The aforesaid history is still extant in two volumes. The same author has since published another volume, which is a defence of the two former volumes, against the reflections of Dr. Gale and others. In these publications, he has favoured us with the testimony and sayings of the ancient Fathers, with respect to infant-baptism, a few of which I shall produce, as authorities on the present occasion.
Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the apostolic age, says, “We have not received the carnal but spiritual circumcision, by baptism. And it is enjoined on all persons to receive it in the same way.” He here evidently considers baptism as being in the place of circumcision, and, consequently, like that ancient rite, designed for infants as well as for adults. In one of his apologies for the christians, he observes, “Several persons among us, of sixty or seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ from their childhood, do continue uncorrupt.”—Who were made disciples.—Take notice; for he makes use of the very same word that was used in the commission given to the apostles. Disciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. Now, if infant children were made disciples, they were undoubtedly baptized. Justin wrote about 105 years after the ascension of Christ. Those persons whom he mentions were then 70 years old; and consequently born and made disciples, in the times of the apostles.
Irenæus, who wrote about sixty-seven years after the apostles, and was then an aged man, says, concerning Christ, “he came to save all persons who by him are regenerated (or baptized) unto God, infants, little ones, youths and elderly persons.” He speaks of infants and little ones as being regenerated. It is evident from his own words that he had reference to their baptism; for he tells us, “When Christ gave his apostles the command of regenerating unto God, he said, go and teach all nations baptizing them.” The ancient Fathers as customarily used the word regeneration for baptism, as the church of England now use the word christening. Justin Martyr, whose name and testimony we have already mentioned, speaking of some particular persons who had been baptized, says, “they are regenerated in the same way of regeneration, in which we have been regenerated, for they are washed with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” In this short sentence, the word regeneration, or regenerated, is put for baptism no less than three times.
It is a matter of no importance in the present dispute, whether the primitive Fathers used the aforesaid word properly or improperly. We certainly know in what sense they did use it, and this is all the information needed. I would however repeat a former observation, viz. that by a common figure, the thing signified is often substituted for the sign, and the sign for the thing signified. Thus, the Abrahamic covenant is sometimes put, by God himself, for circumcision; and circumcision, the sign and token thereof, is sometimes put for the covenant. Accordingly, baptism has been put for regeneration; and regeneration, for baptism.
We have already shown, that the Jews were in the habit of baptizing the Gentile proselytes, even before the time of John and of Christ. They considered these proselytes as being, by baptism, born the children of Abraham; and therefore expressed their baptism, by regeneration. Accordingly, Christ and his apostles, on some particular occasions, adopted a similar language. Our Saviour said to Nicodemus, except one be born again—except he be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. By this new birth, Christ evidently had reference to water baptism, as truly as to the renewing of the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul styles baptism, the washing of regeneration. The ancients commonly expressed baptism with water, by regeneration; for they considered this external sacrament as a sign of internal, spiritual renovation and purification, Irenæus expressly calls baptism regeneration, and says that infants were regenerated, that, is baptized. His testimony is plain and full; and cannot be doubted by any person acquainted with the phraseology and writings of the Fathers. He mentions not only old persons and youths, but also little ones, and even infants. This Irenæus was bishop of Lyons in France. According to Mr. Dodwell, he was born before the death of St. John—was brought up in Asia, where that apostle had lived and died. He was acquainted with Polycarp; and in his younger years, had often heard him preach. Polycarp was John’s disciple, had been chosen by him to be bishop of Smyrna—and probably that angel of the church, so highly commended in the 2d chapter of Rev. Irenæus, and those Christians who lived in an age so near the apostles, and in a place where one of them had so lately resided, could not be ignorant—they must have known what the apostolic practice was, with respect to infant-baptism—a matter of the most notorious and public nature.
Dr. Lathrop observes, “that Tertullian, who flourished about one hundred years after the apostles, gives a plain testimony, that the church admitted infants to baptism in his time. It is true, he advises to delay their baptism; not because it was unlawful, for he allows of it in cases of necessity; but because the sponsors were often brought into a snare; and because he imagined that sins, committed after baptism, were next to unpardonable. He accordingly advises that unmarried persons be kept from this ordinance, until they either marry or are confirmed in continence. His advising to a delay, supposes that infant-baptism was practised, for otherwise there would have been no room for the advice. He does not speak of it as an innovation, which he would certainly have done, had it begun to have been practised in his time. His words rather imply the contrary. His speaking of sponsors, who engaged for the education of the infants that were baptized, shows that there had been such a custom. And his asking, ‘why that innocent age made such haste to baptism,’ supposes that infants had usually been baptized, soon after their birth. So that he fully enough witnesses to the fact, that it had been the practice of the church to baptize infants. And his advice to delay their baptism, till they were grown up and married, was one of those odd and singular notions for which this father was very remarkable.”
This quotation agrees well with the account given of Tertullian, by Dr. Wall and other approved writers. Tertullian was evidently a man of abilities and learning, and in some respects an useful writer. His integrity and veracity were never questioned. But as has been hinted, he held to some strange and peculiar notions. He was not deemed perfectly orthodox by the ancient Christians. Being a person of warm imagination, he expressed himself, very strongly, on different subjects, at different times; and some have thought, in a manner that was not consistent. Some of the later Baptists have even pretended that he denied infant-baptism. But these considerations do not disqualify him as a witness in the present case. Instead of invalidating, they serve to confirm his testimony.
Dr. Gill says, that Tertullian is the first man who mentions infant-baptism, and speaks against it; and infers that it had not come into use before his time. To this, Mr. Clark, in his answer, replies, “So he is the first man, I suppose, that mentions the baptism of unmarried people, virgins, and widows, and speaks against it, and as earnestly pleads for its delay till the danger of temptation is past; till marriage, or the abatement of lust. But will it thence follow, that the baptism of such unmarried persons did not obtain in the church till Tertullian’s time? Or that it then first began to be in use? Our author might as reasonably have inferred the latter opinion, as the former. But the very words, in which he expresses his advice against baptizing infants, plainly imply that it was a common practice. After all, what is it that Tertullian has said against infant-baptism? He has given it as his judgment, that it would be more profitable to defer their baptism, until they come to riper years, and were able to understand something of its nature and design; but he does not like the anti-pædobaptists, condemn it as unlawful; which he would have done, if it had been a novel practice—an innovation, contrary to the rule of scripture, or without the approbation or direction of the apostles. On the contrary, he allows it in case of necessity, of sickness, and danger of death. Dr. Gill, instead of saying, that Tertullian was the first man who mentioned infant-baptism, and spoke against it, ought to have said, that he was the only man, in all antiquity, whose writings have come down to us, who has said any thing at all against the practice of baptizing infants.” The very advice, however, which he gave, plainly shows, that infant-baptism was then commonly practised. He does not intimate, that the practice was of human invention, or not authorized by the apostles. His private opinion, with respect to the expediency of delaying baptism in several cases, and the reasons which he offered, are nothing to us. We have only cited him as a voucher to an ancient fact; and the testimony which he has given affords clear and incontestable proof of said fact, viz. that infants were baptized in his times.
Origen, who flourished in the beginning of the third century, and was for some time contemporary with Tertullian, in his 8th homily on Levit. 12, observes, “David, speaking concerning the pollution of infants, says, I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my mother bring me forth. Let it be considered what is the reason, that whereas the baptism of the church is given for forgiveness, infants also, by the usage of the church, are baptized; when if there were nothing in infants, which wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless to them. And again, infants are baptized for the remission of sin. Of what sin? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the laver hold good in their case? But according to that sense before mentioned, none is free from pollution, though his life be only the length of one day upon the earth. It is for this reason that infants are baptized, because by the sacrament of baptism, our pollution is taken away.” In another treatise, he says, “the church had a tradition, or command from the apostles, to give baptism to infants! for they, to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew that there is, in all persons, the natural pollution of sin, which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit; by reason of which pollution, the body itself is also called the body of sin, &c. &c.”
These testimonies of Origen are full and unequivocal. They put the matter in debate beyond all reasonable doubt, if any credit can be given to them; and no reason appears, why they should not be credited. It is true, they are taken from Latin translations. Origen wrote in the Greek language. But the fidelity of the translators and authenticity of these passages, have been sufficiently vindicated by Dr. Wall, even to the entire satisfaction of all impartial enquirers. None will object, but those persons who are disposed to cavil.