NE of the questions about baptism concerning which there is difference and discussion is as to the proper subject of the ordinance--that is, who may be scripturally baptized? It is about universally admitted that a penitent believer in Jesus Christ, who has not been baptized, is a scriptural subject of the ordinance. It might be worth while to mention that some Baptists who take pride in being somewhat exclusive try to make it appear that even more than penitence and belief in Jesus, on the part of the candidate, is necessary--that is, what they call an "experimental knowledge of sins forgiven." But there is nothing in the scriptures about any such "experimental knowledge" as a prerequisite to baptism, and those who profess to have it have never succeeded in making anything intelligible of it. What is an "experimental knowledge of sins forgiven?" We are told that it is a certain state of feeling, or condition of soul, and we have no right or inclination to call in question any one's state of feelings; for the feelings of a man are known only to "the spirit of the man which is in him." But who is [412] authorized to interpret any state of feeling as an "evidence of sins forgiven?" Forgiveness of sins is one of "the things of God, that none knoweth save the Spirit of God." How are we to know the things in the mind of God? The Apostle Paul tells us: "But we (the apostles) received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us by God; which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth." (I Cor. ii:12, 13.) God conveys to us, then, a knowledge of the things in his mind, which he freely gives us, by his Spirit, in words; so that no man is left to interpret a mere state of feeling as the evidence of sins forgiven. If each man's interpretation of his own state of feeling is the only evidence he has of his pardon, then it would be difficult to show what advantage, in this respect, the Christian has of the Jew, or of the Mohammedan, or of the Pagan; would it not? But we intend no discussion now of the evidence of pardon; and refer to this matter only to pay a passing notice to a seeming exception to the general admission that a penitent believer in Jesus Christ is a scriptural subject of baptism. That's all now.

      While, as has been said, there is very general agreement that penitent believers are scriptural subjects of baptism, some say that only such persons are. Then there are others who contend that infant children also are proper subjects of the ordinance, [413] These are the two sides to the most important point of difference on the question. It might be worth while to note the fact that those who believe in and practice infant baptism, so-called, are divided among themselves as to the extent of it, scripturally. Some confine the right of it to infants of believing parents; others to infants of parents one of whom is a believer; and others extend it to all infants. We shall not stop, however, to discuss these questions of difference among pedo-baptists, but will leave that to them; while we shall discuss the primary and more fundamental question as to whether any infants are scriptural subjects of this ordinance. It being admitted generally by pedo-baptists that penitent believers who have not been baptized are proper subjects of the ordinance, the only question between them and disciples about the subject of baptism is as to the baptism of infants; and in the discussion of this question, the disciples are in the negative. So that my discourse on the subject of baptism, if to any purpose at all, will really be one against infant baptism.

      To establish such a practice as the baptism of infants, it has been held and it seems to me properly and correctly, that there are but three possible methods of proof--that is, of course, from the Protestant standpoint. With such persons as believe in high churchism, the authority of the church is [414] all-sufficient. But with these I shall not reason in this discourse. If I were going to argue with them about infant baptism, or about sprinkling and pouring for baptism, or about any one of several other questions, I would begin with the fundamental question of church authority.

      The three methods of proof among Protestants, then, are (1) Precept of scripture, (2) Example of scripture, and (3) Inference of scripture. By precept of scripture is meant an express commandment, recorded in scripture, either by our Lord himself of by someone unquestionably authorized by him, that infants should be baptized. Such a commandment would settle the question in favor of the practice in the judgment of all who recognize the supreme authority of the scripture in all matters of our religion. By example of scripture is meant a recorded instance of the baptism of an infant with the approval either of our Lord himself or any one of the inspired men of the New Testament. This also would settle the question in favor of the practice with all who make the Bible the supreme authority upon the subject. By inference from scripture is meant a logical deduction from scripture either that infants were baptized by our Lord or some one or more of his authorized teachers in New Testament times, or that he or they said that they should be.

      But now of the first and second methods: What can be claimed as to express scripture precept or example for the baptism of infants? Let us attend [415] to this question for a few moments. I am not going myself to answer this question, but to take the answer from pedo-baptists themselves, and from such as are confessedly eminent and scholarly among them.

      Bishop Burnett.--"There is no express precept, or rule, given in the New Testament for baptism of infants." Exposit of Thirty-nine Articles, Art. xvvii.

      Dr. Wall.--"Among all the persons that are recorded as baptized by the apostles there is no express mention of any infant." Hist. Inf. Bap. Introduct. p. 1.

      Luther.--" It cannot be proved by the sacred scripture that infant baptism was 'instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the Apostles'." In A.R's Vanity of Inf. Bap. part ii. p. 8.

      Samuel Palmer. "There is nothing in the words of the institution, nor in any after accounts of the administration of this rite, respecting the baptism of infants; there is not a single precept for, nor example of, this practice through the whole New Testament." Ans. to Dr. Priestley's Address on the Lord's Supper, p. 7.

      Bishop Sanderson.--"The baptism of infants, and the sprinkling of water in baptism instead of immersing the whole body, must be exterminated from the Church, according to their principle; i.e., that nothing can be lawfully performed, much less required, in the affairs of religion which is not either [416] commanded' by God in the scripture, or at least recommended by a laudable example." De Obligat. Conscient. Prelect iv. pp. 17, 18.

      Dr. Freeman.--"The traditions of the whole Catholic church confirm us in many of our doctrines; which, though they may be gathered out of scripture, yet are not laid down there in so many words: such as infant baptism, and of episcopal authority above presbyters." Preservative against popery, Title iii: p. 19.

      Walker.--"Where authority from the scripture fails there the authority of the Church is to be held as a law . . . It doth not follow that our Saviour gave no precept for the baptizing of infants, because no such precept is particularly expressed in the scripture; for our Saviour spoke many things to his disciples concerning the kingdom of God, both before his passion and also after his resurrection, which are not written in the scriptures; and who can say but that among those unwritten sayings of his, there might be an express precept for infant baptism." Modest Plea for Inf. Bap. pp. 221, 368.

      Mr. Fuller.--"We do freely confess that there is neither express precept, nor precedent, in the New Testament for the baptizing of infants . . . There were many things which Jesus did which are not written; among which, for aught appears to the contrary, the baptism of these infants (Luke xviii:15, 16, 17), might be one of them." Infants Advocate, pp. 71, 150. [417]

      I have made these quotations second-hand, from a work by Abraham Booth, entitled Pedo-baptism Examined, Vol. i, pp. 303-307. Booth was an English Baptist. I have never heard the correctness of his quotations questioned, though his work has been read and used for more than a half-century. I might read some more extracts, from pedo-baptist authors, of the same import, from the same volume, but what I have read are quite sufficient for my purpose. I would not be misunderstood as to the use of these authors. Most of them, while they accept the scriptures as authoritative in religion, believed also in tradition and the authority of the church in such matters as the baptism of infants, etc: etc., as their own language shows. They were all pedo-baptists; that is, they all believed in and practiced infant baptism; but they did not claim any express scriptural precept or example in its support. And it is for this purpose--to show this fact--that I have adduced their writings. With them tradition and church authority were all-sufficient authority in such matters. And while they were, in a sense, Protestants, they did not fully endorse what we now call the great principle of Protestantism--"that the Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of Protestants "or if they did, they did not extend that principle to such matters as the baptizing of infants, and of sprinkling instead of immersing. The supposed unwritten sayings and acts of our Lord handed down to us by the Church, and backed by its authority [418] such matters, was all the authority these men wanted for infant baptism and sprinkling for baptism. But such authority will not do for those who fully endorse and live up to the Protestant principle. If we are all to have the liberty of turning our imaginations loose among the supposed unwritten sayings and doings of our Lord and his apostles, we can exhume thence a good deal more than infant baptism. And if we are to trust the traditions and authority of the Catholic church in bringing down to us those unwritten things, we shall not be able to stop short of popery and all its claims.

      In the next place, we shall see what some very eminent and scholarly pedo-baptists, who repudiate tradition and church authority altogether, have to say on the question as to scripture precept and example for infant baptism--some more recent writers than those quoted from Mr. Booth.

      I read from the Southern Review (Methodist) Vol. xiv: No. 30, pp. 334-336. In an article on the "History of Infant Baptism" the editor, A. T. Bledsoe, LL.D., says: "It is an article of our faith, that the baptism of young children (infants) is in anywise to be retained in the church, as most agreeable to the institution of Christ." But yet, with all our searching we have been unable to find, in the New Testament, a single express declaration, or word, in favor of infant baptism. We justify the rite, therefore, solely on the ground of logical inference, and not on any express word of Christ or his apostles. [419] This may, perhaps, be deemed, by some of our readers, a strange position for a pedo-baptist. It is by no means, however, a singular opinion. Hundreds of learned pedo-baptists have come to the same conclusion; especially since the New Testament has been subjected to a closer, more conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly practiced by controversialists." Then, to justify his statement that his was not "a singular opinion," the writer cites other distinguished pedo-baptist writers as follows:

      Knapp's Theology.--"There is no decisive example of this practice in the New Testament . . . There is, therefore, no express command for infant baptism found in the New Testament, as Morus justly concedes." (Vol. ii: p. 524.)

      Dr. Jacob.--"However reasonably we may be convinced that we find in the Christian scriptures 'the fundamental idea from which infant baptism was afterward developed,' and by which it may now be justified, it ought to be distinctly acknowledged that it is not an apostolic ordinance."

      Neander.--"Originally baptism was administered to adults; nor is the general spread of infant baptism at a later period any proof to the contrary; for even after infant baptism had been set forth as an apostolic institution its introduction into the general practice of the church was but slow. Had it rested upon apostolic authority, there would have been a difficulty in explaining its late approval, and that [420] even in the third century, it was opposed by at least one eminent father of the church."

      Dr. Bledsoe, after making quotations just read, adds: "We might, if necessary, adduce the admission of many other profoundly learned pedo-baptists, that their doctrine is not found in the New Testament, either in express terms or by implication from any portion of its language." And again he says: "But what we wish, in this connection, to emphasize most particularly, is the wonderful contrast between the silence of Christ and the everlasting clamors of his church. Though he uttered not one express word on the subject of infant baptism, yet, on this very subject, have his professed followers filled the world with sound and fury. The apostles imitated his silence. But yet, in spite of all this, have the self-styled 'successors of the apostles,' and the advocates of their claims, made the universal Church, and all the ages, ring controversies, loud and long and deep, respecting the rite of infant baptism."

      I will read one other testimony on this point--that is, showing that the eminent and scholarly among the pedo-baptists, who do not accept the authority of the church or of tradition, frankly concede that the practice in question has no scripture precept or example in its support. I read from a little volume entitled "Doctrinal Tracts," published for the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal church, containing an article on baptism especially for the volume, and to take the place of one [421] by Mr. Wesley which had been published in the little volume for almost a generation before. The new tract was prepared by a committee appointed by conference for that very purpose. Here is what that new tract says on the point in hand:

      "They (anti-pedo-baptists) object that there is no explicit warrant for baptizing infants in the New Testament, and they conclude that infants should not be baptized. By an explicit warrant they mean some express declaration either that infants should be or that they were baptized . . . That there is no such explicit warrant for the baptism of infants is freely acknowledged." (Doct. Tracts p. 250.)

      It is needless to multiply concessions on this point. Enough has been adduced to show that many of the most eminent and scholarly pedo-baptists admit what we claim, namely, that there is no express scripture precept or example for infant baptism. There are, we concede, many among the advocates of this practice, who, for want of the necessary information, it may be, or, possibly, for want of sufficient candor, refuse to make this admission. But such persons can do little else than wrangle about it. At any rate they have failed to show even to their own brethren the precept or example.

      then, is the only remaining method of proof by which any respectable effort can be made to sustain this practice. Hence said Dr. Bledsoe correctly and [422] candidly: "We justify the rite, therefore, solely on the ground of logical inference, and not on any express word of Christ or his apostles." And now, what shall we say of this method of sustaining such a practice as the one in question? Is "logical inference," be it ever so strong as such, a sufficient ground for it? Has God made it the duty of Christian parents to have their infant children baptized and left them to find out that such is their duty solely by logical inference? In other words, has he made it their duty, without saying one word about it in his entire revelation to men? Now, if infant baptism were a thing of indifference, a mere matter of expediency, and hence one that needed no proof, then, I grant that we might accept and practice it solely on the ground of logical inference. But it is no matter of this kind. Any one can see that it is calculated to, and that to the extent of its prevalence it does, completely set aside the baptism of believers. If it ever comes to prevail universally over Christendom, then, thereafter there will be no such thing in Christendom as the baptism of believers. And there will stand the express words of our Lord in the commission, "He that believes and is baptized," completely nullified--nullified, too, by a practice justified solely on the ground of logical inference! Infant baptism will then stand as the only institution under heaven having written upon it "the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And it will stand solely on the ground of logical [423] inference! Can a logical inference do all this? If so, it seems to me that it ought to be no doubtful one. It ought to be such an inference as all logicians can see. And even then there would be a very grave if not insuperable difficulty about it, arising out of the fact that all parents are not good logicians. Logic, I know, is supposed to be perfect; but there are very few people who perfectly understand it.

      There are very few perfect logicians. People differ often and widely as to logical inferences. They often draw different conclusions from the same premises--make different inferences from the same facts. This, true enough, may not be the fault of logic, but the misfortune of the people, that they are not all good logicians.

      There are inferences, I grant, so very plain that all responsible persons must see them. But is infant baptism supported by any such inferences? Has there ever been a logical inference drawn in support of this practice that even all pedo-baptists could see? I believe it can be shown that every inference that has ever been brought to support this practice has been disputed even by those who practice it. True, it may be, that they all justify their practice in their own estimation by inference, but they do not all agree on any one inference. There is no one inference that is not disputed by some of them. Then how can they expect unbelievers in the practice to adopt it upon an inference that is so doubtful that it is disputed even by some who believe in the [424] practice? Some believe upon one inference, disputed by others; and others believe upon another inference, disputed by some. And yet they would all nave us believe upon such proof, that God has made it the duty of all Christian parents to have their children baptized.

      In the next place we shall notice a few of the arguments, or inferences, brought forward to support this practice. Here is one contributed by Dr. Bledsoe, in the same article from which we have already quoted his concession as to precept and example:

      "Since the first disciples of Christ, as native Jews, never doubted that children were to be introduced into the Israelitish church by circumcision, it was natural that they should include children also in baptism, if Christ did not expressly forbid it . . . It was not only natural that they should, it was absolutely certain. that they would, include children in baptism, as the event has shown. Yet Christ foreseeing the event, did not forbid it. Hence it must have been agreeable to his will." There l that's an inference which in the judgment of Dr. Bledsoe and some other great men is quite sufficient to justify infant baptism. It has failed, however, to convince the doubters; and is not satisfactory to all believers in infant baptism--believers on other grounds. Let us see: It assumes that owing to the bias the custom of circumcising infant children under the former dispensation had given to their minds, [425] "the first disciples of Christ, as native Jews" began the practice of baptizing infants. But is this true? Do all pedo-baptists, even, accept it? No indeed! Let us hear Martin Luther on it: "It cannot be proved by the sacred scripture that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles." As a matter of historical fact infant baptism was not begun by Jewish Christians at all; but in Africa, and long after the "first disciples of Christ" were dead. Many of the "first disciples of Christ, as native Jews," with too strong a leaning to the circumcision of infant children, and to Mosaism, generally, did a good many things they ought not to have done, and brought a good deal of trouble into the church of God; but the introduction of infant baptism is not one of the sins they will have to answer for. Give every one his due.

      But the Doctor says, "Christ foreseeing the event, did not forbid it. Hence it must have been agreeable to his will." There is a sweeping inference for you! If that justifies infant baptism, it must also justify every event foreseen and not forbidden by Christ. Logic is always fair. Those who undertake to inform us about the foreknowledge of God--experts in this field--tell us that he foresaw all things that come to pass. Then all things that come to pass, which he has not expressly forbidden, are "agreeable to his will." But that proves too much for Dr. Bledsoe, or for anybody else, excepting perhaps some very old Calvinists: and, proving too [426] much, it proves nothing at all. Just think of it ! Setting aside the command of God, that believers should be baptized, and justifying the substitution of infant baptism for it "solely on the ground of logical inference," and no better inference than that "Christ foreseeing the event, did not forbid it hence it must have been agreeable to his will!"

      Or, as our pedo-baptist friends prefer to call it, "the inference from the baptism of whole families recorded in the New Testament." Among the unlearned of the rank and file there is perhaps no inference more confidently relied on as justifying the practice in question than this one. With them a household means exactly a family, in the modern sense; and a family always includes at least one infant; family baptism therefore involves infant baptism, as one of the inexorable necessities, of logic. Well, let us see about it.

      It has never yet been shown, that anybody knows of, that the word "house" or "household" (from the same Greek word), in the New Testament, ever means family, in the sense of parents, or parent and children. This has only been assumed; and assumed, too, contrary to very significant facts. It is a fact, that when a writer of New Testament times meant to include little children in any statement, he did not rely upon the word house or household to do it; but even where the word house was used, he would [427] use other words in the same sentence to indicate little children. Of course, I speak not now of writers in the New Testament, but of writers as nearly contemporaneous as we can get. Let us read a few examples from the "Pastor of Hermas," a production of Hermas, the same, most likely, mentioned by Paul (Rom. xvi:14), as his contemporary. In his work, divided into Commandments and Chapters, Hermas says:

      "Now I say to you, if you do not keep them, but neglect them, you will not be saved, nor your children, nor your house." (Com. xii: Chap. 3.) Again he says: "These things, therefore, shall you thus observe with your children, and all your house." (Similitude v: Chap. 3.) Once more, the same writer says: "Only continue humble, and serve the Lord in all purity of heart, you and your children, and your house." (Sim. vii.)

      A little later lived Ignatius, the father of Episcopacy. He wrote a letter of Polycarp, and in that epistle (Chap. viii) he says, "I salute all by name, and in particular the wife of Epitropus, with all her house and children." Now, we can get no nearer the New Testament writers on this side than these writers take us, and we see that by "House" they did not mean "children." When they meant to include children they said children, even though it was the next word after house and in the same sentence. And what has been said of these writers immediately succeeding the New Testament was true [428] of Moses. He says: (Gen. xlvii:24.) "Ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field, and for your food, and for them of your households and for food for your little ones." Here we find Moses the giver of God's law, using the word "household" as not including "little ones." When he means both "households" and "little ones," he says both in the same sentence.

      These quotations are sufficient to show that the word "house" or "household" did not necessarily include "children" or "little ones," as, when they were meant to be included in any statement, they were named in addition to household in the same statement, and in the same sentence. Just what the writers of those times did mean to include in the word household we may not be able to determine to our entire satisfaction: nor is it necessary that we should do so to refute the pedo-baptists in their effort to infer infant baptism from the baptism of households, which is all I am aiming to do.

      While on this question about households let us go a little further, and examine its use in the New Testament.

      1. In Acts x:2, Luke, speaking of Cornelius, the centurion, says he was "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his house." This language precludes the idea of infant children in the house of Cornelius, by predicating of "all his house" what [429] infants are clearly incapable of. He feared God with all his house.

      2. In Acts xviii:8, we are told that, "Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house." Here again, clearly infants are precluded, as faith is predicated of "all his house." Infants could not have "believed on the Lord."

      3. In Acts xvi:32-34, "And they (Paul and Silas) spake unto him (the jailer at Philippi) 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." In this case, the word of the Lord was spoken to all in the house; and all "rejoiced, believing in God." No infants in this house.

      4. In Acts xvi:15, we are told of Lydia that "she was baptized and all her house." There is nothing said here either to include or preclude infants. We have a right to demand, however, in view of what we have seen as to use of house and household, that they should be named, before granting that they are included in the statement here made. We have also the further right, to turn back and read the commission under which the apostles were working "Preach the gospel to every creature: he that believes and is baptized shall be saved." The presumption [430] is that they didn't transcend the authority given by that commission. We have a right to note the fact that Lydia, was "of the city of Thyatira;" that consequently she was a long way from home, trading in purple at Philippi, and that even if she was a married woman, and even if she was a mother, and even if any one or more of her children were infants, she would not likely have them with her. And this is the only case of household baptism on which pedo-baptist debaters now make any stand at all!

      5. Paul says (I Cor. 1:16), "I baptized also the household of Stephanas." No word or words added to include infants, as was the custom when they were meant to be included, as we have seen. Now, we have a right to the commission here also. And we have a right also to read the account of Paul's visit to Corinth where he baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the "household of Stephanas," as given in. Acts xviii:7, 8. Here it is: "And he (Paul) departed thence and entered into a certain man's house, named Justus, one that worshipped God, whose house joined hard to the synagogue. And Crispus the chief ruler of the synagogue believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized."

      There is another fact in connection with this "household of Stephanas" that ought to be noted, which brings us to another instance of the use of household in the New Testament. [431]

      6. In his first epistle to the Corinthians, the same in which he says he baptized the household of Stephanas, the apostle speaks again of this same "house," on this wise: (xvi:15, 16) "I beseech you, brethren, as ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints, that ye submit yourselves unto such."

      Now, this epistle was written not more than five years after Paul's first visit to Corinth, when he baptized the "household of Stephanas;" and here he speaks of the "house of Stephanas" as having "addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints," and tells the brethren there to "submit yourselves unto such." In the persons here included in the house of Stephanas were infants, any of them, when baptized five years before, they had come up to the "ministry of the saints" pretty rapidly. So much on this passage as it relates to the baptism of the house of Stephanas. Then, secondly, we certainly have here another use of "house" from which infants are precluded.

      We have noticed six New Testament households, now, and have seen that from five of them, the very language in which they are described, excludes infants. And in the other case, that of Lydia, the circumstances are strongly against our pedo-baptist friends in the use they attempt to make of it. Can infant baptism be justified by such an inference as this is? Why, many learned pedo-baptists [432] themselves admit the insufficiency of it. For instance, in Knapp's Theology, it is said: "There is no decisive example of this practice in the New Testament; for it may be objected against those passages where the baptism of whole families is mentioned, (viz: Acts x:42-48; xvi:15-33; 1. Cor. i:16), that it is doubtful whether there were any children in those families, and if there were, whether they were then baptized." (Vol. ii, p. 524.) So that even in this great pedo-baptist's estimation this inference is doubly doubtful: doubtful whether any infants were in the households; and if there were, doubtful whether they were then baptized. Can an inference thus confessedly doubly doubtful be relied on to convince the unbeliever in the practice?

      Just what the argument is, in this case, it is not easy to state right definitely and satisfactorily. It has nothing like the antiquity of, other inferences for the practice in question, and it has been relied on mostly by controversialists in the discussion of the question, in later years. These controversialists are by no means agreed among themselves as to what the argument is. In their discussions they have a good deal to say about the church, as to when and where it began, differing among themselves as widely as from Abel to Abraham. They claim that the church of the old dispensation is identical with that of the new, in some sense; but as to what sense and to what extent the alleged identity obtains they again [433] differ among themselves widely, holding nothing in common that needs to be replied to by the opponent of infant baptism. They very generally contend that in some sense--and here there is no agreement among them as to what sense--baptism now stands to its subject and the church as circumcision did under the former dispensation. They generally agree that as infants were circumcised under the former dispensation they ought to be baptized under the Christian dispensation. The strong point, the one in which they all agree, is that infants were circumcised by the command of God under the former dispensation. They all emphasize this unquestioned fact; and seem to think there ought to be something in it, somewhere or somehow in favor of infant baptism; but just what, or just how, or just where, they are by no means of one kind. Some of them have it, that circumcision was initiative to the church under the former dispensation, and that baptism is initiative now; and that infants were formerly initiated by circumcision, and should now be initiated by baptism. Others tell us that circumcision was only a recognition--or declaration--of church membership under the former dispensation; and that baptism is a recognition, or declaration, of membership now; and that as circumcision was extended to infants, so baptism ought to be. They go on to argue, that infants were put in the church when it was organized in the family of Abraham--that is, such as say the church was then organized--and that no law has [434] since been given for putting them out; and that they were then initiated (some say--others, that their membership was recognized) by circumcision; and that as baptism has superseded circumcision, infants should now be initiated (or recognized) by baptism. That is about the process of the argument. Now, the great strength and merit of the argument is, that it is of such a character as to open up an immense field for pedo-baptist debaters to skirmish in. They can find a good deal to say about "covenants," about "churches," about "ordinances," and occasionally something about "infants;" and the field is large enough for them to find a good deal to talk about without having anything to say about "infant baptism"--the real point in their line of battle.

      I have seen and heard a good many of the champions of infant baptism tug through the tedious processes of this alleged argument from the covenants, and church identity, and circumcision, with all the variations; and I have never yet heard it without finding my mind impressed most of all with the question: Is it possible that the God of infinite wisdom has made it the duty of Christian parents to have their infant children baptized and left them to find out that it is their duty by such a process as this? It seems to me that this question alone ought to condemn the alleged argument forever in the estimation of sensible and fair-minded people. Other insuperable objections to the argument are: [435]

      1. "The covenant of circumcision" (Acts vii:8) was a covenant "in the flesh" of Abraham and his descendants, (Gen. xvii:12, 13); while the "new covenant" is in the spirit, and knows no flesh. (Heb. viii:8-12.) The covenant of circumcision embraced Abraham, and such as were born in his house and bought with his money; while the new covenant embraces believers in Jesus Christ, without respect to Abraham's flesh or money, or anybody else's flesh or money. (2. Cor. v:16, 17--Gal. iii:26-29.)

      2. When God wanted parents to have their children circumcised in the old covenant, he said so in so many words: "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you." (Gen. xvii:12.) Had he wanted infant children baptized in the new covenant, he would have said so, undoubtedly. Let us try a pedo-baptist argument just here, for their benefit: The Lord certainly foresaw that many Christian parents would refuse to have their infants baptized without either a scripture precept or example, yet, "foreseeing the event," he did not give the command. "Hence it must have been agreeable to his will" that they should so refuse. How will that do for an inference against infant baptism?

      3. Under the former covenant only male infants, born of Abraham's flesh or bought with his money, were circumcised; while under the new covenant pedo-baptists contend for the baptism of infants without respect to sex, flesh, or money! How is [436] that for identity! and for baptism instead of circumcision?

      4. If the Church is one and the same under both dispensations, and baptism now sustains the same relation to it that circumcision did under the former dispensation, then why were all circumcised persons commanded to be baptized as well as uncircumcised ones? Why were the Jews twice initiated into the church--or twice recognized? Could they not hold over, from the old to the new dispensation (the church being the same) in virtue of their initiation or recognition by circumcision? They didn't. And as they didn't hold over was there not a loss of identity? Either there was a loss of identity, or the church held over from one dispensation to the other without members.

      Let us hear what one of the most eminent and scholarly of all American pedo-baptists had to say on this inference from circumcision. I mean Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary, Andover. He says: "How unwary, too, are many excellent men in contending for infant baptism on the ground of the Jewish analogy of circumcision. . . . . Numberless difficulties present themselves in our way, as soon as we begin to argue in such a manner as this."--Com. O. T. ch. 22. And again he says: "The covenant of circumcision furnishes no ground for infant baptism."--Lecture on Gal. [437]

      After all, this is the real ground of the practice. It was on this ground that it was first brought into the Church, about the beginning of the third century, and on this ground it was defended down to the beginning of the nineteenth century. "If infants are guilty of original sin then they are proper subjects of baptism," said John Wesley, and that was the ground on which its advocates put it from its origin. It was brought in as a deduction, and has been justified by the same deduction or inference throughout its history until within the last forty or fifty years. Of course, I do not mean that it was a deduction from original sin alone, but that that doctrine was one of the premises from which it was deduced. The other was baptism for remission of sins. From these premises infant baptism was a conclusion.

      At the time infant baptism first appears in history, about the beginning of the third century, baptism as a necessity to salvation was universally taught. The church fathers not only accepted fully the words of our Lord and his apostles upon this subject, but many of them went further and ascribed to the water of baptism an intrinsic virtue to wash away sins and purify the soul. In fact, that was a time in the history of the church when almost everything was carried to an extreme. If there were any very safe and conservative men among the church [438] fathers they didn't write any; or, if they did, their writings have not been preserved.

      Now, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark xvi:16), is scripture. "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins" (Acts ii:38), is scripture also. "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John iii:5), is scripture too. "Arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord" (Acts xxii:16), is another passage of holy scripture. And, "Baptism doth also now save, us" (1. Pet, iii:21), is still another passage, bearing upon the same subject. They are all plain. They are all true, of course. But it will be observed that none of these scriptures ascribe any intrinsic virtue to the water of baptism. It is in itself nothing. Baptism is what it is, is all that these scriptures ascribe to it, as an expression of faith in Jesus Christ, as an act of obedience and loyalty to him--as a trustful submission to the divine will. But the church fathers, among other extravagancies and vagaries began, in the second century to ascribe to this ordinance a virtue even dissociated from faith, or anything else in the creature--an intrinsic virtue for purification from sin.

      About this time the doctrine of original sin came in. This, too, was an exaggeration and perversion of scripture teaching. According to many of the leading church fathers, everybody was born a sinner; [439] that is, guilty of Adam's sin. Infants were all sinners at birth--guilty of Adam's first sin, and for that reason must be damned forever, if not washed, or regenerated. Baptism was the washing of regeneration. Infants must be washed. Therefore infants must be baptized. These are the premises and the conclusion! That's the logic of infant baptism, as every one acquainted with its history knows. When thus reduced to a syllogism both premises are false. And that's a good deal to be the matter with a syllogism. Baptism dissociated from faith in Jesus Christ saves nobody, is not for remission of sins to anybody; nor is it the washing of the regeneration. So that the doctrine of baptism for remission of sins, as interpreted by the church fathers of that time, was false. So also was their doctrine of original sin. And both premises being false, of course the conclusion was also.

      On this question as to the origin of the practice in question it is worth while to spend a little time. The first mention, in any form, of infant baptism was in the first quarter of the third century, and by Tertullian, one of the most distinguished of the Latin fathers. On this point, says Dr. Bledsoe, in an article already cited in this discourse: "Tertullian is the first writer in the church who makes any express mention of the custom of infant baptism. Before his time, A. D. 200, there is not an allusion to the custom from which its existence may be fairly inferred." (Southern Review, Vol. xiv, p. 339.) Now, [440] Tertullian opposed the practice; and here are his words, as translated by the distinguished pedo-baptist, Dr. Wall, in his History of Inft. Bapt. Vol. i: p. 94: "Our Lord says indeed, do not forbid them to come. Therefore let them come when they are grown up; let them come when they understand; when they are instructed whither it is that they come; let them be made Christians when they can know Christ. 'What need their guiltless age make such haste to the forgiveness of sins!'" I have made this quotation mainly for this last sentence, in which this eminent father argues the needlessness of baptizing infants from "their guiltless age." He didn't believe infants were guilty of sin. He opposed baptizing them. He grounded his opposition, certainly in part, upon his notion of "their guiltless age."

      Now Origen wrote in the same quarter of the third century. They were contemporaries. The one lived and wrote at Carthage; the other at Alexandria. They were the most eminent fathers of the age. Origen advocated infant baptism, and was the first man to do so, that anybody knows of. Let us see on what he grounds it. (Wall's Hist. Inf. Bapt.; pp. 104, 105.) Here are his words: "If there were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless to them." Arid again he says: "Having occasion given in this place, I will mention a thing that causes frequent inquiries among the brethren. Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins. [441] Or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the laver in their case hold good, but according to that sense that we mentioned even now; none is free from pollution though his life be but of the length of one day upon the earth? And it is for that reason because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away, that infants are baptized." There is no mistaking the ground on which Origen puts the new custom, in the words we have read. He puts it on the ground that infants need "forgiveness." He admits that otherwise "baptism would be needless to them." There stand the two great fathers! One believes infants are sinners, and hence the grace of baptism; the other believes infants are guiltless, and that the grace of baptism is needless to them. Can anything be plainer than that the ground of the practice--the "reason," as Origen puts it--was original sin; that is, that infants one day old were sinners, and needed the "grace of baptism" for forgiveness. This, too, it should be remembered, is the beginning of the custom. We have gotten back to the origin of the custom, and to the original ground of it. If anyone doubts that the custom was new when Origen wrote, read his words again: "I will mention a thing," says he, "that causes frequent inquiries among the brethren." Then, his answer shows the nature of these "inquiries." Here is the answer: "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins." The inquiries must have been, "Why are you baptizing" [442] infants? Origen was a very great man in the church, and lived in the very great city of Alexandria; and the doctrine that infants are all guilty of sin from their birth, had brought in the custom of baptizing infants; and it being new, "caused frequent inquiries among the brethren" of the smaller towns and rural districts.

      It is worth while for us, while standing here with Tertullian and Origen; the one opposing this custom because infants were in his estimation "guiltless;" the other advocating it, because they were in his estimation sinful and in need of forgiveness--the custom a new one, and, therefore, causing its advocate to be plied with "frequent inquiries among the brethren"--it is worth while, from this standpoint, to look back toward the apostles, and see if the history we have affords us anything bearing upon our subject. Do the earlier fathers--earlier than Tertullian and Origen--teach that infants are sinners. They do not. Hear Hermas, one of the apostolic fathers, who, it is supposed, saw and heard the apostle Paul: (Pastor of Hermas, chap. xxix.) "And they that believed from the twelfth mountain which was white, are the following: They are as infant children in whose hearts no evil originates."

      Barnabas (not later than the middle of the second century) says: "He hath made us after another pattern, that we should possess the soul of children." (Epistle, chap. vi.) These references to infant children--and others might be cited--by writers between [443] the apostles and the beginning of the third century show that the doctrine of original sin had not yet come in; and no such thing as infant baptism is mentioned in that period. The first two centuries of the Christian era are as silent as the grave on the custom of infant baptism; and on the necessity for it, the guilt of infants.

      The fathers of the second century were as silent about infant baptism and infant guilt as the apostles were; and "the apostles," as Dr. Bledsoe would say, "imitated the silence of Christ" upon the subject.

      But now taking our stand with Origen and Tertullian and looking this way, we see the doctrine of original sin and the custom of infant baptism spreading, and, like a mighty river, flowing on down the ages, sweeping everything before it, east and west, until it reaches the nineteenth century--the doctrine and the custom always going together, as the foundation and the structure built thereupon.

      So intimately and indissolubly were the doctrine of the sinfulness and guilt of infants, and the custom of baptizing them, linked together in the teaching of the whole Catholic church in the centuries following Origen that in the latter part of the fourth century when Pelagius denied that infants were by nature sinful in such a sense as to be liable to eternal damnation if they died unbaptized, he was accused of denying the right of infants to baptism; that is, he was accused of denying infant baptism because he denied the doctrine which was the sole ground of [444] it in the Catholic church at that time. Hence this distinguished heretic said in his letter to Pope Innocent: (Wall's Hist. of Inft. Bap. Vol. 1, p. 450.) "Men slander me as if I denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, or did promise the kingdom of heaven to some persons without the redemption of Christ." But the renowned Augustin understood him more accurately than many who agreed with him: "So that the thing he complains he is slandered in, he has set down so as that he might easily answer to the crime objected, and yet keep his opinion. But the thing that is objected to then is this, that they will not own that unbaptized infants are liable to the condemnation of the first man and that there has passed upon them original sin, which is to be cleansed by regeneration; but do contend that they are to be baptized only for their receiving the kingdom of heaven, etc." (Ibid 447.) These quotations show that it was at that time a heresy--or as Augustin puts it, a "crime" not to "own that unbaptized infants are liable to the condemnation of the first man;" and that one not so owning was set down as denying the right of baptism to infants, because he denied the doctrine upon which it was universally grounded. There was at that time no other known reason why anyone should believe in infant baptism than the doctrine of original sin. If one denied that doctrine, he was at once set down as opposed to infant baptism. Now, would this have been the case had infant baptism been instituted by [445] Jesus or his apostles and practiced from the beginning? It is not reasonable to suppose that it would. Had it been grounded upon the authority of Jesus or his apostles, and practiced from the beginning, as the baptism of believers, it would not have been necessary for the church councils of the third century to be settling questions about it and adjusting it to the common practice, as we know they had to do. Neither would Origen have been under the necessity of answering" frequent inquiries among the brethren" as to why "infants are baptized."

      Thus infant baptism came into the church with the doctrine of original sin, and thus it came down through the ages into the nineteenth century.

      Now let us see how it was grounded in the early part of this century. John Wesley may be said to have represented the views of the English church as well of the Methodist church of which he was the acknowledged founder. I read from a little volume entitled "Doctrinal Tracts, published by order of the General Conference" of the Methodist Episcopal church. The preface to the edition from which I read says: "Several new tracts are included in this volume, and Mr. Wesley's short treatise on baptism is substituted in the place of the extract from Mr. Edwards on that subject." From this "short treatise of baptism" by Mr. Wesley, I read, showing the ground of infant baptism as Mr. Wesley understood it when he wrote it, and as the General Conference [446] understood it, when in 1832, it ordered its publication in the Doctrinal Tracts.

      Mr. Wesley says: "But the grand question is, who are the proper subjects of baptism? grown persons only, or infants also? In order to answer this fully, I shall, first, lay down the grounds of infant baptism, taken from scripture, reason, and primitive, universal practice." Then he says: "As to the grounds of it: If infants are guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing in the ordinary way they cannot be saved unless this be washed away by baptism. It has been already proved that this original stain cleaves to every child of man; and that thereby they are children of wrath, and liable to eternal damnation." (Doctrinal Tracts, p. 251.) There it is! Just as it started out in the first quarter of the third century, when Origen was so pressed by "frequent questions among the brethren." And notice, Mr. Wesley says, that the ground of it is taken from "universal practice"--that is, "primitive universal practice."

      And in accordance with Mr. Wesley's teaching, the Ritual for baptism in the Discipline of the Methodist church puts it upon the same ground, or, rather, did put it upon the same ground, almost in Mr. Wesley's words, until within the last twenty-five or thirty years. The Ritual has been considerably modified of late years. And, no doubt, the good work of modification will go on, as there is still room for improvement. [447]

      It is due to Protestant pedo-Baptists as well as to the subject in hand to say that they have very generally abandoned the doctrine of original sin as the ground of infant baptism; and as fast as they can, they are getting it and all correlated notions out of their creeds and rituals. And in so doing they are leaving infant baptism without any ground or reason or meaning. In the ages from Origen down to Wesley it meant something to baptize an infant. It meant "salvation from the condemnation of the first man." It meant that they might be "delivered from the wrath of God." It meant regeneration. Now, however, it doesn't mean much. The ground of it is gone, and it is a castle in the air. It is an empty ceremony. One advocate, nowadays, grounds it upon one thing and another upon another. One says infants are saved and are members of the church, and as such have a right to baptism. Another says they are saved by the grace of God in Christ Jesus, and should be baptized to bring them into the church. Another says they are all in the "invisible church," and ought to be baptized into the "visible church." Every Protestant pedo-baptist scribe or debater puts the practice upon a ground to suit him.

      No wonder the people are losing faith in the custom. No wonder we see in the papers frequently and hear from the pulpits complaints that the baptism of infants is being neglected--is in many parts of the country falling into desuetude. It is about as [448] hard to hold up a custom without meaning, without any reason for it, as to hold up a house against the winds without any foundation. It will have to go where Protestantism prevails. The abandonment of the doctrine of original sin is the death bell of infant baptism. It is only a question of time. [449]

[NTC2 412-449]