03 Infant Baptism Unscriptural

Infant Baptism Unscriptural By Rev. WM. Cathcart, D.D., Philadelphia, PA “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” Matthew 15:6. The baptism of the New Testament must be administered in the name of the Trinity, and in this respect it stands alone; no other act of obedience must be performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The Trinity took part in the baptism of Christ: the Saviour entered the Jordan, the Spirit descended upon Him in the form of a dove, and the Father, through the parted heavens, said: “This is my beloved Son in whom I well pleased.” Baptism is the most important duty a believer can perform; the Trinity L. -3 invested it with the weightiest sanctions; audit should receive the reverential obedience of the Saviour’s earthly family. Anything which has for its object to pervert the baptismal institution is a grievous affront to Jesus and a great wrong to His people. The nullification of a gospel law aims a rebellious blow at the divine Founder of Christianity; and as He cannot appoint anything useless, the removal of a gospel ordinance is a calamity. The

Saviour looks in sorrow upon the sprinkling of unconscious babes, and he feels about those who receive and practice it, as he regarded the persons about whom the text was uttered: Thus have ye made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. When the Saviour arose from the dead He was invested with the dominion of the Trinity over all worlds, and this special sovereignty He shall retain until His elect are all saved in their souls and bodies; then the royal dignity bestowed immediately after His resurrection shall be delivered to the First. Person of the Trinity, and Father, Son, and Spirit shall resume their eternal and equal empire over the universe. In Matthew 28:18-20, the Saviour says, “All power (authority) 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 Spirit, 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 Saviour’s inaugural address as He enters upon His revived life, His new and exclusive sovereignty over the worlds. He never issued such an address before. The authority He claims is not divine omnipotence,— that He always had, and every other attribute of God,—but the sole monarchy of all worlds; and He never commanded His disciples to teach all nations; previous to His death, His mission and the toils of His servants were restricted to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. The instruction to be imparted to the nations is about the gospel and its facts, doctrines and precepts; the death, resurrection, intercession, righteousness, and commandments of Christ. These lessons are not for the unconscious infants of all nations; they would be incomprehensible to them. When it is said “The Germans are a nation of soldiers,” the statement is understood at once, and no one dreams that women and children have been drilled and armed by the first military nation in the world. The verb to “teach” is “to make disciples,” and the command of the Saviour is to baptize them, not the nations, but the disciples; the word translated “them “in the Greek text, is in the masculine gender, and the word rendered “nations” in the neuter. There is to be no baptism before instruction, unless we have a new revelation from heaven showing that the Saviour was mistaken when He commanded His apostles first to teach and then to baptize. After the ambassadors of Christ have made disciples and baptized them, they are then to teach them to observe all things whatsoever He has commanded. This commission has nothing to do with unconscious infants, and as it is the only authority for the practice of baptism in the Christian Church, there is no pretence for the existence of infant baptism by divine appointment. The form of the commission given by Mark— “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; but he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned.”—16: 15, 16, shows faith to be a prerequisite to baptism. Why faith should precede baptism in the Saviour’s words, unless it should exist in the disciple’s heart before the baptism, we cannot tell. Unless He meant to mislead His apostle, and the whole saved family on earth, faith is indispensable to gospel baptism. The two forms of the commission are agreed in leaving no lurking place for infant baptism. And the commission is in strict accordance with the Baptist usages of His disciples while the Saviour walked with them in this world. John says, “When the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John; though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples, he left Judea and departed again into Galilee.” John 4:1-3. Here the steps of entrance into the kingdom are clearly marked; the first thing is to be “made a disciple,” and the next is to be baptized. Infinite wisdom could not point out more clearly the qualifications for the subjects of baptism. When the day of Pentecost was fully come, an immense multitude of people gathered around Peter and the other apostles, and Peter preached to them. The throng was composed of Jews, many of whom had come from distant countries; there were among them those who “with wicked hands had crucified and slain” Jesus; and as the memorable discourse was delivered, the Holy Spirit applied it with great power to the hearts of the multitude, and they received new hearts, leading them to lament their sins and to cry out, “Men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter said unto them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit; 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.” Then they that gladly received his word were baptized; and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.” Acts 2:37-41. This was the first baptism after the descent of the Spirit. It is a key to the Comforter’s interpretation of the Saviour’s great commission, as he directed the proceedings of the inspired apostles. The subjects of the baptism had aided in the Saviour’s death; their grief of heart made them utter despairing cries; they gladly received Peter’s word about Christ’s glorious gospel, and after that they were baptized; they were disciples who believed on Jesus as the commission required. And though there were three thousand of them, with unconscious infants in their families in many cases, no doubt, yet all the baptized “received Peter’s word gladly,” and without this discipleship of the heart they could not have been buried with Christ by immersion. When Peter says, “The promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even so many as the Lord our God shall call,” he means that remission of sins and the Holy Spirit will be given to the children of those whom he addressed, and to others in distant places whom “God should call” to repentance and faith in Jesus. The call of God to repentance was never given to an unconscious infant; it is only given to such “children” of Israel, or of the Gentiles, as have reached responsible years. When Philip went down and preached in Samaria, “they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, and they were baptized, both men and women.” Acts 8:12. Here the persons baptized had become disciples by putting their trust in Jesus; and persons of both sexes received the sacred rite. When Clovis, the first king of the Franks, was baptized, Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, says, “Moreover from his army three thousand men were baptized, without counting women and children the children received the same trine immersion as the men and women, and the historian of the event does not forget them. Nor is there any reason to suppose that Luke would have neglected the children, if Philip had baptized them, since he particularizes the candidates as men and women.

Simon the sorcerer pretended to believe, and a* an apparent believer he was baptized at the same time and place. The eunuch was baptized after he professed faith in Jesus, even though the verse be given up as an interpolation, “And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest” etc. The African royal treasurer solicited baptism, and after receiving it, “went on his way rejoicing,” as a forgiven disciple of Christ. When Paul was smitten down by the lightning and convicted by the Spirit of God, he speedily put his trust in the Saviour of whom he had heard much, and felt himself ready for any service demanded by the divine Redeemer. Ananias, commissioned by Jehovah, commanded him to “arise and be baptized and wash away his sins calling on the name of the Lord.” Acts 22:16. Paul’s theology had faith as its mainspring: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth.”Romans 1:16. According to Paul, faith grasped Christ, justified the soul before God, gave it peace, and washed out every one of its sins. Baptism in a figure washed out the believer’s sins, and consequently it only belonged to him, who had put his trust in Jesus. The baptism administered to Paul is a testimony that he professed saving faith in Jesus; it was believer’s baptism. The household baptisms are regarded by some as strongholds of infant sprinkling. The family of Cornelius, the Human centurion, is the first of these baptisms. Luke describes this soldier as a “devout man and one that feared God with all his house;” and of those under his roof, he says, “They of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit; for they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then answered Peter?’ Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?’” Acts 10:45-48. If the household of Cornelius was baptized along with himself and “his kinsmen and near friends,” the household feared God, for Luke says that Cornelius was a devout man who feared God “with all his house.” And the people who were baptized received the Holy Spirit, during Peter’s sermon, and the gift of speaking in strange tongues; and they magnified God. These persons could not be unconscious infants; they were true believers. Lydia, a Jewess of Thyatira, was at Philippi, and going out of the city to worship on the Jewish Sabbath, with her countrymen by the river side, her heart was opened by the Lord “that she attended unto the things which were spoken of by Paul.” And “she was baptized and her household,” evidently in the river. Acts 16:13-15. From the account given by Luke, Lydia herself had a new heart, and nothing whatever is said about her household. To prove that an unconscious infant was in it is impossible, and consequently no evidence for the baptism of such persons can be obtained from her record. It is extremely probable that she was at the head of her family, and that it consisted of adults who aided in her business. The jailer at Philippi was roused at midnight by an earthquake; and at first he was bent on killing himself, but the Spirit of God through the voice of Paul arrested him, and soon, as Paul and Silas “spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house, he and they believed; and he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and he 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.”Acts 16:32-34. There is nothing to show that there was an unconscious infant in this household; the two saintly prisoners “spake the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house”; and he “rejoiced, believing in God with all his house”; and the conclusion is very natural that infant baptism can find no favorable testimony here. It is said of Crispus that “he believed on the Lord with all his house, and many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed, and were baptized.” Acts 18:8. It is very naturally judged that Crispus and his household were baptized with the other Corinthian converts; and if the father and his family were immersed, it is said that “he believed on the Lord with all his house.” Here again there is nothing to favor the baptism of unconscious infants. The household of Stephanas was baptized by Paul, and he says of them: “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.” 1 Corinthians 16:15. Here again there could be no baptized unconscious babe addicting itself to the ministry of the saints. There is no evidence in any one of these households which gives the slightest support to infant baptism; there is none in the commission; and as that practice needs a solid foundation, we are surprised to discover that it is built on a baseless supposition.

If we had positive evidence that there was an infant in every one of the households, we would know from the commission that it was not baptized. And even the words “whole family,” or “household” are often used with a limitation that would justify such a conviction. A resident of Gloucester, Massachusetts, has several sons and some very young daughters, and the sons are all engaged with himself in fishing, and the neighbors freely tell you that the whole family are employed in fishing, everyone who hears the statement understands in a moment that the mother and little children are excepted. This use of the word household, or family, is common to all languages, and it occurs frequently in the Old Testament and in the New. Paul, in his epistle to Titus 1:11, speaking of the qualifications of a bishop, and warning him of certain vain talkers and deceivers, says,” whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses (families), teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre’s sake.” The word translated houses is the plural of the word used to describe the “household” of Lydia, and the “house” of the jailer. It is beyond a doubt that unconscious infants were not in the mind of the inspired writer when he put Titus on his guard about deceitful talkers, whose tongues carried away whole houses from the simplicity of the gospel of Christ. There may have been infants in them, but the nature of Paul’s advice showed that he did not include them at that time in the “houses.” And so in the baptized households there may have been no children, or there may have been little ones, — we can only entertain a supposition about it. The baptism of Christ required faith, and as Peter and Paul were filled with inspiration and fidelity when they baptized the households, it is absolutely certain that they baptized none but professed believers. In Acts 19:1-7, we have an account of twelve men whom John baptized, and it is supposed by many that Paul baptized them over again. Paul said to these men, “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 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 who should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” Then John baptized in the name of Jesus just as we do. And dropping “this” in the fifth verse, which is not in the Greek, and supplying “that” we have the true meaning: “And when they heard that, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus (in John’s baptism) and when Paul laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them and they spake with tongues and prophesied.” Paul did not baptize these men,—he only put his hands upon them, and then the Spirit’s power to work miracles came upon them, the regenerating might of the Spirit having changed their hearts before. But these were men; no child was with one of them, and twelve men, too. Likely enough some of them had children. This baptism should have been noticed in the next list, but that Paul is thought by many to have rebaptized the twelve.

John’s Baptisms.—We entirely concur in the opinion of Calvin about John’s baptism. He says: “The ministry of John was precisely the same as that which was afterwards committed to the apostles; for their baptism was not different, though it was administered by different hands; but the sameness of their doctrine shows their baptism to have been the same; both baptized to repentance; both to remission of sins; both baptized in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and remission of sins proceed. John said of Christ: ‘Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world,’ thus acknowledging and declaring Him to be the sacrifice, acceptable to the Father, the procurer of righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles add to this confession? Wherefore, let no one be disturbed by the attempts of the ancient writers to distinguish and separate one baptism from the other.” Calvin’s Institutes, II. Lib. 4, cap. 15, sec. 7. Matthew tells us that “there went out to John Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.” 3: 5, 6. The parties whom John baptized were old enough to have committed sins, and to make confession of them. Mark 1:4-5, states that “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 all baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.” Similar descriptions of John’s baptism are elsewhere found in the New Testament, but they all speak the same language; it was a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, in which the baptized confessed their sins. Of this baptism no infant could be the subject, and there is absolutely nothing in the New Testament which permits the most shadowy inference that any unconscious child ever received it.

Allusions to Baptisms in the New Testament.—Paul says, in Romans 6:4, “Therefore we are buried with Christ 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.” Here the subjects of baptism are represented as dead and buried with Christ, and as rising up to lead a holy life; they have newness of life which no unconscious infant ever had. In 1 Corinthians 12:13, we read. “For by one spirit we are all baptized into one body, whether we are Jews or Greeks, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit.” Here the apostle teaches that all who are the proper subjects of baptism are led to observe the holy ordinance by the divine Spirit, and through the same rite they become members of Christ’s body; and they are made to drink in one spirit; that is, they become sharers in the graces of the great Comforter. These statements are only true of believers. In 1 Corinthians 15:29, Paul asks: “Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead? The apostle’s idea is that by baptism as a figure of death, burial, and resurrection, men profess their faith in the resurrection of the dead. This restricts baptism to those who have been made disciples. In Galatians 3:26-27, it is written: “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus; for as many of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.” Here the believing children of God are spoken of, who have put on Christ before the world. In Colossians 2:11-12, Paul says: “In whom, also, ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” In these verses the apostle represents circumcision as a figure of the work of Christ on the heart, in which his spirit removes the body of the sins of the flesh. Our circumcision now is not baptism, it is administered with hands, but it is a new heart given without human effort by the Spirit of Jesus. By baptism, which has no connection with circumcision, men rise with Christ through the faith of the operation of God, and their baptism is the immersion of believers. Peter, in his first epistle, 1 Peter 3:21, says: “The like figure (the ark of Noah) 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 toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The answer of a good conscience shows that Peter’s baptism was not for infants, who feel neither the pangs nor praises of conscience, nor for ungodly adults, but for faithful believers who have their hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience.

Supposed Allusions to Baptism. — “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” Nine-tenths of the Christian family, living and dead, have applied these words of Jesus to baptism, the work of the Spirit in the heart, and the earthly church. The birth of water is the baptismal emersion, and the birth of the Spirit is the second birth produced by the Comforter through the truth; and the subject of both births is not an unconscious infant, but a person capable of understanding the truth, and of being “reproved of sin” by the Holy Spirit. Paul is supposed to refer to baptism in 1 Corinthians 6:11, when he says: “And such were some of you, but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” If the washing of which Paul speaks was baptism, the subjects of this baptism, in some cases, had been very wicked men, as we learn in the ninth and tenth verses, and were now sanctified, and justified, and, consequently, intelligent believers. Paul is supposed to speak of baptism in Ephesians 5:25-27, where he says: “Even as Christ also loved the Church and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.” If this washing is water baptism, it means that the solemn vows, made in baptism, under the guidance of God’s word, to die to sin and to rise up to holiness of life, are largely instrumental in the sanctification of men. But nothing is expressed which in the remotest degree refers to infant baptism. In Hebrews 10:21-22, Paul is supposed to speak of baptism when he says: “Having a high priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (by Christ’s blood), and our bodies washed with pure water (of baptism). If this washing is baptism, those who enjoyed it were fit persons from their intelligence and piety for an apostle to exhort to draw near to God and to hold fast the profession of their faith without wavering. The persons described cannot be infants.

Reasons from Scripture for Infant Baptism, resting upon portions of the Word which make no allusion to it. —It is strange that the most potent arguments for infant baptism come from statements of the Sacred Book which make no allusion to it; and of the force of these reasons I judge, not from anything in them, but from the frequency and confidence with which men have presented them. Augustine of Hippo, about fifteen hundred years since, lent all the weight of his great name and extraordinary talents to establish infant baptism. He was not its father, but it owes more, a thousand fold, to him for its extension than to any other mortal. He launches forth the now familiar argument, “Infant baptism instead of circumcision,” with great confidence. This old weapon has done immense service in the ranks of Traditionists. It is based, of course, upon the Scriptures. But what Scripture makes the declaration? Not one. If it were said that the praises of the glorified took the place of Jewish circumcision it would be no more absurd. Circumcision represented the cutting away “bf the guilty passions of the heart of a believer; it has no reference whatever to Christian baptism. If a million dollars were offered to the bishop of Hippo, or to any of the great captains of the church militant who have seized his rusty old sword, for a text of Scripture stating that infant baptism had taken the place of circumcision, or for a legitimate inference from any portion of the Word of God justifying such a doctrine, the reward would never be given by impartial adjudicators. John the Baptist administered his immersion to multitudes of circumcised Jews; Jesus had both rites; three thousand Israelites, who had the seal of the Abrahamic covenant, were baptized on the day of Pentecost. Paul, like his Master, was both circumcised and baptized. This was the law of baptism. It recognized no relations with circumcision. If it had come instead of circumcision the new rite would have been for the uncircumcised, and never for those who had the old rite, whose place it was supposed to take in all coming time. But until the substitution is proved, and fifteen hundred years have failed to establish it, I take stronger ground than Dr. Halley, a celebrated and very able English defender of infant baptism, who says, “The general opinion, that baptism is substituted for circumcision, as a kind of hereditary seal of the covenant of grace, appears to be ill-sustained by Scriptural evidence, and to be exposed to some very serious, if not absolutely fatal, objections;” and again, “I have, and I ought to confess it candidly, some serious objections to the acknowledgment of baptism as the substitute for circumcision.” The Sacraments, pp. 34, 47, London, 1855. These are the utterances of one of the foremost enemies, in talent and fervor, of believer’s immersion, that ever lived, and as he stands alone among his brethren, he speaks with unusual modesty. I take more decided ground than this distinguished writer, and I affirm that a more baseless assertion never was made on earth than the declaration that baptism came instead of circumcision. In Matthew 19:13-15, we find another Scripture often used to sustain infant baptism. It is there written, “There were then brought unto him little children that he should put his hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them; but Jesus said, ‘Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of heaven’; and he laid his hands on them.” The advocates of infant baptism regard the Saviour’s kindness to the children, and his saying “of such is the kingdom of heaven” as unquestionable testimonies that little children should be baptized. It is worthy of notice that the .Saviour does not say of the little children, “Of them is the kingdom of heaven.” If He had, the doom of the adult unsaved world would have been sealed; only children could have entered the kingdom of heaven. The meaning of the Saviour’s declaration can be easily seen by comparing it with his statement in Matthew 18:3-4, “Verily I say unto you, except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little child [there was a child in the midst of them] the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” What is needed to enter the Saviour’s kingdom is not the weeks or the years of a little child, not its age, but its lowliness; in distrusting itself and in trusting a dear mother; in feeling that it is not strong, and in keeping near its loving protector; and in being speedily grieved by its own faults, and seeking forgiveness. This is exactly the Saviour’s thought when He says, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven,” not of them, but of those like them in humility, of such persons as children in their best qualities, Jerome, in the fourth century, beautifully expresses the Saviour’s meaning, in his commentary on his own Vulgate, at Matthew 19:14, “Significantly,” the monk writes, “Jesus said, of such, not of them, to show that not age, but morals should rule, and that to those who had similar innocence and simplicity a reward was promised.” This is the Saviour’s idea exactly. The promise is not to children, but to such as children—those who have the innocence, simplicity, and confiding faith of children—and consequently, it has nothing to do with infant baptism, or with adult immersion. The Saviour does not say, “can any man forbid water that these dear children should not be baptized?” “They brought them to him that he should put his hands on them and pray,” “and he laid his hands on them, and departed thence;” and he neither baptized them, nor represented them as subjects of baptism. He blessed them as near relatives, distinguished servants of God, and aged persons, have been accustomed to do in all countries. And one would think, from the ideas of our Pedobaptist brethren, that His disciples would instantly have recognized the propriety of giving the little children the new supposed seal of the covenant by plunging them in water; but they knew nothing of the baptism of children, Jews though all of them were; and they rebuked the parents for bringing them to Jesus, and only permitted them to approach Him, when He said, “Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me.” Nothing in this record favors infant baptism. In 1 Corinthians 7:12-14, there is another Scripture frequently used to defend the baptism of children. It reads, “If any brother hath a wife that believeth not (an idolatress probably, or it might be a Jewess), and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman who 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.” It is argued that since the children are holy, therefore, they ought to be baptized. The holiness of the unbelieving wife and husband of which Paul speaks is a very curious quality: both parties probably served idols at Corinth; both parties certainly rejected Jesus, and yet the unbelieving husband and wife were ^wsanctified,” made holy, by their companions. This was the legal holiness of the Jews of which Paul was speaking. In Acts 10:28, Peter says, “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.” This doctrine applied to married relationships with more stringency than to any kind of intercourse between Jews and idolaters. The apostle, to prevent this custom from separating husbands and wives, writes that, where either companion is a Christian united to an unbeliever, there shall be no divorce on that account, that the union is holy, that is, lawful, and so are the children. Some commentators state that the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek word, rendered holy, was used to designate a lawful marriage among the Jews, and that the sanctification of the husband simply means that his marriage was legal; and so with the sanctification of the wife, and hence the children were holy or legal. And if they separated, it would be stripping their wedded relations of legal sanctions, and their children of a virtuous birth. That the holiness of such children is not from regeneration, is unquestionable, for the adjective describing it is from the same word as the verb which sanctifies the unbelieving husband and wife, and leaves them unholy in heart still. If the holiness of children entitles them to baptism, it gives an equal claim to that holy ordinance to the idol-worshipping wife of a godly husband, or to the Jewish Christ-rejecting husband of a saintly wife. A more preposterous claim to baptism was never urged by reasonable men than the supposed title of these children. The apostle’s subject is not baptism for either infants or adults, but the enduring character of marriage ties between believers and unbelievers, and the good name of the children of such marriages.

Paul writes, “There is one body, and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling: one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” Ephesians 4:4-5 This one baptism is the believer’s; there is no other in the Saviour’s commission, nor in any of the baptisms recorded in the New Testament. Neither could there be another, unless the spirit of inspiration was mistaken when he prompted Paul to write, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Even the stern Reformer of Geneva, one of the greatest enemies the Anabaptists ever had, is compelled to admit that there is no record of infant baptism among the actions of the apostles. His words are, “Nor is there much plausibility in the objection that it is nowhere stated that even a single infant was baptized by the hands of the apostles. For though no such circumstance is expressly mentioned by the evangelist, yet on the other hand, as they are never excluded, when mention happens to be made of the baptism of any family, who can rationally conclude from this, that they were not baptized?” Calvin admits that Luke, the evangelist, who wrote the book of Acts, does not expressly mention such a thing. There was no need to exclude the children where a family baptism was recorded, nor their playthings, for apostolic baptism, like the commission, was believer’s immersion. There is not in the Sacred Volume a single leaf, or the smallest part of a leaf, under which the baptism of an unconscious infant can huddle, unless it can find shelter under that saying of Peter, in his first Epistle, 2: 13, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake.” This is the Testimony of the First Two Centuries of Christianity. Our brethren have hailed the statement of Dean Stanley with great admiration, which can be found in The Nineteenth Century for October, 1879, p. 39. “In the Apostolic Age, and in the three centuries which followed, it is evident that, as a general rule, those who came to baptism came in full age; we find a few cases of the baptism of children; in the third century we find one case of the baptism of infants.” The Dean here makes a distinction between children and infants. And in the third century he first finds infant baptism. The Dean of Westminster is strictly correct—there is not a single instance of the baptism of an unconscious infant in the first two centuries. The Christian literature of that period has been searched by men whose scholarship and patristic information far surpass those of Dean Stanley, and they have never pretended that these centuries furnish any evidence of infant baptism. If Tertullian’s tract, De Baptismo, was written four or five years before the end of the second century, we have evidence that the baptism of children, not infants, was discussed for the first time in Christian literature, and denounced by Tertullian in his orthodox days. We feel no special gratitude to Dean Stanley for his “concession.” He could not have done otherwise with the facts before him, if he made any statement on the subject. Baptism in the East was first given to adults, then to youths, then to children of six or seven, and lastly, to unconscious infants. Neander, vol. 1: 311, Boston Ed., says: “Baptism, at first, was administered only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution.” During the first two Christian ages the modern substitute for the believer’s baptism of Christ was not in existence. The scholarly Bingham takes two men of remarkable learning, Salmasins and Soicerns, to task, for saying that “For the first two ages, no one received baptism who was not first instructed in the faith and doctrine of Christ, so as to be able to answer for himself that he believed, because of those words,” He that believeth and is baptized.’” Book 11: chap. 4, sec. 5. And then he adduces several fathers who speak for the necessity of baptism, and he infers that they must have included infants in this needful baptism; but he is careful to perform no impossibility, by bringing forward a case of infant baptism, or a positive account of the rite.

Tertullian says that “those who desire to dip themselves holily in the water, must prepare themselves for it by fastings, by watchings, by prayers, and by sincere repentance.” Justin Martyr says, “At many as are persuaded and believe that the things which we teach and declare are true, and promise that they are determined to live accordingly, are taught to pray to God, and to beseech Him with fasting to grant them remission for their past sins, while we also pray and fast with them. We then lead them to a place where there is water,” &c., Patrologia Grseca, vol. 6: 240, Migue, Parisiis. These were the subjects of baptism in the second century, according to the two most distinguished Christians of that period. The disciples of the first two centuries were devotedly attached to the Scriptures, and lived near the days of the apostles; and, like our honored denomination, they saw only the baptism of believer’s immersion in the Word of God. The Third and Fourth Centuries Knew Extremely Little of Infant Baptism. Dean Stanley speaks of one case in the third century. He refers, no doubt, to the Council of Carthage, held about A. D. 256. Fidus, an unknown country bishop, wrote to Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, to inquire at what period an infant might be baptized. Fidus supposed that it might receive the rite as early as the eighth day, but he needed information on the novel question, and Cyprian, a leading bishop in Africa and among Christians everywhere, was ignorant. A council of sixty-six bishops decided the point, and decreed that one might be baptized as soon as it was born. One of their reasons for the decision was that baptism took away the heavier sins of persons of years, and it could more easily remove the guilt of infants; and another, that the prophet, Elisha, placed his body upon the dead child which he restored, his mouth to its mouth, his eyes to its eyes, and his hands to its hands, the spiritual sense of which was, that infants are equal to men, and consequently should have their baptism. This is the first case of infant baptism in the records of Christianity. The ignorance of Fidus and Cyprian about the laws of the rite, and the letter of the bishop, if it is genuine, show that infant baptism was a novelty. The obscure council of Carthage, of A. D. 256, gave infant baptism no standing beyond the ignorant Roman colonists of North Africa. Nor have we any reason to suppose that even among them, either the authority of Cyprian’s Council, or any other instrumentality, gave infant baptism popularity for a long period after the meeting of the sixty-six bishops. The great Augustine, who was born in A. D. 354, in North Africa, and whose mother, Monica, was an eminent Christian lady, was not baptized till he was thirty-three years of age. He received the ordinance from St. Ambrose, who was not baptized until after his election to the See of Milan. There is no positive account of the baptism of unconscious infants in the third century, except the record preserved by Cyprian. Clemens Alexandrius and Origen treat of the baptism of children, not infants. In the fourth century, the greatest men in the Christian world reached adult years without baptism, we have already named two of them, Augustine and Ambrose, and of the latter it is said that his family were all Christians. In A. D. 381, Nectarins was elected archbishop of Constantinople, and though, according to Sozomen, “he was of advanced age,” and that it was by “the will of God that so mild and virtuous and exemplary a man was elevated to the priesthood;’ he had not been baptized when chosen to the greatest ecclesiastical dignity in the world. Gregory Nazianzen, who was born while his father was bishop of Nazianzum, in Cappadocia, was baptized in his thirtieth year, and he was archbishop of the great church of St. Sophia. The learned and illustrious John Chrysostom, whose parents were both Christians, was baptized at twenty-eight, and he lived to preside over the church of the chief city of the Christian world. Basil the Great, one of the most distinguished prelates in Christendom, whose ancestors were Christians for several generations, was baptized in his twenty-eighth year, and he died A. D. 379. Jerome, the learned translator of the Old Testament, and reviser of the New, and the useful commentator, was born of Christian parents A. D. 331, and about A. D. 366 he was baptized. The emperor, Theodosius the Great. after subduing^’ enemies to his throne on the banks of the Danube, proceeded to Thessalonica, where he was baptized, A. D. 380, and Sozomen tells us that “his parents were Christians, and they were attached to the Nicene doctrines.” The bishops just noticed were not only the leaders of the Christian world in their day, but they stand unsurpassed in the ecclesiastical literature of our times. The baptism of the fourth century required the candidates to be catechized before they received the ordinance, and to profess faith in Jesus. Ambrose, addressing those about to be baptized, says, “Thou wast asked,’ Dost thou believe in God, the omnipotent Father, and thon saidst, ‘I believe,’ and thou wast immersed, that is, thou wast buried. Again, thou wast asked, ‘Dost thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ and in His Cross?’ And thou saidst,’ I believe;’ and thou wast immersed, and therefore, thou wast buried with Christ. * * A third time, thou wast asked, ‘Dost thou believe in the Holy Spirit*’ And thou saidst, ‘I believe;’ and a third time thou wast immersed,” Patrol. Lat. 16: p. 448, Migne, Parisiis. With a variety of ceremonies and professions, the faith demanded by Ambrose was required everywhere at the baptisms of the fourth century. And masses of Christians were not baptized at all. They were waiting until death was not far distant, that all their sins might be washed out at once. Neander, speaking of this century, says, “Infant baptism, though acknowledged to be necessary, yet entered so rarely and with so much difficulty into the church life during the first part of this period.” “Hence many put off baptism until they were reminded by mortal sickness, or some other sudden danger of approaching death. Hence it was, that in times of public calamity, in earthquakes, in the dangers of war, multitudes hurried to baptism, and the numbers of the existing clergy scarcely sufficed for the wants of all.” Church History, 2: 319-20, Boston. The necessity, which in some cases was recognized, for the baptism of infants, was the new-born delusion that baptism would wash out Adam’s sin; hut even in the limited number of cases where this doctrine was accepted, it was only thought of in connection with the death of a child. The clergy of the fourth century were continually appealing to their congregations to be baptized; they exhorted them, and entreated them, and showed them the dangers of deferring so blessed a rite; and they felt a deep concern for multitudes of persons whose parents never thought of baptizing them, and who were not anxious to put on Christ by a public baptism until they neared the end of life’s journey. It may be safely asserted that outside of North Africa the baptisms of unconscious infants in the fourth century were so few, that they scarcely deserve to be named. What a commentary on the commission of Christ to his apostles! In the very end of the fourth, and for thirty years In the fifth century, Augustine, bishop of Hippo, in North Africa, advocated infant baptism incessantly, and forged or furbished most of the weapons by which it is defended in our own times; his great mind, burning zeal and boundless influence, carried infant baptism over Christendom in the fifth century —but while it became common in that age, there is no reason to believe that it was generally observed; and Dean Stanley is greatly mistaken in his declaration that “after the fifth century the whole Christian world * * have baptized children.”—The Nineteenth Century, p. 39, October, 1879. For centuries after the fifth, the regular baptisms of the Orthodox Church in some of the great centres of the Christian world were the baptisms of catechized persons who professed their own faith, not adults, but minors. —Robinson’s History of Baptism, p. 106, Nashville.

Infant Baptism in All Ages has Required Faith Before it was administered, and so far it testifies in Favor of the Commission. Augustine himself required faith before he baptized infants; he asked, “Doth this .child believe in God? Doth he turn to God?” and he declares expressly in another place that the sponsors answered for them; Patrol. Lat. Tom. 33: 363; Parisiis. Without commenting on the person who has the faith, Augustine, the grand propagator of infant baptism demanded it as a prerequisite to that rite. Martin Luther, in his Smaller Catechism p. 58, N. Y., 1867, says, “I promised God in holy baptism that I would renounce the devil and all his works and ways, and believe in God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I made this promise in holy baptism, through my sponsors.” The Catechism of the Council of Trent, one of the highest authorities in the Catholic Church, says: “It is not lawful to doubt but that children receive the sacraments of faith when they are baptized, not because they believe with the assent of their minds, but because of the faith of their parents, if they are believers; but if not, to use the words of Augustine, they are fortified by the faith of the whole body of saints.”—Question 33, Pars II, p. 144, Lipsiae, 1865. The Catholic Church demands faith from the child through sponsors before she baptizes it. In the Greek Church in Russia and elsewhere, before baptism the priest asks the infant, “‘Dost thou believe in Christ?’ and the sponsor answers, ‘I believe in Him as King and God,’ and then he repeats the Creed.”—King’s Bites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia, p. 161, London. The Russian, and all the Eastern Churches demand faith in baptism. So do the Episcopal Churches in England and America. The common Catechism of both bodies has this question and answer: “What is required of persons to be baptized? Repentance whereby they forsake sin; and faith whereby they steadfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that sacrament.” These Churches demand repentance and faith for their baptism, and both are promised by sponsors.

Calvin seemingly thinks that infants have some kind of faith. He says, “As the Lord therefore will illuminate them (infants) with the full splendor of His countenance in heaven, why may He not also, if such be His pleasure, irradiate them with some faint rays of it in the present life? Not that I would hastily affirm them to be endued with the same faith which we experienced in ourselves, or at all to possess a similar knowledge, which I would prefer leaving in suspense.”— Institutes, vol. 2, lib. 4, cap. H). His idea is, probably, that infants have faith in the germ. The Westminster Confession of Faith, speaking for British and American Presbyterians, makes the faith of the parents, or of one parent, a prerequisite to baptism. “Baptism,” it says, “is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him; but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ and obedience to Him, are, in that respect, within the Covenant, and are to be baptized.” Question 166, Larger Catechism. Here, again, baptism is prohibited without faith. In Robinson’s History of Baptism, p. 681, Nashville, here is an account of an English Congregational baptism, at which the minister stated that “not only those that do actually profess faith in, and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents, were to be baptized.” This is the ground of the British Congregationalists now; and it is no doubt the creed, on this question, of their brethren in the United States. When John Wesley visited this country, in 1736, he adhered strictly to the baptism of the Episcopal Church, as the following quotations from his journal will show: “Saturday, February 21.—Mary Welsh, aged eleven days, was baptized, according to the custom of the first church, and the rule of the church of England, by immersion; the child was ill then, but recovered from that hour.” “Wednesday, May 5th.—I was asked to baptise a child of Mr. Parker, second bailiff of Savannah, but Mrs. Parker told me,’ Neither Mr. Parker nor I will consent to its being dipped. I answered, ‘If you certify that your child is weak, it will suffice, the Rubric says, to pour water upon it.’ She replied,’ if ay the child is not weak, but I am resolved it shall not be dipped.’ This argument I could not confute. So I went home and the child was baptized by another person.”— Wesley’s Works 1.130-134, Philadelphia, 1826. In the service for the baptism of infants in the Church of England, the minister addresses the godfathers and godmothers, saying, among other things, “Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth? And in Jesus Christ, His only begotten son, our Lord? * * And dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost? * * This is from the service for the private baptism of children in houses, the one probably used by Mr. Wesley when Mary Welsh was immersed. Faith at this time was a prerequisite to baptism with Mr. Wesley.

Throughout Christendom there has been a general conviction that faith was indispensible to baptism. Among those who have practiced infant baptism, faith has been sternly demanded, as a prerequisite to the immersion or sprinkling of a child, from the very origin of that human rite. The Baptists have never exhibited greater urgency for faith, as a condition without which baptism could not be conferred, than Pedobaptists. Dr. Halley, an English Congregationalist, had his orthodoxy questioned by his own brethren, and his opinions rejected, by delivering and publishing, about thirty years ago, lectures in which he tried to prove that the commission required the apostles to teach all nations and baptize all nations; that faith had nothing to do with baptism; that the command to baptize might have preceded the order to teach without any impropriety. Probably Dr. Halley was the only man who ever seriously entertained such a doctrine. The whole Christian world, except Dr. Halley and men of Quaker opinions, has ever held, and holds still, that the Baptist principle, which demands faith as a prerequisite to the initial ordinance of the gospel is a Scriptural doctrine.

Pedobaptists secure this faith in a way somewhat different from Baptists. We hold that we must not borrow the loan of another’s faith in order to be baptized—that the candidate must have it himself. We have heard of the formation of an insurance company, which required a certain amount of capital; the requisite sum was borrowed, to show the State examiner when he inspected its assets, and then it was returned. But men of honor have never approved of the integrity of borrowed bonds, or funds for such a purpose; and we are afraid that borrowed faith, in order to be baptized, however good the intention may be, is an attempted imposition upon man’s Divine Friend. The Scriptures know nothing of loaned faith. A personal faith is a prerequisite to baptism. The believer’s baptism of the first four centuries, and of multitudes for centuries later, has been completely set aside by the baptism of infants in all Christian communities, except Baptist Churches. It is a mournful fact that this grand ordinance of the Redeemer, speaking of our death to sin, our union with Christ in the merits of His death, our rising from the watery grave to lead a holy life, and our resurrection from the dead, should be in its mode and subjects as completely removed from a large part of Christendom, as if it had never existed. My text is strikingly applicable to this usurping ceremony and its administrators. “Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” The Saviour has uttered words that inspire us with great hope for our dear brethren of the Evangelical churches of our country and of other lands. He says, Matthew 15, “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted shall be rooted up.” This is surely one of the plants to which the Saviour’s words may be fitly applied. The Rev. John Robinson, the father of New England Congregationalism, whose flock sent the colony which came by the celebrated Mayflower, while earnestly defending the Scriptural authority of infant baptism, says: “We grant that the Scriptures nowhere say, in express terms, ‘baptize infants,’ or that infants were baptized.”—Works of Robinson, I. 416, London, 1851. If there is no such command in the Scriptures in express terms, nor any such practice, we can readily see, notwithstanding good John Robinson’s strong reasons, that infant baptism is not Scriptural, and that it is one of the plants which must be rooted up because our heavenly Father did not plant it. Nay, He is pulling it up by the roots very actively just now. The Evangelical churches of our country are evidently drawing nearer the Saviour’s ways and spirit, and in nothing is this more apparent than in the disuse of infant sprinkling in Pedobaptist churches. Twenty years ago, a reliable authority quoted by Professor Curtis says, “In one of the oldest (Congregational) churches in this State, there had not been, a few years since, an instance of infant baptism for seven preceding years. Last year there were seventy Congregational Churches in New Hampshire that reported no infant baptisms. This year ninety-six churches reported none. If this indifference continues, the ordinance will become extinct in the Congregational Churches.” Dr. Curtis calculated that less than a third of the Presbyterian children born in a year, at the time he published his work, were baptized, whereas a century ago they were all baptised; and that the infant rite was far less practiced among the Methodists.—Progress of Baptist Principles, pp. 132-136, Boston. There is every reason to believe that infant baptism is declining still, and will continue to be observed less and less, until this plant, which our heavenly Father hath not planted, disappears altogether, and the servants of Jehovah cease forever to make the commandment of God of no effect by their tradition, and unite in receiving one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.