The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1898-03-19

from adults as a condition of initiation
into the covenant did not prevent in
fants incapable of faith from being
brought into full fellowship and Inherit
ance by circumcision.
Now st. Paul (Coloss. 2-1D compares
cumcision-initiation into the old
covenant-with baptism, the Initiation
into the new covenant. He says: "Ye
are filled in Him (Christ) who is the
head of all principality and power. In
whom also you are circumcised with
circumcision not made by hand in de-
spelling of the body of the flesh, but in
the circumcision of Christ; buried with
him In baptism"
AS they entered into the old covenant
and became heirs of Its promise by cir
cumcision, so they enter into the new
covenant and become heirs of it's prom
ise by baptism. And as children were
capable of circumcision of the flesh in
the old law. so children are capable of
baptism. the circumcision of Christ" in
the new law. To deny this is to say
that children are in worse condition
than were those under the old, prepara-
tory dispensation. This again is equiv
alent to saying that it would have been
better for children if Christ had never
come and suffered and died for them.
But no Christian can say this.
3. Infant baptism is proved by ira
church. This tradition and practice is
| shown by the testimony of early Chris
! tain writer's.
The first witness we shall adduce is
| st. Irenaeus, who was disciple of st,
| Polycarp, who was an immediate dis
ciple of St. John the Evangelist. He
was bishop of Lyons in the year III,
and suffered martyrdom in the perse-
cutions under Septimius Severus in the
year 2O2. He ought to be considered a
reliable witness Of the Christian faith
and practice of his time. He wrote:
"He (ChrisD came to save all men
through himself; ALL repeat, who,
through him. are born again unto God;
infants and childrfu. and boys and
youths and elders. Therefore did re
pass through every age; to infants
made an infant, sanctifying infants;
to children child, sanctifying those OF
that age"
Here it is clear that infants could be
born again unto God" even though
they lacked the capacity to believe or
to be taught, just as they were born
unto the world without that capacity.
Origen, one Of the most eminent of
the early Christian writer's, flourished
about forty years after Irenaeus; that
is, in the year 24O. Reasoning to prove
that all are born in original sin, he
writes: Whence is it that, since the
baptism of the church is given for the
remission of sins, baptism is, accord
ing to the observance of the church,
given even to little children? Since,
assuredly, if there were nothing in lit
tie children which must relate to remis-
sion and pardon, the grace of baptism
would seem. to be superauous" (Tom,
| H., I1OLl. WILL, on LoVltlcuS.)
| Here Origen refers to the practice in
his time of baptizing children, and
makes it the basis of his argument in
proof of original sin. Had the practice
not been common he would not have
argued thus, for his argument could
easily have been refuted by denying the
practice if it did not exist.
Again, in his commentary on the
Epistle to the Romans, he writes: For
this, too. has the church received a ira
dition from the apostles, to give bap-
tism even to children"
St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, in
Africa, in the year $50. was contem-
porary of Origen. In his letter SO adj
Fldum, he wrote: "Now as to the case
OF infants, who, you say, ought not to
be baptized within the second or third
day after birth, and that the law Of an
cient circumcision ought to be had re-
gard to, so that in your opinion the
child born ought not to be baptized and
hallowed within the eighth day, it has
| oSoAleu 1ai oIHeI WISE " all OF us IN
our council. For in what you thought
ought not to be done, not one agreed: !:
but we all, on the contrary, gave our
judgment that to none born of man
was the mercy and grace of God to be
denied"
This dispute whether baptism should
be administered before the eighth day,
! nor ttat dnv. =. :safcyeny; 3sa 1sr,An-
| thony ave.
Meets on LIST and srd Monday ev,oinys 81
| Central Hall, corner of 9Th and 1th sts
Div. No. 4-Pres., Miss Mary l., Smith
$50 Oakdale ave.
Vice-Pres.. Miss Mary f. Tracy. G5n Oak
| dale ave.
Rec. Sec, Miss Emma Henry. III Be,v,-
dere st.
Fin. Sec, Miss Bridget Foley, as1 Wa
| basha ST. "
Treas, Mrs. NJ. Manifold, 22s e. CON-
| gress st.
1ns Sec. Mrs. E. Prcndergast 1co
| Starkey ST. "
Meets on End and 4th Thursday evenings
at st. Michaels School Hall.
Div. No. 5-Pres., Mrs. A. T., Slater 7a3
| Conway st.
Vice-Pres., Mrs. NJ. L. Norton, 91a Ere =
mont st.
Rec Sec, Miss L. K. Rowe, 1896 l.. 4,h st
| Fin. Sec, Miss Barbara McDA enough 104S
| E. 4th st.
Treas, Mrs. NJ Hawkins 1cs Maple st.
1ns. Sec, Miss Bridget McDonough. 1o4s