The proof of infant baptism as in existence is afforded first by one who was partly his contemporary and partly his successor. Were the practice clearly proved as existing at the time of Origen, the truth of Curcellæus's words, with every consistent Protestant, would suffice for its rejection and condemnation: "We Padobaptists observe this rite, as an ancient custom, but not as an apostolic institution." I neither affirm nor deny the existence of infant baptism at this time. I simply maintain its existence to be unproved; while the fearfully heterodox sentiments on baptism now embraced would necessarily lead, if they had not already led, to its adoption.

BUNSEN says, "Pædobaptism, in the modern sense, meaning thereby the baptism of new-born infants, with the vicarious promises of parents or other sponsors, was utterly unknown to the early church, not only down to the end of the second century, but indeed to the middle of the third." Nor are the remarks of Bunsen in his Hippolytus rendered nugatory by their association with sponsorship. The language of Tertullian on the danger to sponsors from the baptizing of little children, is a proof of sponsorial engagements on behalf of little children before we have proof of the baptizing of infants. I believe, with Bunsen, that Tertullian "does not say one word about new-born infants." "Neither," says he, "does Origen when his words are accurately weighed." He records no instance of the baptizing of these in his time, and no assertion that they were being baptized, at least so far as I know.

R. ROBINSON says of Origen that he "was a singular genius, and he got over all difficulties by distinguishing baptism into three sorts. Baptism was fluminis, flaminis, sanguinis; that is, river-baptism, fire-baptism, blood-baptism. River-baptism is a being dipped in water. The baptism of fire is repentance, or a disposition to receive grace. Blood-baptism is martyrdom for Christ. In case the first cannot be come at, the two last supply its place, and a person may be saved without the application of water. It is wonderful that both Catholics and Protestants have received this comment for the Scripture doctrine of baptism, and differed only in their manner of explaining it, as Cardinal Bellarmine very fairly observes. They were all led into the mistake by applying to natural infants what Origen had said only of youth and adults. Origen's infants were capable of repentance and martyrdom: but the infants of the Reformers were incapable of both."-His., pp. 339, 340.

Mr. CHAMBERS, speaking of the German Baptists and their arguments, says that "Calvin and other writers against them, are pretty much embarrassed to answer this argument, and are obliged to have recourse to tradition, and the practice of the primitive church."-Cy. Art. Bap.

M. TOWGOOD says that Pædobaptism is "founded upon Scripture and undoubted apostolical tradition !"-In Booth's Pæd. Ex., vol. ii, p. 246.

The maintaining of "apostolical tradition" for the baptizing of little children, appears to me, as it did to Neander, to "confirm the hypothesis," that such a baptism lacks "apostolical institution." Neander also, admitting that "in the spirit of the age when Christianity appeared, there were many elements which must have been favourable to the introduction of infant baptism" (His. of Plan., vol. i, p. 163), and accepting infant as the rendering of parvulus by Origen's translators, denies its existence in apostolic or immediately succeeding times, and maintains the little worth of the pretence by Origen that it had apostolic tradition in its favour. Neander's words 66 are: Origen, in whose system infant baptism naturally finds its place, though not in the same connexion of thought as it held in the system of the North African church, declares it to be an apostolical tradition; an expression, by the way, which perhaps cannot be regarded as of much weight, being made in an age when a strong inclination prevailed to derive from the apostles every ordinance which was considered of special importance; and when, moreover, so many walls had already been thrown up between it and the apostolic age, hindering the freedom of prospect."

15.-HIPPOLYTUS.

A. PIRIE."It is highly probable the Baptist ideas will prevail."-In Booth's Pad. Ex., vol. ii, pp. 345.

T. WATSON.-"Truth is a beam that shines from God. Much of His glory lies in His truth. When we are advocates for truth we glorify God. Jude 3."-Body of Div., p. 11. Spurg.'s Edi.

J. C. MEANS.-Baptism was a "test of faith, as well as its expression.""If it is the expression of faith, it should only be observed by those in whose hearts faith has sprung up; and should be observed by them all, in whatever age and of whatever lineage, and by whatever training, or of whatever period of life they are brought to Christ."-Rela. of Bap., pp. 8, 9.

H. ALLON."In the very nature of things it is impossible that the concessions which enlightenment and freedom claim, can ever be arrested."-Cong. Uni. Addr. 1864.

From Hippolytus, who by the Rev. J. H. Macmahon, the translator of his Refutation of all Heresies in Clark's edition, is supposed to have been martyred "somewhere about A.D. 235-239," and to have written his Refutation after A.D. 222, I know not that any Pædobaptist has quoted in favour of Infant Baptism. His flourishing must have been during that of Origen. His sentiments on baptismal regeneration appear to have accorded with the apparently prevailing sentiment of his time, since he says, "Christ is the God [who is] above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, [thereby] rendering regenerate the old man" (Wri. of Hip., vol. i, p. 402. Clark's edi.). Wickham in his Synopsis (p. 316) quotes Hippolytus as saying:

"When the church according to custom desires to receive the font, it necessarily has two handmaids in attendance on her. For the church by faith in Christ and charity towards God confesses and receives baptism." Again (p. 332), "Approach, therefore, and be regenerated, O man, to adoption to the Son of God. And how? he says. If thou hast not committed adultery or murder, nor worshipped idols. If thou art not overcome by pleasure, if thou art not so that pride may govern thee. If thou washest away the filth of uncleanness, and castest from thee the burden of sin. If thou puttest off the armour of the devil, and puttest on the mail of faith, as Isaiah says, Be washed, &c.' [Is. i, 16-19]. Thou seest, well beloved, how the prophet foretold the purifying power of baptism. For he who descends with faith into this laver of regeneration, renounces the devil and devotes himself to Christ."

Dr. BUNSEN teaches that Hippolytus scarcely knew the baptism of little children, that in his baptismal sermon he "contemplates exclusively the baptism of adult catechumens;" that "the difference between the Ante-Nicene church and the later church was essentially this-the later church, with the exception of converts, baptized new-born infants, and she did so on principle; the ancient church as a general rule, baptized adults, and only after they had gone through the course of instruction, and, as the exception, only Christian children who had not arrived at years of maturity, but never infants."-Hip. and his Age, vol. iii, p. 193.

Dr. B. has before (vol. i, p. 497) taught that baptism and the Lord's Supper held "the first rank among the sacred acts of the church and signs of her life," while "magic infant baptism," claiming the effects ascribed by the apostles to the solemn profession of faith in the Father, Son, and Spirit, and to its external seal by the Jewish rite of immersion, was still more alien to Christianity."

66

Dr. Bunsen supposed that Hippolytus would thus address the English of the nineteenth century: "We never defended the baptism of children, which in our days had only begun to be practised in some regions." 'Baptism of infants we did not know. Much less did we ever imagine that such an act could have any of those words of our Saviour applied to it which I see some attach to an external act of a simulacrum of the symbolical immersion, accompanied by the promissory act of third persons, which together they call baptism. We, the old fathers, should have considered such an opinion heretical, and any pretension to make it an article of faith an unwarrantable tyranny" (His., vol. ii, p. 313). He goes on to speak of "the part of the rite according to Christ's institution and the apostolic practice," being "the solemn Christian pledge, not of third persons, but of the responsible catechumen."

What may yet be produced by Pædobaptists writers from Hippolytus, a portion of whose writings has come to light but recently with any assurance of being his, and which by me have not been wholly read, I cannot say. But if anything from these can be adduced in proof of infant baptism in the time of Hippolytus, it will only be a proof of existence a few years earlier than that which is afforded by Cyprian. And if ought had existed, I believe it would before this have been paraded. The quotations given encourage the idea that infant baptism was not in the time of Hippolytus the Roman practice; yea, that it was not known to Hippolytus. This is strongly maintained by Dr. Bunsen.

Before Cyprian we have evidence that little children were baptized, but no record of the baptism of infants, and not a single statement from which the existence of such a practice can be certainly proved. The baptizing of the very youthful was then advocated with a view to the safety of the soul, although it was believed to have special encouragement from certain portions of the Old and New Testament, especially the former; and Origen adduces a fact which, if relevant at all, encourages as much the baptism of the new-born as of any older child.

16.-CYPRIAN AND THE EARLY CHURCH.*

A. BOOTH.-"When Justin, for instance, had learned to call baptism the water of life when Clement, of Alexandria, had ascribed to it an illuminating power, and connected adoption, perfection, and immortality with it; and when Tertullian had pronounced it a Divine blessing, which ascertains the abolition of sin, and is attended with a sanctifying energy; it is no wonder that in the time of Cyprian, it should be thought necessary for infants to be baptized, and that Pædobaptism should become a prevailing practice."-Pad. Ex., vol. i, p. 416.

Dr. G. H. BALL.-" Hundreds of the most learned Pædobaptist ministers admit that the Baptists have the best of the argument on this subject" "The testimony of those who have written as scholars, is more likely to be correct than that of sectarians."-Mor. Star, p. 209. 1869.

Dr. CLAGETT.-" The power of truth has extorted from some or other of our adversaries the confession of-the premises which infer our conclusion."

Cyprian, the next author among the fathers, the last whom I need now to quote, is the first, so far as I know, who expressly mentions the baptism of infants. Cyprian is believed to have been born about A.D. 200. His conversion appears to have taken place in A.D. 246, his elevation to the episcopate of Carthage in A.D. 248, and his martyrdom in A.D. 258. In one of his first writings, an epistle to Donatus, he expresses the difficulty ho felt when lying in darkness and gloomy night, "that a man should be capable of being born again-a truth which the Divine mercy had announced for my salvation-and that a man quickened to a new life in

A reader of this section, if altogether unacquainted with ecclesiastical history, may sometimes be puzzled by the apparently contradictory representations of the church in the early period of its history. Let him remember that contradictory sentiments and practices might have an existence not only in different places and persons, but also in the same place and even in the same person; and further, that the words "primitive church," "early period," and similar phraseology, are indefinite, sometimes being used in application to apostolic times, sometimes in application to those immediately post-apostolic, by some to describe the first and second century of the Christian era, by others to embrace the first three, and by some to embrace the first four or more centuries of this era. Careful attention and a knowledge of the whole connexion may make the meaning of most to be understood. In speaking of the early church in this section, I shall refer especially to the first three centuries, occasionally to a subsequent period, and sometimes to the first thousand years of the Christian era, adducing Pædobaptist (and some Baptist) Bestimony in opposition to what I regard as Pædobaptist assumptions and errors.

the laver of saving water, should be able to put off what he had previously been; and although retaining all his bodily structure, should be himself changed in heart and soul." In his epistle to Pompeius, speaking against the sufficiency of baptism by heretics, he says: "If any one born out of the church can become God's temple, why cannot the Holy Spirit also be poured out upon the temple? For he who has been sanctified, his sins being put away in baptism, and has been spiritually re-formed into a new man, has become fitted for receiving the Holy Spirit. Water

alone is not able to cleanse away sins, and to sanctify a man, unless he have also the Holy Spirit." "It is the church alone which conjoined and united with Christ, spiritually bears sons." "The birth of Christians is in baptism, while the generation and sanctification of baptism are with the spouse of Christ alone." In a letter to Januarius and other Numidian bishops, on baptizing heretics, he says, "The very interrogation which is put in baptism is a witness of the truth. For when we say, Dost thou believe in eternal life and remission of sins through the holy church? we mean that remission of sins is not granted except in the church, and that among heretics, where there is no church, sins cannot be put away." It is not surprising that Cyprian should be a favourite with Anglican Sacramentarians and Successionists. But he is also a favourite with Dissenting Pædobaptists. He even teaches that "the Lord, sending his apostles, commands that the nations should be baptized," and he gives explicit testimony to the existence, and his own approval of the practice, of infant baptism, with reasons for this approval, in which sixty-six neighbouring bishops agree. This is in a letter to Fidus, who had written to him on the baptism of infants, and which is supposed to have been written "A.D. 253." I shall transcribe from Clark's Edition of the AnteNicene writers.

CYPRIAN says, "But in respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For 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." If the approval by Cyprian of unbaptized catechumens, and of faith in adults previous to baptism, could not be proved, the advocates of indiscriminate baptism might claim Cyprian as an authority in their favour. This venerable saint, who can recommend immediate baptism for the salvation of every infant is appealed to by those who maintain the restriction of baptism to the children of believers, who by birth from a believing parent inherit the inestimable blessing, to the seal of which it is maintained they must have an undoubted right. As a reason for baptizing the new-born child, Cyprian inquires, "For what is wanting to him who has once been formed in the womb by the hand of God?" He says, "all men are like and equal, since they have once been made by God; and our age may have a difference in the increase of our bodies, according to the world, but not according to God; unless that very grace also which is given to the baptized is given either less or more, according to the age of the receivers, whereas the Holy Spirit is not given with measure, but by the mercy and love of the Father alike to all. For God, as He does not accept the person, so does not accept the age; since he shews Himself a Father to all with well-weighed equality for the attainment of heavenly grace. For with respect to what you say, that the aspect of an infant in the first days after its birth is not pure, so that any one of us would still shudder at kissing it, we do not think

that this ought to be alleged as any impediment to heavenly grace. For it is written, To the pure all things are pure.' Nor ought any of us to shudder at that which God hath condescended to make. For although the infant is still fresh from its birth, yet it is not such that any one should shudder at kissing it in giving grace and in making peace; since in the kiss of an infant every one of us ought, for his very religion's sake, to consider the still recent hands of God themselves, which in some sort we are kissing, in the man lately formed and fleshly born, when we are embracing that which God has made. For in respect of the observance of the eighth day in the Jewish circumcision of the flesh, a sacrament was given beforehand in shadow and in usage; but when Christ came it was fulfilled in truth. For because the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, was to be that on which the Lord should rise again, and should quicken us, and give us circumcision of the Spirit, the eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day, went before in the figure; which figure ceased when by and bye the truth came, and spiritual circumcision was given to us.

"For which reason we think that no one is to be hindered from obtaining grace by that law which was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision, but that absolutely every man is to be admitted to the grace of Christ, since Peter also in the Acts of the Apostles speaks, and says, "The Lord hath said to me that I should call no man common or unclean.' But if anything could hinder men from obtaining grace, their more heinous sins might rather hinder those who are mature and grown up and older. 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. And therefore, dearest brother, this was our opinion in council, that by us no one ought to be hindered from baptism and from the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and loving to all. Which, since it is to be observed and maintained in respect of all, we think it to be even more observed in respect of infants and newly-born persons, who on this very account deserve more from our help and from the Divine mercy, that immediately, on the very beginning of their birth, lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat."-Vol, i, pp. 196-199.

Thus, according to the translation by Dr. R. E. Wallis, writes and reasons the first Christian writer respecting the baptizing of infants, and unites with him sixty-six supporters of his sentiments in advising Fidus! The unscriptural practice and the unscriptural reasoning are worthy of each other. It will also be seen from the above quotation how some writers can speak of Cyprian as advocating the baptism of infants from their not having committed sin, and how others can speak of him as advocating their baptism to prevent their damnation.

While maintaining that there is no earlier proof of the existence of infant baptism than about the middle of the third century, as I admit its existence at this time in the North African churches, I shall not notice subsequent fathers except barely referring to them, and especially in the testimonies of Pædobaptists on the extent to which infant baptism prevailed during the first thousand years of the Christian era. I admit that infant baptism must have been in existence, and might have been for some years, when Cyprian wrote as above respecting it. I admit that it spread and increased throughout the church of Christ till it became well nigh universal. I need not attest its increase and prevalence by the writings of the fathers. I shall adduce some Pædobaptist writers of eminence in regard to prevalent errors when the baptism of infants first appears, and in corroboration of