The Rector Rectified, Treatise · Chapter 4
CHAP. IV.
Wherein the Argument for Infant-Baptiſm, taken from the conſtant and univerſal Practice of the Church in all Ages, which is Mr. Burkit's laſt Argument, is fully anſwered, and Antiquity proved on our ſide.
YOur ſixth and laſt Argument for Infant-Baptiſm, is this, viz.
That which has been the conſtant and immemorial Practice of the Church of God in all Ages of the World, is unqueſtionably an Ordinance of God, and agreeable to his Will. But Infants Initiation, or the Admiſſion of Infants into the Jewiſh Church by Circumciſion, and into the Chriſtian Church by Baptiſm, has been the immemorial Practice of the Univerſal Church from the Days of Abraham to this day. Therefore it is undeniably an Ordinance of God, and agreeable to his Will.
Anſw. 1. Though this Syllogiſm is not good,You forgot all Ages of the World in your Minor; may be you thought of the Ages before Abraham's time. I mean true in Form, yet I ſhall paſs that by, and give you a full Anſwer. But why do you confound things together, I mean, Initiation and Baptiſm? as if no Children were initiated into the Jewiſh Church without Circumciſion; for 'tis not ſo, the Females were initiated without Circumciſion, or Baptiſm, or any other external Rite ſo far as we read of.
But as to Infants being admitted Members of the Jewiſh Church we deny nor, and all your Arguments from thence I have already anſwered; your Buſineſs is to prove they were admitted into the Goſpel-Church, and that by Baptiſm. The Church of Chriſt under the Goſpel, is more Spiritual than that under the Law, I tell you again, 'tis not National, not Members by Generation, but by Regeneration; not thoſe born of the Fleſh, but thoſe born of the Spirit.
And pray read what Reverend Dr. Owen hath ſaid in his Catechiſm about Government, p. 106. Our Lord Jeſus Chriſt (ſaith he) hath laid down as an Everlaſting Rule,Dr. Owen, A Paſſage worth noting. That unleſs a Man be born again, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God, John 3.3. requiring Regeneration as an indiſpenſable Condition in a Member of his Church, a Subject of his Kingdom; for his Temple is now built of living Stones, 1 Pet. 2.5. Men ſpiritual, and ſavingly quickned from their Death in Sin, and by the Holy Ghoſt, (whereof they are Partakers) made a meet Habitation for God, Epheſ. 2.21, 22. 1 Cor. 3.16, 2 Cor. 6.16. which vital Supplies from Chriſt its Head, encreaſeth in Faith and Holineſs, edifying it ſelf in Love.
Dr. Taylor Libert. Proph. p. 242.And (ſaith Dr. Taylor) they that baptize Children, make Baptiſm to be wholly an outward Duty, a Work of the Law, a carnal Ordinance; it makes us adhere to the Letter, without regard of the Spirit, to be ſatisfied with Shadows, to return to Bondage, to relinquiſh the Myſteriouſneſs, the Subſtance and Spirituality of the Goſpel; which Argument is of ſo much the more conſideration, becauſe under the Spiritual Covenant or Goſpel of Grace, if the Myſtery goes not before the Symbol, (which it does, when the Symbols are ſignations of Grace, as the Sacraments are) yet it always accompanies it, but never follows in order of Time. And this is clear in the perpetual Analogy of Holy Scripture. —The Lord open your Eyes, Sir, I am perſwaded you ſpeak as you believe.
But to proceed;
You come, in pag. 26. to the Goſpel-Church. (1.) From the Command of Chriſt. (2.) From the Practice of the Apoſtles. (3.) From the conſtant uſage of the Primitive Church after the Apoſtles.
1. That Infants were to be admitted into the Chriſtian Church, you ſay, appears from our Saviour's expreſs Command in the words of the Commiſſion, Mat. 28.19. Go, diſciple all Nations, baptizing them; that is, go and proſelyte all the Gentile Nations, without diſtinction of Country, Sex, or Age whatſoever, make the Goſpel-Church as large as you can.
Anſw. 1. Who is ſo blind as he who is not willing to ſee? It is evident to all Men who underſtand what they read, that none are to be baptized by the virtue and plain meaning of our Saviour's Commiſſion, but ſuch only who are firſt made Diſciples, (as I have proved) or as St. Mark renders it, ſuch who believed. And that 'tis ſo, I have already proved;
(1.) From the Practice of Chriſt, John 4.1. he firſt made Diſciples, and then baptized them.
(2.) From the Practice of the Apoſtles, who always required Faith and Repentance of ſuch, they by virtue of their Commiſſion, did baptize, as Acts 2.37. & 8.27. & 10.47.
(3.) From the Nature of the Ordinance it ſelf, it being a ſign of that inward Grace the Perſon baptized ought to have.
(4.) From the Nature of the Goſpel-Church, it being only built up of living Stones, and to be no larger than Chriſt appointed it.
But (ſay you, pag. 27.) doubtleſs had our Saviour here intended the excluſion of Infants out of the Viſible Church, he would have acquainted her with this Alteration, Chriſt being faithful to him that appointed him, as was Moſes in all his Houſe, Heb. 3.2.
Anſw. I muſt retort it back upon you with much better Reaſon: Doubtleſs, ſay I, had our Saviour intended the admiſſion of Infants, he would at this time have acquainted his Diſciples, (and ſo us) that it was his Will they ſhould be received, ſince, as you well ſay, he was ſo faithful, and the rather, becauſe he commanded his Diſciples to receive into his Church ſuch who were taught or made Diſciples. When he commanded Abraham to circumciſe his Male-Infants, Abraham knew well enough he was not to circumciſe his Females, though he received no Negative Law in the caſe. What is not commanded, I ſay again, is forbid, eſpecially in all Inſtituted Worſhip, or elſe whither ſhall we run?
Thus your firſt Proof is gone, having nothing in it..
2. Baptizing Infants appears in the Chriſtian Church (you ſay) from the Practice of the Apoſtles, who baptized whole Families, i. e. Lydia and her Houſhold, Acts 16.15. the Jaylor and all his, &c.
Anſw. 1. If there were no Families or Houſholds but in which there are ſome Infants, you might have ſome pretence for what you infer from hence; but how palpable is it that there are every where many whole Families in which there is no Infant or Child in Non-age;There are many whole Houſholds in which there are no Infants. and this being ſo, what certain Concluſion or Conſequence can be drawn from hence?
2. Beſides, you know by a certain Figure called a Synecdoche, a part is put for the whole, as Iſa. 7.2, 5, 8, 9. the Tribe of Ephraim is put for all Iſrael: 'Tis ſaid, All Jeruſalem and Judea went out to be baptized by John in Jordan. In 1 Sam. 1.21, 22. the Text ſaith expreſly, The Man Elkanah, and all his Houſe, went up to offer unto the Lord; yet in the next Verſe 'tis as expreſly ſaid, That Hannah and her Child Samuel went not up; and yet 'tis ſaid, all his Houſe went up.
3. As touching the Jaylor's Houſe, 'tis poſitively ſaid, Paul preached to him, and to all that were in his Houſe, (do you think he preached to his Infants, if he had any)? And to put the Matter out of doubt, 'tis ſaid, He rejoiced, believing in God with all his Houſe; as well as 'tis ſaid, He was baptized, and all his.
4. And as touching Lydia, we ſtill ſay 'tis uncertain whether ſhe was a Maid, Widow, or Wife; but if ſhe was married, and had Children, 'tis very unlikely (if Babes) that they were at that time with her, becauſe ſhe was far from her proper Dwelling, nay many Miles from it, for ſhe was of the City Thyatira, Lydia was far from her own dwelling when ſhe was baptized.verſ. 14. but when Paul preached to her, ſhe was at Philippi, where ſhe was merchandizing, being a ſeller of Purple; Can we ſuppoſe ſhe carried her little Babes ſo far to Market? Beſides, thoſe of her Houſe were called Brethren, who were baptized with her, therefore ſure Children cannot be here meant, verſ. 40. Will you, Sir, build your practice of baptizing of little Babes from ſuch uncertain Concluſions, when 'tis uncertain whether ſhe had Children or no? or if ſhe had, whether they were with her at that time or not? Our denying of it, is as good as your affirming it; yet 'tis plain ſhe had Servants, or ſome who are called her Houſhold, therefore that is impertinent you mention in p. 28.
And thus it appears to all impartial Perſons, that there is nothing in your ſecond Proof touching the Practice of the Goſpel-Church; here's no mention made of one Infant baptized, nor the leaſt Colour of Reaſon to conclude there were in thoſe Families.
A Negative is not to be proved, 'tis unreaſonable to deſire it.But you in the next place put us upon ſearching the Scripture to prove a Negative, i. e. that there were none baptized in Infancy; you might as well bid us ſearch and ſee if we can find there were not one Infant who broke Bread, or were not ordained an Elder or Paſtor of a Church. How can we prove they did not make uſe of Honey or Oil in Baptiſm, which ſome of the Ancient Fathers uſed, as Mr. Perkins notes; or Salt and Spittle, which Practice is ſtill (as I ſaid before) in the Romiſh Church? Where is the extream Ʋnction forbid,Popiſh Rites not in the Negative forbid. or Auricular Confeſſion, or to uſe Beads in Prayer, and a hundred more ſuch Romiſh Popperies? may theſe things be therefore done? Becauſe we read not they are forbid, I thought adding to God's Word was forbidden, Rev. 22. But we will repeat your Words to ſee the Strength of your Argument. Search the Scripture, and produce me, ſay you, one Inſtance if you can, from the time St. John the Baptiſt, to the Death of St. John the Evangeliſt, which was more than threeſcore Years, during which time many thouſands of Infants were grown up to Maturity, and make it appear they were not baptized in their Infancy, or that their Baptiſm was deferred till riper Years; or that there is any Divine Command for the delaying the Baptiſm of Children of Chriſtian Parents until they are grown up, and I will frankly yield the Cauſe. Bravely ſpoken!
Anſw. I muſt retort this Argument back again upon you alſo, and ſhew 'tis a great Argument againſt Infant-Baptiſm, and not for it. For, ſay I, let it be conſidered that ſince there was ſuch a long Space of time as 60 Years, and much longer, between John Baptiſt and the Death of John the beloved Diſciple, or John the Evangeliſt, Multitude of Infants born to baptized Believers in the Goſpel-Days, yet we read of none of them on their Parents Faith were baptized.during which time many thouſands of Infants were born of baptized Believers, both Jews and Gentiles. Now Reader, pray obſerve Mr. Burkit ſays in the Goſpel-Day, and when our Saviour ſent his Diſciples firſt to preach, they were to teach or make Diſciples of thoſe they baptized; but upon the Parents believing and being baptized, he ſays, their Children were admitted to Baptiſm alſo. Now ſay I, ſince many Parents thus taught and baptized, had Multitudes of Infants born to them; How comes it about that we read not of one of their Infants were baptized? no not from the time of John Baptiſt, to the Death of John the Evangeliſt? Can any Man think had any Infants been baptized, that God would not have left ſome account of it, to put the matter out of doubt, eſpecially ſince it was never taught doctrinally, or commanded? certainly, it could not ſtand conſiſtent with the Care, Wiſdom and Faithfulneſs of Jeſus Chriſt, to have hid and concealed ſuch a Practice, had there been one Infant by his Authority or Allowance baptized. But ſince the Scripture is ſilent in it, we may aſſure our ſelves 'tis not the Will of God Infants ſhould be baptized. Alſo if thoſe who were to be baptized, were firſt to be taught, were firſt to repent and believe; then it follows clearly that Baptiſm muſt be deferred till Children were of ripe Years, and able ſo to do.
We come to what you ſay in pag. 28. where you tell us of a cloud of Witneſſes for Infant-Baptiſm in the Churches after the Apoſtles time.
Anſw. And ſo you may if you paſs the firſt 2 or 3 hundred Years after Chriſt; and many Errors beſides which crept amain into the Churches. But pray remember, Sir, now you are without Book, you are forced to quit the Holy▪Bible, that ſacred Hiſtory, and great Charter of the Church: and therefore all your Proof out of humane Hiſtory, which may be true, or may not be true, ſignifies juſt nothing. But you had beſt take heed leſt we carry the Cauſe againſt you here too, i. e. for the firſt Centuries; we will examine your Authors and humane Teſtimonies.
The firſt is Voſſius, a later Writer, I know not but you may have Ireneus and St. Cyprian, out of him: I do confeſs Ireneus lived not above 200 Years after Chriſt, or in the ſecond Century. Thus you and others cite him, viz. Omnes venit Chriſtus per ſemetipſum ſalvare, omnes qui per eum renaſcuntur ad Deum Infantes & parvulos juniores & ſeniores. In Engliſh thus, Jeſus Chriſt came to ſave all by himſelf, all who by him are born again unto God, Infants and little ones, Young and Old.
Mr. Burkit's Proof of Infant-Baptiſm from Ireneus, is by uncertain Conſequence.Anſw. Reader, pray obſerve here is not a word of one Infant baptized, but Mr. Burkit infers it from his Words; ſo that we have nothing but Conſequence yet, neither from God's Word, nor the Words of Man. Chriſt no doubt came to ſave ſome of all ſorts of Men; and who doubts but he came to ſave Infants and little ones, young and old? But why muſt thoſe Words, who are born again, be applied to Infant-Baptiſm.
The Scope of Ireneus in that Chapter is to refute the Groſticks, who ſaid that Chriſt did not exceed one and thirty Years of Age; againſt whom Ireneus alledged that Chriſt lived in every Age, of Infancy, Youth, Old and Age; that by his Age and Example, he might ſanctify every Age. So that here Ireneus ſpeaks not of being born again by Baptiſm: for he ſaith, Omnes inquam qui per eum renaſcuntur in Deum; i. e. I ſay all which are born again by him to God, i. e. by Chriſt; not as if he had baptized Infants, but becauſe he, (i. e. Chriſt) was an Infant, that by the Example or Vertue of his Age, he might ſanctify Infants, as the whole Diſcourſe in Latin plainly ſhews, viz. Magiſter ergo exiſtens, Magiſtri quoque habebat aetatem, non reprobans nec ſupergrediens hominem, neque ſolvens ſuam legem in ſe humani generis, ſed omnem aetatem ſanctificans per illam, &c.
2. As to Cyprian, he lived, as I find it in Hiſtory, about 248, or 300 Years after Chriſt: and ſhould I tell the Reader what Corruptions and Errors were let in about that time, he would not wonder to hear Infants were allowed Baptiſm: yet we have Cyprian againſt Cyprian. It is true, as far as I can gather, in his time Infant-Baptiſm was firſt introduced, without any Ground or Warrant from Chriſt, and it was as ſtrongly oppoſed, which appears by the Debates and Doubts about it.
3. The third humane Authority you bring is that curſed Decree of the Milevetan Council,Some ſay this Council ordained it firſt. that all who denied Infant-Baptiſm, ſhould be Anathema, accurſed. If you come but a little lower, you have Proof enough in the Popiſh Councils, Decrees and Canons. But 'tis to be obſerved, that thoſe Fathers pleaded for Infant-Baptiſm, as that which took away Original Sin, and gave Children the Euchariſt too; in the firſt Sacrament abuſing that Text, John 3.5. and in the other, that in John 6.53. Theſe are all your humane Proofs from the Churches after the Primitive Apoſtolical Days, which you bring; and I doubt not but to give you better and more Authentick Authority from ſome of the ancient Fathers againſt Infant-Baptiſm, than you have brought for it, and ſome of them nearer the Apoſtles Days too. The firſt is Juſtin Martyr, though I have him not,150 Years after Chriſt yet take his Words as they are cited by Mr. Richard Baxter's Saints Reſt, Cap. 8. Sect. 5. I will declare unto you how we offer up our ſelves to God, after that we are renewed through Chriſt; thoſe amongſt us that are inſtructed in the Faith,The Fathers that writ againſt Infant-Baptiſm. and believe that which we teach them is true, being willing to live according to the ſame, we do admoniſh to faſt and pray for Forgiveneſs of Sins, and we alſo pray with them: And when they are brought by us into the Water, and there, as we were new born, are they alſo by new Birth renewed; and then in calling upon God the Father, the Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and the Holy Spirit, they are waſhed in Water, &c.
This Food we call the Euchariſt, to which no Man is admitted but only he that believeth the Truth of the Doctrine, being waſhed in the Laver of Regeneration for Remiſſion of Sins, and ſo liveth as Chriſt hath taught; and this (ſaith Mr. Baxter) is, you ſee, no new way. 'Tis ſaid Juſtin Martyr was converted about 30 Years after the Apoſtle John: and by the Order then uſed in the Church, it appears there was no Infant-Baptiſm thought of.
Walaf. Strabo. Eccl. Hiſt. c. 16. Vicecom. l. 1. c. 30.Walafrid Strabo, as I find him cited by a great Hiſtorian, ſays, That there was no Children, but aged underſtanding Perſons, baptized in this Age; that is to ſay, in the 2 d Century. Walafrid Strabo, Eccl. Hiſt. c. 26. Vicecom. l. 1. c. 30.
Tertullian in his Book of Baptiſm, ſpeaking of that Text,No Infant-Baptiſm in the ſecond Century. Tertul. in his Book of Baptiſm, cap. 18. Tertul. lived 200 Years after Chriſt. Suffer little Children to come unto me, ſaith, Indeed the Lord ſaid, do not hinder them to come unto me: Let them come therefore while they grow to Years, and while come let them be taught, let them become Chriſtians when they are able to know Chriſt; why doth innocent Age haſten to the Remiſſion of Sins? Men will deal more warily in worldly Affairs: So that they who are not truſted with an earthly Inheritance, are truſted with an heavenly one: Let them ask for Salvation, that thou mayſt appear to have given it to him.
Dr. Taylor ſaith thus,Dr. Taylor, Lib. Proph. p. 237. The Truth of the Buſineſs is, as there was no Command of Scripture to oblige Children to the Suſception of it; ſo the neceſſity of Pedo-Baptiſm was not determined in the Church, till the Canon that was made in the Milevetan Council, a Provincial in Africa, never till then. I grant, ſaith he, it was practiſed in Africa before that time, and they or ſome of them thought well of it: And tho that is no Argument for us to think ſo; yet none of them ever pretend it to be neceſſary, nor to have been a Precept of the Goſpel. St. Auſtin was the firſt that ever preached it to be neceſſary, and it was in his Heat and Anger againſt Pelagius. Thus Dr. Taylor.
Ignatius in his Diſcourſe about Baptiſm, aſſerts,Ignatius. That it ought to be accompanied with Faith, Love and Patience, after preaching. H. Montanus, p. 45. and Jacob Dubois, p. 16, to 22. and Dutch Martyrology, where Ignatius's Letters are mentioned to Polycarp Tralenſis, to them of Philadelphia.
Dr. Taylor ſaith,Dr. Taylor's Diſſwaſive againſt Popery, p. 118. in his Diſſwaſive againſt Popery, pag. 118. printed 1667. one of his laſt Pieces, thus, viz. That there is a Tradition to baptize Infants, relies but upon two Witneſſes, Origen and Auſtin; and the latter having it from the former, it lies upon a ſingle Teſtimony, which, ſaith he, is a pitiful Argument to prove a Tradition Apoſtolical: He is the firſt that ſpoke of it, but Tertullian that was before him, ſeems to ſpeak againſt it, which he would not have done, if it had been an Apoſtolical Tradition; and that it was not ſo, is but too certain, if there be any Truth in the Words of Ludovicus Vives, who ſays,Ludovicus Vives. That anciently none were baptized but Perſons of riper Age.
And as touching Origen's Works, and many more of the Ancient Fathers, there is great cauſe to doubt about them, becauſe, as Mr. Perkins notes,Perkins's Prepar. of the Probl. p. 491. no Greek Copies thereof are extant; and many other Books ſaid to be written by ſuch and ſuch Fathers, are ſpurious, and never wrote by them. See Perkins.
Great Baſil in his Book of Bapt. cap. 12.Great Baſil in his Book of the Holy Spirit, Chap. 12. ſaith, Faith and Baptiſm are the two Means of Salvation inſeparably cleaving together; for Faith is perfected by Baptiſm, but Baptiſm is founded by Faith; and by the ſame Names both things are fulfilled: for as we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, ſo alſo we are Baptized in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and indeed there goeth before, a Confeſſion leading us unto Salvation; but Baptiſm followeth, ſealing our Confeſſion and Covenant.
The ſame Churches Teacher, (ſaith the Learned Dr. Du-Veil) in his third Book againſt Eunomius, ſpeaketh thus, viz. Baptiſm is the Seal of Faith, Faith is the Confeſſion of the Godhead; it is neceſſary we ſhould firſt believe, and then be ſealed in Baptiſm. Du-Veil on Act. cap. 8. p. 278.
Zonaras.Zonaras ſaith, The Babe will then need Baptiſm, when it can chuſe it.
Greg. Nazianzen.Gregory Nazianzen, in his 4th Oration, ſaith Dr. Du Veil, Of thoſe who die without Baptiſm, gives us an Inſtance in thoſe to whom Baptiſm was not admitted by reaſon of Infancy. And the ſame Nazianzen, though he was a Biſhop's Son, being a long time bred up under his Father's Care, was not (ſaith the ſaid Doctor) baptized till he came to Man's Age. In like manner (ſaith he) Baſil the Great, that was born of devout Parents, and inſtructed from his Childhood, was not baptized until a Man, p. 280. Alſo ſaith John of Antioch, called afterwards Chryſoſtom, was born of Chriſtian Parents, as the truer Opinion is, tutored by the famous Biſhop Meletius, was not yet baptized till he was one and twenty Years of Age.
Hierom, alſo Ambroſe and Auſtin, who were born of Chriſtian Parents, and conſecrated to Chriſtian Diſcipline, even from their Childhood, were not baptized before thirty Years of Age, as Dr. Taylor Biſhop of Down aſſerts, in his 12th Section of the Life of Chriſt.
Now, Sir, here are Examples enough that do prove, in the Primitive Times, Children of Baptized Believers were not baptized, but had their Baptiſm delayed till they themſelves believed, and gave an account of their Faith. Had it been the conſtant Cuſtom of the Godly to baptize Infants, would not theſe, think you, have been in their Infancy baptized?
Grotius (as I find him quoted by Dr. Duveil') ſaith,Grotius's Notes on the Goſpel Dr. Du-Veil on Act. cap. 8. p. 282. The Primitive Churches did not Baptize Infants. See Grotius his Notes on the Goſpel.
Nay (ſaith the ſame great and Learned Writer) it doth moſt plainly appear, by the right of baptizing uſed in the Romiſh Church, for Baptiſm is to be asked before the Perſon to be baptized do enter into the Church; which the Surety does in the Infant's Name; a clear diſtinct Confeſſion of Faith is required, which the ſame Surety rehearſeth in the Infant's Name, i. e. A renouncing of the World, its Pomps, the Fleſh and the Devil. We may by this perceive from whence the Original of our old Church-Catechiſm came. But this is a clear Argument, ſaith the Doctor, to prove of old the Perſons who were to be baptized, asked themſelves Baptiſm in their own Names, of their own choice, and profeſs their own Faith.
In the Neoceſarean Council it was framed thus;Anno 311. Canon 6. As to thoſe who are big with Child, they ought to be baptized when they will; for in this Sacrament there is nothing common to her that brings forth, and that which ſhall be brought forth from her Womb, becauſe in that Confeſſion, the Liberty of every one's Choice is declared.
Whence we may infer, 1. That in that Age there ſeemed to be that averſneſs from baptizing Children, that they were not willing to admit Women great with Child to Baptiſm, leſt it ſhould be thought that the Child was baptized with them.
2. That in thoſe Times, in the Confeſſion of Faith, in the Death, Burial, and Reſurrection of Chriſt, which was done in a publick and ſolemn manner in their Baptiſm, a liberty of Choice and Conſent was required as preparatory to it: for the incapacity of the Infant in the Womb, to declare this Choice and Conſent, is the reaſon why they conclude that the Infant was not baptized with the Mother.
3. That it was then judged neceſſary to have the Conſent and Choice of thoſe who were to be baptized.
Dr. Du-Veil citing the ſame Synod on this Paſſage,Dr. Du-Veil, on Acts cap. 8. p. 279. (viz. That concerning the Baptiſm of a Woman with Child, that her Baptiſm concerns not her Child, for every one is to give a demonſtration of his own Faith and Confeſſion) ſaith, — However the Interpreters draw it to another purpoſe, it does appear, that the Queſtion was made of a Woman big with Child, becauſe it did ſeem that the Child was baptized together with the Mother; which notwithſtanding ought not be uſed, nor to be baptized, except of its own proper Election and Profeſſion.
Dr. Barlow late Biſhop of Lincoln, in his Letter to Mr. T. ſaith, I believe and know that there is neither Precept nor Example in the Scripture for Pedo-baptiſm, nor any juſt Evidence for it for above 200 Years after Chriſt. Tertullian condemns it as an unwarrantable Cuſtom; and Nazianzen a good while after diſlikes it: Sure I am (ſaith he) that in the Primitive Times they were Catechumeni, then Illuminati or Baptizati, and that not only Pagans, and Children of Pagans converted, but Children of Chriſtian Parents. The truth is, I do believe Pedo-Baptiſm, how or by whom I know not, came into the World in the ſecond Century; and in the Third and Fourth began to be practiſed, though not generally, and defended as lawful from the Text, John 3.5. Groſly miſunderſtanding upon the like miſtake, John 6.53. they did, for many Centuries, both in the Greek and Latin Church, communicate Infants, and give them the Lord's Supper; and I confeſs they might do both, as well as either, &c. Thus Biſhop Barlow.
Curcaeleus ſaith,Curcaeleus Inſtitut. l. 16. c. 1. Poedobaptiſmus duobus primis à Chriſto nato ſaeculis ſuit in cognitus, &c. Pedo-baptiſm was unknown in the two firſt Ages after Chriſt, but in the Third and Fourth it was approved of by a few, in the Fifth and following Ages it began to be generally received. And therefore (as afterwards he ſaith) this Rite is indeed obſerved by us as an ancient Cuſtom, but not as an Apoſtolical Tradition.
The ſame Learned Author, De peccato Originis, Numb. 50. ſaith, Morem Infantes baptizandi non coepiſſe ante tertium à Chriſto nato ſaeculum, &c. That the cuſtom of baptizing Infants did not begin till the third Age after Chriſt, but in the two former no foot-ſteps of it appear. And afterwards ſaith, Sine ipſius [Chriſti] mandato introducta eſt; It was introduced without the Command of Chriſt.Athanaſius in Serm. 3. contra Arianus.
Athanaſius in Sermone 3. contra Arianos, ſaith, Our Saviour did not ſlightly command to baptize, but firſt of all ſaid, Teach, and then Baptize, that true Faith might come by Teaching, and Baptiſm be perfected by Faith.
Haimo, Doctrina Baptiſmus praecedere decet.Haimo in Poſtilla upon the Text, Go teach all Nations, Fol. 278. In this place (ſaith he) is ſet down a Rule rightly how to baptize; that is, that Teaching ſhould go before Baptiſm; for he ſaith, Teach all Nations; and then he ſaith, and baptize them; for he that is to be baptized, muſt be before inſtructed, that he firſt learn to believe that which in Baptiſm he ſhall receive: for as Faith without Works is dead, ſo Works when they are not of Faith, are nothing worth.
Apoſtoli jubentur prius docere, baptizare. Super 19 cap. Act.…dem in Annotationibus in Mar. The Apoſtles were commanded, firſt to teach, and then to baptize: The Jews were brought by Ceremonies to the Knowledg of the Truth, but Chriſtians muſt learn to know them firſt.
Beda; All thoſe that came to the Apoſtles to be baptized, were inſtructed and taught, concerning the Sacrament of Baptiſm, then they received the holy Adminiſtration thereof.
Inde cretis de conſecrat. diſtinct. 4. cap. Antebap.Rabanus. The Catechiſm, which is the Doctrine of Faith, muſt go before Baptiſm, to the intent that he that is to be baptized, (i. e. Catech…nus) may firſt learn the Myſteries of Faith.
Arnobius. Thou art not firſt (ſaith he) baptized,Arnob. on Pſal. 146. and then beginneſt to effect and embrace the Faith; but when thou art to be baptized, thou ſignifieſt unto the Prieſt what thy Deſire is, and makeſt thy Confeſſion with thy Mouth.
Jerom. 400.Jerom upon Matth. ſaith, The Lord commanded his Apoſtles, that they ſhould firſt inſtruct and teach all Nations, and afterwards ſhould baptize thoſe that were inſtructed into the Myſteries of the Faith; for it cannot be, (ſaith he) that the Body ſhould receive the Sacrament of Baptiſm, till the Soul have received the true Faith.
Sir, What think you now of the Teſtimony of the Ancient Fathers, and of the Practice of the Churches after the Apoſtles days? Sure the Reader muſt needs conclude we have it here too, and you muſt yield whether you will or no, and give up the Controverſy.
But to proceed;
Your firſt Demonſtration to prove Infant-Baptiſm in the days after the Apoſtles (in pag. 30, 31.) is this,Mr. Burkit's firſt Demonſtration to prove Infant-Baptiſm in the days after the Apoſtles. viz. Becauſe that Children had Hands laid upon them in their Minority.
Anſw. This ſignifies nothing, for as the Fathers changed the Ordinance of Baptiſm from believing Men and Women to ignorant Babes, ſo they changed Impoſition of Hands (which I own to be a Principle of Chriſt's Doctrine, Heb. 6.12.) to ſuch young People who in their Minority had learned the Articles of the Chriſtian Faith: But clear it is, in the Primitive Apoſtolical Times, none but baptized Believers were admitted to that Ordinance of Laying on of Hands, as Acts 8.14. & 19.6. witneſſes.
You do well to acknowledg, in the ſame 29th Page, That anciently there were ſuch called Catechumeni, Perſons taught or inſtructed, and afterwards baptized.
You ſay indeed that there were two ſorts, the laſt you bring for your purpoſe; but I know not where you have your Teſtimony, and therefore ſhall paſs it by.
So much to your firſt Demonſtration from the … Fathers.
Your Second to prove Infant-Baptiſm is this,Mr. Burkit's 2d Demonſtration to prove Infant-Baptiſm. viz. Becauſe (ſay you) Infants in the Primitive Times were admitted to the Lord's Supper, therefore you conclude they were admitted to Baptiſm.
Anſw. And they had, ſay I, as much ground, as Dr. Taylor ſays, for the one as for the other; and there is the ſame Parity of Reaſon to conclude, as they err'd in the one, ſo they did in the other.
Why do you not from hence give Infants the Lord's Supper? the reaſon you give I have before proved inſignificant.
Mr. Burkit's third Demonſtration to prove Infant-Baptiſm.As to your third Demonſtration, it is not denied her that Infant-Baptiſm was received in the Church in the third and fourth Century; with many other Fopperies, but that does you no Kindneſs; the Church was adulterated from the true Apoſtolical Faith and Practice in many reſpects in thoſe and after Times downward.
Mr. Burkit's fourth Demonſtration to prove Infant-Baptiſm.Your fourth Demonſtration is this, viz. Pag. 33. If it was a groſs Error in the Primitive Fathers to admit Infants to Baptiſm, then they in ſuffering ſuch an Error to paſs uncenſured and uncondemned, were guilty of the greateſt Impiety, &c.
Anſw. What then? I ask you, whether you do not believe for ſeveral Centuries thoſe Fathers who admitted Infants to the Lord's Supper without cenſuring or condemning it, were not guilty alſo of as great Impurity? Beſides, did not the ſame Fathers hold other Errors? ſee Mr. Perkin's Demonſt. of the Problem, pag. 488. theſe are his words, viz. And whereas ſome Fathers, viz. Ireneus, Juſtin, Clement, Tertullian, held that the Law of Nature had Power to ſave the Gentiles without Chriſt. And again he ſaith, The Fathers have Errors, yea, and that ſometimes groſs ones. Doth not Hiſtory tell us the Fathers uſed other Rites alſo, and that in Baptiſm? See Perkins, p. 549. The Fathers, ſaith he, uſed ſome other Rites and Ceremonies which are now omitted, as kiſſing of the Child which was baptized, in Cyprian, l. 3. ep. 8. uſe of Milk and Hony, uſe of Milk and Wine. Hierom. in Iſa. cap. 55. It was an uſe for the Baptizer to blow in the Face of the baptized, and the Party baptized uſed to exufflate the Devil, whom he renounced. What Credit is to be given to ſuch Fathers? They gave the Euchariſt to Children likewiſe.
You ſay the Church of England is for Infant-Baptiſm, Article 27. alſo the French, Dutch, Bohemian, Helvetian Churches: What of all this? why did you not put in the Church of Rome with them? 'tis clear the Church of the Hebrews, The Goſpel-Churches did not own Infant-Baptiſm.a Church at Rome in the Apoſtles days, the Church of the Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, Epheſians, Coloſſians, Sardis, Smyrna, Pergamus, Philadelphia and Laodicea, owned it not. We muſt go to the Fountain, and not to the muddy Stream, to drink pure Water. From the beginning it was not ſo.
But, ſay you,Mr. Burkit's Argument for Pedo-baptiſm, from its long continuance in the World, anſwered. if now the Anabaptiſts can believe that Almighty God has ſuffered all his Churches Ancient and Modern, and that in all parts of the World to fall into one and the ſame deſtroying Practice. They have a Power which I ſhall never envy, namely, of believing what they pleaſe, pag. 34.
Anſw. 1. You take that for granted which you prove not, viz. That all theſe Churches who hold Infant-Baptiſm are true Churches of Chriſt. Sir, I muſt tell you, we have not ſuch a Power of Faith as to believe that.
2. Doth not the Apoſtle declare,2 Theſſ. 2.3. that a general Apoſtacy from the true Apoſtolical Faith and Doctrine would after his days enſue? And hath not the Church of Rome, that Mother of Harlots, made all the Earth drunk with her Cup for near 1200 Years, or more, and corrupted all thoſe Churches, more or leſs, with her poiſonous Errors and falſe Doctrines, Rites and Ceremonies; and yet Almighty God hath ſuffered her for ſo long a time? and many other Errors among Proteſtants.
M. Tomb's Anti-pedo-baptiſm, p. 757, 758.3. See Mr. Tombs his Anſwer to this. For if the whole Church might err (ſaith he) in one Age, it may alſo in all Ages, collectively conſidered, the Promiſes being no more to the Church in all Ages, collectively conſidered, than in each Age diſtributively conſidered, nor any means given to them after the Apoſtles, collectively conſidered, to keep them from Error, than to each diſtributively: yea the Churches nearer the Apoſtles had more means to keep them from Error than other Ages, yet they err'd in Doctrine and Diſcipline, as many Writers ſhew. As for the Promiſe, Mat. 16.18. it is not true of the whole Church viſible, the Gates of Hell have and do prevail againſt her ſo; but of the inviſible; and yet the Promiſe is not to the inviſible, that they ſhall not err, but they ſhall not err finally to Damnation, which if they did, then the Gates of Hell ſhould indeed prevail againſt them.
4. Your Church, and all thoſe other Churches mentioned by you,No Church infallible. have other Errors beſides this, and yet God ſuffers you and them to continue at preſent in thoſe Errors, for Reaſons beſt known to himſelf; nor do we ſay we are without any Errors, or any Church on Earth, we pretend to no Infallibility: But in the Point of Baptiſm we are right by your own Conceſſion, I mean, as to the baptizing of Believers.
Infant-Baptiſm, tho a great Error, yet not a damning Error▪5. And laſtly, We do not ſay this Error of yours about Infant-Baptiſm, is a Soul-damning Error, God forbid; tho it doth tend to deſtroy too far the nature of the holy Sacrament of Baptiſm, and ſo alſo a right Goſpel-Church according to the Apoſtolical Conſtitution, making your Church National, when the Goſpel-Churches planted by Chriſt and his Apoſtles were Congregational.
So much in Anſwer to all your Arguments for the lawfulneſs of Infants-Baptiſm.