The Bishop of Hippo declares that he had never known or heard of any sect who denied baptism to infants; and he insinuates that Jerome, who was a man of much greater learning than himself, would make the same acknowledgement.

"Some people," says he, "by the boldness of a disputing humour go about to represent that as uncertain, which our ancestors made use of as most certain (viz. that infants were baptized for the remission of sin). When this first began to be disputed, I know not. But this I know, that holy Jerome, whose pains and fame for excellent learning in ecclesiastical matters is at this day so great, does also make use of this as a thing most certain to resolve some questions in his books."... And again, "If we could with convenience ask that most learned man, how many writers of Christian dissertations, and interpreters of Holy Scripture, could he recount, who from the time of the foundation of the church of Christ have received no other doctrine from their predecessors, nor left any other to their successors? For my part, though my reading is much less than his, I do not remember that I ever heard any other from any Christians which received the Old and New Tes

tra autoritatem universæ ecclesiæ, proculdubio per Dominum et apostolos traditam, venire non possunt, &c. Aug. Ep. ad Marcell. i. c, 26, 27, See Wall ibid. p. 203.

tament, not only those who belonged to the Catholic church, but even those who adhered to any heresy or schism. I do not remember that I ever read otherwise in any writer that I could ever find treating of these matters, that followed the canonical Scriptures, or did mean or did pretend to do so "."

The eloquent Bishop of Hippo had never known, nor heard, nor read of any professing Christian, catholic or heretic, orthodox or sectary, who followed or pretended to follow the Scriptures, that called in question the practice or the apostolical obligation of infant baptism, or who denied that baptism was to be administered to infants for the remission of sins.

It is much to be desired that Jerome, who was a man of very extensive learning, and who resided in Palestine, had given an explicit account of what had occurred to him in the course of his reading concerning the universality of this ancient rite. There is, however, no doubt that in his own judgement he regarded infant baptism as of apostolical institution, and of universal obligation.

In a dialogue between Atticus a Catholic Christian and Critobulus a Pelagian, in which

Non solum in catholica ecclesia verum etiam in qualibet hæresi vel schismate constitutis. Non memini me aliud legisse, &c. Aug. Epp. ad Marcell. lib. 3. c. 6. Sce Wall ibid. p. 216,

Atticus endeavours to convince Critobulus that infants are not free from sin, Critobulus asks, "Tell me, I beseech you, and free me from all doubt, for what reason are infants baptized?" Atticus replies, That in baptism their sins may be forgiven.-Critobulus. What sin have they incurred ?—Atticus, Do you ask me? The trumpet of the gospel shall answer you: Death reigned from Adam to Moses," &c.°

It is needless to pursue this argument any further. The universal prevalence of infant baptism both in the Eastern and Western churches after the fifth century is a fact of public notoriety. Enough has been said to prove that it was the universal practice from the apostolic age; and consequently that it must have been of apostolic origin. The summary of the evidence I reserve for my next letter. In the mean time I remain, &c.

• See Wall ibid. p. 240.

LETTER IV.

Recapitulation of Evidence. Objections answered,

DEAR SIR,

THE baptism of the infant descendants of baptized persons, though clearly alluded to by Irenæus, who was the pupil of Polycarp bishop of Smyrna and the disciple of the apostle John, and even by Justin Martyr, who flourished within half a century of the apostolic age, is first explicitly mentioned by Tertullian, a presbyter of Carthage, about A. D. 200. It is mentioned by this pious but eccentric writer incidentally as a pre vailing practice, which indeed he disapproved; and for this disapprobation he assigns his reasons, but he appeals to no authority whatever in support of his opinion. Far from declaring that it was the apostolic rule and the primitive practice to defer baptism to years of discretion, which surely he must have known and would have appealed to had the fact been so, he refers to no church, to no sect or party of Christians, to no ecclesiastical writer, not even to a single example in his own age, in support of his own advice for deferring baptism. The conclusion is, that he

knew of none such, and consequently that infant baptism was the universal or at least the prevailing and undisputed practice of the church in the time of Tertullian. From whence it follows by irresistible inference, that infant baptism was an apostolic and therefore a divine institution.

Origen, likewise the learned contemporary of Tertullian, in his Commentary upon the Gospels, if they are faithfully translated by Jerome and Rufinus, of which in this case there appears no reason to doubt, incidentally mentions infant baptism in a way which plainly indicates that in his time it was the prevailing practice. He was the most learned man of his age, a presbyter of Alexandria, and spent much of his time among the Christians in different parts of Asia.

After this, little or no mention is made of infant baptism for nearly fifty years, till A. D. 253, when a question was moved in a council of sixtysix bishops assembled at Carthage, not whether infant baptism was lawful or expedient, or whether it were a rite of apostolical origin, (these were facts which never came into discussion,) but whether it was expedient that an infant should be baptized before the eighth day? The reply is still extant: in which the council with St. Cyprian at their head unanimously determine that