Page images
PDF
EPUB

Therefore, all that I need say to this is, that if the method we have taken to prove infant-baptism, appears to be just; and if the premises be true, the conclusion deduced from them, must be allowed of; namely, that the infants of believing parents are to be baptized, though this be not contained in so many express words in scripture: And, I cannot but think that the objection would equally hold good against Christ's dying for infants, as well as others, or of their being capable of justification, regeneration, and the saving blessings of the covenant of grace; and it might as well be inferred from hence, that they are not to be devoted to God in other instances, besides that of baptism; or that we have not the least ground to expect their salvation; for it would be as hard a matter to find this contained in express words of scripture, as that which is the matter in controversy, to wit, that they are to be baptized.

Here I cannot but take notice of the method which the learned Dr. Lightfoot takes to account for the silence of scripture, as to this matter*, which is, for substance, as follows, viz. that baptism was well enough known to the Jews, as practised by them under the ceremonial law; by which he means the ordinance in general, as including in it a consecration to God, to worship him in that way which he then instituted; and accordingly they are said to have been baptized into Moses. He also adds, that the apostle speaking concerning this matter, as referring to what was done in the cloud, and in the sea, 1 Cor. x. 2. supposes that the whole congregation, of which the infants which they had in their arms, were a part, were solemnly devoted to God at that time; which, I cannot but conclude to be more agreeable to the sense of the word baptize, than that which some critics give, who suppose that nothing is intended by it, but their being wet, or sprinkled with the water of the sea, as they passed through it; for that was only an occasional baptism, which could not be well avoided. But, if I may be allowed a little to alter or improve on his method of reasoning, I rather think, that the apostle's meaning is, that the whole congregation was baptized into Moses, soon after they were delivered from the Egyptians, while they were encamped at the sea-shore; at which time, God, for their security, spread a cloud for a covering to them; and then, as the kind hand of Providence had led the way, and brought them under a renewed engagement, they hereupon expressed their gratitude and obligation to be God's people, by this universal dedication to him in baptism. But to return to the author but now mentioned; he adds, that when

See his works, vol. H. pag. 1129. 1132, 1137

Jacob was delivered from Laban, and set about the work of reforming his household, he ordered them, not only to put away the strange gods that were among them, but to be clean, Gen. xxxv. 2. by which, as he observes, the Jews confess, that baptism, or a dedication to God by washing, is intended. He also observes, that the ordinance of baptism in general, before Christ instituted gospel-baptism, was so well known by the Jewish church, that they no sooner heard that John baptized, but they came to his baptism; and they did not ask him, why dost thou make use of this rite of baptizing? but, what is thy warrant, or, who sent thee to baptize? He further adds, that both John and Christ took up baptism as they found it in the Jewish church; by which he means the ordinance in general, without regard to some circumstances, in which Christ's baptism differed from that which was practised under the ceremonial law; and this was, as he observes, applied by the Jewish church to infants as well as grown persons; therefore, our Saviour had no occasion, (when he instituted this ordinance with those circumstances, agreeable to the gospel-state, in which it differs from the baptism which was before practised,) to command them to baptize all nations, that is, all who were the subjects of baptism, and infants in particular.

Obj. 3. It is further objected, that our Saviour was not bap tized in his infancy; therefore his example is to be followed, and, consequently, no one is to be baptized till he be adult.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that every circumstance or action in the life of Christ, is not designed to be an example to us; and, indeed, there were some things signified in his baptism, that are not in ours, inasmuch as in its application to him, it did not signify his being cleansed from the guilt and power of sin. The only thing wherein that which was signifed in his baptism, agrees with ours, is in that he devoted himself unto God, not as expecting salvation through a Mediator as we do, but as denoting his consent to engage in the work that he came into the world about; which he now began to perform in a public manner, which he fulfilled in the course of his ministry, while he went about doing good. Now it was not convenient that this should be done in his infancy; for though the work of redemption began from that time; yet his proving himself to be the Messiah, especially his doing this in a public manner, did not take place till he was thirty years of age, and then he was baptized, that this might be an ordinance for the faith of his church, that he was engaged in the work of our redemption. Moreover, it must be considered, that John's baptism, which circumstantially differed from that which was practised in the Jewish church, as well as our Saviour's, was not instituted till the year before Christ was bap

tized; therefore he could not be baptized agreeably to the alteration that was made in baptism at this time, had he been baptized in his infancy.

Obj. 4. It is further objected, that infant baptism is a novelty, and not practised by the church in the earliest ages thereof from the apostles' time.

Answ. To this it may be replied, that if this could be proved to be true, I should regard arguments deduced from scriptureconsequences, much more than the sense of antiquity to determine this matter. The principal use of the writings of the Fathers, in my opinion, is to lead us into the knowledge of what relates to the historical account of the affairs of the church in their respective ages. The main thing supposed in this objection is, that infant-baptism was not practised in the early ages of the church; the contrary to which will appear, if we consider some things mentioned by the Fathers concerning this matter: Thus Justin Martyr says, we have not received the carnal but circumcision by spiritual baptism; and all persons are, in like manner, enjoined to receive it, as they were to receive circumcision of old, wherein he refers to that of the apostle, in Coloss. ii. 11, 12. We are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, buried with him in baptism; and, consequently, he supposes that baptism come's in the room of circumcision, as has been observed elsewhere; and he likewise speaks of their being brought to the water, and there regenerated; by which he means, bap tized, in the same manner as we are, in the name of the Father, our Lord and Saviour, and the Holy Ghost *. And Cyprian, in a council, wherein there were sixty-six bishops convened, delivered it not only as his opinion, but supposes it to have been received by them all, that infants ought to be baptized before the eighth day, in answer to a question under debate, whether the time in which this ordinance was to be performed ought to be the same with that in which children were circumcised under the law t. And, Irenæus, speaks of Christ's sanctifying and saving persons of every age, infants not excepted; and therefore they are to be regenerated; by which he means, baptized; as the Fathers often put the thing signified for the sign: And Gregory Nazianzen speaks to the same purpose §, that baptism may be performed as circumcision was, on the eighth day; but that it ought not to be omitted any longer, than till the children are two, or three years old. And to this I might add, the testimony of Augustin; who asserts, that it had been practised by the

Vid. Just. Martyr, Quest. & Resp. Quest. CII. & ejusd. Apol. IL

Vid. Cyp. in Epist. ad Fid. Lib. iii. Epi. viii.

Vid. Iren. Lib. ii. xxxix. § Vid. Ejusd. Orat. xl.

church, in foregoing ages, from our Saviour's time; which, had it not been matter of fact, he would, doubtless, have been disproved by Pelagius, and his other antagonists *.

It is further objected, by those who deny infant-baptism, that the practice of many in the ancient church, who deferred baptism till they were adult, argues, that they did not think it lawful for any to be baptized in infancy. Thus Constantine the great, as Eusebius observes, was not baptized till a little before his death: And, it is well known, that Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustin, and others of the Fathers, were not baptized till they came to a state of manhood; and Tertullian, who lived in the second century, exhorts persons to defer baptism, and adds, that it is the safest way to delay the baptism of infants, till they are capable of engaging for themselves, being arrived to years of diseretion t. (a)

* Vid. Augustin. de peccat. merit. & remiss. Lib. i. Cap. xxviii. parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt qui contra autoritatem universæ ecclesiæ proculdubio per dominum, & Apostolos traditam venire non possunt; and in Sermon. x. de verbis Apostol, speaking concerning infant-baptism, he says, Nemo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc ecclesia semper habuit. semper tenuit; hoc a majorum fide percepit: hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit.

† Vid. Tertul. Lib. de Baptism, Cap. xviii.

(a) It is very remarkable, that in those ages and countries, where the mode of dipping has been, or still is, the most prevalent, there infant-baptism has been the most generally practised, and there the mode of baptizing has not been deemed essential. Instead, therefore, of finding all these people Baptists, but very few, if any, of that denomination, are to be found among them. Dr. Wall, who was himself an advocate for dipping, tells us, "that all christians in the "world, who never owned the pope's authority, do now, and ever did, dip their "infants, in the ordinary use." They always baptized their infants; and, ordinarily, by dipping, but not universally, for they, occasionally, sprinkled them. The mode of dipping was of ordinary use; but the practice of infant-baptism, in those churches who were never under the influence of popery, appears to have been universal, both in ancient and modern times.

We do not pretend to rest the proof of infants' right to baptism upon histori. cal evidence, relative to the ancient practice of the church in this respect. However, if it shoul appear, that the churches, soon after the apostles, did admit the infant children of believing parents to baptism-if no account can be produced, of any church that rejected them-if no individual can be named, who pretended that the practice was unlawful, or an innovation-these facts will certainly furnish a very weighty argument in favour of the aforesaid doctrine.

Baptism is an important transaction of a public nature. Those christians, who lived and wrote in the earliest times after the apostles, must have known what their practice was, with reference to the infant children of believers. The testimony of these ancient writers, as historians or witnesses, respecting this plain matter of fact, justly claims our most impartial and attentive consideration. It is not, however, my intention to write a complete history of infant-baptism. A history of this kind has been written a century ago, by Dr. Wall, a very correct and judicious historian. This history is highly approved and recom mended by the best judges, as being a work of great merit, candour and impartiality.

On

But to this it may be answered, that particular instances, or the sentiments of some of the Fathers are not sufficient to

On February 9th, 1705, the clergy of England, assembled in general convention, "ordered, that the thanks of this house be given to Mr. Wall, vicar of "Shoreham in Kent, for the learned and excellent book he hath lately written "concerning infant-baptism; and that a committee be appointed to acquaint "him with the same." Dr. Atterbury, a leading member in said convention, says, "that the history of infant-baptism was a book, for which the author de"served the thanks, not of the English clergy alone, but of all the christian "churches." Mr. Whiston also, a very learned man, well acquainted with the writings of the Fathers of the four first centuries, and a professed Baptist, in his address to the people of that denomination, declares to them," that Dr. Wall's "history of infant-baptism, as to facts, appeared to him most accurately done, "and might be depended on by the Baptists themselves." Mem. of his life, part 2, page 461.

The aforesaid history is still extant in two volumes. The same author has since published another volume, which is a defence of the two former volumes, against the reflections of Dr. Gale and others. In these publications, he has favoured us with the testimony and sayings of the ancient Fathers, with respect to infant-baptism, a few of which I shall produce, as authorities on the present occasion.

"We

Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the apostolic age, says, "have not received the carnal but spiritual circumcision, by baptism. And it " is enjoined on all persons to receive it in the same way." He here evidently considers baptism as being in the place of circumcision, and, consequently, like that ancient rite, designed for infants as well as for adults. In one of his apolo gies for the christians, he observes, "Several persons among us, of sixty or "seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ from their childhood, "do continue uncorrupt."-Who were made disciples.-Take notice; for he makes use of the very same word that was used in the commission given to the apostles. Disciple all nations, baptizing them, &c. Now, if infant children were made disciples, they were undoubtedly baptized. Justin wrote about 105 years after the ascension of Christ. Those persons whom he mentions were then 70 years old; and consequently born and made disciples, in the times of the apostles.

66

Irenæus, who wrote about sixty-seven years after the apostles, and was then an aged man, says, concerning Christ, "he came to save all persons who by "him are regenerated (or baptized) unto God, infants, little ones, youths and elderly persons." He speaks of infants and little ones as being regenerated. It is evident from his own words that he had reference to their baptism; for he tells us, "When Christ gave his apostles the command of regenerating unto "God, he said, go and teach all nations baptizing them." The ancient Fathers as customarily used the word regeneration for baptism, as the church of England now use the word christening. Justin Martyr, whose name and testimony we have already mentioned, speaking of some particular persons who had been baptized, says, "they are regenerated in the same way of regeneration, in which "we have been regenerated, for they are washed with water in the name of the "Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In this short sentence, the word regeneration, or regenerated, is put for baptism no less than three times. It is a matter of no importance in the present dispute, whether the primitive Fathers used the aforesaid word properly or improperly. We certainly know in what sense they did use it, and this is all the information needed. I would however repeat a former observation, viz. that by a common figure, the thing signified is often substituted for the sign, and the sign for the thing signified. Thus, the Abrahamic covenant is sometimes put, by God himself, for circumcision; and circumcision, the sign and token thereof, is sometimes put for the VOL. IV. D d

« PreviousContinue »