tion of infant baptism. That it could not have originated with Christ himself. Nor from the Palestine and Jewish Christians, all of whom held circumcision to be sufficient introduction into the blessings of the covenant. Not with Paul and the gentile Christians; 'how could he have set up baptism against the circumcision that continued to be practised by the Jewish Christians ?' That his silence respecting baptism as a substitute for circumcision in the case of the gentiles, under the circumstances, must have great weight. That I Cor. vii. 14, while it shows that he considered the infants of believers as standing in some relation to the church (the same, we observe, as that asserted of the unbelieving wife or husband), 'testifies against the existence of infant baptism,' since Paul founds their holiness not on their having partaken of baptism, and this mode of connexion with the church is rather evidence against the existence of infant baptism.'"*

Neander was applied to for an article on the subject in Kitto's Biblical Cyclopædia; he employed a trustworthy disciple to write it for him. But as it appeared in the Baptist Magazine for August, 1843, I need not quote it again. Gieseler, who is accounted, like Neander, an historian who writes from original investigation, implies the same

* I may be permitted to observe that my own view is, that Paul regarded the infant offspring, and the unbelieving husband, or wife, as "sanctified,"

or "holy," in the believing party, in the usual sense

of the word "consecrated to God," just as food, in 1 Tim. iv. 5; and the unbelieving Jews in their forefathers, Rom. xi. 16. The believing party, in the dinely instituted relations of parentage and marriage, consecrated all pertaining to it, by "the word (authority) of God and prayer." The wife or children of an unbelieving husband, had no one in or by whom they were consecrated to God." A believer, on the contrary, dealt with his or her whole family, so far as the unbelief of any of them permitted, as consecrated to God. They were used in a holy manner, therefore, so far as the believer's intentions, views, and prayers, were concerned. See Erra ix., x., for opposite directions under the Jewish dispensation.

VOL. XII-FOURTH SERIES.

view. He says, p. 174, "Baptism was preceded by instruction, fasting, and prayer, the baptism of children was not universal, and was even occasionally disapproved." He is writing of the second century.

Hagenbach, in his History of Doctrines, fully maintains the same views. He says, pp. 190, 193,"Infant baptism had not come into general use prior to the time of Tertullian" (end of second century). And again, "The passages from scripture which are thought to prove that baptism had come into use in the primitive church, are doubtful, and prove nothing, viz., Mark x. 14; Matt. xviii. 4, 6; Acts ii. 38, 39, 41, x. 48; 1 Cor. i. 16; Col. ii. 11, 12. Nor does the earliest passage occurring in the writings of the fathers (Iren. adv. Hær., II. 22, 4), afford any decisive proof, it only expresses the beautiful idea that Jesus was Redeemer in every stage of life, and for every stage of life; but it does not say that he redeemed children by the water of baptism, unless the term renasci (to be born again), be interpreted by the most arbitrary petitio principii (begging the point in dispute), to refer to baptism." The works hitherto referred to are all translated in Clark's Foreign Theological Library. A series which costs but £1 per annum, and which no minister, who has not the German originals, should be without.

Olshausen (all whose commentaries are well worth translating, by whose recent lamented death the church has lost a learned, deep thinking, and thoroughly devout scholar), although he firmly holds the old Lutheran doctrine of sacramental efficacy, decidedly denies, and more than once, in his commentaries, that infant baptism is a New Testament ordinance. On Matt. xix. 13, 14, and the parallel passages, he observes, "There is manifestly no trace of the reference frequently sought for in this narrative, to infant baptism." He remarks, "That the parents did not seek

N

baptism to be found, and we must concede that the numerous opposers of it cannot be contradicted on gospel grounds."

Professor Lange (Infant Baptism, p. 101), "All attempts to make out infant baptism from the New Testament fail; it is totally opposed to the spirit of the apostolic age, and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament."

Schleiermacher, (quoted below by one of his countrymen, and unquestionably one of the first of modern Germans, and a devout man,) says (Christian Theology, p. 383), "All traces of infant baptism which one will find in the New Testament, must first be put into it."

Augusti (Handbuch der Christlichen Archäologie, vol. ii.) considers infant baptism to rest on apostolical tradition, but states also, that the practice was gradually introduced into the church. In p. 328, he says, "Thus much is certain, that if the expressions of Jesus (Matt. xix. 13, &c., and Luke xviii. 15, &c.) contain no definite command that baptism should be given to children, yet no prohibition of infant baptism can be asserted either from these or other passages of the New Testament. When, then, Origen says (Homil. vii., in Levit. Opp. t. vi., p. 137, ed. Oberth.), 'Addi his etiam potest, ut requiratur quid causæ sit, cum baptisma ecclesiæ pro remissione peccatorum detur, secundum ecclesiæ observantiam etiam parvulis dari baptismum; cum utique si nihil esset in parvulis quod ad remissionem deberet et indulgentiam pertinere, gratia baptismi superflua videretur'* (compare Hom. xv., in Luc. and Comm. in Matth.,

*To this we may add also, that it may be asked, what is the cause that since the baptism of the church is given for the remission of sins, it should, according to the practice of the church, be given also to little children, since, surely, if there were nothing in little children which could belong to remission and indulgence, the grace of baptism would seem superfinons.

lib. v.); or when Augustine teaches 'Infantes baptizandos esse, universa ecclesia tenet, nec consiliis institutum, sed semper retentum, non nisi auctoritate apostolica traditum credimus,*--the certainty with which this is assumed, is a pledge of the universality of the tradition, that infant baptism had its foundation in the regulations of the apostolic church" (pp. 328, 329). He afterwards speaks (p. 344) of alterations in the form of baptism, owing to the prevalence of infant baptism. The passage is given almost literally in Riddle's Christian Antiquities, pp. 444, 445, the first paragraph under section 2.

Lindner (Dr. F. W.), in a treatise entitled Die Lehre vom Abendmahle nach der Schrift, &c., Leipz., 1831, says, "For whom is baptism appointed? For adults, not for children; for adults of all times, not only of those times. Schleiermacher rightly says (Dogmatik, vol. ii., p. 540), Baptism is only then complete and right, when it is perform ed under the same conditions, with the same spiritual pre-requisites, and the same influences as were found in those who were baptized in primitive times (bey den ersten Täuflingen), from religious communities not Christian.' According to this, it follows that there can be no question about any infant baptism, if the Christian church will remain true to the gospel. Neither the baptism of John nor Christian baptism can be fulfilled, in respect to new-born children. The children of Christians are, by nature, formed just as those of Jews or heathen. The formula concordiæ, says truly, 'Christiani non nascuntur sed fiunt.'t They need the new birth, just as Jews or heathen do, yet whilst they are infants they are not

* That infants are to be baptized, the universal church holds, and that, not instituted by councils but always retained, we believe to have been handed down no otherwise than by apostolic authority. † Men are not born but become Christians.

Von Cölln (Dr. D. G. C.), in his "Biblische Theologie, &c., Von Dr. D. Schulz," Leipz., 1836, after saying, that baptism is intended as "an outward sign of the inward living conviction which the baptized person has of the most essential doctrines of the new religion to which he goes over,” adds, "These convictions pre-suppose, if they are genuine, previous instruction. That Jesus required this, is shown in Mark xvi. 15, where he makes the announcing of doctrine (κηρύσσειν τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) to precede baptism. It is involved in this, that baptism can be fulfilled on those only who are capable of instruction, or only on adults; and that it was certainly not the design of Jesus to introduce infant baptism. Its later introduction into the church was an effect of the erroneous notions which were entertained of the connexion of baptism with salvation" (vol. ii., p. 145).

De Wette, in his "Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Neuen Testament," on Acts xvi. 15, says, "This passage, as well as verse 33, xviii. 8; 1 Cor. i. 16, has been adduced in proof of

that any, except adults, were baptized. Against infant baptism, see Theol. Stud. and Krit., 1830, p. 671. Neander, i. 204, &c. Meyer, on the passage, Remarks on 1 Cor. vii. 14"” (p. 119).

For the last four quotations, I am indebted to my friend Mr. Gotch, classical tutor in Bristol College.

To the above I may add Gesenius, who, when a friend of mine, then a student, described to him the views and practice of English baptists, exclaimed, "Why, how exactly like the primitive Christians !"

who may

Should any of my brethren, glance at these references, and whose libraries are richer than my own in German works, be able to furnish me with any important additional passages, they will greatly oblige me. Our pædobaptist friends will certainly not find among modern foreign scholars more competent investigators, whose connexion, too, with a pædobaptist church guarantees their impartiality. May not unlearned pædobaptists as safely receive the verdict of such a jury, viz., "that infant baptism has only a traditional, and not a New Testament, origin,” as all would have accepted a verdict of guilty against O'Connell, from a jury of repealers.

AN old servant and old rice are alike to be preferred.

The one as being experienced and attached, the other as mature and easily digestible.

'Tis but threshing the chaff. An expression employed, when exertion is profitless and labour lost.

A BLIND torch-bearer.

A teacher of religion who does not practise

head.

When one aims at his own advantage at another's cost.

ALL can pour oil on the oiled head. All pay respect to the wealthy and slight the

poor.

B.