01.009. Post-Apostolic Practice
Post-Apostolic Practice.
"The New Testament evidence, then, seems to point to the conclusion that infant baptism, to say the least, was not the general custom of the apostolic age. And now it ought to be noticed that this conclusion is greatly strengthened if we examine the light that is thrown backwards upon the age of the apostles from the post-apostolic history and literature."--J. C. Lambert, in The Sacraments in the New Testament.
We do not refer to the post-apostolic days as if the teaching or practice of the church then is in any way to be considered as authoritative. The New Testament must be our sole guide in matters pertaining to the ordinances of our Lord Jesus Christ. The only appeal which we can sanction is to the Word of God. We go to the Fathers for the practice of a later age; we read the Scriptures for the will of God. In the New Testament we find both commands for and instances of the baptism of believers; but there is not anywhere within its pages either example or precept concerning infant baptism, nor is there any text which necessarily implies infant baptism. That should settle the question for us. To those who regard the Scriptures as alone authoritative it would matter but little if it were proved (as of course it cannot be) that infant baptism was in existence immediately or soon after the death of the apostles.
We have already indicated that in the centuries in which our Pedobaptists friends find infant baptism there are also to he found a great many things which Protestants at least agree in rejecting. One writer has put it thus: "Romanists quote the Greek and early Roman Fathers of the first four centuries, in proof of monastic life, the celibacy of the clergy, the merit of perpetual virginity, the Pontificate of Peter in Rome, and infant communion in the Lord’s Supper. Protestants quote the same authorities for infant baptism, and argue from them in the same manner as the Romanists for their traditions. But Protestants repudiate the Greek and Roman Fathers as competent and credible witnesses for infant communion, monastic life, and a bachelor priesthood: yet they quote with confidence and hear with gladness the same authors in favor of infant baptism. This we regard as an indefensible aberration from sound logic and fair play."
Mr. Madsen has a chapter on "The Practice of the Early Church," the "early church" being the church of the second and third centuries. While we do not feel bound to treat an argument drawn from extra-Scriptural sources as having any weight in the settlement of the question as to those whom the Lord wanted to be baptized, still some may be helped by an examination of the alleged proof front the post-apostolic age.
There is one book from which Mr. Madsen does not quote in the chapter under review. This is the "Didache," or "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," which is described by Schaff as "The Oldest Church Manual." It is generally agreed by Christian scholars that it is one of our most remarkable and reliable sources of knowledge regarding the church of the sub-apostolic age. Its date is probably from 100 to 120 A.D.; some place it earlier, and a few later; parts of it may be of a considerably later date. The "Didache" knows nothing of infant baptism. Its reference to subjects is brief: "And as regards baptism, baptize thus: having first communicated these instructions, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water." Later it mentions that the candidate should fast for a day or two preciously. Pedobaptists have often sought to explain away the absence of mention of infant baptism in this book. James Heron, in The Church of the Sub-Apostolic Age, does it thus: "The great majority of those admitted to the Church during the period in question were adult converts from heathenism, or at least persons capable of being taught. The baptism most prominent in such circumstances will be necessarily adult baptism."
We can give a crushing reply to this argument, so often presented, in the words of a Pedobaptists scholar. J. C. Lambert (a Pedobaptists, who thinks it possible that infant baptism came in in certain places after the destruction of Jerusalem, and that it had received the sanction of the Apostle John himself) says: "If the silence of the New Testament is suggestive, much more so is the silence of the Didache. For while in the former baptism is dealt with historically and doctrinally, from the point of view of its connection with the preaching of the gospel and with faith, in the latter it is dealt with liturgically, from the point of view of its place in the order of public worship; and if infant baptism was practiced at all, it is difficult to see how it could be altogether ignored in this handbook of ritual prescriptions." The writer proceeds to reply to Dr. Schaff’s endeavor to break the force of such considerations as the foregoing: "’Infant Baptism,’ he says, ’has no sense, and would be worse than useless, where there is no Christian family or Christian congregation to fulfill the conditions of baptism, and to guarantee a Christian nurture.’ The remark is very just in itself, but, as applied to the Didache with the view of explaining why its silence about infant baptism cannot properly be used as an argument against the apostolic origin of the practice, it seems remarkably mal a propos. Surely, towards the end of the first century (Dr. Schaff assumes the work to have been written then), and in a church which had drawn up its own Church Manual, there were Christian families and Christian congregations to guarantee the conditions of Christian nurture. And so, when we find that in this early handbook the directions for baptism take no cognizance whatever of infants, but provide for adult baptism alone, it is difficult to resist the conclusion that, at all events in that part of the Church in which the Didache circulated, infant baptism can neither have been regularly practiced nor regarded as the Apostolic rule."--The Sacraments in the New Testament.
JUSTIN MARTYR.
Justin wrote his Apology about 150 A.D. Mr. Madsen quotes him as saying: "Many men and women amongst us, 60 or so years old, were discipled to Christ in their childhood."
There is no mention whatever of baptism in this passage. The sole force of it lies in the words "in their childhood." J. C. Lambert declines to recognize that Justin here refers to either infant baptism or infant discipleship. He says that "in the picture which he [Justin] gives of the baptismal arrangements of the Church in his own day, infant baptism finds no place." Lambert denies that the word pais which Justin uses necessarily means an infant or even a young child. In the New Testament pais and its diminutive paidion are used of a girl twelve years of age (Mark 5:39; Mark 5:42; Luke 8:51-54). There are in Churches of Christ great numbers of people who were "discipled to Christ in their childhood" who yet received baptism as believers.
IRENIUS.
Irenius is said to have become Bishop of Gaul in 178 A.D. He is quoted by Mr. Madsen as writing of Jesus: "He came to save all persons by Himself--all I say who by Him are regenerated to God--infants, and little ones, and children, and young and old."
Baptism is not mentioned in this passage. It is believed by most Pedobaptists that this is an allusion to infant baptism, the term "regenerated" being read as implying this; but some Pedobaptists have declined to admit the necessity of the inference. Lambert, in The Sacraments in the New Testament, refers to this passage from Irenius as "probably the earliest reference to infant baptism," though "even here, it will be observed, baptism is not directly mentioned; so that the passage cannot be cited as an unequivocal witness for the practice of infant baptism." The allusion is doubtful, then; and, even were it indisputable, it is about three generations too late to be authoritative.
ORIGEN. This well-known Father and leader of the Alexandrian school, who lived 185-254 A.D., is appealed to by the author of The Question of Baptism, because he says: "The Church has received a tradition from the Apostles to give baptism to little children."
Mr. Madsen notes that a discussion has waged as to whether the parvuli of Origen would include infants. In reality, the controversy on this point is superfluous. Irrespective of this, here are the decisions of three scholars on Origen’s statement.
Neander in his Church History writes: "Origen in whose system infant baptism could readily find its place, though not in the same connection as in the system of the North African Church, declares it to be an apostolical tradition, an expression, by the way, which cannot be regarded as of much weight in this age, when the inclination was so strong to trace every institution which was considered of special importance to the apostles; and when so many walls of separation hindering the freedom of prospect, had already been set up between this and the apostolic age."
Such a statement from a staunch Pedobaptists will keep us from saying that because Origen called child-baptism an apostolic tradition therefore that statement is to be accepted. Dr. Wilhelm Moeller, Professor Ordinarius of Church History in the University of Keil, says:
"Origen. .. makes appeal to it as to an ancient tradition. But that the universal ecclesiastical tradition was not in favor of it is shown by Tertullian’s opposition to infant baptism." In similar fashion J. C. Lambent writes: "It is not till we come to a writing of Origen, which dates from the second quarter of the third century, that we find for the first time, the claim made on behalf of child baptism (parvuli, not infantes, is the word used) that it rests upon apostolic tradition. And there are two considerations which go far to qualify this claim. One is the well-known fact that by the time of Origen it had become very customary to trace back to the apostles institutions and ideas that were by no means apostolic. The other is that Origen’s testimony as to the apostolic origin of child baptism is not in keeping with the attitude to the subject of his predecessor Tertullian, or with the practice of the Church, for more than a century after his own time,- -indeed, right on to the days of Augustine."--The Sacraments in the New Testament.
TERTULLIAN.
Tertullian, of Carthage, the first of the great Latin Fathers, lived between 150 and 230 A.D. (some say 160-220). Prof. Orr and J. Vernon Bartlet date his conversion at about 190 or 192. Tertullian wrote many books and treatises, including a tractate on Baptism. Mr. Madsen devotes nearly a page to the question whether the tract on Baptism was written before or after its author’s conversion to Montanism in 202. Now, Mr. Madsen knows perfectly well that the material thing is not whether Tertullian wrote a few years before or a few years after the year 200. His opposition to infant baptism may have belonged to the end of the second century or to the beginning of the third. The striking thing is that the very first writer to mention infant baptism is an opponent of it, and that his opposition to it is held by such eminent and scholarly Pedobaptists as Neander and Lambert to discountenance the claim that Origen makes that the practice was an apostolic tradition.
After quoting from Tertullian’s De Baptismo, Mr. Madsen writes: "Tertullian would have delayed the baptism of infants until they were old enough to know Christ, notwithstanding that he recollects his Lord said, ’Forbid them not.’ The Baptists, therefore, range him on their side. But Tertullian would delay the baptism of virgins and widows. Do the Baptists follow him here, and endorse his authority? At this point Tertullian’s opinion is worthless. In any case, he is not with the Baptists in their practice and belief, while his testimony on infant baptism, to which he was in antagonism, proves the prevalence of the practice in the second century." The word "notwithstanding" in this passage is delicious. I presume Tertullian had read his Bible; if so, he ought to have known that the passage in which Jesus said, "Forbid them not," said not a word about baptism. Again, the question, "Do the Baptists follow him" in postponement of baptism of widows? is a most ingenious way of distracting attention from the issue. Baptists and members of Churches of Christ do not need to "follow" Tertullian in their practice. For the baptism of believers we have abundant New Testament authority. It is the Pedobaptists controversialist who, destitute of proof of infant baptism in the Scriptures, needs to drag in an argument from post-apostolic practice. Why we refer to Tertullian is, not to use him as authority for our position, but to show that the great African leader and very first writer to deal expressly with the subject of infant baptism opposes the very thing for support of which Pedobaptists champions appeal to the Fathers.
Mr. Madsen began his treatment of Tertullian thus: "Neander remarks, ’in the last years of the second century, Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism.’" We do not see how we can do better than continue the quotation thus happily begun. The famous church historian and Pedobaptists scholar wrote: "Immediately after Iren^us, in the last years of the second century, Tertullian appears as a zealous opponent of infant baptism; a proof that the practice had not as yet come to be regarded as an apostolical institution; for otherwise he would hardly have ventured to express himself so strongly against it. We perceive from his argument against infant baptism that its advocates already appealed to Matthew 19:14, a passage which it would be natural for every one to apply in this manner. ’Our Lord rebuked not the little children, but commanded them to be brought to him that he might bless them.’ Tertullian advises, that in consideration of the great importance of the transaction, and of the preparation necessary to be made for it on the part of the recipients, baptism as a general thing should rather be delayed than prematurely applied, and he takes this occasion to declare himself particularly opposed to haste in the baptism of children. In answer to the objection drawn from those words of Christ, he replies: ’Let them come while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are taught to what it is they are coming; let them become Christians when they are susceptible of the knowledge of Christ. What haste, to procure the forgiveness of sins for the age of innocence! We show more prudence in the management of our worldly concerns, than we do in entrusting the divine treasure to those who cannot be entrusted with earthly property. Let them first learn to feel their need of salvation; so it may appear that we have given to those that wanted.’ Tertullian evidently means, that children should he led to Christ by instructing them in Christianity; but that they should not receive baptism until, after having been sufficiently instructed, they are led from personal conviction and by their own free choice, to seek for it with sincere longing of the heart. It may be said, indeed, that he is only speaking of the course to be followed according to the general rule; whenever there was momentary danger of death, baptism might be administered, even according to his views. But if he had considered this to be so necessary, he could not have failed to mention it expressly. It seems, in fact, according to the principles laid down by him, that he could not conceive of any efficacy whatever residing in baptism, without the conscious participation and individual faith of the person baptized; nor could he see any danger accruing to the age of innocence from delaying it; although this view of the matter was not logically consistent with his own system."--Neander’s Church History, T. & T. Clark’s Edition, Vol. I., pp. 425, 426.
We give this long quotation in fairness to Neander and to Tertullian. It contains much which modern Pedobaptists might read with benefit, and furnishes a wholesome corrective of what less famous advocates of infant baptism than Neander have sought to say regarding Tertullian’s position.
CYPRIAN. The conversion of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, is dated at about 245 A.D., and his martyrdom at 258. A bishop Fidus submitted a question to a council at Carthage, in which he asked whether a child should be baptized very soon after its birth, or not till eight days after, as in the case of circumcision. Fidus favored the latter view. Cyprian and his colleagues, to the number of sixty-six, sent a reply to Fidus in which the following passages occurred: "In this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man. For as the Lord says in his Gospel, ’The Son of man is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them,’ as far as we can, we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost."--Cyprian’s Works, in T. & T. Clark’s Ante-Nicene Library.
"But again, if even to the greatest sinners, and to those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted--and nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace--how much rather ought we to shrink from hindering an infant who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account, to the reception of the forgiveness of sins--that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another."--Ibid.
Only two things need to he said of Cyprian’s position. The first is that his letter is a century and a half too late for it to have any weight as to the rightfulness of infant baptism. What matters it whether Fidus be supported in his view that each of us would shrink from bestowing the baptismal kiss on "such an object" as a new-born babe, or whether we magnanimously declare with Cyprian that "none of us ought to revolt at that which God has condescended to create," and "although the child be but just born, yet it is no such object that any one ought to demur at kissing to impart the divine grace and the salutation of peace"? In any case, we prefer first century and apostolic authority to third century practice. In the second place, we call attention to the view of Cyprian that the infant would receive remission of sin (original sin) in baptism.
Origen, who claimed that child-baptism was an apostolical tradition, is quoted by Mr. Madsen as saying: "Because by the sacrament of baptism, the corruption of their birth is removed, infants are baptized." Of Origen, Harnack says: "It was easy for Origen to justify child baptism, as he recognized something sinful in corporeal birth itself, and believed in sin which had been committed in a former life. The earliest justification of child baptism may therefore be traced back to a philosophical doctrine."
Neander may be quoted again: "But when now, on the one hand, the doctrine of the corruption and guilt, cleaving to human nature in consequence of the first transgression, was reduced to a more precise and systematic form, and on the other, from the want of duly distinguishing between what is outward and what is inward in baptism (the baptism by water and the baptism by the Spirit), the error became more firmly established, that without external baptism no one could be delivered from that inherent guilt, could be saved from the everlasting punishment that threatened him, or raised to eternal life; and when the notion of a magical influence, a charm connected with the sacraments continually gained ground, the theory was finally evolved of the unconditional necessity of infant baptism. About the middle of the third century, this theory was already generally admitted in the North African Church."--Church History, I.; pp. 426, 427.
Now, if we cannot get infant baptism mentioned till several generations after the apostolic age, and if when it is first mentioned the defenders of it insisted on it as a means of ensuring to the infant forgiveness of sin, are Pedobaptists of Mr. Madsen’s persuasion who quote Origen and Cyprian advancing a very cogent argument? I can understand John Wesley being enamored of the early defenders of infant baptism, for the founder of Methodism argued for the practice because infants were guilty of original sin which needed to be washed away in baptism. So, today, the Romish Church, and the Church of England, in their authorized works similarly associate baptism, even infant baptism, with forgiveness. But Mr. Madsen argues for baby-baptism because the babies are holy; and he thinks he can quote Origen and Cyprian as witnesses to the practice while yet rejecting their doctrine. He tries to twit the Baptists by saying that for the first three centuries no one opposed infant baptism on modern Baptist principles. We reflect that Mr. Madsen cannot get mention of infant baptism till the end of the second century; and that no one of his authorities advocates it on modern Methodist principles as enunciated by the author of The Question of Baptism.
"A HISTORICAL FACT." An attempt is frequently made by Pedobaptists controversialists to help their cause by the argument that there is no record for centuries of the child of Christian parents being baptized in adult years. A similar argument has sometimes been applied to the Scriptures. When we say, Give us a case of or precept enjoining infant baptism in the New Testament, the Pedobaptists retort occasionally is, Do you give us a case of the baptism in later age of the son or daughter of Christian parents. Our friends seem consistently to forget that the real issue between us is as to whether we shall be content to do that for which we have specific authority; or whether we shall in addition do that for which there is no such explicit authority. We know we are doing the Lord’s will in baptizing penitent believers, because God has asked this; but we cannot by any possibility without a special revelation know we are doing God’s will in baptizing a baby--whether on the ground of holiness, or sinfulness--because there is no syllable in the Bible to show that the Lord ever asked it. With regard to the later centuries, every reader of church history must know that there was very frequent delay of baptism, both of those whose parents were Christians and of those who from heathenism were brought to belief in Christ. Here are a few of many statements of eminent Pedobaptists.
We first cite Neander: "But if the necessity of infant baptism was acknowledged in theory, it was still far from being uniformly recognized in practice. Nor was it always from the purest motives that men were induced to put off their baptism."
"Infant baptism was not universally adopted by believers. For not only was the example of Constantine the Great, who postponed his baptism till near death, undoubtedly fashionable and not only did many who were within the close range of Christian influence delay the decisive step, but there is reason to suppose that many baptized Christians did not in the 4th cent. push forward the baptism of their children.--H. G. WOOD, in Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.
Cheetham, in his Church History, dealing with the period from 313 to 590 A.D., says: "A great hindrance to the baptism of infants was the desire to reserve for a later age the sacrament which might (it was thought) wash away the sins of the previous life."
Schaff, writing of the same period, says: "But notwithstanding this general admission of infant baptism, the practice of it was by no means universal. Forced baptism, which is contrary to the nature of Christianity and the sacrament, was as yet unknown. Many Christian parents postponed the baptism of their children, sometimes from indifference, sometimes from fear that they might by their later life forfeit the grace of baptism, and thereby make their condition the worse."
If the foregoing historians are correct as to their statement of a frequent postponement--and Mr. Madsen dare not challenge the correctness of their declaration,--then at once it is seen to be a trivial question whether we can give the name of one child of Christian parents who was baptized in adolescence or maturity.
We give a quotation from The Question of Baptism, under the heading of "A Historical Fact": "Dr. Halley, however, has an interesting historical fact for the Baptists to debate. They claim that Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzen, Augustine, and several others, all had ’Christian’ parentage, and yet were not baptized in infancy. But Dr. Halley contends that there is no record of a child, whose parents were baptized Christians at his birth, allowed to pass infancy without baptism during the first thousand years A.D."--Page 95.
Again:--
"Dr. Halley, after reviewing the alleged evidence, demands: ’Show me the unbaptized man, or woman, boy or girl, born of baptized parents.’ ’Christian’ parentage is alleged by the Baptists, which is not the point in dispute, for it is evident that parents may become Christian when their children are in their teens. Our position is--were these parents ’baptized Christians’ when their children were born’ And we say they were not, or what amounts to the same thing there is no credible evidence that they were."--p. 96.
We call attention, in the first place, to the ingenious way in which Mr. Madsen says that the Baptists claim that Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzen and Augustine are eligible to be quoted in this connection. If "the Baptists" "claim" this, then they are in such good Pedobaptists company that their natural regret at being the subjects of Mr. Madsen’s disapproval will somewhat be mitigated. In his Christian Institutions, Dean Stanley says: "Even amongst Christian households the instances of Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Ephrem of Edessa. Augustine, Ambrose, are decisive proofs that it was not only not obligatory, but not usual. All these distinguished persons had Christian parents, and yet were not baptized till they reached maturity."
Baptists claim! We may not agree with Stannley; but his was not a Baptist claim. He was a Church of England scholar of such attainments and recognized ability that it might not be impossible to find some who would on a priori grounds think that, if A.Stanley and A. Madsen could not both be right,it was not likely that Stanley would be the one to be wrong. No one will accuse F. W. Farrar of ignorant championship of a Baptist claim. In his Lives of the Fathers, Farrar writes: "Gregory of Nazianzus was born about the year 330, five years after his father’s baptism. Nonna had wished for a boy, and vowed that if a son were born to her she would devote him to God; in other words, have him trained to be a presbyter. When her prayer was fulfilled she took the child in her arms to the church, and consecrated his little hands by laying them on the sacred book." Of the delay in Gregory’s baptism, Farrar says: "It was the unscriptural custom of the fourth century to delay baptism till ripe age, sometimes even, as in the case of Constantine, till the deathbed, because the risk of dying unbaptized seemed smaller than the risk of falling into mortal sin after baptism. It seemed quite right both to Gregory and to his pious parents to have postponed his baptism; and yet he had such strange thoughts of God as to imagine that though he had lived from childhood a pure and holy life he would be eternally lost merely for lack of the external ceremony."
H. E. Wood writes: "Gregory of Nazianzus, whose parents were both Christians, was not baptized till he was come to years of discretion. .. The same was true of Ephraim Syrus, . ... and probably of Basil the Great."-- Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics.
Schaff says: "Even after Constantine, there were examples of eminent teachers, as Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine, Chrysostom, who were not baptized before their conversion in early manhood, although they had Christian mothers."
Moeller refers to Basil, Gregory of Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Jerome and Augustine, in similar fashion. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia could be quoted as proving delay in the case of Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. Canon Venables in Murray’s Dictionary of Christian Biography wrote of Basil the great: "His parents were members of noble and wealthy families and Christians by descent." "The date of Basil’s baptism is uncertain, but, according to the prevalent custom, it was almost certainly delayed, until he reached man’s estate." Of Chrysostom, Venables said that he was baptized at the age of twenty-three years, although he was the child of Christian parents, his mother being left a widow when he was an infant.
We can truly say that, in so far as the question of the rightful subjects of baptism is concerned, we do not care twopence whether or not Basil, Gregory, Chrysostom, and Ambrose, were or were not sons of Christian parents or baptized at maturity. Our authority for the baptism of believers would still be the Word of God; and the weakness of pedobaptism would still be that claims to do a thing in the name of the Lord for which no example or precept can be adduced in the Scriptures given for the very purpose of making us wise unto salvation. We have only noticed the men referred to because we are concerned with truth, and we want folk to see to what extremities that man is reduced who will pen a page and a half against what he says "the Baptists" claim; whereas we have quoted not from ignorant immersionists but from some of the most scholarly men who have advocated infant baptism and who yet have made the same claim.
There is one thing, however, yet to be noted. Mr. Madsen’s challenge was that the parents were not "’baptized Christians’ when their children were born." Five times in the course of one paragraph does Mr. Madsen insist on this point, that the parents be shown to be Christians at the birth of the child concerned. Some of our previous quotations bear on this very point. But in addition we wish to call attention to the fact that Mr. Madsen’s objection here has no bearing at all on the controversy between Victorian Methodists and either Baptists or ourselves with reference to the subjects of baptism. Look at the matter a little. Is the principle in the case of a child before whose birth the parents were "baptized Christians" a different one from that in the case of one who is an infant at the time of its parents’ conversion? No. Do Methodists baptize only the babies of those whose parents were "’baptized Christians’ when their children were born"? No; they never suggest such a thing. Why "parents" rather than "parent"? Does Mr. Madsen believe that both parents must be Christians in order to the baptism of a child? No; he denies this. Again, when Mr. Madsen and his Tasmanian fellow-defender of infant baptism, Mr. Delbridge, quoted "to your children" in Acts 2:39 as showing that the children should be baptized, did they then lead us to understand that the "children" eligible should be children born after, not before, the Christian baptism of the parents? By no means; such parents would have been hard to get on Pentecost, on the first day on which the apostles acted on the instructions of what Mr. Madsen calls "the baptizing commission." "Baptized Christians at his birth" then, does not touch the point; it does not help the Pedobaptists argument. Why, then, is it used? Chiefly because of a pleasant if fictitious fancy that it may embarrass the other side, or possibly in order to get the unwary to think that at last in The Question of Baptism there is a forceful argument in favor of what we have shown to be an unscriptural position.