ered the great doctrine of justification by faith in Christ disparaged and shorn of its glory. To all circumcised with this latter view he said: "If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing" (Gal. v. 2). But to return to the Council at Jerusalem: If baptism came in place of circumcision, the very reason which called that Council together must have led to a declaration of the fact, and it is strangely unaccountable that it did not. We are forced to the conclusion that baptism was not, in apostolic times, believed to be a substitute for circumcision. Hence the Council at Jerusalem could not, and did not, say it was. Its decision involved a virtual denial of the very thing for which Pedobaptists so strenuously contend.

I have now given a specimen—and but a specimen -of the considerations which show that baptism has not taken the place of circumcision. A volume might be written on this one point; but it is needless. He who is not convinced by the facts already presented would not be convinced "though one should rise from the dead."

The Scripture argument on infant baptism is now closed. I have examined the New-Testament claim of infants to baptism, and also the Old-Testament claim, and can perceive no mark of validity in either. My readers will therefore allow me to endorse what the North British Review, the organ of the Free (Presby

terian) Church of Scotland, says in its number for August, 1852:

"SCRIPTURE KNOWS NOTHING OF THE BAPTISM

The historical argument examined.

From the word of God, Pedobaptists go to church history and seek "aid and comfort" from its records. What does church history say of infant baptism? Much, I admit; but there is no proof that it was practised before the latter part of the second century. The proof is by no means conclusive that it was practised before the third century. This the reader will see as historical facts are presented.

I quote from Dr. Wall of the Church of England, whose History of Infant Baptism is in high repute wherever the English language is spoken. Referring, in chap. iii., to the well-known passage in Irenæus, he says, "Since this is the first express mention that we have met with of infants baptized, it is worth the while to look back and consider how near this man was to the apostles' time." Irenæus, according to Dr. Wall's chronology, lived about the year 167. It is well to give the disputed passage. Here it is: "For he [Christ] came to save all persons by himself: all, I mean, who by him are regenerated [or baptized] unto God; infants, and little ones, and children, and youths,

and elder persons. Therefore he went through every age; for infants being an infant, sanctifying infants,” etc. It is needless to quote further, for the controversy is about the meaning of the word "regenerated." It will be observed that Dr. Wall interpolates "baptized" as its meaning. Renascor is the word used in the Latin translation; for the original Greek is lost. That renascor means "born again" or "regenerated" is beyond dispute; nor is it necessary to deny that the "Fathers," so called, sometimes use it as synonymous with "baptized." Baptists, however, deny that it has this meaning in the passage under consideration, and distinguished Pedobaptists agree with them, as the following quotations prove.

The learned Winer, speaking of infant baptism, says, "Irenæus does not mention it, as has been supposed."*

Dr. Doddridge says, "We have only a Latin translation of this work; and some critics have supposed this passage spurious, or, allowing it to be genuine, it will not be granted that to be regenerate always in his writings signifies 'baptized.”” †

Pedobaptists must deeply feel their need of something to sustain their practice when they attempt to extort from Irenæus testimony in favor of infant bap

* Christian Review, vol. iii., p. 213.

† Miscellaneous Works, p. 493.

tism. He says nothing about baptism in connection with infants.

Tertullian, who lived about the year 200, is often. referred to by Pedobaptists as the first opponent of infant baptism, but they argue that his opposition proves the existence of the practice. It is by no means certain that Tertullian refers to the baptism of infants. The term which he uses, and which Dr. Wall translates "little children," is parvulos. Irenæus speaks of infantes, parvulos. He makes a distinction between infantes and parvulos. If Tertullian uses the latter term as Irenæus did, he does not refer to the baptism of unconscious infants, but to the baptism of "little children." These "little children" may have been capable of exercising faith in Christ. Whether they were or not I do not undertake to decide. It is true, however, that Tertullian, owing to his peculiar views, advised a delay of baptism on the part of certain classes of persons who had reached mature years.

Having come down to the beginning of the third century, may I not say that if infant baptism rests for its support on the practice of the first two centuries, it rests on a foundation of sand? To the end of two hundred years it has no distinct historical recognition.

From Tertullian, Dr. Wall comes to Origen, whom he represents as living about the year 210. Origen

wrote in Greek, and his works in the original were chiefly lost and Latin translations remain. Dr. Wall says "only the Latin translations." However this may be, he tells us that "upon the renewal of learning" nothing was admitted to be Origen's except translations made "into Latin either by St. Hierom * or Rufinus." He accords fidelity to Hierom in his translations, but says that "Rufinus altered or left out anything that he thought not orthodox." Nor is this all; for these significant words are added: "Whereas now in these Translations of Rufinus the reader is uncertain (as Erasmus angrily says) whether he read Origen or Rufinus." †

Dr. Wall admits that Origen's Homilies on Leviticus and his Comments on the Epistle to the Romans were translated by Rufinus; and in these productions we are supposed to have his strongest testimony in favor of infant baptism. In his eighth Homily he is represented as saying, "Infants also are, by the usage of the church, baptized." In his comments on Romans this language is attributed to him: "The church had from the apostles a tradition [or order] to give baptism even to infants." This is Dr. Wall's translation.

He was

+ History of Infant Baptism, chap. v. In quoting from Dr. Wall I refer to chapters rather than to pages, because his History is published in different forms. I have the edition of 1705.