admitting his doctrine, and embracing faith in him, are gained to Christ, and planted among his disciples, or in his Church; renouncing the world, with its manners but a cordial faith was required, as a pre-requisite of baptism. Neither is this ceremony endowed with any such power or efficacy; but whatever confirmation faith might receive through this rite, must be derived from the Holy Spirit, which was bestowed after baptism, to afford a public evidence of the truth of Christianity, and the effects of which were visible and conspicuous.' "He reckoned also the practice of infant baptism, as a great and hurtful error; particularly because the stress laid upon it by the Calvinists as well as the Papists, disposed them to hold in detestation those who did not approve of it or practise it, whom they could scarcely regard as Christians. It is surprising (says Socinus) how much they depart, in this instance, from Christian charity, and so deviate from the true way of salvation. For what can be more plain, and evident from reason and Scripture, than that to the right administra tion of baptism, it is previously necessary that the baptized person should be a believer? For Christian baptism was administered in the name of Jesus Christ, in whom the baptized person professed to believe, and was by this mode declared to be the disciple of Christ (Acts ii. 38, 41; viii. 16, 37; x. 48; xix. 5), as all the examples and circumstances of the baptism administered by the apostles after the resurrection evidently show; nor doth one example of infant baptism occur in the Scriptures. For as to what some allege as a proof of this, that the baptism of an household or family is several times mentioned, (Acts xxv. 15, 33; 1 Corinth. i. 15;) they do not reflect that this must be understood of those members of a family who were capable of baptism; as is expressly pointed out in the second of these passages. To this let it be added, that to justify such a conclusion, it must be clear from other evidences and circumstances that there were infants in those families; but nothing of this appears.' Opera, tom. i. p. 702. "Whilst Socinus thus discarded the general and prevailing sentiments held by the reformer on the subject of baptism, he likewise disapproved of the opinions of the Unitarian churches in Poland on this head; as appears from a particular tract on manners and errors, and professing that they have for their sole leader and master in religion, and in the whole of their lives and conversations, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who spoke by the apostles; declaring, and as it were representing by their very ablution, immersion, and emersion, that they design to rid themselves of the pollution of their sins, to bury themselves with Christ, and therefore to die with him, and rise again to newness of life: binding themselves down, in order that they may do this in reality; and, at the same time, after making this profession, and laying themselves under this obligation, receiving the symbol and the sign of the remission of their sins, and so far receiving the remission itself. Acts ii. 38. Do infants at all belong to this rite? If you look to the custom of the ancient apostolic Church, and to the end for which this rite was instituted by the apostles, it does not pertain to infants; since we have in the Scriptures no command for, nor any example of, infant baptism, nor are they as yet capable, as the thing itself shows, of the Faith in Christ, which ought to precede this rite, and which men profess by this rite. What then is to be thought of those who baptize infants? this point, and from a letter to Simon Ronemberg, an elder of the church of Racow; in which he endeavours to prove that the Unitarian churches were in a grievous error, and imposed a burden on the brethren, as they would receive none under this character, nor admit them to their communion, who did not in mature life submit to immersion, as an avowal of their faith in Christ." Socini Opera, tom. i. p. 429.-TRANSL.] You You cannot correctly say that they baptize infants. For they do not BAPTIZE them,-since this cannot be done without the immersion and ablution of the whole body in water: whereas they only lightly sprinkle their heads--this rite being not only erroneously applied to infants, but also, through this mistake, evidently changed. Nevertheless, Christian charity incites us, until the truth shall more and more appear, to tolerate this error, now so inveterate and common, especially as it concerns a ritual observance, in persons who in other respects live piously, and do not persecute those who renounce this error 48. What 48 It is to be lamented that this sacred rite, which was appointed by God from heaven (John i. 6, 33; Matth. xxi. 25, 32; Mark i. 2, &c.; Luke iii. 2, 3; vii. 29, 30), sanctioned by the xample (Matth. iii. 15, 16) and by the command (Matth. xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 16) of our Lord, confirmed by the practice of his apostles and of the primitive church (John iii. 22; iv. 1,2; Acts ii. 38, 41; viii. 12, 13, 16, 38; ix. 18; x. 47, 48; xvi. 15, 33; xviii. 8; xix. 5; xxii. 16), and held in high esti mation by their successors in every age; should be by some wholly done away, and by others (as is here justly intimated) shamefully changed by human comments. That infant baptism was not in use in the primitive churches, and that none but Catechumens (that is, persons who had been instructed) were baptized, will clearly appear from an examination of the writings of the ancients. The words of Tertullian, in his book on Baptism, are well known; wherein, adverting to Matthew (chap. xix. ver. 14), he would have little children' come to Christ in order to be TAUGHT-but not to be BAPTIZED, until after they had understood the design of baptism. Similar language may be found in his book De Corona Militis. See also the epistle of Victor bishop of Rome to Theophilus bishop of Alexandria; and likewise Walfredus Strabo, De Rebus Eccles. cap. 26. To the same purpose writes Erasmus, Paraphr. in Matth, xxviii. et Act. ii. But the point for What is to be thought of those who conceive that men are regenerated by this rite? That which we contend is most clearly proved by the sixth canon of the celebrated Council of Neocæsarea, held A.D. 315; where the question was discussed, whether the foetus were baptized at the same time as the pregnant mother? It was thus decreed—“ A pregnant woman may be baptized whenever she wishes for there is in this nothing common to the parent with the foetus; because the personal intention of each must be shown by their profession." The same thing is also evinced by examples :-thus Gregory Nazianzen-whose father was a bishop, and who was for a long while educated under his direction-was not baptized until he had attained the age of manhood. So likewise Chrysostom-born of Christian parents on both sides, and instructed by Meletius, a bishop-was baptized at the age of twenty-one. Thus also Basil the Great, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, the emperor Theodosius-all born of Christian parents, and educated in the Christian religion-were not baptized till they were of adult age. The first canon respecting the necessity of infant baptism was made at the Council of Carthage, commonly called Milevitanus, held A.D. 418. Even among more modern authorities, many per sons, in other respects our adversaries, admit that infant baptism is not grounded on the Holy Scriptures, and was not practised by the ancients. Such as L. Vives in Augustinè De Civit. Dei, l. v. c. 27; Polydore Vergil de Invent. Rer. l. iv. c. 4; Bellarmine, tom. i. lib. 4, c. 3 et 4; Zwinglius, lib. de Sedit. Author. et Artic. 18, de Confirm. Brentius Prol. in Catechesin. Peter Martyr Comm. in 1 Cor. i. 5; Bullinger Dec. 2, Ser. 1. The Remonstrants in their "Apology," p. 358, &c. G. Cassander, in his book on the Baptism of Infants, confesses that it was introduced in the third century. But above all are deserving to be read in proof of this, Grotius on Matth. xix. 14, and Episcopius Institut. sect. i. c. 14: also M. Czechovicius's book on this subject; and the thirty-six arguments of the Transylvanians against infant baptism, subjoined to the Albanian Controversy. After the practice of infant baptism was admitted into the churches, the mode of administering this ordinance was also clearly changed. For it is very evident that this sacred rite ought to be administered in no other way than by immersion, and that That they greatly err:-for regeneration is the changing of our reason, will, and affections, and the that it was so administered from the earliest antiquity. The celebrated Grotius comprises the reasons for this in the following brief observations in his Commentary on Matth. iii. 6. Mersatione, non perfusione, agi solitum hunc ritum, indicant et vocis (nimirum Barril) proprietas, et loca ad eum ritum delecta. Joh. iii. 23; Act. viii. 31, et allusiones multæ apostolorum, quæ ad aspersionem referri non possunt. Rom. vi. 3, 4; Coloss. ii. 12. Serius aliquanto invaluisse videtur mos perfundendi, sive aspergendi, in eorum gratiam, qui in gravi morbo cubantes, nomen dare Christo expetebant, quos cæteri xλs vocabant, vide Epist. Cypriani ad Magnum. Quod autem TINGERE pro BAPTIZARE usurpant Latini veteres, mirum videri non debet, cum Latinè TINGENDI vox et propriè et plerumque idem valeat quod MERSARE. "That this rite used to be performed by immersion and not by sprinkling, is indicated by the signification of the word (Barry), by the place chosen for the ceremony, and by many allusions of the apostles, which cannot be referred to sprinkling. Somewhat later the custom of pouring or sprin kling seems to have obtained in accommodation to those who, while labouring under severe disorders, wished to give their names to Christ, whom others denominate xλ85, Clinics. See Cyprian's Epistle to Magnus-That the ancient Latins should use tingere, to sprinkle,-instead of baptizare, ought not to excite our surprise, as in the Latin language the verb tingere pro perly and most frequently signifies the same as mersare-to dip or immerse." Thus far Grotius:-to which may be added, that the mode of baptizing in use among the Jews was by the immersion of the whole body. On which point may be consulted Grotius on Matt. iii. 16, and on Mark vii. 4. And to the same purpose are Erasmus in his Paraphrase, and Beza in his Annotations on this place; also Hammond on Matth. iii. 1, and Lightfoot Hora 46. Buxtorf likewise, among others, treats largely of this subject in his work de Synagog. Jud. It ought, above all, to be considered, that for such a baptism as now commonly obtains, there could be no necessity for going to a river, or for descending into, and coming out of, the water, as was the case in respect to Christ and others, It was |