OR AN INQUIRY INTO THE CONDITION OF CHILDREN IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
BY CAESAR MALAN, DOCTOR IN THEOLOGY.
“For me and my house, we shall serve Jehovah.”—JOSHUA xxiv. 15.
(Translated for the first time from the French.)
(Continued from page 110.)
CHAPTER IX.—Continued.—THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH FROM THE BEGINNING BAPTISED THE INFANT CHILDREN OF BELIEVERS.*
The father of the family.
“Other servants of God will still more confirm you in the truth of this. About one hundred and ten years after the Apostles, Origen, one of the best instructed of the Church fathers, expresses himself thus: ‘No man is clean from pollution though his life be but the length of one day. Besides all this, let it be remembered what is the reason that, whereas the baptism of the Church is given for forgiveness of sins, infants also are, by the usage of the Church, baptised; when if there were nothing in infants that wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless to them’ (Hom. viii. on Lev., c. 12). Again: ‘Having occasion given in this place, I will mention a thing that causes frequent inquiries among the brethren. Infants are baptised for the forgiveness of sins. 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 reason—because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is taken away—that infants are baptised” (Hom. on Luke, c. 14).
“Again: ‘And also in the law it is commanded, that a sacrifice be offered for every child that is born, a pair of turtle doves, or two young pigeons: of which one is for a sin offering, the other for a burnt offering. For what sin is this one pigeon offered? Can the child that is new born have committed any sin? It has even then sin, for which the sacrifice is commanded to be offered; from which even he whose life is but of one day is denied to be free . . . For this also it was, that the Church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they, to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew that there is in all persons the natural pollution of sin, which must be done away by water and the Spirit’ (Com. on Romans, bk. v. c. 9). Thus spake Origen, whose father was a Christian martyr, and whose forefathers also were believers. He must himself also have been baptised in his infancy, for had he not, he would not have insisted as he did on the fact of infant baptism as being a thing of apostolic usage: and if that practice had not been that of the Christian Church from the beginning, how could a man so well instructed as he was affirm it, if history and even the experience of his own family belied it?”
- Some of the Church Fathers quoted in this chapter may appear to speak in the sense of baptismal regeneration, but as the only purpose for which the quotations are given here is in order to establish the apostolicity of infant baptism, it is not necessary to enter caveats.—J. R. M.
Samuel.
“It would be unreasonable to suppose such a thing. The evidence seems to me more than complete.”
The father of the family.
“Again, what is it that we see in the case of this very celebrated and faithful Church, about fifty years after Origen? What was it that took place in the Church of North Africa, in connection with the baptism of infants? Toward the year 250 A.D. a council of sixty-six bishops met, of whom Fidus, another bishop of the same Church, by letter asked, whether an infant might be baptised before it was eight days old, if need required? To this question Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who afterwards sealed his testimony with his blood, replied, in the name of the whole council, and in this reply, after saying that in the Church the grace of God appertained to all ages and persons, he went on to say: ‘That the eighth day observed in the Jewish circumcision, was a type going before in a shadow and resemblance, but on Christ’s coming was fulfilled in the substance. For because the eighth day, that is, the next to the Sabbath, was to be the day on which the Lord was to rise from the dead and quicken us, and gave us the spiritual circumcision; this eighth day, that is the next day to the Sabbath, or Lord’s day, was signified in the type before; which type ceased when the substance came, and the spiritual circumcision was given us . . . If anything could be an obstacle to persons against their obtaining the grace, the adult and grown and elder men would be rather hindered by their more grievous sins . . . much less reason is there to refuse an infant, who, being newly born, has no sin, save that being descended from Adam according to the flesh, he has from his very birth contracted the contagion of the death anciently threatened.’
“This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the assembly, that it is not for us to hinder any person from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and affectionate to all. Which rule, as it holds good for all, so we think it more especially to be observed in reference to infants and persons newly born; to whom our help and the Divine mercy is rather to be granted, because by their weeping and wailing at their first entrance into the world, they do intimate nothing so much as that they implore compassion.”
Samuel.
“Ah, my brother, allow me to give expression to my sense of the difference—of the contrast—between the views of the Council of Carthage and those who oppose infant baptism. In what a very different view those regarded it! What an idea of the sovereignty of and the benefit flowing from the divine ordinance, must have found place in the thoughts of the early bishops of the Church! In fact, dear friend, I ask myself if my faith is just the faith that they had, seeing that I so little understood that ordinance of God as those men understood it!”
The father of the family.
“There can be no question that the views of those who oppose infant baptism are far from the views of the men of the Council of Carthage. And yet of what type of men was the Council composed! What a servant of Jesus, what a teacher, what a confessor of the truth, was this Cyprian, their president!”
Samuel.
“That is what strikes me now, so that it is necessary for me either to maintain that those who oppose infant baptism have more light, more faith, more faithfulness, and more true piety than the leaders of the Church of those times had; or, on the other hand, to admit that an opinion which is formally opposed to that of the ancient bishops and doctors is certainly a novel thing in the Church, and very probably erroneous.”
The father of the family.
“You will be still more inclined to regard the latter opinion as erroneous when you consider that the Council of Carthage expresses not the judgment of a private individual but that of the entire Church of the period. And you cannot but be struck with the entirely different way in which the ancient Church regarded the subject of baptism to that which you have brought forward in these latter days! You may see also how the ancient Church regarded circumcision, which they reckoned as having so much in common with baptism that they spoke of the latter as spiritual circumcision. You may see further how in the sense of the Apostle Peter they regarded not the infant child as common or unclean. You yourself have so failed to view this matter with scriptural clearness that you confounded the standing of your own infant child with that of a pagan infant child, and so refused your child baptism, whereas if you had grasped the Biblical view-point you would with those sixty-six bishops have argued in favour of the baptism of your infant, even if were but a day old! For in a word you may see what pity is found with those ancient bishops for the little child, a pity founded on the persuasion which was theirs, that the divine ordinance of baptism is in its own nature a blessing from God towards the child. But you on the contrary regard the ordinance as though it were nothing in itself, and so despoil it of its character as an expression of sovereign grace, and on these accounts deprive your infant child of it, thus, in the view of the Council of Carthage, both depriving the child of a real benefit, and failing to recognise the divine compassion.”
Samuel.
“I both see it and feel it, dear friend. It is plain that the opinion of those who nowadays oppose infant baptism is in formal opposition to the opinion of Cyprian and his colleagues; and I must say further that I dare not now prefer what used to be my own views on baptism, nor those of anti-paedo-baptists generally to the views of the Council of Carthage.”
The father of the family.
“You would not, I take it, undertake to maintain or even to imagine that the Apostolic Church was ignorant of the practice of baptising little children?”
Samuel.
“Would I not shew myself devoid of good sense, if I still thought it? I do not see that there was room even for hesitation in regard to the question. ‘At the mouth of two or three witnesses,’ says the Word, ‘let everything be established.’ How then could I yet regard this testimony as doubtful?”
The father of the family.
“Nevertheless, hear yet a few more of such like witnesses as have already been cited, if not with a view to establishing a fact already well established, yet with a view to our mutual edification through our cherishing a higher regard for the appointments of God.”
Samuel.
“Yes, I should like you to take up the subject from that point of view; I feel that my faith has need of it, for I fear I had been wont to treat a subject so grave too thoughtlessly.”
The father of the family.
“Well, then, Gregory Nazianzen in speaking of Basil about two hundred and sixty years after the days of the Apostles, compares Basil, a faithful and courageous confessor of the truth, to Samuel, and Gregory goes on to say of him: ‘that like Hannah’s son, he had been consecrated to God from his infancy, even from his mother’s womb, and that like Samuel he had been carried to the temple to be anointed of the Lord.’ Thereafter, addressing a Christian mother, Gregory goes on to say: ‘Hast thou an infant child? let not wickedness have the advantage of time: let him be sanctified from his infancy; let him be dedicated from the cradle to the Spirit. Thou, as a faint-hearted mother and of little faith, art afraid of giving him the seal because of the weakness of nature. Hannah, before Samuel was born, consecrated him to God, and as soon as he was born, consecrated him, and brought him up from the first in a priestly garment, not fearing for human infirmities, but trusting in God. Thou hast no need of amulets and charms; together with which the devil slides into shallow minds, drawing to himself the veneration that is due to God. Give him the Trinity, that great and excellent preservative.”
Samuel.
“Dear brother, but these are beautiful words! Give him the Trinity for guardian! Well, that is beautiful. What faith was his! What the regard of his soul for Jehovah, whose great name, invoked upon the infant, will serve as the infant’s safeguard.”
The father of the family.
“Yes, dear Samuel, those are great and beautiful thoughts. They were the thoughts of the martyrs of the Gospel. What a contrast between them and the dryness of our modern sentiments!”
Samuel.
“I am now quite convinced that those were not the thoughts merely of one or two individuals.”
The father of the family.
“No, they were the thoughts of the entire Church, without a single exception. I have presented the matter to you as it appeared in the first three centuries. See now how the matter stands as seen in the fourth and fifth centuries.”
“Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, in the middle of the fourth century, expresses himself thus: ‘For that returning of the river waters backwards toward the spring head, which was caused by Elias when the river was divided, signified the sacrament of the laver of salvation, which was afterwards to be instituted; by which those infants that are baptised are reformed back again from wickedness to the primitive state of their nature’ (Com. on Luke, bk. i. c.1).
“Chrysostom, the eloquent and brave bishop of Constantinople, two hundred and eight years after the days of the Apostles, comparing circumcision with baptism, expresses himself thus: ‘But our circumcision—I mean the grace of baptism—gives cure without pain, and procures to us a thousand benefits, and fills us with the grace of the Spirit, and it has no determinate time as that has had; but one that is in the very beginning of his age, or one that is in the middle of it, or one that is in his old age, may receive this circumcision made without hands.’ And elsewhere (12th Homily on 1 Corinthians), blaming the women of the period for several heathenish rites, which they practiced on their newborn infants; one such rite being the custom of rubbing the forehead of the child with a sort of dirt; Chrysostom says to them: ‘How can he that anoints an infant so with dirt bring it then to the hands of the priest? Tell me, how can you think it fitting for the minister to make the sign on its forehead, when you have besmeared it with dirt?'”
Samuel.
“It is enough, dear brother. Do not weary yourself in producing more proofs.”
The father of the family.
“I should like, with your leave, to bring forward one other proof—one that you may think as only still more pointed because it comes not from a faithful servant of Jesus but from an enemy of the truth—I mean Pelagius. That man, a monk from Great Britain—that being his birthplace—after having visited the Churches of diverse countries, came to Rome and thence proceeded to Africa, where he taught the doctrine which since then has been identified with his name, to wit: That man is born pure, and that he is on this account capable, in virtue of his own natural powers, of attaining to perfection. The Church of the period opposed that doctrine, and the Council of Carthage, among whom was the pious Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, rejected it as a heresy.
“Augustine then wrote against Pelagius, and in this writing appeals to Pelagius’ own testimony as to the fact of infant baptism, on which he thus remarks: ‘Now, then, since the adversaries grant that infants ought to be baptised, seeing that it is impossible for them to stand against the authority of the universal Church on this head, and on a subject which the Church evidently received at the hands of the Lord and of His apostles, the adversaries are bound also to grant that infants need the benefits of Christ’s mediation, and that in the sacrament of baptism infants are presented by the charity of the faithful, in order that they might be added to the body of Christ.’
“And as to the practice of baptising infants, Augustine says: ‘We could with convenience come to ask that most learned man, how many writers of Christian dissertations and interpreters of Holy Scripture in both languages (Greek and Latin) could he recount, who from the time that Christ’s Church has been founded, have held no otherwise, have received no other doctrine from their predecessors, nor left any other to their successors?’ For my part (though my reading is much less than his), I do not remember that I ever heard any other thing from any Christians that received the Old and New Testaments: neither from such as were of the Catholic Church, nor from such as belonged to any sect or schism.”
Samuel.
“What a declaration to have been made by a doctor such as Augustine, and that in the very face of the Church! I do not understand how well-informed and good men could say that the Apostolic Church did not baptise infants.”
The father of the family.
“No more do I, and even Pelagius, who had a great interest in denying that infants had been baptised in the Church from the days of the Apostles, so far from affirming it, actually says: ‘That he never heard, no not even any impious heretic, or sectary, who would say that infants ought not to be baptised.’ And Pelagius adds: ‘Who is there quite so impious as to refuse to an infant, of what age soever, the common redemption of mankind?’”
Samuel.
“Quite so impious! The Church of that period, that is to say the Apostolic Church, charges me, then, with impiety for having refused baptism to my own child! Well, my friend, that is serious, and my feeling now is that nothing but self-conceit would still urge me to say that I had been right. No, no, I cannot with good sense refuse to yield to your proofs. Beyond question, the Apostolic Church baptised infant children. To wish to deny would argue only gross ignorance; and to put the testimony advanced aside would, to my conscience, at least appear as sheer obstinacy.”
(To be continued.)