_Or an Aid to Reflection in the forming of a sound Judgment
respecting the purport and purpose of the Baptismal Rite, and a just
appreciation of its value and importance._
A born and bred Baptist, and paternally descended from the old
orthodox Non-conformists, and both in his own and in his father's
right a very dear friend of mine, had married a member of the National
Church. In consequence of an anxious wish expressed by his lady for
the baptism of their first child, he solicited me to put him in
possession of my Views respecting this controversy; though principally
as to the degree of importance which I attached to it. For as to the
point itself, his natural prepossession in favour of the persuasion in
which he was born, had been confirmed by a conscientious examination
of the arguments on both sides. As the Comment on the preceding
Aphorism, or rather as an expansion of its subject matter, I will give
the substance of the conversation: and amply shall I have been
remunerated, should it be read with the interest and satisfaction with
which it was heard. More particularly, should any of my readers find
themselves under the same or similar circumstances.
Our discussion is rendered shorter and more easy by our perfect
agreement in certain preliminary points. We both disclaim alike every
attempt to explain any thing _into_ Scripture, and every attempt to
explain any thing _out of_ Scripture. Or if we regard either with a
livelier aversion, it is the latter, as being the more fashionable and
prevalent. I mean the practice of both high and low _Grotian_ Divines
to _explain away_ positive assertions of Scripture on the pretext,
that the _literal sense_ is not agreeable to reason, that is, THEIR
_particular_ reason. And inasmuch as (in the only right sense of the
word), there is no such thing as a _particular_ reason, they must, and
in fact they _do_, mean, that the literal sense is not accordant to
their _understanding_, that is, to the _notions_ which _their_
understandings have been taught and accustomed to form in _their_
school of philosophy. Thus a Platonist who should become a Christian,
would at once, even in texts susceptible of a different
interpretation, recognize, because he would expect to find, several
doctrines which the disciple of the Epicurean or mechanic school will
not receive on the most positive declarations of the Divine Word. And
as we agree in the opinion, that the _Minimi-fidian_ party[148] err
grievously in the latter point, so I must concede to you, that too
many Pædo-baptists (_assertors of Infant Baptism_) have erred, though
less grossly, in the former. I have, I confess, no eye for these
smoke-like wreaths of inference, this ever widening spiral _ergo_ from
the narrow aperture of perhaps a single text; or rather an
interpretation forced into it by construing an idiomatic phrase in an
artless narrative with the same absoluteness, as if it had formed part
of a mathematical problem. I start back from these inverted Pyramids,
where the apex is the base. If I should inform any one that I had
called at a friend's house, but had found nobody at home, the family
having all gone to the play; and if he on the strength of this
information, should take occasion to asperse my friend's wife for
unmotherly conduct in taking an infant, six months old, to a crowded
theatre; would you allow him to press on the words "_nobody_" and
"_all_" the family, in justification of the slander? Would you not
tell him, that the words were to be interpreted by the nature of the
subject, the purpose of the speaker, and their ordinary acceptation;
and that he must, or might have known, that infants of that age would
not be admitted into the theatre? Exactly so, with regard to the
words, _he and all his household_. Had Baptism of infants at that
early period of the Gospel been a known practice, or had this been
previously demonstrated,--then indeed the argument, that in all
probability there were one or more infants or young children in so
large a family, would be no otherwise objectionable than as being
superfluous, and a sort of anticlimax in logic. But if the words are
cited as the proof, it would be a clear _petitio principii_, though
there had been nothing else against it. But when we turn back to the
Scriptures preceding the narrative, and find repentance and belief
demanded as the terms and indispensable conditions of Baptism--_then_
the case above imagined applies in its full force. Equally vain is the
pretended analogy from Circumcision, which was no Sacrament at all;
but the means and mark of national distinction. In the first instance
it was, doubtless, a privilege or mark of superior rank conferred on
the descendants of Abraham. In the Patriarchal times this rite was
confined (the first governments being Theocracies) to the priesthood,
who were set apart to that office from their birth. At a later period
this token of the _premier class_ was extended to Kings. And thus,
when it was re-ordained by Moses for the whole Jewish nation, it was
at the same time said--Ye are _all_ Priests and Kings; ye are a
consecrated People. In addition to this, or rather in aid of this,
Circumcision was intended to distinguish the Jews by some indelible
sign: and it was no less necessary, that Jewish children should be
recognizable as Jews, than Jewish adults--not to mention the greater
safety of the rite in infancy. Nor was it ever pretended that any
Grace was conferred with it, or that the rite was significant of any
inward or spiritual operation. In short, an unprejudiced and competent
reader need only peruse the first thirty-three paragraphs of the
eighteenth section of Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying; and then
compare with these the remainder of the Section added by him after the
Restoration: those, namely, in which he _attempts_ to overthrow his
own arguments. I had almost said, _affects_: for such is the
feebleness, and so palpable the sophistry of his answers, that I find
it difficult to imagine, that Taylor himself could have been satisfied
with them. The only plausible arguments apply with equal force to
Baptist and Pædo-baptist; and would prove, if they proved any thing,
that both were wrong, and the Quakers only in the right.
Now, in the first place, it is obvious, that nothing conclusive can be
drawn from the silence of the New Testament respecting a practice,
which, if we suppose it already in use, must yet, from the character
of the first converts, have been of comparatively rare occurrence; and
which from the predominant, and more concerning, objects and functions
of the Apostolic writers (1 Corinth. i. 17.) was not likely to have
been mentioned otherwise than incidentally, and very probably
therefore might not have occurred to them to mention at all. But,
secondly, admitting that the practice was introduced at a later period
than that in which the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles were
composed: I should yet be fully satisfied, that the Church exercised
herein a sound[149] discretion. On either supposition, therefore, it
is never without regret that I see a divine of our Church attempting
to erect forts on a position so evidently commanded by the strong-hold
of his antagonists. I dread the use which the Socinians may make of
their example, and the Papists of their failure. Let me not, however,
deceive you. (_The reader understands, that I suppose myself
conversing with a Baptist._) I am of opinion, that the divines on your
side are chargeable with a far more grievous mistake, that of giving a
carnal and _Judaizing_ interpretation to the various Gospel texts in
which the terms, _baptism_ and _baptize_, occur, contrary to the
express and earnest admonitions of the Apostle Paul. And this I say,
without in the least retracting my former concession, that the texts
appealed to, as commanding or authorizing Infant Baptism, are all
without exception made to bear a sense neither contained nor
deducible: and likewise that (historically considered) there exists no
sufficient _positive_ evidence, that the Baptism of infants was
instituted by the Apostles in the practice of the Apostolic age.[150]
Lastly, we both coincide in the full conviction, that it is neither
the outward ceremony of Baptism, under any form or circumstances, nor
any other ceremony, but such a faith in Christ as tends to produce a
conformity to his holy doctrines and example in heart and life, and
which faith is itself a declared mean and condition of our partaking
of his spiritual body, and of being _clothed upon_ with his
righteousness,--that properly makes us Christians, and can alone be
enjoined as an Article of Faith necessary to Salvation, so that the
denial thereof may be denounced as a damnable heresy. In the strictest
sense of essential, this alone is the essential in Christianity, that
the same spirit should be growing in us which was in the fulness of
all perfection in Christ Jesus. Whatever else is named essential is
such because, and only as far as, it is instrumental to this, or
evidently implied herein. If the Baptists hold the _visible rite_ to
be indispensable to salvation, with what terror must they not regard
every disease that befalls their children between youth and infancy!
But if they are saved by the faith of the parent, then the outward
rite is not essential to salvation, otherwise than as the omission
should arise from a spirit of disobedience: and in this case it is the
cause, not the effect, the wilful and unbaptized heart, not the
unbaptizing hand, that perils it. And surely it looks very like an
_inconsistency_ to admit the vicarious faith of the parents and the
therein implied promise, that the child shall be Christianly bred up,
and as much as in them lies prepared for the communion of saints--to
admit this, as safe and sufficient in their own instance, and yet to
denounce the same belief and practice as hazardous and unavailing in
the Church--the same, I say, essentially, and only differing from
their own by the presence of two or three Christian friends as
additional securities, and by the promise being expressed!
But you, my filial friend! have studied Christ under a better
teacher--the Spirit of Adoption, even the spirit that was in Paul, and
which still speaks to us out of his writings. You remember and admire
the saying of an old divine, that a ceremony duly instituted was a
Chain of Gold round the Neck of Faith; but if in the wish to make it
co-essential and consubstantial, you draw it closer and closer, it may
strangle the Faith it was meant to deck and designate. You are not so
unretentive a scholar as to have forgotten the _pateris et auro_ of
your Virgil: or if you were, you are not so inconsistent a reasoner,
as to translate the Hebraism, spirit and fire in one place by
spiritual fire, and yet to refuse to translate water and spirit by
spiritual water in another place: or if, as I myself think, the
different position marks a different sense, yet that the former must
be _ejusdem generis_ with the latter--the Water of Repentance,
reformation in _conduct_; and the Spirit that which purifies the
inmost _principle_ of action, as fire purges the metal substantially
and not cleansing the surface only!
But in this instance, it will be said, the ceremony, the outward and
visible sign, is a Scripture ordinance. I will not reply, that the
Romish priest says the same of the anointing of the sick with oil and
the imposition of hands. No, my answer is: that this is a very
sufficient reason for the continued observance of a ceremonial rite so
derived and sanctioned, even though its own beauty, simplicity, and
natural significancy had pleaded less strongly in its behalf. But it
is no reason why the Church should forget, that the perpetuation of a
thing does not alter the nature of the thing, and that a ceremony to
be perpetuated is to be perpetuated as a _ceremony_. It is no reason
why, knowing and experiencing even in the majority of her own members
the proneness of the human mind to[151] superstition, the Church
might not rightfully and piously adopt the measures best calculated to
check this tendency, and to correct the abuse, to which it had led in
any particular rite. But of superstitious notions respecting the
baptismal ceremony, and of abuse resulting, the instances were
flagrant and notorious. Such, for instance, was the frequent deferring
of the baptismal rite to a late period of life, and even to the
death-bed, in the belief that the mystic water would cleanse the
baptized person from all sin and (if he died immediately after the
performance of the ceremony) send him pure and spotless into the other
world.
Nor is this all. The preventive remedy applied by the Church is
legitimated as well as additionally recommended by the following
consideration. Where a ceremony answered and was intended to answer
several purposes, which purposes at its first institution were blended
in respect of _the time_, but which afterwards, by change of
circumstances (as when, for instance, a large and ever-increasing
proportion of the members of the Church, or those who at least bore
the Christian name, were of Christian parents), were necessarily
dis-united--_then_ either the Church has no power or authority
delegated to her (which is shifting the ground of controversy)--or she
must be authorized to choose and determine, to which of the several
purposes the ceremony should be attached.--Now one of the purposes of
Baptism was--the making it _publicly manifest_, first, what
individuals were to be regarded by the _world_ (Phil. ii. 15.) as
belonging to the visible communion of Christians: inasmuch as by their
demeanour and apparent condition, the general estimation of _the city
set on a hill and not to be hid_ (Matth. v. 14.) could not but be
affected--the city that even _in the midst of a crooked and perverse
nation_ was bound not only to give no cause, but by all innocent means
to prevent every occasion, of _rebuke_. Secondly, to mark out, for the
Church itself, those that were entitled to that _especial_ dearness,
that watchful and disciplinary love and loving-kindness, which _over
and above_ the affections and duties of philanthropy and universal
charity, Christ himself had enjoined, and with an emphasis and in a
form significant of its great and especial importance,--_A New
Commandment I give unto you, that ye love_ one another. By a charity
wide as sunshine, and comprehending the whole human race, the body of
Christians was to be placed in contrast with the proverbial
misanthropy and bigotry of the Jewish Church and people: while yet
they were to be distinguished and known to all men, by the peculiar
love and affection displayed by them towards the members of their own
community; thus exhibiting the intensity of sectarian attachment, yet
by the no less notorious and exemplary practice of the duties of
universal benevolence, secured from the charge so commonly brought
against it, of being narrow and exclusive. "How _kind_ these
Christians are to the poor and afflicted, without distinction of
religion or country; but how they _love each other_!"
Now combine with this the consideration before urged--the duty, I
mean, and necessity of checking the superstitious abuse of the
baptismal rite: and I then ask, with confidence, in what way could the
Church have exercised a sound discretion more wisely, piously, or
effectively, than by fixing, from among the several ends and purposes
of Baptism, the outward ceremony to the purposes here mentioned? How
could the great body of Christians be more plainly instructed as to
the true nature of all outward ordinances? What can be conceived
better calculated to prevent the ceremony from being regarded as other
and more than a ceremony, if not the administration of the same on an
_object_, (yea, a dear and precious _object_) of spiritual duties,
though the _conscious_ subject of spiritual operations and graces only
by anticipation and in hope;--a subject unconscious as a flower of the
dew falling on it, or the early rain, and thus emblematic of the
myriads who (as in our Indian empire, and henceforward, I trust, in
Africa) are temporally and even morally benefited by the outward
existence of Christianity, though as yet ignorant of its saving truth!
And yet, on the other hand, what more reverential than the application
of this, the common initiatory rite of the East sanctioned and
appropriated by Christ--its application, I say, to the very subjects,
whom he himself commanded to be _brought_ to him--the children _in
arms_, respecting whom _Jesus was much displeased with his disciples,
who had rebuked those that brought them_! What more expressive of the
true character of that originant yet _generic_ stain, from which the
Son of God, by his mysterious incarnation and agony and death and
resurrection, and by the Baptism of the Spirit, came to cleanse the
children of Adam, than the exhibition of the outward element to
infants free from and incapable of _crime_, in whom the evil principle
was present only as _potential_ being, and whose outward semblance
represented the kingdom of Heaven? And can it--to a man, who would
hold himself deserving of _anathema maranatha_ (1 Cor. xvi. 22.) if he
did not _love the Lord Jesus_--can it be nothing to such a man, that
the introduction and commendation of a new inmate, a new spiritual
ward, to the assembled brethren in Christ (--and this, as I have shown
above, was _one_ purpose of the baptismal ceremony) does in the
baptism of an infant recall our Lord's own presentation in the Temple
on the eighth day after his birth? Add to all these considerations the
known fact of the frequent exposure and the general light regard of
infants, at the time when Infant Baptism is by the Baptists supposed
to have been first _ruled_ by the Catholic Church, not overlooking the
humane and charitable motives, that influenced Cyprian's decision in
its favour. And then make present to your imagination, and
meditatively contemplate the still continuing tendency, the
profitable, the _beautiful_ effects, of this ordinance _now_ and for
so many centuries back, on the great mass of the population throughout
Christendom--the softening, elevating exercise of faith and the
conquest over the senses, while in the form of a helpless crying babe
the presence, and the unutterable worth and value, of an immortal
being made capable of everlasting bliss are solemnly proclaimed and
carried home to the mind and heart of the hearers and beholders! Nor
will you forget the probable influence on the future education of the
child, the opportunity of instructing and impressing the friends,
relatives, and parents in their best and most docile mood. These are,
indeed, the _mollia tempora fandi_.
It is true, that by an unforeseen accident, and through the propensity
of all zealots to caricature partial truth into total falsehood--it is
too true, that a tree the very contrary in quality of that shown to
Moses (Exod. xv. 25.) was afterwards _cast into the sweet waters from
this fountain_, and made them like _the waters of Marah_, too bitter
to be drunk. I allude to the Pelagian controversy, the perversion of
the article of Original Sin by Augustine, and the frightful
conclusions which this _durus pater infantum_ drew from the article
thus perverted. It is not, however, to the predecessors of this
African, whoever they were that authorized Pædo-baptism, and at
whatever period it first became general--it is not to the Church at
the time being, that these consequences are justly imputable. She had
done her best to preclude every superstition, by allowing in urgent
cases any and every adult, man and woman, to administer the ceremonial
part, the outward rite, of baptism: but reserving to the highest
functionary of the Church (even to the exclusion of the co-presbyters)
the more proper and spiritual purpose, namely, the declaration of
repentance and belief, the free Choice of Christ, as his Lord, and the
open profession of the Christian title by an individual in his own
name and by his own deliberate act. _This_ office of religion, the
essentially moral and spiritual nature of which could not be mistaken,
this most _solemn_ office the Bishop alone was to perform.
Thus--as soon as the _purposes_ of the ceremonial rite were by change
of circumstances divided, that is, took place at different periods of
the believer's life--to the _outward_ purposes, where the effect was
to be produced on the consciousness of others, the Church continued to
affix the _outward rite_; while to the substantial and spiritual
purpose, where the effect was to be produced on the individual's own
mind, she gave its beseeming dignity by an ordinance not figurative,
but standing in the direct cause and relation of _means_ to the _end_.
In fine, there are two great purposes to be answered, each having its
own subordinate purposes, and desirable consequences. The Church
answers both, the Baptists one only. If, nevertheless, you would still
prefer the union of the Baptismal rite with the Confirmation, and that
the Presentation of Infants to the assembled Church had formed a
separate institution, avowedly prospective--I answer: first, that such
for a long time and to a late period was my own judgment. But even
then it seemed to me a point, as to which an indifference would be
less inconsistent in a lover of truth, than a zeal to separation in a
professed lover of peace. And secondly, I would revert to the history
of the Reformation, and the calamitous accident of the Peasants' War:
when the poor ignorant multitude, driven frantic by the intolerable
oppressions of their feudal lords, rehearsed all the outrages that
were acted in our own times by the Parisian populace headed by Danton,
Marat, and Robespierre; and on the same outrageous principles, and in
assertion of the same RIGHTS OF BRUTES to the subversion of all the
DUTIES OF MEN. In our times, most fortunately for the interest of
religion and morality, or of their prudential substitutes at least,
the name of Jacobin was every where associated with that of Atheist
and Infidel. Or rather, Jacobinism and Infidelity were the two heads
of the Revolutionary Geryon--connatural misgrowths of the same
monster-trunk. In the German Convulsion, on the contrary, by a mere
but most unfortunate _accident_, the same code of _Caliban_
jurisprudence, the same sensual and murderous excesses, were connected
with the name of Anabaptist. The abolition of magistracy, community of
goods, the right of plunder, polygamy, and whatever else was fanatical
were comprised in the word, Anabaptism. It is not to be imagined, that
the Fathers of the Reformation could, without a miraculous influence,
have taken up the question of Infant Baptism with the requisite
calmness and freedom of spirit. It is not to be wished, that they
should have entered on the discussion. Nay, I will go farther. Unless
the abolition of Infant Baptism can be shown to be involved in some
fundamental article of faith, unless the practice could be proved
fatal or imminently perilous to salvation, the Reformers would not
have been justified in exposing the yet tender and struggling cause of
Protestantism to such certain and violent prejudices as this
innovation would have excited. Nothing less than the whole substance
and efficacy of the Gospel faith was the prize, which they had
wrestled for and won; but won from enemies still in the field, and on
the watch to retake, at all costs, the sacred treasure, and consign it
once again to darkness and oblivion. If there be a _time for all
things_, this was not the time for an innovation, that would and must
have been followed by the triumph of the enemies of Scriptural
Christianity, and the alienation of the governments, that had espoused
and protected it.
Remember, I say this on the supposition of the question's not being
what you do not pretend it to be, an essential of the Faith, by which
we are saved. But should it likewise be conceded, that it is a
_disputable_ point--and that in point of fact it is and has been
disputed by divines, whom no pious Christian of any denomination will
deny to have been faithful and eminent servants of Christ; should it,
I say, be likewise conceded that the question of Infant Baptism is a
point, on which two Christians, who perhaps differ on this point only,
may differ without giving just ground for impeaching the piety or
competence of either--in this case I am obliged to infer, that the
person who _at any time_ can regard this difference as _singly_
warranting a separation from a religious Community, must think of
schism under another point of view, than that in which I have been
taught to contemplate it by St. Paul in his Epistles to the
Corinthians.
Let me add a few words on a diversity of doctrine closely connected
with this: the opinions of Doctors Mant and D'Oyly as opposed to those
of the (so called) Evangelical clergy. "The Church of England" (says
Wall)[152] "does not require assent and consent" to either opinion
"in order to _lay_ communion." But I will suppose the person a
_minister_: but minister of a Church which has expressly disclaimed
all pretence to infallibility; a Church which in the construction of
its Liturgy and Articles is known to have worded certain passages for
the purpose of rendering them subscribable by both A and Z--that is,
the opposite parties as to the points in controversy. I suppose this
person's convictions those of Z, and that out of five passages there
are three, the more natural and obvious sense of which is in his
favour; and two of which, though not absolutely _precluding_ a
different sense, yet the more probable interpretation is in favour of
A, that is, of those who do not consider the Baptism of an Infant as
_prospective_, but hold it to be an _opus operans et in præsenti_.
Then I say, that if such a person regards these two sentences or
single passages as obliging or warranting him to abandon the flock
entrusted to his charge, and either to join such, as are the avowed
Enemies of the Church on the double ground of its particular
Constitution and of its being an Establishment, or to set up a
separate Church for himself--I cannot avoid the conclusion, that
either his conscience is morbidly sensitive in one speck to the
exhaustion of the sensibility in a far larger portion; or that he must
have discovered some mode, beyond the reach of my conjectural powers,
of interpreting the Scriptures enumerated in the following excerpt
from the popular tract before cited, in which the writer expresses an
opinion, to which I assent with my whole heart: namely,
"That all Christians in the world that hold the same fundamentals
ought to make one Church, though differing in lesser opinions; and
that the sin, the mischief, and danger to the souls of men, that
divide into those many sects and parties among us, does (for the most
of them) consist not so much in the opinions themselves, as in their
dividing and separating for them. And in support of this tenet, I will
refer you to some plain places of Scripture, which if you please now
to peruse, I will be silent the while. See what our Saviour himself
says, John x. 16. John xvii. 11. And what the primitive Christians
practised, Acts ii. 46, and iv. 32. And what St. Paul says, 1 Cor. i.
10, 11, 12, and 2, 3, 4; also the whole 12th chapter: Eph. ii. 18, &c.
to the end. Where the Jewish and Gentile Christians are showed to be
_one body, one household, one temple fitly framed together_: and yet
these were of different opinions in several matters.--Likewise chap.
iii. 6, iv. 1-13. Phil. ii. 1, 2, where he uses the most solemn
adjurations to this purpose. But I would more especially recommend to
you the reading of Gal. v. 20, 21. Phil. iii. 15, 16, the 14th chapter
to the Romans, and part of the 15th, to verse 7, and also Rom. xv. 17.
"Are not these passages plain, full, and earnest? Do you find any of
the controverted points to be determined by Scripture in words nigh so
plain or pathetic?"
_Marginal Note written (in 1816) by the Author in his own copy of
Wall's work._
This and the two following pages are excellent. If I addressed the
ministers recently seceded, I would first prove from Scripture and
Reason the justness of their doctrines concerning Baptism and
Conversion. 2. I would show, that even in respect of the Prayer-book,
Homilies, &c. of the Church of England, taken as a whole, their
opponents were comparatively as ill off as themselves, if not worse.
3. That the few mistakes or inconvenient phrases of the Baptismal
Service did not impose on the conscience the necessity of resigning
the pastoral office. 4. That even if they did, this would by no means
justify schism from Lay-membership: or else there could be no schism
except from an immaculate and infallible Church. Now, as our Articles
have declared that no Church is or ever was such, it would follow
that there is no such sin as that of Schism--that is, that St. Paul
wrote falsely or idly. 5. That the escape through the channel of
Dissent is from the frying-pan to the fire--or, to use a less worn
and vulgar simile, the escape of a leech from a glass-jar of water
into the naked and open air. But never, never, would I in one breath
allow my Church to be fallible, and in the next contend for her
absolute freedom from all error--never confine inspiration and
perfect truth to the Scriptures, and then scold for the perfect truth
of each and every word in the Prayer-book. Enough for me, if in my
heart of hearts, free from all fear of man and all lust of
preferment, I believe (as I do) the Church of England to be the
_most_ Apostolic Church; that its doctrines and ceremonies contain
nothing dangerous to Righteousness or Salvation; and that the
imperfections in its Liturgy are spots indeed, but spots on the sun,
which impede neither its light nor its heat, so as to prevent the
good seed from growing in a good soil and producing fruits of
Redemption.[154]
* * * The author had written and intended to insert a similar
exposition on the Eucharist. But as the leading view has been given
in the Comment on Redemption, its length induces him to defer it,
together with the Articles on Faith and the philosophy of Prayer, to
a small supplementary volume.[155]
[147] By certain Biblical philologists of the Teutonic school (men
distinguished by learning, but still more characteristically by
hardihood in conjecture, and who suppose the Gospels to have undergone
several successive _revisions and enlargements_ by, or under the
authority of, the sacred historians) these words are contended to have
been, in the first delivery, the common commencement of all the
Gospels κατα σαρκα (that is, _according to the flesh_), in
distinction from St. John's or the Gospel κατα πνευμα (that is,
_according to the Spirit_).
[148] See Comment to Aphorism VIII., par. 3.--ED.
[149] That every the least _permissible_ form and ordinance, which at
different times it might be expedient for the Church to enact, are
pre-enacted in the New Testament; and that whatever is not to be found
_there_, ought to be allowed _no where_--this has been _asserted_. But
that it has been _proved_, or that the tenet is not to be placed among
the _revulsionary_ results of the Scripture-slighting Will-worship of
the Romish Church; it will be more sincere to say, I disbelieve, than
that I doubt. It was chiefly, if not exclusively, in reference to the
extravagances built on this tenet, that the great Selden ventured to
declare, that the words, _Scrutamini Scripturas_, had set the world in
an uproar.
Extremes _appear_ to generate each other; but if we look steadily,
there will most often be found some common error, that produces both
as its positive and negative poles. Thus superstitions go _by pairs_,
like the two Hungarian sisters, always quarrelling and _inveterately
averse_, but yet joined at the trunk.
[150] More than this I do not consider as necessary for the argument.
And as to Robinson's assertions in his History of Baptism, that infant
Baptism did not commence till the time of Cyprian, who condemning it
as a general practice, allowed it in particular cases by a
dispensation of charity; and that it did not actually become the
ordinary rule of the Church, till Augustine in the fever of his
Anti-Pelagian dispute had introduced the Calvinistic interpretation of
Original Sin, and the dire state of Infants dying unbaptized--I am so
far from acceding to them, that I reject the whole statement as rash,
and not only unwarranted by the authorities he cites, but unanswerably
confuted by Baxter, Wall, and many other learned Pædo-baptists before
and since the publication of his work. I confine myself to the
assertion--not that Infant Baptism was _not_; but--that there exist no
sufficient proofs that it _was_ the practice of the Apostolic age.
[151] Let me be permitted to repeat and apply the _note_ in a former
page. Superstition may be defined as _super_stantium (_cujusmodi sunt
ceremoniæ et signa externa quæ, nisi in significando nihili sunt et
pæne nihil_) _sub_stantiatio.
[152] Conference between Two Men that had Doubts about Infant Baptism.
By W. Wall, Author of the History of Infant Baptism, and Vicar of
Shoreham in Kent. A very sensible little tract, and written in an
excellent spirit: but it failed, I confess, in satisfying my mind as
to the existence of any decisive proofs or documents of Infant Baptism
having been an Apostolic usage, or specially intended in any part of
the New Testament: though deducible _generally_ from many passages,
and in perfect accordance with the _spirit_ of the whole.
A mighty wrestler in the cause of Spiritual Religion and _Gospel_
morality, in whom more than in any other contemporary I seem to see
the spirit of Luther revived, expressed to me his doubts whether we
have a right to deny that an infant is capable of a spiritual
influence. To such a man I could not feel justified in returning an
answer _ex tempore_, or without having first submitted my convictions
to a fresh revisal. I owe him, however, a deliberate answer; and take
this opportunity of discharging the debt.
The objection supposes and assumes the very point which is denied, or
at least disputed--namely, that Infant Baptism is specially injoined
in the Scriptures. If an express passage to this purport _had_ existed
in the New Testament--the other passages, which evidently imply a
spiritual operation under the condition of a preceding spiritual act
on the part of the person baptized, remaining as now--_then_ indeed,
as the only way of removing the apparent contradiction, it _might_ be
allowable to call on the Anti-pædobaptist to prove the negative--namely,
that an infant a week old is not a subject capable or susceptible of
spiritual agency. And, _vice versa_, should it be made known to us, that
infants are not without reflection and self-consciousness--_then_,
doubtless, we should be entitled to infer that they were capable of a
spiritual operation, and consequently of that which is signified in
the baptismal rite administered to adults. But what does this prove
for those, who (as D. D. Mant and D'Oyly) not only cannot show, but
who do not themselves profess to believe, the self-consciousness of a
new-born babe, but who rest the defence of Infant Baptism on the
_assertion_, that God was pleased to affix the performance of this
rite to his offer of Salvation, as the indispensable, though
arbitrary, condition of the infant's salvability?--As Kings in former
ages, when they conferred lands in perpetuity, would sometimes, as the
condition of the tenure, exact from the beneficiary a hawk, or some
trifling ceremony, as the putting on or off of their sandals, or
whatever else royal caprice or the whim of the moment might suggest.
But _you_, honoured IRVING, are as little disposed, as myself, to
favour _such_ doctrine!
Friend, pure of heart and fervent! we have learnt
A different lore! We may not thus profane
The Idea and Name of Him whose absolute Will
_Is_ Reason--Truth Supreme!--Essential Order![153]
[153] For a further opinion upon Edward Irving see note at pp. 153-4
of the 1839 edition of Coleridge's 'Church and State.'--ED.
[154] Here the editor of the 1843 edition was able to give two pages
of additional matter by the author, tending, as Coleridge said, to the
"clearing up" of "the chapter on Baptism," and the proving "the
substantial accordance of my scheme with that of our Church." The
addition is from Coleridge's MS. Note-books, and bears date May 8,
1828.--ED.
[155] This note appeared in the early editions only. The
"supplementary volume" was never published, though the "Essay on
Faith," at p. 425, v. 4, of Coleridge's "Remains" (1838), and "Notes
on the Book of Common Prayer" (p. 5, v. 3, the same), may be the parts
here mentioned as written to appear in it. We republish these two
fragments at the end of the present volume, pp. 341 and 350.--ED.