accurately ascertained. The occasion was this: Porphyry, a great enemy
to christianity, had represented the christians as being an ignorant
people, destitute of science; but not being able to conceal the repute
of Origen, for his uncommon skill in human literature, pretended that
he had been at first a heathen, and had learned their philosophy. In
order to confute this falsehood, Eusebius enquired into his ancestry,
and set forth his christian descent.
Origen was born in the year of our Lord 185, that is, eighty-five
years after the apostles. He was seventeen years old when his father
suffered martyrdom. He had himself, undoubtedly, been baptized in his
infancy; and must have been informed concerning the practice of the
apostles, respecting the baptizing of infants; for his grandfather, or
at least his great-grandfather, lived in the apostolic times, and they
both were christians. This is the man, who has expressly declared,
that infants were baptized in his day, and that the church was
directed by an order or tradition from the apostles, to baptize them.
His circumstances were such as afforded him all the necessary and
suitable means for obtaining information. We have no reason to suspect
his credibility as a witness; and nothing can be more unreasonable,
than to reject or treat his testimony with contempt. It is a
circumstance worthy of our _very particular notice_, that Origen and
the other ancient Fathers do not speak of infant-baptism as being a
practice that was denied or opposed by any one. They mention it as a
practice generally known and approved, and for the purpose of
illustrating and confirming other points that were then disputed.
I shall now produce the testimony of the blessed martyr Cyprian, who
was for some time contemporary with Origen; and next to him, the most
noted Christian writer of that age. Cyprian was constituted bishop or
minister of Carthage, in the year 248, and Origen died in the year
252. The testimony of this ancient saint, to which I now have an
immediate reference, was occasioned by a question proposed to him, by
one Fidus, a _presbyter_, or minister in the country, viz. Whether _an
infant might be baptized before he was eight days old_? The reason of
his doubt, it seems, was an article in the law respecting
circumcision, which, under the Old Testament dispensation, required
that infants should be circumcised on the eighth day from their birth.
Pursuant to the aforesaid question, an ecclesiastical council of
sixty-six bishops, having convened at Carthage, A. D. 253, Cyprian
proposed a resolution of the following import, viz. “that an infant
might be baptized on the second or third day, or at any time after its
birth; and that circumcision, besides being a sacramental rite, had
something in it of a typical nature; and particularly, in the
circumstance of being administered on the eighth day, which ceased at
the coming of Christ, who has given us baptism, the spiritual
circumcision; in which ordinance, we are not thus restricted, with
respect to the age or time of administration.” To this resolution the
council agreed unanimously; as it appears from the testimony of
Cyprian in his epistle to Fidus, from which I shall extract a few
paragraphs, in order to show the sentiments of those venerable and
ancient saints relative to infant-baptism.—The inscription is as
follows:
“Cyprian and the rest of the colleagues, who are present in council,
in number sixty-six, to Fidus our brother,
“Greeting.
“As to the case of infants, whereas _you judge that they must not be
baptized within two or three days after they are born; and that the
law of the ancient circumcision is to be observed; so that you think
none should be baptized and sanctified, until the eighth day after
their birth_; we were all in our assembly of a quite different
opinion. For in this matter, with respect to that which you thought
fitting to be done, there was not one of your mind. But all of us
rather judged, that the grace and mercy of God is not to be denied to
any person born. For whereas our Lord in his gospel, _the Son of Man
came not to destroy men’s souls_ (or lives) _but to save them_.—That
the eighth day, appointed to be observed in the Jewish circumcision,
was a type going before in a shadow, or resemblance, but on Christ’s
coming was fulfilled in the substance; for because the eighth day,
that is the next after the Sabbath, was to be the day on which the
Lord was to rise from the dead, and quicken us, and give us the
spiritual circumcision. This eighth day, that is, the next to the
Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, went before in the type, which type ceased
when the substance came, and the spiritual circumcision was given to
us. So that we judge, no person is to be hindered from obtaining the
grace, (that is _of baptism_) by the law which is now established; and
that the spiritual circumcision ought not to be restrained by the
circumcision which was according to the flesh; but that all are to be
admitted to the grace of Christ; since Peter, speaking in the Acts of
the apostles, says, _the Lord hath shown me that no person is to be
called common or unclean_. This, therefore, dear brother, was our
opinion in the assembly, that it is not for us to hinder any person
from baptism, and from the grace of God, who is merciful, and kind,
and affectionate to all. Which rule, as it holds for all, so we think
it is more especially to be observed in reference to infants, and
those that are newly born, to whom our help and the divine mercy is
rather to be granted, because by their weeping and wailing at their
first entrance into the world, they do intimate nothing so much as
that they implore compassion,” &c.
Saint Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years after the apostles, declares
expressly, “that infant-baptism was practised in his time, and in the
time of the apostles.”
Saint Chrysostom observes, “that persons may be baptized either in
their infancy, in middle age, or in old age.”—He tells us, infants
were baptized, although they had no sin; and that the sign of the
cross was made upon their foreheads at baptism.—Saint Hierome says,
“if infants be not baptized, the sin of omitting their baptism is laid
to the parent’s charge.”—Saint Austin, who wrote at the same time,
about 280 years after the apostles, speaks “of infant-baptism as one
of those practices which was not _instituted by any council_, but had
_always_ been in use.” The _whole church of Christ_, he informs us,
_had constantly held_ that infants were baptized for the forgiveness
of sin.—That he “had _never read or heard_ of _any Christian,
Catholic_ or _sectary_, who held otherwise.”—“That no christian, of
any sort, ever denied it to be useful or necessary.” “If any one,”
saith he, “should ask for divine authority in this matter, though
that, which the whole church practises, and which has not been
instituted by councils, but was ever in use, may be believed, very
reasonably, to be a thing delivered or ordered by the apostles, yet we
may, besides, take a true estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism
does avail infants, by the circumcision which God’s former people
received.”
No one of these ancient Fathers ever wrote directly in favour of, or
against, infant-baptism. In their various discourses and writings,
they often mention it, occasionally and transiently, when discoursing
on some other subject.—They mention it as a general practice of
universal notoriety, about which there was no controversy, in order to
confute some prevailing heresy, or establish certain doctrines, that
were then disputed. Similar testimonies might easily be produced from
the writings of many other ancient witnesses, but this would
unnecessarily add to the prolixity of the present work. I will
therefore conclude, by stating very briefly, the incontestible and
conclusive evidence in proof of infant-baptism, arising out of the
well-known Pelagian controversy respecting original sin, which
happened about three hundred years after the apostles.
Pelagius held, that infants were born free from any natural and sinful
defilements. The chief opposers of him and his adherents were Saint
Hierome, and Saint Austin, who constantly urged, very closely, in all
their writings upon the subject, the following argument, viz. “_That
infants are, by all christians, acknowledged to stand in need of
baptism, which must be in them for original sin, since they have no
other_.” “If they have no sin, why are they then baptized, according
to the rule of the church, _for the forgiveness of sins? Why are they
washed in the laver of regeneration, if they have no pollution?_”
Pelagius, and also Celestius, one of his principal abettors, were
extremely puzzled and embarrassed with this argument. They knew not
how to evade or surmount its force, but by involving themselves in
greater absurdities and difficulties. Some persons aggravated the
supposed error, by charging upon them the denial of infant-baptism, as
a consequence that followed from their tenet. Pelagius disclaimed the
slanderous imputation with abhorrence, declaring that he was accused
falsely. In the confession of faith, Pelagius then exhibited, which
Dr. Wall has recited, he owns, “_that baptism ought to be administered
to infants, with the same sacramental words which are used in the case
of adult persons_.”—He vindicates himself in the strongest terms,
saying, “_that men slander him as if he denied the sacrament of
baptism to infants, and did promise the kingdom of heaven to any
person without the redemption of Christ; and affirms that he never
heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, that would say such a
thing of infants_.” Now these difficulties would have been instantly
removed, and the battery, which so greatly annoyed them, been
demolished at once, by only denying that infants were to be baptized.
But they did not suggest or entertain any doubt at all respecting this
doctrine. Pelagius readily avowed, in the most explicit manner, the
incontested right, and the established immemorial practice of
infant-baptism. Celestius also confessed, “that infants were to be
baptized according to the _rule of the universal church_.”
One of these men was born and educated in Britain, and the other in
Ireland. They both lived a long time at Rome, the centre of the world
and place to which all people resorted. Celestius settled at
Jerusalem, and Pelagius travelled over all the principal churches of
Europe, Asia and Africa. If there had been any number of churches, or
a single church, in any part of the world, not only in that but in the
two preceding ages, who denied the baptism of infants, these learned,
sagacious persons must have known or heard of it; and certainly they
would have mentioned it, in order to check the triumph of their
opponents, and to wrest from them that argument, by which, above all
others, they were most grievously pressed. It is evident there was no
society of Baptists then in the world, nor had there been any of that
denomination, within the memory of man. The confession of Pelagius and
Celestius amounts almost to demonstration. It proves, beyond all
reasonable doubt, that infant-baptism had universally obtained, and
had always been practised among christians, even from the apostolic
times.
Dr. Wall, who enjoyed the best advantages for being acquainted with
the history of infant-baptism, and who made this the principal subject
of his studies and enquiries, briefly sums up the evidence on both
sides, in the following words: “Lastly, for the first four hundred
years, there appears only one man, Tertullian, who advised the _delay_
of infant-baptism in some cases, and one Gregory, who did _perhaps_
practise such _delay_ in the case of his own children; but no society
of men so thinking or so practising; or any one man saying it was
unlawful to baptize infants. So in the next seven hundred years, there
is not so much as _one_ man to be found, who either spoke for or
practised any such delay, but all the contrary. And when about the
year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses or Albigenses declared against
the baptizing of infants, _as being incapable of salvation_, the main
body of that people rejected their opinion; and they of them who held
that opinion, quickly dwindled away and disappeared, there being no
more persons heard of, holding that tenet, until the rising of the
German anti-pædobaptists in the year 1522.”
REED’S APOLOGY.
Footnote 86:
_See Wall’s History of Infant-Baptism, Part II. page 52-86._
Footnote 87:
_They that would see more on this subject may consult G. J. Voss, de
baptismo disput. xiv. Forbes. instruct. hist. theol. Lib. x. cap. v.
and Wall’s history of infant-baptism, vol. I._
Footnote 88:
See Dr. Owen’s complete Collection of Sermons, page 580, 581. of
dipping; in which he observes, that βαπτω, when used in these
scriptures, Luke xvi. 24. and John xiii. 26. is translated to _dip_;
and in Rev. xix. 13. where we read of a _vesture dipped in blood_; it
is better rendered _stained_, by sprinkling blood upon it; and all
these scriptures denote only a touching one part of the body, and not
plunging. In other authors, it signifies, _tingo_, _immergo_, _lavo_,
_abluo_; but in no author it ever signifies to dip, but only in order
to washing, or as the means of washing. As for the Hebrew word טבל,
rendered, by the LXX. in Gen. xxxvii. 31. by μολύνω, _to stain by
sprinkling_, or otherwise mostly by βαπτω: In 2 Kings v. 14. they
render it by βαπτιζω, and no where else: In ver. 10. Elisha commands
Naaman to _wash_; and accordingly, ver. 14. pursuant to this order, it
is said, he _dipped himself seven times_; the word is ויטבל; which the
LXX. render εβαπτισατω; and in Exod. xii. 22. where the word טבל is
used, which we render _dip_, speaking concerning the dipping the bunch
of hyssop in the blood, the LXX. render it by the word βαπτω: And, in
I Sam. xiv. 27; it is said, that Jonathan dipped the end of his rod in
an honey-comb; the word here is also ויטבל, and the LXX. render it
εβαψεν; in which place it cannot be understood of his dipping it by
plunging: And in Lev. iv. 6. 17. and chap. ix. 9. the priest is said
to dip his finger in the blood, which only intends his touching the
blood, so as to sprinkle it; and therefore does not signify plunging.
This learned author likewise observes, that βαπτιζω signifies to wash;
as instances out of all authors may be given; and he particularly
mentions Suidas, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, and Phavorinus and
Eustachius. And he further adds, that it is first used in the
scripture, in Mark i. 8. John i. 33. and to the same purpose, Acts i.
5. in which place it signifies to pour; for the expression is
equivocal; _I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with
the Holy Ghost_: which is an accomplishment of that promise, that _the
Holy Ghost should be poured on them_. As for other places, in Mark
vii. 2. 4. νίπτω, which signifies to _wash_, and is so translated, is
explained in the words immediately following, as signifying _to
baptize_. And, in Luke xi. 38. it is said, that the Pharisee marvelled
that our Saviour had not _washed before dinner_: The word in the Greek
is ἐβαπτισθη, to whom he replies in the following verse, _Ye Pharisees
make clean the outside_, &c. so that the word, βαπτιζω signifies there
to _cleanse_, or to use the means of cleansing.
He also observes, that though the original and natural signification
of the word imports, to _dip_, to _plunge_, to _dye_; yet it also
signifies to _wash_ or _cleanse_: Nevertheless, he thinks that it is
so far from signifying nothing else but to _dip_ or _plunge_, that
when it is to be understood in that sense, the words ought to be
εμβάπτω, or εμβαπτιζω, rather than βαπτω, or βαπτίζω; and also that it
no where signifies to _dip_, but as denoting a mode of, and in order
to washing; and that it signifies to _wash_, in all good authors. He
also refers to Scapula and Stephanus, as translating the word βαπτιζω
by _lavo_, or _abluo_; and Suidas, as rendering it by _madefacio_,
_lavo_, _abluo_, _purgo_, _mundo_: And he speaks of some authors, that
he had searched in every place wherein they mention baptism, and that
he found not one word to the purpose; and therefore concludes, that he
was obliged to say, and was ready to make it good, that no honest man,
who understands the Greek tongue, can deny the word to signify to
_wash_, as well as to _dip_.[89]
Footnote 89:
Dr. Wall, in the appendix of his reply to Dr. Gale, mentions a
remarkable instance, in which the mode of wetting or of applying water
was certainly that of pouring, and not that of dipping. It is as
follows:—St. Origen, when commenting on the Baptism of John, enquires
thus of the Pharisees; “How could you think that Elias, when he should
come, would _baptize_, who did not in Ahab’s time _baptize_ the wood
upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt by the
Lord’s appearing in fire? But he ordered the priest to do that; not
once only, but he says, do it the second time; and they did it the
second time. And do it the third time; and they did it the third time.
Therefore, how could it be likely that this man, who did not then
_baptize_, but assigned that work to others, would himself _baptize_,
when he should, according to the prophecy of Malachi, again appear
here on earth?”
We find in the first book of Kings, xviii. 33, that the order given by
Elijah was to fill four barrels with water, and _pour_ it on the wood
and on the burnt offering. This _pouring of water_, Origen, that
accurate scholar, who lived in the second century, and was well
acquainted with the Greek classics, and Greek Testament, calls
baptizing. In the very same sentence, he makes use of the Greek word
_Baptizo_ four times; twice with express reference to the _Baptism_ of
John; and twice with express reference to that _Baptism_ which took
place in the days of the Prophet Elijah; which baptism, we are
expressly told, was not performed by _dipping_ the wood and sacrifice
into water, but by _pouring_ water upon them.
It is also evident, even from the frequent use of the word baptizo, by
heathen authors, that it does not always signify a total immersion.
Mr. Walker tells us, “that Porphyrie mentions a river in India, into
which if an offender enters, or attempts to pass through it, he is
immediately _baptized_ up to his head:” (_baptizetai mechri
Kephales_.) Here a person is said to be baptized, although his head
did not go under, but remained above the water. This certainly was not
a total immersion.
“He also instances a case from Mr. Sydenham, as delivered by the
oracle (viz. _askos baptize, dunai de toi ou themis esti_.”) In which
instance, if _dunai_ signifies to plunge wholly under water, as it
certainly does, then _baptize_ must signify something less than a
total immersion.—“_Baptize him as a bottle, but it is not lawful to
plunge him wholly under the water._” The baptism here described,
resembles that of a blown bladder or bottle of leather, which when put
into the water, will not sink to the bottom, but swim upon the top.
The same critical author mentions an instance from Schrevelii’s and
Robertson’s Lexicons, 19th chapter, in which case, the primitive word
_bapto_ signifies a wetting with water, that was certainly less, and
very different from a total dipping or immersion. The sentence is
this. (“_Baptei men askon, udor de ugron dunei pote._”) “_He indeed
baptizeth a bladder or bottle, but it never goeth under the liquid
water._”
To these instances, we might add a well known case, taken from a poem
attributed to Homer, called the battle of the frogs and the mice, in
which the lake is said to be _baptized_ by the blood of a frog.
(_Ebapteto de aimati limne porphureo._) This lake was not _dipped_
into the blood of a frog; it was only _bespattered_ and tinged
therewith.
We could easily multiply authorities if it were necessary. It appears
undeniably evident from the Greek classicks, and from learned writers
and commentators, both ancient and modern, that the word _baptizo_ has
other significations besides that of a total dipping or immersion.
The most celebrated and respectable Lexicographers and criticks have
often translated baptizo into the following Latin words, viz.
_baptizo_, _mergo_, _immergo_, _tingo_, _intingo_, _lave_, _abluo_,
_madefacio_, _purgo_, _mundo_. No one, I presume, will pretend that
all these words are mentioned as being perfectly synonimous—of the
same meaning exactly. And certainly if the word baptizo signify any
thing less or different from a total immersion, then persons may be
baptized in some other mode.
Besides, if it had been the intention of Christ and of his Apostles,
to specify the mode, or to have restricted all christians to one and
the same mode of baptizing, they might, for this purpose, have
selected from the Greek language words of the most unequivocal and
definite signification. If it had been their intention to specify the
mode of _sprinkling_, they might have used the word _Rantizo_; if the
mode of _pouring_, they might have used the word _Ekcheo_; if that
mode of _bathing_ or _washing_, which is performed by the application
of water with friction or rubbing, they might have used the word
_Louo_; and if it had been their intention to specify the mode of
_dipping_, they might have used the word _Dupto_ or _Duno_, &c.
REED’S APOLOGY.
Footnote 90:
Ἐις and ἐκ.
Footnote 91:
Ἐις τὴν Θαλασσαν.
Footnote 92:
Ἐκ.
Footnote 93:
_If any one has a mind to see how these particles ἐις and ἐκ, are used
in the New Testament, he may consult Schmid. concord. in voc. ἐις and
ἐκ, where there are a great number of places mentioned, in which these
words are used; and, it will hardly be thought, by any impartial
reader, that the greatest part of them can be rendered by, into or out
of; but rather to, or from._
Footnote 94:
Γδατκ πολλα.
Footnote 95:
_See Lightfoot’s works, Vol. I. Page 500._
Footnote 96:
In Col. ii. 12. and context, is a succession of figures, designed, in
different ways, to illustrate and enforce the same fact. Verse 11. “In
whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision, _made without
hands_, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the
circumcision of Christ.” That is, in putting off the old man, you are
circumcised without hands; the work is effected by the Holy Spirit—You
are born again, which is spiritual circumcision. “Circumcision is that
of the _heart_.” This renewing of the Holy Spirit consists in putting
off the body of sin, in renouncing sin, and reforming the life. Or, we
are “buried with him in baptism.” As the burial of Jesus Christ gave
evidence, that he had really died, the just for the unjust; that he
had yielded himself a sacrifice for sin; so we in our spiritual
circumcision or baptism, the figure now used, show ourselves to be
really dead to sin, crucified in the lusts of our minds. As Christ,
when buried, was dead and separated from the world; so in regeneration
we become separate from sin. We are new creatures, having put off the
old man. We are buried from the wicked indulgences and pursuits of the
world.
The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, are, not only causes,
but types and symbols to represent the death of our sins, our putting
off the old man, and becoming new creatures.
No reference is made in the text to the water of baptism, any more
than to the knife of circumcision in the preceding verse. The writer
is speaking of that baptism, and of that alone, in which we “are risen
with Christ, through the faith, which is the operation of God.” This
certainly can be nothing less than _spiritual_ baptism, or
regeneration; for the most violent advocate for dipping, or plunging,
or burying, will not pretend, that this, necessarily, is connected
with “faith;” he will allow it may be _possible_ for a man to be
plunged and buried in _water_, and yet not have “the faith, which is
the operation of God.” If he allow this, and allow this he must and
will, then our text is no support of his cause. It cannot be water
baptism which is mentioned.