eous opinion with regard to matters of faith disparage
their testimony as to the existence and authenticity of the sacred
canon. Neither can we properly say, "The early Christian fathers had
wrong notions, some of them, about infant baptism; therefore they cannot
be allowed to testify whether infant baptism was practised." However
heretical they may have been, they could not alter the well-known facts
of history, in the face of enemies and friends.
_Mr. M._ Are you not accustomed to rely much, in your scriptural
argument for infant baptism, on the baptisms of households by the
apostles?
_Dr. D._ I am; and that reminds me of an interesting passage, which I
will read to you from this book:[4]
[Footnote 4: Taylor on Baptism.]
"Have we eight instances of the administration of the Lord's Supper? Not
half the number. Have we eight cases of the change of the Christian
Sabbath from the Jewish? Not, perhaps, one fourth of the number. Yet
those services are vindicated by the practice of the apostles, as
recorded in the New Testament. How, then, can we deny their practice on
the subject of infant baptism, when it is established by a series of
more numerous instances than can possibly be found in support of any
doctrine, principle, or practice, derived from the practice of the
apostles?"
But you will ask him (said Dr. D.), how he proves that there were
infants or young children in the households baptized by the apostles.
This is his answer:
"Is there any other case besides that of baptism, where we would take
families at hazard, and deny the existence of young children in them?
"Take eight families in a street, or eight pews containing families in
a place of worship; they will afford more than one young child."
_Mr. M._ How does he make out eight cases of household baptism by the
apostles?
_Dr. D._ Let us examine his list:
1. Cornelius.
2. Lydia.
3. The jailer at Philippi. "Thus the church at Philippi, just organized
by the apostles, and consisting of but few members, offers two instances
of household baptism."
4. Crispus. "Compare Acts 18: 8, and 1 Cor. 1:14--16, by which it
appears that this Crispus was baptized by Paul separately from his
family, which was not baptized by Paul. Yet Crispus 'believed on the
Lord with all his house.' If his house believed, it was baptized. It
was, then, a baptized household. But if we believe that the family of
Crispus was baptized because we find it registered as
|