Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

that ordinance. Let this Gentleman, if he can, produce any thing out of thofe writings of Origen, in favour of infant baptifm; the paffage Dr Wallh refers to has not a fyllable of it, nor any reference to it; and though he supposes Jerom muft fome where or other have read it in his writings, what Jerom fays' supposes no fuch thing; fince the paffage only speaks of Origen's opinion of fins in a pre-existent state, being forgiven in baptism, but not a word of the baptism of infants, or of their fins being forgiven them in their baptifm: and now where is the clear teftimony of the great Origen, not only for the practice of infant-baptism in his own days, but for the continual use of it all along from the time of the apostles? and where is our author's vaunt of the fuperior antiquity of infant-baptifm to infant-communion? which, as we shall see presently, began together.

Cyprian is the next, and the only remaining writer of this century, quoted in favour of infant-baptism; who lived about the middle of it, and is the first pleader for it that we know of. We allow it was practised in his time in the African churches, where it was first moved; and at the fame time infant-communion was practised also, of which we have undoubted and incontestable evidence; and it is but reasonable that if infants have a right to one ordinance, they should be admitted to the other; and if antiquity is of any weight in the matter, it is as early for the one as for the other: but though infant-baptifm now began to be practised, it appears to be a novel-business; not only the time of its administration being undetermined; which made Fidus, a country bishop, who had a doubt about adminiftering it before the eighth day, apply to the council under Cyprian for the refolution of it; but the exceeding weakness of the arguments then made use of for baptizing new-born infants, of which the present Pædobaptists must be ashamed, fhew that Pædobaptifm was then in its infantState: the arguments used by Cyprian and his brethren for it, were taken from the grace of God being given to all men; and from the equality of the gift to all; and this proved from the fpiritual equality of the bodies of infants and adultperfons; and both from the prophet Elisha's stretching himself on the Shunamite's child; they argue the admiffion of all to baptism from the words of Peter, who fays he was fhewn, that nothing is to be called common or unclean; and reason, that infants ought to be more easily admitted than grown persons, because they have lefs guilt; and their weeping and crying are to be interpreted. praying; yea, they fuggeft that baptifm gives grace, and that a person is loft. without it but that it may appear I do not wrong them, I will tranfcribe their own words; and that as they are tranflated by Dr Wall, fo far as they relate to this matter: "All of us judged that the grace and mercy of God is to be denied

Comment. in Matt. p. 391, 392.

! Adv. Pelag. 1. 3. fol. 102. tom. 2.

66 to

[ocr errors]

"to no person that is born; for whereas our Lord in his gospel says, the Son of Man came not to destroy mens fouls, (or lives) but to fave them; as far as lies “in us, no foul, if poffible, is to be loft. The fcripture gives us to under"ftand the equality of the divine gift on all, whether infants or grown perfons: Elifha, in his prayer to God, ftretched himself on the infant-fon of the Shuna"mite woman, that lay dead, in fuch manner, that his head, and face, and "limbs, and feet, were applied to the head, face, limbs, and feet of the child; "which, if it be understood according to the quality of our body and nature, "the infant would not hold measure with that grown man, nor his limbs fit "to reach to his great ones; but in that place a fpiritual equality, and fuch "as is in the esteem of God, is intimated to us; by which perfons that are "once made by God are alike and equal; and our growth of body by age, "makes a difference in the fenfe of the world, but not of God; unless you "will think that the grace itself which is given to baptized perfons, is greater "or lefs according to the age of those that receive it; whereas the holy Spirit " is given, not by different measures, but with a fatherly affection and kind"ness, equal to all; for God, as he accepts no one perfon, so not his age; "but with a juft equality fhews himself a Father to all, for their obtaining "the heavenly grace-fo that we judge that no perfon is to be hindered from "the obtaining the grace by the law that is now appointed; and that the fpi"ritual circumcifion ought not to be restrained by the circumcifion that was "according to the flesh; but that all are to be admitted to the grace of Chrift; "fince Peter, fpeaking in the Acts of the Apoftles, fays, the Lord has shewn me, "that no perfon is to be called common or unclean. If any thing could be an ob"stacle to perfons against their obtaining the grace, the adult, and grown, "and elder men, would be rather hindered by their more grievous fins. If "then the graceless offender, and those that have grievously finned against "God before, have, when they afterwards come to believe, forgiveness of "their fins; and no perfon is kept off from baptism and the grace; how much "less reason is there to refufe an infant, who, being newly born, has no fin, "fave the being defcended from Adam according to the flesh: he has from his very birth contracted the contagion of the death antiently threatened; "who comes, for this reafon, more eafily to receive forgiveness of fins, because they are not his own, but others fins that are forgiven him. This therefore, "dear brother, was our opinion in the affembly, that it is not for us to hinder "any man from baptifm and the grace of God, who is merciful and kind and " affectionate to all; which rule, as it holds for all, fo we think it more efpe"cially to be observed in reference to infants, and perfons 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 in"timate nothing fo much as that they implore compaffion *."

Every one that compares what Cyprian and his collegues fay for infant-baptifm, and what Tertullian fays againft it, as before related, will eafily fee a difference between them, between Tertullian the Antipædobaptift, and Cyprian the Pædobaptift; how manly and nervous the one! how mean and weak the other! no doubt, as is known, being raifed about infant-baptifm at this time, or any objection made to it, does not prove it then to be an ancient cuftom; fince the fame obfervation, which may be made, would prove infant-communion to be equally the fame. Now as we allow that henceforward infant-baptifm was practifed in the African churches, and prevailed in

The fourth century, here the controverfy might ftop: and indeed all that we contend for in this century, is only that there were fome perfons that did call it in question and oppofe it; and if this will not be allowed, we are not very anxious about it, and fhall not think it worth while to conteft it.This writer would have it obferved, that I have given up the greatest lights of the church in this century as vouchers for infant-baptifm, and particularly St Jerom, Ruffinus, and Auguftin; they are welcome to them; they have need of them to enlighten them in this dark affair: we do not envy their having them, especially that perfidious interpolater Ruffinus; nor that arch-heretic Pelagius, whom this Gentleman takes much pains to retain, as ignorant as he either was, or would be, or is thought to be; as that he never heard that any one whatever denied baptifm to infants, and promised the kingdom of heaven without the redemption of Chrift, or refufed that unto them. This ignorance. of his was either affected or pretended, in order to clear himfelf from the charge of those things against him; as men generally do run into high ftrains and extravagant expreffions, when they are at fuch work; or it was real ignorance, and who can help that? It does not follow that therefore none had, because he had never heard of it; one would think his meaning rather was, that he had never heard of any that denied the kingdom of heaven and the common redemption to infants, who think they ought to be baptized, dum putat, while he is of opinion, that in baptism they are regenerated in Chrift; but about this I shall not contend; truth does not depend upon his hearing and knowledge, judgment and obfervation. I think it is not infifted upon that Austin should fay, he never heard or read of any catholic, heretic, or fchifmatic, that denied infant-baptifmi; however, it seems he could fay it if he did not, and that notwithstanding the reasons I alledged; as,

VOL. II.

3 F

1. Austin

* Cyprian. ad Fidum. Ep. 59. p. 317.

1. Austin must know that Tertullian had oppofed it. Here our author quibbles about the terms oppofing and denying, and diftinguishes between them; and obferves, that whatever Tertullian faid against it, he did not properly deny it. He may say the fame of me, or any other writer against infant-baptifm, that though we speak against it, contradict and oppofe it, and ufe arguments against it, yet we do not deny it. Dr Wall indeed thinks neither Austin nor Pelagius had feen Tertullian's book of baptifm, or they could not have faid what he thinks they did.

2. Austin prefided at the council of Carthage, when a canon was made that anathematized those who denied baptifm to new-born infants; and therefore must know there were fome that denied it. This Gentleman fays, it is demonstrably certain, that this canon was not made against persons that denied infantbaptifm, because it was made against Pelagius and Celeftius. It is true, the latter part of the canon was made against them; but the former part respected a notion or tenet of fome other perfons, who denied baptism to new-born infants. Dr Wall faw this, and fays, this canon mentions the baptifm of infants, condemning two errors about it; the one respecting the baptifm of new-born infants; the other the doctrine of original fin, and the baptifm of infants for forgiveness of fins, denied by the Pelagians; but the former he fuppofes was the opinion of Fidus, embraced by fome perfons now, which he had vented a hundred and fifty years before, that infants fhould not be baptized till they were eight days old; whereas Fidus is reprefented as having been alone in his opinion; and if he retained it, which is doubtful, it does not appear he had any followers; nor is there any evidence of there being any of his fentiment in this age'; and were there, it is unreasonable to imagine, that a council of all the bishops in Africa should agree to anathematize them, because they thought proper to defer the baptizing of infants a few days longer than they did; and befides, infants only eight days old may be properly called newly-born infants; and therefore fuch could not be faid to deny baptism to them; and it would have been a marvellous thing, had they been anathematized for it: though this writer fays, "wonder who will; a council, confifting of all the bishops of Africa, did in "fact agree to anathematize their own brethren, who were in the fame opinion "and practice of infant-baptifm with themselves." It is true, they did anathematize the Pelagians, who were in the fame opinion and practice of infantbaptifm with themselves in general; though I queftion whether they reckoned them their own brethren; but then not on account of any difference about the time of baptifm, a few days odds between them, the thing to be wondered at; but their denial of original fin, and the baptifm of infants to be on account of that:

1 Hiftory of Infant-baptifm, p. 1. ch. 4. §. 13.

that and now fince the Pelagians are diftinct from thofe in the canon that denied baptifm to new-born infants; and it is unreasonable to suppose any who were of the fentiments of Fidus are intended; it remains, that there must be fome perfons different both from the one and the other, who denied baptifm to babes, and are by this canon anathematized for it, which Austin must know.

3. It is obferved by me, that Austin himself makes mention of fome that argued against it, from the unprofitableness of it to infants; fince for the most part they die before they have any knowledge of it. These men our author does not know what to make of; fometimes it is questionable whether they were chriftians, and fuggests that they were men of atheistical principles; and then again they are supposed to be chriftians, and even might be Pædobaptists, notwithstanding this their manner of arguing. I am content he should reckon them what he pleases; but one would think they could not be any good friends to infant-baptism, that questioned the profitableness of baptifm to infants, and brought fo ftrong an objection to it.

4. It is further obferved by me, that according to Auftin the Pelagians denied baptism to the infants of believers, because they were holy. This is represented by this Gentleman as a mistake of mine, understanding what was spoken hypothetically, to be abfolutely spoken. I have looked over the paffage again, and am not convinced upon a fecond reading of it, nor by what this writer has advanced, of a mistake: the words are abfolutely expreffed and reasoned upon; "but, fays the apostle, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy; "therefore, fay they (the Pelagians) the children of believers ought not now to "be baptized." The observation our author makes, though he does not infift upon it, is very impertinent; that not infants but children are mentioned, and fo may include the adult children of believers, and confequently make as much against adult-baptifm as infant-baptism; fince children in the text, on which the argument is grounded, are always by themselves understood of infants. Auftin wonders that the Pelagians fhould talk after this manner, that holiness is derived from parents, and reasons upon it, when they deny that fin is originally derived from Adam: it is true, indeed, he preffes them with an argument this Gentleman calls ad hominem, taken from their fhutting up the kingdom of God to unbaptized infants; for though they believed that unbaptized infants would not perish, but have everlasting life, yet not enter the kingdom of God; abfurdly distinguishing between the kingdom of God, and eternal life. What they were able to answer, or did answer to this, it is not easy to fay; "it is a difadvantage, as our author says, that we have none of their writings entire, only fcraps "and quotations from them :" Perhaps as they had a fingular notion, that the infants of believers ought not to be baptized, though the infants of others should;

66

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinuar »