網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

that were true, they ought not to be baptized till they could give up themselves to God by faith: This a late learned

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 circum"stance of being administered on the eighth day, which ceased at the coming of "Christ, who has given us baptism, the spiritual circumcision; in which ordi "nance, we are not thus restricted, with respect to the age or time of adminis "tration." 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 num "ber 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 ci“cumcision is to be observed; so that you think none should be baptized and sancti"fied, 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 soule "(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 circum "cision. 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 re"strained 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 Acta

writer attempts to prove *. Moreover, some who have been converted, have neglected baptism, out of a scruple they have

* See Wall's History of Infant-Baptism, Part II page 52-85.

"of the apostles, says, the Lord hath shown me that no person is to be called commoNL 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 en"trance 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 in"fancy, in middle age, or in old age."-He tells us, infants were baptized, al"though 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 infantbaptism 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 con"stantly 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 other"wise."-"That no christian, of any sort, ever denied it to be useful or neces"sary." 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 insti"tuted 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 cir "cumcision which God's former people received."

[ocr errors]

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 unneces sarily add to the prolixity of the present work. I will therefore conclude, by stating very briefly, the incontestible and conclusive evidence in proof of intantbaptism, 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 defile. ments. 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, ac knowledged 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 2" Pelagius, and also Celestius, one of his principal abettors, were extremely puzzled and embar rassed 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 dis

had of their unfitness for it, as many, in our day, do the Lord's supper; and others, it may be, might have neglected to baptize their infants, or to be baptized themselves, till they apprehended themselves near to death, as being misled by a false supposition, which was imbibed by several, that baptism washed away sin; therefore, the nearer they were to their end, the more prepared they would be, by this ordinance, for a better world. However, whether it was neglected for this, or any other reason, it does not much affect the argument we are

claimed 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 infantbaptism. Celestius also confessed, "that infants were to be baptized “accord"ing 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 opi"nion; 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-pedobaptists in the year 1522."

REED'S APOLOGY.

maintaining, our design being principally to prove, that it was practised in the early ages of the church; and, in what instances soever it was omitted, it was not because they denied that the infants of believing parents had a right to it. As to several things mentioned by the authors before cited, and others that treat on that subject, whereby they seem to maintain the absolute necessity thereof, to wash away the pollution of sin; or, when they assert, that it is as necessary to salvation as regenerating grace, we have nothing to say as to this method of reasoning: However, whatever they speak in defence of it, is a sufficient evidence that it is not a practice of late invention.

As to what respects Tertullian's advice to defer baptism till persons were capable to engage for themselves; this caution argues, that it was practised by some, which is the principal thing designed to be proved. And the reason assigned by him for the neglect of baptism, being this, because the sureties, who undertook to instruct them in the doctrines of religion, often promised more than they made conscience of performing, and so brought themselves into a snare thereby; therefore, for their sakes, infant-baptism, which could not be administered without sureties, had better be delayed; this only proves that he was against infant-baptism for some prudential reasons, as it was attended with this inconvenience, not that he thought it was in itself unlawful to be practised by them. From hence we may conclude, that the objection taken from infant-baptism, being supposed to be a novelty, does not weaken the cause we are maintaining *. Thus concerning the subjects of baptism.

We are now to consider the mode thereof, or what we are to understand by the word baptism. It is said, in the foregoing answer, to be the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. There has been a great dispute in the world, concerning the meaning of the word Bali, by which this ordinance is expressed; from whence arises the different mode of the administration thereof. Some think, that it only signifies the putting a person, or thing, into the water, whereby it is covered, or, as it were, buried in it; which is otherwise expressed by the word dipping. Others (whose opinion I cannot but acquiesce in) conclude that it may as well be performed by the application of water, though it be in a different manner, either by pouring or sprinkling; and accordingly, that it signifies the using the means of cleansing by

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 infantbaptism, vol. I

the application of water, whatever be the form or mode thereof. This argument depends very much upon the sense in which the word is applied to the action intended thereby, either in scripture or other writers. And, inasmuch as the sense thereof, as used in scripture, and other writings, is well explained by the learned and judicious Dr. Owen, agreeably to the sense we have given of the word; I have no occasion to make any other critical remarks upon it, by referring to those writings in which the word is found *.

* See Dr. Owen's complete Collection of Sermons, page 580, 581. of dipping; in which he observes, that farlo, 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, it is rendered, by the LXX. in Gen. xxxvii. 31. by pcnóvo, to stain by sprinkling, or otherwise mostly by Barlo: In 2 Kings v. 14. they render it by farlig, 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 ; which the LXX. render 167i70; and in Exod. xii. 22. where the word is used, which we render dip, speaking concerning the dipping the bunch of hyssop in the blood, the LXX. render it by the word in: And, in 1 Sam. xiv. 27, it is said, that Jonathan dipped the end of his rod in an honey-comb; the word here is also 2, and the LXX. render it ; 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 a 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. vizl, which signifies to wash, and is so translated, is explained in the words immediately following, as signifying to baptize. And, in Luke xi. 58. it is said, that the Pharisee marvelled that our Saviour had not washed before dinner: The word in the Greek is Chiod», to whom he replies in the following verse, Ye Pharisees make clean the outside, &c. so that the word, Bali 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 sy Carle, or subari, rather than Barlo, or Berlic; 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 li 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

[blocks in formation]
« 上一頁繼續 »