Standard Jet DBnb` Ugr@?~1y0̝cßFNb7L(/` {6 ߱mC663y[k,|*|I Xf_Љ$g'DeFx -bT4.0Xj Y S  Y   Y Y  Y Y  Y  Y  Y  r Y s Y E Y a Y d Y 2Y  Y   Y  jY ConnectDatabaseDateCreateDateUpdate FlagsForeignNameIdLvLvExtraLvModule LvPropName OwnerParentIdRmtInfoLongRmtInfoShortTypeniYYIdParentIdName        OYS Y Y Y  Y 2ACMFInheritableObjectIdSID YObjectId YSY  Y Y Y  Y  Y Y  Y AttributeExpressionFlagLvExtra Name1 Name2ObjectId Ordernzf edY"ObjectIdAttribute -YSY Y Y  Y  Y  Y  Y  Y ccolumn grbiticolumnszColumnszObject$szReferencedColumn$szReferencedObjectszRelationship   YYYszObject$szReferencedObjectszRelationshipYv1b N  : k & W  C t/ @@@@X  @@OJmJLJkQkiQ^JmYdbkWYfkmJL^Qk`kvkJMQk`kvkdL[QMmk`kvkhoQiYQk`kvkiQ^JmYdbkWYfkmdfYMbdmQk`kvkOL  @~  @ @           d k f  uzh?@h?@Topic Notes ɒ@DDD88888886 @.g?@.g?@MSysRelationships DDDDDDDDDDB .g?@.g?@MSysQueries 88888888886 .g?@.g?@MSysACEs 22222222220 .g?@.g?@MSysObjects 88888888886 .g?@.g?@MSysDb .........., .g?@.g?@Relationships <<<<<<<<<<: .g?@.g?@Databases 44444444442 .g?@.g?@Tables .........., jYNY Y d YID TitleCommentsYYIDPrimaryKey@v)Z @@LVAL{\rtf1\ansi\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fprq2\fcharset0 Georgia;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\stylesheet{ Normal;}{\s1 heading 1;}} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\nowidctlpar\lang1033\b\f0\fs24 THE EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM\par BY R.B.C. HOWELL\par \f1\fs22\par \b0\par \par * THE EVILS OF INFANT BAPTISM\par \par * SECOND BAPTIST CHURCH, AND CONGREGATION\par \par * CONTENTS\par \par * FOOTNOTES \par \par BY R.B.C. HOWELL \par \par AUTHOR OF The Terms Of Communion At The Lord\rquote s Table And The Deaconship \ldblquote Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think of these things.\rdblquote (Php_4:8) \par \par PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION \par \par MY gratitude is due to God, and to his people, for the kindness with which this little work has been received. A second edition is demanded at a much earlier period than I had anticipated. I have prepared it with as much attention as my circumstances would permit. Some portions of the book, as will be seen, have been recast, and a new Chapter has been added, on Infant Salvation. More perspicuity and con-elusiveness have, as I think, been thus given to some of the arguments, and the whole work made much more complete. Again I send it forth, with the earnest prayer that it may prove a blessing to the cause of true religion. ROB\rquote T BOYT C. HOWELL.\par \par RICHMOND, VA., Dec. 17th, 1851. \par \par IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA \par \par This Volume Is Respectfully Dedicated BY THEIR DEVOTED AND OBLIGED PASTOR \par \par \pard\keepn\nowidctlpar\s1\sb240\sa120\b Preface \par \pard\nowidctlpar\b0\par THE following pages were written with the specific design of considering, not the \ldblquote mode of baptism,\rdblquote nor \ldblquote the subjects LVALof baptism\rdblquote , but the EVILS of INFANT baptism .\rdblquote What baptism is, and who are authorized to receive it, have been questions of controversy during fifteen hundred years. The last two centuries have been especially prolific of essays and books on these subjects. Great learning and zeal have been called in requisition on both sides of the discussion. The conflict, as time passes, loses nothing of its interest, but grows each year, more and more warm. Nor will it ever cease until all Christians fully understand the divine teaching in the premises, and submit themselves to the guidance of the word of God. The evils of infant baptism seem, however, to be a topic which has attracted heretofore, but very little attention. I have seen an occasional allusion to it in books, and periodicals, and sometime a paragraph or two, affirming and sustaining the mischievous results of the rite. I myself wrote a small tract on the subject, more than twenty-five years ago, entitled \ldblquote Plain Things for Plain Men,\rdblquote suggesting most of the propositions contained in this work. Beyond these almost nothing, so far as I know, has been published. 1 Consequently the advocates of infant baptism, driven from every other quarter, have here felt themselves safe. They affirm, and expect us to admit, that \ldblquote If it does no good, it does no harm.\rdblquote It is innocent, and therefore may be practiced. It was this very apology, offered in its behalf lately, by a friend in my presence, and which I had before so often heard, that called forth the book now before you. I thought it wrong to permit the public mind longer to remain involved in this error; and as I knew of no one who was likely soon to expose it, I determined to undertake the task myself. I have attempted, with what success my readers will judge, to show that infant baptism is far from being harmless. On the contrary, that it is one of the most calamitous evils with which the church has ever been visited.\par \par Permit, if you pleaLVALse, a word of explanation in the outset, regarding some terms, and phrases, of frequent occurrence. I have spoken of it as baptism, when only sprinkling was used, and infants were the subjects, not that I suppose any such thing really baptism, or that others than believers are capable of the ordinance, but simply as a matter of courtesy, and in compliance with common usage. In the same sense I have spoken of the church, \ldblquote the churches,\rdblquote and \ldblquote the churches of Christ.\rdblquote In the use of these, and like expressions, I shall certainly, by all intelligent people, be perfectly understood.\par \par One other prefatory remark will be pardoned. In this, as in every other book I have written, I have carefully sought the utmost simplicity and plainness. I write for \ldblquote the million,\rdblquote and I have determined that \ldblquote the million\rdblquote shall understand me. I am unwilling to sacrifice force and directness to elegance of style. I do not enter in the presence of my readers, into labored criticisms, nor abstruse disquisition\rquote s, but give them the results simply, without fatiguing them with the process; and they have them in the plainest Saxon I can command. It has been my purpose to present the truth fully, fairly, and candidly, but at the same time, with all proper respect for the opinions of others. I have not introduced an argument which I do not believe to be logical and conclusive, a single passage of scripture which I am not persuaded is relevant, nor an authority from any writer, ancient or modern, which I am not assured is justly adduced, and applicable to the subject. My sole desire is the honor of truth, and the salvation of men.\par \par With these observations premised, I send forth this little volume, earnestly praying that God our Heavenly Father, may make it a blessing to his cause and people. ROB\rquote T BOYTE C. HOWELL.\par RICHMOND, VA., March 24th, 1851\par \par Chapter 1 Infant baptism is an evil because its practice is unsupLVALported by the word of God \par \par Chapter 2 Infant baptism is an evil because its defense leads to most injurious perversions of Scripture \par \par Chapter 3 Infant baptism is an evil because it engrafts Judaism upon the gospel of Christ \par \par Chapter 4 Infant baptism is an evil because it falsifies the doctrine of universal depravity \par \par Chapter 5 Infant baptism is an evil because the doctrines upon which it is predicated contradict the great fundamental principle of justification by faith \par \par Chapter 6 Infant baptism is an evil because it is in direct conflict with the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit in regeneration \par \par Chapter 7 Infant baptism is an evil because it despoils the church of those peculiar qualities which are essential to the church of Christ \par \par Chapter 8 Infant baptism is an evil because its practice perpetuates the superstitions that originally produced it \par \par Chapter 9 Infant baptism is an evil because it subverts the scripture doctrine of infant salvation \par \par Chapter 10 Infant baptism is an evil because it leads its advocates into rebellion against the authority of Christ \par \par Chapter 11 Infant baptism is an evil because of the connection it assumes with the moral and religious training of children \par \par Chapter 12 Infant baptism is an evil because it is the grand foundation upon which rests the union of church and state \par \par Chapter 13 Infant baptism is an evil because it leads to religious persecutions \par \par Chapter 14 Infant baptism is an evil because it is contrary to the principles of civil and religious freedom \par \par Chapter 15 Infant baptism is an evil because it enfeebles the power of the church to combat error \par \par Chapter 16 Infant baptism is an evil because it injures the credit of religion with reflecting men of the world \par \par Chapter 17 Infant baptism is an evil because it is the great barrier to Christian union \par \par Chapter 18 Infant baptism is an LVAL evil because it prevents the salutary impression which baptism was designed to make upon the minds both of those who receive it, and of those who witness its administration \par \par Chapter 19 Infant baptism is an evil because it retards the designs of Christ in the conversion of the world \par \par Chapter 20 Recapitulation, with concluding addresses\par \pard\cf1\par } R\ ` f n z  K20 Recapitulation ConclusionVN#J>19 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because It Retards#pd18 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it Prevents? #rf17 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it is the Gre0#vj16 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it Injures=x#pd15 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it Enfeebles(m#th14 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it is Contrarsb#vj13 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it Leads~W#l` 12 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because It is the Gram\N#vj 11 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because of The ConnecD#vj 10 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it Leadsxyi:#l` 09 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it Subvertso"#rf 08 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because its Practice#th07 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it Despoils'~ #rf06 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it is in Dire>s#vj05 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because the Doctrinese]"vj04 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it Falsifies6]"th03 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because it Engrafts6WG5"rf02 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because its DefenseTP1 "rf01 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because its Practice/ "th00 contentsDM$(LVAL{\rtf1\ansi\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fswiss\fprq2\fcharset0 Arial;}{\f1\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\stylesheet{ Normal;}{\s1 heading 1;}} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\keepn\nowidctlpar\s1\sb240\sa120\lang1033\b\f0\fs32 Infant Baptism is an Evil Because its Practice is Unsupported by the Word of God.\par \pard\nowidctlpar\sb120\sa120\b0\f1\fs22\par Proposition stated; no authority in the Bible for infant baptism; confessions or its advocates; the great Protestant rule in religion; their arguments; it is no baptism; forms of the evil. PERFECTION on earth, in its absolute form, unhappily no longer exists. \ldblquote Man\rquote s first disobedience\rdblquote brought sin into the world. Evil was its attendant. And since that fatal hour, evil has been connected with all that pertains to our race! It is like the air we breathe, an ever present influence.\par It corrupts all that is pure, and impairs all that is beautiful. Where are the natural beings whose perfection\rquote s it has not disturbed? What rule of moral action is there, from compliance with which it has not turned men aside?\par But these are not its most lamentable developments. Evil is found prevailing even in the professed churches of Christ! Nor is its presence in the sanctuary seldom apparent. Scarcely is there a feature in our holy religion, which it has not somewhere, marred or distorted! In no form, however, has it afflicted the cause of truth and salvation more grievously, than in that of infant baptism; a rite generally prevalent, but without divine authority; repulsive in itself, and in its consequences always injurious. This declaration I hold myself bound, in the following pages, to sustain by adequate testimony. At present I solicit your attention to the proposition announced: \ldblquote Infant baptism is an evil because it is unsupported by the word of God. \rdblquote It is assumed that infant baptism is unsupported by the word of God. This is the subject of the propoLVALsition. If, upon examination, it be found true, the predicate, that it is an evil, follows as a matter of course. The forms and bearing of that evil may then be considered. Is infant baptism supported by the word of God? I aver that it is not. It is nowhere commanded. It is nowhere, in any form, divinely authorized. Examine the holy record, from first to last, and you will discover not a trace of infant baptism. If it is anywhere commanded, or authorized, the passages in which that fact appears, can be produced. Where are they? Let them be forthcoming. We have a right to see, and to examine them, for ourselves. We demand the texts. But this demand has before been often made, and always in vain.\par They have never been produced. They have not yet been found. They never can be found. They do not exist. The word of God, in all its length and breadth, contains not a syllable of authority for infant baptism, in the form of command, of precept, of permission, of example, or in any other form whatever. In that sacred book not one word in relation to it, is anywhere uttered. He who claims divine authority for infant baptism, must justify himself by adducing it. Until he does so, the least that can be said of it, is that \ldblquote it is unsupported by the word of God. \rdblquote The authority demanded, has however often been essayed. Learned, ingenious, and protracted efforts have been attempted by every sect into which Pedobaptist Christendom is divided. But as if God had determined to defend his own truth by the individual conflicts of its adversaries, it has turned out that no two of them have been able to harmonize either as to what may be regarded as testimony in the premises, or the class of infants divinely authorized to be baptized! Each is in collision with every other.\par Wall, Hammond, and others of that school, claim that Jewish proselyte baptism is its broad and ample foundation. Owen, Jennings, and many more, repudiate Jewish proselyte baptism, and predicate it upon circumcision as taught iLVALn the Abrahamic covenant. Beza, Doddridge, and their associates, teach that children are holy, and are therefore to be baptized. Wesley, and his disciples, teach that they are unholy, and must be baptized to cleanse them from their defilements. Burder, Dwight, and their class, permit no other infants to be baptized but those of Christian parents, all of whom they contend, are born in the church, and are therefore entitled to its ordinances. Baxter, Henry, and those of similar faith, baptize infants to bring them into the covenant and church of the Redeemer. The evangelical divines of the Church of England, and of the Episcopal Church of America, tell us that the doctrine of infant baptism is deduced by analogical reasoning, from statements of scripture applying more expressly, to the case of adult baptism.\rdblquote But those of the opposite character teach that baptism gives to the infant the regeneration of the Holy Ghost, and must therefore be administered. Many others receive and practice it, because, as they say, \ldblquote It is in consonance with the general spirit of religion!\rdblquote Each of these theories shows all the others to be wholly destitute of scriptural support. Among the several classes of religionists now indicated, are to be found very many men of the most extensive learning and research. Why are they all thus in hopeless conflict on the subject? The moment one brings forward his scriptural proofs of infant baptism, all the others clearly show them to be utterly false. Could this be the case were the ordinance anywhere enjoined or authorized? Every unprejudiced mind must see that, taken together, the arguments of all classes of Pedobaptists, destroy one another throughout. Like the builders at Babel, no two of them speak the same tongue, although every one protests that he utters the language of the Bible! It is true consequently, for any thing that yet appears to the contrary, that infant baptism is unsupported by the word of God.\par But we have testimony in proof of our pLVALroposition still stronger if possible, than any which has yet been submitted. Very many of the most learned and pious Pedobaptist Biblical critics, themselves candidly confess that infant baptism is not distinctly enjoined, nor directly taught, in the word of God. \lang2058 Some of these I will now proceed to specify.\par \lang1033 Martin Luther, the great father of the Reformation, says: \emdash \ldblquote It cannot be proved by the scriptures, that infant baptism was instituted by Christ, or begun by the first Christians after the apostles.\rdblquote 1 John Calvin testifies thus: \emdash \ldblquote It is nowhere expressly mentioned by the evangelists, that any child was by the apostles baptized.\rdblquote 2 Bishop Burner avers: \ldblquote There is no express precept, or rule given in the New Testament for the baptism of infants. 3 \ldblquote Strarck says: \emdash \ldblquote The connection of infant baptism with circumcision deserves no consideration, since there were physical reasons for circumcising in infancy.\rdblquote 4 Angusti says: \emdash \ldblquote The parallel between circumcision and baptism is altogether foreign to the New Testament.\rdblquote Bishop Jeremy Taylor thus writes: \emdash \ldblquote For the argument from circumcision, it is invalid from infinite considerations. Figures and types prove nothing, unless a command go along with them, or some express to signify such to be their purpose.\rdblquote 6 Dr. Woods of Andover remarks: \emdash \ldblquote It is a plain case that there is no express precept respecting infant baptism in our sacred writings. The proof then, that it is a divine institution must be made out in some other way.\rdblquote 7 Prof. Stuart says: \emdash \ldblquote Commands, or plain and certain examples in the New Testament, relative to it [infant baptism] I do not find.\rdblquote 8 And finally Dr. Neander declares: \emdash \ldblquote As baptism was closely united with a conscious entrance on Christian communion, faith and baptism were always connecteLVALd with one another; and thus it is in the highest degree probable, that baptism was performed only in instances where both could meet together, and that the practice of infant baptism was unknown\rdblquote to the apostolic age. 9 In another work Neander says: \emdash \ldblquote Baptism was at first, administered only to adults, as men were accustomed to conceive baptism and faith as strictly connected. We have all reason for not deriving infant baptism from apostolic institution.\rdblquote Multitudes of other similar declarations could, were they necessary, be readily produced, but these are amply sufficient. It is acknowledged that the word of God does not teach infant baptism. This acknowledgment is made candidly, by those who ought to know, since they were among the most learned men, and best Biblical critics the world has ever produced, made against themselves, voluntarily, freely, and of their own accord, and ought therefore to be considered decisive of the question. Infant baptism is not found in any form in the Bible. Every effort to deduce it from the sacred records, no matter how ingeniously conducted, has proved a wretched failure. It is confessed by its advocates that it is not found in the inspired pages. Infant baptism is therefore, unsupported by the word of God.\par May I now, in view of all these facts, and considerations, solicit your attention to the great Protestant principle in religion, so familiarly known to all who are in the least conversant with sacred literature? \emdash \ldblquote The word of God is a perfect rule of faith and practice. \rdblquote To this maxim every evangelical denomination professes to bow with entire submission. It avows the scriptures to be not the supreme authority only, but also the sole authority, in all that pertains to religion. It repudiates all tradition. It looks not to the Fathers of the church of whatever period, except in so far as they are sustained by the divine word. It relies exclusively upon the scriptures. If any doctrine or practiLVALce be there clearly taught, it must be received heartily, and fully. If otherwise, you dare not admit it. \ldblquote The word of God is a perfect rule of faith and practice.\rdblquote\par For myself, and for my brethren \emdash although we are not Protestants \emdash I declare for this Christian law in religion the sincerest reverence. We receive it fully, and conform to it in every respect. We do this however, not simply because it is wise in principle, and safe in practice, but because it is really an embodiment in another form, of the law of God himself. It comes to us with the sanction not of men only, but of God. \lang2058 The language of Jehovah on the subject is this:\par \lang1033 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it. Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.\rdblquote (Deu_12:3.)\par And in another place he says: \ldblquote Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.\rdblquote (Deu_4:2.)\par Is not this a plain declaration, in other terms, that, \ldblquote The word of God is a perfect rule of faith and practice?\rdblquote Does any one suppose that since these precepts had a more direct reference to the law of Moses, that they are not equally applicable under the gospel? To such it may be replied, that the law was much less perfect than is the gospel. Did our Heavenly Father enforce the obligations of the former with the most jealous particularity, and is he less careful as to our compliance with the demands of the latter?\par Such an objection is unreasonable. It is. also in direct conflict with apostolic teaching. To this very topic Paul refers, when he says: \emdash \ldblquote God, who at sundry times, and in diverse manners, spake in times past to the fathers, by the prophets hath in these last days spoken unto us, by his Son. \rdblquote (Heb_1:1) \ldblquote Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have LVALheard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels [messengers, in the law] was steadfast, and every transgression, and disobedience received a just recompense of reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and diverse miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost?\rdblquote (Heb_2:1-4.) \ldblquote See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape if we refuse him that speaketh from heaven. \rdblquote (Heb_12:25.)\par Thus it is seen that if the inspired apostle knew where of he affirmed, and reasoned not illogically, it is unquestionably true that the gospel requires to be obeyed, not with less, but with more carefulness, particularity, and fidelity than did the law. To no commandment of the gospel therefore, may you add any thing whatever; neither may you diminish aught from it. You are obliged to obey, and in the manner en joined, all that Jehovah has there revealed for your guidance. It is \ldblquote the word of God, \rdblquote and that \ldblquote is a perfect rule of faith and practice. \rdblquote But we are constantly told that the gospel, unlike the law, is in many respects, indefinite in its instructions, giving only the outlines, and great principles of religion, and leaving the details to be filled up by the wisdom and pious discretion of the followers of Christ. He who has arrived at this conclusion has wholly mistaken the subject. If the word of God is a perfect rule of faith and practice, then the assumption cannot possibly be true. It is unreasonable in itself; it is in conflict with the inspired teachings just recited; and it proceeds on the false assumption that the gospel is less perfect than the law! On the contrary, in the gospel every duty required is distinctly enjoined. No one need mistake its aLVALuthority, or its nature. That rule is certainly not perfect, to whatever department of life it may pertain, which only sketches general principles, and great outlines, and leaves the details to be supplied by each individual in such manner as may seem to him most proper. The word of God is no such rule. It is perfect. It is disfigured by neither redundancy nor defect. It must be obeyed in all things, without addition, diminution or change. You can never depart from it in any particular, without incurring imminent peril.\par It is proper to remark in passing, that our Pedobapist brethren have yet another method of satisfying themselves that infant baptism is scriptural.\par When, as we have seen, Dr. Woods stated that since, \ldblquote It is a plain case that there is no express precept concerning infant baptism in our sacred writings,\rdblquote and that consequently, \ldblquote The proof that it is a divine institution must be made out in some other way,\rdblquote you were perhaps, at a loss to conceive what that \ldblquote other way \rdblquote could be. By what process can any ordinance be proved \ldblquote a divine institution,\rdblquote in regard to which not a word is said \ldblquote in our sacred writings?\rdblquote No such thing can be done. Since the Bible is our only authority in all cases, the proof proposed is clearly impossible.\par We will, however, hear Dr. Woods. He obtains his proof thus: \emdash \ldblquote It cannot with any good reason, be denied, or doubted, that those Christian writers who have, in different ways, given testimony to the prevalence of infant baptism in the early ages of Christianity, are credible witnesses. Nor can it be denied that they were under the best advantages to know whether the practice commenced in the times of the apostles. On this subject, as they were not liable to mistake, so their testimony is entitled to full credit!\rdblquote 11 This is the method. It is by tradition, vouched by the Fathers, that Protestant Pedobaptists discover that the wLVAL ord of God teaches ordinances which are confessedly not in the word of God! These Protestants will not allow the papists to prove, in the same way, the divine authority for the invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, the use of holy water, and such like institutions,\rdblquote which they can do, readily and fully. They are Popish. But this is Protestant. If, therefore, the Fathers say, this was an apostolic tradition, it was an apostolic tradition! And more; in this matter, these same Fathers were not liable to mistake !\rdblquote Their authority therefore, though entirely worthless when in favor of the Catholics, is when infant baptism is to be proved scriptural, as good at least, as that of the apostles, since of them no more can be said than that they were not liable to mistake ! Who would have supposed that theological professors could have been guilty of reasoning so absurdly? The argument, it would seem, needs not a word of refutation. I would not stop to consider it, if Dr. Woods alone, relied upon such testimonies. But it is a common Pedobaptist resort. I will offer two or three examples.\par Dr. Miller deposes thus regarding tradition: \emdash \ldblquote The history of the Christian church from the apostolic age, furnishes an argument of irresistible force, in favor of the divine authority of infant baptism.\rdblquote He proceeds: \emdash \ldblquote Can the most incredulous reader who is not fast bound in the fetters of invincible prejudice, hesitate to admit, first, that Augustine, and Pelagius, verily believed that infant baptism had been the universal practice of the church from the days of the apostles; and secondly, that situated, and informed as they were, it was impossible that they should be mistaken?\rdblquote 12 These men flourished four hundred years after Christ. The word of God says