Infant-baptism : historically considered

Un) 9 1922 *!

BV 811 .M33A

McGlothlin, William Joseph,

1867-1933.
Infant-baptism

HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED

Die Wal)r^cil isl unlo6tlicl)
— Hubmcier

(13^6 trutt) is immortal)

^J.Mc(

W. J. McGLOTHLIN. D.D.. LL. D.

Professor o£ Church History,
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary-

Price: 60 Centa

Sunday School Board, Southern Baptist Convention
Nashville, Tennessee

Copyrigkted

by Sunday School Board, Southern

Baptist Con-vention.

1916.

l!)c 5tlemorY of tl)c faill)ful Witnesses

w^o l)ave

live6 anb labored anb suffered

for t^e

establishment of spiritual religion

in tl)e eartl)

t^is volume is reverently

6e6icate6.

PREFACE.

The following pages have been written in the inter-
est of spiritual religion and the evangelical faith. Years
spent in the study and teaching of church history have
forced the conviction that infant-baptism, taken as a
whole and throughout its history, has been the most
serious departure from apostolic Christianity and evan-
gelical faith that the world has to show. It has been
the open door through which most of the errors and
evils which have ajfiflicted the kingdom of Christ on
earth have poured in. The whole character of Chris-
tian history would certainly have been very different
had faith-baptism been preserved inviolate. Sacra-
mental salvation, compulsion of conscience, bloody per-
secution and union of Church and State, would have
been impossible. Its abandonment today would abolish
sacramental salvation with all the churches that sup-
port this faith, would give an immeasurable impulse to
evangelical faith and do more to unite the Christians
of the world in the bonds of genuine spiritual fellow-
ship and fraternity than all other possible changes.
Varying views of the significance of infant-baptism is
the chief cause of division among the pedobaptists
themselves ; its practice is the chief barrier between Bap-
tists and evangelical pedobaptists.

The work has been written with the full consciousness
that there is much difference between the conceptions
of infant-baptism as held and practiced by Catholics
and evangelical Protestants, but with a very firm con-
viction of the evils and dangers as pr^acticed among
th€ latter. The author cherishes nothing but kindly
feelings for his pedobaptist brethren and has sought to
avoid in these pages any expression that would wound
or offend reasonable people. He has written as plainly
and as forcibly as his powers would permit, with the
hope that pedobaptists may understand the feelings of
the Baptists more fully and that some pedobaptists may
be led to consider afresh their own duty in the prem-
ises. Withal, it may lead some Baptists to understand
more fully the security and importance of their own
position and the seriousness of the dangers that lurk
in infant-baptism. W. J. M.

Louisville, Ky., Christmas, 1915.

(4)

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE

Introduction by President Mullins 6

I. Infant-Baptism in the World 9

II. The Baptist View of Baptism 18

III. Infant-Baptism and the Scriptures 28

IV. Infant-Baptism and the Scriptures — Con-

tinued 39

V. Infant-Baptism Appears at End of Second

Century 49

VI. Infant-Baptism Slowly Gains Ground 6^

VII. Infant-Baptism Triumphant Through Bap-
tismal Regeneration 75

VIII. The Reformation— Martin Luther 86

IX. The Reformation — Zwingli and Calvin 92

X. Reformation and Revival in England 100

XI. The Growth of Anti-Pedobaptist Sentiment. .109
XII. The Child and the Kingdom — The New

Pelagianism 121

XIII. Forces Operating for Faith-Baptism 140

XIV. Modern Pedobaptist Scholarship 152

XV. The Outlook for Faith-Baptism 166

(6)

INTRODUCTION,

There have been, among others, two marked ten-
dencies in the history of Christianity which have been
productive of evil. One has been the tendency to over-
estimate the ceremonial elements, and the other to
underestimate them. Because of their strenuous ad-
herence to immersion as the form prescribed in the New
Testament for the ordinance of baptism. Baptists have
often been misunderstood as champions of the cere-
monial as contrasted with the spiritual elements of the
gospel. Nothing could be farther from the truth than
this estimate of Baptists. They have indeed expended
much effort in maintaining the two ordinances of the
New Testament church. But their aim has been always
to preserve the spirituality of the gospel, not to lose
sight of it in the advocacy of forms and ceremonies.
The amount of time and thought expended upon the
latter has been no greater than the tendency to over-
estimate them or pervert their meaning on the part of
others.

Baptists have, indeed, in a very peculiar sense, felt
themselves called to maintain the purity and spirituality
of the New Testament Christianity. Their sense of the
call to this work has been manifest in nothing more
clearly than in their effort to define the ceremonial ele-
ments of Christianity in relation to the spiritual.
Human nature is almost incorrigibly devoted to the
outward aspects of religion until it has become suffi-
ciently spiritualized to penetrate to the heart and grasp
the central realities. One needs only to recall the
Roman Catholic perversion of a simple metaphor of
Jesus into the doctrine of the "real presence," It would
seem that an elementary knowledge of the principles of
rhetoric would have prevented so palpable an error of
interpretation. But unspiritual human nature seized
(6)

Introduction. 7

upon the literal meaning and converted it into a stu-
pendous and far-reaching perversion of the funda-
mentals of the gospel. It became thus a striking ex-
ample of the perils which arise out of apparently small
deviations from a spiritual faith.

It is in view of facts of this kind that Baptists have
been the religious radicals among the various denomi-
nations. They have seen with great vividness and
clearness of outline the central spiritual elements of
Christianity. With a like vividness and clearness they
have perceived the significance of the outward forms.
For them it has seemed as if the very life of Christianity
depended upon keeping the spiritual and ceremonial
elements in their respective places. Christian history
certainly justifies them in their view. Forms and cere-
monies are like ladders. On them we may climb up or
down. If we keep them in their places as symbols, the
soul feeds on the truth symbolized. If we convert them
into sacraments, the soul misses the central vitality
itself, spiritual communion with God. An outward re-
ligious ceremony derives its chief significance from the
context in which it is placed, from the general system
of which it forms a part. If a ceremony is set in the
context of a spiritual system of truths, it may become
an indispensable element for the furtherance of those
truths. If it is set in the context of a sacramental sys-
tem, it may and does become a means for obscuring
the truth and enslaving the soul. It is this perception
of the value of ceremonies as symbols and of their
perils as sacraments which animates Baptists in their
strenuous advocacy of a spiritual interpretation of the
ordinances of Christianity. The practice of infant bap-
tism has been one of the greatest evils which has arisen
in the history of Christianity in the Baptist view. It is
not forgotten that in the United States there has been

3 Introduction.

some modification in the estimate of the ordinance as
practiced by some of the pedobaptist denominations.
But in principle infant baptism remains where it has
been from the beginning, an excrescence and ahen ele-
ment in the body of general Protestant doctrine. For-
tunately, these great denominations often possess other
elements which are spiritual and inconsistent with the
practice of infant baptism. This makes it seem to a
Baptist incredible that infant baptism should be retained
by them as in any sense an element of New Testament
Christianity.

In the light of the preceding statements it will not
be difficult for a fair-minded pedobaptist to understand
the motive of a Baptist in maintaining believers' and
opposing infant baptism. It is not as the champion of
a form or ceremony merely, it is not as a formalist at
all, that he pleads. It is rather as the advocate of
an intensely and radically spiritual Christianity, which
seeks to reproduce that of the New Testament.

Professor McGlothlin has traced the development of
infant baptism throughout Christian history with great
clearness in the pages of this volume. Perhaps no
better argument can be offered against the practice than
that afforded by the facts of its origin, and the motives
which led to its perpetuation. Certainly no pen can
adequately describe the evils to which it has given rise
in those countries where the logic of infant baptism has
had an opportunity to work itself out fully in church
life. The fundamental explanation is to be found at
every stage in the history. Infant baptism shifts the
center of gravity of Christianity so completely that a
thorough transformation of church life follows. The
direct gives place to an indirect relation of the soul to
God; personal faith gives place to proxy profession;
the vital inward change or new birth gives place to a
fictitious sacramental salvation ; a regenerate gives place
to an unregenerate church membership. This is the
logic of infant baptism, and it is universal experience
as well, except where other and opposing principles
neutralize the tendency. E. Y. Mullins.

CHAPTER I.

INFANT-BAPTISM IN THE WORLD.

Infant-baptism is one of the most tenderly
cherished and widely practiced of all ecclesiastical
ceremonies. Of the more than five hundred mil-
lions of nominal Christian population of the
world the vast majority administer this rite, while
a comparatively small minority actually oppose
infant-baptism and insist on the practice of faith-
baptism only. The two great Catholic churches
are unanimious in its support, and the great major-
ity of Protestant churches officially favor it,
though some of them insist on its practice less
strenuously than the Catholics. Millions rely
upon it for regeneration and life eternal. Some
parents look upon the death of an unbaptized
child with terror, feeling certain that the little
one will be banished from the face of God for-
ever. The baptism of royal infants is a court
function of the highest importance, while in the
home of the peasant it is an event of the greatest
moment. Ecclesiastics and parents alike unite in
demanding the baptism of the infant, to assure
the little one's eternal welfare and gain ecclesias-
tical control over the life at its beginning.

Often the State has demanded the administra-
tion of infant-baptism as sternly as the Church,

(9)

10 Infant-Baptism,

and in some lands the want of baptism is still
a serious disability in the civil life of the citizen.
During the later Middle Ages infant-baptism was
almost triumphant, and its advocates were en-
gaged in a bloody effort to suppress by force
all who opposed. It was not effectively chal-
lenged till the period of the Reformation, and
the marked growth of faith-baptism did not be-
gin till the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
Even now great numbers of pedobaptists regard
anti-pedobaptists as a body of ignorant, narrow,
perverted and troublesome fanatics who do not
care for the religious welfare of their children
and who are in fact semi-heathen ; others feel that
anti-pedobaptists make overmuch trouble about a
ceremony that is at least harmless and beautiful ;
still others feel that anti-pedobaptists deny to
their children a right which was granted to them
by the Saviour himself and which has been prac-
ticed ever since.

And yet pedobaptist and anti-pedobaptist schol-
ars are agreed almost absolutely as to the ascer-
tainable facts connected with the history of infant-
baptism. Briefly stated, these facts are as fol-
lows: The Scriptures are silent concerning in-
fant-baptism ; Jesus did not baptize any one (John
4:2), and all the recorded cases of baptism are
baptisms of believers; there is no express com-
mand to baptize any but believers ; if infant-bap-
tism is to be found in the Scriptures it is wholly
by inference ; there is no conclusive proof of the
existence of the practice of infant-baptism for

Infant-Baptism in the World. H

more than a century and a half after the death of
Jesus. The earliest clear evidence of the practice
is found in Tertullian, who lived at Carthage in
North Africa, at the end of the second century;
he opposed the practice; the next evidence is
found in Cyprian, the bishop of this same city of
Carthage, about 250. Origen, a great scholar of
Egypt, also in North Africa, probably shows
acquaintance with and approval of it about the
same time ; it next appears at Constantinople in
the following century, but is opposed by the great
preacher and bishop of that city, Gregory Nazian-
zen ; from this time on it gradually spreads over
the Christian world. Augustine, bishop of Hippo,
in North Africa, in the fifth century, developed
the theological argument for the practice, basing
it in the regenerating power of baptism operating
on the depraved nature of the infant child: on
this basis it rapidly spread throughout the world ;
civil governments began in the early Middle
Ages to support the Church with force in
the demand that all children should be bap-
tized ; some of the sects of the later Middle Ages
opposed infant-baptismi but were hunted to death
as heretics; most of the Reformers preserved in-
fant-baptism, but a strong contingency, known
as Anabaptists, began a powerful agitation for its
abolition. Since that time infant-baptism has
relatively declined, while faith-baptism has had a
great revival. These tendencies were greatly
accelerated in the nineteenth century, and now
show no symptoms of abatement.

12 Infant-Baptism.

These are the ascertainable facts concerning
which there is little difference of opinion among
scholars of all communions. The differences lie
beyond the ascertainable facts in the realm of in-
ference. Anti-pedobaptists maintain that these
facts are full and final, that they constitute an
overwhelming argument against infant-baptism
and in favor of faith-baptism. Pedobaptists claim
that infant-baptism can be legitimately inferred
and satisfactorily supported by these facts. The
two great parties separate in the realm of infer-
ence, not of fact.

In the view of anti-pedobaptists, infant-bap-
tism is not only without scriptural warrant, but
is also positively and seriously injurious when
viewed in the whole range of its work. Pedobap-
tists while differing widely, even fundamentally,
among themselves as to what baptism actually
accomplishes in or for the infant, are agreed that
it brings some blessing. And yet they would
scarcely claim that their children show by the
pragmatic test of actual later life any higher moral
standards, and purer faith, clearer hope, greater
zeal or more earnest piety than the children of
pious and cultured anti-pedobaptists. The sup-
posedly beneficial effects of baptism, when tested
by actual experience, are seen to be wholly in the
realm of conjecture. They cannot be set down
as facts. The known facts are as stated above.

Anti-pedobaptists believe that infant-baptism is
not only totally devoid of warrant in Scripture
in the way of either precept or example, but that

Infant-Baptism in the World. I3

it also violates the fundamental conception of re-
ligion set forth in the New Testament ; and intro-
duces a second baptism, which works to abolish
faith-baptism which is commanded in the Scrip-
tures. In its essential nature, it nullifies the fun-
damental Christian principles of personal choice
and conscious religious experience; it violates in
the cradle of helpless infancy the sacred doctrine
of religious freedom ; historically and in practice
it has obscured the great fact of spiritual regener-
ation through faith in Jesus Christ, it has intro-
duced the unregenerate world into the Church,
has blurred and confused the distinction between
Christian and non-Christian; has led millions to
depend on its magical effects for a salvation that
is promised to vital faith in Christ only; has
served as the basis for the union of Church and
State, and has been the indispensable condition
of religious coercion and persecution through the
centuries. Without the forcible administration of
baptism on unconscious or unwilling individuals
persecution is logically impossible, since the very
essence of faith-baptism is the personal and free
choice of each individual on all religious matters.
Upon infant-baptism, therefore, lies first respon-
sibility for all the blood that has been poured out
by the Church in the effort to enforce ecclesias-
tical uniformity. No body of Christian people
who have consistently practiced faith-baptism
have been guilty of persecution. Further than
this, a moment's consideration will make it per-
fectly clear to any thoughtful man that those who

14 Infant-Baptism.

practice faith-baptism could not become perse-
cutors, for the simple reason that they have
adopted the voluntary principle in religion.

No indictment of equal gravity can be brought
against any other ceremony practiced by any con-
siderable part of the Christian world today. Not
only the two great Catholic churches, but also
every other pedobaptist church, with one or two
minor exceptions, carries the blood of martyrs
on its skirts as a result of the effort to coerce men
into uniformity through infant-baptism.

In view of these undeniable facts it seems to
anti-pedobaptists passing strange that the evan-
gelical Protestant churches who now abhor per-
secution, and insist on religious freedom and a
personal religious experience as a condition of
church membership, should still persist in a prac-
tice whose history is so dark and whose effects
even now are so dangerous, a practice which is
confessedly without clear Scripture warrant,
which is Jewish and pagan in its original and
fundamental conception, which has been con-
demned by its practical effects in Christian his-
tory, which tends inevitably to nullify the spir-
itual nature of Christianity itself, and is today
the rock upon which Catholicism, both Roman
and Greek, stands.

The practice persists chiefly because of the
power of ecclesiastical tradition. It arose out
of belief in the magical effects of baptism, and
is defended by arguments that differ according
to the fundamental standpoints of the churches

Infant-Baptism in the World. 15

that maintain it. These arguments of the vari-
ous pedobaptist churches often invalidate and
negative each 'ether, but without any effect on
their respective proponents. The Calvinist repu-
diates the grounds on v^hich the CathoHc bap-
tizes infants, and vice versa. The effort to make
^•'^a vaHd scriptural argument by adducing cases of
infant-baptism or discovering something that
could be construed into a command to baptize
infants is an afterthought. No such efforts were
made in the early history of the practice. It was
not till Protestants arose and adopted the theory
of the supreme authority of Scripture that such
arguments were attempted. In modern times
infant-baptism, whatever arguments are advanced
in its support in controversy with the advocates
of faith-baptism, really rests on one of the three
following basal principles: The Catholics (Ro-
man and Greek) and many Lutherans and Epis-
copalians base it on the magical regenerating
power of the ceremony; Presbyterians, Congre-
gationalists and some others on the relation of
the child to believing parents; Methodists and
some others make it a simple ceremony of dedica-
tion by which the child is publicly and solemnly
given to God. In the first instance the child is
held to be lost without baptism and is believed
to be saved in it and by it ; in the second instance
the child is not supposed to be saved by it, but
since it is born of believing parents (only the
children of believing parents are baptized), it has
a right to baptism as the ceremony which intro-

16 Infant-Baptism.

duces it into the covenant of grace, as circum-
cision did in the Jewish economy. Without this
infant-baptism they believe the child would some-
how be at a serious disadvantage. In the third
case baptism is not for the direct benefit of the
child at all, but for the sake of the parents, who
are thus reminded of their solemn duty to bring
up the child in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord. Doubtless most parents, except in the
Catholic churches, are moved by parental senti-
ment without any clear thought as to the purpose
or significance of baptism. They accept it as an
ancient and pretty social and religious custom
whose omission would be nothing short of a social
disgrace.

All the pedobaptist churches baptize adults also,
but on totally different grounds. They are agreed
that an adult must repent and believe, else baptism
is an idle and useless ceremony. They thus have
two baptisms; one is for infants; it is without
faith and is dependent for its efficacy and signifi-
cance either on the magical working of baptism
or on the natural family relation of the infant to
believing parents, or on the subsequent religious
instruction given by parents. The other is for
adults, and is based upon preceding faith.

The justification of infant-baptism is extremely
difficult and embarrassing to all except those who
believe in its regenerating power. It grew up
in the Catholic system and has always been very
embarrassing to evangelical pedobaptists. Clear
thinkers, like Zwingli and Calvin, are utterly con-

Infant-Baptism in the World. I7

fused when they try to find a place for it in their
systems. Nothing but the power of ecclesiastical
tradition could keep evangelical pedobaptists
practicing a custom which is the contradiction of
their evangelical principles. In view of these
facts it is not strange that the practice is on the
decline among evangelical Christians.

CHAPTER II.

THE BAPTIST VIEW OF BAPTISM.

Baptists hold a perfectly simple and consistent
view of baptism. They have but one baptism for
all, based upon the spiritual condition of the re-
cipient. They do not baptize one class for one
reason and another for another. They have **one
Lord, one faith, one baptism." What they insist
on with unwavering fidelity is that repentance
toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ
must precede baptism in every instance. It is not
a question of infants or adults, not a question of
age in any sense, but of faith. If infants could
exercise faith Baptists would baptize every one
that gave satisfactory evidence of the possession
of that faith and expressed a desire for baptism.
When there is a request for baptism and satis-
factory evidence of the existence of faith is found,
Baptists baptize, whether the candidate is eight,
or twelve, or twenty, or seventy. Age, it is re-
peated, has no place in the discussion. Ours is
not an adult- as contrasted with a child-baptism,
but a faith-baptism as contrasted with a non-faith-
baptism. Baptists believe that all persons who
die without attaining moral responsibility, what-
ever be the cause, are saved by the mercy and
grace of God in Christ Jesus. But this salvation

(18)

The Baptist View of Baptism. 19

is without the exercise of faith and so without the
duty of baptism. Baptists would no more baptize
an idiot than an infant, because neither is cap-
able of exercising faith. They beHeve baptism
to be absolutely inseparable from the exercise of
personal saving faith.

The reasons which actuate the Baptists in these
views and practices are many and various. The
scriptural argument will be reviewed at some
length in the next two chapters. In this the more
general phases of the argument will be stated.

I. Baptists believe that the essential nature
of the Christian religion makes any other than
the view set forth above untenable and any other
practice than theirs ultimately if not immediately
hurtful. Salvation is, as they believe, personal.
There are no proxies, one cannot stand for an-
other in spiritual things. Every soul must for
itself enter into right relations with God through
Jesus Christ. The soul must be free, in full pos-
session of its faculties, its actions voluntary. In-
fant-baptism is a process of spiritual kidnaping. It
not only has no blessings for the child, but vio-
lates the fundamental religious rights of the in-
dividual, deciding for him when he is helpless
what he has a God-given right and duty to decide
for himself. It is not only futile, but denies to
its victim the highest functions of a spiritual be-
ing, the right of self-direction in the supreme con-
cerns of the soul. As well baptize an adult in
the unconsciousness of sleep or anesthesia or de-
lirium as an infant in its moral and religious un-

20 Infant-Baptism.

consciousness. Infant-baptism is the first and
fundamental violation of religious freedom and
draws all other violations in its train.

Baptists do not believe that religion in its es-
sence is an affair of the family or the nation or
of racial descent. They recognize that the pagan
religions were and are tribal, national, or racial.
A pagan is born into a religion as he is born into
citizenship in a given state. In some measure
the Jewish religion stood on the same basis. The
Jewish child was born into the Jewish religion,
and he was circumcised in acknowledgment and
confirmation of that fact. His was a national re-
ligion. His circumcision and religious duties
were based on his birth, his racial and physical
origin. It neither marked nor wrought any
change in his spiritual condition; in fact, it had
no relation to his personal character or spiritual
condition as an individual. To omit it was to
renounce loyalty to Israel; it involved expulsion
from the nation and so from its spiritual as well
as its other advantages.

But in the fullness of the times this ideal had
served its purposes in the progress of the king-
dom of God, and the day arrived for the bless-
ings of grace to be sent broadcast throughout the
earth. In order to accomplish this high purpose
change was necessary. John the Baptist was
raised up as a "teacher sent from God" to insti-
tute this change. He broke away from the racial
conception of religion altogether, and made the
personal experience of repentance and faith in

The Baptist View of Baptism, 21

every individual of whatever race or family the
basis of religion. The ax was laid at the root
of every tree (Jewish as well as Gentile), and
every tree (Jewish as well as Gentile) that brings
not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into
the fire. The basis of religion in the mouth of
John is personal. In order to enter the kingdom
of God the Jew as well as the Gentile must re-
pent and believe and so the Jew as well as the
Gentile must be baptized. Circumcision was for
the Jewish male child, baptism was for the re-
pentant and believing human being (Jew and
Gentile alike). The two ceremonies stood on
totally different bases, meant totally different
things, and so had no relation of kinship to each
other. Jews who had been circumcised in infancy
were baptized notwithstanding their circumcision.
Circumcision rested upon the rights and duties
of Jewish citizenship, a racial basis, and so was
to be administered to every male Jewish child;
baptism rests upon a personal, spiritual basis (re-
pentance and faith) and so is to be administered
to every individual (male or female) who pos-
sesses the necessary spiritual qualifications, ir-
respective of sex, race, or family. Circumcision
by its nature and purpose was limited to Jewish
male children, baptism is limited by its nature to
believers. Genuine baptism before faith is as
impossible as circumcision before birth.

Baptists do not fail to value Christian parent-
age or emphasize parental obligation to bring up
children in the nurture and admonition of the

22 Infant-Baptism.

Lord. But they cannot believe that the child in-
herits the Christianity of its parents or loses any
spiritual blessings by the omission of a ceremony
that is supposed to have taken the place of the
old Jewish circumcision. To Baptists the Chris-
tian religion is by its very nature personal and
spiritual. In their opinion there can be no reli-
gion by proxy or family or ceremony. A child
can no more inherit its parents' faith than their
view of the solar system. Salvation lies in the
realm of personal experience where there are no
proxies before birth or after birth, and as every
individual must consciously believe for himself
so he must consciously choose baptism for him-
self.

2. Baptists reject infant-baptism because they
believe our religion is spiritual. The high and
holy transactions between the soul and God take
place in the clear light of consciousness. They
do not believe that the ceremony of baptism can
work in a magical way to produce in the soul,
while it is morally unconscious, such tremendous
effects as regeneration and salvation. To Bap-
tists the practice of baptizing babies for the re-
moval of sin of which they are not conscious is
blasphemous mockery, working immeasurable
wrong to the soul by lulling it into a false and
dangerous security when it comes to conscious
responsibility. The view that baptism regenerates
is pagan in its origin and came directly from
paganism into Christianity. It was, except among
Pelagians, the only view of infant-baptism h^i

The Baptist View of Baptism. 23

by anybody down to the Reformation, and is still
the view and teaching of the vast majority of
those who practice it. It is, in the judgment of
Baptists, the deadliest heresy that ever crept out
of the pagan religions of the Roman empire into
the faith of the Christian Church. If evangelical
Protestants sometimes wonder at the tenacity of
the Baptists in their opposition to infant-baptism
they can easily find the explanation in the history
and present practice of the ceremony. It is a con-
stant cause of wonder to Baptists that evangel-
ical Protestants so tenaciously perpetuate a prac-
tice for which they can find no certain Scripture
warrant, a practice which is the very cornerstone
of the Catholic churches, which is relied on by
hundreds of millions of souls in our day for a
salvation which no evangelical Christian believes
it can give them and which had such a sinister
and bloody history in the Middle Ages. Bap-
tists cannot look upon this practice without a
shudder. They believe our religion is spiritual
and therefore they reject infant-baptism, which
they believe has been the chief hindrance to evan-
gelical Christianity in its whole history. It is in
the interest of spiritual freedom and reality that
they protest. It is not from love of controversy
or isolation, but from a profound conviction that
the most precious treasures are at stake.

3. Baptists do not believe that baptism, which
has a distinct and important place in the kingdom
of God, should be emptied of its real meaning by
reducing it to a ceremony of infant dedication.

24 Infant-Baptism.

They believe that all parents should in their hearts
dedicate their children to God and do their ut-
most to rear them in the fear of the Lord. Nor
do they have any objection to a public dedica-
tion to God, if parents so desire. What they ob-
ject to is the prostitution of baptism to this use.
Baptism was instituted as a ceremony of self-
dedication to Jesus Christ and a public, dramatic
proclamation of personal repentance and faith
in him. It is needed for this purpose at the be-
ginning of the Christian life, and it is a serious
perversion of the ordinance and a serious loss to
the Christian life to use it for the public dedica-
tion of infants, thereby preventing its use for the
purpose for which the Founder instituted it.
Pedobaptists have no ceremony of self-dedication
at the beginning of the real Christian life — a great
loss.

4. Baptists reject infant-baptism because they
believe it to be entirely without warrant in Scrip-
ture. Confessedly there is no explicit command
to baptize infants or any others than believers.
Nor is there any example of infant-baptism. It
is not specifically forbidden in Scripture, it is true,
but Baptists believe it to be excluded by the terms
of the Great Commission under which Christian
work is done. They believe it is not forbidden
because the practice had not arisen, and did not,
therefore, come into the purview of the Chris-
tians of the first century. Complete silence con-
cerning a custom which differs so radically from
faith-baptism, which was commanded, is a power-

The Baptist View of Baptism. 25

ful presupposition against the existence of the
practice. To argue that a practice is permitted
and approved when it is not forbidden would
open the door to all the other Catholic innova-
tions of the centuries, such as the mass, venera-
tion of saints, relics and images, transubstantia-
tion and the rest, none of which are forbidden in
Scripture. This argument proves too much, and
therefore proves nothing. The fact that a prac-
tice is not forbidden in Scripture is not a proof
that it is approved.

5. In the next place. Baptists reject infant-
baptism because they can trace its rise in Chris-
tian history subsequent to the Apostolic Age.
They know that it comes out of the years when
the fundamentals of Christianity were being ob-
scured and obliterated by the absorption into the
Church of pre-Christian Jewish and pagan ideas
and practices. First came baptismal remission
and regeneration, the saving significance of the
ordinance, and out of this corruption naturally
arose the practice of baptizing the sick and the
dying, who were believed to be lost if they died
unbaptized. Very naturally the supposed benefits
of baptism were extended to sick infants and then
gradually to all infants.

It originated in those years in which the old
paganism and Christianity were being amalga-
mated into what is called the Catholic church,
and the history of the period does not recommend
the practice. It rose in the making of the Cath-
olic system and it fits there perfectly; but it is

26 Infant-Baptism.

an anomaly in any evangelical system built on
justification by faith. It is a grief to Baptists
that their Protestant brethren have retained this
unevangelical Catholic practice which is so utterly
alien to their own faith, which drives them to
such strange expedients in its defense, which con-
stantly jeopardizes their own evangelical position
and which has drawn in its train through the
centuries such a mass of evils.

6. Baptists reject infant-baptism because of its
baleful effects in Christian history. Hardly any
other departure from Scripture teaching has been
so prolific of evil. It was the open door through
which the unregenerate world flooded into the
Church and finally overwhelmed it. The whole
of society poured into the Church through this
door, all distinction between the Church and
the world disappeared, the ideal of a pure church
vanished, church discipline ceased ; henceforth the
world and the Church were identical. Without
infant-baptism there never would have been a
Catholic church and the whole history of the
Christian world would have been different. Bap-
tists believe that these indisputable historical ef-
fects constitute a sound reason for rejecting the
practice.

7. Finally, Baptists claim that the very ritual
of baptism used by many of the pedobaptist
churches themselves proves that faith was re-
quired in the earliest times. The oldest of these
rituals are very ancient and they presuppose faith.
The priest is still required to ask the child if it

The Baptist View of Baptism. 2fl

repents, believes, renounces the world, etc. The
sponsors answer for the child, in the name of the
child. It is all absurd, ridiculous, dishonest. It
proves absolutely that the early churches required
faith.

Coupled with this was the institution of the
catechumenate in which candidates were carefully
trained before they received baptism. This was
not applied to heathen and their children only,
but also to the children of Christian parents.

All these considerations lead Baptists not only
to regard infant-baptism as without warrant, but
also to feel that it is positively wrong. It is with
profound regret that they see their evangelical
pedobaptist brethren perpetuating a practice
which they inherited from Catholicism, which has
been so hurtful in the past and which is so dan-
gerous to spiritual, evangelical Christianity for
the future.

CHAPTER III.

INFANT-BAPTISM AND THE SCRIP-
TURES.

Baptism is a Christian ordinance. It is not
mentioned in the Old Testament, but first appears
in the ministry of John the Baptist. It is intro-
duced without any explanation of its origin or
significance. John mentions the fact that he was
sent to baptize by God the Father himself (John
I • 33) 31)- His was a "baptism of repentance,"
that is, it was based upon repentance which it
presupposed (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:
24). This fact excludes a non-faith infant-bap-
tism in his practice, and so far as known no one
claims that John baptized infants. He preached
powerfully and pungently and baptized those who
repented.

Jesus began his public ministry by asking bap-
tism at the hands of John, thus aligning himself
with John's movement. When John hesitated
and demurred, he insisted, declaring that "thus
it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness" (Matt.
3 : 15). After his baptism and temptation he also
began preaching and gathering disciples around
himself. His message at the beginning was iden-
tical with that of John; he, too, proclaimed the
demand, "Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven

(28)

Infant-Baptism and Scriptures. 29

is at hand." Jesus, through his baptism, as well
as through his early messages and first followers,
allied himself directly with John and his move-
ment. His work was a continuation of that of
John, his earliest disciples had been disciples of
John (John i: 35fif; 3: 26). They continued
to baptize after they transferred their allegiance
to Jesus, and there is no evidence of any change
of the subject of baptism from a penitent believer
to an unconscious infant either then or later (John
3: 22f).

Nothing more is said in the gospel narrative
about baptisms by Jesus or his disciples after the
early weeks of his ministry. Because of this silence
in the record some commentators have thought
that he suspended baptisms altogether after a
while to give himself wholly to the spiritual work
of the kingdom. This does not seem probable,
however, since he later commends the baptism of
John (Matt. 21 : 25; Mark 11 : 30; Luke 20: 4;
7 : 28f ), and uses the figure of baptism in the de-
scription of his approaching sufferings (Matt. 20:
22f ; Mark 10: 38f). He would hardly have done
this unless the practice of baptism had been con-
tinued throughout his ministry so as to be famil-
iar to his hearers. The probability is that there
were very few conversions after the period of
hostility began, and so naturally few baptisms.
There is, however, it must be admitted, no com-
mand to baptize until after his resurrection, nor
any example of his baptizing, except at the be-
ginning of his ministry.

30 Infant-Baptism.

Did he baptize little children in the middle of
that ministry ? It is not probable that he did. He
loved little children, used them in illustrating pro-
found and important truths (Mark 9: 36f ; Luke
9: 47; Matt 18: 2, 4f; Mark 10: 15; Luke 18:
17; 7: 32) ; he insisted on their having free ac-
cess to him and his teaching, declaring that the
kingdom with all its riches belonged to them as
well as to others (Matt. 19: 14; Mark 10: 14) ;
he took them in his arms and blessed them. But
did he baptize them? "Jesus himself baptized
not" (John 4:2). If these children were bap-
tized it must have been done by his disciples.
But they sought to hinder them from coming to
him and the spirit which they manifested is not
such as to lead us to believe that they were accus-
tomed to baptize children or expected him to do
so on this occasion. If they had been instructed
by Jesus to baptize children it is inconceivable
that they would have behaved so roughly as to
call forth a sharp rebuke from the Master. If
Jesus himself baptized them he changed his earlier
custom of baptizing only through his disciples,
and changed also from the earlier practice of both
John and himself, for both had required repent-
ance as a prerequisite to baptism. If such radical
changes had been made at this time it seems cer-
tain that something would have been said in the
narrative to indicate that fact, whereas there is
absolute silence concerning baptism in connection
with the blessing of the little children who were
brought to him. For these reasons Baptists main-

Infant-Baptism and Scriptures. 31

tain that Jesus not only baptized no infants him-
self, but that none were baptized during his life-
time.

The Great Commission (Matt. 28: i6flf), given
after his death and resurrection as his final in-
structions and his program for his disciples in
the prosecution of the work of the kingdom, not
only does not command the administration of
baptism to infants but by its terms clearly ex-
cludes the practice. "Go . . . make disciples
baptizing them . . . teaching
them." It is a missionary program. A con-
scious world is to be brought into the position
of discipleship to Jesus Christ and then baptized
and taught all the fullness of the gospel. It has
no application to infants. In the view of Christ
the whole world is and will remain a mission field.
He has no program but a mission program.
There is no plan of work except that of making
disciples by the preaching of the gospel, then
baptizing and teaching them. If the whole world
were converted today the work of evangelizing
would need to be taken up again tomorrow. In
the very nature of the case it is a continuous task.
The fact that one's parents are Christians has no
bearing on one's own life except as it gives
greater opportunities to know saving truth. The
Commission aflFords no warrant for the baptism
of any but disciples.

But what was the practice of the apostles ? Did
they baptize infants or give instructions to begin
that practice? So far as known no respectable

32 Infant-Baptism.

pedobaptist scholar claims that there are any
apostolic instructions on the subject of infant-
baptism. Nor do they claim that there are any
certain cases of its administration in apostolic
history. Here as earlier in the gospel narrative
the most that can be claimed is a few passages
from which it is thought that infant-baptism can
be legitimately inferred. Let us examine these.

There are certain passages which refer to the
baptism of "households" and it is claimed that
infant-baptism can be legitimately inferred from
these incidents. The argument is about as fol-
lows: Households often have infants in them,
therefore there were infants in these households ;
these households were baptized, therefore the in-
fants were baptized ; the infants were baptized in
these cases, therefore it was the custom of the
apostles to baptize infants. Such is the argument.
Its weakness as an argument is so obvious that
its logical inconclusiveness need not be pointed
out. Let us rather study the cases under consid-
eration. They are five: Cornelius at Csesarea,
Lydia and the jailer at Philippi, Stephanas and
Crispus at Corinth. The first case occurred in
the experience of Peter, the other four in that
of Paul.

The case of the Roman centurion Cornelius is
related in Acts lo and ii. Is there any evidence
here that Peter has broken away from the prac-
tice of his Master and his own earlier practice
and begun the baptizing of infants ? He is mak-
ing one great innovation in that he is preaching

Infant-Baptism and Scriptures. 33

to Gentiles for the first time; is he making an-
other by baptizing infants? The supposition is
in itself improbable. But we are not left to sur-
mise in this case. In Acts 10: 2, Cornelius is
said to have been "a devout man, and one that
feared God with all his house;" in 10: 44 it is
said that "the Holy Spirit fell on all them that
heard the word ;" the Jewish Christians present
"were amazed" "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" (10: 45f). It is manifest that there were
no infants in this household. They were all de-
vout before the visit of Peter ; they all heard the
word; the Spirit fell on all of them and they all
spake with tongues. These statements could not
be true of infants.

So far, then, as the evidence reveals his prac-
tice, Peter continued baptizing believers and be-
lievers only, as his Master had done. But what
of Paul? He never knew Jesus personally. Did
he depart from the practice and the command of
Jesus his Lord as he carried the gospel "far
hence to the Gentiles"? It is not likely, to say
the least. But let us examine the recorded cases.
The first is that of Lydia, the seller of purple at
Philippi. She was converted, and she and her
household were baptized (Acts 16: I4f). It is
assumed by pedobaptists, apparently with great
confidence, that there were infants in this house-
hold, and that Paul, therefore, baptized infants.
But several things are to be noted in connection

3

34 Infant-Baptism.

with the case. In the first place, there is no
mention of infants or even of a husband. The
claim that there were children of any age is a
pure assumption, for the word "household" may
mean servants or employees as in the case of
"Caesar's household'' (Phil. 4: 22), where it can
mean only imperial employees. Certainly none
of the imperial children, Nero's children, were
members of the church of Rome at that time.
Lydia was a merchant woman far from her
Asiatic home at Thyatira, engaged in business, a
consideration which makes it intrinsically improb-
able that she had infant children. Almost cer-
tainly "household" here means employees. Be-
ing a pious woman, she had "gathered about her
a company of like-minded workers who would be
prepared to receive the gospel. Doubtless her
own piety had further prepared them, so that
Paul found in them a ripe field which quickly
yielded to the gospel story. The Lord opened
their hearts to receive the gospel as he did that
of their mistress, and so Paul baptized them on
precisely the same conditions on which he bap-
tized their employer. This is certainly the most
reasonable and intrinsically probable view to take
of this incident. It may be that the nucleus of
the church of Philippi was in the sales-rooms
of Lydia. Certainly if the presence of in-
fants in this household cannot be emphatically
denied, neither can it be categorically asserted.
The next case to claim attention is that of the
jailer at Philippi who was baptized with his

Infant-Baptism and Scriptures. 35

household, "all his" (Acts 16: 33). In this in-
stance the household certainly had no infants,
for when the alarmed and repentant jailer fell
trembling at the feet of the missionaries and asked
what he must do to be saved, Paul replied, **Be-
lieve on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved,
thou and thy house" (verse 31). These instruc-
tions mean either that the "house" is to be saved
on the same terms as the jailer, that is, by faith
in Jesus Christ, or that the jailer's faith will serve
for the salvation of the entire household. Clearly
the "house" is expected to believe like the head
of the house, and only such as believed would be
saved. Vicarious faith is unknown to the Scrip-
tures. In complete harmony with this view "they
spake the word of the Lord unto him, with all
that were in his house," and when they accepted
the good news, they were baptized, "he and all
his, immediately." He then "brought them up
into his house, and set food before them, and re-
joiced greatly, with all his house, having be-
lieved in God" (verse 34). All those in this
household were expected to believe and be saved
like the jailer, the word was preached to them as
to him, they were baptized like him when they
believed, they rejoiced like him after their bap-
tism. Clearly there were no infants in this house-
hold.

The other two cases of household baptisms
took place at Corinth. They are the households
of Stephanas and Crispus. The former "house"
contributed the "first fruits," that is, the first

36 Infant-Baptism.

converts, not only of the city of Corinth, but also
of the whole district of Achaia (i Cor. i6: 15).
Luke, in Acts, tells us nothing of the circum-
stances of their conversion, but Paul says ( i Cor.
1 : 16) that he himself baptized this household
among the few baptisms which he administered
at Corinth. Stephanas was later an active and
useful Christian man as he with two other breth-
ren crossed the JEgean sea to Ephesus to minister
to Paul during his long mission in that great
city. As in the other cases of household bap-
tisms, nothing is said of any infants in this case;
and there is a strong presumption against their
presence, because when Paul wrote from Ephesus
to this church three or four years later, he says
that the household of Stephanas "have set them-
selves to minister unto the saints" (i Cor. 16:
15). This could hardly be said if part of the
family were infants at the time of their baptism
shortly before.

Crispus was a very prominent Jew of Corinth,
the ruler of the synagogue on Paul's arrival. He,
too, was baptized by Paul himself, doubtless with
all his house, though that is not stated. In his
case, however, it is distinctly stated that he "be-
lieved in the Lord with all his house," a state-
ment which absolutely excludes the presence of
infants in his household. The effect of the con-
version of this prominent family was very great,
for "many of the Corinthians hearing believed,
and were baptized" (Acts 18: 8).

Infant-Baptism and Scriptures. 37

These are the cases of household baptism upon
which our pedobaptist brethren are accustomed
to lay so much stress as proofs of the practice of
infant-baptism by the apostles. But it has been
fairly shown that in every instance the presump-
tion is clearly against rather than in favor of
the presence in the households of infants or chil-
dren too young to believe. Even in a Christian
land like ours every Baptist preacher with much
experience has been called on to baptize whole
households, who together had accepted the Lord
Jesus. In the mission work of the first century
when there had been such wide-spread provi-
dential preparation for the preaching of the gos-
pel whole families must have accepted the gospel
together very frequently.

Moreover, if these passages prove the practice
of infant-baptism, they would prove entirely too
much for evangelical pedobaptists ; for it is as-
sumed in the text that those baptized were saved.
Now, if there were infants and they were saved,
it was accomplished through the faith of their
parents, that is, entirely by proxy, or by the mag-
ical effects of baptism. And, still further, these
children were not born of parents who were be-
lievers when the children were born, so that they
could not have inherited the blessings which are
by some pedobaptists supposed to accrue to the
children of Christian parents in a Christian fam-
ily. These cases could, therefore, afford no
ground for the contention that baptism succeeds
circumcision and must be limited to the children

38 Infant-Baptism.

of Christian parents. None of the reasons for
baptizing infants which are usually advanced in
modern times could possibly have been operative
in these instances of household baptism, even if
it were granted that infants were present and
baptized. Our modern evangelical pedobaptist
overthrows his own arguments by citing these
instances.

Christian households are mentioned in a few
other passages by Paul (Rom. i6: lo, ii; Phil.
4: 22; 2 Tim. i: 15-18; 4: 19). In every in-
stance there is a strong presumption against the
presence of infants in these households and in
one case, that of Narcissus (Rom. 16: 11), the
believing members of the house are distinguished
from the unbelieving. The conclusion seems in-
evitable that the so-called household baptisms
give no support to the practice of infant-baptism.

CHAPTER IV.

INFANT-BAPTISM AND THE SCRIP-
TURIES, CONTINUED.

Two other passages are frequently cited in
support of the practice of infant-baptism. They
are Acts 2 : 39 and i Cor. 10 : 2. The first pas-
sage is in the midst of Peter's sermon on the
day of Pentecost. When his trenchant discourse
led his hearers to cry out, "Brethren, what shall
we do?" he responded, "Repent ye, and be bap-
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus
Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit," just
as the little Christian company had done. "For
to you is the promise, and to your children, and
to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord
our God shall call unto him." It is claimed that
the word "children" in this passage warrants the
baptism of infants, for the promise is to the chil-
dren as to those who heard and understood Pe-
ter. But is this the meaning? "Children" here
does not mean "infants" but "offspring" or "de-
scendants." What is the meaning, then, of the
passage ? It seems to be about as follows : "You
see that we have obtained the gift of the Holy
Spirit according to the promise of Joel 2 : 28 ; but
this promise was not intended for us alone; re-

(39)

40 Infant-Baptism.

pent therefore, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of the Lord Jesus and you, too, as
well as we, will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,
for the promise of the Spirit is to you also; in
fact it is not limited to you, for it is to your chil-
dren (offspring), and indeed to all that are afar
off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call,
on exactly the same terms, namely, repentance,
faith and baptism." Faith is implied, of course.
Peter simply means that the gift of the Holy
Spirit will be conferred on his hearers and their
children and ''all that are afar off" if they com-
ply with the conditions of repentance, faith and
baptism; he means to say that that little group
of Christians have no monopoly on the posses-
sion of the Spirit, but that he will be given to
all others on the same conditions. Infants can-
not repent; they are not, therefore, baptized nor
do they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit prom-
ised by Joel. In accordance with these conditions,
the narrative proceeds to say, "They then that
received his word were baptized." None except
those who received the word were baptized, and
hence no infants. The passage not only affords
no ground for infant-baptism, but directly and
powerfully opposes the practice.

The second passage, i Cor. lo: 2, is equally
conclusive against infant-baptism when it is
studied in its context. Paul is pleading with the
Corinthian church to abstain from the gross sins
which had once characterized them and which
had not been wholly rooted out. He warns them

Infant-Baptism and Scriptures. 41

by recalling the sorrowful history of Israel, say-
ing in effect, "Beware, remember the fate of Is-
rael! They, too, were baptized between the
cloud and the sea unto Moses even as you were
baptized unto Christ; they, too, all ate the same
spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink
which you enjoy, for they drank of the Rock
Christ who was following them ; notwithstanding
these facts, God was displeased with most of them
and overthrew them in the wilderness; they
passed through substantially the same experiences
as you and yet they perished; beware, therefore,
and live righteously." It is argued by pedobap-
tists that the infants as well as the adults of Is-
rael were baptized figuratively as they crossed
the Red Sea, and that it must have been custom-
ary to baptize the infants of Christian parents
when Paul wrote, else his illustration would not
have been appropriate. But it should be ob-
served that nothing is said here about Christian
baptism ; therefore, whatever conclusion is drawn
must be by way of inference. Moreover,
analogies are rarely capable of application in
every particular. But supposing the analogy in
this case to be complete, what bearing does the
passage have on the practice of infant-baptism?
It is true that Hebrew infants were figuratively
immersed along with the adults between the cloud
and the sea as the nation crossed. But is Paul
thinking of the infants as baptized unto Moses
that day along with the adults? Certainly not.
He is considering those only who ate the spiritual

42 Infant-Baptism.

food and drank the spiritual drink and who then
displeased God and as a consequence fell in the
wilderness. These and these only were
thought of as having been baptized in the
sea. Reference to the incident to which
Paul refers shows that those who died
were twenty years old and upward shortly after
they crossed the sea when they refused to go up
and take the land, that is, they were all over
eighteen years of age when they were baptized
unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea (Num. 14:
29ff; 26: 64f). Those under this age did not
fall in the wilderness but entered the promised
land, and therefore could not have been any part
of Paul's illustration. They did not come into
his mind as baptized, simply because he knew
nothing of infant-baptism even as his readers did
not. It was not the unresponsible infants, but
the conscious adults who were baptized and later
rebelled against Moses who afforded such a strik-
ing warning to sinful church members at Corinth.

But while these passages fail to estabhsh the
apostolic character of infant-baptism, and in most
cases actually weigh against belief in its apostolic
origin when considered in the light of their con-
texts, we are not left to these passages alone;
much other positive information as to the prac-
tice of these early Christian workers can be found.

Philip was one of the "seven" selected by
the church of Jerusalem to serve tables. He
was evidently in thorough harmony with the
mother church as is shown by their confidence.

Infant-Baptism and Scriptures. 43

When he with the rest were driven away by the
fury of Saul of Tarsus he went down to Samaria
and began preaching there. His labors were at-
tended with great success and "when they be-
lieved PhiHp . . . they were baptized, both
men and women. And Simon also himself be-
lieved : and being baptized, he continued,** etc.
Evidently Philip baptized none but believers, and
he must have represented the practice of the Je-
rusalem church at that time (Acts 8: I2f).

Paul's practice and views are further elucidated
by passages in his letters. In Romans 6: 1-7,
he discusses the status of those who have been
baptized. They have been sinners but have died
to sin and can no longer continue therein; they
have been baptized into the death of Christ; the
old man of sin has been crucified with him and
buried with him. Certainly such statements as
these could not be made about unconscious in-
fants.

Again he mentions baptism in the letter to the
churches of Galatia (3: 2y). Arguing against
their lapse into legal righteousness he says : "Ye
are all sons of God, through faith, in Jesus Christ.
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ
did put on Christ." Manifestly only those were
baptized in the Galatian churches who were sons
of God "through faith."

In Colossians 2 : 12, Paul again links baptism
with faith, saying to the Colossian church, you
were "buried with him in baptism, wherein ye
were also raised with him through faith in the

44 Infant-Baptism.

working of God, who raised him from the dead."
Faith was present in this baptism. In fact, there
is nothing in Paul's writings which fairly inter-
preted gives the slightest warrant for the belief
that he knew anything of infant-baptism. First
Corinthians 7: 14 counts directly and positively
against the existence of the practice.

One passage in Peter's First Letter (3: 21)
throws some further light on his views and prac-
tice. He says baptism is "not the putting away
of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of
a good conscience toward God." With this con-
ception of baptism it could not be administered
except where there is a conscience, that is, to
persons who have come to years of moral ac-
countability. Infants are excluded.

One other scriptural argument in favor of in-
fant-baptism must be noticed. It is the claim
that baptism succeeded to circumcision and
should, therefore, be administered to infants as
circumcision was. This argument is regarded
as very strong and even conclusive by some of
the advocates of infant-baptism. Let us examine
this contention. In the first place certain very
striking differences between circumcision and
baptism should be noted : Circumcision was
based on natural birth, baptism on a spiritual re-
birth ; omission of circumcision was accompanied
by certain definite and very serious material and
temporal consequences, while no one can point
to any harmful consequences of any kind due to
the omission of infant-baptism ; circumcision was

Infant-Baptism and Scriptures. 45

administered to Jewish male children only, while
baptism is administered to both sexes of every
race ; circumcision was racial, baptism is personal
and for all races ; the Jews who had been circum-
cised in infancy were nevertheless baptized on
their conversion to Christianity and a large sec-
tion of Jewish Christians (the so-called Juda-
izers) believed that the Gentile Christians must
not only be baptized, but also be circumcised
after baptism, two facts which show conclusively
that Jewish Christians did not regard baptism as
a substitute for circumcision. The Jewish oppo-
sition to Christianity would have been still more
violent if the Jews had thought that baptism abol-
ished circumcision by succeeding to it.

Let us now see if the Scriptures themselves fur-
nish any basis for this contention. As the gos-
pel spread into communities composed of both
Jews and Gentiles the distinction between circum-
cised and uncircumcised gave the Christian
churches great trouble. The deepest cleft in the
social body of that ancient world was the dis-
tinction between Jew and Gentile. How did
Christianity transcend and overcome this rift?
It was not accomplished without great strife and
difficulty extending over many years. Paul as
the leading missionary to the Gentiles felt the
full weight of the burden through all the years
of his later life. How useless the controversy and
how simple the solution if only he and the other
Christians had understood that baptism succeeded
to circumcision as pedobaptists allege! All that

46 Infant-Baptism.

long and painful controversy with the Judaizers
which has left such a deep mark on Acts, Romans
and Galatians, would have been avoided. But the
converts from the Jews were baptized on their
profession of faith notwithstanding their circum-
cision, and the Judaizers contended that the con-
verts from paganism must be circumcised not-
withstanding their baptism. Now, if Paul had
only been sufficiently informed, as some pedo-
baptists are, concerning the relation between bap-
tism and circumcision, he could have said : "You
are all very foolish. Baptism succeeds circum-
cision ; therefore, the Jews who are converted do
not need to be baptized and the pagans who are
converted and baptized do not need to be cir-
cumcised." But he did not meet the difficulty in
this way. What did he do? He nowhere even
intimated that there was any relation or even
analogy between circumcision and baptism, much
less that one succeeded the other. He argued
with the Judaizers that the original basis of jus-
tification was faith not circumcision (a doctrine
which had also been taught in the Old Testa-
ment: Deut. lo: i6; 30: 6; Jer. 4: 4; 9: 26),
and that Abraham "received the sign of circum-
cision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith
which he had while he was in uncircumcision :
that he might be the father of all them that be-
lieve" (Rom. 4: 11); that circumcision never
profited except as it was accompanied by obedi-
ence, for "if thou be a transgressor of the law,
thy circumcision is become uncircumcision" and

Infant-Baptism and Scriptures, 47

useless (Rom. 2: 25); that it is now abolished
or succeeded by faith in Christ, "For he is not a
Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that cir-
cumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he
is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision
is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter"
(Rom. 2 : 28f ) ; *'Was any man called being cir-
cumcised ? let him not become uncircumcised. Cir-
cumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is noth-
ing" (i Cor. 7: i8f) ; "Behold, I Paul say unto
you, that, if ye receive circumcision, Christ will
profit you nothing . . . For in Christ Jesus neither
circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumci-
sion; but faith working through love" (Gal. 5:
2 and 6) ; "As many as desire to make a fair show
in the flesh, they compel you to be circumcised;
only that they may not be persecuted for the cross
of Christ. . . . For neither is circumcision any-
thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature"
(Gal. 6: 12, 15) ; in Christ "ye were also cir-
cumcised with a circumcision not made with
hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh,
in the circumcision of Christ" (Col. 2: 11) ; "for
we are the circumcision, who worship by the
Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and have
no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. 3:3). These
passages are sufficient (they could be greatly
multiplied) to show that Paul had no idea what-
soever that baptism succeeded circumcision.
Rather the old ceremony was abolished by the
cross of Christ; circumcision, if the old verbiage
must be retained, is of the heart, not made by

48 Infant-Baptism.

hands but by faith in Christ. He that insists on
circumcision makes the cross void. In all the
multitude of passages in which Paul treats cir-
cumcision he couples it with baptism but once
(Col. 2: iif), and there he bases baptism on
faith. If baptism is in any sense like circum-
cision it is the circumcision of Abraham himself,
based on his faith, and not that of his descend-
ants based on birth and racial descent.

All the pedobaptist arguments from Scripture
are utterly worthless and futile, and many of their
scholars are recognizing this fact and transferring
the basis of argument to another field, as will be
seen in a later chapter.

CHAPTER V.

INFANT-BAPTISM APPEARS AT END OF
SECOND CENTURY.

Not only is there no warrant in the Scriptures
for the belief that infant-baptism was practiced
or enjoined either by Christ or the apostles, but
subsequent history reveals the fact that it did not
appear anywhere until near the end of the second
century, more than one hundred and fifty years
after the death of Christ, and was administered
only by way of exception for centuries after that
time.

For the first eighty or ninety years after the
death of the last apostle there is not the faintest
trace in Christian literature of the practice. From
many parts of the Christian world literature from
this period has been preserved and handed down
to us, and in this literature repentance and faith
are everywhere assumed as conditions of baptism.
Nor were the Christian churches of that period
capable of that hollow mockery in which a proxy
says in the name of the child, 'T repent," *T be-
lieve." To the early church everything connected
with its religion was real, genuine and vital.
Each one repented, believed and was baptized
for himself. The age of magic and proxies had
not come.

* (M)

50 Infant-Baptism.

Very early a saving significance was ascribed
to baptism, but repentance and faith were always
required before baptism. Baptism was always a
faith-baptism even though it was thought to se-
cure remission. A few extracts from this litera-
ture will show the accuracy of these statements.
In the following pages all the literature of any im-
portance which has any bearing on the subject of
infant-baptism in this period is quoted.

Probably the earliest reference to baptism in
post-biblical literature is found in the Epistle of
Barnabas. Neither the place nor the date of its
composition is known, but it probably comes from
Syria and dates from lOO to 120 A.D. Some
scholars put it earlier. Reference is made to bap-
tism in chapter XI, where the author in comment-
ing on Psalm I says: "Blessed are they who,
placing their trust in the cross, have gone down
into the water." Later, in the same chapter, in
commenting on a passage in Ezekiel, he says:
'This meaneth, that we indeed descend into the
water full of sins and defilement, but come up,
bearing fruit in our heart, having fear and trust
in Jesus in our spirit." The author finds bap-
tism in passages where it does not exist, and
gives to it a significance which it never had in
Scripture, but it is perfectly evident that he
knows nothing about infant-baptism. Those who
are baptized have already put their trust in the
cross and they come up from the water with the
fear and trust of Jesus in their spirits. These
are not the experiences of unconscious infants.

Infant-Baptism of Second Century. 51

The implication against the practice of infant-
baptism at this date is unmistakable.

Another work of unknown authorship, prob-
ably coming from the same period and region as
the Epistle of Barnabas, is "The Teaching of the
Twelve Apostles/' It is a sort of pastor's hand-
book, evidently intended for general circulation
and use in Christian instruction. It, therefore,
probably represents the beliefs and practices of
a wide circle of Christians about 120 A.D.
Chapter VII gives instructions for the proper
administration of baptism, as follows : "Having
first said all these things" (1. e., having taught
the contents of the preceding chapters) "baptize
in the name of the Father, etc. . . . But before
the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the bap-
tized, and whatever others can; but thou shalt
order the baptized to fast one or two days be-
fore." These regulations require the candidate
to be instructed in the moral precepts of the
earlier chapters of the book, and to fast at least
two days before baptism. These are rather hard
conditions to be imposed upon infants. Manifestly
the author knows nothing of infant-baptism.
Baptism so far as he knows it is administered
to those who can learn and fast, and to no others.

The ablest Christian writer of the second cen-
tury was Justin Martyr. He was born about 1 10
A.D., at Samaria, in Palestine, of Gentile par-
ents. He obtained a finished education and trav-
eled widely, devoting himself to the study of vari-
ous systems of philosophy in a vain attempt to

52 Infant-Baptism.

find satisfaction for his mind and his heart. After
his very striking and interesting conversion to
Christianity he spent the remainder of his Hfe
in the service of his new-found faith, traveHng,
writing, conversing, debating with all whom he
met, while he continued to wear his philosopher's
cloak. He thus learned the practices of the
churches by direct contact with them over wide
areas of the ancient Christian world, and there-
fore speaks with unusual weight on all matters
pertaining to the Christian customs of his time.
About 145 A.D. he addressed an "Apology," or
defense of the Christians, to the Emperor Antoni-
nus Pius and the Roman people, in which he re-
futed the charges made against the Christians and
carefully explained just what they did practice.
In chapter LXI he describes and explains to his
pagan opponents and persecutors Christian bap-
tism. He says to them: "I will also relate the
manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God
when we had been made new through Christ.
... As many as are persuaded and believe that
what we teach and say is true, and undertake to
be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray
and to entreat God with fasting, for the remis-
sion of their sins that are past, we praying and
fasting with them. Then they are brought by
us where there is water, and are regenerated in
the same manner in which we were ourselves
regenerated. For in the name of God, the Father
and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour
Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit, they then re-
ceive the washing with water."

Infant-Baptism of Second Century. 53

In chapter LXV he continues, in treating of
the Supper : "But we, after we have thus washed
him who has been convinced and has consented
to our teaching, we bring him to the place where
those who are called brethren are assembled, in
order that we may offer hearty prayers in com-
mon for ourselves and for the baptized person. . . .
Having ended the prayers, we salute one another
with a kiss. There is then brought to the presi-
dent of the brethren bread and a cup of wine
mixed with water," and the Supper is celebrated.

It is perfectly evident that Justin, while believ-
ing that baptism is the bath of regeneration, yet
knows nothing of the baptism of infants. Those
who are baptized have committed sins, they choose
to be born again, they repent and believe the
Christian teachings and undertake to live accord-
ingly, they fast and pray before baptism and join
in the celebration of the Lord's Supper immedi-
ately afterwards. These are not the experiences
of infants. And in this connection it should be
noted that this widely traveled Christian man is
stating not his own convictions and practices only,
but the practices of the Christian churches in gen-
eral throughout the Roman empire for the infor-
mation of the Roman emperor and people. Had
he been perverting the facts his deception could
have been exposed by hosts of his readers. Evi-
dently the churches in the Roman empire at the
middle of the second century were unacquainted
with any baptism other than faith-baptism.

54 Infant-Baptism.

The next writer to be considered is Hermas.
He was a brother of Pius, bishop of the church of
Rome from about 140 to 154. His position as
brother of the Roman bishop gave him excep-
tional opportunities for acquaintance with the be-
Uefs and practices of the Christian world, for
Rome was the center of Christian life for all the
western churches and kept up intimate relations,
with those of the East as well. About 160 Her-
mas wrote a strange apocalyptic book which he
called the "Shepherd." It was held in such high
esteem by the churches of that day that it was
long read in the public services as the books now
in our New Testament were used. It must, there-
fore, have represented the beliefs and practices
of that time, else it would not have been so used.
Like Justin a few years earlier, it ascribes sav-
ing efficacy to baptism, knowing no other means
for the remission of sins. As seen in "Vision"
III, chapters II to IX, and in "Similitude" IX, the
growing "Church" is compared to a tower which
is being built upon the water and whose stones
are drawn up out of the water, indicating that
Hermas regards baptism as the very founda-
tion of the Church. But there is not an
intimation of infant-baptism. On the con-
trary, the implication is very clear for faith-bap-
tism. In "Commandment" IV, chapter III,
Hermas says to his angelic instructor, "I heard
sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other
repentance than that which takes place when we
descended into the water and received remission

Infant-Baptism of Second Century. 55

of our sins." Baptism is believed to secure re-
mission but it is preceded by repentance, and so
infant-baptism is excluded. Infants were re-
garded by Hernias as innocent and since baptism
in his thought was for the removal of sin, it never
occurred to him that they should be baptized.
(SimiHtude IX, chapters XVI, XXIX, XXXI.)

For about thirty years after the date of the
"Shepherd" we have no literature of any impor-
tance bearing on the subject of baptism. But
near the end of the second century three men of
capital importance to the history of Christianity
appear in widely separated regions. They are
Clement in Egypt, Irenseus in Gaul or modern
France, and TertuUian in North Africa. All of
them were men of the highest ability and of great
learning and influence; consequently their testi-
mony is of the greatest value. Let us see what
we can glean from their extensive writings.

Clement was the most cultured Christian of his
day, having traveled and studied in all the lands
of the eastern Mediterranean. From 193 to 202
he was head of the catechetical school at Alexan-
dria, the greatest Christian school of the ancient
world. In connection with his teaching he wrote
extensively, and various writings have been pre-
served to us. In a work entitled "The Peda-
gogue," or "Instructor," he sets forth his ideal
of Christian teachings, practices and life. The
book is intended for general use as a manual for
the instruction of Christians. Naturally it treats
baptism along with other subjects on which some

56 Infant-Baptism.

instruction was felt to be necessary. These in-
structions for Christian readers are exactly in ac-
cord with what we have already learned from
earlier writers. He believes that baptism is the
appointed means for the remission of sins, but he
knows nothing of infant-baptism. In Book I,
chapter VI, he assigns wonderful power to bap-
tism, but says : "Instruction leads to faith, and
faith with baptism is trained by the Holy Spirit."
In another connection he says : **In the same
way, therefore, we also, repenting of our sins, re-
nouncing our iniquities, purified by baptism,
speed back to the eternal light, children to the
Father." He makes baptism follow repentance
and renunciation of sins, and there is not in this
book intended for Christian instruction or in any
other of his voluminous writings a line to indi-
cate that he had ever heard of infant-baptism.

Even pedobaptist writers admit that the litera-
ture of the second century so far examined is
silent about infant-baptism, though they fail to
see its powerful support of faith-baptism. But
we have reached the point where they claim to
discover the practice of a non-faith baptism of
infants. As we approach the study of these docu-
ments let us remember that they were written
nearly a century after the death of. the last apos-
tle, time enough for momentous changes in the
beliefs and practices of the Christian world as we
have already seen.

Irenseus was born in Asia Minor before the
middle of the second century and died at Lyons,

Infant-Baptism of Second Century. 57

in France, after 190. He studied under the
famous Polycarp of Smyrna, and went while still
a young man with the Greek emigrants to Lyons,
where he became bishop in 177. His official posi-
tion in this the most important church in that part
of the world at that time afforded excellent oppor-
tunities for knowing Christian usages, and also
laid upon him exceptional responsibility for pre-
serving and perpetuating these usages. More-
over, he had come from Asia, where he had been
trained in the best Christian practices, into the
West in his young manhood. On his long jour-
ney he had almost certainly visited many of the
leading churches on the northern shores of the
Mediterranean, learning at first hand their usages.
Surely if any one will know and insist on strict
observance of correct ecclesiastical ceremonial it
is he. Does he insist on the practice of infant-
baptism? He does not once enjoin it, and there
is no case of its administration by him. No one
claims the discovery of either in his writings.

But it is claimed that infant-baptism is implied
in one passage of his work "Against Heresies,"
published about 190. By putting together two
widely separated passages (H, 22, 4, and HI, 17,
i), some pedobaptist scholars claim that they dis-
cover infant-baptism. The first passage reads as
follows: "He (Jesus) came to save all through
means of himself — all, I say, who through him
are born again to God — infants, and children, and
boys, and youths, and old men. He therefore
passed through every age, becoming an infant for

58 Infant-Baptism.

infants, a child for children," etc. This is the
crucial passage. With it is coupled the second
which reads : ''Giving to the disciples the power
of regeneration into God, he said to them, Go
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father," etc. It is argued that baptism is
recognized in the second passage as the divinely-
appointed means of salvation and that infants are
mentioned in the first passage as objects of sal-
vation, and that therefore infants must have been
baptized.

The passages are notable in the baptismal con-
troversy, in the first place, because they constitute
the first reference to infant-baptism in post-
biblical literature, granting that they refer to in-
fant-baptism at all; and in the second place be-
cause infants are found in one passage and bap-
tism in the other, which is located in another
book. In the former of these passages in which
infants are mentioned it is said that Jesus be-
came an infant and passed through infancy to
save infants. Baptism is not mentioned in the
passage or its context. All that is said is that
he came to save and sanctify infants and so be-
came an infant. It requires more than usual
sagacity to discover infant-baptism here. But
granting that it is here it is more than 150 years
after the death of Christ before it appears. Faith-
baptism has often been described and enjoined
in these years, but infant-baptism has not once
been mentioned in any way. The conclusion that
infant-baptism was neither practiced nor known

Infant-Baptism of Second Century. 59

earlier than Irenaeus seems irresistible, and it is
not at all probable that he knew it. Other pas-
sages distinctly imply that he did not know any
practice other than faith-baptism.

But TertuUian, the next writer to be studied,
was certainly acquainted with the practice of bap-
tizing children who were too young to exercise
faith, and he was the first Christian writer of
whom this can be asserted with confidence. He
was born of pagan parents at Carthage, in North
Africa, about the middle of the second century.
He was educated in rhetoric and law and was
converted to Christianity in mature life. The
rest of his Hfe his brilHant talents were devoted
to the defense and propagation of the Christian
faith. He was not a widely traveled man, but
reflects Christian usage and opinion in North
Africa.

He touches on baptism in many of his writings,
and finally composed an entire treatise on that
subject. As to the importance of baptism and its
place in the remission of sins he is in general
accord with earlier writers ; it is, in his opinion,
under ordinary circumstances the only means of
remission, but it is not absolutely necessary, for
"sound faith is secure of salvation," provided
there is some hindrance to the acquisition of bap-
tism. Repentance and faith are presupposed. In
describing baptism (de corona III) he says:
"When we are going to enter the water, but a
little before, in the presence of the congregation
and under the hand of the president, we solemnly

60 Infant-Baptism.

profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp,
and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice im-
mersed. . . . Then, when we are taken up
(as new-born babes) we taste first of all a mix-
ture of milk and honey, and from that day we
refrain from the daily bath for a whole week."
This is certainly a faith-baptism ; no infant could
fulfill the conditions. Moreover, the author is
describing the common usage of the North
African churches at this time, and not stating
his own view of what baptism ought to be.

Again in his tract on ''Repentance," chapter
VI, he urges on his readers that repentance must
be genuine and fruitful of good works, but should
then be followed by baptism as the seal. Some
who professed repentance, relying on baptism to
remove all sin at the end of life, were postponing
baptism and continuing in sin. Against this cus-
tom he contends earnestly that "baptismal wash-
ing is a sealing of faith, which faith is begun
and is commended by the faith of repentance.
We are not washed in order that we may cease
sinning, but because we have ceased, since in
heart we have been bathed already." This was
Tertullian's view as well as the usual practice, but
it was not the sole opinion in North Africa about
this time. In his tract "On Baptism," written
some years later, he reveals and opposes what
was probably the very beginnings of child-bap-
tism. Certainly it is the first mention of the prac-
tice in literature. In chapter XVIII of this tract
he discusses the persons who are to be baptized.

Infant-Baptism of Second Century. gl

He says a new danger has arisen ; people are ac-
cepting baptism rashly and without proper spirit-
ual preparation. ''But they whose office it is, know
that baptism is not rashly to be administered."
He admits that the Ethiopian eunuch and Paul
were baptized quickly, but he contends that they
had a developed faith and were baptized under
the imperative of direct providential intervention,
and it ought not to be so administered ordinarily.
He proceeds, "According to the circumstances
and disposition, and even age of each individual,
the delay of baptism is preferable; principally,
however, in the case of little children (parvulos).
For why is it necessary — if (baptism itself) is not
so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should
be thrust into danger ? Who both themselves, by
reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill their prom-
ises, and may be disappointed by the development
of an evil disposition in those for whom they
stand. The Lord does indeed say, 'Forbid them
not to come unto me.' Let them come, then,
while they are growing up; let them come while
they are learning, while they are learning whither
to come; let them become Christians when they
have become able to know Christ. Why does the
innocent period of life hasten to the remission of
sins? . . . Let them know how to ask for
salvation that you may seem (at least) to have
given to him that asketh."

In this passage we undoubtedly come upon the
baptism of children who are too young to exer-
cise repentance and faith. It is evidently not

62 Infant-Baptism.

common and makes the impression of being at its
beginning.

From this document we see clearly that as
far as history can speak on the subject in-
fant baptism began in North Africa, at Car-
thage, shortly before the close of the second
century. Tertullian, the greatest scholar and
writer of the time, opposes the innovation, be-
cause the children are in the "innocent period of
life," when baptism, the ordinary means of re-
mission, is not needed. Whether it existed here
only or was also beginning elsewhere we cannot
say. Belief in the saving efficacy of baptism
is beginning to show one of its effects; it is
leading some to postpone baptism to the end
of life while they continue in sin, and induc-
ing others to bring their helpless babes to
baptism in the hope of regenerating the child in
its unconscious infancy. Christian parents are
beginning to believe that babes who die unbap-
tized are lost. And it is interesting to observe
that infant-baptism was so thoroughly in accord
with the other sacramental corruptions which
were creeping into the churches at this time that
Tertullian was the only man, so far as we know,
who protested against the introduction of infant-
baptism. That it was an innovation at this time
is shown by his opposition at Carthage and the
silence of his two great contemporaries at Alex-
andria and Lyons. Nor is there any reason to
believe that he was alone in his opposition. Had
it been an apostolic tradition it is inconceivable
that Tertullian would have opposed it.

CHAPTER VI,

INFANT-BAPTISM SLOWLY GAINS
GROUND.

The next writer to mention baptism was Hip-
polytus. He lived at Rome, but was an opponent
of the bishop of Rome and himself probably an
opposing bishop. He finally suffered martyrdom
in 235 A.D. In a sermon on "The Holy The-
ophany," or baptism of Jesus, he delivers a won-
derful panegyric on the dignity and glory of bap-
tism, and its power to remove sin. But in his
thought it is received voluntarily and after re-
pentance and faith. In his dramatic style he
makes John say to Jesus : "I cannot baptize those
who come to me unless they first confess fully
their sins. Be it so then that I baptize thee what
hast thou to confess? Thou art the remover of
sins, and wilt thou be baptized with the baptism
of repentance ?" (Ref. of Her. 4.) Lest some one
should say that he refers to John's baptism only,
which was confessedly a "baptism of repentance,"
I quote from 10, where he is dealing with bap-
tism as it was regarded in his day: "He who
comes down in faith to the laver of regeneration,
and renounces the devil, and joins himself to
Christ; who denies the enemy, and makes the
confession that Christ is God; who puts off the

(63)

64 Infant-Baptism.

bondage, and puts on the adoption, — he comes up
from the baptism brilliant as the sun, flashing
forth the beams of righteousness." If this great
scholar and author who lived at Rome, the heart
of Western Christendom, knew anything about
infant-baptism his writings do not indicate it,
but rather the direct contrary.

We return now at the middle of the third cen-
tury to Carthage and find infant-baptism suffi-
ciently established in this section of North Africa
to have the support of a large synod of bishops
held at Carthage in the year 252. Many questions
have been raised in the course of the centuries
by this unevangelical innovation and this synod
in 252 dealt with the first one to arise. One
Fidus, a bishop of that region, was in doubt as
to whether baptism should be administered im-
mediately after the birth of the child or be post-
poned to the eighth day, after the manner of cir-
cumcision. In his perplexity he writes Cyprian,
the great bishop of Carthage, for advice. Cyprian
would not take the responsibility of deciding so
new and weighty a question himself, and, there-
fore, laid it before a synod of North African
bishops of whom sixty were present. They de-
cided unanimously against postponement. The
reasons for this decision as stated by Cyprian
were as follows : "The mercy and grace of God
are not to be refused to any one born of man,"
even infants a day old ; "God, as he does not ac-
cept the person, so does not accept the age ;" the
baptizer ought not to feel repulsion at kissing a

Infant-Baptism Gains Ground. 65

baby just born as Fidus declared he did; (the
administrator then kissed the person baptized) ;
baptism does not succeed to circumcision, "which
figure ceased when by and by the truth came, and
spiritual circumcision was given to us."

This is the first official approval of infant-bap-
tism in Christian history. It came in the year
252. Can any reasonable man believe that Fidus
would not have known whether to postpone bap-
tism till the eighth day and that Cyprian would
have called a synod of all the neighboring bishops
to decide the matter if infant-baptism had been
instituted by Christ, had been practiced by the
apostles and the Christian church for over two
hundred years ? Such a supposition puts a strain
on Christian credulity which even the advocates
of infant-baptism will find it difficult to bear.

In this chapter we will consider but one more
writer, Origen of Alexandria. He was born of
Christian parents about 185 and died at Csesarea
in 254. He was a great scholar and teacher, and
for a time he was head of the catechetical school
at Alexandria. Many of his works, which were
written in Greek, have come down to us only in
the Latin translations made by Jerome and Ru-
finus a century after the author's death. In these
Latin translations there are several striking ref-
erences to infant-baptism, while a few passages
in his extant Greek works seem to indicate a
knowledge of the practice, though it is not ex-
pressly mentioned in any extant Greek text.
These phenomena have led some scholars to sus-

QQ Infant-Baptism.

pect that the Latin text has been corrupted by
interpolation. This may be the case, but infant-
baptism, as we have seen, was practiced at Car-
thage before his death, and may have been known
to him. The manner in which the subject is treated
indicates that it was an innovation and was caus-
ing no end of discussion and trouble. In a
homily on Luke 14, he says: "I will mention
a thing that causes frequent inquiries among the
brethren. Infants are baptized for the forgive-
ness of sins. Of what sins ? Or when have they
sinned? Or how can any reason of the laver in
their case hold good, but according to that sense
that we mentioned even now: none is free from
pollution, though his life be but of the length of
one day upon the earth? And it is for that rea-
son because by the sacrament of baptism the pol-
lution of our sin is taken away." This quotation,
if genuine in Origen's writings, reveals the fact of
the practice and the reason assigned for the same.
However, the passage upon which pedobaptists
lay most stress is in his commentary on Romans,
Lib. V, chapter 9, where he says: "For this
(original sin) also it was, that the church had
from the apostles a tradition to give baptism even
unto infants." This is the first assertion in
Christian literature of apostolic authority for in-
fant-baptism. Naturally, pedobaptists have em-
phasized its significance and importance. But it
should be remembered that Origen, great scholar
though he was, made serious blunders about other
matters, and was certainly not infallible as to in-

Infant-Baptism Gains Ground. 67

fant-baptism ; the reasons which he assigns for
the practice would hardly be accepted as correct
by evangelical Protestants. If, then, he were
wrong as to the reasons for baptism may he not
have been wrong as to its origin. Besides he
himself cites no Scripture in its support as he
certainly would have done had he known any.
The most that he dared to assert in his conscien-
tious efforts to sustain a growing ecclesiastical
custom, was apostolic tradition. What corrup-
tions have crept into the church through tradi-
tions! Infant-baptism is confessedly one.

As we have seen in the preceding pages in-
fant-baptism was practiced with ecclesiastical
recognition at Carthage as early as 250 A.D.
Moreover, Origen, at Alexandria, if we can trust
the Latin translation of his works, knew of the
practice and believed that it had been handed
down by tradition from the apostles, though he
made no claim that it was scriptural. But it must
not be concluded from these facts that it was prac-
ticed throughout the entire Christian world at that
time, or was the general custom even at Carthage.
Even here it was still probably exceptional, ad-
ministered only in cases of dangerous illness or
for some other special reason. It made progress
very slowly and is not found in other lands until
far down into the fourth century. Indeed, it
may be called Africa's distinctive contribution to
Christian history.

The brief compass of this work will not per-
mit more than a few quotations illustrating the

58 Infant-Baptism.

growth of the practice from this point onward to
its complete triumph. These will, however, be
sufficient to show the general progress up to the
Reformation.

The next book to be noticed is Apostolic Con-
stitutions. It serves as a manual of instruction in
church order intended for the instruction of clergy
and laity. The author or authors are unknown
and the date and place of composition are like-
wise uncertain. It is generally agreed, however,
that it could not have been written before 250
A.D., and many scholars believe it to have been
compiled many years later. Baptism is treated
extensively and often, and always with the clear
implication that only believers are to be baptized.
Repentance, faith and instruction are uniformly
required. In Book III, chapter XVII we read:
"Let him that is to be baptized be free from
all iniquity ; one that has left off to work sin, the
friend of God, the enemy of the devil, the heir
of God the Father, the fellow-heir of his Son;
one that has renounced Satan, and the demons,
and Satan's deceits ; chaste," etc.

The above quotation fairly represents the gen-
eral tenor of the entire work as can be seen in
Book II, chapter VII, and Book VII, chapters
XXI and XXXIX and the following chapters,
where there is extended instructions as to the
preparation of the candidate for baptism and also
the ritual to be used in its administration. The
ritual is for believers only. But in Book VI,
chapter XV, there is an argument against the

Infant-Baptism Gains Ground. 69

postponement of baptism till just before death,
as was frequently done, and the chapter closes
with these two sentences: "Do you also baptize
your infants, and bring them up in the nurture
and admonition of the Lord. For, says he, 'Suf-
fer the little children to come unto me, and for-
bid them not !* " These two sentences, if they
are genuine, constitute the earliest injunction to
parents to have their infants baptized to be found
in Christian literature. But in view of the fact
that they contain the only reference to infant-
baptism in the entire work and flatly contradict
all its other teachings concerning baptism, it
seems very probable that they are a later inter-
polation. But granting that they are genuine,
they bring the first ecclesiastical recommendation
of infant-baptism down to a date subsequent to
250 A.D., more than 200 years after the death
of Jesus.

In a curious collection of literature going un-
der the name of Clement and coming probably
from the third century there are many references
to baptism. Infant-baptism is nowhere men-
tioned or implied, but repentance and faith are
everywhere presupposed.

This brief survey has touched on all the liter-
ature of the subject in the third century. We
pass now to the fourth. It was replete with great
men and consequently is rich in literature. Dur-
ing the first half of the century the great Arian
controversy turned men's minds to the doctrine
of the person of Christ. Baptism is mentioned

70 Infant-Baptism.

only occasionally and incidentally, but in these
incidental references there is no trace of infant-
baptism. Unfortunately we have no literature
from Carthage where we know infant-baptism
was practiced, and the literature we have does not
reveal its existence anywhere else. On the con-
trary, it still indicates that believers only were bap-
tized. Some of the more important of these
writers will now be examined.

Cyril, the great bishop of Jerusalem (d. 386),
left behind him twenty-three lectures delivered
to catechumens or those who were preparing for
baptism. They constitute a body of instruction
with which catechumens were expected to be
familiar before they received baptism. In lec-
tures nineteen and twenty he treats baptism, and
there is not a hint that there is such a thing on
the earth as infant-baptism. On the contrary,
repentance and faith are required. The ritual of
baptism, used at Jerusalem, is given in detail. It
requires the candidate, standing in the baptistry,
to face the west and renounce Satan and all his
works, and then face the east and repeat the
creed, etc. These acts are impossible for infants.

Neither Eusebius, the first great Christian his-
torian (d. 340), nor Basil the Great (d. 379),
nor his brother, Gregory of Nyssa (d. 395),
mentions infant-baptism. Basil's view of bap-
tism may be seen from the following quotation
from his work "On the Spirit," chapter 12:
"Faith and baptism are two kindred and insep-
arable ways of salvation : faith is perfected

Infant-Baptism Gains Ground. 71

through baptism, baptism is established through
faith, and both are completed by the same names.
For as we believe in the Father and the Son and
the Holy Ghost, so were we also baptized in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Ghost : first comes the confession, introduc-
ing us to salvation, and baptism follows, setting
the seal on our assent." Nothing could be more
clearly opposed to infant-baptism.

Gregory of Nyssa in his work on "The Great
Catechism," a manual of instructions for those
who prepare catechumens for baptism, is almost
as clear and explicit. In speaking of the removal
of sin he says (chapter XXV) : "Two things
concurring to this removal of sin — the penitence
of the transgressor and his imitation of the death
(in his immersion). By these two things the man
is in a measure freed from his congenital ten-
dency to evil; by his penitence he advances to
a hatred of and averseness from sin, and by his
death (baptism) he works out the suppression
of evil." Again, in chapter XXXIX, he makes
this remarkable statement which absolutely pre-
cludes the possibility of infant-baptism: "While
all things else that are born are subject to the
impulse of those that beget them, the spiritual
birth is dependent on the power of him who is
being born ;" that is, the free choice of the human
will is a necessary condition of spiritual birth.
Since baptism was regarded as the indispensable
means of rebirth, baptism must have been admin-
istered on the voluntary action of a believer.

12 Infant-Baptism.

Gregory Nazianzen was one of the great pul-
pit orators of the fourth century, a theologian
and defender of orthodoxy. Because of the
splendor of his gifts he was chosen in 379 to be
bishop or patriarch of Constantinople, next to
Rome the most important see in Christendom.
In this pulpit he preached in 381 a sermon on
"Holy Baptism." The general tenor of the ser-
mon shows conclusively that the usual practice
in Constantinople was still faith-baptism. He ad-
dresses adults concerning their own baptism,
pleads with them not to postpone baptism to the
end of life, but "let some time intervene between
the grave and death, that not only the account of
sins be wiped out, but something better be written
in its place" (XH). While the whole sermon
is addressed to adults, urging them, against their
reluctance and excuses, to be baptized, he also
mentions infant-baptism. He is the first writer
in the Eastern or Greek church, indeed the first
outside of Africa, to touch the subject or indi-
cate in any way any acquaintance with the exist-
ence of such a practice. Like Tertullian, the first
to mention infant-baptism in Africa, Gregory the
first to mention it outside of Africa, is opposed
to it except in cases of dangerous illness. He
represents the people as uncertain as to their duty
in the matter, positive evidence that it was an in-
novation and by no means established among
them. He says they ask: "What have you to
say about those who are still children, and con-
scious neither of the loss nor of the grace ? Are

Infant-Baptism Gains Ground. 73

we to baptize them, too ?" His answer is : "Cer-
tainly, if any danger presses. For it is better
that they be unconsciously sanctified than that
they should depart unsealed and uninitiated.
But in respect of others I give my advice to wait
till the end of the third year, or a little more or
less, when they may be able to listen and to an-
swer something about the sacrament: that even
though they do not perfectly understand it, yet
at any rate they may know the outlines ; and then
to sanctify them in soul and body with the great
sacrament of our consecration. For this is how
the matter stands; at that time they begin to be
responsible for their lives, when reason is ma-
tured and they learn the mystery of life"
(XXVIII). From this excerpt it is evident that
at Constantinople in 381 A.D. the facts concern-
ing infant-baptism were as follows : ( i ) Infant-
baptism was not generally practiced ; (2) the peo-
ple were in doubt as to its value, and were op-
posed to it; (3) the great bishop recommended
it only in cases of dangerous illness; (4) in the
case of healthy children he advised its postpone-
ment until the children ''begin to be responsible
for their lives."

The next writer to be noticed is John Chryso-
stom, "the golden-mouthed." He became bishop
of Constantinople in 396 and died in 407. He is
of course acquainted with infant-baptism, but his
homilies make it perfectly clear that it is still the
exception. He does not oppose it, neither does

74 Infant-Baptism.

he recommend it. It is to him simply an allow-
able alternative time for baptism.

Returning now to the Western or Latin church,
we find no certain evidence of the practice of in-
fant-baptism outside of Africa on the north side
of the Mediterranean before the end of the fourth
century. Ambrose, the great bishop of Milan
(d. 397), in his treatment of baptism in his work
"On the Mysteries," chapters I-VII, does not in-
timate that there is such a thing as infant-bap-
tism, but rather treats the whole subject as if the
only persons to be baptized were instructed be-
lievers. In his description of the ceremonial he
says that candidates renounce the devil and his
works, accept Christ, are dipped in water, put on
white clothing, etc. However, there are two pas-
sages which indicate that he may have been ac-
quainted with the practice. Jerome does not treat
the subject of baptism.

CHAPTER VII

INFANT-BAPTISM TRIUMPHANT

THROUGH BAPTISMAL

REGENERATION.

We come now to the great character whose
genius did so much to fix the customs and work
out the theological buttresses of the Catholic
church, Augustine, bishop of Hippo (354-430).
Again it is North Africa where progress is made
in the history of infant-baptism. We have now
reached the period when the doctrine of infant-
baptism is settled for the Catholic church in an
effort to justify it against its opponents and those
who doubted. Augustine is a saint in the Roman
church, and he richly deserves the distinction if
one can earn it by service, for it was he who first
gave a consistent theological basis for many of
the distinctive doctrines of that church, among
them infant-baptism. His noble mother, Monnica,
did not have him baptized as an infant, desiring
to wait till the danger of youthful pollutions was
in some measure past. When a boy he fell quite
ill and requested baptism, but she refused it even
under those distressing circumstances and he was
not baptized till his conversion in mature life.

In the course of his life he was involved in
many controversies in which he wrought out the

(76)

76 Infant-Baptism.

theological basis of the Catholic church. One of
these was with Pelagius, a British monk, over the
nature of sin and grace and salvation. In this
controversy infant-baptism came under serious
discussion for the first time in history so far as
our literary sources enable us to follow the his-
tory. The Pelagians believing that infants were
innocent, sinless, could find no logical and satis-
factory reason for baptizing them. Apparently
they had at first denied the necessity and doubted
the expendiency of the practice; later they ad-
mitted its importance, but could never render an
effective reason for the practice on the basis of
their view of the innocence of infants.

Augustine believed profoundly that human
nature was corrupt and sinful from birth ; he be-
lieved with equal firmness that baptism was ab-
solutely necessary to the regeneration and salva-
tion of every sinner. Hence, infants as well as
adults must be baptized or they were condemned
to an eternal hell if they died unbaptized. Later
the Catholic church in mitigation of this horrible
doctrine invented the limbo of infants, where un-
baptized infants dying in infancy are restrained
forever from the face of God but are not actually
subjected to the pains of hell. Augustine knew
of the idea but spurned it. To him the unbap-
tized infant dying in infancy was consigned to
the torments of an awful and eternal hell, and it
was on this basis that he worked out his justifica-
tion of infant-baptism. The danger of death in
infancy, still great in our day notwithstanding

Through Baptismal Regeneration. 'J'J

the wonderful progress made in recent years in
preventive medicine, was many times greater
then. In view of this uncertainty it is not strange
that Augustine, holding such views as he did
concerning the religious status of the child,
should have justified and also advocated the bap-
tism of infants. It is worthy of serious atten-
tion that he is the first Christian, so far as the
records go, who advocated its administration.
Others had mentioned it, some had opposed it,
some had tolerated or even justified it, but no-
body so far as we know had advocated it. It
had unquestionably risen, not from the advocacy
of the clergy but instigated by the fears of the
parents.

As belief in the power of baptism to remove
the guilt and stain of all previous sins grad-
ually established itself, it exercised two
natural but contrary tendencies as to the time
at which baptism should be administered.
The earliest and at first the most pro-
nounced tendency was to postpone baptism
till the end of life. The Catholic church had not
as yet worked out its elaborate system of cere-
monies for the removal of sins committed after
baptism, and so it was thought that baptism at
the end of life was the only certain way which the
church had for the removal of sin. Moreover,
if one was so inclined he might indulge his pro-
pensities for sin throughout life and yet rest as-
sured that all would be well in the end if only he
postponed baptism until then. Against this ten-

78 Infant-Baptism.

dency the fathers of the third and following cen-
turies protested continually, urging baptism on all
at conversion or at the end of the usual period of
catechetical instruction.

The other tendency due to the rise of belief
in baptismal regeneration was to push baptism
back to the very beginning of life, so as to escape
the awful danger of seeing a child die unbaptized
and so be eternally lost. The former tendency
was the deliberate choice of adults for themselves,
the latter was born of the fears of parents for
their unconscious infants. Both tendencies are
the offspring of the same perversion of the sig-
nificance of baptism and both sprang from the
people rather than the clergy. The clergy, so far
as known, never advocated the postponement of
baptism to the end of life; on the contrary, they
vigorously and continuously opposed the ten-
dency; and yet for a long while it threatened to
establish itself as the usual practice. Infant-
baptism, as we have seen in the preceding pages,
was opposed by some of the clergy and some of
the laity and doubted by many, but the danger
of death constituted for parents of sickly children
who believed that baptism was necessary to sal-
vation, an overwhelming argument.

Augustine, as we have seen, becomes the first
active advocate of infant-baptism. And yet even
he reveals the fact that faith-baptism had been
the earlier practice and that faith was still felt
to be required. In arguing that infants are sin-
ners, he cites the fact that the ritual used in

Through Baptismal Regeneration. 79

infant-baptism is the same as that used in admin-
istering faith-baptism, and that the infant
(through its parents) is exorcised, confesses its
sins, renounces the devil and avows its faith. But
he goes further and squarely recognizes the great
fundamental evangelical truth that faith is essen-
tial to baptism and salvation, frequently assert-
ing that baptized infants must be counted in the
number of believers and are actually so counted
by the church (On Forgiveness of Sins and Bap-
tism, Book I, 38 and often). Of course, when
he begins to define and describe this infant faith
he is compelled to juggle with words. He admits
that the child was unconscious of repentance and
the various acts ascribed to him by the sponsors,
but he asserts nevertheless that they are unexperi-
enced realities in the heart of the child. A few
quotations will suffice to lay before the reader
his views, in so far as such confused opinions can
be set forth. Commenting on the words: "He
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," he
says : "Now the mystery of this believing in the
case of infants is completely effected by the re-
sponses of the sureties by whom they are taken to
baptism" (On the Soul, etc.. Book H, chapter
17). "By the answer of those through whose
agency they are born again, the Spirit of right-
eousness transfers to them that faith which, of
their own will, they could not yet have" (On
Forgiveness, etc., Book HI, chapter 2). "In the
case of infants, being baptized is to believe, and
not being baptized is not to believe" (lb. Book

80 Infant-Baptism.

I, chapter 40). *They belong among those who
have believed; for this is obtained for them by
virtue of the sacrament and the answer of the
sponsors. . . . Such as are not baptized are
reckoned among those who have not believed"
(lb. Book I, chapter 62). "They are rightly
called believers, because they in a certain sense
profess faith by the words of their parents . . .
renounce the world by the profession again of
the same parents. The whole of this is done in
hope, in the strength of the sacrament and the
divine grace which the Lord has bestowed upon
the church. But who knows not that the baptized
infant fails to be benefited from what he receives
as a little child, if on coming to years of reason
he fails to believe and to abstain from unlawful
desires?" (lb. Book I, chapter 25). Quotations
to the same effect could be multiplied indefinitely,
but one more must suffice. In a letter written
in 408, in reply to a request from Boniface,
bishop of Rome, for help in the solution of some
of the more serious problems and doubts that had
arisen in connection with the growing practice of
infant-baptism, he says: "Believing is nothing
else than having faith ; and accordingly, when on
behalf of an infant as yet incapable of exercising
faith, the answer is given that he believes, this
answer means that he has faith because of the
sacrament of faith, and in like manner the an-
swer is made that he turns to God because of the
sacrament of conversion. . . . An infant, al-
though he is not yet a believer in the sense of

Through Baptismal Regeneration. gl

having that faith which includes the consenting
will of those who exercise it, nevertheless be-
comes a believer through the sacrament of that
faith. For as it is answered that he believes, so
also he is called a believer, not because he assents
to the truth by an act of his own judgment, but
because he receives the sacrament of that truth"
(Letter XCVIII).

Augustine frequently acknowledges the exist-
ence of serious abuses in the practice and reveals
the existence of opponents. The only scriptural
authority which he can find is the assertion that
baptism succeeds circumcision, a conception which
had been rejected by his great high-church fore-
runner, Cyprian. He can point to no New Tes-
tament command or example, and can find no
historical support earlier than Cyprian, though he
asserts that it had come down by tradition from
the apostles. But so powerful was his influence
that the practice was never again seriously ques-
tioned in the Catholic church, and now rapidly
became the accepted theory and practice of that
body. Boniface, bishop of Rome, was the last
prominent churchman to question it. For the
future there were many questions connected with
the practice to be settled, but the practice itself
is unchallenged within the pale of the Catholic
church. To oppose it was to put oneself outside
that church and endanger life itself.

The subsidiary questions arising in the course
of the centuries were usually settled in synods of
the clergy. These meetings began to be held

^ Infant-Baptism.

about 150 A.D. Difficulties relating to baptism
are often treated but infant-baptism is not men-
tioned in the acts of any synod before that of
Carthage in 252 A.D., already mentioned in treat-
ing Cyprian. Constant references in the acts of
later synods to the baptism of heathens and cate-
chumens show that faith-baptism was the rule
till well down in the fifth century. From that
time onward infant-baptism is a subject of fre-
quent consideration. The conclusions show steady
advance in the practice and its demands. These
will now be noticed.

A synod, held at Carthage in 418 in which
some 200 bishops from Spain and from all the
provinces of North Africa participated, anathe-
matized any who said that new-born children did
not need baptism (Hefele, His. of the Councils,
II, 459). This synod did not enjoin the baptism
of infants as a duty, but justified it as a practice
on the ground of child need. It should be noted
that this, like the former synod in which infant-
baptism was considered, was held in Africa.

The first synod held outside of Africa which
dealt with infant-baptism was held at Gerunda,
in Spain, June 8, 517. Its position can be seen
from the fourth and fifth canons : "Catechumens
are to be baptized at Easter and Pentecost; only
to the sick ones may baptism be administered at
any time. When new-born children are sick, and
have no appetite for the mother's milk, as is often
the case, they should be baptized at once, on the
same day" (Hefele, IV, 105). This is an illumi-

Through Baptismal Regeneration. 83

nating illustration, showing that infant-baptism
was still the exception in this part of the world
and that infant mortality was the great argument
for the practice.

In the seventh century the clergy began the at-
tempt to force all society into the Church through
the now wide-open door of infant-baptism, and as
a result came the demand that all infants be bap-
tized under pain of punishment for neglect or
refusal. The State began to lend its aid to the
Church in this endeavor, assessing heavy fines on
the recalcitrant. The first instance of this demand
that has come down to us is that of King Ina
of Wessex, in England. A large English synod
held in 692 decreed as follows: "A child must
be baptized within thirty days after its birth un-
der penalty of thirty solidi. Should it die unbap-
tized it is atoned for with the entire property of
its parents" (Hefele, III, 349). Similarly, a
council was held at Paderborn under Charlemagne
in 785 in which it was determined (canon 19) :
"Every one must have his child baptized within
a year under penalty" (Hefele, III, 637). This
rule was doubtless enforced by the great Prankish
king all over his vast dominions, for he did not
hesitate to compel adult Saxons to be baptized
on their submission to him. Gradually it became
the general practice of the Church and of Chris-
tian government to impose baptism on all infants,
and faith-baptism almost ceased during two or
three centuries.

34 Infant-Baptism.

The Church soon became conscious of some of
the evils of infant-baptism; constantly lamenting
its corruptions, but never once thinking of aban-
doning the practice. This feature of the history
is also seen in the acts of several synods. In a
great reform synod held at Paris at the command
of the emperor in 829, it was declared (canon 6) :
"Formerly baptism was administered only to
such as had already been instructed in the faith.
Now, since all parents are Christian, it is other-
wise; but it is a frightful neglect if those who
were baptized as children are not later thoroughly
instructed." Again, in canon 9, it is said: "It
is very bad that many who were baptized as chil-
dren do not later learn the true meaning of bap-
tism, partly through their own fault, partly
through the neglect of their pastors" (Hefele,

IV, 59).

The baptism of all infants had now become the
ideal of the Catholic church. If some remained
unbaptized in nominally Christian lands it was
due to an oversight or neglect of the priests. Par-
ents were no longer permitted to determine
whether their children should be baptized; both
Church and State demanded it. Religious free-
dom was denied to both infants and parents. In-
fant-baptism was now doing its full and legiti-
mate work. It crushed religious freedom, in-
troduced the unregenerate into the Church,
obliterated the distinction between the Church
and the world, and banished evangelical
religion and faith-baptism from the earth,

Through Baptismal Regeneration. g5

except as they could escape the lynx eyes of
the Church and State. Its advocates were
now prepared to fight with fire and sword and
every other cruelty that fiendish ingenuity could
invent, every effort to restore evangelical faith
and the faith-baptism which the Lord com-
manded. Henceforth for centuries the advocates
of faith-baptism must be prepared for the suffer-
ings of the stake. Infant-baptism has ushered in
the Dark Ages.

CHAPTER VIII,

THE REFORMATION— MARTIN
LUTHER.

In the preceding chapter we followed the his-
tory of infant-baptism to the point where both
Church and State were enforcing it upon all par-
ents under penalty. It is not necessary to follow
the details of its history in the Catholic church
during the Middle Ages. Suffice it to say that
it became almost the sole kind of baptism prac-
ticed in so-called Christian lands, faith-baptisms
being very rare and confined almost exclusively
to the infrequent cases of the conversion of Jews.
But there remained some consciousness of its
evils and every effort at reform and revival of
evangelical faith within the Catholic church
called forth protests against infant-baptism.

It is not surprising, therefore, to find the ques-
tion of its abolition raised very early in the his-
tory of the mighty movement in the interest of
evangelical religion known as the Reformation.
All the great reformers were compelled to face
the question and take a stand, and it is safe to say
that this question gave them more trouble than
any other matter of internal policy. As early as
1 52 1 some of Luther's followers began to express
doubts as to the scripturalness and practical re-

(86)

Reformation — Martin Luther. g7

suits of infant-baptism. Many of them discon-
tinued its administration without, however, at
once rebaptizing those who had been baptized in
infancy.

Luther himself seems to have had little or no
doubt as to the legitimacy of the practice. What-
ever he may have thought about it from a scrip-
tural standpoint, practical considerations would
have led him to support its continuance firmly.
It was a sacrament of the Church, deeply
grounded in the social life and the religious faith
of the people; it was the basis of the union of
the Church with the State on whose support he
was compelled to lean so hard in his struggle
with the Catholic church; its rejection would
have divided his forces and compelled him to
rely on the power of the gospel alone. In short,
its rejection would have wrecked his movement
by its radical demands. From his viewpoint its
retention was the only means of preserving unity
and assuring success. Consequently he made
short work of the Anabaptists who were jeopard-
izing the whole movement for reform by raising
this dangerous question. Disdaining argument,
he invoked the strong arm of the State for their
suppression. Moreover, his view of the means
of grace gave theological support to the impor-
tance and continuance of infant-baptism. His en-
tire system was a strange jumble of evangelical
and Catholic elements. The center of his theolo-
gical system was justification by faith, which is
of course the very foundation of evangelical

83 Infant-Baptism.

Christianity; but with the clear and forcible
enunciation of this principle he combined a con-
tradictory view of the means of grace. These
are, according to him, the Word (that is the gos-
pel message) and the Sacraments (baptism and
the Supper.) It must not be forgotten that he
was reared a Catholic, breaking away from that
church only in middle life and never succeeding
in gaining complete emancipation. This fact is
seen m.ost clearly in his view of baptism and the
Supper which is in both cases very near to that
of the Catholics. To him the glorified body and
blood of Christ were as really present in the ele-
ments of bread and wine as to the Catholic; he
differed only as to the mode of this presence. In
like manner he taught the necessity of baptism
as the divinely appointed means of regeneration
as firmly as the Catholics themselves. He held
that baptism is water with the word, the bath of
regeneration, and absolutely necessary to salva-
tion. This view of the necessity and efiicacy of
baptism was the basis for infant-baptism for him
as it was for the Catholics. He strove to har-
monize it with his great evangelical principle of
justification by faith, but of course without suc-
cess. The two principles are incompatible and ir-
reconcilable. In his earlier years he seemed in-
clined to insist that unconscious infants when bap-
tized had an unconscious faith, that baptism sup-
plied faith, as Augustine had contended, or that
the faith of the parents or of the Church was ac-
cepted in a vicarious way. And he apparently

Reformation — Martin Luther, 89

never gave up the conviction that faith must be
and is in some sense actually present in every bap-
tized and saved person. But in his later life he
showed some inclination to give up this juggling
with words and admit frankly that faith is not nec-
essary to salvation, thus falling back into the
blank opus operatum view of the Catholic church.
A few quotations from the more important
Lutheran documents will make his views plain.
In the "Shorter Catechism" composed by Luther
in 1529, the most widely used means of religious
instruction for children, it is said that baptism
"effects the remission of sins, frees us from death
and the devil, and gives blessedness everlasting
to those who believe what the word and the prom-
ise of God declare." Faith of some kind is im-
plied in this quotation and in all that is said in
this catechism about baptism. In the "Greater
Catechism," also composed in 1529 and designed
for the instruction of the preachers, Luther says :
"The whole force, work, necessity, fruit and end
of baptism is to confer salvation . . . for
through the Word it (the water) receives the
power to become a washing of regeneration. . . .
Nothing works in us but faith, but . . . faith
must have something to believe, that is, to which
it can cling, on which it can stand and rest. So
faith clings to the water, and believes that bap-
tism confers salvation and life, not through the
water, but because it embodies God's Word and
command, and because his name is attached to it.
. . . Faith alone makes the person worthy

90 Infant-Baptism,

usefully to receive the wholesome and holy water.
. . . It cannot be received unless we believe
it from our hearts. It will avail us nothing with-
out faith" (Luther's Primary Works, pp. I33f).
Such views would seem to render infant-bap-
tism utterly out of the question; but not so.
Luther is equal to the task of justifying infant-
baptism on such a basis as this. He begins his
discussion of the subject with this vigorous lan-
guage : "There arises now a question with which
the devil and his sects would confound the world :
the question of the baptism of infants whether
they can have faith and be properly baptized."
He advises the "simple" to cast the question aside
and leave it to those who are acquainted with
the subject. He then argues (i) that infant-
baptism must be pleasing to Christ who has hon-
ored and blessed so many that were baptized in
infancy; (2) "that it is not of the utmost im-
portance whether he who is baptized has faith
or not, for this will not make the baptism wrong;
everything depends on God's Word and com-
mand;" (3) "We bring the child in the belief
and hope that it has faith, and pray God to give
it faith ; but we do not baptize it on this account,
but solely because God has commanded it. . . .
It is only foolish and presumptuous persons who
argue and infer that, where there is no faith, the
baptism cannot be right" (Primary Works, p.
I38ff). Could anything illustrate the incom-
patibility of infant-baptism with the fundamental
Lutheran tenet of justification by faith more

Reformation — Martin Luther. 91

clearly and forcefully than these quotations, all
taken from the "Greater Catechism"?

The Augsburg Confession was drawn up,
chiefly by Melanchthon, in 1530, and presented by
the Lutheran princes to the emperor and Diet
at Augsburg as the explanation and justification
of their views and actions. It has ever since been
regarded as the foundation statement of Luth-
eran doctrine and practice. The article on bap-
tism is brief and inconclusive, since that was not
one of the subjects in dispute between Catholics
and Lutherans. It is said that baptism "is nec-
essary to salvation, and that by baptism the grace
of God is offered, and that children are to be bap-
tized, who by baptism, being offered to God, are
received into God's favor. They condemn the
Anabaptists who allow not the baptism of chil-
dren, and affirm that children are saved without
baptism."

These quotations will suffice to show how con-
fused Luther was in his arguments for infant-
baptism, notwithstanding the clearness and vigor
with which he insisted on its practice. He held
that there was no salvation apart from faith, but
that baptism was necessary to salvation, and that
infants were to be baptized. As to how these
statements are to be reconciled he was in the fog.
They are irreconcilable. Infant-baptism is not
and cannot be a faith-baptism. It is a non-faith,
involuntary and magical baptism in the usage of
Luther equally as much as in that of the Cath-
olics.

CHAPTER IX.

THE REFORMATION— ZWINGLI AND
CALVIN.

The second great character of the Reforma-
tion was Huldreich Zwingli, the reformer of Ger-
man-speaking Switzerland. His views were
reached independently of Luther in the course
of his regular ministrations as pastor of the most
important church in Zurich. In general he took
a more biblical position than Luther, and his re-
form was in many respects far more radical than
that of Luther. This was especially true of his
views of baptism and the Supper. Much more con-
sistently than Luther he held that justification is
by faith and faith alone, and that all ceremonies as
means of grace were abolished by Christ. To him
the ordinances were only outward symbols of an
inward grace, and had value for the spiritual life
only as the inward meaning was apprehended
through the outward symbolic act. This view
would seem to make infant-baptism meaningless
and even absurd. But he continued it while he
was compelled to take a new position as to its
significance and strike out a new line of argu-
ment in its support. It can be said with confi-
dence, sustained by historical investigation, that
Zwingli was the first writer in Christian history
to advocate infant-baptism on other grounds than

(92)

Reformation — Zimngli and Calvin. 93

its magical working on the infant. The Pelagians
had said that it was necessary to introduce chil-
dren into the kingdom, though it was not neces-
sary to their salvation. All others down to
Zwingli's day had held that it was necessary to
salvation. Zwingli was in great doubt as to its
retention for a time, and many of his followers
believed that he was on the point of abandoning
the practice altogether, as many of them did. But
after a period of vacillation and uncertainty, ap-
parently led by practical considerations relating
to the reform movement, he decided to retain and
defend the practice on the new basis made neces-
sary by his general position as to the significance
of the sacraments to which he denied saving
efficacy.

Of baptism he said: "If the sacrament had
been able to remove sin, Christ would not have
been obliged to come in the flesh, but would have
needed only to institute the sacrament." He is
conscious that in this matter he **thinks differently
from any other ancient or modern writer." Be-
ing unable with these views to defend infant-
baptism on the old ground that it effected salva-
tion he adopted as his line of defense the
position that baptism succeeded circumcision
and is therefore to be administered to Chris-
tian children on the same ground as cir-
cumcision was administered to Jewish children.
It had its value, he held, in the fact that it is an
act of consecration on the part of the parents,
an act of obedience to divine command. Just as

94 Infant-Baptism.

Abraham and the Jews circumcised their children,
thereby incorporating them into the covenant of
grace with the people of God; so Christian par-
ents are to baptize their children, who are as much
children of God as themselves, thereby incorpo-
rating them into the covenant of Christian grace
among the people of God. The covenant is ex-
actly the same in both the old and the new dis-
pensations ; only the signs of the covenants differ.
Christians, as a sort of race, succeed to the
Jews as the people of God, and baptism succeeds
to circumcision as the sign of that relation. As
a result of these views the contention is advanced
for the first time in Christian history that only
the children of Christian parents are to be bap-
tized. This fact shows how completely the
ground for the defense of infant-baptism has been
changed, and also how exactly in the mind of
Zwingli the old covenant is perpetuated in Chris-
tianity.

Baptism, according to him, introduced infants
into the outer church only, not into the true spir-
itual church of the redeemed. That could be ac-
complished only by the exercise of personal faith
when the child came to years. He thus intro-
duced a sort of double church membership, a
quasi membership for children who had not
reached maturity, and a real, full membership for
those who had been converted. Nothing like this
had hitherto existed in Christian history.

Unlike the other reformers, Zwingli was
strongly inclined to believe that all infants dying

Reformation — Zwingli and Calvin. 95

in infancy were of the elect and therefore saved
without baptism. This view introduced further
confusion into his doctrine of infant-baptism and
weakened the sense of its need. Nevertheless,
he maintained that it had much practical value in
impressing upon parents their religious obliga-
tions to their children and upon pastors their ob-
ligations to the children of their parishes. Zwin-
gli thus finally brought himself, after consider-
able struggle, to believe that infant-baptism was
not anti-scriptural and hurtful but scriptural and
of material practical value. However, he was
never bold enough to claim, as some of its mod-
ern advocates do, that he could cite any scrip-
tural command for or example of infant-baptism.
His views can be seen from this quotation taken
from his "Refutation of Anabaptist Tricks" (page
236) , where he says : "As the Hebrews' chil-
dren, because they with their parents were un-
der the covenant, merited the sign of the cove-
nant, so also Christians' infants, because they are
covenanted within the church and people of
Christ, ought in no way to be deprived of bap-
tism, the sign of the covenant" (Jackson, Selec-
tions, etc.).

Zwingli is an important character in the his-
tory of infant-baptism. Before him it had, with
slight modifications by the Pelagians, always
been regarded as possessing magical saving
power, effecting the regeneration and salvation
of the morally unconscious infant. This view is
utterly subversive of evangelical Christianity as

96 Infant-Baptism.

is obvious on a moment's consideration, and as is
also shown by the history of the bodies that hold
this position. Zwingli stripped infant-baptism of
its magical power, insisting that the child is not
regenerated by baptism, but must be converted
through the exercise of saving faith in future
years, its relation to the Church being exceptional
until that time. Moreover, he greatly limited its
application by insisting that only the children of
Christian parents are to be baptized. He thus
laid the foundation for a church of converted
members with the retention of infant-baptism as
a sort of dedicatory service. In his hands infant-
baptism became something totally different from
anything it had ever before been. It was now
little more than a ceremony of dedication, with-
out any effect on the child except as it was sup-
posed to secure for him more careful religious
training by parents and pastors. Evangelical
pedobaptists owe him a debt of gratitude of in-
calculable greatness. He took a ceremony that
had grown up as an integral part of the Catholic
system, still the vehicle of the very essence of that
system, and so modified it that it could be re-
tained without utterly subverting the evangelical
principle.

Calvin.
John Calvin, the founder of the Calvinistic "Re-
formed" and Presbyterian churches of the world,
was the third great character of the Reformation.
His views of baptism and the Supper are very
difficult to comprehend, but in general it may be

Reformation — Zivingli and Calvin. 97

said that he held a position between those of
Luther and Zwingli. He beUeved that baptism
promoted our faith toward God and testified our
faith before men. It was "to be received as from
the hand of the Author himself," and when so re-
ceived it promoted faith in three ways : ( i ) It
served as a seal and assurance that "all our sins
are cancelled, effaced and obliterated, so that they
will never appear in his sight, or come into his
remembrance, or be imputed to us." (2) It "is
the certain testimony" "that we are not only in-
grafted into the life and death of Christ, but are
so united as to be partakers of all his benefits."
(3) "It shows us our mortification in Christ, and
our new life in him." Baptism does not confer
these great blessings, but it is God^s method of
assuring us that he has conferred them as a re-
sult of our faith. It is a "seal, not to give effi-
acy to the promise of God as if it wanted validity
in itself, but only to confirm it to us." But "bap-
tism also serves for our confession before men.
For it is a mark by which we openly profess our
desire to be numbered among the people of God,
by which we testify our agreement with all Chris-
tians in the worship of one God, and in one reli-
gion, and by which we make a public declaration
of our faith." However, it must never be for-
gotten that in baptism "we obtain nothing except
what we receive by faith. If faith is wanting, it
will be a testimony of our ingratitude, to render
us guilty before God, because we have not be-
lieved the promise given in the sacrament."

98 Infant-Baptism.

These are his general views on baptism as
stated in his chapter on baptism in the Institutes
(Book IV, chapter XV). No advocate of faith-
baptism could state the necessity of faith more
clearly and strongly. Beyond controversy these
principles, fairly interpreted, nullified infant-bap-
tism, because the infant at the time of its baptism
has and can have no faith. The faith of the in-
fant is neither promoted toward God nor con-
fessed before men in baptism, for the very simple
and sufficient reason that it can have no faith, as
Calvin himself admits. The most that he can say
is that the faith of the child, if in future years
it shall exercise faith, will be promoted toward
God and confessed before men by the baptism
that it received in unconsciousness, when it had
no faith. This is curious reasoning. Let it be
repeated that Calvin's principles logically abolish
infant-baptism.

And yet Calvin seems never to have been in
doubt about the scripturalness and propriety of
infant-baptism. Like Zwingli, he denied that in-
fants are regenerated in baptism or that baptism
is necessary to the salvation of elect infants dying
in infancy. ''Infants are not excluded from the
kingdom of heaven who happen to die before
they have had the privilege of baptism." On this
ground he opposed private baptism and its ad-
ministration by laymen or women. Like Zwin-
gli, also, he based his main defense of infant-
baptism on the claim that it succeeded to cir-
cumcision. This argument he buttressed by the

Reformation — Zwingli and Calvin. 99

fact that Jesus said : "Suffer the little children
to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such
is the kingdom of heaven." Only the children of
believing parents are thus to be baptized; they
"thus are received into the Church by a solemn
sign, because they already belonged to the body
of Christ by virtue of the promise."

His chapter on infant-baptism is long and la-
bored (Institutes, Book IV, chapter XVI). The
genius of Calvin was not equal to the task of har-
monizing this practice with the fundamental prin-
ciples which he had laid down in the preceding
chapter. He admits, of course, that there is no
mention of infant-baptism in the Scriptures nor
any express command to administer it. However,
he believes it benefits the parents by giving them
the assurance that their children are the heirs of
the promises and the objects of God's grace, while
the children are benefited by being brought into
closer relations with the Church. In their matur-
ity, he claimed, this baptism acted as a powerful
stimulus to piety; it is a baptism "into future re-
pentance and faith." "They will hence be the
more inflamed to the pursuit of that renovation,
with the token of which they find themselves to
have been favored in their earliest infancy." In-
fant-baptism was essential to the system of state
church to which Calvin clung, and hence it was
retained, notwithstanding its subversion of the
fundamental views of baptism which he held and
stated with such clearness in other connections.

CHAPTER X.

REFORMATION AND REVIVAL IN
ENGLAND.

In England the Reformation was never so
thorough and radical as on the continent. More-
over, the earliest reformatory influence was
Lutheran. Hence, the English state church was
less removed from the position of the Catholics
in its view of the sacraments than the other Prot-
estant bodies. It held firmly to the position that
baptism is the sacrament of regeneration, and
necessary to salvation. The article on baptism in
the XXXIX Articles states that baptism is "a
sign of regeneration or new birth, whereby as by
an instrument, they that receive baptism rightly
are grafted into the church; the promises of the
forgiveness of sin, and our adoption to be the
sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed
and sealed; faith is confirmed, and grace in-
creased by virtue of prayer unto God." This
confession was drawn up under Calvinistic in-
fluence and is not so clearly in favor of baptismal
regeneration as the Prayer-Book which is far
more Catholic in its implications of doctrine. In
the ritual of baptism it is steadily assumed that
regeneration is effected by baptism. After the
baptismal service the priest is made to say : "We
yield thee hearty thanks, most merciful Father,

(100)

Reformation in England. IQl

that it hath pleased thee to regenerate this in-
fant with thy Holy Spirit, to receive him for thy
own child by adoption, and to incorporate him
into thy holy congregation."

There is no assumption that the child has faith
as in the case of the Lutherans. And yet the rit-
ual which is used was produced for the baptism
of believers and assumes the existence of faith in
the recipient of baptism. The infant is asked:
"Dost thou forsake the devil and all his works?"
and the godparents answer in the name of the
child : "I forsake them all." "Dost thou believe
in God the Father almighty, etc. ?" The godpar-
ents answer: "All this I steadfastly believe."
And so on throughout the service. Faith is every-
where implied.

In the Anglican Catechism the child is asked:
"What is required of persons to be baptized.'*"
Answer : "Repentance, whereby they forsake sin ;
and faith, whereby they steadfastly believe the
promises of God made to them in the sacrament."
Ques. : "Why, then, are infants baptized, when by
reason of their tender age they cannot perform
them ?" Ans. : "Because they promise them both
by their sureties ; which promise, when they come
to age, themselves are bound to perform."

These quotations are sufficient to show that the
ritual used for infant-baptism by this church, even
down to the present time, was wrought out for
the administration of faith-baptism. It is incon-
sistent with the condition of the infant and puts
baptism on a wholly artificial basis. Nothing per-

102 Infant-Baptism.

haps shows more convincingly that the early
Church practiced faith-baptism than the old
liturgies of baptism, all of which presuppose gen-
uine repentance and faith.

While the Anglican church is thus committed
to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as the
basis for the practice of infant-baptism, it was far
otherwise with the English and American Con-
gregationalists. Calvinism under the name of
Puritanism made a deep impression on English
Christianity during the latter half of the six-
teenth century. Out of this party came the Con-
gregationalists. Convinced that the reform of
the English church was hopeless, Robert Browne,
the founder of Congregationalism, decided to
leave it altogether, abandon the ideal of a state
church which should include within its folds all
Englishmen, and set up an independent body com-
posed of believers only. These were to be bound
together by the voluntary acceptance of a cove-
nant. He thus revived in England the idea
that the church is not coterminous with society
but is a distinct body within the social order,
into which the individual enters voluntarily
by the conscious and express acceptance of
the ideals and duties agreed upon by the body.
This meant, of course, the complete separa-
tion of Church and State and the exclusion
of the idea of infant church membership of
even a quasi nature. The supposed necessity
for perpetuating the union between Church
and State had undoubtedly been one of the deci-

Reformation in England. 103

sive factors in the retention of infant-baptism by
the Reformers, and now this union was declared
to be bad and only bad by Browne. Could he
retain infant-baptism? Well, he did, but was
compelled to modify further its significance and
defense. He did not regard the ceremony as
having any saving significance, nor did he as-
sume any faith in the child. It now becomes
solely a dedicatory service in which the child is
dedicated to God and the church. It is no longer
based on natural descent, as in Calvinism, or on
Christian parentage, as with Zwingli, but on the
basis of legal control over and moral and religious
responsibility for the child. Consequently it is
not to be limited to the children of Christian par-
ents, but is to be extended to these and to all
others who are under the control of Christian
men and women, such as servants and wards.
The Christian man is obligated to dedicate to
God by baptism all children for whom he is re-
sponsible.

Browne says : "The children of the faith-
ful, though they be infants, are to be offered
to God and the Church, that they may be bap-
tized. Also those infants or children which are
of the household of the faithful, and under their
full power." And in the Confession of 1596 it is
said "that such as be of the seed, or under the
government of any of the Church, be even in their
infancy received to baptism, and made partakers
of the sign of God's covenant made with the faith-
ful and their seed throughout all generations."
Thus Browne and his followers laid the founda-

1Q4 Infant-Baptism.

tion for the retention of infant-baptism in a coun-
try where there is religious freedom under the
voluntary system as in the United States. He is
an important figure in the history of infant-bap-
tism in that he relieved it of one more of the
evils that had clung to it from the start and made
it somewhat more consonant with evangelical
Christianity. This has been the chief line of de-
velopment among evangelical pedobaptists from
that time to the present hour. They owe their
ability to preserve infant-baptism along with
evangelical Christianity principally to Zwingli
and Browne.

It might have been expected that the great
evangelical revival of the eighteenth century,
would, on account of its strong emphasis on con-
version and religious experience, have abandoned
infant-baptism altogether, which, as we have seen,
is historically and logically inconsistent with this
view of the Christian religion. And it did re-
sult in a tremendous growth of anti-pedobaptist
sentiment as we shall see later. But the organized
revival under the leadership of the Wesleys clung
to infant-baptism. The failure of Wesley to
break with this practice, which was so alien to
his fundamental ideas, was doubtless due to the
influence which the English church exercised over
him in this as in other respects. His father was
a rector in that church, and John strove to re-
main a consistent member of the body till his
death. He organized his converts into "socie-
ties" (not "churches") within the English church
and apparently never intended to organize a sepa-

Reformation in England. 105

rate "church." His liturgy and creed were only
modifications of those used by the English
church. In fact, while his evangelical warmth
came from the Moravians and his organization
was the product of his own genius acting amid
the exigencies of the situation, his ecclesiastical
views remained to the end of his life predomi-
nantly Anglican. It is not particularly surpris-
ing, therefore, to find him, along with his power-
ful emphasis on religious experience, retaining
infant-baptism because of its ecclesiastical sig-
nificance.

In his "Treatise on Baptism," written in 1756,
he maintains that infants are to be baptized on
the following grounds : ( i ) Infants are stained
with original sin, and are "children of wrath,
and liable to eternal damnation;" therefore, "in-
fants need to be washed from original sin," "see-
ing in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved
unless this be washed away by baptism." Bap-
tism is not held to be absolutely the only way an
infant can be saved, as the Catholics and most
Anglicans held, but it is regarded by him as the
"ordinary" way to which we (though not God)
are bound. He holds that this view "is agreeable
to the unanimous judgment of the ancient fa-
thers." (2) "By baptism we enter into covenant
with God; into that everlasting covenant, which
he hath commanded forever." Just as circumcision
was the seal of the covenant with Abraham and
was administered to children, so baptism is the
seal of the same covenant now and is therefore
to be administered to children. The covenant was

log Infant-Baptism.

exactly the same under the two dispensations, an
everlasting covenant, only the form of the seal
being different. (3) "By baptism we are ad-
mitted into the church, and consequently made
members of Christ, its head/' Infants ought to
come to Christ (Matt. 19: I3f), **but they cannot
now come to him, unless by being brought into
the church ; which cannot be but by baptism.'*
"Even under the Old Testament they were ad-
mitted into it by circumcision. And can we sup-
pose they are in a worse condition under the
gospel, than they were under the law?" (4)
"The apostles baptized infants;" this was argued
from the alleged practice of the Jews who, it was
claimed, both circumcised and baptized the in-
fants of proselytes. (5) "To baptize infants has
been the general practice of the Christian church,
in all places and in all ages."

True to the confused nature of the Anglican
church and the diverse origins of the various ele-
ments of the Methodist movement, Wesley here
jumbles together reasons which are incompati-
ble with each other and makes the absurd state-
ment that the Christian church had universally
practiced infant-baptism. Fortunately for the
world his religious experience was far better than
his Anglican traditions and his knowledge of
Christian history, so that both he and his follow-
ers relegated infant-baptism to a relatively un-
important place in the plan of salvation and con-
tinued to preach evangelical religion with clear-
ness and power notwithstanding their retention of
infant-baptism.

Reformation in England. 107

While the Protestants were thus seeking to
defend and explain the old Catholic practice of in-
fant-baptism so that it would not nullify their
doctrines of "the sole authority of Scripture'' and
** justification by faith alone," the two great Cath-
olic churches continued to hold firmly and con-
sistently to the practice of infant-baptism on the
old original ground that it was necessary to sal-
vation and that unconscious infants were regen-
erated in the act. At the Council of Trent in
1545 it was decreed for the Roman Catholic
church (Canon V, on Baptism) : "If any saith
that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto
salvation: let him be anathema."

The Greek Catholic church expressed its faith
in "The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and
Apostolic Eastern Church" in 1643. I^ Qaestio
CIII, on the nature and fruit of baptism, it is said
that it "abolishes all sins, in infants original sin,
in adults both that and voluntary sin."

This hurried sketch of infant-baptism in the
period of the Reformation and the two subsequent
centuries, will suffice to show the various ways
in which the majority of those who broke away
from the Catholic church endeavored to justify
and explain this Catholic practice which they re-
tained. Some of them gave it a different sig-
nificance and invented new arguments in its sup-
port, but could not see their way to abandon it,
notwithstanding the great embarrassment it
caused them. It had become too firmly rooted in
the social, political and religious life of Europe

108 Infant-Baptism.

to be abolished by the religious cataclysm of the
Reformation, the most tremendous effort for the
recovery of evangelical religion since its gradual
obscuration in the early centuries of the Chris-
tian era. Whole nations deserted the Catholic
church while they preserved this Catholic prac-
tice ; great theologians sought by analogy and in-
ference to defend it from the silent pages of
Scripture and harmonize it with the evangelical
principles which they preached ; the civil arm was
called in to enforce the baptism of infants and to
burn, drown and destroy the simple people whose
piety could find no place for this practice. It is
a pitiable picture; but its abandonment would
have wrecked the idea of national churches, would
have automatically worked a separation of Church
and State, would have emancipated the individual
from servitude to the institution, would have es-
tablished religious freedom with a cessation of
bloody persecutions, and would have placed evan-
gelical religion on a sure and permanent founda-
tion. The Protestant principles legitimately in-
volve these precious fruits, but they were nega-
tived by the retention of infant-baptism. Pro-
testants preserved the union between Church and
State even as the Catholics, with only slight varia-
tions as to ideals; they persecuted only less bit-
terly than the Catholics. Not a single pedobap-
tist communion of the sixteenth century is free
from the blood of Christian martyrs. The oppo-
nents of infant-baptism were cast out as evil and
paid for their faithfulness to conscience with their
blood.

CHAPTER XI.

GROWTH OF ANTI-PEDOBAPTIST
SENTIMENT.

It seems probable that opposition to infant-
baptism had never entirely ceased since the be-
ginning of the practice at the end of the second
century. Individuals who opposed infant-bap-
tism as repugnant to Scripture and the funda-
mentals of the gospel, appeared at intervals
throughout Christian history and attained suffi-
cient prominence to leave some mark on Christian
literature. Besides these more prominent and sig-
nificant opponents of pedobaptism there must have
been many simpler people who, under the influ-
ence of their experience of grace and such knowl-
edge of the Scripture as they could obtain, quietly
neglected the practice or openly opposed it with-
out arousing sufficient ecclesiastical controversy
to leave any marks in the literature of the time.
But whatever may be the facts as to the existence
of opposition to this practice in the darkest period
of the Middle Ages it is a fact beyond the possi-
bility of contradiction that determined opposition
reappears as soon as the great revival of reli-
gion and culture begins and the Bible is once
more in the language of the people. For cen-
turies during the Middle Ages the Bible was

(109)

XIQ Infant-Baptism.

almost unknown to the masses of the people of
Western Europe. In the early centuries it had
been loved and trusted and had been translated
into the languages of the peoples among whom
Christianity spread. It was thus found in en-
tirety or in part in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic
and Gothic by the end of the fourth century. But
as the Christian world drifted away from its scrip-
tural moorings and the idea of ecclesiastical au-
thority replaced that of the Bible, the Book fell
into disuse and finally into disfavor as a book to
be entrusted to the people. At the same time the
old Graeco-Roman culture was rapidly dying out
and leaving Western Europe in almost total
intellectual darkness. The Goths were amalga-
mated with the earlier inhabitants of southwest-
ern Europe and their language disappeared.
Spoken Latin gradually changed into Italian,
French, Spanish and Portuguese till the old Latin
into which the Bible had been translated was no
longer understood by the masses of the people.
No new translations were made for several cen-
turies after the days of Jerome, leaving the Bible
securely locked in the vaults of a dead language
which could be opened only by the learned.
Thus through fear of its effects and the ignorance
of the people the Bible was practically taken away
from them. The Church was left to continue its
drift even more rapidly and to work its utmost
effects on the people who were now wholly de-
pendent on it for their religious instruction with-
out possessing any standard by which they could

Anti-Pedobaptist Sentiment. Xll

test or check its teachings or practices. The Bible
has always been the bulwark of faith-baptism, and
it is not strange, therefore, that we hear little of
faith-baptism while the Bible is so nearly an un-
known book.

But as the terrible German tribes whose bar-
barism had done so much to bring on the Dark
Ages settled down and established some political
and social organization, culture began to revive
on the old classical soil and the Germans them-
selves began to accept the culture and religion of
their dependents, Vincti victores again. One of
the first things which this new culture undertook
was the translation of the Scriptures. Parts were
put into the Gothic in the fourth century and into
Anglo-Saxon as early as the eighth century. The
work of translating continued at intervals until
the Bible in whole or in part existed in most of
the languages of Western Europe even before the
Reformation. Its circulation was very limited,
however, and its influence not great.

The great revival which began in Western
Europe in the eleventh century almost immedi-
ately produced sects in opposition to more or less
of the doctrines and practices of the Catholic
church. Among other things several of them op-
posed infant-baptism. This was true of some of
the Waldenses, at least in the earlier years of
their history. Likewise many of the Petrobru-
sians and Henricans were determined opponents
and suffered for their convictions. But the Cath-
olic church was able to suppress these movements

1\2 Infant-Baptism.

in large measure before the Reformation through
the use of the Inquisition and the power of the
civil arm. Anti-pedobaptism was largely de-
stroyed at the stake.

With the revival of culture and the translation
of the Scriptures in the fifteenth century there
came a revival of religion, and these forces soon
developed opposition to infant-baptism. We have
already seen these sentiments among several of
the more evangelical sects of the later Middle
Ages. It did not, however, become sufficiently
prominent in their systems to dominate and give
name to them. Nevertheless it was the beginning
in modern times of the serious and successful
opposition to pedobaptism which has continued to
grow with the growth of religious freedom, cul-
ture, Bible knowledge and evangelical activity
down to the present hour. Faith-baptism is not
a baptism of the darkness and ignorance of the
Middle Ages, but of the light and freedom of Bi-
ble days and modern times. The period of tri-
umph for infant-baptism was the depths of the
Middle Ages when thick darkness covered the
peoples, liberty was gone and the Bible was an
almost unknown book. With the return of light
anti-pedobaptism revived and has continued to
grow. These indisputable facts are very gratify-
ing to anti-pedobaptists, stimulating the hope that
evangelical pedobaptists will all finally abandon
this anti-evangelical. Catholic practice, and re-
store faith-baptism as the Lord and his apostles
commanded it.

Anti-Pedohaptist Sentiment. 113

The Reformation was accompanied by a
great outburst of anti-pedobaptist sentiment which
all the churches were unable to suppress. This
great religious revival seemed to call it forth
simultaneously at several points in Europe, while
the earliest centers were naturally Wittenberg and
Zurich where Luther and Zwingli worked.
Around these two great leaders and among their
followers powerful anti-pedobaptist movements
quickly developed. At Wittenberg two of the pro-
fessors in the University in which Luther was
himself a professor embraced these views and
were driven from their positions; a good many
pastors and thousands upon thousands of the
German people lost faith in infant-baptism and
advocated its abandonment. Luther and other
leaders proceeded to the most energetic measures
and finally called in the civil arm to suppress the
(to them) dangerous movement. Tens of thou-
sands of anti-pedobaptists perished in Germany
during the ten years from 1525 to 1535. In Ger-
many the movement was largely suppressed.

Around Zwingli and among his friends and
supporters in Switzerland and South Germany
there developed an even stronger anti-pedobaptist
movement. Scholars and university-bred men
like Felix Manz, Conrad Grebel, Ludwig Hatzer,
John Denck and Balthaser Hubmaier, priests and
monks and a great host of the laity, renounced the
baptism they had received in their infancy and
obtained a faith-baptism. They made an excel-
lent translation of the Prophets from the Hebrew

114 Infant-Baptism.

into the German ; they organized churches on the
basis of faith-baptism and established a very ac-
tive itinerant ministry for the propagation of their
views. The movement began its separate organ-
ized existence the latter part of 1524 and spread
swiftly to all those parts of Germany, Switzer-
land, Austria and the Netherlands in which the
Reformation had been accepted. Even the far-
away Scandinavian countries and a little later
England and Scotland felt the impact of the
movement. So powerful was it for a few years
that almost every Reformer of any prominence or
ability entered the theological lists against these
advocates of faith-baptism whom they dubbed
Anabaptists or Wiedertaufer, that is, rebaptizers.
A flood of polemical pamphlets poured from the
presses of Germany, Switzerland and the Nether-
lands and all the great Confessions of Faith
drawn up in this period condemn Anabaptism ex-
pressly or by direct implication. Soon civil gov-
ernments were induced to intervene in an effort
to suppress the movement by force; thousands
suffered martyrdom by fire, sword and drown-
ing, and thousands more were left to rot and die
in the noisome prisons of that time. Thus the
most promising anti-pedobaptist movement since
the appearance of infant-baptism was virtually
extinguished in blood. Anabaptists continued to
exist, it is true, hidden away in the remote vil-
lages of various lands ; but the world had been so
bitterly prejudiced against them as to condemn
their message unheard; moreover the sufferings

Anti-Pedobaptist Sentiment. 115

through which they had passed had shorn them of
their leaders and their power. They lost their
aggressive spirit; retired into the safety of ob-
scurity and inactivity and ceased to be of any
force in the world. They never entirely disap-
peared from Switzerland and the Netherlands,
but they dwindled into a small sect that was tol-
erated because of its insignificance.

And what were the views of this sect which
was so much hated and feared by both State and
Church? Religiously they were striving for the
freedom and autonomy of the individual soul and
the purity and spiritual power of each individual
church, — a church of redeemed people, saints, liv-
ing holy lives, and associated together by their
own choice, on the basis of a common faith, for
the spread and establishment of the kingdom of
God. The symbol and seal of these spiritual treas-
ures was faith-baptism, accepted freely by each
soul as a testimonial of its own faith and its own
self-consecration to the cause of Christ. They
opposed infant-baptism as the invention of men,
a perversion of Scripture, the bulwark of Anti-
Christ, the chief cornerstone of the papacy with all
its errors, a necessary link in the union of Church
and State, the foundation principle in religious
persecutions and the nullification of evangelical
Christianity. They argued against it chiefly from
Scripture, not only denying the existence of bibli-
cal precept or example for the practice, but also
asserting that it contravened essential scriptural
principles. Around infant-baptism the whole con-

116 Infant-Baptism.

troversy raged ; but behind the baptismal contro-
versy lay deeper things which gave to the con-
troversy its signficance. The nature of the Chris-
tian religion itself and the relation of the Church
to the individual soul and to all society were in-
volved ; the freedom of the soul was at stake.

In addition to their religious views the Anabap-
tists advocated certain social, political and econo-
mic doctrines which were regarded as danger-
ous to the whole social order. They admitted that
the State was ordained of God, but held that it
was a necessary evil organized because of the sin-
fulness of man. For this and other reasons they
denied that any Christian man could hold civil
office ; they refused to take the oath for any pur-
pose; they opposed war and refused to pay war
taxes or bear arms ; they objected to capital pun-
ishment and did not allow their members to en-
gage in the liquor business ; some of them advo-
cated community of goods and opposed the lend-
ing of money on interest. They denied to the
State the power to punish any but civil offenses,
reserving for church discipline, which they ad-
ministered very strictly, all purely moral and re-
ligious offenses. They contended that the Church
should have complete autonomy in all religious
matters and that the State has no religious duties,
it being in their conception a purely secular body.
The State should neither support nor control the
Church. In a word, they advocated religious free-
dom in every sense of the word. They struggled
to introduce the voluntary system as the most

Anti-Pedohaptist Sentiment. 117

advanced nations of earth are introducing it to-
day. Their chief crime against society was that
they were several centuries ahead of their gen-
eration. They attained this distinction by going
back frankly and fully to the eternal spiritual
principles of the gospel as revealed in the New
Testament.

Under the stress of persecution some of the
more ignorant and radical ran into wild fanaticism
and even moral excesses, which brought deep re-
proach on the whole cause. The most flagrant
case of this kind was that of Mtinster when in
1535 the Anabaptists gained control of the city
and fell into such excesses as to make them a
stench in the nostrils of all Europe. But that
fanaticism and license are not logical fruits of
their views, as was then maintained, has been
shown by the whole history of religious freedom
in the United States and elsewhere.

But the evil was done, the party was discredited
and on the decline; the forces opposed to the
scriptural principles lying at the base of faith-
baptism were too strong to yield. They could not
wholly exterminate anti-pedobaptism, but they
did isolate, nullify and render it negligible.

From the continent the anti-pedobaptist move-
ment was soon transplanted to England. Here
it met much the same treatment as on the con-
tinent. Henry VHI and his successors proceeded
against it vigorously and ruthlessly. In the early
days of its history in England it seems to have
been found among foreigners altogether, and it

113 Infant-Baptism.

did not afifect the English people until they were
aroused by the Puritan controversy of the last
half of the sixteenth and the first half of the sev-
enteenth centuries. Some of the peculiar social,
religious, political and economic views it had held
on the continent were then abandoned and what
is ordinarily known as the English Baptist move-
ment emerged from it about 1611. It was still
known as Anabaptism and was bitterly persecuted
till Cromwell's regime brought a measure of re-
ligious freedom to England. It then grew very
rapidly and by the end of the century there were
more than a hundred churches and several thou-
sand members. This growth they had achieved in
little more than a half century under the pressure
of continuous persecution except during the brief
period of Cromwell's power. Moreover they were
themselves divided into two warring parties, one
of which embraced the Calvinistic and the other
the Arminian system of theology. In other re-
spects they were fairly harmonious in faith and
practice. They were called Anabaptists by their
opponents, but usually called themselves "breth-
ren" and their churches simply "churches of
Christ" or "baptized churches of Christ."

When persecution ceased in 1689 the proba-
bilities of rapid expansion seemed great. Free-
dom from the oppressive hand of the State had
not been enjoyed by those who cherished anti-
pedobaptist sentiments for centuries, and free-
dom was apparently the one thing necessary for
gfrowth. But they soon felt the chill of the ra-

AntirPedohapUst Sentiment. 119

tionalism of the eighteenth century. Spiritual
coldness and deadness seized them, activity
largely ceased, an excessive interest in the purely
intellectual side of Christianity developed. Most
of the Arminian wing became Unitarian and the
others became hyper-Calvinists. Naturally growth
ceased. They were probably not so numerous at
the middle of the eighteenth century as they had
been at the beginning.

In the meantime the prefix "Ana" was being
gradually dropped from the name, and they be-
gan to be known simply as Baptists. By the year
1800 the term "Anabaptist" had almost disap-
peared from use both in England and America.
Before this time the Baptists had begun to feel
the refreshing effects of the great evangelical re-
vival. The Arminians were largely saved from
their Unitarianism and the Calvinists from their
rigid hyper-Calvinism and antinomianism. The
period of prosperity was at hand.

In America anti-pedobaptist sentiments made
themselves manifest early in the history of the
English settlements in Massachusetts. Roger
Williams and others began the agitation of the
question in the thirties of the seventeenth century
and by 1639 had been banished from Massachu-
setts and had established a colony and an anti-
pedobaptist church in Rhode Island. They were
immediately dubbed "Anabaptists" and all the
stigma that had attached to them in the Old
World was transferred to the New. From this
center they spread by degrees throughout all the

120 Infant-Baptism.

English colonies, meeting suspicion and obloquy
everywhere and at places, notably in Massachu-
setts and Virginia, suffering severe persecution.
The growth and vicissitudes of anti-pedobap-
tists in this country were in general parallel with
their history in the mother country. During the
eighteenth century they met powerful opposition
and suffered from the prevalent spiritual decline.
But during this time they sloughed off the name
"Anabaptist" and began to respond to the blessed
influence of the Great Awakening which was now
sweeping over the country. They had suffered
from the spirit of division and isolation, and their
growth had been very slow. By 1790 there were
perhaps a hundred thousand, but they, too, were
now standing on the threshold of their period of
prosperity.

CHAPTER XII.

THE CHILD AND THE KINGDOM— THE
NEW PELAGIANISM.

Infant-baptism is still practiced and tenderly
cherished by the great mass of the Christian
world. In those countries where the union be-
tween Church and State is still intact — states like
Russia, Germany and Austria, — the practice of in-
fant-baptism is almost universal. The Greek and
the Roman Catholic churches in all lands where
they exist still insist that baptism is absolutely
necessary to salvation. On this ground they bap-
tize all infants, lest dying in infancy they be barred
from the vision of the face of God forever and
be confined in the limbo prepared for unbaptized
infants who die in infancy. Many, if not a ma-
jority of the Lutherans in all lands continue to
baptize infants for the same reason, the regenerat-
ing power of baptism. The ritualistic wing of
the Anglican or Episcopal church likewise be-
lieves in baptismal regeneration, and practices in-
fant-baptism for this reason. All these churches
continue infant-baptism on its original basis, that
is, its magical regenerating effects on the uncon-
scious infant. As we have seen in the preceding
chapters this was the sole recognized ground for
the practice down to the Reformation. These
churches do not consider any religious experience

(121)

199. Infant-Baptism.

2L "conversion," but only an ''awakening." They
hold that the child was regenerated in its baptism,
needing thereafter only instruction and direction.

On the other hand, evangelical pedobaptists —
Presbyterians, "Reformed," Congregationalists,
Methodists and a few minor parties — have be-
come more evangelical in this last period. Most
of them insist on conversion through the exer-
cise of repentance and a living faith. This reli-
gious experience must precede the beginning of
real church membership. Baptized infants hold a
wholly ambiguous and uncertain position in re-
lation to church membership, undefined and in-
definable. Infant-baptism is continued as a social
custom while the actual religious life of the in-
dividual is begun and fostered much as among
the anti-pedobaptists. It still nullifies faith-bap-
tism and prevents its members from obeying the
plain command of Christ to everyone that be-
lieves, the command to be baptized.

Quite recently the whole question has taken on a
new form. Within the last dozen or fifteen years
there has occurred a marked revival of the old
Pelagian conception of the child. Pelagius and
his supporters in the fifth and sixth centuries con-
tended that the new-born babe was absolutely
innocent and unpolluted by sin, that its nature
was untainted by inheritance from its ancestors,
but pure like that of Adam before the fall; in
short, that actual sin was due to environment
and in no sense or degree to heredity. He ad-
mitted that human beings fall into sin as they

The New Pelagianism. 123

advance in life, but affirmed that this tragic fact
was due to imitation of their elders and not to
any evil tendencies within themselves. These
views precipitated a long and tedious controversy
which resulted in their repudiation by the Chris-
tian world almost unanimously. They were felt
to be false to the testimony of experience and
the teachings of Scripture and to be dangerous
in their practical tendencies. Even the great up-
heaval of the Reformation did not stimulate any
serious revival of this discarded conception of
child nature. Lutheranism, Calvinism and Ar-
minianism, while differing widely on many points,
were agreed as to the presence of some taint of
sin in all human beings. They believed that
human nature was poisoned at its roots in Adam.
However much Christian thinkers might differ
as to details, they were a unit in the conviction
that Scripture, Christian experience and the uni-
versality of sin in adults made inescapable the
conclusion that the child, at birth, is somehow
and in some degree tainted or weakened or cor-
rupted by sin.

But toward the end of the nineteenth century
the Christian world suddenly became conscious
of its surpassing excellencies. Human nature, it
was contended, is not so bad as the pessimistic
old theologians conceived it. The doctrine of
the fatherhood of God was emphasized as never
before, the doctrines of the atonement and re-
demption were mininuied and relegated to the

124 Infant-Baptism.

scrapheap of the outworn, the death on Calvary
was no longer regarded as sacrificial. These
and related views, resting on an exceedingly
shallow view of human nature, became widely
current. It was inevitable that the older con-
ception of the nature of the child should be af-
fected. Turning away from the findings of
the older theology and even from the teachings
of Scripture, men in whom this tendency was
strong found their chief support in the supposed
conclusions of science. Biology and physiology
discovered that the child, in its embryonic and
infantile state and development, was remarkably
like the other vertebrates ; was, in fact, an animal.
Child psychology penetrated, or claimed to pene-
trate, the child soul and there found nothing
either good or bad. In a word, science could find
no trace of sin in the child's soul or body, and
hence concluded that there could be no taint of
sin there. Such was the argument, or at least
the course of reasoning, pursued by many advo-
cates of the sinlessness of the infant. The fact
that all children eventually become sinners if
they grow to maturity gave the new Pelagians
some pause, but this difficulty was surmounted
in one way or another. Hence followed the
bold assumption and contention that all children,
being . innocent and untainted by sin, children
of God at birth, are to be baptized on the basis of
this supposedly sinless state. They are in the king-
dom, need no conversion or regeneration. The

The New Pelagianism. 125

task of parents is not to bring them to a saving
knowledge of God in Christ Jesus, for they need
no salvation; their task is rather to keep the
child from falling out of the kingdom of God,
of which each was a member when he was born
into the world.

These views, current chiefly among the Con-
gregationalists and Methodists, but not entirely
wanting in several other denominations, have
found more or less full and clear expression in a
number of works on child nature and religion
in the last few years. One of the frankest and
clearest popular statements appeared in a book-
let by Dr. John T. McFarland, bearing the title,
''Preservation versus The Rescue of the Child."
On account of his prominence and representative
position in the Northern Methodist church he is
here quoted at some length. The excerpts from
this little work will make his views perfectly
clear. He says, on page 8: "The child begins
life as a child of God. . . . The child is the
only thing which Jesus ever held up as a sample
of the kingdom." Again, on page 13, he says:
"The child begins life as a child of God. . . .
The child does not require to be rescued. The
child does not need to be brought back into the
kingdom, because the child is already in the
kingdom. The great responsibility and the
great duty of the church, consequently, is not the
rescue of little children, but their preservation.
They are in the kingdom; our business is to see

126 Infant-Baptism.

that they remain in the kingdom. . . . We
should impress it upon children in the begin-
ning of their lives that they belong to the
heavenly Father's house, and that the wisest
thing which they can do is to remain contentedly,
obediently, and happily in that house."

A slightly different but closely related view
of the child's nature is found in the baptismal
ritual of the Southern Methodist church. It
reads as follows: ''Dearly beloved, forasmuch
as all men, though fallen in Adam, are born into
this world in Christ the Redeemer, heirs of life
eternal, subjects of the saving grace of the Holy
Spirit,"* etc. Here the conception is not that the
child is born free from the contamination of
original sin, but that it is born redeemed and
saved.

Views very similar to the last exist among
Presbyterians, except that they limit the benefits
of Christ's death to the children of believing
parents. For example, it is said in a book cir-
culated by the Westminster Press, presumably
with the endorsement of the Northern Presby-
terian church: **The children of believers are
to be treated as regenerate,"** that is, at their
natural birth. Again it is said, "Not only is the
regeneration from earliest infancy of the children
of believers possible and credible, but Scripture

♦Doctrine and Discipline, p. 537, quoted by Weaver,
Religious Development of the Child, p. 63.

**White, Why Infants are Baptized, p. 45.

The New Pelagianism. 127

expressions encourage us to expect it. . . .
Facts in the Church favor the belief that the
children of believers are to be presumed regen-
erate till the contrary appears.*

These quotations are sufficient to set forth the
fundamental convictions of this modern school
of thinkers. They show differences in detail
but are agreed in the general results. The
Methodists apply their views to all infants,
whether they are children of Christian or non-
Christian parents; the Presbyterians confine
their statements to the children of believing
parents. The first quotation seems to indicate
that the author believes that all infants are in-
herently innocent and wholly unaffected by
hereditary sin, and the second plainly states that
though fallen in Adam they are all redeemed in
Christ, while the third claims regeneration for
the children of believing parents. In effect the
views are the same : all newborn children (or
children of believing parents) are born into the
world in Christ, regenerate, in a state of grace,
in the kingdom, in the church. Various terms
and phrases are used, all meaning substantially
the same thing, and upon the basis of this as-
sumption it is claimed that infants are to be bap-
tized. They are as much children of God as
believing adults, and are, therefore, to be bap-
tized as repentant and believing adults are to be
baptized. The advocates of this view claim

♦White, Why Infants are Baptized, p. 48.

128 Infant-Baptism.

that they have but one baptism for all, that they
baptize children and adults for exactly the same
reason, that is, because they are children of God.
Baptism, it is claimed, is a recognition of that
fact.

This reasoning, it must be confessed, gives to
infant-baptism a show of rationality and scrip-
turalness that it has never before enjoyed. Mani-
festly the Scriptures set forth but one baptism,
and yet evangelical pedobaptists have always
had two baptisms : one based on faith for be-
lieving adults, and one for infants based on
something else. This view of baptism, if tena-
ble, relieves them of this embarrassment. Again,
it bases infant-baptism on the spiritual condition
of the infant itself rather than on some fictitious
conception of faith, such as the vicarious faith
of the parents or the god-parents or the church,
or upon a ^wa^i-faith of the child itself, or on a
faith to be exercised and manifested by the child
in the future. Baptism, it is claimed by these
brethren, has no relation to faith in any case,
but is a ceremonial recognition of the regenerate
state and divine sonship of the individual to be
baptized, that is, the infant.

This new argument for infant-baptism is
thought by its advocates to furnish a firmer basis
for their practice than they have ever before had.
Evidently they feel relieved, for they attack the
old arguments for infant-baptism and expose
their absurdities as vigorously as the anti-pedo-

The New Pelagianism. 129

baptists have ever done. Judging from their
writings one would be compelled to conclude that
they have long felt the inadequacy of the old
arguments, and now, feeling themselves more se-
cure on their new basis, they rejoice in demol-
ishing the old fortifications.

But are they so secure as they feel ? Will their
view of child nature commend itself to the
thought and experience of the Christian world?
And if their conception of child nature is cor-
rect, does that warrant infant-baptism? Several
things are to be noted in the consideration of
this matter.

In the first place they are reviving a view of
child nature that was long ago considered and
rejected, a view that is now held by an extremely
small minority of the Christian world. This by
no means proves their contentions to be false,
but it is a consideration which should make
thinking men wary in accepting it without the
most careful consideration.

In the next place it should be noted that it is
based on science and sentiment far more than
on Scripture and religious experience. It is not
intended by this remark to intimate any want of
appreciation of either science or sentiment. The
Christian world of the present day owes a great
debt of gratitude to science. It has exploded
many a hoary and hurtful superstition which
had long hampered spiritual progress. Its con-
tributions to a better understanding of the reality

130 Infant-Baptism.

and nature of Christian experience in recent
years are gratefully acknowledged. But science
has its limitations which scientists do not always
recognize. And this writer is disposed to think
child nature has been one subject about which
there has sometimes been more confident assertion
than real knowledge. This is said without any
intention of disparaging the great benefit which
has accrued to religious workers through the in-
tense study which psychologists have devoted to
the child in recent years. No man who aspires
to efficiency in Christian work can afford to re-
main unacquainted with the studies of these
scientists. But in declaring the infant to be sin-
less, science has gone beyond the possibilities of
scientific knowledge. There are no instruments
or tests by which the taint of sin can be de-
tected. Doubtless the old Catholic theology
made assertions concerning the sinfulness of the
child that were crude and even gross, but the
rejection of these errors need not drive us to
the other extreme. It is fair to ask how we are
to explain the universality of sin in adults if all
children or any children are entirely free from
its weakening and polluting effects through
heredity? How explain the fact, known to all
who have given the matter attention, that earth's
saintliest characters have as an invariable rule
been most keenly conscious of sin? How is it
that of all earth's great and good, Jesus
alone shows no sense of sin or unworthiness ?

The New Pelagianism. 131

The new Pelagianism must answer these and
similar questions before their view of child
nature can be accepted, no matter what the
students of child psychology may say.

The one passage of Scripture which is relied
on most largely — in fact, almost exclusively — is
the beautiful saying of Jesus: "Of such is the
kingdom of God (heaven)," Matt. 19: 14; Mark
10: 14; Luke 18: i6f. It is argued from this
passage that the kingdom of God, here conceived
of as the saved, is composed of infants and such
as infants, and that therefore infants must be
sinless and proper subjects for baptism. This
view is apparently favored by the King James
Version, but the true meaning is far better ex-
pressed by the American Standard Version, which
translates the passage, "To such belongeth the
kingdom of God." The "kingdom" does not
mean the saved, but a body of spiritual riches
represented and embodied in Jesus. These
riches are free to all, children as well as others,
who will appropriate them. The disciples did
not understand this great truth and sought to
hinder the children from intruding on the Mas-
ter's time and attention. He rebuked them and
opened a way for the children, declaring that
the kingdom belonged to children also. The
Pelagian interpretation of this passage is cer-
tainly wrong. Jesus is not passing on the spir-
itual condition of children, but asserting their
rigfht to freedom of access to himself and to the

132 Infant-Baptism.

riches of the kingdom, as they can come. Com-
pare two exactly parallel passages in Matt. 5: 3
and 10.

But it is not intended to consider the nature
of the child here at any length. Our interest in
the subject is the bearing of this contention on
the practice and defense of infant-baptism.

It should be remarked in passing that the argu-
ments for infant-baptism advanced by the new
Pelagians are shaky just in so far as their view
of child nature is uncertain. If their view of
child nature is false, the whole practice of infant-
baptism would, according to their contention, fall
to the ground, for they reject all other reasons for
baptizing infants as wholly untenable.

Several other considerations adverse to this
new Pelagianism force themselves on our atten-
tion. In the first place, they have, in order to
include infant-baptism in their "one baptism,"
wrenched adult baptism from its biblical relation
to faith and declared that a state of grace and not
the exercise of faith is the prerequisite of bap-
tism. It was plainly necessary to do something
of this kind if they were to hold that there is but
"one baptism." Infant-baptism is not a faith-
baptism; therefore it became necessary to deny
that adult-baptism is a faith-baptism. The older
theologians, in order to preserve the semblance
of "one baptism," assumed some kind of faith in
the infant; these new theologians, in order to
preserve "one baptism," have denied faith as

The New Pelagianism. I33

the basis of adult-baptism. An assumed state of
grace, identical in newly born infants and in saved
adults, is the basis of baptism according to them.
It seems hardly necessary to point out that this
contention is absolutely without Scripture war-
rant. The Bible everywhere couples faith with
baptism, everywhere makes faith a condition of
baptism. The attempt to deny or obscure this
fact constitutes an inexcusable perversion of
Scripture teaching. It is more objectionable
and less justifiable, if possible, than the old as-
sumption of a quasi-idiith in the infant. The
older defenders of infant-baptism departed from
Scripture teaching less than these.

In the second place this infant-baptism nulli-
fies faith-baptism just as much as the old infant-
baptism did. Many of its advocates frankly
admit that it is not found in the New Testament.
Dr. Wright says : 'The New Testament is si-
lent concerning it," and explains its origin as
follows: "The custom of children's baptism
probably had its roots in Jewish traditions and
practices, and the fear that unbaptized persons
would be excluded from the kingdom forever, in
harmony with the well-nigh unchallenged phrase,
extra ecclesiam nulla sahis/'* Notwithstanding
this silence of the Scriptures this baptism is made
to nullify the plain command of Scripture that
every believer should be baptized, for no pedo-

*Wright, Moral Condition and Development of the
Child, pp. i63f.

J^34 Infant-Baptism.

baptist would think of administering a faith-bap-
tism to a person who had been baptized in in-
fancy. Faith-baptism is just as much destroyed
by this as by any other reason for infant-bap-
tism.

In the next place this view of infant-baptism
does not differ so widely from the old magical
conception of baptism as at first appears.
It is true that these brethren reject with
the utmost decision all the older concep-
tions of infant-baptism. In fact, they are
as severe as any anti-pedobaptist could pos-
sibly be. Dr. Wright admits "that it is little
wonder that a custom that has been defended
by an appeal to such absurdities and unfounded
necessities, by such conflicting arguments and
disregard of personal history, should fail of gen-
eral acceptance and understanding."* He adds
that "there are certain conceptions of infant bap-
tism that appear to us as little better than gross
superstition on the one hand, or based on imag-
inary necessities on the other. They dwell in
the region of mystical relations and imaginary
benefits. It is impossible to trace the moral
benefit to children, in their actual lives."**

Dr. McFarland is even severer on former and
present-day Methodist practice than any Baptist
would dare to be. He says, "The truth is, we

*Wright, Moral Condition and Development of the
Child, p. 167.

**Wright, Moral Condition and Development of the
Child, p. 169.

The New Pelagianism. \25

have been grossly inconsistent in our practices.
We have baptized our children, and by that act
we have declared them to be the children of God
and as belonging to the kingdom, and then forth-
with we have proceeded to deal with them as if
the implications of this baptism were false. In-
deed we have not taken seriously our own prac-
tice of baptizing children. . . . Either we
should abandon the habit of baptizing children, or
we should assume frankly the responsibility
which such baptism implies."

Baptists have long recognized something of
the inconsistencies and absurdities into which
our pedobaptist brethren are wont to fall, and
they can but rejoice to observe the growing con-
sciousness of these conditions among the pedo-
baptists themselves. Baptists can even welcome
these Pelagians as colaborers in so far as they
assist in unmasking and opposing these weak-
nesses and other objectionable features of the
older pedobaptism. But the objections to this
new Pelagianism are no less serious than to the
old pedobaptism. It has the appearance of far
greater spirituality than the old magical view of
infant-baptism, but as a matter of fact the two
views which seem to be at the opposite poles of
theological thought are separated but by a hair's
breadth. It is another case where extremes meet.
The Catholic regards the child as sinful at birth,
believes the benefits of Christ's death are ap-
plied to it by the Holy Spirit in baptism; it is

136 Infant-Baptism.

then believed to be regenerate and henceforth to
need only careful training for its eternal safety.
The new Pelagian regards the newborn child as
sinless by nature, or regenerate and in a state of
grace by virtue of Christ's death ; for this reason
he is to be baptized and for the future needs only
to be carefully trained to be secure of eternal life.
As in the case of the Catholic child, the whole
stupendous transaction took place in the moral
unconsciousness of infancy; the recipient will
know nothing of the experience except as it is
told him in later years. The day after baptism
the two children are supposed to be in the same
state : both are regarded as regenerate, baptized,
in the kingdom, in a state of grace, in the church.
The only difference is as to the time of the
supposed act of regeneration. It is the differ-
ence between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee. It
is supposed that neither will need conversion in
the future, both are to be taught that they are
children of God and instructed accordingly; any
future religious experience must be regarded as
only *'an awakening" and in no sense an experi-
ence necessary to salvation. One child is sup-
posed to have been regenerated in unconscious-
ness before baptism, the other in unconsciousness
in baptism. Can any one assert that either case
is less magical and irrational than the other?
Obviously both systems are anti-evangelical, be-
cause both reject the idea of conversion as a
fruit of the conscious apprehension of Jesus

The New Pelagianism. 137

Christ as Saviour and Lord, both nullify the
gospel except for those unfortunates who be-
cause of their own perversity or the criminal
neglect of those who had the oversight over them
have fallen out of the kingdom. It is too soon
to learn by actual test of experience what the
effect of these views will be on evangelical re-
ligion, but there is great reason for fear that it
will be seriously hurtful. Salvation by grace
through faith is eliminated in ideal if not in fact;
repentance and faith lose all relation to justifica-
tion, become unnecessary and are well-nigh
meaningless ; conversion, an anachronism. Dr.
McFarland says, "Conversion is necessary only to /
those who have fallen away from God through
voluntary sin, . . . We have fallen into the
error of regarding certain experiences which
come naturally to children in their moral and
spiritual development as conversion, when in
reality it is only what may be called 'the spiritual
awakening' that is a necessary incident to the
spiritual Hfe, when that which lies latent and un-
defined in the mind becomes active and definite.'*
This statement, made by one of the leaders of a
great evangelical denomination, would be entirely
acceptable to any of the ritualistic churches which
believe in sacramental salvation. Even the ter-
minology is borrowed from them. The entire
booklet of Dr. McFarland deprecates the idea of
the necessity of conversion for those who have
been baptized in infancy and properly trained as
they grew to maturity.

138 Infant-Baptism.

From the standpoint of the Baptists and even
evangeUcal pedobaptists these views are much
more dangerous and objectionable than the older
contention of evangelical pedobaptists. For how-
ever ambiguous the status of the baptized infant
might be among them, it was maintained that it
must be converted on coming to years as if it
had not been baptized. This inconsistency in the
older pedobaptism saved its evangelical truth
and made it minister the gospel to all not-
withstanding its infant-baptism. This new Pela-
gianism in its consistency has ceased to be evan-
gelical. If these views are widely accepted, the
gradual cooling of evangelical fervor and evan-
gelistic activity among the evangelical pedobap-
tists may be confidently expected. In seeking to
escape the absurdities and inconsistencies of in-
fant-baptism the new Pelagians have fallen into
its most serious dangers. No friend of evan-
gelical religion can anticipate the practical re-
sults without the gravest concern for the future.

It ought to be said in conclusion, perhaps, that
this controversy over the nature of the child in
no way affects the Baptist view of baptism. To
them baptism is faith-baptism. It is not a means
by which parents are to dedicate their children
unto God, nor is it a mark of innocence or sin-
lessness, but a God-given means of public self-
dedication. Repentance and faith are presup-
posed because no soul can dedicate itself unto
God without the exercise of these graces.

The New Pelagianism. 139

It ought to be said further that Baptists do not
minimize the importance of religious training of
children in the home and the church ; they believe
parents should dedicate their children unto God
and train them carefully in the nurture and admo-
nition of the Lord. They feel that they can
without immodesty claim that their actions con-
firm these statements. Their Sunday schools
are not behind those of their neighbors either in
attendance or efficiency, their ministers are as
wide-awake and as progressive as any, their
seminaries among the most efficient in training
leaders for the religious and moral education of
the childhood and the youth of the country, their
teacher-training work is well developed and effi-
cient. Nor do they believe that their homes are
less the abodes of piety and religious devotion
than those of their pedobaptist neighbors; they
do not see that any larger part of their children
show indifference to religion than of their neigh-
bors. In a word, they believe that infant-bap-
tism on the new Pelagian basis is just as devoid
of scriptural warrant, just as futile in its prac-
tical effects, just as dangerous to spiritual re-
ligion, just as objectionable from every point of
view as that which was grounded on the sinful-
ness of the child. Their practice of faith-bap-
tism enables them to consider with perfect free-
dom and frankness the spiritual condition of the
child. This baptism is the barrier to endless
errors and the assurance of the preservation of
evangelical faith.

CHAPTER XIII.

FORCES OPERATING IN FAVOR OF
FAITH-BAPTISM.

What are some of the causes of these great
changes which the nineteenth century wrought in
the standing and prosperity of the anti-pedobap-
tist movement? Doubtless there is much which
cannot be explained, but some forces can be in-
dicated. Among these the tremendous revival in
Bible study should be put first. The Reforma-
tion rescued the Bible from the neglect and sus-
picion from which it suffered in the Catholic
church, and gave it again to the people in their
own language. But its full effects were in part
nullified by defects in translation, by the illiteracy
of the people, most of whom could not read, and
by the fact that the churches used catechisms in
the religious instruction of the people rather than
the Bible itself. These catechisms presented the
peculiar views of the churches which issued them
and prevented the Bible from exerting its whole
influence upon the people, except as some of them
read it for themselves. Even the Protestant
churches made no effort to teach the Bible directly
and in its entirety to the people. But nothwith-
standing this serious defect in the religious in-
struction of the people at the period of the Re-

(140)

Forces for Faith-Baptism. 141

formation there was, as we have seen above, a
tremendous outburst of anti-pedobaptist senti-
ment which could be quenched only in blood.

Again in the seventeenth century, especially in
England, there was a renewed effort to give the
Bible to all the people, with a corresponding re-
vival of anti-pedobaptist sentiment. It is a no-
table fact that English Baptists issued their first
Confession of Faith in the year 1611, the year in
which the King Tames Version, the great English
vulgate, came from the press. Just in proportion
as the use of that book, translated wholly by pedo-
baptist scholars, spread among the people Baptist
sentiment grew.

But it was in the nineteenth century that the
glory of biblical scholarship reached its full bloom.
Bible lands were explored, Bible customs inves-
tigated on the spot, Bible languages studied in-
tensively, biblical manuscripts were discovered
and collated, Bible versions revised and new
translations made in nearly all the languages of
the earth. Human learning and ability have ex-
hausted all their resources in elucidating the Bi-
ble text and teachings through commentaries,
lives of Christ and the great scriptural characters
and in the study of every phase of scriptural
teaching.

At the same time the modern Sunday school
movement came on, using the Bible as its text-
book in the religious education of the people. Be-
ginning with instruction of the small children
only, it has gradually enlarged its scope until it

142 Infant-Baptism.

now affects the lives of multitudes through the
direct study of the Bible from the cradle to the
grave. This has been supplemented by the pop-
ular study of the Bible in numerous other ways,
such as through the Young Men's and Young
Women's Christian Associations, Chautauquas,
Institutes, etc. All this has prepared the soil for
the spread of anti-pedobaptist sentiments, by pre-
senting positively and directly the Scripture teach-
ing on baptism. Sometimes, no doubt, pedobap-
tist laymen have been perplexed when they have
sought Scripture warrant for the practice of in-
fant-baptism. When they have investigated they
have been forced to see that all Scripture bap-
tisms were faith-baptisms. But the most impor-
tant result has been the gradual melting away of
the most baneful effects of infant-baptism in pedo-
baptist churches in this warm current of Scrip-
ture study.

A second force, already hinted at, which has
greatly strengthened the anti-pedobaptist move-
ment is the general diffusion of enlightenment.
The public school has come, the masses have been
made literate, they can read the Bible for them-
selves, superstitious reverence for the Church and
ecclesiastical institutions has been waning. In-
fant-baptism has flourished where the people took
their religious instruction wholly from the Church.
Enlightenment and personal independence mili-
tate against infant-baptism. It is administered in
the ignorance and helplessness of infancy, faith-
baptism is possible only where there is intelli-
gence and self-direction.

Forces for Faith-Baptism. I43

A third world movement which has greatly
weakened the position of infant-baptism is the
gradual attainment of political and religious free-
dom. The practical triumph of infant-baptism
in the Middle Ages was largely based on force.
The indifference of free men, if not their active
opposition, would have prevented the practical
universality of the practice. But they were forced
to have their children baptized by the anathemas
of the Church and the more concrete threats of
the State. But the eighteenth century saw the
beginning of the establishment of religious free-
dom. At first in the United States and then grad-
ually in other lands a man was left to determine
his religious actions for himself. If he desired
to have his child baptized he could do so, but if
he objected on religious or other grounds, or if
he were merely indifferent, the child went unbap-
tized. The immediate result has been that the
great majority of the children in the United
States, notwithstanding all the pressure which the
great pedobaptlst churches can exert, are grow-
ing up unbaptized. They enjoy the privilege of
deciding for themselves what their religious status
shall be. Very many of them on conversion join
pedobaptlst churches, but they usually become,
because of their own experience, an anti-pedobap-
tlst or non-pedobaptlst leaven working in the
pedobaptlst communion. The practical result is
that some of the pedobaptlst churches in certain
sections of our country have become to all in-
tents and purposes the administrators of faith-

144 Infant-Baptism.

baptisms only. There are sections where the bap-
tism of an infant has not occurred in years, and
the entire practice has simply fallen into "inocu-
ous desuetude." This will be more and more the
case as religious freedom spreads and deepens.
No man who baptizes an infant is in favor of re-
ligious freedom in the fullest sense. Proper rev-
erence for personality will inevitably cause the
discontinuance of infant-baptism. The onus
probandi, the burden of proof, rests in our coun-
try on the pedobaptist, not on the advocate of
faith-baptism. The political, cultural and religious
forces of the modern world are fighting against
pedobaptism. Pedobaptism is declining in an
exact but inverse ratio to the growth of freedom.
Faith-baptism is the baptism of freedom, of per-
sonal responsibility, of religious experience.

The unparalleled evangelical revival of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries has been one
of the mightiest factors in the decline of infant-
baptism. The essence of the Protestant position
is justification by faith. This faith is not the
antithesis of "works," in the sense that it was
frequently and erroneously preached, but of ec-
clesiastical "works." Men are justified by faith
apart from ecclesiastical ceremonies. This was
the paramount contention of Luther and his fol-
lowers. And yet Luther, as has been shown
above, retained baptism as a regenerating sacra-
ment of the Church. Naturally infant-baptism
was retained, though it contradicted his central
contention. The English Church stood in prac-

Forces for Faith-Baptism. 145

tical agreement with him on this point when the
work of reform was complete. Other reformers
were less sacramental in theory, but still retained
infant-baptism, though in its origin, history and
primary significance it was distinctly sacramental
and anti-evangelical.

Naturally whatever emphasizes the great gos-
pel truth that salvation is the fruit of the repent-
ance and faith of the individual must work to the
discrediting of infant-baptism. If the Christian re-
ligion is an experience of grace, then infant-bap-
tism is no part of the Christian religion. It was just
here that the evangelical revival of the eighteenth
century laid its chief emphasis. Everything was
subordinate to a personal experience of grace.
Assurance of salvation was based, not on the
church and sacraments, but on faith and perse-
verance. By the end of the century this truth
was widely operative in England and America.
With its spread the Baptist cause sprang into
power. The two have continued to flourish to-
gether throughout the last century and a quar-
ter. Every local revival has given a new stimu-
lus to anti-pedobaptist sentiment and non-pedo-
baptist practice even where it has not contributed
largely to the growth of the Baptist denomina-
tion. Infant-baptism has many supports — the
faith of the parents, social custom, the compulsion
of the state, the pressure of the church. Faith-
baptism rests wholly on the faith and desire of the
individual for baptism. Where there is no faith
there will be no faith-baptism. Consequently the

10

146 Infant-Baptism.

success of the Baptist movement is absolutely de-
pendent on the success of evangelical religion
which preaches justification by faith, and an
evangelical revival is uniformly a revival of anti-
pedobaptist sentiment, and of prosperity for the
Baptists.

The fifth great movement of the period which
has materially influenced the question of infant-
baptism is the foreign missionary movement.
Everybody recognizes that Christianity was orig-
inally a missionary religion, differing in this re-
gard from nearly all the other religions. Its
Founder sets as its task the complete conquest
of the world. The truths which he revealed were
to be presented to the intelligence and consciences
of all men who on accepting the position of dis-
cipleship were to be baptized and further in-
structed in the life of the kingdom of heaven.
This is the teaching and the only teaching found
in the Christian program as set forth in the last
charge of Jesus known as the Commission. Each
must become a Christian and live the Christian
life for himself, irrespective of the nationality or
religious status of his parents.

But as time passed and the distinctive charac-
ter of Christianity became obscured there arose
a feeling that a child was in some sense a Chris-
tian if his parents were Christians, just as a Jew-
ish child was religiously as well as racially a Jew
because his parents were Jews. Men began to
speak of Christian families. Christian nations and
a Christian society. These conceptions obscured

Forces for Faith-Baptism. 147

the missionary character of Christianity. But the
original fundamental character of Christianity has
been re-emphasized and brought into prominence
by the modern missionary movement. Again men
and women have gone forth, armed with the gos-
pel, to preach and to baptize those that believe.
The baptism of the mission fields is a faith-bap-
tism. This has reacted powerfully at home. Lis-
ten to the addresses in a missionary conference,
made by Baptists and pedobaptists, and you will
find they are all Baptists on missions. All speak
of preaching, conversion and baptism. Infant-
baptism, which is an absurdity on a mission field,
can hardly be entirely appropriate or permanently
very important at home. Beyond question the
foreign mission movement has exerted consider-
able influence on the decline of infant-baptism in
the home lands.

The extensive study of church history, which
has been one of the marked characteristics of
theological education in the nineteenth cen-
tury, has continually exerted considerable influ-
ence upon the ministry. It is true that the pedo-
baptist seminaries as a rule have loyally sup-
ported the pedobaptist practices of the churches
to which they belong. It is also true that it is
never the ministers of religion who break away
from the ecclesiastical traditions of the commu-
nion to which they belong. Individual ministers
do, here and there, emancipate themselves from
"the traditions of the elders," but it is to the laity
we look to get back to essentials. And yet it must

148 Infant-Baptism,

be exceedingly embarrassing to scholarly young
pedobaptist ministers, as they follow the pages
of church history, to see the total absence of in-
fant-baptism from the pages of Scripture, to ob-
serve the sources from which it sprang in the
third and succeeding centuries, to follow its dark
and bloody history through the centuries of the
Middle Ages and down into modern times. It
must be rather difficult for a sincere man who
knows church history to defend and administer
this ceremony. Of course, not many make any
thorough study of church history. This is the
most charitable view to take with regard to their
actions.

The study of religious phychology is another
force operative toward the establishment of faith-
baptism. Psychology is the study of the content of
consciousness, religious psychology is an account
of the content of the religious consciousness.
To psychology there is no religion where there
is no consciousness of religion. Infant baptism
is a psychological absurdity. Religious psychology
studies the phenomena of conversion and the
other religious experiences, thus lifting them into
prominence as the initial and essential elements
of religion. Naturally infant-baptism loses its
significance for the religious life because it is ad-
ministered when the child is religiously uncon-
scious. On the other hand, faith-baptism receives
a powerful impulse in that it is based upon a
religious experience and contributes to the
strengthening of the religious content of the soul.

Forces for Faith-Baptism. 149

The final reason for the administration of bap-
tism at all is psychological. Jesus Christ knew
that man is so constituted as to need some exter-
nal means by which he can register and express
his great religious decision. As the fraternal or-
ders adopt some ceremonies, made as appropriate
and expressive as possible, to emphasize the sig-
nificance of the act of uniting with the order, so
baptism is needed by men to mark that great crisis
in life when a soul deliberately, solemnly and
voluntarily takes its stand with God and his peo-
ple. The profoundest realities of that experience
are expressed by the immersion of the believer
in the name of the Trinity. Religious psychology
supports faith-baptism while it renders infant-
baptism irrational and nugatory.

The fact that anti-pedobaptists have been giv-
ing more attention to the religious training of
their children and have been making efforts for
their conversion at an earlier age than formerly
has deprived evangelical pedobaptists of a great
part of the strength of their appeal. The children
of Baptist parents are as well trained religiously
and are converted as early in life as those bap-
tized in infancy. In pedobaptist theory the bap-
tism of infants brings them closer to the spiritual
treasures of the kingdom; actually there is no
evidence that it has any effect on them whatever.
Spiritual riches are just as accessible to Baptist
children as to any other, and are as early and
earnestly appropriated. The religious character
of a child baptized in infancy depends on its train-

150 Infant-Baptism.

ing and its own personal religious experiences
precisely as that of a child not baptized. There
is no distinction.

The great wave of democracy which has swept
over the earth during the last century has con-
tributed materially to the growth of anti-pedo-
baptist sentiment. If man has reached his ma-
jority and is capable of self-direction in all other
affairs of life, is he still to be a minor in reli-
gion? Must he rely upon the magical effects of
a ceremony received in infancy, in the highest
affairs of his soul, while life's other great con-
cerns are decided in the full light of his own con-
sciousness and in accordance with the decisions
of his own sovereign will? Democracy says, no.
The individual must direct his own religious af-
fairs; he must be free.

Finally, the great change which has come over
the belief of the Christian world as to the reli-
gious status of the infant is working a rapid
change in the practice of infant-baptism. It was
easy for men, especially for a childless clergy, in
the days of Augustine, to believe in the damna-
tion of infants who died unbaptized. Today it is in-
creasingly difficult for even the Catholic churches
to keep the people believing such a monstrous
doctrine. Even the milder doctrine of a limbo
for infants dying unbaptized shocks the faith of
many Catholics. We now believe the helpless
child is cared for by the loving God and is not
dependent on the accident of receiving an ecclesi-
astical ceremony before its untimely death.

Forces for Faith-Baptism. 151

It was perhaps easy for the reformers, battling
sternly for life and relying on God for every-
thing, to believe that non-elect infants dying in
infancy were lost. When the English Arminian
Baptists began in the early seventeenth century
to advocate the view that all infants dying in in-
fancy are saved they were regarded as dangerous
heretics. Men had been so long schooled in the
feeling that the Church has some kind of bless-
ing for the infant, even while it is an infant, that
Zwingli and Calvin, notwithstanding their evan-
gelical views, could not break away. They in-
sisted that the child must be baptized and thus
brought into the Church, else his parents would
neglect him and his God would forget him. He
would not be in covenant relation with God. But
practical experience has shown that this relation
to the Church has no appreciable effect on the
child's life. That is dependent on his native char-
acteristics and the environment. Today the world
does not believe that a child must be baptized in
order to be saved ; nor does it believe that it must
be baptized to insure the love and care of its par-
ents or the gracious blessing of God. God comes
to the child as a child, a human being, not as the
child of Christian parents.

CHAPTER XIV.

MODERN PEDOBAPTIST SCHOLARSHIP.

The indications are that the Baptist conten-
tion concerning the unscriptural character and the
ecclesiastical origin of infant-baptism will soon
be as completely vindicated and as widely ac-
cepted by the scholarly world as their position on
the scriptural form or mode of baptism. It is
now a common-place of biblical scholarship that
baptism was administered solely by immersion in
New Testament times, acknowledged alike by the
untrammeled scholars of all communions. The
same tendency is manifest with regard to infani-
baptism. English and German scholars have in
recent years frankly acknowledged that tliere is
no warrant for infant-baptism in the way of com-
mand or example in the Scriptures, and that it
did not appear in Christian history much before
the end of the second century. American pedo-
baptist scholars are timidly beginning to show the
same tendency, though they are much more ham-
pered by ecclesiastical ties than their European
brethren. It will not be long before all real schol-
ars who are not bound by ecclesiastical traditions
or other ties will openly and frankly acknowledge
the facts that are so patent to anti- and non-pedo-
baptists. This does not mean that they will aban-

(152)

Modern Pedohaptist Scholarship. 153

don infant-baptism, at least not at once ; it means
that they will defend the practice on other than
scriptural grounds.

A few quotations from some of the leading
pedohaptist scholars of the world will serve to
indicate the direction of the tide.

The Rev. George Hodges, dean of the Episco-
pal Theological School, Cambridge, Massachu-
setts, is one of the ablest and most representative
members of his communion. In a recent volume
on "The Episcopal Church, Its Faith and Order,"
he says (page 51) in his discussion of baptism:
'The recipients of baptism seem originally to
have been persons of mature life. The command,
*Go, teach all nations, and baptize them,' and the
two conditions, 'Repent and be baptized,' and *He
that believeth and is baptized,' indicate adults."

This is a brief but succinct statement of the
Baptist position, the grounds on which they re-
fuse to practice and actively oppose infant-bap-
tism. But Dean Hodges, notwithstanding the
above statement, continues to practice and approve
infant-baptism. Let us see on what grounds. He
continues : "At the same time, the admission of
children into the Jewish church might be taken
by the Christians as a precedent for their own
use. The baptizing of households by the apostles
seems to suggest the inclusion of children. A
few statements in very early Christian writings
indicate that children were baptized" (page 51).
Irenseus, Tertullian, Origen and Cyprian are
mentioned, and he proceeds : "The fact, however,

154 Infant-Baptism,

that various eminent Christians of the fourth
century were not baptized in infancy suggests
that adult baptism was the common rule. Bap-
tism was delayed until it was possible to fulfill
the conditions of repentance and faith. . . .
The postponement of baptism ceased to be a cus-
tom in the church by reason of an understanding
of its meaning as a sacrament of regeneration.
St. Augustine taught that every infant is born
under the curse of original sin, and cannot, with-
out the new birth of baptism, enter into fullness
of Hfe. This doctrine which populated hell with
infants 'not a span long,' was easily applied by
a childless clergy to other people's children. . . .
It frightened people into the baptizing of their
infant children."

In these words Dean Hodges has stated the
facts exactly. He does not claim scriptural war-
rant, even by clear implication, for infant-bap-
tism; he admits that it first appears at the end
of the second century and was finally made gen-
eral by the theology of Augustine in the fifth
century. Anti-pedobaptist scholars claim no more
than the substance of these statements. Continu-
ing, he gives the positive grounds on which he
supports the practice. He says (page 53) : "But
the baptizing of children ... is a true deduc-
tion from the meaning of the sacrament. The
Christian father was initiated into the Christian
society, and the Christian mother was initiated
with him, and they were not willing to leave the
little boys and girls outside; that is the heart of

Modern Pedobaptist Scholarship. I55

it. Some theologians said this, and other theolo-
gians said that . . . but parents brought their
children, in happy ignorance of the teachings of
these relentless logicians, being moved thereto by
natural human affection. It is the revelation of
the will of God not in a book, nor in a doctrine,
but in the heart, which maintains the baptism of
infants in the life of the church."

Here is a perfectly frank statement of the
secret of the power of infant-baptism. Doubtless
most pedobaptists believe the Bible affords
warrant for the practice of infant-baptism, but
this belief is not the mainspring of their desire
for the baptism of their children. This is human
affection, misguided as to the religious status of
their children and the place of baptism in the
work of the kingdom of God. Between the anti-
pedobaptists and Dean Hodges there is no con-
troversy as to facts. Fundamentally that differ-
ence is as to whether human sentiment, misin-
formed and misguided as anti-pedobaptists be-
lieve, shall override and nullify the clear teaching
of Scripture on so important a matter as the reci-
pient of baptism ; for that infant-baptism nullifies
faith-baptism is indisputable.

The great Cyclopedias usually summarize the
views of current scholarship very accurately, and
as works of reference they are of great influence.

The treatment of baptism in Vol. H of the
"Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics," edited
b) James Hastings, is in accord with the state-
ments and views expressed above. This is the

156 Infant-Baptism.

latest, largest and certainly one of the ablest
works of reference on religious themes ever pub-
lished in any language. Baptism is treated by
Professor J. V. Bartlett, of Mansfield College,
Oxford ; Professor Kirsopp Lake, of the Univer-
sity of Leyden, and H. G. Wood, lecturer in the
University of Cambridge. Professor Bartlett
sa^s that adult baptism "alone occupies attention
in the New Testament;" but he maintains that
th^ ideas of the religious solidarity of the family
then current among both Jews and Gentiles would
demand the baptism of infants. He thinks this
makes infant-baptism very probable, if not certain.
That is, he infers the baptism of infants, not from
Scripture, which he admits to be silent regarding
it, but from current religious ideas known to
exist outside the Christian fold and supposed by
him to be operative among Christians.

Professor Lake says flatly, ''There is no in-
dication of the baptism of children" in the New
Testament, and he finds the presence of the prac-
tice first in TertuUian, who opposes it on the
ground that it is dangerous to both the child and
the sponsors.

Professor Wood is equally clear. He finds the
custom first in TertuUian. He thinks it may have
appeared earlier, but says : "We are, as Harnack
says, 'in complete obscurity as to the Church's
adoption of the practice.' The clear third century
references to child-baptism interpret it in the light
of original sin, and if the adoption of the prac-
tice is due to this interpretation, it is almost cer-

Modern Pedohaptist Scholarship. 157

tainly a late second century development. . . .
References to original sin in Clement of Rome or
other writers earlier than Cyprian cannot be held
to imply a knowledge of the custom of infant-
baptism. Moreover, the idea that infants needed
to be baptized for the remission of sins is con-
trary to all that is known of early Christian feel-
ing toward childhood. . . . Even in the third
century infant-baptism cannot be described as a
Church custom. That the Church allowed parents
to bring their infants to be baptized is obvious;
that some teachers and bishops may have encour-
aged them to do so is probable, though there is no
reason to suppose that TertuUian's position was
peculiarly his own. But infant-baptism was not
at this time enjoined or incorporated in the stand-
ing orders of the church .... In any case,
it is probable that the custom arose from the pres-
sure of parents and not through the direct ad-
vocacy of the Church. . . . The whole ritual
was designed for adults. The confession of faith
in particular points to this; and it must be ad-
mitted that the institution of sponsors was a some-
what clumsy device to adapt to infants a cere-
mony which had clearly been ordered at a time
when their baptism was not thought of. . . .
The ritual is frankly unsuitable for infants, but
it is retained because the tradition that instruc-
tion and faith precede baptism is undeniably prim-
itive. . . . Incidentally, the evidence of the
ritual is against a very early date for the practice
of infant-baptism,"

158 Infant-Baptism.

Here is the frank admission by three of the
leading pedobaptist scholars of the world, of the
facts as they are seen by anti-pedobaptists. This
is the position of the greatest religious cyclope-
dia in English.

Turning now to the greatest of the German
cyclopedias, the "Real Encyklopadie fiir Protest-
antiche Thelogie und Kirche," 3d edition. Vol. 19,
page 403, we find this crisp, categorical statement :
"The practice of infant-baptism in the apostolic
and post-apostolic age cannot be proved. We hear
indeed frequently of the baptism of entire house-
holds, as in Acts 16: 15, 32!; 18: 8; i Cor. i : 16.
But the last passage taken with i. Cor. 7: 14 is
not favorable to the supposition that infant-bap-
tism was customary at that time. For then Paul
could not have written ^else were your children
unclean.' " On page 408 it is said : "It is proven
that this baptism was practiced from the time of
Irenseus and Tertullian. However it had not been
long practiced and certainly was not much in use
at that time." This great work of reference thus
takes a position in its statement of the facts con-
cerning infant-baptism in harmony with the con-
tention of anti-pedobaptist scholars.

In the American translation and revision of
this great work, known as "The New Schaflf-
Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge,"
the article on "Infant-baptism" is by Dr. Philip
Schaff, revised by his son, Professor D. S.
Schaff. They maintain of course the legitimacy

Modern Pedobaptist Scholarship. I59

of the practice of infant-baptism, but ground the
custom on inference, frankly admitting that "no
positive command for baptizing infants is given
by Christ or his apostles" and that "no time can
be assigned for the begining of the practice of in-
fant-baptism." As to the first testimony to the
existence of the practice they say, "The three
earliest witnesses to the prevalence of infant-
baptism are Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian," and
they admit that the testimony of Irenaeus is "not
unequivocal." This is the position of the great-
est of the American cyclopedias of religious
knowledge.

The greatest of all the general cyclopedias,
"The Encyclopaedia Britannica, eleventh edition,"
in the article on baptism by Dr. F. C. Conybeare,
takes the position of anti-pedobaptists as to the
facts, without qualification or evasion. After stat-
ing concerning early baptism that "the essential
thing was that a man should come to baptism of
his own free will," and tracing the history of the
rise of infant-baptism, he concludes in these
words, which will sufficiently indicate his views :
"On such grounds was justified the transition of
a baptism which began as a spontaneous act of
self-consecration into an opus operatum. How
long after this it was before infant-baptism be-
came normal inside the Byzantine church we do
not know exactly. . . . The change came more
quickly in Latin than in Greek Christendom, and
very slowly indeed in the Armenian and the
Georgian churches."

160 Infaftt-Buptiam.

Church historians are generally agreed that
there is no conclusive evidence for the practice
of infant-baptism before Irenseus and Tertullian.
A few quotations from the ablest of the present-
day historians of the world will make this evi-
dent.

A. C. McGiffert, professor of Church History
in Union Theological Seminary, says in his "His-
tory of Christianity in the Apostolic Age," page
543 : "Whether infants were baptized in the
apostolic age, we have no means of determining.
Where the original idea of baptism as a baptism
of repentance, or where Paul's profound concep-
tion of it as a symbol of the death and resurrection
of the believer with Christ prevailed, the practice
would not be likely to arise. But where the rite
was regarded as a mere sign of one's reception
into the Christian circle, it would be possible for
the custom to grow up under the influence of the
ancient idea of the family as a unit in religion as
in all other matters. Before the end of the second
century, at any rate, the custom was common,
but it did not become universal until a much later
time." Professor McGififert must know that in-
fant-baptism was not "regarded as a mere sign
of one's reception into the Christian circle" be-
fore the Reformation. It arose, as has been
shown, out of a belief in its sacramental regenera-
tive power. Moreover, it is exceedingly doubtful
if the "custom was common" before the end of
the second century. It was hardly a common cus-
tom when it first appears in Christian literature,

Modern Pedohaptist Scholarship. \Q1

and did not become common before the fifth cen-
tury.

The late Principal Robert Rainy of New Col-
lege, Edinburgh, was a staunch Presbyterian
churchman, but in his "Ancient Catholic
Church" he is constrained to admit all the facts
as claimed by anti-pedobaptists. In his treatment
of the period 98-180 A.D., he says, page 75 :
^'Baptism presupposed some Christian instruction,
and was preceded by fasting. It signified the for-
giveness of past sins, and was the visible point
of departure of the new life under Christian in-
fluences and with the inspiration of Christian pur-
poses and aims. Hence, it was the 'seal' which
it concerned a man to keep inviolate."

Infant-baptism is not mentioned by him in
treating this first period of post-apostolic history.
In dealing with the next period (180-313) he
says, page 234 : "All through the present period,
and a good while after, the conspicuous and pre-
vailing type of baptism is baptism of adults.
That was so, of course, at the outset, when the
Church was busy gathering in her converts ; and
it still continues to be so. Nevertheless, infant-
baptism was recognized already in the second cen-
tury." He then mentions Irenaeus and Tertul-
lian as affording the first evidence of its ex-
istence.

Andre Lagarde, in his "Latin Church in the Mid-
dle Ages," carrying the matter one chronological
step further than Rainy, says (page 37) : "Until
the sixth century, infants were baptized only

11

162 Infant-Baptism.

when they were in danger of death. About this
time the practice was introduced of administer-
ing baptism even when they were not ill. . . .
After the usage came the law. The latter made
its appearance in England, where (691) an assem-
bly presided over by King Ina ordered, under pen-
alty of a fine, the baptism of infants within thirty
days after their birth. From England the law
passed into Frankish countries. In the assembly
of Paderborn (785) Charlemagne commanded
the Saxons, under penalty of a heavy fine, to
have their infants baptized during their first year.
. . . Then, as always happens, the law of the
highest bid performed its work. In the four-
teenth and fifteenth centuries various provincial
councils decided that infants should be baptized
during the first days following their birth."

Adolph Harnack, of Berlin, is undoubtedly the
most widely known church historian of the world.
In his "History of Dogma" he necessarily deals
at some length with infant-baptism. Of the post-
apostolic era he says (Vol. I, page 20, note 2) :
"There is no sure trace of infant-baptism in the
epoch; personal faith is a necessary condition."
Again, in Vol. II, page I42f, he says : "Com-
plete obscurity prevails as to the Church's adop-
tion of the practice of child-baptism, which,
though it owes its origin to the idea of this cere-
mony being indispensable to salvation, is never-
theless a proof that the superstitious view of bap-
tism had increased. In the time of Irenseus
(II, 22, 4), and Tertullian (de bapt. 18), child-

Modern Pedobaptist Scholarship. 16d

baptism had already become very general and
was founded on Matthew 19 : 14. We have no
testimony regarding it from earlier times. . . .
To all appearances the practice of immediately
baptizing the children of Christian families was
universally adopted in the Church in the course
of the third century." This last statement is de-
cidedly too sweeping as seen from evidence pre-
sented above. Harnack himself later modified
this statement as seen in Vol. IV, page 284, where
he says with much greater approach to accuracy,
that infant-baptism "was established in the fifth
century as the general usage. Its complete adop-
tion runs parallel with the death of heathenism."
He might have added that in its essence it was
largely an absorption from heathenism.

H. M. Gwatkin, professor of Ecclesiastical
History in Cambridge University, is one of the
ablest living historians. He has dealt especially
with early church history. In his * 'Early Church
History to 313," Vol. I, page 250, he says of this
practice : "We have good evidence that infant-
baptism is no direct institution either of the Lord
himself or of his apostles. There is no trace of
it in the New Testament. Every discussion of the
subject presumes persons old enough to have faith
and repentance, and no case of baptism is re-
corded except of such persons, for the whole
'households' mentioned would in that age mean
dependents and slaves as naturally as they sug-
gest children to the English reader. ... It
\s absurd to quote Mark 10: 14 (*of such is the

164 Infant-Baptism.

kingdom of God') or Acts 2: 39 ('the promise
is to you and to your children') to prove that the
practice existed." He thinks, however, that in-
fant-baptism is shown by these passages to be in
accord with the principles of Christ's ordinance,
and declares that **if St. Paul ( i Cor. 7 : 14) dis-
approves the institution, he approves its principle."

Such quotations as these could be multiplied
indefinitely. One needs only to compare them
with the position of historians a century ago to
observe the greatness of the change which recent
investigations have brought about in learned
opinion.

One of the most striking evidences of the
changing convictions of pedobaptist scholars is
seen in the treatment by commentators of those
passages which were formerly interpreted in sup-
port of infant-baptism. Most of the commenta-
tors of the present day are simply silent with re-
gard to infant-baptism when they come to con-
sider these passages. Now and then they stop
to point out the fact that the passage either has
no bearing on the question of infant-baptism or
militates against the existence of the practice in
New Testament times. A few quotations will
serve as examples to show the general trend of
comment.

Robertson and Plummer, on i Cor. 7 : 14, a pas-
sage long used as one of the strongest in support
of infant-baptism, remark that Paul "is not as-
suming that a child of Christian parents would
be baptized; that would spoil rather than help

Modem Pedohaptist Scholarship. I55

his argument, for it would imply that the child
was not 'holy' till it was baptized. The verse
throws no light on the question of infant-bap-
tism." The "Cambridge Bible" does not men-
tion infant-baptism in treating the verse. It re-
marks on Acts 16: 15, "We are not justified in
concluding from these passages (on household
baptism) that infants were baptized. 'House-
hold' might mean slaves and freedwomen." It
calls attention to the fact that the members of the
jailer's "house" were "willing hearers."

CHAPTER XV,

THE OUTLOOK FOR FAITH-BAPTISM.

After the survey of the preceding pages it is
natural to ask ourselves concerning the outlook
for these two baptisms — infant-baptism and faith-
baptism — for the future.

It is, then, true that the majority of the nominal
Christians of the world still for one reason or an-
other practice infant-baptism. But it is also true
that there has been a vast growth of anti-pedo-
baptist sentiment since the beginning of the nine-
teenth century. A century and a quarter ago
there were perhaps not more than one hundred
thousand anti-pedobaptists in the world, and they
were nearly confined to England and the United
States ; now there are from eight to ten millions
organized into churches which practice nothing
but faith-baptism, and they speak most of the
languages of the earth. Then they were unor-
ganized, destitute of culture and unsupplied with
schools, poor, despised and without influence ; to-
day they are well organized, aggressive, well sup-
plied with good schools, with equal opportunities
before the law and society in most of the coun-
tries of the earth. In some countries like Russia,
they are still under suspicion and are sometimes
persecuted ; nor have they outlived prejudice even

(166)

The Outlook for Faith-Baptism. \ffj

in the most enlightened communities of England
and America. The great pedobaptist churches
enjoying the prestige of numbers, distinction,
wealth and power, often look with disdain, if not
contempt, upon the small inconspicuous bands of
anti-pedobaptists, who cling to their peculiarities
notwithstanding the isolation and opprobrium it
entails. Their beliefs and practices have neces-
sarily, made them the aggressors in a continuous
and extended struggle with the pedobaptist
churches. They have earnestly opposed the union
between Church and State and thus opposed the
supposed interests of the two greatest and most
powerful organizations of human society; they
have attacked the whole conception of sacramental
salvation, thus throwing themselves into the op-
position against a view which seems to be a hu-
man instinct and certainly is the most widely dis-
tributed conception of religion; they have con-
sistently contended for the religious freedom of
the individual and religious democracy, a doc-
trine which has been and still is widely regarded
as most dangerous to the stability of society and
the welfare of the individual; they have repu-
diated church authority in every form and in-
sisted on scripturalness as the form of faith
and of practice, exciting thereby the charge of
being narrow literalists ; they have fought infant-
baptism as the chief seat and stronghold of the
manifold corruptions from which Christianity has
suffered. In a word, the circumstances have
steadily forced the anti-pedobaptists into the posi-
tion of an opposition party.

168 Infant-Baptism.

As seen by their opponents they have in
some measure been a negative and destructive,
rather than a positive constructive force,
more bent on the destruction of the exist-
ing order of things than on building up the
kingdom of God. While this appearance was
unavoidable amid the conditions which met the
revival and growth of the practice of faith-bap-
tism, still it was very unfortunate. It prevented
the pedobaptists from understanding and properly
estimating the aims and eiforts of the anti-pedo-
baptists, and it sometimes exercised a baneful in-
fluence on the anti-pedobaptists themselves. To
be forever in the opposition, members of a de-
spised minority, devoted primarily to destructive
criticism of others, is very trying on character.
It must be confessed with sorrow that the anti-
pedobaptists have not always been able to escape
the dangers of their position. They have not
always illustrated in their own living those
traits of character which Paul sets forth
as the fruits of the Spirit, and have sometimes
partially lost sight of that great constructive aim,
the building of the kingdom of God, which con-
stitutes the ultimate end of all Christian effort.

But notwithstanding their own shortcomings
and defects and the misunderstandings and preju-
dices of their opponents and all the mighty forces
of inertia, custom, ecclesiastical and state opposi-
tion, the anti-pedobaptists have increased and in-
creased rapidly in all the elements of strength,
since the beginning of the nineteenth century.

The Outlook for Faith-Baptism. 169

They now have an assured position which, it
seems unHkely, they will ever lose. Indeed, anti-
pedobaptism has the best opportunity it has ever
enjoyed since pedobaptism was introduced into
the Christian church. Anti-pedobaptists are no
longer feared as anarchists, dangerous to all social
order ; the religious fruits of their views have been
tested by time and are seen to be beneficent
rather than otherwise; they have taken up the
constructive attitude more and more as their
strength increased and their position became more
tolerable, until today they are (at least among
English-speaking peoples) bearing a large share
In all the world's great moral and religious tasks.
The purely negative, critical attitude is passing
from among them; they are coming out of their
isolation into the central current of the world's
life; unjust and unreasoning prejudice is passing
away even where approval of their views is with-
held.

The most obvious and striking fact is the re-
lative decline of infant-baptism and the rapid
growth of faith-baptism during the last centur>'
and a quarter. Notwithstanding its long history,
its entrenched position in the social life and the
ecclesiastical traditions of all the so-called Chris-
tian nations, notwithstanding the prestige and
power of the great pedobaptist churches, notwith-
standing all this, and more, infant-baptism has
lost its grip on large elements of society and is
declining. Hosts of people who in times past
would have been brought into the church through

170 Infant-Baptism.

infant-baptism now stand outside all the
churches, while certain forms of Christianity like
the Quakers, the Salvation Army and Christian
Science have abandoned baptism altogether; the
anti-pedobaptists are organized, active and influ-
ential not only in opposing infant-baptism but in
administering and propagating faith-baptism,
while even in the pedobaptist churches themselves
there is a large element which does not believe
in and will not practice infant-baptism. To in-
sist on it would drive them out of the church.
This progressive decline is found among the
English-speaking peoples chiefly, exactly where
there is the largest measure of human freedom
and personal initiative. This decline of infant-
baptism has been paralleled by an equally rapid
growth in the practice of faith-baptism as an
organized movement in the form of churches.
Those who practice faith-baptism only now num-
ber millions. Naturally only their communicants
are counted, but of these there are eight or ten
millions. If the population which belongs to them
should be included they number twenty to twenty-
five millions. This means that something like
one in every twenty-five of the nominal Christian
population of the world is directly or indirectly
supporting faith-baptism as against infant-bap-
tism. Let it be remembered that nearly all of
this has been gained in a century and a quarter
against the mightiest institutions of human soci-
ety and the greatness of the success can be appre-
ciated.

The Outlook for Faith-Baptism. YJ\

Moreover, the forces which have contributed
to this growth during this period are still opera-
tive, and some of them at least are likely to be
accelerated. The effects of the world war will
not be fully known for a century or two, but it
is likely to contribute to the growth of democracy
and personal freedom in the lands of Eastern
Europe and Western Asia, and may bring on a
great revival of religion. The Slavs of South-
eastern Europe have been adopting faith-baptism
in large numbers for years, and the establishment
of real freedom in these regions would probably
prepare the way for a tremendous outburst of
Baptist growth. During the last half century
there has been good growth of Baptist sentiment
among the Teutons and Hungarians. This is
likely to be accelerated. Every great upheaval
of human society in modern times, which has
forced men to consider fundamentals again has
witnessed a revival of anti-pedobaptist sentiment.
Examples of this effect are the Reformation,
when the Anabaptists arose to such great power ;
the period of the English Revolution, in which
the English Baptists made the first deep impres-
sion on English life; the American colonial
period, in which American Baptists began their
work; the intellectual, religious and political up-
heavals of the eighteenth century, culminating in
America in the Revolution and the establishment
of constitutional freedom, which was followed in
England and America by the era of greatest pros-
perity for anti-pedobaptists. If this principle

172 Infant-Baptism.

continues to operate, there ought to be a tremend-
ous outburst of anti-pedobaptist sentiment on
the continent of Europe at the conclusion of this
great war. Surely all social and political institu-
tions are being shaken to their foundations. Men
on the battlefields and their suffering friends at
home are being thrown back upon the fundamen-
tals of life and death. Ecclesiastical traditions
are in the melting pot, men are seeking the spir-
itual realities which will sustain them in the ter-
rible hours of strife when they look death in the
face.

These and other considerations lead anti-pedo-
baptists to cherish a hopeful expectation of
progress for spiritual religion and faith-baptism.
They believe the forces that have cooperated to
produce the successes of the last century will con-
tinue to operate with accelerated power. They
confidently expect a further decline and possibly
an ultimate disappearance of infant-baptism from
the evangelical pedobaptist bodies. Their exist-
ence and prosperity in no way rest upon the con-
tinuance of the practice of infant-baptism. It is
probable, indeed it is almost certain, that their
growth would be accelerated by the abandonment
of this practice which so many of their members
neglect or disapprove.

On the other hand, infant-baptism is essential
to the existence of the two great Catholic
churches. Its abolition would bring their dissolu-
tion. It is certain, therefore, that infant-baptism
will continue as long as they exist. Should they

The Outlook for Faith-Baptism. I73

ever become evangelical, which is wholly improb-
able, it might then be eliminated from them. The
continuance and prosperity of evangelical reli-
gion is bound up with faith-baptism. Among the
unevangelical pedobaptists, infant-baptism is al-
most as necessary and is not likely to be aban-
doned.

Advocates of faith-baptism need not be san-
guine of a speedy triumph. Ecclesiastical tradi-
tion is powerful and belief in the magical effects
of baptism is mighty. It required centuries for
infant-baptism to establish itself in the Christian
church; it will probably require longer to elimi-
nate it. Direct attack upon the custom probably
accomplishes little; direct advocacy of faith-bap-
tism as the duty of every regenerated man is a
powerful scriptural appeal. Anti-pedobaptists
will continue to do both, but they will not become
impatient and censorious, believing that God is
working in a large way to restore throughout the
earth the spiritual salvation and the faith-baptism
of the New Testament.

It is a strange thing that "one baptism," which
Paul regarded as a bond of Christian union along
with "one Lord, one faith . . . one God and
Father of all" (Eph. 4:5), should be one of
the main causes of a divided Christendom today.
It is safe to say that divergence in the views and
practice of baptism divide Christian men and
churches more hopelessly and fundamentally than
any other expression of religion. If all Christen-
dom could once more be united on scriptural bap-

174 Infant-Baptism.

tism, all other serious differences would disappear,
the spirituality and evangelical character of Chris-
tianity would be safe and a new era of harmoni-
ous action among the Christian forces of the world
would be at hand. Infant-baptism more than
anything else stands as the chief barrier to Chris-
tian union. It is a second baptism, an alien ele-
ment, introduced into Christianity from the out-
side, which not only separates its advocates from
the rest of the Christian world, but also divides
them among themselves. It deprives evangelical
pedobaptists of the consciousness of scriptural
support, constantly embarrasses them in its de-
fense, weakens the allegiance of many of their
members, aligns them with the Catholic churches,
introduces an element of artificiality and unreality
into religion, and banishes in large measure faith-
baptism which was the "one baptism" commanded
by our Lord, both their Lord and ours. There
is no escaping these facts. Is it too much to hope
that evangelical pedobaptists will sometime return
to scriptural baptism? Surely the Lord must
have known what was best for his children and
the work of the kingdom in the matter of the bap-
tism he approved and himself received. If this
be so, why will those who love the Lord persist
in substituting something else for the baptism he
commanded ? And by the testimony of their own
best scholars they are substituting. Moreover, they
are substituting something which is not neutral
or negative, but which in its total effects has been
and still is one of the most baneful influences in

The Outlook for Faith-Baptism. 175

Christian history. The abandonment of infant-
baptism would greatly strengthen all the evan-
gelical pedobaptist churches and would destroy
those that are not evangelical, and would be a
tremendous step towards the unification of the
evangelical forces of Christendom. The advo-
cates of faith-baptism are, as they believe, con-
tending for the essence of Christianity, the essen-
tial Protestant principle, which is necessary to the
life of all evangelical bodies. They believe that
infant-baptism is everywhere unscriptural, that it
is, as held by most of its advocates, anti-scriptural,
that it has been historically and in practice most
hurtful. They know it nullifies, for all who have
received it, the command of Christ that every
believer should be baptized. They pray the Fa-
ther to hasten the day when there shall be "one
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Fa-
ther of all, who is over all, and through all, and
in all."

Date Due

FE2 *53

DEC 1 9 'SB