The Infants Advocate of Circumcision and Baptism, Chapter 15
CHAP. XV. The Antiquity and generallity of Baptizing of Infants, proved by the confeſſion of Pelagius.
DIvers Learned and Godly Divines, have undertaken, and performed this taſk, to prove the conſtant practice of Infants Baptiſm in the Primitive Church, by the induction of the Authorities of ſeveral Fathers to that purpoſe. And as the Angels in Jacobs Ladder, Gen. 28. 12. Some aſcended, others deſcended upon it; ſo in this ſcale of authorities, ſome have deduced the practice downwards from Chriſts time to our dayes; others by an inverted method have raiſed it upwards from our days to Chriſts time, both by different motions meeting in the ſame point.
It is our hap, like Ahimaaz, to be ſent laſt on the ſame errand: the proof of this point. And although far be ſuch arrogance from me as to hope with him to come firſt to our journeys end (and to do better then my betters have done before me) yet thus far wil I follow the example of Ahimaaz, 2 Sam. 18. 23. To run by the way of the plain. Having to deal with people who generally are unlearned, & therefore the heaping of Quotations in unknown tongues, were probable to offend, and incenſe, rather then to edifie and inform them, we will imbrace the plaineſt way to make the Baptizing of Infants appear an Antient and general Church Cuſtome unto them.
This will be proved by the confeſſion of Pelagius, when firſt we have given an account to the Reader what he was, when, and where he lived, and what opinions he maintained.
He was a Britan by birth, flouriſhing about the year of our Lord four hundred & ten; a man of great learning, and greater parts, had the ſame been ſanctified unto him.
In the time of this Pelagius, only three parts of the world were known, Europe, Aſia, and Africa; all which were traced with the feet of Pelagius, who though born in a corner of the World, quickly quitted his native ſoyl, and enriched himſelf with the experience of Church-practice in all parts.
In
Europe where he was born in Britain, and where he lived a long time in‖Auguſtine Epiſt. 95. Rome it ſelf, gaining there great acquaintance with Ruffinus) which may paſſe for the Epitome of the then Chriſtian world.
Aſia, where in the Iſland of Rhodes, or thereabouts, he firſt ſcattered his dangerous Doctrine. Afterwards he went to ‖Auguſtine Epiſt. 92.Hieruſalem.
Africa, where for ſome times he continued in Egypt, working himſelf into the familiarity of the learned men therein.
Yea, it is laid to the charge of Pelagius, that to diſperſe his poyſonous opinions with the more advantage, ſaepius mutavit loca, he often purpoſely changed the place of his habitation.
Amongſt the many dangerous doctrines which Pelagius maintained, we will inſiſt on that alone; the confutation whereof, makes mainly for our preſent purpoſe. He defended that Infants were conceived and born without original ſin, which came unto them (when growing in years) not from an inward principal of corruption, but from their imitation of outward ill examples preſented unto them. S. Auguſtine undertakes his confutation, and amongſt many other ſolid Arguments to that purpoſe, principally inſiſteth upon this, that it was the cuſtome of the Church in all ages to Baptize Infants; which plainly proves that they were conceived in original ſin. For that which is clean needs not to be waſhed.
This Argument is often inculcated by S. Auſtin in ſeveral places, as namely in his 150 Epiſtle unto Sixtus.
Likewiſe in his ſecond book of Marriage and concupiſcence, in the eighteenth chapter.
Likewiſe in his four books to Bonifacius, and every where in his ſix books againſt Julian, one of Pelagius his ſchollers.
Likewiſe in his firſt book of imperfect work againſt the ſame, chapter 48. 54. and 115.
Laſtly, in his ſecond book of imperfect work, chapter 120. and 180. To ſpare making more inſtances, the matter being notoriouſly known to any, who have the leaſt ſkill in the works of that worthy Father.
Now how eaſie had it been for Pelagius to anſwer this argument, by denying childrens Baptiſm to be a Church cuſtome, had not his conſcience been convinced of the truth thereof: How might he have rejoyned, Original ſin cannot be proved from the Baptizing of Infants, which is but a modern cuſtome, & an innovation in the Church of God. What the Sodomites ſaid of Lot, Gen. 19. 9. This one fellow came in to ſojourn and will he needs be a judg? may be ſaid of Infants Baptiſm: This cuſtome is new and novel, lately crept into the Chuch (as yet rather a ſojourner, then an inhabitant therein) and muſt this regulate matters in a judicial way, ſo that arguments muſt be deduced from the ſame? Beſides, I have been a Traveller, and have converſed with moſt Churches in Christendome, being born in Britaine (a little world by it ſelf;) I have been in the great world abroad: Jew and Gentile, Eaſt and Weſtern Churches have I obſerved: Hieruſalem that was, and Rome which is, ſo eminent for Religion, are places wherein I am well acquainted. This I know ſome Churches obſerve, others neglect, ſome uſe, others ſlight the Baptiſing of Infants. Nor can it be accounted a general cuſtom of the Church which is but local, and partial, in a word, both NEW and NARROW, as neither coming down from Christ, nor extended over all Chriſtendome.
But Pelagius endeavoured to evade S. Austins argument by another device; namely, by pleading that Baptiſm was admitted to Infants, not to waſh away their Original ſin, but to bring them to the kingdome of heaven. A fancy which he was the firſt, and (he and his) the laſt to maintain it.
The reſult of all is this; Seeing Pelagius was ſo great a ſchollar, knowing full well how to manage a bad cauſe to its beſt advantage; and ſeeing he was ſo great a Traveller, who had not eat his bread all in one place, but had roved up and down to know the cuſtomes of the Church, and yet feeing by his ſilence (urging nothing againſt it) and by his ſhifting (ſeeking otherwiſe to evade it) he acknowledgeth the truth of Infants Baptiſm; we conclude the ſame in his days received for an Ancient and Univerſal practice of the Church. For why ſhould he adventure the breaking of his bones, (or at leaſtwiſe the bruiſing of his fleſh) by leaping out of the window, who hath a wide door ſet open unto him? Why ſhould he make ſo poor and pittiful, ſo baſe and beggerly an eſcape, to avoid S. Auſtins argument againſt him (by forming a frivolous fancy of his own) who had a ful, free, and fair paſſage at pleaſure to go forth, durſt he but have denied the Baptizing of Infants to have been a general Church cuſtome in his time?
To conclude this point, the argument of Jephthah to the King of Ammon, carrieth great weight therewith, Judg. 11. 26. proving Iſraels right to the Land which they poſſeſt, and the Ammonites pretended unto: When Iſrael dwelt in Heſhbon, and her towns, and in Aroer and her towns, and in all the cities that be along by the coaſ…s of A…on three hundred years, why there fore did ye not recover them within that time?
In like manner may we urge it againſt the adverſaries of childrens Baptiſm. If the Ancient Church conceived the Baptizing of Infants an uſurpation, and incroachment, injurious and unlawful, why did not the Church of God in ſo long a time caſt out the cuſtome which made ſo unjuſt an invaſion therein? For S. Auſtin lived about the fift Century after Chriſt▪ when Pedo-baptiſm was in a peaceable paſſiſſion of Church practice, and Pelagius himſelf (ſufficiently impudent) was ſo modeſt and ingenious not to deny the ſame, though ſuch a denial had conduced much to his own advantage.
I have done, when I have told the Reader that S. Auſtin brought the Baptizing of Infants as an argument to prove Original ſin; and in our age (wherein Original ſin is on ought to be granted by all) we alledge the ſame as a reaſon to prove the neceſſity of Infants Baptiſm; and ſurely ſo ſolid is the argument reciprocally, that both may be firmly grounded on the ſame.