Nothing, therefore, can be more clear than that the only regular way of approaching baptism, according to the views of all the ancient churches, was through the catechumenical order. Coleman, translating Augusti, says, "The discipline and instruction they received in this manner were usually an indispensable preliminary to their admission into the church." "Such was the discipline of the catechumens-a discipline to which all ranks and descriptions of men who were desirous of being admitted into the bosom of the church were, in primitive times, indiscriminately subjected." p. 50-57.

3. The only remaining point to be considered is whether all the catechumens of the first four centuries were unbaptized persons. Bingham, in his zeal for infant baptism, seems almost to deny it. Thus he says, "This concerns only heathen converts; for as for the children of believing parents, it is certain that as they were baptized in infancy, so they were admitted catechumens as soon as they were capable of learning. (Bk. 2, c. 1, § 4.) Infancy here may include, in the writings of Bingham, as it often does with the fathers, all childhood and youth; and he may mean only, and probably does, that they might be made catechumens very early, (sooner than seven years of age,) to prepare for baptism. If, however, he intends. that after being baptized, children were made catechumens, he offers not the least proof of it, a rare thing with him; and we feel sure the opposite can be established. Dr. Henry admits "that it is difficult to reconcile the practice [of administering the sacrament to infants] with the well-known custom of training the young for some time as catechumens, before they were admitted either to baptism or the eucharist."

The language of Augustine, quoted by Dr. Wall, (Hist. Infant Bap. 1, 118,) is decisive as to the general customs of Christians down to the very close of the period we are

work. See Catechism of the Council of Trent, translated by Rev. I. Donovan, Dublin, 1829. pp. 174, 5 and 188-190. In the liturgy of the Greek church, and indeed in all the old liturgies, the sealing" of even infants as catechumens before their baptism is recognized. This is, however, quite a distinct thing from the chrism after baptism, though the Tracts for the Times rather artfully seek to confound them. (See Tract No. 67, vol. 2, p. 118. New York, 1840. Charles Henry.) In England this custom was kept up till the Reformation. The priest had three bottles, one for the oil of the catechumens, another for the oil of chrism, and a third for the oil of extreme unction. Hart's Eccl. Records, Plate 2, fig. 25, and p. 208.

contemplating. This Dr. Wall shews. "Be he infant or adult that is designed to be a Christian, till he be baptized they call him catechumenus; and a catechumen is not yet in the church. We perceive, by St. Austin, in many places, (Serm. de Verbis Apost. 14, et aliis,) that it was a common thing for the neighbors or any visitant to ask concerning a Christian's infant child, "Is he fidelis or catechumenus?" i. e. "Is he yet baptized or not?" This last remark of Dr. Wall illustrates the common and apparently universal custom of the times to which it alludes, according to which not only was no person made a catechumen after baptism, but by being baptized he ceased to be one, having been one before.

So again, on p. 221, speaking of Augustine, Dr. Wall says that "he argues that infants, after they are baptized, are no longer to be counted either among the infidels or catechumeni; but among the fideles or credentes." It seems to us very probable that when, in A. D. 356, Gregory Nazianzen counsels baptizing children at "three years or thereabouts," he has reference to the rule of the Apos tolic Constitutions, of being three years a catechumen; and supposes them made nominally members of that rank at birth, as he had been; the reason he gives, that then "they are capable to hear and answer some of the holy words, and though they do not perfectly understand them, yet they form them," shews that he thought they ought to complete the full regulation of three years as catechumens before baptism. These good fathers were placed in an unpleasant situation. One of the ancient superstitions in regard to baptism made all their hearers desire to put it off until at the point of death; so that the only way was to catch them young, when just old enough to pronounce some of the sacred words, yet not of age to refuse.

Bingham shews that in the Christian church Eusebius reckons three orders,-rulers, believers, and catechumens ; thus drawing an impassable line between the two latter. "There are in every church," he says, "three orders of men, one, of the rulers or guides, and two, of those who are subject to them; for the people are divided into two classes, the orò, believers, and the unbaptized; by whom he means the catechumens." He quotes Origen and Jerome, as making the same division of the laity, and

then goes on to shew that the "believers were "the baptized laity in contradistinction to the clergy and the catechumens," and quotes from two councils and the Apostolic Constitutions, to prove that "the canons distinguished those that were baptized and allowed to partake of the holy mysteries from the catechumens." He speaks of the believers, having "several marks of distinction above the catechumens," and that "the catechumens have the contrary name, the uninitiated or unbaptized."

All the institutions and forms of the churches shew the most marked distinction kept ever between the catechumens and the baptized. Hence the missa catechumenorum and the missa fidelium. All the catechumens, without a single exception that we know of in any case, were bidden to depart before the prayers, to which all the baptized (except the excommunicated) were permitted and enjoined to remain. When those excommunicated sought to be restored, they occupied distinct seats, were permitted to remain to other parts of the service, had distinct prayers offered for them, and were called by a distinct name (penitents) from the catechumens, although both classes were seeking the same end, admission to the church. In the council of Laodicea, A. D. 360-70, can. 47, according to Du Pin, (vol. 1, p. 612,) "Those who are baptized during sickness ought to be instructed when they recover their health;"-but they are not directed to be ranked with the catechumens. So when infants were baptized, no doubt.

This distinction, then, between the baptized and the catechumens seems well defined and universal,-a rule clear and without a single exception that we know of. No negative can be nearer proved than this. If there were any exceptions whatever, they must be produced. It appears quite certain that the law was so well understood, that no exceptions to it can ever be found sufficiently numerous in the least to shake the argument derived from the very uniform custom of the church, not to make or consider any catechumens after baptism.

No catechumen could be a communicant; and yet that all baptized persons, even infants, communicated and were obliged to communicate during the first four centuries, is beyond question, (see Bingham, Bk. 15, 4, 1,) and in both kinds, of course; for strange scenes would

sometimes occur from deacons forcing the elements down the throats of infants. The same method of construing Scripture that made water-baptism necessary to salvation, from the passage, "except a man be born of water," etc., caused the communion to be esteemed by many quite as necessary to salvation as baptism, from the words, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood," etc.

It is quite possible that centuries later, when confirmation became a distinct thing from baptism, and was deferred to gradually longer periods, the baptism being regarded meanwhile as incomplete, and the child not allowed to communicate (except in danger of death)—then it is possible that such children may, by a corruption of terms, have continued to be called, even after baptism, until confirmation, catechumens. But all this is much later than the first four centuries. (Coleman's Christian Antiq. 52-3.) It is evident, says Bingham, that the communion itself was given to infants, and that imme. diately from the time of their baptism. Bk. 12, c. 1, § 3. "Whence it appears,' ," he adds, "that confirmation was

not a distinct sacrament."

Mosheim, therefore, (Cent. 1, part 2, c. 2, 7, and cent. 4, part 2, c. 4, § 8, et aliis,) asserts that throughout these centuries the catechumens "had not yet received baptism."

These three points then being fully established in relation to the catechumens, it follows that the churches all held it in the most ancient times as a primitive truth that those born of Christian parents equally with others needed Christian instruction, before baptism could properly and regularly be administered to them. This is precisely the Baptist theory and practice; the point on which we differ from all pedobaptist churches. Every line, therefore, in these Apostolic Constitutions in relation to the catechumens, is, so far as it goes, the admission of a witness under cross-examination against his own prepossessions and prejudices to the truth of our views. We pretend not of course to prove that infant baptism did not exist at all in the third and fourth centuries,--we know that it did,-commonly, when a child was thought dying, and that then to procure its salvation, parents would run with it to the baptistery; but we say that the testimony of this institution of the catechumens of the churches, so

universal from the time of Tertullian to Augustine and since, shews that "in the beginning it was not so." In the age of the Constitutions, the churches were in the transition state. Two practices essentially contrary to each other prevailed, the giving catechumenical instruction to the children of Christians, and infant baptism.

Our inquiry is, which of these is the more ancient? Which is apostolic, or nearest to apostolic, in its origin? Both cannot be primitive. One test to be applied is this, Which was the earlier universal? That the latter (infant baptism) was not, is now beyond question. But if infant baptisin was apostolic, it must have been universal in the first ages; for either it was everywhere enjoined and understood and practised by the first Christians, or else we may be sure it was not by them considered as resting on divine authority; and if to the age of those brought up under apostolic preaching and instruction, there was not proof sufficient of its being divine, where it must have been so notorious and universal if originally commanded-if we say to the generation that carried out the catechumenical system every where, there was no such evidence as this that infant baptism was of divine authority, shall we hope now to prove it by some "hidden meaning," latent in the Scriptures, not understood by them, but revealed to us? Or can we conceive, that infant baptism was enjoined notoriously in the New Testament, was taught and practised by the apostles everywhere, and universally received by all the members of all the churches; and yet that before the generation had passed away who in infancy had received baptism from apostolic hands, the whole system had crumbled into ruins, and was so little generally regarded as apostolic, or even known, that but few practised it; and that a system and a ceremony diametrically opposed to its divine origin should have been everywhere received and carried out, without a word of surprise or protest? Tertullian, A. D. 200, protests against the baptism of children most loudly; and Gregory Nazianzen, in A. D. 356, will not authorize it until they can pronounce at least some of the sacred words of renunciation of the world and dedication of themselves to Christ. But where is there any similar protest against the catechumenical system, as one to be universally carried out previous to baptism,-even with those whose parents were believers ?