kingdom of heaven," but also a partaker of the grace of regeneration and the gifts of the Holy Spirit, in the power of which he may fulfil the duties of his high calling in Christ Jesus.

Such has always been the belief of the Catholic Church. Now, seeing that unconsciousness was no bar to admission into covenant with God in the Old Testament, unless children under the New are to be placed in a wholly inferior position, it is no impediment now. Indeed, if Christ had given the least sanction to the idea that little children were ineligible for the kingdom, His enemies, who were always seeking for grounds of accusation against Him, would have eagerly seized upon and pressed this point very strongly, to show the inferiority of Christianity to Judaism. And it is worthy of notice that not only were infants admitted by Circumcision into covenant privileges, but, in the case of proselytes from other religions, infants were actually baptized by the Jews. It is testified to by Maimonides, one of the most learned of their Rabbis, "An Israelite who Hilechoth takes a heathen child, or finds a little heathen babe, iii. 4. and baptizes him, he becomes a proselyte."

When, then, our Lord commanded the Apostles to make disciples of all nations by baptizing them, unless an exception had been expressly made, the

Mikvaoth,

same laws would be observed as had previously been in force. And history affords ample testimony that the Primitive Christians so interpreted His directions. Speaking of persons who must have been born while S. John was living,3 one of the earliest Just. Mart. Fathers says that they had been "made disciples in their childhood." Irenæus, too, asserts that Christ

1 Apol. 15.

Hæres. ii. xxii. 4.

66

came to save all by Himself; all I mean who are regenerated to God by Him: infants and little ones,

Hom. in Luc. boys and youths, and older persons." Origen also

xiv., and

Ep. ad.

Rom. v. 9.

writes, "Infants by the usage of the Church are baptized;" and again, "The Church received a custom handed down from the Apostles to give Baptism even to infants."

Many more passages of Scripture and testimonies from Patristic writings might easily be pressed into the service, but enough has been adduced to afford strong grounds for the assumption that He, Who knew the end from the beginning, rebuked the disciples for keeping little children from coming to Him for His blessing, that He might confirm at the outset their claim to the privileges of the New Kingdom. That laying on of Christ's hands upon the little ones in the coasts of Judæa was a type of the blessings in store for those of every nation who should be gathered into the fold of His Church;

and that single act established the principle "that infants are proper subjects for sacramental influences, and though they may be incapable of understanding God's mercy, they are not incapable of receiving it."

NOTES.

1 S. Luke writes ßpéon, which implies that they were new-born babes.

2 Cf. i. 6.

3 The first Apology has been held by some authorities to have been written as early as 141 A.D., but the most probable date was 147-8. The persons of whom he speaks were, he said, sixty and seventy years old, which take back their birth to time considerably antecedent to the Apostle's death.

4 The arguments usually drawn from the fact of "whole households" being baptized-Acts xvi. 15, 33; 1 Cor. i. 14, 16-is necessarily weak. The most that can be urged is a probability that they included children, which is perhaps somewhat strengthened by the suddenness of their admission. It is hardly likely that whole families of adults would embrace a despised religion in haste; the difficulty is diminished if a portion of them were unconscious children, for whose baptism a conviction was not requisite.

Perhaps the strongest evidence is to be found in the relationship of Baptismal Regeneration to Original Sin. If evil may be received unconsciously, a fortiori good, otherwise the work of the Second Adam is less extensive in its operation than that of the first. Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 22.

XLVII.

The Rich Young Ruler.

S. MARK X. 17-31.

THE name of the young ruler has not been preserved. It was suppressed by the Evangelist, probably out of a tender consideration for his

feelings. It is thought by some that there are sufficient coincidences 1 between his history and that of Lazarus of Bethany to warrant a conjecture as to their identity. They are not, however, strong enough to justify any confident conclusion. All that is certain is that he was a man of wealth and social position, either president of some local synagogue, or a member of the Great Council of the Nation.

As our Lord left the house he ran to meet Him in a state of great excitement, and put to Him a question which he was eager to have solved: "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"

It is said that it was an altogether novel mode of addressing a Rabbi; if so, he could hardly have been surprised that it called forth some observation. He had used the title "good" on the impulse of the moment, and Jesus tried to awaken some serious reflection upon what it really involved. It was not a term to be tossed about as a mere courteous compliment, but one belonging to Him alone Who is absolutely perfect.

It has been strangely supposed that in His reply, "Why callest thou Me good? there is none good but One, that is, God," He repudiated the title, and that it