Chapter XIII: Front Matter (13)

That, as principles taken upon trust, dignified titles, and lawn
sleeves, are light as a feather in the scale of argument; so, on the
other hand, I am satisfied the bishop of Winchester’s positions, taken
in a sound sense, nay, the _only_ consistent sense in which they can
be taken, are evidently true and important. The sum is this; that all
positive duties, or duties made such by institution alone, depend
entirely upon the will and declaration of the person who institutes or
ordains them, with respect to the real design and end of them, and
consequently, to the due manner of performing them. This is strictly
true, _in the degree that any duties are positive_, but no further.
And to denominate a precept or duty _positive_, though but _partially_
so, I have no objection, for the sake of distinguishing them from such
as are merely moral, and evidently founded on the reason and nature of
things. “Except we observe this caution,” as bishop Butler observes,
“we shall be in danger of running into endless confusion.”

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.

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.

He also observes, that though the original and natural signification
of the word imports, to _dip_, to _plunge_, to _dye_; yet it also
signifies to _wash_ or _cleanse_: Nevertheless, he thinks that it is
so far from signifying nothing else but to _dip_ or _plunge_, that
when it is to be understood in that sense, the words ought to be
εμβάπτω, or εμβαπτιζω, rather than βαπτω, or βαπτίζω; and also that it
no where signifies to _dip_, but as denoting a mode of, and in order
to washing; and that it signifies to _wash_, in all good authors. He
also refers to Scapula and Stephanus, as translating the word βαπτιζω
by _lavo_, or _abluo_; and Suidas, as rendering it by _madefacio_,
_lavo_, _abluo_, _purgo_, _mundo_: And he speaks of some authors, that
he had searched in every place wherein they mention baptism, and that
he found not one word to the purpose; and therefore concludes, that he
was obliged to say, and was ready to make it good, that no honest man,
who understands the Greek tongue, can deny the word to signify to
_wash_, as well as to _dip_.[89]

Footnote 89:

Dr. Wall, in the appendix of his reply to Dr. Gale, mentions a
remarkable instance, in which the mode of wetting or of applying water
was certainly that of pouring, and not that of dipping. It is as
follows:—St. Origen, when commenting on the Baptism of John, enquires
thus of the Pharisees; “How could you think that Elias, when he should
come, would _baptize_, who did not in Ahab’s time _baptize_ the wood
upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt by the
Lord’s appearing in fire? But he ordered the priest to do that; not
once only, but he says, do it the second time; and they did it the
second time. And do it the third time; and they did it the third time.
Therefore, how could it be likely that this man, who did not then
_baptize_, but assigned that work to others, would himself _baptize_,
when he should, according to the prophecy of Malachi, again appear
here on earth?”

We find in the first book of Kings, xviii. 33, that the order given by
Elijah was to fill four barrels with water, and _pour_ it on the wood
and on the burnt offering. This _pouring of water_, Origen, that
accurate scholar, who lived in the second century, and was well
acquainted with the Greek classics, and Greek Testament, calls
baptizing. In the very same sentence, he makes use of the Greek word
_Baptizo_ four times; twice with express reference to the _Baptism_ of
John; and twice with express reference to that _Baptism_ which took
place in the days of the Prophet Elijah; which baptism, we are
expressly told, was not performed by _dipping_ the wood and sacrifice
into water, but by _pouring_ water upon them.

It is also evident, even from the frequent use of the word baptizo, by
heathen authors, that it does not always signify a total immersion.
Mr. Walker tells us, “that Porphyrie mentions a river in India, into
which if an offender enters, or attempts to pass through it, he is
immediately _baptized_ up to his head:” (_baptizetai mechri
Kephales_.) Here a person is said to be baptized, although his head
did not go under, but remained above the water. This certainly was not
a total immersion.

“He also instances a case from Mr. Sydenham, as delivered by the
oracle (viz. _askos baptize, dunai de toi ou themis esti_.”) In which
instance, if _dunai_ signifies to plunge wholly under water, as it
certainly does, then _baptize_ must signify something less than a
total immersion.—“_Baptize him as a bottle, but it is not lawful to
plunge him wholly under the water._” The baptism here described,
resembles that of a blown bladder or bottle of leather, which when put
into the water, will not sink to the bottom, but swim upon the top.

The same critical author mentions an instance from Schrevelii’s and
Robertson’s Lexicons, 19th chapter, in which case, the primitive word
_bapto_ signifies a wetting with water, that was certainly less, and
very different from a total dipping or immersion. The sentence is
this. (“_Baptei men askon, udor de ugron dunei pote._”) “_He indeed
baptizeth a bladder or bottle, but it never goeth under the liquid
water._”

To these instances, we might add a well known case, taken from a poem
attributed to Homer, called the battle of the frogs and the mice, in
which the lake is said to be _baptized_ by the blood of a frog.
(_Ebapteto de aimati limne porphureo._) This lake was not _dipped_
into the blood of a frog; it was only _bespattered_ and tinged
therewith.

We could easily multiply authorities if it were necessary. It appears
undeniably evident from the Greek classicks, and from learned writers
and commentators, both ancient and modern, that the word _baptizo_ has
other significations besides that of a total dipping or immersion.

The most celebrated and respectable Lexicographers and criticks have
often translated baptizo into the following Latin words, viz.
_baptizo_, _mergo_, _immergo_, _tingo_, _intingo_, _lave_, _abluo_,
_madefacio_, _purgo_, _mundo_. No one, I presume, will pretend that
all these words are mentioned as being perfectly synonimous—of the
same meaning exactly. And certainly if the word baptizo signify any
thing less or different from a total immersion, then persons may be
baptized in some other mode.

Besides, if it had been the intention of Christ and of his Apostles,
to specify the mode, or to have restricted all christians to one and
the same mode of baptizing, they might, for this purpose, have
selected from the Greek language words of the most unequivocal and
definite signification. If it had been their intention to specify the
mode of _sprinkling_, they might have used the word _Rantizo_; if the
mode of _pouring_, they might have used the word _Ekcheo_; if that
mode of _bathing_ or _washing_, which is performed by the application
of water with friction or rubbing, they might have used the word
_Louo_; and if it had been their intention to specify the mode of
_dipping_, they might have used the word _Dupto_ or _Duno_, &c.

REED’S APOLOGY.

Footnote 90:

Ἐις and ἐκ.

Footnote 91:

Ἐις τὴν Θαλασσαν.

Footnote 92:

Ἐκ.

Footnote 93:

_If any one has a mind to see how these particles ἐις and ἐκ, are used
in the New Testament, he may consult Schmid. concord. in voc. ἐις and
ἐκ, where there are a great number of places mentioned, in which these
words are used; and, it will hardly be thought, by any impartial
reader, that the greatest part of them can be rendered by, into or out
of; but rather to, or from._

Footnote 94:

Γδατκ πολλα.

Footnote 95:

_See Lightfoot’s works, Vol. I. Page 500._

Footnote 96:

In Col. ii. 12. and context, is a succession of figures, designed, in
different ways, to illustrate and enforce the same fact. Verse 11. “In
whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision, _made without
hands_, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the
circumcision of Christ.” That is, in putting off the old man, you are
circumcised without hands; the work is effected by the Holy Spirit—You
are born again, which is spiritual circumcision. “Circumcision is that
of the _heart_.” This renewing of the Holy Spirit consists in putting
off the body of sin, in renouncing sin, and reforming the life. Or, we
are “buried with him in baptism.” As the burial of Jesus Christ gave
evidence, that he had really died, the just for the unjust; that he
had yielded himself a sacrifice for sin; so we in our spiritual
circumcision or baptism, the figure now used, show ourselves to be
really dead to sin, crucified in the lusts of our minds. As Christ,
when buried, was dead and separated from the world; so in regeneration
we become separate from sin. We are new creatures, having put off the
old man. We are buried from the wicked indulgences and pursuits of the
world.

The death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, are, not only causes,
but types and symbols to represent the death of our sins, our putting
off the old man, and becoming new creatures.