V.

baptizing young children, not babes. He says, respect- SECT. ing them," They just know how to ask for salvation." And again, in reply to the argument that Jesus said, "Suffer little children to come unto me," he observes, "let them come, and let them be instructed when they come; and when they understand Christianity let them profess themselves Christians." It is evident, therefore, the children referred to were capable of "coming," and when come, of being "instructed."

mens.

The term "sponsors" has probably had much to do Sponsors introduced with connecting the idea of the baptism of babes with to answer this passage of Tertullian; but it is certain from ecclesi. for catechuastical history, that sponsors were first introduced to answer for catechumens, and together with every other form used in the baptism of the adult were ultimately, though not till the fourth century, transferred to infants. What Tertullian with great propriety urges is, that while these children, who were probably taken from benevolence from parents who were pagans, should receive Christian instruction, yet it would be very improper for any one to become answerable for their spiritual conduct by having them baptized at an age when they could only just ask for baptism, and when therefore they could not be presumed to have attained either a sufficient understanding of Christianity, or developement of moral character. Certain it is, at any rate, that what Tertullian says of these children is utterly irreconcilable with their being babes.

• In the second century, Christians began to be divided into be. lievers, or such as were baptized, and catechumens, who were receiving instruction to qualify them for baptism. To answer for these persons, sponsors, or god-fathers were first instituted; and were afterwards in the fourth century extended to infants.-Edinburgh Encyclopedia, art. " Baptism."

СНАР.

VII.

Robinson right and German critics wrong in this instance.

Infant bap.

tism must

be clearly

I am aware that most of the German critics, while they consider this passage in the very opposite point of view to American podobaptists, (that it proves infant baptism not to have been an admitted practice at the time of Tertullian's writing,) receive it however as an evidence that infant baptism was then coming in. After the most mature reflection, I apprehend the idea of Robinson to be the correct one, and that with which all critics, on further investigation, will agree-that it was the baptism of very young children, and not of babes, that Tertullian alludes to; a clear evidence that the baptism of babes was not then practised, because children having been baptized when a few days old, the question of baptizing them when they are just able to ask for it," cannot

arise.

The claim for the bare existence of infant baptism in the second century, rests wholly on the passage in Irenæus, and that in Tertullian, who lived at its very close. Both these passages have been proved to contain no allusion to the baptism of babes. Such baptism is not found in the second century; not even referred to, as the German critics suppose, for the purpose of being condemned.

The unprejudiced inquirer after truth, will now be compelled to agree, that there is no evidence of the existence of infant baptism in the second any more than in soon as uni- the first century; and faith can rest alone on evidence. versally practised. The state in which history is left is part of the provi

found in history as

dential arrangement of Him who is "Head over all things to the church ;" and had it been the design of Him in whose power it is to overrule all things, to strengthen (or rather to call forth) our faith in infant baptism, by the practice of the church in the first and second centuries, he would undoubtedly have taken care that satisfactory evidence should have been at hand. With re

V.

spect to the observance of the first day of the week in- SECT. stead of the seventh, which is only occasionally alluded to in the New Testament, the most satisfactory evidence exists; and had the practice of infant baptism been general, (which it must have been had it been an apostolic command,) it is impossible it should not have been distinctly noticed. It is not my place, however, to prove a negative: it is sufficient that no evidence exists of such being the practice in the two first centuries of the Christian church; and this lack of evidence cannot be compensated by any amount of evidence of a later date. It is fatal to the last hold of infant baptism, the unfounded assumption that it can be traced back in the history of the church to apostolic times.

If infant baptism is not found to exist as a practice during the first century, or apostolic age, and only faint and doubtful traces can be discerned by the ablest podobaptist authors in the latter portions of the second century, while others do not admit its appearance before the third, every candid mind must admit, that its claim to be an apostolic practice utterly fails;—is altogether destitute of the slightest foundation. I have already expressed my own judgment on that point; but, to complete the satisfaction of my readers, I shall insert the deliberately expressed sentiments of a number of the most learned podobaptists of the English Episcopal, Lutheran, and Reformed churches.

I commence with Dr. BARLOW, bishop of Lincoln. Testimony from pœdoIn a letter to Mr. Tombs, he observes :-" I believe baptist auand know that there is neither precept nor example in thors. Scripture for podobaptism, nor any just evidence for it for about two hundred years after Christ. Sure I am, that in the primitive times they were catechuemeni, then illuminati, or baptizati. The truth is, I do believe pœdo

VII.

CHAP. baptism, how or by whom I know not, came into the world in the second century, and in the third or fourth began to be practised, though not generally."

GROTIUS, in his Annotations on Matt. xix. 14, states to this effect: "It does not appear that infant baptism did universally obtain in the primitive church, but was more frequent in Africa than any where else. In the councils of the ancients, one shall find no earlier mention of pœdobaptism than in the council of Carthage. In Tertullian's time, it appears, there was nothing defined concerning the age in which they were to be baptized that were consecrated by their parents to Christian discipline; because he dissuades by so many reasons the baptizing of infants: and Gregory Nazianzen, speaking of those who die without baptism, mentions, among the rest, those who were not baptized by reason of infancy; and he himself, though a bishop's son, and educated a long time under the care of his father, was not baptized till he became a youth, as is related in his life."

The learned BISHOP TAYLOR concurs with Grotius. "In the first age," says he, "they did, or they did not, according as they pleased; for there is no pretence of tradition that the church, in all ages, did baptize all the infants of Christian parents. It is no more certain that they did do it always, than that they did in the first age. St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, and St. Austin, were born of Christian parents; and yet not baptized until the full age of a man, or more.

"That it was the custom to do so in some churches, and at some times, is without all question; but that there is a tradition from the apostles so to do, relies but on two witnesses, Origen and Austin; and, the latter having

P He was baptized at the age of thirty-one.

V.

received it from the former, it wholly relies on one single SECT. testimony; which is but a pitiful argument to prove a tradition apostolical. He is the first that spoke it; but Tertullian, who was before him, seems to speak against it; which he would not have done if it had been a tradition apostolical."

RIGALTIUS, another writer who was very conversant with the works of the Fathers, gives the same account. "From the age of the apostles," says he, "to the time of Tertullian, the matter continued in ambiguo, doubtful or various, and there were some, who, on occasion of our Lord's saying, 'Suffer little children to come unto me,' though he gave no order to baptize them, did baptize new-born infants; and, as if they were transacting some secular bargain with God Almighty, brought sponsors and bondsmen to be bound for them, that when they grew up they should not depart from the Christian faith; which custom Tertullian did not like."

says:

Monsieur DAILLE also, was of the same opinion. He "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 Gratian, out of St. Ambrose; and also by the orations and homilies of Gregory Nazianzen, and of St. Basil on this subject: And some of the Fathers, too, have been of opinion that it should be deferred."

WALAFRIDUS STRABO, who lived about the year seven hundred and fifty, is very express on this point: "It is to be noted," says he, "that in the primitive times, the grace of baptism was wont to be given to those only who were arrived to that maturity of body and mind, that they could know and understand what were the benefits of baptism, what was to be confessed and believed;