It is plain, from his own statements, that infant baptism was practised in the days of this father; and it is also obvious that it was then said to rest on the authority of the New Testament.  Its advocates, he alleges, quoted in its defence the words of our Saviour—­“Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not.” [476:2] And how does Tertullian meet this argument?  Does he venture to say that it is contradicted by any other Scripture testimony?  Does he pretend to assert that the appearance of parents, as sponsors for their children, is an ecclesiastical innovation?  Had this acute and learned controversialist been prepared to encounter infant baptism on such grounds, he would not have neglected his opportunity.  But, instead of pursuing such a line of reasoning, he merely exhibits his weakness by resorting to a piece of miserable sophistry.  When our Lord said—­“Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not,” He illustrated His meaning as He “took them up in His arms, put His hands upon them, and blessed them;” [476:3] so that the gloss of Tertullian—­“Let them come whilst they are growing up, let them come whilst they are learning”—­is a palpable misinterpretation.  Nor is this all.  The Carthaginian father must have known that there were frequent instances in the days of the apostles of the baptism of whole households; and yet he maintains that the unmarried, especially young widows, cannot with safety be admitted to the ordinance.  Had he been with Paul and Silas at Philippi he would thus scarcely have consented to the baptism of Lydia; and he would certainly have protested against the administration of the rite to all the members of her family. [477:1]

Though Tertullian may not have formally separated from the Church when he wrote the tract in which this passage occurs, it is evident that he had already adopted the principles of the Montanists.  These errorists held that any one who had fallen into heinous sin after baptism could never again be admitted to ecclesiastical fellowship; and this little book itself supplies proof that its author now supported the same doctrine.  He here declares that the man “who renews his sins after baptism” is “destined to fire;” and he intimates that martyrdom, or “the baptism of blood,” can alone “restore” such an offender. [477:2] It was obviously the policy of the Montanists to discourage infant baptism, and to retain the mass of their adherents, as long as possible, in the condition of catechumens.  Hence Tertullian here asserts that “they who know the weight of baptism will rather dread its attainment than its postponement.” [477:3] But neither the apostles, nor the early Church, had any sympathy with such a sentiment.  They represent baptism as a privilege—­as a sign and seal of God’s favour—­which all should thankfully embrace.  On the very day on which Peter denounced the Jews as having with wicked hands crucified his Master, he assisted