Your ShelfYour Projects

Review and Herald, Vol. 51, No. 22.

THE LOVE OF GOD

Review and Herald

May 30, 1878

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · May 30, 1878

THE LOVE OF GOD.

By H. D. Hollenbeck

BY ELD. H. D. HOLLENBECK.
TEXT: “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead. And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” 2 Cor. 5:14, 15.
The remarks this morning will be especially suggested by the first verse of the text: “The love of Christ constraineth us.” This is a great subject. We cannot bring out as many thoughts on it as we would like to do. We may have occasion to refer you to a few of the prominent points made last Sabbath; because they cannot be too deeply fixed in our minds.
We will consider five points: 1. What is the love of God in us? 2. Why did Christ love us? 3. What need is there that we should have the love of Christ in our hearts? 4. What assurance have we in the Bible that we may have it? 5. On what conditions may we have this blessing?
I. I need not try to tell you what love is. It would be in vain. If I were to ask you what light is, you could not tell me. Should I ask you what matter is, you could not tell me. You would say, “Matter is the basis of all things.” Many people say that light is some kind of emanation. Perhaps the best definition is that given in the Bible,—“Whatsoever maketh manifest is light.” That is all you could tell me. You could not define light.
It is the same with love. We say it is the grandest, the noblest, of human attributes; and it is the grandest, the noblest, of God’s attributes. We know love best by its manifestations. Then how has God’s love been manifested? It is known by its fruits, just as faith is known by works. God has manifested his love to us in giving us his Son. This we learn in 1 John 4:9: “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.”
Now there is something very practical about God’s word,—wonderfully so. God talks about love, and seems to take it for granted that if there is love it will necessarily manifest itself.
Our text says that the love of Christ constraineth us; and we are going to examine the love of God, and see if we have a similar manifestation of it in our minds; and that will be a good way to find out whether we have the love of Christ or not, for we may be mistaken about the matter. Jesus says that many will say to him in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?” And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you.” There is no reason why we should be disappointed in that day if we rely on God’s word; but many take feeling, or impressions, or the words of somebody else, and base their faith on these, and thus they fail. And we may fail in the same manner.
Then let us look at the word of God and see how his love manifests itself, and see if these elements are found in the heart. Love is something called forth by the object beloved. There must be something in the object capable of calling out this element. I do not know as this is orthodox, but it is scriptural. The qualities that call it forth must either exist really or in imagination. When they are imaginary, love is vain. The bee is called forth from the hive by the coming of spring; but sometimes it imagines it to be spring and comes forth and perishes. Love must be reciprocated, or it cannot benefit us. Where love is not returned, there is a lack of harmony. We cannot reciprocate God’s love if we have not his Spirit. This will be more manifest as we proceed in the discourse. I make these remarks simply as a basis on which to build certain conclusions.
How is God’s love made manifest? “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” The love of God for this world is the same as that of Christ. I do not know why I need to say this, unless it is because some think that the love of God and the love of Christ are somewhat antagonistic; that Christ did some things that God would not have done. But no; this is not true. “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.” Such was the love of God; and the love of Christ harmonized with it.
How did Christ manifest his love for us? 1. Christ denied himself. That is a wonderful thought; and we cannot comprehend its depth, and length, and breadth. God’s self-denial was equally as great. If you should send your son where you knew he would suffer from cold, and hunger, and destitution, would it not cost you great self-denial? Then you have but a faint idea of God’s self-denial. Christ was willing to forego the joy and glory that he had with the Father and the angels, and become poor, and hungry, and tired,—and for what object? Some people can do all that with some selfish aim in view; but with Christ there was no selfishness. It was all for our sins. My friends, let us look into our hearts, and see if these characteristics are there. It is not enough for us to be Seventh-day Adventists in word. It is not enough for us to believe that the coming of the Lord is near. How much of that self-denial is manifested in us? How many pleasures that we could enjoy just as well as not are we giving up that others may come to Christ? I ask myself these questions; and the thought makes me cry, “Woe is me; for I am unclean.”
2. Love prompted Christ to become of no reputation. “Though he was rich, yet for our sakes he became poor.” Reputation is a tender point with all of us. We can endure almost anything else better than loss of reputation; yet Christ gave all into his Father’s hands. But, parents, let me appeal once more to you. If you knew your son was going out into the world, and would be considered a vagabond, a thief, and an impostor, would it not require a struggle to let him go? You might have no doubt that he would remain faithful and true, but would you want his reputation lowered in the estimation of others? Then think of the love of God infinitely nobler, purer, and deeper in its immensity than ours; and yet he sent his Son, knowing that he would be of no reputation in the world. He did that for you and me.
How is it with us, brethren and sisters? Let us look into our hearts. Sometimes people are so much afraid of their reputation that they shun speaking to the poor, and those who are inferior in intellect. I am afraid that all Seventh-day Adventists are not exceptions to this rule, and that there are some who pass persons by because they are poor, or have poor intellects. My friends, pause, consider. God has revealed some things to babes that he has hidden from the wise and prudent. It were better for you that a mill-stone were hanged about your neck, and that you were cast into the sea, than that you should offend one of these little ones. There is danger! There is a great temptation, when we meet persons who we think cannot appreciate our great intellects (and we are apt to think ourselves greater than we are), to shun them. We say, “Let them go with their kind; I cannot afford to stop to talk with them.” Do you not know that you might give your poor brother a little comfort, that you might make him a little stronger, if you should occasionally give him a few words of counsel? We may make such persons better by our association and sympathy.
I believe Christians sometimes shun those who they know have done wrong. They say, “I had better be careful, I had better not be in their society very much.” But if you go with the right motive, you will not be harmed. It never stained our dear Lord’s hands when he touched the leper. It never stained his dear lips when he said to the sinful woman, “Go, and sin no more.” It was no disgrace to him to go to the poor and lift them up, though they were sunken in sin. Dear friends, it is no disgrace for you to be in the company of those who are downcast and outcasts, if you associate with them to teach them of God, and something of the mind which was in Christ Jesus.
3. The love of Christ prompted him to be earnest and active in his Father’s work. When you go home, I wish you would read the whole of the first chapter of Mark, and see what Jesus did in one day. That is not given because it is an exception, but to show how much work he crowded into a day. The text says, “The love of Christ constraineth us.” Do you know what that means? Have you seen the great iron engine, with its massive machinery, dragging thousands of tons at the pace of the winds? What propelled it? There was something in it that urged it forward. The steam constrained or pushed it; and when love is in the heart it pushes us into the work of God. It constrains; it impels.
It was an ardent, burning love that constrained Christ. And then he knew that he had only three years and a half in which to do his work. Well, you say, why did he not keep perfectly composed about it, inasmuch as he knew that as soon as his work was done his disciples would take his place, and do greater works than he had done, as he had promised them? But love is not contented with proxy work. Love says, I want to work. Christ wanted to say, with his own lips, to as many as possible, within three years and a half, “God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved.” He wanted to say, with his own lips, to as many as possible, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” He wanted to say to as many as possible, “Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise cast out.” That is the reason he was so earnest.
Brethren and sisters, think a moment. He knew he would have three years and a half in which to work; but how much time do you know you will have? You are not sure of one day. Perhaps to-morrow you will have spoken the last word that you can speak to win souls to Christ and his truth. Perhaps before to-night you will have made the last attempt you can ever make to win that child of yours from Satan to God.
Constraining love! When my parents first moved to Iowa, there was a great deal of sickness there; and I have heard mother say that often she has been so sick as to be unable to walk, yet she urged herself about the house to cook something for the children to eat. What gave her power to do this? Oh, she was a mother. She said, “I must; these children must not suffer.” When love says must, there is wondrous meaning in it. Who but a mother could have done this? This thought makes still more forcible the words of the Saviour, “I must work while the day lasts.” He said, “I must;” and he had strength given by the Spirit of God; and we shall be thus strengthened, if Christ’s love is in our hearts.
4. The last thing I wish to notice in the manifestations of Christ’s love is, that it prompted him to tell the whole truth, and that is not always a pleasant thing to do. There are many interesting things that he might have spoken about; but he taught what was most important for the people to know. For instance, he might have told them whether the moon was inhabited or not, or he could have told them about Saturn’s rings. He could have told them whether the corpuscular or undulatory theory of light is correct. And then he could have talked of Heaven, of its flowers and its wondrous scenery, the many mansions, and the splendor of the city flashing in the light of God. He did not say anything of these things. He knew that scientists would quarrel and quibble over them. He knew it would be better for them to get scientific facts by investigation than for him to tell them; so he taught them truths that they could only receive by revelation.
He told them many unpleasant things, and love constrained him to do it. He talked to a church of backsliders; and he knew just what every preacher of the gospel knows, that if there are any in this world who are difficult to reach, they arethose that come into the church, and yet are not converted. They say, “I am a member of the church. I believe these things;” but that is not sufficient. They say, “I know it;” but that is as far as they go. It is almost impossible to make them feel that they need vital godliness. Those in this state must be talked to plainly. He said to them, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.” “What! what! We are Jews.” “Ye shall all likewise perish.” “But we are Abraham’s seed.” “YE SHALL ALL LIKEWISE PERISH.” “We have the promises of God.” “YE SHALL ALL LIKEWISE PERISH.” Again and again, in various forms, he taught these lessons in ceaseless anxiety, vigilance, and love. Thus he did his work; and a few honest souls saw the truth, and came out and embraced it.
Love prompts us to be honest, plain, sincere, and frank; but when we tell the truth, tell it in a loving spirit. I am afraid sometimes that our theory gets a little in advance of our love; then the effect is disastrous indeed. Keep love ahead, brethren and sisters. If your theory is a little behind your love, it is all the better. If your heart is full of love, the more theory you have the better. You can burn your way into people’s hearts.
II. The next thing I wish to notice is, Why did Christ love us? We cannot fully answer this question. He loved God, hence was in sympathy with him; therefore, he loved us. From this consideration we can see why Christ arranged his statements as he did in the summary of the commandments: 1. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart; 2. and thy neighbor as thyself. This is a wise arrangement; because just as soon as we love God with all our heart, we love our neighbor as ourself. And that is why love constrained Christ to do his work. Thus you see why his love was manifested to us in harmony with God’s love. Notice how his love to the Father was manifested. 1. He obeyed him. “I have kept my Father’s commandments.” 2. He loved to commune with him. Remember his hours of secret prayer,—at midnight, before it was day.
Let us continue to compare these manifestations with those of our own lives, that we may know whether or not our love to God is genuine. He loved to read God’s word. How his mind was stored with its teachings. He loved to talk about God. It is easy, and a pleasure, for us to talk of those we love. He often sought occasion to speak of God. For example, when he met the woman of Samaria at the well, he skillfully introduced the subject that was dearest to his heart,—the sincere worship of God.
He made God prominent, and kept himself in the background. This is another wonderful proof of his love to God. He said he came not to do his own will, but the will of his Father. He came to glorify God. He said, “I have glorified thee on the earth.” Again, “The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” These are some of the proofs that he loved God. No wonder that he loved us so.
III. What need is there that we should have the love of Christ in our hearts? We all need it, in order to be successful Christians. Without it, to use a homely, but I think a forcible expression, it is “up-hill business” to perform the outward duties of a Christian. It is tugging work. No wonder, my brother, that you quit reading the Bible, if you read it simply for outward show, and from grit. No wonder that you quit talking about the Bible and present truth, if you talked of these things simply because you felt it your duty so to do. There is too much friction about such service. Some people have enough will-power to perform it; but they accomplish little in benefiting themselves or others. It merely shows how much determination they have. It might be called stamina. If they were fully consecrated to God, this disposition would prove a blessing. If the love of Christ dwells in the heart, although it may try the flesh, although we may suffer the loss of all things, and of reputation, we can glory in the cross of Christ and in tribulation. It is easy to live out the truth when love constrains us. We must have the love of Christ if we are ever saved. God says we must love him; and that is the first commandment; and when once we have his love, we can love him with all our hearts. A mere outward obedience cannot save us. Love must be the basis of all our obedience, and then it is acceptable to God.
IV. Can we have the love of Christ? Christ made the greatest sacrifice that we might have this love. In John 17:26, Jesus says, “And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it; that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them.” Oh, wonderful thought! But Jesus says so, so it must be true.
Paul says in Eph. 3:17–19, “That Christ may dwell in your heart by faith, that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fullness of God.” Now please notice with me 2 Cor. 5:15: “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.” If Christ has paid such a price that we might have his love, will he fail to impart it to us if we comply with his conditions?
V. This brings us to the last point,—on what conditions may we receive the love of Christ? This is an important question. We have seen that we must have the love of Christ, and what its manifestations must be. Now I will refer you to Rom. 5:5: “And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” This partially answers the question. The Holy Ghost sheds God’s love abroad in our hearts. If we can know on what conditions we may receive the Holy Ghost, we shall have the desired answer. It is a valuable secret. To know how we can have the love of Christ in the heart is worth more to us than ten thousand worlds; more than the universe. Read Acts 5:32: “And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.” We have it. The valuable secret is ours. Then if we obey God he will give us the Holy Ghost; and if he gives us the Holy Ghost, the love of God will be shed abroad in our hearts. Oh, wondrous chain! Oh, wondrous links! Oh, wondrous gems of truth! May they be ours. May we profit by their possession.
Now one more thought. Love elevates. Many a poor boy, vicious, dull, and stupid, has been raised and strengthened by the consciousness that some one still loved him. He has said, “Is it possible that mother, who is so noble and pure, loves me, although I am so sinful and obstinate?” Then fairly shaking himself, he says, “See here, I must become worthy of her love. I will be a man.” It has given courage to many a poor man who was sinking deeper and deeper into ruin and debauchery, to hear some one say, “My brother, look here; you can be a man yet.” Such expressions give him more than Herculean strength. He says, “I can! I will conquer!”
If the consciousness of a mother’s love could awaken a man from torpor and vice, what ought the consciousness of God’s love to do? My friends, more than a mother loves you. God loves you,—God, the King of kings and Lord of lords. Intelligences greater than your mother, greater than any in this earth, love you. He who made all things by the word of his power loves you. Sinner, he loves you. Yes, I mean what I say. You who have never known God, God loves you. Look up! Be strong! Throw away your sins. He wants you to be worthy of him. He wants you to walk with him; and he will fill you with divine strength, if only you will obey him. Oh, let this thought give us grander inspirations, and aspirations to that which is nobler and purer and better, that at last we may meet on the sea of glass.
“Oh, chorus of fire That shall burst from God’s choir, As the loud hallelujah leaps up from the soul; Until the flowers on the hills, And the waves on the rills, Shall tremble with joy in the music’s deep roll.”
And through eternity, you and I will never sing a sweeter song than, “To Him who hath loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, and made us kings and priests unto God, to Him be honor and dominion forever. Amen.”

SANDALPHON

By Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

Have you read in the Talmud of old, In the legends the Rabbins have told Of the limitless realms of the air, Have you read it,—the marvelous story Of Sandalphon, the Angel of Glory, Sandalphon, the Angel of Prayer?
How, erect, at the outermost gates Of the City Celestial he waits With his feet on the ladder of light, That, crowded with angels unnumbered, By Jacob was seen, as he slumbered, Alone in the desert at night?
The Angels of Wind and of Fire Chant only one hymn and expire With the song's irresistible stress; Expire in their rapture and wonder, As harp-strings are broken asunder By music they throb to express.
But serene in the rapturous throng, Unmoved by the rush of the song, With eyes unimpassioned and slow, Among the dead angels, the deathless Sandalphon stands listening breathless To sounds that ascend from below;—
From the spirits on earth that adore, From the souls that entreat and implore In the fervor and passion of prayer; From the hearts that are broken with losses And weary with dragging the crosses Too heavy for mortals to bear.
And he gathers the prayers as he stands, And they change into flowers in his hands, Into garlands of purple and red; And beneath the great arch of the portal, Through the streets of the City Immortal, Is wafted the fragrance they shed.
It is but a legend, I know,— A fable, a phantom, a show, Of the ancient Rabbinical lore; Yet the old mediæval tradition, The beautiful, strange superstition, But haunts me and holds me the more.
When I look from my window at night, And the welkin above is all white, All throbbing and panting with stars, Among them majestic is standing Sandalphon the angel, expanding His pinions in nebulous bars.
And the legend, I feel, is a part Of the hunger and thirst of the heart, The frenzy and fire of the brain, That grasps the fruitage forbidden, The golden pomegranates of Eden, To quiet its fever and pain. —Longfellow.

HISTORY AND TRINE IMMERSION.

By Joseph Harvey Waggoner

BY ELD. J. H. WAGGONER.
(Continued.)

BAPTISM IN THE FIRST CENTURIES.

If the example of the church in the first centuries is of any weight or importance as indicating our duty in regard to baptism, it can only be because they preserved it in purity. For if they did not preserve it pure—if they perverted and corrupted it—then their example should be avoided, and not followed. We shall now give abundant reasons for not only distrusting the acknowledged teachers and leaders of the early centuries, but turning away from them with feelings of pity for their blindness and folly, if, indeed, we are not led to indulge stronger feelings than those of pity.
Bingham gives the various titles which were given to baptism, going back as early as Tertullian. It was called “absolution,” for an evident reason; “regeneration of the soul;” “illumination,” because it was supposed to impart a knowledge of divine things to the understanding; “salvation,” because it was supposed to be necessary to salvation and to insure it; “the sign of God,” “character Dominicus,” because the character of the Lord was supposed to be imparted to the subject! “It was a saying that baptism washes away all sins.” It was for this reason that Constantine for thirteen years after he professed Christianity refused to be baptized, only requesting it on his death-bed, thus to make sure that his sins might all go together, as if to “compound his felonies” with Heaven! It was considered useful for physical as well as spiritual disorders; as a cure for diseases. Bingham relates that those who had no interest in Christianity themselves used to carry their infants to the bishops for baptism, in order to preserve them from diseases. It is said of Novatus, “From a hope of recovering his health he professed Christianity.” “He was baptized in his bed when apparently about to die.” Such were the views of baptism in the second, third, and fourth centuries.
Connected with it, and as necessary to the full performance of baptism as “trine immersion,” was “the renunciation.” And Bingham says, “The antiquity of this renunciation is evidenced from all the writers that have said anything of baptism.” If antiquity gives authority or makes it apostolical, then this ceremony must be accepted! Bingham gives Dionysius as his authority, thus:—
“In another place he thus describes the whole ceremony: The priest makes the person to be baptized to stand with his hands stretched out toward the west, and striking them together (the original denotes collision, or striking them together by way of abhorrence); then he bids him thrice exsufflate, or spit, in defiance of Satan; afterwards, thrice repeating the solemn words of renunciation, he bids him thrice renounce him in that form; then he turns him about toward the east, and with his hands and eyes lift up to Heaven, bids him enter into covenant with Christ. Vicecomes thinks this triple renunciation was made, either because there were three things which men renounced in their baptism, the devil, his pomps, and the world; or to signify the three persons of the Trinity, by whom they were adopted as sons upon their renouncing Satan,” B. 11, chap. 7, § 3 and 5; § 4 says “it was accompanied with some other ceremonies.”
Then there were the unction, signing with the cross, and the consecration of the water.
“The bishop begins the unction by thrice signing him with the sign of the cross, and then commits him to the priests to be anointed all over the body, whilst he goes and consecrates the water in the font.”—Id.
“—The unction of confirmation, which was then usually the conclusion of baptism, both in adult persons and infants; and many of the passages which speak of the sign of the cross in baptism, do plainly relate to this, as an appendage of baptism, and closely joined to it, as the last ceremony and consummation of it.”—B. 11, chap. 7, § 4.
And § 3 says, “The water of baptism was signed with the sign of the cross.”
There is no doubt that the ceremony of consecrating and crossing the water had much to do in building up the idea of the wondrous effects of the water of baptism, both physically and spiritually. Thus Chrysostom said:—
“They who approach the baptismal font are not only made clean from all wickedness, but holy also and just. Although a man should be foul with every human vice, the blackest that can be named, yet should he fall into the baptismal pool, he ascends from the baptismal waters purer than the beams of noon.” See Coleman, Ancient Chris. Exemplified, pp. 368–9.
There was a regenerating and saving power ascribed to the consecrated waters. Neander says:—
“Chrysostom specifies ten different effects of grace wrought in baptism; and then he complains of those who make the grace of baptism consist simply in the forgiveness of sin.”—Vol. 2, p. 665.
This superstition of consecrating and crossing the water dates as early as the age of Tertullian. Of its efficacy he thus speaks:—
“All waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from himself, and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying.”—Tertullian on Baptism, chap. 6.
This mass of nonsensical mockery is traced to the second century, almost to the very time of the apostles!
Tertullian also mentions sponsors in baptism and penance for sins after baptism. He is the first writer who mentions them, and also some other errors; but his mention proves that such customs existed in Africa in his day.
We have said that Tertullian first mentions sprinkling for baptism, and quoted from him wherein he relates that the candidate was both immersed and sprinkled. There seems to be no doubt that sprinkling was first introduced, with many other things herein related, as an addition to baptism, and not altogether as a substitute for it. But such additions or appendages soon supplant the original, as man, in the pride of his heart, ever tries to introduce his own institutions as an improvement of the Lord’s plan. The following words of Tertullian do clearly show that, in his day, sprinkling was considered sufficient to fulfil the act of baptism. They are concerning a controversy as to whether the apostles were baptized by other than John’s baptism. He says:—
“Others make the suggestion—forced enough, clearly—that the apostles then served the turn of baptism when, in their little ship, they were sprinkled and covered with the waves; that Peter himself also was immersed enough when he walked on the sea. It is, however, as I think, one thing to be sprinkled or intercepted by the violence of the sea; another thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion. . . . Now whether they were baptized in any manner whatever, or whether they continued unbathed to the end,” &c.—Tertullian on Baptism, chap. 2.
Reading these remarks, we must bear in mind that Tertullian does not speak against sprinkling itself, but against the occasion referred to, as not being in “the discipline of religion.” For he elsewhere shows that sprinkling was then practiced in baptism, and his words, “baptized in any manner whatever,” show that one particular manner was not then deemed essential.
Also in his book on Repentance, chap. 6, urging a genuine repentance, he says:—
“For who will grant to you, a man of so faithless repentance, one single sprinkling of any water whatever?”
The prevalence of infant baptism at this early day cannot be fairly questioned. The historical evidence on this point is very full and explicit. Tertullian himself did not favor the baptism of infants, not because he did not regard the ordinance in the same light in which it was regarded by others, but he held the same view which afterward influenced Constantine. However, where death was to be apprehended he thought they ought to be baptized. Bingham draws a just conclusion from Tertullian’s opposition to it, thus:—
“Of his own private opinion he was for deferring the baptism of infants, especially where there was no danger of death, till they came to years of discretion; but he so argued for this, as to show us that the practice of the church was otherwise.”—B. 11, chap. 4, § 10.
We should not overlook this important fact, right here, that, though the words of Tertullian prove the practice of infant baptism, they equally prove that he did not consider it of authority higher than tradition. Had he believed that it was in accordance with a Scripture commandment, he certainly would not have argued against it.
We think there is no room to doubt that “the practice of the church” in the second century, especially in Africa, the home of Tertullian, was to baptize infants.
Cyprian argues in its behalf thus, in his letter to Titus:—
“Who comes for that reason more easily to receive forgiveness of sins, because they are not his own but other men’s sins, that are forgiven him.”—Id., § 12.
This unscriptural idea, well worthy of the darkness and superstition of the age in which it originated, is held to this very day by Protestant churches which practice infant baptism.
Origen also uses this custom as an argument for the sinfulness of infants! A stronger evidence that the custom prevailed could not be required. Bingham quotes Origen’s views on this point and remarks as follows:—
“It may be inquired, What is the reason why the baptism of the church, which is given for the remission of sins, is, by the custom of the church, given to infants also? Whereas if there were nothing in infants that wanted remission and indulgence, the grace of baptism might seem needless to them. . . . Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins.” He affirms, that the church received the order of baptizing infants from the apostles.”—B. 11, chap. 4, § 11.
Cyprian and his colleagues in council decided that infants might be baptized as soon as born, lest they should die without baptism. Cyprian’s own words in defense of this are these:—
“As far as we can, we must strive that, if possible, no soul be lost.”—Cyprian, vol. 1, p. 198.
This shows that it was the belief in that early age that unbaptized infants were lost. And all this they professed to derive from the teachings of Christ and his apostles!
With infant baptism came infant communion. The Greek Church, that pattern of Christian faith and practice in the eyes of trine immersionists, yet retains both these rites handed down from the early fathers. St. Augustine, and others whose evidence is relied upon to prove the validity of three immersions, advocated infant communion. Dr. Schaff calls it “the incongruous system of infant communion, which seemed to follow from infant baptism.” It naturally followed infant baptism, and accompanied it in the practice of the whole church for about six hundred or seven hundred years. By the whole church, we mean all embraced in the communion of Rome. But it is no more incongruous, no more unscriptural, than infant baptism. And this was ancient as well as general. Quoting from Cyprian, Bingham says:—
“Here we may observe that children were made partakers of the eucharist (which Cyprian calls the meat and drink of the Lord); and this is evident from other passages of the same author; which is a further evidence for the practice of infant baptism; for it is certain that none but baptized persons were allowed to partake of the eucharist at the Lord’s table.”—Antiquities, b. 11, chap. 4, § 12.
Dr. Schaff seems to think it had the strongest hold among the North African churches. It is highly probable that it took its earliest hold there; but the evidence clearly shows that it became as general as infant baptism or three immersions, or three aspersions; for it is true that three sprinklings or three pourings were admitted, as well as three immersions.
The reader will readily agree with us that this is enough on this subject. The early church, even in the second century, did not retain baptism in the purity of the gospel. They with it connected an almost inconceivable number of rites, some of them of the most ridiculous form and nature. Therefore it is beyond all question true that we do not safely appeal to them for the true practice—the gospel form, and apostolic practice—of baptism.
(Concluded next week.)

Christ's Incarnation and Our Consolation

“Made in the likeness of men.” (Phil. 2: 7.) Christ’s incarnation is Israel’s consolation; for all sound comfort stands in happiness, all happiness in fellowship with God, and all fellowship with God is through Christ; who, for this cause, became man, that he might reconcile God to man and man to God; he became little that we might be great; the Son of man that we might be the sons of God.
Continue reading: A WONDERFUL BOOK