death, when baptism was never denied; and he might be a healthy child. Gregory himself advises to defer baptism, but he makes an express exception in case of danger of death, which sufficiently shews that he saw no impropriety in baptizing at any age, though he thought a particular one generally preferable.

2. It is alleged that as baptism was regularly administered only at Easter, or some other public festival, when there was an office, now extant, evidently adapted to persons of ripe age, or boys and girls of competent understanding, so as to be capable of answering the questions that were put to them, the baptism of infants was necessarily excluded. But this could not be the case while it was acknowledged that infants in danger of death might be baptized. Thus, though at the synod at Gerunda in the sixth century, it was ordered that catechumens should be baptized only at Easter or Pentecost, an exception was made in the case of sickness, "when" it is added, "baptism ought never to be denied at any time whatsoever."*

In the early ages there would always be many proper subjects of baptism, of persons regularly instructed, who had passed through the order of catechumens previous to the ceremony; and for them, and also for their children of riper age, the office was of course adapted. Besides, in those times many Christians deferred their own baptism from the idea that, since it washed away all sin, they might by that means die in a purer state than they otherwise could do. Thus Constantine, though a zealous Christian, was not baptized till he apprehended he was near dying. † Such persons as these would naturally defer the baptism of their children that were not in danger of death; and on that principle, as well as for the reasons urged by Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen, there might always be subjects enow for adult baptism; and the ceremony being operose, the clergy would naturally wish to have it performed at a stated time, when the same service would suffice for a great number. And they might prefer Easter for this purpose, as it was the time of our Lord's death and resurrection, of which baptism was considered as an emblem, and the greatest festival in the church; and perhaps also because it was said that the Jews received their proselytes at the time of their passover. ‡

• Du Pin's History of Ecclesiastical Writers, V. p. 115. (P.)

+ See Vol. VIII. pp. 319, 320.

Wall's History of Infant Baptism, I. p. 23. (P.)

In process of time, however, when the profession of Christianity was become universal, when there were no Jews or Heathens to baptize, and the practice of deferring bap tism was exploded, so that every Christian parent had been baptized, the custom of administering baptism only at Easter, or some other public festival, would naturally cease, and the office adapted to that solemnity would grow into disuse; all the children of Christian parents having been baptized early, and of course separately, as at present.

3. To the practice of proper infant baptism, or the baptism of babes, by the early Christians, Mr. Robinson objects the vague use of the term infants, shewing that in many cases it was used to signify persons full grown. This is acknowledged, but the objection has no weight whatever in this case; because the infants admitted to baptism are described in such a manner as shews that whatever their age really was, they were not capable of thinking and acting for themselves, and therefore required sponsors.

This was clearly the case of those to whose baptism Tertullian objected. They are called innocents, being too young to have contracted any guilt of their own. Austin says, "Quid offendet parvulus non baptizatus, nullam habens culpam?" It was on this account that he maintained that though they had no sin of their own, they were defiled with that of Adam. He also opposes infantes to credentes. "Utique prodest Christus parvulis baptizatis. Prodest ergo non credentibus."

Besides, where infant baptism is the universal practice, there are various customs in different places with respect to the usual time of administering it. This at least is the case in England, both with respect to the members of the Church of England and Dissenters. With some it is the custom to baptize very early, almost as soon as the mother can attend the service; but in other places it is generally deferred till the child be at least a year old. Nay sometimes the parents will wait till they have two or three to be baptized at the same time, perhaps on account of the expense of the enter tainment which it is customary to make on the occasion. once saw a woman belonging to the Church of England carrying one child in her arms, while she held another by the Hist. of Baptism, pp. 171–182. + Opera, X. p. 319. (P.) 1 De Baptismo Parvulorum contra Pelagianos, Sect. xiv. Opera, X. p. 326. "Where fore Christ is of advantage to infants that are baptized, and consequently to such as

are not believers." (P.)

hand, and a third followed at some distance, as they went to the church to be baptized; nor was this thought very extraordinary in that place.

4. Much stress is always laid on our Lord's saying, (Matt. xxviii. 19,) "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c., as if instruction must always precede baptism. But this general direction was very proper at that time, the great bulk of those to whom the apostles were to preach being Jews or Heathens, who must of course be converted, and instructed, before they would be baptized themselves, or suffer their children to be baptized. Such would naturally be the direction of a Jewish rabbi with respect to circumcision. He would say to his missionaries, "Go, convert, and circumcise all men," though he knew that his religion directed the circumcision of children when they were only eight days old, and therefore incapable of receiving instruction.

It is remarkable, however, that Justin Martyr applies the very same word that is used by our Lord, viz. that of discipling (for so it ought to be rendered) to children; saying, that "there were children, as well as persons of adult age, who had been made disciples to Christ."*

5. It is commonly said, that it was only the superstitious notion of the absolute necessity of baptism to the forgiveness of sin and future happiness that introduced the practice of infant baptism. It is acknowledged that enough of superstition crept into this ordinance, as well as into that of the Lord's supper; and this was, no doubt, the reason for baptizing children in danger of death. But this superstition was in some measure at least counteracted by another, viz. that the later baptism was deferred, the safer persons would die; and this would favour the practice of adult baptism as much, perhaps, as the other would that of infants.

SECTION IV.

Of the Origin of Antipædobaptism.

Ir is not a little remarkable that the sect of Antipadobaptists which is now so considerable, and on several accounts so highly respectable, should have had so late, and if I may be allowed any term approaching to a censure, I would add, so unworthy, an origin. For it cannot be traced higher

Apol. I. ed. Thirlbii, p. 22. (P.)

than the Petrobrussians in the 12th century. * In more ancient times no example can be produced of any person who admitted adult baptism, and excluded infants. If they rejected baptism at all, they did it universally; and this was done only by some obscure Gnostics, and no doubt arose from their improper ideas concerning matter, together with their dislike of the ceremonial law of Moses; extending that dislike to every thing of a similar nature in Christianity. And it has been clearly shewn, that many of those who made a stand against the corruption of the church and court of Rome in the south of France, and the north of Italy, entertained some Manichean principles, having derived them from the Priscillianists in the West, and the Paulicians in the East. For, many of these last, being persecuted by the emperors at Constantinople, fled into those parts.

Peter, the respectable abbot of Clugni, writing against Peter de Bruis, and his disciple Henry, in A. D. 1126, charges them with denying infant baptism, and says that the sect was of twenty years' standing. † Alanus," at the year 1192, reckoning up the opinions of the Cathari" in Italy, says, "some of them held baptism of no use to infants: others of them to no person at all."+

The Lyonists in the south of France held, § "that the devil made this world and all things in it: that all the sacraments of the church," as that "of baptism with material water,-profit nothing to salvation ;" and || "that Christ did not take on him human nature of the blessed Virgin, but took on him a body that was from heaven."¶

"One Everrinus, of the diocese of Cologne," writes to St. Bernard-" an account of two sorts of heretics lately discovered in that country," one of whom, he said, denied infant baptism, but not that of adults. ++ It was with a view to this opinion that Innocent III., in the Lateran Council in A.D. 1215, decreed, that "the sacrament of

* Wall's History of Infant Baptism, II. pp. 172, 174. (P.) Ed. 3, pp. 234-236. See Vol. IX. p. 350.

+ Wall, II. p. 172. (P.) Ed. 3, pp. 234, 237. See Vol. IX. p. $50. + Wall, II. p. 177. (P.) Ed. 3, p. 240. See Vol. IX. pp. 347, 348.

According to Reinerius in his " Lib. adv. Waldenses, C. vi. Colon. 1618." As to this author " in the case of the Lyonists," Dr. Wall says, "these had gained such a repute by the innocence of their lives and the soundness of their faith, that they did more hurt to the Church of Rome than all the rest: therefore he does, as any one will perceive, endeavour to blacken their opinions in the recital." Hist. (ed. 5,) II. p. 230. See Vol. IX. p. 349.

"Of one sect of the Cathari," Reinerius says. Wall, (ed. 3,) II. p. 251. TWall, II. p. 170. (P.) Ed. 3, p. 230.

**« A little before the year 1140." Wall.

tt Wall, (ed. 3,) II. p. 234.

baptism performed in water with invocation of the Trinity, is profitable to salvation, both to adult persons and also to infants, by whomsoever it is rightly administered, in the form of the church."*

The sect of Antipadobaptists was revived by Nicholas Storck and Thomas Muncer, ‡ in the time of Luther; and t though it is not easy to trace any connexion between these Antipædobaptists and those of a former period in France and Italy; that connexion is not improbable: since many of the Anabaptists in Munster held the opinion of Christ not having derived his flesh from the Virgin, but that of its being a new creation in her womb. This too was the opinion of Menno the great reformer of the Anabaptists, § and it is also said to be held by some of the Anabaptists in England. || It was the opinion of Joan Bocher of Kent, who suffered Martyrdom in the reign of Edward VI. She could not reconcile the spotless purity of Christ's human nature with his receiving flesh from a sinful creature. ¶ Mosheim says, the English General Baptists "consider it as a matter of indifference whether that sacrament (baptism) be administered in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, or in that of Christ alone." ** But many of the Anabaptists were at

that time Unitarians.

The unquestionable piety of the Petrobrussians, the Cathari, the Lyonists, and the Anabaptists of Germany, who held opinions evidently derived from Gnosticism, may incline us to think that the ancient Gnostics were a better class of Christians than their contemporaries of the Catholics would allow them to be, though some of them no doubt deserved the character that is given of them by the apostles and subsequent writers. The candid Lardner did not think ill of the Manicheans as a body.tt But notwithstanding this, • Wall's History of Infant Baptism, II. p. 178. (P.) Ed. 3, p. 242. + See Vol. X. p. 138; Brandt, 1719, pp. 187, 188; La Roche, 1725, pp. 38, 39. See Vol. X. pp. 138, 157, 158, 198; Brandt, p. 189; La Roche, p. 40. "Thomas Muntzer" is placed first among his portraits of heretics, by Alexander Ross, who prefers against him this accusation, that "he brought haptism into contempt, most inconvincibly affirming, that there was no warrant from God for Padobaptism, or baptism of children." View of all Religions, (ed. 6,) 1696, p. 398. & Mosheim's Eccles. Hist., IV. p. 156. (P.) Cent. xvi. Sect. iii. Pt. ii. Ch. iii. xviii. Mosheim adds in his note, "It must, however, be acknowledged, that Menno-expresses himself ambiguously on this head."

Ibid. p. 163. (P.) Ch. xxiii.

Dr. Toulmin's Note to Neal's History of the Puritans, 1. p. 55. (P.) Sec Vol. X. pp. 242, 243.

** Eccles. Hist. IV. (Sect. xxiii.) p. 169.

tt Works, III. pp. 408–411. Augustine himself seems to have acquitted them. Whilst he was among them he lived a sensual course of life, and his head was filled with ambitious schemes: but he owns that this was not owing to their doctrine for they earnestly exhorted men, he says to mind better things." Ibid. p. 410.