HAVING already given a fair, and, I think, ample specimen of the value of the testimony of those "Fathers" mainly relied on by the most learned and influential of the advocates of infant baptism, I intend to occupy not many more pages on the argument drawn from tradition, oral or written. We must logically and morally discriminate between the testimony of the Greek and Roman Fathers concerning facts and events extant or transpiring in their own times, and their own opinions touching those facts and events. It is as much a fact that a certain opinion was entertained or propagated by a Tertullian, an Origen, or a Cyprian, as that such men lived in the third century. It may also be a fact that they entertained such an opinion, or that they did not; but neither the fact of their entertaining or not entertaining any given opinion is any proof to us or to their contemporaries of the truth or the falsehood of such an opinion.

      The fact that infant communion was as common as infant baptism in the "ancient church," and that it was plead for by such men as Photius, Cyprian, Augustine, &c., should be, methinks, a sufficient reproof to all Protestants, at least, for their implicit admission of the testimony of certain Greek Fathers as to the existence of an opinion in favour of infant baptism, or of the fact that some infants had been baptized in the third century. And certainly there is still more incongruity in administering the elements commemorative of the Saviour's sacrificial death to an unconscious, unthinking babe, than in either sprinkling water upon its face, or in immersing it in water into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Still, in defiance of all reason, propriety, and the total absence of all scriptural authority, the whole Greek church and the whole Roman church admit infants to the eucharist; or, as some semi-protestants call it, the sacrament of the supper. If, then, Dr. Wall and Dr. Miller--if Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and all Pedobaptists receive as authorities ancient opinions, or the testimony of Greek and Roman Fathers as to the existence of opinions, [352] and practices in their times, in evidence of the Divine and apostolic authority of infant baptism, why repudiate their own witnesses when they equally depose in favour of infant communion? Why administer the one "sacrament" to babes, and withhold from them the other "sacrament," having as good authority for the one as for the other? Nay, better for infant communion than for infant baptism--because infants ate the passover, which they say was the prototype and precedent of the supper.

      But as they are bold, we must be bold also. We affirm, and I know that our opponents dare not deny it, that not one of the five "Apostolic Fathers"--Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, or Polycarp--either name or allude to infant baptism, or say any thing that would imply it; but, on the contrary, say that which implies believer baptism, and believer baptism only. Neither do the oldest of the Greek Fathers--Papias, Dionysius of Corinth, Tatian, Melito, Irenæus, Theophilus, or Clement of Alexandria, name it. Nor, indeed, does Justin Martyr indicate the existence of the rite in his time. He is, however, the first of Dr. Wall's cloud, of historic witnesses of the opinions on the subject. Certain it is, that Justin Martyr does not once name infant baptism. On the contrary, his history of Christianity in the second century forbids the assumption. His words are--(I have the Greek before me, but will give Dr. Wall's own version of them)--"Those who are persuaded and do believe those things which are taught by us are true, and do promise to live according to them, are directed first to pray and ask of God, with fasting, the forgiveness of their former sins; and we also pray and fast together with them.¹ Then we bring them to some place where there is water,² and they are regenerated by the same way of regeneration by which we were regenerated; for they are washed with water in the name of God, the Father and Lord of all things, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For Christ says, unless you be regenerated you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven: and everybody knows it is impossible for those that are once generated, or born, to enter again into their mother's womb."--"The washing is called the enlightening," &c. Dr. Wall argues from this passage that the ancient church regarded baptism as regeneration, and as [353] commonly called it 'regeneration' as the Episcopalians call it 'christening.' But, waiving all criticism on the propriety of this language, we only ask, How does all this prove infant baptism? Does not the whole passage cited clearly intimate that the subjects of Justin Martyr's baptism were believers, and had agreed to live according to Christ's will, before they took them to the water?³

      But the advocates of infant baptism will concede this, and flee to another passage from the same author as directly favouring their theory. They quote a few words from Justin's First Apology. The passage already read is from his Second Apology. We shall hear that portion from his First Apology.--"Several persons among us, of sixty and seventy years old, of both sexes, who were discipled (or made disciples) to Christ in or from their childhood, do continue uncorrupted (or virgins)." "From childhood"--not from infancy. In the original Greek of Justin it is ek paidoon, which indicates from ten to fifteen, rather than from eight days to two years. There is not, then, any authority whatever for assuming Justin Martyr as a witness in favour of infant baptism. It cannot be logically or philologically deduced from any thing I have ever seen quoted from him.

      Unless, then, we assume that to be regenerated means neither more nor less than to be baptized, there is no Greek Father, no Apostolic Father, no ecclesiastic writer, who so much as names baptism in connection with infants before the third century. Nor, indeed, do they ever speak of regenerated infants. The Greeks have four words for children. They have brephos, a babe; paidion, a little child; teknion, a little child figuratively; and pais, a youth, a stripling, any one under age. Now it happens that neither Dr. Wall nor Dr. Miller, nor any of those special pleaders for infant baptism, seem to know, and certainly do not make known to others, the fact which I have now stated: nay, they assume, without the shadow of proof, that pais must mean, in the New Testament, or in the style of the Greek Fathers, an infant; that is, a brephos, or babe; and this, too, in the face of the fact that we have these four words frequently in the New Testament Greek, and wherever we find a literal babe or infant in the New Testament, we find brephos in the original; and wherever literal little children are spoken of, we have in no case pais, but always paidion or teknion. [354]

      With regard to pais, the word used by Justin Martyr, in his Second Apology, on which Dr. Wall and others so much rely, it is applied to persons of from twelve to thirty years of age in the New Testament. Jesus, at the age of twelve, and after he had risen from the dead, is called pais. Acts iv. 27. Eutychus, a young man, mentioned Acts xx. 12, is represented by the word pais. So of others from twelve to twenty years old.

      Of the Greek Fathers of this era we have none other quoted by Dr. Wall or Dr. Miller. Tertullian is the first of the Latin writers who early in the third century mentions infant baptism. He does, indeed, name it; but I have long since said, and no one has as yet presumed to refute it, that he opposes it as an innovation. Dr. Miller says--"Tertullian, about two hundred years after the birth of Christ, is the first man of whom we read in ecclesiastical history, as speaking a word against infant baptism." Well, uncandid as this is, we must request our readers to remember that Dr. Miller says Tertullian spoke against it. But he says he is the first man that spoke against it. And who, we might ask, was the first person that spoke for it? Any one before Tertullian? If any one, his name has not reached us! But what is the professor's solution of this case? Why did Tertullian speak against it? Hear him:--"Tertullian adopted the superstitious idea that baptism was accompanied with the remission of all past sins."⁴ And who of his predecessors or contemporaries did not teach the same "superstitious idea?" Who did not also, according to Dr. Wall, adopt a still more superstitious idea, that baptism and regeneration were convertible terms--perfect and complete equivalents?--and that there was not one writer during the first four centuries that understood baptism as any thing else but regeneration!! And did not all of them, as well as Tertullian, teach "that sins committed after baptism were peculiarly dangerous?" These are Pedobaptist assertions--not ours.

      Tertullian's views may be gathered from the extracts found in Wall's history of infant baptism. "They who administer baptism," says Tertullian, "are to know that it must not be given rashly." "'Give to every one that asketh thee,' has its proper subject, and relates to almsgiving; but that command is rather here to be considered; 'Give not that which is holy to [355] dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine;' and that, 'Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partakers of other men's sins. Therefore according to every one's condition and disposition, and also their age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of little children. For what need is there that the god-fathers should be brought into danger? because they may either fail of their promises by death, or they may be mistaken by a child's proving of wicked disposition. Our Lord says, indeed, 'Do not forbid them to come to me;' therefore, let them come when they are grown up--let them come when they understand. When they are instructed whither it is that they come, let them be made Christians, when they can know Christ. What need their guiltless age make such haste to the forgiveness of sins? Men will proceed more warily in worldly goods; and he that should not have earthly goods committed to him, yet shall have heavenly!! Let them know how to desire this salvation, that you may appear to have given it to one that asketh." I wonder not that any one who calmly and dispassionately reads even so much as we have quoted from Tertullian's writings, and more especially if he have patience to read so much of them as is found in Du Pin, or even Dr. Wall, should conclude with Richard Baxter, saying, "Yet again will I confess that the words of Tertullian and of Nazianzen show that it was a long time before all were agreed of the very time, or of the necessity of baptizing infants before any use of reason, in case they were to live to maturity."

      Can any one think--I mean any one free from prejudice--that had infant baptism been an apostolic institution preached from the beginning, any men of learning in the age of Tertullian would have so written about it as here reported by his friends and the friends of that institution? We cheerfully admit the probability that infant immersion, god-fathers, infant communion, monkery, &c. &c. commenced about the times of Tertullian and St. Cyprian, in the first half of the third century. This will, however, appear still more evident from the decision of the Council of Carthage, composed of sixty-six bishops, which met Anno Domini 253, to deliberate on certain queries referred to it by Bishop Fidus; one of which was,--"Whether an infant, before it was eight days old, might be baptized, if need required?"

      We shall give a few extracts from this celebrated response of the Council to the query sent up to Carthage by Bishop [356] Fidus:--"We read your letter, most dear brother, in which you write of one rector or priest, &c. But as to the case of infants whereas you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born; and that the rule of circumcision is to be observed, so that none should be baptized and sanctified before the eighth day after he is born; we were all in the assembly of the contrary opinion. We have judged that the grace and mercy of God are to be denied to no person that is born. For whereas our Lord in the gospel says, 'The Son of Man came not to destroy men's souls, or lives; but to save them:' as far as lies in us, no soul, if possible, is to be lost. For what is there deficient in him who has been once formed in the womb by the hands of God?"--"All things that are made by God are perfect by the work and power of God their Maker. The Scripture gives us to understand the equality of the divine gift on all, whether infants or grown persons. Elisha, in his prayer to God, stretched himself on the infant son of the Shunamite woman who lay dead, in such a manner that his head, and face, and limbs, and feet were applied to the head, face, limbs, and feet of the child;⁵ which, if it be understood according to the quality of our body and nature, the infant could not hold measure with the full-grown man, nor its limbs fit and reach to his great ones. But in that place a spiritual equality, and such as is in the esteem of God, is intimated to us; by which persons that are once made by God are alike and equal."

      The remainder of this letter is as weak and childish as the specimen before us, and concludes with these words:--"It is not for us to binder any person from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and affectionate to all. To infants our help and the divine mercy are rather to be granted, because, by their weeping and wailing at their first entrance into the world, they do intimate nothing so much as that they implore compassion."

      Such was the wisdom, and learning, and good sense of the African council of sixty-six Bishops, who decreed that infants should be baptized as soon as born; and that, too, in A. D. 253. From such a council who could expect a more sage conclusion or a higher authority than that of Elisha stretching himself down to the dimensions of an infant! High authority, indeed, and is [357] only surpassed by the following passage, which, so far as argument is concerned, embraces the remainder of the letter:--"If the greatest offenders, and they that have grievously sinned against God before, have, when they afterward come to believe, forgiveness of their sins; and no person is kept off from baptism and the grave; how much less reason is there to refuse an infant, who, being newly born, has no sin, save that, being descended from Adam according to the flesh, he has from his very birth contracted the contagion of the death anciently threatened; who comes for this reason more easily to receive forgiveness of sins, because they are not his own, but others' sins that are forgiven him." Such the philosophy, the reason, and the authority of the Council of Carthage, and such the character of the third century and its bishops! An age and a people peculiarly qualified to introduce and ordain infant baptism.

      We will not weary our readers with any more such extracts from the men who afterwards plead for infant baptism. Nor do we at all deem it essential to trace the history of infant baptism or that of infant communion, of godfathers, and all the other appendages of this human tradition. We concede, without a demur, that, in the Greek and the Roman church, whether in Africa, Asia, or Europe, infant baptism, with its kindred accompaniments of sponsors, the salt, the spittle, and the oil; together with monachism, with all its forms; and virginity, with all its potency on earth and in heaven, not only existed, but in triumph reigned for more than twelve hundred years. Infant baptism, with its other accompaniments, has been gradually losing its power over the human mind; and, in every conflict with those who repudiate it as a papal tradition, it has uniformly fallen in public favour, and is ever making unsuccessful aggressions upon those who seek to find for it either precept or example in all the written records of Prophets and Apostles.

      Still, in every century from the times of Tertullian till now, there have been many witnesses for the Apostolic baptism. A host of learned and pious men have in all ages stood up as remonstrants against the pretensions of those who sought for infant baptism any other warrant than the doctrines and commandments of men. A few notices of those distinguished men who, in word and deed, testified against it, are all that we have room for in these essays.

      Of distinguished men in the third century, the celebrated [358] Baxter says, that "Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, who lived in the second and third centuries, do affirm that in the primitive times none were baptized but such as engaged themselves to obey him." Saint's Rest, 1st. ed., chap. 8.

      Fourth Century.--Jerome says, "The Lord commanded his Apostles that they should first instruct and teach all nations, and afterwards should baptize them that were instructed in the mysteries of the faith; for it cannot be that the body should receive the ordinance of baptism before the soul has received the true faith." Jerome's Comment on Matt. xxvii. 19, 20. Athanasius, in his third sermon against the Arians, says, "Our Saviour hath not simply commanded to baptize; but first said teach, then baptize; because true faith proceeds from teaching, and baptism rightly follows faith." See Merningus, part 2, p. 370.

      "Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, was baptized upon a profession of his faith, and did afterwards assert for doctrine that none ought to be baptized but such." See Metaphrastes, 1. 1, chap. 30; and Mern. p. 336, as quoted by Junius.

      During this century, there were sundry councils and synods. The Council of Laodicea, of Neocesarea, and the synods of this time agreed in this, that "whosoever were to be baptized should give in their names, and then, after due examination, should be baptized. And not only great men, and even princes, converted from paganism, were baptized; but even the sons and daughters of believing parents were baptized when arrived at adult years." A clear proof that infant baptism had not yet become general; for the children of believing parents would certainly have been baptized, had any infants in ordinary cases been baptized. Amongst the vast numbers of the children of believers that were baptized in adult years, during this century, we shall mention a few men of renown. Basil the Great, son of a Christian bishop, was baptized in the Jordan, when advanced in years. Gregory, son of Gregory Bishop of Nazianzen, was baptized at the age of twenty. Constantine the Great, a Briton born, and King of England, son of Helena, a zealous Christian, was well advanced in years before he was baptized. During his reign, most of his British troops were Christians, A. D. 320. Ambrose refused to be baptized till he was chosen Bishop of Milan. Chrysostom was born of believing parents, and was educated by Miletus, a bishop; yet he was not baptized till the age of twenty-one. Hugo Grotius, while saying this of [359] Chrysostom, adds, "Many of the Greeks, in every age, to this day, keep the custom of deferring the baptism of their little ones till they make a profession of their faith." Erastus testifies that "Jerome was born in the city of Shydon, of Christian parents; was brought up in the Christian religion, and was baptized in the thirtieth year of his age." "Austin, the son of the gracious Monica, being instructed in the faith, was not baptized till thirty.". See Osiander's Book, cent. 4, 1. 3, p. 371-380; also Nauclerus, A. D. 391. Historia Tripartita tells us, that "Theodosius, the emperor, was born in Spain, and his parents were both Christians; that he was instructed in the Christian faith; and, falling sick at Thessalonica, he was baptized by Achalis." See Dr. Taylor, lib. Proph. p. 239.

      I cannot close the testimonies of the fourth century better than by presenting to the reader the words of Dr. Barlow, Doctor of the Chair at Oxford--a man eminent for learning. On reviewing the records of antiquity and the arguments of his Pedobaptist friends, in a letter to a friend, he says, "I do believe and know that there is neither precept nor example for infant baptism, nor any just evidence for it for above 205 years after Christ; that Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable practice. I have read what my learned friends, Dr. Hammond and Mr. Baxter, and others, say in the defence of it; and I confess I wonder not a little that men of such great parts should say so much to so little purpose; for I have not as yet seen any thing like an argument for it." Thus far Doctor Barlow, Jun. 69.

      Fifth Century.--In this age, there were many public advocates of the true baptism. Chrysostom, whose baptism we mentioned in the last century, in the fifth century publicly taught that "the time of grace (or when a man obtained grace) or conversion, was the only fit time for baptism, which," says he, "was the season in which the three thousand in Acts ii., and others afterwards, were baptized." See Magd. cent. 5, p. 368.

      Faustus Regiensis, a bishop in France, taught in this age, that "the will and desire of the party that comes to be baptized are necessary."

      Evegrius says, that "they who have been instructed in the word of God were the proper subjects of baptism." See Merningus, p. 421-425.

      Sixth Century.--Gregory says, "In baptism the elect receive [360] the gift of the Spirit, whereby also their spirits or understandings are enlightened in the Scriptures, and that by faith in the death of Christ, by baptism, their sins are forgiven." In this century, the Council of Agather decreed, that the articles of faith be first preached to the persons to be baptized, before they are baptized" Vicecome's History, p. 482.

      Seventh Century.--In this age, the Bracarens Council, in Spain, decreed, that "no adult persons but such as had been well instructed and examined, should be baptized." "The Council of Toletanus express the same import; and we find that Paulinus baptized in the River Trent, in England, a great number of men and women." See Bead. 1. 2, chap. 16, cent. 7, p. 145. "In Egypt, in this century, the Christians departed from the faith of the church of Rome, placing it upon the Apostolic foundation, that the person should first believe before he is baptized." Vice. 1. 9, chap. 3.

      Eighth Century.--Bede, who lived in this century, page 220, says, "Men are first to be instructed in the knowledge of the truth, then to be baptized as Christ has taught; because that, without faith, it is impossible to please God." The learned Haime, on Matt. xxviii. 19; says, "In these words is set down the rule how to baptize--that is, that teaching should go before baptism; that Christ says, Teach all nations, then baptize: for he that is to be baptized must first be instructed to believe what he in baptism shall receive. In this century, the Council of Paris and that of Laodicea decreed that those who are to be baptized ought first to be instructed in the faith, and make a confession of it."

      Ninth Century.--Rabanus, chapter iv., says that "the catechism, which is the doctrine of faith, must go before baptism; to the intent that he who is baptized may first learn the mysteries of faith; and," continues he, "the Lord Jesus anointed the eyes of him that was born blind, with clay made of spittle, before he sent him to the waters of Siloam, to signify that he that is to be baptized must first see, or be instructed in the faith concerning the incarnation of Christ. When he that is instructed doth believe, then he is to be admitted to baptism, that he might know whom he afterwards ought and, in duty, is bound to serve."

      Albinus says, "Three things are visible in baptism--the body, the water, and the administrator; and three things invisible-- [361] the soul, faith, and the Spirit of God, which are all joined by the word of God." P. 220.

      Rabanus likewise observes, that "The adults were first to be instructed in the faith, and duly examined before they were baptized; and that as Noah and his family were saved by water and the ark, so the faithful are saved by Christ and baptism." P. 144.

      Tenth Century.--In this age, Smaragdo, on Matt. xxviii. 19, observes, "Men are to be taught in the faith, then after to be baptized therein; for it is not enough that the body be baptized, but that the soul, by faith, first receive the truth thereof." P. 187.

      Eleventh Century.--Anselm says that, "Believers are baptized into the death of Christ, that they, believing his death and conforming thereto, may, as dying with him, live also with him." P. 169. Again, says he, "Christian baptism is the washing of water into the word of life. Take away either the water or the word, baptism ceaseth." P. 116. "In this century, the Waldenses and Albigenses loudly asserted and extensively practised believer baptism." Twisk, Chron. 1. 11, A. D. 1100, p. 423. "Peter Bruise, a learned author in Toulouse, France, and his numerous followers, were zealous asserters and practisers of baptism after faith and repentance." Dutch Mar. chap. 11.

      Twelfth Century.--Alburtus Magnus says, "The laver of baptism is not proper but to the illuminated and called, who can draw virtue from the death of Christ." Page 413. Thomas Aquinas says that "in baptism God words inwardly, as he dispenseth the ordinance outwardly; there is not only a consecration of the soul to God, but the body; because the whole man, by baptism, is dedicated to God; for by baptism we die to the life of sin, and begin to live a new life of grace." P. 424. "In this century there was a great spread of those who practised believer's baptism." Twisk, Chron. 1:13, pp. 528, 529.

      Thirteenth Century.--In this century, Jacob Merningus says that "he had in his hand, in the German tongue, a Confession of the Faith of the Baptists, called Waldenses, which asserts that in the beginning of Christianity there was no such thing as baptizing infants, and that their forefathers practised no such thing, as Johannes Bohemius writes in his second book; and Merningus' History of Baptism, part 2d, page 736." Moreover, [362] it is observed by many, that "this faith and practice made a prodigious spread through Poland, Lombardy, Germany, and Holland." Montanus, p. 86. Merningus, p. 737.

      Fourteenth Century.--In addition to the evidence cited above, which also bears upon this century, as, indeed, the documents presented with respect to any century always have an important bearing upon that immediately succeeding, we find that "Carlos, Bishop of Meyland, did exhort the ministers under his charge that they should first teach the faith; and that only upon a confession of faith and a good conversation they should administer baptism." Merning. p. 740. The confession of the Thabotites, in the year 1431; confirms that in this century there were many Baptists, especially in Bohemia. They say, "We do from our hearts acknowledge that the ordinance of baptism is washing, which is performed with water, which, according to Christ's words, doth hold out (i. e. in a figure) the washing of the soul from sin according to Christ's command." Matt. xxviii. 19. Merning. p. 743.

      Fifteenth Century.--In this century the Baptists spread amazingly. Mern. p. 772. Twisk says, in his Chronology, page 930, that in the year 1457, "the Waldenses, who were Baptists, were much spread in Hungary." That these Waldenses were Baptists, Montanus, Impress 2d, says that "the Waldenses, in the public declarations of their faith to the French king, A. D. 1521, assert in the strongest terms the baptizing of believers, and deny that of infants." Balthazer Lydia testifies that "at this time there were several churches in Thessalonica, in Greece, supposed to have continued successively from the Apostles' time, agreeing with the faith of the Waldenses." See B. L. Treatise 3, of the Waldenses. "Two persons were sent from the churches in Thessalonica to find some of the same faith with themselves; and coming into Switzerland, they were taken prisoners and put into the castle of Passaw, who declared to many that they had in their care (at Thessalonica) the original of Paul's epistles, which he sent to them." Mern. page 739.

      Sixteenth Century.--It is scarcely necessary to continue the history farther down than this century, as almost every person knows that there were myriads of advocates for believer baptism in this century. I shall, however, mention one distinguished advocate of this cause, who flourished in this century. Jacob de Roor, a prisoner in Bruges, in Flanders, steadfastly owned [363] and maintained as follows, viz. "That the baptism which the Apostles taught and practised must needs be after believing, because it is for the burying of sin, the bath or evidence of regeneration, the covenant of a Christian's life, the putting on the body of Christ, and planting into the true olive-tree Christ Jesus, and for the right entrance into the spiritual ark, whereof Christ Jesus is the builder."

      From the preceding documents, a mere sample of what may be gleaned from the pages of ecclesiastical history, the observant reader will readily see how much credit is due to the Princeton professor as a lecturer on ecclesiastical history, when he says, "It is an undoubted fact that the people known in ecclesiastical history under the name of 'Anabaptists,' who arose in Germany in the year 1552, were the very first body of people in the whole Christian world who rejected the baptism of infants on the principles now adopted by the Anti-Pedobaptist body." (Page 32.) Unless there be some premeditated oracular ambiguity in this expression, which it would be uncharitable to suppose, one could not easily make an assertion more unjustifiable or insupportable, as the documents I have given fully show, and to which many more might be added.

      I have drawn upon my labours and researches some twenty-seven years ago for the above items, which, with much toil and more leisure than I can now command, I collected from reliable sources, for a tract of some 70 pages, titled "Strictures on These Letters respecting the Debate at Mount Pleasant, published in the Presbyterian Magazine: Philadelphia, 1821:--by Rev. Dr. Samuel Ralston, D.D." These Strictures, although before that Rev. Doctor and others of his party now for more than a quarter of a century, have never been responded to, so far as I have learned; and the facts and documents here furnished stand as yet uncontradicted by the Pedobaptist world. [364]

[CBAC 352-364]