Page images
PDF
EPUB

at least one of them, believing, inasmuch as it is only in connexion with a Christian family life, that this didaoziv, which, according to the command of Christ, is to follow baptism, and with it the maintenance and evolution of baptismal grace, can be expected to result in a substantial and confirmed life of faith. If then the admissibility and propriety of infant baptisin are grounded in the need which all have of salvation, in the very idea of primitive Christianity, in the extent and compass of the covenant of grace, in its analogy to circumcision, and in the organic, spiritual and bodily relation which believing parents sustain to their off ping; so may we suppose it extremely probable that its introduction would correspond with the first independent existence of a Christian congregation, and we have under such presumption every reason to believe that it was actually practised, when we read in the N. T. more than once, of the baptism of whole families, without any restriction whatever, (as we would have to expect, according to the Baptistic theory); such for instance, as the household of Lydia, and the Jailer of Philippi, and Stephanas of Corinth; which are mentioned particularly as examples, though doub less there were many similar cases, and it would be remarkable and contrary to daily experience, to take for granted that all these families were without children.

It is true that it has been attempted to set aside this exegetical result, by the testimony of a single witness, the well known polemic, Tertullian, who lived toward the close of the 2nd century, and from it to show that it had a proportionably later introduction. But this polemic himself most conclusively shows, that infant baptism did exist in his day, and with it the institution of sponsors. What is still more, Tertullian knew that the whole church praxis was against him, and he stood forth as a reformer in opposition to it. Had he referred to antiquity, and could he have spoken against infant baptism as an innovation, something new, he would doubtless have availed himself of this advantage. But he only calls in question, not its apostolic origin, not its admissibility, or propriety, but only its expediency. He considered it dangerous, inasmuch as according to his Montanistic view, an individual committing a mortal sin after baptism, must be shut out from church communion, and in all probability would be lost. Upon this ground, he advised that, not only infants, but also grown persons, who were not yet married, and had not taken upon themselves the vow of chastity, should put off their baptisin, until they were fully secured

against the temptation to licentiousness.' This whole controversy of Tertullian rests-which Neander, Gieseler, and others appear not to have noticed, or at least have not brought forward -upon mistaken impressions, in which the church did not participate, and has nothing more than the force of an isolated privale judgment in opposition to the preva Lug theory and prac tice, and proves clearly the very reverse of that which it has often been attempted to show. Just so much may we with torerable safety infer from it, that infant baptis n, at that time, was not yet authoritatively established, but was left pretty much to the free will and judgement of Christian parents. Otherwise, Tertullian would scarcely have assailed it, so vigorously. As, however, in this particular, the spirit of the age was against him, his opposition, which by the way, was also in contradiction to some of his own principles, produced not the slightest effect, and died away without an echo.

This was made perfectly evident in the following century. The African church itself, in a council at Carthage in the year 246, decreed that it was not necessary even to defer baptism to the eighth day, as was the case in circumcision, but that it might be performed (not must) on the second, or third day, after birth; and CYPRIAN who had the greatest veneration for his preceptor Tertullian maintained this view. So entirely at that time already was every trace of the controversy against infant baptism obliterated, that the only question concerning it at issue was, whether according to Jewish analogy, they must delay it for at least eight days! At the very same time, ORIGEN of Alexandria, the most learned representative of the Greek church, who was himself baptized soon after his birth (an. 185), and at the death of Tertullian was 35 years old, speaks in the most unequivocal terms of infant baptism as an apostolic tradition, and a general church observance. If however from the silence of the church historians previous to Tertullian in relation to in

'Non minore de causa, he says innupti quoque procrastinandi, in quibus tentatio pracparata est tam virginitus per maturitatem, quam viduis per vacationem, donec aut nubant, aut continentia corroborentur. Consequently, according to Tertullian, baptism would have to be confined to superannuated and married persons, and monks and nuns! and yet he maintains on the other hand, that we can only be saved through the water of baptism, nec aliter quam in aqua permanendo salvi sumus. The wide difference between the standpoint of Tertullian and that of the Baptists, in the whole controversy, must be evident to any one possessed of any historical or critical skill. It is therefore perfectly absurd for the Baptists to refer as they do, with so much zeal, to the African church father.

fant baptism, we are to draw a conclusion against its practice, we should not forget, first that we have altogether very few writ ten memorials of those times, and that there are many other points also in regard to which we are entirely in the dark; and then in the great missionary zeal of the age, and the rapid extension of the church, proselyte baptism would be most prominent, and in the nature of the case, would attract most attention. Still however there are not wanting, in the writings of CLEMENT of Alexandria, IRENAEUS and JUSTIN MARTYR, indications that show more or less clearly the existence of infant baptism. Especially is the passage, already cited from Irenæus, of the regeneration and sanctification of the period of childhood, by the childhood of Jesus, taken in connexion with his decided churchly habit of thought, and his close union of regeneration and baptism, a proof not only for the idea, but for the actual practice of infant baptism in his day. From this church Father, we may conclude back with great safety to his venerated preceptor POLYCARP, and he was the disciple and personal friend of ST. JOHN, the favorite apostle of Jesus Christ. Translated by

B. C. W.

Baltimore, Md.

A DEVOUT MINISTRY.

JESUS Christ prayed, although he united in His person the attributes of the true Godhead and of perfect humanity. Prayer was his joy. Hours at a time he spent in devotion, not only now and then or at long intervals, but regularly and frequently. Why was this? Christ was perfectly holy. Could He not have exemplified the virtues of a perfect religion without the aid of prayer? In Him were hid all the treasures of infinite wisdom. Could He not have taught the plan of redemption and revealed the destiny of the world, without seeking additional knowledge in prayer? He had all power and authority in Heaven and on earth. Could He not have performed miracles, made a sufficient oblation for the sins of men and have risen from the grave, triumphing over the power of death and hell, without receiving new strength by holding formal, outward communion with God?

But

With Him prayer was not a matter of mere choice—not something which he could omit or perform with equal propriety. Nor did he pray because compelled to do so by the circumstances of Providence, or any power extraneous to himself. He was impelled to prayer by an inward necessity-by the constitution of his person; not because he had committed sin or was liable to it and therefore required pardon or purificationnor because there was any deficiency in the resources of his divine-human nature for the purposes of his mission. He prayed just because He was very God and very man. The Son communes with the Father and the Father communes with the Son.

It belongs necessarily to the complete idea of an intelligent being that it thinks and utters its thoughts. Men think and speak through the medium of human language. Angels think and communicate their thoughts to each other, but of the manner in which this is done we know little or nothing. God thinks. The triune absolute Being, of whom angels and men are the reflection, communes with Himself under the highest form of perfection. The three self existent and co-eternal persons, constituting in mysterious union the only true God, think simultaneously. To know and to think are identical. In other words, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, commune or hold fellowship with each other necessarily. Such communion belongs to the idea of their being and reciprocal relation, as demanded by sound philosophy and as revealed in the Scriptures. There are various passages, that clearly presuppose or indicate this fellow

1

ship. There is one in the first chapter of Genesis: "And God said let us make man in our image, after our likeness," ' (v. 26). Another: "The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool," (Ps. 110: 1). Others of similar import could be cited.

[ocr errors]

When the second Person of the glorious Godhead, the Word, was made flesh and dwelt among us," the essential relation of the Son to the Father did not cease but of necessity continued to be the same; and their communion was therefore just as natural and necessary as it was before the incarnation. Under what form this communion subsisted before the incarnation human reason can not discover, nor has the Word of God attempted to explain it. But we know how it was conducted after the "Word was made flesh." The divine and human natures were mysteriously united in Christ. The Son lived on earth to less as man than as God. Though "in the bosom of the Father," He prayed on the mountains of Galilee, agonized in Gethsemane and expired on Golgotha. He had become a man, and communed with his Father through the medium of his human nature. That was prayer-the natural consequence of his relation to God as God

Another reason is found in the relation of Christ to God as man. As a man, though sinless and pure, he was a dependent creature; and prayer or living communion with his Father in Heaven, was as becoming for Him as it is for any holy created being. Free from all selfishness, the spontaneous flow of His thoughts and feelings was directed towards God as the highest good. Conscious of his relation to his Father, and looking upon every part of creation as from God and for God, his manner of thinking referred every object of sense or spirit to Him. Alike from within and without he was thus prompted to hold uninterrupted intercourse with God; or rather, prayer was the free and proper exercise of all his powers as "a perfectly righteous man," from which his mind and heart could not but derive continual joy.

The human nature of Christ, however, was not in every sense of the term absolutely perfect. He was made flesh-came in

"Das groesste Werk seiner ewigen Liebe, die Erschaffung von Men schen, die er lieben, und die ihn erkennen und lieben koennen, ist daher ein Gegenstand der Berathung des Vaters und des Sohnes," Com. in loco, Otto von Gerlach.

*« Fleisch (John i: 19,) heisst allhie die gantze menschliche Natur, Leib und Seel sainmt den wesentlichen Eigenschaften und Gebrechlichkeiten derselben, ausgenommen die Sünde."-Pal. Heid. Cat. Q 35.

« PreviousContinue »