Infant Baptism Asserted and Vindicated, Tract 1
ANACEPHALAEOSIS, Or, a Recapitulation of the Hiſtory of the Magdeburgenſes concerning Infant-Baptiſm, from the firſt to the thirteenth Century.
CENT. I.
1. THey tell us Cent. 1. L. 1. C. 4. p. 152. That Baptiſm was taken from the Jewiſh cuſtom of Waſhing: and foraſmuch as Infant-Baptiſm was in uſe among the Jews together with Circumciſion, as a Rite of Initiation for both the natural Jews, and Proſelites of Age, who were with their Infants Circumcifed and Baptized, as Ainsworth ſhews upon Gen. 17. out of the Rabbies. Alſo Goodwin in his Moſes and Aaron, and Mr. Selden the great Antiquarie; and Dr. Hammond in his Reſolution about Infant-Baptiſm proves, that Chriſt took up the uſage of Baptizing from the Jews, and made it a Sacrament, and accommodated it, as a Rite of Initiation into the Profeſſion of Chriſtianity; it follows by proportion, that the Children of them that profeſs the Chriſtian Faith are to be Baptized with their Parents, as was the cuſtom of the Jews.
2. There is nothing in Chriſt's Commiſſion, Mat. 28. that is againſt it; for the Teaching there that is required, excludes not the Children of Believers from Baptiſm, as appears by the conſideration of the Condition of the Perſons to whom Chriſt ſent his Apoſtles to Baptize, who were Aliens, and the whole World in regard of the new-Adminiſtration were ſuch. Nor is that in Mark 16. excluſive of Infants; though it requires believing to go before baptizing. And the reaſon is, becauſe the ſame condition that is required there, to precede Baptiſm, is required to precede Salvation: So that if the ſence of the place be that Infants muſt not be Baptized becauſe they cannot Believe, it will as directly follow they muſt not be ſaved, becauſe they cannot Believe. The way of anſwering one, anſwers both, and by the ſame diſtinction the Salvation of Infants may be maintained, their Baptiſm may.
3. If the Import of the Commiſſion had not been to take in the Children with the Parents in Baptiſm, it had been needful for Chriſt to have given them a Caveat, when be ſent them forth to diſciple the Nations, to this effect. —See that ye forbear to Baptize the Children of the Nations, and that becauſe the Apoſtles knew, that Children under the former Adminiſtration were reputed diſciples, belonged to the Covenant; and had Crcumciſion the Seal thereof applyed to them, and that Baptiſm ſucceeded in the place thereof. Col. 2.11, 12.
4. The Magdeburgenſes ſay, though we have no particular example of any Infants Baptized in this Century, yet Origen and Cyprian (that lived in the time of thoſe that ſaw the Apoſtles) affirm that Infants were Baptized in the Apoſtles days. Cent. 1. L. 2. C. 6. p. 496. and that the cuſtom of Baptizing them was tranſmitted from them to Poſterity. Cent. 1. L. 1. C. 4. p. 151.
5. Though we have no expreſs example, yet we have ſomething Equivalent thereto. As,
1. The Baptizing whole Houſholds or Families, of which we have ſuch frequent mention in the Acts. As Lydia's Family Act. 16.15. though there be no hint of any one that Believed but herſelf. So Stephana's Houſhold, 1 Cor. 1.16. and divers others. When once the Head of the Family Profeſſed his Faith, all the Family were by and by Baptized. As under the Law when the Maſter of a Family was Proſelyted, he and his were forthwith Circumciſed. And 'tis altogether improbable that in ſo many houſholds that are ſaid to be Baptized there ſhould be no Infants, when we can ſcarce find one Family without them.
2. No Children of Believing Parents are mentioned to have been Baptized afterwards, during the ſpace of 60 years, for ſo long it was from the time that John the Baptiſt began his Miniſtery to the time that John the Evangeliſt ended his: in which time there could be no leſs than thouſands and ten thouſands of Children born of Chriſtian Parents, and grown up to Maturity, and yet we find not one of all theſe Baptized at years of diſcretion, and therefore may well conclude they were Baptized in Infancy.
CENT. I.
Nothing in Chriſt's Commiſſion againſt it, nor in the Apoſtles Writings.
CENT. II.
The Ancient Fathers of the Greek-Church for Infant-Baptiſm.
Juſtin Martyr who lived (by calculation) in St. John's days, muſt needs know what was done amongſt the Apoſtles, gives ſeveral hints for Infant-Baptiſm in is unqueſtionable Works, as in his Dialogue with Triphon, Part 2. Prop. 3. wrote 150 years after Chriſt.
Irenaeus that lived in the ſame Age, within a hundred years after the Apoſtles, and was a Biſhop in France according to Helvicus in the year 170 of our Lord, within 73 years of St. John: and as noted by Mr. Baxter muſt live conſequently within 43. years of St. John, for he would not be Biſhop till about 30 years old; and we have his Teſtimony for it very plainly, Lib. 2. Adverſ. Haereſ. C. 39. ſpeaking of Infants being born again, that is, by the Laver of Regeneration viz, Baptiſm. Dr. Hammond Reſolution. Sec. 4. p. 212.
CENT. II.
Infant-Baptiſm oppoſed by none. Magdeb. Cent 2. Cap. 4. p. 48. de Baptiſmo.
Nec uſquam legitur Infantes hoc ſeculo a Baptiſmo remotos eſſe. Infants were not excluded Baptiſm in this Age.
CENT. III.
Infant-Baptiſm was in uſe in this Age as appears from Tertullian, who lived in the firſt hundred years after the Apoſtles, and expreſſeth himſelf thus in his Book de Anima, viz. That the Children of the Faithful are holy by birth, which is Paralel to that of the Apoſtle, 1 Cor. 7.13. And whereas 'tis ſaid he was for the delay of it; the Magdeburgenſes tell us, ſo he was alſo in reſpect of the Aged, he had ſuch a ſuperſtitious conceit of Baptiſm that he thought it beſt for all people to delay it, of all conditions and Ages Cent. 3. C. 6. p. 124. and they ſay that he held a ſtrange Opinion indeed, that it was not fit for young-men, unmarried, nor young. Widows to be Baptized, & why? becauſe in theſe the luſt of Concupiſcence was not extinguiſhed. Cent. 3.
More Greek Fathers for Infant-Baptiſm.
1. Origen, who lived Anno 226. is moſt expreſs for it, affirming that it was tranſmitted to the Church from the Apoſtles, as in his Comment upon Levit. C. 12.13. Hom. 8. and in Hom. 14. on Luke, and upon the 6th Rom. And though we have them not extant in Greek, yet being tranſlated by Jerom, as the Magdeburgs and Dr. Hammond obſerve from his Epiſtle to Heraclius, prefixt to the Comment; we have his Authority to ſecure us that they are his own.
2. Cyprian, Biſhop of Carthage, who beſides his own Teſtimony (who flouriſhed about 248. and according to Bucol nearer Chriſt, in 222) gives us in his Epiſtle to Fidus, the Teſtimony of an African Council of 66 Biſhops. Magd. Cent. 3 C. 9. p. 205. Synod Afric. de Infant. Baptizandis.
Oppoſed by none.
CENT. IV.
We have in this Age the Teſtimony of divers other Greek-Fathers for it, as Nazianzen, who lived in the year of Chriſt 375. and ſhews it was in uſe in his time in his Orat. 3. in S. Lavacrum. Magdeb. Cent. 4. C. 6. p. 417. where he is for it in caſe of death, and in his 40th Oration he owns is abſolutely thus — Haſt thou a young-Child, ſaith he, let it be Baptized from an Infant, let it be early Conſecrated to the Spirit.
Farther, the Magdeburgs ſay, they have before ſhewn out of Origen, and Cyprian, that the Baptiſm of Children was in uſe in the African Churches; and they alſo prove it continued in this Age from the 124th Queſtion of Athanaſius, and from Nazianzen, that it was Practiſed in the Aſiatick Churches. Magd. ut ſupra.
Chryſoſtom, another Greek Father, who lived Anno 382 was for it: ſo was
Bazil, that flouriſhed about the ſame time; he gives Teſtimony to it, Lib. 3. contra Eunomium —What ſay you of Infants, may we Baptize them? Yea, for ſo we are taught by the Circumciſion of Children.
In Concurrence with them, we have the Teſtimony of the Latin Fathers who were their Contemporaries, as
1. Ambroſe, who lived about Anno 381. he ſpeaks for Infant baptiſm in his Book of Abraham, the Patriarch.
2. Jerome alſo, contrà Pelag. l. 3. and in his Epiſtle to Laeta, he is much for it.
3. Auſtin is for it, none more; he lived about 391. The Church, ſaith he, alwaies had it, alwaies held it: Auſt. Serm. 5. de Verb. Apoſt.and in lib. cont. Donatiſt. cap. 24. diſputing againſt the Donatiſts (who denied Original Sin, but not Infant Baptiſm any more than Pelagius, whoſe Diſciple he was) ſaith, That which is univerſally received, and practiſed, &c.
CENT. V.
In this Age Children were baptized, ſay the Magdiburgenſes, Cent. 5. C. 6. p. 654. Both the Adult and Infants
CENT. V.
Not oppoſed by any, not the Donatiſts, as H.D. falſly ſuggeſts; for though they denied Original Sin, yet not Infant-baptiſm, and therefore not mentioned in the Catalogue of their Hereſies. Magd. Cent. 5. C 5. p. 628. de haereſi Donatiſtatum,
CENT. VI.
In this Age Infant-baptiſm was in uſe, as appears by the Speech of Maxentius, which the Magdiburgs quote, viz. We believe Inants newly born are to be baptized, Magd. Cent. 6. c. 4. p. 227. They inform us alſo that Gregory the Great was for it, by the doubt he reſolves about Abortives.
CENT. VI.
Not oppoſed by any we find in this Age, but by one Adrianus: though H. D. without any good bottom, confidently affirms, that the Ancient Britains were againſt Infant-baptiſm: this Conceit is vain, as we have ſhewn in the Examination of that Hiſtory. He doth alſo very weakly bring Gregory's Teſtimony againſt it, and yet tells us (which is true) that Gregory accuſed Adrianus to John Biſhop of Lariſſa, that he turned away young Children from Baptiſm. You have it Chap. 7. of the firſt Part of his firſt and ſecond Edition: Chap. 7. Cent. 6. and p. 231. of the 2. Edition. Compare them together, and you have a perfect Contradiction.
CENT. VII.
Adult perſons and Infants were both baptized in this Age, as we learn from the Magdiburgenſes, Cent. 7. C. 6. p. 145.
It ſhould not be Conſtance but Conſtantinople.
It ſhould be Conſtantinople.
CENT. VII.
Not oppoſed by any that we find in the Magdiburgenſian Hiſtory, under this Century; yet doth H. D. miſrepreſent 3. Councils.
1. The Bracarens in Spain, as if they had made a Decree againſt it, when 'twas only this, That none ex adultis that were grown up, ſhould be baptized, that were not firſt indifferently well inſtructed in the Doctrine of Chriſtianity, Cont. 7. And in p 146 and 147. they tell us the very manner how this Bracaren Council ordained Infants ſhould be baptized.
2 The Council of Conſtance decreed, as in the Bracaren, that no Adult perſons ſhould be baptized, unleſs, as before, they were inſtructed—For, ſay they, non ſhall be baptized, that are not instructed, except Infants, which by reaſon of age cannot ſpeak. And then they tell us, this whole Council was invited to the Baptiſm of the Child of Heraclius, p. 167.
3. Concerning the Toletan Council, the Magdiburgenſes ſay their Decree was, That the Children of the Jews that were [Baptizati] baptized, ſhould be recommended to ſome Chriſtians to be taught, Magdiburg. Centur. 7. p. 146.
H. D. is a very heedleſs Writer, and doth overlaſh again in his Story of B…rinius (he is named Berinus by the Magdiburgs) how that he was a great Oppugner of Infant-baptiſm, when 'tis not ſo; for all that they ſay of him is— [Eundem morem ſervat Berinus,] that is, Berinus followed the Manner of the Council of Conſtance, i.e. to baptize no Adult perſons, but upon Profeſſion after Teaching; but this Council ſhut not out Infants from Baptiſm, as before, but was for it. And, to make it more plain, the Eaſt-Saxons, whom Berinus baptized, with their people (as the Magdiburgs expreſs it out of Bede) were Pagans, as Bede ſhews in his 3. Book, 7. Chapt.
CENT. VIII.
From the 4. Book of Bede upon the Canticles, they ſhew that Infants in this Century were accounted fit ſubjects of Baptiſm, Cent. 8. c. 4. p. 218.
CENT. VIII.
None are found to have oppoſed Infant-baptiſm in this Age; and therefore H. D. is to be blamed for wronging Haimo. The Magdiburgs quote two paſſages amongſt others, which ſhew he was moſt expreſs for it, as that in Rom. 5. Item parvuli in Baptiſmate mundantur — Children are made clean in Baptiſm, Cent. 4. C. 4. p. 145. And again In fide parentum ait Haimo baptizari Infantes.
CENT. IX.
The Magdiburgenſes acquaint us with one of the Grounds upon which Inants were Baptized, viz. Sinite parvulos, &c. Suffer little children to come unto me.
CENT. IX.
It was oppoſed by none in this Age but by one Popiſh Biſhop, named Hincmarus, Biſhop of Iaudum in France, who was moſt ſeverely rebuk'd for it by his Uncle Hincmarus Biſhop of Rhemes—Etſi, ſaith he, tremendum Dei judicium te non terruit, &c. timere debueras nè tu ſolus hoc ageres, quòd nullus Chriſtianorum unquam facere auſus eſt: He had cauſe to fear he did that which never any Chriſtian did before him. This man was condemned by a Synod ſub Carolo Calvo, Anno 870. and put out of his Biſhoprick, and writ his Recantation with his own hand, Cent. 9. C. 9. p. 444. And afterward was reſtored to his Biſhoprick, Cent. 9. C. 9. p. 447. ſub Carolo Craſſo.
H. D. in his Abſtract preſents us with divers others in this 9. Century, as Oppoſers of Infant-baptiſm; as one Giſlebert and Engliſh Monk of the Order of Benedict (a precious Witneſs) but though the Magdiburgs recite much of his bad Doctrine, yet not a word of his being againſt Infant-baptiſm; and therefore he wrongs his Reader and them too, by referring to Magd. Cent. 10. C. 4. p. 234. of his 2. Edition. This Giſlebert was very erroneous; he held all ſin done way by Baptiſm ex opere operato; he was for Merit, and held the Virgin Mary to be without Sin, and to make Interceſſion; and is not this a pure Witneſs, think you, againſt Infant-baptiſm? Cent. 10. C. 4. p. 188, 189.
Under this 9. Cent. H.D. brings in Rabanus, in both his Editions. This Rabanus was an Abbot. He was for Infant-baptiſm, as appears by that Saying of his, That the Spirit of God enters into the Infant before he comes out of the Font, though we know not how. The Magdib. quote it out of his 10. Chap. of his Book of the Euchariſt, Cent. 9. C. 4. p. 143.
Again he ſaith concerning little ones that are uncapable of teaching, they that offer them up in Baptiſm, muſt anſwer for them.
H. D. brings Remigius for Believers Baptiſm in oppoſition to Infants, or elſe he trifles. This Remigius was alſo a Monk of the Order of Benedict, and was for the Worſhipping the Virgin Mary, as the Magdiburgs tell us, but not a word againſt Infant-baptiſm, Cent. 9. c. 10. p. 533.
CENT. X.
They tell us in their 6. Chap. pag. 293. that in this Age they baptized both the Adult and Infants.
CENT. X.
It was not oppoſed in this Age that we find from the Magdiburgenſes, and Smaragdus is no Witneſs for H, D. for he is expreſs for Infant-baptiſm, as they ſnew us, he grounding it upon that Paſſage, Sinite parvulos, &c. Suffer little children to come, &c. Cent. 10. C. 4. p. 138. and who hath alſo this Expreſſion, Infants are made pure by Baptiſm, which they quote from his words upon the 2. Chap. of the Epiſtle of Peter.
Ausbertus ſpeaks nothing pro or con, but only of the Virtues of Baptiſm, and the danger of Mortal Sins.
Theophilact is not for H. D. his turn; for he ſaith, That the Faith of him that offereth the Child in Baptiſm or baptizeth it, cleanſeth the Child, quam vis nondum valet corde credere ad juſtitiam, & ore confiteri ad ſalutem, i.e. though he be not able to believe unto righteouſneſs, nor confeſs with the mouth. Cent. 10. c. 4. p. 187. de Doctrina.
CENT. XI.
They tell us that in this Age they baptized not only Adult perſons but ſuch as were newly born, Cent. 11. C. 6. p. 260. And then giving divers Inſtances of Children that were baptized, …. They quote Anſelm … it, that the Dies Baptiſm…, the Day of Baptiſm as the 8th day, he grounding it upon Circumciſion, Cent. 11. c. 4. p. 169. They quote alſo his Note upon that place. And her daughter was made whole the ſelf-ſame hour, how the Mothers Faith ſtood the Child in good ſtead, Mat. 15. So the Faith of the Parent, ſaith he, may avail for the Infant in Baptiſm, though he be at preſent uncapable of good or evil, Cent 11. C. 4. p. 171. and not withſtanding all this; Anſelm is brought by H. D. in oppoſition to Infant baptiſm.
CENT. XI.
None againſT Infant-baptiſm that we can find upon good ground in this Age; for as for that which H. D. brings concerning Peter Bruis, Arnoldus and Henricus they are only Popiſh Calumnies, as we have ſhewn in the Examination of the Hiſtory of the Waldenſes.
Durandus alſo is under this Century brought in by H. D. as a Witneſs againſt Infant-baptiſm, though moſt ſevere againſt Anabaptists.
CENT. XII.
They baptized, as they tell us, as well Infants, as grown perſons, and give inſtances of Children baptized, Cent. 12. C. 6. p. 872.
CENT. XII.
None that we find who oppoſed it in this Age.
H. D. miſapplies Peter Lumbard, as if he had been for Believers Baptiſm in oppoſition to that of Infants, when his words are, Children are cleanſed from Original Sin by Baptiſm, Cent. 12. c. 4. p. 596. H. D. doth abuſe the ſaying of Peter Lombard, viz. The perſon that is to be baptized, ſhould firſt believe and confeſs. We have it in h s 18. Chap on John. Which is ſpoken of Pagans as appears by what follows. Again, All that are baptized. ſaith he, whether little ones or great ones, receive in their foreheads the ſign of the Croſs, in his 8. Book on the 13. Chap. of the Revelation.
Albertus Magnus, the Conjurer (another of H.D. his Witneſſes) hath not, that I can find, a word to his purpoſe.
CENT. XIII.
The Magdiburgenſes do end with the 12. Cent. and 'tis remarkable, that (excepting the Waldenſes who are calumniated by the Papiſts) they mention but one perſon that was againſt Infant-baptiſm, viz. Hincmarus. They indeed ſpeak of one Peter Apamen a Biſhop of Syria, Cent. 6. c. 5. p. 304. de Haereſibus, and Zoaras the Monk that agreed with the Heretick Severus, and was condemned with him in the Synod of Conſtantinople. They have it out of Nicephorus, lib. 17. c. 9. Theſe they ſay, were accuſed of Re-baptization, and other heinous Crimes, but not for oppugning Infant-baptiſm; and therefore Mr. Henry Danvers needed not to have put theſe in for Witneſſes in his 2. Edition.
CENT. XIII.
The Waldenſes are here falſly pretended to be againſt Infant-baptiſm. See our Examination of the Hiſtory before.
The Name of Wickliff being famous, H. D. would fain get ſomething out of him for his turn, but cannot; for none of the words quoted from him, are againſt Infant-baptiſm, unleſs he thinks that is Cap. 2. de Trialog. viz. That they are preſumptuous and fooliſh who affirm Children dying unbaptized cannot be ſaved: Or becauſe he rejected the Popiſh Traditions of Salt, Cyl, Spittle, Chriſm; this in H. D. his account renders him an authentique Witneſs againſt us; for he concludes thus: And may we not from as good evidence ſay that he rejected Infant-baptiſm alſo? Treatiſe of Baptiſm, 2. Edition. There he alſo quotes a Popiſh Writer, which chargeth Wickliff with denying Infant-babtiſm, and in the ſame place ſaith, it was the Albigenſian Hereſie; one as true as the other.
From what hath been ſaid, I ſee no reaſon why Mr. Tombes and Mr. Danvers ſhould be ſo much offended with Mr. Marſhal and Mr. Baxter, for ſaying Infant-baptiſm was but lately oppoſed by the Anabaptiſts of Germany; and I appeal to the Reader, whether Mr. Baxter ſpeaks not true in is Plain Scripture-proof, p. 153. who ſaith, That for his part he cannot find in his ſmall Reading, that any one Divine or Party of Men did certainly oppoſe or deny Infant baptiſm, for many hundred years after Chriſt. And then again, p. 261. The World may ſee what a Cauſe you put ſuch a face upon, when you cannot bring the leaſt proof, ſo much as of one Man (we will allow them one, viz. Hincmarus) much leſs Societies, and leaſt of all godly Societies, that did once oppoſe or deny Infants Baptiſm, from the Apoſtles days till about Luther's time.