Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Part 2 · Chapter 2
CHAP. II.
The Hiſtorical Account which the Author gives of Iafant-Brptiſm in its Riſe and Eſtabliſhment, Examined and Condemned.
In this Chapter he preſents us with the Hiſtory of Infant-Baptiſm, and tells ſtrange news, if you will credit him of its Original ſince the Apoſtle's days. Thus he begins:
1. From the learned Authorities before given, we have gained thus much; that as there was no Precept in Scripture, for the Baptizing of Infants, ſo neither was there the leaſt Practice to be found thereof in the Apoſtles days, as was ſo ingeniouſly before Confeſſed by the Magdeburgenſes, Luther, Calvin, Eraſmus, Rogers.
1. BUt we have made it appear, Sr. that you reckon your gains too faſt, and have much erred in caſting up the Sum, as the Reader may find in the preceding Chapter. I queſtion not if he be impartial he will conclude you have not gained a farthing, but are rather a loſer hitherto. For among all thoſe Learned Authorities before given, there is no paſſage (although never ſo much ſtrained) that ſaith any more than this: There is no Expreſs precept in Scripture for the Baptizing of Infants, and this every Child knows, but in ſaying there is no Expreſs one, they intimate thereby, there is an Implicite one. I love not to repeat, the Reader may, if he pleaſe, reflect upon what they ſay. And in aſmuch as the point relates to matter of Fact, notwithſtanding the confidence of the adverſe party, unleſs they can produce one Expreſs place of Scripture, where it is ſaid, No Infant was Baptized, or ſome Expreſs Command not to Baptize them, their calling for an Expreſs Command, concludes nothing againſt our Practice.
2. Moreover we affirm againſt their Practice, that there is no Expreſs Command in all the Book of God, to plunge perſons Head and Ears under water: nor can they by any convincing Circumſtance about the manner of Baptizing, make it appear (though thouſands were Baptized in a day) that any one was ſo ſeverely dealt with in the primitive times: we ſhall ſhew, when we come to it, that the word [foreign] among Heathen and Eccleſiaſtical Writers doth promiſcuouſly ſignify to dip into, or waſh with Water by pouring on of it; and in the Scripture it is more frequently taken for Waſhing, than dipping.
3. They have no Expreſs Command or Example to Baptize, or plunge themſelves as they do with their Cloaths on; which is rather a Baptizing Garments, than Bodies. Since they are ſo much for Expreſs Command and Example, let them firſt juſtify their own Practice by it, before they condemn us for want of it.
2. He tells us, That the approved Practice and known cuſtom of the Primitive Church was to Baptize the Adult, as all Ages acknowledg, and only they, at leaſt for the firſt, as is ſo fully atteſted by Euſobius, Beatus Rhenanus, Lud. Vives, Bullinger, Haimo, the Neocaeſarian Council.
Look back Reader to that ſaithful Account I have given from the Magdeburgenſian Century-Writers, and thou ſhalt be able to judg of the truth of what he ſpeaks. I am neceſſitated to touch upon it again, what Euſebius ſpeaks of Origens being a Teacher before Baptiſm, refers to the Pagans; what that Old Popiſh St. Beatus Rhenanus ſaith of the Ancient cuſtom which was to Baptize thoſe that were come to full growth, with the Bath of Regeneration, if it relates to Heathens it is no more to purpoſe than the former out of Euſebius; but if we are to underſtand him ſo, as if no Children were anciently admitted to Baptiſm, no, not thoſe of Believers, then we plead an older cuſtom, even as old as Origen and Tertullian, that Children were Baptized in the Church: and as Mr. Calvin hath it in his Inſtruction againſt the Anabaptiſts; The Holy Ordinance of Infant Baptiſm hath been perpetually obſerved in the Chriſtian Church, for there is no ancient Writer that doth not acknowledg its Original, even from the Apoſtles; which was the Reaſon why Auſtin hath that Expreſſion concerning it, namely,Nullus eſt Scriptor tam vetuſtus, qui non ejus Originem ad Apoſtolorum ſaculum pro certo referat. Calvini Inſtit. cap. 17. part. 8. pag. 227. Eccleſia ſemper habuit, ſemper tenuit. The Church always had it, always held it. And for Lud. Vives his ſaying: That they Baptized the Adult in ſome Cities of Italy, his Teſtimony hath been always looked upon as very incompetent, becauſe he was but of yeſter-day, and we have nothing but his bare word for it, and not to be compared with Auſtin's, a man of great integrity, and that lived above thouſand years nearer the Apoſtles, who affirms it was not only Practiſed in his day, but before, and quotes Teſtimonies for it. Then for Haim…, all that he ſais upon Matt. 28, will not prejudice us, his words are, Here is ſet down a rule how to Baptize, that is, that Teaching ſhould go before Baptizing &c. which we confeſs ought to be ſo, when we have to deal with Pagans, and he ſpeaks of ſuch. And as none of the Popiſh School-men are for the Authors turn, though we have many paſſages quoted out of them, to no other end but to blind the Reader, and make the Book ſwell; ſo I am miſtaken if that which he quotes out of Albertus Magnus the Conjurer, be much for his turn: you have it in the 12th Cent. p. 85. of his Treatiſe. And laſtly for the Neocaeſarian Council, that buſineſs is of a very ridiculous nature, and impertinent to the queſtion; for the matter under debate in that Council, was about a Woman that was pregnant, who being an Infidel came to be Baptized, and the Canon ſpeaks of ſuch a one, and not of a Woman that was within the Church, & of a Child born of a believing Parent, as is fully ſhewn before in Cent. 4.
3, Whereas, he ſaith, not only the Children of, Pagans were to be Inſtructed, and taught in the Faith, in order to Baptiſm; but the Children of Chriſtians alſo: as thoſe famous inſtances given from the 4th Century. We have ſhewn in our diſcourſe upon that Century, the corrupt and ſilly grounds upon which they deferred Baptiſm till they were grown up, in thoſe days, and ſome of the inſtances there given had Parents that were Heathens, when they were born, and ſo continued till they were come to Maturity, and that was the reaſon they were Baptized, though 'tis true, their Parents were at laſt converted to the Chriſtian Faith.
4. He farther ſaith, that as there was no Scripture-Authority for it, ſo no Human Authority, till above 400 years after Chriſt; though to juſtify that injunction, Apoſtolical-Tradition, to ſupply the want of Scripture-Inſtitution, was pretended.
I may almoſt ſay truly of this Quot dicta, tot maledicta; ſo many words, ſo many foul reproaches, Calumniare fortiter & aliquid adhaerebit, ſaid Machiavel, and our Author follows the Rule exactly, he thinks he can never throw dirt enough upon Infant-Baptiſm, hoping ſome will at laſt ſtick. I ſhall Reply to this,
Firſt, To ſay there is no Scripture-Authority for Infant-Baptiſm, and that Apoſtolical Tradition was on purpoſe brought in to ſupply the want of it, are preſumptuous, weak, and falſe dictates: Since the ſame Men, viz. The Fathers, that call it an Apoſtolical Tradition, do upon the matter all of them, plead for it upon Scripture-grounds as Cyprian, Nazianzen, Chryſoſtom, Ambroſ, Epiphartius, who argue for Infant-Baptiſm, becauſe it came in the room of Circumciſion, and from the right the Infants of the Jews had to Circumciſion; and of latter days Proteſtants own nothing for truth that comes under the notion of Apoſtolical-Tradition,Proinde neceſſario veniendum erat ad argumenta ex Scripturis: quae ſi rem non evincant, fruſtrà traditionem ad vocabimus Riv. Animad. in annot-Grotii in Caſſandrum. Art. 9. p. 71. unleſs they ſee ground for it in Scripture; they are of Rivets mind, that Tradition is in moſt points uncertain, and thereforē if we will be certain of a thing we muſt ſee the foot-ſteps of it in the word.
And Mr. Calvin ſpeaks to the ſame purpoſe in his Inſtructions againſt the Anabaptiſts. Caeterum minime peto ut in eo probando nos Antiquitas ullo modo juvet &c. I do not in the leaſt deſire to borrow help from Antiquity for the proof of this point, any whit farther than the judgment of the Ancients ſhall be found to be grounded on the Word of God. For I well know that as the cuſtom of men, doth not give Authority to the Sacrament, ſo the uſe of the Sacrament cannot be ſaid to be right, becauſe regulated by Cuſtom.
2. What though there was no Human-Authority for it till above 400 years after Chriſt, is this any Argument againſt it? The Author borrows this from Dr. Taylors Lib. of Proph. p. 237. for he learns how to ſpeak from him: the Drs. Words are — as there was no Command in Scripture to oblige Children to the ſuſception of it; ſo the neceſſity of Paedobaptiſm was not determined in the Church, till the Canon that was made in the Milevitan Council. This Milevitan African Council was Ann. Ch. 418. and belike the reaſon why it was not eſtabliſhed ſooner by Councils under an Anathema, was becauſe it was rarely, if at all queſtioned or oppoſed till then, by any perſon of note, as to its lawfulneſs. Hear what Dr. Hammond ſays in anſwer to Dr Taylor, about this matter: It being granted by the Objecter, ſaith he, that Paedobaptiſm was by Canon Eſtabliſhed in the Milevitan African Council, Ann. Ch. 418. yet, as long as it is alſo confeſſed, that it was practiſed in Africa before, there will be little concluded againſt us. For what ſtood by Apoſtolical Practice and known Cuſtom, needed not to be preſcribed by Canon, as that which prevails by force of a greater, need not be aſſiſted by a weaker Authority. And indeed while the foot-ſteps of ſo Authentique a Tradition were ſo lively and no Adverſary, or Diſputer ſtarted upno queſtion or oppoſition yet made againſt a Common uſage, 'twere ridiculous for Councils to convene, and fortify it by Canons: and ſo the only thing reaſonably deducible from the lateneſs of thoſe Canons, is, that all that while it was univerſally received without Oppoſition: I mean not, ſaith the Dr, that no Infant, or any Chriſtian was unbaptized through the ſpace of thoſe firſt (4) Centuries, but that the extending of the Inſtitution to Infants, was not Oppoſed in the Church till about Pelagius's days, whoſe opinion of Original Sin (utterly denying the guilt of it on Adam's poſterity) was ſuch, as might conſequentily produce ſome change in his opinion of Paedobaptiſm: for in the 219 page he quotes out of the 5th Hom. of Euſebius Emiſſenus, de Paſch, a paſſage intimating that Pelagius himſelf aſſerted the Baptizing of Infants, though not propter vitam, for life, yet propter regnum coelorum for the Kingdom of God (i. e.) entrance into the Church, as is conceived.
3. Whereas he ſaith Apoſtolical Tradition was pretended. Let not the Reader be afrighted with this word Tradition, or becauſe Origen, and Auſtin calls it a Tradition of the Church; for when the Fathers ſo call it, they do not intend it in ſuch a ſence, as if the Church were the Author, but the Subject of it, Magdeburg. Cent. 1. L. 2. Cap. 6. p. 496. Origines & Cyprianus & alia Patres Authores ſunt Apoſtolorum etiam tempore Infantes Baptizatos eſſe—both Origen and Cyprian and other Fathers hold that Infants were Baptized in the Apoſtles days: and Auſtin's Rule is a reaſon for, it little leſs than a demonſtration, quod univerſa tenet Eccleſia &c. that which is univerſally received and practiſed by the Church, and had not its firſt Inſtitution from ſome Council, but hath been ever retained, may well be believed to be an Apoſtolical Tradition.Auguſt. contrae Donat. L. 4. C. 24. Moreover when the Fathers call thi… …n Apoſtolical Tradition (… do other Opinions) it is (as our Divines uſually anſwer the Papiſts) in regard points of this nature are not expreſly in terminis in the word, but may be fairly gathered thence by conſequence. Chemnit. Exam. Concil. Triden. par. 1. p. 68, 69. To the ſame purpoſe we have Dr. Field of the Church Lib. 4. Cap. 20. The 4th head of Tradition is the continued Practice of ſuch things as are neither contained in Scripture Expreſly, nor the Examples of ſuch Practice Expreſly there delivered, Though the grounds, reaſons, and cauſes of the neceſſity of ſuch practice, be there contained: of this ſort is the Baptiſm of Infants, which is therefore called a Tradition becauſe it is not expreſly delivered in Scripture, that the Apoſties did Baptize Infants &c. nor any Expreſs Precept there found, they ſhould do ſo, yet is not this ſo received by bare & naked Tradition, but that we find the Scripture to deliver unto us the grounds of it. Thus we ſee, both the Fathers and Proteſtant-Writers take Tradition in a quite different ſence from that the Romaniſts uſually take it in, who equalize the Authority of Tradition with the Scripture, yea indeed give it the preheminence above it. And now judg Reader, what the confident aſſertions of our Antagoniſt do amount to, whether dignum tanto tulit hic promiſſor hiatu; whether the proverb be not verified in him viz. a great cry, and a little Wooll.
Now follows the Hiſtorical Account he gives us of the Apoſtolical Tradition pretended to (as he ſpeaks it) for Infant Baptiſm.
IT is not worth while to ſearch into ſo many muſty Authors as are quoted by him; and indeed I thought to have taken my leave of him, and to have met him again in the 3d Chapter, becauſe there we ſhall encounter the exceptions he brings againſt thoſe Authentick Teſtimonies we alledg from Antiquity for our Practice; nevertheleſs having run over his Hiſtory, uſ que ad nauſeam, I ſhall paſs a few Remarks thereupon.
1. The multitude of Authors quoted, argues great oſtentation of much Reading, though much of it is prepared to his hand, and for certain, the moſt is rather ad Pompam than ad Pugnum, rather for ſhew than ſervice.
2. Yet hath he manifeſted ſome Artifice, and cunning;
1. In raking out of the Dung-hil, all the filthy Rites uſed by the Romiſh Church in the Adminiſtration of Baptiſm, as Exorciſm, Chriſm, Salt, Albes, or White-Garments, Milk, Honey &c. And his deſign herein is to dazle the eyes of the weaker ſort, and to make them believe even Infant-Baptiſm it ſelf is alſo a corrupt Innovation. But this will not take with the judicious who are able to diſtinguiſh between the accidental Corruptions of an Ordinance and the Ordinance it ſelf. We know Antichriſt hath defiled moſt of the Ordinances of Chriſt and annexed thereto many Superſtitious Ceremonies: as in the other Sacrament of the Communion, Adoration of the Elements is enjoyned, and yet theſe do not diſparage the Ordinance it ſelf, in the Inſtitution and Subſtance of it, but only defile the Communicants that ſo ſuperſtitiouſly uſe that Sacred Appointment. Beſides the Papiſts have affixt theſe corrupt Rites, not only to the Baptiſm of Infants, but of thoſe alſo who are grown up: and ſo the force of arguing from them, if Infant-Baptiſm were removed, wil ly againſt Baptiſm it ſelf. We ought not therefore to impute theſe corruptions to God's Ordinance of Baptizing Infants, and on that account deride and caſhier it, but rather as the Magdeburgenſes do Cent. 2. p. 111. to the Myſtery of Iniquity,Mr. Geree of vind. Paedobapt. which ſo works in the Church of Rome in their corrupting and contaminating the ſimple forme of Baptiſm. Indeed, ſaith Mr. Philpot the Martyr. (to his fellow-ſufferer that ſcrupled Infant-Baptiſm, and afterward was ſatisfied by the ſtrength of his Arguments) if you look upon the Papiſtical Synagogue only which have corrupted God's Word by falſe interpretation, and hath perverted the true uſe of Chriſts Sacraments, you may ſeem to have good handfaſt of your opinion againſt the Baptiſm of Infants; but for as much as it is of more Antiquity, and hath its begining from God's Word, and from the uſe of the Primitive Church, it muſt not in reſpect of the abuſe in the Popiſh Church be neglected, or thought inexpedient. Nor hath the Baptiſm of Adult Perſons in former times been free from many corrupt, and ridiculous Human inventions, as Dr. Homes out of Binius and Epiphanius ſhews at large. The Council of Carthage tells us,Bin. Ca. 34 de rebus. Eccleſ. Cap. 26. that ſick men lying ſpeechleſs might be Baptized, upon the witneſs of men touching their former condition.
The 4th Council of Carthage, orders, That thoſe of ripe years to be Baptized muſt be dyered,Bin. Cap. 85. and kept from Feſh and Wine a long time, and after that, having been examined ſeveral times muſt be Baptized.
Epiphanius declares that the Eunomians (called Anabaptiſts) do Rebaptize all that come to them,Epiphan Anacephal. pag. 108. Edit. lat. Bazil. turning their Heads downward, and their Heels upward.
Some of the Anabaptiſts called Hemerabaptiſts thought, that none could be ſaved, unleſs they were daily-Baptized, whence they were called foreign,Gerard. Joh. Voffus de Anaebaptiſmo, Theſ. 17. Gaſtius de Anaebap. Exod. p. 50. daily Baptiſts, and ſo were cleanſed from their Sins. Singulis diebus mergerentur, ita ut Abluantur & Sanctificentur ab omni culpa.
Secondly, Another ſmall plot or piece of tunning lyes in linking ſome ſpurious Authors with thoſe which are Authentick, to render alſo their Authority Suſpicious. There are ſome Ancient Writers which are very expreſs for Infant-Baptiſm, & of great Authority in the Church of Rome, which are rejected as ſpurious, or interpolate, by the Proteſtants; ſuch is that of Dimyſius the Areopagite, and the Decretal Epiſtles, who notwithſtanding have in high account the Teſtimonies of thoſe Ancients viz. Juſtin Martyr, Irenaus, Origen, Cyprian, &c. which are reputed as Authentick and of undoubted truth.
3. There is much Impertinency in his Hiſtorical Account, that is not concerned in the Queſtion. As the Story of Conſtantine, Dedication, Conſecration or Baptizing of Churches and Bells, Expoſure of the Reliques of Saints for adoration, Prohibiting Prieſts Marriages, with much more ejuſdem farinae, But what is all this to Infant-Baptiſm?
4. There are ſome errors or falſities in it. As Tertullian's ſtanding up againſt. Infant-Baptiſm in the 3d Century; when he ſtood up no more againſt it, than he did againſt the Baptizing of Young-men that were unmarried, and Young-Widows alſo, whoſe Baptiſm he would have delayed. 'Tis certain he argues for the delay of Baptiſm in ſome caſes (praecipue circa paroulos, Tertul. de Bapt. C. 8.eſpecially that of little ones) meaning the Children of unbelievers as is conceived by Eſtius, Pamelins, and divers others.
A Second Error reſpecting this Century, is, That the Magdeburgenſes tell us, they altered the form of Baptiſm, from dipping to ſprinkling: referring us to Cent. 3. pag. 129. where they ſpeak no ſuch thing nor any-where elſe in the whole Hiſtory of Baptiſm.
A Third Eſcape, is, That Infant-Baptiſm was not in uſe in the greateſt part of the 4th Century either in the Latin or Greek Church. Now this is very falſe, nor will that help him which he adds afterward, Scil. It is true (ſaith he) towards the latter end of this Century, it is ſaid, that in ſome parts of Africa they did Baptize Children as Magdeburg Cent. 4. p. 415. but they ſay no ſuch thing; it is only the Authors own ſaying: and really it troubles me to ſee ſo much prevarication every-where. Take Reader the true account of what the Magdeburgenſes ſay de Ritibus circa Baptiſmum, about Baptiſmal Rites. They are large in this Chapter, and begin it thus, That the power of Baptizing was in this Age in the Prieſts, and principally in the Biſhops, and then in Presbyters and Deacons, and then a few lines after they tell us, Baptizabantur autem publice in templis cujuſcun que ſexus, aetatis, & conditionis homines. Perſons of each Sex, and of all Ages and Conditions were publickly Baptized in the Temples. Nor hath this Chapter any ſuch paſſage at the beginning, middle, or latter end; that in ſome parts of Africa they did Baptize Children.
5. I will not ſay, there is a Tincture of prophaneneſs, but am ſure of ſomething like it, in that ſaying of the Authors pag. 128. of his Treatiſe viz. In this [6th] Century (ſaith he) we meet with a dreadful piece of Infant-Baptiſm viz. The Heads of 6000 Infants that had been murdered & buried in a Warren near a Monaſtery, as teſtified by Ʋldricus to P. Nicolas, Cent. 6. p. 338. But the Magdeburgenſes are not ſo bold as the Author, to call ſuch horrid murder Infant-Baptiſm. A tender conſcience me thinks ſhould be afraid thus to play with Holy things.
6. This Hiſtory of his affords ſome contradiction to himſelf, I mean to what he hath before written: for in the firſt part of his Book Cap, 2. pag. 7. he quotes Bede for a Teſtimony, that the Baptizing of Believers is the only true Baptiſm — Bede ſaith, That Men were firſt to be inſtructed unto the Knowledg of the Truth, then to be Baptized, as Chriſt hath taught &c. Cent. 8. p. 220. Whereas in this his Second part of the Treatiſe, which is for diſproving Infant-Baptiſm, pag. 130. Bede alſo concludes for the Baptizing of Infants, Cent. 8. p. 218.
7. We obſerve too great a boldneſs in thoſe ſcandalous Reflections which he caſts upon the Churches of the Reformed Religion, ſparing none, neither Lutherans, nor Calviniſts, nor: Epiſcoparians, nor Presbyterians. But me thinks 'tis a piece of great indiſcretion to fly out ſo much againſt the Church of England, for if ſhe be contented to give the Antipaedobaptiſts indifferent good quarter although they do not conform to her, why ſhould any of them vilify her in this manner? As for the Kirk of Scotland the Author may more ſecurely mock at it, and there is no danger in having a fling at the Directory, or at the old Parliament's Ordinance of May 2d. 1648. which made it impriſonment to affirm Infant-Baptiſm is unlawful.