doubtful. Some there were, from that saying of our Lord, Suffer little children to come to me,' (to whom, nevertheless, our Lord did not command water to be ministered,) who took occasion to baptize new born infants. And as if they had been transacting some secular affair with God, they offered sponsors or sureties to Christ, who engaged that they should not depart from the Christian faith when adult; which practice displeased Tertullian." In Mr. Stennett's Answer to Mr. Russen, p. 74, 75. 9. Dr. Holland." In the first plantation of Christianity amongst the Gentiles, such only as were of full age, after they were instructed in the principles of the Christian religion, were admitted to baptism." In Dr. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. part ii. chap. ii. p. 281. 10. Cattenburgh." Though it cannot be unanswerably proved, that infant baptism was practised from the beginning of Christianity; yet its original is to be derived much higher than those learned men, Episcopius and Limborch, have admitted."* Spicileg. Theol. Christ. p. 1059. 11. Wolfgangus Capito." In the first times of the church no one was baptized, nor received into the holy communion of Christians, till after he had given himself up entirely to the word and authority of Christ." Apud Schyn Hist. Mennonit. p. 170. 12. Venema.-"It is indeed certain, that Pædobaptism was practised in the second century; yet so, that it was not the custom of the church, nor the general practice; much less was it generally esteemed necessary that infants should be baptized....Tertullian has no where mentioned Pædobaptism among the tradi * Episcopius denies that any tradition can be produced for Pædobaptism, till a little before the Milevitan Council, A. D. 418; and maintains, that it was not practised in Asia till near the time of that council. Institut. 1. iv. c. xiv.—Mr. Brandt speaks to the same effect. Hist. Reform. Annotat. on b. ii. vol. i. p. 9. tions of the church, nor even among the customs of the church that were publicly received and usually observed; nay, he plainly intimates, that in his time it was yet a doubtful affair. For in his book, De Baptismo, (cap. xviii.) he dissuades from baptizing infants, and proves by certain reasons, that the delay of it to a more mature age is to be preferred; which he certainly would not have done, if it had been a tradition and a public custom of the church, seeing he was very tenacious of traditions; nor, had it been a tradition, would he have failed to mention it. It is manifest, therefore, that nothing was then determined concerning the time of baptism; nay, he judged it safer that unmarried persons should defer their baptism.... Nothing can be affirmed with certainty, concerning the custom of the church before Tertullian; seeing there is not any where in more ancient writers, that I know of, undoubted mention of infant baptism. Justin Martyr, in his Second Apology, when describing baptism, mentions only that of adults. Irenæus alone (Contra Hæres. 1. ii. c. xxii.) may be considered as referring to Pædobaptism, when he says; Christ passed through all the ages of man, that he might save all by himself; all I say,' thus he proceeds, regenerated to God, infants, and little dren, and youths, and persons advanced in age.' For the word, regenerated, is wont to be used concerning baptism; and in that sense I freely admit it may be here understood. Yet I do not consider it as undoubtedly so, seeing it is not always used in that sense, especially if no mention of baptism precede or follow; which is the case here: and here, to be regenerated by Christ, may be explained by sanctified, that is, saved by Christ. The sense, therefore, may be; That Christ's passing through all the ages of man, intended to signify, by his own example, that he came to save men of every age, and also to sanctify or save infants. I conclude, therefore, that Pædobaptism cannot be certainly proved to have been who by him are ones, and chil practised before the times of Tertullian; and that there were persons in his age who desired their infants might be baptized, especially when they were afraid of their dying without baptism: which opinion Tertullian opposed, and by so doing, he intimates that Pædobaptism began to prevail. These are the things that may be affirmed with apparent certainty, concerning the antiquity of infant baptism, after the times of the apostles; for more are maintained without solid foundation." Hist. Eccles. tom. iii. secul. ii. § 108, 109. REFLECTIONS. Reflect. I. It is well observed by Limborch, "That many, when they enquire after the opinions of ancient writers, ascribe to them, not what they really taught, but what they wish them to have taught. Hence different opinions are attributed to them, according to the various prejudices that are entertained by the enquirers."* This, there is reason to think, is a fact; and therefore it is to the honour of our cause, that the writers produced have made such declarations. For though, as Dr. Bishop remarks, "the scriptures are the only rule of faith, we are apt to enquire how the earliest authors understood and explained them; what opinions they held and professed, as the true and necessary doctrines [and practices] of Christianity; and what they denied and condemned." We farther observe, with the celebrated Mr. Claude; "That the scripture is the only rule of our faith; that we do not acknowledge any other authority able to decide the disputed points in religion, than that of the word of God; and that if we sometimes dispute by the fathers, it is but by way of condescension to [our opposers,] to act upon their own principle, and not to submit our consciences to the word of men."‡ * Liber Sentent. Inquisit. Tholos. Præf. p. 3. Defence of the Reformation, part iii. p. 81, 82. That most of these authors were well versed in the ancient monuments of the Christian church, few of my readers acquainted with their characters will deny; and being Pædobaptists, they were under no influence, from their avowed hypothesis, to make such declarations as these before us. Consequently, we must consider these learned men, as led by plain historical evidence, and by a commendable regard for truth, to express their views of the case in this remarkable manner. Now such concessions, from writers whose literary abilities cannot be questioned, and who are entirely free from suspicion of intending to sink the reputation of Pædobaptism, afford a strong presumption in our favour, so far as ecclesiastical antiquity is concerned in the dispute. Nay, I may venture to add, concessions of this kind from the pens of such men as Salmasius and Suicerus, of Rigaltius and Venema, must rebuke that haughty confidence with which we are sometimes treated, even by juvenile opponents; as if the highest and purest ecclesiastical antiquity were quite against us, and as if no man of learning and of impartiality would risk a denial of it. But whether our opposers be hoary with learned age, or ⚫ bloom with precipitate youth, it must, I think, be confessed, that these authorities have sufficient force to acquit us from the charge of ignorance, and of partiality to a favourite opinion, because we maintain, That the first two centuries knew either nothing at all, or very little, of infant baptism. To the foregoing quotations I would here subjoin the attestation of Mr. Lawson, and of an ecclesiastical writer in the ninth century. Thus Thomas Lawson, an impartial Friend: "See the author of rhantism, that is, sprinkling; not Christ, nor the apostles, but Cyprian; not in the days of Christ, but some two hundred and thirty years after....Augustine, the son of the virtuous Monica, being instructed in the faith, was not baptized till about the thirtieth year of his age.—Ambrose, born of Christian parents, remained instructed in Christian principles, and was unbaptized till he was chosen bishop of Milan.-Jerome, born of Christian parents, was baptized when about thirty years old.-Nectarius was made bishop of Constantinople before he was baptized....It seems the doctrine of Fidus, concerning dipping, or sprinkling of children, was new, and seemed strange to Cyprian; seeing he could not ratify, nor confirm the same, without the sentence and advice of sixty-six bishops. Had it been commanded by Christ, practised by the apostles, and continued in matter and manner to Cyprian's days, there had not been a necessity for the concourse of so many bishops concerning the same. "The ecclesiastical writer to whom I refer, is Walafridus Strabo, who speaks as follows: "It should be observed, that, in the primitive times, the grace of baptism was usually given to those only who were arrived at such maturity of body and mind, that they could understand what were the benefits of baptism; what was to be confessed and believed; and, finally, what was to be observed by those that are regenerated in Christ."--On this passage the remark of Colomesius, as quoted by a nameless writer, is as follows: "Hence with reason you may infer, that adults only are the proper subjects of baptism." Perfectly conformable to which is a canon of the Council of Paris, in the year eight hundred and twenty-nine, as produced by the same anonymous author. Thus it reads: "In the beginning of the holy church of God, no one was admitted to baptism, unless he had before been instructed in the sacrament of faith and of baptism; which is proved by the words of Paul, Rom. vi. 3, 4."§ Reflect. II. One of these learned men supposes, indeed, that a passage in Irenæus may be understood, † Apud Vossium, En Le Baptême Retabli, part ii. p. 3. * Baptismalogia, p. 75, 80, 81, 86, 87. Thes. Theolog. p. 429. § Ibid. p. 166, 167. |