Paedobaptism (from παῖς, παιδός, a child, and βαπτισμός, baptism) is applied to the baptism of children or infants in the Christian Church, or what is popularly termed infant baptism. Under the general subject of baptism, it is that part which relates especially to the proper subjects of baptism. SEE BAPTISM.

I. Historical View of the Introduction and Prevalence of Infant Baptism. — The early history of this, as of any other Christian rite, involves, naturally and necessarily, two things: — the idea expressed in the rite, and the rite itself. Each of these must be traced in its historical connection, since, a rite or ordinance is the outgrowth of some idea which it is intended to symbolize. In this instance, the rite is the application of water in a certain way to a child; the idea is a certain relation of children to the Church, namely, that the children of Christian parents, by virtue of their parentage, are brought into such a relation to the Church that they are regarded as in a certain sense within its membership, i.e. just as there is a visible and invisible Church, SEE CHURCH, so there should be recognised a visible and invisible membership; the former being acquired by actual public admission after profession, the latter being acquired by virtue of the descent, and holding good only until the persons enjoying such a membership reach the age of independent action, when it becomes of non- effect unless supplemented by the visible connection. Those entitled to invisible membership are consequently recognised by the Church as fit candidates for baptism, and therefore the rite is administered by the Church when asked for. This historical view of the idea and the rite in the early Church will naturally be taken by two periods — the New Testament or apostolic period, and the period of the fathers.

1. The Idea and the Rite in the New Testament.

(a) The religion of the New Testament is historically, organically, and spiritually connected with the religion of the Old Testament, through the birth, the person, the position, the teaching, and the life and death of Christ. Christ was a Jew, "the son of David, the son of Abraham." He came "not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfil." Many of the religious ideas which Christ proclaimed and fulfilled have their roots in the Old Testament. The idea which is necessarily involved in infant baptism is plainly a prominent one in the Old Testament, in this form, that the children of Jewish parents were members of the religious organization of the Jewish people. The whole people, as the seed of Abraham, were a divinely constituted religious organization. The nation felt itself to be a religious organization in covenant with God. This caused what we call Church and State to be one, making a theocracy, in which what corresponds to Church and to State with us actually existed, though in union. They were "a Church in the form of a nation." It is a historical fact that infant children of Jewish parents were regarded as members of this religious, national organization by virtue of their parentage. The conception of the family in the Old Testament brought children within the covenant which God made with Abraham and his family, and which was continued with all the families of his descendants through Isaac and Jacob, when they became a nation. As a sign of this covenant the children were circumcised.

This idea of the family, bearing so plainly in the Old Testament the mark of divine origin and approval, appears also in the New Testament, and, in the transitional fulfilment of the Old Testament in the religion of Christ, it passed into Christianity and the Christian Church also. It appears at first, of course, because John the Baptist and Christ and his apostles were Jews, and were circumcised in accordance with the old Jewish idea and custom. In the very persons of Christ and his apostles themselves this idea was illustrated in their families, and as they grew up it would naturally become a part of the system of opinions which would be formed by their Jewish education. After the baptism of Jesus, and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon him, and after the day of Pentecost, when the apostles were under the full enlightenment of the Holy Ghost, we do not find this idea rejected explicitly as an unauthorized tradition of the elders, but implied in their actions and utterances, though it had been perverted. As evidence of this, Paedobaptist writers refer to the following incidents and utterances: In Mt 19:1-15, the evangelist has brought together two incidents touching family relations in the kingdom of heaven, as Christ viewed them. One relates to husband and wife, the other to children. In Christ's blessing little children and saying, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," the chief idea present, especially in Mark and Luke, is its illustration of the true Christian disposition. But, at the same time, in .the bringing of the children to him by the mothers, the chief idea on their part is that of some peculiar good coming to their children by persons of saintly character or of high ecclesiastical position putting their hands upon them and blessing them. So thought they of Jesus. In his act and in his words there is a response on his part to this belief of theirs, and in this response there is a recognition, strongly apparent in Matthew, of a peculiar position of children as such in the kingdom of heaven. Calvin well remarks, "Tam parvuli, quam eorum similes." It is a manifestation, on the part of those bringing them, of the long-prevalent idea of children as a part of the theocracy, and Christ recognises it in his kingdom of heaven. Its bearing upon infant baptism lies chiefly in the fact that in this symbolical action of Christ we have a recognition of a principle that is also the basis of baptism. Says Meyer, in his Commentary upon Matthew, "this blessing is a justification of infant baptism." The language of Jesus regarding Zaccheeus contains the same conception of the family as a whole participating in salvation through its head: "This day is salvation come to his house (οἴκῳ, "the family of this house," Meyer), forasmuch as he also is a son of Abraham." Similar also is his language in his directions to his disciples (Mt 10:12-15): "And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it" (comp. Lange, ad loc.). This peculiar theocratic and religious relationship of children, or of posterity in general, if this be assumed as the true sense, suggests doubtless Peter's expression (Ac 2:39), For the promise is unto you and to your children." Again he says, in rehearsing the words of the angel to Cornelius (Ac 11:14): "Who shall tell thee words whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." In the same way Paul and Silas say to the jailer: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house" (Ac 16:31). Later than this, in the time of Paul's epistles, when the Church was more fully organized, most commentators are of opinion that this peculiar relationship of children to Christ and to the Church is contained in Paul's language in his epistles. Thus in Eph 6:1, when he says, "Children, obey your parents in the Lord," as Alford says, "he regards both parents and children as in the Lord" — that is, as being within the sphere of that peculiar fellowship with Christ which this so frequent phrase signifies. This at least is certainly implied, while most commentators think that the reference here is really to baptized children, and that the apostle regards them as belonging to the Church. So Braune and Riddle in Lange, Hofmann, Stier, Schaff, and others. Meyer rejects any reference to baptism, but considers the passage to contain this peculiar relationship of Christian parents and their children: "The children of Christians, even without baptism, were ἃγιοι (see 1Co 7:14; Ac 16:15) through their vital fellowship with their Christian parents" (Com. ib. Eph.). In 1Co 7:14, this idea is very plainly expressed. There Paul says that the children of parents of which only one is a believer are holy and not unclean-that is, they "are not outside of the theocratic fellowship and divine covenant; they do not belong to the unholy κόσμος" (Meyer). They are ἃγιοι, holy-that is, not subjectively sanctified, but consecrated, standing within the fellowship and covenant of the Christian body, just as children under the old Jewish religion were within the fellowship and covenant of the divinely constituted Jewish body. This results: from the union which exists by birth and in the family life between the children and their Christian parents. They are thus included in the fellowship of the Church in a certain real sense, and that without any personal holiness or faith on their part. The manner in which the apostle uses this in his argument shows that it was the established, universally acknowledged view among them at the time. It is, in fact, the conception and relation which existed under the Jewish economy continued in the New-Testament Church. While touching upon this passage, we may notice its value as evidence of the actual practice of infant baptism at the time. Meyer, Kling, and some other modern German writers find in it evidence more or less strong against such practice in the apostolic Church. It is said by Meyer that "if the baptism of children had been in existence, Paul would not have argued as he did, because then the ἁγιότης of the children of believers would have had another ground" — that is, baptism itself, instead of their descent and fellowship in the family. But to this it is replied that it reverses the relation between the rite and the ἁγιότης, or holiness. The Jewish child was circumcised because he was holy, not to make him holy; and if children were baptized at the time, it was because they were holy, or consecrated by their birth in the believing family, not to make them holy; so that, even though children were baptized, their baptism would not be the ground of their holiness, and hence would not be used by Paul in his argument. It may, indeed, be justly said, as does Kling in Lange, that "had such a practice existed. it would be fair to presume that the apostle would have alluded to it here. That he did not affords some reason for concluding that the rite did not exist." But with a true view of the ground and purpose of the argument the reason for such a conclusion becomes much weaker than might otherwise appear. In further proof of the prevalence in the apostolic Church of the idea upon which infant baptism is based, it is evident from Ac 21:21, that Jewish Christians in Paul's time circumcised their children, and probably also for some time after him. Paul in all probability did not oppose it; and the charge brought against him of teaching that they ought not to circumcise their children was "certainly false" (Meyer).

It thus appears from the thought and language of the New Testament that the idea of the peculiar covenant relationship of children of believing parents, so prominent in the Old Testament from Abraham to Christ, passed into the conception of Christianity which Christ and the apostles have given us. The family was an organic unity; the family, as a family, through its head came into the religious organization of the Jews as they stood in covenant with God; the children were members of it at birth, and participators, according to their capacity as they grew up, in the blessings of the covenant which God had made with them. The theocracy of the Old Testament corresponds in its religious ideas and life, and in its organization and rites, with the Church of the New Testament. The Church of Christ is essentially the fulfilment and continuation of the theocracy of the Old Testament. They are one and the same Church. This connection, continuation, and fulfilment are expressed in the genealogies of the New Testament, in Christ's language, as in the Sermon on the Mount, and in Paul's writings, especially in the epistles to the Romans and Galatians, in which he insists on the fulfilment and continuance among believers in Christ of the Abrahamic covenant. Accordingly the family came, as a family could, into that form of the Church which succeeded under Christ, the Messiah. Formerly the children were circumcised as a sign and seal of this fact; subsequently, when baptism became the sign of entrance into the Church, and circumcision fell into disuse, the children would be baptized. This correspondence between circumcision and baptism is mentioned by Paul, Col 2:11-12, in which passage, "buried with him in baptism" (ver. 12) is explanatory of "ye are circumcised," and of "the circumcision of Christ" (ver. 11) (Meyer). SEE CIRCUMCISION, and the citations there made from Justin Martyr, evidently alluding to this passage of Paul, and from Tertullian and others of the fathers, showing that this was their understanding of the New Testament in regard to the relation of the two rites. Whether, therefore, in the instances of baptism recorded in the New Testament, children were actually baptized or not, its language clearly contains the idea and principle from which the practice so soon originated, and upon which it is based in the evangelical churches to-day.

(b) We come now to consider the evidence in the New Testament of the actual baptism of children, of the actual performance of the rite, which is a sign and seal of the idea and fact. Excluding the baptisms by John the Baptist, we have eleven particular instances of baptism mentioned, namely, of two individuals at different times:

[1] the eunuch (Ac 8:38); [2] Saul (Ac 9:18); then households explicitly mentioned: [3] Lydia "and her household" (Ac 16:15); [4] the jailer "and all his" (Ac 16:33); [5] "the household of Stephanas" (1Co 1:16); the remaining instances are: [6] Crispus and Gaius (1Co 1:14); [7] "many of the Corinthians" (Ac 18:8); [8] Cornelius and those with him (Ac 10:48); [9] "they that gladly received his word" (Ac 2:41) on the day of Pentecost; [10] "both men and women" by Philip in Samaria (Ac 8:12); [11] certain disciples who had been baptized "unto John's baptism" (Ac 19:5).

In the first two instances there could have been no children. In the next three the baptism of "a household" is explicitly mentioned, the phrase "all his" being synonymous with household. In the case of Crispus, Paul says (1Co 1:14) that he baptized him; and in Ac 18:8, it is said that "he believed on the Lord with all his house." We have in this instance the inclusion of the household or family with its head in their belief, at least, and most probably they were baptized as the household of Stephanas was. Of Cornelius it is said (Ac 10:2) that he was "one that feared God with all his house." It is not probable that infant children were among the company gathered together to hear Peter speak, nor can we say it is probable that on the occasion of the immediate baptism of those who "heard the word," and upon whom "the Holy Ghost fell," that children were baptized. But this new religious relation of Cornelius would take his house with him, according to the universal conception, as it had done in his devotion to Judaism; and as we have express mention of the baptism of households, as if it were a common custom, it follows with great probability that if there were children in this family, they were baptized, and that it was an instance of "household baptism," as assumed by Schaff (Apost. Church, p. 571). Peter's language on the day of Pentecost has already been noticed in its bearing upon the idea connected with the rite. It has some force also as evidence of the actual practice of infant baptism, from the fact of its being part of an exhortation "to repent and be baptized." In the remaining two instances, of the baptism of "men and women" by Philip, and of the disciples of John the Baptist, there is no implication of the faith or baptism of a family. We have then three instances certainly, and most probably five, out. of eleven instances of baptism in the New Testament, in which households or families were baptized. That οικος and οἰκία and οἱ αὐτοῦ πάντες include children in their general meaning there is no question. That there certainly were children in any of these families cannot be asserted it is only a probability, but in the nature of the case a very strong one, amounting almost to certainty. And when "we reflect that the mention of these households, with nothing to intimate that their baptism was strange or exceptional, implies the baptism of other households besides those mentioned, the question of Bengel expresses no more than the real strength of probability: "Who can believe that in so many families not one infant was found, and that the Jews, accustomed to circumcision, and Gentiles to the lustration of infants, should not have also brought them to baptism?" Conybeare and Howson say, "We cannot but think it almost demonstratively proved that infant baptism was the practice of the apostles." So Lange, Hodge, Schaff, and others.

(c) The presence of the idea or principle upon which infant baptism is grounded, we may say, is an indisputable fact in the New Testament; the evidence of the actual practice of infant baptism can only be said to amount to a very strong probability or a moral certainty. All Baptists assert that there is no ground for this probability. Some eminent historians and critics. also, who are nevertheless paedobaptist in principle, declare that the evidence is against the practice in apostolic times. Thus Neander (Plant. and Training, p. 162) says, "It is in the highest degree probable that the practice of infant baptism was unknown at this period." Meyer also remarks (Con. uber die Apostelgesch. p. 361) that there is no trace of infant baptism to be found in the New Testament. But it is to be noted that while these eminent scholars do not find sufficient evidence of. the actual practice of the rite in the New Testament history, yet both affirm that the conception of the family there actually present was the idea from which it naturally grew, or which logically and historically justifies it. Neander, for example, in speaking of 1Co 7:14, says, "In the point of view here taken by Paul, we find (although it testifies against the existence at that time of infant baptism) the fundamental idea from which the practice was afterwards developed, and by which it must be justified to agree with Paul's sentiments: an intimation of the pre-eminence belonging to children born in a Christian community; of the consecration for the kingdom of God thereby granted them, and of an immediate sanctifying influence which would communicate itself to their earliest development" (Plant. and Train. p. 164). Similarly Kling in Lange, Com. on Corinthians, and Meyer.

We should observe that certain circumstances of the time would affect the practice itself, and the mention of it in historical records. Christianity being preached as a new faith, or as a renewal or revolution of an old faith, it must begin mainly with adults; the work of spreading it would be missionary work, and baptism of adults would be most important and most numerous. It was characteristic of Christians to insist with emphasis upon a living, personal faith in their converts, in contrast to the formal, perverted faith in Abrahamic descent among the Jews, and a formal, superstitious faith among the Gentiles. This makes it appear in most instances as if this personal adult faith were the indispensable condition of entering into the Church in any way, and of baptism. Again, Jewish Christians, as we have noticed, continued to circumcise their children; and although baptism and circumcision were regarded, as we have. seen, as analogous, and as having the same signification, yet there would naturally be some time before this would take full possession of the Jewish mind, and it would be some time also before baptism would entirely supersede circumcision. Further, the idea in accordance with which children would be baptized was so thoroughly inwrought into Jewish thought, and passed so naturally into the thought of the New Testament, that we should not expect to find either the idea or the rite spoken of with that prominence and explicitness which would certainly have been the case had they been something new.

2. Historical Testimony in the Post-Apostolic Church. — The first unquestionably explicit reference to infant baptism in Christian literature occurs in Tertullian's De Baptismo, written about A.D. 202. That this at least is such a reference is universally allowed by Baptists themselves in opposing the practice. Earlier fathers, whose writings are quoted as testifying to infant baptism, are Justin Martyr and Irenseus; but it is disputed by opponents of paedobaptism that the passages quoted imply its existence. In the doubtful and scanty remains of other early writers, as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, the epistles of Ignatius and of Clement of Rome, there are no references to the baptism of children. This silence is looked upon by Baptists as evidence that the practice was unknown; by Paedobaptists as evidence that infant baptism was so generally accepted as not to have been disputed at the time. We present in what follows the passages from Justin Martyr, Irenmus, and Tertullian.

Justin Martyr (born about A.D. 100, died A.D. 166), in his First Apology for the Christians, addressed to the emperor Antoninus Pius, written about A.D. 138, says; "Many persons among us of both sexes, some sixty, some' seventy years old, who were discipled to Christ from childhood (οἵ ἐκ παίδων ἐμαθητεύθησαν τῷ Χριστῷ), continue uncorrupted." Ε᾿κ παίδων may mean from very early childhood, or from infancy, as in Mt 2:16, "from two years old and under." The phrase "were discipled" is the one used by Christ in connection with the word baptizing in the commission in Mt 28:19, the participle βαπτίζοντες expressing the means by which they were made disciples (Meyer, Lange, Alford, Schaff). If, as is most probable, baptism continued to be implied as the means of the μαθητεύειν, then the persons spoken of must have been baptized as παῖδες, perhaps as infants, and that too in the time of some of the apostles. Allusion has already been made to Justin Martyr's association of circumcision and baptism. Writing at so short an interval after the apostles, his association of the two is strong evidence that they were regarded as corresponding in the apostolic Church, as indicated in Col 2:11-12, and evidence that baptism was performed upon children as circumcision had been. In his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, § 29, he says, "What then is circumcision to me, who have a testimony from God? what is the use of that baptism to one that is baptized with the Holy Ghost?" Also § 43: "We have not received that circumcision which is according to the flesh, but a spiritual circumcision; and we have received it by baptism." In § 61 of his Apology, he explains to the emperor "the manner in which we have consecrated ourselves to God." This is an account of baptism, and apparently of adult baptism only. This would lead us to think that infant baptism was not common, but the omission of allusion to it in the account does not give us reason to assert that it was not practiced.

Irenaeus (about A.D. 125-190), a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John, in his Adversus Hoereses, lib. 2, 22, 4, says: "Omnnes enim yenit per semet ipsum salvare; omnes, inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Denum, infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores" (For he came to save all by himself; all, I say, who through him are born again unto God-infants, and little children, and boys, and old men). The testimony of Irenmeus depends upon the meaning of renascuntur in Deum. Paedobaptist writers affirm that lie includes baptism in the meaning as a part of the means by which they are born again; for not only with Ireneus, but with Justin Martyr and others of the fathers, baptism is connected with regeneration as having some mystical, magical, or spiritual agency in effecting it. It is the beginning of baptismal regeneration, resulting from their interpretation of Joh 3:5, "Except a man be, born of water and of the Spirit," and Tit 3:5, "the washing of regeneration." So inseparably associated with regeneration had baptism become; that the word regeneration almost always, included it. Regeneration had come to mean commonly that change which takes place in and through baptism. In proof of baptism being alluded to in the passage quoted, reference is made to another, Adv. Haer. 3, 17, 1: "Et iterum potestatem regenerationis in Deum dans discipulis, dicebat iis, 'Euntes docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti'" (Giving them the power of regeneration to God, he said to them, Go and teach all nations, baptizing them, etc.). Again, 3, 18: "Baptismus tribuit regenerationem" (Baptism imparts regeneration). He used also the phrases "baptism of regeneration," and "bath of regeneration." The conclusion seems to be well founded that Irenaeus in the phrase quoted refers to baptism in speaking of the regeneration of infants. Neander admits no trace of infant baptism earlier than this father, and on this passage remarks, "It is difficult to conceive how the term regeneration can be employed in reference to this age (i.e. infancy), to denote anything else than baptism." The Baptist view of this passage may be seen in the following extract from an article by the Rev. Irah Chase, D.D., in the Bibliotheca Sacra, November, 1849: "According to Irenaeus, Christ, in becoming incarnate, and thus assuming his mediatorial work, brought the human families into a new relation under himself, and placed them in a condition in which they can be saved. In this sense he is the Saviour of all. He became, so to speak, a second Adam, the regenerator of mankind. Through him they are regenerated unto God ('per eum renascuntur in Deum')." Comp. also the Christian Review, June, 1838. But, though this may have been a view of Irenseus, the preponderance of critical opinion is very decidedly in favor of the view that this term in the passage in question, and generally, includes baptism in its meaning.

Tertullian (A.D. 160-240), in his De Baptismo, has, as we have already mentioned, an unmistakable reference to infant baptism as being practiced, which very few Baptist writers are disposed to dispute. This treatise was written A.D. 202. The reference is as follows, in c. 18: "Itaque pro cujusque personae conditione ac dispositione, etiam'aetate, cunctatio baptismi'utilior est: prsecipue tamen circa parvulos. Quid enim necesse est, sponsores etiam periculo ingeri? quia et ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possunt et proventu malse indolis falli. Ait quidem Dominus: Nolite illos prohibere ad me venire (Mt 19:14), veniant ergo, dum adolescunt, veniant dam discunt, dum, quo veniant, docentur; fiant Christiani quum Christum nosse potuerint. Quid festinat innocens aetas ad remissionem peccatorum?" (Therefore, according to every one's condition and disposition, and also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For what need is there that the godfathers should be brought into danger? because they may either fail of their promises by death, or they may be deceived by a child's proving of a wicked disposition. Our Lord says, indeed, "Do not forbid them to come to me;" therefore let them come when they are grown up; let them come when they understand, when they are instructed whither they are to come. Let them become Christians when they are able to know Christ. Why should their innocent age make haste to the forgiveness of sin?) Tertullian thus advocates the delay of baptism in general, and in the case of little children especially. But he speaks of their baptism in such a way as to imply that it was a common practice to baptize them as well as others. It is to be noted that he does not oppose the baptism of infants on the ground of its being an innovation, and not of apostolic origin, but on the ground of its not being profitable or expedient. If he could have spoken of it as an innovation, it is quite certain from the nature of the case, and from his frequent use of this argument in other matters, that he would have done so. If it was a frequent practice at that time, it must have been practiced at least some time before, and must have been regarded as legitimately involved in apostolic teaching and tradition.

From the time of Tertullian's De Baptismo, references to the baptism of children are frequent and unequivocal, establishing the fact that it was a recognised rite in the Church at the time, and was a common though not universal practice. Origen (A.D. 185-253) was himself baptized soon after his birth, and in his homily on Luke 14 he makes this statement, "Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins." He also expressly asserts that "the Church derived from the apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants." Tertullian's opposition seems to have had but little influence. Cyprian, a pupil of Tertullian mentions and advocates infant baptism'. The practice of it is also spoken of by Ambrose, Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen, Augustine; and others. From this time until the rise of a sect called the Petrobrusians in France, about A.D. 1130, it existed in the Church without question. This sect opposed infant baptism because infants, as they said, were incapable of salvation. They maintained themselves, however, only about thirty years; and we hear of no body of men rejecting infant baptism until the rise of the German Antipsedo baptists, A.D. 1522.

The basis of infant baptism, when it appears in the age succeeding the apostles, seems not to have been so much the organic unity of the family, and the participation of children in the covenant relations with their parents, as the belief in the efficacy of baptism to cleanse from sin and to insure the regeneration of the child. SEE REGENERATION.

II. Literature. — Richard Baxter, Plain Scripture Proof of Infants Church Membership and Baptism (1656); Wall, History of Infant Baptism, with Gale's Reflections and Wall's Defence, edited by Cotton (Oxford, 1836 and 1844, 4 vols.); Lange, Die kindertaufe (Jena, 1834); Walch, Historia

Paedobaptismi (ibid. 1739); Williams, Antipaedoboptism Examined (1789, 2 vols.); Dr. Leonard Woods, Works (Boston, 1851), vol. iii; Wardlaw, Dissertation on Infant Baptism (London); J.W. F. Hofling, Das Sakrament der Taufe (Erlangen, 1846, 2 vols.); W. Goode, Efects of Infant Baptism (1851); Edwin Hall, The Law of Baptism (Presb. Pub. Com., Phila.); F. G. Hibbard, Christian Baptism, its Subjects, Mode, and Oblgation (New York, 1845); Rev. Philippe Wolfe, Baptism, the Covenant and the Family (Boston, 1862); Rev. Edward Williams, Practical Reflections on Baptism (Charlottetown, P. E. Island, 1863); Rev. I. Murray, Baptism, its Mode and Subjects (Cavendish, P. E. Island, 1869); S. M. Merrill, Christian Baptism, its Suijects and Mode; H. Martensen, Die christliche Taufe und die baptistische Frage (Hamb. 1843); Dr. H. Bushnell, Christian Nurture (New York, 1868); Rev. N. Doane, Infant Baptism briefly Considered (ibid. 1875); Gray, Authority for Infant Baptism (Halifax, 1837); Rev. H. D. Wickham, Synopsis of the Doctrine of Baptism to the End of the Fourth Century (Lond. 1850). On Origen on infant baptism, see Jour. of Sac. Lit. 1853; Christian Review (Dr. Chase), 1854; Amer. Presb. and Theol. Rev. 1865; Presb. Qu. and Princeton Rev. October, 1873; Southern Presb. Rev. 1873; Amer. Presb. and Theol. Rev. 1867, p. 239, "Irenueus and Infant Baptism." Against Paedobaptism: Gale, Reply to Wall (see above); Booth, Paedobaptism Examined (Lond. 1829 3 vols.); Hinton, History of Baptism (Phila. 1849); Carson, Baptism in its Mode and Subjects (Lond. 1844; 5th ed. Phila. 1857); Pengilly, Scripture Guide tb Baptism (Phila. 1849); John Gill, Infant Baptism, a Part and Pillar of Popery (Phila. Amer. Bapt. Pub. Soc.); J. Torrey Smith, The New Testament and Historical Arguments for Infant Baptism Examined (Phila. do.); The Covenant of Circumcision Considered in Relation to Christian Baptism (ibid.); The Baptist Quarterly, Jan. 1869; Difficulties of Infant Baptism.

See also the works cited by Malcom, Theological Index, s.v. Infant Baptism.

Topical Outlines Nave's Bible Topics International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online King James Bible King James Dictionary

Verse reference tagging and popups powered by VerseClick™.