[89] A. D. 175, Ireneus taught that the bread of the Supper was of the fruit of the earth, and he also calls the Supper not an offering but a thanksgiving. _Lib 4, contra Valent._ See in the _Geslacht-register der Roomscher Successie; second edition, 1649, page 114_.
_About the year 200._--About this time flourished Clemens Alexandrinus, who, though writing largely on baptism, nowhere mentions infant baptism, but employs throughout such language as sufficiently implies, that he knew nothing of infant baptism, but confined himself solely to the ordinance of Christ and the practice of his apostles, which is baptism that is accompanied with faith and repentance.
In _Pædagog., lib. 1., chap. 6_, he writes thus: “This is also done with us, whose example the Lord Christ has become. Being baptized, we become enlightened; being enlightened, we are made children; having been made children, we are brought to perfection; having been brought to perfection, we are made immortal.” A little after that he says: “Thus also, when we are baptized, we obtain a free, unobstructed, and clear eye of the Holy Ghost, as an avengement of blindness; having trodden underfoot the sins which hitherto obscured the divine Spirit.” Also: “That which was grievously bound by ignorance, is unbound by knowledge, and these bands are loosed through the faith of man and the grace of God, the manifold sins being forgiven through reasonable[90] baptism as a perfect remedy; thus we are washed from all sins, and are henceforth evil no more; this is the grace of enlightenment, that the manner of life is no longer the same that it was before we were baptized.” Further: “Teaching or instruction precedes faith, but faith conjointly with baptism is led and directed through the Holy Ghost.” And: “Even so we who repent of our former sins separate ourselves from them and are being cleansed through baptism, let us run to the eternal light, as children to their father.” See further, concerning these citations, _Jac. Mehrn., Bapt. Hist., 2d Part, pages 213, 214_. Also, _H. Montan. Nietighz van den Kinder-doop, pages 26, 27_.
[90] The words, “reasonable baptism,” indicate that he speaks of such a baptism as belongs to reasonable or intelligent persons.
What is there in this testimony of Clemens Alexandrinus, that can apply to infant baptism? yea, on the contrary, what is there that does not militate against it? He certainly says expressly: “These bands (namely, of sin) are loosed through the faith of man, and the grace of God, the manifold sins being forgiven through reasonable baptism.” This certainly is a clear and obvious joining together of faith and baptism, as things which, through the providence of God, belong together, for the remission of sins. When he further says: “Teaching, or instruction, precedes faith, but faith conjointly with baptism is led and directed through the Holy Ghost,” there is expressed, without controversy, the same thing that we have said just now; since here not only faith is joined together with baptism, but also instruction, which precedes faith, and the Holy Ghost, who follows and confirms faith.
It is true, he says soon after this, that those who are baptized are children, or, at least, ought to be. But what kind of children? Not children in understanding, not infants in the cradle, but, as he further says, Children in wickedness, but perfect in the understanding. Children, who, as children of God, have put off the old man, and the garment of wickedness, and have put on the incorruptibility of Christ, in order that, being regenerated, they may become a new and holy people, and keep unspotted the new man. See the treatise cited above.
If at that time it was at all customary in Alexandria to baptize infants, would it not have been appropriate here for him, to speak of irrational infants, or at least to mention with a word or two, that they, too, were entitled to baptism, although, on account of their youth, they could not understand the object of it? Truly, according to our opinion he could not well have omitted mentioning it; but, inasmuch as he does not refer to it with a single word, it is good proof, that at that time this abuse was not known there, or, at least, not regarded.