Part 27
It may be said, “If we resign this maxim, that a positive precept or duty excludes all moral reasoning, analogy and inference, we open a door to numberless innovations, and deprive ourselves of a necessary barrier against the encroachments of popery, &c.” In reply to this specious objection let it be observed,
1. That this maxim, whatever confidence our opponents place in it, is a very _insufficient_ barrier for the defence of truth, if the objection implies, that it is calculated to defend truth against error, and not error against truth as well. For it is notorious, that there is hardly any extravagance, in the whole compass of the distinguishing peculiarities of religious practice, that is not barricadoed by this very maxim. If _Protestants_ use it against Papists, _Papists_ in their turn use it against Protestants. If the Quakers are pursued and foiled when they occasionally quit this fort, they soon rally their controversial forces, and, entrenching themselves behind the strength of this maxim, become again victorious. Whence passive obedience and non-resistance? Whence an opposition to all _forensic_ swearing, in common with profane? Whence the Quakers’ nonconformity to what other serious Christians consider as lawful? Their peculiar mode of salutation and address? Their method of conducting religious worship? The little stress they lay on the observance of the christian Sabbath? &c. Whence the popish absurd figment of transubstantiation, apostolical succession, extreme unction? &c.—On the contrary,
2. Not to distinguish between the _positiveness_ and _morality_ of a precept, ordinance or duty, and not to ascertain their respective _degrees_; and to deny that the _latter_ distinction admits of moral reasoning, inference and analogy, open a wide door to _bigotry_, and numberless glaring abuses of the sacred oracles. By rejecting the analogy of faith and the _design_ of scripture herein, we give the most effectual encouragement to every senseless intrusion. And what is still more remarkable is, that the _more firmly_ any one adheres to the undistinguishing positive scheme, in reference to any christian ordinance whatever, the more closely will he be allied to the interest of genuine bigotry. For it has a direct tendency to make the unprescribed circumstances of a positive rite, _essential_ to the rite itself, and consequently to make that necessary and essential which the institutor has not made so. How far this is applicable to the antipædobaptist’s cause, will be further considered.—The doctrine that teaches the propriety of yielding our reason to positive institutions _as such_, or in the _degree_ they are so, is just and proper, as founded on the sovereign, absolute and manifest authority of the Supreme Legislator; and in this view it has been of singular service in refuting the cavils of deistical impiety. But to carry the principle any further, tends to betray the cause of christianity into the hands of infidels, and to breed unhallowed party zeal and uncharitable animosities among its sincerest professors. “For who are most likely to put weapons into the hands of _infidels_; they, who seem to discard _reason_ in the investigation of truth, or they, whose researches are founded on her most vigorous exertions, and most rational decisions?—They, who make scripture bow to their preconceived notions, in direct opposition to the dictates of reason and common sense, or they, whose arguments are founded on a _coalition_ of scripture and right reason?” Once more,
3. The objection, as it includes Mr. B.’s favourite maxim, and tends to oppose the distinction above stated, involves a great inconsistence with itself. For on what principle, except what they affect to discard, do our opponents retain _some_ of the positive rites of the New Testament and reject _others_? Why regard _baptism_ and the _eucharist_ as of standing obligation; while the _pedilavium_ and _feasts of charity_ (the _former_ enjoined expressly by our Lord, and _both_ practised by the disciples of the apostolic age, see John xiii. 14, 15. 1 Tim. v. 10. Jude 12.) are judged unworthy of continuance? Why receive _females_ to communion, or adopt the _first_ day of the week for the christian sabbath? How can they justify their conduct in these matters, these circumstances of _positive_ institutions, without undermining their own avowed hypothesis? With regard to the sabbath, indeed, the antipædobaptists are divided among themselves; while some are content with the _first_ day of the week, others observe the _seventh_. On this point Dr. S. is very open and ingenious; Mr. Addington appeals to an objecting antipædobaptist, “whether he does not think himself sufficiently authorized to keep the christian sabbath, though Christ has no where said in so many words, _Remember the first day of the week to keep it holy_?” To this the Dr. replies, “There is, I acknowledge, some weight in this objection: and all I can say to it is, that not having yet met with any passage in the New Testament that appears to me to have repealed the fourth commandment, and to have required the observation of the first day, I cannot think myself sufficiently authorized to renounce that, and to keep this.” If the doctor is professedly an observer of the Jewish sabbath, he is consistent with himself, however different from so great a part of the christian world; if _not_, he and his tenet are at variance: analogy and inferential reasoning have got the better of the positive system, which nevertheless must not be resigned, for fear of worse consequences.
Another objection much insisted on is, “If our Lord has left any thing to be _inferred_ relative to the _subject_ and _mode_ of baptism, being a positive institute; or if he has not delivered himself _expressly_ and _clearly_ in every thing, respecting the question _who_ are to be baptized, and the manner _how_; it implies a reflexion on his wisdom and goodness.” But this objection is impertinent on different accounts. For,
1. Its force is derived from the supposition that the Institutor was somehow _obliged_ to make his will known to men by _one_ method only. But is the Great Supreme under any such obligations to his absolutely dependent creatures? What should we say of a philosopher, who, having to judge of any important phenomenon in physics, should quarrel with the author of nature, because he had not confined his method of information to _one_ source only, to the exclusion of all others? That his evidence, for instance, was not confined to the information of _sense_, to the exclusion of _reason_ and _analogy_? Or what should we say of a person, who having to decide on the truth and reality of a miracle, should impeach the wisdom and goodness of his Maker, because he did not appeal to _one_ sense only of his dependent and unworthy creatures, that of _seeing_, for instance, to the exclusion of that of _hearing_? The answer is plain, and the application easy.
2. The objection is guilty of another impertinence, nearly allied to the former: it unreasonably requires _positive_ evidence for what is discoverable by _other_ means. It is demonstrable, and I think has been demonstrated, that the qualifications of the subjects of baptism (the _mode_ also will be examined in its place) is what cannot possibly be determined by any positive rule whatever as such, but must be resolved to the _discretionary_ nature of the commission, or the supposed _wisdom_ and _prudence_ of the administrators, in common with other parts of the same commission, such as the choice of an _audience_, the choice of a concionatory _subject_, &c. Preach the _gospel_ to _every creature_, is a part of the commission, but the execution has no _positive_ rule. Nor does this commission of preaching the _gospel_ prohibit preaching the _law_, for a lawful use, or any branch of natural religion, notwithstanding Mr. B.’s excluding standard, that “positive laws imply their negatives.” In like manner, the commission to baptize _believers_, and the _taught_, we contend and prove, does not mean to include _all sorts_ of believers and taught persons, but such of them as the administrators judge fit, according to the rules of christian prudence and discretion. And we further insist, as shall be more fully shewn hereafter, that the terms of the commission, _believers_ and _taught_, stand _opposed_, not to _non-believers_ and _untaught_, but to _unbelievers_ and persons _perversely ignorant_. What, therefore, falls _necessarily_ to the province of inferential reasoning, is impertinently referred to a positive standard.
3. The objection implies an _ungrateful_ reflexion on the Institutor’s wisdom and goodness, contrary to what it pretends to avoid. And this it does, by counteracting and vilifying those natural dictates of reason, prudence and common sense, that our all-wise and beneficent Creator has given us—his _goodness_, in not suspending their operations, but leaving them in full force, as to these circumstances of positive duties—his _wisdom_, in grafting what is positive of his laws on these common principles—and finally, the favourable circumstance of his diminishing the degree of positiveness in New Testament institutions, as well as their number.
Let us now recapitulate what has been said in this chapter—From an investigation of the _nature_ of positive precepts and duties, as distinguished from _moral_ ones, together with their _comparative_ obligations and importance, we have seen, that, in any case of supposed competition, the _latter_ claims an undoubted _preference_. We have also seen, that nothing but absolute, decisive, _discernible authority_ can turn the scale in favor of the _former_, or, indeed, place any law or duty in the rank of POSITIVE. Moreover, it has been shewn, that every duty resulting from any discernible _moral relation_, must needs be classed among _moral duties_; that some things appertaining to the very _essence_ of baptism, on our opponents’ own principles, are of moral consideration; particularly the qualifications of proper subjects; consequently, that baptism is an ordinance of a _mixed nature_, partly positive and partly moral. Of all which an unavoidable consequence is, that our opponents’ outcry against all _moral_ and _analogical reasons_ in our enquiries respecting the subjects and mode of baptism, is impertinent and absurd, and to a demonstration contradictory to their own avowed principles.
DR. WILLIAMS ON BAPTISM.
Footnote 77:
The commission to disciples _baptizing all nations_ is both a positive and express authority for the baptism of the infants of such as are themselves discipled.
Footnote 78:
_See his works: vol. II. pag. 1129, 1132, 1133._
Footnote 79:
_Vid. Just. Martyr, Quest. & Resp. Quest. CII. & ejusd. Apol. II._
Footnote 80:
_Vid. Cyp. in Epist. ad Fid. Lib. iii. Epi. viii._
Footnote 81:
_Vid. Iren. Lib. ii. xxxix._
Footnote 82:
_Vid. Ejusd. Orat. xl._
Footnote 83:
_Vid. Augustin. de peccat. merit. & remiss. Lib. i. Cap. xxviii. parvulos baptizandos esse concedunt qui contra autoritatem universæ ecclesiæ proculdubio per dominum, & Apostolos traditam venire non possunt; and in Sermon. x. de verbis Apostol, speaking concerning infant-baptism, he says, Nemo vobis susurret doctrinas alienas. Hoc ecclesia semper habuit. semper tenuit; hoc a majorum fide percepit: hoc usque in finem perseveranter custodit._
Footnote 84:
_Vid. Tertul. Lib. de Baptism, Cap. xviii._
Footnote 85:
It is very remarkable, that in those ages and countries, _where_ the _mode_ of dipping has been, or still is, the most prevalent, _there infant-baptism_ has been the most generally practised, and _there_ the _mode_ of baptizing has not been deemed essential. Instead, therefore, of finding _all_ these people Baptists, but _very few, if any_, of that denomination, are to be found among them. Dr. Wall, who was himself an advocate for dipping, tells us, “that all christians in the world, _who never owned the pope’s authority_, do now, and ever did, dip their infants, in the ordinary use.” They always baptized their infants; and, ordinarily, by dipping, but not universally, for they, occasionally, sprinkled them. The mode of dipping was of ordinary use; but the practice of infant-baptism, in those churches who _were never under the influence of popery_, appears to have been _universal_, both in ancient and modern times.
We do not pretend to rest the proof of infants’ right to baptism upon historical evidence, relative to the ancient practice of the church in this respect. However, if it should appear, that the churches, soon after the apostles, did admit the infant children of believing parents to baptism—if no account can be produced, of any church that rejected them—if no individual can be named, who pretended that the practice was unlawful, or an innovation—these facts will certainly furnish a very weighty argument in favour of the aforesaid doctrine.
Baptism is an important transaction of a public nature. Those christians, who lived and wrote in the earliest times after the apostles, must have known what _their_ practice was, with reference to the infant children of believers. The testimony of these ancient writers, as historians or witnesses, respecting this plain matter of fact, justly claims our most impartial and attentive consideration. It is not, however, my intention to write a complete history of infant-baptism. A history of this kind has been written a century ago, by Dr. Wall, a very correct and judicious historian. This history is highly approved and recommended by the best judges, being a work of great merit, candour and impartiality.
On February 9th, 1705, the clergy of England, assembled in general convention, “_ordered_, that the thanks of this house be given to Mr. Wall, vicar of Shoreham in Kent, for the learned and excellent book he hath lately written concerning infant-baptism; and that a committee be appointed to acquaint him with the same.” Dr. Atterbury, a leading member in said convention, says, “that the history of infant-baptism was a book, for which the author deserved the thanks, not of the English clergy alone, but of all the Christian churches.” Mr. Whiston also, a very learned man, well acquainted with the writings of the Fathers of the four first centuries, and a professed Baptist, in his address to the people of that denomination, declares to them, “that Dr. Wall’s history of _infant-baptism_, as to facts, appeared to him most accurately done, and might be depended on by the Baptists themselves.” _Mem. of his life_, part 2, page 461.
The aforesaid history is still extant in two volumes. The same author has since published another volume, which is a defence of the two former volumes, against the reflections of Dr. Gale and others. In these publications, he has favoured us with the testimony and sayings of the ancient Fathers, with respect to infant-baptism, a few of which I shall produce, as authorities on the present occasion.
Justin Martyr, who wrote about forty years after the apostolic age, says, “We have not received the carnal but spiritual circumcision, by baptism. And it is enjoined on all persons to receive it in the same way.” He here evidently considers baptism as being in the place of circumcision, and, consequently, like that ancient rite, designed for infants as well as for adults. In one of his apologies for the christians, he observes, “Several persons among us, of sixty or seventy years old, who were made disciples to Christ from their childhood, do continue uncorrupt.”—_Who were made disciples._—Take notice; for he makes use of the very same word that was used in the commission given to the apostles. _Disciple all nations, baptizing them_, &c. Now, if infant children were made disciples, they were undoubtedly baptized. Justin wrote about 105 years after the ascension of Christ. Those persons whom he mentions were then 70 years old; and consequently born and made disciples, in the times of the apostles.
Irenæus, who wrote about sixty-seven years after the apostles, and was then an aged man, says, concerning Christ, “he came to save all persons who by him are regenerated (or baptized) unto God, _infants_, little ones, youths and elderly persons.” He speaks of _infants_ and _little ones_ as being regenerated. It is evident from his own words that he had reference to their baptism; for he tells us, “When Christ gave his apostles the command of _regenerating_ unto God, he said, go and teach all nations _baptizing_ them.” The ancient Fathers as customarily used the word regeneration for baptism, as the church of England now use the word christening. Justin Martyr, whose name and testimony we have already mentioned, speaking of some particular persons who had been baptized, says, “they are regenerated in the same way of regeneration, in which we have been regenerated, for they are _washed with water in the_ name of the Father, and of the Son, and of _the Holy Ghost_.” In this short sentence, the word regeneration, or regenerated, is put for baptism no less than three times.
It is a matter of _no_ importance in the present dispute, whether the primitive Fathers used the aforesaid word properly or improperly. We certainly know in what sense they did use it, and this is all the information needed. I would however repeat a former observation, viz. that by a common figure, the thing signified is often substituted for the sign, and the sign for the thing signified. Thus, the Abrahamic covenant is sometimes put, by God himself, for circumcision; and circumcision, the sign and token thereof, is sometimes put for the covenant. Accordingly, baptism has been put for regeneration; and regeneration, for baptism.
We have already shown, that the Jews were in the habit of baptizing the Gentile proselytes, even before the time of John and of Christ. They considered these proselytes as being, by baptism, born the children of Abraham; and therefore expressed their baptism, by regeneration. Accordingly, Christ and his apostles, on some particular occasions, adopted a similar language. Our Saviour said to Nicodemus, _except one be born again—except he be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God_. By this new birth, Christ evidently had reference to water baptism, as truly as to the renewing of the Holy Ghost. The apostle Paul styles baptism, _the washing of regeneration_. The ancients commonly expressed baptism with water, by regeneration; for they considered this external sacrament as a sign of internal, spiritual renovation and purification, Irenæus expressly calls baptism regeneration, and says that _infants_ were _regenerated_, that, is baptized. His testimony is plain and full; and cannot be doubted by any person acquainted with the phraseology and writings of the Fathers. He mentions not only old persons and youths, but also little ones, and even infants. This Irenæus was bishop of Lyons in France. According to Mr. Dodwell, he was born before the death of St. John—was brought up in Asia, where that apostle had lived and died. He was acquainted with Polycarp; and in his younger years, had often heard him preach. Polycarp was John’s disciple, had been chosen by him to be bishop of Smyrna—and probably that angel of the church, so highly commended in the 2d chapter of Rev. Irenæus, and those Christians who lived in an age so near the apostles, and in a place where one of them had so lately resided, could not be ignorant—they must have known what the apostolic practice was, with respect to infant-baptism—a matter of the most notorious and public nature.
Dr. Lathrop observes, “that Tertullian, who flourished about one hundred years after the apostles, gives a plain testimony, that the church admitted infants to baptism in his time. It is true, he advises to _delay_ their baptism; not because it was _unlawful_, for he allows of it in cases of necessity; but because the _sponsors_ were often brought into a snare; and because he imagined that sins, committed _after baptism_, were next to unpardonable. He accordingly advises that unmarried persons be kept from this ordinance, until they either marry or are confirmed in continence. His advising to a delay, supposes that infant-baptism was practised, for otherwise there would have been no room for the advice. He does not speak of it as an _innovation_, which he would certainly have done, had it _begun_ to have been practised in his time. His words rather imply the contrary. His speaking of _sponsors_, who engaged for the education of the infants that were baptized, shows that there had been such a custom. And his asking, ‘why that innocent age _made such haste_ to baptism,’ supposes that infants had usually been baptized, soon after their birth. So that he fully enough witnesses to the _fact_, that it had been the practice of the church to baptize infants. And his advice to delay their baptism, till they were grown up and married, was one of those odd and singular notions for which this father was very remarkable.”
This quotation agrees well with the account given of Tertullian, by Dr. Wall and other approved writers. Tertullian was evidently a man of abilities and learning, and in some respects an useful writer. His integrity and veracity were never questioned. But as has been hinted, he held to some strange and peculiar notions. He was not deemed perfectly orthodox by the ancient Christians. Being a person of warm imagination, he expressed himself, very strongly, on different subjects, at different times; and some have thought, in a manner that was not consistent. Some of the later Baptists have even pretended that he denied infant-baptism. But these considerations do not disqualify him as a witness in the present case. Instead of invalidating, they serve to confirm his testimony.