CHAPTER II.

BAPTISM.

WHEN the venerable Polycarp was on the eve of martyrdom, he is reported to have said that he had served Christ eighty and six years."* By the ancient Church these words seem to have been regarded as tantamount to a declaration of the length of his life, and as implying that he had been a disciple of the Saviour from his infancy.† The account of his martyrdom indicates that he was still in the enjoyment of a green old age,‡ and as very few overpass the term of fourscore years and six, we are certainly not at liberty to infer, without any evidence, and in the face of probabilities, that he had now attained a greater longevity. A contemporary father, who wrote about the middle of the second century, informs us, that there were then many persons of both sexes, some sixty, and some seventy years of age, who had been "disciples of Christ from childhood,"§ and the pastor of Smyrna is apparently

* See the "Epistle of the Church of Smyrna," giving an account of his martyrdom, $9.

+ The Latin version of his words, as given by Jacobson, is-" Octogesimum jam et sextum annum ætatis ingredior."-Pat. Apost. ii. 565. See also the "Chronicum Alexandrinum" as quoted by Cotelerius, ii. 194; and Gregory of Tours, "Hist." i. 28.

He is represented as standing, when offering up a prayer of about two hours' length (§ 7), and as running with great speed (§ 8). Such strength at such an age was extraordinary. The Apostle John is said to have lived to the age of one hundred; but, towards the close of his life, he appears to have lost his wonted energy.

§ "Apol." ii. Opera, p. 62. See Dr Wilson's observations on this passage in his "Infant Baptism," pp. 447, 448.

included in the description. If he was eighty-six at the time of his death, he must have been about threescore and ten when Justin Martyr made this announcement.

No one could have been considered a disciple of Jesus who had not received baptism, and it thus appears that there were many aged persons, living about A.D. 150, to whom, when children, the ordinance had been administered. We may infer, also, that Polycarp, when an infant, had been in this way admitted within the pale of visible Christianity. Infant baptism must, therefore, have been an institution of the age of the apostles. This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that Justin Martyr speaks of baptism as supplying the place of circumcision. We," says he, "who through Christ have access to God, have not received that circumcision which is in the flesh, but that spiritual circumcision which Enoch, and others like him, observed. And this, because we have been sinners, we do, through the mercy of God, receive by baptism."* Justin would scarcely have represented the initiatory ordinance of the Christian Church as supplying so efficiently the place of the Jewish rite, had it not been of equally extensive application. The testimony of Irenæus, the disciple of Polycarp, throws additional light upon this argument. Christ," says he, came to save all persons by Himself; all, I say, who by Him are regenerated unto God-infants, and little ones, and children, and youths, and aged persons: therefore He went through the several ages, being made an infant for infants, that He might sanctify infants; † and, for little ones, He was made a little one, to sanctify them of that age also." Irenæus elsewhere speaks of baptism as our regeneration or new birth unto God, so that his mean* Dialogue with Trypho. Opera, p. 261.

66

+ There may here be a reference to 1 Cor. vii. 14.

Book ii. c. xxii. § 4.

§ Thus he says—“ Giving to His disciples the power of regeneration unto God, He said to them-Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of

ing in this passage cannot well be disputed. He was born on the confines of the apostolic age, and when he mentions the regeneration unto God of "infants, and little ones, and children," he alludes to their admission by baptism to the seal of salvation.

The celebrated Origen was born about A.D. 185, and we have as strong circumstantial evidence as we could well desire that he was baptized in infancy. Both his parents were Christians, and as soon as he was capable of receiving instruction, he began to enjoy the advantages of a pious education. He affirms, not only that the practice of infant baptism prevailed in his own age, but that it had been handed down as an ecclesiastical ordinance from the first century. None," says he, "is free from pollution, though his life upon the earth be but the length of one day, and for this reason even infants are baptized, because by the sacrament of baptism the pollution of our birth is put away."+ "The Church has received the custom of baptizing little children from the apostles.”‡

The only writer of the first three centuries who questions the propriety of infant baptism is Tertullian. The passage in which he expounds his views on this subject is a most transparent specimen of special pleading, and the extravagant recommendations it contains sufficiently attest that he had taken up a false position. "Considering," says he,

the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."-Book iii. c. xvii. § 1. Thus, too, he speaks of the heretics using certain rites " to the rejection of baptism, which is regeneration unto God.”—Book i. c. xxi. § 1. Irenæus here apparently means that baptism typically is regeneration, in the same way as the bread and wine in the Eucharist are typically the body and blood of Christ.

* That infant baptism was now practised at Alexandria is apparent also from the testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, who, in allusion to this rite, speaks of "the children that are drawn up out of the water."-Pædag. iii.

c. 11.

+ Hom. xiv. in "Lucam." Opera, iii. 948. See also Opera, ii. 230. Hom. viii. in "Leviticum."

Comment. in "Epist. ad Roman," lib. v. Opera, iv. 565.

66

every one's condition and disposition, and also his age, the delay of baptism is more advantageous, but especially in the case of little children. For what necessity is there that the sponsors be brought into danger? Because they may fail to fulfil their promises by death, or may be deceived by the child's proving of a wicked disposition. Our Lord says indeed- Do not forbid them to come unto me.' Let them come, therefore, whilst they are growing up, let them come whilst they are learning, whilst they are being taught where it is they are coming, let them be made Christians when they are capable of knowing Christ. Why should their innocent age make haste to the remission of sins? Men proceed more cautiously in worldly things; and he that is not trusted with earthly goods, why should he be trusted with divine? Let them know how to ask salvation, that you may appear to give it to one that asketh. For no less reason unmarried persons ought to be delayed, because they are exposed to temptations, as well virgins that are come to maturity, as those that are in widowhood and have little occupation, until they either marry or be confirmed in continence. They who know the weight of baptism will rather dread its attainment than its postpone

ment.'

In the apostolic age all adults, when admitted to baptism, answered for themselves. Had additional sponsors been required for the three thousand converts who joined the Church on the day of Pentecost,† they could not have been procured. The Ethiopian eunuch and the Philippian jailor were their own sponsors. Until long after the time when Tertullian wrote, there were, in the case of adults, no other sponsors than the parties themselves. But when an infant was dedicated to God in baptism, the parents were required to make a profession of the faith, and to under"De Baptismo," c. 18.

Acts viii. 37, 38; xvi. 31-33.

+ Acts ii. 41.

take to train up their little one in the way of righteousness.* It is to this arrangement that Tertullian refers when he says "What necessity is there that the sponsors be brought into danger? Because even they may fail to fulfil their promises by death, or may be deceived by the child's proving of a wicked disposition."

It is plain, from his own statements, that infant baptism was practised in the days of this father; and it is also obvious that it was then said to rest on the authority of the New Testament. Its advocates, he alleges, quoted in its defence the words of our Saviour-" Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not."† And how does Tertullian meet this argument? Does he venture to say that it is contradicted by any other Scripture testimony? Does he pretend to assert that the appearance of parents, as sponsors for their children, is an ecclesiastical innovation? Had this acute and learned controversialist been prepared to encounter infant baptism on such grounds, he would not have neglected his opportunity. But, instead of pursuing such a line of reasoning, he merely exhibits his weakness by resorting to a piece of miserable sophistry. When our Lord said "Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not," He illustrated His meaning as He "took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them;" so that the gloss of Tertullian—“ Let them come whilst they are growing up, let them come whilst they are learning "-is a palpable misinterpretation.

and

"Parents were commonly sponsors for their own children the extraordinary cases in which they were presented by others, were commonly such cases, where the parent could not, or would not, do that kind office for them; as when slaves were presented to baptism by their masters, or children whose parents were dead, were brought, by the charity of any who would shew mercy on them; or children exposed by their parents, which were sometimes taken up by the holy virgins of the Church, and by them presented unto baptism. These are the only cases mentioned by St Austin in which children seem to have had other sponsors.”—Bingham, iii. 552.

+ Mark x. 14.

Compare Mark x. 13–16 with Luke xviii. 15, 16.