CHAPTER XVI.

The argument in favour of Infant Baptism from Ecclesiastical History, examined and shown to be insufficient and inconclu

sive,

I SHALL be brief in my remarks on the subject of this chapter, partly because I should otherwise transcend my limits, and partly because I consider the scriptures as the proper source of proof, and seeing we do not find infant baptism there, it ought to be rejected, though we should find ever so much in its favour in the records of uninspired men. It illy becomes those who allow the scriptures to be a sufficient, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice, when they fail to prove a point from them, to resort to church history. There is manifestly too much stress laid upon this argument in the present case.

That there is mention made of the baptism of little children in ecclesiastical history, as early as the forepart of the third century, and claimed as a tradition from the apostles, will not be denied, although the first of the fathers who makes decided mention of the practice, viz. Tertullian, manifestly opposed it. His words are these, viz. "The delay of baptism may be more advantageous, either on account of the condition, disposition, or age of any person, especially in reference to little children. For what necessity is there that the sponsors should be brought into danger? Because either they themselves may fail of their promises by death, or be deceived by the growth of evil dispositions. The Lord indeed says, do not forbid them to come to me. Let them therefore come, when they are grown upwhen then can understand-when they are taught to what they are to come. Why should this innocent age hasten to the remission of sins? Men act more cautiously in worldly things, so that divine things are here intrusted with whom worldly things are not. Let them know how to seek salvation, that you may appear to give to one that asketh "

Some testimonies, previous to this, are attempted to be produced, but none of them are so explicit as to be relied on. And as to this, although it recognises the practice of baptizing little children, it surely does not give it countenance; but the

author clearly dissuaded from it. He certainly reasons very much like an Anti-Pedobaptist. His mode of speaking implies that the practice was of recent date: neither, does it decidedly acknowledge the existence of infant baptism in the sense afterwards adopted. It rather appears to convey the idea that some began to baptize children at too early an age, although not strictly upon the faith of their parents. The parents, as parents, are not spoken of as having any thing to do in the case; but sponsors were provided to answer for the children, because they were too young to give the requisite answers themselves. This all looks as though, from a false view of the necessity and benefit of baptism, they began to encourage applications from children before they were capable of a regular profession of their faith; and to remedy their incapacity, sponsors came forward to answer for them. And from this arose, at length, the practice of baptizing mere infants upon the account of their parents.

Venema, who was a learned writer, says, as quoted by Pengilly, that "Tertullian has no where mentioned Pedobaptism among the traditions or customs of the church that were publickly received and usually observed." The inference from which is, that no such tradition, or custom, was then publickly received and generally observed, although the above quotation implies that the practice of baptizing children at too early an age, without proper evidence of faith, began to prevail.

The next writer who speaks of this practice is Origin, who flourished a little after Tertullian, i. e. in the former part of the third century, who says, that "the church received a tradition from the apostles to give baptism to little children also." Here again the proof is not decisive that mere infants are meant who were baptized on the faith of their parents. The terms little children, may mean no more than very young persons, baptizedupon their own account, though improperly, as above stated, for the want of the requisite qualifications; and afterwards he might have been understood to mean mere infants.

After Origin, Cyprian, who lived about the middle of this century, speaks more definitely of infant baptism; and subsequently, Austin, who lived in the fifth century, when no one doubts that the practice, as now understood, generally pre

vailed..

In relation to the early introduction of infant baptism, Bishop Taylor, as quoted by Pengilly, affirms that there is no pretence of tradition that the church in all ages did baptize all the infants of Christian parents. It is more certain that they did not do it always, than that they did it in the first age. St.

more."

Ambrose, St. Hierom, and St. Austin, were born of Christian parents, and yet not baptized until the full age of a man and He says further, " that there is a tradition from the apostles to do so, (i. e. to baptize infants,) relies but on two witnesses, Origin and Austin, and the latter having received it from the former, it relies wholly on one single testimony, which is but a pitiful argument to prove a tradition apostolical." He says, moreover, "that it was not so, (i. e. not an apostolical tradition,) is but too certain, if there be any truth in the words of Ludovicus Vives." This last writer lived in the sixteenth century, and is quoted by Dr. Gill as saying, that " formerly no person was brought to the holy baptistery, till he was of adult age, and when he both understood what that mystical water meant, and desired to be washed in it, yea, desired it more than once." And in reference to the Waldenses, he further says: "I hear, in some cities of Italy, the old custom is in a great measure preserved."

This is one among many testimonies, that the ancient Waldenses, who were witnesses for the truth in the dark ages of popery, practised believers' baptism only.

I am sensible that in opposition to these testimonies, writers of eminence might be quoted who maintain that infant baptism was affirmed to be received as a tradition from the apostles by men who lived at so early a period of the Christian era, that they must have known whether the fact were so or not.

But this merely goes to show what is asserted by the ablest judges to be the fact, that when we undertake to survey the period in which the first mention is made of this practice, we are involved in absurdity and doubt. The testimonies concerning many of the transactions of those early ages, are vague and contradictory. Besides, many of the writings of the early fathers are lost-others have been interpolated and corrupted by transcribers and translators. Moreover, most of those whose testimonies are relied on were tinctured with a vain philosophy and the reigning superstition, which were carried so far as to maintain that it was even right to deceive to promote the good of the church, so that their testimony in the case should be received with caution.

It is no decisive evidence that the practice in question was truly apostolical because it is mentioned so early and claimed as such, and because there was not more express mention made of the opposition which must have been raised against its introduction, if it had been an innovation. For the introduction was gradual, probably in the way already stated. Also, at, and previous, to the period alluded to, the sentiment prevailed that

water baptism was necessary to salvation, and that it had the virtue of washing away original sin, and of procuring divine forgiveness. This would naturally induce the belief that it could not have been the design of Christ to exclude infants therefrom, and consequently from salvation. And hence they would at length venture to confer what they conceived to be so great a benefit upon the children.

The difficulty arising from there not being more express mention made of opposition to this practice, is by no means insurmountable. It has already been shown that Tertullian did make opposition to it-besides, if there had been no record of any opposition, the case would not have been peculiar. For there is no record of any opposition being made at first to the practice of infant communion, introduced about the same time with infant baptism, and manifestly on the same ground, viz. its being essential to salvation. It is evident that this practice prevailed for a season, but who introduced it, or who opposed it, we are not told. A tradition was also claimed in those early times in favour of Episcopacy; but we cannot ascertain its particular origin any more than in the case of infant baptism. Accordingly Bishop Prideaux says, that Pedobaptism rests on no other divine right than Episcopacy." Yet many Protestants reject the latter because they do not find it in the Bible; and for the same reason we should reject the former. Besides, there is no notice taken of any opposition being made, at first, to the admission of sponsors in baptism, nor of the person, or church, that first introduced them. Nor have we any account of the origin of the difference which then prevailed in regard to the proper time of keeping Easter. All we know of the case is, that such a difference existed, and was the occasion of warm disputes between the eastern and western sections of the church.

The want of information respecting the introduction of these several articles, or respecting the opposition which was raised against them, will go to relieve the difficulty pertaining to the introduction of infant baptism, by placing all on the same ground.

Although there is nothing very express on record, in opposition to infant baptism, at the time the first mention is made of it, except what has been quoted from Tertullian, there are subsequent accounts of this opposition, which show that the date of it may be carried much further back than many are willing to acknowledge.

Doctor Gill affirms, that "there were many and great debates about infant baptism at the first of the reformation, years before the affair of Munster."

He says, the Bishop of Arles in Provence wrote to Pope In

nocent the third, under whom the Lateran council was held in 1215, that " some hereticks there had taught, that it was to no purpose to baptize children, since they could have no forgiveness of sins thereby, as having no faith, charity," &c.

Further; that "there was a people called German hereticks, or publicans, who came into England from Gascoigne in the year 1166, or a little before, who asserted that infants are not to be baptized, till they come to the age of understanding. These were headed by Gerbardus and Dulcinus."

Also, that St. Bernard, in a letter to the Earl of St. Gyles, in 1147, brings the following charge against Henry, from whom the people denominated Henricians were called, viz. " the infants of Christians are hindered from the life of Christ, the grace of baptism being denied them." And that, about the same time, the same author, in his treatise upon the Canticles, notices a people called Apostolici, (probably the followers of Henry,) and charges them with saying that infants are not to be baptized." He says, "they laugh at us for baptizing infants."

Further The Doctor says, that Peter D. Bruis, and Henry, his follower, both opposed infant baptism. That Peter, the abbot of Clugny, who wrote against them, charges them with saying, that "infants are not baptized, or saved, by the faith of another; but ought to be baptized and saved by their own faith; or that baptism without their own faith does not save; and that those that are baptized in infancy, when grown up, should be baptized again; nor are they then re-baptized, but rather rightly baptized." Dr. Wall allows that these two men were Anti-Pedobaptists, and their followers were very nume

rous.

Doctor Gill further states, that Evervinus, of the diocess of Cologne, wrote a letter to St. Bernard, in 1140, giving an account of some hereticks lately discovered in that country, concerning whom he says: "They condemn the sacraments except baptism only, and this only in those who are come to age, who they say are baptized by Christ himself, whoever be the minister of the sacrament. They do not believe in infant baptism, alleging that place of the gospel, "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

That "Bruno and Berengarius, about the year 1035, opposed infant baptism."

That Deododwin, Bishop of Liege, in a letter to Henry I. king of England, says, "There is a report come out of France, and which goes through all Germany, that these two do maintain that the Lord's body (the Host) is not the body, but a shadow and figure of the Lord's body, and that they do disannul lawful