Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part 2 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Wherein there is a pretence to ſome eminent Witneſs, that hath been born againſt Infant-Baptiſm from firſt to laſt.
THe firſt that we ſhall mention (ſaith the Author) is that Excellent Teſtimony Tertullian bore againſt it upon the firſt appearance of it in the 3d Century.
Reply, 1. It is acknowledged that Tertullian who was the firſt Writer of note in the Latin Church, hath divers paſſages ſeemingly againſt Infant-Baptiſm; but yet withal it muſt be conſidered, that his Teſtimony (ſuch as it is) is but the Teſtimony of one ſingle Dr. in oppoſition to the general cuſtom of the Church, and even from this inſtance we may learn the great Antiquity of Infant-Baptiſm, that it hath been in uſe above 15 hundred years, as it appears upon record; for Tertullian according to Helvicus wrote his Book of Preſcriptions about the year 195. which was about 97 years after St. John's Death; and 'tis probable,Mr. Baxter, of Infant-Baptiſm. when he wrote his Book, he had arrived to the years of thirty or fourty; ſo that according to this calculation he lived about ſixty or ſeventy years after St. John, and yet as early days as theſe were, Children were then Baptized; for elſe why ſhould Tertullian be ſo earneſt in diſſwading them not to be over-haſty in the doing it: Cunctatio utilior praecipue circa parvulos; he would have them defer the Baptizing of Infants, aſwel as thoſe of riper years; which ſhews that it was then the cuſtom of the Church to Baptize Children aſwell as grown Perſons.
Reply 2. Whereas the Author ſaith, Tertullian lived in the 3d Century, Irenaeus contra Haeretic. Lib. 2. c. 39.this is true, but that the firſt appearance of Infant-Baptiſm was in this Age is certainly falſe; for Irenaeus (who lived in the ſecond Century) makes mention of it.
Reply 3. Tertullian's Teſtimony in this caſe, is ſo far from being excellent, that it is contemptible, and not to be regarded, as may appear by two Reaſons.
Firſt, Becauſe he was very corrupt, and unſound in his judgment.P. Martyr loc. com. Claſ. 4. Loc. 8. Sect. 5. It is obſerved by Peter Martyr in his Common places, that when Tertullian wrote his book de Baptiſmo, he was fallen from the Church, and from the Orthodox-Faith into the foul error of Montaniſm. Had he been ſound in the Faith in all other points, it had not been enough to ſcruple any one touching the point of Infant-Baptiſm, becauſe of his diſſent; becauſe he only was the man we read of that ſeems to be againſt it, how much leſs is this authority to be valued, when ſo corrupt, that Jerom counted him little leſs than a Heretick? The Magdeburg Divines, (whom the Author makes ſo much uſe of) give us a Catalogue of his Naevi, or errors. As
1. That he did Deo corpulentiam tribuere, aſcribe unto God, Groſſeneſs, or Fleſhineſs.
2. That he did ſpeak concerning Chriſt incommode & periculoſe, unſafely and dangerouſly.
3. That he condemned ſecond marriages, ut ſtupra, as Whoredoms.
4. That he brought in and augmented, many filthy Ceremonies in the Church, which he borrowed from the Montaniſts, as anointing the body after Baptiſm. &c.
5. And laſtly (though they mention many other groſs errors) he affirms in his Book de Baptiſmo, that it is the peculiar prerogative of the Biſhop to Baptize,Dandi Baptiſmum jus habet ſummus ſacerdos, qui eſt Epiſcopus. and none muſt do it but by his leave: Presbyters and Deacons he allows to Baptize but not without his Authority, and in caſe of extremity (that is when one is like to dye, and in the want of a Miniſter) it may be lawful for a layman to Baptize, not excepting Women provided they did it privately and not in the Church, by which paſſage it is more than probable he was for Baptizing Infants, rather than that they ſhould dye without it); now let any indifferent Reader judge what a precious witneſs the Author hath ſingled out to lead the Van againſt Infant-Baptiſm.
A ſecond Reaſon why Tertullian's Teſtimony deſerves not to be ſtiled excellent, is this; becauſe his arguments are ſo poor and weak, that they will ſooner adminiſter occaſion of laughter than conviction. I acknowledg the Author hath dreſt them up very handſomly, and ſhewed ſo much artifice herein (leaving out ſomethings that are moſt groſs) that ſome (who have weak heads, and no very charitable thoughts towards the way of Infant-Baptiſm) will think Tertullian and he were of one mind, both againſt it, and that on very good grounds.
1. Becauſe ſaith the Author out of Tertullian, The practice of Baptizing Children was built upon the miſtake of that Scripture Matt. 19.14. Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbid them not &c. It is true (ſaith Tertullian) the Lord ſaith do not forbid them to come unto me: let them come when they grow elder, when they learn, when they are taught why they come &c. upon which the Magdeburgenſes have this ſentence ſeutit Tertullianus Mira opinione Cap. 3. Cap. 4. &c. Tertullian was of a ſtrange opinion, & then they repeate thoſe weak paſſages before mentioned;As before intimated in Chap. 7. according to which Dotage, the Diſciples did wiſely in forbidding Children to come, and Chriſt did weakely in rebuking them for it, & inviting them to come Let them come (ſaith Chriſt) though foreign, little Children; the wiſe men found foreign the young-Child, or Infant with Mary. foreign (according to Luke the exacteſt Hiſtorian) new-born Babes, or ſucking Children that are carried in Arms, and ſuch wore thoſe whom Chriſt invites to come unto him, brought in all likelyhood, by their Parents that did believe or made ſome profeſſion of their Faith, as appears by this, becauſe they brought their Children for a Spiritual end, to receive ſome ſpecial favour or bleſſing from Chriſt; and for this, Chriſt would have them come, but ſaith Tertullian, let them come when they grow elder, when they learn, when they are taught why they come: &c. What pittiful ſtuff is this? what ingenious perſon would not be aſhamed to introduce ſuch a witneſs that paraphraſeth at ſuch a rate upon this Scripture? Chriſt had a mind they ſhould come preſently as the words plainly ſhew, but Tertullian would have them ſtay longer, till they were elder. It ſeems by the Argument that this Father, and the Diſciples were much of a mind, and it muſt ariſe from ſome ſuch miſtake as this, which is ſtill retained by the Antipaedobaptiſts, that Children are not capable of any good by the Ordinance, and muſt firſt be taught; and that only grown Chriſtians and Profeſſors of Faith, are fit and capable ſubjects of Chriſt's Kingdom. But what reſentment had Chriſt of the moroſe carriage of his Diſciples, the Evangeliſt tells us foreign, he was much diſpleaſed; the word ſignifies to have the Spirit moved with indignation againſt a baſe unworthy action; and Chriſt would have them know how meanly ſoever they might think of them, yet they had a right to the Kingdom of Heaven aſwell as grown perſons who can profeſs their Faith: For let us take the Kingdom of Heaven either for that of Glory, or for the viſible Church, it amounts to the ſame thing; for if they have a right to the former, much more to the latter, for what is it to be a member of the viſible Church, but to be one that in appearance belongs to the inviſible Church,Mr. Baxter of Infant-Baptiſm. or the Kingdom of Glory; for the Church is but one, and the difference only Reſpective. As for the Cavils that are made againſt our improving this Text for Infant-Baptiſm, we have before refuted them.
2. A ſecond Argument which the Author cites out of Tertullian is, becauſe they that underſtand the weight of Baptiſm will rather fear the attaining of it than the deferring it.
Reply 1. If this were a good reaſon againſt infant-Baptiſm, it lyes as full againſt infant-Circumciſion, as a ſign of God's covenant, which they did not underſtand, and it may be never would. 2. Nor do I ſee how this can have any reference at all to Infants, who are void of underſtanding; and the Argument is aſmuch levied againſt the Baptizing grown perſons, who upon conſideration of the weight of the Ordinance, may rather fear to attain it, than defer it; for it is well known that ancient Father was ſo ſhy of Baptiſm (as I ſaid in C. 7.) that he diſſwaded young-men as were innupti unmarried, & thoſe that were newly married & young-widows, from being Baptized, until the luſt of concupiſcence was quite extinct, and then to take up the Ordinance, Riſum teneatis amici! For verily if perſons in this capacity muſt forbear Baptiſm till then, for ought that I know it will be long enough before they will meddle with it, and one would think they ſhould have leſs need of it when freed from luſtful appetite, than before.
3. A third Reaſon brought out of Tertullian is; becauſe we muſt not give Holy things to Dogs, and Pearls to Swine, which ſure muſt be underſtood of grown Perſons that were Pagans or their Children; for this is too groſs to be ſpoken of the Children of believers, and Tertullian himſelf ſpeaks more charitably in his Book de Anima Cap. 39, 40. upon thoſe words, elſe were your Children unclean, but now are they Holy, 2. Cor 14. from whence he thus infers, hinc enim Apoſtolus ex ſanctificato alterutro ſexum ſanctum procreari ait, tum ex ſeminis praerogativa, Voſſius in his Theſ. 11. de P…dobaptiſmo. Pars 2.quam ex Inſtitutionis diſciplinâ &c. i.e. from hence alſo the Apoſtle affirms that of either ſex ſanctified, are procreated thoſe that are holy, a… by the prerogative of the Seed, ſo by the Diſcipline, or Rule of inſtitution: ſo that Tertullian could not without ſelf-contradiction call Believers Children Dogs.
4. A fourth Reaſon (which is a ſorry one too) is, Becauſe we commit not earthly or ſecular things to Children, by reaſon of their incapacity, and therefore ſhould not commit Heavenly things; Which is alſo as ſtrong an Argument againſt Gods Ordinance to Circumciſe Children, as to Baptize them: And we need not look farther than the Text before us, to confute this Argument; for 'tis ſaid (notwithſtanding their incapacity) Chriſt laid his hands upon them and bleſſed them; to denote unto us, that though Children are uncapable of laying hold on Chriſt, yet they are capable of being laid hold on by Chriſt, and of participating Spiritual bleſſings, whereof, as impoſition of the hands, ſo Baptiſm is a ſign.
5. A fifth Reaſon hath reſpect to the promiſes which the Sureties made in Baptiſm in the behalf of the Infants that were Baptized; for if it ſhould ſo happen that they ſhould dye before the Infant was grown up, they ſhould then fruſtrate their promiſes. Now this ſpeaks nothing againſt Infant-Baptiſm, but only of the inconveniency of making ſuch promiſes.
6. Laſtly the Author would have us take it for granted that the Adult were the only proper Subjects of Baptiſm, becauſe Tertullian ſaith Faſting, Confeſſion, Prayer, Profeſſion &c. is called for from them.
Reply. We have ſhewn before out of the Magdeburgenſes, That though the Infants of Believers were Baptized, of which we have inſtances given by them, in ſeveral Centuries, yet they required Faſting,Cent. 4. c. 6. p. 417. Confeſſion, of Aliens &c. before they were admitted to Baptiſm; & therefore having ſpoken ſo much to this before, I ſhall only add one paſſage out of Athanaſius in Lib. de paſſione Imaginis Domini, where he ſpeaks concerning-ſome Jews, who proſtrated themſelves at the feet of the Biſhop, and deſired Baptiſm; ſo after they had been inſtructed ſeveral days in the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, and had Faſted three days, they were Baptized. I ſhall add one Reaſon more of Tertullian's againſt the Baptiſm of Infants, and it is inſerted between his fourth and fifth, and therefore the Author could not be ignorant of it, but hath purpoſely omitted it, and it is this; Quid feſtinat innocens aetas ad remiſſionem peccatorum? &c. Why ſhould innocent Children haſten to be Baptized, for the remiſſion of ſins? 'Twas his error (as of other of the Fathers) that Baptiſm did away the guilt of ſin; and either he owned not Original Sin, as his words ſeem to imply, or elſe he thought it more prudential to defer Baptiſm, till the Child had contracted, or heaped up more, that ſo it might be waſhed away altogether. This the Author took notice of, but was ſo ſubtle, as not to give the leaſt hint of it, for that would have quite ſpoiled his excellent Teſtimony. And beſides what we have ſaid to invalidate what is brought from Tertullian, let the Reader know that though he would have Infant-Baptiſm delayed, yet it was not becauſe he judged it unlawful, but inexpedient as before: for even this Father himſelf allowed of their Baptiſm rather than they ſhould dye unbaptized. And thus we ſee the Author hath made a great cry of a little Wooll.