The Evils of Infant Baptism

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1854 edition. Excerpt: ...to the cause of truth and salvation. In these respects it. has amply justified its origin. It is not the eldest born, but it is the most popular and insidious of them all. During the apostolic age, and until two hundred years of the church had been told, infant baptism was wholly unknown. The history of that period, whether sacred or profane, makes not the remotest allusion to such a practice. This of itself,-is sufficient proof that it did not exist. But it is not the only testimony. The fathers in the church who then lived and wrote, often speak of baptism, and always in such terms as to convince us that it was not administered to children. One of them--Justin-rKiontrasts the state of christians at their birth with their state at their baptism. " Then at their birth, says he they were involuntary and unconscious of what they experienced; but at their baptism they had choice, and knowledge, and illumination." And Tertullian observes:--" The laver of baptism is the seal of faith, which faith begins from peni.ence. We are not washed baptized in order that we may cease from sinning, but because we have ceased, since we are already cleansed in heart."f Infant baptism, therefore, could not have as yet been introduced. Origen, who lived in the middle of the third century, was the first who defended it. It was, as he tells us, a subject of "frequent inquiry among brethren."J Consequently it must have been a new topic. " Brethren" did not understand it. Up to this time evidently, none received baptism, but such as with " choice and knowledge," made a credible profession of their " faith." In this ordinance they publicly " put on Christ." But now, whether infants, or persons too young...