Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

ancient, and always quoted with approbation by the earliest Christian writers extant, says, "Before a man receives the name of a son of God, he is ordained unto death; but when he receives that seal, he is free from death, and assigned unto life. Now that seal is water, into which men go down under obligation to death, but come up appointed to life."†

The necessity of baptism to salvation is also asserted in "the Recognitions of Clement," (a work, in one form or other, in my opinion, prior to the writings of Justin Martyr,) as undoing what we suffer in our first birth from Adam. 66 Quid confert aquæ baptismus ad Dei cultum ?— Quia regenerato ex aquis, et Deo renato, fragilitas prioris nativitatis, quæ tibi per hominem facta est, amputatur; et ita demum pervenire poteris ad salutem. Aliter vero impossibile est."§ Indeed it is something remarkable, that all the ancient Christian writers, without exception, speak of baptism as absolutely necessary to salvation. Even Gregory Nazianzen, who advised the deferring of baptism till the age of three years, made no objection to the baptism of the youngest infants when they were in danger of death. "But, say some," as he is quoted by Mr. Robinson himself, "what is your opinion of infants who are not capable of judging either of the grace of baptism, or of the damage sustained by the want of it? Shall we baptize them too? By all means, if there be any apparent danger. For it were better they were sanctified without their knowing it, than that they should die without being sealed and initiated.”

It cannot be denied that in the primitive times all who had been baptized, though they were ever so young, received the Lord's supper; and this was considered as equally ne

* About A. D. 100. Lardner, II. p. 51.

+ Pastor, L. iii. Simil. ix. C. xvi. (P.) “Antequam enim accipiat homo nomen filii Dei, morti destinatus est: at ubi accipit illud sigillum, liberatur à morte et traditur vitæ. Illud autem sigillum aqua est, in quam descendunt homines morti obligati, ascendunt vero vitæ assignati." Wall, (ed. 3,) I. p. 4.

The words immediately following this quotation are, " Et illis igitur prædicatum est illud sigillum, et usi sunt eo ut intrarent in regnum Dei;" thus translated by Wall: "For which reason to these also was this seal preached; and they made use of it that they might enter into the kingdom of God." Ibid. pp. 4, 5.

Hence Gale remarks, that "St. Hermas's expressions can refer only to adult persons, to whom the word may and ought to be preached;" and that "whoever are understood in these words, he makes preaching to them full as necessary as their being baptized." Reflections, p. 409.

See Lardner, 11. pp. 342-354.

§ L. vi. C. v. "Of what use is baptism in religion? Ans. To a person regenerated with water, and born again to God, the imperfection of the former natural birth is done away; and thus you attain to salvation, which otherwise is impossible." (P.)

"Hist. of Baptism," 1790, pp. 249, 250. (P.) See Wall, (ed. 3,) I. p. 119.

cessary to salvation. Thus Innocent I. bishop of Rome, A. D. 417, to prove the necessity of baptism to infants, says, (quoting John vi. 53,) "Nisi enim manducaverint carnem Filii hominis, et biberint sanguinem ejus, non habebunt vitam in semetipsis."† Taking for granted that, being baptized, they of course received the eucharist. No person appears to have had the good sense to maintain that baptism with water was not necessary to salvation before Vincentius,‡ who was contemporary with Jerome and Austin.

2. The phrase born again was by all the most ancient Christian writers used as synonymous to being baptized, and this phrase Irenæus applies to infants, as well as to persons of every other age. For, giving his reasons for Christ going through every stage of human life, (with the strength or weakness of which argument we have nothing to do,) he says, "Omnes enim venit per semetipsum salvare: omnes inquam, qui per eum renascuntur in Deum, infantes, et parvulos, et pueros, et juvenes, et seniores."§ Here the term infantes must necessarily signify what we mean by infants, or babes, as distinguished from those of the succeeding ages, pueros, boys, and juvenes, young men full

grown.

See Vol. II. p. S37; V. pp. 266, 267; Wall, (ed. 3,) II. pp. 485–447; Gale, pp. 528, 546; Wall's Defence against Gale, 1720, p. 384.

+ Binii Concilia, I. p. 623. "Except they eat of the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, they will have no life in them."

Cyprian relates, as of his own knowledge, [præsente ac teste me ipso,] the case of a female child, which, being left to the care of a nurse, and having been made to eat some bread mixed with wine of a Heathen sacrifice, [quod carnem necdum posset edere per ætatem, panem mero mixtum, quod tamen ipsum de immolatione pereuntium supererat, tradiderunt,] could not afterwards be made to partake of the eucharistical elements without hiccupping and vomitting. "Tunc sequitur singultus et vomitus. In corpore atque ore violato eucharistia permenare non potuit." De Lapsis, Opera, p. 182. This treatise is by the Oxford editor referred to the year 251, and it is evident from the narrative that this communion of infants was not a singular case, but an established practice. (P.) See the passage of Cyprian, with a translation, in Mr. James Peirce's posthumous "Essay in favour of the Ancient Practice of giving the Eucharist to Children,” 1728, pp. 36—38.

"A young Layman," who wrote against Austin's opinion" that the soul is by propagation." According to Austin, he " is the first that ever advised the prayers of the church to be used for any that had died unbaptized." Wall, (ed. 3,) I. pp. 384, 385, 393.

Dr. Wall says, "There has been lately [1705] a hot dispute between Colonel Danvers, an Antipædobaptist, on one side, and Mr. Baxter and Mr. Wills on the other, whether this Vincentius denied infant baptism." Dr. Wall adds, "If we except Tertullian, (whose words I shewed before to be ambiguous and inconsistent,) this Vincentius is the first man upon record that ever said that children might be saved without baptism; if by being saved we mean going to heaven: for that many before him thought they would be in a state without punishment." Ibid, pp. 393, 394.

§ Adv. Hares. L. ii. C. xxxix. "He came to save all by himself. I say all who by him are born again to God, infants and little ones, and boys, and young men, and elderly persons." (P.) See Wall, (ed. 3,) I. pp. 24, 25.

Baptism was also in the primitive times denominated by other terms, which equally imply the necessity of it to future happiness. Chrysostom, in a work of his cited by Julian and Austin, though not now extant, after denying that infants had any original sin, and enumerating ten advantages derived from baptism, says, " For this cause we baptize infants also, though they are not defiled with sin, that there may be superadded to them saintship, righteousness, adoption, inheritance, a brotherhood with Christ, and to be made members of him.” *

In agreement with this, Austin, and no doubt all other Christian writers, interpreted what Paul says of children being holy, (1 Cor. vii. 14,) of their being entitled to baptism, and therefore he says, " Jam enim erant parvuli Christiani, qui sive auctore uno ex parentibus, sive utroque consentiente, sanctificati erant."+ And sometimes Chris tian writers have denominated the one by the other: "Sancti, inquit, de sanctis nasci debuerunt, sicut dicit apostolus; alioqui filii vestri immundi essent, nunc autem sancti sunt. Et quomodo hoc accipis? Quomodo intelligis de fidelibus natum, et sanctam, et baptizari, non debet?" +

3. The first Christians, being Jews, would naturally, without any direction to the contrary, consider baptism, which is the initiatory rite with respect to Christianity, as corres ponding to circumcision, which bore the same relation to Judaism, whether the correspondence was strictly just or not; and therefore they would naturally apply it to the same subjects, that is, to infants, as well as to grown persons. This analogy has struck some sects of Christians so

* Wall's History of Infant Baptism, I. p. 112. (P.) Ed. 3, p. 167. + De Ser. in Monte, L. i. C. xxvii., Opera, II. p. 1121. "Even then there were Christian infants who were sanctified, (evidently meaning baptized,) some by the authority of one of the parents, and others with the consent of both." (P.) See Wall, (ed. 3,) I. p. 176; Wakefield and Le Clerc, quoted Vol. V. pp. 275, 276, Note. De Verbis Apostoli, (Serm. xiv.,) Opera, V. p. 327. (P.)

"There is this difference however," says Dr. Gale, "that infants were ordered to be circumcised under Moses; but were not ordered to be circumcised, that is, baptized, under Christ." He adds, "If any plain intimation could be found, that infants particularly are to be initiated now by baptism, as formerly they were by circumcision, the dispute would be at an end." Reflections, pp. 451, 452.

"The Apostle of the Gentiles," says Wakefield," at the same time that he asserts in various passages of his epistles, the futility and the impropriety of circumcision under the Christian covenant, does not even hint at the substitution of bap tism in its place." Wakefield adds, that the council (Acts xv.) "allowed the Gentiles a full dispensation from the practice of circumcision, and enjoined the observance of some particulars, among which baptism is not mentioned." See "A plain and short Account of the Nature of Baptism," 1781, p. 39.

forcibly, that they have generally baptized on the eighth day after the birth. Justin Martyr, speaking of Christians, says, "We have not received the carnal but the spiritual circumcision by baptism;" and in a treatise generally ascribed to him, he says, "We are circumcised by baptism with the circumcision of Christ."+

These I call presumptive arguments, though I cannot help thinking them to be of great moment in the decision of this controversy. But I proceed to other arguments of a more direct and conclusive nature; though I am far from thinking them to be all of equal strength; and some of them may perhaps be deemed rather presumptive, than direct and positive.

SECTION II.

Arguments of a more direct Nature.

4. THERE being no absolute and universal rule with respect to the time of baptizing infants, some parents, in the early ages, as well as now, deferred it much longer than others. This custom Tertullian and Gregory Nazianzen preferred and recommended. But though they urge several arguments in favour of this practice, they never say that the contrary, or proper infant baptism, was a modern thing, or that it was not derived from the apostles; which they certainly would have done if they had thought it could have been alleged with truth; this being evidently the most powerful argument they could have produced. Their not doing it, therefore, is a proof that they knew it was not in their power. This is the more remarkable with respect to Tertullian, who, in writing against the heretics of his time, appeals to the sentiments of the churches that had been founded by the apostles, as the most decisive of all arguments; taking it for granted, that the doctrines and practices of such churches were derived from them, and therefore right. This is the whole scope of his reasoning in his treatise De Præscriptione. Would he not, then, have had recourse to the same argument in favour of adult baptism, in preference to that of infants, if he had thought that he could have done it with effect?

* See Wall, (ed. 3,) I. p. 81; Gale, pp. 452, 453; Wall's Defence, pp. 273, 274. † Dial. p. 222. (P.) Wall, (ed. 3,) I. p. 18.

Ed. Coloniæ, p. 45. (P.) Wall, (ed. 3,) I. p. 19. See Gale, pp. 443—451; Wall's Defence, pp. 267-273.

5. To the preceding arguments we may add, that in the time of Tertullian there were persons who had obtained the name of sponsors, who brought children to baptism, and made themselves responsible for their Christian instruction. Now this not being complained of, or said to be a novel institution, it was probably derived from the earliest times of Christianity. These sponsors were originally the parents of the children. Had these names and offices been unknown in the preceding age, and been introduced within the memory of any persons then living, there cannot be a doubt but that such an innovation would have been opposed, in that age, in which every other innovation, real or supposed, gave offence, was the occasion of a controversy, and frequently of the calling of councils. Besides, innovations in practices are more easily traced than innovations in opinions, which often produce no overt acts.

I would observe by the way, that how early soever was the superstitious notion of the use of baptism to wash away sin, (which was denied by Chrysostom,) the office of sponsors only implied the obligation they laid themselves under to give the children for whom they were sponsors a Christian education; and therefore that it was at some risk to themselves if they did not fulfil the obligation; as Tertullian says, Quid enim necesse est sponsores etiam periculo ingeri, quia et ipsi per mortalitatem destituere promissiones suas possunt, et proventu malæ indolis falli ?"✶

66

6. Nothing is so likely to pass without particular notice by writers, as things that are universally known and practised by the persons for whose use their books were written. For this reason it is that we have a fuller account of Roman customs in the Greek than in the Roman authors, who wrote for the use of Romans, to whom their customs were as well known as to themselves. This accounts for nothing being said, except in a slight and indirect manner, by early Christian writers, of assembling for public worship on the Lord's day, or of the particular manner of administering Christian ordinances; these things being well known to those for whose use they wrote. We cannot, therefore, expect any express mention of infant baptism if it was the universal practice, and the propriety of it not disputed by any sect of Christians. Expressions, however, occur from which it

De Baptismo, C. xviii. p. 231. "Why should the sponsors be brought into danger, since they may be disabled from fulfilling their promises either by their own death, or an untoward disposition in the children?" (P.) See Wall, (ed. 3,) I. p. 45.

« ForrigeFortsett »