there said, had we not observed that the passage has been mistranslated by Dr. Waterland, 111 in his second Letter to Mr. Kelsall on Lay Baptism. The words are as follows-Dandi quidem habet jus summus sacerdos, qui est Episcopus. Dehinc presbyteri et diaconi, non tamen sine Episcopi auctoritate, propter Ecclesiæ honorem, quo salvo salva pax est. Alioquin etiam laicis jus est; quod enim ex æquo accipitur, ex æquo dari potest; nisi Episcopi jam, aut presbyteri, aut diaconi 112 vocantur discentes. Domini sermo non debet abscondi ab ullo; proinde baptismus, æquè Dei census, ob omnibus exerceri potest. Of this passage Dr. Waterland gives the following translation. "The Chief Priest, who is the Bishop, has power to give (baptism), and next to him the Priests and Deacons (but not without the authority of the Bishop) because of their honourable post in the Church, in preservation of which peace is preserved; otherwise even laymen have a right to give it; for what is received in common, may be given in common. Except then that either bishops, or presbyters, or deacons intervene, the ordinary Christians

111 Waterland's Works, Vol. X. p. 108.

112 We believe the true reading to be vocarentur discentes. Some editions have vocantur dicentes, which reading Waterland follows.

are called to it." Dr. Waterland subjoins the following observation-"I have thrown in two or three words in the translation, to clear the sense of this passage; I have chiefly followed Mr. Bennet, 113 both as to the sense and to the pointing of them, and refer you to him for their vindication." To us, however, it appears certain that both Dr. Waterland and Mr. Bennet have mistaken the meaning of the passage; which is "the Chief Priest, that is the Bishop, possesses the right of conferring Baptism. After him the Priests and Deacons, but not without his authority, out of regard to the honor (or dignity) of the Church, on the preservation of which depends the preservation of peace. Otherwise the Laity possess the right for that which all equally receive, all may equally confer; unless Bishops, or Priests, or Deacons, were alone designated by the word Discentes, i. e. 111 Disciples. The word of God ought not to be concealed from any; Baptism, therefore, which equally (with the word) proceeds from God, may be admi

114

113 Rights of the Clergy, p. 118. Mr. Bennet does not quote the latter part of the passage.

114 The allusion is to John iv. 2. Though Jesus himself baptised not, but his disciples. Tertullian frequently uses the word discentes in this sense. Thus in c. 11. Qui tunc utique a discentibus dari non poterat. Adv. Marcionem, L. iv. c. 22. Tres de discentibus arbitros futuræ visionis, et vocis assumit. See de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, cc. 3. 20. 22. 30. 44.

nistered by all."-Our author then goes on to say that, although the Laity possess the right, yet as modesty and humility are peculiarly becoming in them, they ought only to exercise it in cases of necessity, when the eternal salvation of a fellow-creature is at stake. He does not, however, extend the right to women; on 115 the contrary he stigmatises the attempt on their part to baptise, as a most flagrant act of presumption. In the passage just cited, Tertullian rests the right of the Laity to administer Baptism on the assumption, that a man has the power of conferring upon another whatever he has himself received, and on the comprehensive meaning of the word Disciples in John iv. 2. On 116 other occasions, as we have seen, he rests it on the ground that all Christians are in fact Priests. It is not easy to determine which of the three arguments is the least conclusive.

117

The next question discussed by Tertullian, relates to the persons who may receive the rite of Baptism. He says that it must not be hastily conferred; and recommends delay in the case, not only of infants, but also of

115 Compare de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 41. 116 Chap. IV. note 6.

118

unmarried persons and widows, whom he con siders peculiarly exposed to temptation. What he says with respect to the Baptism of infants has been already noticed in our remarks on the ninth Article of the Church: we then observed that the recommendation of delay in their case was inconsistent with the conviction, which he manifests on other occasions, of the absolute necessity of Baptism to relieve mankind from the injurious injurious consequences of Adam's fall. In the In the 119 Treatise de Animâ, alluding to what St. Paul says respecting the holiness of children either of whose parents is a Christian, he supposes the Apostle to affirm that the children of believing parents are by the very circumstances of their birth marked out to holiness, and, therefore, to salvation. "But," he continues, "the Apostle had a particular object in view when he made the assertion; he wished to prevent the dissolution of marriage in cases in which one of the parties was a heathen. Otherwise, he would have borne in mind our Lord's declaration that, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven, that is, cannot be holy. So that every

118 Chap. V. p. 325.

119 c. 39. 1 Cor. vii. 14. Compare Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V. c. 60.

soul is numbered in Adam, until it is numbered anew in Christ; being, until it is thus numbered anew, unclean, and consequently sinful." It is scarcely possible to conceive words more strongly declaratory of the universality of original sin, or of the necessity of bringing the children of believing parents to the baptismal font, in order that they may become partakers of the holiness for which they are designed at their birth. 120 Some have supposed that Tertullian was led to contend for the expediency of delaying Baptism, in consequence of the opinion, which he entertained, concerning the irremissible character of heinous sins committed after Baptism; and the passage in the Tract de Baptismo on which we have been remarking, favors the supposition. But not to detain the reader longer with the consideration of an inconsistency for which we do not undertake to account, we will only add that the anti-pædobaptists lay great stress upon this passage: although, as Wall, who has gone into a detailed examination of it, justly observes, the fair inference from it is that, whatever might be Tertullian's individual opinion, the general practice of the Church was to baptise infants.

120 Hey's Lectures, Book IV. Article 27. Sect. 14.