φυλασσόντες τας φυλακας των αγίων keeping the charge of the sanctuary:* and are not infants as capable, under the christian covenant, of being baptised as they were of circumcision both under the Abrahamic and Mosaic ? Let the scriptures, then interpret themselves; and one part of the divine dispensation be suffered to explain the other (of which other, it was intended to be a figure or type) and we shall find it perfectly agreeable, to the analogy and style of scripture, as well as to the reason of things, that infants should be admitted as members of the christian church, and are therefore included in the commission to baptise. ARGUMENT V. FROM APOSTOLIC TRADITION. THE baptism of infants was the undoubted practice of the christian church, in its purest and first ages; the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles; who could not but know what the apostolic doctrine and practice was as to this matter. This, I apprehend, to be an argument of great weight. For the enquiry being about a fact, which could not but be publicly and perfectly known, and not possible to be mistaken, in the ages immediately succeeding the apostles, the sense of those ages, concerning this fact, must needs be of great moment in deciding the point,- Whether the apostles and evangelists formed the first churches throughout the whole world, upon the plan of infant baptism, or not; that is to say, whether they admitted infants, together with their believing parents, into the church by baptism; or did not so Vid. Numb. iii. 6, 7, 8, 28. admit them, was a fact of such nature as could not but be evident, and indubitably known, to all the christians of the first age. Nor was it, humanly speaking, possible, that the apostolic practice in this point should be universally departed from, disused and thrown out, in so short a space of time, as we shall presently see the baptism of infants to have universally prevailed. To prepare the way to this proof, I beg leave to premise these two things. 1. To weaken the testimony of the antient writers and fathers upon this point, some have objected, the many foolish and absurd opinions and interpretations of scripture with which their writings abound. But this is extremely weak. For they are not here appealed to as reasoners, or interpreters, but only as historians or witnesses to a public standing fact. 2. If any think it strange, that we have no more express testimonies to this practice of the church, in the writings of these fathers, let him consider, -That the far greater part of their writings are lost; and that it is but little more than their names and a few pieces of their works especially as to the first age, that are transmitted down to us. -And also, that the baptism of infants being then universally practised, and no doubts or dispute having ever been moved about it; and it being likewise the constant ever-prevailing custom of all the enemies of christianity, both Jews and pagans, to admit infants to a participation of their religious ceremonies and rites together with their parents. These things considered, it will not appear strange that this point is so rarely touched on in the writings of those times. There are a thousand religious books written in the present age, in which the least hint is not to be found about baptising of infants, though the point has now been so long and so warmly controverted amongst us: much less, then, should one expect to find any thing but a few allusions and hints as to this matter, in the books of those early times. This being premised, we proceed to the testimo→ nies. The first shall be from τω χρίσω. JUSTIN MARTYR, who wrote about forty years after the apostolic age. Hc says Και πολλοι τινες και σε πολλοι εξηκονταται καὶ εβδομηκον τεται οι εκ παίδων εμαθητεύθησαν Tw xeisw."-" Several persons among us, both men "and women, of sixty or seventy years old, who were proselyted, or made disciples, to Christ in, or from their infancy do continue uncorrupt."* Now, proselyted to Christ from their infancy, they could not be, without being, from their infancy, considered and treated as proselytes to Christ; that is, without being from their infancy baptised. For whosoever εμαθητευθησαν τω χρίσω were discipled or proselyted to Christ, were by his express order, MAT. xxviii. 19. to be baptised. Note, seventy years from Justin carries us back, almost, into the middle of the apostolic age. IRENEUS, who wrote about sixty seven years after the apostles, and was born, it is said, some years before the death of St. JOHN, says concerning Christ." Omnes enim venit per semetipsum "salvare; omnes inquam, qui per eum renascun"tur in Deum, INFANTES et parvulos et pueros "et juvenes."+" That he came to save all persons by himself; all, I mean, who by him are regenerated, i. e. baptised, unto God, INFANTS ་ " and little ones, and youths and elder persons.” -That the word, renascor, regenerated, in the writings of these antients, particularly of Irenæus, is most familiarly used to signify, baptised, see from a vast variety of instances proved, beyond * Just. Martyr. Apol. ii. † Irenæus adv. Hæres lib. iii. cap. 39. all doubt, in Dr. Wall's History of Infant Baptism. Vol. I. Chap. iii. § 2, 3. and Defence page 318. 324. And that by infants, are here meant, children, before they come to the use of reason, is evident, not only as these must necessarily be included in the ALL whom he came to save; but also because, after he had mentioned infants and others regenerated, he runs over the several ranks of age again: but with this remarkable difference, that whereas he mentions the benefit of Christ's example, as what was to be taken by each of the other ranks, viz. the parvuli, the juvenes and the seniores, he says no such thing concerning the infantes infants; for this reason, no doubt; viz. that these only, of all the mentioned ranks, were incapable of this benefit. TERTULLIAN, who flourished about an hundred years after the apostles, is the only person, among the antients, who advises to defer the baptism of infants, except in cases of necessity or in danger of death. But his advising to defer it, except in cases of necessity, is an incontestible proof that the baptising of infants was the practice of those times. And as he appears to be quite singular in this his advice; so, that he was extremely whimsical and absurd in his opinions on this, as well as several other points of religion, all who have read his works perfectly well know. For, upon the same grounds on which he recommends the deferring the baptism of infants, he advises also-" That unmarried persons should be kept off from this sacrament, "who are likely to come into temptation; as well "those who never were married, as those in "widowhood; until they either marry, or be con'firmed in continence. They who understand the weight of baptism will rather dread the receiving of it, than the delaying of it."* Tert. de Baptismo: cap. 18. This is TERTULLIAN's reasoning upon the point; but we have nothing to do with that; all we cite him for is a voucher to an antient fact, to prove that in his days infants were baptised. To this fact he bears incontestible witness. His saying-" Itaque pro cujusque personæ conditione, "&c. Therefore according to every ones condition, disposition and also age, the delaying of baptism is more profitable, especially in the case of children :" and his asking-" Quid fes"tinat innocens ætas ad remissionem peccatorum? 66 Quid enim necesse est, si non tam necesse sponsores etiam periculo ingeri."-Why does that in"nocent age make such haste to the remission of sins, i. e. to the laver of baptism? What occa "sion is there, except in cases of necessity, that "the sponsors or godfathers, be brought into danger." These questions plainly prove the baptising of infants to have been the practice of his days. Note. There are some, who upon very proba ble grounds, understand these passages of Tertullian as relating only to the baptism of the infants of heathen parents; which when they came into their power by purchase, conquest, &c. the christians of those times were wont to baptise. And that it is only to delay the baptising of such infants as these, which Tertullian advises, there is strong reason to believe. Hitherto, we find this point, of infant baptism, but transiently touched on by these early writers: there having yet no controversy or doubt arisen in the church which might give occasion to their speaking more expressly concerning it. But about this time, there arose some dispute about original sin, or the nature and degree of that pollution with which new-born infants are tainted. Hencefor * Tert. de Baptismo: cap. 18. |
