Saint Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years after the apostles, declares expressly, “that infant-baptism was practised in his time, and in the time of the apostles.”
Saint Chrysostom observes, “that persons may be baptized either in their infancy, in middle age, or in old age.”—He tells us, infants were baptized, although they had no sin; and that the sign of the cross was made upon their foreheads at baptism.—Saint Hierome says, “if infants be not baptized, the sin of omitting their baptism is laid to the parent’s charge.”—Saint Austin, who wrote at the same time, about 280 years after the apostles, speaks “of infant-baptism as one of those practices which was not instituted by any council, but had always been in use.” The whole church of Christ, he informs us, had constantly held that infants were baptized for the forgiveness of sin.—That he “had never read or heard of any Christian, Catholic or sectary, who held otherwise.”—“That no christian, of any sort, ever denied it to be useful or necessary.” “If any one,” saith he, “should ask for divine authority in this matter, though that, which the whole church practises, and which has not been instituted by councils, but was ever in use, may be believed, very reasonably, to be a thing delivered or ordered by the apostles, yet we may, besides, take a true estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which God’s former people received.”
No one of these ancient Fathers ever wrote directly in favour of, or against, infant-baptism. In their various discourses and writings, they often mention it, occasionally and transiently, when discoursing on some other subject.—They mention it as a general practice of universal notoriety, about which there was no controversy, in order to confute some prevailing heresy, or establish certain doctrines, that were then disputed. Similar testimonies might easily be produced from the writings of many other ancient witnesses, but this would unnecessarily add to the prolixity of the present work. I will therefore conclude, by stating very briefly, the incontestible and conclusive evidence in proof of infant-baptism, arising out of the well-known Pelagian controversy respecting original sin, which happened about three hundred years after the apostles.
Pelagius held, that infants were born free from any natural and sinful defilements. The chief opposers of him and his adherents were Saint Hierome, and Saint Austin, who constantly urged, very closely, in all their writings upon the subject, the following argument, viz. “That infants are, by all christians, acknowledged to stand in need of baptism, which must be in them for original sin, since they have no other.” “If they have no sin, why are they then baptized, according to the rule of the church, for the forgiveness of sins? Why are they washed in the laver of regeneration, if they have no pollution?” Pelagius, and also Celestius, one of his principal abettors, were extremely puzzled and embarrassed with this argument. They knew not how to evade or surmount its force, but by involving themselves in greater absurdities and difficulties. Some persons aggravated the supposed error, by charging upon them the denial of infant-baptism, as a consequence that followed from their tenet. Pelagius disclaimed the slanderous imputation with abhorrence, declaring that he was accused falsely. In the confession of faith, Pelagius then exhibited, which Dr. Wall has recited, he owns, “that baptism ought to be administered to infants, with the same sacramental words which are used in the case of adult persons.”—He vindicates himself in the strongest terms, saying, “that men slander him as if he denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, and did promise the kingdom of heaven to any person without the redemption of Christ; and affirms that he never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, that would say such a thing of infants.” Now these difficulties would have been instantly removed, and the battery, which so greatly annoyed them, been demolished at once, by only denying that infants were to be baptized. But they did not suggest or entertain any doubt at all respecting this doctrine. Pelagius readily avowed, in the most explicit manner, the incontested right, and the established immemorial practice of infant-baptism. Celestius also confessed, “that infants were to be baptized according to the rule of the universal church.”
One of these men was born and educated in Britain, and the other in Ireland. They both lived a long time at Rome, the centre of the world and place to which all people resorted. Celestius settled at Jerusalem, and Pelagius travelled over all the principal churches of Europe, Asia and Africa. If there had been any number of churches, or a single church, in any part of the world, not only in that but in the two preceding ages, who denied the baptism of infants, these learned, sagacious persons must have known or heard of it; and certainly they would have mentioned it, in order to check the triumph of their opponents, and to wrest from them that argument, by which, above all others, they were most grievously pressed. It is evident there was no society of Baptists then in the world, nor had there been any of that denomination, within the memory of man. The confession of Pelagius and Celestius amounts almost to demonstration. It proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, that infant-baptism had universally obtained, and had always been practised among christians, even from the apostolic times.
Dr. Wall, who enjoyed the best advantages for being acquainted with the history of infant-baptism, and who made this the principal subject of his studies and enquiries, briefly sums up the evidence on both sides, in the following words: “Lastly, for the first four hundred years, there appears only one man, Tertullian, who advised the delay of infant-baptism in some cases, and one Gregory, who did perhaps practise such delay in the case of his own children; but no society of men so thinking or so practising; or any one man saying it was unlawful to baptize infants. So in the next seven hundred years, there is not so much as one man to be found, who either spoke for or practised any such delay, but all the contrary. And when about the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses or Albigenses declared against the baptizing of infants, as being incapable of salvation, the main body of that people rejected their opinion; and they of them who held that opinion, quickly dwindled away and disappeared, there being no more persons heard of, holding that tenet, until the rising of the German anti-pædobaptists in the year 1522.”
Reed’s Apology.
[86]. See Wall’s History of Infant-Baptism, Part II. page 52-86.
[87]. They that would see more on this subject may consult G. J. Voss, de baptismo disput. xiv. Forbes. instruct. hist. theol. Lib. x. cap. v. and Wall’s history of infant-baptism, vol. I.
[88]. See Dr. Owen’s complete Collection of Sermons, page 580, 581. of dipping; in which he observes, that βαπτω, when used in these scriptures, Luke xvi. 24. and John xiii. 26. is translated to dip; and in Rev. xix. 13. where we read of a vesture dipped in blood; it is better rendered stained, by sprinkling blood upon it; and all these scriptures denote only a touching one part of the body, and not plunging. In other authors, it signifies, tingo, immergo, lavo, abluo; but in no author it ever signifies to dip, but only in order to washing, or as the means of washing. As for the Hebrew word טבל, rendered, by the LXX. in Gen. xxxvii. 31. by μολύνω, to stain by sprinkling, or otherwise mostly by βαπτω: In 2 Kings v. 14. they render it by βαπτιζω, and no where else: In ver. 10. Elisha commands Naaman to wash; and accordingly, ver. 14. pursuant to this order, it is said, he dipped himself seven times; the word is ויטבל; which the LXX. render εβαπτισατω; and in Exod. xii. 22. where the word טבל is used, which we render dip, speaking concerning the dipping the bunch of hyssop in the blood, the LXX. render it by the word βαπτω: And, in I Sam. xiv. 27; it is said, that Jonathan dipped the end of his rod in an honey-comb; the word here is also ויטבל, and the LXX. render it εβαψεν; in which place it cannot be understood of his dipping it by plunging: And in Lev. iv. 6. 17. and chap. ix. 9. the priest is said to dip his finger in the blood, which only intends his touching the blood, so as to sprinkle it; and therefore does not signify plunging.