TESTIMONY OF IRENEUS.

79

to its common meaning. The word childhood, therefore, by which we have rendered pais, is the true meaning of the original. They also object, (2,) that to disciple, does not mean to baptize, and does not necessarily imply that baptism was performed in childhood. In answer to this objection, we may say, first, that it is evident that if they had been baptized at all, they were baptized when they were discipled, and that they had been baptized, no one doubts; and, second, that the language does necessarily imply that they had become Christians, and if they had become Christians, they must have received the rite of baptism.

IRENEUS, Bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, lived and wrote about A. D. 175. His work Against Heresy, has ever been held in high repute.* He says:

“CHRIST came to save all persons by himself; all, I mean, who are regenerated (renascuntur, i. e. baptizedf) unto God; infants (infantes) and little ones, (parvulos,) and children, (pueros,) and young persons, (juvenes,) and old persons, (seniors.) Therefore he went through all ages; and for infants, became an infant, that he might sanctify infants; and for little ones, became a little one, that he might sanctify those of that age; and also give them an example of goodness, justice, and dutifulness."

The only objection which it has been possible to raise against this passage, is to doubt whether it has reference to baptism. But such an objection can have no force, even with

*L. ii. c. 39.

+ On the meaning of renascor, see Orig. ad Rom. 6. Cyp. Ep. Ad. Fidum, Cyr. Jerus. Cat. Mys. 1. Greg. Naz. Orat. Sanc. Lav. Basil Exhor. Bap. and Chrys. Jerom. Augus. Theod. &c. Also all the ancient Baptismal Liturgies, as, Lit. Ant. Ass. II. 220, Armenian. Ib. II. 198, Apos. Jerus. Ib. II. 26€, Alex. Copt. Ib. II. 165, Old Gallic, Ib. II. 42, Syriac, Ib. II. 258, etc. The difficulty is not to find proof in favor of this interpretation, but to find authorities against it.

the merest tyro in ecclesiastical history. Those who are not familiar with it, we need only refer to the language of Justin, above quoted, and to the following, from Irenæus himself. Thus he says, "And because the renunciation of baptism-of that regeneration (baptismatis ejus regenerationis) which is unto GOD." And,t" CHRIST gave his disciples the power of regeneration (regenerationis) into GOD, saying to them, go teach all nations, baptizing them,'" &c.

We ought here to add a word concerning the knowledge of Justin and Irenæus upon these subjects, and of the means they had of acquainting themselves with the practices of the Apostolic age. Justin tells us, that when he wrote, A. D. 150, persons were living seventy years of age, who became Christians in their childhood. Such persons must have been born as early as A. D. 80, or 20 years before the death of St. John, and consequently they must have known what was the practice of the Apostles. From these, Justin could obtain the most satisfactory information. Nor was the means of information possessed by Irenæus, less satisfactory, for he tells us himself, that he was a pupil of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna,‡ and Polycarp we know was a pupil of the Apostle and beloved disciple St. John.§ Polycarp, therefore, knew personally, and Irenæas knew from Polycarp, what was the Apostolic practice, and the bare mention of the existence of infant baptism, by Irenæus, unaccompanied by any intimation that it was an innovation, in a work written expressly to point out all innovations, is conclusive evidence that it had been practised from the days of the Apostles. The testimony of these two writers, does, therefore, render it absolutely certain, that infant baptism was practised in the primitive and Apos

TESTIMONY OF TERTULLIAN.

81

tolic Church. No evidence could be more entirely decisive

on this point. TERTULLIAN.

We will consider next the case of Tertullian, a Presbyter in the Church at Carthage, who was contemporary with Irenæus, and wrote about A. D. 195. He was a man of ardent temperament, something wanting in sound judgment, and in the latter part of his life, not entirely sound in the faith. Among other strange notions that he fell into, one was, that sin, after baptism, could hardly be pardoned; or, in other words, that all sin, after baptism, was sin against the HOLY GHOST. Hence he advised the delay of baptism. The following is from his treatise On Baptism.*

"Therefore, according to the condition and disposition of persons, and also their age, the delay of baptism is more advisable; especially in the case of little children, (parvulos.)

Our LORD says, indeed, 'Forbid them not to come unto me.' Therefore let them come when they understand; when they are instructed why it is that they come."

Two remarks are suggested by this quotation; first, that Tertullian, in advising the delay of infant baptism, recognizes the existence of the practice in the Church at that time; and, second, that he understood the passage, "Suffer little children to come unto me and forbid them not," (Matt. xix. 14; Mark x. 14; Luke xviii. 16,) as did the primitive Church generally, and as the principles of common sense interpretation now require us to construe it, to denote coming to CHRIST in baptism. Tertullian also understands the passage, (1 Cor. vii. 14,) of which we have before spoken, to denote baptism. Thus he quotes the passage: "Of either parent sanctified, the children that are born are holy;" by reason of the prerogative of that seed, and also the instruction in their education; else, says he, were they unclean. But yet meaning to be understood

*C. 18.

thus: that the children of the faithful, are designed for holiness; that is, "baptismal holiness."t That Tertullian was opposed to infant baptism, no one doubts, and this fact is the most conclusive evidence of the existence of the practice, as no one would oppose a practice which had no existence.

We have now examined all the passages in the Bible, and the Fathers of the two first centuries, which have any direct bearing on the question touching the subjects of baptism; and are authorized to say, that the evidence is conclusive in favor of the right of infants to baptism.

There are several other arguments in proof of the conclusion here drawn, but we have extended this examination so much beyond our original intention, that we shall barely enumerate them.

I. That the quantity of water is not essential to the ordinance, we infer ::

1. Because baptism being symbolic of purification, the rule given by CHRIST to Peter, (John xiii.,) he that was washed in part, was clean every whit, is applicable.

2. From the cases of household baptism, as in the cases of Cornelius, (Acts x.;) of Lydia, (Acts xvi. ;) of the Jailer, (Acts xvi. ;) of Crispus, (Acts xviii. and 1 Cor. i.;) of Stephanus and Gaius, (1 Cor. i.;) and of the baptism on the day of Pentecost, (Acts ii.;) and at Samaria, by Philip, (Acts viii.;) which alone would render infant baptism highly probable.

II. That infants are to be admitted to baptism and the privileges of the new covenant, we also infer :

1. From the fact that the Christian Church has succeeded the Jewish Church, into which infants were received by express command. That it has so succeeded, is evident from what we have before said; and also,

(1.) Because the blessings promised to Abraham, at the in

SCRIPTURE, ON INFANT BAPTISM.

83

stitution of the covenant, of which circumcision was the seal, were intended for the Gentiles also, through faith in JESUS CHRIST. (Gen. xvii.; Gal. iii. 19-29.)

(2.) Because the covenant made with Abraham, was not disannulled by the fulfilling of the law given at Sinai; and must, therefore, continue in force. (Gal. iii. 17.)

(3.) Because all persons who have been baptized into CHRIST, are Abraham's seed, and heirs to the promises contained in the covenant made with him. (Gal. iii. 27, 29.)

2. We also infer that infants should be offered to GOD in baptism, upon the faith of the parent, or master, because the blessings which CHRIST Conferred upon men, were frequently given to children and servants, on the faith of the parents or master. Thus, the servant of the centurion was healed, upon the faith of his master. (Matt. viii.) The ruler's daughter was restored to life and health, on account of her father's faith, (Luke viii.,) and the woman of Samaria, by her faith, obtained the like blessing for her daughter. (Matt. xx.) And the little children on whom CHRIST bestowed his blessing, were presented to him on the faith of believing parents. In view of these, and many other facts of a similar character, it is impossible for us to see how any servant of CHRIST can drive from his altar and reject from his covenant, those to whom He extended those blessings while on earth, and of whom He said, "of such is the kingdom of GOD."

CHAPTER IX.

INCIDENTAL PROOF AS TO THE MODE OF BAPTISM.

IN the discussion of this question, reference is often made to the present practice of the Oriental Churches.

We add,