word, as those by whom the apostolic doctrine and practices were handed down. But the distinction now adverted to, as it was totally unauthorized by the New Testament, and directly opposed to the plain injunctions of the Lord Jesus Christ, so, when once adopted, it laid the foundation of the Kingdom of the Clergy, and continued its progress by little and little, as I shall afterwards have an opportunity of showing you, until, having brought forth various orders of ecclesiastics, it ended in making the bishop of Rome pope, or universal bishop! sitting in the professed Temple of God, and claiming to be Christ's vicegerent on earth. The language of the Saviour himself respecting this matter was, "He that will be greatest among you, let him be the servant of all;" and he reminded them how he had exemplified this in his own conduct: though he was Lord of all, yet had he stooped to wash the feet of his disciples, that he might set them an example of humility, and condescension towards one another. The claim of superiority, therefore, which was now set up by the bishop over the elder or presbyter was so far from being countenanced by any thing in the New Testament, that it was in flat opposition to its plainest injunctions. "The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion, but among you it shall not be so"-" All of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility."

Another peculiarity in the style of Ignatius deserves mention in this place, especially as it has contributed still further to strengthen our suspicion of the entire authenticity of his letters; it is that, in many places, the style is not suited to the simplicity of the times immediately succeeding the days of the apostles. It abounds with inflated epithets, very unlike the humble manner of the inspired writers. In this respect it seems more consonant to the style of writing which became fashionable after Christianity had been incorporated with the state. Amongst the things referred to, it has been remarked that the expression "THE church which is in Syria” occurs twice-a mode of expression which betrays the hand of the interpolator. Nothing can be more dissimilar than this is to the way of speaking which invariably prevailed in the apostolic age, and which continued to prevail in the second century. Except when the

LETTERS OF IGNATIUS INTERPOLATED.

271 church denoted the whole body of the redeemed, it meant no more in apostolic times than a single congregation.* But of these latter there were many in Syria, in the days of Ignatius each having its bishops and deacons. With what propriety then could Ignatius himself speak of "the church which is in Syria?"

It has, moreover, been remarked, concerning the letters of this venerable father of the Christian church, that they are sprinkled with sentiments regarding the ministerial functions so insufferably inflated and arrogant, as to render it almost incredible that they could have proceeded from his pen. Thus, in a letter which he is said to have written to Polycarp, we have this extraordinary sentence: "Attend to the bishop, that God may attend to you. I pledge my soul for theirs, who are subject to the bishop, presbyters, and deacons. Let my part in God be with them." It would require very convincing evidence indeed, to make one believe that Ignatius ever wrote in this style! Again, in his letter to the Ephesians, ch. vi., it is said, "The more silent a man finds the bishop, he ought to reverence him the more:" on which Dr. Campbell remarks that "one would be tempted to think this has originated with some opulent ecclesiastic, who was far too great a man for preaching; at least, we may say, it seems an oblique apology for those who have no objection to any thing implied in a bishopric, except the discharge of its duties. No one whose notion of the duties of a bishop correspond with the prophet Isaiah's idea of a watchman, ch. lvi. 10, would have thought taciturnity a recommendation." The doctor adds, "If I be not perfectly unprejudiced on this subject, the prejudice by which I am biassed is not against Ignatius, but in his favour. It is because I think very highly of the martyr, and have a strong impression of his virtue, and of the service which his sufferings and testimony rendered to the cause of his divine Master, that I am unwilling rashly to attribute to him what could not fail to lessen him in my estimation. I would save him, if possible, from a second martyrdom in his works, through the attempts, not of open enemies, but of deceitful friends."+

* See page 98. ↑ Campbell's Ecclesiastical History, Lect. vi.

In these observations of the learned writer, I heartily coincide; and I moreover think that the improvement which we are warranted to make of the subject is to put us upon our guard against receiving implicitly all that we meet with in the writings of the fathers of this early period. They have passed through a very impure channel, and the epistles of Ignatius are not the only portion of their remains that are suspected of interpolation. The present appears to me to be the proper place for adverting to another innovation which crept imperceptibly into the Christian church towards the latter end of the second or early in the third century, namely, the Baptism of Infants. It is utterly in vain to look for any authority for this practice in the New Testament. The first account which we have of baptism as a Christian ordinance is in the commission which the Lord Jesus gave his apostles just before he left the world, in these words, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," Matt. xxviii. 19, or, as another evangelist records it, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned," Mark xvi. 16. This is the Christian law regarding baptism; and it cannot be doubted that the divine legislator declared to his first and immediate followers in this enactment the whole of what he designed should be understood by or implied in this duty; for, baptism being a positive institution, depending entirely upon his will, and not designed to contain any thing it it but what he himself should please to affix to it--it must follow that he has herein declared his mind fully and plainly, otherwise he must be supposed to institute a duty of which no one could have any notion without his institution, and, at the same time, not to instruct his followers sufficiently what that duty was to be, or in what it should consist. Now, according to this law, they were to preach his gospel, and by that mode of teaching they were to make disciples, converts, believers, in all nations-administering his ordinance of baptism to such as believed. But this commission is profoundly silent respecting any part of the human race not so qualified. It can have no reference to infants who are incapacitated by their nonage; or to un

ORIGIN OF INFANT-BAPTISM.

273

believers by their ignorance and want of faith; consequently it could not be in the Saviour's intention and will that it should be administered to such persons.

In perfect consistency with what has now been said, the annals of the Christian church do not record an instance of one infant being baptized before the middle of the second century. Of the apostles and their associates it is indeed recorded that they baptized such as "gladly received the word"*—such as confessed the faith+-rejoiced in the Lord+---feared God, and had received the Holy Spirit §-both men and women ||- but not the slightest mention is made of the baptism of infants. Neither is it pretended that the earliest fathers of the church, such as Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, or Hermas, say any thing about it. The first authority that is quoted for it is Justin Martyr, who wrote about the year of Christ 150; but whether the passage in his writings, in which he is supposed to advert to it, will sustain the superstructure that has been raised upon it may be fairly questioned. It occurs in his first Apology, addressed to the emperor Antoninus Pius, and was designed by Justin to vindicate the Christians of those times from the cruel reproaches of their enemies, and, amongst the rest, the horrid one of murdering their infants, and making an impious use of their blood in their assemblies-his words are these::

"As many as are persuaded and do believe that those things which are taught and spoken by us are true, and engage to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and implore of God with fasting the forgiveness of their past sins, we praying and fasting together with them. They are then led by us to a place where there is water, and they are regenerated with the same kind of regeneration with which we were regenerated. For in the name of God the Father and Lord of all, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they are then washed in water. For also Christ hath said, "Except ye be regenerated, ye cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven," &c.¶

Now this passage of Justin's, so far from aiding the cause of Pædo-baptism, is evidence on the other side of the question; for *Acts ii. 41. † ch. viii. 37, 38. ch. xvi. 15, 34. § ch. x. 48. || ch. xviii. 8. ¶ Justin Mart. Apologia I. p. 88, 89. Edit. Thilby, Lond. 1722. VOL. I.

T

it speaks only of such as believe-whereas, had it been the practice of the church in those days to baptize infants, how natural is it to expect that he should have spoken of them in this place, which nevertheless he does not. There is indeed another expression of Justin's in the same Apology on which some stress has been laid, but it will as little avail the cause. It is that wherein he speaks of some who, "from children were discipled to Christ"—that is, "They were taught or instructed in the doctrine of Christ from their childhood," just as Timothy is said to "have known the Holy Scriptures from a child," 2 Tim. iii. 15. But this by no means proves that infants in Justin's time were baptized.

There is a passage in a treatise of Irenæus against heresies which has been adduced as a proof that infant-baptism was known at the time he wrote, viz. A. D. 180. Speaking of Christ as "sanctifying every age, by the likeness which it bore to himself," it is added, "For he came of himself to save all-all, I say, who by him are born again to God; infants, and little ones, and children, and young men, and old men. Therefore he went through each age, and was made an infant for infants, sanctifying infants for little ones a little one, sanctifying those of that age;" &c.

Now although this passage, if it could be proved to have been written by Irenæus, could never lay a solid foundation for infantbaptism, it must strike every one as having about it some thing very suspicious and doubtful. Is it credible that Irenæus should so far commit himself as to assert that our Lord passed through every age- -that he lived to be an old man? He must, one should suppose, have known otherwise! In fact, the whole chapter from which it is taken induces a suspicion that it is not genuine; for the writer, whoever he was, by fixing, in the beginning of it, the baptism of Christ at about thirty, and mentioning three passovers as intervening between that and his death; and, at the close, affirming that he lived to above fifty, evidently contradicts himself. These mistakes, therefore, of which it may be thought this venerable father could scarcely have been guilty, have led several of the learned, both Baptists and Pædo-baptists, to consider the entire chapter an interpolation; yet this passage