more. Daillé bears the following testimony: "In ancient times they often deferred the baptizing both of infants and of other people, as appears by the history of the emperors, Constantine the Great, of Constantius, of Theodosius, of Valentinian, and of Gratian, in St. Ambrose; and also by the orations and homilies of Gregory Nazianzen, and of St. Basil, upon this subject. And some of the fathers too have been of opinion, that it is fit it should be deferred; as, namely, Tertullian, as we have formerly noted of him."t- The famous Austin, in his Confessions, having said; "I was then signed with the sign of his [Christ's] cross, and was seasoned with his salt, so soon as I came out of my mother's womb, who greatly trusted in thee;" his translator, Dr. W. Watts, has the following note upon it: "This was the practice of the primitive times; by which religious parents devoted their children unto Christ, long before their baptism, which in those days was deferred till they were able to answer for themselves."-Gregory Nazianzen, born in the year three hundred and eighteen, whose parents were Christians, and his father a bishop, was not baptized till about thirty years of age:§ and Chrysostom also, born of Christian parents in the year three hundred and forty seven, was not baptized till near twenty-one years of age. See the immediately following chapter, No. 1.-Now, if the parents of these Christian fathers and Cæsars, though professing themselves the disciples of Christ, did not baptize their infant offspring, we may justly presume, whatever might be the reasons of their conduct, that many others in those times were influenced by the same reasons, and acted a similar part. * In Dr. Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap. part ii. chap. ii. § 10. Right Use of the Fathers, book ii. chap. vi. p. 149. Austin's Confessions, book i. chap. xi. p. 17. 1650. § Dupin, cent. iv. p. 159. Gen. Biog. Dict. art. Greg. Naz. || Grotius, apud Poli Synops. ad Mat. xix. 14. Dupin's Eccles. Hist. cent. v. p. 6, 7. sors. And so Whence The language of Boniface, bishop of Thessalonica, in a letter to Austin, is far from expressing a warm regard, either for infant baptism, or the business of spon"Suppose I set before you an infant,” says he to Austin, "and ask you, Whether, when he grows up, he will be a chaste person? or, Whether he will be a thief? You doubtless will answer, I do not know. And, Whether he, in that infant age, have any thought, good, or evil? You will still say, I do not know. If then you dare not assert any thing concerning his future conduct, or his present thoughts, what is the reason that, when they are presented for baptism, their parents, as sponsors for them, answer and say; They do that, of which their infant age is not able to think; or, if it can, it is a profound secret? For we ask those by whom they are presented, and say; Does he believe in God? (which question concerns that age which is ignorant whether there be a God.) They answer, He does believe. likewise an answer is returned to all the rest. I wonder that parents in these affairs answer so confidently for the child, that he does so many good things, which at the time of his baptism the administrator demands! And yet, were I at that very time to ask; Will this baptized child, when grown to maturity, be chaste? or, Will he not be a thief? I know not whether any one would venture to answer, He will, or, He will not, be the one or the other; as they answer without hesitation, He believes in God-He turns to God."*-Hence it appears, that in the time of Austin a profession of faith was always required, prior to the administration of baptism, agreeably to the primitive pattern; † that when an infant was presented for baptism, this profession was made by proxy, as it is now in the church of Rome, and in the church of England; that Boniface considered this vicarious profession, as a bold, unwarrantable, absurd procedure, as it undoubtedly is; and, consequently, *Augustini Epistola ad Bonifacium, epist. xxiii. + Acts viii. 37. that he was far from being, like Austin, a sanguine admirer of Pædobaptism; there being, as Dr. Wall observes, "no time or age of the church, in which there is any appearance that infants were ordinarily baptized, without sponsors or godfathers," "* to make that vicarious profession, against which Boniface with so much reason and force objects. To these difficulties the celebrated bishop of Hippo, among other trifling and impertinent things, replies: "As the sacrament of Christ's body is, after a certain fashion, Christ's body; and the sacrament of Christ's blood, is his blood; so the sacrament of faith, is faith; and to believe, is nothing else but to have faith. And so when an infant, that has not yet the faculty of faith, is said to believe, he is said to have faith, because of the sacrament of faith; and to turn to God, because of the sacrament of conversion; because that answer belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. . . . An infant, though he be not yet constituted a believer, by that faith which consists in the will of believers, yet he is by the sacrament of that faith: for, as he is said to believe, so he is called a believer; not from his having the thing itself in his mind, but from his receiving the sacrament of it. And when a person begins to have a sense of things, he does not repeat that sacrament, but he understands the force of it, and by consent of will squares himself to the true meaning of it. And till he can do this, the sacrament will avail to his preservation against all contrary powers; and so far it will avail, that, if he depart this life before the use of reason, he will, by this Christian remedy of the sacrament itself, (the charity of the church recommending him) be made free from that condemnation which, by one man, entered into the world. He that does not believe this, and thinks it cannot be done, is indeed an infidel, though he have the sacrament of faith; and that infant is much better, who, * Hist, Inf. Bap. p. 477. though he have not faith in his mind, yet puts no bar of a contrary mind against it, and so receives the sacrament to his soul's health."*-Such is the solution given by Austin, which the celebrated Chamier justly pronounces frigid. How far any of those who now administer baptism on the creed of a proxy, whether latent in the parent, or avowed by the sponsor, may approve of his reasoning, I cannot pretend to say; but I think it is plain, that the New Testament is equally silent about a vicarious faith, and a vicarious baptism. He, therefore, who admits the former, could not consistently oppose the latter, were any to plead for it. As The very learned and famous Daillé, when animadverting on this passage of Austin, says; "Whether these things satisfied Boniface, I know not. To me, I confess, they seem strange. How can the infant offered to baptism, be truly said, therefore, to have faith, because he has the sacrament of faith, i. e. baptism, at the time when he has not yet received baptism? nay, who is for no other reason asked the question, than that he may obtain baptism, which as yet he wants? though none ought to be baptized who does not believe. An infant is presented to the minister to be baptized: the minister, as though he thought it unlawful to baptize even an infant, except he believes, demands, and, which aggravates the absurdity, he demands of the infant himself, whether he believes? tacitly implying, he may not baptize him unless he does so. Here the godfather, that the infant may be capable of baptism, answers as his surety, that he believes. When Boniface was in doubt, how the godfather could truly and certainly affirm this; Austin answers, he could, though the infant had not yet faith; because, when he says he believes, he only means, he has the sacrament of faith. a brave solution of the difficulty? But I * In Dr. Wall, ut supra, p. 115. say Is not this the infant has not what you call the sacrament of faith; nor, if he had, would there be any occasion to offer him to you to be baptized and therefore, in that very sense Austin puts upon the answer, the godfather lies when he says, the infant believes, i. e. has the sacrament of faith.' Whether the form of proceeding in the administration of baptism to infants, according to the English Liturgy, do not deserve a similar censure, let my reader judge by the following extract from Mr. Peirce. "The priest thus speaks unto the godfathers and godmothers: Wherefore this infant must also faithfully for his part, promise by you that are his sureties, (until he come of age to take it upon himself) that he will renounce the devil and all his works, and constantly believe God's holy word, and obediently keep his commandments. I demand, therefore; Dost thou, in the name of this child, renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world?' and so on. I renounce them all.' 'Dost thou believe in God the Father almighty?' and so on. 'All this I steadfastly believe.' Wilt thou be baptized in this faith?' 'So is my desire.' then obediently keep God's holy will and commandments, and walk in the same all the days of thy life?' 'I will.' Who now is so blind as not to see, the minister all along asks the infants themselves these questions? Of whom else can he ask, whether he will be baptized? or who else can answer, I will? For the godfathers and godmothers have been baptized themselves long before. It is plain then the godfathers are not properly asked these questions, and that they answer them for no other reason, but because the infants are not able to speak for themselves. Which to many seems absurd and childish, and unworthy of the gravity of a Christian assembly, and the solemnity of the ordinance. of baptism. Hereto we may add the words of the 'Wilt thou * In Mr. Peirce's Vindicat. of Dissenters, part iii. p. 169, 170. |