CHAPTER XXVI

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

THIS chapter will end our labor on infant baptism, and is intended, in view of the proof before us, as a wholesale overture. From our last we learn that there was not a branch of the church, during the long period of 1130 years that ever opposed infant baptism. This is the testimony of Dr. Wall, and to show its force and truthfulness, we shall quote from Wilson, of England, a learned man and a professed Baptist, who said, in an address to the people of his own denomination, "Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism, as to facts, appeared to him most accurately done, and might be depended on by Baptists themselves." (Mem. of his life, part 2, p. 461.) Then we have this indisputa ble fact before us, that no society of men ever opposed infant baptism for eleven centuries; and here we add, that the slight opposition then offered soon passed away, leaving the question as found in the early age of the church, and practiced on by the holy dead, until the rise of the Anabaptists in 1522. The opposition to infant baptism, strictly speaking, may be dated 1522, as the matter spoken of by Wall, under date 1130, was rather of a momentary character, and soon disappeared. This aspect of the case places Baptists in their true light, and shows that they are condemned by the history of the church for eleven hundred years, or, more strictly speaking, for fifteen hundred years.

A remark here, however, about Turtullian, will be in place. The reader will perceive, by turning to Wall's testimony in the previous chapter, that this personage is spoken of in connection with one Gregory, and both represented in some cases, as

practicing a delay on infant baptism. These constituted the only exceptions, if they can be called exceptions, that Wall could find during eleven hundred years. The fathers, however, from their language, evidently did not look on these two individuals as constituting opposers of infant baptism, inasmuch as they inform us that they never heard of a man who did oppose it. We want to be particular here, as Neander seems to have given Baptists a crumb of comfort by his illogical deduction from the position of Tertullian. We shall, however, let Tertullian speak for himself, and then we can see the error in Neander's deduction, and why the fathers did not regard either him or Gregory as an opposer of infant baptism; for what may be said of the former on this point, will more than clear the latter. This is the testimony of Tertullian: "But they whose duty it is to administer baptism, are to know that it must not be given rashly. Therefore, according to every one's condition, and disposition, and also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For what need is there that the sponsors incur danger; for they may fail of their promise by death, or may be disappointed by a child's proving to be of a wicked di-position. Our Lord, indeed, says, forbid them not to come to me.'" (Wall, vol. 1, p. 93.) From this statement of Tertullian we can easily see why the fathers did not regard him as an opposer of infant baptism.He simply advised a delay. This was only an opinion expressed. But does he not clearly give us to know that infant baptism was practiced by the church, and that our Lord said, speaking of children, "forbid them not to come to me?" Verily, the testimony of Tertullian, on the subject of infant baptism, is not surpassed, in some particulars, by any of the fathers. This is our solemn

6

persuasion. If Baptists can find comfort by the side of Tertullian, they are welcome to it, and to Neander's childish deduction from his advice. But did he not advise a delay of baptism in some cases of adults? Wonder why Neander did not, and his Baptist admirers do not, contend that certain adults ought not to be baptized, because Tertullian would not have "opposed such a measure, so near the apostles," if it had apostolic sanction! The true position of Tertullian was, to advise a delay of baptism till just at death. Let it be well understood, however, that the adults, as well as the infants, in reference to whom he advised a delay, were to be baptized in case of death. That the

reader may understand the character of the opposition to infant baptism when it first appeared, after eleven hundred years had passed away, we shall here insert the views of the opposing leader, (Peter Bruis,) who speaks thus: Christ sending his disciples to preach, says,He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.' From these words of our Savior it is plain, that none can be saved unless he believe and be baptized, that is, have both Christian faith and baptism; so that infants, though they be by you baptized, yet, since by reason of their age, they cannot believe, are not saved. It is therefore a vain and idle thing for you to wash persons with water at such a time, when you may indeed cleanse the skin from dirt in a human manner, but not purge their souls from sin.” (Wall, as quoted by Hendrick, vol. 2, p. 257). This is the way that the first opposers, as a society, of infant baptism reasoned; and of a truth, their reasoning is much more consistent than the reasoning of Baptists now. If the passage above quoted refers to infants, or applies to them, Peter Bruis was right in his conclusions; and every Baptist is but a

sophist beside him. To illustrate the error into which Baptists run on the commission of our Lord, we shall quote from Isaiah i, 19: "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land."Now, infants can neither be willing nor obedient, consequently, the Baptist theory being regarded, they cannot eat the good of the land, and must perish. "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned." Of a truth, infants cannot believe, therefore they must perish, the application of this text by Baptists being respected. How blind is he that will not see! Children eat the fruit of the land, though they can neither be willing nor obedient. In like manner infants partake of the blessing of holy baptism, though they cannot believe.It is the visible seal of their relation to their God.

But before passing on from these considerations, we shall give the admission of Dr. Gill, a distinguished Baptist writer, when speaking on the subject of infant baptism, which runs thus, that he was "not able to find one instance of an opposer of infant baptism," from the eleventh to the fourteenth century.

Infant baptism, be it remembered, was not opposed by any society of men, Wall giving testimony, for 1130 years; and then only by men who did not believe in infant salvation. This is enough— perfectly satisfactory. Baptists are wrong, unless we can persuade ourselves that Heaven designed them to be the only discoverers of truth.

We shall now present the case of household baptism. "And that Lydia's children were baptized is most evident from the Old Peshito-Syriac version, which says, When she [Lydia] was baptized with her children, &c.'" "And the old Coptic version says the same." (Kurty, p. 99. See Hendrick on Baptism, p. 19.) Comment is needless here, and

we shall only say of all the households spoken of in the Scriptures, if they were withou children, they must be regarded as the most remarkable list of households that ever were recorded or heard of. We pause here, however, to record our conviction, that there ought not to be so much stress laid on the thought, that there were children in the households, as on the fact, that if there were children, they were most assuredly baptized, this being the custom of the age. Hear Wall again on this point, speaking of the Jewish state of the church: " They were all baptized, males and females, adults and infants. This was their constant practice from the time of Moses to that of our Savior, and from that period to the present day." (Quoted from Pond, p. 113.)

This is only presented to show the custom of the Jewish state of the church in the days of the apostles; but as it regards our opinion on baptism as a seal, and its true relation, we shall substitute the views of the fathers in the council of Carthage.The council of Carthage not only looked on infant baptism as sanctioned by the Scriptures, but that it took the place of circumcision.

The opinion of Lord Chancellor King, part 2, ch. iii, on the decision of the council of Carthage, is well worthy of a place in this connection: "Here then," says he, "is a synodical decree for the baptism of infants, as formal as can possibly be expected, which being the judgment of a synod, is more authentic and cogent than that of a private father, it being supposable that a private father might write his own particular judgment and opinion only; but the determination of a synod of sixty-six bishops denotes the common practice and usage of the whole church." We shall add one item more in proof of infant baptism, and in proof of it taking the place of circumcision. Dr. Grant, in his ac