habits of morality and religion, we must
train them up to manhood and womanhood; not begin
to train them and stop before their habits are half
formed, but continue the good work till it is completed; until they are confirmed in the ways of truth.
To train a child a few years and give it up unto its
own heart's desires, or expose it to evil influences, is
like rolling a stone half up the mountain side, and
leaving it to itself to roll down again to the base.
Fallen nature needs training up to manhood, as the




IMPORTANCE OF FAITHFUL TRAINING.    251
stone should be rolled onward till it reaches the
mountain top and rests on the plain above where we
would have it placed, if we would crown our efforts
with success. How many are ruined because taken
from under the pious nurture of the mother, or catechetical class of the minister, before confirmed in the
doctrines and duties of religion!
All experience testifies to the importance of training children in the principles and practices which we
would have them to continue through life. But to
have them baptized, and then neglect to train them
in the principles and according to the conditions
stipulated, is virtually to renounce their Baptism. It
is like making a minor an heir to an estate, as already
referred to, and then refusing the aid necessary to
enable him to comply with the conditions of its final
possession. And it is for this reason that the Church
of God in every age has required some security for
the faithful training in the ways of the Lord the little
ones brought to it for Baptism; that the members of
the Church who bring their infant children to dedicate
them to God in his Church, and make them members
of the same, shall pledge themselves to train them as
such members ought to be trained. The Protestant
Episcopal Church in this country requires, where it
can be had, additional security to that of the parents,
for every male child two male securities and one
female, and for every female child two female securities and one male; which are called "God-fathers
and God-mothers," or " sureties."  So important does
she hold the proper training of her infant members,
that she provides a substitute and aid to the parents,
in the case of their death or neglect of this great
duty. And all necessary instructions and care beyond




252    IMPORTANCE OF FAITHFUL TRAINING.
this, devolve immediately upon her authorized min
isters.
Were it not that Baptism is only the beginning -
the initiative of a great and glorious inheritance, requiring future corresponding action, we might baptize
every child we meet in the street, if permitted, for all
have been redeemed by Christ; but where there is no
reason to hope they will ever comply with the conditions of the covenant, it is better to await more
favorable indications of Divine Providence. Why encourage an abuse, and bring into disrepute things
sacred, that may be even trampled upon and cast away
by those to whom they are given? In cases of danger,
where death, instead of a long life and the prospect of
a better state of things, seems to be the only alternative, we baptize without sureties, if necessary, because
we would not withhold from the dying any benefit conferred by the sacrament itself. And if the child live,
we use all diligence to secure for it afterwards the
necessary nurture and instruction of a child of the
Church.
But in all cases where there is the ordinary prospect of continued life in the child, it should be presented for Baptism by pious sponsors, who conscientiously intend to fulfil the duties required at their hands
by the Church. If the parents are not such themselves, and wish their children to be baptized, they
should procure responsible persons, and pledge themselves to give up these children to the religious training of them who shall consent to act in their places,
and fulfil the corresponding duties; which is a serious
undertaking, and ought to be well weighed by every
sponsor before such responsibility is assumed.
Alas! how often do we find that even members of
the Church dedicate their children to God in infancy,




IMPORTANCE OF FAITHFUL TRAINING.    252
and promise to His Church in His presence, to train
them in the duties and doctrines of the Church; but
afterwards give up these same children to the care and
teaching of those whom they know to hold doctrines
contrary to those which they pledged themselves to
teach them! For the sake of some vain accomplishment, or some supposed worldly gain, the immortal
soul of the child dedicated to God, is subjected to
influences of dangerous tendency, and its religious
principles budding into life, rooted up and supplanted
with the briars and thorns of this world, or the corrupt theory of a corrupt Church! How a parent,
conscious of the responsibility of his position, having
dedicated his child to God in Baptism, and made it a
member of the Church of his faith, and promised to
bring it up in the doctrines and principles of that
Church, can then send it away to be trained by those
who denounce that Church, and teach doctrines contrary to and subversive of those which he is pledged
ibefore God and man to instil into its mind, we cannot
reconcile with Christian principles. Yet there are Protestants, who have renounced the errors of Popery, and
freed themselves from its galling yoke of bondage, who
nevertheless send their children to its schools, where
they may be instructed in the same errors and imbued
with the same principles which they have renounced
and hold to be dangerous to the souls and bodies of
men!
This is one of the strange things in this strange age
of moral and religious culture. The Roman Church
is making converts almost daily by means of its schools;
and these schools, as every one knows who has had the
opportunity to examine their pupils, are inferior, in
point of thorough literary instruction, to the best grade
of Protestant schools. Yet parents and guardians of




254    IMPORTANCE OF FAITHFUL TRAINING.
Protestant children persist in patronizing them, and
leaving our own schools to languish! And for this
we have never heard but two reasons assigned.
The first is, that Roman Catholic schools are something cheaper than other schools. But shall a Christian man endanger the soul of his child, for such a
consideration as this?  Will he sell the soul of his
child, or run the risk of its being sold for so small an
exchange of filthy lucre? Is the'body worth so much
more than the soul that we can risk the sacrifice of
the eternal interests of the latter for some slight benefit to the former? Doubtless the chief reason for
making these schools cheaper, is to tempt the cupidity
of men and draw in Protestant children for the purpose of proselyting them. And to all such as are
likely to be caught by such bait as this, we would say,
first make the estimate of how much you may save on
the one hand, and what will be the loss to yourself
and children at the bar of judgment on the other
hand.
The other reason is, that their children will be more
secluded from company and more closely watched. If
this be an object, why not keep them at home, and
employ a governess? or send them to some boarding
or family school in the country, and make the request
of the teacher to keep them from society? We know
many such schools, in which they will learn as little
evil and more good than in a Roman Convent. They
will undoubtedly hear fewer legends and become less
superstitious, and have their respect for their parents
and confidence in their religion less shaken than in a
Roman Catholic school. But if you wish your child
to become alienated from you, and to practise deception, to turn Romanist or cast off all religion as a




IMPORTANCE OF FAITHFUL TRAINING.    255
fable, send it to the Convent, and you will attain
your end!
But do not make it first a member of a purer body,
and violate your vows to God and his Church to use
all diligence to bring it up in the faith and doctrines
of that Church, and to make it a worthy member of
the same. For in so doing you will add to the sin of
subjecting it to evil influences willingly, that of violating an implied pledge to the contrary! Consider,
we pray you, dear reader, what constitutes faithfulness to the souls of your little children. To you is
committed the responsible charge of shaping their
course for time and eternity I Not only the care of
their bodies, but of their souls, rests upon you, and
unfaithfulness in either, may involve them in irreparable loss, and you in grievous sin! Their souls are immortal, and to them must be given attention not second
even to your own salvation.  The welfare of their
bodies should be made equal to your own also. But in
both cases, the importance of the life to come, so far
exceeds the things of this life, that to endanger the
soul for any supposed benefit to the body, is reversing
the order and setting at naught the command of God;
and involves unfaithfulness and disobedience of the
most serious kind. For to us and our children the
command is, " Seek ye first the kingdom of God and
his righteousness; and all these things shall be added
unto you." (Matt. vi. 33.)
Subjecting unnecessarily the impressible souls of
our dear little children to erroneous teaching, or evil
influences of any kind, that may ruin them forever,
must be a sin of a much higher grade than is generally supposed. And in most cases, it has been followed by consequences, even in this life, of the most




256    IMPORTANCE OF FAITHFUL TRAINNG.
painful character. A great change must yet come
over the minds of the vast majority of those who have
the charge of little children, before they will rightly
appreciate their responsibility, and do, justice to the
rising generation.
It is not, however, because God and his Church
have not placed this subject rightly before the minds
of men, that it is not better understood. It has been
earnestly inculcated, and pressed upon their attention
in every age. It was because of Abraham's faithful;
ness in this very duty that God commended him and
showed him special favors. "And the Lord said,
shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;
seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great
nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be
blessed in him? For I know him that he will comr
~mand his children and his household after him, and
they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and
judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abrahamn
that which he hath spoken of him." (Gen. xviii. 17,
19.)  To Israel, through Moses, he said, "And these
words which I command thee this day, shall be in
thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently to
thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest
in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and
when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And
thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and
they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And
thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house,
and on thy gates." (Deut. vi. 6-9.) Again, through
Solomon, " Train up a child in the way he should go,
and when he is old he will not departfrom it." (Prov.
xxii. 6.) And yet again by St. Paul, " And ye fathers,
provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up




FAITHFUL TRAINING OF CHILDREN.    257
in the nurture and admonition of the Lord " (Eph. vi.
4), is worthy of repetition.
Thus we see there is want neither of authority nor
of instruction on this important duty.
And if all Christians would take heed to their instructions and faithfully perform this duty, who can
estimate the result? If they would only set their
children, first, the worthy example of a Christian life
and spirit, as well as teach them the doctrines of
Christ, how soon would disobedient children be melted
down into submission, the younger ones kindly taken
by the hand of the elder, and led on in the ways of
peace and holiness instead of mischief and iniquity
- the discordant family become united in bonds of
Christian love; and this influence spread from house
to house, till the wilderness would rejoice and blossom
as the rose.
If parents would only use the same diligence to
make theit children Christians and ornaments to the
Church, which they do to make them honest and
worthy members of society, what a change would soon
take place! What father is as anxious that his son
should shine in the Church as in the world? and takes
the same pains to impress his mind with the truth,
that sin against God should be as much deprecated as
sin against men? that he should as anxiously avoid
the disgrace of lying to God, as that of being called a
liar among men? that to rob God is as great a sin as
to rob men? What mother is so earnest and constant
to make her daughter feel the importance of piety to
God as to be respected in the society in which she
moves? to infuse into her heart the principle of making the world and the accomplishment of person secondary to the duties of religion? We do not say that
17




258      FAITHFUL TRAINING OF CHILDREN.
she does not teach this doctrine at times, but we ask,
Where are the mothers and the fathers that show at all
times the same interest in religion, and are as constant
in their efforts, and as anxious to impress their children with the belief that it is even more important to
"seek the kingdom of God and his righteousness,"
than to seek the things that are needful to the body
and to their fair reputation in the world? When
parents shall act consistently in these things, and make
their children see and feel that such is their faith and
the object of their efforts, we may expect a great
change to take place in the spirit and feelings of their
children, and " the word of the Lord to have free
course and be glorified."
But very many of the children baptized into the
Church at the present day, do but little more than to
learn their Catechism as a task, and attend upon the
imperfect instruction imparted in the Sunday-school!
And as soon as old enough to be sent away from home
to school, the great question is not concerning the
welfare of their souls, but, simply, where can they get
the best education at the cheapest rate? or in what
way can they be prepared to shine most in the world?
Their immortal interest is lost sight of, or made a
question  of minor importance!  Better for such
parents they never had a child, and better for such
children if given up to others, who would do them
more justice. Education for this world is very important, but for the next, more so. Nor will they
ever conflict, when rightly understood and appreciated.
The child should be taught to repeat its little prayers,
night and morning, as soon as able to lisp the name
of Jesus. His love should be the theme of conver



FAITHFUL TRAINING OF CHILDREN.    259
sation, when rising up and lying down, when sitting
in the house, and by the wayside. The Catechism
should be taught as a thing most precious and cheering, the Sunday-school made a mere auxiliary to aid
the parent in the good work of his weekly instruction.
It can never be made a substitute for parental duty.
It is too imperfect; falls far too short of the warm,
gentle and full flow of love and sentiment that should
be poured out from the parental bosom. Sundayschools were designed at first for the poor and neglected children of this world, to supply in part the loss
such sustained for the want of worthy parents to do
justice to their souls and bodies. They were afterwards adopted as means to aid others, and farther
than this they cannot or ought not to go. The custom
of some, in leaving to the Sunday-school teacher to
do what they ought to do themselves, and after sending their children to the Sunday-school in the morning,
then permitting them to return home and spend the
hours for Divine service in the streets or in their
dwellings, is an abuse of the Sunday-school institution,
and a dangerous perversion of its objects. Above all
things, take your children to church as soon as they
are old enough to remain in comfort throughout the
services. Let no institution or custom interfere with
this duty; better keep them from the school than
from public worship with God's people. The evil
they may learn in your absence, and the ruinous
habit formed, of absenting themselves from Divine
worship, more than counterbalance, by a thousand
fold, what they gain at the Sunday-school, if such is
to be the case. But there need not be, and ought not
to be, any conflict between the Sunday-school and
regular attendance at church. Both may be attended




260        GIEAT BLESS~IG M THE END.
with great benefit where there is the will and proper
arrangement.
God works by means, and has committed to earthen
vessels the glorious light of the Gospel and the great
work of bringing men to Christ for salvation. Let
parents and others be faithful in the use of those
means, and the Holy Spirit will bless their efforts and
grant them success. If we are faithful in our part,
God will certainly be faithful in his. The means
granted for the spread and effectual working of the
Gospel of Christ are doubtless abundantly successful
to the end for which they were ordained. If our
children are not saved, it will not be because no provision has been made for them in the Redemption of
Christ, or insufficient means granted to us for its
application; but because we have been unfaithful in
their use, and to the trust committed to us.
And when men shall realize their responsibility,
and improve the means given them for the salvation
of themselves and others, then shall they realize the
promises of God to their own souls and to the souls
of their children; then shall they see the Gospel of
Christ begin to work in the fulness of its power, and
to move onward in the majesty of its strength conquering and to conquer, till " the kingdoms of this
world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and his
Christ," and the glorious prediction be fulfilled,' The
earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord as
the waters cover the sea," and all know HIM, " from
the least to the greatest;" whom to know is life
eternal.




CHAPTER IX.
MODE OR MODES OF BAPTISM.
Meaning of words. -Language of the New Testament. —Septuagint,
and Jewish Customs. -Divers Baptisms. —Water of Separation. -
Ritual Purifications. - Oriental Washing. - Baptism a Generic Term.
— John's Baptism. — Prophecies of Isaiah. - Ezekiel. - Malachi. -
Baptism of the Holy Ghost, poured out, shed forth, or fell upon, descended. - Baptism applied to the various Ablutions of the Ritual Law.
-No English Word will supply its Place. -Immersion not its True
Meaning.-No Mode implied in the Term. -No specific Directions in
regard to it. — Circumstances of each Case must be examined.
~ 29. THE mode or modes of Baptism  is a secondary question, which we did not design, in the commencement of this work, to treat of at all. But so much
have Baptists magnified its importance, and so remarkable are some of their more recent movements
in regard to it, that some notice of it here may not be
out of place. They have formed themselves into a
society for the translation and circulation of the Bible
among different nations of the earth, and in these
translations they render the  words "baptize" and
"baptism," into terms which mean " immerse " and
"immersion! "   And  they  openly avow, in  their
public meetings, that "' the nations of the earth must
now look to the Baptist denomination ALONE for
faithful translations of the word of God." 1  Out of
this movement has grown the " Bible Union," formed
for the purpose of casting discredit upon our venerable
English Bible - so long the source of light and comI Bible Society Anniversary, April 28th, 1840.




262      TO ASCERTAIN MEANING OF WORDS.
fort to Christians, and by which so many thousands
have been guided on their way to glory; and to substitute in its place another version, in which, among
other changes, " baptize " and " Baptism " shall be'refdered "immerse" and "immersion!"  The inevitable tendency of such things must be to undermine the public faith in the truth of our Holy religion!
They contend that the Greek words /a87rrw,  BAPTIZE, and fawrr,Mr,       BAPTISM, mean "immerse " and
"immersion," and nothing  more nor less; that
"baptize" carries the mode in the name — that it
is a specific term, always signifies to dip; NEVER EXPRESSING ANYTHING BUT MODE.1  On this simple
issue, that to " baptize " means only to "dip or i'merse " (which they say is the same thing, and is a
specific term expressing the mode), is based the whole
superstructure of the high claims and weighty responsibilities which they have assumed.
The whole question turns on iawrtro., - BAPTIZE -
whether it be a specific term confined to one mode of
action, or a generic term like washing and purifying,
which implies an end that may be attained in more
ways than one?
In order to settle this question we should, of course,
first examine the word BAPTISM wherever it occurs
in the New Testament: trace its connections, compare
passage with passage, and note its references and
objects.  And if necessary, we may then examine
its usage by contemporary writers, and those immediately preceding and succeeding the apostolic age. 2
The usage or meaning of a word may be entirely
1 See Carson On Baptism, p. 55 etpassim, American edition.
2 See.rules of interpretation in the beginning of this volume.




TO ASCERTAIN MEANING OF WORDS.      263
different in one age from what it is in another. Its
application gradually extends from object to object,
until a much wider range of subjects is embraced;
and to its primary is added a secondary meaning;
then a metaphorical, and through means of these still
wider applications are suggested - and if frequently
applied to sacred things, a sacred as well as secular
usage obtains, and finally a word may so enlarge its
meaning as to lose sight of its origin. For instance,
take the English word PREVENT - it now means to:" hinder," to " stop; " but what did it mean a hundred years ago? Answer, " to lead, to go before, to
aid." Shall we then go back several hundred years
to ascertain in what sense a writer of the present century uses the word PREVENT?  If we do, we shall
give the very opposite of its present meaning, and
say, PREVENT means "'to go before and open the
way," when the writer means " to hinder and stop
up the way."
Again, look at the use of the word PRoVISIONS, at
different times? It means now, generally, " food,"
" victuals," " something to eat;" but what did it
mean in the time of Edward III.?  Sir William
Blackstone cites the following illustration of the principles on which laws are to be interpreted:  " A law
of Edward. III. forbids all ecclesiastics to purchase
provisions at Rome. The law (continues he) might
seem to prohibit the buying of grain and other victuals; but when we consider that the statute was
made to suppress the usurpations of the Papal See,
and that the' nominations to benefices by the Pope'
were called'provisions,' we shall see that the restraint
is intended to be laid on such provisions only." 1
1 Blackstone, Introduction, Sec. ii., iii.




264     TO ASCERTAIN MEANING OF WORDS.
Provisions, under the "canon law" of that age,
meant " benefices from the Pope;" now they mean
" food and sustenance for the body." Shall we go
back to Edward's time to learn the meaning of provisions at the present time? or for the present use of
prevent, and many other like terms? And is such
the rule by which we are to settle the meaning of
words in the Holy Scriptures?
Further, words often obtain a sacred as well as profane or secular use. For instance, the word ECCLESIA,
in secular classical use means an " assembly," however disorderly it may be; but in its sacred use it
means CHURCH.  The word PRESBYTER (Qrper/'V
TEpos) means elder, or old man, in secular use; but
in sacred use, an officer, or ruler in the Church. In
classical Greek, the word "AyyeXos, Angel, means a
messenger; has no reference to the spiritual being, to
which the Sacred Scriptures apply it. 1
Therefore, endeavoring to ascertain the meaning of
BAPTIZE and BAPTISM, in the New Testament, we
must not only compare passage with passage, and
examine their use at the time in which the sacred
writers wrote, but especially their sacred use, or
application to sacred things by other writers of the
same period. This every Biblical student, and every
other scholar must admit. Why then go to the
ancient Greek classics, as some propose, to learn how
Christ and his Apostles used the root or original word
for Baptism?
The New Testament is not written in "classic
Greek."  It is in what is denominated Hellenistic
Greek; sometimes called the Greek of the Synagogue
- having classical Greek for its basis, but into which
1 See Trench On the Study of'Woras.




SACRED MEANING OF WORDS.        265
idioms and words of other tongues, Eastern and Western, have been introduced; and modes of thought and
forms of speech peculiar to the Hebrew and Chaldee
languages interwoven into it. Hence one of the ablest
of Biblical scholars has remarked   " Classical use in
Greek and Latin is not only sometimes unavailing,
but may often mislead in the critical study of the
Holy Scriptures." 1
The New Testament was written by men who
thought and spoke the Chaldaic and Syriac tongues,
and who read and heard in their schools and synagogues the weekly lessons and law of the Prophets.
They were, therefore, familiar with the language into
which the Old Testament had been translated; which
translation was in constant use whilst Christ and his
Apostles were on earth, and no doubt influenced their
use of words and style of composition. We might as
well go to Edward III. for the meaning of "provisions," or to the ancient Greeks for a definition of
" angel," as to the Greek classics for the right use of
the language of the New Testament.
1. Nevertheless Dr. Carson in his work on Baptism, which has been republished in this country by
the American Baptist Publication Society, and received as a standard work by the great body of that
denomination, goes back to ancient Greek authors
who wrote hundreds of years before Christ came to
our earth - even to the days of Homer - to ascertain
the meaning of BAPTISM in the apostolic age. And
yet he admits that a " word may so enlarge its meaning as to lose sight of its origin." 2 He first takes up
fairT(0, the root of f3arrQg7   (to baptize); and after
citing various authors of classic Greek to prove that
1 Campbell On the New Testament.    2 Carson On Baptism, p. 45.




266             GREEK CLASSICS.,aQdT means to DIP, -which no one denies, except
that it is not its only meaning; and he admits that it
has the secondary meaning of to dye, - and though
dyeing (he says) is generally performed by dipping,
he finds in Hippocrates, Ia/rwM used for dyeing by
dropping the dyeing fluid on the thing dyed. In
Eschylus he finds a similar use of 3a7ldw. At a later
date he finds also in Arrian's " Expedition of Alexander the Great," that " Nearchus (one of his officers)
relates that the Indians dye their beard." And though
UTrrw is the word used for that purpose, he admits
it could not have been by immersion. Coming to a
still later period, he finds that MElian applies the
same term to dyeing the hair of an old coxcomb, and
to the lady's yellow locks " not colored by art, but by
nature;" 1 which of course were not dipped or immersed in the dyeing fluid.
2. In tracing the modal of the primary meaning
of PdCrTW, by his wonderful perception of the beauty
and meaning of figurative language, his appreciation
of an enlivened style and facility in supplying elipses,
he could see the modal of dip retained in the beach
covered by the rising tide, in the man drenched by the
pouring rain, Nebuchadnezzar wet by the gentle descending dew, and the dripping hand of the offender,
scourged before the Tribunal, who caught the blood
trickling down his body to sprinkle on the judgment
seat.
Now if dip means Baptism by the swelling tide running over the beach, by the pouring rain, the distilling
dew, and the blood trickling down the body into the
hand, or the hand wet by it in any other way - then
dip is as generic as any one contends for Baptism; and
1 Ibidem, pp. 44, 45.




ELISHA AND NAAMAN.                267
if used for that, we need have no further controversy
on the question before us. But Dr. Carson himself,
(notwithstanding all his labor on /3arrW) tells us that
it is never used for Baptism  in the New Testament;
that it is merely the root from which 8aQrT-wT  is derived.  And that to,1 added to the root parro, in
some sense niodifies its meaning - is not introduced
merely to vary sound. But he does not consent to
it being frequentative or diminutive in its effect on
the r6ot, as some suppose; and criticises Dr. Gale,
(whose general views on Baptism he seems to approve highly, and to whom he acknowledges himself
much indebted, for his authorities in the Greek classics), for advancing the opinion "that b) points to a
state or condition in the water, rather than to the
action of putting one into the water." And adopts
a " causal " influence, which brings about an end
" making the action of the verb to be performed." 2
3. HIe proceeds in the same way with pafirrto that
he had done with /3a7rrw, to prove that it always signifies to di2; never expressing anything but mode; and
adds that "/3 rrt,W only, to the exclusion of the root,
is applicable to the Chrietian rite."3 His classical
authors are less numerous —indeed, comparatively
few. He therefore soon comes to the Septuagint,
and introduces the case of Elisha the prophet and
Naaman the leper, captain of the host of Syria. (2
Kings v. 10-14.) On the application of Naaman to
Elisha to heal his leprosy, Elisha sent a messenger
to tell him to go and wash (Xov'w) in Jordan seven
1 We do not follow his order, and although his name will be frequently
used in this chapter, it will be as the representative of a body holding
the same sentiments, rather than the sentiments of one, individually considered.
2 p. 20.                  3 p. 55.




268       PURIFICATION OF THE UNCLEAN.
times. And Naaman went down and dipped (f3aratLaaTo) himself seven times in Jordan, according to the
saying of the man of God. The term used in this
place for wash is Xov'z, which is used for washing in
a general sense, and that rendered dip is /faprt'w.
They are, therefore, construed by Naaman as meaning the same thing; and rightly, for he was healed
according to promise.
He cites also several passages from Josephus, but
only one in which 8a=rTiZW is used in a religious sense;
and this in connection with the funeral of Miriam,
sister of Moses. After they had mourned for her
thirty days, Moses purified the people as prescribed
in Numbers xixth chapter, for touching a dead body,
and defilement from any cause connected with the
dead. This was done by sprinkling running (spring)
water and ashes on the people.
Josephus describes the manner in which these ashes
were obtained and preserved, and says: "When
therefore, any persons are defiled by a dead body,
they put a little of these ashes in spring water, with
hyssop, and dipping (baptizing) part of these ashes in
it, they sprinkle them with it both on the third and
on the seventh day, and after that they are clean." 1
The original institution in Numbers xix. 17, reads,
i" And for an unclean person, they shall take of the
ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and
running water shall be put thereto in a vessel." Here
Moses directs the water to be put to the ashes, that is,
poured in upon them; and Josephus puts the ashes
to the water (if Whiston does not mistranslate himwe have not the original), and calls it baptizing them.
In either case there is a pouring and a mingling of
1 Antiquities, book iv. ch. 4, translated by Whiston.




SPRINKLING ASHES AND WATER.       269
the ashes and water, and their purifying power no
doubt the same; but whether Josephus calls the
pouring, or the mingling together the Baptism, who
is to decide?
4. Again, in order to prove that Baptism never
denotes purification by sprinkling, Dr. Carson cites
Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 30: " He that washeth (pBa7rrTLuevos) himself after the touching of a dead body, if
he touch it again what availeth his washing (Xowrp4v
avTro)?"  The literal rendering of which in the Septuagint, is: "He being baptized (purified) from a
dead body, and again touched by it, what availeth his
(T7 XovTpo aiov') washing (purification)?"  Here the
same sprinkling of water and ashes, which we have
just considered, is referred to, and called a " baptism;"
and this "' baptism" and Xovrpov are used in the same
sense. Dr. Carson himself refers it to Numbers xix.
19 —"which (he says) shows that sprinkling was
but a part of that purification, and that the unclean
person was also bathed in water. It is this bathing
that is effected by Baptism." l
But unfortunately for the Doctor he has mistaken
entirely the person who was required to "wash his
clothes and bathe himself in water." He was not the
person sprinkled; it was the clean person who had
sprinkled the unclean, that must wash his clothes and
bathe in water, to protect and cleanse himself from
any defilement that he might have contracted by the
touch of the unclean, or otherwise, whilst sprinkling
the water of separation -and he would be clean at
even the same day. But those to be purified by the
ashes and water, must be sprinkled the third and seventh day, and after that they were clean.2' p. 66.             2 See Numbers xix. 19-21.




270     ASHES AND WATER TWOFOLD SYMBOL.
For defilements that affected the habits and comforts
of society at large, washing clothes and bathing the body
in water were imposed.1 For very slight defilements,
such as touching an unclean animal, or removing any
part of it when dead, or eating ignorantly of flesh that
had died not properly slain - washing clothes only,
was the rite of purification.2
For leprosy, issues of certain kinds in males and
females, and purification after child-birth, sacrifices
were required to be offered, in addition to various ceremonies of cleansing.3
For such defilement as a priest would acquire in
the routine of daily life, the washing of his hands
and feet before going into the sanctuary was required,
to purify him for the duties of his office.4 While these
ritual purifications had a happy influence upon the
habits and lives of the Israelites, they also inspired
love and admiration of the purity of that Being whose
sanctuary could not be entered until purified of all uncleanness; and, likewise, reverence for the sanctuary
itself and its services.
But the moral pollution of sin and the expiation of
its guilt, were more clearly symbolized by the ashes
and water, called the "water of separation," and
i" purification for sin."  These were twofold, combining both sacrifice and purification.  The ashes were
from a victim without spot or blemish; slain without
the camp; under the supervision of a priest; her
blood sprinkled seven times before the Tabernacle;
her body burnt - every part of it in the presence of a
priest; her ashes gathered by a clean or purified person, and kept in a clean place for permanent and ready
1 Levit. xv.                   2 Levit. xi. 25-40.
8 Levit. xiv. 2-32; xii., xv.  4 Exod. xxx. 18-21.




NECESSARY FOR DEEP DEFILEMENTS.     271
use. They were the ashes of a sacrifice whose blood
had been offered, and doubtless emblematical of the
expiatory sacrifice of that spotless One whose blood
cleanses from all sin. Of all the ritual services under
Moses this was most highly prized, because the application of the ashes and water was regarded as evidence of participation in that which expiated the guilt
of sin, as well as purified them from its pollution.
Now, when Dr. Carson cites Ecclesiasticus, referred
to above, he tells us this " purification for sin " has two
parts -" sprinkling," and "washing the clothes and
bathing the body;" and that the " baptism" or purification alludes to the latter - " washing the clothes
and bathing the body,"- and not to the " sprinkling."
But what says the Divine record? Numbers xix. 19-21.
" And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean
on the third day, and on the seventh day; and on the
seventh day, he (the sprinkler) shall purify himself
and wash his clothes and bathe himself in water, and
he shall be clean at even. But he that shall be unclean
and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off
from among the congregation, because he hath defiled
the sanctuary of the Lord: the water of separation
hath not been sprinkled upon him, he is unclean.
And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he
that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his
clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation
shall be unclean until even." So great was the particularity that every one connected with this purifying rite should be clean (for unless they were clean,
the ordinance would be defiled and therefore of no
avail), that the priest who supervised the burning of
the heifer, and the clean person who gathered the
ashes and put them in a clean place, must each after



272   SPRINKLING THE WATER OF SEPARATION.
wards wash his clothes and bathe himself in water and
remain until the setting of the sun, to purify himself
from any defilement with which he might be infected
during the operation.
It was to preserve the purity of those who were engaged in the preparation and administration of the ordinance, that washing and bathing were imposed.
When the " water of separation " had been sprinkled
the third and seventh day, the unclean were purified
ritually, and the service ended. This service was
sometimes connected with others, as in the case of the
Levites who were first purified by the sprinkling of the
"water of separation;" and then followed services
special to setting them apart for their office. But the
institution "of the purification for sin" was always
the same in itself; and ended with the sprinkling on
the seventh day. Dr. Carson is, therefore, convicted
by his own witness. The Baptism he refers to in
Ecclesiasticus, is only " sprinkling water and ashes on
the unclean."
5. Turn again to the Divine record. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the Apostle Paul having shown the
superiority of the Priesthood of Christ over that of
Aaron, proceeds to show that he is also the " Mediator
of a better covenant, established on better promises: "
that the sacrifices, offerings, and external purifications
under the Mosaic dispensation could not expiate the
guilt of sin, nor make him that did the service perfect,
as pertaining to the conscience; but were merely a
symbol of what was to be effected under the new dispensation of the Gospel; and were appointed to be
continued only "until the time of reformation," or
change to be made by the introduction of the new and
spiritual Priesthood of Christ.




DIVERS BAPTISMS.             273
In comparing the ritual of the Levitical Priesthood
under Moses with that which it shadowed forth, the
Apostle writes: -
HEBREWS IX. 9, 10. " Which was a figure for the
time then present, in which were offered both gifts and
sacrifices, that could not make them that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience, which
stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings,
(Baptisms) and carnal ordinances, imposed on them
until the time of reformation."
What does the Apostle mean by " divers washings,"
in the last verse? In the original Greek the word
translated  " washings " is jaroTtiuioZ -  BAPTISMS.
And that these " divers baptisms " refer to the various
ablutions of the Levitical law must be obvious to every
intelligent reader. "Most evidently (writes Professor Stuart of Andover) larvro-/Lot~c (Baptisms) refers
to the ceremonial ablutions of the Jews, which were
concerned with external purification." With which
Bloomfield coincides. And the Professor goes on to
show that the tenth verse as above is a continuation
of the ninth, adding new matter, instead of explanatory of what is meant by " gifts and sacrifices" immediately preceding. In order to make this more intelligible to his readers, he retranslates and points out
the connection of "gifts and sacrifices" with what follows in the next verse: " Oblations and sacrifices were
offered, which cannot fully accomplish what is needed
for the conscience of him who performeth the services,
being imposed (together with meats and drinks, and
divers washings, ordinances of the flesh) only until
the time of reformation." 1
This is clear and satisfactory, and in perfect accord1 Commentary on Hebrews, p. 430.
1




274       DIVERS WASHINGS OF THE JEWS,
ance with what appears to be the object and reasoning of the author. But whether adopted or not, will
not affect the meaning of the phrase " divers Baptisms."
This refers to the ablutions of the Jewish ritual which
we have been considering. All of which were connected with the Tabernacle service, and necessary to
enter therein, or participate in the worship of the holy
sanctuary. First, as we have seen, the priests must
daily wash their feet and hands. Another class of defilements must be purified by washing clothes and
bathing in water the body. Another by washing their
clothes only. Another still, by the sprinkling the water
and blood - every one according to the kindt and degree of his uncleanness - and above all must the ashes
of the heifer and water be sprinkled on those defiled
by touching the dead, and such things as were the
manifest effects of sin.
Now if the Apostle embraces all these modes of purifying under the head of " divers baptisms" as his
language clearly teaches, who has ever claimed for
BarrTZL   a wider application? and what better evidence that it is a GElNERIC term?
But the exponent of the views of our Baptist brethren would limit these "divers washings " to such
purifications only as were performed by dipping or
immersion!  By what authority?  The original
Greek does not thus limit them. And of all the ablutions of the Mosaic ritual, we do not know of an instance of one person literally washing another, except
that of Moses' washing Aaron and his sons when he
inducted them into the office of Priesthood. And this
a special service, not applicable to the people at large.
For certain defilements the unclean were directed to
wash themselves and their clothes; but does the




APPOINTED UNTIL CHRIST CAME.        275
Apostle refer to only one kind of purifications when
he calls them " divers baptisms m    "  He cannot mean
the multiplication of only one kind, for the word he
uses, "&a46'pots," means (unless overstrained) difference in kind and difference in degree -diverse, various baptisms. This is made manifest by what immediately follows. Continuing the comparison of the
Tabernacle service and Priesthood of Aaron with the
spiritual service and Priesthood of Christ, the Apostle
adds: -
Verses 11-14.  "But Christ being come a highpriest of good things to come, by a greater and more
perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to
say, not of this building. Neither by the blood of
goats and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in
once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls, and of
goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much
more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge
your conscience from  dead works to serve the living
God."
The superiority of the priesthood of Christ and his
new dispensation over the priesthood and ritual of the
old, is here continued: and the " sprinkling of ashes
and water " specified as one of those rites that shadowed forth more spiritual things under the new. So
the Apostle reasons: If the blood of bulls and of
goats sprinkled by the high-priest before the mercyseat on the great day of atonement each year, shadowing forth the expiation for sin, first for himself, and
then for the people, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the




276       TABERNACLE SERVICE A SYMBOL.
flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ,
who, without spot, offered up Himself to God as an
expiatory sacrifice, cleanse your conscience (or soul)
from the guilt of sin, and through its application by
the Holy Spirit, purge your heart from the love of
sin and its works of death, to the love and service of
God in sincerity and truth; of which this legal purification is a symbol. Do we need evidence more
decisive and full to prove that St. Paul includes the
"sprinkling of ashes and water " among the purifications of the ritual of the Tabernacle and Temple,
and hence included it in his summary -"divers
baptisms?" The Temple succeeded the Tabernacle,
and its services were regarded as the same — its
sacred utensils were the same. It was built after the
same model, but on a much larger scale.  Its courts
were much enlarged and their number increased.
Hence under the name of " Tabernacle " the Apostle
speaks of services that were to be continued until
superseded by the Gospel Dispensation, which shows
he includes the Temple with the Tabernacle. And it
must also be remembered, that these services were
performed chiefly in the courts and near the door of
the Tabernacle, to purify and fit the worshippers to
enter the sanctuary and participate in its worship.
Uncleanness in many cases, especially when ignorantly
contracted, was not in itself a sin; but it was sin, and
of a serious kind, not to be cleansed, or to defile the
sanctuary! Such were cut off from intercourse with
the congregation and from the privileges of worship in
the Holy Place. If a priest officiated in a state to
defile the sanctuary, he was cut off from its privileges,
and from the people of God forever; and would afterwards, as was generally believed, be visited by death
from thlo lend of God.




LAVER FOR PURIFICATIONS.          277
Now the services of the "Tabernacle," to which
the Apostle refers, he classes under four heads: 1.
Gifts, or thank offerings.   2. Expiatory sacrifices.
3. Meats and drinks, lawful and unlawful. 4. Divers
washings (baptisms) " imposed till the time of reformation."   This embraces, as before remarked, the
whole Jewish ritual.
To provide for its observance, an altar for offering
sacrifice was placed in the court, between the gate of
entrance and the Tabernacle; still nearer to the door
of the Tabernacle, was placed a laver filled with
water, for cleansing or purifying the unclean; and in
the women's court on the right side of the Temple,
was a room provided for the purifying of lepers after
they were healed; and various provisions made for
other purposes.  But as we are concerned for the
present with only the fourth division, - purifying by
water or " divers baptisms," — let us turn our attention more particularly to the LAVER erected for such
purifications.
EXODUS Xxx. 17-21.  "And the Lord spake unto
Moses, saying, Thou shalt make a laver of brass,
and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou
shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein.
For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and
their feet thereat: When they go into the tabernacle
of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that
they die not: or when they come near to the altar
to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the
Lord: So shall they wash their hands and their feet,
that they die not: i and it shall be a statute forever
1 The italics are our own, to draw the attention of the reader to such
parts.




278 PURIFICATION TO ENTER THE TABERNACLE.
to them, even to him and his seed throughout all
generations."
This laver was placed near the door of the Tabernacle as we see, and filled with water; and its basis
or " FOOT " for which special directions are given, was
so constructed as to receive the water running from
the spouts or cocks placed around the side (the laver
being circular in form), for washing the hands and
feet of the priests, before they entered upon their
ministrations in the sanctuary. Had they put their
hands and feet into the laver, the water in it would
have been defiled by the first man that washed therein.
Now this washing was confessedly one of the daily
purifications of-the Tabernacle, and must come under
the head of the fourth division, called by St. Paul
"divers baptisms."  Aaron and his sons must daily
wash or purify themselves at the laver before going
into the sanctuary, the water running therefrom
through the spouts or cocks on their hands and feet
at the base to receive it.1 This was the most frequent
and constant ritual purification of the Tabernacle service, and cannot be excluded from its place among
"  divers baptisms." When the Levites were set apart
for their office in and about the Tabernacle, God commanded Moses to cleanse them by sprinkling the water
of purifying upon them; and then they must shave all
their flesh, and wash their clothes, and make themselves clean.2 This ritual service can be placed under
no head of the Apostle's summary but that of " divers
baptisms." Therefore, if as we have now seen under
the head of "divers baptisms," that /ara-tfw is applied
1 The Talmudists tell us that there were twelve of these cocks around
this laver, to accommodate the twelve priests of the daily sacrmfices at the
same time.
2 Numbers viii. 7.




PURIFICATION BEFORE MEALS.        279
to the different modes of purification expressed by
Aozvw, to wash the body, - -r'vw, to wash clothes, —
VtrTm, to wash the hands and feet, —and 7rep"afvo,
to sprinkle the water of purifying, - is it not beyond
all question a GENERIC TERM, embracing the application of water in as many various modes as could be
claimed for any term? What then becomes of the
assumption -" it is a specific term, and always signifies to dip: never expressing anything but mode? "
6. Turn next to another inspired writer of the New
Testament. St. Mark writes: -
CHAP. VII. 1-4. " Then came together unto him
the Pharisees, and certain of the Scribes which came
from Jerusalem.  And when they saw certain of his
disciples eat bread with defiled (that is to say, with
unwashen) hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees,
and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft
(carefully), eat not, holding the tradition of the
elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash (baptize 1), they eat not. And many
other things there be, which they have received to
hold, as the washing (baptizing 1) of cups, and pots,
and brazen vessels, and tables."
The first point to which we should direct our attention here is, whether the washing (pfla-rto) after
returning from market, is the same kind of washing
(vitTw) before meals, in the preceding verse, as the
translators of our version seem to have supposed. Or
does St. Mark mean the washing of the whole body,
after returning from market?
They both mean, evidently, a ritual purification before meals from any defilement contracted by the
1" Wash" and "washing" in our English version, but baptize and
baptizing in the original Greek.




280          PURIFICATION BEFORE MEALS.
touch of things that were unclean; and the Pharisees
found fault because this religious ceremony handed
down by the elders was not observed by the disciples of Jesus. Comparing with these passages of St.
Mark what another Evangelist writes on the same
subject, will aid the reader, perhaps, in making up his
decision.
ST. MARK VII. 2, 3, 4.      ST. LUKE XI. 37, 38
"And when they saw certain    "And as he spake a certain
of his disciples eat bread with  Pharisee besought him to dine
defiled (that is to say, with un- with him, and he went in and
washen) hands, they found  sat down to meat.  And when
fault.  For the Pharisees and  the Pharisee saw it, he marall the Jews, except they wash veiled that he had not first
their hands oft (carefully), eat washed  (baptizedl), before
not, holding the tradition of dinner."
the elders. And when they
come from the market except
they wash (baptize 1), eat not."
Now both of these Evangelists specify washing
before meals to be the custom of the Pharisees. And
St. Luke applies /larTr1tw to the case of the Saviour
going from  the people whom he had addressed, into
the house of the Pharisee by invitation, to dine with
him; which St. Mark applies to persons after returning from market. And if applicable to one going from
a crowd to dinner, why not to those who in their daily
avocations mingle with people in the crowded streets,
and all who for any other purpose go into society or
hold intercourse with their fellow men?   This purification before meals, no doubt originated in the fact
that knives, forks, and spoons were not known, and
that the touching of things unclean with the hands
defiled them, and then dipping the fingers into the
1 Translated in our version "wash," but the same word latrrrig that
denotes Baptism.




THE OBJECT OF WASHING HANDS.      281
dish or dishes out of which they ate, defiled the food,
and thereby the whole body became virtually unclean.
Then St. Mark specifies the washing of hands before
meals -" except they wash their hands (carefully,
or up to the wrists), eat not;" (" oft," is rejected by
nearly all commentators, and the above or similar
renderings substituted.)
But how were their hands washed? So invariably
was the mode of washing hands by pouring of water
on them by a servant in the days of Elisha the son of
Shaphat, that the office of servant or of ministering
to another, was designated by the phrase " he that
poureth water on the hands."  (2 Kings iii. 11). But
we will give to the question its widest application,
and answer —sometimes in a basin, sometimes by
water running from the spout of the pump, and sometimes by water poured on them by another person.
The advocates of immersion contend that washing
the hands in a basin is an immersion of them. But
such an immersion or dip, is not the "modal" of
thing to be done, nor the object in the mind of the
doer. The dipping was merely preparatory to the
washing. This " tradition of the elders " was doubtless twofold in its object, a literal as well as a ritual
purification. Hence, to wash " carefully " as our best
commentators construe it.  Cleansing was the object
of the washing, both literal and ritual. And the
washing of the hands, for which the water is supplied,
is performed by rubbing with the palms of the hands
the water, on every part of them. When one commands another to wash his hands or to do anything
else that can be done in different ways, if he has
any choice as to the mode of doing it, he specifies that
mode, otherwise the thing is done according to the




282      BAPTISMS OF TABLES OR COUCHES.
choice of the performer. Now, no one will contend
there is but one mode of washing hands; nor that
hands cannot be washed in either mode which we
have specified; nor that washing by pouring the
water on them, is immersion. And to one going into
the house of a stranger unexpectedly to his family,
it would be much more convenient to himself and to
his hosts, to wash only his hands, than his whole body.
Therefore, if the washing before meals, referred to
by St. Luke, be performed in the same way as those
spoken of by St. Mark, then /a71rvi-o and vtrrro are
used in the same sense.  But if not so used, and
[farTrgo means only to dip or immerse, how can it
be applied in the latter part of the last verse of the
extract from St. Mark?
CHAP. VII. 4. " And when they come from the
market, except they wash (baptize), they eat not.
And many other things there be, which they have
received to hold, as the washing (baptizing) of cups,
and pots, and brazen vessels and tables" (couches).
How can it be applied to these tables or couches
on which the people reclined at meals? If it applies
to tables, as some choose to have it; these were from
three to four feet high, four feet broad, and varying
from six to twelve and twenty feet in length; how
could they be taken to a bath or pool of water (if one
deep enough be near at hand), and plunged under the
water by the members of an ordinary family? If
they were couches such as were reclined upon during
meals at the table, they were long enough for people
to recline at full length of body, broad enough to accommodate from three to five persons, and not a great
deal below the height of the tables proper; and not
unfrequently fastened to the wall. At night they were




BATHS OF PRIVATE FAMILIES.        283
used for beds, mattresses and coverlets being spread
on them, which were removed in the morning to a
place provided for such things, and these KXLvat during the day used as seats and such purposes as we
now employ chairs and sofas (such articles not being
known at that period in the East 1).
Could cumbrous articles like these be plunged
under the water of an ordinary bath of a private
family? Or carried to a public cistern at a considerable distance from houses without a male member, or
composed of aged and infirm persons, or of a widow
and little children? We cannot suppose the common
people among the Jews had private baths large enough
for such a purpose, or that the public baths were so
abundant that they were to be found near at hand to
every family in sparsely populated districts.
Under such circumstances we repeat the inquiry -
Is it probable that such cumbrous articles were ritually
purified by plunging them under the water? They
could have been easily washed in the usual way of
washing " cups and pots, brazen vessels and tables "
- as the Pharisees washed their hands before meals,
in obedience to the same authority.
And it should be remembered that during the
sojourn of our Lord on earth, purifications were performed from pots and pitchers, by the Jews, especially
on festive occasions. St. John ii. 6: "And there
were set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or
three firkins apiece." These water-pots ('8pgaL) were
the same brought by the woman of Samaria to Jacob's
well for water (St. John iv. 28) — the same, according to the Septuagint, which Rebecca carried on her
1 See Calmet, Jahns, and others.




284      BAPTISM OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
shoulders, out of which Abraham's servant drank
(Gen. xxiv. 15-18); and which Gideon put into the
hands of his army to be broken in pieces with the
blasts of trumpets, to dismay the Midianites (Judges
vii. 15-19); and which in our English version of the
Bible are called " PITCHERS." They could be carried
" on the shoulder " or " in the hand."  These were
the baths, used for purifying in houses and families of
the Jews in our Lord's day. Did they plunge their
brazen vessels and couches into them?
Admit that those used at the wedding in Cana were
of the largest size of such pots or pitchers, and that
they held, as some have estimated, half or two thirds
of a barrel of water; were they of the proper form, or
did any of them hold water enough to allow of plunging
a man or a couch under? No, but they contained
enough for all the purposes of a large wedding, and
for any ritual services that were required to be performed in the usual way on such occasions, and no
doubt, enough when filled again, for the purification
of all the cups, pots, brazen vessels, and couches made
unclean on such occasions.
But Dr. Carson declines to enter into a rigid examination of the case, on the ground, as he tells us, that
having proved the meaning of the Greek word (Baptism) by the authority of the whole consent of Greek
literature, he is under no obligation, beyond the
proof of the mere possibility of existence, " to prove
that any of the possible ways of solution did actually
exist." 1 Not so fast, Dr. C. You have not proved
the meaning of BAPTISM in the age and writings of
the New Testament, which is the thing to be done -
the great question at issue. You have shown from
1 pp. 66, 73.




RESPONSIBILITY OF INVESTIGATION.  285
passages cited from Greek writers, who lived hundreds
of years before the New Testament was written, that
3a7rrt'Cw was used by them, as a general rule, in the
sense of immersion, but as you advanced towards the
times of the Apostles, exceptions multiplied, and having entered upon an investigation of its use in the
New Testament, we find that an inspired Apostle
calls the ritual ablutions of the Mosaic dispensation
"DIVERS BAPTISMS "; and both the term employed
and ablutions referred to, as we have shown, imply
different kinds - various ablutions, and not only the
multiplication of one kind.
Again, we find two other inspired writers using the
term BAPTISM in connection with washing of hands and
purifications before meals; and by one of them applied to the washing of " couches " - articles too large
and unwieldy to be put under the water of the ordinary baths of private families, or to be carried to a
public cistern or bath by the members of most of
them -even should not the water of such be regarded as unclean by frequent use in that way. 1
You cannot escape the duty of a critical examination of the usage of Baptism in any passage of the
New Testament, by throwing the " burden of proof"
on others. For you admit that a " word may come to
enlarge its meanings, so as to lose sight of its origin; "
and that " USE is the sole arbiter of language." 1 Therefore your own principles, if there was no higher law,
will not allow you to go to past ages for the meaning
of a word, and then withdraw from the labor of investigating its USAGE at a later period, when truth and
duty are at stake.
But relying still on his supposed established usage,
and that he is no longer bound to do more than prove
1 pp. 45, 46.,




286 POSSIBILITY OF EXISTENCE NOT SUFFICIENT.
its application not impossible,- a petitio principii —
begging the question in hand, - Dr. Carson tells us
that there were two kinds of beds among the Jews,
and that St. Mark perhaps refers to such as that carried by the paralytic, whom Jesus commanded after
healing him, "to take up his bed, and go to his own
house," recorded by St Matthew. 1
To that kind of bed St. Mark also refers in another place, and calls it by its proper name KpaI/3laros, not KXlvr?. These beds were carried about by invalids not too infirm to bear a small burdenr, and
were composed of two cotton quilts, one to double and
lie on, the other to throw over the body, - sometimes
only a thin cotton mattress and coverlet, - these
could be rolled up, and carried on the back or under
the arm. They are sometimes referred to, as in the
case of St. Matthew, under the general head of bed
(KX'vcq), as the single blanket on which one may have
slept, is called " his bed; " or a very small hut in a
general way may be called a house. But St. John,
and St. Mark referring to them in a less general way,
call them  by their proper name  Kpd[//3a-ro. 2  St.
Mark is led to speak of both kinds of beds, KX\tv and
Kxpa8faro;, and hence to draw the proper distinction.
He calls the bed of the impotent man healed by the
Saviour, at the pool of Bethesda, Kpaf/3l3aTro-which
means a " little or mean bed " in the Jewish sense.3
But when he refers to beds in the houses of another
class of people, as in the case before us, he calls them
KXLVaL, such as we have before described.  The same
that our Saviour alluded to, when he asked whether
a candle is brought to be put under a bed, or on a
candlestick? "4
1 Chap. ix. 6.       2 John v. 11, 12; Mark ii. 10, 12.
8 See Calmet.        4 Mark iv. 21.




ONE MORE POSSIBILITY.         287
Instead of the quilt or mattress on the floor, St.
Mark specifies the washing or Baptism of KXLval,
"couches" connected with the dining-room, and associated with cups, and vessels for different kinds of
liquids on the table. We need not dwell longer on
the kind of couches under consideration, for the connection in which they are introduced, and the distinction of names made by St. Mark himself, must
settle that point; for certainly an author will be
allowed to explain the meaning of his own words.
One more " possibility " has been suggested, that is,' these couches might have been so constructed as to
be conveniently taken to pieces for the purpose of
purification."l Could any one without a purpose suppose such a thing! Has any Talmudist or rabbi
ever taught or hinted such a tradition? So might
they have been washed with water and soap for the
double purpose of a literal and ritual purification.
Furniture constructed to be taken to pieces for the
expressed object of carrying it to the bath every time
touched by an unclean person, or anything else that
may defile, or as often as required to be purified by
the traditions of the elders   Credat Judaeus Apella.
One must be driven to the last degree of "possibility " to seek refuge under such a shelter!
We would advise the followers of Dr. Carson to
adopt no scheme for holding aloof when duty calls to
action — meet faithfully your responsibility; labor
to know the truth and to follow the truth. Instead
of attempting to throw the "burden of proof" on
others, or trusting to past efforts, examine afresh the
word of God for the USAGE of Baptism, and for the
whole truth as it is in Jesus. If one prefers immersion,
1 Carson, p. 76.




288      DUTY MUST BE FAITHFULLY MET.
certainly he has the right to follow his choice, but
should take heed that under a dispensation of GRAcE,
he does not limit the privileges and blessings of GRACE
to the infirm, helpless, and dying, without the authority of the Giver.
3. And let us examine, in the next place, if PURIFICATION is not in fact the leading idea, attached to
the Baptism of both John and Christ in the New
Testament, rather than that of immersion? When
John the Baptist entered upon his mission, he proclaimed himself one going before to prepare the way
for another. He called upon the people to make
ready for the coming of the kingdom of God - to repent, for it was at hand. And to all who gave ear to
his preaching, he administered Baptism, as an outward
sign of their preparation - emblematical of the cleansing of their hearts and lives, to prepare them for the
reception of the promised Messiah. He at the same
time called upon those who came to his Baptism to
"bring forth fruits meet for repentance: " saying,," Now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees;
therefore, every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit
is hewn down and cast into the fire. I indeed baptize
with water unto repentance; but he that cometh after
me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy
to bear; he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost
and with fire." (St. Matt. iii. 8, 11.) His Baptism
shadowed forth the Baptism of the Holy Ghost, the
Divine Sanctifier, whose enlightening influence would
act " as purifying water, to wash away any internal
pollutions; and as a refining fire, to consume all their
dross and the remains of corrupt nature." 1 To which
he added, "Whose fan is in his hand; he will thor-!Thomas Scott.




JOHN'S BAPTISM A CEREMONIAL PURIFICATION. 289
oughly purge his floor " - cleanse or purify it - " and
gather his wheat into the garner." (Ver. 12.) Precisely what the prophet had foretold. " He shall sit as
a refiner or purifier of silver; and he shall purify the
sons of Levi, and purge [purify] them as gold and
silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in
righteousness." (Malachi iii. 3.)
That such was John's meaning, and that he and
his followers regarded his Baptism as a ceremonial purification is confirmed by the fact that when a question
about " PURIFYING " had arisen between his disciples
and the Jews, he treated it as synonymous with Baptism, and called upon them to bear him witness that
he had from the beginning claimed only to be one
sent before the Christ, to prepare his way; and that
Christ must increase whilst he must decrease. The
followers of the Saviour were now baptizing greater
numbers than John, which had evidently given rise to
the question. See the connection, St. John iii. 22-30:
" After these things came Jesus and his disciples into
the land of Judea; and there he tarried with them and
BAPTIZED; and John was also BAPTIZING in AEnon,
near to Salim, because there was much water there; and
they came and were BAPTIZED. For John was not yet
cast into prison. Then there arose a question between
some of John's disciples and the Jews about PURIFYING.
And they came unto John and said unto him: Rabbi,
he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou
barest witness, behold, the same BAPTIZETH, and all
men come unto him. John answered and said: A
man can receive nothing, except it be given him from
heaven. Ye yourselves bear me witness that I said, I
am not the Christ; but that I am sent before him.
He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the
19




290 JOHN'S BAPTISM A CEREMONIAL PURIFICATION.
friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth
him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's
voice; this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must
increase, but I must decrease."
It must be obvious to the intelligent reader, that St.
John, the writer, the disciples who came, and the
reply of John the Baptist, all refer to "Baptism and
purifying" as synonymous terms: for "John's Baptism" was doubtless the "purifying" under discussion. St. Mark calls it " the Baptism of repentance
for the remission of sins" (chap. i. 4); i. e., a washing or purification from sin. St. Luke likewise calls
it "the Baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins " (chap. iii. 3), emblematical of the same cleansing or purifying.
The Jews evidently expected some ritual lustration
or purification when their Messiah or his forerunner
should come- at least, showed that such a thing did
not surprise them. For instead of inquiring into the
nature and meaning of John's Baptism, they first ask
him if he was the Christ, or one of their predicted
prophets? and then why he baptized, if not one of
them? (St. John i. 19-25.) " And this is the record
of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from
Jerusalem, to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the
Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou
Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that
prophet? And he answered, No. Then said they
unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer
to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself?
He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the
prophet Esaias. And they which were sent were of




PROPHECIES FULFILLED IN JOHN BAPTIST.  291
the Pharisees. And they asked him, W7ry baptizest
thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither
that Prophet?"
The Baptism itself caused no surprise, but that John
should baptize did, if he were not one of such note as
would authorize this extra purification. John was
the promised Elias, and forerunner of Christ, but not
Elijah himself, whom they expected. The prophecies on which they based their hopes of a Saviour,
and the blessings that would follow, had induced the
expectation of some ritual preparation, or extra purification of the people, for his reception. Isaiah, pointing to Christ and his reign, had said, in the name
of Jehovah (chap. lii. 13-15), "Behold, my servant
shall deal prudently; he shall be exalted and extolled
very high.... so shall he sprinkle many nations; the
kings shall shut their mouths at him; for that which
hath not been told them shall they see; and that
which they had not heard shall they consider." Ezekiel, shadowing forth the blessings of Christ's reign,
and its influence upon the hearts of his people, had,
in the same name foretold them (chap. xxxvi. 25-29),
" Then I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you
shall be clean; from all your filthiness and from all
your idols will I cleanse you. A new heart also will
I give you: and a new spirit will I put within you;
and I will take away the stony heart out of your
flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I
will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk
in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments and
do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I
gave your fathers, and ye shall be my people, and I
will be your God." Malachi had pointed out how
their Saviour and his reign would be introduced




292        EMBLEMS OF JOHN'S BAPTISM.
(chap. iii. 1-3), " Behold, I will send my messenger,
and he shall prepare the way before me: and the
Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of
hosts. But who shall abide the day of his coming?
and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is
like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap. And he shall
sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shallpurify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver."
With such prophecies familiar to them, and the
Levitical and traditional purifications constantly practised among them, we need not wonder that John
made no further explanation of his Baptism than its
shadowing forth the refining and purifying influence
of the Holy Ghost. (St. Mark i. 8.) " I indeed baptize you with water, but He shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost." By which he clearly indicates the
relation of the two, and that his Baptism was emblematical of the Baptism of the Holy Ghost. And if so, it
was necessarily a rite of purification, signifying the
washing away of sin on repentance and reformation,
preparatory for the Messiah. John's Baptism was
not Christian Baptism -because not in the name of
the Holy Trinity, and particularly of Christ. It was
not an initiatory rite into any church, because he did
not found, or pretend to be a founder of a church.
It was simply the work of the predicted Messenger
sent to prepare the way for the coming and reception
of Christ. That it was not Christian Baptism is farther made known by the fact that when St. Paul
found certain persons at Ephesus who had received
John's Baptism, he re-baptized them in the name of




CHRIST UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES.    293
the Trinity (Acts xix. 1-5). Although " Jerusalem
and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan," received John's Baptism, and the disciples of
Christ before his crucifixion baptized at one time even
greater numbers than John, we find that on the day
of Pentecost, the whole number of the New Dispensation was only one hundred and twenty. (Acts i. 5.)
Until his crucifixion, Jesus, as well as John, acted
under, and recognized the authority of the law of
Moses; he was circumcised on the eighth day, brought
to the temple and presented to the Lord, after his
mother's purification; attended the public worship of
the temple, and drove from its hallowed courts the
money-changers, who would change his Father's house
of prayer into a den of thieves. When he cleansed a
leper, he bade him " Go and show thyself unto the
priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses
commanded, for a testimony unto them." (Luke v.
14.) And in his public teaching to the multitude,
said to them, " The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses'
seat: All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe,
that observe and do; but do not ye after their works;
for they say and do not." (Matt. xxiii. 2. 3.) Almost
the last thing that he did before He suffered, was
in obedience to Moses, to observe the "passover."
(Matt. xxvi. 17-25.) But here ended the Old Dispensation.
He had united with John in preparing the people
for the New. He had submitted to his Baptism, not
because he needed repentance, but as recognizing
John's mission and appointment from Heaven, and
his ritual purification for the introduction of the New
Dispensation, and as submitting himself also to all
Heaven's regulations "under the law " —" to fulfil




294   JOHN'S BAPTISM NOT CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.
all righteousness" (Matt. iii. 15); and, it may be,
to set him apart for his priestly office, as was Aaron.
For John's Baptism, as a preparation for the Gospel
of Christ, was certainly very similar to the purification of the Israelites, to prepare them for the reception of the law at Mount Sinai. (See Exodus xix.)
It was necessary that Christ should become subject
to " the law in all things, to redeem them that were
under the law." He therefore fulfilled all that was required under the first Dispensation, even submitted
to and aided in the mission of John the Baptist in
preparing the people, especially his chosen Apostles,
for the New Dispensation. But from the moment he
rose from the grave, a new order of things commenced,
and his submission to the Old ended. His public declaration now is, " Allpower is given unto me in Heaven
and in Earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt. xxviii. 18, 19.)
Up to this time all was under Moses; henceforth all
shall be under Christ. The Baptism of John was
therefore for the remission of sins 1 and purification
under the Dispensation of Moses to those purposing
reformation of life, preparatory to the ushering in of
the New Dispensation under Christ. It implied uncleanness through sin, and symbolized the purifying
and renewing influences of the Holy Ghost. And
the Saviour directed his Apostles to tarry at Jerusalem after his departure, for the special gift of the
Holy Ghost to qualify them for their work.
4. Now did " purifying," under the Mosaic Dispensation, imply only one mode of action? And is the
Baptism of the Holy Ghost represented under the figure of dipping   The various modes of " purifying,"
1 St. Mark i. 4; St. Luke iii. 3.




BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.       295
under the ritual law, we have already considered.
And if because of the omnipresence of the Holy Spirit,
we are necessarily immersed in the Spirit, then it is
not by dipping or plunging we get into the Spirit;
but we are born in the Spirit, and grow up in the
Spirit, and every one has already been baptized in
Him. That is not something yet to be done. But if
it be an act, or an influence, or gift to men, which any
do not yet possess, then it must come of the Spirit,
and be applied to them. How this application is
made, let us hear what the Holy Scriptures teach?
Under what mode or figures do they represent the
Baptism of the Holy Ghost? The Saviour, when
about to leave his disciples, told them they should be
baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence,
and to tarry at Jerusalem till this was accomplished.
Acts iii. 1-4. "And when the day of Pentecost
was fully come, they were all with one accord in one
place.  And suddenly there came a sound from
heaven, as of a mighty rushing wind, and it filled all
the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues, like as of fire, and
it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled
with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."
St. Peter informed the multitude that came together, that this Baptism was the fulfilment of the
prophecy of Joel.
Verses 16, 17, 18. "But this is that which was
spoken by the prophet Joel, And it shall come to pass
in the last days, saith God, I will POUR OUT of
my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your
daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall
see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:




296      BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST.
And on my servants and on my handmaidens, I will
POUR OUT, in those days, of my Spirit; and they
shall prophesy."
Here the figure used expressive of the mode is that
of POURING, not DIPPING.  "I will POUR OUT OF
my Spirit." When the actual Baptism took place, a
sound came from heaven as of a mighty rushing wind,
and " cloven tongues of fire sat upon them," which
was the fulfilment of the prophecy, "' I will pour out
of my Spirit." And the Apostle goes on further to
explain (verses 32, 33), " This Jesus hath God raised
up, whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore, being
by the right hand of God exalted, and having received
of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath
SHED FORTH this which ye now see and hear."
He uses in this place the figure of " SHEDDING
FORTH," as expressive of the same thing, which is
closely allied to " pouring."
Again, when St. Peter was preaching to Cornelius
and his company, St. Luke informs us (Acts x. 44-46),:" While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost' FELL' on all them which heard the word. And they
of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as
many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles
also was POURED out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For
they heard them speak with tongues and magnify
God." So, St. Luke applies both" shed" and "pour"
to those same gifts of the Holy Ghost received on the
day of Pentecost. St. Peter, relating this event on
his return to Jerusalem, says (Acts xi. 15, 16), " And
as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost FELL on them,
as on us at the beginning [day of Pentecost.] Then
I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said,
John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be bap



POURED OUT, SHED FORTH, FALLEN UPON.   297
tized with the Holy Ghost." (Acts i. 5.) Hence he
regarded this as another fulfilment of our Lord's promise of the Holy Ghost, and uses the figure of St. Luke
-" the Holy Ghost FELL on them."
In another place he speaks of "the Holy Ghost
SENT DOWN from Heaven " (1 Peter i. 13.)
St. John says, " I saw the Spirit DESCENDING FROM
HEAVEN like a dove, and it abode upon him." (John
i. 32.)
Thus we see the Baptism of the Holy Ghost is described as "poured out," " shed forth," "fell upon,"
"sent down," "descending," and " abiding upon;"
and yet we are told that baptize "has but one signification - it always signifies to dip - never expressing
anything but mode;" and that " baptism always im.
plies immersion!"  And with this idea, the "Bible
Union," as they call themselves, are making a new
translation of our English Bible, in which immerse and
immersion are to be substituted for " baptize " and
"baptism!"
Besides pouring, shedding forth, falling upon, sent
down, descending and abiding upon, we have seen
that Baptism is applied in the New Testament to
washing of hands and feet, cups, pots, brazen vessels,
tables (couches), and to the various purifications of
the ritual law of Moses.
Dr. Carson is very averse to calling " Baptism" a
"purification:" for although it be administered for
that purpose, he says, " purification is the consequence,
not the Baptism itself." This he repeats oftener than
once. But it is a distinction without a difference, as
he applies it. For though purification be not attained
until the Baptism is performed, the Baptism is not
complete until its work is done. It is no more a Bap



298  IMMERSION A MISTRANSLATION OF BAPTISM.
tism in its initiative and progressive stages towards
completion, than it is a purification. They both begin
and end together. They are practically and really
one and the same thing. Therefore, in all such cases,
Baptism is ipso facto Purification. What is there in
the act of the purification not in the act of the Baptism?
As a ritual service the same act is called by both
names. Independent of the Baptism the purification
has no existence; and whatever is a necessary part
of the Baptism, as to time or mode of existence, is a
necessary part of the purification.
No other word in the English language would convey, perhaps, so well the full meaning of /farwrlw asPURIFY. We would, therefore, adopt in full the words
of another, who has written an excellent book on this
branch of our subject since the publication of our first
edition:" If we reject our English word baptize -
for baptize has become truly and properly an English
word - and attempt to translate the Greek 8fa7riro,
we should translate it by the word PURIFY, and not
IMMERSE. At the same time we remark, that the
word purify, as used in the Old Testament, is used in
a sense different from that in which it is used in common conversation and in the English classics. The
English word baptize, in its common acceptation, more
nearly expresses the exact idea of the Greek parnTo)
than the English word purify would. And on this
account, we would greatly prefer to see our venerable
English stand'as of old.' To translate the Greek /a7r7;w in the Word of God, by the English word dip or
immerse, or into any other language by words corresponding to our English words dip and immerse, is to
mistranslate the Word of God; not simply to make




BAPTISM IN THE CLOUD AND IN THE SEA.  299
an allowable variation in a version of the Bible, but to
mistranslate the Word of God." 1
It being now evident to every attentive reader of
these pages that BAPTIZE and BAPTISM are not specifie
terms, confined to one mode of action in the Holy
Scriptures, but generic, and express various modes, it
is unnecessary to dwell any longer on this branch of
the subject.
We might have referred to the Baptism of the Israelites -" unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea" (1
Cor. x. 1, 2), - concerning which strange perversions
of a plain case have been attempted to twist it into
immersion! But, after all, the idea of immersion in
water on " dry ground," is difficult of comprehension
— especially when the water had been removed out of
the way for them to pass on " dry ground through the
midst of the sea." That they were sprinkled by a mist
from the cloud and sea, and therefore baptized by
aspersion, is easily comprehended. The Psalmist explains it clearly enough (Ps. lxxvii. 16, 20), "The
waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they
were afraid; the depths also were troubled. The
clouds poured out water.... Thou leddest thy people
like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron." The
rain which fell from the clouds while they were crossing
the sea, in advance it may be of a storm that accompanied the closing up of the waters on the Egyptians,
was the Baptism which the Israelites received; while
the rushing together of the waters, covering the Egyptians, literally immersed them, for they were buried in
the Red Sea. We might also have enlarged on the
washing of Naaman, the leper, in the river Jordan (2
Kings v. 14), at the command of Elisha. And we
1 Armstrong On the Doctrine of Baptisms.




300     BAPTISM BY THE DEWS OF HEAVEN.
might likewise have examined more critically the
Baptism of Nebuchadnezzar by the dews of Heaven, in
his deranged state (Dan. v. 21): for the term applied
to him in the Septuagint is the root from which p/TITt
is derived, and more intensive in its meaning. Yet it
is used to express the wetting or baptizing of one by
the settling down of the dew upon him at night. We
should hardly conclude, in such a case, that he was
dipped or immersed in the dew. We might further
have referred to Christ's allusion to his own sufferings
under the figure of Baptism  (St. Mark x. 38, 39).
These would have given additional illustrations of
the various applications and modes of Baptism, but
why multiply cases to establish what must be already
proved to the satisfaction of every attentive reader?
that BAPTIZE and BAPTISM, as used in the Holy Scriptures, are not specific terms signifying only one mode,
but are applied to various modes. If Christian Baptism, then, was administered in one particular way,
and that way designed to be binding on all generations,
we must look to the circumstances under which it was
administered in the cases recorded in the New Testament;- for the term itself implies no particular mode,
nor have we any specific directions from Christ or his
Apostles on that point.




CHAPTER X.
EXAMINATION OF THE MEANING AND MODES OF BAPTISM
CONTINUED.
John's Baptism. -Prepositions "in," " into," and " out of," determine
nothing. — Enon or Springs. -Apostles baptized without Regard to
Circumstances. - Baptism of Three Thousand - of the Samaritans - of
the Eunuch - of Saul - of Cornelius - of the Jailer —of the Disciples at Ephesus. - Mode indicated only by the Spirit. - End or Object
of Baptism. - Christ the Second Adam. - Circumcision of Christ. - Figurative Allusions. - Explanations. - Summary of Scriptural Testimony.
- Concluded with Historical Proof of Baptism by Different Modes in
every Age of the Church since the Death of the Apostles.- No Prevailing Mode without Exceptions.
~ 30. WE now proceed to examine the circumstances under which the various cases of Baptism recorded
in the New Testament occurred. And in order to
make our work thorough, we will take up every passage that can throw any light on the mode, from the
beginning of John's Baptism to the end of the Divine
Record.
But we must first premise that the Greek prepositions translated "in," "into," and "out of," prove
nothing  of  themselves;  because, as  every  Greek
scholar knows, they  as often  mean "unto," "to,"
" at," " near by," " with," and " from," and are so
translated in various places in the New Testament.
They weigh nothing, therefore, as proof for one side
or the other, independently of the verbs and other
things with which they stand connected. We shall
find that in every passage rendered "he went down




302 BAPTISM IN OR AT JORDAN NO EXPLANATION.
into the water," and came up " out of the water," the
same terms would be used for " going down to the
water," and " coming up from the water."  So that
something more than such forms of speech must be
found to justify any one in confining Baptism to the
mode of dipping.
1. The first passages recorded in the New Testament, on which Baptists rely for proof of immersion,
are found in Matt. iii. 1, 5, 6: " In those days came
John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of
Judea....  And there went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about
Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." They lay much stress on " baptized of him in the Jordan;" but the Greek Ev translated " in," means also at, on, by, near, and might have
been rendered " at the Jordan," or " by the Jordan;"
and, therefore, can determine nothing by itself. St.
Luke uses the same preposition to point out the position
of the tower at (3v) or near the fountain of Siloam.
(Luke xiii. 4.) St. Paul uses the same frequently
in describing the relation of one (Qv) at or near
the right hand of another. (Heb. i. 3; viii. 1;
Rom. viii. 34.)  St. John uses it to describe the light
shining (rv) on one's path. (St. John xi. 10.) And
others, in like manner.  Therefore, we must have
something more than the translation of'v into in, to
prove anything in regard to the mode in such cases.
Besides, even admitting the translation to be correct,
the language used in such cases, would apply equally
well to persons who, with wooden sandals and short,
loose robes, in a sultry climate, would as soon walk
a short distance into the water, as to stop at its edge,
even for the purpose of pouring the water on their




BAPTISM IN OR AT JORDAN NO EXPLANATION. 303
heads, or of sprinkling it over them.' In the heat and
dust produced by crowds under such circumstances, it
would refresh them, and wash the dust froin their
feet and sandals, to go a few paces into the stream:
whilst John could accompany them into the water,
or baptize them whilst standing himself on the bank
or a rock near by, as we often see their Baptism represented in ancient engravings. Nothing, therefore,
is to be inferred from the rendering, " were baptized
in Jordan."
2. Additional stress, however, has been laid on the
following verses (13 and 14): " Then cometh Jesus
from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of
him. And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up
straightway out of the water." Here, it is often
said, " went up out of the water" shows that John
immersed him.  But not so; the preposition a7ro,
translated "out of," is more generally rendered
" from " than " out of."  And so far as that is concerned, the reading would be equally correct if translated " went up from the water." St. Matthew so uses
it in the same chapter to describe fleeing from the
wrath to come (verse 7): " O generation of vipers!
who hath warned you to flee (&7ro) from the wrath to
come? " -not " out of " the wrath to come. Again,
he applies it to coming down from the cross of Christ
(chap. xxvii. 40): "'If thou be the son of God, come
down (a7ro) from the cross,"- not " out of " the cross.
St. Luke applies it to the act of one person leaving
another:  "And it came to pass as they departed
(&r6) from him,"- not " out of him."  (St. Luke ix.
33.) Such is its frequent and most common use in
the New Testament; therefore it is of no force as
proof that Christ was immersed by John.




304        RECORDS OF JOHN'S BAPTISM.
3. St Mark's account of John's baptizing in or at
Jordan, is as follows (Mark i. 4, 5, 9, 10):  "John
did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the Baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And
there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and
they of Jerusalem, and were baptized of him in the
river Jordan, confessing their sins.... And it came
to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth
to Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. And
straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the
heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove, descending
upon him."
Here we have precisely the same terms applied to
the act of baptizing, that are used by St. Matthew,
except in the Baptism of Christ, where ds; is used instead of iv, and is used perhaps in a hundred places in
the New Testament to express proximity or nearness
to a place - for at, to, by, on, upon, and near to. For
instance, " his fellow servant fell down (cds) at his
feet,"- not in his feet. (St. Matt. xviii. 17T.) Again,
"Seeing the multitudes, he went up (Eis) on the
mountain," —not in the mountain. (St. Matt. v. 1.)
Again, "He gave commandment to depart (Eds) unto
the other side," —not in the other side. (St. Matt.
viii. 18.) Once more: " So they ran both together,
and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came
first (Ei1) to the sepulchre," —not in or into the
sepulchre, for we are told that the " other disciple"
did not go into the sepulchre at all. (St. John xx.)
Thus St. Mark records nothing that throws any
additional light on the account given by St. Matthew,
or on the mode of Baptism by John.
4. We come next to St. Luke. All that he says
on the subject is, " And he (John) came into all the




RECORDS OF JOHN'S BAPTISM.     305
country about Jordan, preaching the Baptism  of
repentance for the remission of sins..... Now when
the people were baptized, it came to pass that Jesus
also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was
opened, and the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily
shape, like a dove upon him." (St. Luke iii. 3-22.)
He says nothing about going into or coming " out
of" the water, but simply informs us that all the
people in the country about Jordan were baptized of
John, and that Jesus also being baptized, while in
prayer, the Holy Ghost, in the bodily shape of a
dove, descended upon him.
5. St. John is the only remaining witness whose
testimony can throw any light on this question. He,
after recording the answer of John to the Pharisees
who were sent to inquire who John was, and by what
authority he baptized, tells us, " These things were
done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was
baptizing." (St. John i. 28.)  Again, " And John
also was baptizing in (or at) AEnon, near to Salim,
because there was much water [many waters] there."
tChap iii. 23.) " And he [Jesus] went away again
beyond Jordan, into the place where John at first
baptized." (Chap. x. 40.)
The advocates of immersion have drawn largely
from the clause, "because there was much water
there," urging that immersion required much water,
and for that especial reason John sojourned at JEnon,
a place of several springs or fountains of water. But
abundance of water, for drinking, washing, and culinary purposes, is as necessary to crowds and large assemblies in a wilderness, or uninhabited portions of
the country, as it would be for their Baptism by immersion.  When our Methodist brethren purpose
20




806         JOHN'S SOJOURN AT AENON.
holding a large camp-meeting, abundance of good
spring water is regarded as a very important item.
And they are influenced in their selection of a place
for such an assemblage more perhaps by a good supply of water than any other one thing - not because
of immersion, but for the necessary use and comfort of
their assembly. AEnon, being the plural of fountain,
or spring, probably took its name from the many
springs or fountains there. And this agrees with the
Greek v'8ara,roXXa, " many waters," many springs or
fountains, instead of much water in one body. And
the passage would be more literally translated if rendered, " And John also was baptizing at iEnon (the
Springs), near to Salim, because there were many
wat'ers there," — springs and streams, to supply all
the wants of the multitudes that flocked to his Baptism. He would hardly have left the JORDAN for'ENON, if water for immersion had been his object.
Yet he might have done so for the sake of purer and
cooler water to slake the thirst of the people, and for
other necessary uses.
The question has been triumphantly asked, " Why
did John baptize in the river? Why did he go down
to the water at all - even to the edge of the water -
if Baptism was performed by pouring or sprinkling?
Why not bring the water from the river to the people
to baptize them?" Such questions would not arise
if the circumstances of the case were rightly pondered.
Crowds of people collected to see and hear something
new outside the city limits, and in retired places, do
not often take with them vessels for carrying water.
John did not select the city for his operations; had
he done so, the multitudes must have blocked up the
streets, and excited the civil authorities against his




IENON, THE SPRINGS OR MANY FOUNTAINS.  307
mission. He made choice of more open and retired
places, under the groves and along the banks of the
Jordan. It was, therefore, an easy matter to step
down to the edge of the water; it would even be
more convenient for taking up the water in his hand
to pour upon the heads of his numerous converts.
For it must be remembered that many thousands were
baptized by him; while we have no right to suppose
that articles for such purposes would be very abundant
in assemblages of like character in " the wilderness."
(Judges vii. 5, 6.) We are informed that " all Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about
Jordan," received his Baptism. And if one twentieth
of this population, according to the estimate of Josephus, was baptized by immersion, John must have
remained in the water a large portion of each day
during his whole mission.
Such interrogations, therefore, have no force as arguments against Baptism by aspersion or otherwise.
Place and circumstances show that stepping down to
or into the river, would be a natural and easy way to
obtain the water even for sprinkling so many; pre6minently so, since John's Baptism was a Jewish purification for the reception of Christ; and such purifications required " running water," as opposed to
stagnant or unclean water. Hence the propriety of
selecting the river Jordan, and the running fountains
or streams of JAEnon, as suitable places for both the
rite and the necessary comfort of the people.
It must now be clear to the reader that nothing
definite in regard to the mode can be learned from
John's Baptism. We have examined this point, not
because it could decide the mode of Christian Baptism
(for we have already shown that John's Baptism was




308     NOTHING DECISIVE AS TO THE MODE.
not Christian Baptism), but because it is supposed
that whatever mode was practised by John, was
adopted by the Apostles. This, however, does not
necessarily follow, and might conflict with the theory
that John sought places of much water for the object
of immersion; for it is certain no such intimation is
to be found in the sacred record, for the purpose of
Christian Baptism. On the contrary, in every case
where the message of the Apostles was received, there
and then they were baptized. The three thousand on
the day of Pentecost, in the city of Jerusalem - men
and women by Philip in Samaria, the eunuch by
the wayside, Paul in Damascus, and probably in the
room where the scales fell from his eyes, Cornelius
at his own house, Lydia near the river side, the
jailer within the prison walls, the disciples at Ephesus, and others besides, without one word in regard
to inconvenience or delay, or removal to another place
for water for the Sacrament.
1. We will now proceed to examine every instance
of CHRISTIAN BAPTISM in the New Testament from
which an inference in any possible way can be made
to bear on the mode in which it was administered.
We begin with the three thousand on the day of Pentecost. Having received the Baptism of the Holy
Ghost, the Apostles entered forthwith upon the great
work for which they had been set apart. The people
Collected in large numbers to hear them, and many
were made to cry out, " Men and brethren, what shall
we do?"
Acts ii. 38, 39, 41. " 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




CHRISTIAN BAPTISM.          309
is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are
afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.... Then they that gladly received his word were
baptized; and the same day there were added unto
them about three thousand souls."
This was the first day's work of the Apostles under
the New Dispensation. They were baptized themselves by the Holy Ghost, and three thousand souls
converted by their preaching, were then baptized by
them. But nothing is said or done, so far as the
record shows, to indicate in the slightest degree that
they were baptized by immersion. Not a word about
their going to river or pool for Baptism; the whole
transaction is recorded as if they were baptized as
soon as convinced by the preaching of the Apostles,
and they ready to receive them. And the Baptism
might easily have been performed in a short time from
the contents of the watering pots kept for purifying;
but if by immersion, it must have been laborious work
for the remainder of that day.
Further, it was at a season of the year when the little
brook Cedron was generally dry; the public baths, if
any, we may suppose were in the hands of those in
authority; and the supposition that they were scattered through the city to find private baths for such a
number, would hardly correspond with the time allowed them, and with the purport of the record. The
only mode intimated is that of the Baptism of the
Holy Spirit, under the figure of "POURED OUT,"
(~eXEx.) Therefore, so far as allusions indicate mode
they are decidedly in favor of pouring, or aspersion,
rather than immersion. So much for the Baptism of
the three thousand.




310       BAPTISM OF THREE THOUSAND.
2. We come next to the Baptism of the people of
Samaria.
Acts viii. 12, 13. " But when they believed Philip,
preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God,
and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized,
both men and women. Then Simon himself believed
also; and when he was baptized, he continued with
Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and
signs which were done."
We have no allusion to MODE here - consequently,
nothing to favor the idea of IMMERSION.
3. The next in order is the Baptism of the eunuch
by Philip. The eunuch, while riding in his carriage,
was reading the prophecy of Isaiah, and invited Philip,
who drew near to him, to take a seat with him. That
portion upon which he was engaged, treated of the vicarious sufferings of Christ, which is embraced in the
52d and 53d chapters of Isaiah (divisions into chapters had not then been made), and he asked Philip
" of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or
of some other man? "
Acts viii. 35, 39. " Then Philip opened his mouth,
and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto
him Jesus. And as they went on their way, they
came to a certain water; and the eunuch said, See,
here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
And Philip saith, If thou believest with all thine
heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I
believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he
commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went
down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch,
and he baptized him. And when they were come up
out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away




NO MODE DEFINED BY THE EUNUCH'S BAPTISM. 811
Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more; and he
went on his way rejoicing."
This passage has been regarded by some persons as
proof positive of immersion. But the very same reasoning applies to it that applies to the Baptism in
the river Jordan. The Greek words rendered " into "
and " out of," as often mean " unto " and " from."
And if translated, " they went down both to the water," and were " come up from the water," it would be
in perfect accordance with the Greek; and hence proof
resting upon the mere translation of such words
amounts to nothing. St. Matthew uses the same
Greek word which is rendered " into," in this place,
when he says: " Go thou (et,) to the sea," - not into
the sea. (Chap. xvii. 27.) He used it also for "unto,"
in the passage, " I am not sent but (Ei) unto the lost
sheep of the house of Israel," - not into the lost sheep.
(Chap. xv. 24.) Again: "All things are ready, come
(Eck) unto the marriage,"- not into the marriage.
(Chap. xxii. 4.)
Thus it will be perceived how uncertain is the
meaning of the phrase " went down into the water."
And equally uncertain is its corresponding one, " come
up out of the water." St. Matthew uses the same
word for separating the wicked from the righteous.
" Sever the wicked ((K) from among the just," - not
out of.  (Chap. xiii. 49.)  Again: "The tree is
known (QK) from or by its fruit," - not out of. (Chap.
xii. 23.) St. John uses it in like manner: " Many
good works have I shown you (QK) from my Father,"
- not out of my Father.
Now what is an argument worth in any cause,
resting on such a basis as this? The verbs with
which these prepositions stand connected, accord as




312  CIRCUMSTANCES UNFAVORABLE TO IMMERSION.
well with descending from the chariot to the water,
and going up from the water to the chariot, as de.
scending into the water, and going up out of it.
And even admitting that they went into it, Would not
prove any particular mode of the Baptism, as we have
before shown. Besides which, there are other circumstances that seem to conflict with the idea of immersion. There is no river or water-course of any note
between Jerusalem and Gaza, where they were travelling - St. Luke calls it a way that is " desert." He
also calls the place of the Baptism, " a certain water,"
as if so inconsiderable as not to deserve the name of
river or pool or lake, and hence it was probably one
of those way-side wells, which travellers inform us are
to be found sometimes in desert countries, provided
for the accommodation and lodging places of those
who travel through that way. And such being the
case, one might be washed or sprinkled, when plunging him under the water would be impracticable. It
must be remembered also that travelling on foot as
Philip was, wet clothes after an immersion would be
rather inconvenient to carry; or, if the operation was
performed nude, we hope that we shall be excused in
this age if we depart from the letter in that particular,
We should further inquire what suggested Baptism
to the mind of the eunuch, that he should propound
to Philip the question, " What doth hinder me to be
baptized? " as soon as he saw water. By turning to
that portion of Isaiah which the eunuch was reading,
we shall see that the prophet, among the first things
after introducing the vicarious sufferings of Christ,
says, "So shall he sprinkle many nations." (lii.
15.) If Philip preached to him Baptism from these
words, he could hardly have preached Baptism by




CIRCUMSTANCES UNFAVORABLE TO IMMERSION. 313
immersion. Therefore, in either case, the probabilities are against, rather than in favor of immersion.
All the circumstances considered, the condition of
travellers, scarcity of water, and language of Isaiah
- this passage, on which so much reliance has been
placed for immersion, and which Dr. Carson thinks,
under the " most violent persuasion it could sustain on
the rack, would still cry out, immersion, immersion,"lreally proves as much for any other mode as for immersion. No logician can admit that it proves the
eunuch was plunged under the water. And this is
all that we are now to settle concerning it. We have
no objection to immersion in itself, unless made exclusive without authority; our object is to ascertain
whether it was the mode practised by the Apostles,
and whether we can find any authority that will
justify one in confining Baptism to that one mode,
and forbidding all others. This we have certainly
failed to do thus far.
4. Next follows the Baptism of St. Paul: while on
his way to Damascus as a persecutor of Christians,
he was struck with blindness, and removed to the
house of a friend, where he remained " three days
without sight, and neither did eat nor drink." At the
end of which time Ananias was sent to him to open
his eyes and baptize him.
Acts ix. 17, 18. " And Ananias went his way, and
entered into the house: and putting his hands on him,.
said, Brother Saul, the Lord (even Jesus that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest) hath
sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be
filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there
1 Baptism, p. 128.




314        NO MODE OF BAPTISM  POINTED  OUT.
fell from his eyes, as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose and was BAPTIZED."
The following is St. Paul's own account of the same:
Acts xxii. 12, 16. " And one Ananias, a devout man
according to the law, having a good report of all the
Jews which dwelt there, came unto me, and stood, and
said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And
the same hour, I looked up upon him. And he said,
the God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thon
shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and
shouldest hear the voice of his mouth. For thou shalt
be his witness unto all men, of what thou hast seen
and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise and
be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the
name of the Lord."
These two narratives are essentially the same. Saul
had been struck with blindness, and after three days'
praying and fasting in the house of Judah, Ananias
is sent to him by the Lord, who finds him engaged in
prayer, lays his hands upon him, saying, "' Receive thy
sight," -scales of blindness fall from his eyes — he
looks up, and Ananias bids him " arise and be baptized," - and he arose and was baptized. Literally,
" standing up, he was baptized." 1
I " At the time of our Lord's sojourn upon earth, the Syriac seems to have
been the general medium of colloquial intercourse, and consequently was
the vernacular of CHRIST and his Apostles. And the Syriac New Testament uniformly translates the Greek word to baptize, by the Syriac Amad,
which in Hebrew, Chaldee, and the kindred dialects, signifies (1) to stand,
(2) to cause to stand, to which the Syriac adds the special usage (3) to wash,
(4) to baptize.
" Now in Hebrew and Arabic, to stand, i. e., before one, implied servitude
or ministry. In Latin a derivation from a kindred root (sto, stare) to
stand, denotes to mnake a set speech. What, then, ought we to conclude, was
that peculiarity of Baptism which led our Lord and his Apostles to call
Baptism a stand or standing. Neither the element by which it was per



"STANDING  UP, WAS BAPTIZED."                   315
Now what do we find here pointing out the exclusive  mode of immersion?    So far as the narrative
and circumstances indicate anything, it is that of
baptism in the room and on the spot where Ananias
found him; which suggest pouring or sprinkling rather
than  immersion.   "Standing  up, he was baptized."
Imagination can take him out to a river or pool and
make a great display -  but as faithful interpreters of
God's word, we must confine ourselves to the laws of
interpretation - we must be governed by the record
and circumstances of the case. We cannot, therefore,
infer immersion, or confine Baptism to that particular
mode, from such an account as this. But rather the
reverse.
5. We come now to the first Baptism of one outside of the pale of the Jewish Church. Cornelius, a
Gentile and Roman officer, but truly a devout man,
was commanded by an angel to send for Peter, who
formed, nor the person administering it, nor the mode of its application,
were prominent considerations, but the receiver received a standing or else
took a stand, in the Church, and on the side of the Gospel. It should also
be added, that the Syriac words denoting Ordination and ConJfrmation,
are from a root (Kom) which signifies to stand. From what point of view,
therefore, are we to conclude the Sacrament was looked at, when it received the name stand?
" The early Britons, before the advent of the Saxons in that island, translated to baptize by bedyz, or bedydd, which seems to have for their primary meaning to give, to consecrate. And the Anglo-Saxon itself, when that
people came to translate the New Testament, denoted Baptism by Fullian,
to cleanse, to purify. From what point, or under what aspect, must those
have regarded the Sacrament of Baptism, who employed this word?
" The Ethiopian translation has Tamaka, to tinge, dye, color; also, to
baptize. The ancient Celtic, both Scotch and Irish, rendered the word
BAIST, to pour, to sprinkle, to baptize; while the Coptic employed oMs, to
stand in the water, to baptize.
"' We should be glad to see a satisfactory account of the probable causes
which led to this diversity in the use of language, by the early Christians.
Especially should we be glad to see what account our Baptist brethren can
give of the matter." - CALENDAR.




316  POURING OUT OF THE SPIRIT CALLED BAPTISM.
received also instructions by a vision, not to despise
the Gentiles, and went to the house of Cornelius, and
there preached Jesus to him and his assembled friends.
Acts x. 44, 48. " While Peter yet spake these
words, the Holy Ghost fell 1 on all them which heard
the word. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter,
because that on the Gentiles also was poured out 2 the
gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak
with tongues and magnify God. Then said Peter,
Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well
as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in
the name of the Lord."
This, though the first Baptism among uninitiated
Gentiles, is accompanied with no prescribed mode -
nothing about going to a pool or to a bath; simply a
command at the time and place that they be baptized.
And when it was heard at Jerusalem that " the Gentiles had received the word of God," it caused much
commotion among the " circumcision." And St. Peter
thus rehearsed the matter:Acts xi. 15, 17. "And as I began to speak, the
Holy Ghost fella on them, as on us at the beginning.
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that
he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.  Forasmuch
then as God gave them the like gift, as He did unto
us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was
I, that I could withstand God?
There is nothing to suggest the mode of their Baptism in this case, unless it be the Baptism of the
Holy Ghost, which " FELL UPON" or was " POURED
1'Er'areae.  2'EKKCXVt7a&t  8'Eda'eTe.




PAUL AND SILAS AT PHILIPPI.     317
OUT;" and which St. Peter himself says was the
fulfilment of the promise of the Lord —" ye shall be
baptized with the Holy Ghost." And seeing these
were baptized with the Holy Ghost, Baptism by
water was suggested to his mind; and he asked,
" Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost as well
as we?"  When an invisible operation is likened to
something visible, we may presume it is because of
some resemblance between the things thus associated.
Between POURING OUT OF THE SPIRIT and DIPPING
OF THE BODY UNDER WATER, there is certainly very
little; but pouring the water on the head, and pouring out of the Spirit —on men, very strikingly resemble
each other; while Baptism by the Holy Ghost and
Baptism by water, have both the same leading object
in view -the PURIFICATION and RENEWAL of the
heart.' And both were intimately associated in the
minds of John the Baptist, the Saviour, and his
Apostles.2
POURING being the only MODE alluded to in the
case of Cornelius and his friends, it is consequently
the MODE suggested by the narrative of their Baptism,
and not immersion. Therefore, from this case, instead of finding authority for confining Baptism to
immersion, we are led to the opposite conclusion.
6. The next case from which anything can be
inferred from the circumstances, under which it was
administered, is that of the jailer. Paul and Silas
had been apprehended, beaten, and thrown into
prison! An earthquake the same night threw open
the prison doors, and the jailer being aroused from
1 John iii. 5; Acts ii. 38; Titus iii. 5.
2 John iii. 5; Matt. iii. 11; Acts i. 5; xi. 16; Titus iii. 5.




318       PAUL AND SILAS AT PHILIPPI.
sleep and finding them open, supposed the prisoners
had escaped, and was about to kill himself.  Paul
called to him to do himself no harm; saying, " We
are all here."
The jailer called for a light, sprang in, and fell
down at the Apostles' feet, and then " brought them
out (of the inner prison), and said,'Sirs, what must
I do to be saved? "'
Acts xvi. 31-34. " And they said, Believe on the
Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy
house. And they spake unto him the word of the
Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took
them the same hour of the night, and washed their
stripes, and was BAPTIZED, he, and all his straightway. And when he had brought them into his house,
he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God
with all his house."
Here the Baptism, like that of Cornelius and others,
was administered forthwith, the same hour of the
night, even before they went into the apartment
where the jailer lived, as it appears. The earthquake
having aroused all in and about the prison, they had
collected, probably in the outer court, where the
Apostles addressed them. The jailer first washed
the lacerated bodies of the Apostles, and was then
baptized, he and all his, straightway. After which
he took them into his own apartment and set meat
before them. The Apostles preached to all present,
the (oKt'a) " household," which includes the domestics
and attendants of an establishment- but only the
jailer and his own immediate family (oL aiTov 7ravTEs)
were baptized.
There is nothing written in this place to indicate
the mode of this Baptism; but the late hour of the




BAPTISM OF JOHN'S DISCIPLES AT EPHESUS.  319
night, within prison walls, and without any apparent delay, all taken together, suggest the probability of any other mode, rather than that of immersion.  We are not informed that prisons, in those
days, were fitted up with baths and conveniences of
like nature. And no allusion being made to such
things, or to immersion, we have no right to assume
them.  Consequently this, like all the other cases
examined, fails to prove the practice of immersion, or
to show any authority for confining Baptism to that
mode.
7. The only remaining instance of Baptism, from
which the slightest inference as to mode could be
drawn, is that at Ephesus. The Apostle Paul meeting with certain disciples there, said unto them: —
Acts xix. 2, 6. " Have ye received the Holy Ghost,
since ye believed? And they said unto him, we have
not so much as heard whether there be any Holy
Ghost. And he said unto them, unto what then were
ye baptized? And they said, unto John's Baptism.
Then, said Paul, John verily baptized with the Baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they
should believe on Him which should come after him,
that is, on Christ Jesus. WThen they heard this, they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And
when Paul had laid his hands on -them, the Holy Ghost
came upon them; and they spake with tongues and
prophesied."
We certainly do not find any intimation of immersion in this place. If any inference affecting the
mode can be drawn from it, it is that the narrative
would intimate more delay between the Baptism and




320    NO CASE OF UNEQUIVOCAL IMMERSION.
laying on of the Apostles' hands in the case of immersion, than the record indicates. Its natural interpretation leads one to infer that the imposition of
hands followed immediately after the Baptism, and
without any such delay as the immersions of the present day require.
We have now examined every case of Christian
Baptism in the New Testament that can throw any
light on the mode. Some other cases of the mere fact
of Baptism, without any reference to the circunmstances, are mentioned - as the Baptism of Lydia and
her family, of Stephanas and his family, and of Crispus and Gaius, but only the fact is recorded. We
have considered all in which the language or circumstances give any intimation as to how they were probably performed.
Have we then found a single case of unequivocal
immersion?. or anything that can authorize any many
or any set of men, to confine Baptism to immersion,
and pronounce all other modes invalid? The first
that occurred under the Christian dispensation, that
of three thousand in Jerusalem, was under circumstances highly unfavorable, instead of favorable to immersion. And all that we have heard about baths
and cisterns in Jerusalem (for which we have never
yet seen credible authority), does not meet the difficulties. Besides, what could the cisterns in Jerusalem
do for other places? Paul was baptized in Damascus, Cornelius in Caesarea, the jailer at Philippi, and
others at Ephesus; not one of which was even in Judea. And in every case there is not the slightest intimation to lead one to suppose they were immersed;
but on the contrary, under circumstances and recorded
in terms, that suggest affusion or aspersion as the
most probable.




THE MODE INDICATED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT. 321
The only case, the narrative of which could suggest
the idea of immersion, is that of the eunuch, and this
to such as are governed entirely by our English translation; for the original Greek, as we have shown, is
susceptible not only of a different rendering, but of
one that excludes even the possibility of immersion.
The present translation in our English version does
not teach immersion, nor could any rendering of
which the passage is susceptible, teach it. Laying
aside the circumstances, and placing everything in
the most favorable light, neither immersion nor any
other particular mode can be inferred from it; therefore, it gives no authority for any exclusive mode.
Shall we then base an invariable law on such a passage,
and make immersion the only valid Baptism?
The only mode of Baptism which we have seen
clearly indicated, is that of the Baptism of the Holy
Ghost. And this, under the figures of "poured out,"
" shed forth," and " descending." And this Baptism
was intimately associated with the Baptism of water
in the minds of the Apostles, as St. Peter's own words
prove. Therefore, if we are guided in our practice
of Baptism by the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, in
connection with the recorded instances therein, pouring and sprinkling have both stronger claims to our
election than immersion.
8. Great reliance, however, is placed on certain figurative allusions to Baptism by the Apostle Paul.
First, in his Epistle to the Romans, after explaining the
system of salvation by grace, and having shown that
where sin abounded, grace did superabound, he then
meets the question that might be raised: " Shall we
continue in sin that grace may abound? " and shows
that this would be contrary to the means and end of
21




3922 NOT THE SYMBOL BUT THE OBJECT OF BAPTISM.
grace; that Christ died to deliver us from sin, and in
his death were buried all the sins of his people; for
as many as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were
baptized into his death; through which they obtain
deliverance from sin, that they may walk in newness
of life. (Romans vi. 2, 7.) " How shall we that are
dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not
that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ,
were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried
with him by Baptism into death: that like as Christ
was raised up from the dead by the glory of the
Father, even so we also should walk in newness of
life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of
his resurrection. Knowing this, that our old man is'crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. For
he that is dead is freed from sin."
Now it is supposed by many that the words "buried
with Him by Baptism into death," refer to the mode of
Baptism by immersion. But before we interpret figurative language, we should examine the subject-matter in hand, and also the connection in which it is
found. The author was not discussing the mode of
Baptism, nor the authority of Baptism.  Our deliverance from sin through Christ was his theme. And
we being delivered from its condemnation, must strive
to be delivered from its practice also; for if we recognize Christ as our deliverer, who suffered in our room
and stead - "by whose stripes we are healed, "we must reckon ourselves to have been represented by
Him, and participants in his sufferings. In his death
we died with Him, and in his resurrection we rose, to
walk with him in newness of life. All the sins of his




OUR BURIAL WITH CHRIST IS SPIRITUAL.   323
people were buried in his death, because all truly
united to Him in Baptism must be regarded as one with
Ilim in his sufferings for them; and should "' reckon
themselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto
God through Jesus Christ." (Verse 11.) Grace, therefore, instead of encouraging sin, is in direct opposition
to it; it provides a cure for its wounds, and demands
that it be put away from all who would be saved by
grace. Baptism ritually connects us with Christ - it
is the sacramental rite by which we are grafted into
Him, our second Adam, and through Him into his
death; hence " we are by virtue of this union buried
with Him by Baptism into death " - death to sin; and
death to the bondage of our first Adam. But in saying " we are buried with Him by Baptism into death,"
in virtue of our connection with Him through Baptism,
the Apostle makes no necessary allusion to the mode
of Baptism. HIe could not make any unless whilst
earnestly unfolding a great principle, and the duties
which it involved, he turned aside to an incidental resemblance, if there be one, which he did not explain.
For he does not say that Baptism symbolizes a burial,
therefore we are buried with Christ in our Baptism;
but that " we were baptized into his death," - united
with Him in his death by Baptism, and therefore buried
with Him. The words " into death " are evidently
connected with Baptism. "Know  you not that so
many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were
baptized into his death? Thereforeawe are buried with
/Him (for this reason) because " we were baptized into
his death." Not because of the mode by which we
were baptized, or of a Baptism emblematical of a
burial; but because of the object for which we were
baptized. "The point of comparison (as Professor




324   BURIAL WITH CHRIST SPIRITUAL, NOT PHYSICAL.
Hodge of Princeton very justly remarks) is not between our Baptism  and the resurrection of Christ; but
between our death to sin and rising to holiness, and the
death and resurrection of our Redeemer.  As Paul had
expressed in verse 2, the idea of the freedom of believers from sin, by the figurative phrase " dead to
sin," he carries the figure consistently through; and
says, that by our reception of Christ we become united
to Him in such a way as to die as He died, and to rise
as He rose. As He died unto sin (for its destruction),
so do we; and as He rose unto newness of life, so do
we." I
The antithesis between burial and resurrection,
shows that it is not a physical burial under water to
which the Apostle refers, because the resurrection,
the corresponding part of the comparison, is spiritual
and moral.  " That like as Christ was raised up from
the dead by the glory (power) of the Father, even
so we also should walk in newness of life."
You perceive that the resurrection here spoken of
is entirely moral and spiritual; and, therefore, the
burial must be of like nature.
To place this question beyond all doubt, turn to a
parallel passage in Colossians ii. 12. " Buried with
Him  in  (or by)  Baptism: wherein2 also  ye are
1 Commentary on Romans, chap. vi. 1-11.
2 Wherein, is from ev, and may be rendered in, or by whom, referring
to Christ; or, in or by which, referring to the ordinance. The older MSS.
unite the clause " buried with Him by Baptism," to the preceding verse, by
placing a colon after Baptism; which is followed by Bloomfield. The
verse thus arranged stands - "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:"
This exhibits more clearly the correspondence between Baptism and circumcision, and leaves the next verse to begin precisely as the preceding
- ev c Kaie, " In whom (Christ) also " ye are rssen throuq Jfaith; which
follows naturally the two preceding verses - the first of which tells us we




BURIAL WITH CHRIST SPIRITUAL, NOT PHYSICAL. 325
risen with Him  through the faith of the operation
of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." Here
we read beyond all dispute, that those buried with
Christ in or by Baptism, arise with Him through faith.
Their resurrection from this burial is " through the
faith of the operation of God," or by faith wrought by
the power of God, "who hath raised Him [Christ] from
the dead." And do we rise from a physical burial
under water " through the faith of the operation of
God?"  Are men plunged under water by mortal
hands, and then left to rise from the "liquid grave"
by faith? Manifestly the burial from which such a
resurrection takes place is a moral one, and the Apostle intended to teach in these passages that by Baptism we are so united to Christ our substitute for sin
and federal head, that in his death we died, and in
his resurrection we rose to a life of holiness. Consequently there is no necessary allusion to the mode of
Baptism, and all that we have heard and read about
"' burial under water," and the " duty of immersion,"
as taught in these passages, is based on a false interpretation; which has gained ascendency over the
minds of many through the familiar association of
burial with death.
9. Much stress has been laid on the sentence, " For
if we have been planted together in the likeness of
his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection" (Rom. vi. 5).
Now, whilst this verse confirms what we have said
in regard to the antithesis above, by showing if united
are complete in Christ, the next that in Christ all the blessings of circumcision are secured by Baptism into his death, and in this we are risen with
Him through faith. But whether we refer these words to Christ, to the
preceding sentence, or to the ordinance of Baptism, nothing is implied
that can indicate the mode of Baptism.




326  HOMOGENEOUS IN HIS- DEATH AND RESURRECTION.
to Christ in his death, we shall be united to him in
his resurrection, it affords no evidence of Baptism by
immersion. For the figure planted together in the
likeness of his death, is not supported by the original
Greek.  The word translated " planted together,"
(rv/jfTvrT  means literally homogeneous, cognate. And
"must be so explained," says the learned Moses Stuart,
"if philology be our guide." He also tells us this sentence may be rendered - " If we have become connected or homogeneous by a likeness in respect to his death,
ro9 Oavarov being the gen. objecti, i. e., the object in
respect to which we have become like Christ; or we
may translate - if we have become cognate in the likeness of his death, the latter clause showing that in respect to which we have become cognate. The meaning
is,' If we have become dead to sin, as he died for sin;
then shall we in like manner live a new life, when
risen from our [moral] death, as he lived after his
resurrection.' There is no good foundation for the
translation'planted,' as ouu does not mean to plant,
but to grow, spring up, become nascent, etc. Besides
the nature of the imagery here employed is obscured
by such a version."l
Let us also hear the views of this learned author on
the other passages which we have just considered: —
" Most commentators," he writes, " have maintained
that OVVcrd'4fJEv, we have been buried (with Him), has
here a necessary reference to the mode of literal Baptism, which, they say, was by immersion; and this,
they think, affords ground for the employment of the
image used by the Apostle, because immersion under
water may be compared to burial under the earth. It
is difficult, perhaps, to procure a patient rehearing for
1 Commentar.y on Romans, vi. 5, 6.




A RESURRECTION BY FAITH.          827
this subject, so long regarded by some as being out of
fair dispute. Nevertheless, as my own conviction is
not, after protracted and repeated examinations, accordant with that of commentators in general, I feel
constrained briefly to state my reasons for it.
" The first is, that in the verse before us (4th) there
is a plain antithesis; one so plain that it is impossible
to overlook it.  If now  -vverbd'rlLcv, we have been buried,
is to be interpreted in a physical way, i. e., as meaning burial in the water in a physical sense, where is
the corresponding physical resurrection in the opposite
part of the antithesis or comparison? Plainly there
is no such physical idea or reference in this other part.
The resurrection here spoken of is entirely moral and
spiritual, for it is one which Christians have already
experienced during this present life; as may be fully
seen by comparing verses 5-11 following.... If we
turn to the passage in Col. ii. 12 (which is altogether
parallel with the verse under examination, and has
very often been agitated by polemic writers on the
subject of Baptism), we shall there find more conclusive reason still, to argue as above respecting the nature of the antithesis presented.'We have been
buried with Him (Christ) by Baptism.' What now
is the opposite of this? What is the kind of resurrection from this grave in which Christians have been
buried? The Apostle tells us:' We have risen with
Him (Christ) by faith wrought by the power of God
[ Cr''vEpyEdaS ro~6Eoi] who raised Him (Christ) from the
dead.' Here, then, there is a resurrection by faith,
i. e., a spiritual and moral one.  Why then should
we look for a physical meaning in the antithesis? If
one part of the antithesis is to be construed in a manner entirely moral and spiritual, why should we not




328 BAPTISM SYMBOL OF PURITY, GRAVE OF CORRUPTION.
construe the other in like manner, provided it is susceptible of such an interpretation? To understand
burial here, as designating a literal burial under water,
is to understand it in a manner which the laws of interpretation seem to forbid." 1
After discussing various points connected with these
passages, he tells'us that he further objects to this
figure of immersion Baptism, because he can find no
such symbol of burial in the grave anywhere else in
the Holy Scriptures.  "Nor can I," he says, " think
that it is a very natural symbol. The obvious import
of washing with water or immersing in water is, that
it is symbolical of purity, cleansing, purification.
But how will this aptly signify burying in the grave,
the place of corruption, loathsomeness, and destruction."
In his concluding remarks on this passage, he informs his readers that he can find nothing in it that
can be used with confidence in a contest respecting
the mode of Baptism. And that in this view the
commentator Reiche concurs with him.2
Therefore these passages, so often referred to in
support of the mode of Baptism by immersion, teach
absolutely nothing on the subject. They make no
necessary allusion to any mode whatever. The Apostle had a different object in view, and neither from
his words, nor the general scope of his discourse, can
we legitimately infer that he intended the most distant allusion to Baptism by immersion. He teaches
that by Baptism  we have been made homogeneous
with Christ in his sufferings and death, and risen with
1 See Commentary on Romnan, vi. 4, second edition, corrected and enlarged.
2 Ibidem. p. 275.




RITUAL UNION WITH CHRIST.       329
Iimin in his resurrection to a new life. " Knowing this,"
he adds, " that our old man is crucified with Him, that
the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth
we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed
from sin (verses 6, 7). But in saying " our old man
is crucified with Him," he does not teach that we have
hung upon the cross as a symbol of crucifixion. For
he likewise says, " As many as have been baptized
into Christ have put on Christ;" but he does not
mean that putting on clothes is a symbol of the mode
of Baptism. He designs to teach that by Baptism as
the appointed rite, we put on Christ as a garment -
were crucified with Him in our affections- died with
Him on his cross- and were buried with Him in his
death. We were, therefore, baptized into his death
for the death of our sins -henceforth to live a new
life.
Which also affords an explanation of what the
Apostle means when he asks, "Else what shall they
do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise
not at all? Why are they then baptized for the
dead?" (1 Cor. xv. 29.) They had been baptized
into the death of Christ, for death to their sins, and
regeneration in their second Adam. If he had not
risen, ". then their faith was vain," and they were yet
in their sins. For on his resurrection depended the
validity of his atonement, and in it was involved the
earnest of their own resurrection.
The Apostle is here reasoning with those who denied the resurrection of the body. This, he argued,
involved the truth of Christ's resurrection. And if
Christ had not risen, then his death, into which they
had been baptized for death to their sins, had not
accomplished for them what they sought, and they
were all yet in their sins.




830  REGENERATED IN CHRIST OUR SECOND ADAM.
Now had Baptism been received among them as the
symbol of a burial under the water, and resurrection
from the " liquid grave," how could the Corinthians
have rejected the doctrine of the resurrection of the
body? If every Baptism was to them a symbol of
death and resurrection, they would hardly have adopted the idea that there was "no resurrection."  But
regarding Baptism as the symbol of cleansing and
seal of their covenant relations with Christ, the question is different. Their connection with his death is
seen in another form, and their Baptism into his
death is for the death of their sins. And the Apostle
may well ask, why are they then baptized for the
dead — the death of Christ, and their own death to
their sins - if Christ has not risen to accomplish this
end for them? These objects are sufficient for " the
dead" to be put in the plural, whether for the
" plural of dignity," or of numbers.
10. By the same principle we understand what the
Apostle means in his Epistle to Titus, when he says:Titus iii. 5, 6: "Not by works of righteousness
which we have done, but according to his mercy He
saved us, by the washing of regeneration arid the renewing of the Holy Ghost; which He shed on us
abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour,"
He uses the common word Xovrpdv, washing, for
Baptism, and includes with the outward sign the
thing signified; by which we are regenerated in
Christ, the second Adam.
The same great principle also explains the meaning
of the Apostle Peter, when he tells us the saving of
Noah and his family in the ark by water, was a type
of Baptism.
1 Peter iii. 20-22: " When once the long suffer



BAPTISM IS THE EMBLEM OF PURITY.    331
ing of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark
was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls,
were saved by water. The like figure whereunto, even
Baptism, doth also now save us (not the putting away
of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God), by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ: who is gone into Heaven, and is on the right
hand of God, angels and authorities and powers being
made subject unto Him."
The resemblance is in the instrumentality of water
floating the ark wherein Noah was saved, and of Baptism bringing us into the Church of Christ as the ark
of our salvation. As the waters of the flood, which
destroyed the old world, were made instrumental in
saving Noah and his family in the ark, so the waters
of Baptism, by which we are initiated into the Church
and thereby connected with Christ, are made ritually
instrumental in saving us. But lest we might from
such language infer that the mere outward application
of the water saves, he explains, it is the thing symbolized - to wit, the internal purification, corresponding to the emblem -" not the putting away of the
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience
toward God "- the possession and fulfilling, through
the Spirit, what Baptism implies: which saves, through
the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In this, as in the other cases just examined, the symbol is of Baptism as the instrument, ritually grafting
us into Christ, and not the mode of baptizing. To
suppose there is an allusion to the mode of immersion
in saving Noah in the ark, is to suppose it to be found
in every place where water is alluded to. Those who
were lost in the flood, were literally immersed —
were buried; but not those who were " saved."




332     BAPTISM IS THE EMBLEM OF PURITY.
There is an allusion to purification, as " the putting
away of the filth of the flesh " by washing of water,
clearly indicates. And such is the emblem wherever
water Baptism is used. It symbolizes purity — the
washing away of sin. Its Office is to graft us ritually
into Christ - its Emblem is purity of heart - Cleansing, not a Burial.
St. Paul says, " Let us draw near with a true heart,
in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled
from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with
pure water." 1 Ananias said to Saul, "Arise, and be
baptized, and wash away 2 thy sins." All of which
shows that the emblem of Baptism, as pointed out in
the Holy Scriptures, is CLEANSING — not a burial.
The imagnation may make it the emblem of many
things, and so make it a burial; but we do not understand Christ or his Apostles so to teach. John the
Baptist could not refer to a burial; yet it is contended
that his mode probably became the mode of Christ.
Nor did Christ command Baptism to be administered
as an emblem of his death; but he did institute the
Supper, and say that the bread represented his broken
body, and the cup or wine his shed blood, which He
commanded us to eat and drink in commemoration of
his death. But Baptism  He commanded simply to
be given in his name, in union with the name of the
Father and of the Holy Ghost.
11. We have now examined all the figurative allusions made to Baptism in the New Testament that
can aid us in our inquiries.  But not a single unequivocal allusion to immersion has yet passed under
our review. The two on which most reliance is placed
1 Heb. x. 22. XcXovpivo& - common word for wash, used for Baptism.
2 Acts xxii. 26. a)XovaoaL - wash or cleanse from, by Baptism.




FIGURATIVE ALLUSIONS ALL EXAMINED.   333
(Romans vi. and Colossians ii.) instead of being undoubted symbols of the mode of Baptism, are required by the context to refer to Baptism as the instrumental rite, uniting us to the death of Christ as
the branch to the vine; and hence, with his crucifixion
and resurrection as well as his burial; and therefore
have no necessary reference to the modal act at all;
for Baptism in any mode could be applied to the same
end. We have seen also that the resemblance is
not so apt for immersion in a " liquid grave " as some
suppose: the end for which we are baptized, as the
Apostle tells us, being a death unto sin, and a new
birth unto righteousness. Wherefore, " we are buried
with him, by Baptism into [or unto] death."  Not in
a "liquid grave," in imitation of death, but with
Christ in HIS DEATH, as our representative head.
Those baptized into Him, were made one with Him,
united to Him as their head, - hence represented in all
his sufferings, so that when He was buried, they were
buried in or with Him. Thus a principle is brought
out, before which immersion as a symbol of the mere
mode of burial, fades away as the shadow in the light
of the sun.
Further, in the judgment of many able and learned
divines, the Baptism referred to in these two passages
is altogether spiritual Baptism; and therefore could
have had no reference to the Baptism of water. And
this view certainly accords well with what is said in
regard to the resurrection, in the passage to the
Colossians: "Buried with Him  in [or by] Baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him." How?
" Through the faith of the operation of God, who
hath raised Him from the dead." Not risen from the
"liquid grave," by mortal power, in resemblance of




334    FIGURATIVE ALLUSIONS ALL EXAMINED.
his resurrection, but by a spiritual power, through
faith in the operation of God.
We must therefore have something more certain
than a very improbable allusion, to bind our faith, or
to authorize us to bind the faith of others. Even if
there was no other obvious and probable meaning,
we cannot establish a principle of doctrine on a mere
allusion.  Much less, when that allusion cannot be
proved to have any reference to the supposed object.
Thus, we have failed to find in the symbols and
figurative language of the New  Testament, any
authority for immersion as the Apostolic mode of
Baptism!
12. We have, first, examined the meaning of the
word baptize (fia3rtLw), and found that the writers of
the New Testament apply it to the use of water in
different ways for ritual purification, and that instead
of being a specific term, "signifying always to dip,"
it is generic in its character, and used in the New
Testament in the general sense of PURIFYING. Therefore, from the meaning of the word alone, no particular mode of baptizing can be inferred.
In the second place we took up the practice of John
the Baptist, and passed under review every recorded
instance of Baptism by him, to ascertain what mode
or modes he adopted; and especially with reference
to the mode of dipping or immersion; but could find
no particular mode defined or brought out from a
single case, or fiom  them all united. The use of
water and its object are recorded in specific terms,
but the manner of applying it is treated as a matter
of indifference, and left undefined.
In the third place, we examined the practice of the




NO MODES BUT THOSE OF THE SPIRIT INDICATED. 335
Apostles, and investigated every case of Christian Baptism, with all the circumstances connected therewith,
and instead of "dipping," found the circumstances
more favorable to a less inconvenient mode, and that
the only mode, in fact, clearly pointed out, is that of
the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, under the figures of
"pouring out, shed forth, and descending upon."
Neither from the words of Christ nor the example of
his Apostles, have we precept or example for immersion.
Lastly. We examined the symbols and figurative
language applied to Christian Baptism in the New
Testament, and still fouud no certain allusion to the
mode of dipping.
Therefore, after a rigid investigation of all that the
New Testament contains or the subject, we afirm,
that there is not a PRECEPT, EXAMPLE, or ALLUSION,
from which an undoubted infereAta for iimhersion as
the mode of Christian Baptism  can be deduced.
NOT ONE that any impartial or legal mind will admit,
can be made the basis of an invariable law to bind the
judgment and consciences of meh.




CHAPTER XI.
BAPTISM BY DIFFERENT MODES VALID IN EVERY AGE OP
THE CHURCH.
At the Time of the Reformation. - Church of Geneva. -At Mentz. - Council of Cologne. - English Church. - Lynwood's Constitution. - Wickliffe. - Langres. - Synod of Angiers. - Thomas Aquinas. — Bonaventur.
- Strabo. - Gennadius. - Augustine. - Chrysostom.- Jerome.- Athanasius. - Gregory Nazianzen. - Basil. - Baptism of Constantine.
Washing before Pouring. - Cyprian. - Lawrence and Romanus. - Novatian. - Basilides. - Origen. — Tertullian. — Clemens Alexandrinus. -
Justin Martyr. - Baptism of Christ. - Catacomb of Pontianus. - Reasons for no prescribed Mode. — Essence and Incidents. - Supper and
Baptism. - Greek Church. - Mar Yohannan. - Examination of Principles. - Summary.
~ 31. As we are unwilling to shut out any light that
can aid us in the attainment of truth, even in a question of secondary importance, we will now examine
the testimony of history so far as shall be necessary to
show that Baptism by different modes has been allowed and regarded as valid in every age of the
Church. For although Baptist writers profess to ignore history, they are in the habit of making very
broad assertions in regard to the history of immersion,
such as, "that it was the universal practice of the
Church for fifteen hundred years."
We will pass to the time of the Reformation, and
see what the learned men of that age said and did on
this subject.
In A. D. 1536, Calvin drew up a formula for the
administration of the sacraments in the church at
Geneva. In which, for the order of Baptism, it was




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.          337
written — " Then the Minister of Baptism pours water
on the infant, saying, I baptize thee in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 1 In
his "Institutes " he tells us — "The difference is of
no moment, whether he that is baptized be dipped all
over, and if so, whether thrice or once, or whether he
be only wetted with the water poured on him." 2
In A. D. 1551, the Agenda of the Church of Mentz,
in Germany, as published by Sebastian, directs, —
" Then let the Priest take the child in his arms, and
holding him over the Font, let him with his right
hand, three several times, take water out of the Font
and pour it on the child's head, so that the water
may wet its head and shoulders." 3 A note of explanation is added, which informs the reader, that immersion or pouring is equally valid, and that a man will
do ill to break the custom of his church for either.
But gives several reasons why pouring is better where
the church will allow it.
In A. D. 1536, a Council of Cologne refers to it as
a matter of indifference, whether " the child is thrice
dipped or wetted with water." 4
And in A. D. 1422, one hundred years before the
Reformation openly commenced, Lynwood, the Dean
of Arches under Henry V., in his account of the English Constitution, speaks of Baptism by POURING and
SPRINKLING as alike valid with DIPPING. Referring
to the more common mode at that time of dipping, he
adds in a note: " But this is not to be accounted to be
of necessity to Baptism; it may be given also by pour1 Tractat. Theotog. Catechiumus, p. 57. Ed. Beza
2 Inst., lib. 4, ch. 15.
8 See Wall's Hist. Baptism, vol. ii. p. 361.
4 Ibidem.
22




338            TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
ing or sprinkling. And this holds especially where the
Church allows it."1
It seems that in some places the practice was altogether by dipping, and in others altogether by affusion,
and in others again both modes were allowed.
Wickliffe, the first to preach the doctrines of the
Reformation in England, writing a half century before Lynwood, A. D. 1380, says: " Nor is it material
whether they be dipped once or thrice, or water be
poured on their heads: but it must be done according
to the custom of the place where one dwells." 2
About the same time, a Synod of Langres, in
France, A. D. 1404, on the subject of Baptism, speaks
only of the mode of pouring -  "Let the Priest make
three pourings or sprinklings of water on the infant's
head." 3
Advancing onward another century towards the
Apostles, we come to a Synod held in Angiers, A. D.
1275, which on the subject of Baptism, directs that,
"The infant be dipped thrice, or the water poured
on three times, according to the general custom of the
Church." 4
Some quarter of a century before, Thomas Aquinas,
in Italy, A. D. 1255, writes: " Water is used in the
sacrament of Baptism for the purpose of corporeal ablution, by which the interior ablution from sins is signified: and ablution with water can be made, not only
by immersion, but by aspersion or affusion." 5
Bonaventur, about the same time, in France, re1 Constit., lib. 3, c. De Bapt., - cited by Wall.
2 Trialog., lib. 4, c. 11,- cited by Wall.
8 See Wall's Hist. Baptism, vol. ii., pp. 360-362.
4 Ibidem.
6 ~ 3, art. vii. quest. 66. Cited by Bishop Kenrick, Trearise on Baptissm,
p. 159.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.           3 39
cords: " The way of Affusion is common in France
and other places, and was probably used by the Apostles: but the way of dipping is more general." 
1. As sculpture, carving, and paintings, cannot be
affected by translations, but speak the same language
to every age and every nation, instead of detaining
our readers with dry repetitions, we shall let the artists
of several centuries teach us what was recognized in
their times. The following representation is the work
of Greek artists, and was comlnmon in the ninth and
tenth centuries.
I. NINTH AND TENTH CENTURIES.
BAPTISM OUTSIDE OF THE CHURCH.
"The boy is unclothed, and the ordinance is administered by pouring.  This representation shows that
the present Abyssinian mode of Baptism, first washing
the whole body and then pouring water, was anciently extant among the Greeks as well as among the
Romans: for, although this plate is at Rome, yet it
is the work of Greek artists of the ninth and tenth
centuries." 2
1 L. 4, Dis. 3, art. 2, cited by Wall.
2 C. Taylor, Editor of Calmet's Bibte Dictionary.




340          TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
Mr. Salt, a modern English traveller, describes the
Baptism of a Mussulman boy which took place in his
presence while in Abyssinia. The boy was first
washed all over in a large basin of water, after which
a smaller basin called metemar was brought, the water
in which was consecrated by prayer, and waving the
incense over it, dropping into it a portion of the
meiron in the shape of a cross. The boy then repeated his belief, and answered certain questions; and
the priest dipped his own hand in the water and
crossed him  on the forehead, saying, "George, I
baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost."
The Abyssinian Church is in East Ethiopia, the
country of the eunuch who was baptized by Philip.
It was at a very early period connected with the
Church at Alexandria, Egypt, which was founded by
St. Mark, and between which there still exists a very
kind relationship. We shall notice this washing before Baptism in another place.
The prevailing custom varied at this time in
different countries; at one, trine immersion was the
general rule, but in cases of weakness and danger, the
less inconvenient mode of pouring and sprinkling was
allowed; in others, pouring or affusion was the gensral mode.
In England an effort was made in the early part
~)f the ninth century to confine it to immersion only,
except in cases of necessity. A canon was passed
-n A. D. 816, requiring the priests, when they administered Baptism, not to pour the water on the
nead of the infant, but always to dip it in the font, as
the Son of God was thrice dipped in the waters of the
Jordan. We do not wonder that a canon attempted




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.         341
to be enforced on such reasoning, availed but little.
But it explains the reason why Erasmus, in pointing
to the national peculiarities or prevailing customs
in regard to Baptism, says, "With us (the Dutch)
they have water poured on them; in England they
are dipped." That is, dipping was the prominent
mode, for we know that pouring was very common in
England at the time Erasmus wrote.
2. The following plate illustrates an earlier period
than the last, and such representations were common
in the seventh and eighth centuries, and had their
origin in the sixth.
II. SEVENTH AND EIGHTH CENTURIES.
ADMINISTRATION OF BAPTISM.
"This depicts two points of time. First, the candidate is seen kneeling down and praying near the
bath of water; and a hand issues from a cloud above
him, to denote the acquiescence of heaven in his




342          TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
petitions. Second; Baptism is administered by pouring water out of a pitcher on persons who are kneeling
on the ground, and not immersed at all. Either then,
Baptism was administered without immersion by pouring only; notwithstanding the convenience of the
bath, or those persons had previously been washed
and afterwards received Baptism as a distinct, subsequent, and separate act." 1
We shall not dwell on this period, but pass on to
the practice of the church nearer to Apostolic times,
which is of much more importance to us.
Gennadius, who wrote at the close of the fifth and
in the beginning of the sixth century, shows that in
that period Baptism was administered in the French
Church by both modes, affusion and immersion. And
at a time, too, when it was regarded necessary to salvation: the only exception being martyrdom, in which
it was supposed all the essentials of Baptism were
embraced. And in support of which, he pointed out
the analogy of the catechumen receiving Baptism, to
that of the ordeal of the martyr receiving his martyrdom. "We believe," he says, " the way of salvation to be open only to baptized persons; and that no
catechumen, though he die in good works, has eternal
life....   except in the case of martyrdom, in
which all the sacraments of Baptism are completed.
The person to be baptized owns his faith before the
priest; and, when the interrogatories are put to him,
he makes his answer. The same does a martyr before
a heathen judge: he also owns his faith; and when
the question is put to him, makes his answer. The
one after his confession is either wetted with water or
else plunged into it: and the other is either wetted
1 C. Taylor, Ed. C. B. D.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.'343
with his blood, or else plunged into (or overwhelmed
with) fire." 1
In this passage Baptism  is plainly pointed out as
performed with little or much water: by only wetting
with the water, as the martyr with his blood, or by
plunging into the water, as the martyr is plunged into
or overwhelmed with fire.
III. FIFTH AND SIXTH CENTURIES.
BAPTISM OF A HEATHEN KING AND QUEEN.
3. This picture represents the King and Queen in
a family bath, and the Baptizer pouring water on
their heads from a pitcher. In the preceding illustration the bath or laver not being large enough to accommodate the candidates for Baptism in like manner,
their ablutions were performed -at or partially in the
1 De Eccl. Dogma, c. 74, Wall's Hist. Bap., vol. ii. p. 357.




844          TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
laver, and the pouring received whilst on their knees
outside.
This monument of sculpture is found on a tomb at
Chiaia, near Naples, and represents the Baptism of
Argilulfus and Theolinda, the King and Queen of the
Longobardi, who occupied Beneventum in the sixth
century. The original has a much larger number of
attendants than are here delineated.
Augustine writing in the earlier part of the fifth
century, and speaking of the virtue of the Baptism
through the power of the Spirit, teaches that however
small be the quantity of water applied to the infant,
it cleanses it wholly from the condemnation (not the
stain) of original sin. " This is the word of faith which
we preach, whereby Baptism also is doubtless consecrated that it may cleanse. For Christ loved his
Church and delivered Himself up for her. Read the
Apostle and see what he adds:' That He might sanctify her, cleansing her with the laver of water in
the word.' This purification would by no means be
attributed to the liquid and transient element, were
it not added,' in the word.' This word of faith is so
powerful in the Church of God, that by means of her
believing, offering, blessing, tinging even in a slight
degree, it cleanses the infant." 1
Thus in Augustine's day it was held by the Church
in Africa, that the smallest quantity of water in Baptism cleansed not partially, but as entirely as a large
quantity would: if touched by it in the slightest
degree, we are cleansed.
Indeed Baptism of the sick, which was confessedly
by affusion or aspersion, is constantly spoken of by
the Fathers of the Church as conferring no less grace
than that of immersion.
1 Tract lxxx. in Joan., cited by Kenrick, p. 170.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.         345
In the latter part of the fourth century, and only
two hundred and eighty years from the Apostolic
times, Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, praising those who seek Baptism in health, instead of
putting it off till the hour of sickness and danger;
remarks, "Although the same gift of grace is bestowed on you, and on those who are initiated at the
close of life, your free choice and preparation are
different; for they receive it in their bed, you in the
bosom of the Church, the common mother of us all;
they sorrowing and weeping, you rejoicing and exulting; they sighing, and you giving thanks; they
in a lethargy from fever, you full of much spiritual
delight." 1
They could not plunge people under water "in
their beds."
Jerome of Palestine, about the same period, applies
the prediction of Ezekiel, " I will sprinkle clean water
upon you," to Baptism.
4. A few years nearer to the Apostolic age, A. A.
274, Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, addressing the neophytes, says: " You took afterwards the white garments to indicate that you cast away the cloak of sin
and put on the spotless robes of innocence; whereof
the prophet said:' Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed; thou shalt wash me, and
I shall be made whiter than snow.' For he that is
baptized seems to be cleansed both according to the
law and the Gospel: according to the law, since Moses
with a bunch of hyssop sprinkled the blood of the
lamb: according to the Gospel, because the garments
of Christ were white as snow, when in the Gospel he
1 Ad ll1uminandos Catech. 1, Kenrick On Baptism, p. 167.




346           TESTIMONT OF HISTORY.
showed the glory of his resurrection. He whose sins
are forgiven is made whiter than snow." 1
265 after the Apostles, Athanasius reckons up
eight Baptisms, and the sixth in his enumeration is
that of "tears." 2
260 A. A., Gregory Nazianzen uses similar language, saying, " I know of a fourth Baptism - that of
martyrdom and blood; and I know of a fifth -that
of tears." 3 He refers also to Baptism at the point of
death, when immersion could not be often, if ever,
practicable.
260 A. A., Basil, bishop of Caesarea, warning his
hearers against delay in their Baptism, points them to
a time when fever, and weakness of body and mind,
may render them unconscious of what is going on, or
death may come upon them in the night, when there
is no one-to give them Baptism. He says: " If you
utter something in a faint and faltering manner, it
may not be understood: everything you say will be
disregarded as the ravings of a dying man. Who
will give you Baptism then? Who will remind you
of it, when you will be sunk in deep lethargy?
Relatives are in affliction: strangers take no interest:
friends are loath to alarm you by warning. Perhaps
even the physician deceives: you; and you do not
know your situation, being blinded by the love of life.
It is night, and there is no one to succor: there is no
one at hand to baptize you." 3
Such language clearly teaches that Baptism may be
administered on the dying bed, and at any moment,
which we know could not be done where only plunging under water is allowed.
1 L. de Inittandos, c. 7, Kenrick On Baptism, p. 170.
2 Pond, cited by Hall, pp. 71, 72.    8Ibid.
8 Hornm. 13, in S. Bap. n. 7. Cited by Kenrick, p. 169.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.         347
5. The following plate shows that even where inmmersion, or washing of the body was practised, pouring was made a part of the Baptism.
IV. FOURTH CENTURY.
BAPTISM OF THE EMPEROR CONSTANTINE.
This is a representation of the Baptism of Constantine the Great. The Emperor receiving Baptism
is partially immersed in a " laver," and Eusebius pouring water on his head.
These ancient representations of both Greek and
Roman origin, taken in connection with other facts,
have led many to suppose that pouring was the essential part of Baptism, and that the immersion or
washing was a preparatory rite for receiving it. As
under the Levitical law, the washing of the body, and
sprinkling of blood and water, were united to cleanse
the leper: 1 so for the leprosy of sin, to the washing
of the body must be united pouring or sprinkling of
water in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy
Ghost, to complete the washing away of sin under
1 Levit. xiv. 2-22.




348          TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
the Gospel. Therefore, first there was a washing,
and then pouring, as represented in the Baptism of
Constantine, in the preceding plate, and as in the
case of the Abyssinian Church.
Whatever credit may be due to this theory, it is
certain that even in those periods when immersion
was most general, it was never regarded as essential
to Baptism. Magnus, living in a retired part of the
country, where immersion was the usual practice,
wrote to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to learn
whether those who put off their Baptism by culpable
delay, and received it on a bed of sickness by aspersion only, ought to share equal privileges with their
more diligent brethren.
150 A. A. Cyprian, in reply, writes in that modest
strain which characterizes great minds, and after giving his opinion, adds: " The contagion of sin is not,
in the sacrament of salvation, washed off by the same
measures whereby the dirt of the skin and of the
body is washed off in an ordinary secular bath: so
that there should be necessity of soap and other helps,
and a large pool or fish-pond by which that body is
washed or cleansed. It is in another way that the
breast of the believer is washed - after another manner that the mind of a man is by faith cleansed. In
the sacrament of salvation, where necessity compels,
the shortest ways of transacting Divine matters, do,
by God's gracious Dispensation, confer the whole benefit.
"And no man need, therefore, think otherwise,
because these sick people, when they receive the grace
of our Lord, have nothing but an affusion or sprinkling: whereas the Holy Scripture by the Prophet
Ezekiel says:' I will sprinkle clean water upon you,
and you shall be clean."' He further adds: —




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.              349
"The Holy Spirit is not given by several measures,
[as if the degree of the gift depended on the quantity
of water] but is wholly poured on them that be.
lieve. " 1
6. The following plate represents the Baptism of
Romanus by Lawrence, who suffered martyrdom not
long after the above letter was written.
V. THIRD CENTURY.
LAURENTIUS BAPTIZING ROMANUS.
" This representation is in the Church of St. Lawrence, extra muros, at Rome," says Taylor, " and the
jugs or vases are remarkable, being the same as in
other pictures of far remoter antiquity." The martyrpreacher is represented to us as baptizing by POURING,
in the vestibule of the church or some other building.
158 A. A. " A little while before his death, he also
baptized one Lucillus with a pitcher of water." 2 The
1 Cypriani Epist. lxix. " It is a pedantic Jewish literalism (says Schaff) to
limit the operation of the Holy Ghost by the quantity or the quality of the
water." — CY. [list., p. 123.
2 Acta Laurenti, cited by Bingham.




350            TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
" Acts " of Lawrence were interpolated in after ages,
but the above is taken from Strabo, who lived before
the times when the forgeries and additions are said to
have been made. 1
120 A. A. Early in this century, Novatian was
baptized by affusion as he lay sick on his bed.  This
was not noted as anything unusual at the time, nor
would it have been handed down to succeeding generations, but for the fact that he afterwards attempted
to supplant Cornelius as the Bishop of Rome, who,
among other things, upbraided him with having
delayed his Baptism till terrified by the approach of
death, and then of neglecting to receive confirmation
by imposition of hands on his recovery. It had become a rule among Christians of that age, and was
afterwards enacted into a canon, that those who
delayed Baptism till sickness, and were baptized
under the fear of approaching death, ought not to be
promoted to the ministry. An exception was made
in cases of great fervency of spirit. Cornelius, in his
letter to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Novatian
of having obtained the order of Priesthood unlawfully
in the first place; and that, therefore, he was ineligible to the office of Bishop; for all the clergy and a
majority of the laity were against his being ordained
Presbyter, because it was not lawful for "any one
baptized in bed, in time of sickness " (TV (v KXtVq &&a
Vooov 7r-ptXvOE1V-a), " as he had been, to be admitted to
any office of clergy." In another place, he says:
"Baptized by affusion in bed as he lay" (Ev avr4 rn
XXLvN v XELTor 7repLXvOcL.) 2  No objection was made to
1 See Hist. Bapt., by Wall, vol. ii. p. 356.
2 Baptism on a sick bed was called " Clinic Baptism," - and affusionr
was allowed in such cases to sick and feeble infants, as well as to adults,
even in times when trine immersion was the prevailing mode.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.            351
the validity of his Baptism; that not allowed, would
have cut off all his pretensions at once. The objection was to his criminal delay in receiving it, and to the
manner in which he rose to the office of Presbyter,
and afterwards aspired to the bishoprick.1
About the same time Callistus, bishop of Rome, as
recorded in the Martyrology of Ado, after enjoining
fasting, and catechizing a candidate, water having been
brought, he baptized him. 2
It is also recorded in the " Acts of Cornelius " that
Sallustia, having been converted, presented to the
bishop of Rome a vessel with water, wherewith he
might baptize her.3.
100 A. A. About the close of the first century
after the Apostles, or a little later, Eusebius informs
us that "Basilides was baptized in prison by some
brethren, and the next day after receiving the seal, he
was beheaded." 4 We can hardly suppose, facilities
would be afforded by those in authority to baptize him
by immersion, and thus aid in the; very thing for
which he was imprisoned, when they would not allow
him the common, necessaries of life..
120 A. A. Origen represents the wood on the
altar, over which water was poured at, the command
of Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 33), as having been " baptized," and speaks of each pouring as, a Baptism. 5
100 A. A. Tertullian associates the " sprinkling"
of water with the act of Baptism, when he asks the
negligent candidate, " Who will vouchsafe to you so
faithless a penitent, a single sprinkle of water? " He
further alludes to a fact, which shows that others at
1,Cornelius to Fabius, bishop of Antioch. Euseb, Eccl. Hi.,lib. 6, c. 4&
2 Cited by Bishop Kenrick, p. 166.
8 Ibidem.
i Euseb. Ecc. Hist., lib. 6, c. 6.  6 Facts an E'idaces, p. 132.




852           TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
that time supposed wetting or sprinkling was enough
for a Baptism. Referring to the Baptism of the
Apostles, about which there was some speculation then
as now, he says: "Some suggested they were sufficiently baptized when they were sprinkled (adspersi)
and wet by the waves: and that Peter himself was
sufficiently immersed when walking on the sea." 1
Now if nothing less than plunging under the water
constituted Baptism, primitive Christians would hardly
have associated sprinkling with it, or have supposed
that a partial wetting in the boat, or Peter's beginning to sink, was Baptism.
60 A. A. Clemens Alexandrinus, who lived still
nearer to the Apostles, calls wetting with tears Baptism. Referring to a backslider, whom John was the
means of reclaiming, he says: " He was baptized a
second time with tears." He also uses the words
cla7rTfnT and Xov' interchangeably.2
40 A. A. Justin Martyr, born in the Apostolic
age, writing to the Roman emperor in behalf of Christians, invariably describes Baptism by the terms Xo'u,
to wash, and XOV'TpOV, washing. These words apply to
no particular mode of washing —least of all, to an
indispensable immersion.
Further, when Justin writes to the Jews (in his
dialogue with Trypho), he uses the words fiarnTC and
Xov' interchangeably. Which shows he did not use it
as a specific term, but rather as Christians generally
use it at the present day.
Thus, Apostolic men, and the Apostles, used the
word BAPTIZE in a generic sense, which admits Bap1 De Penitentia, c. 6, De Bapt. n. 4, cited by Kenrick.
2 Pond 33, cited by Hall, p. 96.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.           353
tism in different modes, and which has been practically exemplified by the Church in every age since.
Therefore, examination of the use of the word BAPTIZE by the Apostles, and by their successors - the
figurative language associated with it - the doctrine
and practice of the Church in every age since the
Apostles - instead of leading to the exclusive mode of
immersion, all unite in testifying to the liberty of baptizing by different modes.
7. What was the most usual mode practised by the
Apostles themselves and their immediate successors,
is involved in much obscurity. The error of looking
for outward correspondences and rendering literally
the figurative language of the Apostles, commenced
ere the last of them had left the stage of action. And
nothing connected with our Holy religion was more
magnified than the office and effects of Baptism.
Anointing the baptized with oil was practised immediately after, if not before, the death of St. John,1
making literal the words of the Apostle, " He who
hath anointed us is God." (2 Cor. i. 21). It was
accompanied with the sign of the cross on the forehead, as crucified with Christ. (Gal. ii. 20.) Next,
the tongues of the baptized were touched with milk
and honey, in token of their new birth, 2 as the food
of " new born babes" (1 Peter ii. 2); and also in
token of "refusing the evil and choosing the good."
(Isaiah vii. 15.) And putting off their clothes to be
baptized,3 which was to represent putting off the
"old man " of sin; and putting on white linen after
1 Cost Apost., lib. 7, cap. 47.
2 Tertul., De Coron. Mil., c. 3.
8 See Bingham and Wall, and their various authorities.
23




354           TESTIMONY OF IESTORY.
Baptism, as the emblem of the " new man " in Christ.,
(Eph. iv. 22-24).
And so Baptism by trine immersion, was practised
as the symbol of a burial (Rom. vi. 4), and in honor
of the three persons in the Trinity. All of these customs were in vogue at an early period, and in origin
followed each other in quick succession.1
At a period when to every figure was given a literal correspondence, it was natural to look for one in
the Apostle's allusion to a BURIAL in connection with
the Baptism of all grafted thereby into his death;
and hence are represented as one with him in his
death and resurrection, as the scion becomes partaker
and one with the stock into which it is grafted. And
all these additions and changes in connection with the
ceremonial of Baptism opens abundant room for conjecture in regard to the changes made in the mode or
modes practised by the Apostles. They certainly
teach us to distinguish between the essentials and nonessentials of a valid Baptism.
8. It is remarkable, that during a period when
trine immersion with all these addenda, prevailed
more generally than at any other, the artists of that
time should represent the Baptism of our Saviour as
STANDING in the river nearly to his waist in water,
and John POURING the water on his head from  a
shell.
1 See Bingham and Wall, and their various authorities.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.        355
V1. BAPTISM OF JESUS IN JORDAN.
This picture of the Baptism of Jesus in the river
Jordan is the centre-piece of the dome of the Baptistry of Ravenna, erected A. D. 454.
John the Baptist is drawn standing on the bank of
the river, holding an oblong cross in his left hand, and
pouring water from a shell on the head of the Saviour,
who is standing in the river in water to his waist.
The Saviour's head is surrounded with a glory, and the
figure of a dove symbolizing the Holy Spirit descending upon him. The Baptism is a partial immersion
and aspersion at the same time.
Writes the Baptist historian Robinson: "' This rep



356          TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
resentation at Ravenna is not singular, for most artists
of those ancient times describe the Baptism of Jesus
in the same manner. The doors of the very ancient
Church of St. Paul in the suburbs of Rome, are plated
with brass; the whole is divided into six circular segments. Each segment is divided into nine parts, and
each part contains one or more figures relating to the
history of Jesus," and " Much in the same manner he
is described in the Greek Church." 1
Be it remarked, that at the very time when trine
immersion ruled with its greatest sway, both Greek
and Roman artists represent the primitive mode of
Baptism to be that of pouring water on one standing
in water. Now, whether the subjects of Baptism first
washed their bodies in the river and then came up to
John to receive the pouring from him, or whether the
twofold ablution by a partial immersion of the body,
and the pouring of water on the remaining part constituted the Baptism, or whether the washing was only
a preparation for the true Baptism which symbolized
the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, are questions of deep
interest to earnest inquirers after truth.
9. We introduce another representation of the Baptism of Jesus in Mosaic, of somewhat earlier date,
very similar in outline, preserved in the Church in
Cosmedin at Ravenna, by which the artist teaches us
how Christ was baptized, and what was the mode of
Baptism in the primitive days of Christianity. Not
what was the mode at the time the Church of Cosmedin was erected, but at the time the Saviour received what was to be the sign and seal of his new
and better covenant, - which should be the badge of
his people and the mode of bringing them into a
sacred nearness to himself.
1 R. Robinson, History of Baptism, p. 86.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.          857
VII. VERY ANCIENT.
CHRIST BAPTIZED IN JORDAN.
" In the centre is Christ our Saviour, in the river
Jordan. On a rock stands John the Baptist; in his
left hand is a bent rod, and his right hand holds a
patera, shell, from which he pours water on the head
of the Redeemer, over whom descends the dove, the
symbol of the Holy Ghost, with expanded wings, and
emitting rays of Grace." 1
Taylor is of the opinion that such representations
in the midst of a different practice, and at a time
when "the administration of Baptism had departed
greatly from its original simplicity," give stronger
evidence for affusion than if made at an earlier period.
They speak the language of a practice of a former
age handed down, but nearly overrun by a more imposing ceremonial.
I C. Taylor, Editor C. B..D.




858           TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
He further tells us that " the antiquary, Cimpiana,
reasons in regard to them to the following effect:' In
these pictures we see Christ immersed in water, and
John also pouring water on his head. This raises a
doubt whether Baptism shall be performed by immersion or aspersion, or by both.'"
10. There has been also found in the Catacomb of
Pontianus, outside the Portese Gate, at Rome, which
was a burial place of the Martyrs, under the persecutions of the Roman emperors, a Baptistry, in
which primitive Christians baptized their converts,
when hunted after as wild beasts for confessing
Christ! In this subterranean recess was discovered
a spring of water, for which a basin two feet deep,
and wide, was cut out at the side of a high rock,
to receive its waters, and a room some six feet square
excavated for the purposes of a Baptistry. On the
side of the rock above the basin of water is rudely
sketched the Baptism of Jesus in the river of Jordan,
and just under it an ornamented cross with the symbolic letters A (alpha), and 2 (omega), suspended on
its transverse beam.
This representation of the Baptism of Jesus is in
perfect accordance with the two immediately preceding, and confirms what Robinson, the Baptist historian, says on the subject: " Most artists of those
a:wcient times, describe the Baptism  of Jesus in the
same manner." That is, by pouring water on his
head while standing in the water. And he had as
well have included ALL of the earliest artists, for
none of them in the times to which he refers, have
left any other description so far as we have seen, and
so zealous are our Baptist friends to produce whatever
will strengthen their cause, it is not very probable
they would have omitted such a fact.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.          359
VII. —JESUS CHRIST BAPTIZED IN THE JORDAN BY JOHN
THE BAPTIST.
0~
0
The Saviour is here, as in the other representations
of his Baptism, standing in the river up to his waist
in water, and John at his side, in a small recess made
in the rock, pouring water on his head. A lamb is
also introduced, in allusion to the " lamb of God."
This is in a place that was undoubtedly one of
refuge for Christians during the persecutions of the
Roman emperors in the first ages of Christianity!
Which began under Nero in A. D. 64, and ended under
Diocletian in A. D. 305, and'raged with more or less
severity, according to the state of public opinion and
the character of different Emperors.
It was first a place of Baptism, and as the persecutions relaxed became a burial place of Christians.
We need not delay our readers with the proof.




860           TESTIMONY OF:HISTORY.
The Baptisms administered in this place could not
have been by submerging the whole body under the
water; because the font or basin was too small, and
the arrangement for the Priest such, that he could
only baptize as represented in the picture. This, however, would not exclude an ablution of the candidate
first by his own hands, or even by the application of
water to his body by another, and then to receive the
pouring; as in the case of those baptized outside of
the smaller fonts which we have already considered.
The reader will also bear in mind that this Baptism
corresponds with all the others introduced, in the fact,.
that the administrator did not enter the water. And
one can easily conceive that he could not dip another
under the water in the river whilst standing above it
on a rock or on the bank.
11. If then we adopt " immersion" as the only
mode of Baptism, we shall not only find it inapplicable to various conditions of our race and of climate,
but we shall find it involved in difficulties in its connection with historical facts, of which only those who
have examined them are aware.
As a historical question, with immersion we must
take NAKED SUBJECTS -- the immersion of people entirely NUDE. This the Baptist historian, Robinson,
himself acknowledges, and says: "There is no ancient historical fact better authenticated than this.
The.evieace  doth not go on the meaning of the
single word NAKED,: fof then a reader might suspect
allegory: but in many facts reported, and many reasons assigned for the practice." 1
The fact therefore being admitted by the advoI R. Robinson, Histoe of Baptism, p. 85.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.         361
cates of IMMERSION — that Baptism by immersion in
the: primitive Church was administered to persons.
naked; the proof not dependent on the meaning of
the single wnrd NAKED, but on many facts reported,
and many reasons assigned; no ancient historical
fact better authenticated tchan this —we need not
dwell on the proof, but may pass on to the introduction of the rite itself as a Christian ordinance.
And as it is generally conceded, on both sides, that,
the Baptism of John and that of the Apostles were
the same, as to mode and manner, we will begin with
the first.
Now, that John baptized in public assemblages of
both sexes, men and women naked, does not comport;
with our ideas of the chaste manners, and- decency inculcated by the founders of our holy religion. Yet,.
according to the narrative given- us of his Baptisms in
Jordan, we do not see how the thousands who received
his Baptism in the Wilderness were accommodated
with extra garments for immersion, coming, as we
suppose most of them did, without any expectation
of being baptized when they left their homes; but
rather to see and hear what the babbler in the Wilderness had to say; they brought with them only
their necessary apparel for the day, and we can
hardly presume that they returned home in wet
clothes. Did they, then, disrobe themselves in public on the bank of the river, and march into the
water stark naked, and after being dipped return
back as- they went? Such is the natural inference,
if the multitudes baptized by John in the Wilderness
were baptized in a, nude state.
Is it not more rational to suppose they sought the
protection of the banks of the river, and the shrub



362           TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
bery growing on it a short distance below, to unclothe themselves, and there went into the water,
and after washing or bathing walked up the stream
to John (the depth' being known) and received the
pouring, as the artists represent the Baptism of Christ
by him? This could be done in water of a certain
depth without offending the most delicate sense of
propriety. It would accord with the usual modes of
purification under the Levitical law, when to aspersion was added the washing or bathing of the body.
The person to be cleansed or purified was always required [if able] to wash himself.l
It also corresponds with the representation of the
baptizer standing on a rock on the bank of the river,
near the proper depth of the water for such a purpose,
instead of remaining successive hours, day after day,
in water to his waist, to dip or submerge the multitudes that came to him.
John came to prepare the way for the coming of
the promised Messiah. His Baptism was a rite of
purification on the part of the people for the reception of their promised deliverer; administered on the
pledge of reformation of life, and their recognized
obligation to "bring forth fruits meet for repentance." 2 John acted under a dispensation that did
not require the washing of naked bodies in public.
But the advocates of immersion seem to ignore the
idea of any indelicacy in the Baptism of naked subjects in the times of primitive Christianity. Even
the exposure of the naked body "without a wrapper
around the middle," many of them contend, would be
no more offensive to the taste of a rude age than the
1 The consecration to the Priesthood the only exception.
2 Matt. iii. 8.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.         363
public exhibition of statuary without a veil at the
present day; that our ideas of indecency and vulgarity depend chiefly on our familiarity with objects and
customs. "If (say they) in countries where statuary
abounds, the two sexes can examine together nude
figures without a blush on the cheek, why not the
living bodies which these figures resemble? "
Usages of society and familiarity of objects, beyond
a doubt have their influence, but stone and painting
are not living objects, and we opine that never since
" Adam and Eve sewed fig leaves together and made
themselves aprons" to hide their nakedness, has it
been regarded otherwise than indelicate in man or
woman to present themselves naked to public gaze.
The Apostle Paul did not look upon such things with
indifference, when he instructed Timothy to teach
the " women to adorn themselves in modest apparel,
with shame-facedness and sobriety;" 1 thereby reproving any unnecessary exposure of the body, or
mode of dressing, which would excite lustful feelings
in others, or appear inconsistent with modesty and
sobriety in themselves.
12. After trine immersion gained the ascendency,
we know that for a long time people were baptized
naked, but much care and prudence were brought to
bear to prevent unnecessary exposure of the body.
BAPTISTRIES were erected in many places, and different apartments provided in them for the privacy of
the two sexes in undressing and preparing themselves
for their Baptism. Deaconesses were also appointed
to supervise the apartments of women and children,
and to notify the Minister when the candidates were
1 Tim. ii. 9.




364          TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
ready for his services. This shows an appreciative
sense of female decorum and decency as early, at
least, as the third century.
Sozomen relates an incident of tlie fourth century,
of an outrage of certain soldiers committed in the
baptistry of the Church of Chrysostom, in Constantinople, on Easter Eve, in which he says: " There
was a great tumult at the font, the women shrieking
in affright, and the children crying; the priests and
deacons were beaten and forced to run away with
their vestments on." 1
Chrysostom, complaining of the same thing to
Innocent, Bishop of Rome, says: " The women, who
had undressed themselves to be baptized, were forced
by fright of this violence to run away naked; not
being permitted in their amazement to provide for
the modesty and credit of their sex." 2
This confirms the fact that not only men, women,
and children were then baptized naked, but that
there was also a delicacy of sentiment among the
people that caused every necessary effort to be made
to prevent exposure of person on such occasions. For
we are further informed by the same authority, that
none but women came near or in sight of a female
candidate preparing herself for Baptism until she was
placed in the font, and then the Priest, being notified,
came and bowed her head in the water as he repeated
each name of the Trinity, according to his formula
for Baptism. After which he left her in the font to
be taken charge of by her female attendants. 3
But those who practised trine immersion did not
themselves claim for it Scriptural authority. "Tradition was its ground,. and custom its confirmer." 4
1 Cited by Wall, vol. ii., p. 380.  2 Ibidenm.'Ibidem.       4 See Tertullian, De Corona Militia.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.         365
What USAGE preceded it,.and what the groundwork
of the first illustrations and pictures of primitive:
Baptism by the artists, are questions still open to inquiry.
We can easily conceive in what way many of the
changes could have been made as time rolled on. As,
for instance, how the language of the Apostle Paul,
" buried with HIim (Christ) by Baptism into death,"' 1
could have suggested the immersion of the body
under water, as representing "a burial in a liquid
grave; " andi then how the adoption of such a modal
of Baptism for the purpose of representing Christ's
death and burial, should call forth the canon called
Apostolic —" Jesus did not say baptize in my death,"
but " Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Eather, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost." 2  The canon, although not of Apostolic
origin, is of very early date, and no doubt framed to
correct an error that was gaining ground by the misconstruction of the Apostle's words, supposing they
referred to the mode of Baptism, instead of the end
for which it was given. And immersion being adopted,
the change of one immersion into three names, was
easily made into one for each name of the Trinity -
and hence trine immnersion.
Further, the words of the Apostle Paul: " That
ye put off concerning the former conversation, the old
man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts........And that ye put on the new man which, after
God, is created in righteousness and true holiness," 8
might easily suggest the putting off old clothes at Baptism, and putting on white garments after it."
1' Rom. vi. 4.      2 Camm Apor. I., cited by Kenrick.
8 Eph. iv. 22, 2.




366           TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
And so the use of private baths or lavers to accommodate the rich, as in the case of Constantine, and
the King and Queen, of Longobardi referred to in
plates III. and IV., on whom water was poured while
in the family bath. And so afterwards, to accommodate persons less opulent, when the family lavers were
smaller, and not large enough to receive the whole
body of the candidate, they washed themselves at the
side of the laver, and received the pouring a short
distance from it, whilst kneeling in the attitude of
prayer, as represented in plate II., illustrating a
usage common in the seventh and eighth centuries.
When we come to the ninth and tenth we find, according to the illustration of plate I., the candidate
for Baptism is first washed in one place, and brought
to another to receive the pouring. In cases of emergency, as in the Baptism of Romanus by Lawrence, in
the third century, the water was only poured on him
whilst standing nude, or nearly so, in the porch of
the church, as in plate V. Or of Lucillus, at a still
earlier period, who was baptized by pouring water
from a pitcher only.1 Or of Novatian, who was baptized on his sick bed, by aspersion alone.2  The same
privilege was allowed to sick and delicate children
and feeble infants as to adults, and all accepted by
the Church as valid Baptisms.
13. Thus changes in the mode and ceremonies of
Baptism were made during the first thousand years of
Christianity, as circumstances seemed to render expedient.  After that time bathing, or washing and
pouring were less generally united together, and the
former became much the most usual, down to the
1 Page 849.            2 Page 830.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.          367
time of the great Reformation in the sixteenth century. Since which, pouring and aspersion have become the most usual.
As a sacrament and seal of the new covenant,
Christian Baptism grafts us into the death of Christ,
and secures to us all the privileges of the Christian
Covenant; but as a symbol of purification, which it
also signifies, the quality of the water rather than the
quantity is its leading feature.  "RBunning water,"
which means pure water, as if running from a spring
or fountain, in opposition to stagnant or defiled water,
by use, is prescribed throughout the Jewish ritual for
purification from defilements by cleansing or washing
with water. And the same idea was continued into
the Christian ritual - as, for instance, " Let us draw
near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and
our bodies washed with pure water" (Heb. x. 22).
" Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord " (Acts xxii. 16). The
" ritual-bathing" of the Jews was, applying the
water to their person with their hands while in the
bath, not simply dipping themselves or remaining in
an inactive state in the water. Even in the case of
Natman (which was not a ritual of the law) his frequent dipping in the "running water" amounted to
an application of the water to his body by his own
hands. The prevailing mode of bathing in Oriental
countries at the present day, as we are informed by
travellers, is not by immersing the body in the water,
but by applying the water to the body, and generally
by an attendant.
D'Ohsson, speaking of women's baths in the East,
says: " They scarcely ever immerse their bodies in




368           TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.
water; the large marble urns, which are in the form
of bathing- tubs, are for invalids. The strictest decency is observed."  Denon, describing the bath of
men in Egypt, writes: " The bather....... is inundated, with water, which the attendants take out
with a small basin and pour over his body." 2 The
Abyssinians, a very large body of Christians, much
more numerous than the Greek. Church, still unite
washing and pouring in Baptism.; or rather first wash
the body in a large urn, and then remove: the candidate to a smaller one, to confess his faith and receive
the pouring. They baptize young children, as do also
Copts and all Eastern Christians.
A careful examination of the history of Baptism,
must lead the intelligent reader to distinguish between the essence and the incidental circumstances
connected with it. The essence of Baptism does not
consist in the quantity of the water, nor the mode of
applying it to the person. These are only incidental
matters; things extraneous in their nature. Water applied in the name of the Holy Trinity, by a properly
qualified agent, are the essential ingredients to a valid
Christian Baptism. " Pure water" should be used
when it can be obtained.  Tertullian writes: "The
bishop has the right of giving Baptism; in the next
place, the presbyters and deacons, yet. not without
the bishop's authority, on account of the honor of the
Church, which being preserved, peace is preserved." 3
He further says that laymen have also the right, in
the absence of their superiors, and should certainly
exercise it, and baptize in cases of necessity; "inasmuch as one will be guilty of a human creature's loss
1 Facts and Evidences Ap ~s. Bap., p. 130.
2 Ibidem.          8 De Baptizo, c. xvii.




TESTIMONY OF HISTORY.          369
if he shall refrain from bestowing what he had free
liberty to bestow."  Circumstances, therefore, will
justify a different agent, as well as a different mode
from what may be the common IUSAGE. Hence the
essence of Baptism may be defined water in the right
name by proper authority. To immersion we have
no objection, as before remarked, where it can be administered with convenience; but to make it an ezelusive mode without Divine authority, and thereby
cut off one 8oul from Baptism by applying a rule
which neither the Word of God nor any branch of
his Church ever applied till the rise of the Anabaptists in the sixteenth century, we can never assent to.
To limit Baptism to immersion only, as Baptist
writers propose, would restrict the application of an
ordinance designed for God's people in all ages and
under all circumstances; and thereby cut off many
for whom it was provided! In frozen regions, where
everything is bound up in ice for a large portion of
the year, and in hot, sandy countries, where water
can scarcely be obtained to sustain life during certain
seasons, immersion would be impracticable for long
periods. So, in cases of sickness, dying women and
men, and gasping infants, under such a law, would go
into eternity unbaptized, however much the former
might desire it for themselves, or for their little
ones!
Our Saviour, therefore, in this, as in other things,
acted with his accustomed benevolence in leaving to
circumstanees that which circumstances ought to control. And we confess that we have no sympathy
Fwith those who define what God has not defined,
and then boast of standing by and seeing persons
fit and desirous for Baptism die without it, because




370         EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES.
they could not be immersed all over in water, I and
who further take delight in " cutting holes in the ice,
while the weather is so cold as to keep several men
stirring the water with poles to keep it from freezing,
while they are baptizing delicate women." 2 We
have not so learned Christ, nor can we ever yield
to such " the liberty wherewith Christ has made us
free."
EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES.
We must look to the end for which things are
done, in order to determine what is essential to them,
rather than to the mode. If corporeal washing was
the end of Baptism, then much water, and even soap,
as Cyprian remarks, would be essential to it. But
the end of Baptism is an inward spiritual grace; 3
and all the outward symbolism as to sign and instrument is given for internal spiritual blessing. Therefore, a small quantity of pure water would as clearly
signify spiritual purification and grace to an enlightened age and country, as would a larger quantity to
a rude and uncultivated people. And this suggests
to us again the wisdom of our Saviour in prescribing
no particular mode for the initiatory rite of grafting
into things spiritual, provided for creatures who are
subject to time, place, and circumstances. Wherefore, if it could be proved (which it cannot) that
the Apostles usually immersed in Baptism, inasmuch
as no command to Baptize by that mode, or in any
other particular way is given, it does not follow that
we should confine ourselves to that mode, when a
less inconvenient one would have all the influence
upon a refined and enlightened age, that plunging
1 Hinton's Hist. Bap., cited by Kenrick.
2 See Hall, p. 115.  8 Catechism of Epis. Ch.




EXAMINATION OF PRItCIPLES.      371
and washing of the whole body would have on a
ruder age.
Further, if we are to imitate in this age the example of those ages in which immersion was generally
practised, we must be baptized NAKED. Is that
necessary in this age? will any one insist that we
follow out the mode of Baptism in this particular?
If thus we have the discretion allowed us to omit
washing the naked body, why not the same discretion
in breaking through the ice and plunging under the
freezing water the feeble and delicate body? And if
we have the discretion even to postpone such Baptisms, and the persons die unbaptized, which involves
the greater responsibility, to baptize such by pouring
or aspersion, or permit them  to die unbaptized?
What says the Lord? "I.will have mercy and not
sacrifice."
"But," says Mr. Booth (assuming that immersion alone is true Baptism), "positive institutions
admit of no degrees, no supplements, and no commutation. It is the will of God for the trial of our
obedience; nor will He allow us to inquire why or
how? Compliance MUST be so, and No MORE, and
NO LESS, and No OTHERWISE. What we call little
things, trifling deviations, are the pins and screws
which hold the sacred tabernacle together; take these
away, the whole edifice falls. The same rash hand
that makes one alteration, may make twenty; if in
small things, why not in greater? till at length the
foundation is destroyed; Christianity is superseded;
superstition takes its place, and all is death, desolation,
and' darkness."
How dare you then, Mr. Booth, change the order
of immersing " people naked," and now clothe them?




372        EXAMIN'ATION -OF PRINCIPLES.
This change will authorize other changes, and thus
you take away one by one, the " screws " and "pins,"
and "the whole edifice falls."
The holy Scriptures teach No mode of baptizing,
and by parity of such reasoning, you can adopt no
mode; hence you cannot baptize at all! Reductio
ad absurdum.
Apply to the other sacrament the rule which this
writer designed to be applied to Baptism.
The Lord's supper was instituted, as before remarked, at night, in an upper room; received in a
reclining posture; after a meal, and no female present.
We are told,:'"Compliance MUST be so, and No
MORE, and NO LESS, and No OTHERWISE."  If you
neglect these " pins and screws, the tabernacle will
fall."  Has he neglected not one of them, and done
everything just so, no more, no less, no otherwise?
Alas! how easily does poor human nature deceive
itself! In the Sacrament of the Supper, the Baptists as well as others, have departed from every one
of these particulars, and regard no part of the mode
or manner in which the last supper was received as
essential to the sacrament, beyond the elements lawfully administered. And why not apply the same
principle to Baptism, and distinguish between things
essential and not essential?
Three men may wash their hands at the same time
and for the same object, one at the pump, another in
the river, and the third in  basin, and all three
attain one and the same end, to wit, the cleansing of
their hands. And so we may baptize in three ways
for the same end. If different degrees and phases
constitute the essence of a thing, then we have many
nare faiths than we have Baptisms; fo: no two




EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES.      373
Christians, perhaps, have precisely the same degrees
and shades of belief in all the doctrines of the Gospel.
It is the end and unity of design that make our
Baptism one,:and our faith one, "and our Lord one;
for without these we may even have different Lords
under the same name.  Unity of mode would not
make one Baptism, for we may give different baptisms
by the same mode. When the disciples at Ephesus,
who had been baptized unto John's Baptism, were
again baptized by St. Paul 1 (if in the same mode),
they received two Baptisms, and yet by one mode.
Therefore, mode cannot:constitute oneness.  But
Baptism  once administered in unity of name and
design into the great body of Christ's people, is one
Baptism, in whatever way given.
Herein seemss- to be the cause of much of the error
of immersionists: they lose sight of the GREAT END
of the Institutions of the Gospel, and magnify incidental matters into undue importance, thereby destroying the proportions of the grand system of
Christianity!
Again; they deceive themselves by the sound of
words; they often'boast: "We take the Bible
alone for our guide; " but put their own interpretation
upon it. This interpretation is opposed by greater
numbers of equal learning; and what is the result?
They reject the light of history and testimony of
facts, and attempt to force upon others their opinions.
But here they deceive themselves, for they always
act on the testimony of history, when it helps a peculiar view, without seeming to be aware of it. They
cannot find an undoubted example of immersiont or
precept for it, in the Holy Scriptures; and yet they
1 Acts xix.




374        EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES.
say it was practised for many centuries. But ought
not candor to require the admission, that, according
to the same authority, other modes have for many
centuries existed too, and that Infant Baptism has
been the practice of the Christian Church in every
age since the Apostles?
Bear in mind the proper distinction between the
essence of Baptism and what is merely incidental.
Water, in the right name, by proper authority, is all
that is of the essence of Baptism; as it is acknowledged even by Baptists, that bread and wine, with
like authority, are all that is of the essence of the
Supper — objectively considered. If we think it is
no longer necessary to apply water to the naked body,
and, therefore, baptize it clothed, may we not omit
also the inconvenient and often inappropriate mode of
submerging? In this age, it does not require much
water to suggest its property of cleansing; and the
Lord's Supper frequently received, impresses us much
more seriously with the crucifixion and death of our
Saviour, than Baptism by immersion can do. And it
was for that especial end the Eucharist was instituted;
for the remembrance of that very thing, we are commanded to observe it; whilst Baptism was commanded to be given in the name of the Trinity - not of the
death of the Son.
Shall we then hold to the liberty handed down
through every age of the Church, and baptize as circumstances may direct, and take our little ones into
Christian covenant with ourselves, or shall we adopt
immersion as the only Baptism and naked subjects in
the beginning, and refuse to our little ones the privileges and blessings of the Gospel covenant? Such is
the doctrine of Antipaodobaptists; and yet the liberty




EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES.            37b
of other modes, and Infant Baptism, have always
been allowed. History cannot therefore be brought
to sustain the authority of one and not the other.
This certain writers clearly see, and hence the attempt to throw aside history altogether. But this
cannot be done, unless we intend to remain in ignorance on important points, and surrender the Divine
authority of our holy religion. And in appealing to
the Greek Church for immersion, as is often done, we
can appeal to it also for Infant Baptism, and the
liberty to baptize by aspersion, in cases of necessity.
But what is the immersion of the Greek Church?
" The infant is placed in the baptismal font, with its
head above water, and face downward, supported by
the left arm of the priest, who, with his right hand,
pours water on it." 1 Such is the immersion of the
Greeks. It is part pouring, applied to infants; and
the pouring alone required, if necessity demands it.
What is the immersion of all the East?  A  few
years ago, when the Bishop of Ooroomiah, in Media,
Asia -Mar Yohannan, visited this country, he was
asked particularly how he baptized? His reply was,
"- We baptize children by putting them in the font, in
a sitting posture, up to the breast in water, facing the
East - then pouring water on them, in the name of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost." 2 And he further
added, " Such is the kind of immersion practised all
over the East, at all periods." What shall we say,
1 Euchologium, with Goar's Notes, cited by Kenrick.
Some dip the head under the water as they repeat the names of the
Trinity. - THE AUTHOR.
2 NOTE. The author is indebted for the above to the Rev. H. W.
Ducachet, D. D., of Philadelphia, to whom the Bishop of Ooroomiah also
remarked that he had never seen an adult baptized. So long had Infant
Baptisth been universal.




376        EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES.
then, to the noise we hear about " Greek immersion,
and immersion in the far-off East? " Is it immersion,
or is it pouring? would it be complete if there was
no pouring? Is it immersion according to the Baptist sense and mode of plunging people entirely under
water? And, worst of all, tnfants are the chief'subjects!  Will'it satisfy our Baptist brethren if we
place our little ones in a font,'up to the breast in
water, and then pour  ater on'them, in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost"?
Oh no. This would be no better than " baby sprinkling" after all! It would not be a burial.  And
their own good sense would further teach them'that,
if they were nicely washed by their mothers at home
before they were brought to the font, and the water
there devoutly poured on them, in the name of the
Trinity, it could not make much difference whether
they were set down in the font'or held in the arms.
1. We have now seen Baptism administered by day
and by night, in sickness and in health - the subject
standing by the font, and kneeling by the fontstanding in the water, and kneeling in the watersitting in the water, and held in the arm of the minister in the'water, and out of the water- in prison,
and on his bed -by aspersion, and by immersion;
and all recognized by the Christian Church as valid
Baptism. What does all this teach, but the nonessential character of modes, and liberty allowed in
such things.
2. We have also seen that the word BAPTIZE is applied to different modes of ablution in the New Testament - that neither Christ nor his Apost'ltles pre



EXAMINATION OF PRINCIPLES.      377
scribed any particular mode of Baptism, and that in
this respect their example was followed in the next
and succeeding ages of the Church. Hence no man
is authorized by the teaching of the word of God,
and practice of primitive" Christians, to say to his fellow man, "thou hast not been baptized Mnless thout
hast been immersed."
We should "stand fast, therefore, in the liberty
wherewith Christ hath made us free." Taking the
Bible as our guide, and supported and sustained in
our interpretation by the practice of the Church in
every age, we cannot go far wrong. With this authority, we may bring all our little ones into covenant
with God, and seal it by baptizing them in that mode
which we believe will comport most with the dignity
of the sacrament, and the glory of God through
Christ.




CHAPTER XII.
1HE ORIGIN OF ANTIPiEDOBAPTISM  AND THE CLAIMS OF
BAPTISTS EXAMINED.
Modern Organization. —Waldenses and their Faith. - Albigenses.Pierre De Bruys. - Cathari. - Paterini. - Paulicians. - Bulgari.Donatists. - Novatians. - Bede. - Pelagius. - Ancient Church  of
Britain. - Rome. - Greece. - Alexandria. - Palestine. - Coast of Malabar. - Rise of Antipeedobaptists in Twelfth Century. - Collected together in 1521. - Munster taken in 1533. - Retaken next Year. - Anabaptists scattered. - Rallied under Menno, 1536. - Confession of Faith
published, 1636. - First Church in England, 1638. - In America, 1639.
-Present Position. — High Standard of Falnily  Religion needed. -
Coucluding Remarks.
HAVING considered the subjects and modes of
Christian Baptism, and particularly the claims of Infant Baptism, we will now examine the claims of
those who oppose us. They do not claim for themselves great antiquity as an organized body, but contend that their principles have been entertained in
the Church of God in every age.
And some of them profess to be able to trace them
through different sects, or through branches of the
Church to an early period. They tell us the Waldenses held similar views, and that they were also
advocated among the Cathari in Germany, the Paterines in Italy, and Paulicians in Greece. And before
them by the Donatists in Africa, and even the Novatians at Rome.1
Let us examine the facts in the case. The Waldenses were a body of Christians inhabiting the valleys of the Alps, brought to light in the twelfth cen1 See Fessenden, Encyclopcedia, R. K., Jones' Hist. Ch., and others.




ORIGIN OF ANTIPREDOBAPTISM.      379
tury. They were an exemplary people for the age in
which they lived, and advocated some of the principles of the English Reformation. They were called
the " VAUDOIS, VALLENSES, WALDENSES, and the
people of the valleys." I They had been in existence
as a religious sect, as it appears, several centuries before the preaching of Peter Waldo commenced. He
visited Piedmont about the year 1160, and there found
churches holding sentiments similar to those he had
preached at Lyons, and became renowned among
them as a friend and ally. Some have supposed they
were called after his name (Waldo) Waldenses. But
it has of later years been shown to be the more probable that they were called after the place they inhabited. And after their union with the disciples of the
Lyonese reformer, they obtained for themselves also
the name of Lionist, thereby blending with. them the
Christians of Lyons.2
The Waldenses were opposed to many of the doctrines of the Church of Rome; but did they oppose
Infant Baptism, or denounce all Baptisms besides
immersion? These are the points that distinguish
Baptists from other Christians. But who is to give
us a better account of the faith of the Waldenses
than themselves? When their adversaries and persecutors, the Romish priests, falsely accused them,
among other things, of refusing Baptism to children,
they denied the charge. They acknowledged, however, that some of their children went longer without
Baptism than they desired, because their own pastors
or Barbs were abroad in the service of the Church,
and they detested the human inventions added to the
1 Dr. Allix's History of the Church of Piedmont.
2 Waddington's Church History.




380        ORIGIN OF ANTIP2EDOBAPTISM,
sacrament by the Romish priests, and hence deferred
the Baptism of their children oftentimes longer than
was desirable, awaiting the return of their own
Barbs.1 In an ancient record among them, called
the " Spiritual Almanac," they acquit themselves of
this accusation as follows:"Neither is the time or place appointed for those
who must be baptized; but charity and the edification of the Church and congregation ought to be the
rule in this matter; yet, notwithstanding, we bring
our children to be baptized, which they ought to do
to whom they are most nearly related, as their parents, or those whom God has inspired with such a
charity."
In this they declare they bring their children to
Baptism, and point out the persons who ought to
bring them.
In their articles of rules of faith and practice,
adopted by all the Waldenses assembled at Angrogne,
September 12th, 1535, their seventeenth article reads
as follows:
ART. XVII. 1" As to the sacraments, it has been determined by the Holy Scriptures, that we have but two
sacramental signs or symbols, which Christ Jesus hath
left unto us: the one is BAPTISM, the other the EuCHARIST, or Lord's Supper, which we receive to demonstrate our perseverance in the faith, according to the
promise we made in our Baptism in our INFANCY;
as also in remembrance of that great benefit which
Jesus Christ hath conferred upon us, when He laid
down his life for our redemption, cleansing us with
his most precious blood." 2
1 See Perrin's History of the Waldenses.
2 Perrin and Du Pin.




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.    381
This article shows that so general was the practice
of Infant Baptism among them and their forefathers,
that their whole assembly had been baptized in infancy; or at least so nearly all, that they speak of
their Baptism as received only at that time. ", According to the promise we made in our Baptism in our
infancy." All their descendants practise Infant Baptism to this day. Nor is there a single word in their
whole history that indicates they ever denied it to
young children, if: we will distinguish properly when
different names are used.
The name Waldenses was first applied only to the
Christians in the valleys between the Alps, who opposed the Romish Church. The name Albigenses
was applied to those in the southern parts of France,
who (about the same time) opposed also the Church
of Rome. But some of these Christian bodies, though
united against Rome, differed widely among themselves on other points.1
" Albi, a city of Languedoc, in France," says Waddington, "was peculiarly prolific in heresies about
that time."  All those sects known by the name of
Albigenses, and also others in the northern parts of
Italy, are frequently, by writers in later and succeeding ages, included under the general name of Waldenses, though widely differing in various particulars
— just as the name Protestant is now frequently
applied to all who do not belong to the Church of
Rome; or of Presbyterian to all who adopt their
kind of Church government; or Arminian to all that
oppose Calvinism. But who in this day would charge
all the erroneous doctrines among Protestants to any
of the respectable bodies of Christians that come
1 Ibid.




082       ORIGIN OF ANTIPAEDOBAPTISM,
under that name? Or charge Presbyterians proper
with all the errors of many others who adopt the
same kind of church government? Owing to this
loose way of writing, - -not distinguishing between
the Waldenses proper, and other sects incorrectly embraced under the term,- many have been led into the
erroneous opinion that the Waldenses denied Infant
Baptism! Their own works, however, prove the
contrary.1
" It is a well known fact," says Dr. Murdock, in a
note on Mosheim, vol. iii. p. 228, "that in the sixteenth century, the genuine descendants of the old
Waldenses, Wickliffites, and Hussites, who were
numerous in France, England, and other places, readily united with the Lutheran and the reformed communities, and at length became absorbed in them; and
that very few, if any of them, ever manifested a preference for the Mennonite, or for any of the Antipaedobaptist 1 sects of that age.".... "And if we endeavor to trace the history of that grand peculiarity
of all Mennonites, their confining Baptism to adult
believers, and rejecting Infant Baptism altogether, we
shall find, that at the time Menno first embraced it,
it existed among the numerous German Anabaptists,
but not among the Waldenses of France or Bohemlia,
who were then universally believers in Infant Baptism.".... "These Waldensian Poedobaptists, moreover, declared that they held the same belief which
their fathers had maintained for several centuries;
and they appealed to their old books to make good
their assertions. There were, indeed, various mystical
sects, tinctured more or less with Manicheism, in the
1 Compare Du Pin, Perrin, Wall, and Waddington.
2 Meaning Baptists.




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.    383
twelfth and following centuries, who rejected all water
Baptism on much the same grounds that the Quakers
still do, and some of them assailed Infant Baptism
especially, as being peculiarly unsuitable and absurd."
Were we to enter into a full examination of this subject, it would swell this chapter beyond its prescribed
limits, and be a matter of small moment to our present
inquiry, when ended, - because too far removed from
the days of the Apostles to affect the main point at
issue.
Pierre de Bruys, in the beginning of the twelfth
century, as has already been remarked, is the first
public teacher on record, who preached against Infant
Baptism, and whose followers entirely rejected it
whilst they retained adult Baptism. He was a native
of Languedoc, and of the town of Albi. And, of
course, belonged to one of the sects of Albigenses.
He has, by some writers, been classed under the more
general name of Waldenses. He differed, however,
from the Waldenses proper on Infant Baptism and
several other points. Some short time after his death
we read of several sects who rejected it, but all of
them appear to be branches of the same, although
called by other names, and generally after the places
in which they flourished, or after their leaders. For
instance, the Henricians were called after the name of
Henry, who was a disciple of De Bruys, and an Italian by birth. He was zealous and active, and spread
his doctrines through various parts of France. His
followers were called in some places Henricians, and in
others after the names of the places in which they
were known. Arnold, of Brescia, returned to Italy
about the year 1135 from Paris, assumed the monastic
garb, and began to preach the same doctrines advocated




384         ORIGIN, OF ANTIP^ADOBAPTISM,
by the Henricians in France. His followers were,
called Arnoldists.
A display is sometimes made of. all these names;
and readers who are not aware of their, origin, are induced to think they weigh something against Infant
Baptism.'
Decretal Epistles and Councils are also referred to.
But we need only examine the dates and circumstances
with which they stand connected, to see how little
bearing all of them have on the subject.
The Lateran Council, under Pope Innocepnt the Second, which condemned Pierre de Bruys and Arnold,
was held Anno Domini, 1139, some thirty years after
the rise of the Petrobrussians.
The Lateran Council, under Pope, Innocent the
Third, was in 1215, some seventy-six years later than
the former, and only shows that the doctrines of Peter
was still spreading.
In the Decretal Epistle of Innocent the Second, is
found a letter, in answer to one from the Bishop ofAries, in Provence, the country of Bruys, written
about the beginning of the twelfth century, which
shows that that country gave birth to the first Antipadobaptists, and that they first agitated, for a short
time in a more private way, what De Bruys soon after
proclaimed publicly.
A Synod held' at Arras, in the year 1025, which
las been already referred to, has often been adduced
in this controversy.  This was first brought forward
by Stennet, from  Dr. Allix's work. Stennet only
gave a part of the facts there recorded. We there
find that Gnndulphus and his followers denied that
Baptism could do good to ANY ONE - that their docJones' Hist. Ch. Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge.




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.    38'5
trines were very similar to the Quakers of the present
day.'
The Cathari of Germany, Paterines in Italy, and
the Paulicians of Greece, are next appealed to as the
line of descent in which Antipaedobaptism  can be
traced.  These were all branches of the'same under
different names in different countries, and were semiManichbeans, and objected to all Baptism, likewise to
the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.2
The Paulicians, in Greece, from whom all the
others sprang, took their name from one Paulus, who
commenced his career in Armenia, about the beginning of the seventh century. He rejected both of the
sacraments, Baptism and the Lord's Supper   denied
the authority of the Old Testament - interpreted the
New allegorically -and taught that the Supreme
Being created neither the world nor the human body
- and that this was the work of some inferior being.
They were branded as heretics and persecuted by the
Greek Church, but persisted in their doctrines. When
banished from their own country they sought refuge
in others, continuing to inculcate their principles
wherever they went.3 " In different countries," says
Mosheim (in which he is followed by Baptist writers),
" they were known by different names. In Greece,
they were called Paulicians - in Italy, Paterines —
in Germany, Cathari, or rather Gazari - in France,
Bulgarians, because they came frbm Bulgaria, the
country in which the head of the' sect hiad residedalso, Publicanis, probably a corrupt proinnciation of
Paulicians.  They were also called'-good'men,' sWith
several other titles." 4
1 Wall.                     2 Waddington and Mosheim.
8 See Fessenden's Encyctopcedia of Religious Knowiledge, Mosheim and
Waddington.                       4 See also Waddington.
9;)




886        ORIGIN OF ANTIP4EDOBAPTISM,
Whether these were all different names given to the
same sect, at different times and in different countries,
or not, certain it is, they differed very little from
each other in their doctrines. And there can be but
little doubt in regard to the fact, that the influence of
these doctrines on the minds of the people of Albi
among whom they lived, gave rise to that particular
sect of the Albigenses who objected particularly to
Infant Baptism. The Catholics on the one hand, baptized both infants and adults - the Paulicians, on the
other, rejected all Baptism and the sacrament of the
Supper. The inhabitants of Albi being pleased with
many of their doctrines, were not prepared to leap
across the whole ground from the Catholics to the
Paulicians, and so took a middle position between
them, blending together what they most highly approved of each, and rejecting the remainder. They
were disgusted with the lives of the Roman Catholic
priests and with useless ceremonies, but were not willing to give up the sacrament of the Supper - and
hence retained Baptism so far as it could be made a
preparatory step to the Supper, but rejected the Baptism of Infants.
Or, it may be, that the Paulicians, coming among
a people where the Gnostic philosophy of the East
was little known, and gradually losing its influence
over their own minds, began to decline from the
doctrines of their forefathers, and to adopt in part the
doctrines of the Christians around them. Their first
step was probably to administer the sacrament of the
Supper, which required Baptism, as a preparatory rite
to its observance — but they refused it to infants,
because, among other reasons, they said, " since they
cannot believe, they cannot be saved, and it is therefore




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.    387
useless to them." This was, at least, the chief reason
given for refusing it to them after De Bruys began to
preach in public what they had canvassed among
themselves more privately.
The probabilities in favor of this conjecture are
increased by the fact, that Alanus, a writer towards the
close of that century, 1192, reckoning up the opinions
of the Paulicians, or Cathari, as they were then called,
says, they " differ among themselves as to Baptism;
some rejecting all water Baptism, others refusing it
only to infants." This was in the same century in
which Pierre de Bruys lived, but some time after
his death. Before this century, all writers, who give
their doctrines on this point, unite in testifying that
they rejected water Baptism and the Lord's Supper
altogether.
This, after much labor in examining and comparing
the accounts given by various authors, is, according to
our most careful and deliberate judgment, the most
probable of all the conjectures that we have yet seen in
regard to the origin of Antipsedobaptism, or rejection
of Infant Baptism. If it originated before this time,
evidence of the fact has not been brought forward by
any writer yet known to us on the subject. And why
certain Baptist writers should profess to trace their
Church through these sects, we are at a loss to conjecture, unless it be, because they objected to the cross,
to the worship of the Virgin Mary, and to some other
popish rites. For certainly there is nothing in their
history to show they held the peculiar doctrine of Antipaedobaptism before the twelfth century. And had
they opposed it even from their origin as a sect, that
was too late a date to avail anything on the question
before us.




388         ORIGIN OF ANTIPEDORBAPTISM,
The next step is to the Donatists.  Thlrough these,'it has been pretended by some, the principles of Anti-:paedobaptism can be traced.  This sect arose A. D.
311. The Bishop of Carthage, Mensurius, died that
year, and Cecilianus was elected and consecrated in his
place.  The Numidian bishops, who belonged to a
subordinate province, were not present, and objected
both to the person elected, and to the manner of procedure; and determined to consecrate Majorinus in
opposition to him, declaring Cecilianus was not properly put into office, and alleging against him and also
against one of his consecrators, viciousness of life.
Two parties were now formed, and several -successive
councils assembled to decide the controversy. The
Numidian party lost their cause in every Council. A
schism was finally produced, and a schismatic body
formed, called Donatists, after the name of Donatus,
their principal leader in the controversy.'
Between the Donatists and Church Catholic, from
which they separated, there was no difference as to
Church organization, except that the Donatists afterwards re-baptized such as happened to come over to
them from the Church, alleging'as their reason f6r
this, that Baptism was hbt rvalid in'a church in which
such officers as Cecilianis and some others of his party
were permitted to administer it. As to Infant Baptism, they continued to pra6ctise it,'as they had done
before their separation.'This'has been before shown
from the acts of Councils passed, when the Donatists
began to come back into the great body of the Church
from which they had separated.  In'two Councils in
the Church of Africa, as cited in the first part of this
work, resolutions were'passed concerning those bapi Mosheim, Waddington, and Church historians generally.




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISrS EXAMINED.      389
tized in infancy among the Donatists, in regard to the
promotion to Church offices. In the first, it was resolved, that it should be made a question of consultation with neighboring bishops, whether those baptized
in infancy among the Donatists might not be promoted, because they were too young to know the
error that was committed, and, therefore, less guilty
than those capable of judging for themselves.1
In a following Council it was resolved, that such as
turned to the Church as soon as capable of understanding the error, might hold office in it; but those
who continued with the Donatists, and became teachers, before correcting what had been done, must be
deferred for longer consideration.2
Again: Optatus, bishop of Milevis, persuading the
Donatists to union with the Church, tells them, " The
ecclesiastical organization is one and the same with us
and you. Though men's minds are at variance, the
sacraments are at none. And we may say we believe
alike, and are sealed with one and the same seal: not
otherwise baptized than you, nor otherwise ordained
than you." 3
Cresconius, who was himself a Donatist, anxious to
unite the two parties, uses also these words: " There
is between us and you one religion, the same sacraments, nothing in Christian ceremonies different. It
is a schism that is between us - not a heresy." 4
Now, as no one can doubt whether the Church baptized infants at that time, what plainer testimony
need we that the Donatists practised the same? there
1 Concil. Carthag. tertii. can. 48
2 Codex Canonum Eccl. Africanve, can. 57.
8 Lib. 3 de Schis. Donatist.
4 Apud Augustinum lib. 2, contra Cresconium. See Wall, vol. i. p.
105.




390        ORIGIN OF ANTIPEDOBAPTISM,
was " no difference in the sacraments," and " Christian
ceremonies," say both parties; and Councils passed
laws for such as were baptized in infancy by the Donatists. What need we more to prove that the Donatists baptized infants? Surely this is enough to convince any reasonable man. Nor does any writer, in
plain terms, deny this fact. Yet some will insinuate
and imply as much, even passing on to the Novatians,
professing to see signs of Antipaedobaptism in that
sect also! We must, therefore, inquire who the Novatians were, and what they taught.
The Novatians were a sect called after Novatian,1
a Presbyter in the Church of Rome, who was a man,
says Mosheim, " of uncommon learning and eloquence,
but of an austere and rigid character, entertaining the
most unfavorable sentiments of those who had been
separated from the communion of the Church. He
indulged his severity so far as to deny that any who
had fallen into the commission of grievous transgressions, especially those who had apostatized from
the faith under the persecution set on foot by Decius,
should ever be again received into the bosom of the
Church. The greater part of his brother Presbyters
were of a different opinion in this matter, especially
Cornelius, whose credit and influence were raised to
the highest pitch by the esteem and admiration which
his eminent virtues so naturally excited. Hence it happened that when a bishop was to be chosen, in A. D.:230, to succeed Fabius in the see of Rome, Novatian
opposed the election of Cornelius with the greatest
activity and bitterness. Iis opposition, however, was
in vain, for Cornelius was chosen to the office, of
1 See Mosheim, Lardner, Milner, Waddington, and historians generally.




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.    391
which his distinguished merit rendered him so highly
worthy. Novatian, from this time, separated himself
from the jurisdiction of Cornelius, who, in his turn,
called a Council at Rome, A. D. 251, and cut him off
and his partisans from the communion of the Church.
This turbulent man erected a new society, of which
he was the first bishop." 1
From this extract, we see that Novatian and Cornelius entertained the same doctrinal views, belonged to
the same Church, but differed in regard to the disposition of those who had fallen away from fear of persecution. But this is not all. Novatian was an aspirant to the office of bishop in the same Church, and a
rival of Cornelius. And the success of Cornelius was,
no doubt, the chief cause of his forming a new society,
over which he could be bishop, while laxity of discipline was made the ostensible reason.2
As they were ministers in the same Church, and
rivals for the same office, they must have entertained
the same general views in doctrine. And when Novatian separated, the only reason pretended for it was
laxity of discipline. Nothing was said about Baptism.
On the other hand, Cornelius charged him with
want of moral courage and unfitness for the office of
oishop, because he had been baptized under the influence of fear on his sick bed, instead of receiving it of
his own free will, uninfluenced by external causes.
On what ground, then, can he be claimed as the
advocate of Baptist principles? A man baptized by
aspersion himself, and the baptizer of infants! Nor
are we anywhere informed that Novatian or any of
his followers ever afterwards changed on these points.
1 Mosheim, vol. i. p. 96.
2 Milner, Waddington, and Lardner.




892         ORtIGN OF ANTIPEDOBAPTISM,
No, neither Augustine, nor any others who give an
account of the various sects of that age and their doctrines, intimate that they held peculiar views as to
mode, or refused Baptism to infants.  Cyprian, who
lived and wrote at the time this schism was made,
and Eusebius and Optatus whilst the Novatians flourished, say nothing in their accounts of the differences
between them and the Church to that effect. Mosheim, on the contrary, expressly states that "there
was no difference in point of doctrine between the
Novatians and the great body of Christians. What
peculiarly distinguished them was their refusing to readmit to the communion of the Church, however
penitent, those who, after Baptism, had fallen into the
commission of sins; yet they did not pretend that
such were excluded from all possibility of salvation." 1
What then, it may be asked, ever suggested the
thought that the Novatians rejected Infant Baptism?
Nothing, so far as we can learn, except it be the misapprehension of a single word. The Novatians, like
the Donatists, required those who had been baptized
in the Church Catholic to be re-baptized when they
united with them, on the ground that a Church so lax
in its government vitiated and rendered null the holy
rite of Baptism; and, for re-baptizing in such cases,
they were sometimes called Anabaptists, which simply
means those who baptize anew.2  Certain Dutch
writers of later years, finding this term applied to
the Novatians, inferred from it that they rejected
Infant Baptism; and others have handed down what
they supposed.3 "The Novatians assumed to them1 Vol. i. p. 96.
2'Av&, " anew," Ba=rw~4, "to baptize.'
8 See Wall, vol. ii.




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.      393
selves," says Mosheim, "the title CATHARI - i.    e.,
pure; and what shows a still more extravagant degree
of vanity and arrogance, they obliged such as came
over to them from the great body of Christians to be
baptized a second time, as a necessary preparation for
entering into their society." 1
It was some half century before this schism, that
Origen declared " Infant Baptism was the usage of the
Church handed down from the Apostles." It was before this and before the name of " Cathari," as a sect,
was heard of, that a Council at Carthage had legislated against the delay of Baptism till the eighth day
after birth, as a rule. Hence, had the Novatians rejected Infant Baptism, it would have been an innovation on the established order of the Universal Church.
This, however, they did not do, nor did any other sect
branching from or uniting with them in that century.
For in addition to the united testimony of historians,
that "there was no difference in point of doctrine
between them," the same is confirmed by the incidental
testimony of writers against these various schismatical
sects. These writers trace their origin, describe their
tenets, and point out their peculiarities, and show
wherein they differed from the Church; but in no
instance is Baptism of Infants specified as a point of
difference; whilst Infant Baptism was the universal
practice of the Church at the time they wrote. Four
of these writers, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Augustine,
and Theodoret,2 lived about the time, and wrote
two of them, after the Novatian schism arose; and
had the Novatians opposed Infant Baptism, they
would most assuredly have mentioned it. But since
1 Vol. i. p. 96.
2 See ch. iii. of this volume.




394        ORIGIN OF ANTIPEDOBAPTISM,
they say nothing about it, their silence accords with
the general testimony that they baptized Infants also.
Baptists, therefore, will find no authority from the
practice of the Novatians to justify them in excluding little children from the fold of Christ; nor can
they find any traces of their Church in the sects that
arose before the Novatians.
The writings of the early Christians have been
ransacked also to find testimony of another kind, to
disprove the infant's claim to church-membership.
Much labor has been spent to find cases of the children of Christians who were baptized at adult age, in
order to prove that it was not the universal custom of
Christian parents to have their children baptized in
infancy. And could any such cases be found, they
would only show that some Christians in that age
may have neglected this duty whilst they acknowledged its authority, as many do in this age. It
seems, however, that there was great unanimity of
action among ancient Christians on this point; for
out of fourteen cases, produced from first to last, it
has been found, on strict examination, that all of
them were either baptized in infancy, or were born
before their parents became Christians, with the exception of one single case, in the fourth century.
That was Gregory Nazianzen, concerning whom it is
doubtful whether his father was a Christian or not,
when he was born.
Not many years since, the editor of a public journal
having made a flourish of modern names favorable to
Antipsedobaptism, was called upon to give some
ancient authorities, or produce a single passage from
any writer during the first thousand years of Christianity, that would show Infant Baptism was not the




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.    395
practice of the Church during that period. He, in
reply, cited a passage from  Fabian's "Chronicle,f
English History," written.in the fifteenth century,
in which the author professed to be indebted to the
"Venerable Bede" for his account of the ancient
affairs of the Britons; but, unfortunately, as it appears, he quoted from a defective edition of Fabian -
the passage not being sustained by another edition of
the same author, nor by the text of Bede.
In the early part of the eighth century, the " Venerable Bede," as he is called, wrote an " Ecclesiastical
History of England," in which is recorded the efforts
of Augustin, the monk, to plant the Roman Church
among the Ancient Britons in the early part of the
seventh century. He found the Christian Church
already established among them, but in some respects
different in ceremonial and customs from the Roman
Church; the latter having added to the ceremonial
of primitive Baptism. Augustin proposed to the
Britons to unite with him, and to adopt his customs
wherein they differed from their own. And for the
purpose of perfecting such an arrangement a conference was held at a place long since known as
"' Augustin's Ac "- [Oak].
But failing to persuade the bishops of Britain
to change their customs, another conference was appointed, and attended by a larger number of bishops
and learned men among the Britons; many of wholn
had been advised by a sagacious Eremite, renowned
for his practical wisdom, not to give up their traditions
and follow Augustin, unless "he was a man of God
- meek and lowly in spirit "- like HIM who said,
"' Take my yoke upon you." And to the question,
4"How is this to be known?" he advised them to




396        ORIGIN OF ANTIPADOBAPTISM,
delay their arrival at the place appointed until
Augustin had reached it, and then, if on their approach he rose up to meet them, to hear submissively
what he had to say; but if he rose not up when they
approached him, to act towards him accordingly.
On their arrival they found Augustin " sitting on
a chair," who, without rising, said to them: "You act
in many particulars contrary to our custom, or rather
the custom of the Universal Church, and yet, if you
will comply with me in these three points, namely,
to keep Easter at the due time, to administer Baptism
(by which we are again born to God) according to
the custom of the Holy Roman Apostolic Church,
and jointly with us preach the word of God to the
English nation, we will readily tolerate all the other
things you do, though contrary to our customs."
They answered they would do none of those things,
nor receive him as their archbishop. "' For (they
said among themselves) if he will not rise up to
us, how much more will he contemn us as of no
worth, if we shall begin to be under his subjection." 1
Fabian, in his chronicle, quotes this passage (perhaps from memory), and changes the words of the
sentence "To administer Baptism... according
to the custom of the Holy Roman Catholic Church "
into " Ye give Christendom to the children in the
manner that is used in the Church of Rome: which
is substantially of the same import with Bede; but
he specifies children, which Bede only implies, and
if he means "little children," he teaches that it
was the custom  of both the Roman Church and
the Church of Britain to baptize little children,
rather than that the Church of Britain had omit1 Bede's Eccl. fist., lib. ii. ch. 2, edited by J. A. Giles, D. C. L. Third
London edition.




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.    397
ted it. In the copy of Fabian, however, from which
this Antipoedobaptist made his extract, the clause
"IN THE MANNER that it is used in the Church of
BRome," is left out, and simply reads " Ye give Christendom to the children "- as if the Church of Britain
had omitted or refused to give Baptism to the children.
Even if this is not an omission of the transcriber, it is
contradicted by another edition of the same author,
and also by the authority to which it is professedly
indebted; consequently can avail nothing on either
side.
But as to the question of Fact, whether Infant
Baptism was then the doctrine and practice of the
Church in both countries represented in that assemblage? Nearly two centuries before Augustin landed
on the shores of Britain, Pelagius, as we have seen, born
and bred in Britain, and who had lived in Rome, declared that " he had never heard of even an impious
heretic that denied Baptism to infants." And Celestius, born in Ireland, and who had visited the most
notable churches in Asia and Africa, as well as in
Europe, in regard to the same question said, " IT IS
THE RULE OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH TO GIVE
BAPTISM TO INFANTS."
The same has been found to be the RULE of the
Church on the coast of Malabar, which had been
separated from other Christians more than thirteen
hundred years. When first discovered, after this
long period, and brought to the knowledge of other
portions of the Christian world, they had the custom
of Infant Baptism, and still continue it, claiming as
the founder of their Church and doctrine the Apostle
St. Thomas.1
1 Buchanan's Researches




398        ORIGIN OF ANTIPIEDOBAPTISM,
To whatever point we turn, we find evidence accumulating on evidence, that Infant Baptism was
the practice of the Primitive Church. And beyond
doubt, it must surprise the reader as it has the writer,
that any who have examined the evidence, can resist
it. But it is stranger still, that Christian men should
ransack all history to find testimony on the other
side, and then turn round, and try to cast discredit
upon all Church history, and make an array of the
corruptions in the Church to invalidate the authority
of a rite known to exist before such corruptions were
made! And shall we discard a doctrine merely because of abuse? Ought we not rather to discriminate
between the abuse and the thing itself? " Prove all
things, hold fast that which is good," is the Apostolic
injunction.
Shall we discard the Lord's Supper because some
have vainly supposed the bread and wine were
changed into the natural body and blood of Christ?
The fact that Infant Baptism was the practice of
every Church, extending over thousands of miles,
from the first knowledge of them on that point, and
no one ever called its lawfulness in question, is of itself sufficient to dispel the mere surmise that it is
an innovation. Again, the fact that there was much
conjecture and discussion among early Christian
writers, as to its effects and the reasons why it was
commanded, shows that it was not instituted by men.
For had it been of human origin, the reason and
grounds of necessity would have been given in the
first place. But, like adult Baptism, being ordered
by Divine wisdom, men are left to conjecture as to
its grounds, effects, and other particulars, which the
Master did not think proper to reveal.




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.    399
The evidence that has been adduced, be it observed,
is not merely the opinions or conjectures of men; but
their testimony to that which was the object of their
senses, and is intended as corroborative evidence of
the correctness of the interpretation which we give
the holy Scriptures - as a tree, showing by its leaves
and fruit what is the nature of the scion, about which
there had been much difference of opinion.
Ancient records and passages that speak of Infant
Baptism, are referred to, just as we refer to passages
of the same writings, that speak of the different books
of the New Testament, when our object is to prove
that any one of those books was received among the
early Christians as of Divine authority. How then
can one under any pretence whatever, gainsay this
testimony, so long as he appeals to it in support of
the genuineness of the different books of the New
Testament, and to which we must appeal, or open the
way to the rejection of the Holy Scriptures?
By such appeal and tests, we can find no Christian
body that admitted the necessity of Baptism to adults
and refused it to infants, until the beginning of the
twelfth century, when, in the midst of the darkness
that overspread Europe, Pierre de Bruys, of Languedoc, and some others connected with him, began to
promulge the doctrine, that it was unnecessary to
baptize infants, because they could not believe, and
therefore could not be saved. 1 Peter, Abbot of
Clugni, writing about A. D. 1146, says: "It might
have seemed there was no need to confute such a
doctrine as this, were it not that it had now continued
twenty years. The first seeds of which were sown by
Pierre de Bruys."
1 See Milner, Mosheim, Waddington.




400          ORIGIN OF ANTIPAEDOBAPTISM,
This sect opposed the building of churches, and
said that singing " was mocking God."  In regard to
Infant Baptism, this author thus writes: " They say,' Christ sending his disciples out to preach, says in
the gospel: Go ye out into all the world and preach
the Gospel to every creature -  he that believeih 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 believes
and is baptized: that is, have both Christian faith
and Baptism. For not one of these, but both together, do save! So that infants, though they be by
you baptized, yet since by reason of their age they
cannot believe, are not saved.' " 1
This is the first public and open avowal against
Infant Baptism as a Christian rite (so far as we can
learn) on record.2  The followers of Gundulphus,
who were condemned in a Synod, at Arras, in the
preceding century, have been cited as the first. But
they held all Baptism to be of no use — that a moral
life was sufficient.
"This," said they, " is our doctrine, to renounce
the world, to bridle the lusts of the flesh, to maintain
ourselves by the labor of our own hands, to do violence to no man, to love the brethren. If this plan
of righteousness be observed, there is no need of
Baptism; if it be neglected, Baptism is of no avail."3
They are said to have regarded the Lord's Supper
and dignitaries in the Church, in the same light.
And in their opposition to Baptism, they gave as a
1 Cited by Wall, vol. ii. pp. 235, 236.
2 If any writer will produce an undoubted passage to that effect of an
earlier date, it shall be inserted in the next edition of this book, if it shall
ever reach another, and acknowledged in other ways.
8 See Wall, vol. ii. a. 7.




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.    401
particular reason for the case of infants, that they
could not understand and confess the truth. They
may be regarded, therefore, as esteeming Infant Baptism even more unreasonable than adult, but both
alike unnecessary.
In this sense, it may be said, the first opposers of
Infant Baptism were brought to light in the beginning
of the eleventh century. But the Petrobrussians, in
the following century, took a very different ground,
and opposed Infant Baptism, whilst they received
adult Baptism. They contended that infants could
not be saved, though they were baptized, because
they could not believe. And they certainly interpreted that passage of Scripture, on which the opponents of Infant Baptism lay so much stress in this age,
more consistently than is now done: " He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved — he that believeth not shall be damned." (Mark xvi. 16.) If,
according to this reading, faith be in all cases necessary to Baptism, consistency in all its parts requires
faith as necessary in all cases to salvation. So that
if it be applicable to infants in the one case, it must
be in both; therefore, the Petrobrussians were more
consistent than the Antipmedobaptists of the present
day, on this point.
The doctrine of Pierre de Bruys was adopted afterwards by several sects, or rather advocated by those
called by other names, but they were few in number,
and but little known till after the dawn of the Reformation under Luther; when it appears, that about
A. D. 1521, they collected together in considerable
numbers, chiefly from Saxony and the adjacent countries, headed by Munzer, Stubner, and Storek, and are
described by various writers as very fanatical, tur26




402        ORIGIN OF ANTIPIEDOBAPTISM,
bulent, and seditious; — who, says Mosheim, "declared war against all laws, government and magistrates of every kind.... But this seditious crowd was
routed and dispersed without much difficulty, by the
Elector of Saxony and other princes; Munzer was
put to death, and his factious counsellors were scattered abroad in different places." 1 They were afterwards more timid, but still continued to spread their
principles, and were called Anabaptists. About A. D.
1533, a portion of them, perhaps more fanatical and
seditious than others, headed by John Matthison, John
Bockhold, a tailor, and one Gerard, took the city of
Munster, deposed the magistrates, and proclaimed
John Bockhold king and legislator of their new hierarchy. Munster was retaken in A. D. 1536, after a
long siege, and their New Jerusalem as they called it,
destroyed, and its mock monarch punished with a
most painful and ignominious death.2
Their doctrine of a new and perfect Church, guided
by visions and revelations from Heaven, which set
aside the necessity for civil government; and the
abolishing of ranks and titles, and the equal distribution of goods, making a common stock for all alike;
together with polygamy and other liberties, brought
upon them the dislike and persecution of civil rulers.
In A. D. 1536 Menno Simonis, who had been a Roman
Catholic priest, was chosen their leader, who modified
many of their tenets, rejected polygamy, visions, and
other more objectionable features, and reduced their
system to more consistency and order.
Their intolerance when in possession of Munster,
and onen avowal of intention to bring all the nations
1 Vol. ii. page 129.
2 Idem 131. See historians generally.




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.    403
of the earth under their dominion, had spread far and
wide, which excited unkindness and intolerance toward them in return. And not until the publication
of their faith in A. D. 1626, in a form still more improved, did they obtain the confidence of public rulers,
and the liberty to inculcate generally their doctrines
unmolested.
They were first introduced into England through
emigrants from Holland. Fuller in his " Church History," recites from Stow- -" In 1538 four Anabaptists,
three men and one woman, all Dutch, bore fagots at
Paul's Cross: And that three days after, a man and
woman of their sect were burnt in Smithfield. And
says, This year the name of this Sect first appears in
our English Chronicles." 1
Again, he tells us that —"In 1572, about the
16th year of Queen Elizabeth, a congregation of
Dutch Antipaedobaptists was discovered without Aldgate in London: whereof twenty-seven (27) were
taken and imprisoned." 2 Some of these it seems were
punished with death, and the congregation broken up.
In 1610, the Rev. John Smith, an Englishman,
returned from Holland with some other Puritans who
had embraced the faith of the Anabaptists, and set
up public worship. But after his death they dispersed, and a portion of them went back to Holland. 3
In 1638, the first permanent congregation of Anabaptists, or Baptists as they are now called, was organized in England under the pastoral care of the
Rev. Mr. Jesse. " They sent over one of their number, Mr. Blunt, to be immersed by one of the Dutch
1 Fuller's Ch. Hist., lib. 5, sec. 5.
2 Idem, lib. 9, sec. 3, —cited by Wall.
8 Murdock on AMosheim.




404        ORIGIN OF ANTIPAEDOBAPTISM,
Anabaptists of Amsterdam, that he might be qualified to baptize his friends in England after the same
manner. A strange and unaccountable conduct," says
Neal, " for unless the Dutch Anabaptists could derive
their pedigree in an uninterrupted line from the
Apostles, the first reviver of this usage must have
been unbaptized, and consequently not capable of
communicating the ordinance to others." 1
The first Baptist Church in America was formed
in A. D. 1639, in Providence, Rhode Island, by Roger
Williams; who not being able to obtain immersion
at the hands of one who had been immersed, first
immersed Mr. Ezekiel Hopkins, who afterwards immersed Mr. Williams.
But Mr. Williams afterwards, having come to the
conclusion that the succession of believer's immersion
had been lost, left the Baptist and turned SEEKER,
i. e., one who believes that the true Church Ministry
and ordinances are lost, and for which he is seeking.2
We cannot find that immersion was made essential to Baptism by the Anabaptists before the sixteenth century; nor that Infant Baptism was rejected
by any sect, branch of the Christian Church, or
writer, before the twelfth. After its rejection by
the Petrobrussians, their views were adopted by some
of the sects that were in existence before the time of
Pierre de Bruys, but that any one of them rejected it
before, we challenge the opposers of Infant Baptism to
prove, and pledge ourselves, if a single case can be produced, to acknowledge it as publicly as we here declare
our belief to the contrary.
1 Neal's History- cited by Summers, p. 5i.
2 Hildreth's History —also Memoirs of Roger Willians, by J. D.
Knowles.




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.            405
And we call upon those who are accustomed to
repeat the broad assertions to which we have alluded,
to examine the ground on which they stand. The
unqualified, dogmatic manner, in which many speak
of the mode and subjects of Baptism, is unwarranted
by Christian charity and the facts in the case. How
often do we hear Infant Baptism denounced as unscriptural and a great evil, with as little qualification
as when they condemn a gross sin I
If such persons will examine the whole question,
as they should do, and do not afterwards teach the
opposite doctrine, they will at least learn to speak of
such things with more modesty. It cannot be that
these men realize how much is implied in the doctrines vhich they teach. They assume not only that
the  Church, against which  Christ promised  " the
gates of hell should not prevail," became corrupt in
essentials, in the first age after the Apostles, but continued so until the sixteenth century, thereby destroying its "' tens of thousands," hence for a long period
there was no Church, because all, with here and there
exceptions, who were baptized in the missionary fields,
were baptized in infancy, which they do not admit is
Baptism; and as Baptism  is the only initiatory rite
by which they could become members of the Church,
therefore, God had no Church at the time of the great
Reformation. And none who were engaged in reforming the Church were members of the Church,
because they had all been baptized in their infancy!l
lAnd these missionaries having been baptized themselves in inlftncy,
were not baptized' at all according to the Baptist theory, hence could not
give lawful Baptism, and therefore Baptism was lost; and the Church had
come to an end long before the Reformation, and the " Gates of Hell "
had prevailed against it! although our Saviour expressly declared the contrary. So the Baptist theory is wrong, or our Saviour was a false prophet.
Read and see: Roger Williams in a few years saw this dilemma, and left




406          ORIGIN OF ANTIPEDOBAPTISM.
Is not this a serious thought to a believer in the
Bible, and member of the Christian Church, that
none of our Reformers, the translators of the Bible,
and the long galaxy of great and good men who have
written commentaries, and handed down so many
learned and pious works on the doctrines of our religion, and' workings of the Holy Spirit — not one of
them baptized and a member of Christ's Church?
No, not one — if the doctrine of the Baptists be true
- none of them were baptized, unless perchance a rebaptized one by the Anabaptists! What better argument needs the infidel?
But this is not all; none of us are now members of
Christ's visible Church, who have not been immersed
in water on a profession of faith. The whole question of membership is made to depend upon the
manner of performing one of the rites of the Church!
They carry out this principle, and allow no one to
commune with them in the sacrament of the Supper,
who has not been baptized according to their particular mnode. He cannot enjoy this great and essential
privilege of God's people — this distinctive right of
the members of Christ's body is not to be granted
him, because he has not been immersed!  Therefore, on the mode of performing a rite, depends not
only our membership in the Church of Christ, but the
existence of the Church itself! There is no Church
where there is no believer's immersion!
To what a condition does this bring the Church of
God on earth, and where does it place all the great
them [the Baptists], admitting that Baptism had been lost on their theory,
and could not be restored unless an angel should be sent from heaven with
a new commission! Which shall we adopt, Infant Baptism and the continuance of Christ's Church on earth, or a theoryv that excludes little chilIren, destroys the Church, and makes the Saviour a false prophet?




AND CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXAMINED.    407
and good men, whose names we so much reverence.
and to whose teaching we are so much indebted for
our Christian instruction? On the same principle,
where was the Church when no believers were baptized? And when the Church was lost, how was it
recovered? If when that was lost the Church became extinct, who but God could begin it again?
Roger Williams afterwards saw the dilemma into
which this theory of the Baptists must bring the
Church, and came to the conclusion that " Baptism
was lost, and could not be restored unless an angel
from Heaven was sent to give it to the world again,"
and left them. And if Baptism was lost, so was the
Church also, as the existence of the latter depended
on the former!
So much for the assumptions and theories of men.
If the continuance of the Church has depended on the
succession of Baptism, then it must have been the succession of Infant Baptism. Every historian will admit that.
A modern teacher of the Antipoedobaptist school
after making Infant Baptism responsible for nearly all
the evils that ever afflicted the Church of God, 1 congratulated his own Church, as less liable to corruptions and divisions than others. Is he really not
aware of the fact, that many more divisions and corruptions have sprung up among Antipsedobaptists
since their origin, than among all others? In the
very beginning, their creed was mingled with Manicheism and Socinianism, and a motley crowd of undigested principles, that required a long time to be
reduced to a consistent system. And scarcely were
they organized under their present name, before they
lDr. Howell.




408        CLAIMS OF BAPTISTS EXA.MINED.
were divided into General and Particular Baptists;
then Open Communion and Close Comnmunion. Baptists; Seventh Day Baptists, to which a long train
hIas followed, such as Seven Principle Baptists; Free
Will Baptists; Church of God Baptists; Hard Shell
Baptists; Soft Shell Baptists; Little Children Baptists; Christian Baptists; Ironside Baptists; Scotch
Baptists; Campbellite Baptists, or Reformers; Dunkers; Mormons, and a host of others, all of whom are
Antipoedobaptists.  Some of these may be the same
bodies, called by different names, but there are many
more, and no two hold precisely the same doctrines.
The author of the " Biographia Britannica Literaria,'"
informs us there are some Eighty sects, that have
sprung from the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century,
spread through Europe and America. And yet the
Baptist Church is based on a system that cannot be
corrupted!
Our Baptist brethren claim also to be the true
friends of Christian liberty; and boast of being the
first advocates of true religious toleration; but the
signs of the times do not augur that power in their
Ilands will be any less liable to abuse than in the
hanlds of others. Their proceedings in their Bible
sc) iety, the productions of some of their later
writers, and their manner of teaching in public and
in private, cause us to fear the scenes, of Munster
mnight be acted over again, power and opportunity
being afforded them.
And while we claim the liberty to defend our own
principles and our own firesides, we grant them the
same. And though we may have written earnestly
and plainly, we have endeavored to do so in a Christi-an spirit,,certainly as much so as our opponents. Nor




CONCLUDING REMARKS.            409
do we intend that difference of opinion where we have
the right to differ, shall affect our social intercourse.
We now close this work by earnestly requesting
our readers to weigh well the facts and principles
herein contained. The principle involved is of more
importance than is generally supposed. Our children
will never be trained and instructed as they ought to
be, till we learn the responsibility resting upon us, in
regard to them — until we dedicate them to God in
good faith, train them as his children, as Christians
from childhood, pledged and bound to the service of
their Redeemer.
A high standard of family religion, is a special need
at the present time, and always necessary to a healthful state of the Church and the rapid spread of the
Christian religion. The want of this causes trouble
and divisions in the family circle, and is the fruitful
source of schism and inactivity in the Church of God.
Unity of purpose and of effort is necessary to the success of every kind of organization among men. This
Christ and his Apostles taught, and prayed should be
the rule of the Christian Church.
But this union of hand and heart cannot be expected where one half of the house only, and sometimes less, are baptized members of Christ; and the
other portion informed that they are not qualified for
membership, and must wait until they arrive to a
certain age, or attain certain moral qualifications.
Consequently they feel more at liberty in the meantime to indulge idle thoughts and wicked suggestions,
and are gradually drawn into the habit of supplying
omissions of present duty by resolutions of future
amendment; while the seeds of evil spring up and
take deep root, before the faithful culture of Divine
Grace in the heart is begun.




410          CONCLUDING REMARKS.
And though the advocates of this system may then
teach their children many good things, and explain
the love of Christ and his willingness to save all who
come to Him; and the duty of every one to accept
Him as their Redeemer, and keep his commandments;
they cannot apply their teaching with the same force
on the consciences of such, as when appealing to those
who are baptized. For since these children know
they are regarded as yet too young, or not fit for
Baptism and to be numbered among the people of
God, they hold themselves free from the obligations
of church members; and the great enemy of truth
avails himself of such opportunities to fill their
minds with doubts and evil surmisings that too often
follow them through life and keep them from Baptism
throughout their sojourn on earth!
Caut the child baptized in infancy is the recipient
of the grace of the sacrament, and the special prayers
of God's people accompanying it, and taken into the
nursery and training of the Church, before evil principles get fast hold upon the mind. He is taught,
as soon as able to learn, the name of Christ and his
love for little children; how He redeemed them from
the condemnation of the law, and receives them into
covenant with Himself; —having paid the penalty
due sin, and organized a church into which to bring and
train them for the kingdom of heaven. And for the
inestimable privilege of being baptized and taken into
this nursery of piety and holy living - of being made
a member of Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, — his gratitude and
love are appealed to, and his obligation to follow the
precepts and live unto his Redeemer are felt and
acknowledged. He knows no period when the bless



CONCLUDING REMARKS.          411
ings of such a Redeemer were not upon him, and he
the object of his love and mercy.
And as his mental powers are developed, the teaching of God's word, by the operation of the Holy Spirit,
changes his natural love for sin into love for holiness.
And through the continued sanctifying influence of the
same Spirit on the means of grace, his love of holiness
increases, and he day by day is more and more conformed to the Divine image of his Saviour: his
piety deepens, its influence is felt by those around
him; its sanctifying power passes from him into the
family circle, then into the Church, and spreads its
transforming power among his fellow men, continuing
its work of love on earth after he has been transferred
to the kingdom of glory.
THE END



COMMENDATIONS.
From the Presiding Bishop of the House of Bishops (P. X. C.)
" The Rev. Mr. Hodges has succeeded in a very remarkable manner In condensing the substance of many ponderous tomes into one thin volume without impressing you with the dulness of an index. He does indeed give you in a short space the
cream of the whole matter..... How familiar does he render what before seemed
abstruse; how amusing what was before so very dull; and how charming and
sweet-tempered is the manner in which points are treated that have alienated half
the Protestant world. And as we go forward we begin to perceive how very instructive he is, how absolutely exhaustive indeed in all important points.  He
methodizes excellently, and modestly adorns most beautifully what he extracts
from others. IT Is THE BOOK OF A THOUSAND TO BE PUT INTO THE HANDS OF INQUIING
MYRIADS.'- B. B. SMITH.
From the late Bishop BURGEss, of JMaine.
" It is an exceedingly full, thorough, and satisfactory treatise on a most important subject, and renders a signal service to the cause of Divine truth. The best
and most popular work of the kind within my knowledge. It is a work, too, much
needed; and I hope will have an extensive circulation and repeated editions,...
for it is desirable that this book shall be, and I think will be, the manual of both
clergy and laity on this sacredly interesting subject." —GEGaoE BURGEYs.
From the Protestant Churchman.' This book supplies general readers with what has probably never before been
presented to the public in one volume. The author informs us that it is the result
of many years' thoughtful and laborious research; and we think embodies all that
need be said on the questions at issue. It is conclusive both for Infant Baptism,
and against the unwarrantable assumption of confining baptism to any particular
mode. The work ought to be widely circulated and read, not only in our own
church, but among all peedobaptists. It would not, in our opinion, injure our
Baptist brethren, nor dwarf their snirit." - Protestant Churchman.
From the Church Journal.
"The Church is indebted to the Rev. William Hodges for an excellent volume -
BAPTISM TESTED BY SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY,- in which the witness of the Church on
the subjects and modes of Baptism is clearly traced through the Fathers up to the
fountain head of Holy Writ; and the proof-texts of Scripture are carefully and
minutely analyzed: this testimony being elicited in a way peculiarly satisfactory
and convincing. We wish the book were in the hands of every Baptist. Churchmen interested in the controversy with that numerous and plausible denomination,
will find in this book more accurate information and sound argument than are to
be found in the same space of any book in our knowledge." - Church Journal.
From the American Quarterly Church Review.
" Tn this work 3Mr. HIodges has done good service to truth and to the Church,
showing conclusively, both by positive and negative proofs, that the baptism of
infants has the sanction of Gospel authority, and was never called in question by
any body of Christians using baptism at all before the twelfth century. The historical investigation of the subject seems to have been conducted with great im.
Partiality and complete success. There is no book within our knowledge that we




COMMENDATIONS.
regard as more likely to be useful and satisfactory to persons disturbed with doubts
upon the lawfulness of baptizing infants. We would also commend it to the candid
examination of our Baptist brethren," etc. - A. Q. Church Rteview.
From the Bishop of Maryland.
"M I  DEAR DOCTOR, —I am glad to learn that your new edition of the valuable'Test of Infant Baptism' is about to appear. It is much wanted; for among the
many excellent works that we have on the subject I know none that comprises the
same range of research and fulness of argument within the same limits. Its clearness of method, too, and facility of style tend to make it preeminently useful to the
many who need its information and instruction without having time or ability to
grapple with formidable controversial or historical treatises. I feel confident that
by its publication, with the improvements on which I know you to have bestowed
so much care and labor, you are rendering to the Church a service of great value.
Very faithfully," etc. - WILLa  R. WIITTIrNHAM, Bishop of Maryland.
From the Assistant Bishop of Maryland.
" MY DEAR DocTOR, — I am rejoiced to hear that there is to be a new edition of
INFANT BAPTISM TESTED BY SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY. It is a work of very great value,
and ought to be widely circulated. It needs no endorsement. For thoroughness,
beauty of order, keen analysis, and cumulative force, it occupies a place that no
other book extant can so well supply. I anticipate for it a ready sale. I shall do
all in my power to aid in its circulation." - WILLIAM PINKNEY, Assistant Bishop of
Maryland.
~Pom the Bishop of Virginia.
" REV. AND DEAR BROTHER, -Your volume on BAPTISM TESTED BY SCRIPTURE AND
HISTORY contains all that is necessary to a right understanding of the questions involved in the controversy. And the proofs are so well presented, and the objections
so fully and fairly considered, that with your book in hand, a careful and candid
inquirer may be left to reach a conclusion without fear as to the result. Yours,"
etc. - JOHN JOHNS.
From the Assistant Bishop of Virginia.
" BAPTISM TESTED BY SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY, by the Rev. William Hodges, D. D.,
Is an admirable book, on a plan well conceived and executed, and in my judgment
unanswerable. I trust it may be circulated and read throughout Virginia." —
FRANCIS M. WHITTLE, Assistant Bishop P. E. Church.
From the Bishop of Alabama.
"REV. AND DEAR BROTHER,- I am greatly rejoiced to learn that you have a third
edition of your admirable book in press. There is scarcely a day that I do not see
the use of such a book as yours; and I know no other work equal to it as a substitute. I am sure that its republication will be hailed with joy by the whole Church.
I shall see that it is for sale in all points of my Diocese." - RICHARD A. WILMER.
From the Bishop of North Carolina.
"REV. AND DEAR SIR, - I am glad to learn that another edition of your work on
Baptism is about to appear. It is, in my judgment, of uncommon merit; learned
and yet well adapted to common use; calm and charitable, but at the same time
decided and outspoken." - THOM.S ATKINsO3N.




COMMENDATIONS.
From the Bishop of Misissippi.
"REV. DR. HODaEs, - Permit me to thank you for your excellent work on Bap.
tism. It is a perfect' Thesaurus' on a subject which might well be termed Jundamental in the Christian scheme. The denial and rejection of infant baptism is a
latter day heresy which would have convulsed the Primitive Church throughout
her borders. In order to secure success to your work, it is only necessary that it
be impartially read. Very truly," etc. - W. M. GREEN.
From the Bishop of Texas.
"REV. AND DEAR BROTHER, - It affords me pleasure to add my testimony to your
invaluable work, INFANT BAPTISM TESTED BY SCRIPTURE AND HISTORY. It is the
most thorough and complete that we have, and in a form adapting it not only t~
the clergy but to the laity as well. It ought to be introduced as an elementary
text-book into our Theological Seminaries; for the subject of which it treats is one
that should be mastered by those preparing for the ministry in order that they may
be prepared to meet a question of the present day so largely discussed in this seotarian country of ours." -ALEx. GREGG.
From R. S. MASON, D. D., of Raleigh, N. C.
", My DEAR DR. HODGES, - I have learned with great pleasure that you are about
to publish a third edition of your excellent book on INFANT BAPTISM. It is SO full,
and yet so clear and condensed in the arguments you employ, that I have made
much use of it in my parish; and not being able to find any copies among the booksellers for some time past, I have been at a loss to supply its place with any book of
the same size equally useful. I hope for the cause of truth and your own benefit
that it will not be long before you are called upon to issue a fourth and succeeding
editions." -RICHARnD S. MASON.
From a long and successful Classical Teacher of Youth.' I was first a member of the Baptist Church, brought up in the midst of a Baptist community, and many of my dearest relatives and friends are members of that
Church.....  Consequently I brought up a large family of children without
baptism. But last spring I read Hodges carefully and I think candidly. I knew all
the Baptist arguments, for I had read Carson as carefully before. I had seen most
of the arguments of Hodges too, but never so admirably arranged; never so linked
together, with constantly accumulating power; and the result was the complete removal of all doubt, and the thorough conviction that Infant Baptism is according to
the mind of Christ."- PIxz PowaEs.
From the Rt. Rev. F. D. HUNTINGTON, D. D., Bishop of Central New York.
"I join cordially in the strong testimonials to its excellence found at the close
of the volume; and I shall place it on the list of books to be examined by candidates for Holy Orders in the Diocese."- F. D. HUNTINGTON.
12mo, 421 pages.................... Price $2.00.
Sent by mail, postage paid, on receipt of price.




SHILOH; Or, WITHOUT AND WITHIN.
By W. M. L. JAY. Sixth Thousand, 12mo, 488 pages, $2.00.
A Stori of Common Life; beautifully written, with quiet Pictures of New England
Farm and Parish I ifc.
" A venerable and beloved brother in the ministry having earnestly commended
it to our reading. we now desire not only to thank him most heartily for the pleasure
and profit which we have enjoyed in its perusal. but to pass over his commendation
to every one of our readers." - Standard of the Cross.
"We have many popular books in our parish library, but none doing more solid
good every day than' Shiloh'- a book which people like so much that they often
purchase a copy after reading it." — Gospel Messenger.
" Its value as a work of fiction has been abundantly established. The struggle cf
good and evil in us is skillfully drawn. It is one of the few fictions in which the
love-story portion is quite unnecessary for the majority of readers."- Church Jour.
ncl.
" No praise of ours can add to the reputation it has already acquired. It il de.
lightful to get hold of a good, bright, thorough Church story, such as this, after
the dreary trash we are called upon to wade through. It is a permanent addition
to our Church literature, and should be in every parish library." - Pacific Churchman.
" It is a sweet, simple story of New England country life, showing what one earnest worker for Christ and His Church can do to build up the waste places, and kindle
into a flame the smouldering fires of devotion and work. A city girl, from considerations of health, chooses to spend her summer at Shiloh. a country village, rather
than at Saratoga, the fashionable watering-place; and this is the history of her life,
as written to her distant friend. The story is well told; the characters are well delin-ated; the pathetic and the humorous are skillfully blended; and we have both
laughed and wept in reading it. We look forward with great pleasure to the future
products of the author's pen, and are very sure that her place will be an exalted
one among the writers of our time." - Maryland Church Record.
" I Shiloh' I like more than ever, and I greatly rejoice to see it in a permanent
form. it is an achievement-a real one - to write to the times and to write as one
should; to write a story (so to speak), and keep up interest without cheap sensation;
to write religious fiction, and yet to avoid platitudes; and all this you have done,
and I congratulate you.  Now give us what Oliver Twist asked for-more."Bishop Williams, qf Conn.
"' I greatly like the atmospheric infusion, instead of the disconnected intrusion,
of the religious element, and the influence of the Church. There are parts of it I
hllould like to preach, and the whole book is far be) ond any story )et written of, or
in, the American Church." -Bishop Doane, of Albany.
"' IShiloh' is a twofold success. The contention between Bona and alalo constantly evokes valuable truths which strike us in a quite original light, and the
social and natural features of rural life in New England have rarely been more pleasingly presented. The style is really charming. and pays the reader the complimlent
of care in the choice of epithets and the arrangement of the thoughts. Like a wellbred man, the author comes into the reader's presence in his best apparel." - New
York Evening Post.
- This is a book of decided merit. It is well written, and the authoress gives evidetice of unusual descriptive powers.     B..   ut'Shiloh' is also designed, we
think, to mnake apparent that no duty performed, no service offered, is too slight to
be acceptable to God.' Whatever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might;'
or, to use Mrs. Jay's words,' The sterling usefulness of doing quiet duties in quiet
ways, unobtrusively and uncomplainingly, is one which, though the world may snake
little account of it, God will surely bless and abundantly reward.' "- New York
Herald.
"' Shiloh: is a novel with a purpose, and that, too, of the most exalted kind. It,w*ls irn a spirit at once earnest and sincere, with some of the deepest problems that
eru Occu,) hu:llanity, touching here and there, with a lighter hand, upon social




SHILOII; OR, W'ITHOUT  AND  WITHIN.
foibles and individual eccentricities. On the whole,' Philoh' may be characteriad
as belonging to the healthiest type of modern fiction, anld, though pusg-essinlg nlo
claims to striking originality in design or execution, as exhibiting a f eshness, f
4t, le and sentiment that will commend it to the mass of reflective readers." - New
Yotk Times.
" lVe can award this book - what is, after all, our highest praise - a place amuong
our missionary books." - New York Mail.
" The scene is laid in a remote New England town, and the' fortunes of a weak
parish are described. There is much cleverness in drawing a variety of character,
and some sharp contrasts are presented just such as one often sees around him. A
quiet, intelligent, and well-founded religious faith influences to a lite tha t,abounds
in good works, and the story suggests to readers how they may go and do likewise,
and benefit those that are around us.  Event in the sparsely populated country
there is ample field for domestic missionary work, and if' Shiloh' is read as it
should be, it will have a beneficial ilfluence in inciting to these much-needed labors." — New York Commercial Advertiser.
" It has decided power and point in it, and we design to make some large extracts
from it, to give our readers a taste of its merits." - Nesw York Observer.
" Its pictures of New England life and people are singularly faithful. Nothing
could sell be more affecting than the story of Maggie Warren's death-bed. The
author has a fine artist-feeling which displays itself unostentatiously, but with a
pervading and delightful presence." - Christian Union.
" A more carefully written book we have rarely seen. Its composition has evidently been a labor of love; and every paragraph bears evidence of having been
written with the care which only a man of leisure and of earnest thought can cnnmmand. In many respects it is a remarkable book, and will amply repay the reader.
It is to be read; not for the narrative, though that is by no means without interest,
but as a storehouse of earnest thought and valuable suggestion." -TThe Citizen ard
Rlound Table.
" In order to get back'the roses' which a gay and tiresome New York winter,
together with souse hidden heart-sorrow, has taken from her cheeks, the heroine has
come to board for the summer at a farm-house in the little village of Shilob. And
we have, in this book, the history of that sunulmer as she writes it out in letters to
a friend. After the summer is ended, she says:' I came to it seeking rest. I got,
first work. then peace, finally joy.' And we know, when we have read her letters,
that the work was the doing of whatever good she could find to do among the people
with whom she was thrown; that the peace was that quietness of soul which camtle
when she had gained the victory over self; and the joy, the blessing of a love which
she had thougut lost to her forever. In closing our notice, we repeat our conviction of having been brought in contact with a writer of more than ordinary power,
with a deep, thoughtful, spiritual nature, which has imparted to' Shiloh' so much
of its own intensity and earnestness as cannot fail to make the events of the story
linger long in the memory of the reader, and their many lessons help him very
often in his daily living." -Boston Daily Advertiser.
" It is a sweet book, and the author has made herself a name by it. We beg her
to continue as she has begun. There is a high seat for her in American literature;
and if she is wise, she will yet occupy it." - Providence Press.
" The style is singularly simple, clear, and graceful, while the interest and variety
of situation, incidents, and character, are such as to secure the reader's gratified attention throughout." - Chicago Interior.
"We have been very much pleased v ith' Shiloh.'  It is written with power and
sweetness. It breathes throughout, a tender, pure, and Christian spirit, seluoin obtruded in the sermonizing fashion; but permeating the whole book, and giving it
what may be styled, a moral fragrance. The name of the author is untfaniliar to
us, but unless we are much mistaken, it is destined to become the name of a very
popular author." - Sacramento Record.
Sent by mail, postage paid, on receipt of price
E. P. Dutton  &  Co, Publishers, 713  Broadway, New  York