II. Infant Baptism.

The Baptism of young children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

In considering the evidence for this assertion it may be well to begin with (a) the silence of Scripture. It is often said that there is no command to baptize infants, and therefore they are not proper subjects for the administration of the rite. In answer to this it may be pointed out that the charge to baptize is perfectly general. There is nothing in our Lord's words to exclude infants, and it is believed that had He intended them to be excluded, He would have expressly said so. Indeed the silence of Scripture, so far from being an argument against the practice, may really be turned into one in its favour, for the Apostles and all Jews were perfectly familiar with the idea of children being brought into covenant with God by means of circumcision; and therefore when Christ instituted Baptism as the rite of admission to the new Covenant, and said nothing expressly as to the age of those to whom it was to be administered, the natural inference must have been that children were proper subjects of it, else the new Covenant would be narrower than the old. Nor was the analogy of circumcision the only thing that would incline the Apostles to the practice, if, as seems almost certain, Baptism was already practised by the Jews in the admission of proselytes. The Talmud lays down the express rule that infants were to be baptized with their parents;1 and though its evidence does not positively prove that the custom was already in existence at the time of our Lord's earthly ministry, yet the probability

1 See the passages cited in Lightfoot's Hora Hebraica on S. Matt. iii. 6 (vol. ii. p. 56).

is very strong that the Talmud is recording a tradition which dates back to so early a date. If, then, the Apostles were accustomed (1) to circumcision, and (2) in the case of proselytes to Infant Baptism, it can hardly be doubted that to them it would have seemed natural to include infants, and admit them into the new Covenant by means of the rite enjoined for "making disciples." (b) But there is positive evidence to supplement the argument from silence. When S. John iii. 5 is connected with S. Mark x. 13-16, the inference that children are proper subjects for Baptism appears irresistible. "Except a man (TS) be born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." These words teach the "necessity" of Baptism for admission into the Church. But in S. Mark we are expressly told that the kingdom is "of such" as children; and, as the Baptismal Office in the Book of Common Prayer reminds us, our Lord "commanded the children to be brought unto Him, blamed those that would have kept them from Him, took them in His arms, and blessed them." Nor is the fact (mentioned by S. Mark) that He thus "blessed them " without its importance in this connection. It teaches us that children are capable of receiving spiritual blessings, and thus furnishes an answer to a question sometimes asked-What good can Baptism do to them?

Thus we may say that the Baptism of young children is ... most agreeable with the institution of Christ, for

(1) It was instituted as the rite of admission to His kingdom;

(2) He Himself has laid down no limit of age; but (3) Asserts that children are to be allowed to come to Him, and

(4) Teaches that they are capable of receiving spiritual blessings.

(c) When we pass from the Gospels to the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, it is not surprising that there is but little which bears directly upon the subject. Wherever and whenever the Church is in a missionary stage, the Baptism of adults must be the rule—that of young children the exception. It is so in the present day, and must of necessity have been so in the days of the Apostles. But there are hints and indications which appear sufficient to warrant the inference that the Apostles must have admitted young children to Baptism where the opportunity of so doing was given them.

We shall, perhaps, be wise not to lay too much stress on the mention of whole households being baptized (Acts xvi. 15, 33; 1 Cor. i. 16), for it can never be proved that those particular households contained children (nor, however, on the other hand, is there the slightest evidence that they did not). But more to the point is it to notice that S. Peter in his address on the day of Pentecost seems expressly to point to the interest of children in the promise, and hence to their inclusion. "Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ . . . 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" (Acts ii. 38, 39). And in full accordance with this, we notice that S. Paul in his Epistles sends messages to children, treating them as within the Covenant, and therefore, according to all the evidence available, as already baptized (see Eph. vi. 1; Col. iii. 20).

(d) It may be said that these indications are but slight. But there is nothing to be set against them on the other side. And the inference here drawn from them is confirmed by the fact that there is sufficient evidence from the Fathers to show that from the second century onwards the Church was familiar with the idea

and practice of Infant Baptism, though, for the reason stated above, that she was still in her missionary stage, it must have been the exception rather than the rule. The Patristic evidence from the second and third centuries is here given. Beyond that period it is unnecessary to quote authorities for the practice.

Before the middle of the second century, the existence of the practice is implied in some words of Justin Martyr, who not only speaks of "many both men and women of sixty or seventy who had been Christ's disciples from childhood,1 but also compares Baptism with circumcision, and speaks of it as the "spiritual circumcision." This is especially noteworthy, as it occurs in his Dialogue with Trypho, who was a Jew; and if the analogy failed in so important a point, it could hardly have been pressed as it is by Justin.

Towards the close of the century (A.D. 180) Irenæus has these words: "He came to save all by Himself— all, I say, who are regenerated by Him unto God, infants, and little children, and boys, and young men, and those of older age."

No less decisive is the language of Tertullian (200), who in his book on Baptism argues strongly against the practice, urging that the rite should be postponed till the recipients of it are growing up. But the whole force of his words depends upon the fact that Baptism was actually being administered to young children when he wrote.*

1 Πολλοί τινες καὶ πολλαὶ ἑξηκοντοῦται καὶ ἑβδομηκοντοῦται, οἱ ἐκ παίδων ἐμαθητεύθησαν τῷ Χριστῷ, ἄφθοροι διαμένουσιν.—Apo. I. xv.

2 Dial. cum Tryphone, c. xliii.

8 "Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare: omnes, inquam, qui per Eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes et parvulos et pueros et juvenes et seniores."-Adv. Hær. II. xxxiii. 2.

"Itaque pro cujusque personæ conditione ac dispositione, etiam ætate, cunctatio baptismi utilior est, præcipue tamen circa parvulos. ... Veniant ergo dum adolescunt,” etc.—De Baptismo, xviii.

In the writings of Origen (220) there is more than one passage which bears on the subject. Thus in his Commentary on the Romans he says definitely that it is an apostolic tradition "to administer Baptism even to little children," and gives the reason for this;1 and in the Homilies on S. Luke he speaks to the same effect, saying that "infants are baptized for the remission of sins."2

The last witness who need be cited is S. Cyprian (250). In his day we find that the analogy of circumcision was so rigidly pressed, that it was questioned whether it was lawful to administer Baptism before the eighth day after birth. The question is considered by him, and decided in the affirmative. From this time onwards there can be no question as to the custom of the Church permitting Infant Baptism, although in many cases it was deliberately deferred owing to the dread of post-baptismal sin. This, however, has no real bearing on the question before us; and the passages quoted are sufficient to justify the statement made above, that from the second century onwards the Church was familiar with the idea and practice of Infant Baptism.

1 "Pro hoc et ecclesia ab Apostolis traditionem suscepit, etiam parvulis baptismum dare. Sciebant enim illi quibus mysteriorum secreta commissa sunt divinorum quod essent in omnibus genuinæ sordes peccati, quæ per aquam et Spiritum ablui deberent.". Com. in Ep. ad Rom. bk. V. c. ix.

2 "Parvuli baptizantur in remissionem peccatorum. Quorum peccatorum vel quo tempore peccaverunt? aut quomodo potest ulla lavacri in parvulis ratio subsistere, nisi juxta illum sensum de quo paulo ante diximus: Nullus mundus a sorde, nec si unius diei quidem fuerit vita ejus super terram? Et quia per baptismi sacramentum nativitatis sordes deponuntur, propterea baptizantur et parvuli. Nisi enim quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu non potuerit intrare in regnum cœlorum."—In Lucam Homilia XV.; cf. Hom. in Levit. viii. § 3.

Ep. lxiv. (ed. Hartel).