to oppose the distinction above stated, involves a great inconsistence
with itself. For on what principle, except what they affect to
discard, do our opponents retain _some_ of the positive rites of the
New Testament and reject _others_? Why regard _baptism_ and the
_eucharist_ as of standing obligation; while the _pedilavium_ and
_feasts of charity_ (the _former_ enjoined expressly by our Lord, and
_both_ practised by the disciples of the apostolic age, see John xiii.
14, 15. 1 Tim. v. 10. Jude 12.) are judged unworthy of continuance?
Why receive _females_ to communion, or adopt the _first_ day of the
week for the christian sabbath? How can they justify their conduct in
these matters, these circumstances of _positive_ institutions, without
undermining their own avowed hypothesis? With regard to the sabbath,
indeed, the antipædobaptists are divided among themselves; while some
are content with the _first_ day of the week, others observe the
_seventh_. On this point Dr. S. is very open and ingenious; Mr.
Addington appeals to an objecting antipædobaptist, “whether he does
not think himself sufficiently authorized to keep the christian
sabbath, though Christ has no where said in so many words, _Remember
the first day of the week to keep it holy_?” To this the Dr. replies,
“There is, I acknowledge, some weight in this objection: and all I can
say to it is, that not having yet met with any passage in the New
Testament that appears to me to have repealed the fourth commandment,
and to have required the observation of the first day, I cannot think
myself sufficiently authorized to renounce that, and to keep this.” If
the doctor is professedly an observer of the Jewish sabbath, he is
consistent with himself, however different from so great a part of the
christian world; if _not_, he and his tenet are at variance: analogy
and inferential reasoning have got the better of the positive system,
which nevertheless must not be resigned, for fear of worse
consequences.
Another objection much insisted on is, “If our Lord has left any thing
to be _inferred_ relative to the _subject_ and _mode_ of baptism,
being a positive institute; or if he has not delivered himself
_expressly_ and _clearly_ in every thing, respecting the question
_who_ are to be baptized, and the manner _how_; it implies a reflexion
on his wisdom and goodness.” But this objection is impertinent on
different accounts. For,
1. Its force is derived from the supposition that the Institutor was
somehow _obliged_ to make his will known to men by _one_ method only.
But is the Great Supreme under any such obligations to his absolutely
dependent creatures? What should we say of a philosopher, who, having
to judge of any important phenomenon in physics, should quarrel with
the author of nature, because he had not confined his method of
information to _one_ source only, to the exclusion of all others? That
his evidence, for instance, was not confined to the information of
_sense_, to the exclusion of _reason_ and _analogy_? Or what should we
say of a person, who having to decide on the truth and reality of a
miracle, should impeach the wisdom and goodness of his Maker, because
he did not appeal to _one_ sense only of his dependent and unworthy
creatures, that of _seeing_, for instance, to the exclusion of that of
_hearing_? The answer is plain, and the application easy.
2. The objection is guilty of another impertinence, nearly allied to
the former: it unreasonably requires _positive_ evidence for what is
discoverable by _other_ means. It is demonstrable, and I think has
been demonstrated, that the qualifications of the subjects of baptism
(the _mode_ also will be examined in its place) is what cannot
possibly be determined by any positive rule whatever as such, but must
be resolved to the _discretionary_ nature of the commission, or the
supposed _wisdom_ and _prudence_ of the administrators, in common with
other parts of the same commission, such as the choice of an
_audience_, the choice of a concionatory _subject_, &c. Preach the
_gospel_ to _every creature_, is a part of the commission, but the
execution has no _positive_ rule. Nor does this commission of
preaching the _gospel_ prohibit preaching the _law_, for a lawful use,
or any branch of natural religion, notwithstanding Mr. B.’s excluding
standard, that “positive laws imply their negatives.” In like manner,
the commission to baptize _believers_, and the _taught_, we contend
and prove, does not mean to include _all sorts_ of believers and
taught persons, but such of them as the administrators judge fit,
according to the rules of christian prudence and discretion. And we
further insist, as shall be more fully shewn hereafter, that the terms
of the commission, _believers_ and _taught_, stand _opposed_, not to
_non-believers_ and _untaught_, but to _unbelievers_ and persons
_perversely ignorant_. What, therefore, falls _necessarily_ to the
province of inferential reasoning, is impertinently referred to a
positive standard.
3. The objection implies an _ungrateful_ reflexion on the Institutor’s
wisdom and goodness, contrary to what it pretends to avoid. And this
it does, by counteracting and vilifying those natural dictates of
reason, prudence and common sense, that our all-wise and beneficent
Creator has given us—his _goodness_, in not suspending their
operations, but leaving them in full force, as to these circumstances
of positive duties—his _wisdom_, in grafting what is positive of his
laws on these common principles—and finally, the favourable
circumstance of his diminishing the degree of positiveness in New
Testament institutions, as well as their number.
Let us now recapitulate what has been said in this chapter—From an
investigation of the _nature_ of positive precepts and duties, as
distinguished from _moral_ ones, together with their _comparative_
obligations and importance, we have seen, that, in any case of
supposed competition, the _latter_ claims an undoubted _preference_.
We have also seen, that nothing but absolute, decisive, _discernible
authority_ can turn the scale in favor of the _former_, or, indeed,
place any law or duty in the rank of POSITIVE. Moreover, it has been
shewn, that every duty resulting from any discernible _moral
relation_, must needs be classed among _moral duties_; that some
things appertaining to the very _essence_ of baptism, on our
opponents’ own principles, are of moral consideration; particularly
the qualifications of proper subjects; consequently, that baptism is
an ordinance of a _mixed nature_, partly positive and partly moral. Of
all which an unavoidable consequence is, that our opponents’ outcry
against all _moral_ and _analogical reasons_ in our enquiries
respecting the subjects and mode of baptism, is impertinent and
absurd, and to a demonstration contradictory to their own avowed
principles.
DR. WILLIAMS ON BAPTISM.
Footnote 77:
The commission to disciples _baptizing all nations_ is both a
positive and express authority for the baptism of the infants of such
as are themselves discipled.
Footnote 78:
_See his works: vol. II. pag. 1129, 1132, 1133._
Footnote 79:
_Vid. Just. Martyr, Quest. & Resp. Quest. CII. & ejusd. Apol. II._
Footnote 80:
_Vid. Cyp. in Epist. ad Fid. Lib. iii. Epi. viii._
Footnote 81:
_Vid. Iren. Lib. ii. xxxix._
Footnote 82:
_Vid. Ejusd. Orat. xl._
Footnote 83:
_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._
Footnote 84:
_Vid. Tertul. Lib. de Baptism, Cap. xviii._
Footnote 85:
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
historical evidence, relative to the ancient practice of the church in
this respect. However, if it should 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 recommended by the best judges, being a work of
great merit, candour and impartiality.
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 deserved 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.
Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the apostolic age,
says, “We 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 apologies 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.
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
covenant. Accordingly, baptism has been put for regeneration; and
regeneration, for baptism.
We have already shown, that the Jews were in the habit of baptizing
the Gentile proselytes, even before the time of John and of Christ.
They considered these proselytes as being, by baptism, born the
children of Abraham; and therefore expressed their baptism, by
regeneration. Accordingly, Christ and his apostles, on some particular
occasions, adopted a similar language. Our Saviour said to Nicodemus,
_except one be born again—except he be born of water and of the
Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God_. By this new birth, Christ
evidently had reference to water baptism, as truly as to the renewing
of the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul styles baptism, _the washing of
regeneration_. The ancients commonly expressed baptism with water, by
regeneration; for they considered this external sacrament as a sign of
internal, spiritual renovation and purification, Irenæus expressly
calls baptism regeneration, and says that _infants_ were
_regenerated_, that, is baptized. His testimony is plain and full; and
cannot be doubted by any person acquainted with the phraseology and
writings of the Fathers. He mentions not only old persons and youths,
but also little ones, and even infants. This Irenæus was bishop of
Lyons in France. According to Mr. Dodwell, he was born before the
death of St. John—was brought up in Asia, where that apostle had lived
and died. He was acquainted with Polycarp; and in his younger years,
had often heard him preach. Polycarp was John’s disciple, had been
chosen by him to be bishop of Smyrna—and probably that angel of the
church, so highly commended in the 2d chapter of Rev. Irenæus, and
those Christians who lived in an age so near the apostles, and in a
place where one of them had so lately resided, could not be
ignorant—they must have known what the apostolic practice was, with
respect to infant-baptism—a matter of the most notorious and public
nature.
Dr. Lathrop observes, “that Tertullian, who flourished about one
hundred years after the apostles, gives a plain testimony, that the
church admitted infants to baptism in his time. It is true, he advises
to _delay_ their baptism; not because it was _unlawful_, for he allows
of it in cases of necessity; but because the _sponsors_ were often
brought into a snare; and because he imagined that sins, committed
_after baptism_, were next to unpardonable. He accordingly advises
that unmarried persons be kept from this ordinance, until they either
marry or are confirmed in continence. His advising to a delay,
supposes that infant-baptism was practised, for otherwise there would
have been no room for the advice. He does not speak of it as an
_innovation_, which he would certainly have done, had it _begun_ to
have been practised in his time. His words rather imply the contrary.
His speaking of _sponsors_, who engaged for the education of the
infants that were baptized, shows that there had been such a custom.
And his asking, ‘why that innocent age _made such haste_ to baptism,’
supposes that infants had usually been baptized, soon after their
birth. So that he fully enough witnesses to the _fact_, that it had
been the practice of the church to baptize infants. And his advice to
delay their baptism, till they were grown up and married, was one of
those odd and singular notions for which this father was very
remarkable.”
This quotation agrees well with the account given of Tertullian, by
Dr. Wall and other approved writers. Tertullian was evidently a man of
abilities and learning, and in some respects an useful writer. His
integrity and veracity were never questioned. But as has been hinted,
he held to some strange and peculiar notions. He was not deemed
perfectly orthodox by the ancient Christians. Being a person of warm
imagination, he expressed himself, very strongly, on different
subjects, at different times; and some have thought, in a manner that
was not consistent. Some of the later Baptists have even pretended
that he denied infant-baptism. But these considerations do not
disqualify him as a witness in the present case. Instead of
invalidating, they serve to confirm his testimony.
Dr. Gill says, that Tertullian is the first man who _mentions_
infant-baptism, and speaks against it; and infers that it had not come
into use before his time. To this, Mr. Clark, in his answer, replies,
“So he is the first man, I suppose, that mentions the baptism of
unmarried people, virgins, and widows, and speaks against it, and as
earnestly pleads for its delay till the danger of temptation is past;
till marriage, or the abatement of lust. But will it thence follow,
that the baptism of such unmarried persons did not obtain in the
church till Tertullian’s time? Or that it then first began to be in
use? Our author might as reasonably have inferred the latter opinion,
as the former. But the very words, in which he expresses his advice
against baptizing infants, plainly imply that it was a common
practice. After all, what is it that Tertullian has said against
infant-baptism? He has given it as his judgment, that it would be more
profitable to defer their baptism, until they come to riper years, and
were able to understand something of its nature and design; but he
does not like the anti-pædobaptists, condemn it as unlawful; which he
would have done, if it had been a novel practice—an innovation,
contrary to the rule of scripture, or without the approbation or
direction of the apostles. On the contrary, he allows it in case of
necessity, of sickness, and danger of death. Dr. Gill, instead of
saying, that Tertullian was the first man who mentioned
infant-baptism, and spoke against it, ought to have said, that he was
the _only man_, in all antiquity, whose writings have come down to us,
who has said any thing at all against the practice of baptizing
infants.” The very advice, however, which he gave, plainly shows, that
infant-baptism was then commonly practised. He does not intimate, that
the practice was of human invention, or not authorized by the
apostles. His private opinion, with respect to the expediency of
delaying baptism in several cases, and the reasons which he offered,
are nothing to us. We have only cited him as a voucher to an ancient
fact; and the testimony which he has given affords clear and
incontestable proof of said fact, viz. that infants were baptized in
his times.
Origen, who flourished in the beginning of the third century, and was
for some time contemporary with Tertullian, in his 8th homily on
Levit. 12, observes, “David, speaking concerning the pollution of
infants, says, _I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my mother
bring me forth_. Let it be considered what is the reason, that whereas
the baptism of the church is given for forgiveness, infants also, by
the usage of the church, are baptized; when if there were nothing in
infants, which wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism
would be needless to them. And again, infants are baptized for the
remission of sin. Of what sin? Or when have they sinned? Or how can
any reason of the laver hold good in their case? But according to that
sense before mentioned, none is free from pollution, though his life
be only the length of one day upon the earth. It is for this reason
that infants are baptized, because by the sacrament of baptism, our
pollution is taken away.” In another treatise, he says, “the church
had a tradition, or command from the apostles, to give baptism to
infants! for they, to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew
that there is, in all persons, the natural pollution of sin, which
ought to be washed away by water and the spirit; by reason of which
pollution, the body itself is also called _the body of sin_, &c. &c.”
These testimonies of Origen are full and unequivocal. They put the
matter in debate beyond all reasonable doubt, if any credit can be
given to them; and no reason appears, why they should not be credited.
It is true, they are taken from Latin translations. Origen wrote in
the Greek language. But the fidelity of the translators and
authenticity of these passages, have been sufficiently vindicated by
Dr. Wall, even to the entire satisfaction of all impartial enquirers.
None will object, but those persons who are disposed to cavil.
I perceive that you have admitted the aforesaid facts; but have made
an unusual outcry against the tradition and order from the apostles,
mentioned by Origen. There is, I suspect, more policy and popularity
in your remarks, than real weight. It will not do for us to turn those
weapons against the ancient Fathers and holy apostles, which the
protestants have used with so much success, in their disputes with the
Papists.
Let us hear what St. Paul says, with respect to traditions. 2 Thess.
ii. 15. “Therefore, brethren, _stand fast, and hold the traditions_
which ye have been taught, whether _by word_, or our epistle.” And in
the 3d chap. 6th verse, he says, “Now we _command_ you, brethren, in
the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from
every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the _tradition_
which he received of us.” So also in 1 Corin. 11th chap. 2d verse.
“Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and
keep the _ordinances_ (the _traditions_, paradoseis) as I delivered
them to you.” The apostle was here speaking of christian ordinances,
which he calls _traditions_. The original word signifies _traditions_,
and is so rendered by our translators in the other aforecited
passages.
Thus, sir, you see in what a solemn manner—_in the name of Christ_,
the holy apostle charged the primitive christians, _to hold and keep
the_ traditions—not merely such as had been written by the pen of
inspiration, but also those which were delivered to them _by word_, or
in an oral and verbal manner, and with particular reference to the
rules and ordinances of the gospel. The traditions and commandments of
mere men, which pretend to divine authority, are to be rejected. But
those traditions are not to be treated with sneer and ridicule, which
were delivered by the apostles to the primitive christians—recorded
and authenticated by the ancient Fathers—and transmitted down to us,
by the faithful historian.
Origen has expressly informed us, that infant-baptism was practised in
his time. With respect to this matter of fact, Origen was certainly a
competent witness; and he had every opportunity, and advantage for
knowing what had been the practice of his predecessors and even of the
apostles. Many of the ancient Fathers were illiterate, and descended
from heathen parents; and being the first of their family who embraced
christianity, must have been baptized when adults. But Origen was one
of the most learned men of the age. He was born and educated at
Alexandria in Egypt, but travelled into Rome, and Greece, and
Capadocia, and Arabia. He resided for some time in several of the most
eminent churches, and spent the greatest part of his life in Syria and
Palestine. His ancestors were christians. Eusebius tells us, that his
forefathers had been christians, for several generations. His father
was martyred, in the persecution under Severus.