Part 28

Dr. Gill says, that Tertullian is the first man who _mentions_ infant-baptism, and speaks against it; and infers that it had not come into use before his time. To this, Mr. Clark, in his answer, replies, “So he is the first man, I suppose, that mentions the baptism of unmarried people, virgins, and widows, and speaks against it, and as earnestly pleads for its delay till the danger of temptation is past; till marriage, or the abatement of lust. But will it thence follow, that the baptism of such unmarried persons did not obtain in the church till Tertullian’s time? Or that it then first began to be in use? Our author might as reasonably have inferred the latter opinion, as the former. But the very words, in which he expresses his advice against baptizing infants, plainly imply that it was a common practice. After all, what is it that Tertullian has said against infant-baptism? He has given it as his judgment, that it would be more profitable to defer their baptism, until they come to riper years, and were able to understand something of its nature and design; but he does not like the anti-pædobaptists, condemn it as unlawful; which he would have done, if it had been a novel practice—an innovation, contrary to the rule of scripture, or without the approbation or direction of the apostles. On the contrary, he allows it in case of necessity, of sickness, and danger of death. Dr. Gill, instead of saying, that Tertullian was the first man who mentioned infant-baptism, and spoke against it, ought to have said, that he was the _only man_, in all antiquity, whose writings have come down to us, who has said any thing at all against the practice of baptizing infants.” The very advice, however, which he gave, plainly shows, that infant-baptism was then commonly practised. He does not intimate, that the practice was of human invention, or not authorized by the apostles. His private opinion, with respect to the expediency of delaying baptism in several cases, and the reasons which he offered, are nothing to us. We have only cited him as a voucher to an ancient fact; and the testimony which he has given affords clear and incontestable proof of said fact, viz. that infants were baptized in his times.

Origen, who flourished in the beginning of the third century, and was for some time contemporary with Tertullian, in his 8th homily on Levit. 12, observes, “David, speaking concerning the pollution of infants, says, _I was conceived in iniquity, and in sin did my mother bring me forth_. Let it be considered what is the reason, that whereas the baptism of the church is given for forgiveness, infants also, by the usage of the church, are baptized; when if there were nothing in infants, which wanted forgiveness and mercy, the grace of baptism would be needless to them. And again, infants are baptized for the remission of sin. Of what sin? Or when have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the laver hold good in their case? But according to that sense before mentioned, none is free from pollution, though his life be only the length of one day upon the earth. It is for this reason that infants are baptized, because by the sacrament of baptism, our pollution is taken away.” In another treatise, he says, “the church had a tradition, or command from the apostles, to give baptism to infants! for they, to whom the divine mysteries were committed, knew that there is, in all persons, the natural pollution of sin, which ought to be washed away by water and the spirit; by reason of which pollution, the body itself is also called _the body of sin_, &c. &c.”

These testimonies of Origen are full and unequivocal. They put the matter in debate beyond all reasonable doubt, if any credit can be given to them; and no reason appears, why they should not be credited. It is true, they are taken from Latin translations. Origen wrote in the Greek language. But the fidelity of the translators and authenticity of these passages, have been sufficiently vindicated by Dr. Wall, even to the entire satisfaction of all impartial enquirers. None will object, but those persons who are disposed to cavil.

I perceive that you have admitted the aforesaid facts; but have made an unusual outcry against the tradition and order from the apostles, mentioned by Origen. There is, I suspect, more policy and popularity in your remarks, than real weight. It will not do for us to turn those weapons against the ancient Fathers and holy apostles, which the protestants have used with so much success, in their disputes with the Papists.

Let us hear what St. Paul says, with respect to traditions. 2 Thess. ii. 15. “Therefore, brethren, _stand fast, and hold the traditions_ which ye have been taught, whether _by word_, or our epistle.” And in the 3d chap. 6th verse, he says, “Now we _command_ you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the _tradition_ which he received of us.” So also in 1 Corin. 11th chap. 2d verse. “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the _ordinances_ (the _traditions_, paradoseis) as I delivered them to you.” The apostle was here speaking of christian ordinances, which he calls _traditions_. The original word signifies _traditions_, and is so rendered by our translators in the other aforecited passages.

Thus, sir, you see in what a solemn manner—_in the name of Christ_, the holy apostle charged the primitive christians, _to hold and keep the_ traditions—not merely such as had been written by the pen of inspiration, but also those which were delivered to them _by word_, or in an oral and verbal manner, and with particular reference to the rules and ordinances of the gospel. The traditions and commandments of mere men, which pretend to divine authority, are to be rejected. But those traditions are not to be treated with sneer and ridicule, which were delivered by the apostles to the primitive christians—recorded and authenticated by the ancient Fathers—and transmitted down to us, by the faithful historian.

Origen has expressly informed us, that infant-baptism was practised in his time. With respect to this matter of fact, Origen was certainly a competent witness; and he had every opportunity, and advantage for knowing what had been the practice of his predecessors and even of the apostles. Many of the ancient Fathers were illiterate, and descended from heathen parents; and being the first of their family who embraced christianity, must have been baptized when adults. But Origen was one of the most learned men of the age. He was born and educated at Alexandria in Egypt, but travelled into Rome, and Greece, and Capadocia, and Arabia. He resided for some time in several of the most eminent churches, and spent the greatest part of his life in Syria and Palestine. His ancestors were christians. Eusebius tells us, that his forefathers had been christians, for several generations. His father was martyred, in the persecution under Severus.

It is very remarkable, that his pedigree should have been so accurately ascertained. The occasion was this: Porphyry, a great enemy to christianity, had represented the christians as being an ignorant people, destitute of science; but not being able to conceal the repute of Origen, for his uncommon skill in human literature, pretended that he had been at first a heathen, and had learned their philosophy. In order to confute this falsehood, Eusebius enquired into his ancestry, and set forth his christian descent.

Origen was born in the year of our Lord 185, that is, eighty-five years after the apostles. He was seventeen years old when his father suffered martyrdom. He had himself, undoubtedly, been baptized in his infancy; and must have been informed concerning the practice of the apostles, respecting the baptizing of infants; for his grandfather, or at least his great-grandfather, lived in the apostolic times, and they both were christians. This is the man, who has expressly declared, that infants were baptized in his day, and that the church was directed by an order or tradition from the apostles, to baptize them. His circumstances were such as afforded him all the necessary and suitable means for obtaining information. We have no reason to suspect his credibility as a witness; and nothing can be more unreasonable, than to reject or treat his testimony with contempt. It is a circumstance worthy of our _very particular notice_, that Origen and the other ancient Fathers do not speak of infant-baptism as being a practice that was denied or opposed by any one. They mention it as a practice generally known and approved, and for the purpose of illustrating and confirming other points that were then disputed.

I shall now produce the testimony of the blessed martyr Cyprian, who was for some time contemporary with Origen; and next to him, the most noted Christian writer of that age. Cyprian was constituted bishop or minister of Carthage, in the year 248, and Origen died in the year 252. The testimony of this ancient saint, to which I now have an immediate reference, was occasioned by a question proposed to him, by one Fidus, a _presbyter_, or minister in the country, viz. Whether _an infant might be baptized before he was eight days old_? The reason of his doubt, it seems, was an article in the law respecting circumcision, which, under the Old Testament dispensation, required that infants should be circumcised on the eighth day from their birth. Pursuant to the aforesaid question, an ecclesiastical council of sixty-six bishops, having convened at Carthage, A. D. 253, Cyprian proposed a resolution of the following import, viz. “that an infant might be baptized on the second or third day, or at any time after its birth; and that circumcision, besides being a sacramental rite, had something in it of a typical nature; and particularly, in the circumstance of being administered on the eighth day, which ceased at the coming of Christ, who has given us baptism, the spiritual circumcision; in which ordinance, we are not thus restricted, with respect to the age or time of administration.” To this resolution the council agreed unanimously; as it appears from the testimony of Cyprian in his epistle to Fidus, from which I shall extract a few paragraphs, in order to show the sentiments of those venerable and ancient saints relative to infant-baptism.—The inscription is as follows:

“Cyprian and the rest of the colleagues, who are present in council, in number sixty-six, to Fidus our brother,

“Greeting.

“As to the case of infants, whereas _you judge that they must not be baptized within two or three days after they are born; and that the law of the ancient circumcision is to be observed; so that you think none should be baptized and sanctified, until the eighth day after their birth_; we were all in our assembly of a quite different opinion. For in this matter, with respect to that which you thought fitting to be done, there was not one of your mind. But all of us rather judged, that the grace and mercy of God is not to be denied to any person born. For whereas our Lord in his gospel, _the Son of Man came not to destroy men’s souls_ (or lives) _but to save them_.—That the eighth day, appointed to be observed in the Jewish circumcision, was a type going before in a shadow, or resemblance, but on Christ’s coming was fulfilled in the substance; for because the eighth day, that is the next after the Sabbath, was to be the day on which the Lord was to rise from the dead, and quicken us, and give us the spiritual circumcision. This eighth day, that is, the next to the Sabbath, or the Lord’s day, went before in the type, which type ceased when the substance came, and the spiritual circumcision was given to us. So that we judge, no person is to be hindered from obtaining the grace, (that is _of baptism_) by the law which is now established; and that the spiritual circumcision ought not to be restrained by the circumcision which was according to the flesh; but that all are to be admitted to the grace of Christ; since Peter, speaking in the Acts of the apostles, says, _the Lord hath shown me that no person is to be called common or unclean_. This, therefore, dear brother, was our opinion in the assembly, that it is not for us to hinder any person from baptism, and from the grace of God, who is merciful, and kind, and affectionate to all. Which rule, as it holds for all, so we think it is more especially to be observed in reference to infants, and those that are newly born, to whom our help and the divine mercy is rather to be granted, because by their weeping and wailing at their first entrance into the world, they do intimate nothing so much as that they implore compassion,” &c.

Saint Ambrose, who wrote about 274 years after the apostles, declares expressly, “that infant-baptism was practised in his time, and in the time of the apostles.”

Saint Chrysostom observes, “that persons may be baptized either in their infancy, in middle age, or in old age.”—He tells us, infants were baptized, although they had no sin; and that the sign of the cross was made upon their foreheads at baptism.—Saint Hierome says, “if infants be not baptized, the sin of omitting their baptism is laid to the parent’s charge.”—Saint Austin, who wrote at the same time, about 280 years after the apostles, speaks “of infant-baptism as one of those practices which was not _instituted by any council_, but had _always_ been in use.” The _whole church of Christ_, he informs us, _had constantly held_ that infants were baptized for the forgiveness of sin.—That he “had _never read or heard_ of _any Christian, Catholic_ or _sectary_, who held otherwise.”—“That no christian, of any sort, ever denied it to be useful or necessary.” “If any one,” saith he, “should ask for divine authority in this matter, though that, which the whole church practises, and which has not been instituted by councils, but was ever in use, may be believed, very reasonably, to be a thing delivered or ordered by the apostles, yet we may, besides, take a true estimate, how much the sacrament of baptism does avail infants, by the circumcision which God’s former people received.”

No one of these ancient Fathers ever wrote directly in favour of, or against, infant-baptism. In their various discourses and writings, they often mention it, occasionally and transiently, when discoursing on some other subject.—They mention it as a general practice of universal notoriety, about which there was no controversy, in order to confute some prevailing heresy, or establish certain doctrines, that were then disputed. Similar testimonies might easily be produced from the writings of many other ancient witnesses, but this would unnecessarily add to the prolixity of the present work. I will therefore conclude, by stating very briefly, the incontestible and conclusive evidence in proof of infant-baptism, arising out of the well-known Pelagian controversy respecting original sin, which happened about three hundred years after the apostles.

Pelagius held, that infants were born free from any natural and sinful defilements. The chief opposers of him and his adherents were Saint Hierome, and Saint Austin, who constantly urged, very closely, in all their writings upon the subject, the following argument, viz. “_That infants are, by all christians, acknowledged to stand in need of baptism, which must be in them for original sin, since they have no other_.” “If they have no sin, why are they then baptized, according to the rule of the church, _for the forgiveness of sins? Why are they washed in the laver of regeneration, if they have no pollution?_” Pelagius, and also Celestius, one of his principal abettors, were extremely puzzled and embarrassed with this argument. They knew not how to evade or surmount its force, but by involving themselves in greater absurdities and difficulties. Some persons aggravated the supposed error, by charging upon them the denial of infant-baptism, as a consequence that followed from their tenet. Pelagius disclaimed the slanderous imputation with abhorrence, declaring that he was accused falsely. In the confession of faith, Pelagius then exhibited, which Dr. Wall has recited, he owns, “_that baptism ought to be administered to infants, with the same sacramental words which are used in the case of adult persons_.”—He vindicates himself in the strongest terms, saying, “_that men slander him as if he denied the sacrament of baptism to infants, and did promise the kingdom of heaven to any person without the redemption of Christ; and affirms that he never heard of any, not even the most impious heretic, that would say such a thing of infants_.” Now these difficulties would have been instantly removed, and the battery, which so greatly annoyed them, been demolished at once, by only denying that infants were to be baptized. But they did not suggest or entertain any doubt at all respecting this doctrine. Pelagius readily avowed, in the most explicit manner, the incontested right, and the established immemorial practice of infant-baptism. Celestius also confessed, “that infants were to be baptized according to the _rule of the universal church_.”

One of these men was born and educated in Britain, and the other in Ireland. They both lived a long time at Rome, the centre of the world and place to which all people resorted. Celestius settled at Jerusalem, and Pelagius travelled over all the principal churches of Europe, Asia and Africa. If there had been any number of churches, or a single church, in any part of the world, not only in that but in the two preceding ages, who denied the baptism of infants, these learned, sagacious persons must have known or heard of it; and certainly they would have mentioned it, in order to check the triumph of their opponents, and to wrest from them that argument, by which, above all others, they were most grievously pressed. It is evident there was no society of Baptists then in the world, nor had there been any of that denomination, within the memory of man. The confession of Pelagius and Celestius amounts almost to demonstration. It proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, that infant-baptism had universally obtained, and had always been practised among christians, even from the apostolic times.

Dr. Wall, who enjoyed the best advantages for being acquainted with the history of infant-baptism, and who made this the principal subject of his studies and enquiries, briefly sums up the evidence on both sides, in the following words: “Lastly, for the first four hundred years, there appears only one man, Tertullian, who advised the _delay_ of infant-baptism in some cases, and one Gregory, who did _perhaps_ practise such _delay_ in the case of his own children; but no society of men so thinking or so practising; or any one man saying it was unlawful to baptize infants. So in the next seven hundred years, there is not so much as _one_ man to be found, who either spoke for or practised any such delay, but all the contrary. And when about the year 1130, one sect among the Waldenses or Albigenses declared against the baptizing of infants, _as being incapable of salvation_, the main body of that people rejected their opinion; and they of them who held that opinion, quickly dwindled away and disappeared, there being no more persons heard of, holding that tenet, until the rising of the German anti-pædobaptists in the year 1522.”

REED’S APOLOGY.

Footnote 86:

_See Wall’s History of Infant-Baptism, Part II. page 52-86._

Footnote 87:

_They that would see more on this subject may consult G. J. Voss, de baptismo disput. xiv. Forbes. instruct. hist. theol. Lib. x. cap. v. and Wall’s history of infant-baptism, vol. I._

Footnote 88:

See Dr. Owen’s complete Collection of Sermons, page 580, 581. of dipping; in which he observes, that βαπτω, when used in these scriptures, Luke xvi. 24. and John xiii. 26. is translated to _dip_; and in Rev. xix. 13. where we read of a _vesture dipped in blood_; it is better rendered _stained_, by sprinkling blood upon it; and all these scriptures denote only a touching one part of the body, and not plunging. In other authors, it signifies, _tingo_, _immergo_, _lavo_, _abluo_; but in no author it ever signifies to dip, but only in order to washing, or as the means of washing. As for the Hebrew word טבל, rendered, by the LXX. in Gen. xxxvii. 31. by μολύνω, _to stain by sprinkling_, or otherwise mostly by βαπτω: In 2 Kings v. 14. they render it by βαπτιζω, and no where else: In ver. 10. Elisha commands Naaman to _wash_; and accordingly, ver. 14. pursuant to this order, it is said, he _dipped himself seven times_; the word is ויטבל; which the LXX. render εβαπτισατω; and in Exod. xii. 22. where the word טבל is used, which we render _dip_, speaking concerning the dipping the bunch of hyssop in the blood, the LXX. render it by the word βαπτω: And, in I Sam. xiv. 27; it is said, that Jonathan dipped the end of his rod in an honey-comb; the word here is also ויטבל, and the LXX. render it εβαψεν; in which place it cannot be understood of his dipping it by plunging: And in Lev. iv. 6. 17. and chap. ix. 9. the priest is said to dip his finger in the blood, which only intends his touching the blood, so as to sprinkle it; and therefore does not signify plunging.

This learned author likewise observes, that βαπτιζω signifies to wash; as instances out of all authors may be given; and he particularly mentions Suidas, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, and Phavorinus and Eustachius. And he further adds, that it is first used in the scripture, in Mark i. 8. John i. 33. and to the same purpose, Acts i. 5. in which place it signifies to pour; for the expression is equivocal; _I baptize you with water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost_: which is an accomplishment of that promise, that _the Holy Ghost should be poured on them_. As for other places, in Mark vii. 2. 4. νίπτω, which signifies to _wash_, and is so translated, is explained in the words immediately following, as signifying _to baptize_. And, in Luke xi. 38. it is said, that the Pharisee marvelled that our Saviour had not _washed before dinner_: The word in the Greek is ἐβαπτισθη, to whom he replies in the following verse, _Ye Pharisees make clean the outside_, &c. so that the word, βαπτιζω signifies there to _cleanse_, or to use the means of cleansing.