An abridgment of Wall's History of infant baptism
Wall, William, 1647-1728 | Spencer, William Henry | Wall, William, 1647-1728. History of infant baptism ..
# •«£r .H3 /? 1c 3 « 0) ***. IE i s~ h> OL 1 #t^ M— *S> fc O O. 5 "3 S 0) c ^ o bfl rs *S E-i <: l> i^ 8 Id *»• fc E « .<-> <* M t'3 •kJ *S rt CO & <** ^ 5" -a a> •♦-' c ' s >* <u A <# CL Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/abridgmentofwallOOwall AN ABRIDGMENT WALL'S HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. REV. WILLIAM HENRY SPENCER. LONDON: FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON, st. Paul's church yard, and waterlog place. 1848. LON DON : gilbert and rivington, printers, st. John's square. o % PREFACE. The commission given by our Saviour, in the time of His mortal life, to baptize in the country of Judea, is not at all set down in Holy Scrip- ture,— only it is said they baptized (John iii. 22— 26; iv. 1,2). And the repetition of the commission, in Matt, xxviii. 19, is conveyed in general terms, and gives no directions with respect to either the age or manner of baptism. It does not command infant baptism, but it does not forbid it ; it defines neither at what age a per- son is qualified to receive this sacrament, nor the manner in which it is to be administered. Among the persons baptized by the Apostles, there is no express mention of infant baptism ; nor is there, on the other hand, any mention of a Christian child's baptism being deferred till adult age. The proofs for infant baptism drawn from Holy Scrip- ture, are not so plain but that arguments against A 9 IV PREFACE. infant baptism should have considerable weight with those who have no help from the history of Scripture times, and no critical knowledge of the original Greek text. It is no wonder at all that at this distance of time from the Apostles many men should have fallen into error in this matter. But the practice of the early Christians who lived near the Apostles' times is more easily known and is more largely related, and, provided the accounts of those times are fairly and impar- tially given, they ought to have much influence in deciding the controversy. The command of Holy Scripture to proselytize and baptize all nations is plain, but the method of doing this in all its particulars is not expressly stated in Scripture ; but there is no doubt but that the Apostles knew what to do, and that the Christian Church did in their time the right method, and as they had taught them. Some of the Apostles lived nearly to the end of the first century ; St. John lived beyond it ; and it is probable that those Christians who lived a hundred or a hundred and fifty years after the PREFACE. Apostles, must have known the practice they established. The fathers of some of them, and the grandfathers of others, would have lived in or very near the Apostles1 times; and if their parents had been Christian, they would have received baptism in infancy. It was a rite public and notorious, and practised, not only by one man, but by all, — not by one Church only, but by every Church in the world, and therefore could not have lain hid, nor have been so soon forgotten. If it had been an innovation of the second or third century, some account would have certainly been recorded of it. It would not have been received without opposition. But none such is mentioned ; nor could Pelagius nor any heretic charge it with being of recent origin, nor deny it to be the apostolic practice. Besides, the Apostles before they died chose men of whom they had good proof, to teach the same things as they had done themselves, many of whom lived till a long while after the Apostles themselves were deceased, and saw the customs continued which they had directed and taught. This is an a 3 \1 PREFACE. argument which no one can really slight, — and assuredly, where a command in Holy Scripture is given in a brief and general manner, the practice of the early Church gives the best com- ment on its meaning, and for this reason Wall has examined what historical evidence of their practice is to be found in the earliest writers, and accordingly he has gone through the writings of the Fathers, and drawn up a collection from them on this subject. This he has done fully and impartially. He quotes the passages bearing on both sides of the question ; he has not recited mere scraps of sentences, but given them fully, and as they are all quoted in his " History, " they are open to the examination of every one. He takes the first four centuries. His object is to give a history of the custom of the primitive Christians on the subject of infant baptism, and it is no part of his plan to treat of the manner in which it was administered, nor to give Scripture proofs , ; 1 He refers those who desire Scripture proofs to a little work he had written, called " A Conference," &c. It will he found abridged in Appendix I. aud II. PREFACE. VII and these are introduced only here and there, and by the way, in order to illustrate the passage quoted. His " History" is allowed to have brought forward conclusive evidence. He had read the previous modern works written on this sub- ject, as Hammond, Selden, &c, and has made use of their suggestions and wisdom ; and for many years he had studied the Fathers with reference especially to the subject of his " His- tory." The House of Convocation publicly thanked him for it, and the University of Oxford conferred upon him the degree of a Doctor of Divinity as a token of their approbation. The anti-psedobaptists are of opinion that infant baptism arose in St. Cyprian's time, gra- dually extended, and had become the general practice in St. Austin's time. They consequently allow the evidence only of the times antecedent to St. Cyprian, and concede all the subsequent dates. During these two hundred and fifty years they pretend that there is no proof or warranty for it. But Wall remarks that the practice of infant baptism can clearly be traced back to the Vlll PREFACE. time of St. Cyprian ; and hence he infers, not that it began at that time, but, as it is found established then, he supposes that there is every reason to infer that it had existed for a Ions: time previously, and from the beginning. It is mentioned distinctly by Irenseus, who lived eighty years before St. Cyprian ; and indirectly, by writers of the first century, who were contem- porary with the Apostles. No council ordained it. So convinced was Wall with the arguments from antiquity, that, in the conclusion of his work, he hopes now that it has been carried so far, and such plain evidence of the practice of the early Christians produced, that it will not be suffered to drop. Arguments from Holy Scripture also enforce the practice of infant baptism. It is very easy to argue, as some do, that infants have never offended God — that God is a God of mercy, and designs the happiness and not the misery of His creatures — and will not impute to infants sins that they never committed, nor punish them for not performing conditions that they neither know PREFACE. IX nor understand — and so to conclude that all infants shall be saved, whether baptized or not. Such arguing seems plausible, but is directly opposed to Scripture (1 John v. 11, 12; John iii. 5;) and to reason — for the kingdom of heaven is not due to them, they have no merit, nor promise, nor right to the kingdom of heaven, merely because they are born of human race — but only as being entered into and interested in the covenant of God ; and this covenant does require, as a condition of all that are to enter into the kingdom, that they be " born again of water" &c. ; and thus in baptism only is there some ground of safety for their children founded on God's word. " You would have us believe a monstrous thing,"1 says Gregory Nazianzen, " if you think that God, because He is merciful, will count him enlightened that is not, and will take him into the kingdom who wishes for it, but does not perform the things that make the way to it." The Fathers do accordingly speak of it as a great sin in those who have the care of children to suffer them to die unbaptized, and REFACE. they represent it as great piety and compassion in those who bring to baptism infants found exposed and cast out. When they had esta- blished a more orderly administration of baptism for adult converts at a fixed season, they ex- cepted infants and sickly persons ; and rather than that they should die without baptism, some allowed this sacrament to be given by laymen. To those, therefore, who reject infant baptism, we propose one question for their consideration. " By what means, and by what merit or title, infants obtain the kingdom of heaven V Is it by the parents' holiness \ — the child's holiness \ — or by Christ's purchase ? If by Christ's pur- chase, they must fulfil the conditions which Christ requires. He requires in those who are admitted into heaven, that they be " members of Christ," united to Him by the Holy Spirit — included in His covenant and purchase — of His fold, of His kingdom, of His body, — fellow- heirs, fellow-citizens with the saints, &c. Our blessed Saviour, at His coming at the last day, will be much displeased either with the Church 'REFACE. XI for receiving them, or with those who reject them. It has been said by the Baptists, that bap- tism requires faith and repentance as necessary preliminaries, and consequently cannot possibly be given to infants. Much is said on this ques- tion in the course of the work, and Wall has set it in the right light ; he has shown that these are required only in adults ; and that the faith and promise of sponsors is allowed for infants till they come of age to take upon themselves the fulfilment of the baptismal vow. The Fa- thers, Austin and Tertullian, speak of sponsors, and they show that they have considered the reasons which the anti-paedobaptists object against infant baptism, viz. that they have no faith, no sense, no actual sin, &c, and do not count them sufficient cause to prevent the bap- tizing of infants ; and they discourse about god- fathers professing in the name of the child, and vowing for it that part of the covenant which the child is bound to believe and perform, if it live. Wherefore, with the pious and judicious Xll PREFACE. Hooker, we say, w If Christ Himself, who giveth salvation, do require baptism, it is not for us who look for salvation to sound and examine Him whether unbaptized persons may be saved, but seriously to do what is required. " Holy Scripture requires the use of water in baptism, and that it be done in the Name of the Blessed Trinity. The age and the manner, whether adults or infants — whether by dipping or pouring, is not determined ; and the general terms in which the commission is given would leave those things optional, did not the further question of original guilt render its speedy ad- ministration expedient. The analogy of cir- cumcision is no weak argument for the practice, and is constantly referred to by the Fathers and commentators on the Bible ; and Christ's own expression, " Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven," indicates that they are capable of obtaining heaven ; and consequently they are fit and proper subjects for that holy sacrament, without which no man can enter in. PBBFACE. Xlii The sentence of those learned men who have read the Fathers is, that those books do give clear proof that infant baptism was customary in the times of their authors and of the Apos- tles. There are but two or three who think otherwise ; and Menno himself, the father of the present anti-psedobaptists (says Wall), granted this to be true. The evidences of the first four hundred years do so speak. Only two men urge delay ; the reason for their doing so will be found related in the following pages. But no society or Church thought or practised with them, and no one during that period said it was unlawful or invalid ; and the reasons urged for deferring it had reference to the obligation of the baptismal vow, and the difficulty of performing, and the danger of breaking it. So for the next seven hundred years there is not so much as one man to be found that either spoke for or practised such delay. About a. d. 1130, one sect among the Albigenses, an ignorant people, declared against infant baptism ; but their opi- nion soon dwindled away, till the rise of the XIV PREFACE. German anti-paedobaptists, a. l>. 1522, of whom something will be said by and by. Objections against infant baptism are of two kinds. They are given near the end of this book. Wall's " History of Infant Baptism" gave rise to many replies. It spoke too distinctly, and its arguments were too stringent, to be allowed to pass unanswered. Wall takes notice of three of these books — one by a Mr. Emlyn, a Socinian ; one by Gale, a Baptist minister ; and one by a Mr, Davy, of Leicester. Gale is the chief, and is answered most fully : for he has a popular way of pleading, being very positive and very declamatory, never allowing himself to be beaten; wresting places of the Fathers, and shift- ing from one objection to another, as : e. g. the books are not genuine — such a chapter is inter- polated— they, by infants, mean infants in inno- cency, and not in age — translation not correct, &c. Yet Gale is a man of much learning, and was highly esteemed by the Baptists and Dr. Whitby. \Vrall dues not value so highly either his learning PREFACE. XV or his accuracy. Gale's " Reflections11 are in some sort valuable, as showing what objections and arguments can be raised in opposition to infant baptism ; and by affording Wall an opportunity of answering them, Gale has made the evidence for infant baptism two-fold ; viz. direct proof, such as Wall intended to give, and has given in his Introduction and History ; and negative proof, based on the refutation of objections. The value of the evidence thus derived is, undoubt- edly, very important and weighty, and is con- sequently included in this Abridgment, as it is given in full in the third and fourth volumes of the original work. In the following pages, Wall's own language is used as much as possible. The author of this Abridgment by no means desires that this little work should supersede the larger one by Dr. Wall, but would rather that the notice of his arguments and suggestions, here stated very briefly, should excite those who read these pages to the study of the original. The quotations, which Wall has transcribed at XVI PREFACE. full, are most deserving of attentive study, and decide the matter most satisfactorily, as far as the evidence of the practice of the Church is concerned. And it does not need much wit to perceive the great value of this evidence, as a commentary upon a rule stated so briefly as the institution of baptism is in the Gospel. 7-o ^ AN ABRIDGMENT OF WALL'S ^ HISTORY OF INFANT BAPTISM. INTRODUCTION. The Institution of the rite of Baptism is stated very concisely in Holy Scripture. No directions denned either the manner in which it is to be administered, or at what age it is to be received. But the meaning of a rule expressed in very short and general words (as the rule for baptism is) may be illustrated by considering 1 . The History of the times in which it was instituted ; 2. How it was understood and practised at or near the time of its institution ; The 1st, viz., The custom of the Jews at and before our Saviours time, is the subject of this Introduction. NTRODUCTION, The 2nd, viz., The practice of the early Chris- tians, is the subject of the History, and includes the first four hundred years of the Christian ?era. The evidence derived from these two sources is satisfactory and conclusive ; for a rule given in general words seems to take it for granted, that those to whom it was addressed did pre- viously understand some things requisite to the apprehending its meaning ; so that it was need- less to mention them, and the practice of those who published it would sufficiently illustrate it. But after so great an interval of time as has since then elapsed, many things may have be- come obscured, which can only be cleared up and understood by recurring to the history of the times in which the rule was given. This is evidently the case with baptism ; and hence the great advantage of adverting to the history of the times of its institution. The Jews, from the very giving of the Law, according to the assertions of their own rabbins, baptized as well as circumcised proselytes, in order to enter them into covenant. This they called, " baptizing to Moses.'1 It was an initia- tory rite, and required for males, circumcision, baptism, and a sacrifice ; for females, baptism and a sacrifice. The baptism must be performed in the presence of three men, according to XTRODUCTUN. Maimonides, — of two grave men, according to the Talmud of Babylon, — of three rabbins, ac- cording to the Jerusalem Talmud. It was administered after the wound of circumcision had healed. The above-named authorities, and many others, considered baptism, as well as circumcision, necessary for initiation into the Mosaical covenant. Baptism for proselytism was given only once ; and in this it differed from baptism for purifica- tion, which was administered often. Baptism for proselytism was never reiterated on a prose- lyte or any of his posterity. The existence of the custom prior to the institution of the Christian rite is obvious. The question in which we are concerned is not, whether they had a good and lawful warrant for the practice, but whether they did practise it. The writings of the rabbins, the Talmud, &c, distinctly declare that this practice was custom- ary, and their evidence is conclusive as to the historical fact. The grounds on which the Jews based it are not to the point. If it was an in- vention of their own, still they refer to the law of Moses in proof of it. Thus, (Num. xv. 15,) " One law and one manner shall be to you and the stranger." Now the Jews reckoned that when they entered into covenant at the time of b 2 4 INTRODUCTION. receiving the Law at Sinai, they were all bap- tized; and this they infer from Exod. xix. 10, " Sanctify the people to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their clothes, and be ready the third day."'1 They interpret " sanctify" to mean, " wash the body ;" and that to wash their gar- ments, implied also the washing of the whole body. This is seen in Maimonides, Gemara Babylon, and others, quoted by Selden. And supposing the Jews mistook the sense of these texts, yet when they had upon that authority established a practice of baptizing proselytes and their children, and that practice had now continued many ages — if our Saviour had meant that the Apostles in baptizing Christian converts should have altered the practice, and refused baptism to the children of such proselytes as they baptized, we have all the reason in the world to think He would have forewarned them of it. Our Saviour, who must have known of the custom, gives no caution against it. As they themselves were initiated, so the Jews were accustomed to initiate proselytes by a similar ceremony. Gregory Nazianzen alludes to this initiatory baptism as typical of Christian Baptism : he calls it the baptism of Moses. So Cyprian, Basil, Tertullian. Selden and Dr. Hammond also concluded the same, from 1 Cor. INTRODUCTION. O x. 1, which would have been difficult for those to whom St. Paul wrote to have made anything out of, except by reference to this custom of the Jews. The children of proselytes were also admitted into covenant by baptism, with their parents. The child's inability to promise was no bar against his being admitted ; and the desire of the parent was counted available, and sufficient to justify admission ; and they judged that as it was for the child's good, they need not wait till his mature age ■ for his own consent, but that delay in giving baptism would be as impious as to delay circumcision. This is seen in the Gemara Babylon, and in the Jerusalem Talmud. The "House of Judgment2" became to an orphan child in the stead of a parent — i. e. sponsors. Those children only were baptized who were born before their parents were proselytized : all born after were reckoned clean from their birth ; their parents having been initiated, and so na- tural Jews, and consequently standing in no 1 They considered infancy in a male to be under thirteen years and a day ; in a female, under twelve years and a day. 2 The " House of Judgment " was the court before which profession of obedience to the law of Moses was made by the proselytes, previous to receiving the sacred rite. B 3 INTRODUCTION. further need of this baptism. Such children were only circumcised. The Jews baptized children found exposed, or taken in war, and all others of whom they had power or possession in infancy, and when bap- tized they accounted them proselytes. " The baptizing of infants (says Dr. Lightfoot) was a thing as well known in the church of the Jews as ever it has been in the Christian church." By understanding the existence of this custom we obtain a clearer light of the commission of Christ, "Go, disciple ail nations, baptizing them.,, Those sent so to do would regulate their practice according to the manner they had been accus- tomed to, unless a command was given to the contrary, which does not appear. If this com- mission had been, " Go, circumcise all," &c, circumcision would have been given to infants as well as adults, and why not baptism also; and they would apply that name to the persons who receiv- ed that rite at their hands which they had been accustomed to see given among their own nation ; they would call them proselytes, or jiadr\Ta\. It cannot be doubted that the Apostles knew what to do ; and the practice they established we may reasonably suppose that the Church retained and continued to use. That the Jews considered themselves clean, INTRODUCTION. and gave baptism of proselytism only to new pro- selytes, does not affect the question of Christian baptism ; for St. John and Christ baptized Jews — a thing which was quite contrary to the Jewish custom, for they baptized only proselytes from other nations ; but they seemed to expect as soon as Messias came, that their own nation should receive baptism from Him ; and the baptism of John and Christ did not excite their surprise. The Jews made no question of the thing itself, but of the person who did it, and merely inquired why John baptized if he were not the Christ I They asked, "Who art thou V " All men mused,1'' &c. The privilege which the Jew had, or supposed that he had, above other people is, as to the Christian dispensation, abolished. Christ has declared that every man individually needs baptism. When Christ abolished all the Jewish ceremonial law, there was nothing left but baptism. This He retained as initiatory. " He took it" (says Dr. Lightfoot) "into his hands, such as He found it ; adding only this, that He exalted it to a nobler purpose and larger use. St. Paul calls it ' Christian cir- cumcision," Col. ii. 11."" We have no proof that St. John and the early Christians did in any way alter the custom they found existing among the Jews. The onus 8 INTRODUCTION. U on this point lies upon the Anti- psedobaptists. We have no means of judging what they did but by observing what was done before them, and what was practised after them, in the Church. The people who flocked to John's baptism were not surely so forgetful of the manners and customs of their nation as to omit to bring their children along with them- selves to be baptized. That the baptism of adults only should be mentioned is reasonably to be expected in the first preaching of the Gospel. It was the first step. But St. Ambrose takes it for granted that John Baptist baptized infants. Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Austin, speak of infant baptism as ordered and practised by the Apostles. If infant baptism had been something new, there would have been an express command for it given to the disciples, as there was for circum- cision to Abraham. But as it was ordinary in all ages before to baptize infants, if Christ had intended to abolish the usage, the need would have been for a command forbidding it. The Jews called in/ants initiated by baptism, proselytes or disciples. Apply this to Matthew xxviii. 19, and considerable light is thrown upon this text. They called such initiatory baptism of a pro- INTRODUCTION. 9 selyte, his regeneration. They told the prose- lytes, that however unclean and sinful he and his children were before, they were now by this baptism dedicated to the true God, entered into a new covenant with Him, put into a new state, and were in all respects as if they had been new born. The Heathens also had a form of baptism (of which Tertullian speaks) in the mysteries of Apollo and Ceres, which they called regeneration. In this they imitated the Jewish initiatory rite. The Jews supposed proselytism to cancel and abolish all previous natural relationship, whether of parents, friends, &c. ; and hence, 2 Cor. v. 1 7, " If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." 1 Pet. ii. 2, " As newborn babes." The rabbins carried this idea of disannulment to an extrava- gant degree. It is referred to in I Cor. vii .10,^ sea. The Christian Fathers have retained the term regeneration as equivalent to baptism, and, in- deed, as convertible terms. This is proved clearly in the " History,11 by numerous quota- tions ; and it elucidates our Lord's words to Nicodemus, in John iii. 5, and puts it beyond a doubt that our Saviour is to be understood there of baptism. Clement says, " Christ was regenerated by John." Hierome says, " Except a man be bap- tized with water and the Spirit ;" thus explaining 10 INTRODUCTION. " born again," in John iii. 5, by " baptized." Baptism is called regeneration by Hermas Pastor, Justin Martyr, Irenseus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Austin, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, &c. By instituting a parallel between the Jewish and Christian baptisms, and the modes and cir- cumstances attending each, it will more plainly appear that John the Baptist and our Saviour, and the Apostles and primitive Christians, had an eye to the Jewish baptism in many of the circumstances which they used in the Christian sacrament. The parallel between the two is as follows : — 1. The Jews required before baptism a pro- fession of obedience to the Law. Exod. xix. " If thou wilt keep my covenant," &c. " And the people answered, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." They were then baptized. So Christians are required to profess faith, to renounce the devil, &c, and are then baptized. 2. Both Jews and Christians used interroga- tories before baptism ; and both used them twice, at two distinct times previous to administering the rite. 3. Both baptized infants. 4. The Jews allowed two or three grave per- sons to answer as sponsors. So does the Christian Church. INTRODUCTION. 11 5. Both apply regeneration as synonymous with baptism. 6. Both understood baptism to remove the recipient from a state of uncleanness to a state of holiness ; and thus, " sanctified," " holy,11 " saints,11 are terms applied to " baptized " pro- selytes. 7. The Holy Spirit conveyed at baptism 3 corresponded to the Sheckinah, under which the Jews considered the baptized proselyte to be placed. 8. The Paschal season was appropriated by both to the purpose of admitting proselytes. 9. The Jews had Proselytes of the Gate, and of the Temple. The Christians had Audientes, Catechumens, Competentes, and Fideles. 10. Certain customs obtained among the early Christians, which were probably derived from the Jews : viz., Trine immersion ; a little milk and honey ; Chrism. The degrees of preparatory admission in both Churches did so resemble one another, that it is plain that the first Christians imitated the Jews in the steps that they made towards admitting 3 This outpouring of the Holy Spirit was more palpably discerned in the early times of the Christian church, when baptism conveyed sensible and miraculous powers. 12 INTRODUCTION. a proselyte to baptism ; and the ceremonies and circumstances attending it were so similar in both Churches, that we must come to the same con- clusion again, and acknowledge how much the Christian Church owes to the Jewish in these respects. If it be objected that baptism for proselytism is not enjoined in Holy Scripture, — we have seen (a) That the Jews did adduce texts in sup- port of it. (b) Even if they mistook the meaning of the texts, the practice was established ; and our Sa- viour retained it, and exalted it to the nature of a sacrament. [ The authorities which Wall has especially made use of in this Introduction are, Ainsworth, Dr. Hammond, Selden, Lightfoot, Jacob Alting, Godwyn's " Moses and Aaron," and " A Dis- course on Lent," by Hooper, Bishop of Bath and Wells.] THE HISTORY. CHAPTER I. The short pieces by the Fathers of the first century which have come down to us are about other subjects than infant baptism. The times were too troubled, and the Church in too great danger, and exposed to too great calumnies, to allow any thing else but Apologies and Vindica- tions to be written. The earliest writer who gives positive evidence of the practice of infant baptism is Irenseus, (a. d. 167). But Clemens Romanus, Hermas Pastor1, and Justin Martyr, though they do not speak directly of infant baptism, do, nevertheless, mention such things, from whence the practice may be inferred. Thus : Clemens Romanus speaks of original, or birth sin, and the necessity of baptism for the 1 Wall does not consider this Clemens and Hernias to be the persons mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistles, Phil. iv. 3, and Rom. xvi. 14. C 14 THE HISTORY. forgiveness of it in infants. He refers to Job xiv. 4. Hermas Pastor, who (as Clement also) wrote before the Gospel of St. John was written, has set down the substance of John iii. 5. In two very remarkable visions of a tower 2 which he describes, he shows the necessity of water- baptism for salvation ; and declares, that " the Church of those who are saved is built upon water." He calls baptism " the seal of the Son of God, which brings from death to life : ,1 and he declares infants capable of being admitted into covenant3. Justin Martyr (a. d. 140), in the "Dia- logue with Trypho," speaks of original guilt, and declares the necessity of its forgiveness as well as of actual sins ; that this forgiveness is applied ordinarily by baptism. He understands John iii. 5, as referring to baptism ; and uses " the 2 The " White Hill " in one of these visions, which was the chief of all that supplied stones for the Tower, represents infants. 3 Hermas, in one vision, has spoken of the baptism of the patriarchs, &c, of the Old Testament, who were dead, by Christ and the Apostles ; and Wall, without defending this (except by referring to 1 Pet. iii. 19, iv. 6, and 1 Cor. xv. 29, a passage hi Clem. Alex, and Origen having a similar tendency), infers from it the strong notion which the early Christians must have had of the necessity of water baptism. THE HISTORY. 15 water of regeneration " as synonymous with bap- tism. All the writers of the first four hundred years do so likewise without any exception — much in the same way as we do the word " Christened." He certainly understands Christ's commission (Matt, xxviii. 19) to apply to infants ; for when he speaks of persons who from childhood had been Christ's disciples,4 he uses the same word as is in the commission, — (ol Ik 7ra($u)v liiadr\- TtvOricrav TtjJ Xpt<7roj). This most ancient Fa- ther speaks of baptism being to Christians in the stead of circumcision ; and the analogy between these two is much insisted on by psedobaptists, to prove that one ought to be given to infants as well as the other. He speaks of baptism as spiritual circumcision, such as Enoch had ; and in this agrees with Col. ii. 11, 12, where St. Paul speaks of the Christian converts as circumcised with " the circumcision of Christ ; " which can only mean such a rite, analogous to circumcision, as Christ appointed, i. e. baptism; and so St. Paul goes on to say that they were circumcised, 44 being buried with Him by baptism." Both Justin and St. Paul refer to the inward and 4 The Anti-paedobaptists argue that an infant cannot be baptized because it cannot be discipled. But in this place Justin speaks of them as " disciples." See infra, " Letters " VII and VIII. c2 16 THE HISTORY. outward part of baptism, whereof the inward part was done without hands. Irenes (a. d. 167) had conversed with Poly- carp, the intimate and beloved friend of St. John, and accordingly much weight must be given to his authority. He speaks of original guilt affecting all mankind and born with them, and that it is only in and through Christ that it is forgiven. He speaks of baptism as the means by which this forgiveness is conveyed, and, accordingly, calls baptism "redemption"'1 and "regeneration.1' He considers it necessary for infants, and reckons them among the "regenerated5.1"1 He distin- guishes between regeneration and conversion. So also Gregory Nazianzen says, there is no other regeneration to be had but such as is conveyed by water-baptism. He grants that there is repent- ance after baptism, and forgiveness on repent- ance ; but he shows this to be different from the forgiveness conveyed by baptism. Austin, Hie- rome, and Ambrose, make the same distinction. Irenseus speaks of infant baptism as being the common practice in the Churches of France ; and Clemens Alexandrinus (a. d. 192) speaks of infant baptism as commonly practised in the 5 By " regeneration " Wall understands the outward act of baptism, accompanied with that grace and mercy of God whereby he admits the recipient into covenant. THE HISTORY. 17 Churches of Alexandria, and takes it for granted that the Apostles baptized infants. This Father expressly states that regeneration means baptism, and thus determines the use of the word which Irenseus has applied to infants. He recommends for the device of a seal, " an Apostle drawing an infant out of water," by which he represents infant baptism. Tertullian (a. d. 200) was a very learned man, but fell into great and monstrous errors of faith. But this does not invalidate the force of his testimony concerning the practice of the Church in his own times ; and his authority is adduced merely as evidence of facts, and no use is made of his particular religious opinions. He speaks of baptism as the " sealing of faith," and as absolutely necessary to salvation ; and para- phrases " cannot enter," in John iii. 5, by " non habet salutem ;" and rather than that it should be omitted, he allows it to be administered by a layman in cases of extremity. Nevertheless, he recommends baptism to be deferred till all danger of sinning from lust, &c, is past ; and therefore he disputes as much against the custom of baptizing virgins, young widows, &c, as of baptizing infants : and yet, with all this, he ac- knowledges the danger of infants dying without having received it, and would have it administered c 3 18 THE HISTORY. at once to a dying child to save it. There is much perplexity involved in the opinion of Ter- tullian, and it is hard to reconcile several pas- sages in his works with one another. He at one time calls infants, " setas innocens ;" at another he calls them sinful and unclean. Wall thinks that his real sentiments were, that those who slighted baptism, if they died without it perished everlastingly ; but that those who from fear of offending against the baptismal vow, and from a sense of its very great importance, deferred to receive it till they could attain a holier life, and consider themselves in a condition to keep it, were allowed to do so ; and if they died in the meanwhile, the will and purpose of being bap- tized would be accepted by God for the deed. Such being his doctrine, he explains Matt. xix. 14 to mean, that they are to come when grown up, (which is the very thing Christ reproved in his disciples) ; and he would make " holy," in 1 Cor. vii. 14, to mean " sanctitati designati" In all this, however, he indirectly attests the custom of baptizing infants ; for he so gives his reasons and opinion against the custom as that one plainly perceives by his words that it was then actually the custom to baptize them. He further speaks of sponsors, which are required only for infants. THE HISTORY. 19 Origen (a. d. 210) was competent to judge of the practice of the Church. He was a learned man, and had travelled in Egypt, Arabia, Greece, Rome, Cappadocia, and Palestine. He declares infant baptism to be the common usage of the Church, and thinks it was ordered by the Apos- tles. So did Ambrose, Clemens Alexandrinus, and Austin. He held the doctrine of original guilt, and cites in proof of it Job xiv. 4, above forty times. He held that baptism was ordained for its removal and forgiveness. And Hierome imagines that Origen devised his theory of the pre-existence of the soul 6 in order to account for original guilt. Origen was born of Christian parents, and was baptized when an infant. His grandfather very probably lived in apostolic times, or at least very near it, and must have known the practice of those times. No proof of infant baptism can be adduced from his comment on Matt, xviii. 10, 6 The works of Origen which are extant are chiefly trans- lations by Hierome and Rufinus, which have been made so freely that they are much open to cavil ; yet they contain so many allusions to infant baptism that they cannot all be inter- polations, and the authority of Origen on this point may be received as decisive. In those of his Greek works which have survived he mentions infant baptism. See infra, Letter XII. That he, or any other ancient, mentioning a practice as re- ceived, should give an erroneous reason for it, is as good a witness uf the practice itself as the most orthodox mention of it. 20 THE HISTORY. as it is uncertain whether he refers to infants in age or innocency. This is unfortunate, as this passage is in the original Greek. Cyprian (a. d. 250). A very important Council was held, a. d. 253, in Africa, under Cyprian. There were sixty-six bishops present. They deliberated on two points. The one was Be Lapsis ; the other was on certain ques- tions proposed by Fidus, a bishop ; one of which was, whether the analogy of circumcision was to be so strictly adhered to that baptism should not be given till the eighth day. Cyprian and the bishops assembled with him decided that the child might be baptized under eight days old, and held that to suffer a child to die unbaptized was to endanger its salvation. Of these bishops we may safely suppose that some of them were seventy or eighty years of age ; and it was very easy for them, because of the short interval of time which had elapsed since the days of the Apostles, to have known the practice of the first Christians. Some of them were probably born within seventy or eighty years after the death of the last Apostle ; and in their young days there must have been members of the Church still alive who had been born in the very age of the Apostles. It is improbable in the extreme that they should have erred in this matter ; and in THE HISTORY. 21 the account given of this Council it is plain that there was no uncertainty or doubt entertained by any member of it about the validity and efficacy as well as usefulness of the practice. 